Delhi District Court
Basanti Devi vs Rajneesh Kumar And Ors on 30 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUDEEP RAJ SAINI
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-02
SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
Basanti Devi & Anr. Vs. Rajneesh Kumar & Anr.
MACT No. 414/2023
1. Basanti Devi
W/o Sh. Rajesh Shah
2. Rajesh Sah
S/o Sh. Raj Kumar Sah
Both R/o RZ-51B, Gali Number-7
Raghu Nagar, South West Delhi
Delhi-110045
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Rajneesh Kumar (Driver-cum-owner)
S/o Sh. Krishna Singh
R/o Plot No. 263-B, Sainik Enclave 2
Jharoda Kalan Road, Najafgarh,
South West Delhi, Delhi-110043
2. Liberty General Insurance Limited
having its registered and corporate office at: (Insurer)
10th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park
Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai
Maharashtra-400013
.....Respondents
Date of institution : 27.04.2023
Date of concluding arguments : 30.03.2026
Date of decision : 30.03.2026
AWARD
1. The present Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter "DAR") was filed by the Investigating Officer, SI Malwa Ram, in FIR No. 0563 dated 25.11.2022, registered at Police Station Baba Haridas Nagar, pertaining to the death of MACT No. 414/2023 Basanti Devi & Anr. Vs. Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. Page No. 1 of 20 Master Parshant, a 13-year-old boy, in a road accident. The DAR was treated as a claim petition under Section 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter "MV Act").
DAR
2. Petitioner no. 1, Ms. Basanti Devi, is the mother and petitioner no. 2, Sh.
Rajesh Sah, is the father of the deceased, Master Parshant. 2.1 Respondent no. 1, Sh. Rajneesh Kumar, is the driver-cum-owner of the alleged offending vehicle, a Maruti Omni van bearing registration no. DL 9CAB 9174. Respondent no. 2, Liberty General Insurance Limited, is the insurer of the said vehicle.
2.2 As per the DAR, Master Prashant was residing in village Isherheri, Bahadurgarh, Haryana and was studying in Class VII at Government Boys Senior Secondary School, Jharoda Kalan, Delhi. His sister, Ms. Pushpam, was studying in Class VI at Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Jharoda Kalan, Delhi.
On 25.11.2022, at about 2:00 p.m., after the school closed for the day, the siblings, along with other children, were returning home on their respective bicycles. When they reached the road behind Jharoda PTC, near the culvert bridge (puliya) adjoining the fields, a Maruti Omni van bearing registration No. DL 9CAB 9174 hit the bicycle of Master Prashant from behind, as a result of which he fell on the road and became unconscious. The driver of the offending van stopped his vehicle, placed Master Prashant inside it, and took him, along with Ms. Pushpam, to Rao Tula Ram Memorial (RTRM) Hospital, Jaffarpur. He obtained the contact number of the family from Ms. Pushpam and informed them about the accident. Master Prashant was brought to RTRM Hospital in an unconscious state, where his MLC was prepared. Thereafter, on 16.12.2022, he was admitted to VMMC & Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, where he succumbed to his injuries on 22.12.2022.
MACT No. 414/2023 Basanti Devi & Anr. Vs. Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. Page No. 2 of 20 The post-mortem examination of the body of the deceased was conducted at VMMC & Safdarjung Hospital.
2.3 An FIR bearing No. 0563 dated 25.11.2022 was registered at Police Station Baba Haridas Nagar under Sections 279/337 of the IPC in respect of the accident. Subsequently, a charge-sheet came to be filed under Sections 279/304 of the IPC in respect of the death of Master Parshant arising out of the said road accident.
Defence of the Respondents
3. Notice of the petition was served on the respondents. 3.1 Respondent no. 1 has filed his reply wherein it is inter alia contended that he is neither responsible nor connected with the alleged incident in any manner. It is further claimed that respondent no. 1 was holding a valid and effective driving licence and that the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL 9CAB 9174 was duly insured with respondent no. 2 at the time of the accident.
3.2 Respondent no. 2 has admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with it and filed a legal offer of ₹2,95,000/-.
Inquiry
4. After completion of the pleadings, the following issues were framed on 21.08.2023 by my learned predecessor and the matter was fixed for petitioners' evidence:
(1) Whether Prashant sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 25.11.2022 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration no. DL 9CAB 9174 being driven and owned by respondent no. 1 Sh. Rajneesh Kumar due to which Prashant had passed away? OPP.
(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? OPP.
MACT No. 414/2023 Basanti Devi & Anr. Vs. Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. Page No. 3 of 20 (3) Relief.
5. In order to prove their claim, the petitioners examined two witnesses.
6. The petitioner no. 1 examined herself as PW1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit, which is exhibited as Ex. PW1/A. 6.1 In his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A), PW1 deposed regarding the circumstances of the accident in a manner consistent with the version recorded in the DAR. She further deposed regarding the age and education of the deceased and the medical expenses incurred for his treatment. 6.2 The petitioner no.1 has relied upon following documents in support of her testimony:
Ex. PW1/1 is a set of copies of her Aadhaar card and PAN. Ex. PW1/2 is a set of copies of Aadhaar card and PAN of petitioner no. 2. Ex. PW1/3 is the copy of Aadhaar card of the deceased. Ex. PW1/4 is the copy of the educational record of the deceased. Ex. PW1/5 is a set of original medical bills.
Ex. PW1/6 is the copy of death certificate of the deceased. Ex. PW1/7 is the DAR.
6.3 In her cross-examination, petitioner no.1 admitted that she was not present at the spot at the time of the accident.
7. The petitioners examined the Investigating Officer, SI Malwa Ram, as PW2.
7.1 He deposed that he investigated the present case, prepared and filed the DAR (Ex. PW1/7), and also filed the charge-sheet against respondent no. 1 under Sections 279/304A IPC, which is pending trial. 7.2 In his cross-examination, PW2 deposed that he received information of the accident from RTRM Hospital but could not meet the injured or his family there as the injured had already been referred to Safdarjung Hospital. He recorded the statement of the eye-witness, Ms. Pushpam, on 27.11.2022 at the police station and stated that no other eye-witness or CCTV footage was available. He denied the suggestions that the respondent no. 1 and the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL 9CAB 9174 were falsely implicated.
MACT No. 414/2023 Basanti Devi & Anr. Vs. Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. Page No. 4 of 20 In his further cross-examination, PW2 admitted that in the DD entry the place of occurrence is not mentioned. He deposed that he was first informed about the place of accident by Ms. Pushpam on 27.11.2022. He admitted that he had not placed on record the school attendance sheet of the deceased or Ms. Pushpam for 25.11.2022.
He further admitted that he had not issued any notice to respondent no. 1 to join the investigation. He stated that respondent no. 1 appeared on his own on 27.11.2022 and produced the vehicle, which was seized on the same day. He admitted that he did not get the Test Identification Parade (TIP) of respondent no. 1 conducted. He stated that all seizure-related documents were prepared at the police station.
He denied the suggestions that Ms. Pushpam was not an eye-witness and had been falsely introduced by him, or that he had obtained the signatures of Ms. Pushpam or respondent no. 1 on blank papers.
8. After completion of petitioners' evidence, the matter was fixed for respondents' evidence. The respondents did not examine any witness.
9. I have heard learned counsels Sh. Alok Kumar Pandey for the petitioners, and Sh. Mehtab Singh for the respondent no. 2. None appeared on behalf of respondent no. 1 to address arguments. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by them. I have also perused the record. My issue-wise findings are as under:
Issue No. 1:
Whether Prashant sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 25.11.2022 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration no. DL 9CAB 9174 being driven and owned by respondent no. 1 Sh. Rajneesh Kumar and insured by respondent no. 2 Liberty General Insurance Ltd.? OPP.
MACT No. 414/2023 Basanti Devi & Anr. Vs. Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. Page No. 5 of 20
10. Onus to prove this issue was on the petitioners. The petitioners have relied on the testimony of PW2 and the DAR.
11. At this stage, it will be worth to take a brief look at the legal position regarding the standard of proof required to be met by the petitioners, in an accident case, before a claims tribunal.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi and Others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Others (2009) 13 SCC 530 has held:
"15.In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties."
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others (2018) 5 Supreme Court Cases 656 has held in paragraphs 27 & 28:
"27. ...This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina Fernandes,noted that the key of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the judgments already adverted to by us, filing of charge-sheet against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opined that the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
28. Reliance placed upon the decisions in Minu B. Mehta and Meena Variyal, by the respondents, in our opinion, is of no avail. The dictum in these cases is on the matter in issue in the case concerned. Similarly, even the dictum in Surender Kumar Arora will be of no avail. In the present case, considering the entirety of the pleadings, evidence and circumstances on record and in particular the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the factum of negligence of Respondent 2, the driver of the offending jeep, the High Court committed manifest error in taking a contrary view which, in our opinion, is an error apparent on the face of record and manifestly wrong."
MACT No. 414/2023 Basanti Devi & Anr. Vs. Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. Page No. 6 of 20
14. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Pushpa Rana & Others 2008 (101) DRJ 645 has held:
"12. The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondents claimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal; 2007 (5) SCALE 269. On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced (i) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR No. 955/2004, pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under Section 279/304-A,IPC against the driver; (iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant also falls face down. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on the part of the driver."
15. It is clear from the above discussed authoritative pronouncements that in a claim petition under MV Act, strict proof of an accident caused by particular vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the petitioners. The petitioners are merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. Filing of charge-sheet against the driver prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even if the driver were to be acquitted in the criminal case, the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal. The Tribunal must take a holistic view of the matter.
16. The issue of negligence on the part of respondent no. 1 is to be examined in the light of the evidence brought on record.
16.1 In the present case, the accident took place on 25.11.2022 at about 02:30 pm and the FIR was lodged on the same day. Therefore, there was no delay in lodging of the FIR.
MACT No. 414/2023 Basanti Devi & Anr. Vs. Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. Page No. 7 of 20 16.2 On completion of investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against the respondent no. 1 under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC showing the involvement of offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL 9CAB 9174. 16.3 In the criminal case arising out of the accident, the learned MM-07, South-
West, Dwarka, vide order dated 04.08.2023 passed in Cr. Case no. 563/2022 titled as State vs. Rajneesh Kumar, has framed charges against the respondent no. 1 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC.
16.4 The arrest memo of the respondent no. 1 shows that he was arrested in the criminal case related to the accident on 27.11.2022. 16.5 Respondent no. 1, in his reply dated 27.11.2022 to the notice under Section 133, of the MV Act issued to him, admitted that he was the owner of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL 9CAB 9174 and he was driving the same on 25.11.2022 at the time of accident. He further admitted that a child riding a bicycle had been hit in the accident and that he had taken the child to the hospital.
16.6 The Mechanical Inspection Report dated 08.12.2022 of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL 9CAB 9174 reflects that it suffered damage.
16.7 The Mechanical Inspection Reports dated 27.12.2022 of the bicycle of the deceased reflects that it had suffered damage. 16.8 As per the seizure memo dated 27.11.2022, the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL 9CAB 9174 was seized by the Investigating Officer, SI Malwa Ram.
16.9 The deposition of the PW2, SI Malwa Ram, regarding the accident and negligence of the respondent no. 1 is consistent and inspires confidence. 16.10 The respondent no. 2 has filed a legal offer and has not led any evidence.
16.10 The medical documents forming part of the DAR further lend credence to its contents.
MACT No. 414/2023 Basanti Devi & Anr. Vs. Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. Page No. 8 of 20 The MLC No. 7081 dated 25.11.2022, issued by RTRM Hospital, Jaffarpur, in respect of Master Prashant, records that he was brought to the hospital in an unconscious state by Smt. Basanti, his mother, and Rajneesh, the van driver, following an accident in which he was hit by a van on the road at approximately 2:30 p.m., about half an hour prior to arrival at the hospital. The MLC further notes that the patient was riding a bicycle at the time of the accident and was referred to a higher centre. As per Post-Mortem Report No. 3404/22 dated 23.12.2022 of VMMC & Safdarjung Hospital, Master Prashant was admitted there on 16.12.2022 and expired during the course of treatment on 22.12.2022. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination opined that the cause of death was septicemia consequent upon pneumonic consolidation of the lungs in a hospitalized case of road traffic accident. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature, caused by blunt force trauma, and were possible in a road traffic accident.
17. As regards the contentions raised by respondent no. 1 in his written statement, it is noted that he neither entered the witness box nor led any evidence to substantiate the same. In contrast, the material available on record, including his reply to the notice under Section 133 of the MV Act and the medical documents forming part of the DAR, supports the case of the petitioners. In view thereof, the contentions of respondent no. 1 are rejected as being unsubstantiated and devoid of merit.
18. Taking a holistic view, it stands proved, on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, that the accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration no. DL 9CAB 9174, being driven and owned by respondent no. 1, Sh. Rajneesh Kumar, and insured by respondent no. 2, Liberty General Insurance Ltd., thereby causing the death of Master Parshant.
Issue no. 1 is therefore decided in favour of the petitioners and against the MACT No. 414/2023 Basanti Devi & Anr. Vs. Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. Page No. 9 of 20 respondents.
Issue No. 2:
Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? OPP.
19. Onus to prove this issue was on the petitioners.
In view of the finding on Issue No. 1, the petitioners are held entitled to compensation for the death of Master Parshant.
20. There is a dispute in between the petitioners and the respondent no. 2 regarding the quantum of compensation.
21. The petitioners have relied upon the deposition of PW1 and the documentary evidence on record.
22. The computation of just compensation is to be made in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Others vs. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 which was affirmed by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others (2017) 16 SCC 680.
Loss of Dependency
23. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra) and affirmed in Pranav Sethi (supra), three facts need to be established by the petitioners for assessing compensation in the case of death under the head of "Loss of Dependency" which are (a) age of the deceased (b) income of the deceased and (c) the number of dependents. Age of the deceased
24. As per the Aadhaar card (Ex. PW1/3) of the deceased, he was born on 11.08.2009. Accordingly, it is held that the deceased Master Rohan was 13 years of age at the time of accident.
Number of Dependents/Legal Heirs
25. PW1, in paragraph 7 of her affidavit by way of evidence, has stated that the deceased left behind the two petitioners as his only legal heirs. The Form MACT No. 414/2023 Basanti Devi & Anr. Vs. Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. Page No. 10 of 20 VIA (Victim Form) forming part of the DAR also reflects the two petitioners as the legal representatives of the deceased. Income of the deceased
26. There is a dispute between the petitioners and respondent no. 2 regarding the notional income of the deceased.
27. The petitioners have relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel Vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr., 2025 INSC 1070, wherein in paragraphs 9 and 15, it was held as under:
"9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. On the aspect of monthly income of the minor appellant, we are inclined to interfere with the judgment and order of the Courts below. In the present case, it is evident that the Courts below have failed to take into account the monthly income of the appellant while determining the quantum of compensation. It is now a well-entrenched and consistently reiterated principle of law that a minor child who suffers death or permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident, cannot be placed in the same category as a non-earning individual for the purposes of assessing the amount of compensation because the child was not engaged in gainful employment at the time of the accident. In such a case, the computation of compensation under the head of loss of income ought to be made by adopting, at the very least, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman as notified for the relevant period in the respective State where the cause of action arises. The said observation was rendered by this Court, in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Ors., and Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr.
xxxx
15. For the purpose of emphasis, it is again clarified here that when a Tribunal or the High Court in appeal, is concerned with the case involving a child having suffered injury or having passed away, the calculation of loss of income necessarily has to be made on the matric of minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the respective State at the relevant point of time. It is our hope that this restatement helps avoiding such errors and thereby obviates the necessity of this Court's interference, applying well- established principles of law."
