Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Dukh Haran Singh And Ors.
2008 Latest Caselaw 57 Del

JUDGMENT

Kailash Gambhir, J.

1. Counsel for the appellant contends that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having any driving license on the date of accident. Counsel also contends that the police have prosecuted the driver under Section 3/180 and the owner under Section 5/180 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

2. Counsel for the appellant contends that the owner Mr.Gian Singh had entered the witness box but had failed to produce photocopy of the driving license although he in his deposition claimed that driving license of the driver Mohd. Tabrez was seen by him at the time of taking him in the employment. He further claims that driving license along with the RC etc. were given to the police at the time of seeking release of the offending vehicle at Superdari. Counsel further contends that the said witness does not dispute that he was arrested and the police had registered a case against him under Section 5/180 of the M.V. Act, which deals with the offence for handing over the vehicle to a person not holding the driving license. Counsel further contends that in his cross-examination the witness had admitted that he met the driver Mohd. Tabrez at least on two-three occasions in the criminal court but still did not bother to place on record the photocopy of the driving license. Counsel for the appellant thus, contends that in such circumstances of the case, at least the appellant could be given recovery rights to claim the compensation amount from the owner of the offending vehicle.

3. Nobody has chosen to appear on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. This clearly shows that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have nothing to say to refute the contentions of the appellant.

4. Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1/claimant contends that he has no objection if the recovery rights are given to the appellant insurance company.

5. Since the owner Mr. Gian Singh did not place on record the photocopy of the driving license after having even met the driver of the vehicle after registration of the case at least on two-three occasions. The police had also registered case against him under Section 5/180 of the Motor Vehicles Act which shows that the owner had handed over the vehicle to a person who was not holding the driving license at all. In the backdrop of this fact, it appears that there is no truth in the deposition made by Mr. Gian Singh contending that he had seen the driving license at the time of taking the driver in his employment.

6. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is allowed to the limited extent of conferring recovery rights to the appellant to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the offending vehicle respondent No. 3 herein.

7. The amount already lying deposited shall be released in favor of the respondent No. 1/claimant.

8. At this stage the counsel for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that the appellant should be made liable to pay further interest amount in terms of the award. In this regard, the counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to the order dated 2.5.2006 of this Court, wherein it has been ordered by this Court that the entire amount of award with up to date interest, which is lying deposited with the Registrar, Delhi High Court shall be released to the claimant on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Registrar. The claimants have not furnished any security in pursuance of the aforesaid order of this Court dated 2.5.2006, therefore, no further interest can be granted to the respondent No. 1 claimant.

9. The present appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.