Delhi District Court
Sunita W/O, Deceased (F)(Petition Out ... vs Jai Ram Pal (New India Ins) on 15 December, 2025
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER MACT-02:
CENTRAL DISTRICT:
TIS HAZARI DISTRICT COURTS: DELHI.
PRESIDED OVER BY MS. POOJA AGGARWAL, DHJS
MACT No. 407/24
UID No. DLCT-01-008660-2024
In Respect of
FIR No. : 0031/24
U/s: 279/338/304A/427 IPC
PS : Dankaur
1. Sunita
W/o Sh. Jagsir
2. Mansi
D/o Sh. Jagsir
3. Shirsti
S/o Sh. Jagsir
4. Deepanshi
D/o Sh. Jagsir
5. Vardhan
S/o Sh. Jagsir
6. Bhima Singh
S/o Sh. Ramkishan
(Petitioners No. 2 to 5 through Petitioner No.1
being mother and natural guardian)
All R/o Village at Malakpur,
Tehsil Safidon, Jind, Haryana-126112.
(Through Ld. Counsel Sh. Sachin Batra)
.....Petitioners
Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur AGGARWAL Date: 2025.12.15 Page No. 1 of 43
Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors. 17:03:34 +0530
Versus
1. Jai Ram Pal (Owner)
S/o Sh. Sumer Pal
R/o H.No. C-63, Gali No. 5/3,
Surender Colony, Part-I, Jharodha Mazara,
Burari, Delhi-110084.
2. Deepak Sharma (Driver)
S/o Sh. Pramod Sharma
R/o Moh Ram Nagar
Chandrawar Gate Firozabad,
UP-203203.
3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
Having Regd. Office:
DC House J-129, 2nd Satguru Ram Singh
RD Block J Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015.
(Through Ld. Counsel Ms. Suman Sharma)
.....Respondents
Date of filing of claim petition : 03.06.2024
Judgment reserved on : 06.12.2025
Date of Award : 15.12.2025
AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under
Section 166 read with Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as "MV Act") seeking compensation in
respect of the death of Sh. Jasgir S/o Sh. Bhima Singh
(hereinafter referred to as "deceased") due to an accident which
took place on 01.02.2024.
Facts as per the Petition
2. The brief facts as per the petition are that on 01.02.2024 at
around 12.30 AM, Jagsir (hereinafter referred to as "deceased")
MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur Digitally signed by Page No. 2 of 43
POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL
Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2025.12.15
17:03:43 +0530
was travelling with one Govinda and was driving the vehicle
bearing registration no. HR-56B-0520 towards Jind Haryana,
but when they reached at GIMS Hospital near Yamuna
Expressway Peripheral Expressway Under Police Station
Dankaur, District Greater Noida UP, a vehicle bearing
registration no. DL-1GC-8915 (hereinafter referred to as
"offending vehicle") which was going ahead of the vehicle of
the deceased and was being driven at a very high speed in a
negligent manner, suddenly applied brakes but due to the said
sudden application of brake by the driver of the offending
vehicle, the deceased could not immediately apply the brakes of
his vehicle and his vehicle struck the rear portion of vehicle
bearing no. DL-1GC-8915, resulting in grievous injuries to
Jagsir who was declared brought dead at GIMS Hospital,
Greater Noida, UP where the postmortem of deceased was also
conducted which reflected the death to have resulted from the
accident.
3. In respect of the accident in question, an FIR no. 31/2024 u/s
279/304A/338/427 IPC was also registered at PS Dankaur. It has
been stated that the offending vehicle was owned by Jai Ram
Pal (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent No.1"), driven by
Deepak Sharma (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent No.2")
and insured with The New India Assurance Company Ltd
(hereinafter referred to as "Respondent No.3").
Fact as per the written statement of Respondents No.1 & 2
4. In their joint written statement, the Respondents No.1 & 2 raised
various preliminary objections including as to the accident not
Digitally signed by
POOJA
MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 3 of 43
Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2025.12.15
17:03:49 +0530
having been caused due to rash or negligent driving of
Respondent. It has not been disputed that the vehicle bearing
registration No. DL-1GC-8915 was owned by the Respondent
No. 1, driven by Respondent No. 2 and insured with the
Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company. On merits, the contents
of the petition have been denied and it has been asserted that the
accident was caused due to total negligence of the deceased,
without any fault of Respondent No. 2. It has also been asserted
that the claim has been filed only to extract compensation from
the Respondents.
Facts as per written statement of
Respondent No.3/Insurance Company
5. In its written statement, the Respondent No.3/ Insurance
Company made preliminary submissions including as to the
accident having taken place due to sole carelessness and
negligence of the deceased, who had hit the offending vehicle
from behind and had not maintained safe distance from the
vehicle No. DL-1GC-8915, which was running ahead in the
same direction as the vehicle being driven by the deceased. It
has also been stated that in the absence of negligence of the
driver of the offending vehicle and as the permit authorization
certificate of the offending vehicle was not valid at the time of
the accident, the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company were
not liable to make any payment to the petitioners. However, the
Respondent No.3/Insurance Company did not dispute that the
vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1GC-8915 was insured with
them from 18.04.2023 to 17.04.2024 but asserted that their
liability was subject to compliance of terms and conditions etc.
of the insurance policy. On merits, the Respondent No. 3/
Digitally signed
MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur POOJA by POOJA
AGGARWAL Page No. 4 of 43
Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2025.12.15
17:03:55 +0530
Insurance Company denied the averments made in the claim
petition. The Respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company also sought
leave of the Court to proceed against the owner of the offending
vehicle and/or ensure for recovery of awarded amount inclusive
of interest, in case of any breach of terms and conditions of the
policy and provisions of M.V. Act.
Issues
6. From the pleadings on record, the following issues were framed
by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 17.04.2025:-
1.Whether the deceased Sh. Jagsir suffered fatal
injuries in an accident that took place on 01.02.2024
at about 12.30 AM involving vehicle bearing
registration No. DL-1GC-8915 driven by the
Respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, owned by
the Respondent No. 2 and insured with the
respondent no. 3? OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and from
whom?
3.Relief.
7. Subsequently, vide order dated 29.11.2025, the issue no.1 was
corrected and amended as under in view of the typographical
error in the description of respondent no.1 and 2:
1.Whether the deceased Sh. Jagsir suffered fatal
injuries in an accident that took place on 01.02.2024
at about 12.30 AM involving vehicle bearing
registration No. DL-1GC-8915 driven by the
Respondent No. 2 rashly and negligently, owned by
the Respondent No. 1 and insured with the
respondent no. 3? OPP
Evidence of the Petitioners
8. In support of their claim, the petitioners examined two
Digitally signed
MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur POOJA by POOJA
AGGARWAL
Page No. 5 of 43
Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2025.12.15
17:04:00 +0530
witnesses.
9. PW-1 Smt. Sunita, being the wife of the deceased, tendered her
evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex. PW-1/A wherein she
testified on similar lines as the claim petition. She also relied
upon the following documents :-
S.No. Description of Documents Exhibit/Mark
1. Copy of Aadhar Card of the Ex. PW-1/1
deceased, her own Aadhar (OSR) (Colly)
Card and Aadhar Cards of
remaining petitioners.
2. Certified copy of Ex. PW-1/2
postmortem report dated
01.02.2024.
3. Certified copy of complaint Ex. PW-1/3
4. Certified copy of FIR Ex.PW-1/4(Colly)
5. Certified copy of final report Ex.PW-1/5(Colly)
6. Certified copy of Mechanical Ex. PW-1/6
Inspection Report
7. Copy of driving license of Ex. PW-1/7
deceased (OSR)
8. Copy of Education Certificate Ex. PW-1/8
(10th Marksheet) of deceased (OSR)
10. She was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsels for the
Respondents.
11.PW-2 Sh. Govinda, being an eye witness of the accident as well
as the brother of the deceased, tendered his evidence by way of
affidavit Ex. PW-2/A, also testified on similar lines as the
petition and also relied upon copy of his Aadhar Card i.e. Ex.
PW2/1. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsels for
MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur Digitally signed by
Page No. 6 of 43
Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors. POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2025.12.15
17:04:05 +0530
Respondents, wherein, inter-alia, he denied all the suggestions
given on behalf of the respondents.
Evidence of the Respondents
12. The Respondent No. 2 being the driver of the offending vehicle
examined himself as R2W1 and tendered his evidence by way
of affidavit i.e. Ex. R2W-1/A to the effect that when his loaded
vehicle had crossed Jewar Toll Plaza, at 10.49 p.m. on
31.01.2024, it smelled of gas due to which he immediately
stopped the vehicle roadside and called the owner as to the
vehicle being parked road side at the distance of about 500
meter from KMP in front of ZIMS. He further testified that the
distance from Jewar Toll Plaza to KMP was about 18-20 km and
that he had put a safety mark behind his vehicle i.e. red and
white pyramid laid down on the road, as an indication, on the
road side for convenience of the other vehicles and the reflector
as per traffic guidelines was working, the parking light was also
on. He also testified that he was standing outside his vehicle,
talking to another driver, namely, Md. Salman Shah of vehicle
No. DL-1LAJ-3626, but after some time, a vehicle bearing no.
HR-56B-0520, being driven in rash and negligent speed hit his
vehicle from behind resulting in death of the deceased. He also
testified that the accident was not caused due to any fault or rash
and negligent driving on his part and that he was not liable to
pay any compensation. He also relied upon the following
documents:-
S. No. Description of Documents Exhibit/Mark
1. Copy of his Aadhar Card Ex. R2W1/1 (OSR)
2. Copy of his Driving License Ex. R2W1/2 (OSR)
Digitally signed
by POOJA
MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 7 of 43
Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2025.12.15
17:04:09 +0530
3. Photograph of vehicle Ex. R2W1/3
4. Copy of Fast Tag E Statement Mark R2W-1
5. Copy of Mechanical Mark R2W2
Inspection Report of vehicle
no. HR56B0520
6. Certified copy of Mechanical Ex.PW-1/5
Inspection Report of vehicle (already exhibited)
No. DL1GC8915
7. Attested copy of insurance Ex. R2W1/6
policy (Colly)
13. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for petitioners
wherein, inter-alia, he admitted that he had not made any
complaint in any authority regarding negligent driving of the
driver of the vehicle No. HR-56B-0520. He also admitted that
the averments made in para no. 3, 4, 5 and 6 in his affidavit had
not been mentioned in the reply. He also testified that he did not
make any call to the police after his vehicle was hit. He also
admitted that Salman, who was present with him at the spot of
accident did not call the police regarding the accident.
14. He was also duly cross-examined on behalf of Respondent no.
3/ Insurance Company wherein, inter-alia, he testified that he
did not know whether the permit of the offending vehicle was
valid at the time of accident or not.
15. R2W2/ Sh. Sunil Kumar, being the IO of the case, testified as to
having come to know about the accident on 03.02.2024 at about
06.00 pm and as to the accident having occurred at 03.02.2024.
He also testified to having gone to the spot on 06.02.2024 due to
which there were no marks of the tyres on the road. He also
Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur AGGARWAL Date: 2025.12.15 Page No. 8 of 43
17:04:13 +0530
Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors.
testified as to the investigation conduced by him including as to
Govinda having informed him that the offending vehicle had
applied brakes suddenly due to which the accident occurred. He
also relied upon the following documents:-
S. No. Description of Documents Exhibit/Mark
1. PS Attested copy of FIR and Already Ex. PW-1/4
Chargesheet (Colly)
2. Chargesheet Already Ex. PW-1/5
(Colly)
3. Site Plan Ex. R2W-2/1
4. Photographs of vehicles Ex. R2W-2/2
involved in the accident (Colly)
16. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for petitioners and
Respondent No. 3 chose not to cross-examine him, despite
opportunity.
17. In its evidence, the Respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company
examined three witnesses.
18. R3W-1 Sh. Lokesh, Senior Assistant, STA Branch, Transport
Department, Delhi-110054, being a summoned witness testified
as under:
"I am a summoned witness. I have brought the original
summons. I have brought the authority letter for deposing
today. I have brought the summoned record/permit record
of the vehicle No. Dl-1GC-8915 for the year but not of
the time of the accident. I have only brought the payment
transaction record and not the copy of permit of vehicle
no. DL-1GC-8915. The national permit of vehicle no.
DL1GC-8915 was issued by our department but our
department can access the copy of permit from the server
till the 10 cays of the payment of the payment of National
permit". Digitally signed
by POOJA
AGGARWAL
POOJA
MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur AGGARWAL Date:
2025.12.15
Page No. 9 of 43
Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors. 17:04:31
+0530
19. He also relied upon the following documents:-
S. No. Description of Documents Exhibit/Mark
1. Duly attested copy of his ID Ex. R3W1/1
and authority letter. (OSR)(Colly)
2. Attested copy of Base permit Ex. R3W1/2
(For home state i.e. NCT of
Delhi) of DL1GC8915 from
18.12.2021 to 17.12.2026.
3. Attested copy of payment Ex. R3W1/3
Transaction record of National (Colly)
Permit of DL1GC8915 from
29.12.2021 to 17.12.2022,
26.12.2022 to 17.12.2023,
06.02.2024 to 17.12.2024 and
24.12.2024 to 17.12.2025.
20. He was not cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner despite
opportunity and was duly cross examined on behalf of
Respondents No. 1 & 2.
21. Sh. Lokesh was again examined as R3W3, wherein he brought
the summoned record/permit record of vehicle No.
DL-1GC-8915 and testified that as per their record, the NP
authorization was valid from 26.12.2022 to 17.12.2023 and
thereafter, from 06.02.2024 to 17.12.2024. He relied upon the
following documents:-
S. No. Description of Documents Exhibit/Mark
1. Copy of his ID Already Ex.
R3W1/1(OSR)
2. Attested copy of Base permit Already Ex.
(For home state i.e. NCT of R3W-1/2)
Delhi) of DL1GC8915 from
18.12.2021 to 17.12.2026
Digitally signed
MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur POOJA
by POOJA
AGGARWAL Page No. 10 of 43
Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2025.12.15
17:04:37 +0530
3. Attested copy of payment Ex. R3W-1/3
Transaction record of National (Colly)
Permit of DL1GC8915 from
29.12.2021 to 17.12.2022,
26.12.2022 to 17.12.2023,
06.02.2024 to 17.12.2024 and
24.12.2024 to 17.12.2025.
22. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for petitioners
and was not cross examined on behalf of Respondents No. 1 and
2 despite opportunity.
23. R3W2 Sh. Rahul Kumar Upadhyay, Assistant Manager,
tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. R3W-2/A wherein
he, inter-alia, testified as to the Respondent No. 3/Insurance
Company having issued an insurance policy in the name of
Respondent No. 1 for the period from 18.04.2023 to 17.04.2024,
with its liability being subject to the terms and conditions
thereof. He also testified that a notice under Order XII Rule 8
CPC was sent to the insured/driver to produce the original
insurance policy, RC, Permit, Fitness and Driving License of
Jitender, valid on 01.02.2024. He further testified that the permit
authorization certificate of the offending vehicle bearing No.
DL-1GC-8915 was not valid at the time of alleged accident as
the accident occurred on 01.02.2024 whereas the NP
authorization certificate expired on 17.12.2023 which was
renewed for the period starting from 06.02.2024 to 17.12.2024,
and being a specified breach of the terms and conditions of the
policy, the insurance company had no liability of paying any
compensation to the claimants and liability, if any, to pay the
same lay on the driver and owner of the vehicle. He also relied
MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur Digitally signed by Page No. 11 of 43
Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors. POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2025.12.15
17:04:42 +0530
upon the following documents:-
S. No. Description of Documents Exhibit/Mark
1. Office copy of Insurance Policy Ex. R1W-2/1
along with terms and conditions
2. The copy of Notices under order Ex. R3W-2/2
12 Rule 8 CPC
3. Original Postal Receipts Ex. R1W-2/3
4. Copy of tracking report along Ex. R1W-2/4
with certificate u/s 63(4) of BSA (Colly)
5. Original returned envelop Ex. R1W-2/5
6. Copy of permit Mark A (Colly)
24. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel petitioners as
well as by Ld. Counsel for Respondents No. 1 & 2.
Final Arguments
25. Final arguments were then advanced on behalf of the
Petitioners, Respondent No.1 and 2 as well as on Respondent
No.3/ Insurance Company by their respective counsels. The
arguments have been carefully considered along with the
evidence on record and after careful consideration of the same,
the issue wise findings are as under:
Issue No.1: Whether the deceased Sh. Jagsir suffered fatal
injuries in an accident that took place on 01.02.2024 at
about 12.30 AM involving vehicle bearing registration No.
DL-1GC-8915 driven by the Respondent No. 2 rashly and
negligently, owned by the Respondent No. 1 and insured
with the respondent no. 3? OPP
26. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners. It is a
settled proposition of law that in this Tribunal strict proof of an
accident having been caused in a particular manner may not be
Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur 2025.12.15 Page No. 12 of 43
17:04:48 +0530
Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors.
possible to be done by the petitioners, and they are to establish
their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and
the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be
applied. Strength for this interpretation is drawn from the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi and
others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others,
(2009) 13 SC 530, also reiterated in various subsequent
judgments including Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. & Ors., (2018) 5 SCC 656 and Geeta Dubey Vs United
India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors, 2024 SCC Online SC
3779.
27. Even in Sajeena Ikhbal and Others Vs Mini Babu George and
Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2883, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has reiterated that in claim cases arising out of motor accidents,
the Court has to apply the principles of preponderance of
probability and cannot apply the test of proof beyond reasonable
doubt.
28. In the present case, PW-2 Sh. Govinda is an eye witness of the
accident and as per his testimony, the accident took place on
01.02.2024 at about 12.30 A.M, near GIMS Hospital, Near
Yamuna Expressway Peripheral expressway, under Police
Station Dankaur, District Greater Noida, UP. Further as per his
testimony, the accident took place when the offending vehicle
bearing registration no. DL-1GC-8915 which was ahead of their
vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1GC-8915, suddenly applied
brake due to which his brother i.e. the deceased could not apply
immediate brake and their vehicle struck the rear portion of the
Digitally signed
by POOJA
MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 13 of 43
Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2025.12.15
17:04:52 +0530
offending vehicle resulting in fatal injuries to the deceased. He
has also testified as to the offending vehicle being driven by its
driver in a very high speed and rash and negligent manner. His
aforesaid testimony could not be discredited by the Respondents
through cross-examination.
29. On the other hand, as per the testimony of R2W1/Respondent
no. 2/ driver in his evidence affidavit Ex. R2W1/A, he had
stopped his vehicle on a roadside rough path on 31.01.2024 after
he had smelled gas after crossing Jewar Toll Plaza and he had
called his owner informing about the vehicle having been
parked at a distance of about 500 meters from KMP. He has also
testified as to having put a safety mark behind his vehicle i.e.
red and white pyramid on the road and having turned on the
parking light. Further, as per his testimony, he was standing
outside the vehicle talking with another driver, namely, Mohd.
Salman of vehicle No. DL-1LAJ-3626 and after some time the
vehicle number HR-56B-0520 being driven with turbulent, rash
and negligent speed had hit his vehicle from behind resulting in
death of its driver. He has also testified as to not being liable to
pay any compensation as the vehicle was standing by the
roadside rough path.
30. However, the respondents failed to elicit any admission from
the eye-witness / PW2 Govinda during the cross-examination in
respect of the offending vehicle being stationary at the time of
the accident, as all suggestion of the respondents no.1 and 2 to
the effect that the offending vehicle standing in a stationary
position on a service lane/ road side as well as the dipper/
MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur POOJA
Digitally signed by
POOJA AGGARWAL
Page No. 14 of 43
Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2025.12.15
17:04:59 +0530
parking light of the offending vehicle being switched on at the
time of the accident were promptly denied by PW2. Also, the
testimony of R2W1 in respect of the vehicle being stationary
when it was hit by the vehicle being driven by the deceased
rashly and negligently, is beyond pleadings as the same was not
mentioned in his written statement as jointly filed on behalf of
the Respondent No.1 and 2 as even Respondent No.2 admitted
that the said averment of his affidavit were not mentioned in the
reply, and thus it appears that this ground raised by the
Respondent No.2 is afterthought.
31. For reasons best known to him, the Respondent No. 2/driver
has not placed on record, any complaint to any authority
regarding negligent driving of the deceased in the manner
testified to in the court despite a chargesheet having been filed
against him in a criminal court in respect of the accident in
question affixing the rashness and negligence on the Respondent
No.2 and not the deceased, which further lends credence to the
inference that the ground as raised is afterthought.
32. It is also noted that even though R2W1 has testified as to his
vehicle being stationary at the time of the accident, about which
the owner had been duly informed, the owner himself did not
even step into the witness box to corroborate the same. Even
Mohd. Salman, with whom the driver/Respondent No. 2 was
purportedly standing outside the stationary vehicle, has neither
been examined in this Court nor even cited as a witness in the
chargesheet filed by the police, which also renders the version
being put forth by the Respondent No.2 as improbable.
Digitally signed
by POOJA
AGGARWAL
POOJA
MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur AGGARWAL Date:
2025.12.15 Page No. 15 of 43
17:05:06
Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors. +0530
33. It is also noted that as per the testimony of R2W1, the offending
vehicle had two GPS systems installed. The said GPS systems
would have accurately recorded the position of the offending
vehicle, and its report would have made it amply clear as to
whether the said offending vehicle was stationary or moving at
the time of the accident. Despite the same, for reasons best
known to the Respondents No.1 and 2, no such report of the
GPS systems has been brought on record which further warrants
an adverse inference to be drawn that no such report was
brought on record as the version put forth by the respondents is
incorrect and merely an afterthought.
34. It is not in dispute that in respect of accident in question, the
Respondent No. 2 was charge-sheeted for the offences
punishable under Sections 279/338/304A/427 IPC in the FIR
No.0031/24 PS Dankaur, by the investigating agency after
concluding its investigation on the aspect of cause of the
accident as well as the identity of the offender, and therefore the
same also indicates existence of rash and negligent driving of
the offending vehicle by the Respondent No. 2 even more so as
no evidence has been brought on record to disprove that the
accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of
Respondent No.2. Strength for this interpretation is also drawn
from the judgement of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa
Rana 2009 ACJ 287 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Deepak Goel & Ors, 2014 (2) TAC 846 (Del) wherein the
Coordinate Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, held as
under :-
Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur AGGARWAL Date: Page No. 16 of 43
2025.12.15
Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors. 17:05:11 +0530
"......where the claimants filed either the certified copies of the
criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of
investigation by police or issuance of charge sheet under Section
279/304A IPC or the certified copy of FIR or the recovery of the
mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, then these
documents are sufficient proof to reach to a conclusion that the
driver was negligent particularly when there is no defence
available from the side of driver."
(Emphasis supplied)
35. Further, it is a settled proposition of law that the petitioners
cannot be expected to prove the accident beyond reasonable
doubts and the principle of res ipse loquitor should apply which
means that the "accident speaks for itself". Thus, once it has
been established in DAR and chargesheet that the accident had
taken place, the burden shifts on the respondents to prove that
they were not responsible for the accident which the respondents
have failed to discharge.
36. In these circumstances, on a scale of preponderance of
probabilities, it stands proved that the accident which took place
on 01.02.2024 at about 12.30 AM involving vehicle bearing
registration No. DL-1GC-8915 driven by the Respondent No. 2
and the vehicle no. HR 56B 0520 was a result of rashness and
negligence of the respondent no.2.
37. It is also noted that the testimony of R2W1 as to the deceased
having suffered fatal injuries in the accident is duly corroborated
by the findings postmortem report no. 168/2024 dated
01.02.2024 of the deceased which has recorded the cause of
death to be "hemorrhagic shock consequent upon multiple
internal organ injuries. All the injuries are ante-mortem in nature
Digitally signed by
MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 17 of 43
Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2025.12.15
17:05:20 +0530
and caused by blunt force surface impact" which proves that the
death of the deceased was the result of the accident.
38. In view of the aforesaid reasons and discussion, in view of the
evidence as led including the chargesheet, the PM Report as
well as oral testimony of PW-2 who is an eye witness and in the
absence of any creditworthy evidence depicting any negligent/
sudden act or omission on the part of the deceased having been
brought on record, it is held that on the scale of preponderance
of probability, the petitioners have been able to discharge their
burden and proved that the deceased Sh. Jagsir suffered fatal
injuries in an accident that took place on 01.02.2024 at about
12.30 AM involving vehicle bearing registration No.
DL-1GC-8915 driven by the Respondent No. 2 rashly and
negligently, owned by the Respondent No. 1 and insured with
the Respondent No. 3/insurance company. This issue is
accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners against the
respondents.
Issue No. 2: Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
and
Issue no.3 / Relief
39. As the issue no.1 has been decided in favour of petitioners and
against respondents, the petitioners are entitled to be
compensated for the fatal injuries suffered by the deceased in
the above accident and Section 168 of the MV Act enjoins upon
this Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award
determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to
be just and reasonable.
Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur AGGARWAL Date: Page No. 18 of 43
2025.12.15
Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors. 17:05:28 +0530
40. The guiding principles for assessment of "just and reasonable
compensation" in fatal case has been enumerated by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India, in Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod, 2022
SCC OnLine SC 1683, wherein it has been observed that: -
"The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "MV
Act") gives paramount importance to the concept of 'just and fair'
compensation. It is a beneficial legislation which has been framed
with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families.
Section 168 of the MV Act deals with the concept of 'just
compensation' which ought to be determined on the foundation of
fairness, reasonableness and equitability. Although such
determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an
endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair
compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the
applicant/s. In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009)
6 SCC 121, this Court has laid down as under:
16."Just compensation" is adequate compensation which is fair
and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to
make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as
money can do so, by applying the well settled principles
relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a
bonanza, largesse or source of profit."
(Emphasis supplied)
41. In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , (2009) 6 SCC
121 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed that:
"17. Assessment of compensation though involving certain
hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective.
Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment,
consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and
uniformity in the decision making process and the decisions. While
it may not be possible to have mathematical precision or identical
awards, in assessing compensation, same or similar facts should
lead to awards in the same range. When the factors/inputs are the
same, and the formula/legal principles are the same, consistency
and uniformity, and not divergence and freakiness, should be the
result of adjudication to arrive at just compensation.
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;
(b) income of the deceased; and
(c) the number of dependents.
The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of
dependency are:
MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur Digitally signed
by POOJA Page No. 19 of 43
POOJA
Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors. AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.12.15
17:05:33 +0530
(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 of the age of
the deceased.
If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and
consistency in the decisions. There will lesser need for detailed
evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle
accident claims without delay.
..............
Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/- 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 5,000/- 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 added."
(Emphasis supplied)
42. In view of the above legal propositions, the amount of compensation shall be computed.
Age and Income of Deceased
43. In respect of age and income of the deceased, PW-1/ Petitioner No. 1 being the wife of the deceased has testified in her evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex. PW1/A to the effect that at the time of the accident, her husband (deceased) was aged about 29 years and used to work as a private driver, earning ₹20,000/- per month. She has also relied upon the copy of Aadhar Card of the deceased i.e. Ex. PW-1/1(colly), copy of DL i.e. Ex. PW-1/7 as well as copy of his education certificate i.e. Ex.PW1/8, but has not filed any documentary proof regarding income and employment of the deceased as also admitted by her during her cross-examination.
Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur 2025.12.15
17:05:40 +0530
Page No. 20 of 43
Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors.
44. As per the Aadhar Card of the deceased i.e. Ex. PW1/1, copy of DL i.e. Ex. PW-1/7 as well as his education certificate i.e. Ex. PW1/5, his date of birth was 12.03.1994 and as the date of accident was 01.02.2024, the age of deceased was around 29 years as on the date of accident and nothing has been brought on record by the respondents to disbelieve the same. Hence, the age of the deceased would be considered to be 29 years for the purpose of computation of compensation.
45. In respect of the income of the deceased, it is noted that the petitioners have failed to bring on record any material to corroborate the claim of PW-1 as to the monthly earnings of the deceased being ₹20,000/- per month as no cogent and definite evidence has been led by the petitioners in respect of monthly income of the deceased. However, considering that the educational qualification of the deceased was that of a Matriculate passed, and he was working as a driver of a commercial vehicle, his notional income shall be considered to be that of a driver of light motor vehicle, as per the prevailing Minimum Wages in Haryana at the time of accident i.e. 01.02.2024 which were ₹13,278.44/- per month. Hence, the monthly notional income of the deceased is taken to be ₹13,278.44/- and consequently, the annual income of the deceased would be ₹1,59,341.28/- (i.e. ₹13,278.44 x 12).
Dependency Upon The Deceased
46. In respect of the question of dependency, PW1 has testified in her evidence Ex PW1/A as to her, her three daughters, one son Digitally signed by MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 21 of 43 Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2025.12.15 17:05:52 +0530 and father of deceased being dependents of the deceased, and no reason has been brought forth by the respondents to disbelieve the same. Thus, all the six Petitioners i.e. Petitioner no. 1 being the wife of the deceased, Petitioner n o. 2 to 5 being the minor children of the deceased and Petitioner no.6, being the father of the deceased shall be considered as dependents of the deceased.
A) Computation of compensation on account of loss of dependency
47. In respect of the computation under this head, it is noted that as laid down in the judgment of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, the loss of dependency to the family is to be calculated by multiplying the annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) by the multiplier.
Multiplicand
48. For the calculation of the Multiplicand, as per the judgment of Sarla Verma, after the income of the deceased per annum is determined, a deduction is to be made from such annual income in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses, and the balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.
49. In respect of the deductions, in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
" We have already noticed that the personal and living expenses of the deceased should be deducted from the income, to arrive at the contribution to the dependents. No evidence need be led to show the actual expenses of the deceased. ...... Therefore, it became necessary to standardize the deductions to be made under the head Digitally signed by POOJA MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 22 of 43 Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2025.12.15 17:05:58 +0530 of personal and living expenses of the deceased. This lead to the practice of deducting towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, one-third of the income if the deceased was a married, and one-half (50%) of the income if the deceased was a bachelor. This practice was evolved out of experience, logic and convenience. In fact one-third deduction, got statutory recognition under Second Schedule to the Act, in respect of claims under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('MV Act' for short). ......
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, the general practice is to apply standardized 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 exceed six."
(Emphasis supplied)
50. In respect of whether the actual income at the time of death should be taken as the income or whether any addition should be made by taking note of future prospects, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the judgment of Sarla Verma (supra) that where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death and a departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. However, subsequently, in the judgment of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"(iv) 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 MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur Digitally signed by Page No. 23 of 43 POOJA Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors. POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2025.12.15 17:06:03 +0530 established income means the income minus the tax component."
(Emphasis supplied)
51. In the case at hand, as the deceased was aged about 29 years at the time of the accident, in view of the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), an addition of 40% of his income is to be made to his earnings towards future prospects. That being so, the income of the deceased per month including future prospect is calculated to be ₹18,589.81/- (₹13,278.44/- + 40% of ₹13,278.44/- i.e. ₹5,311.37/- ); while the income of the deceased per annum including future prospects is calculated to be ₹2,23,077.72/-.( i.e. ₹18,589.81/- x 12)
52. Further, with it having been brought on record that there were six of the deceased at the time of his demise, the deduction of 1/4th is applicable. Hence, in view of judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur & Ors., (2021) 11 SCC 780, out of the above amount so assessed, 1/4th amount has to be deducted on account of personal and living expenses as the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6. That being so, the monthly contribution of the deceased to the family comes to be ₹13,942.36/- (i.e. ₹18,589.81/- minus 1/4th of ₹18,589.81/- i.e. ₹4,647.45/-), while the annual contribution of the deceased to the family comes to be ₹1,67,308.32/- (₹13,942.36/- x 12).
Multiplier
53. In the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur Page No. 24 of 43 Digitally signed by Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors. POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2025.12.15 17:06:08 +0530 Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2017 (16) SCC 680, the multipliers have been enumerated for calculating the loss of dependency caused on account of death of the deceased. The relevant portion of the judgment of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 is reproduced as under
for ready reference:
" 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 five 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 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."
(Emphasis supplied)
54. In the present case, with the deceased being aged 29 years at the time of the accident, the multiplier of 17 would be applicable.
55. That being so, the loss of dependency qua the deceased in the present case is calculated to be ₹28,44,241.44/-. (i.e. Multiplicand of ₹1,67,308.32/- x Multiplier of 17), which is rounded off to ₹28,44,241/-.
B) Computation of Compensation under Non-Pecuniary Heads
56. In respect of the compensation under non-pecuniary heads, in Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2025.12.15 Page No. 25 of 43 Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors. 17:06:12 +0530 Rajwati @ Rajjo & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that "A three Judge Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors.(2021) 11 SCC 780 , has awarded spousal consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- and towards loss of parental consortium to each child at the rate of Rs.40,000/-. The compensation under these heads also needs to be increased by 10% after every t hree years. Accordingly, the grant of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium is increased to Rs.44,000/- to each Appellant, amounting to a total of Rs.2,20,000/-. Along with this, Rs.15,000/- each for the heads of 'funeral expenses' and 'loss of estate' is also very meagre. In our considered opinion, an amount of Rs.20,000/- is liable to be paid towards funeral expenses. Similarly, award of Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of estate' is liable to be increased to Rs.20,000/-."
(Emphasis supplied)
57. In view of the aforesaid legal proposition, the petitioners herein are also awarded a sum of ₹20,000/- towards funeral expenses and another sum of ₹20,000/- towards loss of estate. Further a sum of ₹48,400/- each is granted to the petitioners i.e. total of ₹48,400 x 6 = ₹2,90,400/- towards Loss of Consortium i.e. spousal as well as parental and filial.
58. In respect of loss of love and affection as a separate head, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, 2020 SCC Online SC 410 that there is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head. The relevant portion of the observations are reproduced as under:
"33. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims, or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur Digitally signed by POOJA Page No. 26 of 43 Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors. POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.12.15 17:06:17 +0530 Consortium. Parental Consortium is awarded to the children who lose the care and protection of their parents in motor vehicle accidents. The amount to be awarded for loss consortium will be as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra).
34. At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide uniformity with respect to the grant of consortium, and loss of love and affection. Several Tribunals and High Courts have been awarding compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), has recognized only three conventional heads under which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in loss of consortium.
35. The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to award compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate conventional head. There is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head."
(Emphasis supplied)
59. That being so, in the present case, the petitioners are not awarded separate compensation towards loss of love and affection.
60. Thus, the total compensation awarded to the petitioners towards loss of dependency as well as non-pecuniary head is ₹31,74,641/- under the following heads:
i) Loss of Dependency: ₹ 28,44,241/-
ii) Loss of Consortium: ₹2,90,400/-
iii) Funeral Expenses: ₹20,000/-
iv) Loss of estate: ₹20,000/-
61. In respect of entitlement of the petitioners to interest on the awarded amount, it is duly noted that the petition is pending since 03.06.2024, and the rate of interest of fixed deposits in Nationalized banks has fluctuated/dropped several times during the pendency of the present proceedings. Thus, in the interest of MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur Digitally signed Page No. 27 of 43 by POOJA Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors. POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2025.12.15 17:06:21 +0530 justice and keeping in view the principles discussed in order dated 21.04.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Baby Raksha & Ors, MAC APP. No. 36/2023, the claimants/ petitioners are awarded interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of petition i.e. with effect from 03.06.2024 till date of the award i.e. ₹3,65,083.65/-. The amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the petitioners.
Liability
62. In the case at hand, the respondent no.3/insurance company has raised a defence as to there being a breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy as there was no valid national permit authorization certificate of offending vehicle as on the date of the accident, which thus absolved it from the liability to pay any compensation to the petitioners.
63. R3W2 Sh Rahul Kumar Upadhyay being the Assistant Manager of the respondent no.3/insurance company, has categorically testified in his affidavit i.e. Ex. R3W2/A as to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in this case having been violated qua the permit. He has also testified as to the permit authorization certificate of the offending vehicle bearing No. DL-1GC-8915 was not valid at the time of alleged accident as the accident occurred on 01.02.2024 whereas the NP authorization certificate expired on 17.12.2023 which was renewed for the period starting from 06.02.2024 to 17.12.2024. Nothing material could be elicited during his cross-examination Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur AGGARWAL Date: 2025.12.15 Page No. 28 of 43 17:06:26 +0530 Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors.
and even during the course of the proceedings in this case, the respondents no.1 and 2 failed to bring on record any NP authorization which was valid as on the date of the accident i.e. on 01.02.2024.
64. Rather, the fact that the offending vehicle was operating without a valid national permit, stands proved from the testimony of R3W3 who produced the relevant record and categorically testified that as per their record, the national permit authorization qua the vehicle DL-1GC-8915 was valid from 26.12.2022 to 17.12.2023 and then from 06.02.2024 to 17.12.2024. His testimony is also fortified from the payment transaction record i.e. Ex R3W1/3.
65. The fact that the Respondent No.1 / owner also failed to bring on record any valid national permit despite issuance of notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC by the Respondent No.3/ insurance company, which warrants an adverse inference to be drawn as to such permit not having been produced as the same was not in existence.
66. That being so, the Respondent No.3/ insurance company has successfully proved that at the time of the accident on 01.02.2024, the offending vehicle was operating without a valid national permit, which constitutes termed as breach in the terms and conditions of insurance policy on the part of insured i.e. Respondent no. 1/ owner.
67. However, it cannot be lost sight of that at the time of the Digitally signed by POOJA MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 29 of 43 Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2025.12.15 17:06:31 +0530 accident, the offending vehicle was admittedly insured with the respondent no. 3, and therefore, the Respondent no.3/ insurance company is liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the petitioners, but with recovery rights against the Respondent no.1/ owner of the offending vehicle only.
68. It had been argued on behalf of the Respondent No.3/ insurance company that after the 2019 amendment, whereby the proviso to Section 149 (4) MV Act, 1998 was omitted after its replacement by Section 150 of Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, the insurance was absolved of any liability to pay the compensation at all. However, the argument as raised is rejected as being devoid of merits in view of the judgment of the Hom'ble Allahabad High Court in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Arti Devi, 2025 SCC OnLine All 1236, wherein it has been held that :
"The Court, therefore, holds that mere omission of proviso attached to sub-section (4) of Section 149 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 after its replacement by Section 150 of Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 (32 of 2019), neither takes away the liability of the insurer to pay the claimants nor its right to recover the said amount from the owner. The law to this effect remains intact and unaffected by Amendment Act, 2019 and, hence, insurer shall continue to indemnify the owner's risk in relation to accidents taking place after 01.04.2022 and "PAY & RECOVER" principle will still continue to govern the field advancing social object of the Statute protecting third party interest. Principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh, JT (2004) 1 SC 109 has not lost its significance and binding effect despite omission of proviso."
(Emphasis supplied)
69. Issue No. 2 and 3 are decided accordingly.
Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.12.15
MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur 17:06:37 +0530 Page No. 30 of 43
Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors.
Apportionment
70. In respect of issue no.3, as the petitioners have been held to be entitled to a compensation of ₹35,39,724.65/- inclusive of interest (i.e. ₹31,74,641/- + ₹3,65,083.65/-) and it has been brought on record that the deceased is survived by five dependents i.e. his wife, minor children and father, the individual shares of the dependents of the deceased are apportioned and tabulated as under:
S.No. Name of Relation Share of the Calculation of beneficiary with beneficiary the amount as deceased per share
1. Smt. Sunita Wife 50% of ₹14,22,120.50+ compensation ₹48,400/- + account of ₹20,000/- + loss of ₹20,000/- i.e. dependency total of (i.e. 50% of ₹15,10,520.5/-
₹28,44,241/-) along with
+ Loss of interest @ 7.5%
consortium+ per annum from
funeral date of filing of
expenses+ the petition till
Loss of Estate the date of
award
i.e.
₹1,73,709.85/-
total being
₹16,84,230.35/-
2. Baby Mansi Daughter 10% of ₹2,84,424.1/- +
Baby Shristi Daughter compensation ₹48,400/- =
Baby Deepanshi Daughter account of ₹3,32,824.1/-
Master Vardhan Son loss of each along with
Sh.Bhima Singh Father dependency interest @ 7.5%
each (i.e. 10% per annum from
of date of filing of
₹28,44,241/-) the petition till
+ Loss of the date of
consortium award
MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur Page No. 31 of 43
Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors. Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2025.12.15
17:06:43 +0530
i.e. ₹ 38,274.76
i.e. total being
₹3,71,098.86/-
each
Release/ Disbursement
71. As per the Financial Statement of petitioners recorded in this case, the monthly expenses of the family are approximately ₹25,000/- per month. Hence, while deciding the quantum and manner of disbursement of the awarded amounts, the following directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 titled Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors. have to be borne in mind:
"(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) 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 claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimants. 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 claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque books and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and the claimant shall produced the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court for compliance."
MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur Page No. 32 of 43 Digitally signed by Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors. POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2025.12.15 17:06:49 +0530 (Emphasis Supplied)
72. It is also noted that thereafter, in Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal, S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020 as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 18 March, 2025 it has been further directed that:
"17. The case in hand pertains to the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. The general practice followed by the insurance companies, where the compensation is not disputed, is to deposit the same before the Tribunal. Instead of following that process, a direction can always be issued to transfer the amount into the bank account(s) of the claimant(s) with intimation to the Tribunal.
17.1 For that purpose, the Tribunals at the initial stage of pleadings or at the stage of leading evidence may require the claimant(s) to furnish their bank account particulars to the Tribunal along with the requisite proof, so that at the stage of passing of the award the Tribunal may direct that the amount of compensation be transferred in the account of the claimant and if there are more than one then in their respective accounts. If there is no bank account, then they should be required to open the bank account either individually or jointly with family members only. It should also be mandated that, in case there is any change in the bank account particulars of the claimant(s) during the pendency of the claim petition they should update the same before the Tribunal. This should be ensured before passing of the final award. It may be ensured that the bank account should be in the name of the claimant(s) and if minor, through guardian(s) and in no case it should be a joint account with any person, who is not a family member. The transfer of the amount in the bank account, particulars of which have been furnished by the claimant(s), as mentioned in the award, shall be treated as satisfaction of the award. Intimation of compliance should be furnished to the Tribunal."
(Emphasis supplied)
73. In view of the same, the award amount can now be disbursed in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioners. However, the remaining directions as passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court shall be complied with.
74. In view of the aforesaid directions, the disbursement of the Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur AGGARWAL Date: 2025.12.15 Page No. 33 of 43 Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors. 17:06:54 +0530 awarded amount is directed as under:
Disbursement qua Smt. Sunita (wife):
75. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners, it is directed that upon realization of the awarded amount, out of the share of the petitioner/wife of ₹16,84,230.35/-, a sum of ₹2,84,230.35/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty Four Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty and Thirty Five Paisa only) shall be released to her immediately in her Bank Account No. 44706477167, IFSC Code SBIN0000726, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court as furnished by her at the time of recording of her financial statement.
76. The balance amount of ₹14,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Only) shall be put in 56 monthly fixed deposits in her name in her account as mentioned above of equal amount of ₹25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 56 months respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in her saving account maintained in the nationalized bank situated near the place of her residence.
Disbursement qua minor children Baby Mansi, Baby Shristi, Baby Deepanshi and Master Vardhan
77. Since, the petitioners no. 2 to 5 namely, Baby Mansi, Baby Shristi, Baby Deepanshi and Master Vardhan are minor, on realization of the award amount, out of their share of ₹3,71,098.86/- each, a sum of ₹71,098.86 (Rupees Seventy Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2025.12.15 Page No. 34 of 43 Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors. 17:07:01 +0530 One Thousand Ninety Eight and Eighty Six Paisa only) each be kept in one FDR each which shall be released in their favour along with cumulative interest upon their attaining majority. Further, the balance amount of ₹3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) each shall be put in 12 monthly fixed deposits in their name of equal amount of ₹25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 12 months respectively, with cumulative interest in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021.
78. Upon the petitioners no. 2 to 5 attaining majority, the amount of these FDRs, shall automatically be transferred one after the other every month in their saving account i.e. Bank Account No 44707287347, IFSC Code SBIN0000726, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court in the name of Baby Mansi; in Bank Account No 44706952746, IFSC Code SBIN0000726, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court in the name of Baby Shristi; Account No 44706922303, IFSC Code SBIN0000726, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court in the name of Baby Deepanshi and Bank Account No. 44706955113, IFSC Code SBIN0000726, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court in the name of Master Vardhan respectively maintained in a nationalized bank situated near the place of their residence.
Disbursement qua Sh. Bhima Singh (father):
79. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners, it is directed that upon realization of the awarded amount, out of the share of the petitioner no.6 /father of ₹3,71,098.86/-, a sum of Digitally signed by POOJA MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 35 of 43 Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2025.12.15 17:07:09 +0530 ₹1,71,098.86/- shall be released to him immediately in his Bank Account No. 44710029265, IFSC Code SBIN0000726, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court as furnished by him at the time of recording of his financial statement.
80. The balance amount of ₹2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) shall be put in 8 monthly fixed deposits in his name in his account as mentioned above of equal amount of ₹25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 8 months respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in his saving account maintained in the nationalized bank situated near the place of his residence.
81. The Respondent No.3 / New India Assurance Co. Ltd is directed to deposit the awarded sum of ₹35,39,724.65/- (Thirty Five Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Four Rupees and Sixty Five Paisa only) inclusive of interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of petition i.e. w.e.f. 03.06.2024 till the date of the award i.e. 15.12.2025 within 30 days by way of NEFT or RTGS mode directly in the MACT accounts of the petitioners as mentioned in the Para No. 75, 78 & 80 respectively of this award in terms of their shares as narrated in Para No.70 under intimation to the petitioners as well as this Tribunal failing which the said respondent shall be liable to pay interest @ 12 % per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days. (Ref: Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur Digitally signed by Page No. 36 of 43 Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors. POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2025.12.15 17:07:15 +0530 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.)
82. The concerned Manager of the bank of the petitioners is directed to release the amount to the petitioners as per the award upon completion of necessary formalities as per the rules. He is directed to keep the amount in fixed deposits as per the directions given in the award and to send a compliance report to this court. He is also directed to ensure that no loan, advance or pre mature discharge is allowed on the fixed deposit without an order of this court.
83. A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost.
84. The summary of the award as per Form XV of the Annexure XIII and particulars of compliance of the Provisions of the Scheme as per Form XVII of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 as amended by the Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022, are also annexed with this Award as Annexure A and B respectively, and shall form a part of this award.
85. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
86. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 06.01.2021 in MAC.APP Digitally signed by POOJA MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 37 of 43 Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2025.12.15 17:07:24 +0530 No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., regarding digitization of the records.
87. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021 and also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information and compliance.
88. Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
89. This file be consigned to the Record Room after necessary compliance and a separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 15.01.2026.
Announced in the Open Court by POOJA
Digitally signed
POOJA
today i.e. on 15th December 2025 AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2025.12.15
17:07:31 +0530
(POOJA AGGARWAL)
Presiding Officer, MACT-02 (Central) Tis Hazari, Delhi Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur AGGARWAL Date: Page No. 38 of 43 Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors. 2025.12.15 17:07:35 +0530 ANNEXURE A FORM - XV, Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (part of Annexure XIII. Ref: Rule 150A) SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident : 01.02.2024
2. Name of the deceased : Sh. Jagsir
3. Age of the deceased : 29 years
4. Occupation of the deceased : Private job/ driver
5. Income of the deceased : Assessed on the basis of Minimum Wages of a Driver of Light Motor Vehicle prevailing in Haryana at relevant time
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:-
S. No. Name Age Relation
(1) Sunita 32 Years Wife of the
deceased
(2) Baby Mansi 08 Years Daughter of the
deceased
(3) Baby Shristi 03 Years Daughter of the
deceased
(4) Baby Deepanshi 07 Years Daughter of the
deceased
(5) Master Vardhan 05 Years Son of the
deceased
(6) Sh Bhima Singh 62 Years Father of the
deceased
Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur AGGARWAL Date: Page No. 39 of 43
Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors. 2025.12.15
17:07:41 +0530
Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
7. Monthly income of the ₹ 13,278.44/-per month
deceased (A)
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) ₹5,311.37/- per month
9. Less-Personal expenses of ₹4,647.45/- per month the deceased(C)
10. Monthly loss of ₹13,942.36/-
dependency[(A+B)-C=D]
11. Annual loss of ₹1,67,308/-
dependency (Dx12) 12. Multiplier(E) 17
13. Total loss of dependency ₹ 28,44,241/-
(Dx12xE= F)
14. Medical Expenses(G) NIL
15. Compensation for loss of ₹2,90,400/-
consortium(H)
16. Compensation for loss of NIL love and affection (I)
17. Compensation for loss of ₹20,000/-
estate(J)
18. Compensation towards ₹20,000/-
funeral expenses(K)
19. TOTAL ₹31,74,641/-
COMPENSATION (F+G+H+I+J+K=L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST 7.5% p.a. AWARDED
21. Interest amount up to the ₹3,65,083.65/-
date of award(M)
22. Total amount including ₹35,39,724.65/-
Digitally signedMACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur by POOJA Page No. 40 of 43 POOJA Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors. AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2025.12.15 17:07:46 +0530 interest(L + M)
23. Award amount released Petitioner no.1:
₹2,84,230.35/-
Petitioner no.6:
₹1,71,098.86/-
24. Award amount kept in Qua Petitioner no.1:
FDRs ₹14,00,000/-
Qua Petitioner no.2 to 5:
₹371098.86/-
Qua Petitioner no.6:
₹2,00,000/-
25. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award
the award amount to the
petitioner (s)
26. Next date for compliance 15.01.2026
of the award
1. Prepared as per award dated 15.12.2025.
2. A separate file was ordered to be prepared by the Nazir with directions to put up the same on 15.01.2026.
Digitally signed by
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2025.12.15
17:07:51 +0530
(POOJA AGGARWAL)
Presiding Officer, MACT-02 (Central) Tis Hazari, Delhi 15.12.2025 Digitally signed by POOJA MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 41 of 43 Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2025.12.15 17:07:56 +0530 ANNEXURE B FORM - XVII, Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (part of Annexure XIII. Ref: Rule 150A) Compliance of provisions of Scheme to be mentioned in the Award
1. Date of the accident 01.02.2024
2. Date of filing of Form-I - First Accident N.A. Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the N.A. victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the N.A. Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the N.A. Owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim N.A. Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form- N.A. VIB from the Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - Detailed N.A. Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or N.A. deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Not mentioned Officer by the Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the N.A. Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or N.A. deficiency 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) to N.A. the offer of the Insurance Company.
Digitally signed by MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 42 of 43 AGGARWAL 17:08:01 Date: 2025.12.15 Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors. +0530 14. Date of the award 15.12.2025 15. Whether the petitioner (s) was/were Yes
directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) 29.11.2025 was/were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) produced 06.12.2025 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 the Village Malakpur, Claimant(s). Tehsil Safidon, Jind, Haryana-126112.
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank No account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were examined Yes at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2025.12.15
17:08:08 +0530
(POOJA AGGARWAL)
Presiding Officer, MACT-02 (Central) Tis Hazari, Delhi 15.12.2025 Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL MACT No. 407/24 In Respect of FIR No. 0031/24 PS Dankaur POOJA Page No. 43 of 43 AGGARWAL Date:
Sunita & Ors. v Jai Ram Pal & Ors. 2025.12.15 17:08:17 +0530