Jubed Alam vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. And Ors.

$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
nd
% Date of decision: 02 September 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010993032024
+ MAC.APP. 1/2025
JUBED ALAM .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Mahesh Ranjan, Adv.

versus

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Roshan Lal Goel and Mr. Bhuvan
Goel, Advs. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)
1. This appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation
st
awarded by judgment dated 31 August 2024 passed by Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal [‘ MACT/Tribunal ’], Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, in
MACT No. 214/2022, whereby compensation of Rs.83,10,835/- along with
interest @ 8% per annum be awarded.
2. Mr. Mahesh Ranjan , counsel for appellant, points out to two issues,
which require redressal by the Court:
(i) That the salary was claimed at Rs.27,000/- at the time of the
accident; whereas, only minimum wages of a skilled person has
been taken by the MACT at Rs.20,357/-.
(ii) That the attendant charges have been given only at Rs.35,000 /-,
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 1/2025 Page- 1/9

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:16.09.2026
10:58:24

despite the assessment of 100% functional disability.
3. Mr. Roshan Lal Goel , counsel for the Insurance Company, states that
considering the admission, in view of the admission made by the appellant in
his cross-examination that he was not availing of any nursing services, no
amount ought to be awarded towards attendant charges. He further submits
that the documents relating to Larsen and Toubro Ltd. are not relevant, since
the claimant had joined the company in 2015 and left in 2016, which was
much prior to the accident.
4. Counsel for the Insurance Company, submits that the evidence of the
employer has not been placed on record and that there is no proof to
substantiate the assertion that the claimant was earning
either Rs.27,000/- or Rs.24,000/- per month. Accordingly, minimum wages
have rightly been taken as the basis for assessing his income.
5. The claimant, Jubed Alam , was working as a pipe fitter/ insulator and
working under a subcontractor in GN Golden Private Limited stated to be
earning Rs.27,000/- per month. Previously, he had been contracted for
working in the Middle East and was working with Larsen and Toubro Ltd .,
which has issued him a Certificate of Appreciation. Various documents have
been filed showing that he was working with Larsen and Toubro Ltd .,
including the certification by the company that he was an employee of the
company in 2014-2015. At that time, he was earning about Rs.20,000/- in
th
Qatar. Subsequently, at the time of the accident on 27 October 2022, he
stated that he was working with Kapil Kumar @ Kapil Garg , Contractor, as
also SDG Infrastructure Private Limited and earning Rs.27,000/- per month
with other incentives.
6. In his cross-examination, however, he stated that he was
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 1/2025 Page- 2/9

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:16.09.2026
10:58:24

earning Rs.24,000/- per month at the time of the accident. He was unable to
produce any income proof or salary receipt in support thereof and stated that
he had become unconscious after the accident.
7. As per the testimony the claimant himself, he was earning Rs.27,000/-
per month at the time. He was earlier stated to be earning Rs. 20,000/- per
month in Qatar. However, during cross examination PW1/ claimant stated
that he earning Rs.24,000/- per month. In the absence of any documentary
evidence or testimony from the contractor under whom he was working, it
would be safe to assess his income at about Rs.22,000/- per month.
8. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment of Supreme
Court in Savita & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd . 2026:DHC:3626
wherein principles have been culled out for assessment of benchmark income.
The relevant paragraph is extracted as under:
“ Guideposts
30. Principles which may be culled out from these cases
cited above, and be used as guidepost for assessment of
benchmark income, can be summarised as under:
…
C. Proof of employment
i. If documents in support of employment inter alia,
Salary/Wage Certificate, Income Tax Returns (‘ ITRs ’)
have been filed, same shall be considered.
ii. In the absence of such proof, assessment done by the
Court has to be based on some intelligent guesswork
and may not be restricted to the minimum wage
parameter after taking into account a holistic analysis
of the evidence on record. For example, place of
employment, testimony of co-workers, or any other
person who testifies in favour of the injured/deceased
employee.
iii. The entire assessment is ultimately imbued with an
element of approximation and guesswork, as part of the
inquiry proceedings and not on exactitude.
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 1/2025 Page- 3/9

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:16.09.2026
10:58:24

iv. Reliance may be placed on State specific legislations,
as well as Minimum Wage Notifications to lean on for
support, in order to determine what qualifies as a
skilled worker and an unskilled worker, with respect to
the vocation of the victim.
…”
(emphasis supplied)
9. As regards the issue of attendant charges, although PW-1 stated in his
testimony that he had not engaged any nursing assistance, PW-2 , Assistant
Professor, Department of Neurosurgery, GIPMER, stated that the claimant
had suffered 100% permanent disability in relation to the bilateral lower limbs
and 40% to 70% neurological disability in the brain. He further stated that the
claimant would be unable to walk on his own due to the said disability for the
rest of his life. In these circumstances, it has to be presumed that the family
members must be rendering attendant services to the claimant and, therefore,
such gratuitous services would have to be compensated.
10. PW2 categorically stated that the patient is paraplegic with loss of
bowel and bladder sensation and his chance of recovery are zero. He stated
that the injured was also conscious and oriented but he was not intellectually
intact.
11. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Chandramani Nanda v. Sarat Chandra Swain & Ors. , 2024 INSC
777, wherein the Supreme Court recognised the value of attendant services
rendered by family members to an injured claimant and awarded lump-sum
compensation towards the same. Further, Supreme Court in Kajal v. Jagdish
Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413 also held that the tortfeasor cannot take benefit of
the gratuitous service rendered by the family members , and that the family
members are entitled to compensation for the loss of wages and the time spent
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 1/2025 Page- 4/9

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:16.09.2026
10:58:24

attending to the injured, including during hospitalisation.
12. The claimant was only 29 years of age on the date of the accident and is
presently still in his early thirties. He therefore has his entire lifetime ahead of
him, during which he would remain unable to walk independently or attend to
even his basic needs without assistance.
13. In the facts of the present case, therefore, the absence of evidence
regarding engagement of a paid attendant cannot, by itself, be a ground to
deny compensation under this head. Considering claimant's permanent
disability, and that he would require continued assistance in his day-to-day
activities, the Court is of the view that the award of compensation towards
attendant charges is justified. Even otherwise, the gratuitous service by the
family member ought to be compensated.
14. This Court is of the opinion that, instead of awarding a lump-sum
amount towards attendant charges, the multiplier method, which standardises
the computation of compensation, ought to be adopted. It ensures not only
uniformity and consistency but also facilitates the award of just compensation
to a person who has suffered 100% functional disability and is dependent
upon gratuitous services rendered by a family member. In this regard, reliance
can be placed on the decision in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand ( supra ). The
relevant paragraphs are extracted below:
“ Attendant charges
22. The attendant charges have been awarded by the
High Court @ Rs 2500 per month for 44 years, which
works out to Rs 13,20,000. Unfortunately, this system is
not a proper system. Multiplier system is used to
balance out various factors. When compensation is
awarded in lump sum, various factors are taken into
consideration. When compensation is paid in lump sum,
this Court has always followed the multiplier system.
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 1/2025 Page- 5/9

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:16.09.2026
10:58:24

The multiplier system should be followed not only for
determining the compensation on account of loss of
income but also for determining the attendant charges,
etc. This system was recognised by this Court in Gobald
Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswami [Gobald Motor
Service Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswami, AIR 1962 SC 1] . The
multiplier system factors in the inflation rate, the rate of
interest payable on the lump sum award, the longevity
of the claimant, and also other issues such as the
uncertainties of life. Out of all the various alternative
methods, the multiplier method has been recognised as
the most realistic and reasonable method. It ensures
better justice between the parties and thus results in
award of “just compensation” within the meaning of the
Act.
23. It would be apposite at this stage to refer to the
observation of Lord Reid
in Taylor v. O'Connor [Taylor v. O'Connor, 1971 AC
115 : (1970) 2 WLR 472 (HL)] : (AC p. 128)
“Damages to make good the loss of dependency
over a period of years must be awarded as a lump
sum and that sum is generally calculated by
applying a multiplier to the amount of one year's
dependency. That is a perfectly good method in the
ordinary case but it conceals the fact that there are
two quite separate matters involved — the present
value of the series of future payments, and the
discounting of that present value to allow for the
fact that for one reason or another the person
receiving the damages might never have enjoyed the
whole of the benefit of the dependency. It is quite
unnecessary in the ordinary case to deal with these
matters separately. Judges and counsel have a
wealth of experience which is an adequate guide to
the selection of the multiplier and any expert
evidence is rightly discouraged. But in a case where
the facts are special I think that these matters must
have separate consideration if even rough justice is
to be done and expert evidence may be valuable or
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 1/2025 Page- 6/9

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:16.09.2026
10:58:24

even almost essential. The special factor in the
present case is the incidence of income tax and, it
may be, surtax.”
…
25. Having held so, we are clearly of the view that the
basic amount taken for determining the attendant
charges is very much on the lower side. We must
remember that this little girl is severely suffering from
incontinence, meaning that she does not have control
over her bodily functions like passing urine and faeces.
As she grows older, she will not be able to handle her
periods. She requires an attendant virtually 24 hours a
day. She requires an attendant who though may not be
medically trained but must be capable of handling a
child who is bedridden. She would require an attendant
who would ensure that she does not suffer from
bedsores. The claimant has placed before us a
notification of the State of Haryana of the year 2010,
wherein the wages for skilled labourer is Rs 4846 per
month. We, therefore, assess the cost of one attendant at
Rs 5000 and she will require two attendants which
works out to Rs 10,000 per month, which comes to Rs
1,20,000 p.a., and using the multiplier of 18, it works
out to Rs 21,60,000 for the attendant charges for her
entire life. This takes care of all the pecuniary
damages. ”
( emphasis added )


15. In these circumstances, the minimum wages applicable to a
semi-skilled worker in Delhi on the date of the accident that is Rs. 17,693/-
shall be taken as the basis for assessing the cost of one attendant. Considering
that the claimant may require nursing assistance at various points of time, the
same shall be taken into account while assessing the attendant charges. A
suitable multiplier of 17, in terms of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680, shall be applied, considering that the claimant was
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 1/2025 Page- 7/9

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:16.09.2026
10:58:24

29 years of age on the date of the accident. This assessment has been made
having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and ought not
to be construed as a precedent.
16. The revised compensation will be as under:
S. no. Heads Awarded by the
Awarded by
Tribunal
this Court
PECUNIARY LOSS
1. Expenditure on Medical
Bills and medical treatment
(A)
Rs. 15,99,734/- Rs. 15,99,734/-
2. Expenditure on conveyance
(B)
Rs. 35,000/- Rs. 35,000/-
3. Expenditure on special diet
(C)
Rs. 35,000/- Rs. 35,000/-
4. Attendant Charges (D) Rs. 35,000/- Rs. 17,693 x 12 x 17
= Rs. 36,09,272/-
5. Income of injured per
month(E)
Rs.20,357/- Rs. 22,000/-
6. Loss of income (F) Rs. 1,22,142/- Rs. 1,32,000/-
7. Add: Future prospects (G) 40% 40%
8. Multiplier (H) 17 17
9. Functional disability (I) 100% 100%
10. Loss of future
income/future earnings
(E+G) x H x Ix 12] = (J)
Rs. 58,13,959/- Rs. 62,83,200/-
11. Future medical expenses
(K)
Rs. 5,00,000/- Rs. 5,00,000/-
NON-PECUNIARY LOSS
12. Pain and suffering (L) Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/-
13. Loss of amenities of life and
future prospects (M)
Rs. 35,000/- Rs. 35,000/-
14 Disfigurement (N) Rs. 35,000/- Rs. 35,000/-
15. Total compensation (A + B
+ C + D+ F+J+K+L+M+N)
= (O)
Rs. 83,10,835/- Rs. 1,23,64,206/-
16. Interest awarded 8% per annum 8% per annum
17. Enhanced compensation Rs. 40,53,371/-
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 1/2025 Page- 8/9

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:16.09.2026
10:58:24

17. For the aforesaid reasons, compensation has been enhanced by
Rs.40,53,371 /- [“ enhanced amount ”].
18. It is therefore directed that enhanced amount along with 8% interest per
annum from the date of filing the petition shall be deposited before MACT
within a period of four weeks. It is directed that a lump sum amount of Rs.
2,00,000/- shall be released to the claimant from the deposit of enhanced
amount within a period of two weeks thereafter. Remaining enhanced
amount, along with accrued interest, shall be kept in Fixed Deposit Receipts
( FDRs ) of Rs. 50,000/- each for periods of 3 month, 6 months, 9 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.
19. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
20. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
21. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.


(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 02, 2026/mk/ zb
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 1/2025 Page- 9/9

Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:16.09.2026
10:58:24