Delhi District Court
Lakshmi Devi vs Rajesh Kumar on 9 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANJANI MAHAJAN, PRESIDING
OFFICER : MACT : SOUTH DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS :
NEW DELHI
AWARD/JUDGMENT
MACT No. : 210/2021
CNR No. DLST01-007949-2021
1. Lakshmi Devi,
W/o Sh. Deshraj,
2. Deshraj,
S/o Sh. Yad Ram,
Both R/o Moosa Ka Mohalla,
Village Bhiduki, Palwal, Haryana 121107.
...Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajesh Kumar,
S/o Sh. Bandha Lal,
R/o Ashik Nagar, Post Kushumi,
Thana Maigal Ganj, Lakhimpur Kheeri,
UP 261505.
...Driver
2. Parveen Kumar,
S/o Sh. Randhir Singh,
R/o H. No. 110/5, Main Road,
Opposite Gali No. 5, Haider Pur,
New Delhi.
...Owner
3. The New India Insurance Company Ltd.,
having office at - 22, Mother House,
Commercial Complex, 3rd Floor,
Green Park, Extension, Yusuf Sarai,
New Delhi 110049.
...Insurance Company
...Respondents
Lakshmi Devi & Anr Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors
MACT No. 210/2021 Page No.1 of 35
Date of Institution : 11.10.2021
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 28.02.2026
Date of pronouncement : 09.03.2026
FORM-XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
1. Date of the accident 07.12.2019
2. Date of filing of Form-I - FAR was not filed in the
First Accident Report (FAR) present matter
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to N.A.
the victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III N.A.
from the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV N.A.
from the Owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- N.A.
Interim Accident Report
(IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA N.A.
and Form-VIB from the
Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII-
Detailed Accident Report N.A.
(DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay
or deficiency on the part of N.A.
the Investigating Officer? If
so, whether any action/
direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the N.A
Designated Officer by the
Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance N.A.
Company submitted his report
within 30 days of the
Lakshmi Devi & Anr Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors
MACT No. 210/2021 Page No.2 of 35
petition/DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay
or deficiency on the part of N.A.
the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company? If so,
whether any action/direction
warranted?
13. Date of response of the N.A.
petitioner(s) to the offer of the
Insurance Company
14. Date of the award 09.03.2026
15. Whether the petitioner(s) -
was/were directed to open
savings bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which 07.01.2026
petitioner(s) was/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.
17. Date on which the 22.01.2026
petitioner(s) produced the
passbook of their savings
bank account near the place
of their residence along-with
the endorsement, PAN Card
and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential R/o Moosa Ka Mohalla,
Address of the petitioner(s). Village Bhiduki, Palwal,
Haryana 121107
19. Whether the petitioner(s)
savings bank account(s) is/are Yes
near his/her/their place of
Lakshmi Devi & Anr Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors
MACT No. 210/2021 Page No.3 of 35
residence?
20. Whether the petitioner(s)
was/were examined at the Yes
time of passing of the award
to ascertain his/her/their
financial condition?
JUDGMENT
(1) Vide the present judgment/award, this Tribunal shall decide the claim petition filed by the petitioners U/s 140 & 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as MV Act).
Case Set Forth By the Petitioners (2) As per the averments in the claim petition, on 07.12.2019, at about 5:00 am, the deceased Sourav had gone for a run. When Sourav reached near Khirbi Village, Hodel then all of a sudden a Tempo bearing registration no. DL-1MA-3225 (herein after referred to as the offending vehicle) being driven by the respondent no. 1 Rajesh Kumar in a very rash and negligent manner hit Sourav due to which Sourav sustained fatal injuries. (2)(a) It is averred that Sourav was taken to Civil Hospital Palwal where doctors declared him as brought dead and the postmortem of the deceased was conducted. (2)(b) As per the averments in the claim petition, First Information Report (FIR) no. 634/2019 PS Hodal, Palwal under sections 279/337/304 A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was registered in relation to the accident in question. (2)(c) The petitioners have claimed an amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs) along with interest as compensation from the respondents.
Lakshmi Devi & Anr Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors
MACT No. 210/2021 Page No.4 of 35
Miscellaneous Proceedings
(3) Notices of the petition were issued to all the
respondents.
(4) All the respondents put in appearance and filed their
respective Written Statements (WS).
Case Set Forth By the Respondents No. 1 and 2 (5) Respondents no. 1 (driver) and 2 (owner) filed separate written statements (WS) however substantially identical averments have been made by them. Preliminary objections have been taken.
(5)(a) Inter-alia it is averred that the petitioners in connivance with the police officials mentioned the number of the vehicle of the respondents no. 1 and 2 in order to hide the wrongs done by others and to make a false claim against them. It is further averred that the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no. 3 at the time of the accident. (5)(b) It is the contention of the respondents no. 1 and 2 that after the expiry period of the driving license, the respondent no. 1 applied for renewal thereof on 27.11.2019 and fulfilled all the requisite formalities and e-receipt for online driving license was issued by the Transport Department in favour of the respondent no. 1 on 27.11.2019 while the accident took place on 07.12.2019 so as such at the time of the alleged accident the respondent no. 1 was having a valid and effective driving license. It is also contended that there is no person who saw the alleged vehicle at the time of the alleged accident and the respondent no. 1 had been falsely dragged at the instance of the petitioners by the police officials.
Lakshmi Devi & Anr Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors
MACT No. 210/2021 Page No.5 of 35
(5)(c) In the reply on merits, the averments of the claim
petition have been denied. It is prayed that the claim petition be dismissed with cost.
Case Set Forth By the Respondent No. 3 Insurance Company (6) In the WS filed by the respondent no. 3 insurance company it has taken preliminary objections submitting inter alia that the claim petition is without any valid cause of action and no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The fact that the offending vehicle was insured at the time of the accident with the respondent no. 3 insurance company is admitted with the period of insurance being mentioned as 24.07.2019 to 23.07.2020.
(6)(a) In the reply on merits the claim of the petitioners had been denied and it is prayed that the claim petition be dismissed.
Framing of Issues (7) After completion of the pleadings on 14.07.2022, the following issues were framed in the present case -
(i) Whether Sourav received fatal injuries in a road accident on 07.12.2019 at about 5.00 AM at Khirabi Village, Hodel due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. DL-1MA-3225 (Tempo) being driven by the respondent no. 1, owned by the respondent no. 2 and insured with the respondent no. 3/New India Assurance Company ? OPP
(ii) To what amount of compensation the LRs of deceased are entitled and from whom ? OPP
(iii) Relief.
Lakshmi Devi & Anr Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors
MACT No. 210/2021 Page No.6 of 35
(8) The matter was listed for evidence.
Evidence Adduced By The Petitioners
(9) The petitioners examined Petitioners' Witness no. 1
(PW1) Sh. Deshraj who tendered his affidavit of evidence as Ex. PW1/A and relied upon the following documents -
(i) Copy of Aadhar Card - Ex.PW1/1 (OSR).
(ii) Copy of Aadhar Card of Lakshmi - Ex.PW1/2
(OSR).
(iii) Copy of Aadhar Card of deceased - Ex.PW1/3 (OSR).
(iv) School leaving certificate of deceased - Ex.PW1/4 (OSR).
(v) Certified copy of criminal case - Ex.PW1/5 (colly) (OSR) (pages 13 to 52).
(9)(a) PW1 was duly cross examined by Ld. counsel for the respondent insurance company and Ld. counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2 adopted the cross examination conducted by Ld. counsel for the insurance company.
(9)(b) Petitioners also examined Sh. Chander Bhan as PW-2 who tendered his affidavit of evidence as Ex.PW2/A. He exhibited copy of his Aadhar Card as Ex.PW2/1 (OSR). PW-2 Sh. Chander Bhan was cross examined by Ld. counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2 and Ld. counsel for the insurance company.
(9)(c) Petitioners' Evidence (PE) was closed on 03.07.2023.
Evidence Adduced By The Respondents (10) Respondent no. 1 examined himself as RW-1 and Lakshmi Devi & Anr Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors MACT No. 210/2021 Page No.7 of 35 tendered his affidavit of evidence as Ex. RW1/A. He relied upon the following documents -
(i) Copy of Insurance policy no.
12220031190350037858 issued by R-3 - The New India Insurance Company - Ex.RW1/1 (colly) (running into 3 pages) (OSR).
(ii) Copy of driving license of respondent no. 1 bearing no. UP3120140011747 issued on 02.12.2014 - Ex.RW1/2.
(iii) Copy of E-Receipt for online driving license renewal of respondent no. 1 issued on 27.11.2019 issued by the Transport Department, Govt. of UP - Ex.RW1/3 (OSR).
(iv) Appointment letter dated 20.12.2019 issued by Parivahan Sewa, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India - Ex.RW1/4 (OSR).
(v) Copy of driving license of respondent no. 1 Rajesh Kumar bearing no. UP31 20140011747 issued on 21.12.2019 - Ex.RW1/5 (OSR).
(vi) Permit of vehicle no. DL 1MA 3225 - Ex.RW1/6 (OSR).
(vii) Certificate of fitness of vehicle bearing no. DL1MA 3225 - Ex.RW1/7 (OSR).
(10)(a) RW-1 was cross examined by Ld. counsel for the petitioners and Ld. counsel for the insurance company. (10)(b) Respondent no. 2 Praveen Kumar examined himself as RW-2 and tendered his affidavit of evidence as Ex.RW2/A. He was cross examined by Ld. counsel for the petitioners and Ld. counsel for the insurance company.
(10)(c) Respondent no. 3 Insurance company examined Sh.
Lakshmi Devi & Anr Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors MACT No. 210/2021 Page No.8 of 35 Drona as R3W1. R3W1 Sh. Drona tendered his affidavit of evidence as Ex.R3W1/A and relied upon the following documents -
(i) Attested copy of insurance policy alongwith terms and conditions - Ex.R3W1/A.
(ii) Attested copy of the Extract of the DL of the driver of the offending vehicle issued from Licensing Authority, Lakhimpur, Kheri, UP - Ex.R3W1/2.
(iii) Notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC given to driver and owner - Ex.R3W1/3 & postal receipts thereof - Ex.R3W1/4 and Ex.R3W1/5.
(iv) Report of the Investigator of the Insurance company
- Ex.R3W1/6.
R3W1 was cross examined by Ld. counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2 and Ld. counsel for the petitioner. (10)(d) Respondent no. 3 Insurance company also examined Sh. Narendra Singh, Investigator as R3W2 who tendered his affidavit of evidence as Ex.R3W2/1. He was cross examined by Ld. counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2 and not cross examined by Ld. counsel for the petitioners despite opportunity given.
(10)(e) Respondents' Evidence (RE) was closed on 09.07.2024.
Final Arguments (11) Thereafter final arguments were advanced by Ld. counsel for the parties.
(12) Ld. counsel for the petitioners filed written submissions in the prescribed format. The joint financial Lakshmi Devi & Anr Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors MACT No. 210/2021 Page No.9 of 35 statement of the petitioners was recorded. (13) Written submissions were filed by respondents no. 1 and 2 as well as respondent no. 3 insurance company. (14) Ld. counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2 has relied on the judgments i.e. The New India Assurance Company Ltd Vs Smt. Anjilamma 5 Ors, Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 5826 of 2011 and M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rambha Devi & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 841 of 2018. Ld. counsel for the insurance company has relied on the judgments i.e. Ram Babu Tiwari Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. (2008) 8 Supreme Court cases 165, Civil Appeals no. 4749 of 2008 decided on 01.08.2008 and Devender Kumar Tripathi & Ors. Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd & Anr., Special Leave Petition (C) No. 2195 of 2024 .
(15) I have heard the arguments addressed by Ld. counsel for the parties and perused the record including the written submissions and judgments cited at Bar.
Issue no. 1 Whether Sourav received fatal injuries in a road accident on 07.12.2019 at about 5.00 AM at Khirabi Village, Hodel due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. DL-1MA-3225 (Tempo) being driven by the respondent no. 1, owned by the respondent no. 2 and insured with the respondent no. 3/New India Assurance Company ? OPP (16) The onus to prove this issue was on the petitioners. In order to substantiate their case, they have examined PW-2 Sh. Chander Bhan, the eye witness of the accident who categorically Lakshmi Devi & Anr Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors MACT No. 210/2021 Page No.10 of 35 deposed that while he and the deceased Sourav were running at the side of the road, all of a sudden the offending vehicle being driven by the respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner came and hit Sourav and him due to which Sourav fell down on the road, sustained head injuries and died on the spot. (17) PW-2 Sh. Chander Bhan stood firm to his stand in his cross examination conducted by Ld. counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2 and outright denied the suggestion that the accident took place due to the sole negligence of the deceased as he was jay walking/running on the road despite there being a 'kacha' road next to the main road at the time of the accident. PW-2 Sh. Chander Bhan deposed clearly in his affidavit of evidence that he and the deceased were running on the side of the road; no suggestion to the effect that they were running in the middle of the road was put to PW-2 in his cross examination. (18) Additionally, the site plan which is part of the charge-sheet annexures reflects the point 'A' as the spot where the offending vehicle hit the children who were running at the time, and point A is seen as being on the side of the road, which supports the version put forth by the petitioners and PW-2 eye witness. The respondents no. 1 and 2 have not chosen to file their own site plan reflecting the position of the children at the time of the accident nor have they specifically deposed so in their respective testimonies hence, their argument that the deceased was jay walking is entirely baseless and is rejected as such. (19) In the cross-examination of RW-1 Sh. Rajesh Kumar conducted by Ld. counsel for the petitioner, RW-1 admitted that he was arrested in connection with the present case by the Lakshmi Devi & Anr Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors MACT No. 210/2021 Page No.11 of 35 concerned police official and was still facing criminal trial in the case but he had not made any written or verbal complaint to any higher official of the police against the concerned IO for false implication.
(20) It was held in Mangla Ram Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors (2018) 5 SCC 656 that filing of the charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle prima facie points towards the complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly and the subsequent acquittal of the accused may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in motor vehicle accident cases.
(21) Admittedly, the charge-sheet was filed against the driver herein and no complaint for false implication has been made by the driver/respondent no. 1 against the IO. It is neither pleaded nor proved that either the family of the deceased or the IO were known to the respondent and /or harboured any enmity against the respondent no. 1 driver so as to falsely implicate him in the present case. Additionally, no alibi has been put forth by the respondent no. 1 driver in the present case. In such circumstances, as per the judgment of Mangla Ram (supra) a presumption of complicity in driving the vehicle rashly and negligently is drawn against the respondent no. 1 driver. (22) Sh. Chander Bhan has been cited as a witness in the criminal case, as is discernible from a perusal of the copy of the charge-sheet on record. No doubt regarding his presence at the spot or him being a planted witness could be successfully raised by the respondents either through cross-examination of the witness or through positive evidence adduced in respondents' Lakshmi Devi & Anr Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors MACT No. 210/2021 Page No.12 of 35 evidence. The testimony of PW-2 Sh. Chander Bhan is reliable and inspires confidence.
(23) At this juncture, it would be apposite to highlight the principles regarding the procedure to be followed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The procedure to be so followed is similar to that followed by a civil court. In civil matters, the facts are required to be established on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities only and not beyond reasonable doubt, as is required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in civil cases is not as heavy as in a criminal case and in a claim petition under The Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the burden is even lesser than a civil case. The proceedings are in the nature of an enquiry and are not strictly adversarial as is the case in civil and criminal proceedings.
(24) Gainful reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble S. C. in Bimla Devi & Ors Vs Himachal Road Transport Corp. & Ors (2009) 13 SC 530 wherein it was held that 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 petitioners and the petitioners were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. This view was reiterated by the Apex Court in the subsequent judgment of Mangla Ram Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors (2018) 5 SCC 656 . (25) The post mortem report part of Ex.PW1/5 colly charge-sheet annexures, reflects that the injuries sustained by Sourav resulted in his death.
(26) On a conspectus of the evidence on record,
Lakshmi Devi & Anr Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors
MACT No. 210/2021 Page No.13 of 35
especially the evidence of the eye witness PW-2 Sh. Chander Bhan it is established on the basis of a preponderance of probabilities that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing no. DL-1MA-3225 which was driven by the respondent no. 1, owned by the respondent no. 2 and insured by the respondent no. 3 which resulted in fatal injuries being sustained by the deceased Sourav.
(27) Issue no. 1 is thus decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
Issue no. 2 To what amount of compensation the LRs of deceased are entitled and from whom ? OPP (28) The law in relation to assessment of compensation in death cases has been authoritatively laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors (2003) 6 SCC 121 & National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi & Ors (2017) 16 SCC 680 . (29) In the matter of Sarla Verma & Ors (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows -
SCC 121 has held : -
QUA BASIC PRINCIPLES "9. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death :-
(a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and the
(c) the number of dependents. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the deceased. If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions.
There will lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay. To have uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should determine compensation in Lakshmi Devi & Anr Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors MACT No. 210/2021 Page No.14 of 35 cases of death, by the following well settled steps : -
Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step 3 (Actual calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the `loss of dependency' to the family. Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of 5,000/- to 10,000/- should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also added."
QUA ADDITIONS "11. ..................... In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. [Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words `actual salary' should be read as `actual salary less tax']. The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances."
QUA DEDUCTIONS "14. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members Lakshmi Devi & Anr Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors MACT No. 210/2021 Page No.15 of 35 exceed six.
15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself.
Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependent, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third."
QUA MULTIPLIER "21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."
(30) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its constitution bench decision in matter of "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." (2017) 16 SCC 680 held as under : -
"58. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be no addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept. We are disposed to think, there should be an addition of 15% if the deceased is between the age of 50 to 60 years and there should be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in case of self- employed or person on fixed salary, the addition should be 10% between the age of 50 to 60 years. The aforesaid yardstick has been fixed so that there can be consistency in the approach by the tribunals and the Courts.
59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-
Lakshmi Devi & Anr Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors MACT No. 210/2021 Page No.16 of 35
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi 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 has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, 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 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 42 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.
(31) Further, in the case of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr 2025 INSC 1070 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in cases involving minor child who suffers death or permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident, the child cannot be treated as a non earning individual merely because he or she was not engaged in gainful employment. It was held that the computation of compensation under the head of loss of income must be made by adopting, at the very least, the Lakshmi Devi & Anr Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors MACT No. 210/2021 Page No.17 of 35 minimum wages payable to a skilled workman as notified for the relevant period in the concerned State.
(32) This Tribunal now proceeds to decide the compensation/award under different heads applicable to the present matter in light of above propositions laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
DETERMINATION OF AGE & MULTIPLIER (33) The date of the incident is 07.12.2019. As per the school leaving certificate of the deceased Ex.PW1/4 (OSR), the date of the birth of Sourav is mentioned as 29.12.2004. The authenticity of this document has not been challenged by any of the parties and same can safely be relied upon. Thus, going by Ex.PW1/4, the deceased was aged about 15 years at the time of the accident which resulted in his death.
(34) In the case of Devendra Kumar Tripathi & Ors Vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr SLP(C) No. 2195 of 2024 decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Supreme Court on 15.12.2025, the case of Baby Sakshi Greola Vs Manzoor Ahmad Simon & Anr 2024 INSC 963 wherein the multiplier of 18 was adopted, was distinguished being a case where the claim was filed by a disabled child destined to live the rest of her life with a debilitating condition of mental retardation and severe incontinence. It was held that in terms of the judgment of Reshma Kumar Vs Madan Mohan cited as 2013 SCC Online SC 284, the multiplier of 15 was to be adopted. Devendra Kumar Tripathi (supra) was a case where a 14 years old boy had died in a motor vehicle accident. The present case is also one in which the minor child sustained fatal injuries Lakshmi Devi & Anr Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors MACT No. 210/2021 Page No.18 of 35 therefore Devendra Kumar Tripathi (supra) applies on all fours and accordingly the multiplier of 15 is required to be adopted.
DETERMINATION OF PRESUMED INCOME (35) In Kajal Vs Jagdish Chand AIR 2020 SC 776, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that future loss of income should be based on the minimum wages for skilled worker in case of ascertaining the income qua deceased minors. In Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel (supra) the same view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, the minimum wages for skilled workers as applicable in Haryana at the relevant time of the accident have to be considered since the deceased was a permanent resident of Haryana. The minimum wage prescribed for skilled workers prescribed by the Government of Haryana vide notification dated 12.09.2019 was Rs.10,446.65/-. This amount shall be taken as the presumed income.
DETERMINATION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS APPLICABLE (36) An addition of 40% towards future prospects is required to be made in accordance with the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) .
DETERMINATION OF ENHANCED MONTHLY INCOME (37) To the aforesaid presumed income, an addition of 40% towards future prospects is required to be made which comes to 10,446.65 + 40% of 10,446.65 i.e. 4178.66 = Rs.14,625.31/- rounded off to Rs.14,625/-.
DETERMINATION OF DEDUCTIONS (38) In the case of Devendra Kumar Tripathi & Ors Lakshmi Devi & Anr Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors MACT No. 210/2021 Page No.19 of 35 (supra), the Hon'ble Division Bench of Supreme Court while holding that 40% increase has to be adopted for future prospects and multiplier to be 15, held further that one-half deduction is to be done for personal expenses in cases of death of minor children. In view of the aforesaid binding legal precedent the deduction of 50% (½) is accordingly made on account of personal and living expenses.
DETERMINATION OF MULTIPLICAND (39) The monthly loss of dependency is taken as Rs.14,625/-. A deduction of 50% or ½ is required to be made towards personal and living expenses of the deceased which comes to Rs.7,312.5/-. The annual loss of dependency/multiplicand comes to Rs.7,312.5 x 12 = Rs.87,750/-.
AWARD TOWARDS LOSS OF DEPENDENCY (40) The total loss of dependency would come out to be Rs.87,750 x15 = Rs.13,16,250/-.
COMPENSATION QUA NON-PECUNIARY HEADS (41) In Sarla Verma (supra) it was also laid down that
after calculating the 'Loss of Dependency', certain amounts were to be added under conventional heads such as loss of estate, loss of consortium etc. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are extracted hereunder:
"Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs.5000 to Rs.10,000 may be added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of 5000 to 10,000 should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, Lakshmi Devi & Anr Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors MACT No. 210/2021 Page No.20 of 35 suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased. The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also be added."
(42) The amount qua the above heads were further quantified in Pranay Sethi (supra), which clarified as thus:
"52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149]. It has granted Rs 25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] refers to Santosh Devi [Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 726 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 160 :
(2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 167], it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed.
The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix Lakshmi Devi & Anr Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors MACT No. 210/2021 Page No.21 of 35 reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The principle MACT 452/2016 Kashmiri Devi Vs Bijender & Ors Page. 21 of 37of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact- centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads." (43) The above verdict was passed in the year 2017. About eight years have elapsed, and therefore the above heads would be enhanced at the rate of 20%.
COMPENSATION OF LOSS OF CONSORTIUM (44) The petitioners i.e. parents of the deceased are entitled to an amount of Rs. 48,000/- each under this head i.e. Rs.96,000/-.
COMPENSATION OF LOSS OF ESTATE (45) On the basis of the above verdict, the compensation for loss of estate is hereby quantified as Rs.18,000/-.
COMPENSATION TOWARDS FUNERAL EXPENSES (46) On the basis of the above verdict, the compensation
for loss of funeral expenses is hereby quantified as Rs.18,000/-.
Total Compensation (47) Thus, the total amount of compensation to be awarded is calculated as follows:
(a) Total loss of dependency - Rs.13,16,250/-
Lakshmi Devi & Anr Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors MACT No. 210/2021 Page No.22 of 35
(b) Compensation for Loss of Consortium - Rs.96,000/-
(c) Compensation for Loss of Estate- Rs.18,000/-
(d) Compensation towards Funeral Expenses - Rs.18,000/-
(e) Total Compensation - Rs.14,48,250/- [(a)+(b)+(c)+(d)].
Issue no. 3 Relief (48) Accordingly, the petitioners are awarded an amount of Rs.14,48,250/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Two Hundred Fifty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the amount. (49) In case the interest of petitioner was stopped or excluded during the present enquiry proceedings, same is liable to be adjusted from the total interest calculated on the Award amount. Similarly, amount awarded and released as interim award if any, during pendency of the case, be deducted from the total compensation amount.
Apportionment of liability (50) The respondent no. 3 insurance company has taken the statutory defence that the driver/respondent no. 1 was not having a valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident. To establish this defence, the Ld. counsel for the respondent no. 3 insurance company cross examined RW1/respondent no. 1 driver Rajesh Kumar who admitted that his old driving license Ex.RW1/2 was valid for transport vehicle for the period from 06.04.2016 to 05.04.2019 and the driving license for transport vehicle had expired on 05.04.2019. RW-1 further admitted in his cross examination that his renewed driving license Ex.RW1/5 was valid from 21.12.2019 to Lakshmi Devi & Anr Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors MACT No. 210/2021 Page No.23 of 35 20.12.2024. The respondent no. 3 also examined R3W1 Sh. Drona, Assistant Manager of the insurance company who inter- alia relied on the attested copy of the extract of the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle as Ex.R3W1/2 and notices issued under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC to the driver and owner for producing the original documents. (51) Additionally, the Investigator Sh. Narender Singh was examined as R3W2 who proved his report Ex.R3W1/6. Interestingly, R3W2 Sh. Narender Singh in his cross examination expressed his ignorance on the aspect of whether he was specifically directed to verify the e-receipt for online driving license renewal issued on 27.11.2019 and appointment letter dated 20.12.2019 issued by Parivahan Sewa, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, deposing that he did not know whether he was specifically directed to verify them. The significance of such a suggestion put by the respondents no. 1 and 2 is that it is the specific defence of the respondents no. 1 and 2 that as on the date of the accident the respondent no. 1 had applied for renewal of the driving license, which came to be renewed w.e.f. 21.12.2019.
(52) The admitted position is that on the date of the accident the driving license of the respondent no. 1 had expired and was renewed only w.e.f. 21.12.2019 however the plea of the respondents no. 1 and 2 is that the respondent no. 1 had already applied for its renewal prior to the accident which occurred on 07.12.2019. In order to substantiate this plea, the respondents no. 1 and 2 examined the respondent no. 1/RW1 Rajesh Kumar who adduced the e-receipt for online driving license renewal issued on Lakshmi Devi & Anr Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors MACT No. 210/2021 Page No.24 of 35 27.11.2019 by the Transport Department Government of UP as Ex.RW1/3 (OSR) and the appointment letter dated 20.12.2019 issued by Parivahan Sewa, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways Government of India as Ex.RW1/4. No question or suggestion to the effect that Ex.RW1/3 e-receipt dated 27.11.2019 was forged or fabricated was ever put by the respondent insurance company. Furthermore, the Investigator /R3W2 in his evidence feigned ignorance as to whether he was specifically directed to verify Ex.RW1/3 e-receipt. (53) In absence of any cloud of doubt being raised over the e-receipt Ex.RW1/3 (OSR) the same can well be relied upon. The question then is whether the fact that the respondent no. 1 driver had already applied for renewal of his driving license prior to the accident would validate the plea of the respondents no. 1 and 2 that the insurance company could not avoid its liability or seek recovery rights as the statutory defence was not made out. (54) Ld. counsel for the respondent insurance company vociferously argued that recovery rights were required to be granted as in the interregnum period between the expiry of the driving license and its subsequent renewal beyond 30 days, the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving license. He relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Babu Tiwari Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. (2008) 8 SCC 165 wherein it was held that if a driving license is renewed within 30 days of its expiry the renewal shall relate back to the date of expiry; however if the renewal is effected after 30 days, the license shall be valid only from the date of its renewal.
(55) On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the respondents
Lakshmi Devi & Anr Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors
MACT No. 210/2021 Page No.25 of 35
no. 1 and 2 relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mohit Dabas & Ors MAC. APP. 882/2019 decided on 18.11.2019 wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held in para 6 as thus -
" 6. The court finds no grounds to interfere with the aforesaid reasoning, because what is to be seen is that the licence holder must have applied for the renewal much prior to the accident, if not within days prior to the accident has the prescribed time. The contention of the driver to have applied 20 days prior to the accident has not been disapproved because the records of the Licence Issuing Authority had been destroyed as per the Record Keeping Rules. The skills of the driver were never retested; he was granted renewal by a mere ministerial exercise and not by reassessing his skills. The delay in renewal of his driving licence cannot be held against the driver. It is quite possible that renewal of the licence may have been approved much earlier than the date of accident itself; the date of renewal was 19.02.2014 while the accident had occurred 5 days earlier on 14.02.2014. There is no reason to alter the award. The appeal is without merit and is accordingly dismissed."
