Pooja Nagar vs Mohd Zubair on 28 February, 2025

March 5, 2025

Delhi District Court

Pooja Nagar vs Mohd Zubair on 28 February, 2025

        IN THE COURT OF MS. MAYURI SINGH
                PRESIDING OFFICER:
     MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, EAST,
          KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
____________________________________________________

In the matters of:
(i) MACT No.757/19
   Munesh & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.

(ii) MACT No.758/19
   Pooja & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Anr.

(iii) MACT No.763/19
     Prince Kr. Bansala & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.

(iv) MACT No.786/19
   Rashmi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.


                                 MACT No. 757/2019

(i) Munesh
    W/o- Sh. Inder Singh
(ii) Inder Singh
     S/o Sh. Rajender
     Both R/o- H.No.1038, Jhutiya Mohalla, Badoli, Barauli,
     (149), Palwal, Haryana-121102.

                                                                    ......Petitioners
                                             Versus

1. Md. Zubair (Driver)
   S/o Sh. Julfikar Ali
   R/o 470/2, Nagliya Akil
   Tehsil Sadar,
   Rampur-244027, U.P.

2. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. (Insurer of Canter)
  506-507, 5th Floor,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MACP No. 757/19; Munesh & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.
MACP No. 758/19; Pooja & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Anr.
MACP No. 763/19; Prince Kr. Bansala & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.
MACP No. 786/19; Rashmi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.

Page 1 of 56

Pragati Deep Building
Laxmi Nagar, District Centre
New Delhi-110092

3. Satpal Singh (Registered owner of
Vehicle No. HR-51AY-9488)
S/o- Sh. Bhiki
R/o- Village Basantpur
Faridabad, Haryana-121003

4. LRs of Driver, Pradeep @ Pardeep Kumar (deceased) (Driver
of Vehicle No. HR-51AY-9488)

(i) Pooja Nagar, W/o-Late Pradeep @ Pardeep Kumar

(ii) Arjun Awana, S/o- Late Pradeep @ Pardeep Kumar

(iii) Shubh Awana, S/o- Late Pradeep @ Pardeep Kumar

(iv) Jag Roshni, W/o- Sh. Satpal Singh

(v) Sh. Satpal Singh, W/o- Sh. Bhiki Singh
All R/o- H.No. 1/6903, Azad Gali, East Rohtash Nagar,
Shahdara, S.O., East Delhi, Delhi-110032

5. Go Digit GIC Ltd. (Insurer of Vehicle No. HR-51AY-9488)
Smartworks Business Center
Nyati Unitree, West Wingh
1st Floor, Samrat Ashok Road
Yerawada, Pune-411006

….Respondents

MACT No. 758/2019

1. Pooja Nagar
W/o Late Sh. Pradeep @ Pardeep Kumar

2. Arjun Awana
S/o- Late Sh. Pradeep @ Pardeep Kumar

3. Shubh Awana
S/o- Late Pradeep @ Pardeep Kumar

4. Jag Roshni,
W/o- Sh. Satpal Singh

5. Sh. Satpal Singh,
W/o- Sh. Bhiki Singh

—————————————————————————————————-
MACP No. 757/19; Munesh & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.
MACP No. 758/19; Pooja & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Anr.
MACP No. 763/19; Prince Kr. Bansala & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.
MACP No. 786/19; Rashmi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.

Page 2 of 56

All R/o- H.No. 1/6903, Azad Gali, East Rohtash Nagar,
Shahdara, S.O. East Delhi, Delhi-110032 ……Petitioners

Versus

1. Md. Zubair (Driver-cum-owner of
Canter No.UK-06CA-6124)
S/o Sh. Julfikar Ali
R/o 470/2, Nagliya Akil
Tehsil Sadar,Rampur-244027, U.P.

2. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.

   (Insurer of Canter No. UK-06CA-6124)
   506-507, 5th Floor,
   Pragati Deep Building
   Laxmi Nagar, District Centre
   New Delhi-110092                                                      ....Respondents



                                 MACT No. 763/2019

1. Prince Kumar Bansla
S/o Sh. Rajender Singh
R/o Kushak Badauli
Palwal, Haryana-12102
                                                               ............Petitioner
Versus

1. Md. Zubair (Driver)
   S/o Sh. Julfikar Ali
   R/o 470/2, Nagliya Akil
   Tehsil Sadar,
   Rampur-244027, U.P.

2. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.

(Insurer of Canter No. UK-06CA-6124)
506-507, 5th Floor,
Pragati Deep Building
Laxmi Nagar, District Centre

Page 3 of 56

New Delhi-110092

3. Satpal Singh (Registered owner of Vehicle No. HR-51AY-
9488)
S/o- Sh. Bhiki
R/o- Village Basantpur
Faridabad, Haryana-121003

4. LRs of Driver, Pradeep @ Pardeep Kumar (deceased) (Driver
of Vehicle No. HR-51AY-9488)

(i) Pooja Nagar, W/o-Late Pradeep @ Pardeep Kumar

(ii) Arjun Awana, S/o- Late Pradeep @ Pardeep Kumar

(iii) Shubh Awana, S/o- Late Pradeep @ Pardeep Kumar

(iv) Jag Roshni, W/o- Sh. Satpal Singh

(v) Sh. Satpal Singh, W/o- Sh. Bhiki Singh
All R/o- H.No. 1/6903, Azad Gali, East Rohtash Nagar,
Shahdara, S.O., East Delhi, Delhi-110032

5. Go Digit GIC Ltd. (Insurer of Vehicle No. HR-51AY-9488)
Smartworks Business Center
Nyati Unitree, West Wingh
1st Floor, Samrat Ashok Road
Yerawada, Pune-411006 ….Respondents

MACT No. 786/2019

1. Rashmi
W/o Late Sh. Vineet Awana

2. Sushant
W/o Late Sh. Vineet minor aged about 3 years

3. Poonam Awana
W/o- Sh. Kuwarpal Awana

4. Kuwar Pal
S/o- Sh. Bhikki
All R/o 77/3, Near Haunman Mandir, Basantpur, Sector-91,
Faridabad, Haryana-121013.

……Petitioners
Versus

1. Md. Zubair (Driver)

Page 4 of 56

S/o Sh. Julfikar Ali
R/o 470/2, Nagliya Akil
Tehsil Sadar,
Rampur-244027, U.P.

2. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.

(Insurer of Canter No. UK-06CA-6124)
506-507, 5th Floor,
Pragati Deep Building
Laxmi Nagar, District Centre
New Delhi-110092

3. Satpal Singh (Registered owner of
Vehicle No. HR-51AY- 9488)
S/o- Sh. Bhiki
R/o- Village Basantpur
Faridabad, Haryana-121003

4. LRs of Driver, Pradeep @ Pardeep Kumar (deceased) (Driver
of Vehicle No. HR-51AY-9488)

(i) Pooja Nagar, W/o-Late Pradeep @ Pardeep Kumar

(ii) Arjun Awana, S/o- Late Pradeep @ Pardeep Kumar

(iii) Shubh Awana, S/o- Late Pradeep @ Pardeep Kumar

(iv) Jag Roshni, W/o- Sh. Satpal Singh

(v) Sh. Satpal Singh, W/o- Sh. Bhiki Singh
All R/o- H.No. 1/6903, Azad Gali, East Rohtash Nagar,
Shahdara, S.O., East Delhi, Delhi-110032

5. Go Digit GIC Ltd. (Insurer of Vehicle No. HR-51AY-9488)
Smartworks Business Center
Nyati Unitree, West Wingh
1st Floor, Samrat Ashok Road
Yerawada, Pune-411006
….Respondents

Date of Institution : 30.08.2019
Date of reserve of order : Not reserved
Date of pronouncement : 28.02.2025

Page 5 of 56

AWAR D

1. By this common award, three claim petitions bearing
MACP Nos. 757/19, 763/19 and 786/19 based on claim petitions
filed by the injured victim Prince Bansla and LRs of the
deceased victims namely Late Sachin @ Sachin Bainsla and Late
Vinit Awana, seeking compensation under Sections 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, arising out of the same accident, would be
decided. Further, by this common award, the claim Case bearing
no. 758/19, under Section 166 MV Act, relating to death of
Pradeep Kumar, the driver of victim vehicle, is also being
decided. It is to mention here that while according to averments
in claim petitions MACP Nos. 757/19, 763/19 and 786/19, the
accident took place due to composite negligence of R1 i.e.
charge-sheeted accused and deceased Pradeep Kumar i.e. driver
of victim vehicle, in juxtaposition to it, according to facts in
claim petition MACP no. 758/19 Titled Pooja Nagar Vs Mohd.
Zubair and Anr., the accident was solely attributable to the driver
of offending vehicle i.e. Canter/Mini Truck, half open body (as
per description in the registration Certificate) bearing registration
no. UK-06CA-6124.

2. Briefly stated the facts as narrated in the claim petitions
bearing MACP Nos. 757/19, 763/19 and 786/19 are that on
07.08.2019 at about 09:15 p.m., victims namely Sh. Sachin @
Sachin Bainsla, Prince Bansala and Vineet were going in vehicle
bearing No. HR-51AY-9488 being driven by Pradeep @ Pardeep
Kumar from Palwal to Sonipat. Deceased Pradeep @ Pardeep

Page 6 of 56

Kumar was driving the vehicle at a very high speed and in most
rash and negligent manner and despite the occupants of the
vehicle having asked Pradeep to drive the vehicle at a slow
speed, he continued to drive the vehicle at very high speed. When
all of them reached peripheral highway, Delhi Baghpat Crossing,
an Eicher Canter bearing No. UK-06CA-6124 came from the
wrong side at a very high speed and being driven in most rash
and negligent manner and hit the vehicle bearing
No.HR-51AY-9488, resulting in serious injuries to all of them.
All of the injured were removed to District Hospital, Baghpat.
The driver of the vehicle bearing No. HR-51AY-9488 as well as
occupants Vineet and Sachin died on the way to hospital. Injured
Prince was admitted to Apollo Hospital.

3. The facts as stated in the claim petition no. 758/2019,
titled Pooja Nagar vs Mohd. Zubair and Anr., are that on
07.08.2019, deceased Pradeep @ Pardeep Kumar alongwith
deceased Sachin, Prince and deceased Vineet were travelling in
Vehicle No. HR-51AY-9488 from Palwal to Sonipat and when
they reached on peripheral highway, Delhi Baghpat Crossing, an
Eicher Canter bearing No. UK-06CA-6124, came from the
wrong side at a very high speed and being driven in most rash
and negligent manner and Canter hit the vehicle bearing No.
HR-51AY-9488, resulting in serious injuries to all of the
occupants of the vehicle bearing No. HR-51AY-9488. All of the
injured were removed to Dist. Hospital, Baghpat. The driver of
the vehicle bearing No. HR-51AY-9488 as well as occupants

Page 7 of 56

Vineet and Sachin died on the way to hospital. Injured Prince
was admitted to Apollo Hospital.

4. Case FIR No. 615/19, PS- Baghpat was registered on
the complaint given by informant Ramkesh (Uncle of deceased
Pradeep @ Ashu, S/o- Sh. Satyapal) with allegation that on
07.08.2019, Pradeep @ Ashu were going from Palwal to Sonipat
on his Duster vehicle bearing No. HR-51AY-9488 alongwith
Sachin ,Vineet and Prince seated in his vehicle and at about 09:15
p.m., when the deceased Pradeep reached on Peripheral
Highway, Delhi Baghpat Crossing, an Eicher Canter bearing No.
UK-06CA-6124 came from the wrong side, while being driven at
a fast speed and in a negligent manner and hit the vehicle of
Pradeep & all of the occupants of the vehicle, including driver
Pradeep were severely injured and, further that while Pradeep,
Vineet and Sachin died on way to the District hospital, injured
Prince was referred to higher Centre and that Duster Car was also
damaged. During investigation, it was found that the accident
was caused by the said offending vehicle/Canter (mini truck, half
open body), being driven by respondent No.1/Md. Zubair in a
rash and negligent manner and he was charge-sheeted in the case.

5. Notice of the claim petitions (MACP No. 757/19,
763/19 and 786/19) were issued to all the five respondents i.e.
driver-cum-owner namely Md. Zubair and insurance company
namely Shri Ram GIC of the offending Eicher Canter bearing
No. UK-06CA-6124 and LRs of deceased driver Pradeep
(namely Pooja Nagar, Arjun Awana, Subh Awana, Jag Roshni and

Page 8 of 56

Satpal Singh), registered owner of Duster Car namely Satpal
Singh and Insurer/GO Digit Insurance company Ltd. of the
Duster Car bearing HR-51AY-9488 (victim vehicle as per charge-
sheet in connected criminal case bearing FIR no. 615/19).

6. In the claim petition Nos. 757/19, 763/19 and 786/19,
written statement was filed by R1, R2, R3 & R5. No written
statement was filed by R4 on date fixed for hearing (LRs of
deceased Pradeep Kumar i.e. driver of the offending Duster Car
bearing No. HR-51AY-9488) and opportunity of LRs of R4 to file
Written Statement was closed on 03.09.2021. However, perusal
of the record shows that written statement on behalf of R4
was filed on 14.12.2020 itself with copy and was kept
separately in a folder as per instructions of Ld. District
Judge, East -as mentioned in the noting of Reader dt.
17.12.2020 -due to corona pandemic and thus, it is seen that
Written Statement of R4 was already on record much prior to
03.09.2021 and hence, being considered.

6(a) In the written statement filed on behalf of R1/Md. Zubair
(in MACP Nos.757/19, 763/19, 786/19), it is stated that he has
been falsely implicated and that deceased driver Pradeep Kumar
was driving his Duster Car at a very high speed and in rash and
negligent manner. Late Pradeep Kumar hit his vehicle against the
back side of the vehicle of R1 and due to this, the vehicle of R1
fell down on the roadside and had become unbalanced before
falling down on the road and that accident occurred due to
mistake of deceased driver of the Duster Car. Vehicle of R1 was

Page 9 of 56

duly insured with R2 from 16.08.2018 to 15.08.2019. The
allegations against him have been denied by R1.
6(b) In the written statement filed by R2/Shri Ram GIC Ltd.
(Insurer of Canter Vehicle bearing No. UK-06CA-6124), it is
stated that claim petition is vague and does not disclose any cause
of action and this Court does not have any territorial jurisdiction.
R1, driver-cum-owner of Canter namely Md. Zubair was not
holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident and hence,
R2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. The
accident had taken place due to negligence of driver of Duster
Car, as he could not control his vehicle and caused the accident.
Other general defences have been taken by R2/Shri Ram GIC Ltd.
6(c) In the written statement filed on behalf of R3, it is stated
that R3 is not liable to pay any compensation ‘as R3 was driving
the vehicle carefully’. The accident was caused due to negligent
driving on the part of driver of Canter/R1Md. Zubair. The Duster
Car was duly insured with R5/GO Digit Insurance Com. Ltd. on
the date of accident. The accident had occurred due to negligent
driving on the part of R1, as his vehicle had come on the wrong
side of the road.

6(d) Written statement is filed on behalf of R4/LRs of deceased
Pradeep Kumar (namely Pooja, Satpal Singh and Jag Roshni) and
the same is on the lines of the WS filed by R3. It is stated that
they are not liable to pay any compensation, as deceased driver
Pradeep Kumar was driving carefully and accident took place due
to sole negligence of driver of Canter no. UK-06CA-6124.

Page 10 of 56

6(e). In the written Statement filed on behalf of R5/GO Digit
GIC, it is stated that claim petition is not maintainable before this
Tribunal as accident took place in Bagpat, U.P. and petitioner is
resident of Haryana and even policy issuance office of the
insurance company is of outside Delhi. It is further stated that
accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of
Canter no. UK-06CA-6124 and further R5 is not liable to pay
compensation, in case the driver of the alleged offending vehicle
was not holding a valid driving licence, or in case there is any
collusion between the insured/driver and the petitioner. The
insurance policy was issued by R5 in the name of R3 and valid
from 06.03.2019 to 05.03.2020. Other general defences have been
taken by R5.

7. Notice of the claim petition no. 758/2019 were issued
to both the respondents i.e. driver-cum-owner namely Md. Zubair
and insurance company namely Shri Ram GIC of the offending
Eicher Canter bearing No. UK-06CA-6124. In the claim petition
758/2019, Written Statement was filed by both of the
respondents.

7(a) In the written statement filed on behalf of R1/Md.
Zubair, it is stated that he has been falsely implicated and that
deceased driver Pradeep Kumar was driving his Duster Car at a
very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and while
driving so, he hit his vehicle against the back side of the vehicle
of R1 and due to this, the vehicle of R1 fell down on the roadside
and had become unbalanced before falling down on the road and

Page 11 of 56

accident occurred due to mistake of deceased driver of the Duster
Car. Vehicle of R1 was duly insured with R2 from 16.08.2018 to
15.08.2019. The allegations against him have been denied by R1.

7(b) In the written statement filed by R2/Shri Ram GIC Ltd.
(Insurer of Canter Vehicle bearing No. UK-06CA-6124), it is
stated that claim petition is vague and does not disclose any cause
of action and this Court does not have any territorial jurisdiction.
R1, driver-cum-owner of Canter namely Md. Zubair was not
holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident and hence,
R2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. The
accident had taken place due to negligence of driver of Duster
Car as he could not control his vehicle and caused the accident.
Other general defences have been taken by R2/Shri Ram GIC Ltd.

8. On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed on
26.07.2022 :-

In MACP No. 757/2019 :

i). Whether Sachin @ Sachin Bainsla and son of petitioner
Nos.1 & 2 died in a motor vehicular accident happened on
07.08.2019 at 09:15 p.m. at Peripheral Highway, Bagpat
Crossing, U.P., within jurisdiction of PS-Bagpat, due to
rash and negligent driving of Eicher Canter bearing
registration No. UP-06A-6124 driven by Respondent
No.1/ Md. Zubair and car bearing Registration No.
HR-51AY-9488 driven by Respondent No.4/Pradeep
(since deceased)? (OPP)

ii). Whether there was composite negligence on the part of the
Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.4 (since deceased)
in causing the accident, if any, if so, its extent? OPP

iii). Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation on
account of said death and if yes, to what extent and from

—————————————————————————————————-

Page 12 of 56

whom?

iv).     Relief.


         In MACP No. 758/2019 :

(i)      Whether Pradeep @ Pradeep Kumar, husband of petitioner

No.1, father of Petitioner No.2 and 3 and son of Petitioner
Nos. 4 & 5 died in a motor vehicular accident happened on
07.08.2019 at 09:15 p.m. at Peripheral Highway, Bagpat
Crossing, U.P., within jurisdiction of PS-Bagpat, due to
rash and negligent driving of Eicher Canter bearing
registration No. UP-06A-6124 driven by Respondent
No.1/ Md. Zubair ? (OPP)

(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation on
account of said death and if yes, to what extent and from
whom?

(iii)    Relief.


In MACP No. 763/19 :
(i)      Whether petitioner Prince Kumar Bansala suffered

grievous injuries in a motor vehicular accident happened
on 07.08.2019 at 09:15 p.m. at Peripheral Highway,
Bagpat Crossing, U.P., within jurisdiction of PS-Bagpat,
due to rash and negligent driving of Eicher Canter
bearing registration No.UP-06A-6124 driven by
Respondent No.1/ Md. Zubair and car bearing
Registration No. HR-51AY-9488 driven by Respondent
No.4/Pradeep (since deceased)? (OPP)

(ii) Whether there was composite negligence on the part of
the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.4 (since
deceased) in causing the accident, if any, if so, its extent?
OPP
(iii.) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation on
account of said death and if yes, to what extent and from
whom? OPP

Page 13 of 56

 (iv)     Relief.


In MACP No. 786/19:
(i)      Whether Vinit, husband of Petitioner No.1, father of

Petitioner No.2 and son of Petitioner Nos. 3 & 4 died in a
motor vehicular accident happened on 07.08.2019 at
09:15 p.m. at Peripheral Highway, Bagpat Crossing,
U.P., within jurisdiction of PS-Bagpat, due to rash and
negligent driving of Eicher Canter bearing registration
No. UP-06A-6124 driven by Respondent No.1/ Md.
Zubair and car bearing Registration No. HR-51AY-9488
driven by Respondent No.4/Pradeep (since deceased)?
(OPP)

(ii) Whether there was composite negligence on the part of
the deceased bearing Registration No.DL-8CNA-1463
(WAGON R Car) and causing the accident, if so, its
effect ? OPP

(iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation on
account of said death and if yes, to what extent and from
whom?

(iv) Relief.

9. In order to establish their claim, petitioners in MACP
No.757/2019, 763/2019 and 786/2019 have examined the
following witnesses:

9(a). PW1 is Naveen Kumar, Senior Tax Assistant, who proved
on record the ITR of deceased/injured Vinit Awana for the
assessment year 2019-2020 which is Ex. PW1/2. He was cross-
examined by Ld. Counsel for the R2/Shri Ram GIC Limited and
R5/Go Digit Insurance Company.

9(b). PW1 Prince Kumar Bansla (examined-in MACP
no.763/2019) tendered his evidence by way of affidavit

—————————————————————————————————-
MACP No. 757/19; Munesh & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.
MACP No. 758/19; Pooja & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Anr.
MACP No. 763/19; Prince Kr. Bansala & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.
MACP No. 786/19; Rashmi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.

Page 14 of 56

Ex.PW1/A and deposed regarding the date, time, place and
manner of occurrence and the high speed, rash and negligent
driving by the driver of the vehicle bearing no. HR-51-AY-9488
(vehicle in which he was travelling) and further high speed,
wrong side, rash and negligent driving by driver of the Eicher
Canter No. UK-06-CA-6124, as resulting in the hitting of canter
against the vehicle in which he was travelling & receiving of
serious injury by the occupants of his vehicle no. HR-51-
AY-9488 and relied upon the following documents:

a.)      Copy of aadhar card Ex. PW1/1.
b.)      Medical bills Ex. PW1/2.
c.)      Criminal case record Ex. PW1/3.

He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the R2/Shri
Ram GIC Limited and R5/Go Digit Insurance Company.
9(c). PW1 Sh. Himkaran Bidhori has been examined as PW1 (in
connection with MACP no. 757/2019) and he produced before
the court the joining letter of deceased Sachin @ Sachin Bainsla
Ex. PW1/1. He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the
R2/Shri Ram GIC Limited and R5/Go Digit Insurance Company.
9(d). PW1 Sh. Bikram Singh, Tax Assistant (deposed in
connection with MACP no. 763/2019) deposed that ITR of the
petitioner Prince Kumar Bansla for the assessment year 2019-
2020 is Ex. PW1/2 and that authority letter PW1 is Ex. PW1/1.
He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the R2/Shri Ram GIC
Limited and R5/Go Digit Insurance Company.

10. Vide order dated 23.08.2023, all the three claim cases
bearing no. 757/2019, 763/2019 and 786/2019 were consolidated,

Page 15 of 56

as were pertaining to the same accident and common evidence
was directed to be recorded further and as these cases are
consolidated, the evidence recorded in all of these three cases
shall be read together.

Thereafter, petitioners closed their PE.

11. Respondents did not choose to examine any witness on
their behalf in any of these three cases.

12. In case bearing no. 758/19, petitioner examined the
following witnesses:

12.1 PW1 is Sripal Sharma, who produced the ITR of
deceased Pradeep Kumar for the assessment year 2018-2019 and
2019-2020 Ex. PW1/2 and authority letter (Ex. Pw1/1) in his
favour as executed by Income Tax Officer, Ward 34(1), New
Delhi.

12.2. PW Pooja Nagar deposed on the basis of her affidavit Ex
PW 1/A and relied on the following documents:

Copy of her Adhar Card Ex PW1/1

Copy of Adhar Card of her son Arjun Awana Ex PW1/2
Copy of Aadhar Card of her son Shubh Awana Ex PW1/3
Copy of Aadhar Card of her mother-in-law namely jag
Roshni Ex PW1/4
Copy of Aadhar Card of her father-in-law namely Satpal
Singh Ex PW1/5
ITR of deceased for the year 2019-20 Ex PW1/6
Copy of School receipt of minor son Arjun Awana Mark 1

13. On 29.11.2024, an application under Section 151 CPC was

Page 16 of 56

moved with prayer to consolidate this case with the other three
cases and consider the testimonies recorded so far in those cases,
in this matter as well. Prayer was also made for waiver of cost
imposed on 27.09.2024. The prayer made was allowed and
MACP no. 758/19 was also consolidated with other three cases
for the purpose of enquiry and just decision in all of the three
cases.

14. I have heard Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Ld. counsel for
petitioners in MACP no. 757/19, 763/19 and 786/19, Sh. Amit
Tomar, Ld. Counsel for R2 / Shriram GIC Ltd. and Sh. Avdhesh
Kumar Yadav, on behalf of main counsel Sh. V.K. Gupta, Ld.
Counsel for Respondent No. 5/Go Digit Insurance Company (in
the three claim cases). Record of the case has also been perused.

ISSUE No.1: (In MACP No. 757/2019, 758/2019, 763/2019 and
786/2019)
&
Issue no. 2 (In MACP No.757/2019, 763/2019 and 786/2019)

15. The issue no. 1 in all of the four claim cases are closely
related and hence being taken up together and being decided by a
common finding. Further, Issue no. 2 in the above-stated three
out of the four claim petitions , being intimately connected with
Issue no. 1 in all of these four petitions, is also being discussed
together in succeeding paragraphs and decided.

16. In an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the
proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is

Page 17 of 56

sine qua non. However, the standard of proof is not as strict as
applied in criminal cases and in fact is the preponderance of
probabilities which is applied in civil cases. It is also the law that
the tribunal is not bound by the technical rules of evidence.
Further in holding any inquiry under section 168, The Claims
Tribunal may follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit.

17. In order to prove their cases, the petitioner/s in the
above-stated claim petitions MACP No. 758/2019, 757/2019,
763/2019 and 786/2019 have examined six witnesses. It is
worthwhile here to mention that while the petitioners in MACP
No.757/2019, 763/2019 and 786/2019 have alleged composite
negligence on the part of the driver vehicle bearing no.
HR-51-AY-9488 (Duster Car) and driver of the Eicher Canter
bearing no. UK-06-CA-6124, petitioners in MACP no. 758/2019
have alleged negligence against and put entire blame for the
accident, on the driver of the Eicher Canter no. UK-06-CA-6124.
Petitioners in MACP no. 758/2019 are the LRs of late Sh.
Pradeep @ Pardeep Kumar, the driver of the Duster Car no.
HR-51-AY-9488 and they failed to lead any evidence from their
side in support of their version of the accident. They are also
impleaded in MACP no. 757/2019, 763/2019 and 786/2019 as R4
in capacity of LRs of the driver of the Duster Car no.
HR-51-AY-9488, the alleged offending vehicle in these claim
petitions, apart from the driver cum owner and Insurance
Company of the Canter above-referred. Even in the capacity of
R4 in the three claim petitions as above-mentioned, the
petitioners in MACP no. 758/2019 failed to lead any evidence to

Page 18 of 56

reflect anything on their version of the accident. It is relevant
here to mention that the petitioners in MACP no. 758/2019 are
not even eye witnesses to the accident. Hence, an application was
filed in MACP no. 758/2019, with prayer for consolidation of all
of the connected cases, including this one, for purpose of enquiry,
which has been allowed. During the course of inquiry before the
Tribunal, the only eye witness examined to reflect on the manner
of accident is injured Prince Kumar Bansla and finding of the
Tribunal is to be based heavily on his testimony and the other
documents placed on record in the claim petitions.

18. It is seen that in the Claim petitions bearing no. 757/19,
763/19 and 786/19, all of the petitioners have made a claim
against drivers of both of the vehicles involved in the accident
i.e. both offending vehicle and victim vehicle (including in the
claim petition filed by injured/sole eye witness Prince Bansla).
This claim of composite negligence is contrary to the finding in
the charge-sheet in case FIR no.615/19. Here, two factors need to
be kept in mind: first that none of the petitioners are eye
witnesses in these cases, except Prince and hence, their assertion
regarding victim vehicle driver being at fault is meaningless
unless, there are other attending circumstances and evidences to
support it, including that of eye witness. No circumstantial
evidence as such in the shape of photographs of the spot, CCTV
footage of accident etc has been collected by IO. Moreover, there
is no such material brought on record to apply the principle of res
ipsa loquitor, other than site plan and specific undisputed factum
of R1 (in all of the claim petitions) driving on wrong side of the

Page 19 of 56

road. Further, it has to be borne in mind that neither injured
Prince nor any of the victims in claim petitions no. 757/19,
763/19 and 786/19 was on driving seat of victim vehicle at the
time of accident. It is to be kept in mind that when there is an
accident, the tendency of aggrieved to put blame on both vehicles
involved is there and driver, owner and Insurer of both vehicles
may be involved so that irrespective of finding of Tribunal on the
point of who was at fault, claim to compensation of petitioners
may remain intact and claims do not fall flat in case petitioners
are unable to establish fault on the part of offending vehicle or in
case, there is any breach of term and condition of Insurance
policy by driver or owner of any of the vehicles, petitioners can
maintain claim against the driver, owner and insurer of the other
vehicle. The same appears to be the situation in this case. None
of the petitioners in Case bearing. 757/19, and 786/19 have come
up with any explanation as to how they learnt that driver Pradeep
was driving at fast speed and further, how was he negligent in
causing the accident or contributing to it to any extent.

19. PW Prince Kumar Bansla (spelling as per Aadhar Card and
Pan Card), sole eye-witness to the accident, clearly deposed
regarding the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
Canter resulting in the accident in question. His testimony has to
be considered in all of the above-stated claim petitions. Accident
was reported to the police on the very next day by Ramkesh,
relative of injured/deceased Pradeep Kumar i.e. driver of victim
Duster Car, alleging that the driver of the offending Canter
bearing registration no. UK06CA6124 was driving the same at a

Page 20 of 56

fast speed and negligent manner and came from wrong side and
hit against the victim vehicle, resulting in accident and sustaining
of injuries by all four occupants in the Car and death of injured
Sachin, Pradeep Kumar and Vinit . PW Prince deposed on the
lines of allegation in the FIR in so far the role of offending
vehicle is concerned. However, he additionally deposed in his
affidavit Ex. PW1/A that driver of victim vehicle namely late
Pradeep Kumar was driving at a very high speed and most rashly
and negligently. However, this version of his, could not withstand
the rigours of cross-examination. The petitioner was cross-
examined by counsel for respondent No. 3 and 5. Eye witness
Prince, during his cross-examination, did not support his own
version, in so far as his assertion in the claim petition regarding
deceased Pradeep driving the duster Car at a fast speed and being
rash or negligent is concerned. There is nothing to suggest in the
criminal case record that during investigation, any of the
petitioners in MACP no. 763/19, 757/19 and 786/19, gave any
statement to the police against Pradeep, alleging contributory
negligence against him. During his cross-examination by Ld.
Counsel for Respondent no. 5/ Go digit Insurance Company Ltd.,
Prince deposed that his vehicle (Duster Car) was at a speed of
about 70 km per hour and that the car was being driven in middle
lane of their side and that the spot of accident was a highway,
with a very big road having divider and three lanes road on each
of the side. He also deposed that Canter had suddenly come
towards wrong side from opposite direction. He admitted in his
cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for R5 that “It is correct that

Page 21 of 56

there was no fault at all on the part of driver of the car for (sic)
the accident. The accident took place solely because of rash and
negligent driving of the offending Canter.” Even though during
his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for R2, PW Prince deposed
that para no. 1 of his affidavit is correct (where there is specific
allegation of contributory/composite negligence against the
driver of duster Car), it does not go to establish that the conduct
of Pradeep led to accident. In para no. 1 of the affidavit, PW
Prince has stated that the vehicle was being driven by Pradeep at
a very high speed and most rashly and negligently. However,
here, he did not state the speed of the vehicle. It is only during
his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for R5 that he stated that
the speed of the victim vehicle was 70 km per hour. However, the
negligence and rashness can not be attributed on the part of Late
Sh. Pradeep Kumar merely because the victim car was at a speed
of 70 km per hour. The place of accident is highway and a very
wide road, with three lanes on each side of the divider and the
speed of 70 km per hour is not unusual on such a road. Pradeep
was driving in a straight line and he can not be faulted at, merely
because speed of his car was 70 km per hour. How could he even
be expected to maintain safe distance from a vehicle suddenly
coming on road from wrong side on a one-way road divided into
three sub lanes? During cross-examination of PW Prince, Ld.
counsel for R 5 was able to bring to light the admission on the
part of Prince that the police had rightly registered case only
against the driver of offending Canter and that there was no
negligence on the part of driver of victim car. It is seen that in the

Page 22 of 56

MLC of Prince, history of transient loss of consciousness was
reported to the doctor. Further in the MLC, under history
reported to doctor, it is mentioned that ‘Alleged history of RTA
brought at around 8:30 P.M. on 7/8/2019 when p**** ( not
legible) 4 wheeler rammed into a stationary truck at the speed of
around 150 kmph, causing the truck to overturn.’ However, no
question was put to PW Prince in this regard during his cross-
examination and he was not confronted with this document. He is
not author of this document. No suggestion was given to PW
Prince that truck was in a stationary condition and it is not the
case of any of the petitioners or respondents. In fact, PW1 Zubair
has not denied in his written statement that he was driving his
vehicle at the time of accident and taken up the only plea that his
vehicle was hit from backside by the car. Photographs and
mechanical inspection report of the offending Canter show
extensive frontal damages on the same and driver failed to prove
anything in defence.

20. After investigation, police filed the charge-sheet against
respondent no. 1 Md Zubair, the driver of the offending Canter
bearing no. UK-06A-6124. Filing of charge-sheet against the
driver of offending vehicle prima-facie points to his culpability.
(New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Washeema Bano
(2022) SCC OnLine All 403 and Mangla Ram vs Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd (2018) 5SCC 656).

21. In New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Pazhaniammal
(2011) (2) KLT 648, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala has held

Page 23 of 56

that as a general rule, it can be accepted that production of
charge-sheet is prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence for
the purpose of claim under section 166 MV Act. If any party does
not accept such charge-sheet, the burden must be on such party to
adduce evidence. If the Tribunal feels that charge-sheet is
collusive, it can record that charge-sheet cannot be accepted and
call upon the parties at any stage to adduce oral evidence of
accident and alleged negligence. In such cases, issue of
negligence must be decided on other evidence ignoring the
charge-sheet.

22. Respondent no.1 & Respondent No. 2 i.e. the owner cum
driver and Insurer of the offending Canter did not lead any
evidence to prove anything contrary to the Charge-sheet and
claim of the petitioners in MACP no. 658/19 and further, claim of
petitioners in other cases qua R1, read with testimony of the eye
witness. In the case of Cholamandalam MS General Insurance
Company Ltd vs Smt. Kamlesh and Others2009 (3) AD Delhi
310 it was held that an adverse inference can be drawn when the
driver of the offending vehicle does not enter into the witness
box.

23. Thus, prima facie, it is clear that respondent No.1 was
driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at
the time of accident. The MLC of the petitioners Prince and
treatment papers make it clear that petitioner/ Prince Bansla
suffered grievous injuries in the accident and had sustained
fractures. Post -Mortem reports of deceased Sachin, Vinit and

Page 24 of 56

Pradeep show that they died due to hemorrhagic shock
consequent upon injuries. In view of above, it stands proved that
petitioner Prince sustained grievous injury and further deceased
victim Late Sh. Vinit, Late Sh. Sachin and late Sh. Pradeep
Kumar sustained fatal injuries due to rash and negligent driving
of offending vehicle by respondent no.1. Petitioners miserably
failed to establish any ‘composite negligence’ and role of Late
Pradeep Kumar in the accident. Thus, issue no.1 in MACP
no.757/19, 758/19, 763/19 and 786/19 is decided in favour of
petitioner(s) and against the respondents no. 1 and 2. However, as
Petitioners failed to prove negligence or rashness on the part of
deceased Pradeep Kumar, the issue no. 1 and 2 in MACP
no.757/19,763/19 and 786/19 is decided in favour of R3 to R5.

ISSUE NO. 3 in MACP no. 757/19, 763/19 and 786/19 and Issue
no. 2 in MACP no. 758/19

24. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold
an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the
amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and
reasonable. The compensation should not be a windfall or a
bonanza nor it should be pittance.

25. The scope of compensation in injury cases has been
considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Mr. R.D.
Hattangadi v. M/S Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 AIR 755.
The relevant extract is as under:

—————————————————————————————————-
MACP No. 757/19; Munesh & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.
MACP No. 758/19; Pooja & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Anr.
MACP No. 763/19; Prince Kr. Bansala & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.
MACP No. 786/19; Rashmi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.

Page 25 of 56

“Broadly speaking while fixing an
amount of compensation payable to a
victim of an accident, the damages have
to be assessed separately as pecuniary
damages and special damages.

Pecuniary damages are those which the
victim has actually incurred and which
is capable of being calculated in terms
of money-, whereas non-pecuniary
damages are those which are incapable
of being assessed by arithmetical
calculations. In order to appreciate two
concepts pecuniary damages may,
include expenses incurred by the
claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii)
loss of earning of profit upto the date of
trial; (iii) other material loss. So far
non- pecuniary damages are concerned,
they may include (i) damages for
mental and physical shock, pain
suffering, already suffered or likely to
be suffered in future; (ii) damages to
compensate for the loss of amenities of
life which may include a variety of
matters i.e. on account of injury the
claimant may not be able to walk, run or
sit; (iii) damages for the loss of
expectation of life, i.e. on account of
injury the normal longevity of the
person concerned is shortened; (iv)
inconvenience, discomfort,
disappointment, hardship, frustration
and mental stress in life.”

26. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & another (2011) 1 SCC
343, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India laid down general
principles for computation of compensation in injury cases. The
relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced as under:

—————————————————————————————————-
MACP No. 757/19; Munesh & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.
MACP No. 758/19; Pooja & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Anr.
MACP No. 763/19; Prince Kr. Bansala & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.
MACP No. 786/19; Rashmi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.

Page 26 of 56

4. The provisions of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act”, for
short) makes it clear that the award
must be just, which means that
compensation should, to the extent
possible, fully and adequately restore
the claimant to the position prior to the
accident. The object of awarding
damages is to make good the loss
suffered as a result of wrong done as
far as money can do so, in a fair,
reasonable and equitable manner. The
court or the Tribunal shall have to
assess the damages objectively and
exclude from consideration any
speculation or fancy, though some
conjecture with reference to the nature
of disability and its consequences, is
inevitable. A person is not only to be
compensated for the physical injury,
but also for the loss which he suffered
as a result of such injury. This means
that he is to be compensated for his
inability to lead a full life, his inability
to enjoy those normal amenities which
he would have enjoyed but for the
injuries, and his inability to earn as
much as he used to earn or could have
earned.

5. The heads under which
compensation is awarded in personal
injury cases are the following:

Pecuniary Damages (special damages)

(i) Expenses relating to treatment,
hospitalization, medicines,
transportation, nourishing food and
miscellaneous expenditure.

Page 27 of 56

(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains)
which the injured would have made
had he not been injured, comprising:

(a) Loss of earning during the
period of treatment.

(b) Loss of future earnings on
account of permanent disability.

(iii) Future medical expenses.

Non-Pecuniary Damages (general
damages)

(iv) Damages to pain, suffering and
trauma as a consequence of the injuries.

(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of
prospects of marriage)

(vi) Loss of expectation of life
(shortening of normal longevity).

In routine personal injury cases,
compensation will be awarded only
under heads (i), (ii), (a) and (iv). It is
only in serious cases of injury, where
there is specific medical evidence
corroborating the evidence of the
claimant, that compensation will be
granted under any of the heads (ii), (b),

(iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of
future earnings on account of
permanent disability, future medical
expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss
of prospects of marriage) and loss of
expectation of life.

27. In the light of the aforementioned judgments, the
compensation to which the petitioner Prince Kumar Bansla in
injury case is entitled shall be as under:-

—————————————————————————————————-
MACP No. 757/19; Munesh & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.
MACP No. 758/19; Pooja & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Anr.
MACP No. 763/19; Prince Kr. Bansala & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.
MACP No. 786/19; Rashmi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.

Page 28 of 56

(MACP No. 763/19 : In Prince Kumar Bansla Vs. Zubair & Ors.)
MEDICAL EXPENSES

28. No amount is being given under this head as no original
medical bill is relied upon and proved on record. Petitioner has
relied on copy of Final Bill of Saroj Medical Institute. HDFC
ERGO GIC Ltd is specified underneath this document and it
appears that the bill was already paid for by the Insurance
company. This bill is dated 05.02.2022 for removal of implant.
No insurance policy is brought and proved on record to suggest
in whose name policy was and who was paying premium towards
the same and whether petitioner Prince was a beneficiary under
any Insurance policy or policy holder of any Mediclaim policy.
Similarly, no original bill of Khetrapal Hospital is filed and
proved on record and only a copy of a duplicate final bill is filed
on record and it remains unproved. Even receipts in proof of
payments towards this bill are not proved on record. Hence, no
amount as compensation is being granted under this head.
PAIN & SUFFERING

29. According to testimony of petitioner Prince, after the
accident, he was taken to District Hospital, Baghpat and after
first aid there, he was referred to Apollo Hospital, Delhi on the
same day i.e. 7.8.2019 i..e. date of accident. He was discharged
on 8.8.2019 from there and an amount of Rs. 80,000/- was paid
in the hospital. However, no such payment receipt or final bill of
Apollo hospital and even treatment papers of Apollo hospital are
placed and proved on record. Only one copy of MLC of Apollo
Hospital is on file which reflects that opinion was reserved on

Page 29 of 56

nature of final injuries. Petitioner deposed that he was referred to
Khetrapal hospital and discharged from there on 12.8.2019.
Thereafter, he continued his treatment as an outpatient for about
an year and bills were reimbursed by Mediclaim and original
bills and treatment record were taken by ‘them’. MLC of Prince
shows that he suffered from multiple wounds and X-rays were
prescribed for forearm and knee and further treatment paper of
Khetrapal Hospital shows that he was taken to the said hospital
with alleged history of RTA near Baghpat on 7.8.2019 and was
admitted there on 08.8.2019 and it was observed that multiple
injuries involving right forehead, lip, chin, right arm and forearm
and right knee was observed. It was also observed that patient
was initially taken to Apollo hospital where MLC was made vide
no. 629/19 and had taken LAMA thereafter. His X-ray right
forearm showed fracture right radius and ulna for which plaster
was applied. He had deep lacerated wound and debridement was
done and sutures applied on 8.9.2019. He had fracture in both
bones of right forearm and hence, surgery was performed on
10.9.2019. He remained hospitalized for about 4-5 days. In Saroj
Hospital, he was admitted with history of BB Fracture right
forearm and surgery was performed where he remained
hospitalized for a day for removal of implant. There are no such
medical documents produced and proved on record to suggest
that petitioner remained on bed rest for an particular period of
time during treatment. In Khetrapal Hospital, he was discharged
with advice for follow up sessions. He had deep multiple
contused lacerated wound on facial region. He deposed that he

Page 30 of 56

could not continue his work for about an year. Considering the
nature of injuries and treatment undertaken, it can reasonably be
assumed that petitioner must have endured considerable pain and
suffering on account of accidental injuries. Hence, an amount of
Rs.40,000/- is awarded to petitioner Prince Kumar Bansla
towards pain and suffering on account of the accident.

LOSS OF INCOME

30. Medical documents of petitioner show that he was
admitted to Khetrapal Hospital and remained admitted for about
4 days and was asked to review in some days. No further medical
documents have been filed and proved on record to suggest that
OPD treatment continued for how long. Petitioner Prince Kumar
Bansla has not led any documentary evidence to show any loss
of income. He deposed that he was doing business at the time of
accident and was unable to work for about an year. However, in
absence of any concrete documentary proof to suggest that
petitioner Prince Kumar Bansla could not work for such a long
time, no convenient conclusion can be drawn in this regard. At
the same time, in view of the nature of injuries sustained, it can
be considered that petitioner Prince Kumar Bansla must not have
been able to work for about 3-4 months. The testimony of PW1 is
in direct conflict with the claim petition where he mentioned that
he was in private service. PW1 namely Bikram Singh brought on
record Income Tax record of the petitioner Prince Kumar Bansla
for the assessment year 2019-20 Ex. PW1/1. It has been admitted
by PW1 that prior to it, Prince had not filed any income Tax

Page 31 of 56

return. ITR mentions the address of petitioner as that of Village
Barauli, Faridabad. Accident is dated 07.08.2019 and ITR was
filed on 29.07.2019 i.e. prior to the date of accident. Considering
the ITR, the annual income of petitioner is taken to be 3.8 lakhs
and hence per month income is taken as 31,667/-. Hence,
petitioner is granted a sum of Rs. 31667 x 4 = 1,26,668/- as
compensation under this head.

CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES

31. No document in support of conveyance, special diet and
attendant expenses have been filed and proved on record.
Petitioner after accident was taken to Govt Hospital i.e. District
Hospital, Baghpat and then to Apolla and subsequently to
Khetarpal Hospital and after discharge from hospital as well, he
must have had several visits to doctor. In the year 2022, he
visited Saroj hospital and remained admitted for a day to undergo
procedure for removal of implant. Hence, an inference can be
drawn that he must have incurred some expenses on his visits to
hospitals. Hence, a sum of Rs.20,000/- is being granted towards
conveyance expenses and Rs.15000/- towards special diet.

32. Further, it cannot be ignored that family members of the
petitioner must had to render their services for providing
assistance to the petitioner in his routine activities and that was
bound to suffer their work / job. For claiming compensation,
necessity of employing a professional attendant / care taker is not
required and the petitioner should be compensated for the value
of services of the family members, which has been or would be
necessitated by the wrong doing of the driver. (Refer : DTC &

Page 32 of 56

Ors Vs. Lalita, 1983 ACJ 253). In view of above, a sum of
Rs.10,000/- is awarded to petitioner as attendant charges.

33. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 45,000/- (20,000+15,000+10,000)
is awarded to the petitioner under this head.

34. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner prince
Kumar Bainsla is summarized as under:-

   Sl. No.           Head of compensation                                   Amount
      1.         Medical Expenses.                                    Nil.
      2.         Pain & Suffering.                                    Rs 40,000/-
                 Loss of income (during                               Rs.1,26,668/-
       3.
                 treatment).
       4.        Conveyance and Special Diet                         Rs. 35000/-
       5.        Attendant Charges                                   Rs. 10,000/-
                       TOTAL                                         Rs.2,11,668/-

35. In death cases, the guidelines for computation of
compensation have been laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
case of Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation &
Anr. (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121. Further, the guidelines
have been reiterated by the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in a case titled as National Insurance Company
vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., decided on 31.10.2017, laying down the
general principles for computation of compensation in death
cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced here as
under:

“18. Basically only three facts need to
be established by the claimants for
assessing compensation in the case of

—————————————————————————————————-
MACP No. 757/19; Munesh & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.
MACP No. 758/19; Pooja & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Anr.
MACP No. 763/19; Prince Kr. Bansala & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.
MACP No. 786/19; Rashmi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.

Page 33 of 56

death:

(a) age of the deceased;

(b) income of the deceased; and

(c) the number of dependents.

These 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 to the age of the deceased.

If these determinations are standardized,
there will be uniformity and consistency
in the decisions. There will be lesser
need for detailed evidence. It will also
be easier for the insurance companies to
settle accident claims without delay.

19. To have uniformity and consistency,
the Tribunals should determine
compensation in cases of death, by the
following well-settled steps:death case

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 spent on himself
by way of personal and living expenses.

The balance expired e which is
considered to be the contribution to the
dependent family, constitutes the

Page 34 of 56

multiplicand.

Step-2 (Ascertaining the multiplier)
death case
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 estates. Where
the deceased is survived by his widow,
another conventional amount in the
range of Rs.5,000 to Rs.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 the cost of any medical treatment of
the deceased before death (if incurred)

Page 35 of 56

should also be added.”

36. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment, it is
essential to take into consideration the following parameters in
the three death cases.:-

(MACP No. 758/19 : In Pooja Nagar & Ors Vs. Md. Zubair &
Anr.)

ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF THE DECEASED:

37. PW1 Sripal Sharma produced ITR record of the
deceased Pradeep Kumar for the assessment year 2018-19 and
2019-2020. He deposed that deceased did not file any ITR prior
to year 2018 and that the ITR for the year 2019-20 was filed after
the date of accident. i.e. 07.08.2019. He also admitted that nature
of business of deceased was not specified in ITR. ITR of the
year 2018-2019 shows the annual gross income of deceased to be
Rs. 247860/-. ITR for the assessment year 2019-20 shows the
gross annual income to be Rs.5,24,330/- and date of filing as
20.8.2019. ITR is in his individual name and not any business
name and it is strange that ITR was filed after his demise in his
name and purpose of it is unknown. It shows the return to be
verified by none other than Pradeep Kumar himself, which is not
possible as Pradeep expired on 08.08.2019. This ITR filed after
demise of Pradeep Kumar in his name shows subsequent increase
in his income and can be treated as a fraudulent document, as
Pradeep Kumar could not have verified it even electronically, as
mentioned in this document. As per FIR dated 08.08.2019,

Page 36 of 56

Pradeep Kumar had expired on the way to hospital. Post mortem
report of deceased dated 08.08.2019 also corroborates it. Hence,
income of deceased is taken as per gross annual income of the
assessment year 2018-19, which was about Rs.250000/- annually.
It has come in the testimony of PW Pooja Nagar that her husband
was a lawyer at Faridabad. However, no educational document
and no enrolment certificate of her husband has been filed by her
and relied in evidence. She also admitted in her
cross-examination by Ld. counsel for R2 that she has not filed
any Bar Enrolment certificate in support of her claim that her
husband was a practicing advocate. She deposed in her cross-
examination that her father-in-law was an advocate and that he
was running the business of water bottling plant at Faridabad.
She deposed that she was unaware regarding the income of her
father-in-law and also testified that he even had rental income.
She also deposed that presently, her expenses are being met by
her father-in-law. She was suggested by Ld Counsel for R-2 that
her husband was not earning and not employed as claimed and
further that the ITR was filed after her husband’s demise for the
year 2019-20 with a view to claim false compensation. Though
she claimed that he was an income tax assess, ITR of the year
2018-19 which was last filed prior to his demise, does not show
that any income tax was paid by him. In these circumstances, the
income of deceased has to be considered on the basis of ITR for
the assessment year 2018-19, which was approximately Rs.
250000/- per year. Thus, the income of the deceased is
considered to be Rs. 2,50,000/- annually.

Page 37 of 56

Number of dependents :

38. Petitioner no.5 was employed and earning and also
having rental income and business and hence, he can not be
considered as a dependent of the deceased especially when
deceased had responsibility of two minor children and wife.

However, other petitioners being non-working wife, minor
children and mother of the deceased are considered as
dependents of the deceased Pradeep Kumar. Thus, for the
purpose of ascertaining the dependency of the deceased, all the
petitioners except P-5, are considered dependents of the
deceased. They are also surviving class I legal heir of deceased
Pradeep Kumar. One photocopy of I.D. card of Bar Council of
Punjab and Haryana is filed by petitioners, though not relied in
evidence or proved on record and it reflects the date of birth of
Pradeep Kumar as 06.06.1992. Deceased was 27 years old on
the date of accident.

Application of Multiplier:

39. As discussed above, the deceased is considered to be
27 years old at the time of accident. An appropriate multiplier has
to be determined for computation of compensation. The
judgment titled as Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 is
relevant to consider the multiplier. In Para 21 of the judgment,
the guidelines for the multiplier were laid down in accordance
with age are as under:-

—————————————————————————————————-
MACP No. 757/19; Munesh & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.
MACP No. 758/19; Pooja & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Anr.
MACP No. 763/19; Prince Kr. Bansala & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.
MACP No. 786/19; Rashmi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.

Page 38 of 56

                  MULTIPLIER                                  AGE GROUP OF
                                                              DECEASED

                 M-18                              Age group between 15 to 20 &
                                                   21 to 25 years)
                 M-17                              Age group between 26 to 30
                                                   yrs
                 M-16                              Age group between 31 to 35
                                                   yrs
                 M-15                              Age group between 36 to 40
                                                   yrs

                 M-14                              Age group between 41 to 45
                                                   yrs

                 M-13                              Age group between 46 to 50
                                                   yrs

                 M-11                              Age group between 51 to 55
                                                   yrs

                 M-9                               Age group between 56 to 60
                                                   yrs

                 M-7                               Age group between 61 to 65
                                                   yrs

                 M-5                               Age group between 66 and
                                                   above

40. In view of the above, multiplier of 17 shall be
applicable in the present case.

Future Prospects:

41. This issue was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Pranay Sethi & Others (Supra). Relevant

—————————————————————————————————-

Page 39 of 56

parts of the judgment are reproduced here as under:

“(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.”

42. The deceased can be considered a self-employed. In
view of the above said judgment, the deceased, who was 27 years
of age, an addition of income of deceased to the extent of 40%
has to be considered in view of decision of a Constitution Bench
of the Supreme Court in the case, National Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (Supra) benefit of future
prospects.

Page 40 of 56

Deduction towards Personal Living Expenses:

43. After choosing the age, multiplier and income of the
deceased, necessary deductions have to be made out of the
income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case titled as Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan
Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, in para 30, laid down the
necessary deductions towards personal living and expenses of
deceased as under :

Deductions out of earning of the Number of
deceased dependents

Where dependent is 1 Half

Where the number of dependent family 1/3rd
members is 2 to 3

Where the number of dependent family 1/4th
members is 4 to 6

Where the number of dependent family 1/5th
members exceeds 6 (six)

44. Four petitioners are considered as dependents upon the
deceased as held above. Accordingly, one-fourth of the income of
the deceased is to be deducted towards his personal living
expenses.

45. Thus, the loss of dependency is computed as
Rs.44,62,500/- (2,50000/-x 3/4 x 140/100 x 17).

Page 41 of 56

NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:

46. In case of Pranay Sethi (supra), a compensation of
Rs.40,000/-, 15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively has been fixed
on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral
expenses and further, it is required to be enhanced @ 10% in
every three years. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.48,000/-,
18,000/- and Rs.18,000/- respectively on account of loss of
consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be
granted. Further, in view of recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 2705
of 2020, decided on 30.06.2020, loss of consortium has to be
fixed for each of the LRs. In this case, there are five legal heirs of
the deceased. Thus, claimants are entitled to a sum of
Rs.2,76,000/- (48,000×5+18,000+18,000) under this head.

47. Thus, all the petitioners i.e. wife, children, mother and
father of the deceased in the instant case shall be entitled to a
total compensation of Rs.47,38,500/- (44,62,500 +2,76,000) only.
P-5 is entitled to compensation for loss of consortium only.
( In MACP No. 757/19 : In Munesh & Ors Vs. Md. Zubair &
Ors.)
ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF THE DECEASED:

48. P-2 is the father of the deceased and one of the claimants.
Other claimant is mother of the deceased. Both of the claimants
are stated to be dependents of deceased. It was stated by Ld.
Counsel for petitioners that deceased was unmarried at the time
of accident. It has come in evidence of PW Inder Singh that his

Page 42 of 56

son was a graduate and working as a Quality Supervisor in
Anupam Prints, Noida, U.P. by profession and earning
Rs.33,000/- per month. He has filed on record photocopies of his
educational documents Ex.PW1/4 and his appointment letter
Ex.PW1/5. However, there is no authorized stamp on the
appointment letter, hence it cannot be considered as his proof of
income and it does not establish the actual income of deceased. It
is to be seen that in the claim petition, it is claimed that deceased
Sachin Bainsla was in private service. It is interesting here to
note that PW Himkaran Bidhori, who claimed himself to be
proprietor of Anupam prints, failed to bring on record a single
document in proof of the existence of proprietorship concern and
further, his status as a proprietor of the same. Further, it is strange
to note that while in the employment letter, the address of office
is mentioned as that of Greater Noida , UP, in the testimony of
PW Himkaran Bidhori, he had disclosed his address to be that of
South Delhi. He nowhere testified that despite he being a resident
of Delhi, he was managing any business from Utter Pradesh and
further, where was his office situated. He did not produce a single
document to suggest that he was running the business of Printing
from U.P. Further, he failed to produce any register regarding
employees and did not even give out exact number of his
employees. He stated that he had 4-5 employees working with
him. He did not disclose their names and further, failed to
produce any register to prove their attendance, employment etc.
He failed to produce any register to show that salary was paid to
deceased Sachin or that he was employed by any Anupam Prints.

Page 43 of 56

It is seen that according to PW Himkaran Bidhori, 4-5 employees
working with him were all karigars but in the very next line, he
deposed that deceased was a supervisor. Further, he deposed that
after the deceased, he did not engage any other person as a
supervisor. He deposed that deceased was employed about a
month back. In absence of any proof of salary and absence of any
proof regarding running of any business in the name of Anupam
prints and employing deceased, testimony of PW Himkaran
Bidhori is doubtful. No bank statement of deceased is produced
or proved on record to even prima facie suggest that he was
working. Further, it is strange that while petitioners claimed in
their petition that deceased was earning Rs.25000/- per month, in
the testimony of PW Himkaran Bidhori, the monthly salary is
given as Rs.33000/-. Hence, testimony of PW Himkaran Bidhori
is not at all credible and can not be considered. However,
deceased is a graduate, in these circumstances, the income of
deceased has to be considered on the basis of minimum wages
applicable to a skilled person in the State of Haryana on the date
of accident i.e. 07.08.2019, considering him to be a resident of
Haryana which were Rs10,218/- per month. Thus, the income of
the deceased is considered to be Rs.10,218/- per month.

Number of dependents :

49. Petition mentions that there are 2 petitioners / legal
heirs of the deceased Sachin, who are father and mother. Both of
them are stated to be dependents on the deceased. Thus, for the
purpose of ascertaining the dependency of the deceased, all the

Page 44 of 56

petitioners are considered dependents on the deceased.

Application of Multiplier:

50. The deceased was 21 years 9 months of age at the time
of accident as per educational record and aadhar card of
deceased. An appropriate multiplier has to be determined for
computation of compensation. The judgment titled as Sarla
Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 is relevant to consider the
multiplier. In Para 21 of the judgment, the guidelines for the
multiplier were laid down in accordance with age are as under:-

                 MULTIPLIER                                  AGE GROUP OF
                                                              DECEASED

                 M-18                              Age group between 15 to 20 &
                                                   21 to 25 years)
                 M-17                              Age group between 26 to 30
                                                   yrs
                 M-16                              Age group between 31 to 35
                                                   yrs
                 M-15                              Age group between 36 to 40
                                                   yrs

                 M-14                              Age group between 41 to 45
                                                   yrs

                 M-13                              Age group between 46 to 50
                                                   yrs

                 M-11                              Age group between 51 to 55
                                                   yrs

                 M-9                               Age group between 56 to 60
                                                   yrs

                 M-7                               Age group between 61 to 65


                                                                               Page 45 of 56
                                                    yrs

                 M-5                               Age group between 66 and
                                                   above

51. In view of the above, multiplier of 18 shall be
applicable in the present case.

Future Prospects:

52. This issue was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Pranay Sethi & Others (Supra). Relevant
parts of the judgment are reproduced here as under:

“(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

Page 46 of 56

method of computation. The established
income means the income minus the tax
component.”

53. The deceased can be considered a self-employed. In
view of the above said judgment, the deceased, who was about
22 years of age, an addition of income of deceased to the extent
of 40% has to be considered in view of decision of a Constitution
Bench of the Supreme Court in the case, National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors . (Supra) benefit of
future prospects.

Deduction towards Personal Living Expenses:

54. After choosing the age, multiplier and income of the
deceased, necessary deductions have to be made out of the
income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case titled as Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan
Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, in para 30, laid down the
necessary deductions towards personal living and expenses of
deceased as under :

Deductions out of earning of the Number of
deceased dependents

Where dependent is 1 Half

Where the number of dependent family 1/3rd
members is 2 to 3

Where the number of dependent family 1/4th
members is 4 to 6

—————————————————————————————————-
MACP No. 757/19; Munesh & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.
MACP No. 758/19; Pooja & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Anr.
MACP No. 763/19; Prince Kr. Bansala & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.
MACP No. 786/19; Rashmi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Ors.

Page 47 of 56

Where the number of dependent family 1/5th
members exceeds 6 (six)

Deductions out of earning of the Number of
deceased dependents

Bachelor
In case family is not large Half

In case dependents are the widowed 1/3rd
mother and large number of younger
non-earning sisters and brothers

55. Since deceased was a bachelor, accordingly, one-half of
the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards his personal
living expenses.

56. Thus, the loss of dependency is computed as
Rs.16,50,801/- (10,218x 1/ 2x 140/100 x 18×12).

NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:

57. In case of Pranay Sethi (supra), a compensation of
Rs.40,000/-, 15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively has been fixed
on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral
expenses and further, it is required to be enhanced @ 10% in
every three years. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.48,000/-,
18,000/- and Rs.18,000/- respectively on account of loss of
consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be
granted. Further, in view of recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.

—————————————————————————————————-

Page 48 of 56

Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 2705
of 2020, decided on 30.06.2020, loss of consortium has to be
fixed for each of the LRs. In this case, there are three legal heirs
of the deceased. Thus, claimants are entitled to a sum of
Rs.96,000/- (48,000×2+18,000+18,000) under this head.

58. Thus, both the petitioners i.e. mother and father of the
deceased in the instant case shall be entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.17,46,801/- only (16,50,801+96,000).

(MACP no. 786/19: Rashmi and others vs Md. Zubair and
Others)
ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF THE DECEASED:

59. Deceased Vinit Awana is stated to be about 27 years old at
the time of accident. According to the claim petition, deceased
was a property dealer and earning about 5,50,000/- per annum.
No evidence was led by any of the petitioners in proof of age of
the deceased. He is stated to be graduate. PW Naveen Kumar is
an official witness from Income Tax Office and proved on record
ITR of Vinit Awana for the assessment year 2019-20 EX PW1/2.
He deposed that deceased did not file any ITR prior to year 2019.
He also admitted in his cross-examination that ITR for the year
2019-20 was not filed by Vinit Awana but the same was filed by
Sh. Nitin after the accident dated 07.08.2019. He deposed that no
supporting document in proof of income shown in ITR was
submitted in the office of PW Naveen Kumar and that ITR was
filed by assessee on his own and department does not certify the
genuineness of income as shown in the ITR. A bare perusal of

Page 49 of 56

the document Ex.PW1/2 shows that the same was filed on
22.08.2019 i.e. after 15 days of death of deceased. It is shown to
have been verified by Nitin but there is no explanation as to who
was Nitin. There is no document placed on record to suggest that
deceased Vinit was running any property dealing business and if
so, from where. No bank statement of his is produced on record
either to prove it. Even the place of employment of deceased is
nowhere disclosed by any of the petitioners. Petitioner Rashmi
deposed that her husband was income tax Assessee but there is
no document produced to suggest that he was earning and paid
any income tax during his lifetime. There is no explanation
given as to why income tax return was filed after demise of
deceased and that too for the first time and for what purpose. As
ITR was filed after demise of deceased victim only, it strengthens
the plea taken by Insurance companies that the same has been
filed with a view to get more compensation. Hence, such an ITR,
cannot be considered as a proof of income, especially when no
ITR of any preceding year and no document in support of the
business of property dealing and occupation of deceased Vinit
Awana is filed. There is absolutely no document to justify such
income of the deceased as claimed in the ITR filed post demise
of the victim and even to prima facie show that he was engaged
in the business of property dealing. Hence, such an ITR is highly
doubtful and can not be considered as proof of income. There is
one B.com degree certificate on judicial file and petitioners have
not relied on this document Ex.PW1/6. No other document like
aadhar card and marksheet of deceased have been filed on record.

Page 50 of 56

However, there is no serious dispute to the degree certificate
Ex.PW1/6 and hence petitioner is considered to be a graduate.
Petitioners are stated to be residents of Haryana. In the claim
petition, place of employment of deceased is not mentioned.
However, in the cross-examination, she deposed that her husband
was a property dealer at Faridabad. In view of this court, there is
sufficient evidence on record to establish that the deceased was a
resident of Haryan and a graduate and in absence of his income
and occupation proof, his income is taken as per minimum wages
of graduate /skilled worker. In her cross-examination, PW
Rashmi deposed that date of birth of her husband was
19.11.1992. His age as per post-mortem report is 27 years. No
documentary proof in support of age of deceased Vinit Awana is
filed on record. However, there is no serious dispute to the claim
of him being 27 years old at the time of accident. PW Rashmi
deposed that her father-in-law was a property dealer and also has
rental income and that he was taking care of all of the expenses
as on date. Salary of the petitioner has to be taken as per
minimum wages applicable to a graduate person on the date of
accident in the State of Haryana, as deceased is stated to be
resident of Haryana and was a graduate which were Rs.10,218/-
per month. Thus, the income of the deceased is considered to be
Rs.10,218/- per month.

APPLICATION OF MULTIPLIER:

60. As per PMR and testimony of PW Rashmi, deceased Vinit
was 27 years on the date of accident. In view of this, multiplier of
17, as applicable to age group between 26-30 years, would be

—————————————————————————————————-

Page 51 of 56

applicable.

DEDUCTION TOWARDS PERSONAL LIVING EXPENSES:

61. Petitioner no.4 was employed and earning and also having
rental income and business and hence, he can not be considered
as a dependent of the deceased especially when deceased had
responsibility of a minor child and wife. However, other
petitioners being non-working wife, minor child and mother of
the deceased are considered as dependents of the deceased Vinit.

Since the deceased was married at the time of accident and
petitioners No. 1 to 3 are stated to be dependents of his, 1/3 rd of
his income is to deducted towards his personal and living
expenses.

FUTURE PROSPECTS:

62. Deceased can be considered as self-employed and further,
he was below 40 year old. Thus, an addition of income of
deceased to the extent of 40% has to be considered in view of
decision of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the
case, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and
Ors. (AIR 2017 SC 5157).

LOSS OF DEPENDENCY:

63. Applying the multiplier of 17, after making deduction of
half of the income of the deceased and by applying 40% addition
towards future prospects, the loss of dependency is computed as
Rs.19,45,507/- (10218 x 140/100 x 2/3 x 17×12).
NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:

64. In view of judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra), Rs.48,000/-,
Rs.18,000/- and Rs.18,000/- are added on account of loss of

—————————————————————————————————-

Page 52 of 56

consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, a total sum
of Rs.2,28,000/- (Rs.48,000×4+18,000+18,000) is granted under
this head.

65. Accordingly, all the petitioners i.e. wife, child, mother and
father of the deceased in the instant case shall be entitled to a
total compensation of Rs.21,73,507/- (19,45,507+2,28,000) only.
P-4 is entitled to compensation for loss of consortium only.

LIABILITY:

66. Since the offending vehicle bearing no.
UK-06CA-6124 ( Mini Truck, half body) was insured with
Respondent no. 2 and R-2 has been unable to prove that there
was any breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance policy
by the driver cum owner /R1, respondents No. 2 /Shri Ram GIC
Ltd. shall be liable to pay the compensation amount to the
petitioners. Copy of driving licence of R-1 is filed by the
petitioners and same reflects that the driver had a valid driving
licence on the date of accident. In view of the discussion above-
said, as the offending vehicle being driven by R1/driver-cum-
owner Mohd. Zubair (who was charge-sheeted in the criminal
case bearing FIR no. 615/19 and composite negligence on the
part of victim vehicle is not proved on record) was insured with
R2/Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. on the date of
accident, it is clear that R2/Insurer is liable to compensate the
petitioners in all the the above-mentioned four claim cases.

Page 53 of 56

ISSUE No.4: (In MACP No. 757/2019, 763/2019 and 786/2019)
&
Issue no. 3 (In MACP No.758/2019)

67. The petitioners have conducted the proceedings in their
case diligently. Therefore, they are entitled for interest @ 7.5%
per annum on the aforesaid award amount from the date of filing
of the petition till date of realization.

RELIEF:

(MACP No.757/19 : In re Munesh & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair &
Ors.)

68. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.17,47,000/-
(Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Forty Seven Thousands Only)
(rounded off from Rs.17,46,801/-) to the petitioners along with
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till
realization to be paid by the respondent no.2/ Shriram GIC Ltd,
within 30 days. Amount of interim award, if any, be deducted
from the compensation amount along with the waiver of interest,
if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this
case.

(MACP No.758/19; (In re Pooja & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair & Anr).

69. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.47,38,500/-
(Rupees Forty Seven Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousands Five
Hundred Only) to the petitioners along with interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of filing of petition till realization to be paid
by the respondent no.2/ Shriram GIC Ltd, within 30 days.

Page 54 of 56

Amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the
compensation amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as
directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case.

(MACP No.763/19: In re Prince Kr. Bansala & Ors. Vs. Md.
Zubair & Ors.)

70. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.2,12,000/-
(Rupees Two Lakhs Twelve Thousand Only) (rounded off from
Rs.2,11,668/-) to the petitioner along with interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of filing of petition till realization to be paid
by the respondent no.2/ Shriram GIC Ltd, within 30 days.
Amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the
compensation amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as
directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case.

(MACP No.786/19 : In Re Rashmi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zubair &
Ors.)

71. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.21,74,000/-
(Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Seventy Four Thousands Only)
(rounded off from Rs.21,73,507/-) to the petitioners along with
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till
realization to be paid by the respondent no.2/ Shriram GIC Ltd,
within 30 days. Amount of interim award, if any, be deducted
from the compensation amount along with the waiver of interest,
if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this
case.

Page 55 of 56

72. The apportionment of the award amount shall be
decided only after deposit of award amount.

73. With these observations, the claim petition is disposed
of.

74. Files be consigned to Record Room.

Digitally signed
by MAYURI

                                                   MAYURI            SINGH
                                                   SINGH             Date:
                                                                     2025.02.28
                                                                     16:49:37 +0000


Announced in the open                               (Mayuri Singh)
Court on 28.02.2025                             Presiding Officer-MACT (East)
(Total 56 pages)                                Karkardooma Courts, Delhi

Page 56 of 56

[ad_1]

Source link

Shiv Narain Pd. Mishra vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 30 August, 2025

Bharatvarshiya Digamber Jain Tirth … vs Jain Shwetamber Society on 18 August, 2025

Tulsi Devi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 August, 2025

30.08.2025 vs Khasi Hills Autonomous District … on 30 August, 2025

Nishi Singla vs State Of Punjab And Others on 28 August, 2025

Shiv Narain Pd. Mishra vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 30 August, 2025

Bharatvarshiya Digamber Jain Tirth … vs Jain Shwetamber Society on 18 August, 2025

Tulsi Devi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 August, 2025

30.08.2025 vs Khasi Hills Autonomous District … on 30 August, 2025

Nishi Singla vs State Of Punjab And Others on 28 August, 2025

Pooja Nagar vs Mohd Zubair on 28 February, 2025

Delhi District Court

Pooja Nagar vs Mohd Zubair on 28 February, 2025

LEAVE A REPLY Cancel reply

About us

Company

Top Stories

Now Is the Time to Think About Your Small-Business Success

Program Will Lend $10M to Detroit Minority Businesses

Kansas City Has a Massive Array of Big National Companies

Subscribe