Delhi District Court
Manu Mishra vs Aman Kushwaha on 10 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUDEEP RAJ SAINI
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-02
SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
Manu Mishra & Ors. vs. Aman Kushwaha & Ors.
MACT No. 84/2023
1. Manu Mishra
W/o Late Sh. Kaushal Mishra
2. Naina Mishra (minor, through her mother, Smt. Manu Mishra)
D/o Late Sh. Kaushal Mishra
3. Pushpa
W/o Sh. Daya Nath Mishra
4. Daya Nath Mishra
S/o Sh. Raja Ram Mishra
All R/o B-280, First Floor, J J Colony Phase-3
Sector-3, Dwarka, NSIT
South-West Delhi, Delhi - 110 078
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Aman Kushwaha (Driver)
S/o Sh. Rishi Nath Verma
R/o 590/17, Indrapuri Colony
Raibareli Road, Near SGPGI
Lucknow - 226014
2. Mayank Kushwaha (Owner)
S/o Sh. Rishi Nath Verma
R/o Tower B2, 1201, Puri Emerald Bay
Sector-104, Gurugram - 122006
3. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
having its registered office at:
15th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park,
Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Off Senapati Bapat Marg
Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400013
.....Respondents
MACT No.84/2023 Manu Mishra & Ors. vs. Aman Kushwaha & Ors. Page No. 1 of 28 Date of institution : 18.01.2023 Date of concluding arguments : 10.12.2025 Date of decision : 10.12.2025 AWARD
1. The petitioners have instituted the present claim petition under Sections 166 & 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter 'MV Act') to seek compensation for the death of Sh. Kaushal Mishra in a road accident.
Claim Petition
2. Petitioner no. 1, Smt. Manu Mishra, is the wife and petitioner no. 2, Ms. Naina Mishra, is the daughter of the deceased. Petitioner no. 2, being a minor, is represented through her mother, petitioner no. 1. Petitioner no. 3, Smt. Pushpa, and petitioner no. 4, Sh. Daya Nath Mishra, are the mother and father of the deceased, respectively. 2.1 Respondent no. 1, Sh. Aman Kushwaha, is the driver and the respondent no. 2, Sh. Mayank Kushwaha, is the owner of the alleged offending vehicle, that is, a KIA Seltos car bearing temporary registration no. T1122HR5891BZ. Respondent no. 2 is the elder brother of respondent no. 1. The respondent no. 3, TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., is the insurer of the said car. 2.2 As per the averments made in the petition, on 11.12.2022 at about 9:15 pm, Sh. Kaushal Mishra was returning to his home in Dwarka, Delhi, from his job on his motorcycle via the Dwarka Expressway.When he reached near Puri Society, Daulatabad, Gurugram, a car bearing temporary registration no. T1122HR5891BZ, being driven rashly and negligently by respondent no. 1, suddenly hit his motorcycle. Due to the forceful impact, Sh. Kaushal Mishra fell on the road and sustained injuries.
MACT No.84/2023 Manu Mishra & Ors. vs. Aman Kushwaha & Ors. Page No. 2 of 28 2.3 Sh. Kaushal Mishra was removed to Manipal Hospital, Gurugram, where he was admitted and his MLC no. 530/2022 was prepared. He remained admitted there till 13.12.2022. Thereafter, he was shifted to Manipal Hospital, Dwarka, where he remained admitted from 13.12.2022 to 20.12.2022. On 20.12.2022, he was shifted to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia (RML) Hospital, Delhi, where he expired on 21.12.2022 during treatment. The post-mortem examination of the body of the deceased was conducted at RML Hospital. 2.4 The petitioners have claimed a sum of ₹2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores only) from the respondents as compensation, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the accident until realization.
2.5 An FIR No. 389 dated 18.12.2022 was lodged at Police Station Rajendra Park, Gurugram, Haryana, under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC in connection with the aforesaid accident. Defence of the Respondents
3. Notice of the petition was served on the respondents. 3.1 Respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed a common written statement, wherein it is inter alia contended that the accident in question was not caused due to the negligence of respondent no. 1. It is further claimed that respondent no. 1 was in possession of a valid driving licence at the relevant time and that the offending car was duly insured with respondent no. 3.
3.2 Respondent no.3 has filed its written statement, wherein it has admitted that the offending vehicle was duly insured with it. However, it has denied any liability to pay compensation to the petitioners. Inquiry
4. After completion of the pleadings, the following issues were framed on 29.05.2023, by my learned predecessor, and the matter was fixed for petitioners' evidence:
MACT No.84/2023 Manu Mishra & Ors. vs. Aman Kushwaha & Ors. Page No. 3 of 28 (1) Whether Kaushal Mishra sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 11.12.2022 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing temporary no. T1122HR5891BZ being driven by Aman Kushwaha respondent no. 1 and owned by Mayank Kushwaha respondent no. 2 due to which Kaushal Mishra had passed away ? OPP.
