Delhi Transport Corporation & ... vs Smt Kusum Kumari & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 2553 Del

$~7
*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                               Date of decision: 25th March, 2015
+        MAC.APP. 41/2012
         DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR..... Appellant
                             Through:     Mr. J.N. Aggarwal, Adv.


                             versus


         SMT KUSUM KUMARI & ORS                               ..... Respondents
                             Through:     Mr. J.P.N. Shahi,Adv. for R-5.


         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. By virtue of this appeal, the Appellant Delhi Transport Corporation

(DTC) impugns the judgment dated 11.08.2011 passed by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) to the extent it

granted recovery rights against it.

2. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that DTC after

examining the driving licence and before issuing an appointment letter

imparts training to the drivers. If they (the drivers) are successful in

the training only then the driver is employed.

3. It is also contended that DTC being a Public Sector Undertaking will

never appoint a driver who is not competent to drive the motor

vehicle, drive a bus or who does not possess a valid driving licence.

4. Referring to the Affidavit Ex.R3W1/1 of Shri Bhagwan, Assistant

from National Insurance Company Limited, the learned counsel states

that neither Satish Chand Sagar who allegedly visited the office of

RTO, Firozabad nor any witness from RTO, Firozabad has proved that

the driving licence No.4543/FZD/01 issued to the driver Ram Naresh

Yadav son of Lila Dhar was fake.

5. No evidence was produced by the Appellant DTC to prove that the

driving licence was perused by their officer/its agent. The same was

accepted to be genuine. No evidence was produced with regard to

alleged training or driving test.

6. In view of this, it cannot be said that DTC had given any training or

taken any test of the driver before employing him. At the same time,

evidence of Shri Bhagwan, Assistant from National Insurance

Company Limited with regard to driving licence in question is only

secondary evidence.

7. Admittedly, neither any witness was produced from the concerned

Licensing Authority (RTO) nor even the investigator who had given a

report Ex.R3W1/3 was produce. The Claims Tribunal in the absence

of the primary evidence could not have relied upon the report

Ex.R3W1/3.

8. In view of this, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that

Respondent no.5 Insurance Company failed to prove that the driving

licence No.4543/FZD/01 held by driver Ram Naresh Yadav was fake.

The impugned award to the extent it grants recovery rights against the

Appellant, therefore, cannot be sustained; the same is accordingly set

aside.

9. The appeal is allowed in above terms.

10. The award amount deposited by the Appellant DTC shall be refunded.

11. The statutory amount, if any, shall also be refunded to the Appellant

DTC.

12. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE MARCH 25, 2015 vk