Delhi High Court
Poonam Devi & Ors. vs Shriram General Insurance ... on 14 November, 2019
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 14.11.2019
+ MAC.APP. 522/2019 & CM APPL. 47865/2019
POONAM DEVI & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Peeush Sharma and Mr. Bharvi
Thakur, Advocates.
versus
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED &
ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Arun Yadav, Advocate for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J (Oral)
1. This appeal seeks enhancement of the award of compensation dated
01.10.2018 passed by the learned MACT in MACP No. 27/16, on the
ground that there is ample evidence led by the claimants to prove that death
of the deceased was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the
truck driver. It is argued that, therefore, the compensation should have been
awarded under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and not under
section 163 A.
2. For a claim to succeed under section 166, the rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle, leading to the injury/fatality ought to be
shown. The Court would note that the claimants' witness, PW-2-Sanno
Kumar, deposed inter alia, that he was sitting in the rear side of the goods
vehicle which was carrying about 5-6 persons. He knew the deceased who
was sitting in the front side of the vehicle. When the truck reached a village
between Dhosni and Bahadurpur, the vehicle stopped to provide temporary
relief to the occupants of the vehicle and while the deceased was under a
tree answering the call of nature, the vehicle suddenly started moving and hit
the tree; due to this impact, a branch of the tree fell on the deceased due to
which he sustained grievous injuries. The unfortunate accident occurred at
about 5:15 am on 10.08.2015. The injured was rushed to a local hospital for
treatment. Subsequently he was shifted to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital,
Delhi, where he was passed away on 19.08.2015. Interestingly, the FIR was
registered on 29.10.2015 i.e. approximately 2½ months later. This delay is
inexplicable alongwith the fact that the eye-witness-PW2, did not disclose to
anybody at all apropos the date, time and the manner in which the accident
occurred.
3. The Court would further note that ordinarily, people who travel
together from one boarding point, or one city for a pilgrimage to a city such
as Haridwar, are known to or get to know each other, and in an accident of
this nature surely, the deceased would be active in extending all ready
assistance to each other. But the conduct of PW2 was quite to the contrary.
PW2 admitted that he had not seen the manner in which the accident
occurred, since he was sitting in the rear side of the vehicle. Same is the
position of PW-3, Neeraj Kumar, who was identically placed.
4. Quite clearly, neither of the two persons who were eye-witnesses to
the accident and their deposition three years after the accident, without
intimation to any authority in the interim, is doubtful and cannot be relied
upon. In the circumstances, for the learned Tribunal to have treated the case
as that of payment of compensation under section 163A of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 cannot be flawed.
5. The appeal is without merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
NOVEMBER 14, 2019
RW
