Delhi High Court
Reena Kanojia & Ors vs Saitan Singh Gujjar & Ors (The New ... on 3 March, 2020
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 03rd March, 2020
+ MAC.APP. 196/2018
REENA KANOJIA & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Vikas Jain and Mr. Manjit Saini,
Advocates.
versus
SAITAN SINGH GUJJAR & ORS (THE NEW
INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD) ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajmad Hussain, Mr. Ajay Kumar
Singh and Mr. Nasim Anwar,
Advocates for R2.
Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate for R3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal
whereby compensation of Rs.79,136/- has been awarded to the appellant.
2. On 01st April, 2016 at about 7:15 A.M., Dilip Kumar was hit by truck
bearing No.HR-47B-4251 which resulted in amputation of his left arm above
elbow. Dilip Kumar expired on 02nd June, 2016 due to a gunshot injury. The
legal representatives of Dilip Kumar claimed the compensation.
3. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses,
Rs.30,000/- towards special diet, attendant and conveyance, Rs.20,000/-
towards pain and suffering and Rs.19,136/- towards loss of income. The
total compensation awarded is Rs.79,136/-.
Digitally Signed
By:RAJENDER SINGH
KARKI
Signing Date:18.03.2020
13:27:51
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this matter be
remanded back to the Claims Tribunal as the well settled principles relating
to the computation of compensation in amputation cases have not been
followed.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the driver of the
offending vehicle was holding a valid driving licence at the time of the
accident and the same has been placed on record along with the reply. It is
further submitted that respondent No.2 could not place on record the driving
licence as he was proceeded ex-parte. Learned counsel for respondent No.2
seeks setting aside of the recovery rights granted by the Claims Tribunal.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the compensation
awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable. It is further
submitted that the Claims Tribunal has rightly granted the recovery rights to
respondent No.3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposes the remand
of this matter.
7. Considering that the Claims Tribunal has not followed the well-settled
principles for computation of compensation, this Court is of the view that it
would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the Claims Tribunal for
fresh adjudication. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the
case is remanded back to the Claims Tribunal for fresh adjudication.
8. Respondent No.2 has produced the driving licence before this Court,
copy whereof has been furnished to counsel for respondent No.3 today in
Court. Respondent No.3 is directed to verify the genuineness of the said
driving licence and submit a report before the Claims Tribunal with respect
to the said licence on the date fixed.
9. The Claims Tribunal is directed to pass a fresh order after hearing all
Digitally Signed
By:RAJENDER SINGH
KARKI
Signing Date:18.03.2020
13:27:51
the parties within a period of three months from today.
10. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications are
disposed of.
11. All the parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 13 th April,
2020 at 02:30 P.M.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent
No.2 as well as learned counsel for respondent No.3 have noted down the
date of hearing before the Claims Tribunal and no fresh notice would be
required for their appearance before the Claims Tribunal.
13. The record of the Claims Tribunal be returned forthwith back along
with the copy of this judgment.
14. List for reporting compliance on 10th July, 2020.
15. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to counsel for the parties under
signatures of the Court Master.
J.R. MIDHA, J.
MARCH 03, 2020
ak
Digitally Signed
By:RAJENDER SINGH
KARKI
Signing Date:18.03.2020
13:27:51
