MAC.APP./641/2026 of UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs SH DEEPAK BAINAD & ORS. on 30 September 2026

O R D E R

%

30.09.2026

1. This appeal has been filed assailing impugned award dated 24th April 2026, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi [MACT/Tribunal], in MACT No. 182/2021, whereby compensation of Rs.1,10,43,616/- along with interest @ 9% per annum, was awarded [impugned award], in relation to an accident, which occurred on 22nd July 2021, when injured/claimant, who was 27 years of age at the time, was riding his motorcycle, and was hit from behind by a DTC bus, resulting in 55% permanent disability in relation to his right lower limb.

2. Ms. Mahua Kalra, counsel for Insurance Company, raises an objection to the compensation awarded towards attendant charges.

3. The MACT while calculating the aforesaid amount took into account the nature of his vocation as a ‘nursing attendant’, and assessed his functional disability was assessed at 60%. Further, on basis of the testimony of PW-2/Mr. Mohit Tyagi and PW-5/Dr. Sukhvinder Singh, it was noted that he would not be able to travel without assistance and would require lifelong services of an attendant to perform his day to day activities. Since the minimum wages of an attendant, claimed at Rs.15,900/- per month, had not been disputed by the Insurance Company, the compensation towards attendant charges was calculated at Rs.32,43,600/- by adopting a multiplier of 17.

4. Considering that PW-5/Dr. Sukhvinder Singh, had not been cross- examined on the aspect of the attendant services required, or whether the injured/claimant would require the attendant at all points of time, or not, the compensation awarded towards attendant charges cannot be displaced.

5. Yet another issue has been raised by Ms. Mahua Kalra, counsel for Insurance Company, regarding the compensation awarded towards future physiotherapy treatment, whereby Rs.500/- per physiotherapy session has been awarded, for 15 days in a month, i.e. Rs.7,500/- per month. As regards this issue, she states that it cannot be ascertained whether physiotherapy would be required by the injured/claimant, on a lifelong basis.

6. However, the Court does not consider the compensation so awarded to be an exaggerated amount, particularly when the MACT has assessed the same on a rational basis, having regard to the requirement of physiotherapy.

7. Ms. Kalra, counsel for Insurance Company, further contends that the interest awarded at the rate of 9% per annum, in respect of an accident, which occurred in 2021, is not in consonance with the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2001) 2 SCC 9.

8. Accordingly, considering that the lending rates, as notified by the

Reserve Bank of India [‘RBI’], at the time of the accident, had been 6% per annum, the rate of interest is reduced to 6% per annum.

9. The Insurance Company shall deposit the compensation amount, along with accrued interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of filing the petition, before the MACT, which shall thereafter be released in favour of the injured/claimant as per directions passed by the MACT vide impugned award.

10. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

11. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.

12. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to Insurance Company/owner only if the order of deposit has been complied with.

13. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J SEPTEMBER 30, 2026/MK/ya