$~9 & 10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 23^rd March 2026 (9)

+ MAC.APP. 248/2021 SH. MAHENDER YADAV .....Appellant Through: Mr. Manish Maini, Adv.

versus SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Siddhant Nath, Standing Counsel with Mr. Bhavishya Makhija and Mr.

Amaan Khan, Advs. for MCD.

(10)

+ MAC.APP. 84/2022 & CM APPL.14468/2022 SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION .....Appellant Through: Mr. Siddhant Nath, Standing Counsel with Mr. Bhavishya Makhija and Mr.

Amaan Khan, Advs. for MCD.

versus MAHENDER YADAV & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Manish Maini, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)

1. MAC.APP. 248/2021 has been filed by claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the MACT, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi [‘MACT’] by award dated 26^th June 2020 in MACP No.175/2016 for Rs.8,00,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the Detailed Accident Report [DAR].

2. MAC.APP. 84/2022 has been filed by the South Delhi Municipal Corporation [now Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”)] seeking reduction of compensation, which has been awarded by the MACT.

3. Accident occurred on 6^th April 2014 at about 10:35 a.m. when Mahender Yadav [claimant] was going on a cycle to perform his duty. He was riding on the extreme left side of the road. When he reached Old Palam Road near DDA flats, Sector-14 Dwarka, a truck bearing registration no. DL- 1GC-1371 [offending vehicle] driven by respondent no.2 in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and hit the claimant. On the basis of evidence on record, criminal proceedings were initiated by FIR No.230/2014 under Sections 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 [IPC], at Police Station Dwarka North. MACT held that the injuries sustained by claimant were due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.

4. As regards compensation, following issues have been agitated by Mr.

Manish Maini, counsel for claimant:

(i) MACT estimated functional disability at 30%, despite the permanent physical disability being certified at 57% in relation to left lower limb, particularly considering that the vocation of claimant was to deliver goods by cycle.

(ii) That non-pecuniary damages, which have been awarded are inadequate towards pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and mental and physical shock.

5. Mr. Siddhant Nath, counsel appearing on behalf of MCD, has, however, contended that age considered by MACT was 45 years, which is incorrect, since the PAN card which was produced before MACT would show that, on the date of accident, his age was 54 years, as also reflected in the Aadhaar card which formed part of the record. Therefore, the multiplier used should be ‘11’.

Analysis

6. The contentious issue of age must be addressed, particularly considering there has been a large variance in age claimed by claimant at various stages of the proceedings. In the MLC report issued in 2014, he was stated to be about 42 years of age. When examined in Court in 2018, he stated that he was about 44 years of age. When examined later regarding needs and liabilities, he stated that he was 42 years of age. The PAN card, produced before the MACT showed him to have been born on 1^st January

1960, making him about 54 years of age on the date of the accident.

7. Keeping this variance in mind, MACT disregarded the PAN card, stating that there were glaring discrepancies and that PAN card as proof of date of birth could not be relied upon, and there was no other personal document of claimant to verify the same. The MACT, therefore, assumed claimant’s age to be 45 years on the date of the accident and applied a multiplier of ‘14’ and future prospects at 25%. It has, however, come to light that the Aadhaar card, which was filed before MACT, also showed his date of birth as 1^st January 1960, which was the same as reflected in the PAN card. For ease of reference said assessment is extracted as under: