Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Saleem Khan Mewati & Ors on 3 March, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~P-12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 17.12.2025
Pronounced on: 03.03.2026
Uploaded on: 03.03.2026
+ MAC.APP. 555/2025 & CM APPL. 79119/2025 (for modification)
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Salil Paul, Mr. Sahil Paul Mr.
Sandeep Dayal, Advocates.
versus
SALEEM KHAN MEWATI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. G.C. Pandey, Mr. Vittan Khan
& Ms. Parul Bisht, Advocates for
R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been preferred by New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. [“Insurance Company”], assailing an award dated 19.05.2025,
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [“the Tribunal”] in MACT
Case No. 775/2018. By the impugned award, the Tribunal awarded
compensation of Rs. 1,25,35,440/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5%
per annum, in favour of the claimant [respondent No. 1 herein], arising
out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.08.2016.
A. FACTS
2. The facts of the accident, as borne out from the impugned award,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 1 of 28
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
are that, on 13.08.2016 at about 11:00 PM, claimant alongwith his cousin,
namely Beeru @ Abdul Salam, was standing opposite Madarsa and Mihir
Bhoj Balika Degree College, Dadri. At that time, a car bearing
registration No. HR-27C-5161 [“insured vehicle”], driven by respondent
No. 2 herein, allegedly in a rash and negligent manner and at a high
speed, struck the claimant with force. As a result of the impact, the
claimant was thrown onto the road and sustained grievous head injuries.
The insured vehicle was owned by respondent No. 3 herein, and was
insured with the appellant – Insurance Company.
3. The claimant was thereafter removed from the site of the accident
and taken in a PCR van to Columbia Hospital, Ghaziabad, where he
remained under medical treatment for a considerable period. It is stated
that, prior to the accident, the claimant was running a grocery shop.
However, due to the injuries sustained, he remained bedridden for a
prolonged duration, and was unable to resume work.
4. In relation to the aforesaid accident, FIR No. 0460/2016 under
Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was registered on
25.08.2016 at Police Station Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar, and
subsequently, a charge-sheet was filed on 01.01.2017.
B. IMPUGNED AWARD
5. The claimant thereafter instituted claim proceedings before the
Tribunal, seeking compensation in respect of the injuries sustained in the
accident. In the said proceedings, the driver, owner, and insurer of the
insured vehicle were arrayed as respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
6. The Tribunal returned a finding of rash and negligent driving on
the part of the driver of the insured vehicle and, on that basis, proceeded
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 2 of 28
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
to assess and award compensation in favour of the claimant, under the
following heads:
Sr.No. Heads Awarded by the
Tribunal
Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 8,47,479/-
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance Rs. 1,00,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs.2,00,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing / attendant Rs.12,79,260/-
(v) Loss of income Rs.3,36,756/-
(vi) Cost of artificial limbs (if applicable) N/A
(vii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in 100%
relation to disability
(viii) Any other loss / expenditure N/A
(ix) Loss of future income Rs.70,71,945/-
Non-Pecuniary Loss
(i) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma on Rs. 20,00,000/-
account of injuries:
(ii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 2,00,000/-
(iii) Future medical expenses Rs. 5,00,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.1,25,35,440/-
C. SUBMISSIONS
7. I have heard Mr. Salil Paul, learned counsel for the appellant –
Insurance Company, and Mr. G.C. Pandey, learned counsel for the
respondent No. 1/claimant.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 3 of 28
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
8. Mr. Paul’s principal submission was that the narrative advanced
with respect to involvement of the insured vehicle in the alleged accident,
prima facie, lacks credibility. He submitted that the material on record
indicates that the said vehicle has been falsely implicated, and that the
driver has colluded in the process. In support of this submission, he drew
my attention to the unexplained delay in the lodging of the FIR. While the
accident is stated to have occurred on 13.08.2016 at about 11:00 PM, the
FIR was lodged by the father of the claimant only twelve days later, i.e.
on 25.08.2016. According to him, this delay casts serious doubt on the
veracity of the version of the accident, as put forth by the claimant.
9. Mr. Paul further submitted that the evidence regarding the
occurrence of the accident itself is unreliable. By way of example, he
submited that although one alleged eye-witness, Mr. Abdul Salam, was
examined as PW-2 before the Tribunal, another purported eye-witness,
namely Mr. Gyasuddin, who was admittedly present at the spot, was not
examined. Mr. Paul further urged that the registration number of the
insured vehicle was mentioned for the first time in the FIR which was
lodged twelve days after the incident. According to him, this was
incongruous with the assertion of PW-2, Mr. Abdul Salam, that he had
noted down, at least a part of the insured vehicle’s registration number
immediately after the accident.
10. Mr. Paul also pointed out material inconsistencies between the
contemporaneous medical record and the case pleaded before the
Tribunal. While the Medico-Legal Certificate [“MLC”] recorded that the
claimant was struck by a four-wheeler while he was travelling “with
bike”, the case advanced by the claimant – supported by the testimony of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 4 of 28
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
Mr. Abdul Salam – was that he was standing by the roadside at the time
of the accident. Mr. Paul submitted that this discrepancy is material and
goes to the root of the matter.
