The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Roop Ram And Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 1764 Del

$~R58
*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                         Judgment delivered on: 1st April, 2014

+      MAC.APP. 334/2007

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.       ..... Appellant
                      Represented by: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv.


                      Versus


ROOP RAM AND ORS.                                     ..... Respondents
                                     Represented by: NEMO.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 09.02.2007, whereby Ld. Tribunal awarded compensation for an amount of Rs.60,500/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till realization of the amount.

2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant had sent a notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC to respondent no. 3 / owner of the offending vehicle for producing the valid driving licence. However, he failed to do so.

3. Moreover, police had filed a charge sheet against respondent no. 2 / driver of the offending vehicle, despite, the Ld. Tribunal has not granted recovery rights in favour of the appellant.

4. He further submits that owner of the offending vehicle in his written statement did not deny the involvement of the offending vehicle and factum of accident. Moreover, respondent no.2, driver of the offending vehicle neither produced the driving licence nor appeared before the Ld. Tribunal and was proceeded ex-parte. In such eventuality, Ld. Tribunal ought to have granted recovery rights in favour of the appellant.

5. Admittedly, respondent no. 2 was proceeded ex-parte. However, in his reply to the instant appeal, he specifically stated that he was residing at the same address till date and never shifted. Further states that he has not received any communication from the court. He was surprised to know that he was proceeded ex-parte. He further stated that he holds a valid driving licence no. 621/C-5/97 issued by DTO, Narnaul, Haryana and the same was renewed from time to time. The said driving licence in its continuity was valid up to 21.02.2009, whereas the accident had taken place on 04.02.2001.

6. It is further stated that he had worked with the DTC from 30.11.2005 to 14.05.2006 as a driver which shows that he was holding a valid driving licence. Admittedly, this fact has not been verified by the appellant till date.

7. In view of above, I am of the considered opinion that the respondent no. 2 was holding a valid driving licence on the date of accident.

8. Finding no merit in the instant appeal, same is accordingly dismissed.

9. The statutory amount be released in favour of the appellant and the balance compensation amount be released in favour of the respondent no.1 / claimant on taking steps by him.

SURESH KAIT, J

APRIL 01, 2014 jg