Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 10497
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, J
Subhash Chander Sachdeva – Appellant
Versus
Bochu Venkateshwar Rao – Respondent
MACT No. 4245/2016 | MAC Appeal No. 515/2017 | MAC Appeal No. 524/2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Not specified
For the Respondents: Not specified
Amounts received under insurance policies by claimants cannot be deducted from compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act, as they arise from contractual obligations independent of the accident.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166 and 140 - Appeal challenging compensation awarded - Claimants sought compensation for death due to rash driving - Insurance company contended for deduction from the awarded sum based on other amounts received - Court upheld principle that amounts received under contract with employer cannot be deducted from compensation under MVA. (Paras 3, 5, 28, 34)
(B) Determining Future Prospects - Court affirmed that future prospects of income should be calculated as 50% due to permanent employment and age below 40 - Multiplier determined as 18 based on the deceased's age. (Paras 3, 40, 41)
Facts of the case:
Claimants sought compensation for the death of the deceased in a motor accident caused by an offending vehicle driven rashly. Compensation was initially awarded but contested by the insurance company on various grounds, including received benefits from the employer.
Findings of Court:
Court ruled that amounts received from the employer, including insurance settlements, should not be deducted when calculating compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Calculated future prospects and applied a proper multiplier based on deceased's age.
Issues: Deduction of amounts received from the employer; proper calculation of future prospects; correct multiplier application.
Ratio Decidendi: Court emphasized that compensation must reflect just losses due to the accident, reinforcing principles from previous judgments regarding deductible amounts related closely to the accident.
Result: The appeal of claimants allowed; insurance company's appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts surrounding the accident and its consequences. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding deductions from compensation. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. future prospects considerations in compensation. (Para 8 , 9 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. principles for deducting insurance benefits. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. clarifying the non-deductible nature of insurance settlements. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 33) |
| 6. determining the accurate multiplier for compensation. (Para 36 , 37 , 41 , 42) |
| 7. final conclusions on compensation adjustments. (Para 53 , 54 , 56) |
1. These appeals have been filed challenging the award dated 28.2.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned award') passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, South - East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in MACT No. 4245/2016 titled as Subhash Chander Sachdeva v. Bochu Venkateshwar Rao.
2. To avoid confusion, in the subsequent part of the judgment, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. shall be referred to as the 'insurance company', while the claimants before the learned Tribunal, who are the appellants in MAC Appeal No. 515/2017, shall be referred to as the claimants.
3. The above - mentioned claim petition was filed by the claimants under S.166 and S.140 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 (in short 'the Act') claiming that on 9.8.2013, at about 4.30 a.m., the deceased - Abhimanyu Sachdeva was driving his Verna car and was travelling from RGI Airport, Cyberabad, to Gachi Bowli along with Ujwal Verma and Gautham Reddy C. When the car reached at outer ring road, near Chennamma Hotel, a cement tanker bearing registration No. AP - 16TY - 7598 (hereinafter referred to as the 'offending vehicle'), which was being driven by Bochu Venkateshwar (respondent No. 1 in MAC Appeal No. 515/2017), in a rash and negligent manner, hit the car of the deceased. As a result thereof, the deceased suffered serious injuries and was immediately shifted to Trident Hospital, where he was examined by the doctors, but the deceased's condition kept deteriorating and around 8 a.m. on the same day, he succumbed to his injuries and was declared dead by the doctors.
4. The learned Tribunal, based on the evidence led before it, has concluded that the accident had taken place due to the offending vehicle being driven in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in the deceased suffering fatal injuries. The learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of the following amounts in favour of the claimants:
5. Challenge of the insurance company:
As far as the insurance company is concerned, it challenges the impugned award by contending that the claimants have received a total sum of Rs.40,89,188 from the employer of the deceased, namely, Infosys Limited, on account of 'Death Benefits Settlement' and the learned Tribunal has erred in not deducting the same from the compensation payable under the impugned award.
6. The learned counsel for the insurance company, placing reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Trans. Corpn. /i>., 1999 ACJ 10 (SC); United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan , 2002 ACJ 1441 (SC); and Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Shashi Sharma , 2016 ACJ 2723 (SC), submits that the amount received by the claimants on account of 'Death Benefits Settlement' from the employer of the deceased should be deducted from the compensation payable to the claimants for the death of the deceased in the motor vehicle accident.
7. Without prejudice to the above, he submits that out of the above amount, an amount of Rs.15,00,000 has been received by the claimants from the employer of the deceased on account of 'Accident Death Insurance Claim Settlement'. He submits that since this amount is directly related to the death of the deceased which occurred in a motor vehicle accident, therefore, the same is liable to be deducted from the compensation awarded to the claimants. He submits that the cl
