M/S United India Insruance Co. vs Chandu Ram & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 3578 Del

6
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                       +       MAC.APP.No.591/2006

%                                 Date of decision: 4th September, 2009


      M/S UNITED INDIA INSRUANCE CO.          ..... Appellant
                     Through : Mr. K.L. Nandwani, Adv.

                      versus

      CHANDU RAM & ORS.                             ..... Respondents
                   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?         Not Necessary

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

                               JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned

Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.3,81,000/- has been

awarded to the respondents.

2. The accident dated 30th June, 2001 resulted in the death of

Puran Chand. The deceased was survived by his parents, sister

and brother who filed the claim petition before the learned

Tribunal.

3. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned

Tribunal on the ground that the driver of the three wheeler

(Vikram) was not holding a valid driving licence.

4. The learned Tribunal has recorded in para-10 of the award

that the appellant did not lead any evidence to prove the breach

of policy by the owner of the offending vehicle.

5. The owner of the three wheeler (Vikram) appeared as RW1.

The driver of the offending vehicle appeared as RW2 and proved

the driving licence Ex.RW2/1. The said licence was issued in

respect of Light Motor Vehicle (NT).

6. The Light Motor Vehicle is defined under Section 2(21) of

the Motor Vehicles Act. According to the definition, Light Motor

Vehicle means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle

weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road - roller

the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7,500

kilograms.

7. The definition of the Light Motor Vehicle includes a transport

vehicle and, therefore, the driver of the offending vehicle was

holding a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle in question.

8. Even otherwise, the appellant did not lead any evidence

from the Road Transport Authority to prove that the driver of the

offending vehicle was not competent to drive the three wheeler

(Vikram).

9. The driver and owner have not been impleaded in this

appeal and, therefore, there cannot be any determination against

the owner and driver in this appeal.

10. For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

11. All pending applications also stand dismissed.

J.R. MIDHA, J SEPTEMBER 04, 2009/mk