Delhi District Court
Kiran Dang vs Satvir on 28 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA
DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No. 884/18
FIR no. 245/2018
PS: Bahadrabad, Haridwar, Uttar Pradesh.
U/s 279/337/304A IPC
CNR No. DLSE01-007615-2018
Kiran Dang & Ors. Vs. Satvir & Ors.
1. Kiran Dang (wife of deceased)
2. Rahul Dang (son of deceased)
3. Sahil Dang (Son of deceased)
4. Lakita Dang (Minor daughter of deceased)
All R/o C-76, Dayanand Colony, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi -24.
...Claimants/LRs of deceased
Versus
1. Satvir
S/o Sh. Girraj
R/o Vill. Kirsoli, PO/PS Kirsoli,
Tehsil Iglas, Distt. Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh.
..... Driver / R-1
2. Vikrant Chaudhary
S/o Sh. Lakhan Singh
R/o Vill. & PO- Khedi, Gautam Budh Nagar
Uttar Pradesh.
..... Owner/ R-2
MACT No. 884/18 Kiran Dang & Ors. Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 1 of 31
3. M/s Shriram Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.
202-2023, 2nd Floor, Suneja Tower-1,
Prof. Jogender Singh Marg, Janakpuri Distt. Center,
New Delhi-58.
..... Insurance Company/R-3
Date of accident : 10.06.2018
Date of filing of petition : 15.09.2018
Date of Decision : 28.07.2025
AWARD
"In a case of death, the legal heirs of the claimants cannot expect
a windfall.
Simultaneously, the compensation granted cannot be an apology
for compensation".
(As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of
National Insurance Company Limited.- v Pranay Sethi And
Others (2017 SCC Online Sc 1270)
1. CLAIM PETITION
1(a) This Claim Petition under Section 166 and 140 M.V. Act
was filed on 15.09.2018 by Smt. Kiran Dang, Sh. Rahul Dang,
Sh. Sahil Dang and Ms. Lakita Dang, (hereinafter called the
claimants/ LRs of deceased) on account of fatal injury sustained
by Late Sh. Kishore Kumar Dang (hereinafter referred as
deceased) allegedly in an accident which took place on
10.06.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. UP
16DT 1656 (hereinafter referred as Offending Vehicle), driven by
Sh. Satvir (hereinafter referred as R-1), owned by Sh. Vikrant
Chaudhary (hereinafter called R-2) and insured with M/s Shriram
Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as R-3).
MACT No. 884/18 Kiran Dang & Ors. Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 2 of 31
2. BRIEF FACTS :
2 (a). On 10.06.2018 at about 04.00 AM, enroute Delhi to
Haridwar, near Kaur College, Uttar Pradesh, claimant Kiran
Dang, along with her husband Late Sh. Kishore Kumar Dang and
other family members including Madhu Bangia, Suraj, Shaily
Nangoa and others travelling in an Omni Bus/ Force Motors /
Travellers bearing Reg. No. UP 16BT 1656 went off the road due
to speedy and rash driving and turned turtle upon falling in the
ditch, causing serious accidental injuries to its passengers
including Kiran Dang, Kishore Kumar Dang. Sh. Kishore Kumar
Dang later died during treatment on 25.06.2018. FIR was
registered at PS Bhadrabad, Haridwar on 21.07.2018,
Investigation was undertaken. Mechanical Inspection of the
offending vehicle was got done. Driver of the offending vehicle
was charge sheeted for causing death and injuring public persons
on a public way.
2 (b) It is stated that deceased was employed as a sales person in
a shop at Lajpat Rai Market, New Delhi, earning about Rs.
17,000/- per month. It is stated that deceased was survived by his
wife, unmarried major sons, aged 21 & 23 years of age and a
minor daughter aged 17 years. It is also stated that deceased was
sole bread earner of his family and all the petitioners were
financially and emotionally dependent upon the deceased. A
compensation amount of Rs. 80 lakhs has been sought.
3. Proceedings:
3(a) All the respondents appeared in response to notice of claim
petition and filed their replies respectively.
MACT No. 884/18 Kiran Dang & Ors. Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 3 of 31
4. Reply:
4(a). In WS filed on behalf of R-1, it is submitted that R-1 has
falsely been implicated in this matter and that he had a valid DL
at the time of accident. The averments of the petitions were
broadly denied.
4(b) In WS on behalf of R-2, it is stated that there is no
evidence to show that petitioners were travelling in the offending
vehicle.
4(c). In WS filed on behalf of Insurance Company, it is stated
that the offending vehicle was being run without permit and
fitness. Further, driver was not holding proper Driving License. It
is averred there was willful intentional breach of terms and
condition of policy by insured and therefore, insurance company
denied its liability to indemnify the insured to pay compensation
to the victims.
5. Issues:
5(a) From the pleadings of parties, following issues were
framed vide order dated 16.07.2019:
1) Whether the deceased suffered fatal injury in
a road traffic accident on 10.06.2018 involving
vehicle no. UP 16DT 1656 driven by R-1,
owned by R-2 and insured with R-3 ? OPP.
2) Whether the claimants are entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from
whom ? OPP.
3) Relief.
6. Evidence:
6(a) Matter was then listed for evidence. PW-1 Smt. Kiran
MACT No. 884/18 Kiran Dang & Ors. Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 4 of 31
Dang, as wife of deceased stepped in the witness box and
tendered her evidentiary affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied upon
following documents:
(i) Ex. PW1/1 (colly)- Copy of her Aadhar Card and PAN
Card
(ii) Ex.PW1/2 - Copy of Aadhar Card of deceased
(iii) Ex.PW1/3 - Copy of criminal case records
(iv) Ex.PW1/4 - Original Medical Bill
(v) Ex.PW1/5 - Copy of Death Certificate of deceased
(vi) Ex.PW1/6 - Copy of Registration Certificate of Delhi
Shop and Establishment Act, 1954, in the name of Kishore
Kumar.
(vii) Ex.PW1/7 (colly)- Photocopy of Aadhar Card and PAN
Card of children of deceased.
6(b) PW-1 Smt. Kiran Dang was cross examined by counsel for
insurance company.
6(c) PW-2 Sh. Kamlesh, In-charge, MRD Metro Hospital and
Heart Institute produced the summoned record i.e. copy of
medical bills of injured amounting to Rs. 8,550/-.
6(d) Petitioner Evidence was closed vide order dated
18.10.2023. Matter was then listed for Respondent Evidence.
6(e) R3W1 Sh. Nishant, official of Insurance Company
tendered his Evidentiary Affidavit as Ex.R3W1/A. He relied
upon Insurance Policy as Ex.R3W1/1, copy of Notice u/O XII
Rule 8 CPC as Ex.R3W1/2 and Postal Receipt as Ex.R3W1/3
(colly). He was cross examined by counsel for claimant.
6(f) Respondent Evidence was closed vide order dated
02.03.2024. Matter was then listed for final arguments.
MACT No. 884/18 Kiran Dang & Ors. Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 5 of 31
7. Final Arguments:
7(a). Final Arguments were advanced by counsel for claimant as
well as counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company.
7(b) Counsel for claimant argued that accident happened solely
on account of the reckless on the part of the driver of the
offending vehicle. He has further deposed that there is no dispute
about the involvement or identification of the offending vehicle
and the driver thereof. He further submitted that the death of
accident victim has shattered the entire family.
7(c). Counsel for Insurance Company has fairly conceded that
offending vehicle has valid insurance policy as on the date of
accident. He has contended that the vehicle was being run
without permit which constitutes willful breach of terms and
conditions of insurance policy. He also pointed out that notice
u/O XII Rule 8 CPC was served upon the owner but was not
answered. He also stated that necessary evidence in that respect
has already been led.
8. Discussion:
ISSUE NO.1
1) Whether the deceased suffered fatal injury in
a road traffic accident on 10.06.2018 involving
vehicle no. UP 16DT 1656 driven by R-1,
owned by R-2 and insured with R-3 ? OPP.
8(a). PW-1 Kiran Dang deposed that she along with her family
members including her husband had boarded the offending
vehicle as paid passengers for commuting to Haridwar/ Rishikesh
on 09.06.2018 at about 11.30 AM. She further deposed that on
MACT No. 884/18 Kiran Dang & Ors. Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 6 of 31
10.06.2018 at about 04.00 AM, near Kaur College, the driver
attempted to overtake another vehicle in high speed from wrong
side due to which it lost its balance and went off the road and
turned turtle in a ditch causing accidental injuries to the
occupants of the offending vehicle. She deposed that her husband
died due to fatal injuries whereas she and her relative Madhu
Bambia received grievous injuries. She was put to detailed cross
examination by counsel for insurance company as well as by
counsel for R-1. With respect to necessary details about the
accident, she clarified that 16 family members were travelling in
the said Tata Travellor and and as such there was no stranger
other than her family member as passengers. She clarified that
Haridwar was half away from the spot of accident. She also
pointed that there was a divider on the Delhi - Haridwar Road
but there was no railing besides the road while their vehicle was
being plied on the left side of the road when the accident
occurred and the driver tried to overtake another vehicle from the
left side resulting in the accident. She also stated that the driver
did not suffer any injuries rather jumped and fled away from the
spot of accident while there was no helper or conductor in the
said vehicle. She declined the suggestion that the accident
occurred on account of mechanical fault of the said vehicle. She
also clarified that she as well as her husband had cautioned the
driver to drive safely. She declined the suggestion that driver
took all necessary precaution and was driving safely and was not
responsible for the accident. She also pointed that she got the FIR
registered after about a month of accident as she had suffered
serious injuries also as she lost her husband in the ill fated
accident.
MACT No. 884/18 Kiran Dang & Ors. Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 7 of 31
8(b) It is noted that Smt. Madhu Bangia was also examined as
one of the injured in connected matter wherein she deposed on
the same as the deposition of PW-1 Kiran Dang. She also
admitted that the offending vehicle got disbalanced and turned
turtle resulting in the road accident. She also denied that the
accident happened on account of mechanical fault of the vehicle
and asserted that vehicle was being plied in high speed.
8(c) Delay in registration of FIR has been duly explained by the
witnesses. There seems to be no dispute in identification of the
vehicle as there was no other vehicle involved. Similarly, identity
of driver of the offending vehicle is evident. Counsel for the
respondents have not been able to elicit any contradiction in the
testimony of the injured persons/ eye witnesses who have
detailed the circumstances causing the accident. The testimony of
eye witnesses looks natural and convincing. There is no reason to
doubt the credibility of the deposition or veracity of the
witnesses.
8(d) R-1 has been charge sheeted for causing death to victim
due to speedy and rash driving of the offending vehicle. R-1,
being the driver was the best person to divulge crucial details
leading to the accident, however, he has chosen not to testify
about the contextual circumstances of the accident. R-3/
Insurance Company could also have called upon R-1 as driver of
the offending vehicle to testify about the facts and circumstances
of the accident, however, same was not resorted to. It is settled
that filing of charge sheet itself is a significant step towards the
inference of negligence on the part of driver of the offending
MACT No. 884/18 Kiran Dang & Ors. Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 8 of 31
vehicle. (Support drawn from the Judgment in the case of
National Insurance Company Vs. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287
Delhi as referred and relied by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in case of Ranjeet & Anr. Vs. Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr SLP (C)
No. 10351/2019). It is also settled that adverse inference can be
drawn against the driver of the offending vehicle in case he does
not appear as a witness to depose and clarify about his stance in
respect of the accident. (support drawn from the judgment in the
case of Cholamandlam insurance company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh
2009 (3) AD Delhi 310.)
8(e) It is a well-established legal principle that negligence in
motor accident cases should be determined based on the
preponderance of probabilities, not on proof beyond reasonable
doubt. The facts and circumstances must be considered in a
broad and practical manner. It is also settled that proceedings
under the Motor Vehicles Act are different from regular civil
suits and are not strictly governed by the technical rules of the
Indian Evidence Act. (as observed by Their Lordships of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bimla Devi &
Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors. , (2009) 13
SCC 530 further referred and relied by Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India in recent pronouncement in the case of Mathew
Alexander vs Mohammed Shafi SLP (Crl) No.8211 of 2022).
8(f). The entirety of the evidence discussed points to the
inescapable conclusion that the accident resulted from the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. In
light of the aforementioned findings, Issue No. 1 is hereby
decided in favor of the petitioners and against the respondents.
MACT No. 884/18 Kiran Dang & Ors. Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 9 of 31
ISSUE NO.2
2) Whether the claimants are entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom ?
OPP.
9. Section 168 MV Act enjoins the Claim Tribunals to hold
an enquiry into the claim to make an effort determining the
amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and
reasonable. Same is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
(1) Award of the Claims Tribunal.--On receipt of an
application for compensation made under section 166, the
Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to
the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an
opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as
the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the
provisions of section 162 may make an award determining the
amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and
specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall
be paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall
specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner
or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any
of them, as the case may be: Provided that where such
application makes a claim for compensation under section 140
in respect of the death or permanent disablement of any person,
such claim and any other claim (whether made in such
application or otherwise) for compensation in respect of such
death or permanent disablement shall be disposed of in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter X.
(2) The Claims Tribunal shall arrange to deliver copies of the
award to the parties concerned expeditiously and in any case
within a period of fifteen days from the date of the award.
(3) When an award is made under this section, the person who
is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall,
within thirty days of the date of announcing the award by the
Claims Tribunal, deposit the entire amount awarded in such
manner as the Claims Tribunal may direct.
10. Before putting in frame the position of law, it is noted that
the process of determining the compensation by the court is
essentially a very difficult task and can never be an exact science.
Perfect compensation is hardly possible, more so in claims of
injury and disability. (As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Sidram Vs. The Divisional Manager United
MACT No. 884/18 Kiran Dang & Ors. Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 10 of 31
India Insurance Company Ltd, SLP (Civil) No. 19277 of 2019).
11. The basic principle in assessing motor vehicle
compensation claims, is to place the victim in as near a position
as she or he was in before the accident, with other compensatory
directions for loss of amenities and other payments. These
general principles have been stated and reiterated in several
decisions. [Support drawn from Govind Yadav v. New India
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683.]
12. This Tribunal has been tasked with determination of just
compensation. The observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty and
Another, (2003) 7 SCC 197, needs mention here (para 15):
"Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must
be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit but
the same should not be a pittance. The courts and tribunals have
a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of
compensation, which should be just. What would be "just"
compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule
applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a
limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise
mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular
facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special
features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing
compensation has to be considered in the background of "just"
compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use
of the expression "which appears to it to be just", a wide
discretion is vested in the Tribunal, the determination has to be
rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome
of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness.. ..."
13. Delineating the damages as pecuniary and non pecuniary,
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case of R. D. Hattangadi Vs.
Pest Control (India) Pvt Ltd, 1995 AIR 755, made following
observations:
"9....while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a
MACT No. 884/18 Kiran Dang & Ors. Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 11 of 31
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 are capable of being calculated in terms of
money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are
incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In
order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may
include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical
attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial;
(iii) other material loss. So far non- pecuniary damages are
concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and
physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to
be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of
amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on
account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or
sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on
account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned
is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort,
disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."
14. In The Landmark Case of National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi And Others (2017 SCC Online SC
1270), decided by constitutional bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India, regarding the concept of 'just compensation' it was
held :
"................55. Section 168 of the Act deals with the concept of
"just compensation" and the same has to be determined on the
foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on
acceptable legal standard because such determination can never
be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is
to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical
precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an
individual case. The conception of "just compensation" has to
be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and
non-violation of the principle of equitability. In a case of death,
the legal heirs of the claimants cannot expect a windfall.
Simultaneously, the compensation granted cannot be an apology
for compensation. It cannot be a pittance. Though the discretion
vested in the tribunal is quite wide, yet it is obligatory on the
part of the tribunal to be guided by the expression, that is, "just
compensation". The determination has to be on the foundation
of evidence brought on record as regards the age and income of
the deceased and thereafter the apposite multiplier to be applied.
The formula relating to multiplier has been clearly stated in
Sarla Verma and it has been approved in Reshma Kumari . The
MACT No. 884/18 Kiran Dang & Ors. Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 12 of 31
age and income, as stated earlier, have to be established by
adducing evidence. The tribunal and the courts have to bear in
mind that the basic principle lies in pragmatic computation
which is in proximity to reality. It is a well-accepted norm that
money cannot substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made
for grant of just compensation having uniformity of approach.
There has to be a balance between the two extremes, that is, a
windfall and the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum. In such
an adjudication, the duty of the tribunal and the courts is
difficult and hence, an endeavour has been made by this Court
for standardisation which in its ambit includes addition of future
prospects on the proven income at present..................."
15. Further about the principles relating to Assessment of
compensation in case of death, it was held in Pranay Sethi (supra)
that detailed analysis of Sarla Verma (SMT) And Others Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation And Another (2009 Scc Online Sc
797) is necessary as in the said case, the Court recapitulated the
relevant principles relating to assessment of compensation in case
of death. In fact , Hon'ble SC in Pranay Sethi (supra) mainly
relied and approved the earlier judgment of Sarla Verma( Supra)
read with Reshma Kumari[( 2013) 9 SCC 65 : (2013) 4 SCC
(Civ) 191 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 826 ], with some modification,
regarding all the aspects like aspect of multiplier, the steps and
guidelines stated in para 19 of Sarla Verma for determination of
compensation in cases of death, future prospects, deduction to be
made towards personal and living expenses.
16. PW-1 Smt. Kiran Dang deposed that her husband was
employed as sales person of readymade clothes, earning about
Rs. 17,000/- per month. She stated that her husband was tailor by
profession, however, she admitted that there is no record of any
shop or establishment apart from document identified as
Ex.PW1/6 (Copy of Registration Certificate of Delhi Shop and
Establishment Act, 1954, in the name of Kishore Kumar)
MACT No. 884/18 Kiran Dang & Ors. Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 13 of 31
admitting that there were no renewal records available after the
year 1989. Although there was no formal document pertaining to
educational or technical qualification, there is enough clarity that
her husband worked as a tailor from the establishment as part of
their residence itself and was not a labour. Accordingly, income
of deceased is considered as per minimum wages for a skilled
workman applicable in the State of NCT of Delhi at the time of
accident which was Rs. 16,858/- per month.
17. As per Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/2, year of birth of deceased
was 1965, therefore, deceased was about 53 years of age at the
time of accident. As deceased was between the age of 50 to 60
years (at the time of accident) and had a fixed salary and thus
having regard to ratio and direction in Pranay Sethi (Supra) and
other case laws, the percentage towards future prospect is taken
to be @ 10 %.
Step No- 1 : Ascertainment of Multiplicand:
18. Further, as per evidence on record, deceased left behind his
wife, two major sons, aged about 22 years and 24 years
respectively and one minor daughter, aged about 17 years. It has
been asserted that all the family members were financially
dependent upon the deceased. There is no dispute regarding the
dependency of the wife and minor daughter of the deceased.
PW-1 deposed that both her sons were not engaged in any work
or earning at the time of the accident. Although, no educational
documents or other supporting material have been filed on record
to establish that they were studying or otherwise dependent. In
the absence of such evidence, the major sons cannot be
MACT No. 884/18 Kiran Dang & Ors. Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 14 of 31
considered as dependents upon the deceased. Accordingly, only
the wife and the minor daughter are held to be dependents. It is
held in Sarla Verma (Supra) that deduction towards personal and
living expenses of the deceased should be 1/3rd where number of
legal heirs are 2 to 3. As such, deduction toward personal
expenses of deceased is taken as one-third.
Step No- -2 : Ascertainment of Multiplier:
19. Since the deceased was aged about 53 years as on the date
of accident, thus as tabulated in the case of Sarla Verma (supra),
multiplier of 11 is applicable.
Step No- -3 : Actual Calculation ( actual loss/loss of
dependency):
20. In view of the backdrop of above factual and legal discern,
the calculation in the present case is as under:
20.1. Annual income of the deceased.
(Rs. 16,858/- per month x 12) = Rs.2,02,296/-
20.2. Future prospect
(10 % of Rs.2,02,296/-) = Rs. 20,230/-
------------------
20.3. Total = Rs.2,22,526/-
===========
20.4. Deduction for personal expenses
(1/3 of Rs.2,22,526/-) = (-)Rs.74,175/-
20.5. Multiplicand
(Rs.2,22,526/- (-) Rs.74,175/-) = Rs. 1,48,351/-
20.6. As such, the total loss of dependency is:
MACT No. 884/18 Kiran Dang & Ors. Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 15 of 31
Rs. 1,48,351/- (multiplicand) x 11 (multiplier) = Rs.16,31,861/-
21. Grant of Loss of Estate, Loss Of Consortium And Funeral
Expenses:
21(a). In respect of above heads, following observations as
relevant to the context were made in Pranay Sethi (supra):
”……………46. Another aspect which has created confusion
pertains to grant of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral
expenses…..
.
.
52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it
difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh . It has
granted Rs 25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,000
towards loss of consortium and Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of care
and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of
care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to
Santosh Devi , it does not seem to follow the same. The
conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be
determined on percentage basis because that would not be an
acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said
heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a
reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that
price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a
field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to
the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise,
there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and
unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation
lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the
orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be
unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums.
It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads,
namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses
should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The
principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle.
But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We
think that it would be condign that the amount that we have
quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every
three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in
a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that
will bring in consistency in respect of those heads.
.
.
59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of
MACT No. 884/18 Kiran Dang & Ors. Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 16 of 31
estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs
15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The aforesaid
amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three
years……………”
21(b). The above reproduced observations entail that Their
Lordship in Pranay Sethi (Supra), intended to avoid immense
variations and instead ensure consistency in awarding
compensation under conventional head. the claimants are also
entitled to certain sums towards grant of loss of estate, loss of
consortium and funeral expenses.
21(c). Observations made in the case of Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130, by
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also clarify about compensation
as consortium towards/ against death of a dear one:
“This Court interpreted “consortium” to be a compendious term,
which encompasses spousal consortium, parental consortium, as
well as filial consortium. The right to consortium would include
the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection
of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a
spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased
spouse.
Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature
death of a parent, for loss of parental aid, protection, affection,
society, discipline, guidance and training.
Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in
the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to
the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents
and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to
lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for
their love and affection, and their role in the family unit.
Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognized that the value
of a child’s consortium far exceeds the economic value of the
compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most
jurisdictions permit parents to be awarded compensation under
loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded
to the parents is the compensation for loss of love and affection,MACT No. 884/18 Kiran Dang & Ors. Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 17 of 31
care and companionship of the deceased child.
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation which
has been framed with the object of providing relief to the
victims, or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case
where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or
daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of
consortium under the head of Filial Consortium.
Parental Consortium is awarded to the children who lose the
care and protection of their parents in motor vehicle accidents.
The amount to be awarded for loss consortium will be as per the
amount fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra).
At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide uniformity
with respect to the grant of consortium, and loss of love and
affection. Several Tribunals and High Courts have been
awarding compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of
love and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi
(supra), has recognized only three conventional heads under
which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of
consortium and funeral expenses.
In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a comprehensive
interpretation to consortium to include spousal consortium,
parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. Loss of love
and affection is comprehended in loss of consortium.
The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to award
compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate
conventional head. There is no justification to award
compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate
head.”
21(d). Periodic uniform enhancement have also been
mandated in case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Thus, applying the
criteria, a sum of Rs.18,150/- for cremation expenses; and
Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate is also payable.
21(e). Further, on the date of accident, deceased had left
behind, his wife, two major sons and one minor daughter.
Admitting them to spousal and parental consortium, each of them
them is held entitled to Rs. 48,400/-.
MACT No. 884/18 Kiran Dang & Ors. Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 18 of 31
Total Award Amount
22. Thus the amount comes to Rs.16,31,861/- (+) Rs 18,150/-
(Loss to estate) + Rs.18,150/-( funeral expenses) + Rs.1,93,600/-
(loss of consortium) = Rs. 18,61,761/-.
23. Further, claimants have also relied upon medical bills
Ex.PW1/4 and Mark A, amounting to Rs. 10,300/-. Therefore,
total compensation amount comes to Rs. 18,72,061/- (Rs.
18,61,761/- + Rs. 10,300/-).
24. Interest:
24(a). It is settled that any fixed rate of interest cannot be
prescribed for all cases at all times and would largely depend
upon the prevailing rate of interest as per the applicable
guidelines. As such, interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is
deemed fit and accordingly granted in the present case. (Reliance
placed upon National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Yad Ram
MAC APP 526/2018 also referred and relied in case of The
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors. MAC
APP 70/2024 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court).
25. Liability:-
25(a) Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company has asserted that the
offending vehicle was plied without a valid permit. As such other
defences like infractions in the authorisation of the Driving
License and Fitness Certificate were also contended in the
Written Statement. However, in evidentiary affidavit, Insurance
Company has restricted the defence to no permit as on the date of
accident.
