Delhi District Court
Anurudha Anand (Dar) vs Ajruddin (327/20, Ln) on 23 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA
DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No.206/2021
FIR no. 327/20
PS : Lajpat Nagar
U/s 279/304A IPC, 3/181 MV Act
CNR No.: DL SE01-001798-2021
1. Anuradha Anand (wife of deceased)
2. Neha Anand (daughter, 30 years)
3. Sidharth Anand (son, 23 years)
4. Heena Anand (daughter, 28 years )
R/o M-56, 3rd Floor,
Lajpat Nagar-II, Delhi.
.....Petitioner
Versus
1. Azruddin
S/o Sartaj Khan
R/o H. No. D-384, Chungi No.3
Village- Khori, Lal Kuan
Faridabad, Haryana.
...R-1/ driver
2. Sartaj Khan
S/o Babu Khan
R/o I-2549, Sangam Vihar
Pushpa Bhawan, New Delhi.
.....R-2/owner
MACT No.206/2021 Anuradha Anand Vs. Azruddin & Ors. Page No. 1 of 29
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Scope Minar Core-3, 2nd Floor,
Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi. .....R-3/Ins. Co.
Date of accident : 01.09.2020
Date of filing of DAR : 23.02.2021
Date of Decision : 23.05.2025
AWARD
1. Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred as DAR)
filed is being treated as Claim Petition under Section 166 (1) read
with Section 166 (4) MV Act. It pertains to alleged accident of
Sh.Kanwar Raj Anand (hereinafter referred as deceased) by
offending vehicle bearing Registration No. DL 8CW 5883, being
driven by Sh. Azruddin (hereinafter referred as R-1), owned by
Sh.Sartaj, (hereinafter referred as R-2) and insured with National
Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred as R-3).
Deceased Kanwar Raj Anand is represented by his wife, son and
two daughters.
2. Preliminary information regarding accident in question
was received at PS Lajpat Nagar vide GD No. 85A dated
01.09.2020 in respect of MLC No. 391/2020 from Mool Chand
Hospital pertaining to injured Kanwar Raj from Mool Chand
Hospital which was assigned to ASI Rajvir Singh who along with
ASI Rahul Bisht reached hospital and collected MLC with
remarks "Patient advised admission but went LAMA" . ASI
Rajvir Singh contacted on the mobile phone on the MLC which
was answered by brother of victim Rajesh Anand, who informed
that the patient was rushed to IBS Hospital. The two police
officials then reached IBS Hospital where they were informed
that the patient was unconscious and has ben put on ventilator
MACT No.206/2021 Anuradha Anand Vs. Azruddin & Ors. Page No. 2 of 29
and therefore, unfit for statement. FIR was got registered. Site
plan was prepared at the instance of son of injured. No CCTV
Camera was found to be installed covering the spot of accident.
Statement of Siddharth Aanand was recorded, who stated that on
01.09.2020, at about 01.00 PM , when he was standing in the
balcony of his house that he witnessed his father Kanwar Anand
being hit by a speedy and rashly driven motorcycle upon which
his father received serious injuries while the motorcyclist also
toppled and fell down and later caught by the public persons. He
informed about the registration number of the motorcycle as DL
3SED 7589 and the name of motorcyclist as Azruddin. He
informed that motorcyclist was also taken to Moolchand Hospital
along with injured father, however, later he fled away from
hospital. Subsequently, ownership details of motorcycle were
procured upon which notice under Section 133 MV Act was
served upon the owner namely Sartaj, father of motorcyclist. It
was revealed that the motorcyclist did not have any valid driving
license, however, was validly insured. Subsequently, injured
Kanwar Raj died on 13.10.2020 during treatment. Azruddin was
charge sheeted under relevant provision of law. DAR was filed
by Investigating Officer.
Reply:
3. In response to DAR, driver and owner did not file any
reply and their right to file reply was closed vide order dated
13.09.2021. Show Cause notice was also served upon them to
furnish security deposit to the tune of Rs. 10 lakhs by way of
FDR however, they did not file any reply to the show cause
notice as well and stopped appearing.
MACT No.206/2021 Anuradha Anand Vs. Azruddin & Ors. Page No. 3 of 29
4. Insurance Company has filed its reply wherein validity of
the insurance policy is conceded, however, it was pleaded that
the R-2 violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy
by intentionally permitting an unlicensed person to drive the
vehicle. Other general defences were taken.
Issues :
5. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were
framed vide order dated 13.09.2021:
i). Whether the petitioner suffered injuries in a
road traffic accident on 01.09.2020 due to rash and
negligent driving of vehicle no. DL 8CW 5883
being driven by R-1, owned by R-2 and insured
with R-3? OPP.
ii). Whether the petitioner is entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?
OPP
iii). Relief.
6. It is noted that in issue no.1, inadvertently registration
number of vehicle has come to be mentioned as DL 8CW 5883
instead of DL 3SED 7589. Same be read accordingly.
Petitioners Evidence:
7. Matter was referred to LC for recording of evidence vide
order dated 27.07.2023 even though, matter was pending for
leading Petitioners' Evidence since Sep. 2021. No PE was led
and was closed vide order dated 12.11.2024. Right to lead
evidence by R-1 & 2 was closed vide order dated 04.04.2024,
however, they were provided opportunity to cross examination
the petitioner's witness.
