Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Mayank Pandey & Ors

$~2 to 5
* IN THEHIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 24 August 2026
# CNR No. DLHC011103982014
+ MAC.APP. 658/2014&CM APPL. 11767/2014CM APPL.
11769/2014
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant
versus


RAVIDNER NATH PANDEY & ORS .....Respondents

3
# CNR No. DLHC011104002014
+ MAC.APP. 659/2014&CM APPL. 11770/2014CM APPL.
11772/2014 CM APPL. 62373/2025
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant
versus

MAYANK PANDEY & ORS .....Respondents

4
# CNR No. DLHC011041282014
+ MAC.APP. 687/2014
MAYANK PANDEY .....Appellant
versus

DELHI KOTA ROADWAYS PVT LTD &ORS.....Respondents

5
# CNR No. DLHC011041362014
+ MAC.APP. 690/2014&CM APPL. 33161-33162/2025
RAVINDER NATH PANDEY & ORS .....Appellants
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:07:50
MAC.APP. 658/2014 & connected appeals Page - 1/8

versus

DELHI KOTA ROADWAYS PVT LTD & ORS.....Respondents


Appearance : Mr. Pankaj Seth and Ms. Shruti Jain& Ms. Tanya Jindal,
Advocates for Insurance Company.

Mr. Yogesh Swaroop, Ms. Shivangi Singh & Mr. K. K.
Kaushik, Advocates for claimants.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)

CM APPL. 11769/2014 in MAC.APP. 658/2014 and CM APPL.
11772/2014 in MAC.APP. 659/2014

1. In the facts and circumstances, as narrated in the application, delay of
2 days in filing the accompanying appeals stand condoned.
2. Both these applications stand disposed of.

MAC.APP.658/2014, MAC.APP.659/2014, MAC.APP.687/2014 &
MAC.APP.690/2014

1. These cross appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company and
th
claimants assailing the impugned award dated passed 09 April 2014 by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [„ MACT ‟], East District, Karkardooma
Courts in MACT Suit No. 301/2010 and MACT Suit No. 302/2010 .
th
2. The accident in question occurred on 30 July 2006, when
Mr.Mayank Pandey („ injured claimant ‟) was travelling along with his
mother, Ms. Malti Pandey („ deceased ‟), asa pillion rider, from Ram Nagar
Extension to Hapur on his motorcycle bearing No. DL-7SAG-0633, when
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:07:50
MAC.APP. 658/2014 & connected appeals Page - 2/8

truck bearing No. HR-47-8002 („ offending vehicle ‟) allegedly overtook the
motorcycle from the left side and immediately applied brakes, thereby,
triggering a collision of the motorcycle with the offending vehicle. Injured
claimant sustained multiple injuries, while his mother passed away after 8
rd
days on 03 August 2006.
3. In the case of deceased, compensation of Rs.4,21,000/- along with
7.5% interest was awarded to legal heirs of deceased. This finding has been
challenged by the Insurance Company in MAC.APP.658/2014, whereas,
MAC.APP. 690/2014 has been filed by the LRs of deceased seeking
enhancement of compensation.
4. In the case of injured claimant,compensation of Rs.6,35,000/- along
with 7.5% interest was awardedon account of injuries sustained by him. This
finding has been challenged by the Insurance Company in
MAC.APP.659/ 2014, whereas, MAC.APP.687/2014 has been filed by the
injured claimant for enhancement.
5. At the outset, it is worth noting that recovery rights have been granted
to the Insurance Company as stated in paragraph 34 of the impugned
awards. Further, service of driver and owner of offending vehicle was
th
completed,as noted in order dated 27 November 2015 of Joint Registrar,
st
and counsel had appeared on 1 February 2016, however, no appearance has
been noted thereafter.
6. Mr. Pankaj Seth , counsel for Insurance Company, points out the
abysmal lack of discussion relating to the issue of negligence by the MACT.
He contends that paragraph 18 of the impugned award, simply finds
mention of the affidavit of Mayank Pandey („ PW1 ‟) and the post mortem
report and thereafter, arrived at the finding in a summary manner, that the
accident had occurred due to the negligence of offending vehicle.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:07:50
MAC.APP. 658/2014 & connected appeals Page - 3/8

7. Mr. PankajSeth , further reinforces his argument by stating that such
manner of scratch analysis done by the MACT, ought to be denounced for
the reason that it involves serious issues of motor accidents claims and
therefore, proper analysis ought to be done by them basis the evidence on
record.
8. Needless to say,that the Court agrees with the contention of Mr.
Pankaj Seth , in this regard. The summary manner, in which the issue of
negligence has been decided, without advertence or discussion of the
evidence on record, is deprecated. It does not provide the appeal Court any
basis for appreciating the evidence which was led before the MACT. We do
find that in some matters the MACT does only a very sparse and slim
analysis of the evidence, basis which a conclusion is reached on the issue of
negligence. Possibly, this casual approach is due to the application of the
burden of proof basis preponderance of probabilities and the overall
jurisprudence of a beneficial legislation. However, lack of a proper analysis
leaves the parties, particularly the insurance companies floundering for a
proper reason to challenge. If the reasons given are robust and
comprehensive backed up by the evidence on record and applicable law,
there may be a lesser chance of appeals being filed merely on grounds that
the Tribunal has not applied its mind.
9. However, notwithstanding the same, it would be the duty of this Court
to consider the same in these appeals, considering that the matter involves
an accident which occurred in 2006, about two decades back, and the appeal
has been pending before this Court for a decade, and no purpose would be
served remanding it back.
10. In this regard, it has been pointed out by Mr. Pankaj Seth , that there
was no criminal proceeding in this matter; which has been countered by Mr.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:07:50
MAC.APP. 658/2014 & connected appeals Page - 4/8

Yogesh Swaroop , counsel for the claimants, by stating that, though, the FIR
was not lodgedimmediately,however, a complaint was lodged with the
police, which did not proceed ahead. Therefore, they were constrained to
move a complaintbefore the Senior Superintendent of Police („ SSP ‟) which
eventually culminated in the registration of an FIR.
11. A plea regarding contributory negligence on the part of injured
claimant has also been raised by the Insurance Company.
12. The issue of negligence can only be sustained on the basis of the
testimony of Mayank Pandey („ PW1 ‟) who was an injured eyewitness. He
stated that he was travelling on his motorcycle, along with his mother and
the offending vehicle had hit their motorcycle from the back side and then
tried to overtake the motorcycle from the left side in a rash and negligent
manner. He stated that the offending vehicle was being driven at high speed
and after hitting the motorcycle slightly from the back side,the driver of the
offending vehicle immediately applied brakes, resultingin the said accident.
13. Deceased/ Malti Pandey was taken to Yashoda Hospital, Ghaziabad in
an ambulance, along with PW1 and was admitted there, however,she expired
after a week. The Death Certificate was exhibited as Ex. PW1/A and the
report in Daily Diary („ DD ‟)was exhibited as Ex.PW1/B . The formal FIR was
th
finally registered on 18 July 2007 and exhibited as Ex.PW1/C , the post
rd
mortem report conducted on 03 August 2006 was exhibited as Ex. PW1/E.
14. There was no substantial cross examination of PW1 by the Insurance
Company. He reiterated that he had maintained a proper gap between the
motorcycle and the offending vehicle and therefore, the accident could have
been avoided. He stated that the offending vehicle was ahead of him after
overtaking and he had to immediately apply his brakes. He also stated that
his father had informed the police about the accident, though, he was not
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:07:50
MAC.APP. 658/2014 & connected appeals Page - 5/8

aware when the information had been given to the police, since he was in
the hospital when the police met him for the first time. He denied that the
accident took place due to his mistake. No other evidence was placed by the
Insurance Company, with respect to contributory negligence and therefore,
the plea cannot be accepted.
15. The driver and owner did not appear, therefore, the evidence of PW1
could not be rebutted as regards the manner of the accident. Accordingly,
the issue of negligence, though, sparsely discussed by the MACT, is
sustained for the reasons mentioned above.
16. On the issue of compensation; as regards the injured claimant, no
submissions have been made on behalf of counsel for claimant.
Accordingly, the finding of MACT is sustained.

17. As regards the deceased/ Malti Pandey , alignments shall be made in
view of the principles enunciatedin National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680.Future prospects shall be granted at 10%,
considering the deceased was 52 years of age. Deduction towards personal
and living expenses has not been made. Considering that the deceased had 3
rd
children, deduction of 1/3 shall be made. Funeral expenses shall be
awarded atRs.15,000/-, loss of estate shall be awarded at Rs.15,000/-, loss of
love and affection will be deleted and loss of consortium shall be granted at
Rs. 1,60,000/- ( Rs.40,000/- x 4 ), there being 4 claimants.
18. Accordingly, the revised computationwill be as under:
S.
No.
Heads Awarded by the
Tribunal
Awarded by this
Court
1 Income of deceased (A) Rs.3,000/- Rs. 3,000/-
2 Add: Future Prospects (B) Nil Rs. 300/-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:07:50
MAC.APP. 658/2014 & connected appeals Page - 6/8

3 Less: Personal expenses of
deceased (C)
Nil

Rs. 1,100/-
4 Loss of dependency (A+B)-C=D Rs. 3,000/- Rs. 2,200/-
5 Annual loss of dependency
(Dx12) = (E)
Rs. 36,000/- Rs. 26,400/-
6 Multiplier (F) 11 11
7 Total loss of dependency (E x
F)= (G
Rs. 3,96,000/- Rs. 2,90,400/-
8 Compensation for loss of
consortium (H)
Nil Rs. 1,60,000/-
9 Compensation for loss of love
and affection (I)
Rs. 10,000/- Nil
10 Compensation for loss of estate
(J)
Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
11 Compensation towards funeral
expenses (K)
Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
12 Total compensation
(G+H+I+J=K)= L
Rs. 4,21,000/- Rs. 4,80,400/-
13 Rate of Interest Awarded 7.5% 7.5%

Directions
19. For the aforesaid reasons, compensation incase of deceased/ Ms. Malti
Pandey , has been enhanced by Rs. 59,400 /- [“ enhanced amount ”].
20. Enhanced amount along with 7.5% interest per annum from the date
of filing the petition shall be deposited before the MACT within a period of
four weeks, which shall be released as lumpsum to the claimants within two
weeks thereafter.
th
21. By order dated 25 July 2014, the Insurance Company was directed to
deposit the entire compensation amount, along with accrued interest before
the Registrar General and 30% amount was released to the claimants as per
the directions of MACT. Considering that appeals have been disposed of,
the balance amount shall also be released to the claimants, as per the
apportionment directed by the MACT.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:07:50
MAC.APP. 658/2014 & connected appeals Page - 7/8

22. Compensation awarded to injured claimant / Mayank Pandey has been
th
upheld. By order dated 25 July 2014, the Insurance Company was directed
to deposit the entire compensation amount, along with accrued interest,
before the Registrar General and 30% compensation was directed to released
to be released to the claimant. Considering that the appeal has been disposed
of, balance compensation, along with accrued interest shall be released to
the claimant as lumpsum.
23. All these four appeals stand disposed of in above terms.
24. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
25. Statutory deposit be refunded to the Insurance Company, only if the
order of deposit has been complied with.
26. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.


ANISH DAYAL
(Judge)
AUGUST 24, 2026/sm/ sp
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:07:50
MAC.APP. 658/2014 & connected appeals Page - 8/8