Delhi High Court
Inderjeet Singh vs Manish Kumar & Ors on 24 August, 2017
$~R-127
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 24th August, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 536/2009
INDERJEET SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Advocate
versus
MANISH KUMAR & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Arun Yadav, Advocate for
R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant had instituted accident claim case (Petition
No.388/2008) on 29.08.2007 seeking compensation under Section 166
and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, impleading the respondents
herein as parties on the averments that, while travelling on the pillion
of motorcycle bearing registration No.DL-18N-6109, driven by his
friend Yeshwant Singh (PW-2) on 02.03.2007, he had suffered injuries
and permanent disablement due to a motor accident that had occurred
at 6:45 p.m. at T Point at Police Nala Post in the area of Bharat Nagar,
Delhi, it involving collision against truck bearing registration No.HR-
51GA-1329, driven negligently by the first respondent.
2. It is stated that the second respondent is the registered owner of
the truck which was insured against third party risk with the third
respondent. The claim case was contested by all the three respondents,
the first two denying the negligence on the part of the truck driver,
though admitting collision, attributing the collision to negligence on
the part of the motorcycle driver.
3. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal), after
inquiry, by judgment dated 26.08.2009 returned a finding that the
claimant had failed to prove that the accident had occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the truck by the first respondent. With that
finding having been recorded, the tribunal refused to go into the
question of computation of compensation and left the issue to that
effect unaddressed.
4. Though the appeal was filed seeking to assail the adverse
finding recorded by the tribunal on the issue of negligence, at the
hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted, on
instructions, that the claim case may be treated as one instituted on the
principle of no fault liability under the structured formula in terms of
Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in that the claimant
had suffered permanent disability, proof in which regard was adduced,
inter alia, by disability certificate (Ex.PW-1/9), which has not even
been considered by the tribunal.
5. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, the
prayer deserves to be granted. The impugned judgment is set aside.
The claim petition is treated as one brought under Section 163-A of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The tribunal shall hold further inquiry
by giving opportunity to the appellant/claimant to adduce additional
evidence, if any, followed by such opportunity to the contesting party
to adduce evidence in rebuttal, if any, and, thereafter, render a fresh
decision.
6. The parties are directed to appear before the tribunal for further
proceeding on 25th September, 2017.
7. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms.
8. Dasti.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 24, 2017
vk
