Amar Pal Singh vs Jawahar Lal & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 2328 Del

Citation : 2009 Latest Caselaw 2328 Del
Judgement Date : 29 May, 2009

Delhi High Court

Amar Pal Singh vs Jawahar Lal & Ors. on 29 May, 2009

Author: J.R. Midha

6
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                     +    FAO No. 374/2000

%                            Date of decision: 29th May, 2009


      AMAR PAL SINGH                ..... Appellant
                    Through : Mr. Naresh K. Thanai, Adv.
               versus

    JAWAHAR LAL & ORS.            ..... Respondents
                  Through : Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa, Adv.
                            for R - 3.
CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.      Whether Reporters of Local papers may           Yes
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?          Yes

3.      Whether the judgment should be                  Yes
        reported in the Digest?

                         JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned

Tribunal whereby the appellant was directed to pay Rs.22,000/-

to claimant/respondent No.1.

2. The accident dated 22nd October, 1993 resulted in the

injuries to the claimant who filed the claim petition before the

learned Tribunal.

3. The learned Tribunal passed an award of Rs.22,000/- in

favour of the claimant and against the appellant, who is the

owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No.2, who is the

driver of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.3 - National

Insurance Co. Ltd. was exonerated from any liability on the

ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a

valid driving licence.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving licence.

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the

accident in question resulted in death of Rajesh Kumar whose

legal representatives filed a separate claim petition which was

allowed against the Insurance Company holding that the driver

was holding a valid driving licence. It is further submitted that

the Insurance Company has accepted the said award and has

made the payment of the award amount to the claimant in that

case.

5. Considering the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for

respondent No.3 was directed to produce the claim file of the

case titled Roop Kumari vs. Rajpal decided on 13th December,

2004 but despite the number of opportunities granted,

respondent No.3 has not been able to produce the file which is

reported to be untraceable. However, it is not disputed by

learned counsel for respondent No.3 that the award passed in the

connected case titled Roop Kumar vs. Rajpal decided on 23 rd

November, 1993 was not challenged by the appellant and the

award was accepted and the claim has been paid to the claimant

in the connected case.

6. The file of the connected case titled Roop Kumar vs. Rajpal

has been requisitioned. The award dated 23 rd November, 1993

has been passed against respondent No.3 holding that the driver

of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving licence. Paras

21 to 23 of the award are reproduced hereunder:-

"21. R - 1 has examined himself as R1W3. He deposed that he had been driving heavy vehicle since 05.06.70. Initially his licence was issued by the Meerut Transport Authority. In the year 1992 he got renewed his licence from Delhi Transport Authority. At the time of accident he was heaving a licence which was valid up to 17.07.94. Thereafter, the licence was renewed upto 23.0897. The photocopy of the licence is Ex.RW-3/A. Later on he got renewed his licence from Ghaziabad Transport Authority and his latest driving licence is valid upto 06.032004 from Ghaziabad Transport Authority, the photocopy of which is Ex.RW-3/B. He is an expert in driving the heavy vehicle.

22. R-1 has also examined Sh. Sudhir Kumar Saxena as R1W-5. He is Senior Clerk, RTO, Meerut. He has produced the record of DL of R - 1 and deposed that as per the record licence No.R5230 was issued on 05.06.70 for HTV to Rajpal and the same was valid upto 29.04.85. He has also deposed that certificate Ex.R1W5/A has been issued by his office and it bears the signature of Surender Singh, Regional Inspector, TRO, Meerut whose signature he can identify. He has also deposed that certificate Ex.R1W5/A is correct as per record. Copy of the office record is Ex.R1W5/B. In cross-examination by ld. counsel for R - 3 this witness has deposed that he has deposed only as per record available with him.

23. I have gone through the licence of R - 1 Ex.RW-3/A. A perusal of which shows that the licence was valid upto 23.08.97. The copy of driving licence, which was later on renewed from Ghaziabad Transport Authority, which is Ex.RW-3/B also shows that R - 1 was having a licence which was valid upto 06.03.2004. The testimony of RW Raj Pal is corroborated with the testimony of R1W5, because this witness has categorically stated that licence No.R-5230 was issued on 05.06.70 to Raj Pal HTV. The certificate Ex.R1W5/A issued from the Licencing Authority, Motor Vehicle Department, Meerut has been duly proved by R1W5. From the perusal of record Ex.R1W5/B, produced by R1W5, it becomes clear that driving licence No.R-5230 was issued to R- 1 on 05.06.70 and the same was valid upto 29.04.85. In view of the material on record, it becomes clear that on the day of accident R - 1 was holding a valid and effective driving licence."

7. Noting that respondent No.3 has accepted the award

passed in connected case in which it was held that the driver was

holding a valid driving licence, this appeal is allowed and

the impugned order is set aside to the extent that the appellant

has been held liable to pay the award amount.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has

deposited the entire award amount along with interest with the

learned Tribunal in terms of the order dated 11 th March, 2002

passed by this Court. In view of the payment of the entire award

amount along with interest having been made by the appellant to

the claimant, respondent No.3 is directed to reimburse the

amount paid by the appellant to the claimant. The appellant has