Hemlata & Ors. Vs National Ins Co. Ltd. & Ors.

This appeal has been filed assailing the impugned judgment/award dated 30^th July 2013, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ( MACT ), Karkardooma Courts (Shahdara), Delhi in M.A.C. Petition No. 1300/2010.

¶12

The appeal has been filed by Legal Representatives (‘ LRs ’) of the deceased, late Sh. Satpal Singh , who died in a roadside accident that occurred on 04^th July 2009. The deceased was travelling on a motorcycle from Sahibabad to Yamuna Vihar, and when he reached near Tulsi Niketan Chowki, Sahibabad , a truck bearing No. HR-38F-9736, came from behind at a high speed, driven rashly and negligently, and hit the motorcycle. The deceased suffered injuries and died on the spot. At the time of the accident, the deceased was 60 years of age and was self- employed. It was claimed that he was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month.

¶13

Various defences were taken by the Insurance Company. Petitioner

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 21/01/2026 at 13:40:13

¶16

no.1/ Smt. Hemlata , wife of the deceased, examined herself as PW-1 , and produced identification documents as well as the Matriculation Certificate of the deceased. She also presented the Registration Certificate of the deceased issued by the Bar Council of UP, where the deceased had registered as a lawyer on 25^th May 2007, two years prior to the accident.

¶17

Although it was claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month however, no documentary evidence was placed on record in that regard. Consequently, the Tribunal, considering that the deceased was a practicing advocate, assessed his income at Rs.5,000/- per month, approximated for minimum wages of a graduate on February 2009.

¶18

Appellant claims that the Tribunal had unnecessarily depressed the estimation of income and it would be reasonably assumed that the monthly income of a 60-year-old lawyer at that point of time would be higher than Rs. 5,000/- per month. 6. The total compensation of Rs.5,15,000/- was awarded, including nonpecuniary damages. As per counsel for appellant, the said compensation has already been released to appellant. 7. Counsel for Insurance Company made submissions in support of the impugned award and did not produce anything to counter the arguments of counsel for appellant.

¶19

In view of the same, considering the surrounding facts and circumstances, the estimation of monthly income at Rs.5,000/- may not be apposite for a 60-year-old person who had chosen to practice law close to his retirement age, which is a common practice for a number of people who wish to pursue law at the later stages of their life and are suitably compensated for their work.

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

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 21/01/2026 at 13:40:13

¶22

To assess the income of the deceased based on minimum wages for a graduate may be stretching the assumption a bit too much which needs to be corrected.

¶23

Accordingly, seeing the overall facts and circumstances, instead of Rs. 5,000/- at least Rs. 10,000/- ought to have been granted, if not Rs. 20,000/- that has been claimed by the wife.

¶24

Therefore, a lump sum compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- inclusive of all elements arising out of the enhanced assessment of income, computed over the period that has elapsed since the date of the accident, is considered appropriate and is hereby directed to be paid to appellant by the Insurance Company within a period of six weeks.

¶25

It is apposite to mention that, as per the impugned award, the right of recovery has been granted to the Insurance Company against respondent nos. 2 and 3, namely the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, in view of the finding that there was no valid permit for plying the offending vehicle, the Insurance Company cannot be saddled with liability and is entitled to recover the amount from respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

¶26

The appeal is allowed and disposed of in above terms. Pending applications (if any) are rendered infructuous. 14. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

¶27

JANUARY 15, 2026/RK/zb

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

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 21/01/2026 at 13:40:13

Hemlata & Ors. v. National Ins Co. Ltd. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemlata & Ors. v. National Ins 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kashim Kha Vs Roshan Lal & Ors.

Balraj Vs Arshad & Ors.

Tejinder Singh and Ors. Vs Satnam Singh Marwah Deceased through Lrs and Ors.

Sunil Vs Maya & Ors.

Madhu Bhargava and Anr. Vs Reena Bhargava

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Deepak & Ors.