Delhi District Court
Raj Dulari (Dar) vs Vineet Gupta (579/20Kj) on 13 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARU GUPTA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-01 (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No.102/2022
Raj Dulari & ors. vs. Vineet Gupta & ors.
CNR No.DLSE01-001833-2022
1. Raj Dulari
W/o Late Sh. Krishan Kumar
2. Kirti
D/o Late Sh. Krishan Kumar
3. Puneet
S/o Late Sh. Krishan Kumar
4. Vivek
S/o Late Sh. Krishan Kumar
All R/o H. no.312-K, Budh Vihar,
Munirka Village, South West Delhi-110067.
....Claimants/Petitioners
Versus
1. Vineet Gupta
S/o Sh. Ravinder Kumar Gupat
R/o F-51, Street no.2, West Vinod Nagar,
Mandavali, Shakarpur,
New Delhi.
....Driver/respondent no.1
2. Rajesh Kumar Gupta
S/o Sh. Ram Chand Gupta
R/o RZ-36, Gali no.14, Tughlakabad Extension,
New Delhi.
....Owner/Respondent no.2
3. Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Ltd.
MACT No. 102/2022 Raj Dulari & ors. vs. Vineet Gupta & ors. Page no. 1 of 27 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.10.13
16:30:46
+0530
Banglore, Karnataka
....Insurance/respondent no.3
Date of accident : 19.12.2020
Result of accident : Death
Date of filing of DAR : 03.03.2022
Date of Decision : 13.10.2025
AWARD
1. The present DAR arises out of road accident in which one
Krishan Kumar, aged about 56 years, suffered fatal injury
resulting in his death. An application u/s 166(1) Motor Vehicle
Act was accordingly filed by the claimants (1) Raj Dulari (wife
of the deceased), (2) Kirti (daughter of the deceased), (3) Puneet
(son of the deceased) and (4) Vivek (son of deceased) as
dependents of the deceased.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.12.2020 HC Ravinder
Pal vide DD no. 27A received information from AIIMS Trauma
Center regarding a Medical Legal Case with history of road
traffic accident. On reaching the hospital, doctor declared
victim /patient to be unfit for statement. An FIR No.279/20, dated
20.12.2020, u/s 279/337 IPC, was registered at PS Kalkaji,
District South East, the victim later succumbed to the injuries and
died during treatment. Section 304A of IPC was accordingly
added. During inquiry, it was informed by one auto driver namely
Shahid that the accident occurred at Kalkaji bus stand where a
vehicle i.e. scooty bearing no.DL-3SDT-4955 (hereinafter
referred as to offending vehicle) came at a very high speed in
rash and negligent manner and hit the victim. After investigation,
a chargesheet was filed u/s 279/304A of IPC against the driver of
MACT No. 102/2022 Raj Dulari & ors. vs. Vineet Gupta & ors. Page no. 2 of 27 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.10.13
16:30:49
+0530
the offending vehicle, before concerned criminal court while the
present DAR was filed before this Tribunal.
3. As per record, the offending vehicle was driven by
respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with
respondent no. 3.
4. Respondent no.1 and 2 did not file any written statement
despite opportunity. In its reply, respondent no.3 has refuted the
involvement of the offending vehicle on the ground that no eye
witness was found on the date of alleged accident and that there
was a contradiction in the chargesheet and DAR showing victim
to be taken to hospital by a bystandard while as per statement
recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC, it was the driver of the offending vehicle
who took the victim to the hospital. Further, allegation of
negligence of the offending vehicle has been denied. It is
however not denied that the offending vehicle was duly insured
on the date of accident.
5. Inadvertently no formal issues were framed however, since
petitioners led evidence to prove the claim which was duly
defended and contested by respondent no.3 on the lines of its
reply filed, no prejudice has been caused to any of the parties.
Also, as the present proceedings are in the nature of inquiry as
distinguished from trial, following three issues arise to be
adjudicated:
1) Whether the deceased suffered fatal injury
in a road traffic accident on 19.12.2020 due to rash
and negligent driving of vehicle no.
DL-3SDT-4955 being driven and owned by R1
and insured with R2? OPP.
2)Whether the petitioners are entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from
MACT No. 102/2022 Raj Dulari & ors. vs. Vineet Gupta & ors. Page no. 3 of 27 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.10.13
16:30:53
+0530
whom? OPP.
3) Relief?
6. In order to prove their claim, petitioners examined
petitioner no.1/Raj Dulari/wife of deceased victim as PW-1. Ms.
Sheetal Indoria, HR of AI Engineering Service Ltd.,Northern
Region as PW-2.
Raj Dulari/PW-1 tendered her examination in chief by way
of affidavit as Ex.PW-1/A wherein she deposed that on
19.12.2020 her husband was returning home after meeting his
friend. When he reached Kalkaji bus stand, a vehicle bearing no.
DL-3SDT-4955 came at a very high speed, driven in rash and
negligent manner and hit the husband of PW-1. Due to the impact
her husband fell on the road and sustained injuries. He was taken
to the AIIMS Trauma Center by a passerby auto. He was declared
brought dead. Postmortem was got conducted in AIIMS Hospital.
She further deposed that at the time of accident her
husband was working in Air India Engineering Service as a
Senior Chief Assistant and earning of Rs.65,482/- per month.
She relied upon copy of postmortem report conducted in
AIIMS as Mark A, DAR as Ex.PW1/2, Adhar card of deceased
victim as Ex.PW1/3, ID card of deceased as Ex.PW1/4, Salary
slip of deceased as Mark B, ID card of PW-1 as Ex.PW1/6 and
Adhar card of petitioners as Ex.PW1/7.
PW-1 was duly cross examined by insurance
company/respondent no.3.
Ms. Sheetal Indora, HR of Northern Region, New Avionics
Complex, T-2, IGIA, New Delhi was examined as PW2. She
relied upon authority letter and office I-card as Ex.PW2/1, copy
MACT No. 102/2022 Raj Dulari & ors. vs. Vineet Gupta & ors. Page no. 4 of 27 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.10.13
16:30:58
+0530
of office I-card as Ex.PW2/2, copy of employment summary of
deceased Sh. Krishan Kumar as Mark A, Pay slip from October
2020 to February 2021 as Mark B, and payment of gratuity as
Mark C.
She was cross examined by Ld. counsel for insurance
company.
7. Respondents did not lead any evidence despite
opportunity.
8. Final arguments were advanced by all the parties. Now, on
the basis of material on record, evidence adduced and arguments
addressed, issue wise findings are as under:
Issue No.1
Whether the deceased suffered fatal injury in a road
traffic accident on 19.12.2020 due to rash and negligent
driving of vehicle no.DL-3SDT-4955 being driven and
owned by R1 and insured with R2? OPP.
9. Before proceeding to decide the above issue, it is apposite
to note that as a settled principle of law, proceedings under The
Motor Vehicle Act are not considered akin to the proceedings in a
civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not applicable.
Reliance is placed upon decision in Bimla Devi & ors. vs.
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (2009) 13 SC 535,
in Parmeshwari vs. Amir Chand & Ors., 2011 (1) SCR 1096 and
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ
287, wherein it has been held that the negligence has to be
decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and
a holistic view has to be taken.
10. In the present case, the primary defence raised by the
insurance company is qua involvement of the offending vehicle.
MACT No. 102/2022 Raj Dulari & ors. vs. Vineet Gupta & ors. Page no. 5 of 27 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.10.13
16:31:03
+0530
It has been disputed by the insurance company that since the only
witnesses been examined by the petitioners are PW1/wife of the
deceased and PW2/employer of the deceased, none of whom are
eye witnesses to the accident, occurrence of the accident or
negligence of the offending vehicle has not been proved.
In the considered opinion of this Tribunal, the fact that the
accident was promptly reported to the police and the FIR was
registered on the same day does not leave any scope for planting
of a vehicle not involved in the accident or any reason to doubt
the occurrence of the accident involving such vehicle. Further,
the petitioner has relied upon the DAR as well as chargesheet
wherein the investigating officer conducted proper investigation.