MACT No. 884/18 Kiran Dang & Ors. Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 19 of 31
25(b) It is contended that the insured violated the terms and
conditions of the insurance company, thereby absolving R-3 of
any liability to indemnify the insured in this case. The Insurance
Company presented Sh. Nishant, official of Insurance Company
who provided the records pertaining to the offending vehicle i.e.
Insurance Policy (Ex.R3W1/1) as well as notice under Order 12
Rule 8 CPC and Postal Receipt as Ex.R3W1/2 & Ex.R3W1/3
respectively. He deposed that despite service of notice,
Respondent Owner did not produce his permit. There is no
evidence on record that the owner ever replied to the notice under
Order XII Rule 8 CPC and produced permit or authorisation
receipt factually covering the date of accident.
25(c) The vehicle particulars filed by petitioners as part of claim
petition, which is also not disputed, mentions that the permit in
question is an ‘All India Permit’ issued from RTO Office
Ghaziabad with a validity from 09.10.2015 to 08.10.2020,
however any specific region has not been mentioned for which
permit authorisation has been used. It is evident that accident
occurred in the jurisdiction of Bhadrabad, Haridwar. It is also
settled that any permit issued by RTA shall be valid only for
plying in state/ region unless specifically authorised for
contiguous / other States. Section 88 of MV Act is reproduced
hereunder:
MACT No. 884/18 Kiran Dang & Ors. Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 20 of 31
“88. Validation of permits for use outside region in which
granted. – (1) Except as may be otherwise prescribed, a permit
granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any one region
shall not be valid in any other region, unless the permit has been
countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority of that other
region, and a permit granted in any one State shall not be valid
in any other State unless countersigned by the State Transport
Authority of that other State or by the Regional Transport
Authority concerned:
25(d) It is not in dispute that offending vehicle was holding All
India National Permit as on the date of accident. Explanation
appended to Section 88 (12) MV Act defines National Permit
which reads as under:
“national permit means a permit granted by the appropriate
authority to goods carriages to operate throughout the territory
of India or in such contiguous States not being less than four in
number, including the State in which the permit is issued as may
be specified in such permit in accordance with the choice
indicated in the application.”
25(e) Section 88 (12) MV Act authorises issuance of National
Permit to cover all India mobility of Transport Vehicle which
reads as under:
“12. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), but,
subject to the rules that may be made by the Central
Government under sub-section (14), the appropriate authority
may, for the purpose of encouraging long distance inter-State
road transport, grant in a State, national permits in respect of
goods carriages and the provisions of sections 69, 77, 79, 80, 81,
82, 83, 84, 85, 86, [clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 87
and section 89] shall, as far as may be, apply to or in relation to
the grant of national permits.”
25(f). Section 81 MV Act lays down the law in respect of
renewal of permit. It would be relevant at this stage to refer Sec.
81 MV Act for further discussion:
MACT No. 884/18 Kiran Dang & Ors. Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 21 of 31
“(1)………
(2) A permit may be renewed on an application made not less
than fifteen days before the date of its expiry.
(3)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), the
Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority, as
the case may be, may entertain an application for the renewal of
a permit after the last date specified in that sub-section if it is
satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient
cause from making an application within the time specified.
(4)…………..
(5) Where a permit has been renewed under this section after the
expiry of the period thereof, such renewal shall have effect from
the date of such expiry irrespective of whether or not a
temporary permit has been granted under clause (d) of section
87, and where a temporary permit has been granted, the fee paid
in respect of such temporary permit shall be refunded.”
25(g) In case at hand, permit itself was valid for mobility across
Indian Territory. However, the details of permit do not reflect
whether applicable authorisation fee was paid by owner of the
vehicle for validly plying in the State of Uttrakhand.
25(h) It is settled that authorisation validity is pivotal in permit
verification so as to ply the vehicle outside state. Certain
observations of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Mohd.
Manzoor & Anr. Vs. Khuyabuda Khatun & Ors. MAC App
401/2016 as relevant to the context are reproduced as under:
4. A division bench of Kerala High Court had the occasion to go
into similar issues in a judgment reported as MC Sunil Vs.
Regional Transport Officer, Palakkad and Ors., AIR 2005 Kerala
221. Since the view taken in the said judgment commends itself
being followed in view of the relevant provisions of law, the
relevant observations appearing therein need to be referred to.
5. Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines “national
permit” by clause (c) of the explanation appended thereto to
mean “a permit granted by the appropriate authority to goods
carriages to operate throughout the territory of India or in such
contiguous States, not being less than four in number including
the State in which the permit is issued as may be specified inMACT No. 884/18 Kiran Dang & Ors. Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 22 of 31
such permit in accordance with the choice indicated in the
application”. Mere taking of a national permit from the State
Transport Authority is not sufficient to allow a vehicle to be
plied outside the State. For such purposes i.e. plying the vehicle
outside the State where it is registered, there is a need
for “authorization”. Such authorization is issued by the State
Transport Authority upon payment of “authorization fee”, an
expression which is defined by clause (b) in the explanation
appended to Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act so as to mean
“the annual fee not exceeding one thousand rupees, which may
be charged by the appropriate authority of a State to enable a
motor vehicle, covered by the permit referred to in sub-sections
(9) and (12) to be used in other State subject to the payment of
taxes or fees, if any, levied by the States concerned”.
25(i) The term ‘authorisation fee’ has been defined in
Explanation to Section 88 MV Act which reads as under:
“88(b) authorisation fee means the annual fee, not exceeding one
thousand rupees, which may be charged by the appropriate
authority of a State to enable a motor vehicle, covered by the
permit referred to in sub-sections (9) and (12) to be used in other
States subject to the payment of taxes or fees, if any, levied by
the States concerned;
25(j) Rule 87 MV Act lays down the procedure and validity of
authorisation which reads as under:
“87. Form, contents and duration of authorisation.–(1) An
application for the grant of an authorisation for a national permit
shall be made in Form 46 and shall be accompanied by a fee of
Rs. 500 per annum in the form of a bank draft.
(2) Every authorization shall be granted in Form 47 subject to
the payment of the taxes or fees, if any levied by the States
concerned.
(2-A) The authority which grants the authorisation shall inform
the State Transport Authorities concerned the registration
number of the motor vehicle, the name and address of the permit
holder and the period for which the said authorisation is valid.
(3) The period of validity of an authorisation shall not exceed
one year at a time.”
25(k) It is evident from the record that the permit of the
offending vehicle was valid on the date of the accident. The
MACT No. 884/18 Kiran Dang & Ors. Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 23 of 31
primary issue, however, is whether the vehicle was authorised to
operate within the State of Uttarakhand. Directions were issued
for furnishing details about Permit and Authorisation to relevant
Authority. In pursuant to direction, Permit details along with the
Vehicle History Report were submitted, which indicate that the
permit in question was issued under the category of All India
Tourist Permit. The record further reflects that an amount of
Rs.500/- was paid on 25.09.2017 towards the ‘Renewal of Permit
and Authorisation’. Payment / fee of Rs.500/- was also deposited
on 14.10.2016 for the same purpose in the previous year. It can
thus be reasonably inferred that the authorisation under the
permit is renewed annually, and accordingly, the renewal in
September 2017 would be valid up to September 2018. Since the
accident occurred on 10.06.2018, the authorisation was valid at
the relevant time. Authorisation fee paid on 25.09.2017 was
towards authorisation to ply Tourist vehicles across India
including State of Uttrakhand. Therefore, it stands established
that the offending vehicle was operating under a valid permit and
valid authorisation at the time of the accident. Accordingly, the
objection raised by the Insurance Company regarding the absence
of a valid permit or without authorisation on the date of the
accident is found to be without merit and is hereby rejected.
25(l). Insurance Company has conceded valid and effective
Insurance Policy on the date of accident. It has already been held
that accident occurred on account of speedy and rash driving of
offending vehicle. It is settled that Insurance Company is
responsible to indemnify owner / insured for vicarious liability
incurred by tort feaser. Therefore, such principal award
MACT No. 884/18 Kiran Dang & Ors. Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 24 of 31
amount/compensation will be payable by the insurance company
of offending vehicle with simple interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the
date of filing of petition till actual realization. (If there is any
order regarding excluding of interest for specific period same be
complied at the time of calculation of award amount).
26. The award amount shall be deposited by the Insurance
Company. Counsel for the Insurance Company is also directed to
furnish the complete case details, including the MACT case
number, CNR number, FIR number, name of Police Station,
name of the deceased/claimant(s), date of accident, and any other
relevant particulars, to the State Bank of India, Saket Court
Branch, New Delhi at the time of getting the amount deposited.
The amount shall be deposited through RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in the
account titled “MACT FUND PARKING”, Account No.
00000042706870765, IFSC Code SBIN0014244, MICR Code
110002342, under intimation to the Nazir of this Tribunal.
27. Release of Award Amount/ Disbursement
(a) Share of wife of deceased: Out of the total award amount,
Rs.14,75,261/- is awarded to wife of deceased with proportionate
interest (to the principle amount) up to date interest out of which
Rs. 12,00,000/- along with interest is kept in form of monthly
FDR of Rs. 15,000/- each. Remaining amount along with
proportionate up to date interest shall be released in her bank
account near her place of residence.
(b) Share of claimant no. 2 Rahul Dang & 3/ Sahil Dang /sons
of deceased: Out of the total award amount, Rs. 48,400/- each
with proportionate interest (to the principle amount) up to date
MACT No. 884/18 Kiran Dang & Ors. Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 25 of 31
interest is awarded to claimant no.2 & 3/ sons of deceased and
whole amount shall be released to them in their bank account
near their place of residence.
(c) Share of minor daughter of deceased : Out of the total award
amount, Rs. 3,00,000/- with proportionate interest (to the
principle amount) up to date interest is awarded to minor
daughter of deceased. Since is major now as per document,
whole amount shall be released to her in her bank account near
her place of residence.
28. In terms of the Practice Directions issued by Hon’ble High
Court, vide reference no. 134/Rules/DHC, dated 14.05.2025, the
claimant (s) are directed to produce their bank account details
along with either a certificate of the banker giving all details of
the bank account of the person or persons entitled to receive the
compensation including IFS Code, or a copy of cancelled cheque
of the bank account to this Tribunal with seven days of the date
of Award, if not already placed on record. They are also directed
to file their Aadhar Card and PAN Card if not already filed.
