Delhi High Court
Nutech Security Printers vs Ashok Kumar & Ors on 25 March, 2010
Author: J.R. Midha
41
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M).No.400/2010
Date of Decision: 25th March, 2010
%
NUTECH SECURITY PRINTERS ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. S.S. Sobti, Adv.
versus
ASHOK KUMAR & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. S.L. Gupta and
Mr. Ram Ashray, Advs.
for R-3.
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)
CM(M) No.400/2010
1. Issue notice to respondent No.3.
2. Mr. S.L. Gupta, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of
respondent No.3.
3. The accident dated 30th July, 2005 resulted in injuries to
Ashok Kumar who filed the claim petition before the Claims
Tribunal.
3. The claim petition was filed against respondent No.2
(driver of the offending vehicle), the appellant (registered
owner of the offending vehicle) and respondent No.3 (insurer
of the offending vehicle).
4. The right of the petitioner to file written statement was
closed by the Claims Tribunal by the order dated 9 th October,
2006. The petitioner filed an application for review of the
order and permission to file the written statement which has
been dismissed by the Claims Tribunal. The petitioner also
filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil
Procedure to implead Chand Singh to whom the petitioner
had leased out the offending vehicle but the Claims Tribunal
also dismissed that application.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
offending vehicle was validly insured at the time of the
accident. However, the Insurance Company would be liable
only if the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid
driving licence and there was a valid permit. The learned
counsel submits that the Claims Tribunal also need to
determine as to who was in constructive possession of the
offending vehicle at the time of the accident. The learned
counsel for the petitioner wishes to place on record of the
Claims Tribunal the material to the effect that the Chand
Singh was the real owner as lessee in constructive
possession of the offending vehicle at the time of the
accident; the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a
valid driving licence and there was valid permit at the time of
the accident.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is
the duty of the Claims Tribunal to conduct an inquiry under
Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act to ascertain as to who
was the real owner of the offending vehicle and whether
there was a valid driving licence and valid permit at the time
of the accident. The submission of the petitioner is correct.
7. This petition is disposed of with a direction that the
Claims Tribunal shall conduct an inquiry under Section 168 of
the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and shall also ascertain as to
who was the real owner in constructive possession of the
offending vehicle at the time of the accident and whether
there was a valid driving licence and valid permit in respect
of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. For
conducting such an inquiry, the Claims Tribunal shall
permit/collect all relevant evidence including the relevant
documents and evidence of the petitioner.
8. With these observations, the petition is disposed of.
9. All pending applications stand disposed of as
infructuous.
10. Copy of this order be sent to the learned Tribunal for
compliance.
11. Copy of this order be given 'Dasti' to learned counsel
for both the parties under signature of Court Master.
J.R. MIDHA, J
MARCH 25, 2010
mk
