MAC.APP. 983/2013 Page 1 of 18

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 19

th

January 2026

Pronounced on: 10

th

March 2026

Uploaded on : 11

th

March 2026

+ MAC.APP. 983/2013

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate

versus

SHASHI NATHANI DEOLI ( KAVITA) & ORS .....Respondents

Through: Mr. S.D. Singh, Mr. Kamla

Prasad, Mrs. Meenu Singh, Mr.

Siddharth Singh, Mr. Mana Saini,

Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J

1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company assailing the

impugned award dated 27

th

August 2013 passed by Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal [‘MACT’], Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter,

‘Tribunal’) in M.A.C. Petition No.85-A/2013 awarding Rs. 19,82,200/-

with interest at 7.5% from the date of filing of petition.

2. Appellant/Insurance Company has challenged the impugned

award on the calculation of loss of dependency, considering that

MAC.APP. 983/2013 Page 2 of 18

respondent no.1/wife of deceased should not be considered a dependent,

since she was working, therefore, the deduction towards personal

expenses should be 50%; future prospects should be awarded at 25% and

not 30% since the deceased was 44 years of age at the time of accident.

Further, appellant/Insurance Company has contended that the Tribunal

failed to conduct a proper inquiry into the factum of negligence since,

apart from relying upon the criminal court record, claimant could not

establish that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving

of the offending vehicle.

Incident

3. On 7

th

October 2003, Sh. Shiv Parshad Deoli (hereinafter,

‘deceased’) along with some of his colleagues was going to Sangrur

from Patiala in a Maruti Alto car bearing registration no.PB-13K-2449.

When the car crossed Pepsi Food, Chhanno, one Tata Tempo 407

bearing registration no. RJ-31-0069 (hereinafter ‘offending vehicle’),

driven rashly and negligently at a high speed, came from the opposite

side and hit the Maruti Alto car resulting in fatal injuries to the deceased

who died on the spot. He was said to be working with M/s Sangrur Agro

Ltd. as Manager and as Consultant with D.C.M. Delhi and earning

Rs.60,000/- per month, besides other perks and perquisites. The total

income was claimed at Rs.90,000/- per month.

MAC.APP. 983/2013 Page 3 of 18

Impugned Award

4. On the issue of negligence, the Tribunal had relied upon the

criminal case record Ex.PW1/1, attested copies of judgments passed by

the Criminal Court along with order on charge as Ex.PW1/3, copy of the

site plan Mark C and the decision of this Court in National Insurance

Company Ltd. v. Smt. Pushpa Rana & Ors. in 2007 SCC OnLine Del

1700. Tribunal concluded that, after taking into account the first

information report (‘FIR’), site plan, post mortem report and testimony

of PW-1/wife of deceased, it was established that the death of deceased

was caused due to injuries sustained by him in the road accident

involving the offending vehicle, driven by respondent no.5/Bhola Singh,

owned by respondent no.4/Parveen Kumar and insured by

appellant/Insurance Company, as there was nothing on record to dispel

the inference.

5. On account of compensation, reliance was placed on Ex.PW1/2,

which was a salary certificate issued by M/s Sangrur Agro Ltd., showing

that the deceased was appointed on 1

st

May 2002 at a salary of

Rs.10,000/- per month and perquisites towards rent free furnished

accommodation of Rs.2,000/-, conveyance of Rs.1,000/-, meals of

Rs.1,500/- were provided to him free of cost. Further, his salary was to be

increased to Rs.20,000/- from 1

st

August 2003.

6. PW-2/Sh. Ram Kumar Sharma, was employed as Personnel

Manager in Sangrur Industrial Corporation Ltd. and produced the wages

MAC.APP. 983/2013 Page 4 of 18

register which showed that deceased was getting Rs.10,000/- per month

as salary from April 2003 to October 2003. The salary of deceased was

taken as Rs.12,000/- (including Rs.2,000/- towards rent free

accommodation which was for the benefit of family, along with the

salary of Rs.10,000/-). To this, 30% was added towards future prospects

and a deduction of 1/3

rd

of the income of the deceased was taken towards

personal expenses, considering there were two dependents i.e. son and

daughter of deceased.

7. For the purposes of calculating the age, Tribunal relied upon

certificate issued by Gram Panchayat, Kanda, Uttarakhand, i.e. Ex.PW-

1/8, showing date of birth of deceased as 1

st

January 1959, therefore, the

age was calculated as 44 years at the time of accident and a multiplier of

14 was applied. Therefore, total compensation towards dependency was

awarded at Rs. 17,47,200/- Total compensation of Rs.19,82,200/- along

with interest at the rate of 7.5% was awarded including the following

elements:

S.no. Heads Amount

1. Love and Affection Rs. 1,00,000/-

2. Loss of Estate Rs. 10,000/-

3. Funeral Expenses Rs. 25,000/-

4. Loss of Consortium Rs. 1,00,000/-

MAC.APP. 983/2013 Page 5 of 18

Analysis

8. In order to assess whether the Tribunal was correct in relying upon

the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings to arrive at a finding

regarding negligence, the Court perused the testimony of PW-1/wife of

deceased. She reiterated the facts of the accident and that her husband

had received serious injuries on the head and died on the spot due to

negligence of the offending vehicle being driven in a rash and careless

manner.

9. Co-passengers, namely, Sh. Dilla Ram Verma and Sh. Sanjay

Kumar travelling along with her husband had also succumbed to their

injuries. She stated that a complaint was lodged by Sh. Mohinder Pal

Singh, who was an eye-witness and was travelling in a separate car, on

the basis of which, FIR No.197/2003 under sections 304A, 279 of Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) was registered on 17

th

October 2003. Post

mortem of deceased was conducted on 18

th

October 2003 and the report

was exhibited as Ex.PW1/4. The post mortem report stated that her

husband died due to injuries sustained by him in the accident. Further,

respondent no.5/driver of the offending vehicle had fled from the site.

10. The statement of Sh. Mohinder Pal Singh was exhibited as Ex.

PW1/6 and the site plan was exhibited as Ex.PW1/7.

MAC.APP. 983/2013 Page 6 of 18

11. The post mortem report notes opinion of the doctor that death was

caused due to a head injury, which was ante mortem in nature and

sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

12. FIR registered at PS Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur notes the

statement given by Sh. Mohinder Pal Singh, who was the Managing

Director of M/s Punjab Transformer & Electronics Ltd. He stated that,

on 17

th

October 2003, he along with Harjinder Singh (driver) in their

Accent car, were travelling from Patiala to Sangrur. Deceased and other

co-passengers were in a Maruti Alto car, which was going ahead of the

car of Sh. Mohinder Pal Singh.

13. At about 10:30 p.m. both cars had just gone beyond Pepsi Food

Chhanno towards Bhawanigarh pully culvert, when one Tata Tempo 407

coming from opposite side from Bhawanigarh with great speed and

driven carelessly by respondent no.5/driver came on the wrong side and

smashed into the Maruti Alto car.

14. He stated that the Maruti Alto car was hit before their eyes and

respondent no.5/driver of the offending truck had fled. He stated

categorically that the incident occurred due to the high speed and

negligent driving of the Tempo driver. ASI Birbal Singh recorded the

statement of Sh. Mohinder Pal Singh word by word. Site plan also

showed that the accident occurred approximately in the centre of the

road.

15. Considering the statement of Sh. Mohinder Pal Singh, who was an

eye-witness, though, he was not brought to record his testimony, the FIR

MAC.APP. 983/2013 Page 7 of 18

resulted in a chargesheet being filed and charges were framed.

Chargesheet was taken cognizance of by order dated 28

th

February 2004

and the accused was convicted for offence punishable under Section 304-

A of IPC by order of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 9

th

September 2008. A

perusal of the said order would show that all evidence has been taken

into account and Sh. Mohinder Pal Singh (PW-7) testified and was cross-

examined, moreover, the Court also considered photographs of the place

of accident.

16. In these circumstances, the Tribunal was not amiss in relying upon

the documentation to confirm that death was caused due to the

negligence of respondent no.5/driver of offending vehicle.

17. Reference may also be drawn from decision of the Supreme Court

in Ranjeet & Anr. v. Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr. 2025 SCC OnLine SC

497 and Meera Bai & Ors. v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.

Ltd. 2025 INSC 600, in this regard, aside from the Tribunal’s reliance on

Pushpa Rana (supra).

18. The Supreme Court in Ranjeet (supra) opined as under:

“4. It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been

filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further

evidence is required to prove that the bus was being

negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the

eyewitnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to

prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus

driver”

(emphasis added)

19. Relevant observations made by the Supreme Court in Meera Bai

(supra) are extracted as under:

MAC.APP. 983/2013 Page 8 of 18

“4. As far as examining the eyewitness, such a witness will

not be available in all cases. The FIR having been lodged

and the charge sheet filed against the owner driver of the

offending vehicle, we are of the opinion that there could be

no finding that negligence was not established.”

(emphasis added)

20. In any event, the assessment of the issue of negligence is based on

preponderance of probabilities and there was enough evidence on record

to conclude the same.

21. Appellant/Insurance Company did not produce respondent

no.5/driver of the offending vehicle in order to controvert the issue of

negligence and, therefore, nothing further was required for the Tribunal

to arrive at the conclusion.

22. An argument was raised by counsel for respondents/claimants that

since the accident occurred prior to decision of Supreme Court in

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the

same principles could not apply. In this regard, reference may be made to

a decision of Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company v.

Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand, (2025) INSC 15, where the Supreme Court

stated that the High Court could not be faulted in fixing amounts in

excess of the amounts fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra), since the judgment

was passed prior to the pronouncement of the judgment in Pranay Sethi

(supra) and stated as under:

“9... we are of the view that the Tribunal and the High

Court cannot be found at fault with fixing the amounts

in excess of the aforesaid amounts fixed by this Court

MAC.APP. 983/2013 Page 9 of 18

as the award and the judgment of the High Courts were

passed prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of

this Court in Pranay Sethi’s case. But at the same time,

it is to be noted that in the decision in M.A. Murthy v.

State of Karnataka and Ors, this Court held that when

in a decision this Court enunciates a principle of law, it

is applicable to all cases irrespective of the stage of

pendency thereof because it is to be assumed that what

is enunciated by this Court is, in fact, the law from

inception. We may hasten to add that we shall not be

understood to have held that pursuant to enunciation of

a principle of law, matters that attained finality shall be

reopened solely for the purpose of applying the law

thus laid. But at the same time, if the matter is pending,

then, irrespective of the stage, the principle cannot be

ignored.”

(emphasis added)

23. Further reliance may be placed upon MM Murthy v State of

Karnataka and Ors, (2003) 7 SCC 517, where the Supreme Court held

as under:

“8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

the approach of the High Court is erroneous as the law

declared by this Court is presumed to be the law at all

times. Normally, the decision of this Court enunciating

a principle of law is applicable to all cases irrespective

its stage of pendency because it is assumed that what is

enunciated by the Supreme Court is, in fact, the law

from inception. The doctrine of prospective over-ruling

which is a feature of American jurisprudence is an

exception to the normal principle of law, was imported

and applied for the first time in L.C. Golak Nath and

Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. (AIR 1967 SC

1643). In Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and

MAC.APP. 983/2013 Page 10 of 18

Ors. v. B. Karunakar and Ors. (1993 (4) SCC 727) the

view was adopted. Prospective over-ruling is a part of

the principles of constitutional canon of interpretation

and can be resorted to by this Court while superseding

law declared by it earlier. It is a device innovated to

avoid reopening of settled issues, to prevent multiplicity

of proceedings, and to avoid uncertainty and avoidable

litigation. In other words, actions taken contrary to the

law declared prior to the date of declaration are

validated in larger public interest. The law as declared

applies to future cases. It is for this Court to indicate as

to whether the decision in question will operate

prospectively. In other words, there shall be no

prospective over-ruling, unless it is so indicated in the

particular decision. It is not open to be held that the

decision in a particular case will be prospective in its

application by application of the doctrine of

prospective over-ruling. The doctrine of binding

precedent helps in promoting certainty and consistency

in judicial decisions and enables an organic

development of the law besides providing assurance to

the individual as to the consequences of transactions

forming part of the daily affairs. That being the

position, the High Court was in error by holding that

the judgment which operated on the date of selection

was operative and not the review judgment in Ashok

Kumar Sharma's case No. II. All the more so when the

subsequent judgment is by way of Review of the first

judgment in which case there are no judgments at all

and the subsequent judgment rendered on review

petitions is the one and only judgment rendered,

effectively and for all purposes, the earlier decision

having been erased by countenancing the review

applications. The impugned judgments of the High

Court are, therefore, set aside.”

