MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 1 of 28

$~P-12

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 17.12.2025

Pronounced on: 03.03.2026

Uploaded on: 03.03.2026

+ MAC.APP. 555/2025 & CM APPL. 79119/2025 (for modification)

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Salil Paul, Mr. Sahil Paul Mr.

Sandeep Dayal, Advocates.

versus

SALEEM KHAN MEWATI & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. G.C. Pandey, Mr. Vittan Khan

& Ms. Parul Bisht, Advocates for

R-1.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

J U D G M E N T

1.The present appeal has been preferred by New India Assurance Co.

Ltd. [“Insurance Company”], assailing an award dated 19.05.2025,

passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [“the Tribunal”] in MACT

Case No. 775/2018. By the impugned award, the Tribunal awarded

compensation of Rs. 1,25,35,440/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5%

per annum, in favour of the claimant [respondent No. 1 herein], arising

out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.08.2016.

A.FACTS

2.The facts of the accident, as borne out from the impugned award,

MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 2 of 28

are that, on 13.08.2016 at about 11:00 PM, claimant alongwith his cousin,

namely Beeru @ Abdul Salam, was standing opposite Madarsa and Mihir

Bhoj Balika Degree College, Dadri. At that time, a car bearing

registration No. HR-27C-5161 [“insured vehicle”], driven by respondent

No. 2 herein, allegedly in a rash and negligent manner and at a high

speed, struck the claimant with force. As a result of the impact, the

claimant was thrown onto the road and sustained grievous head injuries.

The insured vehicle was owned by respondent No. 3 herein, and was

insured with the appellant – Insurance Company.

3.The claimant was thereafter removed from the site of the accident

and taken in a PCR van to Columbia Hospital, Ghaziabad, where he

remained under medical treatment for a considerable period. It is stated

that, prior to the accident, the claimant was running a grocery shop.

However, due to the injuries sustained, he remained bedridden for a

prolonged duration, and was unable to resume work.

4.In relation to the aforesaid accident, FIR No. 0460/2016 under

Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was registered on

25.08.2016 at Police Station Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar, and

subsequently, a charge-sheet was filed on 01.01.2017.

B.IMPUGNED AWARD

5.The claimant thereafter instituted claim proceedings before the

Tribunal, seeking compensation in respect of the injuries sustained in the

accident. In the said proceedings, the driver, owner, and insurer of the

insured vehicle were arrayed as respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

6.The Tribunal returned a finding of rash and negligent driving on

the part of the driver of the insured vehicle and, on that basis, proceeded

MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 3 of 28

to assess and award compensation in favour of the claimant, under the

following heads:

Sr.No. Heads Awarded by the

Tribunal

Pecuniary Loss

(i)Expenditure on treatment Rs. 8,47,479/-

(ii)Expenditure on Conveyance Rs. 1,00,000/-

(iii)Expenditure on special diet Rs.2,00,000/-

(iv)Cost of nursing / attendant Rs.12,79,260/-

(v)Loss of income Rs.3,36,756/-

(vi)Cost of artificial limbs (if applicable) N/A

(vii)Percentage of loss of earning capacity in

relation to disability

100%

(viii)Any other loss / expenditure N/A

(ix)Loss of future income Rs.70,71,945/-

Non-Pecuniary Loss

(i)Damages for pain, suffering and trauma on

account of injuries:

Rs. 20,00,000/-

(ii)Loss of amenities of life Rs. 2,00,000/-

(iii)Future medical expenses Rs. 5,00,000/-

Total Compensation Rs.1,25,35,440/-

C.SUBMISSIONS

7.I have heard Mr. Salil Paul, learned counsel for the appellant –

Insurance Company, and Mr. G.C. Pandey, learned counsel for the

respondent No. 1/claimant.

MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 4 of 28

8.Mr. Paul’s principal submission was that the narrative advanced

with respect to involvement of the insured vehicle in the alleged accident,

prima facie, lacks credibility. He submitted that the material on record

indicates that the said vehicle has been falsely implicated, and that the

driver has colluded in the process. In support of this submission, he drew

my attention to the unexplained delay in the lodging of the FIR. While the

accident is stated to have occurred on 13.08.2016 at about 11:00 PM, the

FIR was lodged by the father of the claimant only twelve days later, i.e.

on 25.08.2016. According to him, this delay casts serious doubt on the

veracity of the version of the accident, as put forth by the claimant.

9.Mr. Paul further submitted that the evidence regarding the

occurrence of the accident itself is unreliable. By way of example, he

submited that although one alleged eye-witness, Mr. Abdul Salam, was

examined as PW-2 before the Tribunal, another purported eye-witness,

namely Mr. Gyasuddin, who was admittedly present at the spot, was not

examined. Mr. Paul further urged that the registration number of the

insured vehicle was mentioned for the first time in the FIR which was

lodged twelve days after the incident. According to him, this was

incongruous with the assertion of PW-2, Mr. Abdul Salam, that he had

noted down, at least a part of the insured vehicle’s registration number

immediately after the accident.

