The court emphasized the importance of just compensation and upheld the principles of calculating loss of dependency and non-pecuniary damages based on future prospects and previous judgments.

1. Lalit Kumar, aged 42 years, was riding his scooter bearing registration no.DL-3S-BR-5117 (the scooter) around 10.00 p.m. on 23.06.2013 when he met with an accident in the area of near Green Park parking, Uphar Cinema, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of police station Safdarjung Enclave. His wife, Neelam Chaudhary (first respondent herein) learnt about the occurrence and rushed to the spot and arranged for her husband to be shifted to Safdarjung Hospital where he was declared dead. The MLC was prepared. It appears that the local police station had been informed vide DD no.27A but when the local police official reached there, he found no one around at the place of occurrence. In the complaint received through the police control room, mobile telephone no.9810028501 of the fifth respondent became available and upon being contacted, he informed the local police official that the scooter had fallen down after collision involving his vehicle but since he did not want any action, the dispute having been amicably resolved, each side had gone on their respective ways. On information about the MLC recorded in the police station, belatedly on 24.06.2013, however, another DD entry (no.37A) was recorded when the first respondent met the police official and made a statement to the effect that she had learnt that the accident against the scooter of her husband had involved car bearing registration no.DL-3C-BA-1961 make Honda Civic (the car) which concededly is owned by sixth respondent, the father of the fifth respondent, the latter being its driver at the relevant point of time. The police, thus, registered FIR no.273/2013 in police station Safdarjung Enclave and carried out investigation for offences punishable under Section 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The first respondent and other members of the family dependent on the deceased Lalit Kumar, they being second to fourth respondents (all collectively, the claimants), instituted accident claim case (suit no.316/2013), on 30.09.2013, on the allegations that the accident had been caused due to the negligent driving of the car by the fifth respondent. The appellant insurance company was also impleaded, it concededly being the insurer of the car against third party risk for the period in question at the instance of the sixth respondent (registered owner of the car).

3. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) held inquiry, and thereafter, by judgment dated 25.02.2016, upheld the claim for compensation holding the fifth respondent responsible for the collision due to the negligent driving. The Tribunal awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.22,82,500/-, it inclusive of Rs.20,47,500/- towards loss of dependency besides Rs.1 Lakh each towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss to estate. The liability was fastened against the insurer (the appellant) to pay the said amount of compensation with interest at 9% p.a.

4. The present appeal was filed by the insurer submitting that the involvement of the car and negligence on the part of its driver had not been properly proved as the evidence appears to have been manufactured. It is also the contention of the insurer that, in calculating the loss of dependency, the element of future prospects was wrongly added. The insurance company also submits that the non-pecuniary damages and the rate of interest are excessive.

5. The appeal was admitted and directed to be shown in the list of ‘Regulars’ as per order dated 22.03.2017 though with direction that it should be shown at serial no.1 subject to part-heard. Earlier, by order dated 23.05.2016, the insurance company had been directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with upto date interest with the Tribunal within the period specified, the tribunal being under direction to retain the same in a fixed deposit account in a nationalized bank with no amount allowed to be released. The matter has bee