Delhi High Court
Lokesh Singh vs Sartaz & Ors. on 23 October, 2017
$~R-344
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 23rd October, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL No. 495/2011
LOKESH SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: None.
versus
SARTAZ & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Adv. for
R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant had suffered injuries in a motor vehicular
accident that occurred on 08.01.2010 due to negligent driving of bus
bearing registration no. DL 1PA 5171. He instituted accident claim
case (suit no. 123/2010) on 12.03.2010, seeking compensation. The
said case was clubbed for inquiry with another similarly placed case
arising out of same accident. On the basis of inquiry held, the
tribunal, by judgment dated 22.03.2011, accepted the claim for
compensation holding the bus driver negligent for occurrence of such
accident. It awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,51,378/-,
fastening the liability on the insurance company (third respondent).
The said amount would include Rs. 20,100/- towards medical
expenses; Rs. 18,000/- towards special diet & conveyance; Rs.
28,278/- for loss of income for the period of treatment for six months;
Rs. 25,000/- as lumpsum compensation on account of temporary
disability and Rs. 60,000/- towards pain & suffering.
2. The present appeal was filed seeking enhancement of
compensation to the tune of Rs. 25 lakhs.
3. The appeal was put in the list of 'regulars' as per order dated
27.04.2012. It was taken up for exploring the possibility of amicable
settlement before lok adalat on some dates but with no fruitful results.
When it is taken up for hearing, there is no appearance on behalf of
the appellant.
4. The matter has been considered with the assistance of the third
respondent and on perusal of the record.
5. It is noted that the appellant had proved that he had suffered
compound Grade-III B fracture, medial condyle femur and tibia bone
of the right leg. He relied on disability certificate (Ex.R3W1/A) issued
on 21.01.2011 by a board of doctors of Safdarjung Hospital indicating
that he has been rendered physically handicapped to the extent of 23%
in relation to the left lower limb, such physical impairment being
temporary in nature, upon he being found to be an operated case of
fracture of condyle of both bones of left leg with restriction of left
knee joint. The tribunal noted the fact that the disability is temporary
and, therefore, observed that such condition is likely to improve.
6. Though, in the appeal, it has been contended that above said
disability would have a life-long effect, there is nothing filed in
support of such contention, and so the view taken by the tribunal that
the temporary disability was likely to improve over two-three years,
cannot be questioned.
7. The appellant examined himself as a witness (PW-2) on the
strength of his affidavit (Ex.PW-2/A) stating that he was working on
part-time basis with a private entity, M/s Bharat Motors, at a monthly
salary of Rs. 8,000/- even while he was pursuing his studies.
However, no witness from the said employer was examined to prove
such employment or the terms on which the appellant was engaged.
In these circumstances, the plea that the tribunal has fallen into error
by notionally assessing the income with the help of minimum wages
cannot be accepted.
8. In the given facts and circumstances, the award granted by the
tribunal is found by this court to be just and adequate.
9. The appeal is dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
OCTOBER 23, 2017
nk
