The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Sampat & Ors
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
rd
% Date of decision: 03 September 2026
# CNR No. DLHC011881922013
+ MAC.APP. 1124/2013
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Ms. Shruti Jain and
Ms. Tanya Jindal, Advs.
versus
SAMPAT & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar and Mr. Ritik
Singh, Advs. for R-1 to 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)
1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company assailing the
th
judgment dated 09 September 2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal [‘ MACT ’], Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in MACT No. 18/2012,
whereby compensation of Rs.10,98,500/- along with interest @ 9% per
annum was awarded.
th
2. The accident occurred on 11 December 2011, when the
deceased, Karan , aged 21 years, was travelling as a pillion rider on
motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-7S-BL-7567, driven by respondent
No. 4, from Noida towards his home. At a crossing, the motorcycle was hit by
an unknown vehicle. An FIR was registered against the driver of the unknown
vehicle. The claim, however, was raised against Kishan Verma , the driver of
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 1124/2013 Page- 1/8
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:16.09.2026
12:43:49
the motorcycle, who also died in the accident. His mother, Geeta Verma , was
impleaded as a party and was examined as R1W1 .
3. Mr. Pankaj Seth , counsel for the Insurance Company, submits that all
the legal heirs of the deceased driver ought to have been impleaded as parties
and, in their absence, a finding of negligence could not have been returned
against the deceased driver. In support of his submission, he relies upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Machindranath Kernath Kasar v. D.S.
Mylarappa, (2008) 13 SCC 198 and he specifically relies on the following
paragraphs:
“ 38. The issue to be examined herein is whether in the
claim cases before the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, the driver of a vehicle who has been accused
of negligence is a necessary party to the proceedings or
whether the owner alone can be impleaded.
39. In this case, two sets of claim cases were heard
together, one filed by the passengers of K SRTC bus and
the other filed by the driver of the said bus. In short,
unless the finding of negligence in the claim cases of the
passengers was negatived in the claim case filed by the
driver himself, the said finding of negligence on the part
of the driver could not have been varied.
40. The analysis of our findings aforementioned is:
(i) In the first set of claims cases, the driver of the bus
was held to be negligent and, therefore, a ruling that the
driver is a necessary party would mean that the bus
driver must necessarily be involved in these
proceedings. However, the driver of the bus had
sufficient opportunity to make a representation against
the allegation of negligence as he was examined as RW
1 in the claim cases filed by the passengers, even though
he was not formally impleaded as a respondent. Hence,
the High Court has correctly held that he was a “party”
to the proceedings.
(ii) In the claims filed by the driver of the bus (namely
the appellant herein), specific allegations were made
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 1124/2013 Page- 2/8
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:16.09.2026
12:43:49
against the driver of the truck. Hence, the question is
whether the driver of the truck must necessarily be made
a party to the proceedings. He was not.
Here, one must bifurcate the terms “party” and
“necessary party”. “Party” has been correctly defined
by the High Court in the impugned judgment in terms of
involvement in the proceedings regardless of formal
impleadment. However, a necessary party has been
defined in 5th Edn. of Black's Law Dictionary as
follows:
“In pleading and practice, those persons who must
be joined in an action because, inter alia, complete
relief cannot be given to those already parties without
their joinder. Fed.R.Civil P. 19(a)”
41. First and foremost, as has been stated in the body of
the judgment, natural justice would mandate
involvement of a driver, as an adverse finding on
negligence cannot and should not be made against him
without giving him the opportunity to at least make a
representation as a witness. More importantly,
however, one must look at the kind of evidence which
must be led in such cases. The appellants have, as
noticed hereinbefore, relied on Patel Roadways [ILR
(2000) Kant 3286] to try and prove that the driver need
not be a party. Firstly, this case only relates to formally
impleading the driver as a party. However, the fact that
joint tortfeasors have been mentioned in the judgment is
relevant . ”
(emphasis added)
4. It is evident from the aforesaid paragraphs that the Supreme Court was
considering a case where the driver of the alleged offending vehicle was alive
and, therefore, had to be given an opportunity to defend himself against the
allegation of negligence, including by appearing as a witness. The facts of the
present case are materially different. The driver of the offending vehicle, i.e.
the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider, had
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 1124/2013 Page- 3/8
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:16.09.2026
12:43:49
himself died in the accident. His mother was impleaded as a party and was
also examined as a witness. In these circumstances, the plea of the Insurance
Company that all the legal heirs of the deceased driver were required to be
impleaded is without merit and serves no meaningful purpose.
5. The issue of negligence has to be determined on the basis of the facts
and circumstances established on record. In the present case, claimants
examined the father of the deceased, Prabhu Dayal , as PW1 , who deposed
regarding the accident, as well as the age and occupation of his son. The
claimants also examined Ram Kishore as PW2 , who was stated to be an
th
eyewitness to the accident. Ram Kishore categorically deposed that on 11
December 2011, at about 11:40 p.m., while he was standing at the Gol
Chakkar in Sector-1, Noid a, waiting for a bus to reach his home, the
offending motorcycle, being driven rashly, negligently and carelessly, came
from the wrong side of the road and was hit by an unknown car. As a result,
the motorcycle fell and both the driver and the pillion rider sustained grievous
injuries. He further stated that someone called the police, pursuant to which
police personnel arrived and took the injured persons to the hospital.
6. PW2 was duly cross-examined by the Insurance Company and
rebutted the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. There was no other
evidence placed by the Insurance Company in regard to the accident.
