Delhi High Court
Urmila & Ors vs Abhishek Anand & Ors on 22 February, 2016
Author: R. K. Gauba
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 22nd February, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 195/2011
URMILA & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. V.S. Yadav, Adv.
versus
ABHISHEK ANAND & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Siddhant Jaiswal for Ms. Suman
Bagga, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. The claim petition of the appellants under Sections 166 and 140 of the
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (M.V. Act) registered as MACT case no.54/10/05
was dismissed by the Tribunal vide judgment dated 18.11.2010 which is
impugned through the appeal at hand.
2. From the impugned judgment it is clear that a cross case registered as
claim petition no.55/10/05 had been filed respecting the death of one
Rishabh Anand, which occurred as a result of the same accident which is the
subject matter of the appeal at hand. The facts narrated in the impugned
judgment show that, at about 11.40 am on 06.08.2004 there was collision
between two scooters, one bearing no.UP-12E-3386 and the other bearing
no. DL-8S-AE-0415, the former driven by Dinesh Chand Yadav and the
latter statedly driven by Jogeshwar Prasad (first respondent herein). Dinesh
Chand Yadav, the rider of the former scooter and Rishabh Anand, the pillion
rider of the latter scooter died as a result of the injuries consequently
suffered, giving rise to the cause of action for claim petitions. In each claim
case, allegations of negligent driving were levelled by the claimants against
the driver of the other scooter. The Tribunal while dealing with the issue of
negligence recorded its observations in the following words:
"The controversy who was actually driving scooter
no.DL-8S-AE-0415 whether respondent no.1 or his
deceased son Sh. Rishab Anand as well as due to
whose faults and negligence accident had
happened is already decided in another cross case
bearing no.55/10/05. On the same set of evidence,
it has already been held that accident had
happened due to rash and negligent driving of
scooter no.UP-12E-3386 by deceased Sh. Dinesh
Chand Yadav and compensation has been ordered
to be paid by the petitioners on account of death of
Sh. Rishab Anand. Same findings have to be given
and made applicable in the present proceedings
also due to similar evidence."
3. It is the grievance of the claimants in the appeal at hand that the above
was not a correct approach to the issue on the part of the tribunal. It is also
submitted that the claim or award of compensation on the principle of no
fault liability under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was not even
considered by the Tribunal.
4. The submissions of the appellants are correct. The tribunal was duty
bound to consider the evidence led before it on the claim petition presented
by the appellants, rather than be swayed by the impression gathered on the
basis of the evidence in another case, even though it may have given rise to
similar evidence being adduced. It must be clarified, at the same time, that
the tribunal would have been within its jurisdiction to reach similar
conclusions on facts in the two cases. But, for such purposes, it was required
to deal with the evidence adduced rather than short shrift the issue by saying
„same findings have to be given and made applicable‟ to the case at hand, as
has been observed.
5. Thus, the impugned judgment is set aside. The matter is remitted to
the tribunal for afresh adjudication in accordance with law on the basis of
the evidence adduced before it during the inquiry. While doing so, it shall
also consider the prayer for compensation under no-fault liability clause
contained in section 140 MV Act.
6. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 29.03.2016.
The Tribunal‟s record shall be returned.
7. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
R.K.GAUBA, J
FEBRUARY 22, 2016
afa
