Full Text
$-9 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
SEEMA MISHRA & ORS ..... Appellants
Through Mr. Shekhar Aggarwal, Advocate.
Through Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate for R-2.
1. By the instant appeal, the appellants assail the judgment-Award dated 28.05.2018 passed by MACT, Karkardooma Court, whereby, a petition under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, in short 'the MV Act', seeking compensation on account of death of Vinodanand Mishra, in short 'the deceased', purportedly, on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor accident, was dismissed.
2. Concisely, the relevant facts are that the claimants filed the petition seeking compensation on the premise that on 04.05.2015 at about 6:30a.m., when the deceased on his bicycle was going for his duty to Mohan Nagar, U.P. and reached MR Hyundai cut, Shalimar Garden, Sahibabad, U.P., he was hit by a vehicle 2019:DHC:1760 bearing registration No.DL 5CK 4003 from the rear, having been driven rashly and negligently, and, on account of the consequent injuries, he died. The respondents disputed the involvement of the subject vehicle and appreciating the evidence adduced on record, the Tribunal dismissed the petition, returning a finding that the appellants had failed to establish that the deceased had sustained injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.DL 5CK 4003. To arrive at such findings, the relevant observations made by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment-Award are, as under:
failed to depose regarding the hospital where he claimed to have admitted the injured. In nut shell, there is no material on record to connect the witness i.e. PW[2] with the accident except his bald averments. There is no MLC nor any postmortem report on record (proved) to show any injury or death due to the accident. The involvement of the offending vehicle and negligent driving by respondent No.1 is also not proved as no chargesheet has been on record. The testimony of witness was further shattered during cross examination regarding the material aspects. Merely noting in the affidavit that respondent No.1 by rash and negligent driving caused the accident is not sufficient at all to prove the contentions for grant of compensation."
3. Besides the foregoing observations to return the finding, it is interesting to note that as per the FIR, which came to be registered on the complaint of one Sh.Rohit Mishra, who, for the reasons unexplained, has not been examined before the Tribunal, the FIR records involvement of one Swift VDi car bearing registration No.DL 2S 4003, which is other than the vehicle, which was allegedly involved in the accident. Interestingly, the claim petition by itself does not describe the vehicle involved in the accident, as its being either car, truck or a bus. There is also no explanation as to the difference in the registration number of the vehicle given in the petition and that appears in the FIR. No infirmity or perversity can therefore be seen in the impugned judgment-Award.
4. No merit. Dismissed.
JUDGE MARCH 26, 2019 nn