Delhi District Court
Gulfam (Lr) vs Mohd Alftaf (Ccl) on 9 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF HARVINDER SINGH, PRESIDING
OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-01,
(WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
AWARD/JUDGMENT
MACT Case No.749/2023
CNR No.DLWT010094852023
1. Gulfam (Father)
S/o Sh. Munne Khan
2. Shabana Begam (Mother)
W/o Sh. Gulfam
Both R/o Ubaish Nagar, Mullapada, Bhujpura, Aligarh,
Uttar Pradesh-202001
.............Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. CCL Md. Altaf (Driver)
S/o Sh. Md. Naseem
R/o Jhuggi No. 319, Cement Siding, Shakur Basti Delhi,
& Jhuggi No. 281, Cement Siding, Shakur Basti,
Delhi-110034
2. Musliya Khatun (Owner)
W/o Md. Firoj
Jhuggi No. F0281, Cement Siding, Shakur Basti,
Delhi-110034
3. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. (Insurer)
A-12, 1st Floor, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,
Mathura, Road, Delhi-44.
Date of Institution of case : 25.11.2023
Date of final arguments : 09.04.2025
Date of pronouncement of order/judgment : 09.04.2025
Gulfam (LR) vs. CCL Md. Altaf & Ors.
[MACT No.749/2023] Page No.1 of 29
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.09
16:48:33 +0530
FORM-XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
1. Date of the accident 03.08.2023
2. Date of filing of Form-I - 07.08.2023
First Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to 25.11.2023
the victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III 25.11.2023
from the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV 25.11.2023
from the Owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- 25.11.2023
Interim Accident Report
(IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA 25.11.2023
and Form-VIB from the
Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - 25.11.2023
Detailed Accident Report
(DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay No
or deficiency on the part of
the Investigating Officer? If
so, whether any action/
direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Date not mentioned
Designated Officer by the
Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Yes
Officer of the Insurance
Company submitted his report
within 30 days of the
petition/DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay No
or deficiency on the part of
the Designated Officer of the
Gulfam (LR) vs. CCL Md. Altaf & Ors.
[MACT No.749/2023] Page No.2 of 29
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.09
16:48:41 +0530
Insurance Company? If so,
whether any action/direction
warranted?
13. Date of response of the Legal offer was not filed by
claimant(s) to the offer of the insurance company
Insurance Company
14. Date of the award 09.04.2025
15. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
was/were directed to open
savings bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which 25.11.2023
claimant(s) was/were directed
to open savings bank
account(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN
Card and Aadhaar Card and
the direction to the bank not
issue any cheque book/debit
card to the claimant(s) and
make an endorsement to this
effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s)
produced the passbook of
their savings bank account
near the place of their
residence along-with the
endorsement, PAN Card and
Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Both R/o Ubaish Nagar,
Address of the claimant(s). Mullapada, Bhujpura,
Aligarh, Uttar
Pradesh-202001
19. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
savings bank account(s) is/are
near his/her/their place of
residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
was/were examined at the
Gulfam (LR) vs. CCL Md. Altaf & Ors.
[MACT No.749/2023] Page No.3 of 29
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.09 16:48:37
+0530
time of passing of the award
to ascertain his/her/their
financial condition?
FACTUAL POSITION & PLEADINGS
1. Vide this judgment/award, this Tribunal shall decide
claim of compensation on account of death of Master Ayan in a
road vehicular accident which took place on 03.08.2023 at about
9:00 pm, at Near E-Block, Shauchalay, Cement Siding
Shakurbasti, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi.
CASE OF PETITIONER SIDE
2. Succinctly, the case put forth vide DAR is that on
03.08.2023, deceased Ayan met with an accident with vehicle
bearing registration no. DL1LAD0633. Due to same, he
sustained grievous injuries in the incident. Eye witness Sabir
with the help of brother & sister of deceased Ayan shifted
deceased to Bhagwan Mahavir Hosptial, Pitampura, Delhi. He
was referred to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi. He
expired during treatment. The incident happened solely due to
rash and negligent driving of respondent no.01. Deceased was
aged about 09 years and was studying in 4 th class in MCPS (Co-
ed) Madipur Village, Delhi at the time of incident. The
respondent no.01 being driver, the respondent no.02 being owner
and respondent no.03 being the insurer of offending vehicle are
jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the
petitioner(s). The applicant(s)/claimant(s) has/have sought
compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs
Only) from the respondents.
Gulfam (LR) vs. CCL Md. Altaf & Ors.
[MACT No.749/2023] Page No.4 of 29
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.09
16:48:44 +0530
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS
3. Notice of the application/petition/DAR was issued
to the respondents on which they appeared and filed their
WS(s)/reply(ies) to the present petition/application.
RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT NO.01
4.1 In gist, the response of the respondent no.01 as
discernible from his reply/written statement is that the offending
vehicle has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is
no fault on part of respondent no.1 in the incident. The
respondent no.1 denied all other averments of the
application/petition and prayed for its dismissal.
RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT NO.02
4.2 In gist, the response of the respondent no.02 as
discernible from his reply/written statement is that the offending
vehicle has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is
no fault on part of respondent no.1 in the incident. The
respondent no.2 denied all other averments of the
application/petition and prayed for its dismissal.
RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT NO.03
4.3 In gist, the response of the respondent no.03 as
discernible from its reply/written statement is that vehicle
bearing registration no. DL1LAD0633 was insured with it vide
policy no. 130522223340006039 for period 06.09.2022 to
05.09.2023 in the name of Mrs. Musliya Khatoon. Respondent
no.1 was not having valid driving license to drive the vehicle in
question as he was minor at the time of incident. It denied all
other averments of the application/petition and prayed for its
dismissal.
Gulfam (LR) vs. CCL Md. Altaf & Ors.
[MACT No.749/2023] Page No.5 of 29
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.09
16:48:46 +0530
ISSUES
5.1 After completion of pleadings, on 07.03.2024, this
tribunal framed following issues:-
1. Whether the deceased Master Ayan
suffered fatal injuries in the accident that
took place on 03.08.2023 at about 9:00 pm
near E Block Shochaliya, Cement Siding
Shakur Basti, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi due
to rash and negligent driving of offending
vehicle bearing registration number
DL1LAD0633 by the respondent no.1, being
owned by the respondent no.2 and insured
with the respondent no.3? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner(s)/applicant(s)
is/are entitled to compensation, if yes, of
what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
5.2 Thereafter, matter was fixed for evidence of
petitioner side.
PETITIONER SIDE EVIDENCE
6.1 The petitioner(s)/claimant(s) examined petitioner
No.1 Sh. Gulfam as PW1 to establish their claim. He tendered his
evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A reiterating and
supporting the contents of their application/petition. PW1 was
cross-examined at length by Ld. Counsels for the respondent side
which is not reproduced herein for sake of brevity and was
discharged.
6.2 No other witness was examined by petitioner side,
petitioner side evidence was closed vide order dated 29.07.2024
and thereafter, matter was fixed for respondent side evidence.
RESPONDENT SIDE EVIDENCE
7.1 Respondent no.1 examined himself as R1W1. He
Gulfam (LR) vs. CCL Md. Altaf & Ors.
[MACT No.749/2023] Page No.6 of 29
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.09
16:48:48 +0530
tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.R1W1/A. R1W1
was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for petitioner side, Ld.
Counsel for respondent Insurance Company and was discharged.
7.2 Respondent no.3/Insurance Company has examined
its Legal Officer Sh. Parth Arya as R3W1 who tendered his
evidence by way of affidavit Ex.R3W1/A. He relied upon office
copy of notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC Ex.R3W1/1, two
postal receipts in respect of aforesaid notice Ex.R3W1/2, attested
true copy of insurance policy Ex.R3W1/4 and upon his authority
letter Ex. R3W1/5 in his evidence. He was not cross-examined
by respondent no.1 & 2, was cross-examined by petitioner side
and was discharged.
FINAL ARGUMENTS/SUBMISSIONS/CONTENTIONS
8.1 Submissions/contentions of the petitioner side are
that the petitioner side has positively proved that the incident
took place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent
no.01. Deceased was studying at the time of incident. He was
aged about 09 years at the time of incident. Compensation should
be decided as per decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
matter of ” Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Zeenat Khan & ors.” MAC. APP. 242/2024, CM APPL.
26702/2024 decided on 30.09.2024 and in matter of ”
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ld. Vs. Bhupan
Paswan & Ors.” MAC. APP. 324/2018, CM APPL. 12428/2018
decided on 24.02.2025. Award may be passed by this Tribunal
as per entitlement/claim of applicants/claimants/LRs.
8.2 Submissions/contentions of the respondent no.01
and 02 are that the no fault could be attributed to respondent no.1Gulfam (LR) vs. CCL Md. Altaf & Ors.
[MACT No.749/2023] Page No.7 of 29 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.04.09 16:48:50 +0530 qua incident in question. With these main submissions, the
respondent no.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the
application/petition.
8.3 Submissions/contentions of the respondent no.03 are
that the petitioner/claimant has failed to prove that incident took
place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1.
Compensation in this matter should be decided as per decision of
Hob’ble High court of Delhi in matter of “Chetan Malhotra vs.
Lala Ram” 2016 DHC 3863. Since the respondent no.1 was not
having any valid driving license to drive the vehicle in question
at the time of incident, therefore, it is violation of terms and
conditions of policy and they should be exonerated in this matter.
ANALYSIS/FINDINGS ON ISSUES
Issue No.(1) – Whether the deceased Master Ayan suffered fatal
injuries in the accident that took place on 03.08.2023 at about
9:00 pm near E Block Shochaliya, Cement Siding Shakur Basti,
Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of
offending vehicle bearing registration number DL1LAD0633 by
the respondent no.1, being owned by the respondent no.2 and
insured with the respondent no.3? OPP.
9.1 Before adverting to the facts of the present petition
for deciding the above issue, at the very outset, it would be
apposite to note here that the procedure followed by an accident
claim tribunal is similar to what is followed by a civil court. In
civil matters the facts are required to be established by way of
preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of
evidence or beyond reasonable doubt as is required in a criminal
prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is not as heavy
as it is in a criminal case and in a claim petition under The Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, this burden is even lesser than a civil case.
Gulfam (LR) vs. CCL Md. Altaf & Ors.
[MACT No.749/2023] Page No.8 of 29
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.09
16:48:53 +0530
Reference in this regard can be made to the prepositions of law
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of
“Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport
Corporation and Ors.” reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were
reiterated in the subsequent judgments in the case of
“Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and Ors.” 2011 (1) SCR 1096
(Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and “Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.”, 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc.
9.2 Now keeping in mind the aforesaid legal
principle/preposition for decision of the present issue, this
Tribunal has gone through the testimony of the witnesses and
entire material available on record. This Tribunal has also given
thoughtful consideration to arguments addressed by Ld. Counsels
for the parties. The petitioner side has not examined any eye
witness to the incident in present matter, therefore, in given
circumstances, it needs to decided whether the evidence brought
on record is sufficient in itself to establish rashness and
negligence in driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent
driver upto the standard of proof required in such matters as is
discussed above.
9.3 The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its full bench
decision in matter “United India Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Shila Datta & Ors.” (2011) 10 SCC 509 has made following
observations about inquiry contemplated under MV Act:-
“5. A claim petition for compensation in regard to a
motor accident (filed by the injured or in case of death,
by the dependant family members) before the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under section
165 of the Act is neither a suit nor an adversarial lis in
the traditional sense. It is a proceedings in terms of and
regulated by the provisions of Chapter XII of the Act
which is a complete Code in itself. We may in thisGulfam (LR) vs. CCL Md. Altaf & Ors.
[MACT No.749/2023] Page No.9 of 29
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.09
16:48:55 +0530
context refer to the following significant aspects in
regard to the Tribunals and determination of
compensation by Tribunals:
(i) A proceedings for award of compensation in regard
to a motor accident before the Tribunal can be initiated
either on an application for compensation made by the
persons aggrieved (claimants) under section 166(1) or
section 163A of the Act or suo moto by the Tribunal,
by treating any report of accident (forwarded to the
tribunal under section 158(6) of the Act as an
application for compensation under section 166 (4) of
the Act.(iii) In a proceedings initiated suo moto by the
tribunal, the owner and driver are the respondents. The
insurer is not a respondent, but a noticee under section
149(2) of the Act. Where a claim petition is filed by the
injured or by the legal representatives of a person
dying in a motor accident, the driver and owner have to
be impleaded as respondents. The claimants need not
inplead the insurer as a party. But they have the choice
of impleading the insurer also as a party respondent.
When it is not impleaded as a party, the Tribunal is
required to issue a notice under section 149(2) of the
Act. If the insurer is impleaded as a party, it is issued
as a regular notice of the proceedings.
(v) Though the tribunal adiudicates on a claim and
determines the compensation, it does not do so as in an
adversarial litigation. On receipt of an application
(either from the applicant or suo motu registration), the
Tribunal gives notice to the insurer under section
149(2) of the Act, gives an opportunity of being heard
to the parties to the claim petition as also the insurer,
holds an inquiry into the claim and makes an award
determining the amount of compensation which
appears to it to be just. (Vide Section 168 of the Act).
(vi) The Tribunal is required to follow such summary
procedure as it thinks fit. It may choose one or more
persons possessing special knowledge of and matters
relevant to inquiry, to the assist it in holding the
enquiry (vide section 169 of the Act).
We have referred to the aforesaid
provisions to show that an award by the tribunal cannot
be seen as an adversarial adjudication between the
litigating parties to a dispute, but a statutory
determination of compensation on the occurrence of an
accident, after due enquiry, in accordance with the
statute.”
Gulfam (LR) vs. CCL Md. Altaf & Ors.
[MACT No.749/2023] Page No.10 of 29
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.09
16:49:01 +0530
9.4 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of
“Dulcina Fernandes & ors. Vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz & Anr.”
(2013) 10 SCC 646 while relying upon the above full bench
decision has held/observed as under:- .
“8. However, there are certain other features of the case
which are more fundamental and, therefore, have to be
specifically noticed. CW-2, who was at the relevant time
working as the Head Constable of Main Eurtorim, Police
Station, had deposed that a criminal case was registered
against the first respondent in connection with the accident
and that after investigation he was chargesheeted and sent up
for trial. Though it is submitted at the Bar that the first
respondent was acquitted in the said case what cannot be
overlooked is the fact that upon investigation of the case
registered against the first respondent, prime facie, materials
showing negligence were found to put him on trial.. ”
9.5 The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in matter
“National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Rana &
ors.” 2009 ACJ 287 has held/observed as under:-
“11. The last contention of the appellant insurance company
is that the respondents claimants should have proved
negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the
counsel has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena
Variyal. On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes
clear that the wife of the deceased had produced (i) certified
copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR NO.
955/2004, pertaining to involvement of the offending
vehicle, (ii) criminal record showing completion of
investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under
Section 279/304-A, IPC against the driver; (iii) certified
copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was
lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection
report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased.
These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the
conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under
Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil
suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be
followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of the
counsel for the appellant also falls face down. There is
ample evidence on record to prove negligence on the part of
the driver.
9.6 In view of the abovecited case law, it is clear that the
Gulfam (LR) vs. CCL Md. Altaf & Ors.
[MACT No.749/2023] Page No.11 of 29
HARVINDER Digitally signed by HARVINDER
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.09 16:48:58
+0530
Motor Accident Claims Tribunals only hold inquiry for
determination of compensation on occurrence of an accident and
they do not sit in a suit or adversarial lis in traditional sense.
The factum of the driver of offending vehicle being
chargesheeted by police after investigation of the criminal matter
is also prima facie sufficient to infer that driver was negligent
and responsible for the incident in question. A Tribunal can
certainly rely upon the records of the case of criminal matter to
reach such a conclusion.
9.7 In this matter to prove the rashness and negligence,
the petitioner side has examined PW-1 who has specifically
deposed that deceased was hit by offending vehicle bearing
registration No. DL1LAD0633. He has also specifically deposed
that the incident happened due to rash and negligent driving of
respondent no.1. IO has filed DAR in the present case which
consists of FIR, site plan of place of incident, the mechanical
inspection report of vehicle, copy of final report filed under
Section 173 Cr. PC after conclusion of investigation, the
recovery/seizure memo(s), photographs etc etc. The factum that
driver of vehicle in question i.e. respondent No.1 was challaned
under Section 279/304A IPC after conclusion of investigation
also supports and affirms the case of the petitioner side that
incident happened due to his rash and negligent driving of
respondent no.1. It is not in dispute as per evidence of respondent
no.1 that incident happened with his vehicle on day and time of
incident averred.
9.8 In totality of circumstances, this Tribunal is of the
opinion that the claimant side with help of IO has been able toGulfam (LR) vs. CCL Md. Altaf & Ors.
[MACT No.749/2023] Page No.12 of 29
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.09
16:49:05 +0530
bring on record such facts which establishes at the scales
required that the incident in question took place due to rash and
negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration
number DL1LAD0633 by its driver/respondent no.01 on the date
and time of the incident. Accordingly, issue no.01 is decided in
favour of the petitioner(s)/claimant(s)/applicant(s) and against
the respondents.
Issue No.(2) – Whether the petitioners/claimants are entitled to
compensation, if yes, of what amount and from whom? OPP.
10.1 The petitioner(s) is/are certainly entitled for
compensation in view of decision of above issue. Before
proceeding further to decide the present issue, it would be
apposite to encapsulate the law laid down by Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi in its guiding lamp post judgment qua methodology and
considerations for assessing/ascertaining just compensation in
road vehicular death cases of minors as it is pleaded that
deceased was 07 years of age at the time of incident.
10.2(a) Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in matter of “Sarla
Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors.” (2003) 6
SCC 121 has held : –
QUA BASIC PRINCIPLES
“9. Basically only three facts need to be established by the
claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death :-
(a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and the
(c) the number of dependents. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal
to arrive at the loss of dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made
for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the
personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be
applied with reference of the age of the deceased. If these determinants are
standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions.
There will lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the
insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay. To have
uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should determine compensation in
cases of death, by the following well settled steps : –
Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand)
The income of the deceased per annum should beGulfam (LR) vs. CCL Md. Altaf & Ors.
[MACT No.749/2023] PageDigitally
No.13 of 29signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.09
16:49:07 +0530
determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to
the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of
personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the
contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier)
Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active
career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean
ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the
accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic
factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified
by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with
reference to the age of the deceased.
Step 3 (Actual calculation)
The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when
multiplied by such multiplier gives the `loss of dependency’ to the family.
Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs.10,000/-
may be added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his
widow, another conventional amount in the range of 5,000/- to 10,000/-
should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to
be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal
heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if
incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if
incurred) should also added.”
QUA ADDITIONS
“11. ………………… In view of imponderables and
uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of
50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards
future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40
years. [Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words `actual
salary’ should be read as `actual salary less tax’]. The addition should be
only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no
addition, where the age of deceased is more than 50 years. Though the
evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to
standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or
different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was
self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual
increments etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the
time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and
exceptional cases involving special circumstances.”
QUA DEDUCTIONS
“14. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this
court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the
deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be
one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3,
one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6,
and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members
exceed six.
15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are
the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to
Gulfam (LR) vs. CCL Md. Altaf & Ors.
[MACT No.749/2023] Page No.14 of 29
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.09
16:49:10 +0530
bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses,
because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself.
Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short
time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to
be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is
likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependent
and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of
evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as
dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or
married, or be dependent on the father. Thus even if the deceased is
survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be
a dependent, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses
of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where
family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the
deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of
younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses
may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as
two-third.”
QUA MULTIPLIER
“21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should
be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying
Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an
operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25
years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30
years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45
years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five
years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to
65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.”
10.2(b) Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its constitution
bench decision in matter of “National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.” (2017) 16 SCC 680 held as
under : –
“58. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be no
addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept. We are disposed to
think, there should be an addition of 15% if the deceased is between the age
of 50 to 60 years and there should be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in
case of self- employed or person on fixed salary, the addition should be 10%
between the age of 50 to 60 years. The aforesaid yardstick has been fixed so
that there can be consistency in the approach by the tribunals and the
Courts.
59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record
our conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been
well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different
view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinateGulfam (LR) vs. CCL Md. Altaf & Ors.
[MACT No.749/2023] Page No.15 of 29
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.09
16:49:12 +0530
Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a
contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma
Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh
is not a binding precedent.
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of
actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where
the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years,
should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was
between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to
60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual
salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed
salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant
where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25%
where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where
the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as
the necessary method of computation. The established income means the
income minus the tax component.
(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for
personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by
paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced
hereinbefore.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the
Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying
the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss
of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-,
Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should
be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.
10.2(c) The Hon’ble High court of Delhi recently in matter
of “Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ld. Vs. Bhupan
Paswan & Ors.” MAC. APP. 324/2018, CM APPL. 12428/2018
decided on 24.02.2025 while summarizing the earlier law of
assessment of compensation in case of death of a child below 15
years has observed and held as under:-
Loss of Dependency:-
“8…
17. However, it is apposite to note that in the above
judgments while Notional income as defined in Second
Schedule was taken as a basis but the amount was being
modified by applying Cost Inflation Index, in the factsGulfam (LR) vs. CCL Md. Altaf & Ors.
[MACT No.749/2023] Page No.16 of 29 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.04.09 16:49:14 +0530 of each case.
18. The Second Schedule however, stands deleted w.e.f.
01.09.2019. Thus, the question that what would be the
basis of assessing the notional income of a child/ i.e. a
non-earning member below 15 years of age, who is a
victim of a motor vehicle accident, became a subject of
extensive judicial discourse….
25. The Minimum Wage criteria has been adopted by
Supreme Court in the recent judgment of Baby Sakshi
Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon &Anr., SLP (C) No.
10996/2018, wherein the Apex Court applied the
approach taken in Kajal (supra) and Master Ayush,
(supra) and ascertained the notional income of a 7-year-
old injured child on the basis of the ‘Minimum Wages
paid to a skilled worker on a fulltime basis’.
26. In light of the aforementioned Judgements, it
emerges that the Minimum Wage criteria guarantees a
dignified and a uniform standard for compensation
calculation. The most reasonable basis for estimating
the child’s income, in the present case, would be to
refer to the Minimum Wages established by the State
Government, in the location where the minor lived at
the time of the accident.
27. In the present case, the income of the deceased
child is taken as Rs. 11,830/- as per the Minimum
Wages of a Skilled Worker in Delhi in the year 2017.
Future Prospects: –
28.In the case of Master Ayush, (supra), it was observed
that in addition to the Minimum Wages for skilled
worker, the Claimants would also be entitled to 40% for
future prospects in view of the judgment of National
Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors;
(2017) 16 SCC 680.
29. Thus, in the present case, the deceased is held
entitled to 40% Future Prospects as per Pranay Sethi
(supra) as the same creates a standard ensuring
uniformity in compensation calculation and upholding
the dignity of the deceased minor by recognizing their
unrealized potential.
Deduction of personal expenses:-
30. In light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, and United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur alias
Satwinder Kaur & Ors., (2021) 11 SCC 780, out of the
above amount so assessed, 50% have to be deducted on
account of personal and living expenses for a bachelor.
Non-Pecuniary Heads:-
38. The Respondents/Claimants shall be entitled to the
compensation under Non-Pecuniary Heads in terms ofGulfam (LR) vs. CCL Md. Altaf & Ors.
[MACT No.749/2023] Page No.17 of 29
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.09
16:49:17 +0530
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi
And Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680.
1. In the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), it was
held that in the case of death, Rs.15,000/- is
liable to be paid towards the loss of estate and
funeral charges each, while Rs.40,000/- was
payable towards the loss of consortium to each
legal heir and the same may be enhanced by
10% every three years.
2. In the present case, the accident is of 2017
and the Award was also passed in 2017. Thus,
an amount of Rs. 15,000/- is granted towards
the Loss of Estate, Rs. 15,000/- towards
funeral charges.
3. Further, Rs. 40,000/- each is granted to the
father and mother i.e. total of Rs. 40,000 x 2 =
Rs. 80,000/- towards Loss of Consortium….
10.2(d) In view of abovecited decision of Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi, it is clear that the basis of assessment of
compensation in case of death of a child i.e. second schedule as
per judgment of “”Chetan Malhotra vs. Lala Ram” 2016 DHC
3863 is no more available now. The assessment of compensation
in case of a child below 15 years needs to be assessed more or
less in accordance with compensation in case of death of a person
aged between 15 to 25 years. The minimum wages of skilled
person of the area where the deceased child lived needs to be
taken as his/her notional income and future prospects needs to be
added as per decision of “”National Insurance Company Limited
Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.” (2017) 16 SCC 680. The multiplier of
18 needs to be applied for computation. Hence, this Tribunal now
proceed further to assess the compensation payable in this matter
in accordance with above law.
DETERMINATION OF AGE & MULTIPLIER
10.3 The petitioner(s), in the claim petition has/have
claimed that the deceased was aged about 09 years on the date ofGulfam (LR) vs. CCL Md. Altaf & Ors.
[MACT No.749/2023] Page No.18 of 29
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.09
16:49:19 +0530
accident. The date of incident is 03.08.2023. As per Aadhar
Card of deceased Ayan, date of birth of deceased was 01.04.2014.
Hence, deceased was 09 years of age at the time of incident and
his age is considered accordingly. Multiplier applicable in this
matter as per above discussion would be 18.
DETERMINATION OF EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION
10.4 No educational documents of deceased filed on
record, however, it has come on record that deceased was
studying. The qualification of deceased is taken to be as skilled
person as per above discussion.
DETERMINATION OF MONTHLY INCOME
10.5(i) The income of deceased has to be assessed on the
basis of chart available in Minimum Wages Act of a skilled
person person of State of NCT of Delhi (as per address of
deceased/petitioner). The minimum wages for a skilled person of
State of NCT of Delhi on the date of accident i.e.03.08.2023
were Rs.20,903/-.
10.5(ii) Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased
needs to be considered as Rs.20,903/- per month on the date of
accident.
DETERMINATION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS APPLICABLE
10.6 Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in MAC Appeal No.
798/2011 titled as “Bajaj Allianz General Insurance company
Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors.” decided on 02.11.2017 has held that even
in the cases where the income of the deceased is calculated on
the basis of the minimum wages, the benefit of future prospects
has to be given in accordance with guidelines issued by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India as applicable to self employed or
Gulfam (LR) vs. CCL Md. Altaf & Ors.
[MACT No.749/2023] Page No.19 of 29 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.04.09 16:49:21 +0530 privately employed persons. 10.7 The deceased was aged less than 40 years at the time
of incident and had no permanent job, so the future
prospects/benefits applicable to the present case would be 40%.
ASSESSMENT/DETERMINATION OF ENHANCED
MONTHLY INCOME
10.8 As has already been held, income of the deceased
of Rs.20,903/- would be applicable in this case and an addition of
40% needs to be made qua future prospects. Accordingly, the
monthly income of the deceased needs to be taken as Rs.29,264/-
(after rounding off Rs.29264.2/-) (Rs.20,903/- + Rs.8361.2/-
which is 40% of Rs.20,903).
DETERMINATION OF DEDUCTIONS
10.9 There is no dispute that the deceased was a child of
09 years and was bachelor. The present claim petition is pursued
by mother & father. Father cannot be treated as dependent upon
deceased as no special circumstances/case pleaded and proved.
So, mother only has to be considered as dependent upon the
deceased. Deduction towards personal and living expenses of a
deceased being bachelor should be assumed 50%. Hence, 50%
would be deducted towards personal and living expenses of
deceased.
DETERMINATION OF MULTIPLICAND
10.10 The monthly income of the deceased after
enhancement needs to be taken as Rs.29,264/-. A deduction of
50% needs to be made towards personal and living expenses of
the deceased. So, in this matter, monthly loss of dependency
would come out to be Rs.14,632/- (50% of Rs.29,264). This
Gulfam (LR) vs. CCL Md. Altaf & Ors.
[MACT No.749/2023] Page No.20 of 29
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.09
16:49:24 +0530
product needs to be multiplied by 12 to workout
multiplicand/annual loss of dependency. Hence, multiplicand for
this matter would be Rs.1,75,584/- (Rs.14,632/- x 12).
AWARD TOWARDS LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
10.11 The total loss of dependency would come out to be
Rs.31,60,512/-/- (Rs.1,75,584/- x 18), hence, so awarded.
COMPENSATION QUA NON-PECUNIARY HEADS
COMPENSATION QUA LOSS OF ESTATE
10.12 The loss of estate is awarded as Rs.18,000/-
(15,000/- + 20% enhancement).
COMPENSATION QUA LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
10.13 Since, there were two claimant who are mother and
father of deceased entitled for compensation on account of loss
of consortium, so an amount of Rs.48,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 1 +
20% enhancement) is awarded under this head.
COMPENSATION QUA FUNERAL EXPENSES
10.14 An amount of Rs.18,000/- (15,000/- + 20%
enhancement) is awarded towards funeral expenses.
TOTAL AWARD AMOUNT OF ALL HEADS
10.15 In view of above discussions and awards passed
under different heads, this Tribunal hereby pass an award of sum
of Rs.32,44,512/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Forty Four
Thousand Five Hundred and Twelve Only)[Rs.31,60,512/- +
Rs.48,000/- + Rs.18,000/- + Rs.18,000/-] in favour of
petitioner(s) and against the respondent
RELIEF / ISSUE NO.03
11. This Tribunal hereby pass an award of
Rs.32,44,512/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Forty Four Thousand
Gulfam (LR) vs. CCL Md. Altaf & Ors.
[MACT No.749/2023] Page No.21 of 29
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.09
16:49:27 +0530
Five Hundred and Twelve Only) as compensation along-with interest
@ 7% per annum from the date of filing the DAR/claim petition i.e.
25.11.2023 till the date of the payment of award amount, in favour of
the petitioner(s) and against the respondents on account of their
liability being joint and several.
APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY
12.1 It is contended by the respondent no.3 Insurance
Company that driver/respondent no.1 was not holding any driving
license. Respondent Insurance Company has examined its Legal
Officer Sh. Parth Arya as R3W1 to prove the said fact. Perusal of
DAR reveals that IO of the case has also filed challan under Section
4/181 MV Act against the respondent no.1. Same is violation of the
terms and conditions of the insurance policy as provided under the
head of persons/classes of persons entitled to drive. Vide amendment
to the MV Act notification No. 161 dated 25.02.2022, the concept of
pay & recover has been done away with vide effect from 01.04.2022,
therefore, respondent no.3/Insurance Company needs to be
exonerated in this matter. Hence, respondent No.3/Insurance stands
exonerated.
12.2 Respondent no.1 being the driver and respondent no.2
being the owner of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally
liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to the petitioners.
Since respondent no.1 was minor at the time of incident, therefore,
his parents needs to be made liable in this matter. Hence, respondent
no.1/parents of respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 are hereby
directed to deposit the award amount in favour of the petitioner(s)
with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in MACT
Account of this Tribunal having Account No.40711767202, CIF
No.90891362578, IFSC Code – SBIN0000726, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi within a period of 45 days from the date of passing
Gulfam (LR) vs. CCL Md. Altaf & Ors.
[MACT No.749/2023] Page No.22 of 29
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.09
16:49:29 +0530
of this award together with the interest as stated herein above under
intimation to this Tribunal and under intimation to the
petitioner(s)/claimant(s)/applicant(s). In case of any delay, it
shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the
period of delay.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO
THE CLAIMANT(S) AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
‘MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE’
(MCTAP).
13.1 Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No.842/2003
titled as “Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. ” has
formulated MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit
Scheme) vide its order dated 07.12.2018. The same has been
made effective from 01.01.2019. Said order provides 21 banks
including State Bank of India as one of the banks which have to
adhere to MACAD. The State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with
MACAD formulated by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
13.2 The Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi is also directed to release/disburse share of award
amount of petitioners in their MACT bank account(s) near the
place of their residence to be disclosed by the petitioner side vide
separate application within 15 days from today as
mentioned/directed hereinafter in tabulated form.
13.3 The compensation to the petitioners shall be
distributed/disbursed as follows : –
Sr. Name of Age/ Relation Award Amount of Amount kept Period of FDRs
No. petitioner DOB with Amount award to be in FDRs with cumulative
/ injured/ released interest
claimant deceasedGulfam (LR) vs. CCL Md. Altaf & Ors.
[MACT No.749/2023] Page No.23 of 29 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.04.09 16:49:31 +0530 1. Gulfam 01.01.19 Father 66,000 1,44,512/- Nil NIl 73 2. Shabana 01.01.19 Mother 31,00,000/- 3,00,000/- 28,00,000/- 28,00,000/- + Begam 83 interest accumulated shall be kept in the form of equal monthly FDRs of Rs.10,000/- for the period of 280 months + months which comes out of division of interest accumulated by Rs.10,000/-. The remainder, if any to be added in the last FDR. The FDRs shall be numbered 1st to last. The amount of FDRs along- with interest after maturity shall be released to petitioner(s) on monthly basis in sequence of 1st to last as per above order. TOTAL Rs. 32,44,512/- 13.4 The following conditions shall be adhered to by
SBI, Tis Hazari Delhi with respect to the fixed deposits:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s)
to be added in the savings bank account or fixed
deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings
bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an
individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint
account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained
Gulfam (LR) vs. CCL Md. Altaf & Ors.
[MACT No.749/2023] Page No.24 of 29
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.09 16:49:34
+0530
by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement
containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of
maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by
bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be
credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the
MACT bank account of the claimant (s) near the
place of their residence.
(d) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature
discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without
permission of the Court.
(e) The concerned bank shall not issue any
cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s).
However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book
have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same
before the disbursement of the award amount. The
bank shall debit card (s) freeze the account of the
claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect
of the account of the claimant(s) from any other
branch of the bank.
(f) The bank shall make an endorsement on the
passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no
cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and
shall not be issued without the permission of the
Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook
with the necessary endorsement before the Court on
the next date fixed for compliance.
(g) It is clarified that the endorsement made by
the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by
the bank official on the passbook(s) of the
claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g)
above.
13.5 In accordance with the orders dated 08.02.2019
passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 in
“Rajesh Tyagi and others Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors.” , Mr. Rajan
Singh, Assistant General Manager has been appointed as Nodal
Officer of State Bank of India having Phone No.022-
22741336/9414048606 and e mail ID [email protected]. In
case of any assistance or non compliance, the aforesaid Nodal
Officer may be contacted. A copy of this order be sent by e-
mail to the aforesaid Nodal Officer of the aforesaid bank by the
Ahlmad of the Court immediately in accordance with the
Gulfam (LR) vs. CCL Md. Altaf & Ors.
[MACT No.749/2023] Page No.25 of 29 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.04.09 16:49:36 +0530
directions of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi as given in the orders
dated 07.12.2018. The Nodal Officer of the bank shall ensure
the disbursement of the award amount within three weeks of the
receipt of the e-mail as mentioned in the orders dated
07.12.2018 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
14. The respondent no.01 & 02 shall deposit the award
amount with the account of this Tribunal within 45 days. Nazir
of this Court shall prepare a separate file regarding the status of
deposition/non-deposition of the award amount by the
respondent(s) after making necessary entry on CIS on
24.05.2025.
15. A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the
parties free of cost through email.
16. Ahlmad staff is directed to send the copy of award
to Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class concerned and Delhi Legal
Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth
Amendment) Rules, 2022[(Directions at serial nos.39, 40 of
Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under
Rule 150A)].
17. Ahlmad staff is also directed to e-mail an
authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020
titled as “Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Union of India & Ors.” decided on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall
also e-email an authenticated copy of the award to Branch
Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex Branch
for information.
Gulfam (LR) vs. CCL Md. Altaf & Ors.
[MACT No.749/2023] Page No.26 of 29 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.04.09 16:49:39 +0530
18. File be consigned to Record Room after due
Digitally signed
compliance. HARVINDER by HARVINDER
SINGH
SINGH
Announced in the open Court Date: 2025.04.09
16:49:42 +0530
today i.e. 09.04.2025
(HARVINDER SINGH)
District Judge-cum-PO: MACT-01(West)
THC/Delhi/09.04.2025
Gulfam (LR) vs. CCL Md. Altaf & Ors.
[MACT No.749/2023] Page No.27 ofsigned
Digitally 29
by HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.09
16:49:45 +0530
FORM -XV
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT
IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident :
03.08.2023
2. Name of the deceased Ayan :
3. Age of the deceased :
09 years
4. Occupation of the deceased :
Student
5. Income of the deceased :
Rs.20,903/-
(Notional Income)
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of
deceased : –
S.No. Name Age/DOB Relation
(i) Gulfam 01.01.1973 Father
(ii) Shabana Begam 01.01.1983 Mother
Computation of Compensation : -
Sr.No. Heads Awarded by the Claim
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased(A) Rs.20,903/-
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) 40%
9. Less-Personal expenses of the 50% deduction has
deceased(C) been done
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.14,632/-
[(A+B)-C=D]
11. Annual loss of dependency (D Rs.1,75,584/-
x 12)
12. Multiplier(E) 15
13. Total loss of dependency Rs.31,60,512/-
(Dx12xE= F)
14. Medical Expenses(G) NIL
15. Compensation for loss of Rs.48,000/-
consortium(H)
16. Compensation for loss of love NIL
and affection(I)
Gulfam (LR) vs. CCL Md. Altaf & Ors.
[MACT No.749/2023] Page No.28 of 29
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.09
16:49:47 +0530
17. Compensation for loss of Rs.18,000/-
estate(J)
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs.18,000/-
expenses(K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.32,44,512/-
(F+G+H+I+J+K=L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST 7% per annum
AWARDED
21. Interest amount up to the date Rs.3,11,653/-
of award (M) (w.e.f. 25.11.2023 to
09.04.2025 i.e. 1 year 4
months and 14 days)
22. Total amount including interest Rs.35,56,165/-
(L + M) (Rs.32,44,512/- + Rs.
3,11,653/-)
23. Award amount released Rs.4,44,512/-
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.28,00,000/- along
with interest accrued.
25. Mode of disbursement of the Mentioned in the award
award amount to the claimant
(s).
26. Next date for compliance of 24.05.2025
the award.
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.09
16:49:53 +0530
(HARVINDER SINGH)
District Judge-cum-PO: MACT-01(West)
THC/Delhi/09.04.2025
Gulfam (LR) vs. CCL Md. Altaf & Ors.
[MACT No.749/2023] Page No.29 of 29