[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Smt Sobhana & Ors on 23 February, 2026
$~20 to 23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 23rd February 2026
(20)
+ MAC.APP. 87/2021 & CM APPL. 6135/2021
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
....Appellant
Through: Ms. Mahua Kalra, Advocate
(through VC).
versus
SMT SOBHANA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Shivam Goel, Ms. Ramya S.
Goel, Ms. Sanya Sharma,
Advocates for R7 (through VC).
(21)
+ MAC.APP. 322/2021
SHOBHNA & ORS. ....Appellants
Through: Mr. Ved Vyas Tripathi, Advocate
(through VC).
versus
RAVI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Shivam Goel, Ms. Ramya S.
Goel, Ms. Sanya Sharma,
Advocates for R2 (through VC).
Ms. Mahua Kalra, Advocate for
R3 (through VC).
(22)
+ MAC.APP. 327/2021
VIRENDER ..Appellant
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR MAC.APP. 87/2021 & MAC.APP. 322/2021 and MAC.APP. 327/2021 & MAC.APP. 91/2021 Page 1 of 15
Signing Date:26.02.2026
15:43:06
Through: Mr. Ved Vyas Tripathi, Advocate
(through VC).
versus
RAVI & ORS. (M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.)
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Shivam Goel, Ms. Ramya S.
Goel, Ms. Sanya Sharma,
Advocates for R2 (through VC).
Ms. Mahua Kalra, Advocate
(through VC) for R3.
(23)
+ MAC.APP. 91/2021 & CM APPL. 6555/2021
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
....Appellant
Through: Ms. Mahua Kalra, Advocate
(through VC).
versus
SH VIRENDER & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ved Vyas Tripathi, Advocate
(through VC).
Mr. Shivam Goel, Ms. Ramya S.
Goel, Ms. Sanya Sharma,
Advocates for R3 (through VC).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)
MAC.APP. 87/2021 & MAC.APP. 322/2021
1. These cross-appeals have been filed assailing impugned
award/judgment dated 21st September 2020 passed by Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal ['MACT'], Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter,
'Tribunal') in MACT Case No.105/2019 where compensation of
Rs.23,13,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% was awarded in
respect of death of Sh. Rajender (hereinafter, 'deceased') in an accident
which occurred on 15th February 2017.
2. Legal representatives ('LRs') of deceased are Smt. Shobhna (wife
of deceased), Master Ratan and Master Raman (sons of deceased), Sh.
Munni Lal and Smt. Sridevi (parents of deceased) [hereinafter,
'claimants'].
3. Insurance Company has challenged the award essentially on the
basis of contributory negligence of the driver of motorcycle bearing
registration no. DL-7SS-3477, on which the deceased was sitting as a
pillion rider. The motorcycle was being driven by one Virender, who was
injured in the said accident with respect to which cross-appeals have
been filed, namely, MAC.APP.91/2021 by Insurance Company and
MAC.APP.327/2021 by injured/Virender.
4. In this light of the matter, this particular appeal cannot sustain,
considering contributory negligence cannot be fastened on the pillion
rider. Further there is no evidence on record to state that there was any
contribution of pillion rider in the alleged contributory negligence.
5. Reliance in this regard may be placed on Supreme Court's
observations in Yashwant Krishna Kumbar v. Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. SLP (C) NO. 22599/2024 in order
dated 25th November 2025, where the Supreme Court was adjudicating
an appeal filed by the pillion rider on the ground that contributory
negligence of 50% was attributed by the Tribunal and High Court.
Allowing the pillion rider's appeal, the Supreme Court held as under:
"16. In cases where contributory negligence is sought to
be attributed to a pillion rider in a motor vehicle
accident, the burden squarely lies on the party alleging
such negligence to establish, by cogent material, that
any act or omission on the part of the pillion rider
contributed to the occurrence of the accident. In the
absence of such proof, no finding of contributory
negligence can be sustained against a pillion rider.
17. This Court is therefore of the considered view that
the Tribunal committed a manifest error in reducing the
compensation by 50% on the ground of alleged
contributory negligence of the claimant. The insurer, on
whom the burden squarely rested, led no evidence to
establish even remote negligence attributable to the
claimant. Consequently, the finding of contributory
negligence cannot be sustained and is liable to be set
aside, restoring the claimant's entitlement to the full
measure of compensation determined in accordance with
law."
(emphasis added)
6. Insurance Company's appeal i.e. MAC.APP.87/2021 is, therefore,
dismissed.
7. MAC.APP.322/2021 is the appeal filed by claimants for
enhancement of compensation on the basis of benchmark income which
was taken as Rs.9,724/- as minimum wages of an unskilled worker.
