Mandeep Yadav vs Subhash Chand Swami & Ors. (Cholamandalam Ms General Insurace Co. Ltd.)
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 10 August 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010191242025
+ MAC.APP. 225/2025
MANDEEP YADAV .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Amit Kr. Maihan, Adv.
versus
SUBHASH CHAND SWAMI & ORS. (CHOLAMANDALAM MS
GENERAL INSURACE CO. LTD.) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani (through VC),
Adv. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)
1. This appeal has been filed by appellant/injured for seeking
enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims
th
Tribunal, Patiala House Courts (‘ MACT/Tribunal ’) by award dated 28
November 2024 in MACP No. 131/2017, whereby compensation of
Rs.12,68,343/- along with interest at 7.5% per annum was awarded.
2. Mr. Amit Kr. Mahihan , counsel for the claimant, seeks enhancement of
two counts:
i. Functional disability was assessed at only 30%, despite the appellant
having suffered permanent disability of 55% in the right lower limb. It
is contended that the MACT failed to take into account the impact of
the injury on the appellant, who was working as an electrician;
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 225/2025 Page- 1/7
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:58:04
ii. Loss of income was awarded for a period of only six months on the
basis of minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker, whereas the
evidence on record shows that his treatment continued for about 3
years.
3. On the first issue, Mr. Nandwani , counsel for Insurance Company,
contends that the injured/claimant did not produce any documentary proof of
his vocation.
4. To this, Mr. Amit Kr. Mahihan , counsel for the injured/claimant, states
that the claimant had stated in his testimony that he was working as an
electrician and earning Rs.20,000/- per month.
5. He further points out that the MACT, on the basis of the statement
recorded by the police and forming part of the charge-sheet, noted that the
claimant had stated that he was working as an electrician in his statement
nd
dated 22 February 2017. The Tribunal found no reason to disbelieve the said
statement.
6. Considering the prolonged treatment undergone by the appellant, as is
evident from paragraphs 27 and 28 of the impugned award, the extent of his
injuries and the impact thereof require some consideration.
7. From paragraph 27 , it is quite evident that the appellant underwent a
series of serious and complicated surgeries in relation to the injuries sustained
by him. The same can also be seen from the testimony of PW2 , Dr. Rakesh
Mehta , Orthopaedic Surgeon, Surya Ortho & Trauma Centre, 5R5, NIT
Faridabad, Haryana, wherein, in his examination-in-chief conducted in
September 2019, he stated that he had been treating the claimant since the
st
date of the accident, i.e. 21 February 2017, and that “ his treatment is still
undergoing ”.
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 225/2025 Page- 2/7
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:58:04
8. He further deposed that the injured had suffered fractures of both bones
of the right leg at the upper end, for which a fixator was applied. He had also
suffered nervepalsy , and was admitted to the hospital on four different
st th
occasions: firstly , on 21 February 2017; secondly , on 10 May 2017; thirdly ,
th th
on 27 June 2017; and lastly , on 04 September 2019. He further stated that it
would take another two to three months for complete recovery.
9. PW2 further stated that, during the course of treatment, when the
claimant had started walking, the fracture in the middle of the leg opened up
and, therefore, a POP cast had to be applied.
10. To this, Mr. Nandwani , counsel for the Insurance Company, states that
the appellant had suffered another accident during the course of his treatment.
However, the Court notes that there is no cross-examination of either the
doctor or the claimant on this aspect. Therefore, the said contention cannot be
accepted.
11. Moreover, the MACT has also noted that the testimony of PW2 does
not indicate that there was any previous or old injury/fracture which had
opened up on account of the accident.
12. Mr. Amit, Kr. Mahihan , further states that the MACT has also noted the
testimony of Dr. Vijay Kumar Jain to prove the disability report, as PW3,
who stated that due to shortening and deformity in abnormal positions, patient
will have problems in standing on the affected leg and will also have
difficulties in walking on slope, plain and on stairs climbing.
13. The Supreme Court in M. Paramesh v VRL, Logistics Ltd & Anr.
2026 INSC 655, while dealing with an appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation in the case of a mason who had suffered amputation of his right
leg. Relying upon the decision in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 225/2025 Page- 3/7
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:58:04
SCC 343, the Court categorically observed that, depending upon the nature of
vocation undertaken by the injured-claimant prior to the accident, the
functional disability may be assessed at a higher percentage, including up to
100%. The Court noted that the work of a mason requires continuous use and
support of both legs and that the injury had rendered the claimant incapable of
performing the manual work which constituted his sole source of livelihood.
