Delhi District Court
Sangeeta Sarkar (Dar) vs Ram Rattan (411/19Oia) on 6 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA
DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No.133/2021
FIR No. 411/2019
PS : Okhla Industrial Area
U/s 279/304A IPC
CNR NO. DLSE01-001103-2021
Sangeeta Sarkar Vs. Ram Ratan & Ors.
1. Sangeeta Sarkar (wife of deceased)
2. Arushi Sarkar (minor daughter of deceased)
3. Anshuman Sarkar (minor son of deceased)
4. Jharna Sarkar (mother of deceased)
All R/o Bhangel Begumpur, Sector -93, Noida,
Uttar Pradesh.
1. Ram Rattan
S/o Mahaveer Singh
R/o Shamsher Ganj, Distt. Mainpuri, Uttar Pradesh.
.....driver/ Respondent No. 1
2. Mukesh Kumar
S/o Bhagwan Singh
R/o Mig, 1st / D-37, Sharda Vihar Colony
Ward no.18, Korba Chhattisgarh.
.....owner/ Respondent No. 2
MACT No.133/2021 Sangeeta Sarkar Vs. Ram Rattan & Ors. page 1 of 30
3. M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
F-14-20, Cannaught Place, Circus Life Insurance Building,
New Delhi.
.......Insurance Company/ Respondent no.-3
Date of accident : 10.11.2019
Date of filing of DAR : 06.02.2021
Date of Decision : 06.02.2025
AWARD
1. In this case, a Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter
referred as DAR) was filed by IO SI Mahavir Singh and in terms
of provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, same is treated as Claim
Petition under Section 166 (1) read with Section 166 (4) MV Act.
It pertains to alleged accident of victim Late She. Apoorv Sarkar
(hereinafter referred as deceased), by Vehicle bearing Reg. No.
CG 12AR 9711 (hereinafter referred as offending vehicle), driven
by Sh. Ram Rattan (hereinafter referred as R-1), owned by Sh.
Mukesh Kumar (hereinafter referred as R-2) and insured with
M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd (hereinafter referred as
R-3).
2. Preliminary information regarding accident in question
was received at PS Okhla Industrial Area vide DD no. 63A, dt.
10.11.2019, upon receipt of which, SI Mahavir Singh along with
Ct. Rajpal proceeded to the spot of accident where they were
informed that injured persons had already been taken to hospital.
MACT No.133/2021 Sangeeta Sarkar Vs. Ram Rattan & Ors. page 2 of 30
Subsequently they received DD Entry no.4A qua MLC of
injured from ESI Hospital. He proceeded to ESI Hospital where
injured namely Apoorv Sarkar was found to be declared brought
dead. The PCR caller Anek Kumar Giri was questioned by ASI
Mahavir Singh at the spot of accident who handed over the driver
of the offending truck namely Ram Ratan S/o Mahavir Singh
having been caught by public persons at the spot. FIR was
registered. Statement of witnesses were recorded. Mechanical
Inspection of the vehicles involved was got done. Documents of
the offending vehicle were found to be in order. Post Mortem
examination of deceased was got conducted. Upon conclusion of
investigation, charge sheet was filed against Respondent No.1 for
causing death and injuries to public persons due to rash and
negligent driving of offending vehicle on a public way. DAR was
also filed by Investigating Officer.
Reply:
3. In response to DAR, both driver and owner appeared on
the first date and subsequently, they were represented by counsel.
However, they stopped appearing subsequently and chose not to
file any reply. Legal Offer was filed on behalf of insurance
company. Insurance Company conceded that they do not have
any statutory defence to deny compensation.
Issues:
4. Issues were framed vide order dated :
1. Whether the deceased received fatal injuries in a
road traffic accident on 11.11.2019 due to rash and
negligent driving of vehicle no. CG 12AR 9711
being driven by R-1, owned by R-2 and insured
with R-3? OPP
MACT No.133/2021 Sangeeta Sarkar Vs. Ram Rattan & Ors. page 3 of 30
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?
OPP
3. Relief.
Evidence:
5. Matter was then listed for petitioner evidence. PW-1
appeared in the witness box and tendered her evidentiary
affidavit Ex.PW1/A. She also relied upon following documents:
(i) Ex.PW1/1- Copy Aadhar Card of deceased (OSR)
(ii) Ex.PW1/2- to Ex.PW1/4 Copy of Aadhar Card of wife and
children of deceased.
PW-1 was cross examined by counsel for Insurance
Company.
6. Sh. Ajit Patel official from Uber India was examined as
PW-2 who appeared to prove the earnings of deceased from Uber
India. He was also cross examined by counsel for insurance
company.
7. Sh. Ankit Pandey, Manager Acquisition, IDFC Bank, Saket
Branch, New Delhi was examined as PW-3 who brought the bank
statement of deceased. He was also cross examined by counsel
for insurance company.
8. No other witness was produced on behalf of claimant and
PE was closed. Evidence was not led by any of the respondent
and accordingly Respondent Evidence was closed. Matter was
then listed for Final Arguments.
Final Arguments:
9. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the accident
MACT No.133/2021 Sangeeta Sarkar Vs. Ram Rattan & Ors. page 4 of 30
happened on account of rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle. She also argued that the deceased was a
professional driver and used to operate for Uber and Ola and was
also associated with Tour and Travel company namely Balaji
Tour and Travel Company. She also stated that his entire family
was dependent upon his income. She has filed written
Computation in prescribed format.
10. Counsel for insurance company has conceded that there is
no statutory defence to raise, however, he stated that minimum
wages of skilled person must be granted as the bank account
statement do not offer a clear picture of the monthly earning of
deceased.
Discussion:
11. On the basis of material on record, evidence adduced and
arguments addressed, issue wise findings are as under :-
ISSUE NO. 1
Whether the deceased received fatal injuries in a road
traffic accident on 11.11.2019 due to rash and negligent
driving of vehicle no. CG 12AR 9711 being driven by R-1,
owned by R-2 and insured with R-3? OPP
12. What is required to be ascertained is whether rash and
negligent driving of offending vehicle was responsible for
sustaining injury by injured.
13. It has been held in catena of cases that negligence has to be
decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and
a holistic view is to be taken. It has been further held that the
MACT No.133/2021 Sangeeta Sarkar Vs. Ram Rattan & Ors. page 5 of 30
proceedings under the Motor Vehicle Act are not akin to the
proceedings in a Civil Suit and hence, strict rules of evidence are
not applicable support drawn from the cases of Bimla Devi &
Ors. Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors, (2009) 13
SC 530, Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India
Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, and from the
case of National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pushpa Rana cited as
2009 ACJ 287}
14. Any eyewitness has not been produced as part of the
evidence as the insurance company did not raise any objection in
respect of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle
which caused the accident. The accident was immediately
reported. The FIR was registered on the basis of statement of one
Anil Kumar Giri who had witnessed the accident whereby
Maruti WagonoR wherein deceased was seated along with others
was hit by a speedy and negligently driven Truck because of
which Wagnor literally got crushed under the truck and the
injured persons were taken and sent to hospital where the
deceased was declared brought dead. The Mechanical Inspection
Report as well as the Site Plan duly corroborate the statement of
complainant.
15. R-1 has already been charge sheeted and has not not filed
even reply to DAR to contest the accusations against him that he
had cogent reason to deny rash driving of the offending vehicle.
There is no denial of involvement of offending vehicle. The
driver was caught at the spot and handed over to the police
therefore, there is no dispute in respect of the identification and
involvement of the offending vehicle.
MACT No.133/2021 Sangeeta Sarkar Vs. Ram Rattan & Ors. page 6 of 30
16. No evidence has been led by any of the respondent either.
There is no evidence that the accidental vehicle was at fault and
could have averted the accident. There is ample material on
record to show that the accident happened on account of rash
and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.
17. Insurance Company has also contended as part of legal
offer that accident was a head on collision and 25% contributory
negligence must be attributed to accidental vehicle. The accident
occurred because the offending truck took a sharp and speedy
turn toward the right and ended up crashing into the WagonR,
leading to a violent collision. Accordingly, the contention of the
insurance company that the accident was a head-on collision is
without substance. There is no proof to suggest that the WagonR
driver was speeding, that the vehicle continued moving despite
any indication from the truck, or that the truck halted before
taking the turn and still, the WagonR did not slow down.
Therefore, it cannot be concluded that there was any negligence
on the part of the WagonR driver. It is also noted that any such
contention was not raised during final arguments.