The defence of contradiction between the fact that the victim was
taken to the hospital by a bystandard or by respondent no.1
himself, the MLC clears the doubt as it reflects that name of
respondent no.1 as a person who brought the victim to the
hospital. It is further pertinent to note that the driver of the
offending vehicle has himself not disputed the involvement of the
offending vehicle or rash and negligent driving by him leading to
the unfortunate accident. Further, though the petitioners have not
examined any eye witness, the fact that they have relied upon the
chargesheet containing version of an eye witness namely Shahid,
which has not been specifically denied by way of any suggestion
to be false by any of the respondents, does not give any reason to
suspect the allegation of occurrence of the accident or the
involvement of the offending vehicle or the rash and negligence
of respondent no.1.
11. Further since even the police after investigation, had filed
MACT No. 102/2022 Raj Dulari & ors. vs. Vineet Gupta & ors. Page no. 6 of 27 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.10.13
16:31:07
+0530
chargesheet against respondent no.1 under Section 279/304-A of
IPC relying upon the statement of witnesses recorded u/s 161
Cr.PC, site plan as prepared at the instance of eye witness
Shahid, mechanical inspection report, MLC and postmortem
report of the victim, is also suggestive of negligence of
respondent no.1 in causing the accident. In National Insurance
Co. vs. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, it was laid down that
completion of investigation and filing of chargesheet are
sufficient proof of negligence of the driver of the offending
vehicle.
12. It may further be noted that in Cholamandlam Insurance
company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh 2009 (3) AD Delhi 310, it was held
that if driver of offending vehicle does not enter the witness box,
an adverse inference can be drawn against him. In the present
case also, neither the driver nor owner of the offending vehicle
entered into the witness box to controvert the claim of petitioners
or even to explain circumstances of accident.
13. In totality of circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion
that the petitioner been able to prove on the scales of
preponderance of probabilities that the accident in question, took
place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle
bearing no. DL-3SDT-4955 by its driver/respondent no.1 on the
date and time of accident. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in
favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
Issue no. 2
Whether the petitioners are entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?
OPP.
14. In the instant case insurance company/respondent no.3 has
MACT No. 102/2022 Raj Dulari & ors. vs. Vineet Gupta & ors. Page no. 7 of 27 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.10.13
16:31:12
+0530
not raised any statutory defence against respondent no.1 and as
such, under the contractual liability arising out of the insurance
policy/contract of insurance, respondent no.3 is liable to
indemnify respondent no.2 (owner of the offending vehicle) by
compensating the petitioners. As such, respondent no.3 is liable
to pay compensation to the petitioners.
15. As regards entitlement of the petitioners to compensation.
Petitioner no.1 is entitled being widow/wife of the deceased,
petitioner no.2 (aged about 28 years) is entitled as unmarried
daughter of the deceased. It has been claimed by PW1 that her
sons i.e. petitioner no.3 (aged about 26 years) and 4 (aged about
23 years) were unemployed as they were pursuing studies. In
rebuttal , insurance company has not produced any document to
show that petitioner no.3 and 4 were employed or earning at the
relevant time. As such keeping in view the age of petitioner no.3
and 4, they are held entitled to compensation. Accordingly all
petitioners are entitled to compensation under the head of
dependency.
16. Before further proceeding decide the quantum of
compensation, it would be apposite to encapsulate the law laid
down by the Apex Court in its various judgments qua
methodology and considerations for assessing/ascertaining just
compensation in road vehicular death cases laid down in Sarla
Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. (2003) 6
SCC. The relevant principles for ascertainment of compensation
are quoted here under:
BASIC PRINCIPLES
"9. Basically only three facts need to be established by
the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of
MACT No. 102/2022 Raj Dulari & ors. vs. Vineet Gupta & ors. Page no. 8 of 27 ss
Digitally signed
by CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.10.13
16:31:17
+0530
death :-
(a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased;
and the (c) the number of dependents. The issues to
be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of
dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made for
arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made
towards the personal living expenses of the deceased;
and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of
the age of the deceased. If these determinants are
standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency
in the decisions. There will lesser need for detailed
evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance
companies to settle accident claims without delay. To
have uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should
determine compensation in cases of death, by the
following well settled steps : -
Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand)
The income of the deceased per annum should be
determined. Out of the said income a deduction should
be made in regard to the amount which the deceased
would have spent on himself by way of personal and
living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be
the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the
multiplicand.
