Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Murari Lal & Ors.

1. These are cross appeals, filed assailing award dated 17th April 2017 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (‘MACT’) Shahdara, Karakadooma in Case No. 1216/2016, whereby compensation of Rs. 3,93,857/- along with interest @10% per annum was awarded to the claimant for the injuries sustained in the accident dated 26th April

2014.

2. MAC Appeal No. 538/2017, has been filed by the Insurance Company seeking reduction in compensation awarded and MAC Appeal No. 900/2018 has been filed by injured/ claimant seeking enhancement.

3. The accident occurred on 26th April 2014 at 07.00 a.m. near Main Pandav Road, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi when the injured while travelling on his motorcycle collided with a Tata Winger which was driven at high speed in a rash and negligent manner. He was brought to Kosmos Hospital. The MLC was prepared, and FIR no. 338/2014 was registered at PS Farsh Bazar.

4. Mr. Ravi Sabharwal, counsel for Insurance Company, points out that the multiplier of ‘9’ has been erroneously applied for post-retirement loss. However, this contention cannot be accepted in view of the consistent line of decisions of this Court. reliance may be placed on Govind Singh Mauni v Tej Bhan & Ors. 2026: DHC:1020 which relied on the previous decisions of this Court in Desh Raj Singh Gautum v Sunil Kumar 2016: DHC 4159 and Rajbir Singh v National Insurance Company Ltd & Ors. 2024:DHC:9034 to hold that post-retirement loss of income has to be considered and multiplier ‘9’ was applied.

5. The second issue raised by the Insurance Company pertains to the grant of recovery rights on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid licence to drive a commercial vehicle and held only a licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle (‘LMV’).

6. This issue now stands concluded by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan v Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2017 14 SCC 663 and Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd. vs Rambha Devi and Ors. (2025) 3 SCC 95, wherein it was held that a person having a license for an LMV with weight below 7500 kgs, can drive a transport vehicle. Accordingly, this plea is, therefore, untenable.

7. The third issue concerns the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 10% per annum. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kaushnuma Begum (Smt.) & Ors. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., (2001) 2 SCC 9 wherein, while interpreting the powers of the Tribunal under Section 171 of the MV Act to award simple interest on compensation from the date of institution of the claim petition, it was observed that the rate of interest awarded by nationalised banks on fixed deposits ought to serve as the guiding factor while determining the rate of interest payable on compensation amounts.

8. In the facts of the present case, since the long-term fixed deposit rates offered by nationalised banks during the year 2014-15, i.e. the year of filing of the claim petition, were between 8.5% and 9% per annum, the interest on the compensation is accordingly modified to 8.75% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, as opposed to 10% per annum awarded by the Tribunal.

9. Ms. Aashtha Chauhan, counsel for claimant, seeks enhancement of compensation under various heads, including enhancement on account of pain and suffering, attendant charges, conveyance and special diet, medical bills, loss of income for one month, loss of amenities and enjoyment and disfiguration. This Court has considered the submissions in the context of the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and the circumstances of his employment.

10. The injured/claimant was 57 years of age at the time of the accident and employed with Delhi Jal Board (‘DJB’) earning a salary of Rs. 32,773/- per month. He suffered permanent disability of the right lower limb assessed at 17%, while the functional disability was assessed at 9%, which has not been disputed by either party.

11. However, Ms. Chauhan, claims that he should get loss of income for one month. However, no evidence has been placed on record to establish that the claimant suffered any loss of income during the said period. In fact, the discharge certificate has been issued by Kosmos Hospitals dated 05th April 2014 which states that he has been advised medical rest from 26th April 2014 to 04th May 2014 and fit to join duty on 05th May 2014.

12. Considering the short duration of treatment, the plea for enhancement of compensation on account of special diet is not acceptable, nor for attendant charges. The loss of future income has also been correctly calculated.

13. As regards future prospects, reliance can be placed on the judgment of this Court in Govind Singh Mauni v Tej Bhan & Ors. 2026:DHC:1020, wherein it was held that future prospects can be granted to the claimant despite continued service or no immediate reduction in salary. Continuation in employment or receipt of increments cannot be a ground to deny compensation for future prospects where the claimant has suffered permanent disability affecting his future employability. An injured may continue with the same employer, yet his efficiency, competitiveness and marketability in the open labour market stand substantially impaired. Such disability may seriously diminish his prospects of securing promotions, alternative employment or postretirement engagement. Accordingly, the claimant, aged 57 years on the date of accident, is entitled to future prospects granted at 10%, as per principles enunciated in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi,

14. Considering that he has sustained injuries to the foot, the claim for a higher compensation for conveyance at Rs. 25,000/- instead of Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is acceptable.