Delhi District Court
Rajesh Dec.(Thr ... vs Ajit Singh(Shriram) on 14 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010183152024
MACT No. : 839/2024
FIR No. : 333/2024
PS : Prashad Nagar
u/s : 281/106(1) BNS
Sh. Rajesh (deceased) through LRs
1. Smt. Sonia Botli (LR/wife of deceased)
2. Sh. Karan Botli (LR/son of deceased)
3. Sh. Arjun (LR/son of deceased)
4. Ms. Megha Botli (LR/daughter of deceased)
(All r/o. B-810, Budh Nagar, Inderpuri, Delhi-110012)
...Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Ajit Singh (driver of the offending vehicle)
S/o. Sh. Prahlad Singh,
R/o.Toda Gyan Singh, Teh-Rajgarh District Alwar, Rajasthan
2. Sh. Naresh Kumar (Owner of the Offending Vehicle)
S/o. Sh. Rameshwar Dass,
R/o.Plot no.D-19, Second Floor Backside,
Nawada Housing Complex, Uttam Nagar, Delhi-110059.
3. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
C/o. C-30, 1st Floor, Community Centre, RWA Colony,
Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058. Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.11.14
15:41:54
+0530
MACT No.839/2024 Rajesh (Through LRs) vs. Ajit Singh and Ors. Page 1 of 35
AND
1001, Ground Floor, Naiwala, Arya Samaj Road,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
...Respondents
Date of filing of claim petition : 21.11.2024
Judgment reserved on : 27.10.2025
Date of Award : 14.11.2025
AWAR D
1. The Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filed on
21.11.2024 which was treated as a claim petition. The Road Traffic
Accident in question took place on 21.08.2024 at about 7:45 PM at Pusa
Road, opposite Bharat Petrol Pump, near Sidhartha Hotel, Delhi. Mr.
Rajesh expired in the said accident which was allegedly caused by
vehicle bearing registration No.UP-22-AT-5233 (hereinafter referred to
as the offending vehicle). The said vehicle was being driven by
respondent no. 1 Sh. Ajit Singh; owned by respondent No.2 Sh. Naresh
Kumar and insured with respondent no.3, Shri Ram General Insurance
Co. Ltd.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that on 21.08.2024, on receipt of information of an accident vide DD No.86A, the information of present accident was handed over to SI Prasanna Kumar, who alongwith Ct. Pushpendra went to the spot i.e. Pusa Road, opposite Bharat Petrol Pump, near Sidhartha Hotel, Delhi where a Bus No.UP-22-AT-5233 (white colour) was stationed in front of Karnataka Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.11.14 15:41:59 +0530 MACT No.839/2024 Rajesh (Through LRs) vs. Ajit Singh and Ors. Page 2 of 35 Bank in an accidental condition. After inquiring from nearby, IO got to know that the injured had been taken to BLK Hospital by a public person. Thereafter, after leaving Ct. Pushpendra at the spot of accident, IO went to the BLK Hospital where he met with an eye witness namely Tarun Kumar, who gave his statement to the IO. Thereafter, IO collected the MLC of the injured on which doctor had mentioned that the injured had been admitted in hospital with grievous injuries and unconscious condition. Thereafter, IO went to the spot of accident and called the Crime Team at the spot of accident. Thereafter, FIR was registered on the basis of MLC on injured, statement of eye witness and spot of accident u/s.281/125(B) BNS. Thereafter, IO sent Ct. Pushpender to PS for registration of FIR.
3. During the course of investigation, IO prepared the site plan at the instance of eye witness Tarun Kumar. IO had taken into his custody the Suspect Blood Sample Exhibits (GCP) from the Crime Team and deposited the same in maalkhana. IO served the notice u/s.133 MV Act to the owner of the offending vehicle, upon which the owner of the offending vehicle had given in writing that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was being driven by Ajit Singh (driver of the offending vehicle). Owner had handed over the RC, Insurance, fitness and permit of the offending vehicle to the IO. IO had taken the same into his custody and arrested the driver of the offending vehicle. The disclosure statement of driver of the offending vehicle was recorded by the IO. The information of arrest was given to the owner of the offending vehicle. IO got conducted alcohol test of the driver of the offending vehicle with Alco-meter. The driver was not found intoxicated Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.11.14 MACT No.839/2024 Rajesh (Through LRs) vs. Ajit Singh and Ors. Page 3 of 35 15:42:04 +0530 at the time accident. Driver has furnish his surety and accordingly he was released on police bail. Thereafter, mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle was got conducted. The documents of offending vehicle and DL of driver was got verified and same were found to be correct. The offending vehicle was released on superdari to the owner of the offending vehicle after panchnama valuation photograph. IO recorded the statements of the witness under section 180 BNS.
