Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6980
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tara Vitasta Ganju, J
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
LAXMI DEVI AND OTHERS – Respondent
MAC.APP. 573/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Ms. Jyoti Khulbe
For the Respondents:
Court addresses appeal regarding compensation calculation and residency proof under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Headnote:The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenges the Impugned Award dated 23.07.2025, which awarded compensation of Rs. 36,68,908.8/- with 9% interest. The Appellant contends errors in income deduction calculations and challenges awards based on unproven residency. The Court issued notice on these grounds, staying the award pending deposit. The final outcome rests on the Appellant's compliance with deposit conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal filed under section 173 regarding a compensation award. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments made regarding income deduction and proof of residency. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court's interim stay and directives on deposit. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. next steps and procedural directions from the court. (Para 8 , 9) |
O R D E R
% 08.09.2025
1. The present Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 [hereinafter referred to as “MV Act”] impugning the award dated 23.07.2025 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, MACT, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Award”]. By the Impugned Award, the compensation amount in the sum of Rs. 36,68,908.8/- along with interest at the rate of 9% has been awarded.
2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the challenge in the present Appeal is on two grounds. Firstly, he submits that the deduction for loss of income although referred to as 1/3, the actual calculation is 1/4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has handed across the calculation in this behalf which is set out below:
Minimum wages Rs. 16,064/-
Future prospects 40%
Deduction 1/3 Multiplier 17 Total 30,58,585.60/-
3. Secondly, it is contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding the minimum wages of an unskilled labour in the state of Delhi without any proof that the deceased was working in Delhi. Relying on the evidence of PW-2, who is the wife of the deceased, he submits that the wife of the deceased has deposed that they all were the residents of Bihar and they have no identity proof of the State of Delhi. It is thus contended that in the absence of any proof or other supporting evidence on record, the minimum wages for the State of Delhi could not have been granted.
4. Issue Notice limited to these grounds. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that service to Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 can be dispensed with since there is no breach of insurance policy. It is so directed.
5. On steps being taken, let Notice be issued to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 via all modes. An affidavit of service be filed within a week.
6. Subject to the deposit of entire decretal amount inclusive of up-to-date interest within a period of 6 weeks, the operation of the Impugned Award shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing. In the event, there is any default in depositing the amount, the interim protection granted by this Court shall automatically stand vacated.
6.1 Upon deposit by the Appellant, 65% of the deposited amount inclusive of up to date interest shall be released to the Respondents/Claimants in accordance with scheme, as is set out in the Impugned Award.
7. The Registry is directed to place on record the digital copy of the Trial Court Record duly paginated and book-marked in accordance with the rules of the High Court.
8. List before the concerned Registrar for completion of service on
24.11.2025.
9. The parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.
