Ved Prakash v. Rajender Parshad etc.
Case brief
What is this about?
On an appeal against an Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Award granting Rs.1,40,000 compensation to a cycle rider injured in a vehicular accident, the High Court dismissed the appeal, holding the compensation was just and fair.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 17.08.2011
- MAC Appeal No.321/2010
VED PRAKASH
. ………..Appellant Through: Mr Jatinder Kumar, Advocate.
Versus
RAJENDER PARSHAD & ANOTHER ……….Respondents Through: Mr. J.N. Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
- Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
- To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
- Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Medical Claims Tribunal Award assessing compensation at Rs.1,40,000 for the claimant called for any interference on grounds of inadequate future earnings or loss of longevity.
Whether the Tribunal had correctly appreciated the aspects of future loss of income, loss of longevity, and general damages without overlapping specific heads of compensation.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Ved Prakash
- respondent
Rajender Parshad
Coram
Indermeet Kaur
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court