$~4 & 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Decided on: 06.12.2025 + MAC.APP. 461/2015 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. .....Appellant versus SAGAR KHERA & ORS. .....Respondents + MAC.APP. 417/2017 SAGAR KHERA .....Appellant versus THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. &

ORS. .....Respondents Appearances:

Mr. JPN Shahi, Advocate for the appellant in Item No. 4 and respondent in Item No. 5.

Mr. Amitabh Sinha, Mr. Anupam Pandey, Advocates for respondent in Item No.4 and Appellant in Item No.5.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL)

1. These two appeals – one by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [“Insurance Company”] and the other by Mr. Sagar Khera [“the claimant”] - are directed against an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [“Tribunal”] dated 10.04.2015 in MACT No. 861/2014, arising out of a road accident which took place on 17.07.2013.

2. The undisputed factual position, as it emerges from the impugned award, is that the claimant was riding his motorcycle, bearing Registration No. DL 4S CD 5107, on 17.07.2013 at about 11:30 P.M. At a point near Shiv Garden, Prem Nagar Road, Mundka, Delhi, his motorcycle was struck by a trolla/truck bearing registration No. PB-23E- 6124. The claimant sustained grievous injuries, for which he was treated at Maharaja Agrasen Hospital from 18.07.2013 to 12.08.2013.

3. Before the Tribunal, a disability certificate dated 06.02.2015 was placed on record, showing that the claimant, who was then approximately 26 years of age, had suffered “Post Traumatic Head Injury with Mild Mental Retardation” leading to permanent mental disability of 50%.

4. Alleging that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending truck, the claimant filed proceedings before the Tribunal against the driver, the owner, and the insurer of the truck. The driver and owner are arrayed as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in MAC. APP.

461/2015, respectively.

5. The Tribunal returned a finding in favour of the claimant on the question of negligence, and proceeded to assess compensation of Rs. 20,85,368/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 8% per annum under the following heads:

6. Both these appeals are in respect of quantum of compensation.

7. The only ground argued by Mr. JPN Shahi, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, is that the Tribunal has erred in computing loss of future earning capacity by applying an addition of 50% towards future prospects. Mr. Shahi refers me to the judgment of the Constitution Bench in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, [hereinafter “Pranay Sethi”]., which provides for addition of future prospects at 40%, unless the claimant was below 40 years of age, and shown to have a permanent job.

8. Mr. Amitabh Sinha, learned counsel for the claimant, on the other hand, submits as follows:

a) The Tribunal erred in taking into account the functional disability of the claimant at only 50%. He states that, while the disability certificate produced before the Tribunal showed mental retardation to the extent of 50%, the claimant was subsequently re-assessed on 09.05.2022, at 75% permanent disability in relation to his brain, and suffering from mental illness.

b) The non-pecuniary damages assessed by the Tribunal were inadequate, having regard to the nature of the disability.

9. While a ground has been taken in the claimant’s appeal with regard to the quantum of his income at the time of the accident, relying upon an income tax return for the Assessment Year 2013-14, the document in question was not exhibited before the Tribunal. I have put it to Mr. Sinha that, if the claimant wishes to prove the said income tax return, the matter can be remanded to the Tribunal to enable him to do so. Having regard to the length of time that has elapsed, Mr. Sinha does not press this ground, and submits that this Court may re-assess the level of functional disability as well as the non-pecuniary compensation.

10. Mr. Shahi accepts this suggestion, and specifically subm