MAC.APP.--487/2008. Case: DINESH SAINI Vs. DEVASHISH GHOSH AND ORS.. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | MAC.APP.--487/2008 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | March 03, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: March 03, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 487/2008
DINESH SAINI ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Aruna Mehta, Advocate
versus
DEVASHISH GHOSH & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Shoumik Mazumdar,
Advocate for Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT % (ORAL)
Impugned Award of 3rd March, 2008 grants compensation of `3,55,180/- with interest at the rate of 7% to appellant, who had sustained grievous injuries in a road accident on 20th July, 2004. The facts are already noted in impugned Award and so, need no reproduction. Suffice to note that appellant, a driver by profession, aged about 24 years, was driving Maruti Van on the day of accident in question and when he reached near Atta Chowk, Sector 27, Noida, his vehicle was hit by a Maruti Zen, which came from left side road. Apart from the evidence of appellant-Claimant, there is evidence of eye-witness-Sandeep Sharma
Mac.App. 487/2008 Page 1 of 8
(PW-3) and Dr.Rama Kant Gupta (PW-6), who has proved the Disability Certificate (PW6/1) of appellant indicating that due to injuries suffered in this accident, appellant has sustained 30% permanent disability. No evidence was led by respondents. On the basis of evidence on record, learned Tribunal has rendered impugned Award. The breakup of the compensation granted is as under: -
-
Medical Bills `67,000/-
-
Loss of earning `17,400/-
-
Disability `2,72,000/-
-
Special diet, conveyance and attendant charges
`21,000/-
-
Pain &Sufferings `50,000/-
-
Loss of amenities of life `40,000/-
-
Marriage prospects `40,000/- Total `5,07,400/-
Out of the total compensation of ₹5,07,400/-, after deducting 30% towards contributory negligence, the net compensation awarded is ₹3,55,180/-.
In this appeal, to seek enhancement of compensation, learned counsel for appellant submits that no contributory negligence can be attributed to appellant because when the instant accident had taken place, appellant’s vehicle had already crossed the crossing and the vehicle driven by first respondent had hit appellant’s vehicle on the left rear side and so, the finding in impugned Award of appellant being negligent to the extent of 30% needs to be set aside and the quantum of compensation granted ought to be enhanced. To assert so, learned counsel for appellant
Mac.App. 487/2008 Page 2 of 8
points out that the plea of contributory negligence was not taken by respondent-owner and Insurer in the written statement and so, this plea is not available to...
To continue reading
Request your trial