Delhi District Court
Sudha vs Raj Singh on 26 September, 2025
DLNW010115512023
Presented on : 18-12-2023
Registered on : 20-12-2023
Decided on : 26-09-2025
Duration : 1 years, 9 months,
8 days
IN THE COURT OF
ADJ1(NW)/MACT, NORTH WEST DISTRICT DELHI
Presided Over by Sh. Vikram
M A C T/1117/2023
FIR No. 313/2023, PS Kanjhawala
In the matter of : Sh. Prince (Deceased)
1. Anmol (Father of deceased)
S/o Sh. Sarman Lal
2. Sudha (Mother of deceased)
W/o Sh. Anmol
3. Riya (Sister of deceased)
D/o Sh. Anmol
All R/o Hous No. 587,
Parva Panna, Village Karala,
Delhi.
.....Petitioners
vs.
1. Raj Singh
S/o Sh. Inder Singh
R/o House No. 503-C,
Opposite Sr. Sec. School,
Karala, Village Mohammadpur Majri,
Delhi.
...... Driver/R1
MACT Case No. 1117/2023 (FIR no. 313/2023)
Sudha & Ors. Vs. Raj Singh & Ors.
Page no. 1 of 13
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date: 2025.09.26
16:49:20 +0530
2. Ajay Kumar
S/o Sh. Umed Singh
R/o Nizampur Road, near Saini
Sweets, Line Par, Bahadurgarh,
District Jhajjar, Haryana.
......Owner/R2
3. IFFCI-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd.
......Insurance Co./R3
Appearance (s) : Sh. K.R. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the petitioners.
Sh. Vijay Malik, Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1 &
2.
Sh. V.K. Gupta, Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3.
J U D G M E NT /AWAR D
1. Vide this judgment/award, I shall dispose off DAR filed by IO ASI Tribhuvan, PS Kanjhawala, in regard to death of Sh. Prince, (in short, the deceased), who died on 06.08.2023 in a road vehicular accident on 06.08.2023.
2. Brief facts as per DAR Ex. PW1/4(colly) are that on 06.08.2023 deceased was returning to home from his work. Injured used to work at Deepak Khatri Building Material Stock, Tikri Border. On the way to his home, when deceased reached near Dispensary, Karala on Kanjhawala Karal road, he met with an accident with a tractor having water tanker on its back side bearing registration no. HR13R 4308 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle) and came under the left wheel of the water tanker. From the spot deceased was shifted to BSA Hospital from where he was succumbed to the injuries. Identity of offending vehicle was established through CCTV footages. FIR no. 313/2023 was registered at PS for offence punishable under Section 279/337 IPC. After the death of deceased, Section 304A IPC was incorporated in the FIR.
MACT Case No. 1117/2023 (FIR no. 313/2023) Sudha & Ors. Vs. Raj Singh & Ors.
Page no. 2 of 13
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.09.26
16:49:26 +0530
3. As per DAR and investigation conducted by IO, R1 was driving the offending vehicle in negligent manner which caused the accident resulting in death of deceased. Cause of death, confirmed by PM report no. 545/2023, was pelvic and extensive soft tissue injury resulting haemorrhagic shock. The injuries were caused by blunt force impact. As such R1 was charge-sheeted for offences under section 279/304A IPC.
4. As per DAR deceased survived by his father, mother and sister (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner No. 1 to 3) who were dependant on deceased.
5. Joint WS/reply was received from R1 & R2 claiming that alleged accident was not caused due to negligence driving of R1. Motorcycle of deceased never came in contact of offending vehicle. CCTV footage clearly shows that deceased was trying to overtake the offending vehicle from wrong side and eventually lost his balance and came under the left wheel of the water tanker hitched with offending vehicle/tractor. It is stated that the offending vehicle was insured with R3.
6. Reply on behalf of R3 was also filed admitting that offending vehicle was insured with R3 at the time of accident. It is stated that as the tractor was attached with water tanker, there is violation of insurance policy as water tanker is not covered under insurance policy. As such R3 is not liable to pay any compensation to petitioners.
ISSUES:
7. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed by this Tribunal on 19.09.2024: -
MACT Case No. 1117/2023 (FIR no. 313/2023) Sudha & Ors. Vs. Raj Singh & Ors.
Page no. 3 of 13
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.09.26
16:49:32 +0530
1. Whether deceased Prince, S/o Anmol expired due to injuries suffered in road traffic accident on 06.08.2023 at about 09:00 A.M., due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing no. HR 13R 4308 which was being driven by driver Sh. Raj Singh S/o Sh. Inder Singh, on the said date, time and place? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
EVIDENCE:
8. In evidence petitioner no. 1/LR Ms. Sudha appeared as PW1 and filed her affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied on photocopy of aadahr card Ex.Pw1/1(OSR), Copy of aadhar card of deceased Ex.Pw1/2, copy of education certificate Ex.Pw1/3 and DAR Ex.Pw1/4. In her cross examination, she denied the suggestion that offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in the present case. She also denied the suggestion that accident was occurred due to negligence of deceased. She also denied the suggestion that petitioner were not financially dependent upon deceased. She also denied the suggestion that deceased was not employed or that was not earning any amount at the time of accident. She denied the suggestion that deceased was trying to overtake the offending vehicle from wrong side in rash and negligent manner.
9. No other witness was examined in petitioner's evidence.
10. R1 Raj Singh examined himself as R1W1 who tendered his affidavit Ex.R1w1/X and relied on following documents:
(a) CD Containing CCTC footage of the accident Ex.R1W1/A MACT Case No. 1117/2023 (FIR no. 313/2023) Sudha & Ors. Vs. Raj Singh & Ors.
Page no. 4 of 13 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2025.09.26 16:49:38 +0530(b) Certified copy of DL Ex.R1W1/B.
(c) Copy of insurance policy Ex.R1W1/C.
11. During his cross examination, R1 admitted that he is facing criminal proceedings arising out of FIR no. 313/2023, U/s 279/304A IPC PS Kanjahwala and he has not made any complaint to higher authorities for his false implication in the present case. He denied the suggestion that accident was caused due to his negligence or that he was driving the offending vehicle without caring other vehicles moving on the road. He also denied the suggestion that water tanker attached with the tractor was not insured on the date of accident. He denied the suggestion that there is violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy.
12. R3 examined Sh. Mritunjay, Legal Executive as R3W1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.Rw1A and proved copy of notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC as Ex.Pw R3W1/1, postal receipts Ex.R3w1/2 & R3w1/3, attested copy of insurance policy as Ex.R3W1/4 (colly) and authority letter Ex.R3w1/4. He stated that he is not aware whether the driver of the offending vehicle has been discharged by ASJ-02, North West, Delhi.
13. Thereafter, the evidence was closed. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the testimony of witnesses including the pleadings and the documents. My issue wise findings in the case are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1
1. Whether deceased Prince, S/o Anmol expired due to injuries suffered in road traffic accident on 06.08.2023 at MACT Case No. 1117/2023 (FIR no. 313/2023) Sudha & Ors. Vs. Raj Singh & Ors.
Page no. 5 of 13 Digitally signed by VIKRAM Date: VIKRAM 2025.09.26 16:49:43 +0530 about 09:00 A.M., due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing no. HR 13R 4308 which was being driven by driver Sh. Raj Singh S/o Sh. Inder Singh, on the said date, time and place? OPP.
14. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
15. The FIR has been lodged against the respondent no.1 and he has faced criminal charges of causing death and injuries by rash and negligent driving in the said accident. Therefore, an adverse inference on this aspect is required to be drawn against the respondents in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310. The Charge sheet before the Criminal Court has been filed against R1 279/304A IPC.
MACT Case No. 1117/2023 (FIR no. 313/2023) Sudha & Ors. Vs. Raj Singh & Ors.
Page no. 6 of 13
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
Date:
VIKRAM 2025.09.26
16:49:48
+0530
16. However, R1 has taken a claim that the motorcycle of the deceased came in contact of the water tanker attached with tractor while deceased was trying to overtake the offending vehicle from wrong side. Offending vehicle has not hit the motorcycle of the deceased. Therefore, the injuries leading to the death of deceased were not caused due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle. It is also claimed that on the basis of CCTV Footage the R1, in revision before ld. Sessions Judge, has been discharged.
