$~5 & 6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010766692017 + MAC.APP. 228/2017 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth & Md. Rehan Ali, Advs. versus AJAY VIDYASAGAR NARULA @ AJAY NARULA & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. S.K Nanda, Ms. Palak Rajan, Mr. Shivam Pandey and Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advs. for R-1. 6 # CNR No. DLHC011290492018 + MAC.APP. 695/2018 AJAY VIDYASAGAR NARULA @ AJAY NARULA.....Appellant Through: Mr. S.K Nanda, Ms. Palak Rajan, Mr. Shivam Pandey and Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advs. versus THE ORIENAL INSURANCE CO LTD & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth & Md. Rehan Ali, Advs. for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL O R D E R % 29.09.2026 1. These appeals have been filed challenging the award dated 07th November 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Saket 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 06/10/2026 at 11:50:16 Courts [‘MACT/Tribunal’] in Suit No.3291/2015, whereby compensation of Rs.3,15,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum was awarded. 2. The accident in question occurred on 11th October 2007, when the injured-claimant was travelling in Wagon-R car from Chhatarpur towards Noida. When he reached near gate number 24, Okhla Barrage, a dumper/truck bearing no. HR-38H-0726 (‘offending vehicle’) came from the wrong side and hit him. 3. The injured-claimant was 42 years of age at the time of the accident and was working as an independent Professor/Visiting Faculty and was an MBA Consultant and claimed to be earning Rs.50,000/- per month. FIR No. 748/2007 under Section 279/338 IPC was registered, which ultimately led to conviction by order dated 15th February 2018. According to counsel for the claimant, the said order was challenged in appeal; however, the appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 27th November, 2018. 4. While MAC Appeal No.228/2017 has been filed by the insurance company challenging the award on account of negligence as well as quantum, MAC Appeal No. 695/2018 has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. 5. Mr. Pankaj Seth, counsel for the insurance company, points out the finding on negligence made by the MACT and contends that the analysis is inadequate in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. According to him, the MACT has not provided sufficient reasons to arrive at its conclusion on the issue of negligence. 6. This is countered by the counsel for the claimant, who points not only to the fact that an FIR was registered, a charge-sheet was filed, and the driver was ultimately convicted, against which the appeal was also dismissed, but also to the MLC and the discharge summary. The Court has perused these 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 06/10/2026 at 11:50:16 documents and finds that there is a clear assertion that the accident occurred due to the offending vehicle coming from the wrong side. The clinching piece of evidence is the site plan, which shows that the claimant's vehicle was on the correct side of the carriageway towards Noida, whereas the offending vehicle was being driven on the wrong side and ought to have been on the other carriageway. The site plan is extracted hereinbelow for reference: 7. Therefore, even though the MACT chose to use pithily worded analysis, the same is not amiss in any regard. The plea of the insurance company in this regard is, therefore, unsustainable. 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 06/10/2026 at 11:50:16 8. The other issue raised by the counsel for insurance company relates to the interest awarded at 9% per annum. 9. Considering that the accident occurred in 2007, and in view of the principles laid down in Kaushnuma Begum (Smt.) & Ors. v New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2001) 2 SCC 9, the rate of interest awarded was aligned with the lending rates prescribed by the RBI at the relevant time. Accordingly, this plea is also untenable. 10. Counsel for the claimant has also assailed the impugned award on two counts. First, it is contended that functional disability was not considered despite there being evidence of 40% permanent disability of the right lower limb, as has been certified by the disability certificate dated 24th November, 2014 issued by Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya Hospital. The MACT held that the claimant's occupation as a Visiting Professor and MBA Consultant had not incapacitated him from earning and, therefore, awarded no compensation under this head. 11. It is pleaded that, considering the claimant's work as a Visiting Professor and Consultant, which required him to travel, climb stairs, and be mobile, functional disability ought to have been considered. It is further submitted that future prospects should also have been awarded for the purpose of computing loss of future income. 12. The Court has also perused the various professional qualifications of the claimant, inter alia, Master of Business Administration from Nagpur University, Bachelor of Engineering from Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala. The claimant is also an Associate Member of the Institution of Engineers and holds membership of the All India Management Association. 13. It is quite clear from various certificates, which have been placed on 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 06/10/2026 at 11:50:16 record, that the claimant had a wide and expansive career as a consultant and therefore would have been impeded by the said accident. 14. The claimant examined himself as PW1 and had stated in his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief that he was a self-employed freelance consultant, independent professor, visiting faculty and MBA consultant and used to charge consultation fees from MBA aspirants in the range of Rs. 750/- to 2,000/- per consultation. He further deposed that he had not recovered from the injuries suffered in the accident and had been rendered disabled as a result of the accident. 15. Moreover, claimant is also present in Court. It is evident that he has mobility issues and requires support while walking. 16. It is noted that the notional income of claimant was assessed at Rs. 33,000/- by the MACT. Since the claimant was 42 years old on the date of accident, the appropriate multiplier would be 14, as per the principles laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 5 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680. 17. Accordingly, future prospects are awarded at 25%, considering that the claimant was self-employed. 18. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and the fact that he would require mobility to perform his profession, functional disability is assessed at 30%. 19. Conveyance charges are enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/- in view of his impairment. Compensation towards pain and suffering is also enhanced to Rs. 75,000/-. 20. Accordingly, the revised computation is as under: Sr. Heads Awarded by the Awarded by 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 06/10/2026 at 11:50:16 No. Tribunal this Court PECUNIARY LOSS 1. Expenditure on Medical Bills and medical treatment (A) Rs.20,000/- Rs.20,000/- 2. Expenditure on conveyance (B) Rs.5,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/- 3 Expenditure on special diet (C) Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- 4. Attendant charges/ leave of wife (D) Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- 5. Income of injured per month(E) Rs. 33,000/- Rs. 33,000/- 6 Loss of Income (L) [3x Rs. 33,000] Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/- 7. Add: Future prospects (F) NIL 25% of Rs. 33,000/- = Rs. 8,250/- 8. Multiplier (G) NIL 14 9. Functional disability (H) NIL 30% 10. Loss of future income/future earnings [(E+F) x 12 x G x H] = (I) NIL Rs. 20,79,000/- NON-PECUNIARY LOSS 11. Pain and suffering (J) Rs.35,000/- Rs. 75,000/- 12. Loss of amenities of life (K) Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/- 13. Total compensation (A + B + C + D + H + I+ J+ K+L+M) = (N) Rs.3,15,000/- Rs. 25,29,000/- 14. Interest awarded 9% per annum 9% per annum 15. Enhanced compensation Rs. 22,14,000/- 21. Accordingly, the compensation is enhanced by Rs. 22,14,000/-. 22. The enhanced amount, along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition, shall be deposited before the MACT within a period of four weeks. The same shall be released to the claimant in a lump sum within two weeks thereafter. 23. By order dated 07th March 2017, the Court directed deposit 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 06/10/2026 at 11:50:16 entire awarded amount before the Tribunal. By order dated 17th January 2023, the Tribunal was directed to release the amount deposited with accrued interest. 24. Accordingly, balance compensation, along with accrued interest, will be released to the claimant as a lump sum, considering the accident is of 2014. 25. Rights of recovery have been granted to the insurance company qua respondent nos. 2 and 3. 26. Appeals stand disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications are rendered infructuous. 27. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to the Insurance Company only if the order of deposit has been complied with. 28. Copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned MACT/bank for information and necessary compliance. 29. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J SEPTEMBER 29, 2026/sm/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 06/10/2026 at 11:50:16