Delhi High Court
Suresh Kumar vs Jai Ram & Ors. on 26 February, 2013
Author: Suresh Kait
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 26th February, 2013
+ MAC.A. 519/2009
SURESH KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. T.A. Francis and Mr.Mahesh
Katyayen, Advs.
Versus
JAI RAM & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. M.L. Sharma, Adv. for R1.
Mr. S.L. Gupta and Mr. Ram Ashray, Advs. for
Insurance Company for R2.
Mr. Sarul Jain, Adv. for R4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
+ MAC.APP. 519/2009
1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the award dated 15.05.2009
whereby ld. Tribunal while passing the award compensation has directed the
appellant to pay the compensation amount, in addition to respondent no. 3
(driver) and respondent no. 4 (owner) of the offending vehicle.
2. It is stated in the instant appeal that ld. Tribunal has erred in not
taking into account the fact that the appellant had already transferred the
vehicle on 03.04.2000 and the insurance policy on 11.04.2000 in the name
of respondent no. 4, whereas, the accident took place on 24.04.2000.
However, ld. Tribunal has wrongly fasten the liability on the appellant.
3. Though there is no liability fasten on the Insurance Company by the
ld. Tribunal, however in the instant appeal the Insurance Company has been
made as respondent no. 2. The said respondent has filed reply to this appeal
wherein it is admitted that on 24.04.2000, the claimant Jairam (respondent
no. 1 herein) while travelling as an occupant on the private Maruti Van No.
DL-4CD-6034 (being used as a commercial vehicle / taxi) had met with an
accident in District Aligarh, UP. For this accident, no FIR was lodged, but
daily dairy was lodged with the concerned authority. The driver of the car at
the time of accident was Vicky @ lucky, who is respondent no. 3 in the
present appeal. The said car was previously owned by Suresh Kumar
(appellant herein), but on 03.04.2000 the said vehicle was transferred and on
11.04.2000, the policy of the Insurance Company also transferred from his
name to the name of Dinesh Kumar (respondent no. 4 herein) prior to
accident in question.
4. The above narrated facts are not disputed by the ld. Counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondent no. 4 i.e. Dinesh Kumar (present owner) and ld.
Counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant / respondent no. 1 and
respondent no. 2 / Insurance Company.
5. In view of above, ld. Counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents
mentioned above have no objection if the instant appeal is allowed in favour
of the appellant and he would be absolved from any liability so far.
6. I note, ld. Tribunal has come to the conclusion that on the basis that
respondent no. 2 (appellant herein) & respondent no. 4, who are the present
and the previous owner of the offending vehicle respectively, have not tried
to produce the respondent no. 3 or even to file the written statement on
behalf of him.
7. I further note, in Appeal No. 473/2011 filed by respondent no.4
Dinesh Kumar, it is admitted that the ld. Tribunal had allowed the claim
petition filed by the claimant (respondent no. 1 herein) on account of alleged
injuries / disability suffered by him and alleged medical expenses incurred
by him in his treatment etc. in the alleged accident, which took place
on 24.04.2000 when he was travelling in Vehicle No. DL-4CD-6034 driven
by respondent no. 3 herein and owned by respondent no. 4 at the time of
accident.
8. In view of the above, I set aside the award dated 15.05.2009 passed by
the ld. Tribunal qua the appellant.
9. Consequently, instant appeal is allowed.
10. A copy of this order be placed in MAC.A. 473/2011.
CM. NO. 14922/2009 (Stay)
In view of the above, instant application has become infructuous and
disposed of as such.
SURESH KAIT, J.
FEBRUARY 26, 2013
jg
