Delhi High Court
The Director, C.S.E., M.C.D. vs Sunil Kumar Verma @ Sonu on 21 September, 2017
$~R-252
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 21st September, 2017
+ MAC APPEAL 683/2010
THE DIRECTOR, C.S.E., M.C.D. ..... Appellant
Through: None
versus
SUNIL KUMAR VERMA @ SONU ..... Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The first respondent had instituted the accident claim case (suit
no.699/2008) on 10.02.2004 seeking compensation under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the averments that on 11.05.2002
while riding on the pillion of a two wheeler scooter bearing
registration no.DL-2SB-8518 (scooter), he had suffered injuries on
account of the said vehicle having been hit by a truck bearing
registration no.DL-1GA-0552 (truck) admittedly belonging to the
appellant. As per the case for compensation, the truck was driven
negligently and on account of the injuries suffered, the claimant was
rendered permanently disabled, the toe of his right foot having been
amputated.
2. The claim petition was put to inquiry and, on the basis of the
evidence adduced, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal), by
judgment dated 13.11.2009, upheld the case that the accident had
occurred due to the negligent driving of the truck. The compensation
in the total sum of Rs.4,00,770/- was awarded, it inclusive of the
compensation under various heads including on account of
conveyance and special diet, loss of income, loss of earning capacity
due to disability besides non-pecuniary damages due to pain and
suffering, loss of amenities of life and physical disfigurement. The
liability to pay the said amount was fastened on the appellant.
3. The appeal at hand was filed primarily raising two contentions;
one, that the negligence was not properly proved and, second, that the
disability had been wrongly assumed.
4. The appeal was admitted and directed to come up in due course.
When taken up for hearing, there is no appearance on behalf of the
appellant.
5. Having perused the record of the tribunal, this court finds no
substance in any of the contentions urged. The negligence had been
proved by the claimant appearing as his own witness (PW-1). On the
other hand, the second respondent, driver of the truck, and an
employee of the appellant, was never called in to prove facts to the
contrary. In these circumstances, it is not correct on the part of the
appellant to contend that the tribunal has gone more by the opinion of
the investigating police in the corresponding FIR no.268/02 of PS
Uttam Nagar.
6. The finding on the issue of disability is based, inter alia, on the
disability certificate (Ex. PW-1/11) and the testimony of Dr. K.K.
Kumra (PW-2) a member of the disability board. Since there was no
evidence to the contrary, the findings returned by the tribunal in this
regard also do not call for any interference.
7. The appeal is found totally devoid of substance and is
consequently dismissed.
8. Given the lack of proper prosecution of the appeal, the statutory
amount deposited by the appellant is forfeited as costs to be made over
to Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.
9. The appellant had been directed by earlier orders to deposit the
entire awarded amount and from out of such deposit, 50% (fifty
percent) was allowed to be released to the claimant. The Registry
shall now release the balance from the amount that was withheld to the
claimant in terms of the impugned judgment.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 21, 2017
Yg
