Delhi District Court
Shankar Paswan (Lr) vs Rakesh on 24 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF GUNJAN GUPTA, DISTRICT JUDGE-
CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-01, (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
AWARD/JUDGMENT
MACT Case No. 744/2023
CNR No.DLWT010094872023
1. Shankar Paswan (Father of deceased)
S/o Sh. Fulgendra Paswan
2. Savitri Devi (Mother of deceased)
W/o Sh. Shankar Paswan
Both R/o H. No. 28, Ward No13, Murliyadha,
Bajpatti, Sitamarhi, Bajpatti, Bihar-843314
...Petitioner
Versus
1. Rakesh Kumar (Driver)
S/o Sh. Sanjay Ravidas
R/o Jhuggi No.140/99,
Sikri Bhatta Shyam Nagar,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi
2. Sanjay Kumar (Owner)
S/o Sh. Ramjanam Dass
R/o Jhuggi No.140/99,
Sikri Bhatta Shyam Nagar,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi
3. The Chola MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.(Insurer)
246, Okhla Phase-III,
Okhla Indl. Estate New Delhi
Policy No. 3410/01424039/000/000
Sankar Paswan (LR) vs. Rakesh & Ors.
[MACT No. 744/2023] Page No.1 of 36
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.01.24
17:30:55 +0530
Vehicle No. DL4SDP2437(Bike)
Valid from 21.12.2022 to 20.12.2027
.....Respondents
Date of Institution : 25.11.2023
Date of pronouncement : 24.01.2026
FORM-XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
1. Date of the accident 09.10.2023
2. Date of filing of Form-I - 25.11.2023
First Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II 25.11.2023
to the victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III 25.11.2023
from the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV 25.11.2023
from the Owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- 25.11.2023
Interim Accident Report
(IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA 25.11.2023
and Form-VIB from the
Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - 25.11.2023
Detailed Accident Report
(DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay No
or deficiency on the part of
the Investigating Officer? If
so, whether any action/
direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the 25.11.2023
Designated Officer by the
Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated No
Officer of the Insurance
Sankar Paswan (LR) vs. Rakesh & Ors.
[MACT No. 744/2023] Page No.2 of 36
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.01.24
17:30:59 +0530
Company submitted his report
within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay WS was filed on 29.05.2024 or deficiency 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 was not filed in claimant(s) to the offer of the this matter Insurance Company
14. Date of the award 24.01.2026
15. Whether the claimant(s) Yes was/were directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which 25.11.2023 claimant(s) was/were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Aadhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) --
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 R/o H. No. 28, Ward No13, Address of the claimant(s). Murliyadha, Bajpatti, Sitamarhi, Bajpatti, Bihar-843314
19. Whether the claimant(s) --
Sankar Paswan (LR) vs. Rakesh & Ors.
[MACT No. 744/2023] Page No.3 of 36
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.01.24 17:31:02
+0530
savings bank account(s) is/are
near his/her/their place of
residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) Petitioner did not appear
was/were examined at the
time of passing of the award
to ascertain his/her/their
financial condition?
AWARD
1.1 Vide this judgment/award, this Tribunal shall decide
claim petition filed by the petitioners under Section 166 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter "M.V. Act") for compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- on account of the fatal injuries sustained by deceased Sanjay S/o Sh. Shankar Paswan in a road vehicular accident which took place on 09.10.2023 which occurred at about 12:44 AM at Opposite Shamshan Ghat Ring Road, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi.
1.2 Initially, the DAR was filed by the IO on 25.11.2023.
CASE OF THE PETITIONER 2.1 Brief facts of the case as set out in the petition are as follows :-
2.2 On 09.10.2023, Sh. Sanjay (hereinafter referred as "deceased") along with his friend namely Rakesh (hereinafter referred as "respondent no.1") was going on motorcycle bearing registration No. DL4SDP2437 (hereinafter referred as "offending vehicle") towards Subhash Nagar. The offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1 and deceased was sitting as pillion rider. The respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle at high speed, rashly & negligently and he was also under Sankar Paswan (LR) vs. Rakesh & Ors.
[MACT No. 744/2023] Page No.4 of 36
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.01.24
17:31:04 +0530
the influence of alcohol. At about 12:44 AM, when they reached in front of Shamshan Ghat, Ring Road, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi, the respondent no.1 hit the divider. Due to same, deceased fell down on the road and sustained fatal injuries. The deceased was shifted to Acharya Bhikshu Hospital, Moti Nagar, Delhi where his MLC no. 3092/2023 was prepared. The deceased succumbed to the injuries during treatment at Vardhman Mahavir Medical College & Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1. The deceased was 26 years of age at the time of accident and was working as Labourer and earning Rs.20,000/-
per month. FIR No. 664/2023 under Section 279/337 IPC, PS Punjabi Bagh was registered against respondent no.1. It is averred that the respondent no.01 being driver, respondent no.02 being owner and respondent no.03 being the insurer of offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner(s).
REPLY OF RESPONDENT NO.01 & 02.
3.1 No WS has been filed by respondent no.1 & 2 despite grant of number of opportunities. Accordingly, the right of respondent no.1 & 2 to file WS was closed vide order dated 20.03.2024 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal. REPLY OF RESPONDENT NO.3 3.2 Respondent no.03 filed its reply wherein it is inter alia stated that the present DAR is not maintainable under Section 166 of The MV Act as the deceased was a pillion rider on the motorcycle and the rider of the motorcycle had hit the divider. The deceased is also liable for contributory negligence Sankar Paswan (LR) vs. Rakesh & Ors.
[MACT No. 744/2023] Page No.5 of 36
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.01.24 17:31:07
+0530
as he was not wearing any helmet. It is stated that the driver and the pillion rider of motorcycle were negligent as they were under the influence of alcohol as per their MLC on record. It is further averred that the respondent no.1 was not having any driving license at the time of accident and the owner of the motorcycle has handed over the motorcycle to respondent no.1 knowing that respondent no.1 does not have a driving license and therefore, respondent no.3 is not liable to pay the compensation. It has admitted that the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL4SDP2437 was insured with it vide policy no. 3410/01424039/000/00 valid from 21.12.2022 to 20.12.2027. With these averments, the respondent no.1 has prayed for dismissal of the DAR/petition.
