Beena Malik vs Rajbir Goswami & Ors (United India Ins Co Ltd)

$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
st
% Date of decision: 31 August 2026
# CNR No. DLHC012393642014
+ MAC.APP. 1168/2014 & CM APPL. 21071/2014
BEENA MALIK .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Kamaldeep & Ms Jasmin,
Advocates.

versus

RAJBIR GOSWAMI & ORS (UNITED INDIA INS CO LTD)
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Adv with Mr.
Amit Gaur, Mr. Karrtikey Parashar,
Advocates (through VC) for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGEMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J. (ORAL)

1. This appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation
awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala House Courts,
New Delhi (‘ MACT ’) awarding Rs. 25,74,028/- with interest at 7.5% to
the legal representatives (‘ LRs ’) of Rishi Malik (hereinafter, ‘ deceased ’).
th
2. The accident in question occurred on 30 March 2012, when the
deceased, who was driving a motorcycle reached in front of gate no.3
DMS booth, Maharishi Raman Marg, a bus bearing no. DL-1PC-9126
(hereinafter, ‘ offending vehicle ’) hit his motorcycle. As a result, the
Signature Not Verified

MAC APP. 1168/2014 1 of 7

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:16:50

deceased came under the rear wheel of the bus and was dragged by the bus
for some distance. He was taken to JPN Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS
where he was declared brought dead.
3. Mr. Kamal Deep , counsel for appellant/claimant, has challenged the
assessment of notional income which was taken at Rs.1,97,178/- . This
income was assessed as per the income tax return (‘ ITR ’) for financial year
(‘ FY ’) 2010-11/assessment year (‘ AY ’) 2011-12, which returned an
income of Rs.2,00,196/- and tax of Rs.3,018/- was deducted. Two more
ITRs were placed on record i.e. , FY 2008-09/AY 2009-10 which returned
an income of Rs.1,44,170/- and FY 2011-12/AY 2012-13 which returned
an income of Rs.4,63,950/-.
4. Mr. Kamal Deep states that since deceased’s income progressively
increased, income from FY 2011-12/AY 2012-13 ought to have been
th
taken. The date of accident was 30 March 2012, which is at the end of FY
2011-2012. The last ITR of FY 2011-2012/AY 2012-13 was filed for the
earnings which were earned in FY 2011-12. Return for the FY 2011-
12/AY 2012-13 was filed by the father of deceased.
5. Mr. Pradeep Gaur , counsel for Insurance Company, has drawn
attention of this Court to the testimony of the mother of deceased/ Beena
Malik (‘ PW3 ’) who did not give any evidence regarding the work that her
son was doing at the time of accident. She only stated that he was 29 years
old and had he been alive, he would be earning more than Rs. 7,00,000/-
per annum, keeping in view the recent trends and the increase in income.

6. In her cross-examination, she stated that the deceased was not
working anywhere. He had left his job sometime before the accident and
Signature Not Verified

MAC APP. 1168/2014 2 of 7

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:16:50

was receiving offers from abroad, however, in this respect, no documents
had been filed regarding the offers received by her son. She further stated
that she had not filed any document to prove that her son was conducting
tuition classes.
7. To the contrary, Mr. Kamal Deep , relies upon the ITR filed for FY
th
2011-12/AY 2012-13. Considering the accident took place on 30 March
2012, deceased was earning his livelihood for almost all of the FY 2011-12
and the ITR had been subsequently filed by his father.
8. A perusal of the ITR would show that he earned an income of Rs.
1,35,000/- from Soloman Engineers and Traders , Rs. 41,293/- from
Religare Securities Limited and Rs. 1,21,800/- from coaching classes.
Another income of Rs. 1,65,270/- was recorded from capital gains.
9. Reliance may be placed upon decision of this Court in Savita & Ors.
v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2026:DHC:3626 where the Court noted
some amount of guesswork can be done while assessing benchmark
income and the Courts should not be constrained to consider wages from
the lowest tier. Relevant paragraphs of the decision are extracted as under:
“ Guideposts
30. Principles which may be culled out from these
cases cited above, and be used as guidepost for
assessment of benchmark income, can be summarised
as under:
C. Proof of employment
i. If documents in support of employment inter
alia, Salary/Wage Certificate, Income Tax
Returns (‘ITRs’) have been filed, same shall be
considered.
ii. In the absence of such proof, assessment done
Signature Not Verified

MAC APP. 1168/2014 3 of 7

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:16:50

by the Court has to be based on some intelligent
guesswork and may not be restricted to the
minimum wage parameter after taking into
account a holistic analysis of the evidence on
record. For example, place of employment,
testimony of co-workers, or any other person
who testifies in favour of the injured/deceased
employee.
iii. The entire assessment is ultimately imbued
with an element of approximation and
guesswork, as part of the inquiry proceedings
and not on exactitude
….
E. Standard of living of deceased persons
i. When a claim petition has been filed by the
surviving dependents of a deceased, where the
deceased was the breadwinner of the family,
Courts must attempt to ascertain the benchmark
income keeping in view the void left by the
breadwinner’s death and income must be
determined keeping in view the standard of living
enjoyed by the family before the accident took
place. While monetary compensation is a means
to filing the financial hole left by the deceased,
an estimate may be required to be done in order
to support the remaining family members.
(emphasis added)

10. For the purpose of assessment of his benchmark income, this Court
is inclined to consider income earned from his salary and from coaching
classes, taking into account the fact that, previously he had been engaged
in a different set of jobs and had not been continuing in his job at the time
of accident.
Signature Not Verified

MAC APP. 1168/2014 4 of 7

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:16:50

11. Therefore, considering that he was residing in Delhi, income
generated from the above sources would have certainly supplemented his
livelihood, as pleaded by Mr. Kamal Deep , counsel for appellant/claimant.
Accordingly, the benchmark income will be considered at Rs.2,98,093/-
( Rs. 1,35,000/- + Rs. 41,293/- + Rs. 1,21,800/- ).
12. Future prospects have been granted at 50%, which ought to be
considered at 40%, considering that the deceased was not working in a
permanent job. Accordingly, the same shall be considered at 40% as per
the principles enunciated in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi
(2017) 16 SCC 680.

13. Further alignments shall be made in view of the decision in Pranay
Sethi ( supra ) and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur
(2021) 11 SCC 780. Loss of consortium shall be granted at Rs. 80,000/-
( 40,000 x 2 ), considering there were two claimants; loss of love and
affection will stand deleted. Loss of estate will be granted at Rs.15,000/-
and funeral expenses will be at Rs. 15,000/- .
14. Further, Mr. Kamal Deep , has challenged the interest rate granted at
7.5%. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Kaushnuma Begum (Smt.) & Ors. v. New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. , (2001) 2 SCC 9 wherein, while interpreting
the powers of the Tribunal under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 to award simple interest on compensation from the date of institution
of the claim petition, it was observed that the rate of interest awarded by
nationalised banks on fixed deposits ought to serve as the guiding factor
while determining the rate of interest payable on compensation amounts.
Signature Not Verified

MAC APP. 1168/2014 5 of 7

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:16:50

15. Considering that the rate of interest in 2014-15 was in the range of
8.25-8.50% the interest rate shall be considered at 8.5% since the claim
petition was filed in September 2014.
16. Accordingly, the compensation will be revised as under:

S.
No.
Heads Awarded by the
Tribunal
Awarded by this
Court
1 Income of deceased (A) Rs. 1,97,178/-

Rs. 2,98,093/-
2 Add Future Prospects (B) Rs. 49,294.5/-* Rs. 1,19,237.2/-
3 Less: Personal expenses of
deceased (C)
Rs. 98,589/- Rs. 2,08,665/-
4 Loss of dependency (A+B)-
C=(D)
Rs.1,47,884/- Rs. 2,08,665/-
5 Multiplier (E) 17 17
6 Total loss of dependency (D x
E) = (F)
Rs. 25,14,028/- Rs. 35,47,305/-
7 Compensation for loss of
consortium (G) (40,000x2)
Nil Rs. 80,000/-
8 Compensation for loss of estate
(H)
Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
9 Compensation towards funeral
expenses (I)
Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
10 Compensation for loss of love
and affection (J)
Rs. 25,000/- Nil
11 Total compensation
(G+H+I+J)= (K)
Rs. 25,74,208/-

Rs. 36,57,305/-

12 Rate of Interest Awarded 7.5% 8.5%
* Wrongly mentioned after deduction of personal expenses
Directions
17. For the aforesaid reasons, compensation has been enhanced by Rs.
10,83,097/- [“ enhanced amount ”].
Signature Not Verified

MAC APP. 1168/2014 6 of 7

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:16:50

18. Enhanced amount along with 8.5% interest per annum from the date
of filing the petition shall be deposited before MACT within a period of
four weeks, which shall be released to appellant/claimant as a lumpsum
within two weeks thereafter.
19. The interest on the original compensation shall now be calculated at
8.5% per annum and a ‘ revised amount ’ arrived at. The excess amount
leftover, with interest, shall be deposited by the Insurance Company before
the MACT within four weeks, which shall also be released to
appellant/claimant as lumpsum within two weeks thereafter.
20. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. Pending applications, if any,
are rendered infructuous.
21. Copy of this judgement be sent to concerned MACT.
22. Copy of this judgement shall also be sent to concerned bank.
23. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.

ANISH DAYAL, J
AUGUST 31, 2026/RK/ sp
Signature Not Verified

MAC APP. 1168/2014 7 of 7

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:16:50