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier)
Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of
active career, the appropriate multiplier should be
selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number
of years he would have lived or worked but for the
accident. Having regard to several imponderables in
life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with
reference to the age has been identified by this Court.
The multiplier should be chosen from the said table
with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step 3 (Actual calculation)
The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand)
when multiplied by such multiplier gives the `loss of
dependency' to the family. Thereafter, a conventional
amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may
be added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is
survived by his widow, another conventional amount in
the range of 5,000/- to 10,000/- should be added under
the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be
awarded under the head of pain, suffering or
hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the
body (if incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of
the deceased before death (if incurred) should also
added."
MACT No. 102/2022 Raj Dulari & ors. vs. Vineet Gupta & ors. Page no. 9 of 27 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.10.13
16:31:25
+0530
ADDITIONS
"11. ...In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we
are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an
addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary
income of the deceased towards future prospects,
where the deceased had a permanent job and was
below 40 years. [Where the annual income is in the
taxable range, the words `actual salary' should be read
as `actual salary less tax']. The addition should be only
30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years.
There should be no addition, where the age of deceased
is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may
indicate a different percentage of increase, it is
necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different
yardsticks being applied or different methods of
calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was
self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without
provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will
usually take only the actual income at the time of
death. A departure therefrom should be made only in
rare and exceptional cases involving special
circumstances."
DEDUCTIONS
"14. Having considered several subsequent decisions of
this court, we are of the view that where the deceased
was married, the deduction towards personal and living
expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd)
where the number of dependent family members is 2 to
3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant
family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where
the number of dependent family members exceed six.
15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the
claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a
different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally,
50% is deducted as personal and living expenses,
because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to
spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also
the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in
which event the contribution to the parent/s and
siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject
to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have
his own income and will not be considered as a
dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a
dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary,
brothers and sisters will not be considered as
dependents, because they will either be independent
and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.
Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and
siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a
MACT No. 102/2022 Raj Dulari & ors. vs. Vineet Gupta & ors. Page no. 10 of 27 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.10.13
16:31:29
+0530
dependent, and 50% would be treated as the personal
and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the
contribution to the family. However, where family of
the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of
the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed
mother and large number of younger non-earning
sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses
may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the
family will be taken as two-third."
MULTIPLIER
"21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used
should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table
above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok
Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative
multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21
to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years,
that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35
years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45
years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by
two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to
55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65
years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."
17. As regards, computation of the future prospects, observations
made in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi
& Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 are noteworthy:
"58. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be no
addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept.
We are disposed to think, there should be an addition of
15% if the deceased is between the age of 50 to 60 years
and there should be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in
case of self- employed or person on fixed salary, the
addition should be 10% between the age of 50 to 60
years. The aforesaid yardstick has been fixed so that
there can be consistency in the approach by the tribunals
and the Courts.
59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to
record our conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have
been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as
it was taking a different view than what has been stated in
Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is
because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot
take a contrary view than what has been held by another
coordinate Bench.
MACT No. 102/2022 Raj Dulari & ors. vs. Vineet Gupta & ors. Page no. 11 of 27 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.10.13
16:31:33
+0530
(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in
Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of
time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
(iii)While determining the income, an addition of 50% of
actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future
prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and
was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The
addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was
between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between
the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%.
Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv)In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed
salary, an addition of 40% of the established income
should be the warrant where the deceased was below the
age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased
was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where
the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should
be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The
established income means the income minus the tax
component.
(v)For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for
personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts
shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma
which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi)The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in
the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that
judgment.
(vii)The age of the deceased should be the basis for
applying the multiplier.
(viii)Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely,
loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses
should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/-
respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at
the rate of 10% in every three years.
18. In view of the above settled principles, in order to archive
at or ascertain a just compensation payable to the petitioners, this
Tribunal first needs to ascertain the age of deceased/victim, the
appropriate multiplier, income of the deceased at the time of
incident, the educational qualification of deceased, the number of
dependents, whether deceased was married or unmarried,
whether deceased was having permanent employment or private
MACT No. 102/2022 Raj Dulari & ors. vs. Vineet Gupta & ors. Page no. 12 of 27 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.10.13
16:31:38
+0530
job etc. Award also needs to be passed qua non-pecuniary heads
as envisaged and in terms of above judgments.
Age and multiplier
19. Age of the deceased is claimed to be 56 years at the time
of accident/death. The same is proved by his Aadhar card which
shows his date of birth as 09.08.1964. The accident is claimed to
have occurred on 19.12.2020, the age of victim would have been
56 years and 4 months at the time of accident and hence, as per
Sarla Verma Judgment for determination of compensation, a
multiplier of 9 shall be applicable.
Determination of monthly and annual income
20. At the time of accident, deceased victim is claimed to be
working as Senior Chief Assistant at Air India Engineering
Service and earning of Rs.65,482/- per month. PW-2 has filed
salary slip of August, 2020 and December, 2020. Though, the
salary slips have been disputed, the fact that Air India
Engineering Service was a government body owned by
Government of India in 2023, the salary slips and record of
employment could have been verified by the insurance company.
There is nothing in the salary slips to doubt it to have been forged
and fabricated. Same reflects the last drawn salary of victim, for
the month prior to the month of accident i.e. in the month of
October 2020 and November 2020 to be Rs.36,793/- and
Rs.36,913/- respectively.
It has been pleaded by the insurance company that a sum
of Rs.65,00,000/- was received from AIESL while Rs.7,00,000/-
was received by the petitioners from insurance company and that
the same be deducted from the compensation. It is however seen
MACT No. 102/2022 Raj Dulari & ors. vs. Vineet Gupta & ors. Page no. 13 of 27 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.10.13
16:31:41
+0530
from the record that a specific query as to the amount paid by the
employer to the family of the deceased was put to PW2 who
stated that a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- was paid towards Group
Insurance and Rs.9,02,116/- was paid to the petitioners. As
regards the amount paid towards group insurance salary slips of
the deceased revealed contribution made on regular basis by the
deceased towards premium. As such, in view of law laid down by
Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Subhash Chandra Sachdeva Vs
Bochu Venkateshwar Rao (MAC.APP. 515/2017 & CM APPL.
15959/2019), Delhi High Court 2024, no deduction of this
amount can be made. Further, salary slip reflects payment on
premium towards PF contribution, VPF contribution, family
medical scheme, LIC policy-2, LIC policy-3. As such, without
specifically disputing that the amount paid by the employer to the
petitioners was gratuitous, no deduction can be made from the
compensation payable to the petitioners.
As such, the income of the deceased is taken to be
Rs.36,913/- per month. His annual income is assessed as
Rs.36,913/-X12=Rs.4,42,956/- p.a.
Determination of future prospects
21. Having regard to the age of the deceased and ratio laid
down in Pranay Sethi (Supra) and other judgments, the
percentage towards future prospect would be calculated @ 15%
where the deceased was between the age of 50-60 years, in case
the deceased was permanent employee. Thus, the enhanced
income (after adding 15% of his annual income, as future
prospects) would be Rs.66,443/- + Rs.4,42,956/- =
Rs.5,09,399/-.
MACT No. 102/2022 Raj Dulari & ors. vs. Vineet Gupta & ors. Page no. 14 of 27 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.10.13
16:31:45
+0530
Deduction
22. The deceased is claimed to be married at the time of
accident. Petitioner no.1 has been considered to be dependent on
the deceased. Having regard to the ratio in Sarla Verma case
(supra) deductions towards personal and living expenses of the
victim in such a case would be taken as 1/4 Thus, a deduction of
1/4 of the total calculated income i.e. Rs.1,27,350/- which is
equal to Rs.5,09,399/-. Hence, deceased would have contributed
Rs.3,82,049/- towards the petitioners.
Determination of Multiplicand
23. As the total income of the deceased (after deductions) is
calculated to be Rs.3,82,049/-, the multiplicand, in terms of
judgment of Sarla Verma would be 9.
Loss of dependency upon applying multiplier
24. Since the age of the victim was between 50-60 years, in
view of the above discussion, the total loss of dependency after
applying multiplier of 9 would be Rs.3,82,049/-
X9=Rs.34,38,441/-.
Compensation under Non-Pecuniary Heads (Grant of Loss of
Estate, Loss of Consortium and Funeral Expenses):
25. To calculate compensation under the non pecuniary heads,
reference has to be drawn from decision in Pranay Sethi case
(supra) wherein it was observed:
''...Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be
quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable
foundation. There can be no dispute over 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
MACT No. 102/2022 Raj Dulari & ors. vs. Vineet Gupta & ors. Page no. 15 of 27 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.10.13
16:31:50
+0530
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...''
26. It may further be noted that the date of judgment of Pranay Sethi case (supra) is 31/10/2017. Further, as per the judgment, the amount so quantified under the non pecuniary heads have to be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. As such, the funeral expenses and expenses towards loss of estate would, as on date, be Rs.18150/-, under each of these heads while compensation for loss of consortium would stand enhanced to Rs.48400/-.
27. On the date of accident, deceased was survived by his wife, mother, and three children. As such, in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as noted above, all the petitioners would be entitled Rs.48400/- each towards loss of consortium, while, petitioner no.1/wife is entitled to expenses towards funeral and loss of estate also.
MACT No. 102/2022 Raj Dulari & ors. vs. Vineet Gupta & ors. Page no. 16 of 27 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.13 16:31:53 +0530 Share of petitioners
28. (I) Petitioner no.1/Raj Dulari (wife of deceased) is entitled to Rs.16,38,441/- towards loss of financial dependency and Rs.48400/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.18150/- towards loss of estate and Rs.18150/- towards funeral expenses. The total comes out to be Rs.17,23,141/-.
(II) Petitioner no.2/Kirti (daughter of deceased) is entitled to Rs.6,00,00/- towards loss of financial dependence and Rs.48400/- towards loss of consortium. The total comes out to be Rs.6,48,400/-.
(III) Petitioner no.3/Puneet (son of deceased) is entitled to Rs.6,00,00/- towards loss of financial dependence and Rs.48400/- towards loss of consortium. The total comes out to be Rs.6,48,400/-.
(IV) Petitioner no.4/Vivek (son of deceased) is entitled to Rs.6,00,00/- towards loss of financial dependence and Rs.48400/- towards loss of consortium. The total comes out to be Rs.6,48,400/-.
Thus, the total amount payable by respondent no.3 is Rs.36,68,341/-.
Liability
29. As already discussed, respondent no.3/insurance company is liable to compensate the petitioners. The principal award amount/compensation shall be with simple interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of petition till actual realization.
In case, the interest of petitioners was stopped or excluded during the present inquiry proceedings, same is liable to be adjusted from the total interest calculated on the Award amount.
MACT No. 102/2022 Raj Dulari & ors. vs. Vineet Gupta & ors. Page no. 17 of 27 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.10.13
16:31:57
+0530
Similarly, amount awarded and released as interim Award, if any, during pendency of the case, be deducted from the total compensation amount.
Directions Regarding Deposit of Award Amount in Bank
30. In compliance of directions issued vide order dated 16.11.2021 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition Civil No.534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India the award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT PARKING FUND, A/c No. 00000042706875094, IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir in the prescribed format i.e. MCOP Number on the file of (Claims Tribunal Name) Date of award, Compensation Amount, Income Tax Deduction at Source, Bank Transaction Reference No./Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. In turn, the State Bank of India, Saket Courts Branch shall receive the deposited sum and capture the above information and furnish a statement of account on a daily basis to the Nazir of this Tribunal to reconcile the deposits of compensation and the respective MCOPs towards which such deposits are made. On such deposits being made, the insurance company shall submit a letter to the Nazir of this Tribunal enclosing a copy of the said bank advice, in prescribed format as above, as per which the deposit made to the bank account of this Tribunal, to enable this Tribunal to keep tab on the deposits made and the MCOPs for which they were made. The Payment advice for remittance of compensation is as under:
MACT No. 102/2022 Raj Dulari & ors. vs. Vineet Gupta & ors. Page no. 18 of 27 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.13 16:32:01 +0530 PAYMENT ADVICE FOR REMITTANCE OF COMPENSATION :
............ Bank ................... To:
............... Court ........................ We confirm remittance of compensation as follows on instructions of ................................... (insurance company):- MCOP Number On the file of (Claims Tribunal Name), Place Date of award Amount Deposited, Income Tax Deduction at Source, if any Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. Insurance company of offending vehicle, on deposit, shall also send a copy of the payment advice in above format to this Tribunal and serve a copy of the same on the claimants or their counsel as the case may be.
DISBURSEMENT
31. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors. has given the following directions:
"(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimants. However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been MACT No. 102/2022 Raj Dulari & ors. vs. Vineet Gupta & ors. Page no. 19 of 27 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.13 16:32:06 +0530 issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque books and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and the claimant shall produced the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court for compliance."
32. However, in a recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal on 18 March, 2025 in S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020 has held that :
"17. The case in hand pertains to the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. The general practice followed by the insurance companies, where the compensation is not disputed, is to deposit the same before the Tribunal. Instead of following that process, a direction can always be issued to transfer the amount into the bank account(s) of the claimant(s) with intimation to the Tribunal. 17.1 For that purpose, the Tribunals at the initial stage of pleadings or at the stage of leading evidence may require the claimant(s) to furnish their bank account particulars to the Tribunal along with the requisite proof, so that at the stage of passing of the award the Tribunal may direct that the amount of compensation be transferred in the account of the claimant and if MACT No. 102/2022 Raj Dulari & ors. vs. Vineet Gupta & ors. Page no. 20 of 27 ssDigitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.13 16:32:10 +0530 there are more than one then in their respective accounts. If there is no bank account, then they should be required to open the bank account either individually or jointly with family members only. It should also be mandated that, in case there is any change in the bank account particulars of the claimant(s) during the pendency of the claim petition they should update the same before the Tribunal. This should be ensured before passing of the final award. It may be ensured that the bank account should be in the name of the claimant(s) and if minor, through guardian(s) and in no case it should be a joint account with any person, who is not a family member. The transfer of the amount in the bank account, particulars of which have been furnished by the claimant(s), as mentioned in the award, shall be treated as satisfaction of the award. Intimation of compliance should be furnished to the Tribunal."
33. In view of the same, the award amount can now be disbursed in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioners. However, the remaining directions as passed by the Hon'ble High Court shall be complied with.
Apportionment
34. Out of the total compensation amount awarded to petitioner no.1/Raj Dulari i.e. Rs.17,23,141/-, Rs.3,23,141/- be released to her in her bank account near her place of residence and remaining amount of Rs.14,00,000/- be kept in the form of monthly FDRs of Rs.20,000/- p.m. MACT No. 102/2022 Raj Dulari & ors. vs. Vineet Gupta & ors. Page no. 21 of 27 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.13 16:32:14 +0530 Out of the total compensation amount awarded to petitioner no.2/Kirti i.e. Rs.6,48,400/-, Rs.1,48,400/- be released to her in her bank account near her place of residence and remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/- be kept in the form of monthly FDRs of Rs.10,000/- p.m. Out of the total amount awarded to petitioner no.3/Puneet Rs.6,48,400/-, Rs.1,48,400/- be released to him in his bank account near his place of residence and remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/- be kept in the form of monthly FDRs of Rs.10,000/- p.m. Out of the total amount awarded to petitioner no.4/Vivek i.e. Rs.6,48,400/-, Rs.1,48,400/- be released to him in his bank account near his place of residence and remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/- be kept in the form of monthly FDRs of Rs.10,000/- p.m.
35. The following directions are also given to the bank for compliance:
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name (s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of victim i.e. the savings bank account of the claimant shall be individual savings bank account and not a joint account.
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR (s) be credited by MACT No. 102/2022 Raj Dulari & ors. vs. Vineet Gupta & ors. Page no. 22 of 27 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.13 16:32:17 +0530 Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/ or debit card to claimant (s). However, in case the debit card and/ or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit freeze the account of the claimant so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque book and / or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1. Date of accident 19.12.2020
2. Name of deceased Krishan Kumar
3. Age of the deceased 56 years
4. Occupation of the deceased Senior Chief Assistant at Air India Engineering Service
5. Income of the deceased Rs.36,913/- p.m. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:
S No. Name Age (at the Relation time of MACT No. 102/2022 Raj Dulari & ors. vs. Vineet Gupta & ors. Page no. 23 of 27 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.13 16:32:21 accident)
(i) Raj Dulari 53 years Wife
(ii) Kirti 28 years Daughter
(iii) Puneet 26 years Son
(iv) Vivek 23 years Son Computation of compensation:-
S. No Heads Awarded by the
Claims Tribunal
1 A. Income of the deceased per year Rs.4,42,956/-
2 B. Add-Future Prospects 15% of A Rs.66,443/-
(per year)
3 C. Total Rs.5,09,339/-
4 D. Less-Personal Expenses of the Rs.1,27,441/-
deceased 1/4 of (C)
5 E. Yearly loss of dependency [C -D] Rs.3,82,049/-
6 F. Multiplier. 9
7 G. Total loss of dependency (E x F = Rs.34,38,441/-
G)
8 H. Medical Expenses Nil
9 I. Deduction, if any Nil
10 J. Total loss of dependency after Nil
deduction, if any
11 K. Compensation for loss of (Rs.48400/-
consortium X4 )
Rs.1,93,600/-
12 L. Compensation for loss of estate Rs.18,150/-
13 M. Compensation towards funeral Rs.18,150/-
expenses
14 N. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.36,68,341/-
total of J+K+L+M =N
MACT No. 102/2022 Raj Dulari & ors. vs. Vineet Gupta & ors. Page no. 24 of 27 ss Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.10.13
16:32:25
+0530
15 O. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED: @ 7.5%
from date of filing of petition till actual per annum
realization of principal amount awarded.
16 Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.29,00,000/- 17 Award amount released Rs.7,68,341/-
18 Mode of disbursement of the award (I) Share of amount to the claimant (s). (Clause 29) petitioner no.1/Raj Dulari i.e. Rs.17,23,141/-, Rs.3,23,141/-
be released to
her in her bank
account near
her place of
residence and
remaining
amount of
Rs.14,00,000/-
be kept in the
form of
monthly FDRs
of Rs.20,000/-
p.m.
(II) Out of
the total
compensation
amount
awarded to
petitioner
no.2/Kirti i.e.
Rs.6,48,400/-,
Rs.1,48,400/-
be released to
her in her bank
account near
her place of
residence and
MACT No. 102/2022 Raj Dulari & ors. vs. Vineet Gupta & ors. Page no. 25 of 27 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.10.13
16:32:29
+0530
remaining
amount of
Rs.5,00,000/-
be kept in the
form of
monthly FDRs
of Rs.10,000/-
p.m.
(III) Out of
the total
amount
awarded to
petitioner
no.3/Puneet
Rs.6,48,400/-,
Rs.1,48,400/-
be released to
him in his bank
account near
his place of
residence and
remaining
amount of
Rs.5,00,000/-
be kept in the
form of
monthly FDRs
of Rs.10,000/-
p.m.
(IV) Out of
the total
amount
awarded to
petitioner
no.4/Vivek i.e.
Rs.6,48,400/-,
Rs.1,48,400/-
be released to
him in his bank
account near
his place of
MACT No. 102/2022 Raj Dulari & ors. vs. Vineet Gupta & ors. Page no. 26 of 27 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.13 16:32:34 +0530 residence and remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/-
be kept in the
form of
monthly FDRs
of Rs.10,000/-
p.m.
All above
amount shall be
along with
interest @ 7.5
% per annum
on total
principal award
amount from
date of filing of
DAR till actual
realization.
19 Next Date for compliance of the award 13.12.2025
(Clause 31)
36. Put up on 13.12.2025 for compliance.
Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU Announced in the open court GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.13 on 13th October, 2025 16:32:40 +0530 (Charu Gupta) PO-MACT-01 (South East) Saket Courts/New Delhi MACT No. 102/2022 Raj Dulari & ors. vs. Vineet Gupta & ors. Page no. 27 of 27 ss