Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Ms Neelam And Ors on 24 July, 2025
$~35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 24.07.2025
+ MAC.APP. 328/2024, CM APPL. 37791/2024, CM APPL.
70761/2024
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha, Advocate
versus
MS NEELAM AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate for R-1
&2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral)
MAC.APP. 328/2024:
1. The Registry is directed to register the cross objections as a separate
Appeal.
2. The present Appeal has been filed on behalf of the Appellant under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 impugning the judgment dated
10.04.2024 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Award”] passed by the
learned Presiding Officer, MACT, East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. By the
Impugned Order, compensation in the sum of Rs. 19,71,000/- has been
awarded to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/Claimants along with interest at the
rate of 7.5% per annum.
3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that he
has only one ground of challenge in the present Appeal. He submits that theSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 328/2024 Page 1 of 10
By:GEETA JOSHI
Signing Date:14.08.2025
10:23:01
deceased was unmarried and survived by her mother and one minor younger
brother and thus, the deduction of personal and living expenses should have
been one half, however, the learned Tribunal has wrongly taken the
deduction as one-third.
3.1 Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant further submits
that the learned Tribunal although discussed the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr.,1 the deduction
was wrongly applied the same since the family of the deceased was not a
large family.
4. Briefly, the facts in the present Appeal are that the deceased was
travelling in car which met with an accident and the deceased succumbed to
her injuries. A Claim Petition was filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who
are the mother and the younger brother of the deceased before the Tribunal
as stated above. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of compensation of Rs.
19,71,000/- to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 along with interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum and had directed that the Insurance Company to make
payment of the compensation awarded. The calculation of the compensation
that was taken by the learned Tribunal is set out below:
S.No Head Amount awarded
1. Monthly income of deceased (A) Rs.9118/-
2. Add future prospect (B) @ 40% of 9118 =
3647.2/-
3. Less 1/3 towards personal and living Rs. 4255.06/- = 1/3rd
expenses of the deceased (C) of 18,765.2(9118 +
3647.2)1
(2013) 9 SCC 65Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 328/2024 Page 2 of 10
By:GEETA JOSHI
Signing Date:14.08.2025
10:23:01
4. Monthly loss of dependency (A+B)- |Rs.8510.14/-
C=D
5. [Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs. 1,02,121.68/-
6. Multiplier (E) 18
7. Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE=F) Rs.18,38,190.24
8. Medical expenses (G) Nil
9. Compensation for loss of consortium Rs.96,000 /-
(I) (48,000×2)
10 Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs. 18,000/-
11. Compensation for funeral expenses Rs.18,000/-
(K)
12. Total compensation Rs.
19,70,190.24/
rounded off to
Rs.19,71,000/-
4.1 Paragraph 23 of the Impugned Award shows that one third personal
and living expenses were deducted in the following manner:
“23. Since mother and one younger brother of the deceased are the
claimants, which means that the number of dependents were two. The
father of the deceased namely Pramod Singh Chauhan is stated to have
predeceased her. Therefore, 1/3rd of the income of the deceased has to
be deducted towards her personal and living expenses.”
[Emphasis supplied]
5. It is not disputed between the parties that the deceased was survived
only by her widowed mother and younger brother and she was unmarried.
The learned Tribunal has after setting out the judgment in the Reshma
Kumari case has set out the number of Claimants were two but however, has
deducted one third expenses on an interpretation that there were large
number “of younger non earning sisters and brothers”. The relevant extract
of the Impugned Award is below:
“22. After choosing the age, multiplier and income of the deceased,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 328/2024 Page 3 of 10
By:GEETA JOSHI
Signing Date:14.08.2025
10:23:01
necessary deductions have to be made out of the income of the
deceased towards her personal expenses. Hon’ble Supreme Court
in case titled as Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr.,
(2013) 9 SCC 65, in para 30, laid down the necessary deductions
towards personal living and expenses of deceased as under:
Deductions out of earning of the Number of
deceased dependents
Married Persons
Where dependent is 1 Half
Where the number of dependent 1/3rd
family members is 2 to 3
Where the number of dependent 1/4th
family members is 4 to 6
Where the number of dependent 1/5th
family members exceeds 6 (six)
Deductions out of earning of Number of
the deceased dependents
Bachelor
In case family is not large Half
In case dependents are the 1/3rd
widowed mother and large
number of younger non-
earning sisters and brothers
23. Since mother and one younger brother of deceased are the
claimants, which means that the number of dependents were two.
The father of the deceased namely Pramod Singh Chauhan is
stated to have predeceased her. Therefore, 1/3rd of the income of
deceased has to be deducted towards her personal and living
expenses.”
[Emphasis supplied]
6. The Supreme Court in the judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 328/2024 Page 4 of 10
By:GEETA JOSHI
Signing Date:14.08.2025
10:23:01
v. Pranay Sethi2 which extracts Sarla Verma & Ors. v. DTC & Anr3 has
held that the deductions of a bachelor/unmarried person are done on a
different principal where a family of a bachelor is large and dependent on
his or her income with large number of non-earning sisters or brothers, the
personal and living expenses may be restricted to one third and with the
family being taken as two third. The Court has further held that the
percentage of deduction may vary with reference to the number of
dependent members in the family and the personal living expenses of the
deceased need not exactly correspond to the number of dependants. The
relevant extract of Pranay Sethi case is below:
37. Before we proceed to analyse the principle for addition of future
prospects, we think it seemly to clear the maze which is vividly reflectible
from Sarla Verma, Reshma Kumari, Rajesh and Munna Lal Jain. Three
aspects need to be clarified. The first one pertains to deduction towards
personal and living expenses. In paragraphs 30, 31 and 32, Sarla Verma
lays down:-
“30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards
personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units
indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply
standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent
decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased
was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of
the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of
dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the
number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth {1/5th)
where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.
31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the
parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to
bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living
expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend
more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his
getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the2
(2017) 16 SCC 680
3
(2009) 6 SCC 121Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 328/2024 Page 5 of 10
By:GEETA JOSHI
Signing Date:14.08.2025
10:23:01
parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to
evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income
and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will
be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the
contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependant,
because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or
be dependant on the father.
32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only
the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be
treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50%
as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the
bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in
a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger
non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses
may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be
taken as two-third.
38. In Reshma Kumari, the three-Judge Bench agreed with the multiplier
determined in Sarla Verma and eventually held that the advantage of the
Table prepared in Sarla Verma is that uniformity and consistency in
selection of multiplier can be achieved. It has observed:-
“35. … The assessment of extent of dependency depends on
examination of the unique situation of the individual case. Valuing the
dependency or the multiplicand is to some extent an arithmetical
exercise. The multiplicand is normally based on the net annual value
of the dependency on the date of the deceased’s death. Once the net
annual loss (multiplicand) is assessed, taking into account the age of
the deceased, such amount is to be multiplied by a “multiplier” to
arrive at the loss of dependency.”
39. In Reshma Kumari, the three-Judge Bench, reproduced paragraphs 30,
31 and 32 of Sarla Verma and approved the same by stating thus:-
“41. The above does provide guidance for the appropriate deduction
for personal and living expenses. One must bear in mind that the
proportion of a man’s net earnings that he saves or spends exclusively
for the maintenance of others does not form part of his living expenses
but what he spends exclusively on himself does. The percentage of
deduction on account of personal and living expenses may vary with
reference to the number of dependent members in the family and the
personal living expenses of the deceased need not exactly
correspond to the number of dependants.
42. In our view, the standards fixed by this Court in Sarla Verma on
the aspect of deduction for personal living expenses in paras 30, 31Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 328/2024 Page 6 of 10
By:GEETA JOSHI
Signing Date:14.08.2025
10:23:01
and 32 must ordinarily be followed unless a case for departure in the
circumstances noted in the preceding paragraph is made out.”
[Emphasis supplied]
6.1 The Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi case has summed up the
calculation in the Reshma Kumar case as below:
“40. The conclusions that have been summed up in Reshma Kumari are as
follows:-
“43.1. In the applications for compensation made under Section 166
of the 1988 Act in death cases where the age of the deceased is 15
years and above, the Claims Tribunals shall select the multiplier as
indicated in Column (4) of the Table prepared in Sarla Verma read
with para 42 of that judgment.
