Safiya Malik

The Delhi High Court Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna delivered a judgment on March 7, 2025, deciding on multiple appeals arising from a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) award. The appeals involved compensation for the death of Mr. Deepak Bisht and injuries sustained by Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh in a road accident that occurred on June 19, 2016. The court adjudicated on the liability of the insurance company, contributory negligence, and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

On June 19, 2016, at approximately 12:45 a.m., Mr. Deepak Bisht and Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh were traveling from Moradabad to Delhi in a car bearing registration number DL 7CP-8716. When they reached Galandh Chauraha, District Hapur, Uttar Pradesh, a truck (UP 22T-5401) moving ahead of them applied sudden brakes. Simultaneously, another truck (UP 22T-9446) hit their car from behind, causing it to collide with the truck ahead. Mr. Deepak Bisht sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot, while Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh suffered serious injuries.

Following the accident, FIR No. 351/2016 was registered at Police Station Pilakhua, District Hapur, Uttar Pradesh, under Sections 279, 338, 304-A, and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). A charge sheet was filed against Mr. Asak Ali, the driver of truck UP 22T-9446.

Also Read: Omission To Name Some Accused In FIR Is a Relevant Fact Under Section 11 Evidence Act: Supreme Court

The claim petitions were filed under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the legal heirs of Mr. Deepak Bisht, including his mother, brothers, and sister, as well as by Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh for injuries sustained.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, awarded Rs. 31,57,480/- as compensation for the death of Mr. Deepak Bisht and Rs. 67,000/- for injuries sustained by Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh, both with interest at 8% per annum.

The High Court reviewed multiple appeals:

Appeals by the Insurance Company (MAC.APP. 136/2021 & MAC.APP. 142/2021)

The insurance company challenged the Tribunal’s award on the following grounds:

1. Contributory Negligence: The insurance company argued that the deceased contributed to the accident since the front truck had its indicators on and was parked on the road when the car collided with it. However, the court, relying on PW-1, Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh’s testimony, found that the car was hit from behind, which caused it to collide with the front truck. The court stated:

"The testimony of PW-1 coupled with the charge-sheet, clearly establishes that when the truck ahead applied sudden brakes, the deceased applied brakes as well. However, the car was hit from behind by the offending truck, pushing it forward."

Accordingly, the court dismissed the argument of contributory negligence and upheld that the accident was solely caused due to the negligence of the driver of truck UP 22T-9446.

1. Excessive Interest Rate: The insurance company contended that 8% per annum interest was excessive. The court, citing National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Yad Ram, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1849, stated that the rate of interest depends on case-to-case circumstances and found no justification for reducing it.

2. Future Prospects: The Tribunal had applied 50% future prospects, assuming that the deceased was a salaried employee. The insurance company argued that since Mr. Deepak Bisht was self-employed in real estate business, 40% future prospects should apply. The court agreed, stating:

"The deceased had no fixed income and was self-employed; therefore, as per Pranay Sethi’s case, the future prospects should be calculated at 40%." The court reduced the future prospects from 50% to 40% and recalculated the compensation.

Also Read: Madras High Court Refers Issue on Successive Bail Applications to Larger Bench, Seeks Clarity on Listing Before Same Judge or Roster Judge

Appeal by the Claimants (MAC.APP. 240/2023)

The legal heirs of Mr. Deepak Bisht sought enhanced compensation, arguing that:

1. Lower Income Considered: The Tribunal had assessed the deceased’s income based on the 2014-15 Income Tax Return (ITR), instead of using the latest 2016-17 ITR, which showed a higher income of Rs. 3,76,700/-. The court accepted the claimants’ argument and revised the multiplicand to Rs. 3,65,710/- after tax deductions.

2. Compensation for Loss of Consortium: The Tribunal had granted Rs. 40,000/- under this head, but the court noted that as per Pranay Sethi’s case, each legal heir is entitled to Rs. 40,000/- individually. The court enhanced the amount to Rs. 1,20,000/-.

3. No Compensation for Loss of Love and Affection: The claimants argued for additional compensation under this head. The court denied the request, stating:

"Loss of Love and Affection is included in the Loss of Consortium. Therefore, nil compensation has been rightly granted."

The Court issued the following directives:

1. Appeal by the Insurance Company (MAC.APP. 136/2021) was dismissed—the court upheld the Tribunal’s finding that the truck driver was solely responsible for the accident.

2. Appeal by the Insurance Company (MAC.APP. 142/2021) was partly allowed—future prospects were reduced from 50% to 40%.

3. Appeal by the Claimants (MAC.APP. 240/2023) was allowed—compensation was enhanced from Rs. 31,57,480/- to Rs. 42,46,000/-, with the insurance company directed to deposit the enhanced amount within 45 days.

Advocates Representing the Parties

• For the Appellant (Insurance Company): Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate.
• For the Respondents (Legal Heirs of the Deceased and Injured Claimant): Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate.

Case Title: Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Praveen Kumar Singh & Others

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC: 1518

Case Number: MAC.APP. 136/2021, MAC.APP. 142/2021, MAC.APP. 240/2023

Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

[Read/Download order]