Delhi tribunal awards Rs 2.92 crore to road accident victim
A Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) here has awarded compensation of over Rs 2.92 crore to a 32-year-old marketing executive, who suffered 88 per cent permanent disability in a road accident in 2020.
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 that, from the nature of injuries (‘Traumatic spinal cord injury with Paraplegia with Neurogenic Bladder’), 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 Rs 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.
