Delhi District Court
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi -/- vs National Insurance Co on 1 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF HARVINDER SINGH, DISTRICT
JUDGE-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-01, (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
AWARD/JUDGMENT
MACT Case No.58/2019
CNR No.DLWT010008502019
1. Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi (Wife of deceased)
W/o Late Sh. Kamal Singh
2. David Kumar @ Devid Kumar (Son of deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Kamal Singh, aged 18 years
3. Mahender Kumar (Son of deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Kamal Singh, aged 12 years
4. Gunjan Kumari (Daughter of deceased)
D/o Late Sh. Kamal Singh, aged 23 years
5. Sunita
D/o Late Sh. Kamal Singh, aged 26 years
(Petitioner No.3 is minor through his mother & natural
guardian Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi/petitioner no.1)
All R/o Village Surajpur Post Bahar Pur,
P.S. Chandoshi District Aligarh, UP.
..............Applicant/Petitioner
Versus
1. M/s National Insurance Company Ltd.
(Insurer of vehicle No.KA01AA0826)
2 & 3 Central Market, Punjabi Bagh,
New Delhi-110026.
2. Arun Singh
(Driver of vehicle No.KA01AA0826)
S/o Sh. Village Sita Kund P.S. Haldi
District Ballia, UP.
3. G. Siva Kumar
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.1 of 31
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:31:07 +0530
(Owner of vehicle No. KA01AA0826)
S/o Sh. Govindan
R/o 77/1 No.27, United Building
J.G. Road Bangalore-560018
4. Raman Saini
(Owner of vehicle No. NL01N4913)
R/o A-93, Anand Vihar, Delhi-110092.
5. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd.
(Insurer of vehicle No. NL01N4913)
Unit No.502, 504, 506, 5th Floor Mahatta Tower 54,
B-1 Block, Community Center Janakpuri,
New Delhi-110058
Date of Institution : 02.02.2019
Date of reserving order/judgment : 27.01.2025
Date of pronouncement : 01.02.2025
FORM-XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
1. Date of the accident 11.10.2017
2. Date of filing of Form-I - N.A.
First Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to N.A.
the victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III N.A.
from the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV N.A.
from the Owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- N.A.
Interim Accident Report
(IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA N.A.
and Form-VIB from the
Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - N.A.
Detailed Accident Report
(DAR)
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.2 of 31
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:31:11 +0530
9. Whether there was any delay N.A.
or deficiency on the part of
the Investigating Officer? If
so, whether any action/
direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Date not mentioned
Designated Officer by the
Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Yes
Officer of the Insurance
Company submitted his report
within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay No
or deficiency on the part of
the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company? If so,
whether any action/direction
warranted?
13. Date of response of the Legal offer was not filed in
claimant(s) to the offer of the this matter
Insurance Company
14. Date of the award 01.02.2025
15. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
was/were directed to open
savings bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which 02.12.2024
claimant(s) was/were directed
to open savings bank
account(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN
Card and Aadhaar Card and
the direction to the bank not
issue any cheque book/debit
card to the claimant(s) and
make an endorsement to this
effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) Yet to be filed
produced the passbook of
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.3 of 31
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:31:13 +0530
their savings bank account
near the place of their
residence along-with the
endorsement, PAN Card and
Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential All R/o Village Surajpur
Address of the claimant(s). Post Bahar Pur,
P.S. Chandoshi
District Aligarh, UP.
19. Whether the claimant(s) Yet to be filed
savings bank account(s) is/are
near his/her/their place of
residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) No
was/were examined at the
time of passing of the award
to ascertain his/her/their
financial condition?
FACTUAL POSITION & PLEADINGS
1. Vide this judgment/award, this Tribunal shall decide
claim petition for compensation on account of death of Sh.
Kamal Singh in a road vehicular accident which took place on
11.10.2017 at about 10:45 AM at GNT Double Lack Road near
Goat Market Milgaimandi Madhavaram, Chennai.
CASE OF PETITIONER SIDE
2. Succinctly, the case put forth by petition is that on
11.10.2017 at about 10:45 AM, the deceased Kamal Singh was
standing in front of vehicle bearing registration No.NL01N4913
at GNT Double Lack road near Goat Market Milgaimandi
Madhavaram Chennai. In the meantime, driver of the offending
vehicle bearing registration No. KA01AA0826 reversed his
vehicle without any helper, indication, warning in rash and
negligent manner. It hit the deceased. Due to same, he fell down
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.4 of 31
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:31:16 +0530
and sustained serious injuries. He died at the spot of incident.
After incident, driver of the offending vehicle fled away from the
place of incident. FIR No. 508/2017 under Section 279/304A
was registered at Madhavaram Chennai against the respondent
no.2. The incident happened solely due to rash and negligent
driving of respondent no.02. Deceased was working as Driver
and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month at the time of incident.
The petitioner(s)/claimant(s) was/were dependent upon the
deceased at the time of incident. The respondent no.01 being
Insurer of vehicle bearing registration no. KA01AA0826, the
respondent no.02 being driver of vehicle bearing registration no.
KA01AA0826, respondent no.3 being owner of vehicle bearing
registration no. KA01AA0826, respondent no.4 being owner of
vehicle bearing registration no. NL01N4913 and respondent no.5
insurer of vehicle bearing registration no. NL01N4913 are jointly
and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner(s).
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS
3. Notice of the application/petition was issued to the
respondents, they appeared and filed their WS/reply to the
present petition/application.
RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT NO.01
4.1 In gist, the response of the respondent no.01 as
discernible from its reply/written statement is that their vehicle in
question has been falsely implicated in the present case.
Respondent no.2 was not holding any valid driving license to
drive the vehicle in question. Vehicle bearing No. KA01AA0826
was insured with it vide policy no. 65130031166300014530 for
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.5 of 31
HARVINDER Digitally signed by
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01 16:31:19
+0530
period 07.11.2016 to 06.11.2017 in the name of G. Sivakumar. It
denied all other averments of petition and prayed for dismissal of
the same.
RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT NO.05/HDFC Ergo General
Insurance Co. Ltd.
4.2 In gist, the response of the respondent no.05 as
discernible from its reply/written statement is that there is no
cause of action against the respondent no.5. Incident in question
took place due to negligence of driver of vehicle bearing
no.KA01AA0826. Respondent no.5 has been wrongly arrayed as
respondent in the present case. Vehicle bearing registration No.
NL01N4913 was insured with it vie policy
No.231520166836550000 for period 16.02.2017 to 15.02.2018.
With these main averments, respondent no.5 prayed for dismissal
of the petition against respondent no.5.
RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT NO.02, 03 & 04
4.3 Despite grant of number of opportunities, no
WS/responses were filed by the respondent no.02, 03 & 04.
ISSUES
5.1 After completion of pleadings, on 05.10.2020, ld.
Predecessor of this tribunal framed following issues: –
1. Whether the deceased namely Kamal
Singh suffered fatal injuries in the accident
that took plac eon 11.10.2017 at about 10:45
AM involving of two vehicles i.e. Vehicle
bearing No. KA01AA0826 and vehicle
bearing No. NL014913. The vehicle vehicle
no.KA01AA0826 was being driven rashly
and negligently by the respondent no.2 Sh.
Arun Singh, owned by respondent no.3 Sh.
G Siva Kumar and insured with respondent
no.1 i.e. National Insurance Company ltd.
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.6 of 31 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.02.01 16:31:22 +0530
and the vehicle bearing no. NL01N4913
being owned by the respondent no.4 Sh.
Raman Saini and insured with respondent
no.5 i.e. HDFC Ergo General Insurance co.
Ltd.? OPP
2. Whether the applicant(s) is/are entitled to
compensation, if yes, of what amount and
from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
5.2 Thereafter, matter was fixed for evidence of
petitioner side.
PETITIONER SIDE EVIDENCE
6.1 The petitioner(s)/claimant(s) examined examined
petitioner No.1 as PW-1 to establish their claim. She tendered
her evidence by way of affidavit reiterating and supporting the
contents of their application/petition. She relied upon photocopy
of her Aadhar card Ex.PW1/1, photocopies of Aadhar Card of
David Kumar, Mahender Kumar, Gunjan Kumari and Kamal
Singh Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/5, certified copy of FIR & its
translation Ex.PW1/6 & Ex.PW1/7, statement of Ramnathan
Ex.PW1/8, photocopy of ration card Mark A, death certificate of
Kamal Singh Mark B, death report Mark C, sealing certificate
Mark D and no objection certificate of Police Mark E in her
evidence. PW1 was examined, cross-examined and was
discharged.
6.2 The petitioner(s)/claimant(s) further examined
Inspector G. Chithra as PW-2. She in gist has deposed that on
11.10.2017, at about 10:50 AM, she received a call from Control
Room regarding an incident having taken place between two
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.7 of 31 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.02.01 16:31:26 +0530
trucks at near Chilli Mandi. She went to the spot of incident and
found two trucks in accidental condition at the spot of incident.
She found one person having expired in the incident. She sent
the body of the deceased to Stanley Hospital. She received one
complaint from one Mr. M. Ramanathan who was the eye
witness of the incident. On the statement of Mr. Ramananthan,
the FIR No. 508/2017 at PS Tiw-madhavaram was registered u/s
279/304A IPC. After registration of the FIR, she started
investigation of the matter and during investigation, she prepared
site plan of the place of incident at the instance of Gaurav Kumar
and Surender Kumar. She seized both vehicles involved in the
incident bearing registration no. NL01N4913 and KA01AA0826.
The post mortem of the deceased Kamal Singh was conducted in
Stanley Hospital on the next day of incident. She also recorded
statement of various other peoples during investigation. She
collected the post mortem report of the deceased. After
investigation, she found the driver of vehicle bearing registration
No.KA01AA0826 namely Arun Singh at fault and chargesheeted
him. The copy of the investigation done by her is Ex.PW2/A.
She was examined, cross-examined and was discharged.
RESPONDENT SIDE EVIDENCE
7. Respondent no.1 examined its Assistant Manager
(Legal) Sh. Raghunath Pawar as R1W1 who tendered his
evidence by way of affidavit Ex.R1W1/A reiterating and
supporting its case. He relied upon certified copy of insurance
policy bearing no. 651300/31/16/6300014530 Ex.R1W1/,
photocopy of DL of Arun Kumar Mark A, report of investigator
Mr. Prashant Mishra along with report of licensing authority
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.8 of 31
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:31:30 +0530
Ex.R1W1/2 and notice issued to respondent no.2 & 3 along with
original postal receipts and service reports Ex.R1W1/3 to Ex.
R1W1/6 in his evidence. He was examined, cross-examined and
was discharged.
FINAL ARGUMENTS/SUBMISSIONS/CONTENTIONS
8.1 Submissions/contentions of the petitioner side are
that the petitioner side has positively proved that the incident
took place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent
no.02. Award may be passed by this Tribunal as per
entitlement/claim of applicant(s)/claimant(s)/LR(s).
8.2 Submissions/contentions of the respondent no.01 are
that the petitioner side has failed to prove that incident in
question took place due to rash and negligent driving of
respondent no.2. Petitioner side has failed to prove the
job/business/work and income of the deceased. With these main
submissions/contentions, the respondent no.1 has prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
8.3 Submissions/contentions of the respondent
no.05/HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. are that
incident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving
of respondent no.2. Their vehicle has been falsely arrayed in this
case. With these main submissions/contentions, the respondent
no.05 has prayed for dismissal of the petition against respondent
no.5.
8.4. No arguments have been addressed by respondent
no.2, 3 & 4 despite grant of number of opportunities.
ANALYSIS/FINDINGS ON ISSUES
9.1 (1) Whether the deceased namely Kamal Singh
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.9 of 31 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.02.01 16:31:33 +0530
suffered fatal injuries in the accident that took plac eon
11.10.2017 at about 10:45 AM involving of two vehicles i.e.
Vehicle bearing No. KA01AA0826 and vehicle bearing No.
NL014913. The vehicle vehicle no.KA01AA0826 was being
driven rashly and negligently by the respondent no.2 Sh. Arun
Singh, owned by respondent no.3 Sh. G Siva Kumar and insured
with respondent no.1 i.e. National Insurance Company ltd. and
the vehicle bearing no. NL01N4913 being owned by the
respondent no.4 Sh. Raman Saini and insured with respondent
no.5 i.e. HDFC Ergo General Insurance co. Ltd.? OPP
9.2 Before adverting to the facts of the present petition
for deciding the above issue, at the very outset, it would be
apposite to note here that the procedure followed by an accident
claim tribunal is similar to what is followed by a civil court. In
civil matters the facts are required to be established by way of
preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of
evidence or beyond reasonable doubt as is required in a criminal
prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is not as heavy as
it is in a criminal case and in a claim petition under the M. V. Act,
this burden is even lesser than a civil case. Reference in this
regard can be made to the prepositions of law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of “Bimla Devi and
others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors. “
reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the
subsequent judgments in the case of “Parmeshwari Vs. Amir
Chand and Ors.” 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of
2011) and “Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. &
Ors.”, 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc.Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.10 of 31
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:31:35 +0530
9.3 Now keeping in mind the aforesaid legal
principle/preposition for decision of the present issue, this
Tribunal has gone through the testimony of the witnesses and
entire material available on record. This Tribunal has also given
thoughtful consideration to arguments addressed by Ld. Counsels
for the parties. The petitioner side has not examined any eye
witness to the incident in present matter, therefore, in given
circumstances, it needs to decided whether the evidence brought
on record is sufficient in itself to establish rashness and
negligence in driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent
No.2 driver of vehicle bearing registration no. KA01AA0826
upto the standard of proof required in such matters as is
discussed above.
9.4 The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its full bench
decision in matter “United India Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Shila Datta & Ors.” (2011) 10 SCC 509 has made following
observations about inquiry contemplated under MV Act:-
“5. A claim petition for compensation in regard to a
motor accident (filed by the injured or in case of death,
by the dependant family members) before the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under section
165 of the Act is neither a suit nor an adversarial lis in
the traditional sense. It is a proceedings in terms of and
regulated by the provisions of Chapter XII of the Act
which is a complete Code in itself. We may in this
context refer to the following significant aspects in
regard to the Tribunals and determination of
compensation by Tribunals:
(i) A proceedings for award of compensation in regard
to a motor accident before the Tribunal can be initiated
either on an application for compensation made by the
persons aggrieved (claimants) under section 166(1) or
section 163A of the Act or suo moto by the Tribunal,
by treating any report of accident (forwarded to the
tribunal under section 158(6) of the Act as an
application for compensation under section 166 (4) of
the Act.(iii) In a proceedings initiated suo moto by theSushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.11 of 31
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:31:39 +0530
tribunal, the owner and driver are the respondents. The
insurer is not a respondent, but a noticee under section
149(2) of the Act. Where a claim petition is filed by the
injured or by the legal representatives of a person
dying in a motor accident, the driver and owner have to
be impleaded as respondents. The claimants need not
inplead the insurer as a party. But they have the choice
of impleading the insurer also as a party respondent.
