Delhi High Court
Ranjeet Rai vs Oriental Insurance Co. & Ors. on 4 March, 2011
Author: Reva Khetrapal
UNREPORTED
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ (1) MAC. APP. 737/2010
RANJEET RAI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Mehta, Advocate
versus
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Advocate for
the respondent No.1
+ (2) MAC. APP. 2/2010 and CM Nos.75/2010 and 12830/2010
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Advocate
versus
INDIRA PILLAI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Mehta, Advocate
for the respondent No.5
% Date of Decision : March 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?
MAC. APP. Nos.737 /2010 and 2/2010 Page 1 of 5
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.
1. The prayer in MAC. APP. No.737/2010 is for modification of
the award of the learned Tribunal dated 29.09.2009 in petition No.
397/2008 by setting aside the ex-parte order passed against the
appellant and taking on record the certified copy of the driving license
which is stated to be valid on the date of the accident. The alternative
prayer is for remanding back the case to the learned Tribunal to
enable the appellant to prove that the driving license was valid on the
date of the accident.
2. At the outset, it may be mentioned that MAC. APP.
No.737/2010 is a cross-appeal to MAC. APP. No. 2/2010 filed by the
Insurance Company on the ground that the driving license of the
driver (the appellant in MAC. APP. No.737/2010) had not been
renewed on the date of the accident. Thus, the only issue which arises
in both the appeals is as to whether the driving license of the driver
had been renewed subsequent to 02.11.1995 when it had expired.
3. By an order dated January 24, 2011, the appellant in MAC.
APP. No.737/2010 was allowed to adduce additional evidence on his
application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC by summoning the
concerned official from the Sheikh Sarai Transport Authority in order
to enable him to prove that he had a valid driving license on the date
of the accident, i.e., on 26th August, 1996.
4. On 23.02.2011, one Shri Mahesh Verma, Inspector, Transport
Department (South Zone), Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi appeared as AW1
with the official record of driving license No.C-95120915, who
deposed that the said license was issued in the name of Mr. Ranjeet
Rai (the appellant in MAC. APP. No.737/2010), son of Shri B. Rai,
resident of 40, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016 in the category of
"HMV" only. He further testified that the aforesaid license was
renewed on 22.12.1995 and its validity thereafter was upto
21.12.1998. He placed on record a photocopy of the original license
renewing record. Although cross-examined at great length by the
learned counsel for the respondent No.1, the testimony of this witness
remained unshaken.
5. Thus, it stands proved on record that on the date of accident,
i.e., on 26.08.1996, the appellant had a valid driving license for
driving "Heavy Motor Vehicle".
6. The only contention of the Insurance Company before the
learned Tribunal was that on the date of accident the driver was not
holding a valid D.L. as the same was not got renewed. The learned
Tribunal while holding that it was not known if the driving license
was got renewed after the date of its expiry on 02.11.1995,
nevertheless held that the Insurance Company was not entitled for any
recovery rights for the reason that the driver was holding a valid D.L.
till 02.11.1995, which license was initially issued on 13.04.1990 and
so the driver was not a novice in his profession. As already stated
above, aggrieved by this finding the Insurance Company preferred an
appeal claiming recovery rights, being MAC APP. No. 2/2010, and
MAC. APP. No.737/2010 was preferred by the appellant - driver by
way of a cross-appeal to the said appeal filed by the Insurance
Company.
7. In view of the fact that it now stands established on record that
the driving license of the appellant was got renewed by him for
driving a "Heavy Motor Vehicle" there is no manner of doubt that the
Insurance Company cannot be granted recovery rights in respect of
the award amount. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, MAC.
APP. No. 737/2010 is allowed and MAC. APP. No. 2/2010 stands
dismissed. CM Nos.75/2010 and 12830/2010 also stand disposed of.
8. In both the appeals, the appellants shall be entitled to the
release of sum of ` 25,000/- each deposited in this Court as statutory
deposit by them.
A copy of this order be given dasti to the counsel for both the
parties, as prayed.
REVA KHETRAPAL
(JUDGE)
March 04, 2011
km
