Full Judgment Text
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 9 December, 2024
+ MAC.APP.1007/2018 & CM APPL.47649/2018
THE CHAIRMAN,
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
Sikar, Rajasthan .....Petitioner
Through: Dr. Ritu Bhardwaj, Advocate.
versus
1. SANJAY MATHUR
S/o Late Sh. R.B. Mathur,
R/o: 10415, GaliNo.l, Bagichi Allauddin,
Multani Dhanda, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi-55 .....Respondent No. 1
2. MOHAN LAL
S/o Late Sh. R.B. Mathur
R/o Ram Nagar, Raghhunath Garh,
Sikar, Rajasthan .....Respondent No. 2
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. The present Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 has been filed on behalf of the Appellant / Rajasthan State Road
Transport Corporation to challenge the Award dated 08.06.2018 vide
Signature Not Verified
MAC APP.1007/2018 Page 1 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:27.01.2025
18:00:01
which compensation in the sum of Rs.4,56,000/- along with interest @ 9%
per annum, has been granted to the Respondent No.1/Injured for the injuries
suffered by him in a road accident on 13.08.2015.
2. The main grounds of challenge by the Appellant are : -
(i) that the driver of the car in which the injured was travelling,
was driving the car negligently on the wrong side , whose left side
had hit the bus. There is no negligence proved on behalf of the
vehicle of the Appellant;
(ii) That the quantum of compensation is liable to be revised:
(a) the injured did not suffer any loss of income since he had
availed his leave;
(b) that the medical expenses in the sum of Rs.2,16,616/-
have been incorrectly granted, since he is a Government
employee entitled to go the empanelled hospitals and claim the
reimbursement. He cannot chose to go to a private hospital and
then make a claim for the bills;
(c) that Special Diet has been awarded in the sum of
Rs.10,000/- without there being any evidence;
(d) that Attendant Charges of Rs.10,000/- has been given
even though there is no evidence;
(e) that the compensation granted on account of Mental and
Physical Shock, Pain and Suffering in the sum of Rs.35,000/-
each separately, is unwarranted.
(f) that Loss of Inconvenience/hardship granted in the sum
of Rs.10,000/- could not have been awarded under a separate
Signature Not Verified
MAC APP.1007/2018 Page 2 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:27.01.2025
18:00:01
head for Pain and Suffering.
It is, therefore, submitted that the compensation needs to be revised.
3. Learned counsel on behalf of the Complainant submits that he was
only an occupant and not the driver of the car and has deposed about the
manner of the accident which establishes that there was no negligence of the
driver of the car in the accident.
4. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is explained
that the injured had availed three months leave and therefore, he has been
rightly granted the Loss of Leave for three months, Medical Expenses have
been granted on the basis of original bills. The accident had taken place in
Rewari and he was taken to Medanta Hospital which cannot be faulted. He
had suffered injury in his jaw and, therefore, special Diet has been awarded
though it is on a lower side. The Attendant charges and other compensations
are well justified.
5. It is, therefore, submitted that there is no merit in the Appeal and it is
liable to be dismissed.
6. Submissions Heard and Record Perused .
Negligence of the Roadways Bus:
7. The first ground of challenge by the Appellant/Rajasthan State
Transport Corporation is that the accident occurred due to the sole
negligence of the Driver of EECO Car bearing registration No.DL6CP 4515
in which the injured/Respondent No. 1, Sanjay Mathur, was travelling and
no compensation could have been awarded against it.
8. The injured/Sanjay Mathur had appeared as PW1 and deposed that on
13.08.2015 he was travelling in the EECO Car bearing registration
Signature Not Verified
MAC APP.1007/2018 Page 3 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:27.01.2025
18:00:01
NO.DL6CP 4515 which was being driven at a normal speed by Shri Harish
and one Sunil Wadhwa was also travelling with them. He deposed that at
about 3:45 P.M., they reached near Nadha Mod, Narnaul, District Rewari,
Rajasthan, when offending Rajasthan Roadways Bus bearing registration
NO.RJ 23 PA 6596 (offending vehicle) came at a high speed and changed its
lane to come on the wrong side to overtake a truck and thereby hit the EECO
Car, resulting in the accident in which injuries were suffered by injured
Sanjay Mathur and other occupants.
