Delhi District Court
Savila Khatun vs Anil Kumar And Ors on 5 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN GUPTA,
PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-02,WEST,TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
MACT no. 585/2023
DLWT010076582023
Savila Khatun
W/o Sultan Khan
R/o House no. B-325,
Sabda J.J. Colony,
Ghevra Mor,
Delhi-110081 ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Anil Kumar @ Kanhaiya
S/o Sh. Virendra
R/o 1284, near Billu Property,
Tikri Kalan, Delhi
Permanent Address:
Gaon Kharka ki Madhaiy,
District Auraiya,
Uttar Pradesh
2. Sh. Om Prakash
S/o Sh. Dharam Chand
R/o H.NO. 204, B6, Sector 5,
Rohini, Avantika, Delhi
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA 17:12:14 +0530
Date: 2025.08.05
MACT No. 585/23 Date of Award : 05.08.2025
Savitla Khatun Vs. Anil Kumar @ Kanhaiya & Ors. Page No. 1 of 24
3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Core -1. 10th floor, Scope Minar
Laxmi Nagar District Centre,
Delhi 110092 ...... Respondents
Date of Institution: : 21.09.2023
Date of reserving order/judgment : 25.07.2025
Date of pronouncement: : 05.08.2025
AWAR D
1. Claim petition was filed by the petitioner/LR of deceased seeking compensation in respect of fatal injuries suffered by deceased Yasmeen Parween (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') in a road accident which took place on 11.08.2023 involving vehicle i.e. Goods Carrier bearing registration no. DL1M8928. FIR No. 624/23 PS Mundka U/s 279/304A IPC dated 11.08.2023 was also registered pertaining to the accident in question and after concluding the investigation, IO filed DAR on 23.11.2023, which was ordered to be clubbed with the claim petition vide order dated 23.11.2023 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal. As per the facts mentioned in the claim petition; DAR filed by the IO and documents annexed therewith, on 11.08.2023 at about 11:37 AM at Tikri Border, Main Rohtak Road, towards Bahadurgarh, in front of HP Petrol Pump, Delhi, a vehicle i.e. Goods Carrier bearing registration no. DL1M8928 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle'), which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.08.05 17:12:21 +0530 MACT No. 585/23 Date of Award : 05.08.2025 Savitla Khatun Vs. Anil Kumar @ Kanhaiya & Ors. Page No. 2 of 24 manner, who was reversing the offending vehicle without taking necessary precautions, hit the offending vehicle against a pedestrian Ms. Yasmeen Parween (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'), who was ran over by the offending vehicle and she sustained fatal injuries. It is further stated that deceased was taken to CNC Nursing Home, Delhi wherein, she was medically examined vide MLC no. 72/2023 dated 11.08.2023 and she was declared 'brought dead'. It is further stated that her postmortem was conducted at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi vide PMR No. 820/23 dated 12.08.2023.
2. Respondent no. 1 is the driver of the offending vehicle; respondent no.2 is the registered owner of the offending vehicle and the respondent no.3 is the Insurer of the offending vehicle. DAR was also accompanied by other relevant documents including Final report u/s 173 Cr.PC; Copy of FIR; Rukka; Site Plan; MLC and Postmortem report of deceased; Seizure memo of offending vehicle and its documents; Mechanical Inspection report of the offending vehicle; Notice U/s 133 M.V. Act and its reply; Seizure memo of the DL of driver of offending vehicle; Statement of witnesses U/s 161 CrPC, Arrest memo of accused (respondent no.1 herein) etc.
3. In its reply filed on behalf of the respondent no.1 and 2, wherein, while denying the allegations against the respondent no. 1, it is stated inter alia that the respondent no.1 came down from his truck and assured that there was no one on the road behind his truck and then he reversed his truck very carefully and cautiously; that the deceased was standing on the divider in front of petrol pump and she was busy on her mobile and blindly coming towards the side of petrol pump; that the SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.08.05 17:12:28 +0530 MACT No. 585/23 Date of Award : 05.08.2025 Savitla Khatun Vs. Anil Kumar @ Kanhaiya & Ors. Page No. 3 of 24 vehicle was insured with respondent no. 3 / New India Assurance Company Limited and the respondent no.1 and 2 are not responsible to give any claim to the claimant.
4. In its written statement filed on behalf of the respondent no.3/insurance company, it is stated inter alia that the alleged accident was caused on account of negligence of the deceased who was walking on the road without caring for ongoing traffic; that the deceased is liable for contributory negligence; that the alleged offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL1M 8928 was insured in the name of Sh. Om Prakash with the answering respondent valid for the period from 27.02.2023 to 26.02.2024 and liability of the answering respondent, if any, is subject to the terms and conditions, limitations as contained in the insurance policy and the M.V. Act and rules framed thereunder.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by this Tribunal on 22.04.2024:-
1. Whether the deceased Yasmeen Parveen suffered fatal injuries in a vehicular accident that took place on 11.08.2023 at 11.37 AM at Main Rohtak Road, towards Bahadurgarh Carriageway in front of H P Petrol Pump, Delhi involving a vehicle no.
DL1M8928 (offending vehicle) being driven by respondent no.1 Anil Kumar @ Kanhaiya in a rash and negligent manner, owned by respondent no.2/ Om Prakash and which was insured with respondent no. 3 The New India Assurance Company Limited? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief. SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.08.05 17:12:33 +0530 MACT No. 585/23 Date of Award : 05.08.2025 Savitla Khatun Vs. Anil Kumar @ Kanhaiya & Ors. Page No. 4 of 24
6. In order to prove her case, petitioner got examined three witnesses. PW1 is petitioner Smt. Savila Khatun (mother of the deceased); PW-2 is IO ASI Vinod Pandey and PW3 is Sh. Naushad.
7. No witness was got examined on behalf of any of the respondents.
8. I have heard arguments advanced by Ld. Counsels appearing for the parties. I have also gone through the record carefully and my issue wise findings are as under :
Issue No.1
9. It is the settled proposition of law that an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non. However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition based upon negligence. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. Reference may be made to the judgments titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sakshi Bhutani & Others., MAC APP. No. 550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012, Bimla Devi & Others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Others (2009) 13 SC 530, Parmeshwari v. Amirchand & Others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 & Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Others 2018, Law Suit (SC) 303.
10. PW-1 Smt. Savila Khatun (mother of deceased) tendered her affidavit in evidence which is Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the documents i.e. (i) Photocopy of her ID Card Ex.PW1/1 (OSR); (ii) Photocopy of ID Card of deceased Ex.PW1/2 (OSR);
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.08.05
17:12:39 +0530
MACT No. 585/23 Date of Award : 05.08.2025
Savitla Khatun Vs. Anil Kumar @ Kanhaiya & Ors. Page No. 5 of 24
(iii) Photocopy of MLC of deceased Ex.PW1/3; (d) Copy of PMR Ex.PW1/4 and death certificate of deceased Ex.PW1/5; (v) DAR Ex.PW1/6 (Colly); (vi) Copy of RC of the offending vehicle Ex.PW1/7; (vii) Copy of insurance policy Ex.PW1/8;
(viii) Copy of DL of the respondent no.1 Ex.PW1/9; (ix) Copy of education qualification certificates of the deceased Ex.PW1/10 (Colly); (x) Copy of Voter I Card of father of deceased Ex.PW1/11 (Colly). In her cross examination done by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2, she stated that she was not present at the spot at the time of accident in question and she was not an eye witness of the accident.
11. PW2 IO ASI Vinod Pandey, who is the Investigating Officer, has inter alia deposed that he had conducted the investigation of the present matter and he had filed the DAR, which is Ex.PW1/6 (Colly). He further deposed that on 11.08.2023 at about 11.38 AM, he received a DD no. 79A and as per the said DD, a lady was hit by tempo at Tikri Border and the said tempo was at the spot. He further deposed that he alongwith HC Satyawan reached at the spot and the tempo was found at the spot in wrong direction which was bearing registration no. DL1M8928; that from the spot, he came to know that lady who was injured was taken to CNC Nursing Home; that he left HC Satyawan at the spot; that he reached at CNC Nursing Home and took the MLC of the injured; that as per the MLC, the injured was declared brought dead and thereafter, he sent the dead body through HC Satyawan to the mortuary of Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Delhi; that the crime team was called at the spot and he further investigated the matter; that he had had taken the CCTV footage from MCD Toll Tax which was installed near Tikri SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.08.05 17:12:47 +0530 MACT No. 585/23 Date of Award : 05.08.2025 Savitla Khatun Vs. Anil Kumar @ Kanhaiya & Ors. Page No. 6 of 24 Border and as per the said CCTV footage, the tempo was coming from Haryana to Delhi in wrong direction and the said tempo driver stopped at HP Petrol Pump, Rohtak Road, Delhi. He further deposed that as per the CCTV footage, one lady was going towards Tikri Border, Haryana; that the abovesaid tempo driver was driving back his tempo in a wrong direction and hit the abovesaid lady from the back side and caused the accident and due to the accident, the said lady sustained injuries; that the abovesaid accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the abovesaid driver of the vehicle; that he arrested the driver and seized the tempo; that the post mortem was conducted at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital and after completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet.
12. In his cross examination done by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.3, he stated that there was no eye witness in the case and he investigated the matter on the basis of CCTV footage. In his cross examination done by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2, he denied to the suggestion that the driver checked that there was no person behind the vehicle and thereafter, he reversed his vehicle or that the deceased was standing on the other side and was talking on the phone.
13. In the case titled 'Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs. Karan Bhatia", MAC APP. 271/2018 decided on 26.11.2024, it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court as under:-
"12. Shri Mehtab Singh, the eye witness, may have failed to support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile during the trial, but that does not take away the factum of accident and demise of Smt.Surjit Kaur. The investigations were duly SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.08.05 17:12:53 +0530 MACT No. 585/23 Date of Award : 05.08.2025 Savitla Khatun Vs. Anil Kumar @ Kanhaiya & Ors. Page No. 7 of 24 carried out which revealed not only the involvement of the vehicle, but also it was the offending vehicle which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the accident. The manner of accident is also evident from the Site Plan prepared during the criminal investigations.
13. In the case of National Insurance Co.,vs Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, it has been held that filing of Chargesheet is sufficient proof of the negligence and involvement of the Offending Vehicle. Similar observations have been made in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepak Goel and Ors., 2014 (2) TAC 846 Del, that if the claimant was able to prove the criminal case on record pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, whereby the criminal records showing completion of investigation by the police and filing of Chargesheet under Sections 279/304- A IPC against the driver have been proved, then the documents mentioned above are sufficient to establish the fact that the driver was negligent in causing the accident. Where FIR is lodged, Chargesheet is filed, especially in a case where driver after causing the accident had fled away from the spot, then the documents mentioned above are sufficient to establish the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent in causing the accident particularly when there was no defence available from his side before the learned Tribunal.
14. Similar observations have been made in the cases of Jamanti Devi and Ors. v. Maheshwar Rai, MAC Appeal no. 831/2015 decided on 19.11.2022.
15. The Apex Court has opined in the judgment of Mangla Ram Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, AIR 2018 SC 1900 that the key- point of negligence of the driver as set up by the Claimants, is required to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.08.05 17:13:00 +0530 MACT No. 585/23 Date of Award : 05.08.2025 Savitla Khatun Vs. Anil Kumar @ Kanhaiya & Ors. Page No. 8 of 24 not by the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, filing of Chargesheet against the driver of the offending vehicle prima facie, points towards the complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. The subsequent acquittal of the accused may of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in motor vehicle accident cases."
14. In the case titled "Meera Bai & Ors. Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company limited & Anr.", Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3886 of 2019, decided on 30.04.2025, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under:-
"4. As far as examining the eye witness, such a witness will not be available in all cases. The FIR having been lodged and the charge sheet filed against the owner driver of the offending vehicle, we are of the opinion that there could be no finding that negligence was not established."
15. In the present matter, PW1 / petitioner Smt. Savila Khatun is not an eye witness of the accident. PW1 has also relied upon DAR Ex.PW1/6, which includes Final report u/s 173 Cr.PC; Copy of FIR; Rukka; Site Plan; MLC and Postmortem report of deceased; Seizure memo of offending vehicle and its documents; Mechanical Inspection report of the offending vehicle; Notice U/s 133 M.V. Act and its reply; Seizure memo of the DL of driver of offending vehicle; Statement of witnesses U/s 161 CrPC, Arrest memo of accused (respondent no.1 herein), Disclosure statement of accused (respondent no.1 herein) etc.
16. It is an undisputed fact that FIR No. 624/23 (supra) was registered at PS Mundka with regard to accident in question.
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.08.05
17:13:06 +0530
MACT No. 585/23 Date of Award : 05.08.2025
Savitla Khatun Vs. Anil Kumar @ Kanhaiya & Ors. Page No. 9 of 24
Copy of said FIR (which is part of final report U/s 173 CrPC filed by IO alongwith DAR) would show that same was registered on the same day i.e. 11.08.2023. Thus, FIR is shown to have been registered promptly and without any delay. Hence, there is no possibility of false implication of respondent no. 1 and/or false involvement of aforesaid vehicle bearing No. DL1M8928 at the instance of petitioner herein.
17. Further, copy of MLC report of deceased shows that after the accident, she was removed to CNC Nursing Home, Delhi on 11.08.2023 with the alleged history of RTA. On her examination, she was found to have sustained multiple injuries as mentioned therein and declared 'brought dead'. The said injuries are consistent with the injuries which are sustained in motor vehicular accident. Again, there is no challenge to the said document from the side of respondents including insurance company.
18. Moreover, as per the postmortem report of deceased Yasmeen Parween vide P.M. Report No. 820/23 dated 12.08.2023 filed by the IO alongwith present DAR, the opinion is given as "Cause of Death is craniocerebral damage as a result of blunt force impact. All injuries are ante-mortem in nature and possible in manner as alleged". Said document has not been disputed from the side of the respondents and corroborates the ocular testimony of PWs as discussed above.
19. PW2 ASI Vinod Pandey is the Investigating Officer in the present matter, who has categorically deposed that offending vehicle was found at the spot in the wrong direction when he reached at the spot alongwith HC Satyawan upon receiving of DD No. 79A dated 11.08.2023. He further deposed SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.08.05 17:13:11 +0530 MACT No. 585/23 Date of Award : 05.08.2025 Savitla Khatun Vs. Anil Kumar @ Kanhaiya & Ors. Page No. 10 of 24 that he took the CCTV footage from the MCD Toll Tax, which was installed near Tikri Border and as per the said CCTV footage, offending vehicle was coming from Haryana to Delhi in wrong direction, which stopped at HP Petrol Pump, Rohtak Road, Delhi. He further deposed that as per the CCTV footage, one lady was going towards Tikri Border, Haryana and the driver of offending vehicle was driving back his tempo in a wrong direction and hit against the said lady from back side and caused the accident and the said lady sustained injuries. He further deposed that accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and he arrested the driver and seized the Tempo (offending vehicle). He was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents, however, nothing material elicited from his cross examination, which would impeach his testimony or cast any doubt over the said version of CCTV footage regarding the accident. PW2 is the investigating officer of the case, who during the course of investigation, obtained CCTV footage of the accident in question and after concluding investigation, he filed chargesheet against the accused Anil Kumar (respondent no. 1 herein).
20. Testimony of PW2 / IO ASI Vinod Pandey is further corroborated by various documents / reports obtained by him during the course of investigation, which have been filed alongwith the DAR. As per the seizure memo of the offending vehicle filed by IO alongwith the chargesheet / final report, the offending vehicle was seized from the spot on the date of accident. The said document remained undisputed on the part of the respondent. Further, IO has also filed copy of reply given by the owner of the offending vehicle to the notice U/s 133 M.V. SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.08.05 17:13:15 +0530 MACT No. 585/23 Date of Award : 05.08.2025 Savitla Khatun Vs. Anil Kumar @ Kanhaiya & Ors. Page No. 11 of 24 Act and as per said reply, offending vehicle was being driven by driver Anil Kumar @ Kanhaiya who caused the accident on 11.08.2023 and offending vehicle was impounded at the spot. The said document / reply also remained undisputed on the part of the respondents. Hence, it becomes clear that at the time of accident, offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL1M8928 was being driven by respondent no. 1, which was involved in the accident in question. Respondent no. 1 namely Anil Kumar @ Kanhaiya (accused in State case) has been charge-sheeted (which is part of copies of criminal case available on record) for offences punishable U/s 279/304A IPC and 184 M.V. Act by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by him. Same also supports the case of the petitioner and points out towards the rash and negligent driving of aforesaid vehicle by respondent no.1. The investigation was duly carried out which revealed not only the involvement of the offending vehicle, but also that it was the offending vehicle which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the accident.
21. Moreover, apart from petitioner, the respondent no. 1 Sh. Anil Kumar, driver of the offending vehicle, was the other material witness who could have thrown sufficient light as to how and under what circumstances, the accident in question took place. However, he did not enter into witness box during the course of inquiry. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him for not entering into the witness box, to the effect that the accident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle. SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.08.05 17:13:20 +0530 MACT No. 585/23 Date of Award : 05.08.2025 Savitla Khatun Vs. Anil Kumar @ Kanhaiya & Ors. Page No. 12 of 24
22. Moreover, in the given facts and circumstances of the present case, the rashness and negligence of the driver (R1) would also be assumed by virtue of res ipsa loquitur. The very factum that the respondent no. 1 while reversing the offending vehicle, hit it against a pedestrian and caused her death, itself shows that offending vehicle was being driven by him in a very rash and negligent manner and without taking necessary precautions while reversing the offending vehicle. There was an implicit duty on the respondent no.1 to see that his driving did not endanger the life of any other user of the road. He has failed to exercise the caution incumbent upon him and has clearly neglected his duty of circumspection.
23. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioner has been able to prove on the basis of preponderance of probabilities that deceased Ms. Yasmeen Parween sustained fatal injuries in road accident which took place on 11.08.2023 at about 11:37 AM at Tikri Border, Main Rohtak Road, towards Bahadurgarh, in front of HP Petrol Pump, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent no.
1. Accordingly issue no.1 stands decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
Issue No.2
24. In view of the finding on issue no.1, petitioner is entitled to get compensation, however, the quantum of compensation still needs to be adjudicated. Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 enjoins upon the claim Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation, which appears to be just and reasonable. As SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.08.05 17:13:25 +0530 MACT No. 585/23 Date of Award : 05.08.2025 Savitla Khatun Vs. Anil Kumar @ Kanhaiya & Ors. Page No. 13 of 24 per settled law, compensation is not expected to be windfall or a bonanza nor it should be pittance. A man is not compensated for the physical injury, he is compensated for the loss which he suffers as a result of that injury (Baker v. Willoughby (1970) Ac 467 at page 492 per Lord Reid).
Computation of Compensation
25. The present case pertains to the death of deceased Ms. Yasmeen Parween. In death cases, the guidelines for computation of compensation have been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases
121. Further, the guidelines have been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., 2017 ACJ 2700, decided on 31.10.2017, laying down the general principles for computation of compensation in death cases.
Age of deceased :
26. PW-1 Smt. Savila Khatun (mother of deceased) has filed on record the copy of Aadhar Card of deceased (Ex.PW1/2). As per the Aadhar Card, the date of birth of deceased is 10.03.2003. The same remained undisputed on the part of respondents. Date of accident is 11.08.2023. As such, age of deceased Yasmeen Parween was around 20 years 5 months at the time of accident. As such this fact stands concluded that age of the deceased was around 20 years 5 months at the time of accident.
Assessment of Income of deceased :
27. Petitioner/PW-1 Smt. Savila Khatun (mother of deceased) has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.
SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.08.05 17:13:30
+0530
MACT No. 585/23 Date of Award : 05.08.2025
Savitla Khatun Vs. Anil Kumar @ Kanhaiya & Ors. Page No. 14 of 24 PW1/A) that her daughter was doing private job in Delhi and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. In her cross-examination done by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.3, she stated that she was not having any document to show the income and employment of the deceased. She denied to the suggestion that she is not the legal heir and dependent upon the income of the deceased.
28. Petitioner has also got examined PW-3 Sh. Naushad, who tendered his affidavit in evidence which is Ex.PW3/A, wherein he deposed inter alia that he know the petitioner Savila Khatun and her family very well, she being his maternal aunt (mami); that deceased Yasmeen Parween was residing at B-335, Sabda J.J. Colony, Ghewra Mor, Delhi-110081 alongwith petitioner in the house owned by his wife Mst. Jahana Parveen since about 2021; that father of deceased was known by the name of S.A. Khan and Sultan Khan; that deceased Yasmeen Parween was living and working in Delhi at the time of her death in the accident. He has relied upon the documents i.e. (i) Photocopy of his Aadhar Card Ex.PW3/1 (OSR); (ii) Electricity bill in respect of property no. B-325 and B-335 Ex.PW3/2; (iii) Copy of ration card Ex.PW3/4 (OSR); (iv) Copy of Aadhar Card and Election I Card of Sultan Khan Ex.PW3/5 (Colly) and Ex.PW3/6 (OSR) respectively. In his cross examination done by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.3, he stated that he does not have any document to show that the petitioner was his maternal aunt (mami) and he does not have any document to show his relation with his maternal uncle (Mama) or with the deceased. He further stated that he is having Aadhar Card and Ration Card of petitioner, his mama as well as deceased. He denied to the SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.08.05 17:13:35 +0530 MACT No. 585/23 Date of Award : 05.08.2025 Savitla Khatun Vs. Anil Kumar @ Kanhaiya & Ors. Page No. 15 of 24 suggestion that Sultan Khan was not the husband of the petitioner or that he was deposing falsely with a view to help the petitioner.
