Tapendra Giri & Anr vs Bimla Devi & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 2557 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                         Date of decision: 19th April, 2012
+        MAC.APP. 660/2010

         TAPENDRA GIRI & ANR                        ..... Appellant
                      Through:            Mr. D.K. Thakur, Advocate

                     versus

         BIMLA DEVI & ORS                       ..... Respondent
                       Through:           Mr. S.L. Gupta, Advocate with
                                          Mr. Neeraj Srivasatava,
                                          Advocate for R-7.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                              JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appellants who are the owner and driver of the Maruti Car No. DL-3CJ-255 impugn the judgment dated 21.02.2008 whereby a compensation of `5,76,800/- was awarded in favour of Respondents No.1 to 6 and an order dated 21.08.2010 whereby an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC moved by the Appellants was dismissed.

2. It is the admitted case of the Respondents No.1 to 6 that Satish Kumar was admitted in Kailash Hospital and Research Centre, Noida, vide MLC No.460. In the MLC dated 23.09.2006, it was recorded that the deceased was admitted in the hospital by one Sugriv who reported that the deceased was hit by two wheeler

(a motor cycle) near Naya Bans, Noida. The case as mentioned in the MLC was totally changed in the FIR which was recorded after a period of two months. In the FIR, it was stated that the accident was caused by a Maruti Car bearing registration No. DL-3CJ-255. It is important to note that the Maruti Car belonged to Yogendra Giri, who is the owner of the said car and was driven by Tapendra Giri, the first Appellant herein, the landlord of the Claimants and also the brother of the second Appellant.

3. Normally, I would not attach much importance to the delay in recording FIR, however, in this case, motorcycle is converted into a Maruti Car and that too belonging to the landlord of one of the Claimants.

4. Although, the Appellant is shown to have been served with the summons through his brother Yogender; it is admitted that the copy of the summons was not pasted at the given address.

5. It is urged that the Appellants have been falsely involved to settle the tenancy dispute.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant is entitled to an opportunity to contest the case on merits.

7. The order dated 21.08.2010 and the judgment dated 21.02.2008 are set aside with the direction to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) to afford an opportunity to the

Appellant and the Insurance Company to file their written statements and then to decide the Claim Petition in accordance with law.

8. Since the accident occurred in the year 2006, it is expected that the Claim Petition shall be decided expeditiously.

9. The parties are directed to appear before the concerned Claims Tribunal in Karkardooma Courts, Delhi on 1st May, 2012.

10. Appeal is allowed in above terms.

11. Copy of the order be sent to the concerned Claims Tribunal for information and compliance.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE APRIL 19, 2012 vk