Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1161 (DEL)

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shri Nand Lal

2014-04-03

SURESH KAIT

body2014
JUDGMENT : Suresh Kait, J.:-- (Oral) 1. The present appeal is preferred against the impugned award dated 19.02.2011, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for an amount of Rs.75,900/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization of the amount. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was fake, which has been proved by RW2 and R3W1, despite, the learned Tribunal has not granted recovery rights in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company and against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, i.e., owner and driver of the offending vehicle respectively. 3. I note, in para 12, captioned as ‘liability’ of the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has recorded that report of the Investigator of Insurance Company in regard to driving licence of respondent No.2 being not entered in the record alongwith report filed by the Licensing Authority, Matura, wherein it is stated that details of fee in records for issuance of licence to respondent No.2 (before the Tribunal) had not been found, therefore, his licence was stated to have not been issued from their department. 4. In view of the above facts, the learned Tribunal observed that the report was vague and did not disclose whether details of licence of respondent No.2 (before the Tribunal) were available or not in their record. Mere reporting that fee was not traceable, therefore, the licence was not issued, could not substantiate the proof of fake licence. It is further recorded that the appellant/Insurance Company did not examine any witness from the concerned Licensing Authority in this regard. 5. As stated by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company that the appellant company had filed the application before the learned Tribunal to examine the official from the RTO concerned and pursuant thereto the learned Tribunal issued the summons against the said witness, however, he did not appear. 6. If this assertion of the appellant/Insurance Company is believed, then why no steps have been taken further by the appellant company to get the Non-Bailable Warrants issued against the official of the concerned RTO. 6. If this assertion of the appellant/Insurance Company is believed, then why no steps have been taken further by the appellant company to get the Non-Bailable Warrants issued against the official of the concerned RTO. Moreover, during the pendency of the appeal, no efforts have been made by the appellant/Insurance Company to examine any witness from the concerned Licensing Authority to prove that the driving licence on record was fake. 7. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the instant appeal. The same is dismissed accordingly. 8. Consequently, the Registry of this Court is directed to release the statutory amount in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company.