Delhi District Court
Jyoti Devi And Ors vs Braham Pal And Ors on 19 July, 2025
Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs Brahm Pal
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHAMA GUPTA, PRESIDING
OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MACT no. 97/19
UNIQUE ID No.: DLNW01-001599 -2019
LRs of Ramesh Chand Ojha:-
1. Jyoti Devi W/o Late Ramesh Chand Ojha
2. Jitender Ojha S/o Late Ramesh Chand Ojha
3. Naveen Ojha S/o Late Ramesh Chand Ojha
All R/o H. No. B-100, Yadav Nagar, Samaypur,
Delhi.
........ Petitioners/claimants
Versus
1. Braham Pal S/o Sh. Ram Phal
R/o H. No. A-1/90A, East Gokul Puri,
Delhi-94.
....... Driver/R1
2. Amit Kumar
S/o Sh. Jai Prakash
R/o H. No.D-91, Shyam Park
Extension, Sahibabad,
Ghaziabad, UP. ....... Owner/R2
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
having its office at 1566/3,
Kashmere Gate, Church Road,
Delhi-110006.
. ....... Insurance Company/R3
..... Respondents
MACT no. 97/19 Page 1 of34
Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs Brahm Pal
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 18.02.2019
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 19.07.2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.07.2025
FORM - V
1. COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED
PROCEDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
AS PER FORMAT REFERRED IN THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN
FAO 842/2003 RAJESH TYAGI Vs. JAIBIR SINGH &
ORS. VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018.
1. Date of the accident 04.11.2018
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the Petition was filed
investigating officer to the Claims on 18.02.2019
Tribunal
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the 17.05.2019
investigating officer to the insurance
company.
4. Date of filing of Report under section Petition was filed
173 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan
Magistrate
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident 17.05.2019
Information Report (DAR) by the
investigating Officer before Claims
Tribunal
6. Date of Service of DAR on the 17.05.2019
Insurance Company
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant 17.05.2019
(s).
8. Whether DAR was complete in all Yes
respects?
MACT no. 97/19 Page 2 of34
Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs Brahm Pal
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR No
removed later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the Yes
documents filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or No
deficiency on the part of the
Investigating Officer? If so, whether
any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated 17.05.2019
Officer by the insurance Company.
13. Name, address and contact number of Sh. Kumar Alok,
the Designated Officer of the Insurance Ld. Counsel for
Company. Insurance
Company
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Yes
Insurance Company submitted his
report within 30 days of the DAR?
(Clause 22)
15. Whether the insurance company No
admitted the liability? If so, whether the
Designated Officer of the insurance
company fairly computed the
compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or No
deficiency on the part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance Company? If
so, whether any action/direction
warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to No legal offer was
the offer of the Insurance Company . given
18. Date of the Award 19.07.2025
19. Whether the award was passed with the No
consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed Yes
to open saving bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
MACT no. 97/19 Page 3 of34
Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs Brahm Pal
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were 17.05.2019
directed to open saving bank account (s)
near his place of residence and produce
PAN Card and Aadhar 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(s).
22. Date on which the claimant (s) 30.08.2024
produced the passbook of their saving
bank account near the place of their
residence along with the endorsement,
PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned
Claimant(s) above
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Petitioner- (1)
claimant(s) and the address of the bank Jyoti Devi-
with IFSC Code 38301010631 (2)
Jitender Ojha-
38278731862 (3)
Naveen Ojha-
32456529200
with SBI, Branch
Samey Pur, Delhi
IFSC code no.
SBIN0006667.
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank Yes
account(s) is near his place of
residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined Yes
at the time of passing of the award to
ascertain his/their financial condition.
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR 41065170303,
number, IFSC Code, name and branch 110002427,
of the bank of the Claims Tribunal in SBIN0010323,
which the award amount is to be SBI, Rohini
deposited/transferred. (in terms of order Courts, Delhi
dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi vs
MACT no. 97/19 Page 4 of34
Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs Brahm Pal
Jaibir Singh.
JUDGMENT
1. The claim petition in the present case was filed under
Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as M.V. Act), on 18.02.2019,
seeking compensation in the sum of Rs. 60,00,000/-, with
interest at the rate of 18% per annum, in respect of demise
of Sh. Ramesh Chand Ojha, in a road traffic accident.
Perusal of the record reveals that FIR No. 606/18, PS
Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, was registered on 04.11.2018, for
the alleged commission of offence of causing death, not
amounting to culpable homicide, by rash and negligent
driving of a truck, bearing registration number UP-14GD-
3589, on a public road, punishable under Section
279/304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred
as IPC). Subsequently, Detailed Accident Report
(hereinafter referred to as DAR), was filed by the IO, on
17.05.2019, with reference to the aforesaid FIR. This
Tribunal, vide order dated 17.05.2019, treated the DAR as
petition U/s 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in
short referred to as ‘M.V. Act‘) and the petition filed by the
petitioners, was clubbed with the said DAR, vide order
dated 17.05.2019.
2. The brief facts of the case, as discernible from the claim
petition and documents of the petitioners, as annexed
MACT no. 97/19 Page 5 of34
Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs Brahm Pal
therewith, are that on 04.11.2018, the deceased Ramesh
Chand Ojha, was going to Azadpur side, via Prembari Pul
Flyover, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, on his Scooty, bearing
registration no. DL-10SW-5456 (hereinafter referred as
victim’s vehicle), and at about 11:25 a.m, his Scooty was
hit by a truck, bearing registration no. UP-14GT-6589
(hereinafter referred as offending vehicle). It was further
alleged that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle
was driven by its driver Braham Pal (hereinafter referred
as driver of offending bus/respondent no. 1/R1), at a high
speed, in a rash and negligent manner and in a drunk
condition, and as a result of the said impact, the deceased
sustained fatal injuries. It was further alleged that after the
accident, the deceased was taken to Babu Jagjivan Ram
Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi (hereinafter referred as
BJRM hospital), where he was declared brought dead.
3. It was further stated that the postmortem on the body of the
deceased, was conducted at BJRM Hospital, vide PMR
No. 878/18, dated 05.11.2018, wherein cause of his death
was mentioned as cranio-cerebral damage, as a result of
injury to head, consequent upon blunt force impact.
4. As per the petition, the offending vehicle was driven by
R1, same was registered in the name of Amit Kumar S/o
Sh. Jai Prakash (herein after referred as owner of offending
bus/R2) and was insured with National Insurance
MACT no. 97/19 Page 6 of34
Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs Brahm Pal
Company Ltd. (herein after referred as insurer of offending
bus/R3).
5. Joint written statement was filed by R1 and R2, wherein
they raised the defence, that no accident has taken place
with the offending vehicle or due to rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle by R1. It was further
alleged that that they have been falsely implicated in the
present matter by the petitioners, to claim compensation.
6. R3 had filed its written statement, in which R3 admitted
that the offending truck was insured with R3, vide policy
no. 360401311710005054, valid for the period 25.01.2018
till 24.01.2019. It was further averred that IO has falsely
implicated the alleged offending vehicle in the case
accident. It was further averred that the present case is a
hit and run case and that the injuries sustained by the
petitioner, was due to his own negligence.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed by the Learned Predecessor, vide order dated
11.12.2019:-
1. Whether on 04.11.2018 at about 11:25 a.m. at Prembari
Flyover, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, one truck bearing
registration No. UP14-GT-6589, which was being
driven rashly and negligently by Bhaham Pal, hit the
scooty bearing registration no. DL10-SW-5465 and
caused the death of Ramesh Chand Ojha ? OPP.
MACT no. 97/19 Page 7 of34
Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs Brahm Pal
2. Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so,
to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
8. After framing of issues, opportunities were given to all the
parties, to prove their respective averments, by leading
evidence in support of the same.
9. In support of their claim petition, the petitioners examined
petitioner no. 1 namely Jyoti Devi as PW1. She has led her
evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. Her deposition
qua the accident in question and death of the deceased, as a
result of the injuries, sustained in the case accident, is
reiteration of the contents of the petition. PW1 further
deposed that at the time of accident, the deceased was 52
years of age, was doing private job and was earning Rs.
21,000/- per month. PW1 further deposed that the
deceased was maintaining good health and physique and
was doing his work smartly and efficiently. PW1 further
deposed that the deceased left behind her and his two sons,
as his legal heirs. In her evidence, PW1 has placed reliance
upon copy of Ration card of the petitioners as Ex. PW1/1
(OSR), photocopy of Election I-card of petitioner no. 1 as
Ex. PW1/2 (OSR), Photocopy of Aadhar Card of petitioner
no. 1 as Ex. PW1/3 (OSR), joint photograph of petitioners
as Ex. PW1/4, Photocopy of Aadhar card of petitioner no.
2 as Ex. PW1/5 (OSR), Photocopy of Election I-card of
petitioner no.2 as Ex. PW1/6 (OSR), photocopy of Aadhar
MACT no. 97/19 Page 8 of34
Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs Brahm Pal
card of petitioner no. 3 as Ex. PW1/7 (OSR), photocopy of
Election I-card of petitioner no. 3 as Ex. PW1/8 (OSR),
photocopy of Election I-card of deceased as Ex. PW1/9
(OSR), photocopy of Aadhar card of the deceased as Ex.
PW1/10, photocopy of PAN card of the deceased as Ex.
PW1/11 (OSR), photocopy of driving license of the
deceased as Ex. PW1/12 (OSR), original death certificate
of the deceased as Ex. PW1/13, photocopy of school TC of
the deceased as Ex. PW1/14 (colly.) and DAR as Ex.
PW1/15.
