Raj Rani (Deceased) THR. LR''s vs Manish Sharma and Another

J.R. Midha

The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal whereby her claim petition has been dismissed. The accident dated 20th April, 2000 resulted in the grievous injuries to the appellant who filed the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal. The appellant examined two witnesses to prove her case. PW-1, Ram Dhan is the eye-witness of the accident and PW - 2 Ramesh Arora is the son of the appellant. PW-1 deposed that he witnessed the accident and his statement was recorded by the police. PW-2 proved the injuries suffered and the treatment taken by the appellant in the alleged accident.

The Claims Tribunal held that the statement of PW-1 was contradictory and does not inspire confidence. The Claims Tribunal further held that the appellant has not examined the Investigating Officer of the case and has also not produced the statement of the witness given to the police. The Claims Tribunal further held that the appellant has not proved that the alleged injuries occurred due to the accident in question. The Claims Tribunal further held that the bills placed on record were not supported by the medical prescription. The claim petition was therefore dismissed.

The Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Claims Tribunal has not conducted any inquiry in this matter to ascertain the truth. The Learned Counsel further submits that he has filed an application bearing CM No. 8499/2006 under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC along with this appeal for permission to lead additional evidence of the Investigating Officer of the police and the concerned doctor. The scope of inquiry in motor accident cases is laid down by this Court in Mayur Arora Vs. Amit @ Pange and Others, in which this Court has held that it is the duty of the Claims Tribunal to ascertain the truth. In that view of the matter, the Claims Tribunal ought to have examined the Investigating Officer to ascertain the truth. The findings of this Court are reproduced hereunder:-

10.1. The inquiry contemplated u/s 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is different from a trial. The inquiry contemplated u/s 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act arises out of a complaint filed by a victim of the road accident or an AIR filed by the police u/s 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act which is treated as a claim petition u/s 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act. These provisions are in the nature of social welfare legislation. Most of the victims of the road accident belong to the lowest strata of the society and, therefore, duty has been cast upon the police to report the accident to the Claims Tribunal and the Claims Tribunal is required by law to treat the Accident Information Report filed by Police as a claim petition. Upon receipt of report from the police or a claim petition from the victim, the Claims Tribunal has to ascertain the facts which are necessary for passing the award. To illustrate, in the case of death of a victim in a road accident, the Tribunal has to ascertain the factum of the accident; accident having being caused due to rash and negligent driving; age, occupation and income of the deceased; number of legal representatives and their age. If the claimants have not produced copies of the record of the criminal case before the Claims Tribunal, the Claims Tribunal is not absolved from the duty to ascertain the truth to do justice and the Claims Tribunal can summon the investigating officer along with the police record.

In the facts and circumstances of this case, the order of the Claims Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the case is to be remanded back to the Claims Tribunal for conducting a fresh inquiry.

For the reasons as aforesaid, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Claims Tribunal for fresh inquiry.

The application of the appellant bearing CM No.8499/2006 is allowed and the appellant is permitted to lead additional evidence.

The parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal on 1st August, 2012.

The SHO of the concerned Police Station is directed to file Accident Information Report u/s 156(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Claims Tribunal within a period of four weeks.

Copy of this judgment be also sent to the SHO, P.S. Ashok Vihar for compensation. LCR be returned back forthwith.