Delhi District Court
Ruchika Sharma W/O, Deceased … vs Sushil (United India Ins Co.) on 8 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010171872022
MACT No. : 973/2022
FIR No. : 246/2022
PS : Burari
u/s : 279/304A IPC
1. Smt. Ruchika Sharma (LR/wife of deceased)
2. Baby Vani Sharma (LR/daughter of deceased)
3. Master Hardik Sharma (LR/son of deceased)
(petitioner nos. 2 and 3 through their
Natural Guardian/mother/petitioner no. 1 Smt. Ruchika Sharma)
4. Sh. Ashok Kumar (LR/father of deceased)
5. Smt. Raj Rani Sharma (LR/mother of deceased)
All R/o. H.No.189, Gali no.5, Part-2,
Mukund Pur, North-West, Delhi-110042.
......Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Sushil Kumar (driver of the offending vehicle)
S/o. Sh. Jagan Nath,
R/o. House in Seelampur,
PS Tariyani, Sherhur, Bihar.
2. Sh. Parveen (owner of the offending vehicle)
S/o. Sh. Jai Karan,
R/o. H.No.167, Bhar Wali Gali,
Tajpur Kalan, North-West, Delhi. Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08
15:03:07
+0530
MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 1 of 39
3. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
Regd. & Head office at :
2, LSC, Okhla, Phase-2,
Near-C, Lal Chowk, New Delhi-110001.
......Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 20.10.2022
Judgment reserved on : 21.07.2025
Date of Award : 08.08.2025
AWAR D
1. The Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filed on
20.10.2022 which was treated as a claim petition. The Road Traffic
Accident in question took place on 03.03.2022 at about 11:45 PM near
Baba Colony, Burari, Delhi. Sh. Arun Kumar Sharma expired in the said
accident which was allegedly caused by vehicle bearing registration
No.HR-38S-8767 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle). The
said vehicle was being driven by respondent No.1, Sushil Kumar;
owned by respondent no. 2, Parveen and insured with respondent no.3,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that on
04.03.2022 during emergency duty, on receipt of information of an
accident vide DD No.7-A, the present information of accident was
received that a Dumpher Truck hit a motorcycle at Baba Colony Mod,
Main 100 Foota Road, Burari, Delhi. After receiving the information of
the accident, IO/SI Deepak Kumar alongwith Ct. Amit reached at the Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08
15:03:17
+0530MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 2 of 39
spot of accident, where they saw a lot of blood on the road and one
damaged motorcycle bearing no. DL-8BQ-6593 was also lying there. An
unclaimed dumpher truck bearing no. HR 38 5 8767 was also present
there. No eye witness was found at the spot of accident.
3. Thereafter, IO got to know that the injured had been taken
to Trauma Centre, Civil Lines, Delhi. Thereafter, after leaving the Ct.
Amit at the spot, IO left the spot and went to the Trauma Centre, Civil
Lines, Delhi. IO called the Crime Team at the spot and got conducted
the inspection of the spot of accident. After reaching Trauma Centre, IO
collected the MLC no.2620 pertaining to the injured. IO further searched
for the eye witness in the hospital but he could not find any eye witness
there. Thereafter, IO returned to the Police Station and after some time,
Ct. Amit had brought the accidental motorcycle in the PS and the same
was taken into custody. At the instance of PCR Staff ASI Amrut, the
unclaimed Dumpher was also brought to the PS and the same was also
taken into custody. On the basis of PCR call, inspection of the crime
team, spot of accident, MLC and CCTV Footage, offence under Section
279/338 IPC was found to have been committed and accordingly, FIR
was registered.
4. During the course of investigation, IO prepared the site plan
of the spot of accident at the instance of ASI Amrut. Thereafter, IO
asked 4-5 passersby to joint the investigation but they refused to join the
same and left from there. Thereafter, SI narrated about the present
accident to the nearby present people but he could not find and eye
witness of the accident. Thereafter, IO recorded the statement u/s. 161 Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2025.08.08
15:03:23
+0530MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 3 of 39
CrPC of ASI Amrut. During the course of investigation, IO checked the
CCTV camera installed at the place of accident in which one driver of
Dumpher can be seen who ran away towards Pusta after hitting the
motor cycle. Thereafter, IO checked about the ownership of that
Dumpher on net, in which the name of the owner of that Dumpher was
found to be Mr. Parveen s/o. Mr. Jai Karan. Thereafter, IO called the
owner to the police station.
5. IO served the notice u/s.133 MV Act upon the owner of the
offending vehicle. After receiving the notice u/s.133 MV Act, owner had
produced the driver of the offending vehicle in the police station and
produced the documents pertaining to the offending vehicle. The
documents were taken into custody. The driver of the offending vehicle
was revealed as Sh. Sushil Kumar. IO interrogated the driver of the
offending vehicle, who had admitted that the present accident had been
caused due to his rash and negligent driving. Driver had given the copy
of his DL to the IO and IO arrested the driver of the offending vehicle.
Thereafter, upon the surety, the driver of the offending vehicle was
released on bail as the offence was bailable.
6. During the course of investigation, on 06.03.2022 IO got
the telephonic information from the Trauma Centre, Civil Lines, Delhi
that Sh. Arun Kumar Sharma had expired during treatment. Thereafter,
IO visited there and collected the death summary and got conducted the
post mortem of the body of the deceased. Thereafter, offence u/s.304A
IPC was replaced from offence u/s.338 IPC. Thereafter, IO got identified
the body of the deceased from his relatives and collected the PM report
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2025.08.08
15:03:29
MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 4 of 39
+0530
no.289/22 which is placed on record. The offending vehicle is stated to
be on superdari. After completion of investigation, chargesheet for the
offences u/s 279/304A IPC was filed against the driver of the offending
vehicle, Mr. Sushil Kumar before the concerned Ld. JMFC and the DAR
was filed before this Tribunal.
7. WS was filed on behalf of respondent nos.1 & 2 each on
10.01.2024, wherein it was stated that the accident had been taken place
due to rash and negligent driving of Sh. Arun Kumar Sharma who was
driving his vehicle at a very high speed. In his written statement,
respondent no. 1 stated that he was driving the truck as per the rules and
regulations of the traffic and was not driving rashly. He denied that
respondent no.1 & 2 are liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.
It is further stated that the respondent no. 1 was having a valid and
effective driving license, permit etc. and the vehicle of the respondent
was fully covered under the insurance policy issued by M/s. United
India Insurance Co. Ltd.
8. Written statement/legal offer was filed on 23.09.2023. The
involvement of the offending vehicle was denied. However, it was
admitted that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the
respondent no.3.
ISSUES
9. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated
20.03.2024, this Tribunal framed the following issues:
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2025.08.08
15:03:33
+0530MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 5 of 39
1. Whether the petitioner Arun Kumar Sharma
(since deceased) suffered fatal injuries in an
accident that took place on 03.03.2022 at about
11:45 PM near Mode of Baba Colony, Burari,
Delhi involving vehicle bearing registration no.
HR-38S-8767 driven rashly and negligently by
respondent no.1 Sushil, owned by respondent
no.2 Parveen and insured with respondent no.3
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner(s) is/are entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and from
whom? OPP
3. Relief.
PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
10. The petitioners examined Ms. Ruchika Sharma, wife of
deceased as PW-1. PW1 has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit
which is Ex. PW1/A. PW1 relied upon the following documents:
1. The FIR which is Ex. PW-1/1.
2. Copy of Death Certificate of his deceased husband which is
mentioned as Ex. PW-1/2 in her affidavit stands de-exhibited and now
marked as Mark-A.
3. Copy of her Aadhar Card which is Ex. PW-1/3 (OSR).
4. Copy of Birth Certificate of her son Hardik Sharma which is
mentioned as Ex. PW-1/4 in her affidavit stands de-exhibited and now
marked as Mark-B.
5. Copy of Aadhar Card of her daughter namely Vani Sharma which is
mentioned as Ex. PW-1/5 in her affidavit stands de-exhibited and now
marked as Mark-C.
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.08
15:03:37 +0530MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 6 of 39
6. Copy of Aadhar Card of Mr. Ashok Kumar, the father of deceased
which is Ex. PW-1/6 (OSR).
7. Copy of Aadhar Card of Mrs. Raj Rani Sharma, the mother of
deceased which is Ex. PW-1/7 (OSR).
8. Copies of her bank passbook as well as copies of passbooks of her in-
laws which are mentioned as Ex. PW-1/8 in her affidavit stand de-
exhibited and now marked as Mark-D.
9. Copy of Salary slip of her deceased husband which is mentioned as
Ex. PW-1/9 in her affidavit stands de-exhibited and now marked as
Mark-E.
11. Further, in petitioner’s evidence Sh. Ashok Kumar was
examined as PW2. PW2 has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit
which is Ex. PW2/A. PW2 relied upon the documents which are already
Ex. PW-1/1, Mark-A, Ex.PW-1/3, Mark-B, Mark-C, Ex. PW-1/6, Ex.
PW-1/7, Mark-D and Mark-E.
12. Further, in petitioner’s evidence Ms. Raj Rani Sharma was
examined as PW3. PW3 has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit
which is Ex. PW3/A. PW3 had relied upon the documents which are
already Ex. PW-1/1, Mark-A, Ex.PW-1/3, Mark-B, Mark-C, Ex.
PW-1/6, Ex. PW-1/7, Mark-D and Mark-E.