ISSUES
4. After completion of pleadings, on 20.03.2024, Ld. Predecessor of this tribunal framed the following issues: -
1. Whether the deceased Sanjay Paswan sustained fatal injuries in the accident that took place on 09.10.2023 at about 00:44 am (night) at in front of Shamshan Ghat, Ring Road, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle (motorcycle) bearing registration number DL4SDP2437 by respondent no.01, being owned by the respondent no.2 and insured with the respondent no.3? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, of what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
Sankar Paswan (LR) vs. Rakesh & Ors.
[MACT No. 744/2023] Page No.6 of 36
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.01.24
17:31:10 +0530
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
5.1 The petitioners examined petitioner no.1 Shankar
Paswan as PW-1 to establish their claim. He tendered his
evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He relied upon photocopies of Aadhar Cards of petitioners as Ex.PW1/1(colly) (OSR), photocopy of Aadhar Card and death certificate of the deceased as Ex.PW1/2(colly)(OSR), photocopy of dead body identification receipt as Ex. PW1/3 and complete set of DAR/criminal documents as Ex.PW1/4(colly), in his evidence. He was examined, cross-examined and discharged. 5.2(i) Th petitioners also examined the eye witness namely Sh. Ramit Mukhraj as PW2. PW-2 deposed that he does not remember the exact date of the incident, however, it took place in month of October or November 2023. He deposed that he was travelling from Pitampura towards Hari Nagar on a rental e- scooter, at about 10-10:30 PM, when he reached at road from Punjabi Bagh to Mayapuri, one bike splender which was of black/grey colour passed in fast speed. He further deposed that it was ridden in zig and zag manner by two occupants who were without helmets and one of them was also having bag. He deposed that while driving so, the motorcycle became disbalanced and struck against footpath of bus stop of Punjabi Bagh and both riders of the motorcycle fell down. He further deposed that immediately, public gathered there. The pillion rider was seriously injured and was taken to footpath, a bag was placed under his head. He deposed that the rider who was driving the bike was weeping and was trying to wake up the pillion rider who was bleeding profusely. The rider who was Sankar Paswan (LR) vs. Rakesh & Ors.
[MACT No. 744/2023] Page No.7 of 36
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.01.24
17:31:20 +0530
driving the motorcycle asked the people gathered at the spot for a mobile to make a call as his phone was damaged and the phone of the pillion rider was locked. He deposed that he provided him his mobile and the rider first made call to his sister-in-law and thereafter, made call at 100 number. He further deposed that one PCR came and took the pillion rider/injured to the hospital. Some police officials came on motorcycle and they noted down his name, address etc. On the next day, he was called at the police station and his statement qua incident was recorded by the police. He deposed that copy of his statement is already available on record as part of Ex.PW1/4. He further deposed that the incident took place in front of the Samshan Ghat of Punjabi Bagh.
5.2(ii) During his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3, he stated that the rider was shivering after the accident. He deposed that he did not note if he was under the influence of alcohol or not. He further deposed that he was not told by the police that both riders were under influence of alcohol and the driver was not having a driving license. He voluntarily stated that he was told that pillion rider has expired and driver has been sent to jail and that both persons were going for some party at the time of accident. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot of the incident. He denied the suggestion that family of deceased is known to him and he is deposing at their instance to extract compensation from respondents. He was not cross-examined by respondent no.1 & 2, was cross-examined by respondent no.3 and discharged. 5.3(i) The petitioners have also examined ASI Dashrath as Sankar Paswan (LR) vs. Rakesh & Ors.
[MACT No. 744/2023] Page No.8 of 36
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.01.24
17:31:26 +0530
PW-3. He deposed that he was on emergency duty at PS Punjabi Bagh from 08:00 PM night of 08.10.2023 to 08:00 AM of 09.10.2023. He deposed that he received DD no.6A of their PS regarding accident having taken place in front of Cremation Ground of Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi and that offending vehilce/car (as far as he remembers) having fled away after the incident. He further deposed that he went to the spot of incident and there he found only one motorcycle splendor of Delhi registration number lying at the spot of incident, he left HC Dinesh at the spot of incident and went to Acharya Bhikshu Hospital, he received the MLC No. 3092 of the deceased Sanjay Paswan who was unconscious at that time. He further deposed that the offender Rakesh was found at the hospital and after seeing the police, he started begging for giving him and he was under influence of alcohol. He further deposed that he asked him to calm down and to explain the incident. He deposed that he told him that they both work at Saloon at Pitampura, both had started on the motorcycle from there, he was riding the motorcycle and the injured was travelling as pillion rider, at near Cremation Ground, Punjabi Bagh, there was slight bend in the road, their motorcycle was at fast speed and he could not properly turn his vehicle at the said bend of the road, in the process, his motorcycle hit one stone/pillar at the bend due to which his motorcycle flew in the air, he landed along with motorcycle, however, the injured was thrown into the air and fell ahead of their motorcycle, the injured received serious injuries upon his head whereas he only had minor injuries since he remained seated on the motorcycle at the time of landing, both Sankar Paswan (LR) vs. Rakesh & Ors.
[MACT No. 744/2023] Page No.9 of 36
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.01.24 17:31:29
+0530
tyres of the motorcycle were blown away in the incident. He deposed that the injured was referred to the Safdarjung Hospital, the relatives of the injured and the other employees of the saloon reached at the hospital. He deposed that he got Rakesh medically examined at said hospital. He deposed that he collected MLC of both deceased and Rakesh. He further deposed that he went to the spot of the incident, called the crime team at the spot and sent HC Dinesh to the police station to get the matter registered. He deposed that he completed the other process of investigation and filed final report under Section 173 Cr. PC against Rakesh and DAR before this Tribunal already Ex.PW1/4 on record. 5.3(ii) In his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3, he deposed that in DD no.6A, it was reported by the caller that one black baleno car has hit the bike and has fled towards Rajouri Garden. He stated that the caller joined the investigation and told him that on the day of incident, the injured Rakesh had asked him for his mobile and had informed the police station regarding the incident, however, he does not know what he reported to the police from his phone. He deposed that he did not state the above fact in the DD no.6A as he came to know about the same only after talking with the informer. He deposed that the informer had joined the investigation on the next day of the incident as on the day of the incident, his phone was switched off. He deposed that the phone was switched off till the registration of the FIR. He denied the suggestion that the incident happened with baleno of the informer and the investigation was manipulated at the instance of the owner of the baleno car. He denied the suggestion that the story of the incident Sankar Paswan (LR) vs. Rakesh & Ors.
[MACT No. 744/2023] Page No.10 of 36
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.01.24
17:31:31 +0530
has been cooked up in connivance with the owner of the baleno car and informer. He denied the suggestion that the blame of the incident was placed upon Rakesh because his vehicle was insured. He further denied the suggestion that he has done a false investigation and has filed a false DAR.
RESPONDENTS EVIDENCE 6.1 No evidence was led by respondent no.1 & 2. 6.2 Respondent no.3 examined Sh. Sayok Bandyopadhyay, Assistant Manager (Legal Claims) as R3W1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.R3W1/A. He was examined, cross-examined and discharged. ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS 7.1(i) It was argued by Ld. counsel for petitioner that the petitioner has proved that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1. It was argued that the accident happened due to the sole negligence of respondent no. 1 and the deceased cannot be liable for any contributory negligence.
7.1(ii) He further submitted that the petitioner was around 26 years of age at the time of accident, he was unmarried and was working at a Salon and his income may be calculated as per applicable minimum wages. It is submitted that petitioners were dependent upon the deceased at the time of accident. Keeping in view the same, the award may be passed as per their entitlement. 7.1(iii) In the written arguments, the petitioners has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of "Yashpal Luthra & Anr. vs. United India Insurance Co. ltd. & Anr." MAC. APP. No. 176/2009 decided on 09.12.2009.
Sankar Paswan (LR) vs. Rakesh & Ors.
[MACT No. 744/2023] Page No.11 of 36
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.01.24
17:31:35 +0530
ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO. 1&2 7.2 No arguments were advanced by the counsel for respondent no. 1 & 2 as no one was present on behalf of respondent no.1 & 2 on the date fixed for final arguments. ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO. &3 7.3 It was argued by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3 that the present DAR/petition is not maintainable under Section 166 of The MV Act as the involvement and negligence of the another vehicle is required to be proved whereas in the present case only the vehicle offending vehicle is involved and the injuries is self inflicted injuries. It was further argued that it has come on record that the deceased was not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident, thus, violating Section 128 of The MV Act, 1988 & rule 193 of the CMV(Central Motor Vehicles) Rules, therefore, contributory negligence must be attributed to deceased. He argued that it has also been proved from the medical documents on record that both the deceased and respondent no.1 were under the influence of alcohol and in fact Rakesh in his statement u/s 161 Cr. PC has admitted to the same. It is further argued that the respondent no.1 was not having a valid driving license to drive the offending vehicle as is admitted by him in his statement u/s 161 Cr. PC as mentioned in the DAR. It is argued that in these circumstances, the insurance cannot be made liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.
ANALYSIS/FINDINGS ON ISSUES ISSUE NO.1
1. Whether the deceased Sanjay Paswan sustained fatal injuries in the accident that took place on 09.10.2023 at about 00:44 am Sankar Paswan (LR) vs. Rakesh & Ors.
[MACT No. 744/2023] Page No.12 of 36
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.01.24
17:31:38 +0530
(night) at in front of Shamshan Ghat, Ring Road, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle (motorcycle) bearing registration number DL4SDP2437 by respondent no.01, being owned by the respondent no.2 and insured with the respondent no.3? OPP.
8.1 Before adverting to the facts of the present petition for deciding the above issue, at the very outset, it would be apposite to note here that strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The standard of proof is not as strict as in criminal cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities only. In fact, the burden of proof in a claim petition under the M.V. Act, is even lesser than a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of "Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors." (2009) 13 SC 530, "Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and Ors." 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and "Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.", 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc. 8.2 Keeping in mind the aforesaid legal preposition, this Tribunal has gone through the testimony of the witnesses and entire material available on record. This Tribunal has also given its thoughtful consideration to arguments addressed by Ld. Counsels for the parties and the judgments cited on record. 8.3 In support of their case, the petitioners examined the father of the deceased as PW1.
8.4 PW1 has stated in his evidence that the deceased sustained fatal injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of Sankar Paswan (LR) vs. Rakesh & Ors.
[MACT No. 744/2023] Page No.13 of 36
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.01.24
17:31:41 +0530
the offending vehicle by respondent no. 1. In his evidence, he has relied upon the DAR as Ex.PW1/4 (Colly) amongst other documents. He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3, however, nothing favourable to the respondents came on record.
8.5 Eye witnesses of the accident in question Sh. Ramit Mukhraj was examined as PW2. He deposed in detail about his presence at the sport, the manner of the accident, the condition of the respondent no.1 and the deceased after the accident and how the police was informed of the incident by use of his phone. He deposed that when he reached at road from Punjabi Bagh to Mayapuri, one splender bike of black/grey colour passed across him in fast speed and that it was being ridden by two occupants in zig and zag manner. He deposed that while so driving, the motorcycle became disbalanced and struck against footpath of bus stop of Punjabi Bagh and both riders of the motorcycle fell down. He deposed that the pillion rider was seriously injured and was taken to footpath and the bag was placed under his head. He also deposed that he provided his mobile to the rider of the bike at his request as his phone was damaged and the phone of the pillion rider was locked, he called his sister-in-law and also made a call at 100 number. He has also deposed that some police official came on motorcycle and they noted down his name, address etc., and on the next day, he was called at the police station and his statement qua incident was recorded by the police. He deposed that copy of his statement is already available on record as part of Ex.PW1/4.
8.6 In his cross examination, PW2 deposed that the bike rider was shivering after the incident. However, he has not noted Sankar Paswan (LR) vs. Rakesh & Ors.
