J.C.Sharma &Ors. vs Amarjit Singh & Anr.
2009 Latest Caselaw 4299 Del

23
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                    +      FAO.No.492/2001

                            Date of Decision: 23rd October, 2009
%

      J.C.SHARMA &ORS.          ..... Appellants
                    Through : Mr. S.C. Jain, Adv.

                  versus

      AMARJIT SINGH & ANR.        ..... Respondents
                    Through : Mr. Kanwal Choudhary, 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 their claim petition was dismissed

by the learned Tribunal.

2. The accident dated 29th March, 1986 resulted in the

death of Ashok Kumar. The deceased was survived by his

parents and minor brothers and sisters who filed the claim

petition before the learned Tribunal.

3. The learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on

the ground that the statement of the eye-witness J.C.

Sharma, the father of the deceased does not inspire

confidence. The learned Tribunal observed that it is

improbable that the father of the deceased would have been

present at the site of the accident. No other eye-witness was

examined by the learned Tribunal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants submit that the

accused was convicted by the Criminal Court. The learned

counsel for the appellants has obtained the certified copy of

the criminal case in which the accused was convicted. The

learned counsel submits that the accident was duly proved in

the criminal case. However, if the learned Tribunal was in

doubt, the learned Tribunal could have summoned the

Investigating Officer and the other witnesses shown in the

criminal case.

5. It is well settled that the learned Tribunal has to

conduct an inquiry under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 and the learned Tribunal can formulate such

procedure as it thinks fit. However, the learned Tribunal has

not conducted any inquiry in the present case. The learned

Tribunal has not followed Sections 168 and 169 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988.

6. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed and the

impugned award is set aside. The case is remanded back to

the learned Tribunal who shall conduct an inquiry and pass

the award in accordance with law. The learned Tribunal shall

also grant appropriate opportunity to the parties before

passing the award.

7. The parties are directed to appear before the learned

Tribunal on 1st December, 2009.

8. The LCR be returned forthwith.

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

for the parties under the signature of Court Master.

J.R. MIDHA, J

OCTOBER 23, 2009 aj