$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC012277282014 + MAC.APP. 1064/2014 GIRI RAJ .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ritik Singh, Adv. for Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv. versus HARISH KUMAR & ORS.(UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sankar N. Sinha, Adv. for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL O R D E R % 07.08.2026 CM APPL. 49682/2026 (For bringing on record LRs) 1. This application has been filed seeking to bring on record legal heirs of the appellant/Giri Raj, who passed away on 24th February 2022. 2. In these facts and circumstances, the application is allowed, and appellant/Giri Raj is deleted from the array of parties. 3. The Court had already concluded its findings in the aforesaid matter on 30th July 2026, which are reproduced as under: “13. Accordingly, compensation has been enhanced by Rs. 7,42,356/- [‘enhanced compensation’]. 14. Enhanced compensation, along with accrued interest, will be deposited before the MACT within the next six weeks. 15. Counsel for appellant informs that the injured passed away on 24th February 2022 and is survived by his legal heirs. However, the application for taking on record legal heirs is still under scrutiny and has not been listed. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2026 at 12:49:41 16. Final order for release has not been passed today, since the application for taking on record legal heirs is still under scrutiny. 17. Accordingly, for that purpose, list the matter on 07th August 2026. 18. Registry will place the application on record on the next date of hearing after completion of scrutiny. 19. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.” 4. Accordingly, the application is disposed of. CM APPL. 49683/2026 (Condonation of delay) 1. Mr. Sankar N. Sinha, counsel for respondent no.3/Insurance Company, raises an objection regarding to delay in filing the application under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [‘CPC’]. 2. This application seeking condonation of delay has been filed stating that the claimants are poor people, who not have knowledge of the law. Therefore, even though, appellant/Giri Raj passed away on 24th February 2022, the same was communicated to the counsel only on 16th November 2025, when they enquired about the status of the appeal. 3. The plea of Mr. Sinha, counsel for Insurance Company, is, therefore, rejected, taking into account the aforesaid circumstances, and also the fact that the appeal itself has been pending on the Board of this Court since 2014. 4. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 5. The delay of 1515 days in filing the present application is condoned. 6. Application stands disposed of, accordingly. MAC.APP. 1064/2014 1. This appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Central District, Tis This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2026 at 12:49:41 Hazari Courts vide impugned award dated 22nd July 2014 in MACT No.232/2014 at Rs.12,28,498/- along with 7.5% interest. 2. The accident in question occurred on 26th December 2011 when appellant/injured claimant was boarding a Delhi Transport Corporation (‘DTC’) bus bearing registration no. DL-1PC-9656 (hereinafter, ‘offending vehicle/bus’), which moved in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the rear wheel of the bus ran over his leg. He suffered an amputation of right leg above knee and his permanent disability was certified at 80%. 3. Mr. Ritik Singh, Advocate, appearing on behalf of appellant/injured claimant, points to the testimony of Dr. Harish Mansukhani, Chief Medical Officer, LBS Hospital, Khichri Pur, Delhi (‘PW2’), who stated that appellant/injured claimant cannot ride motorcycle and cycle and testified in support of the disability certificate. Appellant/injured claimant in his evidence by way of affidavit as PW1 stated that he was 38 years old at the time of the accident and was working as a painter, painting commercial complexes, houses and shops and earning about Rs.12,000/- per month. 4. He stated that he does not know any other work and only has experience of painting, mixing of colours and spreading it on the walls. Respondent no.3/Insurance Company could not elicit anything major in his cross-examination. In fact, he stated that he was working at Pahar Ganj, Delhi on contract and also on daily wages. He further produced a certificate issued by Bittoo Paint House regarding his painting work, exhibited as Ex.PW1/4. The original passbook regarding his painting work was issued by Asian Paints, exhibited as Ex.PW1/5. In these circumstances, it is pleaded that his functional disability considered at 50%, was highly depressed. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2026 at 12:49:41 5. In view of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343, and also the recent judgment of Supreme Court in M. Paramesh v. VRL, Logistics Ltd & Anr. 2026 INSC 655, where Supreme Court ascertained functional disability in case of a mason at 100%. 