Paramjit Kaur vs Sukhchain @ Gora Singh & Anr
2012 Latest Caselaw 4842 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                               Date of decision: 17th August, 2012
+       MAC.APP. 678/2010

        PARAMJIT KAUR                       ..... Appellant
                     Through:           Mr. Nitin Tittal, Adv. with
                                        Mr. Surender Singh, Adv.
                                        Mr. Vikram Maan, Adv.
                     versus

        SUKHCHAIN @ GORA SINGH & ANR                   ..... Respondent
                     Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv. for R-2

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                                JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appellant impugns a judgment dated 15.05.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a Claim Petition preferred under Section 166 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) was dismissed by it.

2. As per the averments made by the Appellant, she suffered grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 25.06.2007. An FIR No.352/2007 dated 26.06.2007 was recorded in the Police Station Mansarover Park.

3. The Claims Tribunal did not address the proper question to itself, that is, whether the Appellant has been able to establish that the accident was caused by Maruti Van No.DL-5CF-0152, driven by the First Respondent in a rash and negligent manner and if so, whether the Appellant was

entitled to any compensation.

4. In para 10 of the impugned judgment, the Claims Tribunal observed as under:-

"10. Having perused the records of this case and the observations made by ld. Predecessor of this court as stated above and submissions made before me by ld. Counsel for the petitioner. I am of the view that the petitioner has failed to prove her case for the claim petition before this court precisely for the reasons that it has also come on record that petitioner Smt. Paramjeet Kaur has not brought on record her own statement given to the police with regard to this accident, her own MLC through which the nature of injury could be ascertained but she has filed the statement and MLC of one Usha Rani (another injured). Besides, non appearance of respondents also indicates to think otherwise. Counsel for the respondent no.2 appeared only on 15.01.09 and thereafter, none appeared for respondent no.2 (Insurance Company) despite court notice issued on 25.03.09. Petitioner has filed her medical records of private hospitals. On careful perusal of medical record of Pushpanjali Hospital it reveals that patient / petitioner was admitted in the hospital at 11 a.m. (morning) on 25.06.07 while alleged accident had occurred at around 9.30 p.m. (in night) on the same day i.e. 25.06.07. Nature of injury has also not been opined in the discharge summary issued by Pushpanjali Hospital, which has been claimed as MLC by the petitioner. I have also perused the order dt. 25.03.09 of my ld. Predecessor in which it has come on record that an amount of Rs.2,39,000/- has been taken from an Insurance Company which is an agency of National Insurance Company Ltd. namely Family Health Plan Ltd. the said amount is stated to have been obtained on medical insurance policy. All these aspects goes to suggest that the petitioner has failed to prove any of the issue in her favour therefore, I decide all the issues against her. With these observations and in light of the above discussion and facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in the petition hence, same is dismissed."

5. It is nowhere the requirement of law that a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. must be made in a criminal case; it is not even required that a

criminal case must be registered before a Claim Petition could be filed against the tortfeasor under Section 166 of the Act. It is very strange that the Claims Tribunal dismissed the Claim Petition on the ground that the Appellant's statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had not been placed on the record of the Claim Petition. The Claims Tribunal recorded that the Appellant's MLC was not produced, which is factually incorrect and against the record. The Claims Tribunal also observed that the Appellant got reimbursement of `2,39,000/- against her mediclaim policy and, therefore, the Claim Petition was liable to be dismissed.

6. To say the least, the entire approach of the Claims Tribunal was illegal and the conclusions reached by it were perverse. Even if, there was any reimbursement against any mediclaim policy, the aspect ought to have been discussed by the Claims Tribunal including the amount actually spent on the treatment apart from the compensation, if any, admissible under the non-pecuniary heads.

7. The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained. The same is accordingly set aside.

8. The case is remitted back to the Claims Tribunal with the direction to decide it expeditiously and preferably within six months. The parties shall be at liberty to lead further evidence, if any.

9. Parties to appear before the Claims Tribunal on 13.09.2012.

10. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE AUGUST 17, 2012/vk