Magma Hdi General Insurance Co Ltd vs Naresh Pandit & Ors.

Court: Delhi High Court
Case type: Misc Application
Decided on: 23-03-2026

<div> $~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI rd % Date of decision: 23 March 2026 + MAC.APP. 271/2021& CM APPL.34953/2021 MAGMA HDI GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD.....Appellant Through: Mr. Ved Vyas Tripathi, Advocate versus NARESH PANDIT & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shrey Chathly, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL JUDGMENT ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL) 1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company seeking th reduction of compensation awarded vide judgment dated 20 January 2020, passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [“ MACT ”] in MACP No.76735/2016 , whereby compensation of Rs.40,14,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum was awarded. nd rd 2. Accident occurred on the intervening night of 2 /3 July 2014, when Naresh Pandit /injured [ respondent no.1 herein ], aged about 25 years, was working as a truck driver and, while repairing a punctured tyre of his truck near G.T Road, in front of Annapurna Apartment, Sahibabad, Uttar Pradesh , a truck bearing no. JH 02P 8075 [“ offending vehicle ”], driven by respondent no.3 and owned by respondent no.2, hit the stationary vehicle from behind causing grievous injuries and leading to above-knee amputation of left leg Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing Date:02.04.2026 15:04:24 MAC.APP. 271/2021 Page 1 of 11 and fracture to the shaft of right femur . Upon filing claim petition, MACT relied on the testimony of the injured/respondent no.1 [ PW-3] and eyewitness/employer [ PW-4 ], and the absence of rebuttal evidence, held the driver to be negligent. 3. MACT awarded compensation to the respondent no.1/injured on account of grievous injuries resulting in above-knee amputation of the left leg and fracture of the right femur, treating the functional disability as 100% in relation to the whole body. The compensation was computed under various pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads as follows: Rs. 3,41,334/- towards medical expenses ; Rs. 50,000/- towards conveyance ; Rs. 35,000/- towards special diet ; Rs. 50,000/- towards attendant charges ; Rs. 31,37,100/- towards loss of future earning capacity on account of permanent disability ; Rs. 2,00,000/- towards pain, suffering and trauma ; and Rs. 2,00,000/- towards loss of amenities of life and disfigurement . Accordingly, the total compensation was assessed at Rs.40,13,434/-, rounded off to Rs.40,14,000/- , along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. Analysis 4. The functional disability was taken as 100%, considering that injured was a truck driver and his permanent disability was certified at 81% with regard to both his limbs, as per disability certificate [ Exhibit PW1/1 ]. MACT, in the impugned award, categorically held that injured was a driver by profession and that his driving license was not challenged. Endorsing this th view, this Court while admitting the appeal on 05 October, 2021 noted as under: Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing Date:02.04.2026 15:04:24 MAC.APP. 271/2021 Page 2 of 11 “7. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned with regard to taking the functional disability at 100%, I am of the view that the award prima facie does not suffer from said infirmity for the reasons that injured was a truck driver and he sustained 81% disability with regard to both his limbs and had also suffered amputation above the knee of the left leg. Clearly the claimant would not be in a position to drive a vehicle because of injury sustained in the accident.” 5. The Court also, on the same day directed release of the 100% of the amount under the head of a loss of future income and directed as under: “11. The tribunal shall release 100% of the amount awarded under the heads; (1) ‘Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation and medicines’, (2) ‘Conveyance’, (3) ‘Food (Special Diet)’ (4) ‘Attendant Charges’ and (5) ‘Pain, Suffering & Trauma’ and further the amount awarded under the head of ‘Loss of future earning on account of permanent disability’ as per the scheme of disbursal.” 6. In any event, considering that the vocation of respondent no.1/injured [ truck driver ] would be seriously affected by the said disability, this Court is not inclined to accept this plea of appellant/Insurance Company and reduce the functional disability. 7. Second issue , raised by Mr. Ved Vyas Tripathi , counsel for Insurance Company, relates to the grant of non-pecuniary compensation under the head of loss of amenities and disfigurement at Rs.2,00,000/-. He places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2019) 7 SCC 217, which, while quoting in paragraph 5.5 extracts from Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343, noted that the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing Date:02.04.2026 15:04:24 MAC.APP. 271/2021 Page 3 of 11 amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and, as a result, only a total or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life . 