Delhi High Court
Shri Ram General Insurance Company … vs Hans Raj Yadav & Ors on 19 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on : 19.06.2025
+ MAC.APP. 380/2023 & CM APPL. 40664/2023
SHRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED .....Appellant
versus
HANS RAJ YADAV & ORS. .....Respondents
MAC.APP. 408/2023
HANS RAJ YADAV .....Appellant
versus
HARUN KHAN & ORS. .....Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Niyati, Adv. through V.C. in
MAC.APP. 380/2023.
Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Mr. Yogesh Narula &
Mr. Abhin Narula, Advs. in MAC.APP.
408/2023.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Mr. Yogesh Narula &
Mr. Abhin Narula, Advs. in MAC.APP.
380/2023.
Ms. Niyati, Adv. through V.C for Insurance
Company in MAC.APP. 408/2023.
CORAM
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL MAC.APP. 380/2023 & MAC.APP. 408/2023 Page 1 of 22
Signing Date:25.06.2025
17:30:04
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeals are filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter ‘MV Act‘) challenging the quantum of
compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
vide award dated 15.05.2023 (hereafter ‘the impugned award’),
passed in MACT No. 127/2016.
2. MAC.APP. 380/2023 has been filed by the Insurance Company
seeking reduction of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal,
while MAC.APP. 408/2023 has been filed by the injured seeking
enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.
3. The brief facts are that on 05.07.2015 at about 11:15 a.m., the
appellant/injured was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle
bearing No. DL-8S-ND-2225 being driven by his son. When they
reached near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Sector-5, Gurgaon, a truck bearing
No. HR-55-P-9031, allegedly being driven in a rash and negligent
manner hit the motorcycle from behind.
4. Due to the impact, both the appellant/injured as well as his son
fell on the road and sustained injuries. The appellant/injured sustained
grievous injuries on his head, whereafter, he was taken to a hospital
for treatment.
5. This incident led to the registration of FIR No. 416/2015 at
Police Station Sector-5, Gurgaon, for the offences under Sections
279/337/338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC‘). After the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL MAC.APP. 380/2023 & MAC.APP. 408/2023 Page 2 of 22
Signing Date:25.06.2025
17:30:04
completion of investigation, the police charge sheeted the driver of the
offending vehicle for the said offences.
6. The learned Tribunal, after examining the pleadings, evidence,
and documents on record, assessed the compensation at ₹1,15,37,400/-
and awarded an interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum to the
appellant/injured. The details thereof are as under:
S.no. Heads of Compensation Amount
1. Expenditure on Treatment ₹4,00,000/-
2. Expenditure on Conveyance and Special Diet ₹75,000/- and
₹75,000/-
3. Cost of Nursing/Attendant ₹25,69,008/-
4. Loss of Income during Treatment ₹4,16,392/-
5. Any other loss which may require any special ₹2,00,000/-
treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of
his life
6. Mental and Physical Shock ₹1,00,000/-
7. Pain and Suffering ₹2,00,000/-
8. Loss of Amenities of Life ₹1,00,000/-
9. Disfiguration ₹1,00,000/-
10. Loss of Future Income ₹73,02,000/-
TOTAL ₹1,15,37,400/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL MAC.APP. 380/2023 & MAC.APP. 408/2023 Page 3 of 22
Signing Date:25.06.2025
17:30:04
7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, the
appellants have preferred the present appeals.
8. The learned Counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company
submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the aspect of
contributory negligence as the appellant/injured at the time of the
accident was travelling on a motorcycle as a pillion rider without
wearing a helmet.
9. He submitted that the learned Tribunal while awarding a sum of
₹2,00,000/- under the head of any other loss which may require any
special treatment for the rest of his life, failed to consider that the
appellant/injured had not placed any evidence to substantiate the said
claim.
10. He submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in applying the
multiplier system while computing compensation under the head of
attendant charges. He submitted that appellant/injured failed to
produce bills regarding expense incurred for an attendant and was
wrongly awarded an amount of ₹25,69,008/- under the said head.
11. He submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that
the appellant/injured at the time of the accident was 50 years old and
would have retired from service at the age of 58, thereby, the learned
Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 13 at the time of assessing
the income of the appellant/injured.
12. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal erred while
awarding a sum of ₹4,00,000/- under the head of loss of income
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL MAC.APP. 380/2023 & MAC.APP. 408/2023 Page 4 of 22
Signing Date:25.06.2025
17:30:04
during treatment. He submitted that the appellant/injured due to the
accident had taken voluntary retirement and was not asked to leave
service, the said fact was not considered by the learned Tribunal.
13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the appellant/injured
submitted that the learned Tribunal while relying on the last drawn
salary slip of the appellant/injured erred in deducting an amount of
₹4,000/- per month towards income tax and ought have relied on the
Form-16 issued by the employer of the appellant/injured.
14. He submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in deducting the
amount received as pension at the time of assessing the income of the
appellant/injured.
15. He further submitted that interest awarded at the rate of 7.5%
per annum is on the lower side and that the same should be enhanced
to 9% per annum.
16. The appellant/injured also challenged the award of ₹1,00,000/-
for loss of amenities, ₹1,00,000/- for mental and physical shock and
₹2,00,000/- for pain and suffering, arguing that these amounts are
inadequate given the severity of his disability.
17. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
Analysis
18. The short question for consideration before this Court is
whether the compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal ought to
be enhanced or reduced.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL MAC.APP. 380/2023 & MAC.APP. 408/2023 Page 5 of 22
Signing Date:25.06.2025
17:30:04
19. It is well-settled that the amount of compensation awarded
under the MV Act should be just and, to the extent possible, should
fully and adequately restore the claimant to a position as existed prior
to the accident. The object being to make good the loss suffered as a
result of the accident in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner.
20. By its very nature, when a tribunal or court is tasked with
determining the amount of compensation in accident cases, it
inevitably involves a degree of estimation, hypothetical assessments,
and a measure of compassion related to the severity of the disability
sustained. However, all these factors must be evaluated with objective
standards.
Contributory Negligence
21. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company
contended that the appellant/injured at the time of the accident was not
wearing a helmet and the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted
some amount of compensation towards contributory negligence.
22. This Court in the case of Vimla Devi and Anr. v. Royal
Sundaram All Ins Co. Ltd. & Anr. : MAC.APP. 653/2018 while
dealing with a similar circumstance of attributing contributory
negligence on a pillion rider for not wearing a helmet observed as
under:
“4. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
deceased fully knew that the mounting of three persons on a
moving scooty was impermissible under motor traffic rules. The
accident occurred in the middle of the road. The pillion riders
were not wearing helmets, therefore, there appears to be
contributory negligence. The Court is of the view that theSignature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL MAC.APP. 380/2023 & MAC.APP. 408/2023 Page 6 of 22
Signing Date:25.06.2025
17:30:04
aforesaid argument is untenable because not wearing a helmet
could at best be a traffic offence and not necessarily be regarded
as contributing to the motor accident itself. After an accident
occurs, its consequence depends upon the impact. In the present
case, the two vehicles crashed into each other in a ‘head on
collision’. The contribution of the pillion rider is not made out from
the nature of the accident. Surely, the oncoming offending motor
vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. In no
circumstance, the deceased-pillion rider could be said to have
contributed to the said accident. The deceased was the first pillion
rider sitting immediately behind the scooterist. It is the second
pillion rider who could well have misbalanced because he was
sitting on the edge of the rear seat, therefore, the one pillion
sandwiched between the other two riders would be the most
securely seated, yet he died in the unfortunate accident. The pillion
was not in control of the scooty. Hence, no case is made out for
apportionment of contributory negligence upon the deceased.”
(emphasis supplied)
23. In the present case, the learned Tribunal in order to establish
negligence examined PW-2, son of the appellant/injured, who was
riding the motorcycle at the time of the accident. He deposed that it
was due to the impact from the offending vehicle that the
appellant/injured had received severe injuries on his head.
