Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta & Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advs v. NARENDER YADAV & ORS (NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD)

1. This appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of the impugned award dated 9th April 2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karkadooma Courts, East District, Delhi [“Tribunal”] in MACP NO. 249/2012, whereby compensation of Rs.14,18,100/- was awarded along with the interest of 9% per annum to the representative of the deceased, Ms. Payal Srivastava [appellant nos. 1 to 3 herein] Incident

2. Accident occurred on 19th September 2012, at about 10 p.m. near red light signal of Ashok Niketan, Anand Vihar, when Ms. Payal Srivastava and Mr. Dushyant Kumar [deceased] were travelling on a scooter. An HGV container, make Ashok Leyland, bearing registration no. HR- 38J-6095 [offending vehicle] driven by respondent no.1 [driver] at a high speed in a zigzag manner, hit the scooter. Both sustained injuries and were taken to Dr. Hedgewar Hospital, where they were declared “brought dead”. FIR NO. 259/2012 was registered under Sections 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code 1806, at Police Station Anand Vihar. A claim petition was filed, and the Tribunal found that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 of vehicle which was owned by respondent no.2 and insured by respondent no. 3. Impugned Award

3. The Tribunal, while adjudicating the claim petitions, returned a finding of negligence against respondent no.1/driver of the offending vehicle on the basis of the eye-witness testimony, criminal case record including FIR and chargesheet, site plan, and mechanical inspection report.

4. The Tribunal held that these materials sufficiently established rash and negligent driving on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Consequently, the respondent no.1/driver, respondent no.2/owner and respondent no.3/insurer of the offending vehicle were held jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award.

5. For the purpose of computing compensation in the claim concerning the deceased Ms. Payal Srivastava, the Tribunal relied upon documentary evidence proved through the employer’s witness, including the appointment letter, salary record and attendance register, to assess her income. The Tribunal considered the gross salary but, after deductions, treated the monthly income as Rs. 16,450/-. Since the deceased was unmarried, 50% of the income was deducted towards personal and living expenses. The multiplier was applied with reference to the age of the mother, treating her as the dependent, and no addition towards future prospects was granted, following the precedents considered applicable at the time. Compensation Granted

6. On the basis of above assessment, the Tribunal computed loss of dependency and awarded compensation under conventional heads. A total sum of Rs. 14,18,100/- was awarded, comprising Rs. 12,83,100/- towards loss of dependency, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate, together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is summarised as under: S.NO.

HEADS AMOUNT AWARDED

1. Loss of dependency Rs.12,83,100/-

2. Loss of love and affection Rs. 1,00,000/-

3. Funeral Expenses Rs.25,000/-

4. Loss of Estate Rs.10,000/- TOTAL Rs.14,18,100/- INTEREST 9% Analysis

7. Mr. Pankaj Gutpa, counsel for appellants, seeks enhancement on the following grounds: i) Firstly, the benchmark income/salary of the deceased was not considered correctly, inasmuch as while the salary slip showed that she working as a “Customer Relationship Manager” with M/s Shiv Auto Cars Pvt. Ltd. and was earning Rs 18,500/- per month, the Tribunal deducted the allowances and took the salary as Rs.16,450/- per month. The discussion in this regard is contained in paragraph 23 of the impugned order, which extracted as under: “23.The PW3/ Sh. Harit Sandal, HR Executive, from Shiva Auto Car (India) Pvt. Ltd., has proved the Appointment Letter, Salary Breakup, Salary Record, Wages Register, and Attendance Sheet of deceased as Ex. PW3/B, which shows the deceased was getting salary of Rs. 18,500/- p.m. In view of the judgments in Manasvi Jain V/s. DTC II (2014) ACC 420 (SC) and another judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in Shyamwati Sharma Ors. V/s. Karam Singh &Ors. F(2010) SLT 328, after necessary deductions it comes to Rs. 16,450/- p.m. As per the Appointment Letter Ex PWl/1, Deceased was working as a Customer Relationship Manager, having appointed on 06.03.2012 in Shiva Auto Car Ltd. She was still in her probation period.” ii) Sh. Harit Sandal [PW-3], HR (Executive), proved the appointment letter, appraisal data, salary breakup, salary record, wages register and attendance sheet. The salary breakup shows that the gross salary was Rs 18,500/- per month, which included the basic pay of Rs.11,100/-, HRA of Rs.5,350/- and conveyance allowance of Rs.800/. The Tribunal deducted Rs. 2,000/- from the gross salary on an unexplained basis and considered the benchmark income has Rs. 16,450/- per month. iii) Mr. Pankaj Gupta, counsel for appellant on this aspect has relied upon the following Supreme Court judgments: a. Kavita Devi & Ors. v. Sunil Kumar & Anr. 2025 INSC 938, the Supreme Court enhanced compensation by re-examining the income of the deceased and drawing guidance from National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava (2008) 2 SCC 763 on the meaning of “just compensation” and “income”. The Supreme Court emphasized that income is not limited to the pay packet carried home by an employee but may include allowances forming part of the salary structure. The Court held that allowances regularly received and used for the benefit of the family must be considered while determining dependency, subject to proof and the facts of each case. Relevant paragraph is extracted as under:

b. Manorma Sinha & Anr. v. The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd & Anr 2025 INSC 1237, wherein the Supreme Court held income includes monetary and non-monetary benefits beneficial to the family, irrespective of their taxable status, and that exclusion of allowances would be erroneous. Relevant paragraph is extracted as under: