compensation, it is not necessary to decide as to who was driving the vehicle, as the manner of accident has already been proved as decided in Issue No.1 and negligence on the part of the driver of BMW car also stands established as he was driving the vehicle in excessive speed therefore, respondent No.2 being the owner of the offending vehicle, becomes, vicariously liable to compensate the petitioner. It is an admitted position on record that the vehicle was insured with respondent No.3, therefore, respondent no. 3 becomes contractually to indemnify the owner. It is submitted on behalf of the insurance company that even as per the charge sheet it was respondent No.1 who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and he was not holding the driving licence, therefore, recovery right should be given to the Insurance company for breach of policy on the part of respondent No.2. As stated earlier, it could not be established on record that respondent No.1 was driving the offending vehicle and in view of the admission of Sh. Rajesh @ Raja who was holding a valid driving licence, it cannot be said that there was breach of policy on the part of Respondent No.2. Needless to say that present case was taken up by the media at the relevant time and the chances of developing a wrong opinion about the identity of the driver cannot be ruled out and that is why the Ld. CJM Gurgaon, in its order dated 17.05.2012 emphasized for scientific investigation / evidence for establishing the identity of the accused and it is also an admitted position that blood samples were taken and car seats containing the blood stains were sent to CFL Madhuban for the said purpose which was still to be received till the filing of the charge sheet meaning thereby that even in criminal case it could not be established till now on the basis of scientific evidence, that it was Sh. Suraj who was driving the offending vehicle, therefore, as far as recovery rights are concerned I do not deem it fit to keep this matter pending for deciding the issue of recovery rights as it may take longer time, therefore, I leave this question open for the insurance company to claim their recovery rights by filing a suit against the owner in case some clinching/ scientific evidence comes on record. Therefore, I hold respondent No.3 liable to compensate the petitioner with the awarded compensation at this stage. The issue No. 2 is
