Delhi High Court
Raj Rani (Deceased) Thr. Lr???S vs Manish Sharma & Anr. on 6 July, 2012
Author: J.R. Midha
2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP.517/2006 and CM No.8499/2006
% Date of decision : 6th July, 2012
RAJ RANI (DECEASED) THR. LR's ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. S.D. Dixit, Adv.
versus
MANISH SHARMA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Rohit Goel, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims
Tribunal whereby her claim petition has been dismissed.
2. The accident dated 20th April, 2000 resulted in the
grievous injuries to the appellant who filed the claim petition
before the Claims Tribunal. The appellant examined two
witnesses to prove her case. PW-1, Ram Dhan is the eye-
witness of the accident and PW - 2 Ramesh Arora is the son of
the appellant. PW-1 deposed that he witnessed the accident
and his statement was recorded by the police. PW-2 proved
the injuries suffered and the treatment taken by the appellant
in the alleged accident.
3. The Claims Tribunal held that the statement of PW-1 was
contradictory and does not inspire confidence. The Claims
Tribunal further held that the appellant has not examined the
Investigating Officer of the case and has also not produced the
statement of the witness given to the police. The Claims
Tribunal further held that the appellant has not proved that the
alleged injuries occurred due to the accident in question. The
Claims Tribunal further held that the bills placed on record
were not supported by the medical prescription. The claim
petition was therefore dismissed.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
Claims Tribunal has not conducted any inquiry in this matter to
ascertain the truth. The learned counsel further submits that
he has filed an application bearing CM No.8499/2006 under
Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure along with this
appeal for permission to lead additional evidence of the
Investigating Officer of the police and the concerned doctor.
The scope of inquiry in motor accident cases is laid down by
this Court in Mayur Arora v. Amit @ Pange, (2011) 1 TAC
878 in which this Court has held that it is the duty of the
Claims Tribunal to ascertain the truth. In that view of the
matter, the Claims Tribunal ought to have examined the
Investigating Officer to ascertain the truth. The findings of this
Court are reproduced hereunder:-
"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."
4. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the order of
the Claims Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the case is to
be remanded back to the Claims Tribunal for conducting a
fresh inquiry.
5. For the reasons as aforesaid, the impugned order is set
aside and the case is remanded back to the Claims Tribunal for
fresh inquiry.
6. The application of the appellant bearing CM No.8499/2006
is allowed and the appellant is permitted to lead additional
evidence.
7. The parties are directed to appear before the Claims
Tribunal on 1st August, 2012.
8. The SHO of the concerned Police Station is directed to file
Accident Information Report under Section 156(6) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Claims Tribunal within a period
of four weeks.
9. Copy of this judgment be also sent to the SHO, P.S. Ashok
Vihar for compensation.
10. LCR be returned back forthwith.
J.R. MIDHA, J
JULY 06, 2012
mk
