MANJU DEVI vs M/S CHOLAMANDALAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

Judgment text excerpt

$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 11.07.2025 + MAC.APP. 356/2023 MANJU DEVI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Manish Maini and Ms. Anjali Singh, Advocates versus M/S CHOLAMANDALAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. .....Respondent Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate for R-1 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) 1. The present Appeal has been filed on behalf of the Appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as the “MV Act”] impugning the judgment dated 29.03.2023 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Award”] passed by the learned Presiding Officer, MACT- 01 (South-West District), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi. By the Impugned Award, a sum of Rs. 34,46,000/-/ has been awarded to the Appellant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that the challenge in the present Appeal is restricted to four grounds. Firstly, that the multiplier of 11 has been used instead of 13 as is set out in terms of the National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi1. Secondly, that the deduction of family pension which has been made by the learned Trial Court while awarding the compensation has wrongly been done. Thirdly, that the increase of future income has been assessed at 10% instead of 30% in terms Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:12.07.2025 MAC.APP. 356/2023 Page 1 of 4 05:03:56 of Pranay Sethi case. Lastly, it is contended that the learned Tribunal has wrongly not granted pendente lite and future interest on the awarded amount and has only granted interest on a part thereof. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent fairly concedes that so far as concerns the aspect of wrongful dedu