Full Judgment Text
$ ~ 10 & 11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 20 February 2026
(10)
+ MAC.APP. 984/2016 & CM APPL. 43779/2016
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate (through
VC).
versus
SANJAY SACHDEVA & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mayank Khurana, Advocate
along with respondent no.1 in
person.
(11)
+ MAC.APP. 1004/2016 & CM APPL. 51009/2022
SANJAY SACHDEVA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Mayank Khurana, Advocate
along with appellant in person.
versus
BHOLA MAHATO & ORS (M/S RELIANCE GENERAL
INSRUANCE CO LTD) .....Respondents
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate (through
VC).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)
1. These are cross-appeals which have been filed impugning
th
Judgment dated 29 August 2016, passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:24.02.2026
16:46:53
MAC.APP. 984/2016 & MAC.APP. 1004/2016 Page 1 of 9
Tribunal (' MACT ') , Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Petition No.
No.77029/2016. MAC.APP. 984/2016 has been filed by the Insurance
Company challenging the award on the basis of assessment of
benchmark income at Rs.12,000 /- per month, without any evidence, and
that the functional disability should not be assessed as more than 40% .
The cross-appeal, MAC.APP. 1004/2016 , has been filed by the claimant
seeking enhancement of compensation.
th
2. The accident occurred on 10 May 2012 at about 10:45 AM near
Tagore Garden, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi , when Sanjay Sachdeva /
injured, was going on motorcycle and was hit by a truck bearing
registration no. HR-38-N-5102, driven at high speed in a rash and
negligent manner, resulting in grievous injuries to the injured. A claim
petition was filed by the injured, whereby MACT vide judgment dated
th
29 August 2016, awarded compensation of Rs. 39,10,090/- along with
9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the petition.
3. Enhancement has been sought on the following parameters; firstly ,
that the disability having been certified at 93% permanent disability with
respect to right lower limb, should be considered at above 40% ;
secondly , that the assumption of benchmark income at Rs.12,000 /- per
month to be assessed in the context of the certificates of qualification
which have been produced by the claimant; thirdly , that the age of the
claimant was 34 years on the date of the accident and, therefore, a
multiplier of 16 ought to have been applied; and lastly , that as per the
principles of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi &
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:24.02.2026
16:46:53
MAC.APP. 984/2016 & MAC.APP. 1004/2016 Page 2 of 9
Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680, future prospects at 40% ought to have been
granted.
4. The Court has perused the MACT's award and finds that testimony
of PW-3/ Dr. Naresh Chandra , Ortho Specialist, Guru Gobind Singh
Hospital, who was a member of the Medical Board and has examined
claimant, was recorded. According to the Disability Certificate
( EX.PW3/1) , the claimant suffered 93% permanent physical disability in
relation to his right lower limb.
5. Mr. Mayank Khurana, counsel for claimant, states that claimant is
unable to even bend his knee, considering that his right leg is effectively
non-functional and, therefore, his employment and livelihood have been
seriously affected. He relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in
Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande (2017) 3 SCC 351, where in similar
circumstances, the claimant was a Chartered Accountant and had been
certified with 70% permanent disability. The Supreme Court assessed
the permanent disability at 70% itself, enhancing it from 45% as had
been assessed by the MACT. The Supreme Court stated as under:
“ 14. The crucial factor which has to be taken into
consideration, thus, is to assess as to whether the
permanent disability has any adverse effect on the earning
capacity of the injured. In this sense, MACT approached
the issue in the right direction by taking into consideration
the aforesaid test. However, we feel that the conclusion of
MACT, on the application of the aforesaid test, is
erroneous. A very myopic view is taken by MACT in
taking the view that 70% permanent disability suffered by
the appellant would not impact the earning capacity of the
appellant. MACT thought that since the appellant is a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:24.02.2026
16:46:53
MAC.APP. 984/2016 & MAC.APP. 1004/2016 Page 3 of 9
Chartered Accountant, he is supposed to do sitting work
and, therefore, his working capacity is not impaired. Such
a conclusion was justified if the appellant was in the
employment where job requirement could be to do
sitting/table work and receive monthly salary for the said
work. An important feature and aspect which is ignored by
MACT is that the appellant is a professional Chartered
Accountant. To do this work efficiently and in order to
augment his income, a Chartered Accountant is supposed
to move around as well. If a Chartered Accountant is
doing taxation work, he has to appear before the assessing
authorities and appellate authorities under the Income
Tax Act, as a Chartered Accountant is allowed to practice
up to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Many times
Chartered Accountants are supposed to visit their clients
as well. In case a Chartered Accountant is primarily doing
audit work, he is not only required to visit his clients but
various authorities as well. There are many statutory
functions under various statutes which the Chartered
Accountants perform. Free movement is involved for
performance of such functions. A person who is engaged
and cannot freely move to attend to his duties may not be
able to match the earning in comparison with the one who
is healthy and bodily abled. Movements of the appellant
have been restricted to a large extent and that too at a
young age. Though the High Court recognised this, it did
not go forward to apply the principle of multiplier. We are
of the opinion that in a case like this and having regard to
the injuries suffered by the appellant, there is a definite
loss of earning capacity and it calls for grant of
compensation with the adoption of multiplier method, as
held by this Court in Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance
Co. Ltd. ”
(emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:24.02.2026
16:46:53
MAC.APP. 984/2016 & MAC.APP. 1004/2016 Page 4 of 9
6. The other decision relied upon is Mohd. Sabeer v. U.P. SRTC,
(2023) 20 SCC 774 , where taking into account the decision of Sandeep
Khanuja ( supra ), the Court enhanced the functional disability from 35%
to 60% in a case where permanent disability was assessed at 70% in
relation to right lower limb, resulting from amputation. The relevant
paragraph is extracted as below:
“ 15. The appellant herein has suffered permanent
disability of 70% and has an amputated right lower limb
amongst other injuries. The High Court has wrongly taken
the view that the appellant has only suffered 35%
functional disability. The appellant is not a salaried
person but is self-employed who manages his business.
For the appellant to be able to augment his income, he is
most definitely required to move around. The appellant
can also not drive on his own, which hinders his mobility
further. This proves that the functional disability of the
appellant will severely impact his earning capacity, and
the 35% functional disability calculated by the High Court
is incorrect in the facts and circumstances of the case and
in our view the loss of future earning capacity must be
calculated at 60%.”
(emphasis supplied)
7. Mr. A.K. Soni , however, states that the functional disability should
not be taken at more than 40%, considering that the person was doing a
desk job and did not require much movement.
8. However, the Court is persuaded by the judgments of the Supreme
Court, presented by counsel for claimant. Being an accountant or having
a desk job does not mean that there is no further functionality required
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:24.02.2026
16:46:53
MAC.APP. 984/2016 & MAC.APP. 1004/2016 Page 5 of 9
from a person. The observations made by the Supreme Court are,
therefore, pertinent in this context.
9. Moreover, the educational qualifications of claimant exhibited as
Ex.PW-1/13 and Ex.PW-1/14 show that he had professional skills in
fashion designing and Computerized Accounts. He was a matriculate,
had completed one year diploma in fashion designing from International
Institute of Fashion Technology and one month course in Computerized
Accounts ( Tally 6.3/Taxation ) from Suneha Institute / Ex PW1/14 . Even
the MACT states that these documents have not been disputed and there
is no reason to disbelieve them. This clearly shows that claimant was
engaged in more than a purely sitting job to earn his livelihood.
10. Keeping this into consideration and the principles enunciated in
Mohd. Sabeer ( supra ) and Sandeep Khanuja ( supra ), the functional
disability ought to be considered at 70%, in context of the fact that
permanent disability was certified as 93% with respect to right lower
limb. This is also because the claimant underwent several operations on
th rd th th th
10 May 2012, 23 June 2012, 24 July 2012, 28 September 2012, 27
rd th
January 2014, 3 March 2014 and 6 September 2014 and, incurred a
huge amount of Rs.23,31,090 /-, which details are on record.
11. As regards the notional income of Rs.12,000 /-, even though there
was no proof of income, minimum wages of a skilled worker at that time
was Rs.8,528/-. Taking the benchmark income at Rs.12,000/- would not
be amiss by the MACT. It was on record that claimant was running his
own firm under the name and style of M/s Sachdeva & Co. and had
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:24.02.2026
16:46:53
MAC.APP. 984/2016 & MAC.APP. 1004/2016 Page 6 of 9
claimed that he was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. He had filed the
photocopies of Income Tax Returns for the assessment years 2011-2012
and 2012-2013 as Ex.PW1/11 . However, they were not formally proved
by examining the witnesses from the Income Tax Department.
12. Considering that the photocopies filed have an acknowledgement
receipt of the Income Tax Department, there is no reason to disbelieve
the same. Accordingly, this aspect of computation will not be disturbed.
13. The MACT's reasoning that since the claimant could not work for
30 months from May 2012 till October 2014, his age should be
considered as 36 years and 7 months, having lost 2 years since the date
of the accident, in his recovery. This kind of assessment is completely
illogical, random, non-standardized and unsustainable, which militates
against the principles enunciated by the Constitution Bench in Pranay
Sethi ( supra ). Therefore, considering that the age of claimant was
th
admittedly 34 years ( date of birth being 27 March 1978 ) on date of
accident, the future prospects at 40% , and a multiplier of 16 should be
applied as per the principles in Pranay Sethi ( supra ).
14. The revised computation is as under:
S. no Heads of Compensation Awarded by
Awarded by
Tribunal
the Court
Pecuniary Loss
1. Expenditure on treatment (A) Rs. 23,31,090/- Rs. 23,31,090/-
2. Expenditure on special diet (B) Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 40,000/-
3. Expenditure on conveyance (C) Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 25,000/-
4. Attendant charges (D) Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 40,000/-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:24.02.2026
16:46:53
MAC.APP. 984/2016 & MAC.APP. 1004/2016 Page 7 of 9
5. Income of injured per month (E) Rs. 12,000/- Rs. 12,000/-
6. Future prospects @ 40% (F) Nil Rs. 4,800/-
7. Loss of income (E) x 30=(G) Rs. 3,60,000/- Rs. 3,60,000/-
8. Functional disability (H) 40% 70%
9. Multiplier (I) 15 16
10. Loss of future income
Rs. 8,64,000/- Rs. 22,57,920/-
[(E+F) x 12 x H x I]= J
Non-pecuniary loss
11. Pain and suffering (K) Rs. 75,000/- Rs. 75,000/-
12. Loss of Amenities of Life (L) Rs. 75,000/- Rs. 75,000/-
13. Loss of marriage prospects (M) Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/-
Total (A+B+C+D+G+J+K+L+M)=N
14. Rs. 39,10,000/- Rs. 53,04,010/-
15. Interest 9% 9%
th
15. Vide order dated 25 November 2016, this Court directed stay of
the impugned award subject to deposit of entire awarded amount along
with 9% interest per annum with the MACT. Therefore, it is directed that
the enhanced compensation along with 9% interest per annum from the
date of filing the petition will be deposited before the MACT within a
period of four weeks.
16. It is directed that a lump sum amount of Rs.5,00,000/- shall be
released to the claimant 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:24.02.2026
16:46:53
MAC.APP. 984/2016 & MAC.APP. 1004/2016 Page 8 of 9
Savings Bank Account of the claimant. The amounts of FDRs on
maturity would be released to the Savings Bank Account of claimant
upon due verification.
17. Appeals are disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications,
if any, are rendered infructuous.
18. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to the appellant.
19. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 20, 2026 / ak/zb
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:24.02.2026
16:46:53
MAC.APP. 984/2016 & MAC.APP. 1004/2016 Page 9 of 9