Delhi District Court
Kavita vs Amit And Ors on 22 December, 2025
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:
Kavita vs. Amit & Ors.
MACT No. 306/2021
Kavita
W/o Sh. Rajvir Singh
R/o H. No. 365, Gali No. 1, Kirti Nagar
Bhiwani, Haryana-127021
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Amit (Driver)
S/o Sh. Raj Singh
R/o VPO Bahu Akbarpur
District Rohtak, Haryana-124001
2. Satish (Owner)
S/o Sh. Randhir
R/o VPO Mattan, Jhajjar, Haryana-124501
3. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. (Insurer)
having its registered and corporate office at:
New India Assurance Building, 87, M.G. Road
Fort, Mumbai-400 001
....Respondents
Date of institution : 26.03.2021
Date of concluding arguments : 22.12.2025
Date of decision : 22.12.2025
AWARD
1. The petitioner has instituted the present claim petition under Sections 166 & 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter 'MV Act') to seek compensation for the death of Sh. Yash Saroha in a road accident. Claim Petition
2. Petitioner, Ms. Kavita, is the mother of the deceased, Sh. Yash Saroha.
MACT No. 306/2021 Kavita vs. Amit & Ors. Page No. 1 of 19 2.1 Respondent no. 1, Sh. Amit, is the driver and respondent no. 2, Sh. Satish, is the owner of the alleged offending truck bearing registration no. HR 63D 8024. The respondent no. 3, The New India Assurance Company Ltd., is the insurer of the said offending truck.
2.2 As per the averments made in the petition, on 14.01.2021, the petitioner, along with her sons, namely Sh. Yash Saroha and Sh. Gaurav Sheoran, was travelling in their car, a Tata Indigo Manza bearing registration no. HR-26BN-9597, from her maternal home at Ladpur, Delhi, to her in-laws' house at village Berela, Charkhi Dadri, Haryana. At about 03:00 pm, when they reached near village Jahajgarh, a truck bearing registration no. HR 63D 8024, being driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came from the front and hit their car. As a result of the impact, the car fell into a ditch, and the petitioner and her two sons sustained injuries. The truck also overturned and fell on its side. Some passers-by extricated the occupants from the car and removed them to General Hospital, Jhajjar, Haryana, where Sh. Yash Saroha was declared brought dead. The petitioner and her other son, Sh. Gaurav Sheoran, were thereafter referred to PGIMS, Rohtak.
2.3 The petitioner has claimed a sum of ₹60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Lacs Only) from respondents as compensation along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till its realization. 2.4 An FIR number 10 dated 14.01.2021 was lodged at Police Station Beri, Jhajjar, Haryana under Sections 279/337/304A of the IPC regarding the said accident.
Defence of the Respondents
3. Notice of the petition was served on the respondents. 3.1 Respondent nos. 1 and 2 have filed their common written statement wherein, inter alia, they have contended that the alleged accident was caused by some other vehicle and that respondent nos. 1 and 2 have no concern whatsoever with the alleged accident. They have further alleged MACT No. 306/2021 Kavita vs. Amit & Ors. Page No. 2 of 19 that the petitioner, in collusion with the police officials, has lodged a false and fictitious FIR against respondent no. 1. It is further claimed that respondent no. 1 was holding a valid driving licence at the time of the alleged accident and that the offending truck was duly insured with respondent no. 3.
3.2 Respondent no. 3 has filed its written statement wherein it has admitted that the offending truck was insured with it on the date of the accident. However, respondent no. 3 has disputed its liability to pay compensation to the petitioner by contending that negligence on the part of the driver of the car bearing registration no. HR 26BN 9597 cannot be ruled out. Inquiry
4. After completion of the pleadings, the following issues were framed on 20.03.2023 by my learned predecessor and the matter was fixed for petitioner's evidence:
(1) Whether Yash Saroha sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 14.01.2021 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration no. HR 63D 8024 being driven by Sh. Amit respondent no. 1 and owned by Sh. Satish respondent no. 2 due to which Yash Saroha passed away? OPP.
(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? OPP.
(3) Relief.
5. In order to prove her claim, the petitioner examined herself as PW1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit and the same is exhibited as Ex. PW1/A. 5.1 In her evidence by way of affidavit, the petitioner deposed about the accident on the same lines as averred by her in the petition. She deposed that at the time of the accident, Sh. Yash Saroha was driving the car, the petitioner herself was seated on the front left seat and her younger son, Sh. Gaurav Sheoran, was seated on the rear seat.
MACT No. 306/2021 Kavita vs. Amit & Ors. Page No. 3 of 19 5.2 Petitioner has relied upon following documents in support of her testimony:
Ex. PW1/1 is the set of copies of Aadhaar card, Driving License and Death Certificate of the deceased, Sh. Yash Saroha. Ex. PW1/2 is the set of educational documents of the deceased, Sh. Yash Saroha.
5.3 In her cross-examination, the petitioner deposed that she has two sons, namely Sh. Yash Saroha and Sh. Gaurav Sheoran, and that in the present accident, her son Sh. Yash Saroha had expired. She admitted that Sh. Yash Saroha was her son from her first marriage. She denied the suggestions that after her remarriage she had no relationship with Sh. Yash Saroha or that she was not dependent upon him. She further deposed that after her re-
marriage, she has been using the surname "Sheoran". She denied the suggestion that the accident was a head-on collision between the alleged offending vehicle and the car being driven by her son, as allegedly reflected in the mechanical inspection reports of both vehicles.
6. After completion of petitioner's evidence, the matter was fixed for respondents' evidence. The respondents did not examine any witness.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sh. Manoj Kumar Rai, and the learned counsels for respondent no. 3, Ms. Babita Dahiya and Sh. Pradeep Sehrawat. None appeared on behalf of respondent nos. 1 & 2 to argue the case. 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 Yash Saroha sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 14.01.2021 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration no. HR 63D 8024 being driven by Sh. Amit respondent no. 1 and owned by Sh. Satish respondent no. 2 due to which Yash Saroha passed away? OPP.
8. Onus to prove this issue was on the petitioner. The petitioner has relied on MACT No. 306/2021 Kavita vs. Amit & Ors. Page No. 4 of 19 her testimony as well as the copy of the criminal case record.
9. The learned counsel for respondent no. 3 has opposed the claim, contending that the mechanical inspection reports indicate a case of head- on collision, and therefore, negligence on the part of the deceased, Sh. Yash Saroha, who was driving the car bearing registration no. HR 26BN 9597, cannot be ruled out.
10. Before dealing with the contention of the learned counsel for respondent no. 3, it will be worth to take a brief look at the legal position regarding the standard of proof required to be met by the petitioner, in an accident case, before a claims tribunal.
11. 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."
12. 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.
MACT No. 306/2021 Kavita vs. Amit & Ors. Page No. 5 of 19
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."
13. 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."
14. 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 petitioner. The petitioner is merely to establish her 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 MACT No. 306/2021 Kavita vs. Amit & Ors. Page No. 6 of 19 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.
15. The issue of negligence on the part of respondent no. 1 is to be examined in the light of the evidence brought on record.
15.1 In the present case, the accident took place on 14.01.2021 and the FIR no.
10 of 2021 was lodged by petitioner on the same day at Police Station Beri, Jhajjar. Hence, there was no delay in lodging of the FIR. 15.2 On completion of investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against the respondent no. 1 under Sections 279/337/338/304-A of the IPC showing the involvement of offending vehicle bearing registration no. HR 63D 8024.
15.3 In the criminal case arising out of the accident, the learned CJM/ACJ (SD) Jhajjar, vide order dated 04.08.2023 passed in CHI-882-2021 titled as State vs. Amit, has framed charges against the respondent no. 1 for the offences punishable under Sections 279/337/338/304-A of the IPC. 15.4 The arrest memo dated 26.01.2021 shows that the respondent no. 1 was arrested in the criminal case related to the accident. 15.5 The respondent no. 2, in his reply to the notice dated 26.01.2021 under Section 133, MV Act issued to him, admitted that respondent no. 1 was driving the offending truck bearing registration no. HR 63D 8024 on the day of accident.
15.6 The Mechanical Inspection Report dated 25.01.2021 of the petitioner's car bearing registration no. HR 26BN 9597 reflects that its engine, both front tires, steering system, driver-side window, front bumper, bonnet, and windscreen were damaged. Overall, the vehicle was found to be completely damaged.
The Mechanical Inspection Report of the same day for the offending truck bearing registration no. HR 63D 8024 reflects that the left side of its body, both fuel/diesel tanks, front axle and shock absorber, front bumper, left MACT No. 306/2021 Kavita vs. Amit & Ors. Page No. 7 of 19 portion of the front windscreen, front left headlight, and left side window were damaged. The report further states that the truck was not in a roadworthy condition.
15.7 As per the seizure memo dated 17.01.2021, the offending truck was seized at the spot of the accident by HC Baljeet. It is further stated that the truck had to be extracted from the field with the assistance of a crane. 15.8 The photographs of the car and the offending truck form part of the charge-
sheet. They show that the front portion of the car had suffered extensive damage and had fallen into the ditch. The photographs of the truck likewise show that it had sustained extensive damage.
15.9 The deposition of the petitioner regarding the accident and negligence of the respondent no. 1 is consistent and inspires confidence. 15.10 The respondent nos. 1 & 2 have not led any evidence in support of their contentions. The respondent no. 3 has also not led any evidence. 15.11 The medical documents produced by the petitioner further lend credence to the claim petition. The medical record of General Hospital, Jhajjar, Haryana, dated 14.01.2021, states that the petitioner and her two sons were brought to the hospital at 03:55 PM on 14.01.2021 with a history of a road accident. While Sh. Yash Saroha was brought dead, the petitioner and Sh. Gaurav Sheoran were referred to PGIMS, Rohtak. The post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 15.01.2021 at Civil Hospital, Jhajjar, Haryana. Dr. Sunil Narwal, Medical Officer, who conducted the post-mortem, opined that the cause of death was due to ante-mortem injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He further opined that all the injuries could have resulted from the accident.
16. As regards the contention of respondent no. 3 concerning negligence on the part of the deceased, Sh. Yash Saroha, the respondent no. 3 has relied on the mechanical inspection reports of the truck and the car to contend that it was a case of head-on collision.
16.1 Even though the mechanical inspection reports show that the offending MACT No. 306/2021 Kavita vs. Amit & Ors. Page No. 8 of 19 truck and the front portion of the car suffered extensive damage, these reports must be appreciated in the context of the site plan, the deposition of the eyewitness and the other surrounding facts and circumstances. 16.2 The petitioner, who is an eyewitness to the accident, has specifically denied in her cross-examination that the accident was a case of head-on collision between the offending truck and the car driven by the deceased, Sh. Yash Saroha. Respondent no. 1, who is also an eyewitness, has not pleaded contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in his written statement. Further, no evidence has been led by respondent no. 3 to substantiate its contention regarding contributory negligence. 16.3 As per the site plan, the offending truck and the car were found in two separate ditches on opposite sides of the road. In such circumstances, it is not possible to determine whether the damage to the vehicles was caused by the collision or by their subsequent fall into the ditches. Therefore, no inference can be drawn that the accident was a head-on collision. 16.4 In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion that respondent no. 3 has failed to prove any negligence on the part of the deceased, Sh. Yash Saroha.
17. 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 truck bearing registration no. HR 63D 8024, being driven by respondent no. 1, Sh. Amit, and owned by respondent no. 2, Sh. Satish, thereby resulting in the fatal injuries to Sh. Yash Saroha. Issue No. 1 is therefore decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
Issue No. 2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? OPP.
18. Onus to prove this issue was on the petitioner.
In view of the finding on Issue No. 1, the petitioner is held entitled to MACT No. 306/2021 Kavita vs. Amit & Ors. Page No. 9 of 19 compensation for the death of Sh. Yash Saroha.
19. On the question of quantum of compensation, the petitioner is relying on her testimony and on documentary evidence.
20. 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
21. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra) and affirmed in Pranay Sethi (supra), three facts need to be established by the petitioner 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 Deceased
22. As per the Class X mark-sheet (Ex. PW1/2), the deceased was born on 17.09.1999. Accordingly, the age of the deceased on 14.01.2021, the date of the accident, was 21 years. Since the age of the deceased falls within the age bracket of 21-25 years, the applicable multiplier, in terms of the law laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra), is 18 for the purpose of computation of loss of dependency.
Income of Deceased
23. As per his educational documents (Ex. PW1/2), the deceased, Sh. Yash Saroha, had completed his B.Com. (Honours) from Amity University, Uttar Pradesh and had cleared the Foundation Examination conducted by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI). These educational documents further reflect that he was a student of KIIT World School, Delhi from class IX to class XII. The petitioner has also produced certificates showing that the deceased had successfully completed courses in English and Communication Skills, Behavioural Science, and French, MACT No. 306/2021 Kavita vs. Amit & Ors. Page No. 10 of 19 had participated in the Amity Military Training Camp, and was actively involved in sports activities such as Kabaddi and Kho-Kho. 23.1 However, no documentary evidence has been placed on record by the petitioner to establish that the deceased was earning any income at the time of the accident.
