Delhi High Court
Prashant Malik vs Universal Sompu General Insurance ... on 22 May, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on : 22.05.2025
+ MAC.APP. 414/2023
PRASHANT MALIK .....Appellant
versus
UNIVERSAL SOMPU GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. .....Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant : Mr. Naveen Kumar Chaudhary & Mr. Yash
Tewatia, Advs.
For the Respondents : Mr. Rajat Khatri, Adv.
CORAM
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter 'MV Act') seeking enhancement of
compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
vide award dated 24.05.2023 (hereafter 'the impugned award'),
passed in MACT No. 421/2018.
2. The brief facts are that on 09.08.2017 at about 11:45 p.m., the
appellant along with his friends were travelling in a car bearing No.
HR - 51 - BB - 0715 being driven by Respondent No. 2 allegedly in a
rash and negligent manner. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 lost control
and as a result of which the vehicle fell in a ditch measuring 8 - 10
feet deep.
3. Due to the accident, the appellant sustained grievous injuries on
his left leg as well as injuries on his head, chest and other body parts.
All the other passengers in the vehicle also sustained grievous injuries.
4. This incident led to the registration of FIR No. 353/2017 dated
10.08.2019, at Police Station Hosoke, Bangalore District, for offences
under Sections 279/337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'). After
the completion of investigation, the police charge sheeted Respondent
No. 2 for the offences under Sections 279/338 of the IPC.
5. The learned Tribunal, after examining the pleadings, evidence,
and documents on record, assessed the compensation at ₹1,20,83,680/-
and awarded an interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum to the appellant.
The details thereof are as under:
S.no. Heads of Compensation Amount
1. Medical Expenses and Treatment ₹8,84,000/-
2. Loss of Future Earning ₹90,60,000/-
3. Loss of Income during Treatment ₹2,39,680/-
4. Loss of Amenities ₹1,00,000/-
5. Any other loss which may require any ₹2,00,000/-
special treatment or aid to the injured for
the rest of his life
6. Pain and Suffering ₹1,00,000/-
7. Mental and Physical Shock ₹1,00,000/-
8. Conveyance and Special Diet ₹50,000/- and
₹50,000/-
9. Attendant Charges ₹10,00,000/-
10. Disfiguration ₹1,00,000/-
11. Loss of Marriage Prospects ₹2,00,000/-
TOTAL ₹1,20,83,680/-
6. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, the
appellant has preferred the present appeal.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned
Tribunal failed to award any compensation towards future medical
expenses.
8. He submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in not applying the
multiplier system while awarding compensation under the head of
attendant charges.
9. He submitted that the learned Tribunal erred while awarding a
meagre amount of ₹50,000/- each under the heads of conveyance
charges and special diet.
10. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to consider
that the appellant had sustained 100% functional disability, due to
which he is unable to walk and even perform his daily routine work.
He consequently submitted that the learned Tribunal erred while
awarding a meagre sum of ₹1,00,000/- each under the head of pain
and suffering as well as mental and physical shock and ought to have
awarded a higher amount.
11. He 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
14% per annum.
12. The appellant also challenged the award of ₹1,00,000/- for loss
of amenities, ₹1,00,000/- for disfiguration and ₹2,00,000/- for the loss
of marriage prospects, arguing that these amounts are inadequate
given the severity of his disability.
13. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent - Insurance
Company contended that the learned Tribunal passed the impugned
award after due appreciation of evidence and that the same warrants
no interference by this Court. He consequently submitted that the
present appeal be dismissed.
Analysis
14. The short question for consideration before this Court is
whether the compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal is
adequate or whether the same ought to be enhanced.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Upon careful consideration of the rival submissions and a
perusal of the impugned award, this Court finds merit in the appeal to
a limited extent.
Future Medical Expenses
18. The learned counsel for appellant contended that the appellant
had suffered 100% functional disability and keeping in view the said
fact, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded some compensation
towards future medical expenses.
19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kajal v. Jagdish Chand
: (2020) 4 SCC 413, while dealing with the issue of future medical
prospects of a person whose functional disability was assessed at 90%,
awarded a sum of ₹5,00,000/- under the said head. The relevant
portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:
"Future Medical Treatment
29. The claimant has been awarded only Rs.2,00,000/ under
this head. This amount is a pittance. Keeping in view the
nature of her injuries and the fact that she is bedridden this
child is bound to suffer from a lot of medical problems. True it
is that there is no evidence in this regard but there can hardly
be such evidence. She may require special mattress which will
have to be changed frequently. In future as this girl grows, she
may face many other medical issues because of the injuries
suffered in the accident. Keeping in view her young age and
assuming she would live another 50-60 years, it would not be
unjust to award her Rs.5,00,000/- for future medical
expenses."
20. In the present case the appellant had sustained injuries on his
left leg as well as injuries on his head, chest and other body parts.
21. PW - 3, Dr. Vinal Sharma during the trial had proved Ex.
PW3/A, Disability Certificate assessing permanent disability of the
appellant at 90% and further deposed that the appellant suffered from
Post Traumatic Paraplegia, a form of paralysis affecting all or parts of
torso, legs and pelvic organs.
22. PW - 5, Dr. Dinesh Suman had deposed that the appellant
suffered from neurogenic bladder which resulted in bowel problems.
23. The learned Tribunal from a perusal of the aforesaid testimonies
noted that the appellant had suffered grievous injuries all over his
body and would be required to visit the hospital regularly for his
medical checkups and treatment of the doctors at various hospitals in
and outside of Delhi.
24. It would be reasonable to assume that large amount of money
will be spent on medical treatment for which no evidence can be
produced.
25. Therefore, in light of the observations made by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand (supra), lumpsum amount of
₹5,00,000/- is awarded to the appellant towards future medical
expenses. The impugned award is modified to such extent.
Attendant Charges
26. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned
Tribunal while awarding compensation under the head of attendant
charges ought to have applied the multiplier system.
27. He relies on a judgment passed by a Co - ordinate bench of this
Court in Jyoti Singh v. Nand Kishore and Ors. : MAC. AAP.
870/2021, wherein it was held that for computing compensation under
the heads of attendant charges or any other head which is recurring in
nature, the multiplier system as laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi
Transport Corporation : (2009) 6 SCC 121 ought to be applied.
28. This Court in Sumer v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. : 2023
SCC OnLine Del 5533, where the claimant had suffered 50%
physical disability, enhanced the compensation under the head of
attendant charges. The relevant portion of the said judgment is
reproduced below:
"33. The appellant challenges the Impugned Award in-so-far
as it awards compensation of only Rs. 10,000/- to the
appellant towards attendant charges.
34. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that
looking into the nature of the injury suffered by the appellant,
the appellant would require an attendant. He submits that the
family members of the appellant are looking after the
appellant, however, that cannot be a reason for denying the
compensation to the appellant towards the attendant charges.
35. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondent no. 1 submits that, in fact, the appellant had not
claimed any amount towards the attendant charges in the
Claim Petition, nor had the same been proved. The
appellant has also been granted Rs. 75,000/- for pain,
suffering and trauma, and Rs. 50,000/- towards amenities.
He submits that, therefore, there is no justification for
enhancing the compensation payable towards the attendant
charges.
36. I have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties.
37. Keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by the
appellant, it cannot be said that the appellant would require
a permanent attendant. At the same time, he would certainly
require some help on a regular basis, especially because of
the amnesia suffered by him, as also because of hemiplegia
suffered in his left upper and lower limb. The compensation
awarded to the appellant of only Rs. 10,000/- towards
attendant charges, therefore, appears to be highly
inadequate. Though, the appellant may be taking the
services of his own family members, who may be
performing the same gratuitously, compensation should
still be awarded in favour of the appellant for the
contribution made by the family members. Accordingly, the
compensation on account of the attendant charges is
enhanced to Rs. 2 lakhs."
(emphasis supplied)
29. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pawan Kumar : 2023 SCC
OnLine Del 4964], it was observed as under:
"15. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits
that the learned Tribunal has erred in granting a sum of
Rs. 5,00,000/- to the respondent no. 1 towards attendant
charges, though there was no proof of the same placed on
record by the respondent no. 1 before the learned Tribunal.
He further submits that, in any case, interest could not have
been awarded under the said head, as interest cannot be
awarded for compensation payable for the future. In support,
he places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court
in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., (1995) 1
SCC 551; and of this Court in IFFCO Tokio General Ins. Co.
Ltd. v. Raja, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 4375.
16. I am again unable to find any merit in the submission
made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned
Tribunal, while awarding a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards
attendant charges in favour of the respondent no. 1, has
observed as under:--
"ATTENDANT CHARGES
32. The contention of counsel for petitioner is that the
petitioner has permanent disabled in the accident and he had
incurred expenditure on attendant charges. Petitioner during
the course of his deposition has failed to substantiate the
amount spent by him on attendant charges. Although the
petitioner has not proved by cogent evidence as to who was
hired by him as attendant, period of hiring attendant and
the amount paid to attendant. However as per disability
certificate the petitioner has suffered 95% permanent
physical impairment in relation to his left upper limb and
right lower limb. PW2 Dr. Adarsh Kumar who was member
of disability board has deposed that the petitioner can not
squat and he will have difficulty in discharging his routine
activities like using of washroom. Thus looking at the nature
of disability and deposition of PW2 notice can be taken of
the fact that the petitioner will require assistance of
attendant for his daily routine work. Moreover, the
petitioner has to be compensated for the gratuitous services
rendered by his family members. Reliance is placed
on United India Insurance Company Ltd. v Rama
Swamy, MAC App, No. 328/11. In view of the aforesaid, in
my view, a sum of Rs. Five Lacs would be just and proper
towards attendant charges and the same is awarded
accordingly."
17. The learned Tribunal has rightly held that taking into
account the injury suffered by the respondent no. 1, he
would require the assistance of an attendant for his daily
routine work. This may be in the form of hired help or even
in the form of gratuitous services rendered by his family
members. Either way, the respondent no. 1 has to be
compensated for the same.
18. In Abhimanyu Partap Singh (Supra), the Supreme
Court, in fact, determined the compensation payable for
attendant charges on the basis of the minimum wages
notified and by applying the multiplier method. Judged by
that standard, the Award of only Rs. 5,00,000/- towards
attendant charges to the respondent no. 1 can by no stretch
be said to be unreasonable or unwarranted."
19. As far as the award of interest on the said amount is
concerned, as noted hereinabove, the accident had taken
place on 14.10.2011. The Award was passed by the learned
Tribunal on 01.04.2016, that is, almost after four and a half
years thereafter. The respondent no. 1 would have required
assistance all along, during this period. In my view, Rs.
5,00,000/- can be attributed to the pendente lite period alone.
Therefore, the said amount is not for the future but for the
past, and would, therefore, bear interest liability as well.
(emphasis supplied)
30. In the present case, the appellant had not produced any evidence
before the learned Trial Court regarding attendant charges.
31. However, considering the depositions made by PW - 3 and PW
- 5 stating that the appellant suffered from Post Traumatic Paraplegia
as well as a neurogenic bladder, the learned Tribunal rightly noted that
he would require assistance of one attendant for a considerable time
and awarded a lumpsum amount of ₹10,00,000/- towards attendant
charges.
32. Hence, in light of the observations made in Sumer v. National
Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Pawan Kumar (supra) and keeping in view the specific facts and
circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under the head of
attendant charges is reasonable. The impugned award is affirmed to
that extent.
Special Diet and Conveyance Charges
33. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned
Tribunal awarded a lesser sum of ₹50,000/- each towards the heads of
special diet and conveyance charges. He contended that the appellant
would be required to maintain a protein rich diet as well as visit the
hospital on a regular basis. Hence, the learned Tribunal ought to have
awarded a higher amount.
34. In the present case the learned Tribunal noted that the appellant
had not placed on record any bills regarding special diet and
conveyance charges and hence awarded a lumpsum amount of
₹50,000/- each under the said heads.
35. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Shabeer @
Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1701, had awarded a combined
compensation of ₹25,000/- towards the heads of special diet and
conveyance charges.
36. Thus, in light of the observations made in the aforesaid
judgment and the fact that the appellant will be in a need to have a
protein rich diet as well as require regular visits to the hospital, and in
the absence of any bills for special diet and conveyance charges being
placed before the learned Tribunal, this Court finds that the amount of
₹50,000/- each awarded by the learned Tribunal towards special diet
and conveyance charges is fair and reasonable. The award to that
extent is affirmed.
Compensation for Pain and Suffering as well as Mental and
Physical Shock
37. It was argued on behalf of the appellant 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.
38. 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)
39. In the opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal erred while
awarding a separate compensation towards mental and physical shock.
Although compensation is awarded under the heading of 'Pain and
suffering', the same encompasses the purpose of compensation for
mental and physical shock as well.
40. Insofar as the quantum for pain and suffering is concerned, the
Hon'ble Apex Court in V. Mekala v. M. Malathi : (2014) 11 SCC 178
while dealing with the similar circumstances awarded a sum of
₹2,00,000/- under the said head. The relevant paras of the judgement
in V. Mekala v. M. Malathi (supra) are reproduced as under:
"21. The compensation under the head pain and suffering
and mental agony was awarded by the High Court after
recording concurrent findings with the award passed by the
Tribunal. However, the courts below have not recorded the
nature of the permanent disablement sustained by the
appellant, while awarding Rs 1,00,000 under this head
which is too meagre an amount and is contrary to the
judgment of R.D. Hattangadi [R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest
Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551 : 1995 SCC
(Cri) 250] and Govind Yadav [Govind Yadav v. New India
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683 : (2012) 3 SCC
(Civ) 1082 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 82 : (2012) 1 SCC (L&S)
422] cases. The relevant paragraphs of Govind Yadav
case [Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
(2011) 10 SCC 683 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 1082 : (2012) 1
SCC (Cri) 82 : (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 422] read as under:
(SCC p. 695, paras 25-26)
"25. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal for pain,
suffering and trauma caused due to the amputation of leg
was meagre. It is not in dispute that the appellant had
remained in the hospital for a period of over three months.
It is not possible for the tribunals and the courts to make a
precise assessment of the pain and trauma suffered by a
person whose limb is amputated as a result of accident.
Even if the victim of accident gets artificial limb, he will
suffer from different kinds of handicaps and social stigma
throughout his life. Therefore, in all such cases, the
tribunals and the courts should make a broad guess for the
purpose of fixing the amount of compensation.
26. Admittedly, at the time of accident, the appellant was a
young man of 24 years. For the remaining life, he will
suffer the trauma of not being able to do his normal work.
Therefore, we feel that ends of justice will be met by
awarding him a sum of Rs 1,50,000 in lieu of pain,
suffering and trauma caused due to the amputation of leg."
Therefore, under this head the amount awarded should be
enhanced to Rs 2,00,000 as the doctor PW 2 has opined that
at the time of walking with support of crutches, the
appellant claimant will be suffering pain permanently.
Therefore, under this head it has to be enhanced from Rs
1,00,000 to Rs 2,00,000."
(emphasis supplied)
41. In the present case, the appellant had suffered 100% functional
disability, and had been admitted to three different hospitals for his
medical treatment. The disability is stated to be permanent. He has
suffered from Post Traumatic Paraplegia as well as a neurogenic
bladder.
