Sanjay Kumar Jain vs Parvind Kuamr & Anr

$~9 & 10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 17 July 2026
(9)
+ MAC.APP. 181/2018
UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Ratneswar Das, Ms. Barnali
Deka Das, Ms. Swati Singh,
Advocates.
versus

SANJAY KUMAR JAIN .....Respondent
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Mr. Ritik Singh,
Advocates.
(10)
+ MAC.APP. 237/2018
SANJAY KUMAR JAIN .....Appellant
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Mr. Ritik Singh,
Advocates.
versus

PARVIND KUAMR & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ratneswar Das, Ms. Barnali
Deka Das, Ms. Swati Singh,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)
1. These are cross-appeals which have been filed assailing the
st
impugned award dated 31 October 2017, passed by the Motor Accident
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.181/2018 & MAC.APP. 237/2018 Page 1 of 8

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:25.07.2026
13:41:18

Claims Tribunal, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
(‘ MACT/Tribunal ’) in MACT No.190/2016 awarding Rs. 16,13,032/- along
with 9% interest p.a. While MAC.APP. 181/2018 has been filed by the
owner of offending vehicle i.e. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport
Corporation (‘ UPSRTC ’) seeking modification of the impugned award,
MAC.APP. 237/2018 has been filed by the injured claimant seeking

enhancement of compensation.
th
2. The accident occurred on 6 August 2016 at about 8:30 pm when the
injured claimant was travelling from Sahibabad, Ghaziabad to his home on
his scooter no. DL 7SBY 8396. When he reached near Sani Temple,
District Ghaziabad, a U.P. Roadway bus bearing registration no. UP-11T-
9996 (hereinafter, ‘ offending vehicle ’), being driven in a rash and negligent
manner, hit the injured claimant from behind. As a result of this, he fell
down on the road and sustained crushed injury and other multiple injuries.
3. Mr. Ratneswar Das , counsel appearing on behalf of UPSRTC,
contends that loss of future income, calculated on the basis of functional
disability of 20% , was exaggerated, considering that the injured claimant
had been working continuously and no proof of loss of income was
provided. Further, non-pecuniary damages awarded by the MACT were

also amplified and should be reduced.
4. On the contrary, Mr. S.N. Parashar , counsel for injured claimant,
claims that functional disability ought to have been taken at a higher level,
considering that permanent disability was certified at 70% in relation to the
upper right limb and further, Rs.4,00,000/- granted towards prosthetic limb
was inadequate, considering that he was 47 years of age on the date of
th
accident i.e. 06 August 2016.
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.181/2018 & MAC.APP. 237/2018 Page 2 of 8

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:25.07.2026
13:41:18

5. MACT had noted that injured claimant was a case of amputation of
right limb below elbow, as per the Disability Certificate, which noted 70%
permanent disability in relation to right upper limb. Testimony of Dr.
Apoorv Sehgal, Senior Resident, Department of Orthopaedics, GTB
Hospital, Delhi (‘ PW3 ’) was also noted, who confirmed the findings of
Disability Certificate. No cross-examination was conducted by UPSRTC.
6. Moreover, in relation to the prosthetic limb, Mr. Gaurav Saini,
Senior Prosthetist & Orthotist, Endolite India Ltd. (‘ PW5 ’) had given his
testimony by submitting a quotation of Endolite India Ltd., stating that the
present cost of limb was Rs.3,34,057/- with an average life of about 4 to 5
years and the average annual maintenance was about Rs.30,000/- after the
expiry of one year warranty period.
7. MACT assessed the issue of functional disability in paragraph 7.2 of
the impugned award. It was noted that injured claimant could not attend to
his business from the date of accident due to the amputation. However, the
MACT did not find it to be a convincing aspect. MACT had made a strange
observation that, “ in any case claimant was/is duty bound to make an
attempt to engage himself in other activities/business so as to earn his
livelihood .” This observation made by MACT, which subsequently informs
the conclusion, has been made without any basis and purely speculative and

pedantic.
8. Notwithstanding this finding, no specific evidence was placed on
record either by injured claimant or by UPSRTC to indicate any lack of
attempt to earn livelihood. In the case of amputation of right hand of a
person, the natural assumption would be that their livelihood would be
grossly affected. Injured claimant (‘ PW1 ’ ) had stated in his evidence by
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.181/2018 & MAC.APP. 237/2018 Page 3 of 8

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:25.07.2026
13:41:18

way of affidavit that he was a businessman, running business for supplying
spare parts of trucks and was earning about Rs.4,00,000/- per annum. He
stated he had to close his business, due to the amputation/injuries sustained
in the accident and was rendered jobless due to his permanent disability and
was unable to continue his work. In the cross-examination conducted by
UPSRTC, he stated that he used to supply the spare parts of trucks from his
house. No other aspect has been recorded in the evidence that would have a

bearing on the issue of loss of earning.
9. In the opinion of this Court, the subsequent observation made by
MACT, that it cannot be said that due to the accident, injured claimant was
permanently unable to engage himself in any other activity, is also an
overly speculative observation. It appears that MACT was concerned about
injured claimant’s capacity for not being inspired to earn any income and,
therefore, granted functional disability of 20%, which is less than even half
of what has been applied by Tribunals, pursuant to the principle enunciated
by the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343.
10. It has been made clear by the Supreme Court in various decisions
that principles of Raj Kumar ( supra ) do not automatically lead to
calculating functional disability at 50% of the permanent disability, but has
to be assessed on the basis of triple test given by the Supreme Court in Raj
Kumar ( supra ), which takes into account the nature of vocation and the
injured claimant’s ability to engage in other pursuits.
11. In the case at hand, it can easily be considered that after the
amputation of his right arm, injured claimant’s ability to carry on regular
business would have been sorely impeded and even though some other
engagement may have been employed by him in order to continue earning
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.181/2018 & MAC.APP. 237/2018 Page 4 of 8

