Universal Sompo Gen Ins Co Ltd vs Paramjit Singh (Thr His Wife Surender Kaur)
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Reserved on : 20 May 2026
th
Pronounced on : 29 May 2026
nd
Uploaded on : 02 June 2026
+ MAC.APP. 966/2016
UNIVERSAL SOMPO GEN INS CO LTD .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Mohd. Mustafa, Ms. Arpita
Biswas, Advocates.
versus
PARAMJIT SINGH (THR HIS WIFE SURENDER KAUR)
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. S. N. Parashar, Advocate.
+ MAC.APP. 185/2019
PARAMJIT SINGH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. S. N. Parashar, Advocate.
versus
CHANDER KUMAR BHAI & ANR ( UNIVERSAL SOMPO
GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ) .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohd. Mustafa, Ms. Arpita
Biswas, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
ANISH DAYAL, J.
1. These are cross-appeals. MAC.APP. 966/2016 has been filed by
the Insurance Company seeking reduction of the awarded compensation,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.06.2026
18:05:22
MAC.APP. 966/2016 & MAC.APP. 185/2019 Page 1 of 15
and MAC.APP. 185/2019 has been filed by the claimant seeking
enhancement of the awarded compensation.
2. The injured/claimant, Sh. Paramjit Singh was 53 years of age at
th
the date of accident i.e. on 04 June 2015, who while riding his scooty
bearing registration No. DL-3SCS-4839 near Shaheen Bagh Bus Stand
was hit by a Honda Amaze car bearing registration no. HR-51BD-1591
driven rashly and negligently by respondent no.1/ Chander Kumar Bhai
( driver-cum-owner ), resulting in serious head injuries. Injured suffered
90% temporary intellectual disability. The MACT, upon presentation of
the claim, awarded compensation, however, loss of future income was
awarded for only two years, on the basis that the Disability Certificate
stated the disability to be temporary, and that patient needs reassessment
after two years.
3. The loss of future income for two years was calculated at
Rs.4,20,000 /- on the basis that benchmark income being taken as
Rs.20,000 /- per month.
th
4. Subsequently, by order dated 17 December 2024, this Court
directed parties to appear before Joint Registrar to adduce additional
evidence to prove the Disability Certificate and the medical record on the
basis of which disability assessment had been made. Thereafter, re-
assessment of disability was done and statement of Dr. Adarsh Kumar ,
Professor Forensic Medicine and Chairman, Disability Medical Board,
nd st
AIIMS Trauma Centre, Delhi was taken on 22 May 2025 and 21
August 2025. As per the said Disability Certificate, permanent disability
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.06.2026
18:05:22
MAC.APP. 966/2016 & MAC.APP. 185/2019 Page 2 of 15
of 100% was certified in relation to intellectual impairment with
locomotor disability.
Argument of the Parties
5. Mr. Mohammed Mustafa , counsel for Insurance Company, points
th
out that the earlier discharge summary dated 4 June 2015 and
th
subsequent discharge summary dated 15 August 2015 effectively
showed that there was no serious head injury to injured/ Paramjit Singh
who was discharged with some follow-up advice. On this basis, he states
that since, at the time of assessment by the Tribunal, physical
impairment of 90% with respect to intellectual impairment was
temporary in nature, permanent disability could not be considered, since
no treatment records have been placed on record in the interregnum from
February 2016 till 2018. He further states that even if the cause of death
of injured/ Paramjit Singh was due to the injuries suffered, compensation
ought to be given as a ‘ death case ’ and not as an ‘ injury case ’.
6. In response to this, Mr. S. N. Prashar, counsel appearing for
claimants, has relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Dhannalal
v. Nasir Khan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2083, where, the Supreme Court in
paragraphs 5 and 6 , while dealing with Section 166 (5) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘ MV Act ’) has held that right of a person to claim
compensation for injury shall, upon the death of a person injured, survive
to his Legal Representatives (‘ LRs ’), irrespective of whether the cause of
death is relatable to or had any nexus with the injury or not.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.06.2026
18:05:22
MAC.APP. 966/2016 & MAC.APP. 185/2019 Page 3 of 15
7. Ms. Arpita Biswas , counsel for Insurance Company arguing on
the day of subsequent hearing, seeks to distinguish the judgment in
Dhannalal ( supra ) on the basis that in case of the said judgment,
claimant had passed away when he was stable and not during treatment
as in the present case, and, therefore, it should be treated as a death case.
8. A query was put by the Court, whether Dhannalal ( supra ) being a
judgment passed post amendment of Motor Vehicles Act (that came into
effect in 2022), it would cover the present case. Secondly , if not, what
was the position of law prior to 2022 regarding whether the claim of the
injured after death would survive to the LRs of the claimant.
9. For this, counsel for claimant, relied upon the judgment of
Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kahlon , (2022) 13
SCC 494, wherein the claimant died during the pendency of
enhancement appeal and question whether the claim for injury stand
abated or would survive with LRs of deceased claimant was considered
by the Supreme Court. Reliance can be placed on the following
paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment:
“ 8. The Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation.
Section 166(1)(a) of the Act provides for a statutory
claim for compensation arising out of an accident by
the person who has sustained the injury. Under clause
(b), compensation is payable to the owner of the
property. In case of death, the legal representatives of
the deceased can pursue the claim. Property, under the
Act, will have a much wider connotation than the
conventional definition. If the legal heirs can pursue
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.06.2026
18:05:22
MAC.APP. 966/2016 & MAC.APP. 185/2019 Page 4 of 15
claims in case of death, we see no reason why the legal
representatives cannot pursue claims for loss of
property akin to estate of the injured if he is deceased
subsequently for reasons other than attributable to the
accident or injuries under clause (c) of Section 166(1).
Such a claim would be completely distinct from
personal injuries to the claimant and which may not be
the cause of death. Such claims of personal injuries
would undoubtedly abate with the death of the injured.
What would the loss of estate mean and what items
would be covered by it are issues which has to engage
our attention. The appellant has a statutory obligation
to pay compensation in motor accident claim cases.
This obligation cannot be evaded behind the defence
that it was available only for personal injuries and
abates on his death irrespective of the loss caused to
the estate of the deceased because of the injuries.
…
17. The Tribunal, on technicalities rejected his claim
for salary, medical expenses and percentage of
disability and granted a measly compensation of
rupees one lakh only by a cryptic order. We are,
therefore, of the opinion that while the claim for
personal injuries may not have survived after the death
of the injured unrelated to the accident or injuries,
during the pendency of the appeal, but the claims for
loss of estate caused was available to and could be
pursued by the legal representatives of the deceased in
the appeal.
…
19. We see no reason to deviate from the consistent
judicial view taken by more than one High Court that
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.06.2026
18:05:22
MAC.APP. 966/2016 & MAC.APP. 185/2019 Page 5 of 15
loss of estate would include expenditure on medicines,
treatment, diet, attendant, doctor's fee, etc. including
income and future prospects which would have caused
reasonable accretion to the estate but for the sudden
expenditure which had to be met from and depleted the
estate of the injured, subsequently deceased.
20. However, the compensation under the head pain
and suffering being personal injuries is held to be
unsustainable and is disallowed …”
(emphasis supplied)
10. Counsel for Insurance Company, states that the Supreme Court
judgment of Kahlon ( supra ) only applied to a case where the death of
the claimant was not attributable to the injuries suffered in the accident.
It is claimed in the present case that the death of the claimant was
attributable to the injuries sustained in the accident and, accordingly, the
claim petition ought to be treated as one pertaining to death
compensation and not injury compensation.
11. To this counsel for claimant contends that the there is no proof on
record that the injury of the claimant was attributable to the injuries
sustained in the accident. The accident occurred in 2015 and the
deceased passed away in 2019. Further, Mr. Mustafa , counsel for
Insurance Company, was given the opportunity to cross examine DW-1/
Dr. Adarsh Kumar , whose testimony was record by the Joint Registrar
nd st
(Judicial) of this Court on 22 May 2025 and 21 August 2025, wherein
no question as regards whether the death of claimant was attributable to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.06.2026
18:05:22
MAC.APP. 966/2016 & MAC.APP. 185/2019 Page 6 of 15
the injuries sustained in the accident was put and only questions
pertaining to permanent Disability Certificate were asked.
Analysis
12. This Court is not inclined to accept the plea of the Insurance
Company. The matter has to be seen from the prism of the situation on
the date of accident. At that stage, claimant was admittedly certified as
having 90% disability with respect to his intellectual faculty, requiring
re-assessment after two years. The re-assessment later led to certification
of permanent disability at 100% with respect to intellectual impairment
with locomotor disability.
13. Fresh Disability Certificate depicts that it is a case of severe head
injury, locomotor disability and 100% permanent disablement in relation
to intellectual impairment. The fact that claimant/injured passed away
th
subsequently on 14 June 2019, cannot be considered as impediment to
his claim for injury.
14. Upon perusal of Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 and the
judgment in Dhannalal ( supra ) , this Court notes that Section 166(5) of
the MV Act, relied upon therein, was introduced by way of the
st
amendment to the MV Act in 2019 and came into effect from 01 April
2022. However, in the present case, the accident occurred in the year
2015 and the injured passed away in 2019. Therefore, Section 166(5) of
the MV Act, as well as the judgment in Dhannalal ( supra ), which
pertains to a post-amendment scenario, cannot be relied upon in the facts
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.06.2026
18:05:22
MAC.APP. 966/2016 & MAC.APP. 185/2019 Page 7 of 15
of the present case. Further, there was no equivalent provision in the MV
Act prior to amendment of the act in 2019.
15. Ergo , the opinion of the Supreme Court in Kahlon ( supra ) would
be determinative in the facts of the present case as the same pertains to
pre-amendment scenario. The said judgment clearly draws a distinction
between claims relatable to personal injury such as pain and suffering ,
which may abate, and claims which have a direct bearing on the estate of
the injured, including income , future prospects , medical expenditure and
attendant charges , which will survive to the LRs of the deceased
claimant.
16. The decision of Kahlon ( supra ) has subsequently been reaffirmed
by Supreme Court in the decision of Meena v. State of U.P ., (2025) 9
SCC 28, wherein the Supreme Court noted as under:
“4. At the outset, the learned counsel for the claimants
relied on Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Kahlon [Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kahlon,
(2022) 13 SCC 494 : (2023) 4 SCC (Civ) 619] to
impress upon us that despite the death of the injured,
the legal representatives of the deceased can pursue
the claim since the property under the Act would have
a much wider connotation than the conventional
definition and would include the estate left behind by
the deceased. It was held that if the legal heirs can
pursue claims in case of death, there is no reason to
prohibit the legal representatives to pursue claims for
loss of a property, akin to estate of the injured, if the
injured dies subsequently.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.06.2026
18:05:22
MAC.APP. 966/2016 & MAC.APP. 185/2019 Page 8 of 15
5. We see absolutely no reason to differ from the
declaration of law and the insurer also raises no
objection on the same. We would consider the
enhancement sought by the original applicant, which if
granted before her death would have accrued to her
estate or rather compensated the loss of her estate;
caused by reason of the accident, which the legal heirs
are entitled to succeed to .”
(emphasis supplied)
17. In the present case, the claimant had already suffered severe head
injury resulting in intellectual impairment, which initially stood assessed
at 90% disability and subsequently came to be certified as 100%
permanent intellectual disability with locomotive disability. Merely
because the injured subsequently expired in the year 2019 would not
extinguish the right of LRs to seek compensation under the aforesaid
heads as same would form part of the estate of deceased claimant.
18. As regards the plea that Kahlon ( supra ) would apply only to a
case where the death was not attributable to the injuries suffered in the
accident, the submission of Mr. Mustafa is not sustainable for two
reasons. Firstly, the claimant passed away in the year 2019 and the LRs
st
of the deceased claimant were impleaded as parties vide order dated 01
December 2023, passed in the presence of Mr. Mustafa , counsel for the
Insurance Company, who raised no objection either to the Impleadment
of the LRs or to the observation of the Joint Registrar (Judicial) that the
right to sue survived in favour of the LRs of the deceased claimant.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.06.2026
18:05:22
MAC.APP. 966/2016 & MAC.APP. 185/2019 Page 9 of 15
th
Thereafter, this Court vide order dated 17 December 2024 directed that
additional evidence of Dr. Adarsh Kumar be recorded before the Joint
nd
Registrar (Judicial). The said evidence was recorded on 22 May 2025
st
and 21 August 2025. Significantly, the only issue raised during the said
proceedings pertained to the Disability Certificate of the deceased
claimant and, despite opportunity for cross-examination, no question
whatsoever was put by Mr. Mustafa to the witness regarding whether the
death of the claimant was attributable to the injuries sustained in the
accident. It is only in the year 2026, during the course of hearing before
this Court, that the plea has been raised that the present case ought to be
treated as one of death compensation and not injury compensation.
19. Secondly , there is nothing on record to suggest that the death of
the claimant was attributable to the injuries sustained in the accident
which occurred in the year 2015, particularly when the claimant passed
away nearly four years thereafter in 2019. On the contrary, the material
on record reflects that the claimant had suffered 100% permanent mental
disability along with locomotor impairment and, in such circumstances, a
substantial reduction in life expectancy would be a natural consequence
of the medical condition itself. However, in the absence of any cogent
medical evidence establishing a direct nexus between the injuries
sustained in the accident and the eventual death of claimant, the
contention of the Insurance Company is unsustainable. Accordingly, the
present case would be treated as on for injury, which on death of
claimant would be a claim for loss of estate of the deceased.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.06.2026
18:05:22
MAC.APP. 966/2016 & MAC.APP. 185/2019 Page 10 of 15
Computation of Compensation
20. Considering the benchmark income of Rs.20,000 /- per month, and
the age of 53 years on the date of the accident, future prospects at 10%
should be awarded to align with the principles enunciated in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, considering he
was doing a private job as Executive at Galgotias University, Noida,
U.P.
21. As regards the multiplier, the principle as laid down in Kirti v.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd ., (2021) 2 SCC 166 would apply wherein it
was held that the claims and legal liabilities crystalize at the time of the
accident itself, and changes post thereto ought not to ordinarily affect
pending proceedings. Therefore, relying on the aforesaid principles and
considering that the claimant was 53 years on the date of the accident the
multiplier of 11 shall apply as per principles enunciated in Pranay Sethi
( supra ).
22. As regards the attendant charges , awarded at Rs.50,000 /-, Mr.
Parashar states that the same are extremely inadequate, considering that
the person was bed ridden and would have required higher attendant
charges. Accordingly, attendant charges are enhanced to Rs.1,00,000 /-.
23. As regards pain and suffering, reliance can be placed on the
decision of Kahlon ( supra ), the Tribunal had awarded compensation of
only Rs.1,00,000/- and, thereafter, an appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation was filed during the pendency of which the claimant
expired. The High Court therein granted compensation under various
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.06.2026
18:05:22
MAC.APP. 966/2016 & MAC.APP. 185/2019 Page 11 of 15
heads, including pain and suffering, in favour of the LRs of the deceased
claimant. However, the Supreme Court in Kahlon ( supra ) held that
compensation under the head of pain and suffering forms part of a claim
for personal injuries and, therefore, the right to sue in respect thereof
would not survive to the LRs upon the death of the claimant.
24. However, in a recent decision in Meena ( supra ), the Supreme
Court continued to include the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
and enhanced by the High Court towards pain and suffering and loss of
amenities of life , since the said compensation had already been granted
during the lifetime of the claimant. The Supreme Court merely declined
to grant any further enhancement under those heads, as the claimant had
expired during the pendency of the appeal for enhancement before the
Supreme Court. The facts of the present case are akin to those in Meena
( supra ), wherein the claimant had already been awarded compensation
by the Tribunal under the heads of pain and suffering , l oss of amenities
of life and disfigurement , and the present proceedings before this Court
are only for enhancement of compensation, during the pendency of
which the claimant expired. Therefore, although no further enhancement
under the aforesaid heads can now be granted, compensation already
awarded by the learned Tribunal under the heads of pain and suffering ,
loss of amenities of life and disfigurement ought not to be disturbed,
considering that the claimant had suffered 100% disability, remained
alive for nearly four years after the accident and expired subsequently.
