Rahul Jangid vs Cholamandlam Insurance Company Ltd & Anr

$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

th
% Date of decision: 29 September 2026

# CNR No. DLHC011939882013
+ MAC.APP. 1178/2013
RAHUL JANGID .....Appellant
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate with
Mr. Ritik Singh, Advocate

versus

CHOLAMANDLAM INSURANCE COMPANY LTD & ANR
.....Respondents
Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate with
Ms. Mouli Sharma, Advocate for
Insurance Company.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
O R D E R
% 29.09.2026

1. This appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation
th
awarded vide judgment dated 30 January 2013 by Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Dwarka Courts (‘ MACT/Tribunal’ ), in MACT No. 66/11/10,
whereby compensation of Rs. 15,88,008/- along with interest @ 7.5% per
annum was awarded.
2. Mr. S.N. Parashar , counsel for claimant, seeks enhancement on two
counts:
Signature Not Verified

MAC.APP. 1178/2013 1/6

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:27:21

i. Firstly , that the loss of future income was awarded as a lump sum of
Rs. 3,00,000/- despite the injured claimant being 13 years at the date
of the accident and requiring lifelong catheterisation due to the
pelvic and urethral injury. Therefore, he contends, that for assessing
the loss of future earnings, the minimum wages prescribed for a
skilled worker ought to have been taken as the benchmark income.
The compensation ought to have been assessed in accordance with
the standard principles adopted in cases involving minor children,
i.e. by taking the minimum wages of a skilled worker as the base
income, adding 40% towards future prospects, and applying a
multiplier of 18.
ii. Secondly , he claims that the cost of catheterisation awarded at Rs.
10,80,000/- , was assessed using a multiplier of ‘15’ which ought to
have been much more, considering that the claimant would require
catheterisation for the rest of his life.
3. Ms. Mouli Sharma , counsel for Insurance Company, points out that
no functional disability has been certified, as is evident from paragraph 75
of the MACT award, and submits that the same would, therefore, have to
be taken into consideration.
4. PW-2 , Dr. Rishi Nayer , from RML Hospital, who was a member of
the Medical Board that examined the injured/claimant, testified regarding
the medical certificate issued by the Board. The certificate recorded that the
claimant had sustained a fracture of the pelvis and a urethral injury. It
further stated that he had no residual disability on account of the pelvic
fracture; however, owing to the urethral injury, he required daily self-
Signature Not Verified

MAC.APP. 1178/2013 2/6

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:27:21

catheterisation and dilation of the urinary passage. The certificate also
stated that the disability could not be quantified in percentage terms due to
the unavailability of relevant guidelines.
5. In his testimony, the doctor confirmed that the claimant required
self-catheterisation due to constriction of the urinary passage resulting from
the urethral injury. He further stated that the claimant would not be able to
meet the physical standards prescribed for jobs in the Army and
paramilitary services, although he might not suffer any disability in
performing ministerial jobs. During cross-examination, he stated that the
claimant's condition was unlikely to improve within six months or in the
future, particularly as he had already been suffering from the condition for
more than three years. This opinion was rendered by the medical expert ‘ as
per the general course of the disease ’.
6. Considering that the claimant was a 13-year-old student at the time
of the accident and continues to be constrained by the urethral injury,
which requires daily management, it is evident that the injury is likely to
affect his future employment prospects and his ability to pursue a normal
and successful career. Accordingly, the functional disability is assessed at
70%.
7. The loss of future income shall be calculated on the basis of the
minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker, amounting to Rs.4,358/-
per month, with an addition of 40% towards future prospects.
8. As regards the multiplier applicable to a minor, the view has already
been taken by this Court in Rubi Devi & Anr. v. The New India Assurance
Signature Not Verified

MAC.APP. 1178/2013 3/6

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:27:21

Co. Ltd. & Ors . 2026:DHC:3674, wherein the other judgments relating to
minors have been considered. Accordingly, relying upon the aforesaid
judgment, the applicable multiplier is taken as 18 for calculating
compensation.
9. Further, it has been noted by the MACT award in paragraph 84 that
nd st
claimant was under continuous treatment from 02 May 2009 to 01
December 2009. Accordingly, loss of income has to be given for a period
of 7 months during which the injured was in treatment.
10. The testimony of PW-1 , the claimant's father, as noted by the
MACT, also merits consideration. He has provided details of the continued
treatment undergone by the injured/claimant. He further stated that
whenever claimant has to ease himself, he has to rush home and easing out
takes about approximately 15 minutes every time. At the time of the
accident, he was studying in Class VIII of Venkateswar International
School , Sector-10, Dwarka.
11. As regards the second issue concerning the cost of catheterisation,
paragraphs 88 to 92 of the MACT award record that the claimant requires
daily catheterisation and would incur an expenditure of Rs.6,000/- per
month towards the same, as deposed to by the doctor. Compensation under
this head was calculated by applying a multiplier of 15. Considering that
the claimant was 13 years old at the time of the accident, the compensation
ought to have been calculated by applying a multiplier of 18.
12. Accordingly, the cost of catheterisation shall be calculated at
Rs.6,000/- per month, applying a multiplier of 18.
Signature Not Verified

MAC.APP. 1178/2013 4/6

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:27:21

13. The compensation is re-computed as under:
S. no. Heads Awarded by the
Awarded by
Tribunal
this Court
PECUNIARY LOSS
1. Cost of Treatment/Cost of
Purchase of Medicine (A)
Rs. 5,470/- Rs. 5,470/-
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 Charged (D) Rs. 27,538/- Rs. 27,538/-
5. Income of injured per
month(E)
Nil Rs. 4,358/-
6. Loss of income (F) Rs. Nil Rs. 30,506/-
7. Add: Future prospects (G) - 40%
8. Multiplier (H) - 18
9. Functional disability (I) - 70%
10. Loss of future
income/future earnings
[(E+F) x 12 x H x I] = (J)
Rs. 3,00,000/- Rs. 9,22,471/-
11. Cost for Self-
catheterisation (K)
Rs. 10,80,000/- Rs. 6000 x 12 x18=
Rs. 12,96,000/-
NON-PECUNIARY LOSS
12. Pain and suffering (L) Rs. 1,25,000/- Rs. 1,25,000/-
13. Total compensation (A + B
+ C +D+F+J+K+L) = (M)
Rs. 15,88,008/- Rs. 24,56,985-
14. Interest awarded 7.5% per annum 7.5% per annum
15. Enhanced compensation Rs. 8,68,977/-

14. Accordingly, the compensation is enhanced by Rs.8,68,977/-.
15. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation, along with accrued interest @7.5%, before the MACT
within a period of four weeks. Considering that the accident occurred in
2009 and the award was passed by the MACT in 2013, more that 13 years
Signature Not Verified

MAC.APP. 1178/2013 5/6

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:27:21

have lapses since the award. Accordingly, it would be appropriate to
release the entire compensation as a lumpsum to be paid to the claimant in
the designated saving bank account.
16. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. Pending applications (if any)
are rendered infructuous.
17. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.


ANISH DAYAL, J
SEPTEMBER 29, 2026/RK/zb


Signature Not Verified

MAC.APP. 1178/2013 6/6

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:27:21