Delhi District Court
Sanjay Kumar Jha vs Anoop Singh And Ors on 16 April, 2025
Sanjay Kumar vs. Anoop Singh and Ors.
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHAMA GUPTA, PRESIDING
OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MACT no. 844/17
UNIQUE ID No.: DLNW01-010659-2017
LRs of Nikita Anand:
1. Sanjay Kumar Jha S/o Sh. Dinesh Chandra Jha
(Husband of deceased)
2. Ridam Kumari D/o Sh. Sanjay Kumar Jha,
(Daughter of deceased)
Both R/o Chamreli, Banka, Bihar-813102.
Also at:
A/4/C-2, Bhagwati Garden, Uttam Nagar, Dwarka,
Delhi-110059
(Petitioner no. 2 is minor and is represented through her
father Sh. Sanjay Kumar Jha, petitioner no. 1.
........ Petitioners/claimants
Versus
1. Anoop Singh
S/o Sh. Jagman Singh
R/o Gudda Guddi Ka Naka,
Ishwar Vihar Colony,
Lashkar, Gwalior, M.P.
....... Driver/R1
2. Aklesh Singh Kansana
S/o Sh. Dwarika Singh Kansana,
R/o Kansana Bhawan,
M.S. Road, Morena, M.P.
........Owner/R2
3. The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
2nd Floor, R.G. City Centre,
MACT no. 844/17 Page 1 of36
Sanjay Kumar vs. Anoop Singh and Ors.
LSC, Block-B, Lawrence Road,
Delhi-110035.
(cover note no. 1639798
valid from 05.08.2016 till 04.08.2017)
....... Insurance Company/R3
..... Respondents
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 24.11.2017
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 05.04.2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.04.2025
FORM - V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE
MENTIONED IN THE AWARD AS PER FORMAT
REFERRED IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
DELHI HIGH COURT IN FAO 842/2003 RAJESH TYAGI Vs.
JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018.
1. Date of the accident 04.06.2017
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the Petition was filed
investigating officer to the Claims
Tribunal
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the Petition was filed
investigating officer to the insurance
company.
4. Date of filing of Report under section Not mentioned in
173 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan the DAR
Magistrate
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Petition was filed
Information Report (DAR) by the
investigating Officer before Claims
Tribunal
6. Date of Service of DAR on the 02.04.2018
Insurance Company
MACT no. 844/17 Page 2 of36
Sanjay Kumar vs. Anoop Singh and Ors.
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant Petition was filed
(s).
8. Whether DAR was complete in all Petition was filed
respects?
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR No
removed later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the Petition was filed
documents filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or Petition was filed
deficiency on the part of the
Investigating Officer? If so, whether
any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated 02.04.2018
Officer by the insurance Company.
13. Name, address and contact number of Sh. Neeru Garg,
the Designated Officer of the Insurance Ld. Counsel for
Company. the insurance
company
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Yes
Insurance Company submitted his
report within 30 days of the DAR?
(Clause 22)
15. Whether the insurance company No
admitted the liability? If so, whether the
Designated Officer of the insurance
company fairly computed the
compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or No
deficiency on the part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance Company? If
so, whether any action/direction
warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to No offer was
the offer of the Insurance Company . given
18. Date of the Award 16.04.2025
19. Whether the award was passed with the No
consent of the parties?
MACT no. 844/17 Page 3 of36
Sanjay Kumar vs. Anoop Singh and Ors.
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed Yes
to open saving bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were 25.10.2024
directed to open saving bank account (s)
near his place of residence and produce
PAN Card and Aadhar Card and the
direction to the bank not issue any
cheque book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an endorsement to
this effect on the passbook(s).
22. Date on which the claimant (s) Not produced as
produced the passbook of their saving petitioner no. 1
bank account near the place of their has relinquished
residence along with the endorsement, his share in
PAN Card and Aadhar Card? favour of
petitioner no. 2
and petitioner no.
2 is minor
23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned
Claimant(s) above
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Statement not
claimant(s) and the address of the bank recorded as
with IFSC Code petitioner no. 2 is
minor
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank Yes
account(s) is near his place of
residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined Yes
at the time of passing of the award to
ascertain his/their financial condition.
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR 41065170303,
number, IFSC Code, name and branch 110002427,
of the bank of the Claims Tribunal in SBIN0010323,
which the award amount is to be SBI, Rohini
deposited/transferred. (in terms of order Courts, Delhi
dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in FAO 842/2003, Rajesh Tyagi
vs. Jaibir Singh.
MACT no. 844/17 Page 4 of36
Sanjay Kumar vs. Anoop Singh and Ors.
