Delhi District Court
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi -/- vs National Insurance Co on 1 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF HARVINDER SINGH, DISTRICT
JUDGE-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-01, (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
AWARD/JUDGMENT
MACT Case No.58/2019
CNR No.DLWT010008502019
1. Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi (Wife of deceased)
W/o Late Sh. Kamal Singh
2. David Kumar @ Devid Kumar (Son of deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Kamal Singh, aged 18 years
3. Mahender Kumar (Son of deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Kamal Singh, aged 12 years
4. Gunjan Kumari (Daughter of deceased)
D/o Late Sh. Kamal Singh, aged 23 years
5. Sunita
D/o Late Sh. Kamal Singh, aged 26 years
(Petitioner No.3 is minor through his mother & natural
guardian Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi/petitioner no.1)
All R/o Village Surajpur Post Bahar Pur,
P.S. Chandoshi District Aligarh, UP.
..............Applicant/Petitioner
Versus
1. M/s National Insurance Company Ltd.
(Insurer of vehicle No.KA01AA0826)
2 & 3 Central Market, Punjabi Bagh,
New Delhi-110026.
2. Arun Singh
(Driver of vehicle No.KA01AA0826)
S/o Sh. Village Sita Kund P.S. Haldi
District Ballia, UP.
3. G. Siva Kumar
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.1 of 31
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:31:07 +0530
(Owner of vehicle No. KA01AA0826)
S/o Sh. Govindan
R/o 77/1 No.27, United Building
J.G. Road Bangalore-560018
4. Raman Saini
(Owner of vehicle No. NL01N4913)
R/o A-93, Anand Vihar, Delhi-110092.
5. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd.
(Insurer of vehicle No. NL01N4913)
Unit No.502, 504, 506, 5th Floor Mahatta Tower 54,
B-1 Block, Community Center Janakpuri,
New Delhi-110058
Date of Institution : 02.02.2019
Date of reserving order/judgment : 27.01.2025
Date of pronouncement : 01.02.2025
FORM-XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
1. Date of the accident 11.10.2017
2. Date of filing of Form-I - N.A.
First Accident Report (FAR)
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 - N.A.
Detailed Accident Report
(DAR)
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.2 of 31
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:31:11 +0530
9. Whether there was any delay N.A.
or deficiency on the part of
the Investigating Officer? If
so, whether any action/
direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Date not mentioned
Designated Officer by the
Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Yes
Officer of the Insurance
Company submitted his report
within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay No
or deficiency on the part of
the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company? If so,
whether any action/direction
warranted?
13. Date of response of the Legal offer was not filed in
claimant(s) to the offer of the this matter
Insurance Company
14. Date of the award 01.02.2025
15. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
was/were directed to open
savings bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which 02.12.2024
claimant(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 claimant(s) and
make an endorsement to this
effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) Yet to be filed
produced the passbook of
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.3 of 31
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:31:13 +0530
their savings bank account
near the place of their
residence along-with the
endorsement, PAN Card and
Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential All R/o Village Surajpur
Address of the claimant(s). Post Bahar Pur,
P.S. Chandoshi
District Aligarh, UP.
19. Whether the claimant(s) Yet to be filed
savings bank account(s) is/are
near his/her/their place of
residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) No
was/were examined at the
time of passing of the award
to ascertain his/her/their
financial condition?
FACTUAL POSITION & PLEADINGS
1. Vide this judgment/award, this Tribunal shall decide
claim petition for compensation on account of death of Sh.
Kamal Singh in a road vehicular accident which took place on
11.10.2017 at about 10:45 AM at GNT Double Lack Road near
Goat Market Milgaimandi Madhavaram, Chennai.
CASE OF PETITIONER SIDE
2. Succinctly, the case put forth by petition is that on
11.10.2017 at about 10:45 AM, the deceased Kamal Singh was
standing in front of vehicle bearing registration No.NL01N4913
at GNT Double Lack road near Goat Market Milgaimandi
Madhavaram Chennai. In the meantime, driver of the offending
vehicle bearing registration No. KA01AA0826 reversed his
vehicle without any helper, indication, warning in rash and
negligent manner. It hit the deceased. Due to same, he fell down
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.4 of 31
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:31:16 +0530
and sustained serious injuries. He died at the spot of incident.
After incident, driver of the offending vehicle fled away from the
place of incident. FIR No. 508/2017 under Section 279/304A
was registered at Madhavaram Chennai against the respondent
no.2. The incident happened solely due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.02. Deceased was working as Driver and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month at the time of incident. The petitioner(s)/claimant(s) was/were dependent upon the deceased at the time of incident. The respondent no.01 being Insurer of vehicle bearing registration no. KA01AA0826, the respondent no.02 being driver of vehicle bearing registration no. KA01AA0826, respondent no.3 being owner of vehicle bearing registration no. KA01AA0826, respondent no.4 being owner of vehicle bearing registration no. NL01N4913 and respondent no.5 insurer of vehicle bearing registration no. NL01N4913 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner(s). MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS
3. Notice of the application/petition was issued to the respondents, they appeared and filed their WS/reply to the present petition/application.
RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT NO.01 4.1 In gist, the response of the respondent no.01 as discernible from its reply/written statement is that their vehicle in question has been falsely implicated in the present case. Respondent no.2 was not holding any valid driving license to drive the vehicle in question. Vehicle bearing No. KA01AA0826 was insured with it vide policy no. 65130031166300014530 for Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.5 of 31
HARVINDER Digitally signed by
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01 16:31:19
+0530
period 07.11.2016 to 06.11.2017 in the name of G. Sivakumar. It denied all other averments of petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.
RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT NO.05/HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd.
4.2 In gist, the response of the respondent no.05 as discernible from its reply/written statement is that there is no cause of action against the respondent no.5. Incident in question took place due to negligence of driver of vehicle bearing no.KA01AA0826. Respondent no.5 has been wrongly arrayed as respondent in the present case. Vehicle bearing registration No. NL01N4913 was insured with it vie policy No.231520166836550000 for period 16.02.2017 to 15.02.2018. With these main averments, respondent no.5 prayed for dismissal of the petition against respondent no.5.
RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT NO.02, 03 & 044.3 Despite grant of number of opportunities, no WS/responses were filed by the respondent no.02, 03 & 04. ISSUES 5.1 After completion of pleadings, on 05.10.2020, ld. Predecessor of this tribunal framed following issues: -
1. Whether the deceased namely Kamal Singh suffered fatal injuries in the accident that took plac eon 11.10.2017 at about 10:45 AM involving of two vehicles i.e. Vehicle bearing No. KA01AA0826 and vehicle bearing No. NL014913. The vehicle vehicle no.KA01AA0826 was being driven rashly and negligently by the respondent no.2 Sh.
Arun Singh, owned by respondent no.3 Sh.
G Siva Kumar and insured with respondent no.1 i.e. National Insurance Company ltd.
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.6 of 31 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.02.01 16:31:22 +0530
and the vehicle bearing no. NL01N4913 being owned by the respondent no.4 Sh.
Raman Saini and insured with respondent no.5 i.e. HDFC Ergo General Insurance co.
Ltd.? OPP
2. Whether the applicant(s) is/are entitled to compensation, if yes, of what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
5.2 Thereafter, matter was fixed for evidence of petitioner side.
PETITIONER SIDE EVIDENCE 6.1 The petitioner(s)/claimant(s) examined examined petitioner No.1 as PW-1 to establish their claim. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit reiterating and supporting the contents of their application/petition. She relied upon photocopy of her Aadhar card Ex.PW1/1, photocopies of Aadhar Card of David Kumar, Mahender Kumar, Gunjan Kumari and Kamal Singh Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/5, certified copy of FIR & its translation Ex.PW1/6 & Ex.PW1/7, statement of Ramnathan Ex.PW1/8, photocopy of ration card Mark A, death certificate of Kamal Singh Mark B, death report Mark C, sealing certificate Mark D and no objection certificate of Police Mark E in her evidence. PW1 was examined, cross-examined and was discharged.
6.2 The petitioner(s)/claimant(s) further examined Inspector G. Chithra as PW-2. She in gist has deposed that on 11.10.2017, at about 10:50 AM, she received a call from Control Room regarding an incident having taken place between two Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.7 of 31 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.02.01 16:31:26 +0530
trucks at near Chilli Mandi. She went to the spot of incident and found two trucks in accidental condition at the spot of incident. She found one person having expired in the incident. She sent the body of the deceased to Stanley Hospital. She received one complaint from one Mr. M. Ramanathan who was the eye witness of the incident. On the statement of Mr. Ramananthan, the FIR No. 508/2017 at PS Tiw-madhavaram was registered u/s 279/304A IPC. After registration of the FIR, she started investigation of the matter and during investigation, she prepared site plan of the place of incident at the instance of Gaurav Kumar and Surender Kumar. She seized both vehicles involved in the incident bearing registration no. NL01N4913 and KA01AA0826. The post mortem of the deceased Kamal Singh was conducted in Stanley Hospital on the next day of incident. She also recorded statement of various other peoples during investigation. She collected the post mortem report of the deceased. After investigation, she found the driver of vehicle bearing registration No.KA01AA0826 namely Arun Singh at fault and chargesheeted him. The copy of the investigation done by her is Ex.PW2/A. She was examined, cross-examined and was discharged. RESPONDENT SIDE EVIDENCE
7. Respondent no.1 examined its Assistant Manager (Legal) Sh. Raghunath Pawar as R1W1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.R1W1/A reiterating and supporting its case. He relied upon certified copy of insurance policy bearing no. 651300/31/16/6300014530 Ex.R1W1/, photocopy of DL of Arun Kumar Mark A, report of investigator Mr. Prashant Mishra along with report of licensing authority Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.8 of 31 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:31:30 +0530
Ex.R1W1/2 and notice issued to respondent no.2 & 3 along with original postal receipts and service reports Ex.R1W1/3 to Ex. R1W1/6 in his evidence. He was examined, cross-examined and was discharged.
FINAL ARGUMENTS/SUBMISSIONS/CONTENTIONS 8.1 Submissions/contentions of the petitioner side are that the petitioner side has positively proved that the incident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.02. Award may be passed by this Tribunal as per entitlement/claim of applicant(s)/claimant(s)/LR(s). 8.2 Submissions/contentions of the respondent no.01 are that the petitioner side has failed to prove that incident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.2. Petitioner side has failed to prove the job/business/work and income of the deceased. With these main submissions/contentions, the respondent no.1 has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
8.3 Submissions/contentions of the respondent no.05/HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. are that incident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.2. Their vehicle has been falsely arrayed in this case. With these main submissions/contentions, the respondent no.05 has prayed for dismissal of the petition against respondent no.5.
8.4. No arguments have been addressed by respondent no.2, 3 & 4 despite grant of number of opportunities. ANALYSIS/FINDINGS ON ISSUES 9.1 (1) Whether the deceased namely Kamal Singh Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.9 of 31 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.02.01 16:31:33 +0530
suffered fatal injuries in the accident that took plac eon 11.10.2017 at about 10:45 AM involving of two vehicles i.e. Vehicle bearing No. KA01AA0826 and vehicle bearing No. NL014913. The vehicle vehicle no.KA01AA0826 was being driven rashly and negligently by the respondent no.2 Sh. Arun Singh, owned by respondent no.3 Sh. G Siva Kumar and insured with respondent no.1 i.e. National Insurance Company ltd. and the vehicle bearing no. NL01N4913 being owned by the respondent no.4 Sh. Raman Saini and insured with respondent no.5 i.e. HDFC Ergo General Insurance co. Ltd.? OPP 9.2 Before adverting to the facts of the present petition for deciding the above issue, at the very outset, it would be apposite to note here that the procedure followed by an accident claim tribunal is similar to what is followed by a civil court. In civil matters the facts are required to be established by way of preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubt as is required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is not as heavy as it is in a criminal case and in a claim petition under the M. V. Act, this burden is even lesser than a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the prepositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of "Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors. "
reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgments in the case of "Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and Ors." 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and "Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.", 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc. Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.10 of 31 Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:31:35 +0530
9.3 Now keeping in mind the aforesaid legal
principle/preposition for decision of the present issue, this Tribunal has gone through the testimony of the witnesses and entire material available on record. This Tribunal has also given thoughtful consideration to arguments addressed by Ld. Counsels for the parties. The petitioner side has not examined any eye witness to the incident in present matter, therefore, in given circumstances, it needs to decided whether the evidence brought on record is sufficient in itself to establish rashness and negligence in driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent No.2 driver of vehicle bearing registration no. KA01AA0826 upto the standard of proof required in such matters as is discussed above.
9.4 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its full bench decision in matter "United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shila Datta & Ors." (2011) 10 SCC 509 has made following observations about inquiry contemplated under MV Act:-
"5. A claim petition for compensation in regard to a motor accident (filed by the injured or in case of death, by the dependant family members) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under section 165 of the Act is neither a suit nor an adversarial lis in the traditional sense. It is a proceedings in terms of and regulated by the provisions of Chapter XII of the Act which is a complete Code in itself. We may in this context refer to the following significant aspects in regard to the Tribunals and determination of compensation by Tribunals:
(i) A proceedings for award of compensation in regard to a motor accident before the Tribunal can be initiated either on an application for compensation made by the persons aggrieved (claimants) under section 166(1) or section 163A of the Act or suo moto by the Tribunal, by treating any report of accident (forwarded to the tribunal under section 158(6) of the Act as an application for compensation under section 166 (4) of the Act.(iii) In a proceedings initiated suo moto by the Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.11 of 31 Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.02.01 16:31:39 +0530 tribunal, the owner and driver are the respondents. The insurer is not a respondent, but a noticee under section 149(2) of the Act. Where a claim petition is filed by the injured or by the legal representatives of a person dying in a motor accident, the driver and owner have to be impleaded as respondents. The claimants need not inplead the insurer as a party. But they have the choice of impleading the insurer also as a party respondent. When it is not impleaded as a party, the Tribunal is required to issue a notice under section 149(2) of the Act. If the insurer is impleaded as a party, it is issued as a regular notice of the proceedings.
(v) Though the tribunal adiudicates on a claim and determines the compensation, it does not do so as in an adversarial litigation. On receipt of an application (either from the applicant or suo motu registration), the Tribunal gives notice to the insurer under section 149(2) of the Act, gives an opportunity of being heard to the parties to the claim petition as also the insurer, holds an inquiry into the claim and makes an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just. (Vide Section 168 of the Act).
(vi) The Tribunal is required to follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. It may choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of and matters relevant to inquiry, to the assist it in holding the enquiry (vide section 169 of the Act).
We have referred to the aforesaid provisions to show that an award by the tribunal cannot be seen as an adversarial adjudication between the litigating parties to a dispute, but a statutory determination of compensation on the occurrence of an accident, after due enquiry, in accordance with the statute."
9.5 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of "Dulcina Fernandes & ors. Vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz & Anr." (2013) 10 SCC 646 while relying upon the above full bench decision has held/observed as under:- .
"8. However, there are certain other features of the case which are more fundamental and, therefore, have to be specifically noticed. CW-2, who was at the relevant time working as the Head Constable of Main Eurtorim, Police Station, had deposed that a criminal case was registered against the first respondent in connection with the accident and that after investigation he was Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.12 of 31 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.02.01 16:31:41 +0530
chargesheeted and sent up for trial. Though it is submitted at the Bar that the first respondent was acquitted in the said case what cannot be overlooked is the fact that upon investigation of the case registered against the first respondent, prime facie, materials showing negligence were found to put him on trial.. "
9.6 The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in matter "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Rana & ors." 2009 ACJ 287 has held/observed as under:-
"11. The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondents claimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal. On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced (i) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR NO. 955/2004, pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under Section 279/304-A, IPC against the driver; (iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant also falls face down. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on the part of the driver.
9.7 In view of the abovecited case law, it is clear that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals only hold inquiry for determination of compensation on occurrence of an accident and they do not sit in a suit or adversarial lis in traditional sense. The factum of the driver of offending vehicle being chargesheeted by police after investigation of the criminal matter Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.13 of 31 Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:31:45 +0530
is also prima facie sufficient to infer that driver was negligent and responsible for the incident in question. A Tribunal can certainly rely upon the records of the case of criminal matter to reach such a conclusion.
9.8 In this matter to prove the rashness and negligence, the petitioner side has examined PW-1 who has specifically deposed that deceased was hit by offending vehicle bearing registration No. KA01AA0826. She has also specifically deposed that the incident happened due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.2 only. PW-1 has also exhibited certified copy of FIR and its translation as Ex.PW1/6 & Ex.PW1/7 in her evidence. PW-2 Inspector G. Chithra has also exhibited copy of investigation report as Ex.PW2/A. The factum that driver of vehicle in question i.e. respondent No.2 was challaned under Section 279/304A IPC after conclusion of investigation also supports and affirms the case of the petitioner side that incident happened due to his rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1.
9.9 The respondent no.02/driver was the best witness who could have rebutted the case of rashness and negligence of driving of the offending vehicle put forwarded by petitioner/claimant side. But respondent no.02/driver has chosen not to come in witness box to disprove the case of the petitioner side on said aspect. In the given circumstances, adverse inference also needs to be drawn against respondent no.2. Reliance can be placed upon the decision "Cholamandalam M.Ss. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh" 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310 upon said issue/aspect.
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.14 of 31 Digitally signed by HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:31:49 +0530
9.10 In totality of circumstances, this Tribunal is of the
opinion that the claimant side has been able to bring on record such facts which proves almost at the scales of preponderance of probabilities that the incident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration number KA01AA0826 by its driver/respondent no.02 on the date and time of the incident. Accordingly, issue no.01 is decided in favour of the petitioner(s)/claimant(s)/applicant(s) and against the respondents No.1 to 3.
Issue No.(ii) : - Whether the applicants are entitled to compensation, if yes, of what amount and from whom? OPP.
10.1 The petitioner(s) is/are certainly entitled for compensation in view of decision of above issue. Before proceeding further to decide the present issue, it would be apposite to encapsulate the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its guiding lamp post judgments qua methodology and considerations for assessing/ascertaining just compensation in road vehicular death cases.
10.2 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of "Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors." (2003) 6 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 Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.15 of 31 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:31:52 +0530
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 Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.16 of 31 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:31:55 +0530
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."
10.3 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:-
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.17 of 31 Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:31:58 +0530
(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.
10.4 In view of the above law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, this Tribunal needs to ascertain the age of deceased/victim, the appropriate multiplier, income of the deceased at the time of incident, the educational qualification of deceased, the number of dependents, whether deceased was married or unmarried, whether deceased was having permanent employment or private job etc. etc. to workout just compensation in this case. Award also needs to be passed qua non-pecuniary Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.18 of 31 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:32:01 +0530
heads as envisaged and in terms of above judgments. Hence, this Tribunal now proceeds further to decide the compensation/award under different heads applicable to the present matter in light of above prepositions.
DETERMINATION OF AGE & MULTIPLIER 10.5 The date of incident is 11.10.2017. As per Aadhar Card of deceased available on record, the date of birth of the deceased is 01.01.1967. Hence, deceased was 51 years of age at the time of incident and his age is considered accordingly. He fell in age bracket of 51 to 55. Hence, the multiplier applicable to this case would be 11.
DETERMINATION OF EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION 10.6 No documentary proof has been filed by the petitioner side to prove the educational qualification of deceased. Hence, he shall be considered uneducated for purpose of present decision.
DETERMINATION OF MONTHLY INCOME 10.7(i) Petitioner side has claimed that deceased was working as Driver and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month at the time of incident. No documentary proof has been filed by the petitioner side to show income of the deceased. Hence, the petitioner side has miserably failed to prove the earnings of the deceased. Hence, the income of deceased has to be assessed on the basis of chart available in Minimum Wages Act of a Skilled person of State of Uttar Pradesh (copy of driving license of deceased available) as he was permanent resident of Uttar Pradesh according to his documents. The contention of the counsel for petitioner side to consider minimum wages of Delhi Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.19 of 31 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:32:04 +0530
cannot be accepted as the registration certificate and other government documents of the vehicle driven by deceased mentions address of the owner of being Kohima, Nagaland. The minimum wages for a Skilled person of State of Uttar Pradesh on the date of accident i.e. 11.10.2017 were Rs.9118/- (after rounding off Rs. 9118.66/-).
10.7(ii) Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased needs to be considered as Rs.9118/- per month on the date of accident.
DETERMINATION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS APPLICABLE 10.8 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC Appeal No. 798/2011 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors." decided on 02.11.2017 has held that even in the cases where the income of the deceased is calculated on the basis of the minimum wages, the benefit of future prospects has to be given in accordance with guidelines issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as applicable to self employed or privately employed persons.
10.9 The deceased was aged less than 60 years at the time of incident and had non-permanent job, so the future prospects/benefits applicable to the present case would be 10%. ASSESSMENT/DETERMINATION OF ENHANCED MONTHLY INCOME 10.10 As has already been held, income of deceased as Rs.9118/- per month would be applicable in this case and an addition of 40% needs to be made qua future prospects. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased needs to be taken as Rs.10,030/- (after rounding off Rs.10,029.8) (Rs.9118/-
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.20 of 31 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:32:09 +0530
+ Rs.911.8/- which is 10% of Rs.9118/-).
DETERMINATION OF DEDUCTIONS 10.11 There is no dispute that the deceased is survived by his wife petitioner no.1 Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi, son petitioner no.2 David Kumar, son petitioner no.3 Mahender Kumar, daughter petitioner no.4 Gunjan Kumari and daughter petitioner no.5 Sunita. Petitioner no.5 Sunita is stated to be married prior to the incident. Petitioner no.4 Gunjan Kumari was already major and some years have passed since her attaining majority at the time of death of deceased. So, she can also not be taken as dependent upon the deceased at the time of his death. Petitioner no.3 was certainly minor and can be taken as dependent upon deceased. Petitioner no.2 had just passed majority at the time of death of deceased, therefore, he could also be taken as financially dependent upon deceased at the time of his death. Hence, petitioner No. 1 to 3 have to be considered as dependent upon the deceased. Deduction towards personal and living expenses of deceased needs to be taken 1/3rd in this matter. Hence, 1/3rd would be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.
DETERMINATION OF MULTIPLICAND 10.12 The monthly income of the deceased after enhancement needs to be taken as Rs.10,030/-. A deduction of 1/3rd needs to be made towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. So, in this matter, monthly loss of dependency would come out to be Rs.6687/- (affter rounding off Rs.6686.66) (after deducting 1/3rd of Rs.10,030/-). This product needs to be multiplied by 12 to workout multiplicand/annual loss of Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.21 of 31 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:32:11 +0530
dependency. Hence, multiplicand for this matter would be
Rs.80,244/- (Rs.6687/- x 12).
AWARD TOWARDS LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
10.13 The total loss of dependency would come out to be
Rs.8,82,684/- (Rs.80,244 x 11), hence, so awarded. COMPENSATION QUA NON-PECUNIARY HEADS COMPENSATION QUA LOSS OF ESTATE 10.14 The loss of estate is awarded as Rs.18,000/- (15,000/- + 20% enhancement).
COMPENSATION QUA LOSS OF CONSORTIUM 10.15 Since, there are five claimants who are wife and four children of the deceased entitled to award under this head, hence, an amount of Rs.48,000/- (Rs.40,000 + 20% enhancement) is awarded under this head.
COMPENSATION QUA FUNERAL EXPENSES 10.16 An amount of Rs.18,000/- (15,000/- + 20% enhancement) is awarded towards funeral expenses. TOTAL AWARD AMOUNT OF ALL HEADS 10.17 In view of above discussions and awards passed under different heads, this Tribunal hereby pass an award of sum of Rs.9,66,684/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Four Only) (Rs.8,82,684/- + Rs.18,000/- + Rs.48,000/- + Rs.18,000/-) in favour of petitioner(s) and against the respondents No.1 to 3.