(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? OPP.
(3) Relief.
5. In order to prove their claim, the petitioners examined five witnesses.
6. The petitioner no.1 examined herself as PW1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit and the same is exhibited as Ex. PW1/A. 6.1 The petitioner no.1 deposed that at the time of accident her husband (Sh. Kaushal Mishra) was doing a private job in G. D. Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. She further deposed regarding the expenses incurred on the treatment of the deceased.
6.2 The petitioner no.1 has relied upon following documents in support of her testimony:
Ex. PW 1/ 3 is the death certificate of Sh. Kaushal Mishra. Ex. PW1/5 is the copy of Aadhaar card of Sh. Kaushal Mishra. Ex. PW1/7 is the copy of driving license of Sh. Kaushal Mishra. Ex. PW 1/8 is the set of copies of education certificates of Sh. Kaushal Mishra.
Ex. PW 1/9 is the set of Appointment Letter and salary break-up of Sh. Kaushal Mishra.
Ex. PW 1/10 is the set of original medical bills of Sh. Kaushal Mishra. Ex. PW1/11 is the copy of Aadhaar card of petitioner no.1. Ex. PW1/12 is the copy of Aadhaar card of petitioner no.2. Ex. PW1/13 is the copy of Aadhaar card of petitioner no.3. Ex. PW1/14 is the copy of Aadhaar card of petitioner no.4.
MACT No.84/2023 Manu Mishra & Ors. vs. Aman Kushwaha & Ors. Page No. 4 of 28 Ex. PW 1/15 is the certified copy of criminal case record. 6.3 In her cross examination, the petitioner no.1 admitted that she is not an eye witness to the accident. She deposed that the entire medical bills of ₹13,43,482/- were paid by the family and nothing was paid by the employer of her deceased husband. She further deposed that her husband did not have any medical insurance.
7. The petitioners examined Sh. Aloke Pandey S/o Sh. Raj Kumar Pandey, as PW2. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit and the same is exhibited as Ex. PW2/A.
7.1 PW2, in his evidence by way of affidavit, deposed that he is an eyewitness to the accident. He deposed regarding the accident generally in line with the claims made in the petition. He proved his Aadhaar card and the same is exhibited as PW2/1. 7.2 In his cross examination, PW2 deposed that he is a resident of Faridabad and the spot of the accident on Dwarka Expressway is on his way home from his office. He deposed that he did not personally know the deceased. He admitted that he had not made the 100 number call. He volunteered that public had gathered at the spot and someone from the public had made the said call. PW2 deposed that the offending vehicle was a Kia Seltos. He deposed that the offending vehicle was coming from the wrong side. He deposed that the police had recorded his statement at the spot and had also called him during the course of the investigation. He denied the suggestion that the deceased was not wearing helmet at the time of accident.
8. The petitioners examined a summoned witness, Sh. Vijender Singh, Manager Accounts, G. D. Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, as PW3. PW3 produced the following documents:
Ex. PW 3/1 is his authority letter.
Ex. PW 3/2 is the salary record of the Sh. Kaushal Mishra for the period from July, 2022 to December, 2022.
MACT No.84/2023 Manu Mishra & Ors. vs. Aman Kushwaha & Ors. Page No. 5 of 28 Ex.PW 3/3 is the set of Form-16 Sh. Kaushal Mishra for the Assessment Years 2022-23 and 2023-24.
Ex. PW 3/4 is the extract of attendance record of the Sh. Kaushal Mishra for the period from July, 2022 to December, 2022. Ex. PW 3/5 is the copy of PW3's Aadhaar card. 8.1 In his cross-examination, PW3 deposed that Sh. Kaushal Mishra was employed as a Billing Engineer with the company and had been working there since 2018.
9. The petitioners examined a summoned witness Dr. Mrinal Sharma, Assistant Medical Superintendent from Manipal Hospital, Palam Vihar, Gurugram, Haryana, as PW4. He produced the following documents:
Ex. PW 4/1 is his authority letter.
Ex. PW 4/2 is his identity card.
Ex. PW 4/3 is Discharge Summary of the Sh. Kaushal Mishra from Manipal Hospital, Gurugram.
Ex. PW 4/4 and Ex. 4/6 are the Progress Notes. Ex. PW 4/5 is the copy of MLC of Sh. Kaushal Mishra. Ex. PW 4/7 is the set of Radiology Reports. Ex. PW 4/8 is the set of Laboratory Reports. Ex. PW 4/9 is the set of medical bills of Sh. Kaushal Mishra.
9.1 In his cross examination, PW4 admitted that he had not treated Sh.
Kaushal Mishra. He deposed that the total medical expenses of Sh. Kaushal Mishra amounted to ₹ 2,31,366/-, which were paid in cash by the family of Sh. Kaushal Mishra.
