Delhi District Court
Mohul Sharma (I)(Petition Out Side) vs Mohd. Aarif (Hdfc Ergo Gen. ) on 2 August, 2025
DLCT010024472018
Presented on : 20.02.2018
Registered on : 21.02.2018
Decided on : 29.07.2025
Duration : 07 Years
05 Months
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER-MACT-02,
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI,
PRESIDED OVER BY DR. PANKAJ SHARMA
MACT No. 187/2018
1. Mohul Sharma
S/o Late Sh. Shelandra Sharma
R/o H.No. 9B, Extn. 2B, Gali No. 13,
Nangloi, West Delhi,
Delhi-110041
2. Garima Sharma
W/o Sh. Tarun Sharma
R/o Plot No. 137, Extension no. 3,
Nangloi, Delhi-110041
3. Prateek Sharma
S/o Late Sh. Shelandra Sharma
R/o G-3, Ground Floor,
Near Sports Complex,
East Vinod Nagar, Kalyanvas,
East Delhi, Delhi-110091
4. Savitri Devi Sharma
W/o Late Sh. Tula Ram Sharma
MACT No. 187/2018 Mohul Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mauo Aarif & Anr. Pages No. 1/30
Digitally
signed by
PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
12:41:08
+0530
R/o Ramdas Nagar Colony,
Sootmill G.T. Road, Aligarh Kol,
Aligarh, U.P.-202001. ......Petitioners.
VERSUS
1. Mouo Aarif
S/o Sh. Noor Mohammad,
R/o Kakrala Khwaspur, Phase-II,
Sector-80, Noida, G.B. Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh (Driver)
2. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd.
At : Ground Floor, Ambadeep Building-14,
Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi-110001 (Insurer)
(Through : Sh. M. Awasthi, advocate).
3. Amjad Khan
S/o Sh. Yasin,
R/o Village Usmanpur, P.S. Dankaur,
Noida, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.
Also at : Kakrala, Phase-II, Noida,
Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. (Owner)
....Respondents.
The particulars as per Form-XVII, Central Motor Vehicles
(fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) are as
under :-
1. Date of the accident 26.12.2017
2. Date of filing of Form-I – First Accident N.A.
Report (FAR)MACT No. 187/2018 Mohul Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mauo Aarif & Anr. Pages No. 2/30
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
12:41:11 +0530
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the victim(s) N.A.
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Driver N.A.
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Owner N.A.
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim N.A.
Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form- N.A.
VIB from the Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII – Detailed N.A.
Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or deficiency N.A.
on the part of the Investigating Officer? If
so, whether any action/ direction
warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated N.A.
Officer by the Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the N.A.
Insurance Company submitted his report
within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or deficiency N.A.
on the part of the Designated officer of the
Insurance Company? If so, whether any
action/ direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the claimant(s) to the N.A.
offer of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 29.07.2025
15. Whether the claimant (s) was/were directed Yes
to open savings bank account(s) near their
place of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) 29.07.2025
was/were directed to open savings bank
account(s) near their place of residence andMACT No. 187/2018 Mohul Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mauo Aarif & Anr. Pages No. 3/30
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
12:41:15 +0530
produce PAN Card and Aadhaar Card and
the direction to the bank not issue any
cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s)
and make an endorsement to this effect on
the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) produced the N.A.
passbook of their savings bank account
near the place of their residence along with
the endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhaar
Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the Same as
Claimant(s). mentioned
above.
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank N.A.
account(s) is near their place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) was/were N.A.
examined at the time of passing of the
award to ascertain their financial condition?
AWARD/JUDGMENT
FACTUAL POSITION & PLEADINGS
1. The petition U/s 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act,
1988 was filed on 21.02.2018 seeking compensation to the tune
of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lac) in respect of the death of
one Sh. Shelandera Sharma S/o Late Sh. Tula Ram Sharma
(hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) due to a motor vehicular
accident dated 26.12.2017 at about 08.30 PM near Subroj
Company, Sector-80, Noida, G.B. Nagar, U.P., involving a
vehicle bearing registration no. UP-16CT-4490 (hereinafter
MACT No. 187/2018 Mohul Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mauo Aarif & Anr. Pages No. 4/30
Digitally
signed by
PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
12:41:17
+0530
referred to as ‘offending vehicle’). As per this petition, at the
relevant date and time, deceased alongwith Rahul, Hakim Singh
and Dinesh Pal was going on foot and when he reached near
Subroj Company, offending vehicle came from behind at a very
high speed, driven most rashly and negligently and hit the
deceased as a result, he fell down on the road and received
serious injuries. He was removed to Prakash Hospital,
Sector-33, Noida where he did on 28.12.2017 due to injuries
received in the accident. An FIR no. 07/2018, PS Phase-II,
District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., U/s 279/304A IPC was
registered. Petitioner no.1, 2 & 3 are children of the deceased
and petitioner no. 4 is mother of deceased. R-1 is stated to be
the owner and R-3 is driver of the offending vehicle. R-2 is
stated to be the insurer of the offending vehicle. This Tribunal
directed the respondents to file written statements in response to
the said petition.
2. Written statement was filed by R-1 & R-3 wherein
the averments made in the petition have been denied. It is
submitted that the accident caused by the negligence of the
deceased as he was walking in the middle of road and all of
sudden came in front of vehicle while R-3 was driving his
vehicle with proper caution and care. On merits, the claim of the
petitioners has been declined by R-1 & R-3 in toto.
MACT No. 187/2018 Mohul Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mauo Aarif & Anr. Pages No. 5/30
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.02
12:41:19
+0530
3. Written statement was filed by R-2 wherein the
averments made in the petition have been denied. It is averred
that upon verification, it was found that the insurance policy so
provided by R-1 is a fake and fabricated document. On merits,
the claim of the petitioners has also been declined by R-2 in
toto.
ISSUES
4. Vide order dated 13.01.2020, the following issues
were framed by Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal:-
(1) Whether the deceased Sh. Shelandra
Sharma suffered fatal injuries in an accident
that took place on 26.12.2017 at about
10.30 PM involving TSR bearing
registration No. UP-16CT-4490 driven by
the Respondent No. 3 rashly and
negligently, owned by the Respondent No.
1 and insured with the respondent no. 2?
OPP.
(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and
from whom?
(3) Relief.
PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
5. In support of contentions, the petitioners examined
MACT No. 187/2018 Mohul Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mauo Aarif & Anr. Pages No. 6/30
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.02
12:41:24
+0530
petitioner no. 1 as PW-1 in petitioner’s evidence.
PW-1 Sh. Mohul Sharma S/o Late Sh. Shelandera
Sharma R/o H.No. 9B, Extension 2B, Gali No. 13, Nangloi,
West Delhi, Delhi-110041, filed affidavit Ex. PW1/A wherein
he described the occurrence of incident in line with the facts
mentioned in Para 1 of this award. He further stated that his
deceased father was working in M/s. Lakshmi Remote India
Pvt. Ltd. and earning Rs.17,000/- per month. It is stated that
they were all dependent on his earnings. He relied upon
following documents:-
Photocopy of his Aadhaar Card is
Ex.PW-1/1;
Photocopy of Aadhaar Card of his brother
Prateek Sharma is Ex.PW-1/3;
Photocopy of Aadhaar Card of his deceased
father is Ex. PW-1/5;
Certified copy of criminal record is
Ex.PW-1/6(colly);
Copy of weekly Gazette of India of 02-12
December 2017 is Ex. PW-1/7;
Photocopy of Aadhaar Card of his sister
Garima Sharma is Mark ‘A’.
Photocopy of Aadhaar Card of his MACT No. 187/2018 Mohul Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mauo Aarif & Anr. Pages No. 7/30 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA Date: SHARMA 2025.08.02 12:41:26 +0530
grandmother Savitri Devi is Mark ‘B’.
He was cross-examined on behalf of respondents.
During cross-examination conducted on behalf of R-2, he
deposed that he is not an eye witness. He deposed that he
came to know about the accident from the Manager of the
company where his father was working. He deposed that he is
working at Lalit Hotel since year 2018. He deposed that his
sister Garima Sharma got married in the year 2019. He
deposed that there are two brothers and three sisters of his
father. He deposed that he does not have any documentary
proof to show that his father was working in M/s.Lakshmi
Remote India Pvt. Ltd. He deposed that he does not have any
documentary proof to show that he was earning Rs.17,000/- per
month at the relevant time. He denied the suggestion that they
were not the dependent upon his father. He denied the
suggestion that the said accident had not taken place involving
the vehicle in question.
During cross-examination conducted on behalf of
R-1 & R-3, he denied the suggestion that no such accident
happened from the offending vehicle. He denied the suggestion
that R-3 was not driving the vehicle at the time of accident.
5.1 Petitioner’s evidence was then closed.
MACT No. 187/2018 Mohul Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mauo Aarif & Anr. Pages No. 8/30
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.02
12:41:29
+0530
6. In respondent’s evidence, R-1 and R-3 examined
R-1 in their defence as R1W1.
R1W1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit
Ex. R1W1/A which bears his signatures at points A & B. He
also relied upon the following documents:-
Copy of RC of vehicle bearing
no.UP-16CT-4490 is Ex. R1W1/1;
Copy of Insurance policy is
Ex.R1W1/2(OSR); and
Copy of permit of aforesaid vehicle is
Ex.R1W1/3.
He was cross-examined on behalf of R-2 and
petitioner. During cross-examination, he deposed that he is
driver by profession but he is the registered owner of the
offending vehicle. He deposed that the offending vehicle used to
drive by respondent no. 3 Amjad. He deposed that he used to
drive heavy vehicles such as Canter. He deposed that he himself
used to get the offending vehicle insured. He affirmed that the
offending vehicle is a passenger carrying three wheeler. He
deposed that the premium was paid to a person who was a tout
sitting outside the authority. He volunteered that the tout said to
him that he is on behalf of authority. He deposed that there was
MACT No. 187/2018 Mohul Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mauo Aarif & Anr. Pages No. 9/30
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.02
12:41:31
+0530
no sign board of the person depicting him name, contact number
and address from whom he obtained the insurance policy. He
deposed that the name of the said person is Anup Joshi. He
deposed that he does not have his contact number. He deposed
that after obtain the Insurance policy, he tried to contact him but
he could not trace him. He deposed that he is continuously
appearing in the present case. He deposed that after the
accident, he was informed by the police official that the
Insurance policy in question is a fake policy. He deposed that he
did not lodge a written complaint with the police official against
the aforesaid Anup Joshi who had issued the fake insurance
policy to him. He denied the suggestion that the offending
vehicle in question was not insured with the Insurance company
covering the date of accident i.e. 26.12.2017. He denied the
suggestion that he has filed false insurance documents on court
record.
7. Respondent no. 2 also examined one witness i.e.
R2W1 Sh.Goura Prasad Das S/o Sh. Pradipta Kishore Das,
Dy.Manager-Legal with HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co.
Ltd., Stellar House, 5th Floor, C-25, Sector-62, Noida, 201301
tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. R2W1/A and he
relied upon the following documents:-
1. Copy of his authority letter alongwith I-Card Ex.R2W1/1;
MACT No. 187/2018 Mohul Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mauo Aarif & Anr. Pages No. 10/30
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.02
12:41:34
+0530
2. Copy of Insurance policy Ex. R1W1/2;
3. Policy format alongwith copy of product code
Ex.R2W1/3 (containing 02 pages);
4. Copy of premium register containing entries from
04.02.2018 to 08.02.2018 alongwith certificate u/s. 63
BSA Ex. R2W1/4; and
5. Copy of police complaint dated 18.07.2025 alongwith
original postal receipts Ex. R2W1/5 (containing 09
pages).
He was cross-examined on behalf of R-1 & R-3 and
petitioner. During cross-examination, he denied the suggestion
that Ex. R1W1/2 is a valid policy and the same was issued from
the office of respondent no. 2 / Insurance company. He denied
the suggestion that the Insurance company has deliberately not
produced the correct record to avoid this liability. He denied the
suggestion that he is deposing falsely in order to avoid the
liability of Insurance company.
ARGUMENTS AND FINDINGS
8. Oral submissions were advanced by Ld. Counsels
for the parties.
