The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Bimla &Ors

$~5 & 6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 10 July 2026

+ MAC.APP. 913/2017
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath, Mr. Anant Dev
& Mr. Harshit Singh, Advs.
versus

BIMLA &ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Manish Maini, Ms. Aastha
Chauhan & Mr. Abhinav Sharma,
Advs. for R1-R5.
6
+ MAC.APP. 743/2018
SMT BIMLA & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Manish Maini, Ms. Aastha
Chauhan & Mr. Abhinav Sharma,
Advs
versus

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD & ORS
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath, Mr. Harshit
Singh, Advs. for Insurance Co.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT


ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)
1. These are cross-appeals, being MAC Appeal No. 913/2017 filed by
the Insurance Company and MAC Appeal No. 743/2018 filed by the
th
claimants, seeking their respective reliefs. The impugned award dated 19
August 2017 was passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohini
Courts (‘ MACT/Tribunal ’) in MACT Case No. 450237/16, awarding
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 913/2017 & 743/2018 Page 1 of 12

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:22.07.2026
16:13:51

compensation of Rs.15,02,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.
2. Mr. Harshit Singh , counsel for Insurance Company, contends that the
award is liable to be set aside on the ground that the Tribunal has erroneously
applied a multiplier of 9, whereas a multiplier of 6 ought to have been
applied, considering that the deceased was 58 years of age on the date of the
accident, in terms of the pre-amendment Act.
3. It is further submitted that the claim petition was treated as an injury
case, whereas the injured died during the pendency of the proceedings. Since
no nexus between the injuries sustained in the accident and the subsequent
death was established before the Tribunal, and no finding to that effect has
been returned, the legal heirs would not be entitled to compensation on
account of the death.
4. Mr. Manish Maini , counsel for the claimant, on the contrary, seeks
enhancement of the compensation by contending that the death was a direct
consequence of the injuries sustained by the deceased in the accident. It is
submitted that compensation towards loss of dependency on account of the
death ought to have been awarded, in addition to the pecuniary and non-
pecuniary losses suffered by the deceased from the date of the accident till
his death, during which period he remained under continuous treatment.
th
5. The accident occurred on 09 January 2005, when Ram Phool Sharma
was serving in the DTC as a permanent employee at the post of Assistant
Traffic Inspector, and was earning Rs.11,455/- per month. He was aged 58
years and sustained severe head injuries in the accident, which occurred
when he was knocked down by a Tata CNG Blue Line bus (the offending
vehicle) while he was on the road.
6. As per the testimony of Rajesh Kumar Sharma , the son of the
th
deceased, Ramphool Sharma passed away on 12 February 2010 while
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 913/2017 & 743/2018 Page 2 of 12

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:22.07.2026
16:13:51

undergoing treatment at Orchid Hospital. The death certificate has been
placed on record.
7. Mr. Maini has adverted to the evidence by way of affidavit filed by
Rajesh Kumar Sharma , the son of the deceased, where he has given the
sequence of treatment which the deceased went through. In his affidavit, it
has been stated that the accident injured (since deceased) was moved to the
trauma centre and was thereafter referred to a private hospital. Subsequently,
the family members admitted him to Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, New
th
Delhi, where he underwent neurosurgery and remained admitted from 09
nd
January 2005 to 22 February 2005. On discharge, his condition became
th
serious again, and he was re-admitted to Apollo Hospital on 26 February
2005, where he underwent a second neurosurgery and remained admitted till
th
28 March 2005. Thereafter, his condition again worsened, and he was
th th
admitted to Orchid Hospital on 08 May 2005, where he remained till 14
th
May 2005. He was again admitted to Orchid Hospital on 17 May 2005 and
th
remained there till 20 May 2005. Thereafter, he was admitted once again on
th th
27 May 2005 and discharged on 28 May 2005.
8. The process of treatment continued since he was yet again admitted to
st rd
Orchid Hospital on 01 June 2005 and discharged on 03 June 2005, and
nd th
then on 22 June 2005 till 25 June 2005. Since his health was severely
th
affected, on 13 January 2010, he was admitted to Lok Nayak Hospital,
th
where he remained an inpatient until 17 January 2010.
9. Thereafter, he was again admitted to Orchid Hospital , where he
th
ultimately passed away on 12 February 2010. The testimony further states
that, following the accident, the deceased was unable to recognise his family
members and could neither eat, walk, sit, nor attend to his natural calls on
his own. It is also stated that approximately Rs.15,00,000/- was incurred
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 913/2017 & 743/2018 Page 3 of 12

