Delhi District Court
Smt. Aasha @ Asha Devi And Ors vs Sh. Girish Gakhar on 22 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN GUPTA,
PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-02,WEST,TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
MACT No. 372/2021
DLWT010071122021
1. Smt. Aasha @ Asha Devi
(wife of deceased Sh. Sonu)
2. Baby Khushi
(daughter of deceased)
3. Baby Suman
(daughter of deceased)
4. Master Shourya
(son of deceased)
5. Smt. Ratni
(mother of deceased)
6. Sh. Jai Bhagwan
(father of deceased)
(Petitioner no.2 to 4, being minors
represented through their natural
guardian/mother)
All R/o Raipur (84), Shahpur Turk,
Sonipat, Haryana 131001
Also at : 134, Block-I, Shiv Ram Park,
Village Nangloi, Delhi ... Petitioners
Digitally signed
SACHIN by SACHIN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.03.22
16:12:19 +0530
MACT No. 372/2021 Date of Award : 22.03.2025
Aasha @ Asha Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zarrar & Ors. Page No. 1 of 31
Versus
1. Md. Zarrar
S/o Md. Minaj
R/o VPO Bikopur, PS Kothi,
Teh. Imamganj, District Gaya, Bihar
2. Sh. Girish Gakhar
S/o Sh. Kishan Kumar Gakhar
R/o House no. 202, Avtar Enclave,
Paschim Vihar, Delhi
3. New India Assurance Company Limited
Office at: Delhi Legal Hub, Core-3,
Scope Minar,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi ...... Respondents
Date of Institution: : 30.09.2021
Date of reserving order/judgment : 22.03.2025
Date of pronouncement: : 22.03.2025
AWAR D
1. Proceedings in the present case arises from filing of claim petition u/s 166 & 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'M.V. Act') filed on behalf of petitioners seeking compensation in respect of death of Sh. Sonu in a road accident involving vehicle bearing registration no. NL01AA1818. IO also filed DAR on 22.02.2022 in FIR No. 454/2020 PS Mundka u/s 279/304A IPC regarding the accident in question. As per the claim petition, DAR and documents filed therewith, on 06.10.2020 at about 12.30 AM, while Sh. Sonu (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') accompanied by his relative Sh. Bijender was coming back to his residence from Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2025.03.22 16:12:28 +0530 MACT No. 372/2021 Date of Award : 22.03.2025 Aasha @ Asha Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zarrar & Ors. Page No. 2 of 31 Bahadurgarh, Haryana on a motor fitted rickshaw, which was being driven by the deceased Sonu and when they reached at main Rohtak Road, Pillar no. 594 to 588, Ghevra Mod, Delhi, suddenly a vehicle (Multi Axle Goods Vehicle) bearing registration no. NL01AA1818 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle') being driven by its driver/respondent no.1 Md. Zarrar at a high speed and in rash and negligent manner, hit against the rickshaw and due to the forceful impact of the hitting, both the riders of the rickshaw fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries all over their body which resulted into their death. It is further stated that deceased died at the spot, who was taken to the Mortuary of Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangol Puri, New Delhi and his postmortem was conducted vide PMR No. 951/2020 dated 06.10.2020.
2. Respondent no. 1 is the driver of the offending vehicle; respondent no.2 is the registered owner of the offending vehicle and the respondent no.3 is the Insurer of the offending vehicle. DAR was also accompanied with other relevant documents including final report u/s 173 Cr.PC, postmortem report of deceased, seizure memo of the offending vehicle and rickshaw of victims, documents of the offending vehicle, site plan, mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle as well as rickshaw of victims, statement of witnesses U/s 161 CrPC etc.
3. Written statement was filed on behalf of respondent no. 3/Insurance Co., wherein it is stated inter alia that petition is bad for non joinder of necessary and proper parties as allegedly two vehicles were involved in the alleged accident i.e. vehicle Digitally signed SACHIN GUPTA by SACHIN GUPTA Date: 2025.03.22 16:12:39 +0530 MACT No. 372/2021 Date of Award : 22.03.2025 Aasha @ Asha Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zarrar & Ors. Page No. 3 of 31 bearing registration no. NL01AA1818 (LPG Gas Tanker) and vehicle rickshaw (Jugad), however, only the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle no. NL01AA1818 have been made parties in this case and owner and insurer of the vehicle rickshaw (Jugad) have not been made parties to the present case; that as per the photographs of alleged offending vehicle as well as mechanical inspection report of the said vehicle attached alongwith DAR, the said alleged offending vehicle is a LPG gas tanker and therefore, said vehicle was carrying hazardous goods at the time of accident, however, as per the verification report of DL of driver of alleged offending vehicle filed by the IO, it is evident that the said driver was not having any endorsement on his DL to drive a vehicle carrying hazardous and / or dangerous goods as on the date of accident and so, he was not having a valid and effecting driving license to drive the alleged offending vehicle and this amounts to a categorical breach of policy terms and conditions by the owner/insured and/or driver of alleged offending vehicle and so, the answering respondent is not liable to pay any compensation; that deceased was driving the rickshaw (Jugad) without holding driving license and without its registration certificate; that there is no eye witness of the present accident; that the alleged offending vehicle was insured by the answering respondent in favour of respondent no.2 Sh. Girish Gakhar with the answering respondent vide policy valid and effective w.e.f. 21.03.2020 to 20.03.2021, however, liability of the answering respondent is subject to the terms and conditions, limitations and exceptions contained therein and provisions of Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.03.22 16:12:49 +0530 MACT No. 372/2021 Date of Award : 22.03.2025 Aasha @ Asha Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zarrar & Ors. Page No. 4 of 31 Vehicles Act and rules framed thereunder.
