Delhi High Court
Ravi Kumar & Anr. vs Hdfc Ergo General Ins Co Ltd & Ors. on 10 December, 2021
$~11
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 10.12.2021
+ MAC.APP. 84/2021 & CM APPL. 5971-72/2021
RAVI KUMAR & ANR. ..... Appellants
versus
HDFC ERGO GENERAL INS CO LTD & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Somnath Parashar, Advocate (through VC).
For the Respondent: Mr. S.P.Jain, Advocate for R-l (through VC).
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Appellant impugns award dated 17.01.2020 whereby the
Detailed Accident Report (DAR) has been disposed of and
compensation awarded. The challenge of the appellant who was the
driver and owner of the vehicle is limited to the extent of grant of
recovery rights to respondent No.1, the insurance company. Recovery
rights have been granted to respondent No.1 solely on the ground that
the driver did not possess a valid driving license at the time of the
accident.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the driver was
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.84/2021 Digitally Signed 1
By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:10.12.2021
Signing Date:11.12.2021 07:49:40 20:53
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
holding a valid driving license but the same had been misplaced and it
was specifically mentioned in the written statement that the original
driving licence had been misplaced. However, the driving license
number as well as period of validity, which was from 08.10.2004 to
07.10.2024, for motorcycle plus LMV (NT) issued by the Rohini
Authority at Delhi was given in the written statement.
3. Learned counsel submits that there was no verification done
either by the insurance company or the IO with regard to the driving
license number.
4. An application under Order 41 Rule 27 has been filed by the
appellant seeking to place on record a report from the motor licensing
authority dated 18.12.2020 which certifies that the driving license was
issued to the driver, appellant No.2 and the date of issuance was
08.10.2004 and expiry date 07.10.2024 and the driving license was for
Light Motor Vehicle (NT) and motorcycle.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits
that the said particulars have been verified and the driving license has
been found to be genuine.
6. He, however, contends that at the relevant time appellants failed
to produce the driving license before the Court or even submit the
same to the Investigating Officer. Accordingly, the recovery rights
have been granted.
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.84/2021 Digitally Signed 2
By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:10.12.2021
Signing Date:11.12.2021 07:49:40 20:53
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
7. In view of the above, the application under Order 41 Rule 27 is
allowed. The certificate of the licensing authority is taken on record.
8. Perusal of the impugned award shows that the recovery rights
have been granted against the appellant solely on the ground that
driving license was not produced and thus the Tribunal has held that
the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving
license at the time of the accident.
9. In the written statement filed by the driver and owner, the
details of the driving license with particulars i.e. the number, period of
validity and class of vehicle is clearly stated. Same has now also been
certified by the motor licensing authority to be correct. The particulars
have already been verified by the insurance company and found to be
correct.
10. In view of the above, the impugned order, to the extent that it
holds that the driver was not holding a valid driving license, is
erroneous and liable to be set aside. The consequential order granting
recovery rights to the insurance company, on the ground that the
driver was not holding a valid driving license, also cannot be
sustained.
11. Accordingly, the impugned order to the extent that it grants
recovery rights to the insurance company is set aside. However, for
the reason that the appellant failed to produce a copy of the license or
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.84/2021 Digitally Signed 3
By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:10.12.2021
Signing Date:11.12.2021 07:49:40 20:53
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
appear in the trial, after filing of the written statement, appellant shall
be liable to compensate the insurance company towards the additional
costs incurred, which are quantified at Rs. 1 lakh. Appellant shall pay
the costs to the insurance company within four weeks from today.
12. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
DECEMBER 10, 2021
rk
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.84/2021 Digitally Signed 4
By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:10.12.2021
Signing Date:11.12.2021 07:49:40 20:53
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
