12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No.333/2001
% Date of decision: 24th February, 2012
K.L. ROHILLA ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. Atul Kumar, Adv.
versus
VED PRAKASH KAPOOR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal whereby his claim petition has been dismissed.
2. The accident dated 18th October, 1988 resulted in grievous injuries to the appellant. The appellant was travelling in bus No.DEP 4949 on 18th October, 1988 at about 02:30 PM when the said bus met with an accident with bus bearing No.DEP 7348 at Church Road, Mall Road Crossing, Delhi. The appellant suffered multiple fractures including Pott's fracture and fracture of right leg apart from the wounds on the left hand and leg and blunt injuries all over the body. The right ankle of the appellant was also dislocated. The appellant remained hospitalized from 18th October, 1988 to 17th November, 1988 and 2nd December, 1988 to 6th August, 1990. The appellant was operated upon for open reduction and nails FAO No.333/2001 Page 1 of 4 were fixed at the Army Hospital, Delhi Cantt. The appellant filed claim petition against the owners of both the buses. The appellant could get the insurance particulars of bus No.DEP 7348 and New India Assurance Company was impleaded as respondent No.3. The Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on various grounds inter alia that the appellant could not prove the rashness and negligence of bus No.DEP 4949 and further that the appellant has not impleaded the drivers of the two vehicles.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Claims Tribunal has not conducted any inquiry under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is further submitted that the findings of the Claims Tribunal are based on DD No.1-A (Ex.PW1/1) reported by the owner of bus NO.DEP 4949 that the accident occurred due to the failure of the brake of the said bus. It is submitted that the police ought to have recorded the statement of the appellant and to have registered the case on that basis. It is further submitted that the onus to prove that the brakes of the bus failed and that there was no rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus was on the owner of the said bus which he failed to discharge as no evidence was led by the respondents. It is further submitted that the onus to disclose the names of the drivers of two buses FAO No.333/2001 Page 2 of 4 was on the owners who were the respondents before the Claims Tribunal and, therefore, the claim petition could not have been dismissed on this ground.
4. In the case of Mayur Arora v. Amit, 2011 (1) TAC 878 this Court held as under on the scope of inquiry under Sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:-
"10.1. The inquiry contemplated under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is different from a trial. The inquiry contemplated under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act arises out of a complaint filed by a victim of the road accident or an AIR filed by the police under Section 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act which is treated as a claim petition under Section 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act. These provisions are in the nature of social welfare legislation. Most of the victims of the road accident belong to the lowest strata of the society and, therefore, duty has been cast upon the police to report the accident to the Claims Tribunal and the Claims Tribunal is required by law to treat the Accident Information Report filed by Police as a claim petition. Upon receipt of report from the police or a claim petition from the victim, the Claims Tribunal has to ascertain the facts which are necessary for passing the award. To illustrate, in the case of death of a victim in a road accident, the Tribunal has to ascertain the factum of the accident; accident having being caused due to rash and negligent driving; age, occupation and income of the deceased; number of legal representatives and their age. If the claimants have not produced copies of the record of the criminal case before the Claims Tribunal, the Claims Tribunal is not absolved from the duty to ascertain the truth to do justice and the Claims Tribunal can summon the investigating officer along with the police record."FAO No.333/2001 Page 3 of 4
5. The record of the Claims Tribunal reveals that the Claims Tribunal has not conducted any inquiry into the matter as contemplated by the Motor Vehicles Act. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment of the Claims Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
6. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award of the Claims Tribunal is set aside. The claim petition of the appellant is remanded back to the Claims Tribunal for conducting an inquiry under Sections 168 and 169 in terms of the judgment of this Court in Mayur Arora (supra).
7. The parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal on 1st March, 2012.
8. Considering that this case relates to an accident dated 18th October, 1988, the Claims Tribunal shall endeavour to complete the inquiry within a period of six months from the receipt of this order.
9. The LCR be sent back forthwith.
10. Since there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents, the copy of this order be sent to the respondents.
J.R. MIDHA, J FEBRUARY 24, 2012/mk FAO No.333/2001 Page 4 of 4