$~3 & 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 11^th March 2026 (3)

+ MAC.APP. 982/2013 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Ms. Shruti Jain, Advocates.

versus FUL KUWAR DEVI & ORS ....Respondents Through: Mr. Manish Maini, Ms. Anjali Singh, Advocates for Respondent Nos.1-5.

(4)

+ MAC.APP. 336/2014 FUL KUWAR DEVI & ORS .....Appellant Through: Mr. Manish Maini, Ms. Anjali Singh, Advocates.

versus ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD ....Respondent Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Ms. Shruti Jain, Advocates. CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)

1. These cross-appeals have been filed in respect of impugned award dated 31^st August 2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [‘MACT’], Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter, ‘Tribunal’) in MACT No. 83/2011 whereby compensation of Rs. 5,80,392/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum was granted. While the Insurance Company has filed MAC.APP. 982/2013 seeking modification in impugned award, the claimants have filed MAC.APP.336/2014 for enhancement of impugned award.

2. On 19^th October 2010 at about 08:05 P.M., Pappu Pal (hereinafter, ‘deceased’) was travelling in Tata truck bearing registration no. DL-1M- 3464, when he reached near Ghazipur Toll Tax at NH-24, the driver of the offending Canter bearing registration no.DL-1LG-6919 driven in a rash and negligent manner hit the Tata truck, as a result of which the deceased sustained injuries. He was taken to LBS Hospital where he was declared as brought dead. Claim petition was filed on behalf of claimants i.e. parents, two brothers and sister of the deceased. Deceased was 20 years of age on the date of accident and was working as a helper/conductor on the Tata truck.

3. The Tribunal had calculated the benchmark income on the basis of minimum wages of an unskilled worker prevalent at that time, considering that no evidence was placed on record as regards to the vocation of deceased. Mr. Manish Maini, counsel for claimants has argued that it should be taken as that of a skilled worker, considering that the deceased was doing a private job of a conductor and helper in the same truck. However, this Court is not inclined to accept this argument since the deceased was working only as a helper in the truck and the appellation of a ‘skilled worker’ may not apply to him.

4. Future prospects have been granted at 30%. However, the same ought to be granted at 40% in view of the principles enunciated in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680. Relevant observation of the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) is extracted as under:

“59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.”

(emphasis added)

5. Multiplier of ‘13’ was applied in view of the age of mother of deceased (46 years), however, it should be taken as ‘18’ in terms of the principles of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121, considering that the deceased was 20 years old at the time of accident.

6. Personal and living expenses have been deducted at 50%, since he was a bachelor. In this respect, Mr. Manish Maini states that it was a family of meagre income and he was survived by his parents, two younger brothers and one younger sister, therefore, the deduction ought to be 1/3^rd. For this, he has relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 in particular, paragraph no. 16, which is extracted as under:

“16. With respect to the issue of deduction from the income of the deceased, the Insurance Company contended th