Delhi District Court
Haseena vs Sunil Kumar Singh on 23 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. MAYURI SINGH
P.O : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
EAST DISTRICT : KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
In the matters of :
CNR No.: DLET01-003520-2019
MACP No. 492/2019
Haseena & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
In the matter of :
1. Smt. Haseena
W/o- Late Sh. Nanhkau
2. Shamshad Ahmad
S/o- Late Sh. Nankhau
3. Md. Adil
S/o- Late Sh. Nankhau
All R/o- Village- Purwa Basant,
Post- Chandanpur, Distt.- Sultanpur
U.P.
4. Smt. Almas
W/o- Sh. Naseer
R/o- Village- Kasari,
Tehsil- Kasari, Distt.- Faizabad,
U.P.
......... Petitioners
Versus
1. Sunil Kunar (Driver-cum-Owner)
S/o Sh. Nandan Singh.
R/o- H.No.-82, Gali No.1
Kundan Nagar, Laxmi Nagar
Delhi.
2. Reliance General Insurance
Flat No.-408, 4th Floor
Plot No.-2, Laxmi Nagar Delhi.
........Respondents
_____________________________________________________________
MACP No.492/19; Haseena & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors;
MACP No.493/19; Kasim Ali Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
Page 1 of 37
AND
MACP No. 493/19
CNR No. DLET01-003521-2019
1. Kasim Ali (Injured)
S/o- Samiulla,
R/o- Village- Kaitholiya, Tehsil-Bikapur,
Distt- Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh
……….Petitioners
Versus
1. Shyam Singh
2. Reliance GIC.
(Details as above)
..................Respondents
Date of Institution : 16.04.2019
Date of Reserving : Not Reserved
Date of Judgment : 23.05.2025
AWAR D
1. By this common award, two claim petitions bearing MACP
Nos.492/19 and MACP No.493/19, based on DAR seeking
compensation under Sections 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arising
out of the same accident, would be decided.
2. The accident in the present case took place on 06.11.2018. It
is the case of the petitioner that at about 10:15 P.M. , when he was
coming alongwith his maternal uncle Md. Kasim on a bicycle from Old
Delhi, Railway Station towards Badi Maszid, Gali No.8, Ramesh Park,
Laxmi Nagar and when they reached just before Noida cut after
crossing the over bridge, Santro Car bearing No. DL-7CJ-3028 came at
a very high speed from back side and banged against the bicycle
_____________________________________________________________
MACP No.492/19; Haseena & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors;
MACP No.493/19; Kasim Ali Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
Page 2 of 37
resulting in petitioner and his uncle falling down on the road. The
bicycle was being driven by Md. Sadiq and informant was pillion rider
on the same. Both of them sustained multiple injuries. The driver of the
car stopped his vehicle ahead and talked to the injured and disclosed his
name as Sh. Sunil Kumar Singh (Respondent No.1). Smell of alcohol
was coming from his mouth. A crowd started gathering at the spot and
on seeing this, driver fled away with his vehicle. Petitioner was taken to
LBS Hospital, where his MLC was prepared. The offending vehicle was
seized and driver was taken to LBS Hospital and got medically
examined where doctor found breath alcohol smell positive and alcohol
content to be 185 mg. Informant later disclosed to the police in his
supplementary statement that name of his maternal uncle is Nanku and
inadvertently mentioned as Md. Sadiq in his earlier statement to the
police. Uncle of petitioner succumbed to the injuries and petitioner
sustained grievous injuries. In connection with this accident, FIR
no.545/2018, u/s 279/337 IPC was registered at PS Shakarpur, Delhi
and in the charge-sheet, Section 338 IPC/304A IPC and Section 185
MV Act were added after investigation. It has been alleged that the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle
by respondent no.1, which was also owned by him and insured under a
policy with Reliance GIC Ltd. With these submissions, the petitioners
have claimed compensation by way of the present claim petitions.
3. DAR was filed and both of the respondents appeared and
filed their replies/ written statements. Written statement of R1 was filed
in between the dates of hearing on 07.06.2019 whereas R2/Insurer filed
written statement on 03.07.2019.
3(i). It is stated in the written statement filed by R1/driver-cum-owner
_____________________________________________________________
MACP No.492/19; Haseena & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors;
MACP No.493/19; Kasim Ali Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
Page 3 of 37
that DAR is not maintainable and date of occurrence is not correct.
DAR has been filed by police in connivance with petitioner with a view
to extort money. Vehicle of R1 never met with any accident. Police
never took the respondents to the spot of accident and no site plan was
prepared at their instance. R1 was having valid driving license. There is
no eye-witness joined by IO and no photographs of the vehicle are filed
with DAR and offending vehicle was not seized at the spot.
3(ii). In the reply filed by the insurer/R2, it is stated that no
compensation can be offered to the injured/LRs as the driver of the
offending vehicle was under influence of liquor and the blood alcohol
content was 183 mg as per the report of the hospital. It is stated that
vehicle was insured with R2 from 07.01.2018 to 06.01.2019, the
insurance being in the name of R1 and that vehicle was duly insured on
the date of accident.
4. On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed on
04.10.2019 :-
In MACP No. 492/19 :
i). Whether Nankau died in a motor vehicular accident that happened on
06.11.2018 at 10:15 p.m., near Noida cut, Laxmi Nagar- Geeta Colony
Road, Laxmi Nagar, within jurisdiction of PS Shakarpur due to rash
and negligent driving of car bearing registration No. DL-7CJ-3028
driven by the respondent No. 1/Sunil Kumar?(OPP)
ii). Whether the Respondent No.1 committed breach of term/condition of
the insurance policy issued by Respondent No.2 while driving the
afore-said vehicle under influence of liquor? (OPR-2)
iii). Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation on account of
said death and if yes, to what extent and from whom?(OPP)
iv). Whether the petitioners are entitled to interest on the award amount, if
so, at what rate of interest and for which period? (OPP)_____________________________________________________________
MACP No.492/19; Haseena & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors;
MACP No.493/19; Kasim Ali Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
Page 4 of 37
In MACP No. 493/19 :
i) Whether Kasim suffered grievous injuries in a motor vehicular
accident that happened on 06.11.2018 at 10:15 a.m., near Noida
cut, Laxmi Nagar- Geeta Colony Road, Laxmi Nagar, within the
jurisdiction of PS Shakarpur due to rash and negligent driving
of car bearing Registration No. DL-7CJ-3028 by the respondent
no.1/ Sunil Kumar?
