Delhi High Court
Rajender Singh vs Aziz & Ors. on 23 November, 2017
$~R-548
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 23rd November, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL 766/2012
RAJENDER SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. R.K. Bachchan, Advocate
versus
AZIZ & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Shoumik Mazumdar for
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 (Tribunal) in accident claim case (MACT suit
no.320/2010) instituted by him on 23.02.2007, seeking compensation
for injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident that took place on
08.01.2002 on account of negligent driving of Tata truck bearing
registration no.HR-10A-1878. The tribunal decided the said case, by
judgment dated 24.03.2012, inter alia, holding the first respondent
/truck driver negligent leading to the said accident. The tribunal found
that the truck was registered in the name of the second respondent and
insured against third party risk with the third respondent for the period
in question. It computed compensation in the total sum of
Rs.6,05,000/- and directed the third respondent (insurer) to pay the
same with interest. The award includes Rs.2,00,000/- under the head
of "loss of future prospects", which has been granted in the face of
finding that the appellant has been rendered permanently disabled, the
disability having been taken as 90% in relation to the right upper limb
and both lower limbs. Dis-satisfied with the said award, the appellant
has approached this court by the appeal at hand seeking enhancement.
2. During the hearing, reference was made to the disability
certificate (Ex. P4) copy whereof was submitted on record which
purports to have been issued by a board of doctors of Guru Tegh
Bahadur Hospital, Delhi. In order to prove the said disability
certificate, one of its members, Dr. Anil Arora had been called as a
witness. The record would show that Dr. Anil Arora was examined as
PW-6 on 05.09.2011 after another witness PW-5 had been examined.
Unlike in the case of PW-5, while referring to the deposition of PW-6,
the tribunal observed in the short order recorded on 05.09.2011 that
he had been examined-in-chief and, thereafter, discharged. The
deposition sheet also confirms that the witness was never tendered for
cross-examination to the opposite party. In this view, the deposition
of PW-6 cannot even be treated as evidence in the strict sense of the
term.
3. Against the above backdrop, the learned counsel for the
appellant fairly conceded that the conclusions on the issue of nature
and extent of disability are not supported by any evidence on record
and therefore, the matter would need further inquiry.
4. Thus, the impugned judgment to the extent compensation was
thereby determined is set aside and the matter remitted to the tribunal
for further inquiry. Needless to add, in the course of further inquiry,
the appellant will be obliged to have PW-6 re-summoned and, if
required, examine him further and thereafter tender for cross-
examination by the parties that contest. The appellant will have the
liberty to adduce such further evidence as he may deem necessary to
bring home the case for enhanced compensation as is sought by the
appeal at hand.
5. The parties are directed to appear before the tribunal on
09.01.2018.
6. The amount already received by the claimant in terms of the
impugned judgment shall be liable to be adjusted against the amount
payable in terms of the fresh adjudication by the tribunal.
7. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
Dasti.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
NOVEMBER 23, 2017
yg
