Pooja Devi & Ors v. Mohit Sharma & Ors (National Insurance Co Ltd )

JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)

¶1This this appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation awarded vide Award dated 21st August 2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi ('MACT') in MACT No.340/2018, wherein compensation of Rs.15,13,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum was awarded.

¶2The brief facts are that the accident occurred on 12th September 2017 at about 3:00 PM. The deceased was standing on the footpath when the offending vehicle bearing registration no. HR-05-AP-0086 came at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, and struck the deceased, resulting in fatal injuries.

¶3The only issue raised by the appellant/claimant, represented through Mr. S. B. Pandey, Advocate, is that the learned MACT assessed the income of the deceased on the basis of minimum wages applicable to unskilled workers in Bihar, despite documentary evidence showing that the deceased and his wife were residing and working in Delhi.

¶4In support of this contention, reliance is placed on various documents, including: the address provided by PW-1, the wife of the deceased, Ms. Pooja Devi, being H. No. 13A/27, WEA, Karol Bagh, Delhi; the receipt of the dead body dated 13th September 2017; the statement of Mr. Raman Kumar dated 12th September 2017, who was working with the deceased; and the statement of Mr. Dalip Kumar dated 12th September 2017.

¶5Further reliance is placed on the Aadhaar Card of PW-1, exhibited as Ex. PW-1/1, which reflects that the residence of the deceased was in Delhi.

¶6Counsel for the respondent, however, contends that the statement of Mr. Raman Kumar merely indicates that prior to the date of the accident, they were working and residing in Delhi at Karol Bagh, but there is no categorical assertion that they were working in Delhi on the date of the accident. It is further contended that appellant's own version suggests that they were not residing in Delhi at the relevant time.

¶7The appellant, who is the wife of the deceased, has stated that although they were permanent residents of Muzaffarpur, Bihar, at the time of the accident the deceased, along with his wife, children, and parents, was residing at 13A/27, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi–110005. This is also corroborated by the Aadhaar Card. It is further stated that the deceased was employed with M/s Ramji Electronics and that they were residing in the residential portion of the employer's office, which was subsequently sealed and demolished.

¶8The claimant was not able to trace the employer who had left that place. For some time, they took some temporary arrangements in order to continue with their lives.

¶9Not only is the statement of Mr. Raman Kumar being considered, but also statement of Mr. Dalip Kumar, who also was a co-worker with the deceased, who also stated that both him and deceased were working in Delhi and residing at 13A/27, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-5 and were working with one Vipin Kumar Bansal as Labour.

¶10In these circumstances, there is no reason why the MACT has chosen to take the minimum wages applicable in the Bihar, when the evidence points to the fact that they were working in Delhi at that time and the place of the accident will not invite assessment of income applicable in that location.

¶11Minimum wages of Bihar taken at that time were Rs.6,162/- per month, whereas minimum wages for unskilled workers applicable in Delhi on that date were Rs.13,350/- per month.

¶12Further, considering that there are four claimants, namely, the wife, one child and parents of the deceased, in order to align the compensation under the head of loss of consortium with the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, a sum of Rs.40,000/- shall be awarded to each of the four claimants. Accordingly, the total compensation under the head of loss of consortium shall be Rs. 40,000/- × 4 = Rs. 1,60,000/-.

¶13Compensation awarded under the head of loss of love and affection shall be nil, in view of the law laid down in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780.

¶14Accordingly, impugned award of MACT is modified and recomputed as under: S. no. Heads of Compensation Awarded by the Tribunal Awarded by this Court

¶1Loss of income per month (A) Rs. 6,162/-Rs. 13,350/-

¶2Future Prospects @40% (B) Rs. 2,464.8/-Rs. 5,340/-

¶3Less Personal expenses of the deceased (C) 1/3rd Rs.2,875.6/-Rs. 6,230/-

¶4Monthly Loss of Dependency (A+B-C=D) Rs. 5,751/-Rs. 12,460/-

¶5Annual loss of dependency (D x 12=E) Rs. 69,014/-Rs. 1,49,520/-

¶6Multiplier (F)

¶7Total loss of dependency (E x F = G) Rs. 12,42,252/-Rs. 26,91,360/-

¶8Compensation for loss of consortium (H) Rs.40,000/-Rs. 1,60,000/-

¶9Compensation for loss of estate (I) Rs.15,000/-Rs.15,000/-

¶10Compensation towards funeral expenses (J) Rs.15,000/-Rs.15,000/-

¶11Loss of love and Affection (K) Rs. 2,00,000/- Nil

¶12Total compensation (G+H+I+J = L) Rs. 15,12,252/-Rounded off: 15,13,000/-Rs. 28,81,360/-Rounded off: 28,82,000/-

¶13Rate of Interest Awarded 9% 9%

¶15Enhanced compensation will be deposited before the State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts by respondent no.3/Insurance Company within a period of four weeks.

¶16It is therefore directed as under: enhanced amount along with 9% 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. 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. 15,000/- each for periods of 1 month, 2 months, 3 months and so on, in succession as may be 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.

¶17A copy of this order be sent concerned Bank for necessary information and compliance.

¶18Appeal is allowed and stands disposed of in above terms. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.

¶19Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.

(ANISH DAYAL) JUDGE APRIL 24, 2026/ak/zb

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 24th April 2026 + POOJA DEVI & ORS .....Appellants Through: Mr. S.B. Pandey, Advocate. versus MOHIT SHARMA & ORS (NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD ) .....Respondents Through: Mr. C.B. Parashar, Advocate for Respondent no.3/Insurance Company (through VC). CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL