The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Sneha Lata & Ors

Court: Delhi High Court
Case type: Misc Application
Decided on: 25-03-2026

<div> $~65 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI th % Date of decision: 25 March 2026 + MAC.APP. 1097/2018, CM APPL. 51336/2018, CM APPL. 51268/2022, CM APPL. 9343/2026 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate. versus SNEHA LATA & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. S. Waseem A Qadri, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Diwas Kumar and Mr. Umashankar Shanna, Advs. for R-2 to 4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL JUDGMENT ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL) 1. This appeal has been filed by the insurance company, assailing the st award dated 21 August 2018, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [‘ MACT ’] in Claim Petition No.729/2011, whereby a compensation of Rs.64,51,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum was awarded. th 2. The accident occurred on 4 May 2007 at about 2:30 p.m. near Police Station Ghabhan, Aligarh, when the deceased, travelling from Aligarh to Delhi in Maruti Wagon R collided with a Uttar Pradesh Roadways bus driven by respondent no.6 and operated by respondent no.5 [Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (' UPSRTC ’)] and insured Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing Date:02.04.2026 14:54:12 MAC.APP. 1097/2018 Page 1 of 11 by appellant/Insurance Company. It was a head-on collision which occurred in the middle of the road where there was no divider. 3. As regards the first issue , MACT concluded that the bus driver was negligent in driving on the right side of the carriageway, while, being a heavy vehicle, it ought to have been driving on the left side. 4. The MACT also noted, testimony of the driver [ R4W1 ] basis Court questions to him, that he was in the middle of the road, while the Wagon R car was overtaking a truck which was driving on the left side of the other carriageway. 5. On this basis, the MACT concluded that it was the sole negligence of the bus driver. 6. The Court has perused the site plan which has been filed, as also the testimony of PW-4 [ alleged eyewitness ] and R4W1 [ driver of the offending vehicle ]. 7. As regards testimony of PW-4 , there is nothing much to be gleaned from the same, considering that PW-4 was running a hotel/ dhaba and was sitting outside when the accident took place. In his cross-examination, he stated that he only saw the accident and then moved towards the site of the accident, but did not see the manner in which the accident took place. 8. As regards the testimony of R4W1 , which has been heavily relied upon by Mr. Qadri , Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of claimants/respondents, the Court questions become relevant. Same are extracted as under: " Court Question:- Was there any road divider on the road? A:-No. Court Question:- In which lane you were driving the bus? Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing Date:02.04.2026 14:54:12 MAC.APP. 1097/2018 Page 2 of 11 A:-I was driving the bus in the middle lane of the road. Court Question:- In which lane truck was being driven? A:-In its left lane. Court Question:- In which lane car was being driven. A:- Car was being driven in the middle of the road. " 9. As per the site plan, which is also extracted hereunder, it does appear that the bus was moving towards the middle of the road where there was no divider, whereas it ought to have been driving on the left side. 10. Even otherwise, there was no reason why it was veering towards the middle of the road, where it was prone to collide with vehicles approaching Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing Date:02.04.2026 14:54:12 MAC.APP. 1097/2018 Page 3 of 11 from the opposite direction, in this case the unfortunate Wagon R . 11. Considering that the proceedings before the MACT are based on preponderance of probability, the Court does not see anything amiss in the findings of the MACT in this regard. 12. Further, it is also noted that the FIR was registered against the driver of the offending bus and chargesheet has also been filed. 13. Considering the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Ranjeet v Abdul Kayam Neb 2025 SCC OnLine 497, the issue would stand fortified in favour of the claimants. 14. On the second issue , as far as quantum of the income is concerned, based on the ITR, Mr. Soni , Counsel for appellant/Insurance Company states that variable pay ought not to have been considered. 15. The Court has perused the salary record, which has been produced by the employer of the deceased. The deceased was employed as “ Assistant Manager " with Bharti Airtel Ltd. Mr. Mahesh Kumar [ PW-2 ], officer from the Company, gave his testimony and the details of the last drawn salary was produced as Exhibit PW2/2 , as well as the Form 16 for the Financial Year 2006-2007 as Exhibit PW2/3 . The annual cost-to-company details of the deceased were exhibited as Exhibit PW2/4 . 16. On this basis, the MACT rightly concluded that the pro-rata salary would be considered, subject to deduction of tax, which the MACT has calculated. 17. As regards variable pay, the Supreme Court has held in Manorma Sinha & Anr. v. The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd & Anr, 2025 INSC 1237, Kavita Devi & Ors. v. Sunil Kumar & Anr., 2025 INSC 938 and Meenakshi v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , 2024 SCC Onlhne SC 1872 that incentives will also have to be taken into account. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing Date:02.04.2026 14:54:12 MAC.APP. 1097/2018 Page 4 of 11 18. Accordingly, this aspect of the matter does not sustain in favour of the insurance company. 