Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 10th July 2026
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath, Mr. Anant Dev & Mr. Harshit Singh, Advs.
Through: Mr. Manish Maini, Ms. Aastha Chauhan & Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advs. for R1-R5.
SMT BIMLA & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Manish Maini, Ms. Aastha Chauhan & Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advs
Through: Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath, Mr. Harshit Singh, Advs. for Insurance Co.
JUDGMENT
1. These are cross-appeals, being MAC Appeal No. 913/2017 filed by the Insurance Company and MAC Appeal No. 743/2018 filed by the claimants, seeking their respective reliefs. The impugned award dated 19th August 2017 was passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohini Courts (‘MACT/Tribunal’) in MACT Case No. 450237/16, awarding compensation of Rs.15,02,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.
2. Mr. Harshit Singh, counsel for Insurance Company, contends that the award is liable to be set aside on the ground that the Tribunal has erroneously applied a multiplier of 9, whereas a multiplier of 6 ought to have been applied, considering that the deceased was 58 years of age on the date of the accident, in terms of the pre-amendment Act.
3. It is further submitted that the claim petition was treated as an injury case, whereas the injured died during the pendency of the proceedings. Since no nexus between the injuries sustained in the accident and the subsequent death was established before the Tribunal, and no finding to that effect has been returned, the legal heirs would not be entitled to compensation on account of the death.
4. Mr. Manish Maini, counsel for the claimant, on the contrary, seeks enhancement of the compensation by contending that the death was a direct consequence of the injuries sustained by the deceased in the accident. It is submitted that compensation towards loss of dependency on account of the death ought to have been awarded, in addition to the pecuniary and nonpecuniary losses suffered by the deceased from the date of the accident till his death, during which period he remained under continuous treatment.
5. The accident occurred on 09th January 2005, when Ram Phool Sharma was serving in the DTC as a permanent employee at the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector, and was earning Rs.11,455/- per month. He was aged 58 years and sustained severe head injuries in the accident, which occurred when he was knocked down by a Tata CNG Blue Line bus (the offending vehicle) while he was on the road.
6. As per the testimony of Rajesh Kumar Sharma, the son of the deceased, Ramphool Sharma passed away on 12th February 2010 while undergoing treatment at Orchid Hospital. The death certificate has been placed on record.
7. Mr. Maini has adverted to the evidence by way of affidavit filed by Rajesh Kumar Sharma, the son of the deceased, where he has given the sequence of treatment which the deceased went through. In his affidavit, it has been stated that the accident injured (since deceased) was moved to the trauma centre and was thereafter referred to a private hospital. Subsequently, the family members admitted him to Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, New Delhi, where he underwent neurosurgery and remained admitted from 09th January 2005 to 22nd February 2005. On discharge, his condition became serious again, and he was re-admitted to Apollo Hospital on 26th February 2005, where he underwent a second neurosurgery and remained admitted till 28th March 2005. Thereafter, his condition again worsened, and he was admitted to Orchid Hospital on 08th May 2005, where he remained till 14th May 2005. He was again admitted to Orchid Hospital on 17th May 2005 and remained there till 20th May 2005. Thereafter, he was admitted once again on 27th May 2005 and discharged on 28th May 2005.
8. The process of treatment continued since he was yet again admitted to Orchid Hospital on 01st June 2005 and discharged on 03rd June 2005, and then on 22nd June 2005 till 25th June 2005. Since his health was severely affected, on 13th January 2010, he was admitted to Lok Nayak Hospital, where he remained an inpatient until 17th January 2010.
9. Thereafter, he was again admitted to Orchid Hospital, where he ultimately passed away on 12th February 2010. The testimony further states that, following the accident, the deceased was unable to recognise his family members and could neither eat, walk, sit, nor attend to his natural calls on his own. It is also stated that approximately Rs.15,00,000/- was incurred towards his medical treatment, and the corresponding medical bills were placed on record.
10. In these circumstances, Mr. Maini has relied upon previous decision of this Court in Guddi and Ors. v. Mohan Sharma and Ors 2025:DHC:263. In this case, the injured had suffered injuries in an accident on 27th July 2008 and subsequently passed away on 4th October 2011. This Court held that, in view of the continuous treatment undergone by the deceased, there existed a causal nexus between the accident and the eventual death. Accordingly, compensation was awarded towards loss of financial dependency, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium on account of the death, as well as medical expenses, attendant charges, special diet, conveyance, loss of income, and pain and suffering for the period during which the deceased remained an injured victim.
