Delhi District Court
Dhruv Raj vs Deepak Kumar on 4 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010133422023
MACT No. : 835/2023
FIR No. : 294/2023
PS : Nabi Karim
u/s : 279/304A IPC
Sh. Dhruv Raj (deceased) through LRs
1. Smt. Prabhawati (LR/wife of deceased)
W/o. Sh. Dhrupraj,
R/o. Nahari, Mahatha, Siddharthnagar,
Uttar Pradesh-272205.
2. Sh. Manoj (LR/son of deceased)
S/o. Sh. Dhrupraj,
R/o. Village Nahari, Post Shohratangarh,
Shohrat Garh, Siddharthnagar, Shoharatgarh,
Uttar Pradesh-272205.
3. Sh. Anoj (LR/son of deceased)
S/o. Sh. Dhrupraj,
R/o. Nahari, Mahatha, Siddharthnagar,
Uttar Pradesh-272205.
4. Sh. Sanoj (LR/son of deceased)
S/o. Sh. Dhrupraj,
R/o. Nahari, Mahatha, Siddharthnagar,
Uttar Pradesh-272205.
5. Sh. Kuldeep (LR/son of deceased)
S/o. Sh. Dhrupraj,
R/o. Nahari, Mahatha Bazar, Shohratgarh,
Siddharthnagar, Uttar Pradesh-272205.
......Petitioners
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.05
15:50:57
+0530
MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 1 of 46
Versus
1. Sh. Deepak Kumar (driver of the offending vehicle)
S/o. Sh. Sunder Lal,
R/o. Village & P.O. Patalia, PS Kala Dungi Nainital,
Uttrakhand.
Also at : RBS Apartments Nathu Pur, Gurgaon, Haryana.
2. Sh. Pradeep Pal (owner of the offending vehicle)
S/o. Sh. Ramesh Pal,
R/o. A-45/2, Lakhi Ram Park, Near Sector-22.
Rohini, Delhi.
3. TATA AIG Insurance Company Ltd. (Insurer)
C/o. Plot No. 1, Ist & IInd Floor, Sector-8,
Noida, U.P.
......Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 20.09.2023
Judgment reserved on : 17.07.2025
Date of Award : 04.08.2025
AWAR D
1. The Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filed on
20.09.2023 which was treated as a claim petition. The Road Traffic
Accident in question took place on 22.06.2023 at about 11:30 PM at
DBG Road, Jesson Hotel, near Sheela Cinema, Paharganj, Delhi. Dhruv
Raj expired in the said accident which was allegedly caused by vehicle
bearing registration No. DL-11L-9976 (hereinafter referred to as the
offending vehicle) The said vehicle was being driven by respondent
No.1, Deepak Kumar; owned by respondent no. 2, Pradeep Pal and
insured with respondent no.3, TATA AIG Insurance Co. Ltd.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.05
15:51:03
+0530
MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 2 of 46
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that on 23.06.2023, on receipt of information of an accident vide GD No. 0003A, the present information of accident was handed over to SI Sudhir Yadav, who along with Ct. Umesh Kumar went to the spot i.e. at DBG Road, Jesson Hotel, near Sheela Cinema, Paharganj, Delhi where he got to know that the injured had been taken to Lok Nayak Hospital. IO found one Hero Splendor, Black Colour bearing registration no. DL-11L-9976 which caused the accident and both the riders of the motorcycle were missing from the spot. Thereafter, leaving Ct. Umesh at the spot, IO reached at LNJP Hospital, from where he had received the MLC No./EM No.115483313. Thereafter, doctor of LNJP Hospital had informed to IO that the injured had been referred to RML Hospital. Thereafter, IO reached to RML Hospital, where he got to know the injured had been again shifted to Safdarjang Hospital. Thereafter, IO reached to Safdarjang Hospital, where he met injured admitted. There doctor informed to IO that the injured was unconscious. IO returned to the spot and took into custody the accident motorcycle. No eye witness was found at the spot. On the basis of MLC and PCR call, offence under section 279/337 IPC was found to have been committed and accordingly, FIR was registered.
3. During the course of investigation, IO prepared the site plan of the spot of accident at the instance of PCR caller. Thereafter, IO recorded the statement of PCR caller. Notice u/s.133 MV Act was served upon the owner of the offending vehicle. In reply to the notice u/s. 133 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.05 15:51:08 +0530 MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 3 of 46 MV Act, owner had stated that at the time of accident, his motorcycle was being driven by Sh. Deepak. IO interrogated the driver of the offending vehicle and arrested him. Driver of the offending vehicle had not produced the DL to the IO. Upon furnishing of the surety, the driver of the offending vehicle was released on bail as the offence was bailable. The offending vehicle i.e. motorcycle was got deposited in maalkhana.
4. On 26.06.2023, IO had received an information from Safdarjang Hospital that Sh. Dhruv Raj got expired. Thereafter, the investigation of the case was transferred/assigned to IO/ASI Ashok Kumar, MACT Cell, Central, Delhi. IO added the offenence u/s.304A IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle. On 27.06.2023, IO got conducted the Post Mortem of the dead body of Sh. Dhruv Raj and handed over the body to the sons of Sh. Dhruv Raj. Thereafter, IO had taken the photographs of the spot of accident from his own mobile phone and checked the CCTV Camera installed near the spot of accident outside the Pearl Hotel. The present accident was clearly visible in the said camera. Thereafter, IO collected the CCTV Footage from the Manager of Pearl Hotel under the certificate u/s.65B of Evidence Act. Thereafter, mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle was got conducted. IO further collected the PM report and got verified the documents pertaining to the offending vehicle and the same were found to be correct. Thereafter, the offending vehicle was released on superdari.
