Delhi District Court
Sher Mohammad (Dar) vs Kamlesh (150/18 Ln) on 26 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA
DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT - 02 (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No. 841/2018
FIR no. 150/2018
PS: Lajpat Nagar
U/s 279/304A IPC
CNR No. DLSE010067432018
1. Sher Mohammad
S/o Sh. Darab Khan
R/o H. No. H-460, Gali No.6,
Gyan Mandir Road,
Jaitpur Extn. Part-1,
Badarpur, Delhi.
2. Amina Begum
W/o Jalaluddin
R/o Kiran Pur, Central jail,
Farukhabad, UP - 209602.
3. Abdul Rahman
S/o Sher Mohammad
R/o H. No. H-460,
Jaitpur Exnt. Part-1
Jaitpur, Delhi.
4. Abdullah
S/o Sher Mohammad
R/o H. No. H-460, Gali No.6,
Gyan Mandir Road,
Jaitpur Extn. Part-1,
Badarpur, Delhi. ...Claimants/LRs of deceased
Versus
1. Kamlesh
S/o Sh. Balbir Singh
R/o Village Ghansyanm Pur,
Post Jiwati, PS Oncha
District Mainpuri, UP. ..... Driver / R-1
MACT No. 841/2018 Sher Mohd. vs. Kamlesh Page 1 of 37
2. Ajay Bansal
S/o Sh. G.K. Bansal
R/o Flat No. 8, Supreme Enclave,
Mayur Vihar Phase-I,
New Delhi.
3. United India Insurance Company Ltd.
IA/28, 1st Floor, Sector-63,
Near Haldiram,
Gaudam Budh Nagar, UP. ..... Insurance Company/R-3
Date of accident : 18.05.2018
Date of filing of petition/DAR : 16.08.2018
Date of Decision : 26.05.2025
AWARD
BRIEF FACTS
1. Detailed Accident Report was filed by police in terms of
provisions of Motor Vehicle Act in respect of fatal injuries
sustained by Smt. Noor Jahan W/o Sh. Sher Mohammad
(hereinafter called the deceased) on account of alleged rash and
negligent driving of vehicle bearing Registration No. DL1GC
0705 (hereinafter called the offending vehicle) driven by
Sh.Kamlesh S/o Sh. Balbir Singh (hereinafter called the
Respondent No.1), owned by Sh. Ajay Bansal S/o Sh. G.K.
Bansal (hereinafter called the Respondent No.2) and insured with
United India Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter called the
insurance company), which is being treated as Claim Petition in
view of the provisions contained in such Act.
2. Preliminary information regarding accident in question
was received at PS Kalindi Kunj vide DD No. 15A dated
18.05.2018, upon receipt of which, ASI Om Prakash along-with
Ct. Ramkesh reached on Ring Road towards Ashram where a
MACT No. 841/2018 Sher Mohd. vs. Kamlesh Page 2 of 37
lady was found dead with crushed head on the road. One person
called Abdullah, who identified himself as son of injured along-
with driver of Oil Tanker bearing Registration No. DL1GC 0705,
which allegedly had caused accident, were also found present at
the spot. Another person Umesh present at the spot also
contended that said Oil Tanker had also hit his Maruti Ecco
bearing Registration No. DL3CB I 0698 as well as few other
vehicles. Statement of Abdullah (son of victim) was recorded at
the spot, who stated that on 18.05.2018, while he was returning
from Safdarjung Hospital along-with his mother Noor Jahan by
his motorcycle and reached near Gupta Market Bus Stand, Ring
Road, an Oil Tanker (offending vehicle) rammed into his
motorcycle from back side because of which her mother fell
down on the road on the right side while he fell down on the left
side. He further stated that Oil Tanker ran over and crushed head
of his mother. Public persons stopped the Oil Tanker and
overpowered the driver. Police officials arrived at the spot and
took injured to hospital. Since mob gathered at the spot, IO
brought the accidental vehicle, offending vehicle and
complainant as well as driver of offending vehicle to Police
Station, where he received information from the hospital that
victim has been declared dead by doctors concerned. FIR under
relevant provisions of law was registered. Site Plan was prepared
on the pointing out of complainant. Postmortem was got
conducted upon body of deceased. Statement under Section 161
Cr.P.C. were recorded. Further investigations were undertaken
and charge-sheet was filed before Ld. Court concerned for the
commission of offence punishable under Section 279/304A IPC.
DAR was filed by Investigating Officer before this Tribunal.
MACT No. 841/2018 Sher Mohd. vs. Kamlesh Page 3 of 37
3. All the respondents appeared before the court and copy of
DAR was supplied to them.
REPLY
4. In Written Statement filed on behalf of R-1 and R-2, the
averments of DAR were denied stating that the offending vehicle
had all the valid and genuine documents as on the date of
accident, as such, there is no liability upon them to pay
compensation. It is also stated that the offending vehicle was
being driven with a slow speed with all the necessary precautions
by respondent no.1 who had a valid driving license and as such,
there was no rash and negligent driving on his part.
5. Insurance company in reply to DAR primarily contended
that offending vehicle was being driven in violation of terms and
conditions of insurance policy as its driver was not holding a
valid driving license to drive Hazardous Goods Vehicle at the
time of accident. Other general defences were also taken.
Insurance company has claimed complete exoneration to pay
compensation in this matter.
ISSUES
6. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were
framed vide order dated 17.09.2018:
1) Whether the deceased Noor Jahan suffered fatal injures in
a road traffic accident on 18.05.2018 due to rash and
negligent driving of vehicle No. DL 1GC 0705 being driven
by R1, owned by R2 and insured with R3 ? OPP.
2) Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation, if so,
to what extent and from whom ? OPP.
3) Relief.
MACT No. 841/2018 Sher Mohd. vs. Kamlesh Page 4 of 37
PETITIONERS EVIDENCE:
7. Claimant Sher Mohammad examined himself as PW1 and
tendered his evidentiary affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He also relied
upon Aadhar Card of his deceased wife Ex.PW1/1, his own
Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/2, Aadhar Card and PAN card of his
children Amina Begum, Abdul Rahman and Abdullah Ex.PW1/3
and DAR Ex.PW1/4.
8. Sh. Abdullah, son of claimant was also examined as PW2,
who tendered his evidentiary affidavit Ex.PW2/A and relied upon
his Aadhar Card and PAN Card as Ex.PW1/3 (colly). Any other
witness has not produced on behalf of claimant and thus, his
evidence was closed.
RESPONDENTS EVIDENCE:
9. Respondent no.1 filed his evidentiary affidavit, however,
he did not appear in the witness box and lead evidence. As such,
his evidentiary affidavit cannot be read in evidence.
10. Respondent no.2 examined Sh. Krishan Kumar, Field
Executive, Om Sai Motor Driving Training School as R2W1.
R2W1 relied upon his Authorization Letter as Ex.R2W1/A and
produced attested copies of Government Gazette Ex.R2W1/B
and license Ex.R2W1/C, by virtue of which, Training School
was authorized to impart training upon drivers of hazardous
goods vehicles. He deposed that Sh.Kamlesh (respondent no.1)
had undergone necessary training for driving hazardous goods
vehicle which was valid till 19.04.2019.
11. Sh. S.P. Singh, Chief Manager of respondent no.2 was also
examined as R2W2, who produced computerized record of ID
MACT No. 841/2018 Sher Mohd. vs. Kamlesh Page 5 of 37
card No. BJ4816 in respect of respondent no.1 as Ex.R2W2/1.
He deposed that respondent no.1 was registered as driver from
24.04.2018 to 21.10.2018 to drive vehicle no. DL1GC 0705 (Oil
Tanker). He further deposed that ID card was issued by company
upon completion of all legal pre-requisites. He also deposed that
training for hazardous goods is imparted on regular basis to all
the drivers and conductors by their department.
12. Respondent No.3/insurance company examined its
Manager Sh. Lokesh Thukral, who tendered his evidentiary
affidavit Ex.R3W1/A. He relied upon insurance policy
Ex.R2W1/1, DL of respondent no.1 as Ex.R3W1/2, Verification
Report of DL of respondent no.1 Ex.R3W1/3, copy of notice to
owner and driver Ex.R3W1/4 and postal receipts thereof
Ex.R3W1/5 and R3W1/6.
13. Insurance company also examined R3W2 Sh. Phool Singh
from RTO, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, who deposed that he had
been authorized by his department to depose before the court and
proved his authorization letter as Ex.R3W2/A. He brought the
DL Record Register and copy of page 187 of the said register
pertaining to DL record of respondent no.1 and proved the same
as Ex.R3W2/B.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:
14. Final Arguments in detail were advanced by Ld. Counsel
for contesting counsel.
15. Ld. counsel for claimant contended that accident occurred
as driver/respondent no.1 was driving the vehicle speedily and
rashly as evident from the testimony of eye-witness examined by
MACT No. 841/2018 Sher Mohd. vs. Kamlesh Page 6 of 37
claimant. It was also stressed that death of deceased has caused
deep anguish and trauma to her entire family.
16. Per contra, it was contended by Ld. Counsel for insurance
company that respondent no.1 had no authorization to drive
hazardous goods vehicle which was matter of conscious
knowledge of owner of insured, which amounts to breach of
terms and conditions of insurance policy as such, it is not liable
to pay any compensation. It is prayed that the matter may be
dismissed.
17. Ld. counsel for respondent no.2 contended that there is no
substance in the argument of Ld. Counsel for insurance company
that respondent no.1 was not holding a valid driving license for
running vehicle for transportation of hazardous goods. Written
submissions were also filed on his behalf to the effect that driver
of offending vehicle was indeed holding a valid driving license to
drive oil tanker as on the date of accident. He stressed that
necessary training to drive such vehicle was imparted upon him
by an authorized training school and that he was employed for
transporting hazardous goods only after ensuring that he
complied with all legal pre-requisites. Reliance was placed upon
the judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of New
India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Ashpal Singh & Ors. [MAC.
APP 798/2010 (DoD: 18.01.2016)] and United India Insurance
Company Ltd. vs. Saminuddin & Ors. [MAC. APP 777/2018
(DoD: 23.09.2019)].
MACT No. 841/2018 Sher Mohd. vs. Kamlesh Page 7 of 37
DISCUSSION:
18. On the basis of material on record, evidence adduced and
arguments addressed, issue wise findings are as under :-
Issue No.1
"Whether the deceased Noor Jahan suffered fatal injures in a
road traffic accident on 18.05.2018 due to rash and negligent
driving of vehicle No. DL 1GC 0705 being driven by R1,
owned by R2 and insured with R3 ? OPP.
19. What is required to be ascertained is whether there was
any breach of duty of care by respondent no.1 towards driving
offending vehicle on a public way, particularly against claimant
who allegedly suffered injuries due to his act or omission. It has
been held in catena of cases that negligence has to be decided on
the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic
view is to be taken. It has been further held that the proceedings
under the Motor Vehicle Act are not akin to the proceedings in a
Civil Suit and hence, strict rules of evidence are not applicable
(support drawn from the case of Bimla Devi & Ors vs. Himachal
Road Transport Corporation & Ors. [(2009) 13 SC 530,[ in
Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India Assurance
Company Limited, [2001 ACJ 421 SC[, in National Insurance
Co. Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rana cited as [2009 ACJ 287 Del].
20. PW2 Sh.Abdullah was an eye-witness to the accident, who
affirmed that on 18.05.2018 at about 9.50 a.m., while he along-
with his mother was returning from Safdarjung Hospital and were
crossing through Ring Road, Gupta Market Bus Stand, offending
vehicle rammed into his motorcycle which toppled and they fell
MACT No. 841/2018 Sher Mohd. vs. Kamlesh Page 8 of 37
down on the road. He specifically deposed that her mother fell
down on the right side and her head got crushed under the wheels
of offending vehicle killing her instantaneously. During cross-
examination, PW2 denied the suggestion that her mother was not
wearing helmet and therefore no helmet was seized by the police.
He also denied that accident took place due to his negligence.
21. The testimony of PW2 appears natural, well intertwined
and convincing. His statement was also recorded under Section
161 Cr.P.C. at the spot and there is no contradiction between his
statement recorded by the police at the first instance and the
deposition made before the court. He also faced cross-
examination, wherein contrary suggestions put to him were
denied. There is nothing to suggest that he had any oblique
motive to implicate the alleged offending vehicle. Respondent
no.1 was overpowered by the public persons at the time of
accident itself and there is no reason to disbelieve that respondent
no.1 was not at wheels at the time of accident. Offending vehicle
as well as accidental vehicles were also recovered from the spot.