10.Mr. Paul also pointed out material inconsistencies between the

contemporaneous medical record and the case pleaded before the

Tribunal. While the Medico-Legal Certificate [“MLC”] recorded that the

claimant was struck by a four-wheeler while he was travelling “with

bike”, the case advanced by the claimant – supported by the testimony of

MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 5 of 28

Mr. Abdul Salam – was that he was standing by the roadside at the time

of the accident. Mr. Paul submitted that this discrepancy is material and

goes to the root of the matter.

11.Mr. Paul submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by

the Tribunal is grossly excessive, disproportionate, and unsustainable in

law. He further, inter alia, contends that the claim petition itself sought

only Rs.50,00,000/- and did not quantify losses under specific heads, yet

the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,25,35,440/-. In particular, it was submitted

that:

a)The Tribunal erred in granting compensation under the heads of future

medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, special diet,

conveyance, and attendant charges, none of which were supported by

documentary evidence or expert opinion.

b)The compensation awarded for expenditure on treatment of

Rs.8,47,479/- includes Rs.30,000/- on account of miscellaneous

hospital expenses, without any supporting documentation.

c)He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in ICICI Lombard

General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Mohanty

1

to submit that

the Tribunal incorrectly computed loss of income at Rs.3,36,756/-

based on a single year’s ITR, contrary to settled law, which requires

the average of the preceding three years.

d)Although a ground has been raised in the appeal questioning the

Tribunal’s assessment of 100% disability and the application of the

multiplier as being excessive, the said contention was not pressed

during the course of submissions.

MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 6 of 28

12.Mr. Paul’s final submission related to the award of interest. He

submitted that the Tribunal has erroneously granted interest for the period

from 23.12.2021 to 18.07.2022, even though the claim petition had been

dismissed for default by the Tribunal on 23.12.2021, and was restored

only on 18.07.2022. He contended that no interest ought to be payable for

the period during which the claim was not diligently prosecuted.

13.Mr. Pandey, on the other hand, supported the findings of the

Tribunal and submitted that they are borne out by the evidence on record.

He relied on the testimony of PW-2, submitting that the eye-witness

provided consistent evidence regarding the manner in which the accident

occurred, which aligns with the case pleaded by the claimant. He further

submitted that the purported inconsistency between the version advanced

by the claimant and the MLC was never put to PW-2 during cross-

examination and, therefore, cannot be relied upon at this stage to discredit

the claimant’s case.

14.With regard to the delay in lodging the FIR, Mr. Pandey submitted

that the claimant was immediately removed from the accident site and

taken to the hospital in a PCR van. Consequently, the police authorities

were aware of the accident from the outset. In these circumstances, he

contended that no adverse inference ought to be drawn, merely on

account of the delay in formal registration of the FIR.

15.Mr. Pandey also addressed the objections raised to the quantum of

compensation, and has made submissions in support of each head under

which compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal. These

submissions shall be examined in detail at the appropriate stage.

1

(2018) 3 SCC 686 [hereinafter, “Ajay Kumar Mohanty”].

MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 7 of 28

D.ANALYSIS RE:INVOLVEMENT OF THE INSURED VEHICLE

16.The principal argument advanced by Mr. Paul concerned the very

involvement of the insured vehicle in the accident. In support of this

submission, he pointed to an alleged discrepancy between the MLC of the

claimant prepared at the hospital, and the version reflected in the FIR and

the oral evidence. While the MLC recorded that the claimant was on a

bike at the time he was hit by the insured vehicle, the FIR as well as the

testimony before the Tribunal indicated that he was standing by the

roadside when the accident occurred. Mr. Paul further contended that, in

this backdrop, the delay of twelve days in lodging the FIR assumes

significance and cumulatively casts serious doubt on the credibility of the

claimant’s case.

17.These submissions must be assessed against the pleadings and the

entirety of the evidence adduced before the Tribunal. In the claim

petition, the claimant had stated that he, alongwith his cousin, namely Mr.

Abdul Salam, was present at the spot at the time of the accident and that

he was standing when the accident occurred. The manner in which the

accident was stated to have taken place was described in the claim

petition as follows:

“That on 13.08.2016 at around 11.00 p.m. the petitioner/injured

alongwith his cousin brother namely Beeru @ Abdul Salam were

standing opposite Madarsa & Mihir Bhoj Balika Digree [sic] College,

Dadri. On Car bearing regd. No. HR-27C-5161 being driven by its

driver i.e. respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner and at very

fast speed came from Dadri Bust Stand and hit forcefully to the

petitioner. Due to this sudden forceful impact, the injured was fell

down on the road and sustained grievous injuries, the petitioner

suffered grievous head injury and other injuries all over his body. The

PCR Van took the injured alongwith his cousin brother Beeru @ Abdul

Salam.”

MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 8 of 28

18.It may be noted that the Insurance Company filed its written

statement contending, inter alia, that the insured vehicle had been falsely

implicated in the accident. The owner and driver of the vehicle

[respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the Tribunal] also filed a written

statement, in which they resisted liability on the ground that the vehicle

was insured with the Insurance Company [respondent No.3 before the

Tribunal]. Significantly, the manner in which the accident occurred was

not disputed by either of the parties.

