Mr. Ashutosh Sharma, Mr. S.L. Gupta Ms. Gunjan Sharma, Advs v. ASHA ORS

Judgment

14.09.2020 (hereafter ‘impugned award’) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in MAC No. 6170/2016.

2. Briefly stated, the Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter

‘DAR’) was filed pursuant to FIR No. 760/2015, concerning an accident that allegedly occurred on 24.06.2015, at approximately 3:30 PM, wherein the deceased, Sh. Mange Khan, travelling on a bicycle was struck by a truck bearing registration No. HR-56-

5991. As a result of the said collision, he sustained fatal injuries and was run over by the aforementioned vehicle, leading to his instantaneous death.

3. The deceased was survived by his three daughters, who, at the time of the accident, were all married.

4. The learned Tribunal, by way of the impugned award, awarded a sum of ₹7,92,000/- in favour of the respondents, along with an interest rate of 9% per annum. MAC.APP. 9/2021 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2025 at 15:52:17

5. The present appeal appellant/insurance company on the following limited grounds: a) Erroneous treatment of major married daughters as dependents; b) Excessive Interest Rate of 9% per annum. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submits

6. that the respondents failed to produce any evidence to establish their financial dependency on the deceased. Consequently, they have been wrongly awarded compensation under the head “loss of dependency”. He submits that in the absence of any demonstrated dependency, the respondents, if at all entitled to any compensation, ought to have been awarded an amount under the head of loss of estate, rather than the full compensation amount granted by the learned Tribunal.

7. He further contends that the rate of interest at 9% per annum as granted by the learned Tribunal is arbitrary and excessive. He submits that the Courts, in numerous judgments, have held that a 6% per annum interest rate is the standard rate applicable in motor accident compensation claims.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

9. In regard to the first contention, I find no merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

10. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being a benevolent legislation, intended to provide just and equitable compensation to the victims of motor accidents and their legal representatives. There exists no cogent basis to exclude the claimants from seeking compensation merely on account of the nature or form of their dependence. In the present case, although MAC.APP. 9/2021 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2025 at 15:52:17 it is alleged that no specific evidence was led to establish the financial dependency of the respondents on the deceased, the learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated the broader scope of dependency and held the respondents to be dependents. The learned Tribunal has, in its wisdom, awarded 50% of the compensation under the head ‘Loss of Estate’, which, in the opinion of this Court, is fair and legally sustainable.

11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender and Ors : (2020) 11 SCC 356 while dealing with the issue ‘Whether the major sons of the deceased who are married and gainfully employed or earning can claim compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988’, held that: “12. The legal representatives of the deceased could move application for compensation by virtue of clause (c) of Section 166 (1). The major married son who is also earning and not fully dependent on the deceased would be still covered by the expression “legal representative” of the deceased. This Court expounded that liability to pay compensation under the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency of the concerned legal representative. Notably, the expression “legal representative” has not been defined in the Act. in Manjuri Bera (supra) had

13. In paragraph 15 of the said decision, while adverting to the provisions of Section 140 of the Act, the Court observed that even if there is no loss of dependency, the claimant, if he was a legal representative, will be entitled to compensation. In the concurring judgment of Justice S.H. Kapadia, as His Lordship then was, it is observed that there is distinction between “right to apply for compensation” to compensation”. The compensation and “entitlement constitutes part of the estate of the deceased. As a result, the legal representative of the deceased would inherit the estate. Indeed, in that case, the Court was dealing with the case of a married daughter of the deceased and the efficacy of Section 140 of the Act. Nevertheless, the principle underlying the exposition in this decision would clearly come to the aid of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (claimants) even though they are major sons of the deceased and earning. 14. It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. MAC.APP. 9/2021 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2025 at 15:52:17 irrespective of the fact whether Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application concerned legal representative was fully dependent on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only. The evidence on record in the present case would suggest that the claimants were working as agricultural labourers on contract basis and were earning meagre income between Rs.1,00,000/ and Rs.1,50,000/ per annum. In that sense, they were largely dependent on the earning of their mother and in fact, were staying with her, who met with an accident at the young age of 48 years.” (emphasis supplied)

12. The Court further clarified that even in the absence of financial dependency, legal representatives are entitled compensation, albeit under different heads such as ‘Loss of Estate’.

