MAC.APP. Nos. 1042 & 1043/2018

Page 1 of 7

$~11 & 12

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

+

MAC.APP. 1042/2018 & CM APPL. 48854/2018

AVTAR SINGH

..... Appellant

versus

NASIM AHMED

..... Respondent

+

MAC.APP. 1043/2018 & CM APPL. 48870/2018

AVTAR SINGH

..... Appellant

versus

SAEEDA BEGUM & ORS

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. P.S. Sharma, Advocate for

appellant.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Oral)

1. This appeal impugns an award of compensation dated 12.07.2018 in

claim petition numbered as MACT No. 357412/16 & 357406/16. The facts

of the case are that on 18.04.2010, at about 9:30 p.m, a Tavera car, bearing

Registration No. HR-67-3645, struck a motor-cycle bearing no. PB-11-AB-

0752, on which three persons were riding. They all suffered injuries, one

Rashid Ahmed succumbed to injuries on 19.04.2010, the other two injured

persons survived. An FIR bearing no. 89/2010 was registered at Police

Station, Civil Lines, Punjab for offences punishable under sections 279, 337,

2019:DHC:3594

MAC.APP. Nos. 1042 & 1043/2018

Page 2 of 7

338,427, 304A IPC. The impugned order found the appellant’s vehicle to be

the cause of the accident.

2. According to the testimony of the parties, including that of one of the

injured viz. Naseem Ahmed, they were returning from a mosque after

offering their prayers, on the aforesaid date and time, they were hit from

behind by the offending vehicle which was being driven in a rash and

negligent manner; because of the violent impact, the rider sustained major

injuries while Rashid was mortally wounded and later succumbed to his

injuries.

3. It is the appellant’s case that his vehicle was not involved in the

accident but by a strange quirk of fate, it had struck against an electric pole,

earlier, at some distance on another road. There is, however, no proof of the

earlier accident against an electric pole. Much stress is laid on the fact that

the motor-cycle of the claimants was never seized. However, the Court

would note that the injured persons i.e. Nasim Ahmed and Mohd. Irfan had

both deposed that the offending vehicle was the Tavera bearing No. HR-67-

3645. Furthermore, the police had seized the offending vehicle.

4. The impugned order has dealt with this issue as under:-

“10.

2019:DHC:3594

MAC.APP. Nos. 1042 & 1043/2018

Page 3 of 7

2019:DHC:3594

MAC.APP. Nos. 1042 & 1043/2018

Page 4 of 7

2019:DHC:3594

MAC.APP. Nos. 1042 & 1043/2018

Page 5 of 7

petitioners and against the respondents in both matters.”

5. As discussed above, the learned MACT has conclusively and for good

reason found the appellant to have been involved in the fatality and two

injuries.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon an appeal filed

by the appellant before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, in which he has

annexed a site plan prepared by the local police on 19.11.2012. It shows

that the accident happened at Point A and the driver of the vehicle crashed a

little ahead from the site of the accident into an electric pole. Interestingly,

the trajectory of the vehicle is undisturbed i.e. it goes ahead from the site of

the accident and hits a pole across the road. The police have also recorded a

statement of one, Mustakim, son of Yaseen Ahmed which reads as under:-

2019:DHC:3594

MAC.APP. Nos. 1042 & 1043/2018

Page 6 of 7

recorded to you, do the police proceeding.”

7. Quite clearly, what emanates from the above is that there were two

eyewitnesses; that while all three riders on the motor-cycle suffered injuries,

the injuries to Rashid Ahmed was fatal; the other two injured survivors

testified to the nature of the accident; they also indentified the vehicle.

Interestingly, the vehicle was found a little ahead from the site of the

accid