Delhi District Court
Rajinder Kumar Verma vs Divyam Dabas on 15 December, 2025
MACP No. 203/22 & 204/22; FIR No. 243/22; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 15.12.2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA MANCHANDA, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 203/22
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-003350-2022
1. Sh. Rajinder Kumar Verma,
S/o Sh. Om Prakash,
(Father of deceased)
2. Smt. Sakshi Verma,
S/o Sh. Rajinder Kumar Verma,
(Mother of deceased)
Both R/o. C-2/88,
Sector - 16,
Rohini,
Delhi.
. ..........Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Divyam Dabas,
S/o Sh. Dharambir Singh,
R/o C-1/63-64, 2nd Floor,
Sector - 16, Rohini,
Delhi.
(Driver)
2. Sh. Dharambir Singh Dabas,
S/o Sh. Chander Bhan Dabas,
R/o C-1/63-64, 2nd Floor,
Sector - 16, Rohini,
Delhi.
(Registered owner)
Rajinder Kumar Verma & Ors. & Prateek Vasudeva Vs. Divyam Dabas & Ors. Page 1 of 31
MACP No. 203/22 & 204/22; FIR No. 243/22; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 15.12.2025
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Having office at Fourth Parsavnath Capital Tower,
Bhai Veer Singh Marg,
New Delhi.
(Insurer)
............Respondents
MAC Petition No. 204/22
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-003352-2022
Sh. Prateek Vasudeva,
S/o Sh. Ashwani Kumar,
R/o. A-3/11,
Sector - 18,
Rohini, Delhi.
..........Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Divyam Dabas,
S/o Sh. Dharambir Singh,
R/o C-1/63-64, 2nd Floor,
Sector - 16, Rohini,
Delhi.
(Driver)
2. Sh. Dharambir Singh Dabas,
S/o Sh. Chander Bhan Dabas,
R/o C-1/63-64, 2nd Floor,
Sector - 16, Rohini,
Delhi.
(Registered owner)
Rajinder Kumar Verma & Ors. & Prateek Vasudeva Vs. Divyam Dabas & Ors. Page 2 of 31
MACP No. 203/22 & 204/22; FIR No. 243/22; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 15.12.2025
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Having office at Fourth Parsavnath Capital Tower,
Bhai Veer Singh Marg,
New Delhi.
(Insurer)
............Respondents
Date of Institution : 23.04.2022
Date of Arguments : 15.12.2025
Date of Judgment : 15.12.2025
APPEARENCE(S):
Sh. Rattan Singh, Ld. Counsel for petitioners/LRs of deceased as well
as injured.
None for driver and owner.
Sh. Ankit Kalra, Ld. Counsel for insurance company.
Petition under Section 166 & 140 of M.V. Act, 1988
for grant of compensation
CONSOLIDATED AWARD
1. Vide this common order, I shall dispose of both the Detailed
Accident Reports (DARs) with regard to fatal injuries sustained by
Sh. Harshit Verma (deceased in MACP No. 203/22) and injuries sustained by
Sh. Prateek Vasudeva (injured in MACP No. 204/22) in a Motor Vehicular
Accident which occurred on 06.03.2022 at about 11:40 pm near Rohini Jail,
Staff Quarter, Badli, Delhi, involving Car bearing registration no.
DL8C-AC-0978 (offending vehicle) being driven in a rash and negligent
manner by its driver/respondent no.1.
Rajinder Kumar Verma & Ors. & Prateek Vasudeva Vs. Divyam Dabas & Ors. Page 3 of 31
MACP No. 203/22 & 204/22; FIR No. 243/22; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 15.12.2025
2. Both the DARs were consolidated for the purpose of recording
of evidence vide order dated 30.11.2022, passed by Ld. Predecessor and
MACP No. 203/22 titled as " Rajinder Kumar Verma & Ors. Vs. Divyam
Dabas & Ors." was treated as the leading case. Accordingly, the evidence
was led on behalf of the parties in the leading case.
FACTS OF THE CASES
3. According to DAR filed in both the cases, on 06.03.2022, Harshit Verma(deceased in MACP No. 203/22) alongwith Prateek Vasudeva(injured in MACP No. 204/22) and driver/respondent no. 1 Divyam Dabas was travelling in Scorpio car bearing registration no. DL8C-AC-0978. The aforesaid vehicle was being driven by driver/respondent no. 1 at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and deceased was sitting on the front seat and injured was sitting on the rear seat. At about 11:40 PM, when they reached near Rohini Jail, Staff Quarter, Badli, Delhi, the respondent no. 1 could not control the speed of his vehicle and hit the divider due to which, the aforesaid vehicle turned turtle, as a result of which, Harshit Verma and Prateek Vasudave both sustained injuries. Thereafter, they both were taken to Max Hospital, Delhi, where Harshit Verma was declared 'Brought Dead'. Postmortem of deceased was conducted at BJRM Hospital vide PMR No. 233/22. FIR No. 243/22 u/s. 279/337/304A IPC was registered against the driver of the aforesaid car at PS. S.P. Badli. It is claimed that offending Rajinder Kumar Verma & Ors. & Prateek Vasudeva Vs. Divyam Dabas & Ors. Page 4 of 31 MACP No. 203/22 & 204/22; FIR No. 243/22; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 15.12.2025 vehicle was owned by respondent no.2 and was insured with respondent no. 3 during the period in question.
4. In their joint written statements, the respondent no. 1 & 2 i.e., driver and registered owner raised preliminary objections that there was no negligence on the part of respondent no. 1 as on the date of accident, suddenly a cow came in front of the alleged offending vehicle and in order to save that cow, the aforesaid vehicle hit against the divider, as a result of which, deceased as well as injured suffered injuries. On merits, they have denied the averments made in the DAR and prayed for its dismissal.
5. In its written statement in MACP No. 203/22, the respondent no. 3 i.e., insurance company has filed its legal offer to the tune of Rs. 24,98,704/- which was not acceptable the petitioners and matter was proceeded on merits. It is admitted that alleged offending vehicle was insured with it at the time of accident.
6. In its written statement in MACP No. 204/22, the respondent no. 3 i.e., insurance company has filed its legal offer to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- which was not acceptable the petitioner and matter was proceeded on merits. It is admitted that alleged offending vehicle was insured with it at the time of accident.
Rajinder Kumar Verma & Ors. & Prateek Vasudeva Vs. Divyam Dabas & Ors. Page 5 of 31MACP No. 203/22 & 204/22; FIR No. 243/22; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 15.12.2025
7. From the pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed in MACP No. 203/22 by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 31.08.2022:-
1) Whether deceased Harshit Verma, S/o Shri Rajinder Kumar Verma, suffered fatal injuries in road traffic accident on 05.03.2022 at about 11:40 PM, in front of Rohini Jail Staff Quarters, Badli, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS. S.P. Badli, due to rashness and negligence on the part of driver Divyam Dabas/R-1, who was driving Scorpio Car bearing registration no. DL8C-AC-0978, owned by Shri Dharambir Dabas/R-2 and insured with M/s.
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd./R-3? OPP.
2) Whether the LRs of deceased are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3) Relief.
8. From the pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed in MACP No. 204/2022 by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 31.08.2022 :-
1) Whether the injured Prateek Vasudeva, S/o Shri Ashwani Kumar Vasudeva, suffered injuries in road traffic accident on 05.03.2022 at about 11:40 PM, in front of Rohini Jail Staff Quarters, Badli, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS. S.P. Badli, due to rashness and negligence on the part of driver Divyam Dabas/R-1, who was driving Scorpio Car bearing registration no. DL8C-AC-0978, owned by Rajinder Kumar Verma & Ors. & Prateek Vasudeva Vs. Divyam Dabas & Ors. Page 6 of 31 MACP No. 203/22 & 204/22; FIR No. 243/22; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 15.12.2025 Shri Dharambir Dabas/R-2 and insured with M/s.
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd./R-3? OPP.
2) Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3) Relief.
9. In order to establish their claim, the petitioners have examined five witnesses i.e. PW1 Sh. Rajinder Kumar Verma (father of deceased), PW2 Sh. Prateek Vasudeva (injured as well as eyewitness), PW3 Sh. Nipun Bansal (from the office of previous employer of deceased), PW4 Sh. Vikram Verma(from the office of current employer of deceased) and PW5 Sh. Amit (official from the concerned bank of the deceased). On the other hand, no evidence was adduced by any of the respondents and its RE was closed vide order dated 01.02.2025.
10. This Tribunal has carefully perused DAR and evidence led by parties has been duly appreciated. All documents and material relied upon perused and considered. Arguments addressed by respective counsels heard and considered. Legal position, both statutory and binding applicable precedents, has been appreciated. The issue wise determination is as under:-
Rajinder Kumar Verma & Ors. & Prateek Vasudeva Vs. Divyam Dabas & Ors. Page 7 of 31MACP No. 203/22 & 204/22; FIR No. 243/22; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 15.12.2025 ISSUE NO. 1 ( IN BOTH THE CASES)
11. The onus to prove, the aforesaid issue was placed on the petitioner(s)/injured. To prove the said issues, petitioner(s) have examined PW-2 Prateek Vasudeva (injured in the accident in question) by way of his affidavit in evidence Ex. PW2/A. In his evidence, PW2 has deposed on the lines of averments made in the DAR(s). He has relied upon the following documents:-
S.No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of his Aadhaar Card Ex PW2/1(OSR)
2. Copy of his PAN Card Ex. PW2/2(OSR)
3. Copy of his 10th & 12th class Ex. PW2/3(Colly)
certificates
4. His MLC-cum-Discharge summary Ex. PW2/4(Colly) of Max Hospital
5. Medical prescription issued by Ex. PW2/5(Colly) Springdales Medical Centre and Hospital as well as medical prescription issued by Dr. Ravi Bansal dated 21.11.2022
6. Medical bills amounting to Rs. Ex. PW2/6(Colly) & 57,854/- and summary of medical Mark C respectively. bills
7. Three photographs reflecting his Ex. PW2/7(Colly) injuries
8. Compact Disc (CD) reflecting Ex. PW2/8 photographs of his injury Rajinder Kumar Verma & Ors. & Prateek Vasudeva Vs. Divyam Dabas & Ors. Page 8 of 31 MACP No. 203/22 & 204/22; FIR No. 243/22; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 15.12.2025
9. Certificate U/s. 65B of Indian Ex. PW2/9 Evidence Act
10. DAR Ex. PW2/10(Colly)
12. During cross-examination on behalf of respondent no. 1 & 2, he deposed that on the date of accident, he had moved out of his house at about 9.30 PM to have a stroll around with friends. He further deposed that he was sitting in the offending vehicle. He denied the suggestion that a stray cow had suddenly came in front of the offending vehicle and to save it, the accident took place. He further denied the suggestion that he had came to depose in this case because their friend Harshit had expired in the accident. He further denied the suggestion that he did not suffer any injury in the accident. He deposed that he was sitting in the second row behind the driver in the offending vehicle. He further deposed that all the incumbents of the offending vehicle had put their seat belts. He denied the suggestion that he had not put on the seat belt at the time of accident.
13. During his cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, he denied the suggestion that respondent No.1 was not driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently or that with a view to avoid collision with a stray cow which had come on road, he turned the offending vehicle which got rammed into the divider. He further denied the suggestion that he did not name the respondent No.1 to be negligent and rash in driving the offending vehicle at the first available opportunity.
Rajinder Kumar Verma & Ors. & Prateek Vasudeva Vs. Divyam Dabas & Ors. Page 9 of 31MACP No. 203/22 & 204/22; FIR No. 243/22; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 15.12.2025
14. The careful perusal of testimony of aforesaid witness i.e. PW2 would go to show that the respondents have not been able to impeach his testimony through litmus test of cross-examination. Moreover, it is an undisputed fact that FIR No. 243/22 u/s 279/337/304A IPC was registered at PS. S.P. Badli with regard to accident in question. Copy of said FIR would show that same was registered on 06.03.2022 on the basis of DD Entry No. 0002A with regard to accident call received in PS. S.P. Badli on 06.03.2022. The presence of PW2 at the spot of accident at the time of accident can be substantiated by seeing the list of witnesses annexed alongwith the chargesheet filed in the criminal case wherein name of PW2 is mentioned at S.No. 2. On the other hand, respondents have not examined any witness in order to rebut the testimony of PW2 in this regard during the course of inquiry. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve his uncontroverted testimony on the point of accident in question being caused by respondent no. 1 while driving the offending vehicle. The contents of said FIR would show that the complainant has disclosed therein the same sequence of facts leading to the accident as deposed by PW2 in his evidence. Hence, there is no possibility of any false implication of driver of offending vehicle or false involvement of the said vehicle in this case.
15. The facts of the case, arguments of the Ld. Counsels, evidence, material on record and duly verified documents of the criminal case, have been carefully examined and scrutinized. Respondent no. 1 namely Rajinder Kumar Verma & Ors. & Prateek Vasudeva Vs. Divyam Dabas & Ors. Page 10 of 31 MACP No. 203/22 & 204/22; FIR No. 243/22; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 15.12.2025 Sh. Divyam has been charge sheeted for offences punishable U/s. 279/337/304A IPC by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by him. Same would also point out towards rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent no. 1.
16. Further, there is no gainsaying that respondent No.1/driver of offending vehicle was the other material witness to throw light by testifying as to how and under what circumstances, the accident has taken place. However, he has preferred not to enter into the witness box. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent no. 1. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had any enmity with the driver of the offending vehicle so as to falsely implicate him in this case. Reliance placed on Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Kamlesh & Ors, MAC APP. No. 530/2008 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 11.11.2008.
17. Copy of MLC (which is also part of DAR) of injured would show that he was taken to Max Hospital, Delhi with alleged history of RTA on 06.03.2022 at 12:00 AM. He is shown to have sustained simple injuries as mentioned therein. Not only this, postmortem was got conducted on the body Rajinder Kumar Verma & Ors. & Prateek Vasudeva Vs. Divyam Dabas & Ors. Page 11 of 31 MACP No. 203/22 & 204/22; FIR No. 243/22; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 15.12.2025 of deceased Harshit Verma. The copy of PM Report (which is also part of DAR) of deceased, would show that cause of death of deceased was shock and hemorrhagic shock due to poly trauma consequent upon blunt force impact. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. The external injuries as mentioned in the relevant column correspond with the injuries which occur in Motor Vehicular Accident. Said documents have not been disputed from the side of respondents.
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioner(s) have been able to prove on the basis of preponderance of probabilities that Harshit Verma had sustained fatal injuries, whereas petitioner Prateek Vasudeva had sustained injuries in the road accident which took place on 06.03.2022 at about 11:40 pm near Rohini Jail, Staff Quarter, Badli, Delhi, due to rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of offending vehicle. Thus, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents in both the cases.
ISSUE NO. 219. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 enjoins upon the Claims 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. The guiding principles for assessment of "just and reasonable Rajinder Kumar Verma & Ors. & Prateek Vasudeva Vs. Divyam Dabas & Ors. Page 12 of 31 MACP No. 203/22 & 204/22; FIR No. 243/22; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 15.12.2025 compensation" in fatal case has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case titled as Smt. Anjali & Ors., Vs. Lokendra Rathod & Ors, in Civil Appeal No. 9014 of 202, decided on 06.12.2022 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 & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.3, 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."
20. The intent and objective of the Beneficial Legislation is to grant equitable compensation to the vulnerable victims of road accidents and dynamic law has evolved towards grant of just and fair quantum of awards and has brought consistency and uniformity towards the desired goal. The Rajinder Kumar Verma & Ors. & Prateek Vasudeva Vs. Divyam Dabas & Ors. Page 13 of 31 MACP No. 203/22 & 204/22; FIR No. 243/22; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 15.12.2025 Hon'ble Apex Court in "Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation" (2009) 6 SCC 121, which was affirmed by a bench of three Hon'ble Judges in Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, held 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.
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..."
21. These guiding principles for assessment of "just and reasonable compensation" have been torch bearer in injury cases also as laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in III (2007), ACC 676 titled as Oriental Insurance Co,. Ltd., Vs. Vijay Kumar Mittal & Ors, wherein it has been held:-
"10. The possession of one's own body is the first and most valuable all human rights and while awarding compensation for bodily injuries this primary element is to be kept in mind.Rajinder Kumar Verma & Ors. & Prateek Vasudeva Vs. Divyam Dabas & Ors. Page 14 of 31
MACP No. 203/22 & 204/22; FIR No. 243/22; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 15.12.2025 Bodily injury is to be treated and varies on account of gravity of bodily injury. Though it is impossible to equate money with human suffering, agony and personal deprivation, the Court and Tribunal should make an honest and serious attempt to award damages so far as money can compensate the loss. Regard must be given to the gravity and degree of deprivation as well as the degree of awareness of the deprivation. Damages awarded in personal injury cases must be substantial and not token damages....."
11. The general principle which should govern the assessment of damages in persons injury cases is that the Court should award to injured persons such a sum as will put him in the same position as he would have been in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained injuries".
22. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the compensation should be just and is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly or a pittance. Reliance is placed on 2012 (8) SLT 676 titled K. Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The aforesaid Principle of law has also been reiterated by a landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in 2017 (13) SCALE 12 : 2017 XI AD (SC) 113 titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. Accordingly, the quantum of appropriate and adequate compensation to the victims of road accident is to be derived after assessment of various relevant parameters, as per law. Hereinafter, assessment is divided into several criteria, as applicable to the facts of the present case.
Rajinder Kumar Verma & Ors. & Prateek Vasudeva Vs. Divyam Dabas & Ors. Page 15 of 31MACP No. 203/22 & 204/22; FIR No. 243/22; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 15.12.2025 COMPENSATION IN CASE MACP NO. 203/22 LOSS OF DEPENDENCY(DECEASED HARSHIT VERMA)
23. The claimants/petitioners are the parents of deceased as deceased was unmarried at the time of accident. The petitioners have examined PW1 Sh. Rajinder Kumar Verma (father of deceased) under this head by way of his affidavit Ex. PW1/A. PW1 has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A that deceased was graduate from Delhi University and was working in Ernst & Young LLP as Senior Analyst and was earning Rs. 50,000/- per month plus Rs. 50,000/- bonus annually. He further deposed that deceased had worked with NIIT company(Coforge). He further deposed that immediately after resignation from Coforge, deceased joined Ernst & Young on 31.01.2022 vide appointment letter on 22.11.2021. He further deposed that deceased was permanent employee in Coforge and was the earning member in his family. He has relied upon following documents:-
S.No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copies of his Aadhaar Card and Ex.PW1/1(Colly) PAN Card (OSR)
2. Copies of Aadhaar Card and PAN Ex.PW1/2(Colly) Card of mother of deceased (OSR)
3. Copies of Aadhaar Card and PAN Ex. PW1/3(Colly) Card of deceased (OSR)
4. Copies of educational certificates of Ex. PW1/4(Colly) deceased (OSR)
5. Original Appointment Letter, Ex. PW1/5(Colly) Rajinder Kumar Verma & Ors. & Prateek Vasudeva Vs. Divyam Dabas & Ors. Page 16 of 31 MACP No. 203/22 & 204/22; FIR No. 243/22; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 15.12.2025 Acceptance Letter, Illustrative Compensation Breakup, Joining Bonus Letter of deceased
6. Copy of salary slip issued by Ernest Mark A & Young for the month of February, 2022
7. Copy of ID card of Ernest & Young Mark B in respect of deceased
8. Original Appointment Letter, Ex. PW1/6(Colly) Increment Letter, Relieving Letter in respect of deceased issued by NIIT
9. Death Certificate of deceased Ex. PW1/7
10. DAR Ex. PW1/8(Colly)
24. During cross-examination of PW1 (father of deceased) on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that he was unemployed for the last about 1 ½ years from the date of recording of his testimony on that day. He further deposed that prior to, he was working in Garment Production House i.e., Kottail Retail Apparels and was drawing a salary of Rs. 20,000/- per month. He further deposed that he could not show any document whereby it can be revealed that he had left the aforesaid company and was unemployed on that day. He further deposed that he had not placed on record medical document to show that doctors had advised him not to work. He volunteered that he can show the medical documents. He denied the suggestion that documents Ex. PW1/5(Colly) were false and fabricated as they did not bear the original signatures of AR of the company. He volunteered that the copies of the Rajinder Kumar Verma & Ors. & Prateek Vasudeva Vs. Divyam Dabas & Ors. Page 17 of 31 MACP No. 203/22 & 204/22; FIR No. 243/22; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 15.12.2025 aforesaid documents which were handed over to the IO were copy of the PDF received by him, whereas, the one which had been produced that day borne the signatures of deceased. He denied the suggestion that no such document was given to the IO in the form of copy of PDF at any point of time by him and that is why, neither any PDF was placed on record nor the same was lying mentioned in the entire DAR. He further denied the suggestion that the signatures of deceased at point X & Y on Ex. PW1/5 have been forged later on. He further deposed that the salary used to be received by deceased in his bank account. He further deposed that he did not receive any compensation form the company of deceased after his death. He further deposed that deceased did not have any term plan and as such, he did not receive any amount therefrom. He denied the suggestion that deceased was not working Ernst & Young company and that is why, he had not placed on record details of his bank. He deposed that he can neither deny nor accept that deceased had accepted the appointment in NIIT as his signatures did not appear on the relevant documents. He denied the suggestion that deceased was not working with NIIT at any point of time that is why Ex. PW1/6(Colly) was not being accepted by deceased as it did not bear the signature of deceased. He denied the suggestion that deceased was not earning any amount from NIIT that is why, he had not placed on record any bank record showing that he used to receive salary from NIIT. He deposed that he and his family had been making their living by borrowing money from friends and relatives. He denied the suggestion that he had his own independent income and his family was Rajinder Kumar Verma & Ors. & Prateek Vasudeva Vs. Divyam Dabas & Ors. Page 18 of 31 MACP No. 203/22 & 204/22; FIR No. 243/22; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 15.12.2025 dependent upon his income only. He further denied the suggestion that he had not borrowed any money from any friends and relatives and that is why, no transaction details or account details have been placed on record by him. He further denied the suggestion that the petitioners were not dependent upon deceased at any point of time. He denied the suggestion that deceased was not working with M/s. Ernst & Young LLP or was not earning Rs. 50,000/- per month and Rs. 50,000/- bonus annually.
25. In order to prove the employment and income of deceased, petitioners have examined PW3 Sh. Nipun Bansal (official from M/s. Coforge Limited) and PW4 Sh. Vikram Verma (official from Ernst & Young). PW3 has deposed in his evidence that deceased Harshit Verma was appointed as "Executive (Operations)" with M/s. NIIT SmartServe Limited, now known as Coforge Limited vide Appointment Letter dated 24.02.2020. He further deposed that his total CTC was Rs. 2,97,189/- per annum vide original appointment letter Ex. PW1/6(Colly). He further deposed that deceased worked in their company w.e.f., 24.02.2020 to 28.01.2022 and marked the experience letter of deceased as Mark PW3/3. He also exhibited copies of monthly salary slips w.e.f., March, 2020 till January, 2022 as Mark PW3/4. He deposed that last drawn gross monthly salary of deceased was Rs. 32,814/-(yearly salary Rs. 3,83,866/-). He also marked the copies of attendance record of deceased w.e.f., 01.03.2021 till 25.01.2022 as Mark PW3/5(Colly). During his cross-examination on behalf of insurance Rajinder Kumar Verma & Ors. & Prateek Vasudeva Vs. Divyam Dabas & Ors. Page 19 of 31 MACP No. 203/22 & 204/22; FIR No. 243/22; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 15.12.2025 company, he deposed that the documents produced by him on that day were available on their system and copies thereof were taken out by him from their system. He admitted that he had not placed on record any certificate U/s. 65B Indian Evidence Act. He further deposed that deceased had worked for 28 days in January, 2022. He deposed that it was there in the attendance record that deceased lastly attended the office on 25.01.2022. He denied the suggestion that attendance record and salary record produced by him on that day were forged and fabricated as it did not tally with each other. He further deposed that he could not tell the reason of difference of gross salary in monthly salary slips. He volunteered that it is basically for the purpose of income tax. He admitted that no paper was on record to show that increment in salary was given to the deceased. He further admitted that increase in salary was by way of a letter issued to the employee. He admitted that Finance Department can not increase the salary in the absence of such document. He denied the suggestion that page no. 17 of the documents filed by him i.e., Increment Letter was a forged and fabricated document. He further deposed that deceased was getting night shift allowances, apart from the monthly salary drawn by him. He deposed that Ex. PW1/6 was bearing digital signature at point A. He further deposed that the digital signature at point A were not put on Ex. PW1/6 in his presence. He admitted that no certificate u/. 65B Indian Evidence Act has been filed in this regard. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely as Ex. PW1/6 was false and fabricated.
Rajinder Kumar Verma & Ors. & Prateek Vasudeva Vs. Divyam Dabas & Ors. Page 20 of 31MACP No. 203/22 & 204/22; FIR No. 243/22; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 15.12.2025
26. PW-4 Sh. Vikram Verma has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW4/A that deceased Harshit Verma joined their company on 31.01.2022 and was having annual package of Rs. 5.5 lakhs alongwith Rs. 50,000/- joining Bonus. He has exhibited the copy of authorization letter Ex. PW4/1, copy of appointment letter Ex. PW4/2 (colly), copy of salary slip for the month of January, 2022 and February, 2022 Ex. PW4/3(colly) and copy of full and final settlement of deceased Harshit Verma Ex. PW4/4. During his cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that there was no separate joining letter required by the company and therefore, he could not show any such letter by the deceased. He volunteered that as per Ex. PW4/2, the employee was to join on 31.01.2022. He further deposed that the date of joining was also mentioned in the salary slip Ex. PW4/3 as 31.01.2022. He further deposed that their company did not pay any compensation to deceased due to the accident. He further deposed that their company had no accidental policy for its employees. He admitted that joining bonus of Rs. 50,000/- was paid once in the entire service. He further admitted that the said joining bonus had nothing to do with the monthly salary. He further admitted that he did not see the original before attesting the aforesaid documents. He deposed that he did not remember whether he had sought the originals from his Higher Authorities prior to signing the same. He denied the suggestion that the documents Ex. PW4/2 to Ex. PW4/4 were false and manipulated documents to help the petitioners. He denied the suggestion that he had intentionally Rajinder Kumar Verma & Ors. & Prateek Vasudeva Vs. Divyam Dabas & Ors. Page 21 of 31 MACP No. 203/22 & 204/22; FIR No. 243/22; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 15.12.2025 attested the copies of Ex. PW2/2 to Ex. PW4/4 without seeing its original to help the petitioners.
27. PW5 Sh. Amit, official from the concerned bank produced the bank statement of Late Harshit Verma having account no. 245201511088 with their branch from the period 01.02.2020 to 31.03.2022 and exhibited the same as Ex. PW5/C (colly). He also produced certificate u/s. 63 BSA and exhibited the same as Ex. PW5/D. During his cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that he can not say whether the documents filed by him were as per the Bankers Book Evidence Act. He had not taken out the printout of the bank statement brought by him. He volunteered that the printout Ex. PW5/C was taken in front of him by Ms. Priyanshi, Dy. Branch Manager of his bank. He deposed that he could not tell what E-mail address was being referred in the certificate u/s. 63 of BSA Act. He denied the suggestion that the record brought by him were forged and fabricated.
28. After referring to the testimonies of PW1, PW3 & PW4 and the documents filed by the said witnesses, Ld. counsel for petitioners vehemently argued that last drawn monthly salary of deceased may be taken as per document Ex. PW4/2(colly) in order to calculate the loss of dependency.
29. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the insurance company argued that there is no concrete evidence led by petitioners to establish the Rajinder Kumar Verma & Ors. & Prateek Vasudeva Vs. Divyam Dabas & Ors. Page 22 of 31 MACP No. 203/22 & 204/22; FIR No. 243/22; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 15.12.2025 monthly income of deceased at the time of accident. Thus, loss of dependency should be calculated on the basis of notional income as per Minimum Wages Act applicable during the relevant period.
30. As per the the documents produced by PW1, PW3 & PW4, it is apparent that deceased Harshit Verma was working with Coforge w.e.f., 24.02.2020 till 28.01.2022. It is relevant to note here that as per document i.e., Appointment letter (Ex. PW4/2) of Ernst & Young, deceased had joined the said firm on 31.01.2022 with CTC Rs. 5,50,000/- at the time of accident. It is pertinent to mention here that as per joining bonus letter (which is part of Ex. PW4/2 colly), deceased was also entitled for Rs. 50,000/- as joining bonus and the said bonus had a lock-in-period of 12 months. It is an admitted fact by PW4 during his cross-examination that the aforesaid joining bonus of Rs. 50,000/- was paid once in the entire service. As per the documents i.e. salary slip (Ex. PW4/3 colly), deceased had withdrawn salary of Rs. 92,900/- in the month of February, 2022 which includes the aforesaid joining bonus of Rs. 50,000/- also. The same is reflected in his bank account also as per document filed by PW5. The date of accident in the present case is 06.03.2022. Hence, in view of the documents produced by PW4 & PW5, I deem it fit to accept the salary of deceased as Rs. 5,50,000/- per annum as on the date of accident.
