Delhi High Court Enhances Motor Accident Compensation, Says Appellate Courts Can Grant ‘Just Compensation’ Without Cross-Appeal

The Delhi High Court partly allowed an appeal filed by an insurance company challenging a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award in a grievous injury case but ultimately enhanced the compensation payable to the victim.

Court modified the tribunal’s award of ₹1,25,35,440 and increased the amount to ₹1,25,84,913 with interest at the rate of 7.5 percent per annum.

The judgment by Justice Prateek Jalan reiterates that appellate courts may enhance compensation even when the claimant has not filed a cross appeal, if doing so is necessary to ensure “just compensation” under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

“It may be noted that by virtue of the present judgment, the compensation awarded stands enhanced, notwithstanding the absence of any cross-objection or cross-appeal on behalf of the claimant. In my view, such an exercise is legally permissible, particularly in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Surekha & Ors. v. Santosh & Ors.18 . I have also examined this aspect at length in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti & Ors.”, the Court observed.

The case arose from a road accident that took place on August 13, 2016 in Dadri, Uttar Pradesh. According to the record, the claimant was standing by the roadside near a college when he was struck by a car that was allegedly being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The collision caused severe injuries, and he was immediately taken to Columbia Asia Hospital in Ghaziabad for treatment.

Medical records showed that the victim suffered Diffuse Axonal Injury, a severe form of traumatic brain injury, along with a bimalleolar fracture. He remained hospitalized for nearly two months between August and October 2016 and underwent intensive treatment that included intubation and tracheostomy.

Subsequent medical evaluations revealed long term neurological and psychiatric complications. Records from the G.B. Pant Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research documented persistent neurological deficits, aggressive behavioural symptoms, and psychiatric issues that significantly impaired his daily functioning. A disability certificate issued on January 24, 2023 assessed his condition as 90 percent profound disability.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had earlier awarded compensation of approximately ₹1.25 crore along with interest. Challenging the decision, the insurance company filed an appeal before the High Court.

The insurer argued that the vehicle had been falsely implicated in the accident. It pointed to a delay of twelve days in the registration of the First Information Report and claimed that there were inconsistencies between the medico legal certificate and the testimony of witnesses. The company also questioned the reliability of the eye witness, noting that he was unable to read English letters forming part of the vehicle’s registration number.

The insurance company also challenged several components of the compensation awarded by the tribunal. It argued that claims under heads such as future medical expenses, special diet, attendant charges, and pain and suffering were not adequately supported by documentary evidence. It further relied on precedent of the Supreme Court of India to contend that loss of income should be calculated using the average income reflected in the claimant’s income tax returns for three years.

The claimant, however, defended the tribunal’s findings. He argued that the delay in lodging the FIR was justified because he had been hospitalized in critical condition immediately after the accident. He also emphasized that the police investigation ultimately resulted in filing of a charge sheet, confirming the involvement of the offending vehicle.

The High Court observed that proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities rather than the strict standards of proof applicable in criminal trials. Relying on established precedents of the Supreme Court, the Court held that the filing of a charge sheet itself constitutes strong corroborative evidence of negligence.

After examining the record, the Court rejected the insurer’s challenge to the finding of negligence. It held that minor inconsistencies in medical documentation could not override consistent oral testimony and the outcome of the police investigation.

While reviewing the quantum of compensation, the Court recalculated certain pecuniary heads. It deducted ₹30,000 from medical expenses for unsupported miscellaneous claims. The Court also reassessed the claimant’s income by averaging two assessment years due to abnormal fluctuations in post accident earnings. As a result, the calculation of loss of future earnings was reduced from ₹70.71 lakh to approximately ₹66.70 lakh.

At the same time, the Court significantly enhanced compensation under other heads. Recognizing that the claimant would require lifelong medical supervision due to neurological and psychiatric complications, the Court increased the amount awarded for future medical expenses from ₹5 lakh to ₹7 lakh.

The Court also enhanced compensation for loss of amenities from ₹2 lakh to ₹5 lakh. It observed that the claimant’s social life, personal independence, and ability to participate in normal activities had been permanently devastated as a result of the accident.

In assessing disability, the Court noted that although the medical certificate recorded 90 percent disability, the claimant’s functional disability was effectively 100 percent because the injuries had completely destroyed his earning capacity.

After recalculating all heads of compensation, the Court enhanced the total award to ₹1,25,84,913 with interest at 7.5 percent per annum from July 31, 2018, the date of filing of the claim petition.

The insurance company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within eight weeks. The High Court also maintained the earlier disbursement scheme under which ₹1 crore of the compensation amount is to remain in fixed deposits for the long term financial security of the claimant.

With these directions, the appeal was disposed of and the parties were directed to appear before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for compliance proceedings.

Case Title: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Saleem Khan Mewati & Ors.

Bench: Justice Prateek Jalan

Date of Judgement: March 3, 2026