Delhi District Court
Pinki Lrsof Deceased Rakesh … vs Chhotan Mandal (Oic) on 6 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010115722019
MACT No. : 634/19
FIR No. : 70/2019
PS : DBG Road
u/s : 279/304 A IPC
1. Pinki (wife of the deceased)
W/o SH. Rakesh Kumar
R/o H. No. 2103/2A, Prem Nagar
Gali No. 15,West Patel Nagar,
Central Delhi-110008.
2. Rahul (Son of the deceased)
S/o Lt. Sh. Rakesh Kumar
R/o H. No. 2103/2A, Prem Nagar
Gali No. 15,West Patel Nagar,
Central Delhi-110008.
3. Rohit (Son of the deceased)
S/o Lt. Sh. Rakesh Kumar
R/o H. No. 2103/2A, Prem Nagar
Gali No. 15,West Patel Nagar,
Central Delhi-110008.
4. Priyanka (Daughter of the deceased)
D/o Lt. Sh. Rakesh Kumar
R/o H. No. 70, Ward No. 15,
Bagh Wala Mohalla, Bahadurgarh,
District Jhajjar. RUCHIKA Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.06
16:36:01 +0530
...PETITIONERS
MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 1 of 44
VERSUS
1.Sh.Chhotan Mandal (Driver)
S/o Ram Ashish Mandal,
R/o Village Rampur, PS & Post Rooni
Saidpur, District, Sitamadhi (Bihar)
...RESPONDENT NO. 1
2.Sh. Lokesh Sharma (Owner)
S/o Sh. Tek Ram Sharma,
R/o RZ-108, Saiyed Nangloi,
Paschim Vihar, Delhi.
...RESPONDENT NO. 2
3.The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Oriental House A-25/27,
Asaf, Ali Road, Darya Ganj,
Delhi.
...RESPONDENT NO. 3
Date of filing of DAR : 28.08.2019
Judgment reserved on : 31.07.2025
Date of Award : 06.08.2025
AWAR D
1. In the present matter, DAR was filed by the IO on
28.08.2019 which was treated as a claim petition. The Road Traffic
Accident in question took place on 01.04.2019 at about 07:00 AM at
Near Sarai Rohilla Bus Stand, at New Rohtak Road, Delhi. Sh. Rakesh
had expired in the said accident which was allegedly caused by vehicle
bearing registration No. DL-1GC 3164 (hereinafter referred to as the
offending vehicle) The said vehicle was being driven by respondent
No.1 Sh. Chotan Mandal; owned by respondent no. 2 Sh. Lokesh
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.06
16:36:33 +0530
MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 2 of 44
Sharma and insured with respondent no.3, Oriental Insurance Company
Ltd.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that on
01.04.2019, on receipt of information of an accident vide DD No. 9A,
the present information of accident was handed over to SI Kamlesh
Kumar who along with Ct. Dashrath went to the spot i.e. Near Sarai
Rohilla Bus Stand, at New Rohtak Road, Delhi. When they reached
there they found that many people were gathered there and one person
was lying on the road with crushed head. One broken helmet and one
scooty was also found at the spot. When Ambulance was called at the
spot Incharge of the ambulance i.e. Doctor declared the lying person
“brought dead”. Thereafter, one card of NDMC was found from the
pocket of the deceased. IO identify the deceased from the card taken
from the deceased’s pocket. Offending vehicle was found to be lying at
some distance from the spot. IO had also taken the offending vehicle
into his custody.
3. After leaving Constable at the spot, IO took the deceased
by police vehicle to LHMC Hospital where his MLC was prepared.
Thereafter, his body was preserved in the Mortuary. Further, IO came to
the spot where FIR was registered on the basis of MLC & PCR Call
u/s 279/304A IPC. IO interrogated the people from the spot from which
one person came namely Manoj Kumar came to the IO and told him that
accident was occurred by their Truck only and he also said that he is the
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.06
16:36:42 +0530
MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 3 of 44
helper of the accidental truck. Thereafter, IO recorded the statement of
the said helper. Further, IO prepared site plan on the instruction of the
Manoj Kumar (helper of the offending vehicle). Thereafter, both the
accidental vehicles i.e. one scooty and one truck was taken into custody
by the IO. Further, investigation was transferred to MACT Cell,
Central District to ASI Mahesh Kumar.
4. ASI/ Mahesh got conducted the post mortem of the dead
body and the said dead body was handed over to the relatives of Sh.
Rakesh Kumar. IO got conducted the mechanical inspection of both the
accidental vehicles. Thereafter, IO took the ownership of the offending
vehicle and served notice u/s 133 MV Act to the owner of the offending
vehicle i.e. Truck, on which owner of the offending vehicle replied that
on that day, truck was driven by Sh. Chotan Mandal and he was
produced before the IO at that time. Further, IO detained Sh. Chotan
Mandal in his custody. Thereafter, he got released on bail. IO took the
aadhar card of the driver i.e. Chotan Mandal and documents of the
offending vehicle were verified by the IO. Further, IO had taken into
custody the training certificate of hazardous goods of driver of the
offending vehicle.
5. It was found on investigation that the driver of the
offending vehicle had left the injured in an accidental condition on the
spot and driven the offending vehicle during the period of no entry for
which IO had added Section 134A/ 187, 115/194 MV Act. Thereafter,
IO collected Post Mortem report from the hospital. Further, both the
vehicles were released on superdari. Thereafter, chargesheet was filed
RUCHIKA Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.06
16:37:04 +0530
MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 4 of 44
against the driver/R1, for the commission of offence U/s 279/304 A IPC
& 134A/ 187, 115/194 MV Act.
6. WS was filed by the respondent no.1 & 2, wherein it was
stated that the respondent no. 1 was holding a valid driving license at
the time of the accident. However, it was stated that no accident was
caused by the respondent no.1. IT was stated that the offending vehicle
was parked at the time of the road and the respondent no.1 was having
tea at a roadside dhaba. Then, he heard some noise and found that the
deceased had et with an accident. Hence, it was stated that the petition
was not maintainable against him.
7. Reply on behalf of respondent no. 3 was filed on
30.10.2019, wherein it was stated that though the offending vehicle was
insured with the respondent nos.3. However, it was stated that at the
time of the accident, the respondent no.1 was carrying hazardous
material in the truck but he was not authorized to do so, as he did not
have a training in this regard. Further, there was no endorsement on his
DL regarding the same. Hence, it was stated that the insurance policy
was violated and that the insurance company was not liable to pay
compensation.
ISSUES
8. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated
23.09.2022, this Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the Deceased Sh. Rakesh Kumar suffered fatal
injuries in an accident that took place on 01.04.2019 at about Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.06
16:37:12 +0530MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 5 of 44
7:00 am involving Truck bearing registration No.
DL-1GC-3164 driven by the Respondent No. 1 rashly and
negligently, owned by the Respondent No. 2 and insured with
the Respondent No. 3? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so,
to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
9. The petitioner/injured examined Sh. Ravi Kumar, Clerical
Assistant, NDMC as PW-1. He was the summoned witness. He had
brought the service records of Sh. Rakesh. The attested copies of the
same are exhibited as Ex. PW1/1 (Colly). He had also brought the
appointment letter of deceased Sh. Rakesh and the attested copies of the
same are exhibited as Ex PW1/2 (Colly) and salary slip of of deceased
Sh. Rakesh and the attested copies of the same are Ex. PW1/3 (Colly).
He stated that Sh. Rakesh was working in their office as Safai
Karamchari. At the time of accident, he was getting a salary of Rs.
46,259/- per month as per salary slip Ex. PW1/3. He further stated that
Sh. Rakesh was a permanent employee.
10. Thereafter, Smt. Pinki was examined as PW-2. She tendered
her evidence as Ex. PW-2/A which bears her signatures at point A & B.
She also relied upon the following documents:
1. Copy of duty identity card of deceased Rakesh Kumar
issued by EDMC is Ex. PW-2/1(OSR).
2. Copy of PAN Card of deceased is Ex. PW-2/2(OSR);
3. Copy of Aadhaar Card of deceased is Ex. PW-2/3(OSR);
4. Copy of her PAN Card is Ex. PW-2/4(OSR);
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.06
16:37:20 +0530
MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 6 of 44
5. Copy of her Aadhaar Card is Ex. PW-2/5(OSR);
6. Copy of Aadhaar Card of petitioner no. 4 Priyanka is Ex.
PW-2/6(OSR); and
7. Attested Copy of DAR is Ex. PW-2/7(colly).
11. Further, IO/SI Mahesh Kumar was examined as PW-3. He
stated that on 01.04.2019, he was posted at MACT Cell, Central District.
On that day, he had received the case file for further investigation from
the first IO SI Kamlesh. During the further course of investigation, he
got the postmortem of the deceased Rakesh conducted on 01.04.2019 in
Lady Harding Hospital, New Delhi vide PM report No. 104/2019. He
handed over the dead body of the deceased to his relatives. He got the
mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle as well as the vehicle of
the deceased. Then, he served notice under Section 133 M.V. Act to
respondent no. 2/owner of the offending vehicle who replied in writing
that at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was being driven
by respondent no. 1 Chhotan Mandal. The said notice is exhibited as Ex.
PW-3/1. Respondent no. 2 produced the RC, insurance and fitness
documents of the offending vehicle and the same were seized by him.
The driver of the offending vehicle also produced his driving license
which was also seized by him.
12. He arrested respondent no.1 and prepared all the related
documents, however, since the offence was bailable, he was released on
bail on furnishing of bail bonds. He had recorded the statements of the
witnesses. The driver of the offending vehicle had fled from the spot
after causing the accident and therefore, Section 134/187 M.V. Act was
added in the FIR. The driver was also driving the offending vehicle in
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.06
16:37:27 +0530
MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 7 of 44
no entry area and therefore, Section 115/194 M.V. Act was also added in
the FIR. After completion of investigation, he had filed the chargesheet
against responder no.1/driver before the court of concerned Ld. JMFC
and filed the DAR before this Tribunal.
13. Further, IO/SI Kamlesh Kumar was examined as PW-4. He
stated that on 01.04.2019, he was posted at PS DBG Road as Sub-
Inspector on emergency duty. On that day, Duty Officer, PS DBG Road
had informed him about the PCR call regarding an accident. Then he
reached the spot alongwith Ct. Dashrath, where he found one Truck
carrying gas cylinders and one scooty in accidental condition. On
inquiry, he got to know that the truck had hit the scooty from behind. He
also saw that the scooty rider was injured and his body was lying on the
road and there was an ambulance also parked there. The doctor in the
ambulance had declared the said scooty rider as “dead”. An identity card
was found in the pocket of the said person pertaining to NDMC which
revealed his name to be Rakesh. They had sent the body of the
injured/deceased to Lady Harding Hospital through a police vehicle.
14. He further stated that the driver of the offending vehicle had
left the spot. After extensive inquiry also he could not find any eye
witness at the spot. They had taken the photographs of the spot and had
moved the vehicles on the side of the road. Thereafter, after leaving Ct.
Dashrath at the spot, he went to Lady Harding Hospital and obtained the
MLC of the deceased. The doctor had declared the deceased “brought
dead” so he got his body preserved in a mortuary at Lady Harding
Hospital. He returned to the spot. On the basis of the information and
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.06
16:37:35 +0530
MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 8 of 44
the MLC, he had prepared the Tehrir and sent the same with Ct.
Dashrath to the police station for registration of FIR. Thereafter, one
person appeared at the spot of accident who stated himself to be the
helper in the truck/offending vehicle. He stated to him that Chhotan
Mandal was driving the offending vehicle who fled away from the spot
in fear of being beaten up by the police. He stated that he had also fled
away but since the public has dispersed, he came back to the spot.
15. Since it was a fatal case, he had informed the MACT Cell.
He had also seized the scooty which was at the spot and prepared
seizure memo of the same. He had also seized the offending vehicle
bearing registration no. DL-1CG-3164 and prepared seizure memo of
the same. He had prepared the site plan at the instance of the eye
witness/helper of the offending truck. He had got the offending vehicle
as well as the scooty deposited in the maalkhana. Same day case file was
transferred to MACT Cell.
16. All the PWs were duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsels
for respondent no.1 to 3. Thereafter, PE was closed vide order dt.
23.04.2025.
RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE
17. In its evidence, the respondent no. 1 was examined as
R1W1. He stated that on 01.04.2019 at about 7.30 A.M., he was driving
the vehicle of the owner Mr. Lokesh. Mr. Manoj was sitting as a helper
in my truck. They were coming from March Agency and the truck had
empty gas cylinders. On the way, they received a call from the Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.06
16:37:44 +0530MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 9 of 44
transporter that they have forgotten their builty. To bring that, they took
a u-turn and stopped to have tea at a tea kiosk. While they were having
their tea, they heard a loud noise and they went there, they saw that a
scooty as well as the scooty rider were lying on the road. Somebody
from the public called the police. The police official called the
ambulance and took the injured to the hospital. When the traffic official
asked them why they stopped there, he told him that they had stopped to
take tea. Then he told them that this is a no entry area and they will be
challaned for that so, he took them to the police station but he falsely
implicated him in this case. He stated that he had not done any wrong
and the accident has not been caused by him or by their vehicle. He
relied upon the following documents:
1. Copy of his Aadhar Card which is Ex. R1W-1/A (OSR).
2. Certified copy of his Driving License which is Ex.R1W-1/B.
3. Verified copy of Training Certificate which is Ex. R1W-1/C.
18. Further, Ms. Bharti Meena, Deputy Manager, the Oriental
Insurance Company limited was examined as R3W1. She tendered her
evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. R3W1/A and she relied upon
the following documents:
1. Copy of the notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC which was Ex.
R3W1/1.
2. Tracking report was Ex. R3W1/2 (colly). Running into 2pages.
3. Postal receipt was Ex. R3W1/3.
19. Thereafter, RE was closed vide order dated 12.07.2025.
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2025.08.06
16:37:52
+0530
MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 10 of 44
FINAL ARGUMENTS
20. The Petitioners filed his duly filled Form XIV and his
financial statement was recorded. Final arguments were heard on behalf
of the petitioner as well as respondents.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
21. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Ld. Counsel
for respondents and perused the record. My findings on the various
issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1:
1. Whether the Deceased Sh. Rakesh Kumar suffered fatal injuries
in an accident that took place on 01.04.2019 at about 7:00 am
involving Truck bearing registration No. DL-1GC-3164 driven by
the Respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, owned by the
Respondent No. 2 and insured with the Respondent No. 3? OPP.
22. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners. It is
the case of the petitioners that on 01.04.2019, when the deceased was
going on his scooty at Rohtak Road, the offending vehicle hit the scooty
from the left corner side due to which the scooty fell and the deceased
came under the truck. Subsequent to the said accident, the deceased
expired. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that when
the police reached at the spot, the scooty and the offending vehicle were
found by the IO in an accidental condition. The present respondent no. 1
has been charge sheeted by the IO in the criminal case under Section
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.06
16:38:01 +0530
MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 11 of 44
279/304 A IPC. In view of the same, it is proved that the accident was
caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1.
23. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 1 and 2 has
argued that no accident was caused by the offending vehicle. It is
submitted that the offending vehicle was parked on the road and the
respondent no. 1 was having tea at a nearby Dhaba. Suddenly he heard
some noise and he found that the deceased had met with an accident. It
is submitted that the offending vehicle was parked at the side of the
road. Hence, there was no rash and negligent driving by the respondent
no. 1. One eye witness was cited by the IO in the charge sheet but when
the witness was summoned in the court, the petitioners did not examine
him. Hence, it is submitted that the rash and negligent driving of the
respondent no. 1 is not proved on record.
24. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner’s has argued that the eye
witness who was quoted by the IO is the helper of the truck. Initially he
gave his statement as per the facts. However, when he was summoned in
the court, he refused to give his statement. It is stated that as he was the
helper of the respondent no. 1, it was understandable that he shall turn
hostile. Hence, he was dropped from the array of parties. It is submitted
that there was no other eye witness at the spot but in view of the facts
and circumstances, the rash and negligent act of the respondent no.1 is
proved.
25. Record perused. Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.06
16:38:11 +0530
MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 12 of 44
26. It is a matter of record that no eye witness has been
examined in the present case. The only eye witness cited by the IO was
one Sh. Manoj. However, admittedly, the alleged eye witness Sh. Manoj
was also working as a helper with the respondent no. 1. Hence, it is
understandable that he would not want to give his statement in the court
to implicate the respondent no. 1.
27. However, as pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the
petitioner, the scooty of the deceased and the offending vehicle were
seized by the IO from the spot after the accident. PW4 SI Kamlesh has
stated in his testimony that when he reached at the spot, the vehicles
were found there and the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. the
respondent no.1 had fled from the spot. This is in contrast to the
testimony of respondent no.1 who stated on oath as R1W1 that he met
the police officials at the spot. He had further stated that the offending
vehicle was parked at the road. However, it may be mentioned that as
per the medical documents of the deceased, he had suffered multiple
fractures in his head and also crushed injury, which could not have
occurred in case the petitioner had hit a stationary truck.
28. The Hon’ble High Court of Kerela in “Kerela State Road
Transport Corp. Vs. C. Soman Nadar & Anr. 1984 ACJ 607 Kerela ” has
held that the statement of the driver who caused the accident cannot be
believed as his testimony was interested and unaided by any
corroboration. In view of the same and also considering the observations
of Hon’ble High Court of Kerela, the present Tribunal is of the opinion
that the version of the respondent no.1 is unbelievable and cannot be
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.06
MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 13 of 44
16:38:20 +0530
relied upon. Furthermore, there is nothing on record to suggest that the
accident was caused by any other vehicle.
29. Further, perusal of the notice under Section 133 MV Act
which is Ex. PW-3/1 also shows that the respondent no. 2 give it to
writing to the IO that the accident was caused by the respondent no. 1.
Further, it is settled law that the petitioner cannot be expected to prove
the accident beyond reasonable doubts and the principle of res ipsa
loquitor should apply which means that the “accident speaks for itself”.
Thus, once it has been established in DAR and chargesheet that the
accident had taken place, the burden shifts on the respondents to prove
that they were not responsible for the accident which the respondents
have failed to discharge. Hence, an adverse inference is drawn against
the respondents. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgments of
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the cases of Teja Singh Vs Suman &
Ors., MAC. APP. 1111/2018 & CM APPL. 52384/2018, 52386/2018,
date of decision 06/12/2019; MAC. APP. 428/2018, titled as The
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamla Devi & Ors, date of decision
08.11.2019 and MAC. APP. 690/2017 & CM APPL. 28108/2017, titled
as Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mona & Ors., date of
decision 15.10.2019, which had relied upon the judgment in the case of
Cholamandalam Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamlesh 2009(3) AD Delhi 310.
30. Further, in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana
2009 ACJ 287 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepak Goel &
Ors, 2014 (2) TAC 846 (Del) decided by the Coordinate Bench of the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court, it was held as under :-
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.06
16:38:29 +0530MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 14 of 44
“……where the claimants filed either the certified copies
of the criminal record or the criminal record showing
the completion of investigation by police or issuance of
charge sheet under Section 279/304A IPC or the
certified copy of FIR or the recovery of the mechanical
inspection report of the offending vehicle, then these
documents are sufficient proof to reach to a conclusion
that the driver was negligent particularly when there is
no defence available from the side of driver.”
31. Reliance is also being placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble
Delhi High Court in case Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Meera Devi, 2021 LawSuit (Del) wherein it was held that “……in view
of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008, contents of DAR
has to be presumed to be correct and read in evidence without formal
proof of the same unless proof to the contrary was produced.”
32. It also has to be considered that in the present matter, the
incident of the accident cannot be denied. It is pertinent to mention here
that in the proceedings before the claims tribunal, the facts are to be
established on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and not by the
strict rules of evidence or the higher standard of beyond reasonable
doubt as required in criminal cases. The burden of proof in the present
cases is much lower than as placed in civil or criminal cases. In Bimla
Devi & Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors (2009) 13
SC 530, it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that
negligence must be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of
probabilities and a holistic view must be adopted in reaching a
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
conclusion.
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.06
16:38:36 +0530
MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 15 of 44
33. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 5 SCC 656 has laid down in paragraphs 27 &
28:
“27. …This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina
Fernandes, noted that the key of negligence on the part
of the driver of the offending vehicle as set up by the
claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on
the touchstone of preponderance of probability and
certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable
doubt. Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the
judgments already adverted to by us, filing of charge-
sheet against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards
his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and
rashly. Further, even when the accused were to be
acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opined that the
same may be of no effect on the assessment of the
liability required in respect of motor accident cases by
the Tribunal.
28. Reliance placed upon the decisions in Minu B.
Mehta and Meena Variyal, by the respondents, in our
opinion, is of no avail. The dictum in these cases is on
the matter in issue in the case concerned. Similarly,
even the dictum in Surender Kumar Arora will be of no
avail. In the present case, considering the entirety of the
pleadings, evidence and circumstances on record and in
particular the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the
factum of negligence of Respondent 2, the driver of the
offending jeep, the High Court committed manifest
error in taking a contrary view which, in our opinion, is
an error apparent on the face of record and manifestly
wrong.”
34. In view of the same, considering the facts and
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.06
16:38:44 +0530
MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 16 of 44
circumstances, the unrebutted testimony of the petitioner and the
documents filed thereto, the court is satisfied that the accident was
caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1.
From the DAR, it also stands established that respondent no. 2 was the
registered owner of the offending vehicle. It is also an admitted position
that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.3, The
Oriental Insurance Company vide Policy No. 271500/31/2019/3054
valid w.e.f. 08.09.2018 to 07.09.2019.
The injury:
35. It is a matter of record that the deceased expired subsequent
to the accident. The copy of his MLC is part of the DAR which is
Ex.PW-2/7.Perusal of the MLC bearing no. 74830 shows that the
deceased was brought at Lady Harding Medical College, New Delhi on
01.04.2019 at about 8:30 am with history of accident. Upon his
examination, it was found that he had suffered multiple fractures
including skull fracture and that he was declared brought dead. In view
of the same, it is proved on record that the deceased expired subsequent
to a road traffic accident.
36. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the
opinion that on the scales of preponderance of probabilities, the
petitioner has proved that the accident in question took place due to rash
and negligent driving of offending vehicle being driven by its
driver/respondent no. 1 on the date and time of the accident and that due
to the said accident, the injured Rakesh Kumar unfortunately expired.
Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.06
16:38:55 +0530
MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 17 of 44
against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to
what amount and from whom? (OPP)
37. The onus to prove this issue was also upon the petitioners.
In view of the observations as given in issue no.1, the petitioners are
entitled for compensation. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in matter of
“Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors.” (2003) 6
SCC 121 has held : –
“QUA BASIC PRINCIPLES
“9. Basically only three facts need to be established
by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of
death :-
(a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased;
and the (c) the number of dependents. The issues to be
determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency
are (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the
income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal
living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be
applied with reference of the age of the deceased. If these
determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and
consistency in the decisions. There will lesser need for
detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance
companies to settle accident claims without delay. To have
uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should determine
compensation in cases of death, by the following well settled
steps :
Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand)
The income of the deceased per annum should be
determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be
made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.06
16:39:02 +0530MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 18 of 44
spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The
balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the
dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier)
Having regard to the age of the deceased and period
of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected.
This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would
have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to
several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of
multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by
this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table
with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step 3 (Actual calculation)
The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand)
when multiplied by such multiplier gives the `loss of
dependency’ to the family. Thereafter, a conventional amount
in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be added as loss
of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his widow,
another conventional amount in the range of 5,000/- to
10,000/- should be added under the head of loss of
consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of
pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the
deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the
body (if incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the
deceased before death (if incurred) should also added.”
QUA ADDITIONS
“11. ………………… In view of imponderables and
uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb,
an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income
of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased
had a permanent job and was below 40 years. [Where the
annual income is in the taxable range, the words `actual salary’
should be read as `actual salary less tax’]. The addition should
be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years.
There should be no addition, where the age of deceased is
more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.06
16:39:10 +0530
MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 19 of 44
different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize
the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or
different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the
deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without
provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will usually
take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure
therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases
involving special circumstances.”
QUA DEDUCTIONS
“14. Having considered several subsequent
decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the
deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and
living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd)
where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-
fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members
is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant
family members exceed six.
15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are
the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In
regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal
and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor
would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there
is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in
which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is
likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the
contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will
not be considered as a dependent and the mother alone will be
considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the
contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as
dependents, because they will either be independent and
earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. Thus even
if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the
mother would be considered to be a dependent, and 50%
would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the
bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However,
where family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the
income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.06
16:39:16 +0530
MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 20 of 44
mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or
brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to
one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-
third.”
QUA MULTIPLIER
“21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used
should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above
(prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and
Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for
the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one
unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16
for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45
years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units
for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for
56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70
years.”
38. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its constitution bench
decision in matter of “National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi & Ors.” (2017) 16 SCC 680 held as under : –
“58. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be
no addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept. We
are disposed to think, there should be an addition of 15% if the
deceased is between the age of 50 to 60 years and there should
be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in case of self- employed
or person on fixed salary, the addition should be 10% between
the age of 50 to 60 years. The aforesaid yardstick has been
fixed so that there can be consistency in the approach by the
tribunals and the Courts.
59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our
conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been
well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was
taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla
Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a
coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.06MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors.
16:39:24 +0530
Page 21 of 44
view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma
Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the
decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of
actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future
prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was
below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition
should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to
50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60
years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be
read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed
salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be
the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years.
An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age
of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between
the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary
method of computation. The established income means the
income minus the tax component.
(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for
personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall
be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we
have reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the
Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying
the multiplier.
(viii) 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
aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in
every three years.”
Loss of income
39. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.06
16:39:31 +0530
MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 22 of 44
petitioner was working as a Sawai Karamchari with NDMC. To prove
the same the petitioner summoned PW-1 Sh. Ravi Kumar from NDMC
who proved on record the appointment letter of the deceased as Ex.
PW-1/2 and the last drawn salary statement of the deceased as Ex.
PW-1/3.
40. Perusal of the income statement of the deceased Ex. PW-1/3
shows that his gross income for March 2018 till February 2019 was Rs.
5,14,037/-. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi
Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 held that for calculating
compensation, the income of the victim less the income tax should be
treated as the actual income. Further, in case titled as Universal Sompo
General Insurance vs Sh. Dinesh Kumar Singh & Ors MAC.APP.
106/2025 decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 9 June, 2025,
it has been observed that the Tribunal must deduct applicable income tax
and other permissible statutory deductions from the gross income of the
deceased while computing compensation payable to the petitioner. It
was observed that:
“13. The learned Tribunal after a perusal of the salary
slips and testimony of PW-2 who proved the said
salary slips assessed the income of the deceased at
₹34,300/- per month. Thereby his gross annual income
would be ₹4,11,600/-. The said income undoubtedly
would be subject to tax as applicable at the relevant
time. Thus, the learned Tribunal in the opinion of this
Court ought to have considered the applicable tax and
its deduction for the purpose of assessing the income
of the deceased.
15. Even though the gross income of ₹4,11,600/- is
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.06
16:39:39 +0530MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 23 of 44
subject to payment of tax under the relevant slab,
however, the assessee is also entitled to benefit of
standard deduction and other benefits as available to
the tax payers.”
41. In the present case, perusal of the salary statement of the
deceased shows that his statuary deductions as shown in the same are
Rs. 6,000/- towards income tax, Rs. 30,000/-towards GPF and Rs.
17,256/- towards LIC. Hence, his net income shall be Rs. 4,60,781/-.
Hence, his monthly income is assessed to be Rs. 38,398.41/- (rounded
off to Rs. 38,399/-).
Age determination of the deceased:
42. As per the service record of the deceased Ex.PW1/1, his
date of birth was 02.01.1969. The date of the accident is 01.04.2019.
Hence, as on the date of the accident, the deceased was aged 50 years.
Future Prospects: –
43. In view of the judgment of National Insurance
Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors; (2017) 16 SCC 680, it was
observed that the Claimants would also be entitled to 15% for future
prospects. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased needs to be
taken as Rs. 44,158.85 (rounded off to Rs. 44,159/-) (Rs. 38,399/- +
Rs.5,759.85 which is 15% of Rs. 38,399/-).
Determination of Dependent
44. In the present case, the deceased is survived by his wife, 2
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.06
16:39:47 +0530
MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 24 of 44
major married sons aged 35 and 32 years of age and 1 major married
daughter. Hence, the wife shall only be considered as dependent. The
major sons and daughter shall not be considered as dependents.
Determination of multiplicand
45. The monthly income of the deceased after enhancement
needs to be taken as Rs. 44,159/-. In light of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, and United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur & Ors., (2021) 11 SCC 780 ,
out of the above amount so assessed, 50% amount has to be deducted on
account of personal and living expenses as the number of dependent
family members is 1. So, in this matter, monthly loss of dependency
would come out to be Rs. 22,079.50 (50% of Rs. Rs. 44,159/-). This
needs to be multiplied by 12 to workout multiplicand/annual loss of
dependency. Hence, multiplicand for this matter would be Rs.2,64,954/-
( Rs. 22,079.50 x 12).
Award Towards Loss of Dependency
46. Further, as the deceased was 50 years of age at the time of
the accident, multiplier applicable in this matter as per above discussion
would be 13. The total loss of dependency would come out to be
Rs.34,44,402/- (Rs.2,64,954/- x 13), hence, so awarded.
Medical expenses:
47. The petitioners have not filed any medical bills on record.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.08.06 16:39:55 +0530 MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 25 of 44
Hence, in the absence of any medical bills, the petitioners shall not be
entitled to any amount towards medical expenses.
Non-Pecuniary Heads:-
48. The Respondents/Claimants shall be entitled to the
compensation under Non-Pecuniary Heads in terms of National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi And Others, (2017) 16
SCC 680. The case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi &
Ors. 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) was considered and clarified by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 9581/2018 decided
on 18.09.2018 whereby after considering the case of Pranay Sethi’s
(supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to award loss of
consortium of Rs.40,000/- to each dependent of the deceased and further
pleased to award a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to each dependent of
the deceased towards loss of love and affection. The relevant portion is
as under:
“…… A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi
(supra) dealt with the various heads under which
compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these
heads is Loss of Consortium.
In legal parlance, “consortium” is a compendious term which
encompasses ‘spousal consortium’, ‘parental consortium’, and
‘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.
Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.06
16:40:03 +0530
MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 26 of 44
to the relationship of a husband wife which allows
compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of “company,
society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every
conjugal relation.”
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, affection, companionship
and their role in the family unit.
Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms
about the status and worth of actual relationships. 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 therefore permit parents to be awarded
compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a
child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation
for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the
deceased child.
The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at
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 children who lose their
parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act.
A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count.
However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles
on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial
Consortium. SINGLA
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA SINGLA
by RUCHIKA
Date: 2025.08.06
16:40:10 +0530
MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 27 of 44
The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium
will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation
under ‘Loss of Consortium’ as laid down in Pranay Sethi
(supra).
In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the
father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs.40,000
each for loss of Filial Consortium…..”.
49. However, in the case of United India Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur 2020 SCC Online SC 410 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that there is no justification to
award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate
head. The relevant portion of the observations are reproduced as under:
“…… 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…”.
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA SINGLA
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.06
16:40:19 +0530
MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 28 of 44
50. In the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), it was held that in the
case of death, Rs.15,000/- is liable to be paid towards the loss of estate
and funeral charges each, while Rs.40,000/- was payable towards the
loss of consortium to each legal heir and the same may be enhanced by
10% every three years.
51. In the present case, the accident is of 2019 and the Award
was passed in 2025. Thus, an amount of Rs. 18,150/- is granted towards
the Loss of Estate and Rs. 18,150/- towards funeral charges.
52. Further, Rs. 48,400/- each is granted to the petitioners i.e.
total of Rs. 48,400 x 4 = Rs. 1,93,600/- towards Loss of Consortium.
Computation of compensation:
53. Applying the settled guidelines in the various judgments,
the compensation payable to the petitioners is calculated as under:
Sr. Head Awarded by the Claims No. Tribunal 1 Monthly Income of deceased (A) Rs. 38,399/- 2 Add future prospect (B) @ 15%= Rs.5,759.85 3 Less 50% deductions towards (Rs. 38,399/- + Rs.5,759.85) =
personal and living expenses of Rs. 44,158.85 * 50% = Rs.
the deceased (C) 22,079.50
4 Monthly loss of dependency Rs. 44,158.85 - Rs 22,079.50 =
[(A+B) - C = D] Rs. 22,079.50
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.06
16:40:26 +0530
MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 29 of 44
5 Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 22,079.50 x 12 =
(D x 12)
Rs.2,64,954/-
6 Multiplier (E) 13
7 Total loss of dependency (Rs.2,64,954/- x 13)=
DxE=F Rs.34,44,402/-
8 Medical Expenses (G) Nil
9 Compensation for loss of love Nil.
and affection (H)
10 Compensation for loss of Rs. 48,400 x 4 = Rs. 1,93,600/-
consortium (I) to both the
petitioners
11 Compensation for loss of Estate Rs. 18,150/-
(J)
12 Compensation for funeral Rs. 18,150/-
expenses (K)
13 Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 36,74,302/-
54. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @
Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 , the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld awarding of 9% interest per annum.
Therefore, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9%
per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 28.08.2019 till realization.
Apportionment:
55. It is evident from the record that the deceased had left
behind his wife as his legal heir. On 31.07.2025, the petitioner no. 3 & 4
i.e. Ms. Priyanka and Sh. Rohit gave their statement that they have no
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.06
16:40:34 +0530
MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 30 of 44
objection if their share of the compensation is released to their mother
Smt. Pinki. For the sake of convenience, the individual shares of the
dependents of the deceased are tabulated as under:-
S.No. Name of the Relation with Amount in (Rupees)
claimant deceased
1. Smt. Pinki Wife Rs. 36,25,902/-
2. Sh. Rahul Son Rs. 48,400/-
DISBURSEMENT
56. The Financial Statement of petitioner/injured was recorded
by this Court/Tribunal. As per the said statement, the monthly expenses
of his family are approximately Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- per month.
57. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 07.12.2018
& 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh Tyagi & Ors.
Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors. has given the following directions:
(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name
to be added in the saving account or fixed
deposit accounts of the claimants i.e. saving
bank accounts of the claimants shall be an
individual saving bank account and not a joint
account.
(ii) 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 claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.06
16:40:43 +0530MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 31 of 44
credited by the ECS in the saving bank account
of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or
premature discharge be allowed on the fixed
deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any
cheque book and/or debit card to claimants.
However, in case the debit card and/or cheque
book have already been issued, bank shall cancel
the same before the disbursement of the award
amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the
account of claimants so that no debit card be
issued in respect of the account of claimants
from any other branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on
the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that
no cheque books and/or debit card have been
issued and shall not be issued without the
permission of the Court and the claimant shall
produced the passbook with the necessary
endorsement before the Court for compliance.”
58. However, in a recent judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India titled as Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal on 18
March, 2025 in S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020 has held that :
“17. The case in hand pertains to the compensation awarded
under the Motor Vehicles Act. The general practice followed
by the insurance companies, where the compensation is not
disputed, is to deposit the same before the Tribunal. Instead
of following that process, a direction can always be issued to
transfer the amount into the bank account(s) of the
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.06
16:40:51 +0530MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 32 of 44
claimant(s) with intimation to the Tribunal.
17.1 For that purpose, the Tribunals at the initial stage of
pleadings or at the stage of leading evidence may require the
claimant(s) to furnish their bank account particulars to the
Tribunal along with the requisite proof, so that at the stage of
passing of the award the Tribunal may direct that the amount
of compensation be transferred in the account of the claimant
and if there are more than one then in their respective
accounts. If there is no bank account, then they should be
required to open the bank account either individually or
jointly with family members only. It should also be mandated
that, in case there is any change in the bank account
particulars of the claimant(s) during the pendency of the
claim petition they should update the same before the
Tribunal. This should be ensured before passing of the final
award. It may be ensured that the bank account should be in
the name of the claimant(s) and if minor, through guardian(s)
and in no case it should be a joint account with any person,
who is not a family member. The transfer of the amount in the
bank account, particulars of which have been furnished by the
claimant(s), as mentioned in the award, shall be treated as
satisfaction of the award. Intimation of compliance should be
furnished to the Tribunal.”
59. In view of the same, the award amount can now be
disbursed in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioners. However, the
remaining directions as passed by the Hon’ble High Court shall be
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.06
16:41:00 +0530
MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 33 of 44
complied with.
Smt. Pinki (wife):
60. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners,
it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 56,38,217/-, out
of the share of the petitioner/wife Pinki Rs. 55,63,942/- (Rupees Fifty
Five Lakhs Sixty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Two only),
Rs.5,63,942/- shall be released to the petitioner/wife immediately in her
Bank Account No.44089100856, IFSC Code SBIN0000726, Branch Tis
Hazari Courts, State Bank of India.
61. The balance amount of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs
only) shall be put in 125 monthly fixed deposits in her name in her
account as mentioned above of equal amount of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees
Forty Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 125 months
respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions
contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021.
Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall
automatically be transferred in her saving account maintained in a
nationalized bank situated near the place of her residence.
Sh. Rahul (son of deceased):
62. On realization of the award amount of Rs.74,275/- (Rupees
Seventy Four Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Five only), the entire
amount along with the interest amount be released to the petitioner no. 3
Rahul (son of the deceased) in his Bank Account on furnishing of the
bank account details. RUCHIKA by
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.06
16:41:07 +0530
MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 34 of 44
63. In compliance of the directions given by Hon’ble High
Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award
in the prescribed Format-XVI is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
Date of Accident: 01.04.2019
Name of the deceased: Rakesh Kumar
Age of the deceased: 50 years
Occupation of the deceased: Safai Karamchari
Income of the
deceased : Rs. 38,399/-
Name and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No. Name of the claimant Relation with
deceased
1. Smt. Pinki Wife
2. Sh. Rahul Son
3. Sh. Rohit Son
4. Smt. Priyanka Daughter
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
Sr. Head Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
No.
1 Monthly Income of deceased Rs. 38,399/-
(A)
2 Add future prospect (B) @ 15%= Rs.5,759.85
3 Less 1/2 deductions towards (Rs. 38,399/- + Rs.5,759.85) = Rs.
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.06
16:41:15 +0530
MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 35 of 44
personal and living expenses of 44,158.85 * 50% = Rs. 22,079.50
the deceased (C)
4 Monthly loss of dependency Rs. 44,158.85 – Rs 22,079.50 =
[(A+B) – C = D] Rs. 22,079.50
5 Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 22,079.50 x 12 =
(D x 12)
Rs.2,64,954/-
6 Multiplier (E) 13 7 Total loss of dependency (Rs.2,64,954/- x 13)= DxE=F Rs.34,44,402/- 8 Medical Expenses (G) Nil 9 Compensation for loss of love Nil. and affection (H) 10 Compensation for loss of Rs. 48,400 x 4 = Rs. 1,93,600/- consortium (I) to both the petitioners 11 Compensation for loss of Rs. 18,150/- Estate (J) 12 Compensation for funeral Rs. 18,150/- expenses (K) 13 Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 36,74,302/- 14 Rate of Interest Awarded 9% 15 Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 19,63,915- award w.e.f. 28.08.2019 till realization 16 Total amount including interest Rs. 56,38,217/- 17 Award amount released As per paragraph No.60 to 62 18 Award amount kept in FDRs As per paragraph No. 61 19 Mode of disbursement of the As per paragraph No.60 to 62 award amount to the Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.08.06 16:41:22 +0530 MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 36 of 44 claimant(s) 20 Next Date of compliance of the 06.09.2025 award LIABILITY:
64. It has been established that the offending vehicle was being
driven by respondent no.1 and that respondent no.2 is the owner of the
same and the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no. 3.
