New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Ambrish Kumar Singh And Ors
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~47 & 55
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
st
% Date of decision: 31 August 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010632362025
+ MAC.APP. 561/2025
AMBRISH KUMAR SINGH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Varun Sarin, Mr. Shantanu
Sharma, Mr. Shailendra Singh,
Advocates.
versus
SHITAL SINGH & ANR. (NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.)
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate
for Respondent no.2/Insurance
Company.
(55)
# CNR No. DLHC010867892025
+ MAC.APP. 714/2025, CM APPL. 69518/2025 CM APPL.
69520/2025 CM APPL. 58104/2026 CM APPL. 58105/2026 &
CM APPL. 58106/2026
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate.
versus
AMBRISH KUMAR SINGH AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Varun Sarin, Mr. Shantanu
Sharma, Ms. Shailendra Singh,
Advocatess.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.561/2025 & MAC.APP. 714/2025 Page 1 of 12
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:39:57
JUDGMENT
ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)
th
1. These appeals arise out of an accident which occurred on 28
November 2017. On that day, at about 10:30 P.M., Sh. Ambrish Kumar
Singh [ appellant/claimant herein ] along with his wife, Smt. Suman Singh ,
was travelling from Gram Madhotanda to Puranpur on a motorcycle.
When they reached near Gulabtanda Mod , their motorcycle was hit by
another motorcycle bearing registration no. UP-26P-7377 , which was being
driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner. Resultantly, Sh.
Ambrish Kumar Singh sustained grievous injuries while his wife lost her
life in the said accident.
2. Two separate claim petitions were filed by appellant/claimant before
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Saket Courts, New Delhi
[‘ MACT/Tribunal ’], with respect to the injuries sustained by him and the
death of his wife, being MACT No. 915/2018 and MACT No. 914/2018
respectively.
MAC.APP. 561/2025
3. This appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation
th
awarded by the MACT, vide award dated 29 April 2025, passed in MACT
No.915/2018 , whereby compensation of Rs. 10,03,690/- , along with
interest @ 7.5% per annum, was awarded [‘ impugned award ’] in respect of
the injuries sustained by appellant/claimant.
4. The issue herein revolves around the assessment of functional
disability, and that the decision of MACT to not award ‘ loss of future
income ’ to appellant/claimant, on the ground that the aspects on the basis of
which the disability certificate had been granted could not be correlated
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.561/2025 & MAC.APP. 714/2025 Page 2 of 12
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:39:57
with the injuries suffered by appellant/claimant in the said accident.
5. The Disability Certificate issued by the Vardhman Mahavir Medical
College [‘ VMMC ’] & Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, recorded that his
permanent physical impairment was ‘ 61% in relation to left upper and
lower limb ’. However, the MACT noted that medical records of
appellant/claimant show injury on head and chest and, therefore, are
unrelated to the Disability Certificate. Accordingly, in order to gain a
clearer understanding, this Court permitted the appellant/claimant to lead
additional evidence of any of the concerned doctor of the Medical Board,
rd
who had issued the Disability Certificate, vide order dated 23 February
2026.
6. Pursuant to the same, statement of Dr. Shweta Jain , as AW-1, was
recorded before the Joint Registrar (Judicial), wherein she stated that she
was a member of the Disability Board which had issued the disability
certificate and that she could identify the signatures of the three other
doctors, who were a part of the Board. She stated that the said certificate
was issued by the Disability Board of VMMC and Safdarjung Hospital , and
was exhibited as Ex. AW-1/2 ( OSR ). She stated that Sh. Ambrish Kumar
[ appellant/claimant ] had sustained “ permanent physical impairment of
61% in relation to left upper and left lower limb ”. This assessment had
been done after due examination of Sh. Ambrish Kumar
[ appellant/claimant ] and the relevant medical records pertaining to the
accidental injuries.
7. Furthermore, Dr. Shweta Jain /AW-1 categorically stated, “ It can be
conclusively said that the disability sustained by Sh. Ambrish Kumar Singh
is a direct result of injuries sustained in the accident ’. She further reiterated
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.561/2025 & MAC.APP. 714/2025 Page 3 of 12
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:39:57
her statement by stating that the same had been mentioned in the Disability
Certificate as well.
8. As regards the nature of his disability and any impediment that
appellant/claimant might face in his day to day life, Dr. Shweta Jain / AW-1
stated that appellant/claimant would require assistance in walking, through
an assistive device such as cane or walker). For long distances, he would
require an electronic wheelchair/modifiable manual wheelchair which is
suited for a hemiplegic person (i.e. a person whose one side of body is not
functioning). She further stated that he would also face difficulty in
standing for which he would require assistance; he would not be in a
position to squat in order to use an Indian style washroom; he would not be
in a position to drive either a two-wheeler or four-wheeler. She concluded
by stating that that due to aging, he would require future medical treatment.
Notably, no cross-examination was conducted by the Insurance Company.
9. On the aforesaid basis, Mr. Varun Sarin , counsel for
appellant/claimant, contends that the functional disability of
appellant/claimant ought to be assessed at 100% .
10. Mr. Amit Kumar Singh , counsel for Insurance Company, counters
this by stating the functional disability at best ought to be granted basis
61%, in terms of the permanent disability which has been certified.
11. After having gone through the aforesaid testimony as well as the
submissions of both the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the
assessment would have to be made on a rational basis and in terms of the
principles enunciated in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar , (2011) 1 SCC 343,
taking into account the vocation of the appellant/claimant and the nature of
vocation that he could potentially pursue in view of his disability.
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.561/2025 & MAC.APP. 714/2025 Page 4 of 12
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:39:57
12. Considering the nature of the disability and the impediment caused
thereby in daily life as well as mobility, and the fact that he would never be
in a position to drive a two-wheeler or a four-wheeler, the employment
prospects of appellant/claimant would be severely affected. There would be
only limited possibilities for him to earn a livelihood.
13. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid assessment, the functional
disability of appellant/claimant shall be assessed at ‘ 80% ’.
14. The loss of future income , shall, therefore, be calculated on the said
basis, by taking the benchmark income of appellant/claimant at Rs.20,000/-
per month. This has also been duly accepted by the Insurance Company.
15. Future prospects shall be granted at ‘ 10% ’, since claimant was 58
years of age at the time of accident and the multiplier shall be taken at ‘ 9 ’.
16. Further, considering the nature of his disability, the compensation
towards loss of amenities of life shall be enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000/- .
Accordingly, compensation towards pain and suffering shall also be
increased to Rs. 1,50,000/-.
17. A lump sum of Rs. 50,000/- shall also be awarded towards the
wheelchair required by appellant/claimant.
18. Accordingly, the revised compensation shall be as under:
S.
Heads of Compensation Awarded by
Awarded by the
No.
Tribunal
Court
Pecuniary Loss
1. Compensation towards
Rs. 6,03,690/- Rs. 6,03,690/-
medical bills (A)
2. Expenditure on conveyance
Rs. 70,000/- Rs. 70,000/-
and special diet (B)
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.561/2025 & MAC.APP. 714/2025 Page 5 of 12
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:39:57
3. Cost of nursing and
Rs. 60,000/- Rs. 60,000/-
attendant charges (C)
4. Income of injured per month
Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 20,000/-
(D)
5. Loss of Income [Rs.
Rs. 1,20,000/- Rs. 1,20,000/-
20,000/- x 6] (E)
6. Future Prospects (F) NIL 10%
7. Functional disability (G) NIL 80%
8. Multiplier (H) NIL 9
9. Loss of future earning
NIL Rs. 19,00,800/-
capacity (I) [F X 12 X G X
H]
Non-pecuniary loss
10. Compensation for mental
Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 50,000/-
and physical shock (J)
11. Pain and suffering (K) Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 1,50,000/-
12. Loss of amenities of life (L) Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 1,50,000/-
13. Total [A + B + C+ E + I +
Rs. 10,03,690/- Rs. 31,04,490/-
J+ K + L]
14. Enhanced compensation Rs. 21,00,800/-
14. Interest 7.5% 7.5%
Directions
19. For aforesaid reasons, compensation has been enhanced by
Rs. 21,00,800/- [‘ enhanced amount ’].
20. It is, therefore, directed that enhanced amount, along with interest @
7.5% per annum, be deposited before the MACT within a period of six
weeks .
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.561/2025 & MAC.APP. 714/2025 Page 6 of 12
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:39:57
21. Mr. Varun Sarin , counsel for appellant/claimant, pleads that the
complete enhanced amount be released, since the child of
appellant/claimant has an impairment in hearing and he has already lost his
wife. He further states that appellant/claimant is an educated person, and is
in a position to manage his own money.
22. Accordingly, enhanced amount, along with interest @ 7.5% per
annum, be released to appellant/claimant as a lump sum, within a period of
four weeks , after the deposit being made by the Insurance Company.
23. The originally awarded amount, if not already released, shall be
released in favour of appellant/claimant, in terms of the directions passed
by the MACT vide impugned award.
24. Accordingly, appeal is disposed of in above terms.
25. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
MAC.APP. 714/2025, CM APPL. 69518/2025 CM APPL. 69520/2025
CM APPL. 58104/2026 CM APPL. 58105/2026 & CM APPL.
58106/2026/2025
1. This appeal arises out of the same accident and has been filed by
th
Insurance Company assailing award dated 29 April 2025, passed by the
MACT in MACT No. 914/2018 , whereby compensation of Rs. 38,86,150/- ,
along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, was awarded in respect
of the death of wife of respondent no.1/claimant, Smt. Suman Singh
[hereinafter, ‘ deceased ’].
2. Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, counsel for Insurance Company, contends
that the MACT assessed notional income of the deceased at Rs. 25,000/-
per month only on the basis of the testimony of her husband, wherein he
stated that the deceased had been earning Rs. 25,000/- per month from her
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.561/2025 & MAC.APP. 714/2025 Page 7 of 12
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:39:57
business of tiffin services , namely Suman Tiffin Service , Moh. Chowk , near
Thakur Dwara Mandir , Teh. Puranpur, Distt. Pilibhit , Uttar Pradesh , even
though no evidence was placed on record in this regard.
3. Mr. Varun Sarin, counsel for respondent/claimants, counters the
aforesaid by stating that no substantial cross examination of PW-1 /Ambrish
Kumar Singh was conducted by the Insurance Company, in this regard.
PW-1 /Ambrish Kumar Singh had categorically stated that the deceased was
earning an income from tiffin services and, in his cross-examination by the
Insurance Company, his testimony was not displaced; rather, the same was
reiterated by him.
4. Mr. Sarin, counsel for respondent/claimants, further places reliance
upon the testimony of PW-2 /Sanjay Singh , who stated that he was
employed as a helper and delivery person by the deceased, who was
running a tiffin service . PW-2 /Sanjay Singh also provided a specific
address from where the tiffin service was being run and stated that he was
drawing a salary of Rs. 5,000/- per month.
5. In this regard, the cross-objections filed by respondents/claimants, in
CM APPL.-58104/2026, also require consideration, a prayer of
enhancement of notional income of deceased has been sought by
respondents/claimants on the ground that she was not only a ‘ homemaker ’
but also a breadwinner. On this aspect, reliance was placed upon the
decision of the Supreme Court in Shishu Pal v. Surjeet , 2026 SCC OnLine
SC 1114, wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:
“ 20. It is in these circumstances, that we deem it
appropriate to direct that when a Motor Accidents Claim
Tribunal or the High Court or this Court is concerned
with or a case involving the death of a homemaker, in
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.561/2025 & MAC.APP. 714/2025 Page 8 of 12
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:39:57
order to overcome the inherent disadvantage accrued
against the homemaker on a calculation of compensation
on the basis of conservatively computed notional income
and while being acutely aware of the dictum in Pranay
Sethi (supra) regarding loss of consortium as also the
disposition towards uniformity, that for the three major
heads (the homemaker's contribution towards smooth
functioning of the household, the loss of maternal support
for children and loss of spousal support/the support and
care of their child who is an adult, for the parents of the
deceased) discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, a
composite sum of Rs. 30,000/- shall be added under the
head of ‘loss of domestic care’, provided that all three of
these heads are met in the given case. This determination
shall be revised by 10%, cumulatively, every three years.
It may be clearly stated that this amount of Rs. 30,000/-
i.e., loss of domestic care is to be taken as a ‘stand-in’
(basic minimum monthly income) for monthly income in
those cases where the homemaker does not have an input
into the house, in strictly conventional, monetary terms.
In those cases where the homemaker is part of the
workforce, the component of loss of domestic care shall
be in addition to the monthly income as may be proved
before the Tribunal/Courts. ”
(emphasis added)
6. On this basis, Mr. Sarin , counsel for respondents/claimants, contends
that an amount of Rs. 30,000/- be added to the income stated to have been
earned by the deceased. It is submitted that in any event, even if the income
of Rs. 25,000/- is not considered, the fact that the deceased was a
‘ homemaker ’ is not disputed. In fact, this emerges categorically from the
cross-examination of PW-1 / Ambrish Kumar Singh .
7. The Court, however, takes note of the fact that there was no evidence
on record to show that the deceased was also taking her care of her parents.
In this regard, Mr. Varun Sarin , counsel for respondents/claimants, submit
that mother of the deceased was still alive. Nevertheless, the cross-
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.561/2025 & MAC.APP. 714/2025 Page 9 of 12
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:39:57
objections have been filed after a period of one year, presumably pursuant
to the passing of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shishu Pal ( supra ).
8. Even though Mr. Varun Sarin argues that the notional income should
be considered at Rs. 25,000/- per month, being the amount which the
deceased was earning and for which evidence has been placed on record,
with an additional amount of Rs. 30,000/- towards ‘ loss of domestic care ’,
Mr. Amit Kumar Singh , counsel for Insurance Company, contends that the
decision in Shishu Pal ( supra ) was in the teeth of the Constitutional Bench
judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC
680, and could not have awarded compensation under an additional head.
However, this aspect, if so pleaded by the Insurance Company, would have
to be considered by the Supreme Court.
9. Mr. Varun Sarin , counsel for respondents/claimants, further contends
that in Shishu Pal ( supra ), the condition prescribed in paragraph 20 , as
extracted above, as regards the support and care of the parents of the
deceased, is clubbed as “either/or” with the loss of spousal support.
10. The Court takes note of the aforesaid submission of Mr. Varun Sarin ,
counsel for respondents/claimants, but is not inclined to grant an additional
sum of Rs. 30,000/- under the head of ‘ loss of domestic income ’,
considering that there is no concrete evidence on record to establish that an
income of Rs. 25,000/- per month, was being earned by deceased from tiffin
services . However, in order to award ‘ just and reasonable compensation ’,
the Court shall consider Rs. 30,000/- per month as the notional income of
the deceased.
11. Accordingly, the revised compensation shall be calculated as under:
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.561/2025 & MAC.APP. 714/2025 Page 10 of 12
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:39:57
S. NO. HEADS AWARDED BY
THE TRIBUNAL
AWARDED BY
THIS COURT
1. Monthly Income of
deceased (A)
Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 30,000/-
2. Add Future Prospects (B)
@ 25%
Rs. 31,250/- Rs. 37,500/-
3. Less Personal expenses of
rd
the deceased (C) @ 1/4
Rs. 7,812.5/- Rs. 9,375/-
4. Monthly loss of
dependency [B-C = D]
Rs. 23,437/- Rs. 28,125/-
5. Annual loss of dependency
(Dx12)
Rs. 2,81,250/- Rs. 3,37,500/-
6. Multiplier (E) 13 13
7. Loss of dependency [F]
[DX12XE]
Rs. 36,56,250/- Rs. 43,87,500/-
8. Compensation for loss of
consortium (G)
Rs. 2,93,600/- Rs. 2,93,600/-
9. Compensation for loss of
estate (H)
Rs. 18,150/- Rs. 18,150/-
10. Compensation towards
funeral expenses (I)
Rs. 18,150/- Rs. 18,150/-
11. Total compensation
(F + G + H+I = J)
Rs. 39,86,150/- Rs. 47,17,400/-
12. Interest 7.5% 7.5%
13. Enhanced compensation Rs. 7,31,250/-
Directions
12. For aforesaid reasons, compensation has been enhanced by
Rs.7,31,250/- [‘ enhanced amount ’].
13. Enhanced amount along with 7.5% interest per annum from the date
of filing the petition shall be deposited before MACT within a period of
four weeks.
14. It is further directed that a lump sum amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- shall
be released to respondents/claimants from the deposit of enhanced amount
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.561/2025 & MAC.APP. 714/2025 Page 11 of 12
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:39:57
within a period of two weeks thereafter. Remaining enhanced amount, along
with accrued interest, shall be kept in Fixed Deposit Receipts ( FDRs ) of
Rs. 25,000/- each for periods of 1 month, 2 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 respondents/claimants.
The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released to the Savings Bank
Account of respondents/claimants upon due verification. The said amount
shall be in terms of the apportionment provided by the MACT vide
th
impugned award dated 29 April 2025, passed by the MACT in MACT No.
914/2018 .
th
15. Vide order dated 14 August 2026, this Court had directed the
principal amounts be released to respondents/claimants, in terms of the
tabulation provided by the MACT after paragraph 38 of the impugned
award.
16. Accordingly, the balance amount from the originally awarded
amount be released to respondents/claimants in terms of the directions
passed by the MACT vide the aforesaid impugned award.
17. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of in above terms.
18. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
19. Copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned MACT and bank for
information and necessary compliance.
20. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
AUGUST 31, 2026/ ak/ya
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.561/2025 & MAC.APP. 714/2025 Page 12 of 12
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:08.09.2026
18:39:57