Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Ankit vs Shyam Singh on 6 June, 2024

           IN THE COURT OF MS. MAYURI SINGH
        P.O : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
      EAST DISTRICT : KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI

In the matters of :

CNR No.: DLET01-009684-2016
MACP No. 391/19
Ankit Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors.

In the matter of :

Ankit (Injured)
S/o Dinesh Kumar,
R/o A-388, Gali No.21, Phase-X,
Shiv Vihar, Karawal Nagar,
Delhi.                                                        ......... Petitioner

             Versus

1. Shyam Singh (Owner)
S/o Sh. Dharamvir Singh
R/o -Village & Post- Bagneala
Distt.- Etah, (U.P)

2. R.M. UPSRTC
   Ghaziabad, U.P.                                            ........Respondents

AND MACP No. 392/19 CNR No. DLET01-009685-2016 Sh. Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Braham Pal

2. Mrs. Munesh Devi MACP No.391/19; Ankit Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors;

MACP No.392/19; Sunil Kumar Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors.

W/o- Sh. Sunil Kumar Both R/o- B-102, Gali No.10, Johripur Extn. Delhi ......Petitioners Versus

1. Shyam Singh

2. R.M. UPSRTC (Details as above) ..................Respondents Date of Institution : 11.08.2016 Date of Reserving : Not reserved Date of Judgment : 06.06.2024 AWAR D

1. By this common award, both the claim petitions, based on Detailed Accident Report (DAR) and arising out of same accident, filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, would be decided.

2. Important facts of the case are as under: Reema died and Ankit suffered injury on account of a motor vehicular accident, which happened on 12.07.2016 at around 09:10 AM in the morning at Gazipur Dairy Farm, Shamshan Ghat. In connection with this accident, an FIR No. 331/16, u/S 279/338/304-A IPC, was registered at PS- Ghazipur on the complaint of Ankit. As per the FIR, on the above-said date at 09:15 hrs., Ankit left from his office situated at Noida Sector-4 on his Scooty bearing No. DL-5SBX-5664 and on the way, picked up his friend Reema from Gokulpuri and at about 09:15 a.m., when they reached at Gazipur Dairy Farm near Cremation ground, a roadways bus crossed from right hand side of the petitioner and while overtaking the petitioner, the bus was suddenly turned on the left side. Due to which, the Scooty of the MACP No.391/19; Ankit Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors;

MACP No.392/19; Sunil Kumar Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors.

petitioner collided with the bus and fell down, resulting in injuries to both of them. Petitioner took his friend on an auto to LBS Hospital and he had not seen the bus number or depot of the bus. The bus driver was driving in a fast speed and rash and negligent manner, causing this accident.

3. After inquiry, an untrace DAR was filed by the Investigating Officer qua both of the injured (Ankit and deceased Reema) on 11.08.2016.

4. Father of deceased Reema objected to the filing of the untrace DAR alleging that proper inquiry was not conducted by taking CCTV footage and also sought time to file objections to those untrace DARs. Thereafter, protest application/petition was filed on 17.09.2016 and the application was put up for consideration on 29.11.2016. ACP was summoned by the court on 29.11.2016 and matter was next posted for 07.01.2017, while the protest application was kept pending.

5. Thereafter, on 07.01.2017, two fresh DARs were filed by the Investigating Officer and treated as applications under Section 166 (4) of M.V. Act. As per the facts stated in these DAR, the registration number of the offending vehicle was disclosed during investigation as UP-14ET- 3992, Bus UPSRTC and the name of the driver was disclosed as Shyam Singh / R-1.

6. As per the charge-sheet filed after further investigation, injured Reema had expired during treatment in GTB Hospital. Despite best efforts, CCTV footage could not be found and no clue regarding the offending vehicle and driver could be found even from the 100 number caller namely Ankush Gupta. Thereafter, on 22.07.2016, again enquiry MACP No.391/19; Ankit Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors;

MACP No.392/19; Sunil Kumar Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors.

was made from the informant but no clue regarding the culprit could be found. On 02.08.2016, CCTV footage of Canara Bank, Kondli was checked but no clue could be found. Thereafter, on 11.10.2016, a notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was given to Manager, Bus depot, Loni Ghaziabad U.P. to provide list of buses plying through Ghazipur Dairy Farm Road on 12.07.2016. On 04.11.2016, the reply to the notice was given and attached with the case file. Thereafter, on 29.11.2016, two complaints were filed in MACT Court, one from injured Ankit Kumar and another from father of deceased Reema, which were handed over to ASI Bhagat Singh by the Presiding Officer, MACT. In the said complaints, the identity of the offending bus which had allegedly run away after the accident on 12.07.2016 was given as U.P. Roadways Bus bearing Registration No. UP-14ET-3992. Both of the complaints were enquired into and supplementary statement of informant was recorded. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against driver of the said bus i.e. Respondent No.1 namely Shyam Singh.

7. The respondent No. 1/Driver Shyam Singh and Respondent No.2/UPSRTC/owner of the alleged offending bus have filed their joint reply alleging that respondents have been falsely implicated in the alleged accident and no accident took place by the vehicle bearing no.UP-14ET-3992. It is further stated that on 12.07.2016, the bus bearing no. UP-14ET-3992 (Loni Depot) was plying on the road Noida-Delhi- Agra and at about 09:00 A.M., the bus was stationed at Anand Vihar Bus Terminal. The conductor went inside the bus stand and received the parking slip. He started boarding the passengers and thereafter issued tickets and the last purchased ticket was issued at 09:23:55 A.M. MACP No.391/19; Ankit Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors;

MACP No.392/19; Sunil Kumar Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors.

Thereafter, the bus started its journey from Anand Vihar to Chhibra Mau and during this journey, no accident took place with the bus and no interrogation was ever conducted by any authority of Police for a period of 05 months. The time of accident is 09:15 A.M. but at the said time, bus was stationed at the bus stand and it was not possible for the bus to have met with an any accident. Registration number of bus is not mentioned in the FIR and after passage of 05 months, Respondents have been falsely implicated by complainant and police, with a view to get false compensation from the respondents. The vehicle in question is exempted from insurance, being a Government vehicle.

8. On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed on 17.05.2017 :-

In MACP No. 391/19 :

i). Whether the petitioner Ankit sustained injuries in a motor vehicular accident on 12.07.2016 at about 09:15 a.m. at Gazipur Dairy Farm Road, near Samshan Ghat, Delhi, within jurisdiction of PS Gazipur due to rash and negligent driving of bus bearing registration No. UP-14ET-3992 by the respondent No. 1?(OPP)

ii). (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?(OPP)

iii). (iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the award amount, if so, at what rate of interest and for which period? (OPP)

iv). (iv) Relief.

In MACP No. 392/19 :

MACP No.391/19; Ankit Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors; MACP No.392/19; Sunil Kumar Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors.

i). Whether Ms. Reema, age 22 years died in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 12.07.2016 at about 09:15 a.m. at Ghazipur Dairy Farm Road, near Shamshan Ghat, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Ghazipur due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No. UP- 14-ET-3992 by the respondent no.1/ Shyam Singh?

(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, what amount and from whom?

(iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to interest on the award amount, if so, at what rate of interest and for which period?

(iv) Relief.

9. Vide order dated 17.05.2017 itself, for the purpose of inquiry, both the claim cases were consolidated and it was ordered that the DAR No. 769/16 would be considered as lead case and common evidence would be considered as lead case and evidence recorded in DAR no.

769/16 (MACP No. 392/19) will be read in DAR No. 768/16 (MACP No. 391/19).

10. In order to establish their claim, petitioner Ankit and Legal Representatives of deceased injured Reema have examined the following witnesses:

10.1 PW-1, Munesh Devi is mother of the deceased Reema, who deposed about the accident and death of her daughter in the same. She deposed that deceased Reema was declared dead by the Doctors of the GTB Hospital and she had died on way to the hospital. She also deposed MACP No.391/19; Ankit Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors;

MACP No.392/19; Sunil Kumar Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors.

that her daughter was aged 25 years and an MCA, working with a private company in Noida and earning Rs.20,000 to Rs.25,000/- per month as salary and further that she has left behind her parents. 10.2 Petitioner Ankit Kumar was examined as PW2 and he is one of the injured / eye witness and deposed by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A regarding the manner of accident and involvement of offending vehicle in the same. He stated that on 12.07.2016, he and his friend namely Reema were travelling on his Activa Scooty bearing registration No. DL-5SBX-5664. When they reached near Gazipur Dairy Farm, Shamshan Ghat, suddenly a U.P. Roadways bus bearing No. UP-14ET- 3992, being driven in a high speed and rash and negligent manner, hit his scooty from back side and due to powerful impact, both he and Reema fell down on road and sustained grievous injuries. PW2 took Reema to Hospital but she died on the way. The doctors at GTB Hospital declared her dead. PW2 also sustained multiple injuries all over his body. He was 26 years old at the time of accident and could not resume his work for a month from the date of accident. He got FIR lodged on the same day.

Thereafter PE was closed.

This witness was also recalled by the Tribunal and examined u/s 165 of Indian Evidence Act on 07.12.2018.

11. The respondent side examined one witness i.e. R1/driver in defence.

11.1 R2W1 Shyam Singh (R1) tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. R2W1/A. He deposed that he and R-2 have been falsely implicated and no accident took place by the alleged offending vehicle MACP No.391/19; Ankit Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors;

MACP No.392/19; Sunil Kumar Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors.

and further that on 12.07.2016, the said bus was plying on Delhi-Noida- Agra road and at 9:00 am, the bus was stationed at platform Anand Vihar, Bus Terminal. The conductor after boarding of the passengers, issued tickets to them and the last punched ticket was issued at 9:23 a.m. and thereafter, the bus started its journey from Anand Vihar. Neither any accident took place with the bus nor any interrogation was ever conducted by any authority or police for almost a gap of 05 months. As per the contents of the FIR, the time of accident is 9:15 am, but at that time, the bus in question was stationed at the bus stand Anand Vihar to board the passengers and conductor issued tickets to the passengers upto 9:23 am. Hence, it was not possible for the bus to have been involved in the alleged accident. R2W1 further deposed that bus number is not mentioned in the FIR and respondents are falsely implicated by the police in connivance with the complainant with a view to get false compensation from the respondents.

Thereafter, RE was closed.

12. Thereafter, on 22.02.2018 while perusing the file for dictating judgment, Ld. Predecessor of Tribunal thought it fit to conduct further inquiry. Copy of charge-sheet was filed by the IO thereafter on 24.08.2018. Tribunal witnesses were examined.

12.1 WASI Krishna was examined as TW1.

12.2 Thereafter, petitioner Ankit Kumar (PW2) was examined under section 165 of Indian Evidence Act on 07.12.2018. 12.3 Sh. Sunil Kumar was examined as TW2.

12.4 ASI Rajesh Kumar was examined under section 165 of Indian Evidence Act as TW3.

MACP No.391/19; Ankit Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors;

MACP No.392/19; Sunil Kumar Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors.

Thereafter, matter was first posted for examination of ASI Narain Dev but he was not examined by the Tribunal. Vide order dated 07.03.2019, matter was posted for final arguments on 03.06.2019.

13. I have heard Mohd. Rafi, Ld. Counsel for petitioners; Sh. Pradeep Kumar Gupta, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2/ UPSRTC. Record of the case has also been perused. Ld. Counsel for petitioners submitted that DARs have been qua both of the injured and R-1 was charge-sheeted and eye witness has proved the claims. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for R-2 / UPSRTC submitted that these claim petitions are classic example of misuse of the benevolent provision under MACT for grant of compensation and further that matter was reported to the police as a hit and run case and after investigation, untrace reports were filed and thereafter, baseless allegations were levelled IO for not collecting CCTV footage and thereafter, in a well calculated manner, the UPSRTC bus was falsely implicated and further, it was very easy for the petitioners to rope in falsely a public transport vehicle just by ascertaining the depot and route on their own and further that, the improved version was given by the petitioners after several months of the date of the accident, whereas in the FIR itself, the sole eye witness / petitioner Ankit had categorically stated that he could not see the bus number or depot. It is was further submitted that during inquiry, the false version of the petitioners was completely shattered and they have come up as false claimants and further that in the criminal case proceedings, the very proceedings were stopped under section 258 Cr.PC as no case was found to be made out against him and it was observed by the MACP No.391/19; Ankit Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors;

MACP No.392/19; Sunil Kumar Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors.

concerned court that the claims of the witnesses are unsupported and an afterthought.

ISSUE No.1 (in MACP No. 391/19 and 392/19):

14. This issue being common in both of the claim petitions, is being decided under this common head. In an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non. However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is tested on the touchstone of principle of preponderance of probabilities. Further, even though, in ordinary course, there is a presumption of correctness of contents of DAR and charge-sheet, in appropriate cases, where the Tribunal finds the charge-sheet collusive, not satisfactory and lacking in material evidence, it may reject the charge-sheet and give its findings in a reasoned order.

15. To start with, it is relevant first to look at the contents of the FIR, the lodging of which set the criminal law into motion. It is mentioned in the Complaint / FIR No. 331/16 given to police that it was a roadways bus which hit against the Scooty of PW-2/Ankit while coming from back side and overtaking his Scooty, resulting in falling down of both him and pillion rider i.e. his friend Reema from the Scooty and sustaining of injuries and further that he could not note down the number of the said bus and depot of the bus. However, after registration of FIR and during investigation, the registration number of vehicle was reported to police by PW-2/Ankit and he identified the bus as a U.P. MACP No.391/19; Ankit Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors;

MACP No.392/19; Sunil Kumar Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors.

roadways bus bearing No. UP-14ET-3992. The pertinent question before the Tribunal is, how did Ankit learn about the registration number of offending bus, when it was not reported to the police at the time of registration of FIR?

16. In this regard, it is interesting to look at the claim of Ankit as made by him before the Tribunal on 29.11.2016 after DAR as untrace were filed before the Tribunal. He stated on oath in his statement dated 29.11.2016 as made before the Tribunal that he had seen the last four digits of the Bus as 3992 and further that he had observed that it was a U.P. State Roadways Bus and informed these facts to IO but IO refused to write down these details in absence of complete registration number of the bus and asked for the same. Thereafter, Ankit visited the spot about the same time of the accident after 03 days and found the complete registration number of the offending bus as UP-14ET-3992. However, IO and SHO did not inquire into the offending bus and did not seize it. Now, the question is whether this claim of Ankit holds any water and whether it was a case of fault on the part of IO in not noting down the part registration number of the bus earlier and further a laxity on his part which led Ankit to investigate the matter himself and zeroing in on the alleged offending vehicle or whether it was a case of false roping of a random UPSRTC bus plying on the route of the accident, with a view to get compensation. In judgment titled as Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Rameshwari Bai and Ors. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3067 of 2019 decided on 20.09.2023, Hon'ble MP High Court observed that :

"Although the Motor Vehicle Act is a beneficial legislation and the provisions thereof have to be MACP No.391/19; Ankit Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors; MACP No.392/19; Sunil Kumar Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors.

given beneficial meaning and effect, but such liberal construction should be limited to the interpretation of provision of the Act and the Tribunals/Courts should not over reach its powers and must tread carefully while passing the award since the insurance companies deal with public funds and such public funds should not be allowed to be expended in fraudulent cases. Beneficial legislations like Motor Vehicle Act should be interpreted in a purposive manner which would effectuate the object of the legislation and it should not be used as a means of charity."

17. Further, in New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Pazhaniammal (2011) (2) KLT 648, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala has held that as a general rule, it can be accepted that production of charge-sheet is prima-facie sufficient evidence of negligence for the purpose of claim under section 166 MV Act. If any party does not accept such chargesheet, the burden must be on such party to adduce evidence. If the Tribunal feels that chargesheet is collusive, it can record that chargesheet cannot be accepted and call upon the parties at any stage to adduce oral evidence of accident and alleged negligence. In such cases, issue of negligence must be decided on other evidence ignoring the chargesheet.

18. Further, In FAO No. 5613 of 2017 titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Billo Devi,Chandigarh High Court, decided on 22.05.2018 has observed that "Awarding compensation, on the basis of concocted and false story introduced before the Tribunals and believing the same as gospel truth, without any corroborative evidence, what to talk of cogent and convincing evidence, simply on the ground of registration of belated false FIRs, without going deep into the merits that MACP No.391/19; Ankit Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors;

MACP No.392/19; Sunil Kumar Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors.

after passing of a considerable time from where the claimants or alleged eyewitnesses came to know whereabouts of the alleged offending driver and vehicle is completely illegal."

