MAC.APP./620/2026 of TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY.LTD Vs ARTI & ORS. on 21 September 2026

O R D E R

%

21.09.2026

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-insurance company assailing the judgment dated 04th June 2026 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Patiala House Courts [‘MACT/Tribunal’] in DAR No.1323/2022 awarding compensation of Rs.65,73,679/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.

2. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, counsel for the appellant, assails the award on two counts: i. Contributory negligence was not properly assessed; ii. Tribunal wrongly considered the cumulative earnings allegedly derived by the deceased from two separate employments. According to the claimants, the deceased was employed with Jai Guruji Enterprises, Sector-39, Village Jharsa, Gurugram, Haryana, where he worked as a rider from 08:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., and was also employed with

Licorne Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Gurugram, Haryana, where he worked as a rider from 02:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.

3. Mr. Rajesh Kumar contends that the evidence provided with respect to the deceased’s earnings from Licorne Hospitality was robust, and they do not dispute the same. However, according to him, the income allegedly earned from Jai Guruji Enterprises was not proved. He further submits that it is unreasonable to assume that the deceased was working from 08:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. for two different entities and earning approximately Rs. 30,000/- per month. The cumulative income considered by the MACT is, therefore, untenable, particularly in the absence of substantial evidence establishing the deceased's employment with Jai Guru Ji Enterprises. He also points out that, as per the agreement with Licorne Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., as also testified by the company's representative, the deceased could not have been engaged with any other entity during the subsistence of his employment with the said company.

4. As regards the issue of contributory negligence, it is noted that the accident occurred on 05th December 2022, when the deceased and the minor children of his relative Babli were sitting on the parked motorcycle at Ring Road near Dhaula Kuan while Babli was standing on the side. In the meantime, the offending vehicle bearing registration DL-8CAR-7411, driven by the respondent no.1/ driver, came in rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle, due to which they fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. Deceased was taken to Safdarjung Hospital where he was declared brought dead.

5. Considering the circumstances in which the accident occurred and the testimony of Babli, who deposed as PW1, who was an eyewitness to the incident, there is nothing on record to indicate any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The deceased was sitting on a motorcycle parked on the side of the road. Not only did Babli fall due to the impact, but the minor children also fell and sustained injuries. She further stated that blinkers of the motorcycle were switched on at the time of the accident. In these circumstances, the plea of contributory negligence is rejected.

6. On the issue of the income, PW1, wife of the deceased had claimed that her husband (deceased) was working as a Sales Executive in the morning hours in Jai Guruji Enterprises, Section 39, Village Jharsa, Gurugram, Haryana and drawing a salary of Rs.14,300/- per month and thereafter, in the afternoon hours he was working as a rider at Licorne Hospitality earning a sum of Rs.16,687/- per month.

7. As regards the claim regarding income from Jai Guruji Enterprises, it is noted that appointment letter of the deceased was placed on record by PW2 as Ex. PW2/1, attested copy of salary slips for the months of September to November 2022 as Ex. PW2/2, copy of the GST certificate as Ex.PW2/3, and invoices along with e-way bills as Ex.PW2/4. PW2 stated that the deceased was working in a company and used to deliver goods in Gurugram, Haryana, and his working timings were 08.00 a.m. to 01.30 p.m.

8. Though deceased was not reflected as an employee in the Income Tax Returns of the entity, the Tribunal did not consider the said sufficient to discard the evidence led by the claimants regarding his employment and income. The assessment made by the MACT in paragraphs 38 and 39 cannot, therefore, be said to be amiss. This Court is not inclined to intercede with the award passed by the Tribunal. The possibility of the deceased working as a rider with two entities, doubling up his work in first shift and then second shift, cannot be disbelieved, considering specific details have been provided of the engagement and documents to assert the same.

9. Accordingly, the appeal of the insurance company stands dismissed.

10. Pending applications are rendered infructuous.

11. The MACT’s award will be accordingly complied with.

12. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J SEPTEMBER 21, 2026/sm/bp