Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Virender Kumar & Ors.

$~3
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                Judgment delivered on:20 th November,2013

+                         MAC.APP. 7/2007

       ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.                    ..... Appellant
                    Represented by: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Advocate.

                          Versus

       VIRENDER KUMAR & ORS.                               ..... Respondents
                   Represented by:           None.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned award dated 06.11.2006, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation as under:-

Rs.

1. Pain & Agony : 15,000/-

2. Medical Expenses including nursing, : 20,000/-

attendant, extra-nourishment in the absence of documentary evidence

3. Loss of income during the period of : 10,500/-

treatment for a period of three months reasonably since the petitioner was admitted between 18.06.2000 to 17.07.2000 MAC.APP No.7/2007 Page 1 of 4

4. Loss of future earning capacity due to the : 1,03,740/-

disablement

5. Conveyance and expenses on attendant : 10,000/-

for a period of three months without bills Total : 1,59,240/-

Interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum was also awarded from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.

2. The appellant/Insurance Company is not disputing the awarded amount, however, seeking recovery rights against the respondent No.2, i.e., owner of the offending vehicle for the reason that driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence on the date of the accident.

3. Though respondent No. 2 has been served through publication, but none is appearing on his behalf. Accordingly, this Court is left with no other option but to proceed with the matter.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the appellant had examined R2W2 Manisha Trivedi from RTO Bulandshehar, UP, who deposed that licence bearing No.T- 215/BSR was issued in the name of Mukesh Kumar Sarita for the period 23.12.1992 to 22.12.1995. She further deposed that licence bearing No.T- 215/BSR/91 was never issued in the name of Om Parkash and the driving licence performa, stamps and signatures on Mark RA were never issued by their Authority. She clearly stated that no driving licence was issued on 19.06.1991. Moreover, till 18.06.1991, licences were issued by them MAC.APP No.7/2007 Page 2 of 4 commencing from number T-7 and thereafter the same were issued by them in ascending order.

5. R2W3 Mansoor Ahmed, appeared from the appellant office, has deposed that the matter was investigated and the report of the Investigator was Ex.R3WB. He further deposed that they had issued a notice Ex.R3W3/A and the documents exhibited as Ex.R3W3 series from A to D were the notice, postal receipt, UPC receipt and the acknowledgment card.

6. He also deposed that the addressee of the notice had never responded thereto.

7. It is not in dispute that in the chargesheet, name of the accused was shown as 'Om Parkash' and in the claim petition also, name of the driver of the offending vehicle was shown as 'Om Parkash'.

8. It is pertinent to mention here that the said Om Parkash was not impleaded by the respondents/claimants in the claim petition, however, the driving licence on record, which was seized by the Investigating Officer in a criminal case is in the name of Om Parkash.

9. R2W2 Manisha Trivedi of RTO Bulandshehar, UP has deposed that the licence in question was issued in the name of Mukesh Kumar Sarita and the same was never issued in the name of Om Parkash.

10. Moreover, R2W3 has also proved that they had issued a notice Ex.R3W3/A to the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, however, there was no response from their side.

11. However, the learned Tribunal has wrongly recorded that the driving licence has not been proved fake, therefore, the recovery rights could not be granted in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company.

12. Keeping in view the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that R2W2 has proved that the licence in question was never issued in the name of Om Parkash.

13. Consequently, the appellant/Insurance Company is granted recovery rights against the respondent No.2/owner of the offending vehicle.

14. In view of the above, the instant appeal is allowed.

15. Statutory amount shall be released in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company.

SURESH KAIT, J.

NOVEMBER 20, 2013 sb MAC.APP No.7/2007 Page 4 of 4