27.1 On the strength of the aforesaid judgment, it is submitted that the notional income of the deceased be taken as per the minimum wages of a skilled worker, with addition of 40% towards future prospects and application of multiplier of 18.
MACT No. 414/2023 Basanti Devi & Anr. Vs. Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. Page No. 11 of 20
28. Per contra, respondent no. 2 has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Devendra Kumar Tripathi Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2025 INSC 1429 and Thangavel & Ors. Vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, 2025 INSC 949.
28.1 In Devendra Kumar Tripathi (supra), while considering the death of a 14-year-old boy, the Hon'ble Supreme Court assessed the notional income based on the minimum wages applicable in a Class B city, applied a 40% addition for future prospects, used a multiplier of 15, and allowed a deduction of one-half towards personal expenses. 28.2 In Thangavel & Ors. (supra), while considering the death of a 10-year-old boy, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
"5. There is no straight jacket formula as to the income to be adopted in the case of children when they suffer injuries or succumb to death, in a motor vehicle accident...."
28.3 Relying upon the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has contended that in the present case, the notional income should be taken as ₹5,000 per month with the application of a multiplier of 15.
29. I have considered the rival submissions on the aspect of notional income of the deceased.
29.1 The judgment in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel (supra) is a direct authority on the issue of determination of notional income in cases involving children and lays down a clear guiding principle that such income should be assessed on the basis of minimum wages payable to a skilled worker. The said principle is in line with earlier decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon, as noticed therein.
29.2 The observation in Thangavel & Ors. (supra) that there is no straight-
jacket formula is to be read harmoniously with other precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. While it recognises the absence of a rigid MACT No. 414/2023 Basanti Devi & Anr. Vs. Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. Page No. 12 of 20 formula, it does not preclude the adoption of the minimum wages of a skilled worker as the basis for determining notional income. 29.3 Reliance placed on Devendra Kumar Tripathi (supra) is also of no assistance to respondent no. 2 insofar as the said judgment itself adopts minimum wages as the basis for computing notional income, albeit on facts pertaining to a different State and period.
30. As per the Aadhaar card, the deceased was a resident of Delhi. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel (supra), the notional income of the deceased is to be assessed on the basis of the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the State of Delhi at the relevant time.
30.1 The minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker in Delhi as on 25.11.2022, that is, the date of the accident, were ₹16,792/- per month. Accordingly, the annual income of the deceased (A) is taken as ₹2,01,504/- (16,792 × 12).
Adding 40% towards future prospects, deducting one-half towards personal living and expenses, and applying the multiplier of 18, the loss of dependency is computed as under:
Loss of dependency= ₹2,01,504 × 140% × ½ × 18= ₹25,38,950.4 Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to ₹25,38,950.4 on account of Loss of Dependency.
Conventional Heads (Loss of Estate, Funeral Expenses, Loss of Consortium)
31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Pranay Sethi (supra)as follows:
"59.8 Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three year."
Accordingly, petitioners are granted a sum of ₹18,000/- towards funeral expenses and ₹18,000/- towards loss of estate. The petitioners are granted (₹96,000/-) ₹48,000/- per head for loss of consortium.
MACT No. 414/2023 Basanti Devi & Anr. Vs. Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. Page No. 13 of 20 Medical Expenses
32. Petitioner no. 1 has placed on record medical bills (Ex. PW1/5) amounting to ₹4,650/- towards the treatment of the deceased Master Prashant for the injuries sustained in the accident. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled to ₹4,650/- under the head of Medical Expenses.
33. Upon adding the amounts awarded under the heads of Loss of Dependency, Conventional Heads and Medical Expenses, the total award amount is quantified at ₹26,75,600.4 (rounded off to ₹26,76,000/-). Liability
34. Respondent no. 1, being the principal tortfeasor, is primarily liable to pay the compensation awarded to the petitioner. Respondent no. 2 has admitted that the offending bus, bearing registration number DL 9CAB 9174, was insured with it against third-party risks on the date of the accident. 34.1 Respondent no. 2 has not placed anything on record showing any right to recover against the other respondent. Therefore, the respondent no. 2, Liberty General Insurance Ltd., shall pay the award amount with interest to the petitioner without any right to recover the same from the other respondent.
Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly.
Issue No. 3: Relief
35. In view of the findings on Issue No. 2, the petitioners are held entitled to a sum of ₹26,76,000 (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Seventy Six Thousand Only ) along with simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of institution of claim petition, that is, 27.04.2023 till the date of compliance, that is, 29.04.2026. Thereafter, simple interest @ 12% per annum for delayed payment, if any. The amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be liable to be excluded from the award amount.
Direction(s) to Respondent No. 236. As per the provisions of Section 168(3) of MV Act, the award amount MACT No. 414/2023 Basanti Devi & Anr. Vs. Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. Page No. 14 of 20 along with interest shall be deposited/transferred by respondent no.2, Liberty General Insurance Ltd., in the bank account of this Tribunal (Bank Account No. 42709452600 at State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka New Delhi, IFSC Code SBIN0011566 and MICR Code 110002483) by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS within 30 days of award under intimation to the Nazir of this Tribunal and with notice of deposit to the petitioners and their counsel.
Apportionment
37. The award amount be apportioned among the petitioners, along with proportionate interest, as per the following table:
Petitioner Name of the Relationship Present Age Award No. Petitioner with the Amount deceased
1. Smt. Basanti Mother 37years ₹13,38,000/-
Devi
2. Sh. Rajesh Sah Father 47years ₹13,38,000/-
Total ₹26,76,000/- Release
38. The statement(s) of the petitioners regarding their financial status, needs and liabilities has been recorded.
The details of the MACT bank account of the petitioners and the address of the bank with IFSC Code are as follows:
Name Bank Details
Smt. Bansanti Devi A/c no. 44124154953 State Bank of India, Branch
District Court Complex, Sector-
Sh. Rajesh Sah A/c no. 44124110552 10, Dwarka, New Delhi.
IFSC Code: SBIN0011566
39. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Tyagi & Others vs. Jaibir Singh & Others FAO No. 842/2003 has formulated the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) scheme vide its order dated 01.05.2018 and implemented the same vide its subsequent orders dated 07.12.2018 and 08.01.2021.
MACT No. 414/2023 Basanti Devi & Anr. Vs. Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. Page No. 15 of 20
40. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 16.07.2024 in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Private Ltd. vs. Union Of India & Others Writ Petition (Civil) no. 534/2020 has held:
"9. To clarify the aforesaid position, it is for the Tribunal in a given case to make a decision as to whether the entire amount has to be released or if it is to be released in part. Suffice it is to state that the Tribunal is expected to give its own reasoning while undertaking such an exercise."
Schedule of Disbursal
41. Keeping in view the quantum of the award and the age of the petitioners, the award amount along with interest be released to the petitioners in the following manner:
i) Out of the amount awarded to petitioner no. 1, Smt. Basanti Devi, 90% shall be kept in the form of five fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for periods ranging from one to five years in succession. The maturity amount of the said FDRs shall be released into her aforesaid MACT account. The remaining 10% shall be released to her immediately in her aforesaid MACT account.
ii) Out of the amount awarded to petitioner no. 2, Sh. Rajesh Sah, 90% shall be kept in the form of five fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for periods ranging from one to five years in succession. The maturity amount of the said FDRs shall be released into his aforesaid MACT account. The remaining 10% shall be released to him immediately in his aforesaid MACT account.
Directions to the Bank(s)
42. The Manager, State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka is directed to comply with the Schedule of Disbursal provided in this Award. The said Manager is further directed that:
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the MACT accounts of the petitioners.
(b) The original fixed deposit/FDRs shall be retained by the bank in safe MACT No. 414/2023 Basanti Devi & Anr. Vs. Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. Page No. 16 of 20 custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by the concerned bank to the petitioners.
(c) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the FDRs without permission of this Tribunal.
(d) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to petitioner(s) for his/her MACT account(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.
43. The Form-XV of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, as per the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) on 08.01.2021 is as under:
FORM - XV SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident: 25.11.2022
2. Name of deceased: Master Prashant
3. Age of the deceased: 13 years (at the time of accident)
4. Occupation of the deceased: Student
5. Income of the deceased: ₹16,792/- per month
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S. No. Name Present Age Relation
(i) Smt. Basanti Devi 37 years Mother
(ii) Sh. Rajesh Sah 47 years Father
Computation of Compensation
S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
7. Annual Income of the deceased (A) ₹2,01,504/-
8. Add : Future Prospects (B) ₹80,601.6
9. Less: Personal expenses of then ₹1,41,052.8 deceased (C)
10. Annual loss of dependency ₹1,41,052.8 [D= (A+B) - C ] MACT No. 414/2023 Basanti Devi & Anr. Vs. Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. Page No. 17 of 20 11. Multiplier 18
12. Total loss of dependency ₹25,38,950.4 [F=D x 18]
13. Medical Expenses (G) ₹4,650/-
14. Compensation for loss of love and Nil affection (H)
15. Compensation for loss of ₹96,000/-
consortium (I)
16. Compensation for loss of estate (J) ₹18,000/-
17. Compensation towards funeral ₹18,000/-
expenses (K)
18. TOTAL COMPENSATION ₹26,75,600.4 (rounded off to (F+G+H+I+J+K =L) ₹26,76,000/-).
19. RATE OF INTEREST Simple interest @ 7.5% per annum AWARDED from the date of institution (27.04.2023) of the petition till the date of compliance (29.04.2026).
Thereafter, simple interest @ 12% per annum.
20. Interest amount up to the date of ₹5,87,048/-
decision (M)
21. Total amount including interest up ₹32,63,048/-
to the date of decision (L+M)
22. Award amount released Petitioner no. 1(10)% Petitioner no. 2(10) %
23. Award amount kept in FDRs Petitioner no. 1(90)% Petitioner no. 2(90)%
24. Mode of disbursement of the award Bank Transfer amount to the claimant (s)
25. Next date for compliance of the 29.04.2026 award.
44. The Form-XVII of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, as per the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) on 08.01.2021 is as under:
Form XVII MACT No. 414/2023 Basanti Devi & Anr. Vs. Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. Page No. 18 of 20
1. Date of the accident 25.11.2022
2. Date of filing of Form I- First Not known Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the Not known victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Not known Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Not known owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- Not known Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form Not known VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII- 27.04.2023 Detailed Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or Yes. No action warranted at this deficiency on the part of the stage since it is not a case of Investigating Officer? If so, whether prolonged delay.
any action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Not known Officer by the Insurance Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the No. Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or No. deficiencies on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the petitioner(s) of Not Applicable.
the offer of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 30.03.2026
15. Whether the petitioner(s) were directed Yes.
to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
MACT No. 414/2023 Basanti Devi & Anr. Vs. Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. Page No. 19 of 20
16. Date of order by which petitioner(s) 27.04.2023 were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the petitioner (s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17. Date on which the petitioner(s) 30.05.2025 produced the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the R/o RZ-51B, Gali Number-7 petitioner(s) Raghu Nagar, South West Delhi Delhi-110045
19. Whether the petitioner(s) savings bank Yes.
account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes.
examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
45. Dasti copy of award be given to the parties free of cost.
46. Attested copy of Award be sent to the Manager, SBI, District Courts Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi for information/ compliance.
47. Copy of award be also sent to the concerned learned Judicial Magistrate and Delhi State Legal Services Authority.
48. Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra).
49. Ahlmad is directed to prepare a separate miscellaneous file to be listed on 15.05.2026 for compliance report.
50. File be consigned to the record room after compliance of necessary Digitally signed by formalities. SUDEEP SUDEEP RAJ SAINI RAJ SAINI Date: 2026.03.30 06:03:21 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (SUDEEP RAJ SAINI) COURT ON 30.03.2026 PO, MACT-02, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI MACT No. 414/2023 Basanti Devi & Anr. Vs. Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. Page No. 20 of 20