Delhi District Court
Baby Devi(Dec Thr Lr ... vs Nafees Khan(New India) on 2 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010033662025
MACT No. : 191/2025
FIR No. : 468/2024
PS : Timarpur
u/s : 281/106/125(A) BNS
Baby Devi (deceased)
Through LRs
Sh. Karyanand Sharma (LR/husband of deceased)
S/o. Sh. Radhey Singh,
R/o. Village Darveshpura,
Post Office: Badi, PS Katri Sarati,
District Nalanda, Bihar.
...petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Nafees Khan (driver of the offending vehicle)
S/o. Sh. Mubeen Khan,
R/o. Village Jat Rohalla, Teh Pahari,
District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
2. Sh. Vinod Kumar (owner of the offending vehicle)
S/o. Sh. Ram Kumar,
R/o. H.No.19/128, Gali no.2, Nai Basti, Bahadurgarh,
District Jhajjar, Haryana.
3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Core-3, First Floor, Scope Minar, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.
Respondents
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
MACT No.191/2025
2026.04.02
14:22:35
+0530
Baby Devi (Dec.) through LRs vs. Nafees Khan and Ors. Page 1 of 35
Date of filing of DAR : 03.03.2025
Judgment reserved on : 13.02.2026
Date of Award : 02.04.2026
AWAR D
1. The present DAR was filed on 03.03.2025 which was
treated as the claim petition. The Road Traffic Accident in question took
place on 18.08.2024 at about 06:45 AM at Wazirabad Flyover, Delhi
within the jurisdiction of PS Timarpur. Smt. Baby Devi expired in the
said accident which was allegedly caused by a Truck bearing
registration No. RJ-14GP-9448 (hereinafter referred to as the offending
vehicle). The offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1
Nafees Jhan, owned by respondent no. 2 Vinod Kumar and insured with
respondent no. 3 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that a PCR call vide DD No.11A dated 18.08.2024 regarding information of an accident was received at PS Timarpur and handed over to SI Mange Ram, who alongwith HC Vinay went to the spot i.e. Wazirabad Flyover, Delhi where one Truck bearing no.RJ-14GP-9448 and motorcycle bearing no.DL-5SBC-3334 were found stationed in an accidental condition. The public persons handed over the driver of the offending vehicle to the IO. IO sent the driver of the offending vehicle to the police station and called the crime team at the spot of accident. The crime team had collected the evidence from the spot of accident. Thereafter, IO sent Smt. Baby Devi to the Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital Digitally signed by RUCHIKA MACT No.191/2025 RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.02 14:22:40 Baby Devi (Dec.) through LRs vs. Nafees Khan and Ors. Page 2 of 35 +0530 where doctors had mentioned in the MLC of Smt. Baby Devi that the patient had brought in unconscious and unresponsive condition. She expired. Thereafter, the dead body of Smt. Baby Devi was sent to Subzi Mandi Mortuary. Thereafter, IO returned to the spot of accident and recorded the statement of the complainant. Thereafter, FIR was registered on the basis of statement of complainant, PCR call u/s.281/106(1) BNS.
3. Thereafter IO prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant. IO had taken both the accidental vehicles into custody and deposited in maalkhana. On 18.08.2024, post mortem of the dead body of Smt. Baby Devi was got conducted vide PM no.1329/24 and after post mortem, the dead body of Smt. Baby Devi was handed over to her relatives. Doctor had handed over the Blood Gauge and sample seal to the IO. The IO had deposited the same in maalkhana. Notice u/s.133 MV Act was served upon the owner of the offending vehicle. Owner gave reply to the said notice and provided the documents of the offending vehicle to the IO. Thereafter IO interrogated the driver of the offending vehicle. The driver of the offending vehicle admitted that at the time of accident, he was driving the offending vehicle. IO arrested the driver of the offending vehicle and upon producing the surety, the IO released the driver of the offending vehicle.
4. During the course of investigation, the mechanical inspection of both the accidental vehicles were got conducted. Thereafter, documents pertaining to the offending vehicle were got RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by MACT No.191/2025 RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.04.02 14:22:45 +0530 Baby Devi (Dec.) through LRs vs. Nafees Khan and Ors. Page 3 of 35 verified from the concerned authorities which were found to be correct. Thereafter the offending vehicle was released on superdari. Thereafter, IO collected the PM report. Thereafter, the IO deposited the exhibits and blood gauze in the FSL, Rohini. After completion of investigation, chargesheet for the offences u/s.281/106(1) BNS was filed against the driver Nafees Khan before the concerned Ld. JMFC and the DAR was filed before this Tribunal.
WRITTEN STATEMENTS
5. WS was filed on behalf of the respondents no. 1 & 2 on 28.05.2025. It was stated by the respondents that no accident was caused with the offending vehicle and that they were falsely implicated by the petitioner to extort money from them. It was further stated that the respondent no. 1 was driving his vehicle in normal speed and in lane under the norms of traffic rules without any negligence. However, the injured was driving his vehicle bearing registration no.DL-5SBC-5554 in very high speed, rash and negligent manner and the motorcycle skidded and hit the divider, due to which the injured and deceased themselves had fallen on the road/earth and as such the accident took place due to the sole negligence on the part of the injured and deceased. Hence, it was stated that they were not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.
6. WS on behalf of respondent no. 3 was filed, wherein it was admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no.3 vide policy no. 35380231230300002921 for the period 28.02.2024 RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.191/2025 Date: 2026.04.02 14:22:50 +0530 Baby Devi (Dec.) through LRs vs. Nafees Khan and Ors. Page 4 of 35 to 27.02.2025. It was stated that the petitioner was under the liability to prove the accident and the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.1. Further, it was stated that the respondent no. 3 was entitled to take all such defences as were available to the respondent no.3 as per law.
ISSUES
7. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated 29.05.2025, this Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the injured suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 18.08.2024 at about 06:45 AM at Wazirabad Flyover, Delhi involving vehicle bearing registration no.RZ-14GP-9448 driven rashly and negligently by respondent no.1 Nafees Khan, owned by respondent no. 2 Vinod Kumar and insured with respondent no. 3 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
8. The petitioner examined Sh. Karyanand Sharma i.e. the petitioner as PW-1. PW1 has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW1/A. He relied upon the following documents:
1. Copy of Aadhar card of deceased as Ex. PW1/1 (OSR)
2. Copy of his PAN card Ex. PW1/2 (OSR).
3. Copy of his Aadhar Card as Ex. PW1/3 (OSR)
4. Attested copy of DAR as Ex. PW1/4 (colly). Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:MACT No.191/2025
2026.04.02 14:22:55 +0530 Baby Devi (Dec.) through LRs vs. Nafees Khan and Ors. Page 5 of 35
9. Thereafter, Mr. Pankaj Kumar was examined as PW2. He has relied upon his DL, copy of which was Ex. PW2/1 (OSR).
10. PW1 and PW2 were cross examined by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 insurance company. Thereafter, PE was closed on behalf of the petitioner on 23.01.2026.
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE
11. No evidence was led by the respondents no. 1 & 2.
Evidence was closed on their behalf vide order dated 13.02.2026.
12. No evidence was led by the respondent no. 3. Evidence was closed on behalf of respondent no. 3 vide order dated 23.01.2026.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
13. The petitioner filed his duly filled Form XIII and the financial statements of all the petitioner were recorded. Final arguments were heard on behalf of the petitioner as well as respondents.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
14. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record. My findings on the various issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1:
Whether the injured suffered injuries in an accident that RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.04.02 14:23:01 +0530 MACT No.191/2025 Baby Devi (Dec.) through LRs vs. Nafees Khan and Ors. Page 6 of 35 took place on 18.08.2024 at about 06:45 AM at Wazirabad Flyover, Delhi involving vehicle bearing registration no.RZ-14GP-9448 driven rashly and negligently by respondent no.1 Nafees Khan, owned by respondent no. 2 Vinod Kumar and insured with respondent no. 3 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.?
15. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that on 18.08.2024 at about 06:45 AM at Wazirabad Flyover, Delhi, the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. the respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle carelessly in a negligent manner and hit the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which she fell and suffered injuries. It is stated that during investigation, the offending vehicle was seized by the IO. The respondent no.1 was chargesheeted by the IO. Hence, it is submitted that it is proved that the respondent no.1 was driving the negligent in a rash and negligent manner due to which the deceased suffered injuries.
16. Record perused.
17. In the present matter, the respondents have alleged that no accident was caused with the offending vehicle and that the deceased's motorcycle had hit a divider due to which the motorcycle fell and the deceased received injuries. Perusal of the DAR shows that the offending vehicle was seized by the IO from the spot of the accident on 18.08.2024. Further, as per the mechanical inspection report, there were fresh damages on the offending vehicle. The front windscreen was Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.191/2025 SINGLA Date:
2026.04.02 14:23:06 +0530 Baby Devi (Dec.) through LRs vs. Nafees Khan and Ors. Page 7 of 35 broken and the diesel tank was found to be damaged. Hence, the version of the respondents no. 1 & 2 that the accident was not caused with the offending vehicle seems highly improbable.
18. It is pertinent to mention here that in the proceedings before the claims tribunal, the facts are to be established on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and not by the strict rules of evidence or the higher standard of beyond reasonable doubt as required in criminal cases. The burden of proof in the present cases is much lower than as placed in civil or criminal cases. In Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors (2009) 13 SC 530, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that negligence must be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view must be adopted in reaching a conclusion.
19. Further, it is also pertinent to note that the respondent no.1 was chargesheeted by the IO under Section 279/338 IPC. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepak Goel & Ors, 2014 (2) TAC 846 (Del) decided by the Coordinate Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it was held as under :-
"......where the claimants filed either the certified copies of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of investigation by police or issuance of charge sheet under Section 279/304A IPC or the certified copy of FIR or the recovery of the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, then these documents are sufficient proof to reach to a conclusion that the driver was negligent RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.191/2025 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.04.02 Baby Devi (Dec.) through LRs vs. Nafees Khan and Ors. Page 8 of 35 14:23:10 +0530 particularly when there is no defence available from the side of driver."
20. Reliance is also being placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meera Devi, 2021 LawSuit (Del) wherein it was held that "......in view of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008, contents of DAR has to be presumed to be correct and read in evidence without formal proof of the same unless proof to the contrary was produced."
21. Even otherwise, the petitioner was unknown to respondent no.1 prior to the accident and admittedly, there was no prior enmity with respondent no.1 and hence, it is beyond comprehension as to why the petitioner will implicate respondent no.1 falsely, had he not been driving the offending vehicle.
22. It is a settled law that the petitioner cannot be expected to prove the accident beyond reasonable doubts and the principle of res ipse loquitor should apply which means that the "accident speaks for itself". Thus, once it has been established in DAR and chargesheet that the accident had taken place, the burden shifts on the respondents to prove that they were not responsible for the accident which the respondents have failed to discharge. Hence, an adverse inference is drawn against the respondent no.1. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the cases of Teja Singh Vs Suman & Ors., MAC. APP. 1111/2018 & CM APPL. 52384/2018, RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.191/2025 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.04.02 14:23:14 +0530 Baby Devi (Dec.) through LRs vs. Nafees Khan and Ors. Page 9 of 35 52386/2018, date of decision 06/12/2019; MAC. APP. 428/2018, titled as The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamla Devi & Ors, date of decision 08.11.2019 and MAC. APP. 690/2017 & CM APPL. 28108/2017, titled as Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mona & Ors., date of decision 15.10.2019, which had relied upon the judgment in the case of Cholamandalam Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamlesh 2009(3) AD Delhi 310.
23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 5 SCC 656 has laid down in paragraphs 27 & 28:
"27. ...This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina Fernandes, noted that the key of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the judgments already adverted to by us, filing of chargesheet against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opined that the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
28. Reliance placed upon the decisions in Minu B. Mehta and Meena Variyal, by the respondents, in our opinion, is of no avail. The dictum in these cases is on the matter in issue in the case concerned. Similarly, even the dictum in Surender Kumar Arora will be of no avail. In the present case, considering the entirety of the pleadings, evidence and circumstances on record and in particular the finding RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.191/2025 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.04.02 Baby Devi (Dec.) through LRs vs. Nafees Khan and Ors. Page 10 of 35 14:23:18 +0530 recorded by the Tribunal on the factum of negligence of Respondent 2, the driver of the offending jeep, the High Court committed manifest error in taking a contrary view which, in our opinion, is an error apparent on the face of record and manifestly wrong."
24. It has not been disputed that respondent No.1 has been charge-sheeted in the aforesaid FIR for offences punishable under Section 281/106/125(A) BNS for rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. In view of the same, considering the facts and circumstances, the unrebutted testimony of the petitioner and the documents filed thereto, the court is satisfied that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.1 . From the DAR, it also stands established that the respondent no.2 was the registered owner of the offending vehicle and that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.3.
The injury:
25. Further, the onus to prove that the deceased had suffered fatal injuries by way of the said accident was on the petitioner. In this regard, the petitioner has relied upon the MLC dated 18.08.2024, as per which the deceased was brought to the hospital with the history of road traffic accident. As per the MLC, she had suffered a crush injury on the head. She was declared brought dead. Further, her Death Report issued by Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital is on record as per which, she expired due to injuries caused in a road traffic accident.
26. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the Digitally signed by MACT No.191/2025 RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.02 Baby Devi (Dec.) through LRs vs. Nafees Khan and Ors. Page 11 of 35 14:23:23 +0530 opinion that on the scales of preponderance of probabilities, the petitioner has proved that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle being driven by its driver/respondent no. 1 on the date and time of the accident and that due to the said accident, the injured Baby Devi unfortunately expired. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO.2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? (OPP)
27. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. In view of the discussion in the issue no.1, the petitioner is entitled for compensation. 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 Digitally signed by MACT No.191/2025 RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.02 14:23:27 Baby Devi (Dec.) through LRs vs. Nafees Khan and Ors. Page 12 of 35 +0530 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 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA MACT No.191/2025 RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.02 14:23:32 +0530 Baby Devi (Dec.) through LRs vs. Nafees Khan and Ors. Page 13 of 35 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 (1/3rd) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members 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 RUCHIKA MACT No.191/2025 SINGLA Baby Devi (Dec.) through LRs vs. Nafees Khan and Ors. Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.04.02 Page 14 of 35 14:23:36 +0530 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."
28. 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 RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.191/2025 Date: 2026.04.02 14:23:40 +0530 Baby Devi (Dec.) through LRs vs. Nafees Khan and Ors. Page 15 of 35 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:-
(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 RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.191/2025 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Baby Devi (Dec.) through LRs vs. Nafees Khan and Ors. Date: 2026.04.02 14:23:45 +0530 Page 16 of 35 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. 31,001/- and Rs.
15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years."
Loss of income
29. In the present matter, it is alleged that at the time of the accident, the deceased was working as a maid servant at a house at Paschim Vihar, Delhi and was earning a sum of Rs. 22,000/- per month. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the same has been proved by the statement of PW2 Pankaj Kumar who was also working in the same house as the deceased. Hence, it is submitted that her income may be assessed accordingly.
30. Per contra, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 that there is no substantive evidence to prove that the deceased was working at Delhi. She was a permanent resident of Bihar, as is admitted by her husband i.e. PW1. PW2 Pankaj Kumar has stated that he was working as a driver with one Sh. Bhupinder Singh, in whose house the deceased was working as a housemaid. He has further stated that she was residing in the same house. However, there is no documentary evidence qua the same. He has not even proved his employment with the alleged Sh. Bhupinder Singh. Hence, his testimony does not prove the employment of the deceased at Delhi. Hence, it is submitted that the income of the deceased may be assessed as per the minimum wages RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.191/2025 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Baby Devi (Dec.) through LRs vs. Nafees Khan and Ors. Date: 2026.04.02 14:23:50 +0530 Page 17 of 35 payable at Bihar.
31. Record perused.
32. The husband of the deceased has given his address which is at Bihar. As pointed out by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3, there is no address proof of the deceased for Delhi. It is orally stated that she was working as a housemaid at Delhi in the house of one Mr. Bhupinder Singh. As mentioned above, to prove the same, the petitioner summoned PW2 Pankaj Kumar. However, he did not produce any documentary evidence to show that he or the deceased were employed with Mr. Bhupinder Singh. Hence, in the opinion of this Tribunal, this fact has not been proved by the petitioner that the deceased was working at Delhi. Hence, her income shall be assessed as per the minimum wages at Bihar.
33. The petitioner is the husband of the deceased. Hence, in the absence of any evidence that the deceased was working, it can be presumed that she was a housewife. In case titled as Abdul Awal @ Auwal v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. MAC App. 989/2018 decided on 02.03.2023 by the Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati, it has been observed that a housewife's income may be assessed as per the minimum wages applicable for an unskilled worker. Similar observations have been given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muhammed Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 8960/2017 decided on 01.12.2022. However, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Jagdish v. Om Pal Singh & Ors. MAC App. 279/2019 decided RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.191/2025 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.04.02 Baby Devi (Dec.) through LRs vs. Nafees Khan and Ors. Page 18 of 35 14:24:05 +0530 on 10.12.2024 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dalvir Singh & Ors. [(2025) SCC OnLine Del 844] has held that minimum wages of a skilled workman is to be taken for the purpose of assessment of income in case of housewives. The date of the accident in the present matter is 18.08.2024. Hence, as per the prevalent notification qua the minimum wages at Bihar, the daily income payable to a skilled labour was Rs. 519/-. Hence, her monthly income is assessed to be Rs. 15,570/- (Rs. 519/- x 30).
Age determination of the deceased:
34. As per the Aadhar card of the deceased, her date of birth was 01.01.1987. The date of the accident is 18.08.2024. Hence, as on the date of the accident, the deceased was aged 37 years.
Future Prospects: -
35. In view of the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors; (2017) 16 SCC 680, it was observed that the Claimants would also be entitled to 40% for future prospects as the deceased was less than 40 years of age at the time of the accident.
Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased needs to be taken as Rs. 21,798/- (Rs. 15,570/- + Rs. 6,228/- which is 40% of Rs. 15,570/-).
Determination of Dependent
36. In the present case, the deceased is survived by her husband. Hence, only the husband of the deceased shall be considered as dependent on the deceased.
RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.04.02 14:24:10 +0530 MACT No.191/2025 Baby Devi (Dec.) through LRs vs. Nafees Khan and Ors. Page 19 of 35 Determination of multiplicand
37. The monthly income of the deceased after enhancement needs to be taken as Rs. 21,798/-. In light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur & Ors., (2021) 11 SCC 780 , out of the above amount so assessed, 1/2 amount has to be deducted on account of personal and living expenses as the deceased had only one dependent. So, in this matter, monthly loss of dependency would come out to be Rs. 10,899/- (1/2 of Rs. 21,798/-). This needs to be multiplied by 12 to workout multiplicand/annual loss of dependency. Hence, multiplicand for this matter would be Rs. 1,30,788/- ( Rs. 10,899/- x 12).
Award Towards Loss of Dependency
38. Further, as the deceased was 37 years of age at the time of the accident, multiplier applicable in this matter as per above discussion would be 15. The total loss of dependency would come out to be Rs.19,61,820/- (Rs. 1,30,788/- x 15), hence, so awarded.
Medical expenses:
39. The petitioner has not filed any medical bills on record. Hence, in the absence of any medical bills, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any amount towards medical expenses.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.02 MACT No.191/2025 14:24:15 +0530 Baby Devi (Dec.) through LRs vs. Nafees Khan and Ors. Page 20 of 35 Non-Pecuniary Heads:-
40. The Respondents/Claimants shall be entitled to the compensation under Non-Pecuniary Heads in terms of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi And Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. The case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) was considered and clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 9581/2018 decided on 18.09.2018 whereby after considering the case of Pranay Sethi's (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to award loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/- to each dependent of the deceased and further pleased to award a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to each dependent of the deceased towards loss of love and affection. The relevant portion is as under:
"...... A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) 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.
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."
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.04.02
MACT No.191/2025 14:24:20 +0530
Baby Devi (Dec.) through LRs vs. Nafees Khan and Ors. Page 21 of 35
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."
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.
Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognized 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.
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 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. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium.
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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.02 14:24:30 MACT No.191/2025 +0530 Baby Devi (Dec.) through LRs vs. Nafees Khan and Ors. Page 22 of 35 (supra).
In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs.25,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium.....".
41. However, in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur 2020 SCC Online SC 410 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that there is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head. The relevant portion of the observations are reproduced as under:
"...... The amount to be awarded for loss consortium will be as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra). At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide uniformity with respect to the grant of consortium, and loss of love and affection. Several Tribunals and High Courts have been awarding compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), has recognized only three conventional heads under which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in loss of consortium.
The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to award compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate conventional head. There is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head...".
42. In the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), it was held that in the case of death, Rs.15,000/- is liable to be paid towards the loss of estate and funeral charges each, while Rs.40,000/- was payable towards the Digitally MACT No.191/2025 signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.02 Baby Devi (Dec.) through LRs vs. Nafees Khan and Ors. Page 23 of 35 14:24:35 +0530 loss of consortium to each legal heir and the same may be enhanced by 10% every three years.
43. Thus, an amount of Rs. 19,965/- is granted towards the Loss of Estate and Rs. 19,965/- towards funeral charges.
44. Further, the petitioner is entitled to loss of consortium. Hence, Rs. 53,240/- is granted to the petitioner towards Loss of Consortium.
Computation of compensation:
45. Applying the settled guidelines in the various judgments, the compensation payable to the petitioner is calculated as under:
Head Awarded by the Claims Tribunal Monthly Income of deceased (A) Rs. 15,570/- Add future prospect (B) @ 40%= Rs. 6,228/- Less 1/2 deductions towards (Rs. 15,570/- + Rs. 6,228/-) = Rs. personal and living expenses of the 21,798/- x 1/2 = Rs. 10,899/- deceased (C) Monthly loss of dependency (Rs. 15,570/- + Rs. 6,228/-) - Rs. [(A+B) - C = D] 10,899/- = Rs. 10,899/- Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 10,899/- x 12= Rs. 1,30,788/-
(D x 12)
Multiplier (E) 15
Total loss of dependency (Rs. 1,30,788/- x 15) =
DxE=F Rs.19,61,820/-
Medical Expenses (G) Nil
Compensation for loss of love and Nil.
Digitally signed by MACT No.191/2025 RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:Baby Devi (Dec.) through LRs vs. Nafees Khan and Ors. Page 24 of 35
2026.04.02 14:24:40 +0530 affection (H) Compensation for loss of Rs. 53,240/- consortium (I) to the petitioner Compensation for loss of Estate (J) Rs. 19,965/- Compensation for funeral expenses Rs. 19,965/- (K) Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 20,54,990/-
46. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld awarding of 9% interest per annum. Therefore, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 03.03.2025 till realization.
DISBURSEMENT
47. The Financial Statement of petitioner/injured was recorded by this Court/Tribunal. As per the said statement, the monthly expenses of his family are approximately Rs. 20,000/- to 25,000/- per month.
48. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors. has given the following directions:
"(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
RUCHIKA MACT No.191/2025 SINGLA Baby Devi (Dec.) through LRs vs. Nafees Khan and Ors. Page 25 of 35 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.04.02 14:24:46 +0530
(ii) 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 claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimants. 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 claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque books and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and the claimant shall produced the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court for compliance."
49. However, in a recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal on 18 March, 2025 in S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020 has held that :
"17. The case in hand pertains to the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. The general practice followed by the insurance companies, where the compensation is not Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.02 14:24:51 +0530 MACT No.191/2025 Baby Devi (Dec.) through LRs vs. Nafees Khan and Ors. Page 26 of 35 disputed, is to deposit the same before the Tribunal. Instead of following that process, a direction can always be issued to transfer the amount into the bank account(s) of the claimant(s) with intimation to the Tribunal.
17.1 For that purpose, the Tribunals at the initial stage of pleadings or at the stage of leading evidence may require the claimant(s) to furnish their bank account particulars to the Tribunal along with the requisite proof, so that at the stage of passing of the award the Tribunal may direct that the amount of compensation be transferred in the account of the claimant and if there are more than one then in their respective accounts. If there is no bank account, then they should be required to open the bank account either individually or jointly with family members only. It should also be mandated that, in case there is any change in the bank account particulars of the claimant(s) during the pendency of the claim petition they should update the same before the Tribunal. This should be ensured before passing of the final award. It may be ensured that the bank account should be in the name of the claimant(s) and if minor, through guardian(s) and in no case it should be a joint account with any person, who is not a family member. The transfer of the amount in the bank account, particulars of which have been furnished by the claimant(s), as mentioned in the award, shall be treated as satisfaction of the award. Intimation of compliance should be furnished to the Tribunal."
50. In view of the same, the award amount can now be disbursed in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioner. However, the remaining directions as passed by the Hon'ble High Court shall be complied with.
51. After considering the financial statement of the petitioner, it Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.02 14:24:57 MACT No.191/2025 +0530 Baby Devi (Dec.) through LRs vs. Nafees Khan and Ors. Page 27 of 35 is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 22,55,140/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand One Hundred Forty only), Rs. 5,55,140/-(Rupees Five Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand One Hundred Forty only) shall be released to the petitioner/husband immediately in his Bank Account No.625610110001214, Bank of India, Maira Barit, Village Maira Barit, BLO, Nalanda, Bihar 805105, IFSC Code:BKID0006256, Customer ID : 179037519.
52. The balance amount of Rs. 17,00,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lacs only) shall be put in 68 monthly fixed deposits in his name in his account as mentioned above of equal amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 68 respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in his saving account maintained in a nationalized bank situated near the place of his residence.
53. In compliance of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award in the prescribed Format-XVI is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
Date of Accident: 18.08.2024
Name of the deceased: Smt. Baby Devi
Age of the deceased: 37 years
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.191/2025 Date: 2026.04.02
14:25:02 +0530
Baby Devi (Dec.) through LRs vs. Nafees Khan and Ors. Page 28 of 35
Occupation of the deceased: Housewife.
Income of the
deceased : Rs. 15,570/- pm
Name and relationship of legal representative of deceased:
Name of the claimant Relation with deceased Sh. Karyanand Sharma Husband COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION Sr. Head Awarded by the Claims Tribunal No. 1 Monthly Income of deceased Rs. 15,570/-
(A) 2 Add future prospect (B) @ 40%= Rs. 6,228/- 3 Less 1/2 deductions towards (Rs. 15,570/- + Rs. 6,228/-) = Rs.
personal and living expenses of 21,798/- x 1/2 = Rs. 10,899/- the deceased (C) 4 Monthly loss of dependency (Rs. 15,570/- + Rs. 6,228/-) - Rs.
[(A+B) - C = D] 10,899/- = Rs. 10,899/-
5 Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 10,899/- x 12 = Rs. 1,30,788/-
(D x 12)
6 Multiplier (E) 15
7 Total loss of dependency (Rs. 1,30,788/- x 15) =
DxE=F Rs.19,61,820/-
8 Medical Expenses (G) Nil
9 Compensation for loss of love Nil
and affection (H)
10 Compensation for loss of Rs. 53,240/-
consortium (I) to the petitioner
11 Compensation for loss of Rs. 19,965/-
MACT No.191/2025 RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Baby Devi (Dec.) through LRs vs. Nafees Khan and Ors. Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Date: 2026.04.02
Page 29 of 35
14:25:07 +0530
Estate (J)
12 Compensation for funeral Rs. 19,965/-
expenses (K)
13 Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 20,54,990/-
14 Rate of Interest Awarded 9%
15 Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 2,00,150/-
award w.e.f. 03.03.2025 till
realization
16 Total amount including interest Rs. 22,55,140/-
17 Award amount released As per paragraph Nos. 51 & 52
18 Award amount kept in FDRs As per paragraph No. 52
19 Mode of disbursement of the As per paragraph Nos. 51 & 52
award amount to the
claimant(s)
20 Next Date of compliance of the 02.05.2026
award
LIABILITY:
54. It has been established that accident was caused due to the rash and negligent act of the respondent no.1 who was driving the offending vehicle no.1 and that respondent no.2 is the owner of the same and the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no.3. Hence, the respondent no. 3 shall be liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner. Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
55. In view of the above, the respondent no.3 is directed to Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.02 14:25:12 +0530 MACT No.191/2025 Baby Devi (Dec.) through LRs vs. Nafees Khan and Ors. Page 30 of 35 deposit a sum of Rs.20,54,990/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Only) along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. w.e.f. 03.03.2025 till realization with the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the claimants, failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay interest @12% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days. Reliance placed on case titled as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
56. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurance company for compliance within the time granted 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. on 16.03.2021. The said respondent is further directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant 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 a copy to the Claimant and his counsel.
Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost.
Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.02 14:25:18 +0530 MACT No.191/2025 Baby Devi (Dec.) through LRs vs. Nafees Khan and Ors. Page 31 of 35 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on 02.05.2026 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
Further, Civil Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court today Digitally on this 2nd April, 2026 signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.02 14:25:22 +0530 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.MACT No.191/2025 Baby Devi (Dec.) through LRs vs. Nafees Khan and Ors. Page 32 of 35
THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL MOTOR VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022 (PL. SEE RULE 150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 18.08.2024 2 Date of filing of Form-I -
First Accident Report 20.08.2024
(FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II
03.03.2025
to the victim(s)
4 Date of receipt of Form-III
21.11.2024
from the Driver
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV
from the Owner 21.11.2024
6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the insurance 21.11.2024
of the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-
03.03.2025
VIA from the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII -
03.03.2025
Detail Accident Report
(DAR)
9 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Investigating NA
Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the 20.05.2025
Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company admitted his No
report within 30 days of the
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA
MACT No.191/2025
Date:
2026.04.02
14:25:26
+0530
Baby Devi (Dec.) through LRs vs. Nafees Khan and Ors. Page 33 of 35
DAR/claim petition?
12 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the NA
part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether
any action/direction
warranted?
13 Date of response of the
claimant(s) to the offer of NA
the Insurance Company.
14 Date of award 02.04.2026
15 Whether the claimant(s)
were directed to open Yes
savings bank account(s)
near their place of
residence?
16 Date of order by which
claimant(s) were directed to
open Savings Bank
Account(s) near his place of 03.03.2025
residence and produce PAN
card and Aadhar Card and
the direction to the bank not
to issue any cheque
book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an
endorsement to this effect
on the passbook(s).
17 Date on which the
claimant(s) produced the
passbook of their savings
13.02.2026
bank account(s) near the
place of their residence
alongwith the endorsement,
PAN card and Aadhaar
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.191/2025
Date: 2026.04.02
14:25:32 +0530
Baby Devi (Dec.) through LRs vs. Nafees Khan and Ors. Page 34 of 35
Card?
18 Permanent residential
address of the claimant(s). As per Award.
19 Whether the claimant(s)
savings bank account(s) is
Yes
near their place of
residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s)
were examined at the time
Yes. The Financial Statements of the claimant of passing of the Award to was recorded on 13.02.2026.
ascertain his/their financial condition?
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.02 14:25:37 +0530 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
02.04.2026 MACT No.191/2025 Baby Devi (Dec.) through LRs vs. Nafees Khan and Ors. Page 35 of 35