19. In the case at hand, on 28.07.2016, a complaint dated 27.07.2016 Ex. PW2/T-2 was given to the DCP office by father of the injured deceased Reema namely Sunil Kumar alleging that the police was not listening to him and not collecting CCTV footage and further that CCTV footage may give a clue regarding the offending vehicle. He also alleged that the boy with whose Scooty, accident had taken place, was also not disclosing complete facts and hiding something from father of deceased Reema. In this complaint, there was no reference to any part number of the bus or depot or state of the bus. Thereafter, an undated complaint was given by Ankit to the police commissioner as received on 28.11.2016, alleging that he has disclosed to the police several times that U.P. Roadways bus bearing No. 3992 driver had caused the accident but IO was not investigating and trying to close the matter and further that in FIR itself, he has disclosed the identity of the offending vehicle as UP Roadways bus and number as 3992 but IO only wrote the word roadways bus and further that he and Mr. Sunil Kumar had seen the bus number No. UP-14ET-3992 several times at the place of accident between 9 to 10 hours. In the protest petition / application filed before the Tribunal on 17.09.2016, Mr. Sunil Kumar stated that the IO was deliberately not collecting CCTV footage and he had given a complaint to the ACP on 28.07.2016 where he mentioned this fact but despite it, neither IO nor ACP tried to obtain the footage of CCTV camera in order to trace out the offending U.P. Roadways bus with a malafide intention MACP No.391/19; Ankit Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors;

MACP No.392/19; Sunil Kumar Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors.

to save the driver and filed untrace report on 11.08.2016 deliberately. It is pertinent to mention here that in the complaint dated 27.07.2016 Ex.PW2/T2, while Mr. Sunil Kumar mentioned the offending vehicle as a 'roadways vehicle', he nowhere stated that it was a UP Roadways bus of Loni Depot, as mentioned in his protest petition Ex.TW2/R21 filed later on 17.09.2016. He did not even explain regarding his source of knowledge on 17.09.2016 regarding the offending vehicle being a UP Roadways bus of Loni Depot. Further, even in his protest petition, petitioner Sunil Kumar did not disclose a single digit of the bus number. As per the testimony of TW1, on 12.07.2016, information was received from Police Control Room regarding an accident near Shamshan Ghat Ghazi pur road, Noida and it was recorded vide DD NO. 8A. Copy of DD No. 8A Ex. TW1/A and Ex. TW3/A does not reflect that police was informed about the number of the offending vehicle or depot. The untrace report filed by the police and investigation conducted does not disclose that the number of the offending vehicle was disclosed to the police at any point of time after registration of FIR till filing of the untrace DARs on 11.08.2016. No document has been produced by any of the petitioners either to suggest that any number or depot was disclosed to the police till filing of untrace report by any of them.

20. When testimony of TW2 is seen alongwith the examination of petitioner Ankit under section 165 of Indian Evidence Act by the Tribunal, the case projected by the petitioner Ankit and Mr. Sunil Kumar falls flat like a pack of cards. According to Mr. Sunil Kumar, he met petitioner Ankit Kumar for the first time after accident in GTB Hospital and at that time he disclosed that the bus belonged to UP Roadways and MACP No.391/19; Ankit Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors;

MACP No.392/19; Sunil Kumar Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors.

further that he did not remember whether registration number of bus was told to him or not and further that after 2-3 days, Ankit visited his house and told the registration number of bus which had caused the accident. PW2 admitted that he moved application EX. PW2/T2 to the DCP seeking examination of petitioner Ankit and collection of CCTV footage and in the said application, he did not mention the registration number of the bus. Hence, it is clear that Sunil Kumar was not aware regarding even part number of the alleged offending bus as on 28.07.2016 and he lied before the Tribunal when he stated that Ankit had disclosed to him in GTB hospital itself after the accident that it was a UP Roadways bus (petitioner Ankit stated in his examination under section 165 of Indian Evidence Act on 07.12.2018 that he met petitioner Sunil Kumar / TW2 in GTB Hospital on 01.07.2016 at 12 midnight) and further after 2-3 days of the accident, he also disclosed the registration number of the bus. Even while stating that registration number of the bus was disclosed to TW2 after 2-3 days of the accident, he nowhere stated that it was an incomplete number and whether it was from the start, middle or end. On questioning by the Tribunal regarding the reason for moving the application Ex.PW2/T2 despite knowledge regarding registration number of the bus, he stated that the application was moved to know about the complete registration number of the bus. It is strange that a person interested in gathering information about the complete registration number, would not disclose the part information available with him as claimed i.e. UP Roadways bus and 3992 to the DCP in his complaint and further even in his protest application while alleging that it was a U.P. roadways bus, would not choose to mention the part registration number MACP No.391/19; Ankit Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors;

