Delhi District Court
Shalu Mishra And Anr vs Rameshwar Mahato And Ors on 30 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. MUKESH KUMAR,
PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-02,WEST,TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
MACT No. 590/2021
DLWT01-009795-2021
1. Smt. Shalu Mishra
W/o Late Uma Dutt Mishra
R/o H. No. 71, Najafgarh Road,
Yadav Park Extension, Nangloi,
Delhi-110041.
(wife of deceased)
2. Ms. Mansi
D/o Late Uma Dutt Mishra
R/o H. No. 71, Najafgarh Road,
Yadav Park Extension, Nangloi,
Delhi-110041.
(daughter of deceased)
3. Ms. Kumkum
D/o Late Uma Dutt Mishra
R/o H. No. 71, Najafgarh Road,
Yadav Park Extension, Nangloi,
Delhi-110041.
(daughter of deceased)
4. Ms. Supriya
D/o Late Uma Dutt Mishra
R/o H. No. 71, Najafgarh Road,
Yadav Park Extension, Nangloi,
Delhi-110041.
(daughter of deceased)
5. Ms. Priyanshi Mishra
D/o Late Uma Dutt Mishra
R/o H. No. 71, Najafgarh Road,
Yadav Park Extension, Nangloi,
MACT No. 590/2021 Date of Award : 30.01.2026
Digitally signed
Shalu Mishra & Ors. Vs. Rameshwar Mahto & Ors. by MUKESH Page No. 1/ 18.
KUMAR
MUKESH Date:
KUMAR 2026.01.30
15:30:25
+0530
Delhi-110041.
(daughter of deceased)
6. Manas Mishra
S/o Late Uma Dutt Mishra
R/o H. No. 71, Najafgarh Road,
Yadav Park Extension, Nangloi,
Delhi-110041.
(son of deceased)
......... Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Rameshwar Mahto
S/o Sh. Cholo Mahto
R/o H. No. 37, Kalhabar Kalhabad,
Barkatha, Hazaribagh,
Jharkhand-825323.
Also at : R. No. 1, Shivshakti Compound,
Netaji Nagar, Khadi No. 3, Saki Naka,
Mumbai-400072.
Also at : NST Colony,
Kohima, Nagaland-797001.
(Driver cum owner of the offending vehicle)
2. Sh. Royal Sundarum General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Vishranti Melgram, Towers No. 2/319,
Rajeev Gandhi Salai, (OMR)
Karapakkam, Chennai-600097.
Also at : 1505-1506, 15th Floor, Ambadeep Building,
14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110001.
(insurance company)
...... Respondents
Date of Institution: : 16.12.2021
Date of reserving order/judgment : 30.01.2026
Date of pronouncement: : 30.01.2026
AWAR D
1. This is claim petition u/s 166 & 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'M.V. Act') filed on behalf of petitioners seeking compensation in respect of death of Sh. Uma Dutt Mishra in a road accident involving vehicle MACT No. 590/2021 Date of Award : 30.01.2026 Digitally signed Shalu Mishra & Ors. Vs. Rameshwar Mahto & Ors. by MUKESH Page No. 2/ 18.
KUMARMUKESH Date:
KUMAR 2026.01.30
15:30:33
+0530
bearing registration no. DLIL-AD-3537 (Goods Carrier) and NL01-AC-5907 (Truck). As per the facts mentioned in the claim petition as well as documents filed on record, on 18.11.2021, the deceased Uma Dutt Mishra was driving his vehicle bearing no. DL1L-AD-3537 (Goods Carrier) and going to Kannauj via Lucknow from Delhi and when he reached at KM No. 32, Yamuna Expressway Road, Greater Noida, the driver of the offending vehicle bearing no. NL01-AC-5907 without following traffic rules and in a very high speed hit from back side to the deceased's vehicle and his vehicle colluded with ahead vehicle and due to this negligent driving of offending vehicle, deceased sustained multiple injuries which were resulted in his death. It is further stated that FIR bearing No. 801/2021, PS Jewar, Noida, U.P. was also registered pertaining to this accident.
2. As per the claim petition, the respondent no. 1 is the driver cum owner of the Truck bearing no. NL01-AC-5907 which was insured with respondent no. 2/Royal Sundarum General Insurance Co. Ltd. It is further stated that deceased was aged about 38 years at the time of her death, he was earning Rs. 1,20,000/- per month by driving his goods carrier. It is further stated that deceased has left behind his wife Smt. Shalu Mishra, three daughters namely Mansi, Kumkum, Supriya, Priyanshi Mishra and one son namely Manas Mishra as the only legal heirs of deceased.
3. None appeared for the respondent no. 1/driver cum owner despite service and accordingly, respondent no. 1 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 07.08.2024.
4. Written statement was filed by respondent no. 1 wherein it is stated inter alia that the petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands and have filed petition on uncertified MACT No. 590/2021 Date of Award : 30.01.2026 Shalu Mishra & Ors. Vs. Rameshwar Mahto & Ors. Digitally signedPage No. 3/ 18.
by MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.01.30
15:30:43 +0530
and manipulated facts. It is further stated that deceased was driving vehicle bearing No. DL1L-AD-3537 very rashly and negligent manner and without following rules at the time of accident. It is further stated that the petitioners have not filed income proof, age proof, identity proof and education proof of the deceased alongwith her petition before the Hon'ble Court. It is denied that the vehicle No. NL01-AC-5907 was involved in the accident which was driven by respondent no. 1. However, the vehicle bearing No. NL01-AC-5907 was insured with the respondent no. 2 vide policy No. VGC0770440000100 valid from 14.11.2021 to 13.11.2022.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal on 07.08.2024:-
1. Whether deceased Uma Dutt Mishra suffered fatal injuries in a vehicular accident that took place on 18.11.2021 at about 03:00 PM near KM No. 32, Yamuna Expressway Road, Greater Noida within the jurisdiction of PS Jewar, District Greater Noida Commissionarate, UP involving a vehicle No. NL01-AC-5907 (offending vehicle) being driven by respondent no.
1/Rameshwar Mahto in a rash and negligent manner, who is also its owner and which was insured with respondent no. 2 Royal Sundarum general Insurance Company Limited? OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
6. In order to prove their case, petitioner no. 1/Smt. Shalu Mishra examined herself as PW-1 and PW 2 Sh. Ramesh Singh.
MACT No. 590/2021 Date of Award : 30.01.2026 Shalu Mishra & Ors. Vs. Rameshwar Mahto & Ors. Page No. 4/ 18.
Digitally signedMUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2026.01.30 15:30:51 +0530
7. Respondent no. 2/insurance company examined its Chief Manager Sh. Paritosh Arora as R2W1.
8. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsels for the parties and gone through the record carefully and my issue wise findings are as under :
Issue No.1
9. It is the settled proposition of law that 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 to be tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition based upon negligence. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. Reference may be made to the judgments titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sakshi Bhutani & Others., MAC APP. No. 550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012, Bimla Devi & Others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Others (2009) 13 SC 530, Parmeshwari vs. Amirchand & Others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 & Mangla Ram vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Others 2018, Law Suit (SC)
303.
10. PW-1 Smt. Shalu Mishra (wife of the deceased) tendered her affidavit in evidence which is Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the documents i.e. Ex.CW1/1 (colly.) which is copy of Aadhar card, ration card of petitioner no. 1 and surviving member certificate; Ex.CW1/2 (colly.) are copies of Aadhar card of petitioner no. 2 to 6; Mark A and B are copy of birth certificates of petitioner no. 2 and 3; Ex.CW1/3 (colly.) are copies of driving license and death certificate of deceased; Mark MACT No. 590/2021 Date of Award : 30.01.2026 Shalu Mishra & Ors. Vs. Rameshwar Mahto & Ors. Digitally signedPage No. 5/ 18.
by MUKESH KUMAR MUKESH Date:
KUMAR 2026.01.30
15:31:00
+0530
C and Mark D are copies of RC and insurance policy of vehicle no. DL1LAD3537; Ex.CW1/4 are the certified copies of final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C and Mark E is copy of case diary detail of FIR No. 801/2021
11. In her cross examination done by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 2/insurance company, PW 1 deposed that it is correct that she was not an eye witness and she has not placed on record any document to show the earning of his deceased husband. She further deposed that it is correct that she has not placed on record any document to show the education of her deceased husband and that the Truck bearing No. DL1LAD3537 which was driven by her deceased husband, hit against the stationary vehicle from back side.
12. For the purpose of this issue, the testimony of PW 2 Sh. Ramesh Singh, who is stated to be an eye-witness of the accident in question, is very relevant and PW2 Sh. Ramesh Singh deposed in his examination in chief as under :
"On 18.11.2021 at about 12 am, Sh. Uma Dutt Mishra was going to Lucknow from Kaushal Transport, Nangloi in a vehicle no. DLILAD3537. On the said date, I also went to Agra from Kaushal Transport, Nangloi in a vehicle no.
DLILA3861. When we both reached at Expressway near 32 kilometers at Jevar Toll Plaza at around 3 to 3.30 am, One truck with first two alphabet/ digits of its registration no. "NL" (I do not remember the entire registration number of the said truck), was going behind the vehicle no. DLILAD3537 in which Sh. Uma Dutt Mishra was travelling and hit it from behind. As a result of MACT No. 590/2021 Date of Award : 30.01.2026 Shalu Mishra & Ors. Vs. Rameshwar Mahto & Ors. Page No. 6/ 18.
Digitally signed MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2026.01.30 15:31:09 +0530
which, the vehicle no. DLILAD3537 rammed into a stationary vehicle i.e. Dumper with initial digits/alphabet i.e. "UP16 (I do not remember the entire registration number of the said Dumper). Sh. Uma Dutt Mishra was struck into the truck in which he was travelling. Someone called at 100 number. I alongwith other public persons took out Sh. Uma Dutt Mishra from truck. The ambulance arrived at the spot. The police also arrived at the spot. Sh. Uma Dutt Mishra was taken to a government hospital in the ambulance.
13. In his cross examination PW 2 deposed as under :
"I have received a phone call from the landlord regarding court summon. It is correct that the deceased was residing at Nangloi alongwith his family members. I knew Sh. Uma Dutt Mishra. The distance between my truck and the truck of Sh. Uma Dutt Mishra was 100 meter. The road was 6 lane road. The offending vehicle was going on with the vehicle of the deceased. My statement was recorded by the police. The FIR was not registered on my statement. The site plan was not prepared at my instance. I have not received any summon from any other court. I never visited the PS and received any call from any police official. The speed of all the vehicles were around 50 kmph. There was light traffic on the road at that time. It is wrong to suggest that I was not present on the spot at the time of accident. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely at the instance of petitioners. It is wrong to MACT No. 590/2021 Date of Award : 30.01.2026 Shalu Mishra & Ors. Vs. Rameshwar Mahto & Ors. Digitally signed Page No. 7/ 18.
by MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.01.30
15:31:18 +0530
suggest that the accident took place on account of negligence on the part of Sh. Uma Dutt Mishra and hit against the stationary vehicle"
14. The presence of the PW 3 at the spot at the time of accident in question is duly established. He is the eye-witness to the accident in question, who was going to Agra from Kaushal Transport, Nangloi in a vehicle No. DL1LA3681 and when they both reached at Expressway near 32 Kilometers at Jevar Toll Plaza at around 3 to 03:30 AM, one truck with first two alphabet/digits of its registration no. "NL" was going behind the vehicle no. DL1LAD3537 in which Sh. Uma Dutt Mishra was travelling and hit him from behind. As a result of which the vehicle no. DL1LAD3537 rammed into a into a stationary vehicle i.e Dumper with the initial digits/alphabet i.e "UP16". Sh. Uma Dutt Mishra was struck into the truck in which he was travelling. He was cross examined on behalf of respondent no. 2, however, nothing material elicited from his cross examination, which would impeach his credibility or trustworthiness with regard to his deposition pertaining to the accident in question.
15. It is an undisputed fact that FIR No. 801/2021, PS Jewar, District Greater Noida, U.P. was registered with regard to accident in question. Copy of said FIR (which is part of final report U/s 173 CrPC filed along with the DAR) would show that same was registered on 18.11.2021. Thus, FIR is shown to have been registered promptly and without any delay. Hence, there is no possibility of false implication of respondent no. 1 and false involvement of aforesaid vehicle bearing No. NL01-AC-5907 at the instance of petitioners herein.
16. Furthermore, PW 1 in her evidence has also placed reliance on the DAR, which is Ex.PW1/I which includes Final MACT No. 590/2021 Date of Award : 30.01.2026 Shalu Mishra & Ors. Vs. Rameshwar Mahto & Ors. Digitally signed Page No. 8/ 18.
by MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.01.30
15:31:26 +0530
Report u/s 173 Cr.P.C; Copy of FIR; Rukka; Seizure memo of the vehicle; Seizure memo of documents of offending vehicle and copy of DL of its driver; Site plan of the place of accident; Mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle; MLC and Postmortem report of deceased; Notice u/s 133 M.V. Act given to the owner of the offending vehicle; Arrest memo of accused (respondent no.1 herein) and Statement of witnesses u/s 161 CrPC etc. Respondent no. 1 Rameshwar Mehto (accused in State case) has been charge-sheeted (which is part of copies of criminal case available on record) for offences punishable U/s 279/304A IPC by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in question had occurred due to the rashness and negligence on the part of respondent no. 1 (driver of offending vehicle).
17. Moreover, apart from petitioner, the respondent no. 1 Rameshwar Mahto was the other material witness who could have thrown sufficient light as to how and under what circumstances, the accident in question took place. However, he did not enter into witness box during the course of inquiry. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him for not entering into the witness box, to the effect that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by him.
18. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioners have been able to prove on the scale of preponderance of probabilities that deceased Sh. Uma Dutt Mishra sustained fatal injuries in road accident which took place on 18.11.2021 at KM No. 32, Yamuna Expressway Road, Greater Noida. Accordingly MACT No. 590/2021 Date of Award : 30.01.2026 Shalu Mishra & Ors. Vs. Rameshwar Mahto & Ors. Page No. 9/ 18.
Digitally signed MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2026.01.30 15:31:34 +0530
issue no.1 stands decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
Issue No.2
19. In view of the finding on issue no.1, petitioners are entitled to get compensation, however, the quantum of compensation still needs to be adjudicated. Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 enjoins upon the Claim Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation, which appears to be just and reasonable. As per settled law, compensation is not expected to be windfall or a bonanza nor it should be pittance. A man is not compensated for the physical injury, he is compensated for the loss which he suffers as a result of that injury.
Computation of Compensation
20. The present case pertains to the death of deceased Uma Kant Mishra. In death cases, the guidelines for computation of compensation have been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases
121. Further, the guidelines have been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., 2017 ACJ 2700, decided on 31.10.2017, laying down the general principles for computation of compensation in death cases.
Age of deceased :
21. PW1 Smt. Shalu Mishra (wife of deceased) has deposed that her deceased husband was aged about 38 years at the time of accident. She has filed and relied upon the copy of Driving License of deceased (Ex.PW11/3), which shows date of birth of deceased as 17.07.1984. The same remains undisputed on MACT No. 590/2021 Date of Award : 30.01.2026 Shalu Mishra & Ors. Vs. Rameshwar Mahto & Ors. Page No. 10/ 18.Digitally signed by MUKESH KUMAR
MUKESH Date:
KUMAR 2026.01.30
15:31:42
+0530
the part of the respondents. Date of accident is 18.11.2021. As such, this fact stands concluded that age of the deceased was around 38 years at the time of accident.
Assessment of Income of deceased :
22. Petitioner/PW-1 Smt. Shalu Mishra (wife of deceased) has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW1/A) that her deceased husband was self employed and was working as a Driver in his self owner vehicle bearing No. DL1LAD3537 (Goods Carrier). The Aadhar Cards of the legal heirs of deceased shows that their address is of Delhi. Thus, for want of cogent and definite evidence being led by the petitioners with regard to the actual vocation and monthly income of the deceased, this Tribunal assesses the income of deceased to be at parity with minimum wages of skilled person in the NCT of Delhi which at the time of accident i.e. 18.11.2021 were Rs.
19,473/- per month.
Application of Multiplier:
23. As held above, deceased was around 38 years of age at the time of accident. As per settled principle laid down in case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier as applicable to the age group between 36-40 years is 15.
Accordingly, multiplier to be applied in the present case would be 15.
Future Prospects:
24. On the day of accident, deceased was aged about 38 years. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the present matter, future prospects @ 40% has to be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of pronouncement made by the Apex Court in the case titled as "NIC Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017 ACJ2700 S.C)).
MACT No. 590/2021 Date of Award : 30.01.2026 Shalu Mishra & Ors. Vs. Rameshwar Mahto & Ors. Page No. 11/ 18.
Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2026.01.30 15:31:50 +0530
Deduction towards Personal and Living Expenses:
25. After choosing the age, multiplier and income of the deceased, necessary deductions have to be made out of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. As per the details of LRs of deceased , there are five LRs. In these circumstances, since the deceased has left surviving his six LRs, one-fourth (¼th) of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses, as held in the case titled as "Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation", 2009 ACJ 1298 SC.
