Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited vs Dharmender Khurana & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Reserved on : 26 May 2026
st
Pronounced on : 01 July 2026
nd
Uploaded on : 02 July 2026
+ MAC.APP. 34/2021 & CM APPL. 2020/2021
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Ankit Kalra, Advocate.
versus
DHARMENDER KHURANA & ORS. ...Respondents
Through: Mr. Sumeet Verma, Senior
Advocate. With Mr. Vijay Kumar
Wadhwa and Mr. Mahinder Pratap
Singh, Advocates.
+ MAC.APP. 35/2021 & CM APPL. 2025/2021
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Ankit Kalra, Advocate.
versus
PRABHJOT SINGH & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sumeet Verma, Senior
Advocate. With Mr. Vijay Kumar
Wadhwa and Mr. Mahinder Pratap
Singh, Advocates.
+ MAC.APP. 40/2021
SHRI DHARMENDER KHURANA OTHERS .....Appellants
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
17:36:41
MAC.APP. 34/2021, MAC.APP. 35/2021, MAC.APP. 40/2021 and MAC.APP. 93/2021 1/30
Through: Mr. Sumeet Verma, Senior
Advocate. With Mr. Vijay Kumar
Wadhwa and Mr. Mahinder Pratap
Singh, Advocates.
versus
MR. SHIVANSH MALIK AND OTHERS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ankit Kalra, Advocate.
+ MAC.APP. 93/2021
SHRI PRABHJOT SINGH AND ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Sumeet Verma, Senior
Advocate. With Mr. Vijay Kumar
Wadhwa and Mr. Mahinder Pratap
Singh, Advocates.
versus
SHIVANSH MALIK AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ankit Kalra, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
ANISH DAYAL, J.
1. These are cross-appeals, filed by the Insurance Company seeking
reduction of compensation, whereas claimants have filed seeking
enhancement of compensation as awarded by the impugned judgment
th
dated 14 September 2020 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
[‘ MACT ’], Tiz Hazari Courts, Delhi. There were two deceased in the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
17:36:41
MAC.APP. 34/2021, MAC.APP. 35/2021, MAC.APP. 40/2021 and MAC.APP. 93/2021 2/30
th
accident which occurred on 19 February 2017, namely, Vinay Khurana
and Prabhleen Kaur . The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (‘ MACT ’) awarded compensation to the legal
representatives of both the deceased. For Vinay Khurana , it was the father
( Dharmender Khurana ), mother ( Rekha Khurana ) and brother ( Nirbhay
Khurana ). For Prabhleen Kaur, it was the father ( Prabhjot Singh ), mother
( Gurmeet Kaur ), brother ( Sarabjot Singh ), grandfather ( Gurdial Singh ),
and grandmother ( Shakuntla Sehgal ).
th
2. The accident took place on 19 February 2017, when Vinay
Khurana and Prabhleen Kaur were travelling to Delhi, after attending a
marriage, in the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL-3C-CE-
9785 driven by Shivansh Malik , a common friend of deceased. It is alleged
that the offending vehicle was being driven at a very high speed in a rash
and negligent manner, when the driver of the offending car hit the car
against the railing on the divider which pierced the car from front to rear
side. Resultantly, Vinay Khurana died on spot, whereas Prabhleen Kaur
succumbed to her injuries in Hospital at Rohtak. FIR no. 121/2017 was
registered under Sections 279/304 Indian Penal Code 1860 at PS Sadar
Bahadurgarh and subsequently chargesheet was filed against driver of the
offending car.
3. MAC.APP. 34/2021 and MAC.APP. 40/2021 are cross appeals in
respect of the compensation for the death of Vinay Khurana , whereas
MAC.APP. 35/2021 and MAC.APP. 93/2021 are cross appeals in case of
the death of Prabhleen Kaur . In both cases of Vinay Khurana and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
17:36:41
MAC.APP. 34/2021, MAC.APP. 35/2021, MAC.APP. 40/2021 and MAC.APP. 93/2021 3/30
Prabhleen Kaur , the summary of compensation from the MACT’s award
is extracted as under for reference:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
17:36:41
MAC.APP. 34/2021, MAC.APP. 35/2021, MAC.APP. 40/2021 and MAC.APP. 93/2021 4/30
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
17:36:41
MAC.APP. 34/2021, MAC.APP. 35/2021, MAC.APP. 40/2021 and MAC.APP. 93/2021 5/30
Submissions on behalf of the Insurance Company
4. Mr. Ankit Kalra , counsel for the Insurance Company, asserted that
the appeal was being preferred on the following grounds:
(i) Failure to establish negligence on part of the driver of the
vehicle bearing registration number DL-3C-CE-9785.
(ii) Erroneous assessment of income of the deceased.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
17:36:41
MAC.APP. 34/2021, MAC.APP. 35/2021, MAC.APP. 40/2021 and MAC.APP. 93/2021 6/30
(iii) Excessive award of interest at 9% per annum.
5. On the first issue regarding no proof of negligence, it was argued
that despite MACT observing that the testimony of alleged eyewitness
PW3 , Sh. Jai Pratap Singh , did not inspire confidence, MACT erred in
concluding the issue of negligence merely on the basis of the site plan and
photographs of the site. It was not disputed that the FIR had been lodged
though after an unexplained delay of 16 days and no plausible explanation
had been furnished. The MACT itself had discarded the testimony of the
alleged eyewitness.
6. On the second issue of assessment of income, it was contented that
the deceased Vinay Khurana was merely a student and the monthly income
of the deceased was considered at Rs . 55 ,000/-. The offer letters relied upon
by the claimants were issued after the demise of the deceased and were
st th
dated 21 March 2017 and 17 August 2017, whereas the alleged offer
from the C-DOT was purely conditional in nature.
7. Counsel for insurance company submitted that, MACT erred in
relying upon speculative future employment possibilities in the absence of
any existing employment. Reliance was placed on Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Deo Patodi & Ors. (2009) 13 SCC 123, where the Supreme Court
adopted a cautious approach in assessing the income of a bright student
studying abroad and earning Rs.80,000 /- assessed the monthly income at
Rs.25,000 /-. Similar was the case in Navjot Singh v. Harpreet Singh &
Ors. (2020) SCC OnLine SC 1562. Moreover, the MACT erred in not
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
17:36:41
MAC.APP. 34/2021, MAC.APP. 35/2021, MAC.APP. 40/2021 and MAC.APP. 93/2021 7/30
deducting the applicable income tax prevailing during the financial year
2016-2017.
8. On the third issue of excessive award of interest, relying upon
Dharampal & Ors v. U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. (2008) 12 SCC
208 wherein it was held that the interest should be aligned with prevailing
market and bank interest rates at the relevant point of time, it was
contended that the interest at 9% was excessive and it should have been
granted in the range of 6 - 7.5%. per annum.
Submissions on behalf of the Claimants
9. Mr. Sumeet Verma , Senior Advocate, on the first issue of
negligence, contented that MACT’s finding in paragraph nos. 15 & 16 is
sustainable, considering there was a chargesheet filed and the site plan and
photographs were clear and categorical. On the second issue of assessment
of income, MACT’s assessment that offers of employment were post
Vinay Khurana’s death was factually incorrect. Deceased Vinay Khurana
had accepted the job offered by C-Dot at Rs.10,27,000 /- per annum as is
evident from the offer letter and acceptance by the deceased.
10. Offer made by M/s Work Application , a Japan based company, was
also justified since e-mails prior to the accident had already been
exchanged and Vinay Khurana had already shown his willingness to join
th
by email dated 30 September 2016. Even otherwise, the average salary
drawn by a student of B. E. (Computer Engineering) from Netaji Subhash
Institute of Technology ( NSIT ) in the year 2016-2017 was around
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
17:36:41
MAC.APP. 34/2021, MAC.APP. 35/2021, MAC.APP. 40/2021 and MAC.APP. 93/2021 8/30
Rs.13,50,000 /-. The aforesaid was duly proved by the evidence brought on
record by PW2 , Nirbhay Kumar Mishra .
11. As regards deceased, Prabhleen Kaur , the MACT assessed income
at Rs.25,000 /- per month, ignoring the academic record and that she has
the potential to secure a well-paying job in her field. She had been selected
for internship through campus selection for two months by M/s Sun
Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. and was paid a sum of Rs.20,000 /- per
month as stipend. She was among the most meritorious students in B.E.
(Instrumentation & Control Engineering) from NSIT and was awarded
merit scholarship for the year 2015-16 and she was chosen as Placement
Coordinator, T&P Cell, NSIT. It is claimed that M/s Sun Pharmaceuticals
Industries Ltd. had offered a sum of Rs.11,50,000 /- to a student in the same
course in the year 2016, proved through PW2/B , which would evidence
the earning capacity of the student. Reliance was placed on M.R.
Krishnamurthy v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2019 INSC 317 and
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Amresh Rana & Ors. 2025: DHC:
806.
12. On the third issue of interest, it was stated that 9% interest was a
discretion of the MACT and was justified, considering that the interest
rates, prevailing at the time of accident were between 7.5 – 8.75% per
annum.
13. An additional issue on loss of consortium was raised by the
claimants, in that, MACT only awarded Rs.40,000 /-, whereas there were
three claimants in the case of Vinay Khurana as noted above and,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
17:36:41
MAC.APP. 34/2021, MAC.APP. 35/2021, MAC.APP. 40/2021 and MAC.APP. 93/2021 9/30
therefore, it should be awarded at Rs.1,20,000/- ( Rs.40,000 × 3 members );
whereas there were five claimants in the case of Prabhleen Kaur and it
should be awarded at Rs.2,00,000/- ( Rs.40,000 × 5 members ).
Analysis
Negligence
14. As regards issue of negligence, reliance can be placed on paragraph
37 of the judgment of this court in National Insurance co ltd v Shehnaj
Begum & Ors. 2026:DHC:3169 which is extracted as under:
“ 37. Thus, where direct evidence regarding the manner
of the accident is unavailable, the Tribunal is entitled to
examine the surrounding circumstances and assess
whether the occurrence is of such a nature that
negligence can reasonably be inferred. In such cases,
the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur operates as a rule of
evidence enabling the Tribunal, on the touchstone of
preponderance of probabilities, to determine whether
the accident itself provides a reasonable basis to infer
negligence. ”
15. In the facts of the present case, this Court is of the view that the
doctrine of res ipsa loquitur squarely applies. The material placed on
record, including the FIR, site plan and chargesheet, clearly establishes
that the offending vehicle had struck the divider with considerable force,
resulting in the death of the deceased. The offending vehicle was under the
exclusive control and management of driver, yet neither the driver nor the
owner entered the witness box to furnish any explanation regarding the
manner in which the accident occurred or to rebut the allegation of rash
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
17:36:41
MAC.APP. 34/2021, MAC.APP. 35/2021, MAC.APP. 40/2021 and MAC.APP. 93/2021 10/30
and negligent driving. The only plea that is taken in the written statement
filed by driver and owner is that the reflection of sunlight resulted in the
car to get imbalanced. Based on the evidence placed on record the reason
as canvassed by the driver and owners are implausible. In these
circumstances, the surrounding facts themselves furnish sufficient basis to
draw an inference of negligence against the driver of the offending vehicle.
16. Further, reliance can be placed on the Supreme Court’s judgment in
Ranjeet v. Abdul Kayam Neb , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 497 where the Apex
Court has recently reiterated its position that once chargesheet has been
filed against the driver, no further evidence is required to prove
negligence; the relevant portion is extracted as under:
“ 4. It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been
filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further
evidence is required to prove that the bus was being
negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the
eyewitnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to
prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the
bus driver.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion
that the Tribunal and the High Court both manifestly
erred in law in refusing to grant any compensation to
the claimants .”
(emphasis added)
17. In view of the above, the Tribunal was justified in arriving at the
finding of negligence on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
17:36:41
MAC.APP. 34/2021, MAC.APP. 35/2021, MAC.APP. 40/2021 and MAC.APP. 93/2021 11/30
Assessment of Income
18. The decisions which have been cited by counsels for respective
parties may be considered in order to appreciate the issue of assessment of
income of an undergraduate student, who is yet to join the workforce. The
following decisions can be relied upon to assess the income of deceased:
(i) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deo Patodi , (2009) 13 SCC 123,
the Supreme Court was dealing with an issue of what would be
the appropriate multiplier and multiplicand in a case where a
student had a brilliant career and had an offer of employment in
a U.S. based company. The deceased was 22 years of age who
died in an accident. The claim for compensation was for Rs.
75,00,000/- on the premise that while he was doing his business
administration course in the U.K., he was doing a part time job
in the World Bank and was earning a monthly salary of Rs.
80,000/- and was offered employment in capacity of EU
Controller in Goa LLC , company registered in USA at an annual
remuneration of Rs.18,00,000/- per annum. It was not disputed
that he did not accept that offer and intended to pursue higher
studies in MBA in Australia. The Tribunal assessed that he had
capability to be employed on a salary of Rs.18,000/- per month
and used that as the benchmark income. The High Court
maintained the estimated income at Rs.18,000/- per month,
however, it varied the deduction on account of personal
expenses. The Supreme Court considered the evidence and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
17:36:41
MAC.APP. 34/2021, MAC.APP. 35/2021, MAC.APP. 40/2021 and MAC.APP. 93/2021 12/30
stated that when the accident took place, the deceased was not
working, having not accepted the offer, and he was still a student.
It was noted that “ it would have been hazardous for the Tribunal
to calculate the amount of compensation towards the loss of
dependency on that basis ”. Considering that the benchmark of
Rs.18,000/- per month was on the basis of the salary offered
abroad, the Court noted that the “ the standard of living in
western countries cannot be followed; in the absence of any
material placed before the Court it should not be followed in
India ”. The Supreme Court was, therefore, of the opinion that
the compensation should have been calculated at Rs.25,000/- per
rd
month, being about 1/3 of the amount that he was receiving in
U.K. ( Rs. 80,000/- per month, on which he also paid income tax
in U.K.),
(ii) Navjot Singh v Harpreet Singh & Anr , (2020) SCC onLine SC
1562, the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal on enhancement
in respect of an injury case which resulted in amputation of the
right leg. The grievance was regarding loss of future earnings on
account of permanent disability. The injured was 21 years of age,
pursuing a course in Food Technology in an institute and earning
Rs.10,000/- per month by taking tuition. The Tribunal
disbelieved the earning for tuition and only awarded
compensation on pecuniary losses. The High Court reversed the
finding and fixed the notional income at Rs. 5,000/- along with
future prospects at 40% . The Supreme Court stated that the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
17:36:41
MAC.APP. 34/2021, MAC.APP. 35/2021, MAC.APP. 40/2021 and MAC.APP. 93/2021 13/30
notional income of a student undergoing a degree course in
engineering from a premium institute should not be taken to be
equivalent to minimum wages admissible from an unskilled
worker. Students recruited through campus interviews are at
least offered a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. The High Court
could have fixed the national income at least at Rs.10,000/- per
month, which they finally awarded along with the future
prospects at 40% .
19. This Court in addition to the judgment relied on by the respective
parties has also considered the following decisions which consider the
issue of notional income of a student:
(i) In Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ,
(2010) 10 SCC 254, the Supreme Court was considering the
claim of an injured as a final year B. Tech student at Birla
Institute of Technology resulting in 70% permanent
disablement and being in coma for 2 months. It was opined
that since he was a student of a prestigious university, he
wouldn’t have any difficulty in getting some job in the private
sector; there he would also have a chance of promotion.
Accordingly, it was considered fair and reasonable to assess
the income of the injured at Rs.60,000/- per annum taking the
salary and allowances payable to an Assistant Engineer in
public employment as the basis.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
17:36:41
MAC.APP. 34/2021, MAC.APP. 35/2021, MAC.APP. 40/2021 and MAC.APP. 93/2021 14/30
(ii) In Vasanthi v. Adhiparasakthi Engg. College , (2022) 15
SCC 316, the Supreme Court while dealing with the case of
death of a student aged 23 years who was an engineer and
was pursuing an MBA degree from SRM University to
further his professional capabilities. The Supreme Court took
into account employment prospects of classmates of the
deceased and noted that if the deceased had not met with the
unfortunate accident, he would have surely drawn a salary
equivalent to that of his classmates, or at least an amount near
the said amount. Accordingly, the Supreme Court assessed
the potentiality of income at Rs. 30,000/- per month.
(iii) In S. Mohammed Hakkim v. National Insurance Co. Ltd .,
(2025) 10 SCC 263, relying upon Navjot Singh ( supra ) the
Supreme Court noted that the injured of 21 years of age and
in third year of engineering college had a bright future ahead
of him and noted that since in Navjot Singh ( supra ) in the
year 2013, Rs.10,000/- was assessed as the notional income,
in the present case, for year 2017, at least earning Rs. 20,000/-
per month should be taken as notional income.
(iv) In Deepak Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC
277, yet again the Supreme Court relied on the judgment of
Navjot Singh ( supra ) and enhanced the consideration of
notional income from minimum wages to Rs.10,000/- per
month, for a student who was in his twenties at the time of an
accident, but had succumbed to his injuries.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
17:36:41
MAC.APP. 34/2021, MAC.APP. 35/2021, MAC.APP. 40/2021 and MAC.APP. 93/2021 15/30
(v) In Sharad Singh v. H.D. Narang, 2025 SCC OnLine SC
2085, the claim was of an injured aged 20 years who had been
rendered immobile due to an accident. He was in the process
of completing his graduation and proceeding to sit for
chartered accountants’ examination. Supreme Court rejected
the claim that minimum wages of a graduate can be awarded
to him, considering the potentiality of good employment.
Even if he had not obtained the certificate as a Chartered
Accountant, upon graduation, he could have been employed
as an Accountant and a reasonable estimate was an amount of
Rs.5,000/- as monthly income in the year 2001. The minimum
wages of a skilled worker at that time were Rs. 3,352/-
(vi) In United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Anita , 2017
SCC OnLine Del 11152, a Coordinate Bench of this Court
considered the case of deceased, who was 21 years of age, in
the 6th semester, B.Tech (Mechanical & Automation
Engineering) student at Al-Falah School of Engineering and
Technology at Rohtak, Haryana . The Court upheld the
assessment of notional income by Tribunal at Rs. 26,851/-,
which was assessed taking into consideration that deceased
had passed 5th semester in December 2008 and had received
approval for 6 weeks industrial training with Indian Airlines,
also considered the certificate of excellence, marksheets and
the monthly income of classmates.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
17:36:41
MAC.APP. 34/2021, MAC.APP. 35/2021, MAC.APP. 40/2021 and MAC.APP. 93/2021 16/30
(vii) In Raj Bala v. Sumit Dahiya , 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12086,
claim regarding a 21-year-old deceased, final year B. Tech
student at Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, the
earning capacity was assessed on the basis of the potential of
the deceased and income was taken at Rs.26,600/- per month
having regard to the fact that he got a placement offer of Rs.
3,20,000/ - per annum.
(viii) In Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v.
Seema Rustagi , 2026: DHC:4289, this Court has taken up an
issue of a fatal accident, in which the deceased was a graduate
of School of Planning and Architecture in Delhi and was
expected to get a reasonable job. Evidence was placed of the
batchmates who were studying and drawing an average salary
of Rs.35,000/- per month. MACT accordingly, granted
Rs.30,000/- as the benchmark income per month. The Court
upheld the decision of the Tribunal on the basis of potentiality
of income.
(ix) In Savita and Ors v. National Insurance Company Ltd .
2026: DHC:3626, this Court considered the determination of
notional income in cases where even employment proof had
not been found. The Court stated that some intelligent
guesswork has to be done, which may not be restricted to
minimum wage parameters. Further, guideposts as regards
the age, occupation and educational background of the victim
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
17:36:41
MAC.APP. 34/2021, MAC.APP. 35/2021, MAC.APP. 40/2021 and MAC.APP. 93/2021 17/30
were laid down by this Court. The Court noted in paragraph
30 as under:
“ …D. Age, occupation and educational background of
the victim i. In cases where the victim was a student and
the evidence on record suggests that the victim would
have engaged in employment after completing
education, had the accident not taken place; the Courts
must consider the educational background keeping in
view the missed future opportunities. ii. Reliance to be
placed on documents and testimonies indicating the
prior educational background of the victim, if no proof
has been placed with regards to the employment
details… ”
(emphasis added)
Assessment of evidence
Re : Vinay Khurana
th
20. The accident occurred on 19 February 2017, which has to be taken
as the watershed year for both the deceased in respect of the income that
they could have been possibly earned. Vinay Khurana was 21 years of age
pursuing his final year in B.E. Computer Engineering from Netaji Subhash
Institute of Technology (‘ NSIT ’). The testimony of PW-1 /father was
recorded who stated that he was a bright and meritorious student, all-
rounder, and participating in extra-curricular activities during entire
th
student life. In CBSE class 12 examinations, he was awarded a medal of
excellence for securing first position in the entire school. He secured
admission in a premium engineering college due to his excellent score in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
17:36:41
MAC.APP. 34/2021, MAC.APP. 35/2021, MAC.APP. 40/2021 and MAC.APP. 93/2021 18/30
the JEE examination. He was awarded a merit scholarship for being among
the top 25% in this batch during the third year and was chosen as
Placement Coordinator, T&P Cell, NSIT, wherein he was made
responsible for placement and internship of students. He had a CGPA of
8.0 ( 72.61% ) and had done various significant internships. There were
three potential offers which the deceased had secured.
(i) Deceased did his internship in Belzabar Software Design India
Pvt. Ltd ., he was offered a package of Rs.9.36 lakhs per annum
for appointment as Computer Scientist. Testimony of Aman
Varman , HR, Manager of the company as PW-4 , confirms that
th
a letter of appointment had been given on 17 August 2017.
(ii) Centre for Development of Telematics, Government of India (C-
DOT) through campus placement cell had selected the deceased
st
on 21 October 2016 for the post of a Research Engineer in a pay
scale of Rs.15,600- 39,100 under Pay Band -3 in Grade Pay of
Rs. 5,400/- per month. The consent letter had been given to C-
th
DOT on 10 November 2016 ( Exhibit PW1/40 ). PW-6, Anjali
Khanna was examined from C-DOT who testified that pursuant
an RTI application, a reply was sent to Dharmender Khurana
with the copy of offer of appointment letter and that the gross
salary should have been Rs.80,000/- ( approx ) per month.
(iii) M/s Works Application Company Ltd ., a Japan based IT
Company had offered a job of Computer Scientist for 60 lakhs
Japanese Yen per annum. PW-7 was examined for IVTL
Infoview Technologies Pvt.Ltd , which was a 100% subsidiary of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
17:36:41
MAC.APP. 34/2021, MAC.APP. 35/2021, MAC.APP. 40/2021 and MAC.APP. 93/2021 19/30
th th
the parent company. Emails dated 30 September 2016, 24
st
January 2017 and 21 March 2017 ( Exhibit PW-7/C colly ):
were placed.
21. The MACT noted that the offer by Belzabar Software Design India
th
Pvt. Ltd . was dated 17 August 2017, which was after the death of the
deceased, and there was no formal offer before his death.
