Delhi High Court
Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr vs Chander Sekhar on 28 July, 2017
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:28thJuly, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL No. 388/2008
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR..... Appellants
Through: Ms. Palak Rohmetra, Adv.
versus
CHANDER SEKHAR ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv. for
R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The respondent, then aged about 17 years, was moving on
bicycle on 14.10.2000 and had reached in the area of Lal Mandir at
Kirari Road, Delhi when he met with an accident due to which his left
upper limb came to be crushed, the treatment and surgical procedure
that followed resulting in amputation above elbow rendering him
permanently disabled, his physical disability having been certified to
be to the extent of 40%, as per the disability certificate issued by Lok
Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital (Ex.PW-3/1). He instituted
accident claim case (petition no. 387/2008) stating that the accident
had been caused by a bus bearing registration no. DHP 3851 (the bus)
of the first appellant (Delhi Transport Corporation), it having been
driven at the relevant point of time by the second appellant, its
employee, in negligent manner.
2. The case was contested by the appellants on the basis of
inquiry and the evidence gathered. The tribunal returned finding, by
judgment dated 14.03.2008, holding the second appellant responsible
for the accident. It assessed compensation in the total sum of Rs.
4,12,000/- which includes loss of income on account of permanently
disability which was assessed to be to the extent of 70% to be
functional disability.
3. This appeal was filed questioning the said judgment. At the
hearing, it is argued that the statement of the respondent before the
police would show that he had turned the cycle suddenly towards left
side thereby coming in the way of the bus and, thus, he himself was
negligent. This contention must be rejected for the reason the tribunal
was called upon to reach its conclusion on the basis of the evidence
led before it. Petitioner had examined himself as PW-1 and proved
that the bus had come from behind undoubtedly when he was taking
the cycle on its left side. But, the evidence also proved that the bus
was moving in uncontrollable speed and ended up colliding against
him. It is pertinent to note here that second appellant appearing as
R1W1 had, in fact, denied any collision and did not take the defence
of contributory negligence. The plea of negligence on the part of the
claimant is, thus, rejected.
4. The counsel for the appellants then argued that the disability
certificate issued by the medical board should have been the
benchmark. The argument is devoid of substance as the tribunal was
to make assessment of loss of future income on the basis of functional
disability. It went by the dispensation in the Employees Compensation
Act, 1923. Having regard to the fact that there was amputation above
elbow of the left upper limb, the assessment of functional disability to
the extent of 70% and the loss of income calculated thereupon cannot
be faulted.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is devoid of substance and
is dismissed.
6. By order dated 03.10.2008, the appellants had been directed to
deposit the entire awarded amount with interest and out of such
deposit 75% was allowed to be released. The balance lying in deposit
shall also now be released to the claimant in terms of the impugned
judgment.
7. The statutory deposit shall be refunded.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 28, 2017
nk
