United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs Joginder Singh And Ors & Anr.

$~8 & 9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 19 August 2026
(8)
# CNR No. DLHC010365392021
+ MAC.APP. 306/2021 & CM APPL. 42292/2021
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth and Ms. Shruti Jain,
Advs.
versus

JOGINDER SINGH AND ORS & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vijay Singh, Mr. Vivek Luthra
and Mr. Deepak Lohchab, Advs. for
R-1.
(9)
# CNR No. DLHC010121262022
+ MAC.APP. 96/2022
JOGINDER SINGH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Vijay Singh, Mr. Vivek Luthra
and Mr. Deepak Lohchab, Advs.
versus

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD AND ORS
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth and Ms. Shruti Jain,
Advs. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)
1. These cross-appeals have been filed challenging the impugned award
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 306/2021 & MAC.APP. 96/2022 Page- 1/6

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:16.09.2026
12:43:49

th
dated 4 April 2025, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohini,
Delhi (‘ MACT/Tribunal ’) in MACP No. 806/2017, awarding compensation
of Rs.33,04,800/- along with interest at 9% per annum. While MAC.APP.
306/2021 has been filed by the Insurance Company seeking reduction of
compensation, MAC.APP. 96/2022 has been filed by the claimants seeking
enhancement of compensation.
th
2. The accident in question occurred on 27 September 2016, when
Joginder Singh, the claimant, was riding his motorcycle and was hit head-on
by a Santro car (‘ offending vehicle ’). The offending vehicle was being driven
by Shakti Singh , owned by Anand , and was in the possession of Umesh
Gautam , and insured with the Insurance Company.
3. The claimant was certified as having 62% permanent disability in
relation to the right upper and right lower limbs.
4. Mr. Pankaj Seth , counsel for the Insurance Company, submits that the
th
salary was taken in terms of the 7 Pay Commission at Rs.48,041/- and no tax
was deducted from the said amount.
5. He further contends that a multiplier of 9 was applied for computing
the loss of future income, despite the claimant being 57 years of age on the
date of accident and being at the stage of retirement.
6. Mr. Vijay Singh , counsel for the claimant, contends that the claimant
was working as a driver with Delhi Transport Corporation (‘ DTC’ ), as is
evident from the testimony, and that his salary was duly established by
Ex.PW5/1 , which was proved through the deposition of Naresh Kumar , who
appeared as PW5 from the Delhi Transport Corporation.
7. Mr. Vijay Singh further contends that he has a grievance with regard to
the functional disability, which was assessed at 20% , as opposed to the
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 306/2021 & MAC.APP. 96/2022 Page- 2/6

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:16.09.2026
12:43:49

permanent disability of 62% .
8. He contends that, considering that the claimant was a driver, the
functional disability ought to have been assessed at a much higher percentage.
9. There are three aspects which have to be noted in this regard.
10. Firstly , loss of income for 3 years was awarded on the ground that the
claimant had to take compulsory retirement after being declared unfit due to
the injuries sustained in the accident, along with an amount towards the
period during which he had to take leave without pay. Accordingly, what was
awarded by the MACT towards loss of future income was compensation for
the loss of potential income after retirement and, accordingly, a multiplier of 9
was applied. However, considering the fact that the injured was compelled to
th
take compulsory retirement on 28 February 2017 after being declared
medically unfit to perform his duties, a multiplier of ' 11' ought to have been
applied, as the injured was 57 years of age on the date of his retirement. In
addition, future prospects at the rate of 15% ought to have been awarded.
11. In view of the above, since a multiplier of 11 is being applied, and the
injured had retired approximately three years prior to his date of
superannuation, i.e. on 28th February 2017, the amount of Rs. 17,29,476/-,
which was awarded towards loss of income for the said three-year period,
cannot be awarded separately and ought to be deducted from the
compensation computed towards loss of future income.
12. As regards the amount of Rs. 2,22,966/- awarded towards loss of
income for the period during which the claimant remained on leave without
pay, reference may be made to the testimony of the injured/claimant, who
deposed as PW1 . He stated that, in September 2016, he remained on unpaid
th th
leave for three days, i.e. from 28 September 2016 to 30 September 2016.
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 306/2021 & MAC.APP. 96/2022 Page- 3/6

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:16.09.2026
12:43:49

He further deposed that he received a salary of Rs. 4,915/- for the month of
October 2016, Rs. 4,915/- for November 2016, and Rs. 7,499/- for December
2016. He also stated that he did not receive any salary for the months of
January and February 2017.
13. In view of the aforesaid testimony, the compensation awarded towards
the period during which the injured remained on leave without pay is justified
and is accordingly retained.
14. Accordingly, the compensation payable under the head of loss of
income shall be Rs. 2,22,966/- (Rs. 19,52,442/- -Rs. 17,29,476/-).
15. Secondly , the issue of functional disability, however, requires
consideration. A permanent impairment of 62% in relation to the right upper
and lower limbs would have substantially impaired, if not completely
precluded, his ability to pursue his vocation as a driver of any vehicle,
particularly a commercial/transport vehicle.
16. In this regard, the functional disability ought to be assessed at 60%,
since the claimant would have to suffer the impediment arising from the loss
of use of his right upper and lower limbs, but also considering and
accommodating the fact that he was close to retirement.
17. Thirdly , as far as deduction of tax from the income is concerned, the
issue was considered by the Court, and counsel for claimant submitted that
the income would not fall within the taxable bracket after taking into account
the applicable deductions.
18. Accordingly, the revised computation of compensation is as under:
Sr.
No .
Heads Awarded by the
Awarded by
Tribunal
this Court
PECUNIARY LOSS
1. Expenditure on Medical Bills Rs. 74,344/- Rs. 74,344/-
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 306/2021 & MAC.APP. 96/2022 Page- 4/6

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:16.09.2026
12:43:49

and medical treatment (A)
2. Expenditure on conveyance,
special diet and attendant
charges (B)
Rs. 60,000/- Rs. 60,000/-
4. Income of injured per
month(E)
Rs.48,041/- Rs. 48,041/-
5. Loss of income (L) Rs. 19,52,442/- Rs. 2,22,966/-
6. Add: Future prospects (F) nil 15% of Rs. 48,041/-= Rs.
7,206.15/-
7. Multiplier (G) 9 11
8. Functional disability (H) 20% 60%
9. Loss of future income/future
earnings [(E+F) x 12 x G x
H] = (I)
Rs. 10,38,000/- Rs. 43,75,574.28/-
NON-PECUNIARY LOSS
10. Pain and suffering (J) Rs. 1 ,00,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/-
11. Loss of amenities of life (K) Rs. 80,000/- Rs. 80,000/-
12. Total compensation (A + B +
+ I+ J+ K+L) = (N)
Rs. 33,04,800/- Rs. 49,12,884.28/-
(rounded of to Rs.
49,12,890/-)
13. Interest awarded 9% per annum 9% per annum
14. Enhanced compensation Rs. 16,08,090/-

19. Accordingly, the compensation is enhanced by Rs. 16,08,090/-.
20. Enhanced compensation, along with accrued interest thereon, be
deposited before the MACT, and be released to the claimant/injured as a lump
sum.
st
21. By order dated 31 May 2024, the Insurance Company was directed to
deposit the entire compensation along with interest and Rs.5,00,000/- had
been ordered to be released.
22. In view of the disposal of the appeals, the complete compensation
along with accrued interest will be released to the claimant.
23. Accordingly, appeals are disposed of.
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 306/2021 & MAC.APP. 96/2022 Page- 5/6

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:16.09.2026
12:43:49

24. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
25. Statutory deposit shall be refunded to appellant/Insurance Company
only upon deposit of the enhanced amount along with the accrued interest.
26. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.




(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
AUGUST 19, 2026/mk/ bp
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 306/2021 & MAC.APP. 96/2022 Page- 6/6

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:16.09.2026
12:43:49