Baby Mehak Batra vs Syal Transport Co & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 965 Del

$~7,8, 9 & 10
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                         Date of decision: 3rd February, 2015
+        MAC.APP. 298/2012

         UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD           ..... Appellant
                       Through: Mr. D.D. Singh, Adv. with
                                Mr. Navdeep Singh, Adv.
                       versus

         JAY DEVI & ORS                                                  ..... Respondent
                                      Through:         Mr. Varun Goswami, Adv. with
                                                       Ms. Tanuja B., Adv.
+        MAC.APP. 332/2012

         UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD           ..... Appellant
                       Through: Mr. D.D. Singh, Adv. with
                                Mr. Navdeep Singh, Adv.

                                      versus

         JAY DEVI & ORS                                                  ..... Respondents
                                      Through:         Mr. Varun Goswami, Adv. with
                                                       Ms. Tanuja B., Adv.
+        MAC.APP. 343/2012
         BABY MEHAK BATRA                                                 ..... Appellant
                                      Through:         Mr. Varun Goswami, Adv. with
                                                       Ms. Tanuja B., Adv.
                                      versus

         SYAL TRANSPORT CO & ORS                  ..... Respondents
                        Through: Mr. D.D. Singh, Adv. with
                                 Mr. Navdeep Singh, Adv. for R-3.
+        MAC.APP. 345/2012
         BABY MEHAK BATRA                                                ..... Appellant
                     Through:                          Mr. Varun Goswami, Adv. with
                                                       Ms. Tanuja B., Adv.


MAC. APP. No.298/2012, 332/2012, 343/2012 & 345/2012                         Page 1 of 7
                                       versus

         SYAL TRANSPORT CO & ORS                 ..... Respondents
                      Through: Mr. D.D. Singh, Adv. with
                                Mr. Navdeep Singh, Adv. for R-3.
         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. These four appeals (MAC.APP.298/2012, MAC.APP.332/2012,

MAC.APP.345/2012 and MAC.APP. 343/2012) relate to a motor

vehicular accident which occurred on 02.12.2005 wherein Rakesh

Batra and his wife Cheena Batra succumbed to fatal injuries. Two

claim petitions each were filed by Jay Devi and Tara Chand, parents

of Rakesh Batra and by baby Mehak, the minor daughter of deceased

Rakesh Batra and Cheena Batra. It is stated that Jay Devi has since

expired. Since husband of Jay Devi, namely Tara Chand is already on

record and the minor child of the deceased Rakesh Batra and Cheena

Batra is also on record, name of Jay Devi is ordered to be deleted from

the array of the parties. Necessary deletion has been carried out by the

Court Master under his signatures today itself.

2. By impugned judgment dated 20.12.2011 passed by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) compensation was

awarded in favour of the Claimants i.e. Jay Devi, Tara Chand and

Baby Mehak Batra. Jay Devi and Tara Chand are the parents of

deceased Rakesh Batra and parents-in-law of deceased Smt. Cheena

Batra. Baby Mehak Batra is the daughter of the deceased Rakesh Batra

and Smt. Cheena Batra.

3. MAC APP.298/2012 and MAC APP.332/2012 have been filed by the

Appellant United India Insurance Company Limited disputing the

liability, whereas MAC APP. 343/2012 and MAC APP.345/2012 have

been filed by Baby Mehat Batra for enhancement of compensation.

4. Both husband and wife lost their lives in the unfortunate accident

which occurred on 02.12.2005. The FIR in relation to the accident was

recorded on 03.12.2005 on the complaint of Mr. Ashok Tandon, who

is the father-in-law of Rakesh Batra and father of Cheena Batra.

5. In the complaint made to the police, it is stated that the accident had

taken place on 03.12.2005 at about 1:40 a.m. The Claims Tribunal,

however, opined that the FIR in the case was recorded at 1:40 a.m. on

03.12.2015 and therefore, the accident must have taken place before

12:00 hours in the night. The precise time of the accident is not

normally very relevant in the claim cases. However, in the instant

case, the policy issued by the United India Insurance Company

Limited, which has been placed on record was valid for the period

from 03.12.2004 to the mid-night of 02.12.2005. Therefore, the

precise time of accident is of great import.

6. No eye-witness was examined in the case. It is very intriguing to note

that the site plan and other circumstantial evidence were also not

placed on record to throw light on the aspect of negligence. The

Claims Tribunal simply on the basis of the postmortem report and the

registration of criminal case opined that there was negligence on the

part of the driver of the truck bearing registration no.HR-47-4507.

7. In view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance

Company Limited v. Meena Variyal (2007) 5 SCC 428 and Deepal

Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Company Limited, (2004) 5

SCC 385, it is incumbent on a Petitioner claiming compensation under

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the 'Act') to prove that

the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent act of the

driver of the offending vehicle. It is very unfortunate that the aspect

of negligence and precise time of the accident were not gone into

appropriately by the Claims Tribunal in the present case. A perusal of

the FIR which has been placed on record simply states that the

accident took place at about 1:40 a.m. Therefore, the Claims Tribunal

was not right in observing that the FIR was recorded at 1:40 a.m. It

was the duty of the Claimants as also of the Claims Tribunal, who is

expected to hold an inquiry under Section 166 of the Act for awarding

just and reasonable compensation in appropriate cases, to have

summoned the eye witnesses and if eye witnesses were not there, then

to summon the investigating officer as well as the record of the

criminal court including the site plan, mechanical inspection report,

etc. to enquire if negligence on the part of the driver and precise time

of the accident were proved.

8. In view of this, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained; the same

therefore, has to be set aside.

9. By an order dated 21.03.2012, on deposit of the award amount along

with upto date interest with the Registrar General of this Court, the

execution of the award was stayed. Subsequently, in pursuance of the

order dated 21.10.2013, a part of the awarded amount was ordered to

be released.

10. I may, at this stage, note that the Claims Tribunal shall not be bound

by the quantum of compensation which has been awarded or the

liability of the Insurance Company/owner/driver of the vehicle. The

Claims Tribunal shall be obliged and at liberty to go into all the

aspects afresh including the amount of compensation.

11. Since the accident occurred in the year 2005 and these appeals were

filed in the year 2012, it is directed that the Claims Tribunal shall

endeavor to dispose of all the Claim Petitions expeditiously and in any

case within a period of six months from the date of first appearance

before the Claims Tribunal.

12. All the parties are directed to appear before the Presiding Officer,

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi on

25.02.2015. It is expected that all the parties shall co-operate in

expeditious disposal of the claim petitions.

13. The amount deposited with the Registrar General of this Court shall be

refunded to the Appellant United India Insurance Company Limited.

Statutory amount, if any, shall also be refunded to the Appellant

Insurance Company.

14. The amount already released to the Claimants shall be subject to the

final orders that may be passed by the Claims Tribunal. It is clarified

that no further amount shall be released.

15. Dasti also.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE FEBRUARY 03, 2015 vk