MAC APPEAL No. 669/2010 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment: 29.8.2011 + MAC APPEAL No.669/2010 MOHSINA ………..Appellant Through: Mr.Manish Maini, Advocate. Versus RAJESH & Anr. ……….Respondents Through: Ms.Rameeza Hakim, Advocate R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral) 1 The Award impugned is the award dated 31.5.2010 whereby the compensation in the sum of `3,81,000/- had been awarded in favour of the appellant/claimant. The grievance of the appellant/claimant is that the statement of Salim who was an eye- witness of the accident had not been considered. Attention has been drawn to the statement of Salim whose version was recorded as PW-1 in a collateral proceedings i.e. in MACT No.1060/2008; MAC APPEAL No. 669/2010 Page 2 of 3 Salim Vs. Praveen Kumar. In his cross-examination recorded on 10.9.2009 the witness had made a statement that the buffaloes belong to all five persons. Contention of the appellant being that the buffaloes in fact were owned by all the passengers in the tempo including the victim of the present case namely Rahis. It is however an admitted fact that this statement of PW-1 recorded in the collateral proceeding was not summoned or produced in the court at the time when the present petition was being adjudicated upon. It is also not in dispute that the MACT No.1080/2008 was also decided on the same date by the same court i.e. on 31.5.2010. 2 There were in fact five passengers who were travelling in the tempo which had suffered the accident on the fateful day of 15.9.2007. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the liability has not been foisted upon the Insurance Company for this reason that the petitioner had not been able to prove on record that the deceased Rahis was also owning the buffaloes. 3 This is a fit case for remand. Matter is accordingly remanded back to the concerned court to enable the petitioner to adduce his additional evidence i.e. the statement of PW-1 Salim already recorded in the collateral proceeding i.e. MACT No.10608/2008 titled Salim Vs. Praveen Kumar. For the said purpose parties are directed to appear before District Judge MAC APPEAL No. 669/2010 Page 3 of 3 Rohini on 07.9.2011 at 10.30 AM who shall assign the matter to the concerned court. 4 Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. INDERMEET KAUR, J. AUGUST 29, 2011 nandan