42. In view of the foregoing, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the compensation of ₹1,00,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal
under the head of pain and suffering is on the lower side. Keeping in
view the condition of the appellant an amount of ₹2,00,000/- is
awarded. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified to this extent.
Loss of Amenities
43. It is the contention of the appellant that the learned Tribunal has
awarded a lesser amount towards loss of amenities.
44. This Court in Nandan Mukherjee v. Mohd. Rafiq : 2024 SCC
OnLine Del 9012 while granting compensation to a claimant whose
leg was amputated in a motor accident, granted a sum of ₹2,00,000/-
for loss of amenities. In the present case, compensation for ₹1,00,000/-
has been awarded towards loss of amenities by the learned Tribunal.
The relevant paragraphs in Nandan Mukherjee v. Mohd. Rafiq
(supra) are reproduced hereunder:
"Special Diet and Conveyance Charges:--
35. In view of the nature of injury and period of treatment
of about 6 months, the sum of Rs. 18,000/- granted for
compensation towards Special Diet and Conveyance
charges, the amount is enhanced to Rs. 30,000/-,
considering the nature of injury suffered.
Non-Pecuniary Heads:--
38. The Learned Tribunal has granted a total amount of Rs.
3,00,000/- i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/- each towards Pain and
suffering, Loss of amenities of life & Loss of expectation of
Life.
39. However, considering that the right leg of the injured was
amputated, in light of Mhd. Sabeer @ Shabir
Hussain (Supra), the same is re-calculated as under:--
a) Pain and Suffering = Rs. 2,00,000
b) Loss of Amenities of life = Rs. 2,00,000
c) Loss of Expectation of Life = Rs. 1,00,000/- (no change)"
(emphasis supplied)
45. Looking at the nature of the injuries suffered by the appellant,
he would have difficulty in leading his life, hence the learned Tribunal
erred in awarding a meagre sum under the head of loss of amenities.
In view of the observation of this Court in Nandan Mukherjee v.
Mohd. Rafiq (supra) an amount of ₹2,00,000/- is awarded. The
impugned award is modified to that extent.
Disfiguration
46. Another grievance of the appellant is the grant of lesser
compensation under the head of disfiguration. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Mohd. Shabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional
Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (supra) awarded an
amount of ₹2,00,000/- under the said head, taking into consideration
that the appellant therein had suffered 60% functional disability due to
his amputation.
47. Injuries suffered by the appellant have already been discussed
above. The appellant suffered from permanent disability of 90%.
48. Therefore, in the view of the aforesaid judgment, the learned
Tribunal erred in awarding a sum of ₹1,00,000/- compensation under
the head of disfiguration. It cannot be overlooked that the appellant
herein suffered 100% functional disability hence, the amount of
₹2,00,000/- as claimed by the appellant under the said head is
reasonable and the impugned award is modified to this extent.
Miscellaneous Heads
49. The appellant has also made a general assertion that no
compensation has been awarded under certain ancillary heads--such
as litigation cost and purchase of a new wheelchair. 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 already awarded under the
miscellaneous heads.
Rate of Interest
50. The appellant is aggrieved by the rate of interest of 7.5% per
annum being awarded. The same appears to be on the lower side.
51. 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.
52. 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.
Conclusion
53. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the
appeal 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) award a sum of ₹5,00,000/- as
compensation towards future medical expenses (ii) award a sum of
₹2,00,000/- as compensation towards pain and suffering (iii) award a
sum of ₹2,00,000/- as compensation towards loss of amenities, (iv)
award a sum of ₹2,00,000/- as compensation towards disfigurement,
(v) enhance the rate of interest and finally compute the compensation
of the appellant afresh.
54. The findings of the Tribunal on all other issues are affirmed and
shall remain undisturbed.
55. 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.
56. The parties shall appear before the learned Tribunal on
30.05.2025.
57. The compensation amount so determined, on remand, shall be
released in favour of the appellant in accordance with the schedule of
disbursal which will be stipulated by the learned Tribunal.
58. The present appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
MAY 22, 2025
