$~21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 06^th December, 2024 + MAC.APP. 113/2021& CM APPL. 7966/2021 & 42931/2021 INDRAPRASTHA LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED.....Appellant Through: Mr. Gurjot Singh, Mr. Rishi Sood and Mr. Tushar, Advocates.

versus NAVEEN KUMAR & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sankar N.Sinha, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. The Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed on behalf of the Appellant/owner of the offending vehicle to challenge the Recovery Rights granted against him in favour of the Insurance Company, vide Award dated 18.11.2020.

2. The main ground of challenge is that the Recovery Rights have been granted only because the driver was found drunk. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the vehicle had been handed over to the driver,at about 6 a.m. while the accident took place at 10.50 AM. The owner cannot be held vicariously responsible for the individual dereliction of the driver. Thus, the Recovery Rights have been wrongly granted.

3. Reliance has been placed on the cases of Bajaj Alliance General vs. Smt. Manju Devi and Ors, in MAC. MA No.2332 of 2011 decided on 02.04.2014, wherein the Andhra Pradesh High Court had refused to grant the Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:VIKAS MAC.APP. 113/2021 Page 1 of 5 Recovery Rights to the Insurance Company in the similar circumstances. Reliance is also placed on National Insurance Company vs. Smt. Sanpati and Ors, in FAO No. 112 of 2007 decided on 10.05.2010 by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, wherein the Insurance Company was held to entirely liable in view of the fact that the contents of the report does not establish a safe handling of samples, the safekeeping and sealing, dispatching etc. It was in these circumstances that the Insurance Company was not absolved of its liability on the ground that the driver was drunk.

4. Learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company has contended that there was 162 mg/100 ml of alcohol found present in the blood of the driver. The fact that the intoxication was a major contributor to the accident, is evident from the fact that the driver caused the accident by hitting two vehicles and thereafter, the pole and then it was stopped because of a wall. Had there been no wall, much more injury/damage would have been caused by the driver of the vehicle. The circumstances itself speaks of the level of intoxication which was the major factor in causing the accident.

5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has placed reliance on New India Assurance Co vs. Parvinder Kaur Chawla, 2016 SCC Online 3444, wherein the alcohol content in the blood was found to be 141 mg/100 ml which was beyond the permissible limit of 30 mg/100 ml. It was observed that the driver by driving the vehicle under intoxication not only endangered his own life but also of the people commuting on the road.

6. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly granted Recovery Rights to the Insurance Company. The Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

7. Submissions Heard

8. Briefly stated, on 01.07.2018 at about 10.50 a.m., the Petitioner was Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:VIKAS MAC.APP. 113/2021 Page 2 of 5 going from his home to office on his motorcycle bearing No.DL-10SH-1782, when suddenly a Cluster Bus bearing No.DL-1PC-5043 which was being driven by its driver Sh. Dharampal, Respondent No.1, came at a high speed from the side of DPS Mathura Road and hit him with great force because of which he fell and suffered injuries. The driver of the offending vehicle after hitting his motorcycle, hit the parking wall of Humayun Tomb. The injured was taken to Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi where he was given treatment. FIR No.174/18 under Section 279/338 IPC and 185 Motor Vehicles Act was registered against the driver.

9. The Appellant/Owner examined the Driver/Dharampal as R1W1 in his examination-in-chief deposed that at