Delhi District Court
Sukhvinder Kaur vs Vikramjit Singh on 11 July, 2025
MACP No. 4297/16; FIR No. 279/14; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD:11.07.2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA MANCHANDA, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 4297/16
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-000213-2015
1. Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur,
W/o Late Sh. Harbans Singh,
(First wife of deceased)
2. Harpreet Singh,
S/o Late Sh. Harbans Singh,
(Son of deceased)
3. Sukhpreet Singh,
S/o Late Sh. Harbans Singh,
(Son of deceased)
4. Sh. Hari Singh,
S/o Sh. Pritam Singh,
(Father of deceased)
5. Smt. Gurmit Kaur,
W/o Sh. Hari Singh,
(Mother of deceased)
Petitioners no. 1 to 5 R/o. Village Saidpura,
Bhari, Fatehgarh Sahib,
Punjab.
(Petitioners no. 4 & 5 deleted from the array of petitioners as they have
expired).
Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Vikramjit Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 1 of 37
MACP No. 4297/16; FIR No. 279/14; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD:11.07.2025
6. Smt. Lakhwinder Kaur,
W/o Late Sh. Harbans Singh,
(Second wife of deceased)
7. Ms. Sarbjeet Kaur,
D/o Late Sh. Harbans Singh,
(Daughter of second wife of deceased)
8. Pardeep Singh,
S/o Late Sh. Harbans Singh,
(Son of second wife of deceased)
Petitioners no. 6 to 8 R/o H.No. 863/B,
M.I.G. Colony,
Ward No. 11,
Jamalpur Colony,
Ludhiana, Punjab.
..........Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Vikramjit Singh,
S/o Sh. Bharpoor Singh,
R/o Gaon Budhiya Kalan,
PS. Jamalpur,
District Ludhiyana,
Punjab.
(Driver)
2. Sh. Subhash Chander,
C/o Subhash Freight Carriers,
260/2, Plot No. 13,
TPT Nagar,
Ludhiana.
(Registered owner)
Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Vikramjit Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 2 of 37
MACP No. 4297/16; FIR No. 279/14; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD:11.07.2025
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Atam Park,
Ludhiyana,
Punjab.
(Insurer) ............Respondents
Date of Institution : 16.01.2015
Date of Arguments : 11.07.2025
Date of Judgment : 11.07.2025
APPEARENCE(S):
Sh. R.K. Jain, Ld. Counsel for petitioners no. 1 to 3.
Sh. K.R. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for petitioner no. 6 to 8.
None for driver and owner (exparte vide order dated 31.05.2019).
Sh. Kumar Alok, Ld. Counsel for insurance company.
Petition under Section 166 & 140 of M.V. Act, 1988
for grant of compensation
AWARD
1. By way of present judgment/award, I shall dispose of the DAR
filed by the investigating agency which has been converted into a claim
petition under section 166(4) of M. V. Act 1988 for grant of compensation to
the petitioners who are Lrs of deceased victim namely Sh. Harbans Singh,
aged about 43 years in the road accident in the intervening night of
22/23.05.2014 at about 12:05 AM at B-5/9, Gali No. 7, Swaroop Nagar
Extension, Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi, involving vehicle i.e. Truck bearing
registration no. PB10-DK-2972(alleged offending vehicle) being driven in a
rash and negligent manner by its driver (Respondent no.1 herein).
Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Vikramjit Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 3 of 37
MACP No. 4297/16; FIR No. 279/14; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD:11.07.2025
2. The concise material facts relevant to decide the present claim
are that on the intervening night of 22/23.05.2014 at about 12:05 AM at
B-5/9, Gali No. 7, Swaroop Nagar Extension, Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi,
deceased Sh. Harbans Singh met with an accident with a truck bearing
registration no. PB10-DK-2972 which was being driven by respondent no. 1,
rashly and negligently and hit against the deceased with a great force, as a
result of which he sustained serious injuries. Thereafter, he was immediately
taken to BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, where he was declared
‘brought dead’. Postmortem on the body of deceased was conducted at BJRM
Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. A case U/s 279/304A IPC was registered at
PS. Bhalswa Dairy vide FIR No. 279/14 with regard to the accident in
question. The petitioners have claimed that the accident has taken place due
to rash and negligent driving of aforementioned offending vehicle which was
allegedly being driven by respondent no.1/driver. The offending vehicle was
found to be owned by respondent no. 2 and was duly insured with respondent
no. 3/National Insurance Co. Ltd., at the time of accident in question.
3. In their identical but separate written statements, the respondent
no.1 & 2 i.e. driver and registered owner have claimed that the alleged
accident was caused due to own negligence of the deceased and the
respondent no. 1 was not negligent at all. It has been claimed that alleged
offending vehicle was insured with respondent no. 3 at the time of accident
and thus, they are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.
Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Vikramjit Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 4 of 37
MACP No. 4297/16; FIR No. 279/14; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD:11.07.2025
4. In its Written Statement, the respondent no. 3 i.e. insurance
company has claimed that offending vehicle was not having any fitness
certificate as on the date of accident and thus, it is not liable to pay any
compensation to the petitioners. It has been admitted that offending vehicle
was insured with it at the time of accident.
5. From the pleadings of the parties and the documents, following
issues were framed vide order dated 28.09.2015:-
1) Whether the deceased Harbans Singh suffered fatal
injuries in road traffic accident on 22.05.2014 at unknown
time in Gali No. 7, Swaroop Nagar Extn., Delhi, within
the jurisdiction of PS. Bhalswa Dairy due to rashness and
negligence on the part of Vikramjit Singh who was driving
truck bearing registration no. PB-10DK-2972, owned by
Subhash Chander and insured with National Insurance
Co. Ltd.?OPP.
2) Whether the 2nd wife and her children from her first
wedlock are entitled to any compensation if so to what
amount and from whom?OPP.
3) Whether the Lrs of deceased are entitled to any
compensation if so, to what amount and from whom?OPP.
4) Relief.
6. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners have examined three
witnesses i.e. Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur (first wife of deceased) as PW-1, Sh.
Karnail Chand as PW-2 and PW-3 Smt. Lakhwinder Kaur (second wife of
deceased) and their evidence was closed vide order dated 31.05.2024. On the
Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Vikramjit Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 5 of 37
MACP No. 4297/16; FIR No. 279/14; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD:11.07.2025
other hand, no evidence was adduced by respondents no. 1 & 2. The
respondent no. 3/insurance company has examined one witness i.e., R3W1
Sh. Surjeet Singh (official from the office of insurance company) and RE was
closed vide order dated 20.12.2024.
7. This Tribunal has carefully perused DAR, evidence led by
petitioners has been duly appreciated. All documents and material relied upon
perused and considered. Arguments addressed by counsels for the petitioners
and insurance company considered. Legal position, both statutory and
binding applicable precedents, has been appreciated. The issue wise
determination is as under:-
ISSUE NO. 1
8. The onus to prove the aforesaid issue was placed on the
petitioners. To prove the said issue, petitioners have examined PW-2 Sh.
Karnail Chand who deposed that he had not seen the accident. He further
deposed that he had not given any statement to the police. He further
deposed that he did not remember whether he was in Delhi on 22.05.2014
and on 23.05.2014. He deposed that his signature was got by the police at PS
Bhalaswa Dairy. He further deposed that the paper was not blank and it was
already written page which has been signed by him. He further deposed that
he was working in Swaroop Nagar in the year 2014. He deposed that he did
not know the deceased. He further deposed that he did not know Vikramjit
Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Vikramjit Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 6 of 37
MACP No. 4297/16; FIR No. 279/14; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD:11.07.2025
Singh driver.
9. Since, the aforesaid witness PW-2 declared hostile, he was cross-
examined by Ld. Counsel for petitioners wherein he admitted his signature at
point A on arrest memo. He further deposed that he had given his statement
in criminal case. He deposed that he did not know whether driver Vikarmjit
Singh was working with Sachdeva Transport company. He denied the
suggestion that he had told police that the accident was caused by Vikramjit
Singh when he was reversing the truck No. PB 10DK 2972. He denied the
suggestion that the accident was caused by the driver of the aforesaid truck in
which the driver Harbans (now deceased) sustained injuries. He further
deposed that he met Vikramjit Singh driver during the criminal case hearing.
He further deposed that he and Vikramjit Singh did not come together on
dates in criminal case. He admitted that driver Vikramjit Singh was arrested
in his presence. He further deposed that he never visited the place of
accident. He denied the suggestion that he was making false statement
because he was well known to driver Vikramjit Singh and his counsel or that
they were working together. He further denied the suggestion that he had
seen the accident. During his cross-examination on behalf of insurance
company, he deposed that his statement was recorded by the police after 4-5
days from the date of accident.
10. The petitioners have also examined petitioner no. 1 Smt.
Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Vikramjit Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 7 of 37
MACP No. 4297/16; FIR No. 279/14; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD:11.07.2025
Sukhwinder Kaur (first wife of deceased) as PW-1 and petitioner no. 2 Smt.
Lakhwinder Kaur (second wife of deceased) as PW-2 who deposed in their
evidence by way of their respective affidavits (Ex. PW1/A & Ex. PW3/A)
that deceased Harbans Singh met with an accident in the intervening night of
22/23.05.2014 at about 12:05 AM at B-5/9, Gali No. 7, Swaroop Nagar
Extenstion, Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi with truck bearing registration no. PB10-
DK-2972 which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent
manner.
11. PW1 Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur has relied upon following
documents:-
S.No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of her Aadhaar Card and Voter Ex PW1/1 &
I Card Ex. PW1/2(OSR)
2. Copy of Aadhaar Card of sons of Ex. PW1/3 &
deceased Ex. PW1/4(OSR)
3. Copy of Aadhaar Card of parents of Ex. PW1/5 &
deceased Ex. PW1/6(OSR)
4. Copies of marksheet of middle class Ex. PW1/7 &
and 10th class of deceased Ex. PW1/8(OSR)
5. Copies of cremation receipt and Ex. PW1/9(OSR)
Asthi Visarjan receipt &
Ex. PW1/10(OSR)
6. Death certificate of deceased Ex. PW1/11(colly)
7. DAR Ex. PW1/12(Colly)
12. PW3 Smt. Lakhwinder Kaur has relied upon following
Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Vikramjit Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 8 of 37
MACP No. 4297/16; FIR No. 279/14; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD:11.07.2025
documents:-
S.No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of her joint account with Ex PW3/1(Objected
deceased to mode of proof)
2. Two colour photographs Ex. PW3/2(Colly)
3. Copy of mutual divorce in Ex.PW3/3 (Objected
Punjabi to as to the mode of
proof)
4. English translation version of Ex. PW3/4(Colly)
mutual divorce
5. Copy of ration card in Punjabi Ex.PW3/5 (Objected
to as to the mode of
proof)
6. English translation of ration card Ex.PW3/6(colly)
(Objected to as to the
mode of proof)
13. It is apparent on record that alleged eyewitness turned hostile
and did not support the case of petitioners. However, Ld. Counsel for
petitioners heavily relied upon the criminal case record (which is part of
DAR Ex. PW1/12 colly) in order to bring home his point that the accident in
question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing
registration no. PB10-DK-2972. He further argued that FIR No. 279/2014
was registered at PS. Bhalswa Dairy against respondent no. 1 for causing the
accident in question and respondent no. 1 was also chargesheeted by police
for offences punishable U/s 279/304A IPC, which clearly establish that the
accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of aforesaid vehicle
Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Vikramjit Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 9 of 37
MACP No. 4297/16; FIR No. 279/14; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD:11.07.2025
by respondent no. 1. In support of this submission, he vehemently relied
upon latest judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter titled as ” Ranjeet
& Anr. Vs. Abdul Kayam Neb & Ors.”, SLP( C ) No. 10351/2019 decided on
25.02.2025.
14. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for insurance company
vehemently argued that no eye witness has been examined by petitioners
during the course of inquiry. He, therefore, contended that the petitioners
have failed to prove that the accident in question was caused due to rash and
negligent driving of aforesaid vehicle by respondent no. 1.
15. Instead of referring to the series of decisions on the point in
issue, it may be noted that it is well settled legal position as laid down by
Hon’ble Apex Court as well as by various High Courts in plethora of
judgments delivered from time to time that in claim petitions preferred U/s
160/144 M.V Act, the claimants have to prove on the basis of preponderance
of probabilities that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of
alleged offending vehicles by its drivers. Same is the essence of legal
position discussed by Hon’ble Apex Court in celebrated case of Meena
Variyal mentioned supra. At the same time, it is no more res-integra that
claim petition filed under relevant provisions of M.V Act, is the outcome of
social welfare legislation and the proceedings are summary in nature and do
not require strict compliance of rules of evidence and pleadings. It needs no
Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Vikramjit Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 10 of 37
MACP No. 4297/16; FIR No. 279/14; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD:11.07.2025
emphasis that in case replies filed by respondents, are evasive then it is
deemed that they have admitted the averments made by the claimants. The
purpose of granting compensation is to ameliorate the sufferings of the
victims of Motor Vehicle Accidents and the niceties, hyper technicalities,
procedural wrangles and tangles and mystic maybes have no role to play and
same should not be any ground to dismiss the claim petitions and to defeat
the rights of the claimants. While saying so, I am fortified by the decisions
rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases titled as ” N.KV. Bros (P) Ltd
Vs. M. Karumai Ammal“, 1980 ACJ 435 (SC); ” Sohan Lal Passi Vs. P. Sesh
Reddy“, 1996 ACJ 1044 (SC), ” Dulcina Fernandes Vs. Joaquim Xavier
Cruz“, 2013 ACJ 2712 (SC) and ” Ranjeet & Anr. Vs. Abdul Kayam Neb &
Ors.”, SLP( C ) No. 10351/2019. It is also relevant to mention here that while
deciding claim petition under M.V Act, it is the duty of Claims Tribunal to
follow the principles of justice, equity and good conscience and to adopt
more realistic, pragmatic and liberal approach.
16. The aforesaid issue came up for discussion before Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of “Vimla Devi & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Company
Limited & Ors.”, Civil Appeal No. 11042 of 2018 , decided on 16.11.18. After
referring to the previous judicial precedents on the point in issue and the fact
that M.V. Act is a social welfare legislation, Hon’ble Apex Court held in para
29 of its judgment as under:-
“xxxxx
Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Vikramjit Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 11 of 37
MACP No. 4297/16; FIR No. 279/14; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD:11.07.2025
29. In our view, what more documents could be
filed then the documents filed by the appellants to
prove the factum of the accident and the persons
involved therein.
xxxxx”
17. In the above cited decision, the facts were almost similar and the
claimants had not examined any eyewitness. Hon’ble Apex Court held that in
view of filing of criminal case record including charge-sheet showing that
driver of alleged offending vehicle had been charge-sheeted for causing the
accident due to rash and negligent driving of said vehicle and the driver
himself did not enter into witness box, claimants were able to prove the issue
of accident being caused due to rash and negligent driving of said vehicle by
said driver on the basis of pre-ponderance of the probabilities.
18. Now, turning back to the facts of the present case. No doubt, the
petitioners have not examined any eye witness to prove the negligence on the
part of driver of the alleged vehicle described above but nevertheless, there is
ample material brought on record during the course of inquiry, which is
sufficient to establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of Truck bearing registration no. PB10-DK-2972 by its driver.
19. It is pertinent to note that the respondent no.1/driver of offending
vehicle was the other material witness to throw light by testifying as to how
and under what circumstances, the accident has taken place. However, he has
preferred not to enter into the witness box. Thus, an adverse inference is
Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Vikramjit Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 12 of 37
MACP No. 4297/16; FIR No. 279/14; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD:11.07.2025
liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question has
taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the
respondent no.1. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners had
any enmity with the driver of the offending vehicle so as to falsely implicate
him in this case. Reliance placed on Cholamandalam MS General Insurance
Co. Ltd. V. Kamlesh & Ors, MAC APP. No. 530/2008 passed by Hon’ble
Delhi High Court on 11.11.2008.
20. Moreover, it is an undisputed fact that FIR No. 279/14 u/s
279/304A IPC was registered at PS. Bhalswa Dairy with regard to accident in
question. Copy of said FIR (which is part of DAR Ex. PW1/12 colly), would
show that same was registered on 28.05.2014 on the basis of DD No. 12A dt.
23.05.2014 with regard to accident call received in PS. Bhalswa Dairy on
23.05.2014.
21. Apart from above, copy of PM Report (which is part of DAR) of
deceased Sh. Harbans Singh, would show that his cause of death was
hemorrhagic shock, consequent upon visceral injuries. All the injuries were
ante-mortem, fresh in duration and could be caused by blunt force/surface
impact, possible in road traffic accident. The injuries as noted in the relevant
column with regard to external injuries, as mentioned therein, are consistent
with the injuries which are sustained in motor vehicular accident. Again,
there is no challenge to the aforesaid document from the side of respondents.
22. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has
Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Vikramjit Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 13 of 37
MACP No. 4297/16; FIR No. 279/14; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD:11.07.2025
come on record, it is held that the petitioners have been able to prove on the
basis of preponderence of probabilities that deceased Harbans Singh had
sustained fatal injuries in the road accident which took place in the
intervening night of 22/23.05.2014 at about 12:05 AM at B-5/9, Gali No. 7,
Swaroop Nagar Extension, Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi, due to rash and negligent
driving on the part of respondent no. 1/driver of the offending vehicle. Thus,
this issue is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents in all
the DAR petitions.
ISSUE NO. 2
23. The onus to prove this issue is on petitioner no. 6
Smt. Lakhwinder Kaur who is stated to be second wife of deceased. In order
to prove the issue, petitioner no. 6 has examined herself as PW-3. The present
case is a typical one where the dependency rights qua the deceased are being
claimed by both the wives. Therefore, before dwelling upon the
compensation/claim to be awarded in the matter, it would be prudent to firstly
decide the dependency rights of the contesting parties.
24. PW-3 Smt. Lakhwinder Kaur has deposed in her evidence by
way of affidavit (Ex. PW3/A) that her earlier husband had given divorce to
her and thereafter, she started living with her son and daughter. She further
deposed that after 15 years, she got remarried with the deceased Harbans
Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Vikramjit Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 14 of 37
MACP No. 4297/16; FIR No. 279/14; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD:11.07.2025
Singh and she alongwith her children started living with the deceased as
husband and wife. For this, she has relied upon copy of ration card Ex.
PW3/6 (Objected to the mode of proof). During her cross-examination on
behalf of Ld. Counsel for first wife of deceased, she deposed that she did not
remember whether she had supplied the copy of ration card Ex. PW3/5 to the
IO of the case or not. She has been shown the copy of ration card lying on the
judicial file Ex. PW3/R3X which was provided by her to the IO and after
comparing both Ex. PW3/5 and Ex. PW3/RX, she was unable to answer
about the contents. On observation by the Court, it was found that in the
original brought by the witness Ex. PW3/5 certain blanks had been filled up
and the number at the top of the document at point A in Ex. PW3/RX had
been erased and corrected. The document Ex. PW3/RX was the photocopy of
the original Ex. PW3/5 prior to such addition and amendments made. She
denied the suggestion that the document Ex. PW3/3 was forged and
fabricated document and was prepared in the last one year. She admitted that
she had not given the copy of Talaknama to the IO of the case. She denied the
suggestion that the photographs Ex. PW3/2 were false, fabricated and
manipulated. She deposed that she did not know whether parents of Harbans
Singh had expired as she had no contact with them. She denied the
suggestion that she had no contact with the parents of Harbans Singh since
she was not legally wedded wife of Harbans Singh. She admitted that she had
not filed any paper of divorce of Sukhvinder Kaur and deceased Harbans
Singh on record. She denied the suggestion that since no divorce had taken
Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Vikramjit Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 15 of 37
MACP No. 4297/16; FIR No. 279/14; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD:11.07.2025
place between Sukhvinder Kaur and deceased Harbans Singh that is why she
had not filed any document of divorce on record. She further denied the
suggestion that Sukhwinder Kaur was legally wedded wife of Harbans Singh
and not her. She denied the suggestion that the cremation of deceased was
done by Sh. Harpreet Singh not by her and her alleged children.
25. Ld. Counsel for petitioner no. 6 vehemently argued that
petitioner no. 6 alongwith her two children were residing with the deceased
prior to the date of accident and were dependent upon the deceased at the
time of accident. He further argued that loss of dependency should be
calculated after keeping in mind the aforesaid fact of petitioner no. 6 & her
two children being financially dependent upon the deceased at the time of
accident. In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgment passed by
Hon’ble Madras High Court in case titled “Sushila & Ors. Vs. S. Thirumalai
& Ors.”, C.M.A. (MD) No. 681 of 2019, DOD: 10.04.2023, wherein it is held
in the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment which are reproduced as
under:-
xxxxxx
32.In the present case, it could be seen from the records
that the deceased was living with the second wife and
the same is evidenced by the ration card and the voter
list filed on the side of the second wife. The birth
certificate of the fourth respondent has also been
produced which would indicate that the son was born in
the year 2004 and the accident has taken place in the
year 2010. At the time of accident, the deceased was
driving the bike and the second wife was the pillion
rider. The second wife has sustained grievous injuriesSmt. Sukhvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Vikramjit Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 16 of 37
MACP No. 4297/16; FIR No. 279/14; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD:11.07.2025and claiming compensation, she filed an independent
claim petition in MCOP.No.239 of 2012 and she was
awarded compensation. Therefore, it is clear that the
deceased was residing with his second wife and the son
born through the second wife at the time of accident.
33.In view of the above said facts, it is clear that the
second wife and her minor son were solely dependent
upon the income of the deceased person. Though the
second wife cannot be considered to be a legal
representative under the Hindu Succession Act, certainly
she is a dependent. As pointed out by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, it is sufficient for the claimant to
establish her loss of dependency for maintaining a claim
petition. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the
share in the award amount to the second wife cannot be
found to be illegal or unsustainable in the eye of law.
However, the grant of award under the Motor Vehicles
Act based upon the loss of dependency would not confer
any right upon the second wife for claiming any share in
the property of the deceased husband, unless she
independently establishes the said relationship in
accordance with law.
xxxxx
26. Now coming back to the facts of the present case, it is relevant to
mention here that after examination of PW-3 Smt. Lakhvinder Kaur, notice
was issued to IO/SHO for verification of her ration card. Accordingly, the
report regarding the verification of Ration Card was received and the same
was found genuine. A bare perusal of ration card shows that name of
deceased Harbans Singh has been mentioned at S.No. 2 and names of
daughter Sarabjeet Kaur and Son Pradeep Singh had been mentioned at S.No.
3 & 4 on the Ration Card. The said document alongwith english translation
Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Vikramjit Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 17 of 37
MACP No. 4297/16; FIR No. 279/14; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD:11.07.2025
was objected to mode of proof but the petitioners have not examined any
witness to counter the abovesaid objection. Therefore, as per rules of
evidence, the said documents can not be considered. However, the ration card
was verified on the directions of this Court and found to be genuine. Hence,
keeping in view the beneficial nature of legislation, to outrightly dismiss the
existence of ration card in favour of PW3 will be detrimental towards the
interest of PW3 and her children. Therefore, on the basis of one Ration
Card(Ex. PW3/5), it can be safely presumed that petitioner no. 6
Smt. Lakhvinder Kaur alongwith her two children were living with the
deceased and were dependent upon the deceased prior to the accident.
27. The question of paramount importance that now arises for
consideration before this Tribunal is whether there is any bar in petitioners
No.7 & 8, who are not class-I legal heirs of deceased to be treated as his
“legal representatives (LRs)” in the present case. In this regard, the law laid
down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.6451/2021,
titled as, “N. Jayasree & Ors. V/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance
Company Limited” (Date of Decision 25.10.2021) is the guiding light. The
paramount question which arose for consideration before Hon’ble Supreme
Court in case of N. Jayasree (supra) was whether the mother-in-law of
deceased (who was a male, aged about 52 years at the time of accidental
death) fell under expression “legal representative” for the purpose of
claiming compensation. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was
Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Vikramjit Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 18 of 37
MACP No. 4297/16; FIR No. 279/14; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD:11.07.2025
pleased to lay down as under:
xxxxx
14.The MV Act does not define the term ‘legal
representative’. Generally, ‘legal representative’ means
a person who in law represents the estate of the
deceased person and includes any person or persons
in whom legal right to receive compensatory benefit
vests. A ‘legal representative’ may also include any
person who intermeddles with the estate of the
deceased. Such person does not necessarily have to be
a legal heir. Legal heirs are the persons who are entitled
to inherit the surviving estate of the deceased. A legal
heir may also be a legal representative.
15.Indicatively for the present inquiry, the Kerala
Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, defines the term ‘legal
representative’ as under:
“Legal Representative” means a person who in law is
entitled to inherit the estate of the
deceased if he had left any estate at the time of his
death and also includes any legal heir of the deceased
and the executor or administrator
of the estate of the deceased.”
16.In our view, the term ‘legal representative’ should b
e given a wider interpretation for the purpose of
Chapter XII of MV Act and it should not be
confined only to mean the spouse, parents and
children of the deceased. As noticed above, MV
Act is a benevolent legislation enacted
for the object of providing monetary relief to thevictim
s or their families. Therefore, the MV Act calls for a
liberal and wider interpretation to serve the real
Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Vikramjit Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 19 of 37
MACP No. 4297/16; FIR No. 279/14; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD:11.07.2025
purpose underlying the enactment and fulfil its
legislative intent. We are also of the view that in order
to maintain a claim petition, it is sufficient for the
claimant to establish his loss of dependency. Section
166 of theMV Act makes it clear that every legal repres
entative who sufferson account of the death of a person
in a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for
realization of compensation.
17. It is settled that percentage of deduction for pers
onal expenses cannot be governed by a rigid
rule or formula of universal application. It
also does not depend upon the basis of relationship
of the claimant with the deceased.
In some cases, the father may have his own
income and thus will not be considered as
dependent. Sometimes, brothers and sisters will not
be considered as dependents because they may
either be independent or earning or married
or be dependent on the father. The percentage of
deduction for personal expenditure,
thus, depends upon the facts and circumstances of
each case.
18.In the instant case, the question for consideration is
whether the fourth appellant would fall under
the expression ‘legal representative’ for the
purpose of claiming compensation. In Gujarat
State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad vs.
Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Anr., this Court
while considering the entitlement of the brother of a
deceased who died in a motor vehicle accident to
maintain a claim petition under the provisions
of the MV Act, held as under:
“13. We feel that the view taken by the
Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Vikramjit Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 20 of 37
MACP No. 4297/16; FIR No. 279/14; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD:11.07.2025Gujarat High Court is in consonance with the
principles of justice, equity and good
conscience having regard to the conditions of
the Indian society. Every legal representative
who suffers on account of the death of a
person due to a motor vehicle accident should
have a remedy for realisation of compensation
and that is provided by Sections 110-
A to 110F of the Act.
These provisions are in consonance with the
principles of law of torts that every injury must
have a remedy. It is for the Motor Vehicles
Accidents Tribunal to determine the compensation
which appears to it to be just as provided
in Section 110B of the Act and to specify the
person or persons to whom compensation shall
be paid. The determination of the compensation
payable and its apportionment as required by
Section 110B of the Act amongst the legal
representatives for whose benefit an application
may be filed under Section 110A
of the Act have to be done in accordance with
well known principles of law. We should
remember that in an Indian family brothers,
sisters and brothers’ children and sometimes
foster children live together and they are
dependent upon the breadwinner of the family
and if the breadwinner is killed on account
of a motor vehicle accident, there is no
justification to deny them compensation relying
upon the provisions of the Fatal Accidents
Act, 1855 which as we have
already held has been substantially modified by the
provisions contained in the Act in relationSmt. Sukhvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Vikramjit Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 21 of 37
MACP No. 4297/16; FIR No. 279/14; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD:11.07.2025to cases arising out of motor vehicles accidents. We
express our approval of the decision in
Megjibhai Khimji Vira v. Chaturbhai
Taljabhagujri and hold that
the brother of a person who dies in a motor vehicle
accident is entitled to maintain a
petition under Section 110A of the Act if he is a
legal representative of the deceased.”
19.In Hafizun Begum (Mrs) vs. Mohd. Ikram Heque
and Ors. it was held that:
“7. …12. As observed by this Court in
Custodian of Branches of Banco National
Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique the
definition contained in Section 2(11) CPC is
inclusive in character and its scope
is wide, itis not confined to legal heirs only.
Instead, it stipulates that a person who may
or may not be legal
heir, competent to inherit the property of the
deceased, can represent the estate of the
deceased person. It includes
heirs as well as persons who represent the estate
even without title either as executors or
administrators in possession of the estate
of the deceased. All such persons would be
covered by the expression ‘legal
representative’. As observed in Gujarat
SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai a legal
representative is one
who suffers on account of death of a person
due to a motor vehicle accident and need
not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent
and child.”
Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Vikramjit Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 22 of 37
MACP No. 4297/16; FIR No. 279/14; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD:11.07.2025
20. In Montford Brothers of St. Gabriel and Anr.
vs. United India Insurance and Anr. this Court was
considering the claim petition of a charitable
society for award of compensation on account of
the death of its member. The appellant society therein
was a registered charitable society and was
running various institutions as a constituent
unit of Catholic church. Its members,after
joining the appellant society, renounced the world
and wereknown as ‘brother’. In this case, a ‘brother’ d
ied in a motor vehicle accident. The claim petition
filed by the appellant society seeking compensation
on accountof the death of aforesaid ‘brother’ was
rejected by the High Court on the ground of its maintai
nability. This Court after examining various
provisions of the MV Act held that the appellant
society was the legal representative of the
deceased ‘brother’. While allowing the claim
petition it was observed as under:
“17. A perusal of the judgment and order of the
Tribunal discloses that although Issue 1 was not
pressed and hence decided in favour of the appellant
claimants, while considering the quantum of
compensation for the claimants, the Tribunal
adopted a very
cautious approach and framed a question for itself
as to what should be the criterion for assessing
compensation in such case where the deceased
was a Roman Catholic and joined the church
services after denouncing his family, and as
such having no actual dependents or earning?
For answering this issue, the Tribunal relied not
only upon judgments of American and EnglishSmt. Sukhvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Vikramjit Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 23 of 37
MACP No. 4297/16; FIR No. 279/14; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD:11.07.2025Courts but also upon Indian judgments for
coming to the conclusion that even a religious order or
an organisation may suffer considerable loss due to
the death of a voluntary worker. The Tribunal also
went on to decide who should be entitled for
compensation as legal representative of the
deceased and for that purpose it relied upon
the Full Bench judgment of Patna High Court
in Sudama Devi v. Jogendra Choudhary, which
held that the term “legal representative” is wide
enough to include even “intermeddlers” with the
estate of a deceased. The Tribunal also referred to
some Indian judgments in which it was held that
successors to the trusteeship and trust property
are legal representatives within the meaning of
Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure.”
21. Coming to the facts of the present case, the
fourth appellant was the mother-in- law of the
deceased. Materials on record clearly establish that
she was residing with the deceased and his family
members. She was dependent on him for her
shelter and maintenance. It is not uncommon in
Indian Society for the motherin-
law to live with her daughter and soninlaw during her
old age and be dependent upon her son-in-law
for her maintenance. Appellant no.4 herein
may not be a legal heir of the deceased, but she
certainly suffered on account of his death.
Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that
she is a “legal representative” under Section 166 of
the MV Act and is entitled to maintain a
claim petition.
xxxxx
28. In view of the above and placing reliance on Ration Card
Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Vikramjit Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 24 of 37
MACP No. 4297/16; FIR No. 279/14; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD:11.07.2025
Ex. PW3/5, it is held that petitioners No. 7 & 8, who are children (born out of
the wedlock of second wife with her first husband) of deceased are also
“legal representatives” under Section 166 of M.V Act and are thus entitled to
compensation on account of death of their deceased father in motor vehicular
accident.
ISSUE NO. 3
29. The petitioners who are claimants are the wives, four children
and parents of deceased. It is evident that the petitioners have actually
suffered monetary loss and mental agony due to death of deceased.
Accordingly, petitioners are entitled for just and fair compensation in the
present case.
30. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 enjoins upon the
Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award
determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and
reasonable. The guiding principles for assessment of “just and reasonable
compensation” in fatal case has been laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India, in case titled as Smt. Anjali & Ors., Vs. Lokendra Rathod & Ors, in
Civil Appeal No. 9014 of 202, decided on 06.12.2022 that: –
“The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (for short, “MV Act“) gives paramount
importance to the concept of ‘just and fair’Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Vikramjit Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 25 of 37
MACP No. 4297/16; FIR No. 279/14; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD:11.07.2025compensation. It is a beneficial legislation
which has been framed with the object of
providing relief to the victims or their
families. Section 168 of the MV Act deals
with the concept of ‘just compensation’
which ought to be determined on the
foundation of fairness, reasonableness and
equitability. Although such determination can
never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an
endeavor should be made by the Court to
award just and fair compensation irrespective
of the amount claimed by the applicant/s. In
Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr.3, this Court has laid
down as under:
“16.”Just compensation” is adequate
compensation which is fair and equitable, on
the facts and circumstances of the case, to
make good the loss suffered as a result of the
wrong, as far as money can do so, by
applying the well settled principles relating to
award of compensation. It is not intended to
be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit.”
31. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the compensation should
be just and is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be
niggardly or a pittance. Reliance is placed on 2012 (8) SLT 676 titled K.
Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The aforesaid Principle of law has
also been reiterated by a landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court in
2017 (13) SCALE 12 : 2017 XI AD (SC) 113 titled National Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. Accordingly, the quantum of appropriate and
Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Vikramjit Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 26 of 37
MACP No. 4297/16; FIR No. 279/14; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD:11.07.2025
adequate compensation to the victim of road accident is to be derived after
assessment of various relevant parameters, as per law. Hereinafter,
assessment is divided into several criteria, as applicable to the facts of the
present case.
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
32. The claimants/petitioners are two wives, four children and
parents of deceased. The petitioners have examined PW1 Smt. Sukhwinder
Kaur and PW3 Smt. Lakhwinder Kaur (wives of deceased) under this head
by way of her affidavit Ex. PW1/A & Ex. PW3/A respectively. They both
deposed in their evidence by way of their respective affidavits Ex. PW1/A &
Ex. PW3/A that deceased was 43 years of age; he was working as driver with
M/s. Sachdeva Freight Carriers at Swaroop Nagar, Delhi and was earning Rs.
15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per month at the time of accident. They further
deposed that all the petitioners were dependent upon the deceased at the time
of accident.
33. During cross-examination of PW1 (widow of deceased) on
behalf of insurance company, she admitted that she had not placed any
document of income of her deceased husband. She denied the suggestion that
her deceased husband was not earning any amount. She further denied the
suggestion that she was not legal heir of deceased Sh. Harbans Singh. She
volunteered that she was legally wedded wife of deceased.
Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Vikramjit Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 27 of 37
MACP No. 4297/16; FIR No. 279/14; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD:11.07.2025
34. During cross-examination of PW1 on behalf of second wife of
deceased and her children, she deposed that she got married with deceased
Sh. Harbans Singh about 30 years back. She further deposed that she never
separated from deceased. She further deposed that she was residing in Punjab
alongwith her children at the time of accident. She further deposed that
deceased was working as a driver in Delhi. She denied the suggestion that
deceased had given divorce to her or that he was living with his second wife
namely Lakhvinder Kaur. She further denied the suggestion that deceased got
remarried with Smt. Lakhvinder Kaur about 15 years ago. She further denied
the suggestion that Smt. Lakhvinder Kaur and Harbans Singh alongwith
children of Lakhvinder Kaur were residing together at the time of accident.
She further denied the suggestion that the dead body of Harbans Singh was
handed over to Smt. Lakhvinder Kaur after the postmortem. She further
denied the suggestion that Harbans Singh was not paying anything to her
since he was living Lakhvinder Kaur or that she and her children were not
dependent upon the earning of deceased Harbans Singh. She further denied
the suggestion that cremation of deceased was done by Lakhvinder Kaur. She
further denied the suggestion that she had filed on record false receipt of
cremation of Harbans Singh.
35. During the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for petitioners
fairly conceded that for want of any cogent and definite evidence being led
Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Vikramjit Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 28 of 37
MACP No. 4297/16; FIR No. 279/14; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD:11.07.2025
by petitioners regarding monthly income of deceased, his income may be
considered as per Minimum Wages Act applicable in the State of Delhi in
order to calculate the loss of dependency. He has further prayed that future
prospects be also awarded to the petitioners as he had promising future.
36. It is seen that the petitioners are not having any proof regarding
working and earning of deceased in Delhi at the time of accident. As per
Voter I Card of deceased, he was a resident of Punjab and as per the
document of employer collected by the IO, the company and owner, both
were situated at Ludhiana. It may be noted here that the petitioners have
relied upon copy of 10th class marksheet (Ex. PW1/8) of deceased in proof of
his educational qualification. Keeping in view of the aforesaid document in
respect of educational qualification of deceased, I am of the view that income
of deceased should be assessed as per the minimum wages of a matriculate
person applicable in State of Punjab during the relevant period. The
minimum wages of a matriculate person were Rs. 8,447.75p per month as on
the date of accident which is 22/23.05.2014.
37. The petitioners have claimed that deceased was aged about 43
years as on the date of accident. In order to consider the age of deceased, the
relevant document is copy of his marksheet which is proved as Ex.PW1/7,
wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 30.11.1970. This document has not
been disproved by the respondents. Therefore, it stands proved that date of
birth of deceased is 30.11.1970 and thus, he was more than 43 years as on the
Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Vikramjit Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 29 of 37
MACP No. 4297/16; FIR No. 279/14; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD:11.07.2025
date of accident i.e.22/23.05.2014. Hence, the multiplier of 14 would be
applicable in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex
Court in the case titled as “Sarla Verma Vs. DTC” 2009 ACJ 1298 SC.
38. Considering the age of deceased and the fact that he was not
having permanent job at that time, future prospects @ 25% has to be awarded
in favour of petitioners in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional
Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as “National Insurance Company Ltd.
Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.” Civil Appeal No. 6961/2015 decided on
31.10.2017, as well as in view of decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as “Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors“, decided on 02.11.17.
39. PW1 & PW3 has categorically deposed in her evidence by way
of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A & Ex. PW3/A) that all the petitioners were
financially dependent upon the income of deceased. As discussed above, it is
seen that the deceased was survived by eight dependents i.e. two wives, four
children and parents of deceased. No evidence to the contrary has been
adduced by respondents. In view of aforesaid discussions it is held that the
deceased was survived by eight dependents at the time of accident and hence
one fifth is liable to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of
deceased. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to
Rs.14,19,222/- (Rs.8,447.75 X 4/5 X 125/100 X 12 X 14). Hence, a sum of
Rs. 14,19,222/- is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Vikramjit Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 30 of 37
MACP No. 4297/16; FIR No. 279/14; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD:11.07.2025
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
40. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
case titled as, Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Tribunal considers that all the
petitioners i.e. widow, four children and parents of deceased(who are expired
after the death of deceased) are entitled for payment of Rs. 40,000/- each
towards “loss of consortium”. By way of pronouncement of Pranay Sethi
case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to hold
that there shall be an increase of 10% on account of ‘inflation’ after a period
of three years. Applying, the afore-cited binding law the The Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Ltd. V. LR‘s of Sukhbir Singh,
MAC. APP. 518/2013 vide judgment pronounced on 13.07.2023 has been
pleased to direct the entitlement of dependents to 10% increase under this
head, though, the date of accident was of 2011 and the date of impugned
award was of 2013. Accordingly, all the petitioners except mother of
deceased are entitled to a sum of Rs. 48,400/- each (Rs. 40,000/- + 10% of
Rs. 40,000/- + 10% of Rs. 44,000/-) towards “loss of consortium”.[As per the
judgment Pranay Sethi(Supra), two escalations of 10% each is awarded since
the date of accident in the present matter is 22/23.05.2014]
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Vikramjit Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 31 of 37
MACP No. 4297/16; FIR No. 279/14; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD:11.07.2025
41. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in
view of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra)
which has been re-enforced in LR’s of Sukhbir Singh (supra), the Tribunal
considers that all the petitioners are also entitled for payment of Rs. 18,150/-
(Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 16,500/-) on account of
“loss of estate” and for equal payment of Rs. 18,150/- (Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of
Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 16,500/-) towards “funeral expenses”. [As per the
judgment Pranay Sethi(Supra), two escalations of 10% each is awarded since
the date of accident in the present matter is 22/23.05.2014]
42. Therefore, on the basis of the above discussion, the
compensation is quantified as below:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 14,19,222/-
2. Loss of Consortium Rs. 3,87,200/-
3. Loss of Estate & Funeral Rs. 36,300/-
Expenses
Total Rs. 18,42,722/-
Rounded off to Rs. 18,43,000/-
43. This brings me down to the next question as to which of the
respondent is liable to pay the compensation in the present case. Though, the
Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Vikramjit Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 32 of 37
MACP No. 4297/16; FIR No. 279/14; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD:11.07.2025
the respondent no. 3/insurance company has led evidence by claiming that
respondent no. 1 was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident
but no such defence was taken by the insurance company in its written
statement. IO has filed the copy of driving licence of respondent no. 1
alongwith the DAR. A perusal of driving licence of respondent no. 1 shows
that the same was valid for the category of offending vehicle involved in the
accident in question as on the date of accident. Keeping in view the
existence of valid insurance policy, respondent no. 3/insurance company
becomes liable to pay the compensation amount, as insurance company is
liable to indemnify the insured. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF
44. In view of my finding on issues no. 1 & 2, I award a sum of Rs.
18,43,000/- (including interim award amount, if any) alongwith interest @
7.5% per annum w.e.f date of filing the claim petition i.e. 16.01.2015 till the
date of its realization, in favour of Lrs of deceased/petitioners and against the
respondents. (Reliance placed on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baby
Raksha & Ors, MAC APP. No. 36/2023 passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court
on 21.04.2023).
APPORTIONMENT
45. Statement of petitioners were recorded on 20.12.2024 &
Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Vikramjit Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 33 of 37
MACP No. 4297/16; FIR No. 279/14; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD:11.07.2025
14.02.2025 in compliance of directions of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
FAO No. 842/2023 in case titled Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. V. Jaibir Singh & Ors.,
decided on 08.01.2021 as per clause 29 of MCTAP. In view of their
statements and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is
hereby ordered that out of the awarded amount, the petitioner no. 1 namely
Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur (first wife of deceased) shall be entitled to share
amount of Rs. 4,43,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and Forty Three Thousand
Only) alongwith proportionate interest, the petitioner no. 2, 3 & 6 namely
Sh. Harpreet Singh, Sh. Sukhpreet Singh (both sons of deceased) and
Smt. Lakhwinder Kaur (second wife of deceased) shall be entitled to share
amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- each (Rupees Four Lakhs Only) alongwith
proportionate interest, the petitioner no. 7 & 8 namely Ms. Sarbjeet Kaur
(daughter of deceased) and Sh. Pardeep Singh (son of deceased) shall be
entitled to share amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only)
alongwith proportionate interest.
46. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 1, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-
(Rupees Two Lakhs Only) is directed to be immediately released to her
through her bank account no. 18720110049969 with UCO Bank, 240,
Prashant Vihar, Sector – 14, Rohini, Delhi, having IFSC Code
UCBA0001872 and remaining amount is directed to be kept in the form of
FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 20,000/-each for one month, two months, three
months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest. The said FDRs be
Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Vikramjit Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 34 of 37
MACP No. 4297/16; FIR No. 279/14; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD:11.07.2025
released to the said petitioner on the monthly basis as aforesaid.
47. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 2, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand Only) is directed to be immediately
released to him through his bank account no. 18720110050040 with UCO
Bank, Prashant Vihar, Sector – 14, Rohini, Delhi, having IFSC Code
UCBA0001872 and remaining amount is directed to be kept in the form of
FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 20,000/-each for one month, two months, three
months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest. The said FDRs be
released to the said petitioner on the monthly basis as aforesaid.
48. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 3, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand Only) is directed to be immediately
released to him through his bank account no. 18720110049952 with UCO
Bank, Prashant Vihar, Sector – 14, Rohini, Delhi, having IFSC Code
UCBA0001872 and remaining amount is directed to be kept in the form of
FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 20,000/-each for one month, two months, three
months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest. The said FDRs be
released to the said petitioner on the monthly basis as aforesaid.
49. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 6, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand Only) is directed to be immediately
released to her through her bank account no. 43631457959 with State Bank
of India, Ludhiana, having IFSC Code SBIN0050751 and remaining amount
Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Vikramjit Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 35 of 37
MACP No. 4297/16; FIR No. 279/14; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD:11.07.2025
is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 20,000/-
each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having
cumulative interest. The said FDRs be released to the said petitioner on the
monthly basis as aforesaid.
50. The entire respective share amount of petitioner no. 7 & 8
alongwith interest shall be immediately released to them through their
respective bank accounts, as per rules.
51. Respondent no. 3/National Insurance Co. Ltd., being insurer of
the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the entire award amount in the
aforesaid bank accounts of the claimants (except the account of
claimants/petitioner no. 7 & 8 bank details of whom are not available) as
aforesaid, within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance
company shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a for the period of delay in
terms of directions passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in its latest judgment titled
“Parminder Singh Vs. Honey Goyal & Ors.”, S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020,
DOD:18.03.2025. Further, insurance company is directed to deposit the
award amount of petitioners no. Respondent no. 3 is directed to deposit the
share amount of petitioner no. 7 & 8 alongwith proportionate interest with the
bank account of this Tribunal with SBI, Rohini, Delhi within 30 days from
today.
52. Concerned Managers of bank of petitioners no. 1 to 3 & 5 are
directed to release the amount to the petitioners as aforesaid, on completing
Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Vikramjit Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 36 of 37
MACP No. 4297/16; FIR No. 279/14; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD:11.07.2025
necessary formalities as per rules. He is further directed to keep the
remaining amount in fixed deposit, if any, in terms of aforesaid directions and
send compliance report to this Court. He is also directed to ensure that no
loan, advance or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits
without permission of the Court.
53. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to
transfer the respective share amounts of petitioners no. 7 & 8 immediately to
them in their respective bank accounts, on completing necessary formalities
as per rules. He be further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in
its own name till the said claimants approach the bank for disbursement so
that the award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the
cheques. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioners and also to
counsel for the insurance company for compliance. Petitioners are also
directed to provide copy of this award to their bank Manager for compliance.
Form XV & Form XVII in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as
Annexure-A. Copy of order be also sent to concerned CJM/JMFC and DLSA
as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP. Digitally signed
by RICHA
RICHA MANCHANDA
Announced in the open MANCHANDA Date:
2025.07.11
Court on 11.07.2025 16:11:05 +0545(RICHA MANCHANDA)
Judge MACT-2 (North)
Rohini Courts, DelhiSmt. Sukhvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Vikramjit Singh & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 37 of 37
[ad_1]
Source link