ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LIMITED Vs. MASTER SADDAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal the appellant seeks to challenge the impugned Award dated 20.12.2003 mainly on the ground that the appellant has not been given the recovery rights to claim the Award amount from the owner of the offending vehicle. Brief summary of the facts to deal with the contentions of the parties are:

(2.) On 4.4.2000 at about 6.40 p.m., the respondent No. 1 was going to Bhajanpura Market Along with his mother. When they were crossing the road, the offending vehicle driven by Shri Shakeel at high speed and in a negligent manner hit him. As a result of the impact, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Respondent No. 1 was admitted to GTB hospital and thereafter he was treated in a mental hospital, Shahdara. It is stated that at the time of the accident, petitioner was 10 years old and was studying in class IV. It is stated that after the accident, mental state of the petitioner got disturbed and he was being treated at mental hospital, Shahdara. It is further stated that respondent No. 1 was unable to do his routine work and had suffered serious mental setback and trauma because of the impugned accident.

(3.) Mr. Pradeep Gaur counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL-5CB-1759 was sold by the appellant in favor of respondent No. 3 on 23rd June, 1999 and requisite documents of sale were duly executed in his favor. Counsel further contends that intimation of sale was duly given by the appellant to the registering authority, but respondent No. 3 the transferee failed to take any steps to get the said vehicle transferred in the records of the registering authority in his own name before the accident. Counsel further contends that respondent No. 3 had applied for superdari of the vehicle, which was allowed by the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate, and he had also obtained insurance of the offending vehicle in his own name on 5th April, 2000. Counsel also contends that the appellant had duly proved the factum of the sale before the Tribunal. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court referred in P.P. Mohammed v. K. Rajappan and Ors., 2003 ACJ 1595 counsel contends that the appellant is at least entitled to recovery rights so as to recover the Award amount from the person in whose favor the vehicle was sold. Mr. Y.R. Sharma appearing on behalf of the claimant/respondent No. 1 submits that he has no objection if the recovery rights are given to the appellant. Counsel further submits that respondent No. 1 has already received 50% of the Award amount and balance 50% is lying deposited with the Tribunal.