Jitender Tomar v. Shankar Lal & Ors

1. By the instant appeals, the appellants, assail the judgment-award dated 08.12.2017 passed by MACT (Pilot court), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, whereby, the claim applications made by the appellants, seeking compensation on account of injuries sustained by them in the motor accident 2019:DHC:2045 involving car No. DL 7 CH 6589, in short ‘the offending vehicle, which undisputedly was insured with the respondent No.3-National Insurance Company Ltd., were dismissed. The claim petitions of the appellants were dismissed with a finding that the appellants had failed to establish that they had sustained injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The observations of the Tribunal in that regard are, as under:

2. It appears that the Tribunal did not attach much importance to the only depositions of PW[1] Vinod Tomar in MACT petition No. 309/2016 and PW[1] Jitender Tomar in MACT petition No. 308/2016, who, by themselves, were the eyewitnesses, but, failed to adduce evidence in support of their depositions. Ld. Counsel for the appellants on his part, during the course of hearing, points out that, besides the registration of the FIR, within a month of registration of FIR, the police completed the investigations and the charge-sheet had even come to be presented before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat, on 25.11.2015. Copy of such charge-sheet is forming part of the appeal paper book. In his submissions, the filing of the chargesheet, by itself, supports the genuineness of the FIR and the depositions, that came to be made. In his submissions, the appellant could not adduce such evidence on record on account of laxity attributable to the previous counsel conducting the proceedings before the Tribunal.

3. Ms. Dubey, ld. Counsel for the respondent-the insurer, on her part, however, strenuously contends that the bald assertion of any laxity attributable to the pervious counsel, cannot be a reason to see any error or perversity in the findings arrived at by the Tribunal. In her submissions, Ms. Dubey, ld. Counsel for the respondent-the insurer, the appellants had availed sufficient opportunities and their failure to prove the relevant material on record, cannot be ignored.

4. Having given thoughtful consideration to the respective pleas of the parties, this Court, keeping in view that the objectives of beneficial legislation, which provides for the compensation to the victims of the motor accident, and, the fact, that the police on investigations, have found the involvement of the offending vehicle and its being driven rashly and negligently, that, as a consequence thereof, the appellants sustained injuries, it is considered just and proper, to afford another opportunity to the appellants to lead cogent evidence to prove before the Tribunal, the factum of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle causing injuries to the appellants. Here, it may only be noted that the Tribunal did not proceed to assess the compensation, under issue no.2 on the quantum of compensation, having returned finding of rash and negligent driving against the appellants.

5. For the foregoing reasons, both the appeals are accepted and the impugned judgment-award is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to afford reasonable opportunities to the claimants/appellants to prove the involvement and the rash and negligent diving of the offending vehicle, which, according to them, resulted in injuries on their persons. Having afforded such opportunities, the Tribunal shall also afford reasonable opportunities to the respondent-the insurance company to lead evidence in defence and thereafter, afford an opportunity to the appellants in rebuttal, if, so desired. Having afforded such opportunities to lead evidence, the Tribunal shall then proceed to return its findings afresh on all the issues. For the purpose, the parties shall appear before the concerned Tribunal on 29.04.2019.

6. Appeals stand disposed off accordingly.

7. Dasti.

A. K. CHAWLA, J