Rajbir Singh vs Suresh Kumar and Others

Reva Khetrapal, J.—By way of this appeal, the Appellant seeks remand of the matter to the learned Claims Tribunal for leading additional evidence, which was not adduced by the Appellant in the first instance.

The Appellant, who was working in the Indian Army and posted in 60 Brigade Signal Company, Minto Park, Delhi had met with an accident on 15.11.2004, while he was trying to cross the road near Shankar Market, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Allegedly, a scooter had come in his way while he was crossing the road and when he escaped that scooter, the offending Bus No. DL-1PA-6577, driven by the Respondent No. 1 came from the Minto Road side, and hit the Appellant resulting in the Appellant sustaining injury on his left foot. The Appellant, after the accident, was taken to the Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, where he was admitted and given treatment. On his discharge from the said hospital, he was admitted in Base Hospital. On 04.03.2005, the Appellant filed a claim petition for the award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/- alongwith interest thereon before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, New Delhi. The said claim petition was, however, dismissed by the Claims Tribunal on the ground that the discharge summary issued by the concerned doctor of RML Hospital mentioned that he had suffered injuries on his foot by running over of the scooter. The Claims Tribunal, after noting the aforesaid, went on to conclude that this version had obviously travelled to the doctor from the injured himself and, thereafter, the Tribunal held:

This evidence of discharge summary stating crush injury on foot by running over the scooter creates the doubt about the injury sustained by the bus.

Since the Tribunal entertained doubts about the crush injuries stated by the Appellant to have been caused by the bus, on the basis of the material on record the claim petition was dismissed, holding that the Appellant had not sustained injuries through the rash and negligent driving of the bus.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid findings of the Claims Tribunal, the present appeal has been preferred on the ground that the Appellant, who was in the Indian Army, had sustained permanent disability on account of the aforesaid accident, resulting in his losing his job in the armed forces.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the factual findings of the Tribunal, which have been arrived at on the basis of the material on record, are not correct. He further contends that the evidence of the Investigating Officer, the evidence of the doctor who issued the disability certificate as well as of the doctor at the Base Hospital, who subsequently treated the Appellant, are required to be adduced to show that the Appellant sustained permanent disability as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the alleged offending bus.

Mr. S.L. Gupta, the learned Counsel for the Insurance company does not dispute the aforesaid facts and states that in the circumstances of the case, he has no objection if the matter is remanded back to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal with permission to the Appellant to adduce the additional evidence, which he seeks to adduce.

In view of the aforesaid, the matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal. Liberty is granted to the Appellant to adduce the evidence of the Investigating Officer of the case as well as of the concerned doctors of the RML Hospital and of Base Hospital. Parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 18th July, 2011, for which date the Appellant shall summon his evidence.

On the Appellant adducing the additional evidence, the Claims Tribunal shall examine the fresh evidence on record and render its adjudication on the basis thereof.

The appeal stands disposed of. Records of the Claims Tribunal requisitioned for the present case be sent back forthwith.