13. While financial dependency may be a relevant factor in claiming compensation for loss of dependency, it is not the sole determining criterion. Dependency extends beyond mere financial support encompasses gratuitous service dependency, physical dependency, emotional dependency, psychological dependency, and other forms of reliance, which cannot always be quantified in monetary terms.

14. Therefore, no distinction can be made between married sons and married daughters, as both are equally entitled to compensation under the head of ‘Loss of Dependency.’ Consequently, the respondents are rightfully entitled to the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. (Ref : Ram Charan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : 2022 SCC OnLine Del 5146)

15. In regard to the second contention raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company, the rate of interest @ 9% as awarded by the learned Tribunal, in the opinion of this Court, is MAC.APP. 9/2021 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2025 at 15:52:17 just and reasonable. This Court, in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Mithlesh Kumari & Ors. : MAC.APP. 161/2025, while considering a similar argument with respect to the award of interest, took into account the discretionary power vested under Section 171 of the MV Act, and the absence of a prescribed uniform rate, and held as under: “19.It is not in doubt that the MV Act is a benevolent legislation, and aims to protect the interests of the victims of motor accidents. In such cases, interest on compensation is granted not because there exists a contractual obligation between the parties but on account of the delay caused in obtaining the compensation. Interest is awarded for the time consumed and the distress faced by the claimant during the time when the claimant first approached the tribunal with the claim till such time as is taken in the assessment and award of compensation. 20.The award of interest thus finds its genesis in the forbearance of the claimant who is kept out of the money that he is entitled to at the time of filing of the claim petition. It is thus safe to say that interest under the MV Act forms part of the compensation itself. For this reason, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India and Another : (2003) 3 SCC 148 observed that interest can be awarded to the claimant even if the same has specifically not been pleaded. 21.In the case of Dharampal v. UP State Road Transport Corporation : (2008) 12 SCC 208, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the change in the economy, and the policy of Reserve Bank of India qua the interest rate on fixed deposits is a relevant criterion while considering the rate of interest. Further, in the case of Erudhaya Priya v. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601, the Hon’ble Apex Court enhanced the rate of interest from 7.5% to 9% for an accident that took place on 16.08.2011, and the award was passed much later on 20.10.2014. 22.The award of interest, thus, is a matter of judicial discretion, and ought to be awarded while keeping into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It is not the intention of this Court to suggest that merely because a particular rate of interest is awarded in the peculiar facts of one case, the same has to be followed in all the subsequent cases. The MV Act has bestowed such duty on the Courts to determine the appropriate rate of interest. 23.While this Court does not intend to set a standard for determination of the rate of interest, in the opinion of this Court, the financial constraints faced by the claimants MAC.APP. 9/2021 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2025 at 15:52:17 ought to be considered. This Court is of the opinion that if the claimants are constrained to avail a personal loan from a financial institution, they would be required to repay the same with much higher rate of interest. It is common knowledge that personal loans are not given by the banks at any rate below 10% per annum. 24.Consequently, the determination of a rate of interest @9% is a reasonable assessment. While it is true that the claimant would be entitled to an interest @6-7%, if the money is put in FDR, however much higher rate of interest would be payable by the claimant if a personal loan is availed on account of financial constraints. The rate of interest @9% per annum is therefore a reasonable average assessment.”

16. It is also pertinent to note that different rates of interest are awarded by the learned Tribunal in different cases. In numerous cases, this Court has come across that an award of interest at the rate of 9% per annum has not been challenged by the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company, thus, cannot be allowed to take a contradictory and discriminatory stand.

17. Accordingly, in balancing these considerations, a 9% interest rate is neither arbitrary nor excessive but a fair measure to compensate for the delay in receiving the awarded sum.

18. In light of the above reasoning, this Court finds no cause to interfere with the interest awarded by the learned Tribunal.

19. I, therefore, find no merit in the present appeal. The present appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Pending applications also stand disposed of. MARCH 5, 2025 “SK” AMIT MAHAJAN, J MAC.APP. 9/2021 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2025 at 15:52:17