Delhi High Court
Institute Of Defence Services & ... vs Jogi Yadav And Anr. on 31 May, 2016
$~R-119
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 31.05.2016
+ MAC.APP. 30/2008
INSTITUTE OF DEFENCE SERVICES & ANALYSIS... Appellant
Through: None.
versus
JOGI YADAV AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. First and second respondents (Jogi Yadav & Balwanti) had instituted
an accident claim case (384/2002) on 26.102.2002 seeking compensation
under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the death of
their son Havaldar statedly in a motor vehicular accident that had occurred
on 03.08.2002 at about 16.40 hours in the area of R.K. Puram involving
negligent driving of Ambassador Car bearing registration No. DL 9CC 1546
(the car). The appellant, being the registered owner of the car, was
impleaded as second respondent in the said proceedings, in addition to
Umed Singh, its employee (driver) on the averments that the latter was at the
driving wheel of the car at the time of mishap. The claim case was
contested by the appellant and the said driver.
2. The tribunal, upon inquiry, by judgment dated 17.11.2007 returned a
finding accepting the case of the claimants that Havaldar had died due to
negligent driving of the car. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,78,300/- was
awarded in their favour holding besides the driver, the appellant jointly and
severally to pay.
3. By the appeal at hand, the finding about involvement of the car and
negligence on the part of its driver was challenged.
4. The appeal was entertained and notices were issued by order dated
16.01.2008. It was dismissed in default on 13.05.2009. On application later
moved, the appeal was restored by order dated 29.05.2009. It was listed on
several dates, but every time it had to be adjourned. By order dated
22.04.2010, it was directed to be put in the category of regular matters to
come up on its own turn. Thereafter, whenever the appeal has been taken
up, none would appear on behalf of the appellant to assist. This has
continued to be the state of affairs even today. This appeal is the oldest on
board of this Court and there is no reason why hearing should be deferred
yet again.
5. Having gone through the grounds of appeal and the tribunal's record,
this Court finds the contentions raised by the appellant to be devoid of
substance.
6. At the hearing before the tribunal, Babu Ram (PW-3), real brother of
the deceased had appeared on the strength of his affidavit (Ex.PW3/A), he
narrated the sequence of events leading to the fatal occurrence. The accident
had occurred in his presence. Umed Singh, the employee and driver of the
offending vehicle had also appeared in the witness box (as R1W1), on the
basis of his affidavit (Ex.RW1/A) had testified that there was no such
accident involving the car driven by him. It is, however, noted by the
tribunal that the local police having registered FIR (First Information Report
No. 457/2002) in police station R.K. Puram, concerning the motor vehicular
accident gathered evidence regarding involvement of the car and thus, had
seized the same. Umed Singh, employee of the appellant was also arrested
on 06.08.2002 on the basis of evidence showing negligent driving of the car
by him leading to the fatal occurrence. The tribunal has examined the
evidence on both sides and has reached conclusions affirming pleas of the
claimants on the test of preponderance of probabilities. Noticeably, Umed
Singh, has not challenged the finding holding him responsible for the factal
accident.
7. In these facts and circumstances, this Court finds no reason to
interfere with the conclusions reached by the tribunal.
8. Thus, the appeal is unmerited and dismissed.
9. By order dated 16.01.2008, the appellant was directed to deposit the
entire awarded amount with the Registrar General whereupon the execution
was ordered to be stayed. When the appeal was dismissed in default on
13.05.009, the amount thus deposited was allowed to be released with upto
date interest along with statutory deposit.
10. Upon the application for restoration being moved, the stay was again
pressed. But the learned Single Judge then dealing with the matter by his
order dated 29.05.2009, found no good reasons for restoring the ex-parte
stay. He, however, noted that as per the award granted by the tribunal only
30% was to be released, the balance to be kept in fixed deposit receipt for a
period of seven years. He, thus, directed the registry to ensure that 70% of
the awarded amount was put fixed deposit for a period of seven years, the
original deposit to be retained by the claimants and its copy and particulars
to be kept on record by the registry. In these circumstances, no further
directions are required. The claimants are entitled to retain the amount
already released in accordance with the judgment of the tribunal.
11. A copy of this judgment shall be sent by the registry to the claimants
and the insurance company.
(R.K. GAUBA)
JUDGE
MAY 31, 2016
nk
