Asha Rani v. Jagat Singh And ORS.
......Appellants Vs.
......Respondents
Reserved on: 15.05.2026
Pronounced on: 18.05.2026 Uploaded on : 19.05.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present:
Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Arjun Singh, Advocate for Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Ms. Tanu Bhatia, Advocate for Mr. Nigam K. Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.3.
**** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1.
The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 20.11.2007 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 f the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short '1988 Act'), by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
!" # $% & '( ) '
* +
, % - .
-
+
/ # 0
/
1 20
!
!
"
0 #
2 0 # #
3
4 - #2 20 #
0
0
0
0 0
5 2 # #
!
!"
.
6 ) 7 Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another #
$ %&'()( *%'+ ,-(- . # #
2
8"
!
"# $
%
& #$
$ !
$ ' ()*+,
-+$'()*.,
./$
' ()*0,
! !
$
1 $
$ 023
!
$
$
$
(,
"
4$ $
"
1 $ $ $ $
$
$ 023
/
!
023
% $
$
' $ !
'
" '
* * * * * * 42.
# (., (
5$ "#
# ,$
)6( )0-2 -)-0 ,$ $ 7')8 -/+2 $7')/+)+0 $7')0+/.2
$7')..).0 $ 7')+./02
$ $
$7'))0)00 $7'90//2 $7'8 /)/0 7'0//82
%
6 ) 7 National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. #
0 . # ) ,.. ,.
"+ ,.: ' * + ,;:: # 8"
+ <
2 = >
? )
>
7 +
0 >
< 2 0
= # >
@ A
8 # (> "0
=
2 (
8"
952. : conventional heads $ !
;
<
1 ; -0$222 !
$; )$22$222 ; )$22$222 !
;
= $
$
$
> " $
& : &
!$ " $
$ !
$
"
"
& $
" $ " ! 1 $ $ $ !
; )0$222$ ; .2$222 ; )0$222
? ' & '
" & )23
@ @ @ @ @ 59.3 $ 023
$
0
.2 $
+23$ .202 1 02/2 $ )03
:
!
59.4 1 ' (,
!
$ .23
.2 : -03
.202 )23 02/2
!
59.5 4
$ !
$
+2+-
A
59.6.
A C
.-
59.7
59.8 ; $ $ $ !
; )0$222$ ; .2$222 ; )0$222
)23 :
6 ) 7 ,1), (2(',3 2-%',24( *)&,25 !6)6+(7 8- ,2% ,) ,36,- 9%9'% ,)
+9('- # .
,'3, 8('), -%&', ',2,5 (+96
%&',
# 2
8"
E21 :# ? # F
<
1
$ G G
G
G$ G
G$ G
G
$ $ $ $ $
$
$ !
-) ) Spousal consortium
'
G
$ $ $ $
G
$ -) - Parental consortium
$ G
$
$ $ $
$
G
-) + Filial consortium
: "
# $ $
#
7 ' H !
7
$
$
7A :
$
1
$ $
F
: : % #
% $
G G
F
< 1 $
$
;.2$222
9.
A perusal of the impugned award shows that the age of the deceased was 38 years at the time of accident as depicted from PMR (Ex.P14) therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the age of deceased as 38 years and erred in applying multiplier of 14 instead of 15 as per settled law. 10.
A further perusal of the award reveals that deceased-Manjit Singh was stated to be working as Accountant in M/s Dev Raj Sat Paul, Commission Agents, earning Rs.6,000/- per month. A perusal of the award further reveals that Davinder Singh PW-3, Accountant in M/s Dev Raj Sat Paul, Commission Agents testified before the learned Tribunal that the deceased was working as Accountant in above-mentioned firm from last 14 years. He also brought the
account books for years pertaining from 2003-2007 to prove that the salary of deceased as Rs.3,900/- per month. However, the learned Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month which in considered opinion of this Court is on lower side. Considering the facts of the case and testimony of PW-3, this Court deems it fit to reassess the income of the deceased as Rs.3,700/-. A perusal of the award further reveals that learned Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenditure instead of 1/4th as per settled law.
,,
+ # 2 #
A #
=
# / 7
! ,-
5 2# # # 0 6 ) 7 2
( # # - ,, - % 0 " 8"
Sr.
No.
Heads Compensation Awarded , '0 5
% !"
- A $ &
, : !"
&
% < #
= ,!
,-; !"
,: B ,!
5
:: !"
,: ",-; '
, .
+ <0
.;;
!"
:: B ,- B , %
@
, !"
:
A @=
, !"
;
7 3 8 =
) 8 , =
A 8 , =
- !"
, *+,3 *)&(2-,+6*2 - $ $
: ,,
(7%4+6*2
+ +# 0 - /
: ,- 29,24(7 ,)*%2+ - /
:
$ $
/
,
) 0 6 ) 7 Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma
$ 0 R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107 ;
" $ ;&
C
,
The respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount along with interest at the rate of 9% with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The Tribunal is directed to disburse the same to the appellantsclaimants in their bank accounts as per award. The appellants-claimants are directed to furnish their bank account details to the Tribunal. 15.
6#2 4
"5 70 0 2
#
2 # - ,, - %
,.
3
0
:
*
D
1!"
1 E !4 D
E