Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Santosh Kumari & Ors. on 27 January, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 27th January, 2014
+ MAC.APP. 343/2010
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary,
Adv.
Versus
SANTOSH KUMARI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Amit Kumar Pandey,
Adv. for respondent nos. 8(i) to 8(iii).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated
01.02.2010, whereby ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation for a sum of
Rs.8,87,710/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the
petition till realization of the amount.
2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued the
present appeal on the ground that the driver and owner of the offending
vehicle failed to produce the driving licence. The police had also filed a
Criminal case under Section 279/304A IPC read with Section 3/181 of
Motor Vehicles Act. Despite that ld. Tribunal has neither exonerated the
appellant from the liability nor granted recovery rights in its favour.
3. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the owner of the offending vehicle
died during the pendency of the Claim Petition, however, his son respondent
no. 2 Sh. Bhurey Singh deposed that his father was the owner of the Tractor.
Deceased Shreepal was not employed on the said Tractor, but had come
from the village on that day. Respondent no. 7 had joined only on the date
of accident as driver of Tractor.
4. Ld. Counsel further submits that though the driving licence of the
driver of the offending vehicle has been placed on record, however, the
police after investigation had filed a charge sheet under Section 3/181 of
Motor Vehicles Act along with other offences punishable under Indian Penal
Code. Thus, it proves that there was no valid driving licence on record.
5. I note, ld. Tribunal in Para 42 of the award has recorded that Accident
Information Report filed in Form-54 reveals that in column no. 7, the
particulars of driving licence of respondent no. 7 were given and copy of the
same was also placed on record.
6. It is an admitted fact that insurance company has not led any evidence
nor crossed-examined PW2 Sh. Bhurey Singh, son of the owner of the
offending vehicle on the aspect that the driver of the offending vehicle was
not holding a valid driving licence on the date of accident. Even the
investigator of the insurance company had not investigated whether the
driver of the offending vehicle was having the valid driving licence on the
date of the accident. Moreover, despite opportunities, the appellant failed to
verify the driving licence.
7. Keeping in view the facts of the case, I am of the considered opinion
that ld. Tribunal has rightly not exonerated the appellant from the liability
nor granted any recovery right in favour of the appellant.
8. In view of above, I find no merit in the instant appeal, same is
accordingly dismissed.
9. Statutory amount be released in favour of the appellant.
SURESH KAIT, J.
JANUARY 27, 2014
jg
