Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Krishna Devi & Ors on 6 February, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: February 06, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 308/2008 & C.M.7025/2008
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Nanita Sharma, Advocate
versus
KRISHNA DEVI & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Impugned Award of 29th January, 2008 grants compensation of `3
lacs each to respondents-claimants on account of death of one Angrej
Singh in a road accident on 5th November, 2002. The factual background
of this case already stands noted in the impugned Award and so, it needs
no reproduction. Suffice to note that there is no challenge to the quantum
of compensation awarded, but the challenge is restricted to obtaining of
recovery rights qua respondent No.6. It is so evident from the order of
27th April, 2009. Apart from the evidence of claimant and other
witnesses, there is evidence of RW-1-Sanjeev Kumar, Dealing Assistant
from the concerned Transport Authority, which requires consideration in
this appeal. On the basis of the evidence recorded, learned Tribunal has
rendered the impugned Award.
The challenge to impugned Award by learned counsel for appellant
is on the ground that recovery rights ought to have been granted to
appellant-insurer as the driving licence of driver of the vehicle in question
had expired on 24th October, 2002 and so, on the date of the accident i.e.
5th November, 2002, the driver of the vehicle in question was not holding
a valid driving licence. To submit so, learned counsel for appellant has
drawn the attention of this Court to evidence of RW-1 from the concerned
Transport Authority. It is contended by learned counsel for appellant that
learned Tribunal has erred in taking into consideration the photocopy of
Receipt (Mark-A) indicating that driver of vehicle in question was under
training from 23rd October, 2002 till 12th November, 2002. Thus, it is
submitted that recovery rights deserve to be granted qua owner and driver
of the vehicle in question. Nothing else is urged on behalf of appellant.
There is no representation on behalf of respondents. As per order of
22nd September, 2008, none had appeared on behalf of owner and driver
of the vehicle in question. They were ex parte even before learned
Tribunal.
With the assistance of learned counsel for appellant, impugned
Award and the evidence on record have been perused and thereupon, I
find that though on date of the accident, driving licence of driver of the
vehicle in question was not renewed, but it has not been elicited from
RW-1 from concerned Transport Authority, as to when the application for
renewal of driving licence was made. This is crucial for the reason that if
a person upon expiry of driving licence has made an application for its
renewal in time, then it cannot be taken that the said person was driving
the vehicle in question without licence.
In the instant case, it is evident from the Receipt/Certificate (Mark-
A) that the driver of vehicle in question was under training with
Automobile Association Upper India from 23rd October, 2002 till 12th
November, 2002. In the absence of evidence as to when renewal of
driving licence was sought, grant of recovery rights qua owner and driver
of the vehicle in question is unwarranted.
In view of aforesaid, this appeal and the application are
accordingly dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 06, 2017
s
