Delhi District Court
Maya And Anr vs Unitted India Insurance Co Ltd And Ors on 25 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARUN PRATAP, PO, MACT-02,
DISTRICT SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
MACT No.: 398/22
CNR No. DLSH01-005545-2022
IN THE MATTER OF:-
1. Smt. Maya ( Mother of deceased Rakesh)
2. Sh. Kaluva ( Father of deceased Rakesh)
All R/o Village Sadullapur, Soharka,
Hassanpur, Amroha, U.P-244 241.
.......( Petitioners)
Vs.
1. United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Office at: 10 Raj Block,Wajirabad,
G.T. Road, Shahdara, Delhi.
...... (Insurer)
2. Sh. Kamal Singh
S/o Sh. Vedpal Singh
R/o Kamalpur Post., Ajdev Chandpur,
Bijnor, U.P.- 246725
.... (Driver)
3. M/s Singh Earth Movers
Atrasi Amroha, UP.
.....(owner)
...Respondents
Date of institution of claim petition : 07.09.2022
Date of Arguments : 25.07.2025
MACT No. 398/22 Maya and Anr. Vs. United India Insurance & Ors. Page No. 1 of 18
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2025.07.25
16:29:18
+0530
Date of Award : 25.07.2025
Advocates appearing in the case:
For petitioners : Sh. C.P. Singh
For respondent no. 1 / Ins. com. : Sh. Upender Kumar
For respondent no. 2 & 3 : None
AWARD
Vide this award, the Tribunal shall decide the claim petition bearing
no. 398/22, under section 166(4) & 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, filed for
the petitioners and against the respondents as mentioned in the memo of
parties.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 07.03.2022, at about 06:30 pm, one Rakesh (since deceased) alongwith his friend Sanjay was coming back to his village Soharka from Urdhanpur, on a motorcycle bearing registration no. UP23S-8923. It has been alleged that when they reached at Rahra Marg, Adampur Mod Chauraha, U.P., within the jurisdiction of PS Rahra, Dist. Amroha, U.P., one dumper truck bearing registration no. NL-01- L-5861 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle), came at a very high speed and hit the above-said motorcycle of the deceased with a great force. It has been alleged that the said offending vehicle was being driven by its driver i.e. respondent no. 2 (R2) herein, in a rash and negligent manner without taking necessary precautions at the time of the accident. It has been further alleged that due to the forceful impact of the hit from the offending vehicle, above-said Rakesh fell down on the road alongwith the motorcycle and sustained serious injuries. He was immediately thereon taken to Govt. MACT No. 398/22 Maya and Anr. Vs. United India Insurance & Ors. Page No. 2 of 18 HARUN PRATAP Digitally signed by HARUN PRATAP Date: 2025.07.25 16:29:24 +0530 Hospital, Amroha, where he expired during the course of treatment on the same day itself. The postmortem was thereafter conducted at District mortuary, CMO Amroha, UP, vide PM No. 77/2022. An FIR in this regard was also registered at PS Amroha, UP, vide FIR no. 0066/2022, for the offences u/s 279/338/304-A/427 IPC. The present claim petition thereafter came to be filed in due course on 07.09.2022.
WS / Reply of Respondents
2. Respondent no. 1 i.e. The United India Insurance Company Ltd, filed its detailed written statement, wherein it has been admitted that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the company vide insurance policy no. 2507013121P102985694, in the name of M/s Singh Earth Movers i.e. R3 herein, with its validity from 01.07.2021 to 30.06.2022. However, the respondent no. 1 denied its liability and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
3. The respondents no. 2 and 3 ie. the driver and owner of the offending vehicle respectively, failed to file their reply/WS despite being granted several opportunities and their right to file the same stood closed by the Ld. Predecessor, vide order dated 15.05.2024.
ISSUES
4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 15.05.2024, as under:-
(i) Whether respondent no. 1 was driving the offending vehicle No. NL-01-L-5861 on 07.03.2022 at about 06:30 pm at Rahra Marg, Adampur Mod Chauraha, within the jurisdiction of PS Rahra Distt. Amroha, in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of deceased Sh. Rakesh? OPP.
MACT No. 398/22 Maya and Anr. Vs. United India Insurance & Ors. Page No. 3 of 18 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date:
2025.07.25 16:29:29 +0530
(ii) Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP.
(iii) Relief.
5. It was revealed on the perusal of the file that issue no. 1 contained a typographical error as the respondent no. 1 in this case happens to be the insurance company and the driver of the offending vehicle has been arrayed as respondent no. 2. Therefore, the issue no. 1 is hereby re-framed upon correction of the said error, as follows:-
(i) Whether respondent no. 2 was driving the offending vehicle No. NL-01-L-5861 on 07.03.2022 at about 06:30 pm at Rahra Marg, Adampur Mod Chauraha, within the jurisdiction of PS Rahra Distt. Amroha, in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of deceased Sh. Rakesh? OPP.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
6. In order to prove their case, petitioners examined Sh. Kaluva i.e. father of the deceased Rakesh as PW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A, wherein he reiterated the contents of the claim petition and relied upon the following documents:-
Sl. No. Exhibit No. Particulars
1 Ex.PW1/1 Certified copy of chargesheet.
2 Ex. PW1/2 Copy of Aadhar card and PAN card of the
(OSR) (colly ) deponent
3 Ex.PW1/3 Copy of Aadhar Card of the deceased
(OSR )
MACT No. 398/22 Maya and Anr. Vs. United India Insurance & Ors. Page No. 4 of 18
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2025.07.25
16:29:35
+0530
He was cross-examined and discharged.
7. The petitioners also examined a purported eye witness of the accident namely Sh. Bijendra as PW2. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-2/A and relied upon the following documents:-
Sl. Exhibit No. Particulars
No.
1 Ex. PW2/1 (OSR) Photocopy of Aadhar Card of deponent
He was cross-examined and discharged.
8. PE was thereon closed by the Tribunal vide order dated 20.01.2025, in view of the separate statement of Ld. Counsel for petitioners recorded to this effect.
Respondents' Evidence
9. The respondents failed to lead any evidence despite sufficient opportunities being granted in this regard and RE was finally closed by the Tribunal vide order dt. 19.05.2025.
10. Final arguments heard. File perused.
Issue wise findings ISSUE NO. 1 Whether respondent no. 2 was driving the offending vehicle No. NL-01-L-5861 on 07.03.2022 at about 06:30 pm at Rahra Marg, Adampur Mod Chauraha, within the jurisdiction of PS Rahra Distt. Amroha, in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of deceased Sh. Rakesh? OPP.
MACT No. 398/22 Maya and Anr. Vs. United India Insurance & Ors. Page No. 5 of 18 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date:
2025.07.25 16:29:42 +0530
11. In an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non. However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is tested on the touchstone of principle of preponderance of probabilities. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi & Ors. Vs Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs Amir Chand & Ors, 2011 (1) SCR 1906 (Civil Appeal No. 1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
12. In the present case, the petitioners have examined a purported eye witness of the incident in question as their star witness to prove the contentions regarding the claim for compensation, apart from examining the father of the deceased/victim, as PW-2 & PW-1 respectively. Both the afore- said witnesses have categorically stated in their examination on oath that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent act of respondent no. 2 in MACT No. 398/22 Maya and Anr. Vs. United India Insurance & Ors. Page No. 6 of 18 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date:
2025.07.25 16:29:48 +0530 driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. The said contentions are duly corroborated by the findings of the police as mentioned in the site plan, mechanical inspection report, Charge sheet, postmortem report along with other documents pertaining to criminal case in respect of the incident in question brought on record as Ex. PW1/1 (colly) and no ground has been made out by the respondents to disbelieve the same. The name of PW2 also finds mention as an eye witness of the incident in the charge sheet filed by the police in the criminal case pertaining to the incident in question. The testimony of both the witnesses for the petitioners has remained consistent and no doubt has been raised by the respondents to disbelieve the same.
13. Respondent no. 2 i.e. driver of the offending vehicle, respondent no. 3 i.e. the owner of offending vehicle and respondent no. 1 i.e. Insurance Company, have neither impeached the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 nor they have led any defence evidence to substantiate their claim that the accident was caused due to fault of the deceased or that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. The evidence of the star witness in this case i.e. PW-2, on the aspect of rash and negligent act of respondent no. 2 while driving the offending vehicle, has remained unimpeached and his testimony has to be accepted on its face value itself as the same has successfully stood the test of cross-examination.
14. The very fact that R-2 has already been specifically arrayed as an accused in case FIR no. 0066/22, for the offences u/s 279/338/304-A IPC, PS Rahra, Distt. Amroha, U.P., is also a strong circumstance to support the above said testimony of PW-2 on these issues. The copies of FIR, Site plan, MACT No. 398/22 Maya and Anr. Vs. United India Insurance & Ors. Page No. 7 of 18 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date:
2025.07.25 16:29:54 +0530 mechanical inspection report and postmortem report, brought on record as Ex. PW1/1 also corroborate the oral testimony of PW-1 & PW-2. Moreover, the position of law in this regard has been made clear in the case of "National Insurance Co., Vs Puspha Rana", 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, wherein it has been held that filing of Chargesheet is sufficient proof of the negligence and involvement of the offending vehicle. Similar observations have been made in the case of "United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deepak Goel and Ors.", 2014 (2) Tac 846 Del, that if the claimant was able to prove the criminal case on record pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, whereby the criminal records showing completion of investigation by the police and filing of Chargesheet under Section 279/304-A/337 IPC against the driver have been proved, then, the documents mentioned above are sufficient to establish the fact that the driver was negligent in causing the accident. Where FIR is lodged, Chargesheet is filed, especially in a case where driver after causing the accident had fled away from the spot, then the documents mentioned above are sufficient to establish the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent in causing the accident particularly when there was no defence available from his side before the Learned Tribunal.
15. Besides the above, respondent no. 2 namely Kamal Singh was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the depositions being made by PW-2 regarding the above accident and its manner etc., but he has not done so. Therefore, an adverse inference on this aspect is also required to be drawn against the respondents in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. MACT No. 398/22 Maya and Anr. Vs. United India Insurance & Ors. Page No. 8 of 18 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date:
2025.07.25 16:30:00 +0530 Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi).
16. In view of the above, it could be safely assumed that the offending vehicle was being driven by R-2 indeed at the time of incident and the fatal injuries to the deceased took place on account of the incident in question itself.
17. Having ruled so, this Tribunal now proceeds to assess the wrongful act, neglect or default of R-2, if any, in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Admittedly, R-2 has not explained the circumstances under which his vehicle (i.e. the offending dumper) hit the motorcycle of Rakesh (since deceased) with a great force. In the absence of any averment or evidence regarding any mechanical defect in the offending vehicle or any material depicting any negligent/sudden act or omission on the part of the deceased or any other such person, the only inference possible in the given facts and circumstances is that of neglect and default on the part of R-2 in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is constrained to hold R-2 guilty of gross neglect and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time leading to the fatal injuries to the deceased Rakesh.
18. Furthermore, in view of the medical records, postmortem report placed on record by the petitioners, no doubt or dispute is left regarding the fatal injuries to the deceased Rakesh in the above accident.
19. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this Tribunal holds that MACT No. 398/22 Maya and Anr. Vs. United India Insurance & Ors. Page No. 9 of 18 HARUN PRATAP Digitally signed by HARUN PRATAP Date: 2025.07.25 16:30:07 +0530 the deceased Rakesh suffered fatal injuries on account of neglect and default of R-2 while driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. The issue at hand is thus decided against the respondents and in favour of the petitioners. Issue no. (ii) Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP.
20. On the basis of findings upon issue no. (i), it is clear that the incident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by R-2 and fatal injuries had been caused to the deceased in the incident. Hence, petitioners being the LRs and parents as well as dependents of the deceased are entitled to compensation in this case.
21. The issue at hand is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
LIABILITY
22. Now, the question arises as to which of the respondent is liable to pay the compensation amount. The respondent no. 2 Kamal Singh is the principal tort feasor being driver, while the respondent no. 3 is vicariously liable being the owner of the offending vehicle. However, it is pertinent to note that the respondent no. 1 i.e. Insurance Company has specifically admitted in its written statement that the offending vehicle was duly insured at the time of accident with respondent no. 3 vide policy no. 2507013121P102985694, in the name of M/s Singh Earth Movers i.e. R3 herein, with its validity from 01.07.2021 to 30.06.2022. At the same time, the respondent no. 1 has failed MACT No. 398/22 Maya and Anr. Vs. United India Insurance & Ors. Page No. 10 of 18 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date:
2025.07.25 16:30:13 +0530 to bring on record or to prove any breach of the terms or conditions of the said insurance policy by the respondents no. 2 and 3 in any manner.
23. Hence, on the basis of entire above stated facts and circumstances and discussion of evidence, this Tribunal is of the opinion that respondent no. 1 i.e. insurance company, is liable to pay the entire compensation to the petitioners on behalf of respondents no. 2 and 3, without any recovery rights.
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
24. As far as computation of compensation is concerned, the same shall be under the following heads :-
MEDICAL EXPENSES
25. It is clear from above stated facts and circumstances that the deceased had expired soon after the accident and no medical expenditure was undertaken by the petitioners in the treatment of the deceased before his death, hence, petitioners are not entitled to any compensation under this head on account of absence of any evidence brought on record in this regard.
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
26. In the present case, perusal of the Aadhar Card of Rakesh Ex. PW1/3 reveals that the deceased was aged about 16 years 2 months and the same has not been disputed in any manner by the respondents. Therefore, the deceased was thus aged about 16 years 2 months at the time of the incident resulting in his death on 07.03.2022.
27. Petitioner Sh. Kaluva (PW1) in his deposition has stated that at the time of accident, his deceased son was studying in 10 th class and that his son MACT No. 398/22 Maya and Anr. Vs. United India Insurance & Ors. Page No. 11 of 18 HARUN PRATAP Digitally signed by HARUN PRATAP Date: 2025.07.25 16:30:21 +0530 was a minor aged about 16 years. The fact that the deceased Rakesh was minor, aged about 16 years at the time of the accident is neither disputed nor denied by the respondents in any manner. Furthermore, the petitioners have contended that in case of a minor child, the monthly income is to be assessed as per the minimum wages of a skilled person at the relevant point of time. In support of the said contention, reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors.", civil appeal no. 735 of 2020, and judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as "National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors". MAC App no.
261/2022, wherein it has been held that the income in such cases is to be assessed on the basis of minimum wages on the assumption that the victim would have been able to earn after attaining majority.
Therefore, in view of the law laid down "Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors. (supra)" and "National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors (supra)", the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased victim at parity with minimum wages of "skilled worker" prevalent at the time of accident. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that the deceased and his entire family admittedly resided in the state of U.P. at the time of the accident. Therefore, this Tribunal has assessed the income of deceased at parity with minimum wages of "skilled worker" of U.P. prevalent at the time of accident i.e. Rs. 11,316/- per month on the date of accident.
28. Furthermore, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680", 40% addition shall be given to the deceased towards future MACT No. 398/22 Maya and Anr. Vs. United India Insurance & Ors. Page No. 12 of 18 HARUN PRATAP Digitally signed by HARUN PRATAP Date: 2025.07.25 16:30:26 +0530 prospects as he was below 40 years at the time of incident and was self employed. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased with 40% future prospects comes out to be Rs. 11,316/- + 4,526/- (11,316/- X 40/100) = Rs. 15,842/- per month.
29. As held above, the deceased Rakesh was unmarried and having his parents dependent upon him on the date of the incident. Therefore, both the original petitioners shall be treated as dependents of the deceased for the purpose of the present petition. Accordingly, half (1/2) of the earnings of the deceased Rakesh shall be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Therefore, in the entire given facts and circumstances, deduction of half (1/2) of total income is made for personal living expenses of deceased. Hence, an amount of Rs. 15,842/- (Rs. 15,842/2) is required to be deducted from monthly income of deceased. Finally, annual dependency of dependent is calculated as under (annual income) - (annual expenses of deceased) i.e. (Rs. 1,90,104/- - Rs. 95,052/-) = Rs. 95,052/- per annum.
30. Moreover, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of "Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr"., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of " National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi & Ors". SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, decided on 31.10.2017, the multiplier of '18' is held applicable for calculating the loss of dependency caused to the petitioners on account of death of the deceased. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the total loss of MACT No. 398/22 Maya and Anr. Vs. United India Insurance & Ors. Page No. 13 of 18 HARUN PRATAP Digitally signed by HARUN PRATAP Date: 2025.07.25 16:30:32 +0530 dependency qua the deceased in the present case comes out to be Rs. 95,052/- X 18= Rs. 17,10,936/-.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM / LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION
31. In "Magma Vs. General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Nanu Ram & Ors". 2018 ACJ 2782, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that '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 entire family. Spousal Consortium allows compensation to surviving spouse for loss of 'company, society, co-operation, affection and aid of the other in every conjugal relation'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed in said judgment that 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. Similarly, filial consortium is to be granted to each of the surviving dependent parents on the death of their child.
32. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the computation of compensation under this head is as follows :
Filial Consortium : Rs. 96,000/- (Rs. 48,000/- X 2) Spousal Consortium : Rs. 0/- (Rs. 48,000/- X 0) Parental Consortium : Rs. 0/- (Rs. 48,000/- X 0)
33. Hence, the petitioners are hereby awarded a total sum of Rs.
MACT No. 398/22 Maya and Anr. Vs. United India Insurance & Ors. Page No. 14 of 18 HARUN PRATAP Digitally signed by HARUN PRATAP Date: 2025.07.25 16:30:40 +0530 96,000/- on account of loss of consortium/loss of love and affection under this head.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
34. A total sum of Rs. 36,000/- is awarded in favour of petitioners under both the heads i.e. Rs. 18,000/- on account of 'loss of estate' and Rs.18,000/- for 'funeral expenses' of the deceased, as per the law laid down in "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." (Supra).
35. The total amount of compensation to be granted in favour of the petitioner in this case is thus Rs. 17,10,936/- + Rs. 96,000/- + Rs. 36,000/- = Rs. 18,42,936/-.
ISSUE NO.3 / RELIEF
36. In view of the the findings on the aforesaid issues, the petitioners are hereby awarded a sum of Rs. 18,42,936/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakh Forty Two Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Six only) along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its deposition by the insurer i.e. respondent no. 1. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award, if any, shall be excluded from the above amount and calculations of compensation.
RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION TO THE PETITIONERS
37. Finally, the petitioner no. 1 namely Ms. Maya ie. mother of deceased, is hereby awarded Rs. 10,42,936/-, out of which Rs. 9,00,000 is directed to be MACT No. 398/22 Maya and Anr. Vs. United India Insurance & Ors. Page No. 15 of 18 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date:
2025.07.25 16:30:45 +0530 kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch, Delhi bearing account no. 20780110171912; IFSC: UCBA0002078 in MACAD in the form of 45 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of Rs. 20,000/- payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 45 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her savings/MACT Claims SB Account, maintained with UCO Bank, KKD Branch, Delhi. The remaining amount of Rs. 1,42,936/- and the half of the interest component to be paid by the respondent no. 1 is directed to be released into the bank account of the petitioner no. 1 which can be withdrawn and utilized by her as per her volition.
38. Out of the aforesaid awarded amount, the petitioner no. 2 namely Sh. Kaluva ie. father of deceased, is hereby awarded Rs. 8,00,000/-, out of which Rs. 7,00,000 is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch, Delhi bearing account no. 20780110171912; IFSC: UCBA0002078 in MACAD in the form of 35 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of Rs. 20,000/- payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 35 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her savings/MACT Claims SB Account, maintained with UCO Bank, KKD Branch, Delhi. The remaining amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and the half of the interest component to be paid by the respondent no. 1 is directed to be released into the bank account of the petitioner no. 1 which can be MACT No. 398/22 Maya and Anr. Vs. United India Insurance & Ors. Page No. 16 of 18 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date:
2025.07.25 16:30:53 +0530 withdrawn and utilized by her as per her volition.
39. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody and copies of the same be provided to the petitioner with the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount.
(b) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant.
(c) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(d) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant / his guardian. 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.
(e) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court.
40. Respondent no. 1, being insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount with interest @ 8% per annum till date with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a for the period of delay. Concerned Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma MACT No. 398/22 Maya and Anr. Vs. United India Insurance & Ors. Page No. 17 of 18 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date:
2025.07.25 16:30:59 +0530 Court Branch is directed to transfer the share amount of the petitioners in their bank account / FDRs as per above-said directions, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. The Branch Manager, is further directed to keep the said amounts in fixed deposits in name of this Court in auto renewal mode every 15 days, till the claimants approach the bank for disbursement, so that the award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheques. Soft copy of the award be uploaded on official website of Delhi District Courts i.e. https://delhidistrictcourts.nic.in.
41. Form IV-A and Form-V, in terms of MCTAP, shall be read as part of the Award. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioner and also to counsel for the insurance company for compliance. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank passbooks and copy of residence proof of the petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
Announced in open Court on this
25th Day of July, 2025 Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2025.07.25
16:31:03
+0530
(HARUN PRATAP)
PO-(MACT-02), SHAHDARA
KKD COURTS/DELHI
MACT No. 398/22 Maya and Anr. Vs. United India Insurance & Ors. Page No. 18 of 18