Delhi High Court
Dr.Pramod Kumar vs Ganesh & Anr. on 30 November, 2009
Author: J.R. Midha
1.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M).NO.897/2009
% Date of decision: 30th November, 2009
DR.PRAMOD KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Hameed S. Shaikh and
Mr.Navjot Kumar, Advocates.
Inspector Dalbir Singh, Crime
Branch.
versus
GANESH & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Amit Kumr Pandey,
Advocate.
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 petitioner has challenged the order dated 15th July,
2009, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed petitioner's
application under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, for permission to summon the owner of Bharat
Automobiles, Bhopal.
2. The accident dated 24th October, 1999 resulted in grievous
injuries to the petitioner, who filed a claim petition before the
learned Tribunal against the driver and owner of the Maruti Van
bearing No.DL-3CA-4655. Respondent No.1 is the driver and
respondent No.2 is the owner of the offending vehicle.
3. The respondents are contesting the claim petition before
the learned Tribunal on various grounds inter alia that the
offending vehicle was not involved in the accident and at the
time of the alleged accident, the offending vehicle was lying at
the garage of Bharat Automobiles, Bhopal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no
garage by the name of Bharat Automobiles at Bhopal and he
sought permission from the learned Tribunal to summon the
owner of Bharat Automobiles to prove the non-existence of their
garage at Bhopal.
5. Vide order dated 7th September, 2009, Investigating Officer
of this case was directed to remain present. Inspector Dalbir
Singh, the Investigating Officer is present in Court along with
police file and plea raised by the respondents before the learned
Tribunal to the effect that the offending vehicle was lying at the
garage of Bharat Automobiles at Bhopal was not raised before
the police and does not form part of the police record.
6. Mr. Nikhil Majithia, Advocate was appointed as the amicus
curiae who has examined the record of the police as well as the
record of the learned Tribunal and he submits that it was the duty
of the respondents to have summoned the owner of Bharat
Automobiles to conclusively prove that the offending vehicle was
lying at the garage of Bharat Automobiles at Bhopal at the time
of the accident and the respondents having failed to do so,
petitioner need not summon the owner of Bharat Automobiles as
a witness.
7. There is merit in the submission of the learned amicus
curiae. The onus to prove that the offending vehicle was lying at
the garage of Bharat Automobiles at Bhopal is on the
respondents. Hence, petitioner is not required to summon the
owner of the garage of Bharat Automobiles, Bhopal to disapprove
something not proved.
8. The petition is dismissed. The learned Tribunal shall
conduct an inquiry into the claim petition in accordance with
Sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998. While
conducting such an inquiry, it is the duty of the learned Tribunal
to ascertain the truth, notwithstanding the evidence led by the
parties and while doing so, the learned Tribunal shall follow such
procedure as it deems fit to find out the truth to pass the award
in accordance with law. Nothing stated herein shall be deemed
to be an expression on the merits of this case.
9. This Court appreciates the time and effort of the learned
amicus curiae in assisting this Court.
10. A copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for
the parties under the signatures of the Court Master.
J.R. MIDHA, J.
NOVEMBER 30, 2009
sb
