[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Sh. Harphool vs Cholamandalam Ms Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. ... on 19 March, 2026
$~75
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 19th March 2026
+ MAC.APP. 292/2021
SH. HARPHOOL .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Aastha Chauhan, Advocate.
versus
CHOLAMANDALAM MS GEN INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND
ORS .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Mouli Sharma, Advocate for
Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate for
Respondent no.1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)
1. This appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of the compensation
awarded by Award dated 5th June 2021, passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi
('MACT/Tribunal') in MACP No.571/2017, which awarded a
compensation of Rs.7,95,000/- (Rs. 8,20,000/- - Rs 25,000/- given vide
interim award dated 19.05.2018), along with interest of 9% per annum.
2. Ms. Aastha Chauhan, counsel for appellant, seeks enhancement on
three counts:
i. That the minimum wages were taken as that of the unskilled
worker at Rs.9,724/- per month, whereas there was enough
material on record, including his deposition that he was
working as a mason and, therefore, at the very least,
minimum wages of a skilled worker ought to have been taken
at Rs.11,830/- per month.
ii. That the permanent disability was certified at 48% as case of
injured was of Malunited Fracture Proximal Right Tibia and
Fibula in relation to right lower limb; however, functional
disability was taken at 24%.
iii. That the non-pecuniary damages, for pain and suffering, loss
of amenities and disfiguration were inadequate.
3. Ms. Chauhan, counsel for appellant, has drawn attention to the
statement recorded before the MACT on 18th November 2019 of
injured/Har Phool Singh, who stated that he was earning about Rs.16,000/-
to Rs.17,000/- per month as a mason and his monthly expenditure is
Rs.10,000/-. He had also filed his evidence by way of affidavit, where he
stated that he was doing private service and was earning Rs.15,000/- per
month. In his cross-examination by the Insurance Company, he reiterated
that he was working as a mason, when confronted with the suggestion that
he was not employed.
4. There being no evidence otherwise to rebut his statement that he was
not working as a mason, the Court is inclined to accept the contention of
the appellant in this regard. In this context, it is also noted that the appellant
was 49 years of age on the date of the accident, i.e. 31st January 2017, and
therefore would have been a senior worker at that stage.
5. Counsel for appellant has adverted to the decision of the Coordinate
Bench of this Court in Neelam Devi & Ors v. Bikramjeet Singh & Ors.
2014:DHC:1172, wherein, in a similar situation, the deceased, who was
working as a mason and was 39-40 years old, was awarded the minimum
wage of a skilled worker for lack of any further evidence.
6. In these circumstances, the Court is inclined to consider that the
minimum wages ought to be taken at Rs.11,830/-, considering his vocation
as a mason.
7. As regards the functional disability, the assessment at 24% may not
be apposite, considering that if the vocation of the injured was that of a
mason, it would have been greatly affected by the 48% permanent
disability in relation to his right lower limb.
8. The Court again notes that, being 49 years of age on the date of the
accident, he would have been unable to reconfigure his livelihood with the
disability of 48% in relation to right lower limb, considering that the job of
a mason involves squatting, climbing, and moving across various
construction sites. Therefore, his livelihood would have been seriously
diluted and eroded.
9. Accordingly, disability ought to have been considered at 40%.
10. As regards compensation in non-pecuniary heads, the amount which
has been awarded for pain and suffering, be enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- and
for loss of amenities to Rs.1,00,000/-, considering the circumstances faced
by the claimant.
11. Accordingly, the compensation is re-computed as under:
S. Compensation under Amount awarded Re-computed
No. various heads amount
1. Expenditure on treatment Rs. 1,39,328/- Rs. 1,39,328/-
2. Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
3. Expenditure on special diet Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-
4. Cost of attendant Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
5. Loss of Income Rs. 29,172/- Rs. 35,490/-
[Rs. 9,724 x 3] [Rs. 11,830/- x 3]
6. Monthly income of Rs. 9,724/- Rs. 11,830/-
injured(A)
7. Future Prospect(B) Rs. 2,431/- [25% of Rs. 2,957.50 [25%
Rs. 9,724/-] of Rs. 11,830/-]
9. Functional Disability (D) 24% 40%
10. Loss of Future Income Rs. 4,55,083.2/- Rs. 9,22,740/-
[E=(A+B)x12xCxD]
11. Compensation for mental Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 20,000/-
and physical shock
12. Pain and Suffering Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/-
13. Loss of amenities of life Rs. 80,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/-
14. Total Rs. 8,18,583.20/- Rs. 13,62,558/-
Rounded off to Rounded off to
Rs. 8,20,000/-. Rs. 13,63,000/-
12. Enhanced compensation, along with accrued interest @ 9% per
annum, be deposited by the Insurance Company before the MACT within a
period of four weeks and be released to the claimants within a period of
four weeks thereafter, as per the directions of MACT in the impugned
award.
13. Notwithstanding the directions passed hereinabove, the right of
recovery granted to the Insurance Company shall remain unaffected and
continue to operate in terms of the Award passed by the MACT.
14. Appeal stands disposed of with above directions.
15. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
16. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to appellant.
17. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
MARCH 19, 2026/ak/bp
