National Insurance Co Ltd v. Sh Malkhan Singh & Ors

1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company, assailing impugned award dated 05th July 2013, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (‘MACT/Tribunal’) Rohini Courts in MACT Suit NO. 50A/2012, seeking reduction of compensation awarded at Rs. 15,92,140/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

2. The accident in question occurred on 18th May 2010 at about 9:00 a.m. at GTK Road in front of village Khampur, when the deceased, Shyamwanti, while proceeding on foot along with her son, Malkhan Singh, was hit by the offending vehicle, resulting in fatal injuries. She was removed to Satyawadi Raja Harish Chandra Hospital where she was declared as ‘brought dead’. Deceased was 65 years of age on the date of accident and had 4 married sons and 3 married daughters.

3. Ms. Archana Gaur, counsel for appellant/Insurance Company, assails the impugned award on two grounds. Firstly, that there was no dependency of any of the dependents, therefore, the question of compensation being awarded in the first place does not arise. Secondly, the Tribunal erred in assessing the notional income of deceased, calculated on the basis of minimum wages of a graduate.

4. As regards the issue of loss of dependency, after traversing through the evidence, MACT, reached the conclusion that 3 of the sons were not dependent, leaving aside respondent no.1/Malkhan Singh, the 4th son, who did not have any fixed income and was also not in government employment. Therefore, the MACT held that respondent no.1/Malkhan Singh was partially dependent on the income contribution of deceased-mother.

5. Respondent no.1/Malkhan Singh, stated in his testimony that deceased-mother was engaged in dairy business and was earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the said business and was also getting pension of Rs.7,000/- from the office of deceased-father who used to work in Delhi University.

6. He stated that deceased-mother was contributing Rs. 17,000/- per month, which was being used towards household and welfare of the family. In cross-examination, he countered the adverse suggestions put to him in this regard.

7. As regards the assessment of benchmark income, Mr. Navneet Goyal, counsel for claimants, placed reliance on the recent decision of Supreme Court in Shishu Pal and Ors. v. Surjeet and Ors., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 114, and contended that the Supreme Court has now recognised the contribution made by a home maker to the family income.

8. Noting that there was no direct proof of running the dairy by deceased-mother, MACT had considered the notional income of deceased at Rs. 7,020/- on the basis of minimum wages of a graduate. To this extent, the Court does not find the determination of notional income by the MACT to be amiss, considering the testimony of respondent no.1/Malkhan Singh, and even otherwise considering that deceased was 65 years of age, it is not unthinkable that she would have been contributing to the income of household.

9. However, since the impugned award was made in 2013, taking into account the subsequent principles enunciated in Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, calculation of loss of dependency will have to be realigned.

10. Firstly, considering that the deceased was above 60 years, future prospects will be considered as nil; secondly, multiplier would be considered at ‘7’ and thirdly, deduction towards loss of personal expenses will be considered at 1/3rd considering that she was at best taking care of respondent no.1/Malkhan Singh and his family.

11. Further, loss of consortium will be awarded at Rs. 2,80,000/- (Rs. 40,000 x 7), considering that there were 4 sons and 3 daughters, in view of the decision of Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, where the Court held that parental consortium is granted to a child upon the premature death of a parent.

12. Funeral expenses will be awarded at Rs. 15,000/- and loss of estate will be awarded at Rs. 15,000/- in accordance with principles enunciated in Pranay Sethi (supra).

13. Further, compensation awarded at Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection stands deleted, as per United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Satinder Kaur Alias Satwinder Kaur and Others (2021) 11 SCC 780, as this head has been subsumed under loss of consortium.

14. Accordingly, the revised compensation is as under: