Delhi District Court
Raghubeer Gupta (Dar) vs Rajender (101/18, Kmp) on 17 March, 2026
:1:
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARU GUPTA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-01 (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No. 749/18
Raghubeer Gupta v. Rajender Singh
CNR No.DLSE01-006210-2018
1. Raghubeer Dayal Gupta,
S/o Sh. Ram Lal Gupta
2. Sh. Nitin Gupta,
S/o Raghubeer Dayal Gupta,
3. Ms. Sakshi Aggarwal
D/o Sh. Raghubeer Dayal Gupta
4. Ms. Divya Gupta
D/o Sh. Raghubeer Dayal Gupta
All R/o:
1533/2, Wazir Nagar,
Kotla Mubarakpur,
New Delhi.
.....Claimants/Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajender Singh
S/o Sh. Bhagwan Singh,
R/o E-262, Gali no. 7, Pul Pehladpur,
Badarpur, New Delhi.
.....Driver-cum-owner /Respondent no.1
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
3rd floor, Plot no.40, Aggarwal, City Mall,
Pitampura, Delhi.
......Insurance Company/Respondent no.2 Digitally signed
Charu by Charu gupta
Date:
gupta 2026.03.17
17:28:12 +0530
MACT No. 749/18 Raghubeer Gupta v. Rajender Page no. 1 of 29 BK
:2:
Date of accident : 26.01.2018
Result of accident : Death
Date of filing of DAR : 30.07.2018
Date of Decision : 17.03.2026
AWARD
1. The present detailed accident report (DAR) arises out of
road accident in which one Sangeeta Gupta, aged about 42 years,
suffered fatal injury resulting in her death. The claim is being
perused by the petitioners (1) Raghubeer Gupta (husband of the
deceased) and (2) Nitin Gupta, (son of deceased),(3) Sakshi and
(4)Divya, (Daughters) as dependents of the deceased.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.01.2018 at about
6.00 p.m., one Sangeeta Gupta (since deceased in the accident)
was hit by motorcycle bearing no. DL-3SDW-9203. The victim
was taken to AIIMS Trauma Centre for treatment, where she
succumbed to the injuries and died on 01.04.2018. On
01.04.2018, a complaint to the police was filed by son of the
deceased namely Nitin Gupta. Pursuant to this complaint, an FIR
no. 101/2018 dated 01.04.2018 u/s 279/304 A IPC was registered
at PS Kotla Mubarak Pur. During investigation, it was revealed
that the accident had been reported by the hospital vide DD no.
34 A in which information about the MLC no. 500074677/18 of
one Rajender Singh and MLC no. 500074678/18 of victim
Sangeeta was received. Upon interrogation, driver of the
offending vehicle disclosed that Sangeeta Devi was crossing road
from South Extension Part I towards South Ex-II, near foot over
bridge at South Ex-I, New Delhi when she was hit by his Royal
Enfield motorcycle bearing no. DL-3-SDW-9203 (herein after Digitally signed
Charu by Charu gupta
Date:
gupta 2026.03.17
17:28:17 +0530
MACT No. 749/18 Raghubeer Gupta v. Rajender Page no. 2 of 29 BK
:3:
referred to as the offending vehicle) which was being driven by
him. He stated that in the accident, he also suffered minor
injuries and was taken to AIIMS Trauma Centre for treatment.
He disclosed and conceded that he was driving in a rash and
negligent manner.
3. After completion of investigation, a chargesheet u/s
279/304 A IPC was filed against driver of the offending vehicle,
before concerned Court and the present DAR was filed before
this Tribunal.
4. As per record, the offending vehicle was driven by
respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with
respondent no.3.
5. As per reply filed by Respondent no. 1 and 2, the
occurrence of the accident and involvement of the offending
vehicle have not been disputed. It has been pleaded that the
victim was crossing road from South Ex II towards South Ex I
while Respondent no. 1 was coming for Dholakuan and going
towards Lajpat Nagar. When he reached AIIMS, New Delhi,
victim came running in the middle of the road to cross the same,
without any red light or pedestrian crossing signal. Respondent
no. 1 was driving at a speed of 50-55 Km/Hr. It has been pleaded
that the traffic on the road was heavy and that due to the accident,
the victim as well as respondent no. 1 sustained simple injuries.
He took the injured/ victim to AIIMS Hospital. Respondents
denied rash or negligent driving and claimed that the accident
occurred due to sole negligence of the victim/ injured. It has
however, been pleaded that the offending vehicle was duly Digitally signed
Charu by Charu gupta
Date:
2026.03.17
gupta 17:28:23
+0530
MACT No. 749/18 Raghubeer Gupta v. Rajender Page no. 3 of 29 BK
:4:
insured and respondent no. 1 had a valid driving license.
In its reply, Respondent no.3 admitted that the offending
vehicle was insured on the date of accident, however denied
liability on the ground there has been an unexplained delay of 95
days in registration of the FIR which renders the claim doubtful.
It is further pleaded that the accident, if any, occurred due to
negligence of the victim/ injured and that there is nothing on
record to establish death of the victim due to the injuries, if any,
sustained in the accident.
6. From the pleadings, following issues were framed on
03.10.2018.
1) Whether the deceased Sangeeta suffered fatal injury in a
road traffic accident on 26.01.2018 due to rash and
negligent driving of vehicle no.DL-3SDW-9203 being
driven by R1, owned by R-2 and insured with R3? OPP.
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom ? OPP.
3) Relief.
7. In order to prove their claim, petitioners examined Sh.
Nitin Gupta, son of the deceased as PW-1 and Sh. Sudhir Kumar
Ray, eyewitness as PW-2.
PW-1 Sh. Nitin Gupta, examined himself by filing his
evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW1/A wherein he deposed
that he was son of the deceased Sangeeta Gupta. He testified that
his mother met with an accident on 26.01.2018 on being hit by
motorcyclist namely Rajender Singh. He deposed that his family
received telephonic call at around 10:00 p.m. from AIIMS
Trauma Centre. When the deponent reached AIIMS Trauma
Centre, he found his mother admitted in ICU. She remained
Digitally signed
Charu by Charu gupta
Date:
gupta 2026.03.17
17:28:29 +0530
MACT No. 749/18 Raghubeer Gupta v. Rajender Page no. 4 of 29 BK
:5:
under treatment from 26.01.2018 to 01.04.2018 and died due to
injuries sustained in the accident on 01.04.2018. He deposed that
the deceased Sangeeta Gupta is survived by her husband
Raghubeer Gupta, PW1 Nitin Gupta/ son and two daughters
namely Sakshi and Divya. He deposed that his mother was an
income tax assessee and she used to earn Rs.25,000/- - 30,000/-
per month from home tuition and sale of ready-made garments.
PW-1 relied upon complaint made to the police on
01.04.2018 as Ex.PW1/1, DD no. 41 A as Ex.PW1/2, FIR no.
101/2018 as Ex.PW1/3, certificate u/s 65 B IE Act as Ex.PW ¼,
site plan Ex.PW 1/5, DD no. 34 A dated 26.01.2018 as
Ex.PW1/6, DD no. 7 A as Ex.PW 1/7, postmortem report as
Ex.PW1/8, MLC as Ex.PW1/9, statement of identification of
dead body as Ex.PW1/10, MLC of accused as Ex.PW 1/11,
Seizure memo of the offending vehicle as Ex.PW1/12 and
Ex.PW1/13, Driving license of accused as Ex.PW1/14, RC as
Ex.PW1/15, Aadhar Card of accused as Ex.PW1/16, verification
certificate of offending vehicle as Ex.PW1/17, discharge
summary as Ex.PW 1/18, license verification report as
Ex.PW1/19, insurance policy as Ex.PW 1/20, verification report
of insurance policy as Ex.PW1/21, income tax return for the year
2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 as Ex.PW 1/23 and Ex.PW1/24.
PW-1 further alleged negligence on the part of Respondent
no. 1, deposing that the accused had admitted to have been
driving at a speed of 50-55 Km/Hr., in heavy traffic which
reflects rashness and negligence on his part. PW-1 deposed that
the investigation was also defective in as much as site plan Digitally
signed by
Charu Charu
Date:
gupta
gupta 17:28:33
2026.03.17
+0530
MACT No. 749/18 Raghubeer Gupta v. Rajender Page no. 5 of 29 BK
:6:
deferred from the plea taken by the respondent no. 1.
PW-1 further stated that his mother remained in critical
care at AIIMS Trauma Centre from the date of accident till her
death in 01.04.2018 and therefore, there was no occasion for him
to have inquired from the police about the status and inquiry of
DD no. 34A. He deposed that his mother expired due to the
injuries sustained in the accident.
