Satram Dass & Anr. vs Charanjit Singh & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 2963 Del

*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

      +       MAC.APP.No.29/2005 and CM No.768/2005

          %                      Reserve on : 1st May, 2012
                                Date of decision : 4th May, 2012

      SATRAM DASS & ANR.                    ..... Appellants
                   Through : Mr. S.K. Chachra and
                             Ms. Gaganpreet Chawla, Advs.
              versus

      CHARANJIT SINGH & ORS.               ..... Respondents
                    Through : Ms. Shantha Devi Raman,
                              Adv. for R-3.

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

                         JUDGMENT

1. The appellants have challenged the award of the Claims

Tribunal whereby their claim petition has been dismissed by

the Claims Tribunal.

2. On 17th November, 1997 at about 05:30 A.M., the

deceased, Prem Kumar is alleged to have left his house for

bringing milk on his two wheeler scooter bearing No.DL-8SG-

0145. When the deceased reached JP Market T-Junction at

Pitampura, he has alleged to have been hit by bus No.DEP-

5399. A PCR van reached the spot and took the deceased to

Hindu Rao Hospital but he succumbed to the injuries on the

way and was declared dead by the doctor on duty in the

hospital. The deceased was survived by his parents who filed

the claim petition against the driver, owner and insurance

company of the bus bearing No.DEP-5933.

3. The father of the deceased appeared in the witness box

as PW-1 and deposed that the deceased was aged 20 years at

the time of the accident. He proved the Senior Secondary

certificate of the deceased as Ex.PW1/1. He further deposed

that the deceased was having his own shop of general

merchandise from which he was earning `4,000/- per month.

He tendered the certified copies of the chargesheet, notice

under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, mechanical

inspection report, site plan, letter written by the Investigating

Officer to the transport authority, MLC, postmortem report and

FIR which were marked as Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PW1/11.

4. Mr. Rohit Sharma, eye-witness of the accident appeared

in the witness box as PW-2 and deposed that he witnessed the

accident on 17th November, 1997 at about 05:30 A.M. He

deposed that bus bearing No.DEP-5933 hit the deceased who

was riding his own scooter at JP Market T-Junction due to which

the deceased was thrown of the scooter and suffered injuries

all over his body. He further deposed that the bus was driven

at a very high speed and the bus driver was negligent and the

scooterist became unconscious due to the accident. A PCR van

reached at the spot and took the scooterist to Hindu Rao

Hospital. The scooterist died on the way. He further deposed

that his statement was recorded by the police and he could

identify the driver.

5. The Claims Tribunal held that the involvement of bus

bearing No.DEP-5933 has not been proved by the appellant.

The Claims Tribunal relied on a letter written by the

Investigating Officer to the transport authority in which he has

mentioned two numbers, namely, DBP-5955 and DEP-5933.

The Claims Tribunal inferred from this document that the

Investigating Officer was not sure about the vehicle number

and, therefore, the Claims Tribunal held that bus bearing

No.DEP-5933 was not involved in the accident.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants has urged at the

time of hearing of this appeal that the findings of the Claims

Tribunal are perverse and contrary to the evidence on record.

It is further submitted that the Claims Tribunal has not

conducted any inquiry as envisaged under Section 168 of the

Motor Vehicles Act. It is further submitted that the Claims

Tribunal has completely overlooked the principles of

preponderance of probabilities and it appears that the Claims

Tribunal has applied the principle of proof beyond reasonable

doubt applicable to criminal cases. The learned counsel refers

to and relies upon the following judgments:-

(i) Bimla Devi v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, 2009

ACJ 1725.

(ii) Bhupathi Prameela v. Superintendent of Police,

Vizianagaram, 2011 ACJ 861.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants has further

submitted that the deceased was aged 20 years at the time of

the accident and was running a shop of general merchandise in

the name of Prem General Store earning `4,000/- per month

and was survived by his parents aged 50 and 55 years

respectively. The minimum wages for a matriculate at the

relevant time was `2,232/- per month. It is further submitted

that the compensation be awarded to the appellants taking the

income of the deceased to be `4,000/- per month, deducting

50% towards personal expenses and applying the multiplier of

13 according to the age of the mother.

8. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 supports the

finding of the Claims Tribunal that the offending vehicle

No.DEP-5933 was not involved in the accident. It is further

submitted that the involvement of offending vehicle has not

been sufficiently proved by the appellants. It is further

submitted that the Investigating Officer has himself issued

notice to the Transport Authority to give the particulars with

respect to vehicle Nos.DBP-5955 and DEP-5933.

9. It has been time and again held by this Court that the

Claims Tribunal has to conduct an inquiry which is different

from a trial. It is the duty of the Claims Tribunal to ascertain

the truth to do complete justice. In Mayur Arora v. Amit,

(2011) 1 TAC 878, this Court has held that the Claims

Tribunal has to conduct an inquiry to find out 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."

10. Vide order dated 14th January, 2010, this Court directed

the SHO, P.S. Shalimar Bagh to conduct an inquiry and submit

a report to this Court as to whether the deceased, Prem Kumar

was hit by bus bearing No.DEP-5933 in the road accident dated

17th November, 1997. The relevant portion of the order dated

14th January, 2010 is reproduced hereunder:-

"1. The appellants have challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby their claim petition has been dismissed.

2. The accident dated 17th November, 1997 resulted in the death of Prem Kumar. The deceased was survived by his parents who filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal.

3. The deceased was aged 20 years at the time of the accident and had gone to take milk from the milk booth at JP Market, T-Junction, Pitampura when he was hit by Bus No.DEP-5933 driven in rash and negligent manner.

4. The learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that it was doubtful whether the deceased has been killed by bus No.DEP-5933 or DBP-5955 or DBP-5933.

5. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that the Tribunal shall conduct an inquiry into the claim petition. Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that the Tribunal shall follow such summary procedure as it deems fit to conduct such an inquiry. The inquiry stipulated in Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act is different from the civil trial. If the Tribunal had any doubt about the involvement of the bus No.DEP-5933, the Tribunal should have examined the Investigating Officer to ascertain the truth. However, no such attempt has been made by the Claims Tribunal.

6. Be that as it may, this Court in appellate jurisdiction would like to conduct an inquiry and for that purpose, the SHO, PS Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, is directed to conduct an inquiry and report to this Court as to whether the deceased Prem Kumar was hit by bus No.DEP-5933 in the road accident dated 17th November, 1997. The report be submitted before this Court within a period of four weeks."

11. In compliance of the order dated 14th January, 2010, SHO,

P.S. Shalimar Bagh conducted an inquiry and submitted the

report that the deceased was hit by bus No.DEP-5933 in the

accident dated 17th November, 1997. The relevant portion of

the report is reproduced hereunder:-

"Briefly stated that on 17-11-97 at 5.25 AM a PCR call regarding accident was received DD No-39 in PP Pitampura and the said DD was marked to SI Ram Kumar along with Claims Tribunal. Kishan lal No-1444/NW reached at the spot JP market where scooter No-DL-8SG-0145 was found in accidental position and it was came to notice that some unknown vehicle hit the said scooter and fled away from the spot. SI Ram Kumar asked Ct. Kishan lal at the spot to preserve the place of occurrence and reached Hindu Rao Hospital where on MLC no-16887/97 Prem Kumar S/O-Satram Ram Das R/O-MP-190A, Pitam Pura Delhi was found brought dead. No eye witness was found either in the Hindu Rao Hospital or on the spot and the FIR No-756/97, Dt-17.11.97, U/S-279/304A IPC was registered in P.S. Shalimar Bagh, Delhi on DD Entry.

During investigation on 17.11.1997 IO SI Ram Kumar had given request to Transport authority to provde address of owner of vehicle No-DBP-5933 and DBP-5955 and transport authority had given remarks that records of both above said vehicles is not available. It cannot be said on which ground the IO of the case SI Ram

Singh sent a request to Transport Authority for details of above mentioned two vehicle as the police file of the case is traceable. The search for police file of the case has been done and in the concerned court, prosecution branch, record room of the police station and DCP office but the said case file could not be traced out.

On 21-11-97, IO SI Ram Kumar recorded the statement of eye witness Sh. Prem Pal S/O-Sh. Sobran Singh R/O-NP-14B, Pitam Pura Delhi. Sh. Prem Pal stated that he is TSR driver and on 17- 11-97, he was present in JP Market then one bus white colour bearing No-DEP-5933 being driven in a rash and negligent manner recklessly came from double tanki side and hit the scooter and fled away from the spot. Sh. Prem Pal went behind the bus on his TSR towards britania chowk and noted down the number of the offending bus.

On 25-11-97 other eye witness Sh. Rohit Sharma stated that on 17-11-97 he was going for purchasing milk then one bus white colour bearing No-DEP-5933 being driven in a rash and negligent manner recklessly came from double tanki side and hit the scooter and fled away from the spot. One TSR driver went behind the bus. A PCR van also came at the spot and took away the injured Prem Kumar to the hospital. After that he went to Rajasthan for an emergency work and after coming to Delhi on 25.11.97 he went to Police Chowki and got his statement recorded identifying the driver of the offending vehicle Charanjeet Singh. The IO SI Ram Kumar gave notice U/S-133 M.V.Act to Sh. Hansraj, the owner of the offending vehicle.

The bus driver Charanjeet Singh S/O-Gajjan Singh R/O-H.No-491, Sardar Colony, Sector-16, Pocket-J, Rohini, Delhi was arrested in the said case on the identification of eye witness Rohit Sharma and the offending bus number DEP-5933 was also taken into police possession and the bus was got mechanically inspected. After completion of investigation of the case the charge-sheet against the accused Charanjeet Singh was filed in

the court for judicial verdict. During the trial of the case both the eye-witness Sh. Prem Pal and Sh. Rohit Sharma could not be examined as both the witnesses were reportedly not traceable."

