[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Satish Kumar vs Kumari Kanika Sibal & Ors on 9 April, 2026
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 9th April 2026
+ MAC.APP. 860/2013 & CM APPL. 15004/2013
SATISH KUMAR .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Deepanshu, Mr. Deepak
Chhikara, Mr. Harsh Saxena and Mr.
Shrey Saha, Advocates.
versus
KUMARI KANIKA SIBAL & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. JPN Shahi, Advocate for R-
3/Insurance Co.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)
1. This appeal has been filed by claimant seeking enhancement of
compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Saket
Courts, New Delhi ['MACT'], vide impugned award dated 3rd April 2013 in
MACT No.104/2011, wherein compensation of Rs.6,19,386/- along with 9%
interest was awarded in favour of claimant [appellant herein].
2. Said impugned judgement was passed in relation to an accident that
took place on 4th December 2010, when appellant/claimant was travelling on
a motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-2SD-4697. When he reached in
front of Purvi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, a Santro Car bearing
registration no. DL-9C-H-3603 driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and
negligent manner, hit appellant/claimant, causing him grievous injuries. FIR
No. 350/2010 under Sections 279/338 of Indian Penal Code 1806 [IPC] was
registered at Police Station Vasant Vihar.
Analysis
3. Pursuant to directions of this Court by order dated 21 st January 2014,
injuries suffered by appellant/claimant were subsequently certified by the
Disability Board of Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital as 29% physical
impairment with respect to left lower limb.
4. Counsel for appellant contends that vide impugned award,
compensation of Rs. 6,19,386/- was awarded, comprising Rs. 2,50,886/-
towards medical expenses, Rs. 2,00,000/- towards future medical expenses in
view of further surgery and implant removal likely to be required, Rs.
58,500/- towards loss of fees, Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of studies, Rs.
40,000/- towards special diet and conveyance, and Rs. 50,000/- towards pain
and suffering, together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing
of Detailed Accident Report i.e. 06th January 2011, till realization, holding
the driver [respondent no.1 herein] and owner [respondent no.2 herein]
jointly and severally liable, with insurer [respondent no.3 herein] directed to
indemnify and satisfy the award.
5. However, MACT rejected his claim for 'loss of income', considering
that appellant was a 3rd Year B-Tech Student. Counsel for appellant
therefore, submits that enhancement is being sought only on account of 'loss
of future income', since the same was not awarded and since 'permanent
disability' has now been certified at 29% in relation to left lower limb. The
only surviving issue, therefore, relates to assessment of loss of future
earning capacity consequent to permanent disability.
6. For this purpose, counsel for appellant draws attention of this Court to
the decision of the Supreme Court in S. Mohammed Hakkim v. National
Insurance Co. Ltd & Ors. 2025:INSC:905, wherein a similar case of 3rd
year B-tech student was considered, and the Court took notional income at
Rs.20,000/-. For ease of reference, relevant paragraphs are extracted as
under:
"8. In the present case, at the time of the accident, the
appellant was a 3rd year engineering student who could
have had a bright future. While dealing with a case of an
accident in which an engineering student had lost one
leg, this Court in Navjot Singh v. Harpreet Singh, 2020
SCC OnLine SC 1562 had noted that:
"12. Admittedly, the appellant was 21 years of age
at the time of the accident and he was pursuing a
Degree course in Food Technology from Sant
Longowal Institute of Engineering and Technology.
Though the Tribunal did not believe the claim made
by the appellant that he was earning Rs. 10,000/-
per month even as a student by taking tuitions, and
though the High Court also did not go by the said
claim, the High Court arrived at the notional income
of the appellant at Rs. 5,000/- per month, on the
ground that the minimum wages admissible to an
unskilled worker was Rs. 5,000/- per month.
13. But we do not think that the notional income of a
student undergoing a Degree course in Engineering
from a premier institute should be taken to be
equivalent to the minimum wages admissible to an
unskilled worker. Students recruited through campus
interviews are atleast offered a sum of Rs. 20,000/-
per month. Even if we do not go on the said basis,
the High Court could have fixed the notional income
atleast at Rs. 10,000/- per month.
14. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, and by exercising our power under Article 142
of the Constitution of India, we take the notional
monthly income of the appellant as Rs. 10,000/- per
month."
