Delhi District Court
Saroj (Mother Of Deceased) vs Suresh Pal (DriverCumOwner) on 7 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU : JUDGE (MACT)01
(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
MACT No. 844/2017
CNR No. DLCT010123042017
1. Saroj (Mother of deceased)
D/o Sh. Nathu Lal
W/o Sh. Moti Lal
2. Sh. Moti Lal (Father of deceased)
S/o Sh. Babu Ram
3. Sh. Anshul (Brother of deceased)
S/o Sh. Moti Lal
All Residents of C1201, Gali No. 10,
Vikash Kunj, Loni Dehat, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh.
.......Petitioners
Versus
1. Suresh Pal (Drivercumowner)
S/o Sh. Krishan Pal,
R/o B6, Radha Vihar,
Samboli Village, Delhi.
2. M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (Insurance)
2/2A, Universal Insurance Building,
3rd Floor, Asaf Ali Road,
New Delhi.
......Respondents
Saroj & Ors. Vs. Suresh Pal & Anr., MACT No. 844/2017 Page No. 1 of 38
Judgment dated 07.04.2022
Date of filing of claim petition: 25.08.2017
Arguments heard on: 21.03.2022
Date of Judgment: 07.04.2022
JUDGMENT:
(1) The present Claim Petition has been preferred by the LRs of the deceased Vantu under Sections 166 & 140 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/ (Rupees Twenty Lacs Only) in respect of the death of deceased Vantu S/o Moti Lal who had sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 24.12.2016 at about 4:30 PM, at Nathla Mod, Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh.
BRIEF FACTS:
(2) The Facts in Brief as emerged from the Claim Petition are that on 24.12.2016 at about 4:30 PM, the deceased Vantu was coming towards his home after offering prayers at temple of Gufa Wale Baba, Village Sarurpur. When he reached at Nathla Road, he halted for passing urine and suddenly a tractor bearing No. DL1E1973 came from Nathla Village side in a rash and negligent manner and hit Vantu with a grave impact. Thereafter, the deceased was rushed to District Hospital Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh and after primary treatment he was referred to Sushruta Trauma Centre, Delhi where he expired during treatment. According to the petitioners, a Case Crime No. 0015/2017 Saroj & Ors. Vs. Suresh Pal & Anr., MACT No. 844/2017 Page No. 2 of 38 Judgment dated 07.04.2022 was registered at Police Station Baghpat on 06.01.2017 under Sections 279/337/338/304A IPC on the basis of complaint of the father of the deceased. It is the case of the petitioners that the accident took place due to sole negligence and carelessness of the respondent no.1 who was driving his tractor in a rash and negligent manner without indicating any signal and without caring the person on the extreme bank of the road. It is pleaded that the deceased was providing complete financial support to his family members and was earning Rs.12,000/ to Rs.15,000/ per month being a vegetable hawker.
(3) A separate detailed written statement / reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.1 Suresh Pal wherein it is denied that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.12,000/ to Rs.15,000/ per month. It is pleaded that the Tractor bearing No. DL1E1973 not came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased. It is further pleaded that the respondent no.1 who was driving the tractor at the time of accident has a valid Driving License and Insurance Policy and hence, the respondent no.2 Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. It is further pleaded that the claim amount is highly exorbitant and without any basis and justification. (4) A detailed written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 The New India Assurance Company Ltd. wherein preliminary objection has been raised that the petition filed by the petitioner does not disclose any cause of action against the respondent no.2 who takes all the pleas under Section 149 of Motor Vehicles Act Saroj & Ors. Vs. Suresh Pal & Anr., MACT No. 844/2017 Page No. 3 of 38 Judgment dated 07.04.2022 available to it. It is pleaded that the Insurance Company has denied all the liabilities in this case as an Insurer, in case if the insured vehicle bearing registration No. DL1E1973 was being used contrary to the terms of the Insurance Policy i.e. without a valid permit, fitness and was being driven by its owner without holding a proper and valid driving license. It is further pleaded that in case if the owner and driver fails to contest the Claim Petition or it is found that they are in collusion with the petitioner, the respondent no.2 reserved its right to take appropriate defence under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act. It is also pleaded that the petitioner has filed the copy of charge sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. but not filed the postmortem report. It is also pleaded that the accident took place at Baghpat and the FIR was registered at Baghpat, the petitioners are residing at Ghaziabad, and hence, this Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present petition. On merits, the Insurance Company has conceded that the Insurance Policy was issued vide Policy bearing no. 32350031160100001071 valid from 05.11.2016 to 04.11.2017 for vehicle bearing registration No. DL1E1973 (Mahindra Tractor) in the name of Suresh Pal, however, the liability of the company is subject to the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.
(5) The Insurance Company has also filed a reasoned reply wherein it is pleaded that there is no postmortem report and it cannot be judged that the death was caused due to the accident. It is pleaded that without postmortem report, the Insurance Company cannot file any Saroj & Ors. Vs. Suresh Pal & Anr., MACT No. 844/2017 Page No. 4 of 38 Judgment dated 07.04.2022 offer to the petitioners. It is further pleaded that it is an out station case and the police has filed the charge sheet but postmortem report has not been filed, therefore, the Insurance Company cannot verify the criminal record without being supplied the copy of Postmortem Report.
ISSUES SETTLED:
(6) On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated 15.10.2018, following issues were settled by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court/ Tribunal:
i. Whether the deceased Vantu had died due to the injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 24.12.2016 within the jurisdiction of P.S. Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No. DL1E1973 by respondent no.1?
ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
iii. Relief.
(7) Further, keeping in view the fact that the accident had taken place at Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh, the petitioners are residents of Loni Dehat, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh and the respondent no.1 is a resident of Village Samboli, Delhi vide order dated 17.02.2020 this Court/ Tribunal has framed an Additional Issue as under:
Whether this Court has the Territorial Jurisdiction to try the present case?
Saroj & Ors. Vs. Suresh Pal & Anr., MACT No. 844/2017 Page No. 5 of 38 Judgment dated 07.04.2022 EVIDENCE:
(8) In order to prove their case, the petitioners have examined only one witness i.e. Sh. Moti Lal (father of the deceased) as PW1.
On the other hand the respondent no.1 Suresh Pal has examined three witnesses i.e. Sube Deen (an independent public witness) as R1W1, SI Hans Raj Singh (Investigating Officer) as R2W1 and Suresh Pal as R1W2. In so far as the respondent no.2 Insurance Company is concerned, they have not led any evidence and the Ld. Counsel for the Insurance Company has closed its evidence vide his statement dated 21.03.2022.
(9) For the sake of convenience, the testimonies of various witnesses examined by the parties are put in a tabulated form as under:
S. Witness Deposition
No.
