Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 30th March 2026
20948/2019 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Ms. Mouli Sharma, Advocates.
Through: Mr. Manish Maini, Ms. Aastha Chauhan, Advocates for Respondent
No.1 along with Ms. Nisha in person.
(4)
NISHA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Manish Maini, Ms. Aastha Chauhan, Advocates along with Ms. Nisha in person.
Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Ms. Mouli Sharma, Advocates for Respondent
No.1.
JUDGMENT
1. These cross-appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company and the claimant. MAC.APP. 515/2019 has been filed by the Insurance Company seeking modification of the impugned award dated 23rd January 2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi (‘MACT’) in MACP No.1203/2017, wherein compensation of Rs.18,94,000/- was awarded along with interest @9% per annum from the date of the filing of claim petition till realization. Further, the impugned award also granted an additional amount of Rs.5,30,000/- towards artificial limb/prosthesis. MAC.APP. 796/2019 has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation on various grounds.
2. The accident occurred on 20th August 2017, at about 10:20 a.m. when the claimant/Nisha was going to her office and while crossing the road near Pillar no. 620, Najafgarh Road, when a Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) bus bearing registration no. DL-1PC-9745 coming from the side of Uttam Nagar, driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the claimant resulting in her falling down on the road and her leg came under the wheels of the offending vehicle. Criminal proceedings were initiated and a claim petition was filed before the MACT.
3. On Issue no.1, the MACT held that injuries were sustained in the motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, driven by driver/Ramesh, owned by DTC and insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
4. Ms. Suman Bagga, counsel for Insurance Company, assails the award on the ground that that the functional disability ought to have been assessed at 40% instead of 50% as assessed by MACT, considering that prosthesis was also allowed by the MACT and the permanent disability was certified at 80% in relation to left lower limb, as a result of amputation above knee.
5. Mr. Manish Maini, counsel for claimant, however, states that the MACT has rightly assessed the functional disability at 50% despite the fact that there was a post traumatic amputation at level of above knee up to lower1/3rd of the left thigh.
6. The MACT has taken functional disability at 50% which, in the opinion of this Court, is not amiss, considering that it was a case of amputation and her functionality would have been greatly reduced, and potentiality to earn income depleted. The injured was 25 years of age at the time of the accident and, therefore, has a whole earning life ahead of her which would have been severely affected and impacted by the said amputation and disability.
7. Ms. Bagga has also raised an issue stating that notional income ought to have taken as per IInd Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’) as it existed prior to the amendment. However, the MACT has taken minimum wages of an unskilled worker at Rs.13,350/-. Considering that the law has evolved since, the minimum wages parameter is well accepted by the courts and therefore the same does not warrant any interference.
8. As regards the enhancement aspects, Mr. Maini states that the injured had passed Senior Secondary Examination/Class XII in First Division and adverts to the certificate on record. He, therefore, states that at least minimum wages of a matriculate ought to have been taken instead that of an unskilled worker. To that extent, the Court is of the opinion that considering her results in the Senior Secondary Examination held in 2013, she should be entitled to minimum wages of a matriculate as applicable on the date of accident i.e. Rs. 16,468/- per month.
9. As regards the issue of Future prospects, considering that claimant was 25 years of age at the time of accident, future prospects should be taken at 40% to align the same with principles enunciated in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680.
10. As regards the non-pecuniary damages, Mr. Maini claims enhancement of compensation for pain & suffering, loss of amenities, mental & physical shock as also for disfiguration and marriage prospects, for the latter two, no amounts being awarded.
11. As regards the issue of inadequate compensation for non-pecuniary damages, reliance may be placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi and Anr. 2024 SCC Online SC 3385, observed that ‘pain and suffering’ cannot be captured by any fixed definition, drawing on legal, medical, and philosophical sources to emphasise its deeply subjective and life-altering nature. It recognised that translating such profound human loss into money is an inherently artificial exercise, yet courts must ensure fairness, consistency, and sensitivity to the victim’s lifelong deprivation. The Court stressed that in cases of severe or 100% disability, compensation must meaningfully reflect the permanent rupture in the victim’s physical, emotional, and existential well-being. Relevant paragraphs are extracted as under:
14. In respect of ‘pain and suffering’ in cases where disability suffered is at 100%, we may notice a few decisions of this Court:— 14.[1] In R.D Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. It was observed:
12. In light of the observations of the Supreme Court noted above, this Court is of the opinion that, considering this is a case of amputation above knee, the grant of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering is inadequate. The Supreme Court has consistently adopted a liberal and realistic approach in such cases, as is evident from the judgment in Mohd. Sabeer v. U.P. SRTC (supra), wherein, in a similar situation involving amputation below the knee, the Supreme Court awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, disfigurement, and loss of amenities of life. The Supreme Court observed as under: “Non-pecuniary compensation 24… this Court is of the opinion that the compensation provided by the High Court for non-pecuniary heads is inadequate.
25. In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. [R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551: 1995 SCC (Cri) 250] dealing with the different heads of compensation in injury cases this Court held that: (SCC p. 556, para 9) “9. Broadly speaking while fixing the amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas nonpecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include: (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in the future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life.”
26. In light of the above decision of this Court and the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, the compensation to be awarded is as follows:
I. Compensation for pain and suffering — Rs
2,00,000
II. Compensation for loss of amenities of life — Rs
2,00,000
III. Compensation for disability and disfigurement — Rs 2,00,000 Conclusion …
28. It is almost universally seen that persons from marginalised backgrounds often face an additional layer of discrimination due to bodily disabilities. This is because persons from marginalised sections of the society already face severe discrimination due to a lack of social capital, and a new disability more often than not compounds to such discrimination. In such circumstances, to preserve the essence of justice, it becomes the duty of the Court to at the very least restore the claimant as best as possible to the position he was in before the occurrence of the disability, and to do so must award compensation in a liberal manner.
29. While no material compensation can completely negate the trauma and suffering that the injured and his family faces, the law only knows the language of monetary compensation in such cases. It then becomes the duty of the court to translate the provisions of monetary compensation into a fabrication that helps the injured and his family in coping with their loss.” (emphasis supplied)
13. Considering the observations of the Supreme Court and the fact that the present case involves amputation, the compensation awarded towards pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life and disfigurement is inadequate; therefore, Rs. 2,00,000/- is awarded under each of the heads and the same would be in line with the principle of just compensation
14. Further, considering that claimant was a bachelor on the date of accident and has suffered above knee amputation, the prospects of marriage of claimant have considerably been reduced. Accordingly, compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects.
15. There has been some discussion on the lump sum compensation of Rs.5,30,000/- for the artificial limb, Mr. Maini, on instructions, states that claimant had been using prosthetic which is now 9 years old and she is not in a position to continue wearing that prosthetic any further.
16. Relying on the decision in Mohd. Sabeer v. U.P. SRTC, (2023) 20 SCC 774, it has been argued by Mr. Maini that prosthetic change is required every five to six years and, therefore, considering that injured is 34 years of age today and taking the potential life expectancy up to 70 years, she would require prosthetic for approximately another 35 years. Using that basis of calculation, at least seven replacements would be required from today, if the claimant choses to take prosthetic. The cost of the prosthetic has been noted in order dated 16th July 2020, where the quotation was received for Rs.3,82,756.50/- with annual maintenance cost at Rs.15,000/to Rs.20,000/-. However, the cost of Rs.3,82,756.50/- for prosthetic limb was for the year 2020, and it would be appropriate to account for inflation with a 10% increase, totalling to Rs. 4,21,032.15/-. Similarly, there would be an increase in the annual maintenance from the year 2020 as a result of inflation, accordingly the annual maintenance is taken as Rs. 22,000/annually.
17. Mr. Maini also relies on the decision of this Court in Master Mukul (Thr Father Pradeep Kumar) v. Surender Kumar & Ors. (United India Insurance Co. Ltd.), 2025:DHC:10134 for the purpose of prosthetics.
18. On this basis, the amount for seven possible replacements of the prosthetic along with annual maintenance cost is calculated as under:
1. Cost of Prosthetic Limb (A) Rs. 4,21,032.15/- x 7= Rs. 29,47,225/-
2. Annual Maintenance (B) Rs.22,000/- x 35= Rs. 7,70,000/-
3. Total Rs. 37,17,225/-
19. This additional amount for the prosthetic limb and annual maintenance will be deposited by the Insurance Company within a period of four weeks before the MACT which will be kept in an interest-bearing fixed deposit. Amount on actuals will be disbursed to the claimant only on production of original invoice/purchase document issued by authorized seller of prosthetic limb. Further, cost towards annual maintenance shall also be disbursed on production of invoice. If any amounts remain unutilized, the Insurance Company will be entitled to withdraw the same along with accrued interest.
20. As regards the compensation, the same is revised as under:
1. Medicine and Treatment (A) Rs. 225/- Rs. 225/-
2. Expenditure on special diet (B) Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 40,000/-
3. Expenditure of conveyance (C) Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 40,000/-
4. Attendant Charges (D) Rs. 36,000/- Rs. 36,000/-
5. Income of injured per month (E) Rs. 13,350/- Rs. 16,468/-
6. Future prospects @ 40% (F) Nil Rs. 6,587/-
7. Loss of income (E) x 12=(G) Rs. 1,60,200/- Rs. 1,97,616/-
8. Functional disability (H) 50% 50%
9. Multiplier (I) 18 18
10. Loss of future income [(E+F) x 12 x H x I]= J Rs. 14,41,800/- Rs.24,89,940/- Non-pecuniary loss
11. Pain and suffering (K) Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 2,00,000/-
12. Compensation for mental and physical shock (L) Rs. 30,000/- Rs. 30,000/-
13. Loss of Amenities of Life (M) Rs. 70,000/- Rs. 2,00,000/-
14. Disfigurement (N) Nil Rs. 2,00,000/-
15. Loss of matrimonial prospects (O) Nil Rs. 2,00,000/-
16. Interim Compensation (P) Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 25,000/-
17. Total (A+B+C+D+G+J+K+L+M+N+ O-P)=Q Rs 18,94,000/- Rs. 36,08,781/-
18. Interest 9% 9%
19. Prosthetic Limb Rs. 5,30,000/- Rs. 37,17,225/-
21. By order dated 3rd May 2019, the Court had passed directions for the Insurance Company to deposit the entire amount along with interest before the MACT and directed release of 80% of the deposited amount along with accrued interest, in terms of the scheme of disbursement specified in the impugned award.
22. Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation along with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the petition before the MACT within a period of four weeks.
23. Further, it is directed that a lump sum amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- shall be released to the claimant within a period of two weeks thereafter. The remaining amount, along with the accrued interest, shall be kept in Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) as per the scheme of the impugned award.
24. Appeal stands disposed of in above terms. Pending applications, if any, be refunded to the appellant.
25. Copy of this judgment be sent to MACT and the concerned bank.
26. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to the Insurance Company.
27. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
JUDGE MARCH 30, 2026/ak/zb