Reliance General Insurance Co. LTD. vs. Babu Lal And Others

These cross-appeals have been filed assailing the judgment dated 21st May 2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (‘MACT/Tribunal’), Saket Courts, Delhi, in MACT No. 264/2024 awarding compensation of Rs. 52,10,228/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.

The accident in question occurred on 23rd September 2023 around 09:30 p.m., when the injured/claimant, who was returning from work, MAC. APP. 410/2025 and MAC APP 625/2025 was crossing the road near Shiv Mandir at the red light. At that time, a truck/offending vehicle came at a high speed from the Mehrauli side and hit the claimant. He sustained grievous injuries to his eyes and lower limbs and was certified to have suffered 89% permanent disability with respect to both lower limbs, having undergone amputation of both legs.

MAC APP. 410/2025 has been filed by the Insurance Company seeking reduction of the compensation, whereas MAC APP. 625/2025 has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement thereof.

The various issues raised by Mr. Pankaj Gupta, counsel for the Insurance Company, and Mr. Varun Sarin, counsel for the claimant, are discussed hereunder:

On the issue of negligence, Mr. Pankaj Gupta, counsel for Insurance Company, contends that the claimant admitted in his cross- examination that he was crossing the road when the traffic light was red and that the accident had occurred due to his own negligence. The portion of the cross-examination relied upon is as under: “it is correct to suggest that the accident has occurred due to my negligence, as I was crossing the road when the traffic light was red (Vol.) I was crossing the road as the other persons were also crossing the road”

Mr. Varun Sarin counters this contention by drawing the attention of the Court to the affidavit by way of evidence of the injured/claimant, the remaining portion of his cross-examination, as well as the assessment made by the MACT.

It is noted that, in paragraph 3 of his affidavit by way of evidence, the claimant has specifically stated that when he reached the red light at Shiv Mandir, Pul Prahladpur, the red light had turned on and he was MAC. APP. 410/2025 and MAC APP 625/2025 crossing the road. At that time, the offending vehicle suddenly came from the Mehrauli side, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, and “without seeing the red light and without obeying the traffic rules and regulations hit the claimant”. He has thus stated the manner in which the accident occurred in clear and categorical terms. He reiterated the same in the initial part of his cross- examination. The portion of the cross-examination relied upon by Mr. Gupta appears, to this Court, to be a typographical error.

The aforesaid one line of the cross-examination relied upon by Mr. Gupta cannot be read in isolation from the other evidence on record, as also from the voluntary statement made by the witness.

Mr. Gupta contends that, since the claimant proceeded to cross the road when the traffic light which the claimant was facing had turned red, the claimant himself was negligent.

The Court, however, notes that the site plan placed on record does not indicate the location of the traffic lights. This aspect has also been dealt with in detail by the MACT in the impugned award.

From the conspectus of the evidence on record and the testimonies of the witnesses, and in the absence of any evidence led by the Insurance Company to the contrary, the contention of Mr. Gupta that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant cannot be accepted.

From the testimony of the claimant, it is quite clear that he sought to cross the road when the red light for oncoming traffic was active.

Moreover, no evidence had been placed on record by the Insurance company regarding the location of the red lights. If the Insurance Company sought to substantially counter the evidence of the MAC. APP. 410/2025 and MAC APP 625/2025 claimant, it was incumbent upon it to place such evidence on record.

Another issue raised by both the claimant and the Insurance Company is with respect to the compensation awarded towards prosthetic limbs.

The MACT, on the basis of the evidence of PW2, an employee of Ottobock Health Care India, considered the estimate furnished by PW2, wherein a quotation of Rs. 10,72,260/-, inclusive of GST, was given for both limbs.

In this regard, PW2 was cross-examined by counsel for the Insurance Company as to the minimum cost of an artificial limb as per the price list. PW2 replied that it was Rs. 1,00,000/-, which was the cost of a limb for day-to-day use, including all components, and would be a functional limb. She further stated that the patient would be required to undergo a re-examination to assess the bone strength before a subsequent limb could be suggested.

However, PW2 denied that the estimate furnished for the present limbs was overpriced; no other evidence was placed on record by the Insurance Company to suggest that similar limbs required for the specific purpose in the present case were available at a lesser price.

The mere assertion by PW2 from Ottobock Health Care India that the cost of an artificial limb starts from Rs. 1,00,000/- cannot persuade the Court to award only Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the prosthetic limbs. In various MACT matters which come before this Court, the estimated cost of a limb is ordinarily in the region of Rs. 3,00,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/-. Considering that the present case involves both limbs, the estimate of approximately Rs. 10,00,000/- is considered reasonable. MAC. APP. 410/2025 and MAC APP 625/2025 19. Accordingly, the MACT's award, in this regard in paragraph 19 is, therefore, sustained.

Mr. Varun Sarin has raised an issue regarding the replacement of the prosthetic limbs after every five years, considering that their useful life has been assessed at five years. Since the claimant was 55 years of age on the date of accident, and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, UPSRTC, (2023) 20 SCC 774, on the basis of an expected life expectancy of 70 years, two further replacement limbs would be required.

There is no evidence on record, as yet, that the claimant has in fact procured any prosthetic limb. However, considering that this amount towards the prosthetic limb ought to be maintained in a separate account and reimbursed only upon production of the original invoice issued by the vendor, the said amounts shall be released by the MACT accordingly.

In this regard, the Court also takes into account the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Prahlad Sahai v. Haryana Roadways & Anr. 2026 SCC OnLine SC 651, wherein, after considering the decision in Mohammad Sabir (supra) and other judgments, the Supreme Court awarded maintenance expenses of Rs.15,000/- per annum for a block of 5 years, i.e. Rs.75,000/-.

Accordingly, considering the injured was 55 years old on the date of accident and, as per Mohammad Sabir (supra), he would be requiring prosthetics till he attains the age of 70 years and considering that he has already been awarded Rs. 10,00,000/-. Accordingly, he would be MAC. APP. 410/2025 and MAC APP 625/2025 requiring 2 more replacements. Accordingly, for replacement limbs, an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- each and maintenance of Rs. 75,000/- for a period of 5 years has been awarded. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 21,50,000/- is awarded towards prosthetics.

As regards future medical expenses, an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- has been awarded by the MACT, although the same was not included in the computation. It is noted that the MACT had considered an estimated expenditure of Rs. 5,000/- per month for a period of 15 years and, accordingly, awarded Rs. 9,00,000/-.

Mr. Gupta contends that there is no evidence regarding the actual use or requirement of this amount. However, in the opinion of this Court, considering the nature of the disability suffered by the claimant, some amount ought to be awarded towards future medical expenses. Accordingly, a lump sum amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- is awarded under this head.

Mr. Varun Sarin contends that the notional income of the claimant was assessed on the basis of the minimum wages applicable to an unskilled worker, despite the fact that he was working as a tailor in an export company, as stated in his affidavit of evidence. In this regard he relies on the decision in HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Preeti and Ors, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 6497. 27. Mr. Gupta counters this submission by pointing out that, in cross- examination, the claimant was confronted with the fact that he had not placed any document on record to establish his employment, which he admitted. There is no other evidence on record in this regard.

Reliance on the judgment in Preeti (supra) would not be apposite MAC. APP. 410/2025 and MAC APP 625/2025 since, although the claimant's assertion in his testimony that he was working as a tailor was not challenged in cross-examination, he could have easily produced evidence from his employer to substantiate the said assertion. No such evidence was placed on record. Accordingly, the minimum wages applicable to an unskilled worker, as adopted by MACT, are sustained.

The other issue raised by Mr. Varun Sarin is in relation to the attendant charges awarded by the MACT. He submits that, considering the nature and extent of disability suffered by injured/claimant, attendant charges ought to have been awarded in accordance with the method for computation of attendant charges laid down by the Supreme Court in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand & Ors. (2020) 4 SCC 413. 30. In paragraph 16 of the evidence by way of affidavit, injured/claimant has stated that he would require the assistance of two persons constantly throughout his life.

Injured/claimant has suffered 89% permanent disability in relation to both lower limbs and has undergone amputation of both legs. The nature of disability is such that he would require some assistance in performing day-to-day activities. In these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the requirement of an attendant would be necessary.

At the same time, the claim for two, as raised by Mr. Sarin, cannot be accepted in the absence of any further evidence. Moreover, it is also taken into account that the injured/claimant has been awarded compensation towards prosthetics and the same would aid him to some extent. In these circumstances, this Court considers it appropriate to award attendant charges for one attendant. MAC. APP. 410/2025 and MAC APP 625/2025 33. Since no evidence has been led to show that any actual expenses have been incurred towards an attendant, it would be appropriate if attendant charges are assessed on the basis of minimum wages applicable to an unskilled worker, i.e. Rs.17,234/- per month. Applying the multiplier of 13 as per the age of injured/claimant, the attendant charges would be Rs. 22,74,888/- (Rs.17,234 x 12 x 11).

As regards non-pecuniary damages, an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been awarded towards loss of amenities. Mr. Varun Sarin contends that the said amount is inadequate.

It is noted that an additional amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- each has already been awarded towards disfiguration and mental and physical shock as a separate component. These components of compensation are unnecessary particularly in view of the standardised heads of compensation enunciated in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343, viz. pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life and life expectancy etc. Thus, Rs. 2,00,000/- awarded towards loss for mental and physical loss will be included as a part of compensation for pain and suffering, which will become Rs. 4,00,000/-; and Rs. 2,00,000/- awarded towards for disfiguration will be included in compensation for loss of amenities, which will become Rs. 4,00,000/-. Accordingly, no additional amounts amount towards non-pecuniary loss are being awarded under this head.

Accordingly, the revised computation is as under: Sr. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal Awarded by this Court PECUNIARY LOSS

Income of injured per month(E) Rs. 17,234/- Rs. 17,234/- 6 Loss of income (L) (Rs. 17,234 x 6 months) Rs. 1,03,404/- Rs. 1,03,404/-

Add: Future prospects (F) 10% 10%

Multiplier (G) 11 11

Functional disability (H) 100% 100%

Loss of future income/future earnings [(E+F) x 12 x G x H] = (I) Rs.25,02,377/- Rs.25,02,377/- NON-PECUNIARY LOSS

Pain and suffering (J) Rs. 2,00,000/- Rs. 4,00,000/-

Loss of amenities of life (K) Rs. 2,00,000/- Rs. 4,00,000/-

Compensation for mental and physical shock (M) Rs.2,00,000/- NIL

Disfiguration Rs, 2,00,000/- NIL

Compensation on account of future treatment/cost of artificial limb and Maintenance of Prosthetic Leg Rs. 15,00,000/- considered in point 19 of table

Total compensation (A + B + C + D + H + I+ J+ K+L+M) = (N) *Rs.52,10,228/- Rs. 62,98,732/-

Interest awarded 7.5% per annum 7.5% per annum

Enhanced compensation Rs. 10,88,504/-

Compensation on account of future treatment/cost of artificial limb and Maintenance of Prosthetic Leg Considered in point 15 of table Rs. 21,50,000/- * The amount has been calculated including the compensation awarded towards the artificial limb.

Accordingly, the compensation is enhanced to Rs. 10,88,504/-.

Enhanced amount, along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition, shall be deposited before MACT within a period of four weeks.

It is directed that upon such deposit, a lump sum amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- shall be released to the claimant from the deposit of enhanced amount within a period of two weeks thereafter. Remaining enhanced MAC. APP. 410/2025 and MAC APP 625/2025 amount, along with accrued interest, shall be kept in Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) of Rs. 20,000/- each for periods of 1 month, 2 months, 3 months and so on, in succession as may be calculated. Interest accruing on said FDRs shall be credited to the designated Savings Bank Account of claimant. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released to the Savings Bank Account of claimant upon due verification.

The originally awarded compensation shall continue to be disbursed as per the scheme in the impugned award

Amount awarded towards prosthetic limbs, calculated Rs. 21,50,000/-, shall be deposited by appellant/Insurance Company before the MACT within a period of six weeks as a separate amount, not garnering interest for the period which has passed since the date of the accident. The amount, shall, however, be kept in an interest-bearing Fixed Deposit Receipt (‘FDR’).

Amounts towards prosthetic limbs shall be released only upon production of a verified original invoice and proof of payment from authorised and reputed vendor.

Accordingly, both the appeals are disposed of. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.

Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to Insurance Company only if the order of deposit has been complied with.

Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.