11. Mr. Paul submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is grossly excessive, disproportionate, and unsustainable in
law. He further, inter alia, contends that the claim petition itself sought
only Rs.50,00,000/- and did not quantify losses under specific heads, yet
the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,25,35,440/-. In particular, it was submitted
that:
a) The Tribunal erred in granting compensation under the heads of future
medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, special diet,
conveyance, and attendant charges, none of which were supported by
documentary evidence or expert opinion.
b) The compensation awarded for expenditure on treatment of
Rs.8,47,479/- includes Rs.30,000/- on account of miscellaneous
hospital expenses, without any supporting documentation.
c) He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in ICICI Lombard
General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Mohanty1 to submit that
the Tribunal incorrectly computed loss of income at Rs.3,36,756/-
based on a single year’s ITR, contrary to settled law, which requires
the average of the preceding three years.
d) Although a ground has been raised in the appeal questioning the
Tribunal’s assessment of 100% disability and the application of the
multiplier as being excessive, the said contention was not pressed
during the course of submissions.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 5 of 28
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
12. Mr. Paul’s final submission related to the award of interest. He
submitted that the Tribunal has erroneously granted interest for the period
from 23.12.2021 to 18.07.2022, even though the claim petition had been
dismissed for default by the Tribunal on 23.12.2021, and was restored
only on 18.07.2022. He contended that no interest ought to be payable for
the period during which the claim was not diligently prosecuted.
13. Mr. Pandey, on the other hand, supported the findings of the
Tribunal and submitted that they are borne out by the evidence on record.
He relied on the testimony of PW-2, submitting that the eye-witness
provided consistent evidence regarding the manner in which the accident
occurred, which aligns with the case pleaded by the claimant. He further
submitted that the purported inconsistency between the version advanced
by the claimant and the MLC was never put to PW-2 during cross-
examination and, therefore, cannot be relied upon at this stage to discredit
the claimant’s case.
14. With regard to the delay in lodging the FIR, Mr. Pandey submitted
that the claimant was immediately removed from the accident site and
taken to the hospital in a PCR van. Consequently, the police authorities
were aware of the accident from the outset. In these circumstances, he
contended that no adverse inference ought to be drawn, merely on
account of the delay in formal registration of the FIR.
15. Mr. Pandey also addressed the objections raised to the quantum of
compensation, and has made submissions in support of each head under
which compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal. These
submissions shall be examined in detail at the appropriate stage.
1
(2018) 3 SCC 686 [hereinafter, “Ajay Kumar Mohanty”].
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 6 of 28
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
D. ANALYSIS RE: INVOLVEMENT OF THE INSURED VEHICLE
16. The principal argument advanced by Mr. Paul concerned the very
involvement of the insured vehicle in the accident. In support of this
submission, he pointed to an alleged discrepancy between the MLC of the
claimant prepared at the hospital, and the version reflected in the FIR and
the oral evidence. While the MLC recorded that the claimant was on a
bike at the time he was hit by the insured vehicle, the FIR as well as the
testimony before the Tribunal indicated that he was standing by the
roadside when the accident occurred. Mr. Paul further contended that, in
this backdrop, the delay of twelve days in lodging the FIR assumes
significance and cumulatively casts serious doubt on the credibility of the
claimant’s case.
17. These submissions must be assessed against the pleadings and the
entirety of the evidence adduced before the Tribunal. In the claim
petition, the claimant had stated that he, alongwith his cousin, namely Mr.
Abdul Salam, was present at the spot at the time of the accident and that
he was standing when the accident occurred. The manner in which the
accident was stated to have taken place was described in the claim
petition as follows:
“That on 13.08.2016 at around 11.00 p.m. the petitioner/injured
alongwith his cousin brother namely Beeru @ Abdul Salam were
standing opposite Madarsa & Mihir Bhoj Balika Digree [sic] College,
Dadri. On Car bearing regd. No. HR-27C-5161 being driven by its
driver i.e. respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner and at very
fast speed came from Dadri Bust Stand and hit forcefully to the
petitioner. Due to this sudden forceful impact, the injured was fell
down on the road and sustained grievous injuries, the petitioner
suffered grievous head injury and other injuries all over his body. The
PCR Van took the injured alongwith his cousin brother Beeru @ Abdul
Salam.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 7 of 28
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
18. It may be noted that the Insurance Company filed its written
statement contending, inter alia, that the insured vehicle had been falsely
implicated in the accident. The owner and driver of the vehicle
[respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the Tribunal] also filed a written
statement, in which they resisted liability on the ground that the vehicle
was insured with the Insurance Company [respondent No.3 before the
Tribunal]. Significantly, the manner in which the accident occurred was
not disputed by either of the parties.
19. The claimant’s cousin, Mr. Abdul Salam, who was also an eye-
witness to the accident, was examined as PW-2. His affidavit of evidence
reads as follows:
“1. That the deponent is eye witness of the accident occurred on
13.08.2016 at around 11 pm. The deponent along with Injured
Saleem Khan Mewati and Sh. Gayasuddin were standing beside road
opposite Madarsa and Mihir Bhoj Ballka Degree College Dadri. One
white colour Swift car bearing Regn No. HR-27-C-5161 was being
driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner and at very fast
speed came from Dadri bus stand and hit forcefully to Sh. Saleem
Khan Mewati. Due to this sudden forceful impact, Saleem Khan
Mewati fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries on his
head and all over body. The deponent and Sh. Gayasuddin tried to stop
the car and ran after the car but the driver of the offending vehicle ran
away alongwith the car. The deponent and Sh. Gayasuddin noted
down the registered number of the offending vehicle.
2. That the deponent made a call to the father of injured and asked him
to come to the spot of accident. That after few moments the PCR also
arrived at the spot of accident. The deponent and Sh. Gayasuddin put
Saleem Khan Mewati into PCR and took him to Naveen Hospital at
Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP but considering the condition of
Saleem Khan Mewati, he was taken to Columbia Asia Hospital,
Ghaziabad, where Saleem Khan was treated.
3. That the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of
the respondent No.1, who was driving the offending vehicle in very fastSignature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 8 of 28
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
speed without observing the traffic rules. It is pertinent to mention here
that there were mercury road lights on the Building of the Madarsa.”2
20. PW-2 was cross-examined by learned counsel for the Insurance
Company, during which he deposed as under:
“On the night of accident, at 11 PM, after coming back from a party
(Daawat), I was talking to Mr. Gayazuddin and Mr. Salim. The party
was organised on occasion of birth of one Salmu’s child. All three of
us were on foot. Father of Mr. Salim resides close to the place of
accident along with his younger son namely Javed. At the place where
the accident took place, there is a divider on the road and the road is
quite broad as the vehicles from both the sides can easily pass through.
After the alleged accident took place, while I was calling the police,
meanwhile, the PCR had arrived. I was calling the PCR from my
phone no.9350352328. Police took the injured to the Naveen Hospital
in Dadri where the hospital refused to admit the injured. After that,
we took the ambulance from Naveen Hospital and took the injured to
Columbia Hospital, Ghaziabad. I was accompanied by Gayasuddin.
We reached Columbia Asia Hospital at around 11:30 pm. Officials of
Dadri Police visited Columbia Hospital and they were duly intimated
about the accident. The police recorded my statement in Columbia
Asia Hospital. I do not remember whether my signatures were
procured or not.
It is correct that FIR was not lodged by me.
I do not know any person named Shakhir. 2-3 days after the accident,
police called me at PS Dadri for identification of the offending vehicle.
I was never called to identify the owner and driver of the alleged car. I
have never met the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. Neither I
have been summoned by the criminal court in Dadri nor have I given
any statement there till today. I had also stated to the doctor at
Columbia Hospital regarding the accident taking place due to
negligence of the driver of the car. At the time of accident, we were
standing next to Mihir Bhoj Balika Degree College, Dadri when the
offending vehicle hit the injured who after the knock, fell on the bonnet
of the offending vehicle and then fell down on the road at the left side
of the offending vehicle. After hitting the victim, the driver of the
alleged car bearing no. HR-27C-5161 slowed down for a while but
thereafter rushed away. I and Gayasuddin noted the number of the2
Emphasis supplied.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 9 of 28
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
offending vehicle. Vol.: there was street light at the spot of the
accident.
It is correct that neither me nor Gayasuddin lodged the FIR. It is
incorrect to suggest that we did not lodge the FIR as we did not know
the number of the offending vehicle. It is incorrect to suggest that I was
not present at the time of accident.
Q. I put to you that your name does not appear anywhere either in the
criminal or hospital records. What do you have to say?
Question objected to by the Ld. Counsel for claimant on the grounds
that the same is matter of record.
A. I cannot say.
It is incorrect to suggest that the vehicle bearing no. HR27C5161 has
not caused the present accident and it is falsely been implicated just in
order to receive compensation.
I have studied till class 3rd or 4th. I cannot recognize the English
alphabets but I can recognize the numerical digits.
At this stage, the witness has been shown his affidavit to read to the
alphabets and numerical digits wherein he could recognize and
recall the numerical digits in a slow manner but could not read the
English alphabets. I was not called by the wife of Mr. Saleem to
depose in the court. It is correct that I have not received any summons
from the court. I know the injured as the injured is from Dadri (vahin
ke purane rehne wale haiii). It is correct that I and the injured are not
relatives.
At this stage, the witness has been confronted with his affidavit and he
has identified his signatures therein.
I do not know what is written in my affidavit. The signatures on the
affidavit were put by me today itself in Saket Court.
It is wrong to suggest that I have not witnessed the accident and the
vehicle bearing no. HR27C5161 was not involved in the accident. It
is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.”33
Emphasis supplied.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 10 of 28
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
21. Mr. Paul specifically pointed out the discrepancy with regard to the
claimant being “on foot” and the witness’s testimony concerning his
knowledge of the English alphabet and the contents of his affidavit.
22. In the light of the aforesaid evidence, the Tribunal noted that PW-2
had been cited as an eye-witness in the charge-sheet filed in the criminal
proceedings. As regards the objection raised by the Insurance Company
to the testimony of PW-2, on the ground that he admittedly could not read
English alphabets, the Tribunal observed as follows:
“16. The only objection raised by counsel for insurance company is
that the witness was unable to read the alphabets and therefore, by no
measure could it be presumed that the witness could have identified the
Registration number of the offending vehicle at the time of accident.
No objection as such has been raised about the colour, make or the
numerical digits of the registration number of the offending vehicle.
Apart from reading the digits, it is evident that the witness has
provided a vivid explanation of the mode and manner of the accident.
He could detail as to how the petitioner first fell on the bonnet of the
vehicle after the forceful knock and then eventually on road on left side
of the vehicle and how the driver of the offending vehicle had slowed
down after the accident and eventually rushed away. PW-2 has
asserted that the spot of accident was sufficiently lit and was not pitch
dark that there was no chance with him to be able to read/recognize
the registration number of the offending vehicle. It is noted that he
was also accompanied by another person Sh. Gyasuddin at the time
of accident and there is nothing on record to suggest that he was an
illiterate person and could not have read the alphabets comprising
the registration number. It is also noted that Sh. Gyasuddin has also
been cited as one of the eye witness as part of the charge sheet. It
cannot be ignored that the specifications about offending vehicle were
duly mentioned in the complaint of father of injured leading to the
registration of FIR, even though, he was not present at the spot of
accident and therefore, the offending vehicle was purportedly
identified only on the basis of particulars provided by eye witness
Abdul Salam and eye witness Gyasuddin. It is also pertinent to mention
that the narrative about mode, manner and the contextual
circumstance has no major contradictions in the FIR, petition or in the
testimony of eye witness. PW-2 Abdul Salam also testified that his
statement was duly recorded by the police officials at Colambia Asia
Hospital and there is no reason to conclude that he would not haveSignature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 11 of 28
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
revealed the registration number of the offending vehicle as part of his
statement. It is corroborated by the fact, as he clarified that he was
called in the police station for identification of the offending vehicle
even though, by that time, formal FIR was not registered. There are
only three alphabets which were to be identified and even if the witness
was able to broadly remember the letter form, that would have served
the purpose.”4
23. The Tribunal correctly noted that its task was to arrive at a finding
on the basis of the balance of probabilities, and not on the criminal
standard of proof of “beyond reasonable doubt”. The Tribunal is not
bound by the strict rules of pleadings and evidence, and its conclusions
must be founded on a comparatively lower evidentiary threshold. This
legal position is well settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court in
Anita Sharma v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.5, Sunita v. Rajasthan
SRTC6, and in Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC7.
24. I am unpersuaded by the alleged inconsistency between the MLC,
FIR, and the evidence led before the Tribunal. The MLC issued by
Columbia Asia Hospital on 14.08.2016 records that the injured was
brought to the hospital in an unconscious and gasping condition. It is,
therefore, evident that the history noted in the MLC was not furnished by
the claimant himself, but was recorded on the basis of information
provided by others at the time of admission. The alleged discrepancy was
also not put to the witness in the cross-examination. In the absence of any
other supporting material, the mere variance in recorded history in the
MLC, cannot be treated as a fatal discrepancy, so as to undermine the
claim.
4
Emphasis supplied.
5
(2021) 1 SCC 171, paragraph 21.
6
(2020) 13 SCC 486, paragraph 22.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 12 of 28
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
25. As regards the testimony of the eye-witness, PW-2, I agree with
Mr. Paul that his examination-in-chief, by way of affidavit, was
substantially dented during cross-examination. In particular, the witness
was unable to read or recognise the English alphabets forming part of the
registration number of the insured vehicle, despite his affidavit of
evidence setting out the complete registration number. He also stated that
he was unaware of the contents of his affidavit, and that he had signed it
only on the day of cross-examination.
26. However, I am of the view that the testimony elicited during cross-
examination itself supports the narrative advanced by the claimant with
regard to the occurrence of the accident. The witness consistently
recounted facts in line with the case set up by the claimant. While he was
unable to read English alphabets, he was able to identify and recognise
the numerical digits forming part of the registration number. Even in his
affidavit of evidence, PW-2 had stated that he and the other eye-witness,
Mr. Gyasuddin, had noted down the registration number of the vehicle.
This aspect was reiterated in cross-examination, and no specific question
was put to him to ascertain which of the two individuals had noted down
the English alphabet portion of the registration number.
27. In this context, it is also significant that the criminal proceedings
culminated in the filing of a charge-sheet against the driver of the insured
vehicle after due investigation. It is a well settled position that in
proceedings before the Tribunal, the filing of a charge-sheet, even in the
absence of eye-witness evidence, may be sufficient to sustain an award of
compensation in favour of the victims or their legal representatives, as
7
(2009) 13 SCC 530, paragraph 15.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 13 of 28
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
affirmed by the Supreme Court in its decisions in Ranjeet v. Abdul
Kayam Neb8, and Meera Bai v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
Ltd.9.
28. In the present case, eye-witness evidence is also available, and is
not inconsistent with the outcome of the police investigation, so as to
render the version reflected in the charge-sheet unbelievable.
29. On the issue of delay in lodging the FIR, Mr. Paul relied on the
decision of the Supreme Court dated 12.12.2024 in New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. v. Velu & Anr.10, to contend that a belated FIR can materially
affect the credibility of a motor accident claim. In that case, the FIR was
lodged 34 days after the alleged accident, and the contemporaneous
medical records consistently recorded the cause of the injuries as a skid
and fall, rather than a motor accident. The criminal investigation
ultimately culminated in a closure report, with the police concluding that
no motor accident had occurred. On these facts, the Supreme Court
upheld the rejection of the claim by the Tribunal, as the available
evidence on record negated the occurrence of a motor accident.
30. The said decision, however, does not advance the case of the
Insurance Company in the present matter. Even in Velu, the Supreme
Court held that a delayed FIR, by itself, cannot justify rejection of a
motor accident claim. It becomes relevant only in conjunction with other
material, particularly where the overall evidence, including medical
records and police findings, contradicts the occurrence of the alleged
accident. In the present case, although there was a delay of 12 days in the
8
2025 SCC OnLine SC 497, paragraph 4.
9
2025 SCC OnLine SC 992, paragraph 4.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 14 of 28
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
registration of the FIR, the investigation did not cast doubt on the
occurrence of the accident. On the contrary, upon due investigation, the
police proceeded to file a charge-sheet, thereby treating the occurrence as
one arising out of a motor accident. In such circumstances, the delay in
lodging the FIR cannot, by itself, be treated as fatal to the claim. The
principle emerging from Velu is not that delay in lodging an FIR is
determinative, but that such delay is one of the factors which must be part
of the holistic consideration of materials on record.
31. Upon consideration of the aforesaid, I do not find any reason to
interfere with the Tribunal’s findings on this aspect. The delay in the
lodging of the FIR in the present case cannot be treated as a decisive
factor, particularly since the injured was admittedly removed from the
site of the accident and taken to the hospital in a PCR van. The police
authorities were thus cognizant of the occurrence from the earliest stage.
In these circumstances, the delay on the part of the father of the injured in
seeking registration of the FIR does not, in my view, give rise to any
legitimate suspicion.
32. On a consideration of all the aforesaid factors, I am of the view that
the Tribunal’s finding on the aspect of negligence does not warrant
interference in the present appeal.
E. ANALYSIS RE: QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION
33. The Tribunal has awarded compensation to the claimant under
various heads, as enumerated in paragraph 6 hereinabove. Several
components of the compensation have been assailed in the present appeal.
Before examining each of those heads individually, it is necessary to first
10
SLP (C) No. 32138/2018 [hereinafter, “Velu”].
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 15 of 28
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
consider the nature and extent of the injuries suffered by the claimant, as
this forms the foundation for assessment and quantification of many
elements of compensation.
34. The MLC recorded at Columbia Asia Hospital on 14.08.2016 notes
that the claimant was brought to the hospital in an unconscious and
gasping condition and required emergency medical intervention. At that
stage, the doctors reserved their opinion on the precise nature of the
injuries. However, the claimant remained hospitalised for over two
months, until 28.10.2016. The discharge summary dated 28.10.2016
[Exhibit PW-1/4] records that he had suffered a Diffuse Axonal Injury
[i.e., sustained traumatic brain injury] and a bimalleolar fracture [i.e.,
fracture of the ankle]. It further records that he had undergone multiple
procedures, including intubation and tracheostomy.
35. The discharge summary also details a guarded prognosis, including
the possibility of further surgical intervention, increase in contusion, risk
to life, likelihood of residual neurological deficit, and the need for
prolonged ICU care and hospitalisation. It records that the claimant
underwent several surgeries and diagnostic investigations during this
period.
36. Thereafter, the claimant was admitted for one night on two further
occasions – from 23.11.2016 to 24.11.2016 for placement of a
gastrointestinal tube, and again from 16.12.2016 to 17.12.2016 for a
procedure related to his tracheostomy.
37. The medical records placed on record thereafter, forming part of
Exhibit PW-1/5, include multiple documents relating to psychiatric
treatment, and documents commencing from 14.01.2017 until
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 16 of 28
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
01.12.2022. These records indicate that the claimant was suffering from
residual neurological deficits accompanied by significant behavioural
disturbances. A record from G.B. Pant Institute of Post Graduate Medical
Education and Research [“GIPMER”] dated 01.07.2021 notes that he was
unable to speak due to the tracheostomy, and had remained bedridden for
approximately one year. It further records the onset of aggressive
behaviour, reduced sleep, use of abusive language, and the requirement of
assistance for daily activities. The records also reflect persistent
complaints of headaches, aggressive and self-injurious behaviour,
hallucinatory symptoms, and a diagnosis of Organic Personality Disorder
alongwith post-traumatic cognitive decline.
38. On 20.04.2019, pursuant to an application moved by the claimant
herein seeking assessment of his physical disability by a Medical Board,
the Tribunal directed the Medical Superintendent of Pandit Madan
Mohan Malviya Hospital, Delhi, to examine him and issue a disability
certificate. However, on 01.11.2019, upon the claimant furnishing the
requisite form [Form-J], the Tribunal directed the Medical Superintendent
of G.B. Pant Hospital, Delhi, to assess his disability and submit the report
thereof. Though the proceedings remained dismissed in default for some
time and were later restored, the disability certificate dated 24.01.2023
issued by GIPMER was received by the Tribunal on 11.04.2023, when
the matter was taken up for hearing. The said disability certificate,
exhibited as PW-1/6, records as follows:
“PATIENT QUALIFIES FOR MODERATE DISABILITY (75%) on
BASIS of IQ Examination & FOR PROFOUND DISABILITY (90%) on
BASIS OF CHRONIC NEOROLOGICAL CONDITION (MRS Score –
5). FINALLY, PROFOUN [sic.] DISABILITY (90%) TO BE
CONSIDERED IN INDEX CASE.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 17 of 28
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
39. It is in the backdrop of this medical evidence, that the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal must now be examined.
a) PECUNIARY LOSSES:
(i) Expenditure on medical treatment:
40. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 8,47,479/- under this head, of
which medical bills amounting to Rs. 8,17,479/- were proved on record
and exhibited as Exhibit PW-1/8. The balance amount of Rs. 30,000/-
was awarded towards sundry and miscellaneous expenses. However,
having regard to the fact that the said sum of Rs. 30,000/- is not supported
by any oral or documentary evidence on record, the award under this
head is modified to Rs. 8,17,479/-.
(ii)Conveyance:
41. With regard to conveyance, the Tribunal has quantified the
expenditure at Rs.1,00,000/-. Considering the severity of the claimant’s
injuries, his prolonged hospitalisation, and the frequent need for transport
to attend medical consultations, therapies, and follow-up treatment over
an extended period, I find no infirmity in the award under this head.
(iii) Special diet:
42. As regards special diet, the Tribunal has awarded compensation to
the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The claimant had been placed on a feeding
tube and underwent a tracheostomy, requiring specialised nutrition and
careful dietary management over a prolonged period. Taking into account
the nature of his injuries, the medical procedures undergone, and the
ongoing nutritional requirements essential for recovery, I find that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 18 of 28
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
compensation awarded under this head is justified, and cannot be
regarded as excessive.
(iv) Attendant’s services:
43. The next challenge relates to the compensation under the head of
attendant services, for which the Tribunal awarded Rs.12,79,260/-, by
applying the multiplier method to the minimum wages applicable in the
State of Uttar Pradesh, where the claimant resides. In this regard, the
affidavit of the claimant’s wife [PW-1] clearly stated that he was
incapable of performing his daily routine activities, and was dependent on
others for his basic needs. Her cross-examination was largely confined to
documentary proof concerning attendant charges and the claimant’s
ability to undertake employment or earn a livelihood.
44. Additionally, the medical evidence detailed above demonstrates
that the claimant suffers from a profound disability, and is unable to
perform activities of daily living without assistance. In this context, the
award of compensation towards attendant services was fully justified.
45. The claim before the Tribunal was initially for reimbursement at
the rate of Rs.12,000/- per month, which the claimant contended was the
actual expenditure incurred for attendant services. The Tribunal,
however, found no documentary evidence supporting this claim, and
accordingly adopted the minimum wages in Uttar Pradesh, as on the date
of the accident, i.e. Rs.7,107/- per month, for computation. The multiplier
method, as applied by the Tribunal, has been recognised as appropriate
for the computation of attendant charges, by the Supreme Court in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 19 of 28
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
decisions in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand11 and Abhimanyu Partap Singh v.
Namita Sekhon12. Applying the age-appropriate multiplier of 15, the
Tribunal has arrived at the sum awarded. In view thereof, the challenge to
the award on the ground of attendant services is without merit, and is
accordingly, rejected.
(v) Loss of income:
46. For quantifying the claimant’s annual income, the Tribunal has
proceeded on the basis of the ITR filed by the claimant for the
Assessment Year 2017-18 (corresponding to the financial year 2016-17),
which disclosed a gross total income of Rs.3,36,759/-. His ITR for the
two preceding years were also exhibited as part of Exhibit PW-1/7,
showing gross total incomes of Rs.2,92,636/- and Rs.2,98,529/- for the
assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17, respectively. The claimant was
admittedly running a grocery store, and the Tribunal proceeded on the
basis of the latest ITR.
47. While the most recent return ordinarily provides the most realistic
assessment of income, this principle is not one of universal application. In
the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Rajbala v. Krishan
Kumar Sharma and Ors.13, followed by this Court in Lalita Gupta v.
Manoj Kumar Rana14, it has been held that where the latest return reflects
unusual or exceptional variations, the income may be moderated by
taking an average of the preceding two or three returns.
11
(2020) 4 SCC 413, paragraphs 22 to 25.
12
(2022) 8 SCC 489, paragraphs 17 and 23.
13
2023 SCC OnLine Del 4082.
14
2025 SCC OnLine Del 8881.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 20 of 28
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
48. Mr. Paul placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court
in Ajay Kumar Mohanty. However, a perusal of the said judgment
indicates that, although the Court proceeded on the basis of the Tribunal’s
finding regarding the claimant’s average income, the income in that case
had, in fact, been determined by taking the average of three years’
returns.
49. In the present case, the return for Assessment Year 2017-18 was
filed on 26.06.2017, after the accident, and pertained to the period from
01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017. The accident occurred on 13.08.2016,
approximately four and a half months into the financial year. The said
return reflected a marked increase over the income disclosed in the
preceding year. Taken at face value, this would suggest an increase in
income after the accident, which is unlikely, and appears attributable to
exceptional circumstances that were not examined in evidence adduced
before the Tribunal.
50. In these circumstances, the more appropriate approach is to
consider the average of the declared income for the assessment years
2016-17 and 2017-18, which works out to an annual income of Rs.
3,17,644/-. Accordingly, the Tribunal’s award for loss of income during
the twelve-month period of treatment is modified from Rs. 3,36,759/- to
Rs. 3,17,644/-.
(vi) Loss of future earnings:
51. As regards loss of future earnings, the Tribunal has assessed the
claimant’s functional disability at 100%, in line with the principles laid
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 21 of 28
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
down by the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr.15. This
was not contested by Mr. Paul. In view of the claimant being 38 years old
at the time of the accident, the application of future prospects at the rate
of 40%, and a multiplier of 15, in accordance with the principles laid
down in Sarla Verma v. DTC16 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi17, are not in dispute, and the only aspect requiring
reconsideration is the determination of the annual income.
52. Applying the adjusted annual income of Rs. 3,17,644/-, the loss of
future income is computed as follows:
Loss of future income Amount
Annual Income Rs. 3,17,644/-
Future prospects Rs. 1,27,058/-
(40% of Rs. 3,17,644/-)
Annual income after future Rs. 4,44,702/-
prospects
Application of multiplier (15) Rs. 4,44,702/- x 15
Total Rs. 66,70,530/-
The compensation for loss of future income is thus reduced from Rs.
70,71,945/- to Rs. 66,70,530/-, i.e. a difference of Rs. 4,01,415/-.
(vii) Future medical expenses:
53. The Tribunal assessed future medical expenses at Rs.5,00,000/-.
Considering the claimant’s age and the nature of his impairment, which
15
(2011) 1 SCC 343 [hereinafter “Raj Kumar”].
16
(2009) 6 SCC 121 [hereinafter “Sarla Verma”].
17
(2017) 16 SCC 680 [hereinafter “Pranay Sethi”].
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 22 of 28
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
requires ongoing medical attention, I am of the view that this award is
underestimated. In particular, the claimant requires both physical and
psychiatric medical care over an extended period. Although the precise
cost of future treatment is inherently uncertain, in the facts of the present
case, a substantial increase under this head is justified. Accordingly, the
compensation for future medical expenses is enhanced to Rs.7,00,000/-.
b) NON-PECUNIARY LOSSES:
(viii) Pain and suffering:
54. Non-pecuniary losses cannot be quantified with exact precision, yet
the circumstances of this case clearly demonstrate the seriousness of the
claimant’s suffering. Once a productive and independent member of
society, he has now been rendered incapable of earning a livelihood or
leading an independent life. Alongside severe physical injuries, he suffers
from significant mental and psychiatric impairments, which have also
imposed a substantial emotional and financial burden on his family. In
these circumstances, although the award is unusually high, I am satisfied
that the Tribunal’s compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- is justified.
(ix) Loss of Amenities of life:
55. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,00,000/- for loss of amenities.
Having considered the entirety of the evidence, I am of the view that this
sum materially underestimates the extent of the claimant’s suffering. His
capacity to make full and meaningful use of his physical and mental
faculties has been severely diminished, and his ability to engage in
economic, social, and familial pursuits has been profoundly
compromised. In light of these circumstances, I deem it just and proper to
enhance the compensation on this account to Rs.5,00,000/-.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 23 of 28
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
c. GRANT OF INTEREST:
56. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum,
from the date of filing of the claim petition until its actual realization. Mr.
Paul’s sole objection in this regard is that the claim petition was
dismissed in default on 23.12.2021, and subsequently restored on
18.07.2022. He contends that no interest should be payable for the period
during which the petition was dismissed.
57. While such an argument may have merit in certain circumstances, I
do not consider it appropriate to interfere with the Tribunal’s award in the
present case. The claimant’s medical condition and the requirement for
continuous treatment provide a reasonable explanation for the inability of
the claimant and his family to effectively prosecute the petition during
that period. Upon restoration, the petition relates back to the date of its
original filing, and it subsequently remained pending before the Tribunal
for several years.
58. The grant of interest in this context is not intended to penalize the
Insurance Company, but to compensate the claimant for the delay in
accessing funds to which he was legally entitled. I find no reason to
conclude that any part of the delay in realization of the award is
attributable to unjustified default on the part of the claimant.
Consequently, there is no basis for modifying the period for which
interest has been awarded.
d. TOTAL COMPENSATION:
59. As a result of the above discussion, the impugned award is
modified to the following extent:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 24 of 28
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
Heads Awarded by Awarded by Difference
Tribunal Court
Pecuniary Loss
Expenditure on Rs. 8,47,479/- Rs. 8,17,479/- (-) Rs. 30,000/-
treatment
Expenditure on Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/- NIL
Conveyance
Expenditure on Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- NIL
special diet
Cost of Rs.12,79,260/- Rs.12,79,260/- NIL
nursing/
attendant
Loss of income Rs.3,36,756/- Rs. 3,17,644/- (-) Rs. 19,112/-
Loss of future Rs.70,71,945/- Rs. 66,70,530/- (-) Rs. 4,01,415/-
income
Future medical Rs.5,00,000/- Rs.7,00,000/- (+) Rs. 2,00,000/-
expenses
Non-Pecuniary Loss
Pain and Rs. 20,00,000/- Rs. 20,00,000/- NIL
suffering
Loss of Rs. 2,00,000/- Rs.5,00,000/- (+) Rs. 3,00,000/-
amenities of
life
Total Rs.1,25,35,440/- Rs.1,25,84,913/- (+) Rs. 49,473/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 25 of 28
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
60. It may be noted that by virtue of the present judgment, the
compensation awarded stands enhanced, notwithstanding the absence of
any cross-objection or cross-appeal on behalf of the claimant. In my view,
such an exercise is legally permissible, particularly in light of the decision
of the Supreme Court in Surekha & Ors. v. Santosh & Ors.18. I have also
examined this aspect at length in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti &
Ors.19.
F. CONCLUSION:
61. In conclusion, the award of the Tribunal is modified, and the total
compensation is enhanced from Rs. 1,25,35,440/- to Rs. 1,25,84,913/-,
i.e. an increase of Rs. 49,473/-. The entire award shall carry interest at the
rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, as
awarded by the Tribunal.
62. By order dated 01.09.2025, the operation of the award was stayed,
subject to the Insurance Company depositing the entire amount awarded
by the Tribunal, with 65% thereof to be released to the claimant in
accordance with the disbursement scheme set out in the award20. I am
informed that the said amount has since been deposited with the Registrar
General of this Court.
63. Under the disbursement scheme directed by the Tribunal, out of the
total awarded amount, a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- was directed to be kept
18
(2021) 16 SCC 467.
19
MAC.APP. 891/2013, decided on 11.12.2025 [hereinafter, “Shanti”].
20
The Insurance Company challenged the aforesaid order by filing SLP(C) 31271/2025, which was
dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dated 14.11.2025, while extending the time by 1 month for
the Insurance Company to deposit the awarded amount. Pursuant to the liberty granted by the Court,
the Insurance Company filed CM APPL. 79119/2025 seeking modification of the order dated
01.09.2025. However, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, as recorded in the order dated
16.12.2025, the appeal itself was taken up for final hearing.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 26 of 28
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
in the form of monthly fixed deposit receipts of Rs. 50,000/- each, with
the remaining amount to be released to the claimant. Upon compliance
with the directions contained herein, the amount lying deposited with this
Court shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal for disbursement in
accordance with the aforesaid disbursement scheme, together with
accrued interest, if any.
64. As the proceedings have resulted in enhancement of the award, the
following directions are passed:
a) The award passed by the learned Tribunal stands enhanced by a
sum of Rs. 49,473/-, and the matter is remanded to the learned
Tribunal for the purpose of disbursement of the compensation
amount in accordance with law and the disbursement scheme
already framed.
b) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced
amount of Rs. 49,473/-, together with interest at the rate of 7.5%
per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e.
31.07.2018, with the learned Tribunal within a period of 8 weeks
from today.
c) The amount presently lying deposited with the Registrar General of
this Court pursuant to the interim orders passed earlier shall be
transmitted to the learned Tribunal forthwith.
d) Upon receipt of the aforesaid amounts, the learned Tribunal shall
ensure disbursement of the entire compensation amount to the
claimant in accordance with the disbursement scheme contained in
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 27 of 28
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
the award, after due verification and compliance with applicable
norms.
e) The claimant shall appear before the learned Tribunal
on 23.03.2026 for the purpose of further directions regarding
disbursement.
65. The appeal is disposed of with these directions. The pending
application also stands disposed of.
66. The statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to the appellant –
Insurance Company, subject to compliance with directions in paragraph
64(b) of this judgment.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
MARCH 03, 2026
PV/Bhupi/SS/SD/
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL MAC.APP. 555/2025 Page 28 of 28
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49