Case at a Glance
A 39-year-old man was struck by a speeding car on 11 February 2022 while opening the rear door of his parked vehicle, suffered severe hypoxic brain injury and remains bed-bound in a comatose state with 100% permanent disability. The Tribunal awarded ₹1,52,76,996. The Delhi High Court re-worked almost every head — averaging three years of income tax returns, refusing to deduct the ₹9.95 lakh Mediclaim receipt, and assessing attendant charges at skilled-worker minimum wages — and raised the compensation to ₹4,26,09,147 with 7.5% interest.
On 11 February 2022, near the BSF Camp at Chhawala on Najafgarh Road, Delhi, the claimant had parked his Maruti Ertiga and was opening its rear door when a Maruti Swift hit him. His head struck the windshield and he was dragged 20–30 feet. He was diagnosed with “severe hypoxic brain injury with bed bound status with bowel bladder involvement”; his disability certificate records 100% permanent physical impairment. Aged 39, he left behind (in the functional sense) a wife, two school-going children and an 80-year-old mother, all now dependent on his compensation. The appeal was filed through his wife.
The MACT, South-West District, Dwarka, by award dated 16 March 2026, granted ₹1,52,76,996 with 7.5% interest. It took his income from a single year’s return (AY 2021-22, ₹2,48,153), deducted ₹9,95,015 received under Mediclaim, restricted pharmacy bills to ₹3 lakh and allowed only ₹1 lakh for attendant charges. The claimant appealed; the insurer, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance, defended the award.
The Key Question Before the Court
How should a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal assess compensation for a victim left permanently comatose — and can Mediclaim receipts be deducted, income be taken from a single COVID-affected year, or consortium be paid while the victim is alive?
How the High Court rebuilt the award
On income, the Court called the Tribunal’s approach of treating non-filing of the AY 2022-23 return as proof of nil income “completely unfair, unjust and illogical”. Following Rashmirekha Tripathy v. Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., it averaged three years’ ITR income (₹7,36,053, ₹5,03,623 and ₹2,48,153) to arrive at ₹4,95,943 a year and added 40% future prospects. On Mediclaim, following New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Dolly Satish Gandhi, (2026) 05 SC CK 0447, it set aside the deduction of ₹9,95,015, observing that the Mediclaim amount is “only a sequitur of premiums having been paid in the past” and that statutory compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act stands on a higher pedestal than a contractual insurance payout.
The Court accepted pharmacy bills corroborated by the treating doctor’s advice, treated online-purchased consumables as part of future medical needs, but upheld the rejection of Ayurvedic bills and of photocopied bills worth ₹2,09,512 for which no originals were proved. Relying on Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 02 SC CK 0004 and Abhimanyu Pratap Singh v. Nanita Sekhon, it applied a multiplier of 15 to recurring heads — attendant, nursing, physiotherapy and future medical expenses — and, following Bishan Singh v. Chinki and Sunil Kumar v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., held that “the cost of an attendant shall be assessed on the basis of minimum wages of a skilled worker” (₹19,473 a month on the accident date). It declined consortium, holding under National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 10 SC CK 0044, Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Sameem Begum v. K. Venkat Swamy that loss of consortium is payable in cases involving the “death” of a person.
What the Court Actually Held
- Income must be assessed fairly: where the latest return is missing, an average of three years’ ITRs is the just basis, not the lowest single year; 40% future prospects added.
- Mediclaim received by the victim cannot be deducted from motor accident compensation; the ₹9,95,015 deduction was set aside.
- Attendant charges for a permanently bed-ridden victim are to be computed on skilled-worker minimum wages with a multiplier; attendant/nursing rose from ₹1 lakh to ₹89,05,140, physiotherapy to ₹54 lakh and future medical expenses to ₹90 lakh.
- Total compensation enhanced from ₹1,52,76,996 to ₹4,26,09,147 (enhancement ₹2,73,32,151) with 7.5% interest from the petition date; deposit within six weeks, ₹25 lakh released at once and the balance in monthly-maturing FDRs, with any unreleased balance payable to clear the family’s borrowings.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It is a detailed template for computing compensation in catastrophic, lifelong-care injury cases, where recurring heads matter more than one-time expenses.
- It reinforces that a victim’s own prudence in buying health insurance cannot be used to reduce the insurer’s liability.
- It shows that tribunals must not penalise claimants for a missing tax return or a pandemic-hit year when earlier returns show real earning capacity.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Claimants
- Produce original bills and the treating doctor’s prescriptions; photocopies without proof of originals may be rejected even on appeal.
- Place several years of ITRs on record so the tribunal can average income instead of picking the lowest year.
- For bed-ridden victims, claim attendant, nursing and physiotherapy as lifelong recurring heads with a multiplier.
For Counsel
- Cite New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Dolly Satish Gandhi against any Mediclaim deduction.
- Seek skilled-worker minimum wages for attendants in total-disability cases, relying on Bishan Singh v. Chinki.
- Do not claim loss of consortium for a living victim before the Delhi High Court; the Court treated it as a death-case head.
Key Takeaways
- Comatose victim’s compensation raised to ₹4,26,09,147.
- Mediclaim payouts are not deductible from MACT compensation.
- Three-year ITR average used where the latest year was missing or depressed.
- Consortium not awarded where the injured person is alive.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can an insurance company reduce MACT compensation because the victim got Mediclaim?
No. Following the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Dolly Satish Gandhi, the Delhi High Court held the Mediclaim amount is the fruit of premiums the victim paid and cannot be deducted.
How are attendant charges calculated for a permanently disabled accident victim?
The Court assessed them on the minimum wages of a skilled worker on the date of the accident (₹19,473 a month here) and applied the multiplier of 15, treating them as lifelong expenses.
Is loss of consortium payable if the accident victim survives in a coma?
In this judgment, no. The Court read the Supreme Court’s decisions as making consortium payable in cases involving the death of a person, and declined it.
Conclusion
The judgment recognises the real cost of keeping a comatose person alive and cared for over decades, and refuses to let technical shortcuts — a missing return, a Mediclaim receipt, a token attendant figure — shrink that compensation. The more-than-doubled award reflects lifelong nursing, therapy and medical needs.
Practical takeaway: In grievous-injury MACT claims, build the file around lifelong recurring needs, original bills and multi-year income proof, and resist any deduction for Mediclaim.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com