10. The petitioners examined a summoned witness, Sh. Rohit Nath, Senior Technician, Medical Record Department, Manipal Hospital, Dwarka, as PW5. He produced the following documents:
Ex. PW 5/1 is the set of Medical Bills.
Ex. PW 5/2 is the set of Doctor's Notes.
MACT No.84/2023 Manu Mishra & Ors. vs. Aman Kushwaha & Ors. Page No. 6 of 28 Ex. PW 5/3 is the Discharge Summary of Sh. Kaushal Mishra from Manipal Hospital, Dwarka.
Ex. PW 5/4 is the set of medical reports of Sh. Kaushal Mishra. 10.1 In his cross-examination, PW5 deposed that the total medical bills amounted to ₹ 11,75,273/-. The total payment made was ₹11,12,116/-.
The balance amount was settled between the hospital and the patient. The entire payment was made in cash by the family of the patient.
11. After completion of petitioners' evidence, the matter was fixed for respondents' evidence. The respondents did not examine any witness.
12. I have heard learned counsels Sh. Dalip Singh for the petitioners and Ms. Sunanda Nimisha for the respondent no. 3. None appeared for respondent nos. 1 & 2 to address arguments. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by them. I have also perused the record. My issue-wise findings are as under:
Issue No. 1:
Whether Kaushal Mishra sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 11.12.2022 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing temporary no. T1122HR5891BZ being driven by Aman Kushwaha respondent no. 1 and owned by Mayank Kushwaha respondent no. 2 due to which Kaushal Mishra had passed away ? OPP.
13. Onus to prove this issue was on the petitioners. The petitioners have relied on the testimony of PW2 and the certified copy of the criminal case record.
14. The learned counsel for respondent no. 3 has opposed the claim by contending:
Firstly, that there was delay in lodging of the FIR. Secondly, that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the deceased.
15. Before dealing with the contentions of the learned counsel for MACT No.84/2023 Manu Mishra & Ors. vs. Aman Kushwaha & Ors. Page No. 7 of 28 respondent no. 3, it will be worth to take a brief look at the legal position regarding the standard of proof required to be met by the petitioners, in an accident case, before a claims tribunal.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi and Others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Others (2009) 13 SCC 530 has held:
"15.In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties."
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others (2018) 5 Supreme Court Cases 656 has held in paragraphs 27 & 28:
"27. ...This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina Fernandes,noted that the key of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the judgments already adverted to by us, filing of charge-sheet against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opined that the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
28. Reliance placed upon the decisions in Minu B. Mehta and Meena Variyal, by the respondents, in our opinion, is of no avail. The dictum in these cases is on the matter in issue in the case concerned. Similarly, even the dictum in Surender Kumar Arora will be of no avail. In the present case, considering the entirety of the pleadings, evidence and circumstances on record and in particular the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the factum of negligence of Respondent 2, the driver of the offending jeep, the High Court committed manifest error in taking a contrary view MACT No.84/2023 Manu Mishra & Ors. vs. Aman Kushwaha & Ors. Page No. 8 of 28 which, in our opinion, is an error apparent on the face of record and manifestly wrong."
18. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in National Insurance Company Ltd.
vs. Smt. Pushpa Rana & Others 2008 (101) DRJ 645 has held:
"12. The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondents claimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal; 2007 (5) SCALE 269. On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced (i) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR No. 955/2004, pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under Section 279/304-A,IPC against the driver; (iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant also falls face down. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on the part of the driver."
19. It is clear from the above discussed authoritative pronouncements that in a claim petition under MV Act, strict proof of an accident caused by particular vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the petitioners. The petitioners are merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. Filing of charge-sheet against the driver prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even if the driver were to be acquitted in the criminal case, the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal. The Tribunal must take a holistic view of the matter.
MACT No.84/2023 Manu Mishra & Ors. vs. Aman Kushwaha & Ors. Page No. 9 of 28
20. In the present case, the accident occurred on 11.12.2022, while FIR no. 389 was lodged by petitioner no. 4 at Police Station Rajendra Park, Gurugram, under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC on 18.12.2022. Accordingly, there was a delay of seven days in lodging the FIR. 20.1 As regards the first contention of the respondent no. 3 regarding delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, it is pertinent to note that a similar issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi vs. Badrinarayan & Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 693, wherein the FIR was lodged nearly three months after the date of the accident:
"4. The question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is : as to whether delay in lodging the FIR of the accident could prove fatal so as to result into dismissal of the claim petition filed by the claimant?"
The Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"17. It is well settled that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the police station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the police station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim,
18. In cases of delay, the courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinised more carefully. If the court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences.
MACT No.84/2023 Manu Mishra & Ors. vs. Aman Kushwaha & Ors. Page No. 10 of 28
19. Lodging of FIR certainly proves the factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be a variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgement of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquillity of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons."
20.2 In view of the above authoritative pronouncement, it is clear that the claim petition cannot be dismissed merely on ground of delay in lodging of the FIR and the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof.
21. The issue of negligence on the part of respondent no. 1 is to be examined in the light of the evidence brought on record. 21.1 On completion of investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against the respondent no.1 under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the IPC before the concerned Court in Gurugram, showing the involvement of offending vehicle bearing temporary no. T1122HR5891BZ.
21.2 In the criminal case arising out of the accident, the Court of Ms. Sanchita Singh, Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram, vide order dated 27.04.2023 passed in CHI-2062-2023 titled as State vs. Aman, has framed charges against the respondent no. 1 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, and 304A of the IPC. 21.3 Respondent no.1 was served with a notice dated 24.12.2022 under Section 41A of the CrPC by the investigating officer and subsequently joined the investigation in connection with the accident. 21.4 Respondent no. 2, in his reply to the notice dated 24.12.2022 issued MACT No.84/2023 Manu Mishra & Ors. vs. Aman Kushwaha & Ors. Page No. 11 of 28 under Section 133, MV Act, admitted that respondent no. 1 was driving the offending vehicle bearing temporary registration no. T-11 22 HR 5891BZ on the day of accident. He further stated in his reply that respondent no. 1 is his younger brother. 21.5 The Mechanical Inspection Report dated 20.12.2022 of the motorcycle bearing registration no. UP 62BK 3858, belonging to the deceased, reflects that its headlight, visor, both front mirrors and the right-side indicator were damaged.
21.6 The Mechanical Inspection Report dated 20.12.2022 of the offending car shows that its left headlight, front bumper and radiator grill were damaged, and its bonnet was dented.
21.7 The photographs of the motorcycle of the deceased and the offending car, which form part of the charge-sheet, show that both vehicles were damaged.
21.8 As per the seizure memo dated 24.12.2022, the offending car was seized by the police during investigation. 21.9 The deposition of PW2 regarding the accident and the negligence of respondent no. 1 is generally consistent. 21.10The respondent nos. 1 & 2 have not led any evidence in support of the claims made by them in their written statement. The respondent no. 3 has also not led any evidence.
21.11 The medical documents produced by the petitioners further lend credence to the claim petition.
(i) As per MLC no. 530 (Ex. PW4/5) dated 11.12.2022 of Manipal Hospital, Gurugram, Sh. Kaushal Mishra was brought to the hospital by respondent no. 2 with history of road accident.
(ii) The Discharge Summary (Ex. PW4/3) of Manipal Hospital, Gurugram shows that he Sh. Kaushal Mishra remained admitted therein from 12.12.2022 to 13.12.2022. Thereafter, he was shifted to Manipal Hospital, Dwarka, Delhi, where, as per the Discharge MACT No.84/2023 Manu Mishra & Ors. vs. Aman Kushwaha & Ors. Page No. 12 of 28 Summary (Ex. PW5/3) and Medical Bills (Ex. PW5/1), he remained admitted from 13.12.2022 to 20.12.2022.
(iii) As per the certified copy of the Discharge/Death Summary of RML Hospital, Delhi, Sh. Kaushal Mishra was admitted there on 20.12.2022 and expired during treatment on 21.12.2022 at about 11:50 p.m.
(iv) The post-mortem examination of the body of the deceased was conducted on 22.12.2022 at RML Hospital, Delhi. As per the opinion recorded in the Post-Mortem Report (Ex. PW1/1), the cause of death of Sh. Kaushal Mishra was septicaemia resulting from injuries caused by blunt force. All injuries sustained by the deceased were ante-
mortem in nature and were consistent with those ordinarily sustained in a road accident.
21.12 It emerges from the evidence that the MLC of the deceased was conducted on the day of accident itself. It also emerges that the deceased was being treated for his injuries from the date of accident till the date of his death. It is recorded in the charge-sheet that the police received information from Manipal Hospital, Gurugram regarding the accident on 12.12.2022. However, Sh. Kaushal Mishra was declared unfit for statement by the treating doctor. The petitioner no. 4 has stated in the FIR that he had sought some time to think before lodging the FIR. After an accident, the primary concern of the family members is to obtain immediate medical care for the victim, while lodging of the FIR is of secondary importance. In view of these circumstances, the delay in lodging the FIR is not of significance in the present case.
21.13As far as the second contention of the respondent no. 3 is concerned, no evidence has been led by the respondents to show that the deceased MACT No.84/2023 Manu Mishra & Ors. vs. Aman Kushwaha & Ors. Page No. 13 of 28 was negligent in any manner.
21.14 Taking a holistic view, it stands proved, on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, that the accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of car bearing temporary no. T1122HR5891BZ, being driven by respondent no. 1, Sh. Aman Kushwaha, and owned by respondent no. 2, Mayank Kushwaha, thereby causing the death of Sh. Kaushal Mishra. Issue No. 1 is therefore decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents Issue No. 2:
Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? OPP.