13. Further, in petitioner’s evidence Sh. Shivam Gangwar, HR
Executive, iDEAZ, New Delhi was examined as PW4. PW4 was a
summoned witness. He had stated that he had been authorised to depose
before this Ld. Tribunal vide authority letter which is Ex.PW-4/1. He Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08
15:03:41
+0530MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 7 of 39
had further stated that he had brought the summoned record with respect
to the employment of the deceased Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma with his
company i.e. computer print outs of his Appointment Letter and pay
slips for the months of December, 2021 to March, 2022. The same are
Ex. PW-4/2 (Colly. 4 pages).
Thereafter, PE was closed on 15.05.2025.
RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE
14. No evidence was led by respondents and RE was closed on
15.05.2025.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
15. The Petitioners filed his duly filled Form XIII and their
financial statements were recorded. Final arguments were heard on
behalf of the petitioners as well as respondents.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
16. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and Ld.
Counsel for respondents and perused the record. My findings on the
various issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1:
1. Whether the petitioner Arun Kumar Sharma
(since deceased) suffered fatal injuries in an
accident that took place on 03.03.2022 at about
11:45 PM near Mode of Baba Colony, Burari,
Delhi involving vehicle bearing registration no.
HR-38S-8767 driven rashly and negligently by
respondent no.1 Sushil, owned by respondent no.2
Parveen and insured with respondent no.3 United
India Insurance Co. Ltd.? OPP
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2025.08.08
15:03:45
+0530
MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 8 of 39
17. The onus to prove the issue was upon the petitioners. It is
the case of the petitioners that on 03.03.2022 at about 11:45 PM near
Mode of Baba Colony, Burari, Delhi while the deceased was driving his
motorcycle, he was hit by the offending vehicle being driven rashly and
negligently by respondent no. 1. Further it is stated that upon the
accident, Sh. Arun Kumar Sharma expired. It is submitted by Ld.
Counsel for the petitioner that the factum of the accident is not in
dispute. When the police reached at the spot, the motorcycle of the
deceased and the offending vehicle were found at the spot which was
seized by the IO. Notice u/s.133 MV Act was given to the owner of
offending vehicle i.e. the respondent no. 2. In the said notice, the
respondent no. 2 has clearly mentioned that the vehicle was being driven
by the respondent no. 1. In view of the same, it is submitted that it is
proved on record that the respondent no. 1 was driving the offending
vehicle rashly and negligently resulting in the death of the deceased.
18. Per contra, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the
respondents no. 1 & 2 that the respondent no.1 is not guilty of any rash
and negligent act. He was driving the vehicle as per the rules and
regulations and that the deceased was driving his motorcycle rashly.
Hence, it is submitted that the rash and negligent act of the respondent
no. 1 is not proved on record.
19. Record perused.
20. In the present matter, as mentioned above, it is not in
dispute that the accident occurred by the offending vehicle resulting in
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08
15:04:03 +0530MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 9 of 39
the death of the deceased. It is also not in dispute that the IO has
chargesheeted the respondent no. 1 as the accused in the criminal case.
The IO has placed on record the copy of notice u/s.133 MV Act which
was issued by the IO to respondent no. 2 to provide the details of the
driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident. On this notice, it is
mentioned by the respondent no.2 that the offending vehicle was being
driven by the respondent no. 1 at the time of the accident. Further, both
the motorcycle of the deceased and the offending vehicle were seized by
the IO from the spot. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana
2009 ACJ 287 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepak Goel &
Ors, 2014 (2) TAC 846 (Del) decided by the Coordinate Bench of the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court, it was held as under :-
“……where the claimants filed either the certified
copies of the criminal record or the criminal record
showing the completion of investigation by police or
issuance of charge sheet under Section 279/304A IPC
or the certified copy of FIR or the recovery of the
mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle,
then these documents are sufficient proof to reach to a
conclusion that the driver was negligent particularly
when there is no defence available from the side of
driver.”
21. Reliance is also being placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble
Delhi High Court in case Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Meera Devi, 2021 LawSuit (Del) wherein it was held that “……in view
of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008, contents of DAR
has to be presumed to be correct and read in evidence without formal
proof of the same unless proof to the contrary was produced.”
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2025.08.08
15:04:12
+0530
MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 10 of 39
22. It is pertinent to mention here that in the proceedings before
the claims tribunal, the facts are to be established on the basis of
preponderance of probabilities and not by the strict rules of evidence or
the higher standard of beyond reasonable doubt as required in criminal
cases. The burden of proof in the present cases is much lower than as
placed in civil or criminal cases. In Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal
Road Transport Corporation & Ors (2009) 13 SC 530, it has been held
by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that negligence must be decided on
the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view
must be adopted in reaching a conclusion. Hence, in view of the facts
and circumstances of the present case, the rash and negligent act of the
respondent no.1 is proved.