4. During course of investigation, the IO got information from the BLK hospital that the Mr. Rajesh had expired during treatment.
Thereafter, IO had changed the offence u/s. 125(B) to Section 106(1) BNS. Thereafter, after reaching BLK, IO had collected all the death related documents and dead body of the deceased was got preserved in the MAMC Mortuary and he gave the information of Fatal case in MACT Call. Case file was sent for further investigation in MACT Cell/C. After receiving file, the IO got the dead body of deceased recognized from his son and nephew, post mortem of the dead body was got conducted. After PM, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. During PM, doctor has handed over the Blood on Gauze with Sample Seal with the seal of MAMC FMT LNH to the IO. IO had taken the same into his custody and recorded the statement u/s.180 BNS. IO collected the CCTV Footage of the place of the accident in the Pendrive alongwith certificate 63 BSA from Delhi Mahajan Imaging & Lab and attached with the case file.
5. During the course of investigation, IO collected the PM report of the deceased which are enclosed with the file. Thereafter, IO Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.11.14 MACT No.839/2024 Rajesh (Through LRs) vs. Ajit Singh and Ors. Page 4 of 35 15:42:09 +0530 had sent the blood on Gauze Preserve to the FSL Rohini. After completion of investigation, chargesheet for the offences u/s 281/106(1) BNS was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle, Mr. Ajit Singh before the concerned Ld. JMFC and the DAR was filed before this Tribunal.
6. WS was filed on behalf of respondents no. 1 & 2 on 02.04.2025, wherein it was stated that the accident was caused due to negligence of the deceased as he was crossing the road without paying attention. However, vide order dated 19.07.2025, the respondents no. 1 and 2 were proceeded against ex-parte as they stopped appearing in the matter.
7. Legal offer was filed on behalf of respondent no. 3 on 19.04.2025, which was not accepted by the petitioners.
ISSUES
8. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated 06.05.2025, this Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
2. Relief.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
9. The petitioners examined Ms. Sonia Botli i.e. the petitioner no.1 as PW-1. PW1 has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit which Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA Date:
SINGLA 2025.11.14 15:42:15 +0530 MACT No.839/2024 Rajesh (Through LRs) vs. Ajit Singh and Ors. Page 5 of 35 is Ex. PW1/A. She relied upon the following documents:
1. Copy of Aadhar Card of the Lr/dependent is Ex.PW1/1 (OSR)
2. Death certificate of Sh. Rajesh Kumar is Ex. PW1/2.
3. Medical documents of Sh. Rajesh Kumar is Ex. PW1/3 (colly 7 to 38 pages).
4. Pay slip for the month of August 2024 of Sh. Rajesh Kumar is Ex.PW1/4.
5. Bank account statement of Sh. Rajesh Kumar on Indian Overseas Bank is Ex. PW1/5 (OSR) (colly 11 pages)
6. DAR is Ex. PW1/6.
10. Thereafter, Sh. Rajiv Bidla was examined as PW-2. PW2 has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW2/A.
11. Thereafter, Sh. Kunal Kumar was examined as PW-3. PW3 has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW3/A.
12. Thereafter, Sh. Karan Botli was examined as PW-4. PW4 has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW4/A.
13. Thereafter, Sh. Arjun was examined as PW-5. PW5 has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW5/A.
14. Thereafter, Ms. Megha Botli was examined as PW-6. PW6 has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW6/A.
15. All the petitioner's witnesses were duly cross-examined by Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.11.14 15:42:19 +0530 MACT No.839/2024 Rajesh (Through LRs) vs. Ajit Singh and Ors. Page 6 of 35 the Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3 insurance company. Thereafter, PE was closed vide order dated 19.09.2025.
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE
16. Vide order dated 19.09.2025, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3 insurance company stated that no evidence was to be led on behalf of respondent no.3. Hence, RE was closed on that day on behalf of the respondent no.3. As mentioned earlier, respondents no. 1 and 2 are already ex-parte.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
17. The Petitioners filed his duly filled Form XIII and the financial statements of all the petitioners were recorded. Final arguments were heard on behalf of the petitioners as well as respondents.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
18. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and Ld. Counsel for respondents and perused the record. My findings on the various issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? (OPP)
19. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners. In the present matter, the factum of the accident being caused by the respondent no.1 is not in dispute. The respondent no.3 filed its Legal Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA Date:
SINGLA 2025.11.14 15:42:24 MACT No.839/2024 Rajesh (Through LRs) vs. Ajit Singh and Ors. Page 7 of 35 +0530 Offer. Hence, the factum of accident, the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.1 and death of the deceased subsequent to the accident is not required to be proved. Hence, 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.11.14 MACT No.839/2024 Rajesh (Through LRs) vs. Ajit Singh and Ors. Page 8 of 35 15:42:28 +0530 he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step 3 (Actual calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the `loss of dependency' to the family. Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of 5,000/- to 10,000/- should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also added."
QUA ADDITIONS "11. ..................... In view of imponderables 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.11.14 15:42:32 +0530 MACT No.839/2024 Rajesh (Through LRs) vs. Ajit Singh and Ors. Page 9 of 35 exceptional cases involving special circumstances."
QUA DEDUCTIONS "14. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-
fourth (1/3rd) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six.
15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.14 15:42:37 +0530 MACT No.839/2024 Rajesh (Through LRs) vs. Ajit Singh and Ors. Page 10 of 35 (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."
20. 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 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:MACT No.839/2024 Rajesh (Through LRs) vs. Ajit Singh and Ors. Page 11 of 35
2025.11.14 15:42:42 +0530 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. 31,001/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years."
Loss of income
21. In the present matter, it is alleged that at the time of the accident, the deceased was doing a private job at JP Hotels and Resorts as Senior GS Assistant and that he was getting salary of Rs.36,614/- pm. It is also stated that he was doing free lancing work and was earning about Rs.35,000/- pm. Hence, it is stated that at the time of the death of the deceased, his annual income was about Rs.8,59,368/-. To prove the RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.14 15:42:46 +0530 MACT No.839/2024 Rajesh (Through LRs) vs. Ajit Singh and Ors. Page 12 of 35 same, the petitioners have relied upon the salary slip of the deceased which is proved on record as Ex. PW1/4. Further the petitioners have relied upon the statements of PW2 Rajiv Bidla and PW3 Kunal Kumar, who have deposed on oath that they were involved in business transactions with the deceased Rajesh Kumar. They have further stated that they were doing business of Tent House and Property Dealing respectively and that the deceased used to bring clients to them. Further they have stated that they used to pay him commission. Hence, it is submitted that the income of the deceased has been proved.
22. Further, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Ramya & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 7046 of 2022 decided on 30.09.2022. It is submitted that in the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that while deciding quantum of compensation, a liberal approach should be taken. The compensation must be fair, reasonable and equitable and not bound by rigid arithmetic rules.
23. Per contra, it is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 that though the salary slip of the deceased which is Ex. PW1/4 is not disputed but as such there is no separate evidence to prove his free lance/additional income. It is submitted that PW2 Rajiv Bidla and PW3 Kunal Kumar have given a general statement but the income proof is not on record. Further, he specifically asked LRs of the deceased who appeared in the witness box regarding the ITR of the deceased but no ITRs were filed on record. Hence, it is submitted that Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: SINGLA 2025.11.14 MACT No.839/2024 Rajesh (Through LRs) vs. Ajit Singh and Ors. Page 13 of 35 15:42:52 +0530 the income of the deceased be taken as per his last salary slip only.
24. Record perused.
25. As stated, the salary slip of the deceased as issued by the JP Hotels and Resorts is not disputed. As per his latest salary slip for the month of August 2024, his gross monthly income was Rs.36,614/-. After deductions his net payable income was Rs.31,001/-.
26. Now it is alleged by the petitioners that apart from this income, he was earning another sum of Rs.35000/- from his private work. To prove the same, the petitioners have relied upon the statements of PW2 Rajiv Bidla and PW3 Kunal Kumar. The petitioners as PW1, PW4 to PW6 have also given similar statement to this effect. However, as pointed out by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3, no documentary proof of the same is placed on record. Despite asking the question by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3, the deceased's ITR was not placed on record. In case the petitioners' claim is considered to be correct, then the monthly income of the deceased would have been about Rs.65,000/- to Rs.70,000/- pm which shall clearly imply that he should have been an income tax assessee. Even as per the salary slip of the deceased, his annual income was about Rs.4,32,000/- which again makes him an income tax assessee. However, still his ITR was not placed on record.
27. Even otherwise, as pointed out by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3, no specific amount has been mentioned by the witnesses. The amount which has been mentioned is a conjecture/guess Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.11.14 MACT No.839/2024 Rajesh (Through LRs) vs. Ajit Singh and Ors. Page 14 of 35 15:42:58 +0530 work. Not even one such transaction between the deceased and PW2 and PW3 is proved on record. Hence, the same cannot be considered. Further, the petitioners relied upon the bank account statement of the deceased to prove his additional income. However, the bank account statement does not show that any amount was credited by PW2 and PW3.
28. Further, any other random credit in the bank account statement cannot be considered as income unless a corroborative proof of the same is filed. In the K. Ramya judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while relying on its previous decisions in Amrit Bhanu Shali v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2012) 11 SCC 738 and Kalpanaraj v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (2015) 2 SCC 764, has observed that documents such as income tax returns and audit reports are reliable evidence to determine the income of the deceased. At the cost of repetition, despite the fact that the deceased would have been an income tax assessee, his ITRs were not proved on record. No effort was made to summon the said record. In view of the same, in the absence of any substantive proof of the same, the court in not inclined to accept that apart from his monthly salary, he was deriving any other income as well. Hence, the income of the deceased has to be assessed as per the salary drawn by him from his job.
29. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 held that for calculating compensation, the income of the victim less the income tax should be treated as the actual income. Further, in case titled as Universal Sompo Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.11.14 MACT No.839/2024 Rajesh (Through LRs) vs. Ajit Singh and Ors. Page 15 of 35 15:43:04 +0530 General Insurance vs Sh. Dinesh Kumar Singh & Ors MAC.APP. 106/2025 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 9 June, 2025, it has been observed that the Tribunal must deduct applicable income tax and other permissible statutory deductions from the gross income of the deceased while computing compensation payable to the petitioner.
30. In view of the same, considering that the total standard deductions of the deceased were Rs. 5613/- as per his salary slip Ex. PW1/4, his monthly income is assessed to be Rs.31001/-.
Age determination of the deceased:
31. As per the aadhar card of the deceased, his date of birth was 18.03.1973. The date of the accident is 21.08.2024. Hence, as on the date of the accident, the deceased was aged 51 years.
Future Prospects: -
32. In view of the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors; (2017) 16 SCC 680, it was observed that the Claimants would also be entitled to 10% for future prospects.
Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased needs to be taken as Rs. 34,101.10 (rounded off to Rs. 34,102/-) (Rs. 31,001/- + Rs. 3,100.10 which is 10% of Rs. 31,001/-).
Determination of Dependent
33. In the present case, the deceased is survived by his wife, 2 major sons and one major daughter. It has been stated that one major son Karan and the major daughter Megha were not financially dependent on Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: SINGLA 2025.11.14 MACT No.839/2024 Rajesh (Through LRs) vs. Ajit Singh and Ors. Page 16 of 35 15:43:09 +0530 the deceased but the wife and major son Arjun were financially dependent on the deceased. Hence, they shall be considered as dependents.
Determination of multiplicand
34. The monthly income of the deceased after enhancement needs to be taken as Rs. 34,102/-. 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. 22,734.66 (rounded off to Rs. 22,735/-) (2/3rd of Rs. 34,102/-). This needs to be multiplied by 11 to workout multiplicand/annual loss of dependency. Hence, multiplicand for this matter would be Rs. 2,72,820/- ( Rs. 22,735 x 12).
Award Towards Loss of Dependency
35. Further, as the deceased was 51 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.30,01,020/- (Rs. 2,72,820/- x 11), hence, so awarded.
Medical expenses:
36. The petitioners have not filed any medical bills on record. Hence, in the absence of any medical bills, the petitioners shall not be Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
MACT No.839/2024 Rajesh (Through LRs) vs. Ajit Singh and Ors. Page 17 of 352025.11.14 15:43:35 +0530 entitled to any amount towards medical expenses.
Non-Pecuniary Heads:-
37. The Respondents/Claimants shall be entitled to the compensation under Non-Pecuniary Heads in terms of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi And Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. The case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) was considered and clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 9581/2018 decided on 18.09.2018 whereby after considering the case of Pranay Sethi's (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to award loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/- to each dependent of the deceased and further pleased to award a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to each dependent of the deceased towards loss of love and affection. The relevant portion is as under:
"...... A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of Consortium.
In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses 'spousal consortium', 'parental consortium', and 'filial consortium'.
The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse.
Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.11.14 15:43:41 MACT No.839/2024 Rajesh (Through LRs) vs. Ajit Singh and Ors. Page 18 of 35 +0530 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.
Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognized that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium.
Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act.
A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium.
The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.11.14 MACT No.839/2024 Rajesh (Through LRs) vs. Ajit Singh and Ors. Page 19 of 35 15:43:46 +0530 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.31,001 each for loss of Filial Consortium.....".
38. However, in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur 2020 SCC Online SC 410 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that there is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head. The relevant portion of the observations are reproduced as under:
"...... The amount to be awarded for loss consortium will be as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra). At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide uniformity with respect to the grant of consortium, and loss of love and affection. Several Tribunals and High Courts have been awarding compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), has recognized only three conventional heads under which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in loss of consortium.
The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to award compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate conventional head. There is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head...".
39. 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.11.14 15:43:52 MACT No.839/2024 Rajesh (Through LRs) vs. Ajit Singh and Ors. Page 20 of 35 +0530 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.
40. In the present case, the accident is of 2024 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.
41. Further, Rs. 48,400/- each is granted to the petitioners i.e. total of Rs. 48,400 x 4 = Rs. 1,93,600/- towards Loss of Consortium.
Computation of compensation:
42. Applying the settled guidelines in the various judgments, the compensation payable to the petitioners is calculated as under:
Head Awarded by the Claims Tribunal Monthly Income of deceased (A) Rs. 31,001/- Add future prospect (B) @ 10%= Rs. 3,101/- Less 1/3 deductions towards (Rs. 31,001/- + Rs. 3,101/-) = Rs. personal and living expenses of the 34,102/- x 1/3 = Rs. 11,367.33 deceased (C) Monthly loss of dependency (Rs. 31,001/- + Rs. 16,000/-) - Rs. [(A+B) - C = D] 11,367.33 = Rs. 22,734.66 (rounded off to Rs. 22,735/-) Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 22,735/- x 12= Rs. 2,72,820/- (D x 12) Multiplier (E) 11 Total loss of dependency (Rs. 2,72,820/- x 11) = Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.11.14 15:43:58 +0530 MACT No.839/2024 Rajesh (Through LRs) vs. Ajit Singh and Ors. Page 21 of 35 DxE=F Rs.30,01,020/-
Medical Expenses (G) Nil Compensation for loss of love and Nil. affection (H) Compensation for loss of Rs. 48,400 x 4 = Rs. 1,93,600/- consortium (I) to the petitioners Compensation for loss of Estate (J) Rs. 18,150/- Compensation for funeral expenses Rs. 18,150/- (K) Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 32,30,920/-
43. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld awarding of 9% interest per annum. Therefore, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 21.11.2024 till realization.
Apportionment:
44. It is evident from the record that the deceased had left behind his 4 legal heirs i.e. his wife and three children. Hence, the funeral charges and loss of estate charges are awarded to his wife. For the sake of convenience, the individual shares of the dependents of the deceased are tabulated as under:-
S.No. Name of the Relation Amount in Total amount claimant with (Rupees) including interest deceased Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.11.14 MACT No.839/2024 Rajesh (Through LRs) vs. Ajit Singh and Ors. Page 22 of 35 15:44:04 +0530
1. Smt. Sonia Wife Rs.20,01,020/- + Rs. 20,85,720/- + Botli Rs. 48,400/- + Rs. Rs. 1,84,114.79 = 18,150/- + Rs. Rs. 22,69,834.79 18,150 = Rs. (rounded off to Rs.
20,85,720/- 22,69,835/-)
2. Sh. Karan Son Rs. 48,400/- Rs. 48,400/- + Rs.
Botli 4,272.46 = Rs.
52,672.46 (rounded
off to Rs. 52,673/-)
3. Sh. Arjun Botli Son Rs.10,00,000/- + Rs. 10,48,400/- +
Rs. 48,400/- = Rs. Rs. 92,546.43 = Rs.
10,48,400/- 11,40,946.43
(rounded off to Rs.
11,40,947/-)
4. Ms. Megha Daughter Rs. 48,400/- Rs. 48,400/- + Rs.
Botli 4,272.46 = Rs.
52,672.46 (rounded
off to Rs. 52,673/-)
DISBURSEMENT
45. 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. 60,000/- to Rs. 70,000/- per month.
46. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors. has given the following directions:
"(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amountRUCHIKA shall be SINGLA Digitally signed by MACT No.839/2024 Rajesh (Through LRs) vs. Ajit Singh and Ors. Page 23 of 35 RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.14 15:44:11 +0530 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.
(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."
47. 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.11.14 15:44:16 +0530 MACT No.839/2024 Rajesh (Through LRs) vs. Ajit Singh and Ors. Page 24 of 35 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, 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."
48. 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.11.14 15:44:22 +0530 MACT No.839/2024 Rajesh (Through LRs) vs. Ajit Singh and Ors. Page 25 of 35 complied with.
Smt. Sonia Botli (Wife):
49. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners, it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 35,16,128/-, out of the share of the petitioner/mother Smt. Sonia Botli Rs. 22,69,835/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Five only), Rs. 5,69,835/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Five only) shall be released to the petitioner/wife immediately in her Bank Account no.04871000047890, Punjab & Sind Bank, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi IFSC Code:PSIB0000487, Customer ID : 016426291.
50. The balance amount of Rs.17,00,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lacs only) shall be put in 25 monthly fixed deposits in her name in her account as mentioned above of equal amount of Rs. 68,000/- (Rupees Sixty Eight Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 25 respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in her saving account maintained in a nationalized bank situated near the place of her residence.
Sh. Karan Botli (son):
51. On realization of the award amount, out of the share of the petitioner, the entire amount of Rs. 52,673/- (Rupees Fifty Two Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Three only) shall be released to the Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
MACT No.839/2024 Rajesh (Through LRs) vs. Ajit Singh and Ors. Page 26 of 352025.11.14 15:44:30 +0530 petitioner/son immediately in his Bank Account no.04871000047735, Punjab & Sind Bank, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi IFSC Code:PSIB0000487, Customer ID : 016232513.
Sh. Arjun Botli (son):
52. On realization of the award amount, out of the share of the petitioner of Rs. 11,40,947/-, an amount of Rs. 3,40,947/- (Rupees Three Lacs Forty Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Seven only) shall be released to the petitioner/son immediately in his Bank Account no.04871000049077, Punjab & Sind Bank, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi IFSC Code:PSIB0000487, Customer ID : 017513935.
53. The balance amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) shall be put in 20 monthly fixed deposits in his name in his account as mentioned above of equal amount of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 20 respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in his saving account maintained in a nationalized bank situated near the place of his residence.
Ms. Megha Botli (daughter):
54. On realization of the award amount, out of the share of the petitioner, the entire amount of Rs. 52,673/- (Rupees Fifty Two Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Three only) shall be released to the petitioner/daughter immediately in her Bank Account no.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKARUCHIKA SINGLA Date: SINGLA 2025.11.14 15:44:35 MACT No.839/2024 Rajesh (Through LRs) vs. Ajit Singh and Ors. Page 27 of 35 +0530 04871000050059, Punjab & Sind Bank, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi IFSC Code:PSIB0000487, Customer ID : 018683684.
55. 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: 21.08.2024
Name of the deceased: Rajesh Kumar
Age of the deceased: 51 years
Occupation of the deceased: Private Job
Income of the
deceased : Rs. 31,001/- p.m.
Name and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No. Name of the claimant Relation with deceased
1. Smt. Sonia Botli Wife
2. Karan Botli Son
3. Arjun Botli Son
4. Megha Botli Daughter COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION Sr. Head Awarded by the Claims Tribunal No. 1 Monthly Income of deceased Rs. 31,001/-
(A) Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.11.14 15:44:41 +0530 MACT No.839/2024 Rajesh (Through LRs) vs. Ajit Singh and Ors. Page 28 of 35 2 Add future prospect (B) @ 10%= Rs. 3,101/- 3 Less 1/3 deductions towards (Rs. 31,001/- + Rs. 3,101/-) = Rs.
personal and living expenses of 34,102/- x 1/3 = Rs. 11,367.33 the deceased (C) 4 Monthly loss of dependency (Rs. 31,001/- + Rs. 16,000/-) - Rs.
[(A+B) - C = D] 11,367.33 = Rs. 22,734.66 (rounded off to Rs. 22,735/-) 5 Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 22,735/- x 12= Rs. 2,72,820/-
(D x 12)
6 Multiplier (E) 11
7 Total loss of dependency (Rs. 2,72,820/- x 11) =
DxE=F Rs.30,01,020/-
8 Medical Expenses (G) Nil
9 Compensation for loss of love Nil.
and affection (H)
10 Compensation for loss of Rs. 48,400 x 4 = Rs. 1,93,600/-
consortium (I) to 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. 32,30,920/-
14 Rate of Interest Awarded 9%
15 Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 2,85,208/-
award w.e.f. 21.11.2024 till
realization
16 Total amount including interest Rs. 35,16,128/-
17 Award amount released As per paragraph Nos.49 to 54
18 Award amount kept in FDRs As per paragraph Nos. 50 & 53
19 Mode of disbursement of the As per paragraph Nos. 49 to 54
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.11.14
15:44:53
+0530
MACT No.839/2024 Rajesh (Through LRs) vs. Ajit Singh and Ors. Page 29 of 35
award amount to the
claimant(s)
20 Next Date of compliance of the 15.12.2025
award
LIABILITY:
56. 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. Hence, the respondent no.3 shall be liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners. Issue No. 1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
57. In view of the above, the respondent no. 3 is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 32,30,920/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Thirty Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty only) along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. w.e.f. 21.11.2024 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.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.11.14 15:44:57 +0530 MACT No.839/2024 Rajesh (Through LRs) vs. Ajit Singh and Ors. Page 30 of 35
58. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurance company for compliance within the time granted as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. The said respondent is further directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the deposit with a copy to the Claimant and his counsel.
Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost.
Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on 15.12.2025 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.11.14 15:45:16 +0530 MACT No.839/2024 Rajesh (Through LRs) vs. Ajit Singh and Ors. Page 31 of 35 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court today on this 14th November, 2025 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.11.14 15:45:02 +0530 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.MACT No.839/2024 Rajesh (Through LRs) vs. Ajit Singh and Ors. Page 32 of 35
THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL MOTOR VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022 (PL. SEE RULE 150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 21.08.2024 2 Date of filing of Form-I -
First Accident Report 23.08.2024
(FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II
19.09.2024
to the victim(s)
4 Date of receipt of Form-III
09.10.2024
from the Driver
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV
from the Owner 09.10.2024
6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the insurance 09.10.2024
of the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-
21.11.2024
VIA from the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII -
21.11.2024
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 22.11.2024
Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company admitted his No. Legal Offer was filed on behalf of R3 on report within 30 days of the 19.04.2025 DAR/claim petition?
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.11.14 15:45:23 +0530 MACT No.839/2024 Rajesh (Through LRs) vs. Ajit Singh and Ors. Page 33 of 35 12 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the Yes part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13 Date of response of the NA claimant(s) to the offer of the Insurance Company.
14 Date of award 14.11.2025 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 21.11.2024 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 12.11.2025 alongwith the endorsement, PAN card and Aadhaar Card? 18 Permanent residential Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.14 15:45:28 +0530 MACT No.839/2024 Rajesh (Through LRs) vs. Ajit Singh and Ors. Page 34 of 35 address of the claimant(s). As per Award. 19 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) is No near their place of residence? 20 Whether the Claimant(s) were examined at the time
Yes. The Financial Statements of the claimants of passing of the Award to were recorded on 27.10.2025 & 12.11.2025 ascertain his/their financial condition?Digitally signed by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.11.14 15:45:32 +0530 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
14.11.2025 MACT No.839/2024 Rajesh (Through LRs) vs. Ajit Singh and Ors. Page 35 of 35