[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Ful Kuwar Devi & Ors on 11 March, 2026
$~3 & 4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 11th March 2026
(3)
+ MAC.APP. 982/2013
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Ms. Shruti Jain,
Advocates.
versus
FUL KUWAR DEVI & ORS ....Respondents
Through: Mr. Manish Maini, Ms. Anjali
Singh, Advocates for Respondent
Nos.1-5.
(4)
+ MAC.APP. 336/2014
FUL KUWAR DEVI & ORS .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Manish Maini, Ms. Anjali
Singh, Advocates.
versus
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD ....Respondent
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Ms. Shruti Jain,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)
1. These cross-appeals have been filed in respect of impugned award
dated 31st August 2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
['MACT'], Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter, 'Tribunal') in
MACT No. 83/2011 whereby compensation of Rs. 5,80,392/- along with
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum was granted. While the Insurance
Company has filed MAC.APP. 982/2013 seeking modification in
impugned award, the claimants have filed MAC.APP.336/2014 for
enhancement of impugned award.
2. On 19th October 2010 at about 08:05 P.M., Pappu Pal (hereinafter,
'deceased') was travelling in Tata truck bearing registration no. DL-1M-
3464, when he reached near Ghazipur Toll Tax at NH-24, the driver of
the offending Canter bearing registration no.DL-1LG-6919 driven in a
rash and negligent manner hit the Tata truck, as a result of which the
deceased sustained injuries. He was taken to LBS Hospital where he was
declared as brought dead. Claim petition was filed on behalf of claimants
i.e. parents, two brothers and sister of the deceased. Deceased was 20
years of age on the date of accident and was working as a
helper/conductor on the Tata truck.
3. The Tribunal had calculated the benchmark income on the basis of
minimum wages of an unskilled worker prevalent at that time,
considering that no evidence was placed on record as regards to the
vocation of deceased. Mr. Manish Maini, counsel for claimants has
argued that it should be taken as that of a skilled worker, considering that
the deceased was doing a private job of a conductor and helper in the
same truck. However, this Court is not inclined to accept this argument
since the deceased was working only as a helper in the truck and the
appellation of a 'skilled worker' may not apply to him.
4. Future prospects have been granted at 30%. However, the same
ought to be granted at 40% in view of the principles enunciated in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680.
Relevant observation of the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) is
extracted as under:
"59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a
fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established
income should be the warrant where the deceased was
below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where
the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years
and 10% where the deceased was between the age of
50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary
method of computation. The established income means
the income minus the tax component."
(emphasis added)
5. Multiplier of '13' was applied in view of the age of mother of
deceased (46 years), however, it should be taken as '18' in terms of the
principles of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6
SCC 121, considering that the deceased was 20 years old at the time of
accident.
6. Personal and living expenses have been deducted at 50%, since he
was a bachelor. In this respect, Mr. Manish Maini states that it was a
family of meagre income and he was survived by his parents, two
younger brothers and one younger sister, therefore, the deduction ought
to be 1/3rd. For this, he has relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130
in particular, paragraph no. 16, which is extracted as under:
"16. With respect to the issue of deduction from the
income of the deceased, the Insurance Company
contended that the deduction ought to have been ½,
and not ⅓rd, since the deceased was a bachelor. This
issue has been dealt with in para 32 of the judgment
in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC
121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri)
1002] wherein this Court took the view that where the
family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the
income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a
widowed mother and large number of younger non-
earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living
expenses may be restricted to one-third, as
contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.
Considering that the deceased was living in a village,
where he was residing with his aged father who was
about 65 years old, and Respondent 2, an unmarried
sister, the High Court correctly considered them to be
dependants of the deceased, and made a deduction of
⅓rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. The
judgment of the High Court is, therefore, affirmed on
this count."
