United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Savita & Anr
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Reserved on : 05 August 2026.
th
Pronounced on : 06 November 2026.
th
Uploaded on : 06 November 2026.
# CNR No. DLHC010238052019
+ MAC.APP. 586/2019 & CM APPL. 24454/2019
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Ravi Sabharwal, Advocate.
versus
SAVITA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Jatinder Kamra & Mr. B. P.
Saxena Advocates for R-1
# CNR No. DLHC010238062019
+ MAC.APP. 588/2019 & CM APPL. 24461/2019
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Ravi Sabharwal, Advocate
versus
SAVITA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Jatinder Kamra & Mr. B. P.
Saxena Advocates for R-1
# CNR No. DLHC010019872023
+ MAC.APP. 47/2023
SAVITA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Jatinder Kamra & Mr. B. P.
Saxena Advocates
versus
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 1 of 51
ISHWAR DAS AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravi Sabharwal, Advocate
for Insurance Co.
# CNR No. DLHC010019882023
+ MAC.APP. 48/2023
SAVITA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Jatinder Kamra & Mr. B. P.
Saxena Advocates
versus
ISHWAR DAS AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravi Sabharwal, Advocate
for Insurance Co.
INDEX
Background ............................................................................................................................. 3
Impugned Award .................................................................................................................... 4
Submissions on behalf of Insurance Company ....................................................................... 5
Submissions on behalf of claimant ......................................................................................... 7
Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 9
I. Who can file a claim .................................................................................................. 9
II. Principle of restitutio in integrum ............................................................................ 11
III. Various categories of dependants who do potentially file a claim ........................... 15
A. Claim by married and/or earning children ........................................................... 15
B. Claim by sibling(s) .............................................................................................. 18
C. Claim by earning spouse...................................................................................... 21
D. Claim by non-family and other members ............................................................ 22
IV. Standardisation and uniformity in compensation assessment .................................. 24
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 2 of 51
V. Dependency compensation - Deduction of personal and living expenses ............... 33
VI. Dependency compensation - Apportionment and distribution of compensation ..... 36
VII. Dependency - Principles summarized ................................................................. 42
Guideposts ............................................................................................................................ 44
In the present case ................................................................................................................. 45
MAC. APP. 586/2019 and MAC.APP.47/2023 ................................................................ 48
MAC.APP. 588/2019 and MAC.APP.48/2023 ................................................................. 49
MAC.APP. 588/2019, MAC.APP.48/2023, MAC. APP. 586/2019 and
MAC.APP.47/2023 ........................................................................................................... 51
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
%
ANISH DAYAL, J.
1. The peculiar facts of this case prompted this Court to deliberate
and assess the principles governing ‘ dependency’ , its scope and its
impact on grant of compensation in motor vehicle accident cases.
Background
2. These cross-appeals have been filed in relation to award dated
th st
12 March 2019, with respect to an accident that occurred on 31
August 2015, whereby the Tribunal has granted compensation in respect
of the death of Meenu and Chamanlal . Meenu was the sister of the
claimant, Savita , and Chamanlal was their father. Savita is, therefore,
claiming compensation both for the death of her father Chamanlal and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 3 of 51
of her sister Meenu . Mother of Savita has already passed away
previously.
3. MAC.APP.586/2019 and MAC.APP. 588/2019 have been filed by
the Insurance Company, represented by Mr. Ravi Sabharwal, counsel,
while MAC.APP.47/2023 and MAC.APP.48/2023 have been filed on
behalf of the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation,
represented by Mr. Kamra .
Impugned Award
4. The Tribunal, in order to calculate compensation for non-
dependant-claimant, chose to adopt the principle laid down by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Keith Rowe v. Prashant Sagar 2010
SCC OnLine Del 4686, by calculating a notional loss of estate in the
nd
following manner. Date of birth of the deceased was 02 June 1992 and
st
the accident took place on 31 August 2015. Therefore, the deceased,
Meenu , was 23 years of age at the time of her death. The applicable
multiplier of 18 was applied to the notional income based on the
minimum wages applicable to an unskilled worker, taken at Rs. 9,048/-
per month, with an addition of 40% towards future prospects. The loss
rd
of dependency , therefore, came to Rs. 27,36,108/-. 1/3 thereof,
amounting to Rs. 9,12,100/- , was calculated towards this notional loss of
estate . Along with funeral expenses of Rs. 15,000/-, total compensation
of Rs. 9,27,100/- was awarded in respect of the death of Meenu .
5. In the case of Chamanlal , out of his two daughters, Meenu passed
away in the same accident, while the mother of Chamanlal had pre-
deceased him. Applying Keith Rowe ( supra ), the notional loss of estate
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 4 of 51
was calculated in the following manner. Age of the deceased,
Chamanlal , was 56 years on the date of the accident. Multiplier of 9 was
applied to his monthly salary of Rs. 31,415/- per month, with an addition
of 15% towards future prospects. Loss of dependency was arrived at Rs.
rd
39,01,743/-, and 1/3 thereof, amounting to Rs. 13,00,600/-, was
calculated towards notional loss of estate . This amount, along with Rs.
15,000/- towards funeral expenses, resulted in a total compensation of
Rs. 13,15,600/-.
Submissions on behalf of Insurance Company
6. Mr. Ravi Sabharwal , counsel for the Insurance Company,
contends that in both cases of Meenu and Chamanlal , the MACT
awarded compensation by relying upon the decision in Keith Rowe
( supra ), and computed compensation under the head of loss of estate ,
rd
i.e. loss of savings of the deceased at 1/3 of her income, considering
that Savita (the claimant) was married and had her own family unit.
7. He further contended that the savings/loss of estate ought to have
been assessed at 15 % of the income, as Keith Rowe ( supra ) mandates
that, where non-dependent brothers and sisters claim compensation on
behalf of the estate, the quantum of savings should be taken at 15 % of
the income. According to him, the same principle would apply to the
case of a non-dependent son or daughter. He further relies upon the
decision of the Supreme Court in New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
th
Anand Pal , SLP (Civil) No. 7805/2022, decided on 4 December 2023,
wherein it was observed that compensation ought not to be awarded to
married siblings.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 5 of 51
8. He further pointed out that the claimant, Savita , in her testimony
had stated that she had got married in 2002 and that her husband was
working with the MCD on a temporary basis. He, therefore, contended
that she could not have been considered dependent upon the income of
her deceased father.
9. Therefore, he contended that, since the claimant was married and
was not dependent on the deceased, no compensation should have been
granted under the head of loss of dependency. In support of his
contention, he relies upon the following judgments, which are arranged
in chronological order, for purposes of proper appreciation:
i. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anand Pal , SLP (Civil) No.
th
7805/2022, decided on 4 December 2023, wherein the Supreme
Court held that married and separately residing brothers cannot be
treated as dependants in the absence of evidence establishing
financial dependency.
ii. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co Ltd. v. Ramwati & Ors.
2025:DHC:11191, wherein this Court held that married daughters
residing with their parents due to disputes with in-laws could be
treated as dependants and awarded compensation for loss of
dependency. He relied upon this decision to show that, even in
that case, the married daughter was residing with the deceased
and was, actually, financially dependent on them.
iii. In Sarjit & Anr. v. Hanuman Das Chaturvedi & Anr.
2017:DHC:7840 and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 6 of 51
Ltd. v. Krishna & Ors. 2018:DHC:3927 , wherein to a non-
dependent person compensation was awarded for loss of estate to
the extent of 15% of the income of the deceased on basis of
parameters laid down in Keith Rowe ( supra ). Counsel relied on
the same to state that, at most, compensation could be awarded to
the extent of 15% since claimant was not dependent on the
deceased persons.
Submissions on behalf of claimant
10. Mr. Kamra , counsel for claimant, submitted that Savita (the
claimant), who testified as PW1 , denied that she was not dependent
upon the income of her deceased father. She also denied that her
deceased sister was not earning anything and was dependent upon the
earnings of their deceased father.
11. Mr. Kamra further stated that in paragraph 5 of the evidence by
way of examination-in-chief filed by PW1 , Savita, had clearly stated
that her sister was earning approximately Rs. 15,000/- per month and
th
was a graduate. She used to provide tuition to students from Classes 4
th
to 9 prior to her death. She also stated that her sister used to regularly
contribute Rs. 8,000/- per month from her earnings and savings to Savita
and that they were dependent upon each other.
12. It was submitted that there was no cross-examination on this
aspect by the Insurance Company, although Savita stated that she could
not produce any documentary evidence regarding the earnings of her
deceased sister.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 7 of 51
13. Mr. Kamra further submitted that various courts have considered
married siblings, married children and financially non-dependent family
members as dependents and have awarded compensation to them. In
support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:
i. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v.
Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Anr. (1987) 3 SCC 234, wherein
brother of the deceased was awarded compensation.
ii. Gangaraju Sowmini (Dr.) v. Alavala Sudhakar Reddy, 2016
SCC OnLine Hyd 430, wherein claim of a a non-dependent
brother was allowed.
iii. National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Birinder & Ors. (2020) 11
SCC 356, wherein major married earning sons of the deceased
were awarded compensation.
iv. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sarita & Ors .,
2023:DHC:5892, wherein married daughter of the deceased was
awarded compensation.
v. Seema Rani v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 2025 INSC
192, wherein married daughter was also considered dependent .
vi. Sadhana Tomar & Ors. v Ashok Kushwaha & Ors. Civil Appeal
No. 3763 OF 2025, wherein father and younger sister, though not
financially dependent, were considered to fall within the
definition of legal representatives.
vii. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vinay Jain & Ors .
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 8 of 51
2026:DHC:5198, wherein compensation was awarded to
financially independent husband.
viii. Jagdish v. Om Pal Singh & Ors. 2024:DHC:9806, wherein
husband and a major child were awarded loss of dependency.
14. Relying on the above-mentioned decisions, Mr. Kamra contended
that, even though the claimant herein was not dependent on the
deceased, she would nonetheless be entitled to compensation on account
of the death of her sister and father.
Analysis
15. To appreciate the legal issues involved in the present matter, it is
imperative to examine first , as to who can file a claim; second , the
principles governing ‘ dependency’ ; third , various categories of
dependants who do potentially file a claim; fourth , standardisation and
uniformity in compensation assessment; and fifth , deduction of personal
and living expenses; sixth, apportionment and disbursement of
compensation.
I. Who can file a claim
16. The distinction between a legal representative , a dependent and
an heir , and the circumstances in which each may maintain a claim
under MV Act, form the focus of the following paragraphs.
16.1. The expression “ legal representative ” has not been defined under
the MV Act. However, recourse may be taken from the definition
contained in Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 9 of 51
(‘ CPC ’), which defines a legal representative to mean a person who in
law represents the estate of a deceased person and includes a person who
intermeddles with the estate of the deceased, as well as the person upon
whom the estate devolves where a party sues or is sued in a
representative character.
16.2. The definition is inclusive and of wide amplitude and is not
confined to legal heirs alone. In Custodian of Branches of Banco
National Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique 1989 Supp (2) SCC 275,
the Supreme Court held that those who were impleaded as parties to the
suit in place of the deceased defendant represented the entire estate as
they had share in the property, and since they had been brought on
record, the decree was binding on the entire estate.
16.3. This position was reiterated in Manjuri Bera ( supra ), wherein the
Supreme Court, while considering a claim under Section 166 of the MV
Act, held that the expression “ legal representative ” must be given the
widest meaning in terms of Section 2(11) CPC and that a legal
representative need not necessarily be a legal heir or a dependent of the
deceased.
16.4. The distinction between the concepts of legal representation,
dependency and succession is therefore material. A person may be a
legal representative of the deceased and consequently entitled to
maintain a claim notwithstanding that such person was not financially
dependent upon the deceased. In Manjuri Bera ( supra ), the Supreme
Court expressly recognised that absence of dependency does not, by
itself, extinguish the right of a legal representative to maintain a claim.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 10 of 51
The Court also explained that the assessment of compensation involves
distinct stages, namely, determination of liability, quantification of
compensation and identification of the person or persons to whom the
compensation is to be paid.
II. Principle of restitutio in integrum
17. Before we proceed further, it is important to look at the
fundamental objective that imbues award of compensation in cases of
tortious injury.
17.1. The principle of restitutio in integrum signifies that the injured
person should, as nearly as possible, be placed in the same position, in
monetary terms, as he would have been if the wrong, omission or injury
had not occurred. Compensation is not intended to give a bonanza to
claimant, but to provide monetary compensation for the loss, injury and
deprivation suffered as a consequence of the wrongful act.
17.2. Courts have observed in various judgements that monetary
compensation can only substitute certain forms of loss, particularly
where the injury is to the human body or involves pain, suffering,
disability or loss of amenities. Accordingly, the principle requires the
court to determine a reasonable sum to fairly compensate the claimant to
restore his position as it would have been had the accident not occurred.
17.3. The principle was explained by Lord Blackburn in Livingstone v.
Rawyards Coal Co . (1880) 5 App Cas 25 (HL), wherein the following
was observed:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 11 of 51
“ I do not think there is any difference of opinion as
to its being a general rule that, where any injury is
to be compensated by damages, in settling the sum
of money to be given for reparation of damages you
should as nearly as possible get at that sum of
money which will put the party who has been
injured, or who has suffered, in the same position as
he would have been in if he had not sustained the
wrong for which he is now getting his compensation
or reparation .”
(emphasis added)
17.4. Lord Morris in H. West & Son Ltd. v. Shephard , [1964] AC 326
(HL), observed that “ Money may be awarded so that something tangible
may be procured to replace something else of like nature which has been
destroyed or lost. But the money cannot renew a physical frame that has
been battered and shattered ”.
17.5. The same principle has been adopted and applied by the Supreme
Court of India in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd .
(1995) 1 SCC 551. The Court, while dealing with the case of a
practising lawyer who had become paraplegic as a result of the accident,
observed as under:
“ 10 . It cannot be disputed that because of the
accident the appellant who was an active practising
lawyer has become paraplegic on account of the
injuries sustained by him. It is really difficult in this
background to assess the exact amount of
compensation for the pain and agony suffered by the
appellant and for having become a lifelong
handicapped. No amount of compensation can
restore the physical frame of the appellant. That is
why it has been said by courts that whenever any
amount is determined as the compensation payable
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 12 of 51
for any injury suffered during an accident, the
object is to compensate such injury ‘so far as money
can compensate’ because it is impossible to equate
the money with the human sufferings or personal
deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and
shattered physical frame .”
(emphasis added)
[
17.6. The Supreme Court subsequently reiterated the application of
restitutio in integrum in Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Sukumar Mukherjee
(2009) 9 SCC 221, and held as under:
“ 170 . Indisputably, grant of compensation involving
an accident is within the realm of law of torts. It is
based on the principle of restitutio in integrum. The
said principle provides that a person entitled to
damages should, as nearly as possible, get that sum
of money which would put him in the same position
as he would have been if he had not sustained the
wrong. ”
(emphasis added)
’
17.7. In Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha (2014) 1 SCC 384, the Supreme
Court referred to the judgment of Malay Kumar Ganguly and observed
as under:
“ 113. The claimant has further rightly contended
that with respect to the fundamental principle for
awarding just and reasonable compensation, this
Court in Malay Kumar Ganguly case [Malay
Kumar Ganguly v. Sukumar Mukherjee, (2009) 9
SCC 221 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 663 : (2010) 2 SCC
(Cri) 299] has categorically stated while remanding
this case back to the National Commission that the
principle for just and reasonable compensation is
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 13 of 51
based on restitutio in integrum, that is, the claimant
must receive sum of money which would put him in
the same position as he would have been if he had
not sustained the wrong. ”
(emphasis added)
17.8. Accordingly, the principle of restitutio in integrum forms the
underlying basis for the assessment of compensation in motor accident
claims as well. The statutory mandate to award just and reasonable
compensation under the MV Act has to be understood in this context.
