Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 523
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Dharmesh Sharma, J
JAYESH KUMAR JAIN – Appellant
Versus
DUGRA DUTT RAI AND ORS – Respondent
MAC.APP.-186/2021
The claimant must establish the involvement of the offending vehicle and driver to succeed in a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166 and 140 - Appeal against dismissal of claim petition for compensation due to motor accident - Claimant sustained grievous injuries but failed to establish involvement of offending vehicle - FIR registered against unknown vehicle after delay - Court found testimony of claimant unconvincing. (Paras 1-10)
(B) Burden of Proof - Claimant must establish the involvement of the offending vehicle and driver to succeed in a claim for compensation. (Paras 6, 10)
(C) Delay in FIR - Delay in lodging FIR and lack of details about the offending vehicle undermined the claimant's case. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The appellant sustained grievous injuries in a motor accident on 10.03.2014, allegedly caused by a motorcycle driven by the first respondent. A claim for Rs. 25 lakhs was filed but dismissed by the Tribunal due to insufficient evidence.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found the claimant's testimony lacking credibility and dismissed the claim petition, concluding that the claimant failed to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle.
Issues: The main issues were whether the claimant sustained injuries due to the negligent driving of the motorcycle and whether he was entitled to compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the claimant's failure to provide credible evidence regarding the offending vehicle and the delay in lodging the FIR led to the dismissal of the claim.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
1. The appellant has preferred this statutory appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ,1 assailing the impugned judgment-cum-award dated 20.10.2020 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi2, whereby his claim petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the M.V. Act was dismissed.
2. Shorn off unnecessary details, evidently, the appellant sustained grievous injuries in a motor accident that occurred on 10.03.2014 at 08:50 AM at Block A, Sector-4, NOIDA, Gautam Budh Nagar, State 1 MV Act 2 Tribunal of Uttar Pradesh, with regard to which FIR No. 313/2014 under Sections 279/337/338 of the IPC3 was also registered at Police Station - Section 20, NOIDA, Gautam Budh Nagar, State of Uttar Pradesh.
The appellant was apparently going on foot for joining his duty when he was allegedly hit by the offending motorcycle bearing registration No. DL 7S AP 3033, which was allegedly being driven by respondent No.1 and owned by respondent No.2. A claim petition under Section 166 r/w Section 140 of the M.V. Act was filed seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 25 lakhs with interest.
3. On service of notice of the claim petition, the appearance was put by all the respondents including respondent No.3/Insurance Company as the offending motorcycle was evidently insured. The learned Trial Court after considering the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: -
- ‘(i)Whether the petitioner Jayesh Kumar Jain sustained grievous injury in a motor vehicular accident on 10.03.2014 at about 8.50 a.m. in front of A-50, Sector-4, Noida, within jurisdiction of PS Sector-20, Noida due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle No. DL-7SAP-3033 (Hero Honda Super Splendor) by respondent No.1? OPP (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation as prayed for, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP (iii) Whether petitioner is entitled to interest on the award amount, if so, at what rate of interest and for which period? (iv) Relief.’
4. It is pertinent to point out that the claimant examined only himself with regard to the manner in which the accident occurred and the evidence was also led to the effect that the appellant/claimant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 64% with regard to his 3 Indian Penal Code, 1860 left upper limb. On the other hand, the respondents No.1 and 2 did not lead any evidence.
5. Suffice to state that the learned Trial Court after considering the testimony of the sole eye witness i.e., the appellant/claimant himself, found that his version was not inspiring confidence and the material placed on the record was not enough to establish involvement of the offending vehicle and thus, the driver being not responsible for causing injuries to the appellant/claimant. Hence, the claim petition was dismissed.
ANAYALSIS AND DECISION:
6. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties at Bar and on perusal of the relevant record including the digitized Trial Court Record, I find that the present appeal is devoid of any merits.
7. At the outset, it would be relevant to refer to the observations made by the learned Tribunal while appreciating the evidence brought on the record, which read as under: -
- ‘10. In order to prove his case, the petitioner (PW1) has stepped into the witness box, being the sole eye witness of the accident examined in this case. He has testified that on 10.03.2014, he was going on his duty on foot and at about 8.50 a.m. when he reached at A Block, Sector-4, Noida, a motorcycle bearing registration no.
- DL-7SAP-3033 (make-Hero Honda Super Splendor), being driven by respondent No.1 in rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, hit him from front side, due to which he fell down on the road and became unconscious. Learned counsel for respondents have challenged the case of petitioner primarily on the ground that FIR was registered again
