mere involvement of a vehicle is sufficient to establish and hold the claim petition to be maintainable

               IN THE COURT OF MS. NIRJA BHATIA :
    PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL :
                      SAKET : NEW DELHI


Suit No.256/2011
Unique Case ID No.02406C0036512011

                                                   Injury Case

Ram Naresh Sharma Son of Shri Natthu Sharma,
Resident of :
i)   Village & PS Vishambar Pur, District Gopal Ganj, Bihar.
ii)  RZ-57, Gali No.7, Tughlakabad Extension, New Delhi.
                                                                                 Petitioner

                                                       Versus

1         Ishwar Dayal Son of Tinku Yadav (driver)
          R/o A-72, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi.

2         Harvinder Singh Kalra S/o late Sewa Singh Kalra                      (owner)
          R/o M-92, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi.

3         New India Assurance Company Limited,
          M-66, M-Block Market, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi.
                                                                              Respondents

Date of institution:                                             28.07.2009
Date of reserving judgment/order:                                26.07.2012
Date of pronouncement:                                           26.07.2012

ISSUE NO.1 : NEGLIGENCE 6 Since, the present petition is registered as claim petition under Section 166(4) MV Act, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to establish the factum of negligence attributable to driver, Ishwar Dayal. Initially in the statement made before the police which is made the basis for registration of the case and subsequently in the examination affidavit, the petitioner has narrated the mode and manner of the accident. It has been disclosed by him that on the day of incident at about 12.00 PM, when he was trying to board the bus plying on route No.540 from near Don Bosco School for going to Tara Apartment, in the process, the erring driver plied the bus without looking the fact that he had not boarded the bus properly, resulting in his fall on the road and sustaining the injuries whereafter he was removed to AIIMS Trauma Centre. The MLC of the petitioner produced on judicial file by the petitioner is reflecting of injuries, commensurate to being caused in the accident. 7 There is no cross-examination of the petitioner on behalf of the driver/owner despite the fact that the negligence on behalf of the erring driver was denied in the WS. Rather, the owner, R-2 tendered his examination affidavit but has restricted his defence to the fact the offending vehicle being insured and the erring driver having in possession of valid DL at the time of accident. It be observed that the owner himself has admitted, pendency of proceedings against the erring driver, before court of concerned MM from where the offending bus was got released on superdari after depositing an amount of Rs.25,000/- as per order of Hon'ble High Court. 8 The IO during the investigation, prepared the site plan, seized the offending vehicle and got conducted its mechanical inspection, inditing its involvement in the accident, whereafter the documents pertaining to the offending vehicle and the DL of the erring driver were seized. 9 It be observed that the investigation conducted by the IO, has remained unchallenged. It be further observed that the IO being a neutral and a public person, is expected to conduct investigation fairly and in such circumstances, the testimony of the petitioner qua the allegations of negligence levelled against the driver, remained unrebutted. In such circumstances, there is sufficient material on record to establish the negligence on the part of erring driver in plying the bus and in causing the injuries against the petitioner.

10 Even otherwise, it is pertinent to observe that the degree of proof required for proving the negligence on the part of the driver in the present proceedings, is not as vigorous as is laid in proving the guilt of the accused in criminal trial. The intent of the present legislation is benevolent and the entire purpose of the legislation is likely to be defeated if in each case the petitioner is asked to prove beyond reasonable doubt the involvement and negligence on the part of the driver. In reaching to the above opinion, I am guided by the judgment of Kaushnuma Begum and others Versus New India Assurance Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC as well as the case reported as National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 289, wherein it is held that mere involvement of a vehicle is sufficient to establish and hold the claim petition to be maintainable. It is held that even the certified copy of charge-sheet may not be asked for if the petitioner is able to satisfy on record the involvement of the offending vehicle through the copy of FIR and the mechanical inspection report. The issue hence, is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. ISSUE NO.2 : COMPENSATION MEDICAL BILLS 11 The petitioner has placed on record two medical bills, collectively exhibited as Ex.PW1/3, one of Malik Radix Health Care and another of Yatharth Hospital, amounting to Rs.68,088/-, paid by him in respect of expenses incurred towards hospital expenses. The amount of the same, i.e., Rs.68,088/- hence is awarded in favour of the petitioner towards treatment expenses.

Ram Naresh Sharma Son Of Shri ... vs 3 New India Assurance Company ... on 26 July, 2012 (indiankanoon.org)