Delhi District Court
Ashok Kumar vs Ram Sanehi And Ors on 18 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHILASH MALHOTRA
PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-02, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
ASHOK KUMAR Vs. RAM SANEHI & ORS.
DAR NO. 271/2016
1. Sh. Ashok Kumar (died) (Father of the deceased)
W/o Late Sh. Dheer Singh (Deleted vide order dated
08.05.2023)
2. Ms. Rajenderi Singh (Mother of the deceased)
D/o Late Sh. Dheer Singh
Both R/o 122-, KG-I, Vikas Puri,
New Delhi, Delhi-110018
3. Mamta (Sister of the deceased)
R/o A-84/A, Chanakya Place, Part-1,
Gali No.16, 40 Foota Road,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
.... Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Ram Sanehi
S/o Sh. Jamadar Singh
R/o K2/629, Mahipal Pur Extn.
Near Mata Chowk, New Delhi .... Driver/
Respondent no. 1
2. Ravinder Kumar S/o Late Hari Prasad R/o 1/93/7, Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantt. New Delhi ... Owner/ Respondent No.2
3. M/s IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 1 of 39 Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
Office At: Iffco Sadan C-1, Distt. Centre, Saket, Delhi.
....Insurance Company/
Respondent no. 3
Date of accident 22.10.2013
Date of filing of Claim Petition 10.02.2016
Date of framing of issues 17.11.2016
Date of concluding arguments 12.02.2026
Date of decision 18.02.2026
AWARD/JUDGMENT
Index to the Judgment
I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE CLAIMANT(s)...........................................4
II. FRAMING OF ISSUES..................................................................................5 III. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS OF THE PARTIES.....................................8 IV. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO..................................10
(a) Issue No.1: Whether the deceased sustained fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 22.10.2013 at about 01:20 p.m. at Ring Road near Moti Bagh Bus Stop caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. HR-55M-8566 being driven by respondent no. 1 owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no. 3?OPP.........................................................10 i. Presumption qua complicity upon filing charge-sheet:..................10 ii. The evidence on record qua negligence:........................................11 iii. Preponderance of probabilities:......................................................15 iv. Finding:.......................................................................................... 16
(b) Issue No.2: Whether claimant is entitled to compensation, and to what amount ?.......................................................................................................... 17 DAR No. 156/20 Page. 2 of 39 Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
i. Principles qua assessment of compensation:..................................17 ii. Monthly Income of the deceased:..................................................19 iii. Future prospects:............................................................................19 iv. Personal expenses of the deceased:................................................21 v. Monthly & Annual Loss of dependency:.......................................22 vi. Total Loss of Dependency:.............................................................22 vii. Other Heads:...................................................................................23 viii. Medical Expenses:..........................................................................24 ix. Compensation for Loss of Consortium:.........................................24 x. Compensation for Loss of Estate:..................................................26 xi. Compensation towards Funeral Expenses:.....................................26 xii. Total Compensation:.......................................................................27
(c) Issue No.3: Relief.................................................................................. 27 i. Amount of Award:..........................................................................27 ii. Rate of Interest:..............................................................................27 V. DEPOSIT OF AWARD& RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT.........................29 i. Deposit of Award:...........................................................................29 ii. Disbursement of the award amount & protection thereof:.............31 VI. LIABILITY...................................................................................................33 VII.. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN CASES OF DEATH.................................................................................................................34 VIII..............................COMPLIANCE QUA PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME 36 DAR No. 156/20 Page. 3 of 39 Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE CLAIMANT(s)
1. In present case, FIR bearing no. 183/2013 was registered in PS South Campus, Delhi on the complaint made by complainant Mr. SI Shri Bhagwan. The FIR was registered U/s 279/304A. The Police filed the final report wherein it is stated that a truck bearing no. HR-55M-8566 and Motorcycle bearing no. DL-4SND-4042 was found in accidental condition at the spot of accident. The mob had burned the truck in rage. The motorcycle rider Mr. Vipin Kumar died in the accident. The driver of the truck ran away from the spot and later on arrested. Thereafter, Police conducted further investigation and did not found any eye-witnesses. As no sufficient evidence was found against the driver of the turck/R-1 Sh. Ram Sanehi, he was discharged by the Police and a untrace report was filed by police before the Court of Ld. Magistrate.
2. The family members of the deceased motorcycle driver filed a protest petition before the Court of Sh. Akash Jain, the then Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, PHC, NDD. By order dated 03.01.2015 the court of Ld. MM converted the claim petition into a complaint case and granted opportunity to lead per-summoning evidence. The family of the deceased/petitioners herein lead the evidence before the Ld. MM and by order dated 21.12.2015 driver of the truck/accused Mr. Ram Sanehi was summoned for the offences U/s 279/304A IPC. It is informed by the parties that the trial is still going on before the Court of Ld. MM.
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 4 of 39 Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
3. As per the order on summoning the vehicle was driven by respondent no. 1 driver. The respondent no. 2 is stated to be owner of the vehicle and insured by respondent no. 3 is the Insurance company.
4. During the proceedings issues were framed on 17.11.2016. Thereafter the written submissions were filed by the parties in the prescribed format. The financial statement of the legal representatives of deceased was recorded on 26.11.2025.
II. FRAMING OF ISSUES
5. Vide order dated 17.11.2016, following issues were framed by this Tribunal:-
"1. Whether the deceased sustained fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 22.10.2013 at about 01:20 p.m. at Ring Road near Moti Bagh Bus Stop caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. HR-55M-8566 being driven by respondent no. 1 owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no. 3?OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief."
6. Recording of evidence: PW-1 Mr. Ashok Kumar is father of the deceased. His affidavit-in-chief was PW-1. He proved on record documents of the Criminal Case as Ex. PW1/A(Colly, 120 pages), DAR No. 156/20 Page. 5 of 39 Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
Copy of summoning order passed by the Court of Ld. MM as Ex. Pw1/B(Colly, 4 pages), Copies of pay slips, copy of election identity card of deceased, copy of driving license of deceased and copies of educational documents of deceased are Ex. PW1/C(Colly, 11 Pages).
7. In his testimony, he stated that on 20.10.2013 at about 01:30 PM his son was riding motorcycle no. DL-4SND-4042 and when he reached near Moti Bagh Bus Stand, the motorcycle was hit by truck bearing no. HR-55M-8566 which was driven in rash manner by the respondent no.1/driver. He stated that the impact of hit was so strong that the deceased was thrown about 25 yards from the place of accident. He stated that public gathered at the spot and burnt the truck. He stated that the driver ran away from the spot and was produced by the owner/R-2 in compliance of notice under 133 MV Act.
8. PW-1 further stated that his son had completed graduation and was working as Sr. Executive with M/S Bagga Motors Ltd. and was earning a salary of Rs. 27,000/- p.m. and in addition was also earning Rs. 50,000/- from consultancy and other occupations.
9. PW-1 in his cross-examination admitted that he is not an eyewitnesses and had never visited the spot of accident.
10. PW-2 Mr. Arvinder Singh is the mechanical inspector. He proved the mechanical inspection report of the victim's motorcycle and the offending truck which Ex. PW2/A (Colly). He stated that damages were found in both the vehicles.
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 6 of 39 Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
11. PW-3 is Mr. Parveen Kumar. He stated that at the time of accident he was going in a auto-rikshaw towards Bhairo Mandir Marg. He stated that a dumper on which word "JANGID" was written hit the deceased from back side and the offending vehicle was driven at the speed of 40 to 50 kmph. He stated that he saw a notice in the newspaper issued by the advocate and then contacted him and informed that he is the eyewitnesses who had seen the accident.
12. Mr. Parveen Kumar was also examined as a witness in the pre-
summoning evidence before the Court of Ld. MM. Certified copy of his pre-summoning evidence was also placed on record. In his testimony before the court of Ld. MM also he stated that the accident had occurred due to rash driving on the driver of the offending truck bearing no. HR-55M-8566.
13. PW-4 is Ms. Rajendri Singh. She stated that she was dependent upon the income of her son.
14. R3W1 is Mr. Mritunjay, Legal Executive of insurance company.
He proved on record documents i.e. Copy of Authority letter as Ex. R2W1/A, Attested copy of policy bearing no. 83477547 issued for the vehicle bearing no. HR-55M-8566 as Ex. R3W1/1 & Copy of notice and its Postal Receipt as Ex. R3W1/2 and R3W1/3.
15. He stated that the vehicle bearing no. HR-55M-8566 was insured from 04.04.2013 to 03.04.2014. He stated that a notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC was issued to produce the driving license but the owner failed to produce the same. He Stated that the driver of the insured vehicle was not having any valid license.
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 7 of 39 Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
16. No evidence was lead by R-1/driver and R-2/registered owner of the offending vehicle.
III. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS OF THE PARTIES
17.Ld. Counsel for the claimant submitted that the police has done shoddy investigation in this case. He submits that the offending truck was found at the spot. The driver of the vehicle ran away from the spot and was produced in reply to notice U/s 133 MV Act. He submits that the police arrested the driver Mr. Ram Sanehi but thereafter, the investigation took a u-turn due to some extraneous factors and the arrested driver was discharged by Police and a untrace report was filed in the Court.
18.He submits that the court of Ld. MM considered the plight of the victims family and converted the protest petition into a complaint case. Thereafter, the court of Sh. Akash Jain, the then Ld. MM vide order dated 21.12.2015, summoned the accused driver Mr. Ram Sanehi for the offences U/s 279/304A IPC.
19.It is argued that R-1 driver and R-2/registered owner have failed to lead any evidence to contradict the case of the petitioner and show that the accident was not caused by their truck.
20.It is argued that PW-3 Mr. Parveen Kumar is the eyewitnesses who came forward to give his testimony pursuant to a newspaper publication. It is submitted that Mr. Parveen Kumar before this Tribunal as well as before the Court of Ld. MM and in his DAR No. 156/20 Page. 8 of 39 Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
testimony has categorically stated that the accident was caused due to rash driving of the truck R-1/driver.
21. He submits that the PCR log also form part of the final report and it clearly records the fact that the motorcycle was hit by the truck. He submits that the offending vehicle/truck was recovered from the spot of accident and was burnt in rage by the public.
22. He submits that the petitioner was working as a Sr. Executive in a private concern and they have filed his pay slips on record. He submits that the petitioners were dependent upon the income of the deceased and suitable compensation be provided.
23.R-1/driver and R-2/owner filed a joint written statement.
Thereafter no one appeared for R-2/owner and he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 22.08.2019.
24.Ld. Counsel for R-2 stated that the accident was not caused by the Truck No. HR-55M-8566. He submitted that PW-3 Sh. Parveen Kumar is a planted witness. He submitted that police has already filed untrace report in this case and liability cannot be imposed upon them. He submitted that the vehicle was insured on the date of the accident and the driver was holding a valid driving license.
25. Ld. Counsel for Insurance company submitted that the police had filed untrace report and it is not proved on record that the accident is caused by the insured vehicle/truck no. HR-55M-8566. It is submitted that witness Parveen Kumar came into picture after 15 months of the incident and he was a planted witness. It is submitted that his testimony was inconsistent. It is submitted that PCR caller DAR No. 156/20 Page. 9 of 39 Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
Mr. Vineet Vashisht in his statement U/s 161 Cr.PC to the police stated that he has not seen the accident happening and was not a eyewitnesses. It is submitted that the police had filed a untrace report and no case against the insured vehicle was made out. It is further argued that the owner of the truck has failed to place on record the Driving License of the driver which shows that the truck/insured was driven without driving license and was in breach of policy condition.
IV. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO
(a) Issue No.1: Whether the deceased sustained fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 22.10.2013 at about 01:20 p.m. at Ring Road near Moti Bagh Bus Stop caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. HR-55M-8566 being driven by respondent no. 1 owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no. 3?OPP i. Presumption qua complicity upon filing charge-sheet:
26. Rule 21 of Annexure XIII of The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 mandates as follows:-
21. Claims Tribunal shall treat Dar as a claim petition for compensation under Sub-Section (4) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (1) The Claims Tribunal shall treat the DAR filed by the Investigating Officer as a claim petition under Section (4) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, where the Investigating Officer is unable to produce the claimant(s) on the first date of hearing the Claims Tribunal shall register the DAR as a claim petition after the appearance of the claimant(s).
(2) where the claimant(s) have filed a separate claim petition, the DAR may be tagged along with the claim petition.
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 10 of 39 Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
(3) If the Report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2) of 1974 has not been filed at the time of filing of the DAR, the Claims Tribunal may either wait till filing of the Report under Section 173 of the said Code of Criminal Procedure or record the statement of the eye witness(es) to satisfy itself with respect to the negligence before passing the award.
(4) The Claims Tribunal shall register the FAR as a Miscellaneous application and the IAR as well as DAR shall be taken on record in the same Miscellaneous application.
27. In Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Meera Devi & Ors decided on 16.02.2021, 2021 LawSuit (Del) 858 it was held :
8. ..... In view of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008, contents of DAR had to be presumed to be correct and read in evidence without formal proof of the same unless proof to the contrary was produced........".
28.In a recent order dated 25.02.2025, passed in Ranjeet & Anr v Abdul Nayem Keb & Anr in SLP (c) 10351/2019, it was held in trenchant terms as thus:
"It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the eyewitnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver."
ii. The evidence on record qua negligence:
29. A bare perusal of the aforesaid precedents shows that upon filing of a charge-sheet in a road accident case a presumption of rashness is attracted for the purpose of motor claim enquiry.
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 11 of 39 Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
30.In the present case, the offending truck was recovered form the spot. The PCR call logs records that the offending truck had hit the motorcycle driven by the deceased. The driver of the offending truck ran away from the spot. In reply to the notice U/s 133 MV Act, the owner of the vehicle did not disputed the fact of accident. The driver of the truck was initially arrested by the police during the investigation. Thereafter, the investigation surprisingly took a U-turn and driver was discharged on the ground that no eyewitnesses was found.
31.The photographs available on the record shows that the work of DMRC was going at the site of accident, but it is surprising that the police did not thought is dutiful to enquire about accident from the laborers or the DMRC officials who were present at the spot. There is no whisper about efforts made to collect and examine any CCTV footage which may be available near the spot of accident. The place where the accident had taken place is not a rural area but a busy traffic point in the heart of the city, but unfortunately the police did not find it suitable to mention even a alphabet about the efforts made to collect the CCTV footage.
32.As per the evidence on record the offending vehicle/truck was burnt by mob in rage. A senior officer in the rank of Inspector (Insp. Rajesh Brar) reached the spot to control the situation, but it is surprising that the police was neither able to nab the driver nor was able to find any evidence from the public gathered there.
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 12 of 39 Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
33.The investigation is completely silent as to who was the cleaner/ conductor of the truck in question. No efforts have been made to ascertain his identity and examine him in the matter.
34.From the material on record it is prima-facie clear that investigation was completely shoddy and aimed to give benefits of lacunae to the accused person.
35.The family of the victim filed a claim petition before the Court of Ld. Magistrate. The said petition was converted into a complaint case. The Court of Ld. MM passed a detailed summoning order dated 21.12.2015, recording that prima-facie evidence is available on record attracting the ingredients of offence U/s 279/304A IPC and summoned accused driver Mr. Ram Sanehi.
36.The summoning order which is passed by the Ld. Court of MM after recording the pre-summoning evidence on oath and it cannot be put on a lower pedestal in comparison the charge-sheet. The presumption regarding rashness which as per the precedents is available in case of filing of charge-sheet/DAR is also available when a summoning order is passed by the Court of Ld. MM after examining the witness U/s 200 Cr.PC.
37. In addition to aforesaid, the recovery of the offending vehicle from the spot of accident, running away of the driver from the spot, mechanical inspection report confirming damages on both vehicles and no dispute to accident in reply to notice U/s 133 MV Act are sufficient circumstantial facts to show that the accident had occurred due to rash driving of the offending truck.
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 13 of 39 Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
38.The fact of accident by offending truck is also fortified from the testimony of eyewitnesses PW3 Mr. Parveen Kumar. In his testimony before the Court of Ld. MM as well as before this Tribunal, he has categorically stated that the accident had occurred due to rash driving of the offending truck which hit the motorcycle from behind. Merely because the witness has turned up after publication of a newspaper advertisement after a period of more than one year does not eclipse the testimony. The Court cannot remained unmindful to the fact that the police in the present case has failed to discharge their duties by examining the DMRC officials/workers, public persons and not obtaining CCTV Footage. In these circumstances, where the police has done Shoddy investigation and the family of the victim has made an earnest effort to find the witness to get justice for their deceased son, such efforts could not be brought under the shadow of doubt in the absence of any concrete evidence. The Tribunal cannot ignore the fact the R-1/driver and R-2/registered owner have failed to come to the witness box and give account of the accident. In this scenario the circumstantial evidence and the testimony of the eyewitness cannot be put up on back burner to the benefit of respondents.
39.The insurance company in its written statement had taken a plea of contributory negligence. The police record shows that the helmet of the deceased was recovered from the spot. R-1/driver and R-2/registered owner have failed to lead any evidence.
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 14 of 39 Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
Insurance company has also failed to lead any evidence in support of their plea and the same had remained not proved.
40.From the material on record it is clear that the accident was caused by the rash driving of vehicle bearing no. HR-55M-8566 by R-1/driver which led to the death of Mr. Vipin Kumar Motorcycle rider.
iii. Preponderance of probabilities:
41.It is trite law that in a proceeding before the Claims Tribunal, the claimant does not have to establish negligence on the part of the driver respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The standards of establishing negligence is predicated on preponderance of probabilities. In the present case too, negligence has been established on this principle.
42.In this context, it would be useful to peruse Mathew Alexander v. Mohd. Shafi, (2023) 13 SCC 510 wherein it was observed as thus:
"In this context, we could refer to the judgments of this Court in N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal [N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal, (1980) 3 SCC 457 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 774] , wherein the plea that the criminal case had ended in acquittal and that, therefore, the civil suit must follow suit, was rejected. It was observed that culpable rashness under Section 304-AIPC is more drastic than negligence under the law of torts to create liability. Similarly, in Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC [Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC, (2009) 13 SCC 530 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 189 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1101] ("Bimla Devi"), it was observed that in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the DAR No. 156/20 Page. 15 of 39 Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
Tribunal has to determine the amount of fair compensation to be granted in the event an accident has taken place by reason of negligence of a driver of a motor vehicle. A holistic view of the evidence has to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal and strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be established by the claimants. The claimants have to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in a road traffic accident. To the same effect is the observation made by this Court in Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz [Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 13] which has referred to the aforesaid judgment in Bimla Devi [Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC (2009) 13 SCC 530."
iv. Finding:
43.In view of foregoing discussion, it stands proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities that the aforesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the transgressing/offending vehicle bearing registration no.
HR-55M-8566 and the said vehicle at that time was driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured by respondent no.3. Hence, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the claimant and against the respondents. It is clarified that the findings given are limited for the purposes of this inquiry and shall not impact the trial of the criminal case.
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 16 of 39 Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
(b) Issue No.2: Whether claimant is entitled to compensation, and to what amount ?
i. Principles qua assessment of compensation:
44.Before adverting to the submissions of the counsels in this regard, it would be apposite to refer to the law of the land qua this aspect.
The law has been enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. (2003) 6SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.(2017) 16 SCC 680.
45.An essential ingredient of the award is the loss of dependency. To calculate the same, it would be of utmost significance to peruse the following seminal directions issued in Sarla Verma (supra):
"18.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
(c) the number of dependants 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 to the age of the deceased.
If these determinants are standardised, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay DAR No. 156/20 Page. 17 of 39 Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
19.To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should determine compensation in 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 dependant 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."
46.To ascertain the 'multiplier' mentioned in Step 2 above, it was further laid down in Sarla Verma (supra) as thus:
"42 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 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- 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years ,M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M- 5 for 66 to 70 years."
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 18 of 39 Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
47. Further, in terms of the mandate of Rajesh Tyagi v Jaibir Singh FAO 842/2003, which is the cause célèbre qua cases pertaining to motor accident claims, the claimant filed Form XIII of the Scheme for Motor Accident Claims qua compensation under various heads which have been elucidated in the paragraphs hereafter..
ii. Monthly Income of the deceased:
48.PW-1 Mr. Ashok Kumar in his testimony stated that his son was working as a senior executive in Bagga Motors Ltd. And was earning a salary of Rs.27,000/- p.m. and was also earning Rs. 50,,000/- by consultancy and other occupations. The petitioner have placed on record the pay slips of the victim which shows his last drawn salary as Rs. 17,000/-. No income proof is filed on record to show any additional income. The salary slips have remained uncontroverted. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased is quantified as Rs.17,000/- p.m. iii. Future prospects:
49.To factor into account future prospects, it would be apt to refer to National Insurance Co Ltd v Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 wherein it was laid down as thus:
"59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:
59.3 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 DAR No. 156/20 Page. 19 of 39 Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
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.
59.4 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. 59.5 For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] which we have reproduced hereinbefore. 59.6 The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 read with para 42 of that judgment 59.7 The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
59.8 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."
50.To determine the age of the deceased, the claimants has filed on record the educational record which shows date of birth of the deceased as 04.05.1984. As deceased was 29 years and 05 months old on the date of death. As per mandate in Sarla Verma (Supra) and Pranay Sethi (Supra) the future prospects for a person age between 20-30 years having private job is 40% and accordingly the same is calculated as Rs.6,800/-.
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 20 of 39 Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
iv. Personal expenses of the deceased:
51.The Expenses incurred by the deceased in himself are deducted while calculating the loss of dependency. To calculate the personal expenses, recourse can be had to the following instructions of Sarla Verma (supra) which were approved by the Constitutional Bench in Pranay Sethi(supra):
"30.Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362] , the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. 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 dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.
31.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 dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.
32.Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large DAR No. 156/20 Page. 21 of 39 Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
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."
52.The claimant in her financial statement has stated that he has placed on record her affidavit stating that the deceased was unmarried and was survived by his father, mother and married sister. The father is stated to have died during the pendency of this litigation and the legal heirs were substituted vide order date 08.05.2023. Accordingly, the expenditure towards personal expenses is considered as 1/3rd in view of the mandate of Sarla Verma (Supra).
53. Thus, the 1/3rd net deduction in the present case is (Rs.17,000/- + Rs.6800/- = Rs.23,800/- ) of total income is calculated as i.e Rs.7933/-.
v. Monthly & Annual Loss of dependency:
54.The monthly loss of dependency would be Rs.15,867-. The annual loss of dependency Rs.15,867 X 12 = Rs.1,90,404/-
vi. Total Loss of Dependency:
55. Since the deceased was 58 years , the applicable multiplier in terms of the verdict of Sarla Verma(supra) is 17. The total loss of dependency is thus Rs.1,90,404/- X 17 =Rs.32,36,868/- ) DAR No. 156/20 Page. 22 of 39 Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
vii. Other Heads:
56.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, 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."
57.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 DAR No. 156/20 Page. 23 of 39 Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
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 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 of 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."
58.The above verdict was passed in the year 2017. Almost eight years have elapsed, and therefore the above heads would be enhanced at the rate of 20%.
viii. Medical Expenses:
59.After the incident, the injured was taken to hospital and died. No medical expenses have been claimed.
ix. Compensation for Loss of Consortium:
60.The concept of consortium was expounded in Magnum General Insurance Co Ltd v Nanu Ram 2018 18 SCC 130 in the following words:
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 24 of 39 Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
"21.A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses "spousal consortium", "parental consortium", and "filial consortium". The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse : [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54.
21.1 Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation". [Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edn., 1979).] 21.2 Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training. 21.3 Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.
22 .Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognised that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be DAR No. 156/20 Page. 25 of 39 Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium. Parental consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count [ Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram v. Sohi Ram, 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 3848 : (2017) 4 RLW 3368; Uttarakhand High Court in Rita Rana v. Pradeep Kumar, 2013 SCC OnLine Utt 2435 : (2014) 3 UC 1687; Karnataka High Court in Lakshman v. Susheela Chand Choudhary, 1996 SCC OnLine Kar 74 : (1996) 3 Kant LJ 570] . However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium.
24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under "loss of consortium" as laid down in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] . In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial consortium."
61.The deceased is survived by his mother and sister. Thus, On the basis of the above verdict and mandated in Pranay Sethi'(Supra), the compensation for Consortium is hereby quantified as Rs 48,400/- X 2 = 96,800/-
x. Compensation for Loss of Estate:
62.On the basis of the above verdict, the compensation for loss of estate is hereby quantified as Rs 18,150/-
xi. Compensation towards Funeral Expenses:
63.On the basis of the above verdict, the compensation of funeral expenses is hereby quantified as Rs 18,150/-
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 26 of 39 Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
xii. Total Compensation:
64.Thus, the total amount of compensation to be awarded is calculated as follows:
Sr. No. Head Amount
1. Total loss of dependency Rs. 32,36,868/-
2. Medical Expenses -NIL-
3. Compensation for Loss of Rs.96,800/-
Consortium
4. Compensation for Loss of Estate Rs 18,150/-
5. Compensation towards Funeral Rs 18,150/-
Expenses
6. Total Compensation Rs. 33,69,968/-
(c) Issue No.3: Relief.
i. Amount of Award:
65.Thus, the claimant is awarded as sum of Rs 33,69,968/- along with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. The rate of interest has been calculated in terms of the succeeding paragraphs.
ii. Rate of Interest:
66.It was contended by Ld Counsel for the respondent insurance company that the amount of interest ought to at @7.5%, in accordance with the general prevalent practice in Courts. However, Ld Counsel for the claimant sought 9% as the rate of interest.
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 27 of 39 Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
67.In order to adjudicate these rival claims, recourse can be had to Erudhaya Priya v State Transport Corporation 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601 wherein the aspect of rate of interest was categorically enunciated as thus:
(c) The third and the last aspect is the interest rate claimed as 12% "15.In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has watered down the interest rate during the course of hearing to 9% in view of the judicial pronouncements including in the Jagdish case (supra). On this aspect, once again, there was no serious dispute raised by the learned counsel for the respondent once the claim was confined to 9% in line with the interest rates applied by this Court".
68.Ergo, the amount of compensation/award amount will be payable by the respondent insurance company with simple interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the claim petition/DAR till actual realisation. The date of filing of DAR is 17.09.2020 therefore the amount of Interest is calculated at @ 9 % from the date of filing of petition i.e. Rs. 30,32,971/- for a period of 120 months. Thus, the total amount of award is Rs.64,02,939/-.
69.It is also clarified that in case the interest of petitioner was stopped or excluded during the present inquiry 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.
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 28 of 39 Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
V. DEPOSIT OF AWARD& RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT i. Deposit of Award:
70.In terms of the mandate of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) the respondent Insurance Company/driver/owner shall deposit the award amount or transfer the same by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS directly to the bank account of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in UCO Bank, Patiala House Courts within 30 days of the award. The respondent(s) held liable to pay compensation by the Claims Tribunal shall give notice of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant(s) and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the deposit with the interest upto the date of notice of deposit to the claimant(s) with a copy to their counsel.
RELEASE & APPORTIONMENT
71.In the present case, the deceased was survived by his father mother and sister. The father of the deceased died during the pendency of this case and the legal heirs were substituted vide order dated 08.05.2023. The deceased is now survived by his mother and sister. The sister is already married and settled in her life. The other son of the petitioner no.1/mother has also died and she is looking after her widowed daughter-in-law and her two children. In these peculiar facts and circumstances, petitioner/ sister of the deceased Smt. Mamta is awarded the compensation towards the consortium DAR No. 156/20 Page. 29 of 39 Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
loss i.e. 48,400/- and rest of the award amount shall be provided to the mother of the deceased Smt. Rajendri. The award amount be released to mother of the deceased Smt. Rajendri as follows:-
Sr. Name Relations with Amount to be Amount to be No. Deceased released invested immediately
1. Smt. Mother 14,02,939/- Remainiing amount Rs.
Rajendri 50,00,000/-
belonging to the share of mother Smt. Rajendri shall be deposited in 60 monthly fixed deposits receipts (FDR) of equal amounts as per Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposits Schemes.
72.The Nodal officer of the bank shall ensure disbursement of the award within 3 weeks of receipt thereof by email or otherwise.
73.The disbursement to the claimant is, however, subject to the addition of future interest till deposit proportionately and also deduction of proportionate tax on the interest amount or amount of interim award, if any, to/from his share.
ii. Disbursement of the award amount & protection thereof:
74.The amount of award shall be disbursed through the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD)Scheme DAR No. 156/20 Page. 30 of 39 Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
formulated vide order dated 01.05.2018 passed in Rajesh Tyagi(supra). 21 banks, including UCO Bank, is implementing the MACAD scheme.
75.Further, to protect the award amount, the entire amount of compensation is not being released forthwith to the claimant, and part of the compensation amount has been directed to be kept in fixed deposits in a phased manner. Further, the following conditions are hereby reiterated and being imposed upon the concerned bank with respect to the fixed deposits:
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint names to be added in the savings bank account or MACAD scheme account of claimant i.e. the bank account of claimant shall be individual account and not a joint account.
(b) The original fixed deposits shall be retained by the UCO Bank, PHC, New Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR numbers, amounts, dates of maturity and maturity amounts shall be furnished by the said bank to the claimant and the above amount shall be released in account of claimant by the Manager, UCO Bank, PHC, ND through RTGS/NEFT/or any other electronic mode.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of his residence.
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 31 of 39 Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
(d) The maturity amount of the FDR(s) on monthly basis net of TDS be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the above account of the claimant.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the MACAD without permission of the Court.
(f) 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.
(g) 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.
(h) 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 above.
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 32 of 39 Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
VI. LIABILITY
76. Insurance company has taken a plea of contributory negligence but has failed to lead any evidence and the plea was rejected as discussed above. The insurance is also failed to substantiate their plea that the truck driver was not having any driving license and no such finding are there in the final report of the police also.
77.In these circumstances, all respondents are liable to pay compensation amount jointly and severally. The offending vehicle was insured and the fact of the insurance is undisputed. The insurance company is liable to pay award amount to the petitioner. Respondent no.3 being insurer of offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in bank account being maintained in the above said bank in name of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal within 30 days from today, failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay. In case even after lapse of 90 days from today, respondent no. 3 fails to deposit this compensation with interest, in that event, in light of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal 2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of respondent no. 2 with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 33 of 39 Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
78.The respondent no. 3 shall inform the petitioner and his counsel that the awarded amount has been deposited so as to facilitate him to collect the same.
VII. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN CASES OF DEATH
79.Since this is a case pertaining to death, particulars of Form-XV of the Scheme For Motor Accidents Claims Formulated by the Delhi High Court in terms of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) are as under:
1. Date of Accident 22.10.2013
2. Name of the deceased Vipin Kumar
3. Age of the deceased 29 years
4. Occupation of the deceased Private job,
5. Income of the deceased Rs.17,000/- after deduction of tax.
6. Name, Age and relationship of legal representatives of the deceased:
S.NO NAME AGE RELATION
(i) Smt. Rajendri 67 years Mother
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 34 of 39
Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
S.No. Heads Awarded by the
Claims Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs. 17,000/- after
deduction of tax.
8. Add: Future Prospects (B) Rs.6,800/-
9. Less: Personal expenses of the Rs.23,800/-
deceased (C)
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.15,867/-
[(A+B)- C = D]
11. Annual Loss of dependency (D x Rs.1,90,404/-
12)
12. Multiplier (E) 17
13. Total loss of dependency (D x 12 Rs.32,36,868/-
x E = F)
14. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15. Compensation for loss of Rs96,800/-
consortium (H)
16. Compensation for loss of love & NA- in terms of New
affection (I) India Assurance Co v
Somwati (2020) 9
SCC 644
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs.18,150/-
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 35 of 39
Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs.18,150/-
expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION (F + Rs.33,69,968/-
G + H + I + J + K = L)
20. Rate of Interest Awarded @9%
21. Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 30,32,971/-
award (M) (120 months)
22. Total amount including interest (L Rs. 64,02,939/-
+ M)
23. Award amount released As per para no. 71 of the judgment.
24. Award kept in FDRs As per para no. 71 of the judgment.
25. Mode of disbursement of the Through Bank award to the claimant(s)
26. Next date for compliance of the 28.03.2026 award VIII. COMPLIANCE QUA PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME
80.The particulars of Form XVII of the Scheme For Motor Accidents Claims Formulated by the Delhi High Court , in terms of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) are as hereunder:
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 36 of 39 Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
1. Date of the accident 22.10.2013
2. Date of filing of Form I- First Not available as case was received Accident Report (FAR) by way of transfer.
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the Same as above.
victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Same as above.
Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Same as above owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim Same as above Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form Same as above VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII-Detailed 10.02.2016 Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or Yes.
deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Not given Designated Officer by the Insurance Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the No Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or No deficiencies on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the petitioner(s) Matter was contested by the of the offer of the Insurance Company. Insurance Company.
14. Date of the Award 18.02.2026 DAR No. 156/20 Page. 37 of 39 Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
15. Whether the petitioner(s) were directed Yes to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which petitioner(s) 01.02.2018 were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar 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(s).
17. Date on which the petitioner(s) Not furnished. Directions issued.
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 Address of the As mentioned above petitioner(s)
19. Whether the petitioner(s) savings bank account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes.
examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
81.Further, in terms of the directions given vide order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra), the Ahlmad shall send a certified copy of this award to the concerned Criminal Court and to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority through e-mail. Copy of the award be also sent to the bank concerned. The Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given in the above case.
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 38 of 39 Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
82.File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 28.03.2026.
Digitally signed by AbhilashAbhilash Malhotra Date:
Malhotra 2026.02.19 Announced in the open court 10:16:36 +0530 on 18.02.2026 (Abhilash Malhotra) Judge/PO, MACT-02, New Delhi/18.02.2026 DLND010010262016 DAR No. 156/20 Page. 39 of 39 Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.