Giri Raj Singh & Anr. vs Sita Manocha & Anr.

$~1
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                     Date of decision: 2nd January, 2012
+       MAC APP. 192/2010

        GIRI RAJ SINGH & ANR.               ..... Appellant
                   Through: Mr. Devendra Chowdhary, Adv.

                     versus

        SITA MANOCHA & ANR.             ..... Respondents
                Through: Mr. Ghanshaym Mishra, Adv. for R-1.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                              JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appellant Giri Raj Singh impugns the award dated 20.01.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) whereby the Respondent Sita Manocha was awarded a compensation of Rs.1,96,855/- in respect of the injuries suffered by her in an accident, which took place on 08.05.2006. As per the evidence produced the Respondent suffered injuries on her left hand, right knee and other parts of the body.

2. At the time of argument the only ground of challenge is regarding involvement of vehicle No.DL 3SAH 3446 in the accident. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Appellant that no FIR was recorded on the date of the accident.

The DD No.2A dated 09.05.2006 was recorded regarding this accident wherein the Respondent categorically stated that she would make a statement with regard to the accident later on. It is contended that after a period of 5 months, the Appellant No.1 was falsely implicated as the driver of vehicle No.DL 3SAH 3446.

3. During evidence the Respondent Sita Manocha filed her affidavit Ex.PW-1/A wherein she deposed about the motorcycle No.DL 3SAH 3446 being driven by Appellant No.1 rashly and negligently at the time the accident took place. She deposed that the Police reached the spot and removed her to MAX Balaji Hospital. She produced the slips Mark 'A' & 'B' wherein Appellant himself gave his name and number of the motorcycle to the Respondent. No question was put to the Respondent that the first Appellant did not give the slips Marked 'A' & 'B' which clearly show his involvement. The Appellant filed his affidavit and appeared for cross-examination. He was completely silent as to the circumstances under which he gave the slips Mark 'A' & 'B' to the Respondent.

4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the Respondent that a number of representations were made by the Respondent to the SHO for registration of the case. Carbon copy of the representations and postal receipts have been produced at the time of argument. These, however, cannot be looked into as the same were not proved during inquiry before the Tribunal. In MAC APP 192/2010 Page 2 of 3 the absence of any cross-examination as to how the Respondent came into possession of the number of the motorcycle and his name in the handwriting of Appellant No.1, I am inclined to believe the version given by the Respondent that the accident was caused by vehicle No.DL 3SAH 3446 driven by Appellant No.1, which is also supported by the registration of an FIR No.540/06 dated 31.10.1996, which was of course registered belatedly.

5. In the circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is devoid of any merit, the same is dismissed accordingly. No costs.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE JANUARY 02, 2012 hs MAC APP 192/2010 Page 3 of 3