MASTER SANDEEP TANEJA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
LAWS(DLH)-1995-7-97
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on July 25,1995

MASTER SANDIP TANEJA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

BULLAN VS. JASMER KAUR [LAWS(DLH)-1996-7-100] [REFERRED]
SHAKUNTALA GARG VS. MEGH RAJ [LAWS(DLH)-2000-2-36] [REFERRED]
BHULLAN VS. JASMER KAUR [LAWS(DLH)-1996-7-135] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

C.M.Navar - (1.)The present judgment will dispose of three appeals FAO No. 270/81 (Master Sandeep Taneja Vs. State of Haryana & Anr.), FAO 271/81 (Smt Usha Taneja Vs. State of Haryana & Anr.) and FAO 272/81 (Dr.S.P.Taneja Vs. State of Haryana & Anr.). These appeals arise out of the three claim petitions filed before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Delhi and arise from the same accident. Dr. S.P.Tanjea and Mrs Dr. Usha Taneja are both qualified doctors. They along with their son Master Sandeep Taneja who was about two months old at the time of accident sustained multiple injuries and fractures on 23rd April, 1974 at about 2.45 P.m. Dr. Taneja was driving his scooter no. DHU 2023 at Patel Road, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi and his wife, Dr. UshaTanjea with their two months' old son were sitting on the pillion seat of the scooter. The averments made in the petition are that when the scooter was near the bus stop, East Patel Nagar, Main Road, New Delhi the jeep bearing registration no. HRM 388 owned by the State of Haryana, Chandigarh and driven by Avtar Singh, respondent no.2 came from the left side downward road, Patel Road and caused the accident with the scooter. It was alleged that the accident took place because of rash and reckless driving of the jeep on the part of respondent no.2. The appellant was on the left side of the road and was driving at a slow speed. Dr. S.P. Taneja was employed as Doctor-in-charge in the Ramesh Nagar Dispensary in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and at the relevant time was drawing a salary of Rs.1200/- per month. Dr. (Mrs.) Usha Taneja was employed as the doctor at Tilak Nagar dispensary in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and drawing a salary of Rs.900/- per month. The injured after the accident were removed to Willingdon Hospital, New Delhi. Dr. S.P.Taneja suffered bruises on his body and also rupture of his spleen for which he had been operated twice and had not still recovered completely. He remained under treatment and took leave from office for four months and the treatment continues. It was alleged that he spent Rs. 10,000/- till the date of filing the petition before the tribunal for treatment and purchase of medicines. He had been permanently disabled on account of removal of his spleen which had got ruptured in the accident and resultantly there had been deformation in his chest. He claimed compensation for a sum of Rs.one lakh.
(2.)Dr. Mrs. Usha Taneja alleged that both her legs were fractured in the accident and she sustained bruises all over her body. It was alleged that because of the injuries sustained in the accident she was not fit to move about. She had been under plaster for more than four months and had to be on leave from her office from the date of accident till the filing of the petition on 21st October, 1974. Therefore, it was alleged that she was absent from duty for a period of 6-1/4 months. It was further stated that an amount of Rs.10,000/- had been spent till the filing of the petition on her treatment and purchase of medicines. She had been permanently disabled in her both legs which got fractured in the accident and compensation in the sum of Rs.one lakh was, claimed in her petition.
(3.)Master Sandeep Taneja filed the petition through his natural guardian Dr. S.P.Taneja and claimed compensation of Rs.20,000/- on the allegations that he received a crack fracture left clavicle with osteomyelitis left femur. Identical written statements were filed in all the three petitions. Respondent no.1 admitted the fact that the jeep in question belonged to the State of Haryana but he denied that it was involved in the accident. This respondent pleaded that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent no.2 and alleged that it was due to the carelessness on the part of Dr.S.P.Taneja who himself was responsible for the alleged accident. The amount of compensation claimed was excessive and unduly inflated. The following issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties:
1. Whether Shri S.P.Taneja/Mrs. Usha Taneja/Master Sandeep Taneja sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of jeep no. HRM 388 on the part of respondent no.2? 2. Whether notice u/s 80 CPC is not essential? 3. To what amount of compensation, if any, is the petitioner entitled and from whom? 4. relief

;


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