18. Issue no.1 is accordingly decided in favour of claimants
and against respondents.
ISSUE NO.2
Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation,
if so, to what extent and from whom ? OPP.
19. Section. 168 MV Act enjoins the Claim Tribunals to hold
an enquiry into the claim to make an effort determining the
amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and
MACT No.133/2021 Sangeeta Sarkar Vs. Ram Rattan & Ors. page 7 of 30
reasonable. Same is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
(1) Award of the Claims Tribunal.--On receipt of an
application for compensation made under section 166, the
Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the
application to the insurer and after giving the parties
(including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold
an inquiry into the claim or, as the case may be, each of
the claims and, subject to the provisions of section 162
may make an award determining the amount of
compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying
the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid
and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify
the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or
driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or
any of them, as the case may be: Provided that where such
application makes a claim for compensation under section
140 in respect of the death or permanent disablement of
any person, such claim and any other claim (whether made
in such application or otherwise) for compensation in
respect of such death or permanent disablement shall be
disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Chapter
X.
(2) The Claims Tribunal shall arrange to deliver copies of
the award to the parties concerned expeditiously and in
any case within a period of fifteen days from the date of
the award.
(3) When an award is made under this section, the person
who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award
shall, within thirty days of the date of announcing the
award by the Claims Tribunal, deposit the entire amount
awarded in such manner as the Claims Tribunal may
direct.
20. Before putting in frame the position of law, it is noted that
the process of determining the compensation by the court is
essentially a very difficult task and can never be an exact science.
Perfect compensation is hardly possible, more so in claims of
injury and disability. (As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Sidram Vs. The Divisional Manager United
MACT No.133/2021 Sangeeta Sarkar Vs. Ram Rattan & Ors. page 8 of 30
India Insurance Company Ltd, SLP (Civil) No. 19277 of 2019).
21. The basic principle in assessing motor vehicle
compensation claims, is to place the victim in as near a position
as she or he was in before the accident, with other compensatory
directions for loss of amenities and other payments. These
general principles have been stated and reiterated in several
decisions. [Support drawn from Govind Yadav v. New India
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683.]
22. This Tribunal has been tasked with determination of just
compensation. The observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty and
Another, (2003) 7 SCC 197, needs mention here (para 15):
"Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the
compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza;
not a source of profit but the same should not be a
pittance. The courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the
various factors and quantify the amount of compensation,
which should be just. What would be "just" compensation
is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule
applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human
life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by
precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon
the particular facts and circumstances, and attending
peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode
adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered
in the background of "just" compensation which is the
pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression
"which appears to it to be just", a wide discretion is vested
in the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be
done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of
whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness.. ..."
23. Delineating the damages as pecuniary and non pecuniary,
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case of R. D. Hattangadi Vs.
MACT No.133/2021 Sangeeta Sarkar Vs. Ram Rattan & Ors. page 9 of 30
Pest Control (India) Pvt Ltd, 1995 AIR 755, made following
observations:
"9....while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a
victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed
separately as pecuniary damages and special damages.
Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually
incurred and which are capable of being calculated in
terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are
those which are incapable of being assessed by
arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two
concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses
incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss
of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other
material loss. So far non- pecuniary damages are
concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and
physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or
likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate
for the loss of amenities of life which may include a
variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant
may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the
loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the
normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened;
(iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment,
frustration and mental stress in life."
24. In The Landmark Case of National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi And Others (2017 SCC Online SC
1270), decided by constitutional bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India, regarding the concept of 'just compensation' it was held
:
"................55. Section 168 of the Act deals with the concept of
"just compensation" and the same has to be determined on the
foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on
acceptable legal standard because such determination can never
be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is
to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical
precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an
individual case. The conception of "just compensation" has to be
MACT No.133/2021 Sangeeta Sarkar Vs. Ram Rattan & Ors. page 10 of 30
viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-
violation of the principle of equitability. In a case of death, the
legal heirs of the claimants cannot expect a windfall.
