Delhi High Court
Manti Devi & Anr. vs Mohd. Ajam & Ors. on 11 September, 2017
$~R-183
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 11th September, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 121/2010
MANTI DEVI & ANR. .... Appellants
Through: Mr. D.B. Yadav, Adv.
versus
MOHD. AJAM & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Adv. for
R-5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Jagdish Kumar was driving a motor vehicle described as TATA
407 Tempo bearing registration no. DL 1LG 5143 on 09.10.2007 on
road towards Burari from the side of Wazirabad, when at about 4.15
a.m., it came to be involved in a collision against truck bearing
registration no. DL 1LE 9643, and as a result of injuries suffered in
the consequence he died. Accident claim case (petition no. 373/2007)
was instituted by his parents, now the appellants, on 28.11.2007
seeking compensation impleading, amongst others, the driver, owner
and insurer of the two vehicles, invoking Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, attributing negligence on the part of driving of
truck bearing registration no. DL 1LE 9643. Evidence was led during
the inquiry in the course of which ASI Shiv Kumar (PW-4), the
investigating police officer of FIR No. 538/2007, which had been
registered by the police, was examined. The evidence of the said PW-
4 the solitary witness having a bearing on the question of negligence,
however, would not evince any proof of negligence on the part of
driver of the afore-mentioned truck. It is on the basis of conclusions
to such effect drawn by the tribunal that by judgment dated
07.07.2009 it dismissed the claim petition declining to grant any
compensation.
2. Though the appeal at hand was filed questioning the above
finding returned by the tribunal, at the hearing, the counsel for the
claimants, submitted that the claim petition may be treated as one
based on claim for compensation under the structured formula on
principle of no-fault liability under Section 163 A of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988. On being asked, the counsel appearing for the insurer
submitted that she would leave the matter to the discretion of the
court.
3. In the foregoing facts and circumstances, when the claimants
are unable to muster any evidence to establish the guilt on the part of
the driver of the truck, their prayer for the claim to be treated as one
founded on no-fault liability deserves to be accepted so that they are
not totally deprived of any compensation.
4. Thus, the prayer is accepted. The impugned judgment is set
aside. The claim proceedings before the tribunal are revived. It shall
be treated as a claim brought under the structured formula on no-fault
liability basis under section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The
tribunal is directed to proceed further with the necessary inquiry and
adjudicate afresh, uninfluenced by the decision rendered by it earlier.
5. The parties are directed to appear before the tribunal on 24th
October, 2017.
6. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 11, 2017
nk
