Delhi High Court
Meharban vs Smt. Shakuntla & Ors on 30 March, 2016
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 30th March, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 713/2014
MEHARBAN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Adv.
Versus
SMT. SHAKUNTLA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv. for R-1 to 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Vijender Singh died as a result of injuries suffered in a motor
vehicular accident that occurred at about 5.30 p.m. on 19.10.2009 when the
motorcycle driven by him was hit by a maruti car bearing registration No.
HR 26 N 8119 (the offending vehicle) statedly in a rash/negligent manner.
His widow, two children and father (first to fourth respondents herein) filed
a claim petition under Sections 166 & 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(MV Act) on 11.10.2010 seeking compensation. The said case was
registered as MACT No. 311/2010. The appellant was impleaded in the
case on the allegations that he was the driver of the offending vehicle, in
addition to Charan Singh, registred owner of the offending vehicle and
Wajid to whom Charan Singh had claimed to have sold the offending
vehicle also impleaded as second and third respondents.
2. The tribunal held inquiry and, by judgment dated 23.04.2014,
concluded that the accident had occurred due to rash/negligent driving of the
offending vehicle by the appellant. It found that the second respondent
before the tribunal i.e Charan Singh had not been able to prove that he had
sold the offending vehicle to Wajid. Thus, Wajid was exonerated. The
tribunal assessed the compensation at ₹ 5,72,864/- and fastened the liability
on the appellant and Charan Singh jointly and severally, distributing the
compensation in favour of the widow (first respondent herein) and father
(fourth respondent herein) in the ratio of 70% and 30%.
3. The appellant, by appeal at hand, questions the correctness of the
finding that he was the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of
collision against the motorcycle driving by the deceased. He points out that
in the first information report (FIR) No. 9/2010 registered in Chandi Nagar,
District Baghpat (UP), based on the statement of the son of the deceased,
there was no reference to the identity of the driver of the offending vehicle.
He also points out that in the evidence led before the tribunal, primarily
through the statement of Sakuntla (PW-1) on the strength of her affidavit
(Ex.PW-1/A) and Dinesh (PW-2) on the basis of his affidavit (Ex.PW-2/A)
disclosed that there is nothing to connect him with the driving of the
offending vehicle.
4. Indeed, in the evidence of PW-2, presented as an eye witness, it is
vaguely stated that the accident had occurred due to negligence on the part
of the driver of the offending vehicle without his particulars being
mentioned. Noticeably, the appellant in his written statement had contested
the claim case, inter alia, taking the position that he was not the driver of the
said vehicle at any stage.
5. In the face of above contentions, the learned counsel for the claimants
submitted that sufficient evidence was available it having been gathered by
the investigating police which had probed the FIR leading to the prosecution
of the appellant for the offences under Sections 279/304 A of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (IPC) before the competent criminal court. He, at the same time,
also submitted that the appeal may be presently allowed and the finding of
fact recorded by the tribunal against the appellant may be set aside, with
liability fastened on him vacated, for the matter to be remitted to the tribunal
for further inquiry into this issue.
6. It is noted that the appellant, having filed the written statement, had
suffered the proceedings before the tribunal ex-parte. In the overall facts
and circumstances, the request of the claimants appears to be just and
proper. Thus, the impugned judgment insofar as it fastened liability against
the appellant is set aside. The issue as to whether he was the driver of the
offending vehicle at the relevant point of time and, further, if he is liable to
pay compensation is remitted to the tribunal for further inquiry and fresh
adjudication. During the further inquiry, the claimants shall be entitled to
lead additional evidence to bring home their case about complicity of the
appellant in the accident. Needless to add, the appellant shall be bound to
participate in the said proceedings and also be entitled to lead evidence in
rebuttal, if any.
7. The claimants and the appellant are directed to appear before the
tribunal for further proceedings in the above light on 2nd May, 2016.
8. For removal of doubts, it is clarified that this judgment does not in
any manner disturb the findings recorded by the tribunal against Charan
Singh (the registered owner of the offending vehicle) and, therefore, the
claimants are at liberty to take steps to enforce the award against him.
9. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 30, 2016/nk
