Nirmal Katyal & Ors vs Amarjeet Singh & Anr
2009 Latest Caselaw 2904 Del

8
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                      +       MAC.APP.542/2008

%                                 Date of decision: 29th July, 2009

      NIRMAL KATYAL & ORS                    ..... Appellants
                    Through : Mr. V.P. Choudhary, Sr. Adv. with
                              Mr. Nitinjya Choudhary and
                              Ms. Sushma, Advs.

                    versus

      AMARJEET SINGH & ANR                 ..... Respondents
                    Through : Mr. Vikrant Sharma, Adv. for R-1
                              Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv.
                              for R - 2.


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 compensation of Rs.3,58,334/- has been

awarded to the appellants under Section 163A of the Motor

Vehicles Act.

2. The accident dated 27th February, 2007 resulted in the

death of Vijay Katyal. The deceased was survived by his wife, two

sons, one daughter and parents, who filed the claimed petition

before the Tribunal.

3. The learned Tribunal has given a finding that there was no

negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. The

learned Tribunal has converted the claim petition from Section

166 to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and has awarded

the compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant challenges the

finding of the learned Tribunal that there was no negligence on

the part of the offending vehicle. It is further submitted that the

learned Tribunal ought to have conducted an inquiry under

Sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Senior

Counsel for the appellant also challenges the conversion of

petition from Section 166 to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles

Act.

5. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act casts a duty on the

learned Tribunal to conduct an inquiry. Section 169 of the Motor

Vehicles Act empowers the learned Tribunal to adopt such

procedure as deemed fit for conducting an inquiry. However,

record of the learned Tribunal reveals that the learned Tribunal

has not conducted any inquiry as contemplated under the Act

and there is error apparent on the face of the record.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the

case may be remanded back to the Tribunal for conducting

proper inquiry under Sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles

Act in accordance with law. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1

has no objection to the remanding back of the case to the

learned Tribunal.

7. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned award is

set aside and the case is remanded back to the Learned Tribunal

for conducting a proper inquiry under Sections 168 and 169 of

the Motor Vehicles Act and to pass a fresh award. Respondent

no.2 has paid the entire award amount along with interest to the

claimants, who shall retain the same and the said amount shall

be adjusted against the final award.

8. The parties are directed to appear before learned Tribunal

on 19th August, 2009. The trial court record shall be returned

back through special messenger.

9. Copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the

parties under the signatures of the Court Master.

J.R. MIDHA, J

JULY 29, 2009 HL