Delhi District Court
Lrs Of Mukesh Singh Rawat vs Manoj Kumar Sinha on 11 April, 2026
LRs of Mukesh Rawat Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors.
p IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEPIKA SINGH, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH WEST DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MACT No. 81/22
CNR No. : DLNW01-01869-2022
LRs of Mukesh Singh Rawat:-
1. Smt Kavita Rawat
W/o Late Sh. Mukesh Singh Rawat
2. Navya Rawat
D/o Late Sh. Mukesh Singh Rawat
3. Pratap Singh
S/o Sh. Kripal Singh
4. Bhagwani Devi
W/o Sh. Pratap Singh
5. Pooja Rawat
D/o Sh. Pratap Singh
All R/o H.No. F-131, Phase-2,
Vijay Vihar, Sector-4, Rohini, Delhi
........ Petitioners/claimants
Versus
1. Manoj Kumar Sinha
S/o Sh. Radha Krishna Prasad Sinha
R/o H.no. 246, 3rd Floor, Ambica Vihar,
Paschim Vihar, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi
....... Driver-cum-Owner /R1
2. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
Flat No. 10-15, 14th Floor, Vijaya Building-17,
Connaught Place, Delhi
........ Insurance Co./R2
Respondents
Other details
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 10.03.2022
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 11.04.2026
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.04.2026
MACT No. 81/22 Page 1 of 40
LRs of Mukesh Rawat Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors.
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 and ORS. VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018.
1. Date of the accident 29.11.2021
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the 10.03.2022
investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the 10.03.2022
investigating officer to the insurance company.
4. Date of filing of Report under section 173 Cr.P.C. Not mentioned in the
before the Metropolitan Magistrate DAR
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information 10.03.2022
Report (DAR) by the investigating Officer before
Claims Tribunal
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance 10.03.2022
Company
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant (s). 10.03.2022
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? Yes
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed No
later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the documents Yes
filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the No
part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether
any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by 10.03.2022
the insurance Company.
13. Name, address and contact number of the Mr. V.K. Gupta,
Designated Officer of the Insurance Company. Advocate
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Insurance No
Company submitted his report within 30 days of
MACT No. 81/22 Page 2 of 40
LRs of Mukesh Rawat Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors.
the DAR? (Clause 22)
15. Whether the insurance company admitted the No
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 deficiency on the N/A
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 the offer Legal offer filed but
of the Insurance Company . not fairly computed
18. Date of the Award 11.04.2026
19. Whether the award was passed with the consent No
of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes
saving bank account(s) near their place of
residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed 10.03.2025
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) produced the 16.05.2025
passbook of their saving bank account near the
place of their residence along with the
endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned above
Claimant(s)
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Petitioners Kavita
claimant(s) and the address of the bank with Rawat, savings bank
IFSC Code A/c
no.1100236929128,
Navya Rawat savings
bank account
no.110236860922
MACT No. 81/22 Page 3 of 40
LRs of Mukesh Rawat Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors.
Pratap Singh, saving
bank A/c
no.110236968415,
Bhagwani Devi
savings bank a/c no.
110237841138 all with
Canara Bank, Sector-5,
Aggarwal Chamber,
Rohini, Delhi
IFSC:CNRB0019089
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank account(s) Yes
is near his place of residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the Yes
time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their
financial condition.
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR number, IFSC 41065170303,
Code, name and branch of the bank of the Claims 110002427,
Tribunal in which the award amount is to be SBIN0010323, SBI,
deposited/transferred. (in terms of order dated Rohini Courts, Delhi
18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in FAO
842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh.
JUDGMENT
1. The Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred to as DAR) was filed in this case on 10.03.2022, with reference to FIR No. 1233/21, as registered U/s 279/337 IPC, PS Maurya Place, Delhi, in respect of simple injuries, sustained by the deceased Mukesh Singh Rawat (hereinafter referred as deceased), in a road traffic accident, on 29.11.2021, at about 7.00 pm, at Power House, Pitampura, Outer Ring Road Flyover, Delhi. The Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal, vide order dated 10.03.2022, treated the DAR, as claim petition U/s 166(4) of MACT No. 81/22 Page 4 of 40 LRs of Mukesh Rawat Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors.
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'M.V.Act'). Subsequently, chargesheet was filed by the IO, against Manoj Kumar Sinha S/o Sh. Radha Krishna Prasad Sinha, driver of the offending vehicle (hereinafter referred as driver of the offending vehicle/respondent no.1/R1), for the commission of offence U/s 279/304A IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case, as discernible from the DAR and documents of the legal heirs/legal representatives of the deceased (hereinafter referred as petitioners/claimants), are that, on 29.11.2021, at about 7.00 am, the deceased was returning from his duty on his motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-8SBP-4766 and when he reached Power House, Pitampura, Outer Ring Road Flyover, then he was hit by a car, bearing registration No. DL-1CZ-6404 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) and the deceased fell down on the road and sustained injuries. It was further averred that thereafter deceased saw that public persons gathered at the spot and one of them had called the police at 100 number and then PCR van came there and he was taken to Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Sector-6, Rohini, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as BSA Hospital) where he was medically examined vide MLC No. 29028/2021 and during the course of treatment the deceased died on 30.11.2021 at 12.10 am. It was further averred that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner, by its driver Manoj Kumar Sinha S/o Sh. Radha Krishna Prasad Sinha (hereainafter referred to as MACT No. 81/22 Page 5 of 40 LRs of Mukesh Rawat Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors.
the driver of the offending vehicle/respondent no.1/R1).
3. The postmortem on the body of the deceased, was conducted at Baba Sahab Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini, Delhi, vide Postmortem Report (PMR) No.852/2021, dated 30.11.2021, wherein the cause of death has been mentioned due to hemorrhage and shock consequent upon blunt force /surface impact to body . It was further mentioned that all injuries were ante mortem in nature, fresh in duration and could be sustained in the manner as alleged, however viscera have been preserved to rule out any intoxication.
4. As per the contents of the DAR/claim petition, at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was driven by R1 Manoj Kumar Sinha S/o Sh. Radha Krishna Prasad Sinha, the same was registered in his the name, and was insured with Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the insurance company/R2) vide policy no. 131622123110032443 valid for the period 16.06.2021 to 15.06.2022.
5. R1 has filed his written statement wherein he stated that he is not responsible for the alleged accident and no negligence has been committed on the part of R1. He further stated that vehicle in question has been duly insured with Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd./R2 vide policy no. 131622123110032443 valid for the period 16.06.2021 to 15.06.2022. He further stated that R1 has fully cooperated with the police authorities during the investigation of alleged accident and has MACT No. 81/22 Page 6 of 40 LRs of Mukesh Rawat Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors.
submitted all the relevant documents sought by investigating officer and was present before the IO whenever he was called. It is prayed that the claim petition be dismissed.
6. The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited/R2, the insurer of the offending vehicle, has filed Legal Offer, wherein R2 admitted the insurance policy bearing No. policy no. 131622123110032443 valid for the period 16.06.2021 to 15.06.2022, issued for vehicle no. DL-1CZ-6404 issued in the name of Manoj Kumar Sinha, subject to terms and conditions of insurance policy. It is further stated that R2 has offered to pay compensation to the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 26,59,299/- after deducting the amount on account of contributory negligence for not wearing helmet. However, the said offer was not acceptable to the petitioner and therefore, the present claim petition was proceeded further for trial.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Learned Predecessor, vide order dated 17.09.2022:-
(1) Whether on 29.11.2021 at about 7.00 pm, at Power House, Pitampura Outer Ring Road Flyover, Delhi, one vehicle bearing registration No. DL1C-Z-6404, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver/R1/Manoj Kumar, had hit the motorcycle bearing registration no. DL8S-BP-4766 and caused the death of Mukesh Rawat? OPP MACT No. 81/22 Page 7 of 40 LRs of Mukesh Rawat Vs. Manoj Kumar & 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 versions, by leading evidence in support of the same. In support of their case, the petitioners examined four witnesses.
9. In support of their case, the petitioners examined Smt. Kavita Rawat, as PW1, by way of evidence affidavit Ex.PW1/A. The deposition of PW1, as to the manner of accident, rashness and negligence of R1, in causing the accident and death of the deceased Mukesh Singh Rawat, as a result of the injuries, sustained in the case accident, is reiteration of the contents of DAR and FIR. She further deposed that her husband Sh. Mukesh Singh Rawat was 29 years old and was possessing sound mind, good health and robust physique and was not suffering from any kind of ailment or addicted to any vice. She further deposed that he was working as "Desktop Support Engineer" with Neotell India, 201A, Ansal Classique Tower, J-Block, Community Center, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027. She further deposed that he was getting salary of Rs. 20,430/- pm. She further deposed that her husband has left behind herself as his wife Kavita Rawat, aged about 27 years, his daughter Navya Rawat, aged about 5 years, his mother Smt Bhagwani Devi, aged about 56 years, his father Pratap Singh, aged about 59 years and his unmarried sister Pooja Rawat, aged about 25 years, who are the only legal heirs of the deceased. She further deposed that he was MACT No. 81/22 Page 8 of 40 LRs of Mukesh Rawat Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors.
only earning member in the family and there is no other source of income whatsoever. She further deposed that all the petitioners were fully dependent upon the income and guidance of the deceased. She further deposed that she has suffered financial loss due to the sudden and untimely death of her husband in the road accident apart from this financial loss, petitioners have suffered loss of love and affection, loss of consortium, loss of company, guidance and support. She further deposed that her husband used to pay his entire earning to her for household expenses. She further deposed that they were fully dependent on the income of the deceased and have no other source of income. She further deposed that she has incurred Rs. 50,000/- on transportation and last rites of the deceased. She further deposed that this accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1CZ-6404 (Nexon) and an FIR No. 1233/2021, dated 30.11.2021, u/s 279/337/304A IPC has been registered at PS Maurya Enclave, District North West. In her evidence, PW1 has placed reliance upon photocopy of death certificate of the deceased Sh. Mukesh Singh Rawat as Ex. PW1/1 (OSR), photocopy of duty identity card of the deceased Sh. Mukesh Singh Rawat as Ex. PW1/2 (OSR) (objected to), photocopy of educational certificates/degree of deceased Sh. Mukesh Singh Rawat is Ex.PW1/3 (OSR) (colly) (objected to), photocopy of PAN Card of deceased Sh. Mukesh Singh Rawat as Ex.PW1/4 (OSR), photocopy of Aadhar Card of deceased Sh. Mukesh Singh Rawat as Ex.PW1/5 (OSR), photocopy of her PAN Card as Ex. PW1/6 (OSR), photocopy of her Aadhar Card as Ex. PW1/7 (OSR), photocopy of her election identity card as Ex.PW1/8 (OSR), photocopy of Aadhar Card of Navya Rawat as Ex. PW1/9 MACT No. 81/22 Page 9 of 40 LRs of Mukesh Rawat Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors.
(OSR), photocopy of Aadhar Card of Bhagwani Devi as Ex.PW1/10 (OSR), photocopy of Aadhar Card of Sh. Partap Singh as Ex.PW1/11 (OSR), photocopy of Aadhar Card of Pooja as Ex.PW1/12 (OSR) and attested copy of DAR as Ex.PW1/13 (colly).
10. PW1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the insurance company/R2, wherein he deposed that she is not an eye witness of the case accident and as such she cannot tell anything about the case accident. She denied the suggestion that no such accident took place with the alleged offending vehicle or that the said vehicle has falsely been implicated in the present case in collusion with the police officials and driver-cum-owner of the vehicle. She further denied the suggestion that deceased was not employed for gain or that he was not earning any amount as on the date of accident or that the documents filed by her qua the same are forged and fabricated. She further denied the suggestion that the petitioners were not financially dependent upon the deceased. She further deposed that her father-in-law used to work as a labourer in a bakery in the life time of the deceased and was earning about Rs. 15,000/- per month. She volunteered that now he is not working. She denied the suggestion that herself and her parents-in-laws are working and earning persons or that they were not financially dependent upon the deceased. She denied the suggestion that her volunteered part as aforesaid is totally wrong just to claim higher compensation. She further deposed that the date of birth of the deceased was 27.04.1993. She further deposed that she has not got any amount from the said employer of her deceased husband. She further deposed that her sister-in-law, namely, Pooja MACT No. 81/22 Page 10 of 40 LRs of Mukesh Rawat Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors.
Rawat is graduate. She denied the suggestion that her sister-in-law is gainfully employed or that she was not financially dependent upon the income of her deceased husband. She further deposed that she does not know the age of her sister-in-law. She denied the suggestion that she has not incurred any amount on the last rites and transportation as mentioned in para no.9 of her evidence by way of affidavit. She further deposed that the deceased was holding a bank account in Canara Bank but she has not placed on record any document regarding the same. She denied the suggestion that the documents filed by her are forged and fabricated. She further denied the suggestion that her affidavit is false or that she is deposing falsely.
11. PW1 was also cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R1/driver-cum-owner wherein she denied the suggestion that the said vehicle as well as the driver have falsely been implicated in the present case or that there was no negligence at all on the part of the driver of the said vehicle. She further denied the suggestion that the accident had occurred due to negligence of the deceased himself who was driving his vehicle in a zig zag manner. She further denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely.
12. Petitioners got further examined Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dubey, System Engineer, Neotell India, Rajouri Garden, Delhi as PW2. He was a summoned witness and he has brought the summoned record of deceased Mukesh Singh Rawat for the month of September, October and November, 2021, who was working in their firm as computer desktop engineer and the MACT No. 81/22 Page 11 of 40 LRs of Mukesh Rawat Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors.
relevant documents regarding his job were the copy of salary slip of Mukesh Singh Rawat for the month of September, October and November, 2021 of Ambedkar University of Engineer, which were exhibited as Ex.PW2/1 (colly), copy of bank statement of Neotell India as Ex.PW2/2 (colly), copy of employment provident fund of Mukesh Singh Rawat as Ex.PW2/3 (colly), copy of ESIC of Mukesh Singh Rawat as Ex. PW2/4 (colly) and copy of attendance register regarding the attendance of Mukesh Singh Rawat as Ex. PW2/5 (colly).
13. PW2 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the insurance company/R2, wherein he deposed that he has not brought any document under the signature of the deceased. He further deposed that their company does not pay any other amount to its employees except the amount under provident fund and ESIC. He further deposed that she cannot tell anything about the claim amount received by the petitioners under ESIC, if any. During his cross-examination, PW2 deposed that he has not brought any other documents. He further deposed that their firm did not pay any further amount except the salary to the family of the deceased. He further deposed that the LRs of the deceased are pursuing their claims for the PF and ESIC directly with the said departments and their firm is not aware about any payment regarding the same. He further deposed that their firm was not deducting any tax from the salary of the deceased and hence, no form-16 was issued to the deceased. He volunteered that their firm is not having any TAN number. He further deposed that he has not applied TAN number for the firm till date. He further deposed that the deceased was not issued any MACT No. 81/22 Page 12 of 40 LRs of Mukesh Rawat Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors.
appointment letter. He further deposed that there is no terms and conditions of the employment of the deceased. He further deposed that attendance record is not bearing the signatures of either deceased or anyone else. He further deposed that their firm does not have any receipts regarding the payment of salary except the account statement of the firm showing the transfer of amount to the deceased. He denied the suggestion that the deceased was not employed with Neotell India or that he was not earning any amount. He further denied the suggestion that he is not authorized on behalf of Neotell India to depose in the the present case. He further deposed that he has not brought any certificate u/s 65B of the Evidence Act in support of the computerized record Ex.PW2/1, Ex. PW2/2, Ex PW2/3 and Ex. PW2/4. He further deposed that the firm could have removed the deceased from his services any time after giving 15 days notice without assigning any reasons. He further denied the suggestion that all the documents filed by him on record are false and fabricated. He further denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely to favour the petitioners in the present case.
14. PW2 has not been cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R1 who has adopted the cross-examination conducted by Id. Counsel for insurance company/R2.
15. Petitioners further got examined Retired SI Gian Chand as PW3. He was a summoned witness. He deposed that he was the second IO of the case. He further deposed that the present case was assigned to him on 17.12.2021 and MACT No. 81/22 Page 13 of 40 LRs of Mukesh Rawat Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors.
after assigning the case to him, he verified the R.C, insurance of the offending vehicle and Driving License of the driver through concerned department. He further deposed that on 22.12.2021, he obtained the postmortem report of the deceased from Dr. BSA Hospital. He further deposed that on 24.12.2021, he had collected the PCR form. He further deposed that he contacted PCR caller, namely, Vicky, who had informed him that the accident had already taken place when he reached at the spot and he was not the eye witness of the occurrence of the case accident. He further deposed that there was no eye witness of the case accident apart from the deceased himself and he has filed the charge sheet on the basis of statement of the deceased/dying declaration.
16. PW3 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the insurance company/R2, wherein he deposed that the statement of the deceased was recorded by the first investigating officer, namely, SI Jogender. He further deposed that he does not have any personal knowledge about the said statement/dying declaration and he cannot comment anything about the said statement and only the first IO can answer the question about the authenticity of the dying declaration. He further deposed that statement of one Krishan was recorded by him on 14.09.2022 in respect of the fact that dying declaration was made by the deceased in the presence of said Krishan, which was exhibited as Ex.PW3/R2-X1. He further deposed that he has also brought copy of FSL result, which was exhibited as Ex.PW3/R2-X2. He further deposed that he has filed the charge sheet on the basis of dying declaration as well as on the statement of said Krishan only. He further deposed that he was constantly in MACT No. 81/22 Page 14 of 40 LRs of Mukesh Rawat Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors.
touch with the petitioner no.1 prior to 14.09.2022 and was inquiring about availability of eye witness as well as any witness to the recording of dying declaration about the first IO but the petitioner no.1 disclosed about Krishan as an eye witness to the dying declaration only on 14.09.2022. He further deposed that Mr. Krishan was the brother-in-law/sala of the deceased, who had immediately reached the hospital after the accident and was a witness to the recording of dying declaration. He further deposed that he does not have any record to show that Mr. Krishan had immediately reached at the hospital after the accident and was a witness to the recording of dying declaration of the deceased. He denied the suggestion that he has filed the false charge sheet on the basis of false dying declaration as well as false statement of Mr. Krishan in collision with the petitioners, without any basis just to favour the petitioners in the present case. He further deposed that the dying declaration/tehrir bears signatures of the deceased. He further deposed that he has not matched the signature of the deceased on dying declaration/tehrir with any of the admitted signature of the deceased. He denied the suggestion that the deceased did not give any dying declaration or that there is no signature of the deceased on the said dying declaration or that the same is false and fabricated document just to favour the petitioners in the present case. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely to favour the petitioners.
17. PW2 has not been cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R1 who has adopted the cross-examination conducted by Id. Counsel for insurance company/R2.
MACT No. 81/22 Page 15 of 40LRs of Mukesh Rawat Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors.
18. Petitioners further got examined SI Jogender as PW4. He was a summoned witness. He deposed that he was the Ist IO of the case in the case FIR No. 1233/21, PS Maurya Enclave, Delhi. He further deposed that during the investigation, he took statement of the injured (now deceased) Mukesh Singh Rawat on 29.11.2021. He further deposed that the statement is already on record along with DAR which was exhibited as Ex. PW4/1. He further deposed that he identified the signatures of Sh. Mukesh Singh Rawat at point A. He further deposed that he also prepared site plan on his own according to the statement of the injured. He further deposed that the site plan is also on record along with DAR which was exhibited as Ex PW4/2.
19. PW4 was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for R2/insurance company, wherein he deposed that the statement Ex. PW4/1 was recorded by him in his own handwriting. He admitted that there is a gap at the end of the statement and the signatures. He denied the suggestion that no such statement was given by the injured or that he had written the said statement on his own and he had taken the signatures of the injured on the blank paper. He is not an eye witness of the accident. He denied the suggestion that he did not verify the case properly or that he has prepared the false documents to favour the petitioners in the present case. He further deposed that he did not take the injured to the spot for preparing the site plan. He denied the suggestion that he has prepared the site plan without any basis and the same is incorrect. He further denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely. PW2 has not been cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R1 who has adopted the cross-examination conducted by Id. Counsel for insurance company/R2.
MACT No. 81/22 Page 16 of 40LRs of Mukesh Rawat Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors.
20. The respondents failed to lead any evidence in their defence, at the stage of respondents' evidence.
21. This Tribunal has heard the final arguments, as addressed by Learned counsel for the parties. Issue-wise findings of this Tribunal, based on appreciation of evidence, led by the parties, in support of their respective versions of the case, are reproduced herein below.
ISSUE No. 1Whether on 29.11.2021 at about 7.00 pm, at Power House, Pitampura Outer Ring Road Flyover, Delhi, one vehicle bearing registration No. DL1C- Z-6404, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its drive/R1/Manoj Kumar, had hit the motorcycle bearing registration no. DL8S-BP-4766 and caused the death of Mukesh Rawat? OPP
22. The onus of proving this issue, on preponderance of probabilities was upon the petitioners/claimants. To prove the same, the petitioners/claimants have examined PW1 Smt. Kavita Rawat, PW2 Rajesh Kumar Dubey, PW3 Retired SI Gian Chand and PW4 SI Joginder. PW1 was the wife of the deceased and PW4 was the first IO of the case. In her evidence, PW1 deposed that the accident has taken place, due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1. PW1 has also placed reliance upon the DAR filed by the IO as Ex.PW1/13(Colly.). But PW1 was not the eye witness.
MACT No. 81/22 Page 17 of 40LRs of Mukesh Rawat Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors.
23. PW4 being first IO of the case, has deposed that during the investigation, he took statement of injured (now deceased) Mukesh Singh Rawat on 29.11.2021. He further deposed that the statement is already on record along with DAR which was exhibited as Ex. PW4/1. He further deposed that he identified the signatures of Sh. Mukesh Singh Rawat at point A. He further deposed that he also prepared site plan on his own according to the statement of the injured. He further deposed that the site plan is also on record along with DAR which was exhibited as Ex PW4/2.
24. Perusal of statement of victim Mukesh Singh Rawat taken by the IO SI Jogender /PW4 reveals that on 29.11.2021, at about 7.00 am, the deceased was returning from his duty on his motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-8SBP-4766 and when he reached Power House, Pitampura, Outer Ring Road Flyover, then he was hit by a car, bearing registration No. DL-1CZ-6404 and the deceased fell down on the road and sustained injuries. He further stated that thereafter deceased saw that public persons gathered at the spot and one of them had called the police at 100 number and then PCR van came there and he was taken to Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Sector-6, Rohini, Delhi where he was medically examined and his treatment was continuing. He further stated that at the time of accident, the accident had been caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Perusal of MLC bearing no. No. 29028/2021 reveals that the deceased was fit for MACT No. 81/22 Page 18 of 40 LRs of Mukesh Rawat Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors.
giving statement. Perusal of statement of deceased reveals that deceased was in a fit state of mind while giving his dying statement and the IO has identified the signatures of the deceased during the course of his testimony in the court. As per the MLC of deceased, there was no expectation of death of the deceased when he had made the dying statement. During the course of cross-examination by Ld. counsel for R2/insurance company, PW4 had admitted that there is a gap at the end of the statement and the signatures. However, PW4 denied the suggestion that no such statement was given by the injured or that he had written the said statement on his own and he had taken the signatures of the injured on the blank paper. Neither R1 nor R2/insurance company had led any any evidence as to the veracity of the dying statement given by the deceased. Mere putting suggestion does not suffice to substantiate the stand of the respondents without leading any evidence. Therefore, the statement of the deceased is truthful and reliable. As per Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act that "When the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question", such a statement written or verbal made by a person who is dead (omitting the unnecessary words) is itself a relevant fact. Even otherwise, the Apex Court in a judgment titled as Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay, 1958 AIR 22 observed that a truthful dying declaration does not require further evidence.
MACT No. 81/22 Page 19 of 40LRs of Mukesh Rawat Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors.
25. No contradictions or material discrepancies have appeared in the cross examination of PW1 Smt. Kavita Rawat and PW2 SI Jogender, to discredit their testimonies, which was capable of demolishing the case of the petitioners, to the effect that the case accident had occurred, due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1 and the death of victim Mukesh Singh Rawat had occasioned therefrom. Although, both PW1 and PW4 were not the eye witness in the present matter, however, both PW1 and PW4 has placed reliance on DAR, as filed by the IO, in which R1 had been shown, as the driver of the offending vehicle, who was responsible for causing the accident in question.
26. Even otherwise, it is trite law that in Motor Accident Claims Cases, the standard of proof is not as strict, as the standard of proof to be adopted in criminal matters, and non- examination of eye witness before the Tribunal, cannot be treated as fatal, in a claim for compensation, in respect of road traffic accident, if the factum of rashness and negligent stands proved, on the basis of other reliable evidence produced by the petitioners. A Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is a benevolent entity, created for the benefit of victims of road traffic accident and the evidence brought on record before the Tribunal by the accident victims or their legal heirs has to be evaluated on the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities and not on the scale of beyond reasonable doubt.
MACT No. 81/22 Page 20 of 40LRs of Mukesh Rawat Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors.
27. In this context, it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunita vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Civil Appeal No. 166/2019, date of decision 14.02.2019 that non examination of eye witness in the proceedings before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cannot be treated as fatal to the case of the petitioners particularly when there was sufficient evidence on record to establish that the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had inter alia held as follows:-
"It is thus well settled that in motor accident claim cases, once the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of the accident, has been established, then the Tribunal's role would be to calculate the quantum of just compensation if the accident had taken place by reason of negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle and, while doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties. Notably, while deciding cases arising out of motor vehicle accidents, the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases."
28. It was similarly held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Pushpa Rana and Ors. MAC App. No.360/2007 decided on 20.12.2007, that the certified copy of criminal case record including charge sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle, certified copy of FIR, recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle relied upon by the petitioners were sufficient proofs to arrive at a conclusion MACT No. 81/22 Page 21 of 40 LRs of Mukesh Rawat Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors.
regarding negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, because the proceedings under Motor Vehicle Act were not akin to a civil suit and as such strict rules of evidence were not supposed to be followed in such proceedings.
29. In another case decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as New India Assurance Company Vs Smt. Sakshi Bhutani and Ors. MACT App. No.550/2011 decided on 2nd July, 2012, it had been similarly reiterated that negligence was not required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt in a MACT case and a certified copy of report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. supported by the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle were sufficient to depict the manner in which the accident in question had occurred.
30. In the light of afore cited opinion expressed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the decided case of Sunita vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, (Supra), as well as the opinion expressed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decided cases of National Insurance Company Limited Vs Shri Mati Pushpa Rana and Ors. (Supra), New India Assurance Company Vs Smt. Sakshi Bhutani and Ors. (Supra), it can be safely concluded that the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(MACT) cannot be rejected merely on account of non examination of eye witness by the petitioner and even if the eye witness turns hostile, the MACT can still arrive at a finding MACT No. 81/22 Page 22 of 40 LRs of Mukesh Rawat Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors.
of negligence against the driver of the offending vehicle on the basis of other reliable evidence produced by the petitioners.
31. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the respondent no.1 has not denied the involvement of the offending vehicle in the case accident. No evidence has been led by the R1 and R2 that there is any manipulation with the dying statement of the deceased. Further, there is nothing on record, which shows that R1 has ever approached to any higher authority, against his implication in the present case. Thus, in view of the dying statement of the deceased, adverse inference can be drawn against R1, that the accident has taken place, due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1.
32. Further, perusal of DAR reveals that notice U/s 133 M.V. Act, was given to R1/driver cum registered owner of the offending vehicle, who made a endorsement, in his own handwriting, in the said notice, that on 29.11.2021 at around 7.00 pm, he was driving his car no. DL1CZ-6404 and he is the rightful owner of the said vehicle. Thus, the same proves that the accident in question has taken place, due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1.
33. The factum of death of the deceased, due to the injuries sustained in the case accident, stands further corroborated from the postmortem report of the deceased, as conducted by the Doctors, at BSA Hospital, MACT No. 81/22 Page 23 of 40 LRs of Mukesh Rawat Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors.
vide Postmortem Report (PMR) No. 852/2021, dated 30.11.2021, wherein the cause of death has been mentioned due to hemorrhage and shock consequent upon blunt force /surface impact to body . It was further mentioned that all injuries were ante mortem in nature, fresh in duration and could be sustained in the manner as alleged, however viscera have been preserved to rule out any intoxication. Even as per the result of viscera examination report of deceased from FSL dated 15.07.2022, it was mentioned in the result of examination report that on chemical, microscopic, TLC & GD-HS examination, metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides could not be detected in exhibits 'A'A, '1B' '1C' & '1D'. Therefore, nothing has come on record which could substantiate that the deceased was under
the influence of intoxication.
34. Thus, in view of the above said discussion, on the basis of testimony of PW1 Kavita Rawat and PW4 SI Jogender, which was duly corroborated by the criminal case record, including charge sheet, as filed against R1 and dying statement of victim Mukesh Singh Rawat, it has been proved by the petitioners, on preponderance of probabilities that the case accident had been caused by R1, who was driving the offending vehicle, in a rash and negligent manner, at the above said date, time and place and had hit the deceased, thereby causing death of deceased Mukesh Singh Rawat.
MACT No. 81/22 Page 24 of 40LRs of Mukesh Rawat Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors.
Issue no.1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
Issue No. (2) Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
35. 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 the account of fatal injuries, sustained by the deceased Mukesh Singh Rawat, 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.
36. 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
37. To prove the dependency of the petitioners, on the deceased, Smt. Kavita, wife of the deceased got herself examined as PW1. In her MACT No. 81/22 Page 25 of 40 LRs of Mukesh Rawat Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors.
evidence, PW1 deposed that her husband Mukesh Singh Rawat was 29 years old and was in possession of sound mind and robust physical body and was not suffering from any ailment. She further deposed that her husband has left behind herself as his wife Kavita Rawat, aged about 27 years, his daughter Navya Rawat, aged about 5 years, his mother Smt Bhagwani Devi, aged about 56 years, his father Pratap Singh, aged about 59 years and his unmarried sister Pooja Rawat, aged about 25 years, who are the only legal heirs of the deceased. She further deposed that he was only earning member in the family and there is no other source of income whatsoever. She further deposed that all the petitioners were fully dependent upon the income and guidance of the deceased.
38. From the cross-examination of PW1, R1 and R2 failed to elicit any admissions, so as to prove non-dependency of the petitioners, on the deceased. However, petitioner no. 5 Ms. Pooja, who is the sister of the deceased cannot be said to be dependent upon the income of the deceased and as such, petitioner no. 5 Ms. Pooja cannot be considered as dependent legal heir of the deceased. Therefore, petitioner no. 1 to petitioner no.4 are considered as dependent legal heirs of the deceased.
39. Further, to prove the income of the deceased, PW1 has deposed that deceased was working as "Desktop Support Engineer" with Neotell MACT No. 81/22 Page 26 of 40 LRs of Mukesh Rawat Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors.
India, 201A, Ansal Classique Tower, J-Block, Community Center, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027. She further deposed that he was getting salary of Rs. 20,430/- pm. She has placed reliance upon photocopy of duty identity card of deceased issued by the company NeoTell India as Ex.PW1/2 which was objected to respondents as to the mode of proof. Then petitioners got examined Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dubey, System Engineer, Neotell India, Rajouri Garden, Delhi as PW2. PW2 deposed that deceased Mukesh Singh Rawat was working in their firm as Computer Desktop Engineer and has proved on record copy of salary slip of Mukesh Singh Rawat for the month of September, October and November 2021 of Ambedkar University of Engineer as Ex.PW2/1 (colly). Perusal of Ex.PW2/1 reveals that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs. 22812/- per month in the month of November 2021 and the salary has been reflected in the bank statement of Neotell India Ex.PW2/2. PW2 has also proved on record the employment provident fund and ESIC contribution of deceased Ex.PW2/3 (colly) and Ex.PW2/4 (Colly). PW2 further proved on record the attendance register regarding attendance of the deceased Ex.PW2/5. During the course of cross-examination, R1 and R2 failed to elicit any admission from PW2 as to the employment and credit of salary in the account of the deceased. The salary slip proved on record for the month of November 2021 reveals that the deceased was drawing a net salary of Rs. 22,812/- per month. Thus, it can be safely concluded, that the income of the deceased Mukesh Singh Rawat, at the time of accident, was Rs. 22,812/- per month.
MACT No. 81/22 Page 27 of 40LRs of Mukesh Rawat Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors.
40. As per the case of the petitioners, the deceased was aged about 29 years, at the time of accident. However, as per matriculation marksheet of deceased, the date of deceased was shown as 27.04.1993. The date of accident in the present case is 29.11.2021. Thus, the age of the deceased is accepted as 28 years 07 month and 02 days, at the time of accident. Hence, the multiplier of 17 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.
41. Considering the age of the 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.
42. As already discussed hereinabove, that only petitioner no.1 to 4 were dependent legal heirs of the deceased, at the time of accident and as such, they are entitled to receive compensation, under this head. In such circumstances, the deceased was likely to spare 1/4th of his income, for his personal and living expenses and to contribute the MACT No. 81/22 Page 28 of 40 LRs of Mukesh Rawat Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors.
remaining 3/4th of his income towards household expenses/maintenance of his family members. Hence, there has to be deduction of 1/4th, 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. 51,16,230.4 (rounded off Rs.51,16,231/-) (22,812/- + 40% (9124.8) = 31936.8- 1/4 (7884.2) = 23952.6 x 12 x 17). Hence, a sum of Rs.51,16,231/- is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioner no. 1 to 4.
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
43. 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.
MACT No. 81/22 Page 29 of 40LRs of Mukesh Rawat Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
44. 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 considered opinion that as on the date of accident, there were four legal heirs of the deceased, which includes his widow, mother, father and daughter and as such, they are entitled for payment of Rs.48,400/- each, towards loss of consortium. Consequently, a sum of Rs.1,93,600/- (Rs. 48,400/- X 4) is awarded to the petitioners no.1 to 4, under this head.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
45. 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 no.1 to 4.
46. Petitioners/claimants are accordingly entitled to compensation computed as under:
Loss of financial dependency Rs. 48,86,330.4/-
Loss of Estate Rs. 18,150/-
Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,150/-
MACT No. 81/22 Page 30 of 40
LRs of Mukesh Rawat Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors.
Loss of Consortium Rs. 1,93,600/-
Loss of Love and Affection Nil.
________________
Total Rs. 51,16,230.4/-
________________
Rounded off to Rs.51,16,231/-
(Rupees Fifty One Lakhs Sixteen Thousand Two Hundred Thirty One only).
47. 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 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 10.03.2022 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, in the present case, this court is of the opinion that the claimants/petitioners are entitled to interest at the prevailing bank rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition, that is, with effect from 10.03.2022 till realization of the compensation amount.
48. 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.
MACT No. 81/22 Page 31 of 40LRs of Mukesh Rawat Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors.
LIABILITY
49. In the case in hand, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd./R2 has no statutory defence as R2/insurance company has filed legal offer. Further, since there is no other statutory defence, on behalf of insurance company/R2, and as the offending vehicle was duly insured with R2, at the time of accident, therefore, R2 is liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the petitioners.
50. 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., Reliance General Insurance Company Limited/R2 is directed to deposit the awarded amount of Rs. 51,16,231/- 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 R2 to the petitioners and their advocates and to show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgment with the Nazir as per rules. R2 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 claimants 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, MACT No. 81/22 Page 32 of 40 LRs of Mukesh Rawat Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors.
so that the awarded amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheque.
APPORTIONMENT
51. Separate statement of petitioners in terms of clause 29 MCTAP was recorded on 16.05.2025 regarding savings bank account of the petitioners with no loan, cheque book and ATM/debit card. I have heard the petitioners and Ld. counsel for the petitioners/claimants regarding financial needs of the petitioners and in view of the judgment in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas and Others, 1994 (2) SC, 1631, for appropriate investments to safeguard the amount from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to their ignorance, illiteracy and being susceptible to exploitation, following arrangements are hereby ordered:-
52. It is deemed appropriate by this court after hearing learned counsels for all parties that maximum amount of compensation be kept in FDRs and only a very small amount be released to the claimants. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby directed that on realization of the entire award amount, the compensation to the Petitioners be distributed as follows:-
MACT No. 81/22 Page 33 of 40LRs of Mukesh Rawat Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors.
Sl. Name/No. of Relationship Share of Release of Amount kept in Period of FDR
No petitioner with amount of award of FDR
deceased award amount.
1 Kavita Rawat Wife Rs.17,16,231/- Rs.2,16,231/- Rs.15,00,000/- 1 month to 75
-Petitioner no. 1 months of equal
amount
2 Navya Rawat Daughter Rs.20,00,000/- Nil Rs.20,00,000/- Till she
-Petitioner no. 2 attains the
age of
majority
3 Pratap Singh Father Rs.7,00,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.5,00,000/- 1 month to 30
-Petitioner no. 3 months of equal
amount
4 Bhagwani Devi Mother Rs.7,00,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.5,00,000/- 1 month to 30
-Petitioner no. 4 months of equal
amount
53. The amount as per the arrangement of aforesaid table be credited in the saving bank accounts of petitioners i.e. Petitioner No.1 Kavita Rawat, having savings bank A/c no.1100236929128, Petitioner no.2 Navya having savings bank account no.110236860922, Petitioner no.3 Pratap Singh, having saving bank A/c no.110236968415 and Petitioner no.3 Bhagwani Devi having savings bank a/c no.
110237841138, all with Canara Bank, Sector-5, Aggarwal Chamber, Rohini, Delhi, IFSC:CNRB0019089 i.e. the branch near their place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause 29 MCTAP) and remaining amount of petitioners be kept in the form of FDRs for the aforesaid period as mentioned in the aforesaid table, with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
MACT No. 81/22 Page 34 of 40LRs of Mukesh Rawat Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors.
54. 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 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 MACT No. 81/22 Page 35 of 40 LRs of Mukesh Rawat Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors.
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
55. As discussed above, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited/R2 is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs. 51,16,231/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition, that is, 10.03.2022 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 R2 to the petitioner and his advocate failing which the R2 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the period of delay beyond 30 days.
56. R2 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 MACT No. 81/22 Page 36 of 40 LRs of Mukesh Rawat Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors.
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.
57. Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of non-
receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the granted time.
58. 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. 81/22 Page 37 of 40LRs of Mukesh Rawat Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors.
59. A copy of this award be forwarded to the concerned Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class 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.
60. In view of the directions contained in order dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, joint statement of petitioners was also recorded on 16.05.2025 wherein they had stated that they were entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS and that they would submit form 15G to insurance co. so that no TDS is deducted.
61. 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 Digitally signed parties for necessary compliance as per rules. DEEPIKA by DEEPIKA SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.04.11 15:26:47 +0530 Announced in open court (DEEPIKA SINGH) on 11th April, 2026 P.O. MACT (N/W) Rohini Courts, Delhi MACT No. 81/22 Page 38 of 40 LRs of Mukesh Rawat Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors.
FORM - IV A SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 29.11.2021
2. Name of deceased: Mukesh Singh Rawat
3. Age of the deceased: About 28 years 07 month and 02 days at the time of accident.
4. Occupation of the deceased: Private Job
5. Income of the deceased: Rs. 22,812/- per month
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No. Name Age Relation
(i) Kavita Rawat 32 years Wife
(ii) Navya Rawat (minor) 9 years Daughter
(iii) Partap Singh 70 years Father
(iv) Bhagwani Devi 66 years Mother
Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs.22,812/-
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) 40% = Rs. 9124.8
9. Less-Personal expenses of the 1/4
deceased (C )
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.23,952.6
{ (A+B) - C =D}
11. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs.2,87,431.2 MACT No. 81/22 Page 39 of 40 LRs of Mukesh Rawat Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors.12. Multiplier (E) 17
13. Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE Rs.48,86,330.4 (rounded off = F) to Rs. 48,86,331/-)
14. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15. Compensation for loss of love and Nil affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of Rs. 1,93,600/- (48,400x4) 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.51,16,231/-
(F+G+H+I+J+K =L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 7.50% 21 Interest amount up to the date of Rs.15,67,911.62 award (M)
22. Total amount including interest Rs.66,84,142.62 (rounded (L+M) off to Rs. 66,84,143/-)
23. Award amount released Rs.6,16,231/-
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs. 60,67,912/-
25. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms amount to the claimant (s) (Clause of clause 29 of MCTAP.
29)
26. Next date for compliance of the 10.05.2026 award. (Clause 31) DEEPIKA Digitally signed by DEEPIKA SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.04.11 15:26:37 +0530 (DEEPIKA SINGH) PO MACT/NORTH WEST ROHINI, DELHI.MACT No. 81/22 Page 40 of 40