MAC.APP./820/2017 of THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs KAVYA SHARMA & ORS on 29 September 2026

O R D E R

%

29.09.2026

1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company assailing impugned award dated 22nd July 2017, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [‘MACT/Tribunal’], in Suit No. 129/2014, whereby compensation of Rs.27,75,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, was awarded [impugned award].

2. The said award arose out of a fatal accident, which occurred on 18th December 2007, and resulted in the death of Smt. Rajni Sharma [‘deceased’], mother of Ms. Kavya Sharma and Ms. Kanchan Sharma [claimants herein]. Both the claimants, i.e. Ms. Kavya Sharma, and her twin sister, Ms. Kanchan Sharma were 12 years old at the time of the accident, when their mother passed away. The deceased had been divorced from her husband and was, therefore, taking care of her children as a single mother.

3. The Insurance Company raises an objection to assessment of the benchmark income by the MACT, at Rs.20,000/- per month, as claimed by claimants.

4. Mr. A.K. Soni, counsel for Insurance Company, points out to the salary certificate placed on record before the MACT, and states that, signatory of the said certificate was not examined and, therefore, her certification as a ‘Sales Manager’ along with the fact that she was drawing a salary of “Rs.20,000/- per month plus commission on sales” ought not to have been considered and instead her benchmark income ought to have been assessed basis minimum wages .

5. The Court has perused the testimony of PW-3, brother of deceased, Sh. Manoj Kumar, who stated during his examination-in-chief that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. However, the Insurance Company chose not to cross-examine PW-3 on this aspect.

6. In these circumstances, the assessment by the MACT in paragraph 11(iii) of the impugned award, cannot be considered to be amiss.

7. Further, considering that both the claimants were 12 years of age at the time of the accident and that their mother had passed away, it can be reasonably presumed that they would not have been in a position to place any further evidence on record. The Court also notes that there is no other rebuttal by the Insurance Company in this regard and, therefore, in view of the guideposts laid down by this Court in Savita v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine Del 2365, the testimonies as well as the salary certificate shall have to be accepted at its face value, particularly in the present circumstances.

8. Accordingly, the plea of Insurance Company is rejected.

9. In addition to the aforesaid, the awarded compensation shall require to be aligned with the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680. Accordingly, the following adjustments shall be made: i) Loss of consortium shall be awarded at Rs. 80,000/- [Rs. 40,000 x 2], considering that there are two dependents. Loss of love and affection shall stand deleted in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur (2021) 11 SCC 780. ii) Funeral expenses and loss of estate shall be awarded at Rs. 15,000/- each.

10. The cross-objections preferred on behalf of claimants with regard to the grant of future prospects are also taken on record. The deceased was 33 years of age and, therefore, in view of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), addition towards future prospects shall be made at 40%.

11. The revised compensation shall accordingly be calculated as under: S. NO. HEADS AWARDED BY THE TRIBUNAL AWARDED BY THIS COURT

1. Monthly Income of deceased (A) Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 20,000/-

2. Add Future Prospects (B) @ 40% NIL Rs. 28,000/-

3. Less Personal expenses of the deceased (C) @ 1/3rd Rs. 6,667/- Rs. 9,333/-

4. Monthly loss of dependency [B-C = D] Rs. 13,333/- Rs. 18,667/-

5. Annual loss of Rs. 1,60,000/- Rs. 2,24,004/- dependency (Dx12)

6. Multiplier (E)

7. Loss of dependency [F] [DX12XE] Rs. 25,60,000/- Rs. 35,84,064/-

8. Compensation for loss of consortium (G) Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 80,000/-

9. Compensation for loss of love and affection (H) Rs. 1,00,000/- NIL

10. Compensation for loss of estate (I) Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 15,000/-

11. Compensation towards funeral expenses (J) Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 15,000/-

12. Total compensation (F + G + H+I + J= K) Rs. 27,75,000/- Rs. 36,94,064/-

13. Interest 9% 9%

14. Enhanced compensation Rs. 9,19,064/-

Directions

12. For aforesaid reasons, compensation has been enhanced by Rs. 9,19,064/ -[‘enhanced amount’].

13. Enhanced amount, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing the petition shall be deposited before MACT within a period of four weeks. The said amount shall thereafter be released in favour of the claimants, as a lump sum, considering that the accident occurred way back in 2007 and that the claimants have now attained the age of majority. It is made clear that the amount shall be apportioned in terms of the apportionment provided by the MACT vide impugned award dated 22nd July 2017.

14. Vide order dated 12th September 2017, this Court had directed 20% of the amount awarded by the MACT to be released in favour of claimants, along with the balance to be kept in Fixed Deposit Receipts [‘FDRs’].

15. Accordingly, the balance amount from the originally awarded amount, shall also be released to claimants, as a lump sum, considering that the accident occurred way back in 2007.

16. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of in above terms.

17. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

18. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to Insurance Company, only if the order of deposit has been complied with.

19. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J SEPTEMBER 29, 2026/MK/ya