Mumtaj Khan & Ors. vs Sorub Etc.
2011 Latest Caselaw 1529 Del

                                      UNREPORTED
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                    MAC.APP. 322/2009


      MUMTAJ KHAN & ORS.                          ..... Appellants
                   Through:              Mr. Jatinder Kumar, Advocate.

                     versus


      SORUB ETC                                  ..... Respondent
                              Through:   Mr. D.D.Singh, Advocate
                                         for the respondent No.3.

%                 Date of Decision : March 16, 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.

1. By way of this appeal, the appellants seek to impugn the

judgment dated 30.03.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, whereby the Claim Petition filed by the appellants under

Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act on account of death

of their son in a motor accident was dismissed on the ground that the

appellants had failed to establish that the alleged offending vehicle

was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent

No.1, the driver of the alleged offending vehicle.

2. In the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the

appellants has placed on record certified copies of the charge-sheet

dated 30.08.2006 and copy of the order dated 11.01.2010 passed by

the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, which clearly shows

that in view of the plea of guilt entered by the respondent No.1 and on

his giving a sum of ` 1,00,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased as

compensation amount, the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of

Offenders Act has been extended to the respondent No.1.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that

these documents could not be placed before the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal in view of the fact that the evidence of the claimant,

who examined himself as PW4 in the Claim Petition was adduced

much before the filing of the charge-sheet, and that in fact the

affidavit by way of evidence was filed by the claimant on 16.03.2006

and his cross-examination was recorded on 09.05.2006, while the

charge-sheet was filed by the Police of Police Station, Sultan Puri on

30.08.2006. The order of plea bargaining too was passed much later,

i.e. on 11.01.2010, during the pendency of the present appeal.

4. The counsel for the respondent No.3 states that PW5, the

eyewitness was examined by the claimant on 19.08.2008 and,

therefore, the appellants ought to have placed the charge-sheet before

the learned Tribunal since the same was filed on 30.08.2006. Even

assuming this to be so, it cannot be lost sight of that the appellants are

the claimants, who must have received the charge-sheet much after its

filing and in any case the order dated 11.01.2010 on the plea

bargaining of the respondent No.1 was passed during the pendency of

the appeal.

5. In view of the aforesaid, the award dated 30.03.2009 is set

aside and the matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for being

considered afresh in the light of the charge-sheet filed by the police

and the order on plea bargaining made by the Metropolitan Magistrate

concerned.

6. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. The records be sent

back forthwith. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial

Court on 18th April, 2011. The learned Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal is requested to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as

possible.

A copy of this order be sent to the concerned District Judge

immediately.

REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) March 16, 2011 ak