Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. ... vs Raj Kumar & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 7279 Del

$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                            Date of Decision: 06th December, 2016

+    MAC.APP. 755/2012 and C.M.Appl.33847/2016

IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD..... Appellant
                  Through: Mr.   Shoumik     Mazumdar,
                           Advocate

                         versus

RAJ KUMAR & ORS                                  ..... Respondents
                         Through:    Ms. Sunita Saxena and Mr.
                                     Santosh Chaurasia, Advocates
                                     for respondent No.1

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

                       JUDGMENT (ORAL)

1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.2,05,285/- has been awarded to respondent No.1.

2. The accident dated 09th December, 2007 resulted in fracture of right thigh and knee [fracture of right acetablulum, fracture on both bones right leg distal (end) and also the fracture of acetabulum with pilon] of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 suffered 19% disability in relation to his right lower limb due to the accident. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.10,880/- towards medical expenditure, Rs.25,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance and special diet, Rs.23,640/- towards loss of income,

Rs.1,25,765/- towards loss of earning capacity and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of enjoyment of life. The total compensation awarded is Rs.2,05,285/-.

3. The compensation awarded to respondent No.1 is just, fair and reasonable and does not warrant any interference. The compensation awarded to respondent No.1 is upheld.

4. The appellant is seeking recovery rights against respondents No.2 and 3 on the ground that respondent No.2 was not holding any licence at the time of the accident. The Trial Court record has been perused. The appellant issued the notice Ex.R3W1/2 under Order XII Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure to respondents No.2 and 3 to produce the driving licence. However, no driving licence was produced. Respondent No.2, driver of the offending vehicle, was charge-sheeted by the police under Sections 279/337/338 IPC and Sections 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The charge sheet is on the record of the Claims Tribunal. The appellant examined its officer as RW-3, which has not been rebutted.

5. Since respondent No.2 was not holding a driving licence at the time of accident and has been charge-sheeted under Sections 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant is entitled to recovery rights against respondents No.2 and 3.

6. The appeal is allowed to the extent that the appellant is entitled to recovery rights in respect of the award amount against respondents No.2 and 3.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that UCO Bank has not disbursed the award amount in terms of the order dated 05th

October, 2016. UCO Bank is again directed to comply with the order dated 05th October, 2016 within 10 days from today.

8. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to counsels for the parties.

9. Copy of this judgment along with the order dated 05th October, 2016 be sent to UCO Bank for compliance.

DECEMBER 06, 2016                                      J.R. MIDHA, J.
rsk