Nepal Singh Vs.
Upender Singh  INSC 1046 (7 July 2008)
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4217-4218 OF 2008
(Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.15963-15964 of 2007) Nepal Singh ...Appellant
versus Upender Singh ...
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT,
in these appeals is to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the
Delhi High court dismissing the MAC Appeal No.219/07 and order dismissing
the application for review.
facts in a nutshell are as follows:
filed a claim petition stating that he was injured in an accident where scooter
bearing No.DL 3S 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/- alongwith 6% interest thereon. Appellant 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 event he was not driving the vehicle in
question at the relevant point of time as claimed. He relied on certificate
issued by his employer which clearly indicated 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 that the appellant who is
Lower Division Clerk at the relevant point of time was present on his seat and
worked for full day and he had 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
the accident. In fact the seizure 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 memo by the investigating officer is erroneous.
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 carried different registration number and there
was no material before the Tribunal or the High Court to conclude that the
investigating officer inadvertently mentioned the wrong number.
counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the judgment of the
Tribunal and the High Court.
observations of the High Court dismissing the appeal of the appellant read as
"In respect of
the seizure memo Ex.PW1/7, it has to be noted that the scooter number shown as
seized is DL-3S-2472. But, name of the person from whom the scooter is seized
is that of the appellant. It is thus obvious that the investigating officer has
inadvertently mentioned a wrong number. Appellant who is present in person and
is assisting his counsel has been questioned by 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
officer is erroneous."
conclusions clearly show that the vehicle owned by the appellant bear
registration No.DL 3S 7420 and same was not seized by the investigating
officer. In fact, number of the seized scooter was DL 3S 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 material
before the High Court to conclude that the investigating officer
inadvertently mentioned a wrong number.
was no effort made by the claimant-respondent to verify as to who is 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 investigating
officer, the High Court should not have arrived at a conclusion on mere
surmises and conjectures that the investigating officer inadvertently
mentioned a wrong number. The approach of the High Court is clearly unsustainable.
In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court
and remand the matter to it for fresh consideration on merits.
appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent. There will be no order as to
ARIJIT PASAYAT) .................................J.