$~11

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Decided on: 16.12.2025

+ MAC.APP. 671/2013

BHAWNA .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Manish Maini & Ms. Aastha

Chauhan, Advocate.

versus

RAMBEER & ORS .....Respondents

Through: Mr. R.K. Tripathi, Advocate for

R3.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL)

1. The appellant, who was the claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [“the Tribunal”], has preferred the present appeal, assailing an award dated 02.12.2011, passed in MACT Suit No. 573/09/08. She seeks enhancement of the compensation granted to her by the Tribunal, which was for the sum of Rs.5,30,400/-, alongwith interest

at the rate of 7.5% per annum.

A. FACTS

2. The facts of the accident, as narrated in the award, are that on 03.08.2008, the appellant was travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-5SZ-6505, being driven by her uncle, when they were hit by an RTV bus bearing registration No. DL-1VA-1876 [“offending vehicle”], driven by respondent No.1. The appellant sustained grievous injuries as a result of the accident, for which she was

first treated at Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Shahdara, New Delhi, and subsequently at Sushruta Trauma Centre, New Delhi, and Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi. At the time of the accident, the appellant was about

15 years of age.

3. The accident resulted in criminal proceedings against the driver of the offending vehicle. FIR No. 365/2008, dated 03.08.2008, under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was registered against respondent No.1 at P.S. Nand Nagri, New Delhi.

B. IMPUGNED AWARD

4. The appellant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal, alleging rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle [respondent No.1 herein]. The owner of the offending vehicle and the insurer thereof [respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein] were also arrayed as respondents before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, returned a finding of negligence against respondent No.1, and awarded compensation under the following heads:

Sr. No Heads Amount Pecuniary Heads:

1. Medical expenses Rs.4,356/-

2. Conveyance Rs.10,000/- 3. Special diet Rs.10,000/- 4. Attendant charges Rs.18,000/-

5. Loss of earning capacity Rs.2,43,000/-

6. Loss of studies during treatment Rs.25,000/-

period Non-Pecuniary Heads:

7. Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/- 8. Loss of amenities of life Rs.1,00,000/-

C. SUBMISSIONS

5. I have heard Ms. Aastha Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. R.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No.3 –

Oriental Insurance Company Limited [“Insurance Company”].

6. Ms. Chauhan submits that the compensation ought to be enhanced on the following grounds:

a. That the Tribunal has erroneously assessed the loss of earning capacity based on notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum, whereas loss of earning capacity of the appellant ought to have been assessed on the basis of the minimum wages of a matriculate, i.e., at Rs.4,131/- per month, in terms of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692 [hereinafter, “Sakshi Greola”]. and Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari &

Anr, SLP No. 14444/2025, decided on 08.08.2025 [hereinafter, “Hitesh”].

b. That the Tribunal awarded non-pecuniary damages only to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- each for pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life, which is wholly inadequate, and failed to grant compensation for mental and physical shock, loss of marriage prospects, and disfigurement.

c. That the Tribunal awarded insufficient compensation under the heads of conveyance, special diet, and attendant charges.

7. Mr. Tripathi, on the other hand, submitted that the Tribunal’s assessment of functional disability of the appellant, to the extent of 60%, is overestimated, having regard to the nature and extent of her disability.

8. Each of