$~23 & 24

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Decided on: 12.12.2025

+ MAC.APP. 41/2021 & CM APPLs. 2499/2021, 41320/2022 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD .....Appellant

versus

NAVEEN AND ORS .....Respondents

+ MAC.APP. 34/2022

NAVEEN .....Appellant

versus

AVINASH VERMA & ORS. .....Respondents

Appearances:

Mr. Yuvraj Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate for Oriental

Insurance Co. Ltd.

Mr. Varun Sarin, Advocate for appellant in item No. 24 and for R-1 in

item No. 23.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL)

1. These are cross-appeals filed by the claimant, Mr. Naveen Kumar, and Oriental Insurance Company Limited [“Insurance Company”], arising from an award dated 25.08.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [“Tribunal”] in MACT No. 797/2018, whereby a sum of Rs. 4,47,844/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum, was

granted in favour of the claimant.

A. FACTS

2. The facts of the accident, as narrated in the award, are that on 12.03.2018, the claimant was waiting for a bus, when he was struck by a water tanker bearing registration No. DL-1LP-4567 [“offending vehicle”]. He sustained grievous injuries as a result of the accident, for which he was hospitalised at Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi [“AIIMS”]. The claimant was then 55 years of age.

3. The accident resulted in criminal proceedings against the driver of the offending vehicle. FIR No. 82/2018, dated 12.03.2018, under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was registered against the driver at P.S. Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. After investigation, a chargesheet was also filed in the criminal proceedings.

B. IMPUGNED AWARD

4. Upon submission of the Detailed Accident Report before the Tribunal, the Tribunal considered the case of the injured victim for compensation, in which the driver, owner, and insurer of the offending vehicle, were arrayed as respondents. The Tribunal returned a finding of negligence against the driver of the offending vehicle, and awarded compensation to the claimant under the following heads:

Sr. No Heads Amount

1. Expenditure on treatment Rs.11,828/- 2. Expenditure on conveyance Rs.20,000/- 3. Expenditure on special diet Rs.20,000/- 4. Attendant charges Rs.20,000/- 5. Loss of income during treatment Rs.45,600/- 6. Mental and physical shock Rs.50,000/-

C. SUBMISSIONS

5. I have heard Mr. Yuvraj Sharma, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, and Mr. Varun Sarin, learned counsel for the claimant.

6. Mr. Sharma challenges the award on the following two grounds: a. That the Tribunal erred in deciding the issue of negligence in favour of the claimant, as he did not examine any independent eyewitness to prove the same, and failed to give detailed findings in this regard.

b. That the Tribunal granted excessive compensation under non-

pecuniary heads.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Sarin submits that the compensation ought to be enhanced on the following grounds:

a. That the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation to the claimant on the basis of minimum wages of an unskilled worker, instead of his actual income of Rs. 24,000/- as a salaried employee at Vision Control Products Private Limited, New Delhi. Mr. Sarin further submits that, in any event, the Tribunal erred in applying the minimum wages prevalent in Haryana, instead of those applicable in Delhi.

b. That the Tribunal inadequately assessed the functional disability at

13%, contrary to the law laid down in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Anr, (2011) 1 SCC 343 [hereinafter, “Raj Kumar”].

c. That the Tribunal omitted to grant enhancement of income on account of future prospects, as required by the judgment of the Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v.

Pranay Sethi and Ors, (2017) 16 SCC 680 [hereinafter, “Pranay Sethi”].

d. That