Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6731
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tara Vitasta Ganju, J
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
SARASWATI & ANR. – Respondent
MAC.APP. 548/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Salil Paul, Mr. Sahil Paul
For the Respondents:
The court distinguished between permanent physical impairment and functional disability in determining compensation.
Headnote:The present appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 impugning an award dated 04.06.2025, which awarded compensation of Rs. 39,44,558/- based on the claimant's permanent physical impairment claim of 18% versus awarded functional disability of 50%. The tribunal reflected on the claimant's employment status and significant reduction in working capacity due to the disability. The order for stay of the award is subjected to deposit and further conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of key facts and procedural history. (Para 1 , 10) |
| 2. distinction between physical impairment and functional disability. (Para 5 , 7) |
| 3. contention about awarded functional disability. (Para 6) |
| 4. procedural aspects and interim orders regarding the appeal. (Para 8 , 9 , 11 , 12) |
O R D E R
% 27.08.2025 CM APPL. 53521/2025[Exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned award]
1. Allowed, subject to the Appellant filing certified copy of the impugned award within a period of three weeks.
2. The Application stands disposed of.
CM APPL. 53578/2025[Exemption from filing certified copies]
3. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 4. The Application stands disposed of.
MAC.APP. 548/2025, & CM APPL. 53520/2025 [Stay]
5. The present Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 impugning the award dated 04.06.2025 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, MACT, District Judge-01, North-West, Rohini Court, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Award”]. By the Impugned Award, the compensation amount in the sum of Rs. 39,44,558/-
along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum has been awarded.
6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant restricts his ground of challenge in the present Appeal to the aspect of functional disability. It is contended that Respondent No. 1 has sustained 18% permanent physical impairment in relation to left lower limb, however the learned Tribunal awarded 50%
functional disability.
7. The Impugned Award, however, reflects that the learned Tribunal took into consideration that the Respondent No.1/Claimant submitted that she was working as a beautician and due to the physical disability, her working capacity has been reduced and as of now she is without a job. Although, the Respondent No. 1/Claimant had claimed 100% disability, the learned Tribunal, given the circumstances, considered it apposite to award functional disability at 50% in the Impugned Award.
8. Issue Notice limited to this ground. On steps being taken, let Notice be issued to the Respondents via all modes. An affidavit of service be filed within a week.
9. Subject to the deposit of entire decretal amount inclusive of up-to-date interest within a period of 6 weeks, the operation of the Impugned Award shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing. In the event, there is any default in depositing the amount, the interim protection granted by this Court shall automatically stand vacated.
9.1 Upon deposit by the Appellant, 85% of the deposited amount inclusive of up-to-date interest shall be released to the Respondent No.1/Claimant in accordance with scheme, as is set out in the Impugned Award.
10. The Registry is directed to place on record the digital copy of the Trial Court Record duly paginated and book-marked in accordance with the rules of the High Court.
11. List before concerned Registrar on 24.11.2025 for completion of service.
12. The parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.
