Padam Mohan & Anr. vs Anand Singh & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 2 Del

13
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                     FAO 575/2002

                      Date of decision:06th January, 2009
%
      PADAM MOHAN & ANR.                    ..... Appellant
                   Through : Mr. M.L. Mahajan with
                             Mr. Gaurav Mahajan, Advs.
              versus

      ANAND SINGH & ORS.                         ..... Respondent
                   Through : None.

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

1.      Whether Reporters of Local papers may
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3.      Whether the judgment should be
        reported in the Digest?

J.R. Midha, J. (Oral)

1. The appellant is the brother of deceased, Surinder Mohan

who suffered injuries in a road accident and died on 12th June,

1995. The appellant filed a petition for compensation under

Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal against the driver, owner

and insurance company of bus bearing No.DL-IP-2184 claiming

compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

2. The learned Trial Court dismissed the petition of the

appellant on the ground that the appellant failed to prove that

his brother Surinder Mohan died as a result of the injuries

sustained by him in the road accident on 13th May, 1995.

3. The case set up by the appellant before the learned

Tribunal was that the deceased was hit by the offending bus on

13th May, 1995 and was initially taken to Hindu Rao Hospital

and was later removed to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital on 14 th

May, 1995 in unconscious state and he remained unconscious

till he died on 12th June, 1996. Para 23(iii) of the petition

before the learned Tribunal is reproduced below:-

"iii) That Sh. Surinder Mohan was removed to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital in the night of 14.5.1995 in un-conscious state as the case being serious the Doctors of Hindu Rao Hospital then removed the patient to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital for better treatment and accordingly Sh. Surinder Mohan was admitted in Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital where he remained unconscious and died on 12.6.1996 at about 12.35 am."

4. The respondents contested the petition before the

learned Tribunal. The driver and owner of the offending

vehicle denied the accident by the offending vehicle.

5. At the trial, the appellant examined only one witness,

namely, himself as PW1. The appellant deposed that the

deceased was hit by the offending bus on 13th May, 1995 and

became unconscious and was taken to Hindu Rao Hospital who

referred the deceased to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital. He

further deposed that the deceased remained unconscious till

his death on 12th June, 1995 in Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital.

6. In cross-examination, the appellant stated that the

deceased remained in Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital for 7-8 days

and was discharged and was again admitted on 10th June, 1995.

The appellant deposed that he spent Rs.40,000/- on the illness

of his brother but no document was produced to prove the

same.

7. The appellant proved the documents Ex.PW1/1 to

Ex.PW1/18. The relevant documents for the present context

are FIR - Ex.PW1/3, MLC - Ex.PW1/13, letter-Ex.PW1/15, death

summary and post mortem report - Ex.PW1/18.

8. The MLC - Ex.PW1/13 does not show any head injury or

that the petitioner was unconscious. It merely records that

the deceased was unfit for statement.

9. The police registered FIR - Ex.PW1/3 under Sections

279/337 IPC which resulted in a Challan dated 7 th September,

1995 - Ex.PW1/2 under Sections 279/337 IPC. The

Challan-Ex.PW1/2 also shows that a case under Section

279/337 was made out and the Challan was filed much after the

death on 7th September, 1995. If the death would have been

the cause of accident dated 13th May, 1995, the police would

have converted the case to Section 304-A, IPC.

10. The death summary and the post mortem

report-Ex.PW1/18 records that the deceased fell from chair two

days ago and lost consciousness since 10th June, 1995. The

cause of death in the death report form has been mentioned as

cardio-respiratory arrest following head injury and the duration

of illness has been mentioned as two days. It further records

that the deceased had suffered a road accident one month

back for which he was admitted but CT did not show any

operable lesion.

11. The counsel for the petitioner has strongly urged that the

deceased Surinder Mohan died due to the head injury suffered

in the road accident on 13th May, 1995 and the testimony of

PW1 and the documents Ex.PW1/2, Ex.PW1/3, Ex.PW1/13 and

Ex.PW1/18 sufficiently prove that the deceased died due to the

injuries suffered in the road accident on 13th May, 1995.

