Sh Deepak Kumar vs Sh Abhinay Pandey & Ors.

$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 08 July 2026
+ MAC.APP. 486/2025
SH DEEPAK KUMAR .....Appellant
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar and Mr. Ritik
Singh, Advs.
versus

SH ABHINAY PANDEY & ORS. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv. for
Insurance Company.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/injured seeking
enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi [‘ MACT/Tribunal ’], vide
st
impugned award dated 21 October 2024, passed in Petition No. 21/22 ,
whereby compensation of Rs. 13,27,080/- along with interest at the rate of 9%
per annum was awarded [hereinafter, ‘ impugned award ’].
st
2. The present appeal pertains to an accident which occurred on 01
December 2020, when the injured/appellant was travelling in a TSR; the
driver thereof took a sharp turn at a high-speed, causing the TSR to overturn.
Consequently, the appellant/injured suffered grievous injuries, and remained
under treatment for eight months. He was certified as having 40% permanent
physical disability in respect of his left lower limb . The disability certificate in
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 486/2025 Page- 1/6

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:33:22

rd
this regard was issued on 03 October 2022 and forms a part of the record.
3. Mr. S.N. Parashar , counsel for appellant/injured, states that
appellant/injured was working as an ‘ electrician ’ and, therefore, his vocation
would have been affected as a result of such permanent disability. He further
states that, in view of the aforesaid, assessment of functional disability by the
MACT at 20% , by citing a rule that functional disability ought to be taken as
one-half of the permanent disability, is not sustainable. The MACT has, in
paragraphs 31 to 34 of the impugned award, dealt with the issue of functional
disability; however, the observation that “ as a matter of rule half of the
disability percentage has to be taken as functional disability, therefore, I take
his functional disability as 20% ” proceeds on an erroneous proposition of
law. There is no such rule or principle enunciated by any Court.
4. The guiding light on this issue is the decision of the Supreme Court, in
Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, which lays down a triple test ,
in the following manner, for assessing functional disability. For ease of
reference, the relevant portion from Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar ( supra ), is
extracted as under:
“ 11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect
of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the
injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in
terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in
terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by
applying the standard multiplier method used to determine
loss of dependency). We may however note that in some
cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the
Tribunal may find that the percentage of loss of earning
capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is
approximately the same as the percentage of permanent
disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt
the said percentage for determination of compensation. (See
for example, the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 486/2025 Page- 2/6

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:33:22

Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 254
: (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1258 : (2010) 10 Scale 298] and Yadava
Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 341 :
(2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1285 : (2010) 8 Scale 567] )
12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there
is any permanent disability and, if so, the extent of such
permanent disability. This means that the Tribunal should
consider and decide with reference to the evidence:

(i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary;
(ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent

total disablement or permanent partial disablement;
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference
to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the
limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is, the
permanent disability suffered by the person.
If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent
disability then there is no question of proceeding further and
determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the
Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it
will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal
ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the
claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine
whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect
his earning capacity.
13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on
the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The
Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant
could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what
he could not do as a result of the permanent disability (this is
also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of
loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his
avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident,
as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the
claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of
livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent
disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the
activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or
(iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 486/2025 Page- 3/6

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:33:22

his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some
other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he
continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. ”
(emphasis added)

In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar ( supra ), the Court summarized these principles,
which are extracted as under:

“ 19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above:
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from
injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to
the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the
percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently,
the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as
the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases,
where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that
the percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as the
percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who
examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his
permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the
extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is
something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with
reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different
percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons,
depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job,
age, education and other factors. ”

5. Considering the aforesaid principles, and applying them to the facts of
the case, plea of appellant/injured that he would have been adversely affected
in pursuing his vocation as an ‘ electrician ’ and, therefore, the functional
disability may be taken at 50% , is accepted.
6. Accordingly, the compensation shall be revised as under:

Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 486/2025 Page- 4/6

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:33:22

S. no Heads of Compensation Awarded by
Awarded by the
tribunal
Court
Pecuniary Loss
1. Compensation towards medical
Rs. 78,274/- Rs. 78,274/-
bills (A)
2. Expenditure on special diet,
Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 40,000/-
conveyance and attendant
charges (B)
3. Income of injured per month
Rs. 15,492/- Rs. 15,492/-
(C)
4. Loss of Income (D) [Rs.
Rs. 1,23,936/- Rs. 1,23,936/-
15,492/- X 8]
5. Future Prospects (E) 40% 40% [Rs. 6,196] 40% [Rs. 6,196]
6. Functional disability (E) 20% 50%
7. Multiplier (F) 17 17
8. Loss of future income (G) [(C
Rs. 8,84,870/- Rs. 22,12,176
+E) X 12 X E X F]
Non-pecuniary loss
9. Pain and suffering (H) Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/-
10. Loss of Amenities of Life (I) Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/-
11. Total [A + B + D + G + H + I] Rs. 13,27,080/- Rs. 26,54,386
12. Enhanced compensation Rs. 13,27,306/-
13.
Interest 9% 9%


Directions
7. Accordingly, the compensation shall stand enhanced by Rs.13,27,306/-
[‘ enhanced amount ’].
8. As regards the plea regarding minimum wages of an unskilled worker
taken at Rs. 15,492/- per month, Mr. S.N. Parashar , counsel for
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 486/2025 Page- 5/6

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:33:22

appellant/injured, does not point out any other evidence placed on record, in
support of his plea that the appellant/injured was working as an ‘ electrician ’
and earning Rs.25,000/- per month.
9. Accordingly, the determination by the MACT in this regard cannot be
faulted with.
10. Enhanced amount along with 9% interest per annum from the date of
filing the petition shall be deposited before MACT within a period of four
weeks. It is directed that a lump sum amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- 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 for periods of 3 month, 6 months, 9 months and so on, in succession as
maybe 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.
11. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of.
12. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
13. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.


(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
JULY 8, 2026/mk/ ya

Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 486/2025 Page- 6/6

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:33:22