Kiran Raj

The High Court of Delhi has upheld the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) to the family of a deceased accident victim. The court dismissed appeals filed both by the insurance company contesting the awarded sum and by the claimants seeking an enhanced compensation. The judgement upheld the Tribunal's findings and calculations, including the application of the appropriate multiplier, future prospects, and interest rate.

The case arose from a fatal road accident on January 21, 2019, involving Dilip Kumar, who was driving his TVC Moped bearing registration number UP-16-BP-3050. While descending from a flyover in front of Mayur Vihar-I Metro Station, he was struck by a Mahindra Bolero vehicle (DL-1LY-5407), allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner by Dheeraj Kumar. As a result of the collision, Dilip Kumar sustained fatal injuries, leading to the filing of an FIR (No. 22/2019) under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. Following an investigation, a charge sheet was filed against Dheeraj Kumar.

The deceased’s wife and daughter filed a claim under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation for their loss. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence, awarded a sum of Rs. 31,86,556/- along with interest at 8% per annum. This amount was challenged by the insurance company, Kotak Mahindra GIC Ltd., on several grounds, while the claimants sought an enhancement.

Also Read: Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction in Telegraphic Transfer Fraud Case, Orders Return of Seized Gold Bars, Citing Insufficient Proof and Legal Burden on Prosecution

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

• The deceased was 49 years old at the time of the accident, and the Tribunal should have applied a multiplier of 13 instead of 15.

• Future prospects should have been calculated at 25% rather than 30%.

• Minimum wages should have been determined based on Uttar Pradesh rates instead of Delhi, as the deceased and his family were permanent residents of Uttar Pradesh.

• The awarded interest rate of 8% per annum was excessive and should have been reduced to 5%.

The claimants contested the Tribunal’s decision, arguing that:

• The deceased was 40 years old, not 49, and a multiplier of 15 had been correctly applied.

• Future prospects should have been assessed at 50% as the deceased was a permanent employee at Moser Baer since 2003.

• The deceased’s previous employment history should have been considered, as his company ceased operations in September 2018, and his earning potential remained intact.

• The interest rate should have been higher than 8% per annum.

The High Court examined the case records and upheld the Tribunal’s findings, addressing each contention systematically.

The court examined the PAN and Aadhaar Cards of the deceased, which established his date of birth as December 3, 1978. On the date of the accident (January 21, 2019), he was 40 years and one month old. The court referred to Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [(2009) 6 SCC 121], which prescribes a multiplier of 15 for the age group of 36-40 years. The Tribunal’s application of a multiplier of 15 was thus deemed appropriate.

The court dismissed the insurance company’s argument regarding minimum wages. The deceased was employed at Moser Baer, earning Rs. 19,651 per month as per salary slips from July 2017. The wife of the deceased testified that her husband worked as an Assistant Supervisor at Moser Baer in Okhla, Delhi. Given these facts, the Tribunal rightly considered the actual salary and not the minimum wage standards of any state.

The court also upheld the Tribunal’s application of a 30% increase for future prospects. Given the deceased’s age and employment history, the court found no reason to modify the calculation.

Also Read: Criticism of Political Leaders by Sharing Facebook Posts, Even if Unsavory, Is Not Illegal: Kerala High Court

Both parties challenged the 8% interest rate, with the insurance company arguing it was excessive and the claimants seeking a higher rate. The court stated: “Considering the prevailing rate of interest at the relevant time, 8% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment is correctly granted by the Tribunal and warrants no interference.”

After considering all aspects, the High Court dismissed both appeals, finding no merit in either the insurance company’s objections or the claimants’ demand for enhancement. The judgment stated: “The compensation has been calculated by the learned Tribunal in accordance with the settled principles. There is no merit in the appeals filed on behalf of the claimants as well as the insurance company.”

The court also directed that the statutory amount deposited be returned in accordance with the law.

Case Title: Kotak Mahindra GIC Ltd. v. Parvati Basnet & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC: 1436

Case Number: MAC.APP. 406/2022 & MAC.APP. 13/2024

Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

[Read/Download order]