Meena Saxena vs Shahid Khan & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 1590 Del

Citation : 2012 Latest Caselaw 1590 Del
Judgement Date : 6 March, 2012

Delhi High Court

Meena Saxena vs Shahid Khan & Ors. on 6 March, 2012

Author: J.R. Midha

R-4
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                      +   MAC.APP. 915-17/2005

%                                 Date of decision: 6th March, 2012

      MEENA SAXENA                               ...... Appellant
                           Through : Mr. Bijender Singh, Adv.

                      versus

      SHAHID KHAN & ORS.                ..... Respondents
               Through : Mr. Ashok Popli, Adv. for R-1&2.
                         Ms. Suman Bagga, Adv. for R-3.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

                          JUDGMENT (ORAL)

1. The appellant has challenged the judgment of the Claims

Tribunal whereby his claim petition has been dismissed.

2. The accident dated 25th March, 2001 resulted in the

death of R.B.L. Saxena. The deceased was driving his two

wheeler scooter bearing No.DL-4SD-3652 which met with an

accident. The police received an intimation on phone that car

bearing No.DL-4CN-0636 has caused the accident whereupon

the PCR came on the spot and took the deceased to the

hospital. The police registered FIR No.63/2001, PS Inderpuri

under Sections 279/337/304A IPC against respondent No.1.

The deceased later died in the hospital leaving behind his

widow, one son and one daughter who filed the claim petition

before the Claims Tribunal.

3. Respondents No.1 and 2 denied the accident in their

written statement before the Claims Tribunal. The defense

taken was that respondent No.1 was helping the scooterist

who had fallen down from his scooter for medical aid and the

people gathered there falsely implicated respondent No.1.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that no

help or no medical aid whatsoever has been rendered by

respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 in fact ran away from the

spot and the people who saw the accident reported the matter

to the police whereupon the police registered the FIR. It is

submitted that the police has failed in its duty to file the

accident information report under Section 158(6) of the Motor

Vehicles Act. It is further submitted that Claims Tribunal has

not conducted any inquiry under Section 168 of the Motor

Vehicles Act to find out the truth.

5. In the case of Mayur Arora v. Amit, 2011 (1) TAC 878

this Court held the scope of inquiry under Sections 168 and

169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as under:-

"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. Notice be issued to the SHO PS Inder Puri to file accident