National Insurance Co Ltd vs Saurabh Sehgal And Ors

$~75 & 76
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 27 April 2026

+ MAC.APP. 1019/2014 & CM APPL. 18428/2014
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Ms. Shruti Jain,
Advocates.
versus

NITIN SEHGAL AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Manish Maini, Ms. Aastha
Chauhan, Advocates for Respondent
no.1.
(76)
+ MAC.APP. 1022/2014
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Ms. Shruti Jain,
Advocates.
versus

SAURABH SEHGAL AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Manish Maini, Ms. Aastha
Chauhan, Advocates for Respondent
no.1.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)
1. These appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company challenging
th
the Award dated 17 September 2014 passed by Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal [‘ MACT ’], Central District, Delhi in Suit No. 232/2011 and Suit No.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:40:11
MAC.APP. 1019/2014 & MAC.APP. 1022/2014 Page 1 of 9

233/2011, whereby compensation of Rs.16,79,700 /- and Rs.3,39,058 /- was
awarded to the claimant respectively.
th
2. The brief facts of the case are that the accident occurred on 18
December 2005 at about 8:00 PM when the claimants were standing near
motorcycle on the roadside, a car bearing registration no. DL-6-CM-0058
driven in a rash and negligent manner at high speed hit the claimants as a
result of which they both sustained injuries.
3. Mr. Pankaj Seth , counsel for Insurance Company, contends that as
regards Nitin Sehgal , who suffered 60% permanent mental disability,
functional disability has been taken as 100% since he was a minor on the date
of the accident (aged about 17 ½ years), the minimum wages of
non-matriculate have been taken on which future prospects at 50% has been
applied. He states that as per the principles in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, future prospects at 40% ought to have been
applied. The minimum wages have been taken at Rs.3,358 /- per month.
4. This contention of Mr. Seth is accepted, to align it with principles
enunciated in Pranay Sethi ( supra ) future prospects at 40% will have to be
applied.
5. Mr. Seth also draws attention to the non-pecuniary compensation,
seeking adjustment on the same.
6. Countering this, Mr. Manish Maini , counsel for claimant, has drawn
attention to the testimony of PW5/ Dr. R.P. Baniwal, Psychiatrist ( PGIMER ),
Dr. R.M.L. Hospital, New Delhi , who had brough the record of the permanent
Disability Certificate. He stated that this is a case of personality and
behaviour disorder due to brain disease, damage and dysfunction. He stated
that injured was found to have agitated and aggressive behaviour,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:40:11
MAC.APP. 1019/2014 & MAC.APP. 1022/2014 Page 2 of 9

forgetfulness, slight impairment of self-care and moderate impairment of
interpersonal activities, communication and understanding. Further, it was
stated that he could not study after Class IX and his daily work has been
impaired profoundly, indicating the severity. In cross-examination, he stated
that he had personally examined the patient and gave his opinion and he has
deposed on the basis of his medical condition.
7. Considering that functional disability has been assessed at 100% , the
non-pecuniary compensation awarded is highly depressed and the same need
to enhanced in order to granted just and reasonable compensation. The
Supreme Court in the case of Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
(2009) 13 SCC 710 has also held that the Court is duty-bound to award just
compensation, even if the same has not been specifically pleaded by the
claimant. The relevant part of the judgment is extracted as under:
“ 25.....Needless to say, the MVA is beneficial and
welfare legislation. In fact, the court is duty bound and
entitled to award “Just Compensation” irrespective of
the fact whether any plea in that behalf was raised by
the claimant or not......”

(emphasis supplied)

8. The amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering is
inadequate in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in K.S. Muralidhar v.
R. Subbulakshmi and Anr. 2024 SCC Online SC 3385, wherein it was
observed that ‘ pain and suffering ’ cannot be captured by any fixed definition,
drawing on legal, medical, and philosophical sources to emphasise its deeply
subjective and life-altering nature. It recognised that translating such
profound human loss into money is an inherently artificial exercise, yet courts
must ensure fairness, consistency, and sensitivity to the victim’s lifelong
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:40:11
MAC.APP. 1019/2014 & MAC.APP. 1022/2014 Page 3 of 9

deprivation. The Court stressed that in cases of severe or 100% disability,
compensation must meaningfully reflect the permanent rupture in the victim’s
physical, emotional, and existential well-being. Relevant paragraphs are
extracted as under:
“ 13. While acknowledging that ‘pain and suffering’, as
a concept escapes definition, we may only refer to
certain authorities, scholarly as also judicial wherein
attempts have been made to set down the contours
thereof.
13.1 The entry recording the term ‘pain and suffering’
9
in P. Ramanatha Iyer's Advanced Law Lexicon reads
as under:—
“ Pain and suffering. The term ‘Pain and suffering’
mean physical discomfort and distress and include
mental and emotional trauma for which damages
can be recovered in an accident claim.
This expression has become almost a term of art,
used without making fine distinction between pain
and suffering. Pain and suffering which a person
undergoes cannot be measured in terms of money
by any mathematical calculation. Hence the Court
awards a sum which is in the nature of a
conventional award [Mediana, The, [1900] A.C.
113, 116]”
…
13.5 In determining non-pecuniary damages, the
artificial nature of computing compensation has been
16
highlighted in Heil v. Rankin , as referred to
17
in Attorney General of St. Helenav. AB as under:—
“23. This principle of ‘full compensation’ applies to
pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage alike. But, as
Dickson J indicated in the passage cited from his
judgment in Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd.,
83 DLR (3d) 452, 475-476, this statement
immediately raises a problem in a situation where
what is in issue is what the appropriate level of ‘full
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:40:11
MAC.APP. 1019/2014 & MAC.APP. 1022/2014 Page 4 of 9

compensation’ for non-pecuniary injury is when the
compensation has to be expressed in pecuniary
terms. There is no simple formula for converting the
pain and suffering, the loss of function, the loss of
amenity and disability which an injured person has
sustained, into monetary terms. Any process of
conversion must be essentially artificial. Lord
Pearce expressed it well in H West & Son
Ltd. v. Shephard, [1964] A.C. 326 when he said:
‘The court has to perform the difficult and
artificial task of converting into monetary
damages the physical injury and deprivation
and pain and to give judgment for what it
considers to be a reasonable sum. It does not
look beyond the judgment to the spending of the
damages.’
24. The last part of this statement is undoubtedly right.
The injured person may not even be in a position to
enjoy the damages he receives because of the injury
which he has sustained. Lord Clyde recognised this
in Wells v. Wells, [1999] A.C. 345, 394H when he
said:‘One clear principle is that what the successful
plaintiff will in the event actually do with the award is
irrelevant.”
…
14. In respect of ‘pain and suffering’ in cases where
disability suffered is at 100%, we may notice a few
decisions of this Court:—
14.1 In R.D Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd.
It was observed:
“ 17. The claim under Sl. No. 16 for ‘pain and
suffering’ and for loss of amenities of life under Sl.
No. 17, are claims for non-pecuniary loss. The
appellant has claimed lump sum amount of Rs.
3,00,000 each under the two heads. The High Court
has allowed Rs. 1,00,000 against the claims of Rs.
6,00,000. When compensation is to be awarded for
‘pain and suffering’ and loss of amenity of life, the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:40:11
MAC.APP. 1019/2014 & MAC.APP. 1022/2014 Page 5 of 9

special circumstances of the claimant have to be
taken into account including his age, the unusual
deprivation he has suffered, the effect thereof on his
future life. The amount of compensation for
non-pecuniary loss is not easy to determine but the
award must reflect that different circumstances
have been taken into consideration. According to
us, as the appellant was an advocate having good
practice in different courts and as because of the
accident he has been crippled and can move only on
wheelchair, the High Court should have allowed an
amount of Rs. 1,50,000 in respect of claim for ‘pain
and suffering’ and Rs. 1,50,000 in respect of loss of
amenities of life. We direct payment of Rs. 3,00,000
(Rupees three lakhs only) against the claim of Rs.
6,00,000 under the heads “‘pain and suffering’”
and “Loss of amenities of life”.
14.2 This Judgment was recently referred to by this
Court in Sidram v. United India Insurance Company
Ltd reference was also made to Karnataka
SRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty (irrespective of the
percentage of disability incurred, the observations are
instructive), wherein it was observed:
“18. A person not only suffers injuries on account of
accident but also suffers in mind and body on
account of the accident through out his life and a
feeling is developed that his no more a normal man
and cannot enjoy the amenities of life as another
normal person can. While fixing compensation for
pain and suffering as also for loss of amenities,
features like his age, marital status and unusual
deprivation he has undertaken in his life have to be
reckoned…”
(emphasis added)
9. In light of the observations of the Supreme Court noted above, this
Court is of the opinion that, considering this is a case of 100% functional
disability, the compensation granted for pain and suffering at Rs. 1,00,000/- is
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:40:11
MAC.APP. 1019/2014 & MAC.APP. 1022/2014 Page 6 of 9

enhanced to Rs. 2,50,000/-.
10. Further, compensation for loss of amenities granted at Rs. 1,00,000/- is
enhanced to Rs. 2,50,000/- basis the decision of Supreme Court in KSRTC v.
Mahadeva Shetty , (2003) 7 SCC 197, wherein as regards loss of amenities of
life it was noted as under:
“ 18. A person not only suffers injuries on account of
accident but also suffers in mind and body on account of
the accident throughout his life and a feeling is
developed that he is no more a normal man and cannot
enjoy the amenities of life as another normal person can.
While fixing compensation for pain and suffering as also
for loss of amenities of life, features like his age, marital
status and unusual deprivation he has undertaken in his
life have to be reckoned. ”
(emphasis supplied)

11. Also, since the injured was only 17 ½ years on the date of accident, the
compensation for marriage prospects ought to be taken at Rs. 2,50,000/- as
well.
12. As regards the compensation given to Saurabh Sehgal , it is noted that a
lump sum compensation of Rs.1,50,000 /- was awarded on various accounts,
on which the Court does not find any reason to reduce the same.
13. Compensation as regards Nitin Sehgal in MAC APP 1019/2014 is
re-computed as under:

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:40:11
MAC.APP. 1019/2014 & MAC.APP. 1022/2014 Page 7 of 9

14. For the aforesaid reasons, the compensation is enhanced by
Rs. 3,77,724/-
th
15. Vide order dated 15 January 2015, this Court directed that 75% of the
award amount deposited before the Tribunal be released in favour of the
claimant in terms of the order of the Tribunal. The balance 25% of the
compensation amount was held to be kept in FDR subject to the orders of this
Court. It is directed that balance amount deposited before the Tribunal be
released in favour of the claimant as per the directions of the Tribunal.
16. Enhanced amount along with 9% interest per annum from the date of
filing the petition shall be deposited before MACT within a period of four
weeks. Enhanced amount, along with accrued interest, shall be kept in Fixed
Deposit Receipts ( FDRs ) of Rs. 10,000/- each for periods of 1 month, 2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:40:11
MAC.APP. 1019/2014 & MAC.APP. 1022/2014 Page 8 of 9

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 to
the Savings Bank Account of claimant upon due verification.
17. Accordingly, the appeals stand disposed of in above terms. Pending
applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
18. Statutory deposit be refunded to the Insurance Company.
19. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.

(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
APRIL 27, 2026/ ak/zb




Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:40:11
MAC.APP. 1019/2014 & MAC.APP. 1022/2014 Page 9 of 9