22. Onus to prove this issue was on the petitioners.
In view of the finding on Issue No. 1, the petitioners are held entitled to compensation for the death of Kaushal Mishra.
23. On the question of the quantum of compensation, the petitioners rely on the depositions of petitioner no.1, PW3, PW4 and PW5, as well as the documentary evidence placed on record.
24. The computation of just compensation is to be made in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Others vs. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 which was affirmed by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others (2017) 16 SCC 680.
Loss of Dependency
25. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra) and affirmed in Pranav Sethi (supra), three facts need to be established by the petitioners for assessing compensation in the case of death under the head of "Loss of Dependency" which are (a) MACT No.84/2023 Manu Mishra & Ors. vs. Aman Kushwaha & Ors. Page No. 14 of 28 age of the deceased (b) income of the deceased and (c) the number of dependents.
Age of the deceased
26. As per the Matriculation Certificate (Ex. PW 1/8) of the deceased, he was born on 20.07.1990. Accordingly, it is held that the deceased Sh. Kaushal Mishra was 32 years of age at the time of accident.
27. As per Pranay Sethi (supra), the multiplier has to be taken on the basis of the age of the deceased and for the age group 31-35 years, a multiplier of 16 is applicable. In the present case, therefore, the multiplier of 16 is taken in calculating the loss of dependency. Income of deceased
28. As per the Appointment Letter (Ex. PW1/9), the deceased, Sh. Kaushal Mishra, was employed as Sr. Engineer (QS & Billing) with G.D. Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.
28.1 PW3, Sh. Vijender Singh, has proved the salary record (Ex. PW3/2) of the deceased. As per the said record, the deceased received salary for only 11 days in December 2022, and the last month for which he received his full salary was November 2022. The gross pay of the deceased for November 2022 was ₹60,000 per month. Taking this gross pay as the base and multiplying the same by 12, his gross annual pay amounts to ₹ 7,20,000/-.
28.2 The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Pranay Sethi (supra):
"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 MACT No.84/2023 Manu Mishra & Ors. vs. Aman Kushwaha & Ors. Page No. 15 of 28 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."
In view of the above authoritative pronouncement, the income tax has to be deducted from the Gross Annual Pay. 28.3 As per the income tax calculator available on the website of the income tax department (incometaxindia.gov.in), income tax liability on income of ₹ 7,20,000/- for Assessment Year 2023-24 in case of individual resident tax payers, opting for taxation u/S 115 BAC, in the age bracket of less than 60 years, was ₹ 38,800/-. After deducting income tax, the net annual salary of the deceased amounts to ₹ 6,81,200/- and the same is taken to be the annual income of the deceased (A).
Future Prospects
29. There is a dispute between the petitioners and respondent no.3 regarding the addition towards future prospects. 29.1 The learned counsel for respondent no.3 has relied on terms 9 and 13 of the Appointment Letter (Ex. PW1/9) to contend that the deceased was a temporary employee, as his employment was liable to termination without notice. She has further contended that the employer of the deceased, G.D. Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., operated on a project-to-project basis. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the deceased was a permanent employee of the company.
29.2 The relevant terms of the Appointment Letter are extracted below:
7. Your appointment is initially on a probation period of six month, which may be extended for further period, at MACT No.84/2023 Manu Mishra & Ors. vs. Aman Kushwaha & Ors. Page No. 16 of 28 the sole discretion of the Company. During probation period, your services are liable to be terminated at any time, without any notice and without assigning any reason whatsoever without any payment. However, if you want to leave the services of the company during the probation period, you will be required to give one month's notice to the company else one month's salary in lieu of notice, will be deducted from your dues.
After expiry of probation period, your confirmation shall be notified to you, in writing. Till such time, your service will remain on probation. Subsequent to confirmation, either side can issue the notice of one month or the payment of one month's salary in lieu thereof for discontinuance of service from the company. Company's decision on termination shall remain final and conclusive and binding on you in totally.
8. Your appointment in the company is on full time basis. You shall devote yourself exclusively to the business of company. During the period of this employment, you shall not secure any other employment, engaged in any profession of trade or pursue any course of study or work part time without management's previous consent, in writing.
9. You will not, at any time disclosed or divulge except under legal obligation, any of Company's affair or confidential, information which may come to your notice during the course of employment. In case Company finds any such action on your part, the Company shall terminate your services at its sole discretion, without any notice period.
13. If in the opinion of the Company, you are found negligent or ineffective in the performance of your duties or are found to be otherwise unreliable or of un-sober habits or immoral in conduct or should you wilfully disobey the orders of the Company or be guilty of any misconduct, to be decided by Company at its sole discretion, the Company will terminate your employment without any notice or payment or compensation in lieu of notice. "
29.3 The Appointment Letter does not specify any term limit for employment, nor does it provide for its renewal. Term 7 provides for a probation period and one month's notice after confirmation. Term 8 MACT No.84/2023 Manu Mishra & Ors. vs. Aman Kushwaha & Ors. Page No. 17 of 28 provides that the employment of the deceased was on full-time basis. While terms 9 and 13 allow for termination without notice, these are attracted only in cases of disclosure of Company's confidential information or if an employee is guilty of any misconduct. 29.4 PW3 Sh. Vijender Singh, the witness from G.D. Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., in his cross-examination, deposed that that the deceased was working for the company since 2018. No suggestion was put to him that the employment of the deceased with the company was temporary. 29.5 Moreover, even if the company worked on a project-to-project basis, this does not preclude the existence of permanent employees. 29.6 In view of the above, this Tribunal holds that the deceased had a permanent job with G.D. Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. In view of the law laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra), the petitioners are entitled to an addition of 50% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects, as the deceased was below 40 years of age and had a permanent job. Accordingly, ₹3,42,060/- is added towards future prospects (B).
The number of dependents.
30. The deceased is survived by four family members, namely his wife, one daughter, his father and his mother.
30.1Petitioner no.1, in her evidence by way of affidavit, has claimed that that all four petitioners were dependent on the deceased. In her cross- examination she deposed that her parents-in-law used to stay with them in Delhi. She further deposed that her father-in-law is not doing any job.
30.2 As per the Aadhaar Card (Ex. PW1/14) of petitioner no. 4, father of the deceased, he was 63 years of age at the time of the accident. As per the Aadhaar Card (Ex. PW1/13) of petitioner no. 3, mother of the deceased, she was 62 years of age at the time of the accident.
MACT No.84/2023 Manu Mishra & Ors. vs. Aman Kushwaha & Ors. Page No. 18 of 28 30.3 Keeping in view the deposition of petitioner no.1 and the age of the parents of the deceased, it is held that all four petitioners were dependent on the deceased at the time of accident.
31. As per the ratio of Pranay Sethi (supra), where the deceased was married and the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, the deceased is presumed to be spending one-fourth (1/4th) of his income on his personal living and expenses (C). Accordingly, in the present case, ₹ 2,56,545/- [C=1/4th of (A+B)] has to be deducted on account of personal living and expenses per annum. The annual loss of dependency (D) has to be taken as ₹ 7,69, 635/- [D= A+B-C].
Further multiplying the annual loss of dependency with the multiplier (16) gives the loss of dependency (F) and the same amounts to ₹ 1,23,14,160/- [F = E x 16].
Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to ₹ 1,23,14,160/- on account of loss of dependency.
Conventional Heads (Loss of Estate, Funeral Expenses, Loss of Consortium)
32. Petitioner no.1, in her evidence by way of affidavit, has claimed that she spent ₹1,00,000/- on cremation and last rites of the deceased. However, no documentary proof has been produced regarding the same.
33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Pranay Sethi (supra) as follows:
"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."
34. In accordance with the above, the petitioners are entitled to ₹ 18,000/-
towards funeral expenses and ₹ 18,000/- towards loss of estate. The petitioners are further awarded ₹ 1,92,000/- (₹48,000/- per head) for MACT No.84/2023 Manu Mishra & Ors. vs. Aman Kushwaha & Ors. Page No. 19 of 28 loss of consortium.
Medical Expenses
35. The petitioner no.1, in her evidence by way of affidavit, has claimed ₹13,43,482/- as medical expenses. To substantiate this claim, the petitioners examined two witnesses.
PW4, Dr. Mrinal Sharma, proved the medical bills (Ex. PW4/9) of Manipal Hospital, Gurugram, Haryana, amounting to ₹2,31,366/- pertaining to the deceased.
PW5, Sh. Rohit Nath, proved the medical bills (Ex. PW5/1) of Manipal Hospital, Dwarka, amounting to ₹11,12,116/- regarding the treatment of the deceased.
Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled to ₹13,43,482/- on account of medical expenses.
36. Upon adding the amounts awarded under the heads of loss of dependency, conventional heads and medical expenses, the total award amount is quantified at ₹ 1,38,85,642/- (rounded off to ₹1,38,86,000/-).
Liability
37. The respondent nos. 1 & 2, being the principal tortfeasors, are primarily liable to make payment of compensation awarded to the petitioners. However, since the offending vehicle bearing temporary registration no. T1122HR5891BZ was insured by respondent no. 3 against third party risks, therefore, the respondent no. 3 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
37.1 The respondent no. 3 has not placed anything on record showing any right to recover against the other respondents. Therefore, the respondent no. 3, TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., shall pay the award amount with interest to the petitioners without any right to recover the same from the other respondents. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
MACT No.84/2023 Manu Mishra & Ors. vs. Aman Kushwaha & Ors. Page No. 20 of 28 Issue No. 3: Relief
38. In view of the findings on Issue No. 2, the petitioners are held entitled to a sum of ₹1,38,86,000/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Eight Lacs Eighty Six Thousand Only) along with simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition, that is, 18.01.2023 till the date of compliance, that is, 09.01.2026. Thereafter, simple interest @ 12% per annum for delayed payment, if any. The amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be liable to be excluded from the award amount. Direction(s) to respondent no. 3
39. As per the provisions of Section 168(3) of MV Act, the award amount along with interest shall be deposited/transferred by respondent no.3, TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., in the bank account of this Tribunal (Bank Account No. 42709452600 at State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka New Delhi, IFSC Code SBIN0011566 and MICR Code 110002483) by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS within 30 days of award under intimation to the Nazir of this Tribunal and with notice of deposit to the petitioners and their counsel. Apportionment
40. Ld. counsel for petitioner has submitted that huge amount was incurred by the petitioner no. 4 on the treatment of the deceased. It is noticed that the petitioner no.1 has the additional responsibility of bringing up the petitioner no. 2. Therefore, the award amount be apportioned among the petitioners, along with proportionate interest, as per the following table:
Petitio Name of the Relationship Present Age Award ner Petitioner with the Amount No. deceased
1. Smt. Manu Mishra Wife 35 years ₹55,00,000/-
2. Ms. Naina Mishra Daughter 4 years ₹25,00,000/-
MACT No.84/2023 Manu Mishra & Ors. vs. Aman Kushwaha & Ors. Page No. 21 of 28
3. Smt. Pushpa Mother 65 years ₹20,00,000/-
4. Sh. Daya Nath Father 66 years ₹38, 86,000/-
Mishra Total ₹1,38,86,000/-
Release
41. The statements of the petitioners regarding their financial status, needs and liabilities have been recorded.
The details of the MACT bank account of the petitioners and the address of the bank with IFSC Code are as follows:
Name Bank Details
Smt. Manu Mishra A/c no. 43919081897 State Bank of India,
Naina Mishra A/c no. 43919830939 Branch Distict Court
Smt. Pushpa A/c no. 43921278212 Complex, Sector-10,
Sh. Daya Nath Mishra A/c no. 43919133484 Dwarka, New Delhi.
IFSC Code:
SBIN0011566
42. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Tyagi & Others vs. Jaibir Singh & Others FAO No. 842/2003 has formulated the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) scheme vide its order dated 01.05.2018 and implemented the same vide its subsequent orders dated 07.12.2018 and 08.01.2021.
43. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 16.07.2024 in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Private Ltd. vs. Union Of India & Others Writ Petition (Civil) no. 534/2020 has held:
"9. To clarify the aforesaid position, it is for the Tribunal in a given case to make a decision as to whether the entire amount has to be released or if it is to be released in part. Suffice it is to state that the Tribunal is expected to give its own reasoning while undertaking such an exercise."
Schedule of Disbursal MACT No.84/2023 Manu Mishra & Ors. vs. Aman Kushwaha & Ors. Page No. 22 of 28
44. Keeping in view the quantum of the award, the age of the petitioners and the medical expenses incurred, the compensation amount along with accrued interest shall be released to the petitioners in the following manner:
i) Out of amount awarded to petitioner no. 1 (Smt. Manu Mishra), 10% amount is directed to be immediately released into her aforesaid MACT account. The remaining 90 % of the award amount is directed to be kept in the form of 100 fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for periods of 1 to 100 months in succession. The amount of FDRs on maturity be released in her aforesaid MACT account.
ii) 100% of the amount awarded to petitioner no. 2 (Ms. Naina Mishra, minor), is directed to be kept in the form of 2 fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for periods of 14 to 15 years in succession.
The amount of FDRs on maturity be released in her aforesaid MACT account. The first FDR shall be released to her after she attains majority.
iii) Out of amount awarded to petitioner no. 3 (Smt. Pushpa), 10% amount is directed to be immediately released into her aforesaid MACT account. The remaining 90 % of the award amount is directed to be kept in the form of the form 5 fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for periods of 1 to 5 years in succession. The amount of FDRs on maturity be released in her aforesaid MACT account.
iv) Out of amount awarded to petitioner no. 4 (Sh. Daya Nath Mishra), 35% amount is directed to be immediately released into his aforesaid MACT account. The remaining 65 % of the award amount is directed to be kept in the form of the form 5 fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for periods of 1 to 5 years in succession.The amount of FDRs on maturity be released in his aforesaid MACT account.
Directions to the Bank MACT No.84/2023 Manu Mishra & Ors. vs. Aman Kushwaha & Ors. Page No. 23 of 28
45. The Manager, State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka is directed to comply with the Schedule of Disbursal provided in this Award.
The said Manager is further directed that:
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the MACT accounts of the petitioners.
(b) The original fixed deposit/FDRs 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 the concerned bank to the petitioners.
(c) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the FDRs without permission of this Tribunal.
(d) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to petitioner(s) for his/her MACT account(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.
46. The Form-XV of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, as per the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) on 08.01.2021 is as under:
FORM - XV SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident: 11.12.2022
2. Name of deceased: Sh. Kaushal Mishra
3. Age of the deceased: 32 years (at the time of accident)
4. Occupation of the deceased: Sr. Engineer (QS & Billing)
5. Income of the deceased: ₹ 60,000/- p.m.
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S. No. Name Present Age Relation MACT No.84/2023 Manu Mishra & Ors. vs. Aman Kushwaha & Ors. Page No. 24 of 28
(i) Smt. Manu Mishra 35 years Wife
(ii) Miss Naina Mishra 4 years Daughter
(iii) Smt. Pushpa 65 years Mother
(iv) Sh. Daya Nath Mishra 66 years Father Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
7. Annual Income of the deceased ₹ 6,84,120/-
(A)
8. Add : Future Prospects (B) ₹3,42,060/-
9. Less: Personal expenses of then ₹2,56,545/-
deceased (C)
10. Annual loss of dependency ₹ 7,69,635/-
[D= (A+B) - C ] 11. Multiplier 16
12. Total loss of dependency ₹ 1,23,14,160/-
[F=D x 16]
13. Medical Expenses (G) ₹13,43,482/-
14. Compensation for loss of love Nil and affection (H)
15. Compensation for loss of ₹ 1,92,000/-
consortium (I)
16. Compensation for loss of estate ₹18,000/-
(J)
17. Compensation towards funeral ₹18,000/-
expenses (K)
18. TOTAL COMPENSATION 1,38,85,642 (rounded off to (F+G+H+I+J+K =L) 1,38,86,000/-)
19. RATE OF INTEREST Simple interest @ 7.5% per annum AWARDED from the date of institution of the petition (18.01.2023) till the date of compliance (09.01.2026).
Thereafter, simple interest @ 12% per annum.
20. Interest amount up to the date of ₹30,14,419 decision (M)
21. Total amount including interest ₹1,69,00,419/-
up to the date of decision (L+M)
22. Award amount released Petitioner no. 1(Smt. Manu Mishra) 10 % Petitioner no. 2(Miss Naina Mishra) Nil.
MACT No.84/2023 Manu Mishra & Ors. vs. Aman Kushwaha & Ors. Page No. 25 of 28 Petitioner no. 3(Smt. Pushpa) 10 % Petitioner no. 4(Sh. Daya Nath Mishra) 35 %
23. Award amount kept in FDRs Petitioner no. 1(Smt. Manu Mishra) 90 % Petitioner no. 2(Miss Naina Mishra) 100 %.
Petitioner no. 3(Smt. Pushpa) 90 % Petitioner no. 4(Sh. Daya Nath Mishra) 65 %
24. Mode of disbursement of the Bank Transfer award amount to the claimant (s)
25. Next date for compliance of the 09.01.2026 award.
47. The Form-XVII of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, as per the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) on 08.01.2021 is as under:
Form XVII
1. Date of the accident 11.12.2022
2. Date of filing of Form I- First Not applicable as it is an outstation Accident Report (FAR) matter.
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-
Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII-
Detailed Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
MACT No.84/2023 Manu Mishra & Ors. vs. Aman Kushwaha & Ors. Page No. 26 of 28
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Not known Officer by the Insurance Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the No. 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) of Not Applicable.
the offer of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 10.12.2025
15. Whether the petitioner(s) were directed Yes.
to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which petitioner(s) 07.02.2025 were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Aadhaar Card and the direction to 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) 21.03.2025 produced the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the R/o B-280, First Floor, J J Colony petitioner(s) Phase-3, Sector-3, Dwarka, NSIT, South-West Delhi, Delhi - 110 078.
19. Whether the petitioner(s) savings bank Yes.
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?
MACT No.84/2023 Manu Mishra & Ors. vs. Aman Kushwaha & Ors. Page No. 27 of 28
48. Dasti copy of award be given to the parties free of cost.
49. Attested copy of Award be sent to the Manager, SBI, District Courts Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi for information/ compliance:
50. Copy of award be also sent to the concerned learned Judicial Magistrate and Delhi State Legal Services Authority.
51. Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra).
52. Ahlmad is directed to prepare a separate miscellaneous file to be listed on 23.02.2026 for compliance report.
53. File be consigned to the record room after compliance of necessary formalities.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (SUDEEP RAJ SAINI) COURT ON 10.12.2025. PO, MACT-02, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI Digitally signed by SUDEEP SUDEEP RAJ SAINI RAJ SAINI Date: 2025.12.10 14:45:32 +0530 MACT No.84/2023 Manu Mishra & Ors. vs. Aman Kushwaha & Ors. Page No. 28 of 28