Renu Devi(Dar) vs Pappu Kumr Pandey(211/18 Jaitpur0 on 2 August, 2025

0
1

Delhi District Court

Renu Devi(Dar) vs Pappu Kumr Pandey(211/18 Jaitpur0 on 2 August, 2025

        IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA
 DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
     PO MACT (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI




                                        MACT No. 779/2018
                                           FIR No. 211/2018
                                                 PS : Jaitpur
                                          U/s 279/304 A IPC
                              CNR No. DLSE01-006387-2018
                    Renu Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar Pandey & Ors.


Renu Devi
D/o Nirmala Devi
R/o H. No. 459, Gali No.5, Lakhpat Colony,
Faridabad, Haryana.

                                                               ..Claimant/ LR

                                  Versus
1. Pappu Kumar Pandey
S/o Gobind Pandey
R/o Pradhan Ji Tour & Travel Behind
Shiv Mandir, Choudhary Shadiram Market
Aali Chowk, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi.



                                         .....Driver / Respondent No. 1
2. Narender Singh
S/o Sh. Tungal Singh
R/o H. No. B-347, MIG Flats
East Loni Road, Delhi.

                                  Reg. Owner/ Respondent no.2


MACT No.779/2018     Renu Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar Pandey & Ors.      page 1 of 31
 3. Harender Singh
S/o Mahender Singh
R/o H.No. 6, Aali Village, Sarita Vihar
New Delhi.

                            .....Possession holder/ Respondent No. 3


4. Kotak Gen. Ins Co. Ltd.
Apeejay House 15, Park Street, Kolkata 700016.

                     .......Insurance Company/ Respondent no.-4


Date of accident             :       16.04.2018
Date of filing of DAR        :       03.08.2018
Date of Decision             :       02.08.2025


                                 AWARD


"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".

(As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of
National Insurance Company Limited.- v Pranay Sethi And
Others (2017 SCC Online Sc 1270)"



1. DAR
1(a) Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred as DAR)
was filed by ASI Onkar which is treated as Claim Petition under
Section 166 (1) read with Section 166 (4) MV Act. It pertains to
alleged accident of victim Late Smt. Nirmala Devi (hereinafter
referred as deceased) caused            by vehicle no. DL 1PB 9494


MACT No.779/2018        Renu Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar Pandey & Ors.   page 2 of 31
 (hereinafter referred as offending vehicle), driven by Sh. Pappu
Kumar Pandey, impleaded as Respondent No.1 (hereinafter
referred as R-1), owned by Sh. Narender Kumar, impleaded as
Respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred as R-2), currently owned
and possessed by Sh Harender Singh, impleaded as Respondent
No.3 (hereinafter referred as R-3) and insured with M/s Kotak
Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd, impleaded as Respondent No.4 (hereinafter
referred as R-4).
2.      Brief Facts:
2(a) Preliminary information regarding accident in question was
received at PS Jaitpur recorded vide DD no. 41A dt. 16.04.2018,
with respect to accident, upon receipt of which, IO along with Ct
Sandeep reached Ambedkar Park, Molarband School, Mithapur
Extension, New Delhi where they found a bus bearing Reg. No.
DL 1PB 9494. IO took photographs of said bus and sent the
injured to AIIMS Trauma Center with CATS Ambulance. Further,
upon receipt of DD no.45A regarding MLC of injured Nirmala
Devi, IO reached AIIMS and obtained MLC no.500090809/2018
with alleged history noted as, "Near Meethapur Delhi patient was
pedestrian Hit with Bus from behind and Run over as per the
Hisotry Given by police accompanying the patient. Patient
brought to JPNATC ED AIIMS by police is Brought Dead
State."
2(b) FIR was registered on the basis of DD entry and MLC.
Offending vehicle was taken into police possession. Statement of
eye witness Kashish was recorded who informed that on
16.04.2018, she along with her younger brother and maternal
grand mother (deceased in the present case) were walking to
Molarband Market to purchase a scissor and when they reached

MACT No.779/2018       Renu Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar Pandey & Ors.   page 3 of 31
 in front of Rajkiya Sarvodya Kanya Vidyalaya, the offending bus
driver while reversing its bus crashed into her grand mother
(nani) and ran over her twice, while reversing as well as while
moving forward. The public persons gathered at the spot and
caught hold of the driver of offending vehicle.
2(c) Site plan was prepared at the instance of eye witness Ms.
Kashish. Statement of witnesses were recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC.
Mechanical Inspection of offending vehicle was got conducted.
Notice u/s 133 MV Act was served upon Registered Owner of
offending bus namely Sh. Narender Kumar who informed that he
has already sold his bus to one Sh. Harender Singh. Thereafter
Notice u/s 133 MV was issued to Sh. Harender Singh S/o Sh.
Mahender Singh who produced driver of offending bus as well as
relevant documents of vehicle and confirmed that he had
purchased the vehicle from Sh. Narender Kumar on 08.03.2017,
however, could not get it registered in his name. He also
confirmed that his bus was being driven by Pappu Kumar Pandey
at the time of accident. Documents of offending bus were got
verified and found to be in order.
2(d) IO ASI Onkar thereafter obtained Post Mortem Report
with the opinion of doctor as "The cause of death to the best of
my knowledge and belief is Shock consequent upon polytrauma
and could be possible in mentioned circumstances."
2(e) Upon conclusion of investigation, driver of the offending
bus was charge sheeted for causing death of victim due to rash
and reckless driving of offending vehicle. DAR was filed in the
Tribunal by IO ASI Onkar.
3. Reply:
3(a) Reply to DAR not filed by R-1/ driver.

MACT No.779/2018       Renu Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar Pandey & Ors.   page 4 of 31
 3(b) Reply was filed jointly on behalf of Possession Holder Sh.
Harender Singh as well as Registered Owner Sh Narender Kumar
asserting that respondents have been falsely implicated in this
present case as no such accident took place with their vehicle. It
is also stated that the offending vehicle was insured with Kotak
General Insurance as on the date of accident. Other general
defences were taken.
3(c) Reply         was also filed on behalf of R-4/ Kotak General
Insurance Company wherein it is stated that policy in question
was got issued on 27.04.2018 by an agent namely Joginder Singh
whereas accident took place on 16.04.2018 on the basis of fake
previous insurance policy, prompting enquiries against him for
cheating and fraud. It was also mentioned that a verification of
previous insurance policy issued by National Insurance Company
with validity from 13.04.2017 till 12.04.2018 in the name of Sh.
Narender Kumar for the offending vehicle was then under
process. It is admitted that the offending vehicle was insured as
Passenger Carrying Vehicle with R-4/ Insurance Company with
validity running from 13.04.2018 till 12.04.2019 in the name of
Sh. Narender Kumar, Principal subject to terms and conditions of
the policy and the verification of previous insurance policy.
4.Issues:
4 (a) Issues were framed vide order dated 26.11.2018:
            1. Whether the deceased Nirmala Devi suffered fatal
               injuries in a road traffic accident on 16.04.2018 due
               to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DL 1PB
               9494 (bus) being driven by R-1, owned by R-2 and
               insured with R-3? OPP
            2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any
               compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?
               OPP


MACT No.779/2018          Renu Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar Pandey & Ors.   page 5 of 31
             3. Relief.


4 (b) It is noted that Issue no.1 as framed vide order 26.11.2018
does not mention the factum of change of ownership to R-2 to
R-3 and therefore, for effective and complete adjudication of
controversy at hand, same is being rephrased as under:


            1. Whether the deceased Nirmala Devi suffered fatal
               injuries in a road traffic accident on 16.04.2018 due
               to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DL 1PB
               9494 (bus) being driven by R-1/ Pappu Kumar
               Pandey, owned by R-2 / Sh. Narender Kumar,
               currently possessed by R-3/ Sh. Harender Singh
               and insured with R-4 /Kotak Gen. Ins.Co. Ltd? OPP

5.      Evidence:
5(a) Matter was then listed for recording of Petitioner
Evidence.
5(b) PW-1 Ms. Renu Devi (daughter of deceased) tendered her
evidentiary affidavit Ex.PW1/1. She also relied upon following
documents:
(i) Ex.PW1/A- MLC of deceased
(ii) Ex.PW1/B- PM report of deceased
(iii) Ex.PW1/C- DAR
(iv) Ex.PW1/D- Divorce Paper of PW-1
(v) Ex.PW1/E - Death Certificate of his father
(vi) Ex.PW1/F- Aadhar Card of deceased
(vii) Mark A- Death Certificate of deceased
(viii)- Ex.PW1/G (colly)- Aadhar Card of petitioners.


        She was cross examined by counsel for insurance


MACT No.779/2018         Renu Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar Pandey & Ors.   page 6 of 31
 company.
5(c) PW-2 Ms. Kashish Rathore, grand daughter of deceased as
well as eye witness of the present case tendered her evidentiary
affidavit as Ex.PW2/1 narrating the mode and manner of the
accident. She relied upon copy of her Aadhar Card as Ex.PW2/A.
She was cross examined by counsel for insurance company.
5(d)      Petitioner Evidence was then closed and matter was
thereafter listed for Respondent Evidence.
5(e) R3W1 Sh. Anurag Sharma / Assistant Manager of National
Insurance Company Ltd was examined who produced the copy of
insurance policy as summoned record. He was cross examined by
counsel for claimant.
5(f) R3W2 Sh. Amlan Gupta, Nodal Officer, Kotak General
Insurance Company Ltd tendered his evidentiary affidavit as
Ex.R3W2/A and relied upon copy of Insurance Policy issued by
R-4/ Kotak Gen. Ins Co. Ltd as already Ex.R3W1/1, certified
copy of Charge sheet as Ex.R3W2/1 and copy of certified plaint
titled as Kotak Gen. Ins. Co. Vs. Jogender Singh as Mark A. He
was cross examined by counsel for claimant.
5(g) Respondent Evidence was closed. Matter was then listed
for Final Arguments.
6.      Final Arguments:
6(a) Final Arguments were advanced by Counsel for claimant
as well as counsel for Insurance Company.
6(b) R-1/ driver, R-2/ Registered Owner and R-3/ Possession
Holder or their counsels did not appear to lead arguments.
6(c) Counsel for the claimant has argued that the accident
happened on account of speedy and rash driving of the offending
vehicle. He also stated that there is no dispute in identification

MACT No.779/2018        Renu Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar Pandey & Ors.   page 7 of 31
 and involvement of the offending vehicle as well as driver
thereof. It is stated that deceased was working in an Export
House and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. It is stated that she
was the sole earning member in the family whose tragic death
has caused severe financial and emotional distress to the family.
6(d) Counsel for the R-4/ Insurance Company, on the other
hand, denied liability to pay any compensation on the ground of
misrepresentation of material facts on the premise that the
insurance policy covering date of accident was got issued by an
agent on the basis of fake non existing previous insurance policy
thus could not have been the basis for issuance of any subsequent
insurance policy. It is stated that the validity of the subsequent
insurance policy is of no consequence on account of intentional
misrepresentation on the part of R-2/ owner / insured to illegally
get the coverage of insurance policy for the offending vehicle as
valid on the date of accident. It relied upon defence of 149 (2)(6)
of MV Act contending that policy is void and thus insurance
company ought to be fully exonerated.
7.      Discussion:
        On the basis of material on record, evidence adduced and
arguments addressed, issue wise findings are as under :-
                                   ISSUE NO. 1
            1. Whether the deceased Nirmala Devi suffered fatal
               injuries in a road traffic accident on 16.04.2018 due
               to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DL 1PB
               9494 (bus) being driven by R-1/ Pappu Kumar
               Pandey, owned by R-2 / Sh. Narender Kumar,
               currently possessed by R-3/ Sh. Harender Singh
               and insured with R-4 /Kotak Gen. Ins.Co. Ltd? OPP

7(a). PW-2 eye witness Ms. Kashish Rathore deposed that on


MACT No.779/2018         Renu Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar Pandey & Ors.   page 8 of 31
 16.04.2018 at about 02.00 PM, when she as grand daughter
along with deceased Smt. Nirmala Devi were walking towards
Moreband Market to purchase scissors that a speeding and rashly
driven bus bearing Reg. No. DL 1PB 9494 impacted her
grandmother near Rajkiya Sarvodya Kanya Vidhyala, twice,
eventually fatally crushing her under its wheels. She further
deposed that public persons had caught hold of the driver of
offending vehicle and also informed the police. During cross
examination by counsel for insurance company, she stated that
R-1 as driver of the offending vehicle was reversing the bus and
she stepped aside when she spotted the offending vehicle,
however, her grandmother could not promptly respond to
situation. She also clarified that the offending vehicle was a
school bus. She declined the suggestion that no accident took
place due to involvement of offending vehicle.
7(b)     The factum of the accident was duly recorded in the DD
entry, which has been placed on record which cleanly mentions
the spot of the incident, the vehicle involved, as well as the date
and time of occurrence. Based on this description, the
Investigating Officer reached the spot of the accident, where he
found the offending bus and the injured person. The bus was
seized on the spot and taken into police custody. The description
of the offending vehicle are also duly mentioned in the FIR.
Notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act was served
upon the possession holder of offending bus, as per the
information provided by the registered owner, who did not deny
the occurrence of the accident and produced Respondent No.1
(R-1) as driver of vehicle at the relevant time. Hence, there is no
dispute with regard to the identification of the offending vehicle

MACT No.779/2018       Renu Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar Pandey & Ors.   page 9 of 31
 or the involvement of R-1 as its driver.
7(c)     Statement of PW Ms Kashish was recorded within few
hours of accident who affirmed the contextual circumstances of
accident in the testimony box. Her cross examination has not
been able to elicit any contradiction. There is no reason to doubt
the credible testimony of eye witness.
7(d) R-1 has not filed any reply to rebut the contents of the FIR
or to disprove the version against him. R-1 has been charge
sheeted for causing injury to victim due to speedy and rash
driving of the offending vehicle. Perusal of record reflects that no
reply has been filed driver contesting or barely denying the
allegations/ averments in the petition. R-1, being the driver was
the best person to divulge crucial details leading to the accident,
however, he has chosen not to testify about the contextual
circumstances of the accident. Insurance Company could also
have called upon R-1 as driver of the offending vehicle to testify
about the facts and circumstances of the accident, however, same
was not resorted to. It is settled that filing of charge sheet itself is
a significant step towards the inference of negligence on the part
of driver of the offending vehicle. (Support drawn from the
Judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Pushpa
Rana 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi as referred and relied by Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in case of Ranjeet & Anr. Vs. Abdul
Kayam Neb & Anr SLP (C) No. 10351/2019). It is also settled
that adverse inference can be drawn against the driver of the
offending vehicle in case he does not appear as a witness to
depose and clarify about his stance in respect of the accident.
(support drawn from the judgment in the case of Cholamandlam
insurance company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh 2009 (3) AD Delhi 310.)

MACT No.779/2018        Renu Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar Pandey & Ors.   page 10 of 31
 7(e)     It is a well-established legal principle that negligence in
motor accident cases should be determined based on the
preponderance of probabilities, not on proof beyond reasonable
doubt. The facts and circumstances must be considered in a
broad and practical manner. It is also settled that proceedings
under the Motor Vehicles Act are different from regular civil
suits and are not strictly governed by the technical rules of the
Indian Evidence Act. (as observed by Their Lordships of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bimla Devi &
Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors., (2009) 13
SCC 530 further referred and relied by Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India in recent pronouncement in the case of Mathew
Alexander vs Mohammed Shafi SLP (Crl) No.8211 of 2022).
7(f)     On the basis of discussion made above, it is held that
speedy and rash driving on the part of R-1 caused the accident
leading to death of deceased. Issue no.1 is accordingly decided
in favour of claimants and against respondents.


                                 ISSUE NO.2
        Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation,
        if so, to what extent and from whom ? OPP.

8.      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


MACT No.779/2018        Renu Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar Pandey & Ors.   page 11 of 31
         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
        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.
9.      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).

10.     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


MACT No.779/2018            Renu Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar Pandey & Ors.       page 12 of 31
 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.]

11.     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;
        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.. ..."

12.     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

MACT No.779/2018        Renu Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar Pandey & Ors.   page 13 of 31
         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
        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."
13.     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

MACT No.779/2018        Renu Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar Pandey & Ors.   page 14 of 31
 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
standardisation which in its ambit includes addition of future
prospects on the proven income at present..................."

14.    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.
15.    PW-1 / daughter of deceased deposed that her deceased
mother was working at Export House in New Delhi and earning
Rs. 15,000/- per month. However, no document pertaining to such
income has been placed on record by claimant/ legal heir of


MACT No.779/2018       Renu Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar Pandey & Ors.   page 15 of 31
 deceased. Deceased has been mentioned to be resident of Delhi,
as supported by Aadhar Card filed as part of DAR and charge
sheet. It has come in evidence that her mother was residing at
Faridabad at the time of accident but it is also evident that she
was working at a shop in Molarband where she was going to buy
scissors, she met with an accident. It is thus held that she was
working for gain in Delhi.             The income of deceased is thus
considered as per minimum wages for unskilled workman,
applicable in the State of NCT of Delhi at the time of accident
which was Rs. 13,896/-.
16.     As per Aadhar Card of deceased, her year of birth was
mentioned to be 1970 as such she was about 48 years of age at
the time of accident. As deceased was between the age of 40 to
50 years (at the time of accident) and purportedly earing fixed
income (minimum wages), thus as mandated in case of Pranay
Sethi (Supra) and other case laws, the percentage towards future
prospect is taken to be @ 25 %.
                   Step No- 1 : Ascertainment of Multiplicand:

17.     As per the LRs affidavit filed on record, the deceased is
survived by her daughter Renu Devi, who deposed that she is a
divorcee and was dependent upon the income of her mother. She
further stated that her father had predeceased her mother and that
she is the sole surviving child her deceased parents. She also
deposed that she is unemployed and has been suffering from
fever and some kind of ailments since 2007. In her cross-
examination by the counsel for the insurance company, she stated
that she had been residing along with her four children at her
mother's residence in Faridabad for the past five years. She also


MACT No.779/2018           Renu Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar Pandey & Ors.   page 16 of 31
 stated that her mother was a permanent resident of Faridabad.
However, she admitted that no document has been placed on
record to establish her residence with her mother. Rather, the
Aadhaar cards of her children reflect the address of her in-laws.
She has placed on record certain documents to establish her
status as a divorcee, including Ex. PW1/D, which is only a notice
of application filed under Section 12 of Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act along with a Domestic Incident
Report filed against her husband, Gyanendra Singh in Faridabad
Court. She, however, admitted in her cross-examination that she
has not received any alimony or maintenance from her husband
and further conceded that no document has been filed to prove
that she has been legally divorced.
18.     In view of the above, it is clear that there is no conclusive
evidence on record to establish that she is legally divorced, thus
in the absence of a valid decree of divorce, she continues to be
the legally wedded wife of her husband and cannot be treated as
a dependent upon of her mother under the settled principles of
law. Dependency, in such cases, lies with the spouse, and not
with the parental family, unless duly proved otherwise. Even if it
is accepted that she was living with her mother, still, irrespective
of her status as divorcee, she being major and independent,
cannot be stated to be dependent upon old mother. Rather she
should be fastened with liability of care giver towards her old
mother, being the only child. Therefore, she cannot be considered
a dependent of the deceased mother.
19.     It is thus held that there is no legal heir who can be termed
dependent upon deceased in the present matter. Smt. Renu Devi,
being the sole legal heir, however, shall be entitled to

MACT No.779/2018        Renu Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar Pandey & Ors.   page 17 of 31
 compensation under the head of Loss of Estate, in terms of the
settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Keith
Rowe v. Prashant Sagar & Ors., MAC App. No. 601/2007.


                 Step No- -2 : Ascertainment of Multiplier:
20.     In the present case, age of the deceased was about 48 years
and 10 months of age as per record. Thus as tabulated in the case
of Sarla Verma (supra), multiplier of 13 is applicable.


          Step No- -3 : Actual Calculation ( actual loss/loss of
                             dependency):
21. In view of the backdrop of above factual and legal discussion,
the calculation in the present case is as under:
21.1. Annual income of the deceased.
(Rs. 13,896/- x 12)                                       =        Rs. 1,66,752/-
21.2. Future prospect.                                    =        Rs. 41,688/-
(25% of Rs. 1,66,752/-)
                                                                   ------------------

21.3. Total Rs. Rs. 1,66,752/- + Rs. 41,688/- = Rs. 2,08,440/-

21.4. Amount after multiplier (Rs. 2,08,440/- x 13) = Rs.
27,09,720/-

21.5. As any dependency was not proved on the income of
deceased, 1/ 3rd of the income of deceased is taken as saving /
loss of estate.

21.6 Thus, the figure comes at is Rs. 27,09,720/- x 1/ 3rd .

Thus Loss of Estate                             =         Rs. 9,03,240/-




MACT No.779/2018         Renu Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar Pandey & Ors.        page 18 of 31

22. Grant of Loss of Estate, Loss Of Consortium And Funeral
Expenses:

22(a). In respect of above heads, following observations as
relevant to the context were made in Pranay Sethi (supra):

”……………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 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

MACT No.779/2018 Renu Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar Pandey & Ors. page 19 of 31
years……………”

22(b). The above reproduced observations entail that Their
Lordship in Pranay Sethi (Supra), intended to avoid immense
variations and instead ensure consistency in awarding
compensation under conventional head. the claimants are also
entitled to certain sums towards grant of loss of estate, loss of
consortium and funeral expenses.

22(c). Observations made in the case of Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram & Ors.
(2018) 18 SCC 130, by
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also clarify about compensation
as consortium towards/ against death of a dear one:

“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

MACT No.779/2018 Renu Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar Pandey & Ors. page 20 of 31
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.

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.”

22(d). Periodic uniform enhancement have also been
mandated in case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Thus, applying the
criteria, a sum of Rs.18,150/- for cremation expenses; and
Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate is also payable.
22(e). Further, on the date of accident, deceased had left
behind, his parents. Both of them are held entitled to parental
consortium of Rs. 48,400/- each towards loss of consortium.

23. Total Award Amount
23(a) Thus the total award amount comes to Rs. 9,03,240/-
(+) Rs 18,150/-( Loss to estate) + Rs. 18,150/-( funeral expenses)

MACT No.779/2018 Renu Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar Pandey & Ors. page 21 of 31
+ Rs.48,400/- (loss of consortium) = Rs. 9,87,940/-.

24. Interest:

24(a) It is settled that any fixed rate of interest cannot be
prescribed for all cases at all times and would largely depend
upon the prevailing rate of interest as per the applicable
guidelines. As such, interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is
deemed fit and accordingly granted in the present case. (Reliance
placed upon National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Yad Ram
MAC APP
526/2018 also referred and relied in case of The
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors. MAC
APP
70/2024 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court).

25. Liability:-

25(a) The claim is based upon a certificate cum policy schedule
Ex.R3W1/1 issued by Kotak General Insurance Company Ltd
with the validity from 13.04.2018 till 12.04.2019, on the face of
it covering the date of accident which is 16.04.2018. This policy,
however, was issued on the basis of and in continuation of a
previous policy bearing no. 420304/31/17/6300000511 issued by
previous insurer National Insurance Com. Ltd. covering the
period of insurance from 13.04.2017 till 12.04.2018 as
mentioned in the Commercial Vehicle Proposal Form placed on
record as Mark C duly signed by Sh. Narender Kumar, Principal,
Tungal Singh Public School. R3W1 Assistant Manager, National
Insurance Co. Ltd. appeared in the witness box and testified that
previous policy no. 420304/31/17/6300000511 as relied by
owner / R-2 was infact issued on 26.04.2017 in the name of Sh.
Sanjay, S/o Rajender with validity from 26.04.2017 till

MACT No.779/2018 Renu Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar Pandey & Ors. page 22 of 31
25.04.2018 for vehicle no. HR 61B 4725, Hisar Haryana. It is
evident that this policy number was mentioned in the commercial
vehicle proposal form submitted to Kotak General Insurance Co.

pretending its period of validity from 13.04.2017 to 12.04.2018
for vehicle number DL 1PB 9494 in the name of Sh. Narender
Kumar, duly signed by Sh. Narender Kumar as owner and
insured as well as by Sh. Joginder Singh as an Agent as well as
an Intermediary. It was on the basis of information submitted in
the proposal form that the policy was issued in continuation
without breach in insurance from 13.04.2018 to 12.04.2019 by
Kotak Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd for Tata School Bus No. DL 1PB 9494
in the name of Reg. Owner and insured Sh. Narender Kumar. It is
evident that owner / insured misrepresented and provided false
details in the proposal form to procure insurance policy covering
the date of accident on 16.04.2018 whereas the previous policy
was issued for vehicle Tata 1109 bearing No HR 61B 4725 in the
name of Sh. Sanjay for period between 26.04.2017 till
25.04.2018. It is thus evident that incorrect details were
deliberately furnished in order to avail undue benefit intending to
cause wrongful loss to the insurance company.

Section 149 MV Act casts a duty upon the insurer to satisfy
the awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks,
however, the insurance companies have been statutorily entitled
to defend their liability on certain grounds as laid down in the
provision itself. It also provides that the insurance policy shall be
void if obtained upon non disclosure or false representation of a
material fact or material particular. The relevant clauses
impinging upon the discussion at hand are reproduced hereunder:

MACT No.779/2018 Renu Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar Pandey & Ors. page 23 of 31
149 MV Act. Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards
against persons insured in respect of third party risks.

“1. If, after a certificate of insurance has been issued under sub-
section (3) of section 147 in favour of the person by whom a
policy has been effected, judgment or award in respect of any
such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under
clause (b) of sub-section (l) of section 147 (being a liability
covered by the terms of the policy) or under the provisions of
section 163A is obtained against any person insured by the
policy, then, notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to
avoid or cancel or may have avoided or cancelled the policy, the
insurer shall, subject to the provisions of this section, pay to the
person entitled to the benefit of the decree any sum not
exceeding the sum assured payable thereunder, as if he were the
judgment debtor, in respect of the liability, together with any
amount payable in respect of costs and any sum payable in
respect of interest on that sum by virtue of any enactment
relating to interest on judgments.

2. No sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub-section (1)
in respect of any judgment or award unless, before the
commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment or
award is given the insurer had notice through the Court or, as
the case may be, the Claims Tribunal of the bringing of the
proceedings, or in respect of such judgment or award so long as
execution is stayed thereon pending an appeal; and an insurer to
whom notice of the bringing of any such proceedings is so given
shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the
action on any of the following grounds, namely–
2(a)….

2(b) that the policy is void on the ground that it was obtained by
the non- disclosure of a material fact or by a representation of
fact which was false in some material particular.

3….

4…

5…

6.In this section the expression “material fact” and “material
particular” means, respectively a fact or particular of such a
nature as to influence the judgment of a prudent insurer in
determining whether he will take the risk and, if so, at what
premium and on what conditions, and the expression “liability
covered by the terms of the policy” means a liability which is
covered by the policy or which would be so covered but for the
fact that the insurer is entitled to avoid or cancel or has avoided
or cancelled the policy.”

25(b) The above discussion would show that the insured
intentionally and deliberately provided false information about a

MACT No.779/2018 Renu Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar Pandey & Ors. page 24 of 31
previous non existing policy thereby influenced the judgment of
R-4/ Insurer to determine to take the risk. It would thus qualify to
be a case of false representation of facts in material particular
which became the basis for the insurance company to undertake
obligation to cover the third party risk. No explanation has been
tendered by the Registered Owner/ R-2/ Insured or by the
Possession Holder / R-3 as to why false information in respect of
pre existing insurance policy was provided in the Commercial
Vehicle Proposal Form to obtain the insurance policy covering
the date of accident. It is well known that as per prevailing
market practice in General Insurance Business when there is no
break in insurance cover, the renewal insurance policy is
provided without spot inspection/ physical inspection of vehicle
on good faith assuming that no loss has been occurred and
vehicle is in road worthy condition. Further it also amounts to the
violation of condition no.7 of the Standard Commercial vehicle
Insurance Policy issued to Respondent No.2/ owner in
accordance with India Motor Tariff promulgated by Insurance
Regulatory Development Authority of India which reads as
under:

“7. The due observance and fulfillment of the terms,
conditions and endorsement of this Policy in so far as
they relate to anything to be done or complied with by
the insured and the truth of the statements and answers
in the said proposal shall be conditions precedent to
any liability of the Company to make any payment
under this Policy.”

25(c) The insurance policy bearing No. 1030252400 issued in
the name of Sh. Narender Kumar Principal relied by R-2/

MACT No.779/2018 Renu Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar Pandey & Ors. page 25 of 31
Registered Owner Sh. Narender Kumar, R-3 / Possession Holder
Sh. Harender Singh is therefore held to be void. R-4/ Kotak Gen.
Insurance Company Ltd. is exonerated of the entire liability to
cover the third party risks incurred on behalf of insured/
Registered Owner / R-2 Sh. Narender Kumar.

25(d) It has already been held that accident occurred on account
of speedy and rash driving of offending vehicle. R-2 was
admittedly the Registered Owner as well as the insured as on the
date of accident. It was projected as mentioned in the charge
sheet and also in DAR that the vehicle was sold by R-2 to R-3 on
08.03.2017, however, any particulars in respect of sale
transactions have not been filed on record. R-3 has not denied
having purchased the vehicle from R-2 on 08.03.2017. R-3 had
produced R-1 in response to notice under Section 133 MV Act
and the vehicle was being plied by driver at behest of R-3.
Accordingly, the entire liability shall be jointly and severally
borne by R-1/ driver, R-2 Registered owner and R-3/ Possession
Holder. Therefore, such principal award amount/compensation
will be payable by the R-1, R-2 & R-2 jointly and severally with
simple interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR 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. Further, in case the matter
adjourned sine die, interest for the period i.e. the date of
concerned till revival of the case, shall not be awarded).

26. The award amount shall be deposited by the Insurance
Company. Counsel for the Insurance Company is also directed to
furnish the complete case details, including the MACT case

MACT No.779/2018 Renu Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar Pandey & Ors. page 26 of 31
number, CNR number, FIR number, name of Police Station,
name of the deceased/claimant(s), date of accident, and any other
relevant particulars, to the State Bank of India, Saket Court
Branch, New Delhi at the time of getting the amount deposited.
The amount shall be deposited through RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in the
account titled “MACT FUND PARKING”, Account No.
00000042706870765, IFSC Code SBIN0014244, MICR Code
110002342, under intimation to the Nazir of this Tribunal.

27. Release of Award Amount/ Disbursement

(a) Out of total award amount, Rs.7,00,000/- was along with
proportionate interest (to the principle amount) up to date interest
shall be kept in form of monthly FDR of Rs. 10,000/- each.
Remaining amount along with proportionate up to date interest
shall be released in her bank account.

28. In terms of the Practice Directions issued by Hon’ble High
Court, vide reference no. 134/Rules/DHC, dated 14.05.2025, the
claimant (s) are directed to produce their bank account details
along with either a certificate of the banker giving all details of
the bank account of the person or persons entitled to receive the
compensation including IFS Code, or a copy of cancelled cheque
of the bank account to this Tribunal with seven days of the date
of Award, if not already placed on record. They are also directed
to file their Aadhar Card and PAN Card if not already filed.

29 Directions to the Branch Manager, SBI, Saket Court
Complex

(a) The Manager, SBI, Saket Court Complex, is further
directed to verify the documents and details submitted by the

MACT No.779/2018 Renu Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar Pandey & Ors. page 27 of 31
claimant pertaining to their bank account, and upon proper
verification, under certification of the Branch Manager (of the
bank whose details have been provided by the claimant for
release of the compensation amount) disburse the amount,
directed to be released to the claimant, directly into the verified
bank account of the claimant under notice to the Tribunal.

30. Directions with respect to Fixed Deposit:

(a) As per Practice Directions, Hon’ble High Court, vide
reference no. 134/Rules/DHC, dated 14.05.2025, the bank shall
invest the amount to be deposited in fixed deposit with any
nationalised bank and fixed deposit shall be with the standing
instructions to the bank to renew the same after periodical
intervals till further orders are passed by the Tribunal.

(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

MACT No.779/2018 Renu Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar Pandey & Ors. page 28 of 31
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.

31. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD IN
DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.

1. Date of accident 16.04.2018

2. Name of deceased Late Smt. Nirmala Devi

3. Age of the deceased 48 years

4. Occupation of the deceased Not proved

5. Income of the deceased Minimum wages for unskilled
workman at the time of accident.

32. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of
deceased:

1.Renu Devi . (daughter)
D/o Nirmala Devi

33. Computation of compensation:-

 S. No.                        Heads                             Awarded by the Claims
                                                                 Tribunal



MACT No.779/2018       Renu Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar Pandey & Ors.    page 29 of 31
      1      A. Income of the deceased per year (As                                     Rs.1,66,752/-
            per Minimum Wages)
            B. Add-Future Prospects 25%                                                 Rs.41,688/-
            C. Multiplicand (A+B)                                                      Rs.2,08,440/-
            D Multiplier                                                                         13
            E. Total                                                                  Rs.27,09,720/-
            F. Loss of Estate 1/3 of E.                                                Rs.9,03,240/-
     2      Compensation for loss of consortium                                         Rs.48,400/-
     3      Compensation for loss of estate                                             Rs. 18,150/-
     4      Compensation towards funeral expenses                                     Rs. 18,150/-/-
     5      TOTAL COMPENSATION                                                         Rs.9,87,940/-

     6      O. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED:                                            @ 7.5% per
                                                                                   annum
     7      Award amount kept in FDRs                                                  Rs.7,00,000/-
     8      Award amount released                                           Remaining principal
                                                                        award of Rs. 2,87,940/-
                                                                     PLUS interest @ 7.5%
                                                                     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 Out                             of      total   award
            amount to the claimant (s). (Clause 29)
                                                                     amount,          Rs.7,00,000/-
                                                                     was           along       with
                                                                     proportionate interest (to
                                                                     the principle amount) up
                                                                     to date interest shall be
                                                                     kept in form of monthly
                                                                     FDR of Rs. 10,000/-
                                                                     each. Remaining amount
                                                                     along with proportionate


MACT No.779/2018           Renu Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar Pandey & Ors.    page 30 of 31
                                                                      up to date interest shall
                                                                     be released in her bank
                                                                     account.

      10     Next Date for reporting of compliance of                          02.09.2025
             the award (Clause 31)



34. Copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. The
copy of award be sent to the Ld. Secretary DLSA and concerned
Digitally signed
criminal court. SHELLY by SHELLY
ARORA
ARORA Date: 2025.08.02
17:06:36 +0530
(Pronounced in the
open court on 02.08.2025)
(Shelly Arora)
PO-MACT-01 (South-East)
Saket Court/ New Delhi
02.08.2025

MACT No.779/2018 Renu Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar Pandey & Ors. page 31 of 31



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here