Delhi District Court
Omwati Dec(Thr Lrs Baldev ... vs Harish(New India) on 5 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010026962025
MACT No. : 129/2025
FIR No. : 516/2024
PS : DBG Road
u/s : 281/125(A)/106(1) BNS
Omwati (deceased)
Through LRs
1. Sh. Baldev Singh (LR/husband of deceased)
S/o. Late Sh. Bhoop Singh,
R/o.9340, Katra Ganga Bishan, Gaushala Road,
Kishan Ganj, Delhi-110006.
2. Sh. Devinder (LR/son of deceased)
S/o. Sh. Baldev Singh,
R/o.9340, Katra Ganga Bishan, Gaushala Road,
Kishan Ganj, Delhi-110006.
3. Sh. Raju (LR/son of deceased)
S/o. Sh. Baldev Singh,
R/o.9340, Katra Ganga Bishan, Gaushala Road,
Kishan Ganj, Delhi-110006.
4. Ms. Pooja Jatav (LR/daughter of deceased)
D/o. Sh. Baldev Singh,
W/o. Sh. Vikas Jatav,
R/o. T-4, Street No.7, Gautam Puri, Delhi.
Also at R/o.9340, Katra Ganga Bishan, Gaushala Road,
Kishan Ganj, Delhi-110006.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.129/2025 Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
Omwati (Dec.) through Lrs Vs. Harish and ors. SINGLA
Date: 2026.05.06
14:37:01 +0530
Page 1 of 40
5. Ms. Hemlata (LR/daughter of deceased)
D/o. Sh. Baldev Singh,
W/o. Sh. Devender,
R/o. 8143, Dinnanath Road, Parvati Niwas,
Roshnara Road, Delhi-110007.
Also at R/o.9340, Katra Ganga Bishan, Gaushala Road,
Kishan Ganj, Delhi-110006.
...Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Harish (driver)
S/o. Sh. Ramphal,
R/o.H.No.01, Pana Harijan Basti, near G-block,
Magol Pur Kalan, New Delhi-110085
2. Vishal Golden Transport Service (owner)
1st floor, H.No.397, near Vishal Builder,
Mangol Pur Kala, New Delhi-110085.
3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Core-3, First Floor, Scope Minar, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.
...Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 17.02.2025
Judgment reserved on : 05.05.2026
Date of Award : 05.05.2026
AWAR D
1. The present DAR was filed on 17.02.2025 which was
treated as the claim petition. The Road Traffic Accident in question took
place on 16.11.2024 at about 10:40 PM at New Rohtak Road, near
Liberty Cinema red light, Karol Bagh, Delhi within the jurisdiction of
PS DBG Road. Smt. Omwati expired in the said accident which was
allegedly caused by a Tempo/Tractor bearing registration No.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.129/2025 Digitally signed by
Omwati (Dec.) through Lrs Vs. Harish and ors. RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.05.06
14:37:07 +0530
Page 2 of 40
DL-1LAG-3745 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle). The
offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1 Harish, owned
by respondent no. 2 Vishal Golden Transport Service and insured with
respondent no. 3 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that a PCR call vide DD No.81A dated 16.11.2024 regarding information of an accident was received at PS DBG Road and handed over to ASI Murari Lal, who alongwith HC Ram Pal went to the spot i.e. New Rohtak Road, near Liberty Cinema red light, Karol Bagh, Delhi where one lady met in an accidental condition. She was sent to the RML hospital for treatment by the IO. After leaving the HC Ram Pal at the spot of accident, IO went to the RML Hospital where he collected the MLC no. 228034/24 of injured Omwati. The doctors declared her as brought dead. IO further collected other MLC bearing no. 228060/24 of injured Baldev. IO found Mr. Baldev to be under treatment in the hospital. Thereafter, IO recorded the statement of injured Mr. Baldev. Thereafter, FIR was registered on the basis of both the MLCs and statement of injured Baldev u/s.281/125A/106(1) BNS.
3. During the course of investigation, IO prepared the site plan at the instance of injured Baldev. Thereafter, IO called the crime team at the spot of accident and got the photographs of the spot of accident conducted by the crime team. Crime team had handed over the photographs of the spot of accident and exhibits to the IO. Thereafter, IO RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.129/2025 Digitally signed by Omwati (Dec.) through Lrs Vs. Harish and ors. Page 3 of 40 RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.05.06 14:37:11 +0530 had deposited the same alongwith accidental scooty to the maalkhana.
