Sh Balvinder Singh & Ors v. Sh Nasurula & Ors

JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J: (ORAL)

¶1This appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ('MACT') by award passed on 16th February 2013 in Claim Petition No.14/2010. The compensation was granted at Rs.10,39,944/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum to the husband of deceased (Sh. Balvinder Singh) and appellant nos.2 & 3/children of the deceased.

¶2The accident occurred on 15th October 2009 at about 11:15 P.M., when the deceased was travelling on a motorcycle along with her husband/appellant no.1; when they reached Patparganj Road, Geeta Colony,

MAC.APP. 567/2013 2 of 7

Delhi, a truck bearing registration No. DL-1LG-2139 driven by respondent no.1/Sh. Nasurula, in rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle. The deceased fell on the road and was run over by the wheel of the truck. Subsequently, she succumbed to injuries on 18th October 2009.

¶3In the assessment of claim filed by the husband and the legal heirs, the MACT in determination of Issue no.2 arrived at a finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 (driver).

¶4As regards the compensation, there are three issues which are asserted by Mr. Manish Maini, counsel for appellant. The first issue is that despite Income Tax Return ('ITR') of assessment year 2009-10 being brought on record which showed that the income of the deceased as Rs.1,99,658/- per annum, the same was disregarded by MACT for lack of supporting documents to ITR filed. The MACT, instead, used minimum wages of non-matriculate as the benchmark income.

¶5Counsel for respondent has, however, drawn attention to the testimony of Sh. Balvinder Singh (PW-1/husband of deceased), where in his cross-examination, he stated that deceased/wife had an embroidery factory located at 407 Jheel Khuranja, Delhi and he himself was working in a factory doing embroidery work located at 407-A Jheel Khuranja, Delhi. He stated that it is not the same factory which is run by his wife. He was unable to give the names of either of the factories, or provide any bills, or any document in that regard. He asserted that the factory was for embroidery work and no licence had been taken in this regard. He denied the suggestion that both are the same factory.

¶6Further, during cross-examination of PW-1 recorded on 29th February

MAC.APP. 567/2013 3 of 7

2012, he placed some cash memos issued by Anjaneyay Textiles to his wife for cloth purchased for her firm, though there were no bills or invoices against the cash memo.

¶7Counsel for respondent no.3/Insurance Company states that this testimony was recorded in November 2012 after more than one and a half years of the initial testimony and the cash memos produced were without any supporting evidence and therefore, could not have been considered. The MACT was right in considering the benchmark income as that of minimum wages of a non-matriculate.

¶8The second issue relates to the reimbursement of medical expenses incurred. Bills to the tune of Rs.3,60,605/- were raised by the hospital, which as per the claimant were paid in cash, since the medical insurance repudiated on account of original bills not being provided to Vipul Medicore Pvt. Ltd

(TPA). In this regard, Mr. Maini points out to the statement made by Mr. Yogesh (Assistant) who had appeared on behalf of Medi-claim on 3rd November 2011 before the MACT, where he stated that the claim submitted was rejected on 30th September 2010 on the ground that the original Medi-claim policy was not furnished.

Analysis

¶9Having considered the submissions of parties, it is noted that there is complete absence of any documentation provided by PW-1 regarding the name of the factory run by his wife, or any other transactional document like cash memos, invoices, bills, purchase documents, etc. The fact is that the two factories, as asserted by PW-1, were adjacent to each other located at

MAC.APP. 567/2013 4 of 7

407 and 407 A, Jheel Khuranja, Delhi. Since both were doing embroidery work, it does seem that the business income was split between the husband and wife, though the embroidery work would have been carried out in adjacent units.

¶10Thus, the Court would have to consider whether the income as declared by wife as Rs.1,99,658/- per annum for the Assessment Year 2009-10 should be taken in full to her benefit or not. It is noted that the passbook of deceased wife which was furnished by PW-1 also noted that her occupation was "housewife".

¶11However, taking a broader view in the matter and assessing the evidence on record, the Court is of the view that some reasonable income ought to be considered, taking into account the contribution of wife to the embroidery work that seemingly both husband and wife were involved in. It could very well be that the income of the collective unit was being split into two business entities for better tax management.

