Hari Om Gupta & Anr. vs Jai Kishan & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 5883 Del

Citation : 2011 Latest Caselaw 5883 Del
Judgement Date : 2 December, 2011

Delhi High Court

Hari Om Gupta & Anr. vs Jai Kishan & Ors. on 2 December, 2011

Author: J.R. Midha

4
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                  +      MAC.APP.No.686-87/2005

%                            Date of decision: 2nd December, 2011

      HARI OM GUPTA & ANR.                   ..... Appellants
                    Through : Mr. R.C. Pathak and
                              Ms. Neelima Raj, Advs.

                    versus

      JAI KISHAN & ORS.                      ..... Respondents
                     Through : Mr. Rajesh K. Sharma, Adv.
                               for R-1.
                               Mr. M.K. Tiwari, Adv. for R-3.
                               S.I. Lalit Kumar, P.S. Subhash
                               Palace, Delhi.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

                         JUDGMENT (ORAL)

CM No.21609/2011

1. The appellants are seeking permission to place on record

the post-mortem report and the vehicle mechanical inspection

report on record.

2. The application is allowed and the said documents are

taken on record.

MAC. APP. 686/2005

1. The appellants have challenged the judgment of the

Tribunal whereby the claim petition relating to the death of

their son, Satender Gupta was dismissed.

2. On 28th December, 2002 at about 8:00 am, the deceased,

Satender Gupta was going on his bicycle towards Britannia

Chowk near E-Block Park, Shakoorpur, Delhi when he was hit

by car No.CH-10-T-0014 alleged to have been driven rashly

and negligently by respondent No.1. The deceased was

survived by his parents who filed the claim petition before the

Claims Tribunal. The offending vehicle was driven by

respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by

respondent No.3 at the time of the accident.

3. Appellant No.1 appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and

deposed that his son died in a motor accident on 28th

December, 2002 leaving behind the parents. PW-1 further

deposed that the deceased was unmarried at the time of the

accident and was earning `3,000/- per month as salary and

`1,500/- per month from the supply of butter.

4. The Investigating Officer of Delhi Police appeared in the

witness box as PW-2 and deposed that D.D. No.3A was

registered in respect of the above accident whereupon he

reached the spot and found the bicycle and Maruti Car No. CH-

10-T-0014 in accidental condition. PW-2 further deposed that

he met the eye-witness, Rajbir and the driver, Jai Kishan of the

Maruti Car on the spot and he arrested the driver from the

spot. The Rukka prepared by PW-2 was proved as Ex.PW2/1.

The site plan prepared by PW-2 was proved as Ex.PW2/2. The

seizure memo of the car was proved as Ex.PW2/3. The

mechanical inspection report was proved as Ex.PW2/4. The

request for mechanical inspection was proved as Ex.PW2/5.

5. Mr. Rajbir Rathore, eye-witness of the accident appeared

in the witness box as PW-3 and deposed that he witnessed the

accident and apprehended the car driver. He further deposed

that he handed over the driver to the police who had arrived

on the spot. The police took the injured boy to the hospital.

The statement of the eye-witness given to the police on the

basis of which the FIR was registered was proved as Ex.PW2/1.

6. The Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the

ground that the MLC as well as post-mortem report have not

been placed on record to prove that Satender Gupta died due

to the injuries suffered in the motor accident and, therefore,

there was no linking evidence between the injuries sustained in

the accident and the death of the deceased.

7. Sub-Inspector, Lalit Kumar from P.S. Subhash Palace is

present in Court along with record of FIR No.938/2002 and he

submits that the criminal case relating to the said FIR is

pending against the driver, Jai Kishan before the concerned

Metropolitan Magistrate. The record produced by the Sub-

Inspector contains the relevant documents relating to the

death of the deceased, Satender Gupta in the accident dated

28th December, 2002. The photocopy of the record produced

by the Sub-Inspector of Delhi Police is taken on record. Copy

of the same has been handed over to learned counsel for the

appellants as well as respondent No.1.

8. In the case of Mayur Arora v. Amit, 2011 (1) TAC

878, this Court held as under:-

"10.1. The inquiry contemplated under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is different from a trial. The inquiry contemplated under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act arises out of a complaint filed by a victim of the road accident or an AIR filed by the police under Section 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act which is treated as a claim petition under Section 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act. These provisions are in the nature of social welfare legislation. Most of the victims of the road accident belong to the lowest strata of the society and, therefore, duty has been cast upon the police to report the accident to the Claims Tribunal and the Claims Tribunal is required by law to treat the Accident Information Report filed by Police as a claim petition. Upon receipt of report from the police or a claim petition from the victim, the Claims Tribunal has to ascertain the facts which are necessary for passing the award. To illustrate, in the case of death of a victim in a road accident, the Tribunal has to ascertain the factum of the accident; accident having being caused due to rash and negligent driving; age, occupation and income of the deceased; number of legal representatives and their age. If the claimants have not produced copies of the record of the criminal case before the Claims Tribunal, the Claims Tribunal is not absolved from the duty to ascertain the truth to do justice and the Claims Tribunal can summon the investigating officer along with the police record."

9. The record of the Claims Tribunal reveals that the Claims

Tribunal has not conducted any inquiry into the matter as

contemplated by the Motor Vehicles Act. In that view of the

matter, the impugned judgment of the Claims Tribunal is liable

to be set aside.

10. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the appeal is

allowed and the impugned award of the Claims Tribunal is set

aside. The claim petition of the appellants is remanded back

to the Claims Tribunal for conducting an inquiry under Section

168 in terms of the judgment of this Court in Mayur Arora

(supra). Considering that this case relates to the death of a

22 year old boy on 28th December, 2002, the Claims Tribunal is