Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Ashok Kumar Chaudhary - Appellant
Versus
Anita Khurana - Respondent
MAC.APP. 286 of 2020 & CM Appl. 34999 of 2020 and MAC.APP. 3 of 2021 & CM Appl. 119 of 2021
Decided On : 22-02-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. recovery rights held maintainable against appellant. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding validity of driving license. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court sets aside previous findings on license validity. (Para 7) |
| 4. appeals allowed; order and refunds issued. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Appellant impugns order dated 04.03.2020 whereby recovery rights have been held to be maintainable against the appellant.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the rationale given in the impugned order is that the appellant has failed to plead in his written statement, that the genuineness of the driving license was verified at the time of giving an employment and as such any evidence led before the Court on the said aspect could not be considered.
4. Learned counsel refers to the report dated 17.07.2013 available on the Trial Court record which has verified the genuineness of the driving license.
5. Learned counsel further submits that there is no material on record to show that the driving license was not valid and as such there was no necessity of the appellant to even plead the same.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company under instructions concedes that the driving licence had been duly verified and submits that he has no objection to the modification of the impugned award to the limited extent that it grants recovery rights to the insurance company against the petitioner.
7. In view of the above, the impugned award dated 04.03.2020, to the limited extent that it holds that the owner of the vehicle has failed to prove that the driver was having a valid and effective licence, is set aside. Consequently the recovery rights granted to the insurance company are also set aside.
8. The appeals are accordingly allowed in the above terms.
9. The amounts deposited by the appellant pursuant to order dated 07.05.2018 in MAC. APP. 948/2017 be refunded to the appellants by the tribunal. In case said amounts have been disbursed to the claimants or paid to the insurance company by the Tribunal, the respondent insurance company shall restitute the amount to the appellants.
10. Further, the statutory deposit made by the appellant at the time of filing these appeals be also refunded to the appellant by the Registry.
11. Copy of the order be uploaded on the High Court website and be also forwarded to learned counsels through email by the Court Master.
The court ruled recovery rights were improperly assigned based on unproven assertions regarding the driver's license, concluding it was indeed valid.
Point of law: Appellant has failed to plead in his written statement, that the genuineness of the driving license was verified at the time of giving an employment and as such any evidence led before ....
Appellant has failed to plead in his written statement, that the genuineness of the driving license was verified at the time of giving an employment and as such any evidence led before the Court on t....
The validity of the driving license and the failure to produce it were central to the court's decision in setting aside the grant of recovery rights to the insurance company and holding the appellant....
The court ruled that a valid driving license existed despite non-production at trial, yet affirmed the obligation to produce it, imposing costs for non-compliance.
The court established that discrepancies surrounding the driver's license necessitate further evidence, warranting a remit to the tribunal regarding recovery rights.
The court allowed a remit for further evidence on recovery rights due to conflicting evidence about the validity of the driver's license and emphasized procedural fairness.
The validity of the driving license and the need for remittance for leading additional evidence were central to the court's decision.
The court considered the evidence presented regarding the validity of the driving license and the grant of recovery rights, and allowed the appeal to the limited extent based on the discrepancies and....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
