Delhi High Court
Shama & Ors. vs Gulsher & Ors. (Iffco Tokio ... on 5 September, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: September 05, 2018
+ MAC.APP. 63/2018
SHAMA & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Pankaj Kumar Deral &
Mr. Shailender Solanki, Advocates
Versus
GULSHER & ORS. (IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE
CO LTD.) ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. A.K.Soni, Advocate
+ MAC.APP. 65/2018
NAZRUDDIN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Kumar Deral &
Mr. Shailender Solanki, Advocates
Versus
GULSHER & ORS. (IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE
CO LTD) ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. A.K.Soni, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. The above captioned two appeals arise out of common impugned
Award of 16th September, 2017, vide which claim petitions of legal
MAC.APP. 65/2018
heirs/Claimants of deceased- Nafees and Injured- Nazruddin have been
dismissed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (henceforth referred to as
the "Tribunal") on the ground that the involvement of insured vehicle in
the accident in question does not stand proved. To conclude so, the
Tribunal has relied upon the evidence of eye witness/ Injured- Nazruddin,
who in his evidence has stated that he did not see the registration number
of the offending vehicle nor the driver of the said vehicle. FIR regarding
the accident in question was registered on the statement of one -Rahees,
brother of deceased, who had not witnessed the accident but somehow in
the FIR, the registration number of the insured vehicle finds mention.
2. Since the above captioned two appeals arise out of common
impugned Award of 16th September, 2017, therefore, with the consent of
learned counsel for the parties, these appeals have been heard together
and are being decided by this common judgment.
3. During the course of hearing, it was put to appellants' counsel as to
how the registration number of the insured vehicle figures in the FIR,
when first-informant had not seen the accident and even the offending
vehicle was not apprehended at the spot. But there was no satisfactory
response.
4. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award and the evidence
on record, it appears that it is a case of hit and run. At this stage, counsel
for appellants submit that the appeal filed by Claimants and the Injured be
treated as one under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
5. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate
to convert the petitions filed by Claimants and the Injured under Section
MAC.APP. 65/2018
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to one under Section 163-A of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned Award is set aside with
direction to the Tribunal to treat the claim petitions preferred by legal
heirs of deceased Nafees and Injured- Nazruddin under Section 163-A of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and to proceed further in accordance with
the law. It is expected that the Tribunal shall proceed in these claim
petitions with expedition. Needless to say that the negligence aspect is not
required to be gone into, while deciding the claim petitions, while treating
them under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and an
opportunity be granted to Claimants and Injured if they wish to lead any
evidence. The parties through their counsel shall appear before the
concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 6th October, 2018.
Records be remitted back forthwith.
7. With aforesaid directions, the above captioned two appeals are
accordingly disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 05, 2018
r
MAC.APP. 65/2018
