U.P. State Roadways Transport ... vs Mohd. Farid And Ors. [Along With ...
2004 Latest Caselaw 684 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 10th February, 2004, of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Shahdara, Delhi (for short "the Tribunal") in Suit No. 58/2003 (New) 197/1999 (Old) and Suit No.57/2003 Old 195/1999, whereby the learned Tribunal has held that the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation's bus was involved in the accident and that the same has been rashly and negligently driven by the driver, which resulted in causing injuries to the respondents. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,82,740/- to Mohd. Farid and Rs.1,88,680/- to Master Javed.

2. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that this was a case of contributory negligence and therefore, such an award could not be awarded. He submit that the award is on high side since as far as Mohd. Farid is concerned, he has only hurt one leg which is four inches short and is a permanent disability. He further contends that such an injury is not of a nature that should invite such a high rate of compensation. As regards Master Javed, counsel submits that the medical expenses incurred in the treatment of Master Javed, as -3-MAC.APP.312 & 313/2004 held by the Tribunal, are far too high and that the vouchers annexed as Ex.PW1/C cannot be believed. He also submits that the discharge slip of Master Javed form the hospital is Ex.PW1/7 and the same is also not verified.

3. Heard counsel for the appellant and have gone through the judgments under challenge. I find that the learned Tribunal has on careful analysis of the evidence on record returned a finding that this is not a case of contributory negligence and that in the case of Mohd. Farid, where a permanent disability of 17% has been caused and the injured is a permanent skilled labour, he is entitled to receive @2772/- per month even though the injured himself had stated that he was earning Rs.4000/- per month. However, taking into consideration the expenses incurred as also the other factors, the court while applying a multiplier of 16 has arrived at a conclusion that the claimant is entitled to Rs.1,82,740/-. On a re-appreciation of material on record as also the judgment under challenge, I find that there is no infirmity in the same and therefore, the same is upheld.

4. Similarly in the case of Master Javed, the medical expenses have been duly proved and exhibited and there is nothing on record -4-MAC.APP.312 & 313/2004 to show that any of the expenditure incurred is hypothetical or has been not incurred. In that view of the matter, I find no grounds to interfere.

5. In view of the above, MAC.APP.312/2002 and MAC.APP.313/2004 are dismissed. CM APPL. Nos. 9183, 9184, 9185 and 9186/2004 are also dismissed.