CM(M).No.400/2010 Page 1 of 3 41 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M).No.400/2010 Date of Decision: 25th March, 2010 % NUTECH SECURITY PRINTERS ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. S.S. Sobti, Adv. versus ASHOK KUMAR & ORS ..... Respondents Through : Mr. S.L. Gupta and Mr. Ram Ashray, Advs. for R-3. CORAM :- THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may YES be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES 3. Whether the judgment should be YES reported in the Digest? JUDGMENT (Oral) CM(M) No.400/2010 1. Issue notice to respondent No.3. 2. Mr. S.L. Gupta, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3. 3. The accident dated 30th July, 2005 resulted in injuries to Ashok Kumar who filed the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal. 3. The claim petition was filed against respondent No.2 (driver of the offending vehicle), the appellant (registered owner of the offending vehicle) and respondent No.3 (insurer of the offending vehicle). CM(M).No.400/2010 Page 2 of 3 4. The right of the petitioner to file written statement was closed by the Claims Tribunal by the order dated 9th October, 2006. The petitioner filed an application for review of the order and permission to file the written statement which has been dismissed by the Claims Tribunal. The petitioner also filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead Chand Singh to whom the petitioner had leased out the offending vehicle but the Claims Tribunal also dismissed that application. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offending vehicle was validly insured at the time of the accident. However, the Insurance Company would be liable only if the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving licence and there was a valid permit. The learned counsel submits that the Claims Tribunal also need to determine as to who was in constructive possession of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. The learned counsel for the petitioner wishes to place on record of the Claims Tribunal the material to the effect that the Chand Singh was the real owner as lessee in constructive possession of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident; the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving licence and there was valid permit at the time of the accident. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the duty of the Claims Tribunal to conduct an inquiry under CM(M).No.400/2010 Page 3 of 3 Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act to ascertain as to who was the real owner of the offending vehicle and whether there was a valid driving licence and valid permit at the time of the accident. The submission of the petitioner is correct. 7. This petition is disposed of with a direction that the Claims Tribunal shall conduct an inquiry under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and shall also ascertain as to who was the real owner in constructive possession of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident and whether there was a valid driving licence and valid permit in respect of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. For conducting such an inquiry, the Claims Tribunal shall permit/collect all relevant evidence including the relevant documents and evidence of the petitioner. 8. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. 9. All pending applications stand disposed of as infructuous. 10. Copy of this order be sent to the learned Tribunal for compliance. 11. Copy of this order be given ‘Dasti’ to learned counsel for both the parties under signature of Court Master. J.R. MIDHA, J MARCH 25, 2010 mk