MAC.APP. 73/2022

$~14

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment delivered on: 11^th March, 2022

+

MAC.APP. 73/2022

M/S GARG ROAD LINES & ANR.

..... Appellants

versus

M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS...... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellants:

Mr. Mayank Khurana,Advocate.

For the Respondent:

Mr. Manoj Ranjan Sinha and Mr. Aaditya,

Advocates.

CORAM:-

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

JUDGMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

CM. APPL. 12378/2022 (Exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

CM. APPL. 12379/2022 (condonation of delay)

1.

It is contended in the application that the appellants were

proceeded exparte on 18.02.2016 and since the vehicle was insured

the appellants were under the impression that the case would be

defended by the insurance company. It is further submitted that the

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000908

MAC.APP. 73/2022

counsel who was engaged did not inform them about the progress of

the case.

2.

In any event in a connected appeal being MAC. APP. 54/2022,

emanating out of the same accident, but a different tribunal, this

Court has remitted the matter for taking fresh evidence limited to the

aspect of grant of recovery rights which was granted on the sole

ground that the driving licence was fake.

3.

In that view of the matter, it would be in the interest of justice

to condone the delay and direct both the Petitions to be taken

together.

4.

Accordingly, the application is allowed.

MAC.APP. 73/2022 & CM. APPL. 12377/2022 (stay)

1.

Appellant impugns award dated 20.02.2018 to the limited

extent that it grants recovery rights to respondent No.1/insurance

company against the appellant.

2.

The impugned award has also been impugned by the insurance

company on its merits. However, since the appeal pertains only to

grant of recovery rights to the insurance company, notice is restricted

only to the insurance company

3.

With the consent of parties, the appeal is taken up for final

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000908

MAC.APP. 73/2022

disposal.

4.

Learned counsel for appellant submits that the Tribunal has

erred in holding that there was no valid driving license in favour of

the driver, who was driving the offending vehicle and that the driving

license was fake.

5.

He draws attention to para 6.1 of the impugned order where

the testimony of an officer from the Transport Authority (R3W1,

Sanjay Kumar Jha) has been referred to wherein he has deposed that

there the Driving Licence was issued in the name of one Sudhir

Kumar and not Anoop Kumar.

6.

Learned counsel for appellant relies on the website of the RTO,

wherein it is being shown that the driving license number

530/FKB/2006 is issued in the name of Anup Kumar on 22.01.2003.

7.

It is noticed from the testimony of R3W1 that he has deposed

about licence no. 530/Farrukhabad/2003 whereas the licence no. of

the driver of the offending vehicle is 530/Farrukhabad/2006. The

website even today shows that the driving license was issued on

22.01.2003 in the name of Anup Kumar.

8.

Further, learned counsel for petitioner contends that the driver

had undergone the requisite training for transporting hazardous

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000908

MAC.APP. 73/2022

goods and as such there was no specific requirement for endorsement

on the license. He relies on the judgment of a coordinate bench of

this court dt. 12.10.2017 in MAC.APP. 1043/2016, tittled“National

9.

Learned counsel further submits that the permit could not be

produced before the Tribunal. However, he has filed the same before

this Court.

10.

Learned counsel prays that the matter be remitted on the

limited extent of grant of recovery rights to enable the appellant to

lead further evidence.

11.

Contention of learned counsel for the insurance company is

that the appel