4. No reply/written statement was filed on behalf of the respondent no.1 and 2 and their right to file written statement was closed vide order dated 27.07.2022 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal on 30.08.2022:-
1. Whether Sh. Sonu (since deceased) suffered injuries in a vehicular accident that took place on 06.10.2020 at about 12.30 AM at main Rohtak Road, Pillar no. 594 to 588, Ghevra Mod, Delhi involving a vehicle no. NL-01AA-1818 (offending vehicle) being driven by respondent no.1 Md. Zarrar in a rash and negligent manner, owned by respondent no.2 Girish Gakhar and insured with respondent no.3/The New India Assurance Company Limited?
OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
6. In order to prove their case, petitioners got examined two witnesses. PW-1 is petitioner no.1 Asha (wife of the deceased). PW-2 SI Rajbir Singh is the IO of the case.
7. In respondent evidence on behalf of respondent no. 3/insurance company, one witness Sh. Rahul Kumar Upadhayay, Assistant Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited was examined. SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.03.22 16:13:00 +0530 MACT No. 372/2021 Date of Award : 22.03.2025 Aasha @ Asha Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zarrar & Ors. Page No. 5 of 31
8. I have heard arguments and gone through the record carefully and my issue wise findings are as under :
Issue No.1
9. It is the settled proposition of law that an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non. However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition based upon negligence. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. Reference may be made to the judgments titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sakshi Bhutani & Others., MAC APP. No. 550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012, Bimla Devi & Others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Others (2009) 13 SC 530, Parmeshwari v. Amirchand & Others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 & Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Others 2018, Law Suit (SC) 303.
10. Petitioner no.1/PW-1 Smt. Asha tendered her affidavit in evidence which is Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the documents i.e. (i) Copy of her Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/1 (OSR);
(ii) Copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no.2 Ex.PW1/2 (OSR);
(iii) Copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no.3 Ex.PW1/3 (OSR);
(iv) Copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no. 4 Ex.PW1/4 (OSR);
(v) Copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no.5 Ex.PW1/5 (OSR);
(vi) Copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no. 6 Ex.PW1/6 (OSR);
(vii) Copy of Aadhar Card of her deceased husband Ex.PW1/7 (OSR) and (viii) Copy of complete DAR Ex.PW1/8 (Colly). In Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2025.03.22 16:13:09 +0530 MACT No. 372/2021 Date of Award : 22.03.2025 Aasha @ Asha Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zarrar & Ors. Page No. 6 of 31 her cross examination done by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.3/insurance company, she admitted that she was not an eye-witness to the accident.
11. PW2 IO SI Rajbir Singh has inter alia deposed that he was handed over DD no. 5A by the duty officer regarding the alleged accident by saying that two persons were hit by the Truck bearing registration no. NL-01AA-1818; that he was authorized by SHO concerned to investigate the present matter i.e. FIR no. 454/2020; that he completely investigated the matter and filed the DAR before the Ld. MACT concerned and filed chargesheet before the Court of Ld. MM against the driver of the offending vehicle; that the offending vehicle bearing registration no. NL-01AA-1818 and the jugad rickshaw involved in the accident were seized from the place where the accident occurred; that when he reached the spot after receiving DD no. 5A dated 06.10.2020, he found that one dead person namely Sonu was lying at the side of the road at the spot and another person Bijender was taken to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi, whereby he was medically examined vide MLC no. 12368/20; that thereafter, he was referred to Safdarjung Hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries on 06.10.2020 during the course of treatment; that during investigation, it was found that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed at the time of accident; that after finding sufficient proof against the driver of the offending vehicle in the present FIR, he filed charge sheet against the driver; that he recorded the statement of registered owner namely Sh. Girish Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2025.03.22 16:13:17 +0530 MACT No. 372/2021 Date of Award : 22.03.2025 Aasha @ Asha Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zarrar & Ors. Page No. 7 of 31 Gakhar of the offending vehicle regarding the alleged accident; that the registered owner disclosed in his statement U/s 161 Cr.PC that his driver Md. Zarrar hit two persons while his driver was driving the said offending vehicle at the time of accident and subsequently, the registered owner produced his driver in the police station on 06.10.2023 and he arrested him.
12. In his cross examination done by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.3, he admitted that he had filed the charge sheet; that he had seized the rickshaw (jugad); that he had not collected the RC of the jugad rickshaw; that there was no number plate in the jugad; that he had filed the mechanical inspection report which is already exhibited as a part of DAR; that he seized the driving license of driver of offending vehicle. He admitted that he received the details of driving license from the licensing authority, which is already part of the DAR and he had verified the DL online. He admitted that driver had not given any hazardous license and offending vehicle is a gas tanker. He further stated that he does not have personal knowledge whether the gas tanker was filled with gas or not and that he had filed the photograph of the gas tanker. He denied to the suggestion that the driver was not driving rashly and negligently or that he had not recorded the statement of registered owner of the alleged vehicle.
13. In the case titled 'Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs. Karan Bhatia, MAC APP. 271/2018 decided on 26.11.2024", it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court as under:-
"12. Shri Mehtab Singh, the eye witness, may have failed to support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile during the trial, but that does Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2025.03.22 16:13:27 +0530 MACT No. 372/2021 Date of Award : 22.03.2025 Aasha @ Asha Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zarrar & Ors. Page No. 8 of 31 not take away the factum of accident and demise of Smt.Surjit Kaur. The investigations were duly carried out which revealed not only the involvement of the vehicle, but also it was the offending vehicle which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the accident. The manner of accident is also evident from the Site Plan prepared during the criminal investigations.
13. In the case of National Insurance Co.,vs Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, it has been held that filing of Chargesheet is sufficient proof of the negligence and involvement of the Offending Vehicle. Similar observations have been made in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepak Goel and Ors., 2014 (2) TAC 846 Del, that if the claimant was able to prove the criminal case on record pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, whereby the criminal records showing completion of investigation by the police and filing of Chargesheet under Sections 279/304-A IPC against the driver have been proved, then the documents mentioned above are sufficient to establish the fact that the driver was negligent in causing the accident. Where FIR is lodged, Chargesheet is filed, especially in a case where driver after causing the accident had fled away from the spot, then the documents mentioned above are sufficient to establish the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent in causing the accident particularly when there was no defence available from his side before the learned Tribunal.
14. Similar observations have been made in the cases of Jamanti Devi and Ors. v. Maheshwar Rai, MAC Appeal no. 831/2015 decided on 19.11.2022.
15. The Apex Court has opined in the judgment of Mangla Ram Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Digitally signed SACHIN by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.03.22 16:13:38 +0530 MACT No. 372/2021 Date of Award : 22.03.2025 Aasha @ Asha Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zarrar & Ors. Page No. 9 of 31 Ltd, AIR 2018 SC 1900 that the key-point of negligence of the driver as set up by the Claimants, is required to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and not by the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, filing of Chargesheet against the driver of the offending vehicle prima facie, points towards the complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. The subsequent acquittal of the accused may of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in motor vehicle accident cases."
14. In the present case, admittedly, PW1 Smt. Asha (wife of deceased) is not the eye-witness to the present accident. Petitioner / PW1 Smt. Asha has heavily relied upon the DAR which also includes chargesheet as well as other documents / reports filed by the IO after concluding his investigation pertaining to the accident in question. IO has filed the final report u/s 173 CrPC (charge-sheet) in FIR No. 454/2020 PS Mundka U/s 279/304A IPC against the respondent no. 1 Md. Zarrar alongwith other documents / reports i.e. site plan, postmortem report of deceased, seizure memo of the offending vehicle and rickshaw of victims, documents of the offending vehicle, mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle as well as rickshaw of victims, statement of witnesses U/s 161 CrPC etc.
15. PW2 SI Rajbir Singh, who is the IO of the case has categorically deposed that the offending vehicle as well as rickshaw of deceased were seized from the place where the accident occurred. The same is also corroborated from the seizure memo of the offending vehicle filed by the IO alongwith the chargesheet. The said document / reports remained unrebutted on Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.03.22 16:13:50 +0530 MACT No. 372/2021 Date of Award : 22.03.2025 Aasha @ Asha Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zarrar & Ors. Page No. 10 of 31 the part of the respondents. IO / PW2 also deposed that when he reached at the spot after receiving DD No. 5A dated 06.10.2020, he found that one dead person namely Sonu was lying on the side of the road at the place of occurrence and another person Bijender was taken to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi, who was referred to Safdarjung Hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries. Further, PW2 / IO has also deposed that during investigation, it was found that the driver of offending vehicle was driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed at the time of accident and after finding sufficient proof against the driver of offending vehicle, he filed chargesheet against the driver. He also deposed that he recorded the statement of registered owner Girish Gakhar of the offending vehicle regarding the accident, who disclosed in his statement U/s 161 Cr.PC that his driver Mohd. Zarrar had hit two persons while driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident and registered owner also produced his driver in the police station and he arrested him.
