Holding

The High Court’s conclusion that the appellant’s scooter was involved, based on an alleged inadvertent error in the seizure memo, was unsustainable and the order was set aside.

Summary

The respondent filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 alleging injury in an accident involving a scooter bearing registration No. DL‑35‑7420. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation and held the appellant liable, finding that his vehicle was the offending one. The appellant contended that his scooter was not involved, pointing out that the seizure memo recorded a different registration number (DL‑35‑2472) and that he was at work at the time of the accident. The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant’s challenge, concluding that the investigating officer had inadvertently noted the wrong number and that the appellant was therefore liable. The Supreme Court held that no material evidence established that the appellant’s scooter was involved and that the High Court’s finding was based on conjecture; consequently, it set aside the High Court order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant’s scooter was the vehicle involved in the accident alleged in the claim petition.
Whether the High Court erred in concluding that the investigating officer inadvertently recorded an incorrect registration number.
Whether the lack of verification by the claimant regarding the registered owner of the seized scooter precludes liability of the appellant.

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Subjects

Motor accidentClaim petitionLiabilityRegistration number discrepancySeizure memoMotor Vehicles ActMotor Accident Claims TribunalHigh Court errorRemand

Judgment

[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 cI
the offending vehicle and seizure memo showed different num-
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-
rial before U~e High Court to conclude that the investigat-
c ing officer inadvertently mentioned a wrong number. [Para
6] .[150-E & F] .
1.2 There was no effort made by the claimant-respon-
dent to verify as to who is the registered owner of the r
D
scooter DL 35 2472, if any. In the absence of any material ..,_.
j J..

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
number. The approach of the High Court is clearly un-
E 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.
4217-4218 of 2008 x
F
. 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
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 certifi-
cate 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 crimi-
nal 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 i·n 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 acci-
dent. In any event, the offending vehicle which was seized car- ·
. different registration number· and there .was ,no material H
tied
• I
150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.

A •. before theTribunal or !he High CourHo conclude that the inves-
',tigatirig officer ina~vertentlymentioned 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.
D
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."
E 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 ·investigat-
ing officer inadvertently mentioned a wrong number.
7. There was· no effort made by the claimant-respondent
G 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 ata conclusion on mere surmises.
and conjectures that the investigating officer inadvertently men- .
H tioned a wrong number. The approach oft~e.t;iigh Court_isclear.ly·
NEPAL SINGH v. UPENDER SINGH. 151
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ

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.