IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

MAC APP.NO. _____OF 2017

IN RE:

SUBHASH KUMAR ….APPELLANT

V/s

RAJESH KUMAR & OTHERS … RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT

I, Subhash Kumar, aged about 51 years, S/o Sh.Jamna

Parsad Mandal , R/o House No.D-1/73.Sheesh Mahal Enclave,
Prem Nagar-III, Kirari Suleman Nagar, Delhi, do hereby solemnly
affirm and declare as under:

1. That deponent is the Appellant in the above Appeal and he is

fully conversant with the facts of the case and competent to
swear this affidavit.

2. That annexed Appeal under Section 173 of The Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 has been drafted under the instructions of the
deponent and facts mentioned therein are true and correct to
the knowledge of the deponent and explained in vernacular
language.

3. That the Appellant has not preferred any other appeal against
the judgment dated 21.07.2017 passed by Sh. SURESH
KUMAR GUPTA, Judge, MACT, Delhi in Suit No. 155/2016.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION :

Verified at Delhi on this day of , 2017, that the contents

of above affidavit are true to my knowledge and nothing material has
been concealed thereof.

DEPONENT
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

C.M. APPL. ____________OF 2017

IN

MAC APP.NO._________OF 2017

SUBHASH KUMAR ….APPELLANT

V/s

RAJESH KUMAR & OTHERS … RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT

I, Subhash Kumar, aged about 51 years, S/o Sh.Jamna Parsad

Mandal , R/o House No.D-1/73.Sheesh Mahal Enclave, Prem Nagar-III,
Kirari Suleman Nagar, Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as
under:

1. That deponent is the Appellant in the above Appeal and he is fully

conversant with the facts of the case.

2. That annexed Application under Sec.173 (proviso) of the Motor

Vehicles Act read with Section 151 C.P.C. for the condonation of
delay has been drafted under the instructions of Deponent and
facts mentioned therein are true and correct to the knowledge of
the deponent and explained in vernacular language.

3. That the contents of this affidavit may be read as part and parcel
to the annexed application.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION :

Verified at Delhi on this day of_______, 2017, that the contents

of para 1 to 3 of the above affidavit are true to my knowledge and nothing
material has been concealed thereof.

DEPONENT
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MAC APP.NO. OF 2017

In Re:

SUBHASH KUMAR ….APPELLANT

V/s

RAJESH KUMAR & OTHERS … RESPONDENTS

MEMORANDUM OF FIRST APPEAL UNDER SEC.173 OF

THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF SH. SURESH KUMAR
GUPTA, JUDGE, M.A.C.T., DELHI, DATED 21.07.2017 IN
SUIT NO. 155 OF 2016.

TO,

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE

HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI.

The humble petition of the Appellant above named:-

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That this Memorandum of First Appeal is directed

against the judgment of Sh. SURESH KUMAR
 GUPTA, Judge, MACT, Delhi dated 21.07.2017 in
Suit No. 155/2017, by the said judgment the Ld.
Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 8,86,886/- (Rupees
Eighty Lakh Eighty Six Thousand Eight Hundred
Eighty Six Only) against the claimed amount of Rs.
20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs only) which is
much less than the reasonable and just.

