Delhi High Court - Orders
The New India Assurance vs Yogesh Kumar Sharma & Ors on 27 January, 2026
$~52
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP. 79/2026
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Vandana Surana, Adv.
versus
YOGESH KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Dilawar Singh, Ms. Mansee
Singh, Ms. Savitiri Singh, Advs. for
R-1 along with R-1 in person
(through VC).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
ORDER
% 27.01.2026 CM APPL. 5352/2026 (Exemption)
1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Accordingly, application stands disposed of.
MAC.APP. 79/2026 along with CM APPL. 5351/2026 (Stay)
1. This appeal has been filed seeking reduction of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ('MACT'), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in MACT No.319/2023 on 01st November 2025.
2. Ms. Vandana Surana, counsel for appellant contends that the compensation which has been awarded at Rs.40,46,408/- is an exaggerated amount, considering the income of the deceased, who was a lawyer, for the purpose of assessment was considered based on an ITR for Financial Year 2021-22, whereas the accident occurred in January 2023, and the income would have thereafter reduced. Accordingly, the benchmark income 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 02/02/2026 at 20:32:13 considered as Rs.35,288/- per month is erroneous.
3. However, a perusal of paragraph nos.25, 27 and 28 of the impugned Award, would show that the MACT relied upon three years' ITRs (Ex.PW1/6 to Ex.PW1/8). For the Financial Year which was just concluded (2021-22), the gross income was considered as Rs.4,38,446/- and after deduction of income tax, the same was considered as Rs.4,23,446/- and, therefore, the monthly income was calculated. Abovesaid paragraphs are extracted hereunder:
"25. In this regard, it is submitted by the petitioner that at the time of the accident, he was a practising lawyer at Delhi. It is stated that the petitioner is an enrolled advocate and was earning about Rs.80,000/- per month. Further, it is stated that due to the accident and permanent disability, he hardly earns Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- per month now. In this regard, the petitioner has proved on record his Bar Counsel of Delhi Registration Certificate which is Ex. PW-1/14. He has also relied upon his ITRs for the years 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 which are Ex. PW-1/6 to Ex. PW-1/8 (colly)...
...27. As per the latest ITR of the petitioner which is Ex. PW-1/8, his gross income was Rs. 3,53,561/-. This ITR is for the assessment period 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2023. The date of accident is 20.01.2023. Hence, this ITR cannot be considered as it is obvious that he was unable to work from the date of accident till 31.03.2023. Hence, taking this ITR as the basis of his income shall not be proper.
28. As per the ITR of the petitioner for the financial year 2021-22, which is Ex. PW-1/7, his gross income was Rs. 4,38,446/-, on which income tax of Rs. 15,000/- is payable. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 held that for 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 02/02/2026 at 20:32:13 calculating compensation, the income of the victim less the income tax should be treated as the actual income. Further, in case titled as Universal Sompo General Insurance vs Sh. Dinesh Kumar Singh & Ors MAC.APP. 106/2025 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 9 June, 2025, it has been observed that the Tribunal must deduct applicable income tax and other permissible statutory deductions from the gross income of the deceased while computing compensation payable to the petitioner. Hence, his total annual income is assessed to be Rs. 4,23,446/-. Hence, his monthly income is assessed to be Rs.35,287.16 (rounded off to Rs. 35,288/-)."
4. The Court does not see any infirmity in this assessment accorded by the MACT. Even otherwise, it would be assumed that in the months, after the Financial Year 2021-22, after ten months have passed, reduction in income for a self-employed individual would not be an indication that income in the next year would be so severely depressed that the income of previous financial years cannot be taken as a benchmark income. Therefore, the aforesaid ground does not subsist against in favour of appellant.
5. Another aspect which counsel for appellant stated that there was no doctor, who was examined to prove the Disability Certificate. However, a perusal of paragraph no.40 would show that the certificate had been issued by the Government hospital namely Jag Pravesh Chandra Hospital, Delhi and the MACT has rightly not disbelieved the same. In any event, even the Insurance Company had not produced any evidence on record that the said Disability Certificate was forged and fabricated. This ground also does not subsist in favour of appellant.
6. As far as other components of compensation are concerned, counsel 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 02/02/2026 at 20:32:13 for appellant states that amount of Rs.1,50,000/- for attendant charges and special diet respectively, and Rs.2,00,000/- for mental & physical shock/pain and suffering are unreasonable.
7. In this regard, it is noted that claimant had suffered 40% permanent disability in his left lower limb, which was finally assessed at 25% functional disability considering his work was more intellectual in nature rather than physical. Claimant was 38 years of age on the date of accident and would have been in the income earning phase of his life.
8. In relation to attendant charges and special diet, counsel for appellant states that he was hospitalized for only four days from 21st January 2023 to 25th January 2023 and there was no amputation but only a fracture in the ankle. Therefore, the amounts awarded towards special diet and attendant charges are amplified, as well as Rs.2,00,000/- awarded on account of pain and suffering.
9. For this purpose, it may be important to examine the medical documents to determine whether the compensation awarded on these accounts i.e. special diet, attendant charges, and pain and suffering are justified or not.
10. Counsel for appellant further points out that it was just an ankle fracture and paragraph 36 of the impugned order states that claimant stated that he was unable to walk properly. Further, she states that loss of income was computed for twelve months, whereas claimant was in the hospital only for a very short while.
11. Issue notice to respondents to examine the limited issues relating to compensation awarded under the head of attendant charges, special diet and pain and suffering and loss of income.
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 02/02/2026 at 20:32:13
12. Mr. Dilawar Singh, Advocate accepts Notice on behalf of respondent no.1.
13. Reply be filed within a period of three weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of three weeks thereafter.
14. Trial Court Record be requisitioned and placed on record. Digital copy of the same be supplied to counsels for parties, if so requested.
15. Appellant/Insurance Company will deposit the entire amount along with interest before the Registry of this Court within a period of four weeks, which will be kept in an interest-bearing fixed deposit and 50% of deposited compensation be released to respondent/claimant within a period of two weeks thereafter.
16. Subject to deposit of above said amount, there shall be stay on enforcement of award till the next date of hearing.
17. Counsels for parties will file their respective note of arguments not exceeding three pages, synopsizing their contentions along with list of citations, which they wish to rely upon, cross-referencing PDF pages of the Court File. The same will be exchanged inter se counsels at least three days prior to the next date of hearing.
18. Parties are referred to Pre-sitting Lok Adalat for resolution of disputes.
19. Parties to appear either physically or through VC before Pre-sitting Lok Adalat on 20th February 2026 at 02:30 pm.
20. Concerned officer from Insurance Company, who is authorised to take decisions, shall be present, either physically or through VC, before the Pre-sitting Lok Adalat.
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 02/02/2026 at 20:32:13
21. Copy of order be sent to Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee for information and compliance.
22. List on 8th May 2026.
23. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
ANISH DAYAL, J JANUARY 27, 2026/ak/zb 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 02/02/2026 at 20:32:13