Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Parth Sareen

• IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Reserved on : 15 October 2026.
th
Pronounced on : 06 November 2026.
th
Uploaded on : 06 November 2026.

# CNR No. DLHC010377562025
+ MAC.APP. 377/2025 & CM APPL. 36363/2025, CM APPL.
58510-58511/2025.

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
.....Appellant
Through: Mr. Ved Vyas Tripathi, Advocate
( through VC )
versus
PARTH SAREEN .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Dhananjay Gupta, Mr. Parth
Bajaj and Mr. Kapil Bajaj, Advs.


# CNR No. DLHC010443672026
+ MAC.APP. 614/2026
PARTH SAREEN .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Dhananjay Gupta, Mr. Parth
Bajaj and Mr. Kapil Bajaj, Advs.
versus
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ved Vyas Tripathi, Advocate
( through VC )


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
%
ANISH DAYAL, J.
1. These cross appeals have been filed assailing the impugned award
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:30
MAC. APP. 377/2025 & MAC. APP. 614/2026 Page 1 of 22

th
dated 17 March 2025 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
[‘ MACT ’], Tiz Hazari Courts, Delhi, in MACT no. 294/2024 whereby
compensation of Rs. 1,30,53,544/-, along with interest @ 6% per annum,
has been awarded in relation to injuries sustained by Mr. Parth Sareen
(‘ claimant ’). MAC.APP. 377/2025 has been filed by the Insurance
Company seeking reduction in the compensation awarded and MAC.APP.
614/2026 has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement.
2. Mr. Ved Vyas Tripathi , Counsel, addressed arguments on behalf of
Insurance Company and Mr. Dhananjay Gupta , Counsel presented
arguments on behalf of the claimant.

The Accident
th
3. The accident occurred on 30 January 2024 at about 3:45 AM near
Shadipur Flyover, towards Moti Nagar, Delhi. The accident was caused by
Mahindra Bolero bearing registration. no. DL-1LD-8329 (‘ offending
vehicle ’) driven by Anoop Kumar (‘ driver ’) and owned by Sanjay Kumar
(‘ owner ’) and was insured with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
Ltd. (‘ Insurance Company ’).
4. The accident occurred between a Honda City Car and the offending
vehicle. The claimant was one of the occupants travelling in the Honda
City Car along with Mansi , Harshul Arora and Sameer . Sameer was
declared as brought dead at the hospital, whereas, the others had sustained
serious injuries and were not considered fit for statement.

Impugned Award
5. Considering that the injured was in a vegetative state and was
completely bedridden, MACT considered functional disability at 100% .
Medical expenses were claimed at Rs.30,00,000/- and a tabulation of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:30
MAC. APP. 377/2025 & MAC. APP. 614/2026 Page 2 of 22

medical bills was provided in paragraph no.14 of the impugned award
totalling up to Rs.1,73,594/- , which had been awarded.
6. While determining loss of income, MACT considered the salary of
the claimant from his previous job at Rs.66,873/-, where he had been
th th
working from 18 April 2022 till 30 January 2023. Later, he had joined
another company and was earning Rs.30,271/- per month, where he had
st
been working till 31 March 2023. Therefore, the MACT considered
Rs.30,271/- to be his monthly income, however, since he had not been
working at the time of the accident, no compensation was awarded
towards loss of income.

7. Rs.5,00,000/- each was awarded towards pain and suffering and
mental shock . Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded for special diet and conveyance
charges . Rs.5,00,000/- was awarded towards loss of amenities and an
additional Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects As regards
attendant charges , a claim of Rs.13,84,000/- had been made on the basis
that one attendant and one nurse was required to take care of the claimant
and taking into account the relevant testimonies, MACT awarded
Rs.10,26,000/- (Rs.6,36,000/- towards nursing charges and Rs.3,90,000/-
towards attendant charges).
8. A lumpsum amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was awarded towards loss of
earning, inconvenience, hardship and unhappiness in future life.
Rs.91,53,950/- was awarded towards loss of future income/earning,
considering that the claimant was 21 years of age on the date of accident,
and a multiplier of ‘18’ along with future prospects at 40% had been
taken.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:30
MAC. APP. 377/2025 & MAC. APP. 614/2026 Page 3 of 22

