Jagdish Parihar vs United Insureance Company Ltd. & ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 4680 Del

38
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                      +   MAC.APP.No.392/2009

                               Date of Decision: 17th November, 2009
%

      JAGDISH PARIHAR                       ..... Appellant
                    Through : Ms. Protima Parihar, Adv.

                      versus

      UNITED INSUREANCE COMPANY
      LTD. & ORS                        ..... Respondents
                    Through : Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv.


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 appellant has challenged the award of the learned

Tribunal. The appellant is the owner of the offending vehicle

and the learned Tribunal has given the recovery rights to

respondent No.1 to recover the award amount from the

appellant on the ground that the driver of the offending

vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of

the accident.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

driving licence of the driver was duly proved before the

learned Tribunal as Ex.PW1/4 but the learned Tribunal did not

consider the said document.

3. The finding of the learned Tribunal that the driver of the

offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at

the time of the accident is contrary to the evidence on

record. Ex.PW1/4 is the copy of the driving licence of the

driver of the offending vehicle duly proved before the

learned Tribunal.

4. Vide order dated 17th August, 2009 both the parties

were directed to obtain a certificate from the concerned

Transport Authority about the genuinty of the licence

Ex.PW1/4. Both the parties have placed on record the

certificate from the Road Transport Authority, Delhi certifying

that the said driving licence is genuine.

5. In that view of the matter, the finding of the learned

Tribunal to the effect that the driver of the offending vehicle

was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the

accident is set aside and it is held that the driver of the

offending vehicle was holding a valid driving licence at the

time of the accident.

6. The appeal is allowed and the impugned award is set

aside in so far as the learned Tribunal has given the recovery

rights to respondent No.1 to recover the award from the

appellant. The order for the auction of the offending vehicle

is also quashed and set aside.

7. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the

appellant be refunded back to the appellant through counsel

within four weeks.

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

for both the parties under signature of Court Master.

J.R. MIDHA, J NOVEMBER 17, 2009 mk