The court emphasized the assessment of functional disability and the deduction of income tax while determining compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been filed challenging the Award dated 11.05.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the `Impugned Award') passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal') in Petition No. 75578/16 titled Trilochan Dash v. Ranjeet Singh & Ors..

2. By the Impugned Award, the learned Tribunal has held that the accident in question had occurred due to the offending vehicle, that is, the vehicle bearing No. DL 1V C 0902, being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent no.2 herein.

3. The respondent no.1 herein/PW-1/the claimant, had narrated the manner in which the accident had taken place. He had stated that on 11.11.2013 at about 8:30 AM he was going to his office along with another person Sh. Bhimsen Mahapatra. When they reached near Supertech building, Section-93, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, suddenly the offending vehicle coming from the wrong side and being driven recklessly and at a high speed hit him with such force that he sustained grievous injuries. In his cross-examination, however, he stated that at the time of the accident, he was crossing the road on foot and that there was a divider in the middle of the road at the spot of the accident. He admitted that while crossing the first section of the road till the divider he had seen to his left and right, however, while crossing the other section of the road, he did not see to his left and right and was hit by the offending vehicle coming from the wrong side at a high speed when he was crossing the road.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that as the claimant/PW-1 had admitted in his cross-examination, that he has not seen to the right or the left for the traffic before crossing the second section of the road, therefore, contributory negligence should have been attributed to him by the learned Tribunal for the purposes of determining the compensation payable to him. In support, he places reliance on the judgment of this Court in Ajay Kumar v. Deepak Kumar, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9496.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that the driver of the offending vehicle did not enter an appearance before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal was, therefore, presented with only one version, that is, of the claimant/PW-1, as is also evident from the site plan attached with the Detailed Accident Report (in short `DAR'). The accident had occurred when the offending vehicle, which was coming from the wrong side of the road, hit the respondent no.1/claimant, resulting in the injuries suffered by him, and it cannot be said that the respondent no. 1 was negligent and therefore, had contributed to the accident.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. In the absence of any other stand taken by the respondent no.2 before the learned Tribunal, and in view of the evidence of PW-1/the claimant, it stood established that the accident occurred when the offending vehicle was coming from the wrong side and at a high speed. It has also come on record that there was some barricading by the police at the site of the accident. In spite of such barricading, the offending vehicle was not only being driven at a high speed but also on the wrong side of the road. In my view, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent no.1 had contributed in the accident in question by his own negligence.

7. In Ajay Kumar (supra), the Court, on the basis of the DAR, found that the offending vehicle was not being driven dangerously or at excessive speed; it was being driven in its lane and within the permissible speed limit. The said judgment would, therefore, have no application to the facts of the present case.

8. The next challenge of the appellant to the Impugned Award is on account of the functional disability of the respondent no.1 being assessed at 80% by the learned Tribunal. The l