Delhi District Court
Rekha(P)F(213/24/Up) vs Mustakeem(Chola) on 20 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010198192024
MACT No. : 910/2024
FIR No. : 213/2024
PS : Chandi Nagar, District Baghpat
u/s : 281/125(B)/106 BNS
1. Ms. Rekha (LR/mother of deceased)
W/o. Sh. Arvind,
R/o. Village Patouli, Aminagar Sarai,
District Baghpat, UP-250606.
2. Sh. Arvind (LR/father of deceased)
S/o. Sh. Ompal,
R/o. Village Patouli, Aminagar Sarai,
District Baghpat, UP-250606.
...Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Mustakeem (driver of the offending vehicle)
S/o. Sh. Shakruddin,
R/o.147, Village Umarpur, District Muzaffarnagar,
U.P.-251318.
2. Sh. Kayyum (owner of the offending vehicle)
S/o. Sh. Ayub,
R/o.Village Islam Nagar, Kairana Rural,
Kairana, SO Muzaffarnagar, Shamli, UP-247776.
3. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Samyak Tower, Plot No.39, 2nd Floor,
Opposite Metro Pillar No.120,
Karol Bagh, Delhi.
RUCHIKA
MACT No.910/2024 SINGLA
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
Page 1 of 40
SINGLA
Date:
2026.05.20
16:20:53 +0530
4. Nodal Officer of Cholamandalam MS Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd.
PS Chandi Nagar, District Baghpat, UP.
...Respondents
Date of filing of claim petition : 20.12.2024
Judgment reserved on : 23.04.2026
Date of Award : 20.05.2026
AWAR D
1. The present claim petition was filed on 20.12.2024. The
Road Traffic Accident in question took place on 02.11.2024 at about
09:00 AM at Village-Daulatpur Marg, within the jurisdiction of PS
Chandi Nagar, District Baghpat. Mr. Vishant expired in the said accident
which was allegedly caused by a motorcycle bearing registration No.
UP-19H-5927 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle). The
offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1 Mustakeem,
owned by respondent no.2 Kayyum and insured with respondent no.3
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the claim petition are on 02.11.2024 at about 9:00 am Sh. Vishant (since deceased) was coming to his home after attending tuition classes from Village Patouli, Daulatpur Road on bicycle which he was driving at a normal speed and alongside the road. It was stated that when he reached at Daulatpur Marg within the jurisdiction of PS Chandi Nagar, District Baghpat, the offending vehicle tractor bearing no. UP-19H-5927 which was being driven by driver/respondent no. 1 at a very high speed, rashly, RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.910/2024 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Date: 2026.05.20 16:20:59 +0530 Page 2 of 40 negligently without taking necessary precautions, without proper lookouts, violating the traffic rules in a zig zag manner and without blowing any horn, hit the bicycle of the petitioner from its backside. It was further stated that as a result of this, the deceased fell down on the road alongwith his bicycle and sustained severe injuries.
3. Thereafter, he was taken to Kailashi Super Speciality Hospital at Meerut, where he succumbed to death during treatment on 02.11.2024 at about 4:17 pm. Thereafter, his post mortem was conducted at Mortuary District Hospital, Baghpat. It was stated that the said accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1. It was stated that the deceased was 15 years old and possessed sound mind and good health and was not suffering from any kind of ailment or addicted to any vice. He was studying in 10 th class at Shri Nehru Intercollege, Pilana, District Baghpat, UP. It was stated that he was imparting tuition to students of class I to V classes at his home and was earning Rs.22,000/- pm. It was further stated that the petitioners claim a sum of Rs.50 lacs as compensation on account of unnatural, untimely death of the deceased in the present accident.
WRITTEN STATEMENTS
4. WS was filed on behalf of the respondents no. 1 & 2 on 21.07.2025. It was stated that the petition was maintainable on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. Further, it was stated by the respondents no. 1 & 2 that the respondent no.1 was driving his vehicle as per the traffic rules and regulations and the accident was caused due RUCHIKA MACT No.910/2024 SINGLA Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Page 3 of 40 Date: 2026.05.20 16:21:03 +0530 to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased as he suddenly came in front of their vehicle and that the respondent no.1 tried his best to avoid him. Hence, it is stated that the accident was not caused by due to the rash and negligent act of the respondent no.1.