19. On the third issue , as far as future prospects are concerned, Mr. A.K. Soni , counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, submits that the same ought to have been taken at 25% instead of 30%, since the deceased was in private employment. th 20. In pursuance of the previous order dated 16 March 2026, Mr. S. Waseem A. Qadri, Senior Advocate appearing for respondents/claimants, submits that the deceased, aged 44 years, was in permanent employment with Bharti Airtel Ltd ., Gurgaon, as an Assistant Manager, and therefore future prospects were correctly granted at 30% by the MACT. This fact that deceased was employed with Bharti Airtel Ltd . has been duly proved by PW-2 , Mr. Mahesh Kumar , an officer of the said company. The salary details, exhibited as Ex. PW-2/2 , are extracted below: 21. The salary slips show that there were regular revisions in income. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing Date:02.04.2026 14:54:12 MAC.APP. 1097/2018 Page 5 of 11 st th From 1 June 2004 to 30 September 2005, the salary was Rs. 3,60,000/- ; st st from 1 October 2005 to 31 May 2006, the salary was Rs. 4,73,527/-; and st from 1 June 2006, the salary was Rs. 5,58,761/-. This clearly demonstrates that the deceased continued in employment and was treated as a permanent employee. 22. The extract of the salary slip also indicates that the deceased was st categorized as a “ full-time regular ” employee. Moreover, a letter dated 1 April 2002, issued by Bharti Airtel Ltd., has been handed up, showing that Employee Stock Options ( ESOPs ) were granted to the deceased, with an st option to exercise the same until 1 April 2008 and tradable options th available from 14 February 2003 onwards. Although these documents were not previously placed on record, the Court has perused the same. 23. Mr. S. Waseem A Qadri , Senior Advocate, relies upon the observation of the Supreme Court on the issue of future prospects in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, the relevant paragraph is extracted as under: “ 59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. ” 24. Mr. A.K. Soni , counsel for Insurance Company, and Mr. S. Waseem A Qadri , Senior Advocate for claimant, submit that there is no other decision which differentiates or throws light on what constitutes a permanent job and what constitutes employment on a fixed salary. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing Date:02.04.2026 14:54:12 MAC.APP. 1097/2018 Page 6 of 11 25. However, some guidance has been provided by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Anjum Ansari v. R. Rajesh Rao , 2024 SCC OnLine MP 9613, wherein the Court held that, in view of the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi ( supra ), it is not correct to state that only a government servant would be treated as having a permanent job. In the facts of that case, the Court noted that the deceased was working as an Assistant Professor at Corporate Institute of Science & Technology, Bhopal, and that the salary drawn by the deceased was subject to periodic revisions/hikes, therefore, he was considered to be in permanent job. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereinbelow. “ 8. In this court's opinion, above issue stands settled by Five Judges Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : AIR 2017 SC 5157 as under:— 55. “Presently, we come to the issue of addition of future prospects to determine the multiplicand. 56. In Santosh Devi ((2012) 6 SCC 421 : AIR 2012 SC 2185) the Court has not accepted as a principle that a self-employed person remains on a fixed salary throughout his life. It has taken note of the rise in the cost of living which affects everyone without making any distinction between the rich and the poor. Emphasis has been laid on the extra efforts made by this category of persons to generate additional income. That apart, judicial notice has been taken of the fact that the salaries of those who are employed in private sectors also with the passage of time increase manifold. In Rajesh s case, the Court had added 15% in the case where the victim is between the age group of 15 to 60 years so as to make the compensation just, equitable, fair and reasonable. This addition has been made in respect of self-employed or engaged on fixed wages. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing Date:02.04.2026 14:54:12 MAC.APP. 1097/2018 Page 7 of 11 57.………. In such an adjudication, the duty of the tribunal and the courts is difficult and hence, an endeavour has been made by this Court for standardisation which in its ambit includes addition of future prospects on the proven income at present As far as future prospects are concerned, them has been standardisation keeping in view the principle of certainty, stability and consistency. We approve the principle of “standardisation” so that a specific and certain multiplicand is determined for applying the multiplier on the basis of age. 59. Having bestowed our anxious consideration, we are disposed to think when we accept the principle of standardisation, there is really no rationale not to apply the said principle to the self- employed or a person who is on a fixed salary. To follow the doctrine of actual income at the time of death and not to add any amount with regard to future prospects to the income for the purpose of determination of multiplicand would be unjust The determination of income while computing compensation has to include future prospects so that the method will come within the ambit and sweep of just compensation as postulated under Section 168 of the Act In case of a deceased who had held a permanent job with inbuilt grant of annual increment, there is an acceptable certainty. But to slate that the legal representatives of a deceased who was on a fixed salary would not be entitled to the benefit of future prospects for the purpose of computation of compensation would be inapposite. It is because the criterion of distinction between the two in that event would be certainty on the one hand and staticness on the other. One may perceive that the comparative measure is certainty on the one hand and uncertainty on the other but such a perception is fallacious. It is because the price rise does affect a self-employed person; and that apart there is