19.The claimant’s cousin, Mr. Abdul Salam, who was also an eye-

witness to the accident, was examined as PW-2. His affidavit of evidence

reads as follows:

“1. That the deponent is eye witness of the accident occurred on

13.08.2016 at around 11 pm. The deponent along with Injured

Saleem Khan Mewati and Sh. Gayasuddin were standing beside road

opposite Madarsa and Mihir Bhoj Ballka Degree College Dadri. One

white colour Swift car bearing Regn No. HR-27-C-5161 was being

driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner and at very fast

speed came from Dadri bus stand and hit forcefully to Sh. Saleem

Khan Mewati. Due to this sudden forceful impact, Saleem Khan

Mewati fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries on his

head and all over body. The deponent and Sh. Gayasuddin tried to stop

the car and ran after the car but the driver of the offending vehicle ran

away alongwith the car. The deponent and Sh. Gayasuddin noted

down the registered number of the offending vehicle.

2. That the deponent made a call to the father of injured and asked him

to come to the spot of accident. That after few moments the PCR also

arrived at the spot of accident. The deponent and Sh. Gayasuddin put

Saleem Khan Mewati into PCR and took him to Naveen Hospital at

Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP but considering the condition of

Saleem Khan Mewati, he was taken to Columbia Asia Hospital,

Ghaziabad, where Saleem Khan was treated.

3. That the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of

the respondent No.1, who was driving the offending vehicle in very fast

MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 9 of 28

speed without observing the traffic rules. It is pertinent to mention here

that there were mercury road lights on the Building of the Madarsa.”

2

20.PW-2 was cross-examined by learned counsel for the Insurance

Company, during which he deposed as under:

“On the night of accident, at 11 PM, after coming back from a party

(Daawat), I was talking to Mr. Gayazuddin and Mr. Salim. The party

was organised on occasion of birth of one Salmu’s child. All three of

us were on foot. Father of Mr. Salim resides close to the place of

accident along with his younger son namely Javed. At the place where

the accident took place, there is a divider on the road and the road is

quite broad as the vehicles from both the sides can easily pass through.

After the allegedaccident took place, while I was calling the police,

meanwhile, the PCR had arrived. I was calling the PCR from my

phone no.9350352328. Police took the injured to the Naveen Hospital

in Dadri where the hospital refused to admit the injured. After that,

we took the ambulance from Naveen Hospital and took the injured to

Columbia Hospital, Ghaziabad. I was accompanied by Gayasuddin.

We reached Columbia Asia Hospital at around 11:30 pm. Officials of

Dadri Police visited Columbia Hospital and they were duly intimated

about the accident. The police recorded my statement in Columbia

Asia Hospital. I do not remember whether my signatures were

procured or not.

It is correct that FIR was not lodged by me.

I do not know any person named Shakhir. 2-3 days after the accident,

police called me at PS Dadri for identification of the offending vehicle.

I was never called to identify the owner and driver of the alleged car. I

have never met the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. Neither I

have been summoned by the criminal court in Dadri nor have I given

any statement there till today. I had also stated to the doctor at

Columbia Hospital regarding the accident taking place due to

negligence of the driver of the car. At the time of accident, we were

standing next to Mihir Bhoj Balika Degree College, Dadri when the

offending vehicle hit the injured who after the knock, fell on the bonnet

of the offending vehicle and then fell down on the road at the left side

of the offending vehicle. After hitting the victim, the driver of the

alleged car bearing no. HR-27C-5161 slowed down for a while but

thereafter rushed away. I and Gayasuddin noted the number of the

2

Emphasis supplied.

MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 10 of 28

offending vehicle. Vol.: there was street light at the spot of the

accident.

It is correct that neither me nor Gayasuddin lodged the FIR. It is

incorrect to suggest that we did not lodge the FIR as we did not know

the number of the offending vehicle. It is incorrect to suggest that I was

not present at the time of accident.

Q. I put to you that your name does not appear anywhere either in the

criminal or hospital records. What do you have to say?

Question objected to by the Ld. Counsel for claimant on the grounds

that the same is matter of record.

A.I cannot say.

It is incorrect to suggest that the vehicle bearing no. HR27C5161 has

not caused the present accident and it is falsely been implicated just in

order to receive compensation.

I have studied till class 3

rd

or 4

th

. I cannot recognize the English

alphabets but I can recognize the numerical digits.

At this stage, the witness has been shown his affidavit to read to the

alphabets and numerical digits wherein he could recognize and

recall the numerical digits in a slow manner but could not read the

English alphabets. I was not called by the wife of Mr. Saleem to

depose in the court. It is correct that I have not received any summons

from the court. I know the injured as the injured is from Dadri (vahin

ke purane rehne wale haiii). It is correct that I and the injured are not

relatives.

At this stage, the witness has been confronted with his affidavit and he

has identified his signatures therein.

I do not know what is written in my affidavit. The signatures on the

affidavit were put by me today itself in Saket Court.

It is wrong to suggest that I have not witnessed the accident and the

vehicle bearing no. HR27C5161 was not involved in the accident. It

is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.”

3

3

Emphasis supplied.

MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 11 of 28

21.Mr. Paul specifically pointed out the discrepancy with regard to the

claimant being “on foot” and the witness’s testimony concerning his

knowledge of the English alphabet and the contents of his affidavit.

22.In the light of the aforesaid evidence, the Tribunal noted that PW-2

had been cited as an eye-witness in the charge-sheet filed in the criminal

proceedings. As regards the objection raised by the Insurance Company

to the testimony of PW-2, on the ground that he admittedly could not read

English alphabets, the Tribunal observed as follows:

“16. The only objection raised by counsel for insurance company is

that the witness was unable to read the alphabets and therefore, by no

measure could it be presumed that the witness could have identified the

Registration number of the offending vehicle at the time of accident.

No objection as such has been raised about the colour, make or the

numerical digits of the registration number of the offending vehicle.

Apart from reading the digits, it is evident that the witness has

provided a vivid explanation of the mode and manner of the accident.

He could detail as to how the petitioner first fell on the bonnet of the

vehicle after the forceful knock and then eventually on road on left side

of the vehicle and how the driver of the offending vehicle had slowed

down after the accident and eventually rushed away. PW-2 has

asserted that the spot of accident was sufficiently lit and was not pitch

dark that there was no chance with him to be able to read/recognize

the registration number of the offending vehicle. It is noted that he

was also accompanied by another person Sh. Gyasuddin at the time

of accident and there is nothing on record to suggest that he was an

illiterate person and could not have read the alphabets comprising

the registration number. It is also noted that Sh. Gyasuddin has also

been cited as one of the eye witness as part of the charge sheet. It

cannot be ignored that the specifications about offending vehicle were

duly mentioned in the complaint of father of injured leading to the

registration of FIR, even though, he was not present at the spot of

accident and therefore, the offending vehicle was purportedly

identified only on the basis of particulars provided by eye witness

Abdul Salam and eye witness Gyasuddin. It is also pertinent to mention

that the narrative about mode, manner and the contextual

circumstance has no major contradictions in the FIR, petition or in the

testimony of eye witness. PW-2 Abdul Salam also testified that his

statement was duly recorded by the police officials at Colambia Asia

Hospital and there is no reason to conclude that he would not have

MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 12 of 28

revealed the registration number of the offending vehicle as part of his

statement. It is corroborated by the fact, as he clarified that he was

called in the police station for identification of the offending vehicle

even though, by that time, formal FIR was not registered. There are

only three alphabets which were to be identified and even if the witness

was able to broadly remember the letter form, that would have served

the purpose.”

4

23.The Tribunal correctly noted that its task was to arrive at a finding

on the basis of the balance of probabilities, and not on the criminal

standard of proof of “beyond reasonable doubt”. The Tribunal is not

bound by the strict rules of pleadings and evidence, and its conclusions

must be founded on a comparatively lower evidentiary threshold. This

legal position is well settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court in

Anita Sharma v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

5

, Sunita v. Rajasthan

SRTC

6

, and in Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC

7

.

24.I am unpersuaded by the alleged inconsistency between the MLC,

FIR, and the evidence led before the Tribunal. The MLC issued by

Columbia Asia Hospital on 14.08.2016 records that the injured was

brought to the hospital in an unconscious and gasping condition. It is,

therefore, evident that the history noted in the MLC was not furnished by

the claimant himself, but was recorded on the basis of information

provided by others at the time of admission. The alleged discrepancy was

also not put to the witness in the cross-examination.In the absence of any

other supporting material, the mere variance in recorded history in the

MLC, cannot be treated as a fatal discrepancy, so as to undermine the

claim.

4

Emphasis supplied.

5

(2021) 1 SCC 171, paragraph 21.

6

(2020) 13 SCC 486, paragraph 22.

MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 13 of 28

25.As regards the testimony of the eye-witness, PW-2, I agree with

Mr. Paul that his examination-in-chief, by way of affidavit, was

substantially dented during cross-examination. In particular, the witness

was unable to read or recognise the English alphabets forming part of the

registration number of the insured vehicle, despite his affidavit of

evidence setting out the complete registration number. He also stated that

he was unaware of the contents of his affidavit, and that he had signed it

only on the day of cross-examination.

26.However, I am of the view that the testimony elicited during cross-

examination itself supports the narrative advanced by the claimant with

regard to the occurrence of the accident. The witness consistently

recounted facts in line with the case set up by the claimant. While he was

unable to read English alphabets, he was able to identify and recognise

the numerical digits forming part of the registration number. Even in his

affidavit of evidence, PW-2 had stated that he and the other eye-witness,

Mr. Gyasuddin, had noted down the registration number of the vehicle.

This aspect was reiterated in cross-examination, and no specific question

was put to him to ascertain which of the two individuals had noted down

the English alphabet portion of the registration number.

27.In this context, it is also significant that the criminal proceedings

culminated in the filing of a charge-sheet against the driver of the insured

vehicle after due investigation. It is a well settled position that in

proceedings before the Tribunal, the filing of a charge-sheet, even in the

absence of eye-witness evidence, may be sufficient to sustain an award of

compensation in favour of the victims or their legal representatives, as

7

(2009) 13 SCC 530, paragraph 15.

MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 14 of 28

affirmed by the Supreme Court in its decisions in Ranjeet v. Abdul

Kayam Neb

8

, and Meera Bai v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.

Ltd.

9

.

28.In the present case, eye-witness evidence is also available, and is

not inconsistent with the outcome of the police investigation, so as to

render the version reflected in the charge-sheet unbelievable.

29.On the issue of delay in lodging the FIR, Mr. Paul relied on the

decision of the Supreme Court dated 12.12.2024 in New India Assurance

Co. Ltd. v. Velu & Anr.

10

, to contend that a belated FIR can materially

affect the credibility of a motor accident claim. In that case, the FIR was

lodged 34 days after the alleged accident, and the contemporaneous

medical records consistently recorded the cause of the injuries as a skid

and fall, rather than a motor accident. The criminal investigation

ultimately culminated in a closure report, with the police concluding that

no motor accident had occurred. On these facts, the Supreme Court

upheld the rejection of the claim by the Tribunal, as the available

evidence on record negated the occurrence of a motor accident.

30.The said decision, however, does not advance the case of the

Insurance Company in the present matter. Even in Velu, the Supreme

Court held that a delayed FIR, by itself, cannot justify rejection of a

motor accident claim. It becomes relevant only in conjunction with other

material, particularly where the overall evidence, including medical

records and police findings, contradicts the occurrence of the alleged

accident. In the present case, although there was a delay of 12 days in the

8

2025 SCC OnLine SC 497, paragraph 4.

9

2025 SCC OnLine SC 992, paragraph 4.

MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 15 of 28

registration of the FIR, the investigation did not cast doubt on the

occurrence of the accident. On the contrary, upon due investigation, the

police proceeded to file a charge-sheet, thereby treating the occurrence as

one arising out of a motor accident. In such circumstances, the delay in

lodging the FIR cannot, by itself, be treated as fatal to the claim. The

principle emerging from Velu is not that delay in lodging an FIR is

determinative, but that such delay is one of the factors which must be part

of the holistic consideration of materials on record.

31.Upon consideration of the aforesaid, I do not find any reason to

interfere with the Tribunal’s findings on this aspect. The delay in the

lodging of the FIR in the present case cannot be treated as a decisive

factor, particularly since the injured was admittedly removed from the

site of the accident and taken to the hospital in a PCR van. The police

authorities were thus cognizant of the occurrence from the earliest stage.

In these circumstances, the delay on the part of the father of the injured in

seeking registration of the FIR does not, in my view, give rise to any

legitimate suspicion.

32.On a consideration of all the aforesaid factors, I am of the view that

the Tribunal’s finding on the aspect of negligence does not warrant

interference in the present appeal.

E.ANALYSIS RE:QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION

33.The Tribunal has awarded compensation to the claimant under

various heads, as enumerated in paragraph 6 hereinabove. Several

components of the compensation have been assailed in the present appeal.

Before examining each of those heads individually, it is necessary to first

10

SLP (C) No. 32138/2018 [hereinafter, “Velu”].

MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 16 of 28

consider the nature and extent of the injuries suffered by the claimant, as

this forms the foundation for assessment and quantification of many

elements of compensation.

34.The MLC recorded at Columbia Asia Hospital on 14.08.2016 notes

that the claimant was brought to the hospital in an unconscious and

gasping condition and required emergency medical intervention. At that

stage, the doctors reserved their opinion on the precise nature of the

injuries. However, the claimant remained hospitalised for over two

months, until 28.10.2016. The discharge summary dated 28.10.2016

[Exhibit PW-1/4] records that he had suffered a Diffuse Axonal Injury

[i.e., sustained traumatic brain injury] and a bimalleolar fracture [i.e.,

fracture of the ankle]. It further records that he had undergone multiple

procedures, including intubation and tracheostomy.

35.The discharge summary also details a guarded prognosis, including

the possibility of further surgical intervention, increase in contusion, risk

to life, likelihood of residual neurological deficit, and the need for

prolonged ICU care and hospitalisation. It records that the claimant

underwent several surgeries and diagnostic investigations during this

period.

36.Thereafter, the claimant was admitted for one night on two further

occasions – from 23.11.2016 to 24.11.2016 for placement of a

gastrointestinal tube, and again from 16.12.2016 to 17.12.2016 for a

procedure related to his tracheostomy.

37.The medical records placed on record thereafter, forming part of

Exhibit PW-1/5, include multiple documents relating to psychiatric

treatment, and documents commencing from 14.01.2017 until

MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 17 of 28

01.12.2022. These records indicate that the claimant was suffering from

residual neurological deficits accompanied by significant behavioural

disturbances. A record from G.B. Pant Institute of Post Graduate Medical

Education and Research [“GIPMER”] dated 01.07.2021 notes that he was

unable to speak due to the tracheostomy, and had remained bedridden for

approximately one year. It further records the onset of aggressive

behaviour, reduced sleep, use of abusive language, and the requirement of

assistance for daily activities. The records also reflect persistent

complaints of headaches, aggressive and self-injurious behaviour,

hallucinatory symptoms, and a diagnosis of Organic Personality Disorder

alongwith post-traumatic cognitive decline.

38.On 20.04.2019, pursuant to an application moved by the claimant

herein seeking assessment of his physical disability by a Medical Board,

the Tribunal directed the Medical Superintendent of Pandit Madan

Mohan Malviya Hospital, Delhi, to examine him and issue a disability

certificate. However, on 01.11.2019, upon the claimant furnishing the

requisite form [Form-J], the Tribunal directed the Medical Superintendent

of G.B. Pant Hospital, Delhi, to assess his disability and submit the report

thereof. Though the proceedings remained dismissed in default for some

time and were later restored, the disability certificate dated 24.01.2023

issued by GIPMER was received by the Tribunal on 11.04.2023, when

the matter was taken up for hearing.The said disability certificate,

exhibited as PW-1/6, records as follows:

“PATIENT QUALIFIES FOR MODERATE DISABILITY (75%) on

BASIS of IQ Examination & FOR PROFOUND DISABILITY (90%) on

BASIS OF CHRONIC NEOROLOGICAL CONDITION (MRS Score –

5). FINALLY, PROFOUN [sic.] DISABILITY (90%) TO BE

CONSIDERED IN INDEX CASE.”

MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 18 of 28

39. It is in the backdrop of this medical evidence, that the quantum of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal must now be examined.

a)PECUNIARY LOSSES:

(i)Expenditure on medical treatment:

40.The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 8,47,479/- under this head, of

which medical bills amounting to Rs. 8,17,479/- were proved on record

and exhibited as Exhibit PW-1/8. The balance amount of Rs. 30,000/-

was awarded towards sundry and miscellaneous expenses. However,

having regard to the fact that the said sum of Rs. 30,000/- is not supported

by any oral or documentary evidence on record, the award under this

head is modified to Rs. 8,17,479/-.

(ii)Conveyance:

41.With regard to conveyance, the Tribunal has quantified the

expenditure at Rs.1,00,000/-. Considering the severity of the claimant’s

injuries, his prolonged hospitalisation, and the frequent need for transport

to attend medical consultations, therapies, and follow-up treatment over

an extended period, I find no infirmity in the award under this head.

(iii)Special diet:

42.As regards special diet, the Tribunal has awarded compensation to

the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The claimant had been placed on a feeding

tube and underwent a tracheostomy, requiring specialised nutrition and

careful dietary management over a prolonged period. Taking into account

the nature of his injuries, the medical procedures undergone, and the

ongoing nutritional requirements essential for recovery, I find that the

MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 19 of 28

compensation awarded under this head is justified, and cannot be

regarded as excessive.

(iv)Attendant’s services:

43.The next challenge relates to the compensation under the head of

attendant services, for which the Tribunal awarded Rs.12,79,260/-, by

applying the multiplier method to the minimum wages applicable in the

State of Uttar Pradesh, where the claimant resides. In this regard, the

affidavit of the claimant’s wife [PW-1] clearly stated that he was

incapable of performing his daily routine activities, and was dependent on

others for his basic needs. Her cross-examination was largely confined to

documentary proof concerning attendant charges and the claimant’s

ability to undertake employment or earn a livelihood.

44.Additionally, the medical evidence detailed above demonstrates

that the claimant suffers from a profound disability, and is unable to

perform activities of daily living without assistance. In this context, the

award of compensation towards attendant services was fully justified.

45.The claim before the Tribunal was initially for reimbursement at

the rate of Rs.12,000/- per month, which the claimant contended was the

actual expenditure incurred for attendant services. The Tribunal,

however, found no documentary evidence supporting this claim, and

accordingly adopted the minimum wages in Uttar Pradesh, as on the date

of the accident, i.e. Rs.7,107/- per month, for computation. The multiplier

method, as applied by the Tribunal, has been recognised as appropriate

for the computation of attendant charges, by the Supreme Court in the

MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 20 of 28

decisions in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand

11

and Abhimanyu Partap Singh v.

Namita Sekhon

12

. Applying the age-appropriate multiplier of 15, the

Tribunal has arrived at the sum awarded. In view thereof, the challenge to

the award on the ground of attendant services is without merit, and is

accordingly, rejected.

(v)Loss of income:

46.For quantifying the claimant’s annual income, the Tribunal has

proceeded on the basis of the ITR filed by the claimant for the

Assessment Year 2017-18 (corresponding to the financial year 2016-17),

which disclosed a gross total income of Rs.3,36,759/-. His ITR for the

two preceding years were also exhibited as part of Exhibit PW-1/7,

showing gross total incomes of Rs.2,92,636/- and Rs.2,98,529/- for the

assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17, respectively. The claimant was

admittedly running a grocery store, and the Tribunal proceeded on the

basis of the latest ITR.

47.While the most recent return ordinarily provides the most realistic

assessment of income, this principle is not one of universal application. In

the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Rajbala v. Krishan

Kumar Sharma and Ors.

