Page 1 of 6

*

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

FAO 41/2002

Date of Decision: 10.10.2012

P.N.HANDA & ANR. . .... Appellant

Through:

Mr.Bharat Arora, Adv.

Versus

SANDEEP SHARMA ..... Respondent

Through:

Ms Neerja Sachdeva, Adv. for

R3

AND

FAO 42/2002

P.N.HANDA

..... Appellant

Through:

Mr.Bharat Arora, Adv.

Versus

SANDEEP SHARMA & ORS. ..... Respondent

Through:

Ms neerja Sachdeva, Adv. for R-

3

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

M.L. MEHTA, J.

1. These two appeals are being disposed of vide this common

judgment as these arise out of the common judgment dated 26.11.2001

of Judge, MACT, New Delhi in suits bearing No. 310/1992 and

2012:DHC:6309

Page 2 of 6

334/1992. Both these suits were filed seeking compensation on

account of the accident that took place on 12^th May, 1992.

2. The appellant herein had filed suit no. 310/1992 against the

respondent Sandeep Sharma, who had filed suit No. 334/1992 against

the appellant and his wife. Both, the appellant and the respondent were

driving their respective scooters, when accident took place between

them on 12^th May 1992. They both sustained injuries in the accident.

They both filed suits for claiming compensation against each-other.

The police had also registered a case against the appellant under

Section 279/338 IPC wherein ultimately the appellant came to be

acquitted by the Metropolitan Magistrate. Both the parties contested

their respective suits. The learned Judge, MACT vide the impugned

judgment, dismissed the suit of the appellant herein; whereas awarded

compensation of Rs.12,000/- to the respondent Sandeep Sharma

against the appellant. The appellant has challenged the findings of the

Judge, MACT on both these counts by way of these two separate

appeals.

3. These appeals have been filed on the grounds that the learned

Judge, MACT has erred in not taking note of the fact that the accident

was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the scooter being

driven by respondent Sandeep Sharma and that the appellant was

acquitted by the Magistrate in the police case registered against him

under Section 279/338 IPC. It is submitted that his acquittal in the

aforesaid criminal case would testify that the accident was not caused

2012:DHC:6309

Page 3 of 6

because of his rash or negligent driving, but that of the respondent

Sandeep Sharma. The learned counsel submitted that the appellant was

driving his scooter at slow speed on the left side of the road when his

scooter was struck from behind by the scooter of respondent Sandeep

Sharma and the same stands proved from the mechanical inspection

reports of the scooters, as per which damage caused to his scooter was

on the right side and to that of respondent Sandeep Sharma on the front

and the left side. It is also submitted that the appellant suffered

disability to the extent of 50% and was entitled to compensation to the

extent of Rs.10,00,000/-.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

respondent National Insurance Company and perused the records.

5. The plea that the appellant was driving his scooter at slow speed

on the left side of the road and was struck from behind by the

respondent Sandeep Sharma and as a result of which his scooter fell on

the right side and that of the respondent on the left side and that the

same would be testified from the mechanical inspection reports, has

been elaborately dealt with by the learned Judge, MACT. From the

evidence which was led by the parties, and which has been rightly

appreciated by the learned Judge, MACT, it is noticed that the

appellant had deposed that he was driving his scooter at slow speed on

the left side of the road when the scooter being driven by