$~3 & 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 01^st April 2026 (3)

+ MAC.APP. 1130/2014 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Nikhil Jain, Adv.

versus BELI @ BAILA & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv.

(4)

+ MAC.APP. 790/2016 BELI @ BAILA & ORS .....Appellants Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv.

versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Nikhil Jain, Adv. for R-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)

1. These appeals have been filed on the issue of quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal [‘MACT’] Tis Hazari Courts in claim no. 907/2012 dated 10^th October 2014 for an amount of Rs.21,38,824/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

2. The accident occurred on 22^nd November 2012 at about 9:20 p.m.

when late Sh. Faujdar (hereinafter, ‘deceased’) aged about 40 years of age was travelling on a bicycle along with Bahadur Lal from Loni to Panchsheel Colony. When they reached Loni Road, a truck bearing registration no. UP- 13T-1900 being driven rashly and negligently by the driver hit the bicycle of deceased, due to which the deceased fell down and sustained fatal injuries.

FIR no. 895/2012 was filed at P.S. Sahibabad, 3. Mr. Nikhil Jain, counsel appears on behalf of Insurance Company and seeks reduction of the amount of compensation awarded; whereas, Mr. Anshuman Bal, counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant, in the cross-

appeal seeks enhancement.

4. Mr. Jain, counsel for Insurance Company has raised twin issues on the aspect of multiplier taken for computation of compensation and future prospects awarded by the MACT. He states that as per the ration card, the age of deceased was 36 as on 15^th December 2006, therefore, he would have been 42 years old when the accident took place. Therefore, a multiplier of 14 should have been taken.

5. Relying upon the driving licence of deceased, the MACT considered the age of deceased as 40 years and 7 months.

6. The Court has perused the driving license, exhibited as Ex.PW1/2 which shows the date of birth of deceased as 17^th April 1972, whereas the accident occurred on 27^th November 2012. Accordingly, the deceased would have been 40 years and 7 months as on the date of accident.

7. In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121, a multiplier of 15 has been correctly applied by the MACT.

8. As regards future prospects, Mr. Jain, counsel for Insurance Company, states that there was no evidence that the deceased was working in a permanent job, therefore, 25% towards future prospects should have been granted for a self-employed person or working on a fixed salary. The issue of future prospects awarded to individuals working at a fixed salary or self-employed has been standardized by the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) and the relevant observations of the Court are 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)

9. On the other hand, Mr. Bal, counsel for claimants, has raised an issue that the deceased was working as a driver and earning Rs. 12,000/- per month, however, the MACT has assessed his wages at minimum wages for a skilled person at Rs.8,814/-, there being no proof filed to support his claim of vocation as a driver.

10. Mr. Bal, counsel for claimants, has drawn the attention of this Court to Ex. PW-1/A, statement of wife of the deceased, PW-1, to support his contention.

11. He has placed reliance upon the decision in Minu