The object is to place the injured-claimant, or the legal representatives
of a deceased victim, as nearly as possible in monetary terms as they
would have been had the accident not occurred, though physical
impairment cannot be undone.
17.9. This principle assumes importance in determining who is entitled
to maintain a claim arising out of the death of a victim. The right to
claim compensation is not necessarily limited to the legal heirs of the
deceased, but extends to all legal representatives who have suffered loss
on account of the death. Thus, all legal representatives , and not merely
the legal heirs, falling within the category of persons who have suffered
as a result of the death, are entitled to maintain an application under
Section 166 of the MV Act.
17.10. Once the legal representatives are held entitled to maintain a
claim, the loss of dependency ought to be determined on that basis, and
they can’t be shut out at the very threshold.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 14 of 51
III. Various categories of dependants who do potentially file a claim
18. To appreciate and understand the issue of dependency , it would be
appropriate to first examine the views taken by various Courts on the
subject. For this purpose, the relevant cases have been divided into
different categories of claimants, based on the relationship of the
claimant with the deceased, to assess the principles laid down by the
Courts regarding the grant of compensation in each category of family
member.
A. Claim by married and/or earning children
A.1. In Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2007) 10 SCC
643, the Supreme Court expounded that the liability to pay
compensation does not cease merely because there is an absence of
dependency on the part of the legal representative. It was held that even
if there was no loss of dependency, the claimant, if he or she was a legal
representative, may nevertheless be entitled to compensation. The Court
then held as under:
“ 18. In the present case, as stated above, the
victim's married daughter has made her claim
under Section 140 of the said Act saying that she
has five children; that they are minors; that she
was brought up by her uncle; that after her
mother's death the deceased lived in the same
house in which the claimant was living with her
uncle before her marriage; that the deceased was
a mason that after her marriage she lived with
her husband and, therefore, she was entitled to
get statutory compensation under Section 140 of
the said Act .”
(emphasis added)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 15 of 51
A.2. Similarly, in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Birinder & Ors.
(2020) 11 SCC 356, the claim petition was filed by the major sons of the
deceased. The sons claimed that the fact that they were major and
earning, by itself, would not render them ineligible to claim
compensation. The Court was considering the issue whether the major
sons of the deceased, who were married and gainfully employed, could
claim compensation. The Court considered Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, which provides that an application for compensation may
be made by the person who sustained the injury, the owner of the
property or, where death has resulted from the accident, “ by all or any of
the legal representatives of the deceased ”. Therefore, a major married
son would be entitled to maintain an application for compensation under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act as a “ legal representative ”. The
Court, on the basis of the evidence, found that the claimants were
substantially dependent upon the deceased. Relying upon Manjuri Bera
( supra ), the Court further observed that even in the absence of a loss of
dependency, legal representatives would nevertheless be entitled to
compensation. The Tribunal must, however, examine whether the
claimants were wholly or partially dependent upon the deceased.
A.3. In Seema Rani v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd . 2025 INSC
192, the Supreme Court considered a claim petition filed by the wife,
daughter and two sons of the deceased. The High Court had accepted the
contention of the Insurance Company that the major sons and the
married daughter were not dependants and, therefore, a deduction of
50% was required to be made. The Supreme Court relied upon Birinder
( supra ) and, having regard to the facts of the case, noted that both sons
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 16 of 51
were residing with the deceased and, in such circumstances, could not
be said to be self-sufficient or independent of the deceased. Applying
the principle in Birinder ( supra ), the Supreme Court further held that
“ there was no reason to exclude a married daughter from
compensation ”.
A.4. In Ram Charan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd . 2022 SCC
OnLine Del 5146, this Court was dealing with a claim filed by one
major son and four married daughters. The court noted that claimants
could suffer the loss of emotional, physical and social support of the
deceased, apart from the financial benefit which they might have
derived from his income.
A.5. In Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sarita & Ors.
2023:DHC:5892, this Court, while assessing the dependency of a
married daughter on the deceased (father), observed that the savings of
the deceased form part of his estate and are inheritable by his legal
representatives, irrespective of their dependency upon him.
Compensation was awarded under the head of loss of estate . The
Insurance Company, relying upon Manjuri Bera ( supra ), contended that
since the claimant was a married daughter, she was not entitled to
compensation towards loss of estate. The contention was rejected.
Relying upon Section 166 of the MV Act, the Court held that the
“ savings of the deceased become part of his estate that is inheritable by
its legal representatives irrespective of whether they are dependant or
not ”.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 17 of 51
A.6. In IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ramwati & Ors.
2025:DHC:11191, a Coordinate Bench of this Court was dealing with
claims filed by the wife, son and two daughters of the deceased. The
Tribunal had held that the deceased was married and had left behind his
widow, one major son and two major married daughters. Accordingly,
the children could not be said to be dependent. Since the married
daughters were having disputes with their in-laws and were residing in
their parental home, the claimants were considered entitled to
compensation. The Court again noted the decision of this Court in Ram
Charan ( supra ) and Jagdish ( supra ), wherein it had been held that
married daughters could also be entitled to compensation under the head
of loss of dependency, relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court
in Birinder ( supra ).
B. Claim by sibling(s)
B.1. In Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v.
Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Anr. (1987) 3 SCC 234, issue under
consideration was whether the brother of a person who was killed in a
motor accident can claim compensation. The Court stated, “ We should
remember that in an Indian family brothers, sisters and brothers'
children and sometimes foster children live together and they are
dependent upon the breadwinner of the family and if the breadwinner is
killed on account of a motor vehicle accident, there is no justification to
deny their compensation relying upon the provisions of Fatal Accident
Act, 1985 ”. The Court, therefore, held that the brother of a person who
died in a motor accident is entitled to maintain a petition if he is a legal
representative of the deceased.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 18 of 51
B.2. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Anand Pal & Ors ., SLP (C)
th
No. 7805/2022, decided on 04 December 2023, the Supreme Court
considered the contention raised by the Insurance Company that the
brothers of the deceased could not be considered dependants upon the
earnings of the deceased as the three brothers were older, had families of
their own, and could have received only occasional financial assistance
from the deceased. Accordingly, it was contended that they could not be
considered dependants. Reliance was placed on paragraph 31 of Sarla
Verma ( supra ) 6 SCC 121, wherein the Supreme Court observed that, in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, the father is unlikely to have an
income of his own and, therefore, would not be considered a dependent,
while the mother alone would be considered a dependent. In the absence
of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters would also not be
considered dependants, as they would either be independent, married, or
dependent upon their father. The Court noted that the deceased was
residing separately, while his siblings were residing with their respective
families. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the High Court
ought not to have treated the three siblings as dependants of the
deceased.
B.3. In Sadhana Tomar & Ors. v. Ashok Kushwaha & Ors. Civil
th
Appeal No. 3763 of 2025, the Supreme Court, in a decision dated 24
January 2025, considered the issue of the Tribunal having not treated the
father and younger sister of the deceased as dependants, on the ground
that the father was not dependent upon the income of the deceased and
that the younger sister was also not dependent. The Court noted the
principle laid down in Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai ( supra ) and observed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 19 of 51
that legal representatives are the persons who suffer on account of the
death of a person in a motor vehicle accident and that they need not
necessarily be the wife, husband, parent or child of the deceased.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the father and younger sister,
though not financially dependent, would fall within the definition of
“ legal representatives ”.
B.4. In Gangaraju Sowmini (Dr.) v. Alavala Sudhakar Reddy 2016
SCC OnLine Hyd 430, the Telangana High Court, while considering a
claim filed by a non-dependent brother, held that dependency is a
relevant consideration in determining the quantum of compensation, but
the absence of dependency is not, by itself, a ground for rejecting a
claim under the MV Act. The Court further observed that non-
dependency does not necessarily imply the absence of financial
contribution or support, since family members may incur substantial
expenses towards the treatment of the injured or deceased person.
