Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co Ltd vs Natraj Hasrat @ Nitish Kumar Chaurasia & Ors

$~9 & 10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 29 October 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010275762019
+ MAC.APP. 642/2019 & CM APPL. 29227/2019
CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
.....Appellant
Through: Ms. Suman Bagga and Ms. Mouli
Sharma, Advs.
versus

NATRAJ HASRAT @ NITISH KUMAR CHAURASIA & ORS
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Vijay Singh, Mr. Shubh Goyal,
Mr. Pawan Kumar and Mr. Suman
Saharan, Advs. for R-1.
(10)
# CNR No. DLHC010311262019
+ MAC.APP. 699/2019
NATRAJ HASRAT @ NITISH KUMAR CHOURASIA
.....Appellant
Through: Mr. Vijay Singh, Mr. Shubh Goyal,
Mr. Pawan Kumar and Mr. Suman
Saharan, Advs.
versus

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD &
ORS .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Suman Bagga and Ms. Mouli
Sharma, Advs. for R-1.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 642/2019 & MAC.APP. 699/2019 Page- 1/9

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15

ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)
1. These cross-appeals have been filed in respect of impugned award
th
dated 13 March 2019, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Rohini, Delhi [‘ MACT/Tribunal ’], in MACT No. 4872/2016 , whereby
compensation of Rs.9,08,871/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum, was awarded, in respect of the injuries sustained by the
th
injured/claimant, namely Natraj Hasrat in an accident which occurred on 15
December 2011.
2. MAC.APP. 642/2019 has been filed by the Insurance Company
challenging the quantum of compensation, whereas MAC.APP. 699/2019 has
been filed by the injured/claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation.
th
3. On 15 December 2011, the injured/claimant was travelling on a
scooty as a pillion rider, after having taken a lift from the driver of said scooty .
When they reached near T-point , Rithala , the said scooty was hit by a vehicle
bearing registration no. HR55KT 6273 [‘ offending vehicle ’], as a result of
which, both the driver as well as the injured/claimant [ pillion rider ] fell down
and sustained grievous injuries.
4. Ms. Mouli Sharma , counsel for Insurance Company, challenges the
awarded compensation on the following counts:
i. Firstly , that the functional disability of injured/claimant was
assessed at 13%, even though his permanent disability was certified
at ‘ 16% in relation to the right lower limb ’. On this basis, she
contends that the functional disability ought to have been assessed
at a lower figure;
ii. Secondly , that the compensation awarded under non-pecuniary
heads was excessive, and;
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 642/2019 & MAC.APP. 699/2019 Page- 2/9

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15

iii. Thirdly , that assessment of the injured/claimant’s income at
Rs.18,000/- per month, was arbitrary.
5. Mr. Vijay Singh , counsel for injured/claimant, however, contends that
the injured/claimant was an ‘ artist ’ by profession, employed with ‘ Kingdom
of Dreams ’ [‘ KOD ’] in Gurgaon , and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month.
Therefore, the impact of his disability upon his profession as an ‘ artist ’ ought
to have been assessed at a higher percentage.
6. In this regard, Mr. Vijay Singh , counsel for injured/claimant, places
reliance upon the testimony of PW-4 , Kamar Siddiqui , Manager (HR) of
‘ Great Indian Nautanki Company Private Limited ’ [ responsible for running
the organization , Kingdom of Dreams ], who brought on record the
employment agreement/memorandum of understanding [‘ MoU ’] of the
injured/claimant, exhibited as Ex.PW4/2 , and stated that the
injured/claimant was being paid a fixed amount of Rs.30,000/- per month
towards his fixed salary.
7. Ms. Sharma , counsel for Insurance Company, in this regard, contends,
firstly , that last page of the said MoU was not signed in the original; the
document was a photocopy and, therefore, it could not be considered to be
proved and, secondly , that even as per the testimony of PW-4 / Kamar
Siddiqui , the injured/claimant was paid for the months of December 2011 and
February 2012, even though he had not performed during the said months.
8. In response thereto, Mr. Vijay Singh , counsel for injured/claimant,
submits that a clause in the agreement provided for payment, subject to a
minimum guarantee of 15 days of attendance per month, which continued by
the injured/claimant till June 2012, whereafter he was terminated vide letter
th
dated 30 June 2012.
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 642/2019 & MAC.APP. 699/2019 Page- 3/9

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15

9. Reliance is also placed by Mr. Vijay Singh , counsel for the claimant, on
the ledger account furnished, which reflects that a sum of Rs.27,000/- ,
[ monthly salary of Rs.30,000/- after deduction of Tax Deducted at Source
(‘ TDS ’) of Rs.3,000/- ], was being paid to the injured/claimant every month
until June 2012.
10. As regards the issue of functional disability, Mr. Vijay Singh , counsel
for injured/claimant, submits that the nature of his job required him to be
physically fit. However, due to the said disability, not only was the
injured/claimant terminated but was also prevented from continuing his
profession/vocation.
11. It is further stated that the nature of his employment was captured in
clause ‘D’ of aforesaid MoU, providing as under:
“ GINC, for the purpose of the production of the
Musical, is desirous of engaging the services of the
Artist to, inter alia, act, perform and participate as an
actor in the role/character of a " ALOK " and also other
small characters in the Musical as required by GINC ”
12. The Court also takes a note of clause 1.3 of the said MoU, setting out
the employment terms of the injured/claimant and, stating, “ the artist will
maintain proper physical fitness required to render the services effectively ”.
th
13. The disability certificate issued on 19 November 2012, certified the
disability of injured/claimant at ‘ 16% in relation to right lower limb ’, in a
case of “ post-traumatic stiffness and pain in the right ankle and foot ”.
th
Thereafter, he was reassessed on 15 June 2015, whereby the same condition
was found to persist.
14. Mr. Vijay Singh , counsel for injured/claimant, further places reliance
upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Rekha Jain v. National Insurance
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 642/2019 & MAC.APP. 699/2019 Page- 4/9

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15

Company Ltd. , (2013) 8 SCC 389, whereby permanent disability of 30%, in
case of an ‘ artist ’, was assessed as 100% functional disability .
15. In response to Mr. Singh’s argument regarding assessment of
functional disability, Ms. Mouli Sharma , counsel for Insurance Company,
points to the testimony of PW-6 , Dr. Rohit Gaikar , Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation , AIIMS , Delhi , who stated that a person with the aforesaid
disability would be able to dance, run, jump and perform stunts, but with
difficulty in pain. PW-6 further stated that the pain was subjective and could
not be measured.
Analysis
16. This Court has already taken a detailed view with respect to the
functional disability of an ‘ artist ’ in Shibeet Prassana v. Jagroop , 2026 SCC
OnLine Del 6879, wherein the Court was dealing with the case of ‘ flautist ’
who had sustained injuries in a road accident. The Court took into account the
nature of his injuries, observing that the injury would have had a substantial
effect upon his profession and musical talent and, accordingly, assessed the
functional disability of the claimant at 50%, even though his permanent
disability was certified at 32% in relation to the spine and left upper limb .
17. The Court must therefore take a note of the peculiar situation which is
faced by an ‘ artist ’ in such cases, whereby his mobility is seriously affected,
resulting in an impediment to the pursuance of his vocation. Even though the
injured/claimant in Shibeet Prassana ( supra ) was a ‘ flautist ’, who had
sustained injuries in relation to his spine and left upper limb , the observations
made by the Court therein may be relevant, considering that the
injured/claimant in this case was also a performer, who was employed with
the Great Indian Nautanki Company Private Limited , and was, therefore,
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 642/2019 & MAC.APP. 699/2019 Page- 5/9

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15

classified as an ‘ artist ’.
18. The employment terms, particularly clause 1.3 of the MoU, requiring
him to maintain “ proper physical fitness required to render the services
effectively ”, is, in the opinion of this Court, telling of the physical mobility
required for his work. However, having suffered 16% disability in relation to
his right lower limb , his ability to continue working as a stage artist would be
seriously impeded.
19. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the Court deems it fit
to assess the functional disability of the injured/claimant at 25%, since no
other evidence has been brought on record in this regard.
20. As far as the notional income of injured/claimant is concerned, it is
noted that clause ‘D’ of the MoU, as extracted hereinabove, categorically laid
down the service conditions of the injured/claimant. A careful perusal of the
MoU also reveals that the injured/claimant was possibly being paid since he
continued to fulfil the mandate of minimum attendance of 15 days in a month.
Testimony of PW-4 /Kamar Siddiqui is also indicative in this regard, who had
volunteered to state that payment for the months of December 2011 and
February 2012 was made to the injured/claimant “ because petitioner had
attended the company throughout this period ”.
21. This arrangement is not unusual, considering that the work of an
‘ artist ’ who is part of a musical or production, may not be consistent and,
therefore, such artists may be kept on a retainer basis, whereby they would be
required to attend for a minimum of 15 days in a month in order to continue to
remain on the rolls.
22. Furthermore, it is quite clear from the MoU that he was being paid an
amount of Rs.30,000/- per month towards his fixed salary. The last page of
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 642/2019 & MAC.APP. 699/2019 Page- 6/9

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15

the MoU laying down clause 16.10 is merely the tail end of the agreement
and, therefore, the same not being signed, could not, by itself render the
document unproved, particularly when PW-4, who was an HR Manager with
the company, testified that the injured/claimant was engaged with the
company and was being paid Rs. 30,000/- towards his fixed salary. In addition
to this, the Court notes that all the other relevant pages in the MoU had been
duly signed.
23. In this view of the matter, there is no reason why the notional income of
injured/claimant should not be considered at Rs.27,000/- per month, which
was the amount being received by the injured/claimant after deduction of the
TDS.
24. 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. 64,871/- Rs. 64,871/-
treatment (A)
2. Expenditure on
Rs. 35,000/- Rs. 35,000/-
conveyance and special
diet (B)
3. Cost of nursing and
Rs. 6,000/- Rs. 6,000/-
attendant charges (C)
4. Income of injured per
Rs. 18,000/- Rs. 27,000/-
month (D)
5. Loss of Income (E) [ For
Rs. 36,000/-
Rs. 54,000/-
2 months ]

6. Future Prospects (F) @ Rs. 25,200/- Rs. 37,800/-
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 642/2019 & MAC.APP. 699/2019 Page- 7/9

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15

40%
7. Functional disability (G) 13% 25%
8. Multiplier (H) 18 18
9. Loss of future earning
Rs. 7,02,000/- Rs. 20,41,200/-
capacity (I) [F X 12 X G
X H]
Non-pecuniary loss
10. Compensation for mental
Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 20,000/-
and physical shock (J)
11. Pain and suffering (K) Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 20,000/-
12. Disfiguration (L) Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 25,000/-
13. Total [A + B + C+ E + I +
Rs. 9,08,871/- Rs. 22,66,071/-
J+ K + L]
14. Enhanced
Rs. 13,57,200/-
compensation
15. Interest 9% 9%

Directions
25. For aforesaid reasons, compensation has been enhanced by Rs.
13,57,200/- [‘ enhanced amount ’].
26. It is directed that the enhanced amount, along with accrued interest at
the rate of 9% per annum, shall be deposited before the MACT within a
period of six weeks and shall, thereafter, be released in favour of the
injured/claimant, as a lump sum, considering that the accident occurred way
back in 2011.
rd
27. Vide order dated 03 July 2019, this Court had directed the Insurance
Company to deposit the entire compensation amount, along with accrued
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 642/2019 & MAC.APP. 699/2019 Page- 8/9

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15

interest thereon, before the MACT. It was further directed that, except Rs.
1,00,000/- , the entire amount shall be released to the beneficiaries of the
award, in terms of the scheme of disbursement specified therein.
28. Accordingly, any amount from the originally awarded compensation,
which has still not been released to the injured/claimant, shall be released in
favour of the injured/claimant, as a lump sum, considering that the accident
occurred way back in 2011 .
29. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
30. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
31. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to Insurance Company, only if
the order of deposit has been complied with.
32. Judgement be uploaded on the website of this Court.



(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 29, 2026/mk/ ya
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 642/2019 & MAC.APP. 699/2019 Page- 9/9

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15