UNREPORTED
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) No. 1519/2010
ARUN SHARMA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ashok Popli and
Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocates.
versus
CHANDRA BOSE AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
% Date of Decision : February 4, 2011
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.
By way of this petition the petitioners, who are the legal representatives of the deceased Sabita Devi, who died in a motor vehicular accident, seeks to impugn the following order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal: -
CM(M)No.1519/2010 Page 1 of 7
"05.10.10 Claim petition filed by the cl for petitioners. Since the case file belongs to DAR, the same is dismissed. File be consigned to record room."
2. The sole contention of Mr. Ashok Popli and Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocates, the learned counsel for the petitioners in the present petition is that the Tribunal has wrongly and illegally dismissed the claim petition filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Smt. Sabita Devi under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the ground that since the D.A.R. (Detailed Accident Report) had been filed, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed. It is contended that the filing of the Accident Information Report and/or the Detailed Accident Report is only to assist the Tribunals in expediting the grant of relief to the victims of a road accident, but the rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 do not bar the petitioners from filing an independent claim petition. The summary disposal of the claim petition by the Tribunal, it is contended, has CM(M)No.1519/2010 Page 2 of 7 taken away a valuable statutory right vested in the petitioners/claimants by the Motor Vehicles Act.
3. Reliance is placed on a three-Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Jai Prakash vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. 2010 ACJ 455, wherein directions were issued to the police and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals for implementing the provisions of Section 158(6), 163A, 166(4) and 168(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to contend that keeping in view the aforesaid directions given by the Supreme Court, it was incumbent upon the Claims Tribunal to have entertained the claim petition filed by the petitioners instead of dismissing the same on the ground that the case pertained to Detailed Accident Report (D.A.R.).
4. It is further stated at the Bar that necessary directions are required to be given to all the Claims Tribunals so that a claim petition filed by the claimants/victims is not dismissed merely on account of the fact that the police has filed the Accident Information Report or the Detailed Accident Report.
CM(M)No.1519/2010 Page 3 of 7
5. After considering the submissions made at the Bar and carefully going through the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jai Prakash (supra), I am of the considered opinion that it was not the intent of the Supreme Court that where there is an Accident Information Report or the Detailed Accident Report pending before the Claims Tribunal, the claim petition filed by the claimants/victims should be dismissed. The only intention was to expedite the grant of relief to the victims of an accident where a claim petition was not filed on their behalf or where it was not feasible or possible for them to incur the expenditure of filing a claim petition.
6. By no stretch of imagination, in my view, the directions issued by the Supreme Court can be construed as a bar to the Tribunals entertaining the claim petitions, filed by the claimants. It cannot be lost sight of that the claimants or the victims are in a better position to substantiate their claims by leading material evidence on all aspects of the matter. Consequently, for the Tribunal to dismiss the claim petition filed by a claimant would be wholly unjustified. CM(M)No.1519/2010 Page 4 of 7
7. At this juncture, it is deemed expedient to reproduce the directions issued by the Supreme Court to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in the case of Jai Prakash (supra) insofar as the same are relevant to the present case, which are as under:
"Directions to Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals are:
(a) The Tribunal shall maintain an institution register for recording the AIRs which are received from the Station House Officers of the police stations and register them as miscellaneous petitions. If any private claim petitions are directly filed with reference to an AIR, they should also be recorded in the register.
(b) The Tribunal shall list the AIRs as miscellaneous petitions. It shall fix a date for preliminary hearing so as to enable the police to notify such date to the victim (family of victim in the event of death) and the owner, driver and insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. Once the claimant(s) appear, the miscellaneous application shall be converted to claim petition. Where a claimant(s) files the claim petition even before the receipt of the AIR by the Tribunal, the AIR may be tagged to the claim petition."
8. It is clear from the above that the Supreme Court while issuing directions to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals to register the CM(M)No.1519/2010 Page 5 of 7 AIRs as miscellaneous petitions has clarified that once the claimant appears, the miscellaneous petition shall be converted to a claim petition. Where, however, the claimant files a petition even before the receipt of the AIR by the Tribunal, the AIR may be tagged to the claim petition. Thus, it flows therefrom that once the claimant appears and files a claim petition, there would be no need to convert the Miscellaneous Application/Accident Information Report/Detailed Accident Report to a claim petition and instead, the same would be tagged to the claim petition. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal would then hold an inquiry on the claim petition as envisaged by the provisions of Section 166 of the Act and pass award thereon.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the claim petition in the instant case is restored to the file of the concerned Claims Tribunal to be decided in accordance with law. The claimant is directed to appear before the Tribunal on 21.02.2011.
10. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
11. A copy of this order shall be circulated to all the Claims Tribunal for information.
CM(M)No.1519/2010 Page 6 of 7
REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) February 4, 2011 sk CM(M)No.1519/2010 Page 7 of 7