5. During the course of investigation, IO prepared kalandara u/s. 5/180, 3/181 MV Act against the owner and driver of the offending Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.05 15:51:14 MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 4 of 46 +0530 vehicle owner as he gave his motorcycle to the driver of the offending vehicle, who was not having the valid and effective DL at the time of accident. IO produced the owner and driver of the offending vehicle before the court of Ld. MM (Evening Court) and accordingly, on 01.08.2023, the concerned court had imposed fine of Rs.1000/- each upon both of them.
6. As the driver of the offending vehicle fled away from the spot of accident and had not taken the injured to the hospital, therefore, IO added the section u/s. 134A/187 MV Act against the driver of the offending vehicle. After completion of investigation, chargesheet for the offences u/s 279/304A IPC & 134A/187MV Act was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle, Mr. Deepak Kumar before the concerned Ld. JMFC and the DAR was filed before this Tribunal. As the cost/fine of Rs.1000/- was paid by the driver of the offending vehicle before the concerned Evening Court, the offence u/s.3/181 MV Act was added at this stage.
7. WS was filed on behalf of respondent nos.1 & 2 on 04.11.2023, wherein it was stated that the accident was not caused due to the rash and negligent act of the respondent no.1. It was stated that the respondent no.1 was not driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. It was stated that the offending vehicle was being driven by Sh. Abhishek Pal, who was shown as the pillion rider by the IO. Further, it was stated that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent act of the deceased as he was crossing the road at the spot where there was no zebra crossing. It was further stated that the Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: SINGLA 2025.08.05 15:51:18 +0530 MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 5 of 46 deceased was drunk and suddenly appeared before the offending vehicle. Hence, it was stated that there was no rash and negligent act of the respondent no.1.
8. Reply on behalf of respondent no. 3 was filed on 30.10.2023. It was stated that the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no.3. However, during investigation, it transpired that the respondent no.1 was not holding any valid DL at the time of the accident. Hence, it was stated that the insurance policy was violated and hence, the respondent no.3 was not liable to pay any compensation.
ISSUES
9. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated 04.11.2023, this Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether deceased Dhruv Raj suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 22.06.2023 at about 11:30 pm at DBG Road, Jesson Hotel, Near Sheela Cinema, Paharganj, Delhi involving vehicle bearing registration no. DL-11L-9976 Hero Moto Crop Ltd. Splendor Motor Cycle driven rashly & negligently as well as owned by respondent no. 1 Deepak Kumar?OPP
2. Whether the offending Motor Cycle bearing registration no. DL-11L-9976 was not driven by respondent no. 1 Deepak Kumar but was driven by one Abhishek Pal? If so, its effect. OPR-1 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.05 15:51:23 +0530 MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 6 of 46
3. Whether respondent no. 1 (driver of offending vehicle) was not having valid driving licence, at the time of accident? If so, its effect. OPR-3
4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation?
If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
5. Relief.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
10. The petitioners examined Mr. Manoj, son of deceased as PW-1. PW1 has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW1/A. He had stated in his evidence that he was a son of the deceased. He had stated that on 22.06.2023 at about 11:30 PM, Sh. Dhrupraj @ Dhruv Raj while crossing the road from School Wali Gali side and as and when he reached near Jessor Hotel, one motorcycle bearing registration no.DL-11L-9976 being driven rashly and negligently hit the pedestrian. Due to this, the pedestrian suffered grievous injuries. It is further stated that the motorcycle dragged and stopped after travelling quite some distance. It is further stated that after the accident, the injured was taken to LNJP Hospital where MLC no.115483313 was prepared. It is further stated that he had spent Rs.50,000/- on the treatment of injured. It is further stated that the present accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving as well as incomplete disregard to the traffic regulations on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle Mr. Deepak Kumar.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.05 15:51:27 +0530 MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 7 of 46
11. It is further stated that Sh. Dhrupraj @ Dhruv Raj (since deceased) has left behind the following dependant/ legal heirs as on the date of accident :
(i) Prabhawati (wife), aged about 48 years (DOB 01.01.1975)
(ii) Manoj (son), aged about 30 years (DOB 08.04.1993)
(iii) Anoj (son), aged about 22 years (DOB 01.01.2001)
(iv) Sanoj (son), aged about 19 years (DOB 01.01.2004)
(v) Kuldeep (son), aged about 14 years (DOB 09.04.2009) PW-1 has relied upon the following documents :
(i) Copy of his Aadhar card is Ex. PW1/1.
(ii) Copy of Aadhar card of Smt. Prabhawati is Ex. PW1/2.
(iii) Copy of Aadhar card of Anoj is Ex. PW1/3.
(iv) Copy of Aadhar card of Sanoj is Ex. PW1/4.
(v) Copy of Aadhar card of Kuldeep is Ex. PW1/5.
(vi) Copy of Aadhar card of his deceased father is Ex. PW1/6.
12. It is further stated that Late Sh. Dhrupraj @ Dhruv Raj was 50 years of age as on the date of accident, possessed sound health and physique and he was working as labourer for loading and unloading of goods at Pahar Ganj shops, Delhi and also at vehicle for carrying goods to different destination for loading and unloading of goods in Delhi for more than 10 years. It is further stated that Late Sh. Dhrupraj @ Dhruv Raj was residing at house no.1586, Gali Arya Samaj, Sita Ram Bazar, Delhi for more than 10 years. It is further stated that the certificate issued by Lokesh Kumar is Ex. PW1/7 and his Election Identity Card is Ex. PW1/8. It is further stated that he was earning a bare minimum of Rs.23,000/- pm and his income was increasing year to year basis. It is Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: SINGLA 2025.08.05 MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 8 of 46 15:51:31 +0530 further stated that arising out of accident a criminal case was registered vide FIR no.294/23 dated 23.06.2023 u/s. 279/337/304A IPC at PS Nabi Karim, Delhi against the driver of the offending vehicle. It is further stated that after causing the accident, the driver had absconded from the place of occurrence, leaving the deceased and pillion rider on the place of accident. It is further stated that the IO had filed the DAR and the same is Ex.PW1/9 (colly). It is further stated that the respondent nos. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to satisfy the claim of the petitioners.
13. In petitioner's evidence Sh. Lokesh Kumar was examined as PW2. He was a summoned witness. He had brought the summons and Election Identity card which was exhibited as Ex.PW2/1 & Ex.PW2/2 respectively. It is further stated that he was doing photocopy work at his shop in his ancestral house bearing no. 1586, Arya Samaj Sita Ram Bazar, Delhi-110006. It is further stated that the deceased Dhruv Raj was residing at his ancestral house as tenant alongwith other labourer and used to work as a labourer in nearby area. It is further stated that he has also issued the certificate regarding the tenancy of deceased Sh. Dhruv Raj to the Sh. Manoj, son of deceased, which is already exhibited as Ex.PW1/7. It is further stated that he had read over the statement given by him to the IO, which is Ex. PW2/2. PW2 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 insurance company.
14. In petitioner's evidence Sh. Devendra Shah was examined as PW3. He was a summoned witness. He has stated that on 22.06.2023 at about 11:30 PM, he was standing outside Jeeson Hotel, Paharganj, Delhi loading his commercial car when he saw one man coming from Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.05 15:51:36 +0530 MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 9 of 46 School wali gali side towards Jeeson Hotel and at that very time, one bike bearing no. 9976 was coming from Pahar Ganj Thana side towards Ajmere Gate and hit the pedestrian with force and dragged the injured for quite some distance. It is further stated that both the driver and pillion rider of that motorcycle also fell down and that bike was riding at a very high speed and the driver was at fault in causing the accident. PW3 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 insurance company and respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Thereafter, PE was closed on 04.06.2024.
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE
15. In his evidence, the respondent no. 1 has examined himself as R1W1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.R1W-1/A. He deposed that at the time of the accident, he was not driving the offending vehicle and that he was the pillion rider.
16. In his evidence, the respondent no. 2 has examined himself as R2W1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.R2W-1/A. He deposed that at the time of the accident, the respondent no.1 was not driving the offending vehicle and that he was the pillion rider. However, he identified his signatures on the notice under Section 133 M.V. Act at point-A, but stated that his signatures were taken on a blank paper. He produced the copy of the insurance policy, which is Ex.R2W-1/R3-A. He admitted that he paid the challan in the court for the disposal of challan under Section 5/180 M.V. Act as respondent no.1 was not holding any driving license at the time of the accident.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.05
15:51:42
+0530
MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 10 of 46
17. Thereafter, the respondents no.1 & 2 produced Dr. Abrar Ahmed, who was examined as R1&2W1, who stated that when he examined the deceased, he prepared his MLC and that he had mentioned on the MLC that there was smell of alcohol on the person of the deceased.
18. Thereafter, the respondents no.1 & 2 produced Sh. Abhishek Pal, who was examined as R1&2W2, who stated that at the time of the accident, he was driving the offending vehicle and that the respondent no.1 was the pillion rider.
19. In its evidence, the respondent no. 3 has examined Ms. Akhalya RD, Claims Service Manager (Legal), the TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. as R3W1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.R3W-1/A and her authority Letter which is Ex. R3W-1/1.
Thereafter, RE was closed on 08.05.2025.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
20. The Petitioners filed his duly filled Form XIII and their financial statements were recorded. Final arguments were heard on behalf of the petitioners as well as respondents.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
21. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and Ld. Counsel for respondents and perused the record. My findings on the Digitally various issues are as under:-
signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.05 15:51:46 +0530 MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 11 of 46 ISSUE NO.1 & 2:
1. Whether deceased Dhruv Raj suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 22.06.2023 at about 11:30 pm at DBG Road, Jesson Hotel, Near Sheela Cinema, Paharganj, Delhi involving vehicle bearing registration no. DL-11L-9976 Hero Moto Crop Ltd.
Splendor Motor Cycle driven rashly & negligently as well as owned by respondent no. 1 Deepak Kumar?OPP
2. Whether the offending Motor Cycle bearing registration no. DL-11L-9976 was not driven by respondent no. 1 Deepak Kumar but was driven by one Abhishek Pal? If so, its effect. OPR-1
22. The onus to prove the first issue was upon the petitioners, while the onus to prove the second issue was on the respondent no. 1. As both the issues are interconnected, they are taken up together. It is the case of the petitioners that 22.06.2023 at about 11:30 PM while the deceased was crossing road at DBG Road, Jesson Hotel near Sheela Cinema, Paharganj, Delhi, he was hit by the offending vehicle being driven rashly and negligently by respondent no. 1. Further it is stated that upon the accident, Sh. Dhruv Raj expired. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the factum of the accident is not in dispute. The accident was witnessed by an eye witness PW3 Sh.
Devendra Shah who was examined in the court and has reiterated the Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.05
15:51:51
+0530
MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 12 of 46
petitioner's case on oath. Further, when the police reached at the spot, the offending vehicle was found at the spot which was seized by the IO. Notice u/s.133 MV Act was given to the owner of offending vehicle i.e. the respondent no. 2 which is Ex. PW1/9. In the said notice, the respondent no. 2 has clearly mentioned that the vehicle was being driven by the respondent no. 1. In view of the same, it is submitted that it is proved on record that the respondent no. 1 was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently resulting in the death of the deceased.
23. Per contra, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the respondents no. 1 & 2 that the respondent no.1 is not guilty of any rash and negligent act. It is submitted that the respondent no.1 was not driving the offending vehicle, in fact he was the pillion rider. It is stated that the offending vehicle was being driven by one Sh. Abhishek, who was shown as the pillion rider by the IO. The respondent no. 1 entered into the witness box as R1W1 and reiterated the same on oath. It is submitted that Sh. Abhishek was also produced as a witness in the court as R1&2W-2 who reiterated the same on oath. He specifically stated that he was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. Hence, it is submitted that the rash and negligent act of the respondent no. 1 is not proved on record.
24. Further it is submitted that the deceased is guilty of contributory negligence in the present matter. It is submitted that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and was crossing the road in a No Zebra crossing zone. Hence, it is submitted that the proportionate amount be reduced from the quantum of compensation to Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.05 15:52:14 MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors.
+0530 Page 13 of 46 be awarded by this court. Ld. Counsel for the respondents have relied upon the MLC of the deceased wherein it is mentioned that there was smell of alcohol. They have also summoned the concerned doctor who was examined as R1&2W-1 Dr. Abrar Ahmed who proved on record the said MLC.
25. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that from the chargesheet filed by the IO, it is clear that the offending vehicle was being driven by the respondent no.1 only. At this stage, the respondents wish to change their story so as to escape the liability to pay the compensation to the petitioner, as the respondent no.1 was not holding a valid DL at the time of the accident.
26. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is no evidence on record that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol. The respondents are relying only on the MLC of the deceased wherein the concerned doctor has opined that there was a smell of alcohol. However, no blood sample was taken by the IO to ascertain as to whether the deceased was actually intoxicated or not. Further the present case is not covered under the case of contributory negligence. It is submitted that the incident occurred late at night at about 11:30 PM. Even if the deceased was crossing the road at a no-zebra crossing zone, still, it cannot be said that merely because of the same, he is guilty of contributory negligence. It is submitted that while driving a vehicle, it is the paramount duty of the driver to drive the vehicle as per rules and within the driving speed limit. It is submitted that in the statement of R1&2W-2 Abhishek Pal, he has admitted that he saw the deceased from Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.05 15:52:19 MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 14 of 46 +0530 40-50 meters before hitting him. It is submitted that he had sufficient time to press the brakes or to avoid hitting the deceased but he did not do so. Hence, it is submitted that it cannot be said that the deceased was guilty of contributory of negligence in the present matter.
27. Record perused.
28. In the present matter, as mentioned above, it is not in dispute that the accident occurred by the offending vehicle resulting in the death of the deceased Dhruv Raj. It is also not in dispute that the IO has chargesheeted the respondent no. 1 as the accused in the criminal case. Now as mentioned above, the respondents are claiming that the respondent no. 1 was not driving the vehicle at the relevant time and that one Sh. Abhishek Pal was driving the vehicle. In this regard, as mentioned above, both the respondent no. 1 and Sh. Abhishek Pal entered into the witness box and gave their testimonies.
29. In this regard, it may be noted that the date of accident was 22.06.2023. The IO has placed on record the copy of notice u/s.133 MV Act which was issued by the IO to respondent no. 1 on 23.06.2023 to provide the details of the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident. On this notice, in the handwriting of respondent no. 2, it is mentioned that the offending vehicle was being driven by the respondent no. 1 at the time of the accident.
30. In the DAR, the IO has also placed on record copy of notice u/s. 91 Cr.PC which the IO had issued to the respondent no. 1 on Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.05 15:52:24 +0530 MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 15 of 46 03.07.2023 calling upon him to provide his driving licence. Perusal of the same shows that the respondent no. 1 has written in his own handwriting that on 22.06.2023 he was driving the motorcycle and Sh.
Abhishek was the pillion rider and that he had no valid DL at that time. It is pertinent to note that the said notice was issued by the IO almost 10 days after the accident. It is also a matter of record that the during the course of investigation, IO prepared kalandara u/s. 5/180, 3/181 MV Act against the owner and driver of the offending vehicle owner i.e. the respondent no. 1 & 2, on the ground that the respondent no. 2 gave his motorcycle to the respondent no. 1, who was not having the valid and effective DL at the time of accident. It is a matter of record that the respondent no. 1 & 2 appeared before the court of Ld. MM (Evening Court) and accordingly, on 01.08.2023, the concerned court had imposed fine of Rs.1000/- each upon both of them. Meaning thereby that both the respondent no. 1 & 2 pleaded guilty before the Ld. MM. Hence, they admitted that the offending vehicle was being driven by the respondent no. 1.
31. Now after the trial has commenced a new story is introduced by the respondents that the vehicle was infact being driven by Sh. Abhishek Pal and not by the respondent no. 1. It may also be mentioned that there is nothing on record that after the preparation of the chargesheet, the respondent no.1 filed a protest petition before the Ld. MM that he had been falsely implicated. No complaint was filed against the IO in this regard. It is also worthwhile to mention that no reason has been given as to why the IO shall implicate the respondent no.1 and not Sh. Abhishek Pal when they both were admittedly present at the time of Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.05 MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 16 of 46 15:52:29 +0530 the accident. The reason for the same seems to be quite apparent. It is a matter of record that the respondent no. 1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Hence, it is clear that to escape the monetary liability, now it is being attempted by the respondents to show that the vehicle was being driven by Sh. Abhishek Pal who had a valid driving licence.
32. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Kerela in "Kerela State Road Transport Corp. Vs. C. Soman Nadar & Anr. 1984 ACJ 607 Kerela " wherein it has been held that the statement of the driver who caused the accident cannot be believed as his testimony was interested and unaided by any corroboration. In view of the same and also considering the observations of Hon'ble High Court of Kerela, the present Tribunal is of the opinion that the version of the respondents is unbelievable and cannot be relied upon.
33. Further, 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."
RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2025.08.05 15:52:35 +0530 MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 17 of 46
34. 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."
35. Hence, in the opinion of the tribunal, it is proved that the vehicle was being driven by the respondent no.1 at the time of the accident.
36. Now coming to the point of rash and negligent act and contributory negligence. As mentioned above, it is alleged by respondents that the respondent no.1 is not guilty of any rash and negligent driving as the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and he was crossing the road in a No Zebra Crossing Zone.
37. Perusal of record shows that firstly, admittedly in the MLC, it is mentioned that there was a smell of alcohol present on the deceased. However, as rightly pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, no samples were taken by the IO for proving the same. No samples were sent to the FSL to determine as to how much alcohol was present in the blood stream of the deceased. Hence, merely because he smelled of alcohol, it shall not imply that he was in an inebriated condition and was unable to walk on the road. Hence, in the absence of any evidence to the same, it cannot be considered that the deceased was in such a drunken condition that he was not in a position to walk on the road.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 18 of 46
2025.08.05
15:52:40
+0530
38. Secondly, regarding the fact that he was crossing the road in No Zebra Crossing Zone, it may be mentioned that the accident occurred at late night at about 11:30 PM. As per the statement of the eye witness i.e. PW3 Devender Shah, the traffic was very less at that time. Further he has stated in his cross examination that at that time, the shops were closed and only one or two more people were present at the spot. Further he has specifically stated that the motorcycle was being driven at a very high speed and that he hit the pedestrian i.e. the deceased with force and dragged the deceased at some distance. Furthermore, as per the statement of R1&2W-2 Abhishek Pal, he had seen the deceased from about 40-50 meters. In the opinion of the court, there was sufficient time to stop the vehicle by applying brakes.
39. 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. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the rash and negligent act of the respondent no.1 is proved.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.05
15:52:44
+0530
MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 19 of 46
40. Further, it is 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. 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.
41. Further even if the deceased was crossing the road at a No Zebra Crossing Zone, only on this ground it cannot be said that he was guilty of contributory negligence. As mentioned above, he was visible from 40-50 meters away from the motorcycle. Hence, there was sufficient time to stop the motorcycle and avoid the accident. Hence, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the deceased cannot be held guilty of contributory negligence.
42. In view of the same, considering the facts and circumstances, the court is satisfied that the accident was caused due to Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA Date:
SINGLA 2025.08.05 15:52:53 +0530 MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 20 of 46 the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1. From the DAR, it also stands established that respondent no. 2 was the registered owner of the offending vehicle. It is also an admitted position that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.3, TATA AIG Insurance Company Ltd. vide Policy No.31948433550000 valid w.e.f. 26.05.2022 to 25.05.2027. The factum of the said insurance is also admitted by the respondent no.3 insurance company. However, it is proved that at the time of the accident, the respondent no.1 was not carrying a valid DL.
The injury:
43. 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 MLC bearing no. 115488313 prepared at Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi dated 22.06.2023 as per which it has been opined by the concerned doctor that there was history of road traffic accident. He had suffered multiple injuries including injuries on the head and chest. Subsequently, he expired on 26.06.2023. His death summary is on record. Hence, it is proved on record the the injured suffered fatal injuries due to the accident, due to which he unfortunately expired.
44. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the opinion that on the scales of preponderance of probabilities, the petitioner has proved that the accident in question took place due to rash 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 Dhruv Raj unfortunately expired.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.05 MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 21 of 46 15:52:58 +0530 Accordingly, issue no. 1 & 2 are decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 3:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? (OPP)
45. The onus to prove this issue was also upon the petitioners. In view of the observations as given in 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 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.05 15:53:02 MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 22 of 46 +0530 for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step 3 (Actual calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the `loss of dependency' to the family. Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of 5,000/- to 10,000/- should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also added."
QUA ADDITIONS "11. ..................... In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased 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 (1/4th) 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.05 15:53:06 +0530 MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 23 of 46 assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the 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."
46. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its constitution bench decision in matter of "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." (2017) 16 SCC 680 held as under : -
"58. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be no addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept. We are disposed to think, there should be an addition of 15% if the deceased is between the age of 50 to 60 years and there should be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in case of self- employed or person on fixed salary, the addition should be 10% between the age of 50 to 60 years. The aforesaid yardstick has been fixed so that there can be consistency in the approach by the tribunals and the Courts.
59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.05 15:53:12 +0530 MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 24 of 46 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."
Loss of income
47. In the present matter, it is alleged on behalf of the petitioners that at the time of the accident the deceased was working as a labourer and was earning Rs.23,000/- pm. However, it was conceded that there was no employment proof available. Hence, it was prayed that Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.05 15:53:17 +0530 MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 25 of 46 his income may be assessed as per the minimum wages as prevalent in Delhi.
48. Per contra, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for the respondents that there is no evidence on record that the deceased was working in Delhi. It is submitted that as per his Aadhar Card and the address given by the family of the deceased to the IO, he was residing at U.P. Hence, it is submitted that the minimum wages as prevalent at U.P. should be applied.
49. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the deceased was taken to the hospital, his son Sh. Sanoj went there and when the address was asked to be furnished, the Delhi address was given as is clearly mentioned in the MLC. Further in the chargesheet also the Delhi address is mentioned. Hence, it is submitted that it is proved on record that the deceased was working in Delhi.
50. Record perused.
51. Admittedly the Aadhar card of the deceased and his family members are of U.P. However, it is a matter of record that the accident occurred at Delhi. Further, as pointed out by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, when the deceased was taken to the hospital, his son Sh. Sanoj was present there and he provided the address of the deceased as House no.1586, Gali Arya Samaj, Sita Ram, Delhi. It is highly improbable that a fictitious address was given by the son of the deceased at that immediate moment. Further, the petitioners produced PW2 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: SINGLA 2025.08.05 15:53:31 +0530 MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 26 of 46 Lokesh Kumar who deposed on oath that he had rented out his premises to the deceased. Hence, in the opinion of the court, it is proved on record that the deceased was working at Delhi at the time of the accident. The date of accident is 22.06.2023. It is stated by the petitioners that the deceased was working as a labourer. Hence, his income shall be ascertained as per the criterion of an unskilled worker. As per the prevalent notification, his income his assessed to be Rs.17,234/- pm. Age determination of the deceased:
52. As per the aadhar card of the deceased which is Ex. PW1/6, his date of birth was 01.01.1968. The date of the accident is 22.06.2023. Hence, as on the date of the accident, the deceased was aged 55 years.
Future Prospects: -
53. 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 15% for future prospects. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased needs to be taken as Rs. 19,819.10. (Rs.17,234/- + Rs. 2,585.10 which is 15% of Rs.17,234/-).
Determination of Dependent
54. In the present case, the deceased is survived by his wife, 3 major sons and 1 minor son. Hence, the wife and the minor son shall be considered as dependents. The major sons shall not be considered as dependents.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.05 15:53:46 +0530 MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 27 of 46 Determination of multiplicand
55. The monthly income of the deceased after enhancement needs to be taken as Rs. 19,819.10. 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, 1/3rd amount has to be deducted on account of personal and living expenses as the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3. So, in this matter, monthly loss of dependency would come out to be Rs. 13,278.80 (2/3rd of Rs. 19,819.10). This needs to be multiplied by 12 to workout multiplicand/annual loss of dependency. Hence, multiplicand for this matter would be Rs.1,59,345.60 (Rs. 13,278.80 x 12).
Award Towards Loss of Dependency
56. 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 11. The total loss of dependency would come out to be Rs.17,52,801.60 (Rs.1,59,345.60 x 11), hence, so awarded.
Medical expenses:
57. The petitioners have not filed any medical bills on record. Hence, in the absence of any medical bills, the petitioners shall not be entitled to any amount towards medical expenses.
Non-Pecuniary Heads:-
58. The Respondents/Claimants shall be entitled to the Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.05 15:53:53 MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 28 of 46 +0530 compensation under Non-Pecuniary Heads in terms of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi And Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. The case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) was considered and clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 9581/2018 decided on 18.09.2018 whereby after considering the case of Pranay Sethi's (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to award loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/- to each dependent of the deceased and further pleased to award a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to each dependent of the deceased towards loss of love and affection. The relevant portion is as under:
"...... A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of Consortium.
In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses 'spousal consortium', 'parental consortium', and 'filial consortium'.
The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse.
Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation."
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. Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.05 15:53:59 +0530 MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 29 of 46 Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognized that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium.
Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act.
A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium.
The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under 'Loss of Consortium' as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra).
In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs.40,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium.....".
59. 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. Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.05 15:54:05 MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 30 of 46 +0530 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...".
60. In the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), it was held that in the case of death, Rs.15,000/- is liable to be paid towards the loss of estate and funeral charges each, while Rs.40,000/- was payable towards the loss of consortium to each legal heir and the same may be enhanced by 10% every three years.
61. In the present case, the accident is of 2023 and the Award was passed in 2025. Thus, an amount of Rs. 18,150/- is granted towards the Loss of Estate and Rs. 18,150/- towards funeral charges.
62. Further, Rs. 48,400/- each is granted to the petitioners i.e. total of Rs. 48,400 x 5 = Rs. 2,42,000/- towards Loss of Consortium.
Computation of compensation:
63. Applying the settled guidelines in the various judgments, the compensation payable to the petitioners is calculated as under:
Sr. Head Awarded by the Claims
No. Tribunal
1 Monthly Income of deceased (A) Rs.17,234/-
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.05
15:54:11
+0530
MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 31 of 46
2 Add future prospect (B) @ 15%= Rs. 2,585.10
3 Less 1/3 deductions towards (Rs.17,234/- + Rs. 2,585.10) =
personal and living expenses of Rs. 19,819.10 * 1/3 = Rs.
the deceased (C) 6,540.30
4 Monthly loss of dependency (Rs.17,234/- + Rs. 2,585.10) -
[(A+B) - C = D] Rs. 6,540.30 = Rs. 13,278.80
5 Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 13,278.80 x 12=
(D x 12) Rs.1,59,345.60
6 Multiplier (E) 11
7 Total loss of dependency (Rs.93,954/- x 18)=
DxE=F Rs.16,91,172/-
8 Medical Expenses (G) Nil
9 Compensation for loss of love Nil.
and affection (H)
10 Compensation for loss of Rs. 48,400 x 5 = Rs. 2,42,000/-
consortium (I) to both the
petitioners
11 Compensation for loss of Estate Rs. 18,150/-
(J)
12 Compensation for funeral Rs. 18,150/-
expenses (K)
13 Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 20,31,101.60 (rounded off
to Rs. 20,31,102/-)
64. 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 DAR i.e. 20.09.2023 till realization.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.05 15:54:17 MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 32 of 46 +0530 Apportionment:
65. It is evident from the record that the deceased had left behind his two legal heirs i.e. his wife and his minor son. For the sake of convenience, the individual shares of the dependents of the deceased are tabulated as under:-
S.No. Name of the Relation with Amount in (Rupees) claimant deceased
1. Smt. Prabhawati Wife Rs. 12,00,000/- + Rs.
48,400/- + Rs. 18,150/- + Rs. 18,150/- = Rs.
12,84,700/-
2. Sh. Manoj Son Rs. 48,400/-
3. Sh. Anoj Son Rs. 48,400/-
4. Sh. Sanoj Son Rs. 48,400/-
5. Sh. Kuldeep Minor Son Rs. 5,52,802/- + Rs.
48,400/- = Rs. 6,01,202/-
DISBURSEMENT
66. 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. 35,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- per month.
67. 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. Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.05 15:54:22 +0530 MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 33 of 46 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 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.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.05 15:54:27 +0530 MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 34 of 46
(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.
68. 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 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, Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.05 15:54:37 +0530 MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 35 of 46 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."
69. 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. Prabhawati (wife):
70. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners, it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs.20,31,102/-, out of the share of the petitioner/wife Prabhawati Rs.12,84,700/-(Rupees Twelve Lakhs Eighty Four Thousand Seven Hundred only), Rs.3,84,700/- with interest shall be released to the petitioner/wife immediately in her Bank Account No.35800389687, IFSC Code SBIN0002613, Branch Shohratgarh, District Siddharth Nagar, State Bank of India.
71. The balance amount of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs only) shall be put in 20 monthly fixed deposits in her name in her account as mentioned above of equal amount of Rs. 45,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 20 months respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.05
15:54:43
+0530
MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 36 of 46
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. Manoj, Sh. Anoj and Sh. Sanoj (sons of deceased):
72. On realization of the award amount of Rs.48,400/- (Rupees Forty Eight Thousand and Four Hundred only) each, the entire amount along with the interest amount be released to the petitioner no. 2 Manoj (son of the deceased) in his Bank Account No.41192239168, IFSC Code SBIN0002613, Branch Shohratgarh, District Siddharth Nagar, State Bank of India, petitioner no. 3 Anoj (son of deceased) in his Bank Account No.41045400332, IFSC Code SBIN0002613, Branch Shohratgarh, District Siddharth Nagar, State Bank of India and petitioner no. 4 Sanoj (son of deceased) in his Bank Account No.2114001700216911, IFSC Code PUNB0211400, Branch Shohratgarh, District Siddharth Nagar, immediately.
Sh. Kuldeep (minor son):
73. Since, the petitioner Kuldeep is a minor, on realization of the award amount, a sum of Rs.1,01,202/- (Rupees One Lakh One Thousand Two Hundred and Two only) along with entire interest amount be kept in one FDR which shall be released in his favour along with cumulative interest upon his attaining majority. Further, the balance amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- shall be put in 25 (Twenty Five) monthly fixed deposits in his name of equal amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 25 months respectively, with cumulative interest in terms of the directions Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA Date:
SINGLA 2025.08.05 15:54:48 +0530 MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 37 of 46 contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Upon the petitioner Kuldeep attaining majority, the amount of these FDRs, shall automatically be transferred one after the other every month in his saving account bearing no.43354398463, IFSC Code SBIN0002613, Branch Shohratgarh, Siddharth Nagar, State Bank of India maintained in a nationalized bank situated near the place of his residence.
74. 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: 22.06.2023 Name of the deceased: Dhruv Raj Age of the deceased: 55 years Occupation of the deceased: Labourer Income of the deceased : Not proved
Name and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No. Name of the claimant Relation with deceased
1. Smt. Prabhawati Wife
2. Sh. Manoj Son
3. Sh. Anoj Son
4. Sh. Sanoj Son
5. Sh. Kuldeep Son Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.05 15:54:53 +0530 MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 38 of 46 COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION Sr. Head Awarded by the Claims Tribunal No. 1 Monthly Income of deceased Rs.17,234/-
(A) 2 Add future prospect (B) @ 15%= Rs. 2,585.10 3 Less 1/2 deductions towards (Rs.17,234/- + Rs. 2,585.10) = Rs.
personal and living expenses of 19,819.10 * 1/3 = Rs. 6,540.30 the deceased (C) 4 Monthly loss of dependency (Rs.17,234/- + Rs. 2,585.10) - Rs.
[(A+B) - C = D] 6,540.30 = Rs. 13,278.80
5 Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 13,278.80 x 12=
(D x 12) Rs.1,59,345.60
6 Multiplier (E) 11
7 Total loss of dependency (Rs.93,954/- x 18)=
DxE=F Rs.16,91,172/-
8 Medical Expenses (G) Nil
9 Compensation for loss of love Nil.
and affection (H)
10 Compensation for loss of Rs. 48,400 x 5 = Rs. 2,42,000/-
consortium (I) to both the
petitioners
11 Compensation for loss of Rs. 18,150/-
Estate (J)
12 Compensation for funeral Rs. 18,150/-
expenses (K)
13 Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 20,31,101.60 (rounded off to
Rs. 20,31,102/-)
14 Rate of Interest Awarded 9%
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.05
15:55:04
+0530
MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 39 of 46
15 Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 2,35,132/-
award w.e.f. 20.09.2023 till
realization
16 Total amount including interest Rs. 22,66,234/-
17 Award amount released As per paragraph No.70 to 73
18 Award amount kept in FDRs As per paragraph No. 71 & 73
19 Mode of disbursement of the As per paragraph No.70 to 73
award amount to the
claimant(s)
20 Next Date of compliance of the 04.09.2025
award
LIABILITY:
75. It has been established that the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1 and that respondent no.2 is the owner of the same and the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no. 3.
76. On the point of liability, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3/ Insurance Company has submitted that respondent no.1 has violated the terms of the insurance policy as he was not having a valid driving license at the time of the accident and thus, respondent no. 3 is not liable to pay any amount.
77. This is an admitted fact respondent no.1 did not have a valid driving license at the time of the accident and thus, there is a breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In Go Digit General Insurance Co. v. Mohd Javed MAC. App 416/2025 decided on 09.07.2025, in a similar matter, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: SINGLA 2025.08.05 15:55:09 MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 40 of 46 +0530 observed that:
"So far as concerns the award of recovery rights, clearly that appears to be an inadvertent error by the Ld. Trial Court since, after the amendment to Section 166 (3) of the MV Act w.e.f. 01.04.2022 which is the provision for grant of recovery rights is no longer available in the statute book."
78. Hence, the respondent no.3 is exonerated from payment of the compensation. The respondents no. 1 & 2 shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners. Issue No. 3 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
79. In view of the above, the respondent nos.1 and 2 are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.22,66,234/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand and Two Hundred Thirty Four Hundred only) along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. w.e.f. 20.09.2023 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 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.
80. 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. Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA Date:
SINGLA 2025.08.05 15:55:15 +0530 MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 41 of 46 534/2020 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 04.09.2025 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 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.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.05 15:55:20 +0530 MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 42 of 46 File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court today on this 04th Day of August, 2025 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.08.05 15:55:23 +0530 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 43 of 46
THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL MOTOR VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022 (PL. SEE RULE 150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 22.06.2023 2 Date of filing of Form-I -
First Accident Report 01.07.2023
(FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II
20.09.2023
to the victim(s)
4 Date of receipt of Form-III
11.08.2023
from the Driver
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV
from the Owner 11.08.2023
6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the insurance 11.08.2023
of the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-
20.09.2023
VIA from the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII -
20.09.2023
Detail Accident Report
(DAR)
9 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Investigating No.
Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the 20.09.2023
Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company admitted his Yes.
report within 30 days of the
DAR?
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.05
15:55:30 +0530
MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 44 of 46
12 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the No.
part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether
any action/direction
warranted?
13 Date of response of the NA
claimant(s) to the offer of
the Insurance Company.
14 Date of award 04.08.2025
15 Whether the claimant(s)
were directed to open Yes
savings bank account(s)
near their place of
residence?
16 Date of order by which
claimant(s) were directed to
open Savings Bank
Account(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN
card and Aadhar Card and 20.09.2023
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 account(s) near the
place of their residence 04.08.2025
alongwith the endorsement,
PAN card and Aadhaar
Card?
18 Permanent residential
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.05
MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 45 of 46
15:55:35 +0530
address of the claimant(s). As per Award.
19 Whether the claimant(s)
savings bank account(s) is
Yes
near their place of
residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s)
were examined at the time
Yes. The Financial Statement of the claimants of passing of the Award to was recorded 26.07.2025.
ascertain his/their financial condition?
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.05
15:55:40
+0530
(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
04.08.2025
MACT No.835/2023 Dhruv Raj Vs. Deepak Kumar and ors. Page 46 of 46