Rajesh Tyagi and Others vs Jaibir Singh and Others

J.R. Midha, J.—The learned Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the owner of the offending vehicle was not impleaded. The finding of the learned Tribunal is contrary to the record because vide order dated 1st March, 1999, the learned Tribunal allowed the application dated 1st March, 1999 of the previous owner to implead the new owner, M/s. Nath Extraction (P) Ltd. The effect of allowing the said application is that the new owner had been impleaded before the learned Tribunal. However, the learned Tribunal did not issue notice to the new owner. The learned Tribunal, after complete trial, dismissed the claim petition on the short ground that the new owner was not impleaded before the learned Tribunal.

I have examined the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Delhi Motor Vehicles Rules, 1993 with the effective assistance of the learned amicus curiae, Mr. V.P. Choudhary, Senior Advocate and Mr. S.C. Dhanda, Senior Advocate. Section 168 provides that the Tribunal shall hold an inquiry into the claim. Section 169 provides that the Claims Tribunal shall follow such procedure as it thinks fit subject to the rules made in that behalf. Delhi Motor Vehicles Rules, 1993 provides the procedure to be followed by the Claims Tribunal. Rules 118(3) provides that the Claims Tribunal shall send notice to the owner and the insurer of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. It was thus, the duty of the Tribunal to have issued the notice to the owner of the offending vehicle. However, the learned Tribunal failed in its duty under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Delhi Motor Vehicle Rules, 1993. Be that as it may, the notice has now been sent to the owner of the offending vehicle and he has appeared before this Court. The learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 does not press this issue any more.

The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that respondent No. 3 raised an objection before the learned Tribunal that the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was fake. The Trial Court Record has been perused in this regard. This plea was raised by respondent No. 3 before the learned Tribunal but no evidence was led by respondent No. 3 before the learned Tribunal and, therefore, the plea of fake driving licence is hereby rejected.

The only question which now remains to be examined is the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the. claimants. The learned amicus curiae has suggested quantum of compensation which is recorded in the order dated 24th March, 2009. The Additional Standing Counsel for Delhi Police has also placed on record the income which the deceased would have earned if he had not died in the accident in question. Respondent No. 3 is directed to submit its response on the quantum of compensation suggested by the learned Amicus Curiae in the light of the proof of future prospects submitted by the Delhi Police, on the next date.

It has been brought to my notice by the learned amicus curiae that Sections 158(6) and Section 166(4) are not being followed despite the directions of the Apex Court in the case of General Insurance Council v. State of Andhra Pradesh IV (2007) ACC 385 (SC). In that case, the Hon''ble Supreme Court directed all the State Governments and Union Territories to instruct all concerned police officers to comply with the requirements of Section 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 159 and Form 54 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. It was further directed that periodical checking be done by the Inspector General of Police concerned to ensure that the requirements are being complied and appropriate action be taken in cases of noncompliance. The directions, of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the said judgment are reproduced as under:

It is, therefore, directed that all the State Governments and the Union Territories shall instruct, if not already done, all concerned police officers about the need to comply with the requirement of Section 158(6) keeping in view the requirement indicated in Rule 159 and in Form 54. Periodical checking shall be done by the Inspector General of Police concerned to ensure that the requirements are being complied with. In case there is noncompliance, appropriate action shall be taken against the erring officials. The Department of Transport and Highway shall make periodical verification to ensure that action is being taken and in case of any deviation immediately bring the same to the notice of the concerned State Government/Union Territories so that necessary action can be taken against the concerned officials.

The notice is, therefore, issued to the Commissioner of Police through Mr. Vikas Pahwa, learned Additional Standing Counsel to place on record whether the aforesaid directions of the Supreme Court regarding Section 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act are being followed. The data with respect to the compliance for the last 22 months i.e. from the date of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court be placed on record within two weeks. The particulars of the periodical checking required to be done by the Commissioner of Police in terms of directions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court be also placed on record. If any action has been taken against any erring officer for non-compliance of Section 158(6), the same be also placed on record by way of an affidavit.

Section 166(4) provides that the Claims Tribunals shall treat the report forwarded to it u/s 158(6) as an application for compensation. The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in Delhi are directed to place on record through the Registrar (Appellate) of this Court the report of compliance of Section 166(4) and the data for the last 22 months from the date of the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court be placed on record giving details as to how many reports have been received and how many reports have been treated as application for compensation. The data be filed with this Court within two weeks.

The learned amicus curiae refers to and relies upon the judgments of Guwahati High Court in the case of Union of India v. Saraswati Debnath AIR 1996 Gua 31 and Kerala High Court in the case of Saramma Scaria Vs. Mathai, . The learned amicus curiae stresses the need for laying down the guidelines for the learned Tribunals.

Let the suggestions be placed on record in writing by the learned amicus curiae as well as other lawyers in this matter, within two weeks.

List for further hearing on 8th May, 2009 at 2.30 PM.

Copy of this order be given dasti to learned Counsel for the parties as well as to the amicus curiae.

Copy of this order be also sent to the Registrar (Appellate) and the Additional Standing Counsel, Delhi Police under the signatures of the Court Master.