9. I have perused the record and my issue wise
findings are as under:-
MACT No. 187/2018 Mohul Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mauo Aarif & Anr. Pages No. 11/30
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
12:41:38 +0530
ISSUE NO. 1“(1) Whether the deceased
Sh.Shelandra Sharma suffered fatal
injuries in an accident that took place
on 26.12.2017 at about 10.30 PM
involving TSR bearing registration
No. UP-16CT-4490 driven by the
Respondent No. 3 rashly and
negligently, owned by the Respondent
No. 1 and insured with the respondent
no. 2? OPP.”
10. It is well settled that the procedure followed for
proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that
followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are
required to be established by preponderance of probabilities
only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable
doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of
proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a
criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles
Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case.
Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla
Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and
others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in
the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir
Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of
MACT No. 187/2018 Mohul Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mauo Aarif & Anr. Pages No. 12/30
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.02
12:41:41
+0530
2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
11. In order to prove the present issue, the petitioners
have examined petitioner no. 1 as PW-1. He deposed that at the
relevant date, time and place, deceased alongwith Rahul, Hakim
Singh and Dinesh Pal was going on foot and when he reached
near Subroj Company, offending vehicle came from behind at a
very high speed, driven most rashly and negligently and hit the
deceased as a result, he fell down on the road and received
serious injuries. He was removed to Prakash Hospital,
Sector-33, Noida where he did on 28.12.2017 due to injuries
received in the accident. PW-1 corroborate the fact of accident
in material particulars. In totality, the oral testimony of PW-1
seems reliable and worth acting upon.
12. It is not denied that R-3 was charge-sheeted for the
offences punishable under Sections 279/304-A IPC in the above
FIR, which in itself is a strong circumstance to support the
above oral testimony of PW-1 and the case of petitioners on this
issue. The certified copies of FIR, charge-sheet and site plan
also corroborate the testimony of PW-1.
MACT No. 187/2018 Mohul Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mauo Aarif & Anr. Pages No. 13/30
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.02
12:41:44
+0530
13. Besides the above, R-3 himself was the best
witness who could have stepped into the witness box to
challenge the deposition being made by PW-1 regarding the
above accident and its manner etc., but he has not done so.
Therefore, an adverse inference on this aspect is also required
to be drawn against the respondents in view of the law laid
down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi)
310.
14. In view of the above, it could be safely assumed
that at the relevant time, the deceased died due to the rash and
negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle being driven
by R-3.
15. Having ruled so, this Tribunal now proceeds to
assess the wrongful act, neglect or default of R-3, if any, at the
relevant time. Admittedly, R-3 has not explained as to why he is
driving his vehicle (i.e. the offending vehicle) speedily and rash
and negligent manner due to which he hit the deceased and
deceased suffered fatal injuries. In the absence of any averment
or evidence regarding any mechanical defect in the offending
vehicle or any material depicting any negligent/sudden act or
omission on the part of the deceased, the only inference
MACT No. 187/2018 Mohul Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mauo Aarif & Anr. Pages No. 14/30
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
12:41:46 +0530
possible in the given facts and circumstances is that of neglect
and default on the part of R-3 due to wrongful and negligent
driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. In view of
the above discussion, this Tribunal is constrained to hold R-3
guilty of gross neglect and default in wrongful and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle at the relevant time.
16. In view of the death certificate and death summary
pertaining to the deceased placed on record by the petitioners,
no dispute is left regarding the death of the deceased on account
of injuries sustained by him in the above accident.
17. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal
holds that the deceased lost his life on account of neglect and
default of R-3 while driving the offending vehicle at the
relevant time. This issue thus stands decided against the
respondents and in favour of the petitioners.
ISSUE NO. 2
“Whether the petitioners is entitled to
any compensation, if so, to what amount
and from whom?”
18. As this Tribunal has already held that R3 was
responsible for the death of the deceased due to his neglect and
MACT No. 187/2018 Mohul Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mauo Aarif & Anr. Pages No. 15/30
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.02
12:41:48
+0530
default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time,
therefore, the petitioners have become entitled to be
compensated for death of deceased in the above accident, but
computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are
required to be decided.
COMPENSATION
19. The compensation to which the petitioners are
entitled shall be under the following heads:-
(i) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
20. In this regard, the petitioners have examined
petitioner no. 1 as PW-1. PW-1 deposed that at the relevant
time, the deceased was 49 years old and at the relevant time,
the deceased was working in M/s.Lakshmi Remote India Pvt.