8. However, this argument made by Mr . Tripathi , counsel for Insurance Company, may not be tenable, considering that the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar ( supra ) made the said observation in the context of duplication of compensation and not for diluting the award of nominal amounts towards the non-pecuniary damages. Relevant paragraphs of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar ( supra ) are extracted as under: “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 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. ……… 15. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing Date:02.04.2026 15:04:24 MAC.APP. 271/2021 Page 4 of 11 and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may.” (emphasis added) 9. Even in Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ( supra ), the Supreme Court awarded Rs.10,00,000/- as a lump sum amount towards future medical expenses and attendant charges , looking at the condition of claimant. For ease of reference, relevant paragraph is extracted as under: </div><table><thead><tr><th>“5.12.</th><th>Given the debilitated state of the appellant, no</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>amount of money can compensate him. He has been in</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>this condition since the age of 22 years when the</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>accident took place, and will remain like this throughout</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>his life. The appellant has also been deprived of having</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>a normal married life with a family, and would require</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>medical assistance from time to time. Being completely</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>dependent, he would require the help of an attendant</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>throughout his life. In view of these uncontroverted</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>facts, we deem it fit and appropriate to award a lump</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>sum amount of Rs 10,00,000 to the appellant towards</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>medical expenses and attendant charges.”</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div> (emphasis added) 10. On this ground also, this Court does not find anything amiss in compensation granted by MACT under the head of loss of amenities and disfigurements in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- , particularly considering the above knee amputation of the left leg, fracture of the shaft of right femur, and the age of respondent no.1 being 25 years on the date of the accident. 11. Third issue , which has been raised by Mr . Tripathi , counsel for Insurance Company, relates to the award by the MACT towards future medical expenses , essentially towards the cost of the prosthetic and its Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing Date:02.04.2026 15:04:24 MAC.APP. 271/2021 Page 5 of 11 maintenance. This was based on the testimony of Ms. Nupur Bhardwaj, Prosthetist & Orthotist of Ottobock Healthcare India Private Limited [ PW- 2 ], who provided certain quotations for the above-knee prosthetic. Same was Rs.5,76,580/- with 10% increase every year and 5% GST. 12. Mr . Tripathi , counsel for Insurance Company, relies upon the decision in HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mukesh Kumar (2022) 14 SCC 470, where reliance has been placed on earlier decision in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274 and Sapna v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2008) 7 SCC 613,to contend that future medical expenses cannot be granted as a matter of continuing mandamus and the determination of such amounts must be made at one go. 13. The Court is also of the opinion that the compensation towards use of prosthetics, or any other future medical expenses, cannot be granted by way of an open-ended direction, but will have to be determined by some reasonable estimation at the stage of passing the award with such qualifications as may be necessary. 14. In the present case, the prosthetic has, till date has not been used by respondent no.1/injured, as stated by Mr. Shrey Chathly , counsel for claimant. Claimant is approximately about 37 years of age and, taking into account the discussion in Mohd Sabeer Alias Shabir Hussain v Regional Manager, UPSRTC, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1701, estimating that he would require a prosthetic and would continue to use it for approximately 35 years, with the approximate estimated life of prosthetic being about seven years, he would require at least five prosthetics. 15. Cost of prosthetic is considered as per the quotation, extracted as under: Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing Date:02.04.2026 15:04:24 MAC.APP. 271/2021 Page 6 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing Date:02.04.2026 15:04:24 MAC.APP. 271/2021 Page 7 of 11 16. In Mohd Sabeer Alias Shabir Hussain v Regional Manager, UP State Road Transport Corporation ( supra ), the Supreme Court assumed that a person would ordinarily live till he is 70-years-old if not more, and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing Date:02.04.2026 15:04:24 MAC.APP. 271/2021 Page 8 of 11 accordingly, awarded compensation keeping into account the estimated life of prosthetic usage. Relevant paragraph is extracted as under: “ 23. As per the current compensation given for the prosthetic limb and its maintenance, it would last the appellant for only 15 years, even if we were to assume that the limb would not need to be replaced after a few years. The appellant was only 37 years at the time of the accident, and it would be reasonable to assume that he would live till he is 70 years old if not more. We are of the opinion that the appellant must be compensated so that he is able to purchase three prosthetic limbs in his lifetime and is able to maintain the same at least till he has reached 70 years of age. For the prosthetic limbs alone, the appellant is to be awarded compensation of Rs 7,80,000 and for maintenance of the same he is to be awarded an additional Rs 5,00,000. ” (emphasis added) 17. Taking a broad assessment of these costs towards the prosthetic limbs and their maintenance over the lifetime of the claimant, estimating Rs.6,50,000/- towards prosthetic and Rs.50,000/- towards maintenance, bringing the total of Rs.7,00,000/- for each prosthetic, compensation for 5 prosthetics is assessed at Rs. 35,00,000 /-. Considering that this amount is being calculated as of the present date, question of interest on Rs.35,00,000/- would not arise. 18. Therefore, total amount of Rs.40,14,000/- (awarded by MACT) along with Rs. 35,00,000 /- (additional compensation for prosthetic and its maintenance is awarded). Revised computation is as under: </div><table><thead><tr><th>S.NO</th><th>HEADS</th><th></th><th>AWARDED BY</th><th></th><th></th><th>AWARDED BY</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>TRIBUNAL</td><td></td><td></td><td>COURT</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1.</td><td>Reimbursement of medical expenses (A)</td><td>Rs. 3,41,334/-</td><td></td><td></td><td>Rs. 3,41,334/-</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div> Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing Date:02.04.2026 15:04:24 MAC.APP. 271/2021 Page 9 of 11 </div><table><thead><tr><th>2.</th><th>Conveyance (B)</th><th>Rs. 50,000/-</th><th>Rs. 50,000/-</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>3.</td><td>Special diet (C)</td><td>Rs.35,000/-</td><td>Rs.35,000/-</td></tr><tr><td>4.</td><td>Attendant charges (D)</td><td>Rs. 50,000/-</td><td>Rs. 50,000/-</td></tr><tr><td>5.</td><td>Income of injured (E)</td><td>Rs.10,374/-</td><td>Rs.10,374/-</td></tr><tr><td>6.</td><td>Add Future Prospects (F)</td><td>40%</td><td>40%</td></tr><tr><td>7.</td><td>Multiplier (G)</td><td>18</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>8.</td><td>Functional Disability (H)</td><td>100%</td><td>100%</td></tr><tr><td>9.</td><td>Loss of earning capacity including future due to disability [(E×12)+F] × G × H = (I)</td><td>Rs. 31,37,100/-</td><td>Rs. 31,37,100/-</td></tr><tr><td>10.</td><td>Pain, suffering and trauma (J)</td><td>Rs. 2,00,000/-</td><td>Rs. 2,00,000/-</td></tr><tr><td>11.</td><td>Loss of amenities of life and disfigurement (K)</td><td>Rs. 2,00,000/-</td><td>Rs. 2,00,000/-</td></tr><tr><td>12.</td><td>Conveyance & special diet (present and future) (L)</td><td>Nil</td><td>Nil</td></tr><tr><td>13.</td><td>Compensation for mental and physical shock (M)</td><td>Nil</td><td>Nil</td></tr><tr><td>14.</td><td>Loss of expectation of life (N)</td><td>Nil</td><td>Nil</td></tr><tr><td>15.</td><td>Artificial limb/prosthetic and maintenance (O)</td><td>Nil</td><td>Rs. 35,00,000/-</td></tr><tr><td>Total compensation (A+B+C+D+I+J+K+O)</td><td></td><td>Rs. 40,14,000/- (Round off Rs. 40,13,434/-)</td><td>Rs. 75,14,000/- (Round off Rs. 75,13,434/-)</td></tr><tr><td>Interest awarded</td><td></td><td>9% per annum</td><td>9% per annum (No interest on Rs. 35,00,000/- awarded towards prosthetic limb)</td></tr><tr><td>Enhanced amount</td><td></td><td>Rs. 35,00,000/-</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div> 19. This Court vide order dated 05th October 2021, directed Insurance Company to deposit the entire awarded amount of compensation along with interest before MACT within four weeks, and further directed release of 100% of amount awarded under the heads of expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation and medicines, conveyance, food (special diet), attendant charges, pain, suffering and trauma, and loss of future earning on account Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing Date:02.04.2026 15:04:24 MAC.APP. 271/2021 Page 10 of 11 of permanent disability be released to the claimant as per the scheme of disbursal. The balance amount be also disbursed as per the scheme directed by MACT. 20. The additional amount of Rs.35,00,000/- shall be deposited by the Insurance Company before MACT within six weeks and shall be retained in a fixed deposit. An amount of upto Rs. 7,00,000/- be disbursed by MACT each time a prosthetic limb is procured by claimant/injured. Such disbursement on actuals and only upon production of original invoice and documents issued by authorised seller/dealer and after due verification of the same by MACT. In the event, the injured/claimant does not claim the said amount or fails to produce proof regarding procurement of the prosthetic limb, the unclaimed amount shall be returned to the Insurance Company. 21. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of in the above terms. 22. Pending applications, if any, are rendered as infructuous. 23. Statutory deposit, if any, shall be refunded to the appellant. 24. Copy of this judgment shall be sent to concerned MACT. 25. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court. (ANISH DAYAL) JUDGE MARCH 23, 2026/ab/ tk Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing Date:02.04.2026 15:04:24 MAC.APP. 271/2021 Page 11 of 11 </div>