23.2 The Aadhaar card (Ex. PW1/1) and the ICAI result card dated 03.02.2020 (Ex. PW1/2) reflect that the deceased was a resident of Delhi. As the petitioner has failed to prove the actual income of the deceased, his income is to be assessed in accordance with the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, as applicable in Delhi. The minimum wages payable to a graduate as on 14.01.2021, that is, the date of the accident, were ₹20,430/- per month, which is accordingly taken as the notional income of the deceased (A).
24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Pranay Sethi (supra):
"59.3. 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.
59.4 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."
25. In view of Pranay Sethi (supra), since the deceased was 21 years of age, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects. Accordingly, in the present case, ₹8,172/- has to be added towards future prospects (B). Number of Dependents
26. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that the deceased, Sh. Yash Saroha, MACT No. 306/2021 Kavita vs. Amit & Ors. Page No. 11 of 19 was her son from her first marriage with Sh. Raghvinder Singh. It is further her case that after the death of Sh. Raghvinder Singh in the year 2007, she remarried Sh. Rajvir Singh, and that Sh. Gaurav Sheoran was born from her marriage with Sh. Rajvir Singh.
26.1 Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 has contended that since the petitioner had remarried, she was no longer having any relationship with the deceased and, therefore, cannot be considered to be dependent upon him. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was dependent upon the deceased.
26.2 The mere fact that the petitioner had remarried does not lead to the conclusion that the mother-son relationship between the petitioner and the deceased had ceased to exist. The fact that the petitioner was travelling with the deceased at the time of the accident itself belies the contention raised by respondent no. 3. Accordingly, the petitioner, being the mother of the deceased, is held to be a dependent upon him.
27. Bearing in mind that the deceased had only one dependent, ½ half of his income would be treated as his personal and living expenses. Therefore, in the present case, ₹14,301/- [C=1/2 of (A+B)] has to be deducted on account of personal living and expenses.
28. The monthly loss of dependency (D) is assessed at ₹14,301/- [D= (A+B)-
C].
Accordingly, the annual loss of dependency (E) comes to ₹1,71,612/- [E = D × 12].
On applying the multiplier of (18) to the said annual loss of dependency, the total loss of dependency (F) works out to ₹30,89,016/- [F = E × 18]. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to a sum of ₹30,89,016/- towards loss of dependency.
Conventional Heads (Loss of Estate, Funeral Expenses, Loss of Consortium)
29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Pranay Sethi (supra) as follows:
MACT No. 306/2021 Kavita vs. Amit & Ors. Page No. 12 of 19 "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 years."
30. In accordance with the above, the petitioner is entitled to ₹18,000/- towards funeral expenses and ₹18,000/- towards loss of estate. The petitioner is further awarded ₹48,000/- for loss of consortium. Medical Expenses
31. The petitioner has not produced any medical bills regarding the treatment of the deceased, Sh. Yash Saroha, for the injuries suffered in the accident. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any sum under this head.
32. Upon adding the amounts awarded under the heads of loss of dependency, conventional heads and medical expenses, the total award amount is quantified at ₹31,73,016/- (rounded up to ₹31,73,100/-). Liability
33. The respondent nos. 1 & 2, being the principal tortfeasors, are primarily liable to make payment of compensation awarded to the petitioner. However, since the offending truck bearing registration no. HR 63D 8024 was insured by respondent no. 3 against third party risks, therefore, the respondent no. 3 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 33.1 The respondent no. 3 has not placed anything on record showing any right to recover against the other respondents. Therefore, the respondent no. 3, The New India Assurance Company Ltd., shall pay the award amount along with interest to the petitioner without any right to recover the same from the other respondents.
Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly.
Issue No. 3: Relief
34. In view of the findings on Issue No. 2, the petitioner is held entitled to a sum of 31,73,100/- (Rupees Thirty One Lacs Seventy Three Thousand and One Hundred Only) along with simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the MACT No. 306/2021 Kavita vs. Amit & Ors. Page No. 13 of 19 date of filing of claim petition, that is, 26.03.2021 till the date of compliance, that is, 21.01.2026 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. 335. In terms of Section 168(3) of the MV Act, the award amount along with interest shall be deposited/transferred by respondent no. 3, The New India Assurance Company 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 petitioner and her counsel.
Release
36. The statement of the petitioner regarding her financial status, needs and liabilities has been recorded.
The details of the MACT bank account of the petitioner and the address of the bank with IFSC Code are as follows:
Name Bank Details
Ms. Kavita A/c no. 037322160000002 at Union Bank of India, Branch
Madame Bhikaji Cama Place, Delhi-110066.
IFSC Code: UBIN0903736.
37. 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.
38. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 16.07.2024 in Bajaj Allianz MACT No. 306/2021 Kavita vs. Amit & Ors. Page No. 14 of 19 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
39. Keeping in view the quantum of the award and the age of the petitioner, the award amount along with interest be released to the petitioner in the following manner:
Out of amount awarded to petitioner (Ms. Kavita), 90% amount is directed to be kept in the form of 100 fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for periods of 1 to 100 months in succession. The amount of FDRs on maturity be released in her aforesaid MACT account. The remaining 10% amount is directed to be immediately released into her aforesaid MACT account.
Directions to the Bank(s)
40. The Manager, State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka and the Manager, Union Bank of India, Branch Madame Bhikaji Cama Place, Delhi are directed to comply with the Schedule of Disbursal provided in this Award.
The said Managers are further directed that:
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the MACT accounts of the petitioner.
(b) The original fixed deposit/FDRs shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by the concerned bank to the petitioner.
(c) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the MACT No. 306/2021 Kavita vs. Amit & Ors. Page No. 15 of 19 FDRs without permission of this Tribunal.
(d) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to petitioner for her MACT account. 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.
41. 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: 14.01.2021
2. Name of deceased: Yash Saroha
3. Age of the deceased: 21 years (at the time of accident)
4. Occupation of the deceased: Student
5. Income of the deceased: ₹20,430/- p.m.
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S. No. Name Present Age Relation
(i) Ms. Kavita 49 years Mother
Computation of Compensation
S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
7. Monthly Income of the deceased ₹20,430/-
(A)
8. Add : Future Prospects (B) ₹8,172/-
9. Less: Personal expenses of then ₹14,301/-
deceased (C)
10. Monthly loss of dependency ₹14,301/-
[D= (A+B) - C ]
11. Annual loss of dependency ₹1,71,612/-
[E= Dx12] 12. Multiplier 18
13. Total loss of dependency ₹30,89,016/-
[F=Ex 18] MACT No. 306/2021 Kavita vs. Amit & Ors. Page No. 16 of 19
14. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15. Compensation for loss of love and Nil affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of ₹48,000/-
consortium (I)
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) ₹18,000/-
18. Compensation towards funeral ₹18,000/-
expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION ₹31,73,016/- (rounded off to (F+G+H+I+J+K =L) ₹31,73,100)/-
20. RATE OF INTEREST Simple interest @ 7.5% per annum AWARDED from the date of institution of the petition till the date of compliance.
Thereafter, simple interest @ 12% per annum.
21 Interest amount up to the date of ₹11,27,773/-
decision (M)
22. Total amount including interest up ₹43,00,873/-
to the date of decision (L+M)
23. Award amount released 10%
24. Award amount kept in FDRs 90%
25. Mode of disbursement of the award Bank Transfer amount to the claimant (s)
26. Next date for compliance of the 21.01.2026 award.
42. 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
1. Date of the accident 14.01.2021
2. Date of filing of Form I- First Not applicable as it is an outstation Accident Report (FAR) matter.
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the victim(s) MACT No. 306/2021 Kavita vs. Amit & Ors. Page No. 17 of 19
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-
Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII-
Detailed Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether 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 22.12.2025
15. Whether the petitioner(s) were directed Yes.
to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which petitioner(s) 05.08.2024 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).
MACT No. 306/2021 Kavita vs. Amit & Ors. Page No. 18 of 19
17. Date on which the petitioner(s) 28.07.2025 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 H. No. 365, Gali No. 1, Kirti petitioner(s) Nagar, Bhiwani, Haryana-127021.
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?
43. Dasti copy of award be given to the parties free of cost.
44. Attested copy of Award be sent to the Manager(s) of the following banks for information/ compliance:
a. SBI, District Courts Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi, and b. Union Bank of India, Branch Madame Bhikaji Cama Place, Delhi.
45. Copy of award be also sent to the concerned learned Judicial Magistrate and Delhi State Legal Services Authority.
46. 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).
47. Ahlmad is directed to prepare a separate miscellaneous file to be listed on 23.02.2026 for compliance report.
48. File be consigned to the record room after compliance of necessary formalities.
Digitally signed SUDEEP by SUDEEP RAJ SAINI RAJ Date: SAINI 2025.12.22 15:05:17 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (SUDEEP RAJ SAINI) COURT ON 22.12.2025 PO, MACT-02, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI MACT No. 306/2021 Kavita vs. Amit & Ors. Page No. 19 of 19