$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP. 1030/2013 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant Through: Ms. Shikha Sapra, Adv. versus MEERA & ORS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv. for R-1 & 2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL O R D E R % 22.07.2026 1. This appeal has been filed by appellant/Insurance Company assailing award dated 14th August 2013, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [‘MACT/Tribunal’], in Suit No. 626/2012, whereby compensation of Rs.5,44,500/- along with interest @ 9%, was awarded in relation to an accident, which occurred on 20th October 2012. 2. On 20th October 2012, the deceased, who was a minor, was travelling as pillion rider on a motorcycle which was being driven by another minor [respondent no. 3 herein], when a truck, driven in a rash and negligent manner, struck against the motorcycle, resulting in fatal injuries to both the driver/respondent no. 3 and the deceased. 3. Ms. Shikha Sapra, counsel for appellant/Insurance Company, raises the following issues: (i) Firstly, it was claimed that the deceased had been 20 years of This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/07/2026 at 15:00:16 age at the time of the accident, and was earning Rs.40,000/- per annum, yet his educational qualifications could not be proved. Further, it was also stated that mother of the deceased was 29 years of age, whereas father of the deceased was 34 years of age. Ms. Sapra, counsel for appellant/Insurance Company, rightly contends that, in view of the aforesaid, it would have been impossible for the age of the deceased to be 20 years at the time of the accident. Since no document was brought on record to prove the age of the deceased, the MACT considered age of the deceased as 20; however, considering that both the driver/respondent no. 3 as well as the deceased, were stated to be minors, it is obvious that age of the deceased was below 18 years. In this regard, the Court takes a note of her contention. However, since age of the deceased would, at best, be below 18 years, the multiplier of ‘18’ would still be applicable. (ii) Secondly, Ms. Sapra, counsel for appellant/Insurance Company, contends that father of the deceased was likely to have his own income and, therefore, could not be considered as a dependant. Consequently, the mother alone ought to have been considered as a dependant. However, aside from the fact that Insurance Company did not prove that there was income generated by the father, dependency of minor, takes into account the notional loss of income which would have been earnt and contributed to the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/07/2026 at 15:00:16 family over a lifetime. Therefore, it would have no impact on the computation of loss of dependency. Therefore, the same shall be sustained. (iii) Thirdly, Ms. Sapra, counsel for appellant/Insurance Company, contends that the driver/respondent no.3 was a minor, and therefore, did not possess a valid driving licence. Accordingly, recovery rights ought to have been granted to appellant/Insurance Company against the owner of the motorcycle, that is, father of driver/respondent no.3. However, it is noted that the MACT had taken the aforesaid into account, and examined R2W1, father of driver/respondent no.3, who stated that the motorcycle was taken by driver/respondent no.3, without his permission and knowledge. He further stated he had kept the key of the motorcycle under a paper, and did not know about the arrival of the deceased, who was a friend of respondent no.3, at their house. 4. In this regard, the Court does not find that the conclusion rendered by MACT is amiss, in that no liability can be attached to father of driver/respondent no.3, considering that he did not have any knowledge in this regard, and there was no scope of further due diligence on his part. 5. Accordingly, the aforesaid submission is not accepted. 6. By order dated 13th November 2013, 80% of the awarded amount, along with accrued interest, was directed to be deposited before the Registrar General of this Court. Subsequently, 50% of the awarded amount was to be released in favour of the claimants. 7. Since the appeal has been dismissed, the balance amount, along with This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/07/2026 at 15:00:16 accrued interest, be deposited before the Registrar General of this Court within 4 weeks. 8. The entire amount shall be released in favour of the claimants, in accordance with the apportionment directed by the MACT. 9. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. 10. Statutory amounts be refunded to appellant/Insurance Company. 11. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous. 12. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J JULY 22, 2026/MK/ya This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/07/2026 at 15:00:16