Family of Comatose Accident Victim Cannot Be Faulted for Not Filing Tax Return for Accident Year, Rules Delhi High Court

Family of Comatose Accident Victim Cannot Be Faulted for Not Filing Tax Return for Accident Year, Rules Delhi High Court in Bharat Ghai v. Raju Grover

Case: Bharat Ghai (Through His Wife Harpreet Kaur) v. Raju Grover (Since Deceased) Through His LRs and Another
Citation: 2026:DHC:9958
Date of Judgment: 06 November 2026
Court: Delhi High Court
Coram: Justice Anish Dayal
Proceedings: MAC.APP. 374/2026

Court Observation

“The MACT thereafter proceeded to hold that the non-filing of ITR for AY 2022-2023 warranted an inference that the injured/claimant did not have any taxable income during the said assessment year. This determination is completely unfair, unjust and illogical.”

Summary

The Delhi High Court has enhanced the compensation of a comatose accident victim from Rs 1,52,76,996 to Rs 4,26,09,147, holding that a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cannot draw an adverse inference against a claimant left comatose by an accident because his income tax return for the year of the accident was not filed. Bharat Ghai, then 39 and engaged in event management, was struck by a car on 11 February 2022 near BSF Camp, Chhawala, while helping his children out of his parked vehicle. He suffered severe hypoxic brain injury, has remained comatose and bedridden, and has been certified as having 100 per cent permanent impairment that is “not likely to improve”.

The Tribunal had taken his income for Assessment Year 2021-22, Rs 2,48,153, as the benchmark, treating the non-filing of the return for the accident year as proof of no taxable income. The Court held that the family could not be expected to collate and piece together his financial records for the year in which he met with the accident, and applied the Supreme Court’s decision in Rashmirekha Tripathy v. Sriram General Insurance (2026), taking the average of three years’ returns as the benchmark income, fixed at Rs 4,95,943. The Court set aside the deduction of Rs 9,95,015 received under a Mediclaim policy, allowed the pharmacy bills, and declined compensation for loss of consortium, holding that the head is payable only on death.

Key Holdings

  • A Tribunal cannot infer that an injured claimant had no taxable income merely because his return for the year of the accident was not filed, where the claimant has been left comatose; the family cannot be expected to collate his financial records in the aftermath of such a tragedy.
  • For a self-employed claimant, the benchmark income is the average of the income specified in the income tax returns of the previous three years, following Rashmirekha Tripathy v. Sriram General Insurance (2026).
  • An amount received under a Mediclaim policy cannot be deducted from the compensation payable.
  • Compensation towards loss of consortium is payable only in cases involving the death of a person, and cannot be awarded to the family of an injured claimant in a coma.
  • A COVID-hit year cannot be taken in isolation as the benchmark where the claimant’s industry was badly affected; the three-year average offsets that distortion.

Directions Issued

  • The enhanced amount of Rs 2,73,32,151 is to be deposited within six weeks with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum.
  • Rs 25 lakh is to be released within two weeks thereafter, and the balance released as a lump sum to enable the wife to repay borrowings.

Background

The claim was pursued by Ghai’s wife as his next friend. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dwarka Courts, had awarded Rs 1,52,76,996 by an award dated 16 March 2026, against which the claimant appealed seeking enhancement.

Related Articles

Judgment Link: Read the full judgment (PDF)

Disclaimer: This is a summary prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should refer to the official judgment for the authoritative text.

Tags: , ,