R E L I EF / ISSUE NO.03
11. This Tribunal hereby pass an award of Rs.9,66,684/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.22 of 31 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.02.01 16:32:14 +0530
Four Only) as compensation along-with interest @ 7% per annum (including interim award, if any) from the date of filing the DAR/claim petition i.e. 02.02.2019 (excluding interest w.e.f. 16.01.2020 to 02.03.2020) till the date of the payment of award amount, in favour of the petitioner(s) and against the respondents no.1 to 3 on account of their liability being joint and several. APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY 12.1. It is contended by the respondent no.1 National Insurance Company Limited that driver/respondent no.2 was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of incident. Respondent no.1/National Insurance Company Limited has examined its Assistant Manager (Legal) Sh. Raghunath Pawar as R1W1 who has also filed certified copy of insurance policy bearing no. 651300/31/16/6300014530 Ex.R1W1/1, photocopy of DL of Arun Kumar Mark A, report of investigator Mr. Prashant Mishra along with report of licensing authority Ex.R1W1/2 and notice issued to respondent no.2 & 3 along with original postal receipts & service reports Ex.R1W1/3 to Ex. R1W1/6 in his evidence. Respondent no.2 & 3 have not controverted the same. Hence, it is established on record that the respondent no.2 was not holding any valid driving license to drive the vehicle in question at the time of incident. Hence, respondent No.1/Insurance Company is entitled for recovery rights against the respondents No.2 & 3 in this matter, but only after depositing the award amount with this Tribunal. Recovery rights are granted to the respondent no.1 against respondent no.2 & 3 in said terms.
12.2 As the offending vehicle bearing registration Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.23 of 31 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.02.01 16:32:18 +0530
No.KA01AA0826 was admittedly insured with the respondent no.01/National Insurance Company Ltd, respondent no.01/National Insurance Company Ltd. is hereby directed to deposit the award amount in favour of the petitioner(s) with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account No.40711767202, CIF No.90891362578, IFSC Code - SBIN0000726, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 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.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANT(S) AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP).
13.1 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, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. 13.2 The Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi is also directed to release/disburse the share of the Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.24 of 31 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:32:21 +0530
award amount of petitioners in their MACT accounts to be disclosed by the petitioner side vide separate application within 15 days from today as mentioned/directed hereinafter in tabulated form.
13.3 The compensation to the petitioners shall be distributed/disbursed as follows : -
Sr. Name Age/ Relation Award Amount of Amount Period of N of DOB with Amount award to kept in FDRs with o. petition injured/ be FDRs cumulative er/ deceased released interest claiman t
1. Sushila 01.01.1 Wife 5,00,684 Rs.2,00,684 3,00,000/- Rs.3,00,000/-
Devi @ 985 /- + 1/3rd + 1/3rd
Sheela interest interest
Devi accrued accrued shall
be kept in the
form of equal
monthly
FDRs of
Rs.10,000/-
for the period
of 30 months
+ months
which comes
out of division
of interest
accumulated
by
Rs.10,000/-.
The
remainder, if
any to be
added in the
last FDR. The
amount of
FDRs along-
with interest
after maturity
shall be
released to the
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.25 of 31 Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:32:25 +0530
petitioner
/claimant on
monthly basis
as per above
previous
orders.
2. David 15.08.1 Son 2,00,000/- 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
Kumar 999 + 1/3rd + 1/3rd
@ interest interest
Devid accrued accrued shall
Kumar be kept in the
form of equal
monthly
FDRs of
Rs.10,000/-
for the period
of 10 months
+ months
which comes
out of division
of interest
accumulated
by
Rs.10,000/-.
The
remainder, if
any to be
added in the
last FDR. The
amount of
FDRs along-
with interest
after maturity
shall be
released to the
petitioner
/claimant on
monthly basis
as per above
previous
orders.
3. Mahend 03.05.2 Son 2,00,000/- NIl 2,00,000/- Rs.2,00,000/-
ra 005 + 1/3rd along with
Kumar interest 1/3rd interest
accrued accrued shall
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.26 of 31 Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:32:28 +0530
be kept in the
form of one
FDRs and
same shall be
released to
the claimant
at the time of
attaining the
age of
maturity.
4. Gunjan 10.08.1 Daughter 33,000/- 33,000/- Nil Nil
Kumari 995
5. Sunita Not Daughter 33,000/- 33,000/- Nil Nil
mentio
ned
TOTAL Rs.9,66,684/-
13.4 The following conditions shall be adhered to by
SBI, Tis Hazari 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 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 Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.27 of 31 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.02.01 16:32:32 +0530
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.
13.5 In accordance with the orders dated 08.02.2019 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 in "Rajesh Tyagi and others Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors." , Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager has been appointed as Nodal Officer of State Bank of India having Phone No.022- 22741336/9414048606 and e mail ID [email protected]. In case of any assistance or non compliance, the aforesaid Nodal Officer may be contacted. A copy of this order be sent by e- mail to the aforesaid Nodal Officer of the aforesaid bank by the Ahlmad of the Court immediately in accordance with the directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as given in the orders dated 07.12.2018. The Nodal Officer of the bank shall ensure the disbursement of the award amount within three weeks of the receipt of the e-mail as mentioned in the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
14. The respondent no.01/National Insurance Company Limited shall deposit the award amount with the Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.28 of 31 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:32:37 +0530
account of this Tribunal within 45 days. 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 on 21.03.2025.
15. A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost through email.
16. Ahlmad staff 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)].
17. Ahlmad staff 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, Tis Hazari Court Complex Branch for information.
18. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH Announced in the open CourtSINGH Date: 2025.02.01 16:32:43 +0530 today i.e. 1st February, 2025 (HARVINDER SINGH) District Judge-cum-PO: MACT-01(West) THC/Delhi/01.02.2025 Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.29 of 31 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.02.01 16:32:40 +0530 FORM -XV
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident : 11.10.2017
2. Name of the deceased : Kamal Singh
3. Age of the deceased : 51 years
4. Occupation of the deceased : Not proved
5. Income of the deceased : Rs.9118/-
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased : -
S.No. Name Age/DOB Relation
1. Sushila Devi @ Sheela 01.01.1985 Wife
Devi
2. David Kumar @ 15.08.1999 Son
Devid Kumar
3. Mahendra Kumar 03.05.2005 Son
4. Gunjan Kumari 10.08.1995 Daughter
5. Sunita Not mentioned Daughter
Computation of Compensation : -
Sr.No. Heads Awarded by the Claim
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased(A) Rs.9118/-
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) 10%
9. Less-Personal expenses of the 1/3rd deduction has
deceased(C) been done
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.6687/-
[(A+B)-C=D]
11. Annual loss of dependency (D Rs.80,244/-
x 12)
12. Multiplier(E) 11
13. Total loss of dependency Rs.8,82,684/-
(Dx12xE= F)
14. Medical Expenses(G) NIL
15. Compensation for loss of Rs.48,000/-
Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.30 of 31 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:32:47 +0530
consortium(H)
16. Compensation for loss of love NIL
and affection(I)
17. Compensation for loss of Rs.18,000/-
estate(J)
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs.18,000/-
expenses(K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.9,66,684/-
(F+G+H+I+J+K=L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST 7% per annum
AWARDED
21. Interest amount up to the date Rs.3,97,173/-
of award (M) (w.e.f. 02.02.2019 to
01.02.2025) excluding
interest w.e.f.
16.01.2020 to
02.03.2020 which
comes to 5 years 10
months and 13 days)
22. Total amount including interest Rs.13,63,857/-
(L + M) (Rs.9,66,684/- +
Rs.3,97,173/- )
23. Award amount released Rs.3,66,684/-
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.6,00,000/- along with
interest accrued.
25. Mode of disbursement of the Mentioned in the award
award amount to the claimant
(s).
26. Next date for compliance of 21.03.2025
the award.
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:32:50 +0530
(HARVINDER SINGH)
District Judge-cum-PO: MACT-01(West) THC/Delhi/01.02.2025 Sushila Devi @ Sheela Devi & Ors. vs. M/s National Insurance Co. ltd. & ors.
[MACT No.58/2019] Page No.31 of 31 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.02.01
16:32:53 +0530