CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Manjit Singh vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others

Delhi High Court · Decided on 9 December 2011 · Citation: (2011) 12 DEL CK 0107

HON’BLE JUDGES
J.R. Midha, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
MAC. APP. No. 661 of 2007
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 374 words

J.R. Midha

1.

The appellant is the owner of the offending vehicle bearing No. HR-38-C-5964 which met with an accident on 26th December, 1998 resulting in the death of Sahi Ram. The legal heirs of the deceased filed the claim petition against the driver, owner and Insurance Company of the offending vehicle.

2.

Vide award dated 28th January, 2006, the Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum to the legal representatives of the deceased. The Tribunal directed respondent No. 1 to pay the award amount to the claimants and thereafter recover the same from the appellant. The recovery rights were given to respondent No. 1 on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident.

3.

Respondent No. 1 has recovered the award amount from the appellant after making the payment to the claimants in terms of the award.

4.

During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant filed an affidavit dated 29th November, 2007 stating that there was another valid driving licence in favour of respondent No. 2. The appellant filed the Driving Licence of respondent No. 2, Visual Inspection Report and Driving Licence Verification Report along with the said affidavit.

5.

Vide order dated 22nd January, 2009, respondent No. 1 was directed to verify the correctness and genuineness of the licence and the documents filed by the appellant.

6.

The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that the driving licence of respondent No. 2 produced by the appellant has been verified to be genuine. The original verification report has been placed on record by respondent No. 1 which is taken on record.

7.

In view of the valid driving licence held by respondent No. 2 at the time of the accident, the appeal is allowed to the extent that the recovery rights granted by the learned Tribunal to respondent No. 1 to recover the award amount from the appellant are set aside. Consequently, respondent No. 1 is directed to refund back the recovered amount to the appellant along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the payment of the amount.

8.

The LCR be sent back forthwith.