Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 2403
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
Deputy Commissioner of Police – Appellant
Versus
Mamta & Ors. – Respondents
MAC.APP. 977 of 2017 & CM APPL. 40609 of 2017, 40610 of 2017
Decided On : 08-08-2023
Mr.Kartik Sharma, Advocate for Mr.Santosh Kr. Tripathi, SC-GNCTD.
Mr.Jatinder Kamra, Advocate, for the Respondent-1 to 3.
ASI Praveen Kumar Sharma, ASI Khalil Ahmed, ASI Bijender, Parvi Officer/PCR.
The court emphasized the importance of proving contributory negligence and relied on evidence and the charge-sheet to make its decision.
Headnote:
Negligence - Motor Accident Claims - The court held that the deceased's negligence was not proven and dismissed the appeal, ordering the release of the deposited amount to the claimants.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was involved in a motorcycle accident and the claim petition was registered based on the detailed accident report filed by the police. The appellant challenged the tribunal's award, claiming contributory negligence on the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no evidence of the deceased's contributory negligence and dismissed the appeal, ordering the release of the deposited amount to the claimants.
Issues: The main issue was whether the deceased's negligence contributed to the accident and the compensation payable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the evidence and the charge-sheet against the offending vehicle driver, concluding that the deceased's contributory negligence was not proven.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the deposited amount was ordered to be released to the claimants.
JUDGMENT
Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)--This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the Award dated 23.12.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the learned `Tribunal') in MACP no.40/15, Ms. Mamta & Ors. v. Sh. Rakesh @ Rakesh Kumar & Anr..
2. The learned Tribunal in the Impugned Award has given the narration of the accident as under:
"2. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.12.2014 Sh.Suresh Chand(since deceased) was going on his motorcycle bearing no.DL-14 5S-9818 and at about 3.55 PM when he reached North Avenue Road, PS Parliament Street, New Delhi the PCR bearing no.DL-1CM-7429(hereinafter called as offending vehicle) being driven in rash and negligent manner by R-1 hit the motorcycle of deceased due to which he fell down and sustained injuries. He was taken to Dr.RML hospital where he expired during the course of treatment on 25.12.2014."
3. The Claim Petition was registered on the Detailed Accident Report in case FIR No.299/2014 filed by the police on 26.02.2015. The learned Tribunal, based on the evidence led before it, held that the claimants, that is the respondents herein, had been able to prove the negligence on the part of the respondent no.5 herein/driver of the PCR/Offending vehicle.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in not attributing any contributory negligence on the deceased. He submits that it had come on record before the learned Tribunal that the deceased was driving the motorcycle at a high speed, while on the other hand, the offending vehicle was answering an emergency call. He submits that, therefore, contributory negligence should have been attributed on the deceased while determining the compensation payable. He submits that the deceased who was on a motorcycle, was not wearing a helmet. Therefore, again the learned Tribunal has erred in not attributing contributory negligence on the deceased.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3 submits that Mr.Adesh Gupta (PW-3), eye witness to the accident, clearly stated that the accident occurred due to the offending vehicle being driven in a rash and negligent manner. No suggestion was given to the said witness that the deceased was not wearing a helmet at the time of accident. In fact, this was not the case pleaded or set up by the appellants before the learned Tribunal. He further submits that the police itself has registered the charge-sheet against the respondent no.5 under Sections 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `IPC'), thereby admitting the version of the respondent nos.1 to 4 that the accident and the consequential death of the deceased occurred due to the offending vehicle being driven in a rash and negligent manner.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
7. To a query of this Court whether any evidence was led by the appellant before the learned Tribunal of the deceased not wearing a helmet at the time of accident, the learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that no such evidence was brought on record. In the absence of any such evidence, the plea of the appellant that the deceased was not wearing a helmet at the time of accident, cannot be believed and accepted.
8. On the issue of the deceased having contributed to the accident by his own rash and negligent driving, ASI Tasvir Singh, who was the In-charge of the offending vehicle/PCR van, stated that the accident had occurred because the offending vehicle was being driven at a high speed. He does not state that the deceased in any manner had contributed to the accident on account of his driving, though he does state that the motorcycle was also being driven at a high speed by the deceased. `High Speed' here may not necessarily mean exceeding the speed limit or contributing to the accident. Even the PW-3 in his statement, has not attributed any contrib
