Aeltemesh Rein vs Ashok Kumar
2012 Latest Caselaw 2693 Del

$~29
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                          Date of decision: 24th April, 2012
+        MAC. APP. No.165/2009

         AELTEMESH REIN
                                                        ..... Appellant
                             Through:       Mr. Aldanish Rein, Advocate
                        Versus

         ASHOK KUMAR                                     ..... Respondent
                               Through:     None

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                     JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appellant Aeltemesh Rein impugns a judgment dated 17.02.2009 whereby a compensation of `20,000/- was awarded to the Respondent for having suffered injuries in a motor accident which occurred on 06.09.1999.

2. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that:

i) The Appellant's vehicle i.e. Maruti Car bearing registration No.DL-9CA-1208 was not involved in the accident, thus there was no question of the Appellant's liability to pay the compensation.

ii) The Respondent filed false and fabricated documents and obtained reimbursement from his employer i.e. HCL where he was employed as a

Law Manager. Thus the Respondent was not entitled to any compensation from the Claims Tribunal.

3. On the question of negligence, the Claims Tribunal held as under:

"6. Petitioner has placed on record certified copy of charge sheet filed U/s 279/338 IPC. The certified copy of the FIR, site plan, mechanical Inspection Report, Superdarinama and MLC has also been filed.

7. Perusal of FIR shows that the same was recorded on the statement of Petitioner himself. Petitioner also examined himself as PW1 and on oath deposed that on 06.09.99 at about 1:30 PM he was going to his office on his two wheeler scooter no. DL- 3SQ-0819 and when he reached near E Gate, Mathura Road, Pragati Maidan, near Supreme Court building in the meantime the Maruti car bearing no.DL-9CA-1208 came there being driven by Respondent Aeltemash Rein at a fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner and hit his scooter from right side. Due to impact he alongwith his scooter fell down on the road and sustained various bodily injuries. From the spot he was removed to RML Hospital where his MLC was prepared. As per MLC he suffered fracture lat. Condyle of tibia ®, fracture of finger left and other injuries. In the present case the charge sheet has already been filed against the driver of the alleged offending vehicle. The ld. counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention of court on the cross examination as well as the certified copy of the statement of Sh. T.U. Siddiqui recorded before the Ld. MM in the criminal case of accident on 13.11.2001 and stated that in the cross examination it has came that there is no damage on the body of the

car, so the ld. counsel for respondent has argued that the present car is not involved in the accident and there are many latches in the testimony of the petitioner. In consideration of the submission I have also perused the testimony of RW1 respondent himself. In view of the discussion the case of the petitioner could not discredit. It has duly been proved that petitioner suffered injuries in a road accident on 06.09.1999 being caused by Respondent Aeltemash Rein by driving vehicle no. DL-9CA-1208 in a rash and negligent manner."

4. It is urged on behalf of the Appellant that the Appellant's number was noted while his car was going inside the gate of the Supreme Court. It is important to note that although the Claim Petition was filed in May, 2006, the Respondent(injured) was removed to Dr. R.M.L. Hospital immediately after the accident. His statement was recorded in the Hospital. He gave the number of the offending maruti car in his statement to the police officer. He had no ill-will or enmity against the Appellant. There was no reason to falsely implicate the Appellant rather, the Appellant and the Respondent were not even known to each other previously. In the circumstances, I see no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the Respondent. In my view, the Claims Tribunal's conclusion on negligence is well-founded.

5. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the amount spent towards medical treatment was reimbursed to the Respondent by his employer. The Respondent suffered

fracture lat. Condyle of Tibia ®, fracture of left finger and other injuries. He was awarded a compensation of `10,000/- towards pain and suffering, `5,000/- towards conveyance and special diet and `5,000/- towards loss of enjoyment and amenities of life. The compensation of `20,000/- cannot be said to be exorbitant and excessive considering the nature of the injuries suffered.

6. The Appeal is devoid of any merit; the same is accordingly dismissed.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE APRIL 24, 2012 pst