[MACT No. 744/2023] Page No.14 of 36
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.01.24 17:31:44
+0530
whether he was under influence of alcohol or not. He further deposed that he was not told by the police that both riders were under influence of alcohol and the person who was driving it, was not having driving license to drive the same. He voluntarily deposed that he was told that the pillion rider has expired and the person who was driving the motorcycle has been sent to jail and further that both were going for some party at the time of incident. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot at the time of incident. He further denied the suggestion that the family of the deceased is known to him and, therefore, he is deposing falsely at the instance of the family members of the deceased to extract compensation from the respondents. 8.7 Thus, the eye witness stood the test of cross- examination and his testimony as to the rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1, as to his presence at the spot and the manner of the accident remained unshaken during cross- examination. Nothing favourable to respondents came on record despite a skillful cross-examination. Thus, there is no reason to discredit the testimony of the said witness. 8.8 Even in the statement of respondent no.1 recorded u/s 161 Cr. PC by the police during investigation, it has been stated that he was driving the offending vehicle in fast speed and when he reached at Punjabi Bagh Shamshan Ghat, Ring Road, he got disbalanced. Due to same, deceased Sanjay Paswan fell on the road and sustained injuries and expired during the course of treatment at Safdarjang Hospital. He also admitted in his statement that he and the deceased had taken liquor on 09.10.2023 and he did not have the driving license to drive the Sankar Paswan (LR) vs. Rakesh & Ors.
[MACT No. 744/2023] Page No.15 of 36
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.01.24
17:31:47 +0530
offending vehicle.
8.9 Further respondent no.1 namely Rakesh has been
charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 279//304A IPC, 3/181, 5/180 and Section 185 of The MV Act by the Investigating Agency after arriving at the conclusion, on the basis of detailed investigation carried out by it, that the accident in question had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1. The investigations were duly carried out which revealed not only the fact that the respondent no.1 who was driving the offending vehicle had hit the divider at infront of Shamshan Ghat, Punjabi Bagh, Ring Road himself, but also that it was being driven in rash and negligent manner and under the influence of alcohol which resulted in the accident. Thus, it sufficiently proves the complicity of the respondent no.1 in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly.
8.10 Furthermore, DAR filed by IO also includes the final report under Section 173 Cr. PC filed by IO in FIR No.427/2021, MLC of the deceased as well as respondent no.1, postmortem report of deceased, site plan of the place of accident, notice u/s 133 of The MV Act and its reply, mechanical inspection report, statement of driver/ respondent no. 1 Rakesh, statement of eye witness etc., which clearly show that the deceased sustained fatal injuries in the road vehicular accident caused by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1.
8.11 Even otherwise, respondent no.01/driver was the best witness who could have rebutted the case of rash and Sankar Paswan (LR) vs. Rakesh & Ors.
[MACT No. 744/2023] Page No.16 of 36
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.01.24
17:31:49 +0530
negligent driving of the offending vehicle put forth vide petition/DAR and could have thrown some light as to how and under what circumstances, the accident in question took place. However, respondent no.01/driver has chosen not to step into the witness box during the course of inquiry. In the given circumstances, adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him, to the effect that the accident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. 8.12 As far as the issue of contributory negligence of the deceased is concerned, it was argued by the counsel for the respondent no. 3 that the deceased was not wearing a helmet on the day of incident. PW-2 has deposed that the deceased and the respondent no.1 were not wearing the helmets at the time of the accident. There is no seizure of any helmet by the police. Thus, it is clear that the deceased was not wearing a helmet at the time of accident. Perusal of the postmortem report on record shows that the cause of the death of the deceased has been mentioned as "due to cessation of function of brain as a result of injury no.1, which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature". Had the deceased been wearing a helmet at the time of accident, there were chances of lessor impact on the head of the deceased and he might have survived. Thus, there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. However, the main cause of the accident is the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.1 and that too under the influence of alcohol. It has been proved on record that the respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle at a very fast speed and in zig zag manner. He did not even have the driving license to drive the offending Sankar Paswan (LR) vs. Rakesh & Ors.
[MACT No. 744/2023] Page No.17 of 36
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.01.24
17:31:53 +0530
vehicle. In these circumstances and in view of the above
discussion, the contributory negligence of the deceased is assessed at 05%.
8.13 In view of the above discussion and considering the evidence on record, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the claimant has on the scale of preponderance of probabilities proved that the deceased sustained fatal injuries in road accident on 09.10.2023 which occurred at about 12:44 AM at Opposite Shamshan Ghat Ring Road, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration number DL4SDP2437 being driven by respondent no.1. Accordingly, issue no.01 is decided in favour of the petitioners. 8.14 It is pertinent to mention here that it was argued by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.3 that the present petition is not maintainable under Section 166 of The MV Act as there is no involvement of a second vehicle in the accident, however, the same is without any merit as it is a settled law that the pillion rider can maintain a claim of compensation against the driver of the vehicle on which he was riding.
ISSUE NO. (2) :
Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, of what amount and from whom? OPP
9.1 In view of the findings & decision in issue no.1 above, the petitioner is entitled to compensation. 9.2 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgments in "Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors." (2003) 6 SCC 121 and "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." (2017) Sankar Paswan (LR) vs. Rakesh & Ors.
[MACT No. 744/2023] Page No.18 of 36
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.01.24
17:31:55 +0530
16 SCC 680 laid down the guidelines for assessing compensation payable in death cases. In the light of the same, the compensation payable is determined as under:-
AGE OF THE DECEASED AND THE APPLICABLE MULTIPLIER 9.3 The date of incident is 09.10.2023. As per Aadhar Card of deceased available on record as Ex.PW1/2, the date of birth of the deceased is 01.01.1998. Hence, deceased was 25 years of age at the time of incident. Thus, the multiplier applicable would be 18.
INCOME OF THE DECEASED 9.4(i) Petitioners have claimed that deceased was working at a Saloon and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. But no documentary proof has been filed by the petitioner to prove the income of the deceased. As per the statement of the respondent no.1 recorded u/s 161 Cr. PC, the deceased Sanjay Paswan was working with respondent no.1 in Saloon. It was deposed by IO/PW-3 that the respondent no.1 had informed him that both the respondent no.1 and the deceased used to work together at a Saloon at Pitampura. He has also deposed that employees from the saloon had visited the hospital. The statement of PW-3 in this regard has remained unrebutted. Further, as per the DAR, the deceased was a resident of Delhi. It is not disputed that the deceased was working at a Saloon in Delhi, however, nature of his job at the Saloon is not stated/proved. Hence, the income of deceased has to be assessed on the basis of chart of Minimum Wages of an unskilled person in the State of NCT of Delhi. The minimum wages for an unskilled person of State of NCT of Delhi on the date of accident i.e. 09.10.2023 were Rs.17,494/-.
Sankar Paswan (LR) vs. Rakesh & Ors.
[MACT No. 744/2023] Page No.19 of 36
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.01.24
17:31:58 +0530
9.4(ii) Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased
needs to be considered as Rs.17,494/- per month on the date of accident.
FUTURE PROSPECTS 9.5(i) The deceased was 25 years at the time of incident, so the future prospects have to be calculated at 40% as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.," (supra). 9.5(ii) Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased after adding future prospects would be Rs.24,492/- (rounding off Rs.24491.6/-(Rs. 17,494/- + Rs.6997.6/- which is 40% of Rs.17,494/-).
DEDUCTIONS 9.6 There is no dispute that the deceased was a bachelor. The present claim petition is pursued by parents of the deceased. In the affidavit filed along with the DAR, father of the deceased has stated that he is doing labour work and his annual income is Rs.72,000/-. Hence, father cannot be treated as dependent upon deceased and the mother only can be considered as dependent upon the deceased. Deduction towards personal and living expenses of a deceased should be assumed 50% as per judgment of "Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors." (2003) 6 SCC 121. Hence, 50% deductions would be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased. 9.7 Thus, the monthly loss of dependency would be Rs.12,246/- (after deducting 50% of Rs.24,492/-) and accordingly, the multiplicand/annual loss of dependency would be Rs.1,46,952/- (Rs.12,246/- x 12).
Sankar Paswan (LR) vs. Rakesh & Ors.
[MACT No. 744/2023] Page No.20 of 36
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.01.24
17:32:00 +0530
9.8 Thus, the total loss of dependency is ascertained as
Rs.26,45,136/- (Rs. 1,46,952/- x 18).
COMPENSATION QUA NON-PECUNIARY HEADS 9.9(i) In "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680", it was held by The Hon'ble Apex court as under:-
"61... (viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years".
9.9(ii) In view of the same and further in view of the judgment in " Rajwati @ Rajjo & Ors. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Civil Appeal no. 8179/2022 decided on 09.12.2022, the compensation under this head is awarded as under:-
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES 9.10 The loss of estate and funeral expenses are awarded as Rs.20,000/- each.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM 9.11 Original there were two claimants i.e. mother and father. Thus, an amount of Rs. 96,000/- (Rs.48,000 x 02) is awarded under this head.
TOTAL COMPENSATION 9.12 In view of above discussions, the total compensation is calculated as under:-
SL.N HEADS RUPEES
O.
1. Total Loss of Dependency Rs.26,45,136/-
2. Loss of Estate Rs.20,000/-
Sankar Paswan (LR) vs. Rakesh & Ors.
[MACT No. 744/2023] Page No.21 of 36
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.01.24
17:32:04 +0530
3. Funeral expenses Rs.20,000/-
4. Loss of Consortium Rs.96,000/-
TOTAL Rs.27,81,136/-
10. Thus, total compensation of Rs.26,42,080/-(Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Forty Two Thousand and and Eighty Only) [after deducting 5% on account of contributory negligence of the deceased] [(Rs.27,81,136/- - Rs.1,39,056/- (5%)] is awarded in favour of petitioners and against the respondents. LIABILITY :
11.1 It is contended by the respondent no.3 Insurance Company that driver/respondent no.1 was not holding any valid driving license at the time of incident and was under the influence of alcohol. It was argued that even respondent no.2 has handed over the offending vehicle to his son despite knowing that his son does not have a driving license to drive the offending vehicle and therefore, even respondent no.2 has violated the terms of the policy. In this regard, the respondent no.3 has examined its Assistant Manager (Legal Claims) Sh. Sayok Bandyopadhyay as R3W1. His deposition in this regard as remained unchallenged.
11.2 As per records of DAR, IO has also filed challan under Section 3/181, 5/181 and 185 MV Act against the respondent no.1. Hence, it is established on record that respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle in contravention of the terms of the insurance policy and hence, respondent no.1 & 2 are held liable. However, merely for this reason, the insurance company cannot be exonerated from its liability to pay the award amount to the petitioner.
Sankar Paswan (LR) vs. Rakesh & Ors.
[MACT No. 744/2023] Page No.22 of 36
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.01.24 17:32:06
+0530
11.3 The MV Act is a social welfare legislation enacted
amongst other purposes for the benefit of the victim of Road Traffic Accident and for speedy disposal of such cases. A mere glance at the aims and objectives of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2019 would show that one of the main objective that the act aims to achieve is to ensure expeditious help to accident victim and their families. The act provides compulsory insurance qua third party risk making the insurance company liable to reimburse the insured in case of any liability incurred by him towards third party, arising out of motor vehicle accident involving his vehicle. The act aims at providing compensation to the victim of the accident who have suffered injuries 'grievous or simple' or the loss of their loved ones to ensure that they are able to lead a decent life post accident. Though the compensation awarded to a victim of a accident under the MV Act cannot relegate the person to the same position as he was in, before the accident, yet the financial assistance provided to him in the form of compensation provides some ray of light to him and enables him to lead a decent life post accident. Therefore, it is important to ensure that the compensation to which a victim of an accident is held entitled in the judgment or an award passed by MACT Tribunal, is made available to him without any delay and the victim is not made to run from pillar to post to obtain the same and also does not have to wait for years and years to receive the compensation. Any delay in payment of compensation would amount to rendering the provisions of the MV Act meaningless. It also cannot be lost sight of that where the driver and the owner are the persons with Sankar Paswan (LR) vs. Rakesh & Ors.
