MAC.APP./598/2026 of ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs MONIKA PAREEK & ANR. on 14 September 2026

O R D E R

%

14.09.2026

1. This appeal has been filed by appellant/Insurance Company assailing impugned award dated 23rd April 2026, passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi [‘MACT/Tribunal’] in Misc. DJ No. 3094/2024, whereby compensation of Rs.34,38,437/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, was awarded, in relation to an accident which occurred on 03rd May 2024.

2. The aforesaid accident occurred when injured/claimant was going to her office at AIIMS Hospital, New Delhi, where she was working as a ‘Senior Nursing Officer’, on her scooty. When she crossed Kirbi Place Red Light, the offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL-l2CW-9994, which was allegedly being driven in a rash and negligent manner, came from the wrong side and hit her scooty.

3. The disability certificate, issued on 24th February 2025, by Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, recorded that the injured/claimant suffered “permanent physical impairment in relation to right upper limb and left lower limb up to 9%”. On this basis, the MACT assessed her functional disability at 9% in relation to the whole body, for the purpose of calculating the loss of future income.

4. Mr. Vishnu Mehra, Senior counsel for appellant/Insurance Company, challenges the assessment of functional disability at 9%, on the ground that there was no evidence to show that injured/claimant had suffered a loss of salary, nor was any medical evidence led by injured/claimant to show that she would, in fact, have any impediment in continuing her regular job.

5. In this regard, the attention of this Court is drawn to paragraph 9 of the testimony of PW1 [injured/claimant], wherein she stated that she was not able to walk properly, could not lift anything from the right hand and was also unable to do household work.

6. Mr. Vishnu Mehra, Senior counsel for appellant/Insurance Company however, states that there is no evidence to prove the aforesaid.

7. Nevertheless, as rightly noted by the MACT, PW1 had categorically stated during her cross-examination that she was not able to walk normally and was not able to drive a scooter after the accident. She stated that she had joined her job after six months, and was assigned a desk/sitting job. Her promotion had been kept on hold and there was a high chance that she would not be promoted in the future. There was no further confrontation by the Insurance Company in this regard.

8. Furthermore, the testimony of PW2, Sh. Deepak Prasad, Assistant Administrative Officer, AIIMS, New Delhi, has also been perused by this Court, wherein he categorically states that due to the accident, the injured/ claimant would face a problem in her future promotion, as the leaves taken by her would affect her Annual Confidence Report [‘ACR’].

9. In these circumstances, the Court is not inclined to intercede with the impugned award passed by the MACT. The functional disability, considering these impediments to the physical capacities of the claimant, as also her job of nursing in a premier hospital, was reasonable and not exaggerated, as is being asserted by the appellant’s counsel.

10. In view of the aforesaid, appeal of appellant/Insurance Company stands dismissed.

11. Pending applications are rendered infructuous.

12. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to the appellant/Insurance Company.

13. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

ANISH DAYAL, J SEPTEMBER 14, 2026/ak/ya