MACP No.392/19; Sunil Kumar Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors.

of the bus. There was no reason for the petitioner Sunil not to have given these respective details in his DCP complaint dated 27.07.2016 or Protest petition filed before the Tribunal on 17.09.2016, unless these details were not known to him and not disclosed by anyone to him. Hence, it is clear that even at the time of moving protest application, Mr. Sunil Kumar was not aware regarding any clue whatever of offending vehicle and merely with a view to faslely implicate any U.P. roadways bus, made improvement in his version by adding that in his protest application and his assertion to the effect that Ankit had disclosed to him part number of the bus or it being a UP roadway bus on the date of accident does not at all inspire confidence. He admitted in his cross-examination by counsel for R-2 that his protest application dated 17.09.2016 Ex. TW2/R21 does not mention the registration number of bus and suggestion was given to him that alleged offending vehicle was falsely implicated. Coming to the testimony of TW3 / ASI Rajesh Kumar, he disclosed that on visiting the spot of accident, only one scooty was found in the accidental condition and it was learnt that the injured had been taken to LBS Hospital, Delhi, he collected the MLC of Ankit and Reema. Ankit had suffered simple injuries and his statement Ex. PW3/B was recorded by TW3. No CCTV footage was available and no public person informed about the registration number of the offending vehicle. On the same day, an information was received from the GTB hospital that Reema expired during treatment. TW3 specifically deposed that he visited LBS hospital at 10 am and met both Ankit and Reema but none of their family members were there at the hospital. He also deposed that Ankit did not disclose the number of the bus as 3992 or the factum that it was a UP MACP No.391/19; Ankit Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors;

MACP No.392/19; Sunil Kumar Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors.

Roadways bus and merely stated to him that it was a roadways bus. During his cross-examination by counsel for petitioner, TW3 remained firm on his stand and denied that part registration number was disclosed to him. He also explained that the statements of parents of injured were not recorded as they were not aware how accident had taken place and who had caused it. He also deposed that he remained IO in the case till 12.07.2016 and till that time, Ankit never disclosed the registration number of offending bus to him and further that Ankit was with him when he was making inquiry from public persons at the place of accident. The testimony of PW3 remained intact. There is nothing brought on record by Ankit to suggest that at any point of time till investigation was with TW3, he gave any complaint or information in writing disclosing the registration number or depot of the bus.

21. Moving to the examination of PW2 / Ankit under section 165 of Indian Evidence Act, he stated that his statement was recorded by HC Rajesh Kumar in hospital. He asserted that he disclosed to HC Rajesh Kumar that the last digits of the bus were 3992 and it was a U.P. Roadways bus. During his further questioning, he stated that he had met TW2 / Sunil Kumar for the first time after the accident in GTB Hospital on 12.07.2016 at midnight and told him the registration number of the bus at that time. PW2 was shown copy of the complaint given to the DCP by TW2 on 28.07.2016 where he alleged that police was not investigating the case and PW2 was not stating complete facts and further that in the said complaint neither the part bus number nor the identity being a UP roadways bus was mentioned by Mr. Sunil Kumar. Petitioner Ankit also admitted that he disclosed the complete registration MACP No.391/19; Ankit Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors;

MACP No.392/19; Sunil Kumar Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors.