JUDGMENT
1. The claim petition in the present case was filed under Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as M.V. Act), on 24.11.2017, seeking compensation in the sum of Rs. 50,00,000/-, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, in respect of demise of Smt. Nikita Anand, in a road traffic accident. Perusal of the record reveals that after the accident, FIR No. 208/2017, PS Ballabhgarh Sadar, was registered on 05.06.2017, for the commission of offence of causing simple hurt and death, not amounting to culpable homicide, by rash and negligent driving of a Truck, bearing registration number RJ-11GA-6344 (herein after referred as offending vehicle), on a public road, punishable under Section 279/336/337/304A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC). Subsequently, charge sheet against respondent no. 1 was filed before Ld. JMIC, Faridabad, under section 279/336/337/304A IPC.
2. As per the claim petition, at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was driven by Anoop Singh, (hereinafter referred as driver of the offending vehicle/R1), the same was registered in the name of Aklesh Singh Kansana, (hereinafter referred as owner of the offending vehicle/R2) and was insured with The New India Assurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred as insurance company/R3), vide policy no. 1639798, valid for the period 05.08.2016 to MACT no. 844/17 Page 5 of36 Sanjay Kumar vs. Anoop Singh and Ors.
04.08.2017.
3. The brief facts of the case, as discernible from the claim petition and documents of the legal heirs/legal representatives of the deceased (hereinafter referred as LR's of the deceased/petitioners/claimants), are that, on 05.06.2017, at about 12:30 am, the deceased Nikita Anand, along with her minor daughter Ridam Kumari, mother Kiran Devi and 2 sisters namely Sneha Kumari and Kashish Kumari, were returning from Vrindavan, to Delhi, in a Swift Dezire car, bearing registration no. HR-38W-8402 (herein after referred as victim's vehicle), which was driven by Sudhir, and when they reached near Sikri, Kali Bai Pass, NH2, Ballabhgarh, Faridabad, Haryana, the victim's vehicle was overtaken and hit by the offending vehicle with great force. It was further averred that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was driven by its driver/R1, in a rash and negligent manner and as a result of the said impact of hitting, the deceased Nikita Anand and her mother namely Kiran Devi has sustained fatal injuries, her sisters namely Sneha Kumari and Kashish Kumari sustained grievous injuries and her daughter namely Kumari Ridam has sustained minor injuries. It was further averred that after the accident, all the victims were taken to B.K. Hospital, where Kiran Devi and Nikita Anand, were declared 'brought dead'.
4. It was further stated that the postmortem on the body of the MACT no. 844/17 Page 6 of36 Sanjay Kumar vs. Anoop Singh and Ors.
deceased, was conducted at B.K. Hospital, Faridabad, vide PMR No. 44/SKS/CH/2017, dated 05.06.2017, wherein cause of her death was mentioned as shock and hemorrhage, due to injuries to vital organs i.e brain, which were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death, in ordinary course of nature.
5. No written statement (herein after referred as WS), was filed on behalf of R1 and R2 and their defence was struck off, vide order dated 13.12.2019. Further, both R1 and R2 were proceeded Ex-parte, vide order dated 13.02.2024.
6. In its WS/reply, R3/insurance company, though admitted that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with R3, in the name of R2, however, it has taken the defence, that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was plied on the road, without valid permit.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Learned Predecessor, vide order dated 13.12.2019:-
1. Whether on 05.06.2017 at about 12:30 a.m. near Sikri, Kali Bai Pass, NH2, Ballabhgarh, Faridabad, Haryana, the truck bearing registration no. RJ11-GA-6344, which was being driving rashly and negligently by Anoop Singh, hit car bearing registration no. HR38-W-8402 and caused the death of Nikita Anand ?OPP MACT no. 844/17 Page 7 of36 Sanjay Kumar vs. Anoop Singh and Ors.
2. Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
8. After framing of issues, opportunities were given to all the parties, to prove their respective averments, by leading evidence in support of the same.
9. It is worthwhile to mention here that there are two connected petitions i.e. bearing No 844/17 and 834/17, resulting from the same accident. The said petitions are pertaining to fatal injuries sustained by Nikita Anand and Kiran Devi. Therefore, after framing of issues, when the matter was listed for petitioner's evidence, both the cases were consolidated, for the purpose of evidence and present MACT case no. 844/17 was taken as the main case and the entire evidence with respect to both the claim petitions was recorded in MACT case no. 844/17.
10. In support of their respective claim petitions, the petitioners examined Sh. Nishikant Jha, husband of deceased Kiran Devi and father of the deceased Nikita Anand, as PW1. He has led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. His deposition qua the accident in question and death of the deceased, as a result of the injuries sustained in the case accident, is reiteration of the contents of the petition. PW1 further deposed that the MACT no. 844/17 Page 8 of36 Sanjay Kumar vs. Anoop Singh and Ors.
deceased Kiran Devi left behind him and her daughters namely Sneha Kumari and Kashish Kumari, as her legal heirs. He further deposed that at the time of her death, the deceased Kiran Devi was 40 years of age and possessing sound mind and good health. PW1 further deposed that at the time of accident, the deceased Kiran Devi was doing the work of stitching/tailoring, from her residence, apart from being a housewife and was earning Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month. He further deposed that the deceased Kiran Devi was contributing her income towards household expenses. In his evidence, PW1 has placed reliance upon photocopy of his Aadhar Card as Ex. PW1/1 (OSR), copy of death certificate of deceased Kiran Devi as Ex. PW1/2, and certified copy of complete chargesheet as Ex. PW1/3.
11. PW1 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for R3/insurance company, wherein he deposed that he is not an eye witness of the case accident. He further deposed that he is working as a Mechanical Fitter, in Kalpana Engineering Company, Jamshedpur Tata, at a monthly salary of about Rs.15,700/-. PW1 further deposed that he has no driving license. He further deposed that his daughter has hired a private taxi, on the day of accident but, he does not remember its registration number. PW1 deposed that he do not have any birth certificate of his deceased wife Kiran Devi but, he voluntarily deposed that MACT no. 844/17 Page 9 of36 Sanjay Kumar vs. Anoop Singh and Ors.
he has her Aadhar Card. PW1 further deposed that his deceased wife has studied upto Vth class but, he has no documentary proof of educational qualifications of his deceased wife. PW1 admitted that his wife does not have any diploma in stitching. He further deposed that he has no documentary proof of income of his deceased wife Kiran Devi, to show that she was earning Rs. 10,000-15,000/- per month. PW1 denied the suggestion that his deceased wife was not doing any stitching work or that she does not have any income from that work. PW1 further denied the suggestion that he was not dependent upon the income of his deceased wife. PW1 denied the suggestion that his daughters were also not dependent upon the income of his deceased wife. He denied the suggestion that the driver/R2 was not driving the offending vehicle, in a rash or negligent manner but, the driver of Maruti Swift Dzire car, bearing No.HR-38W-8402, in which the deceased Kiran Devi was travelling, was driving his vehicle rashly or negligently. PW1 denied the suggestion that due to rash and negligent driving, by the driver of Maruti Swift car, the case accident has taken place. PW1 further denied the suggestion that he has not suffered any financial loss, due to death of the deceased Kiran Devi. He further deposed that he does not have any Life Insurance policy and he has not claimed any benefit from any insurance company.
12. The petitioners further examined Sh. Sanjay Kumar Jha, MACT no. 844/17 Page 10 of36 Sanjay Kumar vs. Anoop Singh and Ors.
husband of the deceased Nikita Anand as PW2. He has led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A. His deposition qua the accident in question and death of the deceased Nikita Anand, as a result of the injuries, sustained in the case accident, is reiteration of the contents of the petition.PW2 further deposed that the deceased Nikita Anand left behind him and her minor daughter namely Ridam Kumari, as her legal heirs. He further deposed that at the time of her death, the deceased Nikita Anand was working as Assistant Customer Relationship Manager, with R.K. Associates, Sector 14, Gurugram, Haryana, was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month and was contributing her income towards household expenses. In his evidence, PW2 has placed reliance upon the copy of his Aadhar Card as Ex. PW2/1 (OSR), and copy of school identity card of Ridam Kumari as Mark A.
13. PW2 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for R3/insurance company, wherein he deposed that he is working with a company namely G.K.B, A-15, Gurugram, Haryana and earning salary of Rs. 18,000/- per month. PW2 admitted that he is not an eye witness of the incident and he was not accompanying the deceased, at the time of accident. PW2 deposed that Ms. Nikita Anand has expired on 04.05.2017. He admitted that he has not filed any birth certificate of his deceased wife. He admitted that he has not placed on record, any document regarding income and employment MACT no. 844/17 Page 11 of36 Sanjay Kumar vs. Anoop Singh and Ors.
of his deceased wife. PW2 admitted that he has no documentary proof, of the salary of Rs. 20,000/- per month of his wife. He denied the suggestion that his wife was not working and was not earning Rs. 20,000/-, at the time of accident. PW2 further deposed that his minor child namely Ridam Kumari/petitioner no. 2, aged about 4 years, at present, is not in his custody. PW2 deposed that after the accident, the minor child is being looked by her maternal grand-parents. PW2 admitted that the minor child is in the care and custody of her maternal grand-parents. PW2 deposed that he and his wife, both were bearing expenses of household. PW2 denied the suggestion that he was not financially dependent upon his deceased wife. He deposed that he has remarried in the year 2019 and he has one male child, from his second marriage. PW1 admitted that he is claiming compensation amount, for his minor child namely Ridam Kumari. He deposed that he has already filed a probate petition, for custody of his daughter Ms. Ridam Kumari. PW2 admitted that the maternal grand- parents (Nana-Nani), of his daughter are looking after her and are also taking care of her education. He further deposed that he has not paid school fees, basic upbringing charges or medical expenses, if any, of his daughter, after demise of his wife. PW2 deposed that after the accident, he has visited his daughter once or twice, at the house of his in laws. PW2 deposed that the maternal grand-parents of his daughter are residing in Delhi. PW2 denied the suggestion, that he is not entitled for the claim. PW2 admitted that the MACT no. 844/17 Page 12 of36 Sanjay Kumar vs. Anoop Singh and Ors.
petitioner no. 2 is entitled for whole compensation of his deceased wife. PW2 denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely, on the basis of false documents. PW2 deposed that he is not an eye witness of the case accident and his testimony, regarding negligence of R1, in paragraph no. 2 of his affidavit is hearsay. PW2 admitted that he has not lodged any case FIR and the same has been lodged by his father in law.
