Master Sintu vs Om Prakash & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 4829 Del

18
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                       +       MAC.APP.No.702/2005

%                                 Date of decision: 25th November, 2009


      MASTER SINTU                                ..... Appellant
                           Through:    Mr.Vinay Kumar Jha, Adv.

                      versus

      OM PRAKASH & ORS.                        ..... Respondents
                   Through:            Ms.Pramila Singh, Proxy for
                                       Mr. Kamaldeep, Adv.

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 appellant has challenged the award of the learned

Tribunal whereby his claim petition was dismissed.

2. The accident dated 24th May, 2003 resulted in the grievous

injuries to appellant No.1. Appellant No.1 was aged seven years

at the time of the accident. The appellant was walking on the

road along with his parents near musical fountain, Model Town

when RTV bus No.DL1V-7359 hit the appellant, who suffered

grievous injuries, namely, temporal bone fracture, fracture on

right leg and aberrations and blunt injuries all over the body.

3. The appellant was initially taken to Navrang Hospital where

he was referred to Hindu Rao Hospital and from there he was

further referred to ESI hospital and finally to Lok Nayak Hospital.

The learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition noting some

contradiction in the statement of PW-3 and the FIR and also on

the ground that the appellant has not placed on record and

proved the documents relating to the treatment by the appellant.

4. The learned Tribunal has not conducted any inquiry as

contemplated under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It has

time and again been emphasized by this Court that Section 168

of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that the learned Tribunal shall

conduct an inquiry. The duty has been cast on the learned

Tribunal to ascertain the relevant facts and then pass the award.

Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act further provides that the

inquiry shall be summary in nature and the Tribunal shall

formulate such procedure as it thinks fit.

5. The appellant is a minor child who was seven years at the

time of the accident. The appellant belongs to the lowest strata

of the society. Even if there is some infirmity in the evidence lead

by the appellant, the learned Tribunal is not absolved from its

duty of conducting the inquiry in accordance with law. The

Tribunal could have summoned the Investigating Officer, record

of the criminal case as well as records from the concerned

hospitals to conduct the inquiry.

6. The appeal is allowed and the impugned award is set aside

and the case is remanded back to the learned Tribunal for

conducting a proper inquiry in accordance with law. The

appellant is directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on

18th December, 2009.

7. The LCR be sent back to the learned Tribunal forthwith.

8. Considering that the accident relates to the year 2003, the

learned Tribunal is directed to complete the inquiry within a

period of six months.

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

parties under signatures of Court Master.

J.R. MIDHA, J NOVEMBER 25, 2009 s.pal