Delhi District Court
Pushpa Devi vs Ramashish Rai on 26 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARU GUPTA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-01 (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No. 196/20
Pushpa Devi & ors. vs. Ramashish Rai & ors.
CNR No. DLSE010016842020
1. Smt. Pushpa Devi
W/o Late Sh. Govind Singh
2. Pankaj Singh
S/o Late Sh. Govind Singh
3. Gaurav Singh Satyabola
S/o Late Sh. Govind Singh
All are R/o H.No.1290, 49 Molarband
Extension, Molar Band, South Delhi
110044
....Claimants/Petitioners
Versus
1. Ramashish Rai
S/o Sh. Ramvilash Rai
R/o House no.4, gali no.2/4,
Roshan Nagar, near Shiv Mandir
Village Agwanpur, Faridabad
Permanent Add: Village Lodhipur
Distt. Darbhanga, Bihar.
....Driver-cum-owner /respondent no.1
2. HDFC Ergo General Insurance company Ltd.
Office at: Ground floor, Eros Tower,
opp. Nehru Place, Metro Station,
MACT No. 196/20 Pushpa Devi & ors.vs. Ramashish Rai & ors. Page no. 1 of 25 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.26
16:55:30
+0530
New Delhi-110019.
....Insurance/respondent no.2
Date of accident : 19.11.2019
Result of accident : Death
Date of filing of Petition : 03.03.2020
Date of Decision : 26.07.2025
AWARD
1. The present claim petition arises out of road accident in
which one Govind Singh, s/o late Sh. Jhup Singh, aged about 38
years, suffered fatal injury resulting in his death. An application
u/s 166 (1) MV Act was accordingly filed by the claimant (1)
Smt. Pushpa Devi (wife of the deceased), (2)Pankaj Singh, and
(3) Gaurav Singh Satyabola (minor sons of the deceased) as
dependents of the deceased.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.11.2019, on receipt of
DD No. 42, HC Satpal reached the spot of accident at Mathura
Road where the PCR-I staff informed that the injured had been
hit by an unknown vehicle and fled from the spot. Finding the
condition of the injured to be critical, the injured was taken to
BK Hospital, Faridabad. During that time, on receipt of phone
call from the mobile of the injured, the police official informed
wife of the injured about the accident. The injured was further
referred to Safdarjung Hospital but as he was critical, he was
taken to a nearby hospital i.e. Doctor Today Hospital for
emergency treatment. The injured died during treatment on
20.11.2019. His postmortem was conducted. An FIR bearing no.
0348/19 was registered on 21.11.2019, u/s 279/304A of IPC, at
MACT No. 196/20 Pushpa Devi & ors.vs. Ramashish Rai & ors. Page no. 2 of 25 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.26
16:55:33
+0530
PS Sarai Khwaja, Faridabad.
3. Later, a complaint was filed by Pan Singh, brother of
deceased claiming that on 19.11.2019, the deceased Govind
Singh had gone for denting painting work with respondent no.1,
at some place in Faridabad. The deceased and respondent no.1
were returning after completion their work, on motorcycle of
respondent no. 1 bearing no. DL-3SCJ-3206 (hereinafter referred
to as the offending vehicle). The said motorcycle was being
driven by respondent no.1 and deceased Govind was sitting as a
pillion rider. Respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle
at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. When they
reached U-turn at main Mathura Road, P-72, Sector 37,
Faridabad, the offending motorcycle met with an accident due to
which deceased Govind Singh fell on the road and suffered fatal
injuries resulting in his death. On this complaint, the matter was
further investigated and a chargesheet u/s 279/304A IPC was
filed against respondent no.1 before concerned criminal court
while the claim petition was filed before this Tribunal.
4. As per record, the offending vehicle was driven and owned
by respondent no.1 and insured with respondent no. 2.
5. In response to the claim, respondent no.1 filed a detailed
reply denying the occurrence of the accident due to rash and
negligent driving. It has been pleaded that on 19.11.2019, he was
returning with the deceased on his motorcycle after completing a
denting job. The deceased requested respondent no.1 to be
dropped near New Pul. While driving the deceased on his
motorcycle to new Pul, a cow suddenly came running and hit the
MACT No. 196/20 Pushpa Devi & ors.vs. Ramashish Rai & ors. Page no. 3 of 25 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.26
16:55:38
+0530
motorcycle of respondent no.1. Due to that, respondent no.1 as
well as the deceased fell on the road. Respondent no.1 fell
unconscious and when he regained consciousness he felt pain in
his left arm and leg and found the motorcycle to have been lifted
and parked on its stand. Respondent no.1 pleaded that the
accident did not occur due to any fault or negligent on his part
and denied the allegations in the petition as baseless.
6. In its reply, respondent no.2/insurance company has also
denied its liability to indemnify the insured /respondent no.1 or
compensate the petitioner alleging collusion between the
petitioners and the owner /driver of the offending vehicle. It has
been pleaded that the offending vehicle has apparently been
planted. Liability is further denied in case respondent no.1 was
found to be in breach of the terms of the insurance policy or if
the deceased was found to be negligent.
7. From the pleadings of parties, the following issues were
framed on 29.10.2021.
1) Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in a road
traffic accident on 19.11.2019 due to rash and negligent
driving of vehicle no. DL-3SCJ-3206 being driven and
owned by R1 and insured with R2? OPP.
2) Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation,
if so, to what extent and from whom ? OPP.
3) Relief.
8. In order to prove their claim, claimants examined Pushpa
Devi/wife of the victim as PW-1 and Pan Singh as PW-2.
Pushpa Devi /PW-1 tendered her examination in chief by
way of affidavit as Ex.PW-1/A wherein she deposed that on
19.11.2019 at 4 p.m. respondent no.1 approached the deceased
MACT No. 196/20 Pushpa Devi & ors.vs. Ramashish Rai & ors. Page no. 4 of 25 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.26
16:55:41
+0530
Govind Singh for jointly taking up a denting painting job at some
place in Faridabad. She deposed that her husband Govind Singh
and respondent no.1 left for their job at 04:30 p.m on motorcycle
of respondent no.1. After waiting for a long time for the arrival of
her husband, the petitioner made a call on his mobile. The call
was answered by HC Satpal of the police station Sarai Khwaja,
Faridabad. HC Satpal informed that her husband had met with an
accident at u-turn, main Mathura Road, P-72, Sector 37,
Faridabad and was being taken to BK Hospital for treatment.
PW-1 further deposed that her deceased husband Govind
Singh was self employed and was carrying out denting and
painting work of automobiles/ vehicles in rented shop at
Rs.5000/- per month at Gopi Farm, Vedram Colony, near Sector
37, Palla Pul Faridabad.
PW-1 relied upon certified copy of final report u/s 173
Cr.PC as Ex.PW1/1, driving licence of respondent no.1 as Mark
A, certified copy of mechanical inspection report of offending
vehicle as Ex.PW1/2, certified copy of vehicle particular for
internal use of offending vehicle as Mark B, certified copy of
insurance of the offending vehicle issued by respondent no.3 as
Mark C, certified copy of site plan of accident as Ex.PW1/3,
certified copy of RC of offending vehicle as Mark D, Adhar card
of respondent no.1 as Mark E, certified copy of admission in the
hospital and death of deceased as Ex.PW1/4, original receipt of
Ambulance dt.20.11.2019 as Ex.PW1/5, original fee receipt of
the son namely Pankaj as Ex.PW1/6, original fee receipt of son
namely Gaurav as Ex.pW1/7, certified copy of Medical bills
MACT No. 196/20 Pushpa Devi & ors.vs. Ramashish Rai & ors. Page no. 5 of 25 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.26
16:55:45
+0530
issued by IVF and Multi Speciality Hospital as Ex.PW1/8,
original bill issued by Fortis Escorts as Ex.PW1/9, certified FIR
as Ex.PW1/19, original receipt dt. 22.11.2019 of Nigam
Bodhghar, Delhi as Ex.PW1/22, certified copy of death
certificate as Ex.PW1/23, certified copy of application
dt.25.12.2019 as Ex.PW1/26, certified copy of complaint to
SHO, PS Sarai Khwaja as Ex.PW1/27, Original postal receipts of
complaints sent to the police authorities as Ex.PW1/28, tracking
report regarding service of the complaint as Ex.Pw-129, Bank
passbook of the petitioner as Ex.PW1/30, Adhar card of deceased
as Mark F-1, Adhar Card of petitioner no.1 as Ex.PW1/32, Adhar
Card of Pankaj as Ex.PW1/33, Adhar Card of Gaurav as
Ex.PW1/34, passbook of Pushpa Devi in Central Bank of India
as Ex.PW1/36, specimen signature of Pushpa Devi regarding the
bank account as Ex.PW1/37. PW-1 was duly cross-examined by
learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and 2.
Sh. Pan Singh was examined as PW-2, who deposed that
he is the real elder brother of deceased victim. He testified on the
lines of the claim petition and reiterated the version of PW-1.
PW-2 relied upon his Adhar Card as Mark Z.
PW-2 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for respondent
no.1 and respondent no.2.
9. Respondents did not lead any evidence despite
opportunity.
10. Final arguments in detail were addressed on behalf of
claimant/injured and the insurance company. On the basis of
pleadings of the parties, evidence adduced and arguments
MACT No. 196/20 Pushpa Devi & ors.vs. Ramashish Rai & ors. Page no. 6 of 25 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.26
16:55:49
+0530
addressed, issue wise findings are as under:
Issue No.1
Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in a road
traffic accident on 19.11.2019 due to rash and negligent
driving of vehicle no. DL-3SCJ-3206 being driven and
owned by R1 and insured with R2? OPP.
11. It is a law well settled in Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal
Road Transport Corporation & Ors. ((2009) 13 SC 530) in
Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India Assurance
Company Limited, (2001 ACJ 421 SC), in National Insurance
Co. Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rana cited as (2009 ACJ 287), that the
negligence has to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance
of probabilities and a holistic view is to be taken. It has been
further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicle Act are
not akin to the proceedings in a Civil Suit and hence, strict rules
of evidence are not applicable. The burden of proof in a civil case
is not as heavy as it is in a criminal case and in a claim petition
under the MV Act, this burden is even lesser than a civil case.
12. In the present case, petitioners have examined wife of the
deceased Smt. Pushpa Devi as PW-1 and brother of the deceased
Pan Singh as PW-2. Admittedly neither PW-1 nor PW-2 are
witnesses to the accident however, it is crucial to note that during
the testimony of PW-1 and in her cross examination PW-1 has
reiterated that fact that she was informed about the accident and
the fact that her husband was being taken to BK Hospital,
Faridabad by a police official. This fact is corroborated by the
FIR which was registered soon after the accident as well as by
the final report filed by the IO. Even respondent no.1 has not
MACT No. 196/20 Pushpa Devi & ors.vs. Ramashish Rai & ors. Page no. 7 of 25 Digitally
ss
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.26
16:55:52
+0530
denied the occurrence of the accident or that the deceased was
travelling as a pillion rider on his motorcycle, in his written
statement. The only bone of contention thus remains whether the
accident occurred due to negligence of respondent no.1.
It has been clearly claimed in the claim petition that the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
motorcycle /offending vehicle, at a high speed, by respondent
no.1. PW-1 as well as PW-2 have affirmed this version in their
respective evidence by way of affidavits. To controvert the same
respondent no.1 has merely cross examined both these witnesses
by alleging that the accident actually occurred not due to his rash
driving but due to abrupt ingress of a cow ahead of his
motorcycle. As none of the petitioner witnesses were an eye
witness to the accident, their response to the said plea is
immaterial. Respondent no.1, apart from bald plea that the
accident occurred due to abrupt ingress of a cow, has not led any
evidence to prove his plea. It is further pertinent that while
respondent no.1 has claimed in his written statement that even he
sustained injury in such accident, he has not filed any proof of
the same.
