Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Soni Devi & Ors on 20 September, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~ 5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 20th September, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 872/2006
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through Mr.M.R.Sinha, Advocate
versus
SONI DEVI & ORS. .... Respondents
Through Mr.Nirmal Kumar, Advocate for R-1 to
R-4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellant Insurance Company impugns a judgment dated 27th
September, 2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the
Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation of `5,36,140/- was awarded in
favour of the Claimants for the death of Inder Kant Jha who died in a
motor vehicle accident, which occurred on 19.11.2003.
2. The ground of challenge raised by the learned counsel for the Appellant is
that the vehicle No.DL-7CD-0827 was not involved in the accident. It
was only a good gesture on the part of Respondent No.1 to remove the
injured Inder Kant Jha to St. Stephens Hospital noticing him to be lying
injured near the ISBT, who later on succumbed to the injuries.
3. The issue of negligence was dealt with by the Claims Tribunal as under:-
"10. To prove the issue, the petitioners examined PW-4
Sh.Shambhu Nath Jha who is an eye witness and has deposed that on
19.11.03 at about 8.00 a.m., he along with deceased Inder Kant Jha
were standing at ISBT in order to get a bus for Greater Kailash for
going on duty and in the meanwhile a Maruti Car bearing registration
No.DL-7-CD-0827 being driven by Mr.Manish Kumar at a very high
speed and in rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased as a result of
which he fell down and passersby surrounded the said care and the
occupant of the Maruti care was asked to take the deceased to
St.Stephen Hospital where he was admitted and thereafter occupant of
the said Maruti Car left the hospital. He has then deposed that the
police had recorded his statement. The witness was not cross examined
by respondents despite opportunity granted to them. Thus the
testimony of Pw-4 has remained unassailed.
11. PW-2 Ashok Jaiswal, Chief Medical Officer, Subzi Mandi
Mortuary, Delhi has deposed that he has conducted the post mortem
examination on the body of Inder Kant Jha, aged about 26 years son of
Sh.Nannu Jha vide P.M. report No.1975 dated 22.11.03 with alleged
history of road traffic accident and after examination he prepared the
said P.M .report, a copy of which has been proved by him as
Ex.PW.2/1, wherein it has been opined by him that the injuries were
ante mortem in nature caused by blunt force impact and possibly due
to road traffic accident as alleged. He has stated that cause of death is
cranio cerebral injuries.
12. PW-3 H.C.Vijender Singh, PS Kashmiri Gate has brought
the original FIR and proved the copy of FIR No.563 dated 21.11.03 as
Ex.PW.3/1. He also brought other documents which have been
collectively put as mark A which is a charge sheet filed by the police in
FIR Case No.563/03 mentioning the name of respondent No.1 as
accused person u/s 279/304A of IPC. In the list of prosecution's
witnesses name of Mr.Shambhu Nath Jha i.e. Pw-4 has been
mentioned at Sr.No.9. The documents also contained site plan of place
of occurrence of accident.
13. Statement of PW-4 find corroboration from the criminal case
records collectively proved as mark A.
14. On the other hand, the Respondent No.1 appeared as R2W1
in rebuttal and deposed that on 19.11.03 he was driving his Maruti
Car from his residence to Dilshad Garden and at about 8.00 a.m. or
8.15 a.m. when he reached near ISBT he saw a crowd surrounding in
a person who was lying on the road in injured condition and conscious
position and some people out of the crowd requested him to take the
injured to the hospital and he took the injured person to St.Stephen
Hospital in emergency ward and gave his name, address and
telephone number to the attending doctor and after two-three months
police informed him that on 19.11.03 his vehicle was involved in the
accident. He said that he informed to the IO of the case that the
accident did not take place due to his mistake and also informed to the
higher authorities of police and the carbon copy of the complaint with
A.D.Card are put as Ex.R2W1/1 & R2W1/2 respectively. He deposed
that he has been wrongly implicated by the police in the said case and
he has not caused any accident and he has been discharged by the
Court of Ld.M.M. on 23.01.06. The respondent No.1 was also not
cross examined by Ld.Counsel for the petitioner.
15. This tribunal can always take cognizance of report of officer-
in-charge of a police state under Section 158(6) Motor Vehicle Act, of
an accident forwarded to it or charge-sheet filed by police against
driver of the offending vehicle under Sec. 173 Cr.P.C. in the criminal
Court."
4. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that PW-4 was
neighbour of the deceased Inder Kant Jha. There is delay of 2 months in
issuing notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act(the Act) to
the owner of the vehicle and thus, the Claims Tribunal ought not to have
accepted PW-4's testimony.
5. I would not agree. No suggestion was given to PW-4 that he was not
present at the spot at the time of accident or that he had made a false
statement. In the case of PW-4, unchallenged testimony coupled with the
registration of a Criminal Case against Respondent No.1, was sufficient to
establish the negligence on the touchstone of preponderance of probability
for the purpose of a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicle Act. The finding on negligence reached by the Claims Tribunal
in the circumstances, cannot be faulted.
6. The Appeal is dismissed with cost throughout.
7. Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-, if deposited, shall be released to the
Appellant Insurance Company.
8. Pending Applications stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 20, 2012
v
