Rakesh Surtan vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd & Ors

$~10 & 11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 08 September 2026
# CNR No. DLHC012645112018
+ MAC.APP. 814/2018 & CM APPL. 37086/2018
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant
versus

RAKESH SURTAN & ORS .....Respondents


11
# CNR No. DLHC010229462019
+ MAC.APP. 558/2019
RAKESH SURTAN .....Appellant
versus

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD & ORS
.....Respondents


Appearance : Mr. Pankaj Seth, Ms. Shruti Jain & Ms. Vijay Laxmi Mr.
Yuvraj Sharma, Advocates for Insurance Company.

Mr. Manish Maini & Ms. Aastha Chauhan, Advocates
for claimant.

Mr. R.P.S. Bhatti, Advocate for respondent
no.3/registered owner


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:15.09.2026
18:14:56
MAC.APP. 814/2018 & MAC.APP. 558/2019 Page- 1 of 9

JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)
1. These cross appeals have been filed assailing impugned award dated
th
07 June 2018, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, East District,
Karkardooma Courts [‘ MACT/Tribunal ’], in Suit No. 220/2016 , whereby
compensation of Rs. 3,03,000/- , along with interest at the rate of 9% per
th
annum, was awarded, in relation to an accident which occurred on 15 July
2011 [‘ impugned award ’].
2. MAC.APP. 814/2018 has been filed by the Insurance Company seeking
recovery rights whereas MAC.APP. 558/2019 has been filed by the
injured/claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation.
3. The said accident resulted in injuries to one, Rakesh Surtan , who was
29 years old at the time of the accident and was working as a ‘ Finance
Manager ’ with a salary of Rs.21,000/- per month. As a result of the accident,
he suffered grievous injuries in the form of ‘ fracture of both bones of his left
leg ’, resulting in 16% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb .
4. Mr. Pankaj Seth , counsel for the Insurance Company, contends that the
MACT ought to have granted rights of recovery to it, since Vinay
Kumar /driver of the offending vehicle [ respondent no.2 in MAC.APP.
814/2018 ] was not holding a valid driving licence [‘ DL ’] at the time of the
accident.
5. The Court has perused the analysis undertaken by the MACT, as set out
in paragraph nos. 42 to 48 of the impugned award, which details the evidence
led before the Tribunal regarding verification of the DL. It examined R1W1 ,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:15.09.2026
18:14:56
MAC.APP. 814/2018 & MAC.APP. 558/2019 Page- 2 of 9

Deo Mani Bhartiya, Assistant Regional Transport Officer [‘ ARTO ’],
Farrukhabad, Uttar Pradesh [‘ U.P. ’], who relied upon the report, exhibited as
Ex. R3W1/1 , showing that the original record was sent to the Regional
Transport Office [‘ RTO ’], Kanpur, and was being examined by a 7 member
committee for irregularities. However, there was no specific information in
writing in that regard. To the contrary, R2W2 , Sanjay Kumar Jha , Senior
ARTO, Enforcement, Farrukhabad, U.P., deposed that the license was
subsequently renewed and the RTO Office was maintaining the record of
Vinay Kumar ’ s DL on its computer system.
6. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to accept the plea of the
Insurance Company.
7. As regards enhancement of the compensation, Ms. Aastha Chauhan ,
counsel for injured/claimant, points out that the MACT did not award any
compensation towards ‘ loss of future income’ , on the ground that he was
earning Rs. 36,000/- per month at the time of the MACT proceedings, which
was higher than the income being earned by him at the time of the accident,
i.e. Rs.21,000/- per month.
8. Ms. Aastha Chauhan , counsel for injured/claimant, counters the
aforesaid reasoning adopted by the MACT and contends that, at the very least,
the loss of his potential earning capacity post-retirement, ought to have been
taken into consideration. In this regard, she relies upon the decision of this
Court in Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dipanjan Ghosh, 2016
SCC OnLine Del 1528. For ease of reference, the relevant paragraphs from
Dipanjan Ghosh ( supra ) are extracted as under:
“ 4. In the face of the fact that there is no loss of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:15.09.2026
18:14:56
MAC.APP. 814/2018 & MAC.APP. 558/2019 Page- 3 of 9

employment and the claimant has continued to be in
service, there is substance in the contention raised by
the insurance company. But it cannot be forgotten that
there would be loss of future earnings arising out of the
disability suffered, once the claimant retires.
Ordinarily, the employees even in private service are
superannuated at the age of 60 years. In these
circumstances, the loss of future earnings due to
disability requires to be recalculated on the multiplier
of 9.

5. Having regard to the fact that there is bound to be
increase in the income over the period the claimant
continues to serve in the present employment, the
element of future prospects would have to be added.
Since the loss of future earning capacity is to be
computed with reference to the income that would be
available at the time of superannuation, the current
income is increased by 30% and, thus, the notional
income on which future earning capacity may be
assessed is calculated as (55,000 × 130 ÷ 100) Rs.
71,500/- per month. The loss of earnings at 40%
disability comes to (71,500 × 40 ÷ 100) Rs. 28,600/-. On
the multiplier of 9, the total loss of future earnings
comes to (28,600 × 12 × 9) Rs. 30,88,800/- rounded off
to Rs. 30,90,000/-. Since the Tribunal calculated this
portion of the compensation at Rs. 39,60,000/-, the total
compensation ordered to be paid has to be reduced by
(39,60,000 - 30,90,000) Rs. 8,70,000/-. In this view, the
compensation is reduced to (49,20,420 - 8,70,000) Rs.
40,50,420/- rounded off to Rs. 40,51,000/. It shall carry
interest at 9% per annum as directed by the Tribunal. ”
(emphasis added)

9. A similar view has also been taken by this Court in Govind Singh
Mauni v. Tej Bhan , 2026 SCC OnLine Del 527, wherein the decision of Ball
v. William Hunts and Sons Ltd. (1912) A.C 496, was cited as regards the
issue of potentiality of losing income. In Govind Singh Mauni ( supra ) , the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:15.09.2026
18:14:56
MAC.APP. 814/2018 & MAC.APP. 558/2019 Page- 4 of 9

Court recorded as under:
“18. The essential principle follows from the House of
Lords’ decision in Ball v. William Hunts and Sons
(supra) which is highlighted in the following extract in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors
(supra):
“There is also an opinion of the House of lords that
may be relevant to understand this concept. Ball v.
William Hunts and Sons Limited, (1912) AC 496,
was the case of a workman, who was blinded in one
eye. The defect was not visible and he was to have
appearance as two-eyed man. He had come to such
a disability status when he had sustained an
employment injury in which the defective eye had
to be removed with the consequences that he could
not get employment though physically he was as
well as before. The House of Lords held that the
incapacity of work included inability to work, or in
other words, there is incapacity for work when a
man has physical defect which makes his working
unsaleable in any market reasonably accessible to
him. Applying the same logic, a person who has
suffered an injury may not come by immediate loss
if he is retained in the same employment and does
not lose his job, but in his own saleability
elsewhere as a fresh recruit to a new employer, he
may come by a serious handicap. That shall come
by a serious handicap. That shall be a justification
enough to provide for compensation in such types
of cases.”
(emphasis added)
xx
28. In Ball v. William Hunt & Sons Ltd. (supra), the
focus was placed on ‘marketability of labour’ rather
than mere wage continuity. This reasoning was
expressly approved by the United States Supreme Court
in New York Central Railroad Co. v. Bianc; American
Knife Co. v. Sweeting, 1919 SCC OnLine US SC 210,
while upholding the validity of compensation for serious
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:15.09.2026
18:14:56
MAC.APP. 814/2018 & MAC.APP. 558/2019 Page- 5 of 9

disfigurement under the New York Workmen’s
Compensation Law. The U.S. Supreme Court observed
that serious physical disfigurement may reasonably and
adversely affect a person’s ability to obtain or retain
employment, and relied upon the reasoning in Ball v.
William Hunt & Sons Ltd., (supra), to underscore that
diminished employability constitutes a legitimate basis
for compensation, independent of immediate loss of
earning power.
29. Although Ball v. William Hunt & Sons Ltd. (supra),
and the American Knife Co. (supra) decision arose in
the context of workmen’s compensation statutes, the
underlying principle is fully consonant with Indian
Supreme Court jurisprudence under the Motor Vehicles
Act. The Act mandates the award of “just
compensation” under Section 168, which, as
emphasised in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma v. DTC,
(2009) 6 SCC 121, must be fair, realistic and proximate
to the actual loss suffered. Once functional disability
affecting earning capacity is established, compensation
must be assessed using the multiplier method,
irrespective of the fact that the claimant may have
continued in service or received increments post-
accident.
30. The denial of compensation for loss of future earning
capacity solely on the ground that the claimant
continues in employment or has not suffered immediate
wage loss would be inconsistent with settled Supreme
Court jurisprudence. The law recognises that economic
vulnerability, reduced employability, and diminished
labour-market acceptability and inability to secure
employment are real and compensable consequences of
permanent disability. Comparative jurisprudence,
including Ball v. William Hunt & Sons Ltd. (supra) as
approved by the U.S. Supreme Court, reinforces this
understanding and supports a principled, forward-
looking assessment of loss of earning capacity in motor
accident claims.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:15.09.2026
18:14:56
MAC.APP. 814/2018 & MAC.APP. 558/2019 Page- 6 of 9