2. That the facts of the case briefly stated are as under:-

i) That on the 04/06/13 at about 6:20 p.m in

the evening when the petitioner Subhash
Kumar, aged about 51 years, S/o Sh.Jamna
Parsad Mandal (Appellant) he was going on
Platform A,T-POINT Local Bus Stop, ISBT
Anand Vihar where one DTC BUS bearing
reg. no. DL-1PC-3063 of route no. 236 being
driven by Repondent no.1 at a very high
speed rashly and negligently without taking
due cautions and without following the rules
of road in most rash and negligent manner
came and hit the (Appellant) from behind
and he fell down and front wheel of the Bus
ran over his foot as a result the (Appellant)
sustained Serious And Grevious Injuries and
was immediately taken to the MAX BALAJI
HOSPITAL,DELHI in a Pathetic Condition
.The Driver of the offending vehicle was
arrested by the Police and a case of Injuries
due to Rash And Negligent Driving has been
registered against the BUS Driver(Rajesh
Kumar) At Madhu Vihar Police Station U/S
279/338 I.P.C F.I.R No. 308/13.The
Respondent No.1(In Petition No.155/16) was
driving the bus at High Speed Rashly And
Negligently.
ii) That the Appellant was immediately taken to
the MAX BALAJI HOSPITAL Delhi ON
04/06/13 in a critical condition(Appellant
Bleeding From Nose And Transient Loss Of
Consciousness At The Time Of Admission At
The Said Hospital) .From MAX BALAJI
HOSPITAL Appellant shifted to
SATYABHAMA HOSPITAL ON 04/06/2013
AND DISCHARGED ON
09/06/2103.OPERATION DONE ON
05/06/2103, BUT appellant again admitted
to SATYABHAMA HOSPITAL ON 11/07/2013
AND DISCHARGED ON
13/07/2103.OPERATION DONE ON
11/07/2103,after treatment on strict advise
of bed rest. That the Appellant attended
several O.P.D.”s thereafter.

iii) That the Appellant has suffered permanent

disability to the extent of 43% with respect to
INJURIES(Comminuted Fracture Of Both
Bones Of Left Leg And Degloving Wounds ).
That the condition of the Appellant’s leg is
non-progressive and not likely to improve in
future. That Appellant has suffered great
pain, shock, mental torture and agony on
account of this accident besides financial
loss.

iv) That at the time of accident the Appellant

was aged about 51 years and was having
good health. The Appellant was Self-
employed and has been running his
business under the name and style HI-TECH
COMMUNICATION and has been filling
income tax return for the assessment year
2012-2103 which shows that his aggregate
 income is Rs. 2,07,820/- P.A .A sum of Rs.
2865/- is paid as income tax and the
education cess.That the Appellant was also
assessed to Income Tax and proved his
Income Tax Return. That after the accident
the Appellant is disable as due to leg injury
he is unable to carry out the said
business/job. The accident has totally
curtailed Appellant working capacity and
therefore the entire family is suffering from
huge financial crisis. In addition to mental
and physical sufferings Appellant brilliant
carrier + the prospects of business of the
Appellant were ended due to this accident
which deprived HIM from HIS fundamental
rights.

v) That the Respondent No.1 is the driver,

Respondent no.2 is the registered owner,
Respondent no.3 is the insured of the
offending vehicle bearing no. DL-1PC-3063,
which was insured with Respondent No. 3,
UNITED INDIA Insurance Company Ltd. for
all such risks. Therefore, all the respondents
are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to the Appellant.

vi) That the written Statement was filed on

behalf of R-1 & 2 wherein they have
alleged that the claim of the appellant
is highly exorbitant and untenable in the
eyes of law and respondents are not
liable to pay compensation to appellant
as vehicle involved in this case has been
insured with respondent no.3, factum of
accident has been denied by the
 respondent. Respondent No.3 i.e. UNITED
INDIA Insurance Company Ltd. has also
filed written statement and had alleged
that BUS bearing no. DL-1PC-3063
was insured vide policy
no.0411003112P301758319 effective
from 06-12-2012 to 05-12-2013.

That on the pleadings of the parties,

following issues were framed on
19/09/2013;

A.)Whether petitioner suffered injuries in

a road side accident that took place on
04-06-13 involving vehicle bus
bearing registration no.DL-1PC-3063
driven allegedly by the driver Rajesh
Kumar of the same in a rash and
negligent manner ?

B.)Whether the Petitioner is entitled for

any compensation, if so, To what
amount of compensation petitioner is
entitled to, and from whom?

C.) Relief.

vii) That the appellant examined himself as

PW1 and tendered his evidence by way of
affidavit wherein he has stated the entire
facts on oath and exhibited the
documents pertaining to his injuries,
expenses on the treatment, income,
criminal records, income proof, residence
proof, etc. The copy of said affidavit is
annexed as “Annexure A-2”.
 viii) That the appellants further lead evidence
and PW3 ( Durgesh Kumar, Medical
Record Clerk Of Satyabhama Hospital,
Delhi) also filed his evidence treatment
record of appellant and stated that bills
of Rs.58,000/- and Rs. 49,000/- were
paid by the appellant on 13/07/13.

ix) That the PW.2 (Sh. Chet Ram), also came

in witness box before the Ld. Trial Court
and filed records of appellant Income Tax
records.
x) That the PW-4 DR.Binod Kalita
,Orthopeadics,Jag Pravesh Chandra
Hospital stated that a disability board
was conituted for the assessment of
permanent disability of the Appellant .
the Appellant has sustained 43%
permanent disability in realtion to left
lower limb.

xi) That the respondent no.1 to 3 did not

lead any evidence. The counsel for the
appellant filed a detailed written
submissions and also argued at length
and the Ld. Trial Court passed the
impugned order dated 21-07-2017.

xii) That the Ld. Tribunal vide judgment dated

21.07.2017 awarded a compensation of Rs.
8,86,886/- to the Appellant, which is much
less than reasonable and just.

That aggrieved by the judgment of the Ld. Tribunal dated

21.07.2017on the point of Quantum, the Appellant herein
most respectfully seeks to Appeal to this Hon’ble Court for the
enhancement of the award amount on the following grounds
amongst others: -
GROUNDS OF APPEAL:

A. That the Ld. Trial Court has mechanically passed

the order exercising its jurisdiction illegally and
with material irregularity and has passed a non
speaking order. The impugned final award as such,
if not enhanced, will result in gross miscarriage of
justice and irreparable injury and damage to the
Appellant who have lost his physical perfection.

B. That the judgment of the Ld. Tribunal is against the

facts, law and evidence on record whereby the Ld.
Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs. 8,86,886/- only
which is less than the reasonable and just.

C. That the Ld. Trial Court has acted without

diligence and has not applied its mind to the
aspects of the case properly and duly as the Ld.
Trial Court has failed to take into consideration the
future income loss of the appellant in the light of
his grievous head injuries.

D. That the Ld. Tribunal erred in not taking into

consideration the loss of income of the Appellant as per
the leaves taken by the appellant that are proved on
record. Medical certificate also on the record. That the
Ld. Tribunal erred in granting loss of income during
treatment period that is about eight months whereas
the Appellant remained completely bed-ridden for about
eight months.
E. That the Ld. Tribunal failed to appreciate that the
income of the Appellant would have increased with the
flux of time. No future prospectus is given by the
ld.tribunal. No future increase in the income of the
Appellant is considered by the Ld.Tribunal. While
applying the multiplier method, future prospects on
advancement in life and career are taken into
consideration.

