Deepak Kumar vs Shopal Singh And Ors.

$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

th
% Date of decision: 9 March 2026

+ MAC.APP. 69/2025
DEEPAK KUMAR .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, Advocate.

versus

SHOPAL SINGH AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Shruti Jain, Advocate, Mr.
Yuvraj Sharma, Proxy Counsel,
for Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate for
R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT


ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)
1. This appeal has been filed the claimant seeking enhancement of
st
compensation award dated 31 January 2024, passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal-02, Central, Tis Hazari Courts [‘ MACT ’] in
MACT Petition No.57242/2016 . Claimant [ appellant herein ] seek
enhancement to the tune of Rs.15,10,000/- under the head of attendant
charges , Rs.10,00,000/- each under the head of pain and sufferings , loss
of enjoyment of life and growth , and Rs.5,00,000/- for conveyance
charges and Rs.8,00,000/- for future medical expenses .
2. Ms. Pratima Lakra , Counsel for appellant, informs the Court that
th
pursuant to order dated 13 March 2020, of this Court in MAC.APP.
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 69/2025 Page 1 of 9


Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:16.03.2026
18:00:41

70/2019 , the matter had been remanded back to the MACT for recording
additional evidence in relation to the medical disability. Pursuant to the
remand, an order of enhanced compensation was passed by the MACT in
MACT No.57242/2016 .
3. Post recording of evidence, the assessment of disability was
increased from 37% to 56% in relation to the both lower limbs and the
spine. On this basis, the additional medical bills filed to the tune of
Rs.1,66,154.64/- were awarded as compensation, rounded off to
Rs.1,66,155/-. Further, loss of future earnings due to disability was re-
assessed considering that the claimant had become unemployed for the
rest of his life. The Tribunal considered the functional disability at
100% for the purpose of assessment of compensation qua the entire
body, since he was permanently incapable of carrying any other
vocation. The monthly income had already been assumed at Rs.10,374/-
and; considering the age of the petitioner being 29 years on the date of
the accident, the multiplier of ‘ 17 ’ was applied and the loss of future
earnings was calculated as Rs.10,374/- adding 40% future prospects
multiplied by 12. The enhanced compensation awarded by the MACT is
summarised as under:
S.NO. HEADS AWARDED BY
TRIBUNAL
1. Medical Bills Rs.1,66,155/-
2. Income (Monthly) Rs.10,374/-
3. Multiplier 17
4. Loss of Future Earning Rs.29,62,814/-
5. Future Attendant Charges Rs.5,00,000/-
TOTAL Rs.36,28,969/-
INTEREST 8%

Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 69/2025 Page 2 of 9


Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:16.03.2026
18:00:41

Analysis
4. While Ms. Lakra , Counsel for appellant, does not have any quarrel
with this enhancement, she raises an issue with respect to future
attendant charges and the future medical expenses, which, as per her
submission, are recurring in nature.
5. As regards the attendant charges , only Rs.5,00,000/- was
awarded. She states that this is not in consonance with the decision of
the Supreme Court in Jithendran v. New India Assurance Company
Limited , 2021 INSC 681 and Prakash Chand Sharma v. Rambabu
Saini & Anr. 2025 INSC 180, wherein the attendant charges in both
these judgments have been awarded at Rs.60,000/- per year ( Rs.5,000/-
per month) with the application of a suitable multiplier.
6. In the present case, since the multiplier applied would be ‘ 17 ’, the
attendant charges ought to have been Rs.60,000/- multiplied by 17 ,
considering the attendant would be required throughout of his life.
7. On future medical expenses , she relies on the decision of
Jithendran v. New India Assurance Company Ltd . ( supra ), where
future medical expenses at Rs.3,00,000/- were awarded on a broad
assessment of the expenses which would be incurred for recurring
investigations and treatment.
8. She further contends that non-pecuniary damages towards pain
and suffering were accorded at Rs.1,00,000/-, which, according to her,
ought to be enhanced, and that compensation towards physical and
mental agony was not awarded by the Tribunal at all.
9. The Court has assessed the record. What is noted is that the
functional disability has been considered at 100% by enhancement order
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 69/2025 Page 3 of 9


Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:16.03.2026
18:00:41

st
dated 31 January 2024. Considering that the same has not been
challenged by the Insurance Company, the said issue cannot now be
asserted by the Insurance Company.
10. Moreover, the MACT has taken into account the fact that injured
was working as a ‘Marketing Executive’ and his injuries have made him
incapacitated to even doing a desk work. Considering this condition of
the claimant, the issue boils down to attendant charges for which an
amount of only Rs.5,00,000 /- has been awarded. By the original award
th
dated 26 November 2016, a lump sum amount of Rs.30,000 /- was
awarded towards the attendant charges.
11. In the opinion of this Court, the amount awarded towards
attendant charges is rather inadequate. Considering the nature of injuries
suffered by the claimant and the finding of 100% functional disability , it
is evident that claimant would require the assistance of an attendant for
his day-to-day activities for the remainder of his life. Even if assessed on
a conservative basis, the remuneration of an attendant would at least be
equivalent to the minimum wages payable in Delhi.
th
12. As per the minimum wages notification dated 10 November
2014, passed by the Labour Department, Government of NCT of Delhi,
applicable at the relevant time, the wages for a skilled worker were
Rs.10,478/- per month. However, the Supreme Court in Jithendran v.
New India Assurance Company Ltd . ( supra ) and Prakash Chand
Sharma v. Rambabu Saini ( supra ) has taken a reasonable benchmark of
Rs.5,000/- per month for attendant charges and applied the appropriate
multiplier. Applying the same principle in the present case, the attendant
charges would be computed at Rs.60,000/- per annum, which, with the
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 69/2025 Page 4 of 9


Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:16.03.2026
18:00:41

multiplier of 17 , would amount to Rs.10,20,000/-.
13. As regards future medical expenses , only a broad assessment can
be done of the expenses which would be incurred, considering that the
treatment record provided in the appeal, is only for February 2024 which
notes that he had been admitted with the Department of Urology, St.
Stephen’s Hospital, Delhi and underwent Visual Internal Urethrotomy
with Suprapubic Catheter exchange under spinal anaesthesia and states
that at the time of discharge, his condition was stable and improved and
Suprapubic Catheter was in situ .
14. It would be difficult to assess as to what would be the future
medical expenses in this situation and whether they would be recurring
or not. However, taking a broad view of the matter and since no amount
has been provided for future medical expenses , following the decision in
Jithendran v. New India Assurance Company Ltd . ( supra ), a lump sum
amount of Rs.3,00,000 /- is awarded.
15. As regards non-pecuniary damages towards pain and suffering , an
amount of Rs.1,00,000 /- has already been awarded. For loss of amenities
of life , an amount of Rs.1,00,000 /- has already been provided.
16. There could be some enhancement on these two heads, therefore,
an amount of Rs.3,00,000 /- on both these heads will be provided.
17. The approach adopted by the MACT in assessing compensation in
cases of permanent disability must also take into account the broader
impact of such disability on the life of the injured. As observed by the
Supreme Court in Jithendran v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd ( supra ),
permanent disability does not merely affect the earning capacity of the
individual but also deprives the victim of normal amenities of life and
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 69/2025 Page 5 of 9


Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:16.03.2026
18:00:41

dignity of living. The Supreme Court emphasised that while monetary
compensation cannot fully redress the suffering of the injured victim,
courts must make a genuine attempt to restore the self-dignity of such
claimants by awarding “ just compensation ”. Relevant paragraph is
extracted as under:
“19. Before parting, it needs emphasizing that in cases
such as this, the Tribunal and the Courts must be
conscious of the fact that the permanent disability
suffered by the individual not only impairs his cognitive
abilities and his physical facilities but there are multiple
other non-quantifiable implications for the victim. The
very fact that a healthy person turns into an invalid,
being deprived of normal companionship, and incapable
of leading a productive life, makes one suffer the loss of
self-dignity. Such a Claimant must not be viewed as a
modern day Oliver Twist, having to make entreaties as
the boy in the orphanage in Charles Dickens’s classic,
“Please Sir, I want some more”. The efforts must be to
substantially ameliorate the misery of the claimant and
recognize his actual needs by accounting for the ground
realities. The measures should however be in correct
proportion. As is aptly said by Justice R.V Raveendran,
while speaking for the Division Bench in Sarla Verma
and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another
(2009)6 SCC 121 , just compensation is adequate
compensation and the Award must be just that- no less
and no more. The plea of the victim suffering from a cruel
twist of fate, when asking for some more, is not
extravagant but is for seeking appropriate recompense to
negotiate with the unforeseeable and the fortuitous twists
is his impaired life. Therefore, while the money awarded
by Courts can hardly redress the actual sufferings of the
injured victim (who is deprived of the normal amenities of
life and suffers the unease of being a burden on others),
the courts can make a genuine attempt to help restore the
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 69/2025 Page 6 of 9


Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:16.03.2026
18:00:41

self-dignity of such claimant, by awarding ‘just
compensation’. ”
(emphasis added)


18. In view of the above discussion, the compensation payable to the
claimant is recomputed as under:

S.
NO.
HEADS AWARDED BY
AWARDED
AWARDED
MACT
BY MACT
BY
THIS
COURT

[Original

[Enhanced
Award]
Award]
PECUNIARY LOSS
1. Expenditure on
treatment (A)
Rs.1,91,605/- Rs.1,66,155/- Rs.1,66,155/-
2. Expenditure on
conveyance (B)
Rs.20,000/- Nil Nil
3. Expenditure on
special diet (C)
Rs.20,000/- Nil Nil
4. Cost of nursing /
attendant (D)
Rs.30,000/- Rs.5,00,000/- Rs.10,20,000/-
5. Loss of earning
capacity (E)
Rs.10,58,148/- Rs.29,62,814/- Rs.29,62,814/-

6. Loss of income (F) Rs.1,24,488/-
[Rs.10,374/- per
Nil Nil
month]

7. Any other loss which
may require any
special treatment or
aid to the injured for
the rest of his life (G)
Nil Nil Nil
8. Future Medical
Expenses
Nil Nil Rs.3,00,000/-
NON-PECUNIARY LOSS
9. Compensation for
mental and physical
shock (H)
Nil Nil Nil
10. Pain and suffering (I) Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.3,00,000/-
11. Loss of amenities of
Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.3,00,000/-
life (J)
12. Disfiguration (K) Nil Nil Nil
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 69/2025 Page 7 of 9


Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:16.03.2026
18:00:41

13. Loss of marriage
Included in
Nil Nil
prospects (L)
Amenities
14. Loss of earning,
Nil Nil Nil
inconvenience,
hardships,
disappointment,
frustration, mental
stress, dejectment and
unhappiness in future
life etc. (M)
DISABILITY RESULTING IN LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY
15. Percentage of
37% permanent
56%
permanent
56%
permanent
disability assessed
and nature of
disability as
permanent or
temporary
disability
disability
disability
16. Loss of amenities or
Considered Considered Considered
loss of expectation of
life span on account
of disability
17. Percentage of loss of
50% functional
100%
functional
100%
functional
earning capacity in
relation to disability
disability
disability
disability
18. Loss of future income
Rs.10,58,148/- Rs.29,62,814/- Rs.29,62,814/-
(Income X% Earning
capacity x Multiplier)
TOTAL
COMPENSATION
Rs.16,43,605/- Rs.36,28,969/- Rs.50,48,969/-
INTEREST
AWARDED
9% 8% 8%


19. For the aforesaid reasons, the award of the Tribunal is enhanced
by Rs.14,20,000/-. Said amount shall be deposited by the Insurance
Company along with accrued interest at the rate of 8% per annum, within
eight weeks from today, before the Tribunal.
20. Compensation to be disbursed to the claimant as per the directions
passed by the Tribunal.
21. Accordingly, the Appeal stands disposed of.
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 69/2025 Page 8 of 9


Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:16.03.2026
18:00:41

22. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
23. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.







(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
MARCH 9, 2026/ ak/tk











Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 69/2025 Page 9 of 9


Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:16.03.2026
18:00:41