MAC.APP./693/2016 of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs SALIL KUMAR DUTTA & ORS on 22 September 2026

O R D E R

%

22.09.2026

1. This common order shall dispose of afore-mentioned cross-appeals assailing the award dated 22nd July 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [‘MACT/Tribunal’] in MACT No.476351/2016, whereby compensation of

Rs.12,35,760/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum was awarded.

2. The accident in question occurred on 26th August 2014 and involved a private bus bearing registration No. DL-1PC-2385 (‘offending vehicle’), which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and struck the deceased while he was standing on the roadside near Vikaspuri, New Delhi.

3. MAC.APP.693/2016 has been filed by the insurance company, presented by Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, Advocate. MAC.APP.940/2017 has been filed by Mr. S N Prashar, Advocate, seeking enhancement of compensation for the claimant.

4. The claimant is the father of the deceased (the mother had already pre-deceased).

5. Ms. Sethi contends that the multiplier ought to have been applied on the basis of the age of the claimant and not the age of the deceased. This contention is untenable in view of the principles laid down in Sarla Verma & Ors v. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 wherein it has been categorically held that the multiplier is to be determined with reference to the age of the deceased.

6. Second issue raised by Ms. Sethi is that the father of the deceased ought not to have been treated as a dependent, as there was no evidence to establish whether he was residing with his younger son or with the deceased.

7. In this regard the testimony of the father requires consideration. He deposed that he was residing along with the deceased, who was the elder unmarried son and was dependent upon the income of the deceased for his day-to-day expenses. He further stated that the deceased was the only breadwinner and was maintaining the whole house. According to him, the younger son was married and residing separately with his family at Parmarth Apartments, Vikaspuri.

8. In view of the aforesaid testimony, and in the absence of any substantial cross-examination by the Insurance Company displacing the same, the plea of the Insurance Company cannot be accepted on this count.

9. Mr. Parashar's seeks enhancement on the ground that the notional income of the deceased ought to have been considered at Rs.15,000/- whereas the minimum wages of a graduate were taken.

10. The MACT noted in its award that the deceased was 35 years of age on the date of the accident and was engaged in private employment as an agent and advisor with Max Life Insurance, and was allegedly earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal did not consider the same as there was no evidence to prove the income of Rs.15,000/- and only payment summaries issued by Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd. had been placed on record as Ex. PW1/11 to Ex. PW-1/16, the MACT declined to rely upon the same for determining the monthly income of the deceased.

11. The Court has gone through the payment summaries and finds that, on an average, commission in the range of approximately Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 7,000/- per month was received by the deceased. This cannot be the basis for assessing the income at a figure more than Rs. 11,310/-, which was already adopted by the MACT as per the applicable minimum wages for a graduate on the date of the accident.

12. Mr. Prashar further contends that future prospects have not been awarded.

13. Considering that the deceased was 35 years old on the date of the accident, in light of principles enunciated in Pranay Sethi (supra) future prospects ought to be awarded at 40%. The multiplier of ‘16’ was rightly adopted by the MACT.

14. Loss of love and affection awarded at Rs. 1,00,000/- , which ought not to be granted on the basis of the principles enunciated in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Ors. (2021) 11 SCC 780.

15. No Loss of consortium has been awarded; the same ought to have been paid at ought to have been Rs.40,000 since there is only 1 claimant.

16. Accordingly, the compensation will be revised as under : Sr. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal Awarded by the Court

1. Monthly income of the deceased (A)

Rs. 11,310/-

Rs. 11,310/-

2. Add-Future Prospects (B) NIL 40% of Rs. 11,310/- = Rs. 4,524/-

3. Less-personal expenses of the deceased (C)

1/2 of Rs. 15,834/- = Rs. 7,917

4. Annual loss of dependency [(A+B) - C ] x 12= D]

Rs. 95,004/-

5. Multiplier (E)

6. Total loss of dependency (D x E) = (F) Rs. 10,85,760/- Rs. 15,20,064/-

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

8. Compensation for loss of consortium (H)

NIL

Rs. 40,000/-

9. Compensation for loss of estate (I)

Rs. 25,000/-

Rs. 15,000/-

10. Compensation towards funeral expenses (J)

Rs. 25,000/-

Rs. 15,000/-

11. Total Compensation (F+G+H+I+J = L)

Rs. 12,35,760/-

Rs. 15,90,064/-

13. Interest Awarded 9% per annum 9% per annum

14. Enhanced Compensation Rs. 3,54,304

17. Accordingly, the compensation is enhanced by Rs. 3,54,304/-.

18. Enhanced compensation, along with accrued interest be deposited before the MACT by the Insurance Company within a period of six weeks, which will be released to the claimants as a lump sum.

19. By order dated 31st August 2016, this Court had directed deposit of entire compensation with the Registrar General of this Court, and 60% had been directed to be released subsequently.

20. Mr. Parashar submits that, during the pendency of the present proceedings, the original appellant, namely the father of the deceased, has passed away. Accordingly, CM APPL. No. 16134/2022 was filed seeking impleadment of his legal heirs along with the amended memo of parties. It is further submitted that the only surviving legal heir is the younger brother of the deceased, namely Mr. Rajat Dutta, who has been substituted as the appellant.

21. These appeals pertain to an accident which occurred in 2014, i.e. more than a decade back. It is accordingly directed that the compensation, which is deposited before the Registrar General of this Court, and the enhanced compensation which will be deposited by the insurance company within the next six weeks, along with accrued interest, be released to Mr. Rajat Dutta, who is the substituted appellant, as per the amended memo of parties dated 24th March 2022.

22. Both these appeals stand disposed of in above terms.

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

24. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

ANISH DAYAL, J SEPTEMBER 22, 2026/sm/bp