Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs Dalip Kumar Gupta And Ors. on 29 January, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 29th January, 2014
+ CM(M) 983/2013
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Ms.Manjusha Wadha and
Ms.Punya Rekha Angara,
Advocates.
Versus
DALIP KUMAR GUPTA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate
for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Respondent No. 4/Mr.Gaurav
Sharma in person.
Mr.M. Shamikh, Advocate for
Respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
CM No. 14964/2013 (for delay)
In view of the averments made in the application, the delay of 19 days
in re-filing the instant petition is condoned.
The application stands disposed of
CM(M) 983/2013
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent Nos. 7 and
8 are not required to adjudicate the instant matter and prays that service upon
the aforesaid respondents may be dispensed with. It is ordered accordingly.
2. The present petition is preferred against the impugned order dated
24.05.2013, whereby an application under Section VII Rule 11 CPC moved
by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Tribunal.
3. The issue raised in this case is that vehicle bearing No.HR 26 M 7364
was not involved in the accident occurred on 27.04.2011 at about 7.30 pm.
However, the petitioner is aggrieved with the observations made by the
learned Tribunal in the impugned order, as under:-
"It is well settled law that where petition under Section 166 of
the Act is instituted, it becomes the duty of the petitioner to
establish rash and negligent driving. To prove rash and
negligent driving in a petition under Motor Vehicles Act,
Tribunal need not go into the technicality because strict rules of
procedure and evidence are not followed. Basically, in road
accident cases, Tribunal is simply to quantify the compensation
which is just rational and reasonable on the basis of inquiry.
The proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the
proceedings in a civil suit. Further, roving enquiry is not
enquired to prove the rashness and negligence on the aprt of
the driver as has been held in Kaushumma Begum and others
Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2001 ACJ 421 SC."
4. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, I direct, learned
Tribunal shall also frame the following issue for proper adjudication of the
case:-
"Whether a Honda City Car bearing No. HR 26 M 7364 was
met with an accident on 27.04.2011 at about 7.30 pm with
Motorcycle bearing No.DL 3SBJ 4679? OPR
5. It is made clear that the learned Tribunal shall not be influenced by
the observations made in its order dated 24.05.2013 while conducting the
inquiry and deciding the aforenoted issue.
6. In view of the above, the instant petition stands disposed of.
7. A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the
parties.
8. The Registry of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to
the concerned Tribunal for compliance.
CM No. 14963/2013 (for stay)
With the dismissal of the appeal itself, this application has become
infructuous. The same is dismissed accordingly.
SURESH KAIT, J.
JANUARY 29, 2014
sb
