Union Of India vs Jai Singh & Anr
2015 Latest Caselaw 1602 Del

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

                                        Decided on: 24th February, 2015
+       MAC.APP. 145/2013

        UNION OF INDIA
                                                      ..... Appellant
                             Through:   Mr. Aakash D. Pratap,
                                        Advocate

                    versus

        JAI SINGH & ANR                             ..... Respondents
                      Through:          Mr. Nitin Yadav, Advocate for
                                        Respondent no.1.


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

                             JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The appeal is for reduction of compensation of Rs.6,06,809/-

awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims

Tribunal) in favour of Respondent no.1 for having suffered

injuries in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on

20.08.2010 at about 6:15 p.m.

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

Respondent no.1 ought to have been granted compensation

under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. It is urged that

the compensation awarded is exorbitant and excessive.

3. Admittedly, Respondent no.1 was not an employee of the

Appellant having suffered injuries during the course of his

employment. Thus, Respondent no.1 was not obliged to seek

any compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act,

1923. In fact, it was not permissible for Respondent no.1 to

seek compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act,

1923.

4. The learned counsel for the Appellant has failed to point out

under what head the compensation awarded is unjust or

exorbitant and excessive.

5. The impugned judgment does not call for any interference.

6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

7. The compensation amount deposited shall be kept in Fixed

Deposit/released in terms of the orders passed by the Claims

Tribunal.

8. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

9. Statutory amount, if any, deposited shall be refunded to the

Appellant.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE FEBRUARY 24, 2015 pst