01Facts
Bharat Ghai, aged 39, suffered grievous injuries in a road accident on 11 February 2022 and remained in a comatose state, with 100% permanent physical impairment and no likelihood of improvement.
¶ 2–4 · pp. 2–3The MACT awarded compensation of Rs. 1,52,76,996 with interest at 7.5% per annum.
¶ 1, 5–8 · pp. 1, 3–6Ghai appealed, seeking enhancement on grounds including assessment of income, medical and care expenses, and deduction of Mediclaim proceeds.
¶ 1, 5–8 · pp. 1, 3–602Issues
i.1. Whether the MACT correctly assessed Ghai’s income and future loss of earnings despite his failure to file an income-tax return for the assessment year following the accident.
¶ 10–23 · pp. 6–10ii.2. Whether amounts received under a Mediclaim policy could be deducted from compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
¶ 24–25 · p. 11iii.3. Whether the evidence justified enhancement of compensation for past pharmacy expenses and future medical, physiotherapy, attendant, and nursing needs.
¶ 26–48, 56–72 · pp. 11–19, 22–31iv.4. Whether compensation for loss of consortium was payable where the injured claimant survived but remained comatose.
¶ 49–52 · pp. 19–21v.5. Whether the MACT’s rejection of claims supported only by photocopies, and of the claims for Amazon and Ayurvedic expenses, warranted interference.
¶ 45–48, 53–55 · pp. 18–19, 21–2203Law Applied
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 requires an award of just and reasonable compensation.
For self-employed persons or individuals carrying on business, the Supreme Court in Rashmirekha Tripathy v. Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1256, directed that income be assessed by reference to the average income shown in the ITRs for up to the preceding three years.
¶ 20 · p. 9Under New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Dolly Satish Gandhi, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 861, benefits received under a medical insurance policy are contractual and cannot be deducted from statutory compensation under the MV Act.
¶ 24–25 · p. 11The multiplier method may be used to assess lifelong attendant and other recurring expenses, as recognised in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413, and Jithendran v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2022) 15 SCC 620.
¶ 62–66 · pp. 24–30The Court also applied the principle that consortium compensation is payable in cases of death, as explained in Pranay Sethi, Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, and Sameem Begum v. K. Venkat Swamy.
¶ 49–52 · pp. 19–21Provisions in the judgment · 1
Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 143
04Reasoning
The Court held that the absence of a post-accident ITR could not fairly support an inference that Ghai had no income, given his coma and the practical difficulty his family faced in assembling records for the relevant year.
¶ 14–23 · pp. 7–10Applying Rashmirekha Tripathy, it averaged his income for AY 2019–20, 2020–21 and 2021–22, assessed 100% functional disability, and applied 40% future prospects and a multiplier of 15.
¶ 14–23 · pp. 7–10 · ¶ 73 · pp. 31–33It set aside the Mediclaim deduction and allowed pharmacy expenses supported by a bill-by-bill tabulation and corresponding medical advice.
¶ 25 · ¶ 33–38 · pp. 11, 13–17Given Ghai’s lifelong care needs, it assessed future medical expenses at Rs. 50,000 per month, physiotherapy at Rs. 30,000 per month, attendant charges using the skilled-worker minimum wage, and nursing charges at Rs. 30,000 per month, applying a multiplier of 15.
¶ 43–44, 56–72 · pp. 18, 22–31It declined to award consortium because the claimant had not died, and upheld rejection of the Amazon, Ayurvedic, and photocopy-only claims for want of sufficient supporting evidence or because the expenses were otherwise accounted for.
¶ 45–48, 51–55 · pp. 18–2205Holding
The appeal was allowed in part.
¶ 73–75 · pp. 31–34Total compensation was enhanced to Rs. 4,26,09,147, an increase of Rs. 2,73,32,151, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition.
¶ 73–75 · pp. 31–34The enhanced amount was directed to be deposited within six weeks; Rs. 25,00,000 with accrued interest was to be released to the claimant, with the balance placed in staggered FDRs.
¶ 75–78 · pp. 34–35Any unreleased balance of the original award, with accrued interest, was also directed to be released to the claimant.
¶ 75–78 · pp. 34–35Original Court PDF
Bharat Ghai (Through His Wife Harpreet Kaur)vsRaju Grover (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs & Anr. (Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
