G.P. Mittal, J. - (1.) IN this Appeal, the Appellant Oriental Insurance Company Limited seeks recovery rights for a compensation of Rs. 3,75,000/ - awarded in favour of Respondents No. 3 and 4 for the death of their minor daughter Hemlata, who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 27.12.2004. Question that falls for determination is, if the owner of a vehicle fails to produce the driving licence of the driver inspite of service of notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC, whether an inference of willful breach of terms of policy can be drawn against the insured?
(2.) A Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) was filed by Respondents No. 3 and 4 alleging that their daughter Hemlata, aged 21/2 years died in a motor vehicle accident involving Tata Tempo No. UP -14H -3216. It was alleged that the accident resulted because of rash and negligent driving by the Respondent No. 2 (Ganpati Rai). Respondents No. 1 and 2 (the owner and driver of the offending vehicle) preferred not to contest the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal despite sufficient service. They were, therefore, ordered to be proceeded ex -parte. The Insurance Company in its written statement took up the plea that if the driver was not holding a valid driving licence to ply the said vehicle, the Insurance Company would have no liability to pay the compensation.
(3.) ON 15.02.2011 a statement was made by ASI Srinivas, IO of the case (before the Claims Tribunal) that the driver did not produce any driving licence to drive the offending vehicle till the time he filed the charge sheet in the criminal Court. The Appellant Insurance Company examined Pradeep Kaushik, its Administrative Officer as R3W1. He proved policy as Ex.R3W1/1 containing the relevant condition regarding driving of the vehicle by a driver having a valid driving licence. He further proved copy of the notice dated 07.01.2011 Ex.R3W1/2 written to the First Respondent (owner of the vehicle) to produce the driving licence of the driver. Postal receipt was also proved as Ex.R3W1/3. R3W1's testimony remained unrebutted and uncontroverted as Respondents No. 1 and 2 were ex -parte.;