Ms. Aruna Mehta, Mr. Lakshay Mehta and Mr. Sanjeev Mehta, Advocates v. RAJO BHAGAT ORS on 11 Dec 2025

Judgment

1. The appellant, who was the claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [“the Tribunal”], has preferred the present appeal, assailing the award dated 20.10.2024 passed in Suit No. 49/2014, seeking enhancement of the compensation granted to him. By the impugned award, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,10,369/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum. A. FACTS

2. The facts, as recorded in the impugned award, are that on

26.08.2008, the appellant was travelling from Azadpur Mandi, Delhi, to Anand Parbat, Delhi, in a vehicle [bearing registration No. DL-1L-F- 9640] [“insured vehicle”], which was loaded with sugarcane for delivery to a juice shop. During the journey, the insured vehicle collided with a Signature Not Verified Signed By:SOMYA SATIJA Signing Date:13.12.2025 17:57:47 MAC.APP. 90/2015 Page 1 of 15 divider in front of Bali Nursing Home on Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Delhi, and turned turtle, resulting in the appellant sustaining injuries. 3. FIR No. 242/2008 was registered on 26.08.2008 under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Delhi. 4. The appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, arraying the driver, owner and the insurer – Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd [“the Insurance Company”] as respondent Nos. 1 to 3 respectively. 5. The Tribunal returned a finding of rash and negligent driving against the driver of the insured vehicle [respondent No. 1 herein], and awarded a sum of Rs. 5,10,369/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum, against the Insurance Company, without granting it any recovery rights against the owner of the vehicle. The compensation was awarded under the following heads: Rs.1,69,713/- Amount Heads Loss of wages Loss of income Sr. No. 1. 2. Medicines and medical treatment Rs.2,241/- 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Disfigurement Loss of amenities of life Conveyance charges Pain and suffering Special diet Rs.18,415/- Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- Total Rs. 5,10,369/- Signature Not Verified Signed By:SOMYA SATIJA Signing Date:13.12.2025 17:57:47 MAC.APP. 90/2015 Page 2 of 15 B. SUBMISSIONS

I have heard Ms. Aruna Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. A.K. Soni, learned counsel for Insurance Company. 7. Ms. Mehta, in support of the appeal, submits as follows: (a) That the Tribunal has erred in assessing the appellant’s functional disability at only 16%, despite the disability certificate establishing permanent disability of 32%, in respect of the left upper limb. She submits that the assessment is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr.1, as the appellant’s condition renders him unable to continue employment he had prior to the accident. (b) That the Tribunal erred in adopting minimum wages payable in Delhi at Rs. 3,683/-, which is less than his monthly income of Rs. 8,000/- per month, as a labourer employed by respondent No. 2. (c) The Tribunal erred in disallowing reimbursement of expenses with respect to the appellant’s physiotherapy, merely on the ground that the appellant’s permanent address was in Bihar, notwithstanding that the accident, treatment, employment, and residence all took place in Delhi. (d) That the award fails to compensate the appellant for gratuitous services rendered by the family of the injured.

8. Mr. Soni, on the other hand, supports the finding of the Tribunal on these aspects. 9. Each of these aforesaid issues is taken up in turn. Signature Not Verified Signed By:SOMYA SATIJA Signing Date:13.12.2025 17:57:47 MAC.APP. 90/2015 Page 3 of 15 C. ASSESSMENT OF FUNCTIONAL DISABILITY

