Nepal Singh vs Upender Singh

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