Delhi High Court
Rekha Devi vs Pradeep on 5 February, 2013
Author: Suresh Kait
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 5th February, 2013
+ MAC.A. 1098/2012
REKHA DEVI ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Adv.
versus
PRADEEP ..... Respondent
Through: NEMO.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Instant appeal is filed against the impugned award dated 25.04.2012
whereby the ld. Tribunal has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant for
non-prosecution.
2. In the present case, DAR was filed in respect of the accident
dated 21.10.2011 which took place in front of MCD, Main Police Station
Road and in front of H-Block, Delhi. In that accident one Sh. Raj Kumar
(deceased) expired while crossing the road due to rash and negligent driving
of the motorcycle, make-Pulsar, bearing no. DL-8SAU-5601 being driven by
its owner Mr. Pradeep (respondent). As per DAR, the offending vehicle
was not insured.
3. A criminal case under Section 279/304A IPC was registered against
the respondent vide FIR no. 450/2011 at Police Station - Mongol Puri.
4. As per the trial court record, copies of the DAR were supplied to the
appellant / claimant on 19.01.2012 and the matter was fixed for filing the
written statements on 16.02.2012. Since none appeared on behalf of the
respondent on 16.02.2012 he was proceeded ex-parte and the matter was
listed on 26.03.2012 for ex-parte evidence.
5. On the said date, counsel for the LRs of deceased was present,
however, he could not produce any witness in support of the claim and he
sought adjournment and thereafter the matter was listed on 25.04.2012 for
entire evidence.
6. Since the appellant / claimant could not produce any evidence on that
date, therefore ld. Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the
appellant / claimant.
7. As recorded by the ld. Tribunal, the petitioner / claimant did not lead
any evidence despite effective opportunities. She neither got examined
herself nor any other witness and even no affidavit was filed.
8. It is further recorded that as per the record, in fact the petitioner /
claimant hardly appeared in the case. Last opportunity was granted to her to
complete the evidence vide order dated 26.03.2012, but she failed to lead
even a single evidence.
9. Therefore, the ld. Tribunal was compelled to withhold the interest due
to lapses and delay committed on behalf of the appellant/claimant.
10. I note, the ground of dismissal of the claim petition filed by the
appellant / claimant is contrary to the order sheet.
11. I further note, either the counsel or the legal heirs of the deceased
continued to appear before the ld. Tribunal, however due to some reason,
they could not produce the witnesses on the date fixed by the ld. Tribunal.
12. The present case is being filed under welfare legislation. One life has
been lost. Moreover, the respondent was proceeded ex-parte before the ld.
Tribunal and he preferred not to appear before this Court even after service.
13. I also note that the appellant / claimant filed a restoration application
before the ld. Tribunal along with the evidence and list of witnesses.
However, same has been rightly dismissed.
14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, ld. Tribunal should have
given more opportunities to the appellants / claimants so that they could be
able to prove their case. Therefore, I set aside the impugned award dated
25.04.2012 passed by the ld. Tribunal, consequently, ld. Tribunal is
directed to give the sufficient opportunities to the appellants / claimants to
produce their witnesses.
15. Therefore, the appellant is directed to appear before the ld. Tribunal
on 16.02.2013. Ld. Tribunal shall be at liberty to fix the date as per its
convenience.
16. In view of the above, petition stands disposed of.
17. Trial Court Record be sent back to the court concerned along with the
copy of this order.
CM. NO. 17721/2012 (Delay)
In view of the above instant application has also become infructuous
and disposed of as such.
SURESH KAIT, J
FEBRUARY 05, 2013
Jg/RS