23. Further, it is settled law that the petitioner cannot be
expected to prove the accident beyond reasonable doubts and the
principle of res ipse loquitor should apply which means that the
“accident speaks for itself”. Thus, once it has been established in DAR
and chargesheet that the accident had taken place, the burden shifts on
the respondents to prove that they were not responsible for the accident
which the respondents have failed to discharge. In this regard, reliance is
placed on the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the cases of
Teja Singh Vs Suman & Ors., MAC. APP. 1111/2018 & CM APPL.
52384/2018, 52386/2018, date of decision 06/12/2019; MAC. APP.
428/2018, titled as The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamla Devi &
Ors, date of decision 08.11.2019 and MAC. APP. 690/2017 & CM
APPL. 28108/2017, titled as Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08
15:04:20
+0530MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 11 of 39
Vs Mona & Ors., date of decision 15.10.2019, which had relied upon the
judgment in the case of Cholamandalam Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamlesh
2009(3) AD Delhi 310.
24. In view of the same, considering the facts and
circumstances, the court is satisfied that the accident was caused due to
the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1. From the DAR, it
also stands established that respondent no. 2 was the registered owner of
the offending vehicle. It is also an admitted position that the offending
vehicle was insured with respondent no.3, vide Policy
No.0427003121P105112565 w.e.f. 29.08.2021 to 28.08.2022. The
factum of the said insurance is also admitted by the respondent no.3
insurance company. It is also admitted that at the time of the accident,
the respondent no.1 was carrying a valid DL.
The injury:
25. Further, the onus to prove that the deceased had suffered
fatal injuries by way of the said accident was on the petitioners. In this
regard, the petitioners have relied upon MLC bearing no. 2620 prepared
at Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi dated 04.03.2022 as per which it has been
opined by the concerned doctor that there was history of road traffic
accident. He had suffered multiple injuries including injuries on the
head, arm, leg, shoulder, face and chest. Subsequently, he expired on
06.03.2022. His post mortem report is on record. Hence, it is proved on
record the the injured suffered fatal injuries due to the accident, due to
which he unfortunately expired.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08
15:04:26
+0530
MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 12 of 39
26. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the
opinion that on the scales of preponderance of probabilities, the
petitioner has proved that the accident in question took place due to rash
and negligent driving of offending vehicle being driven by its
driver/respondent no. 1 on the date and time of the accident and that due
to the said accident, the injured Sh. Arun Kumar Sharma unfortunately
expired. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner
and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to
what amount and from whom? (OPP)
27. The onus to prove this issue was also upon the petitioners.
In view of the observations as given in issue no.1, the petitioners are
entitled for compensation. 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 Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08
15:04:31
+0530MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 13 of 39
uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will lesser
need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the
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
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08
15:04:36
+0530MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 14 of 39
“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,
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
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2025.08.08
15:04:41 +0530
MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 15 of 39
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.”
28. 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 Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08
15:04:47
+0530MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 16 of 39
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.
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.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08
15:04:51
+0530MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 17 of 39
(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.”
Loss of income
29. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the deceased
was working in M/s. IDEAZ, New Delhi as BDA w.e.f. 01.02.2021. He
was paid Rs.23,970/- as monthly salary. His appointment letter was
proved as Ex. PW4/1. Further Ld. Counsel for the petitioner stated that
the HR Executive from the said company was examined as PW4 who
proved on record his pay slips from December 2021 to March 2022
which are Ex. PW4/2 (colly). Hence, it is submitted that the income of
the deceased was Rs.23,970/- PM.
30. Record perused.
31. As mentioned above, the petitioners have proved on record
the appointment letter and salary slips of the deceased as Ex PW4/1 and
Ex. PW4/2. Perusal of the same shows that his gross income was
Rs.22,000/- and when the employer contribution was included, then the
CTC per month was Rs.23,970/-. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 held that
for calculating compensation, the income of the victim less the income
tax should be treated as the actual income. Further, in case titled as
Universal Sompo General Insurance vs Sh. Dinesh Kumar Singh & Ors
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08
15:04:56
+0530MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 18 of 39
MAC.APP. 106/2025 decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 9
June, 2025, it has been observed that the Tribunal must deduct
applicable income tax and other permissible statutory deductions from
the gross income of the deceased while computing compensation
payable to the petitioner. It was observed that:
“13. The learned Tribunal after a perusal of the salary
slips and testimony of PW-2 who proved the said
salary slips assessed the income of the deceased at
₹34,300/- per month. Thereby his gross annual income
would be ₹4,11,600/-. The said income undoubtedly
would be subject to tax as applicable at the relevant
time. Thus, the learned Tribunal in the opinion of this
Court ought to have considered the applicable tax and
its deduction for the purpose of assessing the income
of the deceased.
15. Even though the gross income of ₹4,11,600/- is
subject to payment of tax under the relevant slab,
however, the assessee is also entitled to benefit of
standard deduction and other benefits as available to
the tax payers.”
32. In view of the same, the gross income of the deceased is
considered to be Rs.22,000/- PM. Further as per his salary slip, he was
receiving an net salary of Rs.20,190/-. The same is considered to be his
net income in view of the above mentioned judgment of the Hon’ble
High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence, his monthly income
is assessed to be Rs.20,190/-.
Age determination of the deceased:
33. As per the aadhar card of the deceased, his date of birth was
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2025.08.08
15:05:01 +0530
MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 19 of 39
11.01.1989. The date of the accident is 03.03.2022. Hence, as on the
date of the accident, the deceased was aged 33 years of age.
Future Prospects:
34. In view of the judgment of National Insurance Company
Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors; (2017) 16 SCC 680, it was observed that
the Claimants would also be entitled to 50% for future prospects.
Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased needs to be taken as
Rs. 30,285. (Rs.20,190/- + Rs. 10,095/- which is 50% of Rs.20,190/-).
Determination of Dependent:
35. In the present case, the deceased is survived by his wife, 2
minor children and parents, who all shall be considered as dependents.
Determination of multiplicand:
36. The monthly income of the deceased after enhancement
needs to be taken as Rs. 30,285/-. In light of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, and United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur & Ors., (2021) 11 SCC 780 ,
out of the above amount so assessed, 1/4th amount has to be deducted
on account of personal and living expenses as the number of dependent
family members is 4 to 6. So, in this matter, monthly loss of dependency
would come out to be Rs. 22,713.75 (3/4th of Rs. 30,285/-). This needs
to be multiplied by 12 to workout multiplicand/annual loss of
dependency. Hence, multiplicand for this matter would be Rs.2,72,565/-
(Rs. 22,713.75 x 12).
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08
15:05:06
+0530MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 20 of 39
Award Towards Loss of Dependency:
37. Further, as the deceased was 33 years of age at the time of
the accident, multiplier applicable in this matter as per above discussion
would be 16. The total loss of dependency would come out to be
Rs.43,61,040/- (Rs.2,72,565/- x 16), hence, so awarded.
Medical expenses:
38. The petitioners have not filed any medical bills on record.
Hence, in the absence of any medical bills, the petitioners shall not be
entitled to any amount towards medical expenses.
Non-Pecuniary Heads:
39. The Respondents/Claimants shall be entitled to the
compensation under Non-Pecuniary Heads in terms of National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi And Others, (2017) 16
SCC 680. The case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi &
Ors. 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) was considered and clarified by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 9581/2018 decided
on 18.09.2018 whereby after considering the case of Pranay Sethi’s
(supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to award loss of
consortium of Rs.40,000/- to each dependent of the deceased and further
pleased to award a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to each dependent of
the deceased towards loss of love and affection. The relevant portion is
as under:
“…… A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08
15:05:12 +0530MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 21 of 39
Sethi (supra) dealt with the various heads under which
compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of
these heads is Loss of Consortium.
In legal parlance, “consortium” is a compendious term
which encompasses ‘spousal consortium’, ‘parental
consortium’, and ‘filial consortium’.
The right to consortium would include the company,
care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of
the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With
respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations
with the deceased spouse.
Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights
pertaining to the relationship of a husband wife which
allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss
of “company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid
of the other in every conjugal relation.”
Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the
premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid,
protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and
training.”
Filial consortium is the right of the parents to
compensation in the case of an accidental death of a
child. An accident leading to the death of a child
causes great shock and agony to the parents and family
of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to
lose their child during their lifetime. Children are
valued for their love, affection, companionship and
their role in the family unit.
Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing
norms about the status and worth of actual
relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have
recognized that the value of a child’s consortium far
exceeds the economic value of the compensation
awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most
jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded
compensation under loss of consortium on the death of
a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08
MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 22 of 39
15:05:18
+0530
compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and
companionship of the deceased child.
The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation
aimed at providing relief to the victims or their
families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a
parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or
daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of
consortium under the head of Filial Consortium.
Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose
their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act.
A few High Courts have awarded compensation on
this count. However, there was no clarity with respect
to the principles on which compensation could be
awarded on loss of Filial Consortium.
The amount of compensation to be awarded as
consortium will be governed by the principles of
awarding compensation under ‘Loss of Consortium’ as
laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra).
In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award
the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of
Rs.40,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium…..”.
40. However, in the case of United India Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur 2020 SCC Online SC 410 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that there is no justification to
award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate
head. The relevant portion of the observations are reproduced as under:
“…… The amount to be awarded for loss consortium
will be as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi
(supra). At this stage, we consider it necessary to
provide uniformity with respect to the grant of
consortium, and loss of love and affection. Several
Tribunals and High Courts have been awarding
compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2025.08.08MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 23 of 39
15:05:48
+0530
love and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay
Sethi (supra), has recognized only three conventional
heads under which compensation can be awarded viz.
loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
In Magma General (supra), this Court
gave a comprehensive interpretation to consortium to
include spousal consortium, parental consortium, as
well as filial consortium. Loss of love and affection is
comprehended in loss of consortium.
The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to
award compensation for loss of consortium, which is a
legitimate conventional head. There is no justification
to award compensation towards loss of love and
affection as a separate head…”.
41. In the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), it was held that in the
case of death, Rs.15,000/- is liable to be paid towards the loss of estate
and funeral charges each, while Rs.40,000/- was payable towards the
loss of consortium to each legal heir and the same may be enhanced by
10% every three years.
42. In the present case, the accident is of 2022 and the Award
was passed in 2025. Thus, an amount of Rs. 18,150/- is granted towards
the Loss of Estate and Rs. 18,150/- towards funeral charges.
43. Further, Rs. 48,400/- each is granted to the petitioners i.e.
total of Rs. 48,400 x 5 = Rs. 2,42,000/- towards Loss of Consortium.
Computation of compensation:
44. Applying the settled guidelines in the various judgments,
the compensation payable to the petitioners is calculated as under:
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2025.08.08
15:05:55
+0530MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 24 of 39
Sr. No. Head Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
1 Monthly Income of deceased (A) Rs.20,190/-
2 Add future prospect (B) @ 50%= Rs. 10,095/-
3 Less 1/4 deductions towards (Rs.20,190/- + Rs.
personal and living expenses of 10,095/-) = Rs. 30,285 *
the deceased (C) 1/4 = Rs. 7,571.25
4 Monthly loss of dependency Rs.20,190/- + Rs. 10,095/-)
[(A+B) – C = D] – Rs. 7,571.25 = Rs.
22,713.75
5 Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 22,713.75 x 12=
(D x 12) Rs.2,72,565/-
6 Multiplier (E) 16
7 Total loss of dependency (Rs.2,72,565/- x 16)=
DxE=F Rs.43,61,040/-
8 Medical Expenses (G) Nil
9 Compensation for loss of love and Nil.
affection (H)
10 Compensation for loss of Rs. 48,400 x 5 = Rs.
consortium (I) to both the
2,42,000/-
petitioners
11 Compensation for loss of Estate Rs. 18,150/-
(J)
12 Compensation for funeral Rs. 18,150/-
expenses (K)
13 Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 46,39,340/-
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08
15:06:01
+0530
MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 25 of 39
45. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @
Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 , the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld awarding of 9% interest per annum.
Therefore, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9%
per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 27.10.2022 till realization.
APPORTIONMENT:
46. It is evident from the record that the deceased had left
behind his five legal heirs i.e. his wife, 2 minor children and parents. For
the sake of convenience, the individual shares of the dependents of the
deceased are tabulated as under:-
S.No. Name of the Relation Percentage Amount in (Rupees) Amount
claimant with including
deceased interest
1. Smt. Ruchika Wife 50% of Rs. 21,80,520 + Rs. Rs. 28,02,078/-
Rs.43,61,040/- 48,400/- + Rs. 18,150/- +
Rs. 18,150/- = Rs.
22,65,220/-
2. Baby Vani Minor 15% of Rs. 6,54,156/- + Rs. Rs. 8,69,062/-
Sharma Daughter Rs.43,61,040/- 48,400/- = Rs. 7,02,556/-
3. Master Hardik Minor Son 15% of Rs. 6,54,156/- + Rs. Rs. 8,69,062/-
Sharma Rs.43,61,040/- 48,400/- = Rs. 7,02,556/-
4. Sh. Ashok Father 5% of Rs. 2,18,052/- + Rs. Rs. 3,29,501/-
Kumar Rs.43,61,040/- 48,400/- = Rs. 2,66,452/-
5. Smt. Raj Rani Mother 15% of Rs. 6,54,156/- + Rs. Rs. 8,69,062/-
Rs.43,61,040/- 48,400/- = Rs. 7,02,556/-
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08
15:06:07
+0530MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 26 of 39
DISBURSEMENT:
47. The Financial Statement of petitioners was recorded by this
Court/Tribunal. As per the said statement, the monthly expenses of the
family are approximately Rs. 35,000/- per month.
48. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 07.12.2018
& 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh Tyagi & Ors.
Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors. has given the following directions:
“(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be
added in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts
of the claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the
claimants shall be an individual saving bank account
and not a joint account.
(ii) 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 claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited
by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant
near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature
discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the
permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque
book and/or debit card to claimants. 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 Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08
15:06:14
+0530MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 27 of 39
debit card(s) freeze the account of claimants so that no
debit card be issued in respect of the account of
claimants from any other branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the
passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque
books and/or debit card have been issued and shall not
be issued without the permission of the Court and the
claimant shall produced the passbook with the
necessary endorsement before the Court for
compliance.”
49. However, in a recent judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India titled as Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal on 18
March, 2025 in S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020 has held that :
“17. The case in hand pertains to the compensation
awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. The general
practice followed by the insurance companies, where
the compensation is not disputed, is to deposit the
same before the Tribunal. Instead of following that
process, a direction can always be issued to transfer
the amount into the bank account(s) of the claimant(s)
with intimation to the Tribunal.
17.1 For that purpose, the Tribunals at the initial stage
of pleadings or at the stage of leading evidence may
require the claimant(s) to furnish their bank account
particulars to the Tribunal along with the requisite
proof, so that at the stage of passing of the award the
Tribunal may direct that the amount of compensation
be transferred in the account of the claimant and if
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08
15:06:19MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 28 of 39
+0530
there are more than one then in their respective
accounts. If there is no bank account, then they should
be required to open the bank account either
individually or jointly with family members only. It
should also be mandated that, in case there is any
change in the bank account particulars of the
claimant(s) during the pendency of the claim petition
they should update the same before the Tribunal. This
should be ensured before passing of the final award. It
may be ensured that the bank account should be in the
name of the claimant(s) and if minor, through
guardian(s) and in no case it should be a joint account
with any person, who is not a family member. The
transfer of the amount in the bank account, particulars
of which have been furnished by the claimant(s), as
mentioned in the award, shall be treated as satisfaction
of the award. Intimation of compliance should be
furnished to the Tribunal.”
50. In view of the same, the award amount can now be
disbursed in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioners. However, the
remaining directions as passed by the Hon’ble High Court shall be
complied with.
Smt. Ruchika Sharma (wife):
51. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners,
it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs.46,39,340/-, out
of the share of the petitioner/wife Ruchika Sharma Rs.28,02,078/-
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2025.08.08
15:06:27
+0530
MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 29 of 39
(Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Two Thousand and Seventy Eight only),
Rs.5,02,078/- shall be released to the petitioner/wife immediately in her
Bank Account No.44352157759, IFSC Code SBIN0002613, SBI, Tis
Hazari Courts, Delhi.
52. The balance amount of Rs.23,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Three Lakhs only) shall be put in 46 monthly fixed deposits in her name
in her account as mentioned above of equal amount of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 46
months respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions
contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021.
Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall
automatically be transferred in her saving account maintained in a
nationalized bank situated near the place of her residence.
Baby Vani Sharma and Master Hardik Sharma (minor children of
deceased):
53. Since, the petitioners Baby Vani Sharma and Master Hardik
Sharma are minor, on realization of the award amount, out of their share
of Rs.8,69,062/- each, a sum of Rs.2,69,062/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Sixty
Nine Thousand and Sixty Two only) each be kept in one FDR each
which shall be released in their favour along with cumulative interest
upon their attaining majority. Further, the balance amount of
Rs.6,00,000/- each shall be put in 20 (Twenty) monthly fixed deposits in
their name of equal amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand
only) each for a period of 01 month to 20 months respectively, with
cumulative interest in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2025.08.08
15:06:35
+0530MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 30 of 39
842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Upon the petitioners Baby
Vani Sharma and Master Hardik Sharma attaining majority, the amount
of these FDRs, shall automatically be transferred one after the other
every month in their saving account bearing nos. Bank Account
No.44352298882, IFSC Code SBIN0002613, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi and Bank Account No.44352152252, IFSC Code SBIN0002613,
SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi respectively maintained in a nationalized
bank situated near the place of their residence.
Sh. Ashok Kumar (father of the deceased):
54. On realization of the award amount, the share of the
petitioner/father Ashok Kumar Rs.3,29,501/-(Rupees Three Lakhs
Twenty Nine Thousand Five Hundred and One only) shall be released to
the petitioner/father immediately in his Bank Account No.44352153164,
IFSC Code SBIN0002613, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Smt. Raj Rani Sharma (mother of the deceased):
55. On realization of the award amount, out of the share of the
petitioner/mother Raj Rani Sharma Rs.8,69,062/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs
Sixty Nine Thousand and Sixty Two only), Rs.2,69,062/- shall be
released to the petitioner/mother immediately in her Bank Account
No.44352154566, IFSC Code SBIN0002613, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi.
56. The balance amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs
only) shall be put in 20 monthly fixed deposits in her name in her
account as mentioned above of equal amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08
15:06:41 +0530MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 31 of 39
Thirty Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 20 months
respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions
contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021.
Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall
automatically be transferred in her saving account maintained in a
nationalized bank situated near the place of her residence.
57. In compliance of the directions given by Hon’ble High
Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award
in the prescribed Format-XVI is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
Date of Accident: 03.03.2022 Name of the deceased: Sh. Arun Kumar Sharma Age of the deceased: 33 years Occupation of the deceased: Private Job Income of the deceased : Rs. 20,190/- per month
Name and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No. Name of the claimant Relation with
deceased
1. Smt. Ruchika Wife
2. Baby Vani Sharma Minor Daughter
3. Master Hardik Sharma Minor Son
4. Sh. Ashok Kumar Father
5. Smt. Raj Rani Mother
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08
15:06:47
+0530MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 32 of 39
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATIONSr. Head Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
No.
