Through: Mr. Himanshu Bhushan, Ms. Shagun Srivastava, Advocates v. DINESH SINGH KHINCHI & ORS

Delhi High Court · 09 Feb 2026 · 2026:DHC:1257

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

2026:DHC:1257

Full Text

MAC.APP. 1014/2014
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 09th February 2026

MAC.APP. 1014/2014, CM APPL. 60937/2025, & CM APPL.
75412/2025 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Himanshu Bhushan, Ms. Shagun Srivastava, Advocates.

VERSUS

DINESH SINGH KHINCHI & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Aashutosh Jagtap, Advocate for R-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J: (ORAL)

CM APPL. 75411/2025 (restoration of appeal)

1. This application has been filed seeking restoration of the appeal.

2. In view of the facts and circumstances stated in the application, the appeal is restored to its original number.

3. Application is allowed and disposed of.

1. This appeal has been filed assailing the Judgment dated 30th August 2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (‘MACT’) in Suit No.101/2014 titled as “Dinesh Singh Khinchi v. Dushyant Rajora & Ors.” whereby compensation of Rs.23,66,864/- along with interest @ 9% per annum was awarded in favour of the claimant.

2. The accident occurred on 14th March 2010 at about 8:05 PM, near Ganga Mandir Marg, when claimant along with his friend were travelling by scooter and another scooter bearing registration no. DL 6 SR 9658 driven in a rash and negligent manner by Dushyant Rajora/ respondent no.2 hit the scooter, resulting in the claimant’s right foot being crushed between the kick-start pedal of two scooters. Therefore, appellant suffered amputation of right foot, resulting in 60% permanent disability, which was assessed as 30% functional disability in relation to the whole body. Compensation was granted under various heads.

3. Mr. Himanshu Bhushan, counsel for appellant, contends that the loss of future income which was calculated at Rs.15,37,191/- was highly exaggerated for the reason that future prospects was given at 50% ought to have been 40%, as per the parameters now specified in judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680.

4. Further, he points out that in the cross-examination of the injured/respondent no.1, who had testified as PW-3, it was stated that “It is correct that my salary has increased from 2010 to 2012. It is correct that my present job is that of a customer support and the same is a sitting job as distinguished from a field job.”. On this basis, counsel for appellant claims that the loss of future income ought not to have been granted.

5. Counsel for appellant also raised issue with regards to grant of Rs.2,24,400/- for the loss of artificial limb. For this he refers to a impugned judgment where an amount of is Rs.74,800/- has been considered based on the evidence of PW-2/the authorized person from the Endolite India Ltd.

6. Counsel for appellant contends that since there was no evidence that the prosthetic has to be changed every three to five years, even as per cross-examination of PW-3, the amount of Rs.2,24,400/- ought not to have been granted.

7. Further, it is contended by counsel for appellant that no interest ought to be awarded on loss of future income.

8. In response, counsel for respondent no.1/claimant contends that the issue relates to potentiality of losing income due to disability suffered and cannot be denied merely on the basis of increase in salary in the immediate following years after the accident. Analysis Loss of Future Income

9. The Court is inclined to accept the argument of counsel for respondent no.1 in this regard. Reliance can be placed on decision Govind Singh Mauni v Tej Bhan & Ors. 2026: DHC:1020 wherein the decision of Ball v. William Hunts and Sons Ltd. (1912) A.C 496 was cited as regards the issue of potentiality of losing income. The Court recorded as under:

“18. The essential principle follows from the House of Lords’ decision in Ball v. William Hunts and Sons (supra) which is highlighted in the following extract in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors (supra): “There is also an opinion of the House of lords that may be relevant to understand this concept. Ball v. William Hunts and Sons Limited, (1912) AC 496, was the case of a workman, who was blinded in one eye. The defect was not visible and he was to have appearance as two-eyed man. He had come to such a disability status when he had sustained an employment injury in which the defective eye had to be removed with the consequences that he could not get employment though physically he was as well as before. The House of Lords held that the incapacity of work included inability to work, or in other words, there is incapacity for work when a man has physical defect which makes his working unsaleable in any market reasonably accessible to him. Applying the same logic, a person who has suffered an injury may not come by immediate loss if he is retained in the same employment and does not lose his job, but in his own saleability elsewhere as a fresh recruit to a new employer, he may come by a serious handicap. That shall come by a serious handicap. That shall be a justification enough to provide for compensation in such types of cases.”

… 28. In Ball v. William Hunt & Sons Ltd. (supra), the focus was placed on ‘marketability of labour’ rather than mere wage continuity. This reasoning was expressly approved by the United States Supreme Court in New York Central Railroad Co. v. Bianc; American Knife Co. v. Sweeting, 1919 SCC OnLine US SC 210, while upholding the validity of compensation for serious disfigurement under the New York Workmen’s Compensation Law. The U.S. Supreme Court observed that serious physical disfigurement may reasonably and adversely affect a person’s ability to obtain or retain employment, and relied upon the reasoning in Ball v. William Hunt & Sons Ltd., (supra), to underscore that diminished employability constitutes a legitimate basis for compensation, independent of immediate loss of earning power.

29. Although Ball v. William Hunt & Sons Ltd. (supra), and the American Knife Co. (supra) decision arose in the context of workmen’s compensation statutes, the underlying principle is fully consonant with Indian Supreme Court jurisprudence under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Act mandates the award of “just compensation” under Section 168, which, as emphasised in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121, must be fair, realistic and proximate to the actual loss suffered. Once functional disability affecting earning capacity is established, compensation must be assessed using the multiplier method, irrespective of the fact that the claimant may have continued in service or received increments postaccident.

14,883 characters total

30. The denial of compensation for loss of future earning capacity solely on the ground that the claimant continues in employment or has not suffered immediate wage loss would be inconsistent with settled Supreme Court jurisprudence. The law recognises that economic vulnerability, reduced employability, and diminished labour-market acceptability and inability to secure employment are real and compensable consequences of permanent disability. Comparative jurisprudence, including Ball v. William Hunt & Sons Ltd. (supra) as approved by the U.S. Supreme Court, reinforces this understanding and supports a principled, forwardlooking assessment of loss of earning capacity in motor accident claims.” (emphasis supplied)

10. It cannot be stated that the respondent no.1 was in a permanent job which he was not in the risk of losing due to his disability in the future. Therefore, in light of case cited above, the argument of counsel for appellant that no loss of future income should be awarded is unsustainable. In the present case, the claimant suffered amputation, which is a serious disfigurement that can reasonably and adversely affect his ability to obtain employment. Even though there was increase in claimant’s salary, compensation is granted for diminished employability independent of any immediate loss of earning. Prosthetic Limb

11. In this regards reliance can be placed on the Supreme Court judgment of Mohd. Sabeer alias Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1701, wherein as regards maintenance of a prosthetic leg noted that: “23. As per the current compensation given for the prosthetic limb and its maintenance, it would last the Appellant for only 15 years, even if we were to assume that the limb would not need to be replaced after a few years. The Appellant was only 37 years at the time of the accident, and it would be reasonable to assume that he would live till he is 70 years old if not more. We are of the opinion that the Appellant must be compensated so that he is able to purchase three prosthetic limbs in his lifetime and is able to maintain the same at least till he has reached 70 years of age. For the Prosthetic limbs alone, the Appellant is to be awarded compensation of Rs. 7,80,000 and for maintenance of the same he is to be awarded an additional Rs. 5,00,000/-.”

12. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the argument of counsel for appellant. Considering that if an artificial limb needs to be changed, the amount cannot be denied to the respondent no.1. This Court, therefore, finds no reason to differ with amount awarded by the tribunal.

13. However, as regards the prosthetic limb, the amount will be released only on production of proper bill/invoice from an authorized concern which provides for prosthetics. The balance amount shall continue to be deposited in that account. Interest on Loss of Future Income

14. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v Niru @ Niharika & Ors, 2025 INSC 822, wherein in a death case the Insurance Company raised the issue that no interest should be awarded for future prospects. The Supreme Court in this regard recorded as under:

“10. We cannot but observe that there was nothing stopping the Insurance Company from settling the claim on a computation, on receipt of intimation of the accident, especially since the determination of compensation for loss of dependency, on death being occasioned in a motor vehicle accident, can be determined as evident from the judicial precedents; at least provisionally. 11. In fact, it is due to the repudiation of or refusal to consider the claim that the claimants are driven to the Tribunal. When the matter is pending before the Tribunal or in appeal before the higher forums, the claimants are deprived of the compensation for future prospects. If they are paid in time, it could be utilized by the claimants and on failure, the loss of dependency would force the claimants to source their livelihood from elsewhere. This is sought to be compensated at least minimally by award of interest, which oftener them ever is nominal also since only simple interest is awarded. If the amounts were disbursed to the claimants on a rough calculation, on intimation of the accident to the Insurance Company, subject to the award of the Tribunal, necessarily there would not have been any interest liability atleast to the extent of the disbursement made. Hence, we reject the contention and direct that the entire award amounts would be paid with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim till the date of disbursement, deducting only Rs.50,000/- granted as interim compensation, in SLP(C) No.11340 of 2020 and 6% in SLP(C) No.22136 of 2024 as awarded by the High Court; deduction to be made for the amounts already paid.”

15. Even though the present matter pertains to an injury and not a fatal accident claim, the principle laid down by Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. (supra) remains equally applicable. The rationale behind awarding interest is to compensate the claimant for the delay in receiving the amount which lawfully became due to them. Whether the compensation is awarded towards loss of dependency in death cases or towards loss of future income in injury cases, the underlying object remains the same i.e. to ensure just and fair recompense for the deprivation suffered during the pendency of litigation. Therefore, interest on loss of future income cannot be excluded from the ambit of loss of future income merely because it relates to future loss. Therefore, the award of tribunal as regards interest on loss of future income does not warrant interference. Future Prospect

16. As regards future prospects, there is merit in the argument of counsel for appellant, as respondent no.1 was not in permanent job, and therefore future prospect at 40% should apply to align with the decision of Pranay Sethi (supra). In Pranay Sethi (supra) it was held that permanent jobs are with inbuilt grant of annual increments, therefore there is certainty. In the present case claimant is working as customer support which cannot be considered to be permanent job as per criteria laid down in aforesaid judgment. Therefore, the future prospect are taken as 40%, considering claimant was 30 years on the date of accident.

17. The revised computation is as under:

1. Expenditure on treatment (A) Rs.1,35,038/- Rs.1,35,038/-

2. Expenditure on special diet (B) Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/-

3. Expenditure of conveyance and special diet (C) Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/-

4. Income of injured per month

(D) Rs. 16,745/- Rs. 16,745/-

5. Future prospects @ 40% (E) Rs. 8,372.5/- Rs.6,698/-

6. Loss of income (D) x 3=(F) Rs. 50,235/- Rs. 50,235/-

7. Functional disability (G) 30% 30%

8. Multiplier (H) 17 17

9. Loss of future income [(D+E) x 12 x G x H]= I Rs. 15,37,191/- Rs. 14,32,711.6/- Non-pecuniary loss

10. Pain and suffering (J) Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/-

11. Loss of Amenities of Life (K) Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/-

12. Disfigurement (L) Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/-

13. Loss of matrimonial prospects

(M) Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/-

14. Artificial Limb (N) Rs.2,24,400/- Rs.2,24,400/-

15. Total (A+B+C+F+I+J+K+L+M+N) = O Rs.23,66,864/- Rs. 22,62,384.6/-

16. Interest 9% 9%

18. Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications are rendered infructuous. Directions

19. Vide order dated 11th November 2014, this Court directed that subject to deposit of entire awarded amount with interest with the award. On deposit of the awarded amount, the Registrar General was directed to release 50% of the amount in favour of the claimant as per direction given in the impugned award and further reiterated by order dated 22nd January 2015.

20. Since the compensation has been reduced by Rs.1,04,479.4/-, the surplus will be refunded to appellant/Insurance Company along with proportionate interest, subject to any further orders by the Court.

21. The balance amount along with interest due to claimant, shall be kept by Registrar General of this Court in Fixed Deposits Receipts (FDRs) of Rs. 25,000/- each, for a period of 1 to 44 months in succession with interest accrued being deposited in the Savings Bank Account of the claimant. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released to the Savings Bank Account of claimant upon due verification.

22. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to the appellant.

23. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.

ANISH DAYAL (JUDGE) FEBRUARY 9, 2026/ak/zb

Through: Mr. Himanshu Bhushan, Ms. Shagun Srivastava, Advocates v. DINESH SINGH KHINCHI & ORS

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation