The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Smt Parminder Kaur & Ors
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 19 May 2026
+ MAC.APP. 924/2013
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth and Ms. Shruti Jain,
Advocates.
versus
SMT PARMINDER KAUR & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar and Mr. Ritik
Singh, Advs. R-1 to 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)
1. The appeal has been filed assailing the impugned judgment dated
th
16 August 2013 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [‘ MACT ’],
South District, Saket Courts in Suit No.683/2009, whereby compensation
of Rs.25,21,536/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of
filing the petition has been awarded to the claimants.
th
2. The accident occurred on 08 July 2009 at about 02.35 p.m. near IIT
Hauz Khas, when the deceased while riding a motorcycle was hit by a TSR
bearing registration no. DL-1RJ-3421 allegedly driven in a rash and
negligent manner, resulting in fatal injuries. FIR No. 240/2009 was
registered under Section 279/304A IPC at PS Hauz Khas.
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 924/2013 Page 1 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:25.05.2026
15:34:49
3. The deceased was said to be working as a permanent employee at IIT
Delhi drawing a monthly salary of Rs.25,150/- which was proved by PW-2 .
The age of the deceased was 55 years at the time of the accident and hence,
th
multiplier of ‘11’ was applied and 1/4 was deducted towards personal
expenses considering there were 4 dependents. The Tribunal granted the
right to pay and recover to Insurance Company, as they succeeded in
proving breach of policy conditions.
4. Issues on computation and negligence have been canvassed before
the Court by Ms. Shruti Jain , counsel for Insurance Company.
5. No one appears for driver and owner and no appeal has been filed to
challenge the issue of pay and recovery. Accordingly, the finding of
Tribunal as regards the right of pay and recover shall not be disturbed.
6. Ms. Shruti Jain , counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/Insurance
Company, raises the following points:
(i) The issue of negligence was decided, inter alia, based on the
FIR and the chargesheet in favour of the claimants, holding
that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving
of the driver/owner of the TSR, which was insured by
appellant/Insurance Company. Though recovery rights were
granted in favour of the Insurance Company, the challenge is
being made since the criminal proceedings have now resulted
in an acquittal. In this regard, the decision of the Supreme
Court in N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal (1980)
3 SCC 457, is pressed by the counsel for respondents, wherein
it is clearly stated that acquittal does not bar civil liability, as
the standard of culpability is higher in criminal proceedings
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 924/2013 Page 2 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:25.05.2026
15:34:49
than required in civil proceedings.
(ii) The dependency ought to have been calculated keeping in
account that two of the claimants, being legal heirs of the
deceased, were son and daughter, both of whom had attained
the age of majority. Ms. Shruti Jain , counsel for
appellant/Insurance Company, points out to the statement of
th
PW-1 , the wife of the deceased, recorded on 26 November
2011, wherein she states that the daughter is 29 years old,
married and living with her husband, and son is 27 years old
and a graduate, staying abroad, and doing a job and has been
helping the family financially. Since the accident had
occurred in 2009, both the daughter and the son would still
have been major in age and not dependent on the deceased.
Therefore, the deduction for personal expenses ought to have
rd th
been 1/3 instead of 1/4 , as calculated by the MACT
(considering that the other two claimants were the wife and the
mother of the deceased).
(iii) It was argued by counsel for Insurance Company that the
multiplier ought to have been 9 instead of 11 since the age of
deceased at the time of incident was about 55 years and 7
months. To this, Mr. Parashar , counsel for respondents points
out that the multiplier for category of 56-60 years is 9, and
since the deceased had not completed 56 years of age, it would
still be considered in the category of 51-55 years with the
multiplier of 11.
(iv) As per the counsel for Insurance Company, the following
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 924/2013 Page 3 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:25.05.2026
15:34:49
alignments are also required to be made:
a. Funeral expenses awarded at Rs.25,000/- ; shall
be reduced to Rs. 15,000/- in terms of National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16
SCC 680;
b. Loss of care and guidance was awarded at
Rs .1,00,000/- , which is now not permissible, as per the
Supreme Court’s judgment in United India Insurance
Company Limited vs. Satinder Kaur Alias Satwinder
Kaur and Others (2021) 11 SCC 780.
c. Loss of consortium was awarded at
Rs.1,00,000/-, whereas as per Pranay Sethi ( supra ) and
Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs.
Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others (2018) 18
SCC 130, ought to be Rs.40,000/- each in favour of
parental consortium of the mother and the spousal
consortium of the wife.
7. Further, counsel for appellant, strenuously argues that the MACT
has failed in its duty to give a proper assessment on the issue of
negligence and has simpliciter relied upon the FIR and the chargesheet,
which is not in consonance with the burden of proof which needs to be
discharged by a petitioner/claimant filing a claim petition under Section
166 of the MV Act.
