Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Mast. Ajay Singh & Ors. on 31 March, 2009
Author: J.R. Midha
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP. NO.473/2006
Date of reserve: 22nd January, 2009
% Date of decision: 31st March, 2009
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath, Mr. P.K.
Mishra and Mr. Birender
Pandey, Advocates
versus
MAST. AJAY SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest?
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned
Tribunal whereby the compensation of Rs.44,500/- has been
awarded to respondent No.1.
2. On 28th July, 2000, the appellant was walking on the road
with his father when the offending bus bearing No.DL-1P-7299
driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.2 hit
respondent No.1 who fell down on the road and received
grievous injuries. The appellant was removed to the hospital.
He suffered fracture in the left forearm. He remained under
treatment for five months.
3. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- for pain and
suffering, Rs.4,500/- loss of income during the period of
treatment at the rate of Rs.50/- per day for three months; and
Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses, special diet and
conveyance.
4. The appellant has challenged the impugned award on
the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not
holding a valid driving licence and, therefore, the appellant is
not liable. In the alternative, the appellant claims recovery
rights against the owner of the offending vehicle.
5. The appellant produced three witnesses before the
learned Tribunal. R3W1 is the officer of the appellant who
deposed that the appellant deputed an Investigator for
verification of the copy of the driving licence seized by the
Police. He proved the report of the Investigator, Ex.R3W1/B.
He proved two notices Ex.R3W1/C and Ex.R3W1/D issued to
the owner and the driver to produce the original driving
licence.
6. The second witness, R3W2 is the clerk of the Licensing
Authority, Sonepat who deposed that since inception of their
office, serial numbers of the driving licences have been given
in continuity irrespective of the year in which the licence was
prepared and the last licence issued by their office was serial
number 063060/S dated 18th March, 2003. The copy of the
last page of the register was exhibited as Ex.R3W-2/A. The
witness further deposed that the copy of the driving licence
Mark "Y" did not pertain to their office. The stamp at point
"K" also did not pertain to their office. The genuine stamp of
the office was as mentioned at point "M" which mentions
"Licencing Authority" Sonepat. The office does not put stamp
of "L.A. Sonepat" as mentioned at point "K" on the copy of the
driving licence Mark "Y" and, therefore, the driving licence
Mark "Y" was not a genuine licence. The witness also
produced the computer generated record and placed the first
page Ex.R3W2/B and certificate Ex.R3W2/C reflecting the
details of driving licences issued from their office.
7. R3W3 is the witness from the District Transport
Authority, Sonepat, who deposed that the Licencing Authority
has issued licence with serial numbers in continuity from the
date of inception and the driving licence Mark "Y" was not
issued by their office. He further said that their office has not
yet reached the serial number reflected in the licence Mark
"Y" which is a fake licence.
8. The learned Tribunal did not grant the recovery rights to
the appellant on the ground that the driving licence mark "Y"
was issued in the year 2001 and no register of 2001 was
produced and only the records of 2003 were produced and
examined.
9. The learned Tribunal did not appreciate the statements
of the witnesses R3W2 and R3W3 who proved the following
three facts:-
(i) All licences issued by the Transport Authority,
Sonepat were issued in continuity of serial
numbers since the inception of their office and the
last serial number was 063060/S as per Ex.R3W2/A
on 18th March, 2003.
(ii) The serial number mentioned on the driving
licence Mark "Y" i.e. 3363433 had not reached
even in 2005 when the statements of the witnesses
were recorded and, therefore, disputed licence
cannot be genuine.
(iii) The office puts a stamp of "Licensing Authority"
and not "L.A., Sonepat".
10. The learned Trial Court has not correctly appreciated the
evidence on record. The learned Trial Court erred in
observing that record of 2001 was not produced. When the
serial number mentioned in the disputed licence did not exist
in the record of the Licensing Authority, Sonepat and that
number had not even reached in 2005 and the witness also
clearly stated that licence was fake, nothing more was
required to be proved by the appellant to succeed in the
matter.
11. I, therefore, hold that the driving licence Mark "Y" of
respondent No.2 was not genuine and, therefore, the
appellant is entitled to recovery rights against respondent
No.3 after making the payment to respondent No.1. It is
stated by the appellant that the appellant has already
satisfied the award by making the payment to respondent
No.1.
12. The appeal is allowed and the appellant is granted right
to recover the award amount of Rs.44,500/- along with
interest thereon from respondent No.3 who is the owner of the
offending vehicle.
J.R. MIDHA, J
MARCH 31, 2009
s.pal