10. PW1 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for R3/insurance
company, wherein she deposed that the police personnel
has informed her, about the accident and called her at the
spot of accident. PW1 further deposed that she could not
go there. She further deposed that the police had not called
her during investigation. PW1 further deposed that she has
not filed any document, to show that her deceased husband
was earning Rs. 21,000/- per month, at the time of
accident. She deposed that she has two elder sons namely
Jitender Ojha and Naveen Ojha. PW1 further deposed that
her both sons are not doing anything and they both are
sitting idle at home, due to COVID-19 pandemic. PW1
admitted that he has not filed any document on record, to
prove that her both sons were preparing for competitive
exams. She further deposed that her second son Naveen
Ojha has got degree from IIT Roorkee, in the year 2020
and now, he is preparing for interview. PW1 denied the
MACT no. 97/19 Page 9 of34
Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs Brahm Pal
suggestion, that her both sons were not financially
dependent upon her deceased husband, at the time of
accident. PW1 deposed that she is a housewife.
11. The petitioners further examined Sh. Ram Kishore Saini as
PW2. He led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A.
PW2 deposed that he is an eye witness of the case
accident. He further deposed that on 04.11.2018, at about
11:25 a.m., the deceased Ramesh Chand Ojha, while
driving his white Activa 125, bearing registration no. DL-
10SW-5465, was going to Azadpur side, from Prembari
Flyover, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi and suddenly offending
vehicle bearing no. UP-14GT-6589, which was driven by
R1, in a drunken condition, in a rash and negligent manner,
at a very high speed, without obeying traffic rules and
regulations and without taking care, hit the deceased, due
to which the deceased sustained fatal injuries. PW2 further
deposed that after the accident, the deceased was removed
to BJRM Hospital, where doctors declared him ‘brought
dead’. PW2 further deposed that the accident has taken
place, due to rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle by R1. In his evidence, PW2 has placed reliance
upon copy of his Aadhar Card as PW2/1.
12. PW2 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for R1 and R2,
wherein he deposed that he is not a summoned witness and
he has come in the Court, on his own wish. PW2 further
MACT no. 97/19 Page 10 of34
Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs Brahm Pal
deposed that the date has been told to him by Sh. Jitender
Ojha, for deposing in the Court today. He further deposed
that the date of the accident was 04.11.2018 and the day of
accident was Sunday. He deposed that he came to know
about Sh. Jitender Ojha, as they are his neighbors. PW2
deposed that on the day of accident, he was going in an
Auto but, he does not remember the registration number of
the said Auto. He deposed that he was going from Dhaula
Kuan to Azadpur, Yadav Nagar. PW2 further deposed that
he knew the deceased from the last 12 years. PW2 denied
the suggestion, that he is giving the statement, just to help
the petitioners, to get the compensation from the Court, as
he was his neighbour. He deposed that he was present at
the spot and was at a distance of about 100 feet. PW2
further deposed that he was just behind the alleged
offending vehicle, which was at a distance of about 200
meter. He deposed that he has not noted the registration
number of the alleged offending vehicle, on the spot. He
deposed that one lady took the picture of the offending
vehicle but, he does not know the name of the said lady.
He deposed that the said lady has given the picture to the
IO /police official. PW2 deposed that the lady has not
given the said picture in his presence. He admitted that he
has not noted down the number of the offending vehicle on
the spot. He voluntarily deposed that he stopped the Auto
at the spot. PW2 deposed that after the accident, the police
came at the spot and took the injured to the hospital. He
further deposed that he also accompanied with the police
MACT no. 97/19 Page 11 of34
Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs Brahm Pal
officials, in their PCR Van. PW2 further deposed that the
police has never called him, for making the site plan and
never recorded his statement but, only enquired from him,
about the accident. PW2 deposed that he does not
remember about the clothes worn by the deceased, at the
time of the accident.
13. PW2 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for R3/insurance
company, wherein he deposed that the IO never recorded
his statement in the present matter. PW2 further deposed
that he did not lodge any FIR, in the present matter. He
admitted that his name is not appearing in the list of eye
witnesses, submitted along with the charge sheet. PW2
deposed that he used to see the deceased, prior to the
accident, in the temple. He denied the suggestion, that he
was not the eye witness of the case accident. He deposed
that he is not a summoned witness but, he has been told to
give the statement, before the court, by the son of the
deceased. He denied the suggestion, that he is deposing
falsely, at the instance of family members of the deceased.
14. In its defence, R3/insurance company led its evidence and
examined SI Naveen Kumar, as R3W1. R3W1 deposed
that he is a summoned witness. He deposed that he has
filed the detailed accident report, along with chargesheet
and he has prepared the chargesheet. R3W1 deposed that
the first IO ASI Radhesh Singh received message and
MACT no. 97/19 Page 12 of34
Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs Brahm Pal
photographs of the offending vehicle, on his mobile
bearing no. 9968072335 and the said IO has provided the
photographs of the offending vehicle, after getting the
printout through his mobile. R3W1 has placed reliance
upon the charge sheet, already Ex. PW1/15, Police Control
Room form as Ex. Ex.R3W1/1, DD entry no.15A dated
04.11.2018 as Ex. R3W1/2. PW2 further deposed that
mobile number of PCR caller is already mentioned in PCR
form and DD entry, and the said number is 9810939034.
15. R3W1 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the
petitioners, wherein he admitted that he has served notice
U/s 133 MV Act Ex. R3W1/P1, on the registered owner of
the offending vehicle. He admitted that the registered
owner of the offending vehicle, replied on the same notice,
that his driver Braham Pal was driving the offending
vehicle, on the day of accident. He further admitted that he
has arrested the accused/driver Braham Pal, during the
investigation of this case. He further admitted that he has
filed the chargesheet, against the accused, after completion
of investigation.
16. This Tribunal has heard the final arguments, as advanced
by Ld. Counsels for the parties.
17. On appreciation of evidence, as adduced by the parties, in
support of their respective versions, the issue-wise findings
MACT no. 97/19 Page 13 of34
Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs Brahm Pal
of this Tribunal, are reproduced herein below:
ISSUE No. 1
Whether on 04.11.2018 at about 11:25 a.m. at Prembari Flyover,
Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, one truck bearing registration No. UP14-
GT-6589, which was being driven rashly and negligently by
Bhaham Pal, hit the scooty bearing registration no. DL10-SW-
5465 and caused the death of Ramesh Chand Ojha ? OPP.
18. The onus of proving this issue, on preponderance of
probabilities, was upon the petitioners/claimants. To prove
the same, the petitioners examined Sh. Ram Kishore Saini
as an eye witness, who deposed that he was the neighbour
of the deceased and has seen the accident in question, as he
was passing though the accident spot. But, the entire
criminal case record is silent, as to presence of PW2, at the
spot or having witnessed the accident in question. During
the course of his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for R1
and R2, PW2 even deposed that the police had not carried
out any investigation from him and he had not noted down,
even the registration number of the offending vehicle. He
further deposed that when the deceased was taken to the
hospital, he also accompanied with the police officials, in
the PCR Van and that the police only made oral enquiry
from him, regarding the accident, which is highly
improbable, because if PW2 was an eye witness, as well as
neighbour of the deceased, then there would be no reason
for the police officials, for non-recording of the statement
of PW2. Thus, the testimony of PW2, as an eye witness
MACT no. 97/19 Page 14 of34
Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs Brahm Pal
cannot be taken into consideration.
19. During the course of arguments, it was argued by Ld.
Counsel for the respondents, that as there is no eye witness
of the case accident, therefore, involvement of the
offending vehicle, in the case accident, as well as rashness
and negligence of R1, in causing the accident in question
remains unproved.
20. In the present matter, though, it can be safely concluded
that the petitioners failed to examine the eye witness but,
even in the absence of examination of eye witness, the
Tribunal can look into the extent of damage, suffered by
the vehicles involved in the accident, as well as the nature
of injuries suffered by the victims, so as to ascertain the
cause behind the accident and to arrive at a finding, as to
whether the accident in question had occurred, due to
negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle or not.
21. In this context, it has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Sunita vs Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation, Civil Appeal No. 166/2019, date of decision
14.02.2019 that non examination of eye witness in the
proceedings before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
cannot be treated as fatal to the case of the petitioners
particularly when there was sufficient evidence on record
to establish that the offending vehicle was being driven in
MACT no. 97/19 Page 15 of34
Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs Brahm Pal
a rash and negligent manner by its driver . The Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India had inter alia held as follows:-
“It is thus well settled that in motor accident
claim cases, once the foundational fact, namely,
the actual occurrence of the accident, has been
established, then the Tribunal’s role would be to
calculate the quantum of just compensation if
the accident had taken place by reason of
negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle and,
while doing so, the Tribunal would not be
strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties.
Notably, while deciding cases arising out of
motor vehicle accidents, the standard of proof
to be borne in mind must be of preponderance
of probability and not the strict standard of
proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is
followed in criminal cases.”
22. It was similarly held by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the
case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt.
Pushpa Rana and Ors. MAC App. No.360/2007 decided on
20.12.2007, that the certified copy of criminal case record
including charge sheet filed against the driver of the
offending vehicle, certified copy of FIR, recovery memo
and mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle
relied upon by the petitioners were sufficient proofs to
arrive at a conclusion regarding negligence of the driver of
the offending vehicle, because the proceedings under
Motor Vehicle Act were not akin to a civil suit and as such
strict rules of evidence were not supposed to be followed
in such proceedings.
MACT no. 97/19 Page 16 of34
Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs Brahm Pal
23. In another case decided by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
titled as New India Assurance Company Vs Smt. Sakshi
Bhutani and Ors. MACT App. No.550/2011 decided on
2nd July, 2012, it had been similarly reiterated that
negligence was not required to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt in a MACT case and a certified copy of
report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. supported by the mechanical
inspection report of the offending vehicle were sufficient
to depict the manner in which the accident in question had
occurred.
24. In the light of afore cited opinion expressed by Hon’ble
Apex Court in the decided case of Sunita vs Rajasthan
State Road Transport Corporation, (Supra), as well as the
opinion expressed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
the decided case of New India Assurance Company Vs
Smt. Sakshi Bhutani and Ors. (Supra), it can be safely
concluded that the proceedings before the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal(MACT) cannot be rejected merely on
account of non examination of eye witness by the
petitioner and even if the eye witness turns hostile, the
MACT can still arrive at a finding of negligence against
the driver of the offending vehicle on the basis of other
reliable evidence produced by the petitioners.
25. In the present matter, though R1 and R2, in their written
statement, denied the involvement of the offending vehicle
MACT no. 97/19 Page 17 of34
Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs Brahm Pal
in the case accident, or any rashness or negligence on the
part of R1, resulting in the case accident but, R1 and R2
both failed to prove their defence, by leading any positive
evidence, at the stage of respondent’s evidence. At the
stage of respondent’s evidence, R3 has examined the
Investigating officer SI Naveen Kumar as R3W1, who
deposed that the details of the offending vehicle was
received by the first IO, as he received message and
photograph of the offending vehicle, on his mobile number
9968072355 and that the mobile no. of PCR caller, is duly
mentioned in PCR form and DD Entry. There has been no
cross examination of R3W1 by R1 or R2, in denial of the
factum of receiving of alleged message and photograph of
the offending vehicle, by the first IO, or to prove that they
have been falsely implicated in the present matter, by the
police officials, in collusion, with the petitioners.
26. Further, perusal of criminal case record prima facie reveals
that on receipt of notice U/s 133 of M.V Act, R2 gave
information to the IO, that at the time of accident, the
offending vehicle was driven by R1/his driver. Further,
statement of R2 was also recorded by the IO U/s 161
Cr.PC., in which he admitted involvement of the offending
vehicle, in the case accident. Now, it is for R1 and R2, to
prove absence of rashness or negligence, on the part of R1,
in driving the offending vehicle, resulting in the case
accident but, both R1 and R2 failed to lead any evidence,
in this regard.
MACT no. 97/19 Page 18 of34
Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs Brahm Pal
27. Further, there is nothing on record, which will prove that
R1 was falsely implicated in this case by the IO, in
connivance with the petitioners. Further, R1 also failed to
prove that he has ever approached to any higher authority,
with respect to his false implication in the present case.
28. Consequently, in view of the admission of R2, as to the
involvement of the offending vehicle, in the case accident as
well on the basis of criminal case record, wherein, R1 was
shown as the driver of the offending vehicle, responsible for
causing the accident in question, it stands duly proved, that
the accident in question has taken place, due to rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1. Further,
the fact that the deceased Ramesh Chand Ojha suffered fatal
injuries, in the case accident, stands duly corroborated by
the post mortem report of the deceased, as per which, fatal
injuries sustained by the deceased, was due to blunt force
impact.
Issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioners and against
the respondents accordingly.
ISSUE No. 2
Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what
amount and from whom?OPP
29. In view of the findings of this Tribunal, qua issue no.1
regarding negligence of R1, resulting in the occurrence of
the case accident, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion
MACT no. 97/19 Page 19 of34
Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs Brahm Pal
that the petitioners/claimants are entitled, for
compensation, on the account of fatal injuries, sustained by
the deceased Ramesh Chand Ojha, in the above-mentioned
road traffic accident. This Tribunal shall now examine the
entire evidence including the documents of the petitioners/
claimants, for the purpose of arriving at a finding about the
quantum of compensation, to which the petitioners/
claimants are entitled.
30. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold
an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the
amount of compensation, which appears to it to be just and
reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the
compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza
nor it should be niggardly.
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
31. To prove this aspect, Jyoti Devi, wife of the deceased, got
herself examined as PW1. PW1 deposed that the deceased
left behind her and his two sons namely Jitender Ojha and
Naveen Ojha, as his legal heirs. She further deposed that at
the time of his death, the deceased was doing a private job,
earning Rs. 21,000/- per month and was contributing his
income, towards household expenses.
32. But, PW1 failed to prove the alleged occupation and
income of Rs. 21,000/- per month, of her deceased
husband, by placing on record any document. In her
MACT no. 97/19 Page 20 of34
Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs Brahm Pal
evidence, PW1 has placed on record, student registration
and transfer certificate of the deceased as Ex. PW1/14,
which was issued by Rajmata Vaishni Judev Inter College,
Jagmanpur, Jalon, under the signatures of Principal, in
proof of the educational qualification of the deceased.
Perusal of Ex. PW1/14 reveals that the deceased failed in
high school examination therefore, he was non-matriculate,
at the time of accident. Therefore, the income of the
deceased, can be assessed, only as per minimum wages,
payable to a non-matriculate person.
