34
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP.No.399/2008
Date of Decision: 3rd February, 2010
%
AVINASH CHAND KATYAL ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. Anish Shrestha, Adv.
versus
BHADRI MAYA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Satish Kumar Sansi,
Adv. for R-1 to 4.
Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv.
for R-5.
Mr. Nitinjya Choudhary,
amicus curiae.
CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may YES
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES
3. Whether the judgment should be YES
reported in the Digest?
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.6,67,000/- has been awarded to claimants/respondents No.1 to 4.
2. The accident dated 10th October, 2005 resulted in the death of Durga Bahadur. The deceased was survived by his widow and three sons who filed the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal.
3. The deceased was aged 35 years at the time of the accident and was self-employed. The learned Tribunal took MAC.APP.No.399/2008 Page 1 of 5 the minimum wages into consideration, deducted 1/3 rd towards personal expenses and applied the multiplier of 14 to compute the loss of dependency at Rs.6,22,000/-. Rs.35,000/- has been awarded towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses. The total compensation awarded is Rs.6,67,000/-.
4. The learned Tribunal has exonerated respondent No.5 from liability to pay the compensation on the ground that the driving licence produced by the driver was held to be fake and the permit of the offending vehicle was to ply only in the State of Haryana.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the driver was holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident which was proved by the verification report issued by Road Transport Authority, Munger. With respect to the permit, it is submitted that there was a valid permit to ply the vehicle.
6. With respect to the driving licence, it is noted that the driver of the offending vehicle appeared in the witness box and produced the verification report issued by the Road Transport Authority, Munger as Ex.R1W1/1. Respondent No.5 also summoned a witness from Road Transport Authority, Munger who appeared as R3W1 and deposed that the driving licence of the driver - Ex.R3W1/1 was not genuine. However, there is a difference in the driving licence MAC.APP.No.399/2008 Page 2 of 5 number in Ex.R1W1/1 and the verification report produced by respondent No.5. The driving licence mentioned in Ex.R1W1/1 is 1729/02/PIE whereas the driving licence mentioned in Ex.R3W1/4 is 1729/02/PE. The learned Tribunal has not examined this aspect. This Court is, therefore, of the view that this point needs reconsideration and, therefore, the matter needs to be remanded back. The learned Tribunal may also consider recalling the witness from Road Transport Authority, Munger to elucidate the point in controversy.
7. Even if the driving licence of the driver is taken to be fake, respondent No.5 is primarily liable to pay the compensation to claimants/respondents No.1 to 4.
8. In view of that matter, respondent No.5 is held to be primarily liable to pay the compensation to claimants/respondents No.1 to 4.
9. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the appeal is partially allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent that respondent No.5 shall be primarily liable to pay the entire award amount along with interest to claimants/respondents No.1 to 5. The finding of the learned Tribunal with respect to the fake driving licence and invalid permit is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Claims Tribunal to conduct a fresh inquiry into the matter and give a fresh finding as to whether respondent No.5 is entitled to recovery rights against the appellant. MAC.APP.No.399/2008 Page 3 of 5
10. The appellant has already paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to claimants/respondents No.1 to 4. Respondent No.5 shall deposit the balance award amount along with up to date interest (award amount along with up to date interest minus Rs.3,00,000/-) with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Branch A/c Bhadri Maya by means of a cheque through Mr. H.S. Rawat, Relationship Manager, Tis Hazari Branch, Tis Hazari (Mb: 09717044322) within 30 days. The payment of Rs.3,00,000/- deposited by the appellant shall be first adjusted towards the interest amount and balance, if any, shall be adjusted against the principal award amount.
11. It is clarified that respondent No.5 is not required to make the payment of Rs.3,00,000/- to the appellant till the fresh finding is given by the Claims Tribunal.
12. The parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal on 8th March, 2010.
13. The Claims Tribunal shall complete the inquiry within a period of five months. If the driving licence of the driver is found to be fake, the Claims Tribunal shall grant recovery rights to respondent No.5 against the appellant. If the driving licence, permit and the verification report are found to be fake, respondent No.5 shall be at liberty to prosecute the driver for the offence of forgery in terms of the order dated 23rd December, 2009 passed by this Court in MAC.APP.No.236/2009 and MAC.APP.No.238/2009. MAC.APP.No.399/2008 Page 4 of 5
14. The LCR be returned back forthwith.
15. This Court appreciates the effective assistance rendered by Mr. Nitinjya Choudhary, amicus curiae appointed by this Court in this matter.
16. List for disbursement of the balance award amount to the claimants on 8th April, 2010.
17. Copy of this order be given 'Dasti' to learned counsel for the parties under the signature of Court Master.
J.R. MIDHA, J FEBRUARY 03, 2010 aj MAC.APP.No.399/2008 Page 5 of 5