Delhi High Court
Neeraj vs Godhan Singh & Ors. on 25 July, 2017
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 25th July, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 367/2009 and CM Nos.10524-10525/2009
NEERAJ ..... Appellant
Through: Appellant in person
versus
GODHAN SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate for
R-1 & 2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Master Pankaj, aged about 10 years, son of the first and second
respondents (collectively, the claimants) statedly died due to injuries
suffered in a motor vehicular accident that had occurred on 14.05.2006
at about 7.45 p.m. near B-10A Apartments in the area of Sector 34,
Noida,U.P. due to negligent driving of a tractor bearing Registration
no.HR-O-9314. The accident claim case (suit no.359/08) instituted by
the claimants on 13.12.2006 concluded with the judgment dated
23.01.2009 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) holding
the appellant, and one another (Rai Singh), as jointly and severely
liable to pay the compensation which was assessed in the sum of
Rs.2,85,000/-. The finding returned by the Tribunal in the said
judgment was that the appellant was the driver of the tractor at the
relevant point of time, he being negligent and consequently having
caused the accident.
2. By the appeal at hand, challenge was brought to the afore-said
finding on the basis of plea that the appellant was neither the driver
nor the owner of the tractor.
3. The submissions of the appellant and of the claimants through
counsel have been heard and the tribunal's record has been perused.
4. The claim petition was submitted on 13.12.2006 with the
pleadings that the appellant, impleaded as the sole respondent at that
stage, was the owner of the tractor, this being reflected in para 15.
The sequence of events leading to the accident was set out in para 20.
There is no averment of any nature in the entire petition, including in
said para 20, imputing any act of commission or omission or
connection of the appellant with the claim case except the pleadings in
para 15 indicating he to be accountable on account of he being the
owner of the tractor.
5. The appellant in response to the notice had appeared before the
Tribunal and submitted written statement dated 02.02.2007 denying
any connection whatsoever clearly stating that he was neither the
driver nor the owner of the offending vehicle. Though it does appear
that in the said pleadings, he also contended that the tractor was
registered in the name of Rai Singh (third respondent in appeal) with
the further pleading that it had been purchased, for consideration, by
one Dharam Singh @ Birham son of Lekhi Chand, with additional
averments to the effect that the accident may have occurred due to
negligence on the part of the deceased himself, from such pleadings it
cannot be deduced that the appellant had some connection with the
tractor so as to be held accountable either on the tort feasor or on
account of vicarious liability.
6. The record of the tribunal shows that possibly on the basis of
pleadings to above effect in the written statement of the appellant, the
claimants moved an application whereupon the said Rai Singh and
Dharam Singh came to be impleaded as additional respondents. The
said Rai Singh, on notice, also appeared to resist the claim petition
submitting his written statement dated 28.04.2007 claiming that he
had already sold the vehicle on 08.07.1991 on the basis of a no
objection certificate issued by Regional Transport Authority Jhajjar
which had been taken note of by Regional Transport Authority,
Gurgaon and, therefore, he was not liable. In the pleadings of the said
other respondent, there was no reference made to the role of the
appellant vis-à-vis the tractor. Dharam Singh @ Birham, the other
person additionally impleaded, however, did not appear and was set
ex-parte.
7. During the inquiry, before the tribunal, the claimants led
evidence by examining the first claimant (first respondent) appearing
as PW-1 and one Gopal Singh appearing as PW-2. It may be
mentioned here that the said PW-2 Gopal Singh is the brother of the
first claimant / respondent, he being the uncle of the deceased child.
PW-1 only deposed about the facts in support of the claim for
compensation, he not being present at the scene of the accident. PW-2
appeared as an eye witness and did name the appellant as the driver.
But, during cross-examination, he admitted that he had not seen the
driver at the spot.
8. Reference was made to the police investigation, record
pertaining whereto was also submitted (Ex. R2W2/A and Ex. P3).
The latter document revealed that the FIR had been registered on the
basis of statement of PW-2 clearly showing that the driver of the
tractor had fled away from the scene, there being no reference
whatsoever to the name of the appellant in such proceedings.
9. The appellant examined one Sandeep Sharma (R1W1), Jasbir
Singh (R1W2) and himself (R1W3). In the said testimony, on the
basis of his own affidavit (Ex. R1W3/A), the appellant reiterated that
he was neither the owner nor the driver of the offending vehicle. He
was cross-examined at length by the counsel for the claimants. It does
appear that in the corresponding criminal case, he is being prosecuted
as the driver. From this fact itself, however, it cannot be deduced that
the allegations against him about being driver of the tractor must be
accepted as the truth.
10. The fact remains that the claimants have not led any evidence to
confirm that the appellant was the driver of the tractor at the relevant
point of time, it being admitted that he was not the registered owner of
the tractor nor there being any proof that he had any control over the
tractor during the relevant period. The finding returned by the tribunal
holding him liable on the ground of he being the driver, therefore
cannot be sustained.
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment to
the extent it held the appellant liable to pay compensation is set aside.
12. The statutory amount, if deposited, shall be refunded.
13. The captioned appeal and the pending applications are
accordingly disposed of.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 25, 2017
yg