29. Ld. Counsel for the respondents argued that petitioner has not been able to prove the alleged employment and income of the deceased. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that it is duly established on record that petitioner as well as deceased were residing in Delhi at the time of accident; that petitioner was working in Delhi and there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW1 in respect of employment and monthly income of deceased.
30. Petitioner has deposed that the deceased was doing a private job in Delhi and earning Rs.30,000/- per month.
However, in her cross examination, she has stated that she was having no document to show the income and employment of deceased. No other witness was got examined by the petitioner in support of alleged employment and monthly income of deceased. Petitioner has also filed copy of educational qualification certificate of deceased which are Ex.PW1/10 (Colly), which includes the certificate of passing of Secondary School Examination, 2019 and Intermediate Annual Examination 2021 by the deceased Yasmeen Parween. Further, as deposed by the petitioner, deceased was residing in Delhi at the time of accident, which is further corroborated from the testimony of the PW3 Naushad, who has deposed to the effect that deceased alongwith petitioner were residing in the house of his wife at B-335, Sabda J.J. Colony, Ghewra Mor, Delhi. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW3. Hence, it is established that deceased was resident of Delhi at the time of accident. However, for want of cogent and definite evidence being led by the petitioner with SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.08.05 17:13:41 +0530 MACT No. 585/23 Date of Award : 05.08.2025 Savitla Khatun Vs. Anil Kumar @ Kanhaiya & Ors. Page No. 16 of 24 regard to the vocation and monthly income of the deceased, this Tribunal assesses the income of deceased to be at parity with minimum wages of Matriculate in the State of Delhi which at the time of accident i.e. 11.08.2023 were Rs.20,903/- per month. Application of Multiplier:
31. As held above, deceased was about aged about 20 years 5 months at the time of accident. As per settled principle laid down in case of Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier as applicable to the age group between 16-20 years and also between 21-25 years is 18. Future Prospects:
32. The Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment which has arisen out of SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014 titled as National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors decided on 31.10.2017 has held as under:-
"61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi,2012 ACJ 1428 (SC) should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh,2013 ACJ 1403 (SC) has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, 2013 ACJ 1253 (SC), which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.08.05 17:13:46 +0530 MACT No. 585/23 Date of Award : 05.08.2025 Savitla Khatun Vs. Anil Kumar @ Kanhaiya & Ors. Page No. 17 of 24 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.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-
employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years.
An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 21 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) 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."
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.08.05
17:13:52 +0530
MACT No. 585/23 Date of Award : 05.08.2025
Savitla Khatun Vs. Anil Kumar @ Kanhaiya & Ors. Page No. 18 of 24
33. On the day of accident deceased was aged about 20 years 5 months. Moreover, the law has been well settled by the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sandeep Khanuja (supra) and Erudhaya Priya vs. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601, that while applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are also to be taken into consideration. Thus, considering the petitioner being 20 years and 5 months of age at the time of accident, an addition of income to the extent of 40% towards future prospects has to be counted. Deduction towards Personal and Living Expenses:
34. After choosing the age, multiplier and income of the deceased, necessary deductions have to be made out of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. PW-1 Smt. Savila Khatun (mother of deceased) has deposed that father of deceased had already died in a road accident in Delhi; deceased was the sole bread earner of the family; that deceased has left surviving the petitioner, who is her mother as the only legal heir and the petitioner was financially and emotionally dependent upon deceased. Since, deceased has left surving the petitioner as her only LR, 50% of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards her personal and living expenses.
35. Thus, Considering the aforementioned factors, the compensation for the loss of dependency is calculated as under:
S. No. Head Amount 1. Monthly income of deceased (A) Rs. 20,903/- 2. Add future prospect (B) @ 40% Rs. 8,361.2/-
3. Less 1/2 towards personal and living Rs. 14,632.1/-
expenses of the deceased (C)
SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.08.05 17:13:57
+0530
MACT No. 585/23 Date of Award : 05.08.2025
Savitla Khatun Vs. Anil Kumar @ Kanhaiya & Ors. Page No. 19 of 24
4. Monthly loss of dependency (A+B)- Rs. 14,632.1/-
C=D
5. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs. 1,75,585.2/-
6. Multiplier (E) 187. Total loss of dependency Rs. 31,60,533.6/-
(Dx12xE=F)
36. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 31,60,534/- (rounded off). Hence, a sum of Rs. 31,60,534/- (Rupees Thirty One Lacs Sixty Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty Four Only) is awarded to petitioner Savila Khatun under this head.
NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
37. In case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), it has been held that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively and the aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.48,000/-, Rs. 18,000/- and Rs.18,000/- respectively on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted. Further, in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 2705 of 2020, decided on 30.06.2020, loss of consortium has to be fixed for each of the legal representatives. Since, there is only LR of deceased, accordingly, a sum of Rs. /- (48,000 X 1 + 18,000 + 18,000) is awarded under this head.
38. Thus, Considering the aforementioned factors, the total compensation is calculated as under:
SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.08.05 17:14:02
+0530
MACT No. 585/23 Date of Award : 05.08.2025
Savitla Khatun Vs. Anil Kumar @ Kanhaiya & Ors. Page No. 20 of 24
S. No. Head Amount Awarded
1. Total loss of dependency Rs. 31,60,534/-
2. Compensation for loss of consortium Rs. 48,000/-
(48,000 X 1)
3. Compensation for loss of estate (H) Rs.18,000/-
4. Compensation for funeral expenses Rs.18,000/-
(I)
Total compensation Rs. 32,44,534/-
INTEREST ON AWARD
39. Petitioner shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 21.09.2023 till realization. LIABILITY
40. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Since, it is admitted case of the respondent no.3/insurance company that the offending vehicle bearing no. DL1M8928 was duly insured with it, therefore respondent no.3/insurance company is liable to pay the amount of compensation to the petitioner/claimant. Relief
41. In view of my finding on issues no. 1 and 2, this Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs. 32,44,534/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lacs Forty Four Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty Four only) to the petitioner/claimant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum w.e.f. date of filing of claim petition i.e. 21.09.2023 till realization, to be paid by the respondent no.3/insurance company. Amount of interim award, if any, be SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.08.05 17:14:08 +0530 MACT No. 585/23 Date of Award : 05.08.2025 Savitla Khatun Vs. Anil Kumar @ Kanhaiya & Ors. Page No. 21 of 24 deducted from the compensation amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case. The respondent no.3/insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in the MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account no. 40714429271, IFSC Code. SBIN0000726 Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, within 30 days from today. The respondent no.3 is also directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioner.
Disbursement and Apportionment of Award Amount
42. Statement of petitioner in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP were recorded on 15.07.2025. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of aforesaid discussion, it is hereby ordered that out of total compensation amount, a sum of Rs.7,44,534/- (Rupees Seven Lacs Forty Four Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty Four Only) shall be immediately released to her through her saving bank account and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs.50,000/- each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
43. The amount of FDRs on maturity shall directly be released in petitioner's Saving Bank Account.
44. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant i.e., the savings bank account of the claimant shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.08.05 17:14:13
+0530
MACT No. 585/23 Date of Award : 05.08.2025
Savitla Khatun Vs. Anil Kumar @ Kanhaiya & Ors. Page No. 22 of 24
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
45. Respondent no.3 i.e. The New India Assurance Company Limited, being insurer of offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the compensation amount with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts branch is directed to transfer the award amount of petitioner in her saving bank account, in the aforesaid manner, as per the award, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
46. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph, specimen signature, copy of bank passbook and copy of residence proof of the petitioner, be sent to Nodal Officer of State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
47. Form XV and Form XVII in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A. SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.08.05 17:14:19 +0530 MACT No. 585/23 Date of Award : 05.08.2025 Savitla Khatun Vs. Anil Kumar @ Kanhaiya & Ors. Page No. 23 of 24
48. A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir .
49. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost.
50. A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class as well as DSLSA as per the provisions of the Modified Claim Tribunal Agreed Procedure (MCTAP).
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.08.05
17:14:26 +0530
Announced in the open Court (SACHIN GUPTA)
On 5th August, 2025 P.O. MACT-02 (WEST)
THC/Delhi/05.08.2025
MACT No. 585/23 Date of Award : 05.08.2025
Savitla Khatun Vs. Anil Kumar @ Kanhaiya & Ors. Page No. 24 of 24