MAC.APP. Nos. 635 and connected matters

Page 1 of 11

$~8 to 21

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

+

MAC.APP. 635/2013

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

..... Appellant

versus

NATHU SINGH & ORS

...... Respondents

+

MAC.APP. 636/2013

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant

versus

PREM WATI & ORS

...... Respondents

+

MAC.APP. 637/2013

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

..... Appellant

versus

MAYA DEVI & ORS

...... Respondents

+

MAC.APP. 638/2013

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

..... Appellant

versus

KM. REKHA & ORS

...... Respondents

+

MAC.APP. 640/2013

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANE CO. LTD.

..... Appellant

versus

SANTOSH DEVI & ORS

...... Respondents

+

MAC.APP. 641/2013

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

..... Appellant

versus

VIMLA & ORS

...... Respondents

MAC.APP. Nos. 635 and connected matters

Page 2 of 11

+

MAC.APP. 642/2013

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.

..... Appellant

versus

NATHU SINGH & ORS

...... Respondents

+

MAC.APP. 643/2013

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.

..... Appellant

versus

RISHI PAL & ORS

...... Respondents

+

MAC.APP. 644/2013

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

..... Appellant

versus

SARVESH & ORS

...... Respondents

+

MAC.APP. 646/2013

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

..... Appellant

versus

SMT PREM WATI AND ORS

..... Respondents

+

MAC.APP. 647/2013

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

..... Appellant

versus

MAHEEPAL & ORS

...... Respondents

+

MAC.APP. 648/2013

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

..... Appellant

versus

ARVIND YADAV & ORS

..... Respondents

+

MAC.APP. 649/2013

MAC.APP. Nos. 635 and connected matters

Page 3 of 11

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

..... Appellant

versus

SHRI SURENDER SINGH AND ORS

..... Respondents

+

MAC.APP. 650/2013

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

..... Appellant

versus

SMT MEENA DEVI AND ORS

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate for

insurance company.

Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Advocate for the

LRs of R-2 in item no. 14 respondents

and LRs of R-4 in item no. 21.

Mr. S. N. Parashar, Advocate for

Respondents.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 13033/2015 (for delay in filing of CM APPL. 13032/2015 u/o

XXII Rule 4 r/w sec. 151 CPC) & CM APPL. 13032/2015 in MAC.APP.

642/2013 and CM APPL. 13049/2015 (for delay in filing of CM APPL.

13048/2015 u/o XXII Rule 4 r/w sec. 151 CPC) & CM APPL. 13048/2015

in MAC.APP. 650/2013

1. In view of the order passed in identical applications on 05.07.2019,

the applications are dismissed.

MAC.APP. 635/2013, MAC.APP. 636/2013, MAC.APP. 637/2013,

MAC.APP. 638/2013, MAC.APP. 640/2013, MAC.APP. 641/2013,

MAC.APP. 642/2013, MAC.APP. 643/2013, MAC.APP. 644/2013,

MAC.APP. 646/2013, MAC.APP. 647/2013, MAC.APP. 648/2013,

MAC.APP. 649/2013 & MAC.APP. 650/2013

MAC.APP. Nos. 635 and connected matters

Page 4 of 11

2. These appeals arising out of a common order dated 30.03.2013

impugn the award of compensation passed by the learned MACT in MACP.

Nos. 1307-16/10, 1324-25 /10 & 40-42/12 on the sole ground, that the right

of recovery against the owner and driver of the offending vehicle has not

been granted who were proceeded ex parte before the learned Tribunal. It is

the appellant’s case that the owner of the vehicle did not have requisite route

permit to ply the insured vehicle as a public transport bus; and to carry

passengers, in the specific geographical area in which the accident was

caused. The Route Permit ,which was valid from 06.08.2006 to 05.08.2011,

was only for the route of Ghaziabad, Noida and Dadri and allied roads, but it

was not granted for Debai or the place of the accident, namely, Chhoia

Bridge, Debai.

3. The Route Permit was proven by the report of the RTO dated

25.02.2013. A quick glance of the map of Western Uttar Pradesh shows that