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:22.07.2026
16:13:51

towards his medical treatment, and the corresponding medical bills were
placed on record.
10. In these circumstances , Mr. Maini has relied upon previous decision
of this Court in Guddi and Ors. v. Mohan Sharma and Ors 2025:DHC:263.
th
In this case, the injured had suffered injuries in an accident on 27 July 2008
th
and subsequently passed away on 4 October 2011. This Court held that, in
view of the continuous treatment undergone by the deceased, there existed a
causal nexus between the accident and the eventual death. Accordingly,
compensation was awarded towards loss of financial dependency, loss of
estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium on account of the death, as
well as medical expenses, attendant charges, special diet, conveyance, loss
of income, and pain and suffering for the period during which the deceased
remained an injured victim.
11. The MACT, however, despite this background and noting the death of
the deceased, Ram Phool Sharma , treated this as a case of injury and awarded
compensation in the following terms:
1. Medical expenses Rs. 7,80,000/-
2. Loss of income Rs. 1,62,487
3. Pain and suffering . Rs. 1,00,000/-
4. Loss of enjoyment of amenities of life Rs. 1,00,000/-
5. Future prospects on account of disability Rs. 3,09,285/-



Analysis
12. It is also clear that the deceased never resumed his duties with the DTC
after the accident. The nature of the injuries sustained by him is evident from
the discharge summary issued by Apollo Hospital . It states that he had an
acute right fronto-temporo-parietal SDH with basifrontal contusion and B/L
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 913/2017 & 743/2018 Page 4 of 12

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:22.07.2026
16:13:51

temporal contusion (right>left) with fracture right temporal bone . The
procedure in the hospital was a right fronto-temporo-parietal craniotomy and
th
evacuation of subdural haematoma and contusion on 09 January 2005,
th
which was done on 09 January 2005. The comments given in terms of the
procedure in the discharge summary state that the condition of the person
was extremely vulnerable as he was only able to obey simple commands, his
spontaneous speech had markedly reduced, his verbal output was poor, and
his comprehension was impaired at times.
13. Various discharge summaries of the hospitals in respect of the
treatment mentioned above also bear out that he was in an acute condition
and had to go through more than two surgeries. The testimony of PW9 ,
Senior Neurosurgeon, is also noted, where he categorically deposed that
there was no likelihood of any future improvement in the deceased's
condition .
14. Moreover, the permanent disability of the injured was assessed at 50%
in relation to his body, as evident from the certificate issued by Ram
Manohar Lohia hospital, which PW9, Dr. L.M Gupta Sr. Neurosurgeon ,
R.M.L Hospital , also proved.
15. Compensation payable to the claimant is required to be determined on
the basis of the facts and circumstances prevailing as on the date of the
accident and the injuries sustained therein. Subsequent events or extraneous
considerations, unless they have a direct bearing on the consequences
flowing from the accident, cannot be taken into account for determining the
compensation payable. In Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd . (2021) 2 SCC
166, the Supreme Court held that claims crystallise on the date of the
accident. Relevant paragraph is extracted as under:
“ 9. We have thoughtfully considered the rival
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 913/2017 & 743/2018 Page 5 of 12

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:22.07.2026
16:13:51

submissions. It cannot be disputed that at the time of
death, there in fact were four dependants of the
deceased and not three. The subsequent death of the
deceased's dependant mother ought not to be a reason
for reduction of motor accident compensation.
Claims and legal liabilities crystallise at the time of
the accident itself, and changes post thereto ought not
to ordinarily affect pending proceedings. Just like
how the appellant claimants cannot rely upon
subsequent increases in minimum wages, the
respondent insurer too cannot seek benefit of the
subsequent death of a dependant during the pendency
of legal proceedings. Similarly, any concession in law
made in this regard by either counsel would not bind
the parties, as it is legally settled that advocates
cannot throw away legal rights or enter into
arrangements contrary to law. ”
(emphasis added)

16. Taking a cue from the observations of the Supreme Court, in the
opinion of this Court, in order to avoid any ambiguity in the grant of
compensation and to adopt a standardised and consistent approach, the
concept of hybrid compensation, i.e., awarding compensation both for the
initial injury and the subsequent death, may not be applicable. Instead, where
the claimant initially survives the accident, and the injury claim has
crystallised, compensation should be determined solely on the basis of the
settled parameters governing injury claims. If the injured person passes away
after some years, the compensation awarded for the injuries forms part of his
estate and devolves upon the legal heirs in accordance with law.
17. Moreover, the Supreme Court in the case of the Meena (Dead)
through LRs. v. Prayagraj & Ors . 2025 INSC 820, which is a case where
the claimant had suffered 100% permanent disability in a motor accident and
remained in a vegetative state for nearly 19 years before eventually passing
away during the pendency of the appeal, permitted the legal representatives
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 913/2017 & 743/2018 Page 6 of 12