When it is not impleaded as a party, the Tribunal is
required to issue a notice under section 149(2) of the
Act. If the insurer is impleaded as a party, it is issued
as a regular notice of the proceedings.
(v) Though the tribunal adiudicates on a claim and
determines the compensation, it does not do so as in an
adversarial litigation. On receipt of an application
(either from the applicant or suo motu registration), the
Tribunal gives notice to the insurer under section
149(2) of the Act, gives an opportunity of being heard
to the parties to the claim petition as also the insurer,
holds an inquiry into the claim and makes an award
determining the amount of compensation which
appears to it to be just. (Vide Section 168 of the Act).
(vi) The Tribunal is required to follow such summary
procedure as it thinks fit. It may choose one or more
persons possessing special knowledge of and matters
relevant to inquiry, to the assist it in holding the
enquiry (vide section 169 of the Act).
We have referred to the aforesaid
provisions to show that an award by the tribunal cannot
be seen as an adversarial adjudication between the
litigating parties to a dispute, but a statutory
determination of compensation on the occurrence of an
accident, after due enquiry, in accordance with the
statute.”
9.5 The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in matter of
“Dulcina Fernandes & ors. Vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz & Anr.”
(2013) 10 SCC 646 while relying upon the above full bench
decision has held/observed as under:- .
“8. However, there are certain other features of the case
which are more fundamental and, therefore, have to be
specifically noticed. CW-2, who was at the relevant
time working as the Head Constable of Main Eurtorim,
Police Station, had deposed that a criminal case was
registered against the first respondent in connection
with the accident and that after investigation he wasSushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.12 of 31 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.02.01 16:31:41 +0530
chargesheeted and sent up for trial. Though it is
submitted at the Bar that the first respondent was
acquitted in the said case what cannot be overlooked is
the fact that upon investigation of the case registered
against the first respondent, prime facie, materials
showing negligence were found to put him on trial.. ”
9.6 The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in matter
“National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Rana &
ors.” 2009 ACJ 287 has held/observed as under:-
“11. The last contention of the appellant insurance
company is that the respondents claimants should have
proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this
regard the counsel has placed reliance on the Judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal. On perusal of the award of
the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the
deceased had produced (i) certified copy of the
criminal record of criminal case in FIR NO. 955/2004,
pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, (ii)
criminal record showing completion of investigation of
police and issue of charge sheet under Section
279/304-A, IPC against the driver; (iii) certified copy
of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was
lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical
inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of
the deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to
reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent.
Proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to
proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of
evidence are not required to be followed in this regard.
Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant
also falls face down. There is ample evidence on
record to prove negligence on the part of the driver.
9.7 In view of the abovecited case law, it is clear that the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunals only hold inquiry for
determination of compensation on occurrence of an accident and
they do not sit in a suit or adversarial lis in traditional sense.
The factum of the driver of offending vehicle being
chargesheeted by police after investigation of the criminal matterSushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.13 of 31
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:31:45 +0530
is also prima facie sufficient to infer that driver was negligent
and responsible for the incident in question. A Tribunal can
certainly rely upon the records of the case of criminal matter to
reach such a conclusion.
9.8 In this matter to prove the rashness and negligence,
the petitioner side has examined PW-1 who has specifically
deposed that deceased was hit by offending vehicle bearing
registration No. KA01AA0826. She has also specifically deposed
that the incident happened due to rash and negligent driving of
respondent no.2 only. PW-1 has also exhibited certified copy of
FIR and its translation as Ex.PW1/6 & Ex.PW1/7 in her
evidence. PW-2 Inspector G. Chithra has also exhibited copy of
investigation report as Ex.PW2/A. The factum that driver of
vehicle in question i.e. respondent No.2 was challaned under
Section 279/304A IPC after conclusion of investigation also
supports and affirms the case of the petitioner side that incident
happened due to his rash and negligent driving of respondent
no.1.
9.9 The respondent no.02/driver was the best witness
who could have rebutted the case of rashness and negligence of
driving of the offending vehicle put forwarded by
petitioner/claimant side. But respondent no.02/driver has chosen
not to come in witness box to disprove the case of the petitioner
side on said aspect. In the given circumstances, adverse
inference also needs to be drawn against respondent no.2.
Reliance can be placed upon the decision “Cholamandalam
M.Ss. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh” 2009 (3)
AD (Delhi) 310 upon said issue/aspect.
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.14 of 31
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:31:49 +0530
9.10 In totality of circumstances, this Tribunal is of the
opinion that the claimant side has been able to bring on record
such facts which proves almost at the scales of preponderance of
probabilities that the incident in question took place due to rash
and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration
number KA01AA0826 by its driver/respondent no.02 on the date
and time of the incident. Accordingly, issue no.01 is decided in
favour of the petitioner(s)/claimant(s)/applicant(s) and against
the respondents No.1 to 3.
Issue No.(ii) : – Whether the applicants are entitled to
compensation, if yes, of what amount and from whom? OPP.
10.1 The petitioner(s) is/are certainly entitled for
compensation in view of decision of above issue. Before
proceeding further to decide the present issue, it would be
apposite to encapsulate the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in its guiding lamp post judgments qua
methodology and considerations for assessing/ascertaining just
compensation in road vehicular death cases.
10.2 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in matter of “Sarla
Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors.” (2003) 6
SCC 121 has held : –
QUA BASIC PRINCIPLES
“9. Basically only three facts need to be established by the
claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death :-
(a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and the
(c) the number of dependents. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal
to arrive at the loss of dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made
for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the
personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be
applied with reference of the age of the deceased. If these determinants are
standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions.
There will lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the
insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay. To have
uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should determine compensation in
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.15 of 31
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:31:52 +0530
cases of death, by the following well settled steps : –
Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand)
The income of the deceased per annum should be
determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to
the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of
personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the
contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier)
Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active
career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean
ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the
accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic
factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified
by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with
reference to the age of the deceased.
Step 3 (Actual calculation)
The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when
multiplied by such multiplier gives the `loss of dependency’ to the family.
Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs.10,000/-
may be added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his
widow, another conventional amount in the range of 5,000/- to 10,000/-
should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to
be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal
heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if
incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if
incurred) should also added.”
QUA ADDITIONS
“11. ………………… In view of imponderables and
uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of
50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards
future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40
years. [Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words `actual
salary’ should be read as `actual salary less tax’]. The addition should be
only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no
addition, where the age of deceased is more than 50 years. Though the
evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to
standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or
different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was
self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual
increments etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the
time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and
exceptional cases involving special circumstances.”
QUA DEDUCTIONS
“14. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this
court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the
deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be
one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3,
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
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.16 of 31
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:31:55 +0530
exceed six.
15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are
the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to
bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses,
because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself.
Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short
time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to
be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is
likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependent
and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of
evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as
dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or
married, or be dependent on the father. Thus even if the deceased is
survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be
a dependent, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses
of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where
family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the
deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of
younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses
may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as
two-third.”
QUA MULTIPLIER
“21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should
be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying
Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an
operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25
years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30
years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45
years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five
years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to
65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.”
10.3 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its constitution
bench decision in matter of “National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.” (2017) 16 SCC 680 held as
under : –
“58. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be no
addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept. We are disposed to
think, there should be an addition of 15% if the deceased is between the age
of 50 to 60 years and there should be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in
case of self- employed or person on fixed salary, the addition should be 10%
between the age of 50 to 60 years. The aforesaid yardstick has been fixed so
that there can be consistency in the approach by the tribunals and the
Courts.
59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record
our conclusions:-
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.17 of 31
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:31:58 +0530
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been
well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different
view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate
Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a
contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma
Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh
is not a binding precedent.
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of
actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where
the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years,
should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was
between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to
60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual
salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed
salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant
where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25%
where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where
the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as
the necessary method of computation. The established income means the
income minus the tax component.
(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for
personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by
paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced
hereinbefore.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the
Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying
the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss
of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-,
Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should
be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.
10.4 In view of the above law laid down by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, this Tribunal needs to ascertain the age
of deceased/victim, the appropriate multiplier, income of the
deceased at the time of incident, the educational qualification of
deceased, the number of dependents, whether deceased was
married or unmarried, whether deceased was having permanent
employment or private job etc. etc. to workout just compensation
in this case. Award also needs to be passed qua non-pecuniary
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.18 of 31
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:32:01 +0530
heads as envisaged and in terms of above judgments. Hence, this
Tribunal now proceeds further to decide the compensation/award
under different heads applicable to the present matter in light of
above prepositions.
DETERMINATION OF AGE & MULTIPLIER
10.5 The date of incident is 11.10.2017. As per Aadhar
Card of deceased available on record, the date of birth of the
deceased is 01.01.1967. Hence, deceased was 51 years of age at
the time of incident and his age is considered accordingly. He fell
in age bracket of 51 to 55. Hence, the multiplier applicable to this
case would be 11.
DETERMINATION OF EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION
10.6 No documentary proof has been filed by the
petitioner side to prove the educational qualification of deceased.
Hence, he shall be considered uneducated for purpose of present
decision.
