NEPAL SINGH versus UPENDER SINGH

Citation: [2008] 10 S.C.R. 147 · Decided: 07-07-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 10 S.C.R. 147 
~ 
NEPAL SINGH 
A 
v.-
UPENDER SINGH 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4217-4218 of 2008) 
• 
>. 
JULY 7, 2008 
B 
[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 num-
I 
ber 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 conjec-
tures - 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 in-
volved. Respondent filed claim petition against the ap-
--.. 
pellant whose vehicle wa~ involved in the accident. Ap-
pellant 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 indem-
nify 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 sei-
zure memo by the investigating officer was erroneous. 
Hence the present appeals. 
147 
H 
I 
f 
I 
148 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 
r 
.I 
h 
A 
Partly ailowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The conclusions clearly show that the. ve-
hicle owned by the appellant bear registration No. DL 35 
7420 and same was not seized by the investigating of-
ficer. 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 ap-
pellant was involved in an accident. There was no mate-
c 
rial before U~e High Court to conclude that the investigat-
ing officer inadvertently mentioned a wrong number. [Para 
6] .[150-E & F] 
. 
1.2 There was no effort made by the claimant-respon-
r
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 
J.. 
D 
.. ,_. 
to show that the wrong numb~r was noted by the investi-
gating 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 un-
sustainabte. In the circumstances, the order of the High 
Court·is·set 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!e~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 indi- · 0 
ca

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.