Amit Kanojia & Ors vs Ram Singh & Ors ( National Insurance Co Ltd )

$~14 & 15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 24 April 2026

+ MAC.APP. 926/2018
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Ms. Sweta Sinha,
Mr. Kaarrtikey Parashar, Advocates.
versus

AMIT KANOJIA & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Krishan Kumar, Mr Anubhav
Kumar, Mr. Aman Bhati, Advocates
for Respondent nos.1-3.
(15)
+ MAC.APP. 8/2019
AMIT KANOJIA & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Krishan Kumar, Mr Anubhav
Kumar, Mr. Aman Bhati, Advocates .
versus

RAM SINGH & ORS ( NATIONAL INSURANCE
CO LTD ) .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Ms. Sweta Sinha,
Mr. Kaarrtikey Parashar, Advocates.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)
st
1. Both these appeals have been filed challenging the Award dated 31
July 2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, East District,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:28.04.2026
14:35:14
MAC.APP. 926/2018 & MAC.APP. 8/2019 Page 1 of 4

Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [‘ MACT ”] in MAC Suit No. 684/2016 . The
Insurance Company seeks reduction, whereas claimants seek enhancement of
compensation amount.
2. Various aspects on which this modification is sought are discussed as
under:
i. Insurance Company states that future prospects, which have
been granted for calculating the loss of dependency at 50% ,
ought not be allowed, considering that deceased was not in
permanent employment. In this regard, it is noted that deceased
was working with Dr. Oetker India Pvt. Ltd. , a well-reputed
international food company, since 2006. The accident occurred
th
on 15 June 2016; therefore, by that time, she had already
worked in the said company for ten years. She was working as
“ Assistant General Manager ” and Cost to the Company (‘ CTC ’),
as per Exhibit PW3/3, was about Rs.17,50,000 /- per annum.
th
Moreover, she was given an increment on 28 April 2016, as per
Exhibit PW3/4 . Another document has been appended as
Exhibit PW3/5 , which is a letter of participation in the
company’s workshops, showing that she was regularly a part of
company team. There is no reason why deceased may not be
considered in permanent employment, taking into account the
view taken by this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Sneha Lata & Ors. 2026:DHC:2689, where reliance was placed
on a view taken by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at
Jabalpur in Anjum Ansari v. R. Rajesh Rao , 2024 SCC OnLine
MP 9613. Hence, the plea of Insurance Company on this account
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:28.04.2026
14:35:14
MAC.APP. 926/2018 & MAC.APP. 8/2019 Page 2 of 4

is, therefore, rejected.
ii. Insurance Company pleads that ‘ income ’ was wrongly
considered and ‘ conveyance allowance ’ ought to have been
deducted. However, as per decisions of the Supreme Court in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava & Ors. (2008)
2 SCC 763, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nalini 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 2252 and Meenakshi v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1872, it has been held that allowances
which are to the benefit of the family, including ‘ transport
allowance ’, ought to be included, therefore, the plea on this
account is also rejected.
iii. Claimant have raised an issue regarding inclusion of the share
capital, which had been received while she was in employment
of the company, in the form of shares, to be included as part of
the compensation. This Court is not inclined to do so,
considering that loss of dependency is calculated primarily on the
regular and consistent income which was being received by
deceased, on the basis which dependency ought to be assessed.
The issuance of shares and one-time bonuses cannot be
considered as consistent and regular income for the purpose of
calculating the loss of dependency .
iv. Insurance Company also claims that rate of interest should be
revised from 9% to 7.5%. However, Mr. Krishan Kumar ,
counsel for claimants, points out to Section 171 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘ MV Act ’), which empowers the MACT to
exercise discretion in awarding simple interest on compensation
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:28.04.2026
14:35:14
MAC.APP. 926/2018 & MAC.APP. 8/2019 Page 3 of 4

based on case-specific facts. Moreover, he submits that
compensation is just and reasonable, and deceased is survived by
two daughters and two senior aged parents . Therefore, this Court
is not inclined to interfere with the interest component.
th
3. By order dated 12 October 2018, this Court had passed directions for
deposit of the entire awarded amount before the Registrar General of this
Court, and disbursed 50% of the amount to claimants as per the directions
passed by the MACT in the impugned award. Remaining 50% of the
deposited amount was directed to be kept in FDRs.
4. Now, since the appeals have been dismissed and impugned order of the
MACT stands confirmed, the complete amount of compensation, along with
accrued interest till date, be released to claimants as per the directions of the
MACT in the impugned award.
5. In view of the above, both the appeals stand dismissed.
6. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to the Insurance Company, only
if the order of deposit has been complied with.
7. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
8. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.

(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
APRIL 24, 2026/ ak/tk




Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:28.04.2026
14:35:14
MAC.APP. 926/2018 & MAC.APP. 8/2019 Page 4 of 4