Delhi District Court
The Commissioner Of Police vs . Ors. on 28 September, 2019
The Commissioner of Police Vs. Ors.
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUJATA KOHLI,
JUDGE, MACT-1 (CENTRAL), THC, DELHI.
MACT No. 356506/16
Unique Case ID No. DLCT01-000395-2013
1. The Commissioner of Police
Through DCP/Central
Delhi.
........................... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Shiv Karan S/o Dharam Pal
R/o J2B 594/8, Sangam Vihar,
Gupta Colony, Delhi.
.................Respondent no. 1
(Owner of the vehicle)
2. Shiv Kumar S/o Murli Singh R/o Village- Isshipur, Post- Nartha, PS Sikandra Raw, Hathras, U.P. . ................Respondent no. 2 (Driver of the vehicle)
3. The Manager Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 8, Krishna Market, Near Deshbandhu College, Kalka Ji, Delhi .........Respondent no. 3 (Insurer of the vehicle) MACT No.356506/16 Page No. 1 of 12 The Commissioner of Police Vs. Ors.
Date of filing of DAR : 06.07.2013 Arguments heard on : 28.09.2019 Date of passing of Award : 28.09.2019
COMPENSATION AWARD IN CASE OF CAR DAMAGE ARISING OUT OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
1. a. Particulars of the Damaged DL 1CM 4577 Vehicle b. Name of the Registered The Commissioner Owner of the Damaged of Police, Delhi Vehicle.
c. Name of Driver of the Not mentioned in the
Damaged Vehicle petition
2. Particulars of the Offending HR38H 9323 Vehicle.
a. Name of the driver of the Shiv Kumar offending vehicle b. Name of the owner of the Shiv Karan offending vehicle c. Name of the insurer of the The Oriental offending vehicle Insurance Company Ltd.
3. a. Date and time of the accident 07.06.2012 at 10:25PM MACT No.356506/16 Page No. 2 of 12 The Commissioner of Police Vs. Ors.
b. Place of accident Near Bela Gaon, Service Road, Outer Ring Road, Daryaganj.
c. FIR No. date and u/s 120/12 U/s: 279/337 IPC
4. a. Details of Work Shop Wig Automobiles, Jahangirpuri, Delhi
5. Names and Addresses of Ct. Dhirendra Bhati, witnesses of the accident No. 1815C, SIT 1984, Khan Market, New Delhi
6. Brief description of the On 07.06.2012, Outer accident Ring Road, Daryaganj while vehicle bearing No. DL1CM 4577 was returning to its base from Bela Goan site, a tanker bearing No. HR28H 9323 hit the Gypsy in middle.
8. a. Driving licence of Not furnished Respondent No. 1 :
b. Driving Licence of the Not furnished Driver of the Damaged Car.
c. Whether driver is the Paid Driver owner/paid driver/otherwise?
d. Whether driving with the Yes
knowledge / consent of the
owner?
e. Whether driving under No
influence of alcohol/drugs? If
MACT No.356506/16 Page No. 3 of 12
The Commissioner of Police Vs. Ors.
yes give quantity/parameters/ recovery, if available Whether finding based on scientific report?
9. Mechanical Inspection Report Ex. PW2/1 (colly) at page no. 18 b. Defence raised by the Driver and owner Driver and Owner failed to contest the claim Defence raised by the Petition not Insurer maintainable as petitioner should have filed on damage claim against its own insurance company
2. the accident occurred because of the sole negligence of driver of the Maruti Gypsy and reliance has been placed on the statement of the said driver himself.
The maruti Gypsy
coming from the
service lane to join the
main road, when it
was hit by the alleged
offending tanker.
No statutory defence
raised.
Insurance policy
admitted as valid on
the date of accident.
MACT No.356506/16 Page No. 4 of 12
The Commissioner of Police Vs. Ors.
1. On the basis of the facts in brief and the defences as raised, Ld. Predecessor was pleased to frame the issues vide proceedings dated 21.07.2014, to read as under:-
(i). Whether the Govt. Vehicle i.e. M. Gypsy bearing No.DL1CM-4577 was damaged on 07.06.2012 at about 10:25 PM due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle I.e. the tanker bearing No. HR38H 9323 which was being owned by the respondent No. 1, driven by respondent No.2, and insured with the respondent No. 3? OPP
(ii). Whether the petitioner/petitioners is entitle for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) Relief.
2. Witnesses examined:-
(i) PW-1 SI Manoj Kumar - On his affidavit Ex.PW-
1/A. Documents exhibited:-
Ex.PW-1/1- Copy of invoice dated 22.10.2012
(ii). PW-2 Sh. Kamal Kumar, JJA, Record Room (Criminal), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Documents Exhibited:-
Copy of criminal record collectively Ex. PW-2/1 (OSR) (running into 22 sheets).
(iii). PW-3 Sh. Dhirendra Bhati, Constable, No. 1815C, MACT No.356506/16 Page No. 5 of 12 The Commissioner of Police Vs. Ors.
SIT 1984, Khan Market, New Delhi- on his affidavit Ex. PW- 3/A.
(iv) PW-4 Sh. Tej Pal, Retd. ASI, R/o V & PO Lumb, PS Chaproli, Distt. Bagpat, U.P.- on his affidavit Ex. PW4/A.
(v) PW-5 Ct. Sachin Mann, No. 3486/DAP, 6th Battalion- On his affidavit Ex. PW5/A.
(vi) PW-6 Sh. Navjeet Singh S/o Sh. Amarjeet Singh, Manager, Wig Automobiles.
Documents Exhibited:-
Bank Statement of Wig Automobile of Rs. 73,604/- Ex. PW6/1.
Invoice Bill/ Cash Memo dated 22.10.2012 Ex. PW6/2 (colly 3 pages).
(vii) Arguments heard at length. My issue-wise findings are as under:-
3. ISSUE No. 1:
(i) Petitioner has examined one Manoj Kumar Sub Inspector as PW 1 on affidavit, however he admittedly was not an eyewitness. This witness has however narrated in detail about the person injured in the accident and the damager which occurred to the Maruti Gypsy in question.
(ii) The copy of criminal case record documents were MACT No.356506/16 Page No. 6 of 12 The Commissioner of Police Vs. Ors.
produced by PW2 and Ex. PW2/1 running into 20 sheets.
(iii) The police officials traveling in the said Maruti Gypsy at the relevant time have been examined as eye- witnesses, reference is had to the contents of the affidavits of the evidence by Ct. Dhirender Bhati, Retired ASI Tezpal and Ct. Sachin.
(iv) Needless to say the version of the circumstances in which the accident occurred has been on one and the same line, by all these witnesses going by the contents of their affidavit.
(v) Although, the driver and owner of the said tanker did not bother to file any reply to the claim. ld. Counsel on their behalf cross examined PW3. During cross-examination, PW3 admitted that there was no own insurance of the Maruti Gypsy in question. During further cross-examination on behalf of insurance company. The said witness produced his ID and reiterated that himself had also sustained injury in the present accident and further that he had already received compensation.
(vi) However, no question were put regarding the allegation of rash and negligent driving of the tanker driver. By and large, in so far as the driver and owner and even the insurer of the alleged offending tanker is concerned, there has not been any serious dispute regarding the question of rash MACT No.356506/16 Page No. 7 of 12 The Commissioner of Police Vs. Ors.
and negligent driving on his part.
(vii) ASI Tez Pal on similar affidavit, also one of the passenger in the Gypsy remained without the any cross examination whatsoever. Same was fit on the Ct. Sachin Man also on his affidavit.
(viii) The testimonies of all these three eyewitnesses has piratically has remained unrebutted and besides their also duly supported by the criminal case documents on record i.e. the FIR, seems have been registered without delay on the statement of Ct. Dhirender Bhati who narrated the circumstances of the accident.
(ix) The MLCs of these three witnesses have remained unproved, but since even the respondents including the insurance company have not disputed the presence of the these three witnesses at the time of accident, it cannot be given undue weightage.
(ix) Although, however, it is also equally true that the said police officials have not even bothered to prove their presence so much, as producing the DD register or any other documents to show that they were actually on duty at that time and traveling in the said Gypsy. It is only because the respondents have chosen not to dispute their allegations seriously, the court also has no reason the disbelieve the same.
MACT No.356506/16 Page No. 8 of 12The Commissioner of Police Vs. Ors.
(x) Going by the unrebutted testimonies of PW3, PW4 and PW5, alongwith the FIR in question, it stands establish that the accident occurred involving in the Maruti Gypsy and Tanker question the accident has taken place solely negligence on the part of the taker driver, resulting into damage of the police vehicle.
Issue No.1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
4. Issue No.2:-
(i) The police department/ petitioner examined SI Manoj Kumar to depose about the entire claim particularly to the extent of damage and quantum of the claim as sought.
(ii) Petitioner has set their claim of Rs. 73,604/-, on account of the damage to their vehicle.
(iii) The documents relied upon are inspection report page -18 and bill from a private workshop.
(iv) It is quite ironical that though this case was filed by the police department and still they have failed to prove their on basic documents particularly the mechanical inspection report of the Maruti Gypsy in question which is only a photocopy on record. Original thereof never produced. Apart from this, the police department has it own workshop but for reasons best known, they have preferred to get the repaired MACT No.356506/16 Page No. 9 of 12 The Commissioner of Police Vs. Ors.
done from a private workshop.
(v) Ex. PW6/2 (colly) is a bill raised by WIG Automobiles described as a Maruti authorization service station. This is a bills comprising three pages and total thereof mentioned as Rs. 73,604/-.
(vi) The indifference and no objection on the part of the driver, owner and insurer of the offending truck grave suspicion in the mind of the Court that, there might have been a serious collision between the petitioner department on one hand on the respondent driver and owner and on the other as the offending truck happened to be insurer. But there was no serious objection even from the side of insurance company in the face of absolutely in adequate doucments brought on the record most of which were only photocopies. Even looking the photocopy document on page 18, the said report shows the damages as 13 damages, where the bill Ex. PW6/2 shows the damages as many as 41 points taken together. The accident occurred on 07.06.2012, the photocopy of report of inspection at page 18 was not done before the 27.06.2012 and yet again the alleged bill of the said workshop also bearing a date 22.10.2012 i.e. four months of the accident.
(vii) The author of the said bill was examined as PW6. He was not cross-examined either on behalf of driver or of the owner of the offending truck.
MACT No.356506/16 Page No. 10 of 12The Commissioner of Police Vs. Ors.
(ix) During cross-examination by ld. Counsel for insurance company he admitted that he had not filed any receipt of the parts repairs in respect of said Maruti Gypsy. In response to the court question, the witness stated point blank that it was eaten by termites. He even replied that he did not have any bill book any record to up 2016 and January-2017.
(x) The court refuses to believe such kind of a point blank lien excuse. Even in case a particular document has been eaten by termites, it would be only in parts and not whole of it, it is not imaginable that business men would wait for the termites to eat away entire bill books till 2016- 2017, and not to have done anything to save the damage. The portion of the bills book, could certainly have been produced, as termites do not normally eat away entire documents, in a whole, but they eat away only parts of paper documents.
(xi) The testimony of PW6 does not inspire any confidence and the bills Ex. PW6/2 seems to have been prepared, by him simply suit the interest of the police department and probably under their pressure, or as a favour for future benefits.
(xii) Right up till the end, there is no any satisfactory reason from the petitioner as to why they not got the vehicle repaired at their own Central District Workshop at Daryaganj, and they have not even produced any approval for repairs to be got done from a private workshop.
MACT No.356506/16 Page No. 11 of 12The Commissioner of Police Vs. Ors.
(xiii) The petitioners have failed to establish the actual extent to the damage to the Maruti Gypsy in the said accident, the have failed to establish that actually got the repaired and they had incurred a sum of Rs. 73,604/- or any amount for that matter.
Issue no. 2 decided against the petitioner.
5. Relief:-
(i) If this is the result of the claim brought by the Police Department for a claim of Rs. 73,064/- inspite of 06 long years of its pendency, it could only be termed as a luxurious litigation, about which the department was seriously not interested to prove.
(ii) The claim is dismissed with cost of Rs. 20,000/- to be deposited with DLSA, Central within 30 days.
Copy of judgment be sent to Secretary DLSA for information/record.
Nazir is directed to prepare the miscellaneous file for compliance on the part of the petitioner on 30.10.2019.
(i) File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court on this 28th September, 2019 (Sujata Kohli) Judge, MACT-1 (Central), THC, Delhi MACT No.356506/16 Page No. 12 of 12