16. The factum of accident has not been disputed by the respondents. Respondent no. 1 namely Mohd. Zarrar (accused in State case) has been charge-sheeted (which is part of copies of criminal case available on record) for offences punishable U/s 279/304A IPC by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by him. The investigation was duly carried out which revealed not only the involvement of the offending vehicle, but also that it was the offending vehicle Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2025.03.22 16:14:00 +0530 MACT No. 372/2021 Date of Award : 22.03.2025 Aasha @ Asha Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zarrar & Ors. Page No. 11 of 31 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the accident. The plea of respondent no. 3 that deceased, who was driver of the rickshaw (jugad), was negligent, has not been substantiated by any evidence. For the sake of arguments, even if it is assumed that deceased was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident, the same is ipso- facto not sufficient to hold that accident had either taken place due to the negligence or contributory negligence of the deceased. Further, in the absence of any cogent evidence available on record, the mere fact that deceased was driving a motor fitted rickshaw (jugad) or it was without any registration, the same itself is not sufficient to hold that accident had either taken place due to the negligence or contributory negligence of the deceased. There is no cogent evidence available on record to show that the deceased was driving the rickshaw (Jugad) rashly or negligently, which caused or contributed to the occurrence of the accident.
17. Moreover, it is an undisputed fact that FIR No. 454/20 (supra) was registered at PS Mundka with regard to accident in question. Copy of said FIR (which is part of final report U/s 173 Cr.PC filed by IO alongwith DAR) would show that same was registered on 06.10.2020. Thus, FIR is shown to have been registered promptly and without any delay. Hence, there is no possibility of false implication of respondent no. 1 and/or false involvement of aforesaid vehicle bearing No. NL01AA-1818 at the instance of petitioners herein.
18. Furthermore, as per the postmortem report of deceased Sonu vide P.M. Report No. 951/2020 dated 06.10.2020 filed by the IO alongwith DAR, the cause of death is given as Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.03.22 16:14:10 +0530 MACT No. 372/2021 Date of Award : 22.03.2025 Aasha @ Asha Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zarrar & Ors. Page No. 12 of 31 "Death is due to hemorrhagic shock as a result of lower limb and pelvic injury due to blunt force impact. All injuries are ante- mortem in nature and possible in manner as alleged." Said document has not been disputed from the side of the respondents and corroborates the ocular testimonies of PWs as discussed above.
19. Moreover, the respondent no. 1 Mohd. Zarrar, driver of the offending vehicle, was also the other material witness who could have thrown sufficient light as to how and under what circumstances, the accident in question took place. However, he neither appeared nor entered into witness box during the course of inquiry. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him for not entering into the witness box, to the effect that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by him.
20. Furthermore, in the given facts and circumstances of the present case, the rashness and negligence of the driver (respondent no.1) would also be assumed by virtue of res ipsa loquitur. The very factum that the respondent no. 1 while driving offending vehicle (Multi Axle Goods Vehicle) had hit the occupants of rickshaw and caused their death, itself shows that offending vehicle was being driven by the respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner. There was an implicit duty on the respondent no.1 to see that his driving did not endanger the life of any other user of the road. He has failed to exercise the caution incumbent upon him and has clearly neglected his duty of circumspection.
21. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion and the SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.03.22 16:14:20 +0530 MACT No. 372/2021 Date of Award : 22.03.2025 Aasha @ Asha Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zarrar & Ors. Page No. 13 of 31 evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioners have been able to prove on the basis of preponderance of probabilities that deceased Sh. Sonu sustained fatal injuries in road accident which took place on 06.10.2020 at about 12.30 AM at main Rohtak Road, Pillar no. 594 to 588, Ghevra Mor, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no. 1. Accordingly issue no.1 stands decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents. Issue No.2
22. In view of the finding on issue no.1, petitioners are entitled to get compensation, however, the quantum of compensation still needs to be adjudicated. Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 enjoins upon the claim Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation, which appears to be just and reasonable. As per settled law, compensation is not expected to be windfall or a bonanza nor it should be pittance. A man is not compensated for the physical injury, he is compensated for the loss which he suffers as a result of that injury (Baker v. Willoughby (1970) Ac 467 at page 492 per Lord Reid).
Computation of Compensation
23. The present case pertains to the death of deceased Sh. Sonu. In death cases, the guidelines for computation of compensation have been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121. Further, the guidelines have been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.03.22 16:14:30 +0530 MACT No. 372/2021 Date of Award : 22.03.2025 Aasha @ Asha Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zarrar & Ors. Page No. 14 of 31 2017 ACJ 2700, decided on 31.10.2017, laying down the general principles for computation of compensation in death cases. Age of deceased :
24. PW1 Smt. Asha (wife of deceased) has deposed that her husband was aged about 34 years at the time of accident. Copy of Aadhar Card of deceased Sh. Sonu Ex.PW1/7 shows his year of birth as 1986. The same remained undisputed on the part of respondents. Date of accident is 06.10.2020. As such, age of deceased Sh. Sonu at the time of accident was around 34 years. As such, this fact stands concluded that age of the deceased was around 34 years at the time of accident.
Assessment of Income of deceased :
25. Petitioner/PW-1 Smt. Asha (wife of deceased) has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW1/A) that her husband was doing private job and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. In her cross examination done by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3, PW-1 stated that her husband was doing the work of loading and unloading and she does not have any proof regarding the income of her husband. She denied that her husband was not earning Rs. 20,000/- per month.
26. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 / Insurance Co. has vehemently argued that petitioners have failed to prove the alleged vocation and monthly income of deceased and there is no documentary evidence placed on record to prove the alleged vocation and salary of the deceased.
27. Admittedly, there is no document placed on record by the petitioner to prove the alleged employment and monthly income of the deceased. No other witness was got examined by SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.03.22 16:14:38 +0530 MACT No. 372/2021 Date of Award : 22.03.2025 Aasha @ Asha Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zarrar & Ors. Page No. 15 of 31 the petitioners in support thereof. As per Aadhar Card of the deceased Ex.PW1/7, he was resident in the State of Haryana. Thus, for want of cogent and definite evidence being led by the petitioners with regard to the actual vocation and monthly income of the deceased, this Tribunal assesses the income of deceased to be at parity with minimum wages of Unskilled person in the State of Haryana which at the time of accident i.e. 06.10.2020 were Rs.9,458.20/- per month. Application of Multiplier:
28. As held above, deceased was around 34 years of age at the time of accident. Hence, the multiplier of 16 would be applicable against the age bracket of 31 years to 35 years to determine the compensation, in view of pronouncement made by the Apex Court in the case titled as "Sarla Verma Vs. DTC" 2009 ACJ 1298 SC.
Future Prospects:
29. The Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment which has arisen out of SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014 titled as National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors decided on 31.10.2017 has held as under:- "61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi,2012 ACJ 1428 (SC) 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 Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.03.22 16:14:55 +0530 MACT No. 372/2021 Date of Award : 22.03.2025 Aasha @ Asha Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zarrar & Ors. Page No. 16 of 31 another coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh,2013 ACJ 1403 (SC) has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, 2013 ACJ 1253 (SC), 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 21 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.03.22 16:15:05 +0530 MACT No. 372/2021 Date of Award : 22.03.2025 Aasha @ Asha Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zarrar & Ors. Page No. 17 of 31 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."
30. On the day of accident, deceased was aged about 34 years. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the present matter, future prospects @ 40% has to be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of pronouncement made by the Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." Civil Appeal No. 6961/2015 decided on 31.10.2017, as well as in view of decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", decided on 02.11.17.
Deduction towards Personal and Living Expenses:
31. After choosing the age, multiplier and income of the deceased, necessary deductions have to be made out of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. It is evident from the testimony of PW1 that deceased left behind his six legal representatives i.e. Petitioner no. 1 Smt. Asha (wife of deceased); Petitioner no. 2 Baby Khushi (daughter of deceased); petitioner no. 3 Baby Suman (daughter of deceased); petitioner no. 4 Master Shaurya (son of deceased); petitioner no. 5 Smt. Ratni (mother of deceased) and petitioner no. 6 Sh. Jai Bhagwan (father of deceased). PW1 has deposed that all the petitioners were dependent upon the income of her deceased husband. Since, Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.03.22 16:15:15 +0530 MACT No. 372/2021 Date of Award : 22.03.2025 Aasha @ Asha Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zarrar & Ors. Page No. 18 of 31 the deceased was married and survived by six LRs, one-fourth (1/4th) of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses, as held in the case titled as "Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation", 2009 ACJ 1298 SC.
32. Thus, considering the aforementioned factors, the compensation for the loss of dependency is calculated as under:
S. No. Head Amount 1. Monthly income of deceased (A) Rs. 9,458.20/- 2. Add future prospect (B) @ 40% Rs. 3,783.28/-
3. Less 1/4th towards personal and Rs. 3,310.37/-
living expenses of the deceased (C)
4. Monthly loss of dependency (A+B)- Rs. 9,931.11/-
C=D
5. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs. 1,19,173.32/-
6. Multiplier (E) 167. Total loss of dependency Rs.
(Dx12xE=F) 19,06,773.12/-
33. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 19,06,773/-. Hence, a sum of Rs. 19,06,773/- (Rupees Nineteen Lacs Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Three Only) is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners. NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
34. In case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), it has been held that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively and the aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.48,000/-, Rs. 18,000/-
Digitally
signed by
SACHIN
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.03.22
16:15:26
+0530
MACT No. 372/2021 Date of Award : 22.03.2025
Aasha @ Asha Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zarrar & Ors. Page No. 19 of 31
and Rs.18,000/- respectively on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted. Further, in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 2705 of 2020, decided on 30.06.2020, loss of consortium has to be fixed for each of the LRs. Since, the deceased has left behind his six LRs, therefore, the petitioners/claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,24,000/- (48,000 X 6 + 18,000 + 18,000) under this head.