22. The MACT noted that PW-6 from C-DOT , in her cross-
examination, stated that the letter was provisional and was subject to
completion degree of B.E.
23. As regards M/s Works Application Company Ltd. , the MACT
recorded that the acceptance letter was sent to the deceased after the death.
MACT, therefore, assessed the net income at Rs.55, 000/- per month as on
the date of the accident.
24. Amongst all these offers, the Court considers the offer from C- DOT,
a government company, as one which had been issued prior to the accident
th
on 26 October 2016. It categorically states that “ Congratulations on your
selection in C-DOT for the post of Research Engineer. We are enclosing
herewith the detailed terms and conditions of your appointment. This offer
of appointment is being made to you to report at our Delhi Centre on 01
August 2017 ”. The offer letter asks for a request for acceptance of the
appointment. Of course, the said offer was provisional and subject to the
criteria of age, percentage of marks and submission of certificates at the
time of reporting on duty; condition of obtaining 70% and above in the
general category in the qualifying exam.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
17:36:41
MAC.APP. 34/2021, MAC.APP. 35/2021, MAC.APP. 40/2021 and MAC.APP. 93/2021 20/30
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
th
06 November 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.
26. As regards the other two offers, it has already been stated above that
the offer from Belzabar Software Design India Pvt. Ltd ., was given after
the date of the death of the deceased. As regards the job offer from M/s
Work Application , no doubt there were mails exchanged, but it was subject
to the clearance from the Singapore Government for providing an
employment permit as evident from the last mail exchanged before the
th
death of the deceased on 24 January 2017.
st
27. The subsequent e-mail dated 21 March 2017, after the date of the
st
accident notes that “ it requires an acceptance till 01 April 2017 ”. It notes
that there are terms and conditions and that there have been some issues in
Singapore visa procurement in the past and that there was a contingency
plan in that regard. The willingness for joining, sent by Vinay Khurana on
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
17:36:41
MAC.APP. 34/2021, MAC.APP. 35/2021, MAC.APP. 40/2021 and MAC.APP. 93/2021 21/30
th
30 September 2016, would be, therefore, subject to various conditions
which would have had to be complied with.
28. Amongst all these offers, the certainty of the C-DOT offer is evident
and, therefore, the benchmark income should be considered at Rs. 80,000/-
on which future prospects of 40% and according to multiplier of 18 shall
be taken based on principles of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680. Further, considering that deceased was a
bachelor there shall be deduction of 50% as per principles of Pranay Sethi
( supra ).
29. On the point of deduction towards income tax to determine the
annual income of deceased reliance can be placed on the decisions of Sarla
Verma v. DTC , (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Manorma Sinha v. Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2241, wherein the Supreme Court has held
that actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax and that income
tax deduction should be based on notified and applicable tax rates.
Considering the deemed annual salary of the deceased would have been
Rs. 9,60,000/- , on which tax would be payable as per the Financial Year
2016-17 and Assessment Year 2017-18, as per principles enunciated in
Pranay Sethi ( supra ). Accordingly, deemed income post income tax
deduction is Rs. 8,43,000/- .
30. Further, as regards loss of consortium, since there were three
claimants in the case of Vinay Khurana , loss of consortium should be
awarded at Rs. 40,000/- x 3, totalling to Rs.1,20,000/-.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
17:36:41
MAC.APP. 34/2021, MAC.APP. 35/2021, MAC.APP. 40/2021 and MAC.APP. 93/2021 22/30
31. As regards the issue of interest, reliance in this regards 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 MV
Act 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.
32. In the facts of the present case, since the long-term fixed deposit
rates offered by nationalised banks during the year 2017, i.e. the year of
filing of the claim petition, were between 6.50-6.75% per annum, the
interest on the compensation is accordingly modified to 6.75% per annum
from the date of filing of the claim petition, as opposed to 9% per annum
awarded by the Tribunal.
33. Considering that the accident happened in 2017 and the award was
th
passed on 14 September 2020, nine years have passed since the death of
deceased. Considering the long pendency it would be appropriate that the
interest applicable on the original compensation awarded by the Tribunal
shall continue to be 9% per annum. It is clarified that the interest 6.75%
per annum shall be applicable only on the enhanced compensation.
34. Accordingly, the revised compensation for Vinay Khurana is as
under:
S.no. Heads of Compensation Awarded by
the Tribunal
Awarded by this
Court
1. Income per month (A) Rs. 55,000/- Rs. 80,000/-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
17:36:41
MAC.APP. 34/2021, MAC.APP. 35/2021, MAC.APP. 40/2021 and MAC.APP. 93/2021 23/30
2. Annual Income (A x 12= B) Rs.6,60,000/- Rs. 9,60,000/-
3. Income Tax Deduction (C)
Nil Rs.9,60,000-Rs.
