Delhi District Court
Nanda Devi And Ors vs Ashish Sahani And Anr on 30 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF GUNJAN GUPTA: DISTRICT
JUDGE-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-01, (WEST), TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
AWARD/JUDGMENT
MACT Case No.266/2022
CNR No.-DLWT010034012022
1. Nanda Devi (Wife of deceased)
W/o Late Alok Dubey
2. Vihan @ Shashank Dubey (Son of deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Alok Kumar Dubey
3. Neelam Dubey (Mother of deceased)
W/o Sh. Yamuna Prasad Dubey
4. Yamuna Prasad Dubey (Father of deceased)
S/o Sh. Rajnath Dubey
(Petitioner No.2 being minor is representing through his
mother/petitioner no.1)
All R/o F-64A, Block F, Shyam Vihar Phase-1, Near Misri
Devi School, Dindar Pur, South West, Delhi-110043.
.............petitioners
Versus
1. Ashish Sahani (Driver-cum-owner)
S/o Sh. K. K. Sahani
R/o B-4/5, DDU Hospital Complex, Hari Nagar, New
Delhi-110064
Also At:
B4 Second Floor Near Ramgariya Gurudwara,
Delhi-110064
2. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
Through its Regional Manager,
Nanda Devi & vs. Ashish Sahani & Anr.
MACT No.266/2022 Page no.1 of 26
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.05.02
16:30:52 +0530
Office: A-2, 1st Floor, Kirti Nagar, Main Najafgarh Road,
Near Kalra Hospital, New Delhi-110015
........ Respondent(s)
Date of Institution of case : 13.04.2022 Date of pronouncement of order/judgment : 30.04.2026 FORM-XVII COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
1. Date of the accident 14.09.2021
2. Date of filing of Form-I - N.A. First Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II N.A. to the victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III N.A. from the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV N.A. from the Owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- N.A. Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA N.A. and Form-VIB from the Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - N.A. Detailed Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay No or deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Date not mentioned Designated Officer by the Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated --
Officer of the Insurance Nanda Devi & vs. Ashish Sahani & Anr.
MACT No.266/2022 Page no.2 of 26 Digitally signed by GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2026.05.02 16:30:57 +0530 Company submitted his report within 30 days of the petition/DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay --
or deficiency on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the Legal offer was not filed by claimant(s) to the offer of the insurance company in the Insurance Company present matter
14. Date of the award 30.04.2026
15. Whether the claimant(s) Yes was/were directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which 01.10.2024 claimant(s) was/were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Aadhaar 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.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) 12.02.2026 and 02.04.2026 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 All R/o F-64A, Block F, Address of the claimant(s). Shyam Vihar Phase-1, Near Misri Devi School, Dindar Pur, South West, Delhi-110043 Nanda Devi & vs. Ashish Sahani & Anr.
MACT No.266/2022 Page no.3 of 26
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.05.02
16:31:01 +0530
19. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
savings bank account(s) is/are
near his/her/their place of
residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
was/were examined at the
time of passing of the award
to ascertain his/her/their
financial condition?
AWARD
FACTUAL MATRIX & PLEADINGS
1. Vide this award, this Tribunal shall decide claim petition filed by the petitioners seeking compensation on account of the fatal injuries sustained by deceased Alok Kumar Dubey in a road vehicular accident which took place on 14.09.2021 at about 7:45 AM at Greater Noida Expressway within jurisdiction of PS Noida Sector-39 (Gautam Budh Nagar), UP. CASE OF THE PETITIONER 2.1 Brief facts of the case as set out in the petition are as follows:-
2.2 On 14.09.2021, Sh. Alok Kumar Dubey (hereinafter referred as "deceased) was going towards Noida Sector 93A on his motorcycle bearing registration no. DL7SAX7005. When he reached at Greater Noida Expressway within jurisdiction of PS Noida, Sector-39, Gautam Budh Nagar, a car bearing registration no. DL9CAL6132 (hereinafter referred as "Offending Vehicle"), driven by its driver at high speed, in rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of the deceased. Thereafter, the offending vehicle also hit another Car bearing registration no. DL7LS3982, driven by one Ms. Neha Trikha. Due to forceful impact, the Nanda Devi & vs. Ashish Sahani & Anr.
MACT No.266/2022 Page no.4 of 26
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.05.02 16:31:05
+0530
deceased fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries and ultimately succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The deceased was 25 years of age at the time of accident and was doing private job and used to earn Rs.30,000/- per month. FIR No. 0740/2021 under Section 279/304A/427 IPC PS Noida Sector-39, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP was registered against respondent no.1. It is averred that the respondent no.01 being driver-cum-owner and respondent no.02 being the insurer of offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. REPLY OF RESPONDENT NO.1
3. Respondent no.1 filed his written statement averring that the petitioners have not come before this Court with clean hands and have suppressed the material facts from this Court.
No cause of action ever arose in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent no.1 at any point of time. Respondent no.1 has been falsely implicated in the present case and the alleged accident did not occur on account of rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.1 rather the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration no. DL7LS3982 which was being driven by Smt. Neha Trikha. The deceased came in contract with the vehicle driven by Ms. Neha Trikha. Smt. Neha Trikha while driving her vehicle rashly and negligently applied immediate brakes due to which, the vehicle of respondent no.1 which he was driving just behind the vehicle of Neha Trikha collided with her vehicle. The respondent no.1 took the deceased to the hospital and has no Nanda Devi & vs. Ashish Sahani & Anr.
MACT No.266/2022 Page no.5 of 26
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.05.02
16:31:08 +0530
direct role in the accident. The present petition is bad for non joinder of necessary party. Other contents of the petition were denied by respondent no.1 praying for dismissal of the petition. REPLY OF RESPONDENT NO.2.
4. Respondent no.2 filed its written statement averring that deceased had sustained fatal injuries due to his sole negligence as he was driving his motorcycle negligently and without proper care and caution. The present petition is also bad for non joinder of necessary parties as the owner and insurer of motorcycle bearing No. DL7SAX7005 not joined as respondents. The petitioners have filed the claim petition in collusion with the respondent no.1 and police who has registered the false criminal case. It is admitted that the vehicle bearing registration no. DL09CAL6132 was insured with it vide policy no. 01779010140000 valid for the period from 31.08.2021 to 30.08.2022. Apart from the above, the respondent no.2 denied all other averments of petition and prayed for dismissal of the same. ISSUES
5. Vide order dated 15.11.2022, Ld. Predecessor of this tribunal framed the following issues :-
1. Whether the deceased Alok Kumar sustained fatal injuries in the accident that took place on 14.09.2021 at about 07:45 am at Noida Express Way towards Pari Chowk, Greater Noida, UP within jurisdiction of PS Noida Sector-39, UP due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle (Car) bearing registration No. DL9CAL6132 by the respondent no.1 Ashish Sahani, also owned by him and insured with the respondent no.2?OPP.
Nanda Devi & vs. Ashish Sahani & Anr.
MACT No.266/2022 Page no.6 of 26
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.05.02
16:31:11 +0530
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, of what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE 6.1 Petitioners examined Smt. Nanda Devi, wife of the deceased/ petitioner no.1 as PW1. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. She relied upon copy of her Aadhar Card as Ex.PW1/1(OSR), copy of Aadhar of Vihan as Ex.PW1/2(OSR), copy of Aadhar Card of Neelam Dubey as Ex.PW1/3, copy of Aadhar Card of Yamuna Prasad Dubey as Ex.PW1/4, copy of Aadhar Card of deceased as Ex.PW1/5 and copy of criminal case record as Mark A in her evidence. (Certified copy of the criminal case record was filed on 08.05.2023). She was examined, cross-examined and discharged. 6.2 Petitioners have also examined Ms. Neha Trikha, as PW-2. She deposed that she resides at Faridabad and was working at S-135, Noida, UP. She deposed that on 14.09.2021 at about 07:45 AM, she reached at Noida Express Way, in her Creta Car bearing registration number DL-7CS-3982 and was around 3 km on said express way, when one Honda Amaze Car hit her vehicle on left side while it was trying to overtake her from left side. She further deposed that it had hit the left side of bumper of her car. She further deposed that she stopped her car and the Honda Amaze car also stopped adjoining her car on its left side. She deposed that on the right side of her car, there was railing which divides the road of both sides. She deposed that she came out from the left side of the car after the driver of Honda Amaze Nanda Devi & vs. Ashish Sahani & Anr.
