New India Assurance Co Ltd. vs Ms.Roshini Mamgai & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 1831 Del

$~25
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                           Judgment delivered on: 3rd April, 2014

+                               MAC.APP.247/2011


      NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD.                 ..... Appellant
                   Represented by: Mr. Sameer Nandwani,
                                   Advocate.

                          Versus

      MS.ROSHINI MAMGAI & ORS                               ..... Respondents
                   Represented by:            Mr.Navneet Goyal,
                                              Advocate for Respondent Nos.
                                              1 to 4.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal is preferred against the impugned award dated 24.11.2010, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for an amount of Rs.15,91,283/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the notice under Order 21 Rule 1 CPC is issued by the Insurance Company.

2. Mr. Sameer Nandwani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid driving licence on the date of the accident, and the same has been proved by R3W1, who deposed that he inspected the

record from RTO, Aligarh, UP, regarding the status of the driving licence vide report Ex.R3W1/1.

3. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal erred in observing that despite categorical averments of the respondent No.2 (before the Tribunal) in his written statement regarding sale of offending vehicle to respondent No.4 (before the Tribunal), who had been impleaded as a party before the learned Tribunal, the appellant/Insurance Company did not care to summon the said owner for his examination nor issued any notice for production of the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle or to ascertain whether the owner had seen or satisfied himself about the competency of the driver to drive the offending vehicle.

4. Learned counsel submits that the appellant/Insurance Company served the notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC to driver, Sh. Sanjay Kumar and owner, Sh. Nawab Khan to produce the original driving licence and the insurance policy, however, they have failed to do so.

5. He further submits that in such an eventuality, when the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid driving licence, the learned Tribunal ought to have exonerated the appellant company from any liability or in the alternative recovery rights ought to have been granted in its favour.

6. On perusal of the impugned award, it is revealed that the learned Tribunal has recorded that report Ex.R3W1/1 received from the RTO, Aligarh, UP, was obtained regarding D/L-354/Ali/92 and D/L No. RT-1984, whereas the number of the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle on record was T-354/Ali/89.

7. Thus, the appellant/Insurance Company have failed to verify the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle from the concerned authority. Moreover, no steps have been taken to verify the same by the appellant company during pendency of this appeal.

8. In view of the facts noted above, I do not find any discrepancy in the order of the learned Tribunal in not granting recovery rights in favour of appellant company.

9. Consequently, finding no merit in the instant appeal, the same is dismissed.

10. Accordingly, the Registry of this Court is directed to release the statutory amount in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company and the balance compensation with upto date interest in favour of the respondent Nos.1to 4/claimants as per the order dated 24.11.2010 passed by the learned Tribunal on taking necessary steps by them.

SURESH KAIT, J.

APRIL 03, 2014 Sb/RS