Rajinder Kumar Verma & Ors. & Prateek Vasudeva Vs. Divyam Dabas & Ors. Page 23 of 31MACP No. 203/22 & 204/22; FIR No. 243/22; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 15.12.2025
31. From the aforesaid amount the actual income tax is liable to be deducted from the salary of deceased. No document regarding deductions towards income tax from the salary of deceased has been produced. Hence, the income tax as per the income tax slab for the financial year 2021-22 is to be deducted. As per the income tax slab for the financial year 2021-22, there was Nil tax upto the income of Rs.2,50,000/- and 5% tax from the income Rs.2,50,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-. The actual income tax as per aforesaid slab thus comes to Rs.15,000/-. The income of the deceased after deduction of income tax thus comes to Rs.5,35,000/- (Rs. 5,50,000/-minus Rs. 15,000/-) per annum.
32. The petitioners have claimed that deceased was aged about 25 years as on the date of accident. In order to consider the age of deceased, the relevant document on record is copy of his 10 th class certificate(which is part of Ex. PW1/4 colly) wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 20.11.1997. This document has not been disproved by the respondents. Therefore, it stands proved that date of birth of deceased is 20.11.1997 and thus, he was more than 24 years old but less than 25 years old as on the date of accident i.e. 06.03.2022. Hence, the multiplier of 18 would be applicable in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "Sarla Verma Vs. DTC" 2009 ACJ 1298 SC.
33. Considering the age of deceased, future prospects @ 40% has to be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of pronouncement made by Rajinder Kumar Verma & Ors. & Prateek Vasudeva Vs. Divyam Dabas & Ors. Page 24 of 31 MACP No. 203/22 & 204/22; FIR No. 243/22; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 15.12.2025 Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." Civil Appeal No. 6961/2015 decided on 31.10.2017, as well as in view of decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", decided on 02.11.17.
34. PW1 has categorically deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that both the petitioners were dependent upon the deceased at the time of accident as deceased was the only earning member in their family. Since, deceased was unmarried at the time of accident, one half is liable to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 67,41,000/- (Rs.5,35,000/- X 1/2 X 140/100 X 18). Hence, a sum of Rs. 67,41,000/- is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
35. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as, Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Tribunal considers that both the petitioners are entitled for payment of Rs. 40,000/- each towards "loss of consortium". By way of pronouncement of Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to hold that there shall be an increase of 10% on account of 'inflation' after a period of three years. Applying, the afore-cited binding law the The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi Rajinder Kumar Verma & Ors. & Prateek Vasudeva Vs. Divyam Dabas & Ors. Page 25 of 31 MACP No. 203/22 & 204/22; FIR No. 243/22; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 15.12.2025 in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Ltd. V. LR's of Sukhbir Singh, MAC. APP. 518/2013 vide judgment pronounced on 13.07.2023 has been pleased to direct the entitlement of dependents to 10% increase under this head, though, the date of accident was of 2011 and the date of impugned award was of 2013. Accordingly, both the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs. 48,400/- each (Rs. 40,000/- + 10% of Rs. 40,000/- + 10% of Rs. 44,000/-) towards "loss of consortium".[As per the judgment Pranay Sethi(Supra), two escalations of 10% each is awarded since the date of accident in the present matter is 06.03.2022].
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
36. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) which has been re-enforced in LR's of Sukhbir Singh (supra), the Tribunal considers that both the petitioners are also entitled for payment of Rs. 18,150/- (Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 16,500/-) on account of "loss of estate" and for equal payment of Rs. 18,150/- (Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 16,500/-) towards "funeral expenses". [As per the judgment Pranay Sethi(Supra), two escalations of 10% each is awarded since the date of accident in the present matter is 06.03.2022].
Rajinder Kumar Verma & Ors. & Prateek Vasudeva Vs. Divyam Dabas & Ors. Page 26 of 31MACP No. 203/22 & 204/22; FIR No. 243/22; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 15.12.2025
37. Therefore, on the basis of the above discussion, the compensation is quantified as below:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 67,41,000/-
2. Loss of Consortium Rs. 96,800/-
3. Loss of Estate & Funeral Rs. 36,300/-
Expenses Total Rs. 68,74,100/-
Rounded off to Rs. 68,74,000/-
COMPENSATION IN CASE MACP NO. 204/22 (INJURED PRATEEK VASUDEVA) COMPENSATION
38. PW2/Injured Prateek Vasudeva has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A that she had suffered grievous injury in the accident in question. For this, he has relied upon medical treatment record of various hospitals Ex. PW2/4 & Ex. PW2/5. It is relevant to mention here that as per the medical treatment record particularly, MLC (which is part of DAR) of Max Hospital, Delhi, in respect of petitioner/injured Prateek Vasudeva, reveals that he had suffered 'simple injury' in the accident. No expert witness examined by the petitioner to prove that injury was grievous and not simple. However, the petitioner has relied upon medical bills(Ex. PW2/6 colly) and Medical bills summary (Mark C) to the tune of Rs. 57,854/-. Keeping in Rajinder Kumar Verma & Ors. & Prateek Vasudeva Vs. Divyam Dabas & Ors. Page 27 of 31 MACP No. 203/22 & 204/22; FIR No. 243/22; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 15.12.2025 view the injury suffered by the petitioner being simple in nature, it is considered just and proper to pass a composite award in his favour, including medical expenses of Rs. 57,854/-. A composite Award for an amount of Rs. 85,000/-(rounded off) is awarded to the petitioner.
39. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Respondent no. 3/insurance company did not adduce any evidence as it had no statutory defence. Rather, insurance company had filed legal offer in both the cases which was not acceptable to the petitioners in their respective cases. It is nowhere the case of insurance company that any term or condition of insurance policy was breached/violated by insured. Keeping in view the existence of valid insurance policy, respondent no. 3/insurance company becomes liable to pay the compensation amount, as insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF
40. In view of my findings on issues no. 1 & 2, following order is passed after relying upon judgment "United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baby Raksha & Ors.", MAC APP. No. 36/2023 on 21.04.2023, on the point of interest.
a) A sum of Rs. 68,74,000/-(Rupees Sixty Eight Lakhs and Seventy Four Thousand Only) (including interim award amount, if any) in MAC Petition No. 203/22 alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of Rajinder Kumar Verma & Ors. & Prateek Vasudeva Vs. Divyam Dabas & Ors. Page 28 of 31 MACP No. 203/22 & 204/22; FIR No. 243/22; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 15.12.2025 petitioners and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e. 23.04.2022 till the date of its realization.
b) A sum of Rs. 85,000/-(Rupees Eighty Five Thousand only) in MAC Petition No. 204/22 alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of petitioner and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e. 23.04.2022 till the date of its realization.
Issue no. 3 is decided accordingly.
APPORTIONMENT
41. Statements of petitioners in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP were recorded on 26.04.2025 & 28.05.2025. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of their statements, it is hereby ordered that out of total compensation amount in MAC Petition No. 203/22, the petitioner no. 1 Sh. Rajinder Kumar Verma (Father of deceased) shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 18,74,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs and Seventy Four Thousand Only) alongwith proportionate interest and Smt. Sakshi Verma (mother of deceased) shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only) alongwith proportionate interest.
42. In MACP No. 203/22, out of share amount of petitioner no. 1, a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Only) is directed to be immediately released to him through his bank account no. 43849004284 with Rajinder Kumar Verma & Ors. & Prateek Vasudeva Vs. Divyam Dabas & Ors. Page 29 of 31 MACP No. 203/22 & 204/22; FIR No. 243/22; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 15.12.2025 State Bank of India, Rohini Court Branch, Delhi having IFSC Code SBIN0010323 and remaining amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 25,000/-each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest. The said FDRs be released to the said petitioner on the monthly basis as aforesaid.
43. In MACP No. 203/22, out of share amount of petitioner no. 2, a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Only) is directed to be immediately released to him through his bank account no. 43852434575 with State Bank of India, Rohini Court Branch, Delhi having IFSC Code SBIN0010323 and remaining amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 30,000/-each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest. The said FDRs be released to the said petitioner on the monthly basis as aforesaid.
44. In MACP No. 204/22, the entire award amount of Rs. 85,000/- alongwith interest shall be immediately released to petitioner through his bank account no. 43831133038 with State Bank of India, Rohini Court Branch, Delhi having IFSC Code SBIN0010323, as per rules.
45. Respondent no. 3/ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., being insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount in the aforesaid bank accounts of the claimants in both the cases within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be Rajinder Kumar Verma & Ors. & Prateek Vasudeva Vs. Divyam Dabas & Ors. Page 30 of 31 MACP No. 203/22 & 204/22; FIR No. 243/22; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 15.12.2025 liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a for the period of delay in terms of directions passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in its latest judgment titled "Parminder Singh Vs. Honey Goyal & Ors.", S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020, DOD:18.03.2025.
46. Concerned Manager of petitioners bank in MACP No. 272/21 is directed to release the amount to the petitioners as aforesaid, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. He is further directed to keep the remaining amount in fixed deposit, if any, in terms of aforesaid directions and send compliance report to this Court. He is also directed to ensure that no loan, advance or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioners and also to counsel for the insurance company for compliance. Petitioners are also directed to provide copy of this award to their bank Manager for compliance. Form XV, XVI & Form XVII in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A. Copy of order be also sent to concerned CJM/JMFC and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP. Signed copy of this Award be placed on the judicial record of MAC Petition No. 204/22, as per the rules. Digitally signed by RICHA MANCHANDA RICHA MANCHANDA Date:
2025.12.15 Announced in the open 14:24:47 +0530 Court on 15.12.2025 (RICHA MANCHANDA) Judge MACT-2 (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi Rajinder Kumar Verma & Ors. & Prateek Vasudeva Vs. Divyam Dabas & Ors. Page 31 of 31