Geological Survey Of India ... vs Pushkar Singh Thapa & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 3473 Del

$~12
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%             Judgment delivered on: 6th August, 2013


+      MAC.APP. 102/2012

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA NORTHERN
REGION THR SR DDG                     ..... Appellant
                      Through: Mr. Ankur Chibber, Adv.
                      With Mr. Raj Kumar Chauhan, AO.

                          versus

PUSHKAR SINGH THAPA & ORS.             ..... Respondents
                      Through: Mr. Saurabh Kansal, Adv. for R1.
                      Mr. Yusuf, R2.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Instant appeal has been filed by challenging the award dated 14.07.2011, whereby, ld. Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.53,853/- in favour of the respondent no. 1 / injured.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 16.05.2006 at about 11 a.m. the injured / respondent no. 1 was going on his two wheeler scooter no. DL-6SL-0498 and was proceeding towards his office at Army Head Quarter L-Block, Opposite North Both from the Canteen of Raksha Bhawan. When he reached at Dr. Rajender Prasad Road near the Shastri Bhawan Gate, suddenly a car bearing registration no. UP-32-BG-0064 being driven by

respondent no. 2 / Yusuf at a fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner came from inside of the Shastri Bhawan and hit the two wheeler scooter of the injured / respondent no. 1 with great force. Due to this, the injured / respondent no. 1 along his scooter fell down on the road and sustained injuries.

3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the driver of the offending vehicle has deposed that in November, 2006, the car was parked in front of Gate no. 1 of Shastri Bhawan. Thereafter, he was called by his friend Mr. R.P. Yadav for tea and therefore, the car was taken from the said place and parked on the road. He further deposed that when he came back, he saw that the driver of the scooty already fallen on the road after hitting his car. He helped the injured and noticed that the injured was a handicapped person, who was wearing one shoe attached to the body with the help of iron rod. He was ready to help him for medical aid, however respondent no. 1 / injured refused.

4. R2W2 deposed that on 10.05.2006, one two wheeler scooter was going in front of his vehicle towards Shastri Bhawan and the driver of the said two wheeler scooter was a handicapped person. He saw that the driver of the scooter fell down on the road due to imbalance and one pillion rider was also with him.

5. Ld. Counsel submits that neither the pillion rider has been examined nor the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle has been proved. Therefore, ld. Tribunal has wrongly awarded compensation in favour of respondent no. 1 / injured.

6. On the other hand, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 / injured has pointed out that respondent no. 2 / Yusuf, i.e., the driver of the offending vehicle examined R1W1 Ranbir Singh, who deposed that they heard the noise of falling someone or something, thereafter, they reached at the spot and seen that the scooty was already lying on the road and the driver of the car came out to help the driver of the scooty. They noticed that the driver of the scooty was a handicapped person and refused to take any medical aid.

7. Ld. Counsel has pointed out that the said witness was not an eye witness, because he heard some noise, i.e., noise resulted from the accident, however, he has not witnessed the accident.

8. Respondent no. 2, driver of the offending vehicle himself stated that he parked the vehicle outside the gate and went inside and they were taking tea at the tea stall. Whereas, the witness who was examined by the respondent no. 2 has deposed contrary to what the respondent no. 2 has stated.

9. Respondent no. 2 also examined one Parvinder Kumar, who deposed that about 2/3 years ago, he came to meet his relative at the gate no. 1 of Shastri Bhawan. While they were taking tea, they saw that one scooter was hit by one car and the driver of the scooter fell on the road. They went to provide medical aid, but the injured / respondent no. 1 refused to take any aid on the pretext that he was well.

10. The evidence on record clearly establishes the fact that the accident has taken place and the respondent no. 1 sustained injury. However, the

version narrated by the driver of the appellant was not supported by the witnesses, who have been examined. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the evidence was contradictory in nature and could not prove that the driver of the appellant was not negligent. Therefore, there is no reason for the interference by this court with respect to the finding of negligence.

11. Respondent no. 1 / injured received injuries on his left hip (fracture in pelvis), injuries in neck and abrasion over other parts of his body. He admitted as indoor patient for about 12 days. During this period, the operation was performed. Significantly, the disability certificate dated 28.09.2007, reflects that the disability has been assessed as 40% in relation to left lower limb. I note the disability certificate has issued in the case of 'FRACTURE NECK FEMUR LEFT'. Therefore, the ld. Tribunal has come to the wrong conclusion that the respondent no. 1 / injured was suffering from polio disease, thus, there is no disability due to the injuries suffered in the accident. Ld. Tribunal has granted only Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering.

12. It is pertinent to note that the injured was not using crutches prior to the accident. Subsequently, the injured was walking with the help of sticks. Therefore, I hold that the accident caused great pain and suffering to the life of injured.

13. Thus, for just and fair compensation, I enhance an amount of Rs.10,000/- each on account of pain and suffering, special diet, conveyance and loss of enjoyment and amenities of life respectively. Therefore, the total compensation amount is increased from Rs.53,853/- to Rs.83,853/-.

14. Accordingly, the appellant is directed to deposit Rs.30,000/- with Registrar General of this Court along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition, till the payment. Registrar General is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimant / injured on taking steps.

15. The statutory amount, if any, shall be released in favour of the appellant on receipt of enhanced compensation amount.

16. In view of the above instant appeal stands disposed of.

CM. NO. 1732/2012 (for Stay) and CM. No. 1733/2012 (for Delay) With the disposal of the appeal itself, these applications have become infructuous. The same are disposed of accordingly.

SURESH KAIT, J AUGUST 06, 2013 Jg