Delhi High Court
Amit vs Badlu Ram on 10 August, 2017
$~R-109
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 10th August, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 490/2009
AMIT ..... Appellant
Through: None
versus
BADLU RAM ..... Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appeal at hand was filed to assail the judgment dated
20.07.2009 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal), in the
accident claim case (suit no.336/2008), instituted by the first
respondent Badlu Ram (since deceased) on 12.04.2006 for injuries
suffered in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 29.05.2005 at
about 9.00 a.m. at Rama Road, Patel Nagar Chowk, New Delhi
statedly involving motorcycle bearing registration no.DL-6SQ-7167
(the motorcycle), admittedly registered in the name of the second
appellant (Mahinder Puri, since deceased), it being driven at the
relevant point of time by the first appellant (Amit, now the sole
appellant). In the said claim case, no insurance company was
impleaded as the motorcycle was not shown to be covered by any
insurance policy against third party risk.
2. The Tribunal after inquiry, by judgment dated 20.07.2009,
awarded total compensation in the sum of Rs.88,241/- with interest at
the rate of seven and half per cent (7.5%) holding the appellants
jointly and severally liable to pay, the said amount including
Rs.34,106/- towards medical expenses, Rs.20,000/- towards
conveyance and special diet charges, Rs.9,135/- towards loss of
income and Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering and loss of
amenities of life.
3. The appeal at hand was filed primarily to reiterate the
contention of the appellant that there was no collision and that the first
appellant and the motorcycle of the second appellant have been falsely
implicated. It was the plea of the first appellant before the Tribunal,
also urged in his testimony (as R1W1) that when he had reached the
spot in question, he had found the victim lying injured with his bicycle
overturned and that he had only helped him to be shifted to hospital.
This plea and evidence was rejected by the tribunal.
4. The appeal was admitted and directed to be shown in the list of
'Regulars. But when it is taken up, there is no appearance on behalf of
the appellant. It may be added that the first respondent (claimant)
expired during the pendency of these proceedings on 04.02.2014 and
has been substituted by his son Sunder Singh vide order dated
03.03.2014. Similarly, the second appellant had also expired during
the pendency of these proceedings, he being survived by the first
appellant and, consequently, the name of the second respondent was
deleted from the array by order dated 03.03.2014.
5. Having perused the record of the inquiry before the tribunal,
this court finds no good reason to interfere. The testimony of the
claimant, appearing as PW-1, has been rightly accepted by the
tribunal. He had deposed that he was moving on his bicycle when the
motor cycle had come at high speed and had hit against him causing
the injuries resulting in fracture of two bones of the right leg. The
word of the first appellant appearing, as R1W1, denying any such
involvement could not have been accepted in view of the other
corroborative material submitted in the form of copy of the charge-
sheet of the corresponding criminal case registered vide FIR
no.267/2005 under Sections 279, 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
PS Moti Nagar.
6. The compensation awarded in the case cannot, by any stretch of
imagination, said to be excessive. The claimant was 70 years old on
the relevant date and had suffered two fractures. The compensation is
reasonable and, therefore, there is no occasion for any modification.
7. In terms of order dated 11.12.2009, the appellant had deposited
Rs.50,000/- with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court branch, which was
initially held in deposit. The said amount with interest accrued
thereupon was allowed to be released to the claimant by order dated
12.12.2011. The legal heir of the claimant will have the liberty to take
out appropriate execution proceedings before the tribunal and enforce
the balance award.
8. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 10, 2017/yg
