Delhi High Court
Prakash Wati & Ors. vs Pankaj Kumar & Anr. on 29 November, 2011
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on : 22nd November, 2011
Pronounced on: 29th November, 2011
+ MAC APP. 444/2009
PRAKASH WATI & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Advocate.
Versus
PANKAJ KUMAR & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Suman Bagga Advocate for R-2
Insurance Company.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. The Appellants impugn the award dated 28.03.2009 passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (The Tribunal) whereby a
Claim Petition under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicle Act
(M.V. Act) preferred by the Appellants was dismissed on the
ground that involvement of a motor cycle registration No.UP-
14-AH-1588 in the accident was not established.
2. It is urged on Appellants' behalf that the involvement of the
motor cycle registration No.UP-14-AH-1588 was admitted by
the Insurance Company. No proof of service of notice under
Order 12 Rule 8 CPC for production of the driving licence was
placed on record by the Insurance Company and thus, the
Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation.
3. The only evidence produced was DD No.22 (mark A) and the
post mortem report Mark B. The Tribunal dealt with these
documents in Para 15 of the award as under:-
"15........... As per the postmortem report the
deceased had been brought to GTB Hospital on
28.3.2007 vide MLC No.A1278/07 having met with
a road traffic accident and had died on 31.3.2007.
It also shows that the deceased had died in a road
traffic accident. However, there is no mention of
the vehicle number that had caused the accident.
In support of their claim the petitioners have
proved on record DD No.22, Mark A to prove that
the accident in this case has been taken place due
to use and involvement of a motorcycle. A perusal
of the DD No.22, however, shows that the
registration number of the involved vehicle has not
been mentioned in the said DD. No investigation
has been carried out in this case by the police. No
FIR has been registered. It is very strange that the
DD has been recorded regarding the death of a
person without mentioning the registration number
of the vehicle which has caused the accident and
has caused death of the victim. Respondent No.1
Sh. Pankaj Kumar who himself has lodged this DD
was proceeded ex-parte as he chose not to appear
before the court despite being served. It is also
very strange since he is son of the deceased and
has himself lodged the information regarding the
accident and death of his father. He has also not
produced his driving license before the police nor
he has stated as to what was the registration
number of the motorcycle he was driving which
has caused the accident. It seems he did not
mention the registration number nor produced his
driving license before the police as he did not want
any criminal proceedings initiated against him.
There is no piece of evidence on record, as
Respondent no.1 son of deceased who is
driver/owner of motorcycle chose not to appear
before the court and was proceeded ex-parte.
Therefore, the petitioners have not been able to
prove that the accident in this case has been
caused due to use and involvement of motorcycle
bearing registration no.UP-14-AH-1588."
4. Admittedly, number of the motorcycle in DD No.22 which was
recorded 25 days after the alleged accident, was not mentioned.
It cannot be lost sight that the victim and the alleged
driver/owner of the offending vehicle are father and son
respectively. Thus, some convincing evidence ought to have
been produced by the Appellants to show the involvement of
motor cycle number UP-14-AH-1588.
5. I have also gone through the testimony of R2W1 Gaurav
Malhotra. He did not admit involvement of motor cycle in
question. He deposed that the vehicle allegedly involved in the
accident was insured with the company by an Insurance Policy
Ex.R2W1/3. He deposed that the insured did not produce his
driving licence for verification and no FIR was registered in
respect of the present accident.
6. Under these circumstances, there was nothing to conclude that
the motor cycle No.UP-14-AH-1588 was involved in the
accident which caused fatal injuries to deceased Dharam Pal.
Since the involvement of the vehicle was not proved, there is no
liability of Respondent No.1 Pankaj Kumar to pay the
compensation or for the Insurance Company to indemnify said
Pankaj Kumar.
7. There is no error or infirmity in the impugned award. The
appeal is without any merit. The same is dismissed. No costs.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 29, 2011
vk
