Delhi District Court
Asha And Ors– vs Ravinder Kumar And Ors on 28 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF HARVINDER SINGH, DISTRICT
JUDGE-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-01, (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
AWARD/JUDGMENT
MACT Case No.1017/2022
CNR No.DLWT010073662022
1. Asha (Wife of deceased)
W/o Late Nandram
2. Shiva (Minor son of deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Nandram
3. Kamala Devi (Mother of deceased)
W/o Sh. Sipattar
4. Sipattar (Father of deceased)
S/o Sh. Prahlad
5. Sunaina (Minor daughter of deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Nandram
All R/o Pipla Pukhla, Pipla Budaun, Dataganj, Uttar
Pradesh-243635.
..............Applicant/Petitioner
Versus
1. Ravindra Kumar (Driver)
S/o Sh. Kade Deen
R/o Dilerganj Kunda Pratapgarh
Uttar Pradesh-230202
2. Ayush Bhatia (Owner)
S/o Sh. Ashok Bhatia
R/o 2/46, Krishna Nagar, Kanpur, Kanpur Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh-208001
Asha (LR) vs. Ravindra Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.1017/2022] Page No.1 of 29
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.28
16:41:40 +0530
3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
through its Regional Manager
Office: D.C. House, J-129, Kirti Nagar,
New Delhi-110015.
........... Respondents
Date of Institution : 30.07.2022
Date of reserving order/judgment : 27.05.2025
Date of pronouncement : 28.05.2025
FORM-XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
1. Date of the accident 17.12.2021
2. Date of filing of Form-I – N.A.
First Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to N.A.
the victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III N.A.
from the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV N.A.
from the Owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- N.A.
Interim Accident Report
(IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA N.A.
and Form-VIB from the
Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII – N.A.
Detailed Accident Report
(DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay NA
or deficiency on the part of
the Investigating Officer? If
so, whether any action/
direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Date not mentioned
Asha (LR) vs. Ravindra Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.1017/2022] Page No.2signed
Digitally of 29
by HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.28
16:41:45 +0530
Designated Officer by the
Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Yes
Officer of the Insurance
Company submitted his report
within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay No
or deficiency on the part of
the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company? If so,
whether any action/direction
warranted?
13. Date of response of the Legal offer was not filed by
claimant(s) to the offer of the the insurance company in
Insurance Company the present case
14. Date of the award 28.05.2025
15. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
was/were directed to open
savings bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which 24.04.2025
claimant(s) was/were directed
to open savings bank
account(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN
Card and Aadhaar Card and
the direction to the bank not
issue any cheque book/debit
card to the claimant(s) and
make an endorsement to this
effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) 25.05.2025
produced the passbook of
their savings bank account
near the place of their
residence along-with the
endorsement, PAN Card and
Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Pipla Pukhla, Pipla Budaun,
Asha (LR) vs. Ravindra Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.1017/2022] Page No.3 of 29
Digitally signed
by HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.28
16:41:48 +0530
Address of the claimant(s). Dataganj, Uttar
Pradesh-243635.
19. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
savings bank account(s) is/are
near his/her/their place of
residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
was/were examined at the
time of passing of the award
to ascertain his/her/their
financial condition?
FACTUAL POSITION & PLEADINGS
1. Vide this judgment/award, this Tribunal shall decide
application/claim petition for compensation on account of death
of Sh. Nandram in a road vehicular accident which took place on
17.12.2021 in front of Gate of Village Badalpur (Noida) within
jurisdiction of Police Station Badalpur (Noida).
CASE OF PETITIONER SIDE
2. Succinctly, the case put forth vide petition is that on
17.12.2021, deceased Nandram along with Pappu S/o Sh.
Chhattarpur were travelling in rickshaw to bring vegetables from
vegetable market, Dadri. When they reached in front of Gate of
Village Badalpur (Noida), in the meantime, a truck bearing
registration no. UP77T9977 which was being driven by
respondent no.1 in high speed, in rash manner and negligent
manner came from behind. It hit the rickshaw on which deceased
and Pappu were travelling. Due to same, deceased sustained
grievous injuries. After the incident, deceased was shifted to
Mohan Swarup Hospital (Noida) where he was declared brought
dead by the concerned doctors. FIR No. 503/2021 under Section
279/304A IPC was registered at PS Badalpur, Gautam Budh
Asha (LR) vs. Ravindra Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.1017/2022] Digitally
Page No.4 of signed
29 by
HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.28
16:41:50 +0530
Nagar against respondent no.1. The incident happened solely due
to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by
respondent no.01. Deceased was doing private job and used to
earn Rs.20,000/- per month at the time of incident. The
petitioner(s)/claimant(s) was/were dependent upon the deceased
at the time of incident. The respondent no.01 being driver, the
respondent no.02 being owner and respondent no.03 being the
insurer of offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to the petitioner(s).
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS
3. Notice of the application/petition was issued to the
respondents, respondent no.2 & 3 appeared and filed their
WS/reply to the present petition/application. Respondent
no.1/driver of offending vehicle did not appear despite service
and opportunities granted. Hence, he was proceeded ex-parte
vide orders dated 31.07.2023.
RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT NO.02.
4.1 In gist, the response of the respondent no.02 as
discernible from his reply/written statement is that petitioners
have not come before this Tribunal with clean hands and have
suppressed material facts from this Tribunal. Incident took place
due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of rickshaw in
which deceased was traveling. Driver of the said rickshaw was
plying the rickshaw in a zig zag manner in front of alleged
offending vehicle without following traffic rules. Vehicle in
question was duly insured with respondent no.3 vide policy no.
42220031210100008312 valid for period 12.10.2021 to
11.10.2022. Respondent no.1 was having a valid and effective
Asha (LR) vs. Ravindra Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.1017/2022] Page No.5 of 29 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.05.28 16:41:53 +0530
driving license to drive the vehicle at the time of incident. He
denied all other averments of petition and prayed for dismissal of
the same.
RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT NO.03
4.2 In gist, the response of the respondent no.03 as
discernible from its reply/written statement is that Vehicle in
question bearing registration NO. UP77T9977 was insured with
it vide policy no. 42220031210100008312 valid for period
12.10.2021 to 11.10.2022 in the name of respondent no.2/Ayush
Bhatia. Respondent no.1 was not holding any valid driving
license to drive the vehicle in question at the time of incident. It
denied all other averments of petition and prayed for dismissal of
the same.
ISSUES
5.1 After completion of pleadings, on 31.07.2023, this
tribunal framed following issues: –
1. Whether the deceased Nandram fatal
injuries in the accident that took place on
17.12.2021 at in front of Gate of Village
Badalpur (Noida) within jurisdiction of PS
Badalpur (Noida) due to rash and negligent
driving of offending vehicle (Truck) bearing
registration number UP77T9977 by
respondent no.01, being owned by the
respondent no.2 and insured with the
respondent no.3? OPP.
2. Whether the applicant(s) is/are entitled to
compensation, if yes, of what amount and
from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
5.2 Thereafter, matter was fixed for evidence of
Asha (LR) vs. Ravindra Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.1017/2022] Page No.6 of 29
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.28
16:41:57 +0530
petitioner side.
PETITIONER SIDE EVIDENCE
6.1 The petitioner(s)/claimant(s) examined petitioner
No.1 as PW-1 to establish their claim. She tendered her evidence
by way of affidavit reiterating and supporting the contents of
their case. She relied upon photocopy of her Aadhar Card
Ex.PW1/1, photocopy of birth certificate of petitioner no.2 Shiva
Ex.PW1/2, photocopy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no.02 Kamala
Devi Ex.PW1/3, photocopy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no.04
Sipattar Ex.PW1/4, photocopy of birth certificate of petitioner
no.05 Sunaina Ex.PW1/5 and photocopy of Voter-ID card of
deceased Mark PW1/6 in her evidence. PW1 was examined,
cross-examined and was discharged.
6.2 The petitioner(s)/claimant(s) side has also examined
Pappu, eye witness of the incident as PW-2. He in gist has
deposed that on 17.12.2021 at about 4:30 am, deceased Nandram
was travelling on rickshaw in front of Gate of Village Badalpur,
Noida. In the meantime, a truck bearing registration no.
UP77T9977 driven by its driver/respondent no.1 in high speed, in
rash manner and in negligent manner came from behind. It hit
deceased. Due to same, deceased sustained grievous injuries all
over his body. He was shifted to Mohan Swarup Hospital
(Noida) where he was declared brought dead. He relied upon
copy of photocopy of his Aadhar Card Ex.PW2/1 in his evidence.
He was examined, cross-examined and was discharged.
RESPONDENT SIDE EVIDENCE
7.1 Respondent no.3/Insurance Company has examined
its Assistant Manager Sh. Rahul Kumar Upadhyay as R3W1
Asha (LR) vs. Ravindra Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.1017/2022] Page No.7 of 29 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.05.28 16:42:01 +0530
who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.R3W1/A. He
relied upon copy of notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC to the
respondent no.1 & 2 Ex.R3W1/1 & Ex.R3W1/2, receipts of
sending above notices Ex.R3W1/3, tracking report of service
upon respondent no.2 Ex.R3W1/4, envelope of respondent no.1
received back with report ‘returned unserved’ Ex.R3W1/5, copy
of insurance policy Ex.R3W1/6 and copy of verification report of
DL of respondent no.1 & RC Ex. R3W1/7 in his evidence. He
was examined, cross-examined and was discharged.
7.2 Respondent no.3 has also examined Sh. Mohd.
Aslam, Head Clerk from ARTO, Pratapgarh, UP as R3W2. He
has brought on record authorization letter Ex.R3W2/A, extract of
driving license of Ravinder Kumar S/o Sh. Kadeddeen having
DL No. UP 7820119003955 Ex.R3W2/B. R3W2 has deposed
that there was gap in validity of driving license for transport
category qua period 09.12.2021 to 02.03.2022, therefore, DL was
not valid for heavy transport vehicle on 17.12.2021. The
application for renewal must have been received on 03.03.2022
itself as renewals are done on the same date of receiving of the
application. He was examined, cross-examined and was
discharged.
FINAL ARGUMENTS/SUBMISSIONS/CONTENTIONS
8.1 Submissions/contentions of the petitioner side are
that the petitioner side has positively proved that the incident
took place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent
no.01. Award may be passed by this Tribunal as per
entitlement/claim of applicant(s)/claimant(s)/LR(s).
8.2 Submissions/contentions of the respondent no.02 are
Asha (LR) vs. Ravindra Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.1017/2022] Page No.8 of 29 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.05.28 16:42:03 +0530
that the petitioner side has failed to prove that incident in
question took place due to rash and negligent driving of
respondent no.1. Incident in question took place due to sole
negligence of the driver of rickshaw driver. Petitioner side has
failed to prove the job/business/work and income of the
deceased. Ld. Counsels for respondent no.2 has also relied upon
the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in matter of “The
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mohit Dabas & ors” MAC. APP.
882/2019, CM Appl. 49537/2019 & CM Appl. 49538/2019
decided on 18.11.2019 in support of their contentions that delay
in renewal of license does not mean that respondent no.1 lacked
skill & expertise on the day of incident. With these main
submissions/contentions, the respondent no.2 has prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
8.3 Submissions/contentions of the respondent no.03 are
that the petitioner side has failed to prove that incident in
question took place due to rash and negligent driving of
respondent no.1. Petitioner side has failed to prove the
job/business/work and income of the deceased. Respondent no.01
was not holding valid driving license at the time of incident.
Respondent no.3 be provided recovery rights against respondents
no.1 & 2 in case award is passed by this Tribunal against the
respondents and it is directed to pay the same. With these main
submissions/contentions, the respondent no.3 has prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
ANALYSIS/FINDINGS ON ISSUES
9.1 (1) Whether the deceased Nandram fatal injuries in
the accident that took place on 17.12.2021 at in front of Gate of
Asha (LR) vs. Ravindra Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.1017/2022] Page No.9 of 29 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.05.28 16:42:06 +0530
Village Badalpur (Noida) within jurisdiction of PS Badalpur
(Noida) due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle
(Truck) bearing registration number UP77T9977 by respondent
no.01, being owned by the respondent no.2 and insured with the
respondent no.3? OPP.
9.2 Before adverting to the facts of the present petition
for deciding the above issue, at the very outset, it would be
apposite to note here that the procedure followed by an accident
claim tribunal is similar to what is followed by a civil court. In
civil matters the facts are required to be established by way of
preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of
evidence or beyond reasonable doubt as is required in a criminal
prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is not as heavy as
it is in a criminal case and in a claim petition under the M. V. Act,
this burden is even lesser than a civil case. Reference in this
regard can be made to the prepositions of law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of “Bimla Devi and
others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors. “
reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the
subsequent judgments in the case of “Parmeshwari Vs. Amir
Chand and Ors.” 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of
2011) and “Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. &
Ors.”, 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc.
9.3 Now keeping in mind the aforesaid legal
principle/preposition for decision of the present issue, this
Tribunal has gone through the testimony of the witnesses and
entire material available on record. This Tribunal has also given
thoughtful consideration to arguments addressed by Ld. CounselsAsha (LR) vs. Ravindra Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.1017/2022] Page No.10 of 29
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.28
16:42:09 +0530
for the parties.
9.4. In this matter to prove the rashness and negligence of
driving of offending vehicle by respondent no.1, the petitioner side
has relied upon the deposition of Sh. Pappu, eye witness. He in
gist has deposed that on 17.12.2021 at about 4:30 am, deceased
Nandram was travelling on rickshaw in front of Gate of Village
Badalpur, Noida. In the meantime, a truck bearing registration
no. UP77T9977 driven by its driver/respondent no.1 in high
speed, in rash manner and in negligent manner came from
behind. It hit the deceased. Due to same, deceased sustained
grievous injuries all over his body. The incident happened due to
negligence of respondent no.1. He denied the suggestion that he
was not present at the spot of incident at the time of incident and
has come to depose at the instance of petitioner side. The
deposition of eye witness as to manner of incident, the driving of
the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner by the
respondent no.01 remained unshaken during cross-examination
of said witness and in fact was strengthened during same.
