Delhi District Court
Manish Sharma And Ors vs Harpal Singh And Ors on 8 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. MUKESH KUMAR,
PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-02,WEST,TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
MACT No. 1064/2022
DLWT01-007637-2022
1. Sh. Manish Sharma
S/o Sh. Surenra Sharma
R/o H. No. C-88, Ganesh Nagar,
Tilak Nagar, Delhi-110018
(husband of the deceased Smt. Anu Sharma)
Also at 77/23, IIIrd Floor, Khandsa Road,
Near Satya Jyoti Public School,
Laxmi Garden, Gurugram, Haryana.
2. Arnav Kapil
S/o Sh. Manish Sharma
R/o H. No. C-88, Ganesh Nagar,
Tilak Nagar, Delhi-110018
(son of the deceased Smt. Anu Sharma)
Also at 77/23, IIIrd Floor, Khandsa Road,
Near Satya Jyoti Public School,
Laxmi Garden, Gurugram, Haryana.
...... Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Harpal Singh
S/o Sh. Lakhvinder Singh
R/o H. No. 25, Bhagwant Nagar,
Tehswar Suar, Rampur, U.P.-244924.
(Driver)
2. Kapoor Diesel Garrage Pvt. Ltd.
MACT No. 1064/2022 Date of Award : 08.01.2026
Manish Sharma & Ors. Vs. Harpal Singh & Ors. Page No. 1 of 18.
Office at : 1704, Jawahar Colony,
Faridabad Haryana
Also at : 29/5, Village Nangli Poona,
Through its Director (owner)
3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Having its office at : 5C/1, IInd Floor,
Opposite Liberty Cinema,
New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh,
Delhi-110015. ...... Respondents
Date of Institution : 05.08.2022
Date of reserving order/judgment : 08.01.2026
Date of pronouncement : 08.01.2026
AWAR D
1. This is claim petition u/s 166 & 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'M.V. Act') filed on behalf of petitioners seeking compensation in respect of death of minor Aarav Kapil in a road accident involving vehicle bearing registration no. HR38R8624 (Truck container). As per the facts mentioned in the claim petition as well as documents filed on record, on 30.03.2021, petitioner no. 1 namely Manish Sharma was going from Saharanpur to Gurgaon along with his wife Smt. Anu Sharma and his sons namely deceased Aarav Kapil and Arnav Kapil on his Maruti Alto Car bearing registration No. UP11S9836 and at about 07:00 PM on 30.03.2021 when petitioner no. 1 with his family members reached KMP near Mandouthi, the truck container bearing No. HR38R8624 was driven by the driver/respondent no. 1 in rash, negligently and violating the rules of traffic by its driver without open the MACT No. 1064/2022 Date of Award : 08.01.2026 Manish Sharma & Ors. Vs. Harpal Singh & Ors. Page No. 2 of 18. reflector and indicator in mid of the road and when the petitioner blew the horn of his car, the driver of the truck suddenly break his truck in the mid of the road by which car was hit in the back side of the truck and got accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1/driver and due to the said accident, petitioner no. 1, petitioner no. 2, deceased Anu Sharma and deceased Aarav Kapil got grievous injuries. It is further stated that local persons who were present at the spot brought them all into nearby hospital namely Brahm Shakti Sanjeevani Hospital, Bahadurgarh but the doctor declared Smt. Anu Sharma and Aarav Kapil dead. It is further stated that FIR bearing No. 103/2021 dated 31.03.2021 PS Asauda, District Jhjjar, Haryana was also registered pertaining to this accident.
2. As per the claim petition, the respondent no.1 is the driver of the offending vehicle; the respondent no.2 is the registered owner of the offending vehicle, which was insured with respondent no. 3/The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. It is further stated that deceased was aged about 39 years at the time of her death, she was working with one school at Gurugram and earned a salary of Rs. 30,000/- per month. It is further stated that deceased has left behind her husband Sh. Manish Sharma and her son Arnav Kapil as the only legal heirs of deceased.
3. None appeared for the respondent no. 1 despite service and therefore, respondent no. 1 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 03.05.2023.
4. A written statement is filed on behalf of the respondent 2, wherein it is stated inter alia that answering respondent have been falsely implicated in this case, who are not MACT No. 1064/2022 Date of Award : 08.01.2026 Manish Sharma & Ors. Vs. Harpal Singh & Ors. Page No. 3 of 18. liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners; that the vehicle bearing no. HR28R8624 was not involved in the accident; that the vehicle of the respondent no. 2 was insured with The New India Assurance Company Limited vide Insurance Policy.
5. A written statement filed on behalf of the insurance company/respondent no. 3, whereby while denying the averments made in the claim petition, it is stated inter alia that vehicle no. HR38R8624 was insured with the respondent no.3 in the name of respondent no.2/M/s Kapoor Diesel Garage Pvt. Ltd. vide policy no. 3113013120011000007316 issued for the period from 29.03.2021 to 28.03.2022, however, the liability of the answering respondent is subject to the compliance of terms and conditions of the policy as well as provisions of M.V. Act by the respondent no.2. it is further stated that the accident was caused on account of negligence of the driver/petitioner no. 1 of Maruti Alto bearing registration no. UP11S9836 as he was driving the his vehicle on the road without caring traffic rules.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal on 03.05.2023 :-
1. Whether the deceased Aarav Kapil suffered fatal injuries in a vehicular accident that took place on 30.03.2021 at about 07:00 PM near Mandouthi Kundli Manesar Expressway involving a vehicle no. HR38R8624 (offending vehicle) being driven by respondent no.1/Harpal Singh in a rash and negligent manner, owned by respondent no.2/M/s Kapoor Diesel Garrage Pvt.
Ltd. (owner) and which was insured with respondent no.3/ The New India MACT No. 1064/2022 Date of Award : 08.01.2026 Manish Sharma & Ors. Vs. Harpal Singh & Ors. Page No. 4 of 18.
Assurance Co. Ltd.? OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
7. PW-1 is petitioner no.1 Sh. Manish Sharma (father of the deceased), who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A.
8. No witness was got examined on behalf of respondents in the present matter.
9. I have heard the arguments and gone through the record carefully and my issue wise findings are as under :
Issue No.1
10. It is the settled proposition of law that an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non. However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition based upon negligence. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. Reference may be made to the judgments titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sakshi Bhutani & Others., MAC APP. No. 550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012, Bimla Devi & Others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Others (2009) 13 SC 530, Parmeshwari v. Amirchand & Others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 & Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Others 2018, Law Suit (SC) 303.
11. PW-1 Sh. Manish Sharma (father of deceased) tendered his affidavit in evidence which is Ex.PW1/A and relied MACT No. 1064/2022 Date of Award : 08.01.2026 Manish Sharma & Ors. Vs. Harpal Singh & Ors. Page No. 5 of 18. upon the documents i.e. (i) Copy of Aadhar card of petitioner no. 1 Ex.PW1/1 (OSR); (ii) Copy of PAN card of petitioner no. 1 Ex.PW1/2; (iii) Copy of driving License of petitioner no. 1 Ex.PW1/3 (OSR); (iv) Copy of Aadhar card of petitioner no. 2 Ex.PW1/4; (v) Copy of Aadhar card of deceased Aarav Kapil Ex.PW1/5 (OSR); (vi) Copy of Aadhar Card and driving license of deceased Anu Sharma Ex.PW1/6 (colly.) (OSR); (vii) Copy of Aadhar card of Aarav Kapil Ex.PW1/7 (OSR); (viii) Copy of death certificate of deceased Anu Sharma Ex.PW1/8 (OSR); (ix) Copy of death certificate of Aarav Kapil Ex.PW1/9 (OSR); (x) Copy of certificate of achievement of Aarav Kapil Ex.PW1/10 (OSR); (xi) Copy of performance record of Aarav Kapil Ex.PW1/11(OSR); (xii) Copy of fee receipt of Aarav Kapil Ex.PW1/12 (OSR); (xiii) Copies of school progress report of Arnav Kapil Ex.PW1/13 (OSR); (xiv) Copies of FIR, post mortem etc Ex.PW1/14 (colly.) (OSR); (xv) Certified copies of DAR Ex.PW1/15 (OSR); (xvi) certified copies of criminal case file Ex.PW1/16 (colly.) and (xvii) True copy of order dated 04.07.2022 Ex.PW1/18.
12. For the purpose of this issue, the testimony of PW-1 Sh. Manish Sharma, who is also eye witness of the accident in question, is very relevant. PW 1 has filed an affidavit, wherein he deposed inter alia that on 30.03.2021, he alongwith his wife Mts. Annu Sharma and his sons Aarav Kapila and Arnav Kapil were going on from Saharanpur to Gurgaon by his car Maruti Alto bearing registration no. UP-11-S-9836 and at about 07:00 PM when petitioner with his family reached KMP near Mandouthi, a Truck container bearing registration no. HR-38- MACT No. 1064/2022 Date of Award : 08.01.2026 Manish Sharma & Ors. Vs. Harpal Singh & Ors. Page No. 6 of 18. R-8624 was driven by the driver i.e respondent no. 1 in rashly and negligently without open reflector and indicator in the mid of the road by which car was hit in the back side of the truck and got accident due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1 and due to the said accident petitioner no. 1 and 2, deceased Annu Sharma and deceased Aarav Kapil got grievous injuries. Local persons who were present at the spot brought them all into nearby hospital namely Braham Shakti Sanjeevani Hospital, Bahadurgarh but the doctor declared Anu Sharm and Aarav Kapil dead. He further deposed that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle no. HR-38-R-8624 and FIR bearing no. 103/2021 U/s 338/304A IPC has been registered at PS Asauda, District Jhajjar, Haryana.
13. In his cross examination done by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.3/insurance company, PW3 stated inter alia that he found at the time of sudden brake by the offending vehicle the light was not working. PW 1 also denied the suggestion that at the time of accident, he was not maintaining the proper distance from the offending vehicle that is why present accident was caused.
14. It is quite evident that the presence of PW-1 Sh. Manish Sharma at the spot is duly established as he also suffered injuries. The same is not even disputed by the respondents. Indisputably, he was going alongwith his family at the time of accident. He has categorically deposed about the mode and manner of the accident in question. He has clearly deposed that the offending vehicle, which was being driven by its driver, at a MACT No. 1064/2022 Date of Award : 08.01.2026 Manish Sharma & Ors. Vs. Harpal Singh & Ors. Page No. 7 of 18. very high speed, rashly, negligently, without taking necessary precautions, violating the traffic rules and hit against deceased with great force, as a result of which, his wife and son sustained grievous injuries, who were immediately taken to the hospital, where Doctor declared them as 'brought dead'. PW1 had the full occasion to witness the accident, who has given the full account of whatever took place in his presence at the spot at the time of accident. There is no evidence brought on record to prove any negligence on the part of the petitioner no. 1. PW 1 was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3, however, there is nothing material elicited from his cross examination, which would impeach his credibility or trustworthiness in respect of his deposition regarding the aforesaid accident. It is evident from the testimony of PW-3 that respondent could not impeach his testimony through litmus test of cross-examination. Said witness is found to have successfully withstood the test of cross- examination. There is no possibility of false implication of respondent no. 1 and/or false involvement of offending vehicle by PW-1 at the instance of petitioners herein.
15. Furthermore, Petitioner/PW-1 in his evidence has also placed reliance on the documents pertaining to the criminal case, which includes FIR No. 103/2021 PS Asauda, District Jhaajjar, Haryana U/s 279/338/304A IPC; Copy of complaint made to the police Tehreer; Final Report u/s 173 Cr.PC (chargesheet) filed by IO in the aforesaid FIR; Site plan of the place of accident; copy of driving license of respondent no. 1; copy of documents of offending vehicle; postmortem report of deceased; copy of mechanical inspection report etc. Respondent MACT No. 1064/2022 Date of Award : 08.01.2026 Manish Sharma & Ors. Vs. Harpal Singh & Ors. Page No. 8 of 18. no. 1 namely Harpal Singh (accused in State case) has been charge-sheeted (which is part of copies of criminal case available on record) for offences punishable U/s 279/338/304A IPC by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the respondent no. 1 (driver of offending vehicle). Same also corroborates the ocular testimony of PW 1 and points out towards the rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by the respondent no. 1. The investigations were duly carried out which revealed not only the involvement of the vehicle, but also it was the offending vehicle which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the accident.
16. Moreover, the postmortem reports dated 31.03.2021 is also filed by the petitioners. Said document have not been disputed from the side of the respondents and corroborates the ocular testimony of PW 1 as discussed above.
17. Moreover, apart from petitioners, the respondent no. 1 Harpal Singh, driver of the offending vehicle, was the other material witness who could have thrown sufficient light as to how and under what circumstances, the accident in question took place. However, he did not enter into witness box during the course of inquiry. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him for not entering into the witness box, to the effect that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by him.
18. Moreover, in the given facts and circumstances of the present case, the rashness and negligence of the driver (R1) MACT No. 1064/2022 Date of Award : 08.01.2026 Manish Sharma & Ors. Vs. Harpal Singh & Ors. Page No. 9 of 18. would also be assumed by virtue of res ipsa loquitur. The very factum that the offending vehicle, which was a Goods Carrier, suddenly break his truck in mid of the road by which the car was hit on the back side of the truck, itself shows that offending vehicle was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, which caused the accident in question and death of wife and son of the petitioner. There was an implicit duty on the respondent no.1 to see that his driving did not endanger the life of any other user of the road. He has failed to exercise the caution incumbent upon him and has clearly neglected his duty of circumspection.
19. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioners have been able to prove on the basis of preponderance of probabilities that deceased Smt. Anu Sharma and Master Aarav Kapil sustained fatal injuries in road accident which took place at about 07:00 PM on 30.03.2021 at KMP near Mandouthi due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent no. 1. Accordingly issue no. 1 stands decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents. Issue No.2
20. In view of the finding on issue no.1, petitioners are entitled to get compensation, however, the quantum of compensation still needs to be adjudicated. Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 enjoins upon the claim Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation, which appears to be just and reasonable. As per settled law, compensation is not expected to be windfall or a MACT No. 1064/2022 Date of Award : 08.01.2026 Manish Sharma & Ors. Vs. Harpal Singh & Ors. Page No. 10 of 18. bonanza nor it should be pittance.
Age of deceased :
21. PW1 Sh. Manish Sharma has deposed that his deceased son was aged about 05 years at the time of accident. PW1 has filed copy of Aadhar Card of deceased Aarav Kapil as per which, the date of birth of the deceased was 21.06.2016 and since the date of accident was 30.03.2021, therefore, the age of the deceased, as on the date of accident was around 04 years and 09 months. Thus, the issue, which arose for consideration is, how does one calculate compensation, for loss of future earnings and loss of dependency of the parents, in case of minor, who was merely 04 years and 09 months old, at the relevant time?
22. Ld. counsel for the petitioners argued that the income of the deceased be assessed, by taking into consideration, minimum wages, as notified by Government of NCT of Delhi, as on the date of accident.
23. The said issue has been settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors., (2020) 4 SCC 413, wherein while considering a case of award of compensation, on account of permanent disability suffered by a girl child, aged around 12 years, under the head of loss of earnings, Hon'ble Apex Court had taken the notional income of minor child as minimum wages payable to a skilled person, at the time of accident, observing that the same would be the minimum amount, which should have been earned by the minor, on attaining age of majority and thereafter adding 40% for future prospects to the said amount and then applying the multiplier in terms of guidelines laid down by Constitutional Bench of Apex MACT No. 1064/2022 Date of Award : 08.01.2026 Manish Sharma & Ors. Vs. Harpal Singh & Ors. Page No. 11 of 18. Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi & Ors., SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17. In the said case, Hon'ble Apex Court, has applied multiplier of 18.
24. The findings made by Hon'ble Apex Court in Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors., (2020) 4 SCC 413, has been further reiterated by Hon'ble Apex Court in Master Ayush Vs. The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr, Civil Appeal No. 2205-2206 of 20 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 7238-39 of 2021, Date of Decision 29.03.2022 and in Karuna Parmar Vs. Prakash Sinha & Ors. 2025 (1) 730 (SC) and by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in case titled as United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sh. Jamaluddin Khan & Ors. MAC. APP.273/2020 & CM APPL. 33433/2020, Date of decision 25.08.2023, wherein it was observed that the most reasonable basis, for determining the loss of dependency, even in case of a minor, would be the minimum wages notified by the State Government, where the minor resides at the time of accident and then adding future prospects and multiplier of 18 and making appropriate deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Thus, notional income of Aarav Kapil, aged 04 years and 09 months is therefore taken as per minimum wages of skilled worker @ Rs. 18,797/- applicable in Delhi w.e.f. 01.10.2020.
25. Further, considering the age of the deceased, at the time of accident, future prospects @ 40% has to be awarded in favour petitioners, in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra).
26. Further, as the deceased was a minor, there has to be deduction of one half i.e. 50%, on account of personal and living expenses, as held in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC, 2009 ACJ 1298 SC. As discussed above, an appropriate multiplier to be applied for computation of compensation in the case at hand where the deceased MACT No. 1064/2022 Date of Award : 08.01.2026 Manish Sharma & Ors. Vs. Harpal Singh & Ors. Page No. 12 of 18. boy was only 4 years and 09 months old, which is multiplier of 18.
27. Thus, considering the aforementioned factors, the compensation for the loss of dependency is calculated as under:
S. No. Head Amount 1. Monthly income of deceased (A) Rs. 18,797/- 2. Add future prospect (B) @ 40% Rs. 7,518.8/-
3. Less 50% towards personal and Rs. 13,157.9/-
living expenses of the deceased (C)
4. Monthly loss of dependency (A+B)- Rs. 13,157.9/-
C=D
5. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs. 1,57,894.8/-
6. Multiplier (E) 187. Total loss of dependency Rs. 28,42,106.4/-
(Dx12xE=F)
28. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 28,42,106.4/-. Hence, a sum of Rs. 28,42,106/- (rounded off) (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs Forty Two Thousand One Hundred and Six Only) is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
29. In case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), it has been held that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively and the aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.48,000/-, Rs. 18,000/- and Rs.18,000/- respectively on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted. Further, in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in MACT No. 1064/2022 Date of Award : 08.01.2026 Manish Sharma & Ors. Vs. Harpal Singh & Ors. Page No. 13 of 18. the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 2705 of 2020, decided on 30.06.2020, loss of consortium has to be fixed for each of the LRs. Since, there are two LRs of deceased, therefore, the petitioners/claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 84,000/- (48,000 + 18,000 + 18,000) under this head.
30. Considering the aforementioned factors, the total compensation is calculated as under:
S. No. Head Amount Awarded 1. Total loss of dependency Rs. 28,42,106/-
2. Compensation for loss of consortium Rs. 48,000/-
(48,000)
3. Compensation for loss of estate (H) Rs.18,000/-
4. Compensation for funeral expenses Rs.18,000/-
(I)
Total compensation Rs. 29,26,106/-
31. Thus, petitioners in this case shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 29,26,106/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Twenty Six Thousand One Hundred and Six Only). INTEREST ON AWARD
32. Petitioners shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 05.08.2022 till realization. LIABILITY
33. Now the question arises as to which of the respondent is liable to pay the compensation amount. Since, it is an admitted case of the respondent No. 3 / Insurance Company that the aforesaid vehicle No. HR-38-R-8624 (offending vehicle) MACT No. 1064/2022 Date of Award : 08.01.2026 Manish Sharma & Ors. Vs. Harpal Singh & Ors. Page No. 14 of 18. was duly insured with it, therefore, respondent No. 3 / Insurance Co. is liable to pay the amount of compensation to the petitioners / claimants.
Relief
34. In view of my finding on issues no. 1 and 2, this Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs. 29,26,106/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Twenty Six Thousand One Hundred and Six Only) to the petitioners/claimants alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum in favour of petitioners and against the respondents w.e.f. i.e. 05.08.2022 till realization, to be paid by the respondent no. 3/insurance company. The respondent no. 3/insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in the MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account no. 40714429271, IFSC Code. SBIN0000726 Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, within 30 days from today. The respondent no. 3 is also directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioners. Apportionment
35. Statements of petitioners in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP were recorded on 10.09.2024 and considering the totality of circumstances of the case, share of petitioners in the award amount shall be as under:-
S. No. Name Relationship with Share in the
deceased award amount
1. Manish Sharma Husband 100%
2. Arnav Kapil Son Nil
Disbursement of Award Amount
36. In view of the aforesaid, it is hereby ordered that out MACT No. 1064/2022 Date of Award : 08.01.2026 Manish Sharma & Ors. Vs. Harpal Singh & Ors. Page No. 15 of 18. of total compensation amount, the petitioner no. 1 namely Sh. Manish Sharma shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 29,26,106/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Twenty Six Thousand One Hundred and Six Only) alongwith proportionate interest.
37. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 1 Sh. Manish Sharma, a sum of Rs. 1,26,106/- (Rupees One Lac Twenty Six Thousand One Hundred and Six Only) shall be immediately released to him through his MACT saving bank account and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 50,000/- each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
38. The amount of FDRs on maturity shall directly be released in petitioner's MACT Saving Bank Account.
39. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant i.e., the savings bank account of the claimant shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
MACT No. 1064/2022 Date of Award : 08.01.2026 Manish Sharma & Ors. Vs. Harpal Singh & Ors. Page No. 16 of 18.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant. 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.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant 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 shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
40. Respondent no. 3 i.e. The New India Assurance Company Limited, being insurer of offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the compensation amount with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts branch is directed to transfer the respective amounts of petitioners in their MACT saving bank accounts, as per the award, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
41. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph, specimen signature, copy of bank passbook and copy of residence proof of the petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
42. Form XV and Form XVII in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A.
43. A separate file be prepared for compliance report by MACT No. 1064/2022 Date of Award : 08.01.2026 Manish Sharma & Ors. Vs. Harpal Singh & Ors. Page No. 17 of 18. the Nazir .
44. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost.
45. A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class as well as DSLSA as per the provisions of the Modified Claim Tribunal Agreed Procedure Digitally signed (MCTAP).
MUKESH by MUKESH
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2026.01.08
15:01:51 +0530
Announced in the open court (MUKESH KUMAR)
on January 08, 2026 P.O. MACT-02 (WEST)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
MACT No. 1064/2022 Date of Award : 08.01.2026
Manish Sharma & Ors. Vs. Harpal Singh & Ors. Page No. 18 of 18.