$~58 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010371442026 + MAC.APP. 521/2026, CM APPL. 53530/2026 CM APPL. 53531/2026 CM APPL. 53532/2026 CM APPL. 53533/2026. INDUSIND GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Shashank Manish, Ms. Nidhi Sahay, Ms. Pragati Singh and Mr. Himanshu Raj, Advs. versus SMT RUBY .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shrey Chathley, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL O R D E R % 12.08.2026 1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company assailing the award dated 17th March 2026 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South-East, Saket (‘MACT/Tribunal’) in MACT No. 398/2021, whereby compensation of Rs.53,75,065/- along with interest at 7.5% per annum was awarded. 2. Mr. Shashank Manish, counsel for appellant/Insurance Company, assails the award on two grounds: (i) Deduction of 1/4th has been made towards the personal expenses of the deceased instead of 1/3rd, as there were only 3 actual dependents; and (ii) Rate of interest ought to have been fixed at 6% per annum 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 17/08/2026 at 11:37:14 instead of 7.5% per annum. 3. On the issue of deduction, the MACT, in paragraph 15(h) of the award, assessed the number of dependants. It noted that the deceased was survived by his wife, three children (one son and two daughters) and his old- aged father. Out of the three children, the eldest son was 22 years old and was not considered a dependant by the MACT. The other two daughters, aged 20 and 17 years, respectively, wife and old-age father were considered dependents. It is a matter of record that the father subsequently passed away during the proceedings before the MACT. 4. Mr. Shashank Manish, counsel for appellant/Insurance Company, points out to the testimony of the wife, Smt. Ruby, who deposed as PW1. In her cross-examination, she stated that the father-in-law stays in the village with his other sons. 5. On this basis, it is claimed that there would be only three dependants and, therefore, 1/3rd ought to have been deducted towards personal expenses. 6. Mr. Shrey Chathley, counsel for the claimants, appears on advance notice and points out that, in fact, even the 22-year-old son ought to have been considered as a dependant, considering there was no proof that he was earning on his own. 7. Moreover, the subsequent death of the father of the deceased during the pendency of the proceedings before MACT would not be relevant since assessment of compensation ought to be made at the time of the accident. 8. Further, the mere fact that the father was living in the village would not make him an independent earning entity. 9. The Court is inclined to agree with the counsel for the claimants in this regard. Accordingly, the deduction of 1/4th towards the personal 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 17/08/2026 at 11:37:14 expenses of the deceased is sustained. 10. On the issue of interest, applying the principles in Kaushnuma Begum (Smt.) & Ors. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2001) 2 SCC 9, wherein, while interpreting the powers of the Tribunal under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to award simple interest on compensation from the date of institution of the claim petition, it was observed that the rate of interest awarded by nationalised banks on fixed deposits ought to serve as the guiding factor while determining the rate of interest payable on compensation amounts. Since the claim petition was instituted in 2021, the fixed deposit interest rates of 2021 would be applicable. Accordingly, the interest rate would be reduced to 6%. 11. Entire compensation along with interest at 6% per annum be deposited by the Insurance Company within the next 6 weeks and will be released to the claimants, as per the directions of the MACT in the impugned award. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. 13. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous. 14. Statutory deposit, if any, shall be refunded to appellant/Insurance Company, only if the order of deposit has been complied with. 15. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J AUGUST 12, 2026/MK 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 17/08/2026 at 11:37:14