Nothing supporting the case of the respondents as to manner of
incident or negligence came on record in lengthy and skillful
cross-examination done of said witness by respondents.
9.5 The respondent no.01/driver was the best witness
who could have rebutted the case of rashness and negligence of
driving of the offending vehicle put forth by petitioner/claimant
side. But respondent no.01/driver has chosen not to come in
witness box to disprove the case of the petitioner side on said
aspect. In the given circumstances, adverse inference also needs
to be drawn against respondents. Reliance can be placed upon the
decision “Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company
Asha (LR) vs. Ravindra Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.1017/2022] Page No.11 of 29
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.28
16:42:12 +0530
Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh” 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310 upon said
issue/aspect.
9.6 In totality of circumstances, this Tribunal is of the
opinion that the claimant side has been able to bring on record
such facts which establishes at the scales required that the
incident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving
of offending vehicle bearing registration number UP77T9977 by
its driver/respondent no.01 on the date and time of the incident.
Accordingly, issue no.01 is decided in favour of the
petitioner(s)/claimant(s)/applicant(s) and against the respondents.
Issue No.(ii) : – Whether the applicants are entitled to
compensation, if yes, of what amount and from whom? OPP.
10.1 The petitioner(s) is/are certainly entitled for
compensation in view of decision of above issue. Before
proceeding further to decide the present issue, it would be
apposite to encapsulate the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in its guiding lamp post judgments qua
methodology and considerations for assessing/ascertaining just
compensation in road vehicular death cases.
10.2 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in matter of “Sarla
Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors.” (2003) 6
SCC 121 has held : –
QUA BASIC PRINCIPLES
“9. Basically only three facts need to be established by the
claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death :-
(a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and the
(c) the number of dependents. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal
to arrive at the loss of dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made
for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the
personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be
applied with reference of the age of the deceased. If these determinants are
standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions.
There will lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the
Asha (LR) vs. Ravindra Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.1017/2022] Page No.12 of 29
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.28
16:42:14 +0530
insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay. To have
uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should determine compensation in
cases of death, by the following well settled steps : –
Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand)
The income of the deceased per annum should be
determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to
the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of
personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the
contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier)
Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active
career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean
ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the
accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic
factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified
by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with
reference to the age of the deceased.
Step 3 (Actual calculation)
The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when
multiplied by such multiplier gives the `loss of dependency’ to the family.
Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs.10,000/-
may be added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his
widow, another conventional amount in the range of 5,000/- to 10,000/-
should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to
be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal
heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if
incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if
incurred) should also added.”
QUA ADDITIONS
“11. ………………… In view of imponderables and
uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of
50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards
future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40
years. [Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words `actual
salary’ should be read as `actual salary less tax’]. The addition should be
only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no
addition, where the age of deceased is more than 50 years. Though the
evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to
standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or
different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was
self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual
increments etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the
time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and
exceptional cases involving special circumstances.”
QUA DEDUCTIONS
“14. 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,
Asha (LR) vs. Ravindra Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.1017/2022] Page No.13 of 29
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.28
16:42:16 +0530
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. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is
likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependent
and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of
evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as
dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or
married, or be dependent on the father. Thus even if the deceased is
survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be
a dependent, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses
of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where
family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the
deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of
younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses
may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as
two-third.”
QUA MULTIPLIER
“21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should
be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying
Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an
operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25
years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30
years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45
years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five
years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to
65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.”
10.3 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its constitution
bench decision in matter of “National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.” (2017) 16 SCC 680 held as
under : –
“58. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be no
addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept. We are disposed to
think, there should be an addition of 15% if the deceased is between the age
of 50 to 60 years and there should be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in
case of self- employed or person on fixed salary, the addition should be 10%
between the age of 50 to 60 years. The aforesaid yardstick has been fixed so
that there can be consistency in the approach by the tribunals and the
Courts.
Asha (LR) vs. Ravindra Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.1017/2022] Page No.14 of 29 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.05.28 16:42:19 +0530
59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record
our conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been
well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different
view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate
Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a
contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma
Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh
is not a binding precedent.
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of
actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where
the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years,
should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was
between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to
60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual
salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed
salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant
where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25%
where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where
the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as
the necessary method of computation. The established income means the
income minus the tax component.
(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for
personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by
paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced
hereinbefore.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the
Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying
the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss
of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-,
Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should
be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.
10.4 In view of the above law laid down by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, this Tribunal needs to ascertain the age
of deceased/victim, the appropriate multiplier, income of the
deceased at the time of incident, the educational qualification of
deceased, the number of dependents, whether deceased was
married or unmarried, whether deceased was having permanent
employment or private job etc. etc. to workout just compensation
Asha (LR) vs. Ravindra Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.1017/2022] Page No.15 of 29 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.05.28 16:42:22 +0530
in this case. Award also needs to be passed qua non-pecuniary
heads as envisaged and in terms of above judgments. Hence, this
Tribunal now proceeds further to decide the compensation/award
under different heads applicable to the present matter in light of
above prepositions.
DETERMINATION OF AGE & MULTIPLIER
10.5 The date of incident is 17.12.2021. As per Voter ID
card of deceased available on record as Mark PW1/6, the year of
birth of the deceased is 1996. Hence, deceased was 25 years of
age at the time of incident and his age is considered accordingly.
He fell in age bracket of 21 to 25. Hence, the multiplier
applicable to this case would be 18.
DETERMINATION OF EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION
10.6 No documentary proof has been filed by the
petitioner side to prove the educational qualification of deceased.
Hence, he shall be considered uneducated for purpose of present
decision.
DETERMINATION OF MONTHLY INCOME
10.7(i) Petitioner side has claimed that deceased was doing
private job and used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month at the time of
incident. No document has been filed by the petitioner side to
show the income and earnings of the deceased. Hence, income
of the deceased has to be assessed on the basis of chart available
in Minimum Wages Act of an Unkilled person of State of Uttar
Pradesh. The minimum wages for an Unkilled person of State of
Uttar Pradesh on the date of accident i.e. 17.12.2021 were
Rs.9184/-.
10.7(ii) Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased
Asha (LR) vs. Ravindra Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.1017/2022] Page No.16 of 29
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.28
16:42:24 +0530
needs to be considered as Rs.9184/- per month on the date of
accident.
DETERMINATION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS APPLICABLE
10.8 Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in MAC Appeal No.
798/2011 titled as “Bajaj Allianz General Insurance company
Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors.” decided on 02.11.2017 has held that even
in the cases where the income of the deceased is calculated on
the basis of the minimum wages, the benefit of future prospects
has to be given in accordance with guidelines issued by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India as applicable to self employed or
privately employed persons.
10.9 The deceased was aged less than 40 years at the time
of incident and had non-permanent job, so the future
prospects/benefits applicable to the present case would be 40%.
ASSESSMENT/DETERMINATION OF ENHANCED
MONTHLY INCOME
10.10 As has already been held, income of deceased as
Rs.9184/- per month would be applicable in this case and an
addition of 40% needs to be made qua future prospects.
Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased needs to be
taken as Rs.12,858/- (after rounding off Rs.12,857.6) (Rs.9184/- +
Rs.3673.6/- which is 40% of Rs.9184/-).
DETERMINATION OF DEDUCTIONS
10.11 There is no dispute that the deceased was survived by
his wife (petitioner no.1 ), one minor son (petitioner no.2),
mother (petitioner no.3), father of the deceased( petitioner no.4)
and minor daughter (petitioner no.5). Petitioner no.04(father of
the deceased) cannot be taken as dependent upon deceased since
no special case/circumstance pleaded and proved. Hence,
Asha (LR) vs. Ravindra Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.1017/2022] Page No.17 of 29 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.05.28 16:42:28 +0530
petitioner No. 1, 2, 3 & 5 have to be considered as dependent
upon the deceased at time of his death. Deduction towards
personal and living expenses of deceased needs to be taken 1/4th
in this matter. Hence, 1/4th would be deducted towards personal
and living expenses of the deceased.
DETERMINATION OF MULTIPLICAND
10.12 The monthly income of the deceased after
enhancement needs to be taken as Rs.12,858/-. A deduction of
1/4th needs to be made towards personal and living expenses of
the deceased. So, in this matter, monthly loss of dependency
would come out to be Rs.9644/- (after rounding off Rs.9643.5)
(after deducting 1/4th of Rs.12,858/-). This product needs to be
multiplied by 12 to workout multiplicand/annual loss of
dependency. Hence, multiplicand for this matter would be
Rs.1,15,728/- (Rs.9644/- x 12).
AWARD TOWARDS LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
10.13 The total loss of dependency would come out to be
Rs.20,83,104/- (Rs.1,15,728/- x 18), hence, so awarded.
COMPENSATION QUA NON-PECUNIARY HEADS
COMPENSATION QUA LOSS OF ESTATE
10.14 The loss of estate is awarded as Rs.18,000/-
(15,000/- + 20% enhancement).
COMPENSATION QUA LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
10.15 Since, there are five claimants who are wife, two
children and parents of the deceased entitled to award under this
head, hence, an amount of Rs.48,000/- (Rs.40,000 + 20%
enhancement) is awarded under this head.
COMPENSATION QUA FUNERAL EXPENSES
10.16 An amount of Rs.18,000/- (15,000/- + 20%
Asha (LR) vs. Ravindra Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.1017/2022] Page No.18 of 29
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.28
16:42:30 +0530
enhancement) is awarded towards funeral expenses.
TOTAL AWARD AMOUNT OF ALL HEADS
10.17 In view of above discussions and awards passed
under different heads, this Tribunal hereby pass an award of sum
of Rs.21,67,104/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Sixty Seven
Thousand One Hundred and Four Only) (Rs.20,83,104/- +
Rs.18,000/- + Rs.48,000/- + Rs.18,000/-) in favour of
petitioner(s) and against the respondents.
R E L I EF / ISSUE NO.03
11. This Tribunal hereby pass an award of
Rs.21,67,104/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Sixty Seven
Thousand One Hundred and Four Only) as compensation along-
with interest @ 7% per annum (including interim award, if any)
from the date of filing the DAR/claim petition i.e. 30.07.2022 till
the date of the payment of award amount, in favour of the
petitioner(s) and against the respondents on account of their
liability being joint and several.
APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY
12.1 It is contended by the respondent no.3 that
driver/respondent no.1 was not holding a valid and effective
driving license at the time of incident. Respondent Insurance
Company has examined Sh. Mohd. Aslam, Head Clerk, ARTO,
Pratapgarh, UP as R3W2 who has brought on record his
authorization letter Ex.R3W2/A and extract of driving license of
Ravinder Kumar S/o Sh. Kadeddeen having DL No. UP
7820119003955 Ex.R3W2/B. R3W2 has deposed that there was
gap in validity of driving license for transport category qua
period 09.12.2021 to 02.03.2022, therefore, DL was not valid for
Asha (LR) vs. Ravindra Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.1017/2022] Page No.19 of 29
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.28
16:42:33 +0530
heavy transport vehicle on 17.12.2021.
12.2 Per contra, the contention of respondent no.2 is that
the respondent no.1 had having valid driving license to drive the
vehicle in question prior to the incident. Respondent no.1 got
renewed his driving license for category of transport vehicle on
03.03.2022. He had required driving skills to drive the vehicle in
question on the day of incident. He filled all required criteria for
renewal for license even on the day of incident. He was not
suffering from any ground which could have explicitly
invalidated his driving license on the day of incident. The
respondent no.2 has relied upon the decision in matter of “The
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mohit Dabas & ors” (supra) in
support of the contention that no recovery right be granted to
insurance company in given circumstances.
12.3 Submissions of both side considered.
12.4 There is no dispute that respondent no.1 had valid
driving license to drive the vehicle in question till 08.12.2021.
His driving license was renewed only on 03.03.2022. He had no
valid driving license to drive the heavy transport vehicle in
question from 09.12.2021 to 02.03.2022 covering the date of
incident i.e. 17.12.2021. It is however clear from the evidence of
R3W1 that the respondent no.1 got renewed his driving license as
per Section 15(4) of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on 03.03.2022
and he fulfilled all requirements of holding a valid driving
license to drive heavy transport vehicle from the date of initial
issue to the date of its renewal. The renewal of license was only a
matter of formality. He held all skills to drive the vehicle in
question on the day and time of incident. This Tribunal cannot
Asha (LR) vs. Ravindra Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.1017/2022] Page No.20 of 29
Digitally signed
by HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.28
16:42:36 +0530
remain oblivious of the fact that the period in question was
marred with covid 19 pandemic. Hence, in given circumstances,
in the light of decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
abovecited decision, the request of insurance company to grant
recovery right is hereby rejected.
12.5 As the offending vehicle bearing registration
number UP77T9977 was admittedly insured with the respondent
no.03/Insurance company, respondent no.03/insurance company
is hereby directed to deposit the award amount in favour of the
petitioner(s) with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in
MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account
No.40711767202, CIF No.90891362578, IFSC Code –
SBIN0000726, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi within a period of 45
days from the date of passing of this award together with the
interest as stated herein above under intimation to this Tribunal
and under intimation to the petitioner(s)/claimant(s)/applicant(s).
In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of
9% per annum for the period of delay.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO
THE CLAIMANT(S) AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
‘MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE’
(MCTAP).
13.1 Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No.842/2003
titled as “Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. ” has
formulated MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit
Scheme) vide its order dated 07.12.2018. The same has been
made effective from 01.01.2019. Said order provides 21 banks
including State Bank of India as one of the banks which have to
Asha (LR) vs. Ravindra Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.1017/2022] Page No.21 of 29
Digitally signed
by HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.28
16:42:39 +0530
adhere to MACAD. The State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with
MACAD formulated by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
13.2 The Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi is also directed to release/disburse the share of the
award amount of petitioners in MACT account
No.20780110232552 maintained with UCO Bank, Karkardoona
Court Branch, IFSC Code: UCBA0002078 of petitioner no.1
Asha, MACT account No.20780110233313 maintained with
UCO Bank, Karkardoona Court Branch, IFSC Code:
UCBA0002078 of petitioner no.2 Shiva, MACT account
No.20780110233221 maintained with UCO Bank, Karkardoona
Court Branch, IFSC Code: UCBA0002078 of petitioner no.3
Kamala Devi, MACT account No.20780110233238 maintained
with UCO Bank, Karkardoona Court Branch, IFSC Code:
UCBA0002078 of petitioner no.4 Sipattar and MACT account
No.20780110233160 maintained with UCO Bank, Karkardoona
Court Branch, IFSC Code: UCBA0002078 of petitioner no.5
Sunaina as mentioned/directed hereinafter in tabulated form.
13.3 The compensation to the petitioners shall be
distributed/disbursed as follows : –
Sr. Name Age/ Relation Award Amount of Amount Period of FDRs
No. of DOB with Amount award to be kept in with
petition injured/ released FDRs cumulative
er/ deceased interest
claiman
t
1. Asha 01.01.19 Wife 8,01,104/- 2,01,104/- 6,00,000/- + Rs.6,00,000/- +
99 1/4th 1/4th interest
interest accrued shall
accrued be kept in the
form of equal
monthly FDRsAsha (LR) vs. Ravindra Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.1017/2022] Page No.22 of 29
Digitally signed
by HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.28
of Rs.10,000/-
for the period
of 60 months +
months which
comes out of
division of
interest
accumulated by
Rs.10,000/-.
The remainder,
if any to be
added in the
last FDR. The
amount of
FDRs along-
with interest
after maturity
shall be
released to the
petitioner
/claimant on
monthly basis
as per above
previous
orders.
2. Shiva 27.03.20 Son 4,50,000/- Nil 4,50,000/- + Rs.4,50,000/-
21 1/4th along with
interest 1/4th interest
accrued accrued shall
be kept in the
form of one
FDRs and same
shall be
released to the
claimant at the
time of
attaining the
age of majority.
3. Kamala 01.01.19 Mother 4,00,000/- 1,00,000/- 3,00,000/- + Rs.3,00,000/- +
Devi 85 1/4th 1/4th interest
interest accrued shall
accrued be kept in the
form of equal
monthly FDRs
of Rs.10,000/-
for the period
of 30 months +
months which
Asha (LR) vs. Ravindra Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.1017/2022] Page No.23 of 29
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.28
16:42:45 +0530
comes out of
division of
interest
accumulated by
Rs.10,000/-.
The remainder,
if any to be
added in the
last FDR. The
amount of
FDRs along-
with interest
after maturity
shall be
released to the
petitioner
/claimant on
monthly basis
as per above
previous
orders.
4. Sipattar 01.01.19 Father 66,000/- 66,000/- Nil Nil
75
5. Sunain 24.08.20 Daughter 4,50,000/- Nil 4,50,000/- + Rs.4,50,000/-
a 22 1/4th along with
interest 1/4th interest
accrued accrued shall
be kept in the
form of one
FDRs and half
of the amount
with interest
shall be
released at the
time of
attaining
majority and
remaining half
shall again be
converted in
FDR to be
released to her
at the time of
her marriage.
TOTAL Rs.21,67,104/-
13.4 The following conditions shall be adhered to by
Asha (LR) vs. Ravindra Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.1017/2022] Page No.24 of 29
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.28
16:42:48 +0530
SBI, Tis Hazari Delhi with respect to the fixed deposits:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint
name(s) to be added in the savings bank account
or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e.
the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s)
shall be an individual savings bank account(s)
and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be
retained by the bank in safe custody. However,
the statement containing FDR number, FDR
amount, date of maturity and maturity amount
shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be
credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in
the MACT bank account of the claimant (s) near
the place of their residence.
(d) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-
mature discharge be allowed on the fixed
deposits without permission of the Court.
(e) The concerned bank shall not issue any
cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s).
However, in case the debit card and/or cheque
book have already been issued, bank shall
cancel the same before the disbursement of the
award amount. The bank shall debit card (s)
freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no
debit card be issued in respect of the account of
the claimant(s) from any other branch of the
bank.
(f) The bank shall make an endorsement on
the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that
no cheque book and/or debit card have been
issued and shall not be issued without the
permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall
produce the passbook with the necessary
endorsement before the Court on the next date
fixed for compliance.
(g) It is clarified that the endorsement made
by the bank along with the duly signed and
stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s)
of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of
clause (g) above.
13.5 In accordance with the orders dated 08.02.2019
Asha (LR) vs. Ravindra Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.1017/2022] PageDigitally signed
No.25 of 29
by HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.28
16:42:51 +0530
passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 in
“Rajesh Tyagi and others Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors.” , Mr. Rajan
Singh, Assistant General Manager has been appointed as Nodal
Officer of State Bank of India having Phone No.022-
22741336/9414048606 and e mail ID [email protected]. In
case of any assistance or non compliance, the aforesaid Nodal
Officer may be contacted. A copy of this order be sent by e-mail
to the aforesaid Nodal Officer of the aforesaid bank by the
Ahlmad of the Court immediately in accordance with the
directions of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi as given in the orders
dated 07.12.2018. The Nodal Officer of the bank shall ensure the
disbursement of the award amount within three weeks of the
receipt of the e-mail as mentioned in the orders dated 07.12.2018
passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
14. The respondent no.03/Insurance Company shall
deposit the award amount with the account of this Tribunal
within 45 days. Nazir of this Court shall prepare a separate file
regarding the status of deposition/non-deposition of the award
amount by the respondent(s) after making necessary entry on CIS
on 11.07.2025.
15. A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the
parties free of cost through email.
16. Ahlmad staff is directed to send the copy of award
to Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class concerned and Delhi Legal
Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth
Amendment) Rules, 2022[(Directions at serial nos.39, 40 of
Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under
Rule 150A)].
Asha (LR) vs. Ravindra Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.1017/2022] Page No.26 of 29 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.05.28 16:42:54 +0530
17. Ahlmad staff is also directed to e-mail an
authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020
titled as “Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Union of India & Ors.” decided on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall
also e-email an authenticated copy of the award to Branch
Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex Branch
for information.
18. File be consigned to Record Room after due
compliance.
Announced in the open Court
today i.e. 28th of May, 2025
(HARVINDER SINGH)
District Judge-cum-PO: MACT-01(West)
THC/Delhi/28.05.2025
Asha (LR) vs. Ravindra Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.1017/2022] Page No.27 of 29 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.05.28 16:42:57 +0530 FORM -XV
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT
IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident : 17.12.2021
2. Name of the deceased : Nandram
3. Age of the deceased : 27 years
4. Occupation of the deceased : Not proved
5. Income of the deceased : Rs.9184/- (as per
Minimum Wages of
State of Uttar
Pradesh)
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of
deceased : –
S.No. Name Age/DOB Relation
1. Asha 01.01.1999 Wife
2. Shiva 27.03.2021 Son
3. Kamala Devi 01.01.1985 Mother
4. Sipattar 01.01.1975 Father
5. Sunaina 24.08.2022 Daughter
Computation of Compensation : -
Sr.No. Heads Awarded by the Claim
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased(A) Rs.9184/-
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) 40%
9. Less-Personal expenses of the 1/4th deduction has
deceased(C) been done
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.9644/-
[(A+B)-C=D]
11. Annual loss of dependency (D Rs.1,15,728/-
x 12)
12. Multiplier(E) 18
13. Total loss of dependency Rs.20,83,104/-
(Dx12xE= F)
14. Medical Expenses(G) NIL
15. Compensation for loss of Rs.48,000/-
Asha (LR) vs. Ravindra Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.1017/2022] Page No.28 of 29
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.28
16:43:01 +0530
consortium(H)
16. Compensation for loss of love NIL
and affection(I)
17. Compensation for loss of Rs.18,000/-
estate(J)
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs.18,000/-
expenses(K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.21,67,104/-
(F+G+H+I+J+K=L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST 7% per annum
AWARDED
21. Interest amount up to the date Rs.4,29,388/-
of award (M) (w.e.f. 30.07.2022 to
28.05.2025 i.e. 2 years 9
months and 29 days)
22. Total amount including interest Rs.25,96,492/-
(L + M) (Rs.21,67,104/- +
Rs.4,29,388/-)
23. Award amount released Rs.3,67,104/-
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.18,00,000/- along
with interest accrued.
25. Mode of disbursement of the Mentioned in the award
award amount to the claimant
(s).
26. Next date for compliance of 18.07.2025
the award.
(HARVINDER SINGH)
District Judge-cum-PO: MACT-01(West)
THC/Delhi/28.05.2025
Asha (LR) vs. Ravindra Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.1017/2022] Page No.29 of 29
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.28
16:43:06 +0530