NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. SAKSHI BHUTANI
LAWS(DLH)-2012-7-701
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on July 02,2012

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD Appellant
VERSUS
Sakshi Bhutani Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BIMLA DEVI AND OTHERS V/S. HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
SARLA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
PARMESHWARI VS. AMIR CHAND [REFERRED TO]
KUSUM LATA VS. SATBIR [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

G.P.MITTAL, J. - (1.)THE Appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd. impugns a judgment dated 28.3.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation of Rs. 12,75,960 was awarded in favour of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for the death of Rajesh Bhutani who died in a motor accident which occurred on 31.7.2008.
(2.)THERE is twin challenge to the award; it is urged that the Claims Tribunal erred in holding that the accident was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR -47D -3785 by the Fourth Respondent which was a sine qua non for award of compensation in a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (the Act) and that the compensation awarded was excessive and exorbitant. Negligence:
While dealing with the issue of negligence, the Claims Tribunal held as under:

"6. Since the present petition is under Section 166 of M. V. Act, it was the bounden duty of the petitioner to prove that the respondent No. 2 was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle at the time of accident. In order to prove this issue, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the statement of PW1, who is the widow of the deceased and she has deposed that her husband sustained fatal injuries due to road vehicular accident that took place on 31.7.2008 at about 8.00 hrs. near NTPC, Mathura Road, near Sagar Restaurant, Mohan Co -operative and that the offending vehicle bearing registration No. HR -47D -3785 was driven by respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner. This witness was thoroughly cross -examined by the learned Counsel for respondents. However, no such inconsistency or contradiction has emerged from her cross -examination which may throw doubt on her version regarding the accident. Statement of this witness also stands corroborated by Ex. PW1/3, certified copies of criminal case record filed under Sections 279/304 -A, IPC by the investigating officer against the respondent No. 2/Shri Achhey Main. The certified copy of FIRbearing No. 369/08, PS Badarpur, the certified copy of site plan, Ex. PW1/5 and arrest memo of driver of the offending vehicle, Ex. PW1/7 has also been filed on record. To determine the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, I am being guided by the judgment of Hon 'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled National Insurance Company Limited v. Pushpa Rana, case the petitioner files the certified copies of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of the investigation by the police or issuance of charge - sheet under Sections 279/304A, IPC or the certified copy of the FIR or the recovery memo of the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, then these documents are sufficient proof to reach to a conclusion that the driver was negligent. It was further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Further, in case titled Kaushnumma Begum and Ors. v. New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of driver of the motor vehicle involved in an accident has been left to a secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would make the petition maintainable under Sections 166 and 140 of the Act. It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be construed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because of the fact that the chapter in the Motor Vehicles Act dealing with compensation is a benevolent legislation and not a penal one. Therefore, reading all the documents filed by the petitioner as a whole, it is clear that respondent No. 2 was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner.

7. In view of the above discussions and particularly in view of no controverting evidence on behalf of the respondent No. 2 /driver of the offending vehicle, it stands proved on record that deceased had sustained fatal injuries due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2 while driving the offending vehicle. Issue No. 1 is, therefore, decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents."

(3.)IT is true that no eye -witness has been examined in this case. It has to be borne in mind that the Motor Vehicles Act does not envisage holding a trial for a Petition preferred under Section 166 of the Act. Under Section 168 of the Act, a Claims Tribunal is enjoined to hold an inquiry to determine compensation which must appear to it to be just. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. In State of Mysore v. S.S.Makapur, 1993 (2) SCR 943, the Supreme Court held that the Tribunals exercising quasi -judicial functions are not Courts and are not bound by strict rules of evidence. The relevant portion of the report in State of Mysore (supra) is extracted hereunder:
"......that Tribunals exercising quasi -judicial functions are not Courts and that therefore they are not bound to follow the procedure prescribed for trial of actions in Courts nor are they bound by strict rules of evidence. They can unlike Courts, obtain all information for the points under the inquiry from all sources, and through all channels, without being fettered by which the law casts on them is that they should not act on any information which they may receive unless they put it to the party against whom it is to be used and give him a fair opportunity to explain it. What is a fair opportunity depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but where such an opportunity has been given, the proceedings are not open to attack on the ground that the inquiry was not conducted in accordance with the procedure followed in Courts."



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.