MAC.APP.No.614/2005 Page 1 of 2 16 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP.No. 614/2005 Date of Decision:19th February, 2010 % NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. ..... Appellant Through Mr. Vishnu Mehra, Advocate. versus NITIN & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. B.K. Sharma, Adv. for R-1 CORAM :- THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may NO be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be NO reported in the Digest? JUDGMENT (Oral) 1. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.12,90,000/- has been awarded to respondent No.1. 2. The accident dated 9th October, 1995 resulted in grievous injuries to respondent No.1 who suffered massive brain injuries, namely, depressed fracture of the frontal bone, multiple contusion of P/L frontal Lobe with displacement of frontal horns; evidence of patchy cerebral atrophy and fracture of temporal parital region. PW-5, Dr. L.N. Gupta testified that respondent No.1 had suffered from left hemipheresis which has resulted in weakening of the body MAC.APP.No.614/2005 Page 2 of 2 functions on the left side. Respondent No.1 has also suffered from moderate mental retardation which has resulted in low IQ; and that he has been suffering from repeated attacks of convulsions which results in fits and loss of consciousness. 3. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards medical treatment and expenses, Rs.5,40,000/- towards loss of earning capacity, Rs.2,00,000/- towards permanent disability, Rs.2,00,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.50,000/- towards conveyance/attendant/special diet and future medical treatment and Rs.2,50,000/- towards loss of marital alliance. The total compensation awarded is Rs.12,90,000/-. 4. The appellant has challenged the impugned award on the ground that there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant and respondent No.1 and the amount awarded is on a higher side. 5. In the facts and circumstances of this case, no case for contributory negligence is made out. The amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable and does not call for any interference. 6. The appeal is dismissed. J.R. MIDHA, J FEBRUARY 19, 2010 HL