Sh Jamshaid Ali vs Sh Moohammad & Ors.

$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
st
% Date of decision: 1 April 2026

+ MAC.APP. 145/2023
SH JAMSHAID ALI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Ritik Singh, Mr. S.N. Parashar,
Advocates.
versus

SH MOOHAMMAD & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Mouli Sharma, Advocate for Ms.
Suman Bagga, Advocate
for Respondent No.3/Insurance
Company.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)
1. This appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation
th
awarded vide award dated 10 October 2022 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi
(‘ MACT/Tribunal ’) in MACT No.1378/2017 of Rs.26,87,390 /- along with
interest @ 9% per annum.
2. Mr. Ritik Singh , counsel for the appellant/injured/claimant, seeks
enhancement on the ground that the benchmark income of the injured, taken
as the minimum wages of a skilled worker at Rs. 9,118/- per month, was not
appropriate, considering that the injured/claimant had stated that he was
earning Rs. 20,000/- per month as a transport vehicle driver and had placed
his driving licence on record, which was not disputed by the Insurance
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 145/2023 Page 1 of 9

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:13.04.2026
18:01:50

Company. He places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in
Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav 2021 INSC
593, wherein the Supreme Court observed that some guesswork is necessary
in the absence of documentary evidence and assessed the benchmark income
of a driver of a heavy vehicle at Rs. 15,000/- per month .
3. Mr. Ritik Singh also claims that considering that functional disability
was considered at 100% based on 90% permanent disability in relation to
the lower limb, the non-pecuniary compensation was also inadequate.
4. Ms. Mouli Sharma , counsel for the Insurance Company relies on
Shabana & Ors. v Raj Pal Kheri & Ors . 2026:DHC:2184 to state that this
Court has already awarded Rs.10,000 /- in a similar matter to a driver of a
commercial vehicle.
5. The Court has perused the driving licence of the injured and has also
considered the deposition of PW1, the injured, wherein he has categorically
stated that he was working as a driver of commercial vehicle and was
earning Rs. 20,000/- per month . The said testimony has remained unshaken,
as no contrary suggestion has been made in his cross-examination as regards
his occupation.
6. In these circumstances, and in the absence of documentary proof of
income, some guesswork is required to be made. Considering the nature of
the vocation of the injured, who was engaged as a driver of a commercial
vehicle, it can be presumed that he was earning not less than Rs. 15,000/- per
month. Accordingly, this Court deems it fit to take the monthly income of
the injured at Rs. 15,000/- per month .
7. As regards the issue of inadequate compensation for non-pecuniary
damages, reliance may be placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 145/2023 Page 2 of 9

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:13.04.2026
18:01:50

K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi and Anr . 2024 SCC Online SC 3385,
observed that ‘ pain and suffering ’ cannot be captured by any fixed definition,
drawing on legal, medical, and philosophical sources to emphasise its deeply
subjective and life-altering nature. It recognised that translating such
profound human loss into money is an inherently artificial exercise, yet courts
must ensure fairness, consistency, and sensitivity to the victim’s lifelong
deprivation. The Court stressed that in cases of severe or 100% disability,
compensation must meaningfully reflect the permanent rupture in the victim’s
physical, emotional, and existential well-being. Relevant paragraphs are
extracted as under:
“ 13. While acknowledging that ‘pain and suffering’, as a
concept escapes definition, we may only refer to certain
authorities, scholarly as also judicial wherein attempts
have been made to set down the contours thereof.
13.1 The entry recording the term ‘pain and suffering’ in
9
P. Ramanatha Iyer's Advanced Law Lexicon reads as
under:—
“ Pain and suffering. The term ‘Pain and suffering’ mean
physical discomfort and distress and include mental and
emotional trauma for which damages can be recovered in
an accident claim.
This expression has become almost a term of art, used
without making fine distinction between pain and
suffering. Pain and suffering which a person undergoes
cannot be measured in terms of money by any
mathematical calculation. Hence the Court awards a sum
which is in the nature of a conventional award [Mediana,
The, [1900] A.C. 113, 116]”
*
13.5 In determining non-pecuniary damages, the artificial
nature of computing compensation has been highlighted
16
in Heil v. Rankin , as referred to in Attorney General of
17
St. Helenav. AB as under:—
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 145/2023 Page 3 of 9

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:13.04.2026
18:01:50

“23. This principle of ‘full compensation’ applies to
pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage alike. But, as
Dickson J indicated in the passage cited from his
judgment in Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd.,
83 DLR (3d) 452, 475-476, this statement
immediately raises a problem in a situation where
what is in issue is what the appropriate level of ‘full
compensation’ for non-pecuniary injury is when the
compensation has to be expressed in pecuniary
terms. There is no simple formula for converting the
pain and suffering, the loss of function, the loss of
amenity and disability which an injured person has
sustained, into monetary terms. Any process of
conversion must be essentially artificial. Lord
Pearce expressed it well in H West & Son Ltd. v.
Shephard, [1964] A.C. 326 when he said:
‘The court has to perform the difficult and artificial
task of converting into monetary damages the
physical injury and deprivation and pain and to give
judgment for what it considers to be a reasonable
sum. It does not look beyond the judgment to the
spending of the damages.’
24. The last part of this statement is undoubtedly
right. The injured person may not even be in a
position to enjoy the damages he receives because of
the injury which he has sustained. Lord Clyde
recognised this in Wells v. Wells, [1999] A.C. 345,
394H when he said:‘One clear principle is that what
the successful plaintiff will in the event actually do
with the award is irrelevant.”
*
14. In respect of ‘pain and suffering’ in cases where
disability suffered is at 100%, we may notice a few
decisions of this Court:—
14.1 In R.D Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. It
was observed:
“ 17. The claim under Sl. No. 16 for ‘pain and suffering’
and for loss of amenities of life under Sl. No. 17, are
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 145/2023 Page 4 of 9

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:13.04.2026
18:01:50

claims for non-pecuniary loss. The appellant has claimed
lump sum amount of Rs. 3,00,000 each under the two
heads. The High Court has allowed Rs. 1,00,000 against
the claims of Rs. 6,00,000. When compensation is to be
awarded for ‘pain and suffering’ and loss of amenity of
life, the special circumstances of the claimant have to be
taken into account including his age, the unusual
deprivation he has suffered, the effect thereof on his future
life. The amount of compensation for non-pecuniary loss
is not easy to determine but the award must reflect that
different circumstances have been taken into
consideration. According to us, as the appellant was an
advocate having good practice in different courts and as
because of the accident he has been crippled and can
move only on wheelchair, the High Court should have
allowed an amount of Rs. 1,50,000 in respect of claim for
‘pain and suffering’ and Rs. 1,50,000 in respect of loss of
amenities of life. We direct payment of Rs. 3,00,000
(Rupees three lakhs only) against the claim of Rs.
6,00,000 under the heads “‘pain and suffering’” and
“Loss of amenities of life”.
14.2 This Judgment was recently referred to by this Court
in Sidram v. United India Insurance Company Ltd
reference was also made to Karnataka SRTC v. Mahadeva
Shetty (irrespective of the percentage of disability
incurred, the observations are instructive), wherein it was
observed:
“18. A person not only suffers injuries on account of
accident but also suffers in mind and body on account of
the accident through out his life and a feeling is developed
that his no more a normal man and cannot enjoy the
amenities of life as another normal person can. While
fixing compensation for pain and suffering as also for loss
of amenities, features like his age, marital status and
unusual deprivation he has undertaken in his life have to
be reckoned…”
(emphasis added)

Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 145/2023 Page 5 of 9

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:13.04.2026
18:01:50

8. In light of the observations of the Supreme Court in K.S. Muralidhar
( supra ), this Court is of the opinion, the grant of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards pain
and suffering is inadequate. The Supreme Court has consistently adopted a
liberal and realistic approach in such cases, as is evident from the judgment in
Mohd. Sabeer v. U.P. SRTC , (2023) 20 SCC 774, wherein, in a situation
involving amputation, the Supreme Court awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- towards
pain and suffering, disfigurement , and loss of amenities of life . The Supreme
Court observed as under:

“Non-pecuniary compensation
24… this Court is of the opinion that the compensation
provided by the High Court for non-pecuniary heads is
inadequate.
25. In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd.
[R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995)
1 SCC 551 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 250] dealing with the
different heads of compensation in injury cases this Court
held that : (SCC p. 556, para 9)
	“9. Broadly speaking while fixing the amount of
	compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the
	damages have to be assessed separately as
	pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary
	damages are those which the victim has actually
	incurred and which are capable of being calculated
	in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages
	are those which are incapable of being assessed by
	arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two
	concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses
	incurred by the claimant : (i) medical attendance;
	(ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial;
	(iii) other material loss. So far as non-pecuniary
	damages are concerned, they may include : (i)
	damages for mental and physical shock, pain and
	suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in
	the future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of

Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 145/2023 Page 6 of 9

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:13.04.2026
18:01:50

	amenities of life which may include a variety of
	matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may
	not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the
	loss of expectation of life i.e. on account of injury the
	normal longevity of the person concerned is
	shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort,
	disappointment, frustration and mental stress in
	life.”
26. In light of the above decision of this Court and the
facts and circumstances of the case at hand, the
compensation to be awarded is as follows:
I. Compensation for pain and suffering — Rs 2,00,000
II. Compensation for loss of amenities of life — Rs
2,00,000
III. Compensation for disability and disfigurement — Rs
2,00,000
Conclusion
***
28. It is almost universally seen that persons from
marginalised backgrounds often face an additional layer
of discrimination due to bodily disabilities. This is
because persons from marginalised sections of the society
already face severe discrimination due to a lack of social
capital, and a new disability more often than not
compounds to such discrimination. In such circumstances,
to preserve the essence of justice, it becomes the duty of
the Court to at the very least restore the claimant as best
as possible to the position he was in before the occurrence
of the disability, and to do so must award compensation in
a liberal manner.
29. While no material compensation can completely
negate the trauma and suffering that the injured and his
family faces, the law only knows the language of monetary
compensation in such cases. It then becomes the duty of
the court to translate the provisions of monetary
compensation into a fabrication that helps the injured and
his family in coping with their loss.”

(emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 145/2023 Page 7 of 9

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:13.04.2026
18:01:50

9. Considering the observations of the Supreme Court and the fact that the
present case involves amputation and the injured was only 35 years of age and
was working as a driver, the compensation awarded towards pain and
suffering , loss of amenities of life and disfigurement is inadequate; therefore,
Rs. 2,00,000/- is awarded under each of the heads and the same would be in
line with the principles of just and reasonable compensation.
10. However, in view of principle laid down in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar
(2011) 1 SCC 343, compensation granted towards mental and physical shock
ought to be deleted since it stands subsumed under the category of pain and
suffering .
11. Accordingly, the revised computation is as under:

Sr.<br>No.		Heads	Awarded by the<br>Tribunal	Awarded by<br>this Court
PECUNIARY LOSS
1		Expenditure on Medical Bills<br>(A)	1,00,000/-	1,00,000/-
2		Expenditure on conveyance,<br>special diet and attendant<br>charges (B)	25,000/-	25,000/-
3		Income of injured (C)	Rs. 9,118/-	Rs. 15,000/-
4		Add: Future prospects (D)	40% (Rs. 12,765.20)	40% (Rs. 21,000)
5		Multiplier (E)	16	16
6		Functional disability (F)	100%	100%
7		Loss of income/Wages (G)	Rs. 36,472/- (Rs.<br>9,118/- x 4)	Rs. 60,000/-<br>(Rs. 15,000/- x 4)
8		Loss of future income/future<br>earnings [(C+D) x 12 x E x F]<br>= (H)	Rs.24,50,918/-	Rs. 40,32,000/-
	NON-PECUNIARY LOSS

9		Pain and suffering (I)	10,000/-	Rs. 2,00,000/-

Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 145/2023 Page 8 of 9

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:13.04.2026
18:01:50

10	Mental and Physical shock (J)	5,000/-	NIL
11	Conveyance and special diet<br>(K)	Rs. 10,000 and Rs.<br>10,000/- = Rs.<br>20,000/-	Rs. 10,000 and Rs.<br>10,000/- =<br>Rs. 20,000/-
12	Loss of amenities of life (L)	50,000/-	Rs.2,00,000/-
13	Disfiguration (M)	10,000/-	Rs.2,00,000/-
14	Loss of marriage prospects<br>(N)	NIL	NIL
15	Total compensation (A + B +<br>G + H + I + J+ K + L+M+N)<br>= O	Rs.26,87,390/-	Rs. 48,37,000/-
16	Interest awarded	9% per annum	9% per annum

13. Enhanced compensation, along with 9% interest per annum from date
of filing DAR will be deposited before the MACT within a period of six
weeks. The enhanced compensation shall be released to the claimant as per
the Scheme given in the impugned award.
14. Further, it is directed that a lump sum amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- shall be
released to the claimant within a period of two weeks thereafter. The
remaining amount, along with the accrued interest, shall be kept in Fixed
Deposit Receipts ( FDRs ) as per the scheme of the impugned award.
15. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of in above terms. Pending
applications, if any, be refunded to the appellant.
16. Copy of this judgment be sent to MACT and the concerned bank.
17. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.

(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
APRIL 1, 2026/ ak/bp

Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 145/2023 Page 9 of 9

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:13.04.2026
18:01:50