Anita & Ors. vs Bijender & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 3336 Del

5
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                      +      CM (M) No.633/2009

%                                 Date of decision: 24th August, 2009


      ANITA & ORS.                               ..... Petitioners
                          Through : Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv.

                    versus

      BIJENDER & ORS.                     ..... Respondents
                    Through : Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa and
                              Ms. Harsh Lata, Advs.

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)

CM(M) No.633/2009

1. Issue notice to the respondents.

2. Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa, Advocate accepts notice on behalf

of respondents.

3. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 17 th April,

2009 passed by the learned Tribunal whereby the learned

Tribunal has rejected the affidavit of the witness produced by the

claimants. The learned Tribunal has further ordered that the

affidavit be struck off. The learned Tribunal has further ordered

that the claimants shall not be entitled to any interest for the

future period and last opportunity has been granted to the

claimants to produce the entire evidence.

4. Under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal has to conduct an inquiry. The learned

Tribunal can formulate such summary procedure as it thinks fit

under Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It has been time

and again observed by this Court that the inquiry under Section

169 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not to be treated as a civil trial.

The duty is cast on the learned Tribunal considering that most of

the victims of the road accident belong from the poor strata of

the society and are not in a position to prosecute their case and

they also do not have prefect legal assistance. Reference in this

regard may be made to the recent judgment of this Court in

Somari Devi vs. Ragwar Singh, MAC.APP.No.884/2003

decided on 22nd May, 2009.

5. The impugned order is not inconformity with the Section

168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act. If the learned Tribunal

was not satisfied with the statement of the witness, the

statement ought to have been completed and the learned

Tribunal may not have relied upon it at the final stage.

6. The observation of the learned Tribunal that the claimants

shall not be entitled to interest is also not in accordance with law.

The compensation in a road accident becomes due immediately

upon the death and the insurance companies cannot take the

benefit of any delay in the conclusion of the claim petition more

so when it is the duty of the learned Tribunal to conduct an

inquiry and not just wait for the claimants to prove the case like

in a ordinary civil trial.

7. The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17 th

April, 2009 is set aside. The learned Tribunal is directed to

conduct an inquiry in terms of Section 168/169 of the Motor

Vehicles Act and Delhi Motor Accident Claims Tribunals Rules,

2008 and the directions passed by this Court in Somari Devi

(supra). The Investigating Officer of the police is directed to file

Accident Information Report under 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles

Act to produce the eye-witnesses before the Tribunal.

8. The parties are directed to appear before the learned

Tribunal on 10th September, 2009.

9. Copy of this order be given 'Dasti' to learned counsel for

both the parties under the signature of Court Master.

J.R. MIDHA, J AUGUST 24, 2009 mk