Balesh Devi & Ors. Vs Royal Sundaram Alliance Co. Ltd. & Ors.

¶1

$~59

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- MAC.APP. 606/2025 BALESH DEVI & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate versus

¶4

ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.

¶5

.....Respondents Through: Ms. Mouli Sharma, Advocate for Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate for R-1 (VC)

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R

¶7

% 09.12.2025 CM APPL. 77691/2025 ( for correction of judgment dated 12.11.2025 )

¶8

The present application has been filed seeking rectification of the judgment dated 12.11.2025, on the ground that it contains certain computational errors.

¶9

By the aforesaid judgment, this Court held as follows:

¶10

“ 15. In these circumstances, the appropriate deduction for personal expenses, in terms of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sarla Verma v. DTC, would be one-fifth rather than one-fourth, as applied by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had determined that the total compensation on account of loss of earnings was Rs. 3,84,285/-, The deduction on account of personal expenses should, therefore, be Rs. 76,857/-, instead of Rs. 96,072/- deducted by the Tribunal, resulting in an addition of Rs.19,215/-.

¶11

16. Similarly, with regard to the loss of consortium, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 48,400/- to each of the five dependents [Rs. 48,400 x 5 = Rs. 2,42,000/-]. The inclusion of the three additional dependents would result in an additional amount of Rs. 1,45,200/- on this account.

¶12

17. For the reasons aforesaid, the enhancement of the award is allowed in the sum of Rs. 1,64,415/-. This amount, alongwith interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% p.a., as awarded by the Tribunal, shall be deposited by the appellant, before the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks. ”

¶13

It is submitted by Mr. Anshuman Bal, learned counsel for the

¶14

MAC.APP. 606/2025

¶15

Page 1 of 2

¶16

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 12/12/2025 at 13:15:34

¶17

appellants [applicants herein], that the modified calculation of the amount on account of loss of dependency requires rectification. Annexure A-1 to the application contains a tabulation indicating that the total loss of dependency, in terms of the judgment, would stand enhanced from Rs.37,46,769/- to Rs.39,96,564/-, i.e., by Rs.2,49,795/-. It is further submitted that the Court has awarded an additional sum of Rs.1,45,200/- on account of loss of consortium. The total enhancement in the award is, therefore, Rs.3,94,995/-.

¶18

Ms. Mouli Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 – Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [“Insurance Company”], does not dispute the contents of the application.

¶19

In view thereof, the judgment dated 12.11.2025 is rectified to the following extent:

¶20

a) The total loss of dependency in paragraph 15 is computed at Rs.39,96,564/-, in terms of Annexure A-1 to the application.

¶21

b) The total compensation awarded is, resultantly, enhanced by Rs.3,94,995/-.

¶22

As directed in paragraph 17 of the judgment, the enhanced amount of Rs.3,94,995/-, alongwith interest accrued thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal, shall be deposited by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from today.

¶23

The application stands disposed of in these terms.

¶24

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶25

DECEMBER 9, 2025/ dy/SD/

¶26

Page 2 of 2

¶27

MAC.APP. 606/2025

¶28

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 12/12/2025 at 13:15:34

Balesh Devi & Ors. v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Co. Ltd. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balesh Devi & Ors. v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Co. Ltd. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amarti Devi Vs Sh Pramod Kumar & Ors.

Masjid Vs Joshi Road Nagrik Parishad and Ors.

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Icai Vs Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Ors.

Ram Shankar Das and Ors. Vs Sushil Verma

Shree Chand Sharma Vs Pushpa Devi & Ors.

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs Capt. A.S. Bhardwaj & Ors.