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:22.07.2026
16:13:51

to continue the proceedings only to recover the compensation that had
accrued to the injured claimant's estate and treated the claim as one for injury
compensation.
18. In the present case, the evidence on record clearly establishes the
nature and extent of the injuries suffered by the deceased and the resultant
disability. In this respect, reliance on Guddi ( supra ), in the opinion of this
Court, may not be necessary.
19. Considering the aforesaid disability certificate, the nature of the
injuries sustained by the deceased, the prolonged course of treatment for
almost five years, the repeated hospitalisations, the multiple neurosurgical
interventions, the permanent neurological deficits reflected in the discharge
summaries, and the opinion of PW9 that there was no likelihood of any
future improvement in his condition, this Court concludes that the deceased
never recovered from the injury sustained in the accident. The discharge
summaries records that even after the surgery, injured was not able to
perform day-to-day activities on his own.
20. Accordingly, this Court does not concur with the assessment of
functional disability at 25% made by the MACT in the impugned award and
holds that the functional disability ought to be assessed at 50%.
21. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the Motor Vehicles Act
is a beneficial legislation enacted with the primary objective of providing a
statutory framework for awarding compensation to victims of motor vehicle
accidents or to their family members, who are rendered helpless and
disadvantaged due to the untimely death or injury of a family member,
provided the claim is found to be genuine. There is a catena of judgments
which have consistently held that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial
piece of legislation. Reference in this regard may be drawn to the judgment
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 913/2017 & 743/2018 Page 7 of 12

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:22.07.2026
16:13:51

of the Supreme Court in Helen C. Rebello (Mrs.) & Ors. v. Maharashtra
State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. (1999) 1 SCC 90, which held as
under:
“ 36. As we have observed, the whole scheme of the
Act, in relation to the payment of compensation to the
claimant, is a beneficial legislation. The intention of
the legislature is made more clear by the change of
language from what was in the Fatal Accidents Act,
1855 and what is brought under Section 110-B of the
1939 Act. This is also visible through the provision of
Section 168(1) under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
and Section 92-A of the 1939 Act which fixes the
liability on the owner of the vehicle even on no fault.
It provides that where the death or permanent
disablement of any person has resulted from an
accident in spite of no fault of the owner of the vehicle,
an amount of compensation fixed therein is payable to
the claimant by such owner of the vehicle. Section 92-
B ensures that the claim for compensation under
Section 92-A is in addition to any other right to claim
compensation in respect whereof (sic thereof) under
any other provision of this Act or of any other law for
the time being in force. This clearly indicates the
intention of the legislature which is conferring larger
benefit on the claimant. Interpretation of such
beneficial legislation is also well settled. Whenever
there be two possible interpretations in such statute,
then the one which subserves the object of legislation,
viz., benefit to the subject should be accepted. In the
present case, two interpretations have been given of
this statute, evidenced by two distinct sets of decisions
of the various High Courts. We have no hesitation to
conclude that the set of decisions, which applied the
principle of no deduction of the life insurance amount,
should be accepted and the other set, which
interpreted to deduct, is to be rejected. For all these
considerations, we have no hesitation to hold that
such High Courts were wrong in deducting the
amount paid or payable under the life insurance by
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 913/2017 & 743/2018 Page 8 of 12

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:22.07.2026
16:13:51

giving a restricted meaning to the provisions of the
Motor Vehicles Act basing mostly on the language of
English statutes and not taking into consideration the
changed language and intents of the legislature under
various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. ”
(emphasis added)


22. Moreover, 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 added)


23. Mr. Mani, counsel for claimant , states that the deceased had become
brain-dead, completely bedridden, and remained in a vegetative state until
his death.
24. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to increase the compensation
awarded towards special diet and conveyance, and attendant charges to grant
Rs.2,50,000/- on each of the accounts and pain and suffering and loss of
amenities as a non-pecuniary loss, Rs. 2,50,000 each.
25. The monthly income of deceased was assessed at Rs. 11,455/-. At the
time of accident the deceased was 58 years old; however, by the time he
passed away, he was approximately 63 years old. Considering that the
present case is of a hybrid nature, the deceased would only be liable for future
prospects post his death, as he was receiving a salary. As per the principles
enunciated in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 913/2017 & 743/2018 Page 9 of 12

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:22.07.2026
16:13:51

(2017) 16 SCC 680 and Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors v. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr. (2009) 5 SCC 121.
26. As regards Insurance Company's plea that a wrong multiplier was
given, the same would not be relevant considering the determination made
above. However, aside from that, the MACT was not wrong in awarding a
multiplier of 9, considering he was 58 years old on the date of the accident.
27. The monthly income for the purpose of computation shall be taken as
Rs.11,455/-.
28. As per the principle enunciated in Pranay Sethi ( supra ), future
prospects ought to be awarded at 25%, since the injured was 58 years old on
the date of the accident.
29. No loss of income is being granted for the period he was alive,
considering that he continued to receive salary from the DTC.
30. The revised compensation will be as under:
Sr.
No .
Heads Awarded by the
Awarded by
Tribunal
this Court
PECUNIARY LOSS
1. Expenditure on Medical Bills
and medical treatment (A)
Rs. 7,80,000/- Rs. 7,80,000/-
2. Expenditure on conveyance
and special diet (B)
Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 2,50,000/-
5. Attendant charges (D) Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 2,50,000/-
6. Income of injured per
month(E)
Rs.11,455/-. Rs.11,455/-.
7. Add: Future prospects (F) Nil 25% of Rs.11,455/-.=
Rs. 2,863.75
8. Multiplier (G) 9 9
9. Functional disability (H) 25% 50%
10 Loss of future income/future
earnings [(E+F) x 12 x G x H]
= (I)
Rs. 3,09,285/- Rs. 7,73,212.50/-
NON-PECUNIARY LOSS
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 913/2017 & 743/2018 Page 10 of 12

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:22.07.2026
16:13:51

11 Pain and suffering (J) Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 2,50,000/-
12 Loss of amenities of life (K) Rs. 1,00,000/-
Rs. 2,50,000/-
13 Total compensation (A + B +
C + D + H + I+ J+ K) = L
15,01,772/-
(rounded to
15,02,000/-)
Rs. 25,53,212.50/-
(rounded to Rs.
25,53,300/-)
14 Interest awarded 9% p.a. 9% p.a.

31. Accordingly, the compensation is enhanced by Rs. 10,51,300/-.

32. Accordingly, it is directed that the enhanced amount along with
accrued interest be deposited by the Insurance company with the Registrar
General of this Court within a period of 6 weeks.
33. Further, it is directed that a lump sum amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- shall
be released to the claimant from the amount so deposited within a period of
two weeks thereafter. Remaining 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 claimant. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be
released to the Savings Bank Account of claimant upon due verification.
th
34. By order dated 24 October 2018, this Court directed the Insurance
Company to deposit the entire awarded compensation and granted a stay.
st
Vide order dated 21 August 2018, this Court altered the interim order dated
th
24 October 2018 and directed release of 50% of the deposited
compensation. Accordingly, the balance amount shall be released in
accordance with the directions of the MACT in the impugned award.
35. It is noted that the daughters of the deceased, namely, Usha , Babita
and Jyoti, have relinquished their respective shares in favour of their brother
Rajesh Kumar Sharma , son of deceased, as noted in paragraph 29 of the
MACT’s award. However, since the wife was alive, MACT directed that
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 913/2017 & 743/2018 Page 11 of 12

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:22.07.2026
16:13:51

60% of the compensation amount would be awarded to the wife and 40% of
the amount would be given to Rajesh Kumar Sharma , son of the deceased.
36. However, since the consortium amounts have been directed to be paid
on account of the three sisters as well, Rajesh Kumar Sharma is legally
bound to transfer Rs.40,000/- each along with accrued interest to each of his
three sisters.
37. Recovery rights granted to the Insurance Company shall continue.
38. Accordingly, appeal filled by Insurance Company, i.e. MAC.APP.
913/2017 , is dismissed.
39. Cross-appeal filed by claimants, i.e. MAC.APP. 743/2018 , is allowed
and is disposed of in the above terms.
40. Both these appeals stand disposed of in above terms.
41. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
42. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to appellant/Insurance Company
only if the order of deposit has been complied with.
43. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.


(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
JULY 10, 2026/sm/ bp
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 913/2017 & 743/2018 Page 12 of 12

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:22.07.2026
16:13:51