Delhi District Court
Rekha (Mother Of Deceased Anjali) vs Amit Khanna on 27 October, 2025
DLNW010031672023
Presented on : 01-04-2023
Registered on : 03-04-2023
Decided on : 27-10-2025
Duration : 2 years, 6 months,
26 days
IN THE COURT OF
ADJ1(NW)/MACT, NORTH WEST DISTRICT DELHI
Presided Over by Sh. Vikram
M A C T/292/2023
FIR No. 02/2023, PS Sultanpuri
In the matter of : Ms. Anjali (Deceased)
1. Smt. Rekha (Mother of deceased)
W/o Late Sh. Satveer @ Satbir Singh
R/o A-35, Karan Vihar,
Aman Vihar, Delhi. Age: 41 years
2. Master Varun (Brother of deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Satveer @ Satbir Singh
R/o A-35, Karan Vihar,
Aman Vihar, Delhi. Age: 15 years
3. Master Lakshay (Brother of deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Satveer @ Satbir Singh
R/o A-35, Karan Vihar,
Aman Vihar, Delhi. Age: 12 years
4. Baby Ashika (Sister of deceased)
D/o Late Sh. Satveer @ Satbir Singh
R/o A-35, Karan Vihar,
Aman Vihar, Delhi. Age: 17 years
.....Petitioner
MACT Case No. 292/2023 (FIR no. 02/2023)
Rekha Vs. Amit Khanna & Ors.
Page no. 1 of 17
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date: 2025.10.27
16:01:07 +0530
vs.
1. Sh. Amit Khanna
S/o Sh. Raj Kumar Khanna
R/o X-567, Mangolpuri,
Delhi.
...... Driver/R1
2. Sh. Lokesh Parsad Sharma
S/o Sh. Suresh Kumar Sharma
R/o O-1/23, Phase-I,
Budh Vihar, Delhi.
......Owner/R2
3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Ltd.
.......Insurance
Co./R3
Appearance (s) : Sh. Manak Chand, Ld. Counsel for the
petitioner.
Sh. Nishant Tomar, Ld. Counsel for
respondent no. 1.
Sh. S.K. Tyagi, Ld. counsel for Insurance Co./respondent no. 3.
J U D G M E N T/AWAR D
1. Vide this judgment/award, I shall dispose off DAR filed by IO Insp. Rajnish Kumar, in regard to death of Ms. Anjali, (in short, the deceased), who died in a road vehicular accident on 01.01.2023.
2. Brief facts as per DAR are that in the intervening night of 31/01.12.2023 at about 02:45 Am SHO, PS Sultanpuri, who was present on main Kanjhawala Road, was informed by ERV staff that one scooty bearing registration no. DL 11 H 7237, make TVS Jupiter, a black shoe, one black & white colour scarf, one ear pod and some broken plastic pieces of scooty MACT Case No. 292/2023 (FIR no. 02/2023) Rekha Vs. Amit Khanna & Ors.
Page no. 2 of 17
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.10.27
16:01:14 +0530
were lying on the road. SHO PS Sultanpuri reached at the spot and got lodged a DD No. 19A at PS Sultanpuri. During the pending inquiry, a PCR car, lodged at PS vide DD no. 15A, was received at PS with respect to a nude female body lying on the main Kanjhawal Qutabgarh road. The body was shifted to SGM Hospital vide MLC no. 82 dated 01.01.2023 and the dead body was identified as of Anjali D/o Sh. Satvir. FIR no. 2/2023 for offence punishable under Section 279/304 A IPC was registered at PS Sultanpuri. During investigation, statement of eye witness Nidhi, injured in the connected DAR, was also recorded who stated that on 01.01.2023 after celebrating New Year she alongwith deceased left the OYO hotel at about 01:45 am on the scooty of deceased and at about 02:10 am when they reached at Shani Bazar Road, a Baleno car, grey colour coming from the other side hit their scooty due to which Nidhi fell on the right side and deceased came under the car. Driver of the offending vehicle dragged the deceased several kilometers with the offending vehicle.
3. As per DAR and investigation conducted by IO, R1 was driving the offending vehicle in negligent manner which caused the accident resulting in death of deceased. As such R1 was charge-sheeted for offences under section 279/304A IPC.
4. As per DAR deceased survived by her mother, two minor sisters and one minor brother (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner no. 1 to 4) who were dependent on deceased.
5. No WS/reply was filed on behalf of R1/driver despite MACT Case No. 292/2023 (FIR no. 02/2023) Rekha Vs. Amit Khanna & Ors.
Page no. 3 of 17
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
Date:
VIKRAM 2025.10.27
16:01:20
+0530
opportunity.
6. WS/reply was filed on behalf of R2/owner stating that the offending vehicle was insured with R3. However, it is admitted in the WS that R1 was not having any valid DL at the time of accident. It is claimed that the deceased was under
the influence of alcohol at the time of accident i.e. 128.7mg/100 ml, as per FSL report and the accident was occurred due to negligence of deceased.
ISSUES:
7. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed by this Tribunal on 14.08.2023: -
1. Whether deceased Anjali, D/o Sh. Satveer expired due to injuries suffered in road traffic accident on 01.01.2023 at about 02:00 am, at Shani Bazar Road, krishna Vihar, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing no. DL 8C AY 6414 which was being driven by driver Sh. Amit Khanna S/o Sh. Raj Kumar Khanna, on the said date, time and place? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
EVIDENCE:
8. In evidence petitioner no. 1/LR Rekha appeared as PW1 MACT Case No. 292/2023 (FIR no. 02/2023) Rekha Vs. Amit Khanna & Ors.
Page no. 4 of 17
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date: 2025.10.27
16:01:26 +0530
and filed her affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied on following documents:
(a) Copy of aadahr card of deceased Ex.Pw1/1 (OSR)
(b) Copy of aadhar card of petitioner Ex.Pw1/2(OSR)
(c) Copy of birth certificate of deceased Ex.Pw1/3(OSR)
(d) Copy of death certificate of husband of petitioner no. 1 Ex.Pw1/4(OSR)
(e) Copy of aadhar card of baby Ashika Ex.Pw1/5
(f) Copy of aadhar card of master Varun Ex.Pw1/6
(g) Copy of aadhar card of mater Naksh Ex.Pw1/7
(h) DAR Ex.Pw1/8.
9. During her cross examination, she admitted that she has not filed any document to show that deceased was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month at the time of accident. She denied the suggestion that deceased was not residing with her prior to her (deceased) death. She admitted that deceased used to spend her time out of the house due to her event management work or that she has not filed any document to show deceased was doing work of event management. She denied the suggestion that deceased was not earning Rs. 20,000/- per month at the time of accident. She also denied the suggestion that she was not dependent upon deceased.
10. R3 has examined Sh. Praveen Tiwari as R3W1 show filed his affidavit Ex.R3W1/A and proved insurance policy Ex.R3W1/1, copy of notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC Ex.R3W1/2, postal receipt Ex.R3W1/3 to R3W1/5 and undelivered envelops Ex.R3W1/6 & Ex.R3W1/7.
MACT Case No. 292/2023 (FIR no. 02/2023) Rekha Vs. Amit Khanna & Ors.
Page no. 5 of 17
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.10.27
16:01:31 +0530
11. Thereafter, the evidence was closed. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the testimony of witnesses including the pleadings and the documents. My issue wise findings in the case are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1
1. Whether deceased Anjali, D/o Sh. Satveer expired due to injuries suffered in road traffic accident on 01.01.2023 at about 02:00 am, at Shani Bazar Road, krishna Vihar, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing no. DL 8C AY 6414 which was being driven by driver Sh. Amit Khanna S/o Sh. Raj Kumar Khanna, on the said date, time and place? OPP.
12. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road MACT Case No. 292/2023 (FIR no. 02/2023) Rekha Vs. Amit Khanna & Ors.
Page no. 6 of 17
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
Date:
VIKRAM 2025.10.27
16:01:37
+0530
Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
13. The involvement of offending vehicle of the respondent no.2 in accident is not disputed. The offending vehicle was traced on the basis of CCTV footages. It is in the reply of R2 that on the date of accident the vehicle was being driven by R1. R2 has taken claim that deceased was drunk at the time of accident, as per FSL report. However, no such FSL report is proved by R2 or R3 on record nor he examined the IO to prove such fact. It is on record that the R1 was not having any valid DL at the time of accident.
14. Further, the FIR has been lodged against the respondent no.1 and he has faced criminal charges of causing death by rash and negligent driving in the said accident. Therefore, an adverse inference on this aspect is also required to be drawn against the respondents in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310. The Charge sheet before the Criminal Court has been filed against R1 279/304A IPC.
15. In view of the facts disclose in the DAR which proves place of incident as well as caused of death and on the basis of MACT Case No. 292/2023 (FIR no. 02/2023) Rekha Vs. Amit Khanna & Ors.
Page no. 7 of 17
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.10.27
16:01:43 +0530
aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the rashness and negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle, which is clearly visible and as such, was responsible not only for this accident, but also for everything that followed thereafter. Accordingly issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 22. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
16. As this Tribunal has already held that R1 was responsible for the death of the deceased due to his neglect and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Therefore, the petitioners have become entitled to be compensated for death of deceased in the above accident, but computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided.
COMPENSATION
17. 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 MACT Case No. 292/2023 (FIR no. 02/2023) Rekha Vs. Amit Khanna & Ors.
Page no. 8 of 17
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.10.27
16:01:49 +0530
with reference of the age of the deceased. If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. In this regard, though not quoted, reliance is placed upon, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121.
18. As already stated above, the claimants/petitioners are mother, two minor sisters and one minor brother of deceased. As per aadhar card of deceased, deceased was about 19 years old on the date of accident. It is claimed by petitioner that deceased was doing work of party event and was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month at the time of accident. However, no document to prove the income of deceased is filed on record. Even no document is filed on record to show the educational qualification of deceased. Therefore, the income of the deceased, as on the date of the accident i.e. 01.01.2023 has been treated as that of an 'Unskilled' in Delhi. Therefore, on the date of accident i.e. 01.01.2023, the minimum wages of an unskilled person in Delhi is Rs. 16,792/- per month.
19. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners further argued that future prospects should also be awarded to the petitioner as per law. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the deceased was the sole earning member of the family and all the petitioners/claimants were dependent upon er for her livelihood.
20. Accordingly, on the basis of aforementioned documents, MACT Case No. 292/2023 (FIR no. 02/2023) Rekha Vs. Amit Khanna & Ors.
Page no. 9 of 17
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.10.27
16:01:55 +0530
age of the deceased is taken as 19 years as on the date of accident. Hence, the multiplier of "18" would be applicable in view of pronouncement made in case titled as Sarla Verma (supra).
21. Considering the fact that deceased was aged about 19 years at the time of accident, future prospects @ 40 % has to be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of recent pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, as well as in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors, in MAC APP No. 798/2011.
22. Claimant/petitioner is mother of deceased. The deceased was unmarried at the time of accident. However, the deceased was eldest sister of three minor sisters and brother; and she must have contribute towards them. Thus, there has to be deduction of "one third (1/3th)", as per the mandate of Sarla Verma (supra). Thus, total loss of dependency would come out as under:
23. Thus, total loss of dependency would come out as under:
Head Amount Remarks
(Rs.)
Monthly Income of 16,792
deceased
(A)
Less: Personal expenses of 5,597.33 (A)/3= (B)
deceased @ one half (1/3th)
MACT Case No. 292/2023 (FIR no. 02/2023) Rekha Vs. Amit Khanna & Ors.
Page no. 10 of 17 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date: 2025.10.27 16:02:02 +0530 (B) Monthly loss of dependency 11,194.67 [(A)-
(C) (B)]=(C)
Annual Loss of dependency 1,34,336.04 (C) x 12 =
(D) (D)
Multiplier @ 18 24,18,048.72 (D) x 18
(E) (multiplier)
= (E)
Add: Future Prospects @ 9,67,219.488 (E) X 40%
40% (E)
Total 33,85,268.21
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
24. After the judgment passed in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra) and recent judgment titled as New India Assurance Company Limited v. Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020 the petitioners are not entitled to be compensated under this head. Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors, (supra) has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the Constitution Bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) does not recognize any other non-pecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
25. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as, "Rojalini Nayak & Ors. Vs. Ajit Sahoo & Ors.", Civil Appeal dated 07.08.2024, I am of the considered opinion that LRs of deceased is entitled for payment of Rs. 1,93,600/- (Rs. 48,400/- x 4) towards loss of consortium. Consequently, a sum of Rs. 1,93,600/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
MACT Case No. 292/2023 (FIR no. 02/2023) Rekha Vs. Amit Khanna & Ors.
Page no. 11 of 17
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.10.27
16:02:08 +0530
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
26. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Rojalini Nayak & Ors. Vs. Ajit Sahoo & Ors. ", Civil Appeal dated 07.08.2024 mentioned supra, a sum of Rs. 72,600/- (Rs, 18,150 x 4) is awarded in favour of petitioner on account of loss of estate and and a sum of Rs. 18,150/- is awarded in favour of petitioner towards funeral expenses.
27. Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:
S. No. Head Amount (Rs.)
1 Loss of dependency 33,85,268.21/-
2 Loss of Consortium 1,93,600/-
3 Loss of Estate &Funeral 90,750/-
Expenses
TOTAL 36,69,618.21/-
Rounded off 36,69,700/-
LIABILITY
28. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. The offending vehicle was insured with R3. R3 would, however, submits that insurance company is absolved of his liability to pay the compensation as the R1/driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid DL. In support, R3 would place reliance on Go Digit General Insurance Co. Ltd, MAC.APP.416/2025. However, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Go Digit General Insurance Co. Ltd (Supra) has not decided the MACT Case No. 292/2023 (FIR no. 02/2023) Rekha Vs. Amit Khanna & Ors.
Page no. 12 of 17
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.10.27
16:02:14 +0530
issue as the matter was disposed off as withdrawn with certain observations including the observation on pay and recovery. Therefore, the observation made by Hon'ble High Court in Go Digit General Insurance Co. Ltd (Supra) do not set the precedents. On the other hand, recently in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Vs Arti Devi 2025:AHC:14110,MANU/UP/0194/2025 while dwelling on the issue of pay and recovery after the amended Act of 2019 which came into force on 01.04.2022, it was held by Hon'ble High Court that:
"21. When the language used in sub-Section (4) of Section 149 prior to amendment as replaced by sub- Section (4) of Section 150 by the Amendment Act of 2019, is carefully examined, the words "shall, as respects such liabilities as are required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 147, be of no effect" would only mean that under the circumstances covered by sub-Section (4), either of Section 149 or Section 150, the insurer would be well within its rights to avoid liability flowing from the insurance policy. Meaning thereby that the insurer would be absolved of bearing liability to pay compensation to the claimants. It does not mean that the insurer would also be absolved from its liability to indemnify the owner's risk. Such indemnification will still continue to remain alive and the insurer shall have to first pay the compensation through indemnification and, then, it shall have a right to recover from the owner the amount paid as the ultimate liability shall have to be borne by the owner and not by insurer. In such an event, there would be no financial loss to the insurer as it would be compensated through recovery from the owner. The aforesaid provisions are expressly to give defence to the insurer and have to be read to that extent only and not to interpret as if the liability to indemnify stands washed away. It therefore follows that even if the proviso to sub-Section (4) would not have been there before the amendment, the indemnification concept would have still remained alive and operative and, hence, mere omission of the proviso by the Amendment Act of 2019 would be of no avail.
MACT Case No. 292/2023 (FIR no. 02/2023) Rekha Vs. Amit Khanna & Ors.
Page no. 13 of 17
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.10.27
16:02:20 +0530
22. Therefore, when Shri Parihar urges that if, in every case, liability to pay compensation has to be borne by the Insurance Company, there would be no effect of providing grounds for defence either under sub-section (2) of the Act prior to amendment or under sub-section (2) of the Act after amendment, this Court finds no force in the submission. The reason is that providing grounds of defence under the said provisions would be read so as to give an opportunity to the Insurance Company to avoid passing of award against it, i,e, holding it liable to bear the award. The said liability to have an award against the Insurance Company is distinct from the situation where award is against the owner and insurer is made liable to pay compensation to the claimants and then recover the same from the owner. Non-receipt of premium as required under Section 64(V)B of the Insurance Act, 1938 has now been added in Section 150(2). It reflects that even in a case where premium is not received by the Insurance Company, it can raise a ground of challenge so as to avoid passing of award against it and, in that event also, award would be drawn against the owner. When payment or non-payment of premium is significant after amendment and has been made a ground of defence, the Court observes that a third party risk is covered under the policy which is a contract and premium qua third party risk is received by the insurer in relation to the contract. Therefore, policy continues to subsist to cover third party risk so long the premium is received and non-payment thereof would absolve the Insurance Company from its liability of an award being passed against it."
29. Hon'ble High Court further dwells on the object of the Act and observing same made following observations:
"31. A bare perusal of clause 2 read with clause 5 (b) and clause 51 reflects that the intention of the legislature was never to withdraw protection and reliefs as regards compensation ensured by the previous existing provisions. Rather, the Bill strives more towards ensuring expeditious help to the accident victims and their families. The emotional and social trauma caused to the family which loses its bread winner, is still one of the special considerations as set forth in the Statement above, The Bill was brought with an object to replace the existing provisions of insurance with simplified provisions in order to provide expeditious help to accident victims and their families. There is nothing in the Statement of Objects and Reasons which may, either directly or indirectly, infer MACT Case No. 292/2023 (FIR no. 02/2023) Rekha Vs. Amit Khanna & Ors.
