Full Judgment Text
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 17.09.2019
+ MAC.APP. 444/2018
LIBERTY GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Prerna Mehta, Adv.
versus
VIKAS CHAUDHARY & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Manu Shahalia, Adv. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J (Oral)
MAC.APP. 444/2018 & CM APPL. 35707/2019
1. This appeal impugns the Award dated 18.01.2018 passed by the
learned MACT in Suit No. 4845/2016, inter alia, on two grounds: (i) that the
identity of the offending vehicle has not been established, and (ii) that the
quantum awarded is erroneous. The claimant was injured in a motor
vehicular accident near Jasola traffic signal, New Delhi at around 9.55 a.m.
on 30.07.2016, while he was riding a motor-cycle. It is stated that some
vehicle hit him from the rear side and fled from the place. It is the
claimant’s case that he was first taken to Sanjivani Hospital and thereafter to
Apollo Hospital within a span of 20-25 minutes.
2. The FIR was registered on 02.08.2016 on the statement of the
claimant. The Final Report filed by the police reveals that the FIR was
registered on 30.07.2016; it records the statement of the claimant that when
MAC.APP. 444-2018 Page 1 of 4
the claimant reached the gate of sector – 7 SFS Society from the Kalindi
Kunj side, a vehicle exited from the said gate at immense speed, it was being
driven rashly and hit the claimant’s motor-cycle. He fell down and lost
consciousness; the driver of the offending vehicle, who had taken him to
Sanjivani Hospital, left him there on the pretext that he had some important
work. He was then taken to the Apollo Hospital by his family members
where he was admitted. His family members told him that his motor-cycle
was taken away, by his brother-in-law – Mr. Yogesh Sahni, to his residence.
The report also records that the said motor-cycle was produced before the
police on 07.08.2016. Subsequently on 25.08.2016, the offending vehicle
was identified; on 10.09.2016 the offending vehicle was identified as
DL3CCE 0189 on the basis of a statement of an eye-witness, Mr. Pramod
Kumar.
3. According to the Investigation Report, Pramod Kumar happened to be
standing at the site when the police visited the site on 02.08.2016 i.e. three
days after the accident. It is another matter though that identity of the
vehicle is not mentioned or even suggested in the FIR or in any of the
complaint or communication on behalf of the complainant. It is odd that an
absolute stranger, who was purportedly an eye-witness and who had
witnessed the accident, did not think it worthwhile to intimate the police,
and if he was otherwise concerned about the welfare of the injured, he
would have rushed the injured to Apollo Hospital which was in immediate
vicinity of the site of the accident. Instead, he kept quiet and did not
intimate either the local police or any other person or authority. His
presence at the site, and subsequently at the time when the police was
inspecting the site three days later is far too suspicious for it to be co-
MAC.APP. 444-2018 Page 2 of 4
incidental or serendipitous. Interestingly, he did not appear before the Trial
Court in the criminal proceedings and he was dropped from the list of
witnesses on behalf of the prosecution. As a sequiter, the site plan of the
accident which was prepared at his behest, would be inadmissible since it
was never proven. The basis of the identification of the vehicle was the
statement of the mysterious and elusive Pramod Kumar, who did not appear
before the learned MACT either in the claim petition. Therefore, the
identity of the offending vehicle is clearly in doubt.
4. The FIR was registered on 30.07.2016. It specifically notes that there
was no eye-witness to the accident. Interestingly, the identity of the so
called driver who had taken the claimant to Sanjivni Hospital is neither
recorded nor any document has been produced to support the claimant’s
contention that he was first taken to Sanjivni Hospital, in an unconscious
stage and then he was discharged and/ or taken away from there to another
hospital viz. Apollo Hospital, despite medical advice to the contrary. The
motor accident being a medico-legal case, it was incumbent upon the first
medical care-giver i.e. Sanjivni Hospital, to have recorded the bringing-in of
a motor vehicular accident victim in an unconscious stage. However, no
record regarding the first medical care was brought on record.
5. According to the claimant, he was hit and injured by the offending
vehicle being driven rashly and negligently at about 9.55 in the morning; he
fell unconscious; he was rushed to Sanjivni Hospital, where he re-gained his
consciousness; the said driver of the offending vehicle told him that he had
some work to do and left the hospital; the family of the claimant was called;
they rushed to Sanjivni Hospital and took him to Apollo Hospital; his
admission at the latter hospital is recorded at 10.20 a.m.. All this is stated to
MAC.APP. 444-2018 Page 3 of 4
have happened within a mere 20-25 minutes during rush hour. It is wholly
implausible because it is not mentioned where and how far Sanjivni Hospital
was from the site of the accident; it is logical that when a person regains
consciousness after an accident, it takes the person some time to regain his
wits, assess his circumstances and then either call his family members
and/or request somebody to call them on his behalf; after receiving such
information the family members, wherever they may be, would have taken
some time to rush to Sanjivni Hospital; and from there getting the claimant/
victim discharged would have taken some time; then rushing him from
Sanjivni Hospital, wherever it may be, to Apollo Hospital would also have
taken some time, all this could not have happened in a span of mere 20-25
minutes. The claimant has clearly pleaded an implausible case and has not
been able to prove anything apropos the case.
6. What emerges from the preceding discussion is that the claimant has
been unable to prove the identity of the offending vehicle, let alone it being
driven in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in injuries being caused to
him. In the circumstances, no case is made out for any liability to be fixed
on the appellant - insurer of the vehicle. The impugned order is set aside.
The appeal is allowed.
7. The statutory amount be refunded to the appellant along with interest
accrued thereon.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
/kk
SEPTEMBER 17, 2019
MAC.APP. 444-2018 Page 4 of 4