MAC. APP. 322/2009 Page 1 of 4 UNREPORTED * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP. 322/2009 MUMTAJ KHAN & ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Jatinder Kumar, Advocate. versus SORUB ETC ..... Respondent Through: Mr. D.D.Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.3. % Date of Decision : March 16, 2011 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? J U D G M E N T (ORAL) : REVA KHETRAPAL, J. 1. By way of this appeal, the appellants seek to impugn the judgment dated 30.03.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby the Claim Petition filed by the appellants under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act on account of death MAC. APP. 322/2009 Page 2 of 4 of their son in a motor accident was dismissed on the ground that the appellants had failed to establish that the alleged offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent No.1, the driver of the alleged offending vehicle. 2. In the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants has placed on record certified copies of the charge-sheet dated 30.08.2006 and copy of the order dated 11.01.2010 passed by the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, which clearly shows that in view of the plea of guilt entered by the respondent No.1 and on his giving a sum of ` 1,00,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation amount, the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act has been extended to the respondent No.1. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that these documents could not be placed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in view of the fact that the evidence of the claimant, who examined himself as PW4 in the Claim Petition was adduced much before the filing of the charge-sheet, and that in fact the affidavit by way of evidence was filed by the claimant on 16.03.2006 MAC. APP. 322/2009 Page 3 of 4 and his cross-examination was recorded on 09.05.2006, while the charge-sheet was filed by the Police of Police Station, Sultan Puri on 30.08.2006. The order of plea bargaining too was passed much later, i.e. on 11.01.2010, during the pendency of the present appeal. 4. The counsel for the respondent No.3 states that PW5, the eyewitness was examined by the claimant on 19.08.2008 and, therefore, the appellants ought to have placed the charge-sheet before the learned Tribunal since the same was filed on 30.08.2006. Even assuming this to be so, it cannot be lost sight of that the appellants are the claimants, who must have received the charge-sheet much after its filing and in any case the order dated 11.01.2010 on the plea bargaining of the respondent No.1 was passed during the pendency of the appeal. 5. In view of the aforesaid, the award dated 30.03.2009 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for being considered afresh in the light of the charge-sheet filed by the police and the order on plea bargaining made by the Metropolitan Magistrate concerned. MAC. APP. 322/2009 Page 4 of 4 6. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. The records be sent back forthwith. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 18th April, 2011. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is requested to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned District Judge immediately. REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) March 16, 2011 ak