SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Del) 947

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
J.R. MIDHA, J.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Pyare Lal and Others - Respondent
M.A.C. Appeal No. 56 of 2006
Decided On : 10-02-2010

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : S.L. Gupta.
For the Respondent: Ram Ashray.

The admission of the driver of the offending vehicle regarding not holding a driving licence influenced the court's decision to grant recovery rights to the appellant against the registered owner and the purchaser of the vehicle.

Headnote:

Driving Licence - Recovery Rights - The court granted recovery rights to the appellant, the insurer of the offending vehicle, against the registered owner and the purchaser of the vehicle due to the driver's admission of not holding a driving licence.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant challenged the award of compensation to claimants-respondent Nos. 6 and 7, as the insurer of the offending vehicle held liable to pay the compensation.

Finding of the Court:

The court allowed the appeal, modified the impugned award, and granted recovery rights to the appellant against respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Issues: The issue revolved around the entitlement of the appellant to recovery rights against the registered owner and the purchaser of the offending vehicle.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the admission of respondent No. 5, the driver of the offending vehicle, that he was never holding any licence to drive any vehicle.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned award was modified to grant recovery rights to the appellant against respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

JUDGMENT :

J.R. MIDHA, J.

1. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs. 2,52,000/- has been awarded to claimants-respondent Nos. 6 and 7. The appellant is the insurer of the offending vehicle and has been held liable to pay the compensation.

2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the offending vehicle was driven by respondent No. 5 at the time of the accident and respondent No. 5 was not holding any driving licence at the time of the accident and, therefore, the appellant is entitled to recovery rights against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

3. Respondent No. 5 is the driver of the offending vehicle and he appeared in the witness-box before the Claims Tribunal as R4W3 and admitted that he was never holding any licence to drive any vehicle. R4W3 further admitted that even at the time of appearing before the Claims Tribunal in the witness-box, he was not holding any licence to drive any vehicle. In view of the aforesaid admission of respondent No. 5, the appellant is entitled to recovery rights against respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 1 is the registered owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No. 2 is the purchaser of the said vehicle and the appellant is entitled to recovery rights against both of them.

4. The appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent that appellant is granted recovery rights to recover the award amount from respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

5. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant along with this appeal be refunded back to the appellant through counsel within four weeks.


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top