Ltd. and earning Rs.17,000/- per month. However, petitioners
have not placed any documentary proof in respect to
employment and earnings of the deceased. Therefore, it would
be appropriate that the monthly income of deceased be assessed
as per the minimum wages payable to an unskilled person in
Delhi as on the date of accident(deceased being an ordinary
resident of Delhi at the relevant time). As per relevant
notification, the minimum wages admissible to an unskilled
person as on 26.12.2017 in Delhi were Rs.13,584/- P.M.
MACT No. 187/2018 Mohul Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mauo Aarif & Anr. Pages No. 16/30
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
12:41:51 +0530
20.1 Petitioners have placed on record the copy of
Aadhaar Card of deceased, as per which the age of deceased
was 49 years. Therefore, the age of deceased was 49 years as
on the date of accident. Hence, in view of the law laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which
has also been upheld by the Constitutional Bench of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590
of 2014, decided on 31.10.2017, the multiplier of ’13’ is held
applicable for calculating the loss of dependency caused to the
petitioners on account of death of the deceased.
20.2 Coming to the dependency of deceased at the time
of accident, it may be observed that the deceased was survived
by his three children and mother.
20.3 As deceased was working and he was taking care
of his family consisting of three children and mother, therefore,
the dependency was there to that extent. Therefore, one fourth
of the earnings of deceased shall be deducted towards his
personal and living expenses in view of the law already
discussed above. Further, since this Tribunal has assumed that
the age of deceased was 49 years at the time of accident, in
view of the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi & Ors.
(Supra), the petitioners are also held entitled to an addition of
MACT No. 187/2018 Mohul Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mauo Aarif & Anr. Pages No. 17/30
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
12:41:53 +0530
25% of the above amount of his earnings towards future
prospects.
20.4 Thus, the loss of dependency qua the deceased in
the present case comes to Rs.19,86,660/- (Rs.13,584/- X
125/100 X 3/4 X 13 X 12). This amount is awarded to the
petitioners under this head.
(ii) COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY HEADS
21. In terms of propositions laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rajwati @ Rajjo & Ors. Vs.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 8179/2022
decided on 09/12/2022, the petitioners are also held entitled to
amounts of Rs. 20,000/- each under the heads of loss of estate
and funeral expenses. Further, in view of subsequent judgments
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United India
Insurance Company Ltd Vs Satinder Kaur & Ors
MANU/HC/0500/2020 and The New India Assurance Company
Ltd & Ors Vs Somwati & Ors MANU/HC/0674/2020, the
petitioners are also entitled to compensation under the head
“loss of consortium”: –
Parental Consortium : Rs.48,000/- (Rs.48,000/- X 01)
Filial Consortium : Rs.1,44,000/-(Rs.48,000/-X03)
MACT No. 187/2018 Mohul Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mauo Aarif & Anr. Pages No. 18/30
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
12:41:56 +0530
21.1 Hence, the petitioners are awarded a total sum of
Rs.2,32,000/- (Rs.20,000/- + Rs.20,000/- + Rs.1,92,000/-) under
this head.
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
22. The petitioners are thus awarded a sum of
Rs.22,18,660/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lac Eighteen Thousand
Six Hundred Sixty only) (Rs.19,86,660/- + Rs.2,32,000/-) along
with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR
i.e. 21.02.2018.
RELEASE
23. Petitioners did not bother to appear before this
Tribunal for recording their statements regarding financial
needs and requirements.
23.1 Out of the awarded amount, petitioner no. 1 Mohul
Sharma is awarded a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lac
Only) and the said amount is directed to be kept with State
Bank of India, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in
MACAD in the form of 40 monthly fixed deposit receipts
(FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 40 months
in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Central Motor
Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial
MACT No. 187/2018 Mohul Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mauo Aarif & Anr. Pages No. 19/30
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
12:41:58 +0530
no. 35, 36 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle
Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. The amount of FDRs on
maturity would be released in his savings/MACT Claims SB
Account as and when he furnishes the details of his bank
account which is near the place of his residence to the Bank
Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi
under intimation to this Tribunal. The remaining amount of
Rs.1,04,104/- (Rupees One Lac Four Thousand One Hundred
Four only) is also directed to be released into his above said
account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the petitioner
no. 1.
23.2 Out of the awarded amount, petitioner no. 2
Garima Sharma is awarded a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees
Eight Lac Only) and the said amount is directed to be kept with
State Bank of India, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in
MACAD in the form of 40 monthly fixed deposit receipts
(FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 40 months
in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Central Motor
Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial
no. 35, 36 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle
Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. The amount of FDRs on
maturity would be released in her savings/MACT Claims SB
Account as and when she furnishes the details of her bankMACT No. 187/2018 Mohul Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mauo Aarif & Anr. Pages No. 20/30
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.02
12:42:00
+0530
account which is near the place of her residence to the Bank
Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi
under intimation to this Tribunal. The remaining amount of
Rs.1,04,104/- (Rupees One Lac Four Thousand One Hundred
Four only) is also directed to be released into her above said
account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the petitioner
no. 2.
23.3 Rs.9,04,104/- be kept in FDR in the name of
Petitioner No. 3 Master Prateek Sharma till he attains majority
with cumulative interest. On attaining majority, the bank shall
release the interest portion to petitioner No. 3 by transferring the
same to his savings/MACT bank account. The principal amount
of Rs.9,04,104/- each be kept in 30 FDRs of Rs.30,000/- each
for a period of 1 month to 30 months with cumulative interest in
the name of Petitioner No. 3 Master Prateek Sharma.
23.4 Out of the awarded amount, petitioner no. 4 Savitri
Devi Sharma is awarded a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight
Lac Only) and the said amount is directed to be kept with State
Bank of India, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in
MACAD in the form of 40 monthly fixed deposit receipts
(FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 40 months
in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Central MotorMACT No. 187/2018 Mohul Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mauo Aarif & Anr. Pages No. 21/30
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
12:42:02 +0530
Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial
no. 35, 36 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle
Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. The amount of FDRs on
maturity would be released in her savings/MACT Claims SB
Account as and when she furnishes the details of her bank
account which is near the place of her residence to the Bank
Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi
under intimation to this Tribunal. The remaining amount of
Rs.1,04,104/- (Rupees One Lac Four Thousand One Hundred
Four only) is also directed to be released into her above said
account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the petitioner
no. 4.
23.5 The Bank(s) shall not permit any joint name(s) to
be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts
of the petitioner(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the
petitioner(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and
not a joint account(s). The original fixed deposit shall be
retained by the SBI, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in safe
custody. However, the statement containing FDR number,
FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be
furnished by the bank to the petitioner(s). The maturity
amounts of the FDR(s) be credit by Electronic Clearing System
(ECS) in the savings bank account of the petitioner(s) near theMACT No. 187/2018 Mohul Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mauo Aarif & Anr. Pages No. 22/30
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.02
12:42:05
+0530
place of their residence. No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-
mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without
permission of this Tribunal.
LIABILITY
24. On the point of liability, objection was raised by
R-3/ Insurance Company that upon verification, it was found
that the insurance policy so provided by R-1/owner is a fake
and fabricated document. As per the facts, the Insurance policy
which was purchased by R-1/owner, is a fake policy. Evidence
of R-1 discloses that he purchased that policy from a tout who
was sitting outside the Authority. He did not bother to verify
whether the said person is an authorized agent. Also, his
evidence discloses that the said tout was sitting outside the
Authority and there is no sign board showing his name, contact
number, address and company details. He did not have his
contact number. These facts clearly indicate that R-1 i.e. owner
of the vehicle has purchased the policy from an unverified
source as such he has failed to take due care and caution before
getting Insurance policy. Since the policy is fake, the entire
liability to pay the compensation would fall upon the R-1.
Hence, R-1 is directed to deposit the above award amount
within 30 days from the date of this Award by way of NEFT or
MACT No. 187/2018 Mohul Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mauo Aarif & Anr. Pages No. 23/30
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
12:42:07 +0530
RTGS mode in the account of this Tribunal maintained with
SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (account holder’s name-Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal 02 Central, A/C No. 40743576901,
IFSC Code SBIN0000726) under intimation to the petitioners
and this Tribunal in terms of the format for remittance of
compensation as provided in Divisional Manager Vs. Rajesh,
2016 SCC Online Mad. 1913 (and reiterated by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the orders dated 16.03.2021 and 16.11.2021
titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Union of India & Ors) along with interest @ 9% per annum till
the deposit of the compensation as awarded, failing which it
shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for
the period of delay. He shall inform the claimants as well as
their counsel about the deposit of award amount through
Registered Post under intimation to this Tribunal.
25. A digital copy of this award be given to the parties
free of cost. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award
to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal
Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth
Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of
Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under
Rule 150A)]. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in
Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth
MACT No. 187/2018 Mohul Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mauo Aarif & Anr. Pages No. 24/30
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.02
12:42:13
+0530
Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions mentioned at serial no.
41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents
(under Rule 150A)].
26. Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of
the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for
information.
27. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the
directions passed by the Hon’be High Court of Delhi in MAC
APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021
regarding digitization of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report
and put up the same on 02.09.2025. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.02
12:42:17
+0530
Announced in the open court (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA)
on 02.08.2025 JUDGE, MACT-02 (CENTRAL)
DELHI
MACT No. 187/2018 Mohul Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mauo Aarif & Anr. Pages No. 25/30
FORM – XV, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment)
Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A)
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN
DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident : 26.12.2017
2. Name of the deceased : Sh. Shelandera
Sharma
3. Age of the deceased : 49 years
4. Occupation of the deceased : Private job
5. Income of the deceased : Rs.13,584/- as per
minimum wages of an
Unskilled Person
prevailing in Delhi at the
relevant time
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of
deceased:-
S. Name Age Relation
No.
(1) Mohul Sharma 27 Years Son of the
deceased
(2) Garima Sharma 26 Years daughter of the
deceased
MACT No. 187/2018 Mohul Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mauo Aarif & Anr. Pages No. 26/30
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.02
12:42:20
+0530
(3) Prateek Sharma 17 Years Son of the
deceased
(4) Savitri Devi Sharma 74 Years Mother of the
deceased
Computation of Compensation
Sr. Heads Awarded by the Claims
No. Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased(A) Rs.13,584/- per month
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) 25%
9. Less-Personal expenses of 1/4th deduction has been done
the deceased(C)
10. Monthly loss of Rs.12,735/-
dependency(D)
11. Annual loss of dependency Rs.1,52,820/-
MACT No. 187/2018 Mohul Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mauo Aarif & Anr. Pages No. 27/30
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.02
12:42:22
+0530
12. Multiplier(E) ’13’
13. Total loss of dependency Rs.19,86,660/-
(Dx12xE= F)
14. Medical Expenses(G) Nil
15. Compensation for loss of Rs.1,92,000/-
consortium(H)
(Rs.48,000/-X 04)
16. Compensation for loss of NIL
love and affection (I)
17. Compensation for loss of Rs.20,000/-
estate(J)
18. Compensation towards Rs.20,000/-
funeral expenses(K)
19.
TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.22,18,660/-
(L)
MACT No. 187/2018 Mohul Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mauo Aarif & Anr. Pages No. 28/30
Digitally
signed by
PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
12:42:25
+0530
(F+G+H+I+J+K=L)
20.
RATE OF INTEREST 9%
AWARDED
21.
Interest amount up to the Rs.13,97,756/- (rounded off)
date of award(M)
22.
Total amount including Rs.36,16,416/-
interest (L + M)
23. P1 : Rs. 1,04,104/-
Award amount released P2 : Rs. 1,04,104/-
P4 : Rs. 1,04,104/-
24.
Award amount kept in As per award.
FDRs
25.
Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award.
the award amount to the
petitioner (s)
26.
Next date for compliance 02.09.2025
of the award
MACT No. 187/2018 Mohul Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mauo Aarif & Anr. Pages No. 29/30
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.02
12:42:27
+0530
CONCLUSION
1. As per award dated 02.08.2024.
2. A separate file was ordered to be prepared by the Nazir
with directions to put up the same on 02.09.2025.
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.02
12:42:30
+0530
(DR. PANKAJ SHARMA)
PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL)
DELHI
MACT No. 187/2018 Mohul Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mauo Aarif & Anr. Pages No. 30/30