Petitioners Witness:
1. Sh. Moti Lal PW1 Sh. Moti Lal is the father of the deceased Vantu.
(PW1) He in his examinationinchief by way of affidavit
Ex.PW1/1 has corroborated what has been earlier stated in the claim petition. He has placed his reliance on the following documents:
1. Aadhar Card of the deceased which is Ex.PW1/A.
2. Aadhar Card of the petitioner No.1 Moti Lal which is Ex.PW1/B.
3. Aadhar Card of the petitioner No.2 Saroj (mother of the deceased) which is Ex.PW1/C.
4. Aadhar Card of the petitioner no.3 Anshul (brother of the deceased) which is Ex.PW1/D.
5. Certified copy of the criminal record which is Ex.PW1/E (Colly).
Saroj & Ors. Vs. Suresh Pal & Anr., MACT No. 844/2017 Page No. 6 of 38 Judgment dated 07.04.2022
6. Certified copy of Postmortem Report which is Ex.PW1/F.
7. Photocopy of PAN Card of Sh. Moti Lal which is Mark A. In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2, the witness has deposed as under: That he lodged the FIR with the police after one week of the accident.
That in the FIR he did not get recorded in the FIR that he was also accompanied with his son on separate bicycle.
That after the accident police official took his son to the hospital.
That some one made a call to his brotherinlaw from the hospital thereafter his brotherinlaw reached the hospital.
That he (witness) did not go to the hospital even thereafter.
That his son expired on the date of accident. That his son was brought to Delhi by the UP Police.
That he did not go to the police station either on the date of accident or thereafter.
That first time, he visited to the police station on 06.01.2017.
That his son left from home on the date of accident at 7:30 AM on cycle.
That he also left from the home at the same time and it took about three hours to reach the temple. That they left from the temple between 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM.
That his son met with an accident after about 30 45 minute when they left from the temple who was behind his son.
That the distance between him and his son was about 20 paces.
That it is wrong that since he was not with his son, he does not get recorded in the FIR in the complaint that accident was caused in his presence.
Saroj & Ors. Vs. Suresh Pal & Anr., MACT No. 844/2017 Page No. 7 of 38 Judgment dated 07.04.2022 That it is wrong that in order to get compensation, he had concocted a false story at the place of occurrence.
That the right front wheel run over his son. That the tractor was apprehended by the public and the same was handed over to the police.
That the police seized the tractor and arrested the driver on the same day.
That it is wrong that police did not apprehend the tractor or arrest the accused on the date of accident.
That it is wrong that police did not receive any information of the accident prior to 06.01.2017. That it is wrong that his son was not earning Rs.15,000/ per month.
That it is wrong that he has not spent any amount on the treatment of his son.
That the witness further denied the suggestion that he (deceased) was not working in Delhi.
That he has not filed any document to show that the deceased was working in Delhi.
That Suresh is the owner of the offending tractor. That police brought his son to Delhi in the Auto. That it is wrong that since he was not present at the spot, he did not accompany to his son and in order to get compensation, he had concocted a false story that he was present at the spot.
This witness has not been cross examined by the respondent no.1 Suresh, despite grant of opportunity. Respondent's Evidence
2. Sh. Sube Deen R1W1 Sh. Sube Deen is a public witness who in his (R1W1) examinationinchief by way of affidavit Ex.R1W1/A has stated the following aspects:
1. Tthat on 24.12.2016 at about 5 PM he was going from Loni to Baraut, UP by a Roadways Bus.
2. That when the bus reached before Gufa Wala Baba Temple, the traffic was jam due to accident on road.
3. That all the bus passengers and other persons reached near the injured.
Saroj & Ors. Vs. Suresh Pal & Anr., MACT No. 844/2017 Page No. 8 of 38 Judgment dated 07.04.2022
4. That he saw that the injured belongs to his colony and the distance between his house and house of the injured is near about 500 yards.
5. That he knew the father of the injured namely Moti Lal and they tried to provide first aid to the injured.
6. That in the meanwhile, one tractor driver also came at the spot and told that his tractor is available in the backside of the traffic and is ready and willing to take the injured to hospital in his tractor.
7. That he along with the injured reached government hospital at Bhaghpat but the doctors referred the injured to Shushruta Trauma Center, Delhi.
8. That thereafter they arranged a Van and took the injured to Shushruta Trauma Center, Delhi and admitted the injured there.
9. That the payment of the van was borne by him and Suresh (Tractor Driver).
10. That after about 1½ hours he along with tractor driver Suresh returned from the hospital and he informed the family members of the deceased.
In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners, the witness has deposed as under: That he is not a summoned witness.
That it is wrong that he is not residing at the address as mentioned in his affidavit.
That he did not visit police station with Suresh. That it is wrong that he has filed a false affidavit. That he has no ticket of the bus showing that he was travelling the bus on 24.12.2016 and has voluntarily explained that due to lapse of time, he does not know the name of owner of the van in which they took the injured to the hospital.
3. SI Hans Raj R2W1 SI Hans Raj Singh is the Investigating Officer of Singh (R2W1) the present case who in his examinationinchief has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he conducted the investigation of case FIR No. 15/2017, P.S. Baghpat.
Saroj & Ors. Vs. Suresh Pal & Anr., MACT No. 844/2017 Page No. 9 of 38 Judgment dated 07.04.2022
2. That the FIR was got registered on 06.01.2017 whereas the accident took place on 24.12.2016.
3. That on 24.12.2016, they received the intimation of the accident at Police Chowki Saroor Pur through one passerby.
4. That police official reached the place of accident from Chowki.
5. That police brought tractor bearing No. DL1E 1973 from the place of accident to the police chowki.
6. That at the spot, it was also revealed that the accident had taken place at the spot and injured had been taken to district hospital Baghpat.
7. That police official went to the hospital and came to know that the injured had already been referred to Shusurata Trauma Center.
8. That as per record no police official visited to Delhi to make inquiry from the injured.
9. That no arrival entry was made by the police official who visited the place of accident and district hospital on 24.12.2016.
10. That no action was taken by the police on the information of the accident.
11. That the tractor was seized by the police official without preparing any document.
12. That on 06.01.2017, complainant Moti Lal went to P.S. Baghpat and give a complaint in writing to the police about the accident.
13. That the police registered the FIR and the copy of the complaint is now Mark Ex.R2W1/1.
14. That the copy of the FIR is now Mark Ex.R2W1/2.
15. That the complainant was the father of the deceased.
16. That he conducted the investigation of the case.
17. That when he asked why he had not made the complaint prior to 06.01.2017, complainant told him that he was busy in the treatment of his son.
18. That the injured died on 24.12.2016.
19. That the postmortem was got conducted by the Delhi Police.
Saroj & Ors. Vs. Suresh Pal & Anr., MACT No. 844/2017 Page No. 10 of 38 Judgment dated 07.04.2022
20. That the father of the deceased told him that he remained busy in the cremation of his son.
21. That during investigation it was revealed that body was cremated on 25.12.2016.
22. That the father of the deceased told him that he could not inform the police about the accident as he was busy in attending the guests/relatives.
23. That during investigation it was revealed that the complainant was illiterate.
24. That he did not ask from the complainant how he came to know about the registration number of the tractor.
25. That probably the same was given to him by someone.
26. That they did not notice any blood or human body flush on the tyre of the tractor.
Further examination of this witness was deferred for want of documents but thereafter the said witness never turnedup despite the fact that he was bound down for the next date of hearing.
4. Sh. Suresh Pal R1W2 Sh. Suresh Pal is the drivercumowner of the (R1W2) offending vehicle who in his examination in chief by way of affidavit which is Ex.R1W2/A has corroborated what has been earlier stated by him in his written statement/ reply and also what has been stated by Sube Deen (R1W1).
In his cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2, the witness deposed as under: That the accident was not caused by his tractor. That on the date of accident, he was going from Baghpat to Baraut in his tractor bearing No. DL 1E1973.
That Sube Deen was known to the injured who accompanied the injured to the hospital when he took the injured to Govt. Hospital.
That from Govt. Hospital they brought the injured to Delhi in Van.
That he was going from Baghpat to Baraut between 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM.
Saroj & Ors. Vs. Suresh Pal & Anr., MACT No. 844/2017 Page No. 11 of 38 Judgment dated 07.04.2022 That Sube Deen was not accompanying him because he met him at the place of accident. That it is wrong that Sube Deen is his known. That he parked his tractor about 100150 meter prior to the place of accident.
That Sube Deen met him on the spot.
That one more person met him at the spot but he does not know him.
That Sube Deen requested to him to take the injured to the hospital as no one was ready to help the injured.
That Sube Deen also told him that he knew the injured.
That he took the injured to district hospital Baghpat in his tractor.
That after giving treatment, doctor told them either to take the injured to Meerut or Delhi. That doctor recorded the name of Sube Deen and one more person in the record but did not record his name.
That it is wrong that father of the deceased Moti Lal accompanied him and Sube Deen.
That he and Sube Deen took the injured to Delhi in a Van.
That the van charged Rs.2,000/ out of which Rs.1,000/ was paid by him and balance paid by Sube Deen.
That they brought the injured to Trauma Center in Delhi.
That it is wrong that the injured was brought to Delhi by UP Police.
That it is wrong that the accident was caused by his tractor and in order to avoid to his liability, he is taking a false plea that he stopped the tractor about 100150 meter prior to the place of accident due to traffic jam.
That it is wrong that he did not take the injured to the hospital.
That police seized his tractor after 1520 days of the accident.
Saroj & Ors. Vs. Suresh Pal & Anr., MACT No. 844/2017 Page No. 12 of 38 Judgment dated 07.04.2022 That police made a call to him to produce the tractor, accordingly, he produced the tractor before the police after 1520 days.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS:
(10) I have heard the arguments advanced before me and also considered the material on record. My findings on the various issues are as under:
Addl. Issue: Whether this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try the present case?
(11) Onus of proving this issue was upon the petitioners. Perusal of the record shows that the accident in the present case had taken place on 24.12.2016 at Nathla Mod, Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh; the petitioners are residents of Loni Dehat, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh and the respondent no.1 Suresh Pal (Drivercumowner of the offending vehicle) is a resident of Samboli Village, Delhi. It was in this background that the above issue relating to territorial jurisdiction was framed by this Court/ Tribunal on 17.02.2020. (12) I may note that the present claim petition has been filed before this Court/ Tribunal claiming that the office of the Insurance Company is situated within the jurisdiction of this Court/ Tribunal. I have gone through the copy of Insurance Policy placed on record and it is evident that the same has been issued from Asaf Ali Road DO (323500), Universal Insurance Building, 2/2A, Asaf Ali road, New Delhi -
Saroj & Ors. Vs. Suresh Pal & Anr., MACT No. 844/2017 Page No. 13 of 38 Judgment dated 07.04.2022 110002. Therefore, by applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malati Sardar Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2016 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.27243 of 2015 decided on 05.01.2016, I hold that this Court/ Tribunal has the jurisdiction to try the present claim petition.
(13) Issue is accordingly disposed off.
Issue No.1: Whether the deceased Vantu had died due to the injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 24.12.2016 within the jurisdiction of P.S. Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No. DL1E1973 by respondent no.1?
Issue No.2: Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
(14) Both the above issues are clubbed together for the sake of convenience involving common discussion. (15) The case of the petitioners is that on 24.12.2016 at about 4:30 PM, the deceased Vantu was coming towards his home after offering prayers at temple of Gufa Wale Baba, Village Sarurpur and when he reached at Nathla Road, he halted for passing urine, suddenly a tractor bearing No. DL1E1973 came from Nathla Village side in a rash and negligent manner and hit Vantu with a grave impact. The injured Vantu was rushed to District Hospital Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh and after primary treatment he was referred to Sushruta Trauma Centre, Delhi where he Saroj & Ors. Vs. Suresh Pal & Anr., MACT No. 844/2017 Page No. 14 of 38 Judgment dated 07.04.2022 expired during treatment. It is the case of the petitioners that the accident took place due to sole negligence and carelessness of the respondent no.1 who was driving his tractor in a rash and negligent manner without indicating any signal and without caring the person on the extreme bank of the road.
(16) In so far as the respondent no.1 Suresh Pal (Drivercum owner of the alleged offending vehicle) is concerned, he has admitted that he was the driver of Tractor bearing No. DL1E1973 but denied that any accident had taken place with his Tractor. According to the respondent no.1, he had provided help to the injured/ deceased and had taken him to District Hospital, Baghpat on his Tractor along with one Sube Deen and then shifted him to Shushrut Trauma Center, Delhi. (17) The respondent no.2 The New India Assurance Company Ltd. had not only raised an objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, but also denied its liability to pay the compensation on the ground that the petitioners have not filed any Postmortem Report of the deceased to show that death of the deceased was caused on account of the accident in question. (18) I have considered the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Counsels and have gone through the records of the case. (19) I may observe that vide order dated 27.01.2022 the petitioners were directed to explain why this claim petition be not put in the doubtful/ suspicious category in terms of the observations dated 16.09.2021 & 16.12.2021 made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Saroj & Ors. Vs. Suresh Pal & Anr., MACT No. 844/2017 Page No. 15 of 38 Judgment dated 07.04.2022 of Shafiq Ahmed Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1110 of 2017. The relevant portion of the order dated 27.01.2022 is reproduced as under:
"...... The present claim petition was filed on 25.08.2017 in respect of an accident which took place on 24.12.2016 at Nathla Mod, Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh. The petitioners are residents of Loni Dehat, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh and the respondent no.1 (drivercumowner) is a resident of Village Samboli, Delhi falling within the jurisdiction of East District Delhi (not Central District).
It was in this background that an issue with regard to the territorial jurisdiction was settled by this Court vide order dated
17.02.2020.
Of late, it has been noticed that some Advocates have started filing petitions of outstation matters and that too in bulk before different courts by stretching and expanding the jurisdiction of Motor Accident Claim Tribunals on the pretext that the office of the insurance company is situated within the jurisdiction of the court. In a similar practice, in Uttar Pradesh a large number of Advocates were found involved in filing of fake claims pleas and in this regard cognizance was taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad against such malpractices and an SIT was constituted to investigate the fraud and in this regard the case of Shafiq Ahmed Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1110 of 2017, CC No. 23628 of 2016 arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07.10.2015 in Crime No. 49 of 2015 passed by the Hon'ble Court of Jurisdiction of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, is relevant. In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a note of the Status Report filed by the SIT in its order dated 16.12.2021 according to which out of total 1376 cases of suspicious claims received by the SIT, after completing enquiry of 247 cases of suspicious claims till date, total 198 accused persons have been primafacie found guilty of cognizable offence and accordingly total 92 criminal cases have been registered in various districts. In fact that total 92 criminal cases in various districts have been registered till date, of which, 28 advocates have been named as accused persons in 55 cases and Charge Sheets against 11 advocates in 25 cases have been forwarded to the concerned trial Court till date.
Saroj & Ors. Vs. Suresh Pal & Anr., MACT No. 844/2017 Page No. 16 of 38 Judgment dated 07.04.2022 In the above case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed a detailed order dated 05.01.2017 reference of which was also made in the order dated 16.09.2021 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court expressed its serious concerns of the alarming situation in which fake and fabricated claims may be filed under Motor Vehicles Act in all States/ Union Territories pursuant to which directions were issued and the Registrars of all the High Courts were directed to ascertain from the Motor Accident Claim Tribunals such doubtful cases which primafacie may require investigation and to prevent filing of such fabricated cases. The relevant portion of the same is quoted as under:
"...... From the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, it was noticed that 64 fake claim cases were pending in various Districts in the State of U.P. It was also found and noticed that 29 fake claim cases were decided in which compensation of Rs. 1.23 Crores has been paid and claims for over Rs. 6 Crores are still pending. This Court noted that the situation is really alarming and similar scenario cannot be ruled out elsewhere in other States/Union Territories also. Therefore, this Court directed to issue notice to all the States/Union Territories and Insurance Companies as to what steps can be taken to rule out the filing of the fake cases and what remedial measures can be taken. This Court also directed to issue notice to all the High Courts through Registrars to ascertain from MACTs such doubtful cases which prima facie may require investigation and to prevent filing of such fabricated cases....".
In the light of the observations & directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the present case wherein an attempt has been made to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court by expanding the same by application of the principles laid down in the case of Malati Sardar Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2016 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.27243 of 2015 decided on 05.01.2016. In the present case, despite the accident having taken place at Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh and the parties particularly the petitioners are residing outside the jurisdiction of this Court, this Tribunal will have no option but to place this claim petition in doubtful/ suspicious category to rule out any foulplay. The principle of convenience of victims, if applied, primafacie does Saroj & Ors. Vs. Suresh Pal & Anr., MACT No. 844/2017 Page No. 17 of 38 Judgment dated 07.04.2022 not appear to be compatible with the facts of the present case. [Reference in this regard is made to the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 05.01.2017, 16.09.2021 & 16.12.2021 in the case of Shafiq Ahmed Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra)]....".
(20) It is necessary to mention here that in the case of Shafiq Ahmed Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra) vide order dated 16.12.2021 the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with large number of claim petitions involving fraud and fake claims, has taken a serious note of the malpractices and the modusoperandi in claim petitions where large scale siphoning of the insurance amount is involved while instituting fake compensation petitions, which observations I quote as under:
"..... 7. We have also heard at length Shri Atul Nanda, learned Senior Advocate and Shri Vishnu Mehra, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the two insurance companies and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh/SIT on the modus operandi of the advocates for filing fake cases under Motor Vehicles Act and Workmen Compensation Act. Separate notes have been filed pointing out the modus operandi in instituting the fake compensation petitions. Some of the modus operandi adopted are as under:
i) Nonroad accident injurydeath converted into road accident claims;
ii) fraudulent implantation of vehicle;
iii) false implantation of driver;
iv) claimant implantation;
v) multiple claims at various for a at different territorial
locations for compensation out of injury/ death caused arising out of the same accident. Often the claim applications are filed both before various MACT Tribunals as well as the authorities under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923;
vi) fake/fabricated insurance policies; and
vii) fake/ fabricated income documents/ medical Saroj & Ors. Vs. Suresh Pal & Anr., MACT No. 844/2017 Page No. 18 of 38 Judgment dated 07.04.2022 documents for exaggerated compensation.
7.1 Investigating Officer of SIT has also filed a short note on modus operandi in instituting fake compensation petitions, which are based on rich experience during investigation/ enquiry of the Criminal Cases/ FIRs/ Complaints, which are as under:
1. CASES OF HIT AND RUN Such road accidents which are occurred from unknown vehicles, alleged eyewitnesses are prepared therein, on the basis of their affidavit/statements, facts are brought in the light showing accident committed by some other insured vehicle and petition is instituted against owner/driver/insurance company of the aforementioned vehicle.
In the cases of such road accident which have been committed by unknown vehicles, for the purpose of institution of the compensation petitions, in a well designed planning, documents related to vehicle/driver are obtained from some advocates and documents of such vehicles/driver used in some other compensation petitions/cases are used in institution of false petitions.
Such road accidents which are occurred from some unknown vehicles, in that accidents are shown to have been committed by such vehicles which are old and their vehicle owners remain first registered owners. Advocates purchase such aforementioned vehicles as old vehicles, they do not get such vehicles registered in their own names whereas the actual/registered owners of those vehicles have already died. Despite of death of original owner, fake General Power of Attorneys are executed/prepared in the names of such deceased vehicle owners through their companions advocates. Aforementioned vehicles are shown in such road accident, which were occurred from unknown vehicles. Aforementioned vehicles have been shown in accident in many such cases and compensations petitions have been instituted. In the cases of such road accidents wherein First Information Reports are registered against unknown vehicles and when those unknown vehicles are not traced and local Investigating Officers submit their Final Report in the cases before the Hon'ble Courts. In such accidents if a person has died while travelling in those vehicles and second person has injured, then holding that injured person himself to be driver of the aforementioned vehicle, showing his negligence, by impleading as opposite party to the insurance company of his own vehicle for receiving compensation, compensation petitions are also filed for receiving amount of Saroj & Ors. Vs. Suresh Pal & Anr., MACT No. 844/2017 Page No. 19 of 38 Judgment dated 07.04.2022 compensation.
2. CASES OF KNOWN VEHICLES WITHOUT INSURANCE If road accident is occurred with known vehicle and not insured at that time, in connivance with owner or driver of other insured vehicle in place of that vehicle, compensation petitions are instituted by showing aforementioned road accident of the said insured vehicle.
3. CASES OF FICTIONAL ACCIDENT AND FALSE PETITIONS Such false compensation petitions have also come into light wherein name and address of the petitioner could not be ascertained and imaginary story is created on behalf of such petitioner and false Claim petitions are instituted.
4. CASES RELATED TO CONNIVANCE OF VEHICLE OWNER/VEHICLE DRIVER/ADVOCATE For the purpose of earning illegal money, some actual vehicle owners and actual drivers of vehicles in connivance with advocates, submits registration certificates of their vehicles and Driver Licences in the unknown motor accident cases for filing fake petitions.
5. IMPLEADING NAME AND ADDRESS OF FAKE PERSONS IN ACTUAL ACCIDENTS Persons of fake names and addresses showing as drivers/cleaners in place of actual and correct injured persons (driver/cleaner) involved in the actual accident cases, compensation petitions are instituted in the W.C.A. courts by showing them injured in the aforementioned accidents.
6. CASES RELATED TO HANDICAPPED/ DECEASED PERSONS DUE TO OTHER REASONS During course of enquiry/investigation, such fake compensation petitions have also come into light wherein petitioner has become handicapped due to some other reason (like chopping off hand from thrasher machine), and second copy of fake handicapped certificates of their being disabled/ handicapped obtained again showing date of accident after date of fake accident and fake compensation petitions have also been instituted. Despite not being injured in the road accidents, after death or injured for any other reasons, his family members or he himself showing him or that person to be the driver/cleaner/labourer who died or injured, compensation petitions are instituted in fake manner.
Saroj & Ors. Vs. Suresh Pal & Anr., MACT No. 844/2017 Page No. 20 of 38 Judgment dated 07.04.2022
7. CASES RELATED TO FILING SAME CASE IN MORE THAN ONE COURTS In one road accident, wherein a person has died or injured, his family members or he himself submits compensation petition in the M.A.C.T. court related to aforementioned road accident. If decision of the court is not in his favour, then the same petitioner changes the story and again submits his petition before the W.C.A. court (Workmen's Compensation Act).
After institution of compensation related to a road accident in a court and after receiving its compensation amount, again same accident is shown with other vehicle which is insured with other insurance company and second Claim petition is instituted in the W.C.A. court of any other district for receiving compensation amount again.
8. CASES RELATED TO AFFIXING PHOTOGRAPH OF A SAME PERSON IN THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT CHEQUE DISTRIBUTION REGISTER IN MORE THAN ONE PETITIONS Some compensation petitions were instituted in the W.C.A. Court in the names of different persons. After judgement of the aforementioned court, photograph of the same person is affixed in more than one case/petition, on the Cheque Distribution Register for receiving cheque related to compensation amount and compensation amount was received and thereafter, entire aforementioned amount was got transferred by the concerned advocate in his own bank account or in the bank accounts of his family members.
9. CASES TO GET THE PETITIONS DISMISSED AFTER TRANSFER OF FAVOURING DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, RESUBMITTING THE PETITIONS AT HIS NEWLY POSTED PLACE During investigation/enquiry of the compensation petitions, it is also found that petitions related to occurrence of accidents instituted in the W.C.A. court of concerned District. When Deputy Labour Commissioner of W.C.A. court of aforementioned District transferred to some other district, then some advocates of aforementioned district get their compensation petitions dismissed, and thereafter they instituted new petitions again in aforementioned district where the then Deputy Labour Commissioner was transferred by showing fake address in the petitions.
10. INSTITUTION OF PETITIONS IN OTHER DISTRICT INSTEAD OF INSTITUTING PETITIONS IN THE DISTRICT Saroj & Ors. Vs. Suresh Pal & Anr., MACT No. 844/2017 Page No. 21 of 38 Judgment dated 07.04.2022 OF ACCIDENT SPOT/PLACE During investigation/enquiry of the compensation petitions, it is also found that some compensation petitions were not instituted in the court of district of place/spot of accident, rather they were instituted in the court of other district by mentioning only temporary address instead of mentioning original address of the petitioner. It is also pertinent to mention here that this temporary address also remains incomplete.
11. CASES RELATED TO FAKE VAKALATNAMA During investigation/enquiry of the compensation petitions related to road accidents, this fact has also come into light that actual/main advocate who has filed the claim petition, does not submit his own Vakalatnama in the concerned court, he submits Vakalatnama on behalf of such Advocate, who does not file the compensation petitions by mentioning his mobile number on the compensation petitions.
During investigation/enquiry of the compensation petitions related to road accidents, this fact has also come into light that advocate who has submitted compensation petition in the concerned court, he mentioned name of such fake person in place of name of Advocate, whose whereabouts could not be ascertained. Whereas such case was pursued by the advocate who submitted this petition in camouflage manner. ...".
(21) It has become necessary for this Tribunal to note that it was after the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court took cognizance of the fake and fraudulent claims as herein above, that there has been a sudden spurt in filing of claim petitions in Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in Delhi relating to accidents which have taken place in other states particularly Uttar Pradesh. It is this which makes it obligatory for the Tribunals in Delhi to carefully scrutinize these cases so as to rule out any foul play.
(22) This being the background, the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jai Prakash Vs. M/s. National Saroj & Ors. Vs. Suresh Pal & Anr., MACT No. 844/2017 Page No. 22 of 38 Judgment dated 07.04.2022 Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2010 (2) SCC 607 becomes relevant wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had mandated that the statute must be meticulously followed [which has now been reaffirmed in the case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 534/2020 vide orders dated 16.03.2021 & 16.11.2021], relevant portion of which is quoted as under:
"..... 4.2) The Legislature tried to reduce the period of pendency of claim cases and quicken the process of determination of compensation by making two significant changes in the Act, by Amendment Act 54 of 1994, making it mandatory for registration of a motor accident claim within one month of receipt of first information of the accident, without the claimants having to file a claim petition. Subsection (6) of section 158 of the Act provides:
"As soon as any information regarding any accident involving death or bodily injury to any person is recorded or report under this section is completed by a police officer, the officerincharge of the police station shall forward a copy of the same within thirty days from the date of recording of information or, as the case may be, on completion of such report to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction and a copy thereof to the concerned insurer, and where a copy is made available to the owner, he shall also within thirty days of receipt of such report, forward the same to such Claims Tribunal and insurer".
Subsection (4) of Section 166 of the Act reads thus: "The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under subsection (6) of section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act".
Rule 150 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 prescribes the form (No.54) of the Police Report required to be submitted under section 158(6) of the Act. 4.3) This Court in General Insurance Council v. State of A.P. [2007 (12) SCC 354] emphasised the need for implementing the aforesaid provisions. This Court directed:
"It is, therefore, directed that all the State Governments and the Saroj & Ors. Vs. Suresh Pal & Anr., MACT No. 844/2017 Page No. 23 of 38 Judgment dated 07.04.2022 Union Territories shall instruct all police officers concerned about the need to comply with the requirement of Section 158(6) keeping in view the requirement indicated in Rule 150 and in Form 54, Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Periodical checking shall be done by the Inspector General of Police concerned to ensure that the requirements are being complied with. In case there is non compliance, appropriate action shall be taken against the erring officials. The Department of Road Transport and Highways shall make periodical verification to ensure that action is being taken and in case of any deviation immediately bring the same to the notice of the State Governments/Union Territories concerned so that necessary action can be taken against the officials concerned."
4.4) But unfortunately neither the police nor the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals have made any effort to implement these mandatory provisions of the Act. If these provisions are faithfully and effectively implemented, it will be possible for the victims of accident and/or their families to get compensation, in a span of few months. There is, therefore, an urgent need for the concerned police authorities and Tribunals to follow the mandate of these provisions.
Problem (iv)
5. Courts have always been concerned that the full compensation amount does not reach and benefit the victims and their families, particularly those who are uneducated, ignorant, or not worldlywise. Unless there are builtin safeguards they may be deprived of the benefit of compensation which may be the sole source of their future sustenance. This court has time and again insisted upon measures to ensure that the compensation amount is appropriately invested and protected and not frittered away owing to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation. [See Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India 1991 (4) SCC 584 and General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas 1994 (2) SCC 176]. But in spite of the directions in these cases, the position continues to be far from unsatisfactory and in many cases unscrupulous relatives, agents and touts are taking away a big chunk of the compensation, by ingenious methods. Reports of Amicus Curiae
6. In this background, to find some solutions, on 9.9.2008, this Court requested Shri Gopal Subramaniam, to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. The learned amicus curiae with his usual thoroughness and commitment has examined the issues and submitted a series of reports and has also made several suggestions for consideration. He has also referred to and relied Saroj & Ors. Vs. Suresh Pal & Anr., MACT No. 844/2017 Page No. 24 of 38 Judgment dated 07.04.2022 on a series of zealous directions issued by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court to expedite and streamline the adjudication of motor vehicle claims and disbursement of compensation.
7. Having considered the nature of the problems and taking note of the several suggestions made by the learned Amicus Curiae and after hearing, we propose to issue a set of directions to the police authorities and Claims Tribunals. We also propose to make some suggestions for implementation by Insurance Companies and some suggestions for the consideration of the Parliament and the Central Government.
Directions to Police Authorities
8. The Director General of Police of each State is directed to instruct all Police Stations in his State to comply with the provisions of Section 158(6) of the Act. For this purpose, the following steps will have to be taken by the Station House Officers of the jurisdictional police stations:
(i) Accident Information Report in Form No. 54 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules,1989 (`AIR' for short) shall be submitted by the police (Station House Officer) to the jurisdictional Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal, within 30 days of the registration of the FIR. In addition to the particulars required to be furnished in Form No. 54, the police should also collect and furnish the following additional particulars in the AIR to the Tribunal:
(i) The age of the victims at the time of accident;
(ii) The income of the victim;
(iii) The names and ages of the dependent family members.
(ii) The AIR shall be accompanied by the attested copies of the FIR, site sketch/ mahazar/photographs of the place of occurrence, driving licence of the driver, insurance policy (and if necessary, fitness certificate) of the vehicle and postmortem report (in case of death) or the Injury/Wound certificate (in the case of injuries). The names/addresses of injured or dependent family members of the deceased should also be furnished to the Tribunal.
(iii) Simultaneously, copy of the AIR with annexures thereto shall be furnished to the concerned insurance company to enable the Insurer to process the claim.
(iv) The police shall notify the first date of hearing fixed by the Tribunal to the victim (injured) or the family of the victim (in case of death) and the driver, owner and insurer. If so directed by the Tribunal, the police may secure their presence on the first date of Saroj & Ors. Vs. Suresh Pal & Anr., MACT No. 844/2017 Page No. 25 of 38 Judgment dated 07.04.2022 hearing.
9. To avoid any administrative difficulties in immediate implementation of sections 158(6) of the Act, we permit such implementation to be carried out in three stages. In the first stage, all police stations/claims Tribunals in the NCT Region and State Capital regions shall implement the provisions by end of April 2010. In the second stage, all the police stations/claims Tribunals in district headquarters regions shall implement the provisions by the end of August 2010. In the third stage, all police stations/Claims Tribunals shall implement the provisions by the end of December, 2010. The Director Generals shall ensure that necessary forms and infrastructural support is made available to give effect to Section 158 (6) of the Act.
10. Section 196 of the Act provides that whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be driven in contravention of the provisions of Section 146 shall be punishable with imprisonment which may be extended to three months, or with fine which may extend to Rs. 1000/, or with both. Though the statute requires prosecution of the driver and owner of uninsured vehicles, this is seldom done. Thereby a valuable deterrent is ignored. We therefore direct the Director Generals to issue instructions to prosecute drivers and owners of uninsured vehicles under Section 196 of the Act.
11. The Transport Department, Health Department and other concerned departments shall extend necessary co operation to the DirectorGenerals to give effect to Section 158 (6).
Directions to the Claims Tribunals
12. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to instruct all Claims Tribunals in his State to register the reports of accidents receive under Section 158 (6) of the Act as applications for compensation under Section 166 (4) of the Act and deal with them without waiting for the filing of claim applications by the injured or by the family of the deceased. The Registrar General shall ensure that necessary Registers, forms and other support is extended to the Tribunal to give effect to Section 166 (4) of the Act.
13. For complying with section 166(4) of the Act, the jurisdictional Motor Accident Claims Tribunals shall initiate the following steps:
(a) The Tribunal shall maintain an Institution Register for recording the AIRs which are received from the Station House Officers of the Police Stations and register them as miscellaneous petitions. If any private claim petitions are directly filed with Saroj & Ors. Vs. Suresh Pal & Anr., MACT No. 844/2017 Page No. 26 of 38 Judgment dated 07.04.2022 reference to an AIR, they should also be recorded in the Register.
(b) The Tribunal shall list the AIRs as miscellaneous petitions. It shall fix a date for preliminary hearing so as to enable the police to notify such date to the victim (family of victim in the event of death) and the owner, driver and insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. Once the claimant/s appear, the miscellaneous application shall be converted to claim petition. Where a claimant/s file the claim petition even before the receipt of the AIR by the Tribunal, the AIR may be tagged to the claim petition.
(c) The Tribunal shall enquire and satisfy itself that the AIR relates to a real accident and is not the result of any collusion and fabrication of an accident (by any `Police Officer Advocate
- Doctor' nexus, which has come to light in several cases).
(d) The Tribunal shall by a SUMMARY ENQUIRY ascertain the dependent family members/legal heirs. The jurisdictional police shall also enquire and submit the names of the dependent legal heirs.
(e) The Tribunal shall categories the claim cases registered, into those where the insurer disputes liability and those where the insurer does not dispute the liability.
(f) Wherever the insurer does not dispute the liability under the policy, the Tribunal shall make an endeavour to determine the compensation amount by a summary enquiry or refer the matter to the Lok Adalat for settlement, so as to dispose of the claim petition itself, within a time frame not exceeding six months from the date of registration of the claim petition.
(g) The insurance companies shall be directed to deposit the admitted amount or the amount determined, with the claims tribunals within 30 days of determination. The Tribunals should ensure that the compensation amount is kept in Fixed deposit and disbursed as per the directions contained in General Manager, KSRTC v. Susamma Thomas [1994 (2) SCC 176].
(h) As the proceedings initiated in pursuance of Section 158(6) and 166(4) of the Act, are different in nature from an application by the victim/s under Section 166(1) of the Act, Section 170 will not apply.
The insurers will therefore be entitled to assist the Tribunal (either independently or with the owners of the vehicles) to verify the correctness in regard to the accident, injuries, age, income and dependents of the deceased victim and in determining the quantum of compensation.
14. The aforesaid directions to the Tribunals are without prejudice to the discretion of each Tribunal to follow such Saroj & Ors. Vs. Suresh Pal & Anr., MACT No. 844/2017 Page No. 27 of 38 Judgment dated 07.04.2022 summary procedure as it deems fit as provided under Section 169 of the Act. MANY TRIBUNALS INSTEAD OF HOLDING AN INQUIRY INTO THE CLAIM BY FOLLOWING SUITABLE SUMMARY PROCEDURE, AS MANDATED BY SECTION 168 AND 169 OF THE ACT, TEND TO CONDUCT MOTOR ACCIDENT CASES LIKE REGULAR CIVIL SUITS. THIS SHOULD BE AVOIDED. THE TRIBUNAL SHALL TAKE AN ACTIVE ROLE IN DECIDING AND EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF THE APPLICATIONS FOR COMPENSATION and make effective use of Section 165 of the Evidence Act, 1872, to determine the just compensation...."
(23) Now coming to the present claim petition, I may note that despite grant of repeated opportunities, no explanation/ clarification offered on the aspect as to why this Claim Petition be not put in the Doubtful/ Suspicious category in terms of the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shafiq Ahmed Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra). Rather, the petitioners have only confined their written memorandum of arguments to the aspect of Territorial Jurisdiction despite specific opportunity. (24) On the basis of the claim petition, various documents placed on record and the evidence adduced, certain glaring aspects have emerged, which I now enumerate as under:
➢ Firstly, the complete set of chargesheet of the criminal case has not been placed on record and only Eleven pages of the certified copies have been placed on record. A perusal of the same shows that the accident had taken place on 24.12.2016 at 4:30 PM whereas the FIR was registered on 06.01.2017 at 10:40 AM i.e. after a delay of Twelve Saroj & Ors. Vs. Suresh Pal & Anr., MACT No. 844/2017 Page No. 28 of 38 Judgment dated 07.04.2022 Days. The said FIR was registered on the basis of complaint of Sh. Moti Lal (father of the deceased) relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:
".... Dinank 24.12.2016 ko prarthi ka ladka Bantu ghar se cycle dwara Gufa Wale Mandit par prasad chadhane ke liye aaya tha. Jab prarthi ko ladka Bantu Gufa Wale mandir Thana Baghpat Zila Baghpat se prasad chadhakar apne ghar laut raha tha, to samay karib 4:30 baje sayen Naithla wale rastey ke paas apne cycle ko khadi karke peshab kar raha tha, to ek Truck Mahindra jiska registration No. DLE1973 naithla ki taraf se badi tez gati va laparwahi se aaya tatha prarthi ke ladke Bantu ke upar chadha diya, jissey prarthi ke ladke ko gambhi choten aayi. Uske bad prarthi ke ladke Banto ko Zila Hospital Baghpat Thana Baghpat me ilaz hetu laya gaya tatha prarthi ke ladke Bantu ki gambhir chintajanak halat ko dekhte huey Sushrut Trauma Center, 9 Metcalf Road, Delhi 110054 ke liye refer kar diya, jisme ilaz ke chalte Dinank 24.12.2016 me mrityu ho gayi...."
The explanation given by Moti Lal is that he was busy in treatment of his son. However, I may note that even after the death of Bantoo the police was not informed. ➢ Secondly, according to Moti Lal (PW1) he had accompanied his son on another cycle and the distance between him and his son was about 20 paces but the said fact has not been disclosed/ recorded in the FIR. Further, it is an admitted case of Moti Lal (PW1) that he did not Saroj & Ors. Vs. Suresh Pal & Anr., MACT No. 844/2017 Page No. 29 of 38 Judgment dated 07.04.2022 accompany his injured son to the hospital. The documents placed on record do not confirm the presence of Moti Lal at the spot, thereby raising a suspicion in the mind of this Court/ Tribunal with regard to the genuineness of the case putforth by the petitioners.
➢ Thirdly, the first information given to the local police in the form of Daily Diary or General Diary has not been placed on record which would reveal the details of the person who had informed the police at the first instance. If Moti Lal was present at the spot, he would have first informed the police or PCR of the details of the alleged accident and also would have accompanied the injured to the Hospital, which is not the case. The material evidence in the form of PCR Form has been withheld and concealed from this Court/ Tribunal for which an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the petitioners. ➢ Fourthly, the certified copy of the MLR/ MLC of the injured/ deceased prepared at District Hospital, Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh has not been placed on record, which would have confirmed the details of the person who had taken the injured to the hospital and also the details of the history of the accident and cause for injuries given to the first attending doctor. This was the most material document which has been concealed from this Court/ Tribunal for Saroj & Ors. Vs. Suresh Pal & Anr., MACT No. 844/2017 Page No. 30 of 38 Judgment dated 07.04.2022 which an adverse inference is liable to be taken against the petitioner.
➢ Fifthly, the certified copy of the MLC of the injured Bantoo prepared at Trauma Center, Delhi/ Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi shows that he was brought to the Hospital by Sauresh & Sabbedeen (Sube Deen) (Mobile Nos. 9810673103 & 9990197420). It has been mentioned in the MLC that the patient was referred from District Combined Hospital, Baghpat MLC no. 7360 dated 24.12.16 at Baghpat, UP to Sushruta Trauma Center, Delhi and on examination at Sushruta Trauma Center, Delhi the injured was declared 'Brought Dead'. This MLC confirms the version of the respondent no.1 Suresh Pal (R1W3) as well as independent public witness Sube Deen (R1W1) that they shifted the injured initially to District Hospital Baghpat and then took him to Sushruta Trauma Center, Delhi.
➢ Sixthly, it is a standard practice and procedure that whenever an accident is caused particularly a road traffic accident and injured is brought to the hospital, an immediate entry is made in the Daily Dairy/ General Diary and information is sent to the local police by the concerned hospital. The record before this Court/ Tribunal does not reveal that any such Daily Diary/ General diary was made Saroj & Ors. Vs. Suresh Pal & Anr., MACT No. 844/2017 Page No. 31 of 38 Judgment dated 07.04.2022 or information was given to the local police for which an adverse inference is liable to be drawn. In this regard, I may observe that the Investigating Officer SI Hans Raj (R2W1) has been examined by the respondents in defence. It is evident from his testimony that information regarding accident was received at Police Chowki Saroor Pur through one passerby. There is nothing on record to show that any action was taken at their level nor any Daily Diary/ General Diary entry was made. It is a normal practice that upon receipt of the information it was necessary for the police officials to have lodged a Daily Diary/ General Diary, which does not happen in the present case. Except for the oral statement of SI Hans Raj there is no supporting document to show that he was present in the Police Chowki or at the time of accident he was posted at Police Chowki Saroor Pur. Hence, the possibility of testimony of SI Hans Raj being an after thought, cannot be ruled out. ➢ Seventhly, the independent public witness Sube Deen (R1W1) has explained that on 24.12.2016 at about 5 PM he was going from Loni to Baraut, UP by a Roadways Bus and when the bus reached before Gufa Wala Baba Temple, the traffic was jam due to accident on road. According to him, when he noticed that the injured belongs to his colony since the distance between the house of the injured and Saroj & Ors. Vs. Suresh Pal & Anr., MACT No. 844/2017 Page No. 32 of 38 Judgment dated 07.04.2022 his house is around 500 yards and he also knew the father of the injured namely Moti Lal, they first tried to provide medical aid to the injured. He has testified that one tractor driver also came at the spot and offered help after which he along with the injured reached government hospital at Bhaghpat but the doctors referred the injured to Shushruta Trauma Center, Delhi and then they arranged a Van and took the injured to Shushruta Trauma Center, Delhi and admitted the injured there. The witness Sube Deen (R1W1) has explained that the payment of the van was borne by him and Suresh (Tractor Driver). This aspect has been corroborated by Suresh Pal (R3W1) who stated that he and Sube Deen took the injured to Delhi in a Van which charged Rs.2,000/ out of which Rs.1,000/ was paid by him and balance was paid by Sube Deen. [Note: His testimony finds due corroboration from the MLC of the deceased showing that the injured/ deceased was brought to the Sushruta Trauma Center, Delhi by Suresh and Sube Deen and not by his father Moti Lal].