12. The appellant has referred to and relied upon the

judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh

Yallappa Patil vs. General Manager, K.S.R.T.C. reported as Vol.

VI (2002) SLT 217. However, the said judgment is not

applicable to the present case.

13. No other ground has been urged.

14. I do not find any substance in the arguments of the

learned counsel for the appellant. The MLC - Ex.PW1/13 does

not show any head injury suffered by the deceased on 13th May,

1995. The deceased was thereafter referred to Ram Manohar

Lohia Hospital from where he was discharged on 19th May, 1995

which is recorded in letter-Ex.PW1/15. There is an

endorsement on Ex.PW1/15 by Dr. Puneet of Ram Manohar

Lohia Hospital stating that "As per hospital records nature of

injury - simple".

15. The appellant has not produced the discharge summary

dated 19th May, 1995 of Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital. There is

also no evidence to show that the deceased was unconscious

from 13th May, 1995 to 19th May, 1995 and was discharged in

an unconscious state on 19th May, 1995. Ex.PW1/15 records

the statement of the doctor that the nature of injuries were

simple. In any view of the matter, it is highly improbable to

believe in the course of natural events and human conduct that

the hospital would discharge an unconscious patient to be

taken back home. Even assuming for the sake of arguments

that the appellant took back the deceased in an unconscious

state back home, it does not appeal to reason that an

unconscious person would sit on a chair. Admittedly, the

deceased fell from the chair on 10th June, 1995. Ex.PW1/18

clearly shows that the deceased fell from the chair on 10th June,

1995 and lost consciousness. The death report form clearly

records that the duration of illness had been two days.

16. The appellant has also not produced any evidence with

regard to the treatment given to the deceased in Ram Manohar

Lohia Hospital from 13th May, 1995 to 19th May, 1995. No

document to prove the expenditure on the treatment has been

produced. The appellant has not produced/examined the

doctor who treated the appellant. In my opinion, the doctor

who treated the deceased was the most important witness.

17. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the deceased

Surinder Mohan fell from his chair on 10th June, 1995 and

became unconscious whereupon he was admitted in Ram

Manohar Lohia Hospital where he underwent treatment and

finally died due to cardio-respiratory arrest on 12th June, 1995.

The appellant has not been able to prove that the death of the

deceased occurred due to the accident dated 13 th May, 1995.

The accident dated 13th May, 1995 resulted in simple injuries

(no head injury) for which the deceased took treatment for few

days. The documents filed by the appellant before the learned

Tribunal belie his claim.

18. The appellant is guilty of concealment of the fact that the

deceased fell from chair on 10 th June, 1995 and lost

consciousness and underwent treatment for two days. In the

petition as well as the evidence, the appellant set up a false

case that the appellant became unconscious on 13 th May, 1995

and he remained unconscious till death on 12th June, 1995. I

also draw adverse inference against the appellant for not

producing the discharge summary dated 19th May, 1995 of Ram

Manohar Lohia Hospital, the treatment record from 13th May,

1995 up to 10th June, 1995 and the record of the expenditure on

treatment for the said period and not producing any doctor who

treated the deceased. The adverse inference is that all the

aforesaid documents would have contradicted the appellant's

case and, therefore, were not filed.

19. I agree with the findings of the learned trial court that the

petitioner has failed to prove that Surinder Mohan died as a

result of injuries sustained by him on 13th May, 1995.

20. I do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is

dismissed with costs. The appellant is guilty of filing a

frivolous claim and also making false statements on oath to link

the death arising out of fall from chair on 10th June, 1995 to a

past motor accident which resulted in minor injuries. It shows

the extent to which greed can make a person fall. I am,

therefore, constrained to impose cost of Rs.25,000/- on the

appellant to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal

Services Committee.

J.R. MIDHA, J.

JANUARY 06, 2009 aj