Delhi HC Raises Compensation To Rs 4.05 Crore For 21-Year-Old Left In Vegetative State, Including Lifetime Care Costs

In brief

The question

1. Whether the MACT correctly assessed Sareen’s income and future loss of earnings despite his not being employed on the date of the accident, and whether a Mediclaim deduction was warranted.

The court held

The cross-appeals were disposed of by enhancing total compensation from ₹1,30,53,544 to ₹4,05,21,616, an increase of ₹2,74,68,072, with interest at 7% per annum.

It also directed

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount, with interest from the date of filing the claim petition, within six weeks.

The Court directed release of ₹25,00,000 with accrued interest and investment of the balance enhanced amount in successive fixed deposits, with interest credited to Sareen’s designated savings account.

Pending applications were rendered infructuous, and the statutory deposit was to be refunded subject to compliance with the deposit order.

01Facts

On 30 January 2024, Parth Sareen, then aged 21, was injured in a collision between the Honda City in which he was travelling and an insured Mahindra Bolero.

¶ 3–4

The injuries left him in a vegetative state, with 100% functional disability, and requiring continuing nursing care, an attendant and physiotherapy.

¶ 14, 17, 21–26

The MACT awarded ₹1,30,53,544 with interest at 6% per annum, including compensation for future loss of income but no award for future medical expenses or physiotherapy.

¶ 1, 5–8

The insurer appealed, seeking a reduction, while Sareen cross-appealed for enhancement, including continuing-care expenses and higher interest.

¶ 1, 9–13

02Issues

i.1. Whether the MACT correctly assessed Sareen’s income and future loss of earnings despite his not being employed on the date of the accident, and whether a Mediclaim deduction was warranted.

¶ 18–20

ii.2. Whether compensation for attendant and nursing care, future medical expenses and physiotherapy should be enhanced to account for Sareen’s continuing needs.

¶ 21–26, 38–44

iii.3. Whether the non-pecuniary awards should be reduced and whether the interest rate should be increased.

¶ 9–11, 45–47

03Law Applied

Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, compensation must be just and reasonable; Section 171 empowers the Tribunal to award interest, with prevailing fixed-deposit rates serving as a guide.

¶ 41, 45–46

Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413, establishes that the multiplier method may be used to calculate lifelong attendant expenses; Jithendran v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2022) 15 SCC 620, supports compensation for attendant care and recurring medical needs; and Abhimanyu Pratap Singh v. Nanita Sekhon, (2022) 8 SCC 489, recognises compensation for lifelong physiotherapy and future medical needs.

¶ 29–33

Sunil Kumar v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2026 INSC 1145, states that a person dependent on another and requiring an attendant throughout life may be treated as functionally 100% disabled.

¶ 28

Under New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Dolly Satish Gandhi, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 861, Mediclaim benefits are contractual and independent of statutory compensation under the MV Act, and are not deducted from it.

¶ 20

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 171

04Reasoning

The Court upheld the use of Sareen’s last drawn monthly income of ₹30,271 as the basis for future loss of earnings: although he was not working when the accident occurred, there was no evidence of higher earnings in the intervening period, and his subsequent incapacity was complete.

¶ 18–19

It rejected the proposed Mediclaim deduction as inconsistent with Dolly Satish Gandhi.

¶ 20

The medical records and unchallenged evidence established a continuing need for one regular attendant, a skilled nursing attendant and physiotherapy; applying the multiplier of 18, the Court awarded ₹47,34,072 for a regular attendant, ₹64,80,000 for nursing care and ₹64,80,000 for physiotherapy.

¶ 21–26, 36–37, 43–44

Although the future-expense bills were not duly proved, the Court considered a reasonable estimate necessary given Sareen’s condition and awarded ₹1,08,00,000 for future medical expenses, based on ₹50,000 per month and a multiplier of 18.

¶ 38–42

It found no basis to reduce the existing non-pecuniary awards and increased interest to 7% per annum.

¶ 45–47

05Holding

The cross-appeals were disposed of by enhancing total compensation from ₹1,30,53,544 to ₹4,05,21,616, an increase of ₹2,74,68,072, with interest at 7% per annum.

¶ 48–49

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount, with interest from the date of filing the claim petition, within six weeks.

¶ 50

Pending applications were rendered infructuous, and the statutory deposit was to be refunded subject to compliance with the deposit order.

¶ 52–54

LawLens.Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF