National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Preeti & Ors.

Mr. Chetan Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Saurabh Dalal, Advocate, for respondents No. 5 and 6/d r iver and owner (in FAO-7411-2016) and for respondents No. 1 and 2 (i n FAO-350-2017).

¶13

Mr. PK Rohila, Advocate for respondent-claimants (in F AO-7411-2016) and for the appellants (in FAO-35 0 -2017).

¶14

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

¶15

1. FAO-7411-2016 (O&M)

¶16

Present appeal has been fil e d by the appellant-Insurance Company a gainst the Award dated 09.08. 2 016 passed by Motor Accident

¶17

RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶18

FAO-7411-2016 (O&M) -2-

¶19

Claims Tri b unal, Jhajjar (hereinafter refer r ed to as ‘the learned Tribunal’) whereby C laim Petition No. 93 of 201 5 dated 15.05.2015filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short-‘the Act’); filed by the cla i mants/respondents No. 1 to 4 h erein, has been partly allowed and compensation of ₹23,12,000/- has bee n awarded to them.

¶20

2. FAO-350-2017

¶21

Present cross-appeal has bee n filed by the claimants seeking enhancem e nt of compensation of ₹23,12 , 000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal v i de impugned Award dated09.0 8 .2016 passed in Claim Petition No. 93 of 2015 dated 15.05.2015 filed u n der Section 166 of the of the Act. The 0 4 claimants are the: i) 20-y e ar-old widow; ii) 53-year-old father; iii ) 50-year-old mother; and iv ) 76-year-old grandmother of deceased- S itender Kumar Dass who was more than 24-years-old at the time of ac c ident.

¶22

Both the aforementioned cross-appeals are being disposed of by this co m mon order as both appeals are against the same Award dated 09.08.201 6 ; arise out of the same acciden t dated 04.04.2015; and parties, facts, and i ssues involved in both the appe a ls are identical. For the sake of brevity, th e facts are being taken from FA O -7411-2016 titled as ‘National Insurance Company vs. Smt. Preeti and others’, and parties are being referred to as per their litigative status in t h e said appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are t h at the learned Tribunal on the basis of p leadings and evidence addu c ed before it concluded that deceased- S itender Kumar, had died in a motor vehicular accident that took place 04.04.2015 due to the rash an d negligent driving of Swift Car

¶23

RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶24

FAO-7411-2016 (O&M) -3-

¶25

bearing re g istration no. HR-36-L-9683 ( h ereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) by respondent No.5-Anshul Goyal; owned by responden t No. 6-Chitranjan Goyal; a n d insured by the appellantInsurance C ompany. Learned Tribunal a w arded the above compensation along wit h interest @ 7.5% per annum fr o m the date of filing the claim petition til l actual realization. All the resp o ndents were held liable to pay the amoun t of compensation jointly and se v erally.

¶26

Learned counsel for the app e llant/Insurance Company lays challenge to the impugned Award onl y on ground of quantum of compensat i on. It is submitted that the amo u nt of compensation to the tune of₹23,12,000/- awarded by the learned Tri b unal is not sustainable in view of law lai d down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, as per which future prospects ought to hav e been added @ 40%; whereas Tribunal h a d made an addition of 50% to w ards future prospects.

¶27

Further, it is submitted that fa ther of the deceased was only

¶28

53 years o ld at the time of accident. Y et he has been taken to be dependent upon the deceased. Even grand m other of the deceased has been held to be dependent upon him. Therefo r e, in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble S upreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, Law Finder Doc Id # 188882, deduction of 1/3^rd ought to have been made; whereas the learned T r ibunal has made deduction of 1/4^th tow a rds personal expenses. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned A ward be modified.

¶29

RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶30

FAO-7411-2016 (O&M) -4-

¶31

Per Contra, learned counsel for the claimants vehemently opposed t h e submissions advanced on be h alf of the appellant-Insurance Company a nd submits that the Tribunal has correctly made deduction of one fourth as father of the deceased altho u gh being only 53 years old was dependent on the deceased as he was tot a lly bedridden. For this reason claimant N o. 4/grand-mother of the decea s ed as also dependent upon the deceased. T herefore, deduction of 1/4^th t o wards personal expenses was correctly m ade.

¶32

Learned counsel for the clai m ants further seeks enhancement of compe n sation amount by submitting t h at income of the deceased has not been c o rrectly assessed. It is pointed o ut that the claimants had duly proved on record that the deceased was working as an Electrician and drawing s a lary of ₹9000/- per month. Dec e ased was also earning ₹5000/per month by doing overtime with his em p loyer Company. Deceased was also worki n g part time with the Petrol Fil l ing Station from where he was earning ₹6800/- per month. It is submitte d that claimants have produced cogent evi d ence to prove the aforesaid e m ployments and income of the deceased w hich have been ignored by th e learned Tribunal; and income has incorr e ctly been assessed as ₹9000/- p e r month.

¶33

Moreover, nothing has been a warded towards transportation; and loss o f love and affection. Even not h ing has been awarded towards loss of est a te. It is accordingly prayed tha t compensation be enhanced as above.

¶34

No other argument is raised o n behalf of the parties. I have heard lear n ed counsel and perused the cas e file in detail.