4. On 17.11.2025, IO got conducted the post mortem of the dead body of Smt. Omwati and handed over her body to her relatives. On 17.11.2025, IO had checked the CCTV footage installed in front of house no. 4C/7, Karol Bagh, Delhi and made the recording of the same from his own mobile phone in which the offending vehicle was clearly visible. Thereafter, he checked the CCTV Camera of PWD installed at the Rani Jhansi Flyover U Turn and found the same offending vehicle into the footage. Thereafter, IO collected the CCTV footage from the PWD. Thereafter, notice u/s. 133 MV Act was served upon the owner of the offending vehicle. In reply to said notice, owner of the offending vehicle has written that at the time of accident, Mr. Harish was driving the offending vehicle. Owner has handed over the driver as well as offending vehicle to the IO. Owner also produced the documents pertaining to the offending vehicle before the IO. Thereafter, IO arrested the driver of the offending vehicle and upon producing the surety, the driver of the offending vehicle was released on bail.
5. On 23.11.2024, the case file was transferred to MACT Cell, Central District and assigned to IO/ASI Mohan Singh. Thereafter, mechanical inspection of both the accidental vehicles were got conducted. The IO deposited the MLC of injured Baldev in the hospital and later collected the result which was opined by the doctors as "simple". Thereafter, IO collected the PM report of Smt. Omwati and deposited the exhibits to the FSL Rohini for results. Thereafter, IO got RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.129/2025 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.05.06 Omwati (Dec.) through Lrs Vs. Harish and ors. 14:37:16 +0530 Page 4 of 40 the documents pertaining to the offending vehicle verified from the concerned authorities and the same were found to be correct. Thereafter, IO had obtained the CDR of mobile phone of the driver of the offending vehicle. After completion of investigation, chargesheet for the offences u/s.281/125A/106(1) BNS & 134A/187 MV Act was filed against the driver Harish before the concerned Ld. JMFC and the DAR was filed before this Tribunal.
WRITTEN STATEMENTS
6. No WS was filed on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2. Therefore, the defence of respondents no. 1 and 2 was struck off vide order dated 21.07.2025.
7. WS on behalf of respondent no. 3 was filed on 07.05.2025, wherein it was stated that the present case was liable to be dismissed as the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of Baldev Singh, who was driving the scooty without having any driving licence. It was stated that the offending vehicle was being driven without a valid permit. Hence, it was stated that the present petition was not maintainable.
ISSUES
8. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated 21.07.2025, this Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 16.11.2024 at about 10:40 PM at New Rohtak Road near Liberty Cinema, Karol Bagh, Delhi involving vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1LAG-3745 RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.129/2025 Digitally signed Omwati (Dec.) through Lrs Vs. Harish and ors. Page 5 of 40 by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.05.06 14:37:20 +0530 driven rashly and negligently by respondent no.1 Harish, owned by respondent no. 2 Vishal Golden Transport Service and insured with respondent no. 3 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.?OPP
2. Whether the petitioner(s) are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
9. The petitioner examined Sh. Baldev Singh i.e. the petitioner no. 1 as PW-1. PW1 has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW. He relied upon the following documents:
1. Copy of Aadhar card of deponent as Ex. PW1/1 (OSR)
2. Medical documents of bill and invoices of deponent as Mark 1 (colly).
3. DAR as Ex. PW1/3 (colly)
4. Death certificate of wife of petitioner as Ex. PW1/4.
10. PW1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for respondents. Thereafter, PE was closed on 13.11.2025.
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE
11. No RE was led by any of the respondents.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
12. The petitioner filed his duly filled Form XIII and the RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.129/2025 Digitally signed by Omwati (Dec.) through Lrs Vs. Harish and ors. Page 6 of 40 RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.05.06 14:37:25 +0530 financial statement of all the petitioners were recorded. Final arguments were heard on behalf of the petitioner as well as respondents.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
13. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record. My findings on the various issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1:
Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 16.11.2024 at about 10:40 PM at New Rohtak Road near Liberty Cinema, Karol Bagh, Delhi involving vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1LAG-3745 driven rashly and negligently by respondent no.1 Harish, owned by respondent no. 2 Vishal Golden Transport Service and insured with respondent no. 3 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.?
14. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that on 16.11.2024 at about 10:40 PM at New Rohtak Road near Liberty Cinema, Karol Bagh, Delhi, the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. the respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle carelessly in a negligent manner and hit the scooty of the deceased, due to which she fell and suffered injuries. It is stated that during investigation, the offending vehicle was seized by the IO. The respondent no.1 was chargesheeted by the IO. Hence, it is submitted that it is proved that the respondent no.1 was driving the negligent in a rash and negligent manner due to which the deceased suffered injuries.
RUCHIKA
MACT No.129/2025 SINGLA
Omwati (Dec.) through Lrs Vs. Harish and ors. Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.05.06
Page 7 of 40
14:37:29 +0530
15. Record perused.
16. In the present case, no WS was filed by the respondent no.
1. Hence, it is deemed that he has admitted the allegations as mentioned in the DAR. Further, perusal of the DAR shows that the offending vehicle was seized by the IO three days after the accident. Further, as per the mechanical inspection report, there were fresh damages on the offending vehicle. There were scratches on left side outer body. 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.
17. Further, it is also pertinent to note that the respondent no.1 was chargesheeted by the IO under Section 281/125A/106 (I) BNS. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepak Goel & Ors, 2014 (2) TAC 846 (Del) decided by the Coordinate Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it was held as under :-
RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.129/2025 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Omwati (Dec.) through Lrs Vs. Harish and ors. Date: 2026.05.06 14:37:34 +0530 Page 8 of 40 "......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."
18. 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."
19. Even otherwise, the petitioner was unknown to respondent no.1 prior to the accident and admittedly, there was no prior enmity with respondent no.1 and hence, it is beyond comprehension as to why the petitioner will implicate respondent no.1 falsely, had he not been driving the offending vehicle.
20. It is a settled law that the petitioner cannot be expected to prove the accident beyond reasonable doubts and the principle of res ipse loquitor should apply which means that the "accident speaks for itself". Thus, once it has been established in DAR and chargesheet that the accident had taken place, the burden shifts on the respondents to prove that they were not responsible for the accident which the Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
MACT No.129/2025 2026.05.06
14:37:40
+0530
Omwati (Dec.) through Lrs Vs. Harish and ors. Page 9 of 40
respondents have failed to discharge. Hence, an adverse inference is drawn against the respondent no.1. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the cases of Teja Singh Vs Suman & Ors., MAC. APP. 1111/2018 & CM APPL. 52384/2018, 52386/2018, date of decision 06/12/2019; MAC. APP. 428/2018, titled as The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamla Devi & Ors, date of decision 08.11.2019 and MAC. APP. 690/2017 & CM APPL. 28108/2017, titled as Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mona & Ors., date of decision 15.10.2019, which had relied upon the judgment in the case of Cholamandalam Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamlesh 2009(3) AD Delhi 310.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 5 SCC 656 has laid down in paragraphs 27 & 28:
"27. ...This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina Fernandes, noted that the key of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the judgments already adverted to by us, filing of chargesheet against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opined that the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
28. Reliance placed upon the decisions in Minu B. Mehta RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.129/2025 Digitally signed Omwati (Dec.) through Lrs Vs. Harish and ors. Page 10 of 40 by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.05.06 14:37:45 +0530 and Meena Variyal, by the respondents, in our opinion, is of no avail. The dictum in these cases is on the matter in issue in the case concerned. Similarly, even the dictum in Surender Kumar Arora will be of no avail. In the present case, considering the entirety of the pleadings, evidence and circumstances on record and in particular the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the factum of negligence of Respondent 2, the driver of the offending jeep, the High Court committed manifest error in taking a contrary view which, in our opinion, is an error apparent on the face of record and manifestly wrong."
22. It has not been disputed that respondent No.1 has been charge-sheeted in the aforesaid FIR for offences punishable under Section 281/106/125(A) BNS for rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. In view of the same, considering the facts and circumstances, the unrebutted testimony of the petitioner and the documents filed thereto, the court is satisfied that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.1. From the DAR, it also stands established that the respondent no.2 was the registered owner of the offending vehicle and that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.3.
Contributory negligence
23. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 argued that it is a matter of record that the petitioner was driving without a valid driving license and since he was violating the laws, he was at fault and was not competent to drive.
24. However, it was held in the case of Sudhir Kumar Rana v RUCHIKA MACT No.129/2025 SINGLA Omwati (Dec.) through Lrs Vs. Harish and ors. Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Page 11 of 40 Date: 2026.05.06 14:37:51 +0530 Surinder Singh & Ors 2008 SCC OnLine SC 794 that:
"9. If a person drives a vehicle without a license, he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been held by the courts below that it was the driver of the mini-truck who was driving rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not possessing any license but no finding of fact has been arrived at that he was driving the two-wheeler rashly and negligently. If he was not driving rashly and negligently which contributed to the accident, we fail to see as to how, only because he was not having a license, he would be held to be guilty of contributory negligence.
10. The matter might have been different if by reason of his rash and negligent driving, the accident had taken place."
25. The Sudhir Kumar Rana (supra) case was affirmed in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V Puneet Bhatia (MAC APP. 774/2017 & CM APPl. 41950/2018, 50140/2018 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 11.12.2023 where the appeal was rejected on the ground that merely because the driver did not have a valid license, he cannot be said to be driving in a rash and negligent manner unless rashness and negligence on his part is specifically proved.
26. The dicta laid down in the cases of Sudhir Kumar Rana (supra) as well as Puneet Bhatia (supra) make it amply clear that an overt act of rashness and negligence had to be proved on behalf of the petitioner and merely because he did not have a driving license, he cannot be termed to have been riding his scooty in a rash and negligent manner. Respondent no. 1 has not examined himself to prove that the MACT No.129/2025 Digitally signed by Omwati (Dec.) through Lrs Vs. Harish and ors. RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
Page 12 of 402026.05.06 14:37:56 +0530 injured was riding his scooty in a rash and negligent manner. Therefore, it is concluded that there was no wilful act, neglect or default on the part of the injured. Thus, the respondent no. 3 has not been able to prove its defence that the injured was rash and negligent.
27. Secondly, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3 that the deceased is liable for contributory negligence as she was riding the scooty without helmet. In Ram Niwas Meena & Anr vs Neeraj Kumar Mishra MAC.APP. 577/2017 decided on 5 September, 2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed:
"7. It, however, must be noted in this very context that the entire record of investigation does not indicate, not even remotely, presence of any helmet either of the rider Ranjeet Mishra or of the pillion rider Naresh Kumar Mishra having been found either at the scene or on their person. No injury on account of impact of helmets on their respective heads if worn at the relevant point of time has been noticed either in the MLC or by the autopsy doctor. In these circumstances, mere word of PW-1 that both the riders were sporting helmets cannot be accepted. A finding must be returned that both were riding on the motorcycle without taking the precaution of wearing helmets.
8. In above facts and circumstances, while the finding of the tribunal holding the bus driver responsible for the collision cannot be questioned, it must be concluded that both the riders of the motorcycle had also contributed to the cause for the serious injuries suffered by each of them in that they did not take precaution of wearing the helmets on their respective heads. The element of contributory negligence, in the facts and circumstances, is assessed to the extent of twenty five per cent (25%). Deduction to that extent from the compensation awarded by the tribunal will have to be made. Ordered RUCHIKA MACT No.129/2025 SINGLA Omwati (Dec.) through Lrs Vs. Harish and ors. Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Page 13 of 40 Date: 2026.05.06 14:38:01 +0530 accordingly.
9. Thus, both appeals are partly allowed. The compensation determined by the tribunal in the two cases shall be paid after deducting twenty five per cent (25%) on account of contributory negligence."
28. In the present matter, the deceased suffered from a crush injury on her head and subsequently she expired. There is no evidence on record to show that she was wearing a helmet at the time of the accident. Hence, it seems that the injured was riding on the scooty without helmet. Hence, it is held that the deceased was also negligent while riding his scooty. Her contributory negligence is ascertained at 25%.
The injury:
29. Further, the onus to prove that the deceased had suffered fatal injuries by way of the said accident was on the petitioner. In this regard, the petitioner has relied upon the MLC dated 17.11.2024, as per which the deceased was brought to the hospital with the history of road traffic accident. As per the MLC, she had suffered a crush injury on the head. She was declared brought dead. Further, her Death Report is on record as per which, she expired due to injuries caused in a road traffic accident.
30. 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 RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.129/2025 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA Omwati (Dec.) through Lrs Vs. Harish and ors. SINGLA Date: 2026.05.06 14:38:06 +0530 Page 14 of 40 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 Omwati 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)
31. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. In view of the discussion in the issue no.1, the petitioner is 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 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 RUCHIKA MACT No.129/2025 SINGLA Omwati (Dec.) through Lrs Vs. Harish and ors. Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Page 15 of 40 Date: 2026.05.06 14:38:10 +0530 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 "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 RUCHIKA MACT No.129/2025 SINGLA Omwati (Dec.) through Lrs Vs. Harish and ors. Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.05.06 Page 16 of 40 14:38:15 +0530 had a permanent job and was below 40 years. [Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words `actual salary' should be read as `actual salary less tax']. The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years.
There should be no addition, where the age of deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances."
QUA DEDUCTIONS "14. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/3rd) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six.
15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the MACT No.129/2025 RUCHIKA SINGLA Omwati (Dec.) through Lrs Vs. Harish and ors. Page 17 of 40 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date:
2026.05.06 14:38:20 +0530 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."
32. 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 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.
RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.129/2025 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Omwati (Dec.) through Lrs Vs. Harish and ors. Page 18 of 40 Date: 2026.05.06 14:38:25 +0530
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.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
Digitally MACT No.129/2025 signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
Omwati (Dec.) through Lrs Vs. Harish and ors. 2026.05.06 14:38:29 +0530 Page 19 of 40
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 31,001/- and Rs.
15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years."
Loss of income
33. In the present matter, it is alleged that at the time of the accident, the deceased was a housewife. Hence, it is submitted that her income may be assessed accordingly.
34. Record perused.
35. The petitioner was a housewife. In case titled as Abdul Awal @ Auwal v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. MAC App. 989/2018 decided on 02.03.2023 by the Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati, it has been observed that a housewife's income may be assessed as per the minimum wages applicable for an unskilled worker. Similar observations have been given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muhammed Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 8960/2017 decided on 01.12.2022. However, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Jagdish v. Om Pal Singh & Ors. MAC App. 279/2019 decided on 10.12.2024 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dalvir Singh & Ors. [(2025) SCC OnLine Del 844] has held that minimum wages of a skilled workman is to be taken for the purpose of assessment of income in case of housewives. The date of the accident in the present matter is 17.11.2024. Hence, as per the prevalent notification qua the minimum wages, her monthly income is assessed to be Rs. 21,917/-.
RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.129/2025 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA Omwati (Dec.) through Lrs Vs. Harish and ors. Page 20 of 40 SINGLA Date: 2026.05.06 14:38:32 +0530 Age determination of the deceased:
36. As per the Aadhar card of the deceased Ex. PW1/1, her year of birth was 1968. No document has been given qua her date of birth.
Hence, her date of birth is taken as 01.01.1968. The date of the accident is 17.11.2024. Hence, as on the date of the accident, the deceased was aged 56 years.
Future Prospects: -
37. 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 10% for future prospects as the deceased was between 50-60 years of age at the time of the accident.
Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased needs to be taken as Rs. 24,108.70 (Rs. 21,917/- + Rs. 2,191.70 which is 10% of Rs. 21,917/-).
Determination of Dependent
38. In the present case, the deceased is survived by her husband, two sons and two daughters. All the children are married. As per the financial statement of the petitioners, both the sons are working. The daughters being married shall be considered as dependant on their respective husbands. Hence, only the husband of the deceased shall be considered as dependent on the deceased.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.05.06 MACT No.129/2025 14:38:37 +0530 Omwati (Dec.) through Lrs Vs. Harish and ors. Page 21 of 40 Determination of multiplicand
39. The monthly income of the deceased after enhancement needs to be taken as Rs. 24,108.70. In light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur & Ors., (2021) 11 SCC 780 , out of the above amount so assessed, 1/2 amount has to be deducted on account of personal and living expenses as the deceased had only one dependent. So, in this matter, monthly loss of dependency would come out to be Rs. 12,054.35 (1/2 of Rs. 24,108.70). This needs to be multiplied by 12 to workout multiplicand/annual loss of dependency. Hence, multiplicand for this matter would be Rs. 1,44,652.20 (rounded off to Rs. 1,44,652/-) ( Rs. 12,054.35 x 12).
Award Towards Loss of Dependency
40. Further, as the deceased was 56 years of age at the time of the accident, multiplier applicable in this matter as per above discussion would be 9. The total loss of dependency would come out to be Rs.13,01,868/- (Rs. 1,44,652/- x 9), hence, so awarded.
Medical expenses:
41. The petitioner has not filed any medical bills on record. Hence, in the absence of any medical bills, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any amount towards medical expenses.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.05.06 14:38:42 +0530 MACT No.129/2025 Omwati (Dec.) through Lrs Vs. Harish and ors. Page 22 of 40 Non-Pecuniary Heads:-
42. The Respondents/Claimants shall be entitled to the compensation under Non-Pecuniary Heads in terms of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi And Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. The case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) was considered and clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 9581/2018 decided on 18.09.2018 whereby after considering the case of Pranay Sethi's (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to award loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/- to each dependent of the deceased and further pleased to award a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to each dependent of the deceased towards loss of love and affection. The relevant portion is as under:
"...... A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of Consortium.
In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses 'spousal consortium', 'parental consortium', and 'filial consortium'.
The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse.
Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation."
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
MACT No.129/2025 RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.05.06
Omwati (Dec.) through Lrs Vs. Harish and ors. Page 23 of 40
14:38:47
+0530
Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training."
Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.
Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognized that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium.
Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act.
A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium.
The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under 'Loss of Consortium' as laid down in Pranay Sethi Digitally signed by MACT No.129/2025 RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.05.06 Omwati (Dec.) through Lrs Vs. Harish and ors. 14:38:50 +0530 Page 24 of 40 (supra).
In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs.25,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium.....".
43. However, in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur 2020 SCC Online SC 410 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that there is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head. The relevant portion of the observations are reproduced as under:
"...... The amount to be awarded for loss consortium will be as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra). At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide uniformity with respect to the grant of consortium, and loss of love and affection. Several Tribunals and High Courts have been awarding compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), has recognized only three conventional heads under which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in loss of consortium.
The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to award compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate conventional head. There is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head...".
44. 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 RUCHIKA MACT No.129/2025 SINGLA Omwati (Dec.) through Lrs Vs. Harish and ors. Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Page 25 of 40 Date: 2026.05.06 14:38:55 +0530 loss of consortium to each legal heir and the same may be enhanced by 10% every three years.
45. Thus, an amount of Rs. 19,965/- is granted towards the Loss of Estate and Rs. 19,965/- towards funeral charges.
46. Further, the petitioner is entitled to loss of consortium. Hence, Rs. 53,240/- each is granted to each petitioner towards Loss of Consortium.
Computation of compensation:
47. Applying the settled guidelines in the various judgments, the compensation payable to the petitioner is calculated as under:
Head Awarded by the Claims Tribunal Monthly Income of deceased (A) Rs. 21,917/- Add future prospect (B) @ 10%= Rs. 2,191.70 Less 1/2 deductions towards (Rs. 21,917/- + Rs. 2,191.70) = Rs. personal and living expenses of the 24,108.70 x 1/2 = Rs. 12,054.35 deceased (C) Monthly loss of dependency (Rs. 21,917/- + Rs. 2,191.70) - Rs. [(A+B) - C = D] 12,054.35 = Rs. 12,054.35 Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 12,054.35 x 12= Rs. 1,44,652/-
(D x 12)
Multiplier (E) 9
Total loss of dependency (Rs. 1,44,652/- x 9) =
DxE=F Rs.13,01,868/-
Medical Expenses (G) Nil
Compensation for loss of love and Nil.
RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.129/2025 Omwati (Dec.) through Lrs Vs. Harish and ors. Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Page 26 of 40 Date: 2026.05.06 14:38:59 +0530 affection (H) Compensation for loss of Rs. 53,240/- x 5 = Rs. 2,66,200/- consortium (I) to the petitioner Compensation for loss of Estate (J) Rs. 19,965/- Compensation for funeral expenses Rs. 19,965/- (K) Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 16,07,998/-
Less Contributory Negligence Rs. 4,02,000/- (25%) Total Compensation Rs. 12,05,998/-
48. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld awarding of 9% interest per annum. Therefore, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 17.02.2025 till realization.
Apportionment:
49. It is evident from the record that the deceased had left behind his 5 legal heirs i.e. husband and children. For the sake of convenience, the individual shares of the petitioners are tabulated as under:-
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.129/2025 SINGLA Date:
2026.05.06 14:39:04 Omwati (Dec.) through Lrs Vs. Harish and ors. +0530 Page 27 of 40 S.No. Name of the Relation with Amount in Total amount claimant deceased (Rupees) including interest
1. Sh. Baldev Husband Rs. 10,46,278/- Rs. 10,46,278/- + Singh Rs. 1,14,287.96 = Rs. 11,60,565.96 (rounded off to Rs.
11,60,566/-)
2. Sh. Devinder Son Rs. 39,930/- Rs. 39,930/- + Rs.
4,361.67 = Rs.
44,291.67 (rounded off to Rs. 44,292/-)
3. Sh. Raju Son Rs. 39,930/- Rs. 39,930/- + Rs.
4,361.67 = Rs.
44,291.67 (rounded off to Rs. 44,292/-)
4. Smt. Pooja Daughter Rs. 39,930/- Rs. 39,930/- + Rs.
Jatav 4,361.67 = Rs.
44,291.67 (rounded
off to Rs. 44,292/-)
5. Smt. Hemlata Daughter Rs. 39,930/- Rs. 39,930/- + Rs.
4,361.67 = Rs.
44,291.67 (rounded
off to Rs. 44,292/-)
DISBURSEMENT
50. The Financial Statement of petitioner/injured was recorded by this Court/Tribunal. As per the said statement, the monthly expenses of his family are approximately Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month.
51. 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 RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.129/2025 Digitally signed Omwati (Dec.) through Lrs Vs. Harish and ors. by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date:Page 28 of 40
2026.05.06 14:39:10 +0530 the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimants. However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount.
The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other branch of the bank.
(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."
52. 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 :
RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.129/2025 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.05.06 Omwati (Dec.) through Lrs Vs. Harish and ors. 14:39:15 +0530 Page 29 of 40 "17. The case in hand pertains to the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. The general practice followed by the insurance companies, where the compensation is not disputed, is to deposit the same before the Tribunal. Instead of following that process, a direction can always be issued to transfer the amount into the bank account(s) of the claimant(s) with intimation to the Tribunal.
17.1 For that purpose, the Tribunals at the initial stage of pleadings or at the stage of leading evidence may require the claimant(s) to furnish their bank account particulars to the Tribunal along with the requisite proof, so that at the stage of passing of the award the Tribunal may direct that the amount of compensation be transferred in the account of the claimant and if there are more than one then in their respective accounts. If there is no bank account, then they should be required to open the bank account either individually or jointly with family members only. It should also be mandated that, in case there is any change in the bank account particulars of the claimant(s) during the pendency of the claim petition they should update the same before the Tribunal. This should be ensured before passing of the final award. It may be ensured that the bank account should be in the name of the claimant(s) and if minor, through guardian(s) and in no case it should be a joint account with any person, 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."
53. In view of the same, the award amount can now be disbursed in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioner. However, the remaining directions as passed by the Hon'ble High Court shall be complied with.
RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.05.06 MACT No.129/2025 14:39:19 +0530 Omwati (Dec.) through Lrs Vs. Harish and ors. Page 30 of 40 Sh. Baldev Singh (husband):
54. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners, it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 13,37,734/-, out of the share of the petitioner/husband Sh. Baldev Singh Rs. 11,60,566/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Sixty Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Six only), Rs. 3,60,566/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Six only) shall be released to the petitioner immediately in his Bank Account bearing account no. 44889440680 SBI THC, Delhi, IFSC SBIN0000726 CIF no. 92352577471.
55. The balance amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lacs only) shall be put in 20 monthly fixed deposits in his name in his account as mentioned above of equal amount of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 100 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 his saving account maintained in a nationalized bank situated near the place of his residence.
Sh. Devinder (Son):
56. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners, it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 13,37,734/-, out of the share of the petitioner/Sh. Devinder Rs. 44,292/- (Rupees Forty Four Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Two only), the entire amount shall RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.129/2025 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Omwati (Dec.) through Lrs Vs. Harish and ors. Date: 2026.05.06 14:39:23 +0530 Page 31 of 40 be released to the petitioner immediately in his Bank Account bearing account no. 44889323193 SBI THC, Delhi, IFSC SBIN0000726 CIF no. 92352571195 .
Sh. Raju (Son):
57. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners, it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 13,37,734/-, out of the share of the petitioner/Sh. Raju Rs. 44,292/- (Rupees Forty Four Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Two only), the entire amount shall be released to the petitioner immediately in his Bank Account bearing account no. 44889089435 SBI THC, Delhi, IFSC SBIN0000726 CIF no. 92352557750.
Smt. Pooja Jatav (Daughter)
58. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners, it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 13,37,734/-, out of the share of the petitioner/Smt. Pooja Jatav Rs. 44,292/- (Rupees Forty Four Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Two only), the entire amount shall be released to the petitioner immediately in her Bank Account bearing account no. 44889188947 SBI THC, Delhi, IFSC SBIN0000726 CIF no. 92352557433.
Smt. Hemlata (Daughter)
59. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners, it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 13,37,734/-, out of the share of the petitioner/Smt. Hemlata Rs. 44,292/- (Rupees Forty RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.129/2025 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Omwati (Dec.) through Lrs Vs. Harish and ors. Date: 2026.05.06 14:39:28 +0530 Page 32 of 40 Four Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Two only), the entire amount shall be released to the petitioner immediately in her Bank Account bearing account no. 44889393525 SBI THC, Delhi, IFSC SBIN0000726 CIF no. 92352577540.
60. In compliance of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award the prescribed Format-XVI is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
Date of Accident: 17.11.2024 Name of the deceased: Smt. Omwati Age of the deceased: 56 years Occupation of the deceased: Housewife. Income of the deceased : Rs. 21,917/- pm
Name and relationship of legal representative of deceased:
Name of the claimant Relation with deceased Sh. Baldev Singh Husband Sh. Devinder Son Sh. Raju Son Smt. Pooja Jatav Daughter Smt. Hemlata Daughter RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.05.06 14:39:32 +0530 MACT No.129/2025 Omwati (Dec.) through Lrs Vs. Harish and ors. Page 33 of 40 COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION Sr. Head Awarded by the Claims Tribunal No. 1 Monthly Income of deceased Rs. 21,917/-
(A) 2 Add future prospect (B) @ 10%= Rs. 2,191.70 3 Less 1/2 deductions towards (Rs. 21,917/- + Rs. 2,191.70) = Rs.
personal and living expenses of 24,108.70 x 1/2 = Rs. 12,054.35 the deceased (C) 4 Monthly loss of dependency (Rs. 21,917/- + Rs. 2,191.70) - Rs.
