MAC.APP. NO.473/2006 Page 1 of 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP. NO.473/2006 Date of reserve: 22nd January, 2009 % Date of decision: 31st March, 2009 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath, Mr. P.K. Mishra and Mr. Birender Pandey, Advocates versus MAST. AJAY SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM :- THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? JUDGMENT 1. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby the compensation of Rs.44,500/- has been awarded to respondent No.1. 2. On 28th July, 2000, the appellant was walking on the road with his father when the offending bus bearing No.DL-1P-7299 driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.2 hit respondent No.1 who fell down on the road and received grievous injuries. The appellant was removed to the hospital. MAC.APP. NO.473/2006 Page 2 of 5 He suffered fracture in the left forearm. He remained under treatment for five months. 3. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.4,500/- loss of income during the period of treatment at the rate of Rs.50/- per day for three months; and Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses, special diet and conveyance. 4. The appellant has challenged the impugned award on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence and, therefore, the appellant is not liable. In the alternative, the appellant claims recovery rights against the owner of the offending vehicle. 5. The appellant produced three witnesses before the learned Tribunal. R3W1 is the officer of the appellant who deposed that the appellant deputed an Investigator for verification of the copy of the driving licence seized by the Police. He proved the report of the Investigator, Ex.R3W1/B. He proved two notices Ex.R3W1/C and Ex.R3W1/D issued to the owner and the driver to produce the original driving licence. 6. The second witness, R3W2 is the clerk of the Licensing Authority, Sonepat who deposed that since inception of their office, serial numbers of the driving licences have been given in continuity irrespective of the year in which the licence was prepared and the last licence issued by their office was serial MAC.APP. NO.473/2006 Page 3 of 5 number 063060/S dated 18th March, 2003. The copy of the last page of the register was exhibited as Ex.R3W-2/A. The witness further deposed that the copy of the driving licence Mark “Y” did not pertain to their office. The stamp at point “K” also did not pertain to their office. The genuine stamp of the office was as mentioned at point “M” which mentions “Licencing Authority” Sonepat. The office does not put stamp of “L.A. Sonepat” as mentioned at point “K” on the copy of the driving licence Mark “Y” and, therefore, the driving licence Mark “Y” was not a genuine licence. The witness also produced the computer generated record and placed the first page Ex.R3W2/B and certificate Ex.R3W2/C reflecting the details of driving licences issued from their office. 7. R3W3 is the witness from the District Transport Authority, Sonepat, who deposed that the Licencing Authority has issued licence with serial numbers in continuity from the date of inception and the driving licence Mark “Y” was not issued by their office. He further said that their office has not yet reached the serial number reflected in the licence Mark “Y” which is a fake licence. 8. The learned Tribunal did not grant the recovery rights to the appellant on the ground that the driving licence mark “Y” was issued in the year 2001 and no register of 2001 was produced and only the records of 2003 were produced and examined. MAC.APP. NO.473/2006 Page 4 of 5 9. The learned Tribunal did not appreciate the statements of the witnesses R3W2 and R3W3 who proved the following three facts:- (i) All licences issued by the Transport Authority, Sonepat were issued in continuity of serial numbers since the inception of their office and the last serial number was 063060/S as per Ex.R3W2/A on 18th March, 2003. (ii) The serial number mentioned on the driving licence Mark “Y” i.e. 3363433 had not reached even in 2005 when the statements of the witnesses were recorded and, therefore, disputed licence cannot be genuine. (iii) The office puts a stamp of “Licensing Authority” and not “L.A., Sonepat”. 10. The learned Trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record. The learned Trial Court erred in observing that record of 2001 was not produced. When the serial number mentioned in the disputed licence did not exist in the record of the Licensing Authority, Sonepat and that number had not even reached in 2005 and the witness also clearly stated that licence was fake, nothing more was required to be proved by the appellant to succeed in the matter. MAC.APP. NO.473/2006 Page 5 of 5 11. I, therefore, hold that the driving licence Mark “Y” of respondent No.2 was not genuine and, therefore, the appellant is entitled to recovery rights against respondent No.3 after making the payment to respondent No.1. It is stated by the appellant that the appellant has already satisfied the award by making the payment to respondent No.1. 12. The appeal is allowed and the appellant is granted right to recover the award amount of Rs.44,500/- along with interest thereon from respondent No.3 who is the owner of the offending vehicle. J.R. MIDHA, J MARCH 31, 2009 s.pal