Mohsina vs Rajesh & Anr.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4205 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                               Date of Judgment: 29.8.2011


+             MAC APPEAL No.669/2010

MOHSINA                                   ...........Appellant
                          Through:    Mr.Manish Maini, Advocate.

                     Versus

RAJESH & Anr.                              ..........Respondents
                          Through:    Ms.Rameeza Hakim, Advocate
                                      R-2.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

    1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
       see the judgment?

    2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                  Yes

    3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
                                                         Yes

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 The Award impugned is the award dated 31.5.2010 whereby

the compensation in the sum of `3,81,000/- had been awarded in

favour of the appellant/claimant. The grievance of the

appellant/claimant is that the statement of Salim who was an eye-

witness of the accident had not been considered. Attention has

been drawn to the statement of Salim whose version was recorded

as PW-1 in a collateral proceedings i.e. in MACT No.1060/2008;

Salim Vs. Praveen Kumar. In his cross-examination recorded on

10.9.2009 the witness had made a statement that the buffaloes

belong to all five persons. Contention of the appellant being that

the buffaloes in fact were owned by all the passengers in the

tempo including the victim of the present case namely Rahis. It is

however an admitted fact that this statement of PW-1 recorded in

the collateral proceeding was not summoned or produced in the

court at the time when the present petition was being adjudicated

upon. It is also not in dispute that the MACT No.1080/2008 was

also decided on the same date by the same court i.e. on 31.5.2010.

2 There were in fact five passengers who were travelling in

the tempo which had suffered the accident on the fateful day of

15.9.2007. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the liability

has not been foisted upon the Insurance Company for this reason

that the petitioner had not been able to prove on record that the

deceased Rahis was also owning the buffaloes.

3 This is a fit case for remand. Matter is accordingly

remanded back to the concerned court to enable the petitioner to

adduce his additional evidence i.e. the statement of PW-1 Salim

already recorded in the collateral proceeding i.e. MACT

No.10608/2008 titled Salim Vs. Praveen Kumar. For the said

purpose parties are directed to appear before District Judge

Rohini on 07.9.2011 at 10.30 AM who shall assign the matter to

the concerned court.

4     Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.




                                         INDERMEET KAUR, J.
AUGUST 29, 2011
nandan