Delhi District Court
Sarita Kumari And Ors (Lrs Of Devender) vs Satish Kumar And Ors on 10 February, 2025
MACP Nos. 238/21 & 239/21; FIR No. 20/21 DOD: 10.02.2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA MANCHANDA,
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 238/21
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-005546-2021
Smt. Soni Devi,
W/o Sh. Suman Jha,
R/o Plot No. 43,
Gali No. 4,
Bawana Road,
Vishal Enclave Bankner,
Lampur, Narela,
Delhi.
(Mother of deceased)
.......Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Satish Kumar,
S/o Sh. Bhim Bahadur,
R/o N-9/A, 244,
Lal Bagh,
Azadpur, Delhi.
(Driver)
2. Sh. Suraj Pal Singh,
S/o Sh. Fateh Lal,
R/o 101, 20,
Block - 27,
Bus Stop Patparganj,
Chilla Saroda Khadar,
Delhi.
(Registered owner)
Soni Devi & Sarita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Page 1 of 35
MACP Nos. 238/21 & 239/21; FIR No. 20/21 DOD: 10.02.2025
3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Limited,
DLF Tower, DSM 716-721 & 742,
7th Floor, 15, Shivaji Marg,
House Complex Market,
Karampura Industrial Area,
Moti Nagar, Delhi.
(Insurer)
........Respondents
AND
MAC Petition No. 239/21
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-005547-2021
1. Smt. Sarita Kumari,
W/o Late Sh. Devender,
(Widow of deceased)
2. Master Divanshu,
S/o Late Sh. Devender,
(Minor son of deceased)
3. Master Harsh,
S/o Late Sh. Devender,
(Minor son of deceased)
All R/o KH. No. 55A, Block Khasra No. 55-56,
Swami Shradhanand Park,
Bhalswa Dairy, Badli,
Delhi.
4. Smt. Kamalesh,
W/o Shri Duggal,
(Mother of deceased)
5. Sh. Durgpal,
S/o Sh. Lakhan Singh,
(Father of deceased)
Soni Devi & Sarita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Page 2 of 35
MACP Nos. 238/21 & 239/21; FIR No. 20/21 DOD: 10.02.2025
Both R/o Kakora,
District Etah,
UP.
VERSUS
1. Sh. Satish Kumar,
S/o Sh. Bhim Bahadur,
R/o N-9/A, 244,
Lal Bagh,
Azadpur, Delhi.
(Driver)
2. Sh. Suraj Pal Singh,
S/o Sh. Fateh Lal,
R/o 101, 20,
Block - 27,
Bus Stop Patparganj,
Chilla Saroda Khadar,
Delhi.
(Registered owner)
3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Limited,
DLF Tower, DSM 716-721 & 742,
7th Floor, 15, Shivaji Marg,
House Complex Market,
Karampura Industrial Area,
Moti Nagar, Delhi.
(Insurer)
........Respondents
Date of Institution : 09.08.2021
Date of Arguments : 10.02.2025
Date of Decision : 10.02.2025
APPEARENCES
Sh. Devesh Kumar, Ld. Counsel for petitioner(s).
None for driver and owner(exparte and defence struck off vide
order dated 26.11.2022).
Sh. Sujit Jaiswal, Ld. Counsel for insurance co.
Soni Devi & Sarita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Page 3 of 35
MACP Nos. 238/21 & 239/21; FIR No. 20/21 DOD: 10.02.2025
Petition under Section 166 and 140 of M.V. Act, 1988
for grant of compensation
AWARD
1. Vide this common order, I shall dispose off both the claim
petitions with regard to fatal injury suffered by Ms. Shilpa @ Payal Jha
(deceased in MACP No. 238/21) and fatal injury sustained by Devender @
Devender Kumar (injured in MACP No. 239/21) in Motor Vehicular Accident
which occurred on 10.01.2021 in between 11.30 PM to 12.30 AM on Yamuna
Express Way, Near Pul no. 144, District Hathras, UP falling within the
jurisdiction of PS Sadabad Kotwali involving Car bearing registration no.
DL8CR2676 (offending vehicle) being driven in a rash and negligent manner
by its driver(respondent no.1).
2. Both these claim petitions were consolidated for the purpose of
trial vide dated 14.03.2023, passed by my Ld. Predecessor and MACP No.
238/21 titled as " Smt. Soni Devi Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors." was treated as
the leading case. Accordingly, the evidence was led on behalf of respondents
in the leading case for the purpose of these matters.
FACTS OF THE CASES
3. As per both the claim petitions on 10.01.2021, deceased Ms.
Shilpa @ Payal Jha and deceased Devender Kumar alongwith his wife Sarita
Kumari were going to Agra from Delhi in a WagonR car (offending vehicle)
Soni Devi & Sarita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Page 4 of 35
MACP Nos. 238/21 & 239/21; FIR No. 20/21 DOD: 10.02.2025
and when they reached near Yamuna Express Way, Near Pul no. 144, District
Hathras, UP between 11.40 PM to 12.30 AM the said car hit the divider on
the road due to the car being driven at a high speed by its driver (respondent
no.1) and as he lost control of the car due to its high speed. As a result of
which all the occupants of the car received injuries and Devender Kumar and
Ms. Shilpa @ Payal Jha expired in the said accident. FIR No. 20/21 u/s.
279/337/338/304A IPC was registered at PS. Sadabad Kotwali, District
Hathras, UP with regard to the said accident. The offending vehicle was
owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with Liberty General Insurance
Ltd./respondent no. 3 during the period in question.
4. Respondent no. 1 and 2 failed to appear despite service and
proceeded exparte vide order dated 26.11.2022 and their defence was also
struck off as they failed to file written statement.
5. In its identical but separate joint written statement filed in both
the cases, the respondent no. 3 i.e. Insurance Company has stated that the
offending vehicle was covered under Act only/Liability only policy and
therefore both deceased being occupants of a private car are not covered
under the said insurance policy. It is further stated that the passengers were
travelling on hire and reward basis. Therefore, it has been stated that they are
not liable to pay any compensation to the LRs of deceased in both the matters
and prayed for dismissal of both the petitions.
Soni Devi & Sarita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Page 5 of 35
MACP Nos. 238/21 & 239/21; FIR No. 20/21 DOD: 10.02.2025
6. From the pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed in
MACP No. 238/21 by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 14.03.2023:-
1) Whether the deceased Ms. Shilpa @ Payal Jha,
suffered fatal injuries in road traffic accident on
10.01.2021 between 11:30 PM to 12:30 PM , on
Yamuna Expressway, near Pul No. 144, within the
jurisdiction of PS. Sadabad Kotwali, District
Hathras, Uttar Pradesh, due to rashness and
negligence on the part of the driver/Satish
Kumar/R-1, who was driving Wagon R car bearing
registration no. DL-8CR-2676, owned by Suraj Pal
Singh/R-2 and insured with M/s. Bajaj Allianz
General Insurance Ltd./R-3? OPP.
2) Whether the Lrs of deceased are entitled to any
compensation,if so, to what amount and from
whom? OPP.
3) Relief.
7. From the pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed in
MACP No. 239/21 vide order dated 14.03.2023:-
1) Whether the deceased Devender @ Devender
Kumar, suffered fatal injuries in road traffic accident
on 10.01.2021 between 11:30 PM to 12:30 PM , on
Yamuna Expressway, near Pul No. 144, within the
jurisdiction of PS. Sadabad Kotwali, District
Hathras, Uttar Pradesh, due to rashness and
negligence on the part of the driver/Satish
Kumar/R-1, who was driving Wagon R car bearing
registration no. DL-8CR-2676, owned by Suraj Pal
Singh/R-2 and insured with M/s. Bajaj Allianz
General Insurance Ltd./R-3? OPP.
Soni Devi & Sarita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Page 6 of 35
MACP Nos. 238/21 & 239/21; FIR No. 20/21 DOD: 10.02.2025
2) Whether the Lrs of deceased are entitled to any
compensation,if so, to what amount and from
whom? OPP.
3) Relief.
8. In order to establish their claim, the petitioners have examined
two witnesses i.e. PW1 Smt. Soni Devi (mother of deceased in MACP No.
238/21) and PW2 Sarita Kumari (wife of deceased in MACP No. 239/21).
On the other hand, the respondent no. 3 i.e. insurance company has examined
one witness i.e. R3W1 Sh. Arpit Agarwal, Sr. Executive- Legal Claims, Bajaj
Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd and its evidence was closed vide
order dated 26.02.2024.
9. This Tribunal has carefully perused DAR and claim petition and
evidence led by parties has been duly appreciated. All documents and
material relied upon & proved considered. Arguments addressed by
respective counsels considered. Legal position, both statutory and binding
applicable precedents, has been appreciated. The issue wise determination is
as under:-
ISSUE NO. 1 ( IN BOTH THE CASES)
10. For the purpose of this issue, the testimony of eyewitness is
relevant. The petitioners have examined PW2 in the present case as she was
Soni Devi & Sarita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Page 7 of 35
MACP Nos. 238/21 & 239/21; FIR No. 20/21 DOD: 10.02.2025
also one of the occupants of the offending vehicle. PW2 has deposed in her
evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) on the lines of averments made in
the claim petition. She has relied upon the following documents:-
Sr. No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of her Aadhaar Card Ex PW2/1(OSR)
2. Copy of Aadhar card of Ex. PW2/2 (OSR)
deceased Devender
3. Certified copy of FIR Ex. PW1/3 (Colly)
4. Certified copy of final Ex. PW1/4 (colly)
report/chargesheet
5. Certified copy of site plan Ex. PW1/5
6. Copy of mechanical inspection Mark E
report of offending vehicle
7. Copy of driving license of Mark A
respondent no. 1
8. Copy of RC of offending Mark B
vehicle
9. Copy of insurance of offending Mark C
vehicle
10. Copy of Postmortem report Mark D1
of Devender @ Devender
Kumar
11. During her cross-examination on behalf of insurance company,
she stated that she was not knowing either the driver or owner of the
offending vehicle. She again said driver Satish was friend of her husband.
Soni Devi & Sarita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Page 8 of 35
MACP Nos. 238/21 & 239/21; FIR No. 20/21 DOD: 10.02.2025
12. The careful perusal of testimony of aforesaid witness i.e. PW2
Sarita Kumari would go to show that the respondents have not been able to
impeach her testimony through litmus test of cross-examination. No cross
examination has been done on the aspect of involvement of the offending
vehicle or the manner in which the accident took place. On the other hand,
respondents have not led any evidence regarding the same.
13. Moreover, it is an undisputed fact that FIR No. 20/21 u/s
279/337/338/304A IPC was registered at PS. Sadabad Kotwali with regard to
accident in question. Copy of said FIR Ex. PW1/3 would show that same was
registered on 11.01.2021 i.e. few hours after the accident on the statement of
uncle of deceased Devender @ Devender Kumar. Thus, FIR is shown to
have been registered promptly and without any delay. Hence, there is no
possibility of false implication of respondent no. 1 and/or false involvement
of offending vehicle at the instance of petitioners herein.
14. Not only this, the respondent no. 1 namely Sh. Satish Kumar
(accused in State case) has been charge sheeted for the offences punishable
U/s 279/337/338/304A IPC by the investigating agency after arriving at the
conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in
question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending
vehicle by him. Same would also point out towards rash and negligent
driving of offending vehicle by respondent no. 1.
Soni Devi & Sarita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Page 9 of 35
MACP Nos. 238/21 & 239/21; FIR No. 20/21 DOD: 10.02.2025
15. Copy of PM report of both deceased filed would show that
deceased Ms. Shilpa @ Payal Jha and Devender Kumar @ Devender had
suffered multiple injuries prior to that and cause of death has been reported to
be shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries. The injuries as
mentioned in the relevant column correspond with the injuries which occur in
Motor Vehicular Accident. These documents have not been disputed from the
side of respondents in the cross examination of the witnesses.
16. Further, copy of mechanical inspection report dated 27.01.2021
of offending vehicle would show fresh damages i.e. its suspension/electric
system, both head lights cum indicators, cooling system, left tyre with rim,
dash board, front glass, back glass, bonnet, roof, front number all windows
and all rear view mirrors, wiper were found damaged . This document has not
been disputed by the respondents. This report would also corroborate the
testimony of PW2 to the effect that offending vehicle had hit the divider as
the same was being driven by the driver in a high speed in rash and negligent
manner.
17. The rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle may be
proved, either by direct evidence or by circumstances including principle by
applying the res-ipsa loquitur. The nature and manner of damage to the car
of victims clearly points out to rash and negligent manner of driving of
offending vehicle by respondent no. 1/driver, thereby causing injuries to the
deceased and injured.
Soni Devi & Sarita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Page 10 of 35
MACP Nos. 238/21 & 239/21; FIR No. 20/21 DOD: 10.02.2025
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has
come on record, it is held that the petitioners have been able to prove on the
basis of preponderence of probabilities that Ms. Shilpa @ Payal Jha and Shri
Devender @ Devender Kumar had sustained fatal injuries, in the road
accident which took place on 10.01.2021 in between 11.30 PM to 12.30 AM
on near Yamuna Express Way, Near Pul no. 144, District Hathras, UP, due to
rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of offending vehicle. Thus,
this issue is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents in
both these petitions.
ISSUE NO.2
19. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 enjoins upon the
Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award
determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and
reasonable. The guiding principles for assessment of “just and reasonable
compensation” in fatal case has been laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India, in case titled as Smt. Anjali & Ors., Vs. Lokendra Rathod & Ors, in
Civil Appeal No. 9014 of 202, decided on 06.12.2022 that: –
“The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for
short, “MV Act“) gives paramount importance to the
concept of ‘just and fair’ compensation. It is a
beneficial legislation which has been framed with the
object of providing relief to the victims or their
families. Section 168 of the MV Act deals with the
concept of ‘just compensation’ which ought to be
determined on the foundation of fairness,
reasonableness and equitability. Although suchSoni Devi & Sarita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Page 11 of 35
MACP Nos. 238/21 & 239/21; FIR No. 20/21 DOD: 10.02.2025determination can never be arithmetically exact or
perfect, an endeavor should be made by the Court to
award just and fair compensation irrespective of the
amount claimed by the applicant/s. In Sarla Verma &
Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.3, this
Court has laid down as under:
“16.”Just compensation” is adequate compensation
which is fair and equitable, on the facts and
circumstances of the case, to make good the loss
suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can
do so, by applying the well settled principles relating
to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a
bonanza, largesse or source of profit.”
20. It has been duly established as per findings of issue no.1 that
both the deceased Ms. Shilpa @ Payal Jha and Devender @ Devender Kumar
sustained fatal injuries on 10.01.2021 in between 11.30 PM to 12.30 AM on
near Yamuna Express Way, Near Pul no. 144, District Hathras, UP, due to
rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1/driver. Accordingly,
claimant(s) are entitled for just and fair compensation in the present case.
21. The intent and objective of the Beneficial Legislation is to grant
equitable compensation to the vulnerable victims of road accidents and
dynamic law has evolved towards grant of just and fair quantum of awards
and has brought consistency and uniformity towards the desired goal. The
Hon’ble Apex Court in “Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation” (2009)
6 SCC 121, which was affirmed by a bench of three Hon€ble Judges in
Soni Devi & Sarita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Page 12 of 35
MACP Nos. 238/21 & 239/21; FIR No. 20/21 DOD: 10.02.2025
Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, held
as under:
“16. “Just compensation” is adequate compensation which is fair
and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to
make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as
money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating
to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza,
largesse or source of profit.
17. Assessment of compensation though involving certain
hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective.
Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment,
consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and
uniformity in the decision making process and the decisions.
While it may not be possible to have mathematical precision or
identical awards, in assessing compensation, same or similar
facts should lead to awards in the same range. When the
factors/inputs are the same, and the formula/legal principles are
the same, consistency and uniformity, and not divergence and
freakiness, should be the result of adjudication to arrive at just
compensation…”
22. These guiding principles for assessment of “just and reasonable
compensation” have been torch bearer in injury cases also as laid down by
Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in III (2007), ACC 676 titled as Oriental
Insurance Co,. Ltd., Vs. Vijay Kumar Mittal & Ors, wherein it has been
held:-
“10. The possession of one’s own body is the first and most
valuable all human rights and while awarding compensation for
bodily injuries this primary element is to be kept in mind.
Bodily injury is to be treated and varies on account of gravity
of bodily injury. Though it is impossible to equate money with
human suffering, agony and personal deprivation, the Court and
Tribunal should make an honest and serious attempt to award
damages so far as money can compensate the loss. Regard
must be given to the gravity and degree of deprivation as wellSoni Devi & Sarita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Page 13 of 35
MACP Nos. 238/21 & 239/21; FIR No. 20/21 DOD: 10.02.2025as the degree of awareness of the deprivation. Damages
awarded in personal injury cases must be substantial and not
token damages…..”
11. The general principle which should govern the assessment
of damages in persons injury cases is that the Court should
award to injured persons such a sum as will put him in the same
position as he would have been in the same position as he
would have been in if he had not sustained injuries”.
23. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the compensation should
be just and is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be
niggardly or a pittance. Reliance is placed on 2012 (8) SLT 676 titled K.
Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The aforesaid Principle of law has
also been reiterated by a landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court in
2017 (13) SCALE 12 : 2017 XI AD (SC) 113 titled National Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. Accordingly, the quantum of appropriate and
adequate compensation to the victims of road accident is to be derived after
assessment of various relevant parameters, as per law. Hereinafter,
assessment is divided into several criteria, as applicable to the facts of the
present case.
Compensation in MACP No. 238/21 (Deceased Shilpa @ Payal Jha)
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
24. As already stated above, the claimant/petitioner Smt. Soni Devi,
is the mother of deceased. PW1 Smt. Soni Devi has deposed in her evidence
by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that deceased was aged about 18 years; she
Soni Devi & Sarita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Page 14 of 35
MACP Nos. 238/21 & 239/21; FIR No. 20/21 DOD: 10.02.2025
was working as labour and was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month at the time of
accident. She further deposed that deceased was spending all her earning for
the welfare and benefits of petitioner. She further deposed that she was
financially dependent upon the deceased as she was the only earning member
in her family. She has relied upon the following documents:-
Sr. No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of her Aadhaar Card Ex PW1/1(OSR)
2. Copy of Aadhaar Card of Ex. PW1/2(OSR)
deceased Shilpa @ Payal Jha
3. Certified copy of FIR Ex. PW1/3(Colly)
4. Certified copy of final Ex. PW1/4(Colly)
report/chargesheet
5. Copy of mechanical inspection Mark E
of offending vehicle
6. Copy of DL of Mark A
driver/respondent no. 1
7. Copy of RC of offending Mark B
vehicle
8. Copy of insurance policy of Mark C
offending vehicle
9. Copy of postmortem report of Mark D
deceased Shilpa @ Payal Jha
25. During her cross examination on behalf of insurance company,
she deposed that at the time of accident, her deceased daughter was doing
private job. She further deposed that she did not have any document to show
that her daughter was working or earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. She denied
the suggestion that her deceased daughter was neither working nor earning
Soni Devi & Sarita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Page 15 of 35
MACP Nos. 238/21 & 239/21; FIR No. 20/21 DOD: 10.02.2025
any amount. She further deposed that her husband had expired about 10-12
years ago.
26. Ld. Counsel for petitioners vehemently argued that income of
deceased should be considered as Rs. 20,000/- per month. He further argued
that since deceased was not having permanent job and she was aged about 18
years at the time of accident, future prospects @ 10% should also be awarded
in favour of the petitioners.
27. Apart from the bald statement made by petitioner in her affidavit
that deceased was working as labour and earning about Rs. 20,000/- per
month at the time of accident, no definite evidence whatsoever has been
brought on record to prove the monthly income of deceased at the time of
accident in question. Petitioner has also failed to file educational
qualification documents of deceased. In the absence of any such document, I
am of the view that monthly income of deceased has to be assessed while
taking the income of an unskilled person under Minimum Wages Act
applicable during the period in question The minimum wages of an unskilled
person were Rs. 15,492/- per month as on the date of accident which is
10.01.2021.
28. As per the case of petitioners, deceased Shilpa @ Payal Jha was
aged about 18 years at the time of accident. It is pertinent to note that
petitioners have filed copy of Aadhaar Card of Shilpa (Ex. PW1/2) wherein
Soni Devi & Sarita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Page 16 of 35
MACP Nos. 238/21 & 239/21; FIR No. 20/21 DOD: 10.02.2025
her year of birth is mentioned as 2003. Thus, she was aged about 18 years old
at the time of accident(date of accident being 10.01.2021). Hence, the
multiplier of 18 would be applicable in view of pronouncement made by
Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as “Sarla Verma Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation“, 2009 ACJ 1298 SC which has been reaffirmed
by the pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the
case titled as “National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.“,
passed in SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17.
29. Considering the fact that deceased was not having permanent job
at that time, future prospects @ 40% has to be awarded in favour of
petitioners in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex
Court in the case titled as “National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay
Sethi & Ors.” Civil Appeal No. 6961/2015 decided on 31.10.2017, as well as
in view of decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in appeal bearing MAC
APP No. 798/2011 titled as “Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.
Vs. Pooja & Ors“, decided on 02.11.17.
30. PW1 has categorically deposed in her evidence by way of
affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that she was fully dependent upon the deceased at the
time of accident as deceased was the only earning member in her family. In
view of the aforesaid submission of PW1(mother of deceased), it is held that
deceased was unmarried at the time of accident. Since, deceased was
unmarried at the time of accident, one half is liable to be deducted towards
Soni Devi & Sarita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Page 17 of 35
MACP Nos. 238/21 & 239/21; FIR No. 20/21 DOD: 10.02.2025
personal and living expenses of deceased. Thus, the total of loss of
dependency would come out to Rs. 23,42,390.40p (Rs.15,492/- X 1/2 X
140/100 X 12 X 18). Hence, a sum of Rs. 23,42,390.40p is awarded under
this head in favour of the petitioners.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
31. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
case titled as, Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Tribunal considers that petitioner
is entitled for payment of Rs. 40,000/- each towards “loss of consortium”. By
way of pronouncement of Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India has been pleased to hold that there shall be an increase of 10%
on account of ‘inflation’ after a period of three years. Applying, the afore-
cited binding law the The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in National Insurance
Co. Ltd. Ltd. V. LR‘s of Sukhbir Singh, MAC. APP. 518/2013 vide judgment
pronounced on 13.07.2023 has been pleased to direct the entitlement of
dependents to 10% increase under this head, though, the date of accident was
of 2011 and the date of impugned award was of 2013. Accordingly,
petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs. 48,400/- each (Rs. 40,000/- + 10% of Rs.
40,000/- + 10% of Rs. 44,000/-) each towards “loss of consortium”.[As per
the judgment Pranay Sethi(Supra), two escalations of 10% each is awarded
since the date of accident in the present matter is 10.01.2021]
Soni Devi & Sarita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Page 18 of 35
MACP Nos. 238/21 & 239/21; FIR No. 20/21 DOD: 10.02.2025
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
32. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in
view of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra)
which has been re-enforced in LR’s of Sukhbir Singh (supra), the Tribunal
considers that petitioner is also entitled for payment of
Rs. 18,150/- (Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 16,500/-) on
account of “loss of estate” and for equal payment of Rs. 18,150/-
(Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 16,500/-) towards “funeral
expenses”. [As per the judgment Pranay Sethi(Supra), two escalations of 10%
each is awarded since the date of accident in the present matter is
10.01.2021]
33. Therefore, on the basis of the above discussion, the
compensation is quantified as below:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 23,42,390.40p
2. Loss of consortium Rs. 48,400/-
3. Loss of Estate & Funeral Rs. 36,300/-
Expenses
Total Rs. 24,27,090.40p
Rounded off to Rs. 24,27,000/-
Compensation in MACP No. 239/21 (Devender @ Devender Kumar)
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
34. The claimants/petitioners are the widow, two minor sons and
parents of deceased. PW1 Smt. Sarita Kumari (widow of deceased) has
Soni Devi & Sarita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Page 19 of 35
MACP Nos. 238/21 & 239/21; FIR No. 20/21 DOD: 10.02.2025
deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A that deceased was
aged about 30 years; he was working as labour and earning Rs. 20,000/- per
month at the time of accident. She further deposed that all the petitioners
were dependent upon the deceased at the time of accident.
35. During cross-examination of PW1 (widow of deceased) on
behalf of insurance company, she deposed that she did not have any
document to show that her husband was doing any work or that he was
earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. She denied the suggestion that her husband
was not working or earning Rs. 20,000/- per month as stated by her.
36. Ld. Counsel for petitioners vehemently argued that income of
deceased should be considered as Rs. 20,000/- per month. He further argued
that since deceased was not having permanent job and he was aged about 30
years at the time of accident, future prospects @ 40% should also be awarded
in favour of the petitioners.
37. As already noted above, PW1 Smt. Sarita Kumari, who is widow
of deceased deposed in her evidence that deceased was earning Rs. 20,000/-
per month at the time of accident. However, she has failed to prove the said
fact on record. The petitioners have also failed to file any educational
qualification documents of deceased. For want of cogent and definite
evidence being led by petitioners with regard to actual monthly income of
deceased, his notional monthly income is being taken as equivalent to that of
an unskilled person under Minimum Wages Act applicable in the State of
Soni Devi & Sarita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Page 20 of 35
MACP Nos. 238/21 & 239/21; FIR No. 20/21 DOD: 10.02.2025
Delhi during the relevant period. The minimum wages of an unskilled person
were Rs. 15,492/- per month as on the date of accident which is 10.01.2021.
38. As per the case of petitioners, deceased Devender was aged
about 30 years at the time of accident. It is pertinent to note that petitioners
have filed copy of Aadhaar Card (Ex. PW2/2) of deceased wherein his date of
birth is mentioned as 01.01.1980. Thus, he was aged about 41 years at the
time of accident(date of accident being 10.01.2021). Hence, the multiplier of
14 would be applicable in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional
Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as “Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation“, 2009 ACJ 1298 SC which has been reaffirmed by the
pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case
titled as “National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.“, passed
in SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17.
39. Considering the fact that deceased was not having permanent job
at that time, future prospects @ 25% has to be awarded in favour of
petitioners in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex
Court in the case titled as “National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay
Sethi & Ors.” Civil Appeal No. 6961/2015 decided on 31.10.2017, as well as
in view of decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in appeal bearing MAC
APP No. 798/2011 titled as “Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.
Vs. Pooja & Ors“, decided on 02.11.17.
Soni Devi & Sarita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Page 21 of 35
MACP Nos. 238/21 & 239/21; FIR No. 20/21 DOD: 10.02.2025
40. PW1 has categorically deposed in her evidence by way of
affidavit (Ex. PW2/A) that all the petitioners were dependent upon the
deceased. Considering all the facts and circumstances, it is held that there
were five dependents i.e. widow, two minor sons and parents of deceased at
the time of accident. Hence, there has to be deduction of one fourth as held in
the case of Sarla Verma mentioned supra. Thus, the total of loss of
dependency would come out to Rs. 24,39,990/- (Rs. 15,492 X 3/4 X
125/100 X 12 X 14). Hence, a sum of Rs. 24,39,990/- is awarded under this
head in favour of the petitioners.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
41. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
case titled as, Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Tribunal considers that all the
petitioners are entitled for payment of Rs. 40,000/- each towards “loss of
consortium”. By way of pronouncement of Pranay Sethi case (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to hold that there shall be
an increase of 10% on account of ‘inflation’ after a period of three years.
Applying, the afore-cited binding law the The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Ltd. V. LR‘s of Sukhbir Singh, MAC. APP.
518/2013 vide judgment pronounced on 13.07.2023 has been pleased to
direct the entitlement of dependents to 10% increase under this head, though,
the date of accident was of 2011 and the date of impugned award was of
2013. Accordingly, all the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs. 48,400/-
Soni Devi & Sarita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Page 22 of 35
MACP Nos. 238/21 & 239/21; FIR No. 20/21 DOD: 10.02.2025
each (Rs. 40,000/- + 10% of Rs. 40,000/- + 10% of Rs. 44,000/-) each
towards “loss of consortium”.[As per the judgment Pranay Sethi(Supra), two
escalations of 10% each is awarded since the date of accident in the present
matter is 10.01.2021]
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
42. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in
view of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra)
which has been re-enforced in LR’s of Sukhbir Singh (supra), the Tribunal
considers that all the petitioners are also entitled for payment of Rs. 18,150/-
(Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 16,500/-) on account of
“loss of estate” and for equal payment of Rs. 18,150/- (Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of
Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 16,500/-) towards “funeral expenses”. [As per the
judgment Pranay Sethi(Supra), two escalations of 10% each is awarded since
the date of accident in the present matter is 10.01.2021]
43. Therefore, on the basis of the above discussion, the
compensation is quantified as below:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 24,39,990/-
2. Loss of Consortium Rs. 2,42,000/-
3. Loss of Estate & Funeral Rs. 36,300/-
Expenses
Total Rs. 27,18,290/-
Rounded off to Rs. 27,18,000/-
Soni Devi & Sarita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Page 23 of 35
MACP Nos. 238/21 & 239/21; FIR No. 20/21 DOD: 10.02.2025
44. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which
of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. In view of
findings on issue no.1(supra), it has been held that the accident took place
due to negligence of respondent no.1. It is admitted fact that the alleged
offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no. 3 at the relevant time
of accident. The claim was, however, resisted on the ground that the
insurance policy of the offending vehicle was a ‘Private Car'(Liability
Only) policy and not a Comprehensive/Package Policy and therefore,
occupants of the offending vehicle was not covered under the said insurance
policy. It was thus urged that the insurance company had no liability to
indemnify the claimants and that it was liable to be exonerated. To
prove that the insurance policy qua the offending vehicle was a Private Car
Policy, insurance company examined Sh. Arpit Agarwal, Assistant
Manager (Legal), of the insurance company as R3W1. R3W1 proved the
insurance policy of offending vehicle as Ex.R3W1/3(colly) and in his
testimony, he stated that it was a liability only policy. It is also
pertinent to mention here that respondents no. 1 & 2 failed to contest their
case and preferred to stay away from the proceedings of the present case.
45. The law with respect to compensation to be awarded to an
occupant in a car under the Comprehensive/Package Policy and an occupant
in a car under Act only Policy is now well settled. In a judgment cited by
learned counsel for the insurance company/respondent No.2 titled as
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. VS. SURENDRA NATH LOOMBA
Soni Devi & Sarita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Page 24 of 35
MACP Nos. 238/21 & 239/21; FIR No. 20/21 DOD: 10.02.2025
& ORS. decided on 20.11.2012 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the
judgments of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. VS.
BALAKRISHNAN & ANR. (Civil Appeal No.8163 of 2012 arising
out of SLP © No.1232/2012 decided on 20.11.2012) and YASHPAL
LUTHRA & ANR. VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. &
ANR. (2011 ACJ 1415) were discussed and it was held as follows:
“(12) It is apt to note here that this court in
Bhagyalakshmi v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.
(2009) 7 SCC 148, after dealing with various facets and
considering the authorities in Amrit Lal Sood v.
Kaushalya Devi Thapar, 1998 ACJ 531 (SC); Asha Rani,
2003 ACJ 1 (SC); Tilak Singh, 2006 ACJ 1441 (SC);
Jhuma Saha, 2007 ACJ 818 (SC); and Sudakaran K.V.
2008 ACJ 2045 (SC), has observed thus:
‘Before this court, however, the nature of policies
which came up for consideration were Act
policies. This court did not deal with a package
policy. If the Tariff Advisory Committee seeks to
enforce its decision in regard to coverage of third
party risk which would include all persons
including occupants of the vehicle and the insurer
having entered into a contract of insurance in
relation thereto, we are of the opinion that the
matter may require a deeper scrutiny.’(13) Recently this Bench in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v.
Balakrishnan, 2013 ACJ 199(SC), after referring to
various decisions and copiously to the decision in
Bhagyalakshmi, (2009) 7 SCC 148, held that there is a
distinction between ‘Act policy’ and
‘comprehensive/package policy’. Thereafter, the
Soni Devi & Sarita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Page 25 of 35
MACP Nos. 238/21 & 239/21; FIR No. 20/21 DOD: 10.02.2025
Bench took note of a decision rendered by
Delhi High Court in Yashpal Luthra v. United India
Insurance Co.Ltd., 2011 ACJ 1415 (Delhi), wherein the
High Court had referred to the circulars issued by the
Tariff Advisory Committee (TAC) and Insurance
Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA). This
court referred to the portion of circulars dated 16.11.2009
and 3.12.2009 which had been reproduced by the
High Court and eventually held as follows:
‘(19) It is extremely important to note here that till
31.12.2006 the Tariff-12- Advisory Committee and,
thereafter, from 1.1.2007, IRDA functioned as the
statutory regulatory authorities and they are entitled to fix
the tariff as well as the terms and conditions of the
policies by all insurance companies. The High Court had
issued notice to the Tariff Advisory Committee and the
IRDA to explain the factual position as regards
the liability of the insurance companies in respect
of an occupant in a private car under the
‘comprehensive/package policy’. Before the High
Court the competent authority of IRDA had stated that
on 2.6.1986 the Tariff Advisory Committee had issued
instructions to all insurance companies to cover the
pillion rider of a scooter/motorcycle under the
‘comprehensive police’ and the said position
continues to be in vogue till date. It had also
admitted that the ‘comprehensive policy’ is presently
called a ‘package policy’. It is the admitted position, as the
decision would show, the earlier circulars dated 18.3.1978
and 2.6.1986 continue to be valid and effective
and all the insurance companies are bound to pay
compensation in respect of the liability towards an
occupant in a car under the ‘comprehensive/package
policy’ irrespective of the terms and conditions contained
in the policy. The competent authority of the IRDA wasSoni Devi & Sarita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Page 26 of 35
MACP Nos. 238/21 & 239/21; FIR No. 20/21 DOD: 10.02.2025also examined before the High Court who stated that the
circulars dated 18.3.1978 and 2.6.1986 of Tariff Advisory
Committee were incorporated in the India Motor
Tariff effective from 1.7.2002 and they continue to
be operative and binding on the insurance companies.
Because of the aforesaid factual position, the
circulars dated 16.11.2009 and 3.12.2009, that have
been reproduced hereinabove, were issued.
(20) It is also worthy to note that the High
Court, after referring to individual circulars issued by
various insurance companies, eventually stated thus:
“In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the
‘comprehensive/package policy’ of a twowheeler
covers a pillion rider and the
‘comprehensive/pakage policy’ of a private car covers the
occupants and where the vehicle is covered under a
‘comprehensive/package policy’, there is no need
for Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to go into
the question whether insurance company is liable to
compensate for the death or injury of a pillion rider on a
twowheeler or the occupants in a private car. In fact, in
view of the TAC’s directives and those of the IRDA, such
a plea was not permissible and ought not to have been
raised as, for instance, it was done in the present case.”
(21) In view of the aforesaid factual position there is no
scintilla of doubt that a ‘comprehensive/package policy’
would cover the liability of the insurer for payment of
compensation for the occupant in a car. There is no cavil
that an ‘Act policy’ stands on a different footing than a
‘comprehensive/package policy’. As the circulars have
made the position very clear and the IRDA, which is
presently the statutory authority, has commanded
the insurance companies stating that a
‘comprehensive/package policy’ covers the liability, there
Soni Devi & Sarita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Page 27 of 35
MACP Nos. 238/21 & 239/21; FIR No. 20/21 DOD: 10.02.2025
cannot be any dispute in that regard. We may hasten to
clarify that the earlier pronouncements were rendered
with respect to the ‘Act policy’ which admittedly cannot
cover a third party risk of an occupant in a car. But, if the
policy is a ‘comprehensive/package policy’, the liability
would be covered. These aspects were not noticed in the
case of Bhagyalakshmi, (2009) 7 SCC 148 and,
therefore, the matter was referred to a larger
Bench. We are disposed to think that there is no
necessity to refer the present matter to a larger Bench as
the IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority,
has clarified the position by issuing circulars which have
been reproduced in the judgment by the High Court of
Delhi and we have also reproduced the same.
(22) In view of the aforesaid legal position the question
that emerges for consideration is whether in the case at
hand the policy is an ‘Act policy’ or
‘comprehensive/package policy’. There has been no
discussion either by the Tribunal or the High Court in this
regard. True it is, before us, Annexure P1 has been filed
which is a policy issued by the insurer. It only mentions
the policy to be a ‘comprehensive policy’ but we are
inclined to think that there has to be a scanning of
the terms of the entire policy to arrive at the
conclusion whether it is really a ‘package policy’ to cover
the liability of an occupant in a car.’
(14) We have quoted in extenso to reiterate the legal
position. In the case at hand, the policy has not been
brought on record. Learned counsel for the appellant
insurer would submit that it is an ‘Act policy’. Learned
counsel for the respondent would seriously dispute
and submit that extra premium might have been paid
or it may be a ‘comprehensive/package policy’. When
certificate of insurance is filed but the policy is not
Soni Devi & Sarita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Page 28 of 35
MACP Nos. 238/21 & 239/21; FIR No. 20/21 DOD: 10.02.2025
brought on record it only conveys that the vehicle is
insured. The nature of policy cannot be discerned from
the same. Thus, we are disposed to think that it would be
appropriate to remit the matter to the Tribunal to
enable the insurer to produce the policy and grant
liberty to the parties to file additional documents and also
lead further evidence as advised, and we order
accordingly.
(15) It needs no special emphasis to state that whether the
insurer would be liable or not would depend upon the
nature of the policy when it is brought on record in a
manner as required by law.”
46. Subsequent thereto, in R.MUTHURAJ VS. RANGASAMY &
ORS. reported as 2017 ACJ 951 , the Hon’ble High Court of Madras while
referring to all the aforesaid judgments held as under:
“14. Mere reading of the above observation would clearly
show that unless the requisite premium is paid covering
the risk of a gratuitous passenger, the insurance company
is not liable to compensate such person. Therefore, the
legal obligation arising under section 147 of the Act
cannot be extended to the appellant, who is only a
gratuitous passengers in the offending car which met with
an accident and did not have a comprehensive/package
insurance policy.”
47. Admittedly, in the instant case, the offending vehicle had “Act
Policy” only and did not have “Comprehensive/Package Policy”. Hence,
in the light of the aforesaid judgments, it is crystal clear that the
insurance company i.e. respondent No.3 cannot be held liable to pay
Soni Devi & Sarita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Page 29 of 35
MACP Nos. 238/21 & 239/21; FIR No. 20/21 DOD: 10.02.2025
any compensation to the petitioners/claimants and is thus, exonerated in
both these cases.
48. Now, the question left with this Tribunal is as to who shall pay
the compensation amount to the petitioners in these two claim petitions. In
view of findings on issue no.1(supra), it has been held that the accident took
place due to negligence of respondent no.1 and insurance policy of offending
vehicle was Liability Only policy and thus, insurance company/respondent
no.3 was exonerated as aforesaid. In view of the aforesaid discussion and
negligence of respondent no. 1 as hold in preceding paragraphs of issue no. 1,
it is held that respondents no. 1 & 2 shall be jointly and severally liable to
pay the compensation amount in both the claim petitions. Issue no. 2 is
decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3/RELIEF
49. In view of my findings on issues no. 1 & 2, following order is
passed after relying upon judgment “United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baby
Raksha & Ors.”, MAC APP. No. 36/2023 on 21.04.2023, on the point of
interest.
a) A sum of Rs. 24,27,000/-(Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs and
Twenty Seven Thousand only) (including interim award amount, if any) in
MAC Petition No. 238/21 alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of
petitioner and against the respondents no. 1 & 2 w.e.f. date of filing of the
petition i.e. 09.08.2021 till the date of its realization.
Soni Devi & Sarita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Page 30 of 35
MACP Nos. 238/21 & 239/21; FIR No. 20/21 DOD: 10.02.2025
b) A sum of Rs. 27,18,000/-(Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs and
Eighteen Thousand only) (including interim award amount, if any) in MAC
Petition No. 239/21 alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of
petitioners and against the respondents no. 1 & 2 w.e.f. date of filing of the
petition i.e. 09.08.2021 till the date of its realization.
Issue no. 3 is decided accordingly.
APPORTIONMENT
50. Statements of petitioners in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP were
recorded. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in
view of statement of petitioner, it is hereby ordered that out of total
compensation amount in MAC Petition No. 238/21, a sum of Rs. 4,27,000/-
(Rupees Four Lakhs and Twenty Seven Thousand Only) shall be immediately
released to petitioner Smt. Soni Devi through her MACT bank account no.
18720110047682 with UCO Bank, A-1/120, Prashant Vihar, Sector – 14,
Rohini, Delhi, having IFSC Code UCVA0001872 and remaining amount
alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the
multiples of Rs. 25,000/- each for one month, two months, three months and
so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
51. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in
view of their statements, it is hereby ordered that out of total compensation
amount in MAC Petition No. 239/21, the petitioner no. 1 Smt. Sarita Kumari
Soni Devi & Sarita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Page 31 of 35
MACP Nos. 238/21 & 239/21; FIR No. 20/21 DOD: 10.02.2025
shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only)
alongwith proportionate interest, the petitioner no. 2 & 3 Divanshu and Harsh
shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- each (Rupees Five Lakhs
Only) alongwith proportionate interest, petitioner no. 4 Smt. Kamalesh shall
be entitled to share amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only)
alongwith proportionate interest and petitioner no. 5 Durgpal shall be entitled
to share amount of Rs. 2,18,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Eighteen
Thousand Only) alongwith proportionate interest.
52. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 1, a sum of
Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) shall be immediately released to her
through her MACT bank account no. 18720110047668 with UCO Bank,
A-1/120, Prashant Vihar, Sector – 14, Rohini, Delhi, having IFSC Code
UCVA0001872 and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed
to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 30,000/- each for one
month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative
interest.
53. The entire respective share amounts alongwith proportionate
interest of petitioner no. 2 & 3 be kept in FDRs for the period till they attain
the age of majority. The said petitioners are at liberty to withdraw their
monthly interest till they attains the age of majority in order to meet their
educational expenses through their mother/natural guardian Smt. Sarita
Kumari.
Soni Devi & Sarita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Page 32 of 35
MACP Nos. 238/21 & 239/21; FIR No. 20/21 DOD: 10.02.2025
54. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 4, a sum of
Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) shall be immediately released to her
through her MACT bank account no. 18723211016250 with UCO Bank,
A-1/120, Prashant Vihar, Sector – 14, Rohini, Delhi, having IFSC Code
UCVA0001872 and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed
to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 20,000/- each for one
month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative
interest.
55. The entire share amount of petitioner no. 5 shall be immediately
released to him through his saving bank account, as per rules.
56. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be
subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings
bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings
bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank
account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(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(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS)
in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their
residence.
Soni Devi & Sarita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Page 33 of 35
MACP Nos. 238/21 & 239/21; FIR No. 20/21 DOD: 10.02.2025
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic
Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near
the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on
the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not to 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 card(s) freeze the account of the
claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the
claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the
claimant(s) 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(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement
before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank alongwith the
duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the
claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause(g) above.
(i) The petitioner is directed to open a Motor Accident Claims Annuity
(Term) Deposit Account (MACAD) in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 of
Hon’ble Justice J.R. Midha in case titled as Rajesh Tyagi and Others Vs.
Jaibir Singh and Others F.A.O No. 842/03 as per clause 31 of MCTAP and
form VIII titled as Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD)
Scheme as directed in the said order.
(j) Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court branch is further directed to
disburse the FD amount in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit
(MACAD) Scheme account as directed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide
order dated 07.12.18, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
Soni Devi & Sarita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Page 34 of 35
MACP Nos. 238/21 & 239/21; FIR No. 20/21 DOD: 10.02.2025
57. The respondents no.1 & 2 are directed to deposit the award
amount with SBI, Rohini Courts branch within 30 days as per above order,
failing which both the respondents shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a
for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is
directed to transfer the aforesaid amount immediately to petitioners in their
respective aforesaid bank accounts mentioned supra, on completing
necessary formalities as per rules. He be further directed to keep the said
amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimant approaches the bank
for disbursement so that the award amount starts earning interest from the
date of clearance of the cheques. Copy of this award be given dasti to
claimant. Copy of this award be sent to both the respondents through SHO,
PS. Bhalswa Dairy for information and compliance. Copy of this award
alongwith one photograph, specimen signature, copy of bank passbook and
copy of residence proof of the petitioner, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI,
Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
Form XV & Form XVII in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as
Annexure-A. Copy of order be also sent to concerned M.M and DLSA as per
clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP. Signed copy of this Award be also placed on the
judicial record of MAC Petition No. 239/21, as per the rules.
Digitally signed
by RICHA
RICHA MANCHANDA
Announced in the open MANCHANDA Date:
2025.02.10
Court on 10.02.2025 15:22:41 +0545
(RICHA MANCHANDA)
Judge MACT-2 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
Soni Devi & Sarita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. Page 35 of 35
[ad_1]
Source link