Babli Devi and Ors. Vs Ram Pal Andors

Present:- M r . R.S. Budhwar, Advocate for Appellants-claimants in FAO No. 1 7 78 of 2004 and for Re s pondents in FAO No. 2945 of 2 0 04. M r . Deepak Suri, Advocate and M r . Brij Bhushan Sharma, Advocate for Appellant-National Insurance Company Ltd. in FA O No. 2945 of 2004, and for Re s pondent No.3 in FAO No. 1778 of 2004.

¶17

M r . Deep Inder Singh Walia, Advo c ate for O w ner of offending vehicle-respo n dent No.2 In F AO No. 1778 of 2004.

¶18

¶19

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

¶20

Fr e sh power of attorney has bee n filed on behalf of owner of the offending vehicle.

¶21

Bo t h these appeals have arisen out of the same award dated 07.02.2004 pa s sed by learned Motor Accid e nt Claims Tribunal, Kurukshe t ra (MACT), where b y compensation of ₹5,77,800/ - was allowed on account of de a th

¶22

JITEN SHARMA 2025.10.31 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

Page N: 1 of 3

¶24

FAO No. 1778 of 2004

¶25

of Sh. Sanjay K umar, who was employed in I n dian Army and getting salary of ₹5597/- per m o nth. He was 28 years of age at the time of his death.

¶26

Th e factum that accident was c a used due to rash and neglig e nt driving of mini bus bearing registration No. H R 08-PA-0126 being driven by R a m Pal, owned b y respondent-CCS Agriculture University, Kaul and insured by National Insurance Company Limited, is not disputed.

¶27

As learned Tribunal has not exem p ted the Insurance Company fr o m its liability to p ay the compensation and has h eld it to be jointly and sever a lly liable to pay co m pensation amount, therefore, Insurance Company has filed F A O No. 2945 of 2004; whereas the claimants bei n g aggrieved about compensati o n amount, have f i led FAO No. 1778 of 2004 seeking enhancement.

¶28

Ta k ing up FAO No. 2945 of 20 0 4 filed by Insurance Compa n y, offending vehi c le is a mini bus and it is admi t ted by counsel for all the part i es that its gross w e ight was less than 7500 kgs. It i s also not in dispute that driver of the offending m ini bus was holding a valid dri v ing license to drive motor cyc l e/ car etc. i.e. the vehicles falling in the category o f Light Motor Vehicle.

¶29

In v iew of this factual position, the case is squarely covered by the Constitutional Bench judgment of Hon’ble S upreme Court in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rambha Devi & Ors., 2025(3) SCC 95 and as such, Insurance Company cannot e s cape from its liability to pay the compensation. This legal position has been fairly conceded by learned coun s el for Insurance C ompany. As such, FAO No. 2 945 of 2004 filed by Insura n ce Company is he r eby dismissed.

¶30

Coming to FAO No. 1778 of 2004, it has been contended by learned counsel that as the deceased was 28 years of a g e, so appropriate multiplier to be applied was 17, but the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 12. I t is also the cont e ntion of learned counsel th a t 50% amount towards fut u re prospects has n ot been added in the income o f the deceased for computing the compensation a mount, as per National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2017(16) SCC 680 ; inasmuch a s the deceased was permanently employed in In d ian Army.

¶31

JITEN SHARMA 2025.10.31 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

Page N: 2 of 3

¶33

FAO No. 1778 of 2004

¶34

N o ne of the aforesaid contenti o ns could be refuted by learned counsel for Ins u rance Company or the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶35

As such, on re-calculation, the co m pensation amount works out to

¶36

be as under:-

¶37

 Income of the deceased	₹ 5597/-per month
 Annual inc prospects ome after adding 50% towards fu ture	₹1,00,746/-
 Loss of an towards se nual dependency after deducting lf-expenses 1/3^rd	₹67164/-
 Compensa  (₹67164 X tion on account of death 17)	₹11,41,788/-
 Funeral ex not dispute penses (as allowed by the Tribuna d) l and	₹20,000/-
 Loss of con (as allowed sortium/ filial consortium bythe Tribunal and not disputed)	₹25,000/-
 Total	₹11,86,788/-

¶38

Si n ce an amount of ₹5,77,800/- h as already been awarded by the Tribunal, there f ore, enhanced compensation works out to be ₹6,08,988/-. T o take it in round figure, the enhanced amou n t of compensation is held to be ₹6,09,000/-. As such, it is directed that claima n ts-appellants of FAO No. 1778 of 2004 shall be e ntitled compensation of ₹6,09,000/- along with interest @ 7. 5 % per annum fro m the date of filing of the claim petition till actual realization. The respondents will be jointly and severally liable to pay the enhanced amou n t, which shall be paid in the same proportion to the claimants, as directed by the Tribunal.

¶39

As a sequel to above discussion , FAO No. 2945 of 2004 filed by Insurance Com p any is dismissed; while FAO N o . 1778 of 2004 stands disposed of in the manner indicated above.

¶40

(DEEPAK GUPTA) 30.10.2025 JUDGE Jiten Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶41

JITEN SHARMA 2025.10.31 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶42

Page N: 3 of 3

Babli Devi and Ors. v. Ram Pal Andors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babli Devi and Ors. v. Ram Pal Andors

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

Kartar Kaur Vs Amin Chand etc.

Shiv Darshan Kaumar Vs Punjab State

National Ins.Co.Ltd. Vs Jagir Kaur

Varinder Kumar Vs Surinder Kumar

Surinder Kumar Sharma and Ors. Vs Varinder Kumar Sharma and Ors.

National Ins.Co.Ltd. Vs Babli Devi etc.