Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate v. SUNITA TYAGI ORS

Judgment

1. The appellant – Oriental Insurance Company Limited [“Insurance Company”] is in appeal against an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [“Tribunal”] dated 01.11.2018, in MACT No. 357445/2016, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 23,54,000/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum, in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 – claimants. A. FACTS AND IMPUGNED AWARD 2. The proceedings before the Tribunal arose out of a fatal accident that took place on 02.02.2016, in which one Satyendra Tyagi lost his life. The deceased was an ex-serviceman who had retired from the Indian Signature Not Verified Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:24.12.2025 17:33:23 MAC.APP. 1169/2018 Army as a Naik. At the time of the accident, he was 45 years of age. 3. The facts related to the accident, as they appear from the impugned award, are that at about 1:30 PM on 02.02.2016, the deceased was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No. UP-14BW-4351, near Mohan Nagar crossing, when the motorcycle was hit by a truck bearing No. UP- 17C-9920 [“insured vehicle”]. It was alleged that the insured vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, which resulted in the accident. The deceased fell off the motorcycle, and was run over by the insured vehicle. He was taken to Narender Mohan Hospital, Ghaziabad,

Uttar Pradesh, by his nephew, Mr. Vikas Tyagi, where he was declared dead. 4. An FIR bearing No. 137/2016 was registered against the driver of the insured vehicle on 02.02.2016, at P.S. Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, under Sections 279, 338, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code,

1860. A chargesheet was also filed in the criminal proceedings. 5. The claimants [wife and three children of the deceased] instituted claim proceedings before the Tribunal seeking compensation from the driver, owner, and insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. The insurer of the vehicle [appellant herein] was impleaded as respondent No.2 before the Tribunal. The owner and the driver of the said vehicle [respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein] were impleaded as respondent Nos. 1 and 3, respectively, before the Tribunal. 6. The Tribunal returned a finding of rash and negligent driving against the driver of the insured vehicle, and proceeded to award compensation under the following heads: Signature Not Verified Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:24.12.2025 17:33:23 MAC.APP. 1169/2018 Head Loss of income Loss of estate Funeral expenses Loss of consortium [40,000 x 4] Loss of love and affection [50,000 x 4] Total Amount (in ₹) 19,63,956/- 15,000/- 15,000/- 1,60,000/- 2,00,000/- 23,53,956/- (rounded off to Rs.23,54,000/-) B. SUBMISSIONS 7. I have heard Mr. Pankaj Seth, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, and Mr. Ranjeet Singh, learned counsel for the claimants. 8. Mr. Seth challenges the award on the following grounds: a. That the evidence in the present case did not establish the involvement of the insured vehicle in the accident in question. Without prejudice to this submission, Mr. Seth argued that the Tribunal ought to have imposed a reduction of the award on account of contributory negligence. b. That the Tribunal awarded an excessive amount for loss of future income, as the enhancement for future prospects and the multiplier adopted were both inflated, in view of the admitted age of the deceased which was approximately 45 years and 9 months on the date of the accident. c. That the Tribunal erred in imposing a deduction of personal and living expenses of only 1/4th. Mr. Seth contends that the Tribunal wrongly included a 21 year old daughter of the deceased as a dependent, leading to computation of personal expenses on the basis of four dependents. According to him, the correct number of Signature Not Verified Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:24.12.2025 17:33:23 MAC.APP. 1169/2018 dependents ought to have been taken as three, and 1/3rd of the deceased’s income was, therefore, liable to be deducted on account of personal and living expenses. d. That compensation under non-pecuniary heads was not accordance with judgments of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.1 and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi2. e. That the employer of the deceased had taken an insurance policy, under which the family of the deceased had already received the benefit of Rs.7,50,000/-, which ought to have been reduced from the total compensation payable.

9. Mr. Singh, on the other hand, took me through the evidence to support the findings of the Tribunal with regard to negligence of the driver of the insured vehicle, as also the quantum of compensation. 10. Learned counsel for the parties also cited certain authorities in support of their respective contentions, which shall be referred to below. 11. Each of the aforesaid aspects is dealt with in turn. C. RE: FINDINGS ON NEGLIGENCE AND CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE 12. The Tribunal’s record shows that evidence was led by an eye- witness to the accident, namely Mr. Vikas Tyagi, who gave evidence as PW-3. Although other witnesses also testified before the Tribunal, Mr. Vikas Tyagi was the only eye-witness. With regard to the facts of the accident, he deposed as follows: “3. That the deceased is the uncle of the deponent in relation. The