Suman Debnath vs Union Of India & Anr

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

th
% Reserved on : 11 May 2026
st
Pronounced on : 01 July 2026
nd
Uploaded on : 02 July 2026


+ MAC.APP. 43/2013
SUMAN DEBNATH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Yashish Chandra, Mr. Ankit
Singh and Mr. Vijay Rajput Advs.
versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Jivesh Kumar Tiwari (CGSC)
with Ms. Nandini Aggarwal & Ms.
Samiksha, Advocates for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J.
1. This appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation
th
granted in Award dated 28 April 2012 [“ impugned award ”] passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South, Saket Courts [“ Tribunal ”],
awarding compensation of Rs. 8,43,120/- with interest @ 9% from the date
of the filing of the claim petition.

Factual Background
st
2. Accident occurred on 1 November 2007, wherein a claimant, who
was a Constable posted with Sashastra Seema Bal (‘ SSB’ ) at Gorakhpur ,
was travelling along with four other persons in an SSB vehicle bearing no.
“ UA-12A-2645 ”, a Tata 407 .
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:44:18
MAC.APP. 43/2013 1/30

3. The driver was allegedly driving in a rash and negligent manner,
and the vehicle met with an accident after falling into a ditch, causing
nd
injuries to all the occupants. FIR No. 159/2007 dated 2 November 2007
was registered by SSB/respondent no.1 at Police Station Madugaon,
Rudraprayag, Uttarakhand . Appellant/claimant was provided medical aid
and was thereafter referred to Orthonova Hospital, New Delhi , where he
was undergoing regular treatment on government expense.
4. Appellant/claimant examined PW-2 / Dr. Diganta Borah , Assistant
Professor, Safdarjung Hospital , who proved the disability certificate
certifying that he had suffered 100% permanent physical disability in
relation to both his lower limbs. The disability certificate was exhibited as
Exhibit PW2/E . Importantly, the testimony of RW-1 / Sh. Manmohan
th
Singh, Commandant, 25 Battalion, SSB, Ghitorni, with whom the
Constable Suman Debnath [ appellant herein ] was posted, stated that all
medical expenses, admissible as per rules, were claimed and paid to the
appellant on a regular basis. Further, he was being paid normal salary
while attending office and performing a desk job. Moreover, his personal
needs were being taken care of by the Unit. He had been categorized under
th
a low medical category on 7 April 2011, which rendered him “ unfit ” for
Force duties. The decision regarding invalidation pension was yet to be
taken.
5. It was further stated that, if he was allowed to go on invalidation
pension, he would be eligible for the same, including ‘ attendance
allowance ’ to the tune of Rs.3,000/- per month as per the rules and ex
gratia amounting to Rs.9,00,000/- in relation to his 100% disability, in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:44:18
MAC.APP. 43/2013 2/30

case he was medically boarded out. Apart from this, he would be
considered for grant from the Force Welfare Fund, which could be up to
Rs.3,00,000/-.
6. The Tribunal held that, since no evidence was led by the driver of
the vehicle, Issue No.1 regarding negligence stood decided in favour of
the claimant. As regards compensation, it was noted that he was drawing
a monthly salary of Rs.13,567/-.
7. Taking into account the principles in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar &
Anr . (2011) 1 SCC 343, the Tribunal noted that the claimant had suffered
100% permanent disability in both lower limbs and that he had continued
in employment and was performing a desk job. It was held that there was
no immediate loss of earning capacity , though he would suffer loss of
promotional opportunities, which could not be estimated by adopting the
multiplier method since the claimant had not suffered any loss of income
on account of disability.
8. Accordingly, the Tribunal granted compensation towards loss of
amenities at Rs.2,00,000/- and non-pecuniary compensation for pain and
suffering at Rs.1,00,000/- . Compensation towards loss of marriage
prospects at Rs.1,50,000/- , conveyance allowance for Rs.20,000/-, and
towards special diet for Rs.40,000/- was also awarded. Considering that
the claimant was 22 years of age at the time of the accident, the minimum
wages for “ unskilled ” worker was taken at Rs.3,470/- , and attendant
charges were calculated for about 8 years to help him overcome minimum
difficulties. Accordingly, the following compensation was awarded by the
Tribunal along with interest @ 7.5%:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:44:18
MAC.APP. 43/2013 3/30

S.NO HEADS OF COMPENSATION AMOUNT AWARDED
1. Attendant Charges Rs.3,33,120 /-
2. Conveyance Charges Rs. 20,000/-
3. Special Diet Rs.40,000/-
4. Pain and Suffering Rs.1,00,000 /-

5. Loss of Amenities of Life Rs.2,00,000 /-
6. Loss of Marriage Prospects Rs.1,50,000 /-
TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.8,43,120/-
INTEREST 7.5%

9. Liability was placed on respondent no.1/ Union of India , which was
the owner of the vehicle. Accordingly, the Tribunal, vide impugned award,
directed release of 40% of the compensation awarded in favour of the
appellant/claimant, with the remaining amount to be invested in fixed
deposit in terms of the scheme provided in paragraph 24 of the impugned
award.
10. The appeal filed before this Court seeks enhancement on following
counts:
(i) That compensation for pain and suffering ought to have been
awarded at Rs.2,00,000/- instead of Rs.1,00,000/-.
(ii) Loss of amenities of life including loss of marriage prospects
ought to have been assessed at Rs.10,00,000/- instead of
Rs.2,00,000/-.
(iii) Loss of expectation or longevity of life ought to have been
assessed at Rs.2,00,000/-.
(iv) Attendant charges , which were calculated on the basis of minimum
wages for “ unskilled ” worker at Rs.3,470/- only for 8 years, ought
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:44:18
MAC.APP. 43/2013 4/30

to have been extended to 48 years till the age of 70 and ought to
have been calculated at Rs.8,00,000/- .
(v) Rate of interest granted @ 7.5% should be taken at 9% .

11. While the appeal was pending before this Court, the
th
appellant/claimant was invalidated from service with SSB on 17 February
2022, on the account of his disability. The claim made by the
appellant/claimant was, therefore, amplified beyond what was originally
sought in the appeal.
12. A preliminary objection was taken by Mr. Jeevesh Kumar Tiwari ,
CGSC, appearing on behalf of respondent no.1/ Union of India , that the
invalidation order had been passed, considering the appellant’s service
record, the opinion of the Medical Board, as well his performance. He had
been granted entitlement to pension under the Central Civil Services
Pension Rules, and an amount of Rs.30,88,861/- had been paid towards
pensionary benefits. It was contended that, if appellant/claimant was
aggrieved by the said invalidation order, then he ought to have challenged
the same by way of a Writ Petition, and which would be outside the remit
of the present appeal.
th
13. On 30 January 2026, after hearing preliminary arguments, the
Court culled out the certain points on which the counsels were expected to
address the Court. The same are extracted hereunder:
“ (i) Whether appellant/injured can amplify his claim
towards non-pecuniary damages beyond those claimed in
appeal filed in 2013, by claiming much higher amounts
under non-pecuniary heads as on date?
(ii) One of the main grounds asserted by appellant while
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:44:18
MAC.APP. 43/2013 5/30

assailing the impugned award was the non-grant of future
prospects, on the ground that appellant would have
continued to be in service, based on the testimony of RW-
1 [Commandant of Sashastra Seema Bal]. At that time,
appellant was 22 years of age, having been injured while
an occupant of a vehicle being driven on duty. Today,
appellant is stated to be 36 years of age but has not been
invalidated from service, though with certain benefits.
Thus, whether future prospects are to be calculated on the
basis of multiplier applicable on the date of accident or as
on date of invalidation, considering that he has had the
benefit of service from the age of 22 till the age of 34 at the
time of invalidation in 2022 ?
(iii) Whether the pension, ex-gratia amount, or any other
benefits provided to him upon his invalidation from service
are liable to be deducted from the compensation to be
awarded?
(iv) Sashastra Seema Bal (‘ SSB ’) claims, based on its
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), that the appellant
has been granted benefits under Category ‘C’, which
applies to disability due to an accident during the
performance of duty. Whether appellant can be doubly
benefited i.e. both by additional benefits granted by SSB
and through the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [MACT]
process.
(v) With the passage of time, since the appeal has been
pending on the Board of this Court, whether the claim can
be amplified to a higher amount?
(vi) There is no challenge by appellant to the invalidation
order till date. Whether any such challenge, if raised,
would have an impact on compensation being sought? ”

14. Submissions of the parties were appreciated in the context of these
issues, which have been delineated hereunder.

Submissions on behalf of appellant/claimants
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:44:18
MAC.APP. 43/2013 6/30

15. On the first issue , namely whether claim for damages could be
amplified during the course of the appeal, counsel for the appellant relied
upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Jyoti Singh v.
Nandkishore & Ors . 2023:DHC:2569. The said case pertains to an
accident, which rendered a 14-year-old child wheelchair-bound for the rest
of her life, resulting in 100% disability. Reliance was placed upon on the
decision of the Supreme Court in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand & Ors . (2020)
4 SCC 413, which dealt with a similar case of a 12-year-old schoolgirl who
had suffered 100% disability and was awarded enhanced compensation.
16. The Court awarded the following compensation:

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:44:18
MAC.APP. 43/2013 7/30

17. On this basis, appellant contended that the application of the
multiplier method on non-pecuniary compensation was justified,
particularly since there has been a material change in circumstances, and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:44:18
MAC.APP. 43/2013 8/30

confining appellant’s claim to the pleadings of 2013 would amount to
ignoring the devastating impact of the accident, which had manifested over
a period of time. Reliance was placed on the Court’s powers under Section
168 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 [“ MV Act ”] to take cognizance of
subsequent events and award the relief.
18. On the second issue of future prospects , it was contended that, while
the appellant was in service with the respondent, there was no future loss
th
of earning . However, upon his invalidation on 17 February 2022 due to
disability suffered, the claim for future loss crystallized. Appellant was 34
years of age at that time of invalidation and, therefore, the future loss ought
to be reckoned as on the date of invalidation, by adopting a multiplier of
“ 16 ” along with 50% addition towards future prospects on basis of the last
drawn salary of the appellant/claimant, which was at Rs.68,918/-
following the principles enunciated in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 .
19. On the third issue concerning ex gratia deductions, pension and
other benefits, it was contended that compensation was required to be
calculated on the basis of the last drawn salary, and retiral benefits of
whatever nature, ought not to be deducted while computing the said
amount, irrespective of the accident or injury. Reliance in this regard was
placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Hanumantharaju B. v.
M. Akram Pasha , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1106. The said case pertained to
an appellant who was working as a Sub-Inspector in Central Reserve
Police Force [“ CRPF ”] and met with an accident while riding his
motorcycle, which collided with a car within in the CRPF campus. The
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:44:18
MAC.APP. 43/2013 9/30

High Court had deducted pension amount from the salary, upon which the
Supreme Court observed as under:
“ 19. It is also now well settled that the amount of
compensation is to be calculated on the basis of last drawn
salary of the injured/deceased in respect of salaried
persons and pension and such retirement benefits enjoyed
cannot be deducted for computing the income, these being
statutory rights receivable by the employee or his legal
heirs irrespective of any unforeseen incident of accidents,
fatal injuries etc. and such pensionary benefit is not
directly relatable to the motor accident. Hence, pensionary
benefit could not have been treated as “pecuniary
advantage” liable to be deducted for the purpose of
computation of compensation within the scope of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988.
For this proposition of law, we may refer to the decision
in Vimal Kanwar v. Kishore Dan (2013) 7 SCC 476,
wherein this Court, by referring to the earlier decision
in Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC (1999) 1 SCC
90, held as follows:—
“19. The aforesaid issue fell for consideration before
this Court in Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra
SRTC [(1999) 1 SCC 90 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 197]. In
the said case, this Court held that provident fund,
pension, insurance and similarly any cash, bank
balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. are all a
“pecuniary advantage” receivable by the heirs on
account of one's death but all these have no
correlation with the amount receivable under a
statute occasioned only on account of accidental
death. Such an amount will not come within the
periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as
“pecuniary advantage” liable for deduction. The
following was the observation and finding of this
Court : (SCC pp. 111-12, para 35)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:44:18
MAC.APP. 43/2013 10/30

“35. Broadly, we may examine the receipt of the
provident fund which is a deferred payment out of the
contribution made by an employee during the tenure
of his service. Such employee or his heirs are entitled
to receive this amount irrespective of the accidental
death. This amount is secured, is certain to be
received, while the amount under the Motor Vehicles
Act is uncertain and is receivable only on the
happening of the event viz. accident, which may not
take place at all. Similarly, family pension is also
earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in
the form of his contribution in the service in terms of
the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his
death. The heirs receive family pension even
otherwise than the accidental death. No co-relation
between the two. Similarly, life insurance policy is
received either by the insured or the heirs of the
insured on account of the contract with the insurer,
for which the insured contributes in the form of
premium. It is receivable even by the insured if he
lives till maturity after paying all the premiums. In the
case of death, the insurer indemnifies to pay the sum
to the heirs, again in terms of the contract for the
premium paid. Again, this amount is receivable by the
claimant not on account of any accidental death but
otherwise on the insured's death. Death is only a step
or contingency in terms of the contract, to receive the
amount. Similarly, any cash, bank balance, shares,
fixed deposits, etc. though are all a pecuniary
advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one's
death but all these have no co-relation with the
amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on
account of accidental death. How could such an
amount come within the periphery of the Motor
Vehicles Act to be termed as ‘pecuniary advantage’
liable for deduction. When we seek the principle of
loss and gain, it has to be on a similar and same plane
having nexus, inter se, between them and not to which
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:44:18
MAC.APP. 43/2013 11/30

there is no semblance of any co-relation. The insured
(the deceased) contributes his own money for which
he receives the amount which has no co-relation to
the compensation computed as against the tortfeasor
for his negligence on account of the accident. As
aforesaid, the amount receivable as compensation
under the Act is on account of the injury or death
without making any contribution towards it, then how
can the fruits of an amount received through
contributions of the insured be deducted out of the
amount receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The
amount under this Act he receives without any
contribution. As we have said, the compensation
payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory
while the amount receivable under the life insurance
policy is contractual.”
Thus, this Court has categorically held that any amount
receivable on account of PF, pension or insurance cannot
be deducted from the salary of the victim for the purpose
of determining the income or loss of earning for
calculating compensation. This principle was reiterated
in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashi
Sharma (2016) 9 SCC 627 and National Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Birender (2020) 11 SCC 356.
………
21. As regards computing the loss of income, in the light of
the above referred decisions, it would not be permissible
to deduct the pensionary amount of Rs. 15,247/- from the
salary of Rs. 36,231/- as was done by the High Court.
Hence, for the purpose of computing the loss of earning,
the said monthly salary of Rs. 36,231/- has to be accepted
without deducting the pension amount.
………
25. As far as the multiplier is concerned, since there is no
dispute about the age of the original appellant at the time
of the accident, i.e., 43 years, we are also of the view that
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:44:18
MAC.APP. 43/2013 12/30

the appropriate multiplier would be 14 as had been
applied by the Tribunal and the High Court.
26. We, thus, find merit in the submissions made by the
appellants for enhancement of the compensation amount. ”
(emphasis added)
20. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in
Surekha v. Santosh , (2021) 16 SCC 467, wherein the Supreme Court
observed as under:
“2. By now, it is well-settled that in the matter of insurance
claim compensation in reference to the motor accident, the
court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure
that just compensation is awarded to the affected person
or the claimants. ”
(emphasis added)

21. In support of the plea for just compensation , appellant further relied
upon Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC, wherein the Court held
as under:
“ 7. Firstly, under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, (hereinafter referred to as “the MV Act”) there is no
restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to
the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate
case, where from the evidence brought on record if the
Tribunal/court considers that the claimant is entitled to get
more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass
such award. The only embargo is — it should be “just”
compensation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary,
fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. This would be
clear by reference to the relevant provisions of the MV Act.
Section 166 provides that an application for compensation
arising out of an accident involving the death of, or bodily
injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles,
or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or
both, could be made (a) by the person who has sustained
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:44:18
MAC.APP. 43/2013 13/30

the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where
death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the
legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent
duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the
legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be.
Under the proviso to sub-section (1), all the legal
representatives of the deceased who have not joined as the
claimants are to be impleaded as respondents to the
application for compensation. The other important part of
the said section is sub-section (4) which provides that “the
Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents
forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of Section 158 as an
application for compensation under this Act”. Hence, the
Claims Tribunal in an appropriate case can treat the
report forwarded to it as an application for compensation
even though no such claim is made or no specified amount
is claimed.
………
10. Thereafter, Section 168 empowers the Claims Tribunal
to “make an award determining the amount of
compensation which appears to it to be just”. Therefore,
the only requirement for determining the compensation is
that it must be “just”. There is no other limitation or
restriction on its power for awarding just compensation.
………
14. In case, where there is evidence on record justifying
the enhanced compensation for the medical treatment
which is required because of the injury caused to a
claimant due to the accident, there is no reason why such
amendment or enhanced compensation should not be
granted. In such cases, there is no question of introducing
a new or inconsistent cause of action. Cause of action and
evidence remain the same. Only question is — application
of law as it stands. ”
(emphasis added)

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:44:18
MAC.APP. 43/2013 14/30

22. The submission made by counsel for appellant, was that the ex-
gratia amount awarded could be deducted, but not pension, in view of the
aforesaid decisions, particularly Hanumantharaju B. v. M. Akram Pasha
( supra ), since pensionary benefits accrued to him by virtue of his contract
for service and were unrelated to the accident. Pension was a deferred
payment for past services and, therefore, could not, in any circumstances,
be deducted.
23. On the fourth issue , namely whether appellant could receive a
“ double benefit ”, it was contended that the benefits in question would have
accrued to appellant even in the absence of the accident and that he was
independently entitled to the same. The amounts mentioned in the
Standard Operating Procedure [“ SOP ”] relied upon by respondent were
not based on the actual loss of earning . Moreover, the SOP specifically
stipulated that all pensionary benefits would be extended to the person who
has been boarded on account of disability. Therefore, there was no
correlation between compensation under the MV Act and statutory
benefits, and the question on “ double benefit ” did not arise.
24. On the fifth issue , namely whether the claim amount could be
amplified, reliance was placed on Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh ( supra )
and the decision of this Court in Gita v. Mohammad Jamaluddin & Ors
2023 SCC OnLine Del 8065, wherein the Court took into consideration a
disability certificate produced during the pendency of the appeal and
enhanced the compensation.
25. On the sixth issue concerning the challenge to the invalidation
order, it was submitted that the appellant had not challenged the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:44:18
MAC.APP. 43/2013 15/30

invalidation order, but the same could not prejudice his claim. The
invalidation had been carried out by a duly constituted Medical Board,
which found him permanently unfit. By accepting the said finding,
appellant accepted the basis of the 100% loss of earning capacity , and any
challenge to invalidation order would be contradictory to the present
claim, since it would imply that the appellant considered himself fit for
service. The claim for compensation under the MV Act constituted a
separate and distinct legal remedy against the tortfeasor for the negligent
act.
Submissions on behalf of respondents
26. Mr. Tiwari , CGSC appearing for respondent/ Union of India ,
submitted that, in compliance with the impugned award, an amount of
Rs.10,09,490/- had been deposited in the Savings Bank Account of
appellant including interest @ 7.5%. Further, an additional amount of
Rs.3,00,000/- being the financial assistance towards medical invalidation,
had been paid from the SSB Staff Benevolent Fund . Moreover, a full-time
attendant had been provided to him during his service tenure. He was
drawing full salary at par with any other personnel at his rank, and medical
expenses were also being reimbursed in order to enable him to lead a
normal life.
27. After 13 years of service, the SSB Medical Board conducted a
st
Review Medical Examination and made its recommendation on 1
December 2020 recording as under:
“He is given maximum treatment without any neurological
improvement for near 13 years. Now the treatment has
completed and there is no further chance of improvement.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:44:18
MAC.APP. 43/2013 16/30

In view of above, he is recommended to be boarded out and
to be produced before DRB for further necessary action as
per procedure”
(emphasis added)

28. On that basis, the disability was reduced from 100% to 75% , and a
decision was taken to board out the appellant. Appellant approached this
Court by way of a Writ Petition being W.P.(C) 11688/2021 seeking to set
aside the recommendation of the Medical Board and the direction for
boarding out. This Court directed the respondents to constitute another
Review Medical Board. The Review Medical Board declared him under
category of “ P-5 ”, reassessed the disability at 88% , and recorded as under:
“ In view of above, the Departmental Rehabilitation Board
/Medical Invalidation Board finds no reason to retain him
in Govt. service and recommends further action as per
Ministry of Home Affairs Office Memorandum No.
A.12011/126/2014-Pers-III dated. 07.09.2017 and Force
Hqrs, SSB Standing Operating Procedure, No.
VI/35(1)/Rehabilitation/Pers- II/2018/18707-18836 dated.
29.06.2018. Hence, Board recommends No.060021929,
CT/GD Suman Deb Nath (UIN-10020536) may be boarded
out from service on medical grounds as his medical
condition does not allow for further continuation in
service. ”
29. Mr. Tiwari , CGSC, submitted that, in terms of Rule 27 of the SSB
Rules, 2009 , the appellant was retired/invalidated on medical grounds vide
th
order dated 17 February 2022. He became entitled to pension under the
Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 in Category ‘ C’ . Accordingly,
a total of Rs.30,88,861/- towards pensionary benefits had been paid, and
pension of Rs.29,120/ per month, along with dearness allowance , were
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:44:18
MAC.APP. 43/2013 17/30

being paid to him. After two years, appellant again approached this Court
by way of a Writ Petition being W.P.(C) 11462/2024 challenging the order
th
of 17 February 2022. This said petition was disposed of by the Court
granting liberty to appellant to submit a representation.
th
30. By order dated 8 November 2024, the Competent Authority
rejected the representation as being devoid of merit. This same has not
been challenged by appellant.
31. Appellant had claimed Rs.16,00,000/- in the claim petition, and the
Tribunal passed impugned award taking the same into account.
Respondents have already paid the entire awarded amount along with
interest.
32. It was contended that, in terms of the SOP for Rehabilitation of
th
Disabled Force Personnel dated 29 June 2018, a rehabilitation policy for
disabled had been formulated. Appellant was to be invalidated only after
being provided vocational training in terms of Clause 12(3) of the SOP.
However, appellant refused to undergo vocational training vide letter dated
th
26 February 2021.
33. Yet another objection raised was that the jurisdiction of the MACT
was confined to road accident cases and did not extend to service-related
injuries sustained by paramilitary personnel while on duty.
34. On the issues framed by the Court, the response of the
respondent/Union of India is as under:
(i) On the first issue , reliance was placed on Supreme Court’s
decision in Bachchaj Nihar v. Nilima Mandal & Anr . (2008)
17 SCC 491, on the question of whether a Court travel beyond
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:44:18
MAC.APP. 43/2013 18/30

what is pleaded in the pleadings. The Supreme Court held that
relief beyond what has been claimed cannot be granted.
Moreover, there was no provision under the CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972 for grant of additional claims as sought by the
appellant.
(ii) On the second issue , it was contended that, in terms of the
applicable SOP and the Rehabilitation Policy governing
disabled force personnel, appellant had been offered the
benefits available thereunder, but had chosen not to avail the
same. It was, therefore, submitted that appellant could not
claim additional monetary benefits arising out of such refusal.
It was further contended that consequent upon his medical
invalidation, appellant had already received disability-linked
service benefits, including ex gratia compensation of
Rs.17,60,000/-, enhanced Staff Benevolent Fund benefit of
Rs.5,28,270/-, besides financial assistance of Rs.3,00,000/-
from SSB Staff Benevolent Fund . It was further submitted that
appellant at the time of invalidation was receiving a pension
of Rs.29,120/- per month, comprising a normal service
pension of Rs.18,200/- and an additional disability pension of
Rs.10,920/- . To this Dearness Allowance as admissible,
would be added from time to time. According to respondent,
considering the applicable Dearness Allowance, appellant
was presently receiving an effective monthly pension of
approximately Rs.46,009/- . Respondent further submitted
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:44:18
MAC.APP. 43/2013 19/30

that appellant had already received the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal, which together with accrued
interest amounted to approximately Rs.10,09,490/- .
Moreover, during the period appellant continued in service
after the accident, he drew his full salary without interruption,
all admissible medical expenses were borne by the
department, attendant facilities and other support were
provided by the employer, and he continued to receive all
consequential service benefits. reimbursed.
(iii) On the third issue , the aforesaid figures were reiterated.
(iv) On the fourth issue , reliance was placed on Section 167 of
the MV Act to contend that where a person was entitled to
claim compensation under MV Act as well as under the
Workmen’s Compensation, the claim could be pursued under
either statute but not under both. Therefore, the appellant
could not claim “ double benefit ”.
(v) On the fifth issue , concerning amplification of the claim, it
was submitted that there existed no provision under the
Pension Rules permitting enhancement of the claim to a
higher amount.
(vi) On the sixth issue , as noted above, it was submitted that the
appellant had filed a petition in the year 2024 challenging the
order of invalidation, which had already been disposed of.


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:44:18
MAC.APP. 43/2013 20/30

Analysis
35. The principal issue arising in the present appeal is whether the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal continues to satisfy the
requirement of “ just compensation ” under Section 168 of MV Act,
particularly in light of the subsequent event of appellant’s medical
invalidation from service. Appellant contends that the Tribunal proceeded
on the basis of the evidence then available, namely that he continued in
employment, was drawing his regular salary and was receiving medical
and attendant support from his employer. On that premise, the Tribunal
declined to award compensation towards loss of future earning capacity.
The question before this Court is whether the subsequent invalidation from
service, during the pendency of the present appeal, materially alters the
factual foundation on which the Award proceeded.
st
36. Appellant suffered injuries in an accident dated 01 November
2007, while travelling in a an SSB vehicle. The disability certificate
[ Exhibit-PW2/A ] assessed him as suffering from 100% permanent
disability in relation to both lower limbs. At the time of the accident,
appellant was approximately 20 years of age and was serving as a
Constable with SSB.
37. The Tribunal relying inter alia upon the testimony of RW-1 /
Commandant of appellant’s unit, recorded that notwithstanding the
disability, appellant continued in service, was drawing regular salary, his
medical expenses were being borne by the department and his personal
needs were being attended to by the Unit. Proceeding on the aforesaid
basis, the Tribunal concluded that no actual ‘ loss of earning capacity ’ had
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:44:18
MAC.APP. 43/2013 21/30

then been established and consequently awarded compensation under the
heads of pain and suffering [ Rs.1,00,000/- ] , loss of amenities of life
[ Rs.2,00,000/- ], loss of marriage prospects [ Rs.1,50,000/- ], attendant
charges [ Rs.3,33,000/- ], conveyance [ Rs.20,000/- ], and special diet
[ Rs.40,000/-] aggregating to Rs.8,43,120/-.
38. The present appeal, however, assumes significance because of a
subsequent event which admittedly did not exist when the Tribunal
rendered the impugned award. Appellant continued in service for nearly
fifteen years after the accident but ultimately came to be medically
invalidated from service on 17th February 2022 on account of the very
disability suffered in the accident. Had appellant continued in service till
the normal age of superannuation, the basis adopted by the Tribunal may
have continued to hold good, since his salary, attendant support and
medical facilities would have continued to be provided by his employer.
However, his premature invalidation has fundamentally altered that
position.
39. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that while the Tribunal was
fully justified, on the material available before it in the year 2012, in
observing that no actual loss of earning capacity had then arisen, the
subsequent invalidation from service materially alters the factual premise
upon which the impugned award proceeded. The disability has now
translated into a real and continuing economic consequence, since
appellant has ceased to remain in service and is required to sustain himself
for the remainder of his life with the permanent disability suffered in the
accident. In these circumstances, the subsequent event deserves to be taken
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:44:18
MAC.APP. 43/2013 22/30

into consideration while moulding the relief so as to ensure that the
compensation ultimately awarded remains “ just ” within the meaning of
Section 168 of MV Act.
40. It is not disputed that the appellant has already received the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, which together with accrued
interest amounts to approximately Rs.10,09,490/- [originally awarded
compensation was Rs.8,43,120/- . Appellant, however, seeks
]
enhancement on the ground that the subsequent invalidation from service
has crystallised the loss of earning capacity which had not matured when
the Tribunal rendered the Award. Appellant further contends that he has
been invalidated from service at the age of 34 years and has consequently
lost the benefit of continued employment, salary and attendant support,
while being required to live the remainder of his life with permanent
disability. His last drawn gross salary, immediately prior to invalidation,
was Rs.68,918/- per month, whereas he is presently dependent upon
pensionary benefits. There is no doubt, in the opinion of this Court, that
the premature cessation of service has resulted in a substantial diminution
of his earning capacity which deserves to be compensated .
41. Having held that appellant has now suffered actual loss of future
earning capacity, the next question is the extent to which disability-linked
benefits already received are liable to be adjusted while computing just
compensation. The question, however, remains whether the disability-
linked benefits extended by the employer are liable to be taken into
account while determining such compensation. The amounts received by
appellant towards ex gratia compensation, enhanced Staff Benevolent
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:44:18
MAC.APP. 43/2013 23/30

Fund benefits and the disability component of pension arise solely because
of the disability suffered in the accident. If compensation under the Motor
Vehicles Act were awarded without accounting for these accident-specific
benefits, appellant would receive overlapping compensation for the same
consequence of disability. Such duplication would not accord with the
principle of awarding “ just compensation ”. Accordingly, only those
benefits which are directly relatable to the disability are liable to
adjustment.
42. Insofar as pension is concerned, the position now stands settled by
the Supreme Court in Hanumantharaju B. v. M. Akram Pasha ( supra ).
Pension, being a deferred payment earned by virtue of past service, is not
liable to be deducted while computing compensation under the Motor
Vehicles Act. Compensation is required to be determined on the basis of
the last drawn salary and not on the reduced post-retirement income. The
ordinary pension payable to appellant, therefore, cannot diminish the
compensation otherwise payable towards loss of future earning capacity .
43. However, the additional disability pension stands on a different
footing. Unlike the ordinary pension, the enhanced disability component
is not payable by reason of past service alone but arises solely because
appellant was medically invalidated on account of the disability suffered
in the accident. To that limited extent, the additional disability pension
bears a direct nexus with the accident and constitutes an accident-related
benefit. It is, therefore, liable to be adjusted while determining
compensation so as to avoid duplication under the same head.
Consequently, the computation of future loss of earning capacity shall be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:44:18
MAC.APP. 43/2013 24/30

undertaken as on the date of appellant's medical invalidation, namely 17th
February 2022.
44. Based upon the above, in the opinion of this Court, the loss of future
income would be calculated at Rs.68,918/- per month with future prospects
at 50% ( considering he was below 40 years of age at the date of his
invalidation ) and a multiplier of 16 , as applicable by principles enunciated
in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi ( supra ). Loss of income
shall be the same.
45. This would amount to Rs.1,98,48,384/- without deduction of
pension. However, as noted above, deductions of amounts, which have
been given to appellant on account of disability linked benefits, have to be
accounted for. These include ex gratia compensation of Rs.17,60,000/-,
enhanced Staff Benevolent Fund benefit at Rs.5,28,270/- and disability
pension component of Rs.10,920/- per month.

46. Accordingly, appellant’s last drawn gross salary at the time of
medical invalidation was Rs.68,918/- per month. Since the additional
disability pension of Rs.10,920/- per month is an accident-related benefit
liable to be accounted for while determining compensation, the notional
monthly income for computing future loss of earning capacity is taken at
Rs.57,998/- per month ( Rs.68,918 – Rs.10,920 ). The annual income thus
comes to Rs.6,95,976 /-. Adding 50% towards future prospects , in terms
of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi ( supra ), the annual
income is assessed at Rs.10,43,964/- . Applying the multiplier of 16, the
total loss of future earning capacity works out to Rs.1,67,03,424/- .
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:44:18
MAC.APP. 43/2013 25/30

47. Having held that appellant is entitled to compensation towards loss
of future earning capacity consequent upon his medical invalidation, the
next question which arises is the extent to which the disability-linked
benefits already received by him are liable to be taken into account while
determining such compensation. In the opinion of this Court, the amounts
received by appellant towards ex gratia compensation of Rs.17,60,000/-,
enhanced Staff Benevolent Fund benefit of Rs.5,28,270/- and financial
assistance of Rs.3,00,000/- from the SSB Staff Benevolent Fund were
extended solely on account of the disability suffered by him and bear a
direct nexus to the consequences of the accident. In order to avoid
duplication of compensation under the same head and to ensure that the
compensation awarded remains just, fair and reasonable, these disability-
linked benefits are liable to be adjusted while computing compensation
towards loss of future earning capacity. The total amount liable to be
adjusted accordingly works out to Rs.26,88,270/- .
48. Consequently, the compensation payable towards loss of future
earning capacity is assessed at Rs.1,40,15,154/- [ Rs.1,67,03,424 –
Rs.26,88,270 ], which shall be payable to the appellant together with
th
interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal, reckoned from 17
February 2022, being the date of medical invalidation.
49. In addition thereto, appellant is entitled to compensation towards
future attendant charges . During his service, attendants and allied
assistance were being provided by respondent as part of his service
th
conditions. Upon his medical invalidation on 17 February 2022, such
facility ceased to be available. Considering the nature of appellant’s 100%
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:44:18
MAC.APP. 43/2013 26/30

