MAC.APP.No.139/2009 Page 1 of 3 13 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP.No.139/2009 Date of Decision: 7th December, 2009 % PARDEEP SINGH ..... Appellant Through : Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv. versus NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Respondent Through : Mr. D.K. Sharma, Adv. CORAM :- THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may NO be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be NO reported in the Digest? JUDGMENT (Oral) CM No.3251/2009 1. For the reasons stated in the application and noting that the appellant has good case on merits, the delay in filing of this appeal is condoned. 2. CM stands disposed of. MAC.APP. 139/2009, CM No.3250/2009 and CM No.3252/2009 1. The appellant is the owner of the offending vehicle No.DL-1PA-7719 which was being driven by Sukhvender Singh at the time of the accident. The accident resulted in the injuries to Deepak Kumar who filed the claim petition MAC.APP.No.139/2009 Page 2 of 3 before the learned Tribunal. 2. The learned Tribunal passed an award for Rs.2,03,900/- in favour of Deepak Kumar and against the appellant and recovery rights were granted to respondent No.1 to recover the award amount from the appellant after making payment to the claimant on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. 3. Along with this appeal, the appellant has produced the driving licence No.K819/MTR/98 dated 18th November, 1998 issued by Licencing Authority, Mathura. The appellant has also filed verification report dated 27th July, 2009 with respect to the said licence. 4. Vide order dated 6th March, 2009, respondent No.1 was directed to verify the said licence in pursuance to which respondent No.1 has verified the licence. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the licence dated 18th November, 1998 has been found to be genuine. However, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that this licence was not available with the appellant at any stage during the proceedings before the learned Tribunal and the appellant could not have held two licences at the same time. The issue raised by learned counsel for respondent No.1 need consideration and may also require recording of evidence. 5. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the appeal MAC.APP.No.139/2009 Page 3 of 3 is allowed and the impugned award is set aside in so far as the recovery rights have been granted to respondent No.1 against the appellant and this issue is remanded back to the learned Tribunal who shall pass a fresh award after granting adequate opportunity to the parties to lead additional evidence on this issue. The award of compensation to the claimants is upheld and the appellant shall not be entitled to challenge the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants. 6. CM No.3252/2009 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed. CM No.3250/2009 stands dismissed. 7. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 7th January, 2010. 8. The LCR be sent back forthwith to the learned Tribunal. 9. Copy of this order be given ‘Dasti’ to learned counsel for the parties under the signature of Court Master. J.R. MIDHA, J DECEMBER 07, 2009 aj