F. That the appellant stated that he is suffering from

permanent functional disability to the tune of 43%.that
certificate of disability is issued to the appellant. the
appellant claims that he is aged 51 years .The Appellant
was Self-employed and has been running his business
under the name and style HI-TECH COMMUNICATION
and has been filling income tax return for the
assessment year 2012-2103 which shows that his
aggregate income is Rs. 2,07,820/- P.A .A sum of Rs.
2865/- is paid as income tax and the education cess.
The appellant suffered the loss of income owing to the
disability. That this disability has caused him the
substantial decrease in the earning capacity and it is
the great monetary loss to the appellant which was not
appreciated by the Ld. Tribunal and passed the order
erroneously. LD. COUNSEL for appellant relied on
II(2004)ACC 714 Sukumar Pattjoshi V. M/S Raj deep
Leasing And Finance And Other’s( In Which Our Hon’ble
High Court Held That In Case Of Personal Injury Where
The Disability Is 26%,The Total Compensation Awarded
Is Rs.5,41,000/-. In the said case, the disability is with
regard to the person who was an advocate and the
disability was upheld. Another decision of Calcutta High
Court reported as II (2004) ACC 158 (DB) SAMIM
AKHTAR V. M/S TAULIB ENTERPRISES AND
ANOTHER., where a tailor had suffered fracture in tibia.
Considering the occupation of the present claimant the
loss of income is calculated. Disability refers to any
restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the
manner considered normal for a human being.
Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity
or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at
the end of the period of treatment and recuperation,
after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or
recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life
of the injured Total permanent disability refers to a
person's inability to perform any avocation or
employment related activities as a result of the accident.
The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor
accident injuries, are of a much wider range when
compared to the physical disabilities which are
enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995 (the Disabilities Act, for short).
But if any of the disabilities enumerated in Section 2(i)
of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained
in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities
for the purpose of claiming compensation. Where the
claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of
injuries, the assessment of compensation under the
head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the
effect and impact of such permanent disability on his
earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of
economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning
capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be
different from the percentage of permanent disability.
requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of
the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the
injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity
in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be
quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss
of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method
used to determine loss of dependency). We may however
note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence
and assessment. that the appellant is Self-Employed. To
do his work efficiently and in order to augment his
income, a Self-Employed Businessman is supposed to
 move around as well. If a Businessman is doing field
work, he has to move around for his work. Many times
Businessman are supposed to visit their
clients/customers as well. In case of a Self-employed
he is not only required to visit his clients/customers but
also various authorities as well. There are many
statutory functions under various statutes which the
Self-Employed perform to run his
business/trading/manufacturing. Free movement is
involved for performance of such functions. A person
who is engaged and cannot freely move to attend to his
duties may not be able to match the earning in
comparison with the one who is healthy and bodily
abled. Movements of the appellant have been restricted
to a large extent and that too at a young age. The
appellant suffered 100% functional disability due to
injuries in the said road accident ,so no deduction is
taken and full 43% permanent disability must be taken
into consideration. Appellant relied on following cases:-
Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176, Yadava
Kumar v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company
Limited & Anr (2010) 10 SCC 341, Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar &
Ors (2011) 1 SCC 343, Sandeep Khanuja vs Atul Dande &
Anr CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1329 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT
OF SLP (C) NO. 22790 OF 2013)

G. That the Ld. Tribunal erred in granting meager sum of

compensation under the Pain and Suffering heads. The
Ld. Tribunal is totally blind and bias during the
pronouncing the Judgment. The Ld. P.O MACT very
deliberately wrongly assessed the injuries of the
appellant as appellant suffering from BOTH BONE
FRACTURE OF LEFT LEG .On his wrong assessment of

injuries the ld. P.O.MACT delivered his judgment and

totally ruined up the legal proceedings and the future of
the appellant. The staff of the ld. P.O.MACT is just CUT-
COPY-PASTING the orders and ld. P.O.MACT SH. is just
signing the orders with blind eyes and ruining the
 reasonable justice for the grieved appellants. there is no
detailed working has been done by the ld. Tribunal and
mechanically passed the order exercising its
jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity
and has passed a non speaking order.Appellant
should have been awarded atleast Rs.1,00,000/-
under this head.

H. That the Ld. Tribunal has erred in not awarding

compensation for the loss of expectancy of life and
shortening of life due to injuries received in accident.

I. That the Ld. Tribunal has erred in awarding meager

compensation towards attendant charges, conveyance
and special diet to the Appellant. That the Ld. Tribunal
failed to appreciate that the Appellant will not able to
drive any vehicle in future.

J. That the Ld. Tribunal has erred in awarding meager

amount of compensation for enjoyment of life, for
frustration and for reduction of working capacity, the
Ld. Tribunal ought to have awarded specific amount
under specific heads as laid down in reported case
Sh.Rattan Lal Mehta Versus Rajinder Kapoor 1996
ACJ, 372, (D.B.) Delhi as under :- “Quantum – Injury –
Principles of assessment – Pecuniary damages –
Itemization of various heads – Pecuniary losses are
divided into (i) Special Damages or Pre-trial pecuniary
loss, (ii) Prospective loss of earnings and profits, and (iii)
cost of future care and other expenses”.
---“Non-Pecuniary damages are divided into
sub heads – (i) Pain and Suffering, (ii) Loss of
amenities of life, (iii) Loss of expectation of
life, (iv) disfigurement and (v) discomfort or
inconvenience.”

K. The Ld. Tribunal erred in awarding interest @ 9% only

on the awarded amount; the Ld. Tribunal ought to have
 awarded interest @ 12% on the awarded amount from
the date of petition till realization.

