Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation for Death and Injuries - Appeal Against Tribunal Award -Appeal under Sections 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act—Petitioner insurance company challenged compensation awarded for the death of Hitesh @ Monu and injuries to Kamal in an accident—Argument of false involvement of tractor due to absence of its registration number in FIR dismissed—Driver facing criminal prosecution sufficient to conclude prima facie involvement—Held, tribunal’s compensation assessment upheld—Appeal dismissed.** [Paras 1-9]

Absence of Driving License - Contributory Negligence -Petitioner contended deceased Hitesh @ Monu, a minor without a valid driving license, was contributory negligent—Tribunal found no evidence of deceased’s negligence—Mere absence of a driving license not sufficient to conclude contributory negligence—Held, deceased’s age and lack of license do not imply negligence in causing the accident.** [Paras 10-11]

Assessment of Compensation - Income Determination -Dispute over income assessment of deceased—Tribunal assessed income as a skilled laborer—Petitioner argued it should be as an unskilled laborer—Tribunal’s assessment based on the claimant's evidence upheld in the absence of contrary evidence—Held, tribunal's assessment of income and compensation affirmed.** [Para 12]

Decision:Appeal dismissed—Tribunal’s award of compensation upheld—Assessment of income and deductions for personal expenses found appropriate—Compensation under conventional heads enhanced as per Supreme Court’s guidelines in Pranay Sethi case—Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 2,04,382/- with interest at 9%.** [Paras 13-15]

Criminal Law – Application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Summoning Additional Accused – The petitioner challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the application to summon respondent Nos. 2 to 7 as additional accused. Held, the trial court erred in not appreciating the intent of Section 319 Cr.P.C., which mandates proceeding against persons appearing to have committed an offense. The court should have considered available evidence to determine if there was a prima facie case. Impugned order set aside, petition allowed. [Paras 1-18]

Intent of Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Analysis – The court emphasized that Section 319 Cr.P.C. aims to ensure that no person who appears to have committed an offense is let off. The trial court must examine the sufficiency of evidence to form a prima facie view for summoning additional accused. [Paras 9-12]

Evidence Evaluation – The court found that the trial court failed to consider the medical and testimonial evidence presented by the petitioner, which clearly indicated the involvement of the respondents. The trial court's order was thus set aside for not delving into the evidence appropriately. [Paras 13-14]

Decision – Summoning Respondent No. 2 – The court concluded that based on the principles laid down in Manjeet Singh, Hardeep Singh, and Brijender Singh cases, the order dismissing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was erroneous. The petition was allowed, and the trial court was directed to summon respondent No. 2. [Paras 15-17]

Civil Procedure – Injunction – Prima Facie Case – Plaintiff’s suit withdrawn without permission to file afresh. Demarcation by revenue officials found no encroachment. Held, no prima facie case or irreparable loss established by the petitioner. Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-6]

Previous Suit Withdrawal – No Permission to Refile – Earlier suit was withdrawn due to technical defects without showing any defects. Court denied permission to refile on the same cause of action. [Para 5]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Court dismisses the petition, affirming the lower courts' decisions due to lack of prima facie case and irreparable loss. [Para 7]

Motor Vehicles Act – Liability of Insurance Company – Two Driving Licenses – Appeal against liability based on the driver holding two licenses. Held, merely holding two licenses does not invalidate either unless proven fake. Both licenses issued to the driver were valid on the date of the accident, hence, the insurance company remains liable. [Paras 1-8]

Residency Requirement for Issuance of License – Challenge to the driver's eligibility based on his ordinary residence. Held, no evidence was provided by the insurance company proving the driver was not ordinarily residing in Nagaland at the time of license issuance. Address in claim petition cannot establish non-residence. Insurance company’s liability upheld. [Paras 9-10]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Court dismisses the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision on the validity of the driver's licenses and the insurance company's liability to indemnify the insured. [Paras 10-11]

