Shadi Khan vs Surjeet Singh And Ors.
2004 Latest Caselaw 1310 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29th April, 1993 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi (for short ''the Tribunal'') in Suit No. 232/80, whereby the learned Tribunal has made an award in favor of Shri Shadi Lal in case No. 279/80 to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- on all counts.

2. The brief facts of this case, as has been noted by the Tribunal, are as under :

''Facts of the case are that on 19/4/80 about 12.00 noon a tempo bearing No. DHG-8916 driven by the Res. No. 4 was stopped near B.T. P.S. Gate within the police station of Badarpur and some children were alighting there from. A truck bearing No. HRF-2586 driven by the Res. 1 rashly and negligently and without blowing any horn came from behind and struck against the tempo, impact of this was so much that the tempo moved ahead and the tempo was pushed forward and struck against the wall of Building of B.T.P.S. the wall was broken. A lady and a child were sitting near the wall and were crushed and died. The child killed was Manbir Singh aged 4 yrs. and the lady killed was Sanwaria aged 50 yrs. the tempo was owned by the Res. No. 5, it was insured with the Res. The truck was driven by the Res. No. 1 It was owned by the Res. No. 2 and was insured with the Res. No. 3. Three person were killed in this accident and one shadikan was seriously injured and therefore, these four claim petitions have been filed.''

3. The case put forth by Shadi Khan was that he was earning Rs. 1800/- per month. He was 32 years of age and has suffered multiple injuries and claimed Rs. 3 lakhs. The injuries suffered by him as a result of the accident include fractured forehead bone of skull with seven inch gap, fractured nasal bone, both sides fractured jaw bones, one tooth lost, both the eyes injured and doctors had to remove one of his eye and had to replace it with plastic eye, one nostral was blocked permanently.

4. The Tribunal while dealing with this case has relied upon a judgment of the Rajasthan High court in Banwari Lal v. State of Rajasthan [1970 ACJ 267] holding that the claimant has not examined the doctor to show the extent of his injury and therefore, was not entitled to claim that the injuries of the nature stated above have been suffered by him in the accident. However, the Tribunal after holding that the medical evidence has not been brought on record has gone on to award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for injuries suffered and amounts spent on treatment, good diet as also pain, suffering and agony due to injury received.

5. Counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment appears to be self-contradictory. He also submits that the evidence on record, in particular, the statement of Shadi Khan, PW-1, clearly reflects the injuries suffered by him. The cross-examination of this witness further fortifies his examination-in-chief to the extent of injuries suffered. He further submits that the nature of injuries suffered should be taken as the admitted case of parties and the claimant's claim be considered accordingly.

6. Counsel for the insurance company on the other hand contends that merely because PW-1 in his own testimony has stated that he has received injuries, the same should not be taken to have been incurred in the accident.

7. Heard counsel for the parties and have perused the judgment under challenge as also the evidence on record. It appears to me that the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the injuries have been suffered on account of the accident and therefore, has awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. The insurance company has not challenged the finding of the Tribunal and therefore, cannot now claim that the injuries were not sustained by the claimant in the accident. It also appears to me that the statement of the claimant that he received injuries as a result of the accident and the nature of injuries sustained by him has been clearly mentioned in his examination-in-chief, which has thereafter been repeated in the cross-examination, have not been in any manner challenged. In that respect, the case of the claimant stands proved and not repudiated by the respondents. In that view of the matter, I see no reason why the claimant should not take benefit of evidence proved on record in this case so far as the injuries sustained are concerned. Taking the totality of the case and seeing that the accident occurred in 1980, I deem it proper and in the interest of justice to award a sum of Rs. 1 lakh on account of injuries suffered, including loss of one eye, amounts spent an treatment and diet as also on account of pain and suffering. It is ordered accordingly. The enhanced amount of Rs. 50,000/- shall carry an interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of FAO 209/1993 till the date of its realisation. The insuranc company is directed to discharge its liability within a period of four weeks from today.

8. With this, FAO 209/1993 stands disposed of.