$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 19^th March 2026.

+ MAC.APP. 43/2016 & CM APPL. 15272/2017 ROHIT KUMAR .....Appellant Through: Ms. S.N. Parashar, Advocate with Mr. Ritik Singh, Advocate.

versus SUKHDEV SINGH & ORS (UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD ) .....Respondents Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate with Ms. Mouli Sharma, Advocate 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 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (‘MACT’), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter, ‘Tribunal’) in MAC Petition No. 572F/2012 by an award dated 16^th October 2015 (hereinafter, ‘impugned award’) Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.9,44,280/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing to appellant/injured claimant who suffered grievous injuries.

2. The accident occurred on 21^st September 2012 at 12:30 am, when appellant/injured claimant was going towards Ghaziabad from Akshardham Temple and his motorcycle was hit by a truck bearing registration no. HR- 39A-0085 (‘offending vehicle’) from behind being driven rashly and negligently by respondent no.1.

3. Mr. S. N. Parashar, counsel for appellant/injured claimant seeks enhancement on three counts: firstly, functional disability ought to have been assessed at more than 50% considering that permanent disability was certified at 88% with respect to his right lower limb; secondly, future prospects ought to have been granted which have been completely omitted and; thirdly, amount awarded towards non-pecuniary damages were highly depressed.

4. Disability Certificate of appellant/injured claimant certifies that he had a permanent locomotor impairment of 88% in his right lower limb. In the cross-examination of PW-2, Senior Resident (Orthopaedics) from Guru Tegh Bahadur Hospital, who had been summoned with regards to the Disability Certificate, stated, that he could not state the percentage of disability in relation to the whole body, but “given 88% of disability as in the present case, I can say that his right lower limb is rendered nearly non- functional and without external support the patient cannot be mobilized. He cannot walk, cannot climb stairs, cannot squat, and cannot stand properly”. 5. On this basis, Mr. Parashar, counsel for appellant/injured claimant contends that, considering his vocation as a lift mechanic, he would have been rendered completely non-functional for his job and for other similar jobs. Appellant/injured claimant was 21 years of age on the date of accident and was allegedly employed as a lift mechanic at M/s Start Magicman Private Limited.

6. Tribunal had personally examined appellant/injured claimant at the final stage of proceedings, and observation of the Tribunal is noted in paragraph 16 of the impugned award, which is extracted as under:

“16. This Court has looked into the statement of PW-2 as well as the entire medical record of the claimant. The claimant was personally examined by the Court at the final stage of proceedings. The claimant had appeared with urinary bag in his hands and was feeling immense difficulty to even stand. He stated that he was working as a Lift Mechanic with M/s. Start Magicman Pvt. Ltd. I assess that due to the disabilities sustained, his capacity has been considerably reduced, restricting him from carrying out his work in a normal manner. Considering the evidence on record and keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the functional disability of claimant is taken as 50% in relation to his whole body, in view of dictum of “Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343”.

7. As per the testimony of appellant/injured claimant (PW-1), he was working in a private company and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. Tribunal does note that when he was examined, he stated that he was working as a lift mechanic.

8. Considering that there was no proof of his employment, minimum wages applicable of an