Allowed

Om Prakash & Anr. v. Ram Sugarath Ram & Anr. ( the Oriental Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd)

Delhi HC5 Mar 2018MAC.APP./26/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court, in a reinstated order, set aside recovery rights previously granted in favour of the insurer by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. After concurring the delay in filing the appeal and verifying the existence of a valid vehicle permit, the court refunded the statutory deposit. The appeal was disposed of in the appellants' favour.

What did the court decide?

Recovery rights set aside; statutory deposit refunded to appellants; appeal and applications disposed of.

Om Prakash & Anr. Vs Ram Sugarath Ram & Anr. ( the… — Motor Accident Claims | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~29

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- MAC.APP. 26/2016 and CM APPL.1082/2016 (stay), CM APPL.1083/2016 (delay)

¶4

OM PRAKASH & ANR ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Deepak Mehar Singh, Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

RAM SUGARATH RAM & ANR (THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY PVT LTD) ..... Respondents Through: Mr. R.B. Shami, Advocate for R-2.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA O R D E R

¶8

% 05.03.2018

¶9

The recovery rights were granted against the appellants and in favour of the second respondent (insurer) by the motor accident claims Tribunal by judgment dated 02.07.2012 on the claim petition (MACT No.379/07/08) of the first respondent, awarding compensation in the total sum of Rs.4,59,707/- on the ground that the insured vehicle (tempo bearing registration No.HR-63A-2679), the negligent driving of which had given rise to the cause of action, was not covered by a valid permit on the date of the accident, i.e., 31.08.2007.

¶10

The appeal was filed belatedly contending that the valid permit did exist, this being referred to at the time of hearing leading to the following order dated 19.09.2017 being passed :-

¶11

MAC.APP. 26/2016

¶12

Page 1 of 2

¶13

“A perusal of the record indicates that the ground on which recovery rights were granted was that the appellants had not brought before the Tribunal any document showing the vehicle to be covered by a permit for the date and place of the accident, this in spite of notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC shown by evidence to have been served on them. The appellants have submitted copy of a national permit (annexure ‘C’ at page 75) stating that the said document answers the objection of the insurance company. The insurance company is directed to have the said document verified and submit a report in this regard.

¶14

The appeal be listed on 29.11.2017.”

¶15

Pursuant to the above mentioned directions, the insurer has submitted permit verification report dated 02.11.2017, which was brought on record on 10.11.2017. The counsel for the insurer confirms that this report shows that a valid permit did exist.

¶16

The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶17

The recovery rights granted in favour of the insurer are set aside.

¶18

The statutory deposit made shall be refunded to the appellants.

¶19

The appeal and the applications filed therewith stand disposed of in

above terms.

Order dasti.

R.K.GAUBA, J.

MARCH 05, 2018 vk

¶24

Page 2 of 2

¶25

MAC.APP. 26/2016

Om Prakash & Anr. v. Ram Sugarath Ram & Anr. ( the Oriental Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash & Anr. v. Ram Sugarath Ram & Anr. ( the Oriental Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saraswati Devi Vs Ram Singh

Narain Singh Dabas Vs Bal Kishan

Narain Singh Dabas Vs Bal Kishan

Mohd Haseeb & Anr. Vs Mohd Adil Khan

Asha Vs Suraj Bhan

Harish Malhotra Vs Kumar Rajesh Singh & Anr.