Delhi High Court Raises Compensation To ₹4.05 Crore For Accident Victim In Vegetative State, Grants Lifelong Nursing, Physiotherapy, Medical Care And Seven Percent Interest
Delhi High Court Rejects ICICI Lombard Challenge, Enhances Compensation By ₹2.74 Crore For Young Road Accident Victim With Total Functional Disability And Lifelong Care Needs
Facts
On 30 January 2024, a collision near Delhi’s Shadipur Flyover involving a Mahindra Bolero and a Honda City left 21-year-old Parth Sareen with a traumatic brain injury and in a vegetative state. Another passenger died. Sareen, represented by his mother as next friend, required tracheostomy care, tube feeding, nursing, attendant assistance and regular physiotherapy. On 17 March 2025, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Tis Hazari, assessed his functional disability at 100% and awarded ₹1,30,53,544 with 6% annual interest. ICICI Lombard appealed for reduction; Sareen cross-appealed seeking enhancement, particularly for lifelong treatment and assistance.
Issues
Whether the MACT properly determined the injured claimant’s pre-accident earning capacity despite unemployment on the accident date; whether the initial allowance for nursing and attendants covered lifelong dependence; whether further sums were warranted for future medical treatment and physiotherapy; whether non-pecuniary damages should be reduced; and whether 6% interest should be increased.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The insurer, appellant in MAC.APP. 377/2025, argued that because Sareen was unemployed when the accident occurred, his income should be assessed at statutory minimum wages instead of his last salary of ₹30,271 per month, earned approximately nine months earlier. It also sought a ₹400 Mediclaim deduction from that salary and contended that the tribunal’s non-pecuniary awards were excessive. Its appeal accordingly sought reduction in the overall compensation.
Respondent’s Arguments
Sareen, claimant and cross-appellant in MAC.APP. 614/2026, supported the last-drawn salary as evidence of his earning potential. His counsel stressed that the tribunal had provided only ten months’ nursing and attendant charges despite irreversible dependence on skilled care. The medical discharge summaries required continuous nursing, tube feeding, repositioning and physiotherapy. He sought future medical and physiotherapy expenses and 7% interest. His mother described the ICU-like care arranged at home and the recurring financial burden on the family.
Analysis of the Law
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 requires just and reasonable compensation reflecting the injured person’s actual condition, future earning loss and continuing care needs. The Court accepted the MACT’s use of the claimant’s last salary of ₹30,271, a multiplier of 18, 40% future prospects and 100% functional disability; temporary unemployment did not erase demonstrated earning capacity. Long-term attendant expenses can be assessed by the multiplier method rather than an arbitrary short period. Mediclaim reimbursement and statutory motor-accident compensation arise from different legal entitlements and are not interchangeable. Section 171 permits reasonable interest on compensation from filing.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sinha (2025) to recognise earning potential despite a gap in employment, and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Dolly Satish Gandhi (2026) to reject the insurer’s Mediclaim deduction. Sunil Kumar v. IFFCO Tokio (2026) supported treating complete lifelong dependence as 100% functional disability. Kajal v. Jagdish Chand (2020) 4 SCC 413, Jithendran v. New India Assurance (2022) 15 SCC 620 and Abhimanyu Pratap Singh v. Nanita Sekhon (2022) 8 SCC 489 informed multiplier-based attendant, physiotherapy and future-care awards. Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance (2001) 2 SCC 9 guided interest.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Anish Dayal noted that Sareen remained in a vegetative state, with hospital records requiring constant suctioning, tube feeding, position changes and physiotherapy. These lifelong needs could not be compensated through ten months of assistance. Using multiplier 18, the Court awarded ₹47,34,072 for a regular attendant at ₹21,917 monthly and ₹64,80,000 for skilled nursing at ₹30,000 monthly—a combined ₹1,12,14,072. It separately allowed ₹1,08,00,000 for future medical expenses at ₹50,000 monthly and ₹64,80,000 for physiotherapy at ₹30,000 monthly. Although some later bills were not formally proved, the Court made reasonable prospective estimates based on established needs and rejected reductions to non-pecuniary damages.
Conclusion
The Court raised total compensation from ₹1,30,53,544 to ₹4,05,21,616, an enhancement of ₹2,74,68,072, with interest increased from 6% to 7% per annum. The enhanced sum with interest from the claim petition’s filing must be deposited before MACT within six weeks. Of that deposit, ₹25 lakh plus accrued interest is to be released within a further two weeks; the balance is to be invested in staggered fixed deposits. Existing directions governing the previously deposited award remain in effect. Both cross-appeals were disposed of accordingly.
Case: ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parth Sareen; connected Parth Sareen v. ICICI Lombard
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case Number: MAC.APP. 377/2025 & MAC.APP. 614/2026; 2026:DHC:9918
Judge: Justice Anish Dayal
Date: 6 November 2026 (reserved 15 October 2026)
Result: Claimant’s compensation enhanced to ₹4,05,21,616 plus 7% interest; insurer’s reduction grounds rejected; appeals disposed of.
