Accepted Goldman Sachs job offer used to calculate compensation for deceased IIT student; Delhi HC raises award to ₹2.06 crore

On 30 March 2014, an Innova car bearing registration no. RJ-15UA-0751 met with an accident while carrying students of IIT Delhi travelling to the Sam Sand Dunes, Jaisalmer. Four students died and one student, Jatin, survived.

The Insurance Company filed appeals seeking recovery rights against the driver and owner on the ground that the vehicle had been used for “hire or reward”, allegedly in breach of the insurance policy. The legal representatives of Deeksha Gautam filed an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

The Insurance Company relied on Jatin’s statement that the resort owner had arranged the vehicle and that one of the deceased students had paid for it, as well as on the owner’s statement that the vehicle had been provided for sightseeing.

Conversely, the driver and owner relied on the testimony of Vishwas Sharma, who stated that he had arranged the vehicle through his father, Vishnu Dutt Sharma, as a personal favour from the vehicle owner, Damodar Singh Chauhan, without any charge being imposed on the students.

In Deeksha Gautam’s claim, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal assessed her notional monthly income at Rs. 50,000, despite an accepted offer of employment from Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd. carrying a minimum annual CTC of Rs. 21,00,000, with employment scheduled to commence on 4 August 2014.

Whether the Innova car was being used for “hire or reward”, thereby entitling the Insurance Company to recover the compensation paid from the driver and owner for breach of the policy conditions?

Whether the evidence established that the vehicle had instead been provided pursuant to a personal arrangement and without consideration?

Whether Deeksha Gautam’s accepted employment offer with Goldman Sachs carrying an annual CTC of Rs. 21,00,000 should be treated as the benchmark for assessing her loss of dependency, instead of the notional income of Rs. 50,000 per month fixed by the Tribunal?

Whether the compensation payable to Deeksha Gautam’s legal representatives required enhancement, including an award for loss of consortium?

The Court applied the principles governing an insurer’s claim for recovery rights under a motor insurance policy, namely that recovery against the driver or owner requires proof of a breach of the policy condition, including unauthorised use of the vehicle for “hire or reward”; a vehicle provided gratuitously pursuant to a personal arrangement does not, on the established facts, constitute such commercial use.

For computation of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Court applied the principle that a concrete and credible employment offer accepted by a meritorious student may be used to determine probable income, rather than resorting to speculative notional income.

It relied on Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 254, Vasanthi v. Adhiparasakthi Engineering College, (2022) 15 SCC 316, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dharmender Khurana, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 5076, and Raj Bala v. Sumit Dahiya, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12086, which recognise that a crystallised employment opportunity may constitute the appropriate benchmark for loss of future income.

The Court also applied the multiplier method, 40% future prospects, 50% deduction for personal expenses, and conventional sums for consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses.

The Court rejected the Insurance Company’s recovery-rights claim because the more consistent and substantially unchallenged evidence showed that Vishwas Sharma had arranged the vehicle through his father, Vishnu Dutt Sharma, as a personal favour from the owner, Damodar Singh Chauhan.

The owner’s police statement specifically recorded that the car had been purchased for personal use and was supplied free of charge because of the longstanding family friendship.

The Court therefore found that the vehicle had not been procured for hire or reward and that the Insurance Company’s contrary plea could not be sustained.

As to compensation, the Court held that the Goldman Sachs offer, accepted by Deeksha Gautam, together with the evidence of the proposed annual CTC and her qualifications, provided a rational and sufficiently concrete basis for assessing her prospective income.

The fact that the appointment included an initial 180-day probationary period did not justify disregarding the offer, particularly when comparable claims arising from the same accident had been assessed on the basis of offered employment.

The Court therefore adopted an annual income of Rs. 21,00,000, deducted Rs. 4,68,650 as income tax for FY 2014–2015, and determined the monthly post-tax income as Rs. 1,35,946.

Applying 40% future prospects, a 50% deduction for personal expenses and a multiplier of 18, it calculated the loss of dependency at Rs. 2,05,54,992. It further awarded Rs. 80,000 for loss of consortium to two family members, along with Rs. 15,000 each for loss of estate and funeral expenses.

In Deeksha Gautam’s case, the compensation was enhanced from Rs. 68,34,000 to Rs. 2,06,64,992, resulting in an enhanced amount of Rs. 1,38,30,992, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

The enhanced amount was directed to be deposited before the Registrar General within four weeks and released to the claimants in accordance with the Tribunal’s apportionment order.

All four appeals were disposed of in those terms, and pending applications were rendered infructuous.