43.2. In cases where the age of the deceased is up to 15 years,
irrespective of Section 166 or Section 163-A under which the claim for
compensation has been made, multiplier of 15 and the assessment as
indicated in the Second Schedule subject to correction as pointed out
in Column (6) of the Table in Sarla Verma should be followed.
43.3. As a result of the above, while considering the claim
applications made under Section 166 in death cases where the age of
the deceased is above 15 years, there is no necessity for the Claims
Tribunals to seek guidance or for placing reliance on the Second
Schedule in the 1988 Act.
43.4. The Claims Tribunals shall follow the steps and guidelines
stated in para 19 of Sarla Verma for determination of compensation in
cases of death.
43.5. While making addition to income for future prospects, the
Tribunals shall follow para 24 of the judgment in Sarla Verma.
43.6. Insofar as deduction for personal and living expenses is
concerned, it is directed that the Tribunals shall ordinarily follow
the standards prescribed in paras 30, 31 and 32 of the judgment in
Sarla Verma subject to the observations made by us in para 41
above.”
[Emphasis supplied]
7. Given the fact that the number of dependants is only two with only
one as sibling, by no stretch of imagination can the family of the deceased
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 328/2024 Page 7 of 10
By:GEETA JOSHI
Signing Date:14.08.2025
10:23:01
be considered as having large number of dependents.
8. In terms of the judgment cited above, only one half or 50% would be
liable to be deducted as the personal and living expenses of the deceased.
9. Accordingly, the award granted in MAC.APP 328/2024 is modified to
the extent that the deduction in the present case would be one half or 50%
for personal and living expenses.
MAC.APP. ___________[to be numbered CM APPL. 70761/2024]
10. The challenge by the Respondents/Claimants in their Appeal is on one
ground as well.
11. It is the case of the Respondents/Claimants/Cross Objectors that the
deceased was 23 year old as on the date of the accident and had passed a
Stenography and Secretarial Course in English from Government of NCT of
Delhi and also had done computer training and was qualified as a BSc from
Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur.
11.1 Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents/Cross
Objectors further submits that the deceased was living in Delhi on rent and
doing a private job and earning a salary of Rs. 25,000/- per month. He
submits that, however, the learned Trial Court has wrongly taken the
minimum wages of a skilled worker applicable in the state of Uttar Pradesh
as the amount awarded.
11.2 Learned Counsel seeks to rely upon the Ex.PW1/3 (colly) which are
all education certificates and the certificates of professional training that had
been obtained by the deceased. Learned Counsel submits that given the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 328/2024 Page 8 of 10
By:GEETA JOSHI
Signing Date:14.08.2025
10:23:01
uncontroverted evidence that was placed on record, the finding for awarding
minimum wages of a skilled worker and that to of Uttar Pradesh cannot be
sustained.
12. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, on the other
hand, submits that since no salary slip was filed, the learned Trial Court
awarded the minimum wages of a skilled worker in Uttar Pradesh.
13. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents/Cross
Objectors requests that he may be given an opportunity before the learned
Trial Court, to place on record the documents in support of the fact that the
deceased was living and working in Delhi.
14. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that he
has no objection to the same provided the Appellant be also permitted to
lead evidence, if available, in that behalf.
15. Accordingly, list before the Trial Court for further proceedings on
25.08.2025.
16. The Appeal and the Cross Objections are disposed of in the
aforegoing terms.
17. Both parties will place on record any documents that they deem fit or
before the date fixed before the Trial Court. It is made clear that no further
opportunity will be granted to the parties in view of the fact that the accident
took place in the year 2017.
18. The amounts deposited before this Court shall be subject to the
outcome of the Impugned Award which is passed by the learned Trial Court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 328/2024 Page 9 of 10
By:GEETA JOSHI
Signing Date:14.08.2025
10:23:01
in pursuance of the judgment passed herein.
19. The parties shall act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J
JULY 24, 2025
g.joshi/ha
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed MAC.APP. 328/2024 Page 10 of 10
By:GEETA JOSHI
Signing Date:14.08.2025
10:23:01