Delhi High Court
Radhey Shyam vs Madhu Narang & Ors. on 16 August, 2017
$~R-112
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 16th August, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 503/2009 and CM APPL.14492/2009
RADHEY SHYAM ..... Appellant
Through: Nemo.
versus
MADHU NARANG & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate for
R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant was the claimant before the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (the tribunal) on the basis of his accident claim case
(Suit No.434/2003) instituted on 24.11.2003 seeking compensation on
the ground that he had suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident
that occurred on 24.12.1998 at about 11:30 a.m. due to negligent
driving of motor vehicle described as crane bearing No.HR-38B-1122
carrying truck bearing registration No.HR-38B-4459. The tribunal
held inquiry and, by judgment dated 02.03.2009, awarded
compensation in the sum of Rs.60,000/- directing the third respondent
(insurer) to pay, granting it recovery rights against the registered
owner of the vehicle, accepting its plea of breach of terms and
conditions of the insurance policy.
2. One of the major grounds brought before the tribunal was that
the claimant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of forty
per cent (40%) on account of shortening of right leg. He sought to
support this plea, inter alia, by document described as disability
certificate (Ex.PW-1/E). The tribunal, however, found the document to
be suspect and, thus, rejected the same. The appeal was filed seeking
enhancement of compensation primarily reiterating the claim of
permanent disability, reference being made to the same very document
(Ex.PW-1/E).
3. The appellant had been directed by order dated 16.12.2009 to
appear in person along with complete medical record on 10.05.2010.
He failed to abide by the said direction against which backdrop appeal
was put in the category of 'Regulars' to be taken up on its own turn.
When the appeal has been called out for hearing, again there is no
appearance on behalf of the appellant. No further material supporting
the plea of permanent disability, or its extent, has been submitted, the
reliance being only on document Ex.PW-1/E.
4. The tribunal has given sound reasons for rejecting the aforesaid
document declining to act upon it. It was not properly proved. No
witness from the office from where it purports to have been issued was
submitted. It indicates it was issued under the signature of Chief
Medical Officer, Faizabad, U.P. on the basis of assessment by a board
of doctors, one of which was assumably an orthopedic surgeon. The
names of the doctors are not indicated. Name of the hospital where
the medical board was constituted is not mentioned. What raises
suspicion is the admission by the claimant in the course of his
testimony to the effect that he never appeared before any such medical
board. The evaluation of the disability could not have been done
without the person in question being examined. If the appellant never
appeared before the medical board, there was no occasion for any such
disability certificate being issued.
5. The appeal is, thus, devoid of merits and is dismissed along
with accompanying application.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 16, 2017
vk