14. The petitioners further examined Ms. Sneha Kumari, as PW3. She has led her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW3/A. She deposed that on 04.06.2017, at about 5:00 a.m, she along with her deceased mother, two sisters and Ridam Kumari, daughter of her sister Nikita Anand, left for Vrindavan, from Mall Road, in Maruti Swift Dezire Car, bearing registration no. HR38W-8402, and while returning from Vrindavan, when they reached near Sikri, Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad, Haryana, at about 12:30 a.m, on 05.06.2027, suddenly the offending truck bearing registration no. RJ-11GA-6344, which was driven by R1, overtook their car, at a very high speed, rashly and negligently, without taking necessary precautions, without proper lookouts, violating the traffic rules and applied brakes, after coming in front of their car and hit the victim's vehicle. She further deposed that Kiran Devi and Nikita Anand died in the accident and two other persons sustained minor injuries. She further deposed that all the MACT no. 844/17 Page 13 of36 Sanjay Kumar vs. Anoop Singh and Ors.
injured were taken to B.K. Hospital Faridabad, where her mother and sister were declared brought dead. PW3 further deposed that FIR no. 208/2017, U/s 279/336/337/304 A IPC, was registered at PS Ballabhgarh Sadar, District Faridabad, Haryana on 05.06.2017. PW3 further deposed that postmortem on the body of both the deceased were conducted at B.K. Hospital, Faridabad. PW3 further deposed that the accident has taken place, due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. In her evidence, PW3 has placed reliance upon photocopy of her Aadhar Card as Ex. PW3/1 (OSR).
15. PW3 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for R3/insurance company, wherein she deposed that she is not a summoned witness. PW3 deposed that her sister's daughter namely Ridam Kumari, is in care and custody of her parents, who are bearing all her expenses. She deposed that she is unmarried. PW3 deposed that her brother in law namely Sh. Sanjay Kumar, neither visits her niece nor enquire about her well being, telephonically. PW3 deposed that Sanjay Kumar has never asked her parents, to handover the custody of his daughter. PW3 admitted that her brother in law Sanjay Kumar has already remarried and she knows his second wife. PW3 deposed that she knows that her brother in law is blessed with a son, from his second marriage. She deposed that her brother in law has never given any monetary expenses of care and look after, of his daughter, to her parents. PW3 admitted that she has no MACT no. 844/17 Page 14 of36 Sanjay Kumar vs. Anoop Singh and Ors.
documentary proof of income of Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/-, of her deceased mother, from her tailoring work. She admitted that she has no bank account of her deceased mother Kiran. She deposed that her father is working as site Supervisor, Kalpatru Engineer, Bihar and earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. PW2 deposed that she is a student and her younger sister namely Kashish Kumari has studied upto 9th standard. PW2 admitted that her father namely Nishikant Jha, is looking after the household expenses of her family, including all expenses of baby Ridam Kumari. She further deposed that she has also sustained injuries in the case accident and her medical documents are part of the case file. PW2 deposed that she has not filed any separate claim petition, for the injuries sustained by her, in the case accident. PW2 admitted that the accident has taken place in the midnight, at about 12.30 a.m and the co- passengers of their car were sleeping, at the time of accident. PW2 deposed that she does not remember, the number of the car, in which they were travelling. PW3 denied the suggestion that the accident occurred, due to sole negligence of the driver of their car, bearing no. HR-38W-8402. She deposed that after overtaking their car, the driver of the offending truck has applied sudden brakes, due to which, their car got struck against the back portion of the offending truck, bearing no. RJ-11JA-6344. PW3 denied the suggestion that there was no negligence on the part of R1/driver of the alleged offending truck. She denied the suggestion that neither she is an eye MACT no. 844/17 Page 15 of36 Sanjay Kumar vs. Anoop Singh and Ors.
witness of the case nor she has sustained any injury, in the case accident and due to this reason, she has not filed any claim for compensation, on behalf of herself. She denied the suggestion that she, her sister and her father were not financially and physically dependent upon her deceased mother.
16. In its defence, R3/insurance company has examined Ms. Shiksha Chauhan, its Administrative Officer, as R3W1. She led her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. R3W1/1, wherein she deposed that R3 has issued notice, under order XII Rule 8 CPC, upon R1 and R2. She deposed that the offending vehicle was insured with R3, vide policy no. 45190031160100014574, valid from 05.08.2016 till 04.08.2017. R3W1 deposed that the driver and owner of the offending vehicle failed to produce any valid and effective permit and fitness certificate of the offending vehicle. R3W1 deposed that R1 was driving the offending vehicle, without having any valid and effective permit and fitness. R3W1 has placed reliance upon copy of insurance policy as Ex. R3W1/A, notice under order XII Rule 8 CPC as Ex. R3W1/B, postal receipts as Ex. R3W1/C and Ex. R3W1/D, and tracking report as Ex. R3W1/E and Ex. R3W1/F.
17. R3W1 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the petitioners, wherein she deposed that she has been working MACT no. 844/17 Page 16 of36 Sanjay Kumar vs. Anoop Singh and Ors.
with the insurance company since March 2024. R3W1 admitted that the accident has taken place, within the period of insurance policy. She further deposed that the insurance policy in question is a package policy, which covers third party cover also.
18. The respondent no. 1 and 2 failed to appear and lead any evidence, at the stage of respondent's evidence.
19. This Tribunal has heard the final arguments, as advanced by Ld. Counsels for the parties.
20. On appreciation of evidence, as adduced by the parties, in support of their respective versions, the issue-wise findings of this Tribunal are reproduced herein below:
ISSUE No. 1Whether on 05.06.2017 at about 12:30 a.m. near Sikri, Kali Bai Pass, NH2, Ballabhgarh, Faridabad, Haryana, the truck bearing registration no. RJ11-GA-6344, which was being driving rashly and negligently by Anoop Singh, hit car bearing registration no. HR38-W-8402 and caused the death of Nikita Anand ?OPP
21. The onus of proving this issue, on preponderance of probabilities, was upon the petitioners/claimants. For deciding the present issue, the testimony of PW3 is relevant, being an eyewitness. PW3 deposed that on 04.06.2017, at about 5:00 a.m, she along with her deceased mother, two sisters and Ridam Kumari, daughter of her sister Nikita MACT no. 844/17 Page 17 of36 Sanjay Kumar vs. Anoop Singh and Ors.
Anand, left for Vrindavan, from Mall Road, in Maruti Swift Dezire Car, bearing registration no. HR38W-8402, and while returning from Vrindavan, when they reached near Sikri, Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad, Haryana, at about 12:30 a.m, on 05.06.2027, suddenly the offending truck, bearing registration no. RJ-11GA-6344, which was driven by R1, overtook their car, at a very high speed, rashly and negligently, without taking necessary precautions, without proper lookout, violating the traffic rules and applied brakes, after coming in front of their car and hit the victim's vehicle. She further deposed that Kiran Devi and Nikita Anand, died in the accident and two other persons sustained minor injuries. She further deposed that all the injured were taken to B.K. Hospital Faridabad, where her mother and sister were declared brought dead. PW3 further deposed that FIR no. 208/2017, U/s 279/336/337/304 A IPC, was registered at PS Ballabhgarh Sadar, District Faridabad, Haryana on 05.06.2017. PW3 further deposed that postmortem on the body of both the deceased were conducted at B.K. Hospital, Faridabad. PW3 further deposed that the accident has taken place, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle.
22. R1 and R2 failed to file any written statement and failed to adduce any evidence, to prove that R1 was not negligent, in driving the offending vehicle or that the accident has not MACT no. 844/17 Page 18 of36 Sanjay Kumar vs. Anoop Singh and Ors.
taken place, due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1.
23. PW3 was although cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R3/insurance company, wherein suggestions were put to PW3, that the accident has not taken place, due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1 and that the accident has taken place, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of victim's vehicle, but, PW3 denied the said suggestions. PW3 rather deposed that after overtaking their car, the driver of the offending vehicle suddenly applied the brakes, due to which, their car got struck against the back portion of the offending truck.
24. Thus, from the cross examination of PW3, even the insurance company/R3, failed to elicit any admissions, so as to negate the factum of death of the deceased Nikita Anand and Kiran Devi, in a road traffic accident, due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1. Mere putting suggestions, do not prove the averments made by any party in the pleadings. Even otherwise also, as R1 failed to contest the present claim petition, in denial of the factum of negligence, on his part, resulting in the case accident therefore, the testimony of PW3 went un- rebutted and the same proves that the accident has taken place, due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, by R1. The testimony of PW3 stands further MACT no. 844/17 Page 19 of36 Sanjay Kumar vs. Anoop Singh and Ors.
corroborated by the criminal case record, which includes the charge sheet, as filed by the IO, in which R1 was charge sheeted, for the commission of offence U/s 279/336/337/304A IPC.
25. In view of above said discussion, criminal case record, including charge sheet and testimony of PW3 Sneha Kumari/eye witness, it has been duly proved by the petitioners, on preponderance of probabilities, that the case accident has been caused by R1, who was driving the offending vehicle, bearing registration no. RJ11-GA-6344, in a rash and negligent manner, at the above said date, time and place and due to his negligence, the victim Nikita Anand has sustained fatal injuries, as evident from her postmortem report.
Issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents accordingly.
ISSUE No. 2Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?OPP
26. In view of the findings of this Tribunal, qua issue no.1 regarding negligence of R1, resulting in the occurrence of the case accident, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the petitioners/claimants are entitled, for compensation, on account of fatal injuries, sustained by the MACT no. 844/17 Page 20 of36 Sanjay Kumar vs. Anoop Singh and Ors.
deceased Nikita Anand, in the above-mentioned road traffic accident. This Tribunal shall now examine the entire evidence, including the documents of the petitioners/ claimants, for the purpose of arriving at a finding, about the quantum of compensation, to which the petitioners/ claimants are entitled.
27. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation, which appears to it to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly.
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
28. To prove this aspect, Sh. Sanjay Kumar Jha, husband of the deceased, got himself examined as PW2. PW2 deposed that the deceased left behind him and her minor daughter Ridam Kumari, as her legal heirs. He further deposed that at the time of her death, the deceased was working as Assistant Customer Relationship Manager, with R.K. Associates, Sector 14, Gurugram, Haryana, was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month and was contributing her income towards household expenses.
29. But, PW2 failed to prove employment of the deceased, with R.K. Associates, Sector 14, Gurugram, Haryana, or MACT no. 844/17 Page 21 of36 Sanjay Kumar vs. Anoop Singh and Ors.
her income of Rs. 20,000/- p.m, as alleged, by proving on record any document. The petitioners have though placed on record, copy of one full and final settlement dated 31.05.2017, allegedly issued by R.K Associates but, the said document was neither relied by any of the petitioners, in their evidence, nor proved on record, by the petitioners, by summoning any witness from the concerned company. Therefore, the said document cannot be taken into consideration. The petitioners further failed to prove the educational qualification of the deceased or any certificate, so as to prove that the deceased has acquired any technical skills. Therefore, the income of the deceased, can be assessed, only as per minimum wages, payable to an unskilled person.
30. The petitioners, during the stage of final arguments has placed on record, copy of Aadhar Card and PAN Card of the deceased, as per which, at the time of accident, the deceased was shown as resident of Chamreli, District Banka, Bihar. Accordingly, it stands proved, that at the time of accident, the deceased was residing in Bihar. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased, at the relevant time, has to be calculated, as per minimum wages, payable to an unskilled person, in the area of Bihar, as on the date of occurrence of the case accident i.e. on 05.06.2017, which was Rs. 484/- per day (484 x 30) = 14,520/- per month.
MACT no. 844/17 Page 22 of36 Sanjay Kumar vs. Anoop Singh and Ors.
31. As per the case of the petitioners, the deceased was aged about 22 years, at the time of accident. The petitioners have placed on record copy of Aadhar card and Pan Card of the deceased, in which her date of birth has been mentioned as 15.10.1992 and as the accident in question has taken place on 05.06.2017 therefore, the age of the deceased, as on the date of accident is accepted as 24 years, 07 months and 21 days. Hence, the multiplier of 18 would be applicable, in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 ACJ 1298 SC.
32. Considering the age of deceased at the time of accident, future prospects @ 40% has to be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." SLP (civil) no. 25590/2014, decided on 31.10.2017, as well as in view of decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", decided on 02.11.2017.
33. PW2 in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW2/A), deposed that the deceased left behind him i.e petitioner no. 1 and her minor daughter i.e. petitioner no. 2, as her legal heirs. But, during the course of his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for R3, PW2 deposed that he has remarried MACT no. 844/17 Page 23 of36 Sanjay Kumar vs. Anoop Singh and Ors.
and has one son from his second marriage. He further deposed that he is working with GKB, A-15, Gurugram and earning Rs. 18,000/- per month. PW2 further admitted that after the death of the deceased, petitioner no. 2 Ridam Kumari, was in care and custody of her maternal grand- parents and he is not bearing any of her expenditure. He further admitted that he is claiming compensation amount, for her minor child only. He further admitted that petitioner no. 2 is entitled for whole of the compensation amount, of his deceased wife. Therefore, though admittedly, on the date of accident, there were two dependent legal heirs of the deceased Nikita Anand i.e. her husband and her minor daughter but, as petitioner no. 1 has not been claiming any compensation, as deposed by him, in his cross examination, therefore, the entire compensation amount, after calculation, is awarded in favour of petitioner no. 2 Ridam Kumari.
34. In such circumstances, the deceased was likely to spare 1/3 of her income, for her personal and living expenses and to contribute the remaining 2/3 of her income, towards household expenses/maintenance of her family members.
35. Hence, there has to be deduction of one third, as held in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 ACJ 1298 SC. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 29,27,232/- (14,520 + 40% (5,808) = 20,328 - 1/3rd (6,776) = 13,552 x 12 x 18). Hence, a sum of Rs.
MACT no. 844/17 Page 24 of36 Sanjay Kumar vs. Anoop Singh and Ors.
29,27,232/- is awarded under this head, in favour of the petitioner no. 2 Ridam Kumari.
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
36. After the celebrated judgment of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. mentioned supra and recent judgment titled New India Assurance Company Limited versus Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020 dated 07.09.2020, the petitioners are not entitled to be compensated under this head. Further Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", mentioned supra has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the constitution bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) does not recognize any other non pecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
37. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020, dated 07.09.2020, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that husband and daughter of the deceased, are entitled for payment of Rs. 48,400/- each, towards loss of consortium. Consequently, a sum of Rs. 96,800/- (Rs. 48,400/- X 2), is awarded to the petitioners, under this head and since, petitioner no. 1 does not want any compensation, MACT no. 844/17 Page 25 of36 Sanjay Kumar vs. Anoop Singh and Ors.
therefore, his share will also be apportioned, in favour of petitioner no. 2.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
38. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." mentioned supra, a sum of Rs. 18,150/ each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, is awarded in favour of petitioners and since petitioner no. 1 does not want any compensation, therefore, his share will also be apportioned, in favour of petitioner no. 2.
39. Petitioner no.2 is accordingly entitled to compensation computed as under:
Loss of financial dependency Rs. 29,27,232/-
Loss of Estate Rs. 18,150/-
Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,150/-
Loss of Consortium Rs. 96,800/-
Loss of Love and Affection Nil.
________________
Total Rs. 30,60,332/-
________________
(Rupees Thirty Lakhs, Sixty Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Two only).
40. In respect of entitlement of the petitioners to interest on the awarded amount, it is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Apex Court had in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ MACT no. 844/17 Page 26 of36 Sanjay Kumar vs. Anoop Singh and Ors.
48 (SC) had observed that the victims of Uphaar Tragedy be awarded compensation with interest @ 9% per annum. The present matter is pending trial since 24.11.2017 and the rate of interest of fixed deposits in Nationalized banks has fluctuated/dropped several times during the pendency of the present proceedings. Therefore, in the interest of justice and keeping in view the judgment titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Baby Raksha & Ors MAC APP. No. 36/2023 passed by Hon'ble High Court on 21.04.2023, this court is of the opinion that the claimant/petitioner is entitled to interest at the prevailing bank rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition, that is, with effect from 24.11.2017 till realization of the compensation amount.
41. The amount of interim award, if any, shall however be deducted from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the petitioners.
LIABILITY
42. In the case in hand, The New India Assurance Company Ltd./R3, raised the defence, that R1 was plying the offending vehicle, without valid permit, as on the date of accident and therefore, R3 is not liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners.
43. Perusal of the record reveals that R1 and R2 have neither MACT no. 844/17 Page 27 of36 Sanjay Kumar vs. Anoop Singh and Ors.
filed any WS, nor led any evidence, so as to prove that they were having valid permit, qua the offending vehicle, as on the date of accident. Per contra, R3/insurance company has examined R3W1 Ms. Shiksha Chauhan, who led her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. R3W1/1 and deposed that as the owner of the offending vehicle/R2, could not produce valid permit, qua the offending vehicle, during the stage of investigation and as R2 failed to produce valid permit of the offending vehicle, despite receipt of notice U/o XII Rule 8 CPC therefore, it stands proved that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was plied on the road, without valid permit.
44. It is settled law that non production of permit, to run a commercial vehicle, is a defence legally available to the insurance company U/s 149 of the M.V. Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Chella Bharathamma and Ors. (2004) 8 SCC 517, while considering the mandate of Section 66 of the M.V. Act, held that where a person was found to be driving a transport vehicle without a Permit, the defence under Section 149(2) of the Act shall be available to the insurer, however, the insurer would have to satisfy the award and then seek recovery of the compensation amount from the insured/owner of the offending vehicle. The same observation has been reiterated by Hon'ble Apex Court in Amrit Paul Singh vs Tata AIG Geneal Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 7 SCC 558, that where a vehicle is being used in a MACT no. 844/17 Page 28 of36 Sanjay Kumar vs. Anoop Singh and Ors.
public space without a permit, it was a fundamental statutory infraction, and the insured would be liable to reimburse the compensation amount, paid to the claimants by the insurance company.
45. In view of the foregoing discussion, it can be safely concluded that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was plied on the road, without valid and effective permit. Therefore, there is fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy by R2/owner of the offending vehicle. However, as the offending vehicle was admittedly insured with R3, at the time of accident, therefore, firstly R3 is liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the petitioners and then to seek its recovery from R2/owner of the offending vehicle.
46. Accordingly, in the case in hand, in terms of order dated 16.05.2017 of Hon'ble High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors., The New India Assurance Company Ltd./R3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount of Rs. 30,60,332/- within 30 days from today within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, that is, State Bank of India, Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till notice of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3, to the petitioner and her advocate and to show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgment with the Nazir as per rules.
MACT no. 844/17 Page 29 of36 Sanjay Kumar vs. Anoop Singh and Ors.
R3 is further directed to deposit the awarded amount in the above said bank by means of cheque drawn in the name of above said bank along with the name of the claimant mentioned therein. The said bank is further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimants approach the bank for disbursement, so that the awarded amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheque.
APPORTIONMENT
47. As the petitioner no. 2 is minor and petitioner no. 1 has admitted in his cross examination that petitioner no. 2 is entitled for whole of the compensation amount of his deceased wife, therefore, separate statement of petitioner no. 1 in terms of clause 29 MCTAP, has not been recorded regarding savings bank account of the petitioner no. 1. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby directed that on realization of the award amount, the compensation to the Petitioner no. 2 be distributed as follows:-
Sl. Name/No. of Relationshi Share of Release of Amount Period of No. petitioner p with amount of award of kept in FDR FDR deceased award amount.
1 Ridam Kumari/ Minor Rs. Nil Rs. Amount be
petitioner no. 2 daughter 30,60,332/- 30,60,332/- kept in the
form of FDR,
till she attains
age of
majority.
48. The amount along with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without MACT no. 844/17 Page 30 of36 Sanjay Kumar vs. Anoop Singh and Ors.
the prior permission of the Tribunal, in terms of above mentioned schedule.
49. It shall be subject to the following further conditions and directions in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, FAO 842/2003 with respect to fixed deposits :-
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the victim i.e. the saving bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be individual savings 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 monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant/(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amount of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence i.e. above said a/c.
(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 to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit MACT no. 844/17 Page 31 of36 Sanjay Kumar vs. Anoop Singh and Ors.
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.
(g) 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.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the pass book(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
RELIEF
50. As discussed above, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd./R3 is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs. 30,60,332/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition that is, 24.11.2017 till realization within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal that is, SBI, Rohini Court Branch, Delhi within 30 days from today under intimation of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3 to the petitioner no 2 and her advocate, failing which the R3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the period of delay beyond 30 days.
MACT no. 844/17 Page 32 of36 Sanjay Kumar vs. Anoop Singh and Ors.
51. R3 is also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the award amount in the above said bank to the claimants and complete details in respect of calculations of interest etc. in the court within 30 days from today.
52. Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the granted time.
53. In terms of directions contained in the order dated 07.12.2018 and subsequent order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in the case of Rajesh Tyagi and Ors vs Jaibir Singh and Ors., FAO 842/2003, the copy of the award be also sent by the Ahlmad of the court to Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India (as per the list of nodal officers of 21 banks of Indian Bank's Association as circulated to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide above mentioned order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court) who is the Nodal Officer with contact details (022-22741336/9414048606) {other details-Personal Banking Business Unit (LIMA) 13th Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021} through email ([email protected]) through the computer branch of Rohini Courts, Delhi. Ahlmad of the court is directed to take immediate steps in that regard.
MACT no. 844/17 Page 33 of36 Sanjay Kumar vs. Anoop Singh and Ors.
54. A copy of this award be forwarded to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and DLSA in terms of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors., vide order dated 12.12.2014.
55. Form IVA which has been duly filled in has also been attached herewith. File be consigned to record room as per rules after compliance of necessary legal formalities. Copy of order be given to parties for necessary compliance as per rules.
Digitally signed by SHAMASHAMA GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.04.16 16:01:45 +0530 Announced in open court (SHAMA GUPTA) on 16th April 2025 P.O. MACT (N/W) Rohini Courts, Delhi MACT no. 844/17 Page 34 of36 Sanjay Kumar vs. Anoop Singh and Ors.
FORM - IV A SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 05.06.2017
2. Name of deceased: Nikita Anand
3. Age of the deceased: About 24 years, 07 months and 21 days at the time of accident.
4. Occupation of the deceased: not proved
5. Income of the deceased: Rs. 14,520/- p.m.
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No. Name Age Relation
(i) Kumari Ridam Kumari 12 years Daughter
Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs. 14,520/-
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) 40% = Rs. 5,808/-
9. Less-Personal expenses of the 1/3
deceased (C )
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs. 20,328 - 6,776 =
{ (A+B) - C =D}
13,552/-
11. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs. 13,552 x 12 = 1,62,624/-
12. Multiplier (E) 18
13. Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE = 13,552 x 12 x 18 = Rs.
F) 29,27,232/-
14. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15. Compensation for loss of love and Nil MACT no. 844/17 Page 35 of36 Sanjay Kumar vs. Anoop Singh and Ors.
affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of Rs. 96,800/- (48,400x2) consortium (I)
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs.18,150/-
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs.18,150/-
expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 30,60,332/-
(F+G+H+I+J+K =L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 7.5% 21 Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 16,97,846.69 award (M)
22. Total amount including interest Rs. 47,58,178.69 (L+M)
23. Award amount released Nil
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs. 47,58,178.69 (rounded off to Rs. 47,58,179/-)
25. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms of amount to the claimant (s) (Clause clause 29 of MCTAP.
29)
26. Next date for compliance of the 15.05.2025 award. (Clause 31) Digitally signed by SHAMA SHAMA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.16 16:01:52 +0530 Announced in open court (SHAMA GUPTA) on 16th April 2025 P.O. MACT N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi MACT no. 844/17 Page 36 of36