17. R3 has also taken a claim that as the deceased was came under the wheel of water tanker attached with the tractor, there is violation of insurance policy as the water tanker attached with tractor was not covered under insurance policy.
18. There is CD Ex.R1W1/A containing the footage of accident which clearly shows that deceased on his motorcycle was trying to overtake the offending vehicle from the left side and during that process he himself fell on the road and came under left wheel of the water tanker hitched to the tractor. Deceased was neither hit by tractor nor by water tanker.
19. As the accident in question was not caused due to rash and negligent driving of R1 which is proved from the CD Ex.R1W1/A, the petitioners are not entitled for compensation on the basis of structure table.
20. However, as the vehicles are involved in the accident, present claim petition/DAR is converted into one under Section 164-A of the M.V. Act. (see United Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Rita Devi, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 7523 & Raj Narain Jha V. Jagdish MAC. APP. 386/2017 dated 20.09.2019).
21. Hon'ble High Court in The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Shiv MACT Case No. 1117/2023 (FIR no. 313/2023) Sudha & Ors. Vs. Raj Singh & Ors.
Page no. 7 of 13
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
Date:
VIKRAM 2025.09.26
16:49:54
+0530
Prasad Indramani @ Shiv Prasad, MAC. APP. 194/2021, observed that:
"20. It is pertinent to mention here that Section 163-A of the M.V. Act has since been repealed by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, which was made effective from 09.08.2019 and instead, Section 164 has been introduced in the M.V. Act, which provides as under:-
"164. Payment of compensation in case of death or grievous hurt, etc. -- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorized insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or grievous hurt due to any accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, a MAC.APP. 194/2021 & MAC.APP. 225/2021 compensation, of a sum of five lakh rupees in case of death or of two and a half lakh rupees in case of grievous hurt to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.
(2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or grievous hurt in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or of the vehicle concerned or of any other person.
(3) Where, in respect of death or grievous hurt due to an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation has been paid under any other law for the time being in force, such amount of compensation shall be reduced from the amount of compensation payable under this section."
21. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that it commences with a non-obstante clause and has an overriding effect over anything contained in the M.V. Act or any other law for the time being in force. It provides that the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorized insurer shall be liable to pay the compensation in case of death or grievous hurt due to any accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle. As per the abovementioned provision, the amount of compensation in case of death is Rs. Five Lacs in total. Since this is a MACT Case No. 1117/2023 (FIR no. 313/2023) Sudha & Ors. Vs. Raj Singh & Ors.
Page no. 8 of 13
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.09.26
16:49:59 +0530
special provision and the compensation is only to the extent of Rs. Five Lacs without submitting any proof of rashness or negligence on the part of any of the tort-feasers, the award of compensation by the learned Tribunal on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses fall outside its purview and thus, not sustainable in law."
22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I award compensation of Rs. 5,00,000- (Rupees Five Lacs ) alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum w.e.f the date of filing of DAR i.e. 20.12.2023 till the date of its realization in favour of petitioners.
LIABILITY
23. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. The offending vehicle was insured with R3. However, R3 has claimed the policy violation stating that only tractor was insured and water tanker was not insured. Since the water tanker was attached to the tractor and moved by its operation, the accident had to have arisen out of the use of the insured tractor. The water tanker had no independent mechanism for movement and could not have caused the accident without the tractor's operation. Therefore, the water tanker and tractor has to be treated as a single operational unit. The negligence cannot arise from the independent operation of a water tanker. Since the water tanker was being used in conjunction with the insured tractor, and the accident arose from that use, the insurance company will be liable to compensate the claimants. A water tanker, not being a self-propelled vehicle, does not fall within the scope of independent motor vehicles and does not require individual insurance.
MACT Case No. 1117/2023 (FIR no. 313/2023) Sudha & Ors. Vs. Raj Singh & Ors.
Page no. 9 of 13
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
Date:
VIKRAM 2025.09.26
16:50:06
+0530
The water tanker has an independent role in causing the accident, whereas in the present matter, the water tanker's movement was solely dependent on the insured tractor. Insurance liability should be based on how a vehicle is actually used, not just technical classifications. When a water tanker is hitched to an insured tractor and both operate as a single unit, the insurer of the tractor is liable for any accident involving that combination--even if the water tanker isn't separately insured. This approach aligns with the purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which aims to ensure compensation for victims of road accidents.
24. As relied by ld. counsel R1, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in The Roay Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Honnamma & Ors. 2025 INSC 625 placed reliance on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Kadapa District v. Koduru Bhagyamma, 2007 SCC OnLine AP 830 wherein it was observed that:
"13. ......Inasmuch as the trailer by itself cannot be driven and it has to be carried or towed with a motor vehicle namely a tractor or a like self-propelled vehicles. Therefore, the question of driving the trailer in a rash and negligent manner would not arise. It is only the prime mover or the motor vehicle which controls movement of the tractor and in case of the negligence driving of the trailer or the motor vehicle, the owner of the vehicle and its insurer alone will be made liable for payment of compensation. But, since the trailer is attached can it be said that trailer should also be independently insured so as to avoid the liability of compensation in case of rash and negligent driving by the driver. That contingency would not arise, as it is only a vehicle and not a motor vehicle. It may be for tax purposes, it is treated as a goods vehicle. But, under the MACT Case No. 1117/2023 (FIR no. 313/2023) Sudha & Ors. Vs. Raj Singh & Ors.
Page no. 10 of 13
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date: 2025.09.26
16:50:12 +0530
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, no separate insurance is contemplated. When the trailer is attached to the tractor it becomes a tractor-trailer. There is no provision requiring the trailer to be separately insured to cover the third party risk. The reasons are obvious that it cannot be driven by the driver as in the case of motor vehicles or tractors........."
25. As such, R3 is directed to pay the compensation in favour of petitioners.
APPORTIONMENT
26. Statements of petitioners under Clause 29 MCTAP were recorded on 25.07.2025. Therefore, it is hereby ordered that out of the total awarded amount i.e. Rs. 5,00,000/-, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- awarded amount in favour of petitioner no. 1, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- in favour of petitioner no. 2 and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in favour of petitioner no. 3, through their MACT/saving bank accounts, details of which are mentioned as under:-
(a) Petitioner no. 1 Sudha, A/c no. 18720110049181, IFSC Code:
UCBA0001872, UCO Bank, Branch UCO Bank Rohini, A-1/120, Prashant Vihar Rohini, Sector-14.
(b) Petitioner no. 2 Anmol, A/c no. 18720110049198, IFSC Code:
UCBA0001872 in UCO Bank, Branch UCO Bank Rohini, A-1/120, Prashant Vihar Rohini, Sector-14.
(c) Petitioner no. 3 Riya, A/c no. 18720110049204, IFSC Code:
UCBA0001872 in UCO Bank, Branch UCO Bank Rohini, A-1/120, Prashant Vihar Rohini, Sector-14.
27. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the disbursed amount immediately to the petitioners in their MACT Case No. 1117/2023 (FIR no. 313/2023) Sudha & Ors. Vs. Raj Singh & Ors.
Page no. 11 of 13 Digitally signed by VIKRAM Date: VIKRAM 2025.09.26 16:50:17 +0530 MACT saving bank accounts, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
28. Copy of this Award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank passbook and copy of residence proof of the petitioner, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
29. The Bank(s) shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the petitioner(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the petitioner(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s). The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the SBI, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by the bank to the petitioner(s). The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credit by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the petitioner(s) near the place of their residence. No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of this Tribunal.
30. Form V and IVB in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A.
31. A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 26.10.2025.
MACT Case No. 1117/2023 (FIR no. 313/2023) Sudha & Ors. Vs. Raj Singh & Ors.
Page no. 12 of 13
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.09.26
16:50:24 +0530
32. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signedANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT by VIKRAM
ON 26th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 VIKRAM Date:
2025.09.26
16:50:30
+0530
VIKRAM
DJ-1+MACT, NORTH WEST,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MACT Case No. 1117/2023 (FIR no. 313/2023)
Sudha & Ors. Vs. Raj Singh & Ors.
Page no. 13 of 13