Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 30th March 2026
SANTOSH BARAR .....Appellant
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar and Mr. Ritik Singh, Advocates
Through: Mr. Sankar N. Sinha, Advocate for R-3/United Insurance Co. Ltd.
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed challenging the MACT award dated 20th May 2019, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North, Rohini Courts, Delhi (‘MACT/Tribunal’) in MACT No. 403/2018, seeking enhancement of compensation. By the said award, a compensation of Rs.14,46,599.48/- was awarded; however, 20% was deducted on account of contributory negligence, on the basis that the injured claimant was under the influence of alcohol.
2. The accident occurred on 12th September 2017, when the appellant, a 32-year-old, sustained grievous injuries after his motorcycle was hit from behind by a Delhi Transport Corporation (‘DTC’) bus bearing No. DL-1PC- 9810, which was allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner.
3. Post-hospitalisation, the appellant was certified to have suffered 60% permanent disability in his right upper limb. However, functional disability was assessed at 30%.
4. Mr. S.N. Parashar, counsel for appellant/claimant, seeks enhancement on three grounds: i. That 60% permanent disability in case of the claimant, who was working as a driver, ought to have been considered as much more, and even upto 100%, and not reduced to 30%; ii. Contributory negligence of 20% on account of contributory negligence, on the ground that the claimant was under the influence of alcohol, ought not to have been made, particularly when there was no proof that the alcohol content in the claimant’s blood exceeded 30 mg per 100 ml. Reliance is placed on Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’), to state that the permissible limit of 30 mg per 100 ml of blood has to be conclusively proven in order to reach the conclusion that a person has violated the MVAct provisions in respect of alcohol consumption iii. Compensation granted under non-pecuniary heads are on the lower side.
5. Mr. Sankar N. Sinha, counsel for the Insurance Company, however, draws attention to the Medico-Legal Certificate (‘MLC’), where the doctor has noted that there was a smell of alcohol and that the claimant/injured was conscious but under the influence of alcohol. On this basis, he claims that the very fact that the alcohol was present in his blood is sufficient to establish contributory negligence, and that the MACT rightly assessed the same at 20%.
6. As regards the issue of functional disability being assessed at 30%, it is noted that the permanent disability certificate notes the diagnosis as “posttraumatic, stiffness right wrist and hand with flex or contraction of righthand muscles”, on this basis, permanent disability was assessed at 60%.
7. There is no proof placed on record to show that the claimant was working as a driver earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. Though only a driver's license was exhibited as Ex. PW1/5, no further evidence had been provided.
8. It is also noted that no rebuttal evidence had been produced by the Insurance Company regarding the vocation of the claimant/injured. In this light, the MACT assessed the functional disability at 30%.
9. 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:
10. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (supra), the Court summarized the principles, which are extracted as under:
11. Keeping in view the principle laid down in Raj Kumar v Ajay Kumar (supra), this Court is of the opinion that though injuries do not seem to be so severe as to completely render him incapable of performing/undertaking any vocation which requires mobility, the functional disability could be enhanced to 40%.
12. As regards the issue of contributory negligence, the presence of alcohol is specifically noted in the MLC; however, the nature of the accident as recorded in paragraph 8 of the MACT award, shows that the claimant was hit from behind by the DTC bus.
13. Considering that it was a rear-end collision and there is no proof of the amount of alcohol being present in the blood beyond the permissible limit, and the assessment of 20% contributory negligence seems an ad hoc assessment by the MACT, it warrants interference. There is nothing placed on record by the Insurance Company to show that he contributed to the accident, considering that it was a rear-end collision by the DTC bus. Accordingly, the assessment of contributory negligence at 20% is, therefore, set aside.
14. The Court is not inclined to interfere as far as non-pecuniary damages is concerned, considering that there is no evidence has been placed on record for any special consideration to be given.
15. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (supra), the compensation awarded towards mental and physical shock is liable to be deleted. As regards loss of amenities, this Court grants a sum of Rs. 15,000/-.
16. The revised computation, therefore, is provided as under: Sr. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal Awarded by this Court PECUNIARY LOSS
1 Expenditure on Medical Bills (A) Rs. 3,137/- Rs. 3,137/- 2 Expenditure on conveyance (B) Rs. 15,000/ Rs. 15,000/ 3 Expenditure on special diet (C) Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 4 Expenditure on nursing attendant (D) Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 5,000/- 5 Income of injured (E) Rs. 16,182/- per month Rs. 16,182/- per month
6. Add: Future prospects (F) 40% of Rs. 16,182/- = 6,472.80 40% of Rs. 16,182/- = 6,472.80
7. Multiplier (G) 16 16
NON-PECUNIARY LOSS
(L) Rs. 15,000/- -
15 Total compensation (A + B + C + D + I + J+ K + L) = O Rs. 14,46,599.48 Rs. 18,81,571.64 (rounded off to Rs. 18,81,580.
17. Enhanced compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing, will be deposited before the Tribunal within 4 weeks.
18. Enhanced amount, along with accrued interest, shall be kept in Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) of Rs. 15,000/- each for periods of 1 month, 2 months, 3 months and so on, in succession as maybe calculated. The interest accruing on the said FDRs shall be credited to the designated Savings Bank Account of appellant/injured claimant. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released to the Savings Bank Account of appellant/injured claimant upon due verification.
19. In view of the above, appeal stands allowed.
20. The appeal, is, accordingly, disposed of. Pending applications (if any) are rendered infructuous.
21. Copy of the judgment be sent to MACT and the concerned bank.
22. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
JUDGE MARCH 30, 2026/RK/bp