United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Bhagwan Singh Gautam & Ors

$~8 to 11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 25 August 2026
# CNR No. DLHC011433042018
+ MAC.APP. 523/2018
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Animesh Sinha, Mr. Shubham
Budhiraja and Ms. Ishita Pandey,
Advocates.
versus

BHAGWAN SINGH GAUTAM & ORS .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Advocate for
Driver and Owner.
Mr. Shrey Chathly, Adv. for R-2.
Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC, with Ms.
Ayushi Srivastava, Advocate.
# CNR No. DLHC010068522019
+ MAC.APP. 59/2019&CM APPL. 1139/2019
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Animesh Sinha, Mr. Shubham
Budhiraja and Ms. Ishita Pandey,
Advocates.

versus

GITA DEVI & ORS .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Advocate for
Driver and Owner.

# CNR No. DLHC010150762020
+ MAC.APP. 138/2020&CM APPL. 8996/2020
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Animesh Sinha, Mr. Shubham
Budhiraja and Ms. Ishita Pandey,
Advocates.
Signature Not Verified

MAC APP. 523/2018 & Other Connected appeals. 1 of 12

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:05.09.2026
15:09:52

versus

SUNITA GOEL & ORS .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Madhav Anand, Advocate for
R-1 to R-3.
# CNR No. DLHC010384312026
+ MAC.APP. 541/2026
BHAGWAN SINGH GAUTAM AND ANR .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Animesh Sinha, Mr. Shubham
Budhiraja and Ms. Ishita Pandey,
Advocates.

versus

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD AND ORS .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Advocate for
Driver and Owner.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGEMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The aforesaid appeals, including MAC.APP. 523/2018 , MAC.APP.
59/2019 , and MAC.APP. 138/2020 , have been filed by the Insurance
Company, claiming recovery rights against the driver and the owner of the
offending vehicle, whereas MAC.APP. 541/2026 has been filed by the
legal representatives of the deceased, Ms. Deeksha Gautam , seeking
enhancement of compensation.
2. All these appeals arise out of the same accident which occurred on
th
30 March 2014. The said accident involved an Innova Car bearing
registration no. RJ-15UA-0751 [hereinafter, ‘ car/offending vehicle ’], and
resulted in the death of four young, qualified students of Indian Institute of
Signature Not Verified

MAC APP. 523/2018 & Other Connected appeals. 2 of 12

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:05.09.2026
15:09:52

Technology , Delhi [‘ IIT ’] who were travelling to the Sam Sand Dunes in
Jaisalmer , while one student namely, Jatin , survived.
3. Essentially, the dispute herein relates to whether the car was being
used for ‘ hire or reward ’, or had it been requisitioned through a personal
contract.
4. Mr. Animesh Sinha, counsel for the Insurance Company, relies upon
the testimony of Jatin , who stated that the vehicle had been provided to
them by the owner of the resort, and Archana [ one of the four deceased
students ] had paid for it.
5. He further relies upon the testimony of owner of the car, namely,
Mr. Damodar Singh , who admitted that he had provided his vehicle for
taking some tourists/students for sightseeing. Mr. Damodar Singh further
stated that he did not know the deceased or the resort.
6. Respondent no. 3, Mr. Hanuman, the driver of the car stated that he
went to the resort as directed by owner of the vehicle. Substantial reliance
was placed upon the testimony of RW-1 , Mr. Dilip Chordia , owner of the
resort, who initially stated that he received information about the accident
from a camelman who had his number, but subsequently contradicted
himself by stating that said camelman was passing by the place of the
accident “ by chance ”, and might have interacted with the persons who
were conscious and able to talk, who may have also provided him with his
number.
7. Mr. Abhinav Gupta , counsel for the driver of the car, has instead
drawn the attention of this Court to the testimony of R1W2 , Mr. Vishwas
Sharma , who was a friend of the occupants of the car and had arranged the
Signature Not Verified

MAC APP. 523/2018 & Other Connected appeals. 3 of 12

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:05.09.2026
15:09:52

said car for them. He stated that he knew Mayank Goel and Jatin , as they
were his juniors at IIT, Delhi, and that he had passed out from IIT in 2014.
8. As per his testimony, R1W2 / Mr. Vishwas Sharma had received a
call from Mayank Goel , stating he was travelling to Jaisalmer , and asking
him to arrange conveyance to the Sam Desert . Vishwas Sharma then asked
his father, Vishnu Dutt Sharma , to make the said arrangements. His
father/ Vishnu Dutt Sharma confirmed that the car of his friend, Damodar
Singh Chauhan , would pick them up from the bus stand and proceed
towards the Sam Desert .
9. R1W2 / Mr. Vishwas Sharma further stated that he had come to know
that the car had picked them up, and Damodar Singh Chauhan had not
charged any amount from them. He further stated that he had later come to
know that the vehicle had met with an accident. It is noted that no
substantial cross-examination was conducted by the Insurance Company in
this regard.
10. For ease of reference, the relevant portion from the testimony of
R1W2 / Mr. Vishwas Sharma has been extracted as under:
“ I had received a call form Mayank Goel when he was
travelling to Jaisalmer and asking me for arrangement of
conveyance to go to SUM DESERT. I asked my father
Vishnu Dutt for making arrangement. He confirmed that
the car of one Damodar Chauhan who is friend of my
father would pick-up them from bus stand and proceed to
SUM DESERT. Subsequently, I came to know that the car
had picked them from the bus stand. Mr. Damodar
Chauhan did not charge any amount from them. Later, I
came to know that the vehicle met with an accident. ”
It is essential to note that his testimony has a bearing on the fact that the
Signature Not Verified

MAC APP. 523/2018 & Other Connected appeals. 4 of 12

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:05.09.2026
15:09:52

car was not procured for ‘ hire or reward ’, but was instead arranged at a
personal request for a private purpose.
11. Moreover, a statement of Vishnu Dutt Sharma was recorded by the
police, just after the accident, on 16th April 2014, as part of the
investigation, wherein he stated that his son's friends were coming to visit
Jaisalmer and that he had requested his family friend, Damodar Singh
Chauhan, who lived in Jaisalmer and had his own vehicle, to provide the
said vehicle to his son's friends for tourism purposes. Accordingly,
pursuant to such request, the car was sent by Damodar Singh Chauhan,
who was closely connected with the family.
12. Reliance is further placed upon the statement made by Damodar
st
Singh Chauhan before the police on 01 April 2014, wherein he stated that
he was the owner of the Innova car bearing registration no. RJ-15UA-
0751 , which he had purchased in 2010 for his personal use.
th
13. He further stated that on 29 March 2014, his friend, Vishnu Dutt
Sharma from Sardarpura , Jodhpur , had called him and told him that his
son's friends were visiting Jaisalmer for tourism purposes and had booked
an overnight accommodation at some camp in the Sam Sand Dunes .
Therefore, at Vishnu Dutt Sharma’s request, he agreed to provide the
vehicle to his son’s friends, free of charge, considering that Vishnu Dutt
Sharma had been a close family friend for several years and that they used
Vishnu Dutt Sharma ’s vehicle whenever they visited Jodhpur .
14. Accordingly, in view of these categorical statements given by
Damodar Singh Chauhan , as well as the testimony of Vishwas Sharma , the
plea of the Insurance Company, cannot be maintained or sustained.
Signature Not Verified

MAC APP. 523/2018 & Other Connected appeals. 5 of 12

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:05.09.2026
15:09:52

15. Mr. Abhinav Gupta , counsel for the driver of the car, also points out
that the Insurance Company has otherwise cleared the damage claim,
under the same insurance policy, for Rs. 3,19,750/- against the total loss,
th
on 8 April 2015. The said document is exhibited as Ex. R2W1/5 (colly) .
MAC.APP. 523/2018 and MAC.APP. 541/2026
16. Mr. Shrey Chathly , counsel, appears on behalf of the mother of the
deceased, namely Ms. Deeksha Gautam , in MAC.APP. 523/2018 , and
seeks enhancement of compensation, particularly in respect of the
benchmark income which has been assessed at Rs. 50,000/- per month.
17. He contends that Ms. Deeksha Gautam had received an offer letter
from ‘ Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited ’, which was also accepted
by her. Further, there was also evidence on behalf of the said firm to
indicate that she was expected to join employment and was offered an
annual salary of Rs . 21,00,000/- .
18. He further states that the claims, in respect of the deceased persons
in MAC.APP. 59/2019 and MAC.APP. 138/2020 , have been awarded on
the basis of the income stated to have been earned by them from the jobs
which were offered to them, and this differentiation in case of Ms. Deeksha
Gautam has been made without any rational basis.
19. Mr. Shrey Chathly , has taken the Court through the offer letter
issued by ‘ Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited ’, whereby Ms.
Deeksha Gautam was offered employment with the said firm as an
‘ Analyst ’. As per the said offer letter, her minimum per annum cost to the
company [‘ CTC ’] would have been Rs. 21,00,000/- . Her employment was
th
to commence on 4 August, 2014 (though it would have been subject to an
Signature Not Verified