9. From his testimony, it is evident that the sole negligence was of the
Roadways Bus which came on the wrong side of the road after overtaking
the truck because of which the accident occurred. Pertinently, there is no
evidence produced by the Appellant from where it could be established that
there was any negligence on the part of the Driver of the EECO Car. In any
case, the injured was an occupant in the Car and cannot be held responsible
for negligence in any manner.
10. `The learned Tribunal has rightly concluded negligence on the part of
the Rajasthan State Transport Bus/offending vehicle. There is no infirmity
in the findings of the learned Tribunal.
Quantum Of Compensation:
11. Leave Encashment: The ground of challenge is that the Respondent
injured could not have been compensation for 96 days in the sum of
Rs.1,19,136/- because he did not suffer any Loss of Income, since he had
availed the leave as was available in his leave account.
12. This contention of the Appellant has no merit for the simple reason
that though the injured may have been able to avail Medical and other Leave
Signature Not Verified
MAC APP.1007/2018 Page 4 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:27.01.2025
18:00:01
in his account, but the fact remains that he has been compelled to exhaust his
available leave on account of the injuries suffered in the accident. Had there
been no accident, he would have been utilize his leave as per his own
requirement. Now in future, if the need arises to taken the leave, he would
be compelled to suffer loss of salary on account of his leave, which have
already been availed on account of the accident. The learned Tribunal for
cogent reasons have awarded Loss of Income and there is no ground to
interfere with the same.
13. Medical Reimbursement: The Appellant has contended that the
injured is a Government employee and was entitled to treatment at the
empanelled Hospital and for the reimbursements. He should not have taken
his treatment at private hospital, and thus, a sum of Rs.2,16,616/- awarded
on account of his treatment in private hospitals, is not payable.
14. The injured had explained that the accident had occurred in District
Rewari and he was immediately taken to Medanta Hospital. Merely because
the injured was government employee, does not mean that in case of
emergent need as in the present case, he should have been taken to the
empanelled Hospital which may be far and in the process may have suffered
complications because of the injuries suffered by him. The injured was fully
justified in taking his treatment at the private Hospital. Moreover, merely
because he is a government employee, does not compel him only to take
treatment at the government hospital.
15. The compensation so awarded on account of medical bills cannot be
faulted.
16. Special Diet: The Appellant has claimed that no bills for Special Diet
Signature Not Verified
MAC APP.1007/2018 Page 5 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:27.01.2025
18:00:01
have been furnished and the compensation in the sum of Rs.10,000/- on
account of Special Diet, is on the higher side.
17. It cannot be over looked that the injured had suffered grievous injuries
and had remained under treatment for three months. It is a known fact that
Special Diet would be required for him for recuperation and proper
recovery.
18. Compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal to
the injured towards Special Diet is fully justified.
19. Attendant Charges: The Appellant has claimed that there is no proof
of any Attendant having been engaged by the injured and therefore,
Rs.10,000/- granted as Attendant Charges are not justified.
20. The learned Tribunal had noted that the injured had suffered fracture
left Mandibular Conidial and would have required some Attendant or the
family member and consequently granted Rs.10,000/- towards Attendant
Charges.
21. It cannot be over looked that a person who suffers injuries and
especially of the kind as in the present case, would need some special
attention which may be given by a family member or by a paid Attendant.
Even if there is no evidence adduced of any Attendant having been engaged,
but it cannot be overlooked that he remained under treatment for three
months and some family member would have been definitely burdened with
extra work of taking care of the injured. The compensation of Rs.10,000/-
so awarded towards Attendant Charges are fully justified.
22. The learned Tribunal has granted Rs.35,000/- each on account of
Mental and Physical Shock and Pain and Suffering which having regard to
Signature Not Verified
MAC APP.1007/2018 Page 6 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:27.01.2025
18:00:01
the nature of injuries and the period of treatment, cannot be held as
excessive .
23. The compensation granted towards Loss of Inconvenience/hardship in
the sum of Rs.10,000/- again cannot be questioned for the simple reason that
the injured a fracture of ‘Mandibular Conidial’ and would have faced
immense difficulty in eating and his day to day activities.
24. Compensation of Rs.10,000/- cannot be considered as excessive
under this head.
Conclusion: -
25. In the light of aforesaid discussion, it is held that there is no merit in
the present Appeal, which is hereby dismissed.
26. The Statutory amount deposited, be returned to the Appellant.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 9, 2024
Rk/Va
Signature Not Verified
MAC APP.1007/2018 Page 7 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:27.01.2025
18:00:01