¶12Therefore, the Court is of the view that a reasonable income allocated to the wife would be Rs.12,000/- per month, which would amount to about Rs.1,44,000/- per annum grossly. In this regard, the Court takes support of judgment of Supreme Court in K. Ramya & Ors. V National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338 where the Supreme Court held that even if the deceased was not working but had a potential to earn money basis their managerial skills, some reasonable income ought to be allocated to that person.

¶13In this regard, one must also take into account the Profit & Loss statement appended along with the ITR, which shows that there were entries

MAC.APP. 567/2013 5 of 7

of Opening Stock, Purchases, Labour Charges, Salary and other expense, whereas the entries towards income was through Sales and Job-work. There is clearly some evidence of business being run in which the wife participated despite no other evidence.

¶14The third issue relates to reimbursement of medical expenses. Having considered the statement recorded on behalf of the Medi-claim Officer that insurance claim had been rejected on 30th September 2010, the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 must be considered.

¶15The MACT records in paragraph 31 of the impugned award that PW-2, Sh. Naveen Kumar (Medical Record In-charge, Max Balaji Hospital), who had produced the entire medical record including discharge summary and medical bills, stated that the hospital raised the bills to the tune of Rs.3,60,605/- against the treatment provided and "entire bill was paid in cash". Therefore, the MACT was amiss basis this evidence on record to have rejected the claim for reimbursement of the hospital bills.

Conclusion

¶16Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation by taking the benchmark income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/- per month instead of minimum wages. The claimants are also entitled to reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred to the tune of Rs.3,60,605/-. Further, the other heads of compensation are required to be aligned with the principles laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680.

¶17Since the deceased was 32-33 years old at the time of death and was

MAC.APP. 567/2013 6 of 7

self-employed, he is entitled to 40% towards future prospects and a deduction of one-third towards personal expenses considering a family of three. Conventional heads such as loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses are also to be aligned in terms of Pranay Sethi (supra). Compensation awarded under the head of loss of love and affection shall be nil, in view of the law laid down in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780.

¶18The re-computation is as under:

S.no. Heads of Compensation Awarded by the Tribunal Awarded by this Court

¶1Loss of income per month (A) Rs. 4,146/-Rs. 12,000/-

¶2Future Prospects @40% (B) Rs. 1,036/-Rs. 4,800/-

¶3Less Personal expenses of the deceased

(C) 1/3rd Nil Rs. 5,600/-

¶4Monthly Loss of Dependency (A+B-C=D) Rs. 5,182/-Rs. 11,200/-

¶5Annual loss of dependency (D x 12=E) Rs. 62,184/-Rs. 1,34,400/-

¶6Multiplier (F)

¶7Total loss of dependency (E x F = G) Rs.9,94,944/-Rs.21,50,400/-

¶8Medical expenses (H) Nil Rs. 3,60,605/-

¶9Compensation for loss of consortium

(I) Rs.10,000/- Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000x3)

¶10Compensation for loss of love and affection (J) Rs. 25,000/- Nil

¶11Compensation for loss of estate (K) Nil Rs. 15,000/-

¶12Compensation towards funeral expenses (L) Rs.10,000/-Rs. 15,000/-

MAC.APP. 567/2013 7 of 7

¶13Total compensation (G+H+I+J+K+L = M) Rs.10,39,944/-Rs.26,61,005/-

¶14Rate of Interest Awarded

7.5%

7.5%

Directions

¶19Accordingly, enhanced amount will be deposited by the Insurance Company within a period of 6 weeks from today, before the MACT. The same shall be released by the MACT as per its directions.

¶20List before the MACT, East District, Karkardooma Courts on 12th March 2026. Copy of the order be sent to the concerned MACT.

¶21Recovery rights granted to the Insurance Company by the impugned award to recover the compensation from respondent nos.1 & 2 have not been challenged. Therefore, they stand sustained.

¶22Appeal stands disposed of with above directions.

¶23Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.

¶24Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to the appellant.

¶25Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.

ANISH DAYAL, J JANUARY 30, 2026/ak/zb

MAC.APP. 567/2013 1 of 7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 30th January 2026 + MAC.APP. 567/2013 SH BALVINDER SINGH & ORS .....Appellants Through: Mr. Manish Maini, Ms. Astha Chauhan, Advocates. versus SH NASURULA & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ravi Sabharwal, Mr. Vivan Garg, Advocates for Respondent no.3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL