Delhi District Court
Swraj Kaur And Others vs Ranjeet And Ors. (United India Gic) on 30 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DR. SHIRISH AGGARWAL
PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-01, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
DLND010066022022
MACT No. 150/2022
1. Smt. Swaraj Kaur (Wife of deceased)
W/o Late Sh. Bhupinder Singh
2. Tavleen Kaur (Daughter of deceased)
D/o Late Sh. Bhupinder Singh
3. Karanjot Singh Chandok (Son of deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Bhupinder Singh
Petitioner no. 3 being minor
represented through his mother/natural guardian
Smt. Swaraj Kaur/petitioner no. 1.
All R/o WZ-425A, Tihar Village, Tilak Nagar,
Delhi-110018. .......Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Ranjeet (Driver)
S/o Sh. Tikam Singh,
R/o RZ-148, Jai Vihar, Najafgarh,
New Delhi.
2. Sh. Basant Kumar (now deceased) (Owner)
S/o Sh. Raksh Pal Singh,
R/o D-28, RZ Ishwar Colony, Arjun Park,
Najafgarh, Delhi-110043.
MACT No.150/2022
Swaraj Kaur & Ors. Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. 30.01.2026 Page 1/33
Permanent resident of 126, Village Sadhrana,
Tehsil Gurgaon, Haryana-122006.
3. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (Insurer)
B-39, Inner Circle, Connaught Place,
New Delhi-110001. .........Respondents
Date of filing of claim petition : 05.08.2022
Date of filing of DAR : 26.08.2022
Date of framing of issues : 11.03.2024
Date of concluding arguments : 27.01.2026
Date of decision : 30.01.2026
AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. The claim for compensation raised in the present claim
petition is in respect of fatal injuries alleged to have been sustained
by the deceased Sh. Bhupinder Singh in a motor accident that took
place on 16.06.2022 at about 05:50 AM, in front of Satbir Petrol
Pump Service Road, NH-8 towards Dhaula Kuan, New Delhi,
regarding which FIR No.309/22 was registered at PS Vasant Kunj
South.
2. The offending vehicle involved in this case is a car
bearing registration No. HR-55AJ-1120, which at the relevant time
of accident was being driven by respondent no. 1 Ranjeet, owned by
respondent no. 2 Basant Kumar and insured with respondent no. 3
United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Case of the petitioners
3. It is the case of the petitioners that on 16.06.2022, the
deceased was riding his scooty bearing registration No.
MACT No.150/2022
Swaraj Kaur & Ors. Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. 30.01.2026 Page 2/33
DL-4SDE-3485. At around 5:50 AM, when the deceased got out of
the petrol pump after getting petrol filled in his scooty, the
offending vehicle bearing registration No. HR-55AJ-1120, which
was being driven by respondent no. 1 at a high speed and in a rash
and negligent manner, came from behind and hit his scooty due to
which he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. It is further
stated that the deceased was taken to JPNA Trauma Centre, where
his MLC was prepared and he was declared brought dead by the
doctors.
Case of respondents no. 1 & 2
4. Respondents no. 1 and 2 did not file their reply/written
statement despite opportunity being given.
Case of respondent no. 3
5. Respondent no. 3 filed its written statement to the claim
petition. It is stated that the alleged offending vehicle was duly
insured with respondent no. 3 in the name of respondent no. 2 w.e.f.
29.10.2021 to 28.10.2022. It is further stated that in the FIR, it is
mentioned that number of alleged offending vehicle was not
unknown whereas in the chargesheet, it is stated that the number of
alleged offending vehicle is visible from the CCTV footage
available at the petrol pump. It is further stated that the police
officials have not investigated the matter in a proper manner to find
out the involvement of alleged offending vehicle.
Issues
6. On 11.03.2024, the following issues were framed by
this Tribunal :-
MACT No.150/2022
Swaraj Kaur & Ors. Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. 30.01.2026 Page 3/33
1. Whether the petitioner suffered injuries in a
vehicular accident that took place on 16.06.2022 at
about 05:50 a.m. in front of Satbir Petrol Pump
Service Road, NH-8 towards Dhaula Kuan, New
Delhi involving a vehicle bearing registration No.
HR-55AJ-1120 (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.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and from
whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
Petitioners' evidence
7. In support of their claim, the petitioner 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 Aadhaar card.
(ii). Ex. PW1/2 (OSR) is the copy of her PAN card.
(iii). Ex. PW1/3 (OSR) is the copy of Aadhaar card of petitioner
no.2.
(iv). Ex. PW1/4 (OSR) is the copy of PAN card of petitioner no. 2.
(v). Ex. PW1/5 (OSR) is the copy of Aadhaar card of petitioner
no.3.
(vi). Ex. PW1/6 (OSR) is the copy of PAN card of petitioner no. 3.
(vii). Ex. PW1/7 (OSR) is the copy of Aadhaar card of deceased.
(viii). Ex. PW1/8 (OSR) is the copy of PAN card of deceased.
(ix). Ex. PW1/9 (OSR) is the copy of driving license of deceased.
MACT No.150/2022
Swaraj Kaur & Ors. Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. 30.01.2026 Page 4/33
(x). Ex. PW1/10 (OSR) is the copy of registration certificate of
scooty bearing registration No. DL-4SDE-3485.
(xi). Mark Z (colly) are the income tax returns for the assessment
years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 & 2021-22.
(xii). Ex. PW1/12 (OSR) is the copy of death certificate of deceased.
(xiii). Ex. PW1/13 (colly) is the copy of rent agreement dated
24.08.2021.
(xiv). Mark A (colly) is the copy of rent agreement dated
04.11.2020.
(xv). Mark B (colly) is the copy of rent agreement dated 30.04.2019.
8. The petitioners examined Sh. Narender Singh Thakur,
Inspector from Income Tax Department, ITO, New Delhi as PW2
who has placed on record his authority letter as Ex. PW2/1 and
income tax returns for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19,
2020-21 & 2021-22 as Ex. PW2/2 (colly).
9. The petitioners also examined Sh. Ravi Kashyap, an
eye witness of the accident as PW3. He tendered his evidence by
way of affidavit as Ex. PW3/A and relied upon the copy of his
driving license as Ex. PW3/1 (OSR).
10. The petitioners also examined ASI Vishan Pal, the
Investigating Officer of the present matter as PW4.
11. All the witnesses were cross-examined and discharged.
Respondents'evidence
12. Respondent no. 3/Insurance Company examined Ms.
Apoorva Yashana, Administrative Officer from their Company as
R3W1. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.
MACT No.150/2022
Swaraj Kaur & Ors. Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. 30.01.2026 Page 5/33
R3W1/A and relied upon the following documents :-
(i). Ex.R3W1/1 is the attested copy of authority letter dated
06.08.2012.
(ii). Ex.R3W1/2 (colly) is the attested copy of insurance policy
along with terms and conditions.
(iii). Ex. R3W1/3 (colly) is the office copy of notice dated
15.10.2024 along with original postal receipts and original returned
envelope.
(iv). Ex. R3W1/4 (colly) is the office copy of notice dated
03.02.2025 along with original postal receipt and original returned
envelope with the endorsement "refused".
13. Respondent no. 3/Insurance Company examined Sh.
Ramveer Singh, Authorized Surveyor, Loss Assessor & Investigator
as R3W2. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.
R3W2/A and placed on record true copy of his authority letter dated
24.06.1999 as Ex.R3W2/1 (OSR) and true copy of investigation
reports dated 11.04.2024 as Ex.R3W2/2 (colly) (OSR).
14. Respondent no. 3/Insurance Company also examined
Sh. Om Prakash, Transport Sub-Inspector from RTA, Gurgram,
Haryana as R3W3 who has brought the record pertaining to permit
of vehicle bearing registration No. HR-55AJ-1120 as Ex. R3W3/1.
Findings
15. I have heard arguments and have carefully perused the
entire case record.
16. The findings on the aforementioned issues are rendered
hereinafter in the succeeding paragraphs.
MACT No.150/2022
Swaraj Kaur & Ors. Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. 30.01.2026 Page 6/33
ISSUE NO. 1 - Whether the petitioner suffered injuries in a
vehicular accident that took place on 16.06.2022 at about 05:50 a.m.
in front of Satbir Petrol Pump Service Road, NH-8 towards Dhaula
Kuan, New Delhi involving a vehicle bearing registration No.
HR-55AJ-1120 (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.
17. Onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners. The
petitioner no. 1 has examined herself as PW1. Since PW1 herself
admitted during cross-examination that she is not an eye witness to
the accident, her testimony cannot be considered for determining if
the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently.
18. The petitioners examined Sh. Ravi Kashyap, an eye
witness of the accident as PW3. He deposed that on 16.06.2022, he
was at Satbir Petrol Pump, Service Road, NH-8, New Delhi to take
CNG in his vehicle and at about 05:50 AM, when a scooty rider
(Sardar Ji) got out of the said petrol pump after getting the petrol
filled in his scooty, the driver of Maruti Celerio car bearing
registration No. HR-55AJ-1120, who was coming from Gurugram
side, while driving his car rashly, negligently and at a very high
speed, without blowing any horn, hit the scooty of Sardar Ji from
behind due to which Sardar Ji/rider of scooty fell down on the road
and sustained grievous injuries. He further deposed that he made a
call at 112 number, however, the driver of car ran away from the
spot along with his car. He further deposed that after some time,
PCR came at the spot and took the Sardar Ji to the hospital.
MACT No.150/2022
Swaraj Kaur & Ors. Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. 30.01.2026 Page 7/33
19. During cross-examination, he deposed that he cannot
tell the registration number or colour of that scooty. He volunteered
that the said scooty was completely damaged due to accident by the
car. He further deposed that the white colour Celerio car hit the
scooty from behind. He further deposed that he had noted down the
registration number of the offending car which was HR-55AJ-1120.
He further deposed that his statement was recorded by the police.
He further deposed that he can not identify the driver of said
offending car.
20. The petitioners also examined ASI Vishan Pal, the
Investigating Officer of the case as PW4. During the course of
investigation, he had prepared the site plan, seized victim's scooty
and offending Celerio car, given notice under Section 133 MV Act
to registered owner of the offending car, seized the driving license
of driver of the offending car, got conducted the mechanical
inspection of both the vehicles, given notice to Manager of Satbir
Filing Station to provide CCTV footage and recorded the statement
of witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He further deposed that the
accused Ranjeet was arrested and released on police bail. He further
deposed that the after completing investigation, the chargesheet was
filed before the concerned court and DAR was filed before this
Tribunal.
21. During cross-examination, he admitted that the
registration number of the offending vehicle is not mentioned in the
FIR and the registration number of offending vehicle could not be
ascertained from the CCTV footage of camera installed at the Satbir
MACT No.150/2022
Swaraj Kaur & Ors. Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. 30.01.2026 Page 8/33
Petrol Pump. He deposed that he came to know about the
registration number of the offending vehicle from the CCTV
footage of Satbir Petrol Pump and thereafter, from another CCTV
footage and from other investigation. He further admitted that the
statement of witness Ravi Kashyap recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. does not disclose the registration number of the offending
car.
22. During the course of final arguments, Ld. Counsel for
Insurance Company submitted that there is contradiction in the
statement of eye witness recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and in
the testimony of witness recorded as PW3.
23. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for petitioners has relied
upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Chamundeswari & Ors., Civil
Appeal No. 6151 of 2021, decided on 01.10.2021 wherein it was
held that if any evidence before the Tribunal runs contrary to the
contents in the First Information Report, the evidence which is
recorded before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the
contents of the First Information Report.
24. In view of this decision, the testimony of PW3 recorded
in the present case is to be given precedence over his statement
which was recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
25. In this context, what is most significant to note that the
respondents have not led any evidence to prove that it was not the
Celerio car of respondent no. 2 which was involved in the accident.
26. Rule 25 of Annexure XIII of the Central Motor
MACT No.150/2022
Swaraj Kaur & Ors. Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. 30.01.2026 Page 9/33
Vehicles Rules, 1989 provides as under :-
"25. Duty of Insurance Companies to verify the claim - The
Insurance Companies are duty bound to verify the
correctness/genuineness of every claim. The Insurance Companies
shall direct their owner officer(s) or appoint an investigator or
surveyor to verify the claim.
If the statements made in the DAR are found to be
incorrect, the Designated Officer shall send the copy of the
report of the surveyor/investigator to the Deputy
Commissioner of Police concerned. If the Insurance
Company, upon investigation, finds a case of fake accident,
the Insurance Company shall be at liberty to file an
application before the Deputy Commissioner of Police
concerned to requisition the call detail record (CDR) of
driver of the offending vehicle."
27. In the present case, Mr. R.V. Singh examined as R3W2
was the Investigator appointed by the Insurance Company to verify
the correctness and genuineness of the claim. He was deputed to
verify the statements made in the DAR.
28. Admittedly, the Insurance Company has not made any
complaint to the concerned DCP about the alleged incorrect
involvement of the Celerio car of respondent no. 2.
29. The said witness has not stated anything about the
Celerio car in question not being involved in the accident. Infact,
during cross-examination of Ms. Apoorva Yashana, Authorized
Representative of Insurance Company, she categorically deposed
that Mr. R.V. Singh found everything to be correct except the
validity of authorization for the area in which the accident took
place.
30. Therefore, it is not even the case of Insurance Company
that the vehicle of respondent no. 2 was not the vehicle which was
MACT No.150/2022
Swaraj Kaur & Ors. Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. 30.01.2026 Page 10/33
involved in the accident. The mechanical inspection report of the
vehicle of respondent no. 2 discloses that the vehicle had fresh
damages on the front side. No evidence has been led to explain how
the vehicle was freshly damaged on the front side. The only
inference that can be drawn is that the vehicle would have got
damaged due to the accident which led to death of Sardar Bhupinder
Singh.
31. It is explicit from the conjoint reading of testimony of
PW3, R3W1 and R3W2 that the accident had indeed taken place
with the Celerio car of respondent no. 2. Nothing material could be
elicited from their cross-examination to disbelieve or discard their
testimony. The testimony of PW3 has been duly corroborated with
the DAR filed by the IO.
32. Reliance is being placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble
Delhi High Court in case Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Vs. Meera Devi & ors., 2021 LawSuit (Del) 2021 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."
33. 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.
MACT No.150/2022
Swaraj Kaur & Ors. Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. 30.01.2026 Page 11/33
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.
34. 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
petitioners and the petitioners were merely to establish their case on
the touchstone of preponderance of probability.
35. Pertinently, respondent no. 1 himself was the best
witness who could have stepped into the witness box to rebut his
involvement in the aforesaid accident, which he has failed to do.
Therefore, an adverse inference is drawn against the respondent
no.1/driver in terms of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
passed in the case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
36. In view of foregoing discussion, it stands proved on
touchstone of preponderance of probability that Sardar Bhupinder
Singh sustained fatal injuries in the accident which took place due
to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing
MACT No.150/2022
Swaraj Kaur & Ors. Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. 30.01.2026 Page 12/33
registration no. HR-55AJ-1120 and the said vehicle at that time was
driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured
by respondent no.3. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the
petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2 - Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
37. As rashness and negligence on part of driver of the
offending vehicle/respondent No. 1 has been proved, the petitioners
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 petitioners are entitled shall be under the heads as discussed
hereinafter.
(i) Loss of dependency
38. The petitioner no. 1 being wife of the deceased 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
husband was doing his tiffin supply business and was earning more
than Rs.60,000/- per month. Besides this, he also used to pick and
drop passenger/captain on his scooty as provided by Rapido and his
total income was around Rs.75,000/- per month. She has tendered
on record the income tax returns of her deceased husband for the
assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 & 2021-22 as Mark Z
(colly).
39. In order to prove the same, the petitioners examined Sh.
Narender Singh Thakur, Inspector from Income Tax Department as
MACT No.150/2022
Swaraj Kaur & Ors. Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. 30.01.2026 Page 13/33
PW2 who has brought the record pertaining to income tax returns of
deceased for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 &
2021-22 as Ex. PW2/2 (colly). He deposed that as per record, the
income tax return for the assessment year 2021-22 was filed on
26.11.2021 for a total sum of Rs.4,98,260/- and a sum of
Rs.12,413/- was paid as advance income tax which was refundable.
He further deposed that the deceased was not having the income
which is taxable as the same was below Rs. Five Lakhs.
40. During the course of final arguments, Ld. Counsel for
petitioners submitted that the last ITR of deceased should be taken
for the purpose of calculation of compensation and in this regard, he
has relied upon the Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case
titled as Vijay Kumar Rastogi Vs. Uttar Pradesh State Roadways
Transport Corporation, 2018 LawSuit (SC) 159 as well as upon the
Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Rajbala &
Ors. Vs. Krishan Kumar Sharma & Ors., MAC Appeal No.
120/2022, decided on 11.07.2023.
41. In view of above Judgments, the Tribunal deems it
appropriate to consider the last income tax returns of the deceased
for the purpose of calculations in the present matter. As per last
income tax returns for the assessment year 2021-22, the total annual
income of deceased was Rs.4,98,260/- and no tax was deducted.
Hence, the monthly income of deceased comes out to be Rs.41,522/-
(rounded off) (Rs.4,98,260/12).
42. In order to prove the age of deceased, PW1 has
tendered on record copy of Aadhaar card and PAN card of deceased
MACT No.150/2022
Swaraj Kaur & Ors. Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. 30.01.2026 Page 14/33
in which the date of birth of deceased is found recorded as
30.09.1976. Hence, going by these documents, the age of deceased
comes to around 45 years, 8 months and 17 days on the date of
accident.
43. In the case of Sheeba @ Shiva Vs. TATA AIG General
Insurance Co. Ltd. MAC Appeal No. 229/2021, decided by the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 20.07.2023, the following was
held :-
"10. In Shashikala and Ors. v. Gangalakshmamma
and Anr., 2015 ACJ 1239, relied upon by the learned
counsel for the appellant, it has been held as under:
"17. Insofar as appropriate multiplier, the
date of birth of the deceased as per driving
licence was 16.6.1961. On the date of
accident, i.e., 14.12.2006, the deceased
was aged 45 years, 5 months and 28 days
and the Tribunal has taken the age as 46
years. Since the deceased has completed
only 45 years, the High Court has rightly
taken the age of the deceased as 45 years
and adopted multiplier of 14 which is the
appropriate multiplier and the same is
maintained. The total loss of dependency
is calculated at Rs.16,82,310 (Rs.1,20,165
x 14)."
11. In Navin Parcha & Ors. v. Deepak Kumar & Ors.,
Neutral Citation No- 2019:DHC:4441, this Court has
also held that where the deceased had not attained the
age of 31 years, which is a next slab, the multiplier
applicable to the previous slab would be applied.
12. Though in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Meenakshi & Ors., Neutral Citation
No-2012:DHC:3735, relied upon by the learned
counsel for the respondent no.1, it has been held that
to apply the judgment of Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav
MACT No.150/2022
Swaraj Kaur & Ors. Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. 30.01.2026 Page 15/33
(1996) 3 SCC 179, purposely, the multiplier has to be
taken as per the age which is nearer to the birth on the
date of the accident, in view of the subsequent
judgment in Shashikala (supra), I am bound by the
judgment of the Supreme Court.
13. Taking into account the multiplier as prescribed in
Sarla Dixit (supra), and taking the age of the appellant
as 25 years for purposes of the multiplier slab
stipulated therein, it is held that the multiplier to be
adopted was 18, which is applicable to the age group
of 21-25, and the learned Tribunal has erred in
adopting the multiplier of 17 for determining
compensation. The Impugned Award is modified to
the above limited extent."
44. In view of the above Judgment of Hon'ble High Court
of Delhi, the age of claimant will be taken as 45 years for the
purpose of multiplier slab which will fall in the age group of 41-45
years. 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 '14' is applicable in the
present case.
45. Now coming to calculation of loss of dependency, the
present claim petition has been filed by the three petitioners, i.e.
wife and children of deceased. Hence, in terms of law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors.
(Supra) and Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), 1/3rd earnings of deceased
shall be deducted towards his personal and living expenses.
MACT No.150/2022
Swaraj Kaur & Ors. Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. 30.01.2026 Page 16/33
46. In view of the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi
(Supra), the petitioners are also held entitled to addition of 25% of
earning of the deceased towards future prospects. Thus, the loss of
dependency in the present case comes to Rs.58,13,080/-
(Rs.41,522/- X 12 X 14 X 2/3 X 125/100).
(ii) COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY HEADS
47. 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, MACT No.150/2022 Swaraj Kaur & Ors. Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. 30.01.2026 Page 17/33 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...''
48. In terms of propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the petitioners 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 petitioners 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'.
49. 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 petitioner 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.
50. 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.MACT No.150/2022 Swaraj Kaur & Ors. Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. 30.01.2026 Page 18/33
44,000/- + (10% of Rs. 44,000/-) = Rs. 48,400/- X 3 = 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/-.
51. Therefore, the total compensation towards the non pecuniary heads comes to Rs.1,81,500/-.
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
52. In view of finding on issue number 2, the petitioners are held entitled to a sum of Rs.59,94,580/- (Rupees Fifty Nine Lakh Ninety Four Thousand Five Hundred Eighty only) (Rs.58,13,080/- + Rs.1,81,500/-) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. 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
53. Out of the awarded amount, 80% share is being awarded to the petitioner no. 1, i.e. wife of deceased and the remaining 10% share each is being awarded to petitioners no. 2 and 3, i.e. children of deceased.
RELEASE
54. Out of amount awarded to the petitioner no. 1, 90% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, MACT No.150/2022 Swaraj Kaur & Ors. Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. 30.01.2026 Page 19/33 New Delhi in the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in form of 175 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 175 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 05.08.2022 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.
55. Petitioner no. 3 has attained the age of majority. Accordingly, out of amount awarded to the petitioners no. 2 and 3 each, 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 50 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 50 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 their respective savings/MACT Claims SB Accounts, opened/to be opened near the place of their residence, as directed MACT No.150/2022 Swaraj Kaur & Ors. Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. 30.01.2026 Page 20/33 vide order dated 05.08.2022 and the remaining 10% amount each is also directed to be released into their above said accounts, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by them.
56. The disbursement to the petitioners 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.
57. The bank shall not permit any joint names to be added in the savings bank accounts or MACAD scheme accounts of petitioners i.e. the bank account of petitioners shall be individual account and not a joint account.
58. 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 petitioners and the above amount shall be released in accounts of petitioners by the Manager, UCO Bank, PHC, ND through RTGS/NEFT/or any other electronic mode.
59. The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank accounts of the petitioners near the place of their residence.
60. 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 petitioners.
61. No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the MACAD without permission of the MACT No.150/2022 Swaraj Kaur & Ors. Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. 30.01.2026 Page 21/33 Court.
62. The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to petitioners. 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 petitioners so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the petitioners from any other branch of the bank.
63. The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the petitioners 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 petitioners shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
64. 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 petitioners is sufficient compliance of clause above.
LIABILITY
65. During the course of final arguments, Ld. Counsel for Insurance Company submitted that the alleged offending vehicle was being driven in Delhi without a valid permit for Delhi on the date of accident.
66. In order to prove the same, the Insurance Company examined Ms. Apoorva Yashana, Administrative Officer from their MACT No.150/2022 Swaraj Kaur & Ors. Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. 30.01.2026 Page 22/33 Company as R3W1. She deposed that the permit issued by State Transport Department, RTA, Gurugram, Haryana was valid only the period 09.12.2020 to 08.12.2021 which does not cover the date of accident. She further deposed that the accident took place in Delhi and there is no permit in respect of said vehicle for the State of Delhi at the time of accident. She deposed that notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC was issued to LR of owner of the offending vehicle on 15.10.2024 to produce the documents related to validity of permit, however, the said notice was returned back unserved. She further deposed that another notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC proved as Ex. R3W1/4 was issued to LR of owner of the offending vehicle on 03.02.2025 which was returned back with the remark 'refused' and therefore, it is clear that the owner is well aware that the offending vehicle was running on road without permit.
67. During cross-examination, she deposed that as per report of Investigator, everything is found to be correct except the validity of authorization for the area in which the accident took place.
68. The Insurance Company also examined Sh. Ramveer Singh, Surveyor as R3W2. He deposed that during investigation, he found that the State permit of the vehicle bearing registration No. HR-55AJ-1120 was valid on the date of accident but authorization permit/validity of the said vehicle was not valid on the date of accident. He deposed that as per Extract Report received from the concerned RTO/Authority, the validity of permit was from 09.12.2020 to 08.12.2025, which covers the date of accident, MACT No.150/2022 Swaraj Kaur & Ors. Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. 30.01.2026 Page 23/33 however, it was a State permit. He further deposed that the authorization is required to enter into other States.
69. The Insurance Company also examined Sh. Om Prakash, Transport Sub-Inspector from RTA, Gurugram, Haryana as R3W3 who deposed that as per record, the said vehicle is having Haryana permit for the period w.e.f. 09.12.2020 to 08.12.2025 and All India Permit was valid w.e.f. 09.12.2020 to 08.12.2021.
70. In view of the above testimony, it is evident that there was no permit of the Celerio car bearing registration No. HR-55AJ-1120 to be driven in Delhi.
71. In National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Chella Bharathamma & Ors (2004) 8 SCC 517, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the view of High Court was unjustified inasmuch as the High Court held that in case of no permit, the question of violation of any condition does not arise. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that a person without permit to ply a vehicle cannot be placed at a better pedestal vis-a-vis one who has a permit, but has violated any condition thereof. It has been further observed that plying of a vehicle without a permit is an infraction, therefore, in terms of Section 149(2) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, defence is available to the insurer on that aspect. It was held that considering the beneficial object of the Act, the insurer was directed to satisfy the award, with liberty to recover the amount from the insured.
72. Similar view was taken in the case of Rani vs National Insurance Company Ltd., 2018 ACJ 2430 wherein the principal issue raised by the Insurance Company was that the Tribunal could MACT No.150/2022 Swaraj Kaur & Ors. Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. 30.01.2026 Page 24/33 not have fastened the liability on the insurer as the offending vehicle did not possess a valid permit to operate in the State of Karnataka and the permit was limited to the State of Maharashtra. In the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court directed the Insurance Company to first pay the compensation amount to the respective claimants with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.
73. In the case of New India Assurance Co., Ltd., vs Yallavva, M.F.A. No. 30131 of 2010, decided by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court on 12.05.2020, there was a breach of insurance policy. However, it was held that the Insurance Company must pay to the third party and then recover from the insured.
74. 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.
75. The Tribunal is of the view that even through 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 Devi & Ors., FAO No. 1780 of 2024, decided by the Hon'ble High MACT No.150/2022 Swaraj Kaur & Ors. Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. 30.01.2026 Page 25/33 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".
76. 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".
77. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while granting compensation, the tribunal and the High Court ought to have MACT No.150/2022 Swaraj Kaur & Ors. Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. 30.01.2026 Page 26/33 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".
78. 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.
79. 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.
80. 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 claim petition 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, respondent no. 3 fails to deposit this compensation with interest, in MACT No.150/2022 Swaraj Kaur & Ors. Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. 30.01.2026 Page 27/33 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/-.
81. The respondent no.3 shall inform the petitioners and their counsels through registered post that the awarded amount has been deposited so as to facilitate them to collect the same.
82. 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.
83. 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.
84. 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 16.06.2022
2. Date of filing of Form I- First N.A. Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the N.A. victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from N.A. the Driver MACT No.150/2022 Swaraj Kaur & Ors. Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. 30.01.2026 Page 28/33
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from N.A. the owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- N.A. Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and N.A. Form VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filingForm-VII-
of 26.08.2022 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 Legal offer not filed petitioner(s) of the offer of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 30.01.2026
15. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which 05.08.2022 MACT No.150/2022 Swaraj Kaur & Ors. Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. 30.01.2026 Page 29/33 petitioner(s) 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 petitioner (s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17. Date on which the petitioner(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 petitioner(s)
19. Whether the petitioner(s) savings Yet to furnish bank account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
85. File be consigned to record room after compliance of necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 30.04.2026. Digitally signed by SHIRISH SHIRISH AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 16:29:01 +0530 Announced in the open court (Shirish Aggarwal) on 30.01.2026 PO/MACT-01, New Delhi Encl: SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM XV MACT No.150/2022 Swaraj Kaur & Ors. Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. 30.01.2026 Page 30/33 SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM XV
1. Date of accident 16.06.2022
2. Name of the deceased Sardar Bhupinder Singh
3. Age of the deceased 45 years, 8 months and 17 days
4. Occupation of the deceased Tiffin Supply Business
5. Income of the deceased Rs.41,522/-
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased :
Sl. No. Name Age Relation
i) Swaraj Kaur 46 years Wife
ii) Tavleen Kaur 25 years Daughter
iii) Karanjot Singh 20 years Son
Sl. No. Head Amount Awarded
(Rs.)
7. Income of deceased (A) Rs. 41,522/-
8. Add : Future Prospects (B) Rs. 10,380.5/-
9. Less-Personal expenses of the Rs. 17,300.83/-
deceased (C)
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.34,601.67/-
[(A+B) - C = D]
11. Annual loss of dependency Rs.4,15,220.04/-
(D x 12) 12. Multiplier 14 MACT No.150/2022 Swaraj Kaur & Ors. Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. 30.01.2026 Page 31/33
13. Total loss of dependency Rs.58,13,080/-
(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.59,94,580/-
(F + G + H + I + J+K =L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST 7.5% pa from date of AWARDED filing of claim petition till the date of award to be deposited within 30 days and 9% thereafter.
21. Interest amount up to the date of Rs.15,67,333/-
award (M)
22. Total amount including interest Rs.75,61,913/-
(L + M) (rounded off to
Rs. 75,62,000/-)
23. Award amount released P-1=10% share
P-2=10% share
P-3=10% share
24. Award amount kept in FDRs/ P-1=90% share MACAD P-2=90% share P-3=90% share MACT No.150/2022 Swaraj Kaur & Ors. Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. 30.01.2026 Page 32/33
25. Mode of disbursement of the Through Bank award amount to petitioner(s)
26. Next date for compliance of the 30.04.2026 award Digitally signed by SHIRISH SHIRISH AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 16:29:09 +0530 (Shirish Aggarwal) PO/MACT-01, New Delhi 30.01.2026 MACT No.150/2022 Swaraj Kaur & Ors. Vs. Ranjeet & Ors. 30.01.2026 Page 33/33