Delhi tribunal awards ₹2.92 crore compensation to man disabled in 2020 road accident

Delhi tribunal awards ₹2.92 crore compensation to man disabled in 2020 road accident

New Delhi, A Motor Accident Claims Tribunal here has awarded a compensation of over ₹2.92 crore to a 32-year-old marketing executive, who suffered 88 per cent permanent disability in a road accident in 2020.

Delhi tribunal awards ₹2.92 crore compensation to man disabled in 2020 road accident

It trashed the insurer's argument that the victim was negligent because he was not wearing a helmet, saying it cannot be said to be a ground for contributory negligence.

"A violation of traffic law cannot be said to be contributory negligence without any evidence in support showing that the violation has led to the accident," the Tribunal said.

Presiding Officer Abhilash Malhotra was hearing the claim petition of Nilmani Chauhan, who suffered 88 per cent permanent disability because of a traumatic spinal cord injury, leaving him unable to stand or walk for the rest of his life.

According to Chauhan's plea, he was grievously injured after a car being driven in a rash and negligent manner rammed into his two-wheeler on December 30, 2020.

In an order dated August 12, the court said, "It is already proved on record that the lower body of the injured has become dysfunctional. He is dependent upon an attendant for passing urine as he cannot feel the same, and his employer stated that they are providing him salary on humanitarian grounds till the time this case is decided."

The Tribunal said from the nature of injuries , it is clear that the injured will never be able to perform the job of marketing executive, which involves considerable movement, and the desk job will also be dependent upon the services of a full-time attendant.

The Tribunal held the car driver, Ramesh, responsible for "rash and negligent driving" while directing the insurance company IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co Ltd to pay an amount of over ₹2.92 crore, including interest, and covering various heads, such as loss of future earnings, medical treatment, and attendant charges.

It trashed the insurer's argument that the victim was negligent because he was not wearing a helmet.

"Merely because the injured was not wearing a helmet, the same cannot be said to be ground for contributory negligence. A violation of traffic law cannot be said to be contributory negligence without any evidence in support showing that the violation has led to the accident," the tribunal said.

It said non-wearing of a helmet was an offence under the Motor Vehicle Act, but it cannot be termed as a rash or negligent act which led to the accident.

The Tribunal also rejected the insurance company's argument that it was a fake accident case.

It said, "The plea of the insurance company in this regard is belated. Rule mandates that in case the insurance company apprehends there is a fake accident case, the company is at liberty to ventilate its grievances to the office of the deputy commissioner of police concerned."

The Tribunal said despite having the investigator's report, the company did not bother to file any complaint with the DCP concerned.

It said, "In case the insurance company had filed a complaint at the right time, the apprehension could have been investigated, and truth could have been unearthed. The insurance company chose to stay mum at that juncture and has raised this plea belatedly at the stage of the inquiry."

The Tribunal said there is nothing on record to distrust the investigation and the findings of the investigating officer , especially in circumstances when the insurance company did not file any complaint or protest petition before the magistrate concerned.

This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.