United India Assurance Co Ltd vs Smt Veena Devi & Ors

$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC011899392013
th
% Date of decision: 18 August 2026.
+ MAC.APP. 1147/2013
UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Mouli Sharma, Advocate for Ms.
Suman Bagga, Advocate.
versus
SMT VEENA DEVI & ORS .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Meera Kaura Patel, Adv. for R-1
to 6
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)

1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company, assailing the
nd
judgment dated 02 August 2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (‘ MACT/Tribunal ’) in Suit No.
174/2013, whereby compensation of Rs. 32,72,800/- along with interest @
9% per annum was awarded.
2. Ms. Mouli Sharma , counsel, is appearing for the Insurance Company,
whereas Ms. Meera Kaura Patel , counsel, is appearing for
respondents/claimants.
th
3. The accident occurred on 24 January 2013, when the deceased
Rajpal Saini was travelling along with his son, Sandeep Saini , in their car,
returning from a marriage ceremony on the Outer Ring Road near
Wazirabad flyover, Timarpur, Delhi . Their car was hit by a tempo bearing
Signature Not Verified

MAC APP. 1147/2013 1 of 9

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:05.09.2026
15:09:52

registration No. PB-65P-4474 (‘ offending vehicle ’) driven by Manpreet
Singh .
4. Since the tempo fled, the deceased followed it, caught up with it at
the red light, and asked the driver to get down. However, the driver of the
offending vehicle, without caring for the deceased, mowed down the
deceased, who died on the spot. The driver of the offending vehicle was
caught at the site.
5. Driver and owner of the tempo did not specifically deny their
involvement in the accident in question and did not lead any evidence
before the MACT.
6. The Insurance Company also did not file any written statement and
did not cross-examine PW1 , the wife of the deceased, Veena Devi .
7. Ms. Mouli Sharma , counsel for Insurance Company, assails the
award on two counts:
i. Firstly , that there was contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased, inasmuch as he was under the influence of alcohol, was
chasing the offending vehicle, and entered into a scuffle with the
driver instead of reporting the incident to the police;
th
ii. Secondly, that 1/4 was deducted towards personal expenses for the
purpose of calculating the loss of dependency despite there being only
3 actual dependants, as three of the six dependants were major sons
and not dependent on the deceased. It is contended that the deduction
rd
ought to have been 1/3 .
8. As regards the first issue of contributory negligence, Ms. Mouli
th
Sharma has drawn attention to the MLC dated 24 January 2013, wherein it
Signature Not Verified

MAC APP. 1147/2013 2 of 9

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:05.09.2026
15:09:52

is stated that the victim was brought with a history of a road traffic accident
and was “ claiming taken alcohol ”. However, it is nobody's case that any test
for alcohol consumption was conducted.
9. Nevertheless, as far as the facts of the accident are concerned, they
are not in dispute. The deceased was standing outside his car and attempting
to ask the driver of the tempo to come out, which is when the driver decided
to accelerate and mowed down the deceased.
10. The question of any contributory negligence, in such circumstances,
does not arise. It is not a case where the deceased was driving a vehicle and
a collision occurred between his vehicle and the tempo.
11. The assertion that the deceased should not have entered into a scuffle
with the driver and should instead have reported the matter to the police is
neither substantiated by any legal submission nor supported by any factual
evidence. The Insurance Company did not lead any further evidence.
12. It is natural human conduct that a person affected by the conduct of a
delinquent driver on the road would attempt to seek accountability from the
said driver. However, that does not give the delinquent driver any right to
drive rashly and negligently, thereby running over the person who is
complaining. Accepting the plea of the Insurance Company would be
anathema to the duty of care cast upon every person driving a motor vehicle
and would, practically, give such drivers a licence to cause injury to a
person who complains about their driving or a collision. Accordingly, the
plea of contributory negligence is untenable and illogical.
13. As regards the issue of deduction towards personal expenses, the
claim was filed on behalf of six legal representatives, viz., the wife of the
Signature Not Verified

