M.K.Khar v. Dtc & Anr

V.B.GUPTA, J. ac

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 16th July, 2008 Judgment delivered on:23rd July, 2008 M.K.Khar S/o Sh.M.L.Khar, R/o 8-A, Hydel Society, Sector-46, Faridabad. Haryana. ….Appellant Through: Mr.N.Safaya, Adv. Versus 1. Delhi Transport Corporation, Through its Chairman, I.P.Estate, New Delhi. 2. Shri Sadhu Singh, Driver, Badge No.12561, Okhla-II, D.T.C. Depot, New Delhi. …Respondents. Through: Mr.J.N.Aggarwal, Adv. for R-1. Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes V.B.Gupta, J. The present appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short as the "Act") has been filed against the award dated 04.10.01 passed by Sh. G.P.Mittal, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short as the "Tribunal"), New Delhi for enhancement of compensation. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 29.02.92, Appellant along with his sister was travelling in D.T.C. bus no. 6185, route no. 405. Since the bus was over crowded, he was standing near the emergency door of the bus. When the bus reached the crossing of Zoo and Mathura Road, it took a very sharp turn, as a result of which emergency door flung open. He fell down from the said emergency door and sustained injuries on the right lumber area, left knee and left wrist etc. He was removed to AIIMS and made a report to the police as well as to the D.T.C. 3. The Appellant claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from Delhi Transport Corporation and driver of D.T.C. bus no.6185 for having caused injuries to him in a roadside accident. 4. Respondent D.T.C. filed a written statement contesting the claim of the Appellant and took up the plea that since the complete particulars of the D.T.C. bus alleged to have been involved in the alleged accident have not been given, it was not in a position to admit or deny the factum of involvement of the bus in the accident. It was denied that the Appellant had suffered the injuries as alleged or was entitled to any compensation. 5. Vide impugned judgment, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.3,000/- along with the interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. 6. It has been contended by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the appellant remained under treatment for about 8 months and could not join his duties. The Appellant at that time was drawing a salary of Rs.4,000/- per month and the Appellant also travelled to the hospital for physiotherapy exercises frequently and spent about Rs.7,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal has failed to consider the fact that the injury of the Appellant on neck of humerus was grievous in nature and the Appellant proved the same by Ex.PW1/3. The Appellant also proved his injuries by Ex.PW1/2 and 1/3 and PW1/1. The bone of the left hand wrist of the Appellant which was fractured was dislocated and the Appellant remained under treatment for a long time and still the pain persists. The Tribunal has erred in not awarding the appropriate amount spent by the Appellant on his treatment, travelling to hospital, medicines and treatment received at Faridabad. The Tribunal also erred in appreciating the facts of the case that at the time of accident, the Appellant was posted at Srinagar and this is a clear fact that the Appellant cannot visit or produce any evidence from Srinagar J&K being a disturbed area and the Tribunal failed in taking the judicial notice of this fact. The Appellant got treatment in AIIMS and in the other Hospital, but no FIR was recorded by the Police even on written complaint of the Appellant. The Appellant could not care about the documents of treatment and expenses being busy in treatment and the trauma suffered by him. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has contended that neither the doctor who h