$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 18^th December, 2024 + MAC.APP. 925/2019

1. Ms. BIJENDERI W/o Sh. Nirdosh .....Appellant No. 1

2. Ms. GEETA D/o Late Sh. Nirdosh .....Appellant No.2

3. Ms. BHAVNA D/o Late Sh. Nirdosh ....Appellant No.3

4. Ms. ANJANA D/o Late Sh. Nirdosh ....Appellant No.4

5. Ms. RASHMI D/o Late Sh. Nirdosh ...Appellant No. 5

6. Master GURU ARJUN S/o Sh. Nirdosh ....Appellant No. 6

7. Smt. RAJ BALA W/o Sh. SUKHBIR SINGH ....Appellant No. 7

8. Sh. SUKHBIR SINGH S/o Late Sh.Ganga Prasad ....Appellant No. 8 Through: Mr. Kunwar Arish Ali, Mr. Zubair Ali, Mr. M. Raja, Mr. Yamin, Mr. Tafseer and Mr. Yaseer Wali, Advocates.

Versus

1. SHYAMVEER SINGH S/o Sh. Bal Swaroop Singh .....Respondent No.1 MAC.APP. 925/2019 Page 1 of 6 Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:SAHIL

2. BAL SWAROOP S/o Ramji Lal ...Respondent No. 2

3. M/S ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BIRLA TOWER .....Respondent No.3 Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA J U D G E M E N T (Oral)

1. The Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘M.V. Act’ hereinafter) has been filed on behalf of the Claimants/Appellants, against the Award dated 13.09.2017, whereby the Claim Petition under Section 166 and 140 of the M.V. Act, has been dismissed on the ground that the rashness and negligence has not been proved on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.

2. An Application bearing C.M. No. 52419/2019 under Order 41 Rule 26 CPC, has been filed for filing the additional document i.e. Postmortem Report of the deceased, Mr. Nirdosh.

3. The document being relevant are taken on record.

4. Learned counsel on behalf of the Appellants, have argued that though Mr. Nirdosh had died in the road accident but inadvertently, the Post mortem that was placed on record, was of Mr. Rajeshwar Nand instead of Mr. Nirdosh. Learned counsel has further submitted that there was cogent evidence on record to prove not only the involvement but also the negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle. The impugned Award which has been dismissed on account of non proof of negligence is, MAC.APP. 925/2019 Page 2 of 6 Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:SAHIL therefore, liable to be set-aside.

5. Learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company submits that the cogent reasons have been given by the learned Tribunal, to conclude that the involvement of the vehicle was not proved as the FIR was registered against another vehicle, though the Charge-Sheet was filed against the offending vehicle. There is no eyewitness examined. The Ld. Tribunal held that the claimants had failed to establish that the deceased had died on account of injuries sustained in accident which took place on 26.04.2012 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No. UP 14 BQ 1872.

Therefore, it has been rightly dismissed by the learned Tribunal.

6. Submissions heard.

7. Briefly stated, on 26.04.2012 at about 8:30 p.m, Mr. Nirdosh, the deceased along with other person were going from Bulandshahar to Dibai, in the EECO (Maruti Car). When they reached near Kali Temple Dibai, Duraha, Bulandshahar, UP, a Xylo Car No. UP 14 BQ 1872, came from the opposite side after overtaking a standing tractor trolley, at a very high speed and rash and negligent manner and hit the ECCO (Maruti Car). After hitting the Maruti Car, Xylo car over turned. Resultantly, Mr. Nirdosh received the serious injuries in the accident and died.

8. FIR No. 18/2012 under Section 279/304A/338/427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at Police Station, Debai, District Bulandshahar, UP and eventually, the Charge-Sheet, Ex. PW1/3 was filed against the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. UP 14 BQ 1872.

9. The Claim Petition under Section 166 and 140 of the M.V. Act, has been filed on behalf of the Appellants for seeking compensation on account MAC.APP. 925/2019 Page 3 of 6 Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:SAHIL of death of Mr. Nirdosh in