Lifelong nursing at Rs 30,000 a month: Delhi HC lifts a crash award from Rs 1.30 to 4.05 crore
Justice Anish Dayal enhanced compensation for a 21-year-old left in a vegetative state, applying a multiplier of 18 to nursing, attendant, physiotherapy and future medical costs, while rejecting the insurer plea to cut income and non-pecuniary heads.
Parth Sareen was 21 when a Mahindra Bolero hit the Honda City he was travelling in, at about 3.45 am on 30 January 2024 near the Shadipur flyover in Delhi. He has been in a vegetative state ever since. A Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had awarded him Rs 1.30 crore.
On 6 November 2026 the Delhi High Court raised that figure to Rs 4,05,21,616. Most of the Rs 2.74 crore increase pays for people: a nurse, an attendant and a physiotherapist, counted over the rest of his life.
Justice Anish Dayal heard two cross appeals together. ICICI Lombard General Insurance, the insurer of the Bolero, wanted the award cut. Mr Sareen wanted it raised.
What the Tribunal awarded
The Tribunal at Tis Hazari Courts, in its award of 17 March 2025, treated functional disability as 100 per cent, since the claimant was bedridden. It awarded Rs 1,30,53,544 with interest at 6 per cent a year.
Its largest item was Rs 91,53,950 for loss of future income. It took his income at Rs 30,271 a month, the salary from his last job, and applied a multiplier of 18 and future prospects of 40 per cent.
He was not working when the crash happened, so nothing was added for loss of income before the award. For attendant and nursing charges the Tribunal gave Rs 10,26,000, covering only 10 months.
The Tribunal awarded nothing for future medical expenses or physiotherapy. Pain and suffering, loss of amenities and loss of marriage prospects were put at Rs 5 lakh each, with Rs 5 lakh more for hardship in future life.
The insurer’s case
Mr Ved Vyas Tripathi appeared for the insurer. He argued that since Mr Sareen had no job on the day of the crash, income should be notional, at minimum wages.
The last salary of Rs 30,271 came from a job that ended nine months earlier, he said. He also argued that the non-pecuniary awards were exaggerated, and that Rs 400 a month for Mediclaim should come off the salary.
The claimant’s case
Mr Dhananjay Gupta appeared for the claimant. He defended the use of the last drawn salary and asked for more on care: nursing and attendant charges had been granted for 10 months only, though they are continuing costs.
He said physiotherapy had been left out entirely, and future medical expenses with it. He also sought interest at 7 per cent.
He relied on Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sinha, where the Supreme Court looked at what a claimant had earned two years before the crash to estimate potential income.
For the care heads he cited a Delhi High Court decision, Bishan Singh v. Chinki, which gave two attendants at a skilled worker’s minimum wage to a claimant in coma.
Why the income finding stood
The court found no fault with the Tribunal on income. There was no specific job at the time of the crash, and Mr Sareen was in a vegetative state throughout his treatment and has not recovered.
Loss of future income was taken on what he earned as of 31 March 2023, nine months before the accident. There was no evidence that he earned more in those nine months, the court said, so the last earned income was the right base.
On Mediclaim, the court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in New India Assurance Co Ltd v. Dolly Satish Gandhi. A Mediclaim benefit comes from a contract of reimbursement, independent of the statutory benefit under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, so the claimant gets no double benefit. The court refused to deduct Rs 400.
The medical record behind the care claim
The claimant was taken from a government hospital to BLK Hospital, where he stayed until 29 May 2024 and was readmitted in June, August, October and December that year. BLK advised that an intensive care unit be set up at his home.
The first discharge summary recorded him on a tracheostomy tube, with spastic quadriparesis, fed through a Ryles tube and on a urinary catheter. He needed two-hourly changes of position, regular suctioning of the tracheostomy tube and physiotherapy at home.
The later summaries repeated those needs. Dr Atul Dua of BLK Max testified that the patient required nursing care, an attendant and physiotherapy at home. Neither he nor the claimant’s mother was cross-examined by the insurer on those points.
What the Supreme Court has said on care
Justice Dayal began with Sunil Kumar v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance, where the Supreme Court raised disability to 100 per cent for a claimant who would need an attendant throughout his life. That court applied the multiplier method to attendant charges.
He then set out Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, the source of the method. There the Supreme Court said that the multiplier factors in inflation, interest on the lump sum, longevity and the uncertainties of life, and is the most realistic and reasonable method.
Two more Supreme Court rulings followed. In Jithendran, a conservative Rs 5,000 a month for an attendant, multiplied by 18, was added, and future medical costs were enhanced. In Abhimanyu Pratap Singh v. Nanita Sekhon, two attendants a day and physiotherapy at Rs 150 a day were allowed on the same method.
The court also noted its own decision in Siyaram Singh v. Reliance General Insurance, which enhanced compensation for attendant charges, special diet, diapers, physiotherapy and other heads.
One attendant, one nurse, multiplied by 18
Justice Dayal said the family was under extreme pressure, and that the claimant’s dignity of life, continued treatment and full-time care had to be provided for. He granted one attendant and one nurse.
For the attendant, he used the minimum wage of a skilled worker at the time of the accident, Rs 21,917 a month. With a multiplier of 18 that gives Rs 47,34,072.
Nursing needs more skill. Given the tracheostomy tube, Ryles tube feeding, change of position and medical management, the court set it higher, at Rs 30,000 a month. Multiplied by 12 and 18, that is Rs 64,80,000.
Together the two come to Rs 1,12,14,072, against the Tribunal’s Rs 10,26,000 under the same head.
Future medical costs without full proof
The claimant said the family had spent Rs 4,11,095 on treatment in the 16 months after the award until July 2026, or Rs 25,694 a month. Disposables such as diapers, bed sheets, gloves and wipes had cost about Rs 14,90,400, or Rs 93,150 a month.
Mr Gupta put the average at Rs 50,000 a month and, with a multiplier of 18, claimed Rs 1.08 crore. The court noted that the bills filed in appeal had not been duly proved.
That did not decide it. The court called it a settled principle that
“compensation under MV Act, cannot be awarded on pittance” (para 41)
For a claimant in a vegetative state, it said, the court must make a reasonable estimate, since future costs cannot be proved to the rupee. It accepted Rs 50,000 a month for all medical expenses and awarded Rs 1,08,00,000.
Physiotherapy and interest
Physiotherapy bills of Rs 60,000 and Rs 62,000 had been exhibited before the Tribunal. The claimant said physiotherapy was costing about Rs 900 a session, or Rs 27,000 a month.
The court took Rs 30,000 a month, or Rs 1,000 a day, since he will need it for life. With the multiplier, that gave Rs 64,80,000.
On interest, the court relied on Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance, under which the rate on nationalised bank fixed deposits is the guide. It found that rates in 2024 were in the range of 6.50 to 7 per cent, and raised interest from 6 to 7 per cent.
What stayed the same
The insurer’s plea to reduce the non-pecuniary heads was rejected, given the claimant’s condition. Medical bills of Rs 1,73,594, conveyance of Rs 1 lakh and special diet of Rs 1 lakh stayed as awarded.
So did the Rs 91,53,950 for loss of future income, and the four non-pecuniary heads of Rs 5 lakh, Rs 10 lakh (pain and suffering combined with mental shock), Rs 5 lakh and Rs 5 lakh.
Order
The total compensation is Rs 4,05,21,616, with 7 per cent interest from the date of filing the petition. The enhancement is Rs 2,74,68,072. The enhanced amount with interest is to be deposited before the Tribunal within six weeks.
Within two weeks after that, Rs 25 lakh with accrued interest goes to the claimant. The remainder is to be held in fixed deposits of Rs 1 lakh each, maturing at one month, two months, three months and so on, with the interest credited to his savings account.
On 30 May 2025 the court had stayed the award on condition that the insurer deposit the full amount, and had allowed 75 per cent of it to be released to the claimant. On 15 October 2026 it also directed release of Rs 15 lakh.
Both appeals are disposed of. The insurer’s statutory deposit is to be refunded only if the deposit order was complied with.