Delhi District Court
Sarita Devi (Dar) vs Deepankar Sinha (509/22 Kmp) on 19 November, 2025
:1:
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARU GUPTA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-01 (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No.: 363/24
Sarita Devi v. Deepankar Sinha
CNR No.DLSE01-003886-2023
1. Smt. Sarita Devi
W/o Late Santosh
2. Ranjeet Kumar Sah
S/o Late Santosh
3. Sudershan Sah
S/o Late Santosh
4. Satyam Kumar Sah
S/o Late Santosh
5. Vaishnavi Kumari
D/o Late Santosh
6. Surendra Sah
S/o Sh. Vuchan Sahu
7. Mina Devi
W/o Sh. Surendra Sah
R/o Gram Atahi
Post- Mohuli,Thana Baheri
Athar, Darbhanga,
Bihar-847201.
....Claimants/Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Deepankar Sinha
S/o Shiva Prasad Sinha
R/o E-45, 2nd Floor,
Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi.
....Driver /respondent no.1 Digitally signed
CHARU by CHARU
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19
17:12:03 +0530
MACT No. 363/24 Sarita Devi v. Deepankar Sinha Page no. 1 of 27 BK
:2:
2. Ms. Archana Sinha
W/o Sh. Deepankar Sinha
R/o E-45, 2nd Floor
Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi.
....Owner/Respondent no.2
3. Reliance General Insurance Company
A-12, Mohan Co-operative
Industrial Estate, Mathura Road,
Delhi.
....Insurance/respondent no.3
Date of accident : 20.12.2022
Result of accident : Death
Date of filing of DAR : 02.06.2023
Date of Decision : 19.11.2025
AWARD
1. The present Detailed Accident Report (DAR) arises out of
road accident in which Santosh aged about 32 years suffered fatal
injury resulting in his death. The present claim for compensation
is being pursued by Smt. Sarita Devi as dependent wife of the
deceased Santosh Sah, three minor sons namely Ranjeet Kumar
Sah(aged 6 years), Sudershan Sah (aged 4 years), Satyam Kumar
Sah (aged 2 years), one minor daughter namely Vaishnavi
Kumari (aged 8 months) and parents of deceased namely
Surendra Sah and Mina Devi.
2. Brief facts of the case are that vide GD no.0011A dated
20.12.2022, information was received qua an accident near
NBCC Block and that the injured had been admitted to AIIMS
hospital. Pursuant to the same, ASI Yogesh Kumar alongwith HC
Murari Lal reached at the spot i.e. NBCC Block, Ring Road,
South Ex.-I and found vehicle no.DL-6CR-6489 Swift Dzire Digitally signed
by CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.11.19
17:12:11
+0530
MACT No. 363/24 Sarita Devi v. Deepankar Sinha Page no. 2 of 27 BK
:3:
(hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle) in accidental
condition. Name of the driver of offending vehicle was disclosed
as Deepankar Sinha. It was also revealed that said offending
vehicle had hit two persons including victim Santosh and one
other Kameshwar Chaudhary. Victim Santosh was declared
brought dead while Kameshwar Chaudhary died during
treatment. Their postmortem was got conducted.
3. An FIR No.509/2022, dated 20.12.2022, u/s 279/304-A
IPC, was registered at PS K.M. Pur. Matter was investigated and
chargesheet was filed under Section 279/304A of IPC. The
present DAR was filed before this Tribunal and a separate DAR
in respect of claim qua death of Kameshwar Chaudhary was filed
with MACT no.732/24.
4. As per record, the offending vehicle was driven by
respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with
respondent no. 3.
5. Respondent no.1 and 2 filed written statement submitting
therein that on 20.12.2022, Respondent no.1 was driving the
offending vehicle. It has been pleaded that suddenly a stray dog
came in front of his vehicle, due to which the vehicle hit on the
roadside divider resulting in bursting of tyre of vehicle. As a
result, Respondent no.1 lost control over vehicle and hit the
deceased persons. It is pleaded that the vehicle was duly insured
on the date of accident and Respondent no.1 was holding a valid
driving licence.
6. In its reply, Respondent no.3 admitted that on the date of
accident, offending vehicle was duly insured however denied
rash and negligent driving by Respondent no.1. Digitally signed
by CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.11.19
17:12:18 +0530
MACT No. 363/24 Sarita Devi v. Deepankar Sinha Page no. 3 of 27 BK
:4:
7. Vide order dated 24.04.2024, following issues were
framed.
1. Whether the deceased suffered fatal injury in a
road traffic accident on 20.12.2022 due to rash and
negligent driving of vehicle no. DL-6CR-6489
being driven and owned by R1, owned by R2 and
insured with R3? OPP.
2)Whether the petitioners are entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from
whom? OPP.
3) Relief?
8. In order to prove their claim, petitioners examined
petitioner no.1/Sarita Devi wife of deceased victim as PW-1. She
tendered her examination in chief by way of affidavit as
Ex.PW-1/A wherein she deposed that PW-1 was wife of deceased
victim Santosh Sah who met with an accident on 20.12.2022 and
taken to VMMC & Safdarjung hospital. She deposed that he
died during treatment.
PW-1 further deposed that at the time of accident deceased
was aged about 32 years and working with Nagpal Decorate &
Caterers, Patel Nagar, West Delhi and was earning Rs.26,000/- to
28,000/- p.m. She further testified that she had spent Rs.2 lac on
treatment of the deceased, his transportation, last rituals etc.
She relied upon Aadhar card of LRs of deceased as
Ex.PW-1/1 (colly), Aadhar card and Police Clearance Certificate
of deceased as Ex.PW-1/2(colly), letter issued by Employer of
deceased as Ex.PW-1/3, death certificate of deceased as
Ex.PW-1/4, DAR as Ex.PW-1/5(colly).
PW-1 was duly cross examined by insurance
company/respondent no.3. CHARU GUPTA
Digitally signed
by CHARU
GUPTA Date:
2025.11.19
17:12:24 +0530
MACT No. 363/24 Sarita Devi v. Deepankar Sinha Page no. 4 of 27 BK
:5:
Sh. Vijay Sahu (Eye witness) was examined as PW2. He
deposed that on 20.12.2022 at about 8 AM, he was coming from
Mehrauli after completing the tent decoration work. He was
waiting for a bus at Gate no.2 AIIMS bus stop platform while
deceased was standing below the platform on the road side. At
that time, a brown colour Maruti Dzire bearing no.DL-6CR-6489
came from the side of Safdarjung hospital at a speed of 70-80
km/hr. and hit two persons namely Kameshwar Chaudhary and
Santosh Sah. He took the injured Kameshwar in an auto to
Emergency ward at Safdarjung hospital. Someone from the
public called at 112 number. The other injured namely Santosh
Sah was admitted in Safdarjung hospital by some other person
and was declared dead by the doctor on the same day.
Kameshwar Chaudhary died on 25.12.2022 during treatment.
PW-2 was cross examined by Ld. counsel for insurance
company.
9. Respondents did not lead any evidence despite
opportunity.
10. Final arguments were advanced by the parties. Now, on the
basis of material on record, evidence adduced and arguments
addressed, issue wise findings are as under:
Issue No.1
Whether the deceased suffered fatal injury in a road
traffic accident on 20.12.2022 due to rash and
negligent driving of vehicle no. DL-6CR-6489 being
driven and owned by R1, owned by R2 and insured
with R3? OPP.
11. Before proceeding to decide the above issue, it is apposite
to note that as a settled principle of law, proceedings under The Digitally signed
CHARU by CHARU
GUPTA
GUPTA 2025.11.19
Date:
17:12:31 +0530
MACT No. 363/24 Sarita Devi v. Deepankar Sinha Page no. 5 of 27 BK
:6:
Motor Vehicle Act are not considered akin to the proceedings in a
civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not applicable.
Reliance is placed upon decision in Bimla Devi & ors. vs.
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (2009) 13 SC 535,
in Parmeshwari vs. Amir Chand & Ors., 2011 (1) SCR 1096 and
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ
287, wherein it has been held that the negligence has to be
decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and
a holistic view has to be taken.
12. In the instant case, PW-2 Vijay Sahu (eye witness) has
testified the factum as well as the manner of the accident. He
stated that the offending vehicle came driven at a speed of about
70-80 km/h. from the side of Safdarjung hospital and hit the
victims who were pedestrians waiting for bus at AIIMS bus stop.
He pleaded rash and negligent driving on the part of Respondent
no.1.
Respondents have not denied the occurrence of the
accident of involvement of the offending vehicle. Though it has
been claimed by Respondent no.1 by way of his written
statement that the accident occurred while averting hitting of a
dog which had suddenly appeared on the road, it has also been
admitted that the offending vehicle hit the divider and then
dashed into the victims. No such defence has however been
taken during cross-examination of PW-2 Vijay Sahu either by the
insurance company or by Respondent no.1 and 2. No evidence
has either been led on behalf of insurance company to prove that
the victims were standing in the middle of the road, contrary to
the findings in the investigation report. Such plea is further Digitally signed
CHARU by CHARU
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19
17:12:38 +0530
MACT No. 363/24 Sarita Devi v. Deepankar Sinha Page no. 6 of 27 BK
:7:
inadmissible in so far as the driver of the offending vehicle has
himself nowhere claimed or pleaded even in his reply that the
victims met with the accident only because they were standing in
the middle of the road or that they contributed to the accident in
any manner. In absence of any such plea or suggestion, there is
nothing in the testimony of PW-2/eye witness to disbelieve him.
At the same time, though it is seen that PW-2 Vijay Sahu has not
been cited as an eye witness in the chargesheet/criminal case,
such lapse will not have much bearing in as much as the
insurance company has not put any specific suggestion to such
witness or questioned his reliability on that ground.
13. Further since even the police after investigation, had filed
chargesheet against respondent no.1 under Section 279/304-A of
IPC relying upon the statement of witnesses recorded u/s 161
Cr.PC, site plan, mechanical inspection report, MLC and
postmortem report of the victim, is also suggestive of negligence
of respondent no.1 in causing the accident. In National Insurance
Co. vs. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, it was laid down that
completion of investigation and filing of chargesheet are
sufficient proof of negligence of the driver of the offending
vehicle.
14. It may further be noted that in Cholamandlam Insurance
company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh 2009 (3) AD Delhi 310, it was held
that if driver of offending vehicle does not enter the witness box,
an adverse inference can be drawn against him. In the present
case also, neither the driver nor owner of the offending vehicle
entered into the witness box to controvert the claim of petitioners
Digitally signed
or even to explain circumstances of accident. by CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.11.19
17:12:45
+0530
MACT No. 363/24 Sarita Devi v. Deepankar Sinha Page no. 7 of 27 BK
:8:
15. In totality of circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion
that the petitioner been able to prove on the scales of
preponderance of probabilities that the accident in question, took
place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle
by its driver/respondent no.1 on the date and time of accident.
Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioners and
against the respondents.
Issue no. 2
Whether the petitioners are entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?
OPP.
16. As no statutory defence has been raised by the insurance
company. As such, insurance company is liable to indemnify the
respondent no.2 (owner of the offending vehicle) by
compensating the petitioners.
17. The claimant/petitioner no.1 to 7 have claimed dependency
on the deceased being his widow/wife,children and old aged
parents. Hence, all the petitioners are held to be financially
dependent on the victim and accordingly entitled to
compensation.
18. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to
encapsulate the law laid down by the Apex Court in its various
judgments qua methodology and considerations for
assessing/ascertaining just compensation in road vehicular death
cases laid down in Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Ors. (2003) 6 SCC. The relevant principles for
ascertainment of compensation are quoted here under:
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.11.19
17:12:51
+0530
MACT No. 363/24 Sarita Devi v. Deepankar Sinha Page no. 8 of 27 BK
:9:
BASIC PRINCIPLES
"9. Basically only three facts need to be established by
the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of
death :-
(a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased;
and the (c) the number of dependents. The issues to
be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of
dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made for
arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made
towards the personal living expenses of the deceased;
and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of
the age of the deceased. If these determinants are
standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency
in the decisions. There will lesser need for detailed
evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance
companies to settle accident claims without delay. To
have uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should
determine compensation in 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 Digitally signed
CHARU GUPTA
by CHARU
GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19
17:12:57 +0530
MACT No. 363/24 Sarita Devi v. Deepankar Sinha Page no. 9 of 27 BK
: 10 :
body (if incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of
the deceased before death (if incurred) should also
added."
ADDITIONS
"11. ...In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we
are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an
addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary
income of the deceased towards future prospects,
where the deceased had a permanent job and was
below 40 years. [Where the annual income is in the
taxable range, the words `actual salary' should be read
as `actual salary less tax']. The addition should be only
30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years.
There should be no addition, where the age of deceased
is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may
indicate a different percentage of increase, it is
necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different
yardsticks being applied or different methods of
calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was
self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without
provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will
usually take only the actual income at the time of
death. A departure therefrom should be made only in
rare and exceptional cases involving special
circumstances."
DEDUCTIONS
"14. Having considered several subsequent decisions of
this court, we are of the view that where the deceased
was married, the deduction towards personal and living
expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd)
where the number of dependent family members is 2 to
3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant
family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where
the number of dependant family members exceed six.
15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the
claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a
different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally,
50% is deducted as personal and living expenses,
because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to
spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also
the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in
which event the contribution to the parent/s and
siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject
to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have
his own income and will not be considered as a
dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a
dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary,
brothers and sisters will not be considered as
dependents, because they will either be independent Digitally signed
CHARU by CHARU
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19
17:13:05 +0530
MACT No. 363/24 Sarita Devi v. Deepankar Sinha Page no. 10 of 27 BK
: 11 :
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."
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."
19. As regards, computation of the future prospects, observations
made in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi
& Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 are noteworthy:
"58. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be no
addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept.
We are disposed to think, there should be an addition of
15% if the deceased is between the age of 50 to 60 years
and there should be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in
case of self- employed or person on fixed salary, the
addition should be 10% between the age of 50 to 60
years. The aforesaid yardstick has been fixed so that
there can be consistency in the approach by the tribunals
and the Courts.
59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to
record our conclusions:-
(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
Digitally signed
CHARU by CHARU
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19
17:13:13 +0530
MACT No. 363/24 Sarita Devi v. Deepankar Sinha Page no. 11 of 27 BK
: 12 :
Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is
because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot
take a contrary view than what has been held by another
coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in
Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of
time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
(iii)While determining the income, an addition of 50% of
actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future
prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and
was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The
addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was
between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between
the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%.
Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv)In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed
salary, an addition of 40% of the established income
should be the warrant where the deceased was below the
age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased
was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where
the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should
be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The
established income means the income minus the tax
component.
(v)For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for
personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts
shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma
which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi)The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in
the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that
judgment.
(vii)The age of the deceased should be the basis for
applying the multiplier.
(viii)Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely,
loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses
should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/-
respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at
the rate of 10% in every three years.
20. In view of the above settled principles, in order to archive
at or ascertain a just compensation payable to the petitioners, this
Tribunal first needs to ascertain the age of deceased/victim, the
appropriate multiplier, income of the deceased at the time of
incident, the educational qualification of deceased, the number of Digitally signed
by CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.11.19
17:13:19 +0530
MACT No. 363/24 Sarita Devi v. Deepankar Sinha Page no. 12 of 27 BK
: 13 :
dependents, whether deceased was married or unmarried,
whether deceased was having permanent employment or private
job etc. Award also needs to be passed qua non-pecuniary heads
as envisaged and in terms of above judgments.
Age and multiplier
21. Age of the deceased is claimed to be 32 years at the time
of accident/death. The same is proved by his Aadhar Card as per
which his date of birth was 01.01.1990. Same has not been
disputed. The accident took place on 20.12.2022. As such, the
victim would have been 32 years approximately at the time of
accident. Hence, he fells in the age bracket of 31 to 35 years and
multiplier applicable to this case would be 16.
Determination of monthly and annual income
22. At the time of accident i.e. 20.12.2022, deceased victim is
stated to have been doing the work of catering/tent decoration
however no proof has been filed in this regard. Hence, in absence
of any proof of employment or educational qualification, he is
assumed to be entitled to minimum wages of an unskilled labour,
prevailing in Bihar (as per the address mentioned in Aadhar card)
i.e. place of residence as per Aadhar card. Same was Rs.9698/-.
Accordingly, his annual income would have been
Rs.9698X12=Rs.1,16,376/- per annum.
Determination of future prospects
23. Having regard to the age of the deceased and ratio laid
down in Pranay Sethi (Supra) and other judgments, the
percentage towards future prospect would be calculated @ 40%
where the deceased was below the age of 40 years and on a fixed
Digitally
salary or self employed.
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.11.19
17:13:26
+0530
MACT No. 363/24 Sarita Devi v. Deepankar Sinha Page no. 13 of 27 BK
: 14 :
Thus, the enhanced income (after adding 40% of his
annual income, as future prospects) would be
Rs.1,16,376+46,550=Rs.1,62,926/- P.A.
Deduction
24. As already discussed, considering the age and that the
deceased is survived by 7 dependents, as per Sarla Verma
judgment (supra), deductions towards personal and living
expenses of deceased on herself would be taken as 1/5th. Thus,
the net deduction in the present case is ascertained to be 1/5th of
the total calculated income i.e. Rs.1,62,926/- is equal to
Rs.32,585/-. Hence, deceased would have been contributing
Rs.1,62,926-32,585/-=Rs.1,30,341/- per annum towards
petitioner no.1 to 7.
Determination of Multiplicand
25. The multiplicand would thus be the annual contributed
income of deceased i.e. Rs.1,30,341/-.
Loss of dependency upon applying multiplier
26. Since the age of the victim is 32 years, as per Sarla Verma
Judgment (supra), multiplier of 16 is applicable. The total loss of
dependency would come out to be Rs.1,30,341/-X16=
Rs.20,85,456/-.
Compensation under Non-Pecuniary Heads (Grant of Loss of
Estate, Loss of Consortium and Funeral Expenses):
27. To calculate compensation under the non pecuniary heads,
reference has to be drawn from decision in Pranay Sethi case
(supra) wherein it was observed:
''...Unlike determination of income, the said heads
have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a
reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over Digitally signed
CHARU by CHARU
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19
17:13:34 +0530
MACT No. 363/24 Sarita Devi v. Deepankar Sinha Page no. 14 of 27 BK
: 15 :
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.
.
.
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...''
28. It may further be noted that the date of judgment of Pranay Sethi case (supra) is 31/10/2017. Further, as per the judgment, the amount so quantified under the non pecuniary heads have to 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. As such, the funeral expenses and expenses towards loss of estate would, as on date, be Rs.18150/-, under each of these heads while compensation for loss of consortium would stand Digitally signed CHARU by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19 MACT No. 363/24 Sarita Devi v. Deepankar Sinha Page no. 15 of 27 BK 17:13:39 +0530 : 16 : enhanced to Rs.48400/-.
29. On the date of accident, deceased was survived by his wife, children and parents. As such, in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as noted above, all the petitioners would be entitled Rs.48400/- each towards loss of consortium, while, petitioner no.1/wife is entitled to expenses towards funeral and loss of estate also.
Share of petitioners
30. (I) Petitioner no.1/Sarita Devi(wife of deceased) is entitled to Rs.6,85,456/- towards loss of financial dependency and Rs.48400/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.18150/- towards loss of estate and Rs.18150/- towards funeral expenses. The total comes out to be Rs.7,70,156/-.
(II) Petitioner no.2/Ranjeet Kumar Sah(son of deceased) is entitled to Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of financial dependence and Rs.48400/- towards loss of consortium. The total comes out to be Rs.3,48,400/-.
(III) Petitioner no.3/Sudershan Sah(son of deceased) is entitled to Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of financial dependence and Rs.48400/- towards loss of consortium. The total comes out to be Rs.3,48,400/-.
(IV) Petitioner no.4/Satyam Kumar Sah(son of deceased) is entitled to Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of financial dependence and Rs.48400/- towards loss of consortium. The total comes out to be Rs.3,48,400/-.
(V) Petitioner no.5/Vaishnavi Kumari(daughter of deceased) is entitled to Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of financial dependence and Rs.48400/- towards loss of consortium. The total CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19 17:13:46 +0530 MACT No. 363/24 Sarita Devi v. Deepankar Sinha Page no. 16 of 27 BK : 17 : comes out to be Rs.3,48,400/-.
(VI) Petitioner no.6/Surendra Sah(father of deceased) is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of financial dependence and Rs.48400/- towards loss of consortium. The total comes out to be Rs.1,48,400/-.
(VII) Petitioner no.7/Mina Devi(mother of deceased) is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of financial dependence and Rs.48400/- towards loss of consortium. The total comes out to be Rs.1,48,400/-.
Thus, the total amount payable by respondent no.3 is Rs.24,60,556/-.
Liability
31. As already discussed, respondent no.3/insurance company is liable to compensate the petitioners. The principal award amount/compensation shall be with simple interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR till actual realization.
In case, the interest of petitioners 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 amount.
Directions Regarding Deposit of Award Amount in Bank
32. In compliance of directions issued vide order dated 16.11.2021 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition Civil No.534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India the award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way Digitally signed CHARU by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19 17:13:52 +0530 MACT No. 363/24 Sarita Devi v. Deepankar Sinha Page no. 17 of 27 BK : 18 : of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT PARKING FUND, A/c No. 00000042706875094, IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir in the prescribed format i.e. MCOP Number on the file of (Claims Tribunal Name) Date of award, Compensation Amount, Income Tax Deduction at Source, Bank Transaction Reference No./Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. In turn, the State Bank of India, Saket Courts Branch shall receive the deposited sum and capture the above information and furnish a statement of account on a daily basis to the Nazir of this Tribunal to reconcile the deposits of compensation and the respective MCOPs towards which such deposits are made. On such deposits being made, the insurance company shall submit a letter to the Nazir of this Tribunal enclosing a copy of the said bank advice, in prescribed format as above, as per which the deposit made to the bank account of this Tribunal, to enable this Tribunal to keep tab on the deposits made and the MCOPs for which they were made. The Payment advice for remittance of compensation is as under:
PAYMENT ADVICE FOR REMITTANCE OF COMPENSATION :
............ Bank ................... To:
............... Court ........................ We confirm remittance of compensation as follows on instructions of ................................... (insurance company):-
MCOP Number On the file of (Claims Tribunal Name), Place Date of award Amount Deposited, Income Tax Deduction at Source, if any Unique Transaction Reference Digitally signed CHARU by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19 17:13:58 +0530 MACT No. 363/24 Sarita Devi v. Deepankar Sinha Page no. 18 of 27 BK : 19 : (UTR) Number. Insurance company of offending vehicle, on deposit, shall also send a copy of the payment advice in above format to this Tribunal and serve a copy of the same on the claimants or their counsel as the case may be.
DISBURSEMENT
33. 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.
(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 CHARU Court for Digitally signed by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19 17:14:04 +0530 MACT No. 363/24 Sarita Devi v. Deepankar Sinha Page no. 19 of 27 BK : 20 : compliance."
34. 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 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." Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.19 17:14:11 +0530 MACT No. 363/24 Sarita Devi v. Deepankar Sinha Page no. 20 of 27 BK : 21 :
35. In view of the same, the award amount can now be disbursed in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioners. However, the remaining directions as passed by the Hon'ble High Court shall be complied with.
Apportionment
36. Out of the total compensation amount awarded to petitioner no.1/Sarita Devi i.e. Rs.7,70,156/-, Rs.2,70,156/- be released to her in her bank account near her place of residence and remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/- be kept in the form of monthly FDRs of Rs.15,000/- p.m. Out of the total compensation amount awarded to petitioner no.2/Ranjeet Kumar Sah i.e. Rs.3,48,400/-, entire amount be kept in the form of FDR till his age of majority as per directions/rules.
Out of the total compensation amount awarded to petitioner no.3/Sudershan Sah i.e. Rs.3,48,400/-, entire amount be kept in the form of FDR till his age of majority as per directions/rules.
Out of the total compensation amount awarded to petitioner no.4/Satyam Kumar Sah i.e. Rs.3,48,400/-, entire amount be kept in the form of FDR till his age of majority as per directions/rules.
Out of the total compensation amount awarded to petitioner no.5/Vaishnavi Kumari i.e. Rs.3,48,400/-, entire amount be kept in the form of FDR till her age of majority as per directions/rules.
Out of the total compensation amount awarded to petitioner no.6/Surendra Sah i.e. Rs.1,48,400/-, entire amount be Digitally signed CHARU by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19 17:14:19 +0530 MACT No. 363/24 Sarita Devi v. Deepankar Sinha Page no. 21 of 27 BK : 22 : released to him in his bank account as per directions/rules.
Out of the total compensation amount awarded to petitioner no.7/Mina Devi i.e. Rs.1,48,400/-, entire amount be released to her in her bank account as per directions/rules.
37. The following directions are also given to the bank for compliance:
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name (s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of victim i.e. the savings bank account of the claimant shall be individual savings bank account and not a joint account.
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR (s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/ or debit card to claimant (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 freeze the account of the claimant so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19 17:14:25 +0530 MACT No. 363/24 Sarita Devi v. Deepankar Sinha Page no. 22 of 27 BK : 23 : of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque book and / or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1. Date of accident 20.12.2022
2. Name of deceased Santosh Sah
3. Age of the deceased 32 years
4. Occupation of the deceased Minimum unskilled labour
5. Income of the deceased Rs.9698/- p.a. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:
S No. Name Age (at the Relation
time of
accident)
(i) Smt. Sarita Devi 29 years Wife
(ii) Ranjeet Kumar Sah 6 years son
(iii) Sudershan Sah 4 years son
(iv) Satyam Kumar Sah 2 years Son
(v) Vaishnavi Kumari 8 months Daughter
(vi) Surendra Sah 70 years Father
(vii) Smt. Mina Devi 68 years Mother
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.11.19
17:14:31
+0530
MACT No. 363/24 Sarita Devi v. Deepankar Sinha Page no. 23 of 27 BK
: 24 :
Computation of compensation:-
S. Heads Awarded by the
No Claims Tribunal
1 A. Income of the deceased per year Rs.1,16,376/-
2 B. Add-Future Prospects 40% of A Rs.46,550/-
(per year)
3 C. Total Rs.1,62,926/-
4 D. Less-Personal Expenses of the Rs.32,585/-
deceased 1/5th of (C)
5 E. Yearly loss of dependency [C -D] Rs.1,30,341/-
6 F. Multiplier. 16
7 G. Total loss of dependency (E x F = Rs.20,85,456/-
G)
8 H. Medical Expenses Nil
9 I. Deduction, if any Nil
10 J. Compensation after deduction, if Rs.20,85,456/-
any
11 K. Compensation for loss of (Rs.48400/-X7)
consortium Rs.3,38,800/-
12 L. Compensation for loss of estate Rs.18,150/-
13 M. Compensation towards funeral Rs.18,150/-
expenses
14 N. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.24,60,556/-
total of J+K+L+M=N
15 O. RATE OF INTEREST @ 7.5% per
AWARDED: annum
from date of filing of DAR till actual realization of principal amount awarded.
16 Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.18,93,600/- 17 Award amount released Rs.5,66,956/-
18 Mode of disbursement of the award (I) Out of the total Digitally signed CHARU by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19 17:14:38 +0530 MACT No. 363/24 Sarita Devi v. Deepankar Sinha Page no. 24 of 27 BK : 25 : amount to the claimant (s). (Clause compensation amount
29) awarded to petitioner no.1/ Sarita Devi i.e. Rs.7,70,156/-, Rs.2,70,156/- be released to her in her bank account near her place of residence and remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/- be kept in the form of monthly FDRs of Rs.15,000/- p.m. (II) Out of the total compensation amount awarded to petitioner no.2/Ranjeet Kumar Sah i.e. Rs.3,48,400/-, entire amount be kept in the form of FDR till his age of majority as per directions/rules.
(III) Out of the total compensation amount awarded to petitioner no.3/Sudershan Sah i.e. Rs.3,48,400/-, entire amount be kept in the form of FDR till his age of majority as per directions/rules.
(IV) Out of the total compensation amount awarded to petitioner no.4/Satyam Kumar Sah i.e. Rs.3,48,400/-, entire amount be kept in the form of FDR Digitally signed CHARU by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19 17:14:44 +0530 MACT No. 363/24 Sarita Devi v. Deepankar Sinha Page no. 25 of 27 BK : 26 : till his age of majority as per directions/rules.
(V) Out of the total compensation amount awarded to petitioner no.5/Vaishnavi Kumari i.e. Rs.3,48,400/-, entire amount be kept in the form of FDR till her age of majority as per directions/rules.
(VI)Out of the total compensation amount awarded to petitioner no.6/Surendra Sah i.e. Rs.1,48,400/-, entire amount be released to him in his bank account as per directions/rules.
(VII) Out of the total compensation amount awarded to petitioner no.7/Mina Devi i.e. Rs.1,48,400/-, entire amount be released to her in her bank account as per directions/rules.
All above amount shall be along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum on total principal award amount from date of filing of DAR till actual realization.
19 Next Date for compliance of the 19.12.2025 award (Clause 31) Digitally signed CHARU by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19 17:15:00 +0530 MACT No. 363/24 Sarita Devi v. Deepankar Sinha Page no. 26 of 27 BK : 27 :
38. Put up on 19.12.2025 for compliance.
Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA
Announced in the open court GUPTA
Date:
2025.11.19
17:15:06
on 19th November, 2025 +0530
(Charu Gupta)
PO-MACT-01 (South East)
Saket Courts/New Delhi
MACT No. 363/24 Sarita Devi v. Deepankar Sinha Page no. 27 of 27 BK