[2008] 10 S.C.R. 147

NEPAL SINGH A v.-

UPENDER SINGH (Civil Appeal Nos. 4217-4218 of 2008) •

JULY 7, 2008

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Accident claim - Claimant injured in an accident involving a scooter - Claim petition against appellant - Appellant's case that his vehicle was not c the offending vehicle and seizure memo showed different number of scooter - Order of courts below that appellant's. vehicle was involved in an accident and he would indemnify award -

.l > Held: Not correct- It is not established that appellant's scooter i was involved in an accident - No material before High Court D ' to conclude that investigating officer inadvertently mentioned wrong number - In absence thereof, High Court should not have arrived at a conclusion on mere surmises and conjectures - Order of High Court set aside and matter remanded back to it. ./' E It was respondent's case that he was injured in an acci_dent where scooter bearing No.DL 35 7420 was involved. Respondent filed claim petition against the ap-

--.. pellant whose vehicle wa~ involved in the accident. Appellant contended that his vehicle was not offending ve- F hicle; that the seizure memo showed a different number of the scooter; and that at the relevant point of time he was npt driving the vehicle in question. The MACT gra.nted compensation and held that the appellant was to indemnify the award. High Court dismissed the appeal holding G that the investigating officer inadvertently mentioned a

f . wrong number and the number of the scooter in the seizure memo by the investigating officer was erroneous.

Hence the present appeals.

147 H

I f

h A Partly ailowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The conclusions clearly show that the. vehicle owned by the appellant bear registration No. DL 35 7420 and same was not seized by the investigating officer. In fact, number of the seized scooter was DL 35 ;..;_ E)_, 2472. Merely because the name of the person from whom the scooter is seized is the same as that.of the appellant, that does not in any way establish that the scooter of appellant was involved in an accident. There was no matec

rial before Ue High Court to conclude that the investigating officer inadvertently mentioned a wrong number. [Para

6] .[150-E & F] .

1.2 There was no effort made by the claimant-responr dent to verify as to who is the registered owner of the scooter DL 35 2472, if any. In the absence of any material

J..

D .. ,_. to show that the wrong numbr was noted by the investigating officer, the High Court should not have arrived at a c.onclusion on mere surmises and conjectures that the investigating officer inadvertently mentioned a wrong

E number. The approach of the High Court is clearly unsustainabte. In the circumstances, the order of the High Courtisset aside and the matter is remanded to it for fresh consideratfon on merits. [Para 7] [150-G, H; 151-A]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION >Civil AppearNos.

F 4217-4218 of 2008 x

From the J.udgment/order dated 28/5/2007 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in MAC App. No. 219/2007

Nepal Singh Appellant-In-Per.son. r G lrshad.Ahmad and K.S. Rana for the Respondent. t

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by . ....

Dr. ARIJIT PA5AYAT, J. 1.· Leave granted. _

. '

'H,

2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of the

c ''

)-.

-..:

NEPAL SINGH v. UPENDE~ SINGH . 149

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J)

learned Single Judge of the Delhi High court dismissing the A MAC Appeal No.219/07 and order dismisstng the application for review.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

> Respondent-Bhupinder filed a claim petition stating that B he was injured in an accident where scooter bearing No.DL 38 7420 was involved. According to the respondent the accident occurred on 2.8.1995 at 11.20 a.m. He sustained injuries. The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Delhi allowed the petition and . granted compensation of Rs.57 ,635/- alorigwith 6% intere$t c thereon. Appellan, t was impleaded in the claim petition as the sole respondent. Stand of the appellant was that his vehicle was not offending vehicle and in any evei:!!J!ewas not driving the vehicle in question at the relevant point of time as claimed. He relied on certificate issued by his employer which clearly indi- 0 cated that at the relevant point of time he. was working in the office and, therefore, the question of his vehicle causing the. accident while being driven by him does not arise. The certificate issued by the responsible officer clearly indicated thaJ the ·.· appellant who is Lower Division Clerk t the relevant point of time was present on his seat and worked for full day and he'had E not gone out. The Tribunal did not accept this stand and held .. that the appellant would indemnify the award. ·

Before the High Court the appellant had taken the stand that his vehicle was not involved in tt:1e accident. In fact the sei- F zure memo shows a different number of the scooter. In the criminal court the evidence led clearly established that the scooter of the appellant was not involved in any accident. The High Court concluded that the investigating, officer inadvertently mentioned a wrong number and the number of the scooter in the seizure . G memo by the investigating officer is erroneous.

4. In support of the appeal,'the appellant who appeared in person contended that his vehicle had not caused any accident. In any event, the offending vehicle which was seized car- ·

tied different registration number and there was no material H . . ,

• I

A •. before theTribunal or !he High CourHo conclude that the inves- ', tigatirig officer inavertentlymentioned the wrong number.

5 .. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the judgment of the Tribunal and the High Court. The relevant observations of-the High Court dismissing the appeal B of the appE;!llant read as. follows:

"In respect of the seizure memo Ex.PW1/7, it has to be , noted that the scooter numbershown as seized is DL~3S

2472. But, na_me of the person from whom the scooter is c seized is that of the appellant.

It is thus obvious that the investigating officer tias inadvertently mentioned a wrong number;

Appellant who is present in person and is assisting his counsel has been quesf.loned 0y me, whether he. possesses any other scooter. He replies in the negative; This reinforces the fact that the recording of the number of . the scooter in the seizure memo by the investigating offieer

is erroneous."

6. The conclusions clearly shbw that the Vehicle owned by: the appellant bear registration No.DL 3$ 7420 and same was ' not seized by the investigating officer. In fact, number of the seized scooter was DL 3S 24 72. Merely because the name of the person from whom the scooter is seized is the same as that F . of-the appellant, that does not in any way establish that .the scooter of appellant was involved in an accident. There was n_o material before the High Court to conclude that the investigating officer inadvertently mentioned a wrong number.

7. There was no effort made by the claimant-respondent G to verify as to whOis the registered owner of the scooter DL 3S

2472, if any. In the absence of any material to show that the wrong number was noted by the investigatingofficer, the High Court should not have arrived ata conclusion on mere surmises. and conjectures that the investigating officer inadvertently men- .

H tioned a wrong number. The approach ofte.t; iigh Court_isclear.ly

NEPAL SINGH v. UPENDER SINGH.

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ 151

unsustainable. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned A order of the High Court .and remand the matter to it for fresh consideration on merits.

8. The appeals are altowed to the aforesaid xtent There will be no order as to costs. 8.

N.J.

Appears partly allqwed.