MACT No.266/2022 Page no.7 of 26
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.05.02
16:31:14 +0530
car removed his vehicle and parked his car in front of her car on the asking of the passer's by. She further deposed that the police came at the spot in some time and after some time, she noticed that public has gathered around 50 meters behind them. She deposed that she came to know that the same Honda Amaze car has hit one motorcycle before hitting her car and the public gathered at the spot asked the driver of Honda Amaze car to shift the injured to hospital in same car. She further deposed that the Honda Amaze car was taken back and the injured who was traveling on motorcycle was shifted in the said car to be further shifted to the hospital. She has however not seen the injured motorcyclist by herself. She further deposed that she was informed about the shifting of the injured by the same Honda Amaze car by the public gathered at the spot and by the police, however, she had seen the motorcycle lying at the spot. The witness deposed that the driver of Honda Amaze car must have hit the motorcycle and her car within time span of 5 - 15 seconds as the driver of Honda Amaze car was driving it at very high speed. She further deposed that the FIR of the incident was lodged on her statement. She further deposed that the driver of Honda Amaze car has hit her car while driving his vehicle negligently. In her cross-examination, she stated that at the time of incident, there was no marking of lanes on the road. She deposed that her car was at a speed of 45-50 Km/hr at the time of incident and the speed of Honda Amaze car was 80 Km/hr. She stated that her vehicle was damaged only from front side. The witness stated that there were no damages on the left side due to footstep on the left side of the vehicle and she had stopped her Nanda Devi & vs. Ashish Sahani & Anr.
MACT No.266/2022 Page no.8 of 26
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.05.02
16:31:19 +0530
vehicle diligently to avoid damages. The witness admitted that she has not filed any claim for damage of her vehicle against respondent no.1. She deposed that motorcycle was lying in the middle of the road. The witness stated that she has not seen the Honda Amaze Car hitting the motorcycle. The witness denied the suggestion of the counsels.
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE
7. The respondent no. 1 examined himself as RW1. He tendered his affidavit of evidence as Ex.RW1/A. He relied upon photographs showing the offending vehicle collided with other vehicle of Neha Trikha as Ex.RW1/1(colly). In his cross- examination, the witness stated that his car was not involved in the accident, infact, he was passing by from the place of accident and when he saw the accident, he got out from the car and took the injured to hospital. The witness admitted that he had not made any complaint regarding the FIR registered against him. ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER 8.1 It was argued by Ld. Counsel for petitioners that the respondent no.1 in his evidence has admitted that FIR in question was registered against him at the complaint of Ms. Neha Trikha and he did not file any complaint regarding the abovesaid FIR. It was submitted that the respondent no.1 has also admitted that in the photographs Ex.RW-1/1 (colly) his Car was damaged from front side and had also hit with another Car and, therefore, the said fact coupled with the fact that charge-sheet has been filed against him under Section 279/304A IPC shows that the respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and had caused the accident in question. The Ld. Nanda Devi & vs. Ashish Sahani & Anr.
MACT No.266/2022 Page no.9 of 26
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.05.02 16:31:23
+0530
counsel relied upon the the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of "Ranjeet & Anr. vs. Abdul Kayam Neh& Anr." in support of his contentions. It was submitted by Ld. Counsel for petitioner no.1 &2 that all the petitioners were dependent upon the deceased at the time of accident and keeping in view the above, the award may be passed by this Tribunal as per entitlement of petitioners. However, Ld. Counsel for petitioner no.3 & 4 submits that petitioner no.1 is not entitled to any compensation as she has remarried.
ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 8.2 It was argued by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 that the respondent no.1 has been falsely implicated in the matter and the accident in question was caused by Ms. Neha Trikha who was driving the other vehicle i.e. the Creta Car. Ld. Counsel submitted that the respondent no.1 had a valid driving license and the offending vehicle was duly insured and liability, if any, shall be that of insurance company.
