Delhi High Court
Smt. Prem Devi And Anr. vs Shri Satish Kumar And Ors. on 14 January, 2008
Author: K Gambhir
Bench: K Gambhir
JUDGMENT
Kailash Gambhir, J.
1. Aggrieved with the impugned award dated 09/05/2005, the present appeal has been filed challenging the findings of the Tribunal whereby the claim petition of the appellants has been dismissed. The brief summary of the facts are as under:
On 12.8.2004 at about 1.20 p.m. the minor female child Ritu, along with her father was crossing the road in front of her house at Indira Gandhi Camp in Naraina to fetch drinking water from the tap and had almost crossed the road and was about to reach the Kacha portion of the road i.e. road side when all of a sudden an RTV Bus bearing registration No. DL-1VA-0075 came from the side of Phase-I, Metro Vihar, being driven at a very high speed in rash and negligent manner and hit the minor child Ritu. The minor was thrown up and fell on the road due to the impact when the aforesaid RTV hit her and she sustained serious injuries. The minor child was rushed to Maharishi Balmiki Hospital at Pooth Kurdh, Delhi where the doctors declared the child as 'brought dead'.
2. Counsel for the appellants contends that the appellants have placed on record copy of the FIR as well as the post-mortem report in which name of the appellant No. 2 has been clearly shown as father of the deceased. Counsel for the appellants further contends that the appellants are poor and illiterate villagers and, therefore, the minor contradiction which crept in his deposition cannot be given so much credence so as to deny them the compensation amount. Counsel for the appellants further contends that the said daughter Ritu was born on 30.9.2000 and simply due to the fact that the name of the said daughter was not recorded in the ration card issued in 2002, the claim filed by the appellants could not have been dismissed. Counsel further contends that over writing in the health record also cannot be attributed to the appellants. Counsel for the appellants thus, contends that the Tribunal has denied the compensation to the appellants giving undue weightage to the said minor discrepancy.
3. Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondent refutes the submissions of counsel for the appellants and contends that it is unbelievable that the father of the daughter who himself entered the witness box would not even know the exact date of birth of the child. Counsel further contends that the appellants failed to prove on record their relation with the deceased child Ritu and, therefore, no infirmity or illegality can be found in the impugned award of the Tribunal.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
5. The death of the minor child Ritu has taken place. It appears that the Tribunal has given undue and unnecessary weightage to the non- registration of the name of the deceased in the ration card ignoring the fact that the appellants are illiterate and poor villagers who are not expected to take prompt steps to get the name of the family members registered in the ration card record. The Tribunal has also given undue importance to the minor correction in the health card. Even minor contradictions in the deposition of the appellants have been given undue credence without properly going through the other documents filed on record. I feel it is a fit case which should be remanded back to the Tribunal so as to give fresh opportunity to the appellants to prove on record their relationship with the deceased child Ritu, more importantly when in the copy of the FIR filed on record the appellant Sh. Puran Chand alone has been shown as father of the deceased child Ritu and the same is the position borne out from the copy of the post-mortem report.
6. In the light of the above discussion, the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to consider the said aspect afresh. The appellants shall be also at liberty to file any other document on record to prove that the said child Ritu was born out of the said wedlock of the same very parents.
7. With these directions the appeal is disposed of.
8. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 06.02.2008.
9. Trial Court records be returned back.
