Delhi District Court
Smt. Santosh Rana vs Union Of India on 2 December, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ARUN BHARDWAJ
PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNALII,
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
MACT No. 24/12/11
IN THE MATTER OF :
Smt. Santosh Rana,
W/o Shri Prem Singh Rana,
R/o H. No. 419, Samsanghat Road,
V.P.O. Bijwasan, New Delhi.
... Claimant
Versus
1. Union of India,
CRPF Camp,
Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi.
Through Commandant J.C.
2. Ministry of Home of India
Union of India North Block,
New Delhi.
... Respondents
FILED ON : 18.01.2011
RESERVED ON : 30.11.2013
DECIDED ON : 02.12.2013
J U D G M E N T :
1. This claim petition is filed under Section 166 and MACT No.24/12/11 Smt. Santosh Rana Vs. Union of India & Anr. Page 1 of 8 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation.
2. Respondent No. 1 is the alleged owner of the offending vehicle and Respondent No. 2 is its controlling Ministry in the Government of India.
3. It is stated in this claim petition that on 19.05.2008, at around 11:00 a.m., near Shiv Murti, Rangpuri, Delhi, while the claimant was crossing the road, the offending vehicle bearing No. DL 4C0916 "Maruti Esteem" being driven in a rash and negligent manner hit the claimant resulting in grievous injuries to her.
4. It is stated that after hitting the claimant, the driver of the offending vehicle did not stop her car and ran away from the place of accident. One motorcyclist Shri Lalit Kumar son of Shri Vijay Singh resident of Carter Puri Road, V.P.O. Bijwasan, New Delhi had chased the offending vehicle and came back and gave the registration number of the offending vehicle to the claimant.
5. It is stated that FIR No. 256/08 was registered at P.S. Vasant Kunj under Section 279/338 of IPC against driver of the offending vehicle.
6. It is also stated that the claimant was removed to Privat Hospital for treatment of injuries suffered in the accident.
7. In these circumstances, claimant has claimed a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/ along with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of filing of this claim petition till its realization.
8. Respondents have filed their written statement stating therein that the alleged offending vehicle in the claim petition is DL4C0916, a "Maruti Esteem Car", whereas vehicle MACT No.24/12/11 Smt. Santosh Rana Vs. Union of India & Anr. Page 2 of 8 having Registration No. DL4C0916 is a "Maruti Gypsy" which was auctioned by Respondent No. 1 on 25.10.1999 at Srinagar, Kashmir. Therefore, it is stated that as the vehicle was auctioned by the respondents much before the accident and as the alleged offending vehicle is a "Maruti Esteem Car" whereas the vehicle of respondents was a "Maruti Gypsy", claim petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
1. Whether the claim petition is maintainable under Section 166 of M.V. Act? OPP
2. Whether respondents have auctioned the offending vehicle in the year, 1999 and if yes its affect in view of the fact that registration of the vehicle has remained in the name of respondents? OPR
3. Whether petitioner received injuries in an accident on 19.05.2008 caused by rash and negligent driving of driver of Vehicle No. DL 4C 0916 Maruti Esteem owned by respondents?
OPP
4. Whether petitioner is entitled to receive any compensation from respondents if yes what is the amount of that compensation? OPP
5. Relief.
10. Claimant examined four witnesses in support of her claim petition.
11. First, she herself entered in the witness box as PW1 and again stated in her evidence by way of affidavit that the offending vehicle was a "Maruti Esteem Car". She proved Discharge MACT No.24/12/11 Smt. Santosh Rana Vs. Union of India & Anr. Page 3 of 8 Summary of Privat Hospital as Ex. PW1/1, treatment record as Ex. PW1/26, Laboratory Reports as Ex. PW1/710, bills for treatment as Ex. PW1/1138 and complaint given to DCP (South District) on 18.08.2009 as Ex. PW1/39. In this complaint also, the offending vehicle is described as an "Esteem Car".
12. In crossexamination, she stated that the offending vehicle is not a "Gypsy". She denied a suggestion that she had wrongly mentioned registration number of the offending vehicle or there is no car having Registration No. DL4C0916. She deposed that she was told about the registration number of the offending vehicle by a motorcyclist. Other suggestions contrary to her case were denied by her.
13. Second witness Shri Satya Prakash, Conductor from the Office of MLO, Transport Department, West ZoneI, Janakpuri, New Delhi produced the details of vehicle bearing No. DL4C0916. As per Ex. PW2/1, it is a "Gypsy".
14. Third witness, HC Rakesh, Record Mohorrar, P.S. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi proved FIR as Ex. PW3/1. As noted earlier, in FIR also the offending vehicle is described as a "Maruti Esteem Car".
15. Ahlmad from the Court of Ld. Magistrate where untrace report was filed was also examined as PW4 and the Site Plan was exhibited as Ex. PW4/1 and MLC of Privat Hospital was proved as Ex. PW4/2.
16. On behalf of respondents, Shri S.K. Vashisth, Dy. Commandant of CRPF had entered in the witness box as R1W1 and he filed his evidence by way of affidavit and stated that their vehicle No. DL4C0916, "Maruti Gypsy", was auctioned on 25.10.1999 for a MACT No.24/12/11 Smt. Santosh Rana Vs. Union of India & Anr. Page 4 of 8 sum of Rs. 64,604/. He proved their Motor Vehicle Stock Register as Ex. R1W1, Remittance of Auction Sale Proceeds of "Maruti Gypsy"
bearing No. DL4C0916 as Ex. R1W1/2 and Inter Office Note dated 23.04.2011 as Ex. R1W1/3.
17. In crossexamination, he deposed that in the records brought by him, there is no letter addressed to the registration authority informing about the auction of their vehicle.
18. No other witness was examined by any of the parties.
19. Arguments were addressed by Shri J.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the claimant and Shri G.D. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.
20. On the basis of pleadings of parties, evidence on record and arguments addressed, issuewise findings are as under: ISSUE NO. 1:
21. For maintainability of a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the presence of the driver of an offending vehicle is mandatory because unless and until rash and negligent driving by the driver is proved, no relief can be given to the claimant.
22. This is rather sine qua non in such a claim petition.
23. It appears that there is some mistake by the claimant in noting the correct registration number of the offending vehicle. In her claim petition as well as in her evidence by way of affidavit, the stand of the claimant is that the offending vehicle is not a "Maruti Gypsy" but a "Maruti Esteem Car". But the facts are MACT No.24/12/11 Smt. Santosh Rana Vs. Union of India & Anr. Page 5 of 8 otherwise. As per Ex. PW1/1, the offending vehicle is a "Maruti Gypsy" and not a 'Maurti Esteem Car".
24. In absence of driver of the alleged offending vehicle, this claim petition is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected on this score alone. Therefore, Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the respondents and against the claimant. ISSUE NO. 2:
25. Respondents have shown from their evidence i.e. Ex. R1W1/1 which is their Motor Vehicle Stock Register as well as from Ex. R1W1/2 which is Remittance of Auction Sale Proceeds that vehicle bearing Registration No. DL4C0916 was auctioned on 25.10.1999. However, Ex. PW2/1 also shows that the vehicle continues to stand in the name of Commandant, Group Centre, CRPF, Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi and ownership of the said vehicle was not transferred in the name of auction purchaser.
26. Therefore, Issue No. 2 is answered holding that though respondents had auctioned vehicle bearing No. DL4C0916 "Maruti Gypsy" in the year, 1999 but as its ownership was not transferred in records of registration authority, the registered owner would have been responsible for the consequences of the accident. But as the alleged offending vehicle was a "Maruti Esteem Car" and vehicle registered as DL4C0916 is a "Gypsy", therefore, the decision on this issue will not have affect on the final outcome of this claim petition.
ISSUE NO. 3:
27. From the evidence of claimant, it is established that she has suffered accident on 19.05.2008 when an offending MACT No.24/12/11 Smt. Santosh Rana Vs. Union of India & Anr. Page 6 of 8 vehicle being driven in a rash and negligent manner had hit her. But it is not proved that the said vehicle was having Registration No. DL4C0916, "Maruti Esteem Car" because this registration number is given to a "Maruti Gypsy" and there is a distinct difference in the shape of a 'Car" and in the shape of a 'Gypsy" which is also known as a "Jeep" in common parlance.
28. Therefore, it is held that though the claimant had suffered Road Traffic Accident but the number mentioned in the claim petition as well as in evidence by way of affidavit of the claimant was not the offending vehicle because the said registration number is given to a Maruti Gypsy whereas the case of the claimant is that the offending vehicle was a car. Rather she had emphatically denied in her crossexamination a suggestion that there is no "Car"with Registration No. DL4C0916.
ISSUE NO. 4:
29. As it is established on record that the vehicle bearing No. DL4C0916 is a "Maruti Gypsy" and not a "Maruti Esteem Car", therefore, the claimant is not entitled to claim any compensation from any of the respondents.
30. It is a case where the claimant was informed about registration number of the offending vehicle by a motorcyclist who had chased the offending vehicle on his motorcycle but unfortunately, there is a mismatch in the description of the offending vehicle by the claimant and the actual vehicle under this registration number.
31. It is not even possible that the motorcyclist would have got confused between a "Jeep" and a 'Car". The emphatic use of MACT No.24/12/11 Smt. Santosh Rana Vs. Union of India & Anr. Page 7 of 8 the expression "Maruti Esteem Car" shows that the vehicle was indeed "Maruti Esteem Car" but it appears that in the melee, the good smartian motorcyclist who had chased the offending vehicle either wrongly noted its registration number or it was wrongly conveyed to the claimant.
32. Be that as it may, as the alleged offending vehicle bearing No. DL4C0916 is a Maruti Gypsy which is a "Jeep" and not a "Maruti Esteem Car", no relief can be given to the claimant in this claim petition.
33. Copy of award be given dasti to all the parties.
34. File be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court On the 02nd day of December, 2013 (ARUN BHARDWAJ) PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNALII DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI MACT No.24/12/11 Smt. Santosh Rana Vs. Union of India & Anr. Page 8 of 8