33. The petitioners has placed on record, copy of Aadhar Card
of the deceased, as per which, at the time of accident, the
deceased was shown as resident of B-100, Yadav Nagar,
Samay Pur, North West, Delhi. Accordingly, it stands duly
proved, that at the time of accident, the deceased was
resident of Delhi. Therefore, the monthly income of the
deceased, at the relevant time, has to be calculated, as per
minimum wages, payable to a non-matriculate person, in
the State of Delhi, as on the date of occurrence of the case
accident i.e. on 04.11.2018, which was Rs. 15,400/- per
month.
34. As per the case of the petitioners, the deceased was aged
about 52 years. In her evidence, PW1 has placed reliance
on copy of PAN card and driving license of the deceased as
Ex. PW1/11 and Ex. PW1/12, in which his date of birth has
been mentioned as 20.05.1965 and as the accident in
MACT no. 97/19 Page 21 of34
Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs Brahm Pal
question has taken place on 04.11.2018 therefore, the age
of the deceased, as on the date of accident is accepted as 53
years, 05 months and 15 days. Hence, the multiplier of 11
would be applicable, in view of pronouncement made by
Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as
Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 ACJ 1298 SC.
35. Considering the age of the deceased at the time of accident,
future prospects @ 10% has to be awarded in favour of
petitioners, in view of pronouncement made by
Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as
“National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi &
Ors.” SLP (civil) no. 25590/2014, decided on 31.10.2017,
as well as in view of decision of Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as
“Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja
& Ors“, decided on 02.11.2017.
36. PW1 has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.
PW1/A), that all the petitioners were legal heirs of the
deceased and the deceased was contributing his income
towards household expenses. During the course of her
cross examination by counsel for R3. PW1 deposed that
her both sons were not doing anything and were sitting idle
and that her younger son has obtained degree from IIT
Roorkee, after death of his father. There has been no
evidence, lead by R3, to rebut the said testimony of PW1.
MACT no. 97/19 Page 22 of34
Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs Brahm Pal
Therefore, all the three legal heirs of the deceased, at the
time of accident, which includes his wife and two sons, are
entitled to receive compensation, being dependent upon the
deceased. In such circumstances, the deceased was likely
to spare 1/3 of his income, for his personal and living
expenses and to contribute the remaining 2/3 of his income,
towards household expenses/maintenance of his family
members.
37. Hence, there has to be deduction of one third, as held in the
case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 ACJ 1298 SC. Thus,
the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs.
14,90,720.88/- ( 15,400 + 10% (1,540) = 16,940/- – 1/3rd
(5,646.66) = 11,293.34 x 12 x 11). Hence, a sum of Rs.
14,90,720.88/-, is awarded under this head, in favour of the
petitioners.
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
38. After the celebrated judgment of “National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. mentioned supra
and recent judgment titled New India Assurance Company
Limited versus Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of
2020 dated 07.09.2020, the petitioners are not entitled to be
compensated under this head. Further Hon’ble Delhi High
Court in appeal titled as “Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors“, mentioned supra has
been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the
constitution bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) does
MACT no. 97/19 Page 23 of34
Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs Brahm Pal
not recognize any other non pecuniary head of damages.
Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under
this head.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
39. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case
titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus
Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020, dated
07.09.2020, this Tribunal is of considered opinion that wife
and two sons, of the deceased are entitled for payment of
Rs. 48,400/- each, towards loss of consortium.
Consequently, a sum of Rs. 1,45,200/- (Rs. 48,400/- X 3)
is awarded to the petitioners under this head.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
40. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case
and in view of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of “National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi &
Ors.” mentioned supra, a sum of Rs. 18,150/ each towards
loss of estate and funeral expenses is awarded in favour of
petitioners.
Petitioners/claimants are accordingly entitled to
compensation computed as under:
Loss of financial dependency Rs. 14,90,720.88
Loss of Estate Rs. 18,150/-
Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,150/-
Loss of Consortium Rs. 1,45,200/-
Loss of Love and Affection Nil.
________________
Total Rs. 16,72,220.88 (rounded
off to Rs. 16,72,221/-
MACT no. 97/19 Page 24 of34
Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs Brahm Pal
________________
(Rupees Fifteen lakhs, Thirty Six Thousand, Seven
Hundred One only).
41. In respect of entitlement of the petitioners to interest on the
awarded amount, it is noteworthy that the Hon’ble Apex
Court had in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi
vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ
48 (SC) had observed that the victims of Uphaar Tragedy
be awarded compensation with interest @ 9% per annum.
42. Ld. counsel for petitioners has also placed reliance upon
the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (C) Nos 11340
of 2020 and 22136 of 2024, titled as The Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Niru and Ors. and has argued that
interest @ 9% per annum, be awarded in favour of the
petitioners from the date of filing of their claim petition.
