South Eastern Careers P.Ltd. vs Som Nath & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 6010 Del

$~A-50
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                             Date of decision:20.11.2014
+     MAC.APP. 966/2005
      SOUTH EASTERN CAREERS P.LTD.       ..... Appellant
                     Through Ms.Iti Sharma, Advocate for
                             Mr.P.H.Parekh, Advocate
              versus
      SOM NATH & ORS.                    ..... Respondent
                     Through Ms.Manjusha Wadhwa and Ms.Arpan
                             Wadhawan, Advocates for
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

JAYANT NATH, J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant seeking to impugn the Award dated 18.3.2005. The brief facts which led to filing of the claim petition and the subsequent appeal are that the claimant Som Nath met with a motor accident on 26.05.1997 at GT Karnal Road , Adarsh Nagar, Delhi. He was driving a TSR when he was hit by a truck said to be driven in a rash and reckless manner. The claimant/respondent No.1 received grievous injuries and has undergone prolonged treatment. Hence, the claim petition was filed.

2. Based on the evidence on record the Tribunal concluded that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2 the driver of the offending vehicle.

3. On compensation the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,10,435/- to respondent No.1. On account of liability the Tribunal noted that on enquiries it was found that no driving license had been issued in the

name of respondent No.2 the driver. The Tribunal further noted that notice under order 12 Rule 8 CPC was served on respondent No.3/South Eastern Roadways Ltd. which fact is also confirmed by Mr.O.P.Parikh, an Executive from respondent No.3 who had appeared as R3W3 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had summoned the said witness for respondent No.4. However, despite service of notice license of respondent No.2 was not produced. The Tribunal also noted that respondent No.3 the owner of the vehicle had refused to accept service in the main case and was proceeded ex parte. Respondent No.3 did not move any application for having the ex parte order set aside or seeking any opportunity to lead evidence to produce the driving license. In view of the position the Tribunal concluded that respondent No.2 was not possessing a valid or effective license at the time of the accident and granted recovery rights to the respondent No.4/Insurance Company against the appellant. Respondent No.4 was directed to pay the compensation amount.

4. Alongwith this appeal the appellants as part of the paperbook filed a copy of the driving license of respondent No.2. Vide order dated 19.11.2013 the appellant sought time to file certified copy of the report taken regarding the driving license of respondent No.2. Liberty was granted to the appellant. On 30.1.2014 this court noted that certified copy of the driving licence bearing No.1379/C6/96 in the name of Jabbar Khan respondent No.2 the driver of the offending vehicle has been filed (presumably the license verification report). This Court directed that it be taken on record. Accordingly, this Court has already directed that the photocopy of the driving license and its verification report be taken on record.

5. On 26.5.2014 the request of learned counsel for respondent No.4 (wrongly described as respondent No.3) Insurance company was noted and respondent No.3 was directed to file a report on the license now produced by the appellant. It may however, be added that there are obvious typographical errors in the order dated 26.5.2014. Both the learned counsel appearing agree that on that date the Court recorded that respondent No.4 Insurance Company may file a verification report on the license now filed by the appellant. Thereafter respondent No.4 has filed the verification report.

6. I may first look at the verification reports which the appellant has filed. These reports are made on rubber stamps on which details of the license etc are noted and has signatures by somebody being L.A.Cum.Secy, RTA, Faridabad. The first report filed by the appellant pertains to license No.1379/C-6/96 in the name of Jabbar Khan for HMV and LMV valid from 30.9.1996 to 28.9.1999. The accident took place on 26.5.1997. Hence, as per this report on the date of the accident respondent No.2 had a valid driving license. The second report filed by the appellant pertains to the second license, validity of which is from 26.5.2000 to 25.5.2003.

7. Respondent No.4 Insurance company has filed its verification report. As far as the report which pertains to the license validity from 26.5.2000 to 25.05.2003, the report confirms that the license is valid.

8. As regards the first license which was valid on the date of the accident, the report states as follows:-

"Report regarding DL NO.1379/C-6/96 returned in original with the remarks that this office was met with fire on 11.5.2002 and the entire record of this office was burnt in fire. Register pertaining to the said driving license was recovered but damaged to fire and water. The name of

license holder is not visible in the register."

9. Hence, as per the said report the record of the office was destroyed in a fire but a register pertaining to the said license was recovered but the name of the license holder is not visible. In my opinion, this Court has already permitted the appellants to place on record the licenses. The appellant has placed on record original report from the concerned authorities in Faridabad stating that the license of respondent No.2 is valid. Respondent No.4 has not been able to place on record anything contradictory.

10. I may note that as far as the second license is concerned, even respondent No.4 confirms it is valid. It appears to be in continuation with the earlier license. The second license is valid from 26.5.2000 to 25.5.2003. This aspect would indicate that the first license report of the appellant is valid. In the light of the above evidence I hold that respondent No.2 the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid license on the date of the accident.

11. Even otherwise a perusal of the record shows that a photocopy of the license of the driver Jabbar Khan respondent No.2 was filed before the Tribunal by the claimants. Yet respondent No.4 the insurance company has not bothered to get the same verified.

12. Accordingly, the award is modified and only the respondent No.4 will be liable to pay the compensation amount. The insurance company shall not have recovery rights against the appellant.

13. Appeal is disposed of.

JAYANT NATH, J NOVEMBER 20, 2014/n