Vikas ..... Appellant vs.vakil

Vikas ..... Appellant vs Vakil

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jul 31, 2017

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1207485

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1207485
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Jul 31, 2017
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vikas ..... Appellant

Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Mehta

Respondent

Vakil

Advocate Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Mr. Amit Respondent Gaur

Excerpt

.....the appellant seeks enhancement of the said compensation.3. it is noted that the appellant had suffered several injuries including fractured right shoulder. this required prolonged treatment. his evidence clearly showed that the medical care continued till january, 2004 including treatment from private medical practitioners. in these circumstances, as was deposed by him, the loss of income should have been compensated to the extent of eight months as against six months factored in by the tribunal. therefore, there is a case made out for rs. 6,600/- being added towards loss of income.4. the tribunal has made a rough assessment of the expenditure incurred on treatment. the claimant was able to muster proof only about the expenditure incurred during treatment in sanjay gandhi memorial hospital and sir ganga ram hospital which was to the tune of rs. 3,000/-. since the documents filed indicate the treatment including physiotherapy had continued for several months thereafter, the medical expenditure is increased by rs. 6,000/-.5. having regard to the nature of injuries suffered, non-pecuniary damages on account of pain & suffering are increased to rs. 20,000/- thereby increasing the award further by rs. 4,000/-.6. thus, there would be net increase of rs. 16,600/- raising the award to rs. 62,600/- rounded off to rs. 63,000/- mac appeal no.262/2008 page 2 of 3 7. it is directed that the enhanced portion of the award shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the appeal.8. the insurance company will deposit the enhanced portion with corresponding interest with the tribunal within 30 days making it available to be released.9. the appeal is disposed of in above terms. r.k.gauba, j.july31 2017 nk mac appeal no.262/2008 page 3 of 3

Full Judgment

$~R-8A * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:

31. t July, 2017 + MAC.APP. 262/2008 VIKAS VAKIL ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjeev Mehta, Adv. versus Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur & Mr. Amit ..... Respondent Gaur, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. The appellant was the driver of Maruti car bearing registration No.HR26 5215 on 10.06.2003 when it came to be hit by another motor vehicle, it being Tata 709 bearing registration No.UP170957, which was admittedly insured against third party risk with the third respondent (insurer). As a result of collision, he with certain others travelling with him suffered injuries. A number of accident claim cases were filed including one (suit No.335/2007) instituted by the appellant on 13.11.2003. All the said claim petitions were clubbed for inquiry and were decided by a common judgment dated 17.11.2007 by the motor accident claims tribunal. While upholding the case for compensation on account of fault liability, the tribunal awarded Rs. 46,000/- in favour of the claimant (appellant), directing the insurance MAC Appeal No.262/2008 Page 1 of 3 company to pay, this being inclusive of Rs. 4,000/- towards medicines, Rs. 16,000/- towards pain & suffering, Rs. 6,000/- towards conveyance & special diet and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of income.

2. By the appeal at hand, the appellant seeks enhancement of the said compensation.

3. It is noted that the appellant had suffered several injuries including fractured right shoulder. This required prolonged treatment. His evidence clearly showed that the medical care continued till January, 2004 including treatment from private medical practitioners. In these circumstances, as was deposed by him, the loss of income should have been compensated to the extent of eight months as against six months factored in by the tribunal. Therefore, there is a case made out for Rs. 6,600/- being added towards loss of income.

4. The tribunal has made a rough assessment of the expenditure incurred on treatment. The claimant was able to muster proof only about the expenditure incurred during treatment in Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital and Sir Ganga Ram Hospital which was to the tune of Rs. 3,000/-. Since the documents filed indicate the treatment including physiotherapy had continued for several months thereafter, the medical expenditure is increased by Rs. 6,000/-.

5. Having regard to the nature of injuries suffered, non-pecuniary damages on account of pain & suffering are increased to Rs. 20,000/- thereby increasing the award further by Rs. 4,000/-.

6. Thus, there would be net increase of Rs. 16,600/- raising the award to Rs. 62,600/- rounded off to Rs. 63,000/- MAC Appeal No.262/2008 Page 2 of 3 7. It is directed that the enhanced portion of the award shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the appeal.

8. The insurance company will deposit the enhanced portion with corresponding interest with the tribunal within 30 days making it available to be released.

9. The appeal is disposed of in above terms. R.K.GAUBA, J.

JULY31 2017 nk MAC Appeal No.262/2008 Page 3 of 3

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2017 Same Parties Vikas ..... Appellant vs Vakil Same Subject Land Acquisition