B.5. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sindhu K. & Ors .
2024:KER:98358, the Kerala High Court, while considering a claim by
the sole legal heir and sibling of the deceased, held that the claimant was
not entitled to compensation towards loss of dependency in the absence
of proof of financial dependency. However, the claimant remained
entitled to compensation towards loss of estate. The Court followed
Joseph v. Giji Varghese and Elamma v. ICICI Lombard General
Insurance Co. Ltd . and held that loss of estate could be computed in the
same manner as loss of dependency.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 20 of 51
B.6. In National Insurance Company Ltd. v. George Menezes
NC:2025:KHC:41454, the Karnataka High Court, while considering the
claim of married daughters, held that the right to claim compensation
cannot be denied merely on the basis of marital status. The Court also
observed that it is not uncommon for married daughters and sisters to
maintain close relationships with their parental families.
C. Claim by earning spouse
C.1. The Madras High Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Minor
Jayapriya 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 2232 (DB), while considering the
claim of a separated wife and an adopted daughter, held that MV Act
does not require exclusive or sole dependency. Proof of partial
dependency is sufficient to sustain a claim for compensation towards
loss of dependency.
C.2. In Sarayu v. Surendra Vithal Nazare 2010 SCC OnLine Mad
4192, the Madras High Court was dealing with a question whether a
remarried widow and the parents of the deceased can claim
compensation. The Court held that remarriage does not deprive a widow
of her status as a legal representative or disentitle her from claiming
compensation. The Court relied upon Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil
Procedure, which defines a legal representative.
C.3. In Jagdish v. Om Pal Singh & Ors. 2024:DHC:9806, the Delhi
High Court, while considering a claim involving the husband and a
major child, observed that the role of a mother extends beyond financial
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 21 of 51
considerations and includes emotional, physical and other forms of
support.
C.4. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vinay Jain & Ors .
2026:DHC:5198, this Court, while considering the question of
dependency in a family comprising earning members, held that a non-
earning family member may contribute to the upkeep of the family
through gratuitous services. The Court further observed that an earning
husband is not necessarily independent of his deceased wife. Where the
household is sustained by joint income, the surviving spouse’s
dependency may extend to the loss caused by the deceased spouse’s
contribution to the household corpus, whether through pecuniary
earnings or non-pecuniary contributions.
C.5. In Biswajit Chowdhury v. Aklesh Sah 2022 SCC OnLine Gau
2227, the Gauhati High Court, while considering the claim of a husband,
held that partial dependency is sufficient to sustain a claim for loss of
dependency. The mere fact that a legal representative has an independent
source of income does not, by itself, defeat such a claim.
C.6. Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ayshabe v. Mohinder 2023 SCC
OnLine MP 4295, held that the widow’s earning capacity does not, by
itself, defeat dependency. Where both spouses were earning, the
contribution of the deceased spouse towards household expenses could
still justify an award of compensation for loss of dependency.
D. Claim by non-family and other members
D.1. In Montford Brothers of St. Gabriel v. United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. (2014) 3 SCC 394, the Supreme Court was considering a claim
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 22 of 51
filed by a charitable religious society. The Court held that such a society
could be treated as the legal representative of a deceased member, even
though the deceased had no actual dependants.
D.2. While considering the claim of a mother-in-law, in N. Jayasree v.
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2022) 14 SCC 712,
the Supreme Court held that she could be treated as a dependant where
she was residing with the deceased and was dependent upon her son-in-
law for maintenance. The Court observed that, in Indian society, it is not
uncommon for an aged mother-in-law to reside with her daughter and
son-in-law and depend upon them for her maintenance.
D.3. In Basavaraj Shivappa Sangalad v. Shanta 2024 SCC OnLine Kar
27198, the Karnataka High Court, while considering the claim of a
daughter-in-law whose husband had died during the pendency of the
proceedings, discussed the concept of dependency and held that legal
representatives may be entitled to compensation even without proof of
actual financial dependency, where the law otherwise recognises their
entitlement. The Court emphasised that the MV Act, being beneficial
legislation, requires a liberal and wider interpretation.
D.4. In Joseph v. Giji Varghese (2010) 1 TN MAC 62 (Ker) (DB), the
Kerala High Court, while considering a claim by persons who were not
dependants of the deceased, held that no amount could be awarded
under the head of loss of dependency in the absence of proof of
dependency. However, the legal heirs remained entitled to compensation
towards loss of estate.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 23 of 51
IV. Standardisation and uniformity in compensation assessment
19. Initially, the computation of compensation in case of death was
guided by the principle of loss and gain . This aspect of computation of
loss and gain was followed in a series of English judgments starting
from Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd., [1942] 1 All
ER 657 (HL). In this case, the House of Lords explained that damages
payable to a dependant had to be assessed by determining the balance
between the loss suffered by the dependant and the pecuniary benefits
accruing to the dependant as a consequence of the death.
19.1. The assessment was further developed in Mallett v. McMonagle
[1970] AC 166 (HL), where Lord Diplock explained a structured
method for determining damages. The assessment required
consideration of the material benefits which the deceased would have
provided to the dependants had he survived, the benefits which the
dependants would receive by reason of the death, and the manner in
which the dependency could reasonably be expected to change over the
future period. Thereby, future annual dependency was calculated by
applying an appropriate number of years’ purchase.
19.2. This approach has also been recognised in India in M.P.S.R.T.C.
v. Sudhakar (1977) 3 SCC 64, wherein the Supreme Court adopted this
approach to assess dependency.
19.3. In General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation
v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) (1994) 2 SCC 176, the Supreme Court laid
down a more structured formula to compute compensation. The Court
held that the annual dependency, after making the appropriate deduction
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 24 of 51
towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, is to be
multiplied by an appropriate multiplier to assess loss of dependency.
Thus, the multiplicand-multiplier method emerged as the basic
mechanism for converting the future annual dependency into a lump-
sum award.
19.4. In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra ,
(1996) 4 SCC 362, the Supreme Court laid down the ‘ unit method’ for
computation of the compensation. The Court held that where there is no
definite evidence regarding how much the deceased actually spent upon
himself, the “rough and ready” unit method could be used. Each adult
was considered to be two units and a minor as one unit. The Court also
noted that compounding dependency on various factors like remarriage,
premature death etc. was complicated.
19.5. Thereafter, in Fakeerappa v. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory ,
(2004) 2 SCC 47, the Court reiterated that the percentage of deduction
towards personal expenses could not be treated as an inflexible rule
applicable irrespective of the circumstances of each case.
19.6. The principle for determination of loss of dependency was further
evolved in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma &
Ors v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 5 SCC 121. It was
held that once the notional income is established, the next question is the
percentage which ought notionally to be deducted towards the personal
expenses of the deceased. This, too, has been broadly categorised on the
basis of the number of dependants. Sarla Verma ( supra ), while
prescribing standardised factions for such deduction, has nevertheless
left some room for the Courts to consider the nature and circumstances
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 25 of 51
of the dependants, as noticed in paragraphs 30-32 of the said judgment.
Relevant paragraphs of Sarla Verma ( supra ) are extracted as under:
“Re Question (ii) - Deduction for personal and
living expenses
25. We have already noticed that the personal and
living expenses of the deceased should be deducted
from the income, to arrive at the contribution to the
dependants. No evidence need be led to show the
actual expenses of the deceased. In fact, any
evidence in that behalf will be wholly unverifiable
and likely to be unreliable. The claimants will
obviously tend to claim that the deceased was very
frugal and did not have any expensive habits and
was spending virtually the entire income on the
family. In some cases, it may be so. No claimant
would admit that the deceased was a spendthrift,
even if he was one.
