MOHSINA v. RAJESH & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 29 Aug 2011 · 2011:DHC:4405
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
2011:DHC:4405
civil other Procedural

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court remanded a motor accident claim case to allow the appellant to produce relevant eyewitness evidence recorded in collateral proceedings to establish ownership and liability.

Full Text
Translation output
MAC APPEAL No. 669/2010 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of
JUDGMENT
: 29.8.2011 MAC APPEAL No.669/2010
MOHSINA ………..Appellant
Through: Mr.Manish Maini, Advocate.
Versus
RAJESH & Anr. ……….Respondents
Through: Ms.Rameeza Hakim, Advocate R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 The Award impugned is the award dated 31.5.2010 whereby the compensation in the sum of `3,81,000/- had been awarded in favour of the appellant/claimant. The grievance of the appellant/claimant is that the statement of Salim who was an eyewitness of the accident had not been considered. Attention has been drawn to the statement of Salim whose version was recorded as PW-1 in a collateral proceedings i.e. in MACT No.1060/2008; 2011:DHC:4405 Salim Vs. Praveen Kumar. In his cross-examination recorded on 10.9.2009 the witness had made a statement that the buffaloes belong to all five persons. Contention of the appellant being that the buffaloes in fact were owned by all the passengers in the tempo including the victim of the present case namely Rahis. It is however an admitted fact that this statement of PW-1 recorded in the collateral proceeding was not summoned or produced in the court at the time when the present petition was being adjudicated upon. It is also not in dispute that the MACT No.1080/2008 was also decided on the same date by the same court i.e. on 31.5.2010.

2 There were in fact five passengers who were travelling in the tempo which had suffered the accident on the fateful day of 15.9.2007. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the liability has not been foisted upon the Insurance Company for this reason that the petitioner had not been able to prove on record that the deceased Rahis was also owning the buffaloes.

3 This is a fit case for remand. Matter is accordingly remanded back to the concerned court to enable the petitioner to adduce his additional evidence i.e. the statement of PW-1 Salim already recorded in the collateral proceeding i.e. MACT No.10608/2008 titled Salim Vs. Praveen Kumar. For the said purpose parties are directed to appear before District Judge Rohini on 07.9.2011 at 10.30 AM who shall assign the matter to the concerned court.

INDERMEET KAUR, J. AUGUST 29, 2011 nandan