Disposed¶24

Dilsar Khan @Dilshad Khan v. Pintu Kumar Jeph & Ors.

Delhi HC9 Mar 2026MAC.APP./68/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor accident compensation enhancement; functional disability 35% vs claimed 80%; benchmark/notional income Rs. 11,613 vs Rs. 15,000 per salary slips; loss of future earnings; future prospects 40%; multiplier 16; ambulance HR-63-A7234; Holy Family Hospital; MACT South District Saket, MACT Petition No.2029/2019; MAC.APP. 68/2022; Dilsar Khan @Dilshad Khan v. Pintu Kumar Jeph & Ors.; deposit by Insurance Company within four weeks; 7% interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 12,62,215/- to Rs. 16,01,200/- with interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition; Insurance Company to deposit the enhanced amount before the MACT within four weeks, to be released to the appellant/claimant as per directions in the impugned award; pending applications rendered infructuous. ¶24

Dilsar Khan @Dilshad Khan Vs Pintu Kumar Jeph & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the functional disability assessed by the MACT at 35% ought to have been assessed at 80%. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

The MACT's assessment of functional disability at 35% of the whole body is free from infirmity; there is no other evidence on record to persuade the Court to enhance it beyond 35%.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The reverse of the salary slips records gross salary of Rs. 15,000/-; the lower amounts actually paid in April 2018 (Rs. 10,000/-) and May 2018 (Rs. 11,613/-) reflected deductions for leave taken.

¶17

Key takeaways

In view of the salary slips and the claimant's testimony that he worked as an electrician with M/s S K Electrical Pvt. Ltd. earning Rs. 15,000/- per month, the claimant's plea on income sustains.ratio¶18
The cross-examination conducted by the Insurance Company produced nothing to counter the claimant's statement that he earned Rs. 15,000/- per month.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Anish Dayal, J.), MAC.APP. 68/2022, order dated 09.03.2026 — Enhancement appeal against MACT, South District, Saket award dated 07.10.2021 (Rs. 12,62,215/- @ 7% p.a.) in MACT Petition No.2029/2019, arising from the 17.06.2018 accident near Bird Century Okhla Barrage, Noida, where ambulance HR-63-A7234 hit the claimant's bike from behind. Held: (i) functional disability rightly taken at 35% of the whole body per the Disability Certificate (both lower limbs and pelvis); no evidence to enhance it; (ii) benchmark income revised from Rs. 11,613/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month — the reverse of the April/May 2018 salary slips shows gross salary of Rs. 15,000/- (lower paid sums being deductions for leave), and the claimant's testimony as an electrician with M/s S K Electrical Pvt. Ltd. went uncontradicted in cross-examination by the Insurance Company. Applying future prospects @40% and multiplier 16, total compensation enhanced to Rs. 16,01,200/- with 7% interest from the date of filing of the petition, to be deposited by the Insurance Company before the MACT within four weeks and released per the impugned award's directions. Appeal disposed of; pending applications infructuous.

¶1

$~25

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- MAC.APP. 68/2022

¶4

DILSAR KHAN @DILSHAD KHAN .....Appellant

¶5

Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

PINTU KUMAR JEPH & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. S.K. Roy, Adv. for R-1 & 2.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

¶9

O R D E R % 09.03.2026

¶10

This appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by judgment dated 07^th October 2021 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal [‘ MACT ’], South District, Saket Courts in MACT Petition No.2029/2019 awarding Rs. 12,62,215/- at an interest rate of 7% per annum. 2. On 17^th June 2018, appellant/claimant along with one, Javed , were returning from their home situated at Sangam Vihar on separate bikes, upon reaching near Bird Century Okhla Barrage, Noida, UP, appellant’s/claimant’s bike was hit by an ambulance bearing no. HR-63-A7234 (hereinafter, ‘ offending vehicle ’) from the back side by respondent no.1/driver while driving the said offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner. Consequently, appellant/claimant was admitted in Holy Family Hospital.

¶11

Counsel for appellant/claimant has raised two issues: firstly , that functional disability was assessed at 35% , whereas it should have been 80% ;

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

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 16/03/2026 at 16:06:14

¶14

and secondly , benchmark income was considered at Rs.11,613/- , whereas, the gross income of claimant was Rs.15,000/- , as is evident from the salary slips.

¶15

As regards the assessment of functional disability, the MACT has noted that the Disability Certificate issued by the medical authorities showed that he had suffered 35% permanent disability with respect to his both lower limbs and pelvis. On this ground, taking a benevolent view in the matter, functional disability was taken as 35% with respect to the whole body and was not reduced below 35% .

¶16

The Court does not find anything infirm in this assessment by the MACT, considering that there is no other evidence on record, which could persuade this Court to enhance the functional disability to more than 35% .

¶17

Regards benchmark income, counsel for appellant/claimant has drawn attention to two salary slips of April 2018 and May 2018. It does show that the gross amount as per the salary slips are Rs.10,000/- and Rs.11,613/- , respectively. However, on the back side of the salary slips, it is stated that the gross salary is Rs.15,000/- but Rs.10,000/- was given in April 2018 deducting for leaves taken, whereas Rs.11,613/- was paid May 2018 deducting for leaves taken.

¶18

In view of this and the testimony of appellant/claimant, who stated that he was working in M/s S K Electrical Pvt. Ltd. as an electrician and earning Rs.15,000/- per month, the plea of appellant/claimant would sustain.

¶19

Even as per the cross-examination conducted by Insurance Company, there was nothing to counter the statement of appellant/claimant that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month.

¶20

In view of the same, the revised computation is as under:

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

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 16/03/2026 at 16:06:14

¶23

Sr. No.	Heads	Awarded by the Tribunal	Awarded by this Court
	PEC	UNIARY LOSS
1.	Expenditure on conveyance (B)	Rs. 50,000/-	Rs. 50,000/-
2.	Expenditure on special diet (C)
3.	Attendant Charges(D)
4.	Income of injured (E)	Rs. 11,613/-	Rs. 15,000/-
5.	Add: Future prospects @ 40% (F)	Rs. 4,645/-	Rs. 6,000/-
6.	Multiplier(G)	16	16
7.	Functional disability (H)	35%	35%
8.	Loss of Income(I)	Rs. 69,678/-	Rs. 90,000/-
9.	Loss of future income/future earnings [(E+F) x 12 x G x H]=(J)	Rs. 10,92,537/-	Rs. 14,11,200/-
	NON-P	ECUNIARY LOSS
10.	Pain, suffering and enjoyment of life (K)	Rs. 50,000/-	Rs. 50,000/-
11.	Total compensation (B + C + D + I + J + K)=L	Rs. 12,62,215/-	Rs. 16,01,200/-
12.	Interest awarded	7%	7%

¶24

Accordingly, compensation amount has been enhanced to Rs. 16,01,200/-. Enhanced amount, along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of petition will be deposited by the Insurance Company within before the MACT within a period of four weeks and same shall be released to the appellant/claimant as per the directions given in the impugned award.

¶25

The appeal is disposed of, accordingly.

¶26

Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

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 16/03/2026 at 16:06:14

¶29

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

¶30

ANISH DAYAL, J

¶31

MARCH 9, 2026/MK/ sp

¶32

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 16/03/2026 at 16:06:14

Dilsar Khan @Dilshad Khan v. Pintu Kumar Jeph & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilsar Khan @Dilshad Khan v. Pintu Kumar Jeph & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogesh Verma & Anr. Vs Meerut City Transport Services Ltd.

Suresh Devi Vs Naveen Prakash Kapil

Meerut City Transport Service Limited Vs Neeraj Verma & Ors.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rajesh Jain & Ors.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Brhamkaur & Ors.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shakil Ahmed & Ors.