Rajbir Singh vs Suresh Kumar & Ors
2011 Latest Caselaw 2673 Del

                                      UNREPORTED
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     MAC. APP. 186/2010


RAJBIR SINGH                                     ..... Appellant
                              Through:   Mr. R.D.Tyagi, Advocate.

                     versus


SURESH KUMAR & ORS                                ..... Respondents
                 Through:                Mr. S.L.Gupta, Advocate for the
                                         respondent No.4/Insurance
                                         Comapany.

%                             Date of Decision : May 18, 2011

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
   to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

                              O R D E R (ORAL)

: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

1. By way of this appeal, the appellant seeks remand of the matter

to the learned Claims Tribunal for leading additional evidence, which

was not adduced by the appellant in the first instance.

2. The appellant, who was working in the Indian Army and posted

in 60 Brigade Signal Company, Minto Park, Delhi had met with an

accident on 15.11.2004, while he was trying to cross the road near

Shankar Market, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Allegedly, a scooter

had come in his way while he was crossing the road and when he

escaped that scooter, the offending Bus No. DL-1PA-6577, driven by

the respondent No.1 came from the Minto Road side, and hit the

appellant resulting in the appellant sustaining injury on his left foot.

The appellant, after the accident, was taken to the Ram Manohar

Lohia Hospital, where he was admitted and given treatment. On his

discharge from the said hospital, he was admitted in Base Hospital.

On 04.03.2005, the appellant filed a claim petition for the award of

compensation to the tune of `15,00,000/- alongwith interest thereon

before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, New Delhi. The said

claim petition was, however, dismissed by the Claims Tribunal on the

ground that the discharge summary issued by the concerned doctor of

RML Hospital mentioned that he had suffered injuries on his foot by

running over of the scooter. The Claims Tribunal, after noting the

aforesaid, went on to conclude that this version had obviously

travelled to the doctor from the injured himself and, thereafter, the

Tribunal held:-

"This evidence of discharge summary stating crush injury on foot by running over the scooter creates the doubt about the injury sustained by the bus."

3. Since the Tribunal entertained doubts about the crush injuries

stated by the appellant to have been caused by the bus, on the basis of

the material on record the claim petition was dismissed, holding that

the appellant had not sustained injuries through the rash and negligent

driving of the bus.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid findings of the Claims Tribunal, the

present appeal has been preferred on the ground that the appellant,

who was in the Indian Army, had sustained permanent disability on

account of the aforesaid accident, resulting in his losing his job in the

armed forces.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the factual

findings of the Tribunal, which have been arrived at on the basis of

the material on record, are not correct. He further contends that the

evidence of the Investigating Officer, the evidence of the doctor who

issued the disability certificate as well as of the doctor at the Base

Hospital, who subsequently treated the appellant, are required to be

adduced to show that the appellant sustained permanent disability as a

result of the rash and negligent driving of the alleged offending bus.

6. Mr. S.L.Gupta, the learned counsel for the Insurance company

does not dispute the aforesaid facts and states that in the

circumstances of the case, he has no objection if the matter is

remanded back to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal with

permission to the appellant to adduce the additional evidence, which

he seeks to adduce.

7. In view of the aforesaid, the matter is remanded back to the

learned Tribunal. Liberty is granted to the appellant to adduce the

evidence of the Investigating Officer of the case as well as of the

concerned doctors of the RML Hospital and of Base Hospital. Parties

shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 18th July, 2011, for which

date the appellant shall summon his evidence.

8. On the appellant adducing the additional evidence, the Claims

Tribunal shall examine the fresh evidence on record and render its

adjudication on the basis thereof.

The appeal stands disposed of. Records of the Claims Tribunal

requisitioned for the present case be sent back forthwith.

REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) May 18, 2011 ak