Delhi High Court
Vikas Sharma @ Monty & Anr vs Jagdish Lal on 27 October, 2017
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 27th October, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 481/2016 and CM 22642/2016
VIKAS SHARMA @ MONTY & ANR ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. S.S. Jain, Advocate
versus
JAGDISH LAL ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rupendu Singh, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellants have been held liable to pay the compensation to
the respondent by the judgment dated 16.03.2016 of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal in the accident claim case (case
no.788/2013) which was instituted by the respondent on 26.11.2013,
on the basis of finding returned that due to negligent driving of
motorcycle bearing registration no.DL-8S-AW-4320 by the first
appellant, the accident had occurred wherein the respondent moving
on his bicycle was hit resulting in grievous injuries being sustained by
him. The motorcycle admittedly was not insured against third party
risk for the period in question.
2. The appellants plea has been that they have been falsely
implicated and that the motorcycle was not involved in any such
collision. It is argued that accident having taken place on 17.07.2013,
no police case was lodged on the said date, the first information report
no.395/13 being registered in police station Uttam Nagar on the basis
of complaint given by the respondent on 21.07.2013. It is pointed out
that though the respondent would claim that he was taken to DDU
Hospital by an ambulance pursuant to the call made to the police
control room (PCR) from a private hospital where he had moved after
the occurrence and that MLC was prepared in the said hospital, no
corresponding record of any such input received by PCR or local
police till 21.07.2013 has been mustered or brought on record.
3. After some hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent
fairly conceded that further evidence would require to be adduced to
bring out connection between the appellants and their vehicle on one
hand and the injuries suffered by the respondent on the other. He thus
requested that while the impugned judgment may be set aside, the
matter arising out of the claim case may be remanded to the tribunal
for further inquiry. He also fairly conceded that the cost of
Rs.10,000/- imposed on the appellants by order dated 04.08.2017 may
be waived.
4. The cost imposed on 04.08.2017 is waived. The impugned
judgment is set aside. The claim case of the respondent is remanded
to the tribunal for further inquiry in the course of which the claimant
will be given opportunity to lead further evidence. This, of course,
shall be followed by similar further opportunity to the parties that
contest for producing additional evidence in rebuttal, if any. The
parties are directed to appear before the tribunal on 28.11.2017.
5. In terms of directions in the order dated 03.06.2016, the
appellants (respondents before the tribunal) have deposited the
awarded amount with interest. The said amount was directed to be
retained in fixed deposit receipt in a nationalized bank initially for a
period of six months to be renewed from time to time. The said
arrangement shall continue. The amount lying in such deposit with
accrued interest will be applied by the tribunal appropriately in light of
the decision it renders on conclusion of the further inquiry.
6. The statutory amount, however, shall be refunded to the
appellant.
7. The appeal and the pending application are disposed of in above
terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
OCTOBER 27, 2017
yg
