[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Vineet Singh vs Oriental Insurance Co Ltd & Ors on 23 March, 2026
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 23rd March 2026
+ MAC.APP. 307/2014
VINEET SINGH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate.
versus
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate for
Respondent No.1-Insurance
Company.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)
1. This appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of
compensation awarded vide judgement dated 23rd October 2013, passed by
the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Saket ("MACT") in MACT No. 78/2012.
The compensation was awarded in the sum of Rs.17,30,170/- along with
interest @ 9% p.a.
2. The accident occurred on 09th November 2011, at about 02:00 p.m.,
when injured Vineet Singh ['appellant herein'] was returning home from
school on a motorcycle along with his friend Agni Dev. When they reached
near IGESI Hospital Okhla Industrial Area at Maa Anand Mai Marg, they
were hit by a truck bearing no.HR-55G-3279 ["offending vehicle"], driven
by respondent no.2 [driver] in a rash and negligent manner, which struck the
motorcycle from behind, as a result of which claimant/appellant and his
friends fell down and sustained grievous injurious. FIR No.360/2011 was
registered at Police Station Okhla Industrial Area against respondent
no.2/driver under Sections 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code 1860
Compensation Awarded
3. MACT held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.2, as a result of which the
appellant sustained grievous injuries, including amputation of the right lower
limb leading to 95% permanent disability. MACT relied upon the testimony
of the injured/appellant, medical evidence, disability certificate, and the
chargesheet filed against the respondent no.2/driver to conclude that
negligence stood established against respondent no.2/driver, with liability
being joint and several upon the driver and owner, and indemnified by the
insurer.
4. While assessing compensation, MACT noted that the appellant was
about 17 years of age and a student of Class XII at the time of the accident,
and had undergone multiple surgeries at AIIMS Trauma Centre, culminating
in amputation of the right lower limb.
5. Considering the nature of injuries and permanent disability, MACT
awarded compensation under various heads, including medical expenses of
Rs.1,27,330/-, pain and suffering of Rs.1,00,000/-, loss of amenities and
enjoyment of life of Rs.1,00,000/-, loss of studies of Rs.25,000/-, attendant
charges of Rs.1,00,000/-, loss of marriage prospects of Rs.50,000/-,
disfigurement of Rs.50,000/-, and special diet and conveyance of Rs.50,000/.
6. MACT further awarded Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss of future income
potential, considering the impact of disability on the appellant's career
prospects.
7. MACT additionally granted Rs.6,27,848/- towards present and future
expenses relating to artificial limb and its maintenance, and assessed the
total compensation at Rs.17,30,170/- along with interest at 9% per annum
from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
Analysis
8. Mr. S.N. Parashar, counsel for appellant/claimant, seeks enhancement
of compensation primarily on two grounds; firstly, that the compensation
awarded towards loss of future income for the appellant, who at the time of
the accident was 17 years old, had been restricted to Rs.5,00,000/-, despite
95% disability in relation to the right lower limb; secondly, that the amounts
awarded towards non-pecuniary heads were highly inadequate.
9. The disability certificate [Exhibit PW1/99], proved by Dr. Joginder
Kumar (Kaushal Kishore), Senior Resident, Orthopedic, Madan Mohan
Malviya Nagar Hospital [PW-2], certifies that there was 95% permanent
disability in relation to right lower limb. In his testimony, PW-2 further
stated that "because of the disability, injured will have difficulties in activities
of daily living such as walking, sitting, moving, squatting as he cannot walk
and run, sitting crossed leg, etc." He further stated that the "injured will have
difficulty in driving motor vehicle and he needs orthotic/prosthetic support
for mobilization".
10. Despite this testimony on record, MACT in paragraph 18 of the
award, only observed that appellant was studying in Class XII at the time of
accident and had lost his entire career prospects. The certificate of
injured/appellant showed that he was a bright young student and had a great
career ahead. However, only a lump sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was awarded
towards loss of future income prospects.
11. Mr. Parashar, counsel for appellant, relies upon the decision of the
Supreme Court in Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon & Anr.
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692, wherein it was held that in cases of minor,
minimum wages of 'skilled' workers should be taken as a 'notional income'
before the application of multiplier and future prospects. For ease of
reference, relevant paragraphs are extracted as under:
"28. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of the medical
evidence came to a conclusion that, since the appellant
was only seven years at the time of the accident, it would
be appropriate to take notional income as per the MV Act
to be Rs. 15,000/- per annum. The learned Tribunal
applied a multiplier of 15 which was taken up-to the age of
fifteen years. Therefore, an amount of 15,000/- × 15 ×
75/100 = Rs. 1,68,750/- was awarded by the learned
Tribunal. The High Court did not enhance the amount
awarded under this head.
29. This Court in the case of Kajal (supra) has held that
taking notional income is not the correct approach.
Instead, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman
in the concerned State has to be taken into consideration
because, that would be the minimum amount which she
would have earned on becoming a major. In this case, the
minimum wage payable to a skilled workman in the State
of Delhi at the time of the accident, i.e., 2nd June 2009, was
Rs. 4,358/- per month.
.........
31. Accordingly, to arrive at the compensation to be
awarded under the head of loss of income and earnings
due to disability, 40% should be added for future prospects
and a multiplier of 18 would have to be applied in view of
the age of the appellant."
(emphasis added)
12. Similarly, the Supreme Court in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Ors
(2020) 4 SCC 413, held that adoption of 'notional income' at Rs.15,000/- per
annum is not a proper way of assessing future loss of income of a child, and
the Court assessed the income on the basis of minimum wages payable to a
'skilled' worker. Relevant paragraph is extracted as under:
"Loss of earnings
20. Both the courts below have held that since the girl was
a young child of 12 years only notional income of Rs
15,000 p.a. can be taken into consideration. We do not
think this is a proper way of assessing the future loss of
income. This young girl after studying could have worked
and would have earned much more than Rs 15,000 p.a.
Each case has to be decided on its own evidence but taking
notional income to be Rs 15,000 p.a. is not at all justified.
The appellant has placed before us material to show that
the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman is Rs
4846 per month. In our opinion, this would be the minimum
amount which she would have earned on becoming a
major. Adding 40% for the future prospects, it works to be
Rs 6784.40 per month i.e. 81,412.80 p.a. Applying the
multiplier of 18, it works out to Rs 14,65,430.40, which is
rounded off to Rs 14,66,000."
(emphasis added)
13. The minimum wages of the 'skilled' worker on the date of the accident
was Rs.8,112/- per month. In any event, as per the testimony of
claimant/injured [PW-1], it was noted that he was earning an income of
Rs.8,000/- per month by taking tuitions. For a 17 year old student, it is
evident that with 95% permanent disability in relation to right lower limb
and severe impediment in mobility, as stated by PW-2, the future earning
capacity would be substantially reduced. Though compensation has been
granted towards prosthetic support, the appellant's earning prospects would
nevertheless be seriously affected.
14. Considering the nature of amputation of the right lower limb, the
requirement of prosthetic support for mobility, and the consequential
restriction on employability across most vocations, functional disability is
assessed at 80% for purposes of computation of loss of earning capacity.
15. Accordingly, this Court finds it apposite that the functional disability
be considered at 80%, and loss of future income be calculated on the basis of
Rs.8,112/- per month, along with future prospects at 40% , following the
principles enunciated in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi,
(2017) 16 SCC 680 and a multiplier of '18' as per Sarla Verma v. DTC
(2009) 6 SCC 121.
16. As far as non-pecuniary heads are concerned, the amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- each awarded on account of pain and sufferings, and loss of
amenities and enjoyment of life, are appropriate and require no interference
by this Court.
17. However, compensation towards loss of marriage prospects has been
granted at Rs.50,000/- and compensation towards disfigurement has also
granted Rs.50,000/-. These two components requires enhancement to
Rs.1,00,000/- each.
18. Accordingly, compensation is re-computed as under:
SR. HEADS AWARDED BY AWARDED BY
NO. THE THIS COURT
TRIBUNAL
PECUNIARY LOSS
1. Expenditure on treatment (A) Rs.1,27,330/- Rs.1,27,330/-
2. Expenditure on conveyance (B) Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/-
3. Expenditure on special diet (C) Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/-
4. Attendant charges (D) Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
5. Loss of earning capacity (E) Nil 40%
6. Loss of future income (F) Rs.5,00,000/- Rs. 19,62,455.04/-
7. Future Medical Expenses with Rs.6,27,848/- Rs.6,27,848/-
respect to artificial limb (G)
8. Loss of Studies Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/-
NON PECUNIARY LOSS
9. Compensation for mental and Nil Nil
physical shock (H)
10. Pain and suffering (I) Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
11. Loss of amenities of life (J) Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
12. Disfiguration (K) Rs.50,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
13. Loss of marriage prospects (L) Rs.50,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
DISABILITY RESULTING IN LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY
14. Percentage of disability assessed Nil 80%
and nature of disability as
permanent or temporary
15. Percentage of loss of earning Nil 80%
capacity in relation to disability
16. Loss of future income (Income Rs.5,00,000/- Rs. 19,62,455.04/-
X% Earning capacity x
[(Rs.8112/- +40%) x
Multiplier)
12 x 18 x 80% ]
TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.17,30,170 /- Rs. 32,92,634/-
[Round of
Rs. 32,92,633.04/-]
INTEREST AWARDED 9% 9%
19. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned award is modified. The
compensation is enhanced by a sum of Rs. 20,53,077/- as computed
hereinabove.
20. Enhanced compensation along with 9% interest per annum from the
date of filing the petition shall be deposited before the MACT within a period
of four weeks.
21. It is directed that a lump sum amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- shall be
released to the claimant from the enhanced award within a period of two
weeks thereafter. The remaining amount, along with accrued interest, shall
be kept in Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) of Rs. 25,000/- each for periods
of 1 month, 2 months, 3 months and so on, in succession as maybe calculated.
The interest accruing on the said FDRs shall be credited to the designated
Savings Bank Account of the claimant. The amount of FDRs on maturity
would be released to the Savings Bank Account of claimant upon due
verification.
22. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
23. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
24. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
MARCH 23, 2026/ab/tk
