Kashi Ram vs Mata Prasad Singh & Anr.
2009 Latest Caselaw 4914 Del

9
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                      +     MAC.APP.No.113/2009

                                 Date of Decision: 1st December, 2009
%

      KASHI RAM                                        ..... Appellant
                            Through :    Mr. Abdul Sattar, Adv.

                      versus

      MATA PRASAD SINGH & ANR.          ..... Respondents
                     Through : Mr. R.P. Singh, Adv.
                               for R-1 and 2.
                               Mr. Amit Kumar Pandey, Adv.
                               as amicus curiae.

CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.      Whether Reporters of Local papers may                        NO
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?                       NO

3.      Whether the judgment should be                               NO
        reported in the Digest?

                            JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned

Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.2,26,240/- has been

awarded to claimants/respondents No.1 and 2.

2. The accident dated 9th February, 1998 resulted in the death

of Krishan Kumar Singh. The deceased was survived by his

parents who filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal.

3. The deceased was aged 25 years at the time of the accident

and was working as a driver. It was claimed that the deceased

was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. However, in the absence of

any documentary proof of income, the learned Tribunal took the

minimum wages for unskilled worker, deducted 1/3rd towards the

personal expenses and applied the multiplier of 8 to compute the

loss of dependency at Rs.1,86,240/-. Rs.40,000/- has been

awarded for non-pecuniary compensation. The total

compensation awarded is Rs.2,26,240/-.

4. The offending vehicle was not insured at the time of the

accident. The appellant is the owner of the offending vehicle. The

sole ground raised by learned counsel for the appellant at the

time of hearing of this appeal is that the offending vehicle was not

involved in the accident and has been falsely implicated. The

learned counsel refers to and relies upon the statement of eye-

witness, Brijesh who appeared as PW-3 and deposed that the

accident was caused by jeep made Tata Sumo bearing registration

No.DL-9C 0408. The learned counsel for the appellant submits

that the offending vehicle bearing No.DL-9C 0408 is a jeep make

of Mahindra and Mahindra and, therefore, the statement of eye-

witness PW-3 is not reliable.

5. The Investigating Officer of this case is present in Court in

terms of the order dated 3rd November, 2009 and he has been

examined with respect to the facts of this case. The Investigating

Officer submits that there is no doubt about the offending vehicle.

The learned Investigating Officer submits that the eye-witness

provided the registration number of the offending vehicle. He

further submits that the driver of the offending vehicle ran away

from the spot along with the vehicle and, therefore, the police

verified the name and address of the appellant from the office of

Road Transport Authority and issued notice dated 30th March,

1998 under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act to the appellant

who gave reply and produced the vehicle as well as the driver of

the vehicle. At no stage, the appellant raised the objection that

the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident.

6. This Court appointed Mr. Amit Kumar Pandey, Advocate as

amicus curiae to assist this Court. The learned amicus curiae has

gone through the file of the criminal case pending before the

learned Metropolitan Magistrate and he submits that there has

never been any doubt about the involvement of the offending

vehicle in the accident in question. The driver of the offending is

being prosecuted and the proceedings are pending before the

learned Metropolitan Magistrate and at no stage, the appellant or

the driver have raised any objection of being falsely implicated in

this matter.

7. There is no merit or substance in this appeal.

8. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

9. The appellant has deposited the principal award amount of

Rs.2,26,240/- in terms of the order dated 17th February, 2009.

Vide order dated 3rd November, 2009, the Registrar General has

been directed to release a sum of Rs.75,000/- to respondent No.2

and the remaining amount deposited by the appellant as well as

the statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- has been directed to be kept

in fixed deposit with State Bank of India for a period of five years.

10. The State Bank of India is directed to release the fixed

deposit receipt to respondent No.2 after proper endorsement to

the effect that no loan, advance or withdrawal be permitted

against the said FDR without the permission of this Court.

11. The claimants are at liberty to execute the award of the

learned Tribunal to recover the balance outstanding interest

amount after adjusting Rs.25,000/- towards the interest amount.

12. It is noted that the offending vehicle was not insured at the

time of the accident which is an offence under Section 196 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

13. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

learned Tribunal has awarded interest @ 7% per annum if the

award amount is deposited within 30 days failing which the

interest @ 12% per annum was directed to be paid. The learned

counsel for the appellant submits that he has taken the legal

recourse of appeal before this Court and, therefore, he may be

permitted to deposit the interest amount @ 7% per annum within

a period of 90 days.

14. The prayer of the appellant is accepted. If the appellant

deposits the entire outstanding interest amount within 90 days,

the interest on the principal award amount shall be @ 7% per

annum. It is clarified that the appellant shall deposit the interest

from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit of the

principal award amount on 12th March, 2009.

15. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

appellant is aged 85 years and is bed ridden and, therefore, the

direction to prosecute him under Section 196 of the Motor

Vehicles Act be dispensed with in the peculiar facts of this case.

16. The prayer of the appellant in this regard shall be

considered if the entire outstanding interest amount is deposited

within 90 days.

17. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

appellant shall deposit the entire outstanding interest amount

within 90 days.

18. Let the entire outstanding interest amount be deposited

with the State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Branch A/c

Shakuntala Singh through Mr. H.S. Rawat, Relationship Manager,

Tis Hazari Branch, Tis Hazari (Mb: 09717044322) within 90 days.

19. List for reporting compliance and consideration of the

appellant's request for dispensing with the prosecution under

Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act on 15th March, 2010.

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

both the parties under signature of Court Master.

J.R. MIDHA, J DECEMBER 01, 2009 mk