Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 29th July 2026
CHAMAN SINGH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Shekhar Aggarwal, Advocate
Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Advocate for R-3.
JUDGMENT
1. In the facts and circumstances, as narrated in the said application, delay in filing the impleadment application, being CM APPL. 79296/2025, stands condoned.
2. Application stands disposed of, accordingly. CM APPL. 79296-79297/2025
1. The appellant/injured herein expired on 16th November 2023, leaving behind the following legal heirs:
1. Shakuntala Devi Wife
2. Vinod Son
3. Rajesh Daughter
4. Mangesh Daughter
5. Pooja Kumari Daughter
2. Considering the facts and circumstances, as narrated hereinabove, the present application is allowed, and the aforementioned legal heirs [hereinafter, ‘claimants’] are allowed to be substituted in place of appellant/injured.
3. Application stands disposed of.
1. This appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [‘MACT/Tribunal’], vide impugned award dated 22nd May 2015, at Rs.1,10,508/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
2. Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, counsel for the claimants, claims enhancement of compensation on the following counts: i. Firstly, that income of appellant/injured was taken at Rs.6,656/per month, in terms of the minimum wages of an unskilled workman, despite evidence having been produced that he was working as a ‘safai karamchari’ with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi [‘MCD’] and was earning Rs.21,000/- per month; ii. Secondly, that compensation awarded under the head of loss of income was awarded only for a period of three months, despite him being under continuous treatment for about six months; iii. Thirdly, that compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering, at Rs.50,000/-, was inadequate.
3. Though the salary slip issued by the MCD was produced, which also finds mention in the cross-examination of appellant/injured, the same has not been proved on record by any officer from the MCD. Another document, namely, the salary register slip was also produced; however, the same has also not been proved on record. Even if there is a possibility that appellant/injured was working as a ‘safai karamchari’ with the MCD, the onus was upon appellant/injured to prove the said documents by summoning concerned officer from the MCD before the MACT. It would not have been not too strenuous for appellant/injured to have summoned an officer from the MCD to prove the said documents.
4. As regards the award of compensation under the head of loss of income awarded for a period of three months, Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, counsel for the claimants, has shown the hospital/medical records in support of a longer treatment history. This Court is, therefore of the opinion that compensation towards loss of income ought to be awarded for a period of six months.
5. Accordingly, the compensation awarded towards loss of income shall be enhanced by Rs. 19,968/-.
6. Considering that the appellant/injured suffered a fracture of the Iliac spine (right), besides other injuries, as noted by the MACT, this Court is inclined to increase the compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering to Rs.1,00,000/-.
7. Accordingly, the revised compensation is as under:
1. Compensation towards medical bills (A) Rs. 540/- Rs. 540/-
2. Expenditure on conveyance and special diet (B) Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 20,000/-
3. Expenditure towards attendant charges (C) Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 20,000/-
4. Loss of Wages (D) Rs. 19,968/- Rs. 39,936/- Non-pecuniary loss
5. Pain and suffering (E) Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/-
6. Total Compensation [A+B+C+D+E = F] Rs. 1,10,508/- Rs. 1,80,476/-
7. Enhanced compensation Rs. 69,968/-
8. Interest 9% 9% Directions
8. Accordingly, the compensation stands enhanced by Rs. 69,968/- [‘enhanced compensation’].
9. The Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation before the MACT, within a period of four weeks, and same shall be released in favour of the wife of the injured/appellant within a period of two weeks, thereafter.
10. The original compensation awarded by the MACT, if not already deposited, shall be deposited by the Insurance Company before the MACT, within the next four weeks, and shall be released as a lump sum in favour of the wife of the injured/appellant. The aforesaid direction is being passed in accordance with the submission made by Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, counsel for the claimants, who states, on instructions, that the amount be released in favour of the wife of the injured/appellant, in spite of there being other legal heirs.
11. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
12. Statutory deposit, if any, shall be refunded to Insurance Company, only if the order of deposit has been complied with.
13. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
JUDGE JULY 29, 2026/sm/ya