Delhi High Court
National Insurance Company ... vs Dhan Laxmi And Others on 1 October, 2021
$~28
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 01.10.2021
+ MAC.APP. 268/2021
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ..... Appellant
versus
DHAN LAXMI AND OTHERS ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Ranjan Sinha, Advocate.
For the Respondent : None
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CM. APPL. 34626/2021 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
MAC.APP. 268/2021 & CM. APPLS. 34625/2021 , 34627/2021,
34628/2021
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Appellant impugns award dated 10.10.2019 whereby, the
Detailed Accident Report (DAR) has been disposed of and
compensation awarded.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
MAC.APP. 268/2021 Page 1
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:01.10.2021
Signing Date:02.10.2021 13:59:22 23:55
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
impugns the award on two grounds; (i) that the Tribunal has erred in
taking the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs. 33,313/- whereas, as
per the salary slip, monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.30,963/-;
(ii) that the Tribunal has erred in not granting recovery rights to the
appellant, for the reasons that the driver of the offending vehicle was
not holding a valid driving license. Learned counsel submits that the
driving licence held by the driver was for LMV+LTV (PE) and the
offending vehicle was a Truck i.e. a Heavy Goods Vehicle.
4. The Tribunal's record has already been received and appended
to the petition.
5. Perusal of the record shows that the deceased was employed as
ACP Nayak with the Indian Army and the legal heirs of the deceased
had produced one Mr. S.K. Singh, Clerk, who had brought the records
pertaining to the salary of the deceased.
6. The Clerk had deposed that the deceased had joint services on
26.04.1996 as an ACP Nayak and for the month of March, 2012, his
last gross salary came to Rs.33,313/-. The salary certificate was
exhibited as Ex.PW-1/1.
7. Ex.PW-1/1 shows the last drawn salary of the deceased as
Rs.33,313/-. It is observed from the cross-examination of the said
witness that there is no cross-examination on the aspect of the salary
not being Rs. 33,313/- as mentioned by the said salary certificate.
MAC.APP. 268/2021 Page 2
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:01.10.2021
Signing Date:02.10.2021 13:59:22 23:55
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
Said certificate Ex.PW-1/1 has been issued by a Lieutenant Colonel,
who is the adjutant for the Commanding Officer. There is no material
produced before the Tribunal to contradict the same.
8. Accordingly, I find no merit in the submission of learned
counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has erred in taking the
monthly salary as Rs.33,313/-.
9. Insofar as the second ground taken by the appellant; that the
Tribunal has erred in not granting recovery rights to the appellant as
the driver was not holding a valid driving license is concerned, it is
noticed that the Tribunal has considered the said aspect and held that
the driver of the offending vehicle was in fact holding a valid driving
license and was competent to drive the category of vehicle.
10. The Tribunal noticed that the registration certificate of the
offending vehicle had shown the unladen weight of the vehicle as
5810 Kg. and accordingly held that it did not fall in the category of a
Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV), but was covered in the category of
LMV.
11. The driver was holding a driving license for the category of
LMV+LTV (PE). Tribunal has applied the ration of the judgment of
the Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd., (2017) 14 SCC 663 wherein it is held that the holder of
a driving license to drive class of "Light Motor Vehicles" is
MAC.APP. 268/2021 Page 3
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:01.10.2021
Signing Date:02.10.2021 13:59:22 23:55
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
competent to drive a vehicle the gross weight of which does not
exceed 7500 Kg.
12. In the instant case, the unladen weight of the vehicle was 5810
Kg., which is below 7500 Kg.
13. Accordingly, there is no infirmity in the finding of the Tribunal
that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving
license.
14. Even this Court by judgment dated 12.08.2021 in MAC. APP.
233/2021 titled Mahesh Kumar Maurya & Anr. Vs. HDFC Ergo GIC
Ltd. & Anr., following Mukund Dewangan (surpa) has taken a similar
view.
15. Accordingly, I find no merit in the appeal. The Appeal is
dismissed.
16. Since this Court has examined the appeal on merits and found
no ground to interfere with the impugned award, the application for
condonation of delay is also disposed of.
17. Copy of the Order be uploaded on the High Court website and
be also forwarded to learned counsels through email.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
OCTOBER 01, 2021/NA
MAC.APP. 268/2021 Page 4
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:01.10.2021
Signing Date:02.10.2021 13:59:22 23:55
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