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:25.07.2026
13:41:18

his livelihood, it would certainly not be akin to a normal state of living.
12. The contention raised by UPSRTC, in this regard, to not award loss
of future income is, therefore, completely untenable. Quite to the contrary,
functional disability which has been granted at 20% , ought to be taken at
35% in order to accommodate for the disability suffered by the injured

claimant.
13. As regards the prosthetic/artificial limb, MACT had awarded
Rs.4,00,000/- as lumpsum. No evidence has been placed on record that the
prosthetic/artificial limb has been used in the past eight years, since the
matter has been pending before this Court.
14. In this regard, reliance may be placed upon the decision of Supreme
Court in Mohd. Sabeer v. U.P. SRTC, (2023) 20 SCC 774 where the Court
was ascertaining the compensation towards prosthetic limb and its
maintenance. Relevant findings of the Court are extracted as under:
“ 23. As per the current compensation given for the
prosthetic limb and its maintenance, it would last the
appellant for only 15 years, even if we were to assume
that the limb would not need to be replaced after a few
years. The appellant was only 37 years at the time of
the accident, and it would be reasonable to assume that
he would live till he is 70 years old if not more. We are
of the opinion that the appellant must be compensated
so that he is able to purchase three prosthetic limbs in
his lifetime and is able to maintain the same at least till
he has reached 70 years of age. For the prosthetic
limbs alone, the appellant is to be awarded
compensation of Rs 7,80,000 and for maintenance of
the same he is to be awarded an additional Rs
5,00,000.”
(emphasis added)
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.181/2018 & MAC.APP. 237/2018 Page 5 of 8

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:25.07.2026
13:41:18

15. Notwithstanding, considering that the injured claimant is 57 years of
age at present and would approximately require two more prosthetics till
the age of 70, as considered by the Supreme Court in Sabeer ( supra ) and
there would have been inflation in the cost of artificial/prosthetic limb, an
amount of Rs.10,00,000/- will be deposited in a separate account out of
which reimbursements will be given, only if actual bills, invoices and proof
is produced by injured claimant for the use of artificial/prosthetic limb. It is
further clarified that no interest shall be given on the said amount granted
towards prosthetic limb. Therefore, this Court is inclined to accept the
contention raised by Mr. Parashar , counsel for injured claimant to that
extent.
16. As regards future prospects, same shall have to be aligned with the
principles enunciated in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi ,
(2017) 16 SCC 680. Considering that the injured claimant was 47 years of
age and was not working in a permanent job, future prospects shall be
awarded at 25%.
17. Accordingly, revised computation is as under:
Sr.
No.
Heads Awarded by the
Awarded by
Tribunal
this Court
PECUNIARY LOSS
1. Expenditure on treatment (A) Rs. 1,75,381/- Rs. 1,75,381/-
2. Expenditure on special
diet/conveyance/attendant
charges (B)
Rs. 45,000/- Rs. 45,000/-
3. Income of injured (C) Rs. 3,42,328/-
Rs. 3,42,328/-


4. Add: Future prospects (D) Rs. 1,02,698.4/- Rs. 85,582/-
5. Multiplier (E) 13 13
6. Functional disability (F) 20% 35%
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.181/2018 & MAC.APP. 237/2018 Page 6 of 8

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:25.07.2026
13:41:18

7. Loss of income (G)

Rs. 85,582/- Rs. 85,582/-
8. Loss of future income/future
earnings [(C+D) x E x F] =
(H)
Rs. 11,57,068.64/- Rs. 19,46,990.5/-
NON-PECUNIARY LOSS

9. Pain and suffering (I) Rs. 75,000/- Rs. 75,000/-
10. Disfigurement (J) Rs. 75,000/- Rs. 75,000/-
11. Total compensation (A + B +
G + H + I + J ) = K
Rs. 16,13,032/-
Rs. 24,02,954/-
(rounded off)
(rounded off)


12. Interest awarded 9% 9%
13. Prosthetic Limb Rs. 4,00,000/- Rs. 10,00,000/-

Directions
18. For the aforesaid reasons, compensation has been enhanced by Rs.
7,89,922/-. (‘ enhanced amount ’)
19. Enhanced amount, along with accrued interest will be deposited
before the Registrar General of this Court within the next six weeks. It is
directed that it be released as a lump sum amount, within a period of two
weeks thereafter.
20. As directed above in paragraph 15 , owner/UPSRTC shall deposit
Rs. 10,00,000/- in a separate account before the Registrar General of this
Court, out of which reimbursements will be given, subject to proof of bills
and invoices produced by injured claimant for the use of
artificial/prosthetic limb. No interest shall be accrued on this amount.
nd
21. By order dated 22 February 2018, this Court had directed
owner/UPSRTC to deposit Rs.10,00,000/- along with 9% interest before
the Registrar General of this Court, subject to which the execution of
impugned award was stayed. Further directions for depositing the balance
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.181/2018 & MAC.APP. 237/2018 Page 7 of 8

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:25.07.2026
13:41:18

amount, along with up to date interest before the Registrar General of this
th
Court, were given by this Court on 10 May 2018. Thereafter, by order
th
dated 05 August 2019, 50% of the amount was directed to be released in
terms of the scheme of impugned award. Remaining amount from the
original compensation shall be disbursed as per the directions of MACT.

22. Appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
23. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
24. Copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned bank for information
and compliance.
25. Statutory deposit, if any, shall be refunded to owner-UPSRTC, only
if the order of deposit has been complied with.
26. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.


(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
JULY 17, 2026/ ak/ sp
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.181/2018 & MAC.APP. 237/2018 Page 8 of 8

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:25.07.2026
13:41:18