43. However, perusal of the record reveals that issues were
framed in the present matter in the year 2019 and the
petitioners have concluded their evidence on 07.07.2023.
Further, petitioners has examined one eye witness Ram
Kishor Saini and it has already been decided, that he was
even not an eye witness of the case accident. Therefore,
delay in conclusion of trial, is owing to the lapses, on the
part of the petitioners. Therefore, the court does not deem it
fit, to grant interest @ 9% per annum in favour of the
petitioners.
MACT no. 97/19 Page 25 of34
Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs Brahm Pal
44. The present matter is pending trial since 18.02.2019 and
the rate of interest of fixed deposits in Nationalized banks
has fluctuated/dropped several times during the pendency
of the present proceedings. Therefore, in the interest of
justice and keeping in view the judgment titled as United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Baby Raksha & Ors MAC
APP. No. 36/2023 passed by Hon’ble High Court on
21.04.2023, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the
claimant/petitioners are entitled to interest, at the prevailing
bank rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of
petition, that is, with effect from 18.02.2019, till realization
of the compensation amount.
45. The amount of interim award, if any, shall however be
deducted from the above amount, if the same has already
been paid to the petitioners.
LIABILITY
46. In the case in hand, National Insurance Company Ltd./R3,
raised the defence, that IO has falsely implicated the
alleged offending vehicle, in the case accident but,
involvement of the offending vehicle in the case accident,
as well as rashness and negligence of R1, in causing the
accident already stands proved, while deciding issue no. 1
above and since admittedly, the offending vehicle was
insured with R3 therefore, R3 is liable to pay the
compensation amount to the petitioners.
MACT no. 97/19 Page 26 of34
Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs Brahm Pal
47. As the offending vehicle was duly insured with R3,
accordingly, in the case in hand, in terms of order dated
16.05.2017 of Hon’ble High Court by Hon’ble Mr. Justice
J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and
Ors., National Insurance Company Ltd./R3 is directed to
deposit the awarded amount of Rs. 16,72,221/- within 30
days from today within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal,
that is, State Bank of India, Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi
along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the
date of filing of the petition till notice of deposition of the
awarded amount to be given by R3 to the petitioners and
their advocates and to show or deposit the receipt of the
acknowledgment with the Nazir as per rules. R3 is further
directed to deposit the awarded amount in the above said
bank by means of cheque drawn in the name of above said
bank along with the name of the claimants mentioned
therein. The said bank is further directed to keep the said
amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimants
approach the bank for disbursement, so that the awarded
amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of
the cheque.
APPORTIONMENT
48. Separate statement of petitioners in terms of clause 29
MCTAP was recorded on 30.08.2024 regarding savings
bank account of the petitioners with no loan, cheque book
and ATM/debit card. I have heard the petitioners and Ld.
counsel for the petitioners/claimants regarding financial
MACT no. 97/19 Page 27 of34
Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs Brahm Pal
needs of the petitioners and in view of the judgment in the
case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport
Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas and Others, 1994 (2)
SC, 1631, for appropriate investments to safeguard the
amount from being frittered away by the beneficiaries
owing to their ignorance, illiteracy and being susceptible to
exploitation, following arrangements are hereby ordered:-
It is deemed appropriate by this court after hearing
Learned counsels for all parties that maximum amount of
compensation be kept in FDRs and only a very small
amount be released to the claimants. Keeping in view the
facts and circumstances of the case, the statement made by
the petitioners, it is hereby directed that on realization of
the award amount, the compensation to the Petitioners be
distributed as follows:-
Sl. Name/No. of Relationshi Share of Release of Amount Period of
No. petitioner p with amount of award of kept in FDR
deceased award amount. FDR
1 Jyoti Devi Wife
petitioner no. 1 Rs. Rs. 4,72,221/- Rs. 30 months
10,72,221/- 6,00,000/-
2 Jitender Ojha Son Rs. Rs. 1,00,000/- 2,00,000/- 20 months
petitioner no. 2 3,00,000/-
3 Naveen Ojha, Son Rs. Rs. 1,00,000/- 2,00,000/- 20 months
petitioner no. 3 3,00,000/-
49. The amount along with cumulative interest without the
facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without
the prior permission of the Tribunal, in terms of above
mentioned schedule be credited in the saving bankMACT no. 97/19 Page 28 of34
Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs Brahm Palaccounts of petitioners i.e. Petitioner-(1) Jyoti Devi-
38301010631 (2) Jitender Ojha-38278731862 (3) Naveen
Ojha- 32456529200 with SBI, Branch Samey Pur, Delhi
IFSC code no. SBIN0006667, the branch near their place
of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under
clause 29 MCTAP).
50. It shall be subject to the following further conditions and
directions in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 of Hon’ble
Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir
Singh, FAO 842/2003 with respect to 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 victim i.e. the saving bank account(s) of the claimant(s)
shall be individual savings account(s) and not a joint
account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank
in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR
number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity
amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The 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 amount of the FDR(s) be credited by
Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank
account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence
i.e. above said a/c.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature
MACT no. 97/19 Page 29 of34
Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs Brahm Paldischarge be allowed on the fixed deposits without
permission of the court.
