$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP. 923/2015 & CM APPL. 32045/2026 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate. versus DEEPAK KUMAR & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate with Ms. Divyanshi Sharma, Advocate for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL O R D E R % 21.07.2026 1. This appeal has been filed by appellant/Insurance Company, challenging compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Delhi [‘MACT/Tribunal’], vide impugned award dated 31st August 2025, whereby compensation of Rs. 11,31,634/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, was awarded [‘impugned award’]. 2. Mr. Amit Singh, counsel for appellant/Insurance Company, states that the compensation of Rs. 8,62,618/- awarded towards urethral injury is highly inflated and has been computed by the MACT, in terms of the loss of earning capacity, by taking the notional income as Rs. 9,984/-, applying a multiplier of ‘18’, and assessing the functional disability at 40%. 3. The essential contention is that the MACT assessed the functional disability at 40%, despite the fact that the disability certificate recorded only 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 24/07/2026 at 12:19:58 20% temporary disability in respect of both lower limbs, and recommended reassessment after 1 year. 4. Mr. Amit Singh, counsel for appellant/Insurance Company, further states that no such reassessment was carried out and, therefore, no proof was placed on record by the claimant to establish whether his condition had deteriorated or improved thereafter. 5. Further, the MACT seems to have been swayed by the issue of urethral injury and, consequently, allowed the functional disability to be taken at 40%. 6. To counter the aforesaid, Mr. Pankaj Gupta, counsel for the claimant, points out to the statement of PW-1, Dr. Navneet Rustagi [Specialist Orthopaedics], who certified in favour of the disability certificate, and stated that “the patient has already been referred to Safdarjung Hospital for assessment disability with respect to urethral disability. We have no facility regarding investigation for assessment of urethral injury”. 7. PW-2, Dr. Pawan Vasudeva [Urologist], had also been summoned from Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. However, the MACT noted that claimant requested deferment of PW-2’s examination, as he was required to undergo further treatment for the urethral injury. 8. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, counsel for the claimant, states that post deferment no further steps were taken to bring on record, the evidence in this regard. 9. Mr. Gupta, counsel for the claimant, heavily relies on the statement of PW-3, the claimant himself, who stated in his evidence by way of affidavit, as under: “5….That I am unable to pass urine from my penis ,so the doctors has fixed a catheter through my abdomen to urethra, 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 24/07/2026 at 12:19:58 which I have to replace in every fifteen days as failing which it can cause severe infection in lower abdomen. The Doctors performed operation to cure injuries but still there is blockage and major operation for urethra-plasty has been advised. Besides this, I have to undergo for many other operations prior to artificial implantation such as deviation of urinary passage, reconstruction of urethra etc. to cure the crippled penis. The passage to discharge urine and semen is totally blocked and there is no erection in my penis. I am not a person of means and status to go for such expensive operations. 8… That I am suffering from permanent disability as a result of injuries sustained by me due to the accident. My disability certificate is already on record. The doctors have advised me number of operations. My wife was taking care of me as my attendant, so she was running pillar to post in order to take care of me and for my treatment. In that course, she could neither take care of herself nor of my son, as result of which my son died on 28th February 2012 and my wife also fell seriously ill. When I consulted doctors, they also advised immediate operation for her keeping in view her serious condition. 10... That I was working as a White-Washer and was earning more than Rs.8,000/- per month. Now I am unable to do my job as I have to hold a catheter in one hand and pipe in other hand so that it may not pull out from my abdomen. That I am unable / unfit to do any kind of job to earn my livelihood due to the injuries sustained by me. A stinking smell is oozing out from my body due to leakage of urine, which make me frustrated, uncomfortable, and inconvenient whole day and night.” (emphasis supplied) 10. During his cross-examination, PW-3 admitted that he had not approached the medical board for further reassessment in terms of the certificate, though he volunteered that he still had to visit the hospital to get himself medically examined. He further stated that he had placed on record, 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 24/07/2026 at 12:19:58 the photographs showing his urethral injury, which were exhibited as PW3/4 and PW3/5, and which have been also perused by this Court. 11. It is matter of record that further steps which ought to have been taken by the claimant regarding reassessment of the disability relating to lower limbs, as well as the assessment relating to the urethral injury, were neither undertaken nor brought on record. 12. However, aside from it not being the duty of the appellant/Insurance Company, neither did they take any steps before the MACT, or in the present appeal to insist upon a reassessment, so as to substantiate its plea for reduction of the functional disability assessed at 40%. 13. In this scenario, the Court is only left with the testimony of PW-3, as extracted hereinabove, which details out the functional difficulties that the claimant is going through. 14. The cross-examination conducted by appellant/Insurance Company also does nothing to dilute the claimant's [PW-3] testimony regarding the various functional difficulties suffered by him. 15. It is also evident from the testimony of PW-1 that the issue of urethral injury was not included in the 20% temporary physical disability. It was probably for this reason that the MACT, in paragraph 28 of the impugned award, assessed that, considering the nature of urethral injury, the claimant’s working capacity would be affected to the extent of 40%. 16. The MACT, relied upon the decision of this Court in Sanjay v. Suresh Chand, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 4038, in this regard. For ease of reference, the relevant portion from Sanjay v. Suresh Chand (supra) is extracted as under: “11. The Appellant's photograph on the disability certificate 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 24/07/2026 at 12:19:58 Ext. P-70 and the another photograph on trial court record would simply reveal not only immense pain and suffering but humiliation which the Appellant has to suffer day in and day out when he walks to the Hospital with a tube just above his male organ and a catheter to pass urine. It is established that the Appellant cannot carry out any work whatsoever. The loss of earning capacity in his case would be 100%.” (emphasis added) 17. Further, as per the testimony of PW-3, his reproductive capabilities had been adversely affected as a consequence of the accident. 18. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the MACT. 19. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. 20. By order dated 30th November 2015, appellant/Insurance Company had been directed to deposit the complete compensation, along with interest before the Registrar General of this Court, and 50% of the awarded amount was released in favour of the claimants. 21. Accordingly, the remaining amount shall also be released in favour of the claimants, in terms of the award passed by the MACT. 22. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous. 23. Statutory amount be refunded to the appellant/Insurance Company. 24. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J JULY 21, 2026/RK/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 24/07/2026 at 12:19:58