[(A+B) - C = D] 12,054.35 = Rs. 12,054.35 5 Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 12,054.35 x 12 = Rs. 1,44,652/-
(D x 12)
6 Multiplier (E) 9
7 Total loss of dependency (Rs. 1,44,652/- x 9) =
DxE=F Rs.13,01,868/-
8 Medical Expenses (G) Nil
9 Compensation for loss of love Nil
and affection (H)
10 Compensation for loss of Rs. 2,66,200/-
consortium (I) to the petitioner
11 Compensation for loss of Rs. 19,965/-
Estate (J)
12 Compensation for funeral Rs. 19,965/-
expenses (K)
13 Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 16,07,998/-
14 Less Contributory Negligence Rs. 4,02,000/-
(25%)
15 Total Compensation Rs. 12,05,998/-
16 Rate of Interest Awarded 9%
MACT No.129/2025
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
Omwati (Dec.) through Lrs Vs. Harish and ors. RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.05.06
Page 34 of 40
14:39:36
+0530
17 Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 1,31,736/-
award w.e.f. 17.02.2025 till
realization
18 Total amount including interest Rs. 13,37,734/-
19 Award amount released As per paragraph Nos. 54 to 59
20 Award amount kept in FDRs As per paragraph No. 55
21 Mode of disbursement of the As per paragraph Nos. 54 to 59
award amount to the
claimant(s)
22 Next Date of compliance of the 05.06.2026
award
LIABILITY:
61. It has been established that accident was caused due to the rash and negligent act of the respondent no.1 who was driving the offending vehicle no.1 and that respondent no.2 is the owner of the same and the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no.3. Hence, the respondent no. 3 shall be liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner. Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
62. In view of the above, the respondent no.3 is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.12,05,998/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Five Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Eight Only) along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. w.e.f. 17.02.2025 till realization with the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the claimants, failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay interest @12% per Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: MACT No.129/2025 SINGLA 2026.05.06 14:39:41 +0530 Omwati (Dec.) through Lrs Vs. Harish and ors. Page 35 of 40 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.
63. 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 05.06.2026 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA MACT No.129/2025 SINGLA Date: 2026.05.06 14:39:47 +0530 Omwati (Dec.) through Lrs Vs. Harish and ors. Page 36 of 40 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.
Announced in the open Court today on this 5th May, 2026 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA Date:
SINGLA 2026.05.06 14:39:51 +0530 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.MACT No.129/2025 Omwati (Dec.) through Lrs Vs. Harish and ors. Page 37 of 40
THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL MOTOR VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022 (PL. SEE RULE 150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 16.11.2024 2 Date of filing of Form-I -
First Accident Report 19.11.2024 (FAR) 3 Date of delivery of Form-II 17.02.2025 to the victim(s) 4 Date of receipt of Form-III 04.01.2025 from the Driver 5 Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Owner 04.01.2025 6 Date of filing of Form-V- Particulars of the insurance 04.01.2025 of the vehicle 7 Date of receipt of Form- 17.02.2025 VIA from the Victim(s) 8 Date of filing of Form-VII - 17.02.2025 Detail Accident Report (DAR) 9 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Investigating NA Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted? 10 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the 07.05.2025 Insurance Company 11 Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company admitted his Yes report within 30 days of the RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.129/2025 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Omwati (Dec.) through Lrs Vs. Harish and ors. Date: 2026.05.06 14:40:05 +0530 Page 38 of 40 DAR/claim petition? 12 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the NA part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted? 13 Date of response of the claimant(s) to the offer of NA the Insurance Company. 14 Date of award 05.05.2026 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 17.02.2025 residence and produce PAN card and Aadhar Card and the direction to the bank not to issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s). 17 Date on which the claimant(s) produced the passbook of their savings 07.02.2026 bank account(s) near the place of their residence alongwith the endorsement, PAN card and Aadhaar Digitally MACT No.129/2025 signed by RUCHIKA Omwati (Dec.) through Lrs Vs. Harish and ors. RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: Page 39 of 40 2026.05.06 14:40:09 +0530 Card? 18 Permanent residential address of the claimant(s). As per Award. 19 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) is No near their place of residence? 20 Whether the Claimant(s) were examined at the time
Yes. The Financial Statements of the claimants of passing of the Award to were recorded on 07.02.2026.
ascertain his/their financial condition?
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.05.06 14:40:13 +0530 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
05.05.2026 MACT No.129/2025 Omwati (Dec.) through Lrs Vs. Harish and ors. Page 40 of 40