Judgment:
$~18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:
7. h March, 2014 % + MAC.APP. 664/2012 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Adv. Versus DINESH SINGH & ANR. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr. S.K. Pandey and Ms. Tarannum, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.
(Oral) MAC.APP. 664/2012 1. The Present appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 12.03.2012, whereby Ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation for an amount of Rs.1,94,554/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount.
2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that offending vehicle was stolen in the year 2007. The police had filed the untraced report. Thereafter, the appellant / Insurance Company settled the claim with the owner of the offending vehicle. Thereafter on 09.07.2009, the accident in question had taken place in which respondent No.1 sustained injuries while going on his motorcycle No.DL-7SS-2911, which was hit by offending vehicle bearing No.DL-7S-AE-6468, driven by its driver at a high speed rashly and negligently.
3. Ld. Counsel further submits that offending vehicle was a Scooter, whereas R1W1 Sh. Rakesh Khurana, erstwhile owner has deposed that he was a registered owner of Motorcycle No.DL-7S-AE-6468. Ld. Counsel further submits that PW1, Sh. Dinesh Singh stated that Scooter No.DL7AE-6484 was involved in the accident which is also mentioned in the police record, whereas the registered owner, as noted above, stated that it was a motorcycle.
4. I note, R1W1, Sh. Rakesh Khurana given the number of the offending vehicle as DL-7S-AE-6468 and the same number has also been mentioned by PW1 Sh. Dinesh Singh. In the criminal case, police has also recorded the same number. The only difference is that PW1 and Police said that it was scooter, whereas in testimony of R1W1 Sh. Rakesh Khurana it was recorded that he was owner of motorcycle, however, number of offending vehicle given by all the witnesses is same.
5. I am of the considered opinion, position would have been different if R1W1 Sh. Rakesh Khurana gave different number of the motorcycle, but in the present case, R1W1 had given the same number, however, recorded as motorcycle. Sometimes, in colloquial language, some persons call it a scooter, some call it motorcycle and some call it two-wheeler. Therefore, it makes no difference when persons are indicating to a particular vehicle and that is with same number.
6. In view of above, I do not find any merit in the instant appeal. Same is accordingly dismissed.
7. The statutory amount be released in favour of the appellant and the balance compensation amount be released in favour of the respondent / injured. CM. No.10907/2012 With the dismissal of the instant appeal itself, instant application has become infructuous and dismissed as such. SURESH KAIT, J.
MARCH07 2014 jg /sb