The courtroom was quiet but attentive when the Supreme Court took up a long-running motor accident compensation dispute involving an Indian Army serviceman and an insurance company. By the end of the hearing, the message was clear. The top court was not impressed with the sharp cut made by the Delhi High Court in the compensation earlier awarded to the injured soldier.
Background
The case arose from a road accident that took place in October 2010 near Sagarpur Road in Delhi Cantonment. The claimant, then 32 years old and serving as a Lance Naik in the Indian Army, was hit by a car driven rashly. He suffered serious injuries that left him with a permanent disability.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Declines Arbitration Route in New India Assurance–HDFC Bank Lease Dispute
A claim was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) at Dwarka under the Motor Vehicles Act, which allows accident victims to seek monetary relief. In 2017, the Tribunal awarded compensation of ₹19.12 lakh with interest, accepting medical evidence that showed an 18% whole-body disability and its impact on future earning capacity.
However, this award did not stand for long. The insurer, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., challenged the amount before the Delhi High Court. In 2024, the High Court drastically reduced the compensation to just over ₹4.18 lakh, mainly by removing the amount granted for loss of future earnings.
Read also:- Supreme Court Defers Hearing in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey Case, Allows States to Continue
Court’s Observations
Hearing the appeal, the Supreme Court of India took a very different view. The Bench noted that the claimant’s profession could not be treated like a desk job. “An Army posting demands peak physical fitness,” the court observed, adding that even if a soldier continues in service, disability can still weaken efficiency, prospects, and long-term career growth.
The judges pointed out that the High Court had gone too far by re-evaluating evidence already assessed by the Tribunal. Referring to earlier rulings, the Bench underlined that loss of earning capacity does not disappear simply because an injured person remains employed. The court observed, in substance, that requiring strict proof of lost promotions in such cases would be unrealistic.
In simple terms, the Supreme Court said compensation is not only about whether someone quits their job, but whether the injury reduces what they can reasonably earn and achieve in the future.
Read also:- Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects State's Land Acquisition Appeal, Upholds Enhanced
Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court restored the Tribunal’s original award of ₹19,12,844, holding that the reduction by the High Court was unjustified. The insurer was directed to deposit the amount with interest and transfer it directly to the claimant’s bank account within four weeks.
Case Title: Soni Sharma v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others
Case No.: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 20569 of 2025
Case Type: Motor Accident Compensation / Civil Appeal
Decision Date: 5 December 2025