Evidence was placed on behalf of wife of deceased that he was working
at M/s. Abhishek Enterprises, O-26, Budh Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi, as
a helper and was earning Rs.14,400/- per month.
8. Smt. Shobhana (wife of deceased) had placed on record salary slip
exhibited as EX.PW2/3. However, since no one was examined to prove
the said salary slip, minimum wages of an unskilled worker were taken.
A perusal of the salary slip (EX.PW2/3) shows that Rajender was being
given daily wage of Rs.480/-. The said salary slip has been signed by Sh.
Kuldeep Sharma, Proprietor for M/s. Abhishek Enterprises. Even though,
Sh. Kuldeep Sharma did not come into the witness box, the testimony of
PW2 (wife of deceased) may be taken into account.
9. She has categorically stated in her evidence by way of affidavit
that the income of her husband was Rs.14,400/- per month. In her cross-
examination, she reiterated that her husband was working at M/s.
Abhishek Enterprises, and she rebutted the suggestion that the deceased
was working anywhere else.
10. No other evidence was produced by the Insurance Company to
support their argument, if at all, that the employment records were forged
or fabricated.
11. In this view of the matter, considering that it was a death case,
benchmark income of the deceased should be taken at Rs.12,480/- (480
×26), considering he was a daily wage worker.
12. Compensation will, therefore, be computed as under:
S. Heads of compensation Awarded by Awarded by
No. the Tribunal this Court
1 Income of deceased (A) Rs. 9,724/- Rs. 12,480/-
2 Add: Future Prospects (B) @ 40% Rs. 3,889/- Rs. 4,992/-
3 Less: Personal expenses of Rs. 3,403/- Rs. 4,368/-
deceased (C)
4 Loss of dependency [(A +B)-C = Rs. 10,210/- Rs. 13,104/-
D]
5 Annual Loss of Dependency Rs. 1,22,520/- Rs. 1,57,248/-
(Dx12)
7 Total loss of dependency (DxE = F) Rs.20,82,880/- Rs.26,73,216/-
(rounded off)
8 Medical expenses (G) - -
9 Compensation for loss of Rs. 2,00,000/- Rs. 2,00,000/-
consortium (H)
10 Compensation for loss of estate (I) Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
11 Compensation towards funeral Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
expenses (J)
12 Total compensation Rs. 23,13,000/- Rs. 29,03,500/-
(F+H+I+J=K) (Rs. 23,12,880 (Rs. 29,03,216/-
rounded off) rounded off)
13 Rate of Interest Awarded 9% 9%
13. Vide order dated 22nd February 2021, this Court directed the
Insurance Company to deposit the entire awarded amount, out of which
75% amount was disbursed to the claimants as per the scheme of
disbursal by the Tribunal and the remaining amount was kept in interest
bearing FDRs.
14. Enhanced compensation along with 9% interest per annum from
the date of filing the petition will be deposited before the Tribunal within
a period of four weeks and shall be disbursed as per the directions to be
given by the Tribunal.
15. List before the Tribunal on 23rd March, 2026.
16. Copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned Tribunal.
17. Claimant's appeal i.e. MAC.APP.322/2021 is disposed of with the
said directions. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
18. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to appellant.
19. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
MAC.APP. 91/2021 & MAC.APP. 327/2021
1. These cross-appeals have been preferred against impugned
award/judgment dated 21st September 2020 passed by Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal ['MACT'], Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter,
'Tribunal') in MACT Case No.106/2019, where compensation of
Rs.2,73,000/- at an interest of 9% p.a. was awarded in favour of
injured/claimant after deducting 20% towards contributory negligence.
2. Insurance Company has filed this appeal (MAC.APP.91/2021)
seeking enhancement of the contributory negligence as determined by the
Tribunal. On 15th February 2017, at about 09:30 P.M.,
deceased/Rajender was sitting as a pillion rider on the motorcycle, driven
by the injured/Virender. When they reached near Sector 20, Rohini
Pocket-16, D-2 Block, one car bearing registration no. DL-1NA-0056
(hereinafter, 'offending vehicle'), driven by Sh. Ravi ('driver') and
owned by M/s Avinash Tourist Taxi Services ('owner'), collided with the
motorcycle. As a result of this collision, both deceased/Rajender and
injured/Virender fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries.
Deceased/Rajender expired on 19th February 2017. FIR was registered
against respondent no.2/driver.