If the defence taken by respondent no.1 is assumed to be
true, the fact that such respondent did not make any call to the
police or give any statement regarding the alleged manner of
accident, compels this Tribunal to believe that the defence being
raised at this stage is an afterthought or concocted. Absence of
any such statement or defence given to the police raises strong
ground for presuming that the accident occurred in the manner as
MACT No. 196/20 Pushpa Devi & ors.vs. Ramashish Rai & ors. Page no. 8 of 25 Digitally
ss
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.26
16:55:56
+0530
alleged in the chargesheet/final report i.e. due to rash and
negligent driving of respondent no.1.
13. Further, the fact that the police after investigation had filed
charge-sheet against respondent no.1 under section 279,304A of
IPC is also suggestive of negligence on the part of Respondent
no.3. Reliance is placed on the decision in National Insurance
Co. Vs. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, wherein it was laid
down that completion of investigation and filing of chargesheet
are sufficient proof of negligence of the driver of the offending
vehicle.
14. Further, in Cholamandlam insurance company Ltd. Vs.
Kamlesh 2009 (3) AD Delhi 310, it was held that if driver of
offending vehicle does not enter the witness box, an adverse
inference can be drawn against him. In the present case also,
neither the driver-cum-owner enter into the witness box to
controvert the claim of petitioner or even to explain
circumstances of accident.
15. In totality of circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion
that the claimant have been able to prove at the scales of
preponderance of probabilities that the accident in question, took
place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle
bearing no. DL-3SCJ-3206 by its driver/respondent no.1 on the
date and time of accident. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in
favour of petitioners/claimants and against the respondents.
Issue no. 2
Whether the claimants are entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and
from whom? OPP.
MACT No. 196/20 Pushpa Devi & ors.vs. Ramashish Rai & ors. Page no. 9 of 25 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.26
16:55:59
+0530
16. As regards liability, insurance company has raised no
statutory defence or alleged breach of terms and conditions of the
insurance policy. Respondent no.2/insurance company is liable to
indemnify the respondent no.1 (owner of the offending vehicle)
by compensating the petitioners. As such, respondent no. 2 is
liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
17. The claimant/petitioner no.1 to 3 have claimed dependency
on the deceased as his wife and two minor sons. As all the
petitioners are also legal heirs of the deceased, they are held to be
dependent on the deceased and hence entitled to compensation.
18. Before proceeding further to decide remaining issue as to
quantum of compensation and its apportionment, it would be
apposite to encapsulate the law laid down by the Apex court in
Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors.
(2003) 6 SCC 121. The relevant principles for ascertainment of
compensation are quoted here under:
BASIC PRINCIPLES
"9. Basically only three facts need to be established by
the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of
death :-
(a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased;
and the (c) the number of dependents. The issues to
be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of
dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made for
arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made
towards the personal living expenses of the deceased;
and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of
the age of the deceased. If these determinants are
standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency
in the decisions. There will lesser need for detailed
evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance
companies to settle accident claims without delay. To
have uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should
determine compensation in cases of death, by the
following well settled steps : -
MACT No. 196/20 Pushpa Devi & ors.vs. Ramashish Rai & ors. Page no. 10 of 25 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.26
16:56:03
+0530
Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand)
The income of the deceased per annum should be
determined. Out of the said income a deduction should
be made in regard to the amount which the deceased
would have spent on himself by way of personal and
living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be
the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the
multiplicand.
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier)
Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of
active career, the appropriate multiplier should be
selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number
of years he would have lived or worked but for the
accident. Having regard to several imponderables in
life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with
reference to the age has been identified by this Court.
The multiplier should be chosen from the said table
with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step 3 (Actual calculation)
The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand)
when multiplied by such multiplier gives the `loss of
dependency' to the family. Thereafter, a conventional
amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may
be added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is
survived by his widow, another conventional amount in
the range of 5,000/- to 10,000/- should be added under
the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be
awarded under the head of pain, suffering or
hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the
body (if incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of
the deceased before death (if incurred) should also
added."
ADDITIONS
"11. ...In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we
are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an
addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary
income of the deceased towards future prospects,
where the deceased had a permanent job and was
below 40 years. [Where the annual income is in the
taxable range, the words `actual salary' should be read
as `actual salary less tax']. The addition should be only
30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years.
There should be no addition, where the age of deceased
is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may
indicate a different percentage of increase, it is
necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different
yardsticks being applied or different methods of
MACT No. 196/20 Pushpa Devi & ors.vs. Ramashish Rai & ors. Page no. 11 of 25 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.26
16:56:06
+0530
calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was
self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without
provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will
usually take only the actual income at the time of
death. A departure therefrom should be made only in
rare and exceptional cases involving special
circumstances."
DEDUCTIONS
"14. Having considered several subsequent decisions of
this court, we are of the view that where the deceased
was married, the deduction towards personal and living
expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd)
where the number of dependent family members is 2 to
3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent
family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where
the number of dependent family members exceed six.
15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the
claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a
different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally,
50% is deducted as personal and living expenses,
because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to
spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also
the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in
which event the contribution to the parent/s and
siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject
to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have
his own income and will not be considered as a
dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a
dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary,
brothers and sisters will not be considered as
dependents, because they will either be independent
and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.
Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and
siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a
dependent, and 50% would be treated as the personal
and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the
contribution to the family. However, where family of
the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of
the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed
mother and large number of younger non-earning
sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses
may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the
family will be taken as two-third."
MULTIPLIER
"21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used
should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table
above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok
MACT No. 196/20 Pushpa Devi & ors.vs. Ramashish Rai & ors. Page no. 12 of 25 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.26
16:56:11
+0530
Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative
multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21
to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years,
that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35
years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45
years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by
two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to
55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65
years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."
19. As regards, computation of the future prospects,
observations made in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 are noteworthy :
"58. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be no
addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept.
We are disposed to think, there should be an addition of
15% if the deceased is between the age of 50 to 60
years and there should be no addition thereafter.
Similarly, in case of self- employed or person on fixed
salary, the addition should be 10% between the age of
50 to 60 years. The aforesaid yardstick has been fixed
so that there can be consistency in the approach by the
tribunals and the Courts.
59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to
record our conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have
been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench
as it was taking a different view than what has been
stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate
Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same
strength cannot take a contrary view than what has
been held by another coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in
Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point
of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding
precedent.
(iii)While determining the income, an addition of 50%
of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards
future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent
job and was below the age of 40 years, should be
made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the
deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the
deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the
addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read
as actual salary less tax.
MACT No. 196/20 Pushpa Devi & ors.vs. Ramashish Rai & ors. Page no. 13 of 25 ss
Digitally signed
by CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.07.26
16:56:14
+0530
(iv)In case the deceased was self-employed or on a
fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established
income should be the warrant where the deceased was
below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where
the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years
and 10% where the deceased was between the age of
50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary
method of computation. The established income means
the income minus the tax component.
(v)For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction
for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the
courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla
Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi)The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated
in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of
that judgment.
(vii)The age of the deceased should be the basis for
applying the multiplier.
(viii)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.
20. In view of the above settled principles, this Tribunal needs
to ascertain the age of deceased/victim, the appropriate
multiplier, income of the deceased at the time of incident, the
educational qualification of deceased, the number of dependents,
whether deceased was married or unmarried, whether deceased
was having permanent employment or private job etc. to workout
just compensation in this case. Award also needs to be passed qua
non-pecuniary heads as envisaged and in terms of above
judgments. Hence, this Tribunal now proceeds further to decide
the compensation/award under different heads applicable to the
present matter in light of above prepositions.
Age and multiplier
21. The date of birth of the deceased as per Adhar Card as
Mark F-1 is shown to be 01.01.1981. The accident occurred on
MACT No. 196/20 Pushpa Devi & ors.vs. Ramashish Rai & ors. Page no. 14 of 25 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.26
16:56:18
+0530
19.11.2019. As such, age of the deceased as on date of accident
was 38 years. Hence, he fell in the age bracket of 36 to 40 years
and multiplier applicable to this case would be 15.
Determination of monthly and annual income
22. At the time of accident, deceased victim is stated to have
been working at denting and painting shop, Gopi Farm, Vedram
Colony, near Sector-37, Palla Pul, Faridabad at a salary of
Rs.22000/- per month.
It is pertinent to note that the petitioners have not filed any
employment proof with regard to their claim. No educational
proof of the victim has been filed. In these circumstances,
income of the deceased of the victim has to be assessed as that of
an unskilled labour on the basis of minimum wages prevalent at
the time of the accident in Delhi (i.e. the place of residence). The
same were Rs.14,806/- per month. Hence, the monthly salary of
the deceased is assessed to be Rs.14,806/-. His annual salary
would have, therefore, been Rs.14,806/-X12=Rs.1,77,672/- per
annum.
Determination of future prospects
23. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC Appeal No.
798/2011 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance company Ltd.
Vs. Pooja & Ors. decided on 02.11.2017 has held that even in the
cases where the income of the deceased is calculated on the
basis of the minimum wages, the benefit of future prospects has
to be given in accordance with guidelines issued by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi, as applicable to an addition of
40% in case the deceased was less than 40 years.
MACT No. 196/20 Pushpa Devi & ors.vs. Ramashish Rai & ors. Page no. 15 of 25 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.26
16:56:21
+0530
The enhanced income (after adding 40% of his annual
income, as future prospects) would be Rs.71069/-(after round
off) +Rs.1,77,672/- =Rs.2,48,741/- P.A.
Deduction
24. As already discussed, considering the age and that the
deceased is survived by 4 dependents on him. As per Sarla Verma
judgment (supra), deductions towards personal and living
expenses of deceased on himself would be taken as 1/3 Thus, the
net deduction in the present case is ascertained to be 1/3 of the
total calculated income i.e. Rs.2,48,741/- is equal to Rs.82914/-
(after round off). Hence, deceased would have been contributing
Rs.2,48,741-Rs.82914=Rs.1,65,827/- per annum towards
petitioners.
Determination of multiplicand
25. The multiplicand would thus be the annual contributed
income of deceased i.e. Rs.1,65,827 /-.
Loss of dependency upon applying multiplier
26. Since the age of the victim is 38 years, as per Sarla Verma
Judgment (supra), multiplier of 15 is applicable. The total loss of
dependency would come out to be Rs.1,65,827X15=
Rs.24,87,405/-.
Compensation under Non-Pecuniary Heads (Grant of Loss of
Estate, Loss of Consortium and Funeral Expenses):
27. To calculate compensation under the non pecuniary heads,
reference has to be drawn from decision in Pranay Sethi case
(supra) wherein it was observed:
''...Unlike determination of income, the said
heads have to be quantified. Any quantification
MACT No. 196/20 Pushpa Devi & ors.vs. Ramashish Rai & ors. Page no. 16 of 25 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.26
16:56:25
+0530
must have a reasonable foundation. There can be
no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in
bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field
have to be noticed. The court cannot remain
oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb
rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be
extreme difficulty in determination of the same
and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be
immense variation lacking any kind of
consistency as a consequence of which, the orders
passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be
unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix
reasonable sums. It seems to us that 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 principle of revisiting the said
heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit
should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We
think that it would be condign that the amount
that we have quantified should be enhanced on
percentage basis in every three years and the
enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a
span of three years. We are disposed to hold so
because that will bring in consistency in respect
of those heads.
.
.
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...''
28. It may further be noted that the date of judgment of Pranay Sethi case (supra) is 31/10/2017. Further, as per the judgment, the amount so quantified under the non pecuniary heads have to be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the MACT No. 196/20 Pushpa Devi & ors.vs. Ramashish Rai & ors. Page no. 17 of 25 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.07.26 16:56:29 +0530 enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. As such, the funeral expenses and expenses towards loss of estate would, as on date, be Rs.18150/-, under each of these heads while compensation for loss of consortium would stand enhanced to Rs.48400/-.
29. On the date of accident, deceased had left behind his wife and two minor sons. As such, in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as noted above, all the petitioners would be entitled Rs.48,400/- each towards loss of consortium, while, petitioner no.1/wife is also entitled to expenses towards funeral and loss of estate.
30. Share of petitioners (I) Petitioner no.1/Pushpa Devi (wife of deceased)is entitled to Rs.8,87,405/- towards loss of financial dependency, Rs.48400/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate. The total comes out to be Rs.9,72,105/-.
(II) Petitioner no.2/son is entitled to Rs.8,00,000/- towards loss of financial dependency, Rs.48400/- towards loss of consortium. The total comes out to be Rs.8,48,400/-. (III) Petitioner no.3/son is entitled to Rs.8,00,000/- towards loss of financial dependency, Rs.48400/- towards loss of consortium. The total comes out to be Rs.8,48,400/-.
Thus, the total amount payable by insurance company to claimants is Rs.26,68,905/-.
Liability:
31. As already discussed, principal award amount/ MACT No. 196/20 Pushpa Devi & ors.vs. Ramashish Rai & ors. Page no. 18 ofDigitally 25 ss signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.07.26 16:56:33 +0530 compensation will be payable by the insurance company of offending vehicle with simple interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of petition till actual realization.
In case, the interest of petitioner was stopped or excluded during the present inquiry proceedings, same is liable to be adjusted from the total interest calculated on the Award amount. Similarly, amount awarded and released as interim Award, if any, during pendency of the case, be deducted from the total compensation amount.
Directions Regarding Deposit of Award Amount in Bank:
32. In compliance of directions issued vide order dated 16.11.2021 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition Civil No.534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India the award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT SAVING ACCOUNT No. 00000042706875094, IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir in the prescribed format i.e. MCOP Number on the file of (Claims Tribunal Name) Date of award, Compensation Amount, Income Tax Deduction at Source, Bank Transaction Reference No./Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. In turn, the State Bank of India, Saket Courts Branch shall receive the deposited sum and capture the above information and furnish a statement of account on a daily basis to the Nazir of this Tribunal to reconcile the deposits of compensation and the respective MCOPs towards which such deposits are made. On such deposits MACT No. 196/20 Pushpa Devi & ors.vs. Ramashish Rai & ors. Page no. 19 of 25 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.07.26 16:56:37 +0530 being made, the insurance company shall submit a letter to the Nazir of this Tribunal enclosing a copy of the said bank advice, in prescribed format as above, as per which the deposit made to the bank account of this Tribunal, to enable this Tribunal to keep tab on the deposits made and the MCOPs for which they were made. The Payment advice for remittance of compensation is as under:
PAYMENT ADVICE FOR REMITTANCE OF COMPENSATION :
............ Bank ................... To:
............... Court ........................ We confirm remittance of compensation as follows on instructions of ................................... (insurance company):- MCOP Number On the file of (Claims Tribunal Name), Place Date of award Amount Deposited, Income Tax Deduction at Source, if any Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. Insurance company of offending vehicle, on deposit, shall also send a copy of the payment advice in above format to this Tribunal and serve a copy of the same on the claimants or their counsel as the case may be.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP).
33. This Tribunal is in receipt of the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors whereby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has formulated MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annunity Deposit Scheme) which has been made effective from 01.01.2019. The said orders dated MACT No. 196/20 Pushpa Devi & ors.vs. Ramashish Rai & ors. Page no. 20 of 25 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.07.26 16:56:41 +0530 07.12.2018 also mentions that 21 banks including State Bank of India is one of such banks which are to adhere to MACAD. The State Bank of India, Saket Courts, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Apportionment
34. Out of the total compensation amount awarded to petitioner no.1/wife i.e. Rs.9,72,105/-, Rs.2,72,105/- be released to her in her bank account and remaining amount of Rs.7,00,000/- be deposited in the form of monthly FDRs of Rs.15,000/- in her bank account near her place of residence as per rule/directions.
35. The total compensation amount awarded to petitioner no.2/Pankaj Singh (son of deceased) i.e. Rs.8,48,400/-, the entire amount be kept in the form FDR till the age of majority as per rule/ directions.
36. The total compensation amount awarded to petitioner no.2/Gaurav Singh Satyaban (son of deceased) i.e. Rs.8,48,400/-, the entire amount be kept in the form FDR till the age of majority as per rule/ directions.
37. The following directions are also given to the bank for compliance:
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name (s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of victim i.e. the savings bank account of the claimant shall be individual savings bank account and not a joint account.
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement MACT No. 196/20 Pushpa Devi & ors.vs. Ramashish Rai & ors. Page no. 21 of 25 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.07.26 16:56:47 +0530 containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR (s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/ or debit card to claimant (s). However, in case the debit card and/ or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit freeze the account of the claimant so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque book and / or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1. Date of accident 19.11.2019 MACT No. 196/20 Pushpa Devi & ors.vs. Ramashish Rai & ors. Page no. 22 of 25 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.07.26 16:56:51 +0530
2. Name of deceased Govind Singh
3. Age of the deceased 38 years
4. Occupation of the deceased Unskilled labour
5. Income of the deceased Rs.14,806/-p.m. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased at the time of accident:
S No. Name Age (at the Relation time of accident)
(i) Pushpa Devi 33 years Wife
(ii) Pankaj Singh 9 years Son
(iii) Gaurav Singh Satyaban 7 years Son Computation of compensation:-
S. Heads Awarded by the Claims N Tribunal 1 A. Income of the deceased per year Rs.1,77,672/- 2 B. Add-Future Prospects 40% of A Rs.71,069/- (per year) 3 C. Total Rs.2,48,741/-
4 D. Less-Personal Expenses of the Rs.82914/- deceased 1/3 of (C) 5 E. Yearly loss of dependency [C -D] Rs.1,65,827/-6 F. Multiplier. 15
7 G. Total loss of dependency (E x F = Rs.24,87,405/- G) 8 H. Medical Expenses Nil 9 I. contributory negligence Nil MACT No. 196/20 Pushpa Devi & ors.vs. Ramashish Rai & ors. Page no. 23 of 25 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.07.26 16:56:54 +0530 10 J. Total loss of dependency Rs.24,87,405/- 11 K. Compensation for loss of (Rs. 48400/- consortium X3)=Rs.1,45,200/- 12 L. Compensation for loss of estate Rs.18,150/- 13 M. Compensation towards funeral Rs.18,150/- expenses 14 N. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.26,68,905/- total of J+K+L+M =N 15 O. RATE OF INTEREST @7.5% per annum AWARDED:
from date of filing of petition till actual realization of principal amount awarded.
16 Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.23,96,800/- 17 Award amount released Rs.2,72,105/-
18 Mode of disbursement of the award (1)Out of the total amount to the claimant (s).(Clause compensation amount 29) awarded to petitioner
no.1/wife i.e. Rs.9,72,105/-, Rs.2,72,105/- be released to her in her bank account and remaining amount of Rs.7,00,000/- be deposited in the form of monthly FDRs of Rs.15,000/- in her bank account near her place of residence as per rule/directions.
(2) The total compensation amount awarded to petitioner no.2/Pankaj Singh (son of deceased) i.e. Rs.8,48,400/-, the entire amount be kept in the form of FDR till the age of majority as per rule/ directions.
(3) The total compensation amount awarded to petitioner MACT No. 196/20 Pushpa Devi & ors.vs. Ramashish Rai & ors. Page no. 24 of 25 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.07.26 16:56:57 +0530 no.2/Gaurav Singh Satyaban (son of deceased) i.e. Rs.8,48,400/-, the entire amount be kept in the form of FDR till the age of majority as per rule/ directions.
19 Next Date for compliance of the 26.08.2025.
award (Clause 31)
38. Put up on 26.08.2025 for compliance.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed by CHARU on 26th July, 2025. CHARU GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.07.26
16:57:03
+0530
(Charu Gupta)
PO-MACT-01 (South East)
Saket Courts/New Delhi
MACT No. 196/20 Pushpa Devi & ors.vs. Ramashish Rai & ors. Page no. 25 of 25 ss