United India Insurance Company Ltd v. Anshu & Ors

JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J :(ORAL)

¶1This appeal has been filed assailing the impugned award dated 16th February 2024, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi ('MACT/Tribunal') in MACT No.152/2022, awarding compensation of Rs.58,53,859/- along with interest @ 8% per annum.

¶2Ms. Shikha Sapra, appears for the appellant/Insurance Company and challenges the impugned award on two grounds: first, that while calculating loss of dependency, the father was considered to be a dependent on the deceased, even though he was 58 years of age and there being no evidence to show that he was dependent on the income of the deceased and, therefore, the deduction towards personal expenses ought to have been 1/3rd instead of 1/4th as granted by the MACT; and second, that the offending vehicle was seized after 22 months and the Mechanical Inspection Report

did not show any damage to the vehicle.

¶3Dealing with the latter issue first, it is noted that the accident occurred on 21st February 2020, where Sh. Vikas Chaudhary (deceased) and Sh. Vikash Kumar (driver) were travelling in their Scorpio car via Outer Ring Road. When they reached near Wazirabad Flyover, a truck bearing registration number HR-55P-2740 came from behind on the left side of the car, without giving any signal, took a right turn and hit the Scorpio car. Due to the impact, the front left side portion of the Scorpio car was badly damaged. The car turned turtle, and both the occupants sustained crushed injuries. PCR arrived at the spot, and the injured persons were moved to the Trauma Centre.

¶4FIR No.57/2020 was registered at P.S. Wazirabad under Sections 279/337/304A of the IPC.

¶5The claim for compensation was filed on behalf of the deceased, who was 30 years of age and self-employed. While dealing with the issue of negligence, the MACT noted the testimony of PW3, injured-eyewitness Sh. Vikash Kumar, who gave the details of the accident. He was cross-examined by all the respondents but sustained his testimony.

¶6Moreover, the charge-sheet has finally been filed against the driver of the offending vehicle, and charges have been framed, and the trial is proceeding ahead, as informed by the counsel for the claimants.

¶7On the issue of the Mechanical Inspection Report, the Insurance Company had taken this objection before the MACT; however, it was rejected by the MACT on the ground that after 22 months, the Mechanical Inspection Report would not have much meaning. The CCTV footage, obtained from CNG Pump House near Metcalfe House, shows the

registration number of the offending vehicle.

¶8Aside from this, the Mechanical Inspection Report also shows damage on the front left side mudguard and dent and scratch marks near the front left side headlight portion.

¶9Keeping this in mind, the Court is not inclined to intercede in the findings of the MACT in this regard.

¶10On the other issue of dependency, there is no evidence to suggest that the father of the deceased was dependent upon him, despite being 58 years of age. Therefore, the plea of the Insurance Company that personal expenses should be deducted at the rate of 1/3rd, treating only the wife, child, and mother of the deceased as dependents, deserves consideration.

¶11Trial Court Record ('TCR') has been placed on record and examined. As per the TCR, the Aadhaar Card of Deshpal, father of the deceased, shows his date of birth as 01st January 1964, whereas the PAN Card shows his date of birth as 15th July 1966. Either way, on the date of the accident, i.e., 21st February 2020, the father would have been either 54 or 56 years of age.

¶12In this regard, the assertion made by Ms. Shikha Sapra, counsel for Insurance Company, that the father could not be considered a dependent on the deceased may have to be accepted, considering that no evidence has been placed on record by the claimants to establish such dependency. Even the testimony of PW1, Anshu, the wife of the deceased, does not advert to this aspect.

¶13Accordingly, the deduction towards personal expenses shall be taken as 1/3rd instead of 1/4th.

¶14The revised computation of compensation is as under:

Sr. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal Awarded by the Court

¶1Monthly income of the deceased (A) Rs.24,565.8/-Rs.24,565.80/-

¶2Add-Future Prospects (B) 50% 50% of Rs.24,565.80/-= Rs. 12,282.90/-

¶3Less-personal expenses of the deceased (C) 1/4th 1/3rd of Rs. 36,848.70/-= Rs. 12,282.90/-

¶4Annual loss of dependency [(A+B) -C -D] x 12= E] Rs.3,31,638.3/-Rs. 2,94,789.60/-

¶5Multiplier (F)

¶6Total loss of dependency (E x F) = (G) Rs.56,37,859/-Rs. 50,11,423.20/-

¶7Compensation for loss of love and affection (H) NIL NIL

¶8Compensation for loss of consortium (I) Rs. 1,76,000/-Rs. 1,76,000/-

¶9Compensation for loss of estate

(I) Rs. 20,000/-Rs. 20,000/-

¶10Compensation towards funeral expenses (J) Rs. 20,000/-Rs. 20,000/-

¶11Total Compensation (F+G+H+I+J = K) Rs.58,51,859/- Rs. 52,27,423.20/- (rounded to Rs. 52,27,423/-)

¶12Interest Awarded 8% per annum

¶13Reduced Compensation Rs. 6,24,436/-

¶15Accordingly, the compensation is reduced by Rs. 6,24,436/-.

¶16The entire amount was deposited pursuant to the Court's order dated 05th August 2024, with the Registrar General of this Court.

¶17Accordingly, as per the revised compensation, the additional/excess amount along with accrued interest will be refunded to the Insurance Company.

¶18It is noted that by order dated 04th December, 2024, this Court had released Rs.53,333/-, whereas an amount of Rs. 5,00,000 was deposited in 5

FDRs. Considering request made by counsel for the claimants for release of a higher amount in order to meet the financial needs, accordingly, since the appeal has been disposed of, a lump sum amount of Rs.15,00,000/- will be released in favour of the wife of the deceased, respondent no. 1, and lump sum amount of Rs.5,00,000/- will be released in favour of respondent no. 3, mother of the deceased.

¶19The balance amount will continue to remain in FDRs and be disbursed as per the scheme of disbursal in the MACT award.

¶20Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. Pending applications (if any) are rendered infructuous.

¶21Statutory deposit, if any, shall be refunded to appellant/Insurance Company.

¶22The date already fixed stands cancelled.

¶23Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.

(ANISH DAYAL) JUDGE MAY 26, 2026/ab/bp

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 26th May 2026 + MAC.APP. 405/2024 & CM APPL. 44317/2024 & 68311/2024 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD .....Appellant Through: Ms. Shikha Sapra, Adv. versus ANSHU & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Manish Kumar Sharma, Adv. for R-1 to 4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL