Delhi High Court
Yashpal & Ors. vs Deepika Gulati on 11 November, 2009
Author: J.R. Midha
4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP.No.987-89/2006
% Date of decision: 11th November, 2009
YASHPAL & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through : Mr. Ashim Vachcher and
Mr. Manish Miglani, Advs.
versus
DEEPIKA GULATI ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv. for R-1.
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 (Oral)
1. The parents of the claimant, Deepika Gulati are present in
the Court. The original bankers cheque bearing No.923474 dated
12th October, 2009 for Rs.1,55,000/- is handed over by the Court
Master to the parents of the claimant, Mr. Lalit Gulati and Mrs.
Anju Gulati in the presence of learned counsel for respondent
No.1. The claim has been satisfied so far as the
claimant/respondent No.1 is concerned.
2. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned
Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.5,12,000/- has been
awarded to respondent No.1.
3. The accident dated 2nd August, 1999 resulted in grievous
injuries to respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 was travelling in
Matador bearing No.DAE 0989 which was driven rashly and
negligently by respondent No.3. The offending vehicle was
owned by respondent No.2. The appellants were also impleaded
in the claim petition before the learned Tribunal as the owner of
the offending vehicle.
4. The learned Tribunal passed the impugned award jointly
and severally against the appellants and respondent Nos.2 and 3.
5. The appellants challenged the impugned award on the
ground that they are not the owners of the offending vehicle and,
therefore, they cannot be held liable to pay the award amount.
6. In pursuance to the directions passed by this Court, the
appellants have paid a sum of Rs.6,20,000/- to
claimant/respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 had paid a sum of
Rs.1,55,000/- to claimant/respondent No.1. The learned counsel
for the appellants restrict the prayer in this appeal to the grant of
recovery rights of Rs.6,20,000/- from respondent Nos.2 and 3.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that no
evidence was led by respondent No.1 or even by respondent
Nos.2 and 3 to the effect that the appellants are the owners of
the offending vehicle. The learned counsel for the appellant
submits that it is the matter of record that respondent No.2 is the
registered owner and respondent No.3 is the driver of the
offending vehicle. PW-6 proved Ex.P-5 which is the original
certificate issued by the Motor Licencing Authority, Sarai Kale
Khan in which respondent No.2 has been shown as the owner of
the offending vehicle. No evidence was led by any of the
respondents to prove that the appellants are the owners of the
offending vehicle. Though respondent No.2 alleged in his written
statement that he had sold the vehicle to the appellants but no
evidence was led by respondent No.2 in this regard. As such the
findings of the learned Tribunal holding the appellants liable for
the impugned award are not sustainable. However, since the
appellants have already paid substantial portion of the award
amount to claimant/respondent No.1, the appellants seek
recovery rights against respondent Nos.2 and 3 to recover the
amount paid by them to claimant/respondent No.1.
8. The appeal is partially allowed and the appellants are
granted recovery rights to recover Rs.6,20,000/- from respondent
Nos.2 and 3. The appellants shall also be entitled to interest @
7.5% per annum from the date on which they paid the amount to
claimant/respondent No.1 till the date of realization. However,
the appellants shall not be entitled to recover any amount from
claimant/respondent No.1.
9. Copy of this order be given 'Dasti' to learned counsel for
both the parties under signature of Court Master.
J.R. MIDHA, J
NOVEMBER 11, 2009
mk