Simultaneously, the compensation granted cannot be an apology
for compensation. It cannot be a pittance. Though the discretion
vested in the tribunal is quite wide, yet it is obligatory on the part
of the tribunal to be guided by the expression, that is, "just
compensation". The determination has to be on the foundation of
evidence brought on record as regards the age and income of the
deceased and thereafter the apposite multiplier to be applied. The
formula relating to multiplier has been clearly stated in Sarla
Verma and it has been approved in Reshma Kumari . The age and
income, as stated earlier, have to be established by adducing
evidence. The tribunal and the courts have to bear in mind that
the basic principle lies in pragmatic computation which is in
proximity to reality. It is a well-accepted norm that money
cannot substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for grant
of just compensation having uniformity of approach. There has
to be a balance between the two extremes, that is, a windfall and
the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum. In such an
adjudication, the duty of the tribunal and the courts is difficult
and hence, an endeavour has been made by this Court for
standardisation which in its ambit includes addition of future
prospects on the proven income at present..................."
25. Further about the principles relating to Assessment of
compensation in case of death, it was held in Pranay Sethi
(supra) that detailed analysis of Sarla Verma (SMT) And Others
Versus Delhi Transport Corporation And Another (2009 Scc
Online Sc 797) is necessary as in the said case, the Court
recapitulated the relevant principles relating to assessment of
compensation in case of death. In fact , Hon'ble SC in Pranay
Sethi (supra) mainly relied and approved the earlier judgment of
Sarla Verma( Supra) read with Reshma Kumari[( 2013) 9 SCC
65 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 191 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 826 ], with
some modification, regarding all the aspects like aspect of
multiplier,the steps and guidelines stated in para 19 of Sarla
MACT No.133/2021 Sangeeta Sarkar Vs. Ram Rattan & Ors. page 11 of 30
Verma for determination of compensation in cases of death,
future prospects, deduction to be made towards personal and
living expenses.
26. PW-1 wife of deceased deposed that her husband was a
driver working with Ola, Uber as well as for one Balaji Transport
and earning about Rs. 1,15,000/- per month. During cross
examination, she admitted that she is unable to produce any
document to substantiate the earnings except the bank statement.
She declined the suggestion that vehicle of the deceased was not
attached with Ola, Uber or Balaji Transport. She stated that her
husband was not an Income Tax payee.
27. PW-2 Ajit Patel, Senior Manager, with Uber India System
Private Limited also appeared who stated that Apoorv Sarkar was
not an employee, agent or representative of Uber India. He,
however, acknowledged Apporv Sarkar to be a driver partner with
vehicle bearing Reg. No. UP 16ET 4313. It is stated that the total
amount generated from the Uber rides taken was Rs. 2,86,813.6/-
and the estimated monthly income comes out to be Rs. 28,681.4/-.
He stated that the amount of monthly earnings could vary from
month to month being dependent upon the number of trips. He
was assigned in a month from Uber company as per the record
available. No witness from Ola or M/s Balaji Tours and Travels
was produced.
28. Claimant also examined Sh. Ankit Pandey from IDFC First
Bank, Saket branch who produced the certified/ authentic copy of
the Bank Account Statement of Apoorv Sarkar, starting from
01.04.2018 till December 2019, placed on record as Ex.PW3/1.
DL of deceased has been placed on record as Mark A as per
MACT No.133/2021 Sangeeta Sarkar Vs. Ram Rattan & Ors. page 12 of 30
which he was authorised to drive several vehicles including cab.
The Bank Account Statements have been perused which reflect
monthly payment from M/s Balaji Tours and Travells as well as
from Ola & Uber Cab Services. The witness from Uber Company
has already mentioned about average monthly income of
deceased at the time of accident. The monthly income from Balaji
Tours and Travels are reflected even in the year 2017 -2018 and
till the month of death of Apoorv Sarkar which has risen from
year to year. Taking the last six months of deposit from Balaji
Tour and Travel in the account of Apoorv Sarkar, the average
income presumably from rental services from M/s Balaji Tours
and Travels comes out to be Rs. 20,080/-. The earning from Ola
are very sporadic and therefore, not being considered. It is also
noted that the amount of Rs. 13,398/- was being paid towards
EMI of the vehicle which also reflects a minimum earning of at
least 27,000/- as per the existing policies to be able to fetch out
this amount to pay EMI after meeting the other expenses.
Therefore, the composite income is taken to be Rs. 28,000/- (from
Uber Cab Services) and Rs. 20,080/- (from Balaji Transport),
total Rs. 48,080/-.
29. As per Aadhar Card, Mark A and copy of Driving License
Ex.PW1/3, date of birth of deceased was 01.01.1989 as such he
was about 30 years and 10 months of age at the time of accident.
As deceased was below the age of 40 years (at the time of
accident) the percentage towards future prospect is taken to be @
40 %.
Step No- 1 : Ascertainment of Multiplicand:
30. Further, as per evidence on record, deceased was survived
MACT No.133/2021 Sangeeta Sarkar Vs. Ram Rattan & Ors. page 13 of 30
by wife, two minor children and old aged mother. It is thus held
that there were four dependents upon the deceased as on the date
of accident and therefore, as per the mandate of case of Pranay
Sethi (supra), Deduction of 1/4 is applicable.
Step No- -2 : Ascertainment of Multiplier:
31. In the present case, age of the deceased was about 30 years
& 10 months as per record. Thus, having regard to the table
mentioned in para - 40 of Sarla Verma (supra), it is held that
multiplier of 17 is applied.
Step No- -3 : Actual Calculation ( actual loss/loss of
dependency):
32. In view of the above discussion of law, the calculation in
the present case is as under:
32.1. Annual income of the deceased.
(Rs.48,080/-per month x 12) = Rs. 5,76,960/-
Future prospect (40 % of Rs.1,79,496/-) = Rs. 81,418/-
-----------------
32.3. Total = Rs. 8,07,744/-
===========
32.4. Deduction for personal expenses (1/4 of Rs.8,07,744/-) = (-) Rs. 2,01,936/-
32.5. Multiplicand ( Rs.8,07,744/- (-) Rs.2,01,936/-) = Rs. 6,05,808/-
MACT No.133/2021 Sangeeta Sarkar Vs. Ram Rattan & Ors. page 14 of 30 32.6. As such, the total loss of dependency is:
Rs.6,05,808/- (multiplicand) x 17 (multiplier) =Rs.1,02,98,736/-
Grant of Loss of Estate, Loss Of Consortium And Funeral Expenses:
33. In this regard in Pranay Sethi (supra) it was held :
''...............46. Another aspect which has created confusion pertains to grant of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses..... .
.
52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh . It has granted Rs 25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi , it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation.
There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of MACT No.133/2021 Sangeeta Sarkar Vs. Ram Rattan & Ors. page 15 of 30 estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads.
.
.
59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years...............''
34. Thus in view of such finding in Pranay Sethi (Supra), in Which Hon'ble Supreme Court wanted to avoid immense variations and instead ensure consistency, the claimants are also entitled to certain sums towards grant of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
35. In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under:
"This Court interpreted "consortium" to be a compendious term, which encompasses spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a MACT No.133/2021 Sangeeta Sarkar Vs. Ram Rattan & Ors. page 16 of 30 spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse.
Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training.
Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love and affection, and their role in the family unit.
Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognized that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is the compensation for loss of love and affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims, or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium.
Parental Consortium is awarded to the children who lose the care and protection of their parents in motor vehicle accidents.
The amount to be awarded for loss consortium MACT No.133/2021 Sangeeta Sarkar Vs. Ram Rattan & Ors. page 17 of 30 will be as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra).
At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide uniformity with respect to the grant of consortium, and loss of love and affection. Several Tribunals and High Courts have been awarding compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), has recognized only three conventional heads under which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in loss of consortium.
The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to award compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate conventional head. There is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head."
36. It may further be noted that the date of judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) is 31/10/2017. Further it was stated in such judgment itself that the amount that Hon'ble SC have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. As such a sum of Rs.18,150/- for cremation expenses; and Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate is also payable.
37. Further, on the date of accident, deceased had left behind, his wife, two minor children and mother who are entitled to Rs. 48,400/- each towards loss of consortium.
MACT No.133/2021 Sangeeta Sarkar Vs. Ram Rattan & Ors. page 18 of 30 Total Award Amount
38. Thus the total award amount comes to Rs.1,02,98,736/- (+) Rs 18,150/-( Loss to estate) + Rs. 18,150/-( funeral expenses) + Rs.1,93,600/- (loss of consortium) = Rs.1,05,28,636/-
39. It may be noted that in the judgment of Ram Charan & Ors. Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., MAC Appeal no. 433/2013, decided on 18.10.2022, following observations regarding rate of interest were made:
"25 to evaluate the submission made by counsel for the applicants, it is imperative to examine the guiding principles for the grant of interest. In Abati Bezbaruah Vs. Geological Survey of India, (2003) 3 SCC 148, the following was held while interpreting section 171 of the MV Act, 1988:-
Three decisions were cited before us by Mr. A. P. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, in support of his contentions. No ratio has been laid down in any of the decisions in regard to the rate of interest and the rate of interest was awarded on the amount of compensation as a matter of judicial discretion. The rate of interest must be just and reasonable depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and taking all relevant factors including inflation, change of economy, policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from time to time, how long the case is pending, permanent injuries suffered by the victim, enormity of suffering, loss of future income, loss of enjoyment of life etc. into consideration. No rate of interest is fixed under Section 171 of the MV Act 1988. Varying rates of interest are being awarded by Tribunals, High Courts and the Supreme Court. Interest can be granted even if a claimant does not specifically plead for the same as it is consequential in the eye of the law. Interest is compensation for forbearance or detention of money and that interest being awarded to a party only for being kept out of the money which ought to have been paid to him. No principle could be deduced nor can any rate of interest be fixed to have a general application in MACT No.133/2021 Sangeeta Sarkar Vs. Ram Rattan & Ors. page 19 of 30 motor accident provision under Section 171 giving discretion to the Tribunal in such matter. In other matters, awarding of interest depends upon the statutory provisions mercantile usage and doctrine of equity. Neither Sec. 34 CPC nor Sec. 4-A(3) of Workmen's Compensation Act are applicable in the matter of fixing are of interest in a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. The courts have awarded the interest at different rates depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, in my opinion, there cannot be any hard and fast rule in awarding interest and the award of interest is solely on the discretion of the Tribunal of the High Court as indicated above."
40. Having regard to the prevailing rate of interest and the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, including in the case of Erudhaya Priya vs State Express Transport decided on 27 July, 2020, Civil Appeal Nos. 2811-2812 OF 2020 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.8495-8496 of 2018], which is three Judges Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, such interest @ 9% per annum is deemed fit and accordingly granted in the present case.
Liability:-
41. Insurance Company has conceded valid and effective Insurance Policy on the date of accident and has not raised any statutory defence. It has already been held that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle. It is settled that Insurance Company is responsible to indemnify owner / insured for vicarious liability incurred by tort feaser. Therefore, such principal award amount/compensation will be payable by the insurance company of offending vehicle with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition till actual realization. (If there is any order regarding excluding MACT No.133/2021 Sangeeta Sarkar Vs. Ram Rattan & Ors. page 20 of 30 of interest for specific period same be complied at the time of calculation of award amount).
Directions Regarding Deposit of Award Amount in Bank:
42. In compliance of directions issued vide order dated 16.11.2021 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition Civil No.534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India the award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT FUND PARKING, A/c No. 00000042706870765, IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir in the prescribed format i.e. MCOP Number on the file of (Claims Tribunal Name) Date of award, Compensation Amount, Income Tax Deduction at Source, Bank Transaction Reference No./Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. In turn, the State Bank of India, Saket Courts Branch shall receive the deposited sum and capture the above information and furnish a statement of account on a daily basis to the Nazir of this Tribunal to reconcile the deposits of compensation and the respective MCOPs towards which such deposits are made. On such deposits being made, the insurance company shall submit a letter to the Nazir of this Tribunal enclosing a copy of the said bank advice, in prescribed format as above, as per which the deposit made to the bank account of this Tribunal, to enable this Tribunal to keep tab on the deposits made and the MCOPs for which they were made. The Payment advice for remittance of compensation is as under:
PAYMENT ADVICE FOR REMITTANCE OF
COMPENSATION :
MACT No.133/2021 Sangeeta Sarkar Vs. Ram Rattan & Ors. page 21 of 30
............ Bank ................... To:
............... Court ........................ We confirm remittance of compensation as follows on instructions of ................................... (insurance company):-
MCOP Number On the file of (Claims Tribunal Name), Place Date of award Amount Deposited, Income Tax Deduction at Source, if any Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. Insurance company of offending vehicle, on deposit, shall also send a copy of the payment advice in above format to this Tribunal and serve a copy of the same on the claimants or their counsel as the case may be.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP).
43. This Tribunal is in receipt of the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors whereby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has formulated MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annunity Deposit Scheme) which has been made effective from 01.01.2019. The said orders dated 07.12.2018 also mentions that 21 banks including State Bank of India is one of such banks which are to adhere to MACAD. The State Bank of India, Saket Courts, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Apportionment:-
44. At this stage, it is relevant to the refer to the judgment of A. V. Padma & Ors. Vs., R. Venugopal & Ors. (2012) 3 Supreme MACT No.133/2021 Sangeeta Sarkar Vs. Ram Rattan & Ors. page 22 of 30 Court Cases 378:
"......In the case of Susamma Thomas (supra), this Court issued certain guidelines in order to "safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries due to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation".
Even as per the guidelines issued by this Court Court, long term fixed deposit of amount of compensation is mandatory only in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows. In the case of illiterate claimants, the Tribunal is allowed to consider the request for lumpsum payment for effecting purchase of any movable property such as agricultural implements, rickshaws etc. to earn a living. However, in such cases, the Tribunal shall make sure that the amount is actually spent for the purpose and the demand is not a ruse to withdraw money. In the case of semi-illiterate claimants, the Tribunal should ordinarily invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. But if the Tribunal is satisfied for reasons to be stated in writing that the whole or part of the amount is required for expanding an existing business or for purchasing some property for earning a livelihood, the Tribunal can release the whole or part of the amount of compensation to the claimant provided the Tribunal will ensure that the amount is invested for the purpose for which it is demanded and paid. In the case of literate persons, it is not mandatory to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit.
The expression used in guideline No. (iv) issued by this Court is that in the case of literate persons also the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i), whereas in the guideline Nos. (i), (ii), (iii) and (v), the expression used is that the Tribunal should. Moreover, in the case of literate persons, the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i) only MACT No.133/2021 Sangeeta Sarkar Vs. Ram Rattan & Ors. page 23 of 30 if, having regard to the age, fiscal background and strata of the society to which the claimant belongs and such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks that in the larger interest of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded, it is necessary to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit.
Thus, sufficient discretion has been given to the Tribunal not to insist on investment of the compensation amount in long term fixed deposit and to release even the whole amount in the case of literate persons. However, the Tribunals are often taking a very rigid stand and are mechanically ordering in almost all cases that the amount of compensation shall be invested in long term fixed deposit. They are taking such a rigid and mechanical approach without understanding and appreciating the distinction drawn by this Court in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows and in the case of semiliterate and literate persons. It needs to be clarified that the above guidelines were issued by this Court only to safeguard the interests of the claimants, particularly the minors, illiterates and others whose amounts are sought to be withdrawn on some fictitious grounds. The guidelines were not to be understood to mean that the Tribunals were to take a rigid stand while considering an application seeking release of the money.
The guidelines cast a responsibility on the Tribunals to pass appropriate orders after examining each case on its own merits. However, it is seen that even in cases when there is no possibility or chance of the feed being frittered away by the beneficiary owing to ignorance, illiteracy or susceptibility to exploitation, investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit is directed by the Tribunals as a matter of course and in a routine manner, ignoring the object and the spirit of the guidelines MACT No.133/2021 Sangeeta Sarkar Vs. Ram Rattan & Ors. page 24 of 30 issued by this Court and the genuine requirements of the claimants. Even in the case of literate persons, the Tribunals are automatically ordering investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit without recording that having regard to the age or fiscal background or the strata of the society to which the claimant belongs or such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks it necessary to direct such investment in the larger interests of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded to him.
The Tribunals very often dispose of the claimant's application for withdrawal of the amount of compensation in a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind. This has resulted in serious injustice and hardship to the claimants. The Tribunals appear to think that in view of the guidelines issued by this Court, in every case the amount of compensation should be invested in long term fixed deposit and under no circumstances the Tribunal can release the entire amount of compensation to the claimant even if it is required by him. Hence a change of attitude and approach on the part of the Tribunals is necessary in the interest of justice....."
45. In this background of legal position it is ordered as follows:
(a) Out of the total award amount Rs. 50,28,636/- is awarded to wife of deceased out of which Rs. 45,00,000/- is kept in monthly FDR of Rs. 20,000/- remaining amount shall be released to wife of deceased in her bank account near her place of residence.
