MAC. APP.No.307/2004 Page 1 of 3 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP.No. 307/2004 Date of Decision:4th February, 2010, % USHA AGGARWAL ..... Appellant Through Mr. R.K. Tripathi, Advocate. versus PRAMOD KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. K.L. Nandwani, Advocate. CORAM :- THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may NO be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be NO reported in the Digest? JUDGMENT (Oral) 1. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- has been awarded to the claimants. 2. The accident dated 27th April, 2001 resulted in the death of Jitender Prasad Aggarwal. The deceased was survived by his mother, who filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal. 3. The deceased was aged about 23 years at the time of the accident and was qualified MCA (Master of Computer Applications). The deceased had the appointment letter for joining a Company at Dubai at a salary of US$ 1280 equivalent to Rs.65,000/-. MAC. APP.No.307/2004 Page 2 of 3 4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the appellant proved the case by examining herself as PW-1. The appellant also produced the eye witness PW-2 to prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The learned counsel submits that the Claims Tribunal treated the claims petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal ought to have passed an award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. The learned counsel for respondents submits that the claim petition was filed under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the learned Tribunal has passed the award in accordance with law. 6. The trial court record reveals that the learned Tribunal framed the following issues on 16th August, 2002:- “On the pleadings of the party, following issues were framed:- i) Whether Sh. Jitender Aggarwal died in an accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR-03-CTA-369 by respondent no.1? ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom? iii) Relief.” 7. After the framing of issues, the appellant led the evidence and proved that the accident occurred due to the MAC. APP.No.307/2004 Page 3 of 3 rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. 8. The framing of issue relating to the rashness and negligence and the evidence led by the appellant shows that the appellant was prosecuting the claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the learned Tribunal was also all throughout treating the claim under Section 166 though the title of the claim petition mentions Section 163A. 9. In the facts and circumstances the impugned award is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Claims Tribunal to conduct the inquiry under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Tribunal shall afford adequate opportunities to the parties in the matter before passing the final award. 10. Considering that the case relates to the accident dated 27th April, 2001, the learned Tribunal shall complete enquiry within a period of four months. Parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal on 26th February, 2010. The Trial Court record be sent back forthwith. 11. Copy of this order be given ‘Dasti’ to learned counsel for both the parties under signature of Court Master. J.R. MIDHA, J FEBRUARY 04, 2010/HL