$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 2^nd February, 2026 + MAC.APP. 703/2013 SH SHAHID .....Appellant Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Mr. Ritik Singh, Advs. versus SH SATISH & ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Ms. Mouli Sharma, Advs. for R-3/ Insurance company. CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J: (ORAL)

1. This appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation awarded on 7^th January 2013 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (‘MACT’) in MAC Petition No.213/2012. The compensation was awarded at Rs.1,04,069/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.

2. Mr. S.N. Parashar, counsel appearing on behalf of appellant contends that no loss of future income was awarded, despite 40% permanent disability being assessed.

3. The accident had occurred on 25^th March 2012 near Delhi University Metro Station due to rash and negligent driving of truck driven by respondent no.1. The petitioner was a helper travelling in the said truck, who suffered injuries and was taken to hospital. An FIR was lodged and MLC was prepared.

4. Regarding Issue No.1, the MACT held that the claimant/appellant herein suffered injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1, basing their finding on the FIR and the Mechanical Inspection Report. While compensation on account of medical expenses, special diet and conveyance, loss of income and pain and suffering was awarded at Rs.1,04,069/-, no amount was awarded towards loss of future income. The minimum wages of an unskilled worker at Rs.6,656/- per month has been taken as a benchmark income and loss of income for only three months had been awarded at Rs.19,968/-.

5. Mr. Parashar points out to the certificate dated 3^rd April 2013 issued by the Orthopaedic Surgeon at Meerut, U.P., which assessed the disability as 40%. He further refers to another certificate dated 7^th September 2012 issued by Office of Medical Superintendent, Hindu Rao Hospital, which states that it is a temporary disability of 43% in relation to left lower limb. 6. Further, he relies on the statement of Dr. R.P. Singhal, Senior Consultant/ Orthopaedic Surgeon at District Hospital, Meerut, U.P. recorded before this Court on 3^rd November 2014. A perusal of the said statement would bear out that Dr. R.P. Singhal confirmed the certificate issued by their office. However, he also stated that it was a certificate for physically handicapped, issued after physically examining the applicant and after assessing his muscle power and movement of the joints. Importantly, he stated that the physically handicapped certificate is not valid in motor accident claim cases. The certificates valid in motor accident claims are issued separately by the Office of Chief Medical Officer, wherein a detailed medical examination is conducted.

7. Dr. R.P. Singhal stated that appellant was not treated by him and he had no personal knowledge about the injuries. He, further, stated that he had examined appellant for the purpose of issuing the certificate of physically handicapped, but did not notice any injury on the body. He further stated that in the interregnum between the issue of certificate by the Senior Orthopaedic Consultant and the Office of Chief Medical Officer, the percentage of disability may reduce by undergoing some surgical procedure or by doing physiotherapy.

8. Mr. Parashar points out to the statement of Dr. R.P. Singhal to profess that there was functional disability which ought to have been accounted for to compute loss of future income. The relevant part of statement of Dr. Singhal is extracted hereunder:

“Mr. Shahid will have problem in movement while undertaking any physical work. Mr. Shahid, with his present physical disability, can or cannot work as a helper in a truck. However, his output or work performance will be much less than the performance of the normal person.”

9. Ms. Suman Bagga, counsel for Insurance Company states that there is no crystallization o