Delhi High Court
Rajni & Ors. vs Milap Singh & Ors. on 24 February, 2016
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 24th February, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 1245/2012 &CM No.20506/2012
RAJNI & ORS.
..... Appellant
Through Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv.
versus
MILAP SINGH & ORS.
..... Respondent
Through Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv. for R-2
Mr. Nagendra Kasana, Adv. for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. On the Claim petition under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (MV Act), presented on 05.04.2006 and registered as MACT case
No.483/2006 seeking compensation on account of death of Raman Kumar
Taneja in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 25.08.2005, was
dismissed by the Tribunal vide judgment dated 21.05.2012 which is
impugned through the appeal at hand.
2. In the claim petition it was contended that the deceased was going in
his Martui car bearing no. HR 06 D 0896 with two passengers including
Sudhir Rana on the front seat and Lalit on the rear when, at about 11 PM in
the area of Bhalaswa village, the car was hit by truck bearing No.HR 56 3146
(the truck) causing injuries to all the occupants, Raman Kumar Taneja (the
driver), dying as a result. The accident was subject matter of first
information report (FIR) No.593/05 registered for offences under Sections
279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) in police station
Jahangirpuri, Delhi. It is admitted that the truck is owned by the first
respondent herein and that it was insured against third party risk for the
period in question with the second respondent herein. It is stated that the
truck was driven by the third respondent and that it was on account of
rash/negligent driving by him that the collision occurred. It may be noted
that the third respondent, by way of his written statement, denied any such
role claiming that he had left the job of driver in 2004.
3. During inquiry, aside from evidence of the first claimant (appearing as
PW1), the appellants relied on evidence of Mukesh Lamba (PW2) deposing
through his affidavit (Ex.PW2/A). According to PW2, the accident had
occurred in his presence as he was also moving on the same road in the same
direction driving his own car, the truck having overtaken his vehicle and
causing the accident against the car of the deceased immediately thereafter.
4. The Tribunal was not satisfied with the evidence of PW2 and while
taking note of the fact that the police had also closed the investigation of the
case terming it as a case of "hit and run" returned the finding that the truck of
the respondents was not involved.
5. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that hoping that the
testimony of PW2 would be accepted, they had not led further evidence for
corroboration even though the other occupants of the car (Sudhir Rana and
Lalit) have all along been available and their version would provide
corroboration. It is submitted that complaint made by Lalit to the
investigating police officer, though noted by the Tribunal in the proceedings
in the course of inquiry, no benefit on that account was accorded.
6. The submission now made is that the impugned judgment may be set
aside and further opportunity be given to the claimants to prove the
involvement, and negligence of the driver of the truck of the respondents.
The learned counsel for the respondents submitted no objection to the prayer
thus made.
7. In view of the above, the impugned judgment is set aside. The claim
case is remitted to the Tribunal for further inquiry in the course of which the
claimants shall be entitled to lead further evidence. Needless to add, the
respondents will be entitled to not only participate by cross-examining the
additional witness of the claimants but also by leading evidence in rebuttal, if
any.
8. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal for further proceedings in
accordance with law on 08.03.2016.
9. The Tribunal's record shall be returned.
10. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 24, 2016/VLD