ARGUMENTS OF Ld. COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 8.3 It was argued by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2 that the factum of the accident is itself in question as PW-2 who has been examined as eye witness of the accident in question, by the petitioners, has denied witnessing the accident during her cross-examination. Ld. Counsel submitted that the petitioners have not filed any income or educational proof of the deceased Alok Kumar Dubey and therefore, the income of the deceased shall be calculated as per applicable minimum wages and further, since the father is stated to be have been serving in the Air Force, he cannot be considered as dependent.
Nanda Devi & vs. Ashish Sahani & Anr.
MACT No.266/2022 Page no.10 of 26
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.05.02
16:31:29 +0530
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS ON ISSUES
ISSUE NO. 1
1. Whether the deceased Alok Kumar
sustained fatal injuries in the accident that took place on 14.09.2021 at about 07:45 am at Noida Express Way towards Pari Chowk, Greater Noida, UP within jurisdiction of PS Noida Sector-39, UP due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle (Car) bearing registration No. DL9CAL6132 by the respondent no.1 Ashish Sahani, also owned by him and insured with the respondent no.2?OPP.
9.1 Before adverting to the facts of the case, at the very outset, it would be apposite to note here that strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The standard of proof is not as strict as in criminal cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities only. In fact, the burden of proof in a claim petition under the M.V. Act, is even lesser than a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of "Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors." (2009) 13 SC 530, "Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and Ors." 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and "Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.", 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc. 9.2 Keeping in mind the aforesaid legal preposition, this Tribunal has gone through the testimony of the witnesses and entire material available on record. This Tribunal has also given its thoughtful consideration to arguments addressed by Ld. Nanda Devi & vs. Ashish Sahani & Anr.
MACT No.266/2022 Page no.11 of 26
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.05.02
16:31:32 +0530
Counsels for the parties and the judgments cited on record. 9.3 To prove the rashness and negligence of the offending vehicle, the petitioners have examined two witnesses namely Ms. Nanda Devi/wife of the deceased as PW-1 and Ms. Neha Trikha as PW-2.
9.4 PW-1 has categorically stated in her examination in chief that the accident in question was caused by the offending vehicle driven by its driver in high speed, rashly and negligently and without caring for the traffic rules, due to which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and finally succumbed to the said injuries. In her evidence, she relied upon the copies of criminal case record amongst other documents i.e. Aadhar Cards of the petitioners and the deceased. The witness was cross- examined but nothing favourable to the respondent's came on record. The documents relied upon by PW-1 remained unrebutted.
9.5 Further PW2 Neha Trikha has stated in her evidence that one Honda Amaze Car hit the vehicle driven by her i.e. Creta Car bearing No DL-7CS-3982 on the left side on the bumper, while trying to overtake her car from the left side. She has deposed that when she came out of her car, she noticed that some people had gathered around 50 meters behind her and she came to know that the said Honda Amaze car had hit one motorcycle before hitting her car. She deposed that she did not see the accident or the injured herself but had seen the motorcycle lying at the spot. She further stated that the motorcyclist and her car might have been hit within a span of 5-15 seconds as the driver of the Honda Amaze Car was driving it at the very high speed i.e. Nanda Devi & vs. Ashish Sahani & Anr.
MACT No.266/2022 Page no.12 of 26
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.05.02
16:31:36 +0530
around 80 Km/hr. In the cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for respondent no.1 no questions were put to the witness as to her statement in chief and merely suggestions were given which were denied by the witness. During the cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for the respondent No.2, the witness admitted that her vehicle had suffered damages only on the front side. She further stated that no damages were caused on the left side of the car due to the footstep on her vehicle on the left side and as she stopped the vehicle diligently to avoid damages. Nothing favourable to respondents came on record in the cross-examination by Ld. counsel for respondent no.2.
9.6 Thus, the testimony of the witness PW2 as to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1 and the causation of the accident in question by respondent no.1 remained unrebutted and uncontroverted. The presence of the witness at the spot and collision of her vehicle with the vehicle of respondent no.1 is not disputed at all by the respondents.
9.7 It is pertinent to mention here that the respondent no.1 in his examination-in-chief has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the matter by the police official of Sector 39 Noida, UP in collusion with Smt. Neha Trikha. He has stated that Smt. Neha Trikha was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently at high speed and the deceased suddenly came in contact of the vehicle driven by her and Smt. Neha Trikha applied immediate brake resultantly, causing the vehicle of the respondent no.1 which was being driven behind her vehicle, to collide with the vehicle of Neha Trikha. However, in his cross-
Nanda Devi & vs. Ashish Sahani & Anr.
MACT No.266/2022 Page no.13 of 26
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.05.02
16:31:39 +0530
examination, respondent no.1 stated that his car was not involved in the accident and he was passing by from the place of accident and when he saw the accident, he got out from his car and took the injured in his car to the hospital. Further, in the cross- examination by Ld. Counsel for petitioner no.1 & 2, the respondent no.1 admitted that the FIR bearing No. 0740/2021 was registered against him on the complaint of Ms. Neha Trikha. He further admitted not having made any complaint against the FIR filed against him and also admitted that in the photographs Ex.RW1/1(Colly), his car was damaged from front side and can be seen hit with another car.
9.8 It is important to note here that in the WS and in his examination in chief, the respondent no.1 has casually stated that suddenly, the deceased came in contact with vehicle being driven by Ms. Neha Trikha without specifying any details of the accident i.e. the manner of the accident and whether the motorcycle of the deceased was being driven behind, ahead or by the side of the car of Ms. Neha Trikha etc. If the respondent no.1 had witnessed the accident himself, he would have been in the best position to state clearly and in detail all the facts as to the happening of the accident in question but instead, the respondent no.1 has tried to divert the entire blame of the accident in question upon Ms. Neha Trikha against whom he has chosen to take no action whatsoever. Further the testimony of respondent no.1 has also been contradicted by the photographs of the incident relied upon by himself i.e.Ex.RW1/1(colly) wherein it can be clearly seen that the offending vehicle and another white car have collided against each other from the sides and not from Nanda Devi & vs. Ashish Sahani & Anr.
MACT No.266/2022 Page no.14 of 26
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.05.02
16:31:44 +0530
the back or front as alleged by respondent no.1. In the said photographs the offending vehicle can be seen to have collided with another car bearing no. DL7CS3982 (stated to be the car of Ms. Neha Trikha) from its driver side. In the photographs and as also admitted it can be clearly seen that the offending vehicle is also damaged from the front side and the airbags are out from both the sides of the vehicle. Thus, these photographs relied upon by respondent no.1 himself totally discredit his story that he was driving the vehicle behind the vehicle of Ms. Neha Trikha and upon immediate application of brakes by her, his vehicle collided with her vehicle.
9.9 There is nothing on record to suggest that the respondent no.1 had made any complaint against Ms. Neha Trikha or had registered any FIR against her regarding the hitting of his Car by Ms. Neha Trikha while driving her car rashly and negligently. Admittedly, there is no complaint filed by respondent no.1 regarding his false implication and even no evidence has been brought on record that any action has been taken by him for quashing of the criminal proceedings against him in the FIR No.0740/2021.
9.10 Further, respondent no.1 namely Ashish Sahani has been charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 279/304A IPC by the Investigating Agency after arriving at the conclusion, on the basis of detailed investigation carried out by it, that the accident in question had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1. 9.11 Even the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle suggests major damages on the offending Nanda Devi & vs. Ashish Sahani & Anr.
MACT No.266/2022 Page no.15 of 26
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.05.02
16:31:47 +0530
vehicle and corroborates the case of the petitioners as well as the statement of PW-2.
9.12 Thus, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the testimony of the witnesses and evidence on record is that the respondent no. 1 was driving the offending vehicle on the date of incident and caused the accident in question by his rash and negligent driving leading to the death of Sh. Alok Kumar Dubey. 9.13 In view of the above discussion and considering the evidence on record, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the claimants have successfully proved that the deceased sustained fatal injuries in road accident on on 14.09.2021 at about 7:45 AM at Greater Noida Expressway within jurisdiction of PS Noida Sector-27 (Gautam Budh Nagar), UP due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration number DL9CAL6132 being driven by respondent no.1. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. (ii) :
Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, of what amount and from whom? OPP.
10.1 In view of the findings & decision in issue no.1 above, the petitioner is entitled to compensation. 10.2 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgments in "Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors." (2003) 6 SCC 121 and "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." (2017) 16 SCC 680 laid down the guidelines for assessing compensation payable in death cases. In the light of the same, the compensation Nanda Devi & vs. Ashish Sahani & Anr.
MACT No.266/2022 Page no.16 of 26
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.05.02
16:31:50 +0530
payable is determined as under:-
AGE OF THE DECEASED AND THE APPLICABLE MULTIPLIER 10.3 The date of incident is 14.09.2021. As per Aadhar Card of the deceased available on record as Ex.PW1/5, the date of birth of the deceased is 15.02.1995. Hence, deceased was 26 years 6 months and 29 days of age at the time of incident. Thus, the multiplier applicable would be 17.
INCOME OF THE DECEASED 10.4(i) Petitioners have claimed that deceased was doing private job and used to earn Rs.30,000/- per month. No evidence has been led by the petitioner to prove the employment of the deceased as such. No documents to show the educational qualification of the deceased has been filed on record. 10.4(ii) As per the Aadhar Card of the deceased, it appears that the deceased was a resident of Delhi. Hence, the income of injured/petitioner has to be assessed on the basis of chart of Minimum Wages of a Unskilled person in the State of NCT of Delhi. The minimum wages for a Unskilled person of State of NCT of Delhi on the date of accident i.e. 14.09.2021 were Rs.15,908/-.
10.4(iii) Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased needs to be considered as Rs.15,908/- per month on the date of accident.
FUTURE PROSPECTS 10.5(i) The deceased was 26 years 6 months and 29 days of age at the time of incident, so, the future prospects have to be calculated at 40% as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.," (supra).
Nanda Devi & vs. Ashish Sahani & Anr.
MACT No.266/2022 Page no.17 of 26
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.05.02
16:31:52 +0530
10.5(ii) Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased
after adding future prospects would be Rs.22,272/- (after rounding off Rs.22,271.2/-) (Rs.15,908/- + Rs.6363.2/- which is 40% of Rs.15,908/-).
DEDUCTIONS 10.6 The present claim petition is pursued by the wife of the deceased, minor son, mother and father of the deceased. Father of the deceased cannot be taken as dependent upon the deceased as admittedly he is serving in the Air Force. Thus, the wife, minor child and mother of the deceased have to be considered as dependent upon the deceased. Deduction towards personal and living expenses of a deceased should be assumed 1/3rd as per judgment of "Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors." (2003) 6 SCC 121. Hence, 1/3rd deductions would be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased.
10.7 Thus, the monthly loss of dependency would be Rs.14,848/- (after deducting 1/3rd of Rs.22,272/-) and accordingly, the multiplicand/annual loss of dependency would be Rs. 1,78,176/- (Rs.14,848/- x 12).
10.8 Thus, the total loss of dependency is ascertained as Rs.30,28,992/- (Rs. 1,78,176/- x 17).
COMPENSATION QUA NON-PECUNIARY HEADS 10.9(i) In "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680", it was held by The Hon'ble Apex court as under:-
"61... (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".
Nanda Devi & vs. Ashish Sahani & Anr.
MACT No.266/2022 Page no.18 of 26
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.05.02
16:32:04 +0530
10.9(ii) In view of the same and further in view of the
judgment in " Rajwati @ Rajjo & Ors. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Civil Appeal no. 8179/2022 decided on 09.12.2022, the compensation under this head is awarded as under:-
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
10.10 The loss of estate and funeral expenses are awarded as Rs.20,000/- each.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM 10.11 Original there were four claimants i.e. wife, minor son, mother & father of the deceased. Thus, an amount of Rs.1,92,000/- (Rs.48,000 x 04) is awarded under this head. TOTAL COMPENSATION 10.12 In view of above discussions, the total compensation is calculated as under:-
SL.N HEADS RUPEES
O.
1. Total Loss of Dependency Rs.30,28,992/-
2. Loss of Estate Rs.20,000/-
3. Funeral expenses Rs.20,000/-
4. Loss of Consortium Rs.1,92,000/-
TOTAL Rs.32,60,992/-
11. Thus, total compensation of Rs.32,60,992/-
(Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Sixty Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Two Only) is awarded in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
RELIEF/ISSUE NO.03
12. In view of the above findings, this Tribunal hereby Nanda Devi & vs. Ashish Sahani & Anr.
MACT No.266/2022 Page no.19 of 26
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.05.02
16:32:08 +0530
passes an award of Rs.32,60,992/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Sixty Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Two Only)along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 13.04.2022 till the date of the payment of the award amount to be paid by the respondent No.02/Insurance Company. Respondent no.2/Insurance Company is hereby directed to deposit the award amount in favour of the petitioner(s) with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account No.40711767202, CIF No.90891362578, IFSC Code - SBIN0000726, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this award together with the interest as stated herein above under intimation to this Tribunal and under intimation to the petitioners. In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
APPORTIONMENT & DISBURSEMENT OF AWARD AMOUNT 13.1 At the time of final arguments, it was submitted by Ld. Counsel for petitioner No. 3 & 4 that the petitioner no.1 is not entitled to any compensation as petitioner no.1 has remarried. 13.2 Perusal of record shows that an application was filed by petitioner no.3 & 4 which was disposed of vide order dated 01.10.2024. It was held by Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal that "the effect of marriage of petitioner no.01 upon her claim shall be considered at the time of final decision". 13.3 Vide order dated 01.05.2025, Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal has observed that the case for assessment of compensation needs to be considered as per circumstances on the date of the incident and petitioner no.1 cannot be deleted from Nanda Devi & vs. Ashish Sahani & Anr.
MACT No.266/2022 Page no.20 of 26
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.05.02
16:32:12 +0530
the array of petitioners. It is mentioned in the said order that the factum of marriage of petitioner no.1 shall be taken into consideration at the time of disbursal of the award amount. 13.4 In the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of "Dincy Devassy Vs. United India Insurance Co. & Ors." MAC APP. 26/2019 decided on 12.12.2019, it was held that re-marriage of a widow has nothing to do with her right to and claim for compensation, for the loss which accrued to her on account of unnatural demise of her husband. It was held that her right to claim compensation crystallized upon her husband's life being tragically snatched away in the motor accident. Therefore, simply because she has now re-married, her claim does not abate or lessen. Thus, the petitioner no.1 cannot be denied of her right to claim compensation in the present matter.
13.5 Statement of the petitioners in terms of provisions of MCTAP was recorded on 12.02.2026 & 02.04.2026. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the said statement, the compensation to the petitioners shall be distributed/disbursed as follows:-
Sr. Name of Age/ Relation Award Amount of Amount kept Period of No petitione DOB with Amount award to in FDRs FDRs with . r/ injured/ be released cumulative claimant decease interest d
1. Nanda DOB: Wife 9,62,992/- 1,62,992/- 8,00,000/- Rs. 8,00,000/-
Devi 18.04. along with along with along with 1994 proportionate proportionate proportionate interest interest interest shall be kept in the form of FDRs (fixed deposit receipts) in the Nanda Devi & vs. Ashish Sahani & Anr.
MACT No.266/2022 Page no.21 of 26
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.05.02
16:32:17 +0530
multiples of
Rs.10,000/-
each for a
period of one
month, two
months and
three months
and so on and
so forth, having
cumulative
interest.
2. Vihan @ DOB: Son Rs.16,00,000/ Nil Rs.16,00,000/ Rs.16,00,000/-
Shashan 04.02. -along with -along with along with
k Dubey 2018 proportionate proportionate proportionate
interest interest interest shall be
kept in the
form of one
FDR and the
same shall be
released to the
petitioner on
attaining
majority.
3. Neelam DOB: Mother 6,50,000/- 1,50,000/- 5,00,000/- Rs. 5,00,000/-
Dubey 23.05. along with along with along with
1971 proportionate proportionate proportionate
interest interest interest shall
be kept in the
form of FDRs
(fixed deposit
receipts) in the
multiples of
Rs.10,000/-
each for a
period of one
month, two
months and
three months
and so on and
so forth, having
cumulative
interest.
4. Yamuna DOB: Father Rs.48,000/- Rs.48,000/- Nil Nil
Prasad 15.07.
Dubey 1969
TOTAL Rs.32,60,992/-
Nanda Devi & vs. Ashish Sahani & Anr.
MACT No.266/2022 Page no.22 of 26
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.05.02
16:32:23 +0530
13.6 The amount of FDRs on maturity shall directly be
released in petitioner's Saving Bank Account. 13.7 All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(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(s).
(c) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the MACT bank account of the claimant
(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(e) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card (s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(f) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(g) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause
(g) above.
14. Concerned Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch is directed to transfer the award amount, in the above-mentioned manner, as per award in the saving bank account of claimant/petitioner, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
15. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph, specimen signature, copy of bank passbook and copy of Nanda Devi & vs. Ashish Sahani & Anr.
MACT No.266/2022 Page no.23 of 26
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.05.02
16:32:27 +0530
residence proof of the petitioner, be sent to Nodal Officer of State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
16. Nazir of this Court shall prepare a separate file regarding the status of deposition/non-deposition of the award amount by the respondent(s) after making necessary entry on CIS on 30.05.2026.
17. A digital copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost through email.
18. Ahlmad staff is directed to send the copy of award to Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority as per the procedure of Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure (MCTAP).
19. Ahlmad staff is also directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors." decided on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-email an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex Branch for information.
20. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 30th of April, 2026 (GUNJAN GUPTA) District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01, West/THC/Delhi/30.04.2026 Nanda Devi & vs. Ashish Sahani & Anr.
MACT No.266/2022 Page no.24 of 26
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.05.02
16:32:30 +0530
FORM -XV
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident : 14.09.2021
2. Name of the deceased : Alok Kumar Dubey
3. Age of the deceased : 15.02.1995(DOB)
4. Occupation of the deceased : Not proved
5. Income of the deceased : Rs.15,908/-
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased : -
S.No. Name Age/DOB Relation
(i) Nanda Devi DOB: 18.04.1994 Wife
(ii) Vihan @ Shashank DOB: 04.02.2018 Son
Dubey
(iii) Neelam Dubey DOB:23.05.1971 Mother
(iv) Yamuna Prasad Dubey DOB:15.07.1969 Father
Computation of Compensation : -
Sr.No. Heads Awarded by the Claim
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs.15,908/-
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) 40%
9. Less-Personal expenses of the 1/3rd
deceased(C)
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.14,848/-
[(A+B)-C=D]
11. Annual loss of dependency (D Rs.1,78,176/-
x 12)
12. Multiplier(E) 17
13. Total loss of dependency Rs.30,28,992/-
(Dx12xE= F)
14. Medical Expenses(G) NIL
15. Compensation for loss of Rs.1,92,000/-
consortium(H)
16. Compensation for loss of love NIL
and affection(I)
Nanda Devi & vs. Ashish Sahani & Anr.
MACT No.266/2022 Page no.25 of 26
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.05.02
16:32:34 +0530
17. Compensation for loss of Rs.20,000/-
estate(J)
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs.20,000/-
expenses(K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.32,60,992/-
(F+G+H+I+J+K=L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST 9% per annum
AWARDED
21. Interest amount up to the date Rs. 11,87,816/-
of award (M) (W.e.f. 13.04.2022 to
30.04.2026 i.e. 4 years
and 17 days)
22. Total amount including interest Rs.44,48,808/-
(L + M) (Rs.32,60,992/- +
Rs.11,87,816/-)
23. Award amount released Rs.3,60,992/-
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.29,00,000/- along
with proportionate
interest
25. Mode of disbursement of the Mentioned in the award award amount to the claimant(s).
26. Next date for compliance of 30.05.2026 the award.
(GUNJAN GUPTA) District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01, West/THC/Delhi/30.04.2026 Nanda Devi & vs. Ashish Sahani & Anr.
MACT No.266/2022 Page no.26 of 26
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.05.02
16:32:39 +0530