Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 13th July 2026
JOHRI PRASAD & ANR. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. S.K. Vashistha, Advocate
Through: Ms. Vandana Surana, Advocate for Respondent no.2/ Insurance
Company.
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by appellants, being legal representatives of the deceased/Ramesh @ Monu (hereinafter, ‘claimants’), seeking enhancement of compensation awarded vide impugned award dated 7th May 2018, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (‘MACT’), in MACT No.246/2015, whereby compensation of Rs.9,11,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum was awarded (‘impugned award’), in respect of a fatal accident which occurred on 25th September 2015.
2. Mr. S. K. Vashistha, counsel for the appellants/claimants, draws attention of this Court to various heads under which compensation has been awarded by the MACT, and submits that they need to be aligned with the principles enunciated in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, particularly with respect to the multiplier, addition towards future prospects, besides the benchmark income taken by the MACT.
3. Since deceased/Ramesh @ Monu was 21 years of age on the date of the accident, the MACT took the benchmark income in terms of minimum wages applicable to a matriculate, that is at Rs.10,478/- per month, which, in the opinion of the Court, is acceptable, considering there was no evidence of any other earning.
4. Further, considering that he was a bachelor at the time of the accident, a deduction of one-half shall be made towards personal expenses.
5. Future prospects shall be awarded at 40% in terms of the principles enunciated in Pranay Sethi (supra).
6. The multiplier shall be taken at ’18’, considering that deceased/Ramesh @ Monu was 21 years of age at the time of the accident, and therefore, fell in the age group of 21-25 years, to which a multiplier of ‘18’ is applicable. The MACT applied the multiplier of ‘14’ on the basis of age of the dependent, who was 44 years old, instead of the age of deceased/Ramesh @ Monu, in terms of law applicable then.
7. The issue concerning retrospective application of the principles enunciated in Pranay Sethi (supra) has already been considered by this Court in IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anil Kumar Kaushik, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1378, wherein this Court observed that the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra), was rendered with the objective of standardising the components of compensation to ensure uniformity and consistency in the award of compensation. Accordingly, this Court held that the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra) would apply retrospectively where an appeal is being considered. The relevant portion from Anil Kumar Kasuhik (supra) is extracted as under:
16. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra) standardized certain principles of computation of compensation and focused on the principle of standardization. Ergo, when a matter is pending in appeal before this Court challenging various aspects of computation, this Court cannot ignore standardized parameters laid down by the Supreme Court and endorse ad hoc assessments made by the Tribunal previously.” (emphasis added)
8. The compensation towards funeral charges and loss of estate has been correctly awarded by the MACT, at Rs.15,000/- each; however, the table at paragraph 20 of the impugned award incorrectly titles compensation awarded under loss of dependency as loss of estate.
9. The loss of consortium shall be awarded by taking into account the number of claimants, which are two, namely parents of deceased/Ramesh @ Monu. Accordingly, loss of consortium shall be awarded at Rs. 80,000/-. (Rs. 40,000 x 2).
10. Ms. Vandana Surana, counsel for Insurance Company, states that the issue of contributory negligence in the case of a head-on collision had been noted by the MACT, in paragraph 3 of impugned award, on the basis of written statement filed by the Insurance Company.
11. The Court notes that the respondents did not lead any evidence, and their evidence was closed on 09th March 2018, as noted by the MACT. Further, no appeal or cross-objections have been filed by the Insurance Company in this regard.
12. Moreover, the Court notes, that facts of the accident are completely adverse to what was stated by the Insurance Company in their written statement. As per the testimonies, deceased/Ramesh @ Monu, along with his younger brother, Mahender Singh, was travelling from Sambhal to Delhi in a Maruti Eeco car. They stopped their car in front of Sadak Pukta, Grama Kala Khet, P.S. Hasanpur, to relieve themselves. At that point, the offending vehicle, coming from the opposite direction, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the car of deceased/Ramesh @ Monu, resulting in fatal injuries to him.
13. The MACT noted the testimonies of father of the deceased/Ramesh @ Monu (PW-1), and his younger brother, Mahender Singh (PW-2), who was an eye-witness. The MACT further noted that, apart from the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-1, a charge-sheet had also been filed, and PW2- had been a witness before the criminal court. Therefore, there was no reason to doubt the said testimony. Further, respondents had not disputed the accident, apart from stating that the offending vehicle had been falsely implicated.
14. In the aforesaid circumstances, no fact of a head-on collision and contributory negligence, is in sight. Accordingly, the plea of Insurance Company is rendered untenable and unsustainable.
15. In view of the above, appeal is allowed.
16. Accordingly, the revised compensation shall be as under:
S. NO.
HEADS AWARDED BY
THE TRIBUNAL AWARDED BY THIS COURT
1. Income of deceased (A) Rs. 10,478/- Rs. 10,478/-
2. Add Future Prospects (B) @40% NIL Rs. 4,191/-
3. Less Personal expenses of the deceased (C) @ 50% Rs. 5,239/- Rs. 7,334.5/-
4. Monthly loss of dependency [(A+ B)-C = D] Rs. 5,239/- Rs. 7,334.5/-
5. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs. 62,866/- Rs. 88,014/-
6. Multiplier (E) 14 18
7. Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE = F) Rs. 8,80,152/- Rs. 15,84,252/-
8. Compensation for loss of consortium (G) (40,000x[2]) NIL Rs. 80,000/-
9. Compensation for loss of estate (H) Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
10. Compensation towards funeral expenses (I) Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
11. Total compensation Rs. 9,11,000/- Rs. 16,94,252/- (F+G+H+I = J) (rounded-off)
12. Interest 9% 9%
13. Enhanced amount Rs. 7,83,252/- Directions
17. For aforesaid reasons, compensation has been enhanced by Rs. 7,83,252/- (“enhanced amount”).
18. It is therefore directed that enhanced amount along with 9% interest per annum be deposited before the MACT within a period of four weeks. It is directed that a lump sum amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- shall be released in favour of the claimants from the deposit of enhanced amount within a period of two weeks thereafter. Remaining enhanced amount, along with accrued interest till date, shall be kept in Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) of Rs.25,000 each for periods of 3 month, 6 months, 9 months and so on, in succession as maybe calculated. Interest accruing on said FDRs shall be credited to the designated Savings Bank Account of claimants. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released to the Savings Bank Account of claimants upon due verification.
19. The originally awarded amount shall be released in favour of the claimants in terms of the directions passed by the MACT vide impugned award dated 7th May 2018.
20. Appeal stands disposed of in above terms.
21. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
22. Copy of this Judgment be sent to the concerned MACT.
23. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
JUDGE JULY 13, 2026/ak/ya