Niyam v2 is live — start for just ₹100 — 200 credits to try

january 2025

Delhi High Court · 2025-01-21

JAGDISH SHARMA vs NAVTEJ SINGH AND OTHERS

Citation / case number
MAC.APP.-28/2024 2025:DHC:313
Court
Delhi High Court
Petitioner
JAGDISH SHARMA
Respondent
NAVTEJ SINGH AND OTHERS

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 18th October, 2024 % Pronounced on: 21st January, 2025 + MAC APP.28/2024 JAGDISH SHARMA S/o Late Ganga Sahai Sharma R/o RZG-164, Vishwash Park, Gali No.10, Raja Puri, Uttam Nagar, West Delhi-110059. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate. versus 1. NAVTEJ SINGH S/o Chattar Singh R/o village Man Karola, Distt. Bulandshahr, U.P. 2. MOOLENDRA KUMAR S/o Hoshiyar Singh R/o Badshahpur Pachgai, P.S. Sikarpur, Distt. Bulandshahr, U.P. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 2E/25, Jhandewalan Extns., IIIrd Floor, New Delhi. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Manoj R. Sinha and Mr. Vishal Agrawal, Advocates for R-3-National Insurance Co. Ltd. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:VIKAS ARORA MAC APP.28/2024 Page 1 of 9 Signing Date:21.01.2025 04:24:44 JUDGMENT NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J. 1. An Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1973 has been filed by the injured Sh. Jagdish Sharma seeking enhancement of the Compensation granted in the sum of Rs.16,86,358/- along with interest @ 9% per annum, vide Award dated 25.02.2023, on account of injuries suffered by him in road accident on 08.05.2016. 2. The Appellant/Petitioner had suffered right hip disarticulation with Permanent Disability of 90% in relation to right lower limb and also amputation of leg. He was working as a Carpenter and earning Rs.3,03,096/- per annum which is proved by his Income Tax Returns. 3. The grounds on which enhancement of compensation is sought are as under: (i) that the Loss of Income during treatment has not been granted; (ii) that because of disability he is unable to pursue his profession and future Loss of Future Earnings has been erroneously denied; (iii) that the compensation under th

JAGDISH SHARMA vs NAVTEJ SINGH AND OTHERS · Niyam