Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 26th February 2026
MUNNI DEVI & ANR .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Shekhar Aggarwal, Advocate
Through: Ms. Archana Gaur, Advocate with Ms. Ridhima Gaur, Advocate.
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed assailing judgment/Award dated 12th September 2018 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [‘MACT’] in MACT No. 2242/2016, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded at Rs. 5,22,000/- with interest at 9% per annum. Incident
2. The accident occurred on 24th July 2016 at about 11:40 a.m., involving a scooter being driven by the deceased Vijay Kumar, and his friend Anil as the pillion rider. A truck bearing No.UK-18CA-1231 [‘offending vehicle’] suddenly collided with the scooter and caused MAC APP 1115/2018 2 of 11 fatal injuries to both.
3. FIR No. 482/2016 under Section 279/338/304A/427 of Indian Penal Code 1860 [‘IPC’] was lodged at Police Station Kotwali, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Driver [respondent no. 1] was apprehended. Offending vehicle was owned by respondent no. 2 and was insured by respondent no.3/ Insurance Company.
4. Written statements were filed by respondent nos. 1 [driver] and 2 [owner], stating that they had been falsely implicated, as no accident had taken place due to their negligence. Respondent no.3/Insurance Company took the defence that the deceased was not holding a valid driving license to drive a scooter. Compensation awarded
5. For the purpose of determining compensation under the structured formula of the Second Schedule, the MACT assessed the age of the deceased as 20 years and applied multiplier ‘16’. In the absence of documentary proof of income, the Tribunal adopted the notional income of Rs.40,000/- per annum and deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses.
6. On this basis, the MACT assessed the loss of estate at Rs.5,06,667/-. In addition, compensation of Rs.15,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses.
7. The total compensation was assessed at Rs.5,21,667/-, rounded off to Rs.5,22,000/-, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization, payable by the respondent no.3/Insurance Company.
MAC APP 1115/2018 3 of 11
8. The compensation awarded by the MACT is summarised as under: S.NO HEADS AWARDED BY TRIBUNAL
1. Income Rs.40,000/-
2. Multiplier 16
3. Personal Expense 1/3rd
4. Loss of Estate Rs.5,06,667/-
5. Loss of Consortium Nil
6. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
7. Medical Expenses Nil TOTAL Rs.5,22,000/- [round off Rs.5,21,667/] INTEREST 9% Analysis
9. While determining the issue of negligence, the MACT took the view that there was only one witness, namely Munni Devi [PW-1], mother of deceased Vijay Kumar [who was 20 years on the date of the accident and a bachelor], and that she was not an eyewitness to the accident. No other witness was examined by the claimants to prove rash and negligent driving.
10. The claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [‘MV Act’] was not entertained, and compensation was granted as per the Second Schedule on the basis Section 163A of the MV Act. Though the MACT was cognizant of the FIR registered and chargesheet filed, yet the opinion of the MACT was the same was not sufficient to prove rash and negligent driving of the vehicle.
11. Mr. Shekhar Aggarwal, counsel appearing for claimant, informs the Court that the case of compensation relating to the Anil [pillion MAC APP 1115/2018 4 of 11 rider] has been already settled before the Lok Adalat vide award dated 08th April 2017.
12. Mr. Aggarwal, counsel for claimant, contends that the issue is well settled, that if witnesses are not available in accident cases but an FIR has been lodged and a chargesheet has been filed, a finding of absence of negligence cannot be returned.
13. In this regard, he relies on the Supreme Court’s decision in Meera Bai & Ors v ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd & Anr, (2025) INSC 600, and Ranjeet & Anr v Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr, (2025) SCC OnLine SC 497.
14. Ms. Archana Gaur, counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, submits that no other witness was produced, and the driver and the owner also did not give their evidence before the MACT.
15. In this view of the matter, and in reference to the opinion of the Supreme Court in cases where there is no witness to prove negligence but an FIR and chargesheet has been filed, the MACT award would, therefore, have to be set aside.
