LAWS(DLH)-2017-12-235

VIKAS LOHIA Vs. BEENA SHARMA & ORS

Decided On December 07, 2017
Vikas Lohia Appellant
V/S
Beena Sharma And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the accident claim case (suit no.13/2011) instituted on 10.03.2011 by the first to third respondents (collectively, the claimants), the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal), by judgment dated 21.07.2012, held that the motor vehicular accident, resulting in the death of Surender Kumar Sharma @ S.K. Sharma, giving rise to cause of action for claim case had occurred due to negligent driving of a bus bearing registration no.DL-1PB-0123 by the fifth respondent (driver), he having been engaged for such purposes by the appellant (owner), both of them being held, jointly and severally, liable to pay compensation.

(2.) The bus was concededly insured against third party risk with the fourth respondent (insurer) for the period in question. The insurer while contesting the case had raised the plea of breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy since the bus was being plied on the road without any valid permit. This plea was resisted and evidence was led both by the insurer and the owner of the vehicle. The Tribunal upheld the plea of the insurance policy holding that the act of bringing the bus on road without a valid permit amounted to such breach and thereby granted recovery rights to it (the insurer) against the appellant. It is the grant of recovery rights which is challenged by the appeal at hand by the owner.

(3.) The appeal was put in the list of 'Regulars' as per order dated 03.03.2016 for it to come up on its own turn. It was taken up on application (CM 20417/2017) being filed, on 26.05.2017 in which context proceedings continued before the court till 31.05.2017. Thereafter, another application (CM 23226/2017) was filed seeking modification of an interim order. The said application was taken up on several dates lastly on 25.08.2017. The appellant, thereafter, moved another application (CM 35661/2017) which, however, was withdrawn and dismissed accordingly by order dated 27.09.2017. When the appeal is taken up, however, on its own turn, there is no appearance for the appellant.