5. WS was filed on behalf of the respondents no. 3 & 4 on 09.07.2025. It was stated that the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no.3 vide policy no. 3380/02688510/000/00 valid for the period from 30.08.2024 till 29.08.2025. It was stated that the present claim is not maintainable before this Hon'ble Court for want of jurisdiction under section 166 (2) of MV Act. It was further stated that all the petitioners and respondents are not resident of Delhi. On facts, it was stated that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent act of the deceased. Further, it was stated that the respondent no. 3 was entitled to take all such defences which are available with it under law.
ISSUES
6. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated 21.07.2025, this Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 02.11.2024 at about 9:00 AM at Village Daulatpur Marg, PS Chandi Nagar, District Baghpat, U.P. involving vehicle bearing registration no. UP-19H-5927 driven rashly and negligently by respondent no.1 Mustakeem, owned by respondent no. 2 Kayyum and insured with respondent no. 3 Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.?
OPP RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.910/2024 Date: 2026.05.20 16:21:09 +0530 Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Page 4 of 40
2. Whether the petitioner(s) are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
7. The petitioners examined Smt. Rekha i.e. the petitioner no.1 as PW-1. PW1 has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW1/A. She relied upon the following documents:
1. Copy of educational certificates of deceased as Ex. PW1/1 (OSR)
2. Copy of aadhar card of deceased as Ex. PW1/2 (OSR).
3. Copy of her PAN card as Ex. PW1/3 (OSR).
4. Copy of her aadhar card as Ex. PW1/4 (OSR).
5. Copy of PAN card of Sh. Arvind (petitioner no. 2) as Ex.PW1/5 (OSR)
6. Copy of aadhar card of Sh. Arvind (petitioner no. 2) as Ex.PW1/6 (OSR).
7. Certified copy of criminal case records as Ex. PW1/7 (colly).
8. Medical treatment record and medical bills of deceased as Ex. PW1/8 (colly 5 pages)
8. Thereafter, petitioner examined Sh. Anuj Dhaka, eye witness as PW2. PW2 has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW2/A. He relied upon the following documents:
1. Copy of his aadhar card as Ex. PW2/1 (OSR)
2. Copy of his statement u/s.161 CrPC as mark A. Digitally signed by MACT No.910/2024 RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Page 5 of 40 Date:
2026.05.20 16:21:15 +0530
9. Both the PWs were cross examined by Ld. Counsels for respondents. Thereafter, vide separate statement of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, PE was closed on 14.11.2025.
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE
10. No evidence is led on behalf of respondents no. 1 & 2. Hence, the same was closed vide order 19.12.2025.
11. Thereafter, respondent no. 3 has examined Sh. Sachin Kumar, Assistant Manager as R3W1. He tendered his affidavit as Ex. R3W1/A. He relied upon the following documents:
1. Copy of his ID card as Ex. R3W1/1
2. Copy of insurance policy as Ex. R3W1/2.
3. Notice u/s.XII Rule 8 CPC as Ex. R3W1/3.
4. Original postal receipt through which the notice sent as Ex. R3W1/4.
5. Returned Envelop (unserved) of notice mentioned at Sr. No.3 as Ex.
R3W1/5.
12. R3W1 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for petitioner. Thereafter,vide separate statement of Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 and 4, RE was closed on 23.04.2026.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
13. The Petitioners filed their duly filled Form XIII and the financial statements of all the petitioners were recorded. Final arguments were heard on behalf of the petitioners as well as respondents.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.910/2024 Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Date:
2026.05.20
16:21:20 +0530
Page 6 of 40
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
14. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and Ld. Counsel for respondents and perused the record. My findings on the various issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1:
Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 02.11.2024 at about 9:00 AM at Village Daulatpur Marg, PS Chandi Nagar, District Baghpat, U.P. involving vehicle bearing registration no. UP-19H-5927 driven rashly and negligently by respondent no.1 Mustakeem, owned by respondent no. 2 Kayyum and insured with respondent no. 3 Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.?
15. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioners that 02.11.2024 at about 9:00 AM, the deceased was going on his bicycle. When he reached at Village Daulatpur Marg, PS Chandi Nagar, District Baghpat, U.P., the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. the respondent no.1 who was driving the offending vehicle carelessly in a negligent manner came from behind and hit the bicycle of the deceased, due to which he fell and suffered injuries and subsequently expired. It is stated that during investigation, the offending vehicle was seized by the IO. The respondent no.1 was chargesheeted by the IO. He has not denied the factum of the accident. The petitioners have also examined the eye witness. Hence, it is submitted that it is proved that the respondent no.1 was driving the MACT No.910/2024 RUCHIKA Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. SINGLA Page 7 of 40 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.05.20 16:21:26 +0530 negligent in a rash and negligent manner due to which the deceased suffered injuries.
