Delhi District Court
Shila Devi vs Pramod Kumar And Ors on 9 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. MAYURI SINGH
PRESIDING OFFICER:
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, EAST,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
____________________________________________________
In the matters of:
MACP No. 942/19
Shila Devi & Ors. Vs. Pramod Kumar & Ors.
1. Sheela Devi
W/o Late Ram Khelavan
2. Banshraj
S/o Late Ram Khelavan
3. Mamta Devi
D/o Late Ram Khelavan
4. Hansraj Kashyap
S/o Late Ram Khelavan
5. Lavali Kashyap
D/o Late Ram Khelavan
6. Sejal Kumari
D/o Late Ram Khelavan
7. Bechana
W/o Sh. Raghunath Kashyap
8. Raghu Nath Kashyap (since deceased)
S/o Sh. Ram Harakh
(petitioner No 6, minor through her mother Shila Devi)
All R/o Ravaniya Purab, Aliganj Bazar,
Sultanpur, U.P. ......Petitioners
Versus
1. Pramod Kumar (driver-cum-owner)
S/o Sh. Bhoop Singh
R/o H. No.60, Munshi Nagar,
Dhobi Ghat, Near Railway Station,
Pilkhuwa, Dhaulana, Hapur, U.P.
2nd address
H. No. 69, Shivaji Nagar,
Pilkhuwa, Hapur, U.P.
2. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Core-4, 1st Floor
Scope Minar Complex
Laxmi Nagar, Distt. Centre
_____________________________________________________________
MACT No. 942/19 ; Shila Devi & Ors. Vs. Pramod Kumar & Ors. Page 1 of 19
Delhi-110092
.........Respondents
Date of Institution : 19.12.2019
Date of reserve of order : Not reserved
Date of pronouncement : 09.06.2025
AWAR D
1. By this award, the claim petition bearing MACP
no.942/19, filed under Section 166 & 140 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, arising out of the accident, would be decided.
2. Briefly stated, the facts as mentioned in the claim petition
are that on 01.11.2019 at about 01:30 P.M., deceased Ram
Khelawan was going on foot and when he reached near Seth
Mukund Lal School, Chowki Patel Nagar, Ghaziabad, a bus bearing
No. UK-07PC-0110, came at a very high speed and being driven
rashly and negligently and it hit the deceased and two other ladies.
Deceased Ram Khelawan was removed to Santosh Hospital, Purana
Bus Stand, Ghaziabad. As a result of the fatal injuries suffered in
the accident, deceased Ram Khelawan expired. In this connection,
an FIR bearing No. 1646/19 was registered at PS Sihani
Gate,Ghaziabad, U.P.
3. In response to the notice of petition, both the respondents
appeared and filed their replies/ written statements.
3(i). In the written statement filed by the respondent
no.1/Driver-cum-Owner namely Pramod Kumar, it is stated that his
vehicle was duly insured with R2 from 13.05.2019 to 12.05.2020
and had a valid route permit, fitness certificate and pollution
certificate and further that the driver had a valid driving licence on
the date of the accident. R1 was never driving rashly, negligently at
high speed and thus, no question arose for alleged accident to have
_____________________________________________________________
MACT No. 942/19 ; Shila Devi & Ors. Vs. Pramod Kumar & Ors. Page 2 of 19
occurred because of R1. The place of accident is a crowded area
and no vehicle can run at a high speed.
3(ii). Respondent No. 2/Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. has
filed its separate written statement and stated that the claim is
malafide, false and vexatious and it is denied that any accident was
caused due to negligence on the part of driver of the offending
vehicle as alleged. Other general defences have been taken by
Insurance Company.
4. Upon completion of pleadings of the parties, following
issues were framed vide order dated 23.05.2023:
i). Whether Sh. Ram Khelawan, husband of Petitioner No.1,
father of Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6, son of Petitioner Nos. 7
& 8, died in a motor vehicular accident which happened
on 01.11.2019 at about 01:30 p.m. near Seth Mukundlal
School, Chowki Patel Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P., within the
jurisdiction of PS- Sihani Gate, due to rash and negligent
driving of motor vehicle bearing Registration No. UP
07PC-0110 driven by Respondent No.1 / Sh. Pramod
Kumar ? OPP
ii). Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, on
account of said death and if yes, to what extent and from
whom ? (OPP)
iii). Relief.
5. In order to prove their cases, the petitioners examined
two witnesses as under:
5(i). PW1 Banshrj/ son of deceased Ram Khelawan examined
himself and deposed on the strength of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He
testified regarding death of his father Ram Khelawan in a road
accident. He relied upon the following documents:-
• Photocopy of aadhar card and PAN card of deponent
_____________________________________________________________
MACT No. 942/19 ; Shila Devi & Ors. Vs. Pramod Kumar & Ors. Page 3 of 19
Ex.PW1/1
• Photocopy of aadhar card and PAN card of petitioner No.1
Ex.PW1/2
• Photocopy of aadhar card and PAN card of petitioner No.3
Ex.PW1/3
• Photocopy of aadhar card and PAN card of petitioner No.5
Ex.PW1/4
• Photocopy of aadhar card and PAN card of petitioner No.6
Ex.PW1/5
• Photocopy of aadhar card and PAN card of petitioner No.7
Ex.PW1/6
• Photocopy of aadhar card and PAN card of petitioner No.8
Ex.PW1/7
• Photocopy of aadhar card and PAN card of deceased
Ex.PW1/8
• Original certificate issued by Om sons is Ex.PW1/9
• Certified copy of criminal case record is Ex.PW1/10
PW1 was cross-examined by counsel for respondents.
5.2 PW2 Govind Kashyap was examined as an eye-witness
of the accident, who relied upon photocopy of his aadhar card
Ex.PW2/1.
Both witnesses were cross-examined by counsel for
respondents.
6. Respondents side opted not to lead any evidence in
their defence.
7. I have heard the final arguments advanced by Sh.Pradeep
Kumar, Ld. Counsel for petitioners and Sh. G.D. Sharma, Learned
counsel for R2/ Insurer. I have perused the evidence and other
materials placed on record. My findings on the issues are as under:-
_____________________________________________________________
MACT No. 942/19 ; Shila Devi & Ors. Vs. Pramod Kumar & Ors. Page 4 of 19
ISSUE NO.1
8. It is pertinent to mention here that as per settled
proposition of law, in an action founded on the principle of fault
liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle is sine qua non. However, the standard of proof is not as
strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is to be tested on the
touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Holistic view is to be
taken while dealing with the Claim Petition based upon negligence.
Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted
by the Claims Tribunal. Reference may be made to the judgments
titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sakshi Bhutani & Others.,
MAC APP. No. 550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012, Bimla Devi &
Others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Others (2009)
13 SC 530, Parmeshwari v. Amirchand & Others 2011 (1) SCR
1096 & Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Others
2018, Law Suit (SC) 303.
9. In order to prove their case, petitioners examined two
witnesses i.e. son of the deceased/P2 and eye-witness namely Gopal
Kashyap. PW2 testified that on 01.11.2019 at about 01:30 P.M., he
was crossing the road at Seth Mukundlal School, Chowki Patel
Nagar, when he saw that a bus bearing registration
No.UK-07PC-0110, after jumping the red light, hit a pedestrian,
Ram Khelawan and 2-3 other ladies, who were also crossing the
road. He further deposed that Ram Khelawan died at the spot as he
was crushed by the bus. He further deposed that he knew deceased
Ram Khelawan as he had worked with Ram Khelawan in the same
factory. He further deposed that he informed his family about the
accident. It is further averred that the accident took place due to
negligence of driver of the bus as he was crossing the red light. He
was cross-examined by the counsel for respondents but nothing
_____________________________________________________________
MACT No. 942/19 ; Shila Devi & Ors. Vs. Pramod Kumar & Ors. Page 5 of 19
fruitful could be extracted from his cross-examination which could
shatter the case of the petitioner.
10. Respondent no.1 i.e. the owner-cum-driver of the
offending vehicle did not lead any evidence to prove anything
contrary to the claim of the petitioner. In the case of
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Cmpany Ltd vs Smt.
Kamlesh and Others2009 (3) AD Delhi 310 it was held that an
adverse inference can be drawn when the driver of the offending
vehicle does not enter into the witness box. Even the insurance
company has not led any evidence to disprove the claim of the
petitioners.
11. Thus, in view of the above, this Tribunal is of the opinion
that petitioners have been able to prove that there is sufficient
material on record to establish that the accident had occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent
no.1 and that resulted into fatal injuries to the deceased victim Ram
Khelawan. Therefore, issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioners
and against the respondents.
ISSUE No. 2:-
13. In view of the finding on Issue No.1, petitioners in the
claim case are entitled to get compensation, however, the
quantum of compensation still needs to be adjudicated.
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
14. Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 enjoins upon
the claim Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an
award determining the amount of compensation, which appears
_____________________________________________________________
MACT No. 942/19 ; Shila Devi & Ors. Vs. Pramod Kumar & Ors. Page 6 of 19
to be just and reasonable. As per settled law, compensation is not
expected to be windfall or a bonanza nor it should be pittance.
15. In death cases, the guidelines for computation of
compensation have been laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
case of Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation &
Anr. (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121. Further, the guidelines
have been reiterated by the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in a case titled as National Insurance Company
vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., decided on 31.10.2017, laying down the
general principles for computation of compensation in death
cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced here as
under:
“18. Basically only three facts need to be
established by the claimants for assessing
compensation in the case of death:
(a) age of the deceased;
(b) income of the deceased; and
(c) the number of dependents.
These issues to be determined by the
Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency
are:
(i) additions/ deductions to be made for
arriving at the income;
(ii) the deduction to be made towards the
personal living expenses of the deceased;
and
iii) the multiplier to be applied with
reference to the age of the deceased.
If these determinations are standardized,
there will be uniformity and consistency in
the decisions. There will be lesser need for
detailed evidence. It will also be easier for
the insurance companies to settle accident
claims without delay.
_____________________________________________________________
MACT No. 942/19 ; Shila Devi & Ors. Vs. Pramod Kumar & Ors. Page 7 of 19
19. To have uniformity and consistency,
the Tribunals should determine
compensation in cases of death, by the
following well-settled steps:death case
Step-1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand)
The income of the deceased per annum
should be determined. Out of the said
income a deduction should be made in
regard to the amount which the deceased
would have spent on himself by way of
personal and living expenses. The balance
expired which is considered to be the
contribution to the dependent family,
constitutes the multiplicand.
Step-2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) death
case
Having regard to the age of the deceased
and period of active career, the appropriate
multiplier should be selected. This does not
mean ascertaining the number of years he
would have lived or worked but for the
accident. Having regard to several
imponderables in life and economic
factors, a table of multipliers with
reference to the age has been identified by
this Court. The multiplier should be chosen
from the said table with reference to the
age of the deceased.
Step-3 (Actual Calculation)
The annual contribution to the
family(multiplicand) when multiplied by
such multiplier gives the ‘loss of
dependency’ to the family.
Thereafter, a conventional amount in the
range of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be
added as loss of estates. Where the
deceased is survived by his widow, another
conventional amount in the range of
Rs.5,000 to Rs.10,000 should be added
under the head of loss of consortium. But
no amount is to be awarded under the head
_____________________________________________________________
MACT No. 942/19 ; Shila Devi & Ors. Vs. Pramod Kumar & Ors. Page 8 of 19
of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the
legal heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of
transportation of the body (if incurred) and
the cost of any medical treatment of the
deceased before death (if incurred) should
also be added.”
16. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment, it is
essential to take into consideration the following parameters:-
PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
Age of deceased :
17. As per the aadhar card of the deceased Ex. PW1/8, his
date of birth is 01.01.1964. The date of accident is 01.11.2019.
Thus, the age of the deceased was 55 years and 10 months at the
time of accident.
Assessment of Income of deceased :
18. PW1 testified that his deceased father was doing a
private job and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. In support of
income proof, PW1 relied upon one certificate Ex.PW1/9 issued
by Om Sons. This certificate appears to be only a certificate
which was issued in the name of deceased Ram Khelawan for
paying a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month during the financial year
2019-20. It does not reflect anywhere when the deceased joined
the firm of ‘Om Sons’ and since how long he had been working
with it. It also does not clarify whether the deceased was working
with the said firm on the date of accident. No salary slip or
attendance record of ‘Om Sons’ is proved on record by the
petitioner & it is also not clear whether it was a proprietorship
_____________________________________________________________
MACT No. 942/19 ; Shila Devi & Ors. Vs. Pramod Kumar & Ors. Page 9 of 19
concern or a company. Further, no witness from ‘Om Sons’ was
examined on behalf of the petitioners, who could prove the
employment and salary of the deceased on the date of accident.
No educational document is proved on record by the petitioners.
The document Ex.PW1/9 is not reliable and is vague. It does not
bear any date & even name of signatory is not reflected in this
document. The nature of work of deceased is not specified in this
document either. Hence, in my considered view the income of
the deceased has to be taken as per minimum wages of a
unskilled worker applicable in U.P. (as documents of the
deceased shows that he was a resident of U.P.). It is also not
disputed that deceased was working in Ghaziabad U.P. at the
time of accident Therefore, as on the date of accident i.e.
01.11.2019 the minimum wages of an unskilled work was
Rs.8279/- per month, the income of the deceased is considered to
be Rs.8279/- per month.
Number of dependents :
19. In the claim petition, there are petitioners / legal heirs
of the deceased, who are wife, children and parents. It is
pertinent here to mention that at the stage of final arguments, Ld.
Counsel for the petitioners apprised the Tribunal that father of the
deceased i.e. petitioner No. 8 died during inquiry in the claim
petition and it was orally prayed that he may be deleted from the
array of the parties and that no one was to be substituted in his
place as his legal representative. Therefore, P-8 (late Raghunath
Kashyap) has been deleted from the array of petitioners. Rest all
of the petitioners No. 1 to 7 are stated to be the dependents of the
deceased. Thus, for the purpose of ascertaining the dependency_____________________________________________________________
MACT No. 942/19 ; Shila Devi & Ors. Vs. Pramod Kumar & Ors. Page 10 of 19
of the deceased, all the petitioners i.e. P-1 to P-7 are considered
dependents on the deceased.
Application of Multiplier:
20. As discussed above, the deceased was considered to be
55 years and 10 months of age at the time of accident. An
appropriate multiplier has to be determined for computation of
compensation. The judgment titled as Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009)
6 SCC 121 is relevant to consider the multiplier. In Para 21 of the
judgment, the guidelines for the multiplier were laid down in
accordance with age are as under:-
MULTIPLIER AGE GROUP OF DECEASED
M-18 Age group between 15 to 20 &
21 to 25 years)
M-17 Age group between 26 to 30 yrs
M-16 Age group between 31 to 35 yrs
M-15 Age group between 36 to 40 yrs
M-14 Age group between 41 to 45 yrs
M-13 Age group between 46 to 50 yrs
M-11 Age group between 51 to 55 yrs
M-9 Age group between 56 to 60 yrs
M-7 Age group between 61 to 65 yrs
M-5 Age group between 66 and above
21. In view of the above, multiplier of 11 shall be
applicable in the present case.
_____________________________________________________________
MACT No. 942/19 ; Shila Devi & Ors. Vs. Pramod Kumar & Ors. Page 11 of 19
Future Prospects:
22. This issue was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Pranay Sethi & Others (Supra). Relevant
parts of the judgment are reproduced here as under:
“(iii) While determining the income, an
addition of 50% of actual salary to the
income of the deceased towards future
prospects, where the deceased had a
permanent job and was below the age of 40
years, should be made. The addition should
be 30%, if the age of the deceased was
between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased
was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the
addition should be 15%. Actual salary should
be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed
or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of
the established income should be the warrant
where the deceased was below the age of 40
years. An addition of 25% where the
deceased was between the age of 40 to 50
years and 10% where the deceased was
between the age of 50 to 60 years should be
regarded as the necessary method of
computation. The established income means
the income minus the tax component.”
23. The deceased can be considered a self-employed. In
view of the above said judgment, the deceased, who was 55
years and 10 months of age, an addition of income of deceased to
the extent of 10% has to be considered in view of decision of a
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case, National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (Supra).
benefit of future prospects.
Deduction towards Personal Living Expenses:
24. After choosing the age, multiplier and income of the
deceased, necessary deductions have to be made out of the
_____________________________________________________________
MACT No. 942/19 ; Shila Devi & Ors. Vs. Pramod Kumar & Ors. Page 12 of 19
income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case titled as Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan
Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, in para 30, laid down the
necessary deductions towards personal living and expenses of
deceased as under :
Deductions out of earning of the Number of
deceased dependentsWhere dependent is 1 Half
Where the number of dependent family 1/3rd
members is 2 to 3Where the number of dependent family 1/4th
members is 4 to 6Where the number of dependent family 1/5th
members exceeds 6 (six)
25. All the seven petitioners i.e. wife, mother and children
of deceased Ram Khelawan are considered as dependents upon
the deceased as held above. Accordingly, one-fifth of the income
of the deceased is to be deducted towards his personal living
expenses.
26. Thus, the loss of dependency is computed as
Rs.9,61,688/- (8279 x 4/5 x 110/100 x 12 x 11).
NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
27. In case of Pranay Sethi (supra), a compensation of
Rs.40,000/-, 15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively has been fixed
on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral
expenses and further, it is required to be enhanced @ 10% in
every three years. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.48,000/-,
_____________________________________________________________
MACT No. 942/19 ; Shila Devi & Ors. Vs. Pramod Kumar & Ors. Page 13 of 19
18,000/- and Rs.18,000/- respectively on account of loss of
consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be
granted. Further, in view of recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 2705
of 2020, decided on 30.06.2020, loss of consortium has to be
fixed for each of the LRs. In this case, there are five legal heirs of
the deceased. Thus, claimants are entitled to a sum of
Rs.3,72,000/- (48,000×7+18,000+18,000) under this head.
28. Thus, all the petitioners i.e. wife, children and mother
of the deceased in the instant case shall be entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.13,33,688/- (9,61,688+3,72,000) only.
INTEREST
29. Petitioners shall also be entitled to interest @ 7.5% per
annum on the award amount from the date of filing of the
petition till its realization.
LIABILITY
30. Now, the question arises as to which of the respondents
are liable to pay the compensation amount. As insurance
company namely The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. has
contractual and statutory liability to indemnify the insured and, in
this case, insurance company has not been able to prove that any
term or condition of insurance policy was breached/violated by
insured, therefore, respondent no.2/ insurance company becomes
liable to pay the aforesaid compensation amount.
31. In view of above discussion, respondent No. 2/
insurer is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.
_____________________________________________________________
MACT No. 942/19 ; Shila Devi & Ors. Vs. Pramod Kumar & Ors. Page 14 of 19
RELIEF
32. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.13,34,000/-
(rupees Thirteen Lakhs Thirty Four Thousands Only) (rounded
off from Rs.13,33,688/-) to the petitioners along with interest @
7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization
to be paid by the respondent no.2/ insurance company. Amount
of interim award, if any, be deducted from the compensation
amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by
the Tribunal during the pendency of this case.
Entitlement, Apportionment and Disbursement
33. The petitioners in this case are the wife, children and
mother of the deceased. On query of Tribunal, it was stated orally
on behalf of the petitioners that petitioner No. 2 / Banshraj and
petitioner No 3 / Mamta Devi are married and petitioner No. 4 /
Hansraj Kashyap though is major, he is still not working and
petitioners No. 5 & 6 are the minor daughters and pursuing
graduation in 2nd year and 3rd year respectively and one of them
intends to do ITI and other one is preparing for competitive
examination. Admittedly, at present petitioners No.2 & 3 are
major and married and having children and thus I am of the
considered view, out of total award amount, it would be
appropriate to give a sum of Rs.48,000/- each to petitioners No. 2
& 3 as they are stated to be not financially dependents of
deceased. Accordingly, the award amount of Rs.13,34,000/-
along with interest thereon shall be shared by the petitioners in
the following manner:-
S. Name of the Age Relation Share in the Award
No Petitioner (Present with Amount
Age) Deceased
_____________________________________________________________
MACT No. 942/19 ; Shila Devi & Ors. Vs. Pramod Kumar & Ors. Page 15 of 19
1 Shila Devi 49 years Wife Rs.5,38,000/-
along with the
corresponding interest.
2 Banshraj 32 years Son Rs.48,000/- along with the
corresponding interest
3. Mamta Devi 31 years Married Rs.48,000/- along with the
daughter corresponding interest
4. Hansraj Kashyap 29 years Son Rs. 2,00,000/- along with the
corresponding interest
5. Lavali Kashyap 24 years Daughter Rs. 2,00,000/- along with the
corresponding interest
6. Sejal Kumari 22 years Daughter Rs. 2,00,000/- along with the
corresponding interest
7. Bachna 76 years Mother Rs. 1,00,000/- along with the
corresponding interest
34. Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi is directed that
after the deposit of the award amount, entire share amount of
Rs.48,000/- each towards consortium, alongwith corresponding
interest shall be forthwith released to the petitioners no.2 & 3 by
way of transferring the said amount into their respective MACT
Saving Bank Account. A sum of Rs.1,38,000/- alongwith
corresponding interest shall be released to petitioner No.1 into
her MACT account and the balance award amount of Rs.4 lakhs
along with the corresponding interest thereon shall be kept
secured with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in
MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit), in the
following manner :-
SL No. Amount Period of FDR
1. Rs.1,00,000/- 1 year
2. Rs.1,00,000/- 2 years
_____________________________________________________________
MACT No. 942/19 ; Shila Devi & Ors. Vs. Pramod Kumar & Ors. Page 16 of 19
3. Rs.1,00,000/- 3 years
4. Rs.1,00,000/- 4 years
5. Interest 5 years
amount
35. Total share amount of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith
corresponding interest shall be released to petitioner No. 7 in her
saving bank account. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith
corresponding interest shall be released to petitioner No.4 in his
saving bank account and balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- shall
be forthwith secured in the form of FDR for a period of one year.
Since, petitioners No. 5 & 6 are still studying, as stated by them,
their respective shares compensation alongwith corresponding
interest shall be secured in the form of two different FDRs in
their respective names, for a period of 3 years or till the time of
their marriage, whichever is earlier.
36. As per ‘The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989
(Annexure-XIII), the relevant Forms to be incorporated in the
award are as under:
FORM – XV
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN
DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 01.11.2019
2. Name of the deceased : Ram Khelawan
3. Age of the deceased : 55 years 10 months
4. Occupation of the deceased : private job
5. Income of the deceased : Rs.8279/- per month
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of
deceased:
S. No Name of the Petitioner Age (Present Age) Relation with
_____________________________________________________________
MACT No. 942/19 ; Shila Devi & Ors. Vs. Pramod Kumar & Ors. Page 17 of 19
Deceased
1 Shila Devi 49 years Wife
2 Banshraj 32 years Son
3 Mamta Devi 31 years Daughter
4. Hansraj Kashyap 29 years Son
5. Lavali Kashyap 24 years Daughter
6. Sejal Kashyap 22 years Daughter
7. Bachna 76 years Mother
Computation of Compensation
S. No. Heads Awarded by the
Claims Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs.99,348/- per
annum
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) @ 10% Rs.109,282.8
9. Less- Personal expenses of the deceased (C) Rs.21,856.4
@ 1/5th
10. Annual loss of dependency Rs.87,426.4
[(A+B)-C = D]
11. Multiplier (E) 11
12. Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE = F) Rs.9,61,688
13. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
14. Compensation for loss of consortium (H) Rs.3,36,000/-
(48,000×7)
15. Compensation for loss of love and affection —
(I)
16. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs.18,000/-
17. Compensation towards funeral expenses (K) Rs.18,000/-
18. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.13,33,688/-
(F+G+H+I+J+K = L) rounded off to
Rs.13,34,000/-
19. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 7.5%
20. Interest amount up to the date of award (M) Rs.5,47,493/-
(for five years, 5 months & 21 days)
_____________________________________________________________
MACT No. 942/19 ; Shila Devi & Ors. Vs. Pramod Kumar & Ors. Page 18 of 19
21. Total amount including interest (L+M) Rs.18,81,493/-
22. Award amount released Rs.4,34,000/-
along with interest
on this amount
23. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.9 lakhs
along with interest
on this amount
24. Mode of disbursement of the award amount Bank transfer
to the claimants (s).
25. Next Date for compliance of the award. 04.08.2025
37. Respondent No. 2 / insurer shall deposit the award amount
in both the claim cases, separately, within 30 days from today.
38. With these observations, the claim petition is disposed of.
Digitally signed
by MAYURI
MAYURI SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2025.06.09
17:46:41
+0100
Announced in the open Mayuri Singh
Court on 09.06.2025 Presiding Officer-MACT (East)
(Total 19 pages) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
_____________________________________________________________
MACT No. 942/19 ; Shila Devi & Ors. Vs. Pramod Kumar & Ors. Page 19 of 19