xx
35. As regards the multiplier, considering he was 50
years of age and would have retired at the age of 60
years, the principal applied in Desh Raj Singh
Gautam v. Sunil Kumar (supra) and Rajbir
Singh v. National Insurance Company Ltd., (supra) can
be suitably adopted. Therefore, as per National
Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi (supra)
and Sarla Verma (Smt.) v. Delhi Transport
Corporation (supra), the multiplier of ‘9’ would be
applicable. ” ”
(emphasis added)
10. Accordingly, ‘ loss of future income ’ of injured/claimant shall be
calculated by taking his income at Rs.21,000/- per month; an addition of 40%
shall be made towards future prospects ; functional disability of
injured/claimant shall be assessed at 10% and a multiplier of ‘9’ shall be
adopted.
11. Ms. Aastha Chauhan , counsel for injured/claimant, also raises a
challenge to the compensation awarded under non-pecuniary heads; however,
considering the nature of his injuries, no further non-pecuniary damages are
warranted.
12. Accordingly, the revised compensation shall be calculated as under:
S. No. Heads of Compensation Awarded by
Awarded by the
Tribunal
Court
Pecuniary Loss
1. Compensation towards
Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 50,000/-
medical bills (A)
2. Expenditure on
Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 20,000/-
conveyance and special
diet (B)
3. Cost of attendant charges Rs. 8,000/- Rs. 8,000/-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:15.09.2026
18:14:56
MAC.APP. 814/2018 & MAC.APP. 558/2019 Page- 7 of 9

(C)
4. Income of injured per
Rs. 21,000/- Rs. 21,000/-
month (D)
5. Loss of Income (E) Rs. 75,000/- Rs. 75,000/-
6. Future Prospects (F) NIL Rs. 29,400/-
[@40%]
7. Functional disability NIL 10%
8. Multiplier (H) NIL 9
9. Loss of future earning
NIL Rs. 3,17,520/-
capacity (I) [F X 12 X G
X H]
Non-pecuniary loss
10. Pain and suffering (J) Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/-
11. Loss of amenities of life
Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 50,000/-
(K)
12. Total [A + B + C+ E + I
Rs. 3,03,000/- Rs. 6,20,520/-
+ J+ K ]
13. Enhanced
Rs. 3,17,520/-
compensation
14. Interest 9% 9%

Directions
13. For aforesaid reasons, compensation has been enhanced by
Rs.3,17,520/- [‘ enhanced amount ’].
14. The enhanced amount, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum,
shall be deposited before the Registrar General of this Court within a period
of six weeks . The enhanced amount shall thereafter be released in favour of
injured/claimant as a lump sum considering that the accident occurred way
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:15.09.2026
18:14:56
MAC.APP. 814/2018 & MAC.APP. 558/2019 Page- 8 of 9

back in 2011.
th
15. Vide order dated 11 September 2018, this Court had directed the
Insurance Company to deposit the entire awarded amount, along with accrued
interest thereon, before the Registrar General of this Court. Further, by way
rd
of order dated 03 May 2019, this Court had directed that the aforesaid
deposited amount be released in favour of injured/claimant in terms of the
scheme of disbursement specified in the impugned award.
16. Accordingly, if any amount out of originally awarded compensation
has still not been released, the same shall be released in favour of the
injured/claimant, along with accrued interest thereon, as a lump sum,
considering that the accident occurred way back in 2011.
17. The appeals are accordingly disposed of in above terms.
18. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
19. Statutory deposit, if any, shall be refunded to the Insurance Company
only if the order of deposit has been complied with.
20. Judgement be uploaded on the website of this Court.

(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 08, 2026/sm/ ya
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:15.09.2026
18:14:56
MAC.APP. 814/2018 & MAC.APP. 558/2019 Page- 9 of 9