Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 31st July 2026 # CNR No. DLHC014802832017
VIJAY KUMAR & ANR .....Appellants
Through: Ms. Sumedha Arya arid Ms. Pratibha Arya, Advocates.
Through: Mr. Ranvir Singh, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. S.K. Chaudhary, Adv. for
Respondent no.1.
Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath, Mr. Harshit Singh, Mr. Anant Dev. Advocates for Respondent no.3.
Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Advocate for Respondent no.5.
(11)
# CNR No. DLHC014933472017
44042/2017.
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath, Mr. Harshit Singh, Mr. Anant Dev. Advocates.
Through: Ms. Sumedha Arya arid Ms. Pratibha Arya, Advocates for Respondent nos.1&2.
Mr. Ranvir Singh, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. S.K. Chaudhary, Adv. for
Respondent no.3.
Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Advocate for Respondent no.6.
JUDGMENT
1. These cross appeals have been filed assailing the impugned award dated 03rd August 2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Central District, Delhi (‘MACT/Tribunal’), in Suit no. 210/2011, whereby compensation of Rs.6,44,760/- along with interest @ 9% per annum was awarded.
2. MAC.APP. 1022/2017 has been filed by claimants, seeking enhancement of compensation, and are represented through Ms. Sumedha Arya, Advocate, whereas MAC.APP. 1063/2017 has been filed by the Insurance Company, seeking reduction of compensation and are represented through Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath, Advocate. Mr. J.P. N. Shahi, Advocate, appears for New India Assurance Company Ltd. (insurer of the truck bearing registration no.KA-25-9249).
3. The accident in question occurred on 15th November 2006, when the truck bearing registration no. HR-37B-6085 (‘truck no. 1’), driven by Ram Lalitha Shah and insured with Oriented Insurance Company, collided with another truck bearing registration no. KA-25-9249 (‘truck no. 2’).
4. Counsel for appellant seeks enhancement of compensation on the following grounds:
(i) The income of the deceased was assessed on the basis of the minimum wages of a skilled worker at Rs. 3,940/- per month. However, it is contended that the deceased was employed as a co-driver on long-haul routes and, therefore, his income ought to have been assessed at a higher level, particularly considering that the notified minimum wages are premised on an eight-hour workday. It is noted that the assessment of income has been undertaken by the MACT in paragraph 10(i) of the impugned Award, wherein the owner of truck no. 1 stated that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 3,500/per month, and no other evidence was adduced to establish a higher income.
(ii) No amount has been awarded towards future prospects, which ought to have been granted at 40%, considering that the deceased was 28 years of age at the time of the accident.
(iii) An incorrect multiplier has been applied for the purposes of computing the loss of dependency, as the MACT adopted the multiplier based on the age of the mother of the deceased instead of the age of the deceased at the time of the accident.
(iv) Other elements of compensation i.e. loss of affection, funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium would have to be aligned with the principles enunciated in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680.
(v) Interest was granted @ 9% but was excluded for a period of time from 2008 and 2009, which ought not to have been done basis the orders of the MACT.
5. Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath, counsel for the Insurance Company, contends that the issue which had been framed by the MACT was restricted to proving whether the death of Subash was due to the rash and negligent act of driver of the offending vehicle i.e. truck no.2.
6. However, it has been pointed out by Ms. Arya that the issues were thereafter modified by order dated 27th January 2014 to include the possibility of the death being due to the negligent act of the driver of truck no.1 as well.
7. From the testimony of PW[2], eyewitness, it could be seen that, if there was any negligence, it was on the part of Ram Lalitha Shah, who was driving truck no.1, at the time of the accident. The Court does not find the assessment by the MACT as untenable or faulty on any account.
8. On the issue of compensation, the salary of the deceased was taken as Rs.3,940/- per month on the basis of minimum wages for skilled workers. The owner of truck no.1, in which the deceased was travelling, had stated that he was working as a co-driver and his salary was Rs.3,500/per month.
9. Ms. Arya has vehemently argued that since he was a long-haul codriver, his notional income should have been considered at a higher level. The Court does not find any merit in the plea since the owner of the truck himself has stated that salary was Rs.3,500/- per month and despite that the MACT has considered minimum wages for skilled workers at Rs.3,940/-.
10. The issue of overtime was never put forward to the owner of the truck by claimants. In the absence of any evidence to that effect, it would be difficult to ascertain whether any additional amounts were being paid towards overtime. Accordingly, the assessment of the notional income is sustained.
11. As regards future prospects, deceased was 28 years at the time of the accident and, therefore, it should be considered at 40%.
12. A challenge has been raised to the deduction towards personal and living expenses, which has been assessed at 1/3rd. Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath submits that since there were only two claimants i.e. the parents, and the father not financially dependent upon deceased, the deduction ought to have been taken as 1/2. However, considering that the deceased was 28 years of age and was contributing to the family income, this Court is of the view that the MACT rightly applied a deduction of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses.
13. Multiplier has been applied on the basis of the age of mother of deceased. However, in terms of the decisions of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier is required to be determined with reference to the age of the deceased at the time of accident. Accordingly, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is '17'.
14. Loss of consortium would be Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/-× 2) as there were two claimants. Compensation awarded under the head of loss of love and affection shall be nil, in view of the law laid down in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780. Funeral expenses are awarded at Rs.15,000/- and loss of estate is awarded at Rs.15,000/- to align them in terms of Pranay Sethi (supra).
15. Interest was awarded at the rate of 9% per annum; however, interest for the period from 2008 to 2009 was excluded. Ms. Arya has drawn the attention of the Court to the interim order dated 08th February 2011 passed by the MACT, wherein it was directed that the interest on the compensation awarded would be from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.
16. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the compensation shall carry interest for the entire period, i.e., from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.
17. Accordingly, compensation is revised as under: S.n o Heads of Compensation Awarded by the Tribunal Awarded by this Court
1. Loss of income per month (A) Rs. 3,940/- Rs. 3,940/-
2. Future Prospects @40% (B) Nil Rs. 1,576/-
3. Less Personal expenses of the deceased (C) 1/3th Rs. 1,313/- Rs. 1,839/-
4. Monthly Loss of Dependency (A+B- C=D) Rs. 2,627 Rs. 3,677/-
5. Annual loss of dependency (D x 12=E) Rs. 31,524/- Rs. 44,124/-
6. Multiplier (F) 13 17
7. Total loss of dependency (E x F = G) Rs. 4,09,812/- Rs. 7,50,108/-
8. Medical expenses (H) Nil Nil
9. Compensation for loss of consortium
(I) Rs.1,00,000/- Rs. 80,000/-
10. Compensation for loss of love and affection (J) Rs. 1,00,000/- Nil
11. Compensation for loss of estate (K) Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
12. Compensation towards funeral expenses (L) Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
13. Interim Compensation Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/-
14. Total compensation (G+H+I+J+K+L = M) Rs. 6,45,000 – Rs. 50,000 = Rs. 5,95,000/- Rs. 8,60,108 – Rs. 50,000 = Rs. 8,10,108/-
16. Rate of Interest Awarded 7.5% 7.5%
18. Accordingly, the compensation is enhanced by Rs. 2,15,108/-.
19. The Insurance Company/ Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. is directed deposit the enhanced compensation along with accrued interest @ 7.5% per annum before the Tribunal within a period of four weeks.
20. Considering that the accident occurred in 2006 and the award was passed by the Tribunal in 2017, it is directed that the enhanced compensation, along with the accrued interest thereon, shall be released to the claimants as a lumpsum.
21. Appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
22. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
23. Statutory deposit, if any, shall be refunded to appellant/Insurance Company, only if the order of deposit has been complied with.
24. Copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned MACT/concerned bank for information and compliance.
25. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
JUDGE JULY 31, 2026