Submissions on behalf of parties
9. Mr. Ved Vyas Tripathi , counsel for Insurance Company, argued that
since the claimant was not in employment on the date of accident, notional
income ought to have been taken at minimum wages. Claimant’s last
drawn income at Rs.30,271/- was from a job, where he had been working
9 months prior to the accident. Besides this, it was argued that
compensation awarded under non-pecuniary heads was exaggerated.
Further, even if his income was considered at Rs.30,271/-, a reduction of
Rs.400/- should have been made towards Mediclaim.
10. Challenge has also been made to the compensation awarded under
the head of non-pecuniary loss.
11. On the other hand, Mr. Dhananjay Gupta , counsel for claimant,
argued that MACT has rightly taken the last drawn salary since it reflects
the complete salary. In his claim for enhancement, Mr. Gupta , stated that
since the claimant is in a vegetative state, nursing and attendant charges
should be enhanced, since they have only been awarded for 10 months and
are consistent and continued expenses. Further, no amount was awarded
towards physiotherapy charges, which is also a consistent and recurring
expense. Claim has also been towards future medical expenses, since the
claimant is in a vegetative state and still requires medical supervision,
regular visits of doctors and medical checkups. Lastly, enhancement of
interest at 7% has also been sought.
12. Mr. Gupta , counsel for claimant, placed reliance on the decision of
Supreme Court in Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sinha , 2025:INSC:1244
whereby, the Court had considered the income that the claimant had been
earning 2 years prior to the accident and stated that even though the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:30
MAC. APP. 377/2025 & MAC. APP. 614/2026 Page 4 of 22

claimant had not been working at the time of the accident, however, an
estimation as regards the potential income was taken.
13. As regards compensation awarded under various heads, reliance
was placed upon the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court in Bishan
Singh v. Chinki and Others , 2025:DHC:5099, where in a case of 100%
permanent disability for the claimant who had been in coma,
compensation was awarded towards attendant charges for 2 attendants at
minimum wages of a skilled worker, till the date of the demise, since the
claimant had subsequently passed away.

Analysis
14. It is a matter of record that the claimant, who was 21 years of age
on the date of accident went into a vegetative state due to the accident.
The claim was pursued by his mother/ Malini Sareen as his next friend and
guardian. After the accident, the claimant was taken to Acharyashree
Bhikshu Government Hospital, Delhi where MLC No. 378/2024 ( Ex.
PW5/2 ) was prepared. He was then referred to a higher centre and taken
th
to BLK Hospital, Delhi where he remained admitted till 29 May 2024.
He was admitted there on multiple occasions in June, August, October and
December 2024 and the discharge summaries were exhibited as Ex.PW5/3
(colly) . He suffered traumatic brain injury and had undergone various
procedures and treatment. BLK Hospital had advised that an intensive care
unit (‘ ICU ’) must be set up in his house for continued care. It was stated
by his mother/ Malini Sareen that an ICU was established with the
assistance of nursing personnel and attendant and certain medical
equipment had been taken for his sustenance.
15. Mr. Gupta , argued that initially, nursing services were availed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:30
MAC. APP. 377/2025 & MAC. APP. 614/2026 Page 5 of 22

through Aditya Singh Chauhan who had arranged two nurses for 12 hours
each, one physiotherapist and a doctor in case of emergency. However,
since his services were proving to be expensive, Lokendra Kumar alias
Lokesh Kumar was engaged at Rs. 2,000/- per day, exclusive of fooding
and lodging. Subsequently, an attendant Vivek Kaushal alias Vivek Kumar
was engaged for 24 hours at Rs.1,300/- per day for his services, in
addition to food and lodging. Other expenses for hiring an ambulance to
take the claimant to the hospital for check-ups, as also additional expenses
for special diet were claimed to have been incurred. Further expenses were
claimed on account of disposable material, rent of machines and
maintenance of the claimant.
16. In her affidavit of evidence, claimant’s mother/ Ms. Malini Sareen
stated that she had spent more than Rs.50,00,000/- on her son's treatment
and the amount was expected to increase in future. She further stated that
th
the claimant had been working in SITEL India Private Limited from 18
th
August 2022 to 30 January 2023 where he had been earning Rs. 60,000/-
to Rs.70,000/- per month and later in Teleperformance Global Business
st st
Private Limited from 01 March 2023 to 31 March 2023 earning about
Rs.70,000/- to Rs.80,000/- per month. She stated that her son used to take
care of all the financial expenses of the family and since he wanted to earn
more, he had left the job and was preparing for UPSC Examinations. She
stated that due to his vegetative state, family members have to
continuously remain with him and had therefore, sought the value of
gratuitous services.
17. In the above context, the claims put forth by Mr. Gupta , counsel for
claimant, have to be considered under various heads. There is no dispute
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:30
MAC. APP. 377/2025 & MAC. APP. 614/2026 Page 6 of 22

that the claimant is in a vegetative state and therefore, his functional
disability has rightly been considered at 100%.

Income
18. MACT has taken notional income at Rs.30,271/- per month, which
was the salary last drawn by the claimant. Since he was not working at the
time of accident, no compensation was awarded towards loss of income,
however, compensation was awarded for future loss of income by
applying the multiplier of 18 and future prospects at 40%.

19. This determination cannot be faulted with considering that there
was no specific employment at the time of accident and further, that the
claimant was effectively in a vegetative state during the course of his
treatment post the accident and has not recovered since then. Therefore,
loss of future income was taken on the basis of his take home income
st
which he had been earning as of 31 March 2023, i.e. nine months prior to
the accident. Considering that there is no evidence that he was earning a
higher income in these nine months, the MACT has rightly considered his
notional income on the basis of his last earned income.
20. As regards the deduction towards Mediclaim, this issue is well
settled by the decision of Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. v. Dolly Satish Gandhi , 2026 SCC OnLine SC 861. The Court
clarified the position on law and stated that there is not double benefit
received by the claimant, since the benefit received under Mediclaim
arises out of a contractual benefit of reimbursement of medical expenses,
which is independent of the statutory benefit which flows from the Motor
Vehicles Act. 1988 (‘ MV Act ’). The amount received under MV Act is
guided by the principes of just compensation and arises out of a beneficial
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:30
MAC. APP. 377/2025 & MAC. APP. 614/2026 Page 7 of 22

legislation, therefore, the statutory entitlement stands on a higher pedestal
and cannot be equated with amount received under Mediclaim.
Accordingly, the submission made by Mr. Tripathi is rejected and the
Court is not inclined to deduct Rs. 400/- towards Mediclaim, as provided
in the salary slip.

Nursing and attendant charges
21. MACT awarded nursing and attendant charges at Rs.10,26,000/-
only for 10 months. It cannot be denied that the claimant requires
continuous nursing care, as well as, an attendant for taking care of his
medical needs. In this regard, the discharge summary exhibited at Ex.
th
PW5/3 , which was issued by BLK Max Hospital on 29 May 2024 after 5
th
months of admission on 30 January 2024, has been perused by the Court.
22. The discharge summary noted his condition on discharge as that he
was “ on tracheostomy, spastic quadriparesis present, ambulant on
wheelchair, hemodynamically stable, on ryles tube feeds, on foley urinary
catheter, on tracheostomy tube and ulcer over feet healing .” For his
special needs it was stated that he required a high protein diet, appropriate
nursing care and physiotherapy at home, Ryles tube feed, back care, bed
care, leg care, chest and limb physiotherapy, wheelchair, 2 hourly change
in position, regular suctioning of tracheostomy tube. He was also given
follow up advice by Neurosurgery Out Patient Department (‘ OPD ’).

23. The second discharge summary issued by the BLK Max with
th th
admission on 13 October 2024 and discharge on 17 October 2024 as a
follow-up case, noted a similar set of requirements, including appropriate
nursing care and physiotherapy.
24. The third discharge summary also issued by BLK Max with
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:30
MAC. APP. 377/2025 & MAC. APP. 614/2026 Page 8 of 22

th th
admission on 06 December 2024 and discharge on 17 December 2024,
as a follow-up case with similar set of requirements yet again reiterated
that appropriate nursing care and physiotherapy at home was required.
Other discharge summaries issued in June 2024 and August 2024 detailing
the condition of claimant have also been perused by the Court.
25. Testimony of Dr. Atul Dua , Department of Neurosurgery, BLK
Max (‘ PW5 ’) was also brought to attention. He stated that as per the
hospital record, the patient required appropriate nursing care, attendant
and physiotherapy at home. PW5 was not cross-examined by the Insurance
Company.

26. Mother of injured/ Ms. Malini Sareen deposed as PW5 and was not
cross-examined on the material aspects of nursing care, attendant, and
physiotherapy.
27. In order to determine this issue, it would be apposite to consider
decisions of Supreme Court and this Court which have dealt with cases
involving 100% functional disability.
28. The principle which has been repeatedly stated by the courts and
reiterated can be found in a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in
Sunil Kumar v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited
2026:INSC:1145. One of the claimants in this case was 43 years old at the
date of the accident and had been engaged in the trading of bakery items.
The claimant had suffered severe head injury, open diffuse axonal injury
and midbrain contusion with Weber’s syndrome and left knee penetrating
injury. Relying upon his disability certificate, the Tribunal and High Court
considered his functional disability at 75.5%. On appeal, the Supreme
Court enhanced his functional disability to 100% by stating that “ one who
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:30
MAC. APP. 377/2025 & MAC. APP. 614/2026 Page 9 of 22

remains dependent on another and requires an attendant throughout his
life can be said to be suffering from 100% functional disability ”. Reliance
was inter alia placed upon Shankar Dutt v. United India Insurance
Company Limited & Others , 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1193, Jithendran v.
New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Another (2022) 15 SCC 620 and
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Priyanka Das & Others 2026
SCC Online SC 1760.
29. While assessing compensation under the head of attendant charges,
the Court relied upon its previous judgment in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand &
Others (2020) 4 SCC 413 for arriving at a just and reasonable amount
towards attendant charges where the person becomes disabled for almost a
lifetime. The Court also drew reference from the decision in Gobald
Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswami AIR 1962 SC 1 to factor in the
multiplier system.
30. The Court therefore adopted the multiplier method to award
compensation towards attendant charges. As regards compensation
towards future medical expenses, transportation expenses, clothes and
articles and extra nourishment, the Supreme Court upheld the finding of
High Court.
31. It would be instructive to take note of the decision in Kajal ( supra)
which was a case involving injuries sustained by a minor child, which had
rendered her bedridden for life. Her disability was assessed at 100%,
noting that she was left with a very low IQ, severe weakness in all four
limbs, hysteria and urinary incontinence. In order to award just
compensation, while assessing compensation towards attendant charges,
the Supreme Court applied the multiplier method, recognizing it to be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:30
MAC. APP. 377/2025 & MAC. APP. 614/2026 Page 10 of 22

reasonable and realistic method. Relevant paragraphs are extracted as
under for ease of reference:
“ Attendant charges
22. The attendant charges have been awarded by the
High Court @ Rs 2500 per month for 44 years, which
works out to Rs 13,20,000. Unfortunately, this system
is not a proper system. Multiplier system is used to
balance out various factors. When compensation is
awarded in lump sum, various factors are taken into
consideration. When compensation is paid in lump
sum, this Court has always followed the multiplier
system. The multiplier system should be followed not
only for determining the compensation on account of
loss of income but also for determining the attendant
charges, etc. This system was recognised by this Court
in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K.
Veluswami [Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K.
Veluswami, AIR 1962 SC 1]. The multiplier system
factors in the inflation rate, the rate of interest
payable on the lump sum award, the longevity of the
claimant, and also other issues such as the
uncertainties of life. Out of all the various alternative
methods, the multiplier method has been recognised
as the most realistic and reasonable method. It
ensures better justice between the parties and thus
results in award of “just compensation” within the
meaning of the Act.
23. It would be apposite at this stage to refer to the
observation of Lord Reid
in Taylor v. O'Connor [Taylor v. O'Connor, 1971 AC
115 : (1970) 2 WLR 472 (HL)] : (AC p. 128)
“Damages to make good the loss of dependency
over a period of years must be awarded as a
lump sum and that sum is generally calculated by
applying a multiplier to the amount of one year's
dependency. That is a perfectly good method in
the ordinary case but it conceals the fact that
there are two quite separate matters involved —
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:30
MAC. APP. 377/2025 & MAC. APP. 614/2026 Page 11 of 22

the present value of the series of future payments,
and the discounting of that present value to allow
for the fact that for one reason or another the
person receiving the damages might never have
enjoyed the whole of the benefit of the
dependency. It is quite unnecessary in the
ordinary case to deal with these matters
separately. Judges and counsel have a wealth of
experience which is an adequate guide to the
selection of the multiplier and any expert
evidence is rightly discouraged. But in a case
where the facts are special I think that these
matters must have separate consideration if even
rough justice is to be done and expert evidence
may be valuable or even almost essential. The
special factor in the present case is the incidence
of income tax and, it may be, surtax.”
24. This Court has reaffirmed the multiplier method in
various cases
like MCD v. Subhagwanti [MCD v. Subhagwanti, AIR
1966 SC 1750], U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandra [U.P.
SRTC v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362], Sandeep
Khanuja v. Atul Dande [Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul
Dande, (2017) 3 SCC 351]. This Court has also
recognised that Schedule II of the Act can be used as a
guide for the multiplier to be applied in each case.
Keeping the claimant's age in mind, the multiplier in
this case should be 18 as opposed to 44 taken by the
High Court.
25. Having held so, we are clearly of the view that the
basic amount taken for determining the attendant
charges is very much on the lower side. We must
remember that this little girl is severely suffering from
incontinence, meaning that she does not have control
over her bodily functions like passing urine and
faeces. As she grows older, she will not be able to
handle her periods. She requires an attendant
virtually 24 hours a day. She requires an attendant
who though may not be medically trained but must be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:30
MAC. APP. 377/2025 & MAC. APP. 614/2026 Page 12 of 22

capable of handling a child who is bedridden. She
would require an attendant who would ensure that she
does not suffer from bedsores. The claimant has
placed before us a notification of the State of Haryana
of the year 2010, wherein the wages for skilled
labourer is Rs 4846 per month. We, therefore, assess
the cost of one attendant at Rs 5000 and she will
require two attendants which works out to Rs 10,000
per month, which comes to Rs 1,20,000 p.a., and
using the multiplier of 18, it works out to Rs 21,60,000
for the attendant charges for her entire life. This takes
care of all the pecuniary damages. ”
(emphasis added)

32. Kajal ( supra ) was relied upon by the Supreme Court in Jithendran
( supra ) where the claimant had suffered severe impairment of cognitive
power with hemiparesis and total aphasia and prognosis. The Supreme
Court had assessed functional disability at 100%. As regards attendant
charges, the Court applied the multiplier method. Noting the continuous
nature of treatment, even after initial days, compensation towards future
medical expenses was also enhanced. Relevant findings of the Court are
extracted as under:
“ 8. As earlier noted, the appellant has suffered 69%
permanent disability and without assistance, cannot
perform everyday functions. The claimant with
seriously impaired cognitive and physical capabilities
would surely need full-time assistance even for the
confined life that he is leading. In such circumstances,
the disabled claimant cannot be expected to rely only
upon gratuitous services of his well-wishers and
family members. Importantly, the presiding Judge in
the Tribunal himself noticed that the claimant would
require the assistance of a bystander/attendant for all
his movements. Consequently, bearing in mind the
need for assisted living and what was said
in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, it is found necessary to add
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:30
MAC. APP. 377/2025 & MAC. APP. 614/2026 Page 13 of 22

the expenses for service of an attendant for the
claimant. Since no material is produced to quantify
the expenses for the attendant, making a conservative
estimate, Rs 5000 per month appears to be the bare
minimum. It is therefore deemed appropriate to
quantify the annual expenses at Rs 60,000 and
applying the multiplier of 18, the additional
compensation payable under the bystander head is
quantified at Rs 10,80,000.
9. The appellant has produced adequate medical
documents before the High Court to show the
recurring needs for testing, treatment and further
hospitalisation for which, considerable expenses were
incurred even after the initial 191 days of
hospitalisation. As a person suffering severe cognitive
impairment and 69% disability, recurring medical
treatment is inevitable and bearing in mind the
additional expenses already incurred, we deem it
appropriate to enhance the future medical expenses to
Rs 3,00,000 (from Rs 1,00,000), since the sum
quantified by the High Court appears to be on the
lower side.
10. While the permanent disability as certified by the
doctors stands at 69%, the same by no means,
adequately reflects the travails the impaired claimant
will have to face all his life. The 21 year old's youthful
dreams and future hopes were snuffed out by the
serious accident. The young man's impaired condition
has certainly impacted his family members. Their
resources and strength are bound to be stressed by the
need to provide full time care to the claimant. For the
appellant to constantly rely on them for stimulation
and support is destined to cause emotional, physical
and financial fatigue for all the stakeholders.
(emphasis added)
33. In Abhimanyu Pratap Singh v. Nanita Sekhon , (2022) 8 SCC 489,
the Supreme Court observed that the claimant would require diapers with
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:30
MAC. APP. 377/2025 & MAC. APP. 614/2026 Page 14 of 22

at least 2 attendants within 24 hours. The Court also acknowledged that
compensation under the head of physiotherapy and expenses for use of
diapers would be required. Relevant findings of the Court are extracted as
under:
“ 23. In the head of medical expenses, the MACT or
the High Court has not awarded any compensation
presumably because the mother of the claimant, who
was minor at the time of accident, may have claimed
the amount of medical expenses being an IAS officer.
But now the claimant has become major, and looking
to the nature of injuries, future medical expenses that
includes the attendant charges, use of diapers due to
loss of urination senses is required to be calculated
including future medical expenses. The Tribunal
awarded Rs 1,92,000 in the head of attendant charges
@ Rs 1000 p.m. While the High Court proceeded on
the premises that the rate of the attendant charges is
variable after every five years, however, the Court
calculated the amount @ Rs 2000 thereafter @ Rs
4000 p.m. for a period of 20 years and accordingly
determined Rs 9,00,000 making enhancement of Rs
7,08,000 in the said head. As discussed, if we apply
the multiplier method and in view of the judgment
of Kajal [Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413 :
(2020) 3 SCC (Civ) 27 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 577] , we
accept the rate of attendant charges at Rs 5000 p.m.
for 12 hours, looking to the nature of injuries and
disability the claimant is required two attendants at
least within 24 hours then the expenses in the head of
attendant charges comes to Rs 10,000 p.m. If we apply
the multiplier of 18, the amount comes to Rs
21,60,000.
24. Similarly for medical expenses in the head of
physiotherapy required to the claimant, the Tribunal
awarded Rs 2,88,000 @ Rs 50 per day. The High
Court granted lump sum amount of Rs 8,00,000
including the expenses for diapers. In our considered
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:30
MAC. APP. 377/2025 & MAC. APP. 614/2026 Page 15 of 22

opinion, the said amount is not adequate. In these
days the physiotherapist would charge at least Rs 150
per day to treat the patient for one hour which
monthly comes to Rs 4500 and annually Rs 54,000;
applying the multiplier of 18, the amount in the head
of physiotherapy charges comes to Rs 9,72,000. For
the purpose of use of diapers, regular medical check-
up and medical expenses if we further add Rs
2,00,000 then in the head of future medical expenses
the amount comes to Rs 11,72,000.”
(emphasis added)


34. These decisions have also been taken into account by this Court
while considering a plea for enhancement of compensation in Siyaram
Singh v. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited
2026:DHC:6581, where compensation was enhanced on account of
attendant charges, special diet, diapers and hygiene expenses,
physiotherapy, conveyance charges, pain and suffering, loss of amenities
of life and disfigurement.
35. It is quite clear that the situation which the family finds themselves
in, are extremely pressing considering that a young member of the family
has been relegated to a life of being disabled and almost in a vegetative
state. However, they need to take care of his own dignity of life and
proper continued medical treatment, maintenance and full-time care,
which undoubtedly causes emotional, physical and financial fatigue for
the family.
36. Taking into account the medical expenses incurred by claimant on
nursing and attendant , the Court is inclined to grant the expenses incurred
towards one attendant and one nurse under the head of attendant charges.
As regards the regular attendant required for the claimant, minimum
wages of a skilled worker prevalent at the time of accident at Rs.21,917/-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:30
MAC. APP. 377/2025 & MAC. APP. 614/2026 Page 16 of 22

per month which will be considered with a multiplier of 18. This amount
is being awarded in line with applicable principles as discussed by the
Supreme Court in the above-mentioned decisions. Accordingly, Rs.
47,34,072/- (Rs.21,917/- x 12 x 18) will be awarded towards regular
attendant.
37. As far as expenses towards nursing charges is concerned, though,
the parameter can be taken as minimum wages of a skilled worker,
however, it is noted that nursing requires a higher amount of skill and
qualification and considering that, as per the discharge summaries noted
above, the claimant requires change of position, tracheostomy tube,
feeding through a Ryles tube and would require medical management
aside from a regular attendant. Accordingly, expenses towards nursing
attendant are awarded at Rs.30,000/- per month with a multiplier of 18.
Therefore, Rs. 64,80,000/-(Rs. 30,000 x 12x 18) will be awarded under the
head of attendant charges towards nursing attendant.

