Delhi High Court
Avinash Chand Katyal vs Bhadri Maya & Ors on 3 February, 2010
Author: J.R. Midha
34
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP.No.399/2008
Date of Decision: 3rd February, 2010
%
AVINASH CHAND KATYAL ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. Anish Shrestha, Adv.
versus
BHADRI MAYA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Satish Kumar Sansi,
Adv. for R-1 to 4.
Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv.
for R-5.
Mr. Nitinjya Choudhary,
amicus curiae.
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.6,67,000/- has been
awarded to claimants/respondents No.1 to 4.
2. The accident dated 10th October, 2005 resulted in the
death of Durga Bahadur. The deceased was survived by his
widow and three sons who filed the claim petition before the
Claims Tribunal.
3. The deceased was aged 35 years at the time of the
accident and was self-employed. The learned Tribunal took
the minimum wages into consideration, deducted 1/3 rd
towards personal expenses and applied the multiplier of 14
to compute the loss of dependency at Rs.6,22,000/-.
Rs.35,000/- has been awarded towards loss of love and
affection and loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- towards
funeral expenses. The total compensation awarded is
Rs.6,67,000/-.
4. The learned Tribunal has exonerated respondent No.5
from liability to pay the compensation on the ground that the
driving licence produced by the driver was held to be fake
and the permit of the offending vehicle was to ply only in the
State of Haryana.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
driver was holding a valid driving licence at the time of the
accident which was proved by the verification report issued
by Road Transport Authority, Munger. With respect to the
permit, it is submitted that there was a valid permit to ply
the vehicle.
6. With respect to the driving licence, it is noted that the
driver of the offending vehicle appeared in the witness box
and produced the verification report issued by the Road
Transport Authority, Munger as Ex.R1W1/1. Respondent
No.5 also summoned a witness from Road Transport
Authority, Munger who appeared as R3W1 and deposed that
the driving licence of the driver - Ex.R3W1/1 was not
genuine. However, there is a difference in the driving licence
number in Ex.R1W1/1 and the verification report produced by
respondent No.5. The driving licence mentioned in
Ex.R1W1/1 is 1729/02/PIE whereas the driving licence
mentioned in Ex.R3W1/4 is 1729/02/PE. The learned Tribunal
has not examined this aspect. This Court is, therefore, of the
view that this point needs reconsideration and, therefore, the
matter needs to be remanded back. The learned Tribunal
may also consider recalling the witness from Road Transport
Authority, Munger to elucidate the point in controversy.
7. Even if the driving licence of the driver is taken to be
fake, respondent No.5 is primarily liable to pay the
compensation to claimants/respondents No.1 to 4.
8. In view of that matter, respondent No.5 is held to be
primarily liable to pay the compensation to
claimants/respondents No.1 to 4.
9. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the appeal
is partially allowed and the impugned award is modified to
the extent that respondent No.5 shall be primarily liable to
pay the entire award amount along with interest to
claimants/respondents No.1 to 5. The finding of the learned
Tribunal with respect to the fake driving licence and invalid
permit is set aside and the case is remanded back to the
Claims Tribunal to conduct a fresh inquiry into the matter
and give a fresh finding as to whether respondent No.5 is
entitled to recovery rights against the appellant.
10. The appellant has already paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-
to claimants/respondents No.1 to 4. Respondent No.5 shall
deposit the balance award amount along with up to date
interest (award amount along with up to date interest minus
Rs.3,00,000/-) with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Branch A/c
Bhadri Maya by means of a cheque through Mr. H.S. Rawat,
Relationship Manager, Tis Hazari Branch, Tis Hazari (Mb:
09717044322) within 30 days. The payment of Rs.3,00,000/-
deposited by the appellant shall be first adjusted towards the
interest amount and balance, if any, shall be adjusted
against the principal award amount.
11. It is clarified that respondent No.5 is not required to
make the payment of Rs.3,00,000/- to the appellant till the
fresh finding is given by the Claims Tribunal.
12. The parties are directed to appear before the Claims
Tribunal on 8th March, 2010.
13. The Claims Tribunal shall complete the inquiry within a
period of five months. If the driving licence of the driver is
found to be fake, the Claims Tribunal shall grant recovery
rights to respondent No.5 against the appellant. If the
driving licence, permit and the verification report are found
to be fake, respondent No.5 shall be at liberty to prosecute
the driver for the offence of forgery in terms of the order
dated 23rd December, 2009 passed by this Court in
MAC.APP.No.236/2009 and MAC.APP.No.238/2009.
14. The LCR be returned back forthwith.
15. This Court appreciates the effective assistance
rendered by Mr. Nitinjya Choudhary, amicus curiae appointed
by this Court in this matter.
16. List for disbursement of the balance award amount to
the claimants on 8th April, 2010.
17. Copy of this order be given 'Dasti' to learned counsel
for the parties under the signature of Court Master.
J.R. MIDHA, J
FEBRUARY 03, 2010
aj
