Prem Shankar & Anr v. Ram Narain Aggarwal

V.B.GUPTA, J. Bisht

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI MAC App. No.341 of 2008 % Judgment reserved on: 14th August, 2008 Judgment delivered on: 25th August, 2008 1.Prem Shankar & Anr. S/o Sri Lalta Prasad Gupta, R/o C-165, Nanakpur, New Delhi. 2.Prem Chand S/o Shri Lalta Prasad Gupta R/o 6/16, East Patel Nagar, New Delhil. ….Appellants Through: Mr.Pramit Saxena, Adv. Versus Shri Ram Narain Aggarwal S/o Shri Om Prakash Aggarwal R/o 64, Income Tax Colony, Uttri Pitampura, New Delhi. …Respondent. Through: Nemo. 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, 1988 (for short as the "Act") has been filed by Appellants against the award dated 07.02.08 passed by Sh. Suresh Chand Rajan, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short as the "Tribunal"). 2. Brief facts of the case are that Ram Narain Aggarwal/Respondent, aged 45 years suffered bodily injuries in a road accident on 09.04.96. The accident occurred when he was going to Nirman Bhawan for some official work on his two wheeler scooter, bearing no. DBI-6690. While coming back from Nirman Bhawan to his office, when he reached at the crossing of Rajpath and Janpath near the National Museum while coming from the side of the National Museum on his left side of the road, he found the traffic signal light as green. On this, he crossed the green light signal and turned towards his right leading to India Gate and had almost crossed the road, when all of a sudden a car bearing no. DIE-505, being driven by Appellant no.1 came there at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, hit his two wheeler scooter from left side. Due to impact, he fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries. Respondent was removed to RML Hospital where he was operated upon and discharged from there on 20.04.96. 3. Consequently, the Respondent filed a claim petition under section 166 & 140 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- along with the interest @ 18% per annum. 4. Appellant nos.1 & 2 filed their written statement separately, in which both denied the factum of accident and involvement of vehicle in accident. 5. Vide impugned judgment, the Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.1,02,380/- along with the interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization, payable by the Appellant nos. 1 & 2 to the Respondent. 6. It has been contended by Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that under section 166 of the Act, the claim for award of compensation is inadmissible if no negligence is proved. A perusal of the statement of Respondent during Examination-in-chief that "it was green signal for him as well as for Toyata Car" makes it clear that the Appellant was driving his car only on the green signal and thus no negligence can be attributed to the Appellants. 7. The Respondent failed to discharge his initial onus of proving of negligence against the Appellants. Consequently, the claim of the Respondent against the Appellants, under section 166 of the Act is not maintainable. 8. It is also contended by Ld. Counsel for Appellants that the Respondent in his cross-examination clearly admitted that "He is not having permanent disability from this accident…." 9. The other contention is that in the present case, the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, vide its order dated 25.06.05, in case FIR No.110 of 1996, P.S. Parliament Street, under section 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code, observed that in the given situation, with certainty it cannot be said that in fact which of the driver of the vehicle was at fault, particularly when nothing has been stated by eye-witness/injured witness regarding the manner of driving or rashness or negligence on part of the Appellant and acquitted the Appellant on the finding that rashness or negligence could not be prov