Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 29.07.2025
67741/2025 MADHUKAR ROAD CARRIERS .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Arundhati Katju, Sr. Adv.
Through: Mr. Sankar N Sinha, Adv. for R-5.
JUDGMENT
1. This is an Application filed on behalf of the Appellant seeking to produce additional documents.
2. Given that the order the Court proposes to pass today, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.5/Insurance Company submits that he has no objection if the prayer in the present Application is allowed.
3. Accordingly, and for the reasons as stated in the Application, the Application is allowed.
4. The Training Certificate annexed as Annexure A-7 is taken on record. CM APPL. 67741/2024 [Condonation of delay]
5. This is an Application filed on behalf of the Appellant seeking condonation of delay of two days in filing the verification Affidavit in terms of order dated 04.11.2024.
6. For the reasons as stated in the Application, the delay is condoned.
7. The Affidavit be taken on record. MAC.APP. 144/2022, CM APPL. 23725/2025 [Stay]
8. The present Appeal has been filed on behalf of the Appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 impugning the award dated 14.08.2019 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Award”] passed by the learned Presiding Officer, MACT, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi. By the Impugned Order, compensation in the sum of Rs.33,66,172/has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum to Respondent Nos.[1] to 4/Claimants. In addition, recovery rights have been granted to Respondent No.5/Insurance Company against the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.
9. The challenge in the present Appeal is by the owner of the offending vehicle.
10. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, at the outset, submits that so far as concerns the rights of the Respondent Nos.[1] to 4/Claimants, there is no challenge to the quantum of compensation as awarded.
11. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.5/Insurance Company similarly affirms that there has been no challenge filed against the Impugned Award on the aspect of quantum of compensation.
12. Since there was no challenge to the quantum, the service to Respondent Nos.[1] to 4/Claimants was dispensed with by order dated 28.07.2022 passed by this Court.
13. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submits that the only challenge in the present Appeal is to the grant of recovery rights, which have been granted for breach of the Insurance Policy. 13.[1] It is submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving license for driving of heavy commercial vehicles including HGV (Heavy Goods Vehicle) and HPV (Heavy Passengers Vehicle) and that the driver had also undertaken training for driving of vehicle for transportation of hazardous goods. Learned Senior Counsel submits that this certification was obtained by the driver of the offending vehicle by a training institute which is recognized by the Uttar Pradesh Government under the provisions of Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner seeks to rely upon copies of the Training Programme Certificates issued to Petitioner which are valid upto 5.11.2016 and 6.12.2018 respectively, which are annexed as Annexure A-7. 13.[2] Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant further submits that although the Training Certificate was filed along with an Affidavit by way of evidence of Shri Abji Shah, which was placed as Ex.RW-1 along with Ex. RW-1/1 [driving licence] and RW-1/2 [hazardous goods certificate], the learned Tribunal did not permit the Affidavit of RW-1 to be taken on record. Reliance in this behalf is placed on order dated 31.07.2019 passed by the learned Tribunal. 13.[3] Learned Senior Counsel has also sought to rely upon the judgment in the case of Garg Road Lines & Anr. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.[1] wherein in similar circumstances, where the record was produced 2022 SCC OnLine Del 707 belatedly, it was held that the matter should be remanded to the Tribunal to examine the document and only to the extent of grant of recovery rights.
14. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.5/Insurance Company, on the other hand, submits that there was no endorsement on the driving licence of the Respondent No. 6/Driver to drive heavy vehicles and it is in view of the fact that the endorsement was missing that the recovery rights were granted by the learned Tribunal. Reliance is placed on the following finding of the learned Tribunal.
15. The Impugned Award shows that the learned Tribunal has premised its grant of recovery rights on the fact that there was no endorsement on the driving licence of the Respondent No. 6/Driver to the effect that he was authorized to drive the vehicle carrying hazardous goods. In addition, reliance has also been placed on Ex. R3W2/7, which is a challan dated 08.06.2016 issued by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, which states that the offending vehicle was loaded with LPG cylinders. It is apposite to set out the relevant extract of the Impugned Award below:
HPV (Heavy Passenger Vehicle). R3W[3] has further stated that no endorsement was ever took place for authorizing the driver to drive the vehicles containing hazardous goods. xxx xxx xxx
66. The DL which was being possessed by the respondent No.1 was merely for LMV (Light Motor Vehicle), HGV (Heavy Goods Vehicle), HPV (Heavy Passenger Vehicle). There is no endorsement on the DL of respondent No.1 to the effect that he was authorized to drive the vehicle carrying hazardous goods at the time of the accident. Ex. R3W2/7 which is a challan issued by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation dated 08.06.2016 categorically states that the offending vehicle was loaded with LPG cylinders at the time of the accident.
67. To my mind, the ratio of the abovestated authority is squarely applicable because there has been a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Accordingly, to my mind, the insurance company is entitled for the recovery rights against the respondents No.1 & 2 but only after payment of the award amount to the petitioners.” [Emphasis Supplied]
16. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant that this finding of the learned Tribunal is premised ignoring the Training Certificate issued by the driving school, wherein, it is stated that the driver does have training for transportation of hazardous goods. 16.[1] This aspect is also borne from the record, more specifically Annexure A-7, which is a copy of the Training Programme Certificates issued to Driver which are valid upto 5.11.2016 and 6.12.2018 respectively, as well as a document dated 07.05.2012 which is a communication addressed for confirmation of authentication for driving a vehicle with hazardous items, given to the Appellant.
