DEEPAK AGNIHOTRI Vs. JAI BHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order, I propose to dispose of six connected appeals bearing Nos. 536 and 538 and 919 to 921 of 1993 as all these appeals arise from one accident in which Deepak Agnihotri, an advocate of this Court, his wife Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri and his cousin Manoj Kumar sustained multiple injuries. Whereas, appeal Nos. 919, 920 and 921 have been filed by the injured-claimants so as to enhance the compensation from the one determined by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short 'mact'), appeals bearing Nos. 536, 537 and 538 have been filed by the Delhi Transport Corporation, with an obvious prayer to slash down the compensation that has since already been granted to the claimants.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case reveal that Deepak Agnihotri, an advocate practising in the Punjab & Haryana High court, his wife Urvashi Agnihotri and his cousin Manoj Kumar met with an accident when the car bearing Registration No. DL-1c-8190 which was driven by Deepak Agnihotri collided with a bus of Delhi Transport Corporation bearing registration Nos. DL1p-9033. This accident took place on April 26, 1992 near Indri Byepass, Karnal. The claimants through petitions filed by them before the MACT claimed Rs. 7,50,000.00 (for injuries sustained by Deepak Agnihotri), Rs. 3,50,000.00 (for injuries sustained by Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri) and Rs. 2,00,000.00 (for injuries sustained by Manoj Kumar. Learned MACT, in all allowed Rs. 2,97,000.00 to Deepak Agnihotri on various counts. An amount of Rs. 1,80,000.00 was determined as compensation payable to his wife Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri whereas Manoj was held entitled to Rs. 30,000/ -. Inasmuch as no arguments at all have been addressed with regard to negligence, and for which there is no scope as well, as a firm Finding, based upon evidence has been recorded, that driver of the bus was negligent and for which alone accident had taken place, there is no necessity at all to go into that issue. The only debate in the present appeals is with regard to quantum of compensation. Before this matter is discussed any further, it will be useful to see the injuries sustained by the claimants.

(3.) HE was unable to lift the left shoulder completely. X-ray of the left shoulder was advised.