Motor Vehicles Act – Validity of Driver’s License – Absence of Endorsement for Hazardous Goods – Appeal by insurance company against liability due to the driver's lack of endorsement for hazardous goods on the driving license. Held, absence of necessary endorsement amounts to a fundamental breach of the insurance policy, absolving the insurance company of liability. The offending vehicle struck a two-wheeler from behind, indicating lack of safe driving practices. [Paras 1-21]

Compensation Assessment – Quantum – Appeal against the compensation awarded. Held, the Tribunal erred in deducting allowances from the salary of the deceased. Correct application of future prospects and multiplier affirmed. Compensation modified under conventional heads as per Pranay Sethi's case. Insurance company to pay initially and recover from the owner and driver. [Paras 27-31]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Court allows the insurance company’s appeal, modifying the compensation amounts and holding the insurance company not liable to indemnify but to pay initially and recover from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. [Para 32]

Motor Vehicles Act – Liability of Insurance Company – Delay in Lodging FIR – Appeal against compensation award on grounds of delay in FIR lodging and non-examination of deceased’s father. Held, delay in lodging FIR due to attending injured cannot be fatal. Non-examination of deceased’s father inconsequential as the accident and injuries were established by eyewitness and medical testimony. Tribunal's finding of driver’s negligence upheld. [Paras 1-15]

Evidence of Accident – Analysis – Held, credibility of eyewitness cannot be dispelled due to not being cited by police. Accident occurred in a busy market, so multiple witnesses were possible. Lack of rebuttal from driver and vehicle owner supports Tribunal's finding of rash and negligent driving. [Paras 11-13]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Court dismisses the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision on the driver’s liability and involvement of the offending vehicle. Insurance company held liable to pay compensation. [Paras 14-15]

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Settlement Between Parties - FIR under Section 174-A IPC quashed after settlement in complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Continuation of prosecution not justified - FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed subject to cost payment. [Para 10]

Section 138 NI Act - Withdrawal of Complaint - Impact on FIR under Section 174-A IPC - Analysis - Complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act withdrawn based on settlement - FIR under Section 174-A IPC registered due to non-appearance of the accused - Quashing of FIR justified as continuation of prosecution would be abuse of process. [Paras 3-5, 10]

Judicial Precedent - Similar Cases - Reference to decisions in similar cases where FIR under Section 174-A IPC was quashed following settlement in Section 138 NI Act complaints - Courts emphasized on substantive justice over technical continuation of proceedings. [Para 6]

Decision - FIR and Proceedings Quashed - FIR No. 878 dated 09.07.2015 and all consequential proceedings quashed - Subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- to Poor Patients' Welfare Fund at PGIMER, Chandigarh. [Para 10]

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act – Regular Bail – Individual vs. Collective Recovery – Petition for bail where 1 kg opium was recovered from petitioner and 9 kg from co-accused. Held, the total quantity should not be considered collectively when individual recovery is effected. Individual recovery from petitioner is non-commercial quantity, making Section 37 of NDPS Act inapplicable. Petition allowed. [Paras 1-8]

Custody Duration and Trial Commencement – Petitioner in custody since April 14, 2022, with the trial yet to commence. No involvement in other cases. Further detention would not serve any useful purpose. Bail granted. [Para 8]

Decision – Bail Granted – Court allows the petition for regular bail with conditions, noting that collective consideration of recovered quantities is inappropriate for determining applicability of Section 37 NDPS Act. [Para 9]

Criminal Law – Acquittal – Arms Act Sanction Requirement – Appeal challenging the acquittal of respondents for charges under Sections 307, 326, 452 read with Section 34 IPC, and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Held, as per the mandatory provisions of the Arms Act, prosecution requires prior sanction from the District Magistrate, which was absent in this case. The trial court's acquittal was upheld due to lack of evidence and procedural deficiencies. Appeal dismissed. [Para 8]

Hostile Witnesses – Impact on Prosecution Case – The primary witnesses, including the complainant and other eyewitnesses, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution’s case. This lack of corroborative evidence significantly weakened the case. [Paras 7-9]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The appeal by the State is dismissed, and the acquittal judgment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, is upheld. No interference warranted due to absence of evidence and procedural compliance. [Paras 10]