Accordingly, in view of the decision in Meena ( supra ), the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.06.2026
18:05:22
MAC.APP. 966/2016 & MAC.APP. 185/2019 Page 12 of 15
compensation awarded under the heads of pain and suffering, loss of
amenities of life and disfigurement is not being displaced.
25. Accordingly, the revised computation is as under:
S. no. Heads of Compensation Awarded by
Tribunal
Awarded by
the Court
Pecuniary Loss
1. Medical Expenses (A) Rs. 23,000/- Rs. 23,000/-
2. Conveyance (B) Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/-
3. Special Diet (C) Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/-
4. Attendant charges (D) Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/-
5. Income of injured (E) Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 20,000/-
6. Future prospects @10% (F) Nil Rs. 2,000/-
7. Loss of income (E x 6=G) Rs. 1,20,000/- Rs. 1,20,000/-
8. Functional disability (H) 90% for 2 years 100%
9. Multiplier (I) Nil 11
10. Loss of future income
Rs. 4,20,000/- Rs. 29,04,000/-
[(E+F)x 12 x H xI= J
Non-pecuniary loss
11. Pain and suffering (K) Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 40,000/-
12. Loss of Amenities (L) Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 25,000/-
13. Disfigurement (M) Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/-
14. Total Rs. 7,48,000/- Rs. 32,82,000/-
15. Interest 9% 9%
26. The compensation is accordingly enhanced by Rs. 25,34,000/-.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.06.2026
18:05:22
MAC.APP. 966/2016 & MAC.APP. 185/2019 Page 13 of 15
Apportionment
27. Considering that the death of injured happened during the course
of the appeal, the compensation amount as recalculated above would be
apportioned between LRs of injured. 70% of the awarded amount will be
given to Smt. Surender Kaur , wife of deceased and 30% would be given
to Anupreet Kaur , daughter of deceased.
Release of amount
th
28. By order dated 18 November 2016, the entire awarded amount
was deposited with the MACT and the execution was stayed. By order
th
dated 25 January 2017, as an interim measure, Rs.1,48,000 /- was
released into the bank account of the claimant.
29. Accordingly, it is directed that the balance compensation along
with accrued interest deposited before the MACT shall be released to
claimants in the apportionment directed above.
30. Enhanced amount along with accrued interest @ 9% per annum
from the date of filing of the petition shall be deposited within a period
of four weeks before the MACT and a lumpsum amount of
Rs.10,00,000 /- will be disbursed, in accordance with the apportionment,
within a period of two weeks thereafter. The balance shall be kept in
Fixed Deposit Receipts ( FDRs ), in accordance with the MACT award, in
proportionate FDRs of Rs.2,00,000/- each for periods of 3 months, 6
months and so on, successive terms, as applicable. Interest accruing on
said FDRs shall be credited to the designated Savings Bank Account of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.06.2026
18:05:22
MAC.APP. 966/2016 & MAC.APP. 185/2019 Page 14 of 15
claimant. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released to the
Savings Bank Account of claimant upon due verification.
31. As per the amended Memo of Parties filed before this Court, the
LRs, namely Smt. Surender Kaur ( wife ) and Ms. Anupreet Kaur
( daughter ), shall furnish details of their designated Savings Bank
Accounts.
32. Both the appeals stand disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
33. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to the appellant only if the
order of deposit has been complied.
34. A copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned MACT.
35. A copy of this judgment be also sent to concerned bank for
information and compliance.
36. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
ANISH DAYAL
(JUDGE)
MAY 29, 2026 / ak/zb
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.06.2026
18:05:22
MAC.APP. 966/2016 & MAC.APP. 185/2019 Page 15 of 15