MAC. APP. 83/2024 Page 1 of 5

$~43

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of decision: 5^th February, 2024

+

MAC.APP. 83/2024

M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

..... Appellant

Through:

Ms. Rakhi Dubey and Mr.

Sandeep Kumar Dubey, Advs.

versus

MS. SAVITA & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA

DHARMESH SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

CM APPL. 6626/2024 (Ex.)

1.

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2.

The application stands disposed of.

MAC.APP. 83/2024 & CM APPL. 6625/2024 (Stay)

3.

The appellant/Insurance Company is assailing the impugned

judgment-cum-award dated 10.11.2023 passed by the learned

Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-02, Shahdara,

Karkardooma Courts, Delhi¹ primarily on the ground that the learned

Tribunal erred in finding the involvement of the offence vehicle

bearing registration No. RJ-02CB-8286 in the accident resulting in the

death of the deceased/motorcycle rider, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma.

4.

Learned counsels for the appellant referred to the contents of

the First Information Report²vis-a-vis testimony of R3W1/IO-SI Om

Prakash from Police Station Kotwali District Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh

1Tribunal

Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD

KUMAR VATS

Signing Date:07.02.2024

20:54:17

Signature Not Verified

MAC. APP. 83/2024 Page 2 of 5

besides that of PW-2 Mahender Singh, who was produced as an eye

witness to the accident. It was submitted that in the FIR No. 177/2015

under Section 279/337/304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860³ Police

Station Sahibabad, Ghaziabad no details about the offending vehicle

were given and it was also reported that the deceased motorcyclist was

struck by some unknown vehicle and when he fell down there was

another vehicle, which came from behind and crushed the head of the

injured motorcyclist and fled away from the spot leading to the death

of the injured at the spot. It was also urged that that testimony of

R3W1 i.e. the Investigating Officer was based on the information by

the secret informer, thereby enabling him to trace the whereabouts of

the offending vehicle as well as the registered owner is not

fathomable. While, the PW-2 in his testimony does not inspire

confidence as to the manner in which the accident had occurred.

5.

The aforesaid submissions on the part of the appellant/Insurance

Company have been dealt with by the learned Tribunal in the

impugned judgment-cum-award vide paragraph (14) and it would be

expedient to reproduce the same, which goes as follows:

“14. Having considered the submissions and going through the

evidence of R3W 1, the fact that involvement of offending vehicle

has been made belatedly in the investigation of criminal case on the

basis of information given by secret informer, ipso facto cannot be

considered to be a reason for concoction or fraudulent involvement

of vehicle when nothing has come on the judicial record. It is

matter of record that driver/respondent no. l of the offending

vehicle bearing no.RJ-02CB-8286 faced prosecution in the

criminal case. Certified copy of criminal case documents are on

record. Moreover PW2 is the eye witness who also deposed

2FIR

3 IPC

Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD

KUMAR VATS

Signing Date:07.02.2024

20:54:17

Signature Not Verified

MAC. APP. 83/2024 Page 3 of 5

consistently regarding the manner in which accident taken place.

Thus on the basis of evidence of PW2 coupled with documents on

record, there is sufficient evidence available on record to prove that

accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of

respondent no. l. Issue thus decided in favour of petitioner