Sh. Kuldeep Singh Bawa & Ors. vs Tika Ram & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 5184 Del

31
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                    +      FAO No.235/2001

                           Date of Decision: 14th December, 2009
%

      SH. KULDEEP SINGH BAWA & ORS.       ..... Appellants
                     Through : Mr. O.P. Mannie, Adv.

                  versus

      TIKA RAM & ORS.                  ..... Respondents
                    Through : Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Adv.
                              for R-3.


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 appellants have challenged the award of the

learned Tribunal whereby their claim petition has been

dismissed by the learned Tribunal.

2. The accident dated 27th September, 1994 resulted in

the death of Veena Bawa. The deceased was survived by her

husband, one son and one daughter who filed the claim

petition before the learned Tribunal.

3. The deceased was crossing the road at Bhagat Singh

Marg, opposite Jain Happy School on 27th September, 1994 at

about 1:30 p.m. when she was hit by Maruti Van bearing

No.DL-3C-E-7345. The deceased was working as teacher

with NDMC earning Rs.4,385/- per month at the time of the

accident.

4. The learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on

the ground that the eye-witness who appeared in the witness

box as PW-1 did not give the number of the offending

vehicle.

5. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that the

learned Tribunal shall conduct an inquiry into the claim

petition. Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that

the learned Tribunal shall follow such summary procedure as

it deem fit to conduct such an inquiry. The inquiry stipulated

in Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act is different from the

civil trial. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act casts a duty

on the learned Tribunal to conduct an inquiry in a meaningful

manner. The object of the legislature behind making this

provision is that the victims of road accident are not left at

their own mercy. If the learned Tribunal has any doubt about

the involvement of the offending vehicle, the learned

Tribunal should have summoned the Investigating Officer of

the criminal case and should have perused the criminal

record. However, no such inquiry has been conducted in this

matter.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the

offending vehicle was seized at the spot of the accident and

the driver of the offending vehicle was prosecuted by the

criminal Court.

7. In that view of the matter, the findings of the learned

Tribunal are liable to be set aside.

8. The appeal is allowed and the impugned award of the

learned Tribunal is set aside. The case is remanded back to

the learned Tribunal to conduct a proper inquiry under

Sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned

Tribunal shall summon the Investigating Officer and the

criminal record pertaining to this case while conducting such

an inquiry. The learned Tribunal while conducting an inquiry

give adequate opportunity to both the parties before passing

the award.

9. The parties are directed to appear before the learned

Tribunal on 28th January, 2010.

10. The LCR be returned forthwith.

J.R. MIDHA, J

DECEMBER 14, 2009 mk