Delhi District Court
Guddi Devi And Anr vs Shiv Shankar Yadav And Ors on 7 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARUN PRATAP, PO, MACT-02,
DISTRICT SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
MACT No.: 689/22
CNR No. DLSH01-008154-2022
IN THE MATTER OF:-
1. Smt. Guddi Devi (Mother of deceased Dalveer Singh)
2. Sh. Shiv Singh (Father of deceased Dalveer Singh)
All R/o Nauha, Th. Mahavan, Kanjaulighat Bangar,
Mathura, Akosh, U.P. 281301
........ (Petitioners)
Vs.
1. Sh. Shiv Shankar Yadav
S/o Sh. Brij Bhan Yadav,
R/o Saitapur Saray PO & PS Bambhua,
Distt. Sultanpur, U.P. 222302
.... (Driver)
2. Ms. Supriya Kumari
W/o Sh. Madanjit Kumar,
R/o B-73/G2, Dilshad Colony,
Delhi-110095
.... (Owner )
3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
At: C-93, Subhash Road, Naveen Shahdara,
New Delhi-110032
.... (insurer)
... Respondents
Date of institution of DAR petition : 17.12.2022
Date of Arguments : 07.11.2025
Date of Award : 07.11.2025
Advocates appearing in the case:
For petitioners : Sh. Kumar Shivam
MACT No. 689/22 Guddi Devi & Ors. Vs. Shiv Shankar Yadav & Ors. Page 1 of 18
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2025.11.07
16:10:47
+0530
For respondent no. 1 & 2 : Sh. Anirudh Kumar
For respondent no. 3/ Ins. com. : Sh. Upender Kumar
AWARD
Vide this award, the Tribunal shall decide the MACT claim petition
bearing no. 689/22, under section 166(4) & 140 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, filed for the petitioners and against the respondents as mentioned in
the memo of parties.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1. Briefly stated, the facts of the petition are that on 09.12.2021, at about 19:15 p.m., one person namely Dalveer Singh (since deceased) was going to Delhi from Agra by driving a truck bearing registration no. DL1M9778 alongwith a helper namely Azad Singh. It has been alleged that when they reached near Sarai Toll NHPC Pull, within the jurisdiction of PS Sarai Khawaja, Distt. Faridabad, Harayana, one Canter bearing registration no. HR67B6075 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle), came at a very high speed and overtook the above-said truck of the deceased from the wrong side before suddenly taking a sharp turn. It has been further alleged that the offending vehicle was being driven by its driver i.e. respondent no. 1 (R1) herein, at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner without taking necessary precautions at the time of the accident. It has been further alleged that due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1, the truck of the deceased rammed at its back side depsite best efforts being made by the deceased to avoid the accident and Dalveer Singh got struck inside his truck and sustained fatal injuries. He was pulled out of his truck by police officials and immediately taken to BHK Hospital, Faridabad, where he was declared as "brought dead" by the doctor. The postmortem was MACT No. 689/22 Guddi Devi & Ors. Vs. Shiv Shankar Yadav & Ors. Page 2 of 18 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date:
2025.11.07 16:10:55 +0530 thereon conducted at Distt. Mortuary, Health Centre Khrikalan, Faridabad, vide PMR no. 2/RK/CH/2021. An FIR in this regard was also registered at PS Sarai Khawaja, Distt. Faridabad, Haryana, vide FIR no. 0331/2021, for the offences u/s 279/304-A IPC. The present claim petition thereafter came to be filed in due course on 17.12.2022.
WS / Reply of Respondents
2. In their separate but identical WS filed by respondent no. 1 and 2, being the driver and owner of the offending vehicle respectively, it has been contended that the entire negligence was on part of the deceased himself and that they have been falsely implicated in the present case as their offending vehicle was stationery of the time of the alleged accident before being hit at the back side by the deceased's truck. The respondents nevertheless stated that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. i.e. respondent no. 03 (R3) at the time of the accident. The respondent no. 01 & 02 denied all the allegations against them and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
3. Respondent no. 3 i.e. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., filed its, separate written statement, wherein it has been admitted that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the company vide insurance policy no. 271702/31/2021/8156, in the name of owner Supriya Kumari i.e. respondent no. 2 (R2) herein, with its validity from 04.01.2021 to 03.01.2022. However, the respondent no. 3 denied all the contents of the claim petition and prayed for its dismissal.
ISSUES
4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor, vide order dated 16.01.2024, as under:-
MACT No. 689/22 Guddi Devi & Ors. Vs. Shiv Shankar Yadav & Ors. Page 3 of 18Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date:
2025.11.07 16:11:00 +0530
(i) Whether respondent no. 1 was driving the offending vehicle no. HR67B6075 on 09.12.2021 at about 09:15 pm at Sarai Toll NHPC Pull, within the jurisdiction of PS Sarai Khawaja, Distt. Faridabad, Haryana in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of deceased Sh. Dalveer Singh? Opp.
(ii) Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
(iii) Relief. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
5. In order to prove their case, the petitioners examined Sh. Shiv Singh i.e. father of the deceased, as PW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A, wherein he reiterated the contents of the claim petition and relied upon the following documents:-
Sr. No. Exhibit No. Particulars
1. Ex. PW1/1 (OSR) Copy of DL of the deceased
2. Ex. PW1/2 (OSR) Copy of educational Certificate of the deceased
3. Ex. PW1/3 (OSR) Copy of PAN Card of the deceased
4. Ex. PW1/4 (OSR) Copy of Aadhar of deceased
5. Ex. PW1/5 Copy of PAN Card of the petitioner Guddi Devi (de-exhibited)
6. Ex. PW1/6 (OSR) Copy of Aadhar card of the petitioner Guddi Devi
7. Ex. PW1/7(OSR) Copy of PAN card of the petitioner Shiv Singh
8. Ex. PW1/8 (OSR) Copy of Aadhar card of the petitioner Shiv Singh
9. Ex. PW1/9 (colly) Certified copy of criminal case records He was cross-examined and discharged.MACT No. 689/22 Guddi Devi & Ors. Vs. Shiv Shankar Yadav & Ors. Page 4 of 18
HARUN PRATAP Digitally signed by HARUN PRATAP Date: 2025.11.07 16:11:05 +0530
6. The petitioners also examined a purported eye witness of the accident namely Sh. Azad Singh as PW2. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-2/A and relied upon the following documents:-
Sl. Exhibit No. Particulars
No.
1 Ex. PW2/1 (OSR) Photocopy of Aadhar Card of deponent
He was cross-examined and discharged.
7. The petitioners also examined Sh. Pratik Aggarwal ie. brother of employer of the deceased victim as PW3. He brought on record the registration certificate, copy of aadhar card of Pramendra Aggarwal and copy of aadhar card of the deponent as Mark A, Mark B and Ex. PW3/A. He deposed that the deceased victim was working as a driver on the vehicle bearing no. DL-1M-9778 and getting salary of minimum wages rate of driver applicable in Delhi at the time of the accident.
He was cross-examined and discharged.
8. PE was thereon closed by the Tribunal vide order dated 29.07.2025, in view of the separate statement of Ld. Counsel for petitioner recorded to this effect.
Respondents' Evidence
9. RE was thereon closed by the Tribunal vide order dated 26.09.2025 in view of the separate statement of Ld. Counsel for respondents recorded to this effect.
10. Final arguments heard. File perused.
MACT No. 689/22 Guddi Devi & Ors. Vs. Shiv Shankar Yadav & Ors. Page 5 of 18Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date:
2025.11.07 16:11:12 +0530 Issue wise findings Issue no.1 Whether respondent no. 1 was driving the offending vehicle no. HR67B6075 on 09.12.2021 at about 09:15 pm at Sarai Toll NHPC Pull, within the jurisdiction of PS Sarai Khawaja, Distt. Faridabad, Haryana in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of deceased Sh. Dalveer Singh? Opp.
11. In an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non. However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is tested on the touchstone of principle of preponderance of probabilities. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi & Ors. Vs Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs Amir Chand & Ors, 2011 (1) SCR 1906 (Civil Appeal No. 1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
MACT No. 689/22 Guddi Devi & Ors. Vs. Shiv Shankar Yadav & Ors. Page 6 of 18Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date:
2025.11.07 16:11:18 +0530
12. In the present case, the petitioners have examined a purported eye witness of the incident of question as their star witness to prove the contentions regarding the claim for compensation, apart from examining the father of the deceased/victim, as PW-2 & PW-1 respectively. Both the afore-said witnesses have categorically stated in their examination on oath that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent act of respondent no. 1 in driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. The PW1 and PW2 have specifically deposed about rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident and the said contentions are duly corroborated by the findings of the police as mentioned in the site plan, mechanical inspection report, Charge sheet, postmortem report along with other documents pertaining to criminal case in respect of the incident in question brought on record as Ex. PW1/9 (colly) and no ground has been made out by the respondents to disbelieve the same. The testimony of both the witnesses for the petitioners has remained consistent and no doubt has been raised by the respondents to disbelieve the same.
13. Respondent no. 1 i.e. driver of the offending vehicle, respondent no. 2 i.e. the owner of offending vehicle and respondent no. 3 i.e. Insurance Company, have neither impeached the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 nor they have led any defence evidence to substantiate their claim that the accident was caused due to fault of the deceased or that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. The evidence of the star witness in this case i.e. PW-2, on the aspect of rash and negligent act of respondent no. 1, while driving the offending vehicle, has remained unimpeached and his testimony has to be accepted on its face value itself as the same has successfully stood the test of cross-examination. It is also to be noted that MACT No. 689/22 Guddi Devi & Ors. Vs. Shiv Shankar Yadav & Ors. Page 7 of 18 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date:
2025.11.07 16:11:24 +0530 the respondents have neither lodged any complaint regarding their alleged false implication in the present case nor any other material has been brought on record to show any enmity of the respondents with the petitioners or the IO of the criminal case pertaining to the incident in question.
14. The very fact that R-1 has already been specifically arrayed as an accused in case FIR no. 0331/2021, for the offences u/s 279/304-A IPC, PS Sarai Khawaja, Distt. Faridabad, Harayana, is also a strong circumstance to support the above said testimony of PW-2 on these issues. The copies of FIR, Site plan, mechanical inspection report and postmortem report, brought on record as Ex. PW1/9 (colly) also corroborate the oral testimony of PW-1 & PW-2. Moreover, the position of law in this regard has been made clear in the case of "National Insurance Co., Vs Puspha Rana", 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, wherein it has been held that filing of Chargesheet is sufficient proof of the negligence and involvement of the offending vehicle.
Similar observations have been made in the case of "United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deepak Goel and Ors.", 2014 (2) Tac 846 Del, that if the claimant was able to prove the criminal case on record pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, whereby the criminal records showing completion of investigation by the police and filing of Chargesheet under Section 279/304-A/337 IPC against the driver have been proved, then, the documents mentioned above are sufficient to establish the fact that the driver was negligent in causing the accident. Where FIR is lodged, Chargesheet is filed, especially in a case where driver after causing the accident had fled away from the spot, then the documents mentioned above are sufficient to establish the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent in causing the accident particularly when there was no MACT No. 689/22 Guddi Devi & Ors. Vs. Shiv Shankar Yadav & Ors. Page 8 of 18 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date:
2025.11.07 16:11:30 +0530 defence available from his side before the Learned Tribunal. The position of law has been recently reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as "Ranjeet & Anr. Vs. Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr." arising out of SLP (C ) No. 10351/2019, wherein it has been held that:-
"It is settled in law that once a charge-sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the eye witnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver."
15. Besides the above, respondent no. 1 namely Shiv Shankar Yadav was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the depositions being made by PW-2 regarding the above accident and its manner etc., but he has not done so. Therefore, an adverse inference on this aspect is also required to be drawn against the respondents in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi).
16. In view of the above, it could be safely assumed that the offending vehicle was being driven by R-1 indeed at the time of incident and the fatal injuries to the deceased took place on account of the incident in question itself.
17. Having ruled so, this Tribunal now proceeds to assess the wrongful act, neglect or default of R-1, if any, in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Admittedly, R-1 has not explained the circumstances under which his vehicle (i.e. the offending vehicle) came to be hit by the truck of the deceased with a great force. In the absence of any averment or evidence regarding any mechanical defect in the offending vehicle or any material MACT No. 689/22 Guddi Devi & Ors. Vs. Shiv Shankar Yadav & Ors. Page 9 of 18 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date:
2025.11.07 16:11:35 +0530 depicting any negligent/sudden act or omission on the part of the deceased or any other such person, the only inference possible in the given facts and circumstances is that of neglect and default on the part of R-1 in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is constrained to hold R-1 guilty of gross neglect and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time leading to the fatal injuries to the deceased Dalveer Singh.
18. Furthermore, in view of the medical records, postmortem report placed on record by the petitioners, no doubt or dispute is left regarding the fatal injuries to the deceased Dalveer Singh in the above accident.
19. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this Tribunal holds that the deceased Dalveer Singh suffered fatal injuries on account of neglect and default of R-1 while driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. The issue at hand is thus decided against the respondents and in favour of the petitioners.
Issue no. (ii) Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP.
20. On the basis of findings upon issue no. (i), it is clear that the incident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by R-1 and fatal injuries had been caused to the deceased in the incident. Hence, petitioners being the LRs and dependent parents of the deceased are entitled to compensation in this case as the status of the petitioners being the dependents of the deceased has neither been denied MACT No. 689/22 Guddi Devi & Ors. Vs. Shiv Shankar Yadav & Ors. Page 10 of 18 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date:
2025.11.07 16:11:40 +0530 nor disputed by the respondents in any manner. The issue at hand is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
LIABILITY
21. Now, the question arises as to which of the respondent is liable to pay the compensation amount. The respondent no. 1 Shiv Shankar Yadav is the principal tort feasor being driver, while the respondent no. 2 is vicariously liable being the owner of the offending vehicle. However, it is pertinent to note that the respondent no. 3 i.e. Insurance Company has specifically admitted in its written statement that the offending vehicle was duly insured at the time of accident with respondent no. 3, vide policy no. 271702/31/2021/8156, in the name of Supriya Kumari i.e. respondent no. 2 (R2) owner herein, with its validity from 04.01.2021 to 03.01.2022. At the same time, the respondent no. 3 has failed to bring on record or to prove any breach of the terms or conditions of the said insurance policy by the respondents no. 1 and 2 in any manner.
22. Hence, on the basis of entire above stated facts and circumstances and discussion of evidence, this Tribunal is of the opinion that respondent no. 3 i.e. insurance company, is liable to pay the entire compensation to the petitioners on behalf of respondents no. 1 and 2, without any recovery rights.
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
23. As far as computation of compensation is concerned, the same shall be under the following heads :-
MEDICAL EXPENSES MACT No. 689/22 Guddi Devi & Ors. Vs. Shiv Shankar Yadav & Ors. Page 11 of 18 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date:
2025.11.07 16:11:46 +0530
24. It is clear from above stated facts and circumstances that the deceased had expired soon after the accident and no medical expenditure was undertaken by the petitioners in the treatment of the deceased before his death, hence, petitioners are not entitled to any compensation under this head on account of absence of any evidence brought on record in this regard.
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
25. In the present case, perusal of the Aadhar Card of Dalveer Singh Ex. PW1/4 reveals that the deceased was aged about 23 years 11 months and the same has not been disputed in any manner by the respondents. Therefore, the deceased was thus aged about 23 years 11 months at the time of the incident resulting in his death on 09.12.2021.
26. Petitioner Mr. Shiv Singh (PW1) in his deposition has stated that at the time of accident, his deceased son was driver with Sh. Pramendra Agarwal at New Delhi and he used to earn Rs. 20,000/- per month. The petitioner has also brought on record the driving license of the deceased Ex. PW1/1 to show that the deceased was a driver by profession at the time of the accident. It is also an admitted fact on record that the petitioner was indeed driving a truck at the time of the accident and the said truck was registered in Delhi. Therefore, this Tribunal has assessed the income of deceased at parity with minimum wages of 'skilled worker' of Delhi prevalent at the time of accident i.e. Rs. 19,473/- per month.
27. Furthermore, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680", 40% addition shall be given to the deceased towards future MACT No. 689/22 Guddi Devi & Ors. Vs. Shiv Shankar Yadav & Ors. Page 12 of 18 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date:
2025.11.07 16:11:51 +0530 prospects as he was below 40 years at the time of incident and was self employed. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased with 40% future prospects comes out to be Rs. 19,473/- + 7,789/- (19,473/- X 40/100) = Rs. 27,262/- per month.
28. As held above, the deceased Dalveer Singh was unmarried and having his parents dependent upon him on the date of the incident.
Therefore, both the petitioners shall be treated as dependents of the deceased for the purpose of the present petition. Accordingly, half (1/2) of the earnings of the deceased Dalveer Singh shall be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Therefore, in the entire given facts and circumstances, deduction of half (1/2) of total income is made for personal living expenses of deceased. Hence, an amount of Rs. 13,631/- (Rs. 27,262/2) is required to be deducted from monthly income of deceased. Finally, annual dependency of dependent is calculated as under (annual income) - (annual expenses of deceased) i.e. (Rs. 3,27,144/- - Rs. 1,63,572/- ) = Rs. 1,63,572/- per annum.
29. Moreover, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of "Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr"., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of " National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi & Ors". SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, decided on 31.10.2017, the multiplier of '18' is held applicable for calculating the loss of dependency caused to the petitioners on account of death of the deceased. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the MACT No. 689/22 Guddi Devi & Ors. Vs. Shiv Shankar Yadav & Ors. Page 13 of 18 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date:
2025.11.07 16:11:57 +0530 total loss of dependency qua the deceased in the present case comes out to be Rs. 1,63,572/- X 18= Rs. 29,44,296/-.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM / LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION
30. In "Magma Vs. General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Nanu Ram & Ors". 2018 ACJ 2782, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that 'consortium' is a compendious term, which encompasses 'spousal consortium', 'parental consortium' and 'filial consortium'. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his entire family. Spousal Consortium allows compensation to surviving spouse for loss of 'company, society, co-operation, affection and aid of the other in every conjugal relation'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed in said judgment that parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of 'parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training. Similarly, filial consortium is to be granted to each of the surviving dependent parents on the death of their child.
31. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the computation of compensation under this head is as follows :
Filial Consortium : Rs. 96,000/- (Rs. 48,000/- X 2) Spousal Consortium : Rs. 0/- (Rs. 48,000/- X 0) Parental Consortium : Rs. 0/- (Rs. 48,000/- X 0) MACT No. 689/22 Guddi Devi & Ors. Vs. Shiv Shankar Yadav & Ors. Page 14 of 18 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date:
2025.11.07 16:12:02 +0530
32. Hence, the petitioners are hereby awarded a total sum of Rs. 96,000/- on account of loss of consortium/loss of love and affection under this head.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
33. A total sum of Rs. 36,000/- is awarded in favour of petitioners under both the heads i.e. Rs. 18,000/- on account of 'loss of estate' and Rs.18,000/- for 'funeral expenses' of the deceased, as per the law laid down in "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." (Supra).
