Delhi District Court
Ruchika Sharma W/O, Deceased ... vs Sushil (United India Ins Co.) on 8 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010171872022
MACT No. : 973/2022
FIR No. : 246/2022
PS : Burari
u/s : 279/304A IPC
1. Smt. Ruchika Sharma (LR/wife of deceased)
2. Baby Vani Sharma (LR/daughter of deceased)
3. Master Hardik Sharma (LR/son of deceased)
(petitioner nos. 2 and 3 through their
Natural Guardian/mother/petitioner no. 1 Smt. Ruchika Sharma)
4. Sh. Ashok Kumar (LR/father of deceased)
5. Smt. Raj Rani Sharma (LR/mother of deceased)
All R/o. H.No.189, Gali no.5, Part-2,
Mukund Pur, North-West, Delhi-110042.
......Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Sushil Kumar (driver of the offending vehicle)
S/o. Sh. Jagan Nath,
R/o. House in Seelampur,
PS Tariyani, Sherhur, Bihar.
2. Sh. Parveen (owner of the offending vehicle)
S/o. Sh. Jai Karan,
R/o. H.No.167, Bhar Wali Gali,
Tajpur Kalan, North-West, Delhi. Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08
15:03:07
+0530
MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 1 of 39
3. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
Regd. & Head office at :
2, LSC, Okhla, Phase-2,
Near-C, Lal Chowk, New Delhi-110001.
......Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 20.10.2022
Judgment reserved on : 21.07.2025
Date of Award : 08.08.2025
AWAR D
1. The Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filed on
20.10.2022 which was treated as a claim petition. The Road Traffic
Accident in question took place on 03.03.2022 at about 11:45 PM near
Baba Colony, Burari, Delhi. Sh. Arun Kumar Sharma expired in the said
accident which was allegedly caused by vehicle bearing registration
No.HR-38S-8767 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle). The
said vehicle was being driven by respondent No.1, Sushil Kumar;
owned by respondent no. 2, Parveen and insured with respondent no.3,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that on 04.03.2022 during emergency duty, on receipt of information of an accident vide DD No.7-A, the present information of accident was received that a Dumpher Truck hit a motorcycle at Baba Colony Mod, Main 100 Foota Road, Burari, Delhi. After receiving the information of the accident, IO/SI Deepak Kumar alongwith Ct. Amit reached at the Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08 15:03:17 +0530 MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 2 of 39 spot of accident, where they saw a lot of blood on the road and one damaged motorcycle bearing no. DL-8BQ-6593 was also lying there. An unclaimed dumpher truck bearing no. HR 38 5 8767 was also present there. No eye witness was found at the spot of accident.
3. Thereafter, IO got to know that the injured had been taken to Trauma Centre, Civil Lines, Delhi. Thereafter, after leaving the Ct.
Amit at the spot, IO left the spot and went to the Trauma Centre, Civil Lines, Delhi. IO called the Crime Team at the spot and got conducted the inspection of the spot of accident. After reaching Trauma Centre, IO collected the MLC no.2620 pertaining to the injured. IO further searched for the eye witness in the hospital but he could not find any eye witness there. Thereafter, IO returned to the Police Station and after some time, Ct. Amit had brought the accidental motorcycle in the PS and the same was taken into custody. At the instance of PCR Staff ASI Amrut, the unclaimed Dumpher was also brought to the PS and the same was also taken into custody. On the basis of PCR call, inspection of the crime team, spot of accident, MLC and CCTV Footage, offence under Section 279/338 IPC was found to have been committed and accordingly, FIR was registered.
4. During the course of investigation, IO prepared the site plan of the spot of accident at the instance of ASI Amrut. Thereafter, IO asked 4-5 passersby to joint the investigation but they refused to join the same and left from there. Thereafter, SI narrated about the present accident to the nearby present people but he could not find and eye witness of the accident. Thereafter, IO recorded the statement u/s. 161 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA Date:
SINGLA 2025.08.08 15:03:23 +0530 MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 3 of 39 CrPC of ASI Amrut. During the course of investigation, IO checked the CCTV camera installed at the place of accident in which one driver of Dumpher can be seen who ran away towards Pusta after hitting the motor cycle. Thereafter, IO checked about the ownership of that Dumpher on net, in which the name of the owner of that Dumpher was found to be Mr. Parveen s/o. Mr. Jai Karan. Thereafter, IO called the owner to the police station.
5. IO served the notice u/s.133 MV Act upon the owner of the offending vehicle. After receiving the notice u/s.133 MV Act, owner had produced the driver of the offending vehicle in the police station and produced the documents pertaining to the offending vehicle. The documents were taken into custody. The driver of the offending vehicle was revealed as Sh. Sushil Kumar. IO interrogated the driver of the offending vehicle, who had admitted that the present accident had been caused due to his rash and negligent driving. Driver had given the copy of his DL to the IO and IO arrested the driver of the offending vehicle. Thereafter, upon the surety, the driver of the offending vehicle was released on bail as the offence was bailable.
6. During the course of investigation, on 06.03.2022 IO got the telephonic information from the Trauma Centre, Civil Lines, Delhi that Sh. Arun Kumar Sharma had expired during treatment. Thereafter, IO visited there and collected the death summary and got conducted the post mortem of the body of the deceased. Thereafter, offence u/s.304A IPC was replaced from offence u/s.338 IPC. Thereafter, IO got identified the body of the deceased from his relatives and collected the PM report Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: SINGLA 2025.08.08 15:03:29 MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 4 of 39 +0530 no.289/22 which is placed on record. The offending vehicle is stated to be on superdari. After completion of investigation, chargesheet for the offences u/s 279/304A IPC was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle, Mr. Sushil Kumar before the concerned Ld. JMFC and the DAR was filed before this Tribunal.
7. WS was filed on behalf of respondent nos.1 & 2 each on 10.01.2024, wherein it was stated that the accident had been taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Sh. Arun Kumar Sharma who was driving his vehicle at a very high speed. In his written statement, respondent no. 1 stated that he was driving the truck as per the rules and regulations of the traffic and was not driving rashly. He denied that respondent no.1 & 2 are liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. It is further stated that the respondent no. 1 was having a valid and effective driving license, permit etc. and the vehicle of the respondent was fully covered under the insurance policy issued by M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
8. Written statement/legal offer was filed on 23.09.2023. The involvement of the offending vehicle was denied. However, it was admitted that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the respondent no.3.
ISSUES
9. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated 20.03.2024, this Tribunal framed the following issues:
Digitally signed by RUCHIKARUCHIKA SINGLA Date: SINGLA 2025.08.08 15:03:33 +0530 MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 5 of 39
1. Whether the petitioner Arun Kumar Sharma (since deceased) suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 03.03.2022 at about 11:45 PM near Mode of Baba Colony, Burari, Delhi involving vehicle bearing registration no.
HR-38S-8767 driven rashly and negligently by respondent no.1 Sushil, owned by respondent no.2 Parveen and insured with respondent no.3 United India Insurance Co. Ltd.? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner(s) is/are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
10. The petitioners examined Ms. Ruchika Sharma, wife of deceased as PW-1. PW1 has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW1/A. PW1 relied upon the following documents:
1. The FIR which is Ex. PW-1/1.
2. Copy of Death Certificate of his deceased husband which is mentioned as Ex. PW-1/2 in her affidavit stands de-exhibited and now marked as Mark-A.
3. Copy of her Aadhar Card which is Ex. PW-1/3 (OSR).
4. Copy of Birth Certificate of her son Hardik Sharma which is mentioned as Ex. PW-1/4 in her affidavit stands de-exhibited and now marked as Mark-B.
5. Copy of Aadhar Card of her daughter namely Vani Sharma which is mentioned as Ex. PW-1/5 in her affidavit stands de-exhibited and now marked as Mark-C. Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.08.08 15:03:37 +0530 MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 6 of 39
6. Copy of Aadhar Card of Mr. Ashok Kumar, the father of deceased which is Ex. PW-1/6 (OSR).
7. Copy of Aadhar Card of Mrs. Raj Rani Sharma, the mother of deceased which is Ex. PW-1/7 (OSR).
8. Copies of her bank passbook as well as copies of passbooks of her in-
laws which are mentioned as Ex. PW-1/8 in her affidavit stand de- exhibited and now marked as Mark-D.
9. Copy of Salary slip of her deceased husband which is mentioned as Ex. PW-1/9 in her affidavit stands de-exhibited and now marked as Mark-E.
11. Further, in petitioner's evidence Sh. Ashok Kumar was examined as PW2. PW2 has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW2/A. PW2 relied upon the documents which are already Ex. PW-1/1, Mark-A, Ex.PW-1/3, Mark-B, Mark-C, Ex. PW-1/6, Ex. PW-1/7, Mark-D and Mark-E.
12. Further, in petitioner's evidence Ms. Raj Rani Sharma was examined as PW3. PW3 has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW3/A. PW3 had relied upon the documents which are already Ex. PW-1/1, Mark-A, Ex.PW-1/3, Mark-B, Mark-C, Ex. PW-1/6, Ex. PW-1/7, Mark-D and Mark-E.
13. Further, in petitioner's evidence Sh. Shivam Gangwar, HR Executive, iDEAZ, New Delhi was examined as PW4. PW4 was a summoned witness. He had stated that he had been authorised to depose before this Ld. Tribunal vide authority letter which is Ex.PW-4/1. He Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08 15:03:41 +0530 MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 7 of 39 had further stated that he had brought the summoned record with respect to the employment of the deceased Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma with his company i.e. computer print outs of his Appointment Letter and pay slips for the months of December, 2021 to March, 2022. The same are Ex. PW-4/2 (Colly. 4 pages).
Thereafter, PE was closed on 15.05.2025.
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE
14. No evidence was led by respondents and RE was closed on 15.05.2025.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
15. The Petitioners filed his duly filled Form XIII and their financial statements were recorded. Final arguments were heard on behalf of the petitioners as well as respondents.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
16. 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:
1. Whether the petitioner Arun Kumar Sharma (since deceased) suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 03.03.2022 at about 11:45 PM near Mode of Baba Colony, Burari, Delhi involving vehicle bearing registration no.
HR-38S-8767 driven rashly and negligently by respondent no.1 Sushil, owned by respondent no.2 Parveen and insured with respondent no.3 United India Insurance Co. Ltd.? OPP Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: SINGLA 2025.08.08 15:03:45 +0530 MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 8 of 39
17. The onus to prove the issue was upon the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that on 03.03.2022 at about 11:45 PM near Mode of Baba Colony, Burari, Delhi while the deceased was driving his motorcycle, he was hit by the offending vehicle being driven rashly and negligently by respondent no. 1. Further it is stated that upon the accident, Sh. Arun Kumar Sharma expired. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the factum of the accident is not in dispute. When the police reached at the spot, the motorcycle of the deceased and the offending vehicle were found at the spot which was seized by the IO. Notice u/s.133 MV Act was given to the owner of offending vehicle i.e. the respondent no. 2. In the said notice, the respondent no. 2 has clearly mentioned that the vehicle was being driven by the respondent no. 1. In view of the same, it is submitted that it is proved on record that the respondent no. 1 was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently resulting in the death of the deceased.
18. Per contra, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the respondents no. 1 & 2 that the respondent no.1 is not guilty of any rash and negligent act. He was driving the vehicle as per the rules and regulations and that the deceased was driving his motorcycle rashly. Hence, it is submitted that the rash and negligent act of the respondent no. 1 is not proved on record.
19. Record perused.
20. In the present matter, as mentioned above, it is not in dispute that the accident occurred by the offending vehicle resulting in Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08 15:04:03 +0530 MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 9 of 39 the death of the deceased. It is also not in dispute that the IO has chargesheeted the respondent no. 1 as the accused in the criminal case. The IO has placed on record the copy of notice u/s.133 MV Act which was issued by the IO to respondent no. 2 to provide the details of the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident. On this notice, it is mentioned by the respondent no.2 that the offending vehicle was being driven by the respondent no. 1 at the time of the accident. Further, both the motorcycle of the deceased and the offending vehicle were seized by the IO from the spot. 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 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."
21. 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."
Digitally signed by RUCHIKARUCHIKA SINGLA Date: SINGLA 2025.08.08 15:04:12 +0530 MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 10 of 39
22. 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. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the rash and negligent act of the respondent no.1 is proved.
23. Further, it is 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 prove that they were not responsible for the accident which the respondents have failed to discharge. 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. Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08 15:04:20 +0530 MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 11 of 39 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.
24. In view of the same, considering the facts and circumstances, 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 respondent no. 2 was the registered owner of the offending vehicle. It is also an admitted position that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.3, vide Policy No.0427003121P105112565 w.e.f. 29.08.2021 to 28.08.2022. The factum of the said insurance is also admitted by the respondent no.3 insurance company. It is also admitted that at the time of the accident, the respondent no.1 was carrying a valid DL.
The injury:
25. 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 MLC bearing no. 2620 prepared at Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi dated 04.03.2022 as per which it has been opined by the concerned doctor that there was history of road traffic accident. He had suffered multiple injuries including injuries on the head, arm, leg, shoulder, face and chest. Subsequently, he expired on 06.03.2022. His post mortem report is on record. Hence, it is proved on record the the injured suffered fatal injuries due to the accident, due to which he unfortunately expired.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08
15:04:26
+0530
MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 12 of 39
26. 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 Sh. Arun Kumar Sharma 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)
27. The onus to prove this issue was also upon the petitioners. In view of the observations as given in 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 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08 15:04:31 +0530 MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 13 of 39 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 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08 15:04:36 +0530 MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 14 of 39 "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 (1/4th) 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 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 RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2025.08.08 15:04:41 +0530 MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 15 of 39 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."
28. 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 : -
"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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08 15:04:47 +0530 MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 16 of 39 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.
(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.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08 15:04:51 +0530 MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 17 of 39
(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."
Loss of income
29. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the deceased was working in M/s. IDEAZ, New Delhi as BDA w.e.f. 01.02.2021. He was paid Rs.23,970/- as monthly salary. His appointment letter was proved as Ex. PW4/1. Further Ld. Counsel for the petitioner stated that the HR Executive from the said company was examined as PW4 who proved on record his pay slips from December 2021 to March 2022 which are Ex. PW4/2 (colly). Hence, it is submitted that the income of the deceased was Rs.23,970/- PM.
30. Record perused.
31. As mentioned above, the petitioners have proved on record the appointment letter and salary slips of the deceased as Ex PW4/1 and Ex. PW4/2. Perusal of the same shows that his gross income was Rs.22,000/- and when the employer contribution was included, then the CTC per month was Rs.23,970/-. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 held that for calculating compensation, the income of the victim less the income tax should be treated as the actual income. Further, in case titled as Universal Sompo General Insurance vs Sh. Dinesh Kumar Singh & Ors Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08 15:04:56 +0530 MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 18 of 39 MAC.APP. 106/2025 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 9 June, 2025, it has been observed that the Tribunal must deduct applicable income tax and other permissible statutory deductions from the gross income of the deceased while computing compensation payable to the petitioner. It was observed that:
"13. The learned Tribunal after a perusal of the salary slips and testimony of PW-2 who proved the said salary slips assessed the income of the deceased at ₹34,300/- per month. Thereby his gross annual income would be ₹4,11,600/-. The said income undoubtedly would be subject to tax as applicable at the relevant time. Thus, the learned Tribunal in the opinion of this Court ought to have considered the applicable tax and its deduction for the purpose of assessing the income of the deceased.
15. Even though the gross income of ₹4,11,600/- is subject to payment of tax under the relevant slab, however, the assessee is also entitled to benefit of standard deduction and other benefits as available to the tax payers."
32. In view of the same, the gross income of the deceased is considered to be Rs.22,000/- PM. Further as per his salary slip, he was receiving an net salary of Rs.20,190/-. The same is considered to be his net income in view of the above mentioned judgment of the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, his monthly income is assessed to be Rs.20,190/-.
Age determination of the deceased:
33. As per the aadhar card of the deceased, his date of birth was RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2025.08.08 15:05:01 +0530 MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 19 of 39 11.01.1989. The date of the accident is 03.03.2022. Hence, as on the date of the accident, the deceased was aged 33 years of age.
Future Prospects:
34. 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 50% for future prospects.
Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased needs to be taken as Rs. 30,285. (Rs.20,190/- + Rs. 10,095/- which is 50% of Rs.20,190/-).
Determination of Dependent:
35. In the present case, the deceased is survived by his wife, 2 minor children and parents, who all shall be considered as dependents.
Determination of multiplicand:
36. The monthly income of the deceased after enhancement needs to be taken as Rs. 30,285/-. 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, 1/4th amount has to be deducted on account of personal and living expenses as the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6. So, in this matter, monthly loss of dependency would come out to be Rs. 22,713.75 (3/4th of Rs. 30,285/-). This needs to be multiplied by 12 to workout multiplicand/annual loss of dependency. Hence, multiplicand for this matter would be Rs.2,72,565/- (Rs. 22,713.75 x 12).
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08 15:05:06 +0530 MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 20 of 39 Award Towards Loss of Dependency:
37. Further, as the deceased was 33 years of age at the time of the accident, multiplier applicable in this matter as per above discussion would be 16. The total loss of dependency would come out to be Rs.43,61,040/- (Rs.2,72,565/- x 16), hence, so awarded.
Medical expenses:
38. The petitioners have not filed any medical bills on record.
Hence, in the absence of any medical bills, the petitioners shall not be entitled to any amount towards medical expenses.
Non-Pecuniary Heads:
39. 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08 15:05:12 +0530 MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 21 of 39 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."
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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08 MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 22 of 39 15:05:18 +0530 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 (supra).
In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs.40,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium.....".
40. 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: SINGLA 2025.08.08 MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 23 of 39 15:05:48 +0530 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...".
41. 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 loss of consortium to each legal heir and the same may be enhanced by 10% every three years.
42. In the present case, the accident is of 2022 and the Award was passed in 2025. Thus, an amount of Rs. 18,150/- is granted towards the Loss of Estate and Rs. 18,150/- towards funeral charges.
43. Further, Rs. 48,400/- each is granted to the petitioners i.e. total of Rs. 48,400 x 5 = Rs. 2,42,000/- towards Loss of Consortium.
Computation of compensation:
44. Applying the settled guidelines in the various judgments, the compensation payable to the petitioners is calculated as under:
Digitally signed by RUCHIKARUCHIKA SINGLA Date: SINGLA 2025.08.08 15:05:55 +0530 MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 24 of 39 Sr. No. Head Awarded by the Claims Tribunal 1 Monthly Income of deceased (A) Rs.20,190/-
2 Add future prospect (B) @ 50%= Rs. 10,095/- 3 Less 1/4 deductions towards (Rs.20,190/- + Rs.
personal and living expenses of 10,095/-) = Rs. 30,285 * the deceased (C) 1/4 = Rs. 7,571.25 4 Monthly loss of dependency Rs.20,190/- + Rs. 10,095/-) [(A+B) - C = D] - Rs. 7,571.25 = Rs.
22,713.75
5 Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 22,713.75 x 12=
(D x 12) Rs.2,72,565/-
6 Multiplier (E) 16
7 Total loss of dependency (Rs.2,72,565/- x 16)=
DxE=F Rs.43,61,040/-
8 Medical Expenses (G) Nil
9 Compensation for loss of love and Nil.
affection (H)
10 Compensation for loss of Rs. 48,400 x 5 = Rs.
consortium (I) to both the
2,42,000/-
petitioners
11 Compensation for loss of Estate Rs. 18,150/-
(J)
12 Compensation for funeral Rs. 18,150/-
expenses (K)
13 Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 46,39,340/-
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08
15:06:01
+0530
MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 25 of 39
45. 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 DAR i.e. 27.10.2022 till realization.
APPORTIONMENT:
46. It is evident from the record that the deceased had left behind his five legal heirs i.e. his wife, 2 minor children and parents. For the sake of convenience, the individual shares of the dependents of the deceased are tabulated as under:-
S.No. Name of the Relation Percentage Amount in (Rupees) Amount claimant with including deceased interest
1. Smt. Ruchika Wife 50% of Rs. 21,80,520 + Rs. Rs. 28,02,078/-
Rs.43,61,040/- 48,400/- + Rs. 18,150/- + Rs. 18,150/- = Rs.
22,65,220/-
2. Baby Vani Minor 15% of Rs. 6,54,156/- + Rs. Rs. 8,69,062/-
Sharma Daughter Rs.43,61,040/- 48,400/- = Rs. 7,02,556/-
3. Master Hardik Minor Son 15% of Rs. 6,54,156/- + Rs. Rs. 8,69,062/-
Sharma Rs.43,61,040/- 48,400/- = Rs. 7,02,556/-
4. Sh. Ashok Father 5% of Rs. 2,18,052/- + Rs. Rs. 3,29,501/-
Kumar Rs.43,61,040/- 48,400/- = Rs. 2,66,452/-
5. Smt. Raj Rani Mother 15% of Rs. 6,54,156/- + Rs. Rs. 8,69,062/-
Rs.43,61,040/- 48,400/- = Rs. 7,02,556/-
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08 15:06:07 +0530 MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 26 of 39 DISBURSEMENT:
47. The Financial Statement of petitioners was recorded by this Court/Tribunal. As per the said statement, the monthly expenses of the family are approximately Rs. 35,000/- per month.
48. 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08 15:06:14 +0530 MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 27 of 39 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.
(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."
49. 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08 15:06:19 MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 28 of 39 +0530 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, 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."
50. 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.
Smt. Ruchika Sharma (wife):
51. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners, it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs.46,39,340/-, out of the share of the petitioner/wife Ruchika Sharma Rs.28,02,078/-
Digitally signed by RUCHIKARUCHIKA SINGLA Date: SINGLA 2025.08.08 15:06:27 +0530 MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 29 of 39 (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Two Thousand and Seventy Eight only), Rs.5,02,078/- shall be released to the petitioner/wife immediately in her Bank Account No.44352157759, IFSC Code SBIN0002613, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
52. The balance amount of Rs.23,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs only) shall be put in 46 monthly fixed deposits in her name in her account as mentioned above of equal amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 46 months 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.
Baby Vani Sharma and Master Hardik Sharma (minor children of deceased):
53. Since, the petitioners Baby Vani Sharma and Master Hardik Sharma are minor, on realization of the award amount, out of their share of Rs.8,69,062/- each, a sum of Rs.2,69,062/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand and Sixty Two only) each be kept in one FDR each which shall be released in their favour along with cumulative interest upon their attaining majority. Further, the balance amount of Rs.6,00,000/- each shall be put in 20 (Twenty) monthly fixed deposits in their name of equal amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 20 months respectively, with cumulative interest in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA Date:
SINGLA 2025.08.08 15:06:35 +0530 MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 30 of 39 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Upon the petitioners Baby Vani Sharma and Master Hardik Sharma attaining majority, the amount of these FDRs, shall automatically be transferred one after the other every month in their saving account bearing nos. Bank Account No.44352298882, IFSC Code SBIN0002613, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and Bank Account No.44352152252, IFSC Code SBIN0002613, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi respectively maintained in a nationalized bank situated near the place of their residence.
Sh. Ashok Kumar (father of the deceased):
54. On realization of the award amount, the share of the petitioner/father Ashok Kumar Rs.3,29,501/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand Five Hundred and One only) shall be released to the petitioner/father immediately in his Bank Account No.44352153164, IFSC Code SBIN0002613, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Smt. Raj Rani Sharma (mother of the deceased):
55. On realization of the award amount, out of the share of the petitioner/mother Raj Rani Sharma Rs.8,69,062/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand and Sixty Two only), Rs.2,69,062/- shall be released to the petitioner/mother immediately in her Bank Account No.44352154566, IFSC Code SBIN0002613, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
56. The balance amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) shall be put in 20 monthly fixed deposits in her name in her account as mentioned above of equal amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08 15:06:41 +0530 MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 31 of 39 Thirty Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 20 months 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.
57. 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:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
Date of Accident: 03.03.2022 Name of the deceased: Sh. Arun Kumar Sharma Age of the deceased: 33 years Occupation of the deceased: Private Job Income of the deceased : Rs. 20,190/- per month
Name and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No. Name of the claimant Relation with deceased
1. Smt. Ruchika Wife
2. Baby Vani Sharma Minor Daughter
3. Master Hardik Sharma Minor Son
4. Sh. Ashok Kumar Father
5. Smt. Raj Rani Mother Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08 15:06:47 +0530 MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 32 of 39 COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION Sr. Head Awarded by the Claims Tribunal No. 1 Monthly Income of deceased Rs.20,190/-
(A) 2 Add future prospect (B) Rs.20,190/-
3 Less 1/4 deductions towards (Rs.20,190/- + Rs. 10,095/-) = Rs.
personal and living expenses of 30,285 * 1/4 = Rs. 7,571.25 the deceased (C) 4 Monthly loss of dependency Rs.20,190/- + Rs. 10,095/-) - Rs.
[(A+B) - C = D] 7,571.25 = Rs. 22,713.75
5 Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 22,713.75 x 12=
(D x 12) Rs.2,72,565/-
6 Multiplier (E) 16
7 Total loss of dependency (Rs.2,72,565/- x 16)=
DxE=F Rs.43,61,040/-
8 Medical Expenses (G) Nil
9 Compensation for loss of love Nil.
and affection (H)
10 Compensation for loss of Rs. 48,400 x 5 = Rs. 2,42,000/-
consortium (I) to both the
petitioners
11 Compensation for loss of Rs. 18,150/-
Estate (J)
12 Compensation for funeral Rs. 18,150/-
expenses (K)
13 Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 46,39,340/-
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08
MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 33 of 39
15:07:02
+0530
14 Rate of Interest Awarded 9%
15 Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 10,99,525/-
award w.e.f. 27.10.2022 till
realization
16 Total amount including interest Rs. 57,38,865/-
17 Award amount released As per paragraph Nos.51 to 56
18 Award amount kept in FDRs As per paragraph Nos.52,53 & 56
19 Mode of disbursement of the As per paragraph Nos.51 to 56
award amount to the
claimant(s)
20 Next Date of compliance of the 08.09.2025
award
LIABILITY:
58. It has been established that the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1 and that respondent no.2 is the owner of the same and the offending vehicle was insured with 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:
59. In view of the above, the respondent no.3 United India Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.46,39,340/- (Rupees Forty Six Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand and Three Hundred Forty only) along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. w.e.f. 20.10.2022 till realization with the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08 15:07:08 +0530 MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 34 of 39 within 30 days under intimation to the claimants, failing which the said respondent 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.
60. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurance company for compliance within the time granted 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 08.09.2025 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted. Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08 15:07:14 +0530 MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 35 of 39 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., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally Announced in the open Court today signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
on this 08th Day of August, 2025 2025.08.08 15:07:18 +0530 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 36 of 39
THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL MOTOR VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022 (PL. SEE RULE 150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 03.03.2022 2 Date of filing of Form-I -
First Accident Report N/A
(FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II
N/A
to the victim(s)
4 Date of receipt of Form-III
N/A
from the Driver
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV
from the Owner N/A
6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the insurance N/A
of the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-
VIA & VIB from the N/A
Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII -
22.10.2022
Detail Accident Report
(DAR)
9 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Investigating No.
Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the 20.10.2022
Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company admitted his Yes.
report within 30 days of the
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08
MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 37 of 39
15:07:27 +0530
DAR?
12 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the No.
part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether
any action/direction
warranted?
13 Date of response of the N/A
claimant(s) to the offer of
the Insurance Company.
14 Date of award 08.08.2025
15 Whether the claimant(s)
were directed to open Yes
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
card and Aadhar Card and 21.07.2025
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
place of their residence 08.08.2025
alongwith the endorsement,
PAN card and Aadhaar
Card? Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08
15:07:41
+0530
MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 38 of 39
18 Permanent residential
address of the claimant(s). As per Award.
19 Whether the claimant(s)
savings bank account(s) is
Yes
near their place of
residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s)
were examined at the time
Yes. The Financial Statements of the claimants of passing of the Award to were recorded on 21.07.2025 and 08.08.2025.
ascertain his/their financial condition?
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.08 15:07:44 +0530 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
08.08.2025 MACT No.973/2022 Ruchika Sharma Vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors. Page 39 of 39