Delhi District Court
Annu vs Pankaj Singh on 30 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. MUKESH KUMAR,
PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-02,WEST,TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
MACT No. 43/2017
DLWT01-000578-2017
1. Smt. Anuu
W/o Late Suresh Kumar
R/o Saiya Khera, Siha Khera (142),
Sonipat, Khubru, Haryana, 131101.
(wife of deceased Suresh)
2. Master Ishan
S/o Late Suresh Kumar
R/o Saiya Khera, Siha Khera (142),
Sonipat, Khubru, Haryana, 131101.
(Son of deceased Suresh)
3. Era
D/o Late Suresh Kumar
R/o Saiya Khera, Siha Khera (142),
Sonipat, Khubru, Haryana, 131101.
(Daughter of deceased Suresh)
4. Smt. Sheela Devi
W/o Sh. Ved Pal
R/o Saiya Khera, Siha Khera (142),
Sonipat, Khubru, Haryana, 131101.
(Mother of deceased Suresh)
5. Sh. Ved Pal
S/o Late Rattan Singh
R/o Saiya Khera, Siha Khera (142),
Sonipat, Khubru, Haryana, 131101.
(Father of deceased Suresh)
......... Petitioners
Versus
Digitally
signed by
MACT No. 43/2017 MUKESH Date of Award : 30.01.2026
Annu & Ors. Vs. Pankaj Singh & Ors. MUKESH KUMAR Page No. 1/ 22.
KUMAR Date:
2026.01.31
14:56:57
+0530
1. Sh. Pankaj Singh
S/o Sh. Avdesh Singh
R/o Nanogayo, District Bhoy,
Meghalya.
(Driver of the offending vehicle)
2. Sh. Rama Nand Paswan
R/o H. No. 1329, Jawahar Colony,
faridabd, Haryana-121001.
(Registered owner of the offending vehicle)
3. The New India Assurance Company Limited
105/127. Ist Floor, Near Krishan Mandir,
Main Najafgarh Road, Nangloi, Delhi
...... Respondents
Date of Institution: : 20.01.2017
Date of reserving order/judgment : 30.01.2026
Date of pronouncement: : 30.01.2026
AWAR D
1. This is claim petition u/s 166 & 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'M.V. Act') filed on behalf of petitioners seeking compensation in respect of death of Sh. Suresh Kumar in a road accident involving vehicle bearing registration no. HR42-B-7420 (Truck). As per the facts mentioned in the claim petition as well as documents filed on record, on 04.10.2016 at about 06:00-06:30 PM, the deceased was going to Gannour from Kundli, Haryana along with his relative namely Sanjeet Singh by motorcycle bearing no. HR42- B-7420 and when they reached near Aardhnarasver Temple near Jurrasic Park, all of sudden driver of the vehicle bearing no. HR38-N-3694 came from behind driving his vehicle with rash and negligent manner and in contravention of traffic rules and hit the motorcycle of the deceased from behind. It is further stated that as a result of which the motorcycle imbalanced and dashed Digitally signed by MUKESH MACT No. 43/2017 MUKESH KUMAR Date of Award : 30.01.2026 Annu & Ors. Vs. Pankaj Singh & Ors. KUMAR Date: Page No. 2/ 22.
2026.01.31 14:57:06 +0530 against a Bull and due to the accident, Sh. Suresh Kumar fell down on the road and became unconscious and with the help of passerby, Sh. Suresh was taken to Niddan Hospital, but taking his condition as precarious, he was referred to MAX Hospital vide MLC No. 1584. It is further stated that the accidental injuries were so serious and Sh. Suresh Kumar expired on 06.10.2016 and post mortem was conducted at BJRM Hospital, Jhangirpuri, Delhi.
2. As per the claim petition, the respondent no. 1 is the driver and respondent no. 2 is the owner of the Truck bearing no. HR38-N-3694 which was insured with respondent no. 3/The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. It is further stated that deceased was aged about 27 years at the time of his death, he was earning Rs. 30,000/- per month. It is further stated that deceased has left behind his wife Smt. Annu, son Master Ishan, daughter Era, mother Smt. Sheela Devi and father Sh. Ved Pal as the only legal heirs of deceased.
3. Joint written statement filed by respondent no. 1 and 2, wherein it is stated inter alia that respondent no. 1 and 2 are not liable to pay the compensation in any manner because the respondent no. 3/insurance company is also liable to pay the compensation because on the date of alleged accident, the alleged vehicle which was driven by the respondent no. 1 was fully insured with the respondent no. 3. It is further stated that respondent no. 2 given the vehicle for the purpose of driving to the respondent no. 1 after seeing the genuine documents i.e driving license which was valid at the time and date of alleged accident. It is further stated that the permit and fitness of the vehicle bearing No. HR38-N-3694 were genuine and valid at the time and date of alleged accident. It is denied that the cause of Digitally MACT No. 43/2017 signed by Date of Award : 30.01.2026 Annu & Ors. Vs. Pankaj Singh & Ors. MUKESH Page No. 3/ 22.
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.01.31
14:57:15
+0530
accident happened due to the driver of the Truck bearing No. HR42-B-7420 and deceased Suresh fell down on the road and became unconscious and the cause of accident was incurred due to imbalanced of the motorcycle of the deceased and dashed against a bull.
4. Written statement filed by respondent no. 3/insurance company, wherein it is stated inter alia that the vehicle bearing No. HR38-N-3694 was insured with the respondent no. 3 vide policy no. 31270131150100010257 valid from 23.01.2016 to 25.01.2017 in the name of Rama Nand Paswan. It is further stated that the deceased was himself responsible for the alleged accident as he was driving his motorcycle in rash and negligent manner at high speed and struck the Bull resulting into the alleged accident.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal on 16.07.2019:-
1. Whether Suresh suffered injuries in a vehicular accident that took place on 04.10.2016 at about 6/6:30 PM near Jurrasic Park, GT Road within the jurisdiction of PS Murthal, District Sonipat, Haryana involving a Truck bearing no. HR38-N-3694, driven by respondent no. 1 Pankaj Singh in a rash and negligent manner, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with the respondent no. 3? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
6. In order to prove their case, petitioner no. 1/Smt. Annu examined herself as PW-1, Sh. Sanjeet as PW-2 and summoned witness PW-3 Sh. Parvez Khan.
MACT No. 43/2017 Digitally Date of Award : 30.01.2026 Annu & Ors. Vs. Pankaj Singh & Ors. signed by Page No. 4/ 22.
MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.01.31
14:57:22
+0530
7. Respondent no. 2 Sh. Rama Nand Paswan examined himself as R2W1.
8. Respondent no. 3/insurance company has examined Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Clerk, Regional Transport Authority, Faridabad, Haryana as R3W1 and HC Dinesh as R3W2.
9. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsels for the parties and gone through the record carefully and my issue wise findings are as under :
Issue No.1
10. It is the settled proposition of law that an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non. However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition based upon negligence. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. Reference may be made to the judgments titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sakshi Bhutani & Others., MAC APP. No. 550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012, Bimla Devi & Others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Others (2009) 13 SC 530, Parmeshwari vs. Amirchand & Others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 & Mangla Ram vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Others 2018, Law Suit (SC)
303.
11. PW-1 Smt. Annu (wife of the deceased) tendered her affidavit in evidence which is Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the documents i.e. Ex.PW1/1 (colly.) which are certified copies of criminal proceedings; Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/4 are the copies of Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR MACT No. 43/2017 KUMAR Date: Date of Award : 30.01.2026 Annu & Ors. Vs. Pankaj Singh & Ors. 2026.01.31 Page No. 5/ 22.
14:57:27 +0530 MLC, PMR and medical bills and copies of Aadhar cards are exhibited as Ex.PW1/22 to Ex.PW1/26.
12. In her cross examination done by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 1 and 2, PW 1 deposed that she is not the eye witness of the accident in question and she can not tell as to how the accident in question took place and she has not filed any specific income proof of her deceased husband.
13. For the purpose of this issue, the testimony of PW 2 Sh. Sanjeet, who is stated to be an eye-witness of the accident in question, is very relevant and PW2 Sh. Sanjeet who tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex.PW2/A and stated that on the fateful day of accident on 04.01.2016 at about 06:00-06:30 PM, he along with the deceased were going to Gannour from Kundli, Haryana by motorcycle bearing no. HR42-B-7420 and when we reached near Jurrasic Park, all of sudden driver of vehicle I.e Truck bearing No. HR38-N-3694 came from behind driving his vehicle in rash and negligent manner and in contravention of traffic rules and hit the motorcycle from behind. As a result of which, the motorcycle imbalanced and dashed against a Bull and both of them fell down on the road. He further stated that Suresh become unconscious and immediately with the help of passerby, the deceased Suresh was taken to Niddan Hospital and therefore he was referred to MAX Hospital. It is further stated that the accidental injuries were so serious, Sh. Suresh expired on 06.10.2016 and post mortem was conducted at BJRM Hospital, Jhangir Puri, Delhi. It is further stated that the accidental death is the direct result of the accident caused by the driver of the vehicle no. HR38-N-3694. PW-2 further stated that on his complaint, FIR bearing no. 439/2014 under Section 279/337/30A IPC was got registered on 10.11.2016 at PS Murthal, Haryana.
Digitally MACT No. 43/2017 signed by Date of Award : 30.01.2026 MUKESH Annu & Ors. Vs. Pankaj Singh & Ors. MUKESH KUMAR Page No. 6/ 22.
KUMAR Date:
2026.01.31
14:57:37
+0530
14. In his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1 and 2, PW-2 deposed as under :
"....... It is correct that I was the pillion rider. I was looking towards the direction of the motorcycle. It is correct that our motorcycle hit the stray bull. (Vol. The motorcycle was hit by the offending truck from behind due to which the motorcycle hit the stray bull). It is correct that the motorcycle lost its balance and it struck against the bull. (Vol. It lost balance due to the impact of the offending truck from behind). It is correct that due to accident we fell down. It is also correct that I also sustained injuries/fracture on my right hand. It is wrong to suggest that I became unconscious after the accident. I had taken the deceased to the hospital from a private car which was got stopped there. I can not tell the registration number of the said car nor can I tell the name of its driver. I had seen the driver of the offending vehicle for the first time at the spot. Driver of the offending vehicle was present at the spot. Police did not arrive at the spot in my presence. We had left Kundli at about 05:30 PM or Gannaur. We reached hospital after accident at about 06:30 PM. It is correct that I was discharged from the hospital on the same day. It is wrong to suggest that offending vehicle did not hit the motorcycle from behind or that accident took place due to collusion of bike Digitally signed by MACT No. 43/2017 MUKESH Date of Award : 30.01.2026 Annu & Ors. Vs. Pankaj Singh & Ors. MUKESH KUMAR Page No. 7/ 22.
KUMAR Date:
2026.01.31
14:57:44
+0530
with stray bull or that offending vehicle was not involved in the accident. I had made statement to the police twice i.e first in the hospital and thereafter at the PS on 10.11.2016 in the evening. It is correct that thereafter I had never met police regarding the investigation of this case. It is correct that I had not informed the family members of deceased about the accident. It is also correct that I had not informed the police and that police arrived of its own.
15. PW-2 has been cross examined by ld. Counsel for insurance company and during his cross examination, PW-2 deposed as under :
"I am a transporter and running my office in the name and style of Khassa Cargo Carrier, Sonipat. I own 153 trucks in my fleet. The offending truck/vehicle is not the part of my fleet of 153 trucks not it belongs to anyone who is known to me. I have been running the aforementioned firm for the last 18-20 years. It is correct that I am aware of the procedure that soon after the accident, FIR is required to be lodged. Deceased Suresh Kumar was my relative. He was working with my firm. After the accident, I had taken the deceased to Nidan Hospital, Murthal. From there, the deceased was referred to MAX Hospital on the same day. My statement was recorded by the police for first time in MAX Hospital and for the 2 nd time at PS. It is correct that police had recorded my Digitally MACT No. 43/2017 signed by Date of Award : 30.01.2026 Annu & Ors. Vs. Pankaj Singh & Ors. MUKESH Page No. 8/ 22.
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.01.31
14:57:50
+0530
statement under my dictation/narration correctly. .......... I had got the FIR lodged in the present case. The FIR was got lodged on 10.11.2016 i.e after about more than one month of the accident. Bijender Singh, the owner of the motorcycle is my uncle (Chacha). The motorcycle was insured but I do not know the name of the insurer company. It is wrong to suggest that motorcycle was not insured. The motorcycle was being driven by deceased Suresh at the extreme left side of the road. There was divider on the road at the spot. There was vacate land on the left side of the road. It is wrong to suggest that because I was sitting as pillion rider and looking ahead, I do not know the accident took place. It is wrong to suggest that accidental death of deceased was not the direct cause of the driver of offending vehicle as stated by me in my affidavit. Police seized our motorcycle and offending truck after registration of FIR. It is correct that I had not lodged any complaint against the IO for not mentioning bout the fact of helmets in the FIR. It is correct that out motorcycle struck against the stray bull. (Vol. It struck against the stray bull after being hit by the offending truck from behind). Deceased Suresh had DL but I do not know from which authority it was got prepared by him. It is wrong to suggest that deceased Suresh was not having any DL. It is correct that the site plan Digitally signed MACT No. 43/2017 by MUKESH Date of Award : 30.01.2026 KUMAR Annu & Ors. Vs. Pankaj Singh & Ors. MUKESH Date:
Page No. 9/ 22.
KUMAR 2026.01.31
14:57:58
+0530
was prepared at my instance. It is wrong to suggest that offending vehicle has falsely been planted just to give benefit of LRs of deceased Suresh or that for this reason only the FIR was got lodged after the delay of more than one month. It is further wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely".
16. Respondent no. 2 has examined himself as R2W1 who tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex.R2W1 and relied upon the documents i.e 1) copy of authorization certificate of N.P (Goods) Ex.R2W1/1; copy of National Permit for public carriers Ex.R2W1/2; 3) copy of certificate of fitness Ex.R2W1/3 and copy of insurance cover note as Ex.R2W1/4. In his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for insurance company R2W1 deposed that it is correct that he is not the eye witness of the present accident. He also denied the suggestion that vehicle was not having valid permit fitness and authorisation on the date of accident and documents filed by him are fabricated.
17. During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for petitioner, R2W1 deposed that he is the registered owner of the offending vehicle and his vehicle was seized by the police in connection with accident in FIR No. 439/2016. R2W1 further deposed that it is correct that respondent no. 1 was implicated by the police and was arrested and that respondent no. 1 is in bail in criminal case.
18. In support of its case, respondent no. 3/insurance company has examined Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Clerk, Regional Transport Authority, Faridabad, Haryana as R3W1, HC Dinesh as R3W2. Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.01.31 14:58:05 +0530 MACT No. 43/2017 Date of Award : 30.01.2026 Annu & Ors. Vs. Pankaj Singh & Ors. Page No. 10/ 22.
19. R3W1 Sh. Sanjeev Kumar proved the permit register, authorisation certificate, fitness certificate and permit register.
20. R3W2 HC Dinesh Kumar proved the DD entry No. 3A dated 05.10.2016 as Ex.R3W2/1, GD No. 32A dated 06.10.2016 as Ex.R3W2/2 and copy of inquest register as Ex.R3W2/3. During examination in chief of R3W2, he has been shown the photocopy of statement of Sanjeet which was allegedly written by IO ASI Ranbir Singh and asked about the attestation and written the statement by IO. R3W2 replied that he can not say about the above noted fact and it can only be clarified by the concerned IO. Further, R3W2 is unable to identify the signature of IO ASI Ranbir Singh. He voluntarily stated that the above noted statement was being recorded by the IO, then, it must have been sent to the concerned PS along with the DD entry Ex.R3W2/1.
21. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3/insurance company stated that the motorcycle hit the Bull of his own and no other vehicle was involved. It is further stated that there is delay of more than one month in lodging the FIR. It is further stated that the DD entry and the statement recorded by the police, there is no mention of hitting of motorcycle by the Truck.
22. ld. Counsel for the petitioners submits that only because the registration number of the Truck was not mentioned in the DD entry No. 3A dated 05.10.2016 and GD No. 032A dated 06.10.2016, it would not falsify the petition. I find no force in the contention raised by Ld. Counsel for insurance company, in view of the fact that the eye witness to the accident had supported the accident as mentioned in the claim petition. Further more, the driver of the offending vehicle had chosen not Digitally signed MACT No. 43/2017 by MUKESH Date of Award : 30.01.2026 Annu & Ors. Vs. Pankaj Singh & Ors. MUKESH KUMAR Page No. 11/ 22.
Date:
KUMAR 2026.01.31
14:58:33
+0530
to appear in the witness box to prove the case set up in the written statement. Cross examination of R2W1/owner of the offending vehicle itself shows that the respondent no. 1 was driver of the offending vehicle and R2W1 admitted in his cross examination that respondent no. 1 was implicated by the police and arrested and respondent no. 1 was also on bail in the criminal case. The argument of Ld. Counsel for insurance company that the DD entry No. 3A dated 05.10.2016 and GD No. 032A dated 06.10.2016 gave the first version qua the nature of the accident and therefore, the offending vehicle was not negligent is also without any substance. No other evidence has been led by the insurance company to negate the assertion of the petitioners qua the negligence in driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no. 1. In view of the positive evidence in the form of statement of pillion rider Sanjeet PW-2, mere recording of the DD entry in a particular manner is an irrelevant fact.
23. Ld. Counsel for insurance company submits that there is no FIR regarding the incidence of accident lodged immediately after 04.10.2016 and there is only one DD entry and FIR was lodged on 10.11.2016 about one month later. On the issue of delay in lodging the FIR, reliance is placed on the judgment titled as Ravi Vs, Badrinarayan & ors. cited as AIR 2011 Supreme Court 1226 wherein it is held as under :
"20. It is well-settled that delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the Police Station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the Police Station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the Police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. In cases of delay, the courts are required to examine the Digitally MACT No. 43/2017 signed by Date of Award : 30.01.2026 Annu & Ors. Vs. Pankaj Singh & Ors. MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR Page No. 12/ 22.
KUMAR Date:
2026.01.31
14:58:41
+0530
evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so; the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinized more carefully. If court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground.
21. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences. Lodging of FIR certainly proves factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquility of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons".
24. The provisions regarding awarding of compensation in motor accident cases are required to be construed liberally as provisions of motor Vehicle Act are benevolent and the factum of accident by rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle is proved even by preponderance of probabilities. Further, in the present case there is MLC of MAX Hospital lying on judicial record wherein details of injuries suffered by the deceased Suresh Kumar have been mentioned and it is stated that such injuries were received by road traffic accident. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioners have been able to prove on the basis of preponderance of probabilities that deceased Suresh had sustained injuries in road accident which took place on 04.10.2016 at about 06:00-06:30 PM, due to the rash and Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
MACT No. 43/2017 2026.01.31 Date of Award : 30.01.2026 14:58:46 Annu & Ors. Vs. Pankaj Singh & Ors. +0530 Page No. 13/ 22. negligent driving of offending vehicle by the respondent no. 1. Accordingly, issue no.1 stands decided in favour of petitioner. Issue No.2
25. In view of the finding on issue no.1, petitioners are entitled to get compensation, however, the quantum of compensation still needs to be adjudicated. Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 enjoins upon the Claim Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation, which appears to be just and reasonable. As per settled law, compensation is not expected to be windfall or a bonanza nor it should be pittance. A man is not compensated for the physical injury, he is compensated for the loss which he suffers as a result of that injury.
Computation of Compensation
26. The present case pertains to the death of deceased Suresh Kumar. In death cases, the guidelines for computation of compensation have been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121. Further, the guidelines have been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., 2017 ACJ 2700, decided on 31.10.2017, laying down the general principles for computation of compensation in death cases. Medical Expenses:
27. PW-1 Smt. Annu, wife of the deceased has inter alia deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A that her husband was admitted on 06.10.2016 at Max Hospital and later on died on 06.10.2016 and his PMR was conducted at BJRM Hospital at Delhi and relied upon the medical record of deceased and medical bills Ex.PW1/4 (Colly). Medical bills Ex.PW1/4 MACT No. 43/2017 Digitally signed by MUKESH Date of Award : 30.01.2026 Annu & Ors. Vs. Pankaj Singh & Ors. MUKESH KUMAR Page No. 14/ 22.
Date:
KUMAR 2026.01.31
14:58:53
+0530
(Colly) filed and relied upon by the petitioner are total amounting Rs. 1,78,984/-. There is no reason to disbelieve the genuineness of the aforesaid medical bills. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 1,78,984/- is awarded to the petitioners under this head. Age of deceased :
28. As per the copy of driving license and copy of PAN card on record, the date of birth of deceased was 01.04.1989.
The date of birth remained undisputed on the part of respondents. Date of accident is 04.10.2016. As such, this fact stands concluded that age of the deceased was around 27 years at the time of accident.
Assessment of Income of deceased :
29. In support of income of deceased, petitioners also got examined one another witness viz. PW-3 Sh. Parvez Khan, Senior Tax Assistant from Income Tax Department, Sonipat, Haryana, who filed certified copies of the income tax returns (ITRs) of the deceased for the assessment year 2015-16 and same is Ex.PW3/2 (Colly.).
30. It is well settled that the income tax return is a statutory document on which reliance may be placed to determine the annual income of injured. As per the Income Tax Return of deceased for the assessment year 2015-16 Ex.PW3/2, which is the last ITR of the deceased prior to the accident in question, gross total income of deceased is Rs. 2,79,080/- per annum. PW-3 deposed that the said ITR was filed on 18.03.2016 and Suresh Kumar was given deductions under Section 80C of Income Tax Act and hence, no income tax was levied upon him and there is no pending income tax demand against Suresh Kumar. After having considered the material placed on record and taking note of the gross total income as reflected as per Digitally signed by MACT No. 43/2017 MUKESH Date of Award : 30.01.2026 Annu & Ors. Vs. Pankaj Singh & Ors. MUKESH KUMAR Page No. 15/ 22.
KUMAR Date:
2026.01.31
14:59:00
+0530
income tax return of the deceased for the assessment year 2015-
16, this Tribunal assesses the annual income of the deceased Sh. Suresh Kumar to be at parity with his total income as reflected in his aforesaid ITR, which is Rs. 2,79,080/- per year. As such, the monthly income of the deceased, comes out to be Rs. 23,256/- (rounded off) per month.
Application of Multiplier:
31. As held above, deceased was around 27 years of age at the time of accident. As per settled principle laid down in case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier as applicable to the age group between 26-30 years is 17.
Accordingly, multiplier to be applied in the present case would be 17.
Future Prospects:
32. On the day of accident, deceased was aged about 27 years. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the present matter, future prospects @ 40% has to be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of pronouncement made by the Apex Court in the case titled as "NIC Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017 ACJ 2700 S.C).
Deduction towards Personal and Living Expenses:
33. After choosing the age, multiplier and income of the deceased, necessary deductions have to be made out of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. As per the details of LRs of deceased filed alongwith claim petition Form of the DAR, there are five LRs. In these circumstances, since the deceased has left surviving his five LRs, one-fourth of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses, as held in the case titled as "Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation", 2009 ACJ 1298 SC.
Digitally signed by MACT No. 43/2017 MUKESH Date of Award : 30.01.2026 Annu & Ors. Vs. Pankaj Singh & Ors. MUKESH KUMAR Page No. 16/ 22.
KUMAR Date:
2026.01.31
14:59:05
+0530
34. Thus, considering the aforementioned factors, the compensation for the loss of dependency is calculated as under:
S. No. Head Amount 1. Medical expenses (A) Rs. 1,78,984/- 2. Monthly income of deceased (B) Rs. 23,256/- 3. Add future prospect (C) @ 40% Rs. 9,302.4/-
4. Less 1/4th towards personal and Rs. 8,139.6/-
living expenses of the deceased (D)
5. Monthly loss of dependency (B+C)- Rs. 24,418.8/-
D=E
6. Annual loss of dependency (Ex12) Rs. 2,93,025.6/-
7. Multiplier (F) 178. Total loss of dependency Rs. 51,60,419.2 (A+Ex12xF=G)
35. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 51,60,419.2 (rounded off to Rs. 51,60,420/-. Hence, a sum of Rs. 51,60,420/- (Rupees Fifty One Lacs Sixty Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Only) is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
36. In case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), it has been held that 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 and the aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. Therefore, a compensation of Rs. 48,000/-, Rs. 18,000/- and Rs.18,000/- respectively on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted. Further, in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Digitally signed by MACT No. 43/2017 MUKESH Date of Award : 30.01.2026 Annu & Ors. Vs. Pankaj Singh & Ors. MUKESH KUMAR Page No. 17/ 22.
KUMAR Date:
2026.01.31
14:59:13
+0530
Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 2705 of 2020, decided on 30.06.2020, loss of consortium has to be fixed for each of the LRs. Since, the deceased has left behind five LRs, therefore, the petitioners/claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,76,000/- (48,000 X 5 + 18,000 + 18,000) under this head.
37. Considering the aforementioned factors, the total compensation is calculated as under:
S. No. Head Amount Awarded 1. Total loss of dependency Rs. 51,60,420/-
2. Compensation for loss of consortium Rs. 2,40,000/-
(48,000/- x 5)
3. Compensation for loss of estate Rs.18,000/-
4. Compensation for funeral expenses Rs.18,000/-
Total compensation Rs. 54,36,420/-
38. Thus, petitioners in this case shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 54,36,420/- (Rupees Fifty Four Lacs Thirty Six Thousand Four Hundred Twenty Only). INTEREST ON AWARD
39. Petitioners shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of petition i.e. 20.01.2017 till realization. LIABILITY
40. Now the question arises as to which of the respondent is liable to pay the compensation amount. Since, it is an admitted case of the respondent No. 3 / Insurance Company that the aforesaid vehicle No. HR-38-N-3694 (offending vehicle) was duly insured with it, therefore, respondent No. 3 / Insurance Co. is liable to pay the amount of compensation to the petitioner / claimant. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
Digitally signedRelief by MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
MACT No. 43/2017 KUMAR Date:
2026.01.31 Date of Award : 30.01.2026
Annu & Ors. Vs. Pankaj Singh & Ors. 14:59:18 +0530 Page No. 18/ 22.
41. In view of my finding on issues no. 1 and 2, this Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs. 54,36,420/- (Rupees Fifty Four Lacs Thirty Six Thousand Four Hundred Twenty Only) to the petitioners/claimants alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum in favour of petitioners w.e.f. date of filing of petition i.e 20.01.2017 till realization, to be paid by the respondent no. 3. Amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the compensation amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case. The respondent no.3/insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in the MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account no. 40714429271, IFSC Code. SBIN0000726 Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, within 30 days from today. The respondent no. 3 is also directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioners.
Apportionment
42. Statements of petitioners in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP were not recorded. The copies of PAN Card, Aadhar card and bank account details are already on record and matter is old one. Considering the totality of circumstances of the case, share of petitioners in the award amount shall be as under:-
S. No. Name Relationship with Share in the deceased award amount
1. Annu wife 40%
2. Master Ishan Son 15%
3. Minor Era Daughter 15%
4. Vedpal Father 15%
5. Smt. Sheela Devi Mother 15% Disbursement of Award Amount Digitally signed MACT No. 43/2017 by MUKESH Date of Award : 30.01.2026 Annu & Ors. Vs. Pankaj Singh & Ors. MUKESH KUMAR Page No. 19/ 22.
KUMAR Date:
2026.01.31
14:59:28 +0530
43. In view of the aforesaid, it is hereby ordered that out of total compensation amount, the petitioner no. 1 namely Smt. Annu shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 21,74,568/-
(Rupees Twenty One Lacs Seventy Four Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty Eight Only) alongwith proportionate interest; the petitioner no. 2 namely Master Ishan shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 8,15,463/- (Rupees Eight Lacs Fifteen Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Three Only) alongwith proportionate interest; the petitioner no. 3 namely Minor Era shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 8,15,463/- (Rupees Eight Lacs Fifteen Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Three Only) alongwith proportionate interest, the petitioner no. 4 namely Smt. Sheela Devi shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 8,15,463/- (Rupees Eight Lacs Fifteen Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Three Only) alongwith proportionate interest and the petitioner no. 5 namely Sh. Ved Pal shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 8,15,463/- (Rupees Eight Lacs Fifteen Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Three Only) alongwith proportionate interest.
44. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 1 Smt. Annu, a sum of Rs. 2,74,568/- (Rupees Two Lacs Seventy Four Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Eight Only) shall be immediately released to her through her MACT saving bank account and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 50,000/- each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
45. The entire share amount of Rs. 8,15,463/- (Rupees Eight Lacs Fifteen Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Three Only) alongwith interest of petitioner no. 2 Master Ishan be kept in the form of FDR(s) for the period till he attains the age of majority.
Digitally MACT No. 43/2017 signed by Date of Award : 30.01.2026 MUKESH Annu & Ors. Vs. Pankaj Singh & Ors. MUKESH KUMAR Page No. 20/ 22.
KUMAR Date:
2026.01.31 14:59:34 +0530
46. The entire share amount of Rs. 8,15,463/- (Rupees Eight Lacs Fifteen Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Three Only) alongwith interest of petitioner no. 3 minor Era be kept in the form of FDR(s) for the period till he attains the age of majority.
47. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 4 Smt. Sheela Devi, a sum of Rs. 1,15,463/- (Rupees One Lacs Fifteen Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Three Only) shall be immediately released to her through her MACT saving bank account and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 20,000/- each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
48. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 5 Sh. Ved Pal, a sum of Rs. 1,15,463/- (Rupees One Lacs Fifteen Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Three Only) shall be immediately released to her through her MACT saving bank account and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 20,000/- each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
49. The amount of FDRs on maturity shall directly be released in petitioners' MACT Saving Bank Account.
50. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:-
(a) 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.
(b) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(c) The maturity amounts of the FDR be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account Digitally signed MACT No. 43/2017 by MUKESH KUMAR Date of Award : 30.01.2026 Annu & Ors. Vs. Pankaj Singh & Ors. MUKESH Date: Page No. 21/ 22.
KUMAR 2026.01.31
14:59:40
+0530
of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(d) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
51. Respondent no. 3/insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which respondent 3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts branch is directed to transfer the respective amounts of petitioners in their aforesaid MACT saving bank accounts, as per the award, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
52. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph, specimen signature, copy of bank passbook and copy of residence proof of the petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
53. Form XV and Form XVII in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A.
54. A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir .
55. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost.
56. A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class as well as DSLSA as per the provisions of the Modified Claim Tribunal Agreed Procedure Digitally signed by MUKESH (MCTAP). File be consigned to Record Room MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.01.31 14:59:46 +0530 Announced in the open Court (MUKESH KUMAR) On January 30, 2026. PO-MACT-02, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
MACT No. 43/2017 Date of Award : 30.01.2026 Annu & Ors. Vs. Pankaj Singh & Ors. Page No. 22/ 22.