Allowed

Sh. Ashish Sagar v. Sh. Naim Khan & Ors. ( Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd)

Delhi HC15 Mar 2019MAC.APP./321/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge enhanced compensation awarded to an appellant injured in a motor accident, specifically increasing amounts for loss of marriage prospects, loss of amenities of life, and loss of inconvenience/hardship due to the permanent disability and physiotherapy sustained, rejecting the contention that awarded sums were sufficient.

What did the court decide?

The Award was modified by enhancing compensation for loss of amenities, marriage prospects, and hardship to a total of Rs. 2,25,000, plus interest at 9% per annum.

Sh. Ashish Sagar Vs Sh. Naim Khan & Ors. ( Hdfc Ergo… — Motor Accident Claims | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~5

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

MAC.APP. 321/2019 & CM APPL. 9981-9982/2019

¶4

SH. ASHISH SAGAR ..... Appellant Through : Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

SH. NAIM KHAN & ORS ( HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD) ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Advocate for R-3.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

O R D E R

15.03.2019

The appellant assails the impugned judgment – Award dated 20.08.2018 passed by the MACT-1 (Central), THC, Delhi, where-under, for the injuries sustained by the appellant, while travelling in the offending vehicle, the following amounts have come to be awarded :-

¶12

NAMEOF HEAD	AMOUNT (In Rs.)
Loss Of Income	62,868/-
Medical Expenses	16,544/-
Conveyance charges	15,000/-
Special Diet	25,000/-
Attendant Charges	25,000/-
Loss of earning capacity due to disability	11,08,976/-
Mental & Physical shock	40,000/-

¶13

Pain & suffering	70,000/-
Loss of amenities of life	20,000/-
Loss of marriage prospects	40,000/-
Loss of inconvenience/hardship/	35,000/-
Disappointment/mental stress
*Total*	*14,58,388/-*

¶14

During the course of hearing, it emerges that the offending vehicle was being driven and occupied by the occupants, which includes the appellant, who were all drunk and taking note of the totality of the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal, while assessing the compensation, has deducted the total assessed Award by 25% towards contributory negligence. At this stage, Mr. Parashar, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that he has instruction to not agitate to the issue of such deduction and few other heads of the Award, but, for the compensation awarded towards (i) pain and suffering; (ii) loss of amenities of life; (iii) loss of marriage prospects; and (iv) loss of inconvenience/hardship/ disappointment/mental stress, which have come to be awarded in the sum of (i) Rs.70,000/-; (ii) Rs.20,000/-; (iii) Rs.40,000/-; and (iv) Rs.35,000/- respectively.

¶15

Mr. Nandwani, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 – insurance company, on his part, submits that the compensation awarded against such heads is sufficient. He is however, at pains to justify such submission.

¶16

In 2016 ACJ 2132, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Salma Farheen & Ors ., this Court had awarded a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/towards marriage prospects of a girl, who had suffered 50% permanent physical disability in respect of movement of right knee besides suffering

¶17

mental disability. In 2018 ACJ 547 Ankur Kapoor vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited , the Supreme Court has awarded compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- towards marriage prospects and loss of amenities to a boy, aged 22 years, who had suffered 50% permanent disability to his right arm besides other injuries.

¶18

In the case in hand, the Tribunal has concluded that the appellant has suffered 35.56% permanent disability in relation to his whole body and taking into account the totality and facts and circumstances, it is considered just and proper that the compensation towards the marriage prospects of the appellant is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. In view thereof, towards the loss of marriage prospects, enhancement from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- is considered, just and proper. It is also an undisputed fact that the injuredappellant was hospitalized for a period of 18 days and has suffered permanent disability. It also emerges that during the period of his treatment, the appellant also underwent physiotherapy, but, no amount there-against has come to be awarded. Taking into account the totality of facts and circumstances, it is considered appropriate that the amount against the following three heads, excluding the head of pain and suffering, be enhanced, as follows :

¶19

S.No.	Heads	Amount awarded by the Tribunal	On enhancement by this Court
(i)	Loss of amenities of life	Rs.20,000/-	Rs.70,000/-
(ii)	Loss of marriage prospects	Rs.40,000/-	Rs.1,00,000/-

¶20

(iii)	Loss of inconvenience /hardship/disappointment /mental stress	Rs.35,000/-	Rs.55,000/-
	Total	Rs.95,000/-	Rs.2,25,000/-

¶21

The enhanced Award amount, in all, thus comes to Rs.1,30,000/(Rupees One lakh Thirty Thousand Only). The impugned Award is modified to said effect, which shall be disbursed by the Tribunal, inconsonance with the terms and condition of the Award. The enhanced Award amount shall be deposited within 30 days from today, failing which, it shall attract interest @ 9% per annum.

¶22

The appeal and pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.

¶23

Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

¶24

A. K. CHAWLA, J

¶25

MARCH 15, 2019 mk

Sh. Ashish Sagar v. Sh. Naim Khan & Ors. ( Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sh. Ashish Sagar v. Sh. Naim Khan & Ors. ( Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Sushil Jindal Vs Land and Building Department

Nisha Aggarwal & Ors. Vs Vijay Pal

Anurodh Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kanchan Arora & Ors.

Kiran Devi Rajgarhia Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Iftikhar Ahmed Choudhary Vs Govt of NCT Delhi & Ors.