Shriram General Insurance Co Ltd vs Surila & Ors.

PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL)

The appellant – Shriram General Insurance Company Limited [“Insurance Company”] assails an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [“Tribunal”] dated 30.10.2013 in MACT No. 127/2012, arising from a fatal accident which took place on the intervening night of 09/10.10.2011. The accident resulted in the death of Mr. Mahavir Singh, who was working as a Constable in Delhi Police.

The respondent Nos. 1 to 5, being the wife, three children and father of the deceased, were the claimants before the Tribunal. Apart from the Insurance Company, the driver and the owner of the vehicle [respondent Nos. 6 and 7 herein] were also arrayed as respondents before the Tribunal.

The facts relating to the accident are largely undisputed. The deceased was on patrolling duty on National Highway No. 54 with Head Constable Bindeshwari Prasad. At about 05:00 a.m. on 10.10.2011, he was riding a government motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-1SS-3402. A dumper/truck bearing registration No. HR-42-D-0438 [“offending vehicle”] struck the deceased while he was standing behind the parked motorcycle. The injured, including the deceased were taken to Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini, where the deceased was declared brought dead.

Criminal proceedings were also instituted against respondent No. 6 – the driver of the offending vehicle [FIR No. 386/2011 under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at P.S. Samai Pur Badli].

The Tribunal returned a finding of rash and negligent driving against respondent No. 6 and assessed compensation payable to the claimants at Rs.46,43,554/-, alongwith interest at 9% per annum, under the following heads:

The appeal relates only to the question of quantum of compensation. I have heard Mr. Sameer Nandwani, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, and Mr. Amish Ram Dabas, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 – claimants.

In support of the appeal, Mr. Nandwani submits as follows:

Mr. Dabas submits, on the question of allowances, that the witnesses, who gave evidence before the Tribunal, including respondent No. 1 – the wife of the deceased, were not cross-examined. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kavita Devi & Ors. v. Sunil Kumar & Anr.^{22.(2025) SCC OnLine SC 1639 [hereinafter, “Kavita Devi”].} to submit that any deduction of allowances requires a factual analysis as to whether such allowances were used for supporting the family, which was factually asserted by the claimants, and not subjected to cross-examination. While he does not dispute that income tax was required to be deducted for the purposes of computation of loss of dependency, he submits that the Tribunal has erroneously awarded inadequate sums under the heads of loss of estate [Rs.10,000/-] and loss of consortium [Rs.1,00,000/-]. In accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi, he submits that these figures are required to be revised to Rs.15,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/-, respectively.

Each of the aforesaid grounds is dealt with below.

The salary of the deceased was proved by way of a salary slip^{33.Page 205 of the electronic record of the Tribunal, on the record of this appeal.}, which showed that his total dues were computed at Rs.26,609/- per month, comprising the following components:

The salary slip was exhibited by respondent No. 1, who gave evidence as PW-2. The salary record was also produced by a summoned witness, ASI Satpal [PW-3], who proved it in his examination-in-chief. The record reveals that neither of these witnesses was cross-examined.

The judgment in Kavita Devi deals with the question of allowances payable to the deceased. Following its earlier judgments in National Insurance Company Limited v. Indira Srivastava & Ors.^{44.(2008) 2 SCC 763.} and Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.^{55.(2009) 6 SCC 121 [hereinafter, “Sarla Verma”].}, the Supreme Court held as follows:

As far as Mr. Nandwani‟s argument on deduction of allowances is concerned, the present case, in my view, aligns with the aforesaid factual analysis in Kavita Devi. Here also, the salary slip was duly proved, and no contrary evidence was produced by the respondents to justify the exclusion of any of the allowances from consideration. On the facts, therefore, I am of the view, that no deduction on this account was warranted.

However, Mr. Nandwani has also submitted that the Tribunal has erred in taking into account the gross salary of the deceased, rather than the salary net of taxes. This principle having been laid down in Vimal Kanwar & Ors. v. Kishore Dan & Ors.⁷, the computation of loss of dependency in the impugned award requires some adjustment.

While the matter would ordinarily have to be remanded to the Tribunal for evidence to be led on this aspect, learned counsel for the parties request that this Court may proceed on the basis that, at the relevant time, income up to Rs.1,60,000/- was exempt from taxation and that the deceased fell within the 10% tax bracket, i.e. he was liable to pay income tax at the rate of 10% on income exceeding Rs.1,60,000/-. Having regard to the fact that accident occurred more than 14 years ago and the long pendency of the appeal before this Court, I have acceded to this joint request.

Taking the other undisputed factors from the impugned judgment, the computation of loss of dependency is modified as follows:

As a result, the award on the ground of loss of dependency is reduced from Rs. 43,58,554/-, to Rs. 41,41,099/-.

⁷ (2013) 7 SCC 476.

The judgment in Pranay Sethi^{88.Paragraph 52.} stipulates compensation for funeral charges and loss of estate of Rs.15,000/- each. The award is accordingly modified, and the compensation for funeral charges and loss of estate are awarded at Rs.15,000/- each, instead of Rs.25,000/- and Rs. 10,000/-, respectively.

The judgment in Pranay Sethi provides for loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/-. Furthermore, it is clear from the judgments in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Ors.^{99.(2018) 18 SCC 130.} and United India Insurance Company Limited v. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur & Ors.^{1010.(2021) 11 SCC 780 [hereinafter, “Satinder Kaur”].}, that loss of consortium is payable under three distinct heads: loss of spousal consortium, loss of parental consortium, and loss of filial consortium, to the spouse, children, and parents of the deceased, respectively. The judgment of the Supreme Court in National India Assurance Company Limited v. Somwati^{1111.(2020) 9 SCC 644.} is authority for the proposition that loss of consortium is to be separately awarded to each entitled claimant.

In the present case, there were five claimants, who all fall within these categories being the wife, three children, and father of the deceased. The award on this account is, therefore, enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/-.

Compensation for loss of love and affection has been awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.1,00,000/-. The Supreme Court, in Satinder Kaur^{1212.Paragraphs 34 and 35.}, has made it clear that no amount is to be awarded on this account separately. The award on this account is, therefore, deleted.

As a result of the above discussion, the award of the Tribunal is modified to the following extent:

The Tribunal‟s award therefore stands reduced by Rs.2,22,455/-.

The amount awarded by the Tribunal was deposited in this Court by order dated 19.02.2014. The Court had also directed release of 70% of the amount in favour of the claimants, with the balance remaining deposited in this Court. The directions of the Tribunal with regard to apportionment and disbursement of the awarded amount provided for FDRs in the name of all the claimants, the maximum period of which was five years or until the children attain majority. The said periods have now lapsed. There is, therefore, no impediment to release of the remaining amount lying in this Court to the claimants. As far as apportionment is concerned, the Tribunal awarded fixed sums to the children and father of the deceased, and the residuary amount to the wife. The modified amount will be apportioned in the same manner.

As a result, the balance amount will be disbursed by the Registry in the following manner:

The appeal is disposed of with these directions.

The statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to the Insurance Company.

The next date of hearing, i.e. 09.01.2026, stands cancelled.