7. On a preponderance of probabilities, the MACT concluded that the
accident occurred due to the negligence of both the driver of the motorcycle
and the driver of the unknown vehicle and, accordingly, treated the case as
one of composite negligence. Since compensation could be claimed against
either of the joint tortfeasors, the issue was decided in favour of the claimants
and against the driver of the motorcycle, resulting in liability being fastened
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 1124/2013 Page- 4/8
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:16.09.2026
12:43:49
upon the Insurance Company.
8. This Court finds no merit in the contention of the Insurance Company
that all the legal heirs of the deceased driver were required to be impleaded
and examined before a finding of negligence could be returned against him.
9. Moreover, Geeta Verma , the mother of the deceased driver, had in any
event been examined as R1W1 . She stated that the deceased was sitting on
the pillion due to his own fault, despite the driver, deceased Kishan Verma ,
having asked him not to sit on the pillion while he was holding a learner’s
licence. She further stated that the deceased was riding on the motorcycle
without wearing a helmet and was, therefore, himself responsible for the
injuries sustained.
10. In the cross-examination, she clearly stated that she had not seen the
alleged accident and had merely heard of it. The motorcycle was owned by
her and her son used to ply the motorcycle and was holding a learner’s
licence. She categorically stated that he was not having any permanent
licence.
11. In these circumstances, the objection of the Insurance Company with
regard to the impleadment of the legal heirs of the deceased driver is rejected.
12. As regards the quantum of compensation, certain aspects require
realignment in terms of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court
in Sarla Verma v. DTC , (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Co. Ltd.
v. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680 .
13. The MACT assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,656/-.
The finding of the monthly income is sustained. Future prospects are required
to be added to the said income.
14. In view of the age of the deceased, who was 21 years old at the time of
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 1124/2013 Page- 5/8
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:16.09.2026
12:43:49
the accident, the multiplier applicable in terms of Sarla Verma ( supra ) is 18.
15. The MACT had awarded future prospects at 50% . Since the deceased
was 21 years of age and was not in permanent employment, future prospects
are required to be assessed at 40% , in terms of the applicable principles laid
down in Pranay Sethi ( supra ).
16. Further, compensation for conventional heads such as loss of
consortium , loss of estate , and funeral expenses are also to be aligned in terms
of Pranay Sethi ( supra ). Compensation awarded under the head of loss of
love and affection shall be nil , in view of the law laid down in United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur , (2021) 11 SCC 780.
17. Considering that there were three claimants, namely mother, brother,
and father, loss of consortium would be Rs.40,000 x 3, totalling to Rs.
1,20,000/- ; loss of estate will be taken at Rs.15,000/- and funeral expenses
will be taken at Rs.15,000/-.
18. The revised compensation will be as under:
S.
No.
Heads Awarded by
the Tribunal
Awarded by
this Court
1 Income of deceased (A) Rs. 6,656/- Rs. 6,656/-
2 Add Future Prospects (B) 40% Rs. 3,328/- Rs. 2,662/-
3 Less: Personal expenses of deceased (C) ½ Rs. 4,992/- Rs. 4,659/-
4 Monthly Loss of dependency (A+B)-C=(D) Rs. 4,992/- Rs. 4,659/-
5 Multiplier (E) 16 18
6 Total loss of dependency (D x E)x 12 = (F) Rs. 9,58,464/- Rs. 10,06,344/-
7 Compensation for loss of consortium (G)
(Rs. 40,000x3)
Nil Rs. 1,20,000/-
8 Compensation for loss of estate (H) Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 1124/2013 Page- 6/8
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:16.09.2026
12:43:49
9 Compensation towards funeral expenses (I) Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
10 Compensation for loss of love and affection
(J)
Rs. 1,00,000/- Nil
11 Medical Bills (K) Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 5,000/-
12 Total compensation
(G+H+I+J+K)= (L)
Rs. 10,98,464/- Rs. 11,61,344/-
13 Enhanced Compensation Rs. 62,880/-
14 Rate of Interest Awarded 9% 9%
19. Accordingly, the compensation is enhanced by Rs. 62,880/-
[‘ enhanced amount ’]
20. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount
along with accrued interest @9% per annum from the date of filing the claim
petition before the Registrar General of this Court within a period of four
weeks from today.
21. Upon deposit of the enhanced amount along with accrued interest
thereon, the same shall be released to claimant as a lumpsum.
th
22. This Court by order dated 09 December 2013 directed the Insurance
Company to deposit the entire award amount along with up-to-date interest
accrued thereon with the Registrar General of this Court. Upon deposit it was
directed that 50% of the awarded compensation be released in favour of the
claimants as per the terms and conditions fixed by the Tribunal.
23. Since the appeal stands disposed of, and considering that the accident
occurred in 2011 and the appeal has remained pending since 2013, with more
than a decade having lapsed, the balance compensation, along with the
accrued interest thereon, shall be released to the claimants in a lump sum.
24. Mr. S.N. Parashar , counsel for claimants, points out that there was no
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 1124/2013 Page- 7/8
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:16.09.2026
12:43:49
apportionment awarded by the MACT.
rd
25. By order dated 03 February 2016, this Court had directed that the 50%
release of the amount shall be made to the mother of the deceased. The
brother of the deceased, who was minor at that time, would now be a major.
26. In the facts and circumstances, the compensation is apportioned as
under:
(i) 50% share to the mother of the deceased;
(ii) 25% share to the brother of the deceased; and
(iii) 25% share father to the father of the deceased.
27. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
28. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
29. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 03, 2026/mk/ zb
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 1124/2013 Page- 8/8
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:16.09.2026
12:43:49