Delhi High Court
Surinder Singh vs Raja Ram & Ors. on 18 May, 2016
$~R-98
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision:18th May, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 694/2007
SURINDER SINGH ..... Appellant
Through None
versus
RAJA RAM & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through Ms.Santhana Devi Raman with Mr.
Arbaaz Hussain, Advs. for Insurance
company for R-1 to 3
Mr.Ramesh Kumar, Adv. for R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. By judgment dated 31.07.2007, the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal
(the Tribunal) decided two accident claim cases, one (Suit No. 117/2003)
instituted by the first and second respondent on account of death of Seema
and, the other (Suit No. 116/2003), instituted by third respondent for injuries
suffered by her, both in a motor vehicular accident that had occurred on
08.11.2001 statedly involving a truck bearing registration No. DL-1GA-
9236 (the offending vehicle), which was admittedly registered in the name
of the appellant, he having been impleaded as one of the respondents in
addition to the insurance company (fourth respondent), it concededly having
issued an insurance policy against third party risk for the period in question
in its respect. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents including
the appellant, he contending that the vehicle was not involved while the
insurance company took the plea that there was a breach of terms and
conditions of the insurance policy as the driver was not holding a valid or
effective driving licence.
2. The Tribunal, by a common judgment passed on 31.07.2007, upheld
the case of the claimants about injuries having been caused to the
aforementioned persons due to negligent driving of the offending vehicle
with one of them (Seema) having died in the consequence. The Tribunal
awarded compensation in each case and directed the insurance company to
pay. The plea of the insurance company about breach of terms and
conditions of the insurance policy was accepted for the reason it was not
proved that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid licence
and, thus, the insurer was granted recovery rights against the appellant.
3. By the appeal at hand the owner of the offending vehicle challenged
the findings to the above effect in both the cases. It is noted that when the
appeal was presented it was pressed on the ground that the claimant
(Somwati) had admitted that she had a poor eye-sight and, therefore, she
could not have noted the particulars of the vehicle which had caused the
accident. It was also pointed out that the complainant had indicated in her
testimony that the accident had been caused due to rash/negligent driving of
some unknown vehicle.
4. When the appeal is taken up no one has appeared on behalf of the
appellant to assist. This was the state of affairs even on the last date of
hearing. Thus, there is no good reason to defer the hearing yet again.
Arguments of the counsel for the respondents who appeared have been heard
and with their assistance the record had been perused.
5. It is noted that the claimants had relied upon the evidence not only of
Somwati (PW-5) but also of an eye-witness Suraj (PW-6), this in addition to
testimony of Constable Mukesh Kumar (PW-2), and certain other witnesses
whose deposition pertain to the medical examination/treatment. The
appellant had appeared as R1W1 to depose that the vehicle in question was
driven by one Jagbir and it was not on road in the area in question at the
time of accident. The Tribunal, however, found the evidence of R1W1 to be
not reliable and rightly so because he would not say that he was with the
vehicle or the driver named Jagbir at the relevant point of time so as to be in
a position of proving its non-involvement in the accident which was the
subject matter of the two cases. The evidence of Somwati (PW-5) may be
not very helpful in that in the FIR proved by Constable Mukesh Kumar PW-
2, she had not given the particulars of the vehicle which had caused the
accident. But then, the evidence of Suraj (PW-6) deserves to be believed
since he happened to be at the scene where the occurrence took place. On
the principle of preponderance of the probabilities, the conclusions reached
by the Tribunal with regard to the involvement of the offending vehicle and
negligence on the part of its driver thus cannot be questioned.
6. In the above facts and circumstances, the appeal is found to be
meritless and deserves to be dismissed. The insurer (the fourth respondent)
has deposited the entire awarded amount with up-to-date interest with UCO
bank, Delhi High Court Branch in terms of the order dated 26.02.2010. The
said amount shall now be released to the claimants in terms of the impugned
award. The insurer is at liberty to enforce the recovery rights granted to it.
7. Statutory deposit, if any, shall be released to the insurer as part
satisfaction of its recovery rights.
8. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MAY 18, 2016
mr