26. Thus, considering the aforementioned factors, the compensation for the loss of dependency is calculated as under:
S. No. Head Amount 1. Monthly income of deceased (A) Rs. 19,473/- 2. Add future prospect (B) @ 40% Rs. 7,789.2/-
3. Less 1/4th towards personal and Rs. 6,815.55/-
living expenses of the deceased (C)
4. Monthly loss of dependency (A+B)- Rs. 20,446.65/-
C=D
5. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs. 2,45,359.8/-6. Multiplier (E) 15
7. Total loss of dependency Rs. 36,80,397/-
(Dx12xE=F)
27. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 36,80,397/- . Hence, a sum of Rs. 36,80,397/- (Rupees Thirty Six lacs Eighty Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Seven Only) is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
28. In case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), it has been held that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, MACT No. 590/2021 Date of Award : 30.01.2026 Shalu Mishra & Ors. Vs. Rameshwar Mahto & Ors. Page No. 12/ 18.
Digitally signed by MUKESH KUMARMUKESH Date:
KUMAR 2026.01.30
15:31:59
+0530
loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively and the aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. Therefore, a compensation of Rs. 48,000/-, Rs. 18,000/- and Rs.18,000/- respectively on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted. Further, in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 2705 of 2020, decided on 30.06.2020, loss of consortium has to be fixed for each of the LRs. Since, the deceased has left behind six LRs, therefore, the petitioners/claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,24,000/- (48,000 X 6 + 18,000 + 18,000) under this head.
29. Considering the aforementioned factors, the total compensation is calculated as under:
S. No. Head Amount Awarded 1. Total loss of dependency Rs. 36,80,397/-
2. Compensation for loss of consortium Rs. 2,88,000/-
(48,000/- x 5)
3. Compensation for loss of estate Rs.18,000/-
4. Compensation for funeral expenses Rs.18,000/-
Total compensation Rs. 40,04,397/-
30. Thus, petitioners in this case shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 40,04,397/- (Rupees Forty Lacs Four Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Seven Only). INTEREST ON AWARD
31. Petitioners shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of petition i.e. 16.12.2021 till realization. LIABILITY MACT No. 590/2021 Date of Award : 30.01.2026 Shalu Mishra & Ors. Vs. Rameshwar Mahto & Ors. Page No. 13/ 18.
Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2026.01.30 15:32:06 +0530
32. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Since, it is an admitted case of the respondent No. 2/Insurance Company that the aforesaid vehicle No. NL01- AC-5097 (offending vehicle) was duly insured with it, therefore, respondent No. 3/Insurance Co. is liable to pay the amount of compensation to the petitioners/claimants. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
Relief
33. In view of my finding on issues no. 1 and 2, this Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs. 40,04,397/- (Rupees Forty Lacs Four Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Seven Only) to the petitioner/claimant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum in favour of petitioners w.e.f. date of filing of DAR i.e 16.12.2021 till realization, to be paid by the respondent no. 2/insurance company. Amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the compensation amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case. The respondent no.2/insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in the MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account no. 40714429271, IFSC Code. SBIN0000726 Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, within 30 days from today. The respondent no. 1 and 2 are also directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioners. Apportionment
34. Statements of petitioners in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP were recorded on 13.08.2025 and considering the totality of circumstances of the case, share of petitioners in the award amount shall be as under:-
MACT No. 590/2021 Date of Award : 30.01.2026 Shalu Mishra & Ors. Vs. Rameshwar Mahto & Ors. Page No. 14/ 18.Digitally signed by MUKESH KUMAR
MUKESH Date:
KUMAR 2026.01.30
15:32:14
+0530
S. No. Name Relationship with Share in the
deceased award amount
1. Shalu Mishra Wife 50%
2. Mansi Daughter 10%
3. Kumkum Daughter 10%
4. Supriya Daughter 10%
5. Priyanshi Mishra Daughter 10%
6. Manas Mishra Son 10%
Disbursement of Award Amount
35. In view of the aforesaid, it is hereby ordered that out of total compensation amount, the petitioner no. 1 namely Smt. Shalu Mishra shall be entitled to share amount of Rs.
