Devinder Kumar & Anr vs Ram Babu Sahani & Ors (Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co Ltd )

$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 07 October 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010065562019
+ MAC.APP. 16/2019
DEVINDER KUMAR & ANR .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Jatinder Kamra, Adv.

versus

RAM BABU SAHANI & ORS (IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL
INSURANCE CO LTD ) .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate with Ms.
Mouli Sharma, Advocates.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J. (ORAL)

1. This appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation
awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tis Hazari Courts
th
(‘ MACT/Tribunal ’), in MACT No. 76742/2016 passed on 27 August 2018
awarding compensation of Rs.8,24,000/- along with interest at 9% per annum.
th
2. The accident occurred on 05 May 2015, when the deceased Sagar
Sharma had gone to a tuition centre and was standing near a parked scooter
DL-4CG-0919, a Tata 909 vehicle bearing no. DL-1M-6262, driven rashly
and negligently, hit him and crushed him under the wheel. As a result of the
accident he was grievously injured and later succumbed to his injuries.
Signature Not Verified

MAC APP. 16/2019 1 of 9

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:16.10.2026
19:05:08

3. FIR No. 607/2015 was registered at PS Rajouri Garden, which resulted
in a charge sheet.
4. The deceased was 17 years of age on the date of the accident and was
a matriculate student, studying at Cambridge Foundation School, Rajouri
Garden.
5. Deceased’s mother, Bindu Sharma , testified as PW1 and the purported
eyewitness, Prince Prabhakar testified as PW2 .
6. Mr. Jatinder Kamra , counsel for appellant/claimant, is seeking
enhancement of compensation on the following counts:
i. For the purpose of computing loss of dependency , the notional income
was assessed on the basis of the decision in Chetan Malhotra v. Lala
Ram , by applying the Cost Inflation Index, and was arrived at Rs.
49,000/- in total, whereas minimum wages prescribed for a matriculate
were Rs. 10,478/- per month on the date of accident;
ii. Future prospects ought to have been granted;
iii. Contributory negligence at 30% was attributed to the claimant by the
MACT without any reasoning, merely on the basis that the site plan
noted the point, where the scooter and the deceased were found, as
closer to the middle of the road and, therefore, assumed that he was
driving the scooter despite there being no evidence in that regard.
7. On the issue of contributory negligence, Mr. Kamra relied upon the
testimony of PW2 . The eyewitness had also stated in his statement recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that he had seen the deceased standing by the side
of the road when the truck hit him.
8. Ms. Mouli Sharma , counsel for the Insurance Company, submits that
the testimony of PW2 was discarded on account of inconsistencies therein.
Signature Not Verified

MAC APP. 16/2019 2 of 9

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:16.10.2026
19:05:08

9. The Court has examined the site plan which is extracted as under:


10. It is noted that the site plan marks Point No. A as the place where the
Signature Not Verified

MAC APP. 16/2019 3 of 9

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:16.10.2026
19:05:08

scooter and blood spots were found, whereas Point C indicates the location of
Abhi Study Circle , which the deceased attended.
11. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle appeared before the
MACT but did not lead any evidence. Even in their written statement, they
did not state that the offending vehicle had collided with a person driving the
scooter. On this account, there is no reason why the MACT ought to have
assumed that the deceased was driving the scooter.
12. Mechanical inspection report also records damage to the rear of the
scooter. There is no dispute regarding the manner in which the accident
occurred.
13. Besides, even if he was driving the vehicle without a valid licence he
cannot be held liable for contributory negligence. In this regard, the Supreme
Court has held in Sudhir Kumar Rana v Surinder Singh , (2008) 12 SCC 436,
as under:
“9. If a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits
an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to
a finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been held
by the courts below that it was the driver of the mini truck who
was driving rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the
appellant was not possessing any licence but no finding of fact
has been arrived at that he was driving the two-wheeler rashly
and negligently. If he was not driving rashly and negligently
which contributed to the accident, we fail to see as to how, only
because he was not having a licence, he would be held to be
guilty of contributory negligence.
10. The matter might have been different if by reason of his rash
and negligent driving, the accident had taken place.”
(emphasis added)

14. This aspect has also been considered by this Court in Reliance General
Insurance Co. Ltd v Smt. Kusum and Ors. 2026:DHC:6915 , in the context
Signature Not Verified

MAC APP. 16/2019 4 of 9

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:16.10.2026
19:05:08

of contributory negligence. Moreover, in the same judgment, the Court had
culled out the principles as regards contributory negligence, which are also
extracted below for ease of reference:
“ 15. The following principles as regards contributory
negligence can be culled out from the aforementioned
judgments:
I. Contributory negligence requires proof of negligence
on the part of the victim which has materially contributed
to the accident or the resulting injury.
II. The determination of contributory negligence is
essentially dependent upon the facts and circumstances of
each case. The relevant test is whether, by exercising
reasonable care, the victim could have avoided the
consequences of the negligence which caused the accident.
III. A mere violation of law by the victim does not, by
itself, constitute contributory negligence. There must be a
causal connection between such violation and either the
occurrence of the accident or the impact/injury suffered by
the victim.
IV. The burden of establishing contributory negligence
lies upon the party alleging it. Such negligence must be
established by cogent material demonstrating that an act
or omission attributable to the claimant/victim materially
contributed to the accident or the injury suffered.
V. The mere absence, invalidity, non-production of a
driving licence, or possession of only a learner’s licence,
by itself, do not constitute contributory negligence. Such
violation may entail statutory consequences, but a finding
of contributory negligence can be made only where it is
established by cogent evidence that such violation has a
causal connection with the occurrence of the accident or
the injuries suffered by the victim.
VI. Where negligence is attributable to both parties, the
Court may apportion the loss between them in such
proportion as is just and equitable. However, such
apportionment necessarily presupposes a finding of
Signature Not Verified