Future Medical Expenses
38. As regards future medical expenses, no amount has been awarded
by the MACT under this head which is not a correct assessment of the
situation that the claimant finds himself in, due to the accident, with his
family having to take care of his recurring expenses, including, having
undergone a surgery for removal of calcium from joints.

39. After the passing of impugned award, the claimant’s family claims
to have spent Rs.4,11,095/- till July 2026, i.e. for a period of about 16
months since the passing of the impugned award, which would amount to
Rs.25,694/- per month. Besides it has been stated that the claimant has
incurred expenses due to the disposable items, including, diapers, bed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:30
MAC. APP. 377/2025 & MAC. APP. 614/2026 Page 17 of 22

sheets, gloves, wipes, etc at about Rs.14,90,400/- for 16 months till July
2026, since the passing of the impugned award, which would amount to
Rs. 93,150/- per month. Mr. Gupta submits that the average expense
which has been incurred by the claimant is stated to be Rs.50,000/- per
month on various expenses and by applying a multiplier of 18,
Rs.1,08,00,000/- has been claimed.
40. Numerous bills have been produced on record in respect of the
expenditure incurred towards treatment and care of the claimant following
the passing of impugned award. The claimant continues to remain in a
vegetative state. However, it is pertinent to note that the bills placed on
record before this Court have not been duly proved. Nevertheless, this
Court is conscious of the plight of the claimant, who remains in a
vegetative state, as well as the hardships faced by the family members in
providing for the claimant’s continued treatment and care.
41. It is a settled principle of law that compensation under MV Act,
cannot be awarded on pittance. It is the duty of the Court to award just and
reasonable compensation. In cases where the injured claimant remains in a
vegetative state, quantification of compensation necessarily requires the
Court to make a reasonable estimation, having regard to the attendant
circumstances and practical realities, as the actual and future expenses
cannot always be precisely ascertained or awarded on the basis of proved
expenditure alone. Accordingly, the compensation awarded herein has
been assessed by applying the multiplier method, with a view to ensuring
a degree of standardisation in the assessment of compensation while
striving to arrive at an amount that is just, reasonable and adequate in the
facts and circumstances of the present case.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:30
MAC. APP. 377/2025 & MAC. APP. 614/2026 Page 18 of 22

42. Considering that it is very difficult to estimate as to the amount
which would be required for medical expenses towards the future
expenses, the estimation of Rs.50,000/- per month towards all medical
expenses is considered as justified with a multiplier of 18. Accordingly,
Rs.1,08,00,000/- is awarded towards future medical expenses.

Physiotherapy charges
43. As regards physiotherapy charges, certain medical documents have
been filed, along with CM APP. 54479/2026. Moreover, physiotherapy
bills were filed before the MACT, which have been exhibited as Ex.PW3/3
and Ex.PW3/4 amounting to Rs.60,000/- and Rs. 62,000/- respectively.
Physiotherapy was being taken from different persons at different times
for the last few months, and physiotherapy charges were claimed at the
rate of about 900/- per session, which comes up to Rs.27,000/- per month.
44. Since the claimant would be requiring physiotherapy for the entirety
of his life, the multiplier system ought to be adopted. Taking into account
physiotherapy at about Rs.30,000/- per month (Rs.1,000 per day/-) with
multiplier of 18, will be awarded. Accordingly, Rs. 64,80,000/- (30,000 x
12 x18) will be awarded towards physiotherapy charges.