MACT No.206/2021 Anuradha Anand Vs. Azruddin & Ors. Page No. 4 of 29
Respondents Evidence
8. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 never appeared to lead evidence.
Same was closed. R-3/ Insurance Company, however, led
evidence and examined R3W1 Sh. Anurag Sharma, Assistant
Manager, who tendered his evidentiary affidavit as Ex.R3W1/A
and relied upon copy of original Policy as Ex.R3W1/2, Postal
Receipt as Ex.R3W1/3 & Ex.R3W1/4 respectively. He was cross
examined on behalf of claimant.
9. Since any eye-witness was not produced on behalf of
claimant, Sh. Siddharth Anand, son of deceased, being mentioned
as eye-witness in the charge-sheet was examined, who narrated
the mode and manner of the accident. He relied upon copies of
ITRs pertaining to his deceased father for the Assessment Year
2015-2016 to 2020-2021 as Ex.CW1/1. He was cross examined
on behalf of counsel for insurance company.
Final Arguments:
9. Ld. Counsel for claimant submitted that the accident
occurred on account of rash driving of the offending vehicle, as
witnessed by son of deceased. He also argued that there is no
dispute in respect of identification of the offending vehicle or the
driver thereof considering that he was caught by public persons
including the son of deceased on the spot itself. It is stated that
the ITRs filed by deceased have been placed on record by his son
which may be used as a basis to assess income of deceased.
10. Ld. counsel for insurance company that the driver of the
offending vehicle was not duly licensed, which constituted
breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy, thus,
insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the
MACT No.206/2021 Anuradha Anand Vs. Azruddin & Ors. Page No. 5 of 29
kin of deceased. The validity of the insurance policy has however
been conceded by the Ld. Counsel for insurance company.
Discussion:
11. On the basis of material on record, evidence adduced and
arguments addressed, issue wise findings are as under :
Issue No.1
"Whether the petitioner suffered injuries in a road traffic
accident on 01.09.2020 due to rash and negligent driving of
vehicle no. DL 8CW 5883 being driven by R-1, owned by
R-2 and insured with R-3? OPP."
12. What is required to be ascertained is whether rash and
negligent driving of offending vehicle resulted in accident which
caused injuries to the claimant.
13. No evidence was led on behalf of claimant, however, son
of deceased was summoned as a witness by this Tribunal, who
testified that on 01.09.2020 at about 8 p.m. he along-with his
father were to return back home from their shop located at
Central Market, Lajpat Nagar. He deposed that he reached home
prior to his father as he commuted by car, whereas his father was
on foot and while crossing the divider on the main road on which
their house is located, he witnessed a speeding bike in a zig-zag
manner having forcefully impacted his father seriously injuring
him. He deposed that he had noted down the registration number
of the bike and the bike rider was caught hold of by the public
persons and that he took his father as well as bike driver to Mool
Chand Hospital, fromwhere driver later fled away. He also stated
that his uncle had filed a formal complaint with the police
pertaining to the accident, wherein specifications about manner
MACT No.206/2021 Anuradha Anand Vs. Azruddin & Ors. Page No. 6 of 29
of accident as well as registration number of bike were
mentioned. During cross-examination it was stated that there is a
designated space on the divider for the public persons to cross,
which was used by his father. It is evident that the information
about the accident was immediately received from Mool Chand
Hospital, which was recorded as DD No.85A. Statement of
Siddharth Anand was recorded during investigation by police
officials. Siddharth Anand as court witness has vividly narrated
the factual circumstances of the accident clearly testifying speedy
and reckless driving on the part of biker to be the sole cause of
accident. It is evident that there is no dispute in respect of the
identification of the offending vehicle or the driver thereof.
14. Police after investigation had filed charge-sheet against
respondent no.1 under section 279 & 338 of IPC which is also
suggestive of negligence of respondent no.1/driver in causing the
accident. In the case of National Insurance Co. Vs. Pushpa Rana
2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, as decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it
has been held that completion of investigation and filing of
charge-sheet are sufficient proof of negligence of the driver of
the offending vehicle for the purpose of compensation. The
above-noted position has been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in a recent judgment in Civil Appeal Arising out
of SLP(C) No. 10351/2019) titled Ranjeet & Anr. vs. Abdul
Kayam Neb & Anr. (DoD : 25.02.2025), wherein it observed as
under :
"4. It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been
filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further
evidence is required to prove that the bus was being
negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the eyewitnesses
are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of
the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver."
MACT No.206/2021 Anuradha Anand Vs. Azruddin & Ors. Page No. 7 of 29
15. It is also settled that if driver of offending vehicle does not
enter the witness box, an adverse inference can be drawn against
him as observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of
Cholamandlam insurance company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh 2009 (3)
AD Delhi 310. In the present case also, driver/R-1 did not enter
into the witness box to controvert the claim of petitioner or even
to explain circumstances of accident. It is noted that R-1 has not
filed any response to the DAR and therefore, there is not even
basic denial of any accident or involvement of the offending
vehicle or that it was not the result of his negligence.
16. It has been held in catena of cases that negligence has to be
decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and
a holistic view is to be taken. It has been further held that the
proceedings under the Motor Vehicle Act are not akin to the
proceedings in a Civil Suit and hence, strict rules of evidence are
not applicable (support drawn from the case of Bimla Devi &
Ors vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & ors [(2009) 13
SC 530,[ in Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India
Assurance Company Limited, [2001 ACJ 421 SC[, in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rana cited as [2009 ACJ 287 Del].
17. On the basis of discussion made above, in the backdrop of
investigation report, DAR and the testimony of son of deceased,
it is held as proved that the accident took place due to speedy and
rash driving of respondent no.1. Issue in hand is accordingly
decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
Issue No.2
"Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to
what extent and from whom ? OPP."
MACT No.206/2021 Anuradha Anand Vs. Azruddin & Ors. Page No. 8 of 29
18. Section 168 MV Act enjoins the Claim Tribunals to hold
an enquiry into the claim to make an effort determining the
amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and
reasonable. Same is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
"(1) Award of the Claims Tribunal.--On receipt of an
application for compensation made under section 166, the
Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application
to the insurer and after giving the parties (including the
insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into
the claim or, as the case may be, each of the claims and,
subject to the provisions of section 162 may make an award
determining the amount of compensation which appears to
it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom
compensation shall be paid and in making the award the
Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be
paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle
involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case
may be: Provided that where such application makes a claim
for compensation under section 140 in respect of the death
or permanent disablement of any person, such claim and
any other claim (whether made in such application or
otherwise) for compensation in respect of such death or
permanent disablement shall be disposed of in accordance
with the provisions of Chapter X.
(2) The Claims Tribunal shall arrange to deliver copies of
the award to the parties concerned expeditiously and in any
case within a period of fifteen days from the date of the
award.
(3) When an award is made under this section, the person
who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award
shall, within thirty days of the date of announcing the award
by the Claims Tribunal, deposit the entire amount awarded
in such manner as the Claims Tribunal may direct."
19. Before putting in frame the position of law, it is noted that
the process of determining the compensation by the court is
essentially a very difficult task and can never be an exact science.
Perfect compensation is hardly possible, more so in claims of
injury and disability. (As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Sidram Vs. The Divisional Manager United
India Insurance Company Ltd, SLP (Civil) No. 19277 of 2019).
MACT No.206/2021 Anuradha Anand Vs. Azruddin & Ors. Page No. 9 of 29
20. The basic principle in assessing motor vehicle
compensation claims, is to place the victim in as near a position
as she or he was in before the accident, with other compensatory
directions for loss of amenities and other payments. These
general principles have been stated and reiterated in several
decisions. [Support drawn from Govind Yadav v. New India
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683.] .
21. This Tribunal has been tasked with determination of just
compensation. The observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty and
Another, (2003) 7 SCC 197, needs mention here (para 15):
"Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation
must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of
profit but the same should not be a pittance. The courts and
tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and
quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just.
What would be "just" compensation is a vexed question.
There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for
measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of
damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical
calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and
circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if
any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing
compensation has to be considered in the background of
"just" compensation which is the pivotal consideration.
Though by use of the expression "which appears to it to be
just", a wide discretion is vested in the Tribunal, the
determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious
approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and
arbitrariness.. ..."
22. Delineating the damages as pecuniary and non pecuniary,
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case of R. D. Hattangadi Vs.
Pest Control (India) Pvt Ltd, 1995 AIR 755 , made following
observations:
"9....while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a
victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed
separately as pecuniary damages and special damages.
MACT No.206/2021 Anuradha Anand Vs. Azruddin & Ors. Page No. 10 of 29
Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually
incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms
of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which
are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations.
In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may
include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical
attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial;
(iii) other material loss. So far non- pecuniary damages are
concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and
physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely
to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the
loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of
matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able
to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of
life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the
person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship,
discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in
life."
23. In The Landmark Case of National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi And Others (2017 SCC Online SC
1270), decided by constitutional bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India, regarding the concept of 'just compensation' it was
held:
"................55. Section 168 of the Act deals with the concept
of "just compensation" and the same has to be determined on
the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on
acceptable legal standard because such determination can
never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect.
The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to
arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on
record in an individual case. The conception of "just
compensation" has to be viewed through the prism of
fairness, reasonableness and non-violation of the principle of
equitability. In a case of death, the legal heirs of the
claimants cannot expect a windfall. Simultaneously, the
compensation granted cannot be an apology for
compensation. It cannot be a pittance. Though the discretion
vested in the tribunal is quite wide, yet it is obligatory on the
part of the tribunal to be guided by the expression, that is,
"just compensation". The determination has to be on the
foundation of evidence brought on record as regards the age
and income of the deceased and thereafter the apposite
multiplier to be applied. The formula relating to multiplier
has been clearly stated in Sarla Verma and it has been
approved in Reshma Kumari . The age and income, as stated
earlier, have to be established by adducing evidence. The
MACT No.206/2021 Anuradha Anand Vs. Azruddin & Ors. Page No. 11 of 29
tribunal and the courts have to bear in mind that the basic
principle lies in pragmatic computation which is in proximity
to reality. It is a well-accepted norm that money cannot
substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for grant of
just compensation having uniformity of approach. There has
to be a balance between the two extremes, that is, a windfall
and the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum. In such an
adjudication, the duty of the tribunal and the courts is
difficult and hence, an endeavour has been made by this
Court for standardisation which in its ambit includes addition
of future prospects on the proven income at
present..................."
26. Further about the principles relating to Assessment of
compensation in case of death, it was held in Pranay Sethi (supra)
that detailed analysis of Sarla Verma (SMT) And Others Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation And Another (2009 Scc Online Sc
797) is necessary as in the said case, the Court recapitulated the
relevant principles relating to assessment of compensation in case
of death. In fact, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra)
mainly relied and approved the earlier judgment of Sarla
Verma( Supra) read with Reshma Kumari[( 2013) 9 SCC 65 :
(2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 191 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 826 ] , with some
modification, regarding all the aspects like aspect of
multiplier,the steps and guidelines stated in para 19 of Sarla
Verma (supra) for determination of compensation in cases of
death, future prospects, deduction to be made towards personal
and living expenses.
27. CW-1 Siddharth Anand, son of deceased mentioned in
testimony that ITRs of his father pertaining to Assessment Years
2015-2016 to 2020-2021 have been filed, however, perusal of
record reflects that ITRs in the name of deceased for the
Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 2018-19 and 2019-
2020 have been filed. Additionally, ITRs for Naksh Jwellers filed
MACT No.206/2021 Anuradha Anand Vs. Azruddin & Ors. Page No. 12 of 29
by deceased in the capacity of partner for the Assessment Years
2018-19 and 2019-2020 have been placed on record. It is noted
that there is no ITR for the Assessment Year 2020-2021 filed as
part of Ex.CW1/1 (colly). Perusal of computations annexed with
ITR lastly filed by deceased for Assessment Year 2019-2020,
reflects income from salary Rs.1,20,000/- and another income of
Rs.1,35,580/- as profit share from partnership firm. Such salary
income and profit share has also been reflected in the
computations annexed with ITR for the Assessment Year 201-
2020 filed on behalf of M/s Naksh Jewellers, in which, deceased
was one of the partners. Ld. Counsel for claimant has filed
computation and conceded that deceased was earning about
Rs.21,000/- per month. Neither any contrary document has not
been filed on behalf of any of the respondents nor any evidence
has been adduced on their behalf. Therefore, total annual income
of deceased is taken as Rs.2,55,580/-. As such, monthly income of
deceased is to be taken as Rs.21298.33/- (Rs.2,55,580/- divided
by 12 ).
28. Deceased was a resident of Delhi as reflected from his
Aadhar Card placed on record and had also been working for gain
in Delhi itself as is apparent from the ITR filed on his behalf as
well as DAR.
29. As per Aadhar Card of deceased his year of birth is 1953,
while as per his PAN Card is date of birth is 05.09.1953. As
deceased was 67 years (at the time of accident), having regard to
ratio and direction in Pranay Sethi (Supra) and other case laws,
the percentage towards future prospect is taken to be 'Nil' being
more than 60 years of age.
MACT No.206/2021 Anuradha Anand Vs. Azruddin & Ors. Page No. 13 of 29
Step No- 1 : Ascertainment of Multiplicand:
30. Further, as per evidence on record, deceased was survived
by wife and three major children. All the siblings are major as on
the date of accident as per LRs affidavit filed by claimant as well
as their Aadhar Cards. No specific evidence has been led to show
that they were dependent upon the earnings of the deceased. It is
thus held that only the wife of deceased was dependent upon him
as on the date of accident and therefore, as per the mandate of
Pranay Sethi (supra), deduction of 1/3 is applicable.
Step No- -2 : Ascertainment of Multiplier:
31. In the present case, age of the deceased was about 67 years
as per record. Thus, having regard to the table mentioned in para-
40 of Sarla Verma (supra), it is held that multiplier of 05 is applied
(for age group 66 to 70 years).
Step No- -3 : Actual Calculation ( actual loss/loss of dependency):
32. In view of the above discussion of law, the calculation in
the present case is as under:
(i) Annual income of the deceased:
(Rs.21,298.33 x 12) = Rs.2,55,580/-
(ii) Future prospect = Nil
------------------
(iii) Total = Rs.2,55,580/-
------------------
(iv) Deduction for personal expenses
(1/3rd of Rs.2,55,580/-) = (-)Rs.85,193/-
(v) Multiplicand
(Rs.Rs.2,55,580/- (-) Rs.85,193/-) = Rs.1,70,386/-
(vi)As such, the total loss of
dependency is: Rs.1,70,386/-
(multiplicand) x 05 (multiplier) = Rs. 8,51,933/-
MACT No.206/2021 Anuradha Anand Vs. Azruddin & Ors. Page No. 14 of 29
GRANT OF LOSS OF ESTATE, LOSS OF CONSORTIUM AND
FUNERAL EXPENSES:
33. In the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), immense variations
were intended to be avoided and to ensure consistency, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that claimants are also entitled to
certain sums towards grant of loss of estate, loss of consortium
and funeral expenses. Relevant extracts of judgment are
reproduced hereunder for ready reference :
”……………46. Another aspect which has created confusion
pertains to grant of loss of estate, loss of consortium and
funeral expenses…..
.
.
52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it
difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh . It has
granted Rs 25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,000
towards loss of consortium and Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of
care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to
loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though
Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi , it does not seem to follow the
same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to
say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that
would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination
of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any
quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can
be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank
interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be
noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same.
There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there
will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and
unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense
variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence
of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are
likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix
reasonable sums. It seems to us that 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 principle of revisiting the said heads
is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-
centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be
condign that the amount that we have quantified should be
enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the
enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three
years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in
MACT No.206/2021 Anuradha Anand Vs. Azruddin & Ors. Page No. 15 of 29
consistency in respect of those heads.
.
.
59.8. 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……………”
34. In another matter titled as Magma General Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Nanu Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India held as under:
“This Court interpreted “consortium” to be a compendious
term, which encompasses spousal consortium, parental
consortium, as well as 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.
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 and affection, and their
role in the family unit.
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 permit parents to be awarded
compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a
child. The amount awarded to the parents is the
compensation for loss of love and affection, care and
companionship of the deceased child.
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation
which has been framed with the object of 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 the children who lose theMACT No.206/2021 Anuradha Anand Vs. Azruddin & Ors. Page No. 16 of 29
care and protection of their parents in motor vehicle
accidents.
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 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.”
35. It may further be noted that the date of judgment of Pranay
Sethi (supra) is 31/10/2017. As directed in such judgment itself
that the amount quantified shall be enhanced at the rate of 10%.
As such a sum of Rs.18,150/- for cremation expenses; and
Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate is also payable.
36. Further, on the date of accident, deceased had left behind,
his wife, son and two daughters. As such in view of the judgments
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as noted above, all of them would
further be entitled to Rs.48,400/- each towards loss of consortium.
Total Award Amount
37. Thus the total award amount comes to Rs. 8,51,933 (+)
Rs.18,150/- (loss to estate) + Rs.18,150/-(funeral expenses) +
Rs.1,93,600/- (Rs.48,400/- x 4) (loss of consortium) =
Rs.10,81,833/-.
MACT No.206/2021 Anuradha Anand Vs. Azruddin & Ors. Page No. 17 of 29
Interest
38. It is settled that any fixed rate of interest cannot be
prescribed for all cases at all times and would largely depend
upon the prevailing rate of interest as per the applicable
guidelines. As such, interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is
deemed fit and accordingly granted in the present case. (Reliance
placed upon National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Yad Ram MAC
APP 526/2018 also referred and relied in case of The Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors. MAC APP
70/2024 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court).
Liability
39. It is contended by Ld. Counsel for insurance company that
driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving
license at the time of accident to drive such vehicle and in support
of its contention, Insurance Company has examined R3W1
Sh.Anurag Sharma, Assistant Manager (Legal), who deposed that
driver of the offending vehicle was not holding driving license at
the time of accident. He relied upon copy of complete Insurance
Policy as Ex.R3W1/2, Notice dated 21.12.2024 under Order 12
Rule 8 CPC as Ex.R3W1/3, Original Postal Receipt as
Ex.R3W1/4.
40. Before proceeding further it is worthy to put across certain
observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amrit Paul
Singh And Another Vs. Tata Aig General Insurance Company
Limited And Others . [ (2018) 7 Supreme Court Cases 558 as
relevant in the context discussed above:
”…………………..15. We may fruitfully note that the three-
Judge Bench adverted to situations where the driver does notMACT No.206/2021 Anuradha Anand Vs. Azruddin & Ors. Page No. 18 of 29
have a licence and the same has been allowed to be driven by
the owner of the vehicle by such person, the insurer would be
entitled to succeed in defence and avoid liability, but the
position would be different where the disputed question of
fact arises as to whether the driver had a valid licence and
where the owner of the vehicle committed a breach of the
terms of the contract of insurance as also the provisions of
the Act by consciously allowing any person to drive a vehicle
who did not have a valid driving licence.”
16. The Court held that if, on facts, it is found that the
accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen
or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar
other causes having no nexus with the driver not possessing
the requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed
to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions
concerning driving licence. That apart, minor and
inconsequential deviations with regard to licensing
conditions would not constitute sufficient ground to deny the
benefit of coverage of insurance to third parties. The other
category of cases that the Court addressed to included cases
where the licence of the driver is found to be fake. In that
context, the Court expressed its general agreement with
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru and stated thus:
(Swaran Singh case , SCC p. 337, para 92):
“92. … In Lehru case the matter has been
considered in some detail. We are in general
agreement with the approach of the Bench but
we intend to point out that the observations made
therein must be understood to have been made in
the light of the requirements of the law in terms
whereof the insurer is to establish wilful breach
on the part of the insured and not for the purpose
of its disentitlement from raising any defence or
for the owners to be absolved from any liability
whatsoever. …”
17. The three-Judge Bench summed up its conclusions and
we think it appropriate to reproduce the relevant part of the
same: (Swaran Singh case , SCC pp. 341-42, para 110):
“110. (iii) The breach of policy condition e.g.
disqualification of the driver or invalid driving
licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section
(2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, has to be proved to
have been committed by the insured for avoiding
liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or
invalid driving licence or disqualification of the
driver for driving at the relevant time, are not inMACT No.206/2021 Anuradha Anand Vs. Azruddin & Ors. Page No. 19 of 29
themselves defences available to the insurer
against either the insured or the third parties. To
avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer
has to prove that the insured was guilty of
negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care
in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the
policy regarding use of vehicles by a duly
licensed driver or one who was not disqualified
to drive at the relevant time.