24. He was cross-examined by the appellant/Insurance Company,
however his deposition could not be impeached. The learned Tribunal
noted that under MACT proceedings the aspect of negligence is not
required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
25. Undisputedly the driver of the offending vehicle has not filed
any complaint regarding his false implication and is facing criminal
trial as an accused for the present accident.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL MAC.APP. 380/2023 & MAC.APP. 408/2023 Page 7 of 22
Signing Date:25.06.2025
17:30:04
26. Further the appellant/Insurance Company at the time of cross-
examination did not give a suggestion to the son of the
appellant/injured of whether the appellant/injured was wearing a
helmet at the time of the accident. Thus, benefit of doubt can be given
to the appellant/injured.
27. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal
after examining the record rightly noted that the present accident was
caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
offending vehicle.
28. Therefore, in light of the observations made in Vimla Devi and
Anr. v. Royal Sundaram All Ins Co. Ltd. & Anr. (supra) not wearing
a helmet by the appellant/injured at the time of the accident can at best
be considered as a violation of traffic rules and cannot be attributed as
negligence in causing the said motor accident. The impugned award is
affirmed to that extent.
Compensation for any other loss which may require any special
treatment for the rest of his life
29. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company
contended that the learned Tribunal at the time of computing
compensation payable to the appellant/injured erred in awarding a sum
of ₹2,00,000/- under the head of any other loss which may require any
special treatment for the rest of his life.
30. In the present case the appellant/injured sustained grievous
injuries on his head, whereafter, the learned Tribunal assessed the
functional disability of the appellant/injured at 100%.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL MAC.APP. 380/2023 & MAC.APP. 408/2023 Page 8 of 22
Signing Date:25.06.2025
17:30:04
31. PW-1, Dr. Kalpana during the trial had proved Ex PW1/3,
Disability Certificate assessing permanent disability of the
appellant/injured at 83%. She further deposed that the appellant had
sustained such injuries due to the accident.
32. PW-4, Dr. Deepak Kumar deposed that the due to the severe
head injuries sustained by the appellant/injured, he had developed
behavioral disturbances in the form of irritability, unprovoked
aggression and inability to maintain daily activities without assistance.
33. In the opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal rightly
awarded an amount of ₹2,00,000/- under the said head. Due to the
accident the appellant had suffered grievous injuries on his head as
well as on his body. The nature of injuries as deposed by the expert
witnesses would require the victim to visit the hospital regularly for
his medical checkups and treatment of the doctors at various hospitals
in and outside of Delhi. It would be reasonable to assume that large
amount of money will be spent on such medical treatment for which
no evidence can be produced at this stage and the learned Tribunal is
permitted to make reasonable assessment of the expenses that would
be incurred.
34. Sum awarded under this head cannot be said to be unreasonable.
The impugned award is affirmed to that extent.
Attendant Charges
35. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company
contended that the learned Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier
system and thereby awarding an amount of ₹25,69,008/- towards
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL MAC.APP. 380/2023 & MAC.APP. 408/2023 Page 9 of 22
Signing Date:25.06.2025
17:30:04
attendant charges without any evidence being led by the
appellant/injured for the same.
36. In the present case, the learned Tribunal assessed the attendant
charges by relying on the judgment of this Court in Jyoti Singh v.
Nand Kishore & Others : MAC.APP. 870/2011, wherein it was held
that while calculating the compensation for an attendant the multiplier
system ought to be applied as such expenses are recurring in nature.
37. The learned Tribunal in the present case assessed the amount of
compensation under the head of attendant charges by taking an
amount of ₹16,468/- per month which are the minimum wages of a
skilled labour applicable for Delhi in 2017 and thereafter applying the
same multiplier used for assessing the income of the appellant/injured.
38. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kajal v. Jagdish Chand
: (2020) 4 SCC 413 held for determining compensation payable
towards attendant charges the multiplier system should be followed.
The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:
“22. The attendant charges have been awarded by the High Court
@ Rs.2,500/ per month for 44 years, which works out to
Rs.13,20,000/. Unfortunately, this system is not a proper system.
Multiplier system is used to balance out various factors. When
compensation is awarded in lump sum, various factors are taken
into consideration. When compensation is paid in lump sum, this
Court has always followed the multiplier system. The multiplier
system should be followed not only for determining the
compensation on account of loss of income but also for
determining the attendant charges etc. This system was
recognised by this Court in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K.
Veluswami. The multiplier system factors in the inflation rate, the
rate of interest payable on the lump sum award, the longevity of
the claimant, and also other issues such as the uncertainties of life.
Out of all the various alternative methods, the multiplier methodSignature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL MAC.APP. 380/2023 & MAC.APP. 408/2023 Page 10 of 22
Signing Date:25.06.2025
17:30:04
has been recognised as the most realistic and reasonable method.
It ensures better justice between the parties and thus results in
award of ‘just compensation’ within the meaning of the Act.”
(emphasis supplied)
39. In the present case, the appellant had not produced any evidence
before the learned Trial Court regarding attendant charges.
40. However, considering the depositions made by PW-1 and PW-4
stating that the appellant/injured suffered from severe head injuries
due to the accident and as a result had developed behavioural
disturbances, the learned Tribunal rightly noted that he would require
assistance of one permanent attendant.
41. It is also common knowledge that evidence for any future
expenses that would be incurred for an attendant cannot be adduced
by the appellant/injured at this stage. Therefore, the learned Tribunal
was right in making an assessment regarding that aspect.
42. Hence, in light of the observations made in Kajal v. Jagdish
Chand (supra) and keeping in view the specific facts and
circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion the
learned Tribunal rightly applied the multiplier system while
calculating the compensation under the head of attendant charges.
43. In view of the aforesaid discussion the amount of ₹25,69,008/-
awarded under the head of attendant charges is adequate. The
impugned award is affirmed to that extent.
Income Tax
44. The learned counsel for the appellant/injured submitted that the
learned Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL MAC.APP. 380/2023 & MAC.APP. 408/2023 Page 11 of 22
Signing Date:25.06.2025
17:30:04
appellant/injured. He contended that the learned Tribunal wrongly
relied on the last drawn salary slip of the appellant/injured and
deducted an amount of ₹4,000/- per month towards income tax. He
further contended that the learned Tribunal ought have relied upon
Form-16 issued by the employer of the appellant/injured which
records that the total tax liability of the appellant/injured was
₹16,487/- per annum.
45. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi
Transport Corporation ans Anr. : (2009) 6 SCC 121 held that for
calculating compensation, the income of the victim less the income
tax should be treated as the actual income.
46. In Vimal Kanwar and Ors. v. Kishore Dan and Ors. : (2013) 7
SCC 476, the Hon’ble Apex Court while relying on the judgement of
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation ans Anr. (supra)
observed as under:
“22. The third issue is “whether the income tax is liable to be
deducted for determination of compensation under the Motor
Vehicles Act“.
23. In Sarla Verma this Court held:
“20. Generally, the actual income of the deceased less
income tax should be the starting point for calculating
compensation”
This Court further observed that:
“24. … Where the annual income is in taxable range, the
words ‘actual salary’ should be read as ‘actual salary less
tax’.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL MAC.APP. 380/2023 & MAC.APP. 408/2023 Page 12 of 22
Signing Date:25.06.2025
17:30:04
Therefore, it is clear that if the annual income comes within the
taxable range, income tax is required to be deducted for
determination of the actual salary. But while deducting income
tax from the salary, it is necessary to notice the nature of the
income of the victim. If the victim is receiving income chargeable
under the head “salaries” one should keep in mind that under
Section 192(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 any person responsible
for paying any income chargeable under the head “salaries” shall
at the time of payment, deduct income tax on estimated income of
the employee from “salaries” for that financial year. Such
deduction is commonly known as tax deducted at source (“TDS”,
for short). When the employer fails in default to deduct the TDS
from the employee’s salary, as it is his duty to deduct the TDS, then
the penalty for non-deduction of TDS is prescribed under Section
201(1-A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, it is clear that if
the annual income comes within the taxable range, income tax is
required to be deducted for determination of the actual salary.
But while deducting income tax from the salary, it is necessary to
notice the nature of the income of the victim. If the victim is
receiving income chargeable under the head “salaries” one should
income of the victim is only from “salary”, the presumption would
be that the employer under Section 192(1) of the Income Tax Act,
1961 has deducted the tax at source from the employee’s salary. In
case if an objection is raised by any party, the objector is required
to prove by producing evidence such as LPC to suggest that the
employer failed to deduct the TDS from the salary of the employee.
However, there can be cases where the victim is not a salaried
person i.e. his income is from sources other than salary, and the
annual income falls within taxable range, in such cases, if any
objection as to deduction of tax is made by a party then the
claimant is required to prove that the victim has already paid
income tax and no further tax has to be deducted from the
income.”
(emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL MAC.APP. 380/2023 & MAC.APP. 408/2023 Page 13 of 22
Signing Date:25.06.2025
17:30:04
47. In the present case, the learned Tribunal noted that Form-16
which was Ex. PW3/3 had been issued by the employer of the
appellant/injured for the period of March 2016 to February 2017. It
was further noted that in order to assess the income of the
appellant/injured the last drawn salary slip which is Ex. PW3/2 ought
to be considered.
48. This Court in the case of Usha & Ors. v. Akbar & Ors. (United
India Insurance Co. Ltd.) : MAC.APP. 83/2017 while dealing with a
similar circumstance held that for assessing the income of the victim
the last drawn salary slip ought to be considered and not Form-16. The
relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:
“9. The reliance of the learned counsel for the appellants on Form
No. 16 cannot be accepted as a conclusive proof for the
determination of income of the deceased. The TDS is deducted on
the amount paid by the employer, which would also include the
amounts paid for reimbursement of actual expenses, or other
allowances which would be personal to the deceased, and which
would not survive on his death. in my view, therefore, the document
which is to be relied upon, in the facts of the present case, for
determining the income of the deceased has to be the Salary Slip,
as it gives the complete breakup of the amount paid to the deceased
under various heads.”
49. From a perusal of the salary slip which is Ex. PW3/2 the
appellant/injured was receiving gross salary of ₹56,772/- per month.
Further an amount of ₹4,000/- was being deducted towards income
tax.
50. Therefore, in light of the observations made in Usha & Ors. v.
Akbar & Ors. (United India Insurance Co. Ltd.) (supra), the learned
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL MAC.APP. 380/2023 & MAC.APP. 408/2023 Page 14 of 22
Signing Date:25.06.2025
17:30:04
Tribunal rightly deducted an amount of ₹4,000/- per month towards
income tax. The impugned award is affirmed to that extent.
Pension
51. The learned counsel for the appellant/injured contended that the
learned Tribunal erred in deducting an amount of ₹21,800/- received
as pension while assessing the income of the appellant/injured.
52. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar and Ors.
v. Kishore Dan and Ors. (supra) held that amount received under the
heads of provident fund, pension and gratuity cannot be deducted at
the time of assessing the income of the victim of a motor accident as
such amounts are pecuniary advantages provided to the legal heirs of
the victim. The relevant observations are reproduced hereunder:
“18. The first issue is “whether provident fund, pension and insurance
receivable by the claimants come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles
Act to be termed as ‘pecuniary advantage’ liable for deduction”.
19. The aforesaid issue fell for consideration before this Court in Helen C.
Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC [(1999) 1 SCC 90 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 197] . In
the said case, this Court held that provident fund, pension, insurance and
similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. are all a
“pecuniary advantage” receivable by the heirs on account of one’s death
but all these have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute
occasioned only on account of accidental death. Such an amount will not
come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as
“pecuniary advantage” liable for deduction. The following was the
observation and finding of this Court: (SCC pp. 111-12, para 35)
“35. Broadly, we may examine the receipt of the provident fund which
is a deferred payment out of the contribution made by an employee
during the tenure of his service. Such employee or his heirs are
entitled to receive this amount irrespective of the accidental death.
This amount is secured, is certain to be received, while the amount
under the Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain and is receivable only on the
happening of the event viz. accident, which may not take place at all.
Similarly, family pension is also earned by an employee for the benefit
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL MAC.APP. 380/2023 & MAC.APP. 408/2023 Page 15 of 22
Signing Date:25.06.2025
17:30:04
of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of
the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death. The heirs
receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. No
co-relation between the two. Similarly, life insurance policy is received
either by the insured or the heirs of the insured on account of the
contract with the insurer, for which the insured contributes in the form
of premium. It is receivable even by the insured if he lives till maturity
after paying all the premiums. In the case of death, the insurer
indemnifies to pay the sum to the heirs, again in terms of the contract
for the premium paid. Again, this amount is receivable by the claimant
not on account of any accidental death but otherwise on the insured’s
death. Death is only a step or contingency in terms of the contract, to
receive the amount. Similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed
deposits, etc. though are all a pecuniary advantage receivable by the
heirs on account of one’s death but all these have no co-relation with
the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of
accidental death. How could such an amount come within the
periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as ‘pecuniary
advantage’ liable for deduction. When we seek the principle of loss
and gain, it has to be on a similar and same plane having nexus, inter
se, between them and not to which there is no semblance of any co-
relation. The insured (the deceased) contributes his own money for
which he receives the amount which has no co-relation to the
compensation computed as against the tortfeasor for his negligence on
account of the accident. As aforesaid, the amount receivable as
compensation under the Act is on account of the injury or death
without making any contribution towards it, then how can the fruits of
an amount received through contributions of the insured be deducted
out of the amount receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The
amount under this Act he receives without any contribution. As we
have said, the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is
statutory while the amount receivable under the life insurance policy
is contractual.””
53. In the present case, the appellant/injured was working as a Sub
Inspector GD in Central Reserve Police Force. As per the Disability
Certificate which is Ex. PW1/3 he had suffered 83% permanent
disability due to the accident, as a result he had to take voluntary
retirement from service.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL MAC.APP. 380/2023 & MAC.APP. 408/2023 Page 16 of 22
Signing Date:25.06.2025
17:30:04
54. It is pertinent to note that after taking voluntary retirement from
service, he was getting pension of ₹21,800/- per month.
55. In light of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Vimal Kanwar and Ors. v. Kishore Dan and Ors. (supra),
I am of the opinion that the pension amount of ₹21,800/- received by
the appellant/injured in lieu of his service rendered, would act as a
pecuniary advantage to the legal heirs of the appellant/injured and
would enable them to sustain themselves in the future.
56. It is well-settled that the amount of compensation awarded
under the MV Act should be just and, to the extent possible, should
fully and adequately restore the claimant to a position as existed prior
to the accident. The object being to make good the loss suffered as a
result of the accident in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner.
57. In the present case, considering the beneficial legislation of the
MV Act as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Arunachal Pradesh v. Ramchandra Rabidas alias Ratan Rabidas
and another : (2019) 10 SCC 75, in the opinion of this Court the
learned Tribunal ought not to have deducted the pension amount at the
time of assessing the income of the appellant/injured.
58. In view of the aforesaid discussion the learned Tribunal is
directed to re-assess the income of the appellant/injured by keeping in
mind the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Vimal Kanwar and Ors. v. Kishore Dan and Ors. (supra). The
impugned award is modified to that extent.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL MAC.APP. 380/2023 & MAC.APP. 408/2023 Page 17 of 22
Signing Date:25.06.2025
17:30:04
Compensation for Pain and Suffering as well as Mental and
Physical Shock
59. It was argued on behalf of the appellant/injured that the sum
awarded towards pain and suffering, and mental and physical shock
does not adequately reflect the intensity of the physical pain, multiple
surgeries and the emotional trauma endured by the appellant/injured.
60. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to the judgment in the
case of R.D. Hattangadi vs Pest control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors :
(1995) 1 SCC 551, where the Hon’ble Apex Court has expounded on
the compensation under pecuniary and non- pecuniary heads that can
be awarded in cases of personal injury. The relevant portion of the
judgment is reproduced hereunder:
“9. Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation
payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be
assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages…
In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may
include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance;
(ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other
material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they
may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and
suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii)
damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may
include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant
may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of
expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity
of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship,
discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life.”
(emphasis supplied)
61. In the present case, the learned Tribunal assessed the functional
disability of the appellant/injured at 100%. The disability is stated to
be permanent.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL MAC.APP. 380/2023 & MAC.APP. 408/2023 Page 18 of 22
Signing Date:25.06.2025
17:30:04
62. The learned Tribunal further noted that the appellant/injured due
to the accident had suffered severe head injuries and as a result
developed behavioral disturbances. The learned Tribunal further noted
that due to the injuries sustained the appellant/injured was admitted in
a hospital for a considerable time and would have endured a lot of
physical pain during his treatment.
63. In the opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal, though erred
in awarding separate compensation of ₹1,00,000/- and ₹2,00,000/-
under the distinct heads of mental and physical shock and pain and
suffering respectively, the learned Tribunal ought to have treated them
as falling under a consolidated head of pain and suffering, which
encompasses both physical and mental trauma.
64. Nevertheless, the total compensation of ₹3,00,000/- awarded
under these overlapping heads is just, fair and adequate and does not
warrant any interference by this Court.
Loss of Amenities
65. It is the contention of the appellant/injured that the learned
Tribunal has awarded a lesser amount towards loss of amenities.
66. In the present case, the functional disability of the
appellant/injured was assessed at 100%. The son of the
appellant/injured deposed that after the accident, his father has not
been in full senses and has difficulty in leading his life and requires
assistance of an attendant.
67. Therefore, keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by the
appellant/injured, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL MAC.APP. 380/2023 & MAC.APP. 408/2023 Page 19 of 22
Signing Date:25.06.2025
17:30:04
erred in awarding a meagre sum of ₹1,00,000/- under the head of loss
of amenities and the same is enhanced to ₹2,00,000/- is awarded. The
impugned award is modified to that extent.
Miscellaneous Head
68. The appellant/Insurance Company has also made a general
assertion that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding compensation
under certain ancillary heads–such as loss of income during
treatment and applying wrong multiplier at the time of assessing the
income of the appellant/injured. In the opinion of this Court, the
findings of the learned Tribunal are consistent with the legal position
and evidentiary material on record. In the absence of any specific
pleadings, supporting evidence, or quantified claim under these
categories, this Court does not find any justifiable ground to interfere
with the compensation awarded under the miscellaneous heads.
Rate of Interest
69. The appellant/injured is aggrieved by the rate of interest of
7.5% per annum. The same appears to be on the lower side.
70. It is pertinent to note that this Court in the case of United India
Insurance Company Ltd v. Smt. Mithlesh Kumari and Ors : MAC.
APP. 161/2025 had noted that the award of interest is a matter of
judicial discretion, and that the same found its genesis in the
forbearance of the claimants who are kept out of the money that they
are entitled to at the time of filing of the claim petition. It was
consequently noted that the award of @9% interest is a reasonable
assessment.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL MAC.APP. 380/2023 & MAC.APP. 408/2023 Page 20 of 22
Signing Date:25.06.2025
17:30:04
71. While there is no set standard for the grant of rate of interest in
every case, in the opinion of this Court, the rate of interest as awarded
by the learned Tribunal is on the lower end and therefore, interest at
the rate of 9% per annum is awarded to the appellant/injured.
Conclusion
72. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the
appeal preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company is dismissed.
73. The appeal preferred by the appellant/injured is partly allowed.
The matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal for the limited
purpose of re-determining the compensation by taking into
consideration (i) re-assess the income of the appellant/injured by not
deducting the requisite amount received as pension, (ii) award a sum
of ₹2,00,000/- as compensation towards loss of amenities, (iii)
enhance the rate of interest and finally compute the compensation of
the appellant afresh.
74. The findings of the Tribunal on all other issues are affirmed and
shall remain undisturbed.
75. The learned Tribunal shall undertake this re-computation
expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date
of the first listing of the Claim Petition before the learned Tribunal on
remand.
76. The parties shall appear before the learned Tribunal on
09.07.2025.
77. The compensation amount so determined, on remand, shall be
released in favour of the appellant in accordance with the schedule of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL MAC.APP. 380/2023 & MAC.APP. 408/2023 Page 21 of 22
Signing Date:25.06.2025
17:30:04
disbursal which will be stipulated by the learned Tribunal.
78. A copy of this judgment be placed in both the matters.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
JUNE 19, 2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL MAC.APP. 380/2023 & MAC.APP. 408/2023 Page 22 of 22
Signing Date:25.06.2025
17:30:04