Delhi High Court
Vikas Chand & Anr vs Gaffor Alam on 31 October, 2017
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 31st October, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 2/2015
VIKAS CHAND & ANR ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Hem Kumar with
Mr.Rajiv Kumar, Advs.
versus
GAFFOR ALAM ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Naushad Alam, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. On Accident Claim case (Petition No.104/2011) instituted on
15.04.2011 by the respondent (claimant), the Tribunal, by judgment
dated 01.10.2014, returned a finding that the claimant had suffered
injuries in motor vehicular accident that had occurred on 22.01.2011
when he was hit by scooter bearing Registration No. DL 6S D 2621
(the scooter) driven in a negligent manner by the first appellant. Since
the scooter is registered in the name of the second appellant, both the
appellants were held jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation, though no proof of any insurance adduced, the amount
of compensation having been determined in the total sum of
Rs.4,67,400/- calculated as under:
Medical Expenses : Rs. 90,600/-
Pain and sufferings and enjoyment of life : Rs. 40,000/-
Special diet, Conveyance & Attendant Charges : Rs. 20,000/-
Loss of Income : Rs. 31,700/-
Loss of Future Income : Rs. 2,85,100/-
Total : Rs. 4,67,400/-
2. The appellants seek to assail the impugned judgment on the
contention that there was contributory negligence on the part of the
claimant as he was crossing the road at a place where there was no
zebra crossing available. It is also the contention of the appellant that
the Tribunal fell into error by accepting the disability certificate
(Ex.PW3/A), this against another certificate (Ex.PW1/C) which had
evaluated the disability to be temporary and to the extent of 45 per
cent only.
3. The first contention on the question of contributory negligence
was considered by the Tribunal but rejected, in the opinion of this
Court, for some reasons. The evidence would show that a large
number of public persons were crossing the road, there being no
arrangement by the municipal authorities for any zebra crossing. It
appears that some work of laying cables by a private company was
underway in the vicinity of the place where the accident took place.
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances prevalent at the
relevant point of time, it was even a greater obligation on the part of
the municipal authorities to take care of the safety of other road users,
particularly the pedestrians. The finding on the issue of negligence,
thus, does not call for any interference.
5. The disability certificate to which reference is made by the
appellant is actually copy of such document (Mark PW1/C) which
purports to have been issued by a board of doctors constituted by Civil
Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Araria, Patna. It does not even
seem to bear any signatures and, therefore, is not authenticated. Even
otherwise, no effort was made during the course of inquiry by the
appellant to confront the claimant with this document. In contrast, the
disability certificate (Ex.PW3/A) which has been the basis of the
conclusions reached by the Tribunal was issued on 12.12.2013 by a
board of doctors of Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital of the
Government of NCT of Delhi. The functional disability has been
assessed by the Tribunal to the extent of 30% in light of such
certificate according to which the claimant's permanent physical
impairment has been evaluated to be 51% in relation to the left lower
and upper limbs. This finding does not call for interference.
6. No other point is pressed at the hearing.
7. The appeal is found devoid of substance and, therefore,
dismissed.
8. By order dated 05.01.2015 read with order dated 22.04.2015,
the appellants had been directed to deposit 50% of the amount of
compensation which was released to the claimant. Out of such
deposited amount 50% was allowed to be released to the claimant.
The balance lying in deposit shall be released to the claimant in terms
of the impugned judgment. The appellants shall be liable to pay the
remainder of compensation payable by them in terms of the impugned
judgment by requisite deposit with the Tribunal within 30 days. In
case of default on their part, the claimant is at liberty to take out
execution proceedings.
9. The statutory deposit made by the appellants shall be made over
to the Tribunal for being availed of so as to satisfy the remainder of
the liability of the appellants to that extent.
10. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
OCTOBER 31 , 2017
ak
