Delhi High Court
K.L. Rohilla vs Ved Prakash Kapoor & Ors. on 24 February, 2012
Author: J.R. Midha
12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No.333/2001
% Date of decision: 24th February, 2012
K.L. ROHILLA ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. Atul Kumar, Adv.
versus
VED PRAKASH KAPOOR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims
Tribunal whereby his claim petition has been dismissed.
2. The accident dated 18th October, 1988 resulted in
grievous injuries to the appellant. The appellant was travelling
in bus No.DEP 4949 on 18th October, 1988 at about 02:30 PM
when the said bus met with an accident with bus bearing
No.DEP 7348 at Church Road, Mall Road Crossing, Delhi. The
appellant suffered multiple fractures including Pott's fracture
and fracture of right leg apart from the wounds on the left
hand and leg and blunt injuries all over the body. The right
ankle of the appellant was also dislocated. The appellant
remained hospitalized from 18th October, 1988 to 17th
November, 1988 and 2nd December, 1988 to 6th August, 1990.
The appellant was operated upon for open reduction and nails
were fixed at the Army Hospital, Delhi Cantt. The appellant
filed claim petition against the owners of both the buses. The
appellant could get the insurance particulars of bus No.DEP
7348 and New India Assurance Company was impleaded as
respondent No.3. The Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim
petition on various grounds inter alia that the appellant could
not prove the rashness and negligence of bus No.DEP 4949
and further that the appellant has not impleaded the drivers of
the two vehicles.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
Claims Tribunal has not conducted any inquiry under Section
168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is further submitted that the
findings of the Claims Tribunal are based on DD No.1-A
(Ex.PW1/1) reported by the owner of bus NO.DEP 4949 that the
accident occurred due to the failure of the brake of the said
bus. It is submitted that the police ought to have recorded the
statement of the appellant and to have registered the case on
that basis. It is further submitted that the onus to prove that
the brakes of the bus failed and that there was no rashness
and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus was on the
owner of the said bus which he failed to discharge as no
evidence was led by the respondents. It is further submitted
that the onus to disclose the names of the drivers of two buses
was on the owners who were the respondents before the
Claims Tribunal and, therefore, the claim petition could not
have been dismissed on this ground.
4. In the case of Mayur Arora v. Amit, 2011 (1) TAC 878
this Court held as under on the scope of inquiry under Sections
168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:-
"10.1. The inquiry contemplated under Section
168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is different
from a trial. The inquiry contemplated under
Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act arises out
of a complaint filed by a victim of the road
accident or an AIR filed by the police under
Section 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act which is
treated as a claim petition under Section 166(4)
of the Motor Vehicles Act. These provisions are in
the nature of social welfare legislation. Most of
the victims of the road accident belong to the
lowest strata of the society and, therefore, duty
has been cast upon the police to report the
accident to the Claims Tribunal and the Claims
Tribunal is required by law to treat the Accident
Information Report filed by Police as a claim
petition. Upon receipt of report from the police or
a claim petition from the victim, the Claims
Tribunal has to ascertain the facts which are
necessary for passing the award. To illustrate, in
the case of death of a victim in a road accident,
the Tribunal has to ascertain the factum of the
accident; accident having being caused due to
rash and negligent driving; age, occupation and
income of the deceased; number of legal
representatives and their age. If the claimants
have not produced copies of the record of the
criminal case before the Claims Tribunal, the
Claims Tribunal is not absolved from the duty to
ascertain the truth to do justice and the Claims
Tribunal can summon the investigating officer
along with the police record."
5. The record of the Claims Tribunal reveals that the Claims
Tribunal has not conducted any inquiry into the matter as
contemplated by the Motor Vehicles Act. In that view of the
matter, the impugned judgment of the Claims Tribunal is liable
to be set aside.
6. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the appeal is
allowed and the impugned award of the Claims Tribunal is set
aside. The claim petition of the appellant is remanded back to
the Claims Tribunal for conducting an inquiry under Sections
168 and 169 in terms of the judgment of this Court in Mayur
Arora (supra).
7. The parties are directed to appear before the Claims
Tribunal on 1st March, 2012.
8. Considering that this case relates to an accident dated
18th October, 1988, the Claims Tribunal shall endeavour to
complete the inquiry within a period of six months from the
receipt of this order.
9. The LCR be sent back forthwith.
10. Since there is no appearance on behalf of the
respondents, the copy of this order be sent to the respondents.
J.R. MIDHA, J
FEBRUARY 24, 2012/mk
