Delhi District Court
Yogesh Kumar Yadav (Lrs Of Murti Devi) vs Rohit on 25 July, 2025
MACP No. 740/22; FIR No. 100/21; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 25.07.2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA MANCHANDA,
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 740/22
CNR/UID No. DLNT01-009626-2022
1. Sh. Yogesh Kumar Yadav,
S/o Late Sh. Suraj Singh Yadav,
R/o H.No. 80,
Gali No. 8,
Sameypur, Delhi.
(Son of deceased)
2. Smt. Munesh,
W/o Late Sh. Ram Kishan,
R/o WZ-476B,
Sri Nagar,
Shakur Basti,
Delhi.
(Married daughter of deceased)
3. Smt. Suman,
W/o Late Sh. Rajender,
R/o H.No. 18,
Bagdola,
Delhi.
(Married daughter of deceased)
.............Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Rohit,
S/o Sh. Hari Kishan,
Yogesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. Rohit & Ors. Page 1 of 19
MACP No. 740/22; FIR No. 100/21; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 25.07.2025
R/o C-98, GP Block Jhuggi,
Pitampura,
Delhi.
(Driver)
2. Sh. Virender Mishra,
S/o Sh. Narayan Mishra,
R/o B-274,
T Huts Cluster,
GP Block,
Pitampura, Delhi.
(Registered owner)
3. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Under Hill Road,
Delhi.
(Insurer)
...............Respondents
Date of Institution : 17.10.2022 Date of Arguments : 14.07.2025 Date of Decision : 25.07.2025 APPEARANCES:
Sh. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for petitioners.
Ms. Anjani Kumari, Ld. Counsel for driver and owner.
Sh. Lalit Dhingra, Ld. Counsel for insurance co.
Petition under Section 166 & 140 of M.V. Act, 1988
for grant of compensation
AWARD
1. Smt. Murti Devi, aged about 80 years (deceased) had suffered
fatal injuries in a Motor Vehicular Accident, which occurred on 01.03.2021 at
Yogesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. Rohit & Ors. Page 2 of 19
MACP No. 740/22; FIR No. 100/21; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 25.07.2025
about 1:00 pm at G.T. Road, Near Radha Krishan Murti, Bhalswa Dairy,
Delhi, involving TATA Ace bearing registration no. DL1L-AD-0868
(offending vehicle) allegedly being driven in a rash and negligent manner by
respondent no. 1.
2. According to Detailed Accident Report (DAR), on 01.03.2021 at
about 1:00 PM, deceased Smt. Murti Devi alongwith his son namely Yogesh
was going towards Bypass on foot. When they were crossing the Alipur-
Jahangir Puri Road, one Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration no. DL1L-
AD-0868 which was being driven by respondent no. 1 at a very high speed,
in a rash and negligent manner, came and hit deceased Smt. Murti Devi with
a great force, as a result of which she fell down on the road and sustained
injuries. She was immediately taken to BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi
who succumbed to the injuries suffered by her in the accident during her
treatment. Postmortem was conducted on the body of deceased at the
mortuary of BJRM Hospital, Delhi. FIR No. 100/21 U/s 279/304A IPC was
registered at PS. Bhalswa Dairy with regard to said accident. It is claimed
that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of
offending vehicle by respondent no.1. The offending vehicle was found to be
owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3/TATA AIG
General Insurance Co. Ltd during the period in question.
Yogesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. Rohit & Ors. Page 3 of 19
MACP No. 740/22; FIR No. 100/21; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 25.07.2025
3. The respondents no. 1 & 2 i.e., driver and registered owner
failed to file their WS despite grant of sufficient time and opportunities.
Accordingly, their defence was struck off vide order dated 19.04.2023 passed
by Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
4. In its written statement, the respondent no. 3/insurance company
has raised preliminary objections that the driver of the offending vehicle was
not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and thus,
insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.
However, it is admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with it at the
time of accident. On merits, it has denied the averments made in the DAR
and prayed for its dismissal.
5. From pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed
by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 11.08.2023:-
1. Whether deceased Smt. Murti Devi has died in the
road side accident occurred on 01.03.2021 at 1:00 PM
at G.T. Karnal Road near Radha Krishan Murti,
Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi,within the jurisdiction of PS
Bhalswa Dairy due to rashness and negligence on the
part of Sh. Rohit/R1 who was driving vehicle bearing
registration no. DL1L-AD-0868 owned by Sh. Virender
Mishra/R2 and insured with TATA AIG General
Insurance Co. Ltd./R3? OPPYogesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. Rohit & Ors. Page 4 of 19
MACP No. 740/22; FIR No. 100/21; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 25.07.2025
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation
if so, to what extent and from which of the respondents?
OPP
3. Relief.
6. In support of their claim, the petitioners have examined only one
witness i.e. PW1 Sh. Yogesh Kumar Yadav (Son of deceased) and their
evidence was closed vide order dated 24.05.2024. On the other hand, no
evidence was adduced by respondents no. 1 & 2. The respondent no.
3/insurance company has examined one witness i.e., Ms. Simarpreet as
R3W1 and its evidence was closed vide order dated 14.10.2024.
7. I have heard the arguments addressed by Ld. Counsels for the
parties. I have also gone through the record. My findings on the issues are as
under:-
ISSUE NO. 1
8. For the purpose of this issue, the testimony of PW1 Sh. Yogesh
Kumar Yadav is relevant. In his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A, he
deposed that on 01.03.2021 at about 1:00 PM, he alongwith his mother
Smt. Murti Devi(deceased herein) was going towards Karnal Bypass to
Dwarka for boarding a bus. He further deposed that when they were crossing
the road, one Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration no. DL1L-AD-0868 which
was being driven by its driver/respondent no. 1 at a very high speed, in a rash
Yogesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. Rohit & Ors. Page 5 of 19
MACP No. 740/22; FIR No. 100/21; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 25.07.2025
and negligent manner, came from Alipur side and hit his mother with a great
force, as a result of which she fell down on the road and sustained injuries.
He further deposed that driver of the offending vehicle stopped his vehicle
and helped him in lifting his mother. He further deposed that in the
meantime, PCR Van reached at the spot and took his mother to BJRM
Hospital where she expired during the course of her treatment. He
categorically deposed that the accident had taken place due to sole rash and
negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle. During his cross-
examination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that at the time of
accident, deceased was crossing the road. He further deposed that he was
going alongwith his deceased mother at the time of accident. He further
deposed that there was no zebra crossing at the place from where they were
crossing the road. He further deposed that there was some space from where
people were crossing the road. He denied the suggestion that accident in
question occurred due to own fault of deceased.
9. The careful perusal of testimony of aforesaid witness i.e. PW1
would go to show that the respondents have not been able to impeach his
testimony through litmus test of cross-examination. It is an undisputed fact
that FIR No. 100/21 u/s 279/304A/471 IPC & 3/181 M.V. Act was registered
at PS. Bhalswa Dairy with regard to accident in question. Copy of said FIR
(which is part of DAR), would show that same was registered on 01.03.2021
(date of accident itself) on the basis of statement of this witness only. Thus,
Yogesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. Rohit & Ors. Page 6 of 19
MACP No. 740/22; FIR No. 100/21; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 25.07.2025
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. The
presence of PW1 at the spot of accident at the time of accident can be
substantiated by seeing the list of witnesses annexed alongwith the
chargesheet filed in the criminal case wherein name of PW1 is mentioned at
S.No. 1. On the other hand, respondents have not examined any witness in
order to rebut the testimony of PW1 in this regard during the course of
inquiry. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve his uncontroverted testimony
on the point of accident in question being caused by respondent no. 1 while
driving the offending vehicle. The contents of said FIR would show that the
complainant has disclosed therein the same sequence of facts leading to the
accident as deposed by PW1 in her evidence. Hence, there is no possibility of
any false implication of driver of offending vehicle or false involvement of
the said vehicle in this case.
10. It is pertinent to note that the respondent no.1/driver of offending
vehicle was the other material witness to throw light by testifying as to how
and under what circumstances, the accident has taken place. However, he has
preferred not to enter into the witness box. Thus, an adverse inference is
liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question has
taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the
respondent no.1. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners had
Yogesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. Rohit & Ors. Page 7 of 19
MACP No. 740/22; FIR No. 100/21; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 25.07.2025
any enmity with the driver of the offending vehicle so as to falsely implicate
him in this case. Reliance placed on Cholamandalam MS General Insurance
Co. Ltd. V. Kamlesh & Ors, MAC APP. No. 530/2008 passed by Hon’ble
Delhi High Court on 11.11.2008.
11. Not only this, the respondent no. 1 namely Sh. Rohit (accused in
State case) has been charge sheeted for the offences punishable U/s
279/304A/471 IPC & 3/181 M.V. Act 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.
12. Copy of MLC (which is part of criminal case record) of
deceased would show that she had been removed to BJRM Hospital, Delhi
with alleged history of RTA on 01.03.2021 at 1:26 PM. Not only this,
postmortem was got conducted on the body of deceased. Copy of PM Report
(which is part of DAR) would show that cause of death of deceased was
opined due to hemorrhagic shock consequent to multiple bony and visceral
injuries to the body produced by blunt force impact. All the injuries were
ante-mortem in nature. The injuries as mentioned in the relevant column of
external injuries of the said report, are also consistent with the injuries which
are sustained in road traffic accident. Again, there is no challenge to the
Yogesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. Rohit & Ors. Page 8 of 19
MACP No. 740/22; FIR No. 100/21; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 25.07.2025
aforesaid documents from the side of respondents including insurance
company.
13. 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 preponderance of probabilities that deceased had sustained fatal
injuries in the Motor Vehicular Accident which had taken place on
01.03.2021 at about 1:00 pm at G.T. Road, Near Radha Krishan Murti,
Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi, due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle
by respondent no. 1. Thus, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of petitioners and
against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2
14. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an
inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of
compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. It has to be
borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a
bonanza nor it should be niggardly.
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY/LOSS OF ESTATE
15. Now, the first question which arises for consideration is as to
whether the petitioners are entitled to loss of dependency or loss of estate.
This question came up for consideration on several occasions before our own
Yogesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. Rohit & Ors. Page 9 of 19
MACP No. 740/22; FIR No. 100/21; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 25.07.2025
Hon’ble High Court as well as before various other Hon’ble High Courts. In
the matter titled as “A Manavalagan Vs. A. Krishnamurthy & Ors.”, I (2005)
ACC 304(DB), Hon’ble Division Bench of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court
has summarized the principles enunciated on this issue in para 19 of the
judgment. Same reads as under:-
“xxxxxx
(i) The law contemplates two categories of damages on
the death of a person. The first is the pecuniary loss
sustained by the dependant members of his family as
result of such death. The second is the loss caused to the
estate of the deceased as a result of such death. In the
first category, the action is brought by the legal
representatives, as trustees for the dependants
beneficially entitled. In the second category, the action is
brought by the legal representatives, on behalf of the
estate of the deceased and the compensation, when
recovered, forms part of the assets of the estate. In the
first category of cases, the Tribunal in exercise of power
under section 168 of the Act, can specify the persons to
whom compensation should be paid and also specify
how it should be distributed(Note: for example, if the
dependants of a deceased Hindu are a widow aged 35
years and mother aged 75 years, irrespective of the fact
that they succeed equally under the Hindu Succession
Act, the Tribunal may award a larger share to the widow
and a smaller share to the mother, as the widow is likely
to live longer). But, in the second category of cases, no
such adjustments or alternation of shares is permissible
and he entire amount has to be awarded to the benefit of
the estate. Even if the Tribunal wants to specify the
sharing of the compensation amount, it may have to
Yogesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. Rohit & Ors. Page 10 of 19
MACP No. 740/22; FIR No. 100/21; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 25.07.2025divide the amount strictly in accordance with the
personal law governing succession, as the amount
awarded and recovered forms part of the estate of
deceased.
(ii) Where the claim is by the dependants, the basis for
award of compensation is the loss of dependency, that is
loss of what was contributed by the deceased to such
claimants. A conventional amount is awarded towards
loss of expectation of life, under the head of loss to
estate.
(iii) Where the claim by the legal representatives of the
deceased who were not dependants of the deceased, then
the basis for award of compensation is the loss to the
estate, that is the loss of savings by the deceased. A
conventional sum for loss of expectation of life is added.
(iv) The procedure for determination of loss to estate is
broadly the same as the procedure for determination of
the loss of dependency. Both involve ascertaining the
multiplicand and capitalising it by multiplying it by an
appropriate multiplier. But, the significant difference is
in the figure arrived at as multiplicand in cases where
the claimants who are dependants claim loss to estate.
The annual contribution to the family constitutes the
multiplicand in the case of loss of dependency, whereas
the annual savings of the deceased becomes the
multiplicand in the case of loss to estate. The method of
selection of multiplier is however the same in both
cases.
xxxxxxx”
Yogesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. Rohit & Ors. Page 11 of 19
MACP No. 740/22; FIR No. 100/21; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 25.07.2025
16. The aforesaid legal position has been reiterated by Hon’ble Delhi
High Court in the celebrated decision of “Keith Rowe Vs. Prashant Sagar &
Ors.”, II(2010) ACC 64 as well as by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the
case titled as “Jacob Vs. Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport
Corporation“, 2018 ACJ 91.
17. It is an undisputed fact that deceased Smt. Murti Devi was a
senior citizen aged about 80 years. PW1 has deposed that deceased was a
pension holder who was retired from Indian Postal Department and her last
drawing pension amount of the deceased was Rs. 13,636/- in January, 2021
and he was dependent upon the earning of the deceased. During his cross-
examination on behalf of insurance company, he was a driver by profession.
He further deposed that he was married having two sons. He denied the
suggestion that he was not financially dependent upon his deceased mother.
18. Having considered the facts of the present case on the touchstone
of the principles discussed in the above referred decisions, it is quite crystal
clear that the claimants shall be entitled to loss to estate and not loss of
dependency, in view of the reason that the claimants have failed to lead any
cogent or definite evidence to show that they were financially dependent
upon the earnings of deceased at the time of accident.
Yogesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. Rohit & Ors. Page 12 of 19
MACP No. 740/22; FIR No. 100/21; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 25.07.2025
19. After referring to the testimony of PW1 and the documents filed
on record alongwith DAR, Ld. counsel for petitioners vehemently argued that
last drawn monthly income of deceased should be taken as Rs. 13,636/-.
20. As per the document i.e. bank passbook (which is part of DAR)
of deceased, deceased Smt. Murti Devi had lastly received a sum of
Rs. 13,636/- as pension on 30.01.2021. The date of accident in the present
case is 01.03.2021. In view of the aforesaid, I deem it fit to accept the
monthly income of deceased as Rs. 13,636/- as on the date of accident. In
view of aforesaid, the petitioners are entitled to 1/3rd of the income towards
the loss of Estate i.e. Rs. 4545/-(rounded off) per month.
21. It is pertinent to note that petitioners have filed copy of Aadhaar
Card (Ex. PW1/2) of deceased wherein her date of birth is mentioned as
01.01.1942. Thus, he was aged about 79 years at the time of accident(date of
accident being 01.03.2021). Thus, the age of deceased is accepted as 79
years at the time of accident. Accordingly, the multiplier of 5 would be
applicable in view of 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.
22. Considering the fact that deceased was aged about 79 years, no
amount is awarded towards future prospects. Thus, the total of loss of Estate
Yogesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. Rohit & Ors. Page 13 of 19
MACP No. 740/22; FIR No. 100/21; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 25.07.2025
would be Rs.2,72,700/-(Rs. 4545 X 12 X 5). Hence, a sum of Rs. 2,73,000/-
(rounded off) is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
23. 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/-
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 01.03.2021]
Yogesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. Rohit & Ors. Page 14 of 19
MACP No. 740/22; FIR No. 100/21; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 25.07.2025
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
24. 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
01.03.2021]
25. Therefore, on the basis of the above discussion, the
compensation is quantified as below:
1. Loss of estate Rs. 2,73,000/-
2. Loss of Consortium Rs. 1,45,200/-
3. Loss of Estate & Funeral Rs. 36,300/-
Expenses
Total Rs. 4,54,500/-
Rounded off to Rs. 4,55,000/-
Yogesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. Rohit & Ors. Page 15 of 19
MACP No. 740/22; FIR No. 100/21; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 25.07.2025
26. This brings me down to the next question as to whether
insurance company has been able to prove the statutory defence raised by it
in its written statement, wherein it has claimed that respondent no. 1 was not
having valid DL at the time of accident in question. Insurance company has
prayed for grant of recovery right.
27. As already noted above, the respondent no. 1/driver himself did
not enter into witness box during the course of enquiry and he has failed to
produce any valid DL in his favour as on the date of accident in question.
Respondent no. 2 also failed to produce any valid DL in favour of respondent
no. 1 as on the date of accident. Moreover, copy of charge-sheet (which is
part of DAR Ex. PW1/3 colly) filed in State case arising out of FIR No.
100/21 supra, would clearly show that respondent no. 1/driver namely
Sh. Rohit also been chargesheeted for offence punishable u/s. 3/181 M.V.
Act by investigating agency after conclusion of the investigation. Copy of
charge-sheet is also part of DAR, which carries presumption of genuineness
of its contents as provided in Rule 7 of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal
Rules, 2008. Even otherwise, the respondent no. 1 has not disputed the said
document throughout the enquiry. Hence, I find substance in the submission
made on behalf of insurance company that had there been any valid DL in
favour of respondent no. 1 to drive the type of vehicle like the present one,
copy thereof would have been provided by him to the police but no such copy
Yogesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. Rohit & Ors. Page 16 of 19
MACP No. 740/22; FIR No. 100/21; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 25.07.2025
of DL has been filed alongwith DAR or brought on record during the course
of inquiry.
28. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find substance in the plea
raised on behalf of insurance company that for want of valid and effective DL
in favour of respondent no. 1 being proved on record, it would be termed as
breach in the terms and conditions of insurance policy. Thus, insurance
company is entitled to recovery rights against both the respondents i.e. driver
and registered owner jointly and severally. Issue no. 2 is decided
accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF
29. In view of my finding on issues no. 1 & 2, I award a sum of Rs.
4,55,000/- (including interim award amount, if any) alongwith interest @
7.5% per annum w.e.f date of filing the claim petition i.e. 17.10.2022 till the
date of its realization, in favour of Lrs of deceased/petitioners and against the
respondents. (Reliance placed on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baby
Raksha & Ors, MAC APP. No. 36/2023 passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court
on 21.04.2023).
APPORTIONMENT
30. Statement of petitioners were recorded on 18.11.2024 in
compliance of directions of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No.
Yogesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. Rohit & Ors. Page 17 of 19
MACP No. 740/22; FIR No. 100/21; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 25.07.2025
842/2023 in case titled Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. V. Jaibir Singh & Ors., decided
on 08.01.2021 as per clause 29 of MCTAP. It may be noted here that
petitioners no. 2 & 3 have relinquished their respective share amounts in
favour of petitioner no. 1 and had given their no objection vide their joint
statement recorded on 09.08.2024. In view of the same and keeping in view
the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby ordered that the entire
amount alongwith proportionate interest be immediately released to petitioner
no. 1 Sh. Yogesh Kumar Yadav through his bank account no. 32856654157
with State Bank of India, Samepur, Mandir Mohalla, Delhi, having IFSC
Code SBIN0006667, as per rules.
31. Respondent no. 3/TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., being
insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the entire award
amount in the aforesaid bank accounts of the claimant Yogesh Kumar Yadav
as aforesaid, within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance
company shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a for the period of delay in
terms of directions passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in its latest judgment titled
“Parminder Singh Vs. Honey Goyal & Ors.”, S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020,
DOD:18.03.2025.
32. Concerned Manager of petitioner’s bank is directed to release the
amount to the petitioners as aforesaid, on completing necessary formalities as
per rules. He is further directed to keep the remaining amount in fixed
Yogesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. Rohit & Ors. Page 18 of 19
MACP No. 740/22; FIR No. 100/21; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 25.07.2025
deposit, if any, in terms of aforesaid directions and send compliance report to
this Court. He is also directed to ensure that no loan, advance or pre-mature
discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioners and also to counsel for the
insurance company for compliance. Petitioners are also directed to provide
copy of this award to their bank Manager for compliance. Form XV & Form
XVII in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A. Copy of
order be also sent to concerned CJM/JMFC and DLSA as per clause 31 and
32 of MCTAP.
Digitally signed
by RICHA
RICHA MANCHANDA
Announced in the open MANCHANDA Date: 2025.07.25
15:54:57 +0545
Court on 25.07.2025
(RICHA MANCHANDA)
Judge MACT-2 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
Yogesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. Rohit & Ors. Page 19 of 19