MAC APP. 1147/2013 3 of 9

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:05.09.2026
15:09:52

deceased, the mother of the deceased, and four male children.
14. Ms. Meera Kaura Patel , counsel for the claimant, states that Harish
Saini was 19 years of age ( as per the PAN card ), Pankaj Saini was 18 years
of age ( as per his school certificate ), Pushpender was a minor, and Sandeep
was 25 years of age.
15. Ms. Mouli Sharma has pointed out the ration card and states that
Sandeep was 26 years of age, Harish was 23 years of age, and Pankaj was
18 years of age.
16. It has further been contended by the Insurance Company that the sons
of the deceased, were dependent upon agricultural income, which would
have continued in any event, and, therefore, they could not be treated as
dependent upon the income of their father.
17. Ms. Mouli Sharma has also raised an issue with regard to the award
of penal interest at 12% per annum. However, in the present case,
considering that the compensation has been deposited with interest at 9%
per annum, the rate of 9%, shall be sustained.
18. Ms. Patel has drawn attention of this Court to the Supreme Court's
decision in National Insurance Company v Birender and Ors. (2020) 11
SCC 356, wherein the Court, while dealing with an objection raised by the
Insurance Company regarding dependency of adult children, held that
firstly, legal representatives of deceased have right to claim compensation,
which may include a major, married, and earning sons of the deceased
irrespective of their dependency, and secondly , the Court held that the
extent of dependency, if any, would have to be determined separately. For
ease of reference, the relevant paragraph is extracted as under:

Signature Not Verified

MAC APP. 1147/2013 4 of 9

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:05.09.2026
15:09:52

“ 14. It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives
of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation.
Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the
major married and earning sons of the deceased being
legal representatives have a right to apply for
compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the
Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact
whether the legal representative concerned was fully
dependent on the deceased and not to limit the claim
towards conventional heads only. The evidence on record
in the present case would suggest that the claimants were
working as agricultural labourers on contract basis and
were earning meagre income between Rs 1,00,000 and Rs
1,50,000 per annum. In that sense, they were largely
dependent on the earning of their mother and in fact, were
staying with her, who met with an accident at the young age
of 48 years .”
(emphasis added)


19. In the case of Birender ( supra ) , the Supreme Court, while dealing
with dependency of married sons, noted that “ they were largely dependent
on the earning of their mother and in fact staying with her ”. On this basis,
the compensation was awarded in their favour.
20. The decision in Birender ( supra ) was subsequently reiterated by the
Supreme Court in Seema Rani and Ors v Oriental Insurance Company ,
2025 SCC OnLine SC 283, wherein a challenge was raised to deduction of
50% of the deceased’s income towards personal expenses despite the
deceased being survived by three major children. The Supreme Court,
therefore, held as under:
“ 9…We have heard the learned counsel for the Appellants.
We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal
on the dependents of the deceased. This Court in National
Signature Not Verified

MAC APP. 1147/2013 5 of 9

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:05.09.2026
15:09:52

Insurance Company Limited v. Birender & Ors., had
expounded that major married and earning sons of the
deceased, being legal representatives, have a right to apply
for compensation, and the Tribunal must consider the
application, irrespective of whether the representatives are
fully dependent on the deceased or not. The Court went on
to conclude that since the sons, in that case, were earning
merely Rs.1,50,000/- per annum, they were largely
dependent on the earnings of the deceased and were staying
with her”
(emphasis added)

21. A recent decision of the Supreme Court in Sameem Begum and Ors
v K. Venkat Swamy and Anr . (2026) INSC 864, once again reiterates the
application of the principle enunciated in Birender ( supra ). In the said case,
the Court goes on to categorically state that while the legal representatives
will always have a right to claim compensation, the question of dependency
must be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case.
22. The Supreme Court further held that apart from the issue of
dependency, the claimants are entitled to claim loss of consortium, which
stands settled by the decisions of the Constitution Bench 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.
23. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it
cannot be overlooked that, apart from the wife, the mother and the minor
son of the deceased, out of the other three sons, the youngest son was only
18 years of age at the relevant time. Even assuming that the other two sons
were earning adults, there would still be four dependants of the deceased,
th
namely mother, wife, and two sons. Consequently, the deduction of 1/4 of
Signature Not Verified