26. It is also very difficult for the respondents in a
claim petition to produce evidence to show that the
deceased was spending a considerable part of the
income on himself or that he was contributing only
a small part of the income on his family. Therefore,
it became necessary to standardise the deductions
to be made under the head of personal and living
expenses of the deceased. This lead to the practice
of deducting towards personal and living expenses
of the deceased, one-third of the income if the
deceased was married, and one-half (50%) of the
income if the deceased was a bachelor. This
practice was evolved out of experience, logic and
convenience. In fact one-third deduction got
statutory recognition under the Second Schedule to
the Act, in respect of claims under Section 163-A of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the MV Act”, for
short). But, such percentage of deduction is not an
inflexible rule and offers merely a guideline.
27. In Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994
SCC (Cri) 335] it was observed that in the absence
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 26 of 51
of evidence, it is not unusual to deduct one-third of
the gross income towards the personal living
expenses of the deceased and treat the balance as
the amount likely to have been spent on the
members of the family/dependants.
28. In U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC
362] this Court held that if the number of
dependants in the family of the deceased was large,
in the absence of specific evidence in regard to
contribution to the family, the court may adopt the
unit method for arriving at the contribution of the
deceased to his family. By this method, two units are
allotted to each adult and one unit is allotted to
each minor, and total number of units are
determined. Then the income is divided by the total
number of units. The quotient is multiplied by two to
arrive at the personal living expenses of the
deceased. This Court gave the following
illustration: (Trilok Chandra case [(1996) 4 SCC
362] , SCC p. 370, para 15)
“15. … X, male, aged about 35 years, dies in
an accident. He leaves behind his widow and 3
minor children. His monthly income was Rs
3500. First, deduct the amount spent on X
every month. The rough and ready method
hitherto adopted where no definite evidence
was forthcoming, was to break up the family
into units, taking two units for an adult and
one unit for a minor. Thus X and his wife make
2 + 2 = 4 units and each minor one unit i.e. 3
units in all, totalling 7 units. Thus the share
per unit works out to Rs 3500 ÷ 7 = Rs 500 per
month. It can thus be assumed that Rs 1000
was spent on X. Since he was a working
member some provision for his transport and
out-of-pocket expenses has to be estimated. In
the present case we estimate the out-of-pocket
expense at Rs 250. Thus the amount spent on
the deceased X works out to Rs 1250 per month
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 27 of 51
leaving a balance of Rs 3500-1250 = Rs 2250
per month. This amount can be taken as the
monthly loss to X's dependants.”
29. In Fakeerappa v. Karnataka Cement Pipe
Factory [(2004) 2 SCC 473 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 577]
while considering the appropriateness of 50%
deduction towards personal and living expenses of
the deceased made by the High Court, this Court
observed: (SCC p. 475, para 7)
“7. What would be the percentage of deduction
for personal expenditure cannot be governed
by any rigid rule or formula of universal
application. It would depend upon
circumstances of each case. The deceased
undisputedly was a bachelor. Stand of the
insurer is that after marriage, the contribution
to the parents would have been lesser and,
therefore, taking an overall view the Tribunal
and the High Court were justified in fixing the
deduction.”
In view of the special features of the case, this Court
however restricted the deduction towards personal
and living expenses to one-third of the income.
30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made
towards personal and living expenses is calculated
on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra
[(1996) 4 SCC 362] , the general practice is to
apply standardised deductions. Having considered
several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are
of the view that where the deceased was married,
the deduction towards personal and living expenses
of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where
the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3,
one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent
family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th)
where the number of dependent family members
exceeds six.
31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the
claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 28 of 51
different principle. In regard to bachelors,
normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living
expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor
would tend to spend more on himself. Even
otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting
married in a short time, in which event the
contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to
be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to
the contrary, the father is likely to have his own
income and will not be considered as a dependant
and the mother alone will be considered as a
dependant. In the absence of evidence to the
contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered
as dependants, because they will either be
independent and earning, or married, or be
dependent on the father.
32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents
and siblings, only the mother would be considered
to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the
personal and living expenses of the bachelor and
50% as the contribution to the family. However,
where the family of the bachelor is large and
dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a
case where he has a widowed mother and large
number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers,
his personal and living expenses may be restricted
to one-third and contribution to the family will be
taken as two-third.
(emphasis added)
19.7. The four important elements which emerge from Sarla Verma
( supra ) are:
i. determination of the notional income as on the date of death;
ii. addition towards future prospects at the prescribed percentage;
iii. deduction towards personal expenses; and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 29 of 51
iv. application of the appropriate multiplier having regard to the age
of the deceased.
19.8. In Sarla Verma ( supra ), as pointed out in paragraph no. 19.6
above, the Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue of deduction
towards personal and living expenses, noted the different methods which
had been used, inter alia , in Trilok Chand ( supra ) ( unit-based method ).
The Court preferred the general practice of applying standardised
deductions and, therefore, provided a matrix.
19.9. In Sarla Verma ( supra ), the Court noted that “ the lack of
uniformity and consistency in awarding compensation has been a matter
of grave concern. Every district has one or more Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal/s. If different Tribunals calculate compensation differently on
the same facts, the claimant, the litigant, the common man will be
confused, perplexed and bewildered. If there is significant divergence
among Tribunals in determining the quantum of compensation on
similar facts, it will lead to dissatisfaction and distrust in the system ”.
19.10. Further, while discussing general principles, the Supreme Court
highlighted the following:
(a) Just compensation is adequate compensation which is fair and
equitable on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make
good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money
can do
(b) It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit.
Assessment of compensation, though involving certain
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 30 of 51
hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective.
Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment,
consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and
uniformity in the decision-making process and the decisions.
(c) While it may not be possible to have mathematical precision or
identical awards, in assessing compensation, the same or similar
facts should lead to awards within the same range. When the
factors/inputs are the same, and the formula/legal principles are
the same, consistency and uniformity, and not divergence or
freakishness, should be the result of adjudication in arriving at
just compensation.
(d) If these determinants are standardised, there will be uniformity
and consistency in the decisions. There will be less need for
detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance
companies to settle accident claims without delay.
19.11. The Court then went on to state that basically there were only
three facts which need to be established for assessing compensation in
case of death; (a) age of the deceased;(b) income of the deceased; and
(c) number of dependants.
19.12. On deduction from personal expenses, the Court in Sarla Verma
( supra ) stated that standardisation would be the norm, “ but such
percentage of deduction is not an inflexible rule and offers merely a
guideline ”. In relation to dependency, the Court noted:
“ In the absence of evidence to the contrary,
brothers and sisters will not be considered as
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 31 of 51
dependents, because they will either be
independent and earning, or married or be
dependent on the father. Thus, even if the
deceased is survived by parents and siblings,
only the mother would be considered to be
dependent, and 50% would be treated as
personal and living expenses of the bachelor
and 50% as the contribution to the family.
However, where family of the bachelor is large
and dependent on the income of the deceased
as in a case where he has a widowed mother
and large number of younger non-earning
sisters or brothers, his personal and living
expenses may be restricted to one third ".
19.13. This aspect resonated with the Constitution Bench in Pranay
Sethi ( supra ), which extensively referred to the decision in Sarla Varma
( supra ). On reduction towards personal living expenses, the Constitution
Bench held that the Tribunals and Courts should be guided by
conclusion in paragraph 43.6 of Reshma Kumari ( supra ) and that “ we
concur with the same as we have no hesitation in approving the method
provided herein ”.
19.14. In paragraph 43.6 of Reshma Kumari ( supra ), the Court had
directed that Tribunals shall follow the standards prescribed in Sarla
Verma ( supra ) subject to observations made in paragraph 41 of
Reshma Kumari ( supra ).
19.15. The Supreme Court in Reshma Kumari ( supra ), noted that the
standards fixed in Sarla Verma ( supra ) may be followed “ unless a case
of departure from the circumstances noted in the preceding paragraph is
made out ”. Finally, the Constitution Bench stated that: " having bestowed
anxious consideration, we are disposed to think when we accept the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 32 of 51
principle of standardization, there is really no rationale not to apply the
said principle to the self-employed or a person who is on a fixed
salary.” Yet again for other elements also the Constitution Bench
indicated that “ the application of principle of standardization would
avoid the perceived lack of certainty ".