***
(vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove
breach on the part of the insured concerning the
policy condition regarding holding of a valid
licence by the driver or his qualification to drive
during the relevant period, the insurer would not
be allowed to avoid its liability towards the
insured unless the said breach or breaches on the
condition of driving licence is/are so
fundamental as are found to have contributed to
the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in
interpreting the policy conditions would apply
“the rule of main purpose” and the concept of
“fundamental breach” to allow defences
available to the insurer under Section 149(2) of
the Act.
(vii) The question, as to whether the owner has
taken reasonable care to find out as to whether
the driving licence produced by the driver (a
fake one or otherwise), does not fulfil the
requirements of law or not will have to be
determined in each case.”……………………”
41. In Amrit Paul Singh (supra), it was further held :
”…………………24. In the case at hand, it is clearly
demonstrable from the materials brought on record that the
vehicle at the time of the accident did not have a permit. The
appellants had taken the stand that the vehicle was not
involved in the accident. That apart, they had not stated
whether the vehicle had temporary permit or any other kind
of permit. The exceptions that have been carved out under
Section 66 of the Act, needless to emphasise, are to be
pleaded and proved. The exceptions cannot be taken aid of in
the course of an argument to seek absolution from liability.
Use of a vehicle in a public place without a permit is a
fundamental statutory infraction. We are disposed to think so
in view of the series of exceptions carved out in Section 66.
The said situations cannot be equated with absence of licence
or a fake licence or a licence for different kind of vehicle, or,
for that matter, violation of a condition of carrying moreMACT No.206/2021 Anuradha Anand Vs. Azruddin & Ors. Page No. 20 of 29
number of passengers. Therefore, the principles laid down in
Swaran Singh and Lakhmi Chand in that regard would not be
applicable to the case at hand. That apart, the insurer had
taken the plea that the vehicle in question had no permit. It
does not require the wisdom of the “Tripitaka”, that the
existence of a permit of any nature is a matter of
documentary evidence. Nothing has been brought on record
by the insured to prove that he had a permit of the vehicle. In
such a situation, the onus cannot be cast on the insurer.
Therefore, the Tribunal as well as the High Court had
directed that the insurer was required to pay the
compensation amount to the claimants with interest with the
stipulation that the insurer shall be entitled to recover the
same from the owner and the driver. The said directions are
in consonance with the principles stated in Swaran Singh and
other cases pertaining to pay and recover
principle…………………..”..
(emphasis added)
42. Noting that notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC was issued
to owner of offending vehicle but same was not responded to.
Respondents were also charge-sheeted for offence u/s 3/181,
5/180 MV Act which implies that valid DL was neither provided
by driver to the IO during investigation. Record reflects that a
Show Cause Notice was also issued against driver and owner for
deposit of security amount in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of
FDR, however any reply to such show cause notice was not filed
by driver and owner. Any evidence was not led by R-1 & 2 to
refute the allegation made against them or to place any valid DL
on record. Any other conclusion is not possible but to hold that
offending vehicle was driven by its driver without any valid
driving license.
43. It is thus directed that such principal award
amount/compensation shall be payable by the insurance company
of offending vehicle at the first instance with simple interest @
7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR till actual realization
with liberty to recover the same from R-1 / Driver and R-2/
MACT No.206/2021 Anuradha Anand Vs. Azruddin & Ors. Page No. 21 of 29
Owner. (If there is any order regarding exclusion of interest for
specific period, same be complied at the time of calculation of
award amount. Further, if any auction proceed is received, same
be adjusted in the final award amount).
Directions to the Branch Manager, SBI, Saket Court Complex
44. The Manager, SBI, Saket Court Complex, is directed to
verify the documents and details submitted by the claimant
pertaining to their bank account, and upon proper verification,
under certification of the Branch Manager (of the bank whose
details have been provided by the claimant for release of the
compensation amount), disburse the amount (ordered to be
released) directly into the verified bank account of the claimant
under notice to this Tribunal.
Directions with respect to Fixed Deposit:
(a) As per Practice Directions, Hon’ble High Court, vide
reference no. 134/Rules/DHC, dated 14.05.2025, the bank shall
invest the amount to be deposited in fixed deposit and to renew
the same after periodical intervals till further orders are passed
by the Tribunal.
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name (s) to be added in
the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of victim
i.e. the savings bank account of the claimant shall be individual
savings bank account and not a joint account.
(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.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing
System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near
the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR (s) be credited by
Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account
of the claimant.
MACT No.206/2021 Anuradha Anand Vs. Azruddin & Ors. Page No. 22 of 29
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be
allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/ or
debit card to claimant (s). However, in case the debit card and/
or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the
same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank
shall debit freeze the account of the claimant so that no debit
card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant from
any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of
the claimant 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 shall produce the
passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on
the next date fixed for compliance.
Apportionment:-
45. At this stage, it is relevant to the refer to the judgment of
A. V. Padma & Ors. Vs., R. Venugopal & Ors. (2012) 3 Supreme
Court Cases 378:
“……In the case of Susamma Thomas (supra), this Court issued
certain guidelines in order to “safeguard the feed from being
frittered away by the beneficiaries due to ignorance, illiteracy
and susceptibility to exploitation”.
Even as per the guidelines issued by this Court Court, long
term fixed deposit of amount of compensation is mandatory
only in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows. In
the case of illiterate claimants, the Tribunal is allowed to
consider the request for lumpsum payment for effecting
purchase of any movable property such as agricultural
implements, rickshaws etc. to earn a living. However, in such
cases, the Tribunal shall make sure that the amount is actually
spent for the purpose and the demand is not a ruse to withdraw
money. In the case of semi-illiterate claimants, the Tribunal
should ordinarily invest the amount of compensation in long
term fixed deposit. But if the Tribunal is satisfied for reasons
to be stated in writing that the whole or part of the amount is
required for expanding an existing business or for purchasing
some property for earning a livelihood, the Tribunal can
release the whole or part of the amount of compensation to the
claimant provided the Tribunal will ensure that the amount is
invested for the purpose for which it is demanded and paid. In
the case of literate persons, it is not mandatory to invest the
amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit.
MACT No.206/2021 Anuradha Anand Vs. Azruddin & Ors. Page No. 23 of 29
The expression used in guideline No. (iv) issued by this Court
is that in the case of literate persons also the Tribunal may
resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i), whereas
in the guideline Nos. (i), (ii), (iii) and (v), the expression used
is that the Tribunal should. Moreover, in the case of literate
persons, the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in
guideline No. (i) only if, having regard to the age, fiscal
background and strata of the society to which the claimant
belongs and such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks that
in the larger interest of the claimant and with a view to ensure
the safety of the compensation awarded, it is necessary to
invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit.
Thus, sufficient discretion has been given to the Tribunal not to
insist on investment of the compensation amount in long term
fixed deposit and to release even the whole amount in the case
of literate persons. However, the Tribunals are often taking a
very rigid stand and are mechanically ordering in almost all
cases that the amount of compensation shall be invested in
long term fixed deposit. They are taking such a rigid and
mechanical approach without understanding and appreciating
the distinction drawn by this Court in the case of minors,
illiterate claimants and widows and in the case of semiliterate
and literate persons. It needs to be clarified that the above
guidelines were issued by this Court only to safeguard the
interests of the claimants, particularly the minors, illiterates
and others whose amounts are sought to be withdrawn on some
fictitious grounds. The guidelines were not to be understood to
mean that the Tribunals were to take a rigid stand while
considering an application seeking release of the money.
The guidelines cast a responsibility on the Tribunals to pass
appropriate orders after examining each case on its own merits.
However, it is seen that even in cases when there is no
possibility or chance of the feed being frittered away by the
beneficiary owing to ignorance, illiteracy or susceptibility to
exploitation, investment of the amount of compensation in
long term fixed deposit is directed by the Tribunals as a matter
of course and in a routine manner, ignoring the object and the
spirit of the guidelines issued by this Court and the genuine
requirements of the claimants. Even in the case of literate
persons, the Tribunals are automatically ordering investment of
the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit without
recording that having regard to the age or fiscal background or
the strata of the society to which the claimant belongs or such
other considerations, the Tribunal thinks it necessary to direct
such investment in the larger interests of the claimant and with
a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded to
him.
The Tribunals very often dispose of the claimant’s application
MACT No.206/2021 Anuradha Anand Vs. Azruddin & Ors. Page No. 24 of 29
for withdrawal of the amount of compensation in a mechanical
manner and without proper application of mind. This has
resulted in serious injustice and hardship to the claimants. The
Tribunals appear to think that in view of the guidelines issued
by this Court, in every case the amount of compensation
should be invested in long term fixed deposit and under no
circumstances the Tribunal can release the entire amount of
compensation to the claimant even if it is required by him.
Hence a change of attitude and approach on the part of the
Tribunals is necessary in the interest of justice…..”
46. Section 166 MV Act mandates grant of compensation to
legal representatives of deceased/ victim. The observations made
in case of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in N. Jayashree & Ors.
Vs. Cholamandlam MS Gen. Insurance Company Ltd, SLP (C)
no.14558 of 2019 relevant in this context:
“14. The MV Act does not define the term ‘legal
representative’. Generally, ‘legal representative’ means a
person who in law represents the estate of the
deceased person and includes any person or persons in
whom legal right to receive compensatory benefit vests.
A ‘legal representative’ may also include any person who
intermeddles with the estate of the deceased. Such person
does not necessarily have to be a legal heir.
47. It is thus held that claimants i.e. wife, son and daughters of
deceased being legal heirs are entitled to receive compensation,
however, since son and daughters of deceased were already major
as on the date of accident, the entire award amount along-with
interest is liable to be paid to Ms. Auradha Anand (wife of
deceased) along-with interest.
48. Now, the compensation is apportioned amongst the other
LRs of deceased in the following manner:
(I) Share of claimant no.1/Smt. Anuradha Anand (wife of the
deceased): Out of the compensation amount, claimant no.1 is
awarded Rs.9,36,633/- with interest as stated above of theMACT No.206/2021 Anuradha Anand Vs. Azruddin & Ors. Page No. 25 of 29
compensation. Out of such amount, Rs.6,00,000/- is kept in form
of monthly FDRs of Rs.20,000/-. Remaining amount of
Rs.3,36,633/- be released to the claimant no.1 in her bank account
as per rule/ directions.
(II) Share of claimant No.2 /Ms. Neha Anand (daughter of
deceased): Out of the compensation amount, claimant no. 2 is
awarded Rs.48,400/-. Since claimant No. 2 is major, her share be
released in her bank account as per rules/directions.
(III) Share of claimant No.3 /Sh. Siddharth Anand (son of
deceased): Out of the compensation amount, claimant no.3 is
awarded Rs.48,400/-. Since claimant No. 3 is major, his share be
released in his bank account as per rules/directions.
(IV) Share of claimant No.4 /daughter of deceased: Out of the
compensation amount, claimant no.4 is awarded Rs.48,400/-.
Since claimant No. 2 is major, her share be released in her bank
account as per rules/directions.
FORM – IVA
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD IN DEATH
CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1. Date of accident 01.09.2020
2. Name of deceased Sh. Kanwar Raj
3. Age of the deceased 67 years
4. Occupation of the deceased As per record
5. Income of the deceased Rs.21,298.33 p.m.
MACT No.206/2021 Anuradha Anand Vs. Azruddin & Ors. Page No. 26 of 29
Name, age and relationship of legal representative of
deceased:
S No. Name Age Relation
(i) Ms. Anuradha Anand 54 years Wife
(ii) Ms.Neha Anand 30 years Daughter
(iii) Sidharth Anand 23 years Son
(iv) Heena Anand 28 years Daughter
Computation of compensation:-
S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
1 A. Income of the deceased Rs.2,55,580/-
per year
2 B. Add-Future Prospects Nil
3 C. Total Rs.2,55,580/-
4 D. Less-Personal Expenses Rs.85,199/-
of the deceased 1/3rd of
(C)
5 E. Yearly loss of Rs.1,70,386/-
dependency [C -D]
6 F. Multiplier. 5
7 G. Total loss of dependency Rs.8,51,933/-
(E x F = G)
8 H. Medical Expenses Nil
9 I. Compensation for loss of Rs.1,93,600/-
consortium
10 J. Compensation for loss of Rs.18,150/-
estate
11 K. Compensation towards Rs.18,150/-
funeral expenses
12 L. TOTAL Rs.10,81,833/-
COMPENSATION :
total of G+H+I+J+K =L
13 Deduction if any Nil
MACT No.206/2021 Anuradha Anand Vs. Azruddin & Ors. Page No. 27 of 29
14 Total amount after deduction: Rs.10,81,833/-
13 O. RATE OF INTEREST 7.5% p.a.
AWARDED: from date of
filing of DAR till actual
realization of principal
amount awarded.
14 Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.6,00,000/-
15 Award amount released Rs.4,81,833/-
16 Mode of disbursement of the (I) Share of claimant
award amount to the claimant no.1/Smt. Anuradha
(s). (Clause 29) Anand (wife of the
deceased): Out of the
compensation amount,
claimant no.1 is awarded
Rs.9,36,633/- with
interest as stated above
of the compensation. Out
of such amount,
Rs.6,00,000/- is kept in
form of monthly FDRs
of Rs.10,000/-.
Remaining amount of
Rs.3,36,633/- be
released to the claimant
no.1 in her bank account
as per rule/ directions.
(II) Share of claimant
No.2 /Ms. Neha Anand
(daughter of deceased):
Out of the compensation
amount, claimant no. 2 is
awarded Rs.48,400/-.
Since claimant No. 2 is
major, her share be
released in her bank
account as per
rules/directions.
(III) Share of claimant
No.3 /Sh. Siddharth
MACT No.206/2021 Anuradha Anand Vs. Azruddin & Ors. Page No. 28 of 29
Anand (son of
deceased): Out of the
compensation amount,
claimant no.3 is awarded
Rs.48,400/-. Since
claimant No. 3 is major,
his share be released in
his bank account as per
rules/directions.
(IV) Share of claimant
No.4 /daughter of
deceased: Out of the
compensation amount,
claimant no.4 is awarded
Rs.48,400/-. Since
claimant No. 2 is major,
her share be released in
her bank account as per
rules/directions.
19 Next Date for reporting 08.07.2025
compliance of the award
(Clause 31)
49. Copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. The
copy of award be sent to the DLSA and Ld. Metropolitan
Magistrate.
Announced in the open court
on 23.05.2025
(Shelly Arora)
PO (MACT)-02, South-East Distt.
New Delhi
Digitally signed
by SHELLY
SHELLY ARORA
Date:
ARORA 2025.05.23
17:26:27
+0530
MACT No.206/2021 Anuradha Anand Vs. Azruddin & Ors. Page No. 29 of 29