DETERMINATION OF MONTHLY INCOME
10.7(i) Petitioner side has claimed that deceased was
working as Driver and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month at the
time of incident. No documentary proof has been filed by the
petitioner side to show income of the deceased. Hence, the
petitioner side has miserably failed to prove the earnings of the
deceased. Hence, the income of deceased has to be assessed on
the basis of chart available in Minimum Wages Act of a Skilled
person of State of Uttar Pradesh (copy of driving license of
deceased available) as he was permanent resident of Uttar
Pradesh according to his documents. The contention of the
counsel for petitioner side to consider minimum wages of Delhi
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.19 of 31
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:32:04 +0530
cannot be accepted as the registration certificate and other
government documents of the vehicle driven by deceased
mentions address of the owner of being Kohima, Nagaland. The
minimum wages for a Skilled person of State of Uttar Pradesh on
the date of accident i.e. 11.10.2017 were Rs.9118/- (after
rounding off Rs. 9118.66/-).
10.7(ii) Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased
needs to be considered as Rs.9118/- per month on the date of
accident.
DETERMINATION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS APPLICABLE
10.8 Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in MAC Appeal No.
798/2011 titled as “Bajaj Allianz General Insurance company
Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors.” decided on 02.11.2017 has held that even
in the cases where the income of the deceased is calculated on
the basis of the minimum wages, the benefit of future prospects
has to be given in accordance with guidelines issued by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India as applicable to self employed or
privately employed persons.
10.9 The deceased was aged less than 60 years at the time
of incident and had non-permanent job, so the future
prospects/benefits applicable to the present case would be 10%.
ASSESSMENT/DETERMINATION OF ENHANCED
MONTHLY INCOME
10.10 As has already been held, income of deceased as
Rs.9118/- per month would be applicable in this case and an
addition of 40% needs to be made qua future prospects.
Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased needs to be
taken as Rs.10,030/- (after rounding off Rs.10,029.8) (Rs.9118/-
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.20 of 31
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:32:09 +0530
+ Rs.911.8/- which is 10% of Rs.9118/-).
DETERMINATION OF DEDUCTIONS
10.11 There is no dispute that the deceased is survived by
his wife petitioner no.1 Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi, son
petitioner no.2 David Kumar, son petitioner no.3 Mahender
Kumar, daughter petitioner no.4 Gunjan Kumari and daughter
petitioner no.5 Sunita. Petitioner no.5 Sunita is stated to be
married prior to the incident. Petitioner no.4 Gunjan Kumari was
already major and some years have passed since her attaining
majority at the time of death of deceased. So, she can also not be
taken as dependent upon the deceased at the time of his death.
Petitioner no.3 was certainly minor and can be taken as
dependent upon deceased. Petitioner no.2 had just passed
majority at the time of death of deceased, therefore, he could also
be taken as financially dependent upon deceased at the time of
his death. Hence, petitioner No. 1 to 3 have to be considered as
dependent upon the deceased. Deduction towards personal and
living expenses of deceased needs to be taken 1/3rd in this
matter. Hence, 1/3rd would be deducted towards personal and
living expenses of the deceased.
DETERMINATION OF MULTIPLICAND
10.12 The monthly income of the deceased after
enhancement needs to be taken as Rs.10,030/-. A deduction of
1/3rd needs to be made towards personal and living expenses of
the deceased. So, in this matter, monthly loss of dependency
would come out to be Rs.6687/- (affter rounding off Rs.6686.66)
(after deducting 1/3rd of Rs.10,030/-). This product needs to be
multiplied by 12 to workout multiplicand/annual loss of
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.21 of 31
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:32:11 +0530
dependency. Hence, multiplicand for this matter would be
Rs.80,244/- (Rs.6687/- x 12).
AWARD TOWARDS LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
10.13 The total loss of dependency would come out to be
Rs.8,82,684/- (Rs.80,244 x 11), hence, so awarded.
COMPENSATION QUA NON-PECUNIARY HEADS
COMPENSATION QUA LOSS OF ESTATE
10.14 The loss of estate is awarded as Rs.18,000/-
(15,000/- + 20% enhancement).
COMPENSATION QUA LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
10.15 Since, there are five claimants who are wife and four
children of the deceased entitled to award under this head, hence,
an amount of Rs.48,000/- (Rs.40,000 + 20% enhancement) is
awarded under this head.
COMPENSATION QUA FUNERAL EXPENSES
10.16 An amount of Rs.18,000/- (15,000/- + 20%
enhancement) is awarded towards funeral expenses.
TOTAL AWARD AMOUNT OF ALL HEADS
10.17 In view of above discussions and awards passed
under different heads, this Tribunal hereby pass an award of sum
of Rs.9,66,684/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand Six
Hundred and Eighty Four Only) (Rs.8,82,684/- + Rs.18,000/- +
Rs.48,000/- + Rs.18,000/-) in favour of petitioner(s) and against
the respondents No.1 to 3.
R E L I EF / ISSUE NO.03
11. This Tribunal hereby pass an award of Rs.9,66,684/-
(Rupees Nine Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.22 of 31 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.02.01 16:32:14 +0530
Four Only) as compensation along-with interest @ 7% per
annum (including interim award, if any) from the date of filing
the DAR/claim petition i.e. 02.02.2019 (excluding interest w.e.f.
16.01.2020 to 02.03.2020) till the date of the payment of award
amount, in favour of the petitioner(s) and against the respondents
no.1 to 3 on account of their liability being joint and several.
APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY
12.1. It is contended by the respondent no.1 National
Insurance Company Limited that driver/respondent no.2 was not
holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of
incident. Respondent no.1/National Insurance Company Limited
has examined its Assistant Manager (Legal) Sh. Raghunath
Pawar as R1W1 who has also filed certified copy of insurance
policy bearing no. 651300/31/16/6300014530 Ex.R1W1/1,
photocopy of DL of Arun Kumar Mark A, report of investigator
Mr. Prashant Mishra along with report of licensing authority
Ex.R1W1/2 and notice issued to respondent no.2 & 3 along with
original postal receipts & service reports Ex.R1W1/3 to Ex.
R1W1/6 in his evidence. Respondent no.2 & 3 have not
controverted the same. Hence, it is established on record that the
respondent no.2 was not holding any valid driving license to
drive the vehicle in question at the time of incident. Hence,
respondent No.1/Insurance Company is entitled for recovery
rights against the respondents No.2 & 3 in this matter, but only
after depositing the award amount with this Tribunal. Recovery
rights are granted to the respondent no.1 against respondent no.2
& 3 in said terms.
12.2 As the offending vehicle bearing registration
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.23 of 31 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.02.01 16:32:18 +0530
No.KA01AA0826 was admittedly insured with the respondent
no.01/National Insurance Company Ltd, respondent
no.01/National Insurance Company Ltd. is hereby directed to
deposit the award amount in favour of the petitioner(s) with State
Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in MACT Account of
this Tribunal having Account No.40711767202, CIF
No.90891362578, IFSC Code – SBIN0000726, Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi within a period of 45 days from the date of passing
of this award together with the interest as stated herein above
under intimation to this Tribunal and under intimation to the
petitioner(s)/claimant(s)/applicant(s). In case of any delay, it
shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the
period of delay.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO
THE CLAIMANT(S) AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
‘MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE’
(MCTAP).
13.1 Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No.842/2003
titled as “Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. ” has
formulated MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit
Scheme) vide its order dated 07.12.2018. The same has been
made effective from 01.01.2019. Said order provides 21 banks
including State Bank of India as one of the banks which have to
adhere to MACAD. The State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with
MACAD formulated by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
13.2 The Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi is also directed to release/disburse the share of the
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.24 of 31
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:32:21 +0530
award amount of petitioners in their MACT accounts to be
disclosed by the petitioner side vide separate application within
15 days from today as mentioned/directed hereinafter in
tabulated form.
13.3 The compensation to the petitioners shall be
distributed/disbursed as follows : –
Sr. Name Age/ Relation Award Amount of Amount Period of
N of DOB with Amount award to kept in FDRs with
o. petition injured/ be FDRs cumulative
er/ deceased released interest
claiman
t
1. Sushila 01.01.1 Wife 5,00,684 Rs.2,00,684 3,00,000/- Rs.3,00,000/-
Devi @ 985 /- + 1/3rd + 1/3rd
Sheela interest interest
Devi accrued accrued shall
be kept in the
form of equal
monthly
FDRs of
Rs.10,000/-
for the period
of 30 months
+ months
which comes
out of division
of interest
accumulated
by
Rs.10,000/-.
The
remainder, if
any to be
added in the
last FDR. The
amount of
FDRs along-
with interest
after maturity
shall be
released to the
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.25 of 31
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:32:25 +0530
petitioner
/claimant on
monthly basis
as per above
previous
orders.
2. David 15.08.1 Son 2,00,000/- 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
Kumar 999 + 1/3rd + 1/3rd
@ interest interest
Devid accrued accrued shall
Kumar be kept in the
form of equal
monthly
FDRs of
Rs.10,000/-
for the period
of 10 months
+ months
which comes
out of division
of interest
accumulated
by
Rs.10,000/-.
The
remainder, if
any to be
added in the
last FDR. The
amount of
FDRs along-
with interest
after maturity
shall be
released to the
petitioner
/claimant on
monthly basis
as per above
previous
orders.
3. Mahend 03.05.2 Son 2,00,000/- NIl 2,00,000/- Rs.2,00,000/-
ra 005 + 1/3rd along with
Kumar interest 1/3rd interest
accrued accrued shall
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.26 of 31
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:32:28 +0530
be kept in the
form of one
FDRs and
same shall be
released to
the claimant
at the time of
attaining the
age of
maturity.
4. Gunjan 10.08.1 Daughter 33,000/- 33,000/- Nil Nil
Kumari 995
5. Sunita Not Daughter 33,000/- 33,000/- Nil Nil
mentio
ned
TOTAL Rs.9,66,684/-
13.4 The following conditions shall be adhered to by
SBI, Tis Hazari Delhi with respect to the fixed deposits:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint
name(s) to be added in the savings bank account
or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e.
the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s)
shall be an individual savings bank account(s)
and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be
retained by the bank in safe custody. However,
the statement containing FDR number, FDR
amount, date of maturity and maturity amount
shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be
credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in
the MACT bank account of the claimant (s) near
the place of their residence.