MAC APP. 1147/2013 6 of 9

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:05.09.2026
15:09:52

the income towards personal and living expenses is correct and justified and
does not warrant any interference.
24. Moreover, it is noted that neither the Insurance Company cross-
examined PW1 on this aspect nor was any written statement filed.
Therefore, the plea of the Insurance Company, notwithstanding the lack of
any steps taken before the MACT, cannot be sustained due to the reasons
above.
25. Apart from the above, the following components of compensations
are required to be aligned in terms of the principles laid down in Pranay
Sethi ( supra ):
i. Amount awarded towards loss of consortium at Rs. 1,00,000/- ought
to have been computed at Rs. 40,000/- per family member, namely
mother of the deceased, wife of the deceased and four children of the
deceased. Accordingly, the total amount payable under this head
would be Rs. 2,40,000/- ( Rs. 40,000 × 6 );
ii. Funeral expenses ought to have been at Rs. 15,000/- , instead of Rs.
25,000/- ;
iii. Loss of estate should also be at Rs. 15,000/-, instead of Rs. 10,000/-;
and
iv. Amount granted towards loss of love and affection will stand to be
deleted since it stands subsumed within the head of loss of
consortium in view of the decision in United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Ors. (2021) 11 SCC
780.
26. Accordingly, the revised computation is as under:
Signature Not Verified

MAC APP. 1147/2013 7 of 9

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:05.09.2026
15:09:52

Sr. No. Heads Awarded by the
Tribunal
Awarded by the
Court
1. Annual income of the deceased
(A)
Rs. 2,04,129/- Rs. 2,04,129/-
2. Add-Future Prospects (B) 15% 15%
3. Less-personal expenses of the
th th
deceased (C) 1/4 1/4
4. Annual loss of dependency
[(A+B) - C ] = D] Rs. 1,76,061.26/- Rs. 1,76,061.26/-
5. Multiplier (E) 13 13
6. Total loss of dependency (D x
E) = (F) Rs. 22,88,796.41/- Rs. 22,88,796.41/-
7. Compensation for loss of love
and affection (G) Rs. 1,00,000/- NIL
8. Compensation for loss of
consortium (H)
Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 2,40,000/-
9. Compensation for loss of estate
(I)
Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
10. Compensation towards funeral
expenses (J)
Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
11. Expenditure towards treatment
(K)
Rs. 7,49,000/- Rs. 7,49,000/-
12.
Rs. 32,72,796.41/-
(rounded to Rs.
32,72,800/-)
Rs. 33,07,796.41
rounded to Rs.
33,07,800/-
13. Interest Awarded 9% per annum 9% per annum
14. Enhanced Compensation Rs. 35,000/-

Total Compensation
(F+G+H+I+J+K= L)
27. Accordingly, compensation is enhanced by Rs. 35,000/-.
28. The enhanced compensation, along with interest at 9% per annum, be
deposited by the insurance company with the Registrar General of this
Court within four weeks, and the same shall be released to the claimants
within two weeks thereafter.
th
29. Vide order dated 20 December 2013, this Court directed the
Insurance Company to deposit the entire awarded amount, along with
accrued interest, before the Registrar General of this Court. Upon such
deposit, 70% of the awarded amount was directed to be released in favour
Signature Not Verified

MAC APP. 1147/2013 8 of 9

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:05.09.2026
15:09:52

of the claimants, subject to the conditions stipulated by the Tribunal.
30. Since the present appeal has been dismissed, the entire amount of
compensation lying with the Registrar General of this Court shall be
released as a lump sum to the claimants, considering that the accident
occurred in 2013 and more than 13 years have since elapsed.
31. It is informed that the wife of the deceased, as well as the mother of
the deceased, have already passed away; accordingly, the portion of the
compensation awarded by the MACT to Veena Devi , wife of the deceased,
shall be distributed equally amongst Sandeep Saini , Harish Saini , Pankaj
Saini , and Pushpender Saini , the four children of the deceased.
32. Likewise, the portion of the compensation awarded to Khajani Devi ,
mother of the deceased, shall also be distributed equally amongst the
aforesaid four children.
33. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Pending applications, if any,
are rendered infructuous.
34. Statutory deposit shall be refunded to appellant/Insurance Company
only upon deposit of the enhanced amount along with the accrued interest.
35. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.


ANISH DAYAL, J
AUGUST 18, 2026/RK/ bp
Signature Not Verified

MAC APP. 1147/2013 9 of 9

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:05.09.2026
15:09:52