In a recent legal case before the Delhi High Court, a judgement was delivered regarding a claim of rash and negligent driving resulting in a significant accident. The case involved a collision between vehicles and the resultant permanent disability suffered by the injured party. The High Court’s decision sheds light on the necessity of presenting substantial evidence in legal matters, emphasizing fair assessment and due process.
Facts
- The appellant/claimant failed to provide evidence of rash and negligent driving by the respondent.
- The accident occurred on 08.10.2018 at around 10:45 pm while the appellant was riding pillion on a motorcycle driven by Prince Kumar.
- The motorcycle was struck from behind by the offending vehicle being driven recklessly by R-1.
- The appellant has filed an appeal against the dismissal of the claim petition seeking compensation.
- The petitioner suffered a permanent physical impairment of 80% on his Right Upper Limb due to an accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.
- The accident resulted in the amputation of the petitioner’s right wrist joint and later the doctors recommended amputation of the forearm.
- The damage caused to the petitioner included broken indicators, scratched visors, leg guards, silencer, and a scratched hand brake lever on his motorcycle.
- An expert examination of the offending vehicle and the motorcycle revealed fresh damages sustained by both vehicles after the accident.
- The petitioner was rescued after one of the wheels of the offending vehicle ran over his right arm, which got stuck initially under the wheels.
- The police report (DAR) and medical recommendations from Deep Chand Bandhu Hospital and Safdarjung Hospital supported the petitioner’s claim for amputation.
Arguments
- The mechanical reports suggest damage to the victim’s motorcycle in the rear and the offending vehicle (truck) in the front, contradicting the petitioner’s claim.
- The petitioner testified that the truck hit their motorcycle from behind at a high speed without honking, but both vehicles should show signs of a violent collision if this were true.
- The learned counsel for the insurance company supported the findings of the Tribunal.
- It was argued that the appellant failed to prove the responsibility of the driver.
- No evidence was provided linking the insured driver to causing the accident.
Analysis
- The Motor Accident Tribunal found the evidence of the petitioner regarding the collision between two vehicles to be doubtful.
- Mechanical Inspection Reports did not support the claims made by the petitioner about the damages in the vehicles.
- The Tribunal noted the lack of material provided by the petitioner to contest the Mechanical Inspection reports.
- The contradiction between the oral testimony of the petitioner and the objective evidence from the Inspection Reports was highlighted.
- The Tribunal could not confirm the negligence of the driver without sufficient evidence of the collision.
- The judgement of the Tribunal was deemed as flawed and unsustainable in legal terms due to these inconsistencies.
- The examination of any other eye-witness or additional material was not provided by the petitioner to support the claim.
- The logic of damage locations on the vehicles as claimed by the petitioner was questioned by the Tribunal based on the Inspection Reports.
- The Tribunal stressed the importance of expert opinion in analyzing the Inspection Reports.
- The Tribunal found it irregular to prioritize the Motor Vehicle Inspection report over the eyewitness account given the lack of contradictory evidence.
- The Tribunal did not overlook the severe inconsistency between the oral testimony of the petitioner and the objective Mechanical Inspection Reports.
- The Tribunal emphasized the need to consider the attestation of the Inspection Reports by experts before dismissing them.
- The factum of the accident is not disputed.
- Testimony of PW-1/claimant-injured is uncontroverted.
- PW-1’s account of the accident remains unrebutted.
- Appellant/claimant-injured sustained permanent disability.
- Respondent No.1 was guilty of rash and negligent driving.
- Respondent No.1 did not provide testimony or examination.
- Expert report on mechanical damage to the vehicle may not be conclusive.
Decision
- Issue No.1 is decided in favour of the appellant/claimant-injured.
- The matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal for assessment of compensation.
- Directions given to decide the claim petition within six months after a fair hearing.
- Parties to appear before the Tribunal on 01.06.2024 for further proceedings.
- The present appeal has been disposed of accordingly.
Case Title: KHEM CHAND @ BITTU Vs. YOGENDRA SINGH & ORS. (2024:DHC:3744)
Case Number: MAC.APP.-55/2021
