Shri Baldev Singh and Another vs Shri Jasmair Singh

Kailash Gambhir, J.—By way of the present appeal the appellants seek to challenge the impugned Award dated 31.8.2005 whereby the claim petition of the appellants was dismissed. Brief summary of the facts of the case are as under:

On 22.10.2000 at about 3.15 A.M., deceased Shri Varinder Singh was driving his car bearing registration No. DL-8CB-7420 and proceeding towards his home. When the deceased reached Madhuban Chowk at Pitampura, Delhi a truck bearing registration No. HR-45-4399 driven at a very high speed in a very rash and negligent manner came and hit the car of the deceased. Due to such a forceful impact the deceased sustained grievous injuries all over his body and succumbed to those injuries.

Mr. S.N. Parashar, counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the appellants are victims of gross injustice as due to the sheer negligence of the concerned staff of Sushrut Trauma Centre in noting down wrong time in the relevant column (date and arrival) the claim petition filed by the appellants was dismissed. The contention of the counsel for the appellants was that the deceased died in the accident on 22.10.2000 at about 3.15 A.M. when he was driving his car bearing registration No. DL-8CB-7420 and was hit by the offending truck bearing registration No. HR-45-4399, which was being driven by its driver in a most rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed. The contention of the counsel for the appellants was that accident was duly reported to the police and FIR No. 792/2000 was registered u/s 279/304-A IPC against the driver and owner of the offending vehicle and the deceased was immediately removed from the spot to Sushrut Trauma Centre where the MLC was prepared with the observation that the patient was brought dead. The MLC was not even written on the letter head of Sushrut Trauma Centre, but on the letter of Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, may be due to the stationery of the Trauma Centre being out of stock. The concerned staff of the hospital instead of mentioning the time as 4.30 A.M. has written the same as 4.30 P.M. against the relevant column of date and arrival although mentioning the correct date of the incident. Elaborating his argument further, the counsel contended that the deceased was taken to civil hospital, Subzi Mandi, Delhi for post mortem where the dead body of the victim was received along with the enclosed papers at 11.30 a.m. on 22.10.2000 itself and in the postmortem report it was specifically mentioned that the deceased was declared ''brought dead'' at Sushrut Trauma Centre on 22.10.2000 at about 4.35 a.m. Counsel further contended that the appellants had duly proved their case by examining three witnesses despite proving the criminal records. Even an eye witness Mr. Naresh Kumar was also produced as PW- 2, who gave the detailed account of the exact circumstances leading to the said accident. Counsel also contended that the name of the said witness also appeared in the challan filed by the police in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate. Counsel for the appellants thus contended that ignoring the said evidence on record the Tribunal got carried away with the aforementioned wrong timings mentioned in the MLC and dismissed the claim petition in a most illegal manner. Counsel for the appellants also placed reliance on the copy of the site plan prepared by the police after the said accident to contend that the impact of the collision was so forceful which, resulted in overthrowing the car being driven by the deceased at a far off distance.

Per contra, Mr. L.K. Tyagi, counsel for respondent No. 3 refuted the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant. Mr. Tyagi contended that the Tribunal has rightly taken note of various inconsistencies in the documents filed on record by the appellant comprising the MLC report of Sushrut Trauma Centre, it would be evident that name of the victim has not been disclosed and the date and time revealed in the said centre has been shown at 4:30 p.m. on 22.10.2000 while in the postmortem report, timing given is 4:35 a.m. on 22.10.2000.

Counsel further contended that no eye witness to the accident was found by the police to claim compensation amount from the insurance company, the appellant planted a witness with the name of one Sh. Naresh Kumar who appeared before the Tribunal as PW2. Even in the charge sheet, the name of the said witness does not appear. Counsel for respondent, thus, contended that the appellants have unnecessarily roped in respondent No. 3 and other respondents although there is no reliable evidence to implicate the owner and driver of the truck bearing Registration No. HR-45-4399 which was insured with respondent No. 3.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Perusal of the record shows that there cannot be any dispute with regard to the fact that one Sh. Virender Singh had died on the intervening night of 22.10.2000 and 23.10.2000 at about 3:15 a.m. A criminal case was registered against the driver of the offending truck bearing Registration No. HR-45-4399 at Police Station Saraswati Vihar, Delhi vide FIR No. 792/2000 u/s 279/304-A IPC on the same very date of the accident. It is also not in dispute that in the FIR the reporting time of the accident has been mentioned at 3:15 a.m. on 22.10.2000. There is also no dispute that body of the victim was brought to the Civil Hospital, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi for postmortem at about 11:30 a.m. on 22.10.2000 and in the postmortem report, it has been specifically mentioned that the deceased was declared ''brought dead'' at Sushrut Trauma Centre on 22.10.2000 at 4:35 a.m.

It is also borne out of the record that name of PW2 Naresh Kumar is duly shown in the charge sheet at Serial No. 1. It is again not in dispute that DD Report No. 32 was lodged with the concerned police station and pursuant to that ASI Chandgi Ram along with other constables and Head Constables reached the site of accident at Madhuban Chowk, Pitampura, Delhi where they found truck No. 4399 and a Ceilo Car in accidental state.

It is again not in dispute that the victim alone was driving the Ceilo Car which was hit by the said offending truck. The driver of the offending truck was also arrested after requisite notice u/s 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act was issued by the police to the owner of the offending vehicle. In the presence of all the said documents and supporting evidence the learned Tribunal got influenced by three insignificant circumstances in dismissing the claim of the appellants. First such circumstance is that no eye witness was found either in the hospital or on the spot and FIR was registered only on the basis of MLC. The second circumstance spelt out by the Tribunal is that MLC of Sushrut Trauma Centre has been given on the letter head of Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital and thirdly, the time indicated in the MLC report is 4:35 A.M. instead of 4:35 A.M. on 22.10.2001.

There cannot be a more glaring instance of casual, pedantic and lackadaisical approach of the Tribunal while conducting a summary inquiry as envisaged u/s 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act than the one under consideration of this Court. Can any fault or lapse be attributed if an attendant or any lower functionary of Sushrut Trauma Centre had put wrong time in the MLC or the MLC was not issued on the letter head of Sushrut Trauma Centre or Lok Nayak Hospital under which the said centre was operating. The victim or the appellant also cannot be blamed if the said eye witness did not immediately approach the concerned police station or was not found at the site of the accident. How pathetic it is that a young boy of 21 years of age was snatched away from his parents due to the accident which took place long back as on 22.10.2000 but his parents have been made to die each day and each hour first by the irresponsible and casual approach of official of Sushrut Trauma Centre and then due to the hyper technical approach adopted by the Tribunal. Time and again through various legal pronouncements, the Apex Court as well as various State High Courts have taken a view that hyper-technicality and procedural condrums should not come in the way of the Tribunals while trying accident cases and their sole aim and object should be to advance cause of justice so that victims of the accidents are able to receive their due compensation as expeditiously as possible.

It is also a settled legal position that the summary inquiry as envisaged under the Motor Vehicles Act, has not to pass through the trials and tribulations as rigors as applied while trying a criminal or a civil case. Since the said small mistake on the part of the official of Sushrut Trauma Centre in incorrectly recording the time and non-availability of stationery at Lok Nayak Hospital has resulted into prolonging agony of the parents, therefore, directions are given to the MS Lok Nayak Hospital, Govt. of NCT of Delhi to probe this matter as to why the letter heads of Lok Nayak Hospital for the purposes of issuing MLC was not available on the relevant date of the accident and who was the official responsible for carelessly recording the time of arrival of the victim in the Trauma Centre between the intervening night of 22.10.200 and 23.10.2000.

The inquiry in this regard shall be completed within a period of two months with an appropriate action against the officials found involved wanting in their duties. Copy of this order shall be sent to M.S., Lok Nayak Hospital with the copy of MLC report, to be taken out from the trial court record, compliance report shall be submitted by the M.S., Lok Nayak Hospital with the Registrar General of this Court within three months from the date of this order. In the meanwhile, the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. Since already considerable delay has taken place due to no fault of the appellants, therefore, the Tribunal shall make every endeavour to decide the claim petition of the appellants expectedly within a period of six months.

The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 14.8.2008. With these directions, the appeal is disposed of.