1. Appeal against Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award for death in road accident — Calculation of loss of dependency. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 20202
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anish Dayal, J
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Satyawati – Respondent
MAC.APP. 566/2026 | CM APPL. 57739-57740/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rakhi Anand
For the Respondents: S.N. Parashar, Ritik Singh
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rakhi Anand
For the Respondents: S.N. Parashar, Ritik Singh
Pensionary benefits and family pensions are statutory rights and cannot be deducted as pecuniary advantages when calculating compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Additionally, adult children are not presumed dependents of an elderly parent solely based on cohabitation.
Headnote:(A) Motor Accident Claims - Loss of Dependency - Pensionary Benefits - Pension received by the deceased and family pension received by dependents are statutory rights and not "pecuniary advantages" arising from the accident; therefore, family pension cannot be deducted from the compensation. (Para 13, 16, 18)
(B) Dependency - Major Sons - Mere residence with the deceased does not establish dependency, especially when the deceased is of advanced age (82 years) and sons are adults (57 and 39 years); deduction towards personal expenses should be increased to one-half if only the spouse is considered a dependent. (Para 20, 22, 24)
(C) Interest Rate - Determination of Rate - The rate of interest on compensation should be guided by the rates awarded by nationalized banks on fixed deposits. (Para 25, 26)
Issues: Whether family pension can be deducted from compensation, whether major sons can be considered dependents of an 82-year-old father, and whether the awarded interest rate of 9% was appropriate.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- tort
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Appellant argued pension should be deducted for double benefit; claimants argued pension cannot be deducted per settled law. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 )
3. Pensionary benefits cannot be deducted as they are earned by deceased and not related to accident; major sons not dependents. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 )
4. Pension cannot be deducted from income for calculating loss of dependency under Motor Vehicles Act. (Para 19 , 24 )
5. Appeal disposed of — compensation reduced for wrong dependency deduction and interest rate. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 )
6. Can pension amount be deducted from the income of the deceased while calculating compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act?
No, pension is a statutory benefit earned by the deceased and has no direct correlation with the accidental death, hence cannot be deducted. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
7. Are major sons who are not financially dependent on the deceased considered dependents for compensation?
No, major sons with their own income are not considered dependents, and deduction for personal expenses should be higher. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 )
8. What rate of interest should be awarded on compensation amounts by the Tribunal?
The rate of interest should be guided by prevailing nationalised bank fixed deposit rates, which in 2023 was around 7%. (Para 25 , 26 )
9. Is family pension received by the spouse after the death of the deceased deductible from compensation?
No, family pension is a separate benefit earned by the deceased and cannot be deducted as it is not a pecuniary advantage from the accident. (Para 13 , 14 , 17 )
JUDGMENT
ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)
1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company assailing impugned award dated 12th May 2026 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (‘MACT/Tribunal’), Rohini Courts in MACT No. 271/2023 awarding compensation of Rs.17,73,000/- along with 9% interest.
2. The accident occurred on 18th December 2021, when Munshi Ram Bhardwaj (hereinafter, ‘deceased’) was hit by a scooter bearing registration no. DL 12 SQ 6894 (hereinafter, ‘offending vehicle’) near Rani Khera Village which was being driven by respondent no. 4. As a result of the accident, deceased sustained injuries and was rushed to the hospital, however, he succumbed to his injuries on 21st December 2021.
3. Ms. Rakhi Anand, counsel for Insurance Company, has challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the MACT, to the extent of calculation of loss of dependency.
4. The deceased was 82 years of age on the date of accident; he was a retired government employee and was receiving pension of Rs.39,782/- per month. MACT had considered the pension of Rs. 39,782/- as the notional income, and deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses, considering the wife and two major sons to be dependents. Multiplier of 5 had been adopted.
5. Ms. Rakhi Anand, contends that annual loss of dependency, though, calculated on this basis does not take into account the family pension which was being received by the wife of deceased at Rs. 21,513/-.
6. In this regard, she has placed reliance upon the judgments of Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, in Charanjit Singh v. Harish Kumar Sachdeva , 2018 SCC OnLine P&H 7787, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Reshma Devi , 2018 SCC OnLine P&H 5606, and decision of Supreme Court in Vishvajit Singh & Ors. v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. SLP (C) No. 13442/2020 in support of her plea that pensionary benefit received by the wife of deceased has to be accounted for, if the income of deceased is being calculated on the basis of pension received by him post-retirement.
7. In the said decisions, Court had considered the difference between the pension that deceased had been receiving during his lifetime and the pension which was being received by his family after his death. To that differential amount, an additional amount towards minimum wages was added, taking into account the fact that the deceased was aged between 60-70 years of age and, therefore, still had the potential to earn a livelihood.
8. In addition, she relies upon paragraph 15 of the decision of Supreme Court in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashi Sharma , (2016) 9 SCC 627, which was delivered by a three-judge Bench and stated that no double benefit should be passed onto the claimant as a matter of compensation.
9. After analysing the previous decision of the Court in Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC , (1999) 1 SCC 90, the Court went on to state that, if ex gratia assistance was being received under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependants of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 , then, the same ought to be deducted while calculating loss of dependency.
10. To the contrary, Mr. S.N. Parashar, counsel for claimants/respondents, relies upon the decision of Supreme Court in Kirosata Devi v. Ram Ji Lal , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3471, wherein, the Court stated that the pension amount cannot be deducted and, in fact, has to be added to any other income that the deceased was earning at the time of the accident.
11. Mr. S.N. Parashar, relies upon the decision of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v Rajesh Panwar & Ors, 2026:DHC:2475, where the aspect of deduction of pension has been considered in some detail.
12. Mr. Parashar, points out that in Rajesh Panwar (supra), the deceased was 59 years of age, a pensioner and was receiving pension of Rs. 16,000/- per month. An objection was raised by the Insurance Company that this was duplicated with the family pension which the family was receiving post the death
