REPORTABLE 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 …

Respondent

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

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 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

2

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.  

4. In support of the appeal, the appellant who appeared in

person  contended  that  his  vehicle  had  not  caused  any

3

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.  

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 of the appellant read as follows:

“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.”

4

6. The 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.

7. There 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

5

set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remand

the matter to it for fresh consideration on merits.

8. The appeals  are  allowed to the aforesaid extent.  There

will be no order as to costs.  

…………………………….J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

……………………………J. (P. SATHASIVAM)

New Delhi, July 7, 2008

6