Delhi High Court
Kartari Devi & Ors vs D.T.C. & Ors on 21 January, 2010
Author: J.R. Midha
19
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No.75/2000
Date of Decision: 21st January, 2010
%
KARTARI DEVI & ORS ..... Appellants
Through : Mr. O.P. Mannie, Adv.
versus
D.T.C. & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Jyotindra Kumar, 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 appellants have challenged the award of the
learned Tribunal whereby their claim petition has been
dismissed.
2. The accident dated 17th/18th August, 1994 resulted in
the death of Ram Mehar Singh. The deceased was survived
by his widow, two daughters, one son and mother who filed
the claim petition before the learned Tribunal.
3. The deceased was hit by a DTC bus bearing No.DL-1P-
9685. The accident was witnessed by Om Prakash who
appeared before the learned Tribunal as PW-1 and deposed
that he witnessed the accident caused by the aforesaid DTC
bus. PW-1 withstood the cross-examination before the
learned Tribunal.
4. The respondent referred to and relied upon the
statement of Om Prakash recorded before the Court in
criminal case in which he turned hostile and deposed that he
did not see the accident happening but was told about the
accident by a scooterist.
5. The learned Tribunal dismissed claim petition in the
light of contrary statement made by Om Prakash before the
Court in criminal case.
6. The Investigating Officer of the police was directed to
produce the police file which has been produced today. The
police file contains the statement of Om Prakash under
Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which Om
Prakash has stated to have witnessed the accident in
question. The statement of Om Prakash under Section 161 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure was not confronted to him
when he appeared in the witness box before the concerned
Metropolitan Magistrate.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
statement of Om Prakash made before the learned Claims
Tribunal should be considered for deciding the claim petition.
The learned counsel further submits that Om Prakash turned
hostile before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and
should have been cross-examined by the concerned Public
Prosecutor after taking permission of the Court and Om
Prakash should have been confronted with his previous
statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. The learned counsel further submits that Om
Prakash was not even confronted with his statement under
Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the
Claims Tribunal as well.
8. The learned Tribunal has not examined the above
aspect of the matter which needs consideration. In that view
of the matter, the matter needs to be remanded back to the
Claims Tribunal to examine the above aspect and conduct a
proper inquiry into the matter.
9. For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed and
the impugned award is set aside. The case is remanded
back to the Claims Tribunal to conduct a fresh inquiry in
accordance with law. While conducting such an inquiry, the
Claims Tribunal may examine the Investigating Officer of the
police, if deemed necessary. The Claims Tribunal shall also
consider the implications of Om Prakash turning hostile and
not having been confronted with his previous statement
under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
10. The parties are directed to appear before the Claims
Tribunal on 2nd March, 2010.
11. Considering that the case relates to death of Ram
Mehar in the road accident dated 17th/18th August, 1994, the
Claims Tribunal is directed to complete the inquiry within a
period of four months.
12. The LCR be returned back to the Claims Tribunal
through a special messenger.
13. Copy of this order be given 'Dasti' to learned counsel
for the parties.
J.R. MIDHA, J
JANUARY 21, 2010
aj
