Sanju Chaudhary v. Jitender Kumar - Motor Vehicle Accident Death Appeal

Select the following parts of the judgment
| Facts | Issues |
| Petitioner's Arguments | Precedent Analysis |
| Court's Reasoning | Conclusion |
For entire doc: Unmark Mark

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 5, Cited by 0 ] ### Delhi High Court

Sanju Chaudhary & Ors vs Jitender Kumar & Ors on 23 March, 2026

$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                        %                                 Date of decision: 23rd March 2026

                        +       MAC.APP. 383/2022
                                SANJU CHAUDHARY & ORS.                          .....Appellant
                                                 Through:     Mr. Shekhar Aggarwal, Advocate.

                                                 versus

                                JITENDER KUMAR & ORS.                  .....Respondents
                                             Through: Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Advocate for R-
                                                      3 (through VC).

                                CORAM:
                                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
                                                 JUDGMENT ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)

1.  The present appeal has been filed by the claimants/Legal
                       Representatives of the deceased, Sh. Dhirendra Singh, against judgment
                       dated 12th April 2022 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
                       ('MACT'), Central Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in MACT Petition No.
                       213/2019, whereby claim petition was dismissed.
   

2.  On 19th September 2018, the deceased, who was posted at Police
                       Station (PS) Modi Nagar, Uttar Pradesh (UP), was travelling on his
                       motorcycle bearing No. UP-13 AW- 7146. When he reached near Chowki,
                       Kadirabad, UP, it was alleged that a vehicle bearing registration No. UP-16
   
                        DT- 4129, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, hit the vehicle
                       of the deceased, who fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries. It was
                       alleged that he was shifted to Yashoda Hospital but expired on 1st October
                       2018.
   

3.  Thereafter, an FIR No. 917/2019 was registered on 1st October 2018
                       at PS Modi Nagar under [Sections 279](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1270101/) / [337](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1402213/) / [304A](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1371604/) / [427](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/222396/) of Indian Penal Code,
                       1860 (' [IPC](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1569253/) ') against the driver (Jitinder Kumar) of the offending vehicle,
                       owned by (Netra Pal Singh) and insured by Oriental Insurance Company ltd.
   

4.  As per the written statement filed by the driver and the owner, they
                       stated that the petition was filed on false, concocted, and frivolous facts, and
                       they have been falsely implicated in the matter.
   

5.  Various arguments were raised before the MACT regarding the
                       untenability of the claim petition, inter alia: (i) delay of 12 days in lodging
                       the FIR; (ii) the MLC from Yashoda Hospital recorded that the injured had
                       fallen from his motorcycle due to potholes; (iii) statements of cited
                       witnesses, namely two constables, were not recorded; and (iv) an
                       eyewitness, PW-2 Pawan Kumar, was introduced after seven months and
                       thereafter a supplementary charge sheet.
   

6.  Mr. Shekhar Aggarwal, counsel for claimant, has assailed the
                       impugned award, submitting and responding to these issues, as under:
   

i. Delay of 12 days in lodging the FIR, noted as an adverse issue by the
MACT, was not relevant. He states that the complaint was finally
lodged by Rajat Chaudhary, the son of the deceased, only on 1st
October 2018, and immediately thereafter, the FIR was lodged. The

delay was because only the son of the deceased was saddled with the
responsibility of treatment.

ii. Non-examination of the Head Constable (HC) Rakesh Singh and
Constable Deepak Kumar was considered by the MACT; however, due
to no statements being on record, the MACT considered it adverse to
the claim of appellant. On this, appellant relies upon the eyewitness
statement of PW-2 for this purpose, and the non-filing of the
statements of the constables is stated to be hyper-technical.
iii. Delay of 9 months and 16 days in filing the supplementary charge
sheet was again asserted as not relevant, considering the testimony of
eyewitness PW2, Pawan Kumar, who had, according to appellant's
counsel, stood the acid test of cross-examination to prove the
negligence.

iv. Credibility of the eyewitness, Sh. Pawan Kumar was asserted in that
he withstood the cross-examination and answered all questions.
Nothing adverse was brought on record.

v. As regards the information given to the attending doctor recorded in
the MLC, it is stated that it ought not to be read in evidence since the
same was hearsay, and yet again must be balanced against the
testimony of PW-2.

vi. It is admitted that the MLC prepared at Jeevan Hospital was not
placed on record. However, since he was referred to Yashoda Hospital,
the said MLC was placed on record. Moreover, it is stated that he was
taken to Jeevan Hospital by the police personnel for primary treatment
and then referred further Yashoda Hospital.
7. In the Court's opinion, the submissions made by counsel for the
appellant appear to have been fully, thoroughly, and comprehensively
considered by the MACT, particularly from paragraph 25 onwards of the
impugned award.

1.  The Court, after perusing the MACT analysis in detail and perusing
                       the documents in question, does not find it amiss. In fact, it is well reasoned
                       and accurate in its analysis.
   

2.  What is notable is that the deceased was a policeman who was going
                       after attending his duties in the police station and was within the jurisdiction
                       of his police station.
   

3. Firstly, even if he was taken by his colleagues of the same police
                       station to Jeevan Hospital, there was no reason why the MLC of Jeevan
                       Hospital was not placed on record.
   

4. Secondly, after he was referred from Jeevan Hospital to Yashoda
                       Hospital and Research Centre, the MLC form of Yashoda Hospital and
                       Research Centre, categorically states that he had been brought in by his son
                       Rajat and that the head injury was the result of riding a bike which fell due
                       to potholes at 3:45 AM near Kadirabad, and that he was referred from
                       Jeevan Hospital, where he was taken by police personnel for primary
                       treatment.
   

5. Thirdly, even if there was an eyewitness available at midnight when
                       the accident had taken place, it is quite incredulous that no statement was
                       given to the police, nor was it recorded, at that stage.
   

6. Fourthly, testimony of PW2, which is sought to be heavily relied
                       upon by counsel for appellant, has been examined by the MACT in some
                       detail. What is notable in that in testimony, PW2 states that they left the spot
   
                        in the process of chasing the offending vehicle, but were unsuccessful, and
                       thereafter they returned to the accident spot, and it was revealed that the
                       injured had been taken away by the police to some nearby hospital. In the
                       cross examination however, PW2 stated that he does not remember the
                       number of the motorcycle on which he was a pillion rider. There is no name
                       given for the driver of the motorcycle on which he was driving.
   

7. These are several other inconsistencies which have rightly been
                       assessed by the MACT. MACT noted that that PW2 was introduced as a
                       witness after 7 months. The MACT correctly notes that the testimony of
                       PW2 is doubtful since his presence is not reflected in any of the documents
                       placed on record.
   

8. Moreover, all this should be considered in the context of the fact that
                       the deceased was a police official in the same jurisdiction where the FIR was
                       registered, and this would potentially point to the possibility that this whole
                       case was created for purposes of compensation. Moreover, if the police
                       colleagues of his jurisdiction were involved in taking care of the deceased
                       after the accident, so many lapses in the criminal process militates against
                       the claimant's case.
   

9. Fifthly, Rajat, the son of deceased, has not been examined, nor the
                       alleged eyewitnesses, namely, Head Constable Rakesh Singh and Constable
                       Deepak Kumar, who have been mentioned in the charge sheet.
   

10. Sixthly, MACT also noted that an incomplete charge sheet had been
                        filed without placing on record the certified copy of the documents or
                        statements and witnesses.
    

11. The very fact that the original MLC has categorically noted that he
                        had fallen from his bike, due to potholes on the road, is itself dispositive of
                        the nature of the event.
    

12. The recording in an MLC for purposes of evidence is considered
                        highly persuasive, considering that independent parties such as doctors in a
                        hospital are trained to record the correct facts in the first document,
                        particularly the nature of the incident.
    

13. In this view of the matter, the Court is not inclined to allow the appeal
                        of the claimants. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed.
    

14. Pending applications (if any) are rendered infructuous.
    

15. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
    

(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
MARCH 23, 2026/RK/zb