$~23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 11^th December, 2024 + MAC.APP. 324/2022, CM APPL. 45135/2022 (stay) MRS. VANDANA .....Appellant Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate.

versus

1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD .....Respondent No.1

2. Sh. OMKAR S/o Sh. Kishan Lal …..Respondent No. 2

3. Sh. SONU S/o Late Sh. Ram ….Respondent No. 3 Through: Mr. Attin Shankar Rastogi, Mr. Aman Kapoor and Mr. Adil Vasudeva, Advocates. CORAM:

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

CM APPL.45136/2022 (condonation of delay)

1. The Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’ hereinafter) has been filed on behalf of the Appellant/Owner of the offending vehicle, seeking condonation of delay of 2823 days in filing the accompanying Appeal against the impugned Award dated 28.01.2014.

Signature Not Verified MAC.APP. 324/2022 Page 1 of 7 Digitally Signed

2. It is submitted that the Award was passed on 28.01.2014, in the sum of Rs.2,82,429/- along with interest @7.5% p.a. against the Insurance Company, though recovery rights have been granted against the Appellant/owner of the offending vehicle. It is submitted that she has taken due care and caution in ensuring the validity and authenticity of the driver, at the time of his employment. She did not receive any communication from her counsel and it is only when the Notice of the Execution Petition filed on 30.09.2019 was received by her in 2021 that she came to know about the impugned Award. She appeared before the Execution proceedings and sought indulgence of the Tribunal and paid Rs.10,000/- on 21.12.2021 and Rs.20,000/- on 18.07.2022.

3. It is further submitted that after coming to know about the impugned Award in 2021, she applied for certified copies of some of the documents on 05.07.2022 and 30.08.2022. The delay of 2823 days thus, occurred in filing the present Appeal. It is submitted that the delay be condoned for the reasons explained in the Application.

4. Learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company, has opposed the Application on the ground that it is an Award of 2014. The Execution was filed in the year 2014 itself. There is no cogent explanation for the delay and the Application is liable to be rejected.

5. Submissions heard

6. The Appellant has averred that she came to know about the impugned Award of 2014 only when she received the Notice of the Execution Petition in the year 2021, which was the year, during which COVID-19 was Signature Not Verified MAC.APP. 324/2022 Page 2 of 7 Digitally Signed prevailing. Considering that the Appellant is a woman and also for the reasons stated in the Application, the delay is condoned.

7. The Application is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

MAC.APP. 324/2022

8. The Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘M.V. Act’, hereinafter) has been filed on behalf of the Appellant, against the Award dated 28.01.2014 vide which the compensation in the sum of Rs.2,82,429/- along with the interest @7.5% p.a. has been granted on account of injuries suffered by Mr. Sonu, in the road accident on

24.05.2009.

9. The sole ground of challenge to the Award is in respect of Recovery Rights granted against the Appellant. It is asserted that she had taken due care and caution and checked the driving license of the Driver at the time he was engaged. The driving license was issued on 12.01.2008 and was valid till 11.01.2011. The date of accident is 24.05.2009 at which time, the driving license was valid. Having taken all due care and caution, the recovery rights have been wrongly granted against her by the Ld. Tribunal against the Appellant.

10. Learned counsel on behalf of the Respondent/ Insurance Company, however, has referred to the testimony of the Owner, who appeared as R2W1 wherein she admitted she had asked the Driver to get his License renewed, which implies that she was aware of the date of expiry of the Driving License but failed to exe