Skip to content


The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd. Vs.b Seshagriri Rao & Ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
AppellantThe Oriental Insurance Co Ltd.
RespondentB Seshagriri Rao & Ors.
Excerpt:
.....he/she is not aware of the policy number, which is yet to be given. what is relevant is that the vehicle number is correctly given on the backside of the cheque in question, which pertains to the insurance premium paid for the vehicle in question. this is so evident from the evidence of the insured/owner of the vehicle in question. during the course of hearing, appellant’s counsel had sought to argue that learned tribunal has gone beyond the order of 11th december, mac.app3282014 page 3 2009 in the first round of litigation, by proceeding to give directions to appellant to pay the awarded amount. this submission is noticed only to be rejected as when learned tribunal was directed to frame additional issue and take evidence on it, then as a logical consequence, the learned tribunal.....
Judgment:

$~15 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: November 15, 2016 MAC.APP. 328/2014 & C.M.No.6348/2014 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Through: Mr. JPN Shahi, Advocate ..... Appellant versus B SESHAGRIRI RAO & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Azhar Qayum and Mr. Nadeem Abbasi, Advocates for respondents No.1 and 2 Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.4 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT % (ORAL) This is second round of litigation. In the first round, vide Award of 9th July, 2007 the owner of vehicle in question was saddled with the liability to pay compensation and aforesaid Award was upheld qua claimant with a direction to the learned Tribunal to frame an additional issue regarding liability of the offending vehicle being insured and if so, whether the owner of the offending vehicle would be entitled to reimbursement of the awarded amount from appellant herein. The additional issue framed by the learned Tribunal is as under:-

"“Whether the appellant/respondent No.2 had validly insured the offending vehicle with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and the if so; whether the appellant is entitled to MAC.APP3282014 Page 1 reimbursement of the award amount from Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.?.” After recording the evidence of the owner of vehicle in question, the Bank officials and the concerned Agent, learned Tribunal vide impugned Award of 19th December, 2013 has put the liability upon appellant to pay the awarded amount and the owner of the vehicle in question is held to be entitled to reimbursement of the awarded amount from appellant herein. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under: - “Though the policy and the cover note could not be made available but from the transactions as revealed and evident and from the testimony of the witnesses examined by respondent No.2, I am of the view that Satish Sehrawat i.e. respondent no.2 has proved that he had validly insured the offending vehicle bearing No.DL1 3908 with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. i.e. respondent no.3 and thus is entitled to reimbursement of the award amount from the respondent no.3.” The challenge to the impugned order by learned counsel for appellant is on the ground that the insurance policy number on the cheque in question does not relate to the offending vehicle and so, appellant is not liable to reimburse/pay the awarded amount. It is submitted by learned counsel for appellant that the agent, who had issued the cover note, was not authorized to do so and the agent had deposed before learned Tribunal that he was working as an agent on behalf of his brother and so, in the absence of any valid insurance policy, appellant is not MAC.APP3282014 Page 2 liable to pay the awarded amount. Nothing substantial is urged on behalf of appellant. On the contrary, it is submitted by learned counsel for respondent- owner of vehicle in question that the cheque of premium amount was encashed and on the back of the said cheque, the registration number of the vehicle in question was put by the owner of vehicle in question but insurance policy number must have been put on backside of the said cheque by concerned employee of the insurance company as the owner of the vehicle was not aware of the insurance policy number then. Thus, it is submitted that liability to pay the awarded amount is of the insurer and not of owner of the vehicle in question and so, this appeal deserves dismissal. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order as well as the trial court record, I find that the controversy sought to be raised by appellant’s counsel regarding a different insurance policy number being mentioned on the backside of cheque in question is totally uncalled for. Such a view is being taken while keeping in view the ground realities. In normal course, when a cheque towards premium amount is issued by insured, he/she is not aware of the policy number, which is yet to be given. What is relevant is that the vehicle number is correctly given on the backside of the cheque in question, which pertains to the insurance premium paid for the vehicle in question. This is so evident from the evidence of the insured/owner of the vehicle in question. During the course of hearing, appellant’s counsel had sought to argue that learned Tribunal has gone beyond the order of 11th December, MAC.APP3282014 Page 3 2009 in the first round of litigation, by proceeding to give directions to appellant to pay the awarded amount. This submission is noticed only to be rejected as when learned Tribunal was directed to frame additional issue and take evidence on it, then as a logical consequence, the learned Tribunal had to decide the additional issue, which has been done by the impugned order. The submission made by learned counsel for appellant regarding lack of authority of the agent to issue the insurance cover note is not of any consequence in the facts of the instant case, as there is no foundation for appellant to make such a submission. Evidence on this aspect is silent and so, this submission is repelled. However, impugned order is clarified to the extent that in case of the owner of vehicle in question has not paid the entire awarded amount or part thereof to the claimant, then appellant shall do so. In the event of owner of the vehicle in question has paid the awarded amount to the claimant, then appellant shall reimburse the awarded amount with interest to the owner of the vehicle in question. With aforesaid directions, this appeal and the application are disposed of. NOVEMBER15 2016 s (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE MAC.APP3282014 Page 4


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //