Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Jitender Kumar & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 4788 Del

32
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                      +   MAC.APP.No.239/2007

                               Date of Decision: 23rd November, 2009
%

      ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.         ..... Appellant
                    Through : Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Adv.

                      versus

      JITENDER KUMAR & ORS.         ..... Respondents
                    Through : Dr. S.P. Sharma, Adv.
                              for R-1.
                              Mr. L.M. Asthana, Adv.
                              for R-5.

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 compensation of Rs.1,03,300/- has been

awarded to respondent No.1.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

appellant had insured bus bearing No.DL-1P-1441 which did

not hit respondent No.1 at all. The learned counsel submits

that bus bearing No.DEP-6789 hit the scooter due to which

the scooter driver and the pillion rider fell on the road and

bus bearing No.DL-1P-1441 hit the deceased Niraj Kumar

who was sitting on the pillion of the scooter. The scooter

driver, Jitender Kumar fell on the other side of the road and

the insured bus bearing No.DL-1P-1441 did not even touch

respondent No.1.

3. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 does not

dispute the above stated facts stated by learned counsel for

the appellant. The learned counsel further submits that bus

bearing No.DEP-6786 was not insured at the time of the

accident. The said bus was registered in the name of

respondent No.5 and was owned by respondent No.6 at the

time of the accident.

4. In that view of the matter, respondent No.5 is primarily

liable to pay the award amount to respondent No.1 and after

making the payment, respondent No.5 is entitled to recovery

rights against respondent No.6.

5. Respondent No.6 has been served by publication and

has not entered appearance before this Court.

6. It is well settled that the registered owner of the vehicle

is primarily liable to pay the compensation to the victim of

the road accident and he is entitled to recover the same from

the actual owner of the vehicle.

7. It is not disputed by learned counsel for respondent

No.5 that respondent No.5 was registered owner of the

offending vehicle at the time of the accident.

8. The learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that

respondent No.5 had sold the offending vehicle before the

date of the accident to respondent No.6.

9. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the

impugned award is modified. The award of Rs.1,03,300/-

along with interest thereon @7% per annum from the date of

filing of the petition till realization is passed in favour of

respondent No.1 and against respondent Nos.5 and 6.

10. Respondent No.5 shall be entitled to recover the award

amount from respondent No.6 after making the payment of

the award amount to respondent No.1.

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

for both the parties under signature of Court Master.

J.R. MIDHA, J NOVEMBER 23, 2009 mk