Relevant observations made by the Court are extracted as under:
“ 22. From the above observations in Raj
Kumar (supra), it becomes crystal clear that though the
physical disability may be assessed at a particular
percentage, the functional disability affecting earning
capacity may, depending upon the nature of avocation
carried on by the injured, be assessed at a higher
percentage including 100%. The assessment of
compensation in cases of permanent disability cannot
be undertaken by mechanically applying the percentage
of physical disability as the percentage of economic
loss.
23. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the
appellant was working as a mason at the time of the
accident. The work of a mason is essentially a physical
and manual avocation requiring continuous use and
support of both legs. The material on record further
reveals that on account of the injuries suffered in the
accident, the appellant underwent amputation of his
right leg above the knee.
24. By virtue of the aforesaid amputation, the appellant
has effectively lost his capacity to continue the work of a
mason which was admittedly the sole avocation being
pursued by him for earning his livelihood. It is not even
the case of the respondents that the appellant was
engaged in any other sedentary occupation or that
despite the amputation suffered by him, his earning
capacity remained unaffected.
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 225/2025 Page- 4/7
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:58:04
25. The amputation of the right leg above the knee has
not merely caused physical disability to the appellant
but has rendered him incapable of effectively carrying
on the manual and physical work which constituted his
only source of livelihood. In such circumstances,
restricting the loss of earning capacity to 70% merely
on the basis of physical disability would not be
justified. ”
(emphasis added)
14. This Court, in Devender Mehto v. Sh. Santosh Gupta & Ors.
2026:DHC:5428, while taking into consideration the principles enunciated in
Raj Kumar ( supra ) and the decision of the Supreme Court in M. Paramesh
( supra ), enhanced the functional disability from 50% to 70% in the case of a
person working as a labourer.
15. In the present case, there is no doubt that the injured-claimant was
working as an electrician, which has also been accepted by the MACT.
Considering the nature of his vocation and the principles laid down in Raj
Kumar ( supra ) and M. Paramesh ( supra ), this Court is of the view that the
functional disability ought to be assessed at 50% .
16. Further, having regard to the testimony of PW2 and the period during
which the injured remained unable to resume his vocation, loss of income is
assessed for a period of 3 years . Accordingly, loss of income for the said
period shall be calculated on the basis of the minimum wages of skilled
worker as per rates prevalent in Delhi, which was Rs. 11,830/-.
17. Accordingly, the revised computation is as under:
Sr.
No .
Heads Awarded by the
Awarded by
Tribunal
this Court
PECUNIARY LOSS
1. Expenditure on Medical Bills Rs.1,72,073/- Rs.1,72,073/-
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 225/2025 Page- 5/7
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:58:04
and medical treatment (A)
2. Expenditure on conveyance
(B)
Rs.20,000/- Rs.20,000/-
3 Expenditure on special diet
(C)
Rs.30,000/-· Rs.30,000/-·
4. Attendant charges (D) Rs.60,000/- Rs.60,000/-
5. Income of injured per
month(E)
Rs.11,830/- Rs.11,830/-
6 Loss of income (L) Rs. 70,980/- Rs.11,830 x 36 months =
Rs. 4,25,880/-
7. Add: Future prospects (F) 25% 25% of Rs.11,830 = Rs.
2,957.50/-
8. Multiplier (G) 14 14
9. Functional disability (H) 30% 50%
10. Loss of future income/future
earnings [(E+F) x 12 x G x H]
= (I)
Rs.7,45,290/- Rs. 12,42,150/-
NON-PECUNIARY LOSS
11. Pain and suffering (J) Rs.70,000/- Rs.70,000/-
12. Loss of amenities of life (K) Rs.30,000/- Rs.30,000/-
13. Compensation for mental and
physical shock (M)
Rs. 70,000/- Rs. 70,000/-
14. Total compensation (A + B +
C + D + H + I+ J+ K+L+M) =
(N)
Rs. 12,68,343/- Rs. 21,20,103/-
15. Interest awarded 7.5% per annum 7.5% per annum
16. Enhanced compensation Rs. 8,51,760/-
18. Accordingly, the compensation is enhanced by Rs. 8,51,760/-.
19. Enhanced amount, along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date
of filing the petition, shall be deposited before MACT within a period of six
weeks. It is directed that a lump sum amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- 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
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 225/2025 Page- 6/7
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:58:04
for periods of 3 months, 6 months, 9 months and so on, in succession as may
be calculated. Interest accruing on said FDRs shall be credited to the
designated Savings Bank Account of claimant. The amount of FDRs on
maturity would be released to the Savings Bank Account of claimant upon
due verification.
20. The originally awarded amount shall continue to be released in terms of
the directions in the award passed by the MACT.
21. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
22. Pending application(s), if any, are rendered infructuous.
23. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
AUGUST 10, 2026/vs/ bp
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 225/2025 Page- 7/7
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:31.08.2026
11:58:04