¶35

RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶36

FAO-7411-2016 (O&M) -5-

¶37

Perusal of the record reveals that it was the pleaded case of the claimants before the learned Tribun a l that prior to the accident in question, d eceased was working as Electri c ian with ADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd., Bahadurga r h from where he was drawin g salary of ₹9000/- per month; and was also getting ₹5000/- per month b y doing overtime. To prove the said appoi n tment and income of the decea s ed, the claimants had examined PW-5 Ya s hvir Kadian, Manager, ADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd.; who had produced t he salary and other records regarding employment of the deceased. PW5 had produced Appoint m ent Letter Ex. PW-5/A from which it w a s proved that the deceased had j oined ADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd. on 01.07.201 3 as an Electrician Trainee. Fro m Salary Certificate Ex. PW-5/B and from p hotocopy of the salary-sheet E x. PW-5/D it was proved that deceased w as getting salary of ₹9000/- per month. However, the claimants were unab l e to prove any income of the de c eased by way of overtime with ADS Spiri t s.

¶38

It is also asserted by the claimants that deceased was simultane o usly doing part time work as E lectrician with the Hanumant Filling St a tion and earning ₹6800/- per m onth. To prove the same, the claimants h ad examined PW-2 Mangat R a m, Manager, Hanumant Filling Station w h o has stated that deceased ha d been working with the said filling stat i on since 01.12.2012; and was getting ₹6800/- per month. In support, P W -2 Mangat Ram had produce d the attendance register as Ex. P-3 to Ex. P -11. However, the said attenda n ce register was rightly rejected by the lea r ned Tribunal as the same did n o t bear any seal or name of the office where the deceased was working. P W-2 had also not brought any

¶39

RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶40

FAO-7411-2016 (O&M) -6-

¶41

salary rec o rd of the deceased to prove all e ged income of the deceased to the tune o f ₹6800/- per month. PW-2 had also failed to show any Authority L etter from the Hanumant Fill i ng Station, authorizing him to depose be f ore the learned Tribunal. In t h ese circumstances, the learned Tribunal h a s correctly assessed the incom e of the deceased as ₹9000/- per month. As such, the argument of learned counsel for the claimants that income of t he deceased has wrongly been a ssessed is without merit. 11. Further, age of the deceased w as determined to be 24 years at the time of accident on the basis of copies of secondary school examinati o n (Ex. P-15 and Ex. P-16); co p ies of diploma-certificates (Ex. P-17 to E x . P-19) and copy of his drivin g licence Ex. P-21 wherein the date of bir t h of the deceased has been me n tioned as 28.09.1990. Thus, as per law la i d down in Sarla Verma (supra), addition of 40% is liable to be made t o wards future prospects. Howe v er, the Tribunal has incorrectly made an addition of 50% towards fut u re prospect which is not in accordanc e with law. The Tribunal has co r rectly applied the multiplier of 18, keepin g in view age of deceased.

¶42

As regards the deduction o f 1/4^th made by the learned Tribunal t o wards personal expenses, the 0 4 claimants before the learned Tribunal a r e the: i) 20-year-old widow; ii) 53-year-old father; iii) 50-yearold moth e r; and iv) 76-year-old gran d mother of deceased-Sitender Kumar. It h as been contended on behalf o f the claimants that the 53-yearold father w as dependent upon his 24-ye a r-old son as he was bedridden. However, no medical evidence in this regard was produced by the claimants t o show that claimant No. 2/53 - year-old father of the deceased

¶43

RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.27 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶44

FAO-7411-2016 (O&M) -7-

¶45

was dependent upon him. As such, he c a nnot be taken to be dependent upon the d eceased. Resultantly, claimant N o. 4/76-year-old grandmother would firs t be dependent upon her son i.e. c laimant No. 2 rather than upon deceased g randson. In this situation, dedu c tion of 1/3^rd ought to have been towards p e rsonal expenses; whereas the T ribunal had made deduction of 1/4^th .

¶46

Under the conventional he a ds, the learned Tribunal has awarded a n amount of ₹1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium; ₹25,000/towards fu n eral expenses. As per law, all the 04 claimants are entitled to ₹40,000/- e ach under the Head loss of c o nsortium; and ₹15,000/- each under the H eads of funeral expenses and l o ss of estate, respectively.

¶47

In view of the above discuss i on, the FAO-7411-2016 filed by the Ins u rance Company stands allowed ; whereas the FAO-350-2017

¶48

filed by t h e claimants stands dismissed; and compensation payable to the claima n ts is re-assessed as per the stru c tured formula as follows: -

¶49

Details	Before the Tribunal	Revised compensation
Income	₹9,000/- per month or ₹1,08,000/- per annum	₹9,000/- per month or ₹1,08,000/- per annum
Future prospects	50% ₹9000+4500 = ₹ 13,500	40% ₹9000+3600 =₹12,600/-
Deduction	1/4^th= ₹3375/-(13500- 3375 = 10,125) annual dependency comes to 10,125x12=₹1,21,500/-	1/3^rd= ₹4200/- (12600- 4200=8400) annual dependency comes to 8400x 12= ₹1,00,800/-
Multiplier	18	18
Loss dependenc of y	₹1,21,500/- x 18= ₹21,87,000/-	₹1,00,800/- x 18 = ₹18,14,400/-
Loss consortium of	₹1,00,000/-	₹40,000/- to each of the claimant i.e. 40,000 x 4 = ₹1,60,000/-
Funeral	₹25,000/-	₹15,000/-