13

, followed by this Court in Lalita Gupta v.

Manoj Kumar Rana

14

, it has been held that where the latest return reflects

unusual or exceptional variations, the income may be moderated by

taking an average of the preceding two or three returns.

11

(2020) 4 SCC 413, paragraphs 22 to 25.

12

(2022) 8 SCC 489, paragraphs 17 and 23.

13

2023 SCC OnLine Del 4082.

14

2025 SCC OnLine Del 8881.

MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 21 of 28

48.Mr. Paul placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court

in Ajay Kumar Mohanty. However, a perusal of the said judgment

indicates that, although the Court proceeded on the basis of the Tribunal’s

finding regarding the claimant’s average income, the income in that case

had, in fact, been determined by taking the average of three years’

returns.

49.In the present case, the return for Assessment Year 2017-18 was

filed on 26.06.2017, after the accident, and pertained to the period from

01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017. The accident occurred on 13.08.2016,

approximately four and a half months into the financial year. The said

return reflected a marked increase over the income disclosed in the

preceding year. Taken at face value, this would suggest an increase in

income after the accident, which is unlikely, and appears attributable to

exceptional circumstances that were not examined in evidence adduced

before the Tribunal.

50.In these circumstances, the more appropriate approach is to

consider the average of the declared income for the assessment years

2016-17 and 2017-18, which works out to an annual income of Rs.

3,17,644/-. Accordingly, the Tribunal’s award for loss of income during

the twelve-month period of treatment is modified from Rs. 3,36,759/- to

Rs. 3,17,644/-.

(vi)Loss of future earnings:

51.As regards loss of future earnings, the Tribunal has assessed the

claimant’s functional disability at 100%, in line with the principles laid

MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 22 of 28

down by the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr.

15

. This

was not contested by Mr. Paul. In view of the claimant being 38 years old

at the time of the accident, the application of future prospects at the rate

of 40%, and a multiplier of 15, in accordance with the principles laid

down in Sarla Verma v. DTC

16

and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.

Pranay Sethi

17

, are not in dispute, and the only aspect requiring

reconsideration is the determination of the annual income.

52.Applying the adjusted annual income of Rs. 3,17,644/-, the loss of

future income is computed as follows:

Loss of future income Amount

Annual Income Rs. 3,17,644/-

Future prospects

(40% of Rs. 3,17,644/-)

Rs. 1,27,058/-

Annual income after future

prospects

Rs. 4,44,702/-

Application of multiplier (15) Rs. 4,44,702/- x 15

Total Rs. 66,70,530/-

The compensation for loss of future income is thus reduced from Rs.

70,71,945/- to Rs. 66,70,530/-, i.e. a difference of Rs. 4,01,415/-.

(vii)Future medical expenses:

53.The Tribunal assessed future medical expenses at Rs.5,00,000/-.

Considering the claimant’s age and the nature of his impairment, which

15

(2011) 1 SCC 343 [hereinafter “Raj Kumar”].

16

(2009) 6 SCC 121 [hereinafter “Sarla Verma”].

17

(2017) 16 SCC 680 [hereinafter “Pranay Sethi”].

MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 23 of 28

requires ongoing medical attention, I am of the view that this award is

underestimated. In particular, the claimant requires both physical and

psychiatric medical care over an extended period. Although the precise

cost of future treatment is inherently uncertain, in the facts of the present

case, a substantial increase under this head is justified. Accordingly, the

compensation for future medical expenses is enhanced to Rs.7,00,000/-.

b)NON-PECUNIARY LOSSES:

(viii) Pain and suffering:

54.Non-pecuniary losses cannot be quantified with exact precision, yet

the circumstances of this case clearly demonstrate the seriousness of the

claimant’s suffering. Once a productive and independent member of

society, he has now been rendered incapable of earning a livelihood or

leading an independent life. Alongside severe physical injuries, he suffers

from significant mental and psychiatric impairments, which have also

imposed a substantial emotional and financial burden on his family. In

these circumstances, although the award is unusually high, I am satisfied

that the Tribunal’s compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- is justified.

(ix) Loss of Amenities of life:

55.The Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,00,000/- for loss of amenities.

Having considered the entirety of the evidence, I am of the view that this

sum materially underestimates the extent of the claimant’s suffering. His

capacity to make full and meaningful use of his physical and mental

faculties has been severely diminished, and his ability to engage in

economic, social, and familial pursuits has been profoundly

compromised. In light of these circumstances, I deem it just and proper to

enhance the compensation on this account to Rs.5,00,000/-.

MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 24 of 28

c.GRANT OF INTEREST:

56.The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum,

from the date of filing of the claim petition until its actual realization. Mr.

Paul’s sole objection in this regard is that the claim petition was

dismissed in default on 23.12.2021, and subsequently restored on

18.07.2022. He contends that no interest should be payable for the period

during which the petition was dismissed.

57.While such an argument may have merit in certain circumstances, I

do not consider it appropriate to interfere with the Tribunal’s award in the

present case. The claimant’s medical condition and the requirement for

continuous treatment provide a reasonable explanation for the inability of

the claimant and his family to effectively prosecute the petition during

that period. Upon restoration, the petition relates back to the date of its

original filing, and it subsequently remained pending before the Tribunal

for several years.

58.The grant of interest in this context is not intended to penalize the

Insurance Company, but to compensate the claimant for the delay in

accessing funds to which he was legally entitled. I find no reason to

conclude that any part of the delay in realization of the award is

attributable to unjustified default on the part of the claimant.

Consequently, there is no basis for modifying the period for which

interest has been awarded.

d.TOTAL COMPENSATION:

59.As a result of the above discussion, the impugned award is

modified to the following extent:

MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 25 of 28

Heads Awarded by

Tribunal

Awarded by

Court

Difference

Pecuniary Loss

Expenditure on

treatment

Rs. 8,47,479/- Rs. 8,17,479/- (-) Rs. 30,000/-

Expenditure on

Conveyance

Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/- NIL

Expenditure on

special diet

Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- NIL

Cost of

nursing/

attendant

Rs.12,79,260/- Rs.12,79,260/- NIL

Loss of incomeRs.3,36,756/- Rs. 3,17,644/- (-) Rs. 19,112/-

Loss of future

income

Rs.70,71,945/- Rs. 66,70,530/- (-) Rs. 4,01,415/-

Future medical

expenses

Rs.5,00,000/- Rs.7,00,000/- (+) Rs. 2,00,000/-

Non-Pecuniary Loss

Pain and

suffering

Rs. 20,00,000/- Rs. 20,00,000/- NIL

Loss of

amenities of

life

Rs. 2,00,000/- Rs.5,00,000/- (+) Rs. 3,00,000/-

Total Rs.1,25,35,440/-Rs.1,25,84,913/-(+) Rs. 49,473/-

MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 26 of 28

60.It may be noted that by virtue of the present judgment, the

compensation awarded stands enhanced, notwithstanding the absence of

any cross-objection or cross-appeal on behalf of the claimant. In my view,

such an exercise is legally permissible, particularly in light of the decision

of the Supreme Court in Surekha & Ors. v. Santosh & Ors.

18

. I have also

examined this aspect at length in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti&

Ors.

19

.

F.CONCLUSION:

61.In conclusion, the award of the Tribunal is modified, and the total

compensation is enhanced from Rs. 1,25,35,440/- to Rs. 1,25,84,913/-,

i.e. an increase of Rs. 49,473/-. The entire award shall carry interest at the

rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, as

awarded by the Tribunal.

62.By order dated 01.09.2025, the operation of the award was stayed,

subject to the Insurance Company depositing the entire amount awarded

by the Tribunal, with 65% thereof to be released to the claimant in

accordance with the disbursement scheme set out in the award

20

. I am

informed that the said amount has since been deposited with the Registrar

General of this Court.

63.Under the disbursement scheme directed by the Tribunal, out of the

total awarded amount, a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- was directed to be kept

18

(2021) 16 SCC 467.

19

MAC.APP. 891/2013, decided on 11.12.2025 [hereinafter, “Shanti”].

20

The Insurance Company challenged the aforesaid order by filing SLP(C) 31271/2025, which was

dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dated 14.11.2025, while extending the time by 1 month for

the Insurance Company to deposit the awarded amount. Pursuant to the liberty granted by the Court,

the Insurance Company filed CM APPL. 79119/2025 seeking modification of the order dated

01.09.2025. However, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, as recorded in the order dated

16.12.2025, the appeal itself was taken up for final hearing.

MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 27 of 28

in the form of monthly fixed deposit receipts of Rs. 50,000/- each, with

the remaining amount to be released to the claimant. Upon compliance

with the directions contained herein, the amount lying deposited with this

Court shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal for disbursement in

accordance with the aforesaid disbursement scheme, together with

accrued interest, if any.

64.As the proceedings have resulted in enhancement of the award, the

following directions are passed:

a)The award passed by the learned Tribunal stands enhanced by a

sum of Rs. 49,473/-, and the matter is remanded to the learned

Tribunal for the purpose of disbursement of the compensation

amount in accordance with law and the disbursement scheme

already framed.

b)The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced

amount of Rs. 49,473/-, together with interest at the rate of 7.5%

per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e.

31.07.2018, with the learned Tribunal within a period of 8 weeks

from today.

c)The amount presently lying deposited with the Registrar General of

this Court pursuant to the interim orders passed earlier shall be

transmitted to the learned Tribunal forthwith.

d)Upon receipt of the aforesaid amounts, the learned Tribunal shall

ensure disbursement of the entire compensation amount to the

claimant in accordance with the disbursement scheme contained in

MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 28 of 28

the award, after due verification and compliance with applicable

norms.

e)The claimant shall appear before the learned Tribunal

on 23.03.2026for the purpose of further directions regarding

disbursement.

65.The appeal is disposed of with these directions. The pending

application also stands disposed of.

66.The statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to the appellant –

Insurance Company, subject to compliance with directions in paragraph

64(b) of this judgment.

PRATEEK JALAN, J

MARCH 03, 2026

PV/Bhupi/SS/SD/