(56) It is pertinent to note that in the case of Ram Babu Tiwari (supra), the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving license for a period of 3 years after its expiry and the effect of not having a license for such a long period was the question therein, as noted in para 14 of the judgment. (57) In the present case however, the driving license had expired on 05.04.2019 and was subsequently renewed about eight months later w.e.f. 21.12.2019.
(58) Furthermore, the effect of filing of an application for renewal of the driving license prior to the date of accident was not in consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ram Babu Tiwari's case. It is however noteworthy that in the aforesaid case, Lakshmi Devi & Anr Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors MACT No. 210/2021 Page No.26 of 35 the judgment of Ishwar Chandra & Ors Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors (2007) 10 SCC 650 has been quoted wherein in the facts of the case it was specifically observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that as on the date of accident, the renewal application had not been filed, the driver did not have a valid license on the date when the vehicle met with the accident. (59) As already noted, in the present case, the respondent no. 1 had already filed the renewal application prior to the date of the accident as is evidenced from the e-receipt Ex.RW1/3. The respondent no. 2/RW2 owner in his cross-examination testified that he could not tell whether the old driving license of the respondent no. 1/driver was valid on the date of the accident however the respondent no. 1 had already applied for its renewal. RW2 also testified that the respondent no. 1 /driver had shown him the renewal slip. Thus, it cannot be said that the respondent no. 2 owner had not exercised care in verifying the validity of the driving license of the respondent no. 1.
(60) Respectfully therefore, the judgment of Ram Babu Tiwari (supra) is distinguishable on facts while the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Mohit Dabas & Ors (supra) squarely applies to the present case as the facts of the instant case are similar to it. In view of the ratio of the judgment of Mohit Dabas & Ors (supra) , the delay in renewal of the driving license cannot be held against the driver. In such circumstances, the plea of the statutory defence on behalf of the respondent insurance company on the ground that the driver /respondent no. 1 was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident fails.
Lakshmi Devi & Anr Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors
MACT No. 210/2021 Page No.27 of 35
(61) Ld. counsel for the respondent no. 1 and 2 had also
taken the plea that even otherwise respondent no. 1 did not need a separate driving license for transport vehicle in terms of the judgment of Mukul Devgan Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 5826 of 2011 decided on 03.07.2017 as the unladen weight of the offending vehicle in question was less than 7500 kg and his driving license for LMV was valid at the time of accident. This argument is to be rejected since as per the Full Bench of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Rambha Devi & Ors Civil Appeal No. 841 of 2018 decided on 06.11.2024, it has been clearly classified that if the gross vehicle weight is within 7500 kg, a driver with LMV license can also drive a transport vehicle. In the present case, the gross vehicle weight is 10550 kg as mentioned in the insurance document, certified copy of which is part of the charge-sheet annexures Ex.PW1/5 colly and not disputed by any of the parties.
(62) In such circumstances, in view of the ratio of Rambha Devi (supra), the gross vehicle weight being above 7500 kg, the LMV license would not suffice for driving the transport vehicle in question.
(63) In any case however as already noted above since on the date of the accident the respondent no. 1 had already filed the application for renewal of the driving license therefore, the plea of the insurance company regarding the driving license of the respondent no. 1 not being a valid and effective one does not legally sustain.
(64) As the respondent no.3 insurance company has
Lakshmi Devi & Anr Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors
MACT No. 210/2021 Page No.28 of 35
failed to establish any statutory defence therefore, respondent no. 3 insurance company being the insurer of the offending vehicle is held solely liable to pay the award amount in favour of the petitioners.
(65) The award amount of Rs.14,48,250/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Two Hundred Fifty only) be deposited by the respondent no. 3 insurance company with State Bank of India, Saket District Court Branch, New Delhi in the MACT SOUTH SAKET COURT A/c 42706751873 IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this award together with the interest as stated herein above under intimation to this Tribunal and under intimation to the petitioner(s)/claimant(s)/applicant(s). In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay.
(66) The joint financial statement of the petitioners were recorded on 22.01.2026 wherein they had provided the details of their respective bank accounts as follows -
(i) Bank account details of Lakshmi Devi (petitioner no. 1) - account bearing no. 110289007355 with Canara Bank, Khirbi Palwal, Haryana, having IFSC Code- CNRB0005052.
(ii) Bank account details of Deshraj (petitioner no. 2) - account bearing no. 5052101002920 with Canara Bank, Khirbi Palwal, Haryana, having IFSC Code- CNRB0005052. (67) The concerned banker are directed not to issue any cheque book or debit card and to make an endorsement in this regard on the passbook of the petitioners itself. A copy of this Lakshmi Devi & Anr Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors MACT No. 210/2021 Page No.29 of 35 judgment be given dasti to the LRs of the deceased/petitioners to submit the same before their respective bankers. MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANT(S) AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP).
(68) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No.842/2003 titled as "Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. " has formulated MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme) vide its order dated 07.12.2018. The same has been made effective from 01.01.2019. Said order provides 21 banks including State Bank of India as one of the banks which have to adhere to MACAD. The State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. (69) The Manager, State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, Delhi is also directed to release/disburse the share of the award amount of LRs of petitioners in their MACT accounts subject to compliance of the direction contained in para 63 of this judgment by the petitioners.
(70) The compensation to the petitioners shall be distributed/disbursed as follows : -
In the share of petitioner no. 1 Lakshmi Devi (mother of the deceased)
(i) A sum of Rs.7,24,125/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand One Hundred Twenty Five only) alongwith the proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to the petitioner no.1 being mother of the deceased. Out of this amount, Lakshmi Devi & Anr Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors MACT No. 210/2021 Page No.30 of 35 an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- shall be put in 100 monthly fixed deposits in her name in MACAD account of equal amount of Rs.5,000/- each for a period of 01 month to 100 months respectively with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 and 08.01.2021. The amount of FDRs on maturity shall automatically be transferred in the savings account of the petitioner Lakshmi as per details mentioned in para 66 of this judgment. Remaining amount shall be released to her in her aforesaid bank account.
In the share of petitioner no. 2 Deshraj (father of the deceased)
(ii) A sum of Rs.7,24,125/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand One Hundred Twenty Five only) alongwith the proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to the petitioner no.2 being father of the deceased. Out of this amount, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- shall be put in 100 monthly fixed deposits in her name in MACAD account of equal amount of Rs.5,000/- each for a period of 01 month to 100 months respectively with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 and 08.01.2021. The amount of FDRs on maturity shall automatically be transferred in the savings account of the petitioner Deshraj as per details mentioned in para 66 of this judgment. Remaining amount shall be released to him in his aforesaid bank account. (71) The following conditions shall be adhered to by SBI, Saket Court Branch, Delhi with respect to the fixed deposits:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account Lakshmi Devi & Anr Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors MACT No. 210/2021 Page No.31 of 35 or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(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(s).
(c) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the MACT bank account of the claimant (s) near the place of their residence.
(d) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-
mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(e) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s).
However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card (s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(f) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(g) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
(72) Nazir of this Court shall prepare a separate file regarding the status of deposition/non-deposition of the award amount by the respondent(s) after making necessary entry on CIS immediately.
Lakshmi Devi & Anr Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors
MACT No. 210/2021 Page No.32 of 35
(73) A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the
parties free of cost through email.
(74) Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of award to Ld.
Judicial Magistrate First Class concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
(75) Ahlmad is also directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors." decided on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-email an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Saket District Court Complex Branch, New Delhi for information.
(76) File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance. Separate file be prepared for compliance and be put up on 09.06.2026.
Digitally
signed by
Announced in the open Court Anjani
Anjani mahajan
mahajan Date:
today i.e. 09th of March, 2026 2026.03.09
16:35:37
+0530
(ANJANI MAHAJAN)
Presiding Officer : MACT (S)
Saket Courts : New Delhi
09.03.2026
Lakshmi Devi & Anr Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors
MACT No. 210/2021 Page No.33 of 35
FORM -XV
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT
IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident :
07.12.2019
2. Name of the deceased :
Sourav
3. Age of the deceased :
15 years
4. Occupation of the deceased NA :
5. Income of the deceased :
Rs.14,625/-
(presumed)
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased : -
S.No. Name Age/DOB Relation
1. Lakshmi 01.01.1984 Mother
2. Deshraj 02.10.1983 Father
Computation of Compensation : -
Sr.No. Heads Awarded by the Claim
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased(A) Rs.14,625/-
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) 40%
9. Less-Personal expenses of the 1/2 deduction has been
deceased(C) done
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.14,625/-
[(A+B)-C=D]
11. Annual loss of dependency (D Rs.87,750/-
x 12)
12. Multiplier(E) 15
13. Total loss of dependency Rs.13,16,250/-
(Dx12xE= F)
14. Medical Expenses(G) NIL
15. Compensation for loss of Rs.96,000/-
consortium(H)
16. Compensation for loss of love NIL
and affection(I)
17. Compensation for loss of Rs.18,000/-
Lakshmi Devi & Anr Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors
MACT No. 210/2021 Page No.34 of 35
estate(J)
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs.18,000/-
expenses(K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 14,48,250/-
(F+G+H+I+J+K=L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST 9% per annum
AWARDED
23. Award amount released As mentioned in para 70
24. Award amount kept in FDRs As mentioned in para 70
25. Mode of disbursement of the Mentioned in the award
award amount to the claimant
(s).
26. Next date for compliance of 09.06.2026
the award.
Digitally
signed by
Anjani
Anjani mahajan
mahajan Date:
2026.03.09
16:35:45
+0530
(ANJANI MAHAJAN)
Presiding Officer : MACT (S)
Saket Courts : New Delhi
09.03.2026
Lakshmi Devi & Anr Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors
MACT No. 210/2021 Page No.35 of 35