1 Monthly Income of deceased Rs.20,190/-
(A)
2 Add future prospect (B) Rs.20,190/-
3 Less 1/4 deductions towards (Rs.20,190/- + Rs. 10,095/-) = Rs.
personal and living expenses of 30,285 * 1/4 = Rs. 7,571.25
the deceased (C)
4 Monthly loss of dependency Rs.20,190/- + Rs. 10,095/-) – Rs.
[(A+B) - C = D] 7,571.25 = Rs. 22,713.75
5 Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 22,713.75 x 12=
(D x 12) Rs.2,72,565/-
6 Multiplier (E) 16
7 Total loss of dependency (Rs.2,72,565/- x 16)=
DxE=F Rs.43,61,040/-
8 Medical Expenses (G) Nil
9 Compensation for loss of love Nil.
and affection (H)
10 Compensation for loss of Rs. 48,400 x 5 = Rs. 2,42,000/-
consortium (I) to both the
petitioners
11 Compensation for loss of Rs. 18,150/-
Estate (J)
12 Compensation for funeral Rs. 18,150/-
expenses (K)
13 Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 46,39,340/-
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08
MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 33 of 39
15:07:02
+0530
14 Rate of Interest Awarded 9%
15 Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 10,99,525/-
award w.e.f. 27.10.2022 till
realization
16 Total amount including interest Rs. 57,38,865/-
17 Award amount released As per paragraph Nos.51 to 56
18 Award amount kept in FDRs As per paragraph Nos.52,53 & 56
19 Mode of disbursement of the As per paragraph Nos.51 to 56
award amount to the
claimant(s)
20 Next Date of compliance of the 08.09.2025
award
LIABILITY:
58. It has been established that the offending vehicle was being
driven by respondent no.1 and that respondent no.2 is the owner of the
same and the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no. 3.
Hence, the respondent no.3 shall be liable to pay the compensation
amount to the petitioners. Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in favour
of the petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
59. In view of the above, the respondent no.3 United India
Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.46,39,340/-
(Rupees Forty Six Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand and Three Hundred
Forty only) along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of DAR i.e.
w.e.f. 20.10.2022 till realization with the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08
15:07:08
+0530MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 34 of 39
within 30 days under intimation to the claimants, failing which the said
respondent shall be liable to pay interest @ 12 % per annum for the
period of delay beyond 30 days. Reliance placed on case titled as
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP no.
22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
60. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the
award to the insurance company for compliance within the time granted
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. on 16.03.2021. The said respondent is further
directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the
claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal
with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days
of the deposit with a copy to the Claimant and his counsel.
Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the
award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties
free of cost.
Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to
Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate 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)].
Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on
08.09.2025 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation
amount within the time granted. Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08
15:07:14
+0530MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 35 of 39
Further, Civil Nazir is directed to maintain the record in
Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment)
Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation
of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021
titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors.,
date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally
Announced in the open Court today
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
on this 08th Day of August, 2025
2025.08.08
15:07:18
+0530(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 36 of 39
THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL MOTOR
VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022 (PL. SEE RULE
150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 03.03.2022
2 Date of filing of Form-I –
First Accident Report N/A
(FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II
N/A
to the victim(s)
4 Date of receipt of Form-III
N/A
from the Driver
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV
from the Owner N/A
6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the insurance N/A
of the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-
VIA & VIB from the N/A
Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII -
22.10.2022
Detail Accident Report
(DAR)
9 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Investigating No.
Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the 20.10.2022
Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company admitted his Yes.
report within 30 days of the
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08
MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 37 of 39
15:07:27 +0530
DAR?
12 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the No.
part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether
any action/direction
warranted?
13 Date of response of the N/A
claimant(s) to the offer of
the Insurance Company.
14 Date of award 08.08.2025
15 Whether the claimant(s)
were directed to open Yes
savings bank account(s)
near their place of
residence?
16 Date of order by which
claimant(s) were directed to
open Savings Bank
Account(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN
card and Aadhar Card and 21.07.2025
the direction to the bank not
to issue any cheque
book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an
endorsement to this effect
on the passbook(s).
17 Date on which the
claimant(s) produced the
passbook of their savings
bank account(s) near the
place of their residence 08.08.2025
alongwith the endorsement,
PAN card and Aadhaar
Card? Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08
15:07:41
+0530
MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 38 of 39
18 Permanent residential
address of the claimant(s). As per Award.
19 Whether the claimant(s)
savings bank account(s) is
Yes
near their place of
residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s)
were examined at the time
Yes. The Financial Statements of the claimants
of passing of the Award to
were recorded on 21.07.2025 and 08.08.2025.
ascertain his/their financial
condition?
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08
15:07:44
+0530(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
08.08.2025
MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 39 of 39