16. Relevant paragraphs of Meera Bai & Ors v ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd & Anr (supra) are extracted as under for reference:
17. Relevant paragraphs of Ranjeet & Anr v Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr (supra) is extracted as under for reference:
18. These decisions have also been relied upon by this Court in a previous decision of Santosh v Ashish & Anr (Shri Ram General Ins. Co. Ltd), 2026:DHC:130, where reference has also been made to Mangla Ram v Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, (2018), 5 SCC 656. Relevant paragraph of the judgment is extracted as under:
“III. Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 5 SCC 656:Where the Supreme Court reiterated the principles regarding assessment of negligence in cases where evidence of eyewitnesses was not available. The Court referred to the decision in Dulcina Fernandes, 2013 ACJ 2712 (SC), and stated as under: “25. In Dulcina Fernandes [Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz (2013) 10 SCC 646: (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73: (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 13], this Court examined similar situation where the evidence of claimant's eyewitness was discarded by the Tribunal and that the respondent in that case was acquitted in the criminal case concerning the accident. This Court, however, opined that it cannot be overlooked that upon investigation of the case registered against the respondent, prima facie, materials showing negligence were found to put him on trial. The Court restated the settled principle that the evidence of the claimants ought to be examined by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied as noted in Bimla Devi [Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC, (2009) 13 MAC APP 1115/2018 7 of 11 SCC 530: (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 189: (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1101]””
19. The Court has also perused the sitemap, which clearly shows that the deceased and the pillion rider were riding on the scooter and following the lane on the left side while taking a turn to the right, whereas the offending vehicle [truck] was driving on the right side parallel to them and suddenly cut in front, whereupon the accident occurred. Extract of the sitemap is also provided as under: MAC APP 1115/2018 8 of 11
20. Since there is nothing to establish that there was any contributory negligence on behalf of the deceased, and no evidence was placed before the MACT on behalf of the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle, there is no reason why the plea of the appellant should not be sustained.
MAC APP 1115/2018 9 of 11
21. In view of the same, this situation would invite the Court to grant compensation on the basis of principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121. Following is the assessment made by this Court: a) There is no quarrel that the benchmark income has been taken as the minimum wage of Rs. 7,108/- per month in Uttar Pradesh, considering the deceased was resident of Uttar Pradesh, which comes to Rs. 85,296/- per annum. b) Since he was 20 years of age, 40% of the future prospects would be taken, and since he was a bachelor 50% would be deducted from the said income towards personal and living expenses. c) Multiplier of ‘18’ shall be considered in place of ‘16’ as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra) d) Loss of estate and funeral expenses will be taken at Rs. 15,000/each, as per paragraph 59.[8] of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (supra) e) Loss of consortium will be taken at Rs.80,000/- [Rs.40,000 x 2] as per Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 [paragraphs 20 & 23] and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (supra) [paragraph 59.8].
22. As per above assessment, following is the revised computation of compensation: MAC APP 1115/2018 10 of 11
HEADS AWARDED BY
THE TRIBUNAL AWARDED BY THIS COURT
6 Multiplier (E) 16 18 7 Total loss of dependency (D x E = F) Rs.5,06,667/- Rs. 10,74,726/- 8 Medical expenses (G) Nil Nil 9 Compensation for loss of consortium (H) Nil Rs.80,000/-
12 Compensation towards funeral expenses (K) Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- TOTAL COMPENSATION (F+G+H+I+J+K = L) Rs.5,22,000/- [round off Rs.5,21,667/-] Rs. 11,84,726/- RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 9% 9%
23. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned award is modified. The compensation is enhanced by a sum of Rs. 6,62,726/-, as computed hereinabove.
MAC APP 1115/2018 11 of 11
24. Enhanced amount of compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of petition shall be deposited by appellant/Insurance Company before the Registry of this Court within 4 weeks.
25. Accordingly, 1/4th [Rs.1,65,681/-] of the deposited enhanced amount shall be released in favour of the claimant.
26. Balance enhanced compensation shall be kept in FDRs of Rs. 25,000/- each for periods of 1 month, 2 months, 3 months and so on, in succession as may be calculated. Interest accrued on the FDRs shall be credited to the designated Savings Bank Accounts of the LRs. Upon maturity of the FDRs, the principal amount shall also be transferred to their respective Savings Bank Accounts.
27. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
28. Pending applications are rendered as infructuous.
29. Judgement be uploaded on the website of this Court.
JUDGE FEBRUARY 26, 2026/RK/tk