Surender Singh @ Suresh v. Brij Mohan @ Brij Mohan Sharma & Anr

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

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? JUDGMENT (ORAL): REVA KHETRAPAL, J. By way of this appeal, the appellants seek to impugn the interim award dated 15.11.2010 passed by the learned Motor 2011:DHC:458 Accident Claims Tribunal, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

2. The sole contention of Mr. Manoj R. Sinha, the learned counsel for the appellants is that the involvement of the alleged offending vehicle is disputed by the appellants. He submits that the accident took place on 20th October, 2009, and the FIR was lodged as late as on 31st October, 2009 after the death of the injured and was therefore a manipulated document.

3. I find no substance in the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. A perusal of the interim award shows that after noting the fact that the FIR was registered 11 days after the accident on the death of the injured, the learned Tribunal also noted that it is clear from the FIR Exhibit P-3 and the copy of the postmortem report Exhibit P-4 that the deceased died as a result of the injuries suffered by him in the accident involving a ‘Hero Honda Passion’ bearing registration No.DL-7S-BD-1125 being driven by the respondent No.1. It further noted that the copy of the postmortem report Exhibit P-4 also shows that the cause of death was due to craniocerebral damage consequent upon blunt force impact to the head.

4. There is no manner of doubt that at the stage of passing of interim award the learned Tribunal was only called upon to consider the prima facie case, as set out by the claimants in their claim petition. It was not for the learned Tribunal to delve any further into the matter. Evidence is yet to be adduced and the learned Tribunal could not have denied the grant of interim award to the claimants merely on account of the fact that the appellants denied the involvement of their vehicle in the accident.

5. There is, therefore, no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Needless to say that any observations made in this order will not prejudice the inquiry to be conducted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal after the parties have adduced their evidence.

6. At the request of the counsel for the appellants, the appellants are granted two weeks’ further time for payment of the interim award amount in terms of the order of the learned Tribunal. The statutory amount of ` 25,000/- be also sent to the Tribunal concerned to be adjusted against the payment of the interim award.

7. MAC.APP. 77/2011 and CM No.1721/2011 stand disposed of accordingly. A copy of this order be given dasti to the counsel for the appellants, as prayed.

REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) January 25, 2011 km