R.C.Gupta & Anr vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Anr
2009 Latest Caselaw 1434 Del

5
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                    +    MAC.APP. 468/2008

                              Date of Decision: 16th April, 2009
%
      R.C.GUPTA & ANR                    ..... Appellants
               Through : Mr. Rajeev Shukla, Adv.

                    versus

    NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.
    LTD & ANR                           ..... Respondents
              Through : Mr. D.D. Singh and
                        Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advs. for
                        R-1.
CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.      Whether Reporters of Local papers may                No
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?               No

3.      Whether the judgment should be                       No
        reported in the Digest?

                        JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned

Tribunal whereby recovery right has been given to

respondent No.1 to recover the award amount against the

appellant.

2. The accident dated 11th August, 2005 resulted in injury

to claimant/respondent No.2 who filed the claim petition

before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal awarded

Rs.1,38,048/- to claimant/respondent No.2. The learned

Tribunal further held the driving licence of the driver of the

offending vehicle to be fake and therefore, the recovery right

was given to respondent No.1 to recover the award amount

against the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellants

submit that they have placed on record the driving licence

No.14310 issued by Licencing Authority, Mathura and the

Insurance Company summoned the witness from Licencing

Authority, Mathura to produce the record relating to the said

licence but no witness came from Licencing Authority,

Mathura and, therefore, no finding has been given by the

learned Tribunal relating to the said driving licence.

3. I have perused the record of the learned Tribunal which

shows that respondent No.1 filed an application dated 4 th

October, 2007 for summoning the witnesses including

Licencing Officer, Motor Vehicle Department, Mathura to

appear and produce the record of the driving licence

No.14310 issued on 9th July, 2004 as per the copy of the

driving licence verification and also produce the application

of Pinku Raja for driving licence for motorcycle, LMV and HMV

so issued. The record further shows that the summons were

in fact issued to the Licencing Authority, Mathura and were

duly received by the Licencing Authority, Mathura on 12 th

December, 2007 for appearance on 16th January, 2008.

However, the witness from the Licencing Authority, Mathura

did not appear on 16th January, 2008 and, therefore, the case

was fixed for 26th March, 2008 when the respondent's

evidence was closed. On 11th April, 2008, respondent No.1

filed an application for re-opening the evidence which was

allowed and one more opportunity was granted to

respondent No.1 to lead evidence on 19 th May, 2008. The

evidence of respondent No.1 was again closed on 19th May,

2008 and the final arguments were heard.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that

respondent No.1 had taken on himself to summon the

witness from Licencing Authority, Mathura and since

respondent No.1 failed to prove that the licence issued by

Licencing Authority, Mathura was fake, the appellant should

not be made to suffer on this account.

5. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that

the appellant could not have held two driving licences.

6. The learned Tribunal has not given a finding on the

driving licence issued by the Licencing Authority, Mathura.

7. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the award

of the learned Tribunal is set aside in so far as the recovery

rights have been given to respondent No.1 against the

appellant. The case is remanded back to the learned

Tribunal to record the evidence of the parties with respect to

the driving licence issued by the Licencing Authority,

Mathura to the driver of the offending vehicle. After

recording the evidence of both the parties, the learned

Tribunal shall give a finding on as to whether the driving

licence issued by the Licencing Authority, Mathura is genuine

or not and secondly on the effect of the driver of the

offending vehicle holding two driving licences. The evidence

of respondent No.1 shall be recorded first and thereafter the

appellant shall lead the evidence in rebuttal.

8. The parties are directed to appear before the learned

Tribunal on 11th May, 2009.

9. Copy of this order be given 'Dasti' to learned counsel

for the parties under signatures of Court Master.

J.R. MIDHA, J

APRIL 16, 2009 aj