PRAYER:

Under the circumstances as explained herein above it is most

respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to: -

i) Allow the Appeal of the Appellant with costs

throughout and modify the judgment dt. 21.07.2017
passed by Sh. SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, Judge,
MACT, Delhi in Suit No. 155/2016 by modifying the
said judgment enhancing the award/ compensation
payable to the Appellants to Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Lacs only) along with the interest @ 12% p.a.
from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till
realization in favor of the Appellants and against the
Respondents.

ii) Pass such further and other orders/directions as this

Hon’ble Court may deem fit, proper and just in the
circumstances of the matter.

APPELLANT

THROUGH
 (POOJA GOEL)

Advocates,

DELHI

DATED : 30.11.2017 Chamber No. D-227,

Lawyer’s Chamber Block-D,
Karkardomma Court of Delhi,

New Delhi-110032.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

MAC APP.NO. OF 2017

SUBHASH KUMAR ….APPELLANT

V/s
RAJESH KUMAR & OTHERS … RESPONDENTS

(Appeal against the judgment of Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, Judge, MACT,
Delhi, dated 21.07.2017 in Suit No. 155/2017 in case titled Subhash
Kumar Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors.)

MEMO OF PARTIES

SH:SUBHASH KUMAR,

S/O SH. JAMNA PRASAD MANDAL,

R/O H.NO. D-1/73,SHEESH MAHAL ENCLAVE,

PREM NAAGR-III,KIRARI,

SULEMAN NAGAR, DELHI.

…APPELLANT

VERSUS

1. RAJESH KUMAR, S/O SH.JILAY SINGH,

R/O VILLAGE-KAHIR,

NAJAFGARH,DELHI...........................................DRIVER.

2. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

PIRAGARHI DEPOT,

DELHI..............................................................OWNER.

3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

E-85,HIMALYA HOUSE,

KG MARG,CANNOUGHT PLACE

NEW DELHI-11000.......................INSURANCE COMPANY

 ...RESPONDENTS

APPELLANT

THROUGH

(POOJA GOEL)

Advocates,

DELHI

DATED : 30.03.2013 Chamber No. D-227,

Lawyer’s Chamber Block-D,
Karkardomma Court of Delhi,

New Delhi-110032.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

MAC APP.NO. OF 2017

SUBHASH KUMAR ….APPELLANT

V/s

RAJESH KUMAR & OTHERS … RESPONDENTS

INDEX
SL.NO. PARTICULARS PAGES COURT- FEE

A. Urgent Application 1 Rs. 3.00/-

1. Opening Sheet 2 --

2. Memo of Parties 3 ---

3. Synopsis & MACT Proforma 4-8 --

4. Memorandum of Appeal under Rs.5.50/p

Sec.173 of Motor Vehicles Act
along with supporting affidavit.

5. Certified copy of impugned

judgment dated 21.07.2017
passed by Sh. Suresh Kumar Rs. 08.00/-
Gupta, Judge, MACT, Delhi in
Suit No. 155/2016.

6. Application for condonation of Rs.3.00/-

Delay in Filing the Appeal

Insurance Policy
7. ---

Vakalatanama
8. Rs. 3.00/-
NOTE No notice of the caveat has been received till date.

No connected similar matter filed by the Appellant before

this Hon'ble Court

(POOJA GOEL)

Advocates,

DELHI

DATED : 30.03.2013 Chamber No. D-227,

Lawyer’s Chamber Block-D,
Karkardomma Court of Delhi,

New Delhi-110032.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

MAC APP.NO. OF 2017

SUBHASH KUMAR ….APPELLANT

V/s

RAJESH KUMAR & OTHERS … RESPONDENTS

SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES

04.06.2013

That on the 04/06/13 at about 6:20 p.m in the

evening when the petitioner Subhash Kumar, aged
about 51 years, S/o Sh.Jamna Parsad Mandal
(Appellant) he was going on Platform A,T-POINT
Local Bus Stop, ISBT Anand Vihar where one
DTC BUS bearing reg. no. DL-1PC-3063 of route
no. 236 being driven by Repondent no.1 at a very
high speed rashly and negligently without taking
due cautions and without following the rules of
road in most rash and negligent manner came and
hit the (Appellant) from behind and he fell down
and front wheel of the Bus ran over his foot as a
result the (Appellant) sustained Serious And
Grevious Injuries and was immediately taken to
the MAX BALAJI HOSPITAL,DELHI in a Pathetic
Condition .The Driver of the offending vehicle was
arrested by the Police and a case of Injuries due to
Rash And Negligent Driving has been registered
against the BUS Driver(Rajesh Kumar) At Madhu
Vihar Police Station U/S 279/338 I.P.C F.I.R No.
308/13.The Respondent No.1(In Petition
 No.155/16) was driving the bus at High Speed
Rashly And Negligently.

04.06.2013 to 09.06.2013

That the Appellant was immediately taken to the

MAX BALAJI HOSPITAL Delhi ON 04/06/13 in a
critical condition(Appellant Bleeding From Nose
And Transient Loss Of Consciousness At The Time
Of Admission At The Said Hospital) .From MAX
BALAJI HOSPITAL Appellant shifted to
SATYABHAMA HOSPITAL ON 04/06/2013 AND
DISCHARGED ON 09/06/2103.OPERATION
DONE ON 05/06/2103, BUT appellant again
admitted to SATYABHAMA HOSPITAL ON
11/07/2013 AND DISCHARGED ON
13/07/2103.OPERATION DONE ON
11/07/2103,after treatment on strict advise of bed
rest. That the Appellant attended several O.P.D.”s
thereafter. That the Appellant has suffered
permanent disability to the extent of 43% with
respect to INJURIES(Comminuted Fracture Of Both
Bones Of Left Leg And Degloving Wounds ). That
the condition of the Appellant’s leg is non-
progressive and not likely to improve in future.
That Appellant has suffered great pain, shock,
mental torture and agony on account of this
accident besides financial loss.

That at the time of accident the Appellant was

aged about 51 years and was having good health.
The Appellant was Self-employed and has been
running his business under the name and style
HI-TECH COMMUNICATION and has been filling
income tax return for the assessment year 2012-
2103 which shows that his aggregate income is
Rs. 2,07,820/- P.A .A sum of Rs. 2865/- is paid as
income tax and the education cess.That the
 Appellant was also assessed to Income Tax and
proved his Income Tax Return. That after the
accident the Appellant is disable as due to leg
injury he is unable to carry out the said
business/job. The accident has totally curtailed
Appellant working capacity and therefore the
entire family is suffering from huge financial
crisis. In addition to mental and physical
sufferings Appellant brilliant carrier + the
prospects of business of the Appellant were ended
due to this accident which deprived HIM from HIS
fundamental rights.

04.07.2013

That the DAR was filed by the investigating Officer,

which was treated as Claim Petition for claiming
compensation from the driver, owners and the
Insurance Company of the offending vehicle.

19/09/2013
That the written Statement was filed on behalf
of R-1 & 2 wherein they have alleged that the
claim of the appellant is highly exorbitant
and untenable in the eyes of law and
respondents are not liable to pay
compensation to appellant as vehicle involved
in this case has been insured with respondent
no.3, factum of accident has been denied by
the respondent. Respondent No.3 i.e. UNITED
INDIA Insurance Company Ltd. has also filed
written statement and had alleged that BUS
bearing no. DL-1PC-3063 was insured vide
policy no.0411003112P301758319 effective
from 06-12-2012 to 05-12-2013.
 That on the pleadings of the parties, following
issues were framed on 19/09/2013;

A.) Whether petitioner suffered injuries in a

road side accident that took place on
04-06-13 involving vehicle bus bearing
registration no.DL-1PC-3063 driven
allegedly by the driver Rajesh Kumar of
the same in a rash and negligent manner
?

B.) Whether the Petitioner is entitled for any

compensation, if so, To what amount of
compensation petitioner is entitled to,
and from whom?

C.) Relief.

21.07.2017

That the Ld. Tribunal vide judgment dated

21.07.2017 awarded an compensation of Rs.
8,86,886/- to the Appellant, which is much less
than reasonable and just.

30.11.2017

Aggrieved by the judgment of the Learned Tribunal

the claimant/injured have filed the present appeal
on the grounds mentioned as Ground A to Ground
K in the memorandum of appeal.
 (POOJA GOEL)

Advocates,

DELHI

DATED : 30.11.2017 Chamber No. D-227,

Lawyer’s Chamber Block-D,

Karkardomma Court of
Delhi,
New Delhi-110032.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

C.M. APPL. ____________OF 2017

IN

MAC APP.NO._________OF 2017

SUBHASH KUMAR ….APPELLANT

V/s

RAJESH KUMAR & OTHERS … RESPONDENTS

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT UNDER

SECTION 173 (1) (PROVISO) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE
ACT READ WITH SECTION 151 C.P.C FOR THE
CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the Appellant has preferred the accompanying

appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
against the judgment of Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta,
Judge, MACT, Delhi dated 21.07.2017 in Suit No.
155/16 for the enhancement of compensation.

2. That the facts and circumstances of the case have

been set out in detail in the accompanying appeal
and the same are not repeated herein for the sake of
brevity. The Appellant crave leave of this Hon’ble
Court to refer and rely upon the same at the time of
hearing of this application.
 3. That the Appellant is suffered 43 % permanent
disability in the accident and his left lower limb was
unable to work properly and efficiently as a result of
which the Appellant is not keeping well.

4. That the Appellant was down with viral fever and

could only recover in the first week of September’
2017; after which he contacted the counsel and gave
instructions to file the accompanying appeal.

5. That the delay of days in filing the appeal is

unintentional and un-willful, and due to the reasons
stated above and as such no injury or damage would
be caused to the Respondents if delay in filing the
appeal by the claimant/Appellant may be condoned.

PRAYER:

In the facts and circumstance of the case and in the interest

of justice it is most respectfully prayed that:

a. Delay of days in filing the appeal may please

be condoned and the appeal may be decided on
merits.

b. Such further and other orders as may deem fit,

proper and just in the circumstances of the
matter.

APPELLANT

Through

(POOJA GOEL)

Advocates,

DELHI

DATED : 30.11.2017
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

MAC APP.NO. _____OF 2017

IN RE:

SUBHASH KUMAR ….APPELLANT

V/s

RAJESH KUMAR & OTHERS … RESPONDENTS

APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING

THE ANNEXURE “A” ON FOOLSCAPE AND ONE
SIDE OF PAPER .

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWITH:

(1). That the Applicants have filed the present appeal for

enhancement of the amount of award of order dated

21/07/17passed by the Ld. Tribunal.

(2) That the Applicant undertake to file the certified copy

of Annexure on foolscap and one side of paper as and

when the same will be available with the Applicant as

the same has been applied by the appellants. The

Applicant is filling the Annexure on both side of paper

for the time being because the matter is an urgent

nature.
 It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that the
applicants may kindly be exempted from filling the
Annexure “A” On Foolscap And One Side Of paper
and certified copy of the same on both side of
paper be ordered to be taken on record.

PRAYED ACCORDINGLY.

APPELLANT

THROUGH

(POOJA GOEL)

Advocates,

DELHI

DATED : 30.11.2017 Chamber No. D-227,

Lawyer’s Chamber Block-D,
Karkardomma Court of Delhi,

New Delhi-110032.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

MAC APP.NO. _____OF 2017

IN RE:

SUBHASH KUMAR ….APPELLANT

V/s

RAJESH KUMAR & OTHERS … RESPONDENTS

NOTICE OF MOTION

Take Notice that the accompanying appeal U/S 173 of

MV Act , on behalf of appellant is being filed in the
above noted case, copy of which is enclosed for your
record. All the concerned parties have been served.

APPELLANT

THROUGH
 (POOJA GOEL)

Advocates,

DELHI

DATED : 30.11.2017 Chamber No. D-227,

Lawyer’s Chamber Block-D,
Karkardomma Court of Delhi,

New Delhi-110032.

TO,

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

E-85,HIMALYA HOUSE,KG MARG,

CANNOUGHT PLACE,

NEW DELHI-1100