34. The total amount of compensation to be granted in favour of the petitioners in this case is thus Rs. 29,44,296/- + Rs. 96,000/- + Rs. 36,000/- = Rs. 30,76,296/-.
ISSUE NO.3 / RELIEF
35. In view of the the findings on the aforesaid issues, the petitioners are hereby awarded a sum of Rs. 30,76,296/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh Seventy Six Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Six Only) along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its deposition by the insurer i.e. respondent no. 3. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award alongwith waiver of interest, if any, shall be excluded from the above amount and calculations of compensation.
RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION TO THE PETITIONERS
36. Finally, the petitioner no. 1 namely Mrs. Guddi Devi ie. mother of deceased, is hereby awarded Rs. 15,76,296/-, out of which Rs. 14,00,000/-
MACT No. 689/22 Guddi Devi & Ors. Vs. Shiv Shankar Yadav & Ors. Page 15 of 18Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date:
2025.11.07 16:12:08 +0530 is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch, Delhi bearing account no. 20780110171912; IFSC: UCBA0002078 in MACAD in the form of 56 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of Rs. 25,000/- payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 56 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her savings/MACT Claims SB Account, maintained with UCO Bank, KKD Branch, Delhi. The remaining amount of Rs. 1,76,296/- and the half of the interest component to be paid by the respondent no. 3 is directed to be released into the bank account of the petitioner no. 1 which can be withdrawn and utilized by her as per her volition.
37. Out of the aforesaid awarded amount, the petitioner no. 2 namely Mr. Shiv Singh ie. father of deceased, is hereby awarded Rs. 15,00,000/-, out of which Rs. 14,00,000/- is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch, Delhi bearing account no. 20780110171912; IFSC:
UCBA0002078 in MACAD in the form of 56 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of Rs. 25,000/- payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 56 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her savings/MACT Claims SB Account, maintained with UCO Bank, KKD Branch, Delhi. The remaining amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and the half of the interest component to be paid by the respondent no. 3 is directed to be released into the bank account of the petitioner no. 2 which can be withdrawn and utilized by him as per his volition.MACT No. 689/22 Guddi Devi & Ors. Vs. Shiv Shankar Yadav & Ors. Page 16 of 18
Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date:
2025.11.07 16:12:15 +0530
38. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody and copies of the same be provided to the petitioners with the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount.
(b) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant.
(c) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(d) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant / his guardian. However, in case the debit card and /or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount.
(e) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court.
39. Respondent no. 3, being insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount with interest @ 8% per annum till date with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a for the period of delay. Concerned Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch is directed to transfer the share amount of the petitioners in their bank account / FDRs as per above-said directions, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. The Branch Manager, is further directed to keep the said amounts in fixed deposits in name of this MACT No. 689/22 Guddi Devi & Ors. Vs. Shiv Shankar Yadav & Ors. Page 17 of 18 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date:
2025.11.07 16:12:20 +0530 Court in auto renewal mode every 15 days, till the claimants approach the bank for disbursement, so that the award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheques. Soft copy of the award be uploaded on official website of Delhi District Courts i.e. https://delhidistrictcourts.nic.in.
40. Form IV-A and Form-V, in terms of MCTAP, shall be read as part of the Award. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioner and also to counsel for the insurance company for compliance. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank passbooks and copy of residence proof of the petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
Announced in open Court on this Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP 07th Day of November, 2025 PRATAP Date:
2025.11.07 16:12:25 +0530 (HARUN PRATAP) PO-(MACT-02), SHAHDARA KKD COURTS/DELHI MACT No. 689/22 Guddi Devi & Ors. Vs. Shiv Shankar Yadav & Ors. Page 18 of 18