Delhi District Court
Sunita Devi And Anr vs Ankit And Ors on 28 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHILASH MALHOTRA
PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-02 ,PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
SUNITA DEVI Vs. ANKIT & ORS.
MACT 16-2019
1. Sunita Devi (Mother)
W/o Sh. Ashok Mehto,
2. Ashok Mehto (Father)
S/o Late Sh. Jai Nath Mehto
Both R/o Village-Kushmari, PS: Riga,
Distt. Sitamarhi, Bihar
.... Petitioners
Versus
1. Ankit
S/o Sh. Rambir
R/o Village- Ramgarh, Sec-65,
PS: Bahshapur, Gurugram, Haryana
.... Driver
2. Rambir
S/o Sh. Surja
R/o Village- Ramgarh, Sec-65,
PS: Bahshapur, Gurugram, Haryana
.... Owner
3. National Insurance Company Ltd.
Office At: Div. No. 10, Flat No. 101-106, N-1,
BMC House, Connaught place,
MACT 53/18 Page. 1 of 39
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
New Delhi-110001
....Insurance Company/
Respondent no. 3
Date of accident 12.07.2017
Date of filing Claim Petition 18.01.2018
Date of framing of issues 23.03.2019
Date of concluding arguments 17.11.2025
Date of decision 28.11.2025
AWARD/JUDGMENT
Index to the Judgment
I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE CLAIMANT(s).........................................4
II. FRAMING OF ISSUES................................................................................5
III. EVIDENCE LED BY THE PARTIES..........................................................6
IV. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS OF THE PARTIES..................................7
V. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO..................................9
(a) Issue No.1: Whether Master Suraj Mehto expired on account of
injuries sustained in the accident which occurred on account of rash and
negligent driving by the respondent driver?....................................................9
i. The evidence on record qua negligence:........................................9
ii. Preponderance of probabilities:....................................................10
iii. Finding:........................................................................................ 12
(b) Issue No.2: Whether claimant is entitled to compensation, and to what
amount?......................................................................................................... 12
i. Principles qua assessment of compensation:................................12
ii. Monthly Income of the deceased:................................................15
iii. Future prospects:..........................................................................16
MACT 53/18 Page. 2 of 39
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
iv. Personal expenses of the deceased:..............................................17
v. Monthly & Annual Loss of dependency:.....................................19
vi. Total Loss of Dependency:...........................................................19
vii. Other Heads:.................................................................................19
viii. Medical Expenses:........................................................................21
ix. Compensation for Loss of Consortium:.......................................21
x. Compensation for Loss of Estate:................................................23
xi. Compensation towards Funeral Expenses:...................................23
xii. Total Compensation:.....................................................................23
(c) Issue No.3: Relief................................................................................ 24
i. Amount of Award:........................................................................24
ii. Rate of Interest:............................................................................24
VI. DEPOSIT OF AWARD& RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT.......................25
i. Deposit of Award:.........................................................................25
ii. Disbursement of the award amount & protection thereof:...........28
VII......................................................................................................LIABILITY
30
VIII.....SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN CASES
OF DEATH.........................................................................................................33
IX. COMPLIANCE QUA PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME.........................36
MACT 53/18 Page. 3 of 39
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE CLAIMANT(s)
1. The facts as asseverated by the claimant are hereby succinctly
recapitulated: A road accident occurred on 12.07.2017 at about
4:30 PM, when the deceased Master Suraj Mehto was going
towards the general store from his jhuggi situated near M3M
company Sector 66, Gurugram. The offending vehicle bearing
no. HR26CM7289 was driven in rash manner by respondent
no.1 (R-1) Sh.Ankit, was owned by respondent no. 2 (R-2) Sh.
Ramvir and was insured by respondent no. 3 (R-3) National
Insurance Company Ltd.. The accident resulted in the untimely
demise of child Master Suraj Mehto s/o Petitioner nos. 1 and 2.
2. The present case was registered pursuant to the claim petition
filed by the parents of deceased Master Suraj Mehto. No DAR
was filed in this case as the accident had occurred outside
Delhi. On 23.12.2019, my Ld Predecessor framed the issues.
Petitioner/Ms. Sunita Devi examined herself as PW-1, Mr.
Umesh Kumar as PW2. R-1 Mr. Ankit was examined as R1-
W1. The insurance company did not led any evidence.
3. Investigation: The FIR bearing no. 0452/2017 under Section
279/337/304A IPC and 181 MV Act. was lodged at PS
Badshahpur, Gurugram on the complaint made by Mr. Jayanth
Mehto. After investigation the police had filed the charge sheet
under the aforesaid sections against the driver of the vehicle
Mr. Ankit. In the charge sheet, it is recorded that the the
offender was identified through CCTV footage.
MACT 53/18 Page. 4 of 39
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
4. During investigation, site plan of the place of occurrence was
prepared, medical documents were collected and offending
vehicle was seized. The driver (R-1) Sh. Ankit was arrested and
thereafter released on bail. On completion of investigation,
chargesheet under sections 279/337/304 A IPC and 181 MV
Act was filed qua the driver.
5. During proceedings before this Tribunal, written statements
were filed on behalf of claimant, respondent no. 1 (driver) &
respondent no. 2 (owner) as well as respondent no. 3 Insurance
company.
II. FRAMING OF ISSUES
6. Vide order dated 23.03.2019, following issues were framed
by this Tribunal:-
"1. Whether the deceased Master Suraj Mehto
sustained fatal injuries in the accident which
occurred on 12.07.2017 at about 04:30 PM, Near
Village Ramgarh, M3M Company, Sector-66, PS
Badshahpur, Gurugram, Haryana caused by rash
and negligent driving of vehicle No.
HR-26CM-7239 being driven by respondent no.
1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured by
respondent no.3? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and from
whom? OPP
3. Relief."
MACT 53/18 Page. 5 of 39
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
7. Recording of evidence:15.12.2022 was a watershed moment
as far as recording of evidence is concerned, as on that date,
judgment titled Gohar Mohammed v Uttar Pradesh State Road
Transport Corporation & Ors. (2023) 4 SCC 381 was
pronounced, which mandated inter alia that the Claims
Tribunal was duty bound to record the evidence through a
Local Commissioner. Ergo, vide order dated 19.01.2023, a
Local Commissioner was appointed for recording of evidence,
report whereof was submitted on 24.10.2024.
III. EVIDENCE LED BY THE PARTIES
8. In the proceedings conducted before the Tribunal, only two
witnesses were examined, succinct testimony whereof is as
follows:
9. PW1 Ms. Sunita Devi is mother is deceased Master Suraj
Mehto. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.
PW1/A. She relied upon following documents:
(a) copy of school indentity card of Master Suraj Ex. PW1/1;
(b) copy of Aadhar Card of P1 Ex. PW1/2;
(c) certified copy of the criminal case Ex. PW1/4;
10. In her testimony, PW1 Ms. Sunita Devi stated that her son
Master Suraj Mehto was six years old and died in a car accident
due to rash driving by respondent no. 1 i.e., driver of vehicle
no. HR26CM7239. However, in her cross examination she is
admitted that she is not the eye witness of the accident.
MACT 53/18 Page. 6 of 39
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
11.PW2 Mr. Umesh Kumar tendered his affidavit in chief which
is Ex. PW2/A. In his evidence, he stated that Master Suraj
Mehto died in a car accident due to rash driving and high speed
by respondent no. 1 i.e., driver of vehicle no. HR26CM7239. In
his cross examination, he stated that he has informed the
registration number of the offending vehicle to the police on
the day of accident.
12.Respondent no. 1 Mr. Ankit examined himself as R1W1. He
tendered his affidavit in chief which is Ex. R1W1/A. He staed
that the accident did not occurred from his vehicle bearing no.
HR26CM7239. He stated that he only helped the petitioner and
took injured to the hospital and his vehicle is falsely implicated
in this case.
13.Respondent no. 3 Insurance Company did not led any
evidence.
14.Financial statement of the claimant was recorded on
09.05.2024.
IV. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS OF THE PARTIES
15.Ld. Counsel for the claimant submitted that they have filed the
copy of FIR and chargesheet. He submits that the said record
clearly shows that the offending vehicle bearing no.
HR26CM7239 was seized during the investigation and later on
released on Superdari. He submits that the chargesheet in that
case was already filed against the driver R1 Mr. Ankit u/s
MACT 53/18 Page. 7 of 39
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
279/337/304-A IPC and 181 MV Act which clearly establishes
the rash driving on part of the offending vehicle.
16. It is submitted that PW2 Mr. Umesh Kumar, who is the eye
witness, in his testimony categorically stated that the accident
occurred due to rash and fast driving of the respondent no. 1.
17. It is submitted that the death has been caused due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. He
submitted that the vehicle was insured on the date of accident
and the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation.
18. It is submitted that the deceased was a child aged six years and
as per the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
in the case titled as Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co.
Ltd. vs. Zeenat Khan and Ors. bearing MAC. APP 242/2024
pronounced on 30.09.2024, the minimum wages prevalent at
the time of death needs to be considered to calculate the income
of the child and the multiplier of 15 is applicable.
19.He submits that the driver/respondent no 1 and 2 submitted that
R-1 only helped in taking victim to hospital and has been
wrongly framed in the matter.
20.Ld. counsel for Respondent no. 3 submitted that R1/diver was
minor and was not having any license on the day of accident.
This fact is admitted by R1W1 Mr. Ankit in his cross
examination. It is submitted that there is willful breach on the
part of insured/owner and the insurance company cannot be
held liable.
MACT 53/18 Page. 8 of 39
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
V. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO
(a) Issue No.1: Whether Master Suraj Mehto expired on
account of injuries sustained in the accident which occurred
on account of rash and negligent driving by the respondent
driver?
i. The evidence on record qua negligence:
21. In order to appreciate the issue regarding negligence, it will be
prudant to refer to a recent decision dated 25.02.2025, passed
in Ranjeet & Anr v Abdul Nayem Keb & Anr in SLP©
10351/2019, it was held in trenchant terms as thus:
"It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been
filed and the driver has been held negligent, no
further evidence is required to prove that the bus
was being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even
if the eyewitnesses are not examined, that will not
be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due
to negligence of the bus driver."
22.Claimant has placed on record the certified copy of chargesheet
in FIR no. 0452/2017, PS Badshahpur, Gurugram. Record
shows that the chargesheet u/s 279/337/304-A IPC and 181 MV
Act was filed in the present case against the driver Mr. Ankit.
The charge sheet records that the accused driver was identified
on the basis of CCTV footage. PW2 Mr. Umesh Kumar who is
eye witness and also the prosecution witness in the charge sheet
deposed that the accident occurred due to rash and fast driving
of vehicle no. HR26CM7239 by R1 Mr. Ankit.
23.Claimant/PW-1 has filed on record the record of the criminal
court where the chargesheet was filed. The chargesheet
MACT 53/18 Page. 9 of 39
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
contains the postmortem report of deceased Master Suraj
Mehto which records the cause of death is shock and
haemorrhage following ante mortem blunt force impact,
consistent with the manner as alleged.
24.Though, R1 Mr. Ankit in his testimony and written statement
stated that he was wrongly implicated in this matter but he
failed to lead any positive evidence in that regard and has failed
to rebut the findings given in the chargesheet against him.
25.
26.The charge sheet, evidence of the eye witness as well as
medical record proves the place of occurrence and it is
established that the deceased died in road accident due to rash
driving of vehicle number HR26CM7239 driven by R1 Mr.
Ankit.
27.The insurance company has admitted the fact that the offending
vehicle was insured on the date of accident.
ii. Preponderance of probabilities:
28.It is trite law that in a proceeding before the Claims Tribunal,
the claimant does not have to establish negligence on the part
of the driver respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The
standards of establishing negligence is predicated on
preponderance of probabilities. In the present case too,
negligence has been established on this principle.
MACT 53/18 Page. 10 of 39
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
29.In this context, it would be useful to peruse Mathew Alexander
v. Mohd. Shafi, (2023) 13 SCC 510 wherein it was observed as
thus:
"In this context, we could refer to the judgments of
this Court in N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai
Ammal [N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai
Ammal, (1980) 3 SCC 457 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 774] ,
wherein the plea that the criminal case had ended in
acquittal and that, therefore, the civil suit must
follow suit, was rejected. It was observed that
culpable rashness under Section 304-AIPC is more
drastic than negligence under the law of torts to
create liability. Similarly, in Bimla
Devi v. Himachal RTC [Bimla Devi v. Himachal
RTC, (2009) 13 SCC 530 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ)
189 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1101] ("Bimla Devi"), it
was observed that in a claim petition filed under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the
Tribunal has to determine the amount of fair
compensation to be granted in the event an accident
has taken place by reason of negligence of a driver
of a motor vehicle. A holistic view of the evidence
has to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal
and strict proof of an accident caused by a
particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be
established by the claimants. The claimants have to
establish their case on the touchstone of
preponderance of probabilities. The standard of
proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied
while considering the petition seeking
compensation on account of death or injury in a
road traffic accident. To the same effect is the
observation made by this Court in Dulcina
Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz [Dulcina
Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC
646 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri)
13] which has referred to the aforesaid judgment
in Bimla Devi [Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC
(2009) 13 SCC 530."
MACT 53/18 Page. 11 of 39
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
iii. Finding:
30.In view of foregoing discussion, it stands proved on the
touchstone of preponderance of probabilities that the aforesaid
accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the
transgressing/offending vehicle bearing registration no.
HR26CM7239 and the said vehicle at that time was driven by
respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured by
respondent no.3. Hence, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the
claimant and against the respondents.
(b) Issue No.2: Whether claimant is entitled to compensation, and
to what amount?
i. Principles qua assessment of compensation:
31.Before adverting to the submissions of the counsels in this
regard, it would be apposite to refer to the law of the land qua
this aspect. The law has been enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation &
Ors. (2003) 6SCC 121 and National Insurance Company
Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.(2017) 16 SCC 680.
32.An essential ingredient of the award is the loss of dependency.
To calculate the same, it would be of utmost significance to
peruse the following seminal directions issued in Sarla Verma
(supra):
"18.Basically only three facts need to be established by the
claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death:
(a)age of the deceased;
MACT 53/18 Page. 12 of 39
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
(b) income of the deceased; and
(c) the number of dependants
The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the
loss of dependency are:
(i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the
income;
(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living
expenses of the deceased; and
(iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of
the deceased.
If these determinants are standardised, there will be
uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be
lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the
insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay
19.To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should
determine compensation in cases of death, by the following
well-settled steps:
Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand)
The income of the deceased per annum should be
determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be
made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have
spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The
balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the
dependant family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier)
Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active
career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This
does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would
have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to
several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of
multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by
this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said
table with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step 3 (Actual calculation)
The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when
multiplied by such multiplier gives the "loss of dependency"
to the family."
33.To ascertain the 'multiplier' mentioned in Step 2 above, it was
further laid down in Sarla Verma (supra) as thus:
MACT 53/18 Page. 13 of 39
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
"42 We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used
should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table
above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas,
Trilok Chandra and Charlie) which starts with an
operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15
to 20 and 21 to 25 years,) reduced by one unit for
every years that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for
31 to 35 years , M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41
to 45 years, and M -13 for 46 to 50 years, then
reduced by two units for every five years, that is,
M-11 for 51-55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years ,M-7
for 61 to 65 years and M- 5 for 66 to 70 years."
34. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Royal Sundaram
General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Zeenat Khan And
Others, MAC.APP. 242/2024, CM APPL. 26702/2024
(stay), Date of decision: 30th September, 2024, Neutral
Citation 2024:DHC:7728
"15. Thus, it is now settled that when it comes to a child, since their
actual or potential income cannot be precisely determined, the
minimum wages applicable on the date of the accident provides a
reasonable basis for estimating the child's income.
16. In light of the aforementioned rulings by the Supreme Court and
this Court, the most reasonable approach to assess loss of
dependency, even for a minor, would be to refer to the minimum
wages established by the State Government in the location where
the minor lived at the time of the accident.
17. As the notional income is being determined on basis of the
minimum wages, future prospects would also be calculated on the
basis of this income at the rate of 40% by applying the principle laid
in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi And
Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680.
4. Evidently, the Judgment is silent on the multiplier to be used for
the victims under 15 years of age. This incongruity in the matter of
selection of multiplier in the case of persons belonging to the age
MACT 53/18 Page. 14 of 39
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
group up to 15 years was noted in by the Apex the case of Divya vs.
National Insurance Company Ltd.,Civil Appeal No. 7605/2022.
25. The Apex Court made a reference to the observations of the
Constitutional Bench in the case of Sarla Varma (Supra) which was
followed in the case of Reshma Kumari & Ors. vs. Madan Mohan &
Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 65, to observe that in cases where the
deceased is upto 15 years, irrespective of Section 166 or 163(a)
under which the claim for compensation has been made, the
multiplier of 15 and the assessment as indicated in second
Schedule subject to correction as pointed out in the Table given in
the Sarla Varma (Supra), should be followed.
26. The Apex Court further observed that it was high time to move
to a standard method of selection of multiplier income for future
prospects and deductions for personal and living expenses. The
Table given in Sarla Varma was approved for the selection of
multiplier in Claim Applications under Section 166 of the M.V. Act,
in cases of death. The multiplier of 15 was recommended in the
cases of death of a child upto 15 years.
27. Thus, in light of the above, it is observed that in the impugned
Judgment, the multiplier has been taken as 18, which should
actually have been 15."
35. Further, in terms of the mandate of Rajesh Tyagi v Jaibir Singh
FAO 842/2003, which is the cause célèbre qua cases pertaining
to motor accident claims, the claimant filed Form XIII of the
Scheme for Motor Accident Claims qua compensation under
various heads which have been elucidated in the paragraphs
hereafter..
ii. Monthly Income of the deceased:
36.It is the case of the claimant that the deceased was a minor child
and as per the mandate given by the Hon'ble High Court of
MACT 53/18 Page. 15 of 39
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
Delhi in the case of Zeenat Khan (Supra) the minimum wages
applicable on the date of accident provides a reasonable basis
for estimating the child's income. As per office order bearing
number IR-2/7083-7193 dated 02.03.2017 the minimum wages
for unskilled category prevalent on the date of accident in
Haryana was Rs.8240/-. Thus, the monthly income of the
deceased is quantified as Rs.8240/-p.m.
iii. Future prospects:
37.To factor into account future prospects, several guidelines have
been laid down.
38.In this context, it would be apt to refer to National Insurance
Co Ltd v Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 wherein it
was laid down as thus:
"59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to
record our conclusions:
59.3 While determining the income, an addition of
50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased
towards future prospects, where the deceased had a
permanent job and was below the age of 40 years,
should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the
age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In
case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60
years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary
should be read as actual salary less tax.
59.4 In case the deceased was self-employed or on a
fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established
income should be the warrant where the deceased
was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25%
where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50
years and 10% where the deceased was between the
age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the
necessary method of computation. The established
income means the income minus the tax component.
MACT 53/18 Page. 16 of 39
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
59.5 For determination of the multiplicand, the
deduction for personal and living expenses, the
tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paras 30 to
32 of Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6
SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC
(Cri) 1002] which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
59.6 The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated
in the Table in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC,
(2009) 6 SCC 121 read with para 42 of that judgment
59.7 The age of the deceased should be the basis for
applying the multiplier.
59.8 Reasonable figures on conventional heads,
namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral
expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs
15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be
enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years."
39.PW1 in her testimony has deposed that child Master Suraj
Mehto was six years old and has filed on record his school
identify card showing that the child was styudying in nursery
class. Hence the age of the deceased is proved to be six years
on the day of accident.
40. As the child was six years old, therefore the percentage of
future prospects in terms of the above judgment is hereby
determined as 40% i.e., Rs. 3,558/-. Therefore, the income of
the deceased after adding future prospects is (Rs.8,897 +
Rs.3,558 = Rs.12,445/-)
iv. Personal expenses of the deceased:
41.Expenses incurred by the deceased in himself are deducted
while calculating the loss of dependency. To calculate the
personal expenses, recourse can be had to the following
MACT 53/18 Page. 17 of 39
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
instructions of Sarla Verma (supra) which were approved by
the Constitutional Bench in Pranay Sethi(supra):
"30.Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards
personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units
indicated in Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362] , the general
practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having
considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are
of the view that where the deceased was married, the
deduction towards personal and living expenses of the
deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of
dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where
the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-
fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members
exceeds six.
31.Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are
the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In
regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal
and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor
would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is
also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in
which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is
likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the
contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will
not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be
considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the
contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as
dependants, because they will either be independent and
earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.
32.Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and
siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a
dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and
living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to
the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large
and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case
where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger
non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living
expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the
family will be taken as two-third."
MACT 53/18 Page. 18 of 39
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
42. As per the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Zeenat
Khan (Supra) also considered 50 per cent deduction towards
the personal living expenses.
43.As per the evidence brought on record, the deceased was
survived by his father and mother and two sisters. Considering
the aforesaid the deduction towards his personal expenses are
hereby taken as 50 per cent . Thus, the net deduction in the
present case is Rs. 5,796/- of total calculated income i.e
Rs.11,592/-. Hence , the deceased would have been
contributing Rs. 5,796/- per month towards the claimants. The
multiplicand i.e contribution to the dependent family would
thus be Rs Rs. 5,796/-.
v. Monthly & Annual Loss of dependency:
44.The monthly loss of dependency would be Rs.5796/-. The
annual loss of dependency Rs.5796 X 12 = Rs.69552/-.
vi. Total Loss of Dependency:
45. Since the deceased was 6 years, the applicable multiplier in
terms of the verdict of Sarla Verma(supra) and Zeenat Khan
(Supra) is 15. The total loss of dependency is thus
Rs.10,43,280/- (Rs.69,552 X 15 )
vii. Other Heads:
46.In Sarla Verma (supra) it was also laid down that after
calculating the 'Loss of Dependency', certain amounts were to
MACT 53/18 Page. 19 of 39
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
be added under conventional heads such as loss of estate, loss
of consortium etc. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are
extracted hereunder:
"Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs 5000
to Rs 10,000 may be added as loss of estate. Where the
deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional
amount in the range of 5000 to 10,000 should be added under
the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be
awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused
to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if
incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased
before death (if incurred) should also be added."
47.The amount qua the above heads were further quantified in
Pranay Sethi(supra), which clarified as thus:
"52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it
difficult to agree with the view expressed
in Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013)
4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC
(L&S) 149] . It has granted Rs 25,000 towards funeral
expenses, Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs
1,00,000 towards loss of care and guidance for minor
children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children
does not exist. Though Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh,
(2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC
(Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] refers to Santosh
Devi [Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6
SCC 421 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 726 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 160 :
(2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 167] , it does not seem to follow the
same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say,
cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would
not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of
income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any
quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can
be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank
interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed.
The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been
MACT 53/18 Page. 20 of 39
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme
difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb
rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any
kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders
passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided.
Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems
to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely,
loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should
be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The
principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable
principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or
quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the
amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on
percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement
should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are
disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in
respect of those heads."
48.The above verdict was passed in the year 2017. Almost eight
years have elapsed, and therefore the above heads would be
enhanced at the rate of 20%.
viii. Medical Expenses:
49. After the incident, the injured was taken to hospital and died. No medical
expenses have been claimed.
ix. Compensation for Loss of Consortium:
50.The concept of consortium was expounded in Magnum
General Insurance Co Ltd v Nanu Ram 2018 18 SCC 130 in the
following words:
"21.A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay
Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16
SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205]
dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be
awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of
consortium. In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious
MACT 53/18 Page. 21 of 39
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
term which encompasses "spousal consortium", "parental
consortium", and "filial consortium". The right to consortium
would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance,
solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his
family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual
relations with the deceased spouse : [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh,
(2013) 9 SCC 54.
21.1 Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights
pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows
compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company,
society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every
conjugal relation". [Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edn., 1979).]
21.2 Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the
premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid,
protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training.
21.3 Filial consortium is the right of the parents to
compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An
accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and
agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest
agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime.
Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship
and their role in the family unit.
22 .Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms
about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern
jurisdictions world-over have recognised that the value of a
child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the
compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most
jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded
compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child.
The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss
of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased
child.
23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at
providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of
genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor
child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to
be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial
consortium. Parental consortium is awarded to children who
lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A
few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count
[ Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram v. Sohi Ram, 2017
SCC OnLine Raj 3848 : (2017) 4 RLW 3368; Uttarakhand
MACT 53/18 Page. 22 of 39
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
High Court in Rita Rana v. Pradeep Kumar, 2013 SCC
OnLine Utt 2435 : (2014) 3 UC 1687; Karnataka High Court
in Lakshman v. Susheela Chand Choudhary, 1996 SCC
OnLine Kar 74 : (1996) 3 Kant LJ 570] . However, there was
no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation
could be awarded on loss of filial consortium.
24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium
will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation
under "loss of consortium" as laid down in Pranay
Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16
SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] .
In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father
and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for
loss of filial consortium."
51.The deceased is survived by his father and mother. Thus, On
the basis of the above verdict and mandated in Pranay
Sethi'(Supra), the compensation for Consortium is hereby
quantified as Rs 48,400/- X 2 i.e., Rs. 96,800/-.
x. Compensation for Loss of Estate:
52.On the basis of the above verdict, the compensation for loss of
estate is hereby quantified as Rs 18,150/-
xi. Compensation towards Funeral Expenses:
53.On the basis of the above verdict, the compensation of funeral
expenses is hereby quantified as Rs 18,150/-
xii. Total Compensation:
54. Thus, the total amount of compensation to be awarded is calculated as
follows:
Sr. No. Head Amount
MACT 53/18 Page. 23 of 39
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
1. Total loss of dependency Rs. 10,43,280/-
2. Medical Expenses Nil
3. Compensation for Loss of Rs. 96,800/-
Consortium
4. Compensation for Loss of Estate Rs 18,150/-
5. Compensation towards Funeral Rs 18,150/-
Expenses
6. Total Compensation Rs. 11,76,380/-
(c) Issue No.3: Relief.
i. Amount of Award:
55.Thus, the claimant is awarded as sum of Rs 11,76,380/- along
with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of claim
petition. The rate of interest has been calculated in terms of the
succeeding paragraphs.
ii. Rate of Interest:
56. It was contended by Ld Counsel for the respondent insurance company
that the amount of interest ought to at @7.5%, in accordance with the
general prevalent practice in Courts. However, Ld Counsel for the
claimant sought 9% as the rate of interest.
57.In order to adjudicate these rival claims, recourse can be had to
Erudhaya Priya v State Transport Corporation 2020 SCC
OnLine SC 601 wherein the aspect of rate of interest was
categorically enunciated as thus:
(c) The third and the last aspect is the
interest rate claimed as 12%
MACT 53/18 Page. 24 of 39
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
"15.In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant
has watered down the interest rate during the
course of hearing to 9% in view of the judicial
pronouncements including in the Jagdish
case (supra). On this aspect, once again, there
was no serious dispute raised by the learned
counsel for the respondent once the claim was
confined to 9% in line with the interest rates
applied by this Court"
58.Ergo, the amount of compensation/award amount will be
payable by the respondent insurance company with simple
interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the claim
petition/DAR till actual realisation. The date of filing of
petition is 18.01.2018 therefore the amount of Interest is
calculated at @ 9 % from the date of filing of petition i.e. Rs
Rs. 8,29,347/- for a period of 94 months. Thus, the total amount
of award is Rs. 20,05,727/-
59.It is also clarified that in case the interest of petitioner was
stopped or excluded during the present inquiry proceedings,
same is liable to be adjusted from the total interest calculated
on the Award amount. Similarly, amount awarded and released
as interim Award, if any, during pendency of the case, be
deducted from the total compensation.
VI. DEPOSIT OF AWARD& RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT
i. Deposit of Award:
60.In terms of the mandate of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh
Tyagi (supra) the respondent Insurance Company/driver/owner
MACT 53/18 Page. 25 of 39
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
shall deposit the award amount or transfer the same by
RTGS/NEFT/IMPS directly to the bank account of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal in UCO Bank, Patiala House Courts
within 30 days of the award. The respondent(s) held liable to
pay compensation by the Claims Tribunal shall give notice of
deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant(s) and
shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal with
respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15
days of the deposit with the interest upto the date of notice of
deposit to the claimant(s) with a copy to their counsel.
61.Release: In the present matter, 50% of the award amount be
released immediately to the legal heirs of the deceased / victim
as follows:
Sr. Name Relations with Percentage Mode of
No. Deceased share of Disbursement
each legal
heir
1. Sh. Ashok Father 50% Through Electronic
Mehto Bank Transfer
2. Ms. Sunita Mother 50% Through Electronic
Devi Bank Transfer
62. The remaining 50% of the awarded amount needs to be invested in an
FDR and be invested and released as follows:-
Sr. No. Name Relations Percentage Amount awarded to the
with share of each legal heirs of the victim /
Deceased legal heir deceased
MACT 53/18 Page. 26 of 39
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
1. Sh. Ashok Father 50% 50% share belonging to
father out of remaining
Mehto
50% of award amount
be given to the father of
deceased/victim and
deposited in 24 monthly
fixed deposits receipts
(FDR) of equal amounts
for a period of 24
months as per Motor
Accident Claims
Annuity Deposits
Schemes.
2. Ms. Mother 50% 50% share belonging to
mother out of remaining
Sunita
50% of award amount
Devi be given to the mother
of deceased/victim and
deposited in 24 monthly
fixed deposits receipts
(FDR) of equal amounts
for a period of 24
months as per Motor
Accident Claims
Annuity Deposits
Schemes.
63. The Nodal officer of the bank shall ensure disbursement of the award
within 3 weeks of receipt thereof by email or otherwise.
64. The disbursement to the claimant is, however, subject to the addition of
future interest till deposit proportionately and also deduction of
proportionate tax on the interest amount or amount of interim award, if
any, to/from his share.
MACT 53/18 Page. 27 of 39
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
ii. Disbursement of the award amount & protection thereof:
65.The amount of award shall be disbursed through the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD)Scheme
formulated vide order dated 01.05.2018 passed in Rajesh
Tyagi(supra). 21 banks, including UCO Bank, is implementing
the MACAD scheme.
66.Further, to protect the award amount, the entire amount of
compensation is not being released forthwith to the claimant,
and part of the compensation amount has been directed to be
kept in fixed deposits in a phased manner. Further, the
following conditions are hereby reiterated and being imposed
upon the concerned bank with respect to the fixed deposits:
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint names to be added in the
savings bank account or MACAD scheme account of
claimant i.e. the bank account of claimant shall be
individual account and not a joint account.
(b) The original fixed deposits shall be retained by the UCO
Bank, PHC, New Delhi in safe custody. However, the
statement containing FDR numbers, amounts, dates of
maturity and maturity amounts shall be furnished by the
said bank to the claimant and the above amount shall be
released in account of claimant by the Manager, UCO Bank,
PHC, ND through RTGS/NEFT/or any other electronic
mode.
MACT 53/18 Page. 28 of 39
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing
System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant
near the place of his residence.
(d) The maturity amount of the FDR(s) on monthly basis net of
TDS be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in
the above account of the claimant.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be
allowed on the MACAD without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or
debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card
and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall
cancel the same before the disbursement of the award
amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of
the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of
the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the
bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the
claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit
card have been issued and shall not be issued without the
permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the
passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court
on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along
with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on
MACT 53/18 Page. 29 of 39
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance
of clause above.
VII. LIABILITY
67. Insurance has taken a defense that there was breach of policy
conditions as the vehicle was driven by a minor person not
having a driving licence.
68. The Hon'ble Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Abhijit Mazumder, 2023 SCC OnLine
Cal 4971 held that:
"24. Bearing in mind the aforesaid proposition of the
Court, let me revert to the materials on record. The
insurance company by adducing the evidence of DW
1 and through the extract of driving license (Ext. F)
could establish the fact the driver of the offending
licence vehicle was not holding valid and effective
driving license to drive such vehicle. However, mere
absence of valid and effective driving license of the
driver for driving such vehicle at the relevant time,
are not in themselves defences available to the insurer
against either the insured or the third parties. To
avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has
to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and
failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of
fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of
vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not
disqualified to drive at the relevant time and such
burden of proof lies with the insurer to establish
"breach" on the part of the owner of the vehicle. At
this juncture, it is to be seen as to whether such
burden has been discharged by the insurance
company. The owner of the vehicle was aware that
the vehicle was meant for carrying hazardous
substances like inflammable oil. It was incumbent
upon the owner of the vehicle to ensure that all safety
protocols has been reasonably taken care of including
MACT 53/18 Page. 30 of 39
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
the fact that the driver was qualified to drive such
vehicle carrying hazardous substances. Allowing a
driver to drive such vehicle without having proper
licence to drive hazardous substance by itself makes
the owner of the vehicle guilty of negligence since he
failed to take reasonable care for fulfilling the
condition of policy. Since there is breach of condition
of the policy of insurance, the principle of pay and
recovery applies to the facts and circumstances of this
case. The learned Tribunal though observed that the
proposition in S. Iyyapan case [S. Iyyapan v. United
India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2013) 7 SCC 62] applies in
the factual matrix of the case, but no such order of
pay and recovery was passed giving liberty to the
insurance company to depositrecover the
compensation amount from the owner of the
offending vehicle. I find substance in the submissions
of Mr Paul, learned advocate for appellant Insurance
Company relying on S. Iyyapan case that liberty to
recover the compensation amount from the owner of
the offending vehicle shall be given to the insurer in
the facts and circumstances of the present case."
69. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in case of Branch Manager,
SBI General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Muthulakshmi
and Others, 2025 SCC Online mad 2541 held that:
"17. In case, the insurer becomes successful in
pleading and proving defences available to it
under Section 150 Sub-Section 2, it need not
honour its duty under the contract of
insurance towards the insured. However, the
statutory liability under Section 150(1)
towards third party remains unaffected, the
natural corollary would be after making
payment under Section 150 (1), the insurer is
entitled to recover the said amount from the
insured by virtue of its successful defence
raised under Section 150 (2). The liability of
MACT 53/18 Page. 31 of 39
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
insurer under Section 149 (1) [New Section 150
(1)] is a statutory liability and on the other
hand it is concomitant with liability of insurer
towards insured. If we say that the liability of
insurer to satisfy award passed against insured
is subject to terms and conditions of contract
between insurer and insured, over which
innocent third party victims have no control,
the very object of statutory liability enshrined
in Section 147 (1)(b) read with Section 149 (1)
[New Section 147 (1)(b) read with Section 150
(1)] of Motor Vehicles Act will get defeated. The
object of said provision is better served by
concept of "pay and recovery" enunciated
in Swaran Singh case cited infra. Infact, in
Swaran Singh case (in paragraphs 96 and 97),
the Apex Court emphasised that the concept of
pay and recovery has been holding the field for
a long time and the same need not be deviated.
The concept of "pay and recovery" will achieve
the object of providing hassle free mechanism
for poor accident victims to recover the
damages awarded to them with certainty and
on the other hand it also takes care of insurer's
right under contract of insurance by enabling
insurer to recover the amount paid by it to
third parties, which insurer is not bound to pay
to the insured.
24. Therefore, if the insured is guilty of
negligence or failed to exercise reasonable
care in the matters of fulfilling conditions of
the policy, the insurer is entitled to avoid its
liability towards insured under the contract of
insurance. However, its statutory liability
under Section 149 (1) [now Section 150 (1)]
towards innocent third parties remains
unaffected. The insurer by virtue of its
MACT 53/18 Page. 32 of 39
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
statutory liability shall pay the amount
payable by the insured to the third party
victims and recover the said amount from the
insured as insurer is entitled to refuse
indemnity in view of the breach committed by
the insured."
70. R1W1 Mr. Ankit who was driver of the offending vehicle in his
cross examination admitted that on the date of the accident he
was minor and not having any driving license. Accordingly,
there is breach of terms of policy by insured and therefore the
insurance company is directed to pay the award amount and
granted the liberty to recover the same from driver & owner
jointly or severally.
71. The petitioners should furnish details of their bank accounts
pursuant to order dated 18.01.2018 for electronic remittance of
award amount.
VIII. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT
IN CASES OF DEATH
72. Since this is a case pertaining to death, particulars of Form-XV
of the Scheme For Motor Accidents Claims Formulated by the
Delhi High Court in terms of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh
Tyagi (supra) are as under:
1. Date of Accident 12.07.2017
2. Name of the deceased Master Suraj Mehto
3. Age of the deceased 06
MACT 53/18 Page. 33 of 39
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
4. Occupation of the deceased Student
5. Income of the deceased As per minimum
wages
6. Name, Age and relationship of legal representatives of
the deceased:
S.NO NAME AGE RELATION
(i) Ms. Sunita Devi 29 years Mother
(ii) Sh. Ashok Mehto 30 years Father (minor)
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
S.No. Heads Awarded by the
Claims Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs. 8,897/-
8. Add: Future Prospects (B) Rs.3,558/-
9. Less: Personal expenses of the Rs. 5,796/-
deceased (C)
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.8,240 + 3,312)-
[(A+B)- C = D] 5,796=Rs.5,796/-
11. Annual Loss of dependency (D x Rs.5,796 X 12 =
12) Rs.69,552/-
12. Multiplier (E) 15
13. Total loss of dependency (D x 12 Rs.10,43,280/-
MACT 53/18 Page. 34 of 39
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
x E = F)
14. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15. Compensation for loss of Rs 96,800/-
consortium (H)
16. Compensation for loss of love & NA- in terms of New
affection (I) India Assurance Co v
Somwati (2020) 9
SCC 644
17. Compensation for loss of estate Rs 18,150/-
(J)
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs 18,150/-
expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION (F + Rs. 11,76,380/-
G + H + I + J + K = L)
20. Rate of Interest Awarded @9%
21. Interest amount up to the date of Rs.8,29,347/-
award (M) (94 months)
22. Total amount including interest (L Rs. 11,76,380+ Rs.
+ M) 8,29,347 =
Rs.20,05,727/-
23. Award amount released 50 %
24. Award kept in FDRs 50 %
MACT 53/18 Page. 35 of 39
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
25. Mode of disbursement of the Through Bank
award to the claimant(s)
26. Next date for compliance of the 12.12.2025
award
Note: The interim award amount of Rs. 50,000/- awarded vide order
dated 23.03.2019 shall be adjusted in case already paid by the
Insurance Company.
IX. COMPLIANCE QUA PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME
73. The particulars of Form XVII of the Scheme For Motor
Accidents Claims Formulated by the Delhi High Court , in
terms of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) are as
hereunder:
1. Date of the accident 12.07.2017
2. Date of filing of Form I- First Not filed as accident took place
Accident Report (FAR) out of Delhi and claim petition is
filed by legal heirs.
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the Same as above.
victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Same as above.
Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Same as above
owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- Same as above
Interim Accident Report (IAR)
MACT 53/18 Page. 36 of 39
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Same as above
Form VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII-Detailed Same as above
Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or DAR not filed.
deficiency on the part of the
Investigating Officer? If so, whether
any action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Not given
Designated Officer by the Insurance
Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of No
the Insurance Company submitted
his report within 30 days of the
DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or No
deficiencies on the part of the
Designated Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the petitioner(s) Matter was contested by the
of the offer of the Insurance Insurance Company.
Company.
14. Date of the Award 28.11.2025
15. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes.
directed to open savings bank
account(s) near their place of
residence?
16. Date of order by which petitioner(s) 18.01.2018
were directed to open savings bank
account(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN Card
and Adhaar Card and the direction to
MACT 53/18 Page. 37 of 39
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
the bank not issue any cheque
book/debit card to the petitioner (s)
and make an endorsement to this
effect on the passbook(s).
17. Date on which the petitioner(s) not furnished.
produced the passbook of their
savings bank account near the place
of their residence along with the
endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar
Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of As mentioned above
the petitioner(s)
19. Whether the petitioner(s) savings
bank account(s) is near his place of
residence?
20. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes. -
examined at the time of passing of
the award to ascertain his/their
financial condition?
74. Further, in terms of the directions given vide order dated
08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra), the Ahlmad shall send a
certified copy of this award to the concerned Criminal Court
and to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority through e-mail.
Copy of the award be also sent to the bank concerned. The
Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per
the directions given in the above case.
MACT 53/18 Page. 38 of 39
Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors
75. File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary
formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and
be put up on 12.12.2025.
Announced in the open court
on 28.11.2025
(Abhilash Malhotra)
Judge/PO, MACT-02,
New Delhi/28.11.2025
.....
MACT 53/18 Page. 39 of 39 Ranjeev Kumar Pandey Vs Lokesh Kumar & Ors