(f) The concerned Bank shall not to 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.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank
along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank
official on the pass book(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient
compliance of clause (g) above.
RELIEF
51. As discussed above, National Insurance Company Ltd./R3
is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs. 16,72,221/-
with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of
petition that is, 18.02.2019 till realization within the
jurisdiction of this Tribunal that is, SBI, Rohini Court
Branch, Delhi within 30 days from today under intimation
MACT no. 97/19 Page 30 of34
Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs Brahm Pal
of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3 to
the petitioner and his advocate failing which, the R3 shall
be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum, from the period
of delay beyond 30 days.
52. R3 is also directed to place on record the proof of deposit
of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect
of deposit of the award amount in the above said bank to
the claimants and complete details in respect of
calculations of interest etc. in the court within 30 days from
today.
53. Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of
non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the
granted time.
54. In terms of directions contained in the order dated
07.12.2018 and subsequent order dated 22.02.2019 of
Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in the case of Rajesh Tyagi
and Ors vs Jaibir Singh and Ors., FAO 842/2003, the copy
of the award be also sent by the Ahlmad of the court to Mr.
Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of
India (as per the list of nodal officers of 21 banks of Indian
Bank’s Association as circulated to the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal vide above mentioned order dated
22.02.2019 of Hon’ble Delhi High Court) who is the Nodal
Officer with contact details (022-22741336/9414048606)
{other details-Personal Banking Business Unit (LIMA)
MACT no. 97/19 Page 31 of34
Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs Brahm Pal
13th Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road,
Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021} through email
([email protected]) through the computer branch of
Rohini Courts, Delhi. Ahlmad of the court is directed to
take immediate steps in that regard.
55. A copy of this award be forwarded to the concerned
Metropolitan Magistrate and DLSA in terms of the orders
passed by the Hon’ble High Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh
Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors. vide order dated
12.12.2014.
56. In view of the directions contained in order dated
18.01.2018 of Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in FAO no.
842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, joint
statement of petitioners were also recorded on 30.08.2024
wherein they had stated that they were entitled to
exemption from deduction of TDS and that they would
submit form 15G to insurance co. so that no TDS is
deducted.
57. Form IVA which has been duly filled in has also been
attached herewith. File be consigned to record room as per
rules after compliance of necessary legal formalities. Copy
of order be given to parties for necessary compliance as per
rules. Digitally
signed by
SHAMA
SHAMA GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
Announced in open court (SHAMA GUPTA) 2025.07.19
16:21:56
+0530
on 19th July 2025 P.O. MACT (N/W)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
MACT no. 97/19 Page 32 of34
Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs Brahm PalFORM – IV A
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN
DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 04.11.2018
2. Name of deceased: Ramesh Chand Ojha
3. Age of the deceased: 53 years, 05 months and 15 days
at the time of accident.
4. Occupation of the deceased: not proved
5. Income of the deceased: Rs. 15,400/- p.m.
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of
deceased:
S.No. Name Age Relation
(i) Jyoti Devi 51 years Wife
(ii) Jitender Ojha 32 years son
(iii) Naveen Ojha 29 years son
Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs. 15,400/-
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) 10% = Rs. 1540/-
9. Less-Personal expenses of the 1/3
deceased (C )
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs. 16,940/- - 5,646.66 =
{ (A+B) - C =D}
11,293.34
11. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs. 11,293.34 x 12 =
1,35,520.08
12. Multiplier (E) 11
13. Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE = 11,293.34 x 12 x 11 = Rs.
MACT no. 97/19 Page 33 of34
Jyoti Devi & Ors. Vs Brahm Pal
F) 14,90,720.88
14. Medical Expenses (G) 74,734 Nil
15. Compensation for loss of love and Nil
affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of Rs. 1,45,200/- (48,400×3)
consortium (I)
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs.18,150/-
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs.18,150/-
expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 16,72,220.88 (rounded
(F+G+H+I+J+K =L) off to Rs. 16,72,221/-
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 7.5%
21. Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 8,05,104.73
award (M)
22. Total amount including interest Rs. 24,77,325.73 (rounded
(L+M) off to Rs. 24,77,326//- )
23. Award amount released Rs. 6,72,221/-
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs. 18,05,105/-
25. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms of
amount to the claimant (s) (Clause
clause 29 of MCTAP.
29)
26. Next date for compliance of the 18.08.2025
award. (Clause 31)
Digitally
signed by
SHAMA
SHAMA GUPTAAnnounced in open court (SHAMA GUPTA) GUPTA
Date:
2025.07.19
16:22:03on 19th July 2025 P.O. MACT N/W
+0530Rohini Courts, Delhi
MACT no. 97/19 Page 34 of34
[ad_1]
Source link