12. From the testimony of the eye-witness, PW-2, the

documents - Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PW1/11 and the status report of

the SHO, P.S. Shalimar Bagh, this Court is satisfied that the

deceased Prem Kumar died in the road accident dated 17th

November, 1997 by the rash and negligent driving of the bus

bearing No.DEP-5933. The reasons for arriving at the above

finding are as under:-

(i) On 17th November, 1997 at about 5:25 a.m., the PCR call

was received whereupon DD No.39 was registered at P.S.

Shalimar Bagh which was marked to S.I. Ram Kumar who along

with Constable Kishan Lal reached the spot and found the

scooter No.DL-8SG-0145 in accidental position.

(ii) The police recorded the statement of two witnesses

namely, Prem Pal Singh and Rohit Sharma who deposed that

the deceased was hit by bus bearing No.DEP-5933 whereupon

the Investigating Officer issued notice under Section 133 of the

Motor Vehicles Act to Hans Raj, owner of the offending vehicle.

(iii) Notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act was

proved as Ex.PW1/5. The reply of the owner, Hans Raj is also

recorded in Ex.PW1/5 in which he disclosed that the offending

vehicle was driven by Charanjit Singh and he produced the

offending vehicle as well as driver before the police.

(iv) The offending vehicle was sent for mechanical inspection

by the police. The mechanical inspection report is proved as

Ex.PW1/6.

(v) The Investigating Officer may be in doubt at the initial

stage but after recording the evidence of the two witnesses,

there was no doubt about the bus bearing No.DEP-5933 being

involved in the accident and, therefore, the police filed the

chargesheet after satisfying that the accident was caused by

the driver of bus No.DEP-5933.

(vi) If the Claims Tribunal had any doubt about the

involvement of bus bearing No.DEP-5933, the Claims Tribunal

ought to have examined the Investigating Officer and the other

eye-witness, namely, Prem Pal Singh under Section 165 of the

Indian Evidence Act instead of drawing adverse inference.

13. The deceased was aged 20 years at the time of the

accident. The deceased was running a shop of general

merchandise in the name of Prem General Store. The income

of the deceased is taken to be `3,000/- per month, 50% is

deducted towards his personal expenses and the multiplier

of 13 is applied according to the age of the mother to compute

the loss of dependency at `2,34,000/- [(`3,000 - 50% of

`3,000) x 12 x13]. `10,000 is awarded towards loss of love

and affection, `10,000/- towards loss of estate and `6,000/-

towards funeral expenses. The total compensation is computed

to be `2,60,000/- along with interest @9% per annum from the

date of filing of the claim petition till realization.

14. The appeal is allowed and `2,60,000/- along with interest

@9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till

realization is awarded to the claimants against the

respondents. Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the entire

award amount along with up to date interest with with UCO

Bank, Delhi High Court Branch by means of cheque drawn in

the name of UCO Bank A/c Satram Dass within 30 days.

15. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, UCO Bank is

directed to release 10% of the said amount to the appellants

by transferring the same to their Saving Bank Account. Upon

the aforesaid amount being deposited, the UCO Bank is

directed to release 10% of the amount to the appellants by

transferring the same to their Saving Bank Account. The

remaining amount be kept in fixed deposit in the name of the

appellants in the following manner:-

(i) Fixed deposit in respect of 10% for a period of one

year.

(ii) Fixed deposit in respect of 10% for a period of two

years.

(iii) Fixed deposit in respect of 10% for a period of three

years.

(iv) Fixed deposit in respect of 10% for a period of four

years.

(v) Fixed deposit in respect of 10% for a period of five

years.

(vi) Fixed deposit in respect of 10% for a period of six

years.

(vii) Fixed deposit in respect of 10% for a period of

seven years.

(viii) Fixed deposit in respect of 10% for a period of eight

years.

(ix) Fixed deposit in respect of 10% for a period of nine

years.

16. The interest on the aforesaid fixed deposits shall be paid

monthly by automatic credit of interest in the respective

Savings Account of the beneficiaries.

17. Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted

to the beneficiary after due verification and the Bank shall

issue photo Identity Card to the beneficiaries to facilitate

identity.

18. No cheque book be issued to the beneficiaries without

the permission of this Court.

19. The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by

the Bank in the safe custody. However, the original Pass Book

shall be given to the beneficiaries along with the photocopy of

the FDRs. Upon the expiry of the period of each FDR, the Bank

shall automatically credit the maturity amount in the Savings

Account of the beneficiaries.

20. No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the

said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court.

21. Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in

this Court.

22. On the request of the beneficiaries, Bank shall transfer

the Savings Account to any other branch according to their

convenience.

23. The beneficiaries shall furnish all the relevant documents

for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit

Account to Mr. M.S. Rao, AGM, UCO Bank, Delhi High Court

Branch, New Delhi (Mobile No. 09871129345).

24. The pending application is disposed of.

25. Copy of this judgment be sent to Mr. M.S. Rao, AGM, UCO

Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi (Mobile

No.09871129345).

J.R. MIDHA, J MAY 04, 2012