Delhi High Court
Nitin Mainy vs Ee Garrison Engineer (Vi) ... on 25 October, 2017
$~359
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 25th October, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL 559/2011
NITIN MAINY ..... Appellant
Through: None
versus
EE GARRISON ENGINEER (VI) ELECTRICAL
SUPPLY & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant had instituted accident claim case (MACP
145/2010) on 27.07.2009 seeking compensation under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the averments that on 23.05.2009
while riding on motorcycle bearing registration no.DL-3S-BK-5094,
he was hit by a motor vehicle described as Eicher truck bearing
registration no.05-D-163875A of the first respondent, driven
negligently by the second respondent.
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) held inquiry
and, by judgment dated 27.01.2011, accepted the said case for
compensation holding the driver of the Eicher vehicle responsible.
The Tribunal found, on the basis of disability certificate (Ex. PW5/1)
issued by a board of doctors of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital,
New Delhi, that the claimant had been rendered permanently disabled,
his functional disability being 90%. It was not impressed with the
evidence led through Pawan Gupta (PW-3) and Gopal Sharma (PW-4)
about the petitioner / claimant's private engagement as sales person
but proceeded to grant compensation on the income adjudged at
Rs.7,000/- p.m. The compensation in the total sum of Rs.18,42,859/-
was awarded and the liability fastened on the respondents to pay, the
said amount inclusive of awards under the heads of medical treatment,
loss of income, pain and suffering, special diet, conveyance expenses
and for disfigurement.
3. The claimant felt aggrieved with the award and filed the present
appeal seeking enhancement. It came up for consideration on
08.04.2013 but none appeared for the appellant. The court put the
appeal in the list of 'regulars' and directed that it shall be taken up in
due course. When it is called out, there is no appearance again on
behalf of the appellant.
4. The record has been perused and the contentions urged in the
appeal considered. There is no merit in the plea that the claimant
should have been taken as a case of permanent disability to the extent
of 100%. Rather, the disability certificate (Ex. PW5/1) shows that it
was treated as a case of temporary disability, the condition of the
claimant not having stabilized from the date of its issue. The
examining medical officer, Dr. Himanshu Kataria (PW-6) was
confronted with the observation in the disability certificate that the
condition was likely to improve. The answer given by the medical
officer that in majority of the cases the condition does not improve is
neither here nor there. No effort has been made on behalf of the
claimant to have his condition re-examined or re-evaluated. Even in
the appeal, he has not offered any further material to show that his
condition has either deteriorated or not improved. The plea about the
tribunal falling into error by not accepting the evidence regarding
salary of Rs.9,500/- p.m. is also without merit. The Tribunal has
given sound reasons for rejecting the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4.
They spoke about the engagement of the claimant in private
employment without any corroborative record to substantiate the
same.
5. In above facts and circumstances, there is no case made out for
any further improvement in the award. The appeal is thus dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
OCTOBER 25, 2017
yg
