Read Time: 08 minutes

The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with the order passed by the Secretary under the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2015, granting compensation of Rs.2 lakhs to the petitioner who had sustained injury on account of an accident on May 29, 2018.

Through the present appeal the petitioner wanted to set aside impugned order dated Jun 20, 2019, passed by the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, South-East recommending a compensation of Rs. 2 lakh to the petitioner to be released as per the scheme of disbursal.

By the order impugned herein, a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs was awarded as compensation.

The single bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva observed the objection as to the maintainability of appeal against the order passed by the Secretary, DLSA under the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme and thus was left open.

According to the facts of the present case the petitioner had sustained injury on account of an accident on 29.05.2018. An Untraced Report was filed by the police, which was accepted by the Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. Thereafter, petitioner claimed compensation from the District Legal Services Authority, South-East District, under the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2015.

Following contentions were made by the counsel for the appellant –

• The compensation has been assessed on the lower side and a higher compensation should have been awarded.
• Disability of 39% has been taken whereas appellant has obtained a disability certificate from the All India Institute of Medical Science dated 22.07.2019, which has assessed disability at 67% permanent physical impairment in relation to his left lower limb.

On the contrary, the respondent’s counsel raised objection to the maintainability of the present appeal and argued that, “Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 enables filing of an appeal impugning an order passed by the Motor Accident Tribunal. He submits that the appellant is impugning an order of the District Legal Services Authority which is an order passed under the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2015.”

He further submitted that,

• When the application was filed, the disability of the appellant was examined by a medical board of Safdarjung Hospital and the Board had opined that appellant had sustained 39% permanent physical disability in relation to his left lower limb.
• The disability certificate filed in the appeal has been obtained after the date of the impugned order and assesses the disability at 67% but it does not show that the disability certificate of Safdarjung Hospital has been taken into consideration.
• As per the scheme, the case of the appellant has been considered and awarded maximum compensation awardable under the requisite schedule which is Rs.2 lakh.

The respondents counsel lastly contended that, even if the contention of the appellant were to be accepted and the subsequent medical certificate of AIIMS were taken into account, case of the appellant would fall in Entry 6 of the schedule, which permitted compensation to be provided between Rs.1 lakh to Rs. 3 lakhs and the case of the appellant would still be covered under the same as the compensation had been awarded at Rs. 2 lakhs.

“Entry 6 of the schedule pertains to permanent disability ranging between 40% to 80%. As per the disability certificate of Safdarjung Hospital appellant had suffered 39% disability which would be covered in category 7 and the maximum compensation awardable is Rs. 2,00,000/-. In case the disability certificate of AIIMS is taken into consideration the case would fall in category 6 where the disability covered is 40% to 80% and the amount awardable is Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 3,00,000/-. Respondent has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-,” he added.

Taking all of this into consideration the bench observed that the present case did not warrant any interference.

Case title - Dr. V. P. Appan versus Secretary, (DLSA South-East), District Court, Saket