IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:13.05.2025 + MAC.APP. 711/2019 RAJWANT KAUR & ORS .....Appellants Through:

versus RAKESH KUMAR & ORS (CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ) .....Respondents Through:

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Maini & Ms. Anjali Singh, Advs.

For the Respondent : Ms. Suman Bagga & Ms. Rhea Duggal, Advs. for R3.

CORAM HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 18.04.2019 (hereafter ‘the impugned award’) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (North), Rohini Courts, Delhi, in MACP No. 279/2017.

2. Briefly stated, on 14.02.2017 at approximately 06:10 AM, the deceased, Sh. Sukhdev Singh, was standing near the police booth at Mukarba Chowk Bus Stand, Delhi, when a tempo bearing registration Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER MAC.APP. 711/2019 Page 1 of 8 number HR-67A-4674, being driven in a rash and negligent manner by Respondent No.1, came at high speed and hit the deceased with great force. As a result of the impact, the deceased suffered grievous and fatal injuries and was immediately shifted to BJRM Hospital, where he was declared brought dead.

3. The offending vehicle was subsequently seized, and FIR bearing no. 142/2017 under Sections 279/337/304A of the IPC was registered at Police Station Samaipur Badli against the driver of the vehicle.

4. The deceased, Sh. Sukhdev Singh, was 43 years old at the time of the accident and was employed as a Head Constable with the Delhi Police. He was drawing a gross salary of ₹46,138/- per month and was in stable employment with a promising career trajectory. He was survived by his wife and two minor children, who were entirely dependent on his income, as also by his aged parents, both of whom unfortunately passed away during the pendency of the claim proceedings. A claim petition was filed under Sections 166 and 140 of the MV Act seeking compensation for the loss suffered on account of the death of the sole breadwinner.

The learned Tribunal, after examining the pleadings, evidence, and documents on record, computed the compensation at ₹64,28,000/-, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.

5. The appellants, being the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased, are aggrieved by the inadequate computation of Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER MAC.APP. 711/2019 Page 2 of 8 compensation. It is stated that parents of the deceased have expired during the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Tribunal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned award suffers from material irregularities and errors of law and fact, and is liable to be modified and enhanced. Firstly, the learned Tribunal erred in deducting one-third of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses. It is submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. DTC : (2009) 6 SCC 121, and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi : (2017) 16 SCC 680, where the number of dependents is three or more, the correct deduction ought to be one-fourth of the income. In the present case, the deceased left behind his widow and two minor children, and therefore, the deduction should have been limited to one-fourth.

7. He submitted that the learned Tribunal has erroneously excluded the House Rent Allowance (HRA) and Transport Allowance from the computation of income. These allowances are regular components of salary and form part of the earnings utilized for the benefit of the entire family.

8. Lastly, it is contended that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% per annum is on the lower side, considering the long pendency of claim proceedings and depreciating value of money.

ANALYSIS

9. Upon careful consideration of the rival submissions and a perusal of the impugned award dated 18.04.2019, this Court finds