[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Ravinder Kumar vs Deepak Dahiya & Ors on 10 March, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on : 17h January 2026
Pronounced on : 10th March 2026
Uploaded on : 10th March 2026
+ MAC.APP. 153/2021
RAVINDER KUMAR .....Appellant
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar and Mr. Ritik
Singh, Advs.
versus
DEEPAK DAHIYA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Niyati Jadaun, Adv. for Insurance
Company.
+ MAC.APP. 158/2021 & CM APPL. 12906/2021
SUMIT KUMAR .....Appellant
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar and Mr. Ritik
Singh, Advs.
versus
DEEPAK DAHIYA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Niyati Jadaun, Adv. for Insurance
Company.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
ANISH DAYAL, J.
1. This common judgment shall dispose of the above captioned appeals
filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('MV Act') seeking
enhancement of compensation. Since a common award had been passed, the
appeals were tagged together and are being disposed of vide this common
judgment.
2. MAC.APP. 153/2021 has been preferred by Ravinder Kumar/injured
claimant for enhancement of compensation awarded by Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal ['MACT'] Tiz Hazari Courts, Delhi in Claim Petition
No.77251/2016 vide judgment dated 19 th February 2018 awarding
compensation of Rs.8,69,732/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.
3. MAC.APP. 158/2021 has been preferred by Sumit Kumar/injured
claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by MACT in Claim
Petition No.77250/2016 vide judgment dated 19 th February 2018 awarding
compensation of Rs.10,85,017/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.
The Accident
4. In the intervening night of 27 th and 28 th March 2013 at about 12:15
a.m., Rahul (since deceased), along with his friends Ravinder Kumar/injured
claimant and Sumit Kumar/injured claimant was going to Nihal Vihar from
Kunwar Singh Nagar on a motorcycle bearing no. DL-9SP-4948 being
driven by Sumit Kumar/injured claimant. When they reached near Ration
Office, 50 foota road, Nihal Vihar, a vehicle bearing registration no.HR-10-
S-8855 (hereinafter, 'offending vehicle') came at a very high speed,
allegedly in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle. Due to the
impact, the motorcycle was dragged for a considerable distance and they
were removed to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital. While all of them
sustained grievous injuries, Rahul succumbed to his injuries on 02 nd April
2013.
5. The offending vehicle was being driven by Deepak
Dhaiya/respondent no.1 ('driver'), owned by Harsh Dahiya/respondent no.2
('owner') and insured with HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co.
Ltd/respondent no.3 ('insurer').
Impugned Award
6. Analysing the claim petitions, joint written statements filed by the
driver and owner, as well as, by the insurer, MACT concluded that injuries
sustained by the claimants were due to negligence of the driver and
accordingly, HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company/respondent no.3
was held liable to pay the compensation.
7. MACT awarded the following compensation to Ravinder
Kumar/injured claimant:
S.No. Heads Amount
1. Treatment, hospitalization and medicines Rs. 2,90,520/-
2. Conveyance Rs. 15,000/-
3. Special Diet (Food) Rs. 15,000/-
4. Attendant Charges Rs. 8,000/-
5. Loss of earning during the period of treatment Rs. 35,256/-
6. Loss of future earning on account of permanent Rs. 4,75,956/-
disability
7. Future Medical Expenses Nil
8. Pain, Suffering & Trauma Rs. 30,000/-
Total Rs. 8,69,732/-
8. MACT awarded the following compensation to Sumit Kumar/injured
claimant:
S.no. Heads Amount
1. Treatment, hospitalization and medicines Rs. 5,45,283/-
2. Conveyance Rs. 15,000/-
3. Special Diet (Food) Rs. 15,000/-
4. Attendant Charges Rs. 8,000/-
5. Loss of earning during the period of treatment Rs. 52,884/-
6. Loss of future earning on account of permanent Rs. 4,18,850
disability
7. Future Medical Expenses Nil
8. Pain, Suffering & Trauma Rs. 30,000/-
Total Rs. 10,85,017/-
Submissions on behalf of Claimants
9. In case of Ravinder Kumar/injured claimant, Mr. S N Prashar,
Advocate stated that he has suffered permanent disability to the extent of
50% with respect to his right lower limb, as per the Disability Certificate. He
was aged 20 years at the time of accident and studied upto Class XII. He was
doing a private job and earning monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-.
10. MACT assessed his functional disability at 25%, reducing it from
50% without assigning any cogent reason. It was further contended that no
future prospects were granted and compensation under non-pecuniary heads
are liable to be enhanced, on account of being inadequate, while
compensation under some of the non-pecuniary heads like, loss of amenities
of life, mental and physical shock, disfigurement and loss of marriage
prospects was not granted at all.
11. As regards Sumit Kumar/injured claimant, Mr. S N Prashar, Advocate
argued that he was 23 years of age at the time of accident and had studied
upto Class X. He was working with M/s Nibbles Computer Saksartha
Kendra and was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 12,000/-. It was contended
that MACT reduced his disability from 45% to 22%, while assessing
functional disability without any cogent reason. Further, no future prospects
were granted and compensation granted under non-pecuniary heads were
highly depressed, while compensation under some of non-pecuniary heads
like loss of amenities of life, mental and physical shock, disfigurement and
loss of marriage prospects was not granted at all.
Analysis
12. Firstly, an assessment of functional disability in respect of both the
claimants will have to be done.
13. As regards Ravinder Kumar/injured claimant, his Disability
Certificate certified that his injury was a case of, 'Arthoplesty of right hip
joint, physically disabled and 50% permanent physical disability in relation
to his right lower limb which was non-progressive and not likely to improve;
re-assessment was not recommended.'
14. MACT noted the testimony of PW-4, Dr. Naresh Chandra, Specialist
Orthopedics, Guru Govind Singh Hospital, Delhi and observed that since he
had not been able to prove his vocation, considered functional disability at
25%.
15. PW-1, Ravinder Kumar/injured claimant in his examination in chief
stated that he had received multiple grievous injuries and other serious
injuries on different parts of his body and had spent a huge amount on his
treatment, but his pain and suffering continued. He stated that "I think I have
received permanent disability, because I do not doing any work properly".
16. In cross examination, he was not questioned regarding his
functionality with respect to his regular life and he denied the suggestion
that he had not spent a huge amount on his treatment or on conveyance
charges, medicines and special diet.
17. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343, the Supreme Court
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. The Court
emphasised 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;
(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) 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)
18. There being no further evidence in this regard, assessment done by the
MACT cannot be considered amiss, particularly, since the Disability
Certificate itself stated that injury was non-progressive.
19. Considering he suffered permanent disability of 50% in respect of his
right lower limb and that there was no record of any amputation, it can be
safely considered that he would be able to carry out other functions with
respect to his vocation. Further no evidence has been placed on record
relating to his vocation, as also stated by him in his cross examination.
Accordingly, minimum wages of a matriculate were rightly awarded basis
his marksheet of Class XII examination.
20. As regards Sumit Kumar/injured claimant, the Disability Certificate
certified 45% permanent disability in relation to right lower limb which was
non-progressive and not likely to improve with reassessment not
recommended. Testimony of Sumit Kumar as PW-1 did not provide any
evidence that he had been facing serious dysfunctionality in his work.
Further, nothing was stated by him in his cross examination which would
suggest any serious impediment.
21. Testimony of PW-4, Dr. Naresh Chandra, Specialist Orthopedics,
Guru Govind Singh Hospital, Delhi was only with respect to proving the
Disability Certificate and nothing else was placed on record to elaborate on
this aspect. Though he had placed on record a certificate issued by M/s
Nibbles Computer Saksartha Kendra, the employer was not produced as a
witness in order to prove the said certificate. Moreover, there was nothing on
record to show the nature of his job. Considering that Sumit Kumar/injured
claimant would be computer savvy, disability would not come in the way of
his vocation being completely or substantially impeded and the MACT was
correct in assessing the disability at 22% in relation to the whole body.
22. Reliance in this regard may be placed on the observations made by
Supreme Court in Raj Kumar (supra), which is extracted above.
23. As regards the plea of future prospects not being granted to either of
the claimants, considering that they were 20 years and 23 years of age
respectively, at the time of accident, the Court deems it fit to grant 40% to
each of them in line with principles enunciated in National Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680.
24. As regards compensation awarded towards non-pecuniary heads, the
Supreme Court in Raj Kumar (supra), has stated in paragraph 6 as under:
"6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in
personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation,
medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and
miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured
would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent
disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a
consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal
longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be
awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in
serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical
evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that
compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b),
(iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on
account of permanent disability, future medical expenses,
loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and
loss of expectation of life."
(emphasis added)
25. Therefore, as per the above finding, non-pecuniary compensation may
be awarded towards loss of amenities of life and loss of marriage prospects.
To that extent, the Court is inclined to grant Rs.1,00,000/- each under these
heads to both the claimants.
26. In view of evidence and other material on record with respect to
injures sustained by claimants, the Court is not persuaded to grant any
compensation under loss of disfigurement.
27. Accordingly, the revised computation in case of Ravinder
Kumar/injured claimant is as under:
Sr. Heads Awarded by the Awarded by
No.
Tribunal this Court
PECUNIARY LOSS
1. Expenditure on treatment (A) Rs. 2,90,520/- Rs. 2,90,520/-
2. Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
(B)
3. Expenditure on special diet Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
(C)
4. Attendant Charges (D) Rs. 8,000/- Rs. 8,000/-
5. Income of injured (E) Rs. 8,814/- Rs. 8,814/-
6. Add: Future prospects @ - Rs. 3,526/-
40% (F)
8. Functional disability (H) 25% 25%
9. Loss of Income (I) [Rs. Rs. 35,256/- Rs. 35,256/-
8,814/- x 4]
10. Loss of future income/future Rs. 4,75,956/- Rs. 6,66,360/-
earnings [(E+F) x 12 x G x
H] = (J)
NON-PECUNIARY LOSS
11. Pain, suffering and trauma Rs. 30,000/- Rs. 30,000/-
(K)
12. Loss of marriage prospects - Rs. 1,00,000/-
(L)
13. Loss of amenities of life (M) - Rs. 1,00,000/-
14. Total compensation (A + B + Rs. 8,69,732/- Rs. 12,60,136/-
C + D + I + J + K + L + M) =
N
15. Interest awarded 9% 9%
28. Revised computation in case of Sumit Kumar/injured claimant is as
under:
Sr. Heads Awarded by the Awarded by this Court
No. Tribunal
PECUNIARY LOSS
1. Expenditure on treatment (A) Rs. 5,45,283/- Rs. 5,45,283/-
2. Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
(B)
3. Expenditure on special diet Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
(C)
4. Attendant Charges (D) Rs. 8,000/- Rs. 8,000/-
5. Income of injured (E) Rs. 8,814/- Rs. 8,814/-
6. Add: Future prospects @ - Rs. 3,526/-
40% (F)
8. Functional disability (H) 22% 22%
9. Loss of Income (I) [Rs. Rs. 52,884/- Rs. 52,884/-
8,814/- x 6]
10. Loss of future income/future Rs. 4,18,850/- Rs. 5,86,397/-
earnings [(E+F) x 12 x G x
H] = (J)
NON-PECUNIARY LOSS
11. Pain, suffering and trauma Rs. 30,000/- Rs. 30,000/-
(K)
12. Loss of marriage prospects - Rs. 1,00,000/-
(L)
13. Loss of amenities of life (M) - Rs. 1,00,000/-
14. Total compensation (A + B + Rs. 10,85,017/- Rs. 14,52,564/-
C + D + I + J + K + L + M) =
N
15. Interest awarded 9% 9%
Conclusion
29. In view of the above directions, compensation has been enhanced to
Rs. 12,60,136/- in case of Ravinder Kumar/injured claimant and Rs.
14,52,564/- in case of Sumit Kumar/injured claimant. Enhanced
compensation alongwith 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the
petition will be deposited before the Tribunal within a period of four weeks
and shall be disbursed as per the directions given in the impugned award to
both the claimants.
30. Accordingly, the Appeals are disposed of in above terms.
31. Pending applications are rendered infructuous.
32. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
ANISH DAYAL
(JUDGE)
MARCH 10, 2026/sm/sp
