$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 19^thFebruary 2026 + MAC.APP. 624/2015 NEERU DEVI & ORS .....Appellants Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta & Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advs.

versus NARENDER YADAV & ORS (NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD) .....Respondents Through: Ms. Archana Gaur, Adv. for Insurance Co.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)

1. This appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of the impugned award dated 9^th April 2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karkadooma Courts, East District, Delhi [“Tribunal”] in MACP No. 249/2012, whereby compensation of Rs.14,18,100/- was awarded along with the interest of 9% per annum to the representative of the deceased, Ms. Payal Srivastava [appellant nos. 1 to 3 herein]

Incident

2. Accident occurred on 19^th September 2012, at about 10 p.m. near red light signal of Ashok Niketan, Anand Vihar, when Ms. Payal Srivastava and Mr. Dushyant Kumar [deceased] were travelling on a scooter. An HGV container, make Ashok Leyland, bearing registration no. HR- 38J-6095 [offending vehicle] driven by respondent no.1 [driver] at a high speed in a zigzag manner, hit the scooter. Both sustained injuries and were taken to Dr. Hedgewar Hospital, where they were declared “brought dead”. FIR No. 259/2012 was registered under Sections 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code 1806, at Police Station Anand Vihar. A claim petition was filed, and the Tribunal found that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 of vehicle which was owned by respondent no.2 and insured by respondent no. 3.

Impugned Award

3. The Tribunal, while adjudicating the claim petitions, returned a finding of negligence against respondent no.1/driver of the offending vehicle on the basis of the eye-witness testimony, criminal case record including FIR and chargesheet, site plan, and mechanical inspection report. 4. The Tribunal held that these materials sufficiently established rash and negligent driving on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Consequently, the respondent no.1/driver, respondent no.2/owner and respondent no.3/insurer of the offending vehicle were held jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award.

5. For the purpose of computing compensation in the claim concerning the deceased Ms. Payal Srivastava, the Tribunal relied upon documentary evidence proved through the employer’s witness, including the appointment letter, salary record and attendance register, to assess her income. The Tribunal considered the gross salary but, after deductions, treated the monthly income as Rs. 16,450/-. Since the deceased was unmarried, 50% of the income was deducted towards personal and living expenses. The multiplier was applied with reference to the age of the mother, treating her as the dependent, and no addition towards future prospects was granted, following the precedents considered applicable at the time.

Compensation Granted

6. On the basis of above assessment, the Tribunal computed loss of dependency and awarded compensation under conventional heads. A total sum of Rs. 14,18,100/- was awarded, comprising Rs. 12,83,100/- towards loss of dependency, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate, together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is summarised as under:

Analysis

7. Mr. Pankaj Gutpa, counsel for appellants, seeks enhancement on the following grounds:

i) Firstly, the benchmark income/salary of the deceased was not considered correctly, inasmuch as while the salary slip showed that she working as a “Customer Relationship Manager” with M/s Shiv Auto Cars Pvt. Ltd. and was earning Rs 18,500/- per month, the Tribunal deducted the allowances and took the salary as Rs.16,450/- per month. The discussion in this regard is contained in paragraph 23 of the impugned order, wh