Delhi High Court
Shri Jawahar Singh vs Smt. Bala Jain And Ors. on 10 December, 2007
Author: Kailash Gambhir
Bench: Kailash Gambhir
JUDGMENT Kailash Gambhir, J.
1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the impugned award dated 12.9.2007 whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,35,067/- along with interest @ 7% p.a.
2. The brief facts relevant for deciding the present appeal are that on 18.7.2004 at 1.20 P.M. the deceased Shri Mukesh Jain was driving his two wheeler scooter No. DAI-1835 on which his son namely Shashank Jain was a pillion rider. When they reached near SDM Office, Geeta Colony, Delhi, a motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-7S-G-3282 being driven in a very rash and negligent manner, tried to overtake the scooter of the deceased and in that process struck against the scooter of the deceased with a great force due to which the deceased and his son were forcibly thrown on the road, as a result, the deceased sustained fatal injuries.
3. Counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal has not dealt the issue of the maintainability of the claim petition as well as on the aspect of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Mr. Mukesh Jain himself who was driving two wheeler scooter bearing registration No. DAI-1835. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the accident had occurred due to the sole negligence of deceased Mukesh Jain who was driving two wheeler scooter bearing registration No. DAI-1835, but wrongly the appellant has been held to be negligent for causing the accident in question.
4. Counsel for the appellant also contends that the Tribunal has given unnecessary weightage to the deposition of PW-8, Head Constable Devender Singh. Assailing the testimony of the said witness, counsel for the appellant contends that even the name of the nursing home was not correctly stated by PW-8. Counsel also contends that the testimony of R1W1 and R1W2 were not believed by the Tribunal because they were minors. Similarly testimony of the appellant who entered the witness box as R1W4 was wrongly discarded by the Tribunal. Counsel for the appellant also contends that the Tribunal did not take any step to appoint guardian of the respondent No. 5 who was held out to be a minor, therefore, on account of that also the award became bad in the eyes of law.
5. I have heard counsel for the appellant and have perused the record also.
6. It is an admitted case that the appellant was a minor as on the date of the accident, therefore, he was driving the vehicle in utter violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules framed there under. The negligence of the appellant has also been duly proved by PW8 who in his examination-in-chief has clearly deposed that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the appellant. No suggestion was given to the said witness by the appellant, suggesting that he was not present at the accident site, therefore, the evidence on record was sufficient to establish the negligence on the part of the appellant and thus, the argument of the counsel for the appellant claiming contributory negligence on the part of the respondent No. 1 is repelled.
7. As regards the other contention of the counsel for the appellant that the respondent No. 5 being a minor was not sued through guardian or next friend. I do not find any force in such submission. It is a settled law that strict procedures as laid down under the CPC as well as under the Evidence Act are not applicable to the summary proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act. Once it has not been denied that the said minor was driving the offending vehicle in a most rash and negligent manner which resulted into causing such serious accident, the impugned award cannot be set aside simply on account of not bringing on record the guardian or next friend of respondent on record. Even otherwise no such plea was taken by the appellant in the written statement filed before the Tribunal.
8. I do not find any force in the contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant.
9. There is no merit.
10. Dismissed.