Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate. Decided on 11.12.2025 v. SHANTI & ORS

Judgment

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. Signature Not Verified Signed By:SOMYA SATIJA Signing Date:13.12.2025 14:31:09 MAC.APP. 891/2013 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

4. Loss of dependency Rs. 11,70,000/- Funeral charges Loss of estate Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 10,000/- 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. Signature Not Verified Signed By:SOMYA SATIJA Signing Date:13.12.2025 14:31:09 MAC.APP. 891/2013 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 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”]. Signature Not Verified Signed By:SOMYA SATIJA Signing Date:13.12.2025 14:31:09 MAC.APP. 891/2013 A. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

9. The first question which requires consideration in this appeal is with regard to allegation of contributory negligence against the deceased. It may be noted in this connection that the driver of the motorcycle – Mr. Sachin Kumar Gupta, gave evidence before the Tribunal as PW-2. In his cross-examination, he stated as follows: “I am in a possession of D/L or Motorcycle. Copy of the same is Ex. PW2/R3/A. The offending traulla had come from behind. I was driving my motorcycle on the left side of the road and I had to go straight. I will not be able to as to which portion of the traulla had hit the motorcycle. The driver of the traulla has absconding after leaving the traulla behind after the accident. I as well as deceased were wearing helmets at the time of accident. It is wrong to suggest that no such accident had taken place with the vehicle No. HR-55-A-7015. It is wrong to suggest that that I am deposing falsely to favour the petitioner. I have wrong mentioned in my affidavit that traulla came from the opposite side. It actually came from behind. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.”2

10. Even assuming that a case of contributory negligence in respect of the death of the pillion rider can be made out on the basis of intoxication of the driver of the motorcycle, it is evident from the above that no such allegation was put to the driver of the motorcycle at all. Further, there was also no evidence with regard tothe Blood Alcohol Content of the motorcycle driver or the deceased, on the basis of which such an allegation could have been established. It also does not appear from the impugned award that any such plea was taken before the Tribunal either.

11. The contention with respect to contributory negligence is therefore rejected. 2Emphasis supplied. Signature Not Verified Signed By:SOMYA SATIJA Signing Date:13.12.2025 14:31:09 MAC.APP. 891/2013 B. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY

12. Turning now to quantum of compensation, first on account of loss of dependency.The calculation of the Tribunal was based on the following variables: S.No. Heads Awarded Tribunal

1. Monthly income Rs. 10,000/- deceased

3. Future prospects 50% Deduction personal 50% expenses

4. Multiplier TOTAL 13 Rs. 11,70,000/-

13. The deceased was working as a Project Manager in Unity Power & Security Technologies Pvt. Ltd.,with a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. This was established before the Tribunal, by the evidence of a representative of the employer – Mr. Suresh Kumar Gupta, Accounts Manager [PW-3]. This aspect is not disputed.

14. As the deceased was a bachelor, his mother was taken as the only dependent, and 50% of his salary was deducted towards personal and living expenses. This aspect is also undisputed, and is in line with thejudgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma& Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.3. 3(2009) 6 SCC 121 [hereinafter, “Sarla Verma”], paragraphs 31 and 32. Signature Not Verified Signed By:SOMYA SATIJA Signing Date:13.12.2025 14:31:09 MAC.APP. 891/2013

15. As far as future prospectsare concerned, the Constitution Bench judgment in Pranay Sethi lays down that, for a person on a fixed salary under the age of 40 years, the addition of future prospects should be at the rate of 40%4. This position is accepted by Mr. Parashar. The Tribunal’s award forfuture prospectsat 50% is therefore modified to 40%.

16. This brings us to the claimants’ submission with respect to the appropriate multiplier. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 13, noting that the mother of the deceased was 47 years old, and the father of the deceased was 46 years old, as on 01.01.2007. However, it is clear from the judgment in Pranay Sethi that the applicable multiplier is not to be determined on the basis of the dependents, but on the basis of the age of the deceased, at the time of the accident5.

17. The deceased was only 29 years old at the time of the accident and the applicable multiplier, in accordance with the judgment in Sarla Verma, would therefore be 176. The award ismodified on this account also.

18. As a result of the above discussion, the award on account of loss of dependency ought to have been computed as follows: S.No. Heads Amount

1. Monthly income of the deceased [A] Rs. 10,000/-

2. ADD: future prospects [B] 40%

3. Monthly Income of the deceased Rs. 14,000/- (including future prospects) 4Paragraph 59.4. 5Paragraph 59.7. 6Paragraph 42. Signature Not Verified Signed By:SOMYA SATIJA Signing Date:13.12.2025 14:31:09 MAC.APP. 891/2013 [A+B = C]

4. MINUS: personal expenses [D] 50%

5. Monthly loss of dependency Rs. 7,000/- [C – D = E]

6. Annual loss of dependency [E x 12 = F] Rs. 84,000/-

7. Multiplier [G] 17 Total loss of dependency [F x G] Rs. 14,28,000/-

19. The award on loss of dependency would therefore require enhancement from Rs.11,70,000/- to Rs. 14,28,000/-. C.NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES

20. The next question of quantum relates to non-pecuniary damages. The Tribunal has awarded the following sums in this regard: S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal 1 2

3. Funeral expenses Loss of estate Rs.25,000/- Rs.10,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs.25,000/- TOTAL Rs. 60,000/-

21. In Pranay Sethi, the Supreme Court has recognised three grounds of non-pecuniary damages in such cases – loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate. The quantum has also been laid down at Rs.40,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively7. In view thereof, the compensation under funeral expenses and loss of estate is revised, and 7Paragraph 59.8. Signature Not Verified Signed By:SOMYA SATIJA Signing Date:13.12.2025 14:31:09 MAC.APP. 891/2013 fixed at Rs. 15,000/- each, in place of the earlier amounts of Rs. 25,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- for loss of estate.

22. As far as loss of consortium is concerned, the judgments in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Ors.8 and United India Insurance Company Limited v. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur & Ors.9 lay down three categories of entitled claimants being the spouse, parents and children of a deceased victim. The judgment of the Supreme Court in National India Assurance Company Limited v. Somwati10 clearly indicates that each entitled claimant is to be granted loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/-. In the present case, only the parents of the deceased were entitled to compensation under this head. Compensation is therefore awarded at Rs.80,000/- for loss of consortium.

23. Compensation for loss of love and affectionhas been awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 25,000/-. The Supreme Court, in Satinder Kaur11, has however made it clear, that no amount is to be awarded on this head separately, as this head is subsumed under loss of consortium. The award under this head is, therefore, deleted.

24. Consequently, non-pecuniary damages are re-assessed as follows: S.No. Heads Awarded by this Court

3. Loss of consortium Rs.80,000/- Loss to estate Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-