The court emphasized the necessity of credible eyewitness testimony in establishing negligence and the importance of just compensation for severe injuries in motor accident claims.

1. This judgment shall decide the cross-appeals instituted by the appellants/parties herein under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19881, challenging the impugned judgment-cum-award dated 22.05.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tis Hazari Courts (West), Delhi2 in MACT No. 477382/20163 titled as „Harish Kumar Sukhija v. Ajay Singh & Ors.‟. FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2. Briefly stated, Mr. Harish Kumar Sukhija, through his son Mr. Kunal Sukhija (hereinafter referred to as “claimant”) filed a claim petition seeking compensation under section 166 read with section 140 of the MV Act before the learned Tribunal after sustaining grievous injuries in a motor accident dated 30.03.2015 at 9.30AM. The accident occurred while the claimant was riding his motorcycle on the Delhi Jal Board Service Road, Paschim Vihar, Delhi when the driver of one parked black Santro car bearing No. DL-9CJ-4088 (hereinafter “the offending vehicle”) suddenly opened his gate at the same time when the claimant was passing through the right side of the offending vehicle. As a result, the claimant lost balance and control over his motorcycle and fell on the road due to which he sustained grievous injuries in the nature of “RTA with left fronto temporo parietal acute subdural hematoma, multiple brain contusion with diffuse axonal injury with midbrain infraction” among other injuries.

It is stated that the accident has rendered the claimant in a vegetative state as his body is entirely paralysed. As a result of the abovesaid accident, an FIR4 No. 244/2015 under Section 279/338 IPC5 was 1 MV Act 2 Tribunal/ MACT 3 Claim Petition 4 First Information Report registered against the driver of the offending vehicle at Police Station Paschim Vihar, Delhi.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 22.05.2017:

3. On the service of notice of the claim petition, respondent No. 1 and 2 i.e., the registered owner and driver of the offending vehicle respectively, filed a joint written statement denying the allegations of the claimant and further stating that the claimant is himself responsible for causing the accident. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company in its written statement although acknowledged that the offending vehicle was duly insured with it at the time of the accident.

However, it inter alia took the objection that the aforesaid FIR along with the DAR6 fail to bring out involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident in question; and it was alleged that the claimant has planted a false eyewitness and has falsely implicated the offending vehicle in order to claim compensation.

4. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the learned tribunal:

“1. Whether the petitioner Sh. Harish Kumar Sukhija has sustained injuries in an accident which took place on 30.03.2015 at about 9:30 a.m., due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 while driving vehicle No. DL-8CJ-4088 (Santro Car), owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3? OPP.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Relief.” 5 Indian Penal Code, 1860 6 Detailed Accident Report 5. With regard to Issue No.1, relying upon the material placed on record and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Tribunal held that the testimony of the eye-witness to the accident had not been shaken even in his cross-examination and relying upon the decision of the Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pushpa Rana 7, held that the Detailed Accident Report filed by the police u/s 173 CrPC in the present case was sufficient to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle acted rashly and negligently. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal decided the said issue in favour of the claimant.

6. The cross examination of the eyewitness produced by the claimant, Mr. Sanjay Kapoor, is reproduced herein below:

“I am a summoned witness. My affidavit was prepared by my Advocate Sh Ajay Kumar Malhotr