Delhi District Court
Vandna Kumari S/O Sh. Narender Singh ... vs Ramesh & Ors on 17 February, 2018
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
In the Court of Sh. G. N Pandey
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Pilot Court)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
MACT No. 165/17
IN THE MATTER OF :
1. Vandna Kumari S/o Sh. Narender Singh aged 19 years
R/o H. No. D9, Street No. 4, Ambekdar Vihar,
Johripur, Gokulpuri, Delhi94
Also at: D9/56, Ambedkar Vihar, Johripur Ext.,
Gokalpuri, Delhi.
............ Petitioner
V E R S U S
1. Ramesh S/o Sh. Zile Singh
R/o Village Harsola, Distt. Kaithal,
Haryana.
Driver cum registered owner
2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Jeevan Raksha Building, Asaf Ali Road,
Daryaganj, New Delhi.
Insurer
........ Respondents
Date of Institution of petition : 01.04.2017 Date of Judgment/Order : 17.02.2018 MACT No. 165/17 1 of 7 Vandna Kumari V/s Ramesh & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Application for grant of compensation under Section 166 r/w section 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
A W A R D:
1. By this common award, four claim petitions filed by the petitioners for compensation under Section 140 and 166 of the MV Act 1988 is disposed off.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 22.02.2017, injured alongwith her family members was traveling in a car No. DL 3 CAG 3734 driven by Sh. Narender Singh from Himachal to Delhi. At about 21:00 hrs on 22.02.2017 on reaching PS Shahabad, Kurukshetra on national highway, all of a sudden without any cause or cogent reason, truck No. HR 63 8954 moving ahead stopped itself on middle of the road without any signal or indicator and when driver / Narender Singh of car No. DL 3 CAG 3734 tried to negotiate cut, it was not possible to ascertain while moving on highway and car struck against the rear portion of the offending truck resulting in grievous injuries to the occupants of the car. This accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the truck No. HR 63 8954. Injured sustained grievous injuries on left hand; fracture of left leg coupled with 9 stitches on left knee bowl and was taken to CHC Shahdara and thereafter treatment continued at Delhi.
3. The WS was filed by respondent No. 1 contended that present petition of the petitioner is not maintainable as father of petitioner was himself plying the car No. DL 3 CAG 3734 in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed; petition is bad for the non joinder and mis joinder of the necessary parties as the driver/owner and insurer of MACT No. 165/17 2 of 7 Vandna Kumari V/s Ramesh & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
the car No. DL 3 CAG 3734 are not impleaded. As further contended, false case was registered against the respondent No. 1 in collusion with the local police of the PS of Shahabad, Distt. Kurukshetra, Haryana. It is further stated that at the time of accident, the truck No. HR 63 8954 was parked on the extreme left side of the road, owing to breakdown due to fault caused in its electrical wirings.
The respondent No. 2/insurance company claimed that this petition is not maintainable and further contended that vehicle No. HR 63 8954 was insured with the respondent No. 2 vide policy No. 33060031160200009987 w.e.f. 03.12.2016 to 02.12.2017 in the name of Sh. Ramesh/ respondent No. 1.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
1. Whether petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR 63 8954 at Kurukshetra on National Highway road going towards Delhi to Himachal on 22.02.2017 at about 9:00 PM by respondent No. 1 within the jurisdiction of PS Shahbad, Kurukshetra ? OPP
2. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
5. Father of petitioner relied his statement as recorded in MACT No. 164/17 and MACT No. 167/17.
Injured filed her affidavit affidavit by way of evidence Ex. PW 2/A and examined himself as PW2 and deposed regarding the claim petition. She further relied upon the following documents in support of MACT No. 165/17 3 of 7 Vandna Kumari V/s Ramesh & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
claim and contentions i.e:
(i) Copy of adhar card Ex. PW 2/1
(ii) Certified copy of MLC Ex PW 2/ 2
(iii) Original treatment record Ex. PW 2/ 3.
(iv) Education qualification documents Ex. PW 2/ 4
(v) Photocopy of criminal case record mark 2A.
PE was thereafter closed.
6. During the proceeding, ld. Counsel for respondent No. 1 stated that he did not examine any witness. RE on behalf of respondent No. 1 was thereafter closed.
Respondent No. 2 did not lead any RE despite opportunities therefore RE was closed.
7. After recording the statement of the petitioner under Clause 27 of Modified Claim Tribunal Agreed Procedure, I have heard Ld. counsel for the parties and gone through the records.