9. In the above case, this Court was dealing with a case
of an accident that occurred in the year 2013. Although
considering the facts of that case, this Court had taken
the income of the claimant therein as Rs. 10,000/- per
month, it was noted that students, like the appellant in the
present case, would be at least earning the minimum of
Rs. 20,000/- per month. Thus, in our opinion, it would be
in the interest of justice if the notional income of the
appellant were taken as Rs. 20,000/-. According to the
guidelines in Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 as
upheld in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi,
(2017) 16 SCC 680, the multiplier would be taken as 18,
and future prospects would be 40%. Therefore, the loss of
income would be as follows:
Monthly Notional Rs. 20,000/-
Income
Monthly Notional Income Rs.20,000 + 40% of Rs.20,000 =
along with 40% future Rs.28,000/-
prospects
Annual Income Rs. 28,000 x 12 = Rs. 3,36,000/-
Total Loss of Income Rs. 3,36,000 x 18=Rs.60, 48,000/-
7. In the present case as well, appellant/claimant was pursuing an
engineering degree at the time of the accident and has suffered permanent
physical impairment affecting his lower limb, which would reasonably
impact his future earning capacity in technical employment requiring
mobility and functional efficiency.
8. Considering the similarity of the facts of the aforesaid decision with
the present case, where appellant was a 3rd year B.Tech student at the time
of the accident and has since been certified to have suffered 29% permanent
physical impairment in relation to the left lower limb affecting his future
earning capacity, it would be appropriate to assess his notional income at
Rs. 20,000/- per month. Addition of 40% towards future prospects is
warranted in terms of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017)
16 SCC 680, and applying multiplier of 17 as per Sarla Verma v. DTC,
(2009) 6 SCC 121, functional disability for the purpose of computation is
assessed at 20% as per Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 SCC
343. Accordingly, compensation towards loss of future earning capacity is
liable to be recalculated.
9. Since the amounts awarded towards loss of fees and loss of studies
relate to the overall deprivation suffered by appellant/claimant during the
period of disability and consequent disruption of academic progression, the
same are subsumed within compensation awarded towards loss of amenities
of life. Accordingly, Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded toward loss of amenities of
life.
10. Accordingly, compensation is recomputed as under:
SR. HEADS AWARDED BY THE AWARDED BY THIS
NO. TRIBUNAL COURT
PECUNIARY LOSS
1 Expenditure on treatment (A) Rs. 2,50,886/- Rs.2,50,886/-
2 Expenditure on conveyance and Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000/-
special diet (B)
3 Cost of nursing / attendant (C) Nil Nil
4 Loss of earning capacity (D) Nil Rs.11,42,400/-
5 Loss of income (E) Nil Nil
6 Any other loss which may require Nil Nil
any special treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his life (F)
7 Future Medical Expenses (G) Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.2,00,000/-
NON-PECUNIARY LOSS
8 Compensation for mental and Nil Nil
physical shock (H)
9 Pain and suffering (I) Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/-
10 Loss of amenities of life (J) - Rs.1,00,000/-
11 Disfiguration (K) Nil Nil
12 Loss of marriage prospects (L) Nil Nil
13 Loss of fees (M) Rs.58,500/- Included in Loss of
amenities
14 Loss of studies (N) Rs.20,000/- Included in Loss of
amenities
DISABILITY RESULTING IN LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY
15 Percentage of disability assessed Nil 29%
and nature of disability as
permanent or temporary
16 Loss of amenities or loss of Nil Assessed above
expectation of life span on account
of disability
17 Percentage of loss of earning Nil 20%
capacity in relation to disability
18 Loss of future income (Income X% Nil Rs.11,42,400/-
Earning capacity x Multiplier)
[Rs.20,000/- + 40% x 12 x
17 x 20%]
TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.6,19,386/- Rs.17,83,286/-
INTEREST AWARDED 9% 9%
11. For the aforesaid reasons, compensation has been enhanced by
Rs.11,63,900/- ["enhanced amount"].
12. Enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 9% from the date of
assessment by Disability Board i.e. 22nd April 2014, since there was no
reason apparent prior to disability assessment to determine loss of future
income.
13. It is therefore directed as under:
i. Enhanced amount along with 9% interest per annum from 22nd
April 2014 shall be deposited before MACT within a period of six
weeks. It is directed that a lump sum amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- shall be
released to the claimant from the deposit of enhanced amount within a
period of two weeks thereafter. Remaining enhanced amount, along
with accrued interest, shall be kept in Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs)
of Rs. 25,000/- each for periods of 3 month, 6 months, 9 months and
so on, in succession as maybe calculated. Interest accruing on said
FDRs shall be credited to the designated Savings Bank Account of
claimant. Amount of FDRs on maturity would be released to the
Savings Bank Account of claimant upon due verification.
ii. Originally awarded amount shall be disbursed as per the
directions passed by the MACT.
14. Accordingly, the appeals stand disposed of with above directions.
15. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
16. Copy of this judgement be sent to concerned MACT.
17. Copy of this judgement shall also be sent to concerned bank.
18. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
ANISH DAYAL
(JUDGE)
APRIL 09, 2026/sm/tk