permanent disability, the engagement of at least one full-time attendant is
both reasonable and necessary. Taking the minimum wages of an
st
‘ unskilled worker ’ in Delhi applicable with effect from 01 April 2022,
i.e., Rs.16,506/- per month, the annual expenditure works out to
Rs.1,98,072/-. Applying the multiplier of 16 , the compensation towards
future attendant charges is assessed at Rs.31,69,152/- .
50. Since appellant has already been awarded Rs.3,33,120/- by the
Tribunal towards attendant charges , said amount shall be adjusted.
Accordingly, appellant shall be entitled to an additional sum of
Rs.28,36,032/- [ Rs.31,69,152/- − Rs.3,33,120/- ] under this head, together
th
with interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal from 17
February 2022 till realization.
51. Appellant has further claimed Rs.4,00,000/- towards a wheelchair,
Rs.28,80,000/- towards special diet and Rs.8,40,000/- towards
physiotherapy . Though the necessity of these future requirements cannot
be doubted having regard to appellant’s permanent disability, the precise
quantum claimed is not supported by evidence. Nevertheless, bearing in
mind the continuing nature of the disability and the recurring expenses
likely to be incurred by appellant throughout his lifetime, this Court
considers it appropriate to award a lump sum compensation of
Rs.10,00,000/- under these heads, in the interests of just and reasonable
compensation.
52. The Court has already deliberated upon the loss of future earning
capacity for a salaried employee post-retirement or after not continuing in
service, in Govind Singh Mouni v. Tej Bhan & Ors . 2026:DHC:1020.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:44:18
MAC.APP. 43/2013 27/30

The issue has been discussed with reference to loss of potentiality of
income principles which were usefully enunciated in Ball v. William Hunt
and Sons Ltd . 1912 AC 496, a decision of the House of Lords. Other
decisions which have bearing on this will be Deshraj Singh Gautam v.
Sunil Kumar , 2016:DHC:4159, Rajbir Singh v. National Insurance
Company Ltd. & Ors . 2024:DHC:9034.
53. As regards the issue of whether pension is deductible or not, the
issue stands settled as noted above in Hanumantharaju B. v. M. Akram
Pasha ( supra ).

Conclusion
54. Accordingly, the compensation is re-computed as under:
SR.
NO.
HEADS AWARDED BY
THE TRIBUNAL
AWARDED BY
THIS COURT
PECUNIARY LOSS
1 Expenditure on treatment (A) Nil
(Medical expenses
borne by employer)
Nil
2 Expenditure on conveyance (B) Rs.20,000/- Rs.20,000/-
3 Expenditure on special diet (C) Rs.40,000/- Included in Sl. No.
7
4 Cost of nursing / attendant (D) Rs.3,33,120/- Rs.28,36,032/-
5 Loss of earning capacity (E) Nil Rs.1,40,15,154/-
6 Loss of income (F) Nil Nil
7 Any other loss which may
require any special treatment or
aid to the injured for the rest of
his life (G)
Nil Rs.10,00,000/-
(towards wheelchair,
physiotherapy,
special diet and allied
future requirements)
NON-PECUNIARY LOSS
8 Compensation for mental and
physical shock (H)
Nil Nil
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:44:18
MAC.APP. 43/2013 28/30

9 Pain and suffering (I) Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
10 Loss of amenities of life (J) Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.2,00,000/-
11 Disfiguration (K) Nil Nil
12 Loss of marriage prospects (L) Rs.1,50,000/- Rs.1,50,000/-
13 Loss of earning, inconvenience,
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc. (M)
Nil Nil
DISABILITY RESULTING IN LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY
14 Percentage of disability assessed
and nature of disability as
permanent or temporary
100% permanent
100% permanent
disability in relation
disability in
relation to both
to both lower limbs
lower limbs
15 Loss of amenities or loss of
expectation of life span on
account of disability
Rs.2,00,000/- Included in Sl. No.
10
16 Percentage of loss of earning
capacity in relation to disability
Nil 100%
(w.e.f. 17.02.2022)
TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.8,43,120/- Rs.1,83,21,186/-
Interest Awarded 7.5% p.a. from
17.09.2009 till
@7.5% p.a. from
17.02.2022 till
realization
realization.

55. For aforesaid reasons, compensation has been enhanced by
Rs.1,74,78,066 /- [“ enhanced amount ”].
56. It is therefore directed that enhanced amount along with 7.5%
th
interest per annum from the date of invalidation from the service i.e. 17
February 2022 shall be deposited before Registry of this Court within a
period of four weeks. It is directed that a lump sum amount of Rs
25,00,000/- shall be released to claimant from the deposit of enhanced
amount within a period of two weeks thereafter.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:44:18
MAC.APP. 43/2013 29/30

57. Remaining enhanced amount, along with accrued interest till date,
shall be kept in Fixed Deposit Receipts ( FDRs ) of Rs. 1,00,000/- each for
periods of 3 month, 6 months, 9 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 to the Savings Bank Account of claimant upon
due verification.
58. Accordingly, the appeal stand partly allowed with above directions.
59. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
60. Copy of this judgement be sent to concerned MACT.
61. Copy of this judgement shall also be sent to concerned bank.
62. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.


ANISH DAYAL
(JUDGE)
JULY 1, 2026/ mk/ tk
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.07.2026
16:44:18
MAC.APP. 43/2013 30/30