Delhi District Court
Rita Devi (I) vs Manish on 21 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010055372022
MACT No. : 322/2022
FIR No. : 27/2022
PS : Kashmere Gate
u/s : 279/304A IPC
1. Smt. Rita Devi (LR/wife of deceased)
2. Sh. Uday Shankar (LR/son of deceased)
3. Sh. Dev Shankar (LR/son of deceased)
(All r/o. C-1/148A, Gali no.5, 3rd Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Karawal Nagar,
Delhi-110094)
...Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Manish Rajoria (driver of the offending vehicle)
S/o. Sh. Kishan Lal,
R/o. 703A,Gali no.5, Pratap Nagar, Mandoli, Delhi.
2. Sh. Goverdhan Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. (owner of the offending
vehicle)
Office at : B-2, Tyagi Vihar, Nangloi, Delhi.
3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Oriental House, A-25/27, Asas Ali Road, New Delhi.
...Respondents
MACT No.322/2022
Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 1 of 37
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.21
14:36:06
+0530
Date of filing of DAR : 29.03.2022
Judgment reserved on : 27.01.2026
Date of Award : 21.02.2026
AWAR D
1. The present DAR was filed on 29.03.2022 which was
treated as the claim petition. The Road Traffic Accident in question took
place on 20.02.2022 at about 11:36 pm at Mori Gate red light,
Nityanand Marg, Kashmere Gate, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS
Kashmere Gate. Mr. Jeevnesh Singh expired in the said accident which
was allegedly caused by a Bus bearing registration No. DL-1PD-2332
(hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle). The offending vehicle
was being driven by respondent no. 1 Mr. Manish Rajoria, owned by
respondent no. 2 Goverdhan Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. and insured with
respondent no. 3 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that a PCR call vide DD No.45A regarding information of an accident was received at PS Kashmere Gate and handed over to SI K.L.Kuldeep, who alongwith Ct. Rahul went to the spot i.e. Mori Gate red light, Nityanand Marg, Kashmere Gate, Delhi where they did not find anything. Thereafter, IO went to the St. Stephens Hospital where he collected MLC no.44/22 of injured namely Jeevnesh Singh. The injured was admitted in ICU therefore, the statement of the injured could not be recorded by the IO. No eye witness was found at the hospital. On 21.02.2022, vide DD no.8A, IO got an information that Sh. Jeevnesh Digitally signed by MACT No.322/2022 RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.02.21 Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 2 of 37 14:36:15 +0530 Singh had expired during the treatment. Thereafter, FIR was registered on the basis of DD entry and MLC of Jeevnesh Singh u/s.279/304A IPC.
3. Further investigation of the case was handed over to ASI Gautam. IO prepared the site plan at the instance of witness. IO recorded the statement of the said witness. Thereafter, the deadbody of Jeevnesh Singh was preserved in the mortuary of Hindu Rao Hospital. On 21.02.2022, the post mortem of the dead body of Jeevnesh Singh was got conducted vide PM no.223/22 and thereafter, the dead body was handed over to his relatives.
4. Thereafter, the ownership of the offending vehicle was obtained by the IO. Notice u/s. 133 MV Act was served upon the owner of the offending vehicle. AR of the offending vehicle had given reply to the said notice and handed over the driver as well as offending vehicle to the IO. IO interrogated the driver of the offending vehicle. The driver of the offending vehicle had accepted that at the time of accident he was driving the offending vehicle. Thereafter IO arrested the driver of the offending vehicle. Upon producing the surety, the driver of the offending vehicle was released on bail. AR of the offending vehicle had produced the documents pertaining to the offending vehicle as well as DL of the driver of the offending vehicle. The documents were got verified from the concerned authorities by the IO and the same were found to be correct. The mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle was got conducted. Thereafter, the offending vehicle was released on superdari.
After completion of investigation, chargesheet for the offences u/s Digitally signed by RUCHIKA MACT No.322/2022 RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.02.21 14:36:38 Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. +0530 Page 3 of 37 279/304(A) IPC was filed against the driver Manish Rajoria before the concerned Ld. JMFC and the DAR was filed before this Tribunal.
WRITTEN STATEMENTS
5. WS was filed on behalf of the respondent no. 1. The respondent no.1 did not clearly deny the factum of the accident. He merely stated that the petitioner must prove the allegations.
6. Separate WS was filed on behalf of the respondent no.2. It was stated by the respondent no.2 that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the petitioner. Hence, it is stated that the accident was not caused by the respondent no.1 and he was not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.
7. Reply/WS on behalf of respondent no. 3 was filed on
22.10.2022, wherein it was admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no.3 vide policy no. 271901312022507 for the period 06.08.2021 to 05.08.2022. It was stated that the petitioner was under the liability to prove the accident and the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.1. Further, it was stated that the petitioner was walking on the road under intoxication. He was a known alcoholic and hence, the respondent no. 3 was entitled to take all such defences as were available to the respondent no.3 as per law.
8. The respondents no. 1 & 2 stopped appearing thereafter. They were proceeded against ex parte vide orders dated 07.04.2025 and RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by MACT No.322/2022 RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.02.21 14:36:44 +0530 Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 4 of 37 22.09.2025 respectively.
ISSUES
9. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated 30.09.2024, this Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 20.02.2022 at about 11:36 PM at Mori Gate red light, Nityanand Marg, Kashmere Gate, Delhi involving vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1PD-2332 driven rashly and negligently by respondent no. 1 Manish, owned by respondent no. 2 Goverdhan Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. and insured with respondent no. 3 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.?
OPP
2. Whether the petitioner(s) are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
10. The petitioners examined Smt. Rita Devi i.e. the petitioner no.1 as PW-1. PW1 has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW1/A. She relied upon the following documents:
1. Copy of her Aadhar Card as Ex. PW1/1 (OSR)
2. Computerised print out of medical bill of the deceased as Ex. PW1/2.
3. DAR is Ex. PW1/3 (colly)
4. Computerised print out of salary slip of deceased as Ex. PW1/4 (colly 3 pages).
RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.322/2022 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 5 of 37 Date: 2026.02.21 14:36:48 +0530
11. Thereafter, Mr. Uday Shankar was examined as PW2. PW2 has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW2/A. He has relied upon his Aadhar card, copy of which is Ex. PW2/1. He has also relied upon already exhibited documents Ex. PW1/2 to Ex. PW1/4.
12. Thereafter, Mr. Liazley Roburt Ilias, Supervisor, Medical Records St. Stephens Hospital, Tis Hazari, Delhi was examined as PW3. He proved the duplicate discharge bill dated 21.02.2022 of Mr. Jeevnesh Singh as Ex. PW3/1 (colly) (running into 4 pages). He has also proved the treatment record of Mr. Jeevnesh Singh as Ex. PW3/2 (colly) (running into 48 pages).
13. Thereafter, Mr. Hari Singh, Manager, SD Heritage Impex Pvt. Ltd. was examined as PW4. He proved the following documents:
a) Authority Letter as Ex.PW4/1.
b) Salary receipts of Mr. Jeevnesh Singh as Ex. PW4/2 (colly 6 pages).
c) Statement of bank account of M/s. SD Heritage Impex Pvt. Ltd. showing the payment of salary to deceased as Ex. PW4/3 (colly 6 pages).
d) Document regarding full and final settlement amount paid to wife of deceased after death of deceased as Ex.PW4/4.
14. PW1 to PW4 were cross examined by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 insurance company. Thereafter, PE was closed on behalf of the petitioners on 13.10.2025.
RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.322/2022 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.02.21 Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 6 of 37 14:36:53 +0530 RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE
15. No evidence was led by the respondents no. 3. Evidence was closed on behalf of respondent no. 3 vide order dated 26.11.2025.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
16. The Petitioners filed his duly filled Form XIII and the financial statements of all the petitioners were recorded. Final arguments were heard on behalf of the petitioners as well as respondents.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
17. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and Ld. Counsel for respondents and perused the record. My findings on the various issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1:
Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 20.02.2022 at about 11:36 PM at Mori Gate red light, Nityanand Marg, Kashmere Gate, Delhi involving vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1PD-2332 driven rashly and negligently by respondent no. 1 Manish, owned by respondent no. 2 Goverdhan Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. and insured with respondent no. 3 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.?
18. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that on 20.02.2022 at about 11:36 PM at Mori RUCHIKA MACT No.322/2022 SINGLA Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.02.21 14:37:01 +0530 Page 7 of 37 Gate red light, Nityanand Marg, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. the respondent was driving the offending vehicle carelessly in a negligent manner and hit the deceased, due to which he fell and suffered injuries. It is stated that during investigation, the offending vehicle was seized by the IO. The respondent no.1 was chargesheeted by the IO. Hence, it is submitted that it is proved that the respondent was driving the negligent in a rash and negligent manner due to which the petitioner suffered injuries.
19. Record perused.
20. In the present matter, the factum of the accident is not in dispute. In the Ws filed by respondent no.2, he has merely stated that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the deceased. As such, the fact that accident was caused with the offending vehicle has not been disputed. It is pertinent to mention here that in the proceedings before the claims tribunal, the facts are to be established on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and not by the strict rules of evidence or the higher standard of beyond reasonable doubt as required in criminal cases. The burden of proof in the present cases is much lower than as placed in civil or criminal cases. In Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors (2009) 13 SC 530, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that negligence must be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view must be adopted in reaching a conclusion.
RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.322/2022 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.02.21 Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 8 of 37 14:37:07 +0530
21. Further, it is also pertinent to note that the respondent no.1 was chargesheeted by the IO under Section 279/338 IPC. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepak Goel & Ors, 2014 (2) TAC 846 (Del) decided by the Coordinate Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it was held as under :-
"......where the claimants filed either the certified copies of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of investigation by police or issuance of charge sheet under Section 279/304A IPC or the certified copy of FIR or the recovery of the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, then these documents are sufficient proof to reach to a conclusion that the driver was negligent particularly when there is no defence available from the side of driver."
22. Reliance is also being placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meera Devi, 2021 LawSuit (Del) wherein it was held that "......in view of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008, contents of DAR has to be presumed to be correct and read in evidence without formal proof of the same unless proof to the contrary was produced."
23. Even otherwise, the petitioner was unknown to respondent no.1 prior to the accident and admittedly, there was no prior enmity with respondent no.1 and hence, it is beyond comprehension as to why the petitioner will implicate respondent no.1 falsely, had he not been driving the offending vehicle.
RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.322/2022 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Date: 2026.02.21 14:37:11 +0530 Page 9 of 37
24. It is a settled law that the petitioner cannot be expected to prove the accident beyond reasonable doubts and the principle of res ipse loquitor should apply which means that the "accident speaks for itself". Thus, once it has been established in DAR and chargesheet that the accident had taken place, the burden shifts on the respondents to prove that they were not responsible for the accident which the respondents have failed to discharge. Hence, an adverse inference is drawn against the respondent no.1. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the cases of Teja Singh Vs Suman & Ors., MAC. APP. 1111/2018 & CM APPL. 52384/2018, 52386/2018, date of decision 06/12/2019; MAC. APP. 428/2018, titled as The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamla Devi & Ors, date of decision 08.11.2019 and MAC. APP. 690/2017 & CM APPL. 28108/2017, titled as Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mona & Ors., date of decision 15.10.2019, which had relied upon the judgment in the case of Cholamandalam Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamlesh 2009(3) AD Delhi 310.
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 5 SCC 656 has laid down in paragraphs 27 & 28:
"27. ...This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina Fernandes, noted that the key of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.322/2022 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Date: 2026.02.21 14:37:17 +0530 Page 10 of 37 doubt. Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the judgments already adverted to by us, filing of chargesheet against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opined that the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
28. Reliance placed upon the decisions in Minu B. Mehta and Meena Variyal, by the respondents, in our opinion, is of no avail. The dictum in these cases is on the matter in issue in the case concerned. Similarly, even the dictum in Surender Kumar Arora will be of no avail. In the present case, considering the entirety of the pleadings, evidence and circumstances on record and in particular the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the factum of negligence of Respondent 2, the driver of the offending jeep, the High Court committed manifest error in taking a contrary view which, in our opinion, is an error apparent on the face of record and manifestly wrong."
26. It has not been disputed that respondent No.1 has been charge-sheeted in the aforesaid FIR for offences punishable under Section 279/338 IPC for rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. In view of the same, considering the facts and circumstances, the unrebutted testimony of the petitioner and the documents filed thereto, the court is satisfied that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.1 . From the DAR, it also stands established that the respondent no.2 was the registered owner of the offending vehicle and that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.3.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
MACT No.322/2022 RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.21
Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 11 of 37
14:37:21
+0530
Contributory negligence
27. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 argued that the deceased was under influence of alcohol at the time of the accident and that he was a habitual alcoholic. Hence, he is liable for contributory negligence.
28. Perusal of record shows that the FSL result qua the alcohol was filed by the IO. Perusal of the report shows that it has been opined that upon examination, ethyl alcohol and methyl alcohol were not found in the blood sample of the deceased. Hence, there is no reason to impute contributory negligence upon the deceased.
The injury:
29. Further, the onus to prove that the deceased had suffered fatal injuries by way of the said accident was on the petitioners. In this regard, the petitioners have relied upon the MLC dated 20.02.2022, as per which the deceased was brought to the hospital with the history of road traffic accident. As per the MLC, he had suffered various injuries on his body. Further, his Death Summary issued by St. Stephens Hospital is on record as per which, he expired during treatment. He had crush injury on his lower limb. Further, as per his Medical Certificate of Cause of Death issued by St. Stephens Hospital, the cause of death was cardiac arrest and hypovolemic shock consequent upon RTA and crush injury on leg.
30. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.02.21 MACT No.322/2022 14:37:28 +0530 Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 12 of 37 opinion that on the scales of preponderance of probabilities, the petitioner has proved that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle being driven by its driver/respondent no. 1 on the date and time of the accident and that due to the said accident, the injured unfortunately expired. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO.2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? (OPP)
31. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners. In view of the discussion in the issue no.1, the petitioners are entitled for compensation. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of "Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors." (2003) 6 SCC 121 has held : -
"QUA BASIC PRINCIPLES "9. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death :-
(a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and the (c) the number of dependents. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the deceased. If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will lesser MACT No.322/2022 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 13 of 37 SINGLA Date:
2026.02.21 14:37:33 +0530 need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay. To have uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well settled steps :
Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step 3 (Actual calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the `loss of dependency' to the family. Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of 5,000/- to 10,000/- should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also added."
QUA ADDITIONS "11. ..................... In view of imponderables RUCHIKA MACT No.322/2022 SINGLA Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 14 of 37 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.02.21 14:37:39 +0530 and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years.
[Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words `actual salary' should be read as `actual salary less tax']. The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances."
QUA DEDUCTIONS "14. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one- fourth (1/3rd) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six.
15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the Digitally signed by MACT No.322/2022 RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 15 of 372026.02.21 14:37:44 +0530 contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependent, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two- third."
QUA MULTIPLIER "21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."
32. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its Constitution Bench decision in matter of "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." (2017) 16 SCC 680 held as under : -
"58. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be no addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept. We are disposed to think, there should be an addition of 15% if the deceased is between the age of 50 to 60 years and there should be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in case of self- employed or person on fixed salary, the addition should be RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.322/2022 Digitally signed by Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 16 of 37 RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.02.21 14:37:50 +0530 10% between the age of 50 to 60 years. The aforesaid yardstick has been fixed so that there can be consistency in the approach by the tribunals and the Courts.
59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.322/2022 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.02.21 Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 17 of 37 14:37:55 +0530
(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. 31,001/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years."
Loss of income
33. In the present matter, it is alleged that at the time of the accident, the deceased was working with SD Heritage Impex Pvt. Ltd as a driver. It is submitted that his employment record and income were proved by PW4 Mr. Hari Singh, Manager, SD Heritage Impex Pvt. Ltd. Hence, it is submitted that his income may be assessed accordingly.
34. Per contra, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 that the testimony of PW4 Mr. Hari Singh, Manager, SD Heritage Impex Pvt. Ltd. does not prove anything.
35. Record perused.
36. Perusaal of the record produced by PW4 Mr. Hari Singh, Manager, SD Heritage Impex Pvt. Ltd. shows that he proved salary receipts of Mr. Jeevnesh Singh as Ex. PW4/2 (colly 6 pages) along with the salary register. He further proved the statement of bank account of M/s. SD Heritage Impex Pvt. Ltd. showing the payment of salary to deceased as Ex. PW4/3 (colly 6 pages). Hence, in the opinion of this Tribunal, the testimony of PW4 is sufficient to prove that the deceased was employed with the said company. Further, as per the salary register RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.322/2022 Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 18 of 37 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.02.21 14:38:00 +0530 and the salary slips, the gross income of the deceased was Rs. 19,473/-. Hence, his gross annual income would have been Rs. 2,31,492/-. As per the income tax slab for financial year 2021-22, no income tax was payable on the annual income of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Hence, the income of the deceased is assessed to be Rs. 19,473/-.
Age determination of the deceased:
37. As per the Aashar card and the driving license of the deceased, his date of birth was 01.01.1967. The date of the accident is 20.02.2022. Hence, as on the date of the accident, the deceased was aged 55 years.
Future Prospects: -
38. In view of the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors; (2017) 16 SCC 680, it was observed that the Claimants would also be entitled to 10% for future prospects as the deceased was between the age bracket 50 to 60 years of age at the time of the accident. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased needs to be taken as Rs. 21,420.30 (Rs. 19,473/- + Rs. 1,947.30 which is 10% of Rs. 19,473/-).
Determination of Dependent
39. In the present case, the deceased is survived by his wife and two major sons. Perusal of the statement of PW2 Uday Shankar i.e. the son of the deceased shows that he has admitted that both the major sons are earning a sum of Rs.23,000/- to Rs. 24,000/- each. Hence, only the Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.02.21 MACT No.322/2022 14:38:07 +0530 Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 19 of 37 wife of the deceased shall be considered as dependent on the deceased.
Determination of multiplicand
40. The monthly income of the deceased after enhancement needs to be taken as Rs. 21,420.30. In light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, and United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur & Ors., (2021) 11 SCC 780 , out of the above amount so assessed, 1/2 amount has to be deducted on account of personal and living expenses as the deceased had only one dependent. So, in this matter, monthly loss of dependency would come out to be Rs. 10,710.15 (1/2 of Rs. 21,420.30). This needs to be multiplied by 12 to workout multiplicand/annual loss of dependency. Hence, multiplicand for this matter would be Rs. 1,28,521.80 ( Rs. 10,710.15 x 12).
Award Towards Loss of Dependency
41. Further, as the deceased was 55 years of age at the time of the accident, multiplier applicable in this matter as per above discussion would be 9. The total loss of dependency would come out to be Rs.11,56,697/- (Rs. 1,28,521.80 x 9), hence, so awarded.
Medical expenses:
42. The petitioners have filed medical bill Ex. PW1/2 on record, which is to the tune of Rs. 16,546/-. Hence, the petitioners are awarded a sum of Rs. 16,546/- towards medical expenses.
RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by MACT No.322/2022 RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.02.21 14:38:13 +0530 Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 20 of 37 Non-Pecuniary Heads:-
43. The Respondents/Claimants shall be entitled to the compensation under Non-Pecuniary Heads in terms of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi And Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. The case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) was considered and clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 9581/2018 decided on 18.09.2018 whereby after considering the case of Pranay Sethi's (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to award loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/- to each dependent of the deceased and further pleased to award a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to each dependent of the deceased towards loss of love and affection. The relevant portion is as under:
"...... A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of Consortium.
In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses 'spousal consortium', 'parental consortium', and 'filial consortium'.
The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse.
Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every Digitally signed by MACT No.322/2022 RUCHIKA SINGLA RUCHIKA SINGLA Date:
Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 21 of 372026.02.21 14:38:18 +0530 conjugal relation."
Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training."
Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.
Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognized that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium.
Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act.
A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium.
The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.322/2022 SINGLA Date:
2026.02.21 14:38:21 Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. +0530 Page 22 of 37 will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under 'Loss of Consortium' as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra).
In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs.25,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium.....".
44. However, in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur 2020 SCC Online SC 410 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that there is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head. The relevant portion of the observations are reproduced as under:
"...... The amount to be awarded for loss consortium will be as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra). At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide uniformity with respect to the grant of consortium, and loss of love and affection. Several Tribunals and High Courts have been awarding compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), has recognized only three conventional heads under which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in loss of consortium.
The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to award compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate conventional head. There is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head...".
45. In the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), it was held that in the Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.322/2022 SINGLA Date:
2026.02.21 14:38:28 +0530 Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 23 of 37 case of death, Rs.15,000/- is liable to be paid towards the loss of estate and funeral charges each, while Rs.40,000/- was payable towards the loss of consortium to each legal heir and the same may be enhanced by 10% every three years.
46. Thus, an amount of Rs. 19,965/- is granted towards the Loss of Estate and Rs. 19,965/- towards funeral charges.
47. Further, though the father and siblings of the deceased were not dependent on him, but they are entitled to loss of consortium. Hence, Rs. 53,240/- each is granted to the petitioners i.e. total of Rs. 53,240 x 3 = Rs.1,59,720/- towards Loss of Consortium.
Computation of compensation:
48. Applying the settled guidelines in the various judgments, the compensation payable to the petitioners is calculated as under:
Head Awarded by the Claims Tribunal Monthly Income of deceased (A) Rs. 19,473/- Add future prospect (B) @ 10%= Rs. 1,947.30 Less 1/2 deductions towards (Rs. 19,473/- + Rs. 1,947.30) = Rs. personal and living expenses of the 21,420.30 x 1/2 = Rs. 10,710.15 deceased (C) Monthly loss of dependency (Rs. 19,473/- + Rs. 1,947.30) - Rs. [(A+B) - C = D] 10,710.15 = Rs. 10,710.15 Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 10,710.15 x 12= Rs.
(D x 12) 1,28,521.80 Multiplier (E) 9 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: MACT No.322/2022 2026.02.21 14:38:33 +0530 Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 24 of 37 Total loss of dependency (Rs. 1,28,521.80 x 9) = DxE=F Rs.11,56,697/- Medical Expenses (G) Rs. 16,546/-
Compensation for loss of love and Nil. affection (H) Compensation for loss of Rs. 53,240 x 3 = Rs.1,59,720/- consortium (I) to the petitioners Compensation for loss of Estate (J) Rs. 19,965/- Compensation for funeral expenses Rs. 19,965/- (K) Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 13,72,893/-
49. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld awarding of 9% interest per annum. Therefore, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 29.03.2022 till realization.
Apportionment:
50. It is evident from the record that the deceased had left behind his wife and two major sons. The shares of the petitioners are as under:
S.No Name of the Share of the Interest upto Total amount claimant petitioner date including interest
1. Smt. Rita Devi Rs. 11,73,243/- + Rs. Rs.
RUCHIKA MACT No.322/2022 SINGLA Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.02.21 Page 25 of 37 14:38:40 +0530 Rs. 53,240/- + Rs. 4,44,979.36 17,11,392.36 19,965/- + Rs. (rounded off to 19,965/- = Rs. Rs.
12,66,413/- 17,11,393/-)
2. Sh. Uday Shankar Rs. 53,240/- Rs. Rs. 71,946.93
18,706.93 (rounded off to
Rs. 71,947/-)
3. Sh. Dev Shankar Rs. 53,240/- Rs. Rs. 71,946.93
18,706.93 (rounded off to
Rs. 71,947/-)
DISBURSEMENT
51. The Financial Statement of petitioner/injured was recorded by this Court/Tribunal. As per the said statement, the monthly expenses of his family are approximately Rs. 25,000/- per month.
52. 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
Digitally
MACT No.322/2022 signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 26 of 37
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.21
14:38:45
+0530
be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimants. However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount.
The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque books and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and the claimant shall produced the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court for compliance."
53. 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA MACT No.322/2022 RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.02.21 14:38:51 Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. +0530 Page 27 of 37 Tribunal along with the requisite proof, so that at the stage of passing of the award the Tribunal may direct that the amount of compensation be transferred in the account of the claimant and if there are more than one then in their respective accounts. If there is no bank account, then they should be required to open the bank account either individually or jointly with family members only. It should also be mandated that, in case there is any change in the bank account particulars of the claimant(s) during the pendency of the claim petition they should update the same before the Tribunal. This should be ensured before passing of the final award. It may be ensured that the bank account should be in the name of the claimant(s) and if minor, through guardian(s) and in no case it should be a joint account with any person, who is not a family member. The transfer of the amount in the bank account, particulars of which have been furnished by the claimant(s), as mentioned in the award, shall be treated as satisfaction of the award. Intimation of compliance should be furnished to the Tribunal."
54. In view of the same, the award amount can now be disbursed in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioners. However, the remaining directions as passed by the Hon'ble High Court shall be complied with.
Smt. Rita Devi (LR/Wife of deceased)
55. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners, it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 18,55,287/-, out Digitally signed by RUCHIKA MACT No.322/2022 RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.02.21 Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 28 of 37 14:38:57 +0530 of the share of the petitioner/Wife Smt. Rita Devi Rs. 17,11,393/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Eleven Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Three only), Rs. 5,11,393/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Eleven Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Three only) shall be released to the petitioner/Wife immediately in her Bank Account on furnishing of her bank account passbook with SBI, THC.
56. The balance amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lacs only) shall be put in 48 monthly fixed deposits in her name in her account as mentioned above of equal amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 48 respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in her saving account maintained in a nationalized bank situated near the place of her residence.
Sh. Uday Shankar (LR/Son of deceased)
57. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners, it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 18,55,287/-, out of the share of the petitioner/Son Sh. Uday Shankar Rs. 71,947/- (Rupees Seventy One Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Seven only), the entire amount shall be released to the petitioner/Son immediately in his Bank Account, on furnishing copy of his passbook with SBI, THC.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.02.21 14:39:03 +0530 MACT No.322/2022 Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 29 of 37 Sh. Dev Shankar (LR/Son of deceased)
58. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners, it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 18,55,287/-, out of the share of the petitioner/Son Sh. Dev Shankar Rs. 71,947/- (Rupees Seventy One Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Seven only), the entire amount shall be released to the petitioner/Son immediately in his Bank Account, on furnishing copy of his passbook with SBI, THC.
59. In compliance of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award in the prescribed Format-XVI is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
Date of Accident: 20.02.2022 Name of the deceased: Mr. Jeevnesh Singh Age of the deceased: 55 years Occupation of the deceased: Driver Income of the deceased : Rs. 19,473/-
Name and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No. Name of the claimant Relation with deceased
1. Smt. Rita Devi Wife
2. Sh. Uday Shankar Son
3. Sh. Dev Shankar Son Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:MACT No.322/2022
2026.02.21 14:39:11 +0530 Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 30 of 37 COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION Sr. Head Awarded by the Claims Tribunal No. 1 Monthly Income of deceased Rs. 19,473/-
(A) 2 Add future prospect (B) @ 10%= Rs. 1,947.30 3 Less 1/2 deductions towards (Rs. 19,473/- + Rs. 1,947.30) = Rs.
personal and living expenses of 21,420.30 x 1/2 = Rs. 10,710.15 the deceased (C) 4 Monthly loss of dependency (Rs. 19,473/- + Rs. 1,947.30) - Rs.
[(A+B) - C = D] 10,710.15 = Rs. 10,710.15 5 Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 10,710.15 x 12 = Rs.
(D x 12) 1,28,521.80 6 Multiplier (E) 9 7 Total loss of dependency (Rs. 1,28,521.80 x 9) = DxE=F Rs.11,56,697/- 8 Medical Expenses (G) Rs. 16,546/- 9 Compensation for loss of love Nil. and affection (H) 10 Compensation for loss of Rs. 53,240/- x 3 = Rs.1,59,720/- consortium (I) to the petitioners 11 Compensation for loss of Rs. 19,965/- Estate (J) 12 Compensation for funeral Rs. 19,965/- expenses (K) 13 Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 13,72,893/- 14 Rate of Interest Awarded 9% 15 Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 4,82,394/- award w.e.f. 29.03.2022 till Digitally MACT No.322/2022 signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. 2026.02.21 14:39:29 +0530 Page 31 of 37 realization 16 Total amount including interest Rs. 18,55,287/- 17 Award amount released As per paragraph Nos. 55 to 58 18 Award amount kept in FDRs As per paragraph Nos. 56 19 Mode of disbursement of the As per paragraph Nos. 55 to 58 award amount to the claimant(s) 20 Next Date of compliance of the 23.03.2026 award LIABILITY:
60. It has been established that accident was caused due to the rash and negligent act of the respondent no.1 who was driving the offending vehicle no.1 and that respondent no.2 is the owner of the same and the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no.3. Hence, the respondent no. 3 shall be liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners. Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
61. In view of the above, the respondent no.3 is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.13,72,893/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Seventy Two Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Three Only) along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. w.e.f. 29.03.2022 till realization with the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the claimants, failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay interest @12% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days. Reliance RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.322/2022 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 32 of 37 SINGLA Date: 2026.02.21 14:39:34 +0530 placed on case titled as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
62. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurance company for compliance within the time granted as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. The said respondent is further directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the deposit with a copy to the Claimant and his counsel.
Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost.
Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on 23.03.2026 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
Further, Civil Nazir is directed to maintain the record in RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.322/2022 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 33 of 37 SINGLA Date: 2026.02.21 14:39:49 +0530 Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court today Digitally signed by on this 21st February, 2026 RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.02.21 14:39:53 +0530 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.MACT No.322/2022 Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 34 of 37
THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL MOTOR VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022 (PL. SEE RULE 150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 20.02.2022 2 Date of filing of Form-I -
First Accident Report NA
(FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II
NA
to the victim(s)
4 Date of receipt of Form-III
NA
from the Driver
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV
from the Owner NA
6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the insurance NA
of the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-
NA
VIA from the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII -
29.03.2022
Detail Accident Report
(DAR)
9 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Investigating NA
Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the 29.03.2022
Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company admitted his No
report within 30 days of the
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
MACT No.322/2022 RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.21
Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. 14:40:00
+0530 Page 35 of 37
DAR/claim petition?
12 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the Yes
part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether
any action/direction
warranted?
13 Date of response of the
claimant(s) to the offer of NA
the Insurance Company.
14 Date of award 21.02.2026
15 Whether the claimant(s)
were directed to open No
savings bank account(s)
near their place of
residence?
16 Date of order by which
claimant(s) were directed to
open Savings Bank
Account(s) near his place of NA
residence and produce PAN
card and Aadhar Card and
the direction to the bank not
to issue any cheque
book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an
endorsement to this effect
on the passbook(s).
17 Date on which the
claimant(s) produced the
passbook of their savings Bank passbook not produced.
bank account(s) near the Other documents produced on 30.01.2026
place of their residence
alongwith the endorsement,
PAN card and Aadhaar
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.322/2022 Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Date: 2026.02.21
14:40:05 +0530 Page 36 of 37
Card?
18 Permanent residential
address of the claimant(s). As per Award.
19 Whether the claimant(s)
savings bank account(s) is
N.A.
near their place of
residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s)
were examined at the time
Yes. The Financial Statements of the claimants of passing of the Award to were recorded on 30.01.2026.
ascertain his/their financial condition?
RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.02.21 14:40:09 +0530 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
21.02.2026 MACT No.322/2022 Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 37 of 37