➢ Eighthly, IO SI Hans Raj (R2W1) claimed that the Tractor bearing No. DL1E1973 was brought to the Police Chowki by a police official and was seized by the police official without preparing any document. It is not possible Saroj & Ors. Vs. Suresh Pal & Anr., MACT No. 844/2017 Page No. 33 of 38 Judgment dated 07.04.2022 that a vehicle is seized without an FIR being registered or without any seizure memo being prepared. The testimony of IO SI Hans Raj does not have the backing of law nor it inspires confidence of this Court/ Tribunal. Rather, the version of respondent no.1 Suresh Pal (R3W1) is more probable according to which the police seized his tractor after 1520 days of the accident. He has explained that police made a call to him to produce the Tractor pursuant to which he produced the tractor before the police after 1520 days. Even otherwise, the petitioners have not placed on record the certified copy of the Seizure Memo of the alleged offending vehicle, which would have confirmed the date on which it was seized, for which an adverse inference is liable to the taken against them.
➢ Ninethly, the petitioners have not placed on record the material/ relevant documents i.e. statements of witnesses recorded by the Investigating Agency (Note: reflected on Page 3 and 4 of the copy of chargesheet). In fact, Moti Lal (PW1) who is the father of the deceased has been shown as the complainant and not an eye witness nor there is any eye witness cited in the chargesheet. It is these statements which would have revealed the sequence of events but the same have been withheld from this Court/ Tribunal for which an adverse inference is drawn against the petitioner.
Saroj & Ors. Vs. Suresh Pal & Anr., MACT No. 844/2017 Page No. 34 of 38 Judgment dated 07.04.2022 ➢ Tenthly, the relevant/ vital documents i.e. first MLC/ MLR of the other injured in the accident; Seizure memo of the offending vehicle; Case Diaries; Statements of witnesses etc. have been concealed, rather withheld from this Court/ Tribunal, for which an adverse inference is likely to follow.
➢ Lastly, there is absence of material on record to confirm the satisfactory compliance of provisions of Section 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act. Neither the status of the Criminal Case instituted before the concerned court at Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh has been placed on record nor the status of the proceedings in compliance of provisions of Section 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act (before the competent Court/ Tribunal) has been placed before this Tribunal [Reference is made to the judgment in the case of Jai Prakash Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2010 (2) SCC 607 Para 12]. An adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the claimants in this regard.
(25) It is writ large from the above that the present claim petition has been filed before this Court/ Tribunal by overstretching the jurisdiction and by concealing the material documents. The material/ vital documents in the form of first Daily Diary/ General Diary; first MLR/ MLC of the injured; statements of various witnesses recorded Saroj & Ors. Vs. Suresh Pal & Anr., MACT No. 844/2017 Page No. 35 of 38 Judgment dated 07.04.2022 by the Investigating Agency; Seizure memo; Case Diaries etc. have been withheld and concealed from this Court/ Tribunal. Rather, the petitioners have miserably failed to connect the alleged Tractor bearing No. DL1E1973 with the accident in question. There is a desperate attempt by the petitioners to implicate the respondent no.1 Suresh Pal as the driver of the alleged offending Tractor. On the one hand, the testimony of Moti Lal (PW1) who claimed himself to be an eye witness but did not accompany his injured son to any Hospital, does not inspire confidence of this Tribunal/ Court. Whereas on the other hand the version putforth by the respondent Suresh Pal (R1W3) finds due corroboration from the MLC prepared at the Sushruta Trauma Center showing his details along with Sube Deen (R1W1) as the persons who had brought the injured to the hospital. The material on record confirms that the respondent no.1 Suresh Pal along with an independent public witness namely Sube Deen had helped the injured, who was lying injured at the spot, in shifting him to the hospital. The possibility of an unknown vehicle having hit the injured and the false implication of Tractor of respondent no.1 Suresh Pal cannot be ruled out. The attempt of the petitioners is to secure a favourable order from this Tribunal by concealing/ withholding of material/ vital documents. It is this which brings the version of the petitioners as reflected in the Claim Petition within suspicious/ doubtfull category. The reason why the petitioners have filed this Claim Petition before this Court/ Tribunal by concealing the material documents is writ large or else there was no Saroj & Ors. Vs. Suresh Pal & Anr., MACT No. 844/2017 Page No. 36 of 38 Judgment dated 07.04.2022 reason why the claim petition was filed in a District/ State other than the District/ State where the accident took place or where the claimants reside.
(26) In this regard, I may also observe that despite the same the petitioners could not justify their convenience before this Tribunal situated in a District/ State other than the District/ State where the accident took place. The observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shafiq Ahmed Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra) cannot be ignored. Firstly, Moti Lal the father of the deceased has desperately tried to claim himself to be an eye witness but his version is not backed by any document placed on record. Secondly, the respondent no.1 Suresh Pal who had helped the injured in shifting him to the hospital, has been implicated as accused in the chargesheet. Thirdly, an incomplete chargesheet has been filed without placing on record the certified copy of the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., first MLC/ MLR of the injured/ deceased, Seizure Memo, Case Diaries etc. which vital documents have been withheld from this Court/ Tribunal and raises a suspicion/ doubt in the mind of the Court/ Tribunal. Lastly, it is not open for this Court/ Tribunal to carry out a parallel trial and to give any findings on facts, on the basis of incomplete material, since the same is likely to come in the way of trial of the criminal case pending before the concerned court at Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh.
Saroj & Ors. Vs. Suresh Pal & Anr., MACT No. 844/2017 Page No. 37 of 38 Judgment dated 07.04.2022 (27) This being the background, I hold that the petitioners have not been able to prove that Bantoo @ Vantu had sustained Fatal Injuries in an accident which took place on 24.12.2016 within the jurisdiction of Police Station Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No. DL1E1973. (28) All the issues are accordingly decided against the petitioners.
RELIEF:
(29) In view of my findings on the various issues, I hereby hold that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. (30) The Claim Petition is hereby Dismissed.
(31) A copy of this Judgment is directed to be sent to the Registrar General, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi with a request to forward the same to the SIT constituted at Uttar Pradesh under the directions of the Allahabad High Court (since the accident took place at Uttar Pradesh) and to the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate and competent Court/ Tribunal where report under Section 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act has been filed.
(32) File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 07.04.2022 PO (MACT01), Central
Tis Hazari Court, Delhi
Saroj & Ors. Vs. Suresh Pal & Anr., MACT No. 844/2017 Page No. 38 of 38
Judgment dated 07.04.2022