10. The first issue pertains to the loss of earning capacity suffered by the appellant. 11. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar requires assessment of functional disability by analysing the nature and extent of disability suffered by the injured, and assessing the likely impact on his future income, in the context of his particular vocation. This enables the Tribunal to arrive at a just and equitable quantification of the loss of earning capacity, for which the respondents are required to compensate. 12. As recorded in the impugned award, the medical evidence, exhibited as Ex. PW6/1 to Ex. PW6/24, revealed that the appellant was initially taken to Bali Nursing Home, Karol Bagh, Delhi, where his Medico-Legal Case was prepared. Thereafter, he was admitted to Lady Hardinge Medical College and Hospital, New Delhi. The appellant sustained a fracture of the left palm, and underwent surgery. He remained hospitalised about eight days, from 11.09.2008 to 18.09.2008. The appellant was assessed to have suffered permanent disability to the extent of 32% in respect of his left upper limb, as reflected in the disability certificate dated 23.10.2009 issued by Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital [Ex. PW6/23]. 13. The impugned award also refers to the testimony of PW-3, Dr. B. Kanhar, Senior Orthopaedic Surgeon, Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital, who deposed as under: “Today I have seen the disability certificate of Sh. Shankar Mehto S/o. Sh. Lao Mehto Dated 23.10.2009. The said disability certificate was issued by the Medical Board, Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital and I was one of 1 (2011) 1 SCC 343 [hereinafter “Raj Kumar”]. Signature Not Verified Signed By:SOMYA SATIJA Signing Date:13.12.2025 17:57:47 MAC.APP. 90/2015 Page 4 of 15 the members of this Medical Board. The copy of the abovesaid disability certificate is already Ex.PW1/6 which bears my signatures at point A. Original seen and returned. The petitioner Sh. Shankar Mehto has suffered post traumatic stiffness over left hand wrist with permanent disability of 32% in relation to the left upper limb. His condition is not likely to improve in future. A person who is doing the job of a labourer for lifting of the weight with the help of both of his hands is incompetent to perform his job2.”

14. PW-3 was cross-examined by learned counsel for the Insurance Company, during which he stated as follows: “It is correct that abovesaid observation given by me is not mentioned in the disability certificate. It is incorrect to suggest that the petitioner can do every kind of work. Today I have not physically examined the petitioner before giving this observation.3”

15. The Tribunal considered the aforesaid evidence in the following terms: “PW-3 Dr. B. Kanhar, Senior Orthopedic Surgeon, Aruna Asf Ali Government Hospital, Rajpur Road, New Delhi has proved the disability certificate of the petitioner which is already exhibited as Ex.PW1/6. He testified that he was one of the members of the Medical Board. He testified that petitioner Sh.Shankar Mehto has suffered post traumatic stiffness over left hand wrist with permanent disability of 32% and his condition is not likely to improve. He denied the suggestion that the petitioner can do every kind of work. In view of the evidence of Doctor witness, I will consider functional disability of the petitioner as 16% qua the whole body.”

16. With regard to the vocation of the appellant, it is undisputed that he was working as a labourer, employed by respondent No. 2, at Azadpur Sabzi Mandi. 17. Upon consideration of the aforesaid evidence, particularly the testimony of Dr. B. Kanhar [PW-3], extracted above, and in light of the principles laid down in Raj Kumar, I am of the view that the Tribunal’s 2 Emphasis supplied. 3 Emphasis supplied. Signature Not Verified Signed By:SOMYA SATIJA Signing Date:13.12.2025 17:57:47 MAC.APP. 90/2015 Page 5 of 15 assessment of functional disability at 16% is inadequate. The material on record establishes that the appellant has suffered a substantial and permanent impairment of 32% in his left upper limb, which is non- progressive and unlikely to improve. The appellant, being a labourer whose occupation necessarily involved the use of both hands for loading and unloading goods, has been rendered severely impaired in performing his pre-accident work. In cases where a person’s livelihood is entirely dependent on manual labour, the assessment of functional disability must reflect not merely the medical or clinical impairment, but also the resultant loss of earning capacity. 18. Having regard to the nature of the injury, the appellant’s vocation, and his age at the time of the accident, the functional disability is accordingly reassessed at 50%. D. APPLICATION OF MINIMUM WAGES