Interest
45. As regards the rate of interest, reliance in this regard may be placed
upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kaushnuma Begum (Smt.) &
Ors. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. , (2001) 2 SCC 9 wherein,
while interpreting the powers of the Tribunal under Section 171 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to award simple interest on compensation from
the date of institution of the claim petition, it was observed that the rate of
interest awarded by nationalised banks on fixed deposits ought to serve as
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:30
MAC. APP. 377/2025 & MAC. APP. 614/2026 Page 19 of 22

the guiding factor while determining the rate of interest payable on
compensation amounts.
46. Considering that the rate of interest in 2024 was in the range of
6.50-7% the interest rate shall be considered at 7% instead of 6% as
awarded by the MACT.
47. As regards the assertions by the Insurance Company seeking
reduction of compensation awarded towards non-pecuniary loss,
considering the facts and circumstances and condition of the injured, the
plea of the Insurance Company is rejected.
48. Accordingly, the revised computation is as under:
S. no. Heads Awarded by the
Awarded by
Tribunal
this Court
PECUNIARY LOSS
1. Expenditure on Medical
Bills and medical treatment
(A)
Rs. 1,73,594/- Rs. 1,73,594/-
2. Expenditure on conveyance
(B)
Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
3. Expenditure on special diet
(C)
Rs.1,00,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/-
4. Attendant Charges (D)
[Nurse Attendant + Regular
Attendant]
Rs. 10,26,000/-
Regular Attendant: Rs,
Nurse Attendant: Rs.
30,000 x 12x 18=
3,90,000/-
Nursing Attendant:
Rs. 64,80,000/-
Regular Attendant= Rs.
Rs.6,36,000/-
21,917 x 12 x 18=
Rs. 47,34,072/-
Total= 1,12,14,072/-
5. Income of injured per
month(E)
Rs. 30,271/- Rs. 30,271/-
6. Annual Income (E x 12=F) Rs. 3,63,252/- Rs. 3,63,252/-
7. Add: Future prospects (G) 40% 40%
8. Multiplier (H) 18 18
9. Functional disability (I) 100% 100%
10. Loss of future Rs. 91,53,950/- Rs. 91,53,950/-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:30
MAC. APP. 377/2025 & MAC. APP. 614/2026 Page 20 of 22

income/future earnings
[(F+G) x H x I] = (J)
11. Physiotherapy Charges (K) Nil Rs. 30,000 x 12 x18=
Rs. 64,80,000/-
12. Future medical expenses
(L)
Nil Rs. 50,000 x 12 x18=
Rs, 1,08,00,000/-
NON-PECUNIARY LOSS
13. Compensation for loss of
earning, inconvenience,
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and
unhappiness in future life.
(M)
Rs. 5,00,000/- Rs. 5,00,000/-
14. Mental & Physical Shock
& Pain & Suffering (N)
Rs. 10,00,000/- Rs. 10,00,000/-
15. Loss of amenities of life
(O)
Rs. 5,00,000/- Rs. 5,00,000/-
16. Loss of Marriage Prospects
(P)
Rs. 5,00,000/- Rs. 5,00,000/-
17. Total compensation
(A+B+C+D+J+K+L+M+N
+O+P) = (Q)
Rs. 1,30,53,544/- Rs. 4,05,21,616/-
18. Interest awarded 6% per annum 7% per annum
19. Enhanced compensation Rs. 2,74,68,072/-

49. Accordingly, the compensation is enhanced by Rs. 2,74,68,072/-
[‘ enhanced amount ’] .
50. Enhanced amount along with 7 % interest per annum from the date
of filing the petition shall be deposited before MACT within a period of
six weeks. It is directed that a lump sum amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- along
with accrued interest 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.1,00,000/- each for periods of 1 month, 2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:30
MAC. APP. 377/2025 & MAC. APP. 614/2026 Page 21 of 22

months, 3 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
along with accrued interest to the Savings Bank Account of claimant upon
due verification.
th
51. This Court vide order dated 30 May 2025 directed the Insurance
Company to deposit the entire decretal amount within a period of six
weeks. Subject to the deposit a stay was directed on the operation of the
impugned award. Further, it was directed that 75% of the deposited
compensation along with accrued interest shall be released to claimant in
accordance with the scheme set out in the impugned award. Further, this
th
Court vide order dated 15 October 2026 directed release of lump sum
Rs.15,00,000/- to the claimant by liquidating the requisite number of
FDRs. The remaining amount from the originally deposited compensation
shall continue to be released as per the scheme of the impugned award.
52. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
53. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
54. Statutory deposit be refunded to the insurance company, only if the
order of deposit has been complied with.
55. Copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned MACT and
concerned bank.
56. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.

ANISH DAYAL, J
NOVEMBER 06, 2026/sm/ zb/sp
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:30
MAC. APP. 377/2025 & MAC. APP. 614/2026 Page 22 of 22