Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 9th February 2026
Date of uploading: 13th February 2026
DEVENDER .....Appellant
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar & Mr. Ritik Singh, Advocates.
Through: Mr. Sankar N. Sinha, Adv. R- 3/Insurance Company.
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [“Tribunal”] vide judgment dated 18th July 2020 in MACT NO. 715/2017 for a sum of Rs. 23,44,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum [“impugned award”]. Incident
2. Accident occurred on 14th July 2017, at about 01:00 A.M, wherein appellant, along with his friend Manish, was going to Haridwar from Delhi on a motorcycle bearing no ‘DL-13SM-9485’, with the appellant being the pillion rider. When the appellant reached near Meerut, a car bearing no. ‘DL- MAC.APP.111/2021 2/11 1YE-4483’ [offending vehicle], being driven rashly and negligent by respondent no.1/driver, hit the motorcycle.
3. Appellant fell down and suffered grievous injuries to his right leg, resulting in amputation of the right leg below knee. A criminal case was registered against respondent no.1/driver vide FIR No. 307/2017 under Sections 279/338/427 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 [IPC]. Impugned Award
4. While assessing the issue of negligence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending by respondent no.1/driver, as a result of which the appellant sustained grievous injuries. The Tribunal further held that there was no contributory negligence attributable to the appellant, who was travelling as a pillion rider on the motorcycle.
5. At the time of the accident, appellant was aged about 22 years. It was claimed that he was working as a ‘Sales Executive’; however, no documentary proof of employment or income was produced. Accordingly, the Tribunal assessed his income on the basis of minimum wages applicable to an unskilled worker, which were Rs.13,350/- per month as on the date of the accident.
6. As per the medical record, appellant was initially taken to SDS Global Hospital, Meerut, and thereafter referred to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Delhi, where he remained admitted from 15th July 2017 to 07th September
2017. During the course of treatment, his right leg was amputated below the knee on 03rd August 2017. The treatment record and medical evidence were duly proved through PW-2 and PW-3.
7. The disability certificate issued by the competent Medical Board records that the appellant suffered 76% permanent physical disability in MAC.APP.111/2021 3/11 relation to his right lower limb on account of below-knee amputation with a stiff knee. However, considering the absence of proof regarding vocation, the Tribunal assessed the functional disability with respect to the whole body at 50%.
8. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of ‘18’, having regard to the age of the appellant, and awarded compensation towards loss of future earning capacity after adding future prospects at the rate of 40%, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680. Compensation Awarded
9. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,838/- towards medical expenses, taking note of the fact that the appellant was treated in a government hospital and had incurred limited expenditure on medicines.
10. Towards conveyance, special diet and attendant charges, the Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively, considering the nature of injuries and the prolonged treatment undergone by the appellant.
11. On account of permanent disability and loss of future earning capacity, the Tribunal computed compensation at Rs.20,19,000/- by assessing the functional disability at 50%, applying the appropriate multiplier of ‘18’, and adding future prospects.
12. Under the non-pecuniary heads, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/towards pain and suffering, Rs.75,000/- towards loss of amenities and disfigurement, and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects.
13. In addition, the Tribunal directed that in the event the appellant requires a prosthetic limb or replacement thereof in future, the expenses shall be borne by the insurer subject to production of original medical bills. MAC.APP.111/2021 4/11
14. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.23,43,838/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation.
15. Calculation made by the Tribunal appears to have a typographical and arithmetic error, whereby, instead of Rs.23,58,838/-, the total compensation has been computed as Rs.23,43,838/-. The error has occurred due to an incorrect calculation under the heads of conveyance, special diet and attendant charges.
16. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is summarised as under: S.NO HEADS AWARD BY MACT
1. Medical Expenses Rs.4838/-
2. Conveyance Rs.20,000/-
3. Special Diet Rs.15,000/-
4. Attendant Charges Rs.25,000/-
5. Loss of future earning on account of permanent disability Rs.20,19,000/-
6. Pain & Suffering Rs.1,00,000/-
7. Loss of Amenities & Disfigurement Rs.75,000/-
8. Loss of Marriage Prospects Rs.1,00,000/- TOTAL Rs.23,58,838/- INTEREST 9% Analysis
17. Counsel for appellant raises two sets of issues: firstly, that the permanent disability which was certified at 76%, was reduced to 50% by the Tribunal while computing loss towards future income. In this regard, reference is made to the assessment made by Tribunal in paragraph no.22 of the impugned award, wherein it is noted that though the appellant/claimant MAC.APP.111/2021 5/11 claimed that, at the time of accident, he was working as a “Sales Executive” with ‘Gupta Ji Chandni Chowk Wale’, no documents qua his employment were filed. This aspect is confirmed by the counsel for appellant. Accordingly, the functional disability with respect to his whole body was assessed at 50%.