always an Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing Date:02.04.2026 14:54:12 MAC.APP. 1097/2018 Page 8 of 11 </div><table><thead><tr><th></th><th>incessant effort to enhance one's income for</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>sustenance. The purchasing capacity of a salaried</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>person on permanent job when increases because</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>of grant of increments and pay revision or for</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>some other change in service conditions, there is</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>always a competing attitude in the private sector</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>to enhance the salary to get better efficiency from</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>the employees. Similarly, a person who is self-</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>employed is bound to gamer his resources and</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>raise his charges/fees so that he can live with</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>same facilities. To have the perception that he is</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>likely to remain static and his income to remain</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>stagnant is contrary to the fundamental concept of</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>human attitude which always intends to live with</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>dynamism and move and change with the time.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Though it may seem appropriate that there cannot</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>be certainty in addition of future prospects to the</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>existing income unlike in the case of a person</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>having a permanent job yet the said perception</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>does not really deserve acceptance. We are</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>inclined to think that there can be some degree of</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>difference as regards the percentage that is meant</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>for or applied to in respect of the legal</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>representatives who claim on behalf of the</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>deceased who had a permanent job than a person</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>who is self-employed or on a fixed salary. But not</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>to apply the principle of standardisation on the</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>foundation of perceived lack of certainty would</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>tantamount to remaining oblivious to the marrows</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>of ground reality………</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>to record our conclusions:</td></tr><tr><td>(i) XXX XXX XXX XXX</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(ii) XXX XXX XXX XXX</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>(iii) While determining the income, an addition of</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>towards future prospects, where the deceased had</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>a permanent job and was below the age of 40</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>years, should be made. The addition should be</td></tr></tbody></table><div> Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing Date:02.04.2026 14:54:12 MAC.APP. 1097/2018 Page 9 of 11 </div><table><thead><tr><th>job”.”</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div> circumstances of the present case, the deceased would be considered to have held a permanent job, following the cue from the Coordinate Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the principles enunciated in Pranay Sethi ( supra ). Therefore, the grant of future prospects at 30% by the MACT warrants no interference and is upheld. Directions th 27. By order dated 10 December 2018, when notice was issued, the complete amount was deposited with the Registry of this Court, and the th operation of the impugned award was stayed. Vide order dated 11 April Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing Date:02.04.2026 14:54:12 MAC.APP. 1097/2018 Page 10 of 11 2023, the application for release was allowed and the Tribunal was directed to release 50% of the awarded amount, in terms of the scheme of disbursal. 28. It is therefore directed that the balance amount along with accrued interest as deposited with the Registrar General of this Court be released to claimants as per the scheme of the impugned award. CM APPL. 18706/2026 29. This application has been filed by respondents with prayer for taking th on record death of respondent no. 1/ Smt. Sneh Lata , who expired on 17 May 2021. The Death Certificate has been filed. The surviving member certificate issue by the District Magistrate, Dwarka, South West District, shows that respondents nos. 2-4 are legal heirs of the deceased. Therefore, Mr. S. Waseem A Qadri , Senior Advocate, prays that the amount which was rd apportioned to respondent no. 1 be released in equal parts i.e. 1/3 each to respondents nos. 2-4. It is directed accordingly. The awarded amount to respondent no.1 be apportioned in equal parts to respondent nos. 2-4. 30. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous. 31. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to the appellant. 32. Judgement be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J MARCH 25, 2026/ da/zb Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing Date:02.04.2026 14:54:12 MAC.APP. 1097/2018 Page 11 of 11 </div>