Narender Jit Singh Dhillon v. Mammu @ Veeray @ Sukhvir

V.B.GUPTA, J. rs

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI FAO App. No.90/2003 % Judgment reserved on: 25th August, 2008 Judgment delivered on: 9th September, 2008 Sh. Narinder Jit Singh Dhillon, (N.J.S. Dhillon) S/o. S. Surjit Singh Dhillon, R/o. 454, Nangloi, New Delhi ….Petitioner Through: Naresh Chahar, proxy counsel for counsel for the petitioner. Versus 1. Sardar Mamu alias Veeray alias Sukhvinder Singh, S/o. Sh. Harbhajan Singh, R/o. Jamal Ganj, Dudhail, P.O. Tanda, Rampur, UP. 2. Smt. Salma Begum wife of Lt. Sh. Salamuddeen, R/o. B-728, Lajpat Nagar, Moradabad, U.P. 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., branch office Moradabad U.P. (ii) Head office a-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi …Respondents. Through: Mr. Ram N. Sharma, Adv. for R-3. Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes V.B.Gupta, J. The present appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short as the "Act") has been filed by the appellant against the award dated 05.09.02, passed by Sh. J.P.Sharma, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short as the "Tribunal"). 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.04.98, appellant while driving Maruti Car No. DL-8CB-1045, reached chowk Begumpur road, he noticed that from the opposite side, bus UP-21-3230 being driven by respondent no.1 in utmost careless and negligent manner was coming. Respondent no.1 made an attempt to come on the wrong side and so seeing the wrong attempt as of respondent no.1, appellant by taking out his right hand from the car sitting on driver"s seat signalled respondent no.1 for being careful. Respondent no.1, without caring for the signal and observing the traffic rules, hit appellant"s vehicle near the driving seat because of which right arm of appellant got severed from his body and his car was also damaged. Appellant was removed to District Hospital, Moradabad from where he was taken to AIIMS. 3. Appellant filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- along with the interest @ 18% per annum against respondent no.1, Sardar Mammu alias Veeray alias Sukhwinder Singh, being the driver of the offending vehicle, respondent no.2, Smt. Salma Begum, being the owner of the offending vehicle and respondent no.3, Oriental Insurance Company as the offending vehicle was insured with them. 4. Respondent nos.1 to 3 in their written statement pleaded that negligence was on the part of the appellant, who was driving Maruti Car. 5. It was alleged by respondent nos. 1 & 2 that appellant was driving his vehicle carelessly at high speed and not on his proper side of the road and as such claim petition does not disclose any cause of action. It was, however, not disputed that bus no. UP- 21-3230 at the time of the road accident on 11.4.98 at about 11.15 a.m. was being driven by respondent no.1, was owned by respondent no.2 and was insured with respondent no.3. 6. Vide impugned judgment, the Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.4,06,800/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 15.12.98 till its realization. 7. On 25th August, 2008, the matter was listed before this Court for arguments. On that date, Mr. Naresh Chahar, proxy counsel for the appellant appeared and stated that he is proxy counsel for Mr. Sanjay Relhan, who is the Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Sanjay Relhan has not come as he is not well. 8. As per the record, it was found that Mr. Sanjay Relhan was not a counsel in this case and there is no Vakalatnama. Under these circumstances, it was ordered that the proxy counsel has no authority to appear in this case. 9. Hence arguments advanced by learned counsel for respondent no.3 i.e. Insurance Company were heard. 10. It is stated in the grounds of appeal that witnesses examined by the appellant have not been cross-examined at all by respondent no.1 & 2. Respondent no.3 did not cross-ex