Statement of PW2 was recorded at the spot itself and FIR was
registered the same day upon his statement. There seems to be
no good reason as to why testimony of PW2 should be discarded
or his veracity or credibility be put to doubt. The information to
police about the accident was immediately given and was
recorded vide DD entries which are on record. The injured was
taken to hospital in PCR vehicle. The accident itself has not been
put to doubt by Ld. Counsel for insurance company, however
authorization of respondent no.1 to drive the offending vehicle
MACT No. 841/2018 Sher Mohd. vs. Kamlesh Page 9 of 37
has been questioned, which shall be dealt at an appropriate stage.
The deposition of PW2 about his presence at the spot as well as
about mode and manner of accident has remained
uncontroverted. No doubt has been raised with respect to speedy
and rash driving of offending vehicle having caused the accident.
22. Respondent no.1 has not led any evidence to controvert or
contradict or to set up any defence against the contention of the
claimant, while evidence led on behalf of respondent no.2 is only
to prove that respondent no.1 was holding a a valid and effective
driving license for running the vehicles for transportation of
hazardous goods. It is settled that if driver of offending vehicle
does not enter the witness box, an adverse inference can be
drawn against him as observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in
the case of Cholamandlam Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Kamlesh, 2009 (3) AD Delhi 310.
23. It is evident that respondent no.1 has failed to exercise
duty of care expected of a reasonable person under the prevalent
circumstances and acted with utter recklessness and indifference
towards the possible anticipated consequences. There is no
evidence that any action or inaction on the part of deceased
partially or fully is responsible for accident.
24. Having so analyzed the evidence on record, it is held that
respondent no.1 drove the offending vehicle speedily and rashly
causing the fatal accident. Accordingly, Issue no.1 is decided in
favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
MACT No. 841/2018 Sher Mohd. vs. Kamlesh Page 10 of 37
Issue No. 2
"Whether the petitioners are entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom ?
OPP."
25. Section 168 MV Act enjoins the Claim Tribunals to hold
an enquiry into the claim to make an effort determining the
amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and
reasonable. Same is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
(1) Award of the Claims Tribunal.--On receipt of an
application for compensation made under section 166, the
Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to
the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer)
an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim
or, as the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the
provisions of section 162 may make an award determining the
amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and
specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall
be paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall
specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner
or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any
of them, as the case may be: Provided that where such
application makes a claim for compensation under section 140
in respect of the death or permanent disablement of any
person, such claim and any other claim (whether made in such
application or otherwise) for compensation in respect of such
death or permanent disablement shall be disposed of in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter X.
(2) The Claims Tribunal shall arrange to deliver copies of the
award to the parties concerned expeditiously and in any case
within a period of fifteen days from the date of the award.
(3) When an award is made under this section, the person who
is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall,
within thirty days of the date of announcing the award by the
Claims Tribunal, deposit the entire amount awarded in such
manner as the Claims Tribunal may direct.
26. Before putting in frame the position of law, it is noted that
the process of determining the compensation by the court is
essentially a very difficult task and can never be an exact science.
Perfect compensation is hardly possible, more so in claims of
MACT No. 841/2018 Sher Mohd. vs. Kamlesh Page 11 of 37
injury and disability. (As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Sidram Vs. The Divisional Manager United
India Insurance Company Ltd, SLP (Civil) No. 19277 of 2019).
27. The basic principle in assessing motor vehicle
compensation claims, is to place the victim in as near a position
as she or he was in before the accident, with other compensatory
directions for loss of amenities and other payments. These
general principles have been stated and reiterated in several
decisions. [Support drawn from Govind Yadav v. New India
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683.].
28. This Tribunal has been tasked with determination of just
compensation. The observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in Division Controller, KSRTC, v. Mahadeva Shety & Anr.,
(2003) 7 SCC 197, needs mention here (para 15):
"Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation
must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of
profit but the same should not be a pittance. The courts and
tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify
the amount of compensation, which should be just. What
would be "just" compensation is a vexed question. There can
be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the
value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be
arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would
depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and
attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or
mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be
considered in the background of "just" compensation which is
the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression
"which appears to it to be just", a wide discretion is vested in
the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done
by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild
guesses and arbitrariness.. ..."
29. Delineating the damages as pecuniary and non pecuniary,
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case of R. D. Hattangadi Vs.
MACT No. 841/2018 Sher Mohd. vs. Kamlesh Page 12 of 37
Pest Control (India) Pvt Ltd, 1995 AIR 755 , made following
observations:
"9....while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a
victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed
separately as pecuniary damages and special damages.
Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually
incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of
money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are
incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In
order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may
include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical
attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial;
(iii) other material loss. So far non- pecuniary damages are
concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and
physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely
to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the
loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of
matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able
to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of
life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the
person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship,
discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in
life."
30. In the landmark case of National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi And Others (2017 SCC Online SC
1270), decided by constitutional bench of Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India, regarding the concept of 'just compensation' it
was held :
"................55. Section 168 of the Act deals with the concept
of "just compensation" and the same has to be determined on
the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on
acceptable legal standard because such determination can
never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect.
The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to
arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on
record in an individual case. The conception of "just
compensation" has to be viewed through the prism of fairness,
reasonableness and non-violation of the principle of
equitability. In a case of death, the legal heirs of the claimants
cannot expect a windfall. Simultaneously, the compensation
granted cannot be an apology for compensation. It cannot be a
pittance. Though the discretion vested in the tribunal is quite
wide, yet it is obligatory on the part of the tribunal to be
MACT No. 841/2018 Sher Mohd. vs. Kamlesh Page 13 of 37
guided by the expression, that is, "just compensation". The
determination has to be on the foundation of evidence brought
on record as regards the age and income of the deceased and
thereafter the apposite multiplier to be applied. The formula
relating to multiplier has been clearly stated in Sarla Verma
and it has been approved in Reshma Kumari . The age and
income, as stated earlier, have to be established by adducing
evidence. The tribunal and the courts have to bear in mind that
the basic principle lies in pragmatic computation which is in
proximity to reality. It is a well-accepted norm that money
cannot substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for
grant of just compensation having uniformity of approach.
There has to be a balance between the two extremes, that is, a
windfall and the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum. In such
an adjudication, the duty of the tribunal and the courts is
difficult and hence, an endeavour has been made by this Court
for standardisation which in its ambit includes addition of
future prospects on the proven income at present..................."
31. Principles relating to Assessment of compensation were
deliberated in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) where it was held
that detailed analysis of Sarla Verma (SMT) And Others Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (2009 SCC Online SC
797) is necessary as in the said case, the Court recapitulated the
relevant principles relating to assessment of compensation in
case of death. In fact, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi
(supra) mainly relied and approved the earlier judgment of Sarla
Verma( Supra) read with Reshma Kumari [( 2013) 9 SCC 65 :
(2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 191 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 826 ], with some
modification, regarding all the aspects like aspect of multiplier,
the steps and guidelines stated in para 19 of Sarla Verma (supra)
for determination of compensation in cases of death, future
prospects, deduction to be made towards personal and living
expenses.
32. PW1, husband of deceased, affirmed in his evidentiary
affidavit that his wife was a home maker and used to look after
MACT No. 841/2018 Sher Mohd. vs. Kamlesh Page 14 of 37
the entire management of his house and the sudden demise of her
wife has emotionally shattered all the family members.
33. It is evident that the lady of the house is the foundational
pillar of the entire house hold and is a multitasker juggling
between different roles as a wife, mother to a minor child, a
homemaker, and also assisting the family for financial health.
34. At this stage, it is relevant to note that in New India
Assurance Vs. Khayali Ram decided on 24.01.2017 in MACA
No.251/14, Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that services of a
housewife are equivalent to the services rendered by a skilled
workman.
35. Law is now settled that in case of house-wife/house maker,
there is also loss of income in the form of opportunity cost etc.
Further, monetary value of services rendered by the house maker
in the present case is taken as minimum wages for skilled worker
at the time of accident as applicable to the State of NCT of Delhi,
as deceased was resident of Jaitpur, Delhi as per her Aadhar Card
Ex.PW1/1, which was Rs.16,858/- at the relevant time.
36. As per Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/1, deceased was about 64
years of age as on the date of accident. Any contrary
material/document has not been placed on record. As mandated
in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), future prospect are not
admissible (being more than 60 years of age).
Step No. 1 : Ascertainment of Multiplicand:
37. It was contended by Ld. Counsel for claimants that
deceased left behind her husband, daughter, and two sons.
38. It is settled that dependency has to be assessed on the date
MACT No. 841/2018 Sher Mohd. vs. Kamlesh Page 15 of 37
of accident. Copy of Aadhar Cards of the dependents have been
placed on record. Perusal of Aadhar Card of daughter of
deceased Ms.Amina Begam, reflects her date of birth as
01.01.1982, as such, she was major and was already married as
on the date of accident. PAN Cards of sons of deceased Abdul
Rehman and Abdullah reflects their date of birth as 02.04.1984
and 15.05.1986 respectively. As such, they are aged about 34
and 32 years respectively. As all the children were major and
independent as on the date of accident, it cannot be said that they
were financially dependent upon the deceased, more so, when
she has been affirmed to be a house maker.
Step No. 2 : Ascertainment of Multiplier:
39. In the present case, age of the deceased was about 64 years
as per record. Thus, having regard to the table mentioned in case
of Sarla Verma (supra), it is held that multiplier of 7 is applied.
Step No. 3 : Actual Calculation ( actual loss/loss of dependency):
40. As already held, none of the claimants were financially
dependent upon deceased as on the date of accident. Hence, any
compensation towards loss of dependency is not made out,
however, they are entitled to loss to estate. Support drawn from
the case of Keith Rowe Vs. Prashant Sagar & Ors. MAC APP.
No. 681/2007, wherein, following observations as relevant to the
context were made :
"iv. The procedure for determination of loss to estate is
broadly the same as the procedure for determination of the
loss of dependency. Both involve ascertaining the
multiplicand and capitalising it by multiplying it by an
appropriate multiplier. But, the significant difference is in
the figure arrived at as multiplicand in cases where the
MACT No. 841/2018 Sher Mohd. vs. Kamlesh Page 16 of 37
claimants who are dependants claim loss of dependency, and
in cases where the claimants who are not dependents claim
loss to estate. The annual contribution to the family
constitutes the multiplicand in the case of loss of
dependency, whereas the annual savings of the deceased
becomes the multiplicand in the case of loss to estate. The
method of selection of multiplier is however the same in
both cases."
As Deceased was having 4 legal heirs, including husband
and three children, all of them of advance age, 1/ 3 rd of the
income of deceased is taken as saving / loss of estate in view of
the judgment of Kieth Row (supra).
41. On the basis of above discussion, calculation of the
compensation is being made hereunder :
(i) Annual income of the deceased.
(Rs.16,858/- per month x 12) = Rs.2,02,296/-
(ii) Future prospect = Nil
------------------
(iii) Total = Rs.2,02,296/-
------------------
(v) Multiplier = 7
(vi) Total Income
(Rs.2,02,296/- x 7) = Rs.14,16,072/-
(vii) Thus Loss of Estate = Rs.4,72,024/-
Rs.14,16,072/- x 1/3rd
GRANT OF LOSS OF ESTATE, LOSS OF CONSORTIUM AND FUNERAL EXPENSES:
42. In this regard in Pranay Sethi (supra) it was held :
''...............46. Another aspect which has created confusion pertains to grant of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.....
.
.
52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it MACT No. 841/2018 Sher Mohd. vs. Kamlesh Page 17 of 37 difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh . It has granted Rs 25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi , it does not seem to follow the same.
The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads.
.
.
59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral 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...............''
43. Thus, in view of such finding in Pranay Sethi (Supra), in which Hon'ble Supreme Court wanted to avoid immense variations and instead ensure consistency, the claimants are also entitled to certain sums towards grant of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
44. In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram & MACT No. 841/2018 Sher Mohd. vs. Kamlesh Page 18 of 37 Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under:
"This Court interpreted "consortium" to be a compendious term, which encompasses spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as 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.
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 and affection, and their role in the family unit.
