MAC. APP. 81/2014

Page 1 of 12

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on : 09.09.2022

Pronounced on: 27.09.2022

+

MAC. APP. 81/2014

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate

versus

SMT. LEELAWATI & ORS

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. S. N. Parashar, Advocate

for R-1

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH

J U D G M E N T

GAURANG KANTH, J.

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant under

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award

dated 12.12.2013 (“impugned Award”) passed by the Court of

learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Dwarka Courts, Delhi in MACP No. 126/2012.

2.

By way of the impugned Award dated 12.12.2013 the learned

Claims Tribunal Awarded a compensation of Rs. 9,79,272/-

with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the

claim petition till realization of the amount and directed the

Insurance Company to deposit the entire awarded amount

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003960

MAC. APP. 81/2014

Page 2 of 12

before the learned Claims Tribunal within a period of one

month.

SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT

3.

Mr. Pankaj Seth, learned counsel for the Appellant contended

that learned Claims Tribunal erred in observing that the alleged

incident took place due to negligent driving of the offending

vehicle. He further contended that it is a settled law that when

two vehicles are involved in an accident then the act has to be

treated as contributory negligence. He further contended that in

terms of dicta of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National

Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Pranay Sethi & Ors reported as (2017)

16 SCC 680, compensation under the head „Future Prospects‟

is to be paid by adding 40% of the assessed income of the

deceased. Learned counsel fairly concedes that multiplier

should be adopted in terms of dicta laid down in case of Sarla

Verma & Ors. Vs DTC & Anr. reported as (2009) 6 SCC 121

which is upheld in the judgment of Pranay Sethi (Supra) case.

SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENT

4.

Mr. S. N. Parashar, Advocate learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondent/claimant while placing reliance on

Pranay Sethi (supra) contended that compensation under the

„Loss of Consortium‟, „Loss of Estate‟ and „Loss of Funeral

Expenses‟ needs to be modified/enhanced. Learned counsel

fairly concedes that in terms of judgment of Pranay Sethi

(Supra),compensation under the head „Love and Affection.‟

has to be deducted.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003960

MAC. APP. 81/2014

Page 3 of 12

REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS

5.

Mr. Pankaj Seth, learned counsel for the appellant in rebuttal

contended that the respondent/claimant is not entitled for any

enhancement in compensation as the respondent/claimant has

neither challenged the impugned order by way of an appeal nor

preferred any cross objection to the present appeal.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

6.

Brief facts of the case as noted by learned Claims Tribunal are

as under:-

“…on 21/4/2012 at about 1.00 PM, Sachin Kumar

dead‟ by the Doctors on duty…”

7.

Mr. Pankaj Seth, learned counsel for the appellant contended

that in an accident where two vehicles are involved, it has to be

declared an act of contributory negligence. In this context it is

necessary to ascertain the preliminary issue of negligence.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003960

MAC. APP. 81/2014

Page 4 of 12

8.

The learned Claims Tribunal while deciding the issue of

negligence has held as under:-

“7. The onus to prove the aforesaid issues was on the

speed of 40-30 Kmph whereas the offending

vehicle was running at the speed of 65-70 Kmph

and hit the motorcycle from behind. He had

noted down the number of the offending

vehicle. Furthermore, he had been cited being

the witness of the accident in the criminal case