IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Ravi Kumar Arora & Ors. – Respondents
MAC.APP. 359 of 2023
Decided On : 25-07-2023
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Challenge to Award - M V Act, 166 & 140 - Delay in filing FIR - Negligence - Loss of income - [166, 140] - The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the importance of proving negligence in a claim petition under the M V Act. The court found no reason to disagree with the findings of the Tribunal and rejected challenges to the Impugned Award.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal challenged the Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, which awarded compensation to the claimant for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The appellant disputed the delay in filing the FIR and the assessment of the claimant's income.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding no reason to disagree with its findings and rejecting challenges to the Impugned Award.
Issues: Delay in filing FIR, Negligence, Assessment of claimant's income
Ratio Decidendi: The burden is on the claimants to prove negligence in a claim petition under the M V Act. The court emphasized the importance of proving negligence and found no merit in the challenges to the Impugned Award.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to deposit the awarded amount with the Tribunal for disbursement to the respondent.
JUDGMENT
Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 37251/2023 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
MAC.APP. 359/2023 & CM APPL. 37250/2023
2. This appeal has been filed challenging the Award dated 20.05.2023 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, South, Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal') in MACP No.413/2017, titled Ravi Kumar Arora v. Sudhir & Ors., allowing the claim petition of the respondent no.1 and awarding the compensation of Rs.19,84,923/- alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum to the respondent no.1/claimant.
3. It was the case of the respondent no.1 before the learned Tribunal, which has been accepted by the learned Tribunal in its Impugned Award, that on 13.12.2016 at around 3.00 p.m., the respondent no.1 alongwith his wife Priyanka were going from his village Garhi Pukhta towards his residence at Delhi riding on his motorcycle. When they reached P.N. Sharma Park, Baraut, UP, a truck bearing registration no. HR-38Q-1947 (hereinafter referred to as the `Offending Vehicle'), being driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the bike from behind due to which they suffered injuries. The injury suffered by the respondent no.1 was reported as 48% permanent physical impairment in relation to his right lower limb.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the alleged accident took place on 13.12.2016, the complaint in this regard, based whereon an FIR No.0186, dated 21.12.2016 at P.S. Baraut, District Bhaghpat was registered, was belatedly filed with a delay of 39 days. He submits that in the complaint, the number of the truck was given as HR 38Q 194. He submits that though the respondent nos.2 and 3 in the present appeal filed a joint written statement before the learned Tribunal alleging that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.1, they failed to appear before the learned Tribunal thereafter. He submits that the above facts would point towards connivance between the respondent no.1 and the respondent nos.2 and 3. He submits that therefore, the learned Tribunal has erred in accepting the version of the Claimant that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident and was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. He submits that, in fact, the above sequence would show that the respondent no.1 was guilty of contributory negligence in the accident.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that in the present case, the respondent no.1, due to the injury suffered, had to be hospitalized and, therefore, there was a delay in filing of the complaint/lodging of the FIR. He submits that merely because an incomplete registration number was given at the time of filing of the complaint, the version of the accident of the respondent no.1 cannot be disputed. He submits that, in fact, the respondent no.1 had admitted in their written statement that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident, though attributing negligence on the respondent no. 1, however, they did not substantiate this plea before the Tribunal.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties on this issue.
7. It is not denied that the respondent no.1, due to the accident, suffered 48% permanent physical impairment in relation to his right lower limb. It has also come on record that the respondent no.1 and his wife were first taken to Astha Multi-Specialty Hospital, Baraut, but due to non-availability of the doctors, they were transferred to Murti Nursing Home in Baraut. The respondent no.1 was discharged from the hospital on 12.01.2017. The respondent no.1 had stated that he had given a written complaint of the accident to the police within three days of the accident, however, the police delayed the registration of the FIR. In the complaint filed, though an incomplete registration number was given, in my view, it is not sufficient to cast a doubt on the version of
AI
The burden is on the claimants to prove negligence in a claim petition under the M V Act.
The charge of rash and negligent driving is to be proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt, and the comprehensive/package insurance policy covering t....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.