Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Sunil Kumar & Ors on 13 October, 2017
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 13th October, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL 309/2016
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD .... Appellant
Through: None.
versus
SUNIL KUMAR & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. B.R. Sharma, Advocate for
Respondent No. 1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The first respondent (claimant) on 20.07.2015 had instituted
accident claim case (suit no. 215/15) seeking compensation under
Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for injuries and permanent
disability suffered on account of motor vehicle accident that had
occurred on 05.06.2015 involving bus registration no. DL1PC9649 of
Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC), admittedly insured against third
party risk for period in question with the appellant insurance company
(insurer). The tribunal held inquiry and found that the accident had
occurred due to negligent driving of the DTC bus by its employee
(second respondent/driver). It also found that the claimant had
suffered permanent disability due to amputation of the left leg above
knee, such condition having been proved inter alia by disability
certificate (Ex. PW1/6), the medical opinion being that the disability is
80% (permanent). The tribunal found the functional disability to be
70% and granted compensation inclusive on account of future loss of
income arising from such disability, fastening the liability on the
insurer.
2. In the appeal of the insurer, two contentions are urged. The first
is that the negligence was not properly proved as there is nothing to
corroborate the word of the claimant, he having appeared as his own
witness (PW-1). This contention must be rejected as the evidence of
PW-1 has gone unimpeached. He testified about the sequence leading
to the occurrence as per which narration he had lost control and fallen
out of the bus as it was put into sudden motion even while he was
trying to board it. The best person to explain facts to the contrary was
the driver of the bus who was never called upon to testify his version.
In these circumstances the conclusion reached by the tribunal on the
issue of negligence does not call for any inference.
3. The second contention concerns the evaluation of the handicap.
Having regard to the amputation, the opinion of the tribunal on the
issue of functional disability is found to be just and appropriate (See
National Insurance Company Vs. Preeti in MACA 1068/16 decided
on 24.08.2017).
4. The appeal is dismissed.
5. By order dated 18.04.2016 the appellant had been directed to
deposit the entire awarded amount with interest with the tribunal and
out of such deposit 50% was allowed to be released to the claimant in
terms of the impugned judgment. The balance lying in deposit shall
now be released to the claimant in terms of the impugned judgment.
6. The statutory amount shall be refunded to the appellant.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
OCTOBER 13, 2017
p