20,02,198.5/- (rounded off to Rs. 20,02,198/-) (Rupees Twenty Lacs Two Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Eight Only) alongwith proportionate interest; the petitioner no. 2 namely Ms. Mansi shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 4,00,439.7/- (rounded off to Rs. 4,00,440/-) (Rupees Four Lacs Four Hundred and Forty Only) alongwith proportionate interest; the petitioner no. 3 namely Kumkum shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 4,00,439.7/- (rounded off to Rs. 4,00,440/-) (Rupees Four Lacs Four Hundred and Forty Only) alongwith proportionate interest, the petitioner no. 4 Supriya shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 4,00,439.7/- (rounded off to Rs. 4,00,440/-) (Rupees Four Lacs Four Hundred and Forty Only) alongwith proportionate interest, the petitioner no. 5 namely Priyanshi Mishra shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 4,00,439.7/- (rounded off to Rs. 4,00,440/-) (Rupees Four Lacs Four Hundred and Forty Only) alongwith proportionate interest and the petitioner no. 6 namely Manas Mishra shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 4,00,439.7/- (rounded off to Rs. 4,00,440/-) (Rupees Four Lacs MACT No. 590/2021 Date of Award : 30.01.2026 Shalu Mishra & Ors. Vs. Rameshwar Mahto & Ors. Digitally signed Page No. 15/ 18.
by MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.01.30
15:32:22 +0530
Four Hundred and Forty Only) alongwith proportionate interest
36. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 1 Smt. Shalu Mishra, a sum of Rs. 3,02,198/- (Rupees Three Lacs Two Thousand One Hundred Ninety Eight Only) shall be immediately released to her through her MACT saving bank account and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 50,000/- each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
37. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 2 Ms. Mansi, a sum of Rs. 1,00,440/- (Rupees One Lac Four hundred and Forty Only) shall be immediately released to her through her MACT saving bank account and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 20,000/- each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
38. The entire share amount of Rs. 4,00,440/- (Rupees Four Lacs Four Hundred and Forty Only) alongwith interest of petitioner no. 3 Kumkum be kept in the form of FDR(s) for the period till she attains the age of majority.
39. The entire share amount of Rs. 4,00,440/- (Rupees Four Lacs Four Hundred and Forty Only) alongwith interest of petitioner no. 4 Supriya be kept in the form of FDR(s) for the period till she attains the age of majority.
40. The entire share amount of Rs. 4,00,440/- (Rupees Four Lacs Four Hundred and Forty Only) alongwith interest of petitioner no. 5 Priyanshi Mishra be kept in the form of FDR(s) for the period till she attains the age of majority.
41. The entire share amount of Rs. 4,00,440/- (Rupees Four Lacs Four Hundred and Forty Only) alongwith interest of MACT No. 590/2021 Date of Award : 30.01.2026 Shalu Mishra & Ors. Vs. Rameshwar Mahto & Ors. Page No. 16/ 18.
Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2026.01.30 15:32:29 +0530
petitioner no. 6 Manas Mishra be kept in the form of FDR(s) for the period till he attains the age of majority.
42. The amount of FDRs on maturity shall directly be released in petitioners' MACT Saving Bank Account.
43. 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. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant.
(b) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(c) The maturity amounts of the FDR be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant 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.
44. Respondent no. 2 i.e. Royal Sundarum General Insurance Co. Ltd., being insurer of offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the compensation amount with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts 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 Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts branch is directed to transfer the respective amounts of petitioners in their MACT saving bank accounts, as per the award, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
45. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph, specimen signature, copy of bank passbook and copy of residence proof of the petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of MACT No. 590/2021 Date of Award : 30.01.2026 Shalu Mishra & Ors. Vs. Rameshwar Mahto & Ors. Digitally signed Page No. 17/ 18.
by MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.01.30
15:32:36 +0530
State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
46. Form XV and Form XVII in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A.
47. A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir .
48. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost.
49. A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class as well as DSLSA as per the provisions of the Modified Claim Tribunal Agreed Procedure Digitally signed (MCTAP). MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.01.30 15:32:44 +0530 Announced in the open Court (MUKESH KUMAR) On January 30, 2026. PO-MACT-02, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
MACT No. 590/2021 Date of Award : 30.01.2026 Shalu Mishra & Ors. Vs. Rameshwar Mahto & Ors. Page No. 18/ 18.