$~49 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 08.10.2025 + MAC.APP. 445/2025, CM APPL. 42734/2025 [stay ARUN KUMARAN B & ANR. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, Mr.

Sugam Kumar Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, SC with Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha & Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Advocates and Ms. Saksha Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, SC with Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha & Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Advocates, Mr. K.P. Sreedas and Mr. Raghav Tondan and Mr. Tribhuvan, Advs.

versus URMILA PAL & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Adv. for R-6.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral)

1. The present Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as “MV Act”] impugning the award dated 19.04.2025 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, MACT, Patiala House Courts, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Award”]. By the Impugned Award, the compensation amount in the sum of Rs. 55,35,902/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum has been awarded by the learned Tribunal.

2. The Appeal has been filed by the driver and owner [the Appellants] of the vehicle in issue. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the challenge in the present Appeal is not to the grant of compensation or the compensation awarded, but to the award of recovery rights against the Driver and Owner.

2.1 None appears for the Respondent/Claimants despite service. However and since there is no challenge to the quantum, the presence of the Respondent/Claimants is not requisite to decide this Appeal.

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellants further submits that the challenge in the present Appeal is on one ground. He submits that recovery rights have been granted against the Appellants by the learned Trial Court even though the Appellant No.1/son had a legal and valid driving license. He submits that the date of birth of Appellant No. 1 as stated in his driving license is 28.03.1996 which makes him a major of 23 years of age, as on the date of the accident which is 18.06.2019.

4. This Court had after briefly hearing the parties on 19.08.2025, passed the following order:-

“1. Learned Counsel for the parties reiterates that since the quantum has not been challenge by either party, the service to Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 can be dispensed with. It is so directed.

2. Learned Counsel for the parties request for some time to comply with paragraph 10 of the order dated 21.07.2025. Let the needful be done three days before the next date of hearing.”

5. The learned Counsel for the Appellant seeks to rely upon the Detailed Accident Report [DAR] which has been filed along with the Appeal Paper Book as well as the Diving License of the Appellant No. 1 to submit that Appellant No. 1 was 23 years as on date and not a minor. It is submitted that since Appellant No. 1 had a valid Driving License, recovery rights could not be granted by the learned Tribunal, since there was no breach of the Insurance policy. The learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 fairly concedes that Respondent No. 1 has also subsequently undertaken an inquiry with the Road Transport Authorities and found that the Appellant No. 1 did have a valid Driving License.

6. The Impugned Award, however, in paragraph 47 has, while discussing the liability has given a finding that Appellant No. 1, who was the son of Appellant No. 2, did not have a valid Driving License and despite which he was permitted to drive and, hence, granted recovery rights. The relevant extract of the Impugned Award is set out below:-

“47. R1/driver of the offending vehicle was son of the registered owner/R-2. Thus, R-2 was well aware that his son, being a minor, was not entitled to drive a vehicle like Mahindra Xylo. Yet he permitted R-1 to driver it. As shown by the chargesheet, R-1 drove the vehicle rashly and negligently causing the accident which resulted in death of the injured. Such circumstances call for grant of recovery rights to Insurance Company/R-3 against R-2