The Delhi High Court has enhanced the compensation awarded to a school teacher who suffered 84% permanent disability in a road accident, holding that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) had grossly under-assessed her functional disability and future prospects, while also enhancing the amount awarded for loss of a foetus she was carrying at the time of the accident.

A Single Bench of Justice Anish Dayal was hearing an appeal filed by the injured claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the MACT, Saket Courts, which had granted her ₹40,91,841/- along with 7.5% interest per annum.

​

BACKGROUND​

The appellant, a teacher employed with an SDMC Primary School, was hit from behind by an offending vehicle on 6th December 2018 while walking to school, sustaining grievous injuries and resulting in 84% permanent disability in both lower limbs. She also lost a six-month-old foetus as a consequence of the accident.

The MACT had assessed her functional disability at only 10%, granted future prospects at 25%, computed attendant charges on the basis of ₹6,000/- per month, and awarded ₹5,00,000/- towards loss of the foetus, ₹2,00,000/- towards loss of amenities of life, and a total compensation of ₹40,91,841/-.

​

ARGUMENTS​

Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Varun Tyagi, argued that the 10% functional disability assessed by the Tribunal was wholly disproportionate to her certified 84% permanent disability, and that future prospects ought to have been pegged at 30% given her permanent employment and age of 41 years at the time of the accident. It was further submitted that attendant charges should have been computed on the basis of minimum wages of an unskilled worker (₹13,896/-), that compensation for loss of amenities of life was meagre, and that the ₹5,00,000/- awarded for loss of the foetus was inadequate — more so since the appellant had also lost her ability to conceive in future and her husband had since left her.

Mr. Brijesh Bagga, counsel for the insurance company, resisted enhancement, contending that the appellant had a pre-existing 40% functional disability on account of dwarfism which had already been factored in, that a separate claim ought to have been filed for loss of the foetus since it pertained to a separate life, that her income had in fact increased post-accident, and that there was no evidence establishing the need for an attendant.

​​

COURT'S OBSERVATION

On functional disability: The Court held that even applying the principles in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, a functional disability of 10% against a certified 84% permanent disability was "a highly depressed figure." It clarified that the pre-existing 40% disability due to dwarfism had no relevance to the fresh disability caused to the lower limbs by the accident, and that a teacher's job requires considerable mobility and standing, with reduced scope for postings and promotions. The functional disability was accordingly revised to 60%.

​

On future prospects: Relying on National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the Court held future prospects ought to be pegged at 30%, not 25%, given the appellant's permanent employment.

On attendant charges: The Court found, based on photographs, medical records and the disability certificate, that the appellant would undoubtedly require an attendant, and that minimum wages of an unskilled worker in Delhi (₹13,896/-) ought to be applied, along with a multiplier of 14.

​

On loss of foetus: Surveying the law on the subject — including Prakash & Ors. v. Arun Kumar Saini, Raghav Singh v. Dinesh Kumar & Ors. (2023:DHC:5590), and Shiv Kumar v. Gainda Lal, (2022) 14 SCC 342 — the Court rejected the insurer's contention that a separate claim ought to have been filed for loss of the foetus. It noted that English law's "born alive rule" (Paton v. British Pregnancy Advisory Service Trustees; Burton v. Islington Health Authority) has been criticised as outdated, and that even under that framework, a mother could claim compensation for the personal injury and emotional distress caused by loss of an unborn child, as recognised in Giardina v. Bennet by the New Jersey Supreme Court. The Court observed that its own precedent in Prakash had already departed from the born alive rule by treating the unborn child as a "person." Considering that ₹5,00,000/- had been awarded in Raghav Singh for an accident that occurred years earlier, and keeping in mind the beneficial object of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Court enhanced the amount to ₹7,50,000/-, while accepting the insurer's request that this determination not be treated as a precedent for future cases.

On continued income: Addressing the insurer's objection that the appellant's income had increased post-accident, the Court relied on its earlier decision in Govind Singh Mauni v. Tej Bhan & Ors., 2026:DHC:102, applying a multiplier of 9 to account for post-retirement loss of earning potentiality, reasoning that while the appellant continued to draw her salary with increments, she would suffer a loss of potentiality to earn after retirement.

​​

HELD

The Court enhanced the compensation by ₹41,79,628/-, to be deposited along with 7.5% interest per annum before the MACT within four weeks. It directed release of ₹3,00,000/- as a lump sum to the claimant, with the remaining enhanced amount to be kept in periodic Fixed Deposit Receipts of ₹25,000/- each, with accrued interest credited to her savings account. The original compensation already deposited was directed to continue being disbursed as per the scheme earlier set out by the MACT.

​

APPERANCE

For the Appellant: Mr. Varun Tyagi, Mr. Bharat Gupta and Mr. Ishan Srivastava, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Brijesh Bagga, Advocate for R-1

​

Case Title: Ms. Anshu Kashyap v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: MAC.APP. 15/2026
Citation: 2026 SCC OnLine Del 5345
Coram: Justice Anish Dayal
Date of Judgment: July 13, 2026