Shri Ramesh Chander Dheer vs Shri Jang Bahadur Singh & Another
2011 Latest Caselaw 4605 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                              Date of Judgment: 19.09.2011

+             MAC APPEAL No. 16/2010 & CM No.910/2010

SHRI RAMESH CHANDER DHEER
                                                  ...........Appellant
                         Through:    Mr. Rajinder Gulati, Advocate.

                   Versus

SHRI JANG BAHADUR SINGH & ANOTHER
                                                ..........Respondents
                         Through:    Mr.Rajesh Banati, Advocate.


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 appellant is aggrieved by the order of the MACT dated

31.08.2009 vide which the claim filed by the petitioner Ramesh

Chander Dheer had been dismissed.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he had suffered an accident

on 24.01.1998 while he was on his way to Chandigarh in Maruti

Esteem car; this was at 10:30 AM; while he was on the National

Highway between Ambala and Chandigarh at Lalru Village all of a

sudden an Ambassador car bearing No. CHO 1G 1497 being

driven by the driver Jang Bahadur Singh in a rash and negligent

manner hit him as a result of which Ambassador Car had lost

balance and collided with the Esteem car of the petitioner; the

petitioner suffered grave and serious injuries. The present claim

for compensation was filed admittedly after five years i.e. on

11.02.2002.

3. In the written statement filed by the respondents, it was

denied that the respondent driver of the Ambassador car was

guilty of negligence; contention was that the accident had

occurred admittedly on 24.01.1998 and there was no explanation

as to why the petitioner was lodging his claim after an

unexplainable delay of five years; contention was that it was a

false claim.

4. Admittedly pursuant to this accident, FIR No. 82/108 had

been registered by the Punjab Police; pursuant to the FIR

investigation was conducted and the Challan under Sections

279/337 IPC had been filed against the present petitioner. Record

of the criminal case has been examined. There is no doubt to the

proposition that the investigation in a criminal proceedings i.e.

FIR, statements recorded by the Investigating Officer in the

course of his investigation as also the charge-sheet are documents

of relevance and could be read as evidence in proceedings before

the MACT. This has been held by a Bench of this Court in National

Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pushpa Rana & Ors. reported in 2009

(ACJ) 287. These documents were accordingly read into the

evidence by the MACT and there is no fault on this score. The

grievance of the petitioner on this count is without any merit.

5. The appellant is aggrieved by the fact that the appellant has

been held to be guilty for which there was no evidence; attention

has been drawn to the site plan Ex. PW-1/A; it is pointed out that

the place of accident had been depicted on mark 'C'; Esteem car

is at point 'A' and Ambassador car has been shown at point 'B';

further contention being that a perusal of these documents clearly

show that the Ambassador car was coming from the wrong side at

the time when it hit the Esteem car being driven by the appellant;

negligence could not in any manner had been attributed to the

petitioner.

6. This submission of the appellant is without any merit; it is

not fortified by the record. The vehicular movement of the traffic

in the site plan as depicted by the arrows shows that the Maruti

Esteem being driven by the appellant was going towards

Chandigarh; a divider has been shown in the middle of the road;

accident had occurred at point 'C' which is on the divider.

Submission of the petitioner that Ambassador vehicle was coming

from the wrong side is nowhere depicted in the site plan. The

mechanical inspection report of the two vehicles highlighted by

learned counsel for the appellant also does not support his case;

mechanical inspection report of the Maruti vehicle No. 2271

shows that the damage has occurred on the front side i.e. the

front light, front channel and front looking glass; the vehicle was

not in a fit condition to ply; mechanical inspector report of the

Ambassador car has also shown damage on the front side

meaning thereby that this was a head-on collusion accident;

submission of the appellant that there was a damage of the

Ambassador car on the front and back side is not substantiated;

even otherwise, this mechanical inspection report has to be read

alongwith the testimony of eye witnesses RW-1 and RW-2 both of

whom have come into the witness box. RW-1 was the driver of the

Ambassador car; his deposition is to the effect that the accident

had taken place because of rash and negligent manner of the

Esteem driver; this was after overtaking another vehicle pursuant

to which the head on collusion was resulted; his further testimony

is to the effect that the driver of the Maruti vehicle received minor

injuries; he was not limping; he had walked on foot and boarded to

bus going towards Dera Bassi; to the same effect is the testimony

of RW-2 Harjeet Singh who was sitting on the front side of

Ambassador car. Both of them were eye witnesses; he has also

deposed that the act of the driver of the Maruti Esteem was rash

and negligent as a result of which the accident had occurred;

further deposition being to the effect that the injured of the

Maruti Esteem did not suffer any serious injury and not limping,

he had boarded a bus towards Dera Bassi. In these circumstances,

the question of application of doctrine of res ipsa loquitor is not

applicable. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the

appellant reported in 1985 ACJ 691 U.P. State Road Transport

Corporation, Allahabad & others Vs. Deepti and others has no

application.

7. It is an admitted fact that the challan which had been filed

against the appellant under Sections 279/337 IPC, he had been

acquitted by the judgment of learned Metropolitan Magistrate Ex.

PW-1/X dated 03.02.2001. The appellant had been acquitted

primarily as no evidence could be brought by the Prosecution; he

could not be identified. This fact has correctly been noted in the

impugned judgment. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel

for the appellant reported in 1969 ACJ 135 Municipal Committee,

Jullundru City Vs. Romesh Saggi & others relating to a judgment

of the Criminal Court not being binding on the Civil Court has no

application.

8. Record further shows that this accident had occurred on

24.01.1998. Admittedly this claim petition had been filed after five

years i.e. on 11.02.2002. The submission of learned counsel for

the appellant is that the appellant was unwell; he was suffering

from various ailments and as such he could not file this claim in

this intervening period. He has substantiated this submission

before the MACT by filing the so called relevant medical record.

Record however speaks otherwise. PW-2 had produced the

medical record of Mata Chanan Devi Hospital Ex. PW-2/1 to show

that the medical treatment meted out to the appellant; this record

pertains to the year 2000; PW-4 Dr. G.S. Kochhar was a senior

consultant of Mata Chanan Devi Hospital; on the perusal of

Ex.PW-2/1 she has stated that the patient Ramesh Chander Dheer

has been treated for paralysis of right side half of the body and

paralysis had no nexus with the Asthama; Ex.PW-2/1 was the

record relating to Chronic Asthamatic Bronchitis of the victim;

there was no connection between the fracture of the right femur

(contention of the appellant being that he had suffered fracture of

the right femur) with the medicines prescribed in Ex. PW-2/1

which was for treatment of Bronchitis. Ex.PW-3/2 was the record

produced from Daya Hospital; this record was dated 21.08.1998.

PW-3 admitted in his cross-examination that the X-ray plate and

the film do not bear any date and as such it could not be stated as

to when this X-ray on the appellant Ramesh Chander Dheer had

been conducted. RW-4 Dr. Chhinder Kaur was yet another Doctor

who had come into the witness box on behalf of the respondents

wherein on the cross-examination on Ex. PW-1/ZA which was the

discharge slip of Mata Chanan Devi Hospital it had been noted

that the patient Ramesh Chander Dheer had been admitted for

chronic Asthamatic Bronchitis on 29.09.2009. The entire evidence

adduced before the MACT was of evidence relating to Asthamatic

Bronchitis paralytic attack suffered by the appellant; there were

not related to the fracture of right femur which was the

contention of the appellant; contention being that his right femur

had been fractured in this accident.

9. Submission of the appellant that this medical record from

1998 to 2000 evidence his serious medical conditions is not

substantiated; he was admittedly a chronic patient of asthamatic

bronchitis; record was for the period from 1998 to 2000; the

accident had occurred on 24.01.1998; claim petition has been

filed in February, 2002; explanation in not preferring this claim

petition within a reasonable time is dissatisfactory and

unexplainable. The statement of the Investigating Officer

supporting investigation carried out by him had also been

recorded.

10. Record shows that four issues had been framed by the

MACT and all the issues have been answered issue-wise. Issue No.

1 was decided against the appellant; the MACT had returned a

finding that the injuries sustained by the petitioner was not on

count of rash and negligent act of the driver of the Ambassador

car; as a necessary corollary issue No. 2 which related to

compensation was also against the appellant; the Court had

returned a finding that this issue in fact does not survive; the

question of compensation did not arise when rash and negligent

act of the driver of the Ambassador car could not be proved. Since

this factum could not be proved, the question of compensation to

the petitioner also did not arise; issues No. 3 & 4 also decided

accordingly. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant that

the Award of the MACT has not given issue-wise finding is

incorrect submission and the reliance upon the judgment reported

in 179 (2011) DLT 728 Allahabad Bank Vs. Sunil Dutt & others is

thus totally misplaced.

11. The Apex Court in a judgment reported in Rajesh Kumar Vs.

Yudhvir Singh PLR Vol. CLII (2008-4) 372 while dealing with the

claim petition had noted that the disability certificate had been

obtained after two years of the accident and author of the said

certificate not having been examined, it could not have been

admitted in evidence. The award in no manner suffers from any

infirmity. Appeal is without any merit.

12    Dismissed.




                                          INDERMEET KAUR, J.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2011
a