w- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI MACA No.377/2010 Date of Decision; Tulv 01. 2010 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Appellant tbirougli Mr. L.K.Tyagi, Advocate versus CHETAN SHARMA & ORS Respondents through None CORAM: HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA 1. Whether the 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'? REKHA SHARMA. I. (ORAL) V The appellant, namely. United India Insurance Company Limited has preferred the present appeal against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated May 01, 2010 directing it to deposit the awarded amount in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch in the name of respondent No.l. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that a plea was taken by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal that the offending vehicle was being driven by the driver without a vahd hcence and for that reason, a charge-sheet under Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed against him, but the Tribunal has MACA No.377/2010 Page 1 of 2 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 w- •X ignored that plea inspite of the fact that notice under Order 12 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also sent to the owner to produce the driving licence which the owner despite notice did not produce. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the, Tribunal has ignored the aforementionedplea of the Insurance Company on the ground that mere filing of the challan in a criminal Court is not enough to conclude that the vehicle was being driven without a vahd driving hcence and has further held that nothing was placed on the record to prove that the owner of the offending vehicle was served with the notice under Order 12 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I find no infirmity in the finding of the Tribunal. However, in case it is ultimately held in the prosecution launched against the driver of the offending vehicle under Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act that he was driving the vehicle without a valid hcence, the Insurance Company shall be at liberty to recover the compensation from the driver or the insured or both, as the case may be. However, the appellant is directed to deposit the compensation amount in terms of the impugned award. The amount deposited in this Court as a pre-condition to the hearing of the appeal shall be refunded to the appellant. The appeal is disposed of. JULY 01, 2010 ka REKHA SHARMA, J. MACANo.377/2010 Page 2 of 2