Delhi Jal Board & Anr. Vs Afjal & Anr.

The present appeal has been filed seeking setting aside the impugned Award dated 02^nd December 2016, whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [‘ MACT ’] adjudicated the compensation claims filed on behalf of one Afjal and minor Subhana . Compensation of Rs.8,46,300 /- was awarded in favour of Afjal along with interest @ 8% per annum; however, 50% thereof was deducted towards contributory negligence, thereby reducing the payable amount to Rs. 4,23,150/- . In respect of Subhana, compensation of Rs.6,16,100/- along with interest @ 8% was awarded.

¶12

Appellant/ Delhi Jal Board , represented through Mr. Amit Sharma , Advocate, contends that as per MACT award, 41% permanent disability with respect to right lower limb was suffered by respondent no. l and functional disability was assessed at 20% . As regards respondent no.2, 16% permanent disability was certified and functional disability was also taken at

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/05/2026 at 12:30:32

¶15

20% while, respondent no. l was 17 years of age, respondent no.2 was 12 years of age.

¶16

The Court has perused the impugned award and finds that the accident occurred on 15^th October 2014 at about 02.00 p.m. at Main Tigri Road near State Bank of India due to rash and negligent driving of Krishan Kumar , driver of water tanker bearing registration no. DL-1LM-0364 (‘ offending vehicle ’). The said water tanker was owned by the appellant/ Delhi Jal Board, which hit the scooter that was being driven by Afjal , due to which he fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. The Tribunal held that Afjal was also liable for contributory negligence and therefore 50% of the claim amount was to be deducted from the compensation awarded.

¶17

As regard Subhana , she was 12 years of age at the time of the accident and studying in class 8^th . She had suffered 16% permanent disability with respect to her right lower limb. Considering she was a student at that time, the functional disability resulting from the accident was judged with reference to nature of her activities at that time, and accordingly, her functional disability was assessed at 20%.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any infirmity in the MACT’s assessment, particularly considering the tender age of minor Subhana . The principles enunciated in Raj Kumar and Ajay Kumar., (2011) 1 SCC 343 have also been asserted by counsel for appellant in this regard. The said judgment lays down comprehensive guidelines for assessment of disability and provides that the nature of the disability and its effect on the life of the injured person must be considered while assessing functional disability.

¶19

In this view of the matter, the Court is not inclined to allow the appeal of appellant/ Delhi Jal Board in this regard.

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/05/2026 at 12:30:32

¶22

The other issue canvassed by counsel for appellant/ Delhi Jal Board is that finding of composite negligence was made by the MACT in respect of Subhana, and therefore the liability ought to have been apportioned between the appellant/ Delhi Jal Board and the driver of the scooter, namely Afjal , who was a minor.

¶23

Considering that Afjal was a minor at the relevant time and his uncle Mohd. Sagir was never made a party, MACT directed the compensation to be paid by appellant/ Delhi Jal Board . 9. This Court also finds no reason to interfere with the said finding, particularly since Mohd. Sagir has not been impleaded as a party even in the present appeal, which was filed in 2017. There is no justification at this stage to compel Mohd. Sagir to defend himself on the plea raised by the appellant/ Delhi Jal Board . Moreover, in cases of composite negligence, the liability is joint and several , and the claimant is entitled to execute the Award against either or both of the liable parties.

¶24

Therefore, the contention of appellant/ Delhi Jal Board that they are not liable to pay the compensation amount cannot be sustained. 11. By order dated 18^th September 2017, directions were given to appellant/ Delhi Jal Board to deposit the entire award amount along with up-to-date interest before the MACT, pursuant to which 20% of the awarded amount was directed to be released in favour of each of the claimants. Considering the appeal has now been disposed of in above terms, entire amount shall now be released to both of the claimants as per the directions of MACT in the impugned award.

¶25

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Pending application is rendered infructuous.

¶26

Statutory amount, if any, deposited by the Delhi Jal Board shall be

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/05/2026 at 12:30:32

¶29

refunded to them.

¶30

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

¶31

ANISH DAYAL, J

¶32

MAY 11, 2026/sm/ zb

¶33

This is a digitally signed order.

¶34

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/05/2026 at 12:30:32

Delhi Jal Board & Anr. v. Afjal & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Delhi Jal Board & Anr. v. Afjal & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunita Devi & Ors. Vs Rajesh Kumar & Anr. (New India Assurance Co. Ltd)

Gurbachan Singh Dogra & Ors. Vs Mehak Chadha & Ors.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sunita Devi & Ors.

Naveen Kumar Vs Mohd Sharif & Ors.

M/S Total Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Aravali Infrapower Ltd.

Akul Sharma Vs Roop Singh