i r IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI MACA No.1212010 Date of Decision: September 09, 2010 BHAGAT SINGH ..... Appellant Through Mr. Sumit Gupta, Advocate versus KAMLA RAWAT & ANR .,.... Respondents through Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate for respondent No.2. COMM: HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? To be referred to the reporter or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the 'Digest'? 1. 2. 3. (- REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The appellant has raised a two-fold grievance against the impugned award dated October 2L, 2009. Firstly, he prays for' enhancement of compensation and secondly, he says that the amount as awarded by the Claims Tribunal is liable to be paid to him by the Insurance Company, i.e. respondent No.2. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant has not pressed his submission with regard to enhancement of compensation. Accordingly, the impugned award in so far as it MACA No.1212010 Page L of 3 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified r awards a sum of < 2,45,000/- along with interest thereon @ 7.5o/o per annum to ihe appellant is affirmed. As regards the other submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, he does not dispute that during the trial of the case before the Claims Tribunal, the owner of the offending vehicle inspite of notice under Order 12 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procddure failed to produce the driving licence of the driver. The Tribunal, therefore, absolved the Insurance Cornpany from liability to pay the awarded amount and'' directed the owner to deposit the amount in the name of the appellant by way of a crossed cheque within one month from the date of the award. However, when the matter came in appeal before this court, on the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the driver of the offending motorcycle was holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident, an order was passed on January 15, 2010 directing the Insurance Company to get the licence verified from the Transport Authority. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company states that the counsel for the appellant did not furnish a copy of the driving licence to her, as a result of which she could not get the licence verified. The learned counsel forthe appellant, on the other hand, states that he has himself got the licence verified from the Motor Licencing Officer, East Zone Transport Department, Government of NCT of Delhi, Mayur Vihar-|, Delhi and that the said authority has confirmed that the licence produced by him was in the name of the driver of the offending vehicle and was valid as on the date of the accident. The original copy of the Verification Report has been placed on the record. \r MACA No.1212010 Page 2 of 3 t, t Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and keeping in view the fact that the driving licence which the driver of the offending vehicle was.holding, has since been verified from the concerned office and has been found to be a valid, I see no reason why the Insurance Company, with which the.offending vehicle was insured, should not be held liable to pay the awarded amount to the appellant. Accordingly, I direct the Insurance Company to pay the awarded amount to the appellant along with interest thereon within four weeks from now. However, I do feel that since the owner of the offending vehicle despite notice failed to produce the licence before the Claims Tribunal and it was due to the efforts made by the appellant that the licence of the drirler was placed on the record and later got verified in view of the orders passed by this Court, the.lnsurance Company cannot be held liable to pay interest on the awarded amount. The owner has not even cared to appear before this Court inspite of service of summons. Hence, I grant to the Insurance Company right to recover the interest on the awarded amount which it has been directed to pay to the appellant, from the owner of the offending vehicle. The appeal is allowed as indicated above. SEPTEMBER 09, 201.0 ka \r MACA No.1212010 Page 3 of 3