PW-1 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for
respondents.
PW-2 Sudhir Kumar Ray was examined as eyewitness who
deposed that on 26.01.2018, he was at his shop in South Ex Part
I, near foot-over bridge. He deposed that at around 9-9:30 p.m.,
he heard an accident sound in front of his shop and rushed to the
spot. He saw that a lady had met with an accident with a
motorbike. He deposed that both of them got injured, however, as
the lady sustained serious injuries, she was rushed to JPN AIIMS
Trauma Centre and got admitted in ICU. He deposed that he
called 100 number from his mobile phone 9971644562 and
informed the police. He further deposed that the divider was
narrow and of height about 1-1.5 feet. He further deposed that the
driver of the bike was driving at a speed of 60-70 Km/Hr., in the
high speed lain, at the time of accident.
PW-2 was cross examined by the learned Counsel for the
insurance and learned Counsel for respondent no.1 and 2.
8. Respondents did not lead any evidence despite
opportunity. Final arguments in detail were addressed on behalf
the Petitioner as well as the insurance company. Digitally signed
Charu by Charu gupta
Date:
2026.03.17
gupta 17:28:39
+0530
MACT No. 749/18 Raghubeer Gupta v. Rajender Page no. 6 of 29 BK
:7:
Issue No.1
Whether the deceased Sangeeta suffered fatal injury in a
road traffic accident on 26.01.2018 due to rash and
negligent driving of vehicle no.DL-3SDW-9203 being
driven by R1, owned by R-2 and insured with R3? OPP.
9. Before proceeding to decide the above issue, it is apposite
to note that as a settled principle of law, proceedings under The
Motor Vehicle Act are not considered akin to the proceedings in a
civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not applicable.
Reliance is placed upon decision in Bimla Devi & ors. vs.
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (2009) 13 SC 535,
in Parmeshwari vs. Amir Chand & Ors., 2011 (1) SCR 1096 and
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ
287, wherein it has been held that the negligence has to be
decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and
a holistic view has to be taken.
10. In the instant case, in order to prove negligence on the
part of Respondent no.1, petitioners have examined PW-2 Sudhir
Kumar Roy as an eye witness and Nitin Kumar as PW-1. PW-2
has deposed that he had heard an accident sound and saw the
victim as well as the driver of the motorcycle/Respondent no.1,
fallen on the road. He testified that he took the victim to the
hospital. Respondent no.1 has neither disputed the occurrence of
the accident nor the involvement of the offending vehicle. He
has however denied rash and negligence on his part. PW-1 as
well as PW-2 have testified that the offending vehicle was being
driven at the speed of 50-55 Km./h, as also conceded by
Respondent no.1 in his reply. The defence raised by Respondent Digitally signed
Charu by Charu gupta
Date:
2026.03.17
gupta 17:28:44
+0530
MACT No. 749/18 Raghubeer Gupta v. Rajender Page no. 7 of 29 BK
:8:
no.1 to refute negligence on his part is that the victim suddenly
came running to cross the road. The site plan shows that the spot
of the accident is a wide road and the accident occurred near the
divider. It is the own plea of Respondent no.1 that there was
heavy traffic on the road at the time of accident. In heavy traffic,
the expected speed of a motorcycle ought not have exceeded 25-
30 km./h as traffic congestion are generally characterized by slow
speed maneuvering, significantly reducing the average permitted
speed limit.
11. Even if the plea of Respondent no.1 regarding speed of his
vehicle, is assumed to be true, at a speed of 50-55 Km./h., he
could have easily applied brakes and prevented the accident. The
fact that even after foreseeing a pedestrian crossing the road, he
did not slow down his motorcycle or timely apply brakes,
establishes that either the motorcycle was being driven at a
higher speed that claimed or that such Respondent no.1 was
grossly negligent in driving the same. The negligence of
Respondent no.1 is even more apparent as it is not a case where
the road was blocked or covered in any manner so as to have
prevented a clear sight of a pedestrian crossing the road.
12. Also, the plea that the victim only sustained minor injuries
is negated by the postmortem report revealing severe head injury
due to accident as the cause of her death.
13. As regards the plea of delay in filing complaint regarding
accident by the son of deceased victim, it is a matter of record
that the police received intimation about the accident from
AIIMS hospital on the same day itself, vide DD no.34A, wherein
Digitally signed
Charu byDate:Charu gupta
gupta 2026.03.17
17:28:50
+0530
MACT No. 749/18 Raghubeer Gupta v. Rajender Page no. 8 of 29 BK
:9:
the details of the MLC were also intimated to the police. It is
further a matter of record, proved by PW-3, Record Technician
Sh. Aditya Swaroop by way of death summary/medical treatment
record showing that the victim remained hospitalized, in a critical
condition in ICU, from the date of accident i.e. 26.01.2018 till
01.04.2018 i.e. the date of her death. Complaint to the police was
filed immediately after death of the victim on 01.04.2018.
In such circumstances, her family members including her
son could not have been expected to be pursuing the police,
leaving his mother unattended in the hospital. The delay in filing
of a police complaint is thus plausibly explained by the
circumstances themselves.
14. Also, since even the police after investigation filed
chargesheet against respondent no.1 under Section 279/304A of
IPC corroborated by the statement of witnesses recorded u/s 161
Cr.PC, site plan, mechanical inspection report and postmortem
report of the victim, is also suggestive of negligence of
respondent no.1 in causing the accident. In National Insurance
Co. vs. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, it was laid down that
completion of investigation and filing of chargesheet are
sufficient proof of negligence of the driver of the offending
vehicle.
15. It may further be noted that in Cholamandlam Insurance
company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh 2009 (3) AD Delhi 310, it was held
that if driver of offending vehicle does not enter the witness box,
an adverse inference can be drawn against him. In the present
case also, neither the driver nor owner of the offending vehicle
Digitally signed
Charu by Charu gupta
Date:
gupta 2026.03.17
17:28:56 +0530
MACT No. 749/18 Raghubeer Gupta v. Rajender Page no. 9 of 29 BK
:10:
entered into the witness box to controvert the claim of petitioners
or even to explain circumstances of accident.
16. In totality of circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion
that the petitioner been able to prove on the scales of
preponderance of probabilities that the accident in question, took
place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle
by its driver/respondent no.1 on the date and time of accident.
Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioners and
against the respondents.
Issue no. 2
Whether the petitioners are entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom ? OPP.
17. Petitioners no.1 to 4 are claimed to be dependents upon
deceased Sangeeta being her husband and children as well as
Class I Legal heirs. Hence, they are held to be dependent on the
deceased and are entitled to compensation.
18. As no statutory defence has been raised by the insurance
company, such insurance company is liable to indemnify the
respondent no.2 (owner of the offending vehicle) by
compensating the petitioners. As such, respondent no. 3 is liable
to pay compensation to the petitioners.
19. Before proceeding further, on quantum of compensation, it
would be apposite to encapsulate the law laid down by the Apex
Court in its various judgments qua methodology and
considerations for assessing/ascertaining just compensation in
road vehicular death cases laid down in Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. (2003) 6 SCC. The relevant
Digitally signed
Charu by Charu gupta
Date:
2026.03.17
gupta 17:29:01
+0530
MACT No. 749/18 Raghubeer Gupta v. Rajender Page no. 10 of 29 BK
:11:
principles for ascertainment of compensation are quoted here
under:
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 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
Charu Digitally signed
by Charu gupta
Date: 2026.03.17
gupta 17:29:07 +0530
MACT No. 749/18 Raghubeer Gupta v. Rajender Page no. 11 of 29 BK
:12:
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."
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 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."
DEDUCTIONS
"14. Having considered several subsequent decisions of
this court, we are of the view that where the deceased
was married, the deduction towards personal and living
expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd)
where the number of dependent family members is 2 to
3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant
family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where
the number of dependant family members exceed six.
15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the
claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a
different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally,
50% is deducted as personal and living expenses,
because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to
spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also
the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in
which event the contribution to the parent/s and
siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject
Charu Digitally signed
by Charu gupta
Date: 2026.03.17
MACT No. 749/18 Raghubeer Gupta v. Rajender
gupta 17:29:12 +0530
Page no. 12 of 29 BK
:13:
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 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."
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."
20. As regards, computation of the future prospects, observations
made in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi
& Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 are noteworthy:
"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
Charu Digitally signed
by Charu gupta
Date: 2026.03.17
gupta 17:29:18 +0530
MACT No. 749/18 Raghubeer Gupta v. Rajender Page no. 13 of 29 BK
:14:
and the Courts.
