MAC. APP. 609/2009. Case: Mayur Arora Vs Amit @ Pange and Ors.. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | MAC. APP. 609/2009 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: S.P. Jain and Sumit Gupta, Advs. And For Respondents: Arun Mohan, Amicus Curiae and Kanwal Choudhary, Adv. |
| Judges | J.R. Midha, J. |
| Issue | Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 140, 149, 158(1), 158(6), 162, 166, 166(1), 166(4), 168, 168(1), 168(3), 169, 169(1), 169(2), 170, 173(1), 174 and 196; Delhi Police Act, 1978 - Section 60; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 121 to 131, 148, 149 and 165; Interest Act; Consumer Protection Act; Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1956; Motor Vehicles ... |
| Judgement Date | April 12, 2010 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
Judgment:
J.R. Midha, J.
1. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby his claim petition has been dismissed.
2. Facts of the Case
2.1. The accident dated 21st June, 2008 resulted in grievous injuries to the appellant. The appellant was driving his two wheeler scooter No. DL-6SP-1632 while coming from Keshav Puram towards Sarai Basti. The appellant met with an accident with Maruti Van No. DL-2C-R-6342 near Mochi Chowk, Keshav Puram.
2.2. The appellant suffered fracture on his right wrist, fracture on his right shoulder and peeled off skin of his left leg due to the accident. The appellant was treated at Parmarth Mission Hospital, Hindu Rao Hospital and Aggarwal Nursing Home.
2.3. The appellant appeared in the witness box as PW-2 and deposed with respect to accident having been caused due to rash and negligent driving of Maruti Van No. DL-2C-R-6342. The appellant also deposed with respect to the injuries suffered by him, treatment taken and the expenditure-occurred by him. The appellant was cross-examined at length by counsel for respondent No. 3. The appellant deposed in cross-examination that the road was about 10 feet wide and there was not much traffic. The appellant was coming from the service lane approaching towards the main road and had to take right turn on the main road, There was no red light signal and the appellant stopped the scooter at the corner upon seeing the van when he was hit by the van coming at the very fast speed.
2.4. S.I. Narender Singh, P.S. Keshav Puram appeared as PW-1 and proved the FIR No. 134/2008 under Sections 279/337 as Ex.PW-1/1 and the MLC as Ex.PW-2/1. The FIR was registered against the driver of the Van for rash and negligent driving.
2.5. No evidence was led-by the respondents to rebut the evidence lead by the appellant.
3. Findings of the Claims Tribunal
3.1. The learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding that the appellant has failed to prove the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Maruti Van. The learned Tribunal has given following reasons in para 9 of the award:
3.2. The petitioner has not filed certified copy of criminal record such as site plan and mechanical inspection report of both the vehicles.
3.3. Had the certified copies of site plan being filed, the Tribunal would have considered as to how the accident had taken piace.
3.4. inspection report of both the vehicles would have also shown as to whether scooter of the petitioner was hit or not.
3.5. The petitioner was approaching the main road from service lane and there was no red light signal there. It was-the duty of the petitioner while approaching the main road to ascertain whether any vehicle was going on the main road. Had he done so, accident should not have happened and, therefore, it was his fault due to which accident had taken place.
3.6. When petitioner had approached the corner of service lane, he-had already seen the van which was about 15 feet away and, therefore, it was his duty to stop the scooter and should have allowed the van to pass away since the van was going on the main road and petitioner was coming from service Lane, for going on the main road.
3.7. The petitioner has failed to prove the fact that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the maruti van DL-2C-R-6342.
4. Contentions in this Appeal
4.1 The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the findings of the Claims Tribunal are contrary to the evidence on record. The learned Counsel submits that appellant appeared in the witness box as. PW-2 and deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Maruti Van who was driving at a very fast speed. The appellant further deposed that he had seen the Maruti Van at a distance of 15 feet and had stopped the scooter and the Maruti Van hit the stationary scooter because of negligent driving. No evidence was led by the respondent to rebut the evidence led by the appellant. The FIR recorded by the police against the driver of the Maruti Van also supported the appellant's case.
4.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant next submits that the learned Tribunal has not conducted any inquiry as contemplated under Sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The learned Counsel submits that if the Tribunal had any doubt about the rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Van, the learned Tribunal should have summoned the record of the criminal case to ascertain the truth instead of drawing an adverse inference against the appellant.
4.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant further submits that the Claims Tribunal has disregarded the series of judgments passed by this Court in which this Court has time and again held that an inquiry under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not same as a trial under the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Counsel submits that the scope of inquiry under Sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act should be elucidated for guidance of the Claims Tribunal.
5. The need to go into Depth
5.1. There is a need to go deeper into the matter and clarify the legal position and more so after the adoption of a new stance by the police, and the Insurance Companies, as also the various pronouncements of this Court. It becomes necessary to do so, so that there is no confusion, there is consistency and the practice and procedures in this field find development and application that serves the goal. Considering all this, vide order dated 23rd December, 2009, this Court appointed Dr. Arun Mohan, Senior Advocate and author of "Justice, Courts and Delays" as amicus curiae to assist this Court. Thereafter, the amicus curiae was heard at length, several other Counsels also informally heard, and this judgment is being rendered.
6. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
6.1. The objective of this legislation being well known, does not require detailing and we can proceed straight with the statutory provision. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that the Claims Tribunal shall hold an inquiry into the claim. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act is reproduced hereunder:
Section 168. Award of the Claims Tribunal-
On receipt of an application for compensation made under Section 166, the Claims Tribunal snail, after giving notice of the application to the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the provisions of Section 162 may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be:
Provided that where such application makes a claim for compensation under Section 140 in respect of the death or permanent disablement of any person, such claim and any other claim (whether made in such application or otherwise) for compensation in respect of such death or permanent disablement shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Chapter X.
(2) The Claims Tribunal shall arrange to deliver copies of the award to the parties concerned expeditiously and in any case within a period of fifteen days from the date of the award.
(3) When an award is made under this section, person who is required to pay any amount in is of such award shall, within thirty days of date of announcing the award by the Claims Tribunal, deposit the entire amount awarded in such manner as the Claims Tribunal may direct.
7. Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
7.1. Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that in holding the inquiry under Section 168, the Claims Tribunal may follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act is reproduced hereunder:
Section 169. Procedure and powers of Claims Tribunals-
(1) in holding any inquiry under Section 168, the Claims Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit.
(2) The Claims Tribunal shall have all the powers of a, Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed; and the Claims Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).
(3) Subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, the Claims Tribunal may, for the purpose of adjudicating upon any claim for compensation, choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of and matter relevant to the inquiry to assist it in holding the inquiry.
8. Delhi Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 2008
8.1. The Delhi Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 2008, notified by Government of NCT of Delhi on 13th July, 2009, provide the procedure to be followed by the Claims Tribunal. Some of the relevant Rules are as under:
Rule 3 - Duties of investigating police officer in motor accident cases.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary in any other rules in force, it shall be the duty of the investigating police officer, as expeditiously as possible to-
(a) get the scene of accident photographed from such angles as to clearly depict, and in case of inability to do so, prepare a site plan, drawn to scale, as to indicate the lay-out and width, etc. of the road(s) or place, as the case may be, the position of vehicle(s), or person(s), involved, and such other facts as may be relevant so as to preserve the evidence in this regard, interalia for purposes of proceedings before the Claims friburial;
(b) gather full...
To continue reading
Request your trial