NEPAL SINGH Vs. UPENDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Challenge 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.

(3.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows : Respondent-Bhupinder filed a claim petition stating that he was injured in an accident where scooter bearing No.DL 3S 7420 was involved. According to the re spondent 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 compensa tion of Rs.57,635/- along with 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 indi cated 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 Tribu nal 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.