AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)
These appeals have been filed seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi (‘MACT/Tribunal’) vide award dated 27th October 2014.
The Incident
The accident occurred on 25th February 2013, when the claimant/Mr. V. N. Bansal (appellant herein) along with his wife, Smt. Dropti Bansal and two daughters-in-law, Smt. Meena Bansal and Smt. Poonam Bansal were going to Dade Dev Temple and had boarded a Delhi Transport Corporation (‘DTC’) bus. When they reached Sector 1, JJ Colony, Dwarka bus stand, all the family members got down from the bus and started moving close to the footpath for crossing the road through the zebra crossing. Suddenly, a Santro car bearing registration no. DL-4CR-3749 (hereinafter, ‘offending vehicle’) driven by respondent no.1/Sonia Arora crashed into them, injuring Mr. V N Bansal and Smt. Poonam Bansal, while, Smt. Dropti Bansal and Smt. Meena Bansal succumbed to their injuries subsequently.
Impugned award
A common award was passed on 27th October 2014. Aside from seeking enhancement of compensation, counsel for claimant, has agitated the issue regarding fastening 10% contributory negligence on the claimant/ Smt. Meena Bansal, as also the other injured/Smt. Poonam Bansal and deceased/Smt. Dropti Bansal and Mr. VN Bansal.
The issue of contributory negligence has already been dealt with in a connected appeal being V N Bansal v. Sonia Arora & Anr (National Insurance Company) 2026:DHC:4283, relating to the injury of Mr. V N Bansal. The 10% contributory negligence would, therefore, have to be deleted. The finding in VN Bansal (supra) as regards contributory negligence is extracted as under:
“ 6. The Court has also examined the site plan and notes that all four family members were just next to the footpath on what appears to be a 30-foot-wide road. On a perusal of the photographs which form a part of the Detailed Accident Report (‘DAR’) and have been appended, as also basis the site plan, it can be seen that road was 30-foot-wide, giving ample opportunity for any passerby to avoid any pedestrian who may possibly be walking adjacent to the footpath. The question of contributory negligence, therefore, cannot arise since it was not, as if the claimants were standing away from the footpath or were indulging in jaywalking. In fact, they had alighted from a DTC bus at the bus stop and were walking towards a point where they could cross the road through a zebra-crossing, hence, showing that they were careful in complying with the traffic rules.
7.Blood spots in the photographs clearly shows that the accident had happened just adjacent to the footpath. The site of the accident is not such, where it would be providing any motorable way for any vehicle, particularly, considering it was a 30-foot-wide road and there was ample space to pass by.
8.Considering these aspects and no evidence having been led, the MACT’s assessment is purely a speculation and cannot be sustained, therefore, the aspect of 10% contributory negligence is set aside in appeals arising out of the impugned award.”
(emphasis supplied)
Analysis
MAC.APP. 230/2015 & CM APPL. 4023/2015
The other residual issues in this appeal relate to the assessment of the notional/benchmark income at Rs.15,000/- per month for late Smt. Meena Bansal, who was a B. Com./B. Ed. graduate and was a teacher by profession. Mr. Shantanu Aggarwal, counsel for appellants, points out that she was working with Trustworthy Career Shapers which was a sole proprietorship of Rajesh Kumar/ PW-2. The certificate dated 9th April 2013 stated that Smt. Meena Bansal used to earn Rs.18,500/- per month and was working in the Institute till the date of the accident.
The MACT having considered that the aforesaid certificate was issued after the incident on 25th February 2013, took into account the appointment letter dated 4th April 2012, according to which, an amount of Rs.15,500/- was being paid including basic salary, dearness allowance and conveyance allowance. After reducing the conveyance allowance, benchmark income was taken at Rs.15,000/- per month.
Mr. Aggarwal contends that the testimony of PW-2, in this regard, would have to be considered, where he sustained the issue of payment of Rs.18,500/- per month in the cross-examination and provided all the details of his business which would show that he was not prevaricating from his testimony. PW-2 testified that the deceased was managing and teaching the tutorial from 02.30 pm till 07.00 pm and gives the details of how the tutorial premises were structured and the income that he has been generating.
The other issue which Mr. Aggarwal contends is basis the testimony of PW1, the husband of the deceased Mr. Sanjay Bansal, who contended that Smt. Meena Bansal was giving tuition additionally to seven children and earning Rs.11,500/- per month. The details of the children, who were being given tuition, were provided in his affidavit as under:
Sl. No. | Student Name | Address | Class | Amount |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | PREET SHARMA | RZ-200, Raghu Nagar, New Delhi | IX | Rs. 2,000/- |
| 2. | YASH KUMAR | RZ-214, Raghu Nagar, New Delhi | X | Rs. 2,000/- |
| 3. | KEERATH PREET SINGH | RZ-26B, Raghu Nagar, New Delhi | VIII | Rs. 1,500/- |
| 4. | NITYA GOEL | RZ-18B, Raghu Nagar, New Delhi | VII | Rs. 1,500/- |
| 5. | DISHA SHARMA | RZ-214, Raghu Nagar, New Delhi | VI | Rs. 1,500/- |
| 6. | MANPREET KAUR | RZ-231B, Raghu Nagar, New Delhi | VI | Rs. 1,500/- |
| 7. | JHALAK MEHTA | RZ-216B, Raghu Nagar, New Delhi | V | Rs. 1,500/- |
| Total | Rs.11,500/- | |||
The said issue of providing tuition services was further endorsed by the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-4, parents, in respect of Yash Kumar, Disha Sharma and Preet Sharma. On this basis, considering that the testimonies were sustained in the cross-examination, the Court now has to do some guesswork in terms of the income that the late Smt. Meena Bansal was actually earning. It may be useful to take into account principles of estimating income which this court has already considered in Savita & Ors. v National Insurance Company Ltd., 2026:DHC:3626. Relevant paragraphs are extracted as under:
“30.Principles which may be culled out from these cases cited above, and be used as guidepost for assessment of benchmark income, can be summarised as under:
A. Lack of documentary proof
(i)In the informal sector, it may not always be possible to produce documentary proof of employment and payment of wages, which are usually paid in cash.
(ii)Where there is lack of documentary proof to support that the victim was working in Delhi, reliance may be placed on facts and circumstances of the case to determine whether, the victim was residing in Delhi on the date of accident, in conjunction with documents such as driver’s license, voter ID card, etc. Minimum wages of place of work will be then considered.
(iii)If documentary proof has not been filed, the Court can use the minimum wage benchmark of an appropriate category i.e., unskilled, skilled, matriculate, etc., as a benchmark for assessment, but not be constrained to grant the lowest tier.
B. Oral testimony of family members, employers
(i)Assessment of income can also be done on the statement of the immediate legal heir of deceased, i.e., wife, father, or immediate family member, along with a statement of the employer, if any. Testimonies of the above-mentioned persons should be consistent and there should be an unsuccessful rebuttal by the Insurance Company or the contesting party.
(ii)If the testimonies are not reliable, the Court can use the minimum wage benchmark of an appropriate category i.e., unskilled, skilled, matriculate, etc., as a benchmark for assessment, but not be constrained to grant the lowest tier.
C. Proof of employment
(i)If documents in support of employment inter alia, Salary/Wage Certificate, Income Tax Returns (‘ITRs’) have been filed, same shall be considered.
(ii)In the absence of such proof, assessment done by the Court has to be based on some intelligent guesswork and may not be restricted to the minimum wage parameter after taking into account a holistic analysis of the evidence on record. For example, place of employment, testimony of co-workers, or any other person who testifies in favour of the injured/deceased employee.
(iii)The entire assessment is ultimately imbued with an element of approximation and guesswork, as part of the inquiry proceedings and not on exactitude.
(iv)Reliance may be placed on State specific legislations, as well as Minimum Wage Notifications to lean on for support, in order to determine what qualifies as a skilled worker and an unskilled worker, with respect to the vocation of the victim.
D. Age, occupation and educational background of the victim
(i)In cases where the victim was a student and the evidence on record suggests that the victim would have engaged in employment after completing education, had the accident not taken place; the Courts must consider the educational background keeping in view the missed future opportunities.
(ii)Reliance to be placed on documents and testimonies indicating the prior educational background of the victim, if no proof has been placed with regards to the employment details.
E. Standard of living of deceased persons
(i)When a claim petition has been filed by the surviving dependents of a deceased, where the deceased was the breadwinner of the family, Courts must attempt to ascertain the benchmark income keeping in view the void left by the breadwinner’s death and income must be determined keeping in view the standard of living enjoyed by the family before the accident took place. While monetary compensation is a means to filing the financial hole left by the deceased, an estimate may be required to be done in order to support the remaining family members.
31.Needless to say, these are merely guideposts, illustrative and not exhaustive. However, there is no denying that individual cases would turn on its own peculiar facts.”
(emphasis added)
In view of the above, the Court is inclined to consider the request of appellant partially. On an assessment of the three tutorials evidence of which was supported by the parents, the income addition on account of private tutorials would be taken at Rs.5,500/- per month. Though this income may not be regular but it is a fair approximation of the amount that could be earned by the late Smt. Meena Bansal by giving private tuitions.
As regards Rs.18,500/- which has been claimed on account of the certificate given by PW-2, the Court is not inclined to accept that for the reason that her appointment was of 4th April 2012 and the accident occurred on 25th February 2013. Having provided her salary of Rs.15,500/- at the start, it was unlikely that within 6 to 8 months her salary had been increased to Rs. 18,500/- per month, and there is no supporting evidence in this regard.
Accordingly, the income of the deceased would be taken at Rs.15,000/-plus Rs.5,500/- per month, totalling to Rs.20,500/- and the dependency will be calculated accordingly.
The other issue arises on account of future prospects granted at 30%, the deceased being 44 years of age. In view of the principles enunciated in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, the future prospects for an effectively self-employed person would be granted at 25%.
The loss of consortium, funeral expenses will also be realigned as per Pranay Sethi (supra). Loss of love and affection cannot be awarded on account of the decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780. Further, loss of estate which will be granted at Rs.15,000/-.
Accordingly, the compensation will be realigned as under:
| S. no. | Heads | Awarded by the Tribunal | Awarded by this Court |
|---|---|---|---|
| Loss of Dependency | |||
| 1. | Monthly Income (A) | Rs. 15,000/- | Rs. 20,500/- |
| 2. | Annual Income (B x 12)= C | Rs. 1,80,000/- | Rs. 2,46,000/- |
| 3. | Future Prospects (D) @ 25% | Rs. 54,000/- | Rs. 61,500/- |
| 4. | Less Personal expenses of deceased 1/4th (E) | Rs. 78,000/- | Rs. 76,875/- |
| 5. | Annual Loss of Dependency (C+D-E=F) | Rs. 1,02,000/- | Rs. 2,30,625/- |
| 6. | Multiplier (G) | 14 | 14 |
| 7. | Total Loss of Dependency (F x G = H) | Rs. 14,28,000/- | Rs. 32,28,750/- |
| Conventional Heads | |||
| 8. | Loss of consortium (I) | Rs.1,00,000/- | Rs. 1,60,000/-(Rs. 40,000/-x4) |
| 9. | Loss of estate (J) | Nil | Rs. 15,000/- |
| 10. | Compensation towards funeral expenses (K) | Rs. 25,000/- | Rs. 15,000/- |
| 11. | Loss of love and affection | Rs. 1,00,000/- | Nil |
| 12. | Total (H+I+J+K= L ) | Rs. 16,53,000/- | Rs. 34,18,792/- |
| 13. | Contributory Negligence | Rs. 14,87,700/-(granted at 10%) | Nil |
| 14. | Interest | 7.5% | 7.5% |
Upon perusal of the impugned award, it is noted by this Court that MACT in its calculation as regards quantum of compensation with respect of deceased Smt. Meena Bansal has made an inadvertent error in calculating deduction towards personal expenses in paragraph 56 of the impugned award. As a result of the error in calculation loss of dependency is computed as Rs.14,28,000/- whereas correct computation towards loss of dependency based on the facts of the case before the MACT would have been Rs.24,57,000/-. In any event, the revised computation by this Court has rectified that error.
Directions
Since, the finding of contributory negligence granted at 10% is found to be unsustainable, the compensation granted by the Tribunal at Rs. 14,87,700/-is enhanced to Rs. 34,18,792/-. The compensation is therefore enhanced by Rs. 19,31,092/-.
The compensation awarded shall be apportioned amongst the four claimants, namely, the husband and the three children, in the ratio of 19% in favour of the husband and 27% each in favour of the three children.
Enhanced amount along with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing the petition shall be deposited before MACT within a period of four weeks. It is directed that a lump sum amount of Rs.5,00,000/- shall be released to the claimant from the deposit of enhanced amount within a period of two weeks thereafter. Remaining enhanced amount, along with accrued interest, shall be kept in Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) of Rs.25,000/- each for periods of 1 month, 2 months, 3 months and so on, in succession as maybe calculated. Interest accruing on said FDRs shall be credited to the designated Savings Bank Account of claimant. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released to the Savings Bank Account of claimant upon due verification.
MAC.APP. 231/2015 & CM APPL. 4031/2015
Mr. Aggarwal contends that the compensation which was granted to Mr. V N Bansal for the death of his wife, Smt. Dropti Bansal, was erroneously deducted by 50%, considering that she was 65 years of age and was a homemaker.
Though the benchmark income was taken at minimum wages applicable for a non-matriculate, i.e., Rs. 8,008/- per month, in paragraph nos. 29 and 31 of the impugned award, a deduction of 50% was made on that account.
In the opinion of this Court, such deductions form no basis in light of principles enunciated in various decisions, including in Pranay Sethi (supra).
Accordingly, this deduction of 50% stands cancelled, and the dependency will be calculated on the benchmark income of Rs. 8,008/- per month. for 12 months, which amounts equal to Rs.96,096/- per annum, and it will be recalculated.
In paragraph 30 of Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Supreme Court standardised deductions towards personal and living. The Court observed that where the deceased was married, the deduction should be 1/3rd where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, 1/4th where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and 1/5th where the number of dependent family members exceeds six. Relevant paragraph is extracted as under:
“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 [(1996) 4 SCC 362] , 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.”
(emphasis added)
The said principle will also be applicable in the case of a homemaker. In Sunita & Ors. v. Vinod Singh & Ors. 2025 INSC 366, which also concerned the death of a housewife, the Supreme Court applied the principles laid down in Sarla Verma while determining the deduction towards personal and living expenses.
Similarly, in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sh. Dalvir Singh 2025:DHC:917, this Court deducted 1/4th towards personal and living expenses of the deceased homemaker. The Court held that since the deceased was survived by four dependent minor children, who were dependent upon her gratuitous services, the appropriate deduction was 1/4th, in accordance with the principles enunciated in Sarla Verma (supra).
In the present case, the deceased did not have any dependents, as all her children were majors, and no evidence has been placed on record to show that they were dependent upon the deceased. Accordingly, a deduction of 1/2 towards personal and living expenses ought to be made.
Some other alignments are also required to be made as per the principles enunciated in Pranay Sethi (supra).
Loss of estate ought to be Rs. 15,000/-.
Funeral expenses ought to be Rs. 15,000/-, instead of Rs. 25,000/-.
Loss of consortium ought to be Rs. 2,00,000/-, as there are 5 claimants, namely, husband, 2 sons and 2 daughters.
Loss of love and affection cannot be awarded on account of the decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur (2021) 11 SCC 780 and will be deleted.
The revised compensation is computed as under:
| Sr. No. | Heads | Awarded by the Tribunal | Awarded by the Court |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Monthly income of the deceased (A) | Rs. 8,008/- | Rs. 8,008/- |
| 2. | Add-Future Prospects (B) | Nil | Nil |
| 50% subtraction towards future gratuitous services | 50% | Nil | |
| 3. | Less-personal expenses of the deceased (C) | Nil | 1/2 of Rs. 8,008/- = Rs. 4,004/- |
| 4. | Annual loss of dependency [(A+B) - C -D] x 12= E] | Rs. 48,048/- | Rs. 48,048/- |
| 5. | Multiplier (F) | 7 | 7 |
| 6. | Total loss of dependency (E x F) = (G) | Rs. 3,36,336/- | Rs. 3,36,336/- |
| 7. | Compensation for loss of love and affection (H) | Rs. 1,00,000/- | Nil |
| 8. | Compensation for loss of consortium (I) | Rs. 1,00,000/- | Rs. 2,00,000/- |
| 9. | Compensation for loss of estate (I) | Nil | Rs. 15,000/- |
| 10. | Compensation towards funeral expenses (J) | Rs. 25,000/- | Rs. 15,000/- |
| 11. | Total Compensation (F+G+H+I+J = K) | Rs. 5,61,336/- | Rs. 5,66,336/- |
| 12. | Interest Awarded | 7.5% | 7.5% |
| 13. | Enhanced Compensation | Rs. 5,000/- | |
Insurance company will deposit the enhanced compensation, along with accrued interest, before the MACT within a period of four weeks. Entire enhanced compensation, along with accrued interest, be released to the claimant within two weeks thereafter.
Appeal stands disposed of in above terms. Pending applications are rendered infructuous.
MAC.APP. 236/2015 & CM APPL. 4067/2015
Mr. Aggarwal seeks enhancement of compensation of Poonam Bansal on account of non-pecuniary damages awarded towards pain and suffering awarded, i.e. at Rs.40,000/-, on the ground that though the claimant was discharged from the hospital after 3 days of admission on 25th February 2013. She had been put on a ventilator, as is evident from the discharge summary, on account of small left-sided temporal contusions, and was later weaned off the ventilator.
The scan was suggestive of a resolving hematoma in the left-sided temporal lobe region, following which she was shifted to conservative management.
However, later prescriptions, filed as Ex. PW1/3 with the evidence of PW1, Smt. Poonam Bansal, would show that she had been repeatedly visiting the hospital even post September 2013.
Accordingly, compensation towards pain and suffering is enhanced to Rs. 75,000/-.
Mr. Aggarwal further states that since her treatment continued for a few more months after February 2013, she ought to have been given loss of income for more than 3 months.
She had claimed Rs.16,000/- per month on account of the fact that she was giving tuitions at home.; however, minimum wages applicable for a graduate person at Rs. 9,594/- per month for 3 months was calculated as loss of gratuitous services.
In view of the testimony that the treatment continued for about 6 months, the period for assessment of loss of income shall be increased by another 3 months.
Accordingly, compensation is re-computed as under:
| Sr. No. | Heads | Awarded by the Tribunal | Awarded by this Court |
|---|---|---|---|
| PECUNIARY LOSS | |||
| 1. | Expenditure on Medical Bills and medical treatment (A) | Rs. 3,12,134/- | Rs. 3,12,134/- |
| 2. | Expenditure on conveyance and diet (B) | Rs. 10,000/- | Rs. 10,000/- |
| 3. | Income of injured (C) | Rs. 9,594/- | Rs. 9,594/- |
| 4. | Loss of income/Wages (D) | Rs. 9,594/-x 3= Rs. 28,782/- | Rs. 9,594/-x 6= Rs. 57,564/- |
| NON-PECUNIARY LOSS | |||
| 5. | Pain and suffering (E) | Rs. 40,000/- | Rs. 75,000/- |
| 6. | Loss of amenities of life (F) | Rs. 10,000/- | Rs. 75,000/- |
| 7. | Total compensation (A + B + + D + H +E+F) = M | Rs. 4,00,916/- | Rs. 5,29,698 |
| 8. | Interest awarded | 7.5% per annum | 7.5% per annum |
Accordingly, the compensation is enhanced by Rs. 1,28,782/-
Insurance company will deposit the enhanced compensation, along with accrued interest, before the MACT within a period of four weeks. Entire enhanced compensation, along with accrued interest, be released to the claimant within two weeks thereafter.
Appeals stand disposed of in above terms. Pending applications are rendered infructuous.
Copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned bank for information and compliance.
Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.