11. The MACT, however, despite this background and noting the death of the deceased, Ram Phool Sharma, treated this as a case of injury and awarded compensation in the following terms:
1. Medical expenses Rs. 7,80,000/-
2. Loss of income Rs. 1,62,487
3. Pain and suffering. Rs. 1,00,000/-
4. Loss of enjoyment of amenities of life Rs. 1,00,000/-
5. Future prospects on account of disability Rs. 3,09,285/- Analysis
12. It is also clear that the deceased never resumed his duties with the DTC after the accident. The nature of the injuries sustained by him is evident from the discharge summary issued by Apollo Hospital. It states that he had an acute right fronto-temporo-parietal SDH with basifrontal contusion and B/L temporal contusion (right>left) with fracture right temporal bone. The procedure in the hospital was a right fronto-temporo-parietal craniotomy and evacuation of subdural haematoma and contusion on 09th January 2005, which was done on 09th January 2005. The comments given in terms of the procedure in the discharge summary state that the condition of the person was extremely vulnerable as he was only able to obey simple commands, his spontaneous speech had markedly reduced, his verbal output was poor, and his comprehension was impaired at times.
13. Various discharge summaries of the hospitals in respect of the treatment mentioned above also bear out that he was in an acute condition and had to go through more than two surgeries. The testimony of PW[9], Senior Neurosurgeon, is also noted, where he categorically deposed that there was no likelihood of any future improvement in the deceased's condition.
14. Moreover, the permanent disability of the injured was assessed at 50% in relation to his body, as evident from the certificate issued by Ram Manohar Lohia hospital, which PW[9], Dr. L.M Gupta Sr. Neurosurgeon, R.M.L Hospital, also proved.
15. Compensation payable to the claimant is required to be determined on the basis of the facts and circumstances prevailing as on the date of the accident and the injuries sustained therein. Subsequent events or extraneous considerations, unless they have a direct bearing on the consequences flowing from the accident, cannot be taken into account for determining the compensation payable. In Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 2 SCC 166, the Supreme Court held that claims crystallise on the date of the accident. Relevant paragraph is extracted as under: “9. We have thoughtfully considered the rival submissions. It cannot be disputed that at the time of death, there in fact were four dependants of the deceased and not three. The subsequent death of the deceased's dependant mother ought not to be a reason for reduction of motor accident compensation. Claims and legal liabilities crystallise at the time of the accident itself, and changes post thereto ought not to ordinarily affect pending proceedings. Just like how the appellant claimants cannot rely upon subsequent increases in minimum wages, the respondent insurer too cannot seek benefit of the subsequent death of a dependant during the pendency of legal proceedings. Similarly, any concession in law made in this regard by either counsel would not bind the parties, as it is legally settled that advocates cannot throw away legal rights or enter into arrangements contrary to law.” (emphasis added)
16. Taking a cue from the observations of the Supreme Court, in the opinion of this Court, in order to avoid any ambiguity in the grant of compensation and to adopt a standardised and consistent approach, the concept of hybrid compensation, i.e., awarding compensation both for the initial injury and the subsequent death, may not be applicable. Instead, where the claimant initially survives the accident, and the injury claim has crystallised, compensation should be determined solely on the basis of the settled parameters governing injury claims. If the injured person passes away after some years, the compensation awarded for the injuries forms part of his estate and devolves upon the legal heirs in accordance with law.
17. Moreover, the Supreme Court in the case of the Meena (Dead) through LRs. v. Prayagraj & Ors. 2025 INSC 820, which is a case where the claimant had suffered 100% permanent disability in a motor accident and remained in a vegetative state for nearly 19 years before eventually passing away during the pendency of the appeal, permitted the legal representatives to continue the proceedings only to recover the compensation that had accrued to the injured claimant's estate and treated the claim as one for injury compensation.
18. In the present case, the evidence on record clearly establishes the nature and extent of the injuries suffered by the deceased and the resultant disability. In this respect, reliance on Guddi (supra), in the opinion of this Court, may not be necessary.
19. Considering the aforesaid disability certificate, the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased, the prolonged course of treatment for almost five years, the repeated hospitalisations, the multiple neurosurgical interventions, the permanent neurological deficits reflected in the discharge summaries, and the opinion of PW[9] that there was no likelihood of any future improvement in his condition, this Court concludes that the deceased never recovered from the injury sustained in the accident. The discharge summaries records that even after the surgery, injured was not able to perform day-to-day activities on his own.
20. Accordingly, this Court does not concur with the assessment of functional disability at 25% made by the MACT in the impugned award and holds that the functional disability ought to be assessed at 50%.
21. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation enacted with the primary objective of providing a statutory framework for awarding compensation to victims of motor vehicle accidents or to their family members, who are rendered helpless and disadvantaged due to the untimely death or injury of a family member, provided the claim is found to be genuine. There is a catena of judgments which have consistently held that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation. Reference in this regard may be drawn to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Helen C. Rebello (Mrs.) & Ors. v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. (1999) 1 SCC 90, which held as under:
22. Moreover, the Supreme Court in the case of Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 13 SCC 710 has also held that the Court is duty-bound to award just compensation, even if the same has not been specifically pleaded by the claimant. The relevant part of the judgment is extracted as under: “25.....Needless to say, the MVA is beneficial and welfare legislation. In fact, the court is duty bound and entitled to award “Just Compensation” irrespective of the fact whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the claimant or not......”
23. Mr. Mani, counsel for claimant, states that the deceased had become brain-dead, completely bedridden, and remained in a vegetative state until his death.
24. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to increase the compensation awarded towards special diet and conveyance, and attendant charges to grant Rs.2,50,000/- on each of the accounts and pain and suffering and loss of amenities as a non-pecuniary loss, Rs. 2,50,000 each.
25. The monthly income of deceased was assessed at Rs. 11,455/-. At the time of accident the deceased was 58 years old; however, by the time he passed away, he was approximately 63 years old. Considering that the present case is of a hybrid nature, the deceased would only be liable for future prospects post his death, as he was receiving a salary. As per the principles enunciated in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 5 SCC 121.
26. As regards Insurance Company's plea that a wrong multiplier was given, the same would not be relevant considering the determination made above. However, aside from that, the MACT was not wrong in awarding a multiplier of 9, considering he was 58 years old on the date of the accident.
27. The monthly income for the purpose of computation shall be taken as Rs.11,455/-.
28. As per the principle enunciated in Pranay Sethi (supra), future prospects ought to be awarded at 25%, since the injured was 58 years old on the date of the accident.
29. No loss of income is being granted for the period he was alive, considering that he continued to receive salary from the DTC.
30. The revised compensation will be as under: Sr. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal Awarded by this Court PECUNIARY LOSS
1. Expenditure on Medical Bills and medical treatment (A) Rs. 7,80,000/- Rs. 7,80,000/-
2. Expenditure on conveyance and special diet (B) Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 2,50,000/-
5. Attendant charges (D) Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 2,50,000/-
6. Income of injured per month(E) Rs.11,455/-. Rs.11,455/-.
7. Add: Future prospects (F) Nil 25% of Rs.11,455/-.= Rs. 2,863.75
8. Multiplier (G) 9 9
9. Functional disability (H) 25% 50%
13 Total compensation (A + B + C + D + H + I+ J+ K) = L 15,01,772/- (rounded to 15,02,000/-) Rs. 25,53,212.50/- (rounded to Rs. 25,53,300/-)
31. Accordingly, the compensation is enhanced by Rs. 10,51,300/-.
32. Accordingly, it is directed that the enhanced amount along with accrued interest be deposited by the Insurance company with the Registrar General of this Court within a period of 6 weeks.
33. Further, it is directed that a lump sum amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- shall be released to the claimant from the amount so deposited within a period of two weeks thereafter. Remaining amount, along with accrued interest, shall be kept in Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) of Rs. 25,000/- each for periods of 1 month, 2 months, 3 months and so on, in succession as maybe calculated. Interest accruing on said FDRs shall be credited to the designated Savings Bank Account of claimant. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released to the Savings Bank Account of claimant upon due verification.
34. By order dated 24th October 2018, this Court directed the Insurance Company to deposit the entire awarded compensation and granted a stay. Vide order dated 21st August 2018, this Court altered the interim order dated 24th October 2018 and directed release of 50% of the deposited compensation. Accordingly, the balance amount shall be released in accordance with the directions of the MACT in the impugned award.
35. It is noted that the daughters of the deceased, namely, Usha, Babita and Jyoti, have relinquished their respective shares in favour of their brother Rajesh Kumar Sharma, son of deceased, as noted in paragraph 29 of the MACT’s award. However, since the wife was alive, MACT directed that 60% of the compensation amount would be awarded to the wife and 40% of the amount would be given to Rajesh Kumar Sharma, son of the deceased.
36. However, since the consortium amounts have been directed to be paid on account of the three sisters as well, Rajesh Kumar Sharma is legally bound to transfer Rs.40,000/- each along with accrued interest to each of his three sisters.
37. Recovery rights granted to the Insurance Company shall continue.
38. Accordingly, appeal filled by Insurance Company, i.e. MAC.APP. 913/2017, is dismissed.
39. Cross-appeal filed by claimants, i.e. MAC.APP. 743/2018, is allowed and is disposed of in the above terms.
40. Both these appeals stand disposed of in above terms.
41. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
42. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to appellant/Insurance Company only if the order of deposit has been complied with.
43. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
JUDGE JULY 10, 2026/sm/bp