Delhi District Court
Ranju Devi (Dar) vs Kailash Singh (452/23, Oia) on 1 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA
DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No.454/2023
FIR No. 452/2023
PS : Okhla Industrial Area
U/s 279/304A IPC
CNR NO. DLSE01-010985-2023
Ranju Devi & Ors. Vs. Kailash Singh & Ors.
1. Ranju Devi (wife of deceased)
2. Sanjita (minor daughter)
3. Bharti (minor daughter)
4. Shankar Kumar (minor son)
All R/o Gram -Nirmala, Post Raja Kharwar
Kasiam, Madhubani, Bihar.
..Claimants
Versus
1. Kailash Singh
S/o Sh. Ramvir Singh
R/o F-215, Sanjay Colony
Okhla Phase-II, New Delhi.
.....driver / respondent No. 1
2. O. K. Transport Company
through Anil Kumar
R/o D-124, 2nd Floor,
Vivek Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi.
....owner/ respondent No. 2
MACT No.454/2023 Ranju Devi & Ors. Vs. Kailash Singh & Ors.. page 1 of 29
3. Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.
Maneckji Wadia Building, Motwane Marg, Mumbai
.......Insurance Company/ Respondent no.-3
Date of accident : 22.07.2023
Date of filing of DAR : 21.10.2023
Date of Decision : 01.02.2025
AWARD
1. In this case, a Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter
referred as DAR) was filed by SI Inderjeet and in terms of
provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, same is treated as Claim
Petition under Section 166 (1) read with Section 166 (4) MV Act.
It pertains to alleged accident of victim Late Sh. Anil Kumar
Yadav (hereinafter referred as deceased), by Vehicle no. DL 1GC
3721 (hereinafter referred as offending vehicle), driven by
Kailash Singh (hereinafter referred as R-1/ driver) & owned by
O. K. Transport Co. in the proprietorship of Anil Kumar
(hereinafter referred as R-2) and insured with M/s Reliance Gen.
Ins. Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as R-2).
2. Preliminary information regarding accident in question
was received at PS Okhla Industrial Area vide DD no. 48A &
49A dt. 22.07.2023, at 12.40 pm, upon receipt of which, SI
Inderjeet rushed to main road near Dumping Yard Okhla, where
he found two injured persons namely Roshan Kumar Jha and
Anil Kumar Yadav who were rushed to hospital. SI Inderjeet also
moved to hospital and collected MLC of Anil Yadav with the
MACT No.454/2023 Ranju Devi & Ors. Vs. Kailash Singh & Ors.. page 2 of 29
remarks "A/H/O RTA DRIVING PILLION RIDER AND
ACCIDENT HAPPENED NEAR ESIC HOSPITAL OKHLA
RUN OVER BY MOVING VEHICLE AND PATIENT WAS
PRODUCED DEAD." Another injured Roshan Kumar Jha was
also found admitted whose statement was recorded by SI
Inderjeet. Injured Roshan Kumar informed that he was pillion
rider on motorcycle make Hero Splendor bearing Reg. No. DL
3CY 7967 driven by deceased Anil Kumar Yadav, at about 12.45
AM when they were crossing MCD Dumping Yard, ESIC
Hospital that a speedy truck attempted to overtake their bike
from the right side because of which the motorcycle rammed into
the truck and the driver of motorcycle was run over under the
rear wheel of the truck whereas he fell down on one side of the
road. He also stated that the truck driver had stopped the truck
and also came out to see what happened and later fled away. He
also told the registration no. of the truck as DL 1GC 3721. Some
passersby informed police and they were taken to hospital in an
ambulance. He stated that the accident happened on account of
speedy and rash driving of the truck driver.
3. FIR was registered. Crime team inspected the spot of
accident and collected the samples. Accidental motorcycle along
with helmet was seized and taken into police possession and was
got inspected by the FSL Team Rohini. It is also noted that the
kick paddle of motorcycle was smeared with blood. No CCTV
Camera was found near the spot of accident. The Truck was
found at ICD, Tughlakabad Depot where on the left side inner
tyre, blood was found. The offending vehicle was also taken into
police possession. Notice under Section 133 MV Act to its
registered owner was given who confirmed that driver Kailash
MACT No.454/2023 Ranju Devi & Ors. Vs. Kailash Singh & Ors.. page 3 of 29
was on the wheels at the time of accident. The said truck was also
got inspected by FSL Team. The body of deceased was sent for
post mortem examination. The documents pertaining to offending
vehicle was seized and got verified. The DL of driver Kailash
was got verified. Motor Vehicle inspection was got conducted of
the accidental as well as the offending vehicle. PM Report was
obtained. Statements under Section 161 Cr.PC were recorded.
The samples obtained were sent for forensic examination. FIR
was registered. Respondents are Charge Sheeted for commission
of offence punishable under section 279/304A IPC. DAR was
filed by Investigating Officer.
Reply:
4. In response to DAR, any reply has not been filed on behalf
of R-1 & 2.
5. In response to DAR, Legal offer was filed on behalf of
Insurance Company admitting that the offending vehicle was
validly insured with answering respondent covering the date of
accident. Said legal offer was not acceptable to the counsel for
claimant submitting that it was not fair and just compensation. As
no dispute in respect of rash and negligent driving or the
involvement of the offending vehicle and the driver thereof was
raised therefore, as per the legal mandate only issue in respect of
quantum of compensation was framed vide order dated
29.02.2024 as under:
Issues:
6. Issues were framed vide order dated :
1. Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation,
if so, to what extent and from whom?
2. Relief.
MACT No.454/2023 Ranju Devi & Ors. Vs. Kailash Singh & Ors.. page 4 of 29
Evidence:
7. Matter was then listed for petitioner evidence. PW-1 Ranju
Devi, wife of deceased appeared in the witness box and tendered
her evidentiary affidavit Ex.PW1/A. She also relied upon
following documents:
(i) Ex.PW1/1- Copy of her Aadhar Card.
(ii) Ex.PW1/2- Copy of her PAN Card
(iii) Ex.PW1/3- Copy of Aadhar Card of her daughter namely
Sanjita Kumari
(iv) Ex.PW1/4 - Copy of Adhar Card of her daughter namely
Bharti Kumari
(v) Ex.PW1/5- Copy of Aadhar Card of her son namely Shankar
Kumar Yadav
(vi) Ex.PW1/6 - Copy of Aadhar Card of deceased.
(vii) Ex.PW1/7- Driving License of deceased.
(viii) Ex.PW1/8 - DAR.
8. PW-1 was cross examined on behalf of counsel for
insurance company.
9. PW-1 Ashwani Kumar examined as summoned witness
who came on behalf of employer of the deceased to prove the
avocation of deceased. He relied upon GST Registration
Certificate of Changra Transport Service as Ex.PW2/2 and Copy
of Attendance Register as Ex.PW2/3. He was also cross
examined on behalf of counsel for insurance company.
10. No other witness was produced on behalf of claimant and
PE was closed. Any evidence was not led by respondent side.
Respondent Evidence was accordingly closed.
MACT No.454/2023 Ranju Devi & Ors. Vs. Kailash Singh & Ors.. page 5 of 29
Final Arguments:
11. Written Arguments were filed by counsel for petitioner as
well as the counsel for insurance company respectively. Counsel
for the claimant argued that he has examined the employer of
deceased to prove his income asserting that the deceased was
serving as a driver in Delhi for the last several years. Counsel for
the insurance company submitted that company has not raised
dispute with respect to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the offending vehicle. Also the documents filed in
respect of offending vehicle are all valid and genuine and as such
there is no statutory defence in favour of the insurance company
to deny payment of compensation. He however asserted that
minimum wages of Bihar must be granted to the claimant and not
of Delhi as claimed by counsel for claimant. He pointed out that
the deceased was employed with the employer only for past few
days prior to the accident whereas it is deposed by his wife that
they both were resident of Bihar and therefore, it is clear that the
counsel for claimant has not been able to prove either the
residence or his place working for gain in Delhi and therefore,
not entitled to wages applicable in Delhi.
12. As mentioned above, no dispute has been raised by any of
the contesting parties, in respect of the speedy and rash driving
on the part of driver of offending vehicle who has caused the
accident which resulted in death of the victim in this matter. It is
evident from the material available on record that the accident
was suffered as well as witnessed by friend of deceased who was
with him at the time of accident and FIR was registered on his
statement. The injured persons were taken to hospital by police
officials. It is on record that the R-1 was charge sheeted for
MACT No.454/2023 Ranju Devi & Ors. Vs. Kailash Singh & Ors.. page 6 of 29
causing death due to to rash driving. The complaint which
resulted in FIR clearly mentions about the mode and manner of
accident. The inner side of tyre of the truck as well as the kick
pedal of the accidental vehicle was found smeared with blood.
The Site Plan as well as the Mechanical Inspection Report as part
of charge sheet also corroborated the same. It is held on the
scales of preponderance of probability that the accident happened
on account of speedy and rash driving of offending vehicle by
R-1/ driver who was at wheels at the time of accident.
Ascertainment of Compensation
13. The admissible compensation is being decided on the basis
of DAR.
14. Section. 168 MV Act enjoins the Claim Tribunals to hold
an enquiry into the claim to make an effort determining the
amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and
reasonable. Same is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
(1) Award of the Claims Tribunal.--On receipt of an
application for compensation made under section 166, the
Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the
application to the insurer and after giving the parties
(including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold
an inquiry into the claim or, as the case may be, each of
the claims and, subject to the provisions of section 162
may make an award determining the amount of
compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying
the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid
and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify
the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or
driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or
any of them, as the case may be: Provided that where such
application makes a claim for compensation under section
140 in respect of the death or permanent disablement of
any person, such claim and any other claim (whether made
in such application or otherwise) for compensation in
respect of such death or permanent disablement shall be
MACT No.454/2023 Ranju Devi & Ors. Vs. Kailash Singh & Ors.. page 7 of 29
disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Chapter
X.
(2) The Claims Tribunal shall arrange to deliver copies of
the award to the parties concerned expeditiously and in
any case within a period of fifteen days from the date of
the award.
(3) When an award is made under this section, the person
who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award
shall, within thirty days of the date of announcing the
award by the Claims Tribunal, deposit the entire amount
awarded in such manner as the Claims Tribunal may
direct.
15. Before putting in frame the position of law, it is noted that
the process of determining the compensation by the court is
essentially a very difficult task and can never be an exact science.
Perfect compensation is hardly possible, more so in claims of
injury and disability. (As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Sidram Vs. The Divisional Manager United
India Insurance Company Ltd, SLP (Civil) No. 19277 of 2019).
16. The basic principle in assessing motor vehicle
compensation claims, is to place the victim in as near a position
as she or he was in before the accident, with other compensatory
directions for loss of amenities and other payments. These
general principles have been stated and reiterated in several
decisions. [Support drawn from Govind Yadav v. New India
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683.]
17. This Tribunal has been tasked with determination of just
compensation. The observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty and
Another, (2003) 7 SCC 197, needs mention here (para 15):
"Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the
compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza;
MACT No.454/2023 Ranju Devi & Ors. Vs. Kailash Singh & Ors.. page 8 of 29
not a source of profit but the same should not be a
pittance. The courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the
various factors and quantify the amount of compensation,
which should be just. What would be "just" compensation
is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule
applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human
life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by
precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon
the particular facts and circumstances, and attending
peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode
adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered
in the background of "just" compensation which is the
pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression
"which appears to it to be just", a wide discretion is vested
in the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be
done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of
whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness.. ..."
18. Delineating the damages as pecuniary and non pecuniary,
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case of R. D. Hattangadi Vs.
Pest Control (India) Pvt Ltd, 1995 AIR 755, made following
observations:
"9....while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a
victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed
separately as pecuniary damages and special damages.
Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually
incurred and which are capable of being calculated in
terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are
those which are incapable of being assessed by
arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two
concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses
incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss
of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other
material loss. So far non- pecuniary damages are
concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and
physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or
likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate
for the loss of amenities of life which may include a
variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant
may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the
MACT No.454/2023 Ranju Devi & Ors. Vs. Kailash Singh & Ors.. page 9 of 29
loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the
normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened;
(iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment,
frustration and mental stress in life."
19. In The Landmark Case of National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi And Others (2017 SCC Online SC
1270), decided by constitutional bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India, regarding the concept of 'just compensation' it was held
:
"................55. Section 168 of the Act deals with the concept of
"just compensation" and the same has to be determined on the
foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on
acceptable legal standard because such determination can never
be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is
to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical
precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an
individual case. The conception of "just compensation" has to be
viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-
violation of the principle of equitability. In a case of death, the
legal heirs of the claimants cannot expect a windfall.
Simultaneously, the compensation granted cannot be an apology
for compensation. It cannot be a pittance. Though the discretion
vested in the tribunal is quite wide, yet it is obligatory on the part
of the tribunal to be guided by the expression, that is, "just
compensation". The determination has to be on the foundation of
evidence brought on record as regards the age and income of the
deceased and thereafter the apposite multiplier to be applied. The
formula relating to multiplier has been clearly stated in Sarla
Verma and it has been approved in Reshma Kumari . The age and
income, as stated earlier, have to be established by adducing
evidence. The tribunal and the courts have to bear in mind that
the basic principle lies in pragmatic computation which is in
proximity to reality. It is a well-accepted norm that money
cannot substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for grant
of just compensation having uniformity of approach. There has
to be a balance between the two extremes, that is, a windfall and
the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum. In such an
adjudication, the duty of the tribunal and the courts is difficult
and hence, an endeavour has been made by this Court for
MACT No.454/2023 Ranju Devi & Ors. Vs. Kailash Singh & Ors.. page 10 of 29
standardisation which in its ambit includes addition of future
prospects on the proven income at present..................."
20. Further about the principles relating to Assessment of
compensation in case of death, it was held in Pranay Sethi (supra)
that detailed analysis of Sarla Verma (SMT) And Others Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation And Another (2009 Scc Online Sc
797) is necessary as in the said case, the Court recapitulated the
relevant principles relating to assessment of compensation in case
of death. In fact , Hon'ble SC in Pranay Sethi (supra) mainly
relied and approved the earlier judgment of Sarla Verma( Supra)
read with Reshma Kumari[( 2013) 9 SCC 65 : (2013) 4 SCC
(Civ) 191 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 826 ], with some modification,
regarding all the aspects like aspect of multiplier,the steps and
guidelines stated in para 19 of Sarla Verma for determination of
compensation in cases of death, future prospects, deduction to be
made towards personal and living expenses.
21. PW-1 Ranju Devi, wife of deceased Anil Kumar Yadav
testified that he worked as a driver with Changra Transport, ICD
Tughlakabad, New Delhi on a salary of Rs. 25,000/- per month.
During cross examination, she admitted that she as well as her
deceased husband were permanent residents of Bihar.
22. PW-2 Ashwani Kumar, partner of Chhangra Transport
service appeared as summoned witness who deposed that the
deceased worked with them as driver since 12.07.2023 who used
to drive their truck bearing Reg. No. HR 55R 8010 and was paid
Rs. 800/- per day. He stated that there were 25 employees
working with them and that they used to pay the salary through
both online and cash mode. He stated that the salary was normally
paid as per the experience. He also produced the copy of
MACT No.454/2023 Ranju Devi & Ors. Vs. Kailash Singh & Ors.. page 11 of 29
Attendance Register as Ex.PW2/3. He also stated that the copy of
DL and Aadhar Card were usually taken from the employees at
the time of joining which was kept in the office. During cross
examination, he admitted that the deceased has joined his
transport business merely 10 days prior to the accident and had
worked with them only for 6 to 7 days. He also stated that he had
paid his income at the rate of Rs. 800/- per day for 6 to 7 days to
his family after 2 days of his death. He admitted that he kept the
copy of Aadhar and DL of deceased Anil Kumar Yadav where the
address was mentioned to be that of Bihar.
23. Counsel for the insurance company vehemently argued that
the the deceased was neither residing nor working for gain in
Delhi and therefore, minimum wages of Bihar must be given to
him. Aadhar Card of deceased has been placed on record as
Ex.PW1/6 whereas DL of deceased has been placed on record as
Ex.PW1/7. As per Aadhar Card, he was resident of Bihar whereas
in his DL, the address of State of Uttar Pradesh is mentioned.
PW-1 admitted that she as well as her husband was permanent
resident of Bihar, however, her husband was working in Delhi for
last 20 years and was residing at ICD Okhla. The accident
happened in Delhi near ICD, Okhla. It is mentioned in the
complaint filed by Roshan Kumar Jha who was employed as
Supervisor in a company at ICD, Tughlakabad, on the basis of
which FIR was registered that he along with deceased were going
from Tehkhand to their place at Railway Colony, Tughlakabad at
12.45 in the night when the accident happened. It is not the case
of insurance company that the deceased had come to meet his
friend or his relation in Delhi and as such was not working in
Delhi. In fact PW-2 himself deposed that the drivers were kept as
MACT No.454/2023 Ranju Devi & Ors. Vs. Kailash Singh & Ors.. page 12 of 29
per experience and he was also employed as a driver few day of
his employment is sufficient to conclude that he was not working
in Delhi seems to have no basis as deceased obviously did not
know that he was about to die few days later after his joining.
PW-2 has not stated that Anil Yadav was not experienced or was a
novice or still needed training. There is no reason to doubt the
testimony of wife of deceased that her husband was working as a
driver for 20 years in Delhi. Counsel for the insurance company
stated that the previous employer ought to have been called in the
witness box. There is no substance in that assertion as deceased
could have taken the work on contractual basis and not
necessarily a permanent job with a fixed salary. However, it
cannot be denied that he was skilled as a driver. PW-1 also
deposed that her husband used to send Rs 10,000/- to his family
by transferring to her bank account and that she can produce the
bank passbook of her husband. This also substantiates that she
was living at Bihar while her husband was living in Delhi from
where he used to deposit the amount for the upkeep of his family.
Only because his documents pertain to his permanent residence at
Bihar, it cannot falsify that he was actually/ de facto residing and
working for gain in Delhi. Therefore, it is held on the basis of
discussion held above, that deceased Anil Kumar Yadav was
working as a skilled driver in the State of NCT of Delhi.
Therefore, minimum wages for skilled worker on the date of
accident, applicable in the State of NCT of Delhi are taken to be
his monthly earnings which was Rs. 20,903/-.
24. As per Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/6, date of birth of deceased
was 01.01.1985 as such he was about 38 years & 6 months of age
at the time of accident. As deceased was below the age of 40
MACT No.454/2023 Ranju Devi & Ors. Vs. Kailash Singh & Ors.. page 13 of 29
years (at the time of accident) and was on fixed salary (minimum
wages), thus the percentage towards future prospect is taken to be
@ 40 % upon application of category of ''self-employed or on a
fixed salary''
Step No- 1 : Ascertainment of Multiplicand:
25. Further, as per evidence on record, LRs Certificate has
been filed as part of DAR as per which deceased was survived by
his wife and three minor children on the date of accident. It is
held in Sarla Verma (Supra) that deduction towards personal and
living expenses of the deceased should be 1/4 where the number
of depenents are 4 to 6. Thus accordingly, in the present case, the
deduction for personal expenses is taken to be ¼.
Step No- -2 : Ascertainment of Multiplier:
26. In the present case, age of the deceased was about 38 years
and 6 months as per record. Thus, having regard to the table
mentioned in para - 40 of Sarla Verma (supra), it is held that
multiplier of 15 is applied.
Step No- -3 : Actual Calculation ( actual loss/loss of
dependency):
27. In view of the above discussion of law, the calculation in
the present case is as under:
27.1. Annual income of the deceased.
(Rs.20,903/-/- per month x 12) = Rs. 2,50,836/-
27.2. Future prospect (40 % of Rs. 2,50,836/-)= Rs. 1,00,334/-
------------------
27.3. Total = Rs.3,51,170/-
MACT No.454/2023 Ranju Devi & Ors. Vs. Kailash Singh & Ors.. page 14 of 29
===========
28.4. Deduction for personal expenses
(1/4 of Rs.3,51,170/-) = (-) Rs. 87,792/-
28.5. Multiplicand
( Rs.3,51,170/- (-) Rs. 87,792/-) = Rs. 2,63,378/-
28.6. As such, the total loss of dependency is:
Rs. 2,63,378/- ( multiplicand) x 15 (multiplier)= Rs.39,50,670/-
Grant of Loss of Estate, Loss Of Consortium And Funeral
Expenses:
29. In this regard in Pranay Sethi (supra) it was held :
”……………46. Another aspect which has created
confusion pertains to grant of loss of estate, loss
of consortium and funeral expenses…..
.
.
52. As far as the conventional heads are
concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the
view expressed in Rajesh . It has granted Rs
25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,000
towards loss of consortium and Rs 1,00,000
towards loss of care and guidance for minor
children. The head relating to loss of care and
minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh
refers to Santosh Devi , it does not seem to follow
the same. The conventional and traditional heads,
needless to say, cannot be determined on
percentage basis because that would not be an
acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of
income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any
quantification must have a reasonable foundation.
There can be no dispute over the fact that price
index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in
many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot
remain oblivious to the same. There has been a
thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be
MACT No.454/2023 Ranju Devi & Ors. Vs. Kailash Singh & Ors.. page 15 of 29
extreme difficulty in determination of the same
and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be
immense variation lacking any kind of
consistency as a consequence of which, the orders
passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be
unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix
reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable
figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of
estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses
should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000
respectively. The principle of revisiting the said
heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit
should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We
think that it would be condign that the amount
that we have quantified should be enhanced on
percentage basis in every three years and the
enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a
span of three years. We are disposed to hold so
because that will bring in consistency in respect
of those heads.
.
.
59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads,
namely, loss of 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……………”
30. Thus in view of such finding in Pranay Sethi (Supra), in
Which Hon’ble Supreme Court wanted to avoid immense
variations and instead ensure consistency, the claimants are also
entitled to certain sums towards grant of loss of estate, loss of
consortium and funeral expenses.
31. In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram &
Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
held as under:
MACT No.454/2023 Ranju Devi & Ors. Vs. Kailash Singh & Ors.. page 16 of 29
“This Court interpreted “consortium” to be a
compendious term, which encompasses spousal
consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial
consortium. The right to consortium would
include the company, care, help, comfort,
guidance, solace and affection of the deceased,
which is a loss to his family. With respect to a
spouse, it would include sexual relations with the
deceased spouse.
Parental consortium is granted to the child upon
the premature death of a parent, for loss of
parental aid, protection, affection, society,
discipline, guidance and training.
Filial consortium is the right of the parents to
compensation in the case of an accidental death of
a child. An accident leading to the death of a child
causes great shock and agony to the parents and
family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a
parent is to lose their child during their lifetime.
Children are valued for their love and affection,
and their role in the family unit.
Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognized
that the value of a child’s consortium far exceeds
the economic value of the compensation awarded
in the case of the death of a child. Most
jurisdictions permit parents to be awarded
compensation under loss of consortium on the
death of a child. The amount awarded to the
parents is the compensation for loss of love and
affection, care and companionship of the
deceased child.
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial
legislation which has been framed with the object
of providing relief to the victims, or their
families, in cases of genuine claims. In case
where a parent has lost their minor child, or
unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled
to be awarded loss of consortium under the head
of Filial Consortium.
MACT No.454/2023 Ranju Devi & Ors. Vs. Kailash Singh & Ors.. page 17 of 29
Parental Consortium is awarded to the children
who lose the care and protection of their parents
in motor vehicle accidents.
The amount to be awarded for loss consortium
will be as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi
(supra).
At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide
uniformity with respect to the grant of
consortium, and loss of love and affection.
Several Tribunals and High Courts have been
awarding compensation for both loss of
consortium and loss of love and affection. The
Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), has
recognized only three conventional heads under
which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of
estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a
comprehensive interpretation to consortium to
include spousal consortium, parental consortium,
as well as filial consortium. Loss of love and
affection is comprehended in loss of consortium.
The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to
award compensation for loss of consortium,
which is a legitimate conventional head. There is
no justification to award compensation towards
loss of love and affection as a separate head.”
32. It may further be noted that the date of judgment of Pranay
Sethi (supra) is 31/10/2017. Further it was stated in such
judgment itself that the amount that Hon’ble SC have quantified
should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and
the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three
years. As such a sum of Rs.18,150/- for cremation expenses; and
Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate is also payable.
33. Further, on the date of accident, deceased had left behind,
MACT No.454/2023 Ranju Devi & Ors. Vs. Kailash Singh & Ors.. page 18 of 29
his wife and three minor children who are entitled to Rs. 48,400/-
each towards loss of consortium.
Total Award Amount
34. Thus the total award amount comes to Rs.39,50,670/- (+)
Rs 18,150/-( Loss to estate) + Rs. 18,150/-( funeral expenses) +
Rs.1,93,600/- (loss of consortium) = Rs. 41,80,570/-
35. It may be noted that in the judgment of Ram Charan &
Ors. Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., MAC Appeal no.
433/2013, decided on 18.10.2022, following observations
regarding rate of interest were made:
“25 to evaluate the submission made by counsel for
the applicants, it is imperative to examine the guiding
principles for the grant of interest. In Abati
Bezbaruah Vs. Geological Survey of India, (2003) 3
SCC 148, the following was held while interpreting
section 171 of the MV Act, 1988:-
Three decisions were cited before us by Mr. A.
P. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the Appellant, in support of his
contentions. No ratio has been laid down in any
of the decisions in regard to the rate of interest
and the rate of interest was awarded on the
amount of compensation as a matter of judicial
discretion. The rate of interest must be just and
reasonable depending upon the facts and
circumstances of each case and taking all
relevant factors including inflation, change of
economy, policy being adopted by Reserve
Bank of India from time to time, how long the
case is pending, permanent injuries suffered by
the victim, enormity of suffering, loss of future
income, loss of enjoyment of life etc. into
consideration. No rate of interest is fixed under
Section 171 of the MV Act 1988. Varying rates
of interest are being awarded by Tribunals,
High Courts and the Supreme Court. Interest
can be granted even if a claimant does not
specifically plead for the same as it is
consequential in the eye of the law. Interest is
compensation for forbearance or detention of
money and that interest being awarded to a
party only for being kept out of the money
which ought to have been paid to him. NoMACT No.454/2023 Ranju Devi & Ors. Vs. Kailash Singh & Ors.. page 19 of 29
principle could be deduced nor can any rate of
interest be fixed to have a general application in
motor accident provision under Section 171
giving discretion to the Tribunal in such matter.
In other matters, awarding of interest depends
upon the statutory provisions mercantile usage
and doctrine of equity. Neither Sec. 34 CPC nor
Sec. 4-A(3) of Workmen’s Compensation Act
are applicable in the matter of fixing are of
interest in a claim under the Motor Vehicles
Act. The courts have awarded the interest at
different rates depending upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. Therefore, in my
opinion, there cannot be any hard and fast rule
in awarding interest and the award of interest is
solely on the discretion of the Tribunal of the
High Court as indicated above.”
36. Having regard to the prevailing rate of interest and the
judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, including in the
case of Erudhaya Priya vs State Express Transport decided on 27
July, 2020, Civil Appeal Nos. 2811-2812 OF 2020 [Arising out of
SLP (C) Nos.8495-8496 of 2018], which is three Judges Bench
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, such interest @ 9% per
annum is deemed fit and accordingly granted in the present case.
Liability:-
37. Insurance Company has conceded valid and effective
Insurance Policy on the date of accident and has not raised any
statutory defence. It has already been held that accident occurred
on account of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle. It
is settled that Insurance Company is responsible to indemnify
owner / insured for vicarious liability incurred by tort feaser.
Therefore, such principal award amount/compensation will be
payable by the insurance company of offending vehicle with
simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition
MACT No.454/2023 Ranju Devi & Ors. Vs. Kailash Singh & Ors.. page 20 of 29
till actual realization. (If there is any order regarding excluding
of interest for specific period same be complied at the time of
calculation of award amount).
Directions Regarding Deposit of Award Amount in Bank:
38. In compliance of directions issued vide order dated
16.11.2021 by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition
Civil No.534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India the award amount shall be deposited
with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way
of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT FUND PARKING,
A/c No. 00000042706870765, IFS Code SBIN0014244 and
MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir in the
prescribed format i.e. MCOP Number on the file of (Claims
Tribunal Name) Date of award, Compensation Amount, Income
Tax Deduction at Source, Bank Transaction Reference
No./Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. In turn, the
State Bank of India, Saket Courts Branch shall receive the
deposited sum and capture the above information and furnish a
statement of account on a daily basis to the Nazir of this Tribunal
to reconcile the deposits of compensation and the respective
MCOPs towards which such deposits are made. On such deposits
being made, the insurance company shall submit a letter to the
Nazir of this Tribunal enclosing a copy of the said bank advice,
in prescribed format as above, as per which the deposit made to
the bank account of this Tribunal, to enable this Tribunal to keep
tab on the deposits made and the MCOPs for which they were
made. The Payment advice for remittance of compensation is as
under:
MACT No.454/2023 Ranju Devi & Ors. Vs. Kailash Singh & Ors.. page 21 of 29
PAYMENT ADVICE FOR REMITTANCE OF
COMPENSATION :
………… Bank ……………….
To:
…………… Court ……………………
We confirm remittance of compensation as follows on
instructions of …………………………….. (insurance
company):-
MCOP Number On the file of (Claims Tribunal Name),
Place Date of award Amount Deposited, Income Tax
Deduction at Source, if any Unique Transaction Reference
(UTR) Number. Insurance company of offending vehicle,
on deposit, shall also send a copy of the payment advice in
above format to this Tribunal and serve a copy of the same
on the claimants or their counsel as the case may be.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD
AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE ‘MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL
AGREED PROCEDURE’ (MCTAP).
39. This Tribunal is in receipt of the orders dated 07.12.2018
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003
titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors whereby the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has formulated MACAD (Motor
Accident Claims Annunity Deposit Scheme) which has been
made effective from 01.01.2019. The said orders dated
07.12.2018 also mentions that 21 banks including State Bank of
India is one of such banks which are to adhere to MACAD. The
State Bank of India, Saket Courts, Delhi is directed to disburse
the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
Apportionment:-
40. At this stage, it is relevant to the refer to the judgment of
A. V. Padma & Ors. Vs., R. Venugopal & Ors. (2012) 3 SupremeMACT No.454/2023 Ranju Devi & Ors. Vs. Kailash Singh & Ors.. page 22 of 29
Court Cases 378:
“……In the case of Susamma Thomas (supra), this
Court issued certain guidelines in order to
“safeguard the feed from being frittered away by
the beneficiaries due to ignorance, illiteracy and
susceptibility to exploitation”.
Even as per the guidelines issued by this Court
Court, long term fixed deposit of amount of
compensation is mandatory only in the case of
minors, illiterate claimants and widows. In the
case of illiterate claimants, the Tribunal is
allowed to consider the request for lumpsum
payment for effecting purchase of any movable
property such as agricultural implements,
rickshaws etc. to earn a living. However, in such
cases, the Tribunal shall make sure that the
amount is actually spent for the purpose and the
demand is not a ruse to withdraw money. In the
case of semi-illiterate claimants, the Tribunal
should ordinarily invest the amount of
compensation in long term fixed deposit. But if
the Tribunal is satisfied for reasons to be stated in
writing that the whole or part of the amount is
required for expanding an existing business or for
purchasing some property for earning a
livelihood, the Tribunal can release the whole or
part of the amount of compensation to the
claimant provided the Tribunal will ensure that
the amount is invested for the purpose for which
it is demanded and paid. In the case of literate
persons, it is not mandatory to invest the amount
of compensation in long term fixed deposit.
The expression used in guideline No. (iv) issued
by this Court is that in the case of literate persons
also the Tribunal may resort to the procedure
indicated in guideline No. (i), whereas in the
guideline Nos. (i), (ii), (iii) and (v), the expression
used is that the Tribunal should. Moreover, in the
case of literate persons, the Tribunal may resort to
the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i) only
if, having regard to the age, fiscal background and
MACT No.454/2023 Ranju Devi & Ors. Vs. Kailash Singh & Ors.. page 23 of 29
strata of the society to which the claimant belongs
and such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks
that in the larger interest of the claimant and with
a view to ensure the safety of the compensation
awarded, it is necessary to invest the amount of
compensation in long term fixed deposit.
Thus, sufficient discretion has been given to the
Tribunal not to insist on investment of the
compensation amount in long term fixed deposit
and to release even the whole amount in the case
of literate persons. However, the Tribunals are
often taking a very rigid stand and are
mechanically ordering in almost all cases that the
amount of compensation shall be invested in long
term fixed deposit. They are taking such a rigid
and mechanical approach without understanding
and appreciating the distinction drawn by this
Court in the case of minors, illiterate claimants
and widows and in the case of semiliterate and
literate persons. It needs to be clarified that the
above guidelines were issued by this Court only
to safeguard the interests of the claimants,
particularly the minors, illiterates and others
whose amounts are sought to be withdrawn on
some fictitious grounds. The guidelines were not
to be understood to mean that the Tribunals were
to take a rigid stand while considering an
application seeking release of the money.
The guidelines cast a responsibility on the
Tribunals to pass appropriate orders after
examining each case on its own merits. However,
it is seen that even in cases when there is no
possibility or chance of the feed being frittered
away by the beneficiary owing to ignorance,
illiteracy or susceptibility to exploitation,
investment of the amount of compensation in long
term fixed deposit is directed by the Tribunals as
a matter of course and in a routine manner,
ignoring the object and the spirit of the guidelines
issued by this Court and the genuine requirements
of the claimants. Even in the case of literate
MACT No.454/2023 Ranju Devi & Ors. Vs. Kailash Singh & Ors.. page 24 of 29
persons, the Tribunals are automatically ordering
investment of the amount of compensation in long
term fixed deposit without recording that having
regard to the age or fiscal background or the strata
of the society to which the claimant belongs or
such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks it
necessary to direct such investment in the larger
interests of the claimant and with a view to ensure
the safety of the compensation awarded to him.
The Tribunals very often dispose of the claimant’s
application for withdrawal of the amount of
compensation in a mechanical manner and
without proper application of mind. This has
resulted in serious injustice and hardship to the
claimants. The Tribunals appear to think that in
view of the guidelines issued by this Court, in
every case the amount of compensation should be
invested in long term fixed deposit and under no
circumstances the Tribunal can release the entire
amount of compensation to the claimant even if it
is required by him. Hence a change of attitude
and approach on the part of the Tribunals is
necessary in the interest of justice…..”
41. In this background of legal position it is ordered as
follows:
(a) Out of the total award amount Rs. 26,80,570/- is awarded
to wife of deceased out of which Rs. 22,00,000/- is kept in
monthly FDR of Rs. 15,000/- and remaining amount shall be
released to wife of deceased in her bank account near her place
of residence.
(b) Further, out of the total award amount, Rs. 5,00,000/- each
is awarded to all three minor children of deceased and whole of
their shared amount shall be kept in form of FDR till they turn
the age of majority.
42. The following directions are also given to the bank for
MACT No.454/2023 Ranju Devi & Ors. Vs. Kailash Singh & Ors.. page 25 of 29
compliance:
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name (s)
to be added in the savings bank account or fixed
deposit accounts of victim i.e. the savings bank
account of the claimant shall be individual
savings bank account and not a joint account.
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by
the bank in safe custody. However, the statement
containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of
maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished
by bank to the claimant.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic
Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank
account of the claimant near the place of their
residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR (s) be
credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in
the savings bank account of the claimant near the
place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature
discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits
without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque
book and/ or debit card to claimant (s). However,
in case the debit card and/ or cheque book have
already been issued, bank shall cancel the same
before the disbursement of the award amount. The
bank shall debit freeze the account of the claimant
so that no debit card be issued in respect of the
account of the claimant from any other branch of
the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the
passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no
cheque book and / or debit card have been issued
and shall not be issued without the permission of
the Court and claimant shall produce the
passbook with the necessary endorsement before
the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
MACT No.454/2023 Ranju Devi & Ors. Vs. Kailash Singh & Ors.. page 26 of 29
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD IN DEATH
CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1. Date of accident 22.07.2023
2. Name of deceased Anil Kumar Yadav
3. Age of the deceased 38 years & 6 months
4. Occupation of the deceased Not proved
5. Income of the deceased Mi Minimum wages for non matriculate
at the time of accident, applicable in
the State of NCT of Delhi.
43. Name, and relationship of legal representative of deceased:
1. Ranju Devi (wife of deceased)
2. Sanjita (minor daughter)
3. Bharti (minor daughter)
4. Shankar Kumar (minor son)
Computation of compensation:-
S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
1 A. Income of the deceased per year (As pe Rs.2,50,836/-
Minimum Wages)
B. Add-Future Prospects (40%). Rs.1,00,334/-
C. Total Rs.3,51,170/-
D. Deduction (1/4) Rs.87,792/-
E. Yearly Loss of Dependency (C-D) Rs.2,63,378/-
F Multiplier 15
MACT No.454/2023 Ranju Devi & Ors. Vs. Kailash Singh & Ors.. page 27 of 29
G. Yearly loss of Dependancy Rs.39,50,670/-
H. Medical Expenses Nil
I. Deduction ,if any Nil
J. Total loss of Estate after deduction, if Rs.39,50,670/-
any
2 Compensation for loss of consortium Rs.1,93,600/-
3 Compensation for loss of estate Rs. 18,150/-
4 Compensation towards funeral expenses Rs. 18,150/-/-
5 N. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 41,80,570/-
total of J+K+L+M =N
6 O. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED: @ 9% per annum
7 Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.37,00,000/-
8 Award amount released Remaining principal
award of Rs. 4,80,570/-
PLUS interest @ 9% p.a.
on total principal award
amount from date of
filing DAR till actual
realization of principal
amount awarded.
9 Mode of disbursement of the award (a) Out of the total
amount to the claimant (s). (Clause 29)
award amount Rs.
26,80,570/- is awarded to
wife of deceased out of
which Rs. 22,00,000/- is
kept in monthly FDR of
Rs. 15,000/- and
remaining amount shall
be released to wife of
deceased in her bank
account near her place of
residence.
MACT No.454/2023 Ranju Devi & Ors. Vs. Kailash Singh & Ors.. page 28 of 29
(b) Further, out of the
total award amount, Rs.
5,00,000/- each is
awarded to all three
minor children of
deceased and whole of
their shared amount shall
be kept in form of FDR
till they turn the age of
majority.
10 Next Date for reporting of compliance of 06.03.2025
the award (Clause 31)
44. Copy of this award be given to the parties free of
cost. The copy of award be sent to the Ld. Secretary DLSA and
Digitally signed
concerned criminal court. by SHELLY
SHELLY ARORA
Date:
ARORA 2025.02.01
(Pronounced in the 16:22:38
+0530
open court on 01.02.2025)
(Shelly Arora)
PO-MACT-01 (South-East)
Saket Court/ New Delhi
01.02.2025
MACT No.454/2023 Ranju Devi & Ors. Vs. Kailash Singh & Ors.. page 29 of 29