59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to
record our conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have
been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as
it was taking a different view than what has been stated in
Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is
because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot
take a contrary view than what has been held by another
coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in
Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of
time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
(iii)While determining the income, an addition of 50% of
actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future
prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and
was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The
addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was
between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between
the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%.
Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv)In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed
salary, an addition of 40% of the established income
should be the warrant where the deceased was below the
age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased
was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where
the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should
be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The
established income means the income minus the tax
component.
(v)For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for
personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts
shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma
which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi)The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in
the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that
judgment.
(vii)The age of the deceased should be the basis for
applying the multiplier.
(viii)Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely,
loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses
should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/-
respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at
the rate of 10% in every three years.
21. In view of the above settled principles, in order to archive
Digitally signed
Charu by Charu gupta
Date:
2026.03.17
gupta 17:29:26
+0530
MACT No. 749/18 Raghubeer Gupta v. Rajender Page no. 14 of 29 BK
:15:
at or ascertain a just compensation payable to the petitioners, this
Tribunal first needs to ascertain the age of deceased/victim, the
appropriate multiplier, income of the deceased at the time of
incident, the educational qualification of deceased, the number of
dependents, whether deceased was married or unmarried,
whether deceased was having permanent employment or private
job etc. Award also needs to be passed qua non-pecuniary heads
as envisaged and in terms of above judgments.
Age and multiplier
22. As per Aadhar Card, date of birth of the victim was
16.09.1975. The accident took place on 26.01.2018. The victim
would thus have been 42 years at the time of accident. She fell in
the age bracket of 41 to 50 years and multiplier applicable to this
case would be 14.
Determination of monthly and annual income
23. At the time of accident, deceased victim is claimed to be
earning Rs.25,000/-30,000/- from home tuitions and sale of
ready-made garments. In order to prove the income of the
deceased, petitioners have relied upon Ex.Pw-1/22, Ex.PW-1/23
and Ex.PW-1/24 which are ITRs for the year 2016-17, 2017-18
and 2018-19. It is pertinent to note that the ITR 2017-18, filed
soon before the accident reflects total gross taxable income as
Rs.2,59,203/-. The total income after deductions is reflected to
be Rs.1,87,240/-. This income is inclusive of an income of
Rs.2,52,000/- received under the head of "Income from house
property". Any income from any immovable property would not
get affected or changed on account of death of victim and thus
Digitally signed
Charu by Charu gupta
Date:
2026.03.17
gupta 17:29:31
+0530
MACT No. 749/18 Raghubeer Gupta v. Rajender Page no. 15 of 29 BK
:16:
cannot be considered for assessment for the purpose of
contribution to the family or being granted upon death of the
victim. No separate taxable income is reflected. However, even
considering that the victim was unemployed or not receiving any
salary from any other source than an immovable property, she is
assumed to have at least been a home-maker. Her income has,
thus, to be assessed as that of a skilled worker. Reliance is placed
on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kirti vs Oriental
Insurance Company Limited, AIR 2021 SC 353, wherein it was
held that a homemaker's income should be generally assessed as
that of a skilled worker for compensation purposes.
Hence, in the present case, income of the victim as per
prevailing rates for skilled workers in Delhi was
Rs.16,468X12=Rs.1,97,616/- per annum.
Determination of future prospects
24. Having regard to the age of the deceased and ratio laid
down in Pranay Sethi (Supra) and other judgments, the
percentage towards future prospect would be calculated @25%
where the deceased was in between the age of 40 to 50 years and
is self-employed.
Thus, the enhanced income (after adding 25% of her
annual income, as future prospects) would be Rs.1,97,616+
Rs.49,404/-=Rs.2,47,020/- P.A.
Deduction
25. As already discussed, considering the age and that the
deceased is survived by 4 dependents, as per Sarla Verma
judgment (supra), deductions towards personal and living Digitally
signed by
Charu Charu
Date:
gupta
gupta 2026.03.17
17:29:37
+0530
MACT No. 749/18 Raghubeer Gupta v. Rajender Page no. 16 of 29 BK
:17:
expenses of deceased on himself would be taken as 1/4th. Thus,
the net deduction in the present case is ascertained to be 1/4th of
the total calculated income i.e. Rs.2,47,020/- which equal to
Rs.61,755/-. Hence, deceased would have been contributing
Rs.2,47,020-61,755=Rs.1,85,265/- per annum towards
petitioners.
Determination of Multiplicand
26. The multiplicand would thus be the annual contributed
income of deceased i.e. Rs.1,85,265/-.
Loss of dependency upon applying multiplier
27. Since the age of the victim is 40 years, as per Sarla Verma
Judgment (supra), multiplier of 14 is applicable. The total loss of
dependency would come out to be Rs.1,85,265X14=
Rs.25,93,710/-.
Compensation under Non-Pecuniary Heads (Grant of Loss of
Estate, Loss of Consortium and Funeral Expenses):
28. To calculate compensation under the non pecuniary heads,
reference has to be drawn from decision in Pranay Sethi case
(supra) wherein it was observed:
''...Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be
quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable
foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price
index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field
have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the
same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise,
there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and
unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation
lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the
orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be
unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums.
It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads,
namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses
should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The
principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle.
Charu Digitally signed
by Charu gupta
Date: 2026.03.17
MACT No. 749/18 Raghubeer Gupta v. Rajender gupta 17:29:42 +0530
Page no. 17 of 29 BK
:18:
But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We
think that it would be condign that the amount that we have
quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three
years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span
of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring
in consistency in respect of those heads.
.
.
59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years...''
29. It may further be noted that the date of judgment of Pranay Sethi case (supra) is 31/10/2017. Further, as per the judgment, the amount so quantified under the non pecuniary heads have to be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. As such, the funeral expenses and expenses towards loss of estate would, as on date, be Rs.19,965/-, under each of these heads while compensation for loss of consortium would stand enhanced to Rs.53,240/-.
30. On the date of accident, deceased was survived by her husband and children. As such, in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as noted above, the petitioners would be entitled Rs.53,240/- each towards loss of consortium, while, petitioner no.1 is entitled to expenses towards funeral and loss of estate also.
Share of petitioners
31. (I) Petitioner no.1/Raghubeer Gupta(husband of deceased)is entitled to Rs.10,93,710/- towards loss of financial dependency, Rs.53,240/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.19,965/- towards Digitally signed Charu by Charu gupta Date:
2026.03.17 gupta 17:29:47 +0530 MACT No. 749/18 Raghubeer Gupta v. Rajender Page no. 18 of 29 BK :19: funeral expenses and Rs.19,965/- towards loss of estate. The total comes out to be Rs.11,86,880/-.
(II) Petitioner no.2/Nitin Gupta is entitled to Rs.5,00,000/-
towards loss of financial dependency, Rs.53,240/- towards loss of consortium,. The total comes out to be Rs.5,53,240/-. (III) Petitioner no.3/Ms. Sakshi Aggarwal is entitled to Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss of financial dependency, Rs.53,240/- towards loss of consortium. The total comes out to be Rs.5,53,240/-
(IV) Petitioner no.4/Ms. Divya Gupta is entitled to Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss of financial dependency, Rs.53,240/- towards loss of consortium. The total comes out to be Rs.5,53,240/-.
Thus, the total amount payable by insurance company to claimants is Rs.28,46,600/-.
Liability
32. As already discussed, insurance company is liable to compensate the petitioners. The principal award amount/ compensation shall be payable by insurance company with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of petition till actual realization.
In case, the interest of petitioners were stopped or excluded during the present inquiry proceedings, same is liable to be adjusted from the total interest calculated on the Award amount. Similarly, amount awarded and released as interim Award, if any, during pendency of the case, be deducted from the total compensation amount.
Digitally signedCharu by Charu gupta Date: 2026.03.17 gupta 17:29:53 +0530 MACT No. 749/18 Raghubeer Gupta v. Rajender Page no. 19 of 29 BK :20:
Directions Regarding Deposit of Award Amount in Bank
33. In compliance of directions issued vide order dated 16.11.2021 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition Civil No.534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India the award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT PARKING FUND, A/c No. 00000042706875094, IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir in the prescribed format i.e. MCOP Number on the file of (Claims Tribunal Name) Date of award, Compensation Amount, Income Tax Deduction at Source, Bank Transaction Reference No./Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. In turn, the State Bank of India, Saket Courts Branch shall receive the deposited sum and capture the above information and furnish a statement of account on a daily basis to the Nazir of this Tribunal to reconcile the deposits of compensation and the respective MCOPs towards which such deposits are made. On such deposits being made, the insurance company shall submit a letter to the Nazir of this Tribunal enclosing a copy of the said bank advice, in prescribed format as above, as per which the deposit made to the bank account of this Tribunal, to enable this Tribunal to keep tab on the deposits made and the MCOPs for which they were made. The Payment advice for remittance of compensation is as under:
PAYMENT ADVICE FOR REMITTANCE OF COMPENSATION :Digitally signed
............ Bank ................... Charu by Charu gupta Date:
2026.03.17 gupta 17:29:59 +0530 MACT No. 749/18 Raghubeer Gupta v. Rajender Page no. 20 of 29 BK :21: To:
............... Court ........................ We confirm remittance of compensation as follows on instructions of ................................... (insurance company):- MCOP Number On the file of (Claims Tribunal Name), Place Date of award Amount Deposited, Income Tax Deduction at Source, if any Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. Insurance company of offending vehicle, on deposit, shall also send a copy of the payment advice in above format to this Tribunal and serve a copy of the same on the claimants or their counsel as the case may be.
DISBURSEMENT
34. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors. has given the following directions:
"(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimants. However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall Charu Digitally signed by Charu gupta gupta Date: 2026.03.17 17:30:04 +0530 MACT No. 749/18 Raghubeer Gupta v. Rajender Page no. 21 of 29 BK :22: 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."
35. However, in a recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal on 18 March, 2025 in S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020 has held that :
"17. The case in hand pertains to the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. The general practice followed by the insurance companies, where the compensation is not disputed, is to deposit the same before the Tribunal. Instead of following that process, a direction can always be issued to transfer the amount into the bank account(s) of the claimant(s) with intimation to the Tribunal.
17.1 For that purpose, the Tribunals at the initial stage of pleadings or at the stage of leading evidence may require the claimant(s) to furnish their bank account particulars to the Tribunal along with the requisite proof, so that at the stage of passing of the award the Tribunal may direct that the amount of compensation be transferred in the account of the claimant and if 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 Digitally signed Charu by Charu gupta Date: gupta 2026.03.17 17:30:10 +0530 MACT No. 749/18 Raghubeer Gupta v. Rajender Page no. 22 of 29 BK :23: 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."
36. In view of the same, the award amount can now be disbursed in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioners. However, the remaining directions as passed by the Hon'ble High Court shall be complied with.
Apportionment
37. Out of the total compensation amount awarded to petitioner no.1/husband i.e. Rs.11,86,880/-, Rs.6,86,880/- be released to him in his bank account and remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/-/- be kept in the form of monthly FDRs of Rs.15,000/- in his bank account near his place of residence as per rule/directions.
38. Out of the total compensation amount awarded to petitioner no.2/ Nitin Gupta i.e. Rs.5,53,240/-, Rs.1,53,240/- be released to him in his bank account and remaining amount of Rs.4,00,000/- be kept in the form of monthly FDRs of Rs.5,000/- in his bank account near his place of residence as per rule/directions.
39. Out of the total compensation amount awarded to petitioner no.3/ Sakshi Aggarwal i.e. Rs.5,53,240/-, Rs.1,53,240/- be released to him in his bank account and Digitally signed Charu by Charu gupta Date:
2026.03.17 gupta 17:30:15 +0530 MACT No. 749/18 Raghubeer Gupta v. Rajender Page no. 23 of 29 BK :24: remaining amount of Rs.4,00,000/- be kept in the form of monthly FDRs of Rs.5,000/- in his bank account near his place of residence as per rule/directions.
40. Out of the total compensation amount awarded to petitioner no.4/ Divya Gupta i.e. Rs.5,53,240/-, whole of the amount be kept in the FDR till she attains the age of majority, in her bank account near her place of residence as per rule/directions.
41. The following directions are also given to the bank for compliance:
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name (s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of victim i.e. the savings bank account of the claimant shall be individual savings bank account and not a joint account.
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR (s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque 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 Charu of the Digitally signed by Charu gupta gupta Date: 2026.03.17 17:30:22 +0530 MACT No. 749/18 Raghubeer Gupta v. Rajender Page no. 24 of 29 BK :25: award amount. The bank shall debit freeze the account of the claimant so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque book and / or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1. Date of accident 26.01.2018
2. Name of deceased Sangeeta Gupta
3. Age of the deceased 42 years
4. Occupation of the deceased House Maker
5. Income of the deceased Rs.16,468/- p.m. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:
S No. Name Age Relation (i) Raghubeer Dayal Gupta 50 years Husband (ii) Nitin Gupta 21 years Son (iii) Sakshi Aggarwal 18 years Daughter (iv) Divya Gupta 10 years Daughter
Computation of compensation:-
S. No Heads Awarded by the
Claims Tribunal
1 A. Income of the deceased per Rs.1,97,616/-
year
Charu Digitally signed by
Charu gupta
MACT No. 749/18 Raghubeer Gupta v. Rajender gupta
Page
Date: 2026.03.17
no. 25 of 29 BK
17:30:28 +0530
:26:
2 B. Add-Future Prospects 25% of Rs.49,404/-
A (per year)
3 C. Total Rs.2,47,020/-
4 D. Less-Personal Expenses of the Rs.61,755/-
deceased 1/4th of (C)
5 E. Yearly loss of dependency [C Rs.1,85,265/-
-D]
6 F. Multiplier. 14
7 G. Total loss of dependency (E x F Rs.25,93,710/-
= G)
8 H. Medical Expenses Nil
9 I. Deduction, if any Nil
10 J. Total loss of dependency after Nil
deduction, if any
11 K. Compensation for loss of Rs. 53,240/-
consortium X4=2,12,960/-
12 L. Compensation for loss of Rs.19,965/-
estate
13 M. Compensation towards funeral Rs.19,965/-
expenses
14 N. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.28,46,600/-
total of J+K+L+M =N
15 O. RATE OF INTEREST @ 7.5% per
AWARDED: annum
from date of filing of petition till actual realization of principal amount awarded.
16 Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.18,53,240/- 17 Award amount released Rs.9,93,360/-
18 Mode of disbursement of the (I) Share of award amount to the claimant (s). Petitioner (Clause 29) no.1/husband: Out of total compensation Charu Digitally signed by Charu gupta gupta Date: 2026.03.17 17:30:34 +0530 MACT No. 749/18 Raghubeer Gupta v. Rajender Page no. 26 of 29 BK :27: amount awarded to him i.e. Rs.11,86,880/-, Rs.6,86,880/- be released to him in his bank account and remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/- be kept in the form of monthly FDRs of Rs.15,000/- in his bank account near his place of residence as per rule/directions.
(II) Share of
Petitioner no.2/Nitin
Gupta: Out of total
compensation
amount awarded to
him i.e.
Rs.5,53,240/-,
Rs.1,53,240/- be
released to him in his
bank account and
remaining amount of
Rs.4,00,000/- be kept
in the form of
monthly FDRs of
Rs.5,000/- in his
bank account near
his place of
residence as per
rule/directions.
(III) Share of
Petitioner
no.3/Sakshi
Aggarwal:
The total
compensation
amount awarded to
Charu Digitally signed by Charu
gupta
gupta Date: 2026.03.17 17:30:41
+0530
MACT No. 749/18 Raghubeer Gupta v. Rajender Page no. 27 of 29 BK
:28:
her i.e.
Rs.5,53,240/-,
Rs.1,53,240/- be
released in her bank
account and
remaining amount of
Rs.4,00,000/- be kept
in the form of
monthly FDRs of
Rs.5,000/- in her
bank account near
her place of
residence as per
rules/directions.
(IV) Share of
Petitioner
no.4/Divya Gupta:
The total
compensation
amount awarded to
her i.e.
Rs.5,53,240/-,whole
of the amount be
kept in the FDR till
she attains the age of
majority in her bank
account near her
place of residence as
per rules/directions.
All above amount
shall be along with
interest @ 7.5 % per
annum on total
principal award
amount from date of
filing of petition till
actual realization.
19 Next Date for compliance of the 17.04.2026
award (Clause 31)
Digitally signed
Charu by Charu gupta
Date:
2026.03.17
gupta 17:30:47
+0530
MACT No. 749/18 Raghubeer Gupta v. Rajender Page no. 28 of 29 BK
:29:
42. Put up on 17.04.2026 for compliance.
Digitally signed by Announced in the open court Charu Charu gupta Date:
gupta 2026.03.17
on 17th March, 2026. 17:30:57
+0530
(Charu Gupta)
PO-MACT-01 (South East)
Saket Courts/New Delhi
MACT No. 749/18 Raghubeer Gupta v. Rajender Page no. 29 of 29 BK