Delhi District Court
Lrs Of Tapan Gupta vs Anil Singh on 18 February, 2026
LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 1 of53
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEPIKA SINGH, PRESIDING
OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
New No. 449475/16
UNIQUE ID No.: DLNW01-000180-2012
LR of Tapan Gupta:
Sh. Bhuvan Gupta
S/o Late Sh. Umesh Gupta
R/o A-2/6, Janakpuri,
New Delhi-110058
........ Petitioner/claimant
Versus
1. Anil Singh
S/o Sh. Hira Singh
R/o Village Hussaina, PS Anchal Ganj,
District Unnao, UP
....... Driver/R1
2. Sh. Gunjeet Singh
S/o Sh. Pritam Singh
R/o H.No. WZ-145, Gali No. 2, Sri Nagar Colony,
Sakur Basti, Delhi
Also at AG-383, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi
....... Owner/R2
3. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
Having its Office at:
60, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-III,
Modi Flour Mill, 2nd Floor, Okhla, Delhi
....... Insurance Company/R3
..... Respondents
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 31.07.2012
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 03.02.2026
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.02.2026
MACT No. 449475/16 Page 1 of53
LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 2 of53
FORM - V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE
MENTIONED IN THE AWARD AS PER FORMAT
REFERRED IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
DELHI HIGH COURT IN FAO 842/2003 RAJESH TYAGI Vs.
JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018.
1. Date of the accident 24.03.2012
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the 31.07.2012
investigating officer to the Claims
Tribunal
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the 31.07.2012
investigating officer to the insurance
company.
4. Date of filing of Report under section Not mentioned in
173 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan the DAR
Magistrate
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident 31.07.2012
Information Report (DAR) by the
investigating Officer before Claims
Tribunal
6. Date of Service of DAR on the 31.07.2012
Insurance Company
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant 31.07.2012
(s).
8. Whether DAR was complete in all Yes
respects?
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR N/A
removed later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the Yes
documents filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or N/A
deficiency on the part of the
MACT No. 449475/16 Page 2 of53
LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 3 of53
Investigating Officer? If so, whether
any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated 31.07.2012
Officer by the insurance Company.
13. Name, address and contact number of Sh. Sujit Jaiswal,
the Designated Officer of the Insurance Ld. Counsel for
Company. the insurance
company
14. Whether the designated Officer of the No
Insurance Company submitted his
report within 30 days of the DAR?
(Clause 22)
15. Whether the insurance company No
admitted the liability? If so, whether the
Designated Officer of the insurance
company fairly computed the
compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or N/A
deficiency on the part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance Company? If
so, whether any action/direction
warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to Legal Offer not
the offer of the Insurance Company . filed
18. Date of the Award 16.02.2026
19. Whether the award was passed with the No
consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed Yes
to open saving bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were 25.03.2019
directed to open saving bank account (s)
near his place of residence and produce
PAN Card and Aadhar Card and the
direction to the bank not issue any
cheque book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an endorsement to
this effect on the passbook(s).
MACT No. 449475/16 Page 3 of53
LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 4 of53
22. Date on which the claimant (s) 14.05.2019
produced the passbook of their saving
bank account near the place of their
residence along with the endorsement,
PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned
Claimant(s) above
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Petitioner
claimant(s) and the address of the bank Bhuvan Gupta
with IFSC Code savings bank a/c
No.38446684640,
with SBI, A1,
Jankapuri Branch,
Delhi
IFSC :
SBIN0016236
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank Yes
account(s) is near his place of
residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined Yes
at the time of passing of the award to
ascertain his/their financial condition.
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR 41065170303,
number, IFSC Code, name and branch 110002427,
of the bank of the Claims Tribunal in SBIN0010323,
which the award amount is to be SBI, Rohini
deposited/transferred. (in terms of order Courts, Delhi
dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi vs
Jaibir Singh.
JUDGMENT
1. The Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred to as DAR) was filed in this case on 31.07.2012, with reference to FIR No. 48/12, U/s 279/337/304A IPC, PS Bhalaswa MACT No. 449475/16 Page 4 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 5 of53 Dairy, Delhi, pertaining to the demise of Tapan Gupta, in a road traffic accident, on 24.03.2012, at about 2.45 AM. The Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal, vide order dated 31.07.2012, treated the DAR, as claim petition U/s 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'M.V.Act'). Subsequently, chargesheet was filed by the IO, against Anil Singh S/o Sh. Hira Singh (hereinafter referred to as respondent no.1/R1/driver of the offending vehicle), for the commission of offence U/s 279/338/304A IPC. The petitioner has also filed a claim petition on 04.06.2013 which is also clubbed with the present DAR.
2. The brief facts of the case, as discernible from the DAR and documents of the legal heirs/legal representatives of the deceased Tapan Gupta (hereinafter referred as LR's of the deceased/petitioner/claimant), are that, on 23.03.2012, the deceased Tapan Gupta alongwith his father Umesh Gupta, his mother Ritu Gupta and his brother Bhuvan Gupta were coming from Chandigarh to Delhi in their car bearing bearing registration no. TN-01AF-3760 (hereinafter referred to as the victim's vehicle) and when they reached on 24.03.2012 at about 2.45 am, on road going from Alipur to Delhi bypass, G.T.K. Road, opposite Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi, they were hit from the right side by one Truck, bearing registration no. HR- 55H-8205 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle), due to which, the victim's vehicle got disbalanced and victim's vehicle collided against the stationary truck MACT No. 449475/16 Page 5 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 6 of53 bearing registration no. RJ-14GB-0593, which was standing on the left side of the road. It is further averred that the offending vehicle was driven, in a rash, negligent and zig-zag manner, by its driver Anil Singh S/o Sh. Hira Singh/R1. It was further averred that due to impact of the accident, deceased including all the occupants had sustained serious injuries wherein deceased Tapan Gupta, his father Umesh Gupta and his mother Ritu Gupta have sustained fatal injuries and his brother Bhuvan Gupta has sustained grievous injuries. It is further averred that somebody has called the police and police had taken them to the Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital, Jahangirpuri, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as BJRM Hospital). In the BJRM Hospital, deceased Ritu Gupta was medically examined vide MLC No. 39444/12 wherein deceased Ritu Gupta was declared as brought dead. It is further averred that Tapan Gupta was medically examined vide MLC No. 39442/12 from where he was shifted to Max Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi where he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident on 27.03.2012. It is further stated that son of deceased namely Bhuvan Gupta was medically examined vide MLC No.39441/12 as per which he has sustained grievous injuries. It is further averred that deceased Umesh Gupta has been medically examined vide MLC No. 39443/12 and thereafter he was shifted to Max Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi on the date of accident where he remained admitted from 24.03.2012 to 28.03.2012 and thereafter he was shifted to Lok Clinic, MACT No. 449475/16 Page 6 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 7 of53 Janakpuri, Delhi where he remained admitted from 28.03.2012 to 31.03.2012 and thereafter he remained admitted in Mata Chanan Devi Hospital where he remained admitted on 09.04.2012 and expired on 10.04.2012 vide death summary dated 10.04.2012.
3. It was further stated that the postmortem on the body of the deceased Tapan Gupta, was conducted at BJRM Hospital, vide PMR No. 259/12, dated 27.03.2012, wherein cause of his death was mentioned as due to coma and shock consequent upon multiple injuries and all the injuries were ante-mortem and could be possible in vehicular accident, as alleged.
4. As per DAR, at the time of accident, R1 was the driver of the offending vehicle, Gunjeet Singh S/o Sh. Pritam Singh was its registered owner (hereinafter referred to as owner of the offending vehicle/R2) and the same was insured with Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as R3/insurance company), vide Policy No. 1306712334000318, valid for the period 21.04.2011 to 20.04.2012.
5. R1 and R2 have appeared only once at the time of filing of DAR and thereafter, they have neither appeared nor filed any written statement and hence, they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 29.11.2017.
MACT No. 449475/16 Page 7 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 8 of53
6. In its written statement/reply, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd./R3, admitted that truck bearing registration no. HR-55H-8250, was insured with R3, vide policy no. 1306712334000318, valid for the period 21.04.2011 to 20.04.2012, subject to its terms and conditions and as per DAR there is no violation of policy condition. It was further stated that the accident shown in the DAR seems to be concocted and afterthought and all the facts disclosed that vehicle no. HR-55H-8250 has been falsely implicated. It is further stated that driver Anil Singh of the offending vehicle has been planted in collusion with the owner of the offending vehicle. It is further stated that as per DAR, three vehicles car bearing no. TN-01AF-3760, Truck bearing registration no. RJ-14GB-0539 and Truck bearing registration no. HR-55H-8250 were found at the spot when police arrived there and driver of both the trucks had fled away from the spot. It is further stated that master Bhuvan Gupta made statement to police that after collision between the car and insured truck, the car hit the rear portion of truck bearing registration no. RJ-14GB-0539, however, site plan shows that the car was found in front of the truck bearing registration no. RJ-14GB-0539 after the accident. It is further stated that it is not possible that a car after hitting the rear portion of the truck bearing registration no. RJ-14GB-0539 would go ahead and stop in front of it. It is further stated that even if it is assumed that insured vehicle was involved in any way in the alleged accident, the involvement would be only like this that the MACT No. 449475/16 Page 8 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 9 of53 car of deceased after hitting the truck bearing registration no. RJ-14GB-0539 would have swerved to its right side and had brushed with the insured truck coming from behind and then had gone ahead of said truck bearing no. RJ-14GB-0539 and this clearly shows that the cause of accident was collision between bearing no. RJ-14GB-0539 and the car of the deceased and its brushing with the insured truck was incidental thereto and therefore, no negligence of driver of insured vehicle can be inferred from the said fact. It is further stated that statement of Bhuvan Gupta cannot be termed as a version of eye witness as it is not possible that at about 3.00 am in the morning, a 13 year old boy would be awake in car and would note down the number of truck after the accident. It is further stated that it is not possible that master Bhuvan Gupta had seen the insured truck coming from behind in a rash and negligent manner. It is further stated that he has stated that the insured truck did not blow horn, hence it is all the more possible that in absence of any horn his attention was not attracted towards a vehicle coming from behind. It is further stated that the circumstances and documents in the DAR suggest a larger conspiracy to plant a wrong driver in the alleged accident. It is further stated that the all three vehicles were found at the spot on 24.03.2012 and owner of offending vehicle produced the documents of vehicle i.e. registration certificate, insurance, permit, fitness certificate etc. on 27.03.2012 which were seized by the IO, however, it is very strange that why IO MACT No. 449475/16 Page 9 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 10 of53 did not issue notice u/s 133 M.V. Act to the owner of the said truck on the same day. It is further stated that as per DAR, though owner of insured truck was known to IO after the accident and he submitted all the relevant documents qua the said vehicle on 27.03.2012 and though the identity of the driver was not known to the IO, he gave notice u/s 133 M.V. Act to the owner of vehicle only on 24.04.2012 and driver Anil Singh was produced by owner on 27.04.2012. It is further stated that this only shows that the driver was someone else and the owner in collusion with the IO took about a month to plant a suitable driver holding valid license in the case. It is further stated that the delay in giving notice u/s 133 of M.V. Act by the IO is very suspicious and it requires thorough enquiry by this court. It is improbable that driver of other truck bearing no. RJ-14GB-0539 would come to police station and make statement on the same day i.e. 27.04.2012 when driver of insured truck was produced before the IO and it is very strange that he came to the police station on the same day when driver Ail Singh was produced before the IO and identified him. It is further stated that the driver of other truck bearing no. RJ-14GB-0539 namely Abid Hussain stated that he stopped his truck and got down to ease himself on the patri along with which he had parked the truck and he went to ease himself at the back of the truck on the patri. It is further stated that it is highly improbable that in the dead of night, a driver would go to the back side of the truck to ease himself and this has been falsely stated MACT No. 449475/16 Page 10 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 11 of53 by him just to place himself in a position from where his witnessing the accident would look authentic. It is further stated that in all probability, the car of deceased had hit the stationary truck bearing no. RJ-14GB-0539 and thereby swerved to its right side and would have come in slight contact with the insured truck which was coming from behind and this impact between the car and the insured truck would have pushed the car ahead and therefore, the said car reached ahead of the stationary truck. It is further stated that if the insured truck had hit the car and it was because of this impact, the car had hit the rear side of the stationary truck, the car would never have reached ahead of the stationary truck. It is further stated that insured truck and its driver was not at responsible for the alleged accident and no negligence can be attributed to him and the identity of the driver of insured truck itself is a matter of enquiry. It is submitted that the driver, owner and insurer of truck bearing no. RJ-14GB-0539 are necessary parties to the present claim and they should be made parties for proper adjudication of the claim.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Learned Predecessor, vide order dated 12.02.2014:-
1. Whether on 24.03.2012 at about 2.45 am at Alipur side bypass wali road, GTK Road, Opposite SGT Nagar, Delhi, the truck bearing registration no. HR-55H-8205 was driving by Anil Singh rashly and negligently and MACT No. 449475/16 Page 11 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 12 of53 he hit the car bearing registration no. TN-01AF-3760 in which Tapan Gupta was travelling and caused his death? OPP
2. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
8. After framing of issues, opportunities were given to all the parties, to prove their respective averments, by leading evidence in support of the same. It is worth while to note here that there are 04 connected petitions, arising out of the same accident and hence all petitions were consolidated for the purpose of leading evidence and there, same will be read together. The petitioner has examined four witnesses in support of version of his case. The respondents have not examined any witness in support of their case.
9. In support of their case, the petitioner examined Sh.
Bhuvan Gupta as PW1. He was an injured as well as eye witness in the present case. He is the son of the deceased. In his evidence, it was observed by the Tribunal at the time of examination of PW1 that since, the witness is 16 years old, hence in order to ascertain whether he understands the sanctity of oath and whether he is able to understand the questions and can give answers, certain questions has been asked. A question was asked as to whether he studies if yes, in what class and what school and what are his subjects and MACT No. 449475/16 Page 12 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 13 of53 how he goes to school, to which he answered that he studies in 12th standard in Sindhi Model Senior Secondary School, 1st Damadoron Street, Kellys, Chennai and was a student of commerce and he walks to school. Another question was asked as to what are his hobbies and with whom he is living with, to which he answered that his hobbies are playing badminton and travelling. He was further questioned as to why he has come to the court, to which he answered that he has come to court to depose about the manner of accident. He was further questioned as to whether he understands sanctity of oath, to which he answered that yes he understands the sanctity of oath. He was further questioned as to whether one should speak truth or manipulate things, to which he answered that he only speaks truth. It was observed by the Tribunal that in view of answers given by the witness, the court was of the considered opinion that though the said witness was aged about 16 years, yet he was quiet intelligent coherent and rational in his response and understands the sanctity of oath as well and hence oath is administered to him.
10. PW1 deposed that the accident occurred on 24.03.2012 at about 2:00 a.m (night) and at that time, he alongwith his father, mother and younger brother was returning from Chandigarh to Delhi. He further deposed that his father was driving the car bearing registration No. TN01-AF-3760 at normal speed and when they reached opposite Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar on G.T.K Road at that time, their MACT No. 449475/16 Page 13 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 14 of53 car was hit by a truck bearing registration No. HR55-H- 8205. He further deposed that the truck was being driven at a fast speed and came from behind. He further deposed that due to the forceful impact of truck on car, their car was thrown to the left side and landed on another truck which was parked on the side of road. He further deposed that in this accident, his father, mother and younger brother all died and he was injured. He further deposed that his statement was recorded by the police. He further deposed that the accident was caused due to negligence of truck bearing registration No. HR55-H-8205.
11. PW1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for insurance company/R3, wherein he deposed that his father had reached Chandigarh one day prior to the accident i.e 23.03.2012 at about 7:00 a.m. He further deposed that his father had reached Chandigarh from Rajkot by a flight. He further deposed that the vehicle bearing registration No.TN01-AF-3760 was registered in the name of his mother, who was residing in Chandigarh at that time. He further deposed that they started from Chandigarh at about 10:00 p.m for Delhi and his father was driving the car. He further deposed that on their way, they have stopped twice at Kurukshetra and Panipat. He further deposed that he does not remember the exact date, when his statement was recorded by the police. He further deposed that he does not remember whether his statement was recorded by the police on 09.04.2012. He admitted that he was sitting on MACT No. 449475/16 Page 14 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 15 of53 the rear seat of the car and was facing straight ahead. He further admitted that he has stated in his statement that the truck bearing registration No. HR55-H-8250 had not blown any horn. He further admitted that he had not seen the truck bearing registration No. HR55-H-8250 before the accident. He further deposed that he was conscious after the accident. He further deposed that he remained at the spot for about 2 hours after the accident. He denied the suggestion that since he had not seen the truck bearing registration No. HR55-H-8250 before the accident, he has wrongly stated that the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of the said truck. He further denied the suggestion that their car had hit the truck bearing registration No. RJ14-GB-0593 only and their car was not hit by truck bearing registration No. HR55-H-8250. He further denied the suggestion that since his father was driving the car for a long distance, that is why he was tired and was sleepy, and he could not control his vehicle. He further denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely to get the compensation. PW1 was not cross-examined on behalf of R1 and R2.
12. The petitioner further examined Ms. Pooja Singh, Deputy Manager, Medical Records, Max Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi as PW2. She was a summoned witness. She deposed that on the date of deposition, she has brought the summoned record i.e treatment record and medical bills of patient Sh. Umesh Gupta and has placed on record attested MACT No. 449475/16 Page 15 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 16 of53 copies of case sheet exhibited as Ex.PW2/A (Colly) and attested copies of medical bills exhibited as Ex.PW2/A1 (Colly). She further deposed that she has also brought the summoned record i.e treatment record and medical bills of patient Sh. Bhuvan Gupta. She has placed on record attested copies of case sheet exhibited as Ex.PW2/B (Colly) and attested copies of medical bills exhibited as Ex.PW2/B1 (Colly). She has also brought the summoned record i.e treatment record and medical bills of patient Sh. Tapan Gupta. She has placed on record attested copies of case sheet exhibited as Ex.PW2/C (Colly) and attested copies of medical bills exhibited as Ex.PW2/C1 (Colly). PW2 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the insurance company/R3 wherein she deposed that she is concerned with maintaining the records only. She further deposed that she was not involved in the preparation of the record, brought by her today. PW2 was not cross-examined on behalf of R1 and R2.
13. The petitioner further examined Sh. A.C. Shukla, Mata Chanan Devi Hospital, Janakpuri, Delhi as PW3. He was a summoned witness. He deposed that he has brought the treatment record of Sh. Umesh Gupta who was brought to the hospital on 09.04.2012 and as per record, he died on 10.04.2012. He has placed on record the photocopy of the case sheet running into 21 pages which was exhibited as Ex.PW1/3 and the photocopy of the final bill was also attached with this case sheet at page 17 of Rs. 16,076/-.
MACT No. 449475/16 Page 16 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 17 of53
PW3 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the insurance company/R3 wherein he deposed that he was not involved in the treatment of Sh. Umesh Gupta. He further deposed that the original death summary at page no 7 was given to the attendant and carbon copy was retained with them. He further deposed that he has no personal knowledge of the case. PW3 was not cross-examined on behalf of R1 and R2.
14. The petitioner further examined Sh. Rajbir Singh, Assistant, Lok Clinic, A-2-7, Janankpuri, Delhi as PW4. He was a summoned witness. He deposed that he has brought the treatment record of Sh. Umesh Gupta and Sh. Bhuwan Gupta. He placed on record authorisation letter which was Ex.PW4/1. He has placed on record two verification certificate issued by Dr. Lokesh Chand Gupta in respect of patient Umesh and Bhuwan Gupta which were Ex.PW4/2 and Ex.PW4/3 respectively. He also placed on record copy of case sheet in respect of patient Umesh Gupta admitted for the period 28.03.2012 to 31.03.2012 running into 11 sheet which were Ex.PW4/4. He also placed on record attested copy of bill which was exhibited as Ex.PW4/5. He also placed on record copy of case sheet in respect of patient Bhuwan Gupta admitted for the period 28.03.2012 to 31.03.2012 running into 8 sheet which was exhibited as Ex.PW4/6. He also placed on record attested copy of bill which was exhibited as Ex.PW4/7. PW4 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the insurance MACT No. 449475/16 Page 17 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 18 of53 company/R3 wherein he deposed that he was working in Lok Clinic for the last 6 years. He further deposed that he has no personal knowledge of the case. PW4 was not cross- examined on behalf of R1 and R2.
15. The petitioner further examined Anuj Bhardwaj, Manager Exports, Magotteaux Industries Pvt. Ltd., at 410, 4th Floor, Surya Kiran Building, 19 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi as PW5. He was a summoned witness. He deposed that he has brought the summoned record i.e photo copy of salary slip of deceased exhibited as Ex.PW5/1, photo copy letter for appointment of deceased namely Sh. Umesh Gupta as Plant Manager exhibited Ex.PW5/2, attested photo copy of employment contract filed in DAR exhibited as Ex.PW5/3 (colly) (running into 10 pages), attested photo copy of employee information form filed in DAR exhibited as Ex.PW5/4, certified copy of nomination and declaration form for unexempted/exempted establishments exhibited as Ex.PW5/5.
16. PW5 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for insurance company/R3, wherein he deposed that he has been working in the abovesaid company for the last 10 years. He further deposed that he had joined the company as Export Executive. He further deposed that he has never been involved in the employment process of employees or salary disbursement. He further deposed that he has brought MACT No. 449475/16 Page 18 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 19 of53 originals of only Ex.PW5/1 & Ex.PW5/2. He further deposed that he has not brought the original of Ex.PW5/3, but he has brought the photo copy of the same. He further deposed that as per Ex.PW5/2, the date of joining of deceased was 15.08.2010. He further deposed that as per Ex.PW5/3, the date of joining of deceased is 21.03.2012. He further deposed that he has no knowledge when the deceased had joined their company. He further deposed that at present, he cannot say whether any salary was paid to the deceased prior to 15.03.2012 or not. He further deposed that attendance register is maintained in their company, but on the date of deposition he has not brought the same. He further deposed that he does not have any document to show whether leave was taken by the deceased from the company at the time of accident. He further deposed that he does not have any knowledge about the deduction of tax from the salary of the deceased. He further deposed that the service record of the deceased was maintained in their Rajkot Office and he does not have any knowledge about the same. He denied the suggestion that the deceased was not employed with their company. He further denied the suggestion that all the documents are false and fabricated. PW5 was not cross-examined on behalf of R1 and R2.
17. The petitioner further examined Sh. Satish Gupta as PW6, who led his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW6/A. He has placed reliance upon the documents viz - original GPA MACT No. 449475/16 Page 19 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 20 of53 issued by his mother as Ex. PW6/1, copy of identification of his mother Smt. Prakashwati, deceased Umesh Gupta, his wife Ritu Gupta (deceased) and Tapan Gupta (deceased) exhibited as Ex. PW6/2 (Colly), copy of degree in mechanical engineering, diploma issued by Board of Technical Education, Delhi and copy of Diploma in Management done by deceased Umesh Gupta exhibited as Ex PW6/3 (Colly), copy of driving licence and PAN card of deceased Umesh Gupta exhibited as Ex. PW6/4 and Ex. PW6/5, copy of documents pertaining to previous employment of deceased Umesh Gupta marked as mark A (Colly), copy of death certificate of deceased Umesh Gupta as Ex. PW6/6, original discharge summary, treatment papers and death summary of Umesh Gupta deceased exhibited as Ex. PW6/7 (Colly), original bills of expenses incurred on deceased Umesh Gupta as Ex. PW6/8 (Colly) and original death summary of deceased Tapan Gupta as Ex. PW6/9, original bills of expenses incurred on deceased Tapan Gupta exhibited as Ex. PW6/10 (Colly), copy of education certificates of deceased Tapan Gupta exhibited as Ex.PW6/11(Colly), copy of degree in Bachelor of Business Administration of deceased Ritu exhibited as Ex. PW6/12, copy of the RC of car driven by deceased Umesh Gupta exhibited as Ex. PW6/13, copy of papers submitted for insurance claim and the claim received in respect of car owned by deceased Ritu Gupta marked as mark B (Colly), copy of date of birth certificate of Bhuvan Gupta marked as mark C, original discharge summary of Bhuvan Gupta as MACT No. 449475/16 Page 20 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 21 of53 Ex. PW6/14, discharge card of Lok Clinic marked as Mark D, original prescriptions and bills for treatment record of Bhuvan Gupta exhibited as Ex PW6/15 (Colly). He deposed that he is uncle of Master Bhuvan Gupta and son of Smt. Prakashwati Gupta. He further deposed that he has been appointed as attorney by his mother Smt. Prakashwati Gupta through GPA duly executed by his mother on 15.01.16. He further deposed that he is aware of all the facts and circumstances of the case and he is competent to swear this affidavit and the said GPA placed on record by him as Exhibit PW3/1. He further deposed that his brother Shri Umesh Gupta, his sister in law Smt. Ritu Gupta and his nephew Shri Tapan Gupta died in a motor vehicle accident caused on 24.03.2012, at about 2.30-3.00 AM on G.T.K. Road opposite Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, on road going from Alipur Side towards Bypass crossing (Mukarba Chowk) Delhi. He further deposed that at the time of accident, his brother Shri Umesh Gupta was driving Car bearing Registration no. TN-01 AF-3760 while coming from Chandigarh to Delhi, along with his wife Smt. Ritu Gupta (sitting on left front seat) and two sons namely Shri Bhuvan Gupta and Shri Tapan Gupta (sitting on rear seat of car). He further deposed that at about 2.45 AM on 24.03.2012 when the car was being driven by Shri Umesh Gupta at normal pace on G.T.K. Road reached opposite Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, on road going from Alipur side towards Bypass crossing (Mukarba Chowk) Delhi, at that time the offending vehicle Truck MACT No. 449475/16 Page 21 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 22 of53 bearing Registration no.HR-55H-8205 being driven by respondent no.1 at fast speed in most rash, reckless and negligent manner came from behind and hit the car. He further deposed that the impact of the offending vehicle was so forceful that the car struck into a stationary truck. He further deposed that the car was extensively damaged in this accident. He further deposed that the offending vehicle truck and the stationary truck were also damaged. He further deposed that the offending vehicle Truck bearing Registration no. HR-55H-8205 was being driven by respondent no.1 at a very fast speed in most rash, reckless and negligent manner under ownership, employment and permission from respondent no.2. He further deposed that due to the forceful impact of truck on car, Shri Umesh Gupta Smt. Ritu Gupta, Shri Tapan Gupta sustained fatal injuries and Shri Bhuvan Gupta sustained grievous injuries. He further deposed that the accident was caused due to sole negligence on the part of respondent no.1. He further deposed that a police case vide FIR No.48/2012. dated 24.03.2012 U/s 279/337/304-A IPC, was also registered in Police Station Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi, against respondent no.1, wherein the DAR (detailed accident report) has been filed in the Court by the police officials which may also be read in evidence.
18. In the matter of death of Shri Umesh Gupta, he deposed that Shri Umesh Gupta was his brother and was aged about 42 years ( date of birth: 09.04.1970) at the time of his death MACT No. 449475/16 Page 22 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 23 of53 In this accident Shri Umesh Gupta sustained multiple injuries i.e. fracture of left thigh bone with fracture of left hip, multiple fracture of ribs, lost consciousness and bled from nose, blunt injury on chest resulting in chest pain, wounds and abrasions on left knee, right arm, over forehead and head, besides other injuries details of which shall be given by the doctors Immediately after the accident, Shri Umesh Gupta was taken to BJRM Hospital where MLC was prepared. He further deposed that on the same day, he was shifted to Max Super Specialty Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, where he remained admitted from 24.3.2012 to 28.3.2012. He further deposed that from Max Super Specialty Hospital, he was shifted to Lok Clinic in Janak Puri Delhi, where he remained admit from 28.3.2012 to 31.3.2012. He further deposed that his brother was then admitted in Mata Chanan Devi Hospital where he succumbed to injuries on 10.04.2012. He further deposed that the deceased remained under regular and constant treatment from the day of accident till his death which was due to injuries sustained in this accident. He further deposed that doctors were also called at home to give treatment to his brother. He further deposed that a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- approx. was spent on the treatment of deceased and additionally about Rs 50,000 was spent on performing the last rites of deceased. He further deposed that the deceased Shri Umesh Gupta was a qualified person having done Degree in B.Tech, and a Post Graduate Diploma Course. He further deposed that the deceased was MACT No. 449475/16 Page 23 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 24 of53 employed with M/s Magotteaux Industries Pvt. Ltd., as Plant Manager on monthly salary Rs.2,66,667/-(annual salary of Rs 32,00,005/-). He further deposed that the Salary of the deceased was subject to regular increments & increases. He further deposed that the deceased before joining M/s Magotteaus Industries Pvt. Ltd., was employed with M/s Saber Papers Limited on annual package of Rs.28,01,148/- plus perks. He further deposed that previously the deceased had also worked in M/s Arkkay National Engg & Fdry. Co. and M/s Kohler India Corporation Private Ltd. He further deposed that the deceased was a very hard working man, was hale and hearty, and was not addicted to any vices. He further deposed that the deceased was contributing his entire income towards family. He further deposed that the income of deceased was increasing regularly and very soon his income would have doubled. He further deposed that in the same accident wife of the deceased and another son of deceased also died. He further deposed that Shri Umesh Gutpa is now survived by one son Bhuvan Gupta and Smt. Prakashwati as his mother. He further deposed that Shri Bhuvan Gupta son of Late Shri Umesh Gupta is still a minor, as such the claim petition was filed by his mother seeking compensation on behalf of minor petitioner as well as for herself. He further deposed that there is no other legal representatives/legal heirs of deceased except for the petitioner. He further deposed that the deceased was also providing service towards the family. He further deposed MACT No. 449475/16 Page 24 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 25 of53 that they suffered extreme pain and agony due to untimely death of his brother.
19. In the matter of death of Shri Tapan Gupta, he deposed that in this accident his nephew, Master Tapan Gupta, son of Late Shri Umesh Gupta and Late Smt. Ritu Gupta, also died. He further deposed that master Tapan Gupta sustained severe head injuries and brain damage besides multiple injuries on body. He further deposed that immediately after the accident, Tapan Gupta was taken to BJRM Hospital where MLC was prepared. He further deposed that on the same day, he was shifted to Max Super Specialty Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, where he remained admitted from 24.03.2012 to 27.03.2012, where he succumbed to injuries on 27.03.2012. He further deposed that the deceased remained under regular and constant treatment from the day of accident till his death which was due to injuries sustained in this accident. He further deposed that a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- approx. was spent on the treatment of deceased and additionally about Rs.50,000 was spent on performing the last rites of deceased. He further deposed that the deceased Tapan Gupta was aged about 12 years (Date of Birth: 22.12.2000) and was student of 7 standard and was brilliant in studies. He further deposed that the deceased upon completion of studies would have worked and would have earned at-least Rs 50,000/- per month, with which he would have supported his family. He further deposed that in the same accident, mother and father of MACT No. 449475/16 Page 25 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 26 of53 deceased Tapan also died and deceased Shri Tapan Gupta is now survived by his brother Bhuvan Gupta. He further deposed that Shri Bhuvan Gupta son of Late Shri Umesh Gupta is still a minor, as such the claim petition has been filed, his grandmother (his mother) on behalf of minor petitioner. He further deposed that there is no other legal representatives/legal heirs of deceased except for the petitioner. He further deposed that they all suffered extreme pain and agony due to untimely death of Shri Tapan Gupta.
20. In the matter of death of Smt. Ritu Gupta, he deposed that Smt. Ritu Gupta wife of Late Shri Umesh Gupta was his sister in law, and mother of petitioner Bhuvan Gupta. Ritu Gupta was aged about 38 years at the time of her death in this accident. He further deposed that Smt. Ritu Gupta sustained fatal injuries. He further deposed that immediately after the accident, she was taken to BJRM Hospital where she was declared as brought dead. He further deposed that a sum of Rs.50,000 was spent on performing the last rites of deceased. He further deposed that the deceased Smt. Ritu Gupta was a qualified person having done a Degree in Bachelor in Business Administration. He further deposed that the deceased was looking after her household and was taking good care of the petitioner and the family. He further deposed that the value of services rendered by deceased towards the family was more than Rs.15,000/- per month. He further deposed that the deceased was managing the entire household very MACT No. 449475/16 Page 26 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 27 of53 efficiently and was also a very good cook as the deceased used to prepare mouth-watering food. He further deposed that in this accident the car bearing Registration no TN-01 AF-3760 was totally damaged. He further deposed that the car was owned and registered in the name of Smt. Ritu Gupta. He further deposed that the value of the car at that time was Rs.2,28,000/-, which was declared as total loss, and the petitioner has also suffered loss to this extent also. He further deposed that in the same accident father and younger brother of deceased also died. He further deposed that deceased Smt. Ritu Gutpa is now survived by her son Bhuvan Gupta. He further deposed that Bhuvan Gupta son of Late Shri Umesh Gupta is still a minor, as such the claim petition seeking compensation on behalf of minor petitioner was filed by his grandmother (his mother). He further deposed that there is no other legal representatives/legal heirs of deceased except for the petitioner. He further deposed that they all suffered extreme pain and agony due to untimely death of Smt. Ritu Gupta.
21. In the matter of injury sustained by Master Bhuvan Gupta, he deposed that in the same accident, Master Bhuvan Gupta was also injured. He further deposed that he was aged about 14 years (Date of birth 15.5.1998) and was a student of 9th standard. He further deposed that he sustained fracture of thigh bone left leg, fractures of both bones of right forearm severe head injuries besides other multiple injuries / abrasions. He further deposed that immediately MACT No. 449475/16 Page 27 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 28 of53 after the accident, Bhuvan was taken to BJRM Hospital where MLC was prepared. He further deposed that on the same day he was shifted to Max Super Specialty Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, where he remained admit from 24.3.2012 to 28.3.2012. He further deposed that he was operated twice during this admission and screws / plates were affixed. He further deposed that he was then shifted to Lok Clinic, Janak Puri, Delhi where he remained admitted from 28.3.2012 to 31.3.2012. He further deposed that during this admission petitioner was treated for the fractures and injuries. He further deposed that petitioner remained under regular and constant treatment from the day of accident. He further deposed that petitioner has been advised to undergo another surgery for removal of implants after 2 years. He further deposed that a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- approx. has already been spent on the treatment of petitioner which is still continuing. He further deposed that the petitioner has been disabled permanently due to injuries sustained in this accident and has lost many career opportunities. He further deposed that the petition filed seeking compensation on behalf of minor Bhuvan Gupta may be allowed and compensation be awarded.
22. PW6 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the insurance company/R3 wherein he deposed that they were three brothers including the deceased namely Late Sh. Umesh Gupta. He further deposed that he is employed as Security Officer in Lok Sabha, Parliament. He further deposed that MACT No. 449475/16 Page 28 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 29 of53 his another brother namely Sh. Sushil Gupta is in private job in Gurugram. He further deposed that he is not an eye witness of the case accident. He admitted that the deceased used to live out of Delhi in relation to his job. He further deposed that the deceased was employed in Delhi lastly in the year 1998 working in Eicher Motor and thereafter he remained posted out of Delhi in different companies. He denied the suggestion that he was not knowing all the details of interviews and appointments of the deceased. He voluntarily deposed that he used to discuss these things with him and he was always aware where he was posted/employed. He further deposed that he does not have any salary slip of deceased, issued by Magotteaux Industries Pvt. Ltd.. He further deposed that the deceased had worked only for 15-16 days there. During the course of cross-examination, the witness has shown a photo copy of details of PF of deceased, as issued by The Employee Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 in respect of PF deducted by Magotteaux Industries Pvt. Ltd., which was marked as PW6/R3-X1. He has shown a photo copy of pay slip for March, 2012, issued to the deceased by Magotteaux Industries Pvt. Ltd., which was marked as Mark PW6/R3- X2. He denied the suggestion that the documents are not genuine and that is why they were not produced earlier. He further denied the suggestion that the deceased was not employed as stated by him in his affidavit or that he was not drawing the salary as mentioned in his affidavit. He further deposed that his mother has mostly stayed with his MACT No. 449475/16 Page 29 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 30 of53 elder brother Sh. Sushil Gupta in their paternal house. He denied the suggestion that his mother was not at all dependent upon the deceased. He denied the suggestion that he has no personal knowledge about the facts of this case. He denied the suggestion that no amount as stated by him has been spent on medical treatment etc. of the deceased persons and Mr. Bhuvan Gupta. PW6 was not cross-examined on behalf of R1 and R2.
23. The petitioner further examined Sh. Gaurav Johar, Administrative Incharge, Sigma Cortans Pvt. Ltd., Village Hambra, District Ludhiana, Punjab as PW7. He was a summoned witness. He deposed that he has been deputed by Mr. Abhishek Soin, Joint Managing Director of M/s Saber Papers Ltd and his authority letter exhibited as Ex.PW7/A. He further deposed that he has been deputed to produce the salary register wherein the details of salary paid to various employees of the company are noted. He further deposed that as per register, Sh. Umesh Gupta was paid a gross salary of Rs. 2,33,429/- for the month of December, 2010 till June, 2011, copy of the same was exhibited as Ex.PW7/B (colly). He further deposed that the M/s Saber Papers Ltd. has been shut down and no other record is available. He further deposed that Mr. Soin is also J.M.D of Sigma Cortans Pvt. Ltd. and has deputed him to produce the salary register before the Hon'ble Court. PW7 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the insurance company/R3, wherein he deposed that he has been working MACT No. 449475/16 Page 30 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 31 of53 in Sigma Cortans Pvt. Ltd. since last four months. He further deposed that prior to that he was employed with Swati Industries. He further deposed that he has been knowing Mr. Abhishek Soin for the last 3-4 months only, when he joined the Sigma Cortans Pvt. Ltd. He further deposed that he cannot say when Saber Papers Ltd. was closed. He further deposed that he has not brought the appointment letter, attendance register or any other record except the salary register of the deceased, which has been entrusted to him by Mr. Soin. He further deposed that he has no knowledge of the record brought by him as he was not worked with Saber Papers Ltd. at any point of time. He further deposed that he does not know in whose hand writing all these entries in the register brought by him have been made. He further denied the suggestion that the salary register brought by him in the court is false and fabricated. He further deposed that the deduction of TDS is mentioned in the register itself. He admitted that the salary components and other deductions have not been mentioned in the register. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely at the instance of Mr. Soin. He further denied the suggestion that the deceased Umesh Gupta was never employed with Saber Papers Ltd. and that is why no record except the register brought by him in the court is available. PW7 was not cross-examined on behalf of R1 and R2.
24. This Tribunal has heard the final arguments, as advanced MACT No. 449475/16 Page 31 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 32 of53 by Learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the material on record.
25. On appreciation of evidence, as adduced by the parties, in support of their respective versions, the issue-wise findings of this Tribunal are reproduced herein below:
ISSUE No. 1Whether on 24.03.2012 at about 2.45 am at Alipur side bypass wali road, GTK Road, Opposite SGT Nagar, Delhi, the truck bearing registration no. HR-55H-8205 was driving by Anil Singh rashly and negligently and he hit the car bearing registration no. TN-01AF-3760 in which Tapan Gupta was travelling and caused her death? OPP
26. The onus of proving this issue, on preponderance of probabilities, was upon the petitioner/claimant. For deciding the present issue, the testimony of PW1 Bhuvan Gupta is relevant, being injured as well as an eyewitness. He deposed that the accident occurred on 24.03.2012 at about 2:00 a.m (night) and at that time, he alongwith his father, mother and younger brother was returning from Chandigarh to Delhi. He further deposed that his father was driving the car bearing registration No. TN01-AF-3760 at normal speed and when they reached opposite Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar on G.T.K Road at that time, their car was hit by a truck bearing registration No. HR55-H-8205. He further deposed that the truck was being driven at a fast speed and came from behind. He further deposed that due to the forceful impact of MACT No. 449475/16 Page 32 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 33 of53 truck on car, their car was thrown to the left side and landed on another truck which was parked on the side of road. He further deposed that in this accident, his father, mother and younger brother(deceased Tapan Gupta) all died and he was injured. He further deposed that his statement was recorded by the police. He further deposed that the accident was caused due to negligence of truck bearing registration No. HR55-H-8205.
27. PW1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R3/insurance company but, the entire testimony of PW1, regarding involvement of the offending vehicle, in the case accident, as well as rashness and negligence on the part of R1, in driving the offending vehicle, resulting in the case accident, went unrebutted. During the course of cross- examination of PW1, by Ld. Counsel for R3, PW1 denied the suggestion that since he had not seen the truck bearing registration No. HR55-H-8250 before the accident, he has wrongly stated that the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of the said truck or that their car had hit the truck bearing registration No. RJ14-GB-0593 only and their car was not hit by truck bearing registration No. HR55-H-8250 or that since his father was driving the car for a long distance, that is why he was tired and was sleepy, and he could not control his vehicle or that he has deposed falsely to get the compensation.
MACT No. 449475/16 Page 33 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 34 of53
28. Besides, respondents have not led their evidence, in support of their defence. However, R3/insurance company has filed the written statement by taking many instances of defence, but R3 failed to lead any evidence in support of their said defence. Even otherwise, R1 failed to lead any evidence, to prove that there was no negligence on his part or that he was falsely implicated in this case by the IO, in connivance with the petitioner. Further, R1 also failed to prove that he has ever approached to any higher authority, with respect to his false implication, in the present case. Thus, involvement of the offending vehicle, as well as rashness and negligence of R1, in causing the accident stands duly proved.
29. The fact that the deceased Tapan Gupta suffered fatal injuries in the case accident, stands duly corroborated by the post mortem report of the deceased, as per which, fatal injuries sustained by the deceased, was due to coma and shock consequent upon multiple injuries and all the injuries were ante-mortem and could be possible in vehicular accident, as alleged.
30. In view of the above said discussion, criminal case record, including charge sheet and testimony of PW1 Bhuvan Gupta, it has been duly proved by the petitioner on preponderance of probabilities, that the case accident had been caused by R1, who was driving the offending vehicle, bearing no. HR55-H-8205, in a rash and negligent manner, MACT No. 449475/16 Page 34 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 35 of53 at the above said date, time and place and had hit the victim's car bearing registration no. TN-01-AF-3760, due to which, the victim Tapan Gupta has sustained fatal injuries.
Issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents accordingly.
ISSUE No. 2Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?OPP
31. In view of the findings of this Tribunal, qua issue no.1 regarding negligence of R1, resulting in the occurrence of the case accident, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the petitioner/claimant is entitled to compensation, on account of fatal injuries, sustained by the deceased Tapan Gupta, in the above mentioned road traffic accident. This Tribunal shall now examine the entire evidence including the documents of the petitioner/claimant, for the purpose of arriving at a finding about the quantum of compensation, to which the petitioner/claimant is entitled.
32. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation, which appears to it to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza MACT No. 449475/16 Page 35 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 36 of53 nor it should be niggardly.
MEDICAL EXPENSES
33. To prove the amount spent by the petitioner, on medical treatment of deceased Tapan Gupta, the petitioner examined Sh. Satish Gupta as PW6, by way of evidence affidavit Ex.PW6/A, wherein he deposed that in the case accident, the deceased Tapan Gupta had sustained severe head injuries and brain damage besides multiple injuries on body. He further deposed that immediately after the accident, deceased was taken to BJRM Hospital where, his MLC was prepared and on the same day, he was shifted to Max Hospital Shalimar Bagh, where he remained admitted from 24.03.2012 to 27.03.2012, where he succumbed to injuries on 27.03.2012. He further deposed that the deceased remained under regular and constant treatment from the day of accident till his death which was due to injuries sustained in the accident. He further deposed that a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- approximately was spent on the treatment of the deceased and additionally about Rs. 50,000/- was spent on performing the last rites of deceased.
34. In his evidence, PW6 has placed reliance upon death summary of deceased Tapan Gupta as Ex.PW6/9 and original medical bill of the deceased Tapan Gupta as Ex.PW6/10. Perusal of the original medical bills of the deceased Tapan Gupta reveals that he has incurred MACT No. 449475/16 Page 36 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 37 of53 aggregate expenditure of Rs. 93,818/-, on his medical treatment. The said bills stands further proved by the petitioner, by calling the records from the Max Hospital, which were produced by the summoned witnesses PW2. Accordingly, in view of the original medical bills of deceased, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.93,818/-, towards medical expenses. Thus, this Tribunal deems it appropriate, to award compensation of Rs.93,818/-, to the petitioner, under the head of medical expenses.
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY/ESTATE
35. Now, It is not disputed that the petitioner is real brother of deceased, but respondent no. 3 contended that petitioner was not dependent upon the deceased as petitioner was also minor and hence no compensation may be granted to him. Whereas, PW6 Satish Gupta has deposed that the deceased Tapan Gupta was aged about 12 years (Date of Birth:
22.12.2000) and was student of 7 standard and was brilliant in studies. He further deposed that the deceased Tapan Gupta upon completion of studies would have worked and would have earned at-least Rs 50,000/- per month, with which he would have supported his family. He further deposed that in the same accident, mother and father of deceased Tapan also died and deceased Shri Tapan Gutpa is now survived by his brother Bhuvan Gupta. Relying upon the judgment in Keith Rowe Vs. Prashant Sagar & Ors MAC. APP. No. 601 / 2007 decided on 15 January-2010 MACT No. 449475/16 Page 37 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 38 of53 the Hon'ble High Court has summarized the law with respect to such cases where LRs is/are not financially dependent upon the deceased is as under:
"(i) The law contemplates two categories of damages on the death of a person. The first is the pecuniary loss sustained by the dependent members of his family as a result of such death. The second is the loss caused to the estate of the deceased as a result of such death. ................
In the second category, the action is brought by the legal representatives, on behalf of the estate of the deceased and the compensation, when recovered, forms part of the assets of the estate.
(ii) Where the claim is by the dependents, the basis for award of compensation is the loss of dependency, that is loss of what was contributed by the deceased to such claimants. A conventional amount is awarded towards loss of expectation of life, under the head of loss to estate.
(iii) Where the claim by the legal representatives of the deceased who were not dependents of the deceased, then the basis for award of compensation is the loss to the estate, that is the loss of savings by the deceased. A conventional sum for loss of expectation of life, is added.
(iv) The procedure for determination of loss to estate is broadly the same as the procedure for determination of the loss of dependency. Both involve ascertaining the multiplicand and capitalizing it by multiplying it by an appropriate multiplier. But, the significant difference is in the figure arrived at as multiplicand in cases where the claimants who are dependents claim loss of dependency, and in cases where the claimants who are not dependents, claim loss to estate. The annual contribution to the family constitutes the multiplicand in the case of loss of dependency, whereas the annual savings of the deceased becomes the multiplicand in the case of loss to estate. The method of selection of multiplier is however the same in both cases."
Though the quantum of savings will vary from person to person, there is a need to standardize the quantum of savings for determining the loss to estate (where the MACT No. 449475/16 Page 38 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 39 of53 claimants are not dependents) in the absence of specific evidence to the contrary. The quantum of savings can be taken as one-third of the income of the deceased where the spouses are having a common establishment and one- fourth where the spouses are having independent establishments. The above will apply where the family consists of non-dependent spouse/children/parents. Where the claimants are non-dependent brothers/sisters claiming on behalf of the estate, the savings can be taken as 15 % of the income. The above percentages, one of course, subject to any specific evidence to the contrary led by the claimants."
36. Now coming to the multiplier aspect, there is only one petitioner in this matter and as it has already been discussed herein above that petitioner is entitled to compensation on account of loss of estate only. In view of the findings in Keith Rowe Vs. Prashant Sagar & ors. MAC appeal no.601 of 2007 decided on 15.01.2010, it has also been settled that multiplier would however remain same and it is only the head under which the petitioner would likely to succeed would change.
37. In the present matter, as per the evidence of PW6 Satish Gupta, who has placed reliance on the progress report card of deceased Tapan Gupta Ex.PW6/11, the date of birth of the deceased was mentioned as 22.12.2000 and since the date of accident was 24.03.2012, therefore, the age of the deceased, as on the date of accident was 11 years, 03 months and 02 days. Thus, the issue which arose for consideration is, how does one calculate compensation, for MACT No. 449475/16 Page 39 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 40 of53 loss of future earnings and loss of dependency of the parents, in case of minor, who was merely 11 years old at the relevant time?
38. Ld. counsel for the petitioner argued that the income of the deceased be assessed by taking the minimum wages as notified by Government of NCT of Delhi, as on the date of accident.
39. The said issue has been settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors., (2020)4 SCC 413, wherein while considering a case of award of compensation, on account of permanent disability suffered by a girl child, aged around 12 years, under the head of loss of earnings, Hon'ble Apex Court had taken the notional income of minor child as minimum wages payable to a skilled person, at the time of accident, observing that the same would be the minimum amount, which should have been earned by the minor, on attaining age of majority and thereafter adding 40% for future prospects to the said amount and then applying the multiplier in terms of guidelines laid down by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi & Ors., SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17.
40. The findings made by Hon'ble Apex Court in Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors., (2020)4 SCC 413, has been further MACT No. 449475/16 Page 40 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 41 of53 reiterated by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in case titled as United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sh. Jamaluddin Khan & Ors. MAC.APP.273/2020 & CM APPL. 33433/2020, Date of decision 25.08.2023, wherein it was observed that the most reasonable basis for determining the loss of dependency, even in case of a minor, would be the minimum wages notified by the State Government, where the minor resides at the time of accident and then adding future prospects and multiplier and making appropriate deduction towards personal and living expenses of deceased.
41. In the present matter, the date of accident was 24.03.2012 and as per progress report card of the deceased Ex. PW6/11, at the time of his death, the deceased was 11 years 03 months and 02 days old, as his date of birth was 22.12.2000. Further, as per evidence of PW6, at the time of accident, victim Tapan Gupta was resident of Delhi as per the aadhar card placed on record. Therefore, the notional income of the deceased is taken as minimum wages payable to a skilled workman in Delhi, i.e Rs. 8112/- per month, on the date of occurrence of the case accident in question i.e. on 24.03.2012.
42. As per progress report card Ex. PW6/11, the deceased was aged about 11 years 03 months and 02 days, at the time of accident. Hence, the multiplier of 18 would be applicable MACT No. 449475/16 Page 41 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 42 of53 in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." passed in SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17.
43. Considering the age of the deceased at the time of accident, future prospects @ 40% has to be awarded in favour of petitioners, in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." mentioned supra, 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 02.11.2017.
44. Further, as the deceased was minor, there has to be deduction of 85% on account of personal and living expenses as held in the case of Keith Rowe Vs. Prashant Sagar & ors. mentioned supra.
45. As stated above, deceased was below 12 years in age, at the time of accident, a multiplier of 18 is thus taken and in this way calculating 15% loss of estate comes to (8,112 + 40% (3,244.8) = 11,356.8- 85% (9,653.28) = 1703.52 x 12 x 18) Rs.3,67,960.32 (rounded off to Rs.3,67,961/-). Accordingly, this amount of Rs.3,67,961/- is awarded to the petitioner towards loss of estate.
MACT No. 449475/16 Page 42 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 43 of53 LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
46. After the celebrated judgment of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. mentioned supra and recent judgment titled New India Assurance Company Limited versus Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020 dated 07.09.2020, the petitioners are not entitled to be compensated under this head. Further Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", mentioned supra has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the constitution bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) does not recognize any other non-pecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
47. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020, dated 07.09.2020, this Tribunal is of considered opinion that brother of deceased is entitled for payment of Rs.48,400/- towards loss of consortium. Consequently, a sum of Rs.48,400/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
48. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & MACT No. 449475/16 Page 43 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 44 of53 Ors." mentioned supra, a sum of Rs. 18,150/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses is awarded in favour of petitioner.
49. Petitioner/claimant is accordingly entitled to compensation computed as under:
Medical Expenses Rs.93,818/-
Loss of dependency/estate Rs.3,67,961/-
Loss of Estate & Funeral Expenses Rs. 36,300/-
Loss of Consortium Rs. 48,400/-
Loss of Love and Affection Nil.
_____________
Total Rs. 5,46,479/-
_____________
(Rupees Five Lacs Forty Six Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy Nine only).
50. In respect of entitlement of the petitioners to interest on the awarded amount, it is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Apex Court had in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC) had observed that the victims of Uphaar Tragedy be awarded compensation with interest @ 9% per annum. The present matter is pending trial since 31.07.2012 and the rate of interest of fixed deposits in Nationalized banks has fluctuated/dropped several times during the pendency of the present proceedings. Therefore, in the interest of justice, in the present case, this court is of the opinion that the claimants/petitioners are entitled to interest at the MACT No. 449475/16 Page 44 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 45 of53 prevailing bank rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition, that is, with effect from 31.07.2012 till realization of the compensation amount.
51. The amount of interim award, if any, shall however be deducted from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the petitioners.
LIABILITY
52. In the present matter, the question which arises for determination, is as to which of the respondents, is liable to pay the compensation amount. Ld. counsel for R3/insurance company has disputed the involvement of the offending vehicle in question in the case accident. During the trial, Ld. counsel for insurance company/R3 has moved an application u/o 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment of insurer of the victim's vehicle bearing registration no. TN- 01-AF-3760. However, the said application was dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 13.02.2024. However, the said order was not challenged by the R3/insurance company. Further, Respondent no.3/insurance company did not adduce any evidence with regard to involvement/negligence of truck bearing registration no.RJ-14GB-0593. It is nowhere the case of the insurance company, that any terms or conditions of the insurance policy was breached/violated by the insured. Keeping in view the existence of valid insurance policy, respondent no.
MACT No. 449475/16 Page 45 of53
LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 46 of53
3/insurance company becomes liable, to pay the
compensation amount to the petitioner, as R3/insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured.
53. Accordingly, in the case in hand, in terms of order dated 16.05.2017 of Hon'ble High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors., Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd./R3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount of Rs. 5,46,479/- within 30 days from today within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, that is, State Bank of India, Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till notice of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3 to the petitioners and his advocates and to show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgment with the Nazir as per rules. R3 is further directed to deposit the awarded amount in the above said bank by means of cheque drawn in the name of above said bank along with the name of the claimants mentioned therein. The said bank is further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimants approach the bank for disbursement, so that the awarded amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheque.
APPORTIONMENT
54. Separate statement of petitioners in terms of clause 29 MCTAP was recorded on 14.05.2019 regarding savings MACT No. 449475/16 Page 46 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 47 of53 bank account of the petitioners with no loan, cheque book and ATM/debit card. I have heard the petitioners and Ld. counsel for the petitioners/claimants regarding financial needs of the petitioners and in view of the judgment in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas and Others, 1994 (2) SC, 1631, for appropriate investments to safeguard the amount from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to their ignorance, illiteracy and being susceptible to exploitation, following arrangements are hereby ordered:-
55. It is deemed appropriate by this court after hearing Learned counsels for all parties that maximum amount of compensation be kept in FDRs and only a very small amount be released to the claimants. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the statement made by the petitioners, it is hereby directed that on realization of the entire award amount, out of the award amount, an amount of Rs.2,46,479/- be released to the petitioner Bhuvan Gupta in his bank A/c no. 38446684640, with SBI, A1, Jankapuri Branch, Delhi i.e. the branch near his place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause 29 MCTAP) and remaining amount be kept in the form of FDRs of equal amount, for a period of one month to 20 months of equal amount respectively with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
MACT No. 449475/16 Page 47 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 48 of53
56. It shall be subject to the following further conditions and directions in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, FAO 842/2003 with respect to fixed deposits :-
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the victim i.e. the saving bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be individual savings 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(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant/(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amount of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence i.e. above said a/c.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the court.
(f) The concerned Bank shall not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). 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 MACT No. 449475/16 Page 48 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 49 of53 the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) 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(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the pass book(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
RELIEF
57. As discussed above, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited/R3 is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs.5,46,479/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition, that is, 31.07.2012 till realization within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, that is, SBI, Rohini Court Branch, Delhi within 30 days from today under intimation of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3 to the petitioner and his advocate failing which the R3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the period of delay beyond 30 days.
58. R3 is also directed to place on record the proof of deposit MACT No. 449475/16 Page 49 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 50 of53 of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the award amount in the above said bank to the claimants and complete details in respect of calculations of interest etc. in the court within 30 days from today.
59. Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the granted time.
60. In terms of directions contained in the order dated 07.12.2018 and subsequent order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in the case of Rajesh Tyagi and Ors vs Jaibir Singh and Ors., FAO 842/2003, the copy of the award be also sent by the Ahlmad of the court to Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India (as per the list of nodal officers of 21 banks of Indian Bank's Association as circulated to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide above mentioned order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court) who is the Nodal Officer with contact details (022-22741336/9414048606) {other details-Personal Banking Business Unit (LIMA) 13th Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021} through email ([email protected]) through the computer branch of Rohini Courts, Delhi. Ahlmad of the court is directed to take immediate steps in that regard.
MACT No. 449475/16 Page 50 of53 LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 51 of53
61. A copy of this award be forwarded to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and DLSA in terms of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors. vide order dated 12.12.2014.
62. In view of the directions contained in order dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, joint statement of petitioner was also recorded on 14.05.2019 wherein he had stated that he was entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS and that he would submit form 15G to insurance co. so that no TDS is deducted.
63. Form IVA which has been duly filled in has also been attached herewith. File be consigned to record room as per rules after compliance of necessary legal formalities. Copy of order be given to parties for necessary compliance as per rules. DEEPIKA Digitally signed by DEEPIKA SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.02.20 16:44:49 +0530Announced in open court (DEEPIKA SINGH)
on 18th February, 2026 P.O. MACT (N/W)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
MACT No. 449475/16 Page 51 of53
LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 52 of53
FORM - IV A
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 24.03.2012
2. Name of deceased: Tapan Gupta
3. Age of the deceased: About 11 years 03 months and 02 days at the time of accident.
4. Occupation of the deceased: Student
5. Income of the deceased: Rs.8,112/- p.m.
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No. Name Age Relation
(i) Bhuvan Gupta 27 years Brother
Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs.8,112/-
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) 40% = Rs.3,244.8/-
9. Less-Personal expenses of
the 85% as brother of the
deceased (C ) deceased being not
dependent upon income of
deceased, as per Keith Rowe
Vs. Prashant Sagar & Ors
MAC. APP. No. 601/2007
decided on 15 January-2010
10. Monthly loss of dependency/Estate Rs.11,356.8- { (A+B) - C =D} 9,653.28=1,703.52/-
11. Annual loss of dependency/Estate Rs.20,442.24/-
(Dx12)
12. Multiplier (E) 18
MACT No. 449475/16 Page 52 of53
LRs of Tapan Gupta vs. Anil Singh and Ors. Page 53 of53
13. Total loss of dependency/estate Rs.3,67,960.32/- (rounded
(Dx12xE = F)
off to Rs.3,67,961/-)
14. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15. Compensation for loss of love and Nil
affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of Rs.48,400/- (48,400x1)
consortium (I)
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs.18,150/-
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs.18,150/-
expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.5,46,479/-
(F+G+H+I+J+K =L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 7.5% 21 Interest amount up to the date of Rs.5,55,359.28 award (M)
22. Total amount including interest Rs. 11,01,838.28 (rounded (L+M) off to Rs. 11,01,839)
23. Award amount released Rs.2,46,479/-
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs. 8,55,360/-
25. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms of amount to the claimant (s) (Clause clause 29 of MCTAP.
29)
26. Next date for compliance of the 17.03.2026 award. (Clause 31) Digitally signed by DEEPIKA DEEPIKA SINGH Date: SINGH Announced in open court (DEEPIKA SINGH) 2026.02.20 16:44:58 +0530 on 18th February, 2026 P.O. MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi MACT No. 449475/16 Page 53 of53