16. Record perused.
17. In the present matter, the factum of the accident is not in dispute. In the WS filed by respondent no. 1 & 2, they have merely stated that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the deceased. Further, the petitioners examined the eye witness as PW2 who stood firm on the text of cross-examination. It is pertinent to mention here that in the proceedings before the claims tribunal, the facts are to be established on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and not by the strict rules of evidence or the higher standard of beyond reasonable doubt as required in criminal cases. The burden of proof in the present cases is much lower than as placed in civil or criminal cases. In Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors (2009) 13 SC 530, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that negligence must be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view must be adopted in reaching a conclusion.
18. Further, it is also pertinent to note that the respondent no.1 was chargesheeted by the IO under Section 281/125(b)/106 BNS. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepak Goel & Ors, 2014 (2) TAC 846 (Del) decided by the Coordinate Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.910/2024 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Date: 2026.05.20 16:21:31 +0530 Page 8 of 40 was held as under :-
"......where the claimants filed either the certified copies of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of investigation by police or issuance of charge sheet under Section 279/304A IPC or the certified copy of FIR or the recovery of the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, then these documents are sufficient proof to reach to a conclusion that the driver was negligent particularly when there is no defence available from the side of driver."
19. Reliance is also being placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meera Devi, 2021 LawSuit (Del) wherein it was held that "......in view of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008, contents of DAR has to be presumed to be correct and read in evidence without formal proof of the same unless proof to the contrary was produced."
20. Even otherwise, the deceased and the eye witness were unknown to respondent no.1 prior to the accident and admittedly, there was no prior enmity with respondent no.1 and hence, it is beyond comprehension as to why they will implicate respondent no.1 falsely, had he not been driving the offending vehicle.
21. It is a settled law that the petitioner cannot be expected to prove the accident beyond reasonable doubts and the principle of res ipse loquitor should apply which means that the "accident speaks for itself". Thus, once it has been established in DAR and chargesheet that the accident had taken place, the burden shifts on the respondents to RUCHIKA MACT No.910/2024 SINGLA Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Digitally signed by RUCHIKA Page 9 of 40 SINGLA Date: 2026.05.20 16:21:35 +0530 prove that they were not responsible for the accident which the respondents have failed to discharge. Hence, an adverse inference is drawn against the respondent no.1. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the cases of Teja Singh Vs Suman & Ors., MAC. APP. 1111/2018 & CM APPL. 52384/2018, 52386/2018, date of decision 06/12/2019; MAC. APP. 428/2018, titled as The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamla Devi & Ors, date of decision 08.11.2019 and MAC. APP. 690/2017 & CM APPL. 28108/2017, titled as Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mona & Ors., date of decision 15.10.2019, which had relied upon the judgment in the case of Cholamandalam Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamlesh 2009(3) AD Delhi 310.
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 5 SCC 656 has laid down 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 chargesheet 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.910/2024 RUCHIKA Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. SINGLA Digitally signed Page 10 of 40 by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.05.20 16:21:39 +0530
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."
23. It has not been disputed that respondent No.1 has been charge-sheeted in the aforesaid FIR for offences punishable under Section 281/125(b)/106 BNS for rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. In view of the same, considering the facts and circumstances, the unrebutted testimony of the petitioner and the documents filed thereto, the court is satisfied that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.1. From the DAR, it also stands established that the respondent no.2 was the registered owner of the offending vehicle and that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.3.
The injury:
24. Further, the onus to prove that the deceased had suffered fatal injuries by way of the said accident was on the petitioners. In this regard, the petitioners have relied upon the Post Mortem Report dated 02.11.2024 issued by Post Mortem House, Meerut, as per which the RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.910/2024 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.05.20 Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Page 11 of 40 16:21:43 +0530 cause of death was shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.
25. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the opinion that on the scales of preponderance of probabilities, the petitioner has proved that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle being driven by its driver/respondent no. 1 on the date and time of the accident and that due to the said accident, the injured Vishant unfortunately expired. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO.2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? (OPP)
26. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners. In view of the discussion in the issue no.1, the petitioners are entitled for compensation. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of "Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors." (2003) 6 SCC 121 has held : -
"QUA 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA MACT No.910/2024 RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.05.20 Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Page 12 of 40 16:21:47 +0530 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 :
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 RUCHIKA MACT No.910/2024 SINGLA Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Digitally signed by Page 13 of 40 RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.05.20 16:21:51 +0530 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."
QUA 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 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."
QUA 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 (1/3rd) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant 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 MACT No.910/2024 RUCHIKA SINGLA Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Digitally signed by Page 14 of 40 RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.05.20 16:22:07 +0530 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."
QUA 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 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."
27. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its Constitution Bench decision in matter of "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." (2017) 16 SCC 680 held as under : -
RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.910/2024 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.05.20 Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. 16:22:12 +0530 Page 15 of 40 "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.
(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.
RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.910/2024 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Date: 2026.05.20 16:22:17 +0530 Page 16 of 40
(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. 31,001/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years."
Loss of income
28. In the present matter, it is alleged on behalf of the petitioners that the deceased was imparting tuition and was earning a sum of Rs. 22,000/- per month. However, it is conceded as there is no income proof available on record, his income may be assessed as per the minimum wages.
29. No proof income or employment or educational documents were produced. The Hon'ble High court of Delhi recently in matter of "Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ld. Vs. Bhupan Paswan & Ors." MAC. APP. 324/2018, CM APPL. 12428/2018 decided on 24.02.2025 while summarizing the earlier law of assessment of compensation in case of death of a child has observed and held as under:-
"Loss of Dependency:-
"8...
17. However, it is apposite to note that in the above judgments MACT No.910/2024 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.05.20 16:22:22 Page 17 of 40 +0530 while Notional income as defined in Second Schedule was taken as a basis but the amount was being modified by applying Cost Inflation Index, in the facts of each case.
18. The Second Schedule however, stands deleted w.e.f. 01.09.2019. Thus, the question that what would be the basis of assessing the notional income of a child/ i.e. a non-earning member below 15 years of age, who is a victim of a motor vehicle accident, became a subject of extensive judicial discourse...."
30. The Minimum Wage criteria has been adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Kajal vs Jagdish Chand AIR 2020 SC 776 and Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Baby Ahmad Simon &Anr., SLP (C) No. 10996/2018 decided on on 11 December, 2024, wherein the Apex Court applied the approach taken in Kajal (supra) and Master Ayush, (supra) and ascertained the notional income of a 7-year- old injured child on the basis of the 'Minimum Wages paid to a skilled worker on a fulltime basis'. Same has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Devendra Kumar Tripathi v. Oriental Insurance Company SLP No. 2195 of 2024 decided on 15.12.2025 and Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr. Civil Appeal no. 10278 of 2025 decided on 8th August 2025. Hence, the income of the deceased is assessed as per the minimum wages payable to a skilled person matriculate level. The date of accident is 02.11.2024.
31. As per the facts of the case, the deceased was residing at UP with his parents. There is no evidence on record that he was residing or working at Delhi. As per the relevant notification, minimum wages payable to a skilled labour at UP at that time is Rs. 13,186/-. Hence, the RUCHIKA MACT No.910/2024 SINGLA Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Digitally signed by RUCHIKA Page 18 of 40 SINGLA Date: 2026.05.20 16:22:31 +0530 income of the deceased is assessed to be Rs. 13,186/-.
Age determination of the deceased:
32. As per his educational documents and aadhar card Ex. PW1/1 and Ex. PW1/2, his date of birth was 01.01.2009. The date of the accident is 02.11.2024. Hence, as on the date of the accident, the deceased was aged 15 years.
Future Prospects: -
33. In view of the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors; (2017) 16 SCC 680, it was observed that the Claimants would also be entitled to 40% for future prospects as the deceased was less than 40 years of age at the time of the accident. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased needs to be taken as Rs. 18,460.40 (Rs. 13,186/- + Rs. 5,274.40 which is 40% of Rs. 13,186/-).
Determination of Dependent
34. In the present case, the deceased is survived by his parents. As per the Sarla Verma judgment (supra), only the mother of the deceased shall be considered as dependent on him. It is stated that the father of the deceased was also dependent on him. However, no evidence is led in this regard. The father of the deceased is only 42 years of age and able bodied. Hence, he cannot be considered as dependent on the deceased.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed
MACT No.910/2024 by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Page 19 of 40
Date: 2026.05.20
16:22:37 +0530
Determination of multiplicand
35. The monthly income of the deceased after enhancement needs to be taken as Rs. 18,460.40. In light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur & Ors., (2021) 11 SCC 780 , out of the above amount so assessed, 1/2 amount has to be deducted on account of personal and living expenses as the deceased was unmarried. So, in this matter, monthly loss of dependency would come out to be Rs. 9,230.20 (1/2 of Rs. 18,460.40). This needs to be multiplied by 12 to workout multiplicand/annual loss of dependency. Hence, multiplicand for this matter would be Rs. 1,10,762.40 (rounded off to Rs. 1,10,762/-) ( Rs. 9,230.20 x 12).
Award Towards Loss of Dependency
36. Further, as the deceased was 15 years of age at the time of the accident, multiplier applicable in this matter as per above discussion would be 18. The total loss of dependency would come out to be Rs.19,93,716/- (Rs. 1,10,762/- x 18), hence, so awarded.
Medical expenses:
37. The petitioners have not claimed any amount under this head. However, bills to the tune of Rs. 37,791/-. Hence, an amount of Rs. 37,791/- is awarded to the petitioners under this head.
RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.05.20 16:22:42 +0530 MACT No.910/2024 Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Page 20 of 40 Non-Pecuniary Heads:-
38. The Respondents/Claimants shall be entitled to the compensation under Non-Pecuniary Heads in terms of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi And Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. The case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) was considered and clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 9581/2018 decided on 18.09.2018 whereby after considering the case of Pranay Sethi's (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to award loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/- to each dependent of the deceased and further pleased to award a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to each dependent of the deceased towards loss of love and affection. The relevant portion is as under:
"...... A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of Consortium.
In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses 'spousal consortium', 'parental consortium', and 'filial consortium'.
The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse.
Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation."
RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.910/2024 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.05.20 Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Page 21 of 40 16:22:48 +0530 Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training."
Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.
Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognized that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium.
Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act.
A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium.
The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under 'Loss of Consortium' as laid down in Pranay Sethi RUCHIKA MACT No.910/2024 SINGLA Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.05.20 Page 22 of 40 16:22:54 +0530 (supra).
In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs.25,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium.....".
39. However, in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur 2020 SCC Online SC 410 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that there is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head. The relevant portion of the observations are reproduced as under:
"...... The amount to be awarded for loss consortium will be as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra). At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide uniformity with respect to the grant of consortium, and loss of love and affection. Several Tribunals and High Courts have been awarding compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), has recognized only three conventional heads under which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in loss of consortium.
The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to award compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate conventional head. There is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head...".
40. In the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), it was held that in the case of death, Rs.15,000/- is liable to be paid towards the loss of estate and funeral charges each, while Rs.40,000/- was payable towards the MACT No.910/2024 RUCHIKA Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. SINGLA Page 23 of 40 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.05.20 16:22:59 +0530 loss of consortium to each legal heir and the same may be enhanced by 10% every three years.
41. Thus, an amount of Rs. 19,965/- is granted towards the Loss of Estate and Rs. 19,965/- towards funeral charges.
42. Hence, Rs. 53,240/- each is granted to the petitioners i.e. total of Rs. 53,240/- x 2 = Rs.1,06,480/- towards Loss of Consortium.
Computation of compensation:
43. Applying the settled guidelines in the various judgments, the compensation payable to the petitioners is calculated as under:
Head Awarded by the Claims Tribunal Monthly Income of deceased (A) Rs. 13,186/- Add future prospect (B) @ 40%= Rs. 5,274.40
Less 1/2 deductions towards (Rs. 13,186/- + Rs. 5,274.40) = Rs. personal and living expenses of the 18,460.40 x 1/2 = Rs. 9,230.20 deceased (C) Monthly loss of dependency (Rs. 13,186/- + Rs. 5,274.40) - Rs. [(A+B) - C = D] 9,230.20 = Rs. 9,230.20 Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 9,230.20 x 12= Rs. 1,10,762/-
(D x 12)
Multiplier (E) 18
Total loss of dependency (Rs. 1,10,762/- x 18) =
DxE=F Rs.19,93,716/-
Medical Expenses (G) Rs. 37,791/-
Compensation for loss of love and Nil affection (H) RUCHIKA MACT No.910/2024 SINGLA Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.05.20 Page 24 of 40 16:23:04 +0530 Compensation for loss of Rs. 53,240/- x 2 = Rs.1,06,480/- consortium (I) to the petitioners Compensation for loss of Estate (J) Rs. 19,965/- Compensation for funeral expenses Rs. 19,965/- (K) Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 21,77,917/-
44. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld awarding of 9% interest per annum. Therefore, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 20.12.2024 till realization.
Apportionment:
45. It is evident from the record that the deceased had left behind his parents. The shares of the petitioners are as under:
S.No Name of the Share of the Interest upto Total amount claimant petitioner date including interest
1. Smt. Rekha Rs. 19,93,716/- + Rs. 2,60,944.83 Rs. 23,07,900.83 Rs. 53,240/- = (rounded off to Rs. 20,46,956/- Rs. 23,07,901/-)
2. Sh. Arvind Rs. 53,240/- + Rs. 16,694.84 Rs. 1,47,655.84 Rs. 19,965/- + (rounded off to Rs. 19,965/- + Rs. 1,47,656/-) Rs. 37,791/- = Rs. 1,30,961/-
RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.05.20 16:23:09 +0530 MACT No.910/2024 Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Page 25 of 40 DISBURSEMENT
46. The Financial Statement of petitioner/injured was recorded by this Court/Tribunal. As per the said statement, the monthly expenses of his family are approximately Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month.
47. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors. has given the following directions:
"(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit 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 bank to the claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimants. 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 card(s) freeze the account of claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other branch of the bank.
RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.910/2024 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Date: 2026.05.20 16:23:16 +0530 Page 26 of 40
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque books and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and the claimant shall produced the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court for compliance."
48. However, in a recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal on 18 March, 2025 in S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020 has held that :
"17. The case in hand pertains to the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. The general practice followed by the insurance companies, where the compensation is not disputed, is to deposit the same before the Tribunal. Instead of following that process, a direction can always be issued to transfer the amount into the bank account(s) of the claimant(s) with intimation to the Tribunal.
17.1 For that purpose, the Tribunals at the initial stage of pleadings or at the stage of leading evidence may require the claimant(s) to furnish their bank account particulars to the Tribunal along with the requisite proof, so that at the stage of passing of the award the Tribunal may direct that the amount of compensation be transferred in the account of the claimant and if there are more than one then in their respective accounts. If there is no bank account, then they should be required to open the bank account either individually or jointly with family members only. It should also be mandated that, in case there is any change in the bank account particulars of the claimant(s) during the pendency of the claim petition they should update the same before the Tribunal. This should be ensured before passing of the final award. It may be ensured that the bank account should be in the name of the claimant(s) and if minor, through guardian(s) and in no case it should be a joint account with any person, Digitally MACT No.910/2024 signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. 2026.05.20 16:23:20 +0530 Page 27 of 40 who is not a family member. The transfer of the amount in the bank account, particulars of which have been furnished by the claimant(s), as mentioned in the award, shall be treated as satisfaction of the award. Intimation of compliance should be furnished to the Tribunal."
49. In view of the same, the award amount can now be disbursed in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioners. However, the remaining directions as passed by the Hon'ble High Court shall be complied with. It is directed that the award amount be deposited by the respondent no. 3 in the bank account of Tribunal bearing A/c. no. 42704293960, SBI, THC, Delhi in the name of MACT-01, Central, IFSC Code: SBIN0000726.
Smt. Rekha (LR/mother of deceased)
50. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners, it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 24,55,557/-, out of the share of the petitioner/mother Smt. Rekha Rs. 23,07,901/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Seven Thousand Nine Hundred One only), SBI THC shall release Rs. 3,07,901/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Seven Thousand Nine Hundred One only) to the petitioner/mother immediately in her Bank Account no. 110234832562 maintained at Canara Bank, VPO Pilana, Baghpat, UP, IFSC Code CNRB0018570 Customer ID 330904060.
51. The balance amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs only) shall be put in 50 monthly fixed deposits in her name in her account as mentioned above of equal amount of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees MACT No.910/2024 RUCHIKA Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Page 28 of 40 SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.05.20 16:23:24 +0530 Forty Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 50 respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in her saving account maintained in a nationalized bank situated near the place of her residence.
Sh. Arvind (LR/father of deceased)
52. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners, it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 24,55,557/-, out of the share of the petitioner/father Sh. Arvind Rs. 1,47,656/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Six only), the entire amount shall be released by SBI THC to the petitioner/father immediately in his Bank Account no. 110234813416 maintained at Canara Bank, VPO Pilana, Baghpat, UP, IFSC Code CNRB0018570 Customer ID 330902088.
53. Further, it is directed that as the amount is being disbursed to the petitioners in their savings bank accounts, they shall not avail any loan/advance facility on the FDRs without the permission of this Tribunal. Further, they shall not encash the FDRs before their maturity without the permission of this Tribunal.