MAC APP. 16/2019 5 of 9

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:16.10.2026
19:05:08

contributory negligence on the part of the claimant; in its
absence, no deduction from compensation is warranted. ”
(emphasis added)

15. Accordingly, in light of the above observation, the 30% contributory
negligence is set aside.
16. As regards the issue of calculation of loss of dependency, it is noted
that the MACT assessed the notional income on the basis of the decision in
Chetan Malhotra v. Lala Ram , by applying the Cost Inflation Index, and
arrived at Rs. 49,000/- in total. However, in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr. , (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, the Supreme Court standardised
the formula for computing loss of dependency. Under the prescribed formula,
the notional income is first assessed; future prospects are then added, and
personal and living expenses are deducted. The resulting amount constitutes
the multiplicand, to which the appropriate multiplier is applied.
17. Considering that the deceased was a matriculate, the notional income
ought to have been assessed on the basis of the minimum wages prescribed
for a matriculate, which were Rs. 10,478/- per month.
18. Deceased was 17 years old on the date of accident; therefore future
prospects would be awarded at 40%, and a multiplier of ‘ 18 ’ would be
applied, applying the principles in Sarla Verma ( supra ) Pranay Sethi ( supra ) .
19. The Court has perused the impugned award and finds that certain
components of compensation are required to be aligned as per the principles
enunciated in Sarla Verma ( supra ) and Pranay Sethi & Ors. ( supra ), which
are as follows:
i. Loss of love and affection awarded at Rs. 5,88,000/- ought not to be
Signature Not Verified

MAC APP. 16/2019 6 of 9

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:16.10.2026
19:05:08

granted on the basis of the principles enunciated in United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Ors .
(2021) 11 SCC 780.
ii. Loss of consortium ought to be granted to parents, which is 40,000 x
2=Rs. 80,000/-.
iii. Funeral charges ought to be awarded at Rs.15,000/-.
iv. Likewise, loss of estate ought to be awarded Rs.15,000 /-.
20. Accordingly, the revised compensation will be as under:
Sr.
No.
Heads Awarded by the
Tribunal
Awarded by the
Court
1.
Monthly income of the
deceased (Y)
Rs. 10,478/-
2.
Annual Income of the
deceased [Yx12 = A]
Rs. 49,000/- Rs. 1,25,736/-
3.
40% of Rs. 1,25,736
= Rs. 50,294.40/-
Add-Future Prospects (B) NIL
4.
1/2 of 1,76,030.40/-
= Rs. 88,015.20/-
Less-personal expenses of the
deceased (C) 1/3
5.
Annual loss of dependency
[(A+B) - C ] = D] NIL
Rs. 88,015.20/-
6. 18
Multiplier (E) 18
7.
Total loss of dependency (D x
E) = (F) Rs.5,88,000/-
Rs. 15,84,273.60/-
8.
Compensation for loss of love
and affection (G)
NIL
9.
Compensation for loss of
consortium (H)
Rs. 80,000/-
10.
Compensation for loss of
estate (I)
Rs. 15,000/-
11.
Compensation towards
funeral expenses (J)
Rs. 15,000/-
Rs.5,88,000/-
Signature Not Verified

MAC APP. 16/2019 7 of 9

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:16.10.2026
19:05:08

12.
Rs.11,76,000/- Rs. 16,94,273.60/-
(rounded to
Rs.16,94,300/-)
Total Compensation
(F+G+H+I+J = K)
13.
Rs.11,76,000 x
30% =
Rs.3,52,800
NIL
Contributory negligence
14.
Final Compensation after
deducting contributory
negligence
Rs.8,23,200/-
(rounded to
Rs.8,24,000/-)
Rs.16,94,300/-
15. 9% per annum 9% per annum
Interest Awarded
16. Rs. 8,70,300/-
Enhanced Compensation

21. Accordingly, the compensation is enhanced by Rs. 8,70,300/-.
22. Enhanced compensation be deposited by the Insurance Company with
the MACT within 6 weeks.
23. 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 a lump sum amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- shall be
released to the claimant from the deposit of enhanced amount within a period
of two weeks thereafter. 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 of claimant. The amount of FDRs on maturity would
be released to the Savings Bank Account of claimant upon due verification.
24. The originally awarded compensation shall continue to be disbursed as
per the scheme of disbursal in the MACT award.
25. Enhanced compensation to be deposited within 6 weeks.
26. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. Pending applications (if any)
Signature Not Verified

MAC APP. 16/2019 8 of 9

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:16.10.2026
19:05:08

are also rendered infructuous.
27. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.

ANISH DAYAL, J
OCTOBER 7, 2026/RK/ bp

Signature Not Verified

MAC APP. 16/2019 9 of 9

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:16.10.2026
19:05:08