Delhi High Court
Phool Devi & Ors. vs Nitin Chopra & Anr. on 15 September, 2017
$~R-213
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 15th September, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL No. 399/2010
PHOOL DEVI & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Adv.
versus
NITIN CHOPRA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Adv. for R-
2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Hari Singh, while moving on motorcycle bearing registration
no. DL 8S AB 0993 on 26.02.2007 at about 3:00PM statedly suffered
injuries due to motor vehicular accident that involved another
motorcycle bearing registration no. DL 7S AM 9841, which was
admittedly insured against third party risk with the second respondent
(insurer). It is stated that after suffering injuries, he was taken to a
hospital for treatment. He was discharged from the hospital on
06.03.2007 because of non-availability of bed for indoor treatment. He
remained unconscious till 11.03.2007 when his condition deteriorated
and while being taken again to the hospital he died due to injuries
suffered in the said accident.
2. The appellants instituted an accident claim case (MACT
730/08/07) on 12.04.2007 before the motor accident claims tribunal
seeking compensation under Section 163A Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The tribunal held inquiry in the course of which the first claimant (first
appellant) appeared as her solitary witness (PW-1) on the strength of
her affidavit (Ex.PW-1/A). The tribunal dismissed the claim petition,
by judgment dated 23.12.2009, holding that there was no proper proof
drawing connection between the injuries suffered in the accident and
the event of death, referring in this context to absence of any report of
death to the police, absence of post-mortem examination on the dead
body and the fact that in the corresponding criminal case, the first
respondent herein, the driver of the said other vehicle was prosecuted
only for offences under Sections 279/338 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the claimants/appellants
submitted that on account of improper legal advise and deficiency in
the effective prosecution of the claim petition, requisite evidence to
bring connection between the injuries suffered in the accident and the
death could not be brought out. The counsel submitted that the
impugned judgment may be set aside and the matter may be remitted
to the tribunal for further opportunity to adduce appropriate evidence.
In the facts and circumstances noted, the request is found to be correct.
The tribunal, in fact, should have been more proactive in searching for
the entire truth, taking note of the fact that the date of the accident and
the date of death are too close to each other.
4. The impugned judgment is set aside. The claim case is remitted
to the tribunal for inquiry in the course of which the claimants will be
entitled to lead further evidence. Needless to add, the parties which
contest shall also be given similar opportunity to lead evidence, if any,
before the case is adjudicated afresh.
5. The parties shall appear before the tribunal on 24 th October,
2017.
6. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 15, 2017
nk
