Delhi High Court
Suresh Kumar Rana vs Smt. Tanuja Khatoon & Ors. on 16 August, 2017
$~R-115
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 16th August, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL No.510/2009 & CM Nos. 14676/2009,
14678/2009
SURESH KUMAR RANA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Praveen Kapoor, Adv.
versus
SMT. TANUJA KHATOON & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv. for
United India Insurance co.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. On 19.09.2000, a motor vehicular accident took place at about
11.30 p.m. in the area of Panchsheel Park, New Delhi involving
negligent driving of car no. HR 55T 5319 (the car), admittedly owned
by the appellant, it being insured against third party risk with the fifth
respondent herein (insurer). Two persons suffered injuries in the said
accident, they being Mohd. Mufees and Tabrez, the former (Mohd.
Mufees) dying in the consequence. Accident claim cases including
one on account of death of Mohd. Mufees (suit no. 1250/2004), came
to be instituted also impleading Naresh Kumar (fourth respondent), the
driver engaged by the appellant as one of the parties. The cases were
contested and common inquiry was held and, by judgment dated
29.05.2009, compensation in each case was awarded, the amount
directed to be paid to Tabrez being only Rs. 5,000/-. The insurance
company had taken the plea that the driving licence, copy whereof had
been presented and relied upon by the appellant, was not valid or
effective, its investigation having shown it to be not genuine. This
plea was accepted, inter alia, on the basis of evidence of H.L. Sharma
(R3W1), examined by the insurer, it being based on report
(Ex.R3W1/1) of Transport Authority, Karnal. The evidence of the
appellant, he having appeared as his own witness to the contrary was
rejected. Thus, the liability was fastened against the appellant and his
driver. Though the insurance company was directed to pay the
amounts of compensation awarded to the claimants, it was granted
recovery rights.
2. By the appeal at hand, restricted to the case of compensation on
account of death of Mohd. Mufees, challenge is brought to the grant of
recovery rights, reliance being placed on National Insurance Company
V. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297.
3. The tribunal has given sound reasons for rejecting the
contention of the appellant with regard to exercise of due diligence.
He had referred to verification of the driving license through his
nephew Krishan Kumar, who was not examined. There is no report
taken from the Transport Authority, Karnal to counter the version
presented by the insurer through the testimony of R3W1. The report
(Ex.R3W1/1) bears the endorsement by the Transport Authority,
Karnal that the driving licence was not genuine, no such licence
having been issued by the said authority. There is nothing on record
from which the correctness of the said report could be doubted.
4. In above facts and circumstances, the appeal is devoid of
substance and it with pending applications is dismissed.
5. The statutory deposit made by the appellant would be released
in favour of the insurer to partly satisfy its claim under the recovery
rights.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 16, 2017
nk
