Suresh Chand Gurjar v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited & Ors

1. This appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohini Courts (‘MACT/Tribunal’), by the impugned award dated 06th April 2026 in MACP No. 710/2023, whereby a compensation of Rs.78,18,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum was awarded.

2. Mr. Manish Maini, counsel appearing for the appellant-injured, seeks enhancement on the following two counts: i. Functional disability ought to have been assessed at 100% instead of 70% as considered, as assessed by the Tribunal. ii. Minimum wages of Rs. 20,903/- were adopted as the notional income despite the evidence of PW[3], Girdhari, the employer, who deposed that the appellant was employed as a daily wager and was being paid Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month for working as a palledar (loading/unloading goods from trucks).

3. Ms. Suman Bagga, counsel for the insurance company, has countered these submissions, stating that there was no evidence placed on record to show that the injured-appellant was earning Rs.25,000/- per month and, therefore, the MACT had taken a generous view by adopting the minimum wages of a matriculate person in Delhi.

4. On the issue of functionality, she states that the amputation was below the left lower limb; therefore, reliance placed by Mr. Maini on the Supreme Court's judgment in M. Paramesh v. V.R.L. Logistics 2026:INSC:655 is misplaced and is distinguishable on facts.

5. The accident occurred on 15th June 2023, when the appellant was travelling on a motorcycle towards his godown along with another person. The motorcycle was hit by the offending vehicle, as a result of which the appellant sustained injuries. His disability was certified as 70% permanent disability in relation to the left lower limb, involving below-knee amputation.

6. The appellant was about 29 years of age at the time of the accident and was working as palledar.

7. The MACT considered the issue of notional income in paragraph 30 of the award. PW[3], Giridhari, deposed that he was a contractor and residing in the godown at Bakoli, Delhi, and the injured was working as a palledar under him and the said godown. He stated that he was earning around Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month and was unable to resume work due to the accident. In his cross-examination by the insurance company, he stated that he maintained no records of the payments made to the appellant, as the wages were paid in cash. PW[3] also named some of the labourers working under him and stated that he did not maintain any register of his permanent employees.

8. Although the testimony of PW[3] was considered by the MACT, it was not found fully reliable.

9. Ms. Bagga further states that despite there being no documentary proof of the injured-appellant’s residence in Delhi, as there was neither Aadhaar card, Voter Identity Card or Ration Card and only his 12th class mark sheet annexed as Ex. PW1/5, MACT still adopted the minimum wages applicable to a matriculate in Delhi, i.e. Rs. 20,903/-, instead of the minimum wages applicable to an unskilled worker.

10. Mr. Maini has strenuously argued that there could have been no evidence which could have been placed by a daily wager.

11. However, surrounding facts and circumstances have also to be considered in order to fully adopt what is being stated by a witness, not supported by any documentary proof or any other corroborative evidence.

12. This Court does not find anything amiss in the view taken by the MACT regarding the determination of the appellant's notional income.

13. In any event, the minimum wages of a matriculate person in Delhi were taken and therefore the MACT’s view to determine just and reasonable compensation is upheld.

14. On the other issue of functional disability, Mr. Maini relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in M. Paramesh (supra). In that case, the Supreme Court was dealing with a 30-year-old mason earning approximately Rs. 20,000/- per month whose right leg had been amputated above the knee. Taking into account that he had effectively lost his livelihood as a mason, the Court applied the principles laid down in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343 and held that functional disability cannot be determined mechanically by applying the percentage of physical disability alone, but that the surrounding circumstances must also be considered.

15. Though each case is different in its facts and circumstances and the Court has to make an intelligent assessment using the principles and the three-step test laid down in in Raj Kumar (supra). Relevant paragraphs of which are being extracted as under: