Delhi District Court
Parvinder Kaur vs Gurdit Singh on 18 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DR. SHIRISH AGGARWAL
PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-01, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
DLND010051102023
Misc DJ No. 747/23
1. Smt. Parvinder Kaur (Mother of deceased)
W/o Sh. Bachhitar Singh
2. Sh. Bachhitar Singh (Father of deceased)
S/o Sh. Hardyal Singh
3. Ms. Dakshpreet Kaur (Sister of deceased)
D/o Sh. Bachhitar Singh
R/o H.No. A-84, Navyug Block,
Mangal Bazar, Vishnu Garden,
New Delhi. .......Claimants
Versus
1. Sh. Gurdit Singh (Driver)
S/o Sh. Kulvinder Singh,
R/o H.No. RZ-59, Gali No. 28, Shiv Vihar,
Nihar Vihar, New Delhi.
2. Sh. Hoshiyar Singh (Owner)
S/o Sh. Madan Singh,
R/o H.No. WZ-54, 3rd Floor, Vishnu Garden,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi.
3. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (Insurer)
D.O. 2, 16/20 WEA Padam Singh Road,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi. .........Respondents
Misc DJ No. 747/23
Parvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Gurdit Singh & Ors. 18.04.2026 Page 1/24
Date of filing of DAR : 31.05.2023
Date of framing of issues : 10.07.2024
Date of concluding arguments : 17.04.2026
Date of decision : 18.04.2026
AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. The claim for compensation raised in the present
Detailed Accident Report (DAR) is in respect of fatal injuries
alleged to have been sustained by the deceased Sh. Navneet Singh in
a motor accident that took place on 24.03.2023 at about 11:45 PM,
in front of Janak Vihar, DPS Marg towards Todapur, New Delhi,
regarding which FIR No.51/23 was registered at PS Inderpuri.
2. The offending vehicle involved in this case is a
motorcycle bearing registration No.DL-6SBC-3673, which at the
relevant time of accident was being driven by respondent no.1 Sh.
Gurdit Singh, owned by respondent no. 2 Sh. Hoshiyar Singh and
insured with respondent no. 3 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Case of the claimants
3. It is the case of the claimants that on 24.03.2024, the
deceased was sitting as a pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing
registration No. DL-6SBC-3673, which was being driven by
respondent no. 1 at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner.
When they reached near Pusa Complex in front of Janak Vihar, the
respondent no. 1 had hit the footpath due to which the head of
deceased struck with the footpath and sustained grievous injuries. It
is further stated that the deceased was taken to Dr. RML Hospital
Misc DJ No. 747/23
Parvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Gurdit Singh & Ors. 18.04.2026 Page 2/24
where he was declared brought dead by the doctors.
Case of respondent no. 1
4. Respondent no.1 filed his reply to the DAR wherein it
is stated that the accident took place as the bike slipped due to
spillage of oil on road. It is further stated that the alleged offending
vehicle was duly insured with respondent no. 3.
Case of respondent no. 2
5. Respondent no. 2 did not file his reply to the DAR
despite opportunity being given.
Case of respondent no. 3
6. Respondent no. 3/Insurance Company filed its reply to
the DAR wherein it is stated that the respondent no. 1 was not
holding a valid driving license which is clear breach of terms and
conditions of the insurance policy and hence, they are not liable to
pay compensation to the claimants. It is further stated that the
alleged offending vehicle was duly insured with them in the name of
respondent no. 2 w.e.f. 20.03.2023 to 19.03.2024.
Issues
7. On 10.07.2024, the following issues were framed by
this Tribunal :-
1. Whether the deceased sustained fatal injuries in
a vehicular accident that took place on 23.03.2023
at about 11:45 pm, in front of Janak Vihar, DPS
Marg towards Todapur involving a vehicle bearing
registration No. DL-6SBC-3673 (offending
vehicle) being driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash
and negligent manner, owned by respondent no. 2
and insured with R-3/Insurance Company ? OPP.
Misc DJ No. 747/23
Parvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Gurdit Singh & Ors. 18.04.2026 Page 3/24
2. Whether the claimants are entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and from
whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
Claimants' evidence
8. In support of their claim, the claimant no. 1 examined
herself as PW1. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit as
Ex. PW1/A and relied upon the following documents :-
(i). Ex. PW1/1 (OSR) is the copy of her PAN card.
(ii). Ex. PW1/2 (colly) (OSR) are the copy of Aadhaar card and PAN
card of her husband.
(iii). Ex. PW1/3 (colly) (OSR) are the copy of Aadhaar card and
PAN card of her daughter.
(iv). Ex. PW1/4 (colly) (OSR) are the copy of Aadhaar card and
PAN card of deceased.
(v). Ex. PW1/5 (colly) (OSR) are the educational qualification
documents of deceased.
(vi). Ex. PW1/6 (OSR) is the copy of death certificate of deceased.
(vii). Ex. PW1/7 (colly) is the DAR filed by the IO.
9. The claimants examined Sh. Deepu @ Prince, an eye
witness of the accident as PW2. He tendered his evidence by way of
affidavit Ex. PW2/A and relied upon the following documents :-
(i). Ex. PW2/1 (colly) (OSR) is the copy of her Aadhaar card.
(ii). Ex. PW2/2 is his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
10. All the aforesaid witnesses were cross-examined and
Misc DJ No. 747/23
Parvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Gurdit Singh & Ors. 18.04.2026 Page 4/24
discharged.
Respondents'evidence
11. Respondent no. 3/Insurance Company examined Ms.
Alka, Administrative Office (Legal) from their Company as R3W1.
She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. R3W1/A and
relied upon the following documents :-
(i). Ex. R3W1/1 is the office copy of notice dated 15.04.2024.
(ii). Ex. R3W1/2 and Ex. R3W1/3 are the postal receipts.
(iii). Ex. R3W1/4 is the certified copy of insurance policy.
12. R3W1 was cross-examined and discharged.
Findings
13. I have heard arguments and have carefully perused the
entire case record.
14. The findings on the aforementioned issues are rendered
hereinafter in the succeeding paragraphs.
ISSUE NO. 1 - Whether the deceased sustained fatal injuries in a
vehicular accident that took place on 23.03.2023 at about 11:45 pm,
in front of Janak Vihar, DPS Marg towards Todapur involving a
vehicle bearing registration No. DL-6SBC-3673 (offending vehicle)
being driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner,
owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with R-3/Insurance
Company ? OPP.
15. Onus to prove this issue was upon the claimants. The
claimant no. 1 has examined herself as PW1. She admitted during
cross-examination that she was not present at the spot of accident.
As such, her testimony can not be considered for determining if the
Misc DJ No. 747/23
Parvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Gurdit Singh & Ors. 18.04.2026 Page 5/24
vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently.
16. The claimants examined Sh. Deepu @ Prince, an eye
witness of the accident as PW2. He deposed that on 23.03.2023, he
was coming through Ratan Puri Chowk, DPS Marg towards his
house and when he reached Pusa Complex in front of Janak Vihar,
he saw that the respondent no. 1 was driving his motorcycle at a
high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and thereby had hit
the footpath due to which head of pillion rider hit against the
footpath. He deposed that the driver of motorcycle along with
pillion rider fell down on the road. He further deposed that had the
driver of offending bike been a bit cautious, the said accident could
have been avoided. He further deposed that the accident took place
due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1.
17. During cross-examination, he deposed that the accident
happened in front of him. He further deposed that he immediately
called the PCR and the police came in his presence. He further
deposed that his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded
in the police station, however, the registration number of motorcycle
is not mentioned in his statement. He further deposed that he had
told the number of offending vehicle to IO but he had not written
the same in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He
further deposed that the site plan was not prepared at his instance.
He admitted that the driver and pillion rider of the motorcycle were
not wearing helmets at the time of accident and volunteered to state
that they were wearing turbans.
18. It is explicit from the testimony of PW2 that occurrence
Misc DJ No. 747/23
Parvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Gurdit Singh & Ors. 18.04.2026 Page 6/24
of accident has not been disputed and the testimony of the witness in
this regard has gone unrebutted. Nothing material could be elicited
from the cross-examination of PW2 to disbelieve or discard his
testimony. The testimony of PW2 has been duly corroborated with
the DAR filed by the IO.
19. Chargesheet was also filed against the driver of the
vehicle. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 has observed
that filing of charge sheet against the driver prima facie points
towards his complicity in driving the vehicle rashly and negligently.
It has been further observed that even when the accused were to be
acquitted in the criminal case, the same may be of no effect on the
assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident
cases by the Tribunal.
20. It is well settled that the procedure followed for
proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that
followed by a Civil Court and in Civil matters, the facts are required
to be established on preponderance of probabilities and not beyond
reasonable doubt, as are required in a criminal prosecution.
Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court reported as (2009) 13 SC 530 in Bimla Devi and others Vs.
Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, wherein it has
been observed that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular
vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the
claimants and the claimants were merely to establish their case on
the touchstone of preponderance of probability.
Misc DJ No. 747/23
Parvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Gurdit Singh & Ors. 18.04.2026 Page 7/24
21. In view of foregoing discussion, it stands proved on
touchstone of preponderance of probability that Mr. Navneet Singh
sustained fatal injuries in the accident which took place due to rash
and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration
no. DL-6SBC-3673 and the said vehicle at that time was owned by
respondent no. 2 and insured by respondent no.3. Hence, this issue
is decided in favour of the claimants and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2 - Whether the claimants are entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
22. As rashness and negligence on part of driver of the
offending vehicle/respondent No. 1 has been proved, the claimants
have become entitled to be compensated for death of deceased in the
said accident, but the computation of compensation and liability to
pay the same are required to be decided. The compensation to which
the claimants are entitled shall be under the heads as discussed
hereinafter.
(i) Loss of dependency
23. The claimant no. 1 being mother of claimant stepped
into the witness box as PW1 and filed her evidence by way of
affidavit as Ex. PW1/A wherein she claimed that her deceased son
was 9th pass and was working privately as a mechanic and earning a
sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. During cross-examination, she
admitted that she did not have any document to prove the income of
her deceased son. She has tendered on record educational
qualification documents of her deceased son as Ex. PW1/5 (colly)
Misc DJ No. 747/23
Parvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Gurdit Singh & Ors. 18.04.2026 Page 8/24
(OSR), as per which he had passed 9th class.
24. Since the employment and income of the deceased has
not been established on record, the minimum wages of non-
matriculates is taken into account as per rates prevalent in Delhi,
which was Rs. 18,499/- per month at the time of accident, which has
also been mentioned in the written submissions filed on behalf of
the claimants.
25. In order to prove the age of deceased, PW1 has
tendered on record copy of Aadhaar card and PAN card of deceased
in which his date of birth is found recorded as 17.10.2004. Hence,
going by this document, the age of deceased comes to around 18
years, 5 months and 7 days on the date of accident. Accordingly, in
terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.,
(2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been approved by the
Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017)
16 SCC 680, the multiplier of '18' is applicable in the present case.
26. Now coming to calculation of loss of dependency, the
present DAR has been filed by three claimants, i.e. mother, father
and sister of deceased. The deceased was unmarried at the time of
accident. Hence, in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. (Supra) and Pranay Sethi &
Ors. (Supra), half earnings of deceased shall be deducted towards
his personal and living expenses.
27. In view of the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi
Misc DJ No. 747/23
Parvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Gurdit Singh & Ors. 18.04.2026 Page 9/24
(Supra), the claimants are also held entitled to addition of 40% of
earning of the deceased towards future prospects. Thus, the loss of
dependency in the present case comes to Rs.27,97,049/- (rounded
off) (Rs.18,499/- X 12 X 18 X 1/2 X 140/100).
(ii) COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY HEADS
28. To calculate compensation under the non-pecuniary
heads, reference has to be drawn from decision in Pranay Sethi case
(supra) wherein it was observed:
''...Unlike determination of income, the said heads
have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a
reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over
the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation
of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court
cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a
thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be
extreme difficulty in determination of the same and
unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense
variation lacking any kind of consistency as a
consequence of which, the orders passed by the
tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided.
Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It
seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional
heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and
funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and
Rs 15,000 respectively. The principle of revisiting the
said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit
should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think
that it would be condign that the amount that we have
quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in
every three years and the enhancement should be at the
rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to
hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect
of those heads.
.
.
59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral Misc DJ No. 747/23 Parvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Gurdit Singh & Ors. 18.04.2026 Page 10/24 expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years...''
29. In terms of propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the claimants are also held entitled to amount of Rs.15,000/- each under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses, i.e. Rs.30,000/- under both heads. Further, in view of Full Court judgment dated 30.06.2020 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. (2020) 06 SC CK 0036 (Civil Appeal Nos. 2705 and 2706 of 2020), the claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss of consortium', in addition to Rs.30,000/- granted under the conventional heads of 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses'.
30. Pertinently, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also held in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (Supra) that compensation awarded under the conventional heads shall be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years and a period of 6 years since then stands already expired. Hence, the claimant in this case is also entitled to an increase @ 10% on the amount awarded under the conventional head of 'loss of estate', 'funeral charges' and 'loss of consortium' after expiry of three years and further 10% after expiry of another three years.
31. The total compensation towards the non-pecuniary heads is calculated as under :-
i. Loss of Consortium : Rs.40,000/- + (10% of Rs.40,000/-)= Rs. 44,000/- + (10% of Rs. 44,000/-) = Rs. 48,400/- X 3 = Misc DJ No. 747/23 Parvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Gurdit Singh & Ors. 18.04.2026 Page 11/24 Rs.1,45,200/-.
ii. Loss of Estate : Rs. 15,000/- + (10% of Rs.15,000/-) = Rs.16,500/- + (10% of Rs. 16,500/-) = Rs. 18,150/-. iii. Funeral Charges : Rs. 15,000/- + (10% of Rs.15,000/-) = Rs.16,500/- + (10% of Rs. 16,500/-) = Rs. 18,150/-.
32. Therefore, the total compensation towards the non pecuniary heads comes to Rs.1,81,500/-.
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
33. In view of finding on issue number 2, the claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.29,78,549/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakh Seventy Eight Thousand Five Hundred Fourty Nine only) (Rs.27,97,049/- + Rs.1,81,500/-) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of DAR. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be liable to be excluded from the award amount.
APPORTIONMENT
34. Out of the awarded amount, 50% share is being awarded to the claimant no. 1, i.e. mother of deceased, 40% share is being awarded to claimant no. 2, i.e. father of deceased and the remaining 10% share is being awarded to the claimant no. 3, i.e. sister of deceased.
RELEASE
35. Out of amount awarded to the claimant no. 1, 90% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, Misc DJ No. 747/23 Parvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Gurdit Singh & Ors. 18.04.2026 Page 12/24 New Delhi in the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in form of 100 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 100 months in succession, as per scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as implemented vide subsequent order dated 07.12.2018 and order dated 08.01.2021 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her savings/MACT Claims SB Account, opened/to be opened near the place of her residence, as directed vide order dated 31.05.2023 and the remaining 10% amount is also directed to be released into her above said account, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by her.
36. Out of amount awarded to the claimant no. 2, 90% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in form of 100 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 100 months in succession, as per scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as implemented vide subsequent order dated 07.12.2018 and order dated 08.01.2021 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in his savings/MACT Claims SB Account, opened/to be opened near the place of his residence, as directed vide order dated 31.05.2023 and the remaining 10% amount is also directed to be released into his Misc DJ No. 747/23 Parvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Gurdit Singh & Ors. 18.04.2026 Page 13/24 above said account, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by him.
37. Out of amount awarded to the claimant no. 3, 70% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi for a period of two years. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her savings/MACT Claims SB Account, opened/to be opened near the place of her residence, as directed vide order dated 31.05.2023 and the remaining 30% amount is also directed to be released into her above said account, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by her.
38. The disbursement to the claimants is, however, subject to addition of future interest till deposit proportionately and also deduction of proportionate tax on the interest amount or amount of interim award, if any, to/from their shares.
39. The bank shall not permit any joint names to be added in the savings bank accounts or MACAD scheme accounts of claimants i.e. the bank account of claimants shall be individual account and not a joint account.
40. The original fixed deposits shall be retained by the UCO Bank, PHC, New Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR numbers, amounts, dates of maturity and maturity amounts shall be furnished by the said bank to the claimants and the above amount shall be released in accounts of claimants by the Manager, UCO Bank, PHC, ND through RTGS/NEFT/or any other electronic mode.
Misc DJ No. 747/23 Parvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Gurdit Singh & Ors. 18.04.2026 Page 14/2441. The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank accounts of the claimants near the place of their residence.
42. The maturity amount of the FDR (s) on monthly basis net of TDS be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the above accounts of claimants.
43. No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the MACAD without permission of the Court.
44. 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 the claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimants from any other branch of the bank.
45. The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimants to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimants shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
46. It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook of the claimants is sufficient compliance of clause above.
Misc DJ No. 747/23 Parvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Gurdit Singh & Ors. 18.04.2026 Page 15/24LIABILITY
47. During the course of final arguments, the Insurance Company has taken a defence that the respondent no. 1 was not holding a valid and effective driving license on the date of accident.
48. In order to prove the same, the Insurance Company examined Ms. Alka, Administrative Officer (Legal) from their Company as R3W1. She further deposed that the respondent no. 1 was not holding a license to drive the insured vehicle which is clear breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. She further deposed that the alleged offending vehicle was duly insured with them in the name of respondent no. 2 w.e.f. 20.03.2023 to 19.03.2024.
49. Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3 has submitted that subsequent to the amendment in the Motor Vehicles Act, no pay and recovery can be ordered. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the right to recover compensation from the owner of the offending vehicle flows from the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 149 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 has been omitted by Act of 2019 and therefore in case of a breach of policy, it is only the owner against whom award can be directly made and insurer is liable to be relieved from any liability to indemnify the owner.
50. The Tribunal is of the view that even though the accident had taken place after the amendment, that does not affect the right of the victim to recover compensation from the Insurance Company. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the decision in the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd., VS. Smt. Arti Misc DJ No. 747/23 Parvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Gurdit Singh & Ors. 18.04.2026 Page 16/24 Devi & Ors., FAO No. 1780 of 2024, decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad on 31.01.2025. In the said case, the following was held :-
"Mere omission of proviso attached to sub-section (4) of Section 149 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 after its replacement by Section 150 of Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 (32 of 2019), neither takes away the liability of the insurer to pay the claimants nor its right to recover the said amount from the owner. The law to this effect remains intact and unaffected by Amendment Act, 2019 and hence, insurer shall continue to indemnify the owner's risk in relation to accidents taking place after 01-04-2022 and "PAY & RECOVER"
principle will still continue to govern the field advancing social object of the Statute protecting third party interest. Principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh and others, JT 2004 (1) SC 109 has not lost its significance and binding effect despite omission of proviso".
51. In the case of M.Ananthi and Others Vs P. Venkatesan and Another, Civil Appeal No.1175/2025, decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 29.01.2025, the driver of the offending vehicle had no driving license. The Tribunal and Hon'ble High Court had absolved the Insurance Company from the liability of paying the compensation. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held the following :-
"In so far as the liability on the Insurance Company is concerned, the courts below have rightly held that since the driver of the offending vehicle was not having any license to drive the same, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to compensate".
52. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while granting Misc DJ No. 747/23 Parvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Gurdit Singh & Ors. 18.04.2026 Page 17/24 compensation, the tribunal and the High Court ought to have directed the Insurance Company to first pay the compensation and then recover it from the owner. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme court had relied upon the decision in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd Vs Swaran Singh and others (2004)3 SCC 297, wherein it was held that "the claimant should not be allowed to suffer and run about to release the compensation awarded and that, it is in the fitness of things that the Insurance Company in such cases should first pay and then recover the amount".
53. By referring to the observation made in Swaran Singh case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid Judgment directed the Insurance Company at the first instance to pay the compensation to the petitioner reserving liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the said amount from the owner/driver of the vehicle in accordance with law.
54. In view of foregoing discussion, respondent no. 3 is required to pay the compensation and thereafter, recover the same from the insured/respondent no. 2.
55. The respondent no.3 shall deposit the award amount with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of DAR by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in bank account being maintained in the above said bank in name of this tribunal within 30 days from today, failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay. In case even after lapse of 90 days from today, Misc DJ No. 747/23 Parvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Gurdit Singh & Ors. 18.04.2026 Page 18/24 respondent no. 3 fails to deposit this compensation with interest, in that event, in light of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal 2007 ACJ 688 , this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of respondent no. 3 with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.
56. The respondent no.3 shall inform the claimants and their counsels through registered post that the awarded amount has been deposited so as to facilitate them to collect the same.
57. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost or be sent to them by email. Ahlmad is directed to send a copy of the award to Ld. JMFC concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Judgment titled as Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. passed in FAO No.842/2003 dated 12.12.2014.
58. Further, Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 08.01.2021.
59. The particulars of Form-XVII of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, in terms of directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 08.01.2021, are as under:
1. Date of the accident 24.03.2023
2. Date of filing of Form I- First Not given Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the Not given victim(s) Misc DJ No. 747/23 Parvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Gurdit Singh & Ors. 18.04.2026 Page 19/24
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from Not given the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from Not given the owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- Not given Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Not given Form VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filingForm-VII-
of 31.05.2023
Detailed Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or No
deficiency on the part of the
Investigating Officer? If so,
whether any action/direction
warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Not given
Designated Officer by the Insurance Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of No the Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or Yes deficiencies on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the claimant(s) Legal offer not filed of the offer of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 18.04.2026
15. Whether the claimant(s) were Yes directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of Misc DJ No. 747/23 Parvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Gurdit Singh & Ors. 18.04.2026 Page 20/24 residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) 31.05.2023 were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant (s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17. Date on which the claimant(s) Yet to furnish produced the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of As mentioned above the claimant(s)
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings Yet to furnish bank account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were Yes examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
60. File be consigned to record room after compliance of necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 29.07.2026.
Digitally signed by SHIRISH AGGARWAL SHIRISH Date: AGGARWAL 2026.04.18 16:29:40 +0530 Announced in the open court (Shirish Aggarwal) on 18.04.2026 PO/MACT-01, New Delhi
Encl: SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM XV Misc DJ No. 747/23 Parvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Gurdit Singh & Ors. 18.04.2026 Page 21/24 SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM XV
1. Date of accident 24.03.2023
2. Name of the deceased Mr. Navneet Singh
3. Age of the deceased 18 years, 5 months and 7 days
4. Occupation of the deceased Minimum wages of non matriculates in Delhi
5. Income of the deceased Rs.18,499/-
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased :
Sl. No. Name Age Relation
i) Parvinder Kaur 43 years Mother
ii) Bachhitar Singh 48 years Father
iii) Dakshpreet Kaur 22 years Unmarried sister
Sl. No. Head Amount Awarded
(Rs.)
7. Income of deceased (A) Rs. 18,499/-
8. Add : Future Prospects (B) Rs. 7,399.6/-
9. Less-Personal expenses of the Rs. 12,949.3/-
deceased (C)
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs. 12,949.3/-
[(A+B) - C = D]
11. Annual loss of dependency Rs.1,55,391.6/-
(D x 12) Misc DJ No. 747/23 Parvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Gurdit Singh & Ors. 18.04.2026 Page 22/24 12. Multiplier 18
13. Total loss of dependency Rs.27,97,049/-
(D x 12 x E = F)
14. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15. Compensation for loss of love Nil and affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of Rs.1,45,200/-
consortium (I)
17. Compensation for loss of estate Rs.18,150/-
(J)
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs.18,150/-
expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.29,78,549/-
(F + G + H + I + J+K =L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST 7.5% pa from date of AWARDED filing of DAR till the date of award to be deposited within 30 days and 9% thereafter.
21. Interest amount up to the date of Rs.6,44,111/-
award (M)
22. Total amount including interest Rs.36,22,660/-
(L + M) (rounded off to
Rs. 36,23,000/-)
23. Award amount released P-1=10% share
P-2=10% share
P-3=30% share
24. Award amount kept in FDRs/ P-1=90% share MACAD P-2=90% share P-3=70% share Misc DJ No. 747/23 Parvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Gurdit Singh & Ors. 18.04.2026 Page 23/24
25. Mode of disbursement of the Through Bank award amount to claimant(s)
26. Next date for compliance of the 29.07.2026 award Digitally signed by SHIRISH SHIRISH AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.18 16:29:50 +0530 (Shirish Aggarwal) PO/MACT-01, New Delhi 18.04.2026 Misc DJ No. 747/23 Parvinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Gurdit Singh & Ors. 18.04.2026 Page 24/24