MAC APP. 523/2018 & Other Connected appeals. 6 of 12

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:05.09.2026
15:09:52

initial probationary period of 180 days from the commencement). This
th
offer was accepted by her on 25 January, 2024, and the acceptance had
been acknowledged by ‘ Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited ’ vide e-
th
mail dated 5 March, 2018.
20. Mr. Shrey Chathly , further points out to the educational
qualifications and achievements of Ms. Deeksha Gautam , which were
notably exceptional. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of this Court
in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dharmender Khurana,
2026 SCC OnLine Del 5076, wherein the Court has considered a similar
case, involving a student who had already qualified for a job, at the time of
the accident. For ready reference, the operative paragraph from
Dharmender Khurana ( supra ) is extracted hereinbelow:
“ 25. Considering that the deceased was running a CGPA
of 8.0 (72.61%) and was a meritorious student, the Court
does not find any reason why the deceased potentially
would not have qualified for the job. The acceptance
letter has also been perused by the Court. It was issued
by the deceased on 6-11-2016 stating that he will be
reporting on duty. There is no reason why this
appointment cannot be considered as crystallising the
potential income. As per the response to the RTI, which
has been confirmed by the testimony of PW 6 /Anjali
Khanna from C-DOT stated that his gross salary would
have been approximately Rs 80,000 per month.
Accordingly, this ought to have been taken as the
benchmark income by the MACT rather than making a
guesswork on a less rational basis at Rs 55,000 per
month. ”
(emphasis added)

Signature Not Verified

MAC APP. 523/2018 & Other Connected appeals. 7 of 12

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:05.09.2026
15:09:52

21. Despite taking a note of the aforesaid aspects in paragraph 18 of the
impugned award, the MACT nevertheless proceeded to assess the notional
income of Ms. Deeksha Gautam at Rs. 50,000/- per month, on the ground
that she had been offered employment with ‘ Goldman Sachs Services
Private Limited ’ merely on a probationary basis for 180 days.
22. This assessment made by the MACT is contrary to the view taken by
the Supreme Court in the decisions of Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India
Assurance Co. Ltd . , (2010) 10 SCC 254, and Vasanthi v. Adhiparasakthi
Engg College , (2022) 15 SCC 316, as also by this Court in Dharmender
Khurana ( supra ) and Raj Bala and Another v. Sumit Dahiya & Ors. ,
2018 SCC OnLine Del 12086.
23. Accordingly, the notional income of Ms. Deeksha Gautam shall be
taken at Rs. 21,00,000/- per annum. Deduction towards income tax would
be made to the aforesaid annual income, in accordance with the tax slab
prevalent in the financial year [‘ FY ’] 2014-2015 , which would amount to
Rs. 4,68,650/- . Therefore, the monthly salary of Ms. Deeksha Gautam ,
after deduction towards income tax, shall be as under:
S. No. Heads Amount
1. Annual Income of deceased before deduction
(B)
Rs. 21,00,000/-
2. Less Income Tax (C) Rs. 4,68,650/-
3. Annual Income of deceased after deduction
[(B-C) = D]
Rs. 16,31,350/-
4. Monthly Income of deceased after deduction
(E)
Rs. 1,35,946/-
( rounded off )

