[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Sheelo Devi & Ors vs Suresh & Ors on 17 March, 2026
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 17th March 2026
+ MAC.APP. 318/2019
SHEELO DEVI & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Ms. Nazneen Khan, Mr Anupam
Kumar Singh, Advocates.
versus
SURESH & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Ms. Arpita
Srivastava, Advocates for
Respondent no.3/Insurance
Company.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)
1. This appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation
awarded at Rs.5,86,000/- along with 9% interest by Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi ('MACT') vide
award dated 18th July 2018, in MAC No.1363/2016, in respect of accident
which occurred on 10th September 2014, when Ram Niwas (the deceased),
who was travelling on his motorcycle, was hit by an offending vehicle
bearing registration no. HR-16A-2801 resulting in fatal injuries.
2. The claim was filed by his wife and five children which was allowed
and compensation was awarded by the MACT vide the impugned award. FIR
no. 689/14 was registered under Section 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and criminal proceedings were also initiated against the driver, who
was charge sheeted. The claim was made that deceased was drawing a salary
of Rs.15,500/- per month, however, no document had been placed on record.
Accordingly, the minimum wages for an unskilled worker in Haryana, i.e.
Rs. 6,507/- per month, were taken into consideration.
3. Counsel for appellant submits that the salary certificate could not be
produced during the MACT proceedings. However, the said certificate, now
produced, is undated, unstamped and does not disclose the name of the
issuing authority; therefore, it cannot be relied upon or taken on record. In
these circumstances, the MACT's assessment with respect to the benchmark
income is sustained.
4. However, on the issue of multiplier, the MACT did not have any proof
of age before it and, therefore, assessed the age at 56 years on the following
basis:
"7.2. Age of deceased: To determine the compensation
in a fatal case, petitioners are required to prove the age
and income of the deceased as well as number of
dependents to make necessary deductions towards the
personal expenses of the deceased. The age of deceased
is necessary to apply the multiplier. Petitioners have
disclosed the age of the deceased as 51 years in petition,
whereas no document regarding the age of deceased has
been placed on record to ascertain his age. His
postmortem report has been proved his age as 48 years,
whereas age of his wife, on the day of accident, as per
voter ID, was more than 50 years. Deceased was having
married children with age of more than 30 years which
suggests that his age was much more than disclosed. In
the absence of any specific document regarding the age
of deceased, I hereby consider the average the age of
deceased as 56 years. As such, age of deceased was 56
years on the day of accident and is taken accordingly for
the purpose of this claim."
5. It is an accepted position that the eldest child was 29 years of age at
the time of the accident, while the wife was about 50 years old. The
assessment of the deceased's age by the MACT at 56 years is merely a
'guesstimate', an approximation, and lacks any cogent basis. There is no
reason why the deceased could not have been placed within the age bracket
of 51 to 55 years, which provides a reasonable range to accommodate such
estimation, rather than placing him in the higher bracket of 56 to 60 years.
6. In this regard, this Court of the opinion that a more just and reasonable
assessment would be to take the age group of 51 to 55 years and apply a
multiplier of 11.
7. Further, considering that there are six claimants, namely, the wife and
five children of the deceased, in order to align the compensation under the
head of loss of consortium with the principles enunciated by the Supreme
Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680,
and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130,
a sum of Rs.40,000/- shall be awarded to each of the six claimants.
Accordingly, the total compensation under the head of loss of consortium
shall be Rs. 40,000/- × 6 = Rs. 2,40,000/-.
8. Accordingly, the revised compensation is as under:
S.n Heads of Compensation Awarded by Awarded by
o. the Tribunal this Court
1. Loss of income per month (A) Rs. 6,507/- Rs. 6,507/-
2. Future Prospects @10% (B) Rs. 651/- Rs. 651/-
3. Less Personal expenses of the Rs.2,386/- Rs.2,386/-
deceased (C) 1/3rd
4. Monthly Loss of Dependency Rs.4,772/- Rs.4,772/-
(A+B-C=D)
5. Annual loss of dependency (D x Rs.57,264/- Rs.57,264/-
12=E)
7. Total loss of dependency (E x F Rs.5,15,354/-. Rs.6,29,904/-
= G)
8. Compensation for loss of Rs.40,000/- Rs.2,40,000/-
consortium (H)
9. Compensation for loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-
(I)
10. Compensation towards funeral Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-
expenses (J)
11. Total compensation Rs.5,86,000/- Rs.8,99,904/-
(G+H+I+J = K)
12. Rate of Interest Awarded 9% 9%
9. Enhanced compensation along with 9% interest from the date of filing
shall be deposited by the Insurance Company before the MACT within a
period of four weeks and be released to the claimants within a period of four
weeks as per the directions of the MACT.
10. Appeal stands disposed of in terms of the above. Pending applications,
if any, are rendered infructuous.
11. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
MARCH 17, 2026/ak/zb
