Delhi High Court
Smt. Suman vs Smt. Manju Devi & Ors. on 1 November, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 1st November, 2012
+ MAC. APP. 647/2012
SMT. SUMAN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Naresh C.Sharma, Advocate
versus
SMT. MANJU DEVI & ORS. .... Respondents
Through: Mr.S.N.Parashar, Advocate for R-1 to R-
5
+ MAC. APP. 651/2012
SHYAM SUNDER ..... Appellant
Through: Nemo.
versus
SMT. MANJU DEVI & ORS. .... Respondents
Through: Mr.S.N.Parashar, Advocate for R-1 to R-
5
Mr.Naresh C.Sharma, Advocate for R-7
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. These two Appeals (MAC. APP. 647/2012 & MAC. APP. 651/2012)
arise out of a judgment dated 30th January, 2012 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a Claim
Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act)
filed by Respondents No.1 to 5 was allowed and a compensation of `
8,70,924/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from 15.04.2006 till the
date of payment was granted.
2. During the course of arguments, it was urged by the learned counsel for
the Appellant that in this case the driver was ordered to be impleaded as
Respondent No.3 by an order dated 18.05.2007. He was not permitted to
file his written statement. He was impleaded at the stage of recording of
the evidence of the Respondents and no opportunity was granted to the
driver (Respondent No.7 herein) to cross-examine the witnesses or to
present his case.
3. I have before me the Trial Court record. The Claim Petitions were
instituted on 15.04.2006. In the initial Claim Petitions, Hawa Singh was
impleaded as Respondent No.1 and Manmohan Singh was impleaded as
Respondent No.2. They were alleged to be the owners of the vehicle.
Strangely, the name of the driver was not mentioned in the Claim
Petition. Subsequently, an Application dated 10.05.2007 was moved
before the Claims Tribunal on 14.05.2007 for impleading Shyam Sunder
S/o Ram Niwas, as driver of the offending vehicle bearing No.HR-10D-
3981. The file was taken up on 18.05.2007. The Application was allowed
and a notice to the driver was ordered to be issued for the next date of
hearing, that is, 19.07.2007. Curiously, there is no mention of the
previous order, that is, 18.05.2007 in the order dated 19.07.2007. It
appears that on 19.07.2007, the Claims Tribunal was not even aware of
the fact that the driver had been ordered to be impleaded and a notice had
been ordered to be issued to him on 19.07.2007, that is, after passing the
order of impleadment of driver, the Claims Tribunal proceeded to
examine RW1, RW3 and RW4 without even completing the service of
notice on the driver. Even thereafter, the Claims Tribunal continued to
proceed with the matter oblivious of the fact that the driver had been
ordered to be impleaded and a notice had been ordered to be issued to
him. It was only on 03.11.2008 the presence of Respondent No.3
(Respondent No.7 herein) was recorded. Even at this stage Respondent
No.3 (Respondent No.7 herein) who had appeared, for the first time, was
not even asked to file the written statement of his defence, very curiously
the Respondents' evidence was closed on that very date and the case was
fixed for final arguments.
4. It is true that in a Claim Petition presented under Section 166 of the Act, a
Claims Tribunal is required to hold an inquiry to award a compensation
which appears to be just. The Claims Tribunal was expected to follow the
principle of natural justice and at least to permit Respondent No.3
(Respondent No.7 herein), the driver of the offending vehicle, to file his
written statement and allow him to cross-examine the witnesses already
produced by the Claimants and the Respondents.
5. All the more, all these facts escaped the attention of the Claims Tribunal,
even at the time of hearing final arguments and while passing of the
impugned judgment. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment cannot
be sustained; the same is set aside and the Claim Petition is remanded
back to the Claims Tribunal with a direction to give an opportunity to
Respondent No.3 (Respondent No.7 herein) to file his written statement
and to proceed further with the Claim Petition in accordance with law.
6. Both the Appeals are allowed in above terms.
7. Parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal on 10.12.2012.
8. The amount of compensation, if any, deposited by the Appellant shall be
refunded to him/her.
9. Pending Applications stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 01, 2012/v