(emphasis added)

MAC.APP. 983/2013 Page 11 of 18

24. In Kanishk Sinha & Anr v The State of West Bengal & Anr,

(2025) INSC 278, the Supreme Court has further reviewed the issue as

under:

“3. …Now the law of prospective and retrospective

operation is absolutely clear. Whereas a law made by

the legislature is always prospective in nature unless it

has been specifically stated in the statute itself about its

retrospective operation, the reverse is true for the law

which is laid down by a Constitutional Court, or law as

it is interpretated by the Court. The judgment of the

Court will always be retrospective in nature unless the

judgment itself specifically states that the judgment will

operate prospectively. The prospective operation of a

judgment is normally done to avoid any unnecessary

burden to persons or to avoid undue hardships to those

who had bona fidely done something with the

understanding of the law as it existed at the relevant

point of time. Further, it is done not to unsettle

something which has long been settled, as that would

cause injustice to many.”

(emphasis added)

25. Considering that the appeal is a continuation of the claim

proceedings, these principles enunciated by the Supreme Court would

squarely apply.

26. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra) standardized

certain principles of computation of compensation and focused on the

principle of standardization. Ergo, when a matter is pending in appeal

before this Court challenging various aspects of computation, this Court

MAC.APP. 983/2013 Page 12 of 18

cannot ignore standardized parameters laid down by the Supreme Court

and endorse ad hoc assessments made by the Tribunal previously.

27. The Court is aware that it had taken a view in United India

Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajneesh Singh & Ors. 2023:DHC:8701 that there

would be no deduction of future prospects from 50% to 40% because the

assessment of Tribunal preceded the decision of Pranay Sethi (supra).

Facts and circumstances of the case included an assessment that the

injured/claimant had a permanent job as a Chartered Accountant

Professional and the Insurance Company claimed a reduction in

compensation. Therefore, the decision does not lay down a general

principle of law, which can supersede the assessment done by the Courts

at this stage.

28. Counsel for respondents/claimants has also relied upon Jiju

Kuruvila & Ors. v. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 166

which was decided in 2013, prior to Pranay Sethi (supra) and, therefore,

would not come to assistance for pleading no reduction.

29. Further reliance was placed on paragraph 9 and 10 of Kirti & Anr.

v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (2021) 2 SCC 166 by counsel for

respondents/claimants to tackle the issue of subsequent changes and their

effect on assessment of compensation. However, this case deals with the

subsequent death of a dependent and would not support the argument

raised, as in those circumstances, the Court dealt with the issue of

subsequent death of a dependent during the pendency of legal

MAC.APP. 983/2013 Page 13 of 18

proceedings and held that it cannot be relied upon by the insurer to claim

subsequent benefit, which is not the case in the present facts and

circumstances.

30. Therefore, in light of the above discussion, as regards the other

compensation issues, the Court is inclined to align the same in

accordance with the principles of Pranay Sethi (supra).

31. Appellant/Insurance Company raised the issue that since the

deceased had two minor children and respondent no.1/wife was

employed as a Teacher and Vice-Principal with Happy Modern School,

Janakpuri and had been working there for the last ten years, respondent

no.1/wife was not a dependent and, therefore, deduction of personal

expenses should be 50% rather than 1/3

rd

. The Court is not inclined to

accept the same, considering there were at least two dependents. Even

though, respondent no.1/wife was earning, it is not correct that there

would not have been a contribution to the household income by the

deceased, to that extent. Relying upon the parameters which have been

set in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport

Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121, 1/3

rd

deduction of the income

has been rightly considered by the Tribunal.

32. Considering that deceased was 44 years of age, therefore, the

multiplier was correctly taken at ‘14’, as per Pranay Sethi (supra) and

Sarla Verma (supra)

33. Compensation awarded at Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of love and

affection stands deleted, as per United India Insurance Company

MAC.APP. 983/2013 Page 14 of 18

Limited vs. Satinder Kaur Alias Satwinder Kaur and Others (2021) 11

SCC 780, as this head has been subsumed under loss of consortium.

