Delhi High Court
Rizwana & Ors. vs Mehraj & Ors. on 8 September, 2017
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 8th September, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL No. 810/2017 and CM APPL.32793/2017
RIZWANA & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate
versus
MEHRAJ & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Advocate for
R-4.
Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Advocate for R-5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellants described themselves as residents of house No.J-
211-B/119, Karawal Nagar, Delhi and had instituted accident claim
case (MACT No.278/12) seeking compensation on account of death of
Raashid in a motor vehicular accident that had occurred within the
area of Police Station Masuree, (UP) on 10.07.2012 involving two
motor vehicles, one described as dumper bearing registration No.UP-
14BT-4661 and the other car bearing registration No.UP-14BE-1338,
which were statedly insured against third party risk with the fourth and
fifth respondents for the period in question.
2. It appears that the tribunal deemed it necessary to direct a
verification of the above said address, the report submitted whereupon
indicated the appellants to be not residing there. It further appears that
the verification was carried out through a process server who recorded
statements of some neighbours indicating that they had never seen the
claimants to be residents of the property in question. The tribunal
declined to entertain the claim petition directing, by order dated
17.12.2016, for it to be returned to the claimants with liberty to
present it before the tribunal of appropriate jurisdiction, such
directions being issued after observing that it appeared "prima facie"
that the petitioners were not residents of the given address, they not
having given any other address of North-East District of Delhi.
3. The appeal has been filed to assail the above approach to the
claim petition by the tribunal, the submission being that copy of the
Aadhar cards of the claimants had been submitted before the tribunal
which was not even considered.
4. The fourth and fifth respondents have appeared on advance
copy being served through counsel. It appears from the impugned
order dated 17.12.2016 that the presence of other respondents was yet
to be secured.
5. To say the least, the procedure applied by the tribunal cannot be
approved. The claimants have asserted, which is reiterated by them in
the appeal, that they are residents of Delhi. Even if verification report
were adverse to their said assertion, they were entitled to lead
evidence and prove to the satisfaction of the Tribunal their claim about
their residence in Delhi to justify the jurisdiction invoked by them.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order is set aside. The
claim case is revived on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, which is directed to proceed further in accordance with law.
7. The parties present in this Court shall appear before the
Tribunal on 17th October, 2017. The Tribunal shall issue notices and
secure the presence of the other parties before embarking on the
inquiry.
8. The appeal along with accompanying application stands
disposed of in above terms.
9. Dasti.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 08, 2017
vk
