Delhi High Court
Virendar Parkash Sharma vs Ram Udgar & Ors on 10 February, 2016
Author: R. K. Gauba
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 10th February, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 168/2012
VIRENDAR PARKASH SHARMA ..... Appellant
Through: Appellant in person.
versus
RAM UDGAR & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Adv. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. The appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(the MV Act) questions the correctness, legality and propriety of the
view taken by the motor accident claims tribunal (the tribunal) in
judgment dated 29.09.2011 whereby the claim petition of the appellant
seeking compensation under Sections 166 and 140 of the MV Act for
injuries suffered in motor vehicular accident on 08.12.1993, registered
as suit no.30/2011, was dismissed, inter-alia, holding that the appellant
had not been able to prove the involvement or negligence on the part of
the driver of tempo bearing registration no.DBL-4195 (the tempo),
driver and owner whereof were impleaded as first and second
respondent. The said party respondents had suffered the proceedings
exparte. Since the tempo in question was admittedly insured against
third party risk with the third respondent herein, which party upon being
served with notice appeared and contested the claim, inter-alia, denying
that the tempo was involved in the accident.
2. The appellant is a practicing advocate and has chosen to argue on
his own behalf. He has been heard at length and with his assistance
tribunal's record has been perused.
3. The learned counsel for third respondent (insurance company)
arguing in reply submitted that the view taken by the tribunal cannot be
faulted as requisite evidence worthy of reliance regarding involvement
of the vehicle (tempo) in the accident has not been adduced.
4. It was the case of the appellant before the tribunal in the claim
petition filed on 08.11.1994, almost eleven months after the accident,
that on 08.12.1993 he was on his way to the High Court travelling on
the pillion of scooter bearing registration no.DL-4SC-7596 (the scooter)
driven by one Ranjeet Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh resident of BE-271,
Hari Nagar Delhi-110064. He alleged that the tempo bearing
registration no. DBL-4195 driven by the first respondent had come in a
rash/negligent speed from the wrong side and hit the scooter from rear
side making him and the scooter driver fall on the ground, both
resultantly suffering injuries. He stated that he, alongwith the other
injured, was taken to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital in an unconscious
state and was treated for injuries. He claimed compensation in the sum
of `10,00,000/- for the injuries thus suffered. As observed earlier, the
first and second respondent did not appear and file any response to the
notices issued by the tribunal. The insurance company (third
respondent) appeared but joined issue, inter-alia, on the question of
involvement of the tempo in the collision.
5. During inquiry into the claim petition, the appellant examined
witnesses including himself appearing as PW1. The other witnesses
examined relate to the medical treatment for the injuries suffered by
him. Their evidence would only show that the appellant had suffered
injuries but their depositions are of no avail to prove the involvement of
the tempo in the collision. On that subject, it is the word of the
appellant (PW1) which is the solitary evidence offered.
6. Undoubtedly, in his statement as PW1, the appellant deposed
along the lines of the case set up in the claim petition including about
the involvement of the tempo bearing registration no.DBL-4195, also
mentioning that the said tempo was driven at that point of time by the
first respondent herein.
7. The appellant himself brought on record copy of the FIR
no.453/1993 that had been registered at 02:05 PM on 08.12.1993 on the
basis of his own statement in police station Tilak Marg. This document
shows that when the police had approached the appellant, he made a
statement narrating the sequence of events leading to the accident
mentioning, inter-alia, that the accident had been caused by a four
wheeler tempo the number of which was not known to him. In the
course of the inquiry the local police, under directions of the tribunal,
submitted its record, inter-alia, showing that the offending vehicle could
not be traced during investigation and, thus, the case (FIR) was sent as
"untraced" by way of report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C), on 22.03.1994.
8. The appellant did not examine Ranjeet Singh, the scooter driver
on the pillion of which he was travelling at the time of accident, even
though his full particulars as noted above were available to him. The
appellant did not examine any other eye witness to the accident who
could have come forward to state that particulars of the tempo which
had caused the accident had come to his/her notice which could be
eventually shared with the petitioner so as to facilitate taking a claim for
compensation through the petition before the tribunal. The appellant has
not explained in any manner as to how (after eleven months of the
accident and lodging the FIR with the local police stating that he was
not aware of the particulars of the tempo which had caused the accident)
he had come to know about the identity of the tempo. He has not come
forward with any evidence whatsoever indicating the source from which
he had learnt about the particulars of the offending vehicle or as to
whether he had shared the same with the police before he filed the claim
petition to demonstrate that there was default on the part of the police in
proper investigation of the crime reported by him.
9. The appellant relies on Kusum Lata & Ors. vs. Satbir and Ors.,
(2011) 3 SCC 646, to contend that omission to note down the number of
the offending vehicle cannot be held against him so as to disbelieve his
word or to reject his claim petition. The cited case cannot come in aid
of the appellant in the present case as he (appellant) himself is on record
to state that he was not aware of the particulars of the vehicle which had
caused the accident. He took this position immediately after the
occurrence and he has not shown as observed above, by any evidence as
to how or from which source he had learnt the particulars so as to seek
compensation or for holding the first and second respondent liable as
principal tort-feasor or the person vicariously liable or the insurance
company (third respondent) to be liable to indemnify.
10. The appellant argued that only because it has not been proved that
the tempo was involved, he should not have been denied compensation
in as much as he was still entitled to compensation in terms of Section
161 of the MV Act, it being a case of "hit and run". For purposes of
making a claim under Section 161 of the MV Act, the claimant (the
appellant) will have to approach the concerned forum. Such relief could
not have been considered or granted by the tribunal on a petition taken
out under Section 166 of the MV Act.
11. Thus, the appeal is devoid of substance and is accordingly
dismissed.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 10, 2016
ssc