[MACT No. 744/2023] Page No.23 of 36
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.01.24
17:32:09 +0530
weak financial background, the payment of the compensation to the victim would infact become impossible. 11.4 Recently, a similar issue was raised before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in matter of "ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Vs. Arti Devi & Ors", First Appeal from order No.1780 of 2024. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 31.01.2025 held that the principle of pay & recover would still be applicable. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced here as under:-
"21. When the language used in sub-Section (4) of Section 149 prior to amendment as replaced by sub- Section (4) of Section 150 by the Amendment Act of 2019, is carefully examined, the words "shall, as respects such liabilities as are required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 147, be of no effect" would only mean that under the circumstances covered by sub-Section (4), either of Section 149 or Section 150, the insurer would be well within its rights to avoid liability flowing from the insurance policy. Meaning thereby that the insurer would be absolved of bearing liability to pay compensation to the claimants. It does not mean that the insurer would also be absolved from its liability to indemnify the owner's risk. Such indemnification will still continue to remain alive and the insurer shall have to first pay the compensation through indemnification and, then, it shall have a right to recover from the owner the amount paid as the ultimate liability shall have to be borne by the owner and not by insurer. In such an event, there would be no financial loss to the insurer as it would be compensated through recovery from the owner. The aforesaid provisions are expressly to give defence to the insurer and have to be read to that extent only and not to interpret as if the liability to indemnify stands washed away. It therefore follows that even if the proviso to sub- Section (4) would not have been there before the amendment, the indemnification concept would have till remained alive and operative and, hence, mere omission of the proviso by the Amendment Act of 2019 would be of no avail.
22. Therefore, when Shri Parihar urges that if, in every case, liability to pay compensation has to be borne by the Insurance Company, there would be no effect of providing grounds for defence either under sub-section (2) of the Act prior to amendment or under sub-section (2) of the Act after amendment, this Court finds no force in the submission. The reason is that providing grounds of defence under the said provisions would be read so as to give an opportunity to the Insurance Company to avoid passing of award against it, i,e, holding it liable to bear the award. The said liability to have an award against the Insurance Company is distinct from the situation where award is against the owner and insurer is made liable to pay compensation to the claimants and then recover the Sankar Paswan (LR) vs. Rakesh & Ors.
[MACT No. 744/2023] Page No.24 of 36
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.01.24
17:32:11 +0530
same from the owner. Non-receipt of premium as required under Section 64(V)B of the Insurance Act, 1938 has now been added in Section 150(2). It reflects that even in a case where premium is not received by the Insurance Company, it can raise a ground of challenge so as to avoid passing of award against it and, in that event also, award would be drawn against the owner. When payment or non-payment of premium is significant after amendment and has been made a ground of defence, the Court observes that a third party risk is covered under the policy which is a contract and premium qua third party risk is received by the insurer in relation to the contract. Therefore, policy continues to subsist to cover third party risk so long the premium is received and non-payment hereof would absolve the Insurance Company from its liability of an award being passed against it. 23-24 xxx
25. The Court cannot overlook an aspect that Section 147(5) of the Act, prior to amendment has been replaced by Section 147(6) of the Act after amendment but there are no qualifying words referable to section 150. Sub-section (6) of section 147 reads as under:-
"(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, an insurer issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons."
From renumbering of the sub-section, as above, it follows that once the liability to indemnify the person specified in the policy, as per sub-section (6) of Section 147, even after amendment, continues to exist in the Statute book and it excludes applicability of any other law for the time being in force, indemnification by the insurer does not vanish even after amendments incorporated by the Act of 2019. The right to recover the amount paid to the claimants as per conditions mentioned in section 150 would still be available to the insurer as indemnification has not been taken away by the legislature nor has it been explained by adding words to section 147 or anywhere else.
26. This Court also finds that since the contract of insurance is between insurer and the owner and has no concern with the claimants who are in fact victims of the accident, language used in Section 149 (prior to amendment) and Section 150 (after amendment) would show that notwithstanding the fact that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel the policy on account of breach of terms thereof, it shall pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the award. Therefore, whether Insurance Company cancels or does not cancel an insurance policy, the same has nothing to do with the claimants and they are entitled to get the amount from insurer. It means that claimants' right to receive compensation from the insurer at the first instance is unaffected by the inter-se rights and liabilities arising out of contract between the insurer and the owner.
27. Words "no sum shall be payable by the insurer under sub- ection (1)" used either in Section 149 of the Act of 1988 (prior to amendment) in Section 150 (after amendment) would mean that if the grounds of defence set-forth in sub-section (2) of Section 149 or Section 150, as the case may be, exist, no sum shall be payable by the insurer. It does not mean that the sum shall not be paid by Sankar Paswan (LR) vs. Rakesh & Ors.
[MACT No. 744/2023] Page No.25 of 36
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.01.24
17:32:15 +0530
the insurer if the award contains a direction to the insurer to pay and recover. Liability to pay the amount has to be segregated from actual payment made by the insurer in case of survival and existence of insurance policy issued under Section 147 of the Act. Word "liability" has to be understood as the "final liability to bear the award for all time to come" separate from concept of indemnification by the insurer by making immediate payment.
28. xxx
29. Therefore, when the provisions of the Act of 1988 are read with C.P.C., it becomes clear that as soon as an award is passed, the claimants become entitled to get the amount of compensation and they get financial relief even during the pendency of the appeal filed by the insurer.
30. xxx
31. A bare perusal of clause 2 read with clause 5 (b) and clause 51 reflects that the intention of the legislature was never to withdraw protection and reliefs as regards compensation ensured by the previous existing provisions. Rather, the Bill strives more towards ensuring expeditious help to the accident victims and their families. The emotional and social trauma caused to the family which loses its bread winner, is still one of the special considerations as set forth in the Statement above, The Bill was brought with an object to replace the existing provisions of insurance with simplified provisions in order to provide expeditious help to accident victims and their families. There is nothing in the Statement of Objects and Reasons which may, either directly or indirectly, infer withdrawal of insurer's liability to pay compensation as soon as the award is declared, even in case of occurrence of breach of policy or other existence of similar grounds of defence available to the insurer. Therefore, the purpose behind bringing amendments in the Act of 1988 was clearly to provide immediate financial help to the accident victims and their dependents and not to create a situation where they are made to run from pillar to post even after an award is declared in their favour.
32-37. xxx
38. The Court, therefore, holds that 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. Held accordingly."
Emphasis supplied.
11.5 From the above discussions, it is clear that the exonerating the insurance company from the liability to pay the Sankar Paswan (LR) vs. Rakesh & Ors.
[MACT No. 744/2023] Page No.26 of 36
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.01.24
17:32:17 +0530
compensation to the petitioner would render award meaningless and would be against the benevolent provisions of the MV Act. 11.6 It would be also apposite to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of "United India General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Santro Devi & Ors" (2009) 1 SCC 558 has observed as under:-
"14. The provisions of compulsory insurance have been framed to advance a social object. It is in a way part of the social justice doctrine. When a certificate of insurance is issued, in law, the insurance company is bound to reimburse the owner. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that a contract of insurance must fulfill the statutory requirements of formation of a valid contract but in case of a third party risk, the question has to be considered from a different angle. It was further held that Section 146 of the Act gives complete protection to third party in respect of or bodily injury or damage to the property while using the vehicle in public place. For that purpose, insurance of the vehicle has been made compulsory to the vehicle or to the owner. This would further reflect that compulsory insurance is obviously for the benefit of Thirty party..."
11.7 It is also pertinent to note that in the judgment in "National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh & Ors", a question of law pertaining to interpretation of Section 149(2)(a)
(ii) vis a vis the proviso to sub-section 4 & 5 of the said Section of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, as it then existed, was raised before Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was argued on behalf of the insurance company that the defences provided in Section 149(2) must be allowed to be invoked by the insurer to its full effect and once the defence is proved, the Tribunal should be bound to discharge the insurer and affix the liability only on the owner and driver of the offending vehicle without any directions to pay the award amount and recover the same from the owner. The hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment while referring to Section 149(1) of the MV Act as it then existed (now Section 150(1) of the MV Act as amended by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Sankar Paswan (LR) vs. Rakesh & Ors.
[MACT No. 744/2023] Page No.27 of 36
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.01.24
17:32:20 +0530
Act, 2019 adopted a liberal approach to protect the rights of third party and held that even if, the insurance company is able to establish its defence under Section 149(2) of the MV Act, the insurance company would be liable to satisfy the decree with the right to recover the same from the owner. It was held that the liability of the insurer arises from the contract as well as the statute and therefore, it would not be proper to apply the rules of interpretation of contract in interpreting a statute. It was held by the Hon'ble Court:-
"Proviso appended to sub-section (4) of Section 149 is referable only to sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act. It is an independent provision and must be read in the context of Section 96(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Furthermore, it is one thing to say that the insurer will be entitled to avoid its liability owing to breach of terms of a contract of insurance but it is another thing to say that the vehicle is not insured at all. If the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, the same would render the proviso to sub-section (4) as well as sub-section (5) of Section 149 of the Act otiose, nor any effective meaning can be attributed to the liability clause of the insurance company contained in sub-section (1). The decision in Kamla's case (supra) has to be read in the aforementioned context.
Sub-section (5) of Section 149 which imposes a liability on the insurer must also be given its full effect. The insurance company may not be liable to satisfy the decree and, therefore, its liability may be zero but it does mean that it did not have initial liability at all. Thus, if the insurance company is made liable to pay any amount, it can recover the entire amount paid to the third party on behalf of the assured. If this interpretation is not given to the beneficent provisions of the Act having regard to its purport and object, we fail to see a situation where beneficent provisions can be given effect to. Sub-section (7) of Section 149 of the Act, to which pointed attention of the Court has been drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which is in negative language may now be noticed. The said provision must be read with sub- section (1) thereof. The right to avoid liability in terms of sub- section (2) of Section 149 is restricted as has been discussed hereinbefore. It is one thing to say that the insurance companies are entitled to raise a defence but it is another thing to say that despite the fact that its defence has been accepted having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has power to direct them to satisfy the decree at the first instance and then direct recovery of the same from the owner. These two matters stand apart and require contextual reading."
11.8 Section 149(1) of the MV Act, 1988 (as it existed Sankar Paswan (LR) vs. Rakesh & Ors.
[MACT No. 744/2023] Page No.28 of 36
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.01.24
17:32:22 +0530
prior to the Motor Vehicles (Amendment), Act 2019) has now been renumbered as Section 150(1) of the MV Act 1988 (as amended by Motor Vehicles (Amendment), Act 2019) and thus, the said provision in its letter and spirit still exists on the statute book, and, therefore, the judgment in Swaran Singh (supra) is still binding upon this Tribunal.
11.9 It would also be apposite to reproduce the following findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swaran Singh (supra):-
"The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions are as follows:-
"(i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of vehicles against third party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object.
(ii) Insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed under Section 163 A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 inter alia in terms of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act.
(iii)-(vii). Xxx
(viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having a learner's licence, the insurance companies would be liable to satisfy the decree.
(ix) The claims tribunal constituted under Section 165 read with Section 168 is empowered to adjudicate all claims in respect of the accidents involving death or of bodily injury or damage to property of third party arising in use of motor vehicle. The said power of the tribunal is not restricted to decide the claims inter se between claimant or claimants on one side and insured, insurer and driver on the other. In the course of adjudicating the claim for compensation and to decide the availability of defence or defences to the insurer, the Tribunal has necessarily the power and jurisdiction to decide disputes inter se between insurer and the insured. The decision rendered on the claims and disputes inter se between the insurer and insured in the course of adjudication of claim for compensation by the claimants and the award made thereon is enforceable and executable in the same manner as provided in Section 174 of the Act for enforcement and execution of the award in favour of the claimants.
(x) Where on adjudication of the claim under the Act the tribunal arrives at a conclusion that the insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with the provisions of section 149(2) read with sub-section (7), as interpreted by this Court above, the Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the Sankar Paswan (LR) vs. Rakesh & Ors.
[MACT No. 744/2023] Page No.29 of 36
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.01.24
17:32:25 +0530
tribunal. Such determination of claim by the Tribunal will be enforceable and the money found due to the insurer from the insured will be recoverable on a certificate issued by the tribunal to the Collector in the same manner under Section 174 of the Act as arrears of land revenue. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by sub-
section (3) of Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from the date of announcement of the award by the tribunal.
(xi) The provisions contained in sub-section (4) with proviso thereunder and sub-section (5) which are intended to cover specified contingencies mentioned therein to enable the insurer to recover amount paid under the contract of insurance on behalf of the insured can be taken recourse of by the Tribunal and be extended to claims and defences of insurer against insured by relegating them to the remedy before regular court in cases where on given facts and circumstances adjudication of their claims inter se might delay the adjudication of the claims of the victims."
11.10 Thus, even in cases where the insurance company has been able to make out a defence as per the provision of 149(2) [now Section 150(2)], the insurance company has been held liable to pay the compensation amount and recover the same from the insured.
11.11 In view of the foregoing discussion, the binding precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Section 150 sub- section 1 & 5 of the MV Act, 1988, Section 147(6) of the MV Act, 1988 and the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited (supra), the principle of pay & recover would still be applicable to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the insurance company is held liable to pay compensation to the petitioners as a valid policy was effective on the date of the accident and shall also be entitled to recover the said amount from the insured as per contract between them. Hence, insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount in favour of the petitioners.
RELIEF/ISSUE NO.03 Sankar Paswan (LR) vs. Rakesh & Ors.
[MACT No. 744/2023] Page No.30 of 36
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.01.24
17:32:28 +0530
12. In view of the above findings, this Tribunal hereby passes an award of Rs.26,42,080/-(Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Forty Two Thousand and and Eighty Only) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition/DAR i.e. 25.11.2023 till the date of the payment of the award amount to be paid by the respondent No.03/Insurance Company. Respondent no.3/Insurance Company is hereby directed to deposit the award amount in favour of the petitioner(s) with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account No.40711767202, CIF No.90891362578, IFSC Code - SBIN0000726, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this award together with the interest as stated herein above under intimation to this Tribunal and under intimation to the petitioners. In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
APPORTIONMENT & DISBURSEMENT OF AWARD AMOUNT 13.1 The compensation to the petitioners shall be distributed/disbursed as follows:-
Sr. Name Age/ Relatio Award Amount Amount Period of No of DOB n with Amount of award kept in FDRs with . petition injured to be FDRs cumulative er/ / released interest claiman decease t d
1. Shankar 01.01 Father 48,000/- Rs.48,000/ Nil Nil Paswan .1959 along with - along proportionate with interest proportion ate interest
2. Savitri 01.01 Mother Rs. 5,94,080/- 20,00,000/- 20,00,000/-
Devi .1974 25,94,080/- along with along with Sankar Paswan (LR) vs. Rakesh & Ors.
[MACT No. 744/2023] Page No.31 of 36
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.01.24
17:32:31 +0530
Along with proportionat proportionate
proportionate e interest interest shall
interest be kept in the
form of FDRs
(fixed deposit
receipts) in
the multiples
of Rs.20,000/-
each for a
period of one
month, two
months and
three months
and so on and
so forth,
having
cumulative
interest.
TOTAL Rs.26,42,080/-
13.2 The amount of FDRs on maturity shall directly be
released in petitioner's Saving Bank Account. 13.3 All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(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(s).
(c) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the MACT bank account of the claimant
(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(e) 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 card (s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
Sankar Paswan (LR) vs. Rakesh & Ors.
[MACT No. 744/2023] Page No.32 of 36
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.01.24
17:32:33 +0530
(f) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) 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(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(g) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause
(g) above.
14. Concerned Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch is directed to transfer the award amount, in the above-mentioned manner, as per award in the saving bank account of claimant/petitioner, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
15. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph, specimen signature, copy of bank passbook and copy of residence proof of the petitioner, be sent to Nodal Officer of State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
16. Nazir of this Court shall prepare a separate file regarding the status of deposition/non-deposition of the award amount by the respondent(s) after making necessary entry on CIS on 27.02.2026.
17. A digital copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost through email.
18. Ahlmad staff is directed to send the copy of award to Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority as per the procedure of Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure (MCTAP).
19. Ahlmad staff is also directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Sankar Paswan (LR) vs. Rakesh & Ors.
[MACT No. 744/2023] Page No.33 of 36
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.01.24
17:32:37 +0530
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors." decided on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-email an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex Branch for information.
20. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 24th of January, 2026 (GUNJAN GUPTA) District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01, West/THC/Delhi/24.01.2026 Sankar Paswan (LR) vs. Rakesh & Ors.
[MACT No. 744/2023] Page No.34 of 36
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.01.24
17:32:40 +0530
FORM -XV
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident : 09.10.2023
2. Name of the deceased : Sanjay
3. Age of the deceased : 01.01.1998(DOB)
4. Occupation of the deceased : Not proved
5. Income of the deceased : Rs.17,494/-
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased : -
S.No. Name Age/DOB Relation
1. Shankar Paswan 01.01.1959 Father
2. Savitri Devi 01.01.1974 Mother
Computation of Compensation : -
Sr.No. Heads Awarded by the Claim
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs.17,494/-
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) 40%
9. Less-Personal expenses of the 50%
deceased(C)
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.12,246/-
[(A+B)-C=D]
11. Annual loss of dependency (D Rs.1,46,952/-
x 12)
12. Multiplier(E) 18
13. Total loss of dependency Rs.26,45,136/-
(Dx12xE= F)
14. Medical Expenses(G) NIL
15. Compensation for loss of Rs.96,000/-
consortium(H)
16. Compensation for loss of love NIL
and affection(I)
17. Compensation for loss of Rs.20,000/-
estate(J)
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs.20,000/-
Sankar Paswan (LR) vs. Rakesh & Ors.
[MACT No. 744/2023] Page No.35 of 36
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.01.24
17:32:42 +0530
expenses(K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.26,42,080/-(Rupees
(F+G+H+I+J+K=L) Twenty Six Lakhs
Forty Two Thousand
and and Eighty Only)
[after deducting 5%
on account of
contributory
negligence of the
deceased]
[(Rs.27,81,136/- -
Rs.1,39,056/- (5%)]
20. RATE OF INTEREST 9% per annum
AWARDED
21. Interest amount up to the date Rs. 5,14,545/-
of award (M) (W.e.f. 25.11.2023 to
24.01.2026 I.e 2 years 1
month and 29 days)
22. Total amount including interest Rs.31,56,625/-
(L + M) (Rs.26,42,080/- +
Rs.5,14,545/-)
23. Award amount released Rs.6,42,080/-
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.20,00,000/- along
proportionate interest
25. Mode of disbursement of the Mentioned in the award award amount to the claimant(s).
26. Next date for compliance of 27.02.2026 the award.
(GUNJAN GUPTA) District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01, West/THC/Delhi/24.01.2026 Sankar Paswan (LR) vs. Rakesh & Ors.
[MACT No. 744/2023] Page No.36 of 36
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.01.24
17:32:46 +0530