Signature Not Verified

MAC APP. 523/2018 & Other Connected appeals. 8 of 12

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:05.09.2026
15:09:52

24. The loss of consortium , which had not been awarded by the MACT,
shall be awarded at Rs. 80,000/- [ Rs. 40,000 x 2 ], considering that there are
two family members.
25. Accordingly, revised compensation, in the respect of Ms. Deeksha
Gautam , shall be calculated as under:
S. NO. HEADS AWARDED BY
AWARDED BY
THE
TRIBUNAL
THIS COURT
Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 1,35,946/-
1. Monthly income of
deceased (A)
2. Add Future Prospects (B)
@40%
Rs. 70,000/- Rs. 1,90,324/-
3. Less Income Tax (C) Rs. 63,000/- Already deducted
above
4. Less Personal expenses of
the deceased (D) @50%
Rs. 31,500/- Rs. 95,162/-
5. Monthly loss of
dependency
[B/C-D = E]
Rs. 31,500/- Rs. 95,162/-
6. Annual loss of
dependency (Ex12)
Rs. 3,78,000/- Rs. 11,41,944/-
7. Multiplier (F) 18 18
8. Total loss of dependency
(Ex12xF = G)
Rs.
68,04,000/-
Rs. 2,05,54,992/-
NIL Rs. 80,000/-
9. Compensation for loss of
consortium (H)
(40,000x2)
Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
10. Compensation for loss of
estate (I)
Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
11. Compensation towards
funeral expenses (J)
12. Total compensation
(G+H+I+J= K)
Rs.
68,34,000/-
Rs. 2,06,64,992/-
13. Interest 9% 9%
14. Enhanced amount Rs. 1,38,30,992/-
Signature Not Verified

MAC APP. 523/2018 & Other Connected appeals. 9 of 12

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:05.09.2026
15:09:52

Directions
26. For the aforesaid reasons, compensation stands enhanced by Rs.
1,38,30,992/- [“ enhanced amount ”].
27. Enhanced amount along with 9% interest per annum from the date
of filing the petition, shall be deposited before the Registrar General of
this Court within a period of four weeks . The said amount shall thereafter
be released in favour of the claimants, as a lump sum, in terms of the
th
apportionment provided by the MACT vide impugned award dated 26
February 2018. The said amount is being released as a lump sum in view
of the fact that father of the deceased, Ms. Deeksha Gautam , had been a
‘ Chief Financial Manager ’ at the State Trading Corporation of India Ltd.,
and is, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, quite capable of managing
the said amount.
th
28. Vide order dated 29 May 2018, this Court had directed the
Insurance Company to deposit the entire awarded amount, along with
accrued interest thereon, before the Registrar General of this Court.
th
Further, by way of order dated 10 August 2018, this Court had passed
certain directions regarding release of the originally awarded amount.
29. Accordingly, the balance amount, if any, from the originally
awarded amount, along with accrued interest thereon, shall also be released
in favour of the claimants, as a lump sum, in terms of the apportionment
th
provided by the MACT vide impugned award dated 26 February 2018.
Directions in MAC.APP. 59/2019
th
30. Vide order dated 11 January 2019, this Court had directed the
Insurance Company to deposit the entire awarded amount, along with
Signature Not Verified

MAC APP. 523/2018 & Other Connected appeals. 10 of 12

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:05.09.2026
15:09:52

accrued interest thereon, before the concerned Tribunal. Further, by way of
th
order dated 14 May 2019, this Court had directed that the entire deposited
amount be released to the beneficiaries of the award, in terms of the
scheme of disbursement specified therein .
31. Accordingly, the balance amount, if any, from the originally
awarded amount, along with accrued interest thereon, shall also be released
in favour of the claimants, as a lump sum.
Directions in MAC.APP. 138/2020
th
32. Vide order dated 06 March 2020, this Court had directed the
Insurance Company to deposit the entire awarded amount, along with
accrued interest thereon, before the before the Registrar General of this
Court.
st
33. Further, by way of order dated 31 March 2022, passed by the
Supreme Court, the Insurance Company had been directed to release 50%
of the awarded amount in favour of the claimants. Pursuant to said order
st st
dated 31 March 2022, this Court, on 21 September 2022, passed the
following direction regarding release of the originally awarded amount:

Signature Not Verified

MAC APP. 523/2018 & Other Connected appeals. 11 of 12

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:05.09.2026
15:09:52

34. Accordingly, the balance amount, if any, from the originally
awarded amount, along with accrued interest thereon, shall also be released
in favour of the claimants, as a lump sum.
35. Accordingly, all the aforesaid appeals, being MAC.APP. 523/2018 ,
MAC.APP. 541/2026 , MAC.APP. 59/2019, MAC.APP. 138/2020 , are
disposed of in above terms.
36. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
37. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.

ANISH DAYAL, J
AUGUST 25, 2026/RK/ ya
Signature Not Verified

MAC APP. 523/2018 & Other Connected appeals. 12 of 12

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:05.09.2026
15:09:52