(d) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-
mature discharge be allowed on the fixed
deposits without permission of the Court.
(e) The concerned bank shall not issue any
cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s).
However, in case the debit card and/or cheque
book have already been issued, bank shall
cancel the same before the disbursement of the
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.27 of 31 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.02.01 16:32:32 +0530
award amount. The bank shall debit card (s)
freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no
debit card be issued in respect of the account of
the claimant(s) from any other branch of the
bank.
(f) The bank shall make an endorsement on
the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that
no cheque book and/or debit card have been
issued and shall not be issued without the
permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall
produce the passbook with the necessary
endorsement before the Court on the next date
fixed for compliance.
(g) It is clarified that the endorsement made
by the bank along with the duly signed and
stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s)
of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of
clause (g) above.
13.5 In accordance with the orders dated 08.02.2019
passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 in
“Rajesh Tyagi and others Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors.” , Mr. Rajan
Singh, Assistant General Manager has been appointed as Nodal
Officer of State Bank of India having Phone No.022-
22741336/9414048606 and e mail ID [email protected]. In
case of any assistance or non compliance, the aforesaid Nodal
Officer may be contacted. A copy of this order be sent by e-
mail to the aforesaid Nodal Officer of the aforesaid bank by the
Ahlmad of the Court immediately in accordance with the
directions of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi as given in the orders
dated 07.12.2018. The Nodal Officer of the bank shall ensure
the disbursement of the award amount within three weeks of the
receipt of the e-mail as mentioned in the orders dated
07.12.2018 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
14. The respondent no.01/National Insurance
Company Limited shall deposit the award amount with the
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.28 of 31
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:32:37 +0530
account of this Tribunal within 45 days. Nazir of this Court
shall prepare a separate file regarding the status of
deposition/non-deposition of the award amount by the
respondent(s) after making necessary entry on CIS on
21.03.2025.
15. A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the
parties free of cost through email.
16. Ahlmad staff is directed to send the copy of award
to Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class concerned and Delhi Legal
Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth
Amendment) Rules, 2022[(Directions at serial nos.39, 40 of
Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under
Rule 150A)].
17. Ahlmad staff is also directed to e-mail an
authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020
titled as “Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Union of India & Ors.” decided on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall
also e-email an authenticated copy of the award to Branch
Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex Branch
for information.
18. File be consigned to Record Room after due
compliance. Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
Announced in the open CourtSINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:32:43 +0530
today i.e. 1st February, 2025
(HARVINDER SINGH)
District Judge-cum-PO: MACT-01(West)
THC/Delhi/01.02.2025
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.29 of 31 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.02.01 16:32:40 +0530 FORM -XV
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT
IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident : 11.10.2017
2. Name of the deceased : Kamal Singh
3. Age of the deceased : 51 years
4. Occupation of the deceased : Not proved
5. Income of the deceased : Rs.9118/-
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of
deceased : –
S.No. Name Age/DOB Relation
1. Sushila Devi @ Sheela 01.01.1985 Wife
Devi
2. David Kumar @ 15.08.1999 Son
Devid Kumar
3. Mahendra Kumar 03.05.2005 Son
4. Gunjan Kumari 10.08.1995 Daughter
5. Sunita Not mentioned Daughter
Computation of Compensation : -
Sr.No. Heads Awarded by the Claim
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased(A) Rs.9118/-
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) 10%
9. Less-Personal expenses of the 1/3rd deduction has
deceased(C) been done
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.6687/-
[(A+B)-C=D]
11. Annual loss of dependency (D Rs.80,244/-
x 12)
12. Multiplier(E) 11
13. Total loss of dependency Rs.8,82,684/-
(Dx12xE= F)
14. Medical Expenses(G) NIL
15. Compensation for loss of Rs.48,000/-
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.30 of 31
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:32:47 +0530
consortium(H)
16. Compensation for loss of love NIL
and affection(I)
17. Compensation for loss of Rs.18,000/-
estate(J)
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs.18,000/-
expenses(K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.9,66,684/-
(F+G+H+I+J+K=L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST 7% per annum
AWARDED
21. Interest amount up to the date Rs.3,97,173/-
of award (M) (w.e.f. 02.02.2019 to
01.02.2025) excluding
interest w.e.f.
16.01.2020 to
02.03.2020 which
comes to 5 years 10
months and 13 days)
22. Total amount including interest Rs.13,63,857/-
(L + M) (Rs.9,66,684/- +
Rs.3,97,173/- )
23. Award amount released Rs.3,66,684/-
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.6,00,000/- along with
interest accrued.
25. Mode of disbursement of the Mentioned in the award
award amount to the claimant
(s).
26. Next date for compliance of 21.03.2025
the award.
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:32:50 +0530
(HARVINDER SINGH)
District Judge-cum-PO: MACT-01(West)
THC/Delhi/01.02.2025
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.31 of 31
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:32:53 +0530
[ad_1]
Source link