17. A perusal of the record also reflects that an attempt was made by the Appellant to file his evidence by way of an Affidavit, although belatedly, to bring these documents on record. The Affidavit was however not taken on record by the learned Tribunal as is reflected in the order dated 31.07.2019. It is apposite to set out the order dated 31.07.2019 passed by the learned Tribunal, in this behalf: “At this stage, Sh. R.K.Paliwal, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 has appeared and he wants to file on record the evidence by way of affidavit of RW[1]. The matter has already been fixed for orders after hearing the final arguments. As such, the affidavit of RW[1] is not taken on record. Final arguments have also been addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1. Now, to come up for orders on the date already fixed ie on 14.08.2019.” 17.[1] The Affidavit although not taken on record by the learned Tribunal was filed before this Court and sets out that the driver does have a valid and effective licence as well as a certificate for transportation of hazardous goods. 17.[2] Paragraph 3 of this Affidavit of RW-1/driver dated 10.10.2018 which was filed before the learned Tribunal also affirms this fact in the following manner: “3. The deponent says that deponent have/had valid and effective drive license and also had/have hazardous Goods certificate issued by the U.P. Govt. after conducted one day training programme from 6/11/2015 to 6/11/2015. Copy of the said drive [sic: driving] licence and hazardous goods certificate are EX. RW-1/1 to EX. RW-1/2.”
18. As stated above, it is not disputed by the parties that there is no challenge to the quantum of compensation and that the Respondent Nos.[1] to 4/Claimants have already received their compensation amounts. The issue before this Court is only with the grant of recovery rights, which the Appellant submits it should be given an opportunity to lead evidence in support of its case that the driver had not only a driving licence but also trained and certified to be driving the offending vehicle.
19. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the Garg Road Lines case has held that where the driver was found to have undergone the requisite training for transportation of hazardous goods, and the permit of the vehicle valid for the relevant period was subsequently produced before the Court though not before the Tribunal, it would be a fit case to remit the matter to the Tribunal on the limited issue of grant of recovery rights to the insurer. It was further held that such remission would be subject to the appellant being put to terms, and accordingly recovery rights were granted to the insurer against the appellant subject to payment of costs. The relevant extract of the Garg Road Lines case is as follows: “11. Further, learned counsel for petitioner contends that the driver had undergone the requisite training for transporting hazardous goods and as such there was no specific requirement for endorsement on the license. He relies on the judgment of a coordinate bench of this court dt. 12.10.2017 in MAC.APP. 1043/2016, titled “National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sonia Mittal”.
12. Learned counsel further submits that the permit could not be produced before the Tribunal. However, he has filed the same before this Court.
13. Learned counsel prays that the matter be remitted on the limited extent of grant of recovery rights to enable the appellant to lead further evidence.
14. Contention of learned counsel for the insurance company is that the appellant did not produce the relevant records before the Tribunal and accordingly it has caused prejudice to the insurance company and in case the matter is to be remitted, appellant should be put to some terms.
15. In view of the fact that the impugned award relies on the testimony of the witness from the RTO, who has referred to the period from 23.01.2003 to 22.01.2023 and the driving license alleged to have been issued in favour of the driver is allegedly issued on 22.01.2003 and the website of the RTO is even as on date is showing the same having been issued and further the fact that the appellant has produced the certificate of training as well as the permit of the said vehicle valid during the relevant period, it is a fit case for a remit to the Tribunal on the limited extent of the grant of recovery rights against the appellant.
16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to the limited extent that it grant recovery rights against the appellant, subject to payment of costs of Rs.25,000/-.”
20. Given that the challenge in the present Appeal is limited, this Court deems it apposite to remand the matter to the learned Tribunal for adjudication albeit on the examination of the documents relied upon before this Court qua the grant of recovery rights. 20.[1] The Respondent No.5/Insurance Company shall also be given an opportunity to produce any additional evidence in rebuttal to the limited extent in respect to the evidence produced by the Appellant.
21. The parties shall appear before the learned Tribunal on 27.08.2025.
22. Given the lapse of substantial time since the Impugned Award has been passed, the Court also deems it apposite to put the Appellant to terms. The Appellant shall make payment in a sum of Rs.30,000/- as costs.
23. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that they shall not take any unnecessary adjournments before the learned Tribunal. The parties are bound down by the statement made by their counsel today.
24. So far as concerns the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- deposited by the Appellant in terms of orders dated 10.01.2024 and 25.01.2024 and the sum of Rs.13,00,000/-, which has been paid by the Appellant in proceedings before the learned Tribunal, it is clarified that these amounts shall also abide by the orders of the learned Tribunal in the proceedings of remand.
25. The Appeal is disposed of in the aforegoing terms. The pending Application also stands closed.
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J JULY 29, 2025/ ha