29. Directions to the Branch Manager, SBI, Saket Court
Complex
29(a). The Manager, SBI, Saket Court Complex, is further
directed to verify the documents and details submitted by the
claimant pertaining to their bank account, and upon proper
verification, under certification of the Branch Manager (of the
bank whose details have been provided by the claimant for
release of the compensation amount) disburse the amount,
directed to be released to the claimant, directly into the verified
bank account of the claimant under notice to the Tribunal.
MACT No. 884/18 Kiran Dang & Ors. Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 26 of 31
30. Directions with respect to Fixed Deposit:
(a) As per Practice Directions, Hon’ble High Court, vide
reference no. 134/Rules/DHC, dated 14.05.2025, the bank shall
invest the amount to be deposited in fixed deposit with any
nationalised bank and fixed deposit shall be with the standing
instructions to the bank to renew the same after periodical
intervals till further orders are passed by the Tribunal.
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name (s) to be added in
the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of victim i.e.
the savings bank account of the claimant shall be individual
savings bank account and not a joint account.
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in
safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number,
FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be
furnished by bank to the claimant.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing
System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near
the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR (s) be credited by
Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of
the claimant near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be
allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/ or
debit card to claimant (s). However, in case the debit card and/ or
cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the
same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank
shall debit freeze the account of the claimant so that no debit
card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant from any
other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the
claimant to the effect, that no cheque book and / or debit card
have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission
of the Court and claimant shall produce the passbook with theMACT No. 884/18 Kiran Dang & Ors. Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 27 of 31
necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed
for compliance.
31. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD IN DEATH
CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1. Date of accident 10.06.2018
2. Name of deceased Kishore Kumar Dang
3. Age of the deceased 53 years
4. Occupation of the deceased Not proved
5. Income of the deceased 16,858/-
32. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of
deceased:
S No. Name Relation
(i) Kiran Dang Wife
(ii) Sahil Dang Son
(iii) Lakita Dang Minor daughter
33. Computation of compensation:-
S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
1 A. Income of the deceased per year Rs.2,02,296/-
2 B. Add-Future Prospects 10% of A (per Rs. 20,230/-
year)
3 C. Total Rs. 2,22,526/-
4 D. Less-Personal Expenses of the deceased Rs.74,175/-
1/3 of (C)
5 E. Yearly loss of dependency [C -D] Rs.1,48,351/-
MACT No. 884/18 Kiran Dang & Ors. Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 28 of 31
6 F. Multiplier. 11
7 G. Total loss of dependency (E x F = G) Rs.16,31,861/-
8 H. Medical Expenses Rs.10,300/-
9 I. Compensation for loss of consortium Rs.1,93,600/-
10 J. Compensation for loss of estate Rs. 18,150/-
11 K. Compensation towards funeral expenses Rs. 18,150/-
12 M. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.18,72,061/-
total of G+H+I+J+K =L
13 Deduction if any Nil
14 Total amount after deduction: Rs.18,72,061/-
13 O. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED: @ 9% per annum
14 Award amount kept in FDRs Rs. 12,00,000/-
15 Award amount released Remaining principal
award of Rs.6,72,061/-
PLUS interest @ 7.5%
p.a. on total principal
award amount from date
of filing of petition till
actual realization of
principal amount
awarded.
16 Mode of disbursement of the award amount
to the claimant (s). (Clause 29) (a) Share of wife of
deceased: Out of the total
award amount,
Rs.14,75,261/- is
awarded to wife of
deceased with
proportionate interest (to
the principle amount) up
to date interest out of
which Rs. 12,00,000/-
MACT No. 884/18 Kiran Dang & Ors. Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 29 of 31
along with interest is kept
in form of monthly FDR
of Rs. 15,000/- each.
Remaining amount along
with proportionate up to
date interest shall be
released in her bank
account near her place of
residence.
(b) Share of claimant
no. 2 Rahul Dang & 3/
Sahil Dang /sons of
deceased: Out of the
total award amount, Rs.
48,400/- each with
proportionate interest (to
the principle amount) up
to date interest is
awarded to claimant no.2
& 3/ sons of deceased
and whole amount shall
be released to them in
their bank account near
their place of residence.
(c) Share of minor
daughter of deceased :
Out of the total award
amount, Rs. 3,00,000/-
MACT No. 884/18 Kiran Dang & Ors. Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 30 of 31
with proportionate
interest (to the principle
amount) up to date
interest is awarded to
minor daughter of
deceased. Since is major
now as per document,
whole amount shall be
released to her in her
bank account near her
place of residence.
19 Next Date for reporting compliance of the 28.07.2025
award (Clause 31)
34. Copy of this award be given to the parties free of
cost. The copy of award be sent to Ld. Secretary, DLSA and Ld.
Concerned Criminal Court. Digitally signed
SHELLY by SHELLY
ARORA
Announced in the open court ARORA Date: 2025.07.28
16:32:20 +0530
on 28.07.2025
Shelly Arora
PO (MACT)-02, SE/Saket/Delhi
28.07.2025
MACT No. 884/18 Kiran Dang & Ors. Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 31 of 31