Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Shanti & Ors

PRATEEK JALAN, J DECEMBER 11, 2025 'Bhupi'/AD/

* IN THEHIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI Decided on 11.12.2025 + ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate. versus SHANTI & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Mr. Ritik Singh, Advocates for claimants. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN PRATEEK JALAN, (ORAL) 1. The appellant – Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ["Insurance Company"] challenges an award dated 30.08.2013, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ["the Tribunal"] in MACT No. 1132/2008.By the said award, the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.12,30,000/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum,in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to3, who were the claimants before the Tribunal. 2. The proceedings before the Tribunal arose from a fatal accident, which took place on 24.05.2008 at 09:40 PM. The deceased, one Ram Pratap Pal, was riding as a pillion rider on a motorcycle [bearing Registration No. UP-64-D-1561]. The motorcycle was hit by a vehicle [bearing Registration No. HR-55-A-7015]["offending vehicle"],leading the deceased and the driver of the motorcycle to fall and sustain injuries. They were taken to Kalyani Hospital, Gurgaon, where the deceased eventually succumbed to his injuries. 3. The accident led to an FIR being lodged against the driver of the offending vehicle [respondent No. 4 herein], bearingFIR No. 34/2008 in Police Station Sector 18, Gurgaon, under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. A chargesheet has also been filed in the criminal proceedings under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 4. The deceased was 29 years old at the time of the accident and was unmarried. His parents and brother [respondent Nos. 1 to 3] instituted proceedings before the Tribunal, which resulted in the impugned award, under the following heads: S.No. Heads Award 1. Loss of dependency Rs. 11,70,000/- 2. Funeral charges Rs. 25,000/- 3. Loss of estate Rs. 10,000/- 4. Loss of loveand affection Rs. 25,000/- TOTAL Rs. 12,30,000/- 5. I have heard Mr. Pankaj Seth, learned counselfor the Insurance Company, and Mr. SN Parashar, learned counsel for the claimants. 6. Mr. Seth, in support of the appeal, submits as follows: A. That the Tribunal has erred in rejecting the case of the Insurance Company with regard to contributory negligence of the deceased, as the deceased was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. B. That the Tribunal has erroneously granted enhancement of the income of the deceased at the rate of 50% for future prospects, whereas the enhancement, in light of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi& Ors.1, ought to have been 40%. C. That some adjustment to the non-pecuniary heads is required in line with Pranay Sethi. D. That the Tribunal has erred in failing to grant recovery rights to the Insurance Company against the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, as the vehicle was being driven without a permit, by respondent No.4, who did not possess adriver's license. 7. Mr. Parashar, on the other hand, opposes the plea with regard to contributory negligence. He submits that the deceased was riding as a pillion rider, and, in any event the allegation of intoxication has not been established, as Blood Alcohol Content report of neither the driver nor the deceased was produced before the Tribunal. As far as quantum of compensation for loss of dependency is concerned, Mr. Parashar accepts that future prospectsat 50% is required to be modified to 40%, but draws my attention to the fact that an erroneous multiplier has been adopted by the Tribunal. The multiplier adopted is based upon the age of the mother of the deceased, rather than the age of the deceased himself. He also submits that the compensation under the non-pecuniary headsis inconsistent with Pranay Sethi. 8. Each of the aforesaid issues are dealt with in turn. 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 [hereinafter, "Pranay Sethi"]. A. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE 9. The first questio