Indusind General Insurance Company Limited Vs Gaurav & Ors.

This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company assailing the award dated 14^th March 2026, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (‘ MACT ’), Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, in MACT No. 388/2023, whereby compensation of Rs. 37,58,265/- along with interest @ 8% per annum was awarded to the injured claimant.

¶13

Ms. Sonal Kushwah , counsel for Insurance Company, challenges the award on three grounds:

¶14

(i) Firstly, that the assessment of functional disability at 80% is disproportionate, considering that the permanent disability was certified at 80%, and that the application of the principles laid down in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr ., (2011) 1 SCC 343

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 16/07/2026 at 11:41:59

¶17

ought not to have resulted in the assessment of functional disability at 80%;

¶18

(ii) Secondly, that the amount awarded towards the cost of the prosthesis was granted without sufficient proof that the prosthesis had actually been ordered and that the quotation relied upon was not obtained from an authorised source; and

¶19

(iii) Thirdly , that the plea of contributory negligence, which had been raised by the driver in the written statement, was not considered by the MACT.

¶20

The Court has perused the impugned award and finds that these contentions are unsustainable. The accident, which had occurred on 05^th April 2023, when the claimant, who was riding his motorcycle near Meerut, was hit by a car, resulted in grievous injuries that ultimately led to the amputation of his right lower limb.

¶21

The MACT has recorded that the claimant suffered a “ crush/degloving injury right leg ( knee to foot )”, as per the Discharge Summary. The Disability Certificate (Exhibit as PW2/4) certified permanent disability to the extent of 80% in relation to the right leg ( amputation right thigh above knee ). PW-1 , a member of the Medical Board, was also examined and deposed that the claimant would face difficulty in walking, sitting, climbing stairs, sitting cross leg and driving a manual vehicle etc.

¶22

The MACT considered the testimony of the claimant, who deposed that he was employed as a driver by profession, and accordingly assessed his functional disability at 80%.

¶23

Ms. Khushwah , submits that paragraph 25 of the impugned award records that no documentary proof has been produced to establish that the

¶24

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 16/07/2026 at 11:41:59

¶25

claimant was employed as a driver and, therefore, there is a contradiction in the assessment of functional disability.

¶26

This Court is, however, of the view that the observation in paragraph 25 cannot be construed to mean that the MACT concluded that the claimant was not a driver by profession. 8. The MACT proceedings are in nature of inquiry, therefore, testimonies of claimant are important unless otherwise confronted. Moreover, the claimant had placed on record a copy of his driving licence. 9. Even otherwise, an above-knee amputation of the right thigh results in a serious loss of functionality, which can safely be assessed at 80%. Accordingly, the MACT cannot be faulted for assessing the claimant's functional disability at 80%.

¶27

The second issue relating to prosthesis has been addressed by the MACT in paragraph 36 of the impugned award. PW-3 , had been examined from Otto bock Health Care India, a company that provides artificial limbs. PW-3 deposed that the cost of an artificial limb would be Rs. 4, 88,670/-, with an average life of 4 to 5 years, and annual maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- . 11. The MACT carefully dealt with his evidence in paragraphs 35 and 36 and noted that even though there was no separate corroboration of the evidence of PW-3 by medical treatment record, the necessity of an artificial limb for a person who had undergone an above-knee amputation could not be disputed. Accordingly, the sum of Rs. 4,20,000/- was taken as cost of one artificial limb. Considering that the claimant was 28 years of age, the MACT further held that he would require replacement of the prosthesis at least seven times during his lifetime and, on that basis, awarded a total sum of Rs.29,40,000/- under the head of artificial limbs.

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

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 16/07/2026 at 11:41:59

¶30

The MACT was also careful not to release the said amount immediately. As recorded in paragraph 41 of the impugned award, the amount was directed to be kept separately so that it could be released to the claimant only upon production of the requisite bills and proof of expenditure. Thus, the interests of the Insurance Company were adequately safeguarded, as the amount earmarked for the prosthesis was directed to remain invested in a fixed deposit until required.

¶31

Thirdly , the issue of contributory negligence as stated by Ms. Kushwah , is noted in the paragraph 2 of impugned award, stating the objection taken in the written statement filed by respondent no.1. 14. The defence of respondent no. 1 was that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the claimant. However, this is countered by the testimony of claimant, as recorded in paragraph 12 of the impugned award , that the car was changing its lane with great force and, therefore, collided with him and he suffered grievous injuries. 15. Furthermore, paragraph 14 of the impugned award specifically records that respondent nos. 1 and 2, namely the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle, who were the best witnesses to rebut claimant's testimony, did not enter the witness box. The MACT, therefore, drew an adverse inference against them. In the opinion of this Court, the MACT is not amiss in drawing aforesaid conclusion.

¶32

None of the appellant’s contentions are tenable.

¶33

Ms. Kushwah submits that the Insurance Company may be permitted to deposit the awarded compensation along with accrued interest before the Executing Court.

¶34

Liberty is accordingly granted to the Insurance Company to deposit

¶35

This is a digitally signed order.

¶36

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 16/07/2026 at 11:41:59

¶37

the awarded amount along with accrued interest before the Executing Court. Upon such deposit, the Executing Court shall reconsider the attachment orders.

¶38

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. Pending applications are rendered infructuous.

¶39

Statutory deposit, if any, shall be refunded to appellate/Insurance Company only upon deposit of the amount along with the accrued interest. 21. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

¶40

ANISH DAYAL, J

¶41

JULY 10, 2026/RK/zb

¶42

This is a digitally signed order.

¶43

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 16/07/2026 at 11:41:59

Indusind General Insurance Company Limited v. Gaurav & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indusind General Insurance Company Limited v. Gaurav & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mamta & Ors. Vs Amit Kalra @ Rinku & Ors.

Bali Ahmed & Ors. Vs United India Ins Co. Ltd. & Ors.

Magma Hdi General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shakuntala & Ors.

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Vinod Yadav & Ors.

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Master Yogesh & Ors.

Sib General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Kanchan Basnet & Ors.