(ii) Whether the Respondent No.1 committed breach of term/condition
of the insurance policy issued by Respondent No.2 while driving
the aforesaid vehicle under influence of liquor? (OPR-2)
(iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation on account
of said death and if yes, to what extent and from whom?(OPP)
(iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the award amount, if
so, at what rate of interest and for which period?
5. In order to prove her case, the petitioners in MACP
No.492/19 examined one witness i.e. wife of the deceased namely Smt.
Haseena @ Hasina. She deposed regarding the manner of accident and
rash and negligent driving by R1. She also deposed that her husband
was working as a Malauna in Maszid and earning Rs.20,000/- to
Rs.30,000/- per month and was the only earning member in the family
and claimed compensation of Rs.10 lakhs. No other witness was
examined by the petitioners in PE. She relied on copy of her Aadhar
Card Ex.PW1/1.
6. In order to prove his case, the petitioner/injured in MACP
No.493/19 examined one witness i.e. himself as PW1. He deposed on
the strength of his affidavit Ex.PW1 regarding the manner of accident
and rash and negligent driving by R1. He also deposed that he had
fallen unconscious after calling the police at 100 number. He deposed
further that PCR Van has taken him to LBS Hospital and his maternal
uncle/deceased Nankau was taken to GTB Hospital and declared
brought dead. He was also referred to GTB Hospital and thereafter,
_____________________________________________________________
MACP No.492/19; Haseena & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors;
MACP No.493/19; Kasim Ali Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
Page 5 of 37
referred by doctors of GTB Hospital to ESI Hospital, Rajouri Garden,
Delhi and further referred from there to Safdarganj Hospital in a critical
condition. Thereafter, family members of the petitioner took him to
Lucknow Medical College Hospital, as no proper treatment was being
given to him in Safdargunj hospital and expenses towards conveyance
in the sum of Rs.2500/- were borne and he remained in the said hospital
for one week as both of his legs had sustained injuries and internal
injury in his stomach had been sustained. The brother of the petitioner/
injured Kashim took him to Faizabad, Sultanpur Hospital and Ortho
Centre situated at Sultanpur, U.P. and plates were inserted in his left leg,
due to which he did not walk properly without stick. Petitioner was
working at a footwear shop and earning Rs.20,000/- at the time of
accident including the overtime charges. Proper documents have been
lost by petitioner at the time of Covid. He relied on DAR Ex.PW1/1,
MLC Ex.PW1/2, PAN Card Ex.PW1/4, Copy of Bank document
Ex.PW1/5 and copy of Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/6. DAR, though
mentioned in the affidavit Ex.PW1/A, was not exhibited in evidence
during tendering of evidence but the same is part of record and can be
considered by the Tribunal. Petitioner has claimed compensation of
Rs.20 lakhs. No other witness was examined by the petitioners in PE.
7. On the other hand, respondents side did not examine any
witness in their defence. At the stage of final arguments, considering
that both of the claim petitions are based on the same accident and
claim of the petitioners is not adverse to each other and further that the
eye-witness i.e. Petitioner Kasim is not examined by the petitioners in
MACP No. 492/19, for the purpose of fair enquiry and findings and also
considering that petitioners in both of the cases are being represented
_____________________________________________________________
MACP No.492/19; Haseena & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors;
MACP No.493/19; Kasim Ali Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
Page 6 of 37
through the same counsel and both sides raised no objection to the
consolidation of the cases and passing of a common judgment, the
Tribunal considered it fit to consolidate both of these cases vide order
dated 11.02.2025 and it has been specified that the evidence recorded in
both of the cases shall be read at one place and shall be considered in
both of the cases.
8. I have heard the final arguments advanced by Ms. Nargis,
learned counsel for the petitioners; Sh. Kuldeep Sangwan, Ld. Counsel
for R-2 / Insurer. I have perused the materials placed on record.
9. My findings on the issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1 (in both cases):
In MACP No. 492/19 (In re: Haseen Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.)
In MACP No. 493/19 (In re: Kasim Ali Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.)
10. Issue no.1, being inter-linked in both of two cases, shall be
decided here together by common findings. It is pertinent to mention
here that as per settled proposition of law, in 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 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.
_____________________________________________________________
MACP No.492/19; Haseena & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors;
MACP No.493/19; Kasim Ali Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
Page 7 of 37
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.
11. In order to prove the cases, petitioner/ injured Kasim being
eye-witness of the accident, examined himself as PW1. PW1 Kasim
(petitioner/ injured) testified that on 06.11.2018 at about 10:15 (a.m. or
p.m. not disclosed but mentioned in the FIR as 10:15 p.m.), he
alongwith deceased Nankau were coming from Old Delhi Railway
Station to Gali No.8, Badi Maszid, Ramesh Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.
Deceased was plying the bicycle and petitioner was sitting as a pillion
rider and when they reached just before Noida cut after crossing the
overbridge, Santro Car bearing No. DL-7CJ-3028 came at a very high
speed from back side and banged against the bicycle, resulting in
petitioner and his uncle falling down on the road. The bicycle was being
driven by Md. Sadiq and informant was pillion rider on the same. Both
of them sustained multiple injuries. The driver of the car stopped his
vehicle ahead and talked to the injured and disclosed his name as Sh.
Sunil Kumar Singh (Respondent No.1). Smell of alcohol was coming
from his mouth. A crowd started gathering at the spot and on seeing
this, driver fled away with his vehicle. Petitioner was taken to LBS
Hospital, where his MLC was prepared. The offending vehicle was
seized and driver was taken to LBS Hospital and got medically
examined where doctor found alcohol content. Informant later disclosed
to the police in his supplementary statement that name of his maternal
uncle is Nankau and inadvertently mentioned as Md. Sadiq in his earlier
statement to the police. Uncle of petitioner succumbed to the injuries
_____________________________________________________________
MACP No.492/19; Haseena & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors;
MACP No.493/19; Kasim Ali Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
Page 8 of 37
and petitioner sustained grievous injuries.
12. Further, driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle has not
disputed that was facing trial in case FIR No. 545/2018 PS Shakarpur.
Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the respondent
no.1 to the effect that the accident in question occurred due to the rash
and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by him only, in view of
the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Kamlesh, 2009(3) AD (Delhi) 310.
13. It is not disputed that after detailed investigation of the case,
respondent no.1 was charge-sheeted under Sections 279/338/304-A IPC
and 185 M.V. Act for causing grievous injuries to Kasim and fatal
injury to Nankau by driving the offending vehicle rashly and
negligently. Moreover, in motor vehicular accident claims, contents of
charge sheet are admissible in evidence and deemed to be correct under
Rule 7 of Delhi Motor Accident Tribunal Rules, 2008. Thus, the facts
that FIR has been registered and charge-sheet has also been filed against
the respondent no.1 by the police, are sufficient proof to conclude that
respondent no.1 was negligent. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case titled as Shabina v. Satvir & Ors.
MAC. APP. 980/17 dated 24.01.2020, wherein Hon’ble Delhi High
Court observed that in so far as FIR has been registered, criminal case
has been initiated against driver of offending vehicle and vehicle was
seized, the requirement of proving the preponderance of probability of
accident having been caused by rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle has been established. In the aforesaid case, Hon’ble
Delhi High Court referred to the judgment titled as National Insurance
Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Smt. Pushpa Rana & Ors. (2008) 101 DRJ 645,
_____________________________________________________________
MACP No.492/19; Haseena & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors;
MACP No.493/19; Kasim Ali Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
Page 9 of 37
wherein it was observed:
“12. 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. Vs. Meena Variyal: 2007 (5) SCALE 269.
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 of the appellant also falls face down.
There is ample evidence on record to prove
negligence on the part of driver.”
14. The medical record, MLCs and discharge summary of Kasim
clearly show that he received grievous injuries in the accident. The
postmortem report of Nankau finds clear mention of multiple
ante-mortem injuries to head produced by blunt force impact suffered in
the accident and it also reflects that he died due to shock.
15. Thus, in view of the above, this Tribunal is of the opinion that
petitioners have been able to prove that there is sufficient material on
record to establish that the accident had occurred due to rash and
_____________________________________________________________
MACP No.492/19; Haseena & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors;
MACP No.493/19; Kasim Ali Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
Page 10 of 37
negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1 and that
resulted into grievous injuries to the petitioners Kasim and fatal injury
to Nankau. Therefore, issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioners and
against the respondents.
ISSUE NO.3:-
In MACP No. 492/2019 (In re: Haseena & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar &
Ors.)
16. In view of the finding on issue no.1, petitioners in both the
claim cases are entitled to get compensation, however, the quantum of
compensation still needs to be adjudicated.
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
17. 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).
18. In death cases, the guidelines for computation of
compensation have been laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case
of Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.
(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121. Further, the guidelines have been
reiterated by the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in a
case titled as National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.,
_____________________________________________________________
MACP No.492/19; Haseena & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors;
MACP No.493/19; Kasim Ali Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
Page 11 of 37
decided on 31.10.2017, laying down the general principles for
computation of compensation in death cases. The relevant paras of the
judgment are reproduced here as under:
“18. 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
(c) the number of dependents.
These 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 to
the age of the deceased.
If these determinations are standardized, there will
be uniformity and consistency in the decisions.
There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. It
will also be easier for the insurance companies to
settle accident claims without delay.
19. To have uniformity and consistency, the
Tribunals should determine compensation in cases
of death, by the following well-settled steps:death
case
Step-1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand)
The income of the deceased per annum should be
determined. Out of the said income a deduction
should be made in regard to the amount which the
deceased would have spent on himself by way of
personal and living expenses. The balanc expired
e which is considered to be the contribution to the
dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step-2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) death case
Having regard to the age of the deceased and
_____________________________________________________________
MACP No.492/19; Haseena & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors;
MACP No.493/19; Kasim Ali Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
Page 12 of 37
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
estates. Where the deceased is survived by his
widow, another conventional amount in the range
of Rs.5,000 to Rs.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 the cost of any medical
treatment of the deceased before death (if
incurred) should also be added.”
19. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment, it is essential to
take into consideration the following parameters:-
PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
AGE OF DECEASED:
20. As per aadhar card of deceased Nankau, the date of birth of
the deceased is 01.01.1951 and the accident took place on 07.11.2018.
Thus the age of deceased on the date of accident was about 67 years and
_____________________________________________________________
MACP No.492/19; Haseena & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors;
MACP No.493/19; Kasim Ali Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
Page 13 of 37
10 months old.
ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF DECEASED:
21. PW1 Haseena testified in her cross-examination that her
husband was 65 years old and was working as Maulana in Masjid and
was earning Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month and was only bread
earner of the family. No proof regarding the employment and salary of
deceased Nankau has been filed on record. No bank account statement
of the deceased is filed either. Perusal of cross-examination of PW1
shows that she has three children from deceased (two sons and one
daughter) and her children were married and earning sufficient money.
She was given suggestion by Ld. Counsel for R3 that deceased was an
ill person which was denied by her. From testimony of PW1, it comes
to fore that the entire family is residents of Sultanpur, Atarusma, U.P.
