Delhi High Court · 2025-12-04
SACHIN HANS vs SATYA PRAKASH GOYAL & ORS (L & T GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD )
- Citation / case number
- MAC.APP.-824/2018 2025:DHC:10943
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- SACHIN HANS
- Respondent
- SATYA PRAKASH GOYAL & ORS (L & T GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD )
Judgment text excerpt
$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on: 04.12.2025 + MAC.APP. 824/2018 SACHIN HANS .....Appellant Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar & Mr. Ritik Singh, Advocates. versus SATYA PRAKASH GOYAL & ORS (L & T GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ) .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Advocate for R-3. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL) 1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant seeks enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [“the Tribunal”] vide its judgment dated 04.04.2018 in Petition No. 76911/2016, by which he was granted a sum of Rs.16,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 2. The appellant [claimant before the Tribunal] was driving a car bearing Registration No. HR-12T-6162 on 21.01.2013 at about 09:45 PM, when it met with an accident involving another car bearing Registration No. HR-20T-5454 [“the offending vehicle”]. According to the appellant, the said vehicle was being driven at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, and struck the appellant’s car from behind, causing him to sustain injuries. The appellant thereafter instituted a claim Signature Not Verified Signed By:BHUPENDER MAC.APP. 824/2018 Page 1 of 7 Signing Date:06.12.2025 18:30:24 against the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, as well as its insurer, arrayed herein as respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, respectively. 3. The Tribunal returned a finding that the appellant’s car had indeed been struck from behind by the offending vehicle and, on that basis, held the appellant entitled to compensation. He was awarded a sum of Rs.16,000/-, being Rs.6,000/- towards reimbursement of medical expenses and Rs.10,000/- for pain, suffering, and trauma. 4. Mr. S.N. Parashar, learned counsel for the appellant, reli