Satish Sehrawat vs B.Lalitha Rao & Anr.
2009 Latest Caselaw 5162 Del

3
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                      +   MAC.APP.No.225/2009

                               Date of Decision: 11th December, 2009
%

      SATISH SEHRAWAT                  ..... Appellant
                   Through : Mr. Kanwal Choudhary, Adv.

                      versus

      B.LALITHA RAO & ANR.               ..... Respondents
                    Through : Mr. R.C. Mahajan, Adv.


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 the compensation of Rs.10,20,862/- has

been awarded to claimant/respondent No.1.

2. Mr. Neeraj Kalra, Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance

Co. Ltd. is present in the Court along with his counsel and he

submits that the relevant record relating to the alleged policy

in question has been destroyed, therefore, the Insurance

Company is not in a position to admit the policy of the

offending vehicle.

3. The appellant is the owner of the offending vehicle

bearing No.DL-1Y-3908. According to the appellant, the

vehicle was validly insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

appellant was ex-parte before the learned Tribunal and,

therefore, could not appear before the learned Tribunal and

the documents now placed on record before this Court to

prove the policy of the offending vehicle, could not be placed

on record before the learned Tribunal. The learned counsel

further submits that he has filed CM No.6535/2009 under

Order 1 Rule 10 for impleading Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. as

respondent and CM No.6536/2009 for permission to lead

additional evidence to prove the policy in question. The

appellant has also filed CM No.6537/2009 for condonation of

delay in filing the appeal.

4. In the facts and circumstances of this case, CM

No.6535/2009 to CM No.6537/2009 are allowed and delay in

filing of this appeal is condoned. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

is impleaded as respondent No.3 and the appellant is

permitted to lead the additional evidence before the learned

Tribunal.

5. The appeal is partially allowed to the extent that the

learned Tribunal shall frame an additional issue as to

whether the appellant had validly insured the offending

vehicle with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and if so; whether

the appellant is entitled to the reimbursement of the award

amount from Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd? The learned

Tribunal shall conduct an inquiry under Section 168 of the

Motor Vehicles Act on this limited issue only. The award of

Rs.10,20,862/- in favour of respondent No.1 against the

appellant is upheld. Respondent No.1 shall be entitled to

execute the award against the appellant and if the appellant

ultimately succeeds in proving the additional issue framed

above, the appellant shall be entitled to seek reimbursement

of the award amount from Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

6. The parties are directed to appear before the learned

Tribunal on 14th January, 2010.

7. The LCR be sent back forthwith.

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

for the parties under the signature of Court Master.

J.R. MIDHA, J

DECEMBER 11, 2009 aj