1,17, 000 = Rs.
8,43,000/-
Rs.25,000+ 20% of the amount
exceeding Rs. 5,00,000 [AY
2017-18 and 2016-17]
4. Future Prospects @40% (D) Rs. 2,64,000/- Rs. 3,37,200/-
5. Less Personal expenses of the
deceased (E) 1/2rd
Rs.4,62,000/- Rs. 5,90,100/-
6. Annual loss of dependency (F) Rs.4,62,000/- Rs. 5,90,100/-
7. Multiplier (G) 18 18
8. Total loss of dependency (F x
G=H)
Rs. 83,16,000/- Rs.1,06,21,800/-
9. Compensation for loss of
consortium (I)
Rs.40,000/- Rs.1,20,000/-
10. Compensation for loss of estate
(J)
Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-
11. Compensation towards funeral
expenses (K)
Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-
12. Total compensation
Rs.83,86,000/- Rs. 1,07,71,800/-
(H+I+J+K=L)
13. Enhanced Amount Rs. 23,85,800/-
14. Rate of Interest Awarded 9% 6.75%
Re: Prabhleen Kaur
35. As regards Ms. Prabhleen Kaur , evidence was provided on behalf
of father PW-7 / Prabhjot Singh who stated that his daughter was pursuing
her third-year degree in B.E. (Instrumentation and Control Engineering)
from NSIT. She was a bright and meritorious student, an all-rounder,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
17:36:41
MAC.APP. 34/2021, MAC.APP. 35/2021, MAC.APP. 40/2021 and MAC.APP. 93/2021 24/30
actively participating in extra-curricular activities. In the 12th CBSE
examinations, she scored more than 90% and received an excellent score
in JEE examinations and, therefore, got a premium engineering college.
During NSIT, she was awarded a merit scholarship and was chosen as a
Placement Coordinator in T&P Cell. She was offered a stipend of
Rs.20,000/- per month for a summer training at Sun Pharmaceutical
Industry ltd.
36. The MACT held that the Tribunal could not assess the future
earnings of Prabhleen Kaur on the same basis of deceased Vinay Khurana
since she had not been offered any placement. The one evidence which
had been placed for the potentiality of income is at PW-2/D, which is an
offer from Sun Pharmaceuticals of Rs. 11,50,000/- per annum to a student
of the same course in the year 2016.
37. On this basis, the monthly income would come to about
Rs.1,00,000/-. However, there is no simple and foolproof way to assess
that she would have earned this amount of income. However, the
benchmark of Rs.80,000/- approximately, which Vinay Khurana , would
have been given by a government company, which is a conservative
estimate at least, could be considered for an estimate in case of Prabhleen
Kaur as well. Considering her educational background, an amount of
Rs.60,000/- per month would be a useful approximation sans any proof
being given.
38. The Court also considers that she was earning Rs. 20,000/- per
month for merely for internship at Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
17:36:41
MAC.APP. 34/2021, MAC.APP. 35/2021, MAC.APP. 40/2021 and MAC.APP. 93/2021 25/30
there is no reason why a proper employment would not have garnered at
least Rs.60,000/- per month.
39. Therefore, the benchmark income should be considered at
Rs. 60,000/- on which future prospects of 40% and according to multiplier
of 18 shall be taken based on principles of Pranay Sethi, ( supra ). Further,
considering that deceased was a bachelor there shall be deduction of 50%
as per principles of Pranay Sethi ( supra ).
40. Further, as regards loss of consortium, since there were five
claimants in the case of Vinay Khurana , loss of consortium should be
awarded at Rs. 40,000/- x 5 , totalling to Rs.2,00,000/-.
41. On the point of deduction towards income tax to determine the
annual income of deceased reliance can be placed on the decisions of Sarla
Verma v. DTC , ( supra ), National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi ,
( supra ) and Manorma Sinha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., ( supra ),
wherein the Supreme Court has held that actual salary should be read as
actual salary less tax and that income tax deduction should be based on
notified and applicable tax rates. Considering the deemed annual salary of
the deceased would have been Rs. 7,20,000/-, on which tax would be
payable as per the Financial Year 2016-17 and Assessment Year 2017-18,
as per principles enunciated in Pranay Sethi ( supra ). Accordingly,
deemed income post deduction of income tax is Rs. 69,000/-.
42. Similarly, as regards the issue of interest, considering the interest
rates offered by nationalised banks during the year 2017, i.e. the year of
filing of the claim petition, were between 6.50-6.75% per annum, the
interest on the compensation is accordingly modified to 6.75% per annum
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
17:36:41
MAC.APP. 34/2021, MAC.APP. 35/2021, MAC.APP. 40/2021 and MAC.APP. 93/2021 26/30
from the date of filing of the claim petition, as opposed to 9% per annum
awarded by the Tribunal.
43. Considering that the accident happened in 2017 and the award was
th
passed on 14 September 2020, nine years have passed since the death of
deceased. Considering the long pendency, it would be appropriate that the
interest applicable on the original compensation awarded by the Tribunal
shall continue to be 9% per annum. It is clarified that the interest 6.75%
per annum shall be applicable only on the enhanced compensation.
44. Accordingly, the revised compensation for Prabhleen Kaur is as
under:
S.no. Heads of Compensation Awarded by the
Tribunal
Awarded by this
Court
1. Income per month (A) Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 60,000/-
2. Annual Income (A x 12= B) Rs.3,00,000/- Rs. 7,20,000/-
3. Income Tax Deduction (C)
Nil Rs. 7,20,000- Rs.
69,000/- = Rs.
6,51,000/-
Rs.25,000+ 20% of the amount
exceeding Rs. 5,00,000 [AY
2017-18 and 2016-17]
4. Future Prospects @40% (D) Rs. 1,20,000/- Rs. 2,60,400/-
5. Less Personal expenses of the
deceased (E) 1/2rd
Rs.2,10,000/- Rs. 4,55,700/-
6. Annual loss of dependency (F) Rs.2,10,000/- Rs. 4,55,700/-
7. Multiplier (G) 18 18
8. Total loss of dependency (F x
G=H)
Rs.37,80,000/- Rs. 82,02,600/-
9. Compensation for loss of
consortium (I)
Rs.40,000/- Rs. 2,00,000/-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
17:36:41
MAC.APP. 34/2021, MAC.APP. 35/2021, MAC.APP. 40/2021 and MAC.APP. 93/2021 27/30
10. Compensation for loss of estate
(J)
Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-
11. Compensation towards funeral
expenses (K)
Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-
12. Total compensation
Rs. 38,50,000/- Rs. 84,32,600/-
(H+I+J+K=L)
13. Enhanced Amount Rs. 45,82,600/-
14. Rate of Interest Awarded 9% 6.75%
Directions
Re:Vinay Khurana
45. Accordingly, the compensation in case of Vinay Khurana is
enhanced by Rs. 23,85,800/- .
th
46. Vide order dated 19 January 2021 in MAC APP 34/2021, this
Court directed that entire award amount be deposited with the Tribunal.
The Tribunal shall release 50% of the awarded amount in terms of the
scheme of disbursal as provided by the subject Award and balance amount
shall be kept in interest bearing fixed deposit.
47. Now that the appeal has been finally disposed of it is directed that
the balance amount deposited along with accrued interest before the
MACT shall be released to the claimants as per the directions of the
MACT in the impugned award.
48. It is therefore directed that enhanced compensation amount along
with 6.75% interest per annum from the date of filing the petition shall be
deposited before MACT within a period of four weeks. It is directed that
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
17:36:41
MAC.APP. 34/2021, MAC.APP. 35/2021, MAC.APP. 40/2021 and MAC.APP. 93/2021 28/30
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 3
month, 6 months, 9 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.
Re: Prabhleen Kaur
49. Accordingly, the compensation in case of Prabhleen Kaur is
enhanced by Rs. 45,82,600/-.
th
50. Vide order dated 19 January 2021 in MAC APP 35/2021, this
Court directed that entire award amount be deposited with the Tribunal.
The Tribunal shall release 50% of the awarded amount in terms of the
scheme of disbursal as provided by the subject Award and balance amount
shall be kept in interest bearing fixed deposit.
51. Now that the appeal has been finally disposed of it is directed that
the balance amount deposited along with accrued interest before the
MACT shall be released to the claimants as per the directions of the
MACT in the impugned award.
52. It is therefore directed that enhanced compensation amount along
with 6.75% interest 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. 4,00,000/- shall be released to the claimant from
the deposit of enhanced amount within a period of two weeks thereafter.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
17:36:41
MAC.APP. 34/2021, MAC.APP. 35/2021, MAC.APP. 40/2021 and MAC.APP. 93/2021 29/30
Remaining enhanced amount, along with accrued interest, shall be kept in
Fixed Deposit Receipts ( FDRs ) of Rs. 25,000/- each for periods of 3
month, 6 months, 9 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.
53. The appeals are disposed of in above terms. Pending application, if
any, are rendered infructuous.
54. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded only if the order of deposit
have been complied with.
55. Copy of this Judgment be sent to concerned MACT.
56. Copy of this Judgment be also sent to concerned bank for necessary
information and compliance.
57. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
ANISH DAYAL
(JUDGE)
JULY 1, 2026/ ak/zb
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:02.07.2026
17:36:41
MAC.APP. 34/2021, MAC.APP. 35/2021, MAC.APP. 40/2021 and MAC.APP. 93/2021 30/30