Delhi District Court
Firoja Khatoon vs Afsaar on 18 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DR. SHIRISH AGGARWAL
PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-01, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
DLND010039422023
Misc DJ No. 591/23
1. Smt. Firoja Khatoon (Wife of deceased)
W/o Late Mohd. Vasim
2. Nuzhat (Minor Daughter of deceased)
D/o Late Mohd. Vasim
3. Alfa Naz (Minor Daughter of deceased)
D/o Late Mohd. Vasim
4. Mohd. Atif (Minor son of deceased)
S/o Late Mohd. Vasim
5. Mohd. Anas (Minor son of deceased)
S/o Late Mohd. Vasim
6. Smt. Rijwana Khatoon (Mother of deceased)
W/o Mohd. Daud
Claimants no. 2 to 5 being minors
represented through their mother as natural guardian
Smt. Firoja Khatoon/claimant no. 1 herein.
R/o Jhuggi No. 495, Cement Siding,
Shakur Basti, Saraswati Vihar, Delhi-110034.
.......Claimants
Misc DJ No. 591/23
Firoja Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Afsaar & Ors. 18.05.2026 Page 1/29
Versus
1. Mohd. Afsaar (Driver)
S/o Mohd. Jabbar,
R/o T-Huts 62, Cement Siding Railway Colony,
Shakur Basti, Saraswati Vihar, Delhi-110034.
2. Sh. Rajender (Owner)
S/o Sh. Ram Dulare,
R/o D-168-A, Gali No. 5, D Block,
Mahavir Enclave, Part III, New Delhi-110059.
3. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
th
6 Floor, Ansals Imperial Tower, C Block,
Community Centre, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi.
.........Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 26.04.2023
Date of framing of issues : 08.10.2024
Date of concluding arguments : 15.05.2026
Date of decision : 18.05.2026
AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. The claim for compensation raised in the present
Detailed Accident Report (DAR) is in respect of fatal injuries
alleged to have been sustained by the deceased Mohd. Vasim in a
motor accident that took place on 23.03.2023 at about 01:30 AM,
Sector-A, Vasant Kunj Bus Stop near Red Light, New Delhi,
regarding which FIR No.183/23 was registered at PS Vasant Kunj
South.
2. The offending vehicle involved in this case is a tempo
bearing registration No. DL-1LW-0280, which at the relevant time
Misc DJ No. 591/23
Firoja Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Afsaar & Ors. 18.05.2026 Page 2/29
of accident was being driven by respondent no. 1 Sh. Afsaar, owned
by respondent no. 2 Sh. Rajender and insured with respondent no. 3
IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Case of the claimants
3. It is the case of the claimants that on the intervening
night of 22/23.03.2023, the deceased along with Mohd. Sabir and
Mohd. Juber were coming from Rohini, Delhi after loading cement
bags in the tempo bearing registration No. DL-1LW-0280, which
was being driven by respondent no. 1 at a high speed and in a rash
and negligent manner. They requested the respondent no. 1 to drive
carefully and at a normal speed, but he did not listen to their request.
When they reached Sector A, Vasant Kunj Bus Stop near ILBS Red
Light, New Delhi, the respondent no. 1 lost his control over the
vehicle and dashed with the divider due to which the vehicle turned
turtle on the road and they sustained grievous injuries. It is further
stated that the deceased was taken to Safdarjung Hospital, New
Delhi where his MLC was prepared and he succumbed to his
injuries during the course of his treatment.
Case of respondents no. 1 & 2
4. Respondents no. 1 and 2 filed their joint reply/written
statement to the DAR wherein it is stated that respondent no. 1 was
driving the vehicle with due care and precaution after following
traffic rules and at a normal speed. It is further stated that they have
been falsely implicated in the present matter. It is further stated that
the alleged offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent no.
3 w.e.f. 22.03.2023 to 21.03.2024 in the name of respondent no. 2.
Misc DJ No. 591/23
Firoja Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Afsaar & Ors. 18.05.2026 Page 3/29
It is further stated that the site plan does not corroborate with the
story made by the complainant in the FIR.
Case of respondent no. 3
5. Respondent no. 3 filed its written statement to the DAR
wherein it is stated that the insured/respondent no. 2 had not
intimated the Insurance Company about the accident and therefore,
the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.
6. The next objection taken is that the deceased was
sitting at the backside of the alleged offending vehicle where cement
bags were kept and not in the driver's cabin.
7. Another objection is that the deceased was a
gratuitous/unauthorized passenger at the time of alleged accident. It
is stated that the insured has violated the terms and conditions of the
insurance policy.
8. It is also stated that the respondent no. 2 has not paid
the insurance premium under IMT 29 (Legal Liability to Employee)
of the insurance policy and therefore, no liability for compensation
can be fastened upon the insurer.
9. The next objection taken is that the passengers in the
tempo were more than the seating capacity which is driver plus two
persons, as is mentioned in the RC, and therefore, the insurer is not
liable to pay compensation to the deceased.
10. It is pertinent to mention that vide order dated
08.10.2024, three connected DARs bearing Nos. Misc DJ Nos.
590/23, 591/23 & 598/23 were consolidated for the purpose of trial
and Misc DJ No. 591/23 was directed to be treated as the lead case
Misc DJ No. 591/23
Firoja Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Afsaar & Ors. 18.05.2026 Page 4/29
for recording of evidence.
Issues
11. On 08.10.2024, the following consolidated issues were
framed by this Tribunal :-
1. Whether Mohd. Vasim (deceased in Misc DJ
No. 591/23) sustained fatal injuries, Mohd. Juber
(injured in Misc DJ No. 590/23) and Mohd. Sabir
(injured in Misc DJ No. 598/23) sustained
grievous injuries in the accident which occurred
on 23.03.2023 at about 01:30 am, Sector-A,
Vasant Kunj Bus Stop near ILBS Red Light, New
Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of
vehicle No. DL-1LW-0280 being driven by
respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and
insured with respondent no. 3 ? OPP.
2. Whether the claimants are entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and from
whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
Claimants' evidence
12. In support of their claim, the claimant no. 1 examined
herself as PW1. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit as
Ex. PW1/A and relied upon the following documents :-
(i). Ex. PW1/1 (OSR) is the copy of her Aadhaar card.
(ii). Ex. PW1/2 (OSR) is the copy of her PAN card.
(iii). Ex. PW1/3 (OSR) is the copy of Aadhaar card of claimant no.
2.
(iv). Ex. PW1/4 (OSR) is the copy of PAN card of claimant no. 2.
Misc DJ No. 591/23
Firoja Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Afsaar & Ors. 18.05.2026 Page 5/29
(v). Ex. PW1/5 (OSR) is the copy of Aadhaar card of claimant no. 3.
(vi). Ex. PW1/6 (OSR) is the copy of PAN card of claimant no. 3.
(vii). Ex. PW1/7 (OSR) is the copy of Aadhaar card of claimant no.
4.
(viii). Ex. PW1/8 (OSR) is the copy of PAN card of claimant no. 4.
(ix). Ex. PW1/9 (OSR) is the copy of Aadhaar card of claimant no.
5.
(x). Ex. PW1/10 (OSR) is the copy of PAN card of claimant no. 5.
(xi). Mark A is the copy of Aadhaar card of claimant no. 6.
(xii). Mark B is the copy of PAN card of claimant no. 6.
(xiii). Ex. PW1/13 (OSR) is the copy of Aadhaar card of deceased.
13. The claimants examined Mohd. Sabir, injured in the
connected matter as PW2. He tendered his evidence by way of
affidavit Ex. PW2/A and relied upon the following documents :-
(i). Ex. PW2/X is the copy of his MLC.
(ii). Ex. PW2//Y (colly) is his attested discharge summary dated
23.03.2023 filed by the IO in the DAR.
(iii). Ex. PW2/1 (OSR) is the copy of his Aadhaar card.
(iv). Ex. PW2/2 (OSR) is the copy of his PAN card.
(v). Ex. PW2/3 (colly) are the original treatment documents/OPD
cards/reports.
(vi). Ex. PW2/4 (colly) are his original medical bills.
14. The claimants also examined Mohd. Juber @ Juaiv,
injured in the connected matter as PW3. He tendered his evidence
by way of affidavit Ex. PW3/A and relied upon the following
documents :-
Misc DJ No. 591/23
Firoja Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Afsaar & Ors. 18.05.2026 Page 6/29
(i). Ex. PW3/X is the copy of his MLC.
(ii). Ex. PW3/Y (colly) is his attested discharge summary dated
23.03.2023 filed by the IO in the DAR.
(iii). Ex. PW3/1 (OSR) is copy of his Aadhaar card.
(iv). Mark A is the copy of his PAN card.
(v). Ex. PW3/3 (colly) are his original discharge summary and
original treatment documents/OPD cards/reports.
(vi). Ex. PW3/4 (colly) are his original medical bills.
15. All the aforesaid witnesses were cross-examined and
discharged.
Respondents'evidence
16. Respondent no.3/Insurance Company examined Ms.
Mansi Aggarwal, Senior Executive (Legal) from their company as
R3W1. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. R3W1/A
and relied upon the following documents :-
(i). Ex. R3W1/1 is the copy of original authorization letter.
(ii). Ex. R3W1/2 is the attested copy of insurance policy.
(iii). Ex. R3W1/3 (colly) is the copy of policy conditions pursuant to
policy number MT752660.
17. R3W1 was cross-examined and discharged.
Findings
18. I have heard arguments and have carefully perused the
entire case record.
19. The findings on the aforementioned issues are rendered
hereinafter in the succeeding paragraphs.
ISSUE NO. 1 - Whether Mohd. Vasim (deceased in Misc DJ No.
Misc DJ No. 591/23
Firoja Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Afsaar & Ors. 18.05.2026 Page 7/29
591/23) sustained fatal injuries, Mohd. Juber (injured in Misc DJ
No. 590/23) and Mohd. Sabir (injured in Misc DJ No. 598/23)
sustained grievous injuries in the accident which occurred on
23.03.2023 at about 01:30 am, Sector-A, Vasant Kunj Bus Stop near
ILBS Red Light, New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of
vehicle No. DL-1LW-0280 being driven by respondent no. 1, owned
by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3 ? OPP.
20. Onus to prove this issue was upon the claimants. The
claimant no. 1 has examined herself as PW1. Since PW1 herself
admitted that she is not an eye witness to the accident, her testimony
cannot be considered for determining if the vehicle was being driven
rashly and negligently.
21. The claimants examined Mohd. Sabir, injured in the
connected matter as PW2. He deposed that he along with the
deceased and Mohd. Vasim were coming from Rohini, Delhi after
loading cement bags in the tempo bearing registration No.
DL-1LW-0280, which was being driven by respondent no. 1 at a
high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. He further deposed
that they requested the respondent no. 1 to drive carefully and at a
normal speed, but he did not listen to their request. He further
deposed that when they reached Sector A, Vasant Kunj Bus Stop
near ILBS Red Light, New Delhi, the respondent no. 1 lost his
control over the vehicle and dashed with the divider due to which
the vehicle turned turtle on the road and he sustained grievous
injuries.
22. During cross-examination, he deposed that he was
Misc DJ No. 591/23
Firoja Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Afsaar & Ors. 18.05.2026 Page 8/29
sitting at the back side of the vehicle. He further deposed that the
accident took place at around 1-1:30 AM on 23.03.2023. He further
deposed that he was conscious even after the accident. He further
deposed that his statement was not recorded by the IO at any point
of time.
23. The victim Mohd. Juber examined as PW3 also
deposed on similar lines that the accident took place due to rash and
negligent driving of respondent no. 1.
24. The testimony of Mohd. Sabir and Mohd. Juber are
coherent and consistent. Nothing material could be elicited from
their cross-examination to disbelieve or discard their testimony.
25. The testimony of Mohd. Sabir and Mohd. Juber have
been duly corroborated with the DAR filed by the IO.
26. Reliance is being placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble
Delhi High Court in case Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Vs. Meera Devi & ors., 2021 LawSuit (Del) 2021 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."
27. Chargesheet was also filed against the driver of the
vehicle. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 has observed
that filing of charge sheet against the driver prima facie points
towards his complicity in driving the vehicle rashly and negligently.
It has been further observed that even when the accused were to be
Misc DJ No. 591/23
Firoja Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Afsaar & Ors. 18.05.2026 Page 9/29
acquitted in the criminal case, the same may be of no effect on the
assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident
cases by the Tribunal.
28. 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 on preponderance of probabilities and not beyond
reasonable doubt, as are required in a criminal prosecution.
Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court reported as (2009) 13 SC 530 in Bimla Devi and others Vs.
Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, wherein it has
been observed that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular
vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the
claimants and the claimants were merely to establish their case on
the touchstone of preponderance of probability.
29. Pertinently, respondent no. 1 himself was the best
witness who could have stepped into the witness box to rebut his
involvement in the aforesaid accident, which he has failed to do.
Therefore, an adverse inference is drawn against the respondent
no.1/driver in terms of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
passed in the case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
30. In view of foregoing discussion, it stands proved on
touchstone of preponderance of probability that Mohd. Vasim
sustained fatal injuries in the accident which took place due to rash
and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration
no. DL-1LW-0280 and the said vehicle at that time was being driven
Misc DJ No. 591/23
Firoja Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Afsaar & Ors. 18.05.2026 Page 10/29
by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured by
respondent no.3. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the
claimants and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2 - Whether the claimants are entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
31. As rashness and negligence on part of driver of the
offending vehicle/respondent No. 1 has been proved, the claimants
have become entitled to be compensated for death of deceased in the
said accident, but the computation of compensation and liability to
pay the same are required to be decided. The compensation to which
the claimants are entitled shall be under the heads as discussed
hereinafter.
(i) Loss of dependency
32. The claimant no. 1 being wife of the deceased stepped
into the witness box as PW1 and filed her evidence by way of
affidavit as Ex. PW1/A wherein she claimed that her deceased
husband was working as a helper/loader/labour and he used to load
and unload the cement bags at Delhi. She further deposed that her
deceased husband used to earn Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per
month. During cross-examination, she admitted that she has not
filed any document on record with respect to employment and
income of her deceased husband.
33. Since the employment and income of the deceased has
not been established on record, the minimum wages of unskilled
person is taken into account as per rates prevalent in Delhi, which
were Rs. 16,792/- per month at the time of accident.
Misc DJ No. 591/23
Firoja Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Afsaar & Ors. 18.05.2026 Page 11/29
34. In order to prove the age of deceased, PW1 has
tendered on record copy of Aadhaar card of deceased as Ex PW1/13
(OSR) in which the date of birth of deceased is found recorded as
01.01.1994. Hence, going by this document, the age of deceased
comes to around 29 years, 2 months and 21 days on the date of
accident. Accordingly, in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also
been approved by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi &
Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, the multiplier of '17' is applicable in the
present case.
35. Now coming to calculation of loss of dependency, the
present claim petition has been filed by the six claimants, i.e. wife,
children and mother of deceased. Hence, in terms of law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors.
(Supra) and Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), 1/4th earnings of deceased
shall be deducted towards his personal and living expenses.
36. In view of the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi
(Supra), the claimants are also held entitled to addition of 40% of
earning of the deceased towards future prospects. Thus, the loss of
dependency in the present case comes to Rs. 35,96,846/- (rounded
off) (Rs.16,792/- X 12 X 17 X 3/4 X 140/100).
(ii) COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY HEADS
37. To calculate compensation under the non-pecuniary
Misc DJ No. 591/23
Firoja Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Afsaar & Ors. 18.05.2026 Page 12/29
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
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...''
38. In terms of propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the claimants are also held entitled to amount of Rs.15,000/- each under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses, i.e. Rs.30,000/- under both heads. Further, in view of Full Court judgment dated Misc DJ No. 591/23 Firoja Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Afsaar & Ors. 18.05.2026 Page 13/29 30.06.2020 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. (2020) 06 SC CK 0036 (Civil Appeal Nos. 2705 and 2706 of 2020), the claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss of consortium', in addition to Rs.30,000/- granted under the conventional heads of 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses'.
39. Pertinently, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also held in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (Supra) that compensation awarded under the conventional heads shall be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years and a period of 6 years since then stands already expired. Hence, the claimant in this case is also entitled to an increase @ 10% on the amount awarded under the conventional head of 'loss of estate', 'funeral charges' and 'loss of consortium' after expiry of three years and further 10% after expiry of another three years.
40. The total compensation towards the non-pecuniary heads is calculated as under :-
i. Loss of Consortium : Rs.40,000/- + (10% of Rs.40,000/-)= Rs. 44,000/- + (10% of Rs. 44,000/-) = Rs. 48,400/- X 6 = Rs.2,90,400/-.
ii. Loss of Estate : Rs. 15,000/- + (10% of Rs.15,000/-) = Rs.16,500/- + (10% of Rs. 16,500/-) = Rs. 18,150/-. iii. Funeral Charges : Rs. 15,000/- + (10% of Rs.15,000/-) = Rs.16,500/- + (10% of Rs. 16,500/-) = Rs. 18,150/-.
41. Therefore, the total compensation towards the non pecuniary heads comes to Rs.3,26,700/-.
Misc DJ No. 591/23 Firoja Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Afsaar & Ors. 18.05.2026 Page 14/29ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
42. In view of finding on issue number 2, the claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.39,23,546/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakh Twenty Three Thousand Five Hundred Fourty Six only) (Rs.35,96,846/- + Rs.3,26,700/-) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of DAR. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be liable to be excluded from the award amount.
APPORTIONMENT
43. Out of the awarded amount, 50% amount is being awarded to claimant no. 1, i.e. wife of deceased and the remaining 10% share is being awarded to children and mother of deceased, i.e. claimant no. 2 to 6.
RELEASE
44. Out of amount awarded to the claimant no. 1, 80% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in form of 115 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 115 months in succession, as per scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as implemented vide subsequent order dated 07.12.2018 and order dated 08.01.2021 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her Misc DJ No. 591/23 Firoja Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Afsaar & Ors. 18.05.2026 Page 15/29 savings/MACT Claims SB Account, opened/to be opened near the place of her residence, as directed vide order dated 26.04.2023 and the remaining 20% amount is also directed to be released into her above said account, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by her.
45. The entire shares of claimants no. 2 to 5 shall be kept in FDRs for the period till they attain the age of majority. However, the monthly interest accrued thereon shall be released in the bank account of their mother Smt. Firoja Khatoon in order to meet their educational and other expenses and amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in their respective saving/MACT Claims SB Accounts opened/to be opened near the place of their residence, as directed vide order dated 26.04.2023.
46. Out of amount awarded to the claimant no. 6, 90% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in form of 36 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 36 months in succession, as per scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as implemented vide subsequent order dated 07.12.2018 and order dated 08.01.2021 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her savings/MACT Claims SB Account, opened/to be opened near the place of her residence, as directed vide order dated 26.04.2023 and the remaining 10% amount is also directed to be released into her Misc DJ No. 591/23 Firoja Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Afsaar & Ors. 18.05.2026 Page 16/29 above said account, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by her.
47. The disbursement to the claimants is, however, subject to addition of future interest till deposit proportionately and also deduction of proportionate tax on the interest amount or amount of interim award, if any, to/from their shares.
48. The bank shall not permit any joint names to be added in the savings bank accounts or MACAD scheme accounts of claimants i.e. the bank account of claimants shall be individual account and not a joint account.
49. The original fixed deposits shall be retained by the UCO Bank, PHC, New Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR numbers, amounts, dates of maturity and maturity amounts shall be furnished by the said bank to the claimants and the above amount shall be released in accounts of claimants by the Manager, UCO Bank, PHC, ND through RTGS/NEFT/or any other electronic mode.
50. The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank accounts of the claimants near the place of their residence.
51. The maturity amount of the FDR (s) on monthly basis net of TDS be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the above accounts of claimants.
52. No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the MACAD without permission of the Court.
Misc DJ No. 591/23 Firoja Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Afsaar & Ors. 18.05.2026 Page 17/2953. 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 the claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimants from any other branch of the bank.
54. The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimants 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 claimants shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
55. It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook of the claimants is sufficient compliance of clause above.
LIABILITY
56. Respondent no. 3 filed its written statement to the DAR wherein it is stated that the insured/respondent no. 2 had not intimated the Insurance Company about the accident and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. However, during the course of final arguments, Ld. Counsel for respondents no. 3 admitted that giving of notice to the Insurance Company is only a procedural requirement.
57. Ld. Counsel for Insurance Company has not shown any law on the consequences that should follow if such notice is not Misc DJ No. 591/23 Firoja Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Afsaar & Ors. 18.05.2026 Page 18/29 given to the Insurance Company. The Tribunal is of the opinion that even if such notice is not given, it shall have no bearing on the liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation.
58. The next objection taken is that the deceased was sitting at the backside of the offending vehicle where cement bags were kept and not in the driver's cabin. It is contended that since the deceased was not in the cabin of the driver, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. It is also stated that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.
59. The Insurance Company examined Ms. Mansi Aggarwal, Senior Executive (Legal) from their Company as R3W1. She deposed that the deceased Mohd. Vasim along with two injured persons were not traveling inside the cabin and were sitting at the backside of the tempo with cement bags. She further deposed that the seating capacity of TATA 407 is driver + 2 which is specifically mentioned in RC and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.
60. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for claimants admitted that the deceased was sitting at the back side of the tempo and not in the driver's cabin.
61. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rattani, Civil Appeal No. 7399 of 2008, decided on 18.12.2008. In this case, reference was made to the previous decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Misc DJ No. 591/23 Firoja Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Afsaar & Ors. 18.05.2026 Page 19/29 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Baljit Kaur (2004) 2 SCC 1. In the case of Baljit Kaur, following the decision in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani, it was held that inspite of Amendment of 1994, the effect of provision of Section 147 with respect to persons other than the owner of the goods or his authorized representative remains the same. It was held that the owner of the goods and his authorized representative would be covered by the policy.
62. The other Judgment in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prabhakar of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 does not apply to the facts of the present case. In this case, the offending vehicle was a delivery van with carrying capacity of two persons including the driver. It was noted that there were 31 persons in the vehicle and therefore, the vehicle was used predominately for carrying passengers. The question which had arisen before the Hon'ble High Court that the passenger was gratuitous passengers or fell within the meaning of owner of the goods occupying seat in the goods vehicle so as to extend benefit of statutory cover in terms of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Having observed that since 31 persons had boarded the light goods carriage, there could not have been space for carriage of goods and hence, the case of claimants that they were traveling with goods could not be accepted. However, in the present case, it is not in dispute that the cement bags were being transported in the truck and the deceased was sitting where the cement bags were kept. Therefore, it cannot be held that he was a gratuitous Misc DJ No. 591/23 Firoja Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Afsaar & Ors. 18.05.2026 Page 20/29 passenger. He was in the category of authorized representative of owner of the goods.
63. In the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Baljeet Kaur, 2004 (2) SCC 1, the full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that the victim was traveling as a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle. It was held that the intention of the Legislature was not to provide for the liability of insurer for such a passenger. However, it was directed that the Insurance Company will pay the compensation amount and then recover it from the owner of the vehicle.
64. Similarly, in Shri Ram General Insurance Company Vs. Anila Devi, MAC Appeal No. 1139/2018, decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 24.07.2019, the Insurance Company was made liable to pay compensation, but was held entitled to recover it from the owner of the vehicle. In this case, the three victims (Sh. Buchun Singh, Sh. Pawan Yadav and Sh. Dalip Yadav) were traveling as gratuitous passengers and were sitting on the rear side of the goods vehicle, i.e. truck. They were traveling with two more persons - Sh. Arvind Yadav and Sh. Nanhu and the truck was being driver by Kailash Mandal. The truck was loaded with cement bags. It was being driven rashly and negligently due to which it struck against a divider of the road and turned upside down. The passengers fell and three of them died. It was alleged that they were gratuitous passengers and number of passengers in the truck was more than the permitted capacity. Yet, the Hon'ble High Court directed the insurance company to pay the compensation, though Misc DJ No. 591/23 Firoja Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Afsaar & Ors. 18.05.2026 Page 21/29 granted it recovery rights against the owner of the vehicle.
65. In view of the above decisions, in the present case as well, even though the victims were not traveling in the driver's cabin, were sitting on the rear side of the vehicle and were gratuitous passengers, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation, but is entitled to recover it from the owner of the offending vehicle, i.e. respondent no. 2.
66. The next objection taken is that the passengers in the tempo were more than the seating capacity which is driver plus two persons, as is mentioned in the RC, and therefore, the insurer is not liable to pay compensation to the deceased.
67. In the case of Bharatbhai Shamjibhai Vs. Mukeshbhai Usmanbhai First Appeal No.619/2016 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat on 06.01.2025, the victims were traveling in goods vehicle with 12-13 more passengers. They sat just behind driver's cabin in the truck which was loaded with iron gates and bars. It was observed that the evidence indicated that they were traveling as gratuitous passengers alongwith their goods. Relying upon various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was held that claimants were third party and traveling as gratuitous passengers. It was noted that goods vehicle was used for carrying passengers, which was a violation of the terms of insurance policy. However, it was held that since the claimants were third parties, they cannot suffer on such technicalities, whether compensation is payable by the owner or insurance company. It was held that the contract of insurance policy was a comprehensive policy. The insurance company was directed Misc DJ No. 591/23 Firoja Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Afsaar & Ors. 18.05.2026 Page 22/29 to pay compensation, but liberty was granted to recover it from the owner of the vehicle.
68. In the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Tarabai Gulabrao Shelke, FA No. 193/2016, decided by the High Court of Bombay on 17.06.2019, it was argued that at the time of accident, the driver was carrying six passengers in the goods vehicle when the capacity of that tempo was 1 + 2, which is a breach of condition of the insurance policy. Relying upon various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was held that the breach of the insurance policy was not a fundamental breach to exonerate the Insurance Company in toto and that it has to pay compensation to the victim and later on recover it from the owner of the vehicle.
69. In view of foregoing discussion, even though the number of passengers in the tempo were more than the permitted capacity, it is held that the insurance company will pay compensation to the claimants, but will have recovery rights against the respondent no. 2/registered owner of the vehicle.
70. In the given facts and circumstances, all the respondents are held jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to claimants, but respondent no.3 being insurer of offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of DAR by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in bank account being maintained in the above said bank in name of this tribunal within 30 days from today, failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the Misc DJ No. 591/23 Firoja Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Afsaar & Ors. 18.05.2026 Page 23/29 period of delay. In case even after lapse of 90 days from today, respondent no. 3 fails to deposit this compensation with interest, in that event, in light of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal 2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of respondent no. 3 with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.
71. The respondent no.3 shall inform the claimants and their counsels through registered post that the awarded amount has been deposited so as to facilitate them to collect the same.
72. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost or be sent to them by email. Ahlmad is directed to send a copy of the award to Ld. JMFC concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Judgment titled as Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. passed in FAO No.842/2003 dated 12.12.2014.
73. Further, Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 08.01.2021.
74. The particulars of Form-XVII of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, in terms of directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 08.01.2021, are as under:
1. Date of the accident 22/23.03.2023
2. Date of filing of Form I- First Not given Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the Not given Misc DJ No. 591/23 Firoja Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Afsaar & Ors. 18.05.2026 Page 24/29 victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from Not given the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from Not given the owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- Not given Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Not given Form VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing Form-VII-
of 26.04.2023 Detailed Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or No deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Not given Designated Officer by the Insurance Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of No the Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or Yes deficiencies on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the claimant(s) Legal offer not filed of the offer of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 18.05.2026
15. Whether the claimant(s) were Yes directed to open savings bank Misc DJ No. 591/23 Firoja Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Afsaar & Ors. 18.05.2026 Page 25/29 account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) 26.04.2023 were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant (s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17. Date on which the claimant(s) Yet to furnish produced the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of As mentioned above the claimant(s)
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings Yet to furnish bank account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were Yes examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
75. File be consigned to record room after compliance of necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 19.08.2026. Digitally signed by SHIRISH SHIRISH AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2026.05.18 16:31:46 +0530 Announced in the open court (Shirish Aggarwal) on 18.05.2026 PO/MACT-01, New Delhi Encl: SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM XV Misc DJ No. 591/23 Firoja Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Afsaar & Ors. 18.05.2026 Page 26/29 SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM XV
1. Date of accident 22/23.03.2023
2. Name of the deceased Mohd. Vasim
3. Age of the deceased 29 years, 2 months and 21 days
4. Occupation of the deceased Minimum wages of unskilled worker in Delhi
5. Income of the deceased Rs.16,792/- per month
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased :
Sl. No. Name Age Relation
i) Firoja Khatoon 25 years Wife
ii) Nujhat Praveen 08 years Daughter
iii) Alfa Naz 07 years Daughter
iv) Mohd. Atif 05 years Son
v) Mohd. Anas 02 years Son
vi) Rijwana Khatoon 61 years Mother
Sl. No. Head Amount Awarded
(Rs.)
7. Income of deceased (A) Rs.16,792/-
8. Add : Future Prospects (B) Rs. 6,716.8/-
9. Less-Personal expenses of the Rs. 5,877.2/-
deceased (C)
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs. 17,631.6/-
[(A+B) - C = D] Misc DJ No. 591/23 Firoja Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Afsaar & Ors. 18.05.2026 Page 27/29
11. Annual loss of dependency Rs.2,11,579/-
(D x 12) 12. Multiplier 17
13. Total loss of dependency Rs.35,96,846/-
(D x 12 x E = F)
14. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15. Compensation for loss of love Nil and affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of Rs.2,90,400/-
consortium (I)
17. Compensation for loss of estate Rs.18,150/-
(J)
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs.18,150/-
expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.39,23,546/-
(F + G + H + I + J+K =L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST 7.5% pa from date of AWARDED filing of DAR till the date of award to be deposited within 30 days and 9% thereafter.
21. Interest amount up to the date of Rs.9,00,781/-
award (M)
22. Total amount including interest Rs.48,24,327/-
(L + M) (rounded off to
Rs. 48,24,500/-)
23. Award amount released P-1=20% share
P-2=Nil
P-3=Nil
P-4=Nil
Misc DJ No. 591/23
Firoja Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Afsaar & Ors. 18.05.2026 Page 28/29
P-5=Nil
P-6=10% share
24. Award amount kept in FDRs/ P-1=80% share MACAD P-2=Entire share P-3=Entire share P-4=Entire share P-5=Entire share P-6=90% share
25. Mode of disbursement of the Through Bank award amount to claimant(s)
26. Next date for compliance of the 19.08.2026 award Digitally signed by SHIRISH SHIRISH AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2026.05.18 16:32:01 +0530 (Shirish Aggarwal) PO/MACT-01, New Delhi 18.05.2026 Misc DJ No. 591/23 Firoja Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Afsaar & Ors. 18.05.2026 Page 29/29