Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Lokender Signh & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 301 Del

$~14
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                       Judgment delivered on: 16th January, 2014


+      MAC.APP. 270/2013

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE
CO. LTD.                               ..... Appellant
                      Represented by: Mr. A.K. Soni, Adv.

                             versus

LOKENDER SIGNH & ORS.                                  ..... Respondents
                                      Represented by: NEMO.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Vide the instant appeal, the appellant has assailed the award dated 17.12.2012, whereby ld. Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs.76,025/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization.

2. Present appal has been filed mainly on the ground that the vehicle was plying without a valid permit and in that eventuality, appellant is not liable to pay any compensation amount as directed by the ld. Tribunal.

3. Admittedly, recovery rights have not been granted.

4. As the issue of valid permit is concerned, the appellant / insurance company has not taken any steps to serve respondent nos. 2 & 3, i.e., driver and owner, respectively, of the offending vehicle.

5. Admitted fact is that during the pendency of the appeal respondent no. 2 was expired and no steps have been taken to implead his legal heirs.

6. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that since they are not disputing the driving licence, therefore, respondent no. 2 is not a necessary party to adjudicate the instant appeal.

7. In view of the statement of the counsel for the appellant / insurance company, appeal against respondent no. 2 is abated.

8. As far as service upon the respondent no. 3 is concerned, the appellant has not taken any steps to serve the aforesaid respondent despite repeated opportunities.

9. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that they do not have the address of respondent no. 3, therefore, they are not able to serve the said respondent.

10. It is on record that number of opportunities have already been granted but the appellant / insurance company has not taken any steps to serve respondent no. 3.

11. In view of above, instant appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.

12. Consequently, balance compensation amount be released in favour of the respondents / claimants.

13. Statutory amount be released in favour of the appellant.

SURESH KAIT, J JANUARY 16, 2014 jg