MOHAMMED YUNUS Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION
LAWS(DLH)-1983-12-31
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on December 19,1983

MOHAMMED YUNUS Appellant
VERSUS
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Charanjit Talwar, J. - (1.)THE question arising for consideration in this appeal under Section 10 of the Letters Patent is whether the loss of earning capacity of the appellant Shri Mohd. Yunus aged 15 years at the time of accident resulting in his permanent disablement, has been correctly determined in the impugned judgment. The case of the appellant was that he was working as a tailor. The facts found by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and affirmed by the learned Single Judge are that Mohd. Yunus suffered an injury to his left hand and the wrist in an accident on 19th February, 1965. The accident was due to rash and negligent driving of Shri Laxmi Chand driver of bus No. DLP 586 owned by the Delhi Transport Undertaking of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
(2.)THE Tribunal accepted the testimony of Dr. R.K. Busaj (PW 7) who stated "the injured had a big lacerated wound from left elbow to rsel aspect to knuckles" when brought to the casualty department of hospital. The doctor found "complete desolving of skin, over distal third of forearm and hand. All tendons over wrist and hand and distal third of forearm were exposed". It appears that in spite of six operations and plastic surgery carried out Mohd. Yunus hand could not be cured; the injury resulted in permanent disability of the wrist joint and fingers. Dr. Busaj (PW 7) was corroborated by Dr. M Section Rawat (PW 5) and Dr. Amir Chand Narula (PW 8) who categorically affirmed that Mohd. Yunus suffered permanent disability of his left hand because of the injury. Dr. Narula further opined that the injured has been permanently incapacitated to work as a tailor.
The learned Tribunal, however, found that the evidence produced by the petitioner that he was being paid Rs. 80/ - per month as a tailor, was not satisfactory as no documents had been produced by his employer Shri Rattan Lal in support of the contention that he was being paid that amount. The fact that the appellant was a tailor was not challenged in his or his father's cross -examination. In the appellant's cross -examination the attempt was to show that he contributed to the accident. In his father's cross -examination it was brought out that the medical treatment given to the appellant was free.

(3.)THE Tribunal awarded Rs. 1500/ - for physical pain, agony suffering and Rs. 2500/ - as compensation for permanent disability. The appellant had claimed Rs. 25,000/ -.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.