Delhi District Court
Parmod Singh (Lrs Of Shobha) vs Ramjeev (Driver) on 23 July, 2025
MACP No. 262/24; FIR No. 747/23; PS. Alipur DOD:23.07.2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA MANCHANDA, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 262/24
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-003774-2024
1. Sh. Pramod Singh,
S/o Sh. Bachan Singh,
(Husband of deceased)
2. Ms. Shanvika,
D/o Sh. Pramod Singh
(Minor Daughter of deceased)
..........Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Ramjeev,
S/o Late Sh. Phool Singh,
R/o 112, Bhim Colony,
Near Subhash Chowk,
Bakhtawarpur, Delhi.
(Driver)
2. Sh. Rajiv,
S/o Late Sh. Phool Singh,
R/o 112, Bhim Colony,
Near Subhash Chowk,
Bakhtawarpur, Delhi.
(Registered Owner)
Pramod Singh & Ors. Vs. Ramjeev & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 1 of 21
MACP No. 262/24; FIR No. 747/23; PS. Alipur DOD:23.07.2025
3. Kotak Mahindra General Insurance Co. Ltd.
H-78, 7th Floor,
23, Himalya House,
K.G. Marg,
Delhi.
(Insurer) ............Respondents
Date of Institution : 15.03.2024
Date of Arguments : 18.07.2025
Date of Judgment : 23.07.2025
APPEARENCE(S):
Sh. Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Ld. Counsel for petitioners.
None for driver and owner (defence struck off vide order dated
08.11.2024).
Sh. S.K. Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for insurance company.
Petition under Section 166 & 140 of M.V. Act, 1988
for grant of compensation
AWARD
1. By way of present judgment/award, I shall dispose of the DAR
filed by the investigating agency which has been converted into a claim
petition under section 166(4) of M. V. Act 1988 for grant of compensation to
the petitioners who are Lrs of deceased victim namely Smt. Shobha Devi,
aged about 29 years in the road accident on 28.10.2023 at about 7:22 AM at
Mijoram Lions Eye Hospital, Bakhtwarpur, Delhi, involving vehicle bearing
registration no. DL-8CBF-6715 (alleged offending vehicle) being driven in a
rash and negligent manner by its driver (Respondent no.1 herein).
Pramod Singh & Ors. Vs. Ramjeev & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 2 of 21
MACP No. 262/24; FIR No. 747/23; PS. Alipur DOD:23.07.2025
2. The concise material facts relevant to decide the present claim
are that on 28.10.2023, deceased Smt. Shobha alongwith her friend
Priyanka(injured in the present accident) were going to Mijoram Lions Eye
Hospital, Akbarpur Mazra, Delhi by Scooty bearing registration no. DL4S-
DF-2395 which was being driven by Priyanka Verma. At about 8:23 AM,
when they reached in front of Mojiram Lions Eye Hospital, Akbarpur Mazra,
Delhi, Priyanka Verma turned the scooty towards the hospital in the right side
after giving the indicator and crossed the road, in the meantime, one Swift
Car bearing registration no. DL8C-BF-6715 which was being driven by its
driver at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, came from Palla
Village and hit the aforesaid scooty with a great force, as a result of which,
Shobha fell down on the road and sustained injuries. Thereafter, she was
taken to Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi, where she died during the course of
treatment. Postmortem on the body of deceased was conducted at BJRM
Hospital, Delhi vide PMR No. 1251/2023. A case U/s 279/337 IPC was
registered at PS. Alipur vide FIR No. 747/23 with regard to the accident in
question. The petitioners have claimed that the accident has taken place due
to rash and negligent driving of aforementioned offending vehicle which was
allegedly being driven by respondent no.1/driver. The offending vehicle was
found to be owned by respondent no. 2 and was duly insured with respondent
no. 3/Kotak Mahindra General Insurance Co. Ltd., at the time of accident in
question.
Pramod Singh & Ors. Vs. Ramjeev & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 3 of 21
MACP No. 262/24; FIR No. 747/23; PS. Alipur DOD:23.07.2025
3. The respondents no. 1 & 2 i.e., driver and owner failed to file
their WS despite grant of sufficient time and opportunities. Consequently,
their defence was struck off vide order dated 08.11.2024.
4. In the present case, the respondent no. 3/insurance company has
filed its legal offer to the tune of Rs. 10,41,230/-(after deduction of 50%
towards contributory negligence) for the fatal injury suffered by the deceased
in the accident in question which was not acceptable to the petitioners.
5. From the pleadings of the parties and the documents, following
issues were framed vide order dated 08.11.2024:-
1) Whether deceased Shobha has died in the road
traffic accident on 28.10.2023 at about 7:22 am Near
Mojiram Lions Eye Hospital, Palla Bakhtawarpur Road,
Majra, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS. Alipur due to
rashness and negligence on the part of Sh. Ramjeev/R1
who was driving vehicle bearing registration no.
DL8CBF-6715 owned by Rajiv and insured with Kotak
Mahindra General Insurance Company Ltd./R3?OPP.
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation
if so, to what extent and from which of the respondents?
OPP.
3) Relief.
6. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners have examined two
witnesses i.e. Sh. Pramod Singh (husband of deceased) as PW-1 and
Ms. Priyanka Verma (alleged eyewitness) as PW-2 and their evidence was
Pramod Singh & Ors. Vs. Ramjeev & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 4 of 21
MACP No. 262/24; FIR No. 747/23; PS. Alipur DOD:23.07.2025
closed vide order dated 24.03.2025. On the other hand, no evidence was
adduced by any of the respondents.
7. This Tribunal has carefully perused DAR, evidence led by
petitioners has been duly appreciated. All documents and material relied upon
perused and considered. Arguments addressed by counsels for the petitioners
and insurance company considered. Legal position, both statutory and
binding applicable precedents, has been appreciated. The issue wise
determination is as under:-
ISSUE NO. 1
8. For the purpose of this issue, the testimony of PW2
Ms. Priyanka Verma (alleged eyewitness) is relevant. She deposed in her
evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW2/A) that on 28.10.2023, she alongwith
her friend namely Shobha was going for their job at Mijoram Lions Eye
Hospital, Akbarpur Mazra, Delhi on her scooty bearing no. DL4S-DF-2397,
which was being driven by her at correct side of the road. She further
deposed that at about 8:22 am, when they reached in front of Mojiram Lions
Eye Hospital, Akbarpur Mazra, Delhi, she turned the scooty towards the
hospital in the right side after giving the indicator and crossed the road, in the
meantime, one Swift Car bearing registration no. DL8C-BF-6715 which was
being driven by its driver at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent
Pramod Singh & Ors. Vs. Ramjeev & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 5 of 21
MACP No. 262/24; FIR No. 747/23; PS. Alipur DOD:23.07.2025
manner, came from Palla Village side and hit their scooty with a great force,
as a result of which, Shobha fell down on the road and sustained grievous
injuries. She further deposed that thereafter, she was taken to Lok Nayak
Hospital, Delhi, where she died during the course of treatment. She further
deposed that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of
driver of the offending vehicle and FIR No. 747/22 has been registered
against the driver of the offending vehicle.
9. During her cross-examination on behalf of insurance company,
she deposed that she knew the traffic rules. She deposed that she had no
licence at the time of alleged accident. She admitted that a Kalandra had been
filed by the police officials u/s. 3/181 M.V. Act and he had deposited Rs.
1,000/- in the court. She further deposed that she was driving her scooty at
the speed of 40 Kmph prior to the accident. She deposed that it was a single
road where the accident had taken place. She further deposed that she had not
seen the alleged offending vehicle prior to the accident. She further deposed
that the alleged offending vehicle was coming from her front side. She further
deposed that she had seen the alleged offending vehicle just after crossing the
road. She further deposed that the accident took place on the left side of the
road in front of the hospital. She denied the suggestion that the said accident
was occurred due to her own negligence as she was taking turn without
looking the traffic, which was coming from front side.
10. It is evident from the testimony of PW2 that the respondents
Pramod Singh & Ors. Vs. Ramjeev & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 6 of 21
MACP No. 262/24; FIR No. 747/23; PS. Alipur DOD:23.07.2025
could not impeach her testimony through litmus test of cross-examination
and said witness is found to have successfully withstood the test of cross-
examination. Moreover, it is an undisputed fact that FIR No. 747/23 u/s
279/338/304A IPC & 134/187 M.V. Act was registered at PS. Alipur with
regard to accident in question. Copy of said FIR would show that same was
registered on 28.10.2023 on the basis of DD Entry No. 0016A with regard to
accident call received in PS. Alipur on 28.10.2023. The presence of PW2 at
the spot of accident at the time of accident can be substantiated by seeing the
list of witnesses annexed alongwith the chargesheet filed in the criminal case
wherein name of PW2 is mentioned at S.No. 1. On the other hand,
respondents have not examined any witness in order to rebut the testimony
of PW1 in this regard during the course of inquiry. Hence, there is no reason
to disbelieve his uncontroverted testimony on the point of accident in
question being caused by respondent no. 1 while driving the offending
vehicle. The contents of said FIR would show that the complainant has
disclosed therein the same sequence of facts leading to the accident as
deposed by PW1 in her evidence. Hence, there is no possibility of any false
implication of driver of offending vehicle or false involvement of the said
vehicle in this case.
11. It is pertinent to note that the respondent no.1/driver of offending
vehicle was the other material witness to throw light by testifying as to how
and under what circumstances, the accident has taken place. However, he has
Pramod Singh & Ors. Vs. Ramjeev & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 7 of 21
MACP No. 262/24; FIR No. 747/23; PS. Alipur DOD:23.07.2025
preferred not to enter into the witness box. Thus, an adverse inference is
liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question has
taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the
respondent no.1. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners had
any enmity with the driver of the offending vehicle so as to falsely implicate
him in this case. Reliance placed on Cholamandalam MS General Insurance
Co. Ltd. V. Kamlesh & Ors, MAC APP. No. 530/2008 passed by Hon’ble
Delhi High Court on 11.11.2008.
12. Moreover, it is an undisputed fact that FIR No. 747/2023(supra)
was registered at PS. Alipur with regard to accident in question. Copy of said
FIR (which is part of DAR) would show that same was registered on the date
of accident itself i.e., 28.10.2023. Thus, FIR is shown to have been registered
promptly and without any delay. Hence, there is no possibility of false
implication of driver of the offending vehicle and/or false involvement of
offending vehicle at the instance of petitioners herein.
13. Apart from above, copy of PM Report (which is part of DAR) of
deceased Smt. Shobha, would show that her cause of death was septicemic
shock as a result of head injury consequent upon blunt force/surface impact.
All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. The injuries as noted in the
relevant column with regard to external injuries, as mentioned therein, are
consistent with the injuries which are sustained in motor vehicular accident.
Again, there is no challenge to the aforesaid document from the side of
Pramod Singh & Ors. Vs. Ramjeev & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 8 of 21
MACP No. 262/24; FIR No. 747/23; PS. Alipur DOD:23.07.2025
respondents.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has
come on record, it is held that the petitioners have been able to prove on the
basis of preponderance of probabilities that deceased Shobha had sustained
fatal injuries in the road accident which took place on 28.10.2023 at about
7:22 AM at Mijoram Lions Eye Hospital, Bakhtwarpur, Delhi, due to rash
and negligent driving on the part of respondent no. 1/driver of the offending
vehicle. Thus, this issue is decided in favour of petitioners and against the
respondents in all the DAR petitions.
ISSUE NO. 2
15. The petitioners who are claimants are the husband and minor
daughter of deceased. It is evident that the petitioners have actually suffered
monetary loss and mental agony due to death of deceased. Accordingly,
petitioners are entitled for just and fair compensation in the present case.
16. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 enjoins upon 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. The guiding principles for assessment of “just and reasonable
compensation” in fatal case has been laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India, in case titled as Smt. Anjali & Ors., Vs. Lokendra Rathod & Ors, in
Pramod Singh & Ors. Vs. Ramjeev & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 9 of 21
MACP No. 262/24; FIR No. 747/23; PS. Alipur DOD:23.07.2025
Civil Appeal No. 9014 of 202, decided on 06.12.2022 that: –
“The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (for short, “MV Act“) gives paramount
importance to the concept of ‘just and fair’
compensation. It is a beneficial legislation
which has been framed with the object of
providing relief to the victims or their
families. Section 168 of the MV Act deals
with the concept of ‘just compensation’
which ought to be determined on the
foundation of fairness, reasonableness and
equitability. Although such determination can
never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an
endeavor should be made by the Court to
award just and fair compensation irrespective
of the amount claimed by the applicant/s. In
Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr.3, this Court has laid
down as under:
“16.”Just compensation” is adequate
compensation which is fair and equitable, on
the facts and circumstances of the case, to
make good the loss suffered as a result of the
wrong, as far as money can do so, by
applying the well settled principles relating to
award of compensation. It is not intended to
be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit.”
17. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the compensation should
be just and is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be
niggardly or a pittance. Reliance is placed on 2012 (8) SLT 676 titled K.
Pramod Singh & Ors. Vs. Ramjeev & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 10 of 21
MACP No. 262/24; FIR No. 747/23; PS. Alipur DOD:23.07.2025
Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The aforesaid Principle of law has
also been reiterated by a landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court in
2017 (13) SCALE 12 : 2017 XI AD (SC) 113 titled National Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. Accordingly, the quantum of appropriate and
adequate compensation to the victim of road accident is to be derived after
assessment of various relevant parameters, as per law. Hereinafter,
assessment is divided into several criteria, as applicable to the facts of the
present case.
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
18. The claimants/petitioners are the husband and minor daughter of
deceased. PW1 Sh. Pramod Singh (husband of deceased) has deposed in his
evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A that deceased was aged about 29
years; she was working as Receptionist at Private Hospital and was also
giving tuition at her home and was earning Rs. 31,000/-(approx) per month in
total .He further deposed that both the petitioners were dependent upon the
deceased at the time of accident as she was the only earning member in the
family. She has relied upon the following documents:-
S.No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of Aadhaar Card of Ex PW1/1(OSR)
deceased
2. Copy of Death Certificate of Ex.PW1/2(OSR)
deceased
3. Copies of Educational Ex. PW1/3(OSR)(Colly)
documents of deceased
Pramod Singh & Ors. Vs. Ramjeev & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 11 of 21
MACP No. 262/24; FIR No. 747/23; PS. Alipur DOD:23.07.2025
4. Copy of Aadhaar Card of Ex. PW1/4(OSR)
minor daughter of deceased
5. Copy of School I Card of Mark A
minor daughter of deceased
6. Copy of his Aadhaar Card Ex. PW1/5(OSR)
7. DAR Ex. PW1/6(colly)
19. During cross-examination of PW1 (husband of deceased) on
behalf of insurance company, he deposed that he is working as a Cook in
Garwal Punjabi Tadka Hotel and earning Rs. 22,000/- per month. He further
deposed that his deceased wife was working as Receptionist in Mojiram
Lions Eye Hospital, Akbarpur Majra, Delhi. He admitted that he had filed
offer letter alongwith Ambulance and salary slip of his wife which was issued
by the hospital and exhibited the same as Ex. PW1/DX3/1(Colly). He further
admitted that his wife was drawing salary of Rs. 12,100/- per month from the
above said hospital. He deposed that his wife was not an income tax payee.
He admitted that he had not filed any document to show that his wife was
earning Rs. 31,000/- per month except the salary slip of Rs. 12,100/-. He
admitted that he was not an eyewitness to the accident in question. He
admitted that he had not filed any document to show that his deceased wife
was giving tuition at home. He denied the suggestion that he was not
dependant upon the income of his deceased wife at the time of alleged
accident as he was earning handsome salary.
Pramod Singh & Ors. Vs. Ramjeev & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 12 of 21
MACP No. 262/24; FIR No. 747/23; PS. Alipur DOD:23.07.2025
20. Ld. Counsel for petitioners vehemently argued that income of
deceased should be considered as Rs. 31,000/- per month. He further argued
that since deceased was not having permanent job and she was aged about 29
years at the time of accident, future prospects @ 40% should also be awarded
in favour of the petitioners.
21. Before assessing income of deceased of relevant period, it is also
relevant to note here that while deciding claim petition under M.V Act, this
Tribunal follows the principles of justice, equity and good conscience while
adopting a realistic, pragmatic and liberal approach, as per law. At the same
time, it is no more res-integra that claim petition filed under relevant
provisions of M.V Act, is the outcome of social welfare legislation and the
proceedings are summary in nature and do not require strict compliance of
rules of evidence and pleadings. The purpose of granting compensation is to
alleviate the sufferings of the victims of Motor Vehicle Accidents and this
Tribunal as specially designated Judicial Forum is to rise alone hyper
technicalities and strict implication being derived of its jurisdiction from
beneficial legislation.
22. On behalf of the petitioners, husband of the deceased vide his
testimony as PW1 has testified that deceased was working as Receptionist in
a private hospital and was also giving tuition at home and was earning Rs.
31,000/- per month at the time of accident. PW1 has filed copy of educational
Pramod Singh & Ors. Vs. Ramjeev & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 13 of 21
MACP No. 262/24; FIR No. 747/23; PS. Alipur DOD:23.07.2025
qualification documents of deceased. There is nothing on record by way of
affirmative evidence or cross-examination of the petitioner’s witness which
has been able to create any doubt in the veracity of the testimony of PW1 or
challanged or rebutted petitioner’s evidence. The relevant date for
assessment of earning of the deceased is the date of his unfortunate demise
i.e. date of accident 28.10.2023. It is duly established on record that the
deceased was working as Front Desk Executive/Receptionist in Mojiram
Lions Eye Hospital, Palla Road, Delhi @ monthly salary of Rs. 12,000/-vide
her offer for appointment Ex. PW1/DX3/1. However, as per the educational
qualification documents filed on record, deceased was graduate at the time of
accident. As per The Minimum Wages Act, the minimum wages of a graduate
person in the State of Delhi was Rs. 23,082/- per month as on the date of
accident i.e. 28.10.2023. The monthly income of deceased, as on the date of
accident i.e. 28.10.2023 is assessed as Rs. 12,000/- per month as aforesaid.
Although, the deceased was getting monthly salary of Rs. 12,000/- but she
could not have been employed by anyone at the rate lower than the minimum
wages prevalent during the period. In view of the aforesaid, I am inclined to
accept the monthly income of deceased as per minimum wages of a graduate
person prevalent in Delhi during the period in question. The minimum wages
of a graduate person were Rs. 23,082/- per month in Delhi as on the date of
accident i.e. 28.10.2023.
Pramod Singh & Ors. Vs. Ramjeev & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 14 of 21
MACP No. 262/24; FIR No. 747/23; PS. Alipur DOD:23.07.2025
23. As per the case of petitioners, deceased Smt. Shobha was aged
about 29 years at the time of accident. It is pertinent to note that petitioners
have filed copy of 10th class (which is part of Ex. PW1/3 colly) of deceased
wherein her date of birth is mentioned as 07.12.1994. Thus, she was about 29
years as on the date of accident(date of accident being 28.10.2023). Hence,
the multiplier of 17 would be applicable in view of pronouncement made by
Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as “Sarla Verma Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation“, 2009 ACJ 1298 SC which has been reaffirmed
by the pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the
case titled as “National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.“,
passed in SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17.
24. Considering the fact that deceased was not having permanent job
at that time, future prospects @ 40% 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.” Civil Appeal No. 6961/2015 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 02.11.17.
25. After referring to the ocular testimony of PW1, counsel for
petitioners argued that both the petitioners should be considered as
financially dependent upon deceased in order to calculate the loss of
Pramod Singh & Ors. Vs. Ramjeev & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 15 of 21
MACP No. 262/24; FIR No. 747/23; PS. Alipur DOD:23.07.2025
dependency and appropriate amount should be awarded to them under this
head. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for insurance company vehemently
argued that husband of deceased cannot be termed as financially dependent
upon deceased.
26. PW1 Sh. Pramod Singh has categorically deposed in his
evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that both the petitioners were
dependent upon the deceased at the time of accident. Ld. Counsel for
insurance company argued that husband of deceased was not dependent upon
the deceased at the time of accident and there was only one dependant upon
the deceased who is minor daughter of deceased. After considering the entire
facts as apparent on record and the fact that the petitioner no. 1/husband of
deceased was also definitely dependent upon his wife/deceased for her
household services and other services. It is held that there were two
dependents upon the deceased i.e. husband and one minor daughter of
deceased at the time of accident and there has to be deduction of one third as
held in the case of Sarla Verma mentioned supra. Thus, the total loss of
dependency would come out to Rs. 43,94,812.80p (Rs. 23,082/- X 2/3 X
140/100 X 12 X 17). Hence, a sum of Rs. 43,94,812.80p is awarded under
this head in favour of the petitioners.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
27. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
case titled as, Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Tribunal considers that both the
Pramod Singh & Ors. Vs. Ramjeev & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 16 of 21
MACP No. 262/24; FIR No. 747/23; PS. Alipur DOD:23.07.2025
petitioners are entitled for payment of Rs. 40,000/- each towards “loss of
consortium”. By way of pronouncement of Pranay Sethi case (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to hold that there shall be
an increase of 10% on account of ‘inflation’ after a period of three years.
Applying, the afore-cited binding law the The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Ltd. V. LR‘s of Sukhbir Singh, MAC. APP.
518/2013 vide judgment pronounced on 13.07.2023 has been pleased to
direct the entitlement of dependents to 10% increase under this head, though,
the date of accident was of 2011 and the date of impugned award was of
2013. Accordingly, both the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs. 48,400/-
each (Rs. 40,000/- + 10% of Rs. 40,000/- + 10% of Rs. 44,000/-) each
towards “loss of consortium”.[As per the judgment Pranay Sethi(Supra), two
escalations of 10% each is awarded since the date of accident in the present
matter is 28.10.2023]
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
28. 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 Pranay Sethi (supra)
which has been re-enforced in LR’s of Sukhbir Singh (supra), the Tribunal
considers that both the petitioners are also entitled for payment of
Rs. 18,150/- (Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 16,500/-) on
account of “loss of estate” and for equal payment of Rs. 18,150/-
(Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 16,500/-) towards “funeral
Pramod Singh & Ors. Vs. Ramjeev & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 17 of 21
MACP No. 262/24; FIR No. 747/23; PS. Alipur DOD:23.07.2025
expenses”. [As per the judgment Pranay Sethi(Supra), two escalations of 10%
each is awarded since the date of accident in the present matter is
28.10.2023]
29. Therefore, on the basis of the above discussion, the
compensation is quantified as below:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 43,94,812.80p
2. Loss of Consortium Rs. 96,800/-
3. Loss of Estate & Funeral Rs. 36,300/-
Expenses
Total Rs. 45,27,912.80p
Rounded off to Rs. 45,28,000/-
30. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which
of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Respondent no.
3/insurance company has not claimed exemption on account of any statutory
breach as envisaged u/s.149(2) MV Act. It is nowhere the case of insurance
company that any term or condition of insurance policy was
breached/violated by insured. Keeping in view the existence of valid
insurance policy of the offending vehicle for the relevant period and in the
absence of any statutory defences available to the insurance company,
Pramod Singh & Ors. Vs. Ramjeev & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 18 of 21
MACP No. 262/24; FIR No. 747/23; PS. Alipur DOD:23.07.2025
insurance company concerned is legally liable to pay the compensation
amount, as determined hereinabove. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF
31. In view of my finding on issues no. 1 & 2, I award a sum of Rs.
45,28,000/- (including interim award amount, if any) alongwith interest @
7.5% per annum w.e.f date of filing the claim petition i.e. 15.03.2024 till the
date of its realization, in favour of Lrs of deceased/petitioners and against the
respondents. (Reliance placed on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baby
Raksha & Ors, MAC APP. No. 36/2023 passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court
on 21.04.2023).
APPORTIONMENT
32. Statement of petitioners were recorded on 15.05.2025 in
compliance of directions of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No.
842/2023 in case titled Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. V. Jaibir Singh & Ors., decided
on 08.01.2021 as per clause 29 of MCTAP. In view of their statements and
keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby ordered
that out of the awarded amount, the petitioner no. 1 namely Sh. Pramod
Singh (husband of deceased) shall be entitled to share amount of
Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) alongwith proportionate
interest and the petitioner no. 2 namely Shanvika (minor daughter of
Pramod Singh & Ors. Vs. Ramjeev & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 19 of 21
MACP No. 262/24; FIR No. 747/23; PS. Alipur DOD:23.07.2025
deceased) shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 25,28,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Five Lakhs and Twenty Eight Thousand Only) alongwith
proportionate interest.
33. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 1, a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-
(Rupees Five Lakhs Only) is directed to be immediately released to him
through his bank account no. 20003673677 with State Bank of India, Sant
Nirankari Colony, 2/10, Pardhan Market, having IFSC Code SBIN0007627
and remaining amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the
multiples of Rs. 50,000/-each for one month, two months, three months and
so on and so forth, having cumulative interest. The said FDRs be released to
the said petitioner on the monthly basis as aforesaid.
34. Respondent no. 3/Kotak Mahindra General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
being insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the entire award
amount in the aforesaid bank accounts of the claimants as aforesaid, within
30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable
to pay interest @ 9% p.a for the period of delay in terms of directions passed
by Hon’ble Apex Court in its latest judgment titled “Parminder Singh Vs.
Honey Goyal & Ors.”, S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020, DOD:18.03.2025.
35. Since, the bank account details of petitioner no. 2 is not
available, the respondent no. 3 is directed to deposit the entire share amount
alongwith interest of petitioner no. 2 with the bank account of this Tribunal
Pramod Singh & Ors. Vs. Ramjeev & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 20 of 21
MACP No. 262/24; FIR No. 747/23; PS. Alipur DOD:23.07.2025
bearing account no. 40721617562, SBI, Rohini Courts branch, having IFSC
Code SBIN0010323 within 30 days as per above order, failing which they
shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a for the period of delay. Manager,
SBI, Rohini Court Branch is further directed to keep the entire share amount
alongwith proportionate interest of petitioner no. 2 in FDRs for the period till
she attains the age of majority. The said petitioner is at liberty to withdraw
her monthly interest till she attains the age of majority in order to meet her
educational expenses through her father/natural guardian.
36. Concerned Manager of petitioner’s no. 1 bank is directed to
release the amount to him as aforesaid, on completing necessary formalities
as per rules. He is further directed to keep the remaining amount in fixed
deposit, if any, in terms of aforesaid directions and send compliance report to
this Court. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioners and also to
counsel for the insurance company for compliance. Petitioners are also
directed to provide copy of this award to their bank Manager for compliance.
Form XV & Form XVII in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as
Annexure-A. Copy of order be also sent to concerned CJM/JMFC and DLSA
as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP. Digitally signed
by RICHA
RICHA
Announced in the open MANCHANDA
MANCHANDA Date: 2025.07.23
Court on 23.07.2025 15:22:02 +0545
(RICHA MANCHANDA)
Judge MACT-2 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
Pramod Singh & Ors. Vs. Ramjeev & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 21 of 21
[ad_1]
Source link