Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd. vs Raj Kumar And Others on 10 February, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 10th February, 2014
+ MAC.APP. 35/2010
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr. D.K. Sharma, Adv.
versus
RAJ KUMAR AND OTHERS ..... Respondents
Represented by: NEMO.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned award dated
04.09.2009, whereby Ld. Tribunal granted compensation for a sum of
Rs.67,100/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the
petition till realization of the award amount.
2. Vide the present appeal the appellant has taken the sole ground that
the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid driving licence on
the date of accident, despite, Ld. Tribunal failed to grant recovery rights in
favour of the appellant and against respondent nos. 2 & 3, i.e., driver and
owner of the offending vehicle.
3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant examined R3W1
Sh. Ramesh Kumar, who proved the certificate of insurance vide which the
offending vehicle was insured. He deposed that the appellant served a
notice Under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC to the driver and owner of the offending
vehicle through registered post and proved the same as Ex.R3W1/2, its
postal receipt as Ex.R3W1/3 and owner's notice as Ex.R3W1/4 and its
postal receipt as Ex.R3W1/5.
4. Ld. Counsel further submitted that Ex.R3W1 also proved the DL
verification report as Ex.R3W1/6, through which DL was found fake,
accident information report as Ex.R3W1/7 and seizure memo as
Ex.R3W1/8.
5. Ld. Counsel further submitted that R3W2 Sh. Arvind Kumar, Junior
Clerk from ARTO, Dabri, Firozabad, UP produced record of DL no. 1570-
FRZ-2001 pertaining to year 2001. He deposed that as per the record at Sr.
No. 1570-FRZ-2001, the licence was issued to one Gulab Singh Rajput, S/o,
Sh. Gaja Singh Rajput on 08.05.2001 and on the said date licences from Sr.
No. 1556 to 1570 were issued in the name of different peoples. He proved
the photocopy of the record as Ex.R3W2/A1 to A16. He specifically
deposed that as per the record, no licence was issued in the name of
respondent no. 2 / Baij Nath, i.e., the driver of the offending vehicle.
6. On perusal of the impugned award it shows that while awarding the
compensation Ld. Tribunal has not even discussed whether the appellant was
entitled for recovery rights or not.
7. I note, the respondent nos. 2 & 3 despite service did not prefer to
appear before the Ld. Tribunal and were proceeded ex-parte. Even in the
appeal, they have been served by way of citation.
8. R3W1 has proved the notice Under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC served upon
respondent no. 2 & 3. R3W2, as discussed above, proved that the
respondent no. 2, the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid
driving licence on the date of accident.
9. Keeping in view the evidence on record, as discussed above, I am of
the considered opinion that the appellant / insurance company is entitled to
get the recovery rights against respondent nos. 2 & 3.
10. Accordingly, the appellant is at liberty to recover the amount from
respondent nos. 2 & 3 jointly and severally.
11. Statutory amount be released in favour of the appellant.
12. Compensation amount, if any, be released in favour of the respondent
no. 1 / claimant.
13. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
SURESH KAIT, J
FEBRUARY 10, 2014
jg
