Compensation Cannot Be Awarded On Pittance: Delhi High Court Says Vegetative-State MACT Claims Need Reasonable Estimation, Not Proved Bills Alone

The Court enhanced the compensation by Rs. 2,74,68,072, raising the total to Rs. 4,05,21,616, and increased the interest rate from 6% to 7% per annum. It also rejected the insurer’s plea for deduction of Mediclaim contributions, holding that the statutory entitlement under the MV Act stands on a higher pedestal than contractual Mediclaim benefits.

A Single Bench of Justice Anish Dayal observed, “It is a settled principle of law that compensation under MV Act, cannot be awarded on pittance. It is the duty of the Court to award just and reasonable compensation. In cases where the injured claimant remains in a vegetative state, quantification of compensation necessarily requires the Court to make a reasonable estimation, having regard to the attendant circumstances and practical realities, as the actual and future expenses cannot always be precisely ascertained or awarded on the basis of proved expenditure alone. Accordingly, the compensation awarded herein has been assessed by applying the multiplier method, with a view to ensuring a degree of standardisation in the assessment of compensation while striving to arrive at an amount that is just, reasonable and adequate in the facts and circumstances of the present case”.

Advocate Ved Vyas Tripathi appeared for the appellant and Advocate Dhananjay Gupta appeared for the respondent.

The claimant, then 21, was travelling in a Honda City car that collided with a Mahindra Bolero near Shadipur Flyover, Delhi, on January 30, 2024. He suffered traumatic brain injury and went into a vegetative state. BLK Hospital advised setting up an ICU at his home, where the claim was pursued by his mother as next friend.

Through an award dated March 17, 2025, the MACT, Tis Hazari Courts, granted Rs. 1,30,53,544 with 6% interest, taking his last drawn salary of Rs. 30,271 as notional income. Attendant and nursing charges were granted only for ten months, and nothing was awarded towards physiotherapy or future medical expenses. The insurer sought reduction, contending that minimum wages ought to apply, while the claimant sought enhancement.

The Court upheld the notional income, noting that there was no evidence of higher earnings in the nine months before the accident. It further held that attendant charges for lifelong disability must be computed using the multiplier method. It noted that the discharge summaries recorded tracheostomy, Ryles tube feeding and two-hourly position changes, and that the treating neurosurgeon was not cross-examined. Observing that nursing requires higher skill than a regular attendant, it fixed nursing charges at Rs. 30,000 per month. It added that though the post-award bills were not duly proved, the Court was conscious of the claimant’s plight and the family’s emotional, physical and financial fatigue.

The Court awarded Rs. 47,34,072 for a regular attendant at skilled minimum wages, Rs. 64,80,000 for a nursing attendant, Rs. 64,80,000 towards physiotherapy and Rs. 1,08,00,000 towards future medical expenses, each applying a multiplier of 18. The insurer’s challenge to the non-pecuniary heads was rejected. The enhanced amount is to be deposited within six weeks, with Rs. 25 lakh to be released within two weeks thereafter and the balance kept in FDRs.

Cause Title: ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parth Sareen (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:9918)

Appearances:

Appellant: Advocate Ved Vyas Tripathi.

Respondent: Advocates Dhananjay Gupta, Parth Bajaj and Kapil Bajaj.

Click here to read/download the Judgment