Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs Prem Lata & Ors. on 4 August, 2011
Author: Reva Khetrapal
UNREPORTED
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 632/2003 and CM Nos.15840/2008 and 15841/2008
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate
versus
PREM LATA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None
% Date of Decision : August 04, 2011
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
seeks to impugn the judgment and award dated 17th May, 2003 passed
by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi in Suit No.77/03.
2. The facts pertinent for the decision of the present appeal are
that on 29.07.1989, one Shri Karam Singh alongwith his brother-in-
law was going to Okhla as pillion rider on the scooter driven by his
brother-in-law, when the scooter was hit by a DTC bus bearing
Registration No.DEP-4615, resulting in his demise. A Claim Petition
was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased against the
driver, the owner and the insurer of the offending bus, who were held
liable to pay compensation in the sum of ` 7,45,396/- with interest at
the rate of 9% per annum from 09.02.2001 till realisation of the
awarded amount. The appellant-M/s. Oriental Insurance Company
Ltd. was directed to make payment of the aforesaid award amount.
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the present
appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company for setting aside
of the said judgment and award.
4. The only issue raised in the appeal is as to whether the
appellant is entitled to recovery rights from the insured, who owned
the offending bus on the date of the accident. Notice of the appeal
was duly served on the respondent No.6-insured by publication in
newspapers, but no one has cared to appear on his behalf.
Accordingly, this Court is left with no option except to hear the
learned counsel for the appellant and to go through the records with
his assistance.
5. The sole contention of Mr. Pankaj Seth, the counsel for the
appellant is that the driving licence of the driver of the bus in
question, bearing No.C 87098625, was not valid at the time of the
accident. In this context, Mr. Seth has relied upon the testimony of
RW1 R.K. Sharma, Senior Assistant, Oriental Insurance Company
Ltd., who deposed that the driving licence of the respondent No.5,
Ramesh Rana was not valid, and as such, the Insurance Company was
not liable to make the payment. The said witness proved the report of
the Transport Authority regarding the disputed driving licence as
Ex.RW1/2. The said document was perused by me and found to
contain the following Note:
"The DL No.C-87098625 does not pertain to
Mall Road Authority."
6. Pertinently, the aforesaid Note is written on a letter of the
Insurance Company which was addressed to the MLO, Mall Road,
Delhi informing the MLO, Mall Road, Delhi that one Shri R.V. Singh
had been deputed for verification of driving licence No.C-87098625.
The Tribunal has rightly discarded the said document as worthless
and held that it does not help the appellant-Insurance Company in
any manner as it can be interpreted in a number of ways. The
Tribunal observed:
"The plain meaning of this report can be taken
as that the driving licence may be valid but the
same does not pertain to Mall Road Authority.
The said report does not lead us to (sic.)
anywhere. Hence, the contention of the R3 is
rejected as the same is not proved by any
evidence on record or any witness from the
Transport Authority nor the R1 has been
examined in this regard. Hence, the R3 has
failed to discharge its burden for proving the
defect in driving licence under the
law............................"
7. In the course of arguments, no cogent reason could be given to
this Court by Mr. Seth, the counsel for the appellant, as to why this
Court should differ with the views expressed by the Claims Tribunal.
Indisputably, the Insurance Company has not cared to examine either
the driver of the offending vehicle or any witness from the Transport
Authority which issued the licence to the respondent No.5-driver. As
a matter of fact, the Insurance Company did not even care to examine
its investigator who allegedly obtained the report from the Licencing
Authority, Mall Road, Delhi. The said report has been rightly held by
the learned Claims Tribunal to be meaningless as it merely records
that the driving licence does not pertain to the Mall Road Authority
and could well be interpreted to mean that the driving licence in
question is issued by some other Authority.
8. In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in the present appeal.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. CM Nos.15840/2008 and
15841/2008 also stand disposed of.
9. The records of the learned Tribunal be sent back forthwith.
REVA KHETRAPAL
(JUDGE)
August 04, 2011
km
