Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Raj Bala & Ors. on 6 March, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 6th March, 2014
+ MAC.APP. 450/2004
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv.
versus
RAJ BALA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Ms. Punya Rekha Angara,
Adv. / Amicus Curiae for R7 and R8.
Mr. Manoj R. Sinha, Adv. for R9.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned award
dated 07.08.2004, whereby Ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation for an
amount of Rs. 15,45,824/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of
filing of the petition till realization of the amount.
2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argued the present
appeal on the sole ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not
having valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Despite, the Ld.
Tribunal has not granted recovery rights in favour of the appellant.
3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that it was
not the duty of the appellant to produce and prove the driving licence.
However, it was the duty of the claimants to prove the same. Moreover, the
investigating officer did not seize any driving licence, therefore, there was
no occasion before the appellant to prove the same.
4. Moreover, R1W1 Sh. Rajesh Kumar, an official from Office of MLO,
Jind, Haryana categorically stated in his cross-examination that copy of the
driving licence of Sh. Joginder Singh was not supplied to him for
verification. Further stated that no seizure memo of the driving licence of
respondent no. 8 was prepared by the police during the investigation of the
criminal case registered with regard to the accident in question.
5. On perusal of the record, the driving licence of respondent no. 8, i.e.,
Joginder Singh is on record as Ex.RX, in which the front page of the driving
licence in photocopy was not legible and digits of the driving licence
number were written in such a manner that the same can be read as "364"
and also as "384". After the words "RTA" remaining writing with regard to
the driving licence number is not legible. The back side of the driving
licence in the said photocopy Ex.RX mentioned that the old number of the
said driving licence was 55654 (out) 94 and date of issue of the said old
driving licence was mentioned as 25.10.1994. The last page of the driving
licence in the said photocopy shows the renewal of old driving licence
number 55654 issued on 25.10.1994 and the said driving licence was
registered with the said authority.
6. Moreover, neither any notice were served to respondent nos. 7 & 8 to
produce the original insurance policy and driving licence of the driver
Joginder Singh nor the driving licence on record was confronted with the
driver Sh. Joginder Singh nor any efforts were made by the appellant to
produce him in the witness box.
7. Order sheets reveal that respondent no. 7, i.e., the owner of the
offending vehicle has not been served despite repeated opportunities granted
to the appellant.
8. The appeal qua respondent nos. 1 to 6 / claimants have already been
dismissed vide order dated 11.11.2009 passed by this court.
9. Moreover, the appellant has not verified the driving licence of
Sh. Joginder Singh / respondent no. 8, which was sent for verification.
10. In view of above, I do not find any merit in the instant appeal. Same
is accordingly dismissed for non-prosecution and merit as well.
CM. No. 13387/2004
With the dismissal of the instant appeal, instant application has
become infructuous and disposed of as such.
SURESH KAIT, J
MARCH 06, 2014
jg
