Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Lokesh Verma and Others – Respondents
MAC. APP. Nos. 762, 763 of 2019
Decided On : 02-09-2019
The importance of eyewitness testimony, corroborating evidence, and the impact of the accident on the claimant's state of mind were central to the court's decision.
Headnote:
Compensation - Motor Vehicle Accident - MACT - Sections 161 Cr.P.C., 133 M.V. Act, 279/337/304A IPC - The court discussed the testimony of the injured claimant, eyewitnesses, mechanical inspection report, and computation of the award. It highlighted the importance of eyewitness testimony, the impact of the accident on the claimant's state of mind, and the relevance of corroborating evidence. The court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order and enhanced the compensation amount for loss of consortium and love and affection.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant and his wife were hit by a motor vehicle from the rear side, resulting in fatal injuries to the wife. The claimant survived with injuries. The issue revolved around the identity of the offending vehicle and the award of compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order, as it relied on the testimony of eyewitnesses and the claimant's state of mind immediately after the accident. The court also enhanced the compensation amount for loss of consortium and love and affection.
Issues: Identity of the offending vehicle, credibility of eyewitness testimony, computation of the compensation amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of corroborating evidence and the impact of the accident on the claimant's state of mind. It also considered the mechanical inspection report and the computation of the compensation amount.
Final Decision: The court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order and disposed-off the appeals, while enhancing the compensation amount for loss of consortium and love and affection.
JUDGMENT :
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
MAC. APP. No. 762/2019, C.M. APPL. No. 39298/2019, C.M. APPL. No. 39299/2019
MAC. APP. No. 763/2019, C.M. APPL. No. 39359/2019, C.M. APPL. No. 39360/2019
1. The award of compensation dated 31.05.2019 passed by the Ld. MACT in MACP No. 81/2016 is impugned on the ground that the injured himself has stated that his motorcycle had been hit from behind by a tempo. Therefore, the impugned order has erred in awarding compensation apropos the same accident having been caused by the insured Santro Car bearing Registration No. DL-7CE-6876. Mr. Rawat, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the best eyewitness is the injured himself who had stated that he saw the tempo which hit their vehicle from behind, his own testimony would be of utmost importance and should not be lightly dealt with or discarded. He, thus, submits that the injured motorcyclist has improved upon his first testimony which may have led to the confusion of whether the said motor-vehicular accident was caused by a tempo or the insured car.
2. The facts are that on 10.07.2015 at about 9:15 a.m. the claimant was riding his motorcycle on which his wife was sitting as pillion rider. They were hit by a motor vehicle from the rear side which resulted in them being flung off from the motorcycle. The wife suffered fatal injuries and later succumbed to the injuries in a hospital. The motorcyclist/husband received injuries but has survived.
3. Claimant had stated that after being flung from the motorcycle, he first looked for his wife and then he saw a tempo going by from the side. So according to him, it was the tempo that had hit them from the rear side with great force. This issue has been dealt with in the impugned order as under:-
"11. To prove the accident, petitioner has examined 3 eye witnesses i.e. petitioner Lokesh Verma (PW-2), Mohd. Aslam (PW-1) and Manish Kumar Agnirash (PW-5). All have mentioned that the offending vehicle had hit the motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-5S-BV-7017, which was being driven by petitioner and deceased Ruchi Verma being the pillion rider, from the back side and due to the impact, they fell down on the road and thereafter the deceased was ran over by the said car. Further, it is mentioned that the driver of the said car stopped after some distance but she did not help the injured and fled away from the spot. The case of the claimants have been challenged on the ground that petitioner has mentioned in the FIR that accident had been caused by an unknown tempo and only for the purpose of claiming compensation, offending vehicle was roped in later on and false cases were filed against respondents.
12. It is evident that in FIR, it was mentioned by the petitioner Lokesh Verma that an unknown tempo had hit their motorcycle from back side while being driven in rash and negligent manner and at fast speed. On this aspect, petitioner has explained in paragraph 7 of his affidavit EX. PW2/X that after the impact from back side, he alongwith his deceased wife fell down on the road and immediately he got up and tried to hold and check his deceased wife and then he saw a tempo which was just passing from the side and that gave him an impression that tempo had hit his motorcycle. Further, he mentioned that he told same fact to the police in the hospital but then he was not in his full senses. In view of this court, considering the manner in which the accident had happened, it was not very easy for the petitioner to ascertain the identity of offending vehicle. The facts that petitioner was injured and his wife was lying unconscious on the road on account of serious injuries suffered in an accident; caused by a vehicle hitting their moving motorcycle from back side, can be considered sufficient to incapacitate him to judge the sequence of events leading to accident and those may easily create confusion that a vehicle, which was passing through the spot and first seen by the injured immediately after the accident, was respo