54. In compliance of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award in the prescribed Format-XVI is as under:
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.05.20 16:23:31 MACT No.910/2024 +0530 Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Page 29 of 40 SUMMARY OF AWARD:
Date of Accident: 02.11.2024
Name of the deceased: Vishant
Age of the deceased: 15 years
Occupation of the deceased: Not proved
Income of the
deceased : Rs. 13,186/-
Name and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No. Name of the claimant Relation with deceased
1. Smt. Rekha Wife
2. Sh. Arvind Father COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION Sr. Head Awarded by the Claims Tribunal No. 1 Monthly Income of deceased Rs. 13,186/-
(A) 2 Add future prospect (B) @ 40%= Rs. 5,274.40 3 Less 1/2 deductions towards (Rs. 13,186/- + Rs. 5,274.40) = Rs.
personal and living expenses of 18,460.40 x 1/2 = Rs. 9,230.20 the deceased (C) 4 Monthly loss of dependency (Rs. 13,186/- + Rs. 5,274.40) - Rs.
[(A+B) - C = D] 9,230.20 = Rs. 9,230.20 5 Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 9,230.20 x 12 = Rs. 1,10,762/-
(D x 12)
6 Multiplier (E) 18
7 Total loss of dependency (Rs. 1,10,762/- x 18) =
DxE=F Rs.19,93,716/-
MACT No.910/2024 RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Page 30 of 40
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Date: 2026.05.20
16:23:35 +0530
8 Medical Expenses (G) Rs. 37,791/-
9 Compensation for loss of love Nil
and affection (H)
10 Compensation for loss of Rs. 53,240/- x 2 = Rs. 1,06,480/-
consortium (I) to the petitioners
11 Compensation for loss of Rs. 19,965/-
Estate (J)
12 Compensation for funeral Rs. 19,965/-
expenses (K)
13 Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 21,77,917/-
14 Rate of Interest Awarded 9%
15 Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 2,77,640/-
award w.e.f. 20.12.2024 till
realization
16 Total amount including interest Rs. 24,55,557/-
17 Award amount released As per paragraph Nos. 50 to 52
18 Award amount kept in FDRs As per paragraph No. 51
19 Mode of disbursement of the As per paragraph Nos. 50 to 52
award amount to the
claimant(s)
20 Next Date of compliance of the 04.07.2026
award
LIABILITY:
55. It has been established that accident was caused due to the rash and negligent act of the respondent no.1 who was driving the offending vehicle no.1 and that respondent no.2 is the owner of the same and the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no.3.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Date:
2026.05.20
MACT No.910/2024 16:23:44 +0530
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Page 31 of 40
56. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 that in the present matter, the conditions of the insurance policy were violated. Hence, the respondent no. 3 is not liable to pay compensation. It is submitted that as per the insurance policy Ex. R3W1/2, only the tractor was covered. The attachments to the tractor were not covered. It is submitted that this is an admitted fact that at the time of the accident, the tractor had a trolley attached with it. The accident was caused by the trolley and not by the tractor. Hence, the insurance policy is violated.
57. Record perused.
58. The onus to prove that the insurance policy was violated is upon the respondent no. 3. Perusal of the record shows that no such question was put by the respondent no. 3 to the eye witness PW2 Anuj Dhaka that the accident was not caused by the tractor and by the trolley. Further, perusal of the statement of the eye witness PW2 Anuj Dhaka shows that he has specifically stated that the offending vehicle had hit the bicycle of the deceased from behind. A trolley shall always be attached to the tractor at its back side. Hence, if the tractor hit the deceased from behind the deceased, there is in no way a possibility that the accident was caused by the trolley and not the tractor. Further, as per the mechanical inspection report as well, there were damages on the bumper of the offending vehicle. Hence, as the accident was caused by the tractor itself and not the trolley, the terms of the insurance policy are not violated.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.05.20
MACT No.910/2024 16:23:48 +0530
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Page 32 of 40
59. Further, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Honnamma & ors. SLP No.2135/2023 decided on 05.05.2025. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has a case of similar facts in front of it where the accident was caused by a tractor which had a trailer attached to it. While discussing the liability of the insurance company in such a case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that :
"...Thus, the accident was caused by the tractor, as during the course of being driven/pulled by the tractor, the accident occurred.
12. Thus, the liability of the tractor/its insurer extended to the accident caused by the tractor resulting in the death of the deceased, through the trailer. This being the position in the present case, the principles emanating from the decisions where the Courts have held that the trailer has to be separately registered with the insurance company to make it liable, would not be applicable. To that extent, the facts in the present case are clearly distinguishable from the ones cited by learned counsel for the appellant. The legislation i.e., the MV Act, being beneficial and welfare- oriented in nature [Ningamma v United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710; K Ramya v National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338, and; Shivaleela v Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 563] and ultimately the root cause of the accident being the tractor, which was insured, this crucial fact cannot be lost sight of. For further clarification, we might illustrate: if an insured vehicle hits another vehicle which in turn hits a third vehicle, then for the entire chain of accidents, the liability would pass on to the vehicle which was the root cause of the accident because it is the result of the action in the same chain of MACT No.910/2024 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. SINGLA Date:
2026.05.20 16:23:53 +0530 Page 33 of 40 events which cannot be segregated or compartmentalized. Moreover, this Court is duty-bound to be mindful of the ground realities of our nation and cannot let practicality be overshadowed by technicality."
60. In the present matter, as in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the trolley was attached with the tractor. Hence, even if the accident was caused by the trolley, even then, the insurance company shall have the liability to pay the compensation to the petitioner. However, as discussed above, the accident was caused by the tractor itself. Hence, the liability of the insurance company is absolute.
61. Further Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 has submitted that the tractor was being used for commercial purposes but as per the policy, the permitted use of the tractor was only agriculture and forestry purposes. Hence, it is submitted that due to this reason, the terms of the insurance policy are violated.
62. Record perused.
63. There is no such evidence to prove that the tractor was being used for commercial purpose and not agricultural or forestry purpose. Hence, the respondent no. 3 has failed to prove that at the time of the accident, the tractor i.e. the offending vehicle was not being used for agricultural purposes. Hence, in the absence of the same, the respondent no. 3 cannot be exempted from its liability.
RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.910/2024 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.05.20 Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. 16:23:56 +0530 Page 34 of 40
64. Further, it is submitted that the offending vehicle was being driven by the respondent no.1 without valid permit. A notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC was also issued by the respondent no.3 to the respondent no.2 in this regard. However, it may be noted that a permit is not required for the use of a tractor for agricultural purposes. As mentioned above, there is no such evidence on record that the offending vehicle was being used for commercial purposes. Hence, no violation of the insurance policy is proved by the respondent no.3. Hence, the respondent no. 3 shall be liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners. Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
65. In view of the above, the respondent no.3 is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.21,77,917/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Seventeen Only) along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. w.e.f. 20.12.2024 till realization with the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the claimants, failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay interest @12% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days. Reliance placed on case titled as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
66. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurance company for compliance within the time granted RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.910/2024 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Page 35 of 40 Date: 2026.05.20 16:24:00 +0530 as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. The said respondent is further directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the deposit with a copy to the Claimant and his counsel.
Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost.
Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on 04.07.2026 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
Further, Civil Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by MACT No.910/2024 RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.05.20 Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Page 36 of 40 16:24:05 +0530 date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court today on this 20th May, 2026 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.05.20 16:24:09 +0530 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.MACT No.910/2024 Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Page 37 of 40
THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL MOTOR VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022 (PL. SEE RULE 150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 02.11.2024 2 Date of filing of Form-I -
First Accident Report NA
(FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II
NA
to the victim(s)
4 Date of receipt of Form-III
NA
from the Driver
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV
from the Owner NA
6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the insurance NA
of the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-
NA
VIA from the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of claim 20.12.2024
petition
9 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Investigating NA
Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the 23.04.2025
Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company admitted his Yes
report within 30 days of the
DAR/claim petition?
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
MACT No.910/2024 2026.05.20
16:24:15
+0530
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Page 38 of 40
12 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the Yes
part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether
any action/direction
warranted?
13 Date of response of the
claimant(s) to the offer of NA
the Insurance Company.
14 Date of award 20.05.2026
15 Whether the claimant(s)
were directed to open No
savings bank account(s)
near their place of
residence?
16 Date of order by which
claimant(s) were directed to
open Savings Bank
Account(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN NA
card and Aadhar Card and
the direction to the bank not
to issue any cheque
book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an
endorsement to this effect
on the passbook(s).
17 Date on which the
claimant(s) produced the
passbook of their savings
bank account(s) near the
21.01.2026
place of their residence
alongwith the endorsement,
PAN card and Aadhaar
Card?
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.910/2024 Digitally signed by
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.05.20 Page 39 of 40
16:24:20 +0530
18 Permanent residential
address of the claimant(s). As per Award.
19 Whether the claimant(s)
savings bank account(s) is
No
near their place of
residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s)
were examined at the time
Yes. The financial statement of the LR/father of passing of the Award to of deceased was recorded on 21.01.2026.
ascertain his/their financial condition?
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.05.20
16:24:24
+0530
(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
20.05.2026
MACT No.910/2024
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Page 40 of 40