Kalpana Chauhan v. The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd

1. An order was passed by this Court on 18th March 2026 in MAC APP No. 1144/2013, wherein inadvertently, reference was made to paragraph nos. 34 and 35 of the impugned judgment; however, the same pertained to Suit NO. 339/2010, which related to a different claimant. The discussion in the MACT award in relation to the claimant Kalpana Chauhan, commences from paragraph no. 43 onwards of the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the order dated 18th March 2026 shall stand recalled/deleted and the following judgment will be determinative of these cross appeals.

2. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.

3. These are cross appeals assailing the Award dated 15th October 2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [‘MACT’], West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Suit no. 336/2010, whereby compensation of Rs. 1,73,750/- along with interest @7.5% per annum was awarded in favour of the claimant

4. The accident occurred on 24th August 2009, when the injured/claimant, along with others was travelling in Wagon-R car, which was hit by the offending vehicle bearing registration no. UP-86C-9390 that came from the opposite side. As a result of the accident the injured/ claimant sustained grievous injuries. The permanent physical disability was assessed at 43% in relation to left upper and lower limb.

5. After hearing the counsels for the parties, the following issues arise for determination: i. Considering that the injured was 37 years of age on the date of the accident, future prospects at 30% were granted by the Tribunal. Subsequently, in terms of principles enunciated in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, for a injured aged 37 years, future prospects would be granted at 40%. ii. The functional disability was assessed at 15%, despite the permanent disability being assessed at 43% in relation to her left upper and lower limb, in a case involving post traumatic stiffness of left knee and shoulder. Counsel for claimant has contended that the functional disability should be considered at a higher level. Applying the principles laid down in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 34 and considering that the claimant was a homemaker, the Court is inclined to assess the functional disability at 25%. iii. The interest has been granted at 7.5%, though as per the RBI rates prevailing in 2009 for fixed deposits, the rates were 8.5%. Accordingly, the interest is granted at 8.5% per annum from the date of petition in order to align the same with the RBI rates. It is clarified that the interest at 8.5% per annum would apply to the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing of the petition including the enhanced compensation.

6. Considering the injury suffered by the claimant, the non-pecuniary amounts awarded on account of pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life has been awarded at Rs. 25,000/-; the same is highly inadequate. Accordingly, Rs. 25,000/- each is awarded under the separate heads of pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life, the same is in consonance with the principles enunciated in Raj Kumar v Ajay Kumar (supra).

7. Accordingly, the compensation will be recomputed as under:

1. Conveyance and special diet (A) Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/-

2. Income of injured per month (B) Rs. 3,953/- Rs. 3,953/-

3. Future prospects @ 40% (C) Rs. 1185.9/- Rs. 1,581.2/-

4. Functional disability (D) 15% 25%

5. Multiplier (E) 15 15

6. Loss of future income [(B+C)x D x E]= F Rs. 1,38,750/- Rs. 2,49,039/- Non-pecuniary loss

7. Pain and suffering (G) Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 25,000/-

8. Loss of Amenities of Life (H) Part of pain and suffering Rs. 25,000/-