3. In the written statement, driver and owner stated that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of injured/Virender, who
struck against the offending vehicle, since he could not control his
motorcycle due to his excessive speed. It has also come to light that
injured/Virender did not have a valid and effective driving license and
was not wearing a helmet. Since there was a breach of terms and
conditions of the insurance policy, right of recovery was given to
Insurance Company against the owner of offending vehicle.
4. However, on the basis of these facts, 20% contributory negligence
was fastened on injured/Virender which has been assessed in paragraph
nos. 55-57 of the impugned award.
5. Mr. Ved Vyas Tripathi, Counsel for injured/claimant has placed
reliance upon the decision of Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar v.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 1 SCC 750, where Supreme Court
considered the issue, whether driving a vehicle without licence can itself
amount to contributory negligence and held that the plea of contributory
negligence cannot be accepted merely on that basis.
6. Previous decision in Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surendra Singh
(2008) 12 SCC 436 was followed by Dinesh Kumar (supra), particularly
reliance was placed upon the following paragraph to arrive at an opinion
that deduction on contributory negligence was made without any basis:
"9. If a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he
commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion,
may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the
accident. It has been held by the courts below that it was
the driver of the mini truck who was driving rashly and
negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was
not possessing any licence but no finding of fact has
been arrived at that he was driving the two-wheeler
rashly and negligently. If he was not driving rashly and
negligently which contributed to the accident, we fail to
see as to how, only because he was not having a licence,
he would be held to be guilty of contributory
negligence."
(emphasis added)
7. Ms. Mahua Kalra, Advocate, appearing on behalf of Insurance
Company, on a query posed by the Court, states that there is no other
evidence on record hinting that injured/Virender was driving negligently
and considering that the Insurance Company has been given a right of
recovery against the owner of offending vehicle, they shall be pursuing
the same.
8. Considering this opinion of the Supreme Court, which has been
referred to above, the appeal of injured/Virender i.e.
MAC.APP.327/2021 is allowed.
9. Accordingly, the aspect of contributory negligence stands deleted
from the impugned award. The aspect of pay and recover against the
owner is a subject matter of other appeals i.e. MAC.APP.17/2022 and
MAC. APP.25/2022, which is listed before this Court on 16th March
2026.
10. The Supreme Court in K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi and
Anr. 2024 SCC Online SC 3385, observed that "pain and suffering"
cannot be captured by any fixed definition, drawing on legal, medical,
and philosophical sources to emphasise its deeply subjective and life-
altering nature. It recognised that translating such profound human loss
into money is an inherently artificial exercise, yet courts must ensure
fairness, consistency, and sensitivity to the victim's lifelong deprivation.
The Court stressed that in cases of severe or 100% disability,
compensation must meaningfully reflect the permanent rupture in the
victim's physical, emotional, and existential well-being. Relevant
paragraphs are extracted as under:
"13. While acknowledging that 'pain and suffering', as a
concept escapes definition, we may only refer to certain
authorities, scholarly as also judicial wherein attempts
have been made to set down the contours thereof.
13.1 The entry recording the term 'pain and
suffering' in P. Ramanatha Iyer's Advanced Law
Lexicon reads as under:--
"Pain and suffering. The term 'Pain and suffering'
mean physical discomfort and distress and include
mental and emotional trauma for which damages
can be recovered in an accident claim.
This expression has become almost a term of art,
used without making fine distinction between pain
and suffering. Pain and suffering which a person
undergoes cannot be measured in terms of money
by any mathematical calculation. Hence the Court
awards a sum which is in the nature of a
conventional award [Mediana, The, [1900] A.C.
113, 116]"
...
13.5 In determining non-pecuniary damages, the
artificial nature of computing compensation has
been highlighted in Heil v. Rankin, as referred to
in Attorney General of St. Helenav. AB as under:--
"23. This principle of 'full compensation'
applies to pecuniary and non-pecuniary
damage alike. But, as Dickson J indicated in
the passage cited from his judgment
in Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd., 83
DLR (3d) 452, 475-476, this statement
immediately raises a problem in a situation
where what is in issue is what the appropriate
level of 'full compensation' for non-pecuniary
injury is when the compensation has to be
expressed in pecuniary terms. There is no
simple formula for converting the pain and
suffering, the loss of function, the loss of
amenity and disability which an injured person
has sustained, into monetary terms. Any
process of conversion must be essentially
artificial. Lord Pearce expressed it well in H
West & Son Ltd. v. Shephard, [1964] A.C.
326 when he said:
'The court has to perform the difficult and
artificial task of converting into monetary
damages the physical injury and deprivation
and pain and to give judgment for what it
considers to be a reasonable sum. It does not
look beyond the judgment to the spending of
the damages.'
24. The last part of this statement is
undoubtedly right. The injured person may not
even be in a position to enjoy the damages he
receives because of the injury which he has
sustained. Lord Clyde recognised this
in Wells v. Wells, [1999] A.C. 345, 394H when
he said:'One clear principle is that what the
successful plaintiff will in the event actually do
with the award is irrelevant."
...
14. In respect of 'pain and suffering' in cases where
disability suffered is at 100%, we may notice a few
decisions of this Court:--
14.1 In R.D Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P)
Ltd. It was observed:
"17. The claim under Sl. No. 16 for 'pain and
suffering' and for loss of amenities of life
under Sl. No. 17, are claims for non-pecuniary
loss. The appellant has claimed lump sum
amount of Rs. 3,00,000 each under the two
heads. The High Court has allowed Rs.
1,00,000 against the claims of Rs.
6,00,000. When compensation is to be
awarded for 'pain and suffering' and loss of
amenity of life, the special circumstances of
the claimant have to be taken into account
including his age, the unusual deprivation he
has suffered, the effect thereof on his future
life. The amount of compensation for non-
pecuniary loss is not easy to determine but the
award must reflect that different circumstances
have been taken into consideration. According
to us, as the appellant was an advocate having
good practice in different courts and as
because of the accident he has been crippled
and can move only on wheelchair, the High
Court should have allowed an amount of Rs.
1,50,000 in respect of claim for 'pain and
suffering' and Rs. 1,50,000 in respect of loss of
amenities of life. We direct payment of Rs.
3,00,000 (Rupees three lakhs only) against the
claim of Rs. 6,00,000 under the heads "'pain
and suffering'" and "Loss of amenities of
life".
14.2 This Judgment was recently referred to by this
Court in Sidram v. United India Insurance
Company Ltd reference was also made
to Karnataka SRTC v. Mahadeva
Shetty (irrespective of the percentage of disability
incurred, the observations are instructive), wherein
it was observed:
"18. A person not only suffers injuries on
account of accident but also suffers in mind
and body on account of the accident through
out his life and a feeling is developed that his
no more a normal man and cannot enjoy the
amenities of life as another normal person
can. While fixing compensation for pain and
suffering as also for loss of amenities, features
like his age, marital status and unusual
deprivation he has undertaken in his life have
to be reckoned..."
(emphasis added)
11. Therefore, considering the principles laid down in K.S.
Muralidhar (supra), compensation for pain & suffering is granted at
Rs.1,00,000.
12. Future prospects at 40% shall have to be granted as per the
principles enunciated in National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi
(2017) 16 SCC 680.
13. Therefore, revised computation is as under:
S Heads Awarded by Awarded by
No. the this Court
Tribunal
PECUNIARY LOSS
1 Expenditure on treatment (A) Rs. 23,953/- Rs. 23,953/-
2 Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
(B)
3 Expenditure on special diet Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 25,000/-
(C)
4 Expenditure on nursing Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 20,000/-
attendant (D)
5 Income of injured (E) Rs. 9,724/- Rs. 9,724/-
6 Add: Future Prospects (F) - Rs. 3,900/-
8 Functional disability (H) 3% 3%
9 Loss of income (I) Rs. 29,172/- Rs. 29,172/-
10 Loss of future income/future Rs. 59,600/- Rs. 83,400/-
earnings [(E+F) x 12 x G x (rounded off (rounded off
H] = (J) Rs. 59,510/-) Rs. 83,378/-)
NON-PECUNIARY LOSS
11 Pain and suffering (K) Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/-
12 Loss of amenities of life (L) Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 50,000/-
13 Total compensation (A + B + Rs. 2,73,000/- Rs. 3,46,525/-
C + D + I + J+ K + L) = M (rounded off
Rs. 2,72,725/-)
14 Less:Contributory negligence Rs. 54,600/- -
@ 20%
15 Compensation awarded Rs. 2,18,400/- Rs. 3,46,525/-
16 Interest awarded 9% 9%
14. Vide order dated 22nd February 2021, this Court directed the
Insurance Company to deposit the entire awarded amount, out of which
50% amount was disbursed to the claimant as per the scheme of disbursal
by the Tribunal and the remaining amount was kept in interest bearing
fixed deposits.
15. Enhanced compensation along with 9% interest per annum from
the date of filing the petition will be deposited before the Tribunal within
a period of four weeks and shall be disbursed as per the directions to be
given by the Tribunal.
16. List before the Tribunal on 23rd March, 2026.
17. Copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned Tribunal.
18. Accordingly, appeals are disposed of with the above observations.
19. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
20. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to appellant.
21. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 23, 2026/ak/sp
