Delhi High Court
Delhi Transport Corporation & ... vs Shri Kamal Singh on 1 June, 2016
$~R-138
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 01.06.2016
+ MAC.APP. 120/2008 & CM No.2769/2008
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. J.N. Aggarwal, Adv.
versus
SHRI KAMAL SINGH ..... Respondent
Through: None .
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. On 22.12.1997, the first respondent (claimant) had boarded bus No.
DL 1P 9586 (the bus), of Delhi Transport Corporation (first appellant) from
Gurgaon Road, Phool Mandi on way to Mehrauli. At the bus terminus of
Mehrauli as the claimant was getting down around 5.45 p.m., the bus was
put suddenly in motion by its driver (second appellant) resulting in he
losing the balance and falling down to be run over by the front wheel of the
vehicle. His right hand and right shoulder were fractured. He filed an
accident claim case (Petition No. 883/2004), seeking compensation under
Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) on 22.03.2001
impleading both the appellants as respondents.
2. The tribunal held inquiry and, by judgment dated 09.10.2007,
returned a finding that the accident had occurred and injuries sustained on
account of negligent driving of the bus. It awarded compensation in the sum
of ₹ 2,55,200/- with interest @ 9 % per annum in favour of the claimant, the
said amount inclusive of ₹ 1,87,200/- towards loss of future income on
account of disability, which was assessed to be permanent to the extent of
30%.
3. By the appeal at hand, the appellants questioned the finding on the
issue of negligence and also submitted that the tribunal fell into error by
accepting the claim of disability on the basis of disability certificate
(Ex.PW1/B) to the extent of 30%.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court finds no
merit in the appeal.
5. The evidence of the claimant appearing as PW-1 on the basis of his
affidavit (Ex.PW1/A), brought out the sequence of events resulting in
injuries being suffered. It appears that the second appellant (driver) also
testified as RW1 stating that the claimant had jumped from the front gate
while it was taking a turn. In the facts and circumstances, however, the view
taken by the tribunal accepting the version of the claimant does not call for
any interference.
6. The tribunal accepted the disability proved on the basis of certificate
(Ex.PW1/B) which shows post traumatic deformity of the right elbow with
loss of partial ROM in the right upper limb. It does appear that the disability
was certified by the board of doctors to be 20% in relation to right upper
limb but given the fact that the claimant was working to earn his livelihood
as a mason, the assessment of functional disability at 30% cannot be faulted.
7. Thus, the appeal is unmerited and dismissed.
8. Statutory amount, if deposited, shall be refunded
(R.K. GAUBA)
JUDGE
JUNE 01, 2016/nk
