Tarun Chauhan v. Lovekush & Ors

1. This application seeks condonation of delay of 218 days in filing of the appeal. The same is sought to be explained as under: “….

2. That the Appellant respectfully submits that after passing of the impugned judgment dated 28.1.2019, the appellant approached his earlier counsel for filing of the appeal or return of the complete file but he avoided the same on one pretext or the other, but later on agreed to return the file. But in that file even the copy of the judgment was not there and there was even not reply of respondents or complete record of rejoinders etc. And thus the appellant faced problems 2020:DHC:327 for want of certain documents required for filing the appeal.

3. That the Appellant applied for certified copy of the judgment/order on 25.03.2019 vide CA NO. 10994/3 and received the certify copy on 12.04.2019 and thus the delay happened of 218 days till 15.11.2019.

4. That the Appellant also applied for the medical board for permanent disability of his injury on 28.08.2019 and obtain the same on 06.09.2019 thus if the same is considered then the appeal is in time.”

2. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant had sought for the complete file from his previous counsel nor is there any complaint made to the Bar Council concerned, apropos the refusal of the previous counsel to return the file. Additionally, there is nothing on record to show that the appellant had applied for a certified copy of the case records.

3. In view of the above, the reasons for condonation of delay are not accordingly the application is dismissed. MAC.APP. 14/2020 & CM APPL. 1656/2020

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that his case against the order of the learned MACT in MAC Petition No. 689/16, is otherwise good on merits. It is the appellant’s case that the accident happened because of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle; that because of the accident he received injuries on 13.03.2015; that he was riding his motorcycle bearing no. DL-7SAE-6031 and when it reached in front of Reliance Fresh store in Anand Vihar, New Delhi, a tempo vehicle, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, came from his right side and took a sudden turn in the line of his movement which resulted in an accident and injuries to the appellant. It is stated that the driver of the alleged offending vehicle was apprehended by the people, who were present at the spot. However, he asked them to leave the driver because he was suffering from pain and wanted to go to a hospital. He was not able to note down the number of the offending vehicle. The appellant is stated to have been informed that the vehicle belonged to one M/s Sant Ram Suppliers. His treatment at the hospital records that his injuries were caused by a road traffic accident. When contacted by the police the same day, he was unable to tell the number of motorcycle he was driving or the number of the offending vehicle, therefore, the matter was kept in abeyance. Suddenly one day, after six months, it dawned upon him that he wanted to pursue the case for compensation against the offending vehicle.

5. He intimated the police of the number of the offending vehicle but how he got to know about the offending vehicle’s number is mystifying. Why did he wait for 5 months and 20 days to lodge an FIR is also not explained. More intriguingly, it is not known as to how the police identified the said vehicle, especially since M/s Sant Ram Suppliers had other vehicles also in its fleet. It is probable that any of the other vehicles in the fleet could have caused the accident. Therefore, identification of this particular vehicle raises a doubt.

6. The Mechanical Inspection Report shows dents on the body of the alleged offending vehicle. However, the dents could have occurred at any time prior or after the date of the alleged accident, till the time when the mechanical inspection was conducted which was many months later. Therefore, the same cannot be taken as evidence.

7. How the Investigating Officer was able to co-relate the same with exactitude apropos the accident is unexplained. It appears that the Investigating Officer had gone about only on the say so of the appellant. The learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim petition because the appellant was discharged from the hospital within two days of his being admitted and there is nothing on record to show the nature of the injuries suffered by him. Furthermore, the identity of the vehicle involved in the motor accident was never established, therefore, the claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was rightly rejected.

8. In view of the above, no case of rash and negligent driving is made out. The appeal, alongwith pending applications, is accordingly dismissed.

9. This case brings to the fore the nature of investigation conducted and the DAR filed by the police. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the conduct of the Investigation Officer needs to be looked into administratively. In the circumstances, the DCP of the area concerned is directed to take appropriate measures in this regard and file a Status Report within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

10. Mr. Amit Chaddha, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for GNCTD, has been called to the Court and apprised of this order. He assures the Court of due compliance in this regard.

11. List for compliance on 05.03.2020.

NAJMI WAZIRI, J JANUARY 17, 2020 AB