MAC.APP. 553/2015 1/23

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 25

th

March 2026

Pronounced on : 26

th

May 2026

Uploaded on : 29

th

May 2026

+ MAC.APP. 553/2015

VIJAY KUMAR SOOD .....Appellant

Through: Mr. R.K. Dhawan, Ms. Nisha

Dhawan, Mr. Pawan Karan Deo,

Advocates.

versus

SATISH CHAND JAIN & ORS (THE ORIENTAL INSURNACE

CO LTD) .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Mr. Amit Gaur,

Ms. Sweta Sinha, Mr. Kaarrtikey

Parashar, Advocates for

Respondent no.3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J.

1. Mr. R.K. Dhawan, counsel for the appellant-claimant, has placed his

arguments with respect to his plea for enhancement of compensation

awarded by MACT. The Tribunal, vide judgment dated 4

th

April 2015 in

Suit no.408/2011, awarded compensation of Rs.29,57,616/- along with

MAC.APP. 553/2015 2/23

interest @ 7.5% per annum.

2. On 24

th

July 2005, appellant, Vijay Kumar Sood, was travelling from

Lucknow to Delhi along with his wife, Anita Sood, his two daughters and

one granddaughter, when a UPSRTC bus (offending vehicle) hit their

vehicle on National Highway, causing grievous injuries to appellant and

his wife while their driver and one of daughters succumbed to their injures.

The offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1 and insured

with respondent no.4, Insurance Company.

3. Mr. R.K. Dhawan raised the following issues in respect of

enhancement:

i. Since the appellant was 55 years 22 days old on the date of

accident, multiplier of 11 ought to have been adopted instead of

9;

ii. Future prospects at 15% ought to have been granted, as the

appellant was in a permanent job with Punjab National Bank

(‘PNB’) holding the post of General Manager, and he

subsequently superannuated from the bank;

iii. Benchmark income/salary of the appellant, based on Income

Tax Returns (‘ITRs’), ought to have been taken by the MACT

at Rs.41,946/- instead of Rs.36,250/-;

iv. Medical expenses to the extent of Rs.3.41 lakhs were not

considered by the MACT on the pretext that the original bills

were not produced, even though these bills were from various

pharmacy vendors and had been submitted in PNB for medical

reimbursement and hence, only photocopies were filed before

the MACT;

MAC.APP. 553/2015 3/23

v. A sum of only Rs. 20,000/- towards conveyance has been

awarded, notwithstanding that the appellant was hospitalized for

about a year and has to visit hospital regularly even till date for

continued treatment; and

vi. Functional disability was assessed at 50%, despite the disability

certificate of 73% permanent disability with respect to right

lower limb, and he lost promotion opportunities in the bank and

suffered adverse impact on his future prospects.

4. Mr. Gaur, counsel for Insurance Company, submitted the

following:

i. The issue of the multiplier has already been settled by this Court

in the cross-appeal, being MAC.APP. 476/2015, filed by the

Insurance Company. This Court, after hearing and considering

the submissions advanced on behalf of both parties, held that the

appropriate multiplier to be applied was '6' and not '9'.

Therefore, the said issue has attained finality and was put to rest.

ii. As regards future prospects, he contended that future prospects

should not be awarded. According to him, the claimant

continued to remain in service with PNB even after the accident

and did not suffer any loss of employment or reduction in salary

on account of the injuries sustained. It was, therefore, argued

that the accident did not have any adverse effect on his earning

capacity.

iii. As regards the medical expenses, it was submitted that original

MAC.APP. 553/2015 4/23

bills are ordinarily required for reimbursement and verification

of expenditure even in a Mediclaim policy, and therefore, claim

based on photocopies of the bills should not be allowed.

iv. As regards disability, it was argued that despite the disability,

the claimant continued to discharge his duties and remained

gainfully employed.

5. Further, Mr. Pradeep Gaur, counsel for Insurance Company,

submitted that the connected appeal being MAC.APP.476/2015, filed by

the Insurance Company, was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this

Court by order dated 15

th

November 2019, whereby some components of

the compensation were already enhanced. He further states that it was

implicit that on that day, that aspects of the cross-appeal, being

MAC.APP.553/2015, filed by the claimants, were also being considered.

6. In this cross-appeal filed by the Insurance Company for reduction

of compensation, being MAC.APP. 476/2015, the Coordinate Bench of

this Court had passed certain directions with respect to the compensation,

on 15

th

November 2019. This was done in the presence of Mr. Pradeep

Gaur, counsel for the appellant, and Mr. R.K. Dhawan, counsel for the

respondents. The following aspects relating to compensation were

confirmed while disposing of the appeal:

(i) The multiplier of 6 has to be applied and not 9.

(ii) Compensation towards loss of amenities of life was enhanced

from Rs.1,25,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-.

(iii) Compensation towards pain and suffering was enhanced

from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-.

MAC.APP. 553/2015 5/23

(iv) Interest was awarded at the rate of 9% per annum from the

date of filing of the petition till realization, except for the

period from 18

th

May 2009 to 24

th

July 2010, for which no

interest was payable.

7. By order dated 12

th

September 2022 in the cross-appeal, the Court

noted that the order dated 15

th

November 2019 did not consider all the

aspects involved in MAC.APP. 553/2015, which was the appeal seeking

enhancement of compensation.

8. Therefore, pleas raised by Mr. R.K. Dhawan, counsel for appellant,

regarding enhancement shall be considered only in respect of those aspects

which were not dealt with by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in its

order dated 15

th

November 2019, considering that the said order was not

appealed and has, therefore, attained finality between the parties, subject

only to the assessment made with respect to the applicable multiplier.

9. Components relating to the claim for enhancement are addressed as

under.

Future prospects

10. Future prospects at 15% have been sought on the ground that the

appellant was holding a permanent post with Punjab National Bank as a

General Manager. The testimony of the claimant, PW1, who subsequently

tendered further evidence as PW3, has been examined. In his testimony,

he stated that, at the time of the accident, he was working at the rank of

General Manager and had continued in service till attaining the age of

superannuation. Though being eligible for elevation to post of Executive

Director and having been called for interviews for selection on 9

th

January

2007 and 20

th

November 2007, he could not appear for both the interviews

MAC.APP. 553/2015 6/23

for the higher post due to health problems on account of various surgeries

which he had to go through due to the road accident in July 2005.

10.1. The certificate dated 10

th

June 2010, issued by PNB Housing

Finance Limited on the letterhead of PNB Housing Finance Limited and

signed by the Executive Vice President, exhibited as Ex.PW1/326 before

MACT has been perused by the Court, which confirms this view.

Ex.PW1/327 is a certificate issued by PNB Housing Finance Limited

certifying that Mr. V.K. Sood was a permanent employee of Punjab

National Bank at the rank of General Manager and working as Managing

Director, PNB Housing Finance Limited, a subsidiary of PNB.

10.2. In fact, this Court in its assessment in Govind Singh Mauni (supra),

considered the issue of loss of potentiality to earn post-retirement for

which compensation must be taken into account. The relevant paragraphs

are extracted as under:

“18. The essential principle follows from the

House of Lords’ decision in Ball v. William

Hunts and Sons (supra) which is highlighted in

the following extract in National Insurance Co.

Ltd. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors (supra):

“There is also an opinion of the House

of lords that may be relevant to

understand this concept. Ball v. William

Hunts and Sons Limited, (1912) AC 496,

was the case of a workman, who was

blinded in one eye. The defect was not

visible and he was to have appearance

as two eyed man. He had come to such a

disability status when he had sustained

an employment injury in which the

MAC.APP. 553/2015 7/23

defective eye had to be removed with the

consequences that he could not get

employment though physically he was as

well as before. The House of Lords held

that the incapacity of work included

inability to work, or in other words,

there is incapacity for work when a man

has physical defect which makes his

working unsaleable in any market

reasonably accessible to him. Applying

the same logic, a person who has

suffered an injury may not come by

immediate loss if he is retained in the

same employment and does not lose his

job, but in his own saleability elsewhere

as a fresh recruit to a new employer, he

may come by a serious handicap. That

shall come by a serious handicap. That

shall be a justification enough to provide

for compensation in such types of

cases.”

(emphasis added)

…

28. In Ball v. William Hunt & Sons Ltd. (supra),

the focus was placed on ‘marketability of labour’

rather than mere wage continuity. This reasoning

was expressly approved by the United States

Supreme Court in New York Central Railroad

Co. v. Bianc; American Knife Co. v. Sweeting,

1919 SCC OnLine US SC 210, while upholding

the validity of compensation for serious

disfigurement under the New York Workmen’s

Compensation Law. The U.S. Supreme Court

observed that serious physical disfigurement may

MAC.APP. 553/2015 8/23

reasonably and adversely affect a person’s

ability to obtain or retain employment, and relied

upon the reasoning in Ball v. William Hunt &

Sons Ltd., (supra), to underscore that diminished

employability constitutes a legitimate basis for

compensation, independent of immediate loss of

earning power.

29. Although Ball v. William Hunt & Sons Ltd.

(supra), and the American Knife Co. (supra)

decision arose in the context of workmen’s

compensation statutes, the underlying principle

is fully consonant with Indian Supreme Court

jurisprudence under the Motor Vehicles Act. The

Act mandates the award of “just compensation”

under Section 168, which, as emphasised in

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi,

(2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma v. DTC,

(2009) 6 SCC 121, must be fair, realistic and

proximate to the actual loss suffered. Once

functional disability affecting earning capacity is

established, compensation must be assessed

using the multiplier method, irrespective of the

fact that the claimant may have continued in

service or received increments post-accident.

30. The denial of compensation for loss of future

earning capacity solely on the ground that the

claimant continues in employment or has not

suffered immediate wage loss would be

inconsistent with settled Supreme Court

jurisprudence. The law recognises that economic

vulnerability, reduced employability, and

diminished labour-market acceptability and

inability to secure employment are real and

compensable consequences of permanent

MAC.APP. 553/2015 9/23

disability. Comparative jurisprudence, including

Ball v. William Hunt & Sons Ltd. (supra) as

approved by the U.S. Supreme Court, reinforces

this understanding and supports a principled,

forward-looking assessment of loss of earning

capacity in motor accident claims.

31. The essence of compensation is to give

reparation to an injured who has suffered great

impairment in his functionality due to the

negligence of the offending vehicle and the

respondents. It would be, therefore, imperative

that just and reasonable compensation is

provided.

32. The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme

Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay

Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 emphasised that “just

compensation” under Section 168 of MV Act

must rest on fairness, reasonableness and equity,

avoiding both windfall gains and inadequate

awards. The assessment must be grounded in

proven age and income, followed by application

of the appropriate multiplier as standardised in

Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and

affirmed in Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan,

(2013) 9 SCC 65. The Court stressed pragmatic

and uniform computation, including future

prospects, to ensure proximity to real loss…

…

34. Applying the core mantra of aligning

‘proximity to reality’ in assessment of just

compensation, in this Court’s opinion, the

compensation in the present case needs to be

reworked. If, therefore, the income is taken as

Rs.29,519/-, considering that it is admitted by

MAC.APP. 553/2015 10/23

counsels for the parties that the same ought to

have been the net income, applying a 30%

increase for future prospects would be the

appropriate approach. This would suitably

accommodate future prospects post retirement

and career progression through better

employment.”

(emphasis added)

10.3 Accordingly, in terms of the principles laid down in National

Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 and in light

of judgment of this Court in Govind Singh Mauni v. Tej Bhan & Ors.

2026:DHC:1020, and considering that the injured was 55 years of age at

the time of the accident (his date of birth being 26

th

May 1950 and the

accident having occurred on 24

th

July 2005), he would be entitled to future

prospects of 15%, which had not been granted by the MACT.

Benchmark Income

11. It is contended that the benchmark income of the appellant ought to

have been taken as Rs.46,946/- instead of Rs.36,250/-. In this regard, Mr.

Dhawan, counsel for the appellant, draws the attention of the Court to the

Income Tax Certificate for Assessment Year 2006-2007 (Financial Year

2005-2006), which reflects a gross salary of Rs.6,06,845/- and other

income of Rs.37,800/-, totalling the income to Rs.6,44,645/-. After the

deduction, the net taxable income was Rs.5,44,645/-, which amounts to

approximately Rs.45,387/- per month.

11.1. The injured claimant stated in his testimony that, at the time of the

accident, he was drawing a salary of approximately Rs.40,000/- to

Rs.42,000/- per month and was receiving Rs.76,000/- per month at the time

MAC.APP. 553/2015 11/23

of retirement. In this regard, attention is drawn to Ex.PW1/329, which is a

certificate issued by PNB Housing Finance Limited, showing the gross

salary as Rs.76,298/- at the time of superannuation.

11.2. However, the plea of the claimant that the benchmark income ought

to be assessed on the basis of the salary drawn at the time of retirement is

untenable, considering that compensation is required to be assessed with

as per the situation prevalent on the date of the accident.

11.3. After assessment of the grounds placed record, submissions made

and the documentary evidence present on record, it is noted that in the

grounds of appeal, it is stated that appellant was drawing a salary of Rs.

36,250/- per month, besides other allowances and perks, at the time of the

accident. However, in his testimony before the Tribunal, the appellant

stated that he was earning between Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 42,000/- per

month.

11.4. During the submissions, counsel for appellant contended that the

appellant was earning a gross annual income of Rs. 6,44,645/-. It was

submitted that the total deductions, including Provident Fund

contributions, housing loan repayments, and other deductions, amounted

to Rs. 1,03,488/-, while the income tax payable was Rs. 1,13,394/-. On this

basis, it was contended that the appellant’s annual income after deduction

of tax comes out to Rs. 5,44,645/-.

11.5. A perusal of the income tax return exhibited as Ex. PW1/329 shows

that the gross annual salary of the Appellant was Rs. 6,44,645/-, while the

income tax payable on the said income was Rs. 1,15,662/-. Accordingly,

after deducting the income tax, the net annual income of the appellant

comes to Rs. 5,28,983/-, which comes out to a monthly income of Rs.

MAC.APP. 553/2015 12/23

44,082/-. Accordingly, the benchmark income of claimant is assessed at

Rs. 44,082/-.

Medical Expenses

12. As regards medical expenses, which, as per Mr. Dhawan, counsel

for appellant, were not considered by the MACT and were rejected on the

ground that only photocopies had been filed, it is contended that the

originals have been given to the Department.

12.1. In paragraph 22 of the MACT award, it is noted that claimant

claimed medical reimbursement for period 14

th

October 2005 till 05

th

May

2010 from the department as per Ex. PW1/327; however, claim for a sum

of Rs. Rs. 15,10,434/- was allowed, while, claim for Rs.3,40,200/- was

rejected. The same was accepted and allowed by the MACT.

12.2. Appellant further filed photocopies of bills amounting to

Rs.3,39,000/-, stating that they were covered under the medical expenses

already claimed. However, six bills for Rs.18,500/-, Rs.90,970/-

Rs.10,600/-, Rs.1,00,111/- and Rs.10,000/- were not pressed, as the same

were covered under the medical expenses already claimed. The remaining

photocopies of the bills amounting to Rs.1,09,000/- were pressed but were

opposed by the Insurance Company since originals had not been produced.

12.3. Balance bills of Rs.1,09,000/- were rejected by MACT since the

original bills were not produced.

12.4. Mr. Dhawan, counsel for the appellant, submits that the originals

had been furnished to the Department.

12.5. In response, Mr. Gaur, counsel for the Insurance Company,

contended that photocopies of bills cannot be accepted as proof of

MAC.APP. 553/2015 13/23

expenditure. He submitted that even for reimbursement under a Mediclaim

policy, original bills are required to be furnished while seeking a claim;

therefore, photocopies of the medical bills ought not to be considered for

the purpose of awarding compensation.

12.6. After considering these bills, the Court has taken an overall

assessment of the submission of parties and notes that the bills of

Rs.1,09,000/- did not form a part of compensation despite being pressed

by the claimant and, therefore, they can be considered, in view of the

testimony of PW1 in evidence by affidavit and the cross-examination.

Conveyance, Special Diet and Attendant charges

13. As regards conveyance, special diet, and attendant charges, the

MACT noted in paragraph 23 of the award that the claimant remained

immobile for a period of 302 days. However, only Rs. 20,000/- each

towards conveyance and special diet, while attendant charges were

awarded in a lump sum amount of Rs. 30,000/-, were granted.

13.1. Considering that claimant has suffered 73% permanent disability in

relation to his right lower limb, as can be seen from certificate of disability

issued by the Medical Board of AIIMS, New Delhi and requires consistent

physiotherapy, the compensation awarded towards Conveyance, Special

Diet and Attendant charges is enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/- each.

Functional Disability

14. Functional disability was assessed at 50%, despite the disability

certificate certifying 73% permanent disability.

14.1. Mr. R.K. Dhawan, counsel for the appellant/claimant, contends that

the MACT erred in assessing the functional disability at only 50%, despite

the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, AIIMS, certifying

MAC.APP. 553/2015 14/23

73% permanent disability in relation to the claimant's right lower limb. It

is submitted that the claimant suffered shortening of the right lower limb,

resulting in severe impairment of mobility, which affected his efficiency

and performance in service.

14.2. He further argues that although the claimant continued in

employment and his salary remained protected as he was a permanent

employee, he was deprived of promotional opportunities and could not

effectively discharge the responsibilities attached to higher managerial

positions requiring extensive travel and field supervision.

14.3. This Court takes into account that, by previous order, the Coordinate

Bench of this Court increased the compensation on account of loss of

amenities to Rs.5,00,000/- and for pain and sufferings to Rs.2,00,000/-, as

noted above. This enhanced amount, in terms of the judgment, has already

been paid to the injured/claimant.

14.4. Some increase in the assessment of functional disability can be

considered, having regard to the nature of the permanent disability

suffered by the claimant and its likely impact on his future prospects.

However, the Court also has to take into account the fact that the claimant

continued in service with his employer and by the time of retirement, due

to the increments granted, had also received a higher remuneration.

14.5. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343, it was held that

the Tribunal must assess not merely the extent of permanent disability but

its actual impact on the claimant’s earning capacity, which may differ from

the medical percentage of disability. This requires evaluating the

claimant’s pre-accident vocation, the functions affected, and whether

livelihood can still be earned despite the disability. No doubt, the

MAC.APP. 553/2015 15/23

assessment of functional disability is considered as a fraction of the

permanent disability which has been certified. The Court emphasized that

disability and loss of earning capacity are distinct concepts, except in cases

where evidence shows they coincide. Relevant paragraphs are extracted as

under:

“11. What requires to be assessed by the

Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability

on the earning capacity of the injured; and after

assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of

a percentage of the income, it has to be

quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the

future loss of earnings (by applying the standard

multiplier method used to determine loss of

dependency). We may however note that in some

cases, on appreciation of evidence and

assessment, the Tribunal may find that the

percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result

of the permanent disability, is approximately the

same as the percentage of permanent disability

in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt

the said percentage for determination of

compensation. (See for example, the decisions of

this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India

Assurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 254 : (2010)

3 SCC (Cri) 1258 : (2010) 10 Scale 298]

and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co.

Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 341 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri)

1285 : (2010) 8 Scale 567] )

12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide

whether there is any permanent disability and, if

so, the extent of such permanent disability. This

means that the Tribunal should consider and

decide with reference to the evidence:

(i) whether the disablement is permanent

or temporary;

MAC.APP. 553/2015 16/23

(ii) if the disablement is permanent,

whether it is permanent total

disablement or permanent partial

disablement;

(iii) if the disablement percentage is

expressed with reference to any specific

limb, then the effect of such disablement

of the limb on the functioning of the

entire body, that is, the permanent

disability suffered by the person.

If the Tribunal concludes that there is no

permanent disability then there is no question of

proceeding further and determining the loss of

future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal

concludes that there is permanent disability then

it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the

Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of

permanent disability of the claimant based on

the medical evidence, it has to determine

whether such permanent disability has affected

or will affect his earning capacity.

13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent

disability on the actual earning capacity

involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first

ascertain what activities the claimant could

carry on in spite of the permanent disability and

what he could not do as a result of the permanent

disability (this is also relevant for awarding

compensation under the head of loss of

amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain

his avocation, profession and nature of work

before the accident, as also his age. The third

step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is

totally disabled from earning any kind of

livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the

permanent disability, the claimant could still

effectively carry on the activities and functions,

which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii)

MAC.APP. 553/2015 17/23

whether he was prevented or restricted from

discharging his previous activities and

functions, but could carry on some other or

lesser scale of activities and functions so that he

continues to earn or can continue to earn his

livelihood.”

(emphasis added)

14.6. In Raj Kumar (supra), the Court summarized the principles, which

are extracted as under:

“19. We may now summarise the principles

discussed above:

(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising

from injuries), do not result in loss of earning

capacity.

(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with

reference to the whole body of a person, cannot

be assumed to be the percentage of loss of

earning capacity. To put it differently, the

percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the

same as the percentage of permanent disability

(except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the

basis of evidence, concludes that the percentage

of loss of earning capacity is the same as the

percentage of permanent disability).

(iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant

or who examined him subsequently to assess the

extent of his permanent disability can give

evidence only in regard to the extent of

permanent disability. The loss of earning

capacity is something that will have to be

assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the

evidence in entirety.

(iv) The same permanent disability may result in

different percentages of loss of earning capacity

in different persons, depending upon the nature

MAC.APP. 553/2015 18/23

of profession, occupation or job, age, education

and other factors.”

(emphasis added)

14.7. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances, including

continued employment and full length of service, the functional disability

will be considered at 60%.

Multiplier

15. Appellant was 55 years of age at the time of the accident, as is

evident from his testimony before the MACT as well as the averments

made in the claim petition.

15.1. Appellant superannuated on 31

st

May 2010 and was drawing

emoluments of Rs. 76,298/- per month at the time of his retirement. The

same can also be seen from the salary certificate issued by his employer,

which forms part of the MACT record, as Ex. PW1/329.

15.2. Further, PW3, claimant also deposed regarding his employment and

salary he was drawing on the date of superannuation.

15.3. Moreover, a perusal of Ex. PW1/329 shows that appellant's salary

had, in fact, increased by the time of his retirement, thereby showing that

he continued to receive regular increments and service benefits

notwithstanding the injuries suffered in the accident.

15.4. It is pertinent to note that, during the course of submissions,

appellant stated that he accepts the findings of the Coordinate Bench of

this Court insofar as the enhancement granted under the heads of interest,

pain and suffering, and loss of amenities is concerned. However, he

continues to assail the adoption of multiplier of ‘6’ by the Coordinate

Bench.

MAC.APP. 553/2015 19/23

15.5. Having considered the facts noted above, this Court is of the view

that appellant did not suffer any actual loss of income at least until the date

of his superannuation. The material on record demonstrates that he

remained gainfully employed in a permanent position and continued to

receive his regular salary and service benefits. In fact, the increase in his

salary up to the date of retirement further supports the conclusion that his

earning capacity remained unaffected during his service tenure.

Consequently, no financial loss can be said to have accrued to him during

the period of his continued service prior to retirement.

15.6. This Court Desh Raj Singh Gautam v. Sunil Kumar & Ors.

2016:DHC:4159 also noted as under:

“4. It is noted that the tribunal awarded lumpsum

amount of ₹2 Lakh on account of loss of future

income due to disability. This was not a correct

approach. Admittedly, the claimant was a

regular employee of MTNL. It is conceded by the

counsel representing him that he would continue

in service till he attains the age of 60 years and,

thus, there would be no loss of income till that

stage. However, the loss of income post

retirement will have to be appropriately

computed. Since the retirement would occur at

the age of 60 years, it had to be calculated with

the multiplier of 9. Computed thus, the loss of

future earnings on account of disability to the

extent of 25% would come to (₹19,000 x 25/100

x 12 x 9) ₹5,13,000/-. Since the tribunal had

awarded only lupmsum of ₹2 Lakh, the award

deserves to be enhanced by ₹3,13,000/-. Ordered

accordingly. Needless to say, it shall carry

interest as levied by the tribunal.”

MAC.APP. 553/2015 20/23

15.7 In 2024, the coordinate Bench of this Court in Rajbir Singh v.

National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. 2024:DHC:9034, analysed

this well and adverted to previous decisions and stated as under:

“12. However, the main question is whether he is

entitled to Loss of future earning Capacity on

account of Permanent Disability of 40% of right

lower limb suffered by him. There is no denying

that any Permanent Disability suffered by an

injured, results in his reduced earning capacity

or impacts his career progression, and he needs

to be compensated. The pertinent aspect is

whether this Court can take note of his limitation

in getting a job post his retirement, as has been

claimed by the Appellant. He has placed reliance

on TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.

Dipanjan Ghosh & Ors. MAC.APP.44/2014

decided by this Court on 02.03.2016; United

India Insurance Company Limited vs. Zile Singh

& Ors. MAC.APPEAL No.861/2010 decided by

this Court on 27.09.2017; Desh Raj Singh

Gautam vs. Sunil Kumar and Ors.

MAC.APP.632/2007 decided by this Court on

20.05.2016; Kale Ram vs. Ajay & Ors.

MAC.APP.615/2013 decided by this Court on

18.11.2022 and Anita A. Pathak vs. Raj Bahadur

& Ors. MAC. APP.466/2010 along with

MAC.APP.451/2010, MAC.APP.459/2010,

MAC.APP.454/2010, MAC.APP.455/2010,

MAC.APP.456/2010 and MAC.APP.464/2010

decided on 15.02.2012, wherein this Court has

considered that any Permanent Disability

suffered by the injured may not impact his

financial capacity immediately, but would

definitely have an impact post his retirement and

he may not be able to take up a job after post-

retirement.

MAC.APP. 553/2015 21/23

13. In the judgments relied upon by the

Appellant, while being cognizant that the injured

was in the employment and had not suffered any

salary loss, but it was considered that he may

suffer some impediment in getting a job in future

post his retirement which is generally at the age

of 60 years, 30% enhancement of the current

salary was then taken to calculate the

compensation.

14. In the present case, though the injured has

not adduced any evidence about the age till

which he would continue in service in DAV

School or that his disability would prevent him

from taking up any job in future, but on the basis

of the legal precedents, it is held that on his

retirement, which is normally at the age of 60

years, he may not be able to take up a job post

retirement.

15. The income of the Appellant has been shown

as Rs.17,899/- which is rounded off to

Rs.18,000/- and 30% is added to his salary

towards his future increase in his salary.

Multiplier of 9 is taken in accordance with the

retirement age of 60 Years.”

(emphasis added)

15.8 This Court has previously taken a similar view in its judgment in

Govind Singh Mauni (supra). In this view of the matter, this Court is not

inclined to accept the argument of counsel for appellant that a higher

multiplier of ‘11’ should be awarded.

15.9 Accordingly, in light of the decision of this Court in Govind Singh

Mauni (supra), the multiplier is required to be re-aligned as directed by

the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

MAC.APP.476/2015. Accordingly, the applicable multiplier will be ‘9’.

MAC.APP. 553/2015 22/23

16. Accordingly, the revised computation is 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.3,40,200/- Rs. 4,49,200/-

2. Expenditure on conveyance

(B)

Rs.20,000/- Rs. 1,50,000/-

3. Expenditure on special diet

(C)

Rs.20,000/- Rs. 1,50,000/-

4. Attendant charges (D) Rs.30,000/- Rs. 1,50,000/-

5. Income of injured (E) Rs. 36,250/- Rs. 44,082/-

6. Add: Future prospects (F) NIL 15%

7. Multiplier (G) 9 9

8. Functional disability (H) 50% 60%

9. Loss of income/Wages (I)

[302 days]

Rs.3,64,916/- Rs. 4,37,680/-

10. Loss of future income/future

earnings [(E+F) x 12 x G x H]

= (J)

Rs. 19,57,500/- Rs. 32,84,990

NON-PECUNIARY LOSS

11. Pain and suffering (K) Rs. 1,00,000/- *Rs. 2,00,000/-

12. Loss of amenities of life (L) Rs. 1,25,000/- *Rs. 5,00,000/-

13. Total compensation (A + B +

C + D + H + I + J+ K + L) =

M

Rs.29,57,616/- Rs. 53,21,870/-

14. Interest awarded 7.5% per annum 9% per annum

(excluding the period

from 18.05.2009 to

24.07.2010)

*Awarded by this Court in the cross-appeal filed by Insurance Company.

17. For the aforesaid reasons, compensation has been enhanced by Rs.

16,64,254/- [Rs. 23,64,254 – Rs. 7,00,00 (awarded in cross-appeal)].

18. Enhanced amount of Rs. 16,64,254/-, along with interest at the rate

MAC.APP. 553/2015 23/23

of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition (excluding the period

from 18

th

May 2009 to 24

th

July 2010, as directed by this Court vide

judgment dated 15

th

November 2019) shall be deposited with the Registrar

General of this Court within a period of 6 weeks. It is directed that the

complete deposited amount as lump sum shall be released to the claimant

from the deposit of enhanced amount within a period of two weeks

thereafter.

19. Revised interest on the originally awarded compensation will be

calculated and the additional amount, if not already deposited, be

deposited within 6 weeks and be released to the claimant.

20. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of with above directions.

21. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.

22. Copy of this judgement be sent to concerned MACT.

23. Copy of this judgement shall also be sent to concerned bank.

24. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.

ANISH DAYAL

(JUDGE)

MAY 26, 2026/mk/bp