6. The Supreme Court in M. Paramesh (supra) was dealing with an appeal for enhancement of compensation, in case of a mason who had suffered amputation of his right leg. Relying upon the decision in Raj Kumar (supra), the Court categorically stated that depending on the nature of vocation carried out by the injured-claimant prior to the accident, functional disability may be assessed at a higher percentage, including 100%. It was noted that the nature of work carried out by a mason involves continuous use and support of both legs and the injury had rendered the mason incapable of carrying out the manual work, which constituted his only source of livelihood. Therefore, the loss of earning capacity cannot be restricted to 70% on the basis of physical disability. Relevant observations of the Court are extracted as under: “22. From the above observations in Raj Kumar (supra), it becomes crystal clear that though the physical disability may be assessed at a particular percentage, the functional disability affecting earning capacity may, depending upon the nature of avocation carried on by the injured, be assessed at a higher percentage including 100%. The assessment of compensation in cases of permanent disability cannot be undertaken by mechanically applying the percentage of physical disability as the percentage of economic loss. 23. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the appellant was working as a mason at the time of the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2026 at 12:49:41 accident. The work of a mason is essentially a physical and manual avocation requiring continuous use and support of both legs. The material on record further reveals that on account of the injuries suffered in the accident, the appellant underwent amputation of his right leg above the knee. 24. By virtue of the aforesaid amputation, the appellant has effectively lost his capacity to continue the work of a mason which was admittedly the sole avocation being pursued by him for earning his livelihood. It is not even the case of the respondents that the appellant was engaged in any other sedentary occupation or that despite the amputation suffered by him, his earning capacity remained unaffected. 25. The amputation of the right leg above the knee has not merely caused physical disability to the appellant but has rendered him incapable of effectively carrying on the manual and physical work which constituted his only source of livelihood. In such circumstances, restricting the loss of earning capacity to 70% merely on the basis of physical disability would not be justified.” (emphasis added) 7. Mr. Sankar N. Sinha, counsel for respondent no.3/Insurance Company, opposed the increase in functional disability, considering that no proof had been placed on record as regards his vocation. 8. However, in view of the recent judgment of Supreme Court and the fact that appellant/injured claimant had provided a detailed testimony, along with placing on record the certificate and painting passbook, the Court is inclined to reassess functional disability at 80%, considering that there would be still other possibilities for him to do this nature of work. 9. Mr. Ritik Singh, counsel for appellant/injured claimant points out that minimum wages of skilled worker were considered by the MACT in This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2026 at 12:49:41 paragraph no.20 of impugned award, however, the wrong wages were recorded as Rs.7,358/-, whereas, on the date of accident, minimum wages were Rs.8,112/- as per the ready reckoner of minimum wages; accordingly same will be also revised. 10. As regards non-pecuniary compensation, Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded on pain and suffering and; Rs.30,000/- has been awarded for conveyance and special diet, which will be increased to Rs.75,000/-. Further, loss of amenities will be increased to Rs.1,00,000/-, considering that, appellant/injured claimant suffered amputation of above knee, while he was working as a painter. 11. As regards the grant of future prospects, same shall be aligned as per the principles enunciated in National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 and will be awarded at 40%, considering that appellant/injured claimant was working in a private job. 12. Accordingly, the revised compensation will be as under: Sr. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal Awarded by this Court PECUNIARY LOSS 1 Expenditure on Medical expenses (A) Rs. 3,662/- Rs. 3,662/- 2 Expenditure on conveyance and special diet (B) Rs. 30,000/- Rs. 75,000/- 3 Income of injured (C) Rs.7,358/- Rs. 8,112/- 4 Add: Future prospects (D) Rs. 3,679/- Rs. 3,245/- 5 Multiplier (E) 15 15 6 Functional disability (F) 50% 80% This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2026 at 12:49:41 7 Loss of income/Wages (G) Rs. 51,506/- Rs. 56,784/- 8 Loss of future income/future earnings [(C+D) x 12 x E x F] = (H) Rs. 9,93,330/- Rs. 16,35,408/- NON-PECUNIARY LOSS 9 Pain and suffering (I) Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/- 10 Loss of amenities of life (J) Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/- 11 Total compensation (A + B + G + H+ I + J) = K Rs. 12,28,498/- Rs. 19,70,854/- 12 Interest awarded 7.5% 7.5% 13. Accordingly, compensation has been enhanced by Rs. 7,42,356/- [‘enhanced compensation’]. 14. Enhanced compensation, along with accrued interest, will be deposited before the MACT within the next six weeks. 15. Amounts shall be released in favour of each of the legal heirs of appellant/Giri Raj, namely, Sadhna (wife), Preeti (daughter), Nikhil (son), Saurav (son), in the share of 1/4th each, within two weeks thereafter. 16. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. 17. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous. 18. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J AUGUST 7, 2026/MK/ya This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2026 at 12:49:41