Analysis
8. As regards the issue of dependency, considering that daughter of
deceased was 29 years old, married and living with her husband, and
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 924/2013 Page 4 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:25.05.2026
15:34:49
son of deceased was a 27 years old graduate staying abroad and helping
the family financially, in the opinion of this Court, deduction of
rd th
personal and living expenses would be 1/3 instead of 1/4 as
calculated by the MACT, keeping in view that the only other two
claimants i.e. wife and mother of deceased will be considered as
dependants.
9. Multiplier would be ‘ 11 ’, considering that deceased had not
completed the age of 56 years and, therefore, will still fall into the
bracket of 51-55 years as per the tabulation provided in Pranay Sethi ,
( supra ) and Sarla Verma v. DTC , (2009) 6 SCC 121.
10. As far as other alignments are concerned, same shall be done
with respect to Pranay Sethi ( supra ) and the relevant observations are
extracted as under:
“ 52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we
find it difficult to agree with the view expressed
in Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 :
(2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 :
(2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149]. It has granted Rs 25,000
towards funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of
consortium and Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of care and
guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of
care and minor children does not exist.
Though Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC
54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 :
(2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] refers to Santosh
Devi [Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
(2012) 6 SCC 421 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 726 : (2012) 3
SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 167] , it does not
seem to follow the same. The conventional and
traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined
on percentage basis because that would not be an
acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income,
the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 924/2013 Page 5 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:25.05.2026
15:34:49
must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no
dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank
interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be
noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same.
There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise,
there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the
same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be
immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a
consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals
and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think
it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that
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
principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable
principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or
quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that
the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced
on percentage basis in every three years and the
enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of
three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will
bring in consistency in respect of those heads.”
(emphasis added)
11. Therefore, funeral expenses shall be reduced to Rs.15,000 /-. Loss
of consortium awarded at Rs.1,00,000 /- would be Rs.1,60,000 /-
(40,000×4), considering that there were 4 claimants namely, mother,
wife, daughter and son).
12. Considering that loss of estate has not been granted by the
MACT, to align the same with Pranay Sethi ( supra ), Rs. 15,000/- shall
be granted under that head.
13. Loss of care and guidance awarded at Rs.1,00,000 /- shall be
deleted as per the Satinder Kaur ( supra ).
14. Therefore, the following adjustments shall be made to the
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 924/2013 Page 6 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:25.05.2026
15:34:49
impugned award:
rd
(i) Personal expenses shall be deducted to 1/3 .
(ii) Funeral expenses shall be reduced to Rs.15,000 /-.
(iii) Loss of consortium shall be awarded at Rs.1,60,000 /-
(iv) Loss of Estate shall be awarded at Rs.15,000 /-.
(v) Loss of care and guidance awarded at Rs.1,00,000 /- shall
be deleted.
15. As regards issue of negligence, Mr. Parashar challenges the plea of
no negligence raised by Insurance Company and places reliance for the
same on paragraph 37 of the judgment of this court in National Insurance
co ltd v Shehnaj Begum & Ors. 2026:DHC:3169 which is extracted as
under.
“ 37. Thus, where direct evidence regarding the
manner of the accident is unavailable, the Tribunal is
entitled to examine the surrounding circumstances
and assess whether the occurrence is of such a nature
that negligence can reasonably be inferred. In such
cases, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur operates as a
rule of evidence enabling the Tribunal, on the
touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, to
determine whether the accident itself provides a
reasonable basis to infer negligence. ”
16. In the present matter FIR No.240/2009 under 279/304A IPC was
registered at PS Hauz Khas however, the same has resulted in acquittal the
driver.
17. In the facts of the present case, this Court is of the view that the
doctrine of res ipsa loquitur squarely applies. The material placed on
record, including the FIR, and chargesheet, clearly establishes that the
offending vehicle had struck the motorcycle with considerable force,
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 924/2013 Page 7 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:25.05.2026
15:34:49
resulting in the death of the deceased. Further, the Mechanical Inspection
Report of the TSR shows that there was fresh damage to the front side. The
offending vehicle was under the exclusive control and management of
respondent no.2/driver, yet neither the driver nor the owner entered the
witness box to furnish any explanation regarding the manner in which the
accident occurred or to rebut the allegation of rash and negligent driving. In
these circumstances, the surrounding facts themselves furnish sufficient
basis to draw an inference of negligence against the driver of the offending
vehicle. The Tribunal, therefore, was justified in arriving at the finding of
negligence on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities.
18. Further, the argument that the driver was acquitted in criminal
proceedings is not of relevance here as the burden of proof in motor
accident cases under the MV Act is preponderance of probabilities and not
beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court has held in N.K.V. Bros. (P)
Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal , ( supra ) as under:
“ 2…
The plea that the criminal case had ended in acquittal
and that, therefore, the civil suit must follow suit, was
rejected and rightly. The requirement of culpable
rashness under Section 304-A IPC is more drastic
than negligence sufficient under the law of tort to
create liability. The quantum of compensation was
moderately fixed and although there was, perhaps, a
case for enhancement, the High Court dismissed the
cross-claims also. Being questions of fact, we are
obviously unwilling to reopen the holdings on
culpability and compensation .”
19. Further, it is contended by Mr. Prashar that considering the age of
deceased at 55 and that he was in permanent employment with IIT Delhi he
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 924/2013 Page 8 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:25.05.2026
15:34:49
is entitled to future prospects at 15% in consonance with the principles
enunciated in Pranay Sethi ( supra ).
20. Ms. Shruti Jain , Counsel for Insurance Company, places reliance on
the judgment of Ranjana Prakash v. Divl. Manager, (2011) 14 SCC 639,
the relevant paragraph is extracted as under:
“ 8. Where an appeal is filed challenging the quantum
of compensation, irrespective of who files the appeal,
the appropriate course for the High Court is to
examine the facts and by applying the relevant
principles, determine the just compensation. If the
compensation determined by it is higher than the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High
Court will allow the appeal, if it is by the claimants
and dismiss the appeal, if it is by the owner/insurer.
Similarly, if the compensation determined by the High
Court is lesser than the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, the High Court will dismiss any appeal by
the claimants for enhancement, but allow any appeal
by the owner/insurer for reduction. The High Court
cannot obviously increase the compensation in an
appeal by the owner/insurer for reducing the
compensation, nor can it reduce the compensation in
an appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement of
compensation. ”
21. On the contrary, Mr. Parashar , counsel for claimant, places reliance
on the order of Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 8439/
2019 titled “ Surekha & Ors. v Santosh & Ors .” passed by three judge
bench to contend that even in absence of cross appeal, the Court can
enhance compensation. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid order held that
Courts should not take hyper-technical approach and ensure that just
compensation was awarded to the affected person or the claimants. The
order of Supreme Court rejected the judgment of Bombay High Court basis
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 924/2013 Page 9 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:25.05.2026
15:34:49
which the enhancement of compensation was declined on ground that no
cross appeal had been filed.
22. Even otherwise the principle that Courts are duty bound to award just
compensation irrespective of the pleading of the parties is relatively well
settled. Reference can be made to Ningamma v. United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. (2009) 13 SCC 710. The relevant part of the judgment is extracted
as under:
“ 25.....Needless to say, the MVA is beneficial and
welfare legislation. In fact, the court is duty
bound and entitled to award “Just
Compensation” irrespective of the fact whether
any plea in that behalf was raised by the
claimant or not......”
(emphasis added)
23. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to accept argument of
counsel for appellant as the same is in consonance with the view taken by
Supreme Court but also with the principles of just compensation.
Accordingly, the future prospects that were omitted by the Tribunal are
granted at 25%.
24. The revised compensation is as under:
25.
S.No. Heads of Compensation Awarded by
the Tribunal
Awarded by
this Court
Loss of Dependency
1. Loss of income per month (A) Rs. 23,198/- Rs. 23,198/-
2. Future Prospects @25% (B) Nil Rs. 5,800/-
3. Less Personal expenses of the
rd
deceased (C) 1/3
Rs. 5,800/- Rs. 9,666/-
4. Monthly Loss of Dependency (A+B-
C=D)
Rs 17,398/- Rs. 19,332/-
5. Annual loss of dependency (D x 12=E) Rs. 2,08,776/- Rs. 2,31,984/-
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 924/2013 Page 10 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:25.05.2026
15:34:49
6. Multiplier (F) 11 11
7. Total loss of dependency (E x F = G) Rs. 22,96,536/- Rs. 25,51,824/-
Conventional Heads
8. Compensation for loss of consortium
(H)
Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 1,60,000/-
9. Compensation for loss of estate (I) Nil Rs.15,000/-
10. Compensation towards funeral
expenses (J)
Rs.25,000/- Rs.15,000/-
11. Loss of care and guidance Rs. 1,00,000/- Nil
11. Total compensation (G+H+I+J = K) Rs. 25,21,536/- Rs. 27,41,824/-
12. Rate of Interest Awarded 9% 9%
26. The compensation is enhanced by Rs. 2,20,288/- .
th
27. Vide order dated 11 October 2013, this Court directed that on
deposit of entire award amount along with up-to-date interest accrued with
the Registrar General of this Court there shall be stay on the impugned
award. Further, this Court directed that the 80% of the deposited amount
shall be released in favour of claimant as per the terms and condition fixed
by Tribunal through UCO Bank, High Court of Delhi Branch.
28. It is directed that the balance amount deposited with the Registrar
General of this Court along with accrued interest shall be released to the
claimant in terms of the directions of MACT in the impugned award.
29. The enhanced compensation along with accrued interest @9% per
annum shall be deposited before the Registrar General of this Court within
a period of four weeks. The enhanced compensation along with accrued
interest shall be released to the claimants as lumpsum.
30. The appeal is accordingly disposed of in terms of the above.
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 924/2013 Page 11 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:25.05.2026
15:34:49
31. Statutory deposit be refunded to appellant/Insurance Company, only
if the order of deposit has been complied with.
32. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court
(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
MAY 19, 2026/sm/zb
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 924/2013 Page 12 of 12
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:25.05.2026
15:34:49