Deceased is stated to be a Maulana/Sewadar by occupation. However,
his level of skill is not known. Petitioner does not disclose the work
address of her husband. PW1 has claimed that deceased was working as
a Maulana in Maszid but neither there is any documentary proof in this
regard nor PW1 could withstand rigorous of cross-examination on this
point. Hence, it can be seen that deceased was living and working in
Sultanpur, U.P. at the time of accident. In the absence of any income
proof and education related proof of the deceased victim, the income of
deceased has to be considered, being a resident of U.P., as per the
minimum wages applicable to an unskilled worker on the date of
accident i.e. 07.11.2018, which was Rs.7,678- per month. Thus, the
income of the deceased is considered to be Rs.7,678/- per month.
NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS:
22. The instant claim petition has been filed by four petitioners,
_____________________________________________________________
MACP No.492/19; Haseena & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors;
MACP No.493/19; Kasim Ali Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
Page 14 of 37
who are wife (Haseena) and children of deceased. There is stated to be
no other legal representative of the deceased and during oral arguments,
Ld. Counsel for petitioners submitted that father of deceased is
predeceased. As per the memo of parties, Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 were
major on the date of accident and aged about 36, 25 and 31 years
respectively and all are stated to be married. Hence, only Petitioner
No.1 can be considered as dependent of the deceased being his wife.
APPLICATION OF MULTIPLIER:
23. As discussed above, the deceased was considered to be 67
years 10 months of age at the time of accident. An appropriate
multiplier has to be determined for computation of compensation. The
judgment titled as Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 is relevant to
consider the multiplier. In Para 21 of the judgment, the guidelines for
the multiplier were laid down in accordance with age are as under:-
MULTIPLIER AGE GROUP OF DECEASED
M-18 Age group between 15 to 20 & 21
to 25 years)
M-17 Age group between 26 to 30 yrs
M-16 Age group between 31 to 35 yrs
M-15 Age group between 36 to 40 yrs
M-14 Age group between 41 to 45 yrs
M-13 Age group between 46 to 50 yrs
M-11 Age group between 51 to 55 yrs
M-9 Age group between 56 to 60 yrs
M-7 Age group between 61 to 65 yrs
M-5 Age group between 66 and above
_____________________________________________________________
MACP No.492/19; Haseena & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors;
MACP No.493/19; Kasim Ali Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
Page 15 of 37
24. In view of the above, multiplier of 5 shall be applicable in the
present case.
FUTURE PROSPECTS:
25. This issue was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Pranay Sethi & Others (Supra). Relevant parts of the
judgment are reproduced here as under:
“(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.”
26. The deceased can be considered as self-employed. In view of
the above said judgment, as the deceased was 67 years 10 months of
age, no future prospect has to be taken.
DEDUCTION TOWARDS PERSONAL LIVING EXPENSES:
27. After choosing the age, multiplier and income of the
_____________________________________________________________
MACP No.492/19; Haseena & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors;
MACP No.493/19; Kasim Ali Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
Page 16 of 37
deceased, necessary deductions have to be made out of the income of
the deceased towards his personal expenses. Hon’ble Supreme Court in
case titled as Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9
SCC 65, in para 30, laid down the necessary deductions towards
personal living and expenses of deceased as under :
Deductions out of earning of the Number of
deceased dependentsWhere dependent is 1 Half
Where the number of dependent family 1/3rd
members is 2 to 3Where the number of dependent family 1/4th
members is 4 to 6Where the number of dependent family 1/5th
members exceeds 6 (six)
28. Petitioner No.1 is considered as dependent upon the deceased
as held above. Accordingly, half of the income of the deceased is to be
deducted towards his personal living expenses.
29. Thus, the loss of dependency is computed as Rs.2,30,340/-
(7678 x 1/2 x 5x 12).
NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
30. In case of Pranay Sethi (supra), a compensation of
Rs.40,000/-, 15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively has been fixed on
account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses and
further, it is required to be enhanced @ 10% in every three years.
_____________________________________________________________
MACP No.492/19; Haseena & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors;
MACP No.493/19; Kasim Ali Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
Page 17 of 37
Therefore, a compensation of Rs.48,000/-, 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 LRs. In this case, there are four legal heirs of the
deceased. Thus, claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,28,000/-
(48,000×4+18,000+18,000) under this head.
31. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for total compensation of
Rs.4,58,340/-(Rs.2,30,340/-+Rs.2,28,000/-)rounded off to Rs.4,58,000/-
(Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Eight Thousand only).
ISSUE No. 2:-
In MACP No. 493/2019 (In re: Kasim Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.)
32. The scope of compensation in injury cases has been
considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Mr. R.D.
Hattangadi v. M/S Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 AIR 755. The
relevant extract is as under:
“Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of
compensation payable to a victim of an accident,
the damages have to be assessed separately as
pecuniary damages and special damages.
Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has
actually incurred and which is capable of being
calculated in terms of money-, whereas non-
pecuniary damages are those which are incapable
of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In
order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary
damages may, include expenses incurred by the_____________________________________________________________
MACP No.492/19; Haseena & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors;
MACP No.493/19; Kasim Ali Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
Page 18 of 37
claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of
earning of profit upto the date of trial; (iii) other
material loss. So far non- pecuniary damages are
concerned, they may include (i) damages for
mental and physical shock, pain suffering, already
suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii)
damages to compensate for the loss of amenities
of life which may include a variety of matters i.e.
on account of injury the claimant may not be able
to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of
expectation of life, i.e. on account of injury the
normal longevity of the person concerned is
shortened; (iv) inconvenience, discomfort,
disappointment, hardship, frustration and mental
stress in life.”
33. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & another (2011) 1 SCC 343,
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India laid down general principles for
computation of compensation in injury cases. The relevant paras of the
judgment are reproduced as under:
4. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (“the Act”, for short) makes it clear that the
award must be just, which means that
compensation should, to the extent possible, fully
and adequately restore the claimant to the
position prior to the accident. The object of
awarding damages is to make good the loss
suffered as a result of wrong done as far as
money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and
equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall
have to assess the damages objectively and
exclude from consideration any speculation or
fancy, though some conjecture with reference to
the nature of disability and its consequences, is
inevitable. A person is not only to be
compensated for the physical injury, but also for
the loss which he suffered as a result of such
injury. This means that he is to be compensated
for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to
enjoy those normal amenities which he would
have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability_____________________________________________________________
MACP No.492/19; Haseena & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors;
MACP No.493/19; Kasim Ali Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
Page 19 of 37
to earn as much as he used to earn or could have
earned.
5. The heads under which compensation is
awarded in personal injury cases are the
following:
Pecuniary Damages (special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization,
medicines, transportation, nourishing food and
miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the
injured would have made had he not been injured,
comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of
treatment.
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of
permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-Pecuniary Damages (general damages)
(iv) Damages to pain, suffering and trauma as a
consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects
of marriage)
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of
normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation
will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii), (a) and
(iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where
there is specific medical evidence corroborating
the evidence of the claimant, that compensation
will be granted under any of the heads (ii), (b),
(iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings
on account of permanent disability, future
medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss
of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation
of life.
34. In the light of the aforementioned judgments, the
_____________________________________________________________
MACP No.492/19; Haseena & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors;
MACP No.493/19; Kasim Ali Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
Page 20 of 37
compensation to which the petitioner in injury cases are entitled shall be
as under:-
PECUNIARY DAMAGES :
MEDICAL EXPENSES:
35. Petitioner Kasim has not placed on record any medical bills
and has not lead claim to medical expenses. Perusal of MLC shows that
the treatment was undertaken in a Government Hospital. Though,
petitioner has stated in his cross-examination that he visited as many as
six hospitals, no medical documents in support of this claim was filed
by the petitioner. Hence, no amount is given to the petitioner under this
head.
LOSS OF EARNING DURING TREATMENT :
36. The petitioner has claimed in his evidence that due to
accident, his life is fully damaged and that at the time of accident, he
was working as ‘Footwear in Diamond Footwear'(?). As per DAR,
petitioner was having a private job and petitioner claims to have been
earning Rs.20,000/- per month at the time of accident. During oral
submissions, it was submitted that petitioner was working in a footwear
shop but no evidence in this regard was led and employer was not
examined and even the location of the place of employment is not
revealed and further no bank statement in support of his income has
been produced. Petitioner has not stated anything to suggest that he was
bedridden for any particular duration of time during his treatment and
MLC, which is the only medical document which is on record, does not
suggest that any bed rest was prescribed to the petitioner. However, the
nature of injury was opined as grievous and bone deformity of left knee
_____________________________________________________________
MACP No.492/19; Haseena & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors;
MACP No.493/19; Kasim Ali Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
Page 21 of 37
and left foot bony deformity at right thigh is observed under the head of
the particulars of injury. The disability certificate shows that petitioner
suffered from permanent disability to the extent of 24% due to fracture
in left lower limb and right upper limb. Hence, considering the nature of
injury sustained, it can reasonably be assumed that petitioner was not
able to work for about 04 months. In MLC, his address is mentioned as
that of Bahadurgadh, Haryana, whereas, at the time of assessment of
disability, he disclosed his address as Faizabad, U.P. The photocopy of
the first page of the passbook of the petitioner reflects his address as
Diamond Footwear Pvt. Ltd., Bahadurgadh’. The date of opening of the
account is not legible but the date of issue is mentioned as 06.11.2021.
Aadhar Card of petitioner reflects his address as that of Faizabad, U.P.
In the FIR, the address of petitioner is mentioned as House No.9, Gopal
Nagar, Sorakhpur Road, Jhajhar, Haryana. From the documents on
record, it appears that petitioner was temporarily residing and working
in Haryana at the time of accident. In absence of any proof of income,
nature of work and educational document, his income has to be assessed
at par with the minimum wages applicable to unskilled category in State
of Haryana at the time of accident ie. 06.11.2018, which was Rs.8,542/-
per month. In view of above, petitioner is granted a sum of Rs.34,168/-
(8542 x 4 months) on account of loss of income during treatment.
SPECIAL DIET & CONVEYANCE CHARGES:
37. The petitioner has not proved any actual expenses in
relation to these heads and has not placed any material on record to
substantiate the said expenses. In the given facts and circumstances of
the case, I deem it fit to grant Rs.10,000/- to petitioner for conveyance
and Rs.10,000/- special diet charges.
_____________________________________________________________
MACP No.492/19; Haseena & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors;
MACP No.493/19; Kasim Ali Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
Page 22 of 37
ATTENDANT CHARGES:
38. Petitioner has not claimed and has nowhere averred in his
testimony regarding having been rendered assistance by attendant or
family members during course of recuperating at home after discharge
from hospital. However, it cannot be ignored that family members of
petitioner must have had to render their services for providing
assistance to the petitioner for his routine activities and that would
definitely suffer their work/job. For claiming compensation, necessity
of employing a professional attendant/ care taker is not required and the
petitioner should be compensated for the value of services of the family
members, which has been or would be necessitated by the wrong doing
of the driver. (DTC & Ors Vs. Lalita, 1983 ACJ 253). Therefore, the
petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-. as attendant charges.
39. Thus, petitioner is granted a total compensation of
Rs.35,000/- (10,000+1,000+ 15,000) under this head.
NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES :
PAIN & SUFFERING:
40. While discussing the criteria to ascertain the compensation for
pain and sufferings by victim of vehicular accident, observations of
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Satya Narain v. Jai Kishan, FAO No:
709/02, date of decision: 02.02.2007 can be considered:
“12. On account of pain and suffering, suffice
would it be to note that it is difficult to measure
pain and suffering in terms of a money value.
However, compensation which has to be paid
must bear some objectives co-relation with the
pain and suffering.
13. The objective facts relatable to pain and
_____________________________________________________________
MACP No.492/19; Haseena & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors;
MACP No.493/19; Kasim Ali Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
Page 23 of 37
suffering would be:
(a) Nature of injury.
(b) Body part affected
(c) Duration of the treatment.”
41. There is no medical document to suggest that the petitioner
was admitted in a hospital even for a day. However, he had suffered
from fractures and the nature of the injuries sustained was grievous in
nature, which must have kept him under considerable pain and agony
for months. Thus, it is clear that petitioner must have suffered immense
pain and suffering during his treatment. In view of above, I am of the
opinion that an amount of Rs.35,000/- would be just and fair
compensation for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the
injuries sustained in the accident. Accordingly, Rs.35,000/- is awarded
to the petitioner under this head.
LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF PERMANENT
DISABILITY :-
42. In the instant case, it is evident on record that as a
consequence of injuries sustained in the accident, petitioner suffered
24% permanent physical disability in relation to left lower limb and
right upper limb. He was suffering from intertrochanteric fracture in left
leg and bimoular fracture in right upper limb. The disability certificate,
bearing no. F.No.-15(148)/estt.LSBH/part.file-VI/2647 dated
28.03.2023 issued by Medical Board of LBS Hospital Delhi is not
disputed by insurance company.
43. Now it is required to be seen that upto what extent the
permanent physical disability suffered by the petitioner would affect his
earnings. Petitioner has not led any evidence to suggest that he is unable
_____________________________________________________________
MACP No.492/19; Haseena & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors;
MACP No.493/19; Kasim Ali Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
Page 24 of 37
to work or lost his job or had to take up another job on account of the
disability suffered, to his financial detriment. He did not even state a
word to suggest what work he was doing in the footwear shop.
However, in the opinion of this Tribunal, with 24% permanent physical
disability in relation to left lower limb and right upper limb, it can be
deduced that petitioner would not be in a position to perform at his
work place as before. No educational document of petitioner is
produced and hence, it can be presumed that he is not much literate and
might be doing ‘labour oriented work’ in the shop. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Tribunal is of the opinion that functional
disability in relation to whole body of the petitioner may be considered
to be 20% for the purpose of assessing corresponding loss of his future
income.
44. Further, law is well settled that there should be no departure
from the multiplier method in injury cases also [refer: Sandeep Khanuja
vs. Atul Dande & Anr., (2017) 3 SCC 351]. As per aadhar card Ex.
PW1/4, his date of birth is 24.02.1980 and thus the petitioner was about
38 years and 8 months old on the date of accident and therefore,
multiplier of 15 as applicable to age group between 36-40 years, would
be applicable as per settled principle laid down in case of Sarla Verma
v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121. Moreover, the law has been well settled by
the decisions of Supreme Court in the cases of Sandeep Khanuja (supra)
and Erudhaya Priya vs. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., 2020
SCC OnLine SC 601, that while applying the multiplier method, future
prospects on advancement in life and career are also to be taken into
consideration. Thus, considering the petitioner as a self-employed, an
addition of income to the extent of 20% towards future prospects has to
_____________________________________________________________
MACP No.492/19; Haseena & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors;
MACP No.493/19; Kasim Ali Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
Page 25 of 37
be counted.
45. As discussed above, the income of petitioner has been
assessed to be Rs.8,542/- per month. Thus, applying the multiplier 15
and future prospects @ 40% with 20% loss of income on account of
whole body functional disability, the total loss of future income would
come to Rs.3,69,014.4/-[20% of (8542×120/100x15x12)] and same is
awarded to the petitioner under this head. Thus, the total loss of future
income comes to Rs.3,69,015/-, which is so awarded to the petitioner.
46. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner is
summarized as under:-
Head of compensation Amount
Sl. No.
1. Medical Expenses Nil
Loss of Earnings Rs.34,168/-
2.
(during treatment)
3. Special Diet & Conveyance Rs.20,000/-
4. Attendant Charges Rs.15,000/-
5. Pain & Suffering Rs.35,000/-
Loss of income on account of Rs.3,69,015-
6.
permanent disability
Total Rs.4,73,183/-
rounded off to
Rs.4,73,000/-
47. Accordingly, petitioner Kasim Ali is entitled for a total
compensation of Rs.4,73,000/-.
ISSUE No.4/INTEREST
In MACP No. 492/19 (In re: Haseena Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors)
In MACP No. 493/19 (In re: Kasim Ali Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.)
_____________________________________________________________
MACP No.492/19; Haseena & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors;
MACP No.493/19; Kasim Ali Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
Page 26 of 37
48. Petitioner(s) in both of the cases shall also be entitled to
interest @ 7.5% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing
of the petition till its realization.
ISSUE No.2
49. The next issue to be examined is as to whether R1 has
committed any breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy
issued by R2 while driving the offending vehicle under influence of
liquor. In this regard, it is to state that R1 was charge-sheeted also for
offence under Section 185 M.V. Act and charge-sheet and MLC clearly
mention that R1 was under influence of liquor and the content of
Alcohol was more than the permissible limit. Even though, no evidence
was led in this regard by the insurer, it is seen that R1 has not
challenged the MLC and finding in charge-sheet. PW1 had stated in the
FIR itself that smell of alcohol was coming from the mouth of R1.
Hence, it can be seen that there is breach of the terms and conditions of
the insurance policy by R1. Hence, Issue No.2 is decided in favour of
R2/Insurer.
LIABILITY
50. Now, the question arises which of the respondents is liable to
pay the compensation amount. As insurance company has contractual
and statutory liability to indemnify the insured, the Insurance company
is liable to compensate the third party. The insurance company has
stated that R1 was under influence of liquor and hence, there was
breach of policy and insurance may be exonerated. The breach in
question is not such as would affect the right of third party, once it is
established that vehicle was covered under the policy of insurance. Law
_____________________________________________________________
MACP No.492/19; Haseena & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors;
MACP No.493/19; Kasim Ali Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
Page 27 of 37
is well settled that insurance company would be entitled for recovery of
the compensation amount from the driver and registered owner /insured
of the offending vehicle. In case titled as Gurmeet Singh vs. The New
India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors, MAC App 288/2021 decided on
06.10.2023, it has been held that the insurer is entitled to recover the
compensation amount paid to the claimants.
“48. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case
reported as National Insurance Company Limited v.
Swaran Singh & Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 297, has been
pleased to observe that the insurer had to indemnify the
compensation amount payable to the third party and the
insurance company may recover the same from the
insured. Doctrine of “pay and recover” was considered
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Swaran Singh
(supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court examined
the liability of the insurance company in cases of
breach of policy condition due to disqualifications of
the driver or invalid driving license of the driver and
held that in case of third party risks, the insurer has to
indemnify the compensation amount to the third party
and the insurance company may recover the same from
the insured.
49. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further been
pleased to reiterate the aforesaid legal position in case
reported as, Shamanna & Anr. v. The Divisional
Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited &
Ors., Civil Appeal No.8144/2018. The upshot of the
settled legal position on the issue aforesaid is that
respondent No.2/insurance company cannot shake off
its liability to pay compensation merely by taking the
plea that at relevant point of time, the offending vehicle
was being driven under the influence of liquor. If the
insurance company is made liable to pay any amount, it
can recover the entire amount paid to the third party on
behalf of insured. Therefore, in view of the above,
respondent no.2/insurance company is liable to pay
compensation/Award amount to the
claimants/petitioners with a right MACT Case No.
756/2018 (FIR no. 161/2017) Ashok Kumar Sharma v.
Harish Kumar & Anr.”
_____________________________________________________________
MACP No.492/19; Haseena & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors;
MACP No.493/19; Kasim Ali Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
Page 28 of 37
In such circumstances, insurance company is entitled for
recovery of the compensation amount from the respondent No.1 i.e.
driver-cum-owner of offending vehicle, jointly and severally, after
paying the aforesaid compensation to the petitioner in the first place.
RELIEF
In MACP No. 492/19 (In re: Haseena Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.)
51. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.4,58,000/-
(Rupees Four Lakhs and Fifty Nine Thousand Only) to the petitioners
along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition
till realization to be paid by the Respondent No.2/Reliance GIC Ltd.
Amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the compensation
amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by the
Tribunal during the pendency of this case.
Entitlement, Apportionment and Disbursement
52. The petitioners in this case are the wife and children of the
deceased. Accordingly, the award amount of Rs.4,58,000/- along with
interest thereon shall be shared by the petitioner in the following
manner:
S. Name of the Age Relation Share in the Award Amount
No Petitioner (Present with
Age) Deceased
1 Smt. Haseena 71 years 04 Wife Rs.3,14,000/- along with the
months interest on entire award
amount.
2. Shamshad 42 years Son Rs. 48,000/- along with the
Ahmad interest on entire award
amount.
_____________________________________________________________
MACP No.492/19; Haseena & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors;
MACP No.493/19; Kasim Ali Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
Page 29 of 37
3. Md. Adil 32 years Son Rs. 48,000/- along with the
interest on entire award
amount.
4. Smt. Almas 36 years Daughter Rs. 48,000/- along with the
interest on entire award
amount.
53. Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi is directed that after
deposit of the award amount, a sum of Rs.2,14,000/- along with the
corresponding interest shall be forthwith released to the petitioner no.1
namely Smt. Haseena, Rs.48,000/- each along with the corresponding
interest shall be forthwith released to the petitioner nos. 2 to 4, by way
of transferring the said amount into their respective MACT Savings
Bank Account and the balance award amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along
with the corresponding interest thereon shall be kept secured with UCO
Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in MACAD (Motor Accident Claims
Annuity Deposit) for an year in the name of Smt. Haseena. The amount
of FDR on maturity would directly be released in petitioner’s MACT
Savings Bank Account.
54. As per ‘The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (Annexure-
XIII), the relevant Forms to be incorporated in the award are as under:
FORM – XV
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH
CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 06.11.2018
2. Name of the deceased : Nankau
3. Age of the deceased : 65 years
4. Occupation of the deceased : Self employed
_____________________________________________________________
MACP No.492/19; Haseena & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors;
MACP No.493/19; Kasim Ali Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
Page 30 of 37
( Maulana/Sewadar)
5. Income of the deceased : Rs.92,136/- per
annum
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S. No Name of the Petitioner Age (Present Age) Relation with Deceased
1 Smt. Haseena 71 years 04 months WifeComputation of Compensation
S. No. Heads Awarded by the
Claims Tribunal
1. Income of the deceased (A) Rs.92,136/-per annum
2. Add-Future Prospects (B) Nil.
3. Less- Personal expenses of the deceased (C) @ Rs.46,068/-
50%
4. Annual loss of dependency Rs.46,068/-
[(A+B)-C = D]
5. Multiplier (E) 5
6. Total loss of dependency (DxE = F) Rs.2,30,340/-
7. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
8. Compensation for loss of consortium (H) Rs.1,92,000/-
(48,000×4)
9. Compensation for loss of love and affection (I) —
10. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs.18,000/-
11. Compensation towards funeral expenses (K) Rs.18,000/-
18. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.4,58,340/-
(F+G+H+I+J+K = L)
rounded off to
Rs.4,58,000/-
12. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 7.5%
13. Interest amount up to the date of award (M) Rs.2,09,997/-
_____________________________________________________________
MACP No.492/19; Haseena & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors;
MACP No.493/19; Kasim Ali Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
Page 31 of 37
(for six year, 01 months & 11 days)
14. Total amount including interest (L+M) Rs.6,67,997/-
15. Award amount released Rs.2,58,000/-
along with interest on
this amount
16. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.2,00,000/-
along with interest on
this amount
17. Mode of disbursement of the award amount to Bank transfer
the claimants (s).
18. Next Date for compliance of the award. 15.07.2025
RELIEF
In MACP No. 493/2019 (In re: Kasim Ali Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. )
55. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.4,73,000/-
(Rupees Four Lakhs and Seventy Four Thousand Only) to the petitioner
along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition
till realization to be paid by the Respondent No.2/ Reliance GIC Ltd.
Amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the compensation
amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by the
Tribunal during the pendency of this case.
56. Disbursement of Award Amount :
1. A sum of Rs.2,73,000/- only is directed to be released forthwith
into the MACT Saving Bank Account of the petitioner and the
balance award amount of Rs.2,00,000/- along with the
corresponding interest thereon shall be kept secured with UCO
Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in MACAD (Motor Accident
Claims Annuity Deposit) for an year. The amount of FDR on
maturity would directly be released in petitioner’s MACT
_____________________________________________________________
MACP No.492/19; Haseena & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors;
MACP No.493/19; Kasim Ali Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
Page 32 of 37
Savings Bank Account.
Direction to the Petitioner & his Bank
2. The petitioner shall open a saving bank account near the place of
his resident. Further, the bank of petitioner is directed to comply
with 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(s) i.e., the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s)
shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint
account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in
safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number,
FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be
furnished by the bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing
System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near
the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by
Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of
the claimant(s) 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.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or
debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or
cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same
before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit
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.
(g) 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.
_____________________________________________________________
MACP No.492/19; Haseena & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors;
MACP No.493/19; Kasim Ali Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
Page 33 of 37
3. As per ‘The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (Annexure-
XIII), the relevant Form to be incorporated in the award is as
under:
FORM -XVI
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY
CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 06.11.2018
2. Name of the injured : Kasim Ali
3. Age of the injured : 38 years 08 months
4. Occupation of the injured : Self-employed
5. Income of the injured : Rs.8,542/- per month
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured : —-
8. Period of hospitalization : —-
9. Whether any permanent disability?
(If yes, give details) :Yes. 24% permanent
disability in relation to left
lower limbs and right
upper limbs.
10. Computation of Compensation
S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment Nil. (ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.20,000/- (iii) Expenditure on special diet (iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.15,000/- (v) Cost of artificial limb N.A. (vi) Loss of earning capacity -- (vii) Loss of income (during treatment) Rs.34,168/- (viii) Any other loss which may require N.A.
_____________________________________________________________
MACP No.492/19; Haseena & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors;
MACP No.493/19; Kasim Ali Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
Page 34 of 37
any special treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and Rs.35,000/-
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering
(iii) Loss of amenities of life ---
(iv) Disfiguration N.A.
(v) Loss of marriage prospects N.A.
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, --
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress, dejectment
and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning —
capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and 24% permanent disability in
nature of disability as permanent or relation to the left lower limb
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Nil
expectation of life span on account
of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning 20%
capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income – 3,69,015/-
(Income x% Earning Capacity x
Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.4,73,183/-
(rounded off to Rs.4,73,000/-)
15. INTEREST AWARDED
16. Interest amount up to the date of the Rs.2,16,875/-
award @ 7.5% (for 06 years, 01 months & 07
days)
17. Total amount including interest Rs.6,89,875/-
18. Award amount released Rs.2,73,000/- only.
19. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.2,00,000/- along with the
interest on entire award amount.
20. Mode of disbursements of the award Bank Transfer
_____________________________________________________________
MACP No.492/19; Haseena & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors;
MACP No.493/19; Kasim Ali Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
Page 35 of 37
amount to the claimants(s).
21. Next Date for compliance of the 15.07.2025
award.
FORM – XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME TO BE
MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
1 Date of Accident 06.11.2018
2 Date of filing of Form-I- First Accident Report Not available
(FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II to the victim(s) Not available
4 Date of receipt of Form-III from the Driver Not available
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Owner Not available
6 Date of filing of the Form-V- Interim Accident Not available
Report (IAR)
7 Date of receipt of Form-VI- and Form-VIA from Not available
the victims(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII- Detailed Accident Not available
Report (DAR)
9 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the No
part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether
any action/ direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by Not available
the Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Yes
Company submitted his report within thirty (30)
days of the DAR?
12 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the No
part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether any action/ direction
warranted?
13 Date of response of the claimant(s) to the offer of Legal offer not filed.
the Insurance Company
14 Date of Award 23.05.2025
15 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes
saving bank account(s) near the place of
_____________________________________________________________
MACP No.492/19; Haseena & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors;
MACP No.493/19; Kasim Ali Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
Page 36 of 37
residence?
16 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes
saving bank account(s) near his place of residence
and produce PAN Card and Aadhaar Card and the
direction to the bank to 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 To be produced at
passbook of their saving bank account near the the time of
place of their residence along with the compliance of award
endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhaar Card?
18 Permanent Residential Address of the claimant(s) Village- Purwa
Basant, Post-
Chandanpur, Distt.-
Sultanpur, U.P. and
Village- Kaitholiya,
Teshil- Bikapur,
Distt.- Faizabad,
U.P.
19 Whether the claimant(s) saving bank account(s) is Direction given
near their place of residence?
20 Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the time No
of passing of the award to ascertain his/her/ their
financial condition?
57. With these observations, both the claim petitions are disposed
of. Copy of the Award be given dasti to the parties free of cost.
58. Files be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed
by MAYURI
MAYURI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.05.23
16:40:26 +0530Announced in the open (Mayuri Singh)
Court on 23.05.2025 Presiding Officer-MACT (East)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi_____________________________________________________________
MACP No.492/19; Haseena & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors;
MACP No.493/19; Kasim Ali Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
Page 37 of 37