ORDER

% 19.02.2024

1. This hearing is being conducted through hybrid mode.

CM APPL. 2719/2024 (Ex.) in MAC.APP. 42/2024 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

CM APPL. 2720/2024 (Delay of 87 days in filing the present appeal) in MAC.APP. 42/2024

1. This application has been moved on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 87 days in filing the present civil revision petition.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 87 days in filing the present civil revision petition is condoned.

3. The application stands disposed of.

MAC.APP. 42/2024 MAC.APP. 79/2024

4. The appellant/Insurance company is assailing the impugned judgment-cum-award dated 12.07.2023 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, MACT-02, South-West, Dwarka Courts Complex, New Delhi.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/injured is present on advance notice.

6. None appeared on behalf of the respondents No. 2 and 3.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has urged that the impugned judgement-cum-award is not sustainable in law as no evidence was led with regard to the respondent No.2/driver being guilty of rash and negligent driving in any manner.

8. The said plea is countered by learned counsel for the respondent No.1/injured alluding to observations of learned Tribunal reflected in paragraph (11) onwards. It would be relevant to extract and reproduce the observations made by learned Tribunal while deciding the issue of culpability with regard to the accident in question, which reads as under:- „11. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Ld Counsel for the insurance Company. On perusal of record it reveals that in the cross examination of petitioner (PW3) he has categorically deposited that driver of offending vehicle stopped the vehicle at a distance and thereafter ran away with his vehicle. It was morning time and there was not much crowd. His uncle has removed him to MMG Hospital. He remained admitted in MMG Hospital, Ghaziabad for one day and thereafter he was referred to Safdarjung Hospital for better treatment, where he remained hospitalized for about one month. Though the insurance company has examined one witness namely R1W1 Sh Baneshwar Prasad Singh, who is investigator in the present case. R1W1 has opined that the vehicle in the present case has been planted one. But his investigation cannot overruled/superseded the investigation being carried out by the Investigating Agency. The Investigating Agency has filed the charge sheet after investigation of the case properly. And the Insurance Company has unable to brought to the notice of this Tribunal that investigating agency has not conducted investigation property. The owner of the offending vehicle as well as driver has not objected to the investigation. They have not filed any objection to the charge sheet or complaint to the superior officers of investigating agency. So in the given circumstance, as revealed from the record, this Tribunal is of the view that delay of FIR is not determinable for grant of compensation to the petitioner in MACT case.‟

9. Ex-facie, the above said observations made by the learned Tribunal appear to be without any blemish. However, this Court would like to go through the testimony of the witnesses concerned before passing a rendering a final verdict.

10. At this stage, it is pointed out that the respondent/claimant has also filed MAC.APP. 79/2024, which is listed for today.

11. Notice of the same is accepted by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

12. It is acknowledged that the soft copy of the complete set of paper book with annexures has already been received.

13. Both parties are willing to explore the possibility of reaching an amicable settlement before the Pre-Lok Adalat Mediation.

14. Accordingly, both the parties are directed to appear for the Pre- Lok Adalat Mediation before the learned Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Co