65. However, it is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent
no. 3 that at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was carrying
gas cylinders filled with gas. The same constitutes a hazardous
substance and for carrying such goods, the driver must have a requisite
training and an endorsement on the driving license that he was eligible
to drive a vehicle containing hazardous substance under Rule 9 of the
Motor Vehicle Rules. It is submitted that the respondent no. 1 has
produced his training certificate as Ex. RW-1/C which states that the
training was conducted from 22.02.2019 till 24.02.2019 but the
certificate was issued on 23.02.2019. Hence, the certificate is patently
false. Further, there is no endorsement on the driving license of the
respondent no. 1 that he was eligible to drive a vehicle containing
hazardous substance. Hence, it is submitted that as the condition of the
insurance policy is violated, the respondent no. 3 has the rights to
recover the amount of compensation which is awarded to the petitioners.
66. Per contra, it is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the
respondent no. 1 and 2 that the certificate Ex. RW-1/C is a valid
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.06
16:41:30 +0530
MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 37 of 44
document. The same has been verified by the IO. Further, the date of
issue is not 23.02.2019 but is only stated that the same shall not be
considered if issued before date 23.02.2019. Further, it submitted that at
the time of the accident, though the truck was carrying gas cylinders but
there was no gas filled in those cylinders. There is no evidence led by
the petitioner or the respondent no. 3 that the gas was actually filled in
those gas cylinders. Hence, as such the respondent no. 1 was not
carrying any hazardous material at the time of the accident. Hence, it is
submitted that Rule 9 does not apply. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for the
respondent no. 1 and 2 has relied upon the judgments titled as Amit
Sharma v. New India Assurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. MAC. APP 212/2023
decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 16.05.2025, New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Velumurugan V Misc. First Appeal no.
10724/2013 decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka on 24 th
November, 2014 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lakshmi First
Appeal no. 3112/2018 decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahbad
on 24th July 2018.
67. Record perused.
68. In the present matter, as pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for
the respondent no. 1 and 2, the training certificate Ex. RW-1/C has been
verified by the IO to be correct. Hence, the court has no reason to
disbelieve the same. Further, the respondent no. 1 entered into the
witness box as RW-1 and he denied the suggestions that the gas
cylinders were filed with gas. Admittedly, no separate independent
evidence has been led by any of the parties regarding the status of the
RUCHIKA Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.06
16:41:39 +0530
MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 38 of 44
gas cylinders. However, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 has relied
upon the statement of one Sh. Manoj on the basis of whose statement the
FIR was registered wherein he has stated that the truck was being driven
after filling of the gas in the gas cylinders. However, it is a matter of
record that the said Sh. Manoj was not examined in the court. Apart
from this statement, as mentioned above, there is nothing on record that
the cylinders were filled with gas. The proceedings qua the superdari
were also not proved on record. Hence, in the opinion of the court, there
is no sufficient evidence to prove that the cylinders were filled with gas.
Hence, in the opinion of the court, the respondents no. 1 and 2 are
entitled to the benefit of the same. Hence, the respondent no.3 is
directed to make the payment of the compensation and no recovery
rights are awarded to the respondent no.3. Issue No. 2 is accordingly
decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
69. In view of the above, the respondent no. 3 is directed to
deposit a sum of Rs. 36,74,302/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Seventy Four
Thousand Three Hundred Two only) along with interest @ 9% from the
date of filing of DAR i.e. w.e.f. 28.08.2019 till realization with the Civil
Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the claimants,
failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay interest @ 12 % per
annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days. Reliance placed on case
titled as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors.
SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA 16:41:47
Date: 2025.08.06
+0530
MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 39 of 44
70. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the
award to the insurance company for compliance within the time granted
as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No.
534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. The said respondent is further
directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the
claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal
with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days
of the deposit with a copy to the Claimant and his counsel.
Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the
award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
A digital copy of this award be forwarded 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)].
Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on
06.09.2025 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation
amount within the time granted.
Further, Civil Nazir is directed to maintain the record in
Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment)
Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation
of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.06
16:41:55 +0530
MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 40 of 44
titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors.,
date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.06
16:42:02 +0530
(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
06.08.2025
MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 41 of 44
THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL MOTOR
VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022 (PL. SEE RULE
150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 01.04.2019
2 Date of filing of Form-I –
First Accident Report Not attached
(FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II
Not attached
to the victim(s)
4 Date of receipt of Form-III
Not attached
from the Driver
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV
from the Owner Not attached
6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the insurance Not attached
of the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-
VIA and Form VIB from Not attached
the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII -
28.08.2019
Detail Accident Report
(DAR)
9 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Investigating No.
Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the 28.08.2019
Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company admitted his Yes.
report within 30 days of the
RUCHIKA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.06 16:42:13
MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 42 of 44
+0530
DAR?
12 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the No.
part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether
any action/direction
warranted?
13 Date of response of the NA
claimant(s) to the offer of
the Insurance Company.
14 Date of award 06.08.2025
15 Whether the claimant(s)
were directed to open Yes
savings bank account(s)
near their place of
residence?
16 Date of order by which
claimant(s) were directed to
open Savings Bank
Account(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN
card and Aadhar Card and 28.08.2019
the direction to the bank not
to issue any cheque
book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an
endorsement to this effect
on the passbook(s).
17 Date on which the
claimant(s) produced the
passbook of their savings
bank account(s) near the
place of their residence 06.08.2025
alongwith the endorsement,
PAN card and Aadhaar
Card?
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA 16:42:20
Date: 2025.08.06
+0530
MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 43 of 44
18 Permanent residential
address of the claimant(s). As per Award.
19 Whether the claimant(s)
savings bank account(s) is
Yes
near their place of
residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s)
were examined at the time
Yes. The Financial Statement of the claimant
of passing of the Award to
was recorded 31.07.2025.
ascertain his/their financial
condition?
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.06
16:42:28 +0530
(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
06.08.2025
MACT No.634/2019 Pinki & Ors. Vs. Chotan Mandal & Ors. Page 44 of 44