Page no. 14 of 17
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.10.27
16:02:26 +0530
withdrawal of insurer's liability to pay compensation as soon as the award is declared, even in case of occurrence of breach of policy or other existence of similar grounds of defence available to the insurer. Therefore, the purpose behind bringing amendments in the Act of 1988 was clearly to provide immediate financial help to the accident victims and their dependents and not to create a situation where they are made to run from pillar to post even after an award is declared in their favour.
30. Further in para 37 it was observed by Hon'ble High Court that:
"37. From the overall discussion made above, it is crystal clear that the object of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, either before the amendment or thereafter, particularly covered by Chapter XI thereof, is to compensate victims of accidents in case of an insurance policy being in existence. In view of the interpretation made, holding that omission of the proviso would exonerate the insurer of its liability to indemnify at the first instance would be too wild a proposition and would result in creating a situation where the insurer would be out of scene despite an insurance policy being there and the claimants would have to again fight for getting the amount of compensation through execution proceedings in one way or the other, searching the owner through the process of Court. In such an event, the claimants would face further harassment and nobody knows that despite a money decree in the nature of an award being there in their favour, as to whether the claimants would ever be able to get the compensation realized through recovery proceedings directly from the owner. Accordingly, the legislative intent becomes clear and there is nothing to support the insurer's arguments flowing from interpretation of Statute or Causus Omissus. The contention advanced on behalf of insurer stands discarded."
31. Hon'ble High Court finally concluded that :
38. The Court, therefore, holds that mere omission of proviso attached to sub-section (4) of Section 149 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 after its replacement by Section 150 of Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 (32 of 2019), neither takes away the liability of the insurer to pay the claimants nor its right to recover the said amount from the owner. The law to this effect remains intact and unaffected by Amendment Act, 2019 and, hence, insurer MACT Case No. 292/2023 (FIR no. 02/2023) Rekha Vs. Amit Khanna & Ors.
Page no. 15 of 17 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2025.10.27 16:02:33 +0530shall continue to indemnify the owner's risk in relation to accidents taking place after 01.04.2022 and "PAY & RECOVER" principle will still continue to govern the field advancing social object of the Statute protecting third party interest. Principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh and others, MANU/SC/0021/2004 :
2004:INSC:4 : JT 2004 (1) SC 109 has not lost its significance and binding effect despite omission of proviso. Held accordingly.
32. As such, R3/Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation in favour of petitioners with recovery rights from R1 & R2. Issue No.2 is decided accordingly. The parties are directed to download the digital copy of judgment online. R3 is hereby directed to deposit the award amount within 30 days from the date of this Award by way of NEFT or RTGS mode in the account of this Tribunal maintained with SBI, Rohini Courts, Delhi under intimation to the petitioner/ injured and this Tribunal in terms of the format for remittance of compensation as provided in Divisional Manager Vs. Rajesh, 2016 SCC Online Mad. 1913 (and reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the orders dated 16.03.2021 and 16.11.2021 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.
ISSUE NO.3: RELIEF
33. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I award compensation of Rs. 36,69,700/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lacs Sixty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Only) alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum w.e.f the date of filing of DAR i.e. 03.04.2023 till compliance and @ 12% per annum thereafter. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be liable to be MACT Case No. 292/2023 (FIR no. 02/2023) Rekha Vs. Amit Khanna & Ors.
Page no. 16 of 17
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
Date:
VIKRAM 2025.10.27
16:02:39
+0530
excluded from the above amount and calculations of
compensation.
APPORTIONMENT
34. Statement of petitioner under Clause 29 MCTAP not recorded. Entire awarded amount in equal proportionate i.e. 25% each be released in favour of petitioners through their MACT saving bank accounts.
35. Form V and IVB in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A.
36. A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 27.11.2025.
37. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT signed by
VIKRAM
ON 27th DAY OF October, 2025 VIKRAM Date:
2025.10.27
16:02:48
+0530
VIKRAM
DJ-1+MACT, NORTH WEST,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MACT Case No. 292/2023 (FIR no. 02/2023) Rekha Vs. Amit Khanna & Ors.
Page no. 17 of 17