BALESH DEVI & ORS. vs ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~43 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Decided on: 12.11.2025 + MAC.APP. 606/2025 BALESH DEVI & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate. versus ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Suman Bagga & Ms. Mouli Sharma, Advocates for R-1. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL) 1. By way of this appeal, the appellants seek enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [“the Tribunal”] in MACT No. 66/2019, titled Balesh Devi & Ors. vs. Mujahid @ Mujji & Ors., vide the impugned award dated 05.12.2024, under which the appellants were granted Rs. 40,25,069/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 2. The claim before the Tribunal arose from the death of Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sharma in a road accident on 02.11.2018. The claim was filed by eight persons, namely his wife, five daughters, one son, and his father. 3. Mr. Anshuman Bal, learned counsel for the appellants, urges a single ground of challenge – that the Tribunal erroneously excluded three Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL MAC.APP. 606/2025 Page 1 of 6 VASHIST Signing Date:14.11.2025 17:46:48 of the claimants, Ms. Sangita Sharma (appellant No.2), Ms. Sandhya Sharma (appellant No.3), and Ms. Sonika Sharma (appellant No.4), from the list of dependents. The exclusion was on the ground that they were married daughters of the deceased and were, therefore, not financially dependent on him. Consequently, Mr. Bal submits, the Tribunal incorrectly deducted one-fourth of the deceased’s loss of earnings for personal expenses, whereas, considering all eight dependents, the deduction ought to have been one-fifth. A further consequence of this error, he contends, is that the loss of consortium was awarded only to