Synopsis

The appellant, a third‑year B.Tech student, was grievously injured in a motor vehicle accident on 4th December 2010. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded him compensation of Rs. 6,19,386/-, but rejected his claim for loss of future income on the ground that he was a student. The High Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in S. Mohammed Hakkim v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2025), held that a student pursuing an engineering degree cannot be equated to an unskilled worker. Notional income was fixed at Rs. 20,000/- per month. Adding 40% future prospects, applying multiplier of 17, and assessing functional disability at 20% (based on 29% physical impairment of the left lower limb), the court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 17,83,286/-. The enhanced amount was directed to be deposited with interest at 9% per annum from the date of disability assessment.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Justice Anish Dayal

Date of Judgment: 9th April 2026

Citation: MAC.APP.860/2013 (2026:DHC:3066)

Core Law: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – compensation for personal injury; assessment of notional income of student; future prospects; functional disability

2. Legal Framework

Major laws and provisions involved

• Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 (claim for compensation), Section 168 (award of compensation)

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 279 (rash driving), 338 (causing grievous hurt by act endangering life)

Key legal principles applied

• Notional income of a student: A student undergoing a degree course, especially in engineering from a recognised institution, cannot be treated at par with an unskilled worker drawing minimum wages. The notional income should reflect the earning potential after completion of studies. Campus placement offers are a relevant indicator.

• Future prospects for students: Even for a student with no actual income at the time of accident, future prospects (typically 40%) are to be added to the notional income, following the principles in Pranay Sethi.

• Functional disability: The percentage of physical impairment certified by a Disability Board is not automatically the percentage of loss of earning capacity. The tribunal must assess functional disability based on the nature of the claimant’s profession and the impact of the disability on his earning capacity (as per Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar).

• Subsuming minor heads: Heads such as “loss of fees” and “loss of studies” are subsumed within “loss of amenities of life” when the permanent disability affects overall quality of life and academic progression.

• Interest from date of disability assessment: When loss of future income could not be determined until the Disability Board assessed the permanent impairment, interest on the enhanced amount runs from the date of that assessment, no

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.