Raj Rani vs Santosh Kumar & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 1922 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                          Decided on: 20th March, 2012
+       MAC.APP. 73/2010
        RAJ RANI                                   ..... Appellant
                        Through:       Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Adv.
                 versus
        SANTOSH KUMAR & ORS                        ..... Respondent
                    Through:           Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Adv. for
                                       R3
        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
                      JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appellant Raj Rani who is mother of the deceased Krishan Kumar impugns a judgment dated 01.09.2009 whereby the Claim Petition filed by the Appellant was dismissed on the ground that the Appellant failed to prove the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle No. GJ-24U-0206.

2. The Claims Tribunal in the impugned judgment relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Minu B.Mehta v. Baldrishna Ramchandra Nayan 1977 ACJ 118 (SC) and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal and Others 2007 ACJ 1284 and held that in a Claim Petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred as Act) a compensation could be awarded to a claimant only on proof of negligence. There cannot be any dispute about the proposition of law. At the same time, it has to be kept in mind that Section 168 of the Act

enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an enquiry for determination of a just compensation. Section 169 of the Act provides that the Claims Tribunal shall follow such summary procedure as it deems fit to conduct such an enquiry. The enquiry envisaged u/s 168 r/w Section 169 of the Act is different from the trial of a Civil Suit where a party would fail for non production of the evidence. The Claims Tribunal which is manned by a Senior Judicial Officer is expected to hold an enquiry in a meaningful manner and to elicit evidence to award just and reasonable compensation.

3. It is true that in this case an eye-witness was not examined by the Claimant. The Appellant placed on record the copy of the FIR No. 97/96 P.S. Alipur u/s 279/304 IPC. While dealing with issue No. 1 (regarding negligence on the part of the Krishan Kumar driver of truck No. GJ-24U-0206), the Claims Tribunal noticed that the Appellant had placed on record the FIR and record of the criminal case. The Claims Tribunal concluded that it was not sufficient to establish that accident was caused by the driver of truck No. GJ-24U-0206 or that there was rash and negligent driving on the part of the Respondent No.1. It is true that merely on filing an FIR and record of the criminal case it might not be possible to return a finding of negligence on the part of the driver yet the Claims Tribunal ought to have required the Appellant to summon the eye-witness cited by the police in the criminal case. Statement of Ratan Chand recorded u/s 161

Cr.P.C. forms part of the record on the paper book. Although the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. by itself was not sufficient to give a finding on the negligence yet this witness could have been summoned by the Claims Tribunal.

4. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained. The same is accordingly set aside with the directions to the Claims Tribunal to hold a further enquiry u/s 168 of the Act. The Appellant shall summon the eye-witness by taking necessary steps. The Claims Tribunal shall be at liberty to examine any further witness including the IO as may be deemed appropriate and to decide the question of negligence afresh and the award of compensation, if any, to the Appellant. The parties are directed to appear before the concerned Claims Tribunal at District Court, Rohini on 19.04.2012.

5. A copy of the order shall be transmitted to the Claims Tribunal for compliance.

6. The Trial Court record be returned immediately.

7. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

8. Dasti also.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE MARCH 20, 2012 mr