18. In order to buttress his arguments, counsel for appellant points out to evidence of Dr. Naresh Chandra, PW-3, who was an Orthopaedic Specialist at Guru Gobind Singh Government Hospital, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi, and had examined the appellant as one of the members of the Medical Board. He clearly stated that “disability sustained by the appellant is amputation below knee, right side with stiff knee joint”.
19. Appellant/Injured, while deposing as PW-1, stated that he worked as a ‘Sales Executive’ with the said firm and was drawing a salary of Rs.16,500/per month.
20. Countering this, counsel for Insurance Company/respondent no.3 points to cross examination of PW-1, wherein he admitted that the disability certificate does not find mention of ‘amputation’, nor is it mentioned in the Medico Legal Case Report [MLC] as well. A perusal of Exhibit PW-1/3 would bear this out.
21. It is, however, noted in the disability certificate dated 20th May 2019 issued by the Guru Gobind Singh Government Hospital, New Delhi, placed on record, which records the diagnosis of disability as “below knee amputation, right side with stiff knee joint.”
22. Second issue raised by the counsel for appellant relates to the calculation of minimum wages. Considering that there was no proof of employment, wages of an unskilled worker at Rs.13,350/- per month were adopted. MAC.APP.111/2021 6/11
23. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343, the Supreme Court held that the Tribunal must assess not merely the extent of permanent disability but its actual impact on the claimant’s earning capacity, which may differ from the medical percentage of disability. This requires evaluating the claimant’s pre-accident vocation, the functions affected, and whether livelihood can still be earned despite the disability. The Court emphasised that disability and loss of earning capacity are distinct concepts, except in cases where evidence shows they coincide. Relevant paragraphs are extracted as under:
24. In light of fact that there is an amputation and permanent disability of 76%,, there ought to be some enhancement of functional disability assessed at 50% by the Tribunal.
25. In the opinion of this Court, with respect to the whole body, the functional disability ought to be assessed at about 60% instead of 50%, which was awarded only on account of the appellant being unable to prove his MAC.APP.111/2021 9/11 vocation. Compensation be enhanced accordingly.
26. There were claims for attendant charges and for prosthetic limb; however, counsel for appellant has not been able to point out any proof of such expenses having been incurred by the appellant. Therefore, the Court is not inclined to entertain the enhancement sought on account of attendant charges, which have already been awarded as Rs.20,000/-. There being no proof of prosthetic limb being used or any claim in that regard, no further enhancement is permitted.
27. In paragraph 29 of the impugned award, it has been stated that if claimant requested a prosthetic limb or needs replacement of any component of thereof, the expenses for the same, if any, shall be borne by the Insurance Company [respondent no.3], subject to production of original medical bills.
28. This appeal has been pending since 2021; however, nothing has been produced by appellant in this regard which would persuade this Court to grant further amounts on account of a prosthetic limb.
29. Other claims made for enhancement of conveyance, special diet etc., are also not tenable, considering that no proof has been placed on record in that regard. However, towards loss of amenities and disfigurement, an amount of Rs.75,000/- has been awarded. Considering the extent of disfigurement, in the opinion of this Court, same is enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/, keeping in view that the appellant was only 22 years of age at the time of accident. Also Rs.2,00,000/- each is enhanced towards pain and suffering and loss of marriage prospects.
30. Accordingly, the impugned award stands modified and the compensation recalculated is as under: MAC.APP.111/2021 10/11 SR. NO.
HEADS AWARDED BY THE TRIBUNAL AWARDED BY THIS COURT PECUNIARY LOSS
10 Pain and suffering (I) Rs.1,00,000 /- Rs. 2,00,000 /- 11 Loss of amenities of life and Disfiguration (J) + (K) Rs.75,000 /- Rs. 2,00,000 /- 12 Loss of marriage prospects (L) Rs.1,00,000 /- Rs. 2,00,000 /-
14 Loss of earning, inconvenience, hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
(M) Nil Nil DISABILITY RESULTING IN LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY
17 Loss of future income (Income x % Earning capacity x Multiplier) Rs.20,19,000/- [Rs.18,690/- x 50% Rs.24,22,224/- [Rs.18,690/- x MAC.APP.111/2021 11/11 x 18] 60% x 18] TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.23,58,838 /- Rs. 30,87,062/- INTEREST AWARDED 9% 9% Conclusion
31. For the aforesaid reasons, the award of the Tribunal is enhanced by Rs.7,28,224/-. Said amount shall be deposited by the Insurance Company along with accrued interest at the rate of 9% per annum, within eight weeks from today, before the Tribunal.
32. Compensation to be disbursed to the claimant as per the directions passed by the Tribunal.
33. List before Tribunal on 13th April 2026.
34. Accordingly, this Appeal is partly allowed in above terms.
35. Pending applications (if any), be rendered as infructuous.
36. Statutory deposit (if any), shall be refunded to appellant.
37. Judgement be uploaded on the website of this Court.
JUDGE FEBRUARY 9, 2026/sm/tk