Mr. S.N. Parashar Mr. Ritik Singh, Advocates v. NATIONAL INS CO LTD ORS

Through: Ms. Khushi Sachdeva, Proxy Counsel CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) CM APPL. 2602/2021 [Delay in filing the Appeal]

1. This is an Application seeking condonation of delay in filing the Appeal.

2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the judgment was passed ex-parte in the absence of the Applicant/Appellant and thus, he was unaware of the judgment dated 03.11.2018. It is further stated that the Appellant has a good case on merits because the vehicle was duly insured.

2.1 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that although, a Counsel was appointed before the learned Tribunal, the Counsel did not appear and thus, no defence of the Appellant could be placed on record. The Appellant only became aware of the proceedings when he received Notice of initiation of Execution proceedings in August, 2019. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:08.05.2025 12:02:18 MAC.APP. 45/2021

2.2 Although, a Reply has been filed on behalf of the Respondents objecting to the condonation of delay Application, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1, on instructions fairly submits that in the interest of expediency, they have no objection if the prayers in the present Application are allowed.

4. Accordingly, the Application is allowed and the delay is condoned. The Application stands disposed of. MAC.APP. 45/2021, CM APPL. 2600/2021 [Additional evidence], 2601/2021 [Stay]

5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that he has a good case on merits.

6. It is the case of the Appellant that he was the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident.

7. The Appellant had engaged a Counsel who despite assurances that he would contest the case on behalf of the Appellant, did not lead any evidence before the learned Tribunal.

8. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that at the time of hiring the driver, Sh. Mumtaz/Respondent No.2, the Appellant had examined the original driving license and the driving skills of Respondent No.2 based on which the Appellant employed the Respondent No.2 as driver.

8.1 Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submits that the Appellant also had a valid and subsisting insurance policy.

9. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the obligation of an owner qua a driver would be limited as is set out in the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:08.05.2025 12:02:18 MAC.APP. 45/2021 judgments of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Ors.1 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru & Ors.2

10. By the Judgment dated 03.11.2018 passed by learned Judge, MACT, Rohini Courts, New Delhi [hereafter referred to as the <Impugned Judgment=], the learned Tribunal has directed an award in the sum of Rs.5,08,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum in favour of the claimant/Respondent No.3. This finding has not been challenged by the Appellant. However, what has been challenged by the Appellant is the finding of the learned Tribunal that since the driving license as produced by the driver of the offending vehicle is a fake one, an adverse inference needs to be drawn, and thus, the Respondent No. 1/Insurance Company is initially liable to pay compensation and the Respondent No. 1 being the indemnifier can recover the money from the Appellant(owner of the vehicle). It is apposite to extract paragraph 40 of the Impugned Judgment in this behalf, which reads as follows: <LIABILITY Ltd. Vide policy Company insurance

40. Now the liability is to be fixed as to which of the respondents shall pay the amount of compensation. The offending vehicle was admittedly insured at the time of accident with respondent no. 3 i.e. National Insurance no. 360500/31/0&/6300012034 (package policy) valid uptil 18.02.2010. Respondent no. 1 & 2 did not lead any evidence. However, respondent no. 3 examined R3W1 Ms. Ritu Rani Aggarwal, Senior Assistant, RTO Office, Agra, U.P. who has brought the verification records of DL- 2597/AG/06 (Ex. R3W1/1 Colly.). As per record, the driving license is issued in the name of one Sh. Pranjal Yadav s/o Sh, R. S. Yadav, R/o 9A, Sheel Vihar Colony, Khandari, Bypass Road, Agra, U.P and is not in the name of respondent no. 1, Mumtaz. Respondent no. 3/insurance company also examined Sh. Vineet, Assistant, National Insurance Company Ltd, as R3W2 who has proved the insurance policy of the