(emphasis added)
7. Mr. Manish Maini, therefore, states that it is a similar situation
and, therefore, deference must be made to the opinion of Supreme Court
in this respect. Mr. Pankaj Seth, counsel for appellant/Insurance
Company, however raises an objection on account that, as opposed to the
facts in Nanu Ram (supra), where the father was 65 years of age and
there was an unmarried sister; in this case, the father and mother of
deceased, at the time of filing the claim petition were of 45 and 40 years,
respectively, with the other three children being minor in age of 14, 12
and 10 years and therefore, would have been taken care of by the earning
member of the family.
8. Mr. Seth, therefore, states that the case is not similar to Nanu Ram
(supra) and, therefore, personal and living expenses ought to be taken at
50% only.
9. Accounting for the submissions by Mr. Maini, would introduce
unnecessary subjectivity in what has been largely standardized by the
Supreme Court. In the opinion of this Court, the parameters which have
been provided by Sarla Verma (supra) and further, endorsed by Pranay
Sethi (supra) may continue to be applied without introducing further
subjectivity into it. Accordingly, deduction towards personal and living
expenses will be taken as 50%.
10. Loss of affection will be reduced from Rs.25,000/- to Nil in view
of 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. Relevant observations of the
Supreme Court are as under:
"34. At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide
uniformity with respect to the grant of consortium, and
loss of love and affection. Several Tribunals and the
High Courts have been awarding compensation for
both loss of consortium and loss of love and affection.
The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi [National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680
: (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] ,
has recognised only three conventional heads under
which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate,
loss of consortium and funeral expenses. In Magma
General [Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu
Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 : (2019) 3 SCC (Civ) 146 :
(2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 153], this Court gave a
comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include
spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as
filial consortium. Loss of love and affection is
comprehended in loss of consortium.
35. The Tribunals and the High Courts are directed to
award compensation for loss of consortium, which is a
legitimate conventional head. There is no justification
to award compensation towards loss of love and
affection as a separate head."
(emphasis added)
11. Other alignments with respect to Loss of estate, funeral expenses
shall be according to Pranay Sethi (supra) and will therefore be
increased from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. Relevant observations in this
regard are extracted as under:
"59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads,
namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral
expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs
15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be
enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years."
12. Loss of consortium has not been granted. Since there are five
family members, loss of consortium would be granted at Rs.2,00,000/-
(40,000 × 5) in view of Pranay Sethi (supra).
13. Revised computation is as under:
S. Heads Awarded by Awarded by
No. the Tribunal this Court
1 Income of deceased (A) Rs.5278/- Rs.5278/-
2 Add: Future Prospects (B) Rs.1584 /- Rs.2113/-
3 Less: Personal expenses of Rs.3432/- Rs.3,696/-
deceased (C)
4 Loss of dependency (A+B)-C=D Rs.3432/- Rs.3,696/-
5 Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs.41,184/- Rs.44,340/-
= (E)
7 Total loss of dependency (E x F)= Rs.5,35,392/- Rs.7,98,120/-
(G)
8 Compensation for loss of Nil Rs.2,00,000/-
consortium (H)
9 Compensation for loss of love and Rs.25,00/- Nil
affection (I)
10 Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs.10,000/- Rs.15,000/-
11 Compensation towards funeral Rs.10,000/- Rs.15,000/-
expenses (K)
12 Total compensation Rs.5,58,392/- Rs.10,28,120/-
(G+H+I+J=K)= L
13 Rate of Interest Awarded 7.5% 7.5%
14. By order dated 30th October 2013, this Court had directed the
Insurance Company to deposit entire awarded amount along with
accrued interest with the Registrar General of this Court and further,
directed release of 80% of awarded amount in favour of claimants. Rest
of the amount has been retained in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch
in the form of a fixed deposit receipt ('FDR').
15. Accordingly, the enhanced amount along with interest at the rate
of 7.5% from the date of filing of petition be deposited before the
Registrar General of this Court within a period of four weeks.
16. Thereafter, balance 20% amount along with enhanced
compensation will be released in favour of the claimants in terms of the
scheme of impugned award.
17. Appeal stands disposed of in above terms.
18. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
19. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to Insurance Company.
20. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
MARCH 11, 2026/ak/sp
