Delhi High Court
Deepa Nebb vs Kuldeep Singh & Ors. on 29 November, 2017
$~R-592
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 29th November, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL 976/2012
DEEPA NEBB ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Anjana Prabhakar,
Advocate
versus
KULDEEP SINGH & ORS. .... Respondents
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Adv. for R-4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant was the claimant before the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal in accident claim case (MACT 23/11/05), filed on
09.09.2005, whereby she sought compensation under Sections 166 and
140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the injuries and the
consequent disability suffered by her, due to a motor vehicular
accident that had occurred on 03.05.2005, on account of negligent
driving of a motor vehicle bearing registration no.HR-55BT-7896,
admittedly insured against third party risk with the fourth respondent
(insurer).
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal), by judgment
dated 22.05.2012, awarded compensation in the total sum of
Rs.1,13,980/- and directed the insurer to pay the same with interest at
the rate of 9% p.a., the said amount having been calculated by
including loss of wages, special diet, conveyance, physiotherapy
charges, nursing assistance, follow-up treatment and damage to the
car.
3. The claimant has felt aggrieved with the compensation awarded,
her prime contention being that there has been no assessment made of
the functional disability arising out of the condition of panic disorder
with agoraphobia to which she has been reduced due to the injuries
suffered in the accident.
4. After some hearing, the counsel for the appellant fairly
conceded that better expert opinion on the medical condition
(psychological) on which the claimant relies was required over and
above the opinion given by Dr. Raman Girotra (PW-2), a private
consultant (psychiatrist). She, thus, submitted that instead of the
appeal being decided on the available evidence adduced during the
inquiry before the tribunal, the claim case may be remitted to the
tribunal for further inquiry wherein such better evaluation could be
solicited, if possible, by a board of doctors to be constituted under
directions of the tribunal and by production of medical records relating
to the treatment of the claimant. The counsel for the insurer on being
asked submits that he leaves the matter to the discretion of the court.
5. It may be added here that the record shows that the husband of
the claimant is a former Air Force Officer and consequent to the
privileges available to her, she has been availing medical treatment
from military hospitals / base hospital. If considered proper by the
tribunal, the services of such facility may also be availed.
6. In the foregoing facts and circumstances, the request made by
the appellant seems to be just and proper. The appeal is allowed. The
impugned judgment to the extent compensation was thereby
determined and awarded is set aside. The claim case is remitted to the
tribunal for fresh adjudication of the amount of compensation payable
and, for such purposes, the tribunal shall not only give additional
opportunity to the claimant to lead further evidence but also arrange
for proper evaluation of her condition by a board of doctors in
appropriate government facility.
7. Needless to add, given the old pendency of the claim case, the
tribunal shall show necessary expedition to have a fresh determination
at an early date.
8. The amount already received by the claimant will be liable to be
adjusted against the award that is now expected to be passed by the
tribunal through its fresh judgment.
9. The parties are directed to appear before the tribunal on
20.02.2018.
10. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
NOVEMBER 29, 2017
yg
