Arun Sharma vs Chandra Bose And Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 666 Del

Citation : 2011 Latest Caselaw 666 Del
Judgement Date : 4 February, 2011

Delhi High Court

Arun Sharma vs Chandra Bose And Ors. on 4 February, 2011

Author: Reva Khetrapal

                                    UNREPORTED
*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                     CM(M) No. 1519/2010

ARUN SHARMA                                        ..... Appellant
                           Through:    Mr. Ashok Popli and
                                       Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocates.
             versus

CHANDRA BOSE AND ORS.                            ..... Respondents
                  Through:             None.

%                 Date of Decision : February 4, 2011
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

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

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

                      J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

By way of this petition the petitioners, who are the legal

representatives of the deceased Sabita Devi, who died in a motor

vehicular accident, seeks to impugn the following order of the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal: -

"05.10.10

Claim petition filed by the cl for petitioners. Since the case file belongs to DAR, the same is dismissed. File be consigned to record room."

2. The sole contention of Mr. Ashok Popli and Mr. Navneet

Goyal, Advocates, the learned counsel for the petitioners in the

present petition is that the Tribunal has wrongly and illegally

dismissed the claim petition filed by the legal representatives of the

deceased Smt. Sabita Devi under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 on the ground that since the D.A.R. (Detailed Accident

Report) had been filed, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed.

It is contended that the filing of the Accident Information Report

and/or the Detailed Accident Report is only to assist the Tribunals in

expediting the grant of relief to the victims of a road accident, but the

rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 do not bar the

petitioners from filing an independent claim petition. The summary

disposal of the claim petition by the Tribunal, it is contended, has

taken away a valuable statutory right vested in the

petitioners/claimants by the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. Reliance is placed on a three-Judge Bench decision of the

Supreme Court rendered in the case of Jai Prakash vs. National

Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. 2010 ACJ 455, wherein directions were

issued to the police and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals for

implementing the provisions of Section 158(6), 163A, 166(4) and

168(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to contend that keeping in

view the aforesaid directions given by the Supreme Court, it was

incumbent upon the Claims Tribunal to have entertained the claim

petition filed by the petitioners instead of dismissing the same on the

ground that the case pertained to Detailed Accident Report (D.A.R.).

4. It is further stated at the Bar that necessary directions are

required to be given to all the Claims Tribunals so that a claim

petition filed by the claimants/victims is not dismissed merely on

account of the fact that the police has filed the Accident Information

Report or the Detailed Accident Report.

5. After considering the submissions made at the Bar and

carefully going through the decision of the Supreme Court in the case

of Jai Prakash (supra), I am of the considered opinion that it was not

the intent of the Supreme Court that where there is an Accident

Information Report or the Detailed Accident Report pending before

the Claims Tribunal, the claim petition filed by the claimants/victims

should be dismissed. The only intention was to expedite the grant of

relief to the victims of an accident where a claim petition was not

filed on their behalf or where it was not feasible or possible for them

to incur the expenditure of filing a claim petition.

6. By no stretch of imagination, in my view, the directions issued

by the Supreme Court can be construed as a bar to the Tribunals

entertaining the claim petitions, filed by the claimants. It cannot be

lost sight of that the claimants or the victims are in a better position to

substantiate their claims by leading material evidence on all aspects

of the matter. Consequently, for the Tribunal to dismiss the claim

petition filed by a claimant would be wholly unjustified.

7. At this juncture, it is deemed expedient to reproduce the

directions issued by the Supreme Court to the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunals in the case of Jai Prakash (supra) insofar as the same are

relevant to the present case, which are as under:

"Directions to Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals are:

(a) The Tribunal shall maintain an institution register for recording the AIRs which are received from the Station House Officers of the police stations and register them as miscellaneous petitions. If any private claim petitions are directly filed with reference to an AIR, they should also be recorded in the register.

(b) The Tribunal shall list the AIRs as miscellaneous petitions. It shall fix a date for preliminary hearing so as to enable the police to notify such date to the victim (family of victim in the event of death) and the owner, driver and insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. Once the claimant(s) appear, the miscellaneous application shall be converted to claim petition. Where a claimant(s) files the claim petition even before the receipt of the AIR by the Tribunal, the AIR may be tagged to the claim petition."

8. It is clear from the above that the Supreme Court while issuing

directions to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals to register the

AIRs as miscellaneous petitions has clarified that once the claimant

appears, the miscellaneous petition shall be converted to a claim

petition. Where, however, the claimant files a petition even before

the receipt of the AIR by the Tribunal, the AIR may be tagged to the

claim petition. Thus, it flows therefrom that once the claimant

appears and files a claim petition, there would be no need to convert

the Miscellaneous Application/Accident Information Report/Detailed

Accident Report to a claim petition and instead, the same would be

tagged to the claim petition. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

would then hold an inquiry on the claim petition as envisaged by the