In a regular first appeal filed before the Delhi High Court under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), filed against a judgment and decree dated 02-07-2022 whereby the respondent’s suit was decreed for Rs. 13,77,500/- along with interest at 12% p.a., a Single Judge Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna found that the suit had been decreed upon correct findings and dismissed the appeal for being without merit.
The respondent was in the business of transport and owned a Tata LPT truck for which an insurance policy, effective from 16-09-2013 to 15-09-2014, was taken from The New India Assurance Company Ltd. (NIACL). On 11-07-2014, the truck met with an accident in which the driver died and the truck became completely damaged. A First Information Report (FIR) for the same was lodged, and the NIACL head office was informed of the accident.
After the submission of all documents, NIACL sent a letter dated 29-01-2016 stating that the driver’s driving license was found to be fake as per the Circular issued by the transport authority concerned, and that this violated the policy terms and conditions, which is why the claim was rejected. The respondent explained that the driving license was verified on 23-04-2015, and it was found to be valid from 08-01-2014 to 13-01-2016, covering the date of the accident. Hence, a suit was instituted to recover Rs. 13,77,500/- along with an interest at 9% p.a.
Upon examining the documents, NIACL found that the driver held a driving license issued by the Nagaland transport authority, even though he was not a resident of Nagaland. As per the circular dated 01-08-2014 by the Transport Commissioner, RTO Nagaland, starting from 30-10-2009, all driving licenses issued on a booklet were to be discontinued after the introduction of the smart card. NIACL also asserted that the driver, being under 20 years of age, was not eligible to drive a transport vehicle in a public place.
The District Court concluded that the respondent’s insurance claim had been wrongly rejected by NIACL and decreed the suit on the above-mentioned terms. Aggrieved, the present appeal was filed.
It was submitted that the driving license was issued on 14-01-2010, which was prior to the Circular dated 01-08-2014, and that the cut-off date was 30-10-2009. It was said that the possibility of the driver holding a valid driving license in booklet form could not be ruled out, and that the driver had a window until 01-12-2014 to convert his booklet license to a smart card format, but he had already passed away on 11-07-2014.
The Court affirmed the respondent’s contention that the driving license had not been found to be fake, but was sought to be invalidated only as per the said Circular. Considering the date of the accident, the Court stated that merely because the driver was holding a booklet form, it could not be termed as a fake driving license. It was said that such an interpretation was absolutely contrary to the Circular issued by the Transport Authority, Nagaland.
The Court stated that even though NIACL’s investigator found the driving license to be fake, the onus was on them to rebut the respondent’s testimony regarding the genuineness of the driving license, but no witness was called from the Transport Authority, Nagaland, to show records that the booklet form of driving license was fake.
Regarding the driver’s age, the Court noted that the date of birth on the driving license was 04-08-1991, indicating he was over 20 years old at the time of the accident. Further, the Court stated that a mere assertion was not enough to prove that the deceased was not a resident of Nagaland and that this bald statement could not discharge NIACL’s onus to prove the authenticity of the license. Thus, the Court found no merit in the present appeal and dismissed the same.
Appearances:
For Appellant – Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Mr. Divyanshu Kumar
For Respondent – Mr. Daljeet Singh