19. With regard to the quantum of income, the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the appellant’s assertion of being employed as a labourer, earning Rs. 8,000/- per month, remained unproved. Consequently, the Tribunal assessed his monthly income on the basis of the minimum wages applicable to an unskilled worker in Delhi, which at the relevant time was Rs. 3,683/- per month. Ms. Mehta submits that the Tribunal has erred in applying minimum wages, rather than the income claimed by the appellant. 20. In his affidavit of evidence [PW6/A], the appellant had deposed as follows: “1. That the deponent was a labourer in Azadpur Subzi Mandi and used to load and unload the goods and was earning Rs.300/-to Rs.400/- per day and in a month used to earn approx. Rs.8000/- per Signature Not Verified Signed By:SOMYA SATIJA Signing Date:13.12.2025 17:57:47 MAC.APP. 90/2015 Page 6 of 15 month. 2. The respondent no. 2 had taken the contract to supply sugarcanes to various juice shop of Karol Bagh, Anand Parbat and Shastri Nagar, Delhi. The respondent No. 2 who was doing the work loading and unloading the fruits and vegetable in Azad Pur Subzi Mandi Delhi and employed him for three months on the salary of Rs. 6,000/- per month for w.e.f. 1st august 2008 to uproot the sugar canes with the help of other labours from the fields of Sonipat on behalf of the respondent no. 2 and get them loaded in the vehicle for Azadpur Subzi Mandi where the sugar canes were used to be weighed and extra canes used to be unloaded in the office of the respondent no.2 at Azadpur Subzi Mandi and from there the goods were taken to the shop keepers of Karol Bagh, Ananad Parbat and Shastri Nagar in the vehicle along with the petitioner who used to travel in the vehicle as the representative of the respondent no.24.”

21. During cross-examination by learned counsel for the Insurance Company, the appellant stated as follows: “At the time of the accident I was already living in Delhi for about 3-4 years. On the date of the accident I had done the work of loading and unloading goods only for 2-3 days prior to the accident in question. I was doing the work of loading and unloading at the request of private parties but I was not employed with anyone for the said purpose. Again said I was in employment for the work of loading and unloading the goods for 3 days when I had met with the accident. For the work of loading and unloading I used to travel in the loaded vehicle also. The name of my employer was Sh. Phool Chand but I do not know his father's name, address and in whose name Sh. Phool Chand was carrying his business. My employer Phool Chand had met me casually in Azad Pur Subzi Mandi, Delhi. The person who referred me to my employer Sh. Phool Chand is Sh. Vijay Kumar but I do not know his father's name and address. He was doing the business of Parchun but I do not know under what name Sh. Vijay Kumar was doing his Parchun business. No hours of work were fixed in respect of my employment with Sh. Phool Chand. I was travelling in the offending vehicle from Azad Pur Subzi Mandi to DBG Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. I had myself loaded the goods in that offending vehicle but total weight of loaded goods in that offending vehicle might be 7-8 quintile. However, I am not exact about it. Nobody-else except myself and driver of the offending vehicle were there on the offending vehicle. I was not sitting above the loaded goods but I was sitting by 4 Emphasis supplied. Signature Not Verified Signed By:SOMYA SATIJA Signing Date:13.12.2025 17:57:47 MAC.APP. 90/2015 Page 7 of 15 the side of the driver. No Pacca bills etc. are generally issued in respect of transaction of goods. It is wrong to suggest that I was not in the employment of Sh. Phool Chand. It is wrong to suggest that I have deposed falsely in respect of the expenditure incurred by me as a result of the injuries sustained by me under all heads. It is wrong to suggest that I have also deposed falsely in respect of future expenses likely to be incurred by me. It is wrong to suggest that I have suffered any economic loss of earnings as a result of the accident in question. It is wrong to suggest that I was travelling in the offending vehicle as an unauthorized occupant5.”

22. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the view that the Tribunal’s reasoning in assessing the appellant’s income does not warrant interference in appeal. While documentary evidence is not strictly required to determine income in cases involving labourers employed in the informal sector, the appellant’s own deposition in cross-examination raises doubts regarding his employment status, the duration of his work, and the existence of any fixed remuneration to the tune of Rs.8,000/- per month. In his affidavit, he claimed earnings of Rs. 300-400/- per day, amounting to Rs. 8,000/- per month, but also stated that he was employed at this salary by respondent No.2 only for a period of three months. In cross-examination, his testimony indicates that he worked only sporadically, without any fixed income. 23. Although it is well-settled that the Tribunal is not bound by the strict rules of evidence, it must nevertheless arrive at a just and reasonable estimate of compensation, based on the preponderance of probabilities6. In the present case, the appellant has failed to discharge even this limited evidentiary burden, as far as quantum of income of