19.16. From the above discussion, the following principles which
revolve around the fulcrum and anchor of motor accident claims
jurisprudence can be culled out, namely, providing uniformity, certainty
and standardisation in the computation of compensation, in order to
avoid excessive subjectivity and importation of new principles on a
case-to-case
V. Dependency compensation - Deduction of personal and living
expenses
20. It is not unusual to have cases where the deceased has left behind
a family comprising dependents and those who are not dependents .
However, in terms of what has been discussed in paragraph 16 to 16.4
above, all legal representatives who have suffered loss on account of
death are entitled to file their claim for compensation under Section 166
of the MV Act and not only the legal heirs.
20.1. It is then for the Tribunal to determine the loss of dependency
based on the standardized method provided in Sarla Verma ( supra ).
After the notional income is assessed, the next step is to add the relevant
percentage for future prospects and then to assess the deduction on
account of personal and living expenses. It is at this stage that the
element of determining who was dependent on the deceased comes into
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 33 of 51
play. This will naturally depend on the facts of each case and involves
an assessment “ to arrive at the contribution to the dependents ”.
20.2. As noted in Sarla Verma ( supra ), any evidence in this regard
would be unverifiable, since claimants would claim that the deceased
was very frugal, did not have expensive habits and was spending
virtually the entire income on the family, or, on the other hand, that the
deceased was spending a huge amount on himself or herself and
contributing only a small part. Therefore, the necessity to standardise the
process led to the evolution of the parameters given by the Supreme
Court, based on experience, logic and convenience.
20.3. However, it was stated that such a deduction was not inflexible
and offers merely a guideline. Nevertheless, at this stage, the Tribunal
has to assess as to how many persons would be actually dependent, or
even partly dependent, or would be in a situation where they were
deriving some benefit of the family income.
20.4. While Keith Rowe ( supra ) approaches the issue from the
perspective of savings and a claim through the estate of the deceased , it
seeks to adopt a different method which tears away from the principle of
standardisation that the Supreme Court has not only crystallised but
reiterated, endorsed and sustained over some period of time.
20.5. It is only for this reason that the Court is of the view that adopting
the method enunciated in Keith Rowe ( supra ) may, though, have been
an appropriate method to determine the loss to a partly dependent or not
dependent family member, going ahead, it creates a sense of uncertainty
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 34 of 51
and instability in computation of compensation and steers the Tribunal
to veer off in a different direction.
20.6. In the opinion of this Court, the better method is to apply the
standardised framework and not introduce or apply another method.
Accordingly, the Court first considers the nature of the dependents for
whom the deceased would have provided and choose a level of
deduction from discrete fractions of 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 or 1/5. This gives
sufficient range to a Court to determine the number of dependants and,
therefore, the deduction towards personal and living expenses.
20.7. This deduction is critical to assess the extent to which the
claimant would have a pecuniary gain from the deceased’s income, had
the deceased been alive. After the notional deduction, the portion of
income left can be loosely termed as ‘ family contribution ’. This
contribution would be spent on persons who may be living with the
deceased or, even if living elsewhere, whom the deceased would
possibly have supported.
20.8. Essentially, the idea is to deduct personal expenses with an eye
on who would be dependant on the family contribution once a broad
assessment is made of the need of the claimants to dip into the family
contribution, based on evidence led, it can be worked out as to how
many real ‘ dependants’ are there. Then the appropriate fraction can be
chosen for deduction of personal expenses.
20.9. For example, if a sibling is living independently but is not in a
good economic position and may not be part of an independent family
unit, the sibling could possibly be supported financially out of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 35 of 51
family contribution. There could also be a situation where a sibling is
married but is nevertheless of a low economic status and unable to
sustain himself or herself, in which case the deceased may have
provided for the sibling, at least partially. Determination of these issues
will depend on a case-to-case basis, and Tribunals/Courts will have to
make an assessment on the basis of the facts before them.
20.10. The wide variety of family situations cannot possibly be boxed
into pre-determined silos. What is standardised is certain slabs on which
the deductions can be assessed and maintained. Once the notional
income is assessed in order to provide for future inflation, possible
increases due to progress in life and future prospects are added, then the
deductions are assessed. After this, one arrives at a multiplicand, and
then the multiplier is applied.
20.11. Once the final compensation is arrived at, the next question arises
of apportionment. This is where the Tribunal again needs to be careful
and determine the varied aspects of “ dependency ”. At this point, it is to
be noted that a claimant can be a legal representative but not necessarily
a full dependent, and could be partly dependent , or only slightly
dependent . Therefore, at the stage of apportionment, which is really the
amount that would provide an annuity to the family, the compensation
would have to be apportioned in terms of practical dependency of each
claimant.
VI. Dependency compensation - Apportionment and distribution of
compensation
21. The question is as to how the compensation, once the persons
entitled to claim it have been identified, is to be apportioned amongst
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 36 of 51
them. Section 168 of MV Act specifically requires the Tribunal, while
making an award, to specify the person or persons to whom the
compensation is to be paid.
21.1. However, this does not mean that the Tribunal is required to
adjudicate upon questions of succession or determine the shares of the
deceased's estate as a civil court exercising testamentary or succession
jurisdiction. In Rukhsana and Ors. v. Nazrunnisa (2000) 9 SCC 240,
the Supreme Court held that succession certificate is not required for
MACT compensation, as compensation does not form part of the
deceased’s estate or constitute a debt/security owed to him. The Court
observed that civil court may determine who the legal representatives
are and their respective shares under the applicable personal law.
21.2. Therefore, what is relevant is to determine the corpus of
compensation which is available for distribution amongst the legal
representatives. The manner in which such amount is to be
distributed/apportioned is a separate question which has to be assessed
having regard to the circumstances of the individual claimants.
21.3. In this regard again the nature of dependency would have to be
considered in order for purposes of apportionment. Apportionment is a
very important exercise which the Tribunal and Courts must undertake
carefully.
21.4. Naturally, the actual dependants, such as minor children, major
children living with the deceased, the widow, dependent parents,
including aged parents, or even a brother or sister living with and
dependent upon the deceased, would ordinarily be entitled to a larger
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 37 of 51
share. On the other hand, married and well-settled daughters and sons,
or siblings who have established separate family units and are not
practically dependent upon the deceased, may, even though they are
legal heirs, be entitled to a comparatively lesser share. Such
apportionment is critical to ensure that the compensation awarded
remains just and reasonable.
21.5. In V.S. Sujatha ( supra ), the Kerala High Court considered a case
where the widow and two major sons of the deceased were all legal
representatives, but the sons were found not to be dependants. The Court
held that while dependency could not be made the basis for denying a
legal representative the right to claim compensation, it could determine
the compensation. Taking into consideration, inter alia , the widow's
dependency, her age and absence of future earnings prospects, and the
position of the major sons who were not dependent upon the deceased,
the Court upheld apportionment in the ratio of 3:1:1.
21.6. Another hypothetical example could be that if Rs.1,00,000/- is
determined as the loss of dependency , taking into account three
claimants, namely, the wife, a married daughter and a married son, the
apportionment must have regard to the nature and extent of their
respective practical dependency. The wife, being the major dependent,
may receive 50% of the loss of dependency, while the married daughter
and married son may receive 25% each (lesser percentage), or such
other proportion as may be deemed appropriate having regard to the
facts and circumstances of the case.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 38 of 51
21.7. Likewise, in a case where a widow and a married daughter are left
behind, the apportionment could be 75% and 25% respectively, in order
to accommodate the livelihood of the wife, whereas the married
daughter also has the possibility of financial support from her married
household. This, in the opinion of this Court, is a possible
apportionment of amount awarded towards loss of dependency/total
compensation, which would serve the ends of justice for those who may
not be completely ‘dependent’, but ‘partially dependent’ or family
members who may claim moral right to have some share in the family
income.
21.8. Therefore, the claim of dependency has to be seen through the
prism of nature of dependency and cannot be put into discrete slots, as
has been done in some decisions. A person cannot be straightway
shunted out as not being dependent merely because they are married and
earning. The facts and circumstances of each case have to be considered
as may have been pleaded.
21.9. Shunting out those which are seemingly not dependant, because,
say they are married and living separately. Just because somebody is not
dependent on a daily basis on somebody, it cannot be that there is no
loss which is incurred and for which they ought to be compensated. It
cannot be that the insurance company or the driver/owner who is held
liable, are completely absolved from paying any money, only because
the family structure of the deceased is of a particular nature where
dependency can be excluded at the very threshold.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 39 of 51
21.10. Such an approach would not be consistent with the realities of
Indian family structures. The mere fact that a person was not financially
dependent on the deceased on a day-to-day basis does not necessarily
mean that the death resulted in no financial loss to that person or that the
person ought to receive no compensation. The insurance company,
driver or owner, who is otherwise liable, cannot be completely absolved
from payment merely because the family structure of the deceased does
not fit within a conventional category of dependency.
21.11. Indian households are large family units with multiple minor or
major stakes moral or financial right on the family income/household
income. Therefore, even though there is a standardized matrix which is
objective in character, subjectivity must be applied by the Tribunal or
Court, in order to meets the ends of justice for awarding just and
reasonable compensation.
21.12. There could be situations where the daughter, even though
married, is floundering for financial support and adequate livelihood on
account of either a low-earning or a non-earning spouse, or other
difficulties which her marital household is going through.
21.13. For instance, the deceased may have been paying the EMI of a
loan taken by the married son or daughter for purchase of a house,
making contributions towards the rent or household expenses, paying
school or educational expenses of the claimant’s children, meeting
medical or other substantial expenses, or providing financial assistance
for other significant family commitments.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 40 of 51
21.14. The same consideration may arise in the case of a sibling. A
sibling may be an adult, employed and financially independent, and yet
receive financial assistance from the deceased for specific purposes,
such as education, medical treatment, housing, repayment of a loan,
marriage-related expenses, or other substantial financial commitments.
In such circumstances, the question is not whether the sibling was
wholly dependent upon the deceased, but whether the deceased was
making a financial contribution which the sibling would have continued
to receive had the deceased survived.
21.15. For instance, where a deceased father leaves behind a wife and a
married daughter, the question would arise whether the two surviving
family members are to be treated as two dependents or whether the wife
is to be treated as a dependent and the married daughter as a partial
dependent. Seeing from that prism of what would be a family income
from which both the wife and the married daughter could have derived
benefit, and the father who would have spent less on himself in order to
save up for the family income, the dependents could be considered as
rd
‘2’ and therefore, deduction would be taken as 1/3 .
21.16. However, where the deceased had no children and left behind
only a wife, the deduction may appropriately be 50%.
21.17. Similarly, where a deceased bachelor leaves behind two
unmarried siblings, it may not necessarily follow that the deceased,
merely because he was a bachelor, was supporting no one. The two
unmarried siblings could reasonably have been expected to draw upon
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 41 of 51
or benefit from the family income and therefore the dependency of two
rd
people would be taken and a deduction of 1/3 .
21.18. These are only illustrations, not set in stone. The Tribunals or the
Courts may have to consider the circumstances or the nature of the
dependency in order to select the standardised slab of deduction towards
personal and living expenses, as given by Sarla Verma ( supra ) in order
to determine the fraction to be applied.
21.19. Such situations of siblings, married children, earning fathers,
earning spouse and other non-family members have been considered in
decisions of various courts, and have been listed above in paragraph 18.
VII. Dependency - Principles summarized
22. This process would, therefore, help the Tribunal to gravitate
towards a just and reasonable estimation of compensation, which,
though, cannot be perfect. Various tools and methods employed /
adopted for computation are a combination of mathematical rigour on
one hand and subjective assessment of facts and circumstances on the
other.
22.1. Compensation assessment is truly an artful combination of both
the objective and the subjective, and neither can be lost sight of. Each of
these aspects have their own play in the calculation and computation of
compensation. While there is standardisation in the multiplicand and
multiplier system, and the prescribed parameters for deduction, future
prospects, and the multiplier table which forms part of a matrix in which
the computation can be done, Tribunals/Courts would still have to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 42 of 51
employ some subjective assessment, depending on the facts and
circumstances of each case.
22.2. Arguments raised by insurance companies or by the driver/owner
who is liable for payment of compensation, with regard to the
dependency of the claimant, have to be considered at three distinct
stages.
22.3. Firstly , dependency is not determinative of the right to institute a
claim as a legal representative under Section 166 of the MV Act, as
discussed above in paragraphs 16 to 16.4 .
22.4. Secondly , while determining the deduction towards personal and
living expenses, the circumstances of the family have to be considered
to assess how much the deceased would have spent upon himself or
herself, had the deceased been alive, and how much of the remaining
income would have been available for the family or household. The
residual amount may, in this context, be regarded as contributing to a
common family income pot.
22.5. To assess deduction on account of personal and living expenses,
the nature of dependency of the claimant may have to be considered.
This will have to be seen from the lens of whether the claimant, as a
dependent or a partial dependent, would have dipped into the family
savings and therefore would have relied on it for their own financial
support.
22.6. Thirdly , once loss of dependency has been computed by the above
method, one reaches an amount which would be available for the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 43 of 51
claimants to be used to purchase an annuity in order that they would get
some amount every month, for their upkeep and as a contribution from
the family income. This has to be apportioned, yet again, taking into
account the nature of dependency.
Guideposts
23. From the above discussion, the following guideposts can be
culled out:
I. All legal representatives can maintain a claim under Section 166 of
MV Act even without proving financial dependency. (discussed in
Sr. I above paragraph nos. 16 to 16.4 )
II. The aim behind awarding compensation is to put the
victim/claimants in the same position as they would have been
before the accident had occurred. (discussed in Sr. II above
paragraph nos. 17 to 17.10 )
III. A married and earning daughter, son, spouse or sibling cannot be
excluded from compensation per se merely because they are
married, employed or residing separately. (discussed in Sr. III
above paragraph nos. 18)
IV. There is no doubt that Sarla Verma ( supra ), as affirmed in Pranay
Sethi (supra), laid the standardised principles for assessment of
compensation. However, deduction towards personal and living
expenses is not inflexible. The applicable deduction must be
applied after considering the circumstances of those who would
have benefited from the deceased's income. Calculating loss of
estate as done in Keith Rowe ( supra ) may not be relevant as it is
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 44 of 51
not in consonance with the principles laid down in Sarla Verma
( supra ) and Pranay Sethi ( supra ). (discussed in Sr. IV above
paragraph nos. 19 to 19.16 )
V. Dependency is required to be assessed on the basis of facts and
circumstances of each case. Tribunals/courts should examine the
nature of dependency of the claimant rather than applying a rigid
classification of dependents and non-dependents. (discussed in Sr.
V above paragraph nos. 20-20.11 )
VI. What is important is apportionment of such awarded amount. A
wholly dependent claimant ought to get a greater share than a
partially dependent or financially independent legal representative.
(discussed in Sr. VI above paragraph nos. 21 to 21.6 )
In the present case
24. To put the essential facts in perspective with respect to each of
these claims, in relation to the death of Meenu , sister of the claimant,
and Chamanlal , father of the claimant, it is noteworthy that the deceased
Meenu was single and had not married. The mother of the deceased had
predeceased her father, Chamanlal , had also died in the accident. The
father’s mother had predeceased the father. The deceased had no other
legal heirs.
25. The MACT has awarded compensation to Savita , the claimant, on
account of both the sister’s death as well as father’s death. In both these
cases, the MACT has considered that since she was strictly not a
rd
dependent, she would be entitled, as the legal representative, to 1/3 of
the income of each deceased, in line with the decision in Keith Rowe
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 45 of 51
( supra ).
26. The view however taken by the Court is that compensation ought
to be aligned with the standardised principles for calculation of loss of
dependency and not on the basis of the view which was taken in Keith
Rowe ( supra ).
27. The fact that Savita was a legal representative cannot be
questioned and therefore is entitled to maintain a claim under Section
166 of the MV Act. Once she is entitled to be a claimant, it is her case to
prove the nature of dependency .
28. Even if she was not practically a dependent, considering that she
was married and living separately, the practical and factual aspects of an
Indian family household have to be considered. Both the deceased,
Chamanlal , and his daughter, the deceased Meenu , were residing
together. Meenu was 23 years of age at the time of the accident.
Accordingly, the notional income of Chamanlal was taken at
Rs.31,415/- per month, with an addition of 15% towards future
prospects. In the case of Meenu , her notional income was taken at the
minimum wages applicable to an unskilled worker, i.e. Rs.9,048/- per
month, with an addition of 40% towards future prospects.
29. Both Chamanlal and Meenu would, notionally, have contributed
to what may be described as the ‘ family income pot ’. Chamanlal, being
a father of her 23-year-old Meenu and another daughter, Savita , who
was married, would at best be assumed to have been spending 50% of
his income on his personal and living expenses and saving up,
contributing the rest of the 50% to the family pot ; whereas, notionally,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 46 of 51
Meenu , who was apparently taking tuitions, though there was no
evidence, would also come in the same bracket since she was living with
her father and was unmarried. Therefore, her deduction would also be
considered at 50%, with the balance being treated as contribution
towards the family income pot .
30. It may be argued that since there were two daughters, Chamanlal
could have been taking care of two dependents. However, since Meenu
also passed away in the same accident, there would be strictly no
dependent on the date of the accident, for the purposes of assessment of
deduction of personal and living expenses . Accordingly, 50% would be
reasonable to be deducted on account of personal and living expenses
for both Meenu and Chamanlal .
31. As noted above, the deduction towards personal and living
expenses has to be viewed in the context of the extent to which the
claimant could reasonably have had access to, or could have dipped into,
the family savings or family income.
32. Savita , though married, could have continued to rely on the
family income in order to get some monetary support out of it from time
to time. Therefore, it cannot be said that she was completely not
dependent, but in fact, partially dependent. At the same time, her
dependency cannot be equated with that of a wholly dependent
surviving spouse or minor child. She may, therefore, be regarded as
partially dependent on the income of her father and sister. Accordingly,
the contribution to the family income which would have been available
for the benefit of Savita would be calculated by taking into account the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 47 of 51
income of both Chamanlal and Meenu , after deduction of 50% towards
their respective personal and living expenses.
33. In case of Meenu, with future prospects of 40%, a multiplier of
‘18’ has been applied, and in case of Chamanlal , with a future prospect
of 15%, a multiplier of ‘9’ has been applied.
34. Savita would be entitled to compensation towards loss of
consortium of Rs.40,000/- in respect of the death of Meenu , as loss of a
sister, and Rs.40,000/- in respect of the death of Chamanlal , as parental
consortium.
35. Funeral expenses and loss of estate would be assessed at
Rs.15,000/- each in respect of each deceased.
MAC. APP. 586/2019 and MAC.APP.47/2023
36. Accordingly, the revised computation of compensation, towards
the death of Meenu, is as under:
Sr.
No.
Heads Awarded by the
Tribunal
Awarded by the
Court
1. Annual income of the
deceased (A)
Rs. 1,08,576/- Rs. 1,08,576/-
2. Add-Future Prospects (B) 40% 40%
3. Less-personal expenses of
the deceased (C)
NIL 1/2 of Rs.
1,52,006/- = Rs.
76,003/-
4. Annual loss of dependency
[(A+B) - C] = D]
Rs. 1,52,006/- Rs. 76,003/-
5. Multiplier (E) 18 18
6. Total loss of dependency
(D x E) = (F)
Rs. 27,36,108/- Rs. 13,68,054/-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 48 of 51
7. Compensation for loss of
consortium (H)
NIL Rs. 40,000/-
8. Compensation for loss of
estate (I)
1/3 of Rs.
27,36,108/- =
Rs. 9,12,100/-
Rs. 15,000/-
9. Compensation towards
funeral expenses (J)
Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
10. Total Compensation
(F+G+H+I+J = K)
Rs. 9,27,100/- Rs. 14,38,054/-
11. Interest Awarded 9% per annum 9% per annum
12. Enhanced Compensation Rs. 5,10,954/-
37. Accordingly, the compensation is enhanced by Rs. 5,10,954/-.
38. Enhanced amount along with interest at 9% per annum from the
date of filing the petition shall be deposited before MACT within a
period of four weeks. It is directed that the said enhanced amount, along
with accrued interest, shall be kept in Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) of
Rs. 25,000/- each for periods of 1 month, 2 months, 3 months and so on,
in succession as maybe calculated. Interest accruing on said FDRs shall
be credited to the designated Savings Bank Account of claimant. The
amount of FDRs on maturity would be released to the Savings Bank
Account of claimant upon due verification.
MAC.APP. 588/2019 and MAC.APP.48/2023
39. Accordingly, the revised computation of compensation towards
the death of Chamanlal is as under:
Sr.
No.
Heads Awarded by the
Tribunal
Awarded by the
Court
1. Annual income of the
deceased (A)
Rs. 3,76,980/- Rs. 3,76,980/-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 49 of 51
2. Add-Future Prospects (B) 15% 15%
3. Less-personal expenses of
the deceased (C)
NIL 1/2 of
Rs.4,33,527/- =
Rs. 2,16,763.50/-
4. Annual loss of dependency
[(A+B) - C] = D]
Rs.4,33,527/- Rs. 2,16,763.50/-
5. Multiplier (E) 9 9
6. Total loss of dependency
(D x E) = (F)
NIL Rs.
19,50,871.50/-
7. Compensation for loss of
consortium (H)
NIL Rs. 40,000/-
8. Compensation for loss of
estate (I)
1/3 of Rs.
39,01,743/- =
Rs.13,00,581/-
Rs. 15,000/-
9. Compensation towards
funeral expenses (J)
Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
10. Total Compensation
(F+G+H+I+J = K)
Rs. 13,15,600/- Rs.
20,20,871.50/-
11. Interest Awarded 9% per annum 9% per annum
12. Enhanced Compensation Rs. 7,05,271.50/-
40. Accordingly, the compensation is enhanced by Rs. 7,05,271.50/-.
41. Enhanced amount, along with interest at 9% per annum from the
date of filing the petition, shall be deposited before MACT within a
period of four weeks. It is directed that the said remaining enhanced
amount, along with accrued interest, shall be kept in Fixed Deposit
Receipts (FDRs) of Rs. 25,000/- each for periods of 1 month, 2 months,
3 months and so on, in succession as maybe calculated. Interest accruing
on said FDRs shall be credited to the designated Savings Bank Account
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 50 of 51
of claimant. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released to the
Savings Bank Account of claimant upon due verification.
MAC.APP. 588/2019, MAC.APP.48/2023, MAC. APP. 586/2019 and
MAC.APP.47/2023
nd
42. Vide order dated 22 May 2019, this Court had directed the
insurance company to deposit the entire compensation, barring Rs. 4
lacs , the entire amount i.e. Rs 9,25,100/- + 13,15,600/- = 22,40,700/-
minus Rs. 4 lacs with the Tribunal, to be disbursed to the beneficiary of
the Award, in terms of the scheme of disbursement specified therein.
43. Accordingly, balance compensation, i.e . Rs. 4 lacs along with 9%
per annum, be deposited with the MACT within a period of 4 weeks.
The same be released to the claimant in a lump sum within 2 weeks
thereafter.
44. Appeals stand disposed of in the above terms. Pending
applications are rendered infructuous.
45. Order of deposit and release as noted in paragraph 38 and 41
shall be complied with. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to the
Insurance Company only if the order of deposit has been complied with.
46. Copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned MACT/bank for
information and necessary compliance.
47. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 06, 2026/sm/ bp
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:44:42
MAC. APP. 586/2019 & connected appeals Page 51 of 51