Insurance Appeal Over Truck Accident Compensation Award

Select the following parts of the judgment
| Facts | Issues |
| Precedent Analysis | Court's Reasoning |
| Conclusion | |
For entire doc: Unmark Mark View how precedents are cited in this document View precedents: Unmark Mark View only precedents: Unmark Mark Select precedent ... Filter precedents by opinion of the court
| Relied by Party | Accepted by Court |

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 5, Cited by 0 ] ### Delhi High Court

Magma Hdi General Insurance Co Ltd vs Naresh Pandit & Ors on 23 March, 2026

$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 23rd March 2026

                +         MAC.APP. 271/2021& CM APPL.34953/2021
                          MAGMA HDI GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD.....Appellant
                                                Through:   Mr. Ved Vyas Tripathi, Advocate

                                                versus

                          NARESH PANDIT & ORS.                               .....Respondents
                                       Through:            Mr. Shrey Chathly, Advocate.

                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
                                                JUDGMENT ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)

1.    This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company seeking
               reduction of compensation awarded vide judgment dated 20th January 2020,
               passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
               ["MACT"]            in   MACP    No.76735/2016,   whereby    compensation       of
               Rs.40,14,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum was awarded.
   

2.    Accident occurred on the intervening night of 2nd/3rd July 2014, when
               Naresh Pandit/injured [respondent no.1 herein], aged about 25 years, was
               working as a truck driver and, while repairing a punctured tyre of his truck
               near G.T Road, in front of Annapurna Apartment, Sahibabad, Uttar Pradesh,
               a truck bearing no. JH 02P 8075 ["offending vehicle"], driven by respondent
               no.3 and owned by respondent no.2, hit the stationary vehicle from behind
               causing grievous injuries and leading to above-knee amputation of left leg
   

KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.04.2026
15:04:24
and fracture to the shaft of right femur. Upon filing claim petition, MACT
relied on the testimony of the injured/respondent no.1 [PW-3] and
eyewitness/employer [PW-4], and the absence of rebuttal evidence, held the
driver to be negligent.

1. MACT awarded compensation to the respondent no.1/injured on account of grievous injuries resulting in above-knee amputation of the left leg and fracture of the right femur, treating the functional disability as 100% in relation to the whole body. The compensation was computed under various pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads as follows: Rs. 3,41,334/- towards medical expenses; Rs. 50,000/- towards conveyance; Rs. 35,000/- towards special diet; Rs. 50,000/- towards attendant charges; Rs. 31,37,100/- towards loss of future earning capacity on account of permanent disability; Rs. 2,00,000/- towards pain, suffering and trauma; and Rs. 2,00,000/- towards loss of amenities of life and disfigurement. Accordingly, the total compensation was assessed at Rs.40,13,434/-, rounded off to Rs.40,14,000/- , along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.

Analysis

1. The functional disability was taken as 100%, considering that injured was a truck driver and his permanent disability was certified at 81% with regard to both his limbs, as per disability certificate [Exhibit PW1/1]. MACT, in the impugned award, categorically held that injured was a driver by profession and that his driving license was not challenged. Endorsing this view, this Court while admitting the appeal on 05 th October, 2021 noted as under:

KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.04.2026
15:04:24
"7. So far as the contention of the learned counsel
for the appellant is concerned with regard to taking the
functional disability at 100%, I am of the view that the
award prima facie does not suffer from said infirmity for
the reasons that injured was a truck driver and he
sustained 81% disability with regard to both his limbs
and had also suffered amputation above the knee of the
left leg. Clearly the claimant would not be in a position
to drive a vehicle because of injury sustained in the
accident."
5. The Court also, on the same day directed release of the 100% of the
amount under the head of a loss of future income and directed as under:

"11. The tribunal shall release 100% of the amount
awarded under the heads; (1) 'Expenses relating to
treatment, hospitalisation and medicines', (2)
'Conveyance', (3) 'Food (Special Diet)' (4) 'Attendant
Charges' and (5) 'Pain, Suffering & Trauma' and further
the amount awarded under the head of 'Loss of future
earning on account of permanent disability' as per the
scheme of disbursal."
6. In any event, considering that the vocation of respondent no.1/injured
[truck driver] would be seriously affected by the said disability, this Court is
not inclined to accept this plea of appellant/Insurance Company and reduce
the functional disability.

1. Second issue, raised by Mr. Ved Vyas Tripathi, counsel for Insurance Company, relates to the grant of non-pecuniary compensation under the head of loss of amenities and disfigurement at Rs.2,00,000/-. He places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2019) 7 SCC 217, which, while quoting in paragraph 5.5 extracts from Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343, noted that the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of

KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.04.2026
15:04:24
amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and, as a result, only a
total or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the loss of amenities
or loss of expectation of life.

1. However, this argument made by Mr. Tripathi, counsel for Insurance Company, may not be tenable, considering that the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (supra) made the said observation in the context of duplication of compensation and not for diluting the award of nominal amounts towards the non-pecuniary damages. Relevant paragraphs of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (supra) are extracted as under:

"13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent
disability on the actual earning capacity involves three
steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities
the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent
disability and what he could not do as a result of the
permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding
compensation under the head of loss of amenities of
life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation,
profession and nature of work before the accident, as
also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the
claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of
livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent
disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on
the activities and functions, which he was earlier
carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or
restricted from discharging his previous activities and
functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale
of activities and functions so that he continues to earn
or can continue to earn his livelihood.
.........

1. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear

KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.04.2026
15:04:24
and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may
have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities
or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be
a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as
it may."

(emphasis added)

1. Even in Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court awarded Rs.10,00,000/- as a lump sum amount towards future medical expenses and attendant charges, looking at the condition of claimant. For ease of reference, relevant paragraph is extracted as under:

"5.12. Given the debilitated state of the appellant, no
amount of money can compensate him. He has been in
this condition since the age of 22 years when the
accident took place, and will remain like this throughout
his life. The appellant has also been deprived of having
a normal married life with a family, and would require
medical assistance from time to time. Being completely
dependent, he would require the help of an attendant
throughout his life. In view of these uncontroverted
facts, we deem it fit and appropriate to award a lump
sum amount of Rs 10,00,000 to the appellant towards
medical expenses and attendant charges."
(emphasis added)

1.   On this ground also, this Court does not find anything amiss in
               compensation granted by MACT under the head of loss of amenities and
               disfigurements in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, particularly considering the
               above knee amputation of the left leg, fracture of the shaft of right femur, and
               the age of respondent no.1 being 25 years on the date of the accident.
   

2.   Third issue, which has been raised by Mr. Tripathi, counsel for
               Insurance Company, relates to the award by the MACT towards future
               medical expenses, essentially towards the cost of the prosthetic and its
   

KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.04.2026
15:04:24
maintenance. This was based on the testimony of Ms. Nupur Bhardwaj,
Prosthetist & Orthotist of Ottobock Healthcare India Private Limited [PW-
2], who provided certain quotations for the above-knee prosthetic. Same was
Rs.5,76,580/- with 10% increase every year and 5% GST.

1.   Mr. Tripathi, counsel for Insurance Company, relies upon the decision
               in [HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mukesh Kumar](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/192635062/) (2022) 14
               SCC 470, where reliance has been placed on earlier decision in [Nagappa v.
               Gurudayal Singh](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/47966/), (2003) 2 SCC 274 and Sapna v. United India Insurance
               Co. Ltd., (2008) 7 SCC 613,to contend that future medical expenses cannot
               be granted as a matter of continuing mandamus and the determination of such
               amounts must be made at one go.
   

2.   The Court is also of the opinion that the compensation towards use of
               prosthetics, or any other future medical expenses, cannot be granted by way
               of an open-ended direction, but will have to be determined by some
               reasonable estimation at the stage of passing the award with such
               qualifications as may be necessary.
   

3.   In the present case, the prosthetic has, till date has not been used by
               respondent no.1/injured, as stated by Mr. Shrey Chathly, counsel for
               claimant. Claimant is approximately about 37 years of age and, taking into
               account the discussion in [Mohd Sabeer Alias Shabir Hussain v Regional
               Manager, UPSRTC](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/186874750/), 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1701, estimating that he would
               require a prosthetic and would continue to use it for approximately 35 years,
               with the approximate estimated life of prosthetic being about seven years, he
               would require at least five prosthetics.
   

4.   Cost of prosthetic is considered as per the quotation, extracted as
               under:
   

KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.04.2026
15:04:24

KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.04.2026
15:04:24
16. In Mohd Sabeer Alias Shabir Hussain v Regional Manager, UP State
Road Transport Corporation (supra), the Supreme Court assumed that a
person would ordinarily live till he is 70-years-old if not more, and

KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.04.2026
15:04:24
accordingly, awarded compensation keeping into account the estimated life
of prosthetic usage. Relevant paragraph is extracted as under:

"23. As per the current compensation given for the
prosthetic limb and its maintenance, it would last the
appellant for only 15 years, even if we were to assume that
the limb would not need to be replaced after a few years.
The appellant was only 37 years at the time of the accident,
and it would be reasonable to assume that he would live
till he is 70 years old if not more. We are of the opinion that
the appellant must be compensated so that he is able to
purchase three prosthetic limbs in his lifetime and is able
to maintain the same at least till he has reached 70 years
of age. For the prosthetic limbs alone, the appellant is to
be awarded compensation of Rs 7,80,000 and for
maintenance of the same he is to be awarded an additional
Rs 5,00,000."
(emphasis added)

1.    Taking a broad assessment of these costs towards the prosthetic limbs
               and their maintenance over the lifetime of the claimant, estimating
               Rs.6,50,000/- towards prosthetic and Rs.50,000/- towards maintenance,
               bringing the total of Rs.7,00,000/- for each prosthetic, compensation for 5
               prosthetics is assessed at Rs. 35,00,000/-. Considering that this amount is
               being calculated as of the present date, question of interest on Rs.35,00,000/-
               would not arise.
   

2.    Therefore, total amount of Rs.40,14,000/- (awarded by MACT) along
               with Rs. 35,00,000/- (additional compensation for prosthetic and its
               maintenance is awarded). Revised computation is as under:
   

S.NO HEADS AWARDED BY AWARDED BY
TRIBUNAL COURT
1. Reimbursement of medical Rs. 3,41,334/- Rs. 3,41,334/-
expenses (A)

KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.04.2026
15:04:24
2. Conveyance (B) Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 50,000/-
3. Special diet (C) Rs.35,000/- Rs.35,000/-
4. Attendant charges (D) Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 50,000/-
5. Income of injured (E) Rs.10,374/- Rs.10,374/-
6. Add Future Prospects (F) 40% 40%

                      8.  Functional Disability (H)              100%                  100%
                      9.  Loss of earning capacity          Rs. 31,37,100/-       Rs. 31,37,100/-
                          including future due to
                          disability [(E×12)+F] × G × H =
                          (I)
                    10. Pain, suffering and trauma (J)      Rs. 2,00,000/-         Rs. 2,00,000/-
                    11. Loss of amenities of life and       Rs. 2,00,000/-         Rs. 2,00,000/-
                          disfigurement (K)
                    12. Conveyance & special diet                 Nil                     Nil
                          (present and future) (L)
                    13. Compensation for mental and               Nil                     Nil
                          physical shock (M)
                    14. Loss of expectation of life (N)           Nil                   Nil
                    15. Artificial limb/prosthetic and            Nil             Rs. 35,00,000/-
                          maintenance (O)
                 Total compensation                         Rs. 40,14,000/-       Rs. 75,14,000/-
                 (A+B+C+D+I+J+K+O)                           (Round off Rs.        (Round off Rs.
                                                              40,13,434/-)          75,13,434/-)
                 Interest awarded                           9% per annum          9% per annum
                                                                                 (No interest on Rs.
                                                                                 35,00,000/- awarded
                                                                                  towards prosthetic
                                                                                        limb)
                 Enhanced amount                                        Rs. 35,00,000/- 19.        This Court vide order dated 05th October 2021, directed Insurance
                Company to deposit the entire awarded amount of compensation along with
                interest before MACT within four weeks, and further directed release of
                100% of amount awarded under the heads of expenses relating to treatment,
                hospitalisation and medicines, conveyance, food (special diet), attendant
                charges, pain, suffering and trauma, and loss of future earning on account

KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.04.2026
15:04:24
of permanent disability be released to the claimant as per the scheme of
disbursal. The balance amount be also disbursed as per the scheme directed
by MACT.

1.   The additional amount of Rs.35,00,000/- shall be deposited by the
               Insurance Company before MACT within six weeks and shall be retained in
               a fixed deposit. An amount of upto Rs. 7,00,000/- be disbursed by MACT
               each time a prosthetic limb is procured by claimant/injured. Such
               disbursement on actuals and only upon production of original invoice and
               documents issued by authorised seller/dealer and after due verification of the
               same by MACT. In the event, the injured/claimant does not claim the said
               amount or fails to produce proof regarding procurement of the prosthetic
               limb, the unclaimed amount shall be returned to the Insurance Company.
   

2.   Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
   

3.   Pending applications, if any, are rendered as infructuous.
   

4.   Statutory deposit, if any, shall be refunded to the appellant.
   

5.   Copy of this judgment shall be sent to concerned MACT.
   

6.   Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
   

(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
MARCH 23, 2026/ab/tk

KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.04.2026
15:04:24