FAO 58/2001 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 14th December, 2011 Pronounced on: 19th December, 2011 + FAO 58/2001 SARDAR GURSHARAN SINGH ..... Appellant Through: Mr. V.K.Tandon, Advocate Versus BHUPESH CHANDRA ...... Respondent Through: Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL J U D G M E N T G. P. MITTAL, J. 1. The Appellant Sardar Gursharan Singh impugns the award dated 10.10.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) awarding a compensation of ` 23,000/- to the Respondent in respect of the injuries suffered by him in an accident which took place on 31.12.1990. 2. By the impugned award, the Tribunal found that there was rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the two wheeler scooter number DND 2510 which was owned by the Appellant. The Tribunal awarded a sum of ` 10,000/- towards medical treatment, ` 2,000/- for purchase of medicines, ` 1,000/- for special diet, ` 5,000/- for loss of income in addition FAO 58/2001 Page 2 of 4 to ` 15,000/- for pain and suffering on account of the fracture suffered by the Respondent in the accident. 3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the accident did not take place with scooter number DND 2510 and that is why no FIR was got registered by the Respondent. It is argued that it was a case of hit and run which is recorded in the discharge summary Ex.PW-1/1. I do not agree with the contention raised. The discharge summary Ex.PW-1/1 has to be read along with Respondent’s testimony who was driving his two wheeler scooter number DHM 8361 when this accident took place. It is true that on the discharge summary Ex.PW-1/1 prepared by Paschimi Clinic headed by Dr. Sanjiv Rustogi, Orthopaedic Surgeon, it was recorded that the patient was admitted with the history of roadside accident hit by a scooter (case of hit and run) on 31.12.1990. Respondent Bhupesh Chandra who entered the witness box as PW-1 was categorical that on 31.12.1990 at about 10:40 AM while driving his two wheeler scooter DHM 8361 with his wife on the pillion seat he was proceeding to New Rohtak Road on way to Liberty Cinema. On seeing safe passage, he negotiated the right turn. The scooter driven by him reached the other end of the road when two wheeler scooter number DND 2510 (the offending vehicle) came on Rohtak Road from Anand Parvat side. The scooter was being driven by the driver rashly and negligently. The front portion of the scooter (offending vehicle) struck FAO 58/2001 Page 3 of 4 against the left middle portion of his scooter and his left leg. On account of forceful impact he along with scooter and the pillion rider fell on the road. He suffered multiple injuries on his left leg. The scooter driver of the offending vehicle along with others took him to Dr. V.K. Ahuja Clinic near Liberty Cinema and then to Dr. Gian Chand Clinic for X-ray of his leg. The scooter driver absconded from there. It was thereafter that the Respondent was taken to Paschimi Clinic, so it was the third hospital where the Respondent had reached on that very day. The Respondent might have disclosed to the doctor that the driver of the offending vehicle had since absconded. Thus, merely because it was recorded on the discharge summary that it was a case of ‘hit and run’ it would not mean that the vehicle number DND 2510 as deposed by PW-1 was not involved in the accident. 4. A report Ex.PW-1/5 was lodged by the Respondent with the police detailing the facts as to how the accident occurred and how the driver absconded. This was followed by him with a reminder dated 26.01.1991 written to the SHO, Police Station Original Record with the copy to the Commissioner of Police. It seems that Respondent was unable to pursue the matter further. That however would not mean that the accident was not caused by the driver of the two wheeler scooter number DND 2510. FAO 58/2001 Page 4 of 4 5. In my view, it is amply proved that the accident was caused by the driver of the offending vehicle number DND 2510 and the Tribunal’s finding on this count cannot be faulted. 6. The Respondent suffered compound comminuted fracture of both the tibia and fibula of one-third of the left leg. Debridgement, stitching and A.K. POP cast were done under GA (general anesthesia). The Respondent remained under treatment of Dr. Sanjiv Rustogi at Paschimi Clinic for seven months. 7. Considering the nature of injuries, the overall compensation of ` 23,000/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be exorbitant and excessive. 8. The Appeal is devoid of any merit; it is accordingly dismissed. The compensation amount, if not withdrawn, shall be paid to the Respondent forthwith. 9. Pending application also stands disposed of. (G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE DECEMBER 19, 2011 vk