VIJENDER SINGH Vs. PHOOLWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the present appeal, the appellant owner of the offending vehicle seeks to challenge the impugned Award dated 19. 1. 2004, whereby the tribunal has given recovery rights to the respondent insurance company to recover the Award amount along with interest from the owner of the offending vehicle. Brief facts to deal with the contentions of the parties are:-One Mr. Kailash had died on the night of 19. 6. 1998 after being run over by a Matador, while he was sleeping on the pavement. The said matador was being driven by one Mr. Prabhu Nath at the time of the accident, hence Mr. Prabhu Nath has been found guilty of rash and negligent driving.

(2.) MR. Siddharth Yadav counsel appearing for the appellant contended that one Mr. Prabhu Nath, who was apprehended as the driver of the offending vehicle was never in the employment of the appellant and, therefore, the Tribunal wrongly granted recovery rights to the insurance company to recover the Award amount from the appellant by wrongly considering the said person as driver of the appellant, who at the time of alleged accident was not holding any driving licence to drive the vehicle. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that in fact one Mr. Ram Bali was the driver of the appellant and the said vehicle was in custody and possession of the said driver, but the same was reportedly stolen on the intervening night of 18 and 19 June, 1998. Counsel further submitted that the appellant had in fact proceeded to lodge a complaint of the stolen vehicle to the concerned police station where he was informed by the police officials that the said vehicle bearing registration No. DDL-5210 was involved in the accident and was taken into custody by the police. Counsel for the appellant further contended that not only the evidence led by the appellant and his driver Mr. Ram Bali was ignored by the Tribunal, but it also fell in grave error by wrongly linking the said driver Shri Prabhu Nath with the appellant, although there was no such linkage established on record. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that even the evidence given by the appellant and said Shri Ram Bali before the criminal Court was ignored by the tribunal. Refuting the said submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Pankaj Seth, counsel appearing for the respondent insurance company submitted that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in granting recovery rights to the insurance company to recover the award amount from the appellant owner of the offending vehicle as Prabhu Dayal was not found in possession of any driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. Counsel for the respondent further submitted that the appellant miserably failed to establish or prove on record the fact of the vehicle being stolen on the intervening night of 18th and 19th June, 1998 or even the employment of Shri ram Bali as driver of the offending vehicle on the relevant date of accident. Counsel thus submitted that the Award passed by the Tribunal is correct, legal and based on the facts proved on record.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The contentions as raised by the appellant in the present appeal has been extensively dealt with by the Tribunal in the impugned Award and I do not find there is any infirmity or perversity in the reasoning given by the Tribunal in arriving at the said findings. The appellant failed to establish that his vehicle was stolen on the intervening night of 18th and 19th June, 1998. The plea taken by the appellant that the police did not entertain his request to register a complaint on account of the said vehicle being found involved in the accident appears to be baseless as nothing prevented the appellant to take up the matter with the higher authorities. The Court of learned Metropolitan magistrate also found Shri Prabhu Dayal guilty of causing the said accident and therefore, no weightage could have been given to the statements of the appellant and his alleged driver Shri Ram Bali made by them before the criminal Court as well as before the Tribunal. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that said Shri prabhu Dayal was apprehended by the police from the site of the accident and he was not in possession of any driving licence to drive the said offending vehicle. However, another important factor which is against the appellant is that the appellant himself failed to establish with the help of any documentary evidence the employment of Shri Ram Bali as driver of the said offending vehicle. The said Shri Ram Bali was also cross-examined and he has clearly admitted that he did not lodge any complaint in writing regarding the missing of the vehicle to the police. On the contrary it appears that after having come to know about the accident the appellant tried to introduce Shri Ram Bali so as to escape the liability to pay the compensation amount. I do not find any merit in the present appeal. The same is hereby dismissed.