$~1 * IN THEHIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC012768222016 + MAC.APP. 1070/2016 TARUN GAUR .....Appellant Through: Mr. Pankaj Tiwari, Adv. versus MANOJ KUMAR & ORS (THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL O R D E R % 01.09.2026 1. This appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (‘MACT/Tribunal’) in Suit No. 81/2014, vide award dated 05th July 2016, whereby compensation of Rs. 17,89,370/-, along with interest at 9% per annum, was awarded. 2. The accident in question occurred on 24th December 2008, when the claimant, who was riding a motorcycle, met with an accident involving a bus and sustained grievous injuries, resulting in an above-elbow amputation of his left arm. 3. Mr. Pankaj Tiwari, counsel for the appellant, seeks enhancement on the following counts: 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 09/09/2026 at 11:46:35 i. The claimant's income was assessed on the basis of the minimum wages payable to a graduate, i.e., Rs. 4,443/- per month, despite evidence having been led to show that he was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month by giving private tuitions and working as a faculty/tutor with Baba Vishwakarma Economic Study on a commission basis. It is further submitted that he was earning additional income as an agent of Reliance Life Insurance Company; ii. Future prospects were not granted; and iii. Claimant's functional disability has been inadequately assessed at 45%. 4. Mr. Pradeep Gaur, counsel for the insurance company, has countered the plea for an increase in the notional income on the basis that the claimant was pursuing his law studies at the time of the accident and, in his testimony recorded in the year 2011, had stated that his legal practice was flourishing. 5. Moreover, Mr. Pradeep Gaur states that apart from the salary certificate issued by Baba Vishwakarma Economic Study, neither any evidence was produced to prove the same nor anyone from the coaching centre was produced to testify regarding the alleged earnings and the authenticity of the said certificate. 6. Having assessed the respective contentions, the Court is of the opinion that the notional income of the claimant ought to be reassessed, considering that the injured/claimant, who deposed as PW1, had stated in his testimony that he had provided the salary certificate as exhibited as Ex. PW1/6. The said salary certificate has been issued on the letterhead of Baba Vishwakarma Economic Study, Shahadara and duly signed by the Director, Pawan Panchal, with the stamp as well. 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 09/09/2026 at 11:46:35 7. No doubt it could be argued that the said Pawan Panchal, whose signature is on the document, was not brought in to testify in favour of the claimants to prove the said certificate. 8. However, this Court, in Savita & Ors. v National Insurance Company Ltd. 2026:DHC:3626, has also held that, notwithstanding the absence of documentary evidence, the testimony of the claimant ought to be considered in the light of the surrounding facts and circumstances. Even otherwise, in absence of any cogent proof, some guesswork is required to be made where the claimant is pursuing a professional degree. 9. In the present case, it cannot be overlooked that the claimant, who was a student of law at the relevant time, was also giving tuition to earn an additional income. By the time his cross-examination was recorded, he had become a practising lawyer and was evidently having a decent practice. Moreover, he had rebutted the suggestion that he was not earning Rs. 12,000/- from the said tuition or from the Reliance company. However, no proof was filed by him in favour of his contention that he received the amount as commission from Reliance Insurance Company. 10. Therefore, discounting the income received by the claimant in form of commission from Reliance Insurance Company, some amount would have to be considered as his earnings from the tuition that he was giving at the relevant time. Accordingly, his notional income is assessed at Rs. 8,000/- per month, with an addition of 40% towards future prospects as he was 23 years of age at the time of the accident. 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 09/09/2026 at 11:46:35 11. As regards functional disability, although the claimant suffered an amputation of his left arm, the learned MACT has assessed his functional disability at 45%. 12. Mr. Pankaj Tiwari, counsel for the appellant, states that due to the loss of his left arm, he is unable to drive or pick up any files as a lawyer and, therefore, his livelihood is sorely affected. 13. Having regard to the nature of the disability suffered, the vocation pursued by the claimant, and his efforts to advance in his profession, the functional disability ought to be assessed at 60%. 14. Accordingly, the revised compensation is as under: Sr. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal Awarded by this Court PECUNIARY LOSS 1. Expenditure on Medical Bills and medical treatment (A) Rs.3,40,852/- Rs.3,40,852/- 2. Expenditure on conveyance (B) Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 3 Expenditure on special diet (C) Rs.20,000/- Rs.20,000/- 4. Attendant charges (D) Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 5. Income of injured per month(E) Rs. 4,443/- Rs. 8,000/- 6 Loss of income (L) (6 months) Rs.26,658/- Rs. 48,000/- 7. Add: Future prospects (F) NIL 40% 8. Multiplier (G) 18 18 9. Functional disability (H) 45% 60% 10. Loss of future income/future earnings [(E+F) x 12 x G x H] = (I) Rs. 4,31,859.60/- Rs. 14,51,520/- NON-PECUNIARY LOSS 11. Pain and suffering (J) Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/- 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 09/09/2026 at 11:46:35 12. Loss of amenities of life (K) Rs. 1,50,000/- Rs. 1,50,000/- Loss of Marriage Prospects due to Permanent disability Rs.50,000/- Rs. 50,000/- 13. Expenses for left above elbow prosthesis (purchase of artificial limb) (M) Rs.6,40,000/- Rs.6,40,000/- 14. Total compensation (A + B + C + D + H + I+ J+ K+L+M) = (N) Rs. 17,89,369.60/- (Rounded off to Rs.17,89,370/-) Rs. 28,30,372/- 15. Interest awarded 9% per annum 9% per annum 16. Enhanced compensation Rs. 10,41,002/- 15. Accordingly, compensation is enhanced by Rs. 10,41,002/-. 16. The enhanced compensation, along with interest at 9% per annum, be deposited by the insurance company with the MACT within six weeks, and the same shall be released to the claimants as a lump sum within two weeks thereafter, considering the accident pertains to the year 2008. 17. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous. 18. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J SEPTEMBER 1, 2026/vs/bp 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 09/09/2026 at 11:46:35