Relevant observations of the Supreme Court are extracted as under:

“34. At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide

uniformity with respect to the grant of consortium, and loss

of love and affection. Several Tribunals and the High Courts

have been awarding compensation for both loss of

consortium and loss of love and affection. The Constitution

Bench in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co.

Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC

(Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] , has recognised only

three conventional heads under which compensation can be

awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral

expenses. In Magma General [Magma General Insurance

Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 : (2019) 3 SCC

(Civ) 146 : (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 153], this Court gave a

comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include

spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial

consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in

loss of consortium.

35. The Tribunals and the High Courts are directed to

award compensation for loss of consortium, which is a

legitimate conventional head. There is no justification to

award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a

separate head.”

(emphasis added)

34. In respect of compensation awarded under conventional heads, the

Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) opined as under:

“52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we

find it difficult to agree with the view expressed

in Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013)

4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC

MAC.APP. 983/2013 Page 15 of 18

(L&S) 149]. It has granted Rs 25,000 towards funeral

expenses, Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs

1,00,000 towards loss of care and guidance for minor

children. The head relating to loss of care and minor

children does not exist. Though Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir

Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3

SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] refers to Santosh

Devi [Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6

SCC 421 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 726 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri)

160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 167] , it does not seem to follow

the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless

to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because

that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike

determination of income, the said heads have to be

quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable

foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price

index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a

field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious

to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect.

Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination

of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will

be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a

consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals

and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it

seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that

reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of

estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs

15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The principle

of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But

the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We

think that it would be condign that the amount that we have

quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every

three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of

10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so

because that will bring in consistency in respect of those

heads.”

MAC.APP. 983/2013 Page 16 of 18

(emphasis added)

35. Since there were three claimants, loss of consortium would be

Rs.1,20,000/- (40,000×3), as per Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma

General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130.

36. Funeral expenses will be granted at Rs.15,000/- and loss of estate

will be granted at Rs.15,000/- as per Pranay Sethi (supra).

37. Revised computation is therefore, as under:

S.

No.

Heads Awarded by the

Tribunal

Awarded by this

Court

1 Annual Income of deceased (A) Rs. 1,44,000/-

[12,000x12]

Rs. 1,44,000/-

[12,000x12]

2 Add: Future Prospects (B) Rs. 43,200/- Rs. 57,600/-

3 Less: Personal expenses of

deceased (C)

Rs. 62,400/- Rs. 67,200/-

4 Loss of dependency (A+B)-C=D Rs. 1,24,800/- Rs. 1,34,400/-

5 Multiplier (E) 14 14

6 Total loss of dependency (DxE

= F)

Rs. 17,47,200/- Rs. 18,81,600/-

7 Compensation for loss of

consortium (G) (40,000x3)

Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 1,20,000/-

8 Compensation for loss of love

and affection (H)

Rs. 1,00,000/- Nil

9 Compensation for loss of estate

(I)

Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 15,000/-

MAC.APP. 983/2013 Page 17 of 18

10 Compensation towards funeral

expenses (J)

Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 15,000/-

11 Total compensation

(F+G+H+I+J) = K

Rs. 19,82,200/- Rs. 20,31,600/-

12 Rate of Interest Awarded 7.5% 7.5%

Conclusion

38. Vide order dated 30

th

October 2013, this Court directed a stay on

the execution of impugned award, subject to the appellant/Insurance

Company depositing the entire awarded amount, along with up to date

interest accrued thereon with the Registrar General of this Court. Further,

80% amount was directed to be released to respondents/claimants and

rest of the amount was kept in fixed deposit receipts (FDR) with UCO

Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi initially for a period of six

months to be renewed periodically.

39. Enhanced amount of Rs. 49,400/- along with interest at 7.5% per

annum from the date of filing of petition be deposited by

appellant/Insurance Company within a period of 4 weeks before the

Registrar General and same shall be released to respondents/claimants

within a period of three weeks thereafter, subject to verification.

40. The appeal is, therefore, disposed of in the above terms.

41. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.

42. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to the appellant/Insurance

Company.

MAC.APP. 983/2013 Page 18 of 18

43. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.

(ANISH DAYAL)

JUDGE

MARCH 10, 2026/ak/sp