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 permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is the compensation for loss of love and affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of 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 the children who lose the care and protection of their parents in motor vehicle accidents. 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.MACT No. 841/2018 Sher Mohd. vs. Kamlesh Page 19 of 37
In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in loss of consortium. The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to award compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate conventional head. There is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head."
45. It may further be noted that the date of judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) is 31/10/2017. Further it was stated in such judgment itself that the amount quantified shall be enhanced at the rate of 10%. As such a sum of Rs.18,150/- for cremation expenses; and Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate is also payable.
46. Further, on the date of accident, deceased had left behind, her husband, daughter and two sons. As such in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as noted above, all of them would further be entitled to Rs.48,400/- each towards loss of consortium.
Total Award Amount
47. Thus the total award amount comes to Rs.4,72,024/- (+) Rs.18,150/- (loss to estate) + Rs.18,150/-(funeral expenses) + Rs.1,93,600- (Rs.48,400/- x 4) (loss of consortium) = Rs.7,01,924/-.
Interest
48. Having It is settled that any fixed rate of interest cannot be prescribed for all cases at all times and would largely depend upon the prevailing rate of interest as per the applicable guidelines. As such, interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is deemed fit and accordingly granted in the present case. (Reliance MACT No. 841/2018 Sher Mohd. vs. Kamlesh Page 20 of 37 placed upon the case of National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Yad Ram MAC APP 526/2018 also referred and relied in case of The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors. MAC APP 70/2024 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court).
Liability:-
49. Ld. counsel for Insurance Company has contended that the driver of the offending vehicle, though had a valid license to drive transport vehicle, however, he was driving oil tanker, transportation of which qualifies to be hazardous goods, had no endorsement of the transport authority authorizing him to drive the hazardous goods carrying vehicle, which constitute breach of the terms and conditions of the policy and therefore, insurance company has prayed for complete exoneration to pay compensation to the claimants. Having said that, Ld. Counsel for insurance company has conceded the validity and effectiveness of the insurance policy as on the date of accident. Per contra, respondent no.2/owner of the offending vehicle has contended that driver of the offending vehicle had duly undergone requisite training as per the mandate and therefore, the lapse was ornamental and did not constitute fundamental breach of the conditions of the insurance policy.
50. Insurance company has examined its Manager in the Legal Department, who deposed that a notice dated 10.09.2018 was issued in terms of Order XII Rule 8 CPC to produce all the valid documents covering the date of accident, reply to which was sent by the owner. He deposed that the insured permitted the oil tanker/offending vehicle to be driven by a person without valid MACT No. 841/2018 Sher Mohd. vs. Kamlesh Page 21 of 37 and effective license authorizing him to drive hazardous goods transportation vehicle, which constitute intentional violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and thus, insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. Insurance company also examined Sh. Phool Singh, an official from RTO, Noida, who produced the DL Record Register and filed copy of page no. 187 of the Register as Ex.R3W2/B (OSR) carrying the record of respondent no.1/Kamlesh. Perusal of Ex.R3W2/B reflects that the driving license was renewed w.e.f. 17.05.2016 till 16.05.2019, while he was authorized to drive LMV, PE and HTV as per endorsement dated 10.05.2000 noted in the communication made by Licensing Officer, Motor Vehicle Department, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP filed as Ex.R3W2/A. It is thus evident as per the above documents Ex.R3W2/A and Ex.R3W2/B that there was no formal endorsement made by the Transport Authority concerned permitting the driver /R-1 to also drive the vehicles of above category carrying/transporting the hazardous goods.
51. The MV Act doesn't explicitly define "hazardous goods", however it does recognize the need for safe transportation of these goods. The MV Act, along with other regulations, outlines requirements for the transportation of dangerous goods, including vehicle design, operator requirements, and driver training. Table 2 of Rule 137 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 defines the indicative criteria for categorization of a material as dangerous or hazardous which includes flammable liquid. Before proceeding ahead with the discussion, it is imperative to advert to Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 which lays down the MACT No. 841/2018 Sher Mohd. vs. Kamlesh Page 22 of 37 educational qualifications for driver of goods carriages carrying dangerous or hazardous goods. It mandates that any such person shall additionally be required to possess the ability to read and write atleast one Indian Language and English and shall also possess a Certificate of Training as per the syllabus prescribed therein. Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules is reproduced hereunder for ease of reference :
"[9. Educational qualifications for drivers of goods carriages carrying dangerous or hazardous goods.--24[(1) One year from the date of commencement of Central Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 1993, any person driving a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to human life shall, in addition to being the holder of a driving licence to drive a transport vehicle, also has the ability to read and write at least one Indian language out of those 25[specified in the VIII Schedule of the Constitution] and English and also possess a certificate of having successfully passed a course consisting of following syllabus and periodicity connected with the transport of such goods."
52. Against the backdrop of the qualification laid under Rule 9, Respondent no.2/owner of the offending vehicle examined Field Executive, Om Sai Motor Driving School to prove that the school was duly authorized and licensed to impart training programme for hazardous goods vehicle in terms of Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989. He also deposed that respondent no.1 enrolled and attended the training programme from 19.04.2018 to 20.04.2018, for which a Certificate was issued by them, which was valid upto 19.04.2019, copy whereof was Ex.R2W1/D. He also emphasized that respondent no.1/Kamlesh was authorized to drive transport vehicle carrying hazardous goods for the period till the validity date of the Certificate throughout the entire country as per rules. During cross-examination, he produced the MACT No. 841/2018 Sher Mohd. vs. Kamlesh Page 23 of 37 copies of Certificates and qualifications of the two trainers namely Sh. J.B. Sharma and Sh. Anil Sharma and placed the same on record as Ex.R2W1/R3/1 (colly) and also produced the copy of the attendance sheet of respondent no.1, when he was present for the training course between 18.04.2018 till 20.04.2018 placed on record as Ex.R2W1/R3/2 (colly-2 pages). It is evident that no plausible objection has been raised in respect of the qualification of the trainers or the authorization of the training institute by Ld. Counsel for insurance company about fulfilling the mandatory training requirements. Respondent no.2 also examined Chief Manager (Terminal), Bijwasan, who produced the computerized record of ID card No. DJ4816 in respect of Kamlesh Kumar registered as driver to drive the offending vehicle from 24.04.2018 till 21.10.2018 placed on record as Ex.R2W2/1. He deposed that the training for hazardous goods is imparted on all the drivers and conductors on regular basis in their department. He was asked to produce the training record of respondent no.1/Kamlesh, if any, maintained with them, however he informed that such record has already been destroyed, being more than five years old. Respondent no.2 also examined Sh. Prince Sharma as his Authorized Representative, employed as Superviser in the Image Filling Station owned by respondent no.2. He deposed that the offending vehicle stands duly registered in the name of Image Filling Station while Mr. Ajay Bansal is its proprietor. He deposed that respondent no.1 had a valid and effective driving license to drive heavy commercial vehicles as on the date of the accident and had duly taken training to drive such hazardous goods vehicles which was valid on the date of MACT No. 841/2018 Sher Mohd. vs. Kamlesh Page 24 of 37 accident. He deposed that the offending vehicle was got filled from Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Bijwasan Terminal as the same as under contract with them, which is why the concerned Authorities had also issued an identity card in the name of respondent no.1, which was also valid as on the date of accident. He also specified that the identity card is issued only to those drivers who have the necessary training and valid driving license to drive the hazardous goods vehicles. He also stated that the identity card was issued only after perusing and considering all the documents of the vehicle as well as driver, which were all found to be valid and effective as on the date of accident. He further affirmed that the offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent no.3/insurance company at the time of accident and therefore, the entire liability to pay the compensation falls on the insurance company. He also affirmed that respondent no.2 has complied with all the rules in this respect and therefore, not liable to pay compensation to the victim. He was extensively cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for insurance company, wherein he denied the suggestion that the training certificate Ex.R2W3/2 and the ID card issued from Indian Oil Corporation Ex.R2W3/3 are false and fabricated documents, however, could not state whether respondent no.1 had any other driving license apart from one placed on record.
53. The evidence led on behalf of respondent no.2 reflects that the entire emphasis is on the certification of training imparted upon respondent no.1/Kamlesh to drive the goods carriage carrying the hazardous goods. Against this backdrop, it is relevant MACT No. 841/2018 Sher Mohd. vs. Kamlesh Page 25 of 37 to enlist the duties or responsibilities saddled upon owner of any such vehicle transporting the hazardous goods. In the relevant context, Rule No. 132 of CMVR, 1989, the owner has been put under an obligation to ensure that driver of the goods carriage carrying such dangerous or hazardous goods hold a driving license as per provisions of Rule 9 of CMVR, 1989. Section 132 in The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 has been reproduced hereunder for ready reference :
"132. [ Responsibility of the transporter or owner of goods carriage. [Rule132 substituted by GSR 338(E), dated 26.3.1993 (w.e.f. 26.3.1993).] (1) It shall be the Responsibility of the owner of the goods carriage transporting any dangerous or hazardous goods to ensure the following, namely:
(a) that the goods carriage has a valid registration to carry the said goods and the said carriage is safe for the transport of the said goods; and
(b) the vehicle is equipped with necessary first-aid, safety equipment, tool box and antidotes as may be necessary to contain any accident.
(2) Every owner of a goods carriage shall, before undertaking the transportation of dangerous or hazardous goods in his goods carriage,satisfy himself that the information given by the consignor is full and accurate in all respects and correspond to the classification of such goods specified in rule 137.
(3) The owner of a goods carriage shall ensure that the driver of such carriage is given all the relevant information in writing as given in Annexure V of these rules in relation to the dangerous or hazardous goods entrusted to him for transport and satisfy himself that such driver has sufficient understanding of the nature of such goods and the nature of the risks involved in the transport of such goods and is capable of taking appropriate action in case of an emergency.
(4) The owner of the goods carriage carrying dangerous or hazardous goods, and the consignor of such goods shall lay down the route for each trip which the driver shall be bound to take unless directed or permitted otherwise by the Police MACT No. 841/2018 Sher Mohd. vs. Kamlesh Page 26 of 37 Authorities. They shall also fix a time table for each trip to the destination and back with reference to the route so laid down.
(5) It shall be the duty of the owner to ensure that the driver of the goods carriage carrying dangerous or hazardous goods holds a driving license as per provisions of rule 9 of these rules.
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in rules 131 and 132,it shall be sufficient compliance of the provisions of these rules if the consignor transporting dangerous or hazardous goods and the owner of the goods carriage or the transporter, abides by these conditions within six months after the date of coming into force of the Central Motor Object 1 Vehicles (Amendment) Rules,1993.]"
54. Possessing Certificate of successful completion of the requisite training as per the syllabus prescribed in Rule No.9, is only one of the qualifications laid down for any driver of goods carriage carrying dangerous or hazardous goods. Mere certification cannot be equated with necessary compliance of Rule 9 of CMVR, 1989. There is no evidence led that the driver had the ability to read and write atleast one Indian language and English, although it has not been disputed that he was holding a valid driving license to drive the transport vehicle. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Salimuddin decided on 23.09.2019, in a similar situation, where driver had a valid driving license and also possessed the certificate of prescribed training, however, bereft of the necessary endorsement of compliance of Rule 9 and authorization by the Transport Authority to drive goods carriages carrying hazardous goods, was considered to be a case without valid and proper driving license to drive a vehicle carrying hazardous goods, observed that mere possession of a certificate from a training MACT No. 841/2018 Sher Mohd. vs. Kamlesh Page 27 of 37 school cannot substitute the statutory requirement of driving license to be issued by a relevant authority, as the driver had neither been tested nor approved by the licensing authority to drive the hazardous carrying vehicle. Absence of the necessary endorsement was also seen as a fundamental breach of policy condition in view of the obligation upon owner to ensure that the vehicle is driven by a person holding valid driving license in terms of Rule 9 of CMVR 1989. Relevant extracts of case of Salimuddin (supra) are reproduced hereunder :
"5. What emanates from the above is that the owner was able to establish that the driver possessed the requisite driving skills as certified by the aforementioned Government- licenced Motor Driving Training School. However, it is nobody's case that mere possession of the certificate will necessarily result in the Transport Authority certifying and/or licencing the person as having the requisite skills to drive a hazardous-goods carrying vehicle. As the name itself suggests, a motor driving training school is a school/institute which trains candidates to drive motor vehicles. It purports to impart a trainee the requisite skills as well as teach them the basic road signs and rules related to driving of motor vehicles on roads.
6. Nevertheless, at the end of any such training, whenever a candidate appears before the Transport Authority, his motor driving skills and knowledge of the applicable rules are tested by the Authority. It is only when the candidate passes the tests that he is issued a driving licence. Mere possession of a certificate from a training school cannot substitute the statutory requirement of a Driving Licence to be issued by the relevant authority. For driving of hazardous-goods carrying vehicles, a further endorsement is required on the Driving Licence.
7. In the present case, for indemnification against insurance claims under the said policy, the insurer had proceeded in good faith, that the driver of the hazardous-goods carrying motor vehicle would have been duly licenced by the relevant Licencing Authority, to drive the said vehicle. But on the driving licence, there was no such endorsement. In other words, the driver had neither been tested nor approved by the Licencing Authority to drive the hazardous-goods carrying MACT No. 841/2018 Sher Mohd. vs. Kamlesh Page 28 of 37 vehicle. There is a breach of policy condition, therefore, the owner of the vehicle would be liable to indemnify the loss."
55. This was referred and relied by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in another case Mangla Goods Carrier Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., MACP APP 270/2021 (DOD :
14.09.2023), wherein following observations were made :
"17. In view of the above dictum, even if it is accepted that the respondent no.5 had undertaken the certificate course for driving a vehicle carrying hazardous goods, in absence of an endorsement in the driving licence authorizing him to do so, it will remain a case of the respondent no.5 not having a valid and proper driving licence to drive a vehicle carrying hazardous goods.
18. In that view of the matter, the respondent no.1 has rightly been granted the right to recover the compensation paid to the claimants from the appellant."
56. There is no evidence that the owner of the offending vehicle was led to believe that the driving license was valid and effective in terms of Rule 9 of CMVR. It is the case of respondent no.2 that file of each driver is placed with them and they also had seen the driving license of the driver at the time of its employment. The driver was also issued Identity Card No. DJ4816 by the Indian Oil Corporation, Bijwasan in respect of Kamlesh Kumar registered as driver to drive the offending vehicle from 24.04.2018 till 21.10.2018 as Ex.R2W2/1 but there is no positive evidence to show that any application in terms of Rule 9 of CMVR was made by the driver or any steps were taken on behalf of owner to ensure such compliance. Absence of endorsement therefore, constitutes fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. However, considering that MACT No. 841/2018 Sher Mohd. vs. Kamlesh Page 29 of 37 the insurance policy was valid and effective as on the date of accident and also considering that driver had a valid driving license to drive the goods carriage as on the date of accident, in the interest of justice and in view of the statutory obligation upon the insurance company to provide coverage to the third party against the accident, it is directed that the insurance company shall pay the entire compensation to the injured along-with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of Claim Petition till realization, however, shall be at liberty to recover the same from driver as well as owner of the offending vehicle.(If there is any order regarding exclusion of interest for specific period, same be complied at the time of calculation of award amount. Further, if any auction proceed is received, same be adjusted in the final award amount).
Directions to the Branch Manager, SBI, Saket Court Complex
62. The Manager, SBI, Saket Court Complex, is directed to verify the documents and details submitted by the claimant pertaining to their bank account, and upon proper verification, under certification of the Branch Manager (of the bank whose details have been provided by the claimant for release of the compensation amount), disburse the amount (ordered to be released) directly into the verified bank account of the claimant under notice to this Tribunal.
Directions with respect to Fixed Deposit:
(a) As per Practice Directions, Hon'ble High Court, vide reference no. 134/Rules/DHC, dated 14.05.2025, the bank shall invest the amount to be deposited in fixed deposit and to renew the same after periodical MACT No. 841/2018 Sher Mohd. vs. Kamlesh Page 30 of 37 intervals till further orders are passed by the Tribunal.
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name (s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of victim i.e. the savings bank account of the claimant shall be individual savings bank account and not a joint account.
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR (s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/ or debit card to claimant (s). 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 freeze the account of the claimant so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant 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 claimant shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.MACT No. 841/2018 Sher Mohd. vs. Kamlesh Page 31 of 37
Apportionment:-
57. At this stage, it is relevant to the refer to the judgment of A. V. Padma & Ors. Vs., R. Venugopal & Ors. (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 378:
"......In the case of Susamma Thomas (supra), this Court issued certain guidelines in order to "safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries due to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation".
Even as per the guidelines issued by this Court Court, long term fixed deposit of amount of compensation is mandatory only in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows. In the case of illiterate claimants, the Tribunal is allowed to consider the request for lumpsum payment for effecting purchase of any movable property such as agricultural implements, rickshaws etc. to earn a living. However, in such cases, the Tribunal shall make sure that the amount is actually spent for the purpose and the demand is not a ruse to withdraw money. In the case of semi-illiterate claimants, the Tribunal should ordinarily invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. But if the Tribunal is satisfied for reasons to be stated in writing that the whole or part of the amount is required for expanding an existing business or for purchasing some property for earning a livelihood, the Tribunal can release the whole or part of the amount of compensation to the claimant provided the Tribunal will ensure that the amount is invested for the purpose for which it is demanded and paid. In the case of literate persons, it is not mandatory to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. The expression used in guideline No. (iv) issued by this Court is that in the case of literate persons also the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i), whereas in the guideline Nos. (i), (ii), (iii) and (v), the expression used is that the Tribunal should. Moreover, in the case of literate persons, the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i) only if, having regard to the age, fiscal background and strata of the society to which the claimant belongs and such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks that in the larger interest of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded, it is necessary to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. Thus, sufficient discretion has been given to the Tribunal not to insist on investment of the compensation amount in long term fixed deposit and to release even the whole amount in the case of literate persons. However, the Tribunals are often MACT No. 841/2018 Sher Mohd. vs. Kamlesh Page 32 of 37 taking a very rigid stand and are mechanically ordering in almost all cases that the amount of compensation shall be invested in long term fixed deposit. They are taking such a rigid and mechanical approach without understanding and appreciating the distinction drawn by this Court in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows and in the case of semiliterate and literate persons. It needs to be clarified that the above guidelines were issued by this Court only to safeguard the interests of the claimants, particularly the minors, illiterates and others whose amounts are sought to be withdrawn on some fictitious grounds. The guidelines were not to be understood to mean that the Tribunals were to take a rigid stand while considering an application seeking release of the money.
The guidelines cast a responsibility on the Tribunals to pass appropriate orders after examining each case on its own merits. However, it is seen that even in cases when there is no possibility or chance of the feed being frittered away by the beneficiary owing to ignorance, illiteracy or susceptibility to exploitation, investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit is directed by the Tribunals as a matter of course and in a routine manner, ignoring the object and the spirit of the guidelines issued by this Court and the genuine requirements of the claimants. Even in the case of literate persons, the Tribunals are automatically ordering investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit without recording that having regard to the age or fiscal background or the strata of the society to which the claimant belongs or such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks it necessary to direct such investment in the larger interests of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded to him.
The Tribunals very often dispose of the claimant's application for withdrawal of the amount of compensation in a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind. This has resulted in serious injustice and hardship to the claimants. The Tribunals appear to think that in view of the guidelines issued by this Court, in every case the amount of compensation should be invested in long term fixed deposit and under no circumstances the Tribunal can release the entire amount of compensation to the claimant even if it is required by him. Hence a change of attitude and approach on the part of the Tribunals is necessary in the interest of justice....."
58. Section 166 MV Act mandates grant of compensation to legal representatives of deceased/ victim. The observations made in case of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in N. Jayashree & MACT No. 841/2018 Sher Mohd. vs. Kamlesh Page 33 of 37 Ors. Vs. Cholamandlam MS Gen. Insurance Company Ltd, SLP (C) no.14558 of 2019 relevant in this context:
"14. The MV Act does not define the term 'legal representative'. Generally, 'legal representative' means a person who in law represents the estate of the deceased person and includes any person or persons in whom legal right to receive compensatory benefit vests. A 'legal representative' may also include any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased. Such person does not necessarily have to be a legal heir.
59. It is thus held that claimants i.e. wife and daughters of deceased being legal heirs are entitled to receive compensation.
60. Now, the compensation is apportioned amongst the other LRs of deceased in the following manner:
(I) Share of claimant no.1/Sher Mohammad (husband of the deceased): Out of the compensation amount, claimant no.1 is awarded Rs.4,01,924/- with interest, to be released to the claimant no.1 in his bank account as per rule/ directions.
(II) Share of claimant no.2/Amina Begum (Daughter of the deceased): Out of the compensation amount, claimant no.2 is awarded Rs.1,00,000/- with interest be released to claimant no.2 in her bank account as per rule/ directions.
(III) Share of claimant no.3/Abdul Rahman (Son of the deceased): Out of the compensation amount, claimant no.3 is awarded Rs.1,00,000/- with interest be released to claimant no.3 in his bank account as per rule/ directions.
(IV) Share of claimant no.4/Abdullah (Son of the deceased): Out of the compensation amount, claimant no.4 MACT No. 841/2018 Sher Mohd. vs. Kamlesh Page 34 of 37 is awarded Rs.1,00,000/- with interest be released to claimant no.4 in his bank account as per rule/ directions.
FORM - IVA SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1. Date of accident 18.05.2018
2. Name of deceased Ms. Noor Jahan
3. Age of the deceased 64 years
4. Occupation of the deceased Housewife
5. Income of the deceased Rs.16,858/- p.m. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:
S No. Name Age Relation
(i) Sher Mohammad 66 years Husband
(ii) Amina Begum 36 years Daughter
(iii) Abdul Rahman 34 years Son
(iv) Abdullah 32 years Son
Computation of compensation:-
S. Heads Awarded by the Claims
No. Tribunal
1 A. Income of the deceased Rs.2,02,296/-
per year
2 B. Add-Future Prospects Nil
3 C. Total Rs.2,02,296/-
6 F. Multiplier. 7
7 Total after multiplier Rs.14,16,072/-
MACT No. 841/2018 Sher Mohd. vs. Kamlesh Page 35 of 37
Total Loss to Estate : Rs.4,72,024/-
Rs.14,16,072/- x 1/3rd
9 I. Compensation for loss of Rs.1,93,600/-
consortium
10 J. Compensation for loss of Rs.18,150/-
estate
11 K. Compensation towards Rs.18,150/-
funeral expenses
12 L. TOTAL Rs.7,01,924/-
COMPENSATION :
13 Deduction if any Nil
14 Total amount after Rs.7,01,924/-
deduction:
13 O. RATE OF INTEREST 7.5% p.a.
AWARDED: from date of
filing of DAR till actual
realization of principal
amount awarded.
14 Award amount kept in FDRs Nil
15 Award amount released Rs.7,01,924/-
16 Mode of disbursement of (I) Share of claimant
the award amount to the no.1/Sher Mohammad claimant (s). (Clause 29) (husband of the deceased): Out of the compensation amount, claimant no.1 is awarded Rs.4,01,924/- with interest, to be released to the claimant no.1 in his bank account as per rule/ directions.
(II) Share of claimant
no.2/Amina Begum
(Daughter of the
deceased): Out of the
compensation amount,
claimant no.2 is awarded
Rs.1,00,000/- with
MACT No. 841/2018 Sher Mohd. vs. Kamlesh Page 36 of 37
interest be released to
claimant no.2 in her
bank account as per rule/
directions.
(III) Share of claimant
no.3/Abdul Rahman
(Son of the deceased):
Out of the compensation
amount, claimant no.3 is
awarded Rs.1,00,000/-
with interest be released
to claimant no.3 in his
bank account as per rule/
directions.
(IV) Share of claimant
no.4/Abdullah (Son of
the deceased): Out of the
compensation amount,
claimant no.4 is awarded
Rs.1,00,000/- with
interest be released to
claimant no.4 in his bank
account as per rule/
directions.
19 Next Date for reporting 09.07.2025
compliance of the award
(Clause 31)
61. Copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. The copy of award be sent to the DLSA and Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate.
Digitally signed by SHELLY SHELLY ARORA
Announced in the open court ARORA Date:
2025.05.26
on 26.05.2025 16:48:48 +0530
(Shelly Arora)
PO (MACT)-02, South-East Distt.
Saket Courts, New Delhi
MACT No. 841/2018 Sher Mohd. vs. Kamlesh Page 37 of 37