Delhi High Court
State Of Haryana vs Bharti & Ors. on 11 May, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 11th May, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 102/2009
STATE OF HARYANA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Yashpal Rangi, Advocate
versus
BHARTI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Arpan Wadhawan,
Advocate for R-2.
+ MAC.APP. 111/2009
STATE OF HARYANA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Yashpal Rangi, Advocate
versus
SUSHILA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Arpan Wadhawan,
Advocate for R-2.
+ MAC.APP. 112/2009
STATE OF HARYANA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Yashpal Rangi, Advocate
versus
RAMESH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Arpan Wadhawan,
Advocate for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. There is a clerical mistake in the order dated 10.01.2012. The
delay in filing the Appeal was condoned subject to payment of
cost of ` 5,000/- payable to Respondent No.2, who was the only
contesting Respondent.
2. On account of clerical mistake, it was mentioned as
'Respondent No.3'. It shall be read as 'Respondent No.2'
3. Cost of `5,000/- is paid in MAC APP.102/2009.
4. In the remaining two appeals, the learned counsel for the
Appellant Haryana Roadway undertakes to pay the cost to the
learned Counsel for Respondent Insurance Company within two
weeks.
5. These three Appeals arise out of three separate judgments dated
02.01.2008 passed in Claim Petitions No. 39/2006, 45/2006 and
38/2006.
6. As per the case set up by the Claimants Kumari Bharti, Sushila
and Ramesh, they suffered injuries on account of rash and
negligent driving of Haryana Roadway Bus No.HR-10-PA-0048
by its driver Sukhveer. The Claimants testimony that in spite
of repeated requests by the passengers, the bus was being driven
rashly and negligently and it turned turtle at Village Nangli
Poona, near Gurudwara, was not challenged in cross-
examination.
7. The negligence on the part of driver of the bus having been
established, the driver and the owner were held liable to pay the
compensation being the principal tortfeasor and the employer.
8. The Respondent Oriental Insurance Company was directed to
satisfy the award in each of the three cases. Recovery rights
were granted against the Appellant Haryana Roadways as it
failed to produce the driving licence held by the driver at the
time of the accident which occurred on 23.08.2000.
9. The driving licence was produced before the Claims Tribunal
along with an application for review. The application for
review came to be dismissed by an order dated 25.10.2008. A
copy of the driving licence was furnished along with the
Appeal.
10. The Respondent Oriental Insurance Company was directed to
verify the genuineness of the driving licence. A report of the
Investigator dated 28.03.2010 was placed on record to show that
the driving licence was valid from the date of its issue on
17.02.1998 to 16.02.2001. The driving licence covers the period
of accident. It was, however, pointed out that verification with
regard to the previous licence on the basis of which the licence
was renewed, could not be made. Further time was granted to
the Respondent Insurance Company to verify the previous
licence. However, no report has been filed.
11. These Appeals were filed in the year 2009. Sufficient time has
already been granted to the Respondent Insurance Company.
12. Since it is established that the driving licence held by the driver
was valid on the date of the accident, it cannot be said that the
Appellant Haryana Roadway committed breach of the terms of
the policy.
13. It has come on record that the driver died during the
proceedings before the Claims Tribunal and his driving licence
could not be produced.
14. In the facts and circumstances, the order granting recovery
rights to Respondent No.2 Oriental Insurance Company cannot
be sustained. The impugned judgments to that extent are set
aside.
15. The Appeals are allowed in above terms.
16. Statutory amount of `25,000/- deposited in each case shall be
refunded to the Appellant.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MAY 11, 2012
vk
