[ad_1]
Delhi District Court
Beero Devi @ Biro Devi vs Vijender Kumar on 28 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN GUPTA,
PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-02,WEST,TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
MACT no. 603/2017
DLWT010076942017
1. Smt. Ganga Devi (mother of deceased Sh. Satish)
W/o Late Sh. Bhagwan Dass
2. Ms. Jyoti (sister of deceased)
D/o Late Sh. Bhagwan Dass
Both R/o House no. 40,
Gali no. 6, Kotla Vihar,
Phase 1, Nilothi.
West, Delhi-110041 ...... Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Vijender Kumar
S/o Sh. Surat Singh
R/o P-22, Kh. No. 80/12/2,
Satyam Vihar,
Chanchal Park,
New Delhi-110041
2. Smt. Babita
W/o Late Sh. Manish Kumar
R/o RZF-212, near DDA Park,
Raj Nagar-II,
New Delhi 110045
3. Reliance General Insurance
Company Limited
Having its office at:
C-1, IIIrd Floor, New Krishna Park,
Digitally signed
SACHIN by SACHIN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.07.28
17:13:23 +0530
MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 1 of 41
Beside Janak Puri West Metro Station,
New Delhi-110018 ...... Respondents
AND
MACT no. 604/2017
DLWT010077362017
1. Smt. Beero
(wife of the deceased Sh. Rajesh)
2. Sh. Vijay Kumar
(son of the deceased)
Both R/o B-123, Jal Vihar Extension
Phase 3, Baprola, Najafgarh
Delhi-110043
3. Neetu
(daughter of the deceased)
W/o Sh. Vinod Kumar,
R/o B-29, Shiv Vihar,
Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar,
Delhi.
…… Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Vijender Kumar
S/o Sh. Surat Singh
R/o P-22, Kh. No. 80/12/2,
Satyam Vihar,
Chanchal Park,
New Delhi-110041
2. Smt. Babita
W/o Late Sh. Manish Kumar
R/o RZF-212, near DDA Park, Digitally signed
SACHIN by SACHIN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.07.28
17:13:31 +0530
MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 2 of 41
Raj Nagar-II,
New Delhi 110045
3. Reliance General Insurance
Company Limited
Having its office at:
C-1, IIIrd Floor, New Krishna Park,
Beside Janak Puri West Metro Station,
New Delhi-110018 …… RespondentsDate of Institution : 25.08.2017
Date of reserving order/judgment : 11.07.2025
Date of pronouncement : 28.07.2025AWAR D
1. Vide this common order, I shall dispose of the
Detailed Accident Reports (DAR) in FIR no. 734/2016 PS
Ranhola, with regard to the compensation payable to the LRs of
deceased on account of fatal injuries sustained by Sh. Satish
(deceased in MACT No. 603/2017) and Sh. Rajesh (deceased in
MACT no. 604/2017) in a motor vehicular accident that took
place on 03.10.2016 involving a vehicle i.e. Maruti Eeco Car
bearing registration no. DL1RT1653.
2. According to the DAR filed by the IO, documents
annexed therewith as well as material available on record, on
03.10.2016 at about 10:50 PM, while the Sh. Satish (deceased in
MACT no. 603/2017) alongwith one Sh. Rajesh (deceased in
MACT no. 604/2017) were going on a vehicle i.e. Duet Scooty
bearing registration no. DL4SCL7589, which was being driven
by deceased Sh. Rajesh and when they reached near Radha
Krishan Mandir and Church, Ganda Nala Road, Shiv Vihar,
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.28
17:13:39 +0530MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 3 of 41
Vikas Nagar, Delhi, suddenly, a vehicle i.e. Maruti Eeco Car
bearing registration no. DL1RT1653 (hereinafter referred to as
‘offending vehicle’), which was being driven by its driver
(respondent no. 1) in fast speed and in rash and negligent manner,
hit against the Scooty of deceased and due to the forceful impact
of hitting, pillion rider namely Sh. Satish succumbed to his
injuries at the spot and Sh. Rajesh (driver of Scooty) sustained
grievous injuries. It is further stated that deceased Satish Kumar
was taken to the Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangolpuri,
New Delhi and his postmortem was conducted vide PMR no.
991/16 dated 04.10.2016. It is further stated that injured namely
Rajesh was taken to the Krishna Hospital, Main Ranhola Road,
Vikas Nagar, New Delhi, wherein he was medically examined
vide MLC No. 305/16 dated 03.10.2016 and thereafter, he was
referred to Safdarjung Hospital on 04.10.2016 and during the
course of his treatment, he succumbed to his injuries on
14.10.2016 due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident
and his postmortem was conducted at Vardhman Mahavir
Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi vide PMR
No. 1993/2016 dated 15.10.2016.
3. IO filed the DAR giving details of respondent No. 1
being the driver of the offending vehicle; the respondent no. 2
being the wife/LR of the registered owner of the offending
vehicle and the respondent no. 3 being the Insurer of the
offending vehicle. DAR was also accompanied by other relevant
documents including final report u/s 173 Cr.PC; MLC and
postmortem report of deceased Rajesh Kumar; Postmortem
report of deceased Satish; Site plan; Seizure memos of both the
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
SACHIN GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.07.28
17:13:47
+0530MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 4 of 41
vehicles and seizure memo of documents of offending vehicle;
Mechanical inspection report of both the vehicles; Notice u/s 133
M.V. Act given to the owner of the offending vehicle and its
reply; Seizure memo of driving license of the respondent no. 1;
Statement of witnesses u/s 161 CrPC etc.
4. In both the cases, in response / reply filed on behalf
of respondent no.1/driver, it is stated inter alia that the police had
lodged a false case at the instance of complainant against the
driver of vehicle no. DL1RT1653; that he was having a valid
driving license at the time of alleged accident and vehicle in
question was also insured; that he was driving his vehicle
carefully and not driving his vehicle rashly and negligently; that
he drove the vehicle following traffic rules and regulations on the
alleged date of accident and speed of the vehicle was limited to
30-40 kmph only; that alleged incident has not occurred due to
any negligence on his part; that the vehicle of respondent never
hit the deceased in any manner and the incident in question has
not occurred by the vehicle of the respondent.
5. In both the cases, in response / reply filed by wife /
LR of deceased owner Sh. Manish Kumar (respondent no. 2), it
is stated inter alia that the police had lodged a false case at the
instance of complainant against the vehicle of the answering
respondent as well as its driver; that driver of vehicle no.
DL1RT-1653 was holding a valid driving license as well as valid
Permit , valid Fitness certificate and valid insurance in respect of
his vehicle at the relevant time and was driving the said vehicle
by following the rules and regulations of the traffic law and has
not committed any offence as informed by him; that the driver
Digitally
signed by
SACHIN
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.28
17:13:55
+0530MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 5 of 41
has nothing to do with the alleged offence and no accident was
caused by the vehicle of the respondent; that vehicle of
respondents never hit the deceased in any manner and
investigation carried out by the police is unfair, collusive and
manipulated.
6. In both the cases, in its response / reply filed on
behalf of the insurance company/respondent no.3, it is stated
inter alia that Vehicle no. DL1RT1653 was insured with the
answering respondent subject to the terms and conditions as
contained in the Insurance Policy which was effective for the
period from 16.01.2016 to 15.01.2017. It is further stated that
respondent no. 2 (owner of the offending vehicle) has violated
the terms of the insurance policy by allowing the respondent no.
1 to drive the offending vehicle at the time of accident without
having valid permit of the same.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues
were framed in both MACT No. 603/2017 and 604/2017 by the
Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal on 25.01.2018:-
1. Whether Rajesh and Satish
succumbed to the injuries in a vehicular
accident that took place on 03.10.2016
at about 10.50 pm at near Radha
Krishan Mandir and Church, Ganda
Nana Road, Shiv Vihar, Vikas Nagar,
Delhi involving a Taxi bearing
Registration no. DL1RT 1653, driven
by respondent no.1 Vijender Kumar,
owned by respondent no.2 Manish
Kumar (since deceased) and insured
with respondent no.3 Reliance General
Insurance Company Limited? OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are
entitled for compensation? If so, to
Digitally
signed by
SACHIN
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.28
17:14:03
+0530MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 6 of 41
what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
8. Vide order dated 19.04.2018 passed by the Ld.
Predecessor of this Tribunal, both the matters i.e. MACT No.
603/2017 and MACT No. 604/2017 were consolidated for the
purpose of recording of evidence and Petition No. 603/2017 was
directed to be treated as main petition.
9. In order to prove their case, petitioners got
examined four witnesses. PW1 is Smt. Beero Devi (wife of
deceased Rajesh); PW2 is Smt. Ganga Devi (mother of deceased
Satish); PW3 is IO / SI Ashok Kumar and PW4 is Sh. Rahul
Dahiya, who is stated to be the eye-witness of the accident in
question. During the course of inquiry, witness namely Sh.
Chandan Kumar Rai, was also got examined as Court witness
(CW1).
10. In respondent evidence on behalf of respondent no.
3 /insurance company, it examined one witness viz. R3W1 Sh.
Amit Kumar, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited. No
witness was got examined on behalf of respondent no. 1 and 2.
11. I have heard arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel
for petitioner as well as Ld. Counsels for respondents. I have
gone through the record carefully and my issue wise findings
are as under :
Issue No.1 (In both the cases).
12. It is the settled proposition of law that an action
founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non.
However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
SACHIN GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.07.28
17:14:12
+0530
MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 7 of 41
criminal cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of
preponderance of probabilities. Holistic view is to be taken while
dealing with the Claim Petition based upon negligence. Strict
rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by
the Claims Tribunal. Reference may be made to the judgments
titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sakshi Bhutani &
Others., MAC APP. No. 550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012, Bimla
Devi & Others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation &
Others (2009) 13 SC 530, Parmeshwari v. Amirchand & Others
2011 (1) SCR 1096 & Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. & Others 2018, Law Suit (SC) 303.
13. PW-1 Smt. Beero Devi (wife of deceased Rajesh
Kumar) tendered her affidavit in evidence and relied upon the
documents i.e. (i) Copy of DAR Ex.PW1/1; (ii) Copy of FIR
Ex.PW1/2; (iii) Copy of site plan Ex.PW1/3; (iv) Copy of Aadhar
Card of her daughter Neetu Ex.PW1/4 (OSR); (v) Copy of
Aadhar Card of her son Vijay Kumar Ex.PW1/5 (OSR); (vi)
Copy of Aadhar Card of her mother-in-law Smt. Atro Devi
Ex.PW1/6 (OSR); (vii) Copy of her Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/7
(OSR); (viii) Copy of Aadhar Card of her deceased husband
Ex.PW1/8 (OSR) and (ix) Copy of medical bills Ex.PW1/9
(Colly). In her cross examination by Ld. Counsel for respondent
no. 3 / Insurance Co., she stated inter alia that she had not seen
the scooter driver and pillion rider wearing helmets at the time of
accident. She further stated that while leaving house, they were
in helmets. She admitted that she had not seen the accident.
14. PW-2 Smt. Ganga Devi (mother of deceased Satish)
tendered her affidavit in evidence which is Ex.PW2/A and relied
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.28
17:14:19 +0530MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 8 of 41
upon the documents i.e. (i) Copy of DAR Ex.PW2/1; (ii) Copy of
FIR Ex.PW2/2; (iii) Copy of site plan Ex.PW2/3; (iv) Copy of
her Aadhar Card Ex.PW2/4 (OSR); (v) Copy of Aadhar Card of
her husband Bhagwan Dass Ex.PW2/5 (OSR); (vi) Copy of
election ID of her deceased son Satish Ex.PW2/6 (OSR) and (vii)
Copy of Aadhar Card of Jyoti, sister of deceased Ex.PW2/7
(OSR). In her cross examination by Ld. Counsel for respondent
no. 3 / Insurance Co., she stated inter alia that she had not seen
the scooter driver and pillion rider wearing helmets at the time of
accident. She further stated that while leaving house, they were
in helmets. She admitted that she had not seen the accident.
15. PW3 SI Ashok Kumar, who was the Investigating
Officer has inter alia deposed that on 03.10.2016, he was posted
at PS Ranhola as ASI; that on that day, on receipt of DD no. 63A
qua accident, he reached the spot alongwith Ct. Jasbir; that when
they reached the spot i.e. Radhey Krishna Mandir, Nala Road,
Vikas Nagar, near Church, they found people gathered at the
spot; that one scooty bearing registration no. DL4SCL7589 was
found in accidental condition and one boy was also found died at
the spot. He further deposed that it was revealed from the public
that one Eeco Car bearing registration no. DL1RT1653 had
caused the accident and it had fled away. He further deposed that
he had fairly investigated the case and recorded the statement of
two public persons namely Chandan and Rahul Dahiya; that the
statement of Chandan is Ex.CW/P1 and the statement of Rahul
Dahiya is Ex.PW3/1 bearing his signatures at point A; that he
had prepared the site plan at the spot and after completion of all
the formalities, he had filed the DAR, which is Ex.PW2/1.
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
SACHIN GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.07.28
17:14:27
+0530
MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 9 of 41
16. In his cross examination done by the Ld. Counsel
for the respondent no.3, PW3 admitted that he was not an eye-
witness to the accident in question and he had only investigated
the case. He further admitted that the offending vehicle was not
found at the spot. He further stated that it had already fled after
causing accident; that statement of eye-witnesses were recorded
after about 8-9 days; that he kept on searching the eye witness as
their telephone numbers were already there as they had made call
at 100 number; that their numbers were revealed to him from
PCR form. He further deposed that after recording the statement
of Chandan, he was also present at the time of arrest of accused.
He denied to the suggestion that eye-witness Chandan did not
disclose the involvement of offending vehicle in the present case
or that he had wrongly recorded his statement or that offending
vehicle had not caused any accident or that he was deposing
falsely. He was not cross-examined on behalf of the respondent
no.1 and 2 despite opportunity given.
17. During the course of inquiry in the present matter,
eye-witness Chandan Kumar was examined as Court witness
(CW1), who deposed inter alia that in the year 2016, however, he
did not remember month and date of the incident, at about
10:30 / 11 pm, while he was returning from Karol Bagh and
when he reached near Sai Baba Mandir, Ranhola, a white colour
car hit a scooty and also hit 2-3 other vehicles; that after hitting
the vehicle, the said car fled away from the spot; that two scooter
riders fell down on the road and one of them was crushed under
the wheel of the car; that other scooter rider was also in serious
condition; that he informed the police officials posted at Police
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.28
17:14:35 +0530MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 10 of 41
Post of PS Ranhola; that he made a call at 100 number and then,
he went to his house from there.
18. In his cross examination done by the Ld. Counsel
for the respondents, he stated inter alia that the offending vehicle
was either Tavera or Innova; that he does not remember the
number of the offending vehicle; that he had not seen the driver
of the offending vehicle; that the police did not record his
statement from the date of accident till date and he could not say
as to who removed the scooterist to the hospital. In his cross
examination done by Ld. Counsel for petitioners, he admitted
that he called the police at 100 number perhaps on 03.10.2016,
however, due to lapse of time, he cannot recollect the exact date
and month. He denied to suggestion that he had stated to the
police that accident was caused by Maruti Eeco bearing
registration no. DL1RT1653 and thereby caused the accidental
death of two persons on scooty bearing registration no.
DL4SC7589 (He was confronted with his statement Ex.CW1/P1
given to the police from point A to A, where it was so recorded).
He further denied to the suggestion that he had noted down the
number of the Maruti Eeco bearing registration no. DL1RT1653
(He was confronted with his statement Ex.CW1/P1 given to the
police from point B to B, where it was so recorded). He further
denied to the suggestion that he stated to the police he can
identify the driver of the Eeco van (He was confronted with his
statement Ex.CW1/P1 given to the police from point C to C,
where it was so recorded). He also denied to the suggestion that
he got recorded his statement U/s 161 CrPC at PS Ranhola on
12.10.2016 or that police had inquired from him or that he was
Digitally
signed by
SACHIN
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.28
17:14:46
+0530MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 11 of 41
deposing falsely to favour the driver and owner of the offending
vehicle.
19. Petitioners also got examined another eye-witness
namely Rahul Dahiya as PW4, who filed his affidavit in evidence
Ex.PW4/A, wherein he deposed inter alia that he is an eye
witness; that on the date of accident on 03.10.2016 at about
10:30 pm, while he was returning by car from Gurugram to his
home and when he reached between Ranhola Chauki and Radhe
Krishan Mandir at Church, Ganda Nala Road, Shiv Vihar, Vikas
Nagar, Delhi, he saw a Maruti Eeco Car bearing no. DL1RT1653
driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit against a scooty
bearing no. DL4SCL7589 which was coming in the right
direction of the road and due to the accident caused by Maruti
Eeco, both the scooterist sustained injuries and he and few other
persons made a call at 100 number. He further deposed that he
alongwith the help of persons gathered at the spot took the victim
to a nearby Krishna Hospital at Vikas Nagar and police recorded
his statement in this case. He filed copy of his driving license
which is Ex.PW4/1 (OSR). In his cross examination done by the
Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2, he stated inter alia
that he was driving his car while he was returning back from
Gurugram and the accident took place at about 10:30 pm. He
further deposed that due to the accident, one person died at the
spot and the another one was injured to whom he alongwith one
unknown person took to the hospital; that he does not remember
the exact time when he made a call at 100 number; that his
testimony was also recorded in the criminal case bearing FIR no.
734/2016 u/s 279/304A IPC. He denied to the suggestion that he
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
SACHIN GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.07.28
17:14:53
+0530
MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 12 of 41
was approached by the counsel for petitioner to deposed before
the Court in the present matter. He has also denied to the
suggestion that he is an interested witness and therefore,
deposing in favour of petitioners or that he was not present at the
spot when accident took place or that he did not took the injured
alongwith one unknown person to the hospital. Ld. Counsel for
respondent no. 1 and 2 confronted the witness i.e. PW4 Rahul
Dahiya with the certified copy of his testimony (Ex.PW4/R1 and
2X1) recorded on 13.05.2019 before the Court of Ld. MM in the
case FIR No. 734/2016 PS Ranhola, to which PW4 stated that his
testimony recorded in this matter is correct.
20. Ld. Counsel for the respondents have argued that
respondent no. 1 and vehicle of respondent no. 2 have been
falsely implicated in the present case; that eye-witness Chandan
Kumar has failed to support the case of petitioners in respect of
the accident allegedly took place by the vehicle bearing
registration no. DL1RT1653, who has stated in his cross
examination that offending vehicle was either Tavera or Innova.
It is further argued that CW-1 did not remember the registration
number of the offending vehicle nor he saw the driver of the
offending vehicle and also denied of recording of his statement
by the police. It is further argued that another eye-witness i.e.
PW4 Rahul Dahiya examined by the petitioners, is not a reliable
witness, who has deposed before the court of Ld. MM in the
State case FIR no. 734/2016 PS Ranhola on 13.05.2019 to the
effect that he had no opportunity to see the offending vehicle or
the accused and also denied to the suggestion that he told the
police officials about the registration number of the offending car
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
SACHIN GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.07.28
17:15:01
+0530
MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 13 of 41
or that accused was present at the spot alongwith the offending
vehicle and he fled away from the spot and also deposed that he
had not seen the accused or the offending vehicle on the date of
accident and thereby, he failed to support the prosecution case. It
is further argued that in the present matter/DAR, PW Rahul
Dahiya has deposed contradictorily, just to help the petitioners to
seek compensation and such a witness, who has so deposed
contradictorily in his two depositions, is an unreliable witness. It
is further argued that petitioners have failed to establish on
record that accident in question took place due to the rash and
negligent driving of the alleged offending vehicle by the
respondent no. 1.
21. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has
vehemently argued that investigation was duly carried out by the
IO and after concluding investigation, it was revealed that
accident in question took place due to the rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent no. 1, which
resulted in the fatal injuries to both the scooty riders . It is further
argued that during the course of investigation, IO has also
recorded the statements of the eye-witnesses and obtained
various reports / replies including reply to the notice U/s 133
M.V. Act given by the owner of the offending vehicle and after
concluding investigation, IO has filed charge-sheet against the
driver (respondent no. 1 herein) of the offending vehicle. It is
further argued that eye-witness PW4 Rahul Dahiya has deposed
about the mode and manner of the accident in question and fully
supported the case of the petitioners and merely because CW1
Chandan Kumar has become hostile and deposed in the present
Digitally
signed by
SACHIN
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.28
17:15:10
+0530
MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 14 of 41
matter to the contrary of his previous statement (Ex.CW/P1)
given by him to the IO during the course of investigation, it does
not become fatal to the case of the petitioners and there is
sufficient material available on record, which proves that
accident in question was caused by the respondent no. 1 by
driving offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner.
22. Admittedly, PW1 (Smt. Beero Devi) and PW2 (Smt.
Ganga Devi) had not witnessed the accident in question. CW1
Chandan Kumar, has failed to support the case of petitioners in
respect of involvement of offending vehicle causing the accident
and respondent no. 1 being its driver. However, PW4 Rahul
Dahiya, another eye-witness, who filed his affidavit in evidence
Ex.PW4/A has deposed about the mode and manner of the
accident. He deposed that on 03.10.2016 at about 10:30 PM,
while he was returning to his home by car and when he reached
between Ranhola Chowki and Radhey Krishan Mandir at
Church, Ganda Nala Road, Shiv Vihar, Vikas Nagar, Delhi, he
saw a Maruti Eeco bearing registration no. DL1RT1653 driven in
rash and negligent manner, hit against a Scooty bearing
registration no. DL4SCL7589 which was coming in the right
direction of the road and due to the accident caused by Maruti
Eeco, both the scooterists sustained injuries. He was also
examined by the IO during the course of investigation. He was
confronted by the Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1 and 2 with
his previous statement, which he made before the Court of Ld.
MM in the State case on 13.05.2019. However, he deposed that
his testimony recorded in this matter is correct. No doubt, the
said witness Rahul Dahiya has not supported the case of the
Digitally signed
SACHIN by SACHIN
GUPTA
GUPTA 17:15:18
Date: 2025.07.28
+0530
MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 15 of 41
prosecution in his deposition given before the Court of Ld. MM
on 13.05.2019, however, the same itself does not become fatal to
the case of petitioners qua the alleged accident and involvement
of offending vehicle being driven by respondent no.1.
23. In the case titled ‘Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs. Karan
Bhatia, MAC APP. 271/2018 decided on 26.11.2024″, it has been
held by the Hon’ble High Court as under:-
“12. Shri Mehtab Singh, the eye witness, may
have failed to support the case of the prosecution
and turned hostile during the trial, but that does
not take away the factum of accident and demise
of Smt.Surjit Kaur. The investigations were duly
carried out which revealed not only the
involvement of the vehicle, but also that it was the
offending vehicle which was being driven in a rash
and negligent manner which resulted in the
accident. The manner of accident is also evident
from the Site Plan prepared during the criminal
investigations.
13. In the case of National Insurance Co.,vs Pushpa
Rana 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, it has been held that
filing of Chargesheet is sufficient proof of the
negligence and involvement of the Offending
Vehicle. Similar observations have been made in
the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Deepak Goel and Ors., 2014 (2) TAC 846 Del, that
if the claimant was able to prove the criminal case
on record pertaining to involvement of the
offending vehicle, whereby the criminal records
showing completion of investigation by the police
and filing of Chargesheet under Sections 279/304-
A IPC against the driver have been proved, then the
documents mentioned above are sufficient to
establish the fact that the driver was negligent in
causing the accident. Where FIR is lodged,
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTAGUPTA Date: 2025.07.28
17:15:28 +0530MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 16 of 41
Chargesheet is filed, especially in a case where
driver after causing the accident had fled away
from the spot, then the documents mentioned above
are sufficient to establish the fact that the driver of
the offending vehicle was negligent in causing the
accident particularly when there was no defence
available from his side before the learned Tribunal.
14. Similar observations have been made in the
cases of Jamanti Devi and Ors. v. Maheshwar Rai,
MAC Appeal no. 831/2015 decided on 19.11.2022.
15. The Apex Court has opined in the judgment of
Mangla Ram Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company
Ltd, AIR 2018 SC 1900 that the key-point of
negligence of the driver as set up by the
Claimants, is required to be decided on the
touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and
not by the standard of proof beyond reasonable
doubt. Thus, filing of Chargesheet against the
driver of the offending vehicle prima facie, points
towards the complicity in driving the vehicle
negligently and rashly. The subsequent acquittal of
the accused may of no effect on the assessment of
the liability required in motor vehicle accident
cases.”
24. PW1 and PW2 have also relied upon copy of DAR
which consists of charge-sheet as well as other documents /
reports obtained by the IO during the course of investigation
pertaining to the accident in question. IO has filed the final report
u/s 173 CrPC (charge-sheet) in FIR No. 734/2016 PS Ranhola
U/s 279/304A IPC against the respondent no. 1 Vijender Kumar
alongwith other documents / reports i.e. MLC and postmortem
report of deceased Rajesh Kumar; Postmortem report of deceased
Satish; Site plan; Seizure memos of both the vehicles;
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.28
17:15:35 +0530MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 17 of 41
Mechanical inspection report of both the vehicles; Notice u/s 133
M.V. Act given to the owner of the offending vehicle and its
reply; Seizure memo of driving license of the respondent no. 1;
Statement of witnesses u/s 161 CrPC etc.
25. PW3 SI Ashok Kumar, who is the IO of the case has
deposed inter alia that when he alongwith Constable Jaspreet
reached the spot, one Scooty bearing registration no.
DL4SCL7589 was found in accidental condition; that one boy
was also found died at the spot and it was revealed from the
public that one Eeco car bearing registration no. DL1RT1653 had
caused the accident and it had fled away. He also deposed of
recording of statement of two public persons namely Chandan
and Rahul Dahiya, preparing of site plan at the spot and after
completion of all formalities, filing of DAR which is already
Ex.PW2/1. Surprisingly, he was not cross-examined on behalf of
respondent no.1 and 2 despite opportunity given.
26. Perusal of the final report U/s 173 CrPC filed by the
IO shows that during the course of investigation, Smt. Babita,
wife of deceased registered owner of offending vehicle has
replied to the notice of IO given U/s 133 M.V. Act that her
vehicle bearing registration no. DL1RT1653 was given to the
driver Vijender Kumar and on 03.10.2016 at about 12:00 in the
night, driver informed her about some minor accident caused by
the offending vehicle against a Scooty. The said document / reply
remained undisputed on the part of the respondents. It clearly
shows that respondent no. 1 was the driver of offending vehicle,
who also informed the owner Smt. Babita about the accident
which was caused by him on 03.10.2016 while driving the
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
SACHIN GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.07.28
17:15:43
+0530
MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 18 of 41
offending vehicle. So far as, his version of small accident as
allegedly given by him to the owner Smt. Babita is concerned, it
is unlikely on his part to disclose to the owner that he had caused
a serious accident. Nevertheless, the aforesaid reply given by
Smt. Babita Rohilla (wife of deceased registered owner of the
offending vehicle) clearly support the case of the petitioners qua
the involvement of the offending vehicle in causing the accident,
which was driven by respondent no. 1 on the date of accident.
27. Furthermore, Site plan (Ex.PW2/3) filed by the IO
alongwith the DAR also shows that the offending vehicle came
on the wrong side of the road and hit against the Scooty of the
deceased which was in the right direction of the road. The same
also corroborates the testimony of eye-witness PW Rahul
Dahiya, who had deposed that the offending vehicle hit against
the scooty which was in the right direction of the road. The
aforesaid document / Site plan also remained undisputed on the
part of the respondents. The same further strengthen the case of
the petitioners qua the rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle. Moreover, mechanical inspection report of both the
vehicles shows that front side of both the vehicles were
damaged, which also supports the manner of accident, as
depicted in the Site plan filed by the IO. The said document also
remained undisputed on the part of the respondents. Respondent
no. 1 namely Vijender Kumar (accused in State case) has been
charge-sheeted (which is part of copies of criminal case available
on record) for offences punishable U/s 279/304A IPC by the
investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion on the basis
of investigation carried out by it that the accident in question had
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.28
17:15:51 +0530MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 19 of 41
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle
by him. The investigation was duly carried out which revealed
not only the involvement of the offending vehicle, but also that it
was the offending vehicle which was being driven in a rash and
negligent manner which resulted in the accident. The manner of
accident is also evident from the site plan prepared during the
criminal investigations.
28. Furthermore, as per the postmortem report of
deceased Satish vide P.M. Report No. 991/16 dated 04.10.2016
filed by the IO alongwith DAR, opinion is given as death is due
to shock, consequent to blunt force impact over the abdomen. All
injuries are ante-mortem in nature and possible in manner as
alleged. As per the postmortem report of deceased Rajesh vide
P.M. Report No. 1993/16 dated 15.10.2016 filed by the IO
alongwith DAR, the opinion is given as “Death is due to
septicemic shock consequent upon perforation peritonitis
produced by blunt force/surface impact to abdomen. All injuries
are ante-mortem in nature.” Said documents / P.M. reports have
not been disputed from the side of the respondents and
corroborates the ocular testimonies of PWs as discussed above.
29. Moreover, apart from petitioner, the respondent no.
1 Vijender Kumar was the other material witness who could have
thrown sufficient light as to how and under what circumstances,
the accident in question took place. However, he did not enter
into witness box during the course of inquiry. Thus, an adverse
inference is liable to be drawn against him for not entering into
the witness box, to the effect that the accident occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by him. There
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.28
17:15:58 +0530MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 20 of 41
was an implicit duty on the respondent no.1 to see that his
driving did not endanger the life of any other user of the road.
He has failed to exercise the caution incumbent upon him and has
clearly neglected his duty of circumspection.
30. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion and the
evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioners
have been able to prove on the scale of preponderance of
probabilities that both the deceased Sh. Satish and Sh. Rajesh
sustained fatal injuries in road accident which took place on
03.10.2016 at about 10:50 pm near Radha Krishan Mandir and
Church, Ganda Nala Road, Shiv Vihar, Vikas Nagar, Delhi due to
rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent
no. 1. Accordingly issue no.1 stands decided in favour of
petitioners and against the respondents.
Issue No.2
31. In view of the finding on issue no.1, petitioners are
entitled to get compensation, however, the quantum of
compensation still needs to be adjudicated. Section 168 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 enjoins upon the claim Tribunal to hold an
inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount
of compensation, which appears to be just and reasonable. As
per settled law, compensation is not expected to be windfall or a
bonanza nor it should be pittance. A man is not compensated for
the physical injury, he is compensated for the loss which he
suffers as a result of that injury (Baker v. Willoughby (1970) Ac
467 at page 492 per Lord Reid).
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
SACHIN GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.07.28
17:16:06
+0530
MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 21 of 41
COMPENSATION IN MACT No. 603/2017 (deceased Sh.
Satish)
Age of deceased :
32. The petitioner/PW-2 Smt. Ganga Devi (mother of
deceased Sh. Satish) has deposed that as per the birth year
(DOB-01.11.1991) furnished by her deceased son at the time of
making of Election I Card before the concerned authority, the age
of deceased was 24 years at the time of accident. She has filed
and relied upon the Election I Card of deceased Sh. Satish, copy
of which is Ex.PW2/6, which shows the age of deceased Satish
as on 01.01.2016 was 25 years. The same remained undisputed
on the part of respondents. Date of accident is 03.10.2016. As
such, age of deceased Satish was around 25 years 09 months at
the time of accident.
Assessment of Income of deceased :
33. Petitioner/PW-2 Smt. Ganga Devi (mother of
deceased) has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit
(Ex.PW2/A) that deceased was a Tailor Master and getting a
salary of Rs.15,000/- per month and other expenses. In her cross
examination, she stated that she has no documentary proof to
show that her deceased son was earning Rs.15,000/- per month.
She further stated that her son was not matriculate.
34. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 / Insurance
Company has argued that petitioners have failed to prove the
alleged vocation and monthly income of deceased. Per contra,
Ld. Counsel for petitioners argued that there is no reason to
disbelieve the testimony of PW2 Smt. Ganga Devi qua the
vocation and monthly income of deceased.
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
SACHIN GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.07.28
17:16:16
+0530MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 22 of 41
35. Admittedly, there is no document placed and proved
on record in respect of the alleged vocation and monthly income
of deceased. There is no other witness got examined by the
petitioners in support thereof. As per Election I Card of the
deceased, he was resident of Delhi. Thus, for want of cogent and
definite evidence being led by the petitioners with regard to the
actual vocation and monthly income of the deceased, this
Tribunal assesses the income of deceased to be at parity with
minimum wages of Unskilled person in the State of Delhi which
at the time of accident i.e. 03.10.2016 were Rs.9,724/- per
month.
Application of Multiplier:
36. As held above, deceased was aged about 25 years
and 09 months of age at the time of accident. As per settled
principle laid down in case of Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC
121, the multiplier as applicable to the age group between 21-25
years is 18 and the multiplier as applicable to the age group
between 26-30 years is 17. In the present matter, since, on the
date of accident, the deceased has not completed 26 years of age,
as such, multiplier to be applied in the present case would be 18.
(In this regard, reliance is placed on the Judgments of the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi in the case titled as “United India Insurance
Company Limited V/s Smt. Neelam & Ors.”, MAC
APP.No.613/2012, date of decision: 26.11.2015 and the case
titled as “U.P State Road Transport Corporation V/s Rajan Raut
& Anr.”, MAC.APP.No.586/2017, date of decision: 22.08.2022).
Future Prospects:
37. The Hon’ble Apex Court in judgment which has
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.28
17:16:23 +0530MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 23 of 41
arisen out of SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014 titled as National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors decided on
31.10.2017 has held as under:-
“61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our
conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh
Devi,2012 ACJ 1428 (SC) 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,2013 ACJ 1403 (SC) has
not taken note of the decision in Reshma
Kumari, 2013 ACJ 1253 (SC), 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 Digitally
signed by
SACHIN
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.28
17:16:30
+0530MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 24 of 41
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 21 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.”
38. On the day of accident, deceased was aged about 25
years 09 months. Having considered the facts and circumstances
of the present matter, future prospects @ 40% has to be awarded
in favour of petitioners in view of pronouncement made by the
Apex Court in the case titled as “National Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.” Civil Appeal No. 6961/2015
decided on 31.10.2017, as well as in view of decision of Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011
titled as “Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Pooja & Ors“, decided on 02.11.17.
Deduction towards Personal and Living Expenses:
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
SACHIN GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.07.28
17:16:39
+0530MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 25 of 41
39. After choosing the age, multiplier and income of the
deceased, necessary deductions have to be made out of the
income of the deceased towards his personal expenses.
40. As per the present DAR, deceased Satish was
survived by his LRs namely Sh. Bhagwan Dass (father of
deceased) and Smt. Ganga Devi (mother of deceased). During the
pendency of the inquiry in the present matter, one of the
petitioners namely Sh. Bhagwan Das (father of deceased Sh.
Satish) died on 19.06.2021 and upon an application filed on
behalf of petitioner Smt. Ganga Devi, name of deceased Sh.
Bhagwan Dass was deleted and Ms. Jyoti (sister of deceased
Satish) was impleaded as LRs of the deceased vide order dated
01.11.2022 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal.
41. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case titled as “Sarla
Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121”) held as under:-
“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
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.28
17:16:49 +0530MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 26 of 41
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”.
42. It is well settled that 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 present case also, there is no
cogent evidence available on record to show that father and sister
of deceased were financially dependent upon the deceased prior
to his death. In such circumstances, only the mother of the
deceased namely Smt. Ganga Devi (petitioner no. 1) 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. Thus, half (½ ) of the income of the
deceased is to be deducted towards his personal and living
expenses.
43. Thus, considering the aforementioned factors, the
Digitally signed
SACHIN by SACHIN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.07.28
17:16:57 +0530
MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 27 of 41
compensation for the loss of dependency is calculated as under:
S. No. Head Amount 1. Monthly income of deceased (A) Rs. 9,724/- 2. Add future prospect (B) @ 40% Rs. 3,889.6/-
3. Less 1/2 towards personal and living Rs. 6,806.8/-
expenses of the deceased (C)
4. Monthly loss of dependency (A+B)- Rs. 6,806.8/-
C=D
5. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs. 81,681.6/-
6. Multiplier (E) 18
7. Total loss of dependency Rs. 14,70,268.8/-
(Dx12xE=F)
44. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come
out to Rs. 14,70,269/- (rounded off). Hence, a sum of Rs.
(Rupees Fourteen Lacs Seventy Thousand Two Hundred and
Sixty Nine Only) is awarded under this head in favour of the
petitioner no. 1 Smt. Ganga Devi.
Non-Pecuniary Damages:
45. In case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), it has been held 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 and the aforesaid
amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three
years. Therefore, a compensation of Rs. 48,000/-, Rs. 18,000/-
and Rs.18,000/- respectively on account of loss of consortium,
loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted.
Further, in view of recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder
Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 2705 of 2020,
Digitally signed
SACHIN by SACHIN
GUPTA
GUPTA 17:17:08
Date: 2025.07.28
+0530
MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 28 of 41
decided on 30.06.2020, loss of consortium has to be fixed for
each of the legal representatives. Since, now, there are two LRs
of deceased, therefore, the petitioners/claimants are entitled to a
sum of Rs. 1,32,000/- (48,000 X 2 + 18,000 + 18,000) under this
head.
46. Considering the aforementioned factors, the total
compensation is calculated as under:
S. No. Head Amount Awarded 1. Total loss of dependency Rs. 14,70,269/-
2. Compensation for loss of consortium Rs. 96,000/-
(48,000 X 2)
3. Compensation for loss of estate (H) Rs.18,000/-
4. Compensation for funeral expenses Rs.18,000/-
(I)
Total compensation Rs. 16,02,269/-
47. Thus, the total compensation amount to which the
petitioners (in MACT No. 603/2017) are entitled comes to Rs.
16,02,269/- (Rupees Sixteen Lacs Two Thousand Two Hundred
and Sixty Nine Only).
COMPENSATION IN MACT No. 604/2017 (deceased Sh.
Rajesh)
Medical Bills
48. PW1 Smt. Beero Devi (wife of the deceased), has inter
alia deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit that she has
spent a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- approximately on medical treatment
of her deceased husband. She has filed and relied upon the
medical bills which are Ex.PW1/9 (Colly), which are total
amounting to Rs.9,319/-. The aforesaid medical bills remained Digitally
signed by
SACHIN
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.28
17:17:15
+0530MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 29 of 41
undisputed on the part of respondents and there is no reason to
disbelieve the same. In view thereof, the aforesaid bill amount of
Rs. 9,319/- (rounded off) is awarded to the petitioners under this
head for medical expenses.
Age of deceased :
49. The petitioner no.1/PW-1 Smt. Beero Devi has
deposed that as per the birth year (DOB-01.01.1973) furnished
by her deceased husband at the time of making Aadhar Card
before the concerned authority, the age of deceased was 43 years
at the time of accident. She has filed and relied upon the Aadhar
Card of deceased Sh. Rajesh, copy of which is Ex.PW1/8, which
shows the year of birth of deceased Rajesh as 1973. The same
remained undisputed on the part of respondents. Date of accident
is 03.10.2016. As such, this fact stands concluded that age of the
deceased was about 43 years at the time of accident.
Assessment of Income of deceased :
50. Petitioner/PW-1 Smt. Beero Devi (wife of deceased)
has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW1/A) that
her deceased husband was self employed, who was working as a
Tailor Master and getting a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month and
other expenses. In her cross examination, she stated that she has
no documentary proof to show that her deceased husband was
earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. She further stated that her
husband was not matriculate.
51. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 / Insurance
Company has argued that petitioners have failed to prove the
alleged vocation and monthly income of deceased. Per contra,
Ld. Counsel for petitioners argued that there is no reason to
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.28
17:17:23 +0530MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 30 of 41
disbelieve the testimony of PW1 Smt. Beero Devi qua the
vocation and monthly income of deceased.
52. Admittedly, there is no document placed and proved
on record in respect of the alleged vocation and monthly income
of deceased. There is no other witness got examined by the
petitioners in support thereof. As per Aadhar Card of the
deceased, he was resident of Delhi. Thus, for want of cogent and
definite evidence being led by the petitioners with regard to the
actual vocation and monthly income of the deceased, this
Tribunal assesses the income of deceased to be at parity with
minimum wages of Unskilled person in the State of Delhi which
at the time of accident i.e. 03.10.2016 were Rs.9,724/- per
month.
Application of Multiplier:
53. As held above, deceased was around 43 years of age
at the time of accident. Hence, the multiplier of 14 would be
applicable against the age bracket of 41 to 45 years to determine
the compensation, in view of pronouncement made by the Apex
Court in the case titled as “Sarla Verma Vs. DTC” 2009 ACJ
1298 SC.
Future Prospects:
54. On the day of accident, deceased was aged about 43
years. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the
present matter, future prospects @ 25% has to be awarded in
favour of petitioners in view of pronouncement made by the
Apex Court in the case titled as “National Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.” Civil Appeal No. 6961/2015
decided on 31.10.2017, as well as in view of decision of Hon’ble
Digitally
signed by
SACHIN
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.28
17:17:30
+0530MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 31 of 41
High Court of Delhi in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011
titled as “Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Pooja & Ors“, decided on 02.11.17.
Deduction towards Personal and Living Expenses:
55. After choosing the age, multiplier and income of the
deceased, necessary deductions have to be made out of the
income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. As per the
DAR as well as the affidavit of petitioner / PW1, deceased left
behind his 04 legal representatives i.e. his wife, his son, his
daughter and his mother. During the pendency of the inquiry in
the present matter, one of the petitioners namely Smt. Atro Devi
(mother of deceased Sh. Rajesh) also died and upon an
application filed on behalf of petitioner Smt. Beero Devi, name
of Smt. Atro Devi was deleted from the array of parties.
However, since, at the time of death of deceased Rajesh, he left
surviving his above-mentioned 04 legal representatives (LRs),
one-fourth (1/4th) of the income of the deceased is to be
deducted towards his personal and living expenses, as held in the
case titled as “Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation“,
2009 ACJ 1298 SC.
56. Thus, considering the aforementioned factors, the
compensation for the loss of dependency is calculated as under:
S. No. Head Amount 1. Monthly income of deceased (A) Rs. 9,724/- 2. Add future prospect (B) @ 25% Rs. 2,431/-
3. Less 1/4th towards personal and Rs. 3,038.75/-
living expenses of the deceased (C)
4. Monthly loss of dependency (A+B)- Rs. 9,116.25/-
C=D
Digitally
signed by
SACHIN
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.28
17:17:38
+0530MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 32 of 41
5. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs. 1,09,395/-
6. Multiplier (E) 14
7. Total loss of dependency Rs. 15,31,530/-
(Dx12xE=F)
57. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come
out to Rs. 15,31,530/-. Hence, a sum of Rs. 15,31,530/- (Rupees
Fifteen Lacs Thirty One Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty
Only) is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
Non-Pecuniary Damages:
58. In case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), it has been held 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 and the aforesaid
amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three
years. Therefore, a compensation of Rs. 48,000/-, Rs. 18,000/-
and Rs.18,000/- respectively on account of loss of consortium,
loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted.
Further, in view of recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder
Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 2705 of 2020,
decided on 30.06.2020, loss of consortium has to be fixed for
each of the legal representatives. Since, after the death of Smt.
Atro Devi (mother of deceased Rajesh), now there are three legal
representatives of deceased, therefore, the petitioners/claimants
are entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- (48,000 X 3 + 18,000 +
18,000) under this head.
59. Considering the aforementioned factors, the total
compensation is calculated as under:
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
SACHIN GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.07.28
17:17:47
+0530MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 33 of 41
S. No. Head Amount Awarded
1. Total loss of dependency Rs. 15,31,530/-
2. Compensation for loss of consortium Rs. 1,44,000/-
(48,000 X 3)
3. Compensation for loss of estate (H) Rs.18,000/-
4. Compensation for funeral expenses Rs.18,000/-
(I)
5. Medical Expenses Rs. 9,319/-
Total compensation Rs. 17,20,849/-
60. Thus, the total compensation amount to which the
petitioners (in MACT No. 604/2017) are entitled comes to Rs.
17,20,849/- (Rupees Seventeen Lacs Twenty Thousand Eight
Hundred and Forty Nine Only).
INTEREST ON AWARD (in both the cases)
61. Petitioners shall also be entitled to interest at the rate
of 8% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of
the DAR i.e. 25.08.2017 till realization.
LIABILITY (in both the cases)
62. Now the question arises as to which of the
respondent is liable to pay the compensation amount. Ld.
Counsel for respondent no. 3 / Insurance Company has sought to
avoid the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the
compensation amount on the ground that offending vehicle was
not having any valid Permit as on the date of accident i.e.
03.10.2016 and therefore, insured has violated the terms and
conditions of the insurance policy.
63. In order to substantiate the said plea, insurance
company/respondent no.3 has examined Sh. Amit Kumar,
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
SACHIN GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.07.28
17:17:55
+0530
MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 34 of 41
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited as R3W1, who
tendered his affidavit in evidence which is Ex.R3W1/A, wherein
he deposed inter alia that a notice Under Order XII Rule 8 CPC
dated 12.11.2018 was served upon the respondents no.1 and 2 of
the offending vehicle no. DL1RT1653 to produce the permit of
the offending vehicle as valid on the date and time of accident,
however, neither any reply was received nor any copy of Permit
of the said vehicle as valid on the date of accident was supplied /
produced; that owner of the said offending vehicle had no valid
Permit on the date and time of accident, who has violated the
terms and conditions of the insurance policy by allowing the
offending vehicle to be driven by respondent no. 1 without
having a valid Permit at the time of accident. Copy of notice
dated 12.11.2018 is Ex.R3W1/1 and (ii) Postal receipt
Ex.R3W1/2 and Ex.R3W1/3. In his cross examination done by
Ld. Counsel for the petitioners, he admitted that at the time of
accident, all other documents i.e. insurance policy, driving
license, fitness certificate and PUC were OK except permit of the
offending vehicle. He was not cross examined by the Ld. Counsel
for respondent no. 1 and 2, despite opportunity given.
64. In order to appreciate the aforesaid submission
raised on behalf of insurance company, it would be relevant to
refer to the documents filed by the Investigating Officer
alongwith the DAR. Perusal of the record shows that IO has filed
Permit of the offending vehicle, however, it was valid only upto
19.09.2016. The date of accident in the present case is
03.10.2016. Hence, the aforesaid Permit was not valid as on the
date of the accident. The respondent no.1 and 2 have not brought
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
SACHIN GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.07.28
17:18:05
+0530
MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 35 of 41
and produced any permit as valid on the date of accident. The
testimony of witness i.e. R3W1 examined on behalf of the
respondent no. 3 / Insurance Company also remained unrebutted
on behalf of respondent no. 1 and 2. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, it is clear that respondent no. 3 / insurance company
has successfully established that offending vehicle was not
having valid Permit as on the date of the accident i.e. 03.10.2016.
Thus, there is breach in the terms and conditions of the insurance
policy on the part of insurer for want of valid Permit of the
offending vehicle as on the date of accident. Accordingly,
insurance company is entitled to recovery rights against the
respondent no.2 Smt. Babita (wife/LR of deceased Sh. Manish
Kumar).
65. In such circumstances, this Tribunal holds that the
amount of compensation though would be payable by respondent
no.3/insurance company but with recovery rights as against
against the respondent no.2 Smt. Babita (wife/LR of deceased
Sh. Manish Kumar). Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
RELIEF (in MACT No. 603/2017)
66. In view of my finding on issues no. 1 and 2, this
Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs. 16,02,269/- (Rupees
Sixteen Lacs Two Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Nine Only)
(including interim award amount, if any) alongwith interest at the
rate of 8% per annum in favour of petitioners w.e.f. date of filing
of DAR i.e. 25.08.2017 till realization. The respondent
no.3/insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount
with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in the MACT
Account of this Tribunal having Account no. 40714429271, IFSC
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.28
17:18:13 +0530MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 36 of 41
Code. SBIN0000726 Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, within 30 days
from today. The respondent no. 3 is also directed to give notice
regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioners.
RELIEF (in MACT No. 604/2017)
67. In view of my finding on issues no. 1 and 2, this
Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs. 17,20,849/- (Rupees
Seventeen Lacs Twenty Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty Nine
Only) (including interim award amount, if any) alongwith
interest at the rate of 8% per annum in favour of petitioners w.e.f.
date of filing of DAR i.e. 25.08.2017 till realization. The
respondent no.3/insurance company is directed to deposit the
award amount with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
in the MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account no.
40714429271, IFSC Code. SBIN0000726 Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi, within 30 days from today. The respondent no. 3 is also
directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the
petitioners.
Apportionment and Disbursement (in MACT No. 603/17)
68. Statement of petitioners in terms of Clause 29
MCTAP were recorded on 14.03.2024. Having regard to the
facts and circumstances of the case and in view of aforesaid
discussion, it is hereby ordered that out of total compensation
amount, the petitioner no. 1 Smt. Ganga Devi Devi shall be
entitled to share amount of Rs. 15,54,269/- (Rupees Fifteen Lacs
Fifty Four Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Nine Only) (Rs.
14,70,269/- + Rs. 48,000/- + Rs. 36,000/-) alongwith
proportionate interest and the petitioner no. 2 Jyoti shall be
entitled to share amount of Rs. 48,000/- (Rupees Forty Eight
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
SACHIN GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.07.28
17:18:22
+0530
MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 37 of 41
Thousand Only) alongwith proportionate interest.
69. The entire share amount of petitioner no.2 namely
Jyoti, is directed to be immediately released to her through her
MACT saving bank account.
70. Out of share amount of petitioner no.1 namely Smt.
Ganga Devi, a sum of Rs. 3,54,269/- (Rupees Three Lacs Fifty
Four Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Nine Only) shall be
immediately released to her through her MACT saving bank
account and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are
directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs.
25,000/- each for one month, two months, three months and so
on and so forth having cumulative interest. The amount of FDRs
on maturity shall directly be released in the MACT Saving Bank
Account of petitioner no.1 namely Ganga Devi.
Apportionment and Disbursement (in MACT No. 604/17)
71. Statements of petitioners in terms of Clause 29
MCTAP were recorded on 14.03.2024 and considering the
totality of circumstances of the case, share of petitioners in the
award amount shall be as under:-
S. No. Name Relationship with Share in the
deceased award amount
1. Beero Mother 60%
2. Vijay Kumar Son 20%
3. Neetu Daughter 20%
Disbursement of Award Amount (in MACT No. 604/17)
72. In view of the aforesaid, it is hereby ordered that out
of total compensation amount, the petitioner no. 1 namely Smt.
Beero shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 10,32,510/-
SACHIN SACHIN
Digitally signed by
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.07.28
17:18:33 +0530
MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 38 of 41
(Rupees Ten Lacs Thirty Two Thousand Five Hundred and Ten
Only) alongwith proportionate interest; the petitioner no. 2
namely Vijay Kumar shall be entitled to share amount of Rs.
3,44,170/- (Rupees Three Lacs Forty Four Thousand One
Hundred and Seventy Only) alongwith proportionate interest and
the petitioner no. 3 namely Neetu shall be entitled to share
amount of Rs. 3,44,169/- (Rupees Three Lacs Forty Four
Thousand One Hundred and Sixty Nine Only) alongwith
proportionate interest.
73. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 1 Smt. Beero,
a sum of Rs. 3,32,510/- (Rupees Three Lacs Thirty Two
Thousand Five Hundred and Ten Only) shall be immediately
released to her through her MACT saving bank account and
remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be
kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 20,000/- each for
one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth
having cumulative interest.
74. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 2 Sh. Vijay
Kumar, a sum of Rs. 1,44,170/- (Rupees One Lac Forty Four
Thousand One Hundred and Seventy Only) shall be immediately
released to him through his MACT saving bank account and
remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be
kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 10,000/- each for
one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth
having cumulative interest.
75. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 3 Sh. Neetu, a
sum of Rs. 1,44,169/- (Rupees One Lac Forty Four Thousand
One Hundred and Sixty Nine Only) shall be immediately
Digitally
signed by
SACHIN
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.28
17:18:42
+0530MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 39 of 41
released to her through her MACT saving bank account and
remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be
kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 10,000/- each for
one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth
having cumulative interest.
76. The amount of FDRs on maturity shall directly be
released in petitioners’ MACT Saving Bank Account.
(in MACT no. 603/17 and 604/17)
77. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid
directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:-
(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 i.e., the savings bank account
of the claimant 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.
(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 be credited by
Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank
account of the claimant near the place of their
residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature
discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without
permission of the Court.
78. Respondent no. 3 i.e. Reliance General Insurance
Company Limited, being insurer of offending vehicle, is directed
to deposit the compensation amount in both the cases with State
Digitally
signed by
SACHIN
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.28
17:18:51
+0530MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 40 of 41
Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts branch within 30 days as per
above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to
pay interest @ 9% per annum for the period of delay. Concerned
Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts branch is
directed to transfer the award amount alongwith interest, as
stated herein-above, in the MACT saving bank accounts of
claimants/petitioners respectively, on completing necessary
formalities as per rules.
79. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph,
specimen signature, copy of bank passbook and copy of
residence proof of the petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of
State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts branch, Delhi for
information and necessary compliance.
80. Form XV and Form XVII in terms of MCTAP are
annexed herewith as Annexure-A.
81. A separate file be prepared for compliance report by
the Nazir .
82. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of
cost.
83. A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld.
Judicial Magistrate First Class as well as DSLSA as per the
provisions of the Modified Claim Tribunal Agreed Procedure
(MCTAP). Digitally signed
SACHIN by SACHIN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.07.28
17:18:57 +0530
Announced in the open Court (SACHIN GUPTA)
On 28th July, 2025 P.O. MACT-02 (WEST)
THC/Delhi/28.07.2025
MACT No. 603/17, Ganga Devi & Anr. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Date of Award : 28.07.2025
MACT No. 604/17, Beero & Ors. Vs. Vijender Kumar & Ors. Page No. 41 of 41
[ad_2]
Source link