JUDGMENT
Santosh Duggal, J.
1. Heard. In view of the affidavit of the Counsel himself filed in support of the application, and the delay being of only six days, the application is allowed and delay is condoned.
C.M. stands disposed of.
FAO 122/92
As a result of the application, for condensation of delay being allowed, the appeal has been taken up.
Mr. R.D. Salaria, Counsel for the respondent accepts notice. He has already filed reply on merits. There is an application also for early hearing filed by the appellant. In view of this, I have heard the appeal.
2. Learned Counsel for the appellant has taken me through the impugned order. I find from the facts, which have been found as established by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, that the respondent was run over by DTC bus No. DLP 1578 on 7.9.1979. There is no dispute that the driver was in the service of the appellant. I am further satisfied that the finding of the Tribunal about accident being result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver is also sustainable on record.
3. The respondent was about 30 years at the time of accident. The order under appeal has discussed in detail the seriousness of the injury, to the effect that according to evidence, respondent’s right leg came under the wheels of the bus as a result of the accident, and was dragged to a distance of about 10 to 15 steps, and when he was admitted in Willingdon Hospital, he was unconscious and was bleeding from nose, mouth and right knee. He had to be hospitalised for 2 1/2 months and in between had developed complications, such as Jaundice and gangerine, and as a result of that his right leg had to be amputated. There is also evidence of the Doctor from Willingdon Hospital to the effect that the respondent has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 40% and he has been crippled for life. The Tribunal awarded to him a sum of Rs. 40,000/- by way of general damages for mental pain, suffering and agony, and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- on account of conveyance because after being discharged from the hospital, the respondent has been attending OPD of Safdarjung Hospital, and keeping in view the young age of the respondent, and the nature of the disability suffered by him, a sum of Rs. 75,000/- has been awarded as future damages. The Tribunal disallowed the claim for medicines and special diet as having not been proved, and also on the view that the respondent being a Government employee might have got reimbursement from Delhi Administration.
4. The Tribunal has taken a balanced and rational view of the matter, and the amount awarded by way of compensation, in the circumstances of the case, is not in any respect excessive, and is a just compensation for the injuries, pain and disability suffered by the respondent.
I, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed.
5. I am informed by Mr. Shahalia that pursuant to the attachment taken, and in the absence of any stay order, as the appeal was not admitted, a sum of Rs. 1,16,000/- which is the total amount of the compensation awarded, has been attached and lying in deposit with the Tribunal. The respondent shall be entitled to withdraw the entire amount.
6. The amount of Rs. 25,000/- which has been deposited as a condition for filing the appeal, as required by Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as per order dated 20th August, 1992, be refunded to the appellant.
The appeal stands disposed of.
In view of the dismissal of the appeal, this application for early hearing has become infructuous and is dismissed as such.