Page 1 of 20

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

MAC.APP. 1140/2013

Reserved on

: 21.04.2022

Date of Decision : 26.07.2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

SH. GOPI CHAND GUPTA

..... Appellant

Through: Mr. Manish Maini, Advocate

Versus

MOHD. MOHSIM & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate for respondent

No. 3

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.

1. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), the appellant has sought

modification of judgment dated 05.08.2013 passed by the learned ADJ-cum-PO,

MACT, Rohini Courts, Delhi in MACT No. 418/13/08.

FACTS OF THE CASE

2. For the sake of felicity, brief facts, as noted by the Tribunal, are

reproduced hereinbelow:-

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002854

Page 2 of 20

3. After the accident took place, the appellant was assessed at Dr. Ram

Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi by a Medical Board. In the ‘Certificate for

the Persons with Disabilities’ issued on 08.07.2009, he was opined to be a case

of head injury withright hemiparesis.It was further opined that the appellant

was physically disabled/speech disabled, he had suffered 60% permanent

(physical/speech) impairment in relation to his body and, his condition was not

likely to improve. Re-assessment was not recommended.

4. The appellant preferred an application under Sections 166 & 140 of the

Act before the MACT, Delhi for grant of compensation against respondent

Nos.1-3, i.e. the driver, the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle. In his

application, the appellant claimed that he was 44 years of age and doing

business of selling tailoring material & garments under the name & style of

‘Roopak Matching Centre’.He further claimed his monthly income to be

Rs.8,000/- per month.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002854

Page 3 of 20

The respondents contested the claims of the appellant. In the written

statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 before the Tribunal, while

the contents of the claim petition, including factum of the accident as well as

that of the offending vehicle being driven by respondent No. 1, were denied, the

factum of ownership by respondent No. 2 of the vehicle alleged to have caused

the accident was admitted. It was further stated that the offending vehicle was

duly insured with respondent No. 3. Although subsistence of a valid policy from

10.04.2007 to 09.04.2008 was admitted, the liability of respondent Nos. 1 and 2

to indemnify respondent No.3/insurer or to pay compensation to the

claimants/appellant was denied.

5. On account of the accident, two persons had sustained injuries – the

appellant and one Govind Lal Wadhwa. Both filed their respective claim

petitions before the Tribunal. Considering the facts of the cases, the Tribunal

directed recording of common evidence in the cases, which however were

inquired and disposed of vide separate judgment(s).

6. In support of the claim petition, the appellant examined eight witnesses.

Injured/Govind Lal Wadhwa and the appellant were examined as PW-1 and PW-

2 respectively. Shri Surender Singh, the Record Clerk from Dr. Ram Manohar

Lohia Hospital was examined as PW-3, who proved that the appellant remained

admitted in the Hospital from 28.11.2007 to 01.01.2008. H.C. Ashish Kumar

was examined as PW-4 and he proved the copy of FIR No. 854/07 registered at

P.S. Prashant Vihar, Delhi. Shri Ram Singh, Record Clerk of Dr. Baba Saheb

Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini, Delhi was examined as PW-5 to prove the MLC of

the appellant and other medical record relating to injured/Govind Lal Wadhwa.

Shri Rajiv Trivedi, Deputy Law Officer and Shri K.D. Sharma, Record Clerk of

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 20