Commissioner of Income Tax-V, vs. M/s C. Eswar Reddy AND Co.,

MAC.APP. 453/2015 & MAC.APP. 14/2016 Page 1 of 11

$~9 & 10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %

Date of decision: 10th March 2026

(9) + MAC.APP. 453/2015 & CM APPL. 9931/2015

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

.....Appellant Through: Ms. Ridhima Gaur & Ms. Ring Baliyan, Advs. for Ms. Archana Gaur, Adv. for Insurance Co.

versus

GEETA TRIPATHI & ORS

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Manish Maini, Ms. Aastha Chauhan and Ms. Anjali Singh, Advs. for R-1 to 5. (10) + MAC.APP. 14/2016

GEETA TRIPATHI & ORS

.....Appellants Through: Mr. Manish Maini, Ms. Aastha Chauhan and Ms. Anjali Singh, Advs.

versus

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD & ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Ridhima Gaur & Ms. Ring Baliyan, Advs. for Ms. Archana Gaur, Adv. for Insurance Co. CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL) 1. These cross-appeals have been filed respectively by the Insurance Company and the claimant, assailing the impugned award dated 22nd April Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMAR Signing Date:19.03.2026 16:14:44 Signature Not Verified

MAC.APP. 453/2015 & MAC.APP. 14/2016 Page 2 of 11

2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (‘MACT/Tribunal’), North-west District, Rohini, whereby a compensation of Rs.16,03,790/-, along with interest at 8% per annum, was awarded to the claimants, who are legal representatives of the deceased Sh. C. N. Tripathi, who had succumbed to injuries sustained in a road traffic accident which occurred on 13th June 2011. 2. Ms. Archana Gaur, Counsel for the Insurance Company, states that the benchmark income taken at Rs.12,000/- per month was not based on any documentary proof, and, accordingly, minimum wages ought to have been taken. On the other hand, Mr. Manish Maini, counsel for the claimant, seeks enhancement of the said benchmark income on the basis of the Income Tax Returns (‘ITRs’) which were filed and the testimony of the wife, PW1, Smt. Geeta Tripathi. 3. From the record, it can be seen that the MACT assessed the income on the basis of the testimony of PW1, who stated that her deceased husband had graduated as a Shastri from Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthanam, Delhi in the year 1982 and obtained a post-graduation degree (Acharya) from Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthanam in the year 1984. The marksheets, appended as Ex.PW1/4 before the MACT, were not disputed. 4. PW1 further stated that the deceased husband was a professional astrologer and priest and was running a Yagya Shala at Burari Village under the name and style of Manokamna Sidh Peeth, for which a photocopy of the sale deed was produced as Ex.PW1/5 before the Tribunal. 5. She further deposed that he had an astrology office at Wazirpur Industrial Area under the name and style of Bhagirathi Jyotish Mandir, for which a copy of the lease deed was appended as Ex.PW1/6. Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMAR Signing Date:19.03.2026 16:14:44 Signature Not Verified

MAC.APP. 453/2015 & MAC.APP. 14/2016 Page 3 of 11

MAC.APP. 453/2015 & MAC.APP. 14/2016 Page 4 of 11

Corporation & Anr. (2009) 5 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680, it ought to be 11 since the deceased had not completed the age of 56 years but was 55 years 10 months on that date, therefore, he would fall in the bracket of 51-55 years. 13. Ms. Gaur, counsel for the Insurance Company, contends that since he was closer to the age group of 56 years, the multiplier of 9 was correctly applied. 14. Countering this submission, Mr. Maini, counsel for the claimant, relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Shashikala & Ors. v. Ganga Lakshmamma & Anr. 2015 ACJ 1239, where, in paragraph 17, the Court, while assessing the multiplier, has noted that the deceased had “completed only 45 years” even though his age was 45 years, 5 months and 28 days on the date of the accident and therefore, the appropriate multiplier would have been 14. 15. In the opinion of this Court, the multiplier has to be applied as per the defined age bracket provided in the table supplied in Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra), which are categorised on the basis of specific determined age groups/completed years of age. If courts were to assess age on the basis of the number of months after completion of a particular year of age, it would introduce a significant degree of subjectivity. 16. Age is universally accepted on the basis of completed years and not on the basis of the number of months which have been completed after the completion of a certain number of years. For example, if a person who has completed 55 years and 5 months or in fact 10 months would still be termed as a 55 years old, and not a 56 year old. Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMAR Signing Date:19.03.2026 16:14:44 Signature Not Verified

MAC.APP. 453/2015 & MAC.APP. 14/2016 Page 5 of 11

MAC.APP. 453/2015 & MAC.APP. 14/2016 Page 6 of 11

as regards both self-maintenance and pleasure, and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants. Then that should be capitalized by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of year's purchase.” 12. In para 12, the Supreme Court held as follows:- “12. We have already noticed that the personal and living expenses of the deceased should be deducted from the income, to arrive at the contribution to the dependents. No evidence need be led to show the actual expenses of the deceased. In fact, any evidence in that behalf will be wholly unverifiable and likely to be unreliable. Claimants will obviously tend to claim that the deceased was very frugal and did not have any expensive habits and was spending virtually the entire income on the family. In some cases, it may be so. No claimant would admit that the deceased was a spendthrift, even if he was one. It is also very difficult for the respondents in a claim petition to produce evidence to show that the deceased was spending a considerable part of the income on himself or that he was contributing only a small part of the income on his family. Therefore, it became necessary to standardize the deductions to be made under the head of personal and living expenses of the deceased. This lead to the practice of deducting towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, one-third of the income if the deceased was married, and one-half (50%) of the income if the deceased was a bachelor. This practice was evolved out of experience, logic and convenience. In fact one- Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMAR Signing Date:19.03.2026 16:14:44 Signature Not Verified

MAC.APP. 453/2015 & MAC.APP. 14/2016 Page 7 of 11

third deduction, got statutory recognition under Second Schedule to the Act, in respect of claims under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('MV Act' for short).” 13. The conclusion on the issue of deduction towards personal and living expenses is given in para 14 and para 15 which read as follows:- “14. 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, the general practice is to apply standardized 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 dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six. 15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically.” 14. Hence, the Supreme Court has laid down a standard formula/guideline to ensure consistency in the Awards of various tribunals. However, a perusal of the guidelines laid Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMAR Signing Date:19.03.2026 16:14:44 Signature Not Verified

MAC.APP. 453/2015 & MAC.APP. 14/2016 Page 8 of 11

down shows that a situation like this has not been dealt with namely, where the deceased is married and has children who are all settled and the widow is the only person who could be considered as dependent. I may, however, note that the Supreme Court noted that in case of a bachelor where deduction of 50% was stated, the Court noted that this was because it was assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Further there is a possibility of his getting married in a short time in which event the contribution to the parents/siblings was likely to be cut drastically. 15. In my opinion, in a situation like the present one, the situation of the deceased cannot be treated at par with a bachelor. There is merit in the said submission of learned counsel for the appellant that a man of 54 years of age who is professionally well qualified with two settled children and a wife would not be spending 50% of his wages for personal living expenses. He would be inclined to accumulate wealth for his old age days and also for the benefit of his wife and children. One cannot also ignore that being a father of a married daughter and a son, who is likely to get married he would have spent on the marriage of the son, on his grand children after they were born. These are expenses which a man who has grown to that age and who is well settled would normally be incurring. These expenses cannot be ignored. Keeping in view these facts and circumstances in my opinion, the appropriate deduction to be made from the income of the deceased in the facts and circumstances of this case was 1/3rd and not 50% as done by the tribunal. Hence, 1/3rd is only to be deducted from personal expenses. 16. The loss of dependency would now be Rs.23,83,337 [(325000- 1/3)x11]” (emphasis added) Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMAR Signing Date:19.03.2026 16:14:44 Signature Not Verified

MAC.APP. 453/2015 & MAC.APP. 14/2016 Page 9 of 11

(i) Loss of consortium, which was awarded at Rs.1,00,000/-, would be at Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x5), towards four children and one widow.

(ii) Loss of love and affection at Rs.1,00,000/- ought to be nil in terms of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur (2021) 11 SCC 780.

(iii) Funeral expenses at Rs.25,000/-, ought to be reduced to Rs.15,000/-.

(iv) Loss to estate, which was not awarded, ought to be granted at Rs.15,000/-. Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMAR Signing Date:19.03.2026 16:14:44 Signature Not Verified

MAC.APP. 453/2015 & MAC.APP. 14/2016 Page 10 of 11

NIL 11 Compensation for loss of estate (J) NIL Rs. 15,000/- 12 Compensation towards funeral expenses (K) Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 13 Total compensation (F+G+H+I+J+K = L) Rs. 16,03,790/- Rs. 17,05,390/- 14 Rate of Interest Awarded 8% per annum 8% per annum

MAC.APP. 453/2015 & MAC.APP. 14/2016 Page 11 of 11

(ANISH DAYAL) JUDGE MARCH 10, 2026/mk/bp

Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMAR Signing Date:19.03.2026 16:14:44 Signature Not Verified