Vinod vs Lrs Of Rakesh & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 2556 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                              Reserved on: 16th April, 2012
                            Pronounced on: 19th April, 2012
+       MAC.APP. 15/2012

        VINOD                                 ..... Appellant
                             Through:   Mr. Arvind Dhingra, Advocate

                    versus

        LRS OF RAKESH & ORS                         ..... Respondents
                     Through:           Mr. O.P. Mannie, Advocate for
                                        the Claimants.
                                        Mr. P.K. Seth, Adv. for R-3.
        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
                             JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J.

1. The Appellant who is the owner of vehicle number DL-1LM-

2968 impugns the judgment dated 19.02.2011 whereby while awarding compensation of `17,27,400/-, Respondent No.3 Reliance General Insurance Company Limited was granted the right to recover the compensation awarded, from the driver and owner of the vehicle, as the driver was having a driving licence to drive LMV (NT) while the vehicle involved in the accident was a Light Goods Vehicle.

2. It is a very peculiar case where a DAR (Detailed Accident Report) was filed by the Investigating Officer stating that the vehicle was insured with the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, whereas the Appellant (the owner) says that

he insured the vehicle with Future Generali India. (The Cover note has been placed on record at Page 67 of the Paper Book by the Appellant).

3. It is averred that the Appellant never appeared in the case before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) nor he received any notice either from the Investigating Officer or from the Court. He never engaged any Counsel nor gave any Vakalatnama in favour of any Counsel. Although, Respondent No.3 M/s. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited has not filed any Appeal but it is equally aggrieved by the impugned judgment on the ground that although the vehicle was not covered by any policy of Insurance, yet it was made liable to pay the compensation in the first instance.

4. A perusal of the Trial Court record shows that initially, the Insurance Company represented that the driving licence of the driver was invalid and the Insurance Company would be entitled to recover the compensation awarded. However, later on an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was filed by the Insurance Company whereby a plea was sought to be taken that the vehicle involved in the accident was not insured by Respondent No.3, the Insurance Company.

5. The Application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was allowed and the amended reply was taken on record. It is very strange that in spite of a specific plea that the vehicle was not covered by any policy of Insurance by the Insurance Company neither any

issue was framed in this respect nor the same was dealt with by the Claims Tribunal.

6. As stated earlier, the Appellant says that the cover note was issued to him by M/s. Santosh Motors of the Insurance Company Future Generali India.

7. In this view of matter, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. The same is accordingly set aside and the case is remanded back to the Claims Tribunal for its decision in accordance with law.

8. The Respondents No.1 (i) to (v) are directed to deposit the amount of compensation paid to them with the Claims Tribunal within 30 days which shall be refunded to the Respondent No.3.

9. The parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal on 21st May, 2012.

10. The Appeal is allowed in above terms. No costs.

11. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

12. Copy of the order be sent to the Claims Tribunal for compliance.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE APRIL 19, 2012 vk