Delhi High Court
Shahzama vs Rakesh Kumar & Ors on 20 August, 2009
Author: J.R. Midha
6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP.723/2007
% Date of decision: 20th August, 2009
SHAHZAMA ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. S.P. Jain and
Mr. Sumit Gupta, Advs.
versus
RAKESH KUMAR & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Adv.
CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may YES
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES
3. Whether the judgment should be YES
reported in the Digest?
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned
Tribunal whereby his claim petition has been dismissed.
2. The accident dated 16th October, 2005 resulted in grievous
injuries to the appellant. The appellant was driving his
motorcycle bearing No.DL-7SZ-6515 on Ring Road near Vijay
Ghat when he was hit by truck bearing No.HR-63-B-4498 from
behind.
3. The appellant lost sight due to the injuries and the
permanent visual disability was assessed to be 100%. The
appellant also lost smelling power and sensation from hip joint to
right knee and left foot. The appellant remained hospitalized
from 17th October, 2005 to 15th December, 2005 and underwent
major operations for the head injuries.
4. The appellant appeared in the witness box as PW - 1 and
deposed about the accident. The owner of the offending vehicle,
in his written statement, admitted the factum of accident but
denied the rashness and negligence.
5. The learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the
ground that the appellant has not produced any eye witness and
the certified copy of the criminal case has not been placed on
record by the appellant.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant himself was the eye witness and the finding of the
learned Tribunal in this regard is misconceived. The appellant
has filed the certified copy of the record of the criminal case
before this Court.
7. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that Tribunal
shall conduct an inquiry into the matter. Section 169 of the Motor
Vehicles Act provides that the Tribunal may follow such summary
procedure as it thinks fit for conducting such an inquiry. The duty
is cast on the Tribunal to conduct an inquiry. Even if the
appellant had not filed the certified copy of the criminal case on
record, the learned Tribunal ought to have conducted an inquiry
and should have summoned the record of criminal case. It is
unfortunate that the Tribunal did not conduct any inquiry into the
matter and dismissed the claim petition.
8. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the impugned
award of the learned Tribunal is set aside. The appeal is allowed
and the claim petition is remanded back to the learned Tribunal.
The learned Tribunal shall conduct an inquiry into the matter in
terms of Section 168 and Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act
and the Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunals Rules, 2008.
9. Considering that the appellant has suffered 100%
permanent visual disability in the accident dated 16 th October,
2005, the learned Tribunal is directed to expedite the inquiry and
complete the same preferably within a period of six months.
10. The parties are directed to appear before the learned
Tribunal on 1st September, 2009. The LCR be send back
immediately through a special messenger.
11. The appellant has filed the certified copies of the record of
criminal case before this Court on 24 th February, 2009. The Court
Master is directed to return the same to the learned counsel for
the appellant for filing the same before the learned Tribunal.
12. Copy of this order be given 'Dasti' to learned counsel for
both the parties under signatures of Court Master.
J.R. MIDHA, J
AUGUST 20, 2009
mk