35. Considering the aforementioned factors, the total compensation is calculated as under:
S. No. Head Amount Awarded 1. Total loss of dependency Rs. 19,06,773/-
2. Compensation for loss of consortium Rs. 2,88,000/-
(48,000 X 6)
3. Compensation for loss of estate (H) Rs.18,000/-
4. Compensation for funeral expenses Rs.18,000/-
(I)
Total compensation Rs. 22,30,773/-
36. Thus, petitioners in this case shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 22,30,773/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Thirty Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Three Only). INTEREST ON AWARD
37. Petitioners shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of the Petition i.e. 30.09.2021 till realization. LIABILITY
38. Now the question arises as to which of the respondent is liable to pay the compensation amount. Ld. SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.03.22 16:15:38 +0530 MACT No. 372/2021 Date of Award : 22.03.2025 Aasha @ Asha Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zarrar & Ors. Page No. 20 of 31 Counsel for respondent no. 3 / Insurance Co. has argued that respondent no. 1 was not having endorsement on his driving license to drive a vehicle carrying hazardous and / or dangerous goods as on the date of accident and so, he was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle i.e. LPG Gas Tanker, which amounts to breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy on the part of the insured and / or driver of the offending vehicle and thus, Insurance Co. is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.
39. In order to substantiate the said plea, insurance company/respondent no.3 has examined R3W1 Sh. Rahul Kumar Upadhayay, Assistant Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, who filed his affidavit in evidence Ex. R3W1/1, wherein he has stated inter alia that a notice U/o 12 Rule 8 CPC was issued to the owner of the said vehicle to supply the original Insurance Policy and DL of driver Mohd. Zarrar valid on the date of accident, however, despite the notice, neither the original insurance policy nor the driving license valid on the date of accident was furnished / supplied; that as per the extracts of the driving license filed by the IO, endorsement to drive hazardous material is from 24.09.2021, whereas the accident took place on 06.10.2020, which clearly shows that driver of offending vehicle was not having valid and proper driving license at the time of accident and it constitutes a breach of the terms of policy and therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. He filed the copy of aforesaid notice, which is Ex.R3W1/A; Postal receipt Ex.R3W1/B; copy of insurance policy is Ex.R3W1/C and RTO extracts of DL of respondent no.
Digitally signed by SACHINSACHIN GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2025.03.22 16:15:49 +0530 MACT No. 372/2021 Date of Award : 22.03.2025 Aasha @ Asha Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zarrar & Ors. Page No. 21 of 31 1 is Ex.R3W1/D. In his cross-examination done by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners, he deposed that on the day of accident, the offending vehicle was insured. He admitted that the driver was holding transport license of heavy vehicle but there was no endorsement for hazardous goods on the date of accident.
40. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as "'Rajouri Garden Gas Services Vs. Shabnam & Ors, MAC APP no. 1013/2012"', decided on 07.09.2016", held as under:-
"4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the offending vehicle was neither carrying petrol nor petroleum goods at the time of the accident. It is submitted that the offending vehicle was carrying empty gas cylinders at the time of the accident and the driver of the offending vehicle was authorized to drive the truck carrying empty gas cylinders.
5. There is merit in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant. Considering that the offending vehicle was not carrying petrol or petroleum products at the time of the accident and the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving licence to drive heavy goods vehicle, there is no violation of the terms and conditions of the policy".
41. The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the case titled as "Vijay Arvind Pore Vs. Rupali Ramdas Deshmukh & Ors., First Appeal No. 1175 of 2010 decided on 04.05.2023", held in para no. 13 as under:-
"13. In my view, it is not necessary that at all the time the truck was filled with gas cylinders. The spot panchanamma which was prepared after three to four months of the accident, does not show that offending truck was carrying gas cylinders at the time of the accident. Without any evidence, the Tribunal has erroneously held that at the time of the accident the offending truck was carrying gas cylinders. The driver of offending truck was holding effective and valid license of driving heavy vehicle Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.03.22 16:15:59 +0530 MACT No. 372/2021 Date of Award : 22.03.2025 Aasha @ Asha Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zarrar & Ors. Page No. 22 of 31 but there was no endorsement on it for carrying hazardous goods and, on that basis, liability is fixed on Appellant, which is erroneous. No evidence is produced on record by the Insurance Company nor any suggestion was given by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company to the eye witnesses that at the time of the accident, the offending truck was carrying gas cylinders. There is no breach of terms and conditions of Insurance Policy."
42. The Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Sukriti Sahu & Ors, MAC No. 538 of 2014"', decided on 07.01.2019", held as under:-
"06. As per NA-1 i.e. insurance policy of the offending vehicle, the same was duly insured with the appellant at the time of accident. As per NA-2 i.e. particulars of the driving licence, non-applicant No.1 was having licence for driving LMV and HGV and its validity was from 1.1.1985 till 5.5.2011. This fact is also proved by Ex.NA-3 i.e. report of investigator of the insurance company. Therefore, from the above, it stands proved that on the date of accident, non-applicant No.1 was having a valid and effective licence to drive LMV and HGV. No evidence has been adduced by the insurance company that the offending vehicle was carrying any inflammable or explosive or hazardous goods at the time of accident. Being so, there was no need for any endorsement in the driving licence of non-applicant No.1 for driving the said vehicle."
43. In the present case also, no evidence has been adduced by the insurance company that the offending vehicle was carrying LPG gas or any inflammable or explosive or hazardous goods at the time of accident. No evidence is produced on record by the Insurance Company nor any suggestion was given on behalf of the Insurance Company to the witnesses that Digitally signed SACHIN GUPTA by SACHIN GUPTA Date: 2025.03.22 16:16:09 +0530 MACT No. 372/2021 Date of Award : 22.03.2025 Aasha @ Asha Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zarrar & Ors. Page No. 23 of 31 at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was carrying hazardous goods. In his cross examination, PW2 / IO SI Rajbir Singh has stated that the offending vehicle is a gas tanker and he does not have any knowledge whether the gas tanker was filled or not. Hence, even as per IO, he was not having knowledge whether the offending vehicle was carrying or not any hazardous goods at the time of accident. The seizure memo of the offending vehicle filed by the IO alongwith the chargesheet also does not reflect that offending vehicle was carrying any gas or any inflammable or explosive or hazardous goods at the time of accident. There is no evidence available on record to prove that offending vehicle was carrying any inflammable or explosive or hazardous goods at the time of accident. In absence of such evidence, it cannot be presumed that the offending vehicle was carrying any such substance / hazardous goods at the time of accident. Thus, in view of the aforesaid Judgments in the cases of "Vijay Arvind Pore'; 'Rajouri Garden Gas Services'; 'Sukriti Sahu'' (supra), since it is not proved on record that the offending vehicle was carrying any inflammable or explosive or hazardous goods at the time of accident, there was no need for any endorsement in the driving license of respondent no.1 for driving the said vehicle and hence, the aforesaid plea on behalf of respondent no.3 /insurance company that there was breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy on this count is not found sustainable and the same is accordingly, stands rejected.
44. In view of the extracts of the driving license of respondent no. 1 as well as testimony of R3W1 Sh. Rahul Kumar Upadhyay and other material on record, it becomes clear that Digitally signed SACHIN by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.03.22 16:16:29 +0530 MACT No. 372/2021 Date of Award : 22.03.2025 Aasha @ Asha Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zarrar & Ors. Page No. 24 of 31 respondent no. 1 was having driving license to drive the vehicle of transport category on the date of accident. R3W1 Sh. Rahul Kumar also admitted that driver was holding transport license of heavy vehicle. It is thus held that respondent no.1 was holding a valid driving license to drive the offending vehicle as on the date of accident.
45. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that the respondent no.3/insurance company has failed to prove any violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Keeping in view the existence of valid insurance policy, respondent no.3/insurance company becomes liable to pay the compensation amount. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly. Relief
46. In view of my finding on issues no. 1 and 2, this Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs. 22,30,773/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Thirty Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Three Only) to the petitioners/claimants alongwith interest at the rate of 8% per annum in favour of petitioners and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of petition i.e 30.09.2021 till realization, to be paid by the respondent no.3/insurance company. Amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the compensation amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case. The respondent no.3/insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in the MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account no. 40714429271, IFSC Code. SBIN0000726 Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, within 30 days from today. The respondent no. 3 is also Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2025.03.22 16:16:40 +0530 MACT No. 372/2021 Date of Award : 22.03.2025 Aasha @ Asha Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zarrar & Ors. Page No. 25 of 31 directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioners.
Apportionment
47. Statements of petitioners in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP were recorded on 14.03.2024 and considering the totality of circumstances of the case, share of petitioners in the award amount shall be as under:-
S. No. Name Relationship with Share in the deceased award amount
1. Aasha Wife 35%
2. Baby Khushi Daughter 15%
3. Baby Suman Daughter 15%
4. Master Shourya Son 15%
5. Smt. Ratni Mother 10%
6. Sh. Jai Bhagwan Father 10% Disbursement of Award Amount
48. In view of the aforesaid, it is hereby ordered that out of total compensation amount, the petitioner no. 1 namely Smt. Aasha shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 7,80,771/- (Rupees Seven Lacs Eighty Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy One Only) alongwith proportionate interest; the petitioner no. 2 namely Ms. Khushi shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 3,34,616/- (Rupees Three Lacs Thirty Four Thousand Six Hundred and Sixteen Only) alongwith proportionate interest; the petitioner no. 3 namely Ms. Suman shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 3,34,616/- (Rupees Three Lacs Thirty Four Thousand Six Hundred and Sixteen Only) alongwith proportionate interest; the petitioner no. 4 namely Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.03.22 16:16:54 +0530 MACT No. 372/2021 Date of Award : 22.03.2025 Aasha @ Asha Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zarrar & Ors. Page No. 26 of 31 Shourya shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 3,34,616/- (Rupees Three Lacs Thirty Four Thousand Six Hundred and Sixteen Only) alongwith proportionate interest; the petitioner no. 5 namely Smt. Ratni shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 2,23,077/- (Rupees Two Lacs Twenty Three Thousand and Seventy Seven Only) alongwith proportionate interest and the petitioner no. 6 namely Sh. Jai Bhagwan shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 2,23,077/- (Rupees Two Lacs Twenty Three Thousand and Seventy Seven Only) alongwith proportionate interest
49. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 1 Smt. Aasha, a sum of Rs. 1,80,771/- (Rupees One Lac Eighty Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy One Only) shall be immediately released to her through her MACT saving bank account and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 20,000/- each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
50. The entire share amount of Rs. 3,34,616/- (Rupees Three Lacs Thirty Four Thousand Six Hundred and Sixteen Only Only) alongwith interest of petitioner no. 2 Khushi be kept in the form of FDR(s) for the period till she attains the age of majority and thereafter a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- alongwith upto date interest thereupon be released to her in her MACT saving Bank Account while her remaining/balance amount alongwith interest is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 15,000/- each for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
Digitally signed by SACHINSACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.03.22 16:17:06 +0530 MACT No. 372/2021 Date of Award : 22.03.2025 Aasha @ Asha Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zarrar & Ors. Page No. 27 of 31
51. The entire share amount of Rs. 3,34,616/- (Rupees Three Lacs Thirty Four Thousand Six Hundred and Sixteen Only Only) alongwith interest of petitioner no. 3 Suman be kept in the form of FDR(s) for the period till she attains the age of majority and thereafter a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- alongwith upto date interest thereupon be released to her in her MACT saving Bank Account while her remaining/balance amount alongwith interest is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 15,000/- each for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
52. The entire share amount of Rs. 3,34,616/- (Rupees Three Lacs Thirty Four Thousand Six Hundred and Sixteen Only Only) alongwith interest of petitioner no. 4 Shourya be kept in the form of FDR(s) for the period till he attains the age of majority and thereafter a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- alongwith upto date interest thereupon be released to him in his MACT saving Bank Account while his remaining/balance amount alongwith interest is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 15,000/- each for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
53. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 5 Smt. Ratni, a sum of Rs. 1,23,077/- (Rupees One Lac Twenty Three Thousand and Seventy Seven Only) shall be immediately released to her through her MACT saving bank account and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 10,000/- each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.03.22 16:17:14 +0530 MACT No. 372/2021 Date of Award : 22.03.2025 Aasha @ Asha Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zarrar & Ors. Page No. 28 of 31 interest.
54. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 6 Sh. Jai Bhagwan, a sum of Rs. 1,23,077/- (Rupees One Lac Twenty Three Thousand and Seventy Seven Only) shall be immediately released to him through his MACT saving bank account and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 10,000/- each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
55. The amount of FDRs on maturity shall directly be released in petitioners' MACT Saving Bank Account.
56. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant i.e., the savings bank account of the claimant shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The 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 claimant.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque Digitally signed SACHIN by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.03.22 16:17:24 +0530 MACT No. 372/2021 Date of Award : 22.03.2025 Aasha @ Asha Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zarrar & Ors. Page No. 29 of 31 book and/or debit card to claimant. 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.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
57. Respondent no. 3 i.e. The New India Assurance Company Limited, being insurer of offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the compensation amount with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts branch is directed to transfer the respective amounts of petitioners in their aforesaid MACT saving bank accounts, as per the award, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
58. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph, specimen signature, copy of bank passbook and copy of residence proof of the petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
59. Form XV and Form XVII in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A.
60. A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir .
61. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.03.22 16:17:35 +0530 MACT No. 372/2021 Date of Award : 22.03.2025 Aasha @ Asha Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zarrar & Ors. Page No. 30 of 31 cost.
62. A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class as well as DSLSA as per the provisions of the Modified Claim Tribunal Agreed Procedure (MCTAP). SACHIN by Digitally signed SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.03.22 16:17:42 +0530 Announced in the open Court (SACHIN GUPTA) On 22nd March, 2025 P.O. MACT-02 (WEST) THC/Delhi/22.03.2025 MACT No. 372/2021 Date of Award : 22.03.2025 Aasha @ Asha Devi & Ors. Vs. Md. Zarrar & Ors. Page No. 31 of 31