(b) Further, out of the total award amount, Rs.
25,00,000/- each is awarded to both minor children of deceased and whole amount shall be kept in form of FDR till they attain MACT No.133/2021 Sangeeta Sarkar Vs. Ram Rattan & Ors. page 25 of 30 the age of majority.
(c) Out of the total award amount Rs. 5,00,000/- is awarded to mother of deceased out of which Rs. 3,00,000/- is kept in monthly FDR of Rs. 10,000/- remaining amount shall be released to mother of deceased in her bank account near her place of residence.
46. The following directions are also given to the bank for compliance:
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name (s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of victim i.e. the savings bank account of the claimant shall be individual savings bank account and not a joint account.
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR (s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/ or debit card to claimant (s). However, in case the debit card and/ or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The MACT No.133/2021 Sangeeta Sarkar Vs. Ram Rattan & Ors. page 26 of 30 bank shall debit freeze the account of the claimant so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque book and / or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1. Date of accident 10.11.2019
2. Name of deceased Late Sh. Apoorv Sarka
3. Age of the deceased 30 years
4. Occupation of the deceased Driver by profession
5. Income of the deceased Rs. 48,080/-.
47. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:
1. Sangeeta Sarkar (wife of deceased)
2. Arushi Sarkar (minor daughter of deceased)
3. Anshuman Sarkar (minor son of deceased)
4. Jharna Sarkar (mother of deceased) Computation of compensation:-
MACT No.133/2021 Sangeeta Sarkar Vs. Ram Rattan & Ors. page 27 of 30 S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal 1 A. Income of the deceased per year (As pe Rs.5,76,960/-
Minimum Wages) B. Add-Future Prospects (40%). Rs.2,30,784/-
C. Total Rs. 8,07,744/-
D. Deduction (1/4) Rs.2,01,936/-
E. Annual loss of dependency (C-D) Rs.6,05,808/-
E Multiplier 17
F. Yearly loss of Dependancy Rs. 1,02,98,736/-
G. Medical Expenses Nil
H. Deduction ,if any Nil
I. Total loss of Estate after deduction, if Rs. 1,02,98,736/-
any
2 Compensation for loss of consortium Rs.1,93,600/-
3 Compensation for loss of estate Rs. 18,150/-
4 Compensation towards funeral expenses Rs. 18,150/-/-
5 N. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.1,05,28,636/-
total of J+K+L+M =N
6 O. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED: @ 9% per annum
7 Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.93,00,000/-
8 Award amount released Remaining principal
award of Rs. 12,28,636/-
PLUS interest @ 9% p.a.
on total principal award
amount from date of
filing DAR till actual
realization of principal
amount awarded.
9 Mode of disbursement of the award (a) Out of the total award
amount to the claimant (s). (Clause 29) amount Rs. 50,28,636/- is awarded to wife of MACT No.133/2021 Sangeeta Sarkar Vs. Ram Rattan & Ors. page 28 of 30 deceased out of which Rs. 45,00,000/- is kept in monthly FDR of Rs.
20,000/- remaining amount shall be released to wife of deceased in her bank account near her place of residence.
(b) Further, out of the total award amount, Rs. 25,00,000/-
each is awarded to both minor children of deceased and whole amount shall be kept in form of FDR till they attain the age of majority.
(c) Out of the total award amount Rs.
5,00,000/- is awarded to mother of deceased out of which Rs. 3,00,000/- is kept in monthly FDR of Rs. 10,000/- remaining amount shall be released to mother of deceased in her bank account near her place of residence.
MACT No.133/2021 Sangeeta Sarkar Vs. Ram Rattan & Ors. page 29 of 30 10 Next Date for reporting of compliance of 06.03.2025 the award (Clause 31)
48. Copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. The copy of award be sent to the Ld. Secretary DLSA and Digitally concerned criminal court. signed by SHELLY SHELLY ARORA ARORA Date:
2025.02.06 (Pronounced in the 16:39:25 +0530 open court on 06.02.2025) (Shelly Arora) PO-MACT-01 (South-East) Saket Court/ New Delhi 06.02.2025 MACT No.133/2021 Sangeeta Sarkar Vs. Ram Rattan & Ors. page 30 of 30