UNREPORTED
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 632/2003 and CM Nos.15840/2008 and 15841/2008
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate
versus
PREM LATA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None
% Date of Decision : August 04, 2011
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeks to impugn the judgment and award dated 17th May, 2003 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi in Suit No.77/03. FAO 632/2003 Page 1 of 5
2. The facts pertinent for the decision of the present appeal are that on 29.07.1989, one Shri Karam Singh alongwith his brother-in- law was going to Okhla as pillion rider on the scooter driven by his brother-in-law, when the scooter was hit by a DTC bus bearing Registration No.DEP-4615, resulting in his demise. A Claim Petition was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased against the driver, the owner and the insurer of the offending bus, who were held liable to pay compensation in the sum of ` 7,45,396/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 09.02.2001 till realisation of the awarded amount. The appellant-M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. was directed to make payment of the aforesaid award amount.
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the present appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company for setting aside of the said judgment and award.
4. The only issue raised in the appeal is as to whether the appellant is entitled to recovery rights from the insured, who owned the offending bus on the date of the accident. Notice of the appeal was duly served on the respondent No.6-insured by publication in FAO 632/2003 Page 2 of 5 newspapers, but no one has cared to appear on his behalf. Accordingly, this Court is left with no option except to hear the learned counsel for the appellant and to go through the records with his assistance.
5. The sole contention of Mr. Pankaj Seth, the counsel for the appellant is that the driving licence of the driver of the bus in question, bearing No.C 87098625, was not valid at the time of the accident. In this context, Mr. Seth has relied upon the testimony of RW1 R.K. Sharma, Senior Assistant, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., who deposed that the driving licence of the respondent No.5, Ramesh Rana was not valid, and as such, the Insurance Company was not liable to make the payment. The said witness proved the report of the Transport Authority regarding the disputed driving licence as Ex.RW1/2. The said document was perused by me and found to contain the following Note:
"The DL No.C-87098625 does not pertain to Mall Road Authority."
6. Pertinently, the aforesaid Note is written on a letter of the Insurance Company which was addressed to the MLO, Mall Road, FAO 632/2003 Page 3 of 5 Delhi informing the MLO, Mall Road, Delhi that one Shri R.V. Singh had been deputed for verification of driving licence No.C-87098625. The Tribunal has rightly discarded the said document as worthless and held that it does not help the appellant-Insurance Company in any manner as it can be interpreted in a number of ways. The Tribunal observed:
"The plain meaning of this report can be taken as that the driving licence may be valid but the same does not pertain to Mall Road Authority. The said report does not lead us to (sic.) anywhere. Hence, the contention of the R3 is rejected as the same is not proved by any evidence on record or any witness from the Transport Authority nor the R1 has been examined in this regard. Hence, the R3 has failed to discharge its burden for proving the defect in driving licence under the law............................"
7. In the course of arguments, no cogent reason could be given to this Court by Mr. Seth, the counsel for the appellant, as to why this Court should differ with the views expressed by the Claims Tribunal. Indisputably, the Insurance Company has not cared to examine either the driver of the offending vehicle or any witness from the Transport Authority which issued the licence to the respondent No.5-driver. As FAO 632/2003 Page 4 of 5 a matter of fact, the Insurance Company did not even care to examine its investigator who allegedly obtained the report from the Licencing Authority, Mall Road, Delhi. The said report has been rightly held by the learned Claims Tribunal to be meaningless as it merely records that the driving licence does not pertain to the Mall Road Authority and could well be interpreted to mean that the driving licence in question is issued by some other Authority.
8. In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in the present appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. CM Nos.15840/2008 and 15841/2008 also stand disposed of.
9. The records of the learned Tribunal be sent back forthwith.
REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) August 04, 2011 km FAO 632/2003 Page 5 of 5