INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT Vs. VIJAY SINGH @ VIJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vijay Singh @ Vijay Kumar (appellant in MAC appeal No. 453/13) had suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that occurred at about 9.00 p.m. on 14.07.2005. He (the claimant) instituted accident claim case (suit no. 88/2006) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 03.02.2006 on the averments that while MAC App. No. 1046/2011 & conn. Page 2 of 6 riding on his motorcycle he was hit by Maruti Gypsy bearing registration no. DL 6CA 7107 driven in negligent manner by Hiraman Singh Bhandari (the second respondent in these appeals), he having been deployed on the said vehicle as a driver by Income Tax Department (appellant in MAC Appeal No.1046/2011) of the Government of India, it concededly being the registered owner of the said vehicle.

(2.) The tribunal held inquiry and thereafter, by judgment dated 31.05.2011, held the driver of the Maruti Gypsy (second respondent) guilty of negligence. It was found that the claimant had suffered injuries which had rendered him permanently disabled, his disability having been certified (Ex.PW-3/1) by a board of doctors of Guru Tegh Bahadur Hospital to be 78% in relation to both lower limbs. The claimant had proved that he was earning his livelihood as a photographer, running his own photo studio. The tribunal held the functional disability to be to be extent of 50%. It also noted that on account of the injuries suffered, which were multiple fractures in both legs, the claimant had to undergo prolonged medical treatment, such treatment being indoor at least for three months and requiring surgical procedures including that for implant of fixator and nailing followed by another for removal of rods. The tribunal awarded total compensation in the sum of Rs. 6,43,920/-, calculating it thus:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_77_LAWS(DLH)11_2017_1.html</FRM>

(3.) The liability to pay the above amount of compensation was fastened on Income Tax Department (appellant in MAC Appeal no. 1046/2011). The entity on which the liability to pay compensation has been fastened, by its appeal (MAC Appeal no. 1046/2011), has questioned the award on the ground that there was no proper proof adduced as to negligence inasmuch as no eye witness had been examined. It also submits that the awards under the heads of pain & suffering, loss of down payment of the motorcycle and special diet are based on presumptions and assumptions and are excessive.