JUDGMENT

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)--This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.09.2021 passed by the Learned Single Judge in MAC. APP.164/2021.

2. The appeal preferred before the Learned Single Judge sought to assail the recommendation made by the District Victim's Compensation Committee [in short "DVCC"] and the consequential order dated 20.06.2019 passed by the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, South-East.

3. A perusal of the aforesaid order would show that the DVCC recommended payment of Rs.2 lakhs as compensation to the appellant under the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2015 [in short "2015 Scheme"].

3.1. This determination was based on a disability certificate issued by the Safdarjung Hospital, which was placed in record at a relevant time. This disability certificate, concededly, is dated 15.04.2019, although, the same is not in our record. Admittedly, as per the disability certificate, the appellant's disability was pegged at 39%.

4. A perusal of the record shows that the appellant had obtained a disability certificate dated 22.07.2019 from All India Institute of Medical Sciences [in short "AIIMS".]

4.1. The AIIMS disability certificate, contrary to what is indicated in the earlier certificate issued by Safdarjung Hospital, pegged the appellant's disability at 67%.

4.2. It is not disputed that the said certificate characterized the appellant's disability as "permanent physical impairment in relation to his left lower limb".

5. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the respondent had raised a preliminary objection before the Learned Single Judge that the appeal (MAC. APP. 164/2021) was not maintainable.

5.1. It was, inter alia, submitted that, although, the appellant had preferred an appeal before the Learned Single Judge under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [hereafter referred to as "the Act"], such an appeal could only be instituted against an order passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal.

5.2. This apart, the respondent's counsel, it appears, had also, addressed arguments on merits before the Learned Single Judge.

6. The Learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned judgment, ruled on the merits of the matter. Since on merits, the Learned Single Judge was not able to persuade himself to set aside the determination made via the order dated 20.06.2019, he did not deem it necessary to rule on the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent, with regard to the maintainability of the appeal. This course adopted by the Learned Single Judge has resulted in an appeal being preferred before us.

7. There is no doubt, in our minds, that the appellant had taken recourse to an incorrect remedy. Perhaps, the writ route was available to the appellant.

8. That said, on merits there was something to be said insofar as the disability certificate that has been issued by AIIMS, where the appellant underwent a surgery for knee replacement.

9. The appellant's case, both before the Learned Single Judge, as well as before us, is simply this, had the certificate issued by the AIIMS been taken into account, he would have been entitled to compensation amounting to Rs.3 lakhs, and not Rs.2 lakhs, as recommended by DVCC.

10. We are of the view that there is weight in this submission, especially, if one has regard to the disability certificate issued by AIIMS.

11. We may also record the concerns of the respondent, which have been articulated by Dr Amit George. It is Dr George's submission that there is no power of review vested in the re