* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on : 5^th March, 2024 Judgment pronounced on : 14th March, 2024 + MAC.APP. 512/2018 GAURAV KUMAR ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Sonal Singh, Adv.

versus NIRMAL SINGH & ORS (NATIONAL INSURNACE CO)

..... Respondents Through: Mr. N.K. Chauhan, Adv. for R-1 & R-2. CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA

J U D G M E N T

1. The appellant/injured has preferred this statutory appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, [M.V. Act] challenging the impugned judgment-cum-award dated 20.02.2018, whereby the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, [Tribunal], Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts has rejected his application seeking compensation filed in terms of Section 166 read with Section 140 of the M.V. Act.

2. Having heard the learned counsels for the rival parties at the Bar and on perusal of the record, I find that the present appeal is bereft of any merits.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, a motor accident occurred on 16.02.2009 at about 6:30 AM near village Painga, PS Muradnagar, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMMOADC.APP. 512/2018 Page 1 of 7 Ghaziabad, for which, FIR No.67/2009 was registered under Sections 279/338/427 of IPC read with Sections 177/184 of the M.V. Act. The accident involved tractor trolly bearing registration No.HR-11B-1495 (Swaraj-730) and truck bearing registration No.HR-58A-3042 being driven by respondent No.1, registered in the name of respondent No.2 in the present appeal.

4. Admittedly, the offending truck was insured for third-party risks with respondent No.3.

5. It is relevant to note that the learned Tribunal while rendering the findings as to the factum of the accident and whether or not respondent No.1 was guilty of rash and negligent driving and causing injuries to appellant/claimant, made the following observations:

“10. In the present case, PW1 Gaurav Kumar is the main injured as well as witness to is accident who was supposed to prove this fact being an eye witness of the accident. As per the pleadings of the petitioner/ injured, he was traveling on a tractor trolley loaded with strew / bhoosa and was traveling while standing on running tractor. Admittedly, tractor was not meant to travel by the paid passengers but still injured was travelling by it and that too in standing position which has itself proved that he himself was negligent. Besides it, tractor trolley was loaded with bhoosa upto an extendable height and was carrying a helper Mahesh sitting over it as per judgment R3W1/1 and was being plied in high and excessive speed and driver could not managed it when front tyre of tractor busted and lost control over it and crossed the road after breaking the divider / railing and came on opposite side of the road on the way of the offending vehicle. PW1 has also admitted during the cross examination that if the tyre of the tractor would have not punctured then no accident would have taken place. The truck was on the speed of 70-80 kmph on the highway and speed of tractor trolley also must be not less than it as the tractor broke the railing of the divider on bursting of the tyre and speed was not manageable. Though FIR No. 67/2009 u/s 279/338/427 IPC has been registered against the driver of the offending vehicle, yet it cannot be sole ground to determine the rash and negligent driving Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMMOADC.APP. 512/2018 Page 2 of 7 of the offending vehicle to grant compensation u/s 166 of M.V. Act in view of the law discussed herein above. As such, merely on the basis of the involvement of the offending vehicle coupled with registration of FIR against the driver is not sufficient to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle until and unless it is proved on record. As such, rash and negligent driving by the Respondent No. 1 to cause this accident could not be proved.

11. Besides the evidence led by the petitioner/ injured, the another way