8. My findings on the aforesaid issues are as follows :
1. Whether petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR 63 8954 at Kurukshetra on National Highway road going towards Delhi to Himachal on 22.02.2017 at about 9:00 PM by respondent No. 1 within the jurisdiction of PS Shahbad, Kurukshetra ? OPP
9. To succeed in the claim petition and in view of section 166 of the MV Act, it is for the claimant to prove that vehicle which caused the accident was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver/respondent No.1. It is relevant to note that the insurer of the car bearing No. DL 3 CAG 3734 in which the petitioner was traveling is not MACT No. 165/17 4 of 7 Vandna Kumari V/s Ramesh & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
impleaded before this tribunal in this matter. It is also noteworthy that simply the involvement of the truck bearing No. HR 63 8954 in the accident cannot make the respondents liable to pay compensation unless it is proved on record that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent act of the driver/respondent No.1.
10. Before adjudicating the facts, it is vehemently argued by the Ld. Counsel for the insurance company that the claim petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and this petition should be dismissed as petitioner has not proved the criminal records, any injury by way of medical records / medical bills as well as involvement of vehicle driven by respondent No. 1. It is vehemently argued by the counsel for the respondents that the petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner failed to prove any negligence of the respondent No.1. It is argued that the truck was standing / parked on the road and the accident was caused by the car in which the petitioner was traveling.
I have considered the submissions alongwith the records. In the claim petition itself, it is noted that the truck bearing No. HR 63 8954 was moving ahead of the car of the petitioner stopped without any indicator and the car struck against the rear portion of the truck leading to injury/ death of the passengers. Sh. Narender Singh i.e. father of injured who was driving the car bearing No. DL 3 CAG 3734 hit the truck in back side ; the truck applied the brake and he was coming behind the truck also applied the brake but struck behind the truck and caused the accident. It is noted that the MLC relied by the petitioner Ex PW 2/ 2 does not disclose the nature of the injury at all. The PW1 i.e. Narender Singh during cross examination admitted that car was being driven by him which hit the truck in back side as the truck has applied MACT No. 165/17 5 of 7 Vandna Kumari V/s Ramesh & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
the brake suddenly and he was driving behind the truck. Even the medical records/ medical bills relied by petitioner in support of claim and contentions are not proved in accordance with provisions of law after taking necessary steps to summons the witnesses.
11. It is argued by ld. Counsel for respondents that, even if the testimony of the PWs is considered alongwith other materials on record and FIR, no negligence of the respondent No. 1 is proved on record and therefore, respondents are not liable to make any payment. I have considered the submissions and gone through the judgments reported as 2009 ACJ 2719 titled Prasanna Vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation; and Lacchu Ram & Others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation (Manu/SC/0059/2014) in support of their contentions. The contentions of the respondents appears to be true. The petition, FIR shows that the truck was going ahead of the car, truck applied the brake and the car coming from behind hit the truck leading to accident. The ratio of the aforesaid judgment relied upon by the respondents regarding negligence of the respondent No. 1 is squarely applicable in the facts of this case.
12. It is established that the standard of proof of negligence in a criminal case and in claim petition U/s 166 of M.V. act are different. From the material on record and from the testimony of the witnesses, it is proved that the respondent No. 1 is not responsible for rash and negligent driving. In view of the ratio laid in Prassana's case (Supra), the vehicle following another vehicle should take into account the eventuality of the vehicle going in front stopping abruptly. This Tribunal does not find any contention regarding grant of recovery rights to MACT No. 165/17 6 of 7 Vandna Kumari V/s Ramesh & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal( Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
insurance company, if any as argued by the petitioner as the liability of the respondent has to be established first for right for recovery, if any.
13. In the case in hand, there is nothing on record to show the negligence of respondent No. 1. In fact the petitioner failed to prove any accident causing injury/death due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1. Therefore, in view of the material on records and testimony of witnesses, this tribunal is of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to prove that she received injuries in motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR 63 8954 at Kurukshetra on National Highway road going towards Delhi to Himachal on 22.02.2017 at about 9:00 PM by respondent No. 1. The issue No. 1 is decided accordingly against the petitioner. Issue No. 2: Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation ? If so to what amount and from whom? OPP
14. In view of aforesaid discussion and findings on issues No. 1, the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation. This issue i.e. issue No. 2 is accordingly decided against the petitioner. A W A R D:
15. The claim petition stand dismissed. Files be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
GORAKH Digitally signed by
GORAKH NATH PANDEY
Location: Court No.69,
NATH North East District,
Karkardooma Court, Delhi
Announced in open Court
on this day of 17th February, 2018
PANDEY Date: 2018.02.17
16:26:15 +0530
G. N. Pandey
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Pilot Court) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
MACT No. 165/17 7 of 7 Vandna Kumari V/s Ramesh & Ors.