number of bus only in his supplementary statement recorded on 20.12.2016. Now the question is, if Ankit had learnt the complete registration number of bus only after 2-3 days from the day of meeting Sunil Kumar in GTB Hospital i.e. 12.07.2016, what was the reason for intimating to the police after such a long gap on 20.12.2016 only. Further, this version is completely in contrast to the version of TW2 who in response to the Tribunal question as to when he had come to know about the registration number of the bus from Ankit Kumar after 2-3 days of the accident, why did he state in his application dated 28.07.2016 Ex. PW2/T2 that CCTV footage should be collected so that the evidence relating to the vehicle which had caused the accident, could be gathered, responded that "I moved the application so that complete registration number of the bus could be moved". PW2 / Ankit himself deposed that he had come to know about the registration number of the bus after 2 days of the accident and if it was true, there was no reason for the petitioners not to disclose the number to the police or even before the Tribunal till giving the protest application given by father of deceased Reema. It has come in the charge-sheet that on 29.11.2016, two complaints were given, one by petitioner Ankit and other by Mr. Sunil Kumar before the tribunal wherein the registration number of the offending vehicle was disclosed as 3392. It is further seen that after filing of protest application dated 17.9.2016 (wherein it was claimed by Mr. Sunil Kumar that the bus offending bus was UP Roadways bus pained in red and crèam colour and running on express service under UP roadways of Loni Depot), on 11.10.2016, a notice under section 91 Cr.P.C. was given to Manager Bus Depot, Loni Ghaziabad U.P to MACP No.391/19; Ankit Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors;

MACP No.392/19; Sunil Kumar Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors.

provide the details of buses which pass through Ghazi Pur Dairy farm road on 12.07.2016 and on 04.11.2016 the reply to the said notice was given and made a part of the case record. After about 02 months from the date of accident, Mr Sunil Kumar, who is not even an eye witness made a claim in protest petition that bus was a U.P. roadways bus. Further, it is strange that eye witness Ankit neither disclosed any description of the offending bus in the FIR nor made any complaint in writing to any senior police official immediately after the registration of FIR, if any important details were missed out in his complaint. Further, the complaint was signed by him and it is a matter of record that he has sustained simple injuries and hence he must have been in a fit state of mind at the time of giving of complaint to the police. Even if he missed out any important details in the complaint, nothing had stopped from informing to this to IO in writing about the part details as claimed to have been available with him but no such efforts were made by Mr. Ankit and Sunil Kumar. It was only after investigation was concluded and untrace reports were filed that as an afterthought, protest application was moved and even in the protest application, no registration number of the offending bus was provided. It is relevant here to mention that till giving a complaint to the DCP on 28.07.2016, Mr. Sunil Kumar was having suspicions over Mr. Ankit for not disclosing complete facts. The much delayed mechanical inspection report dated 02.01.2017 of offending vehicle shows some fresh damages but there is nothing on record to connect the same to the accident of the Scooty of the petitioner Ankit on 12.07.2016. R2W1 has deposed in his testimony that no accident took place with the alleged offending vehicle and further that the conductor of the bus was issuing MACP No.391/19; Ankit Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors;

MACP No.392/19; Sunil Kumar Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors.

tickets to the passengers while bus was stationed in depot and last punched ticket was issued at 9:23 a.m. and thereafter, the bus had started its journey from Anand Vihar Bus Depot and thus, there was no question of presence of bus at the alleged spot of accident at 9:15 a.m which is stated to be time of accident, as state in FIR. In view of the above-said discussion and the version of petitioners having completely shattered during the inquiry conducted by the Tribunal, the plea of false implication as taken by the respondents gains strength and cannot be ignored. Hence, it is concluded that there is no iota of credible evidence to prima facie show that the alleged offending vehicle was involved in the accident and thus, issue No.1 is decided against the petitioners.

ISSUE NO. 2, 3 & 4 ( In MACP No. 391/19 and 392/19):-

22. In view of the finding on issue no.1, petitioners are not entitled to get compensation, interest and any relief in the present claim petitions based on DARs.

23. In view of the aforesaid findings, the present claim petitions under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 are dismissed.

24. File be consigned to Record Room.

                                           MAYURI         SINGH
                                                          Date:
                                           SINGH          2024.06.06
                                                          17:02:56
                                                          +0530

Announced in the open                   (Mayuri Singh)
Court on 06.06.2024                 Presiding Officer-MACT (East)
(Total 20 pages)                        Karkardooma Courts, Delhi



MACP No.391/19; Ankit Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors;

MACP No.392/19; Sunil Kumar Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors.