Sanjeet Kumar vs Satybir Singh And Ors on 12 September, 2025

[Cites 16, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Sanjeet Kumar vs Satybir Singh And Ors on 12 September, 2025

       IN THE COURT OF MS. MAYURI SINGH
               PRESIDING OFFICER:
   MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, EAST,
         KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
_________________________________________________

In the matters of:
(i) MACP No.6/18
   Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.
(ii) MACP No.7/18
     Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.
(iii) MACP No.8/18
     Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.
(iv) MACP No.9/18
    Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.
(v) MACP No.10/18
     Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.
(vi) MACP No. 11/18
      Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

                           MACT No. 6/2018
(i) Smt. Shalu
    W/o- Late Sh. Rajeev Kumar
(ii) Master Avneet
     S/o Late Sh. Rajeev Kumar
(iii) Smt. Rani
     W/o- Sh. Rajinder Singh @ Rajnder Kumar
(iv) Sh. Rajinder Singh @ Rajinder Kumar
     S/o- Late Sh. Suller Singh
     All R/o- 6/146, Khichripur, Patparganj, East Delhi, Delhi
     (P.S.- Kalyan Puri)
                                                  ......Petitioners

                                  Versus

1. Sh. Satyabir Singh (Driver)
   S/o Sh. Jogi Ram
_____________________________________________________________
MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.
MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.
MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.
MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.
MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.
MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.
                                                             Page 1 of 100
    R/o Village Bharan, Meham, 12.5B, Distt. Rohtak
   Bahran, Meham, Distt. Rohtak (Haryana)
2. Sh. Sandeep Kumar (Owner)
   S/o Sh. Gopal Das
   R/o Village Kanhi, 125.B, Rohtak (Haryana)
3. Magma HDI GIC Ltd., (Insurer)
   9, Raja Dhir Sain Marg, Sant Nagar, East of Kailash
   New Delhi.
4. Capt. Kshitish Ranjan Barua (Regd. Owner of Wagon R
Car)
   S/o- Sh. Jaynata Barua
   R/o- C-803, Gatway Tower, Sector-4, Vaishali,
   Ghaziabad (U.P.)
5. Reliance GIC Ltd.
   B-160/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I,
   New Delhi

                                                    ....Respondents

MACT No. 7/2018

1. Sh. Sanjeet Kumar S/o Sh. Rajender Singh @ Rajender Kumar

2. Smt. Pooja W/o- Sh. Sanjeet Kumar All R/o 6/146, Khichripur, Patparganj, East Delhi, Delhi-91 (P.S.- Kalyan Puri) ......Petitioners Versus

1.Sh. Satyabir Singh (Driver)

2. Sh. Sandeep Kumar (Owner)

3. Magma HDI GIC Ltd. (Insurer)

4. Capt. Kshitish Ranjan Barua (Regd. Owner of Wagon R Car)

5. Reliance GIC Ltd.

(Details as above) ....Respondents _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 2 of 100 MACT No. 8/2018

1. Sh. Sanjeet Kumar S/o Sh. Rajender Singh @ Rajender Kumar All R/o 6/146, Khichripur, Patparganj, East Delhi, Delhi-91 (P.S.- Kalyan Puri) ............Petitioner Versus

1.Sh. Satyabir Singh (Driver)

2. Sh. Sandeep Kumar (Owner)

3. Magma HDI GIC Ltd. (Insurer)

4. Capt. Kshitish Ranjan Barua (Regd. Owner of Wagon R Car)

5. Reliance GIC Ltd.

  (Details as above)                         ....Respondents

                           MACT No. 9/2018
1. Smt. Renu Devi
W/o Late Sh. Munesh Kumar
2. Master Pranav Kumar
S/o- Late Sh. Munesh Kumar
3. Master Parth Chauhan
S/o- Late Sh. Munesh Kumar

All R/o H.No.2/57, Block No.2, Indira Camp, Trilok Puri, East Delhi-110091

4. Smt. Murti Devi W/o- Late Sh. Kali Charan R/o- H.No. 123/12, Khandavali, District Meerut Uttar Pradesh-245206 ......Petitioners Versus

1.Sh. Satyabir Singh (Driver)

2. Sh. Sandeep Kumar (Owner)

3. Magma HDI GIC Ltd. (Insurer)

4. Capt. Kshitish Ranjan Barua (Regd. Owner of Wagon R Car)

5. Reliance GIC Ltd.

Page 3 of 100 MACT No. 10/2018

1. Sh. Ajay Kumar S/o Late Sh. Naresh Kumar R/o Jhuggi No.18/405, Indira Camp, Kalyanpuri, East Delhi-110091 Also at:- H.No. 6/285, Kichripur, (P.S. Kalyanpuri) East Delhi-110091 (Near Kendriya Vidyalaya) (P.S.- Kalyan Puri) ......Petitioner Versus

1.Sh. Satyabir Singh (Driver)

2. Sh. Sandeep Kumar (Owner)

3. Magma HDI GIC Ltd. (Insurer)

4. Capt. Kshitish Ranjan Barua (Regd. Owner of Wagon R Car)

5. Reliance GIC Ltd.

(Details as above) ....Respondents MACT No. 11/2018

1. Smt. Meena W/o Late Sh. Naresh Kumar

2. Aarti D/o- Late Sh. Naresh Kumar

3. Miss. Sandhya D/o- Late Sh. Naresh Kumar

4. Smt. Rachna D/o- Late Sh. Naresh Kumar

5. Sh. Ajay S/o- Late Sh. Naresh Kumar

6. Master Ankit S/o- Late Sh. Naresh Kumar Earlier all R/o Jhuggi No.18/405, Indira Camp,Kalyan Puri, East Delhi-110091 At Present:- R/o- H.No. 6/285, Kichripur, Chilla Saroda, Khadar, East Delhi, Delhi-110091 (P.S. Kalyan Puri) ......Petitioners _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 4 of 100

Versus

1.Sh. Satyabir Singh (Driver)

2. Sh. Sandeep Kumar (Owner)

3. Magma HDI GIC Ltd. (Insurer)

4. Capt. Kshitish Ranjan Barua (Regd. Owner of Wagon R Car)

5. Reliance GIC Ltd.

  (Details as above)
                                            ....Respondents



Date of Institution                  : 16.01.2018
Date of reserve of order             : Not reserved
Date of pronouncement                : 12.09.2025

                             AWAR D

1. By this common award, six claim petitions bearing MACT Nos. 6/18 to 11/18 based on separate claim petitions filed by the injured victim/LRs of the injured deceased seeking compensation under Sections 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arising out of the same accident, would be decided.

2. Briefly stated, the facts as narrated in the claim petitions bearing MACP No. 6/18 to MACP No. 11/18 are that on 18.10.2017 at about 11:30 a.m., deceased Sh. Rajeev Kumar (husband of Petitioner No. 1 in MACP No.6/18), deceased Munesh Kumar (husband of Petitioner No.1 in MACP No.9/18) (his name is mentioned in the FIR as Manish Kumar but as per the Driving Licence of deceased, his name is spelled as _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 5 of 100

'Munesh Kumar', deceased Naresh Kumar (husband of Petitioner No.1 in MACP No.11/18), deceased Master Puneet Kumar (minor son of Petitioner/s in MACP No.7/18), injured/petitioner Ajay, injured/petitioner Sanjeet Kumar and one Pranav were returning to Delhi from a religious tour after paying respect to Goga Medi Rajasthan in Maruti Wagon R Car bearing No. DL-8CNA-1463 and car was being driven by Munesh Kumar (since deceased). Munesh Kumar/Driver of the Maruti Wagon R Car was taking all necessary precautions and driving in a moderate speed. When the car reached near Kharkada Toll Plaza, suddenly a tractor bearing No. HR-12AB-2771, which was going ahead of the Wagon R Car, suddenly took a sharp turn without giving any signal and indication and struck against the Wagon R Car. Due to this, Wagon R Car was badly damaged and all the occupants of the car sustained multiple grievous injuries on their bodies. All the injured were taken to PGI Rohtak and subsequently KAINOS Hospital, Rohtak Haryana & four of the injured namely Sh. Rajeev Kumar, Naresh Kumar, Sh. Munesh Kumar and Master Puneet succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident.

3. FIR bearing No. 598/2017 was registered. During investigation, it was found that the accident was caused by the said offending vehicle/tractor, being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and owned by respondent No. 2. Charge-sheet was filed against R1 after conclusion of _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 6 of 100

investigation.

4. Notice of the claim petitions (MACP No. 6/18 to 11/18) were issued to all the three respondents. Respondent No.3/Magma HDI GIC Ltd. sought impleadment of owner and insurer of the victim vehicle/Wagon R Car and they were impleaded by the Tribunal by order dated 05.09.2018, as Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 respectively.

5. In the joint written statement filed by R1 (Driver of the offending Tractor) & R2 (registered owner of the offending tractor), it is stated that no accident took place with the vehicle of the respondent on the alleged date. The alleged vehicle was not involved in the accident. The alleged offending vehicle was insured with R3. It is further stated that petitioners have concocted the story to grab compensation and only this much is correct that an FIR was registered against R1 but the same was registered in collusion with police officials just to get compensation.

6. Respondent No.3/Magma HDI GIC Ltd. (Insurer of offending tractor bearing Registration No. HR-12AD-2771) has stated in written statement that the allegations in the claim petition are false. The accident took place due to sole negligence on the part of Munesh, the driver of the Wagon R Car, which struck against the trolley of the tractor. The car was extensively damaged, whereas only trolley attached to the tractor was _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 7 of 100

damaged and tractor was still in working condition and the mechanical inspection report of the vehicle shows that the driver of Wagon R Car was driving at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. Other general defences have been taken by R1, including the plea that in case trolley was not having a transport permit, R3 is not liable. It is also stated inter-alia that the occupants in the car were travelling in violation of the permitted sitting capacity which was five, whereas 08 persons, including the driver were travelling in the car.

7. Vide order dated 08.05.2019, on application of R4, the delay in filing of WS by R4 was condoned and the cost imposed vide order dated 03.12.2018 was reduced to half and further it was mentioned that written statement of R4 in all the six cases shall be considered. The previous cost was paid by R4 to the petitioners in terms of order dated 03.12.2018 and 08.05.2019 on 04.09.2019. Respondent 4/ Capt. Kshitish Ranjan Barua has filed his written statement through his attorney Jayant Barua. It is stated that R4 was the owner of Maruti Wagon R Car bearing No. DL-8CNA-1463 and it was purchased by him in the year 2007 and insured with R5/Reliance GIC Ltd. After using the car for approximately 10 years, R4 sold the vehicle on 21.09.2017 to one Mr. Naresh Kumar. Payments were made partly by way of cheque and in cash and delivery receipt was executed and possession was handed over to one Naresh Kumar and Naresh Kumar assured to get Registration Certificate transferred in his _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 8 of 100

name by 01.10.2017 and from the date of its delivery, R4 had no knowledge about the whereabouts of the sold vehicle and he learnt about the accident only on receiving summons of the Tribunal. R4 is not a necessary party as he has sold out the vehicle to Naresh Kumar and further the vehicle was insured with R5 and hence, there can be no liability against R4. The accident was caused due to sole negligence of the driver of the tractor, against whom FIR was lodged and a criminal case is pending. The offending tractor was not having a valid permit and fitness for plying in the place of accident and driver was not holding a valid driving licence and thus, the driver/owner of the tractor are solely responsible for the accident. The petitioner/s (in the MACP Nos. 6/18, 7/18, 9/18 & 11/18) were not dependent on the deceased victims namely Sh. Rajeev Kumar, Naresh Kumar, Sh. Munesh Kumar and Master Puneet and that they are not Legal Representatives of the deceased injured.

8. In the Written Statement filed on behalf of R5/Reliance GIC Ltd., it is stated that the accident was caused due to sole negligence of the tractor and R5 is not liable. Driver of the tractor/R1 was not holding a valid driving licence and tractor was not having valid permit and fitness for plying at the place of accident. The Maruti Wagon R Car bearing No. DL-8CNA-1463 was insured in the name of R4. The petitioner/s (in the MACP Nos. 6/18, 7/18, 9/18 & 11/18) are not dependent on the deceased and that they are not LRs of the deceased injured. Other general _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 9 of 100

defences have been taken by R5.

9. On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed on 19.12.2018:-

In MACP No. 6/18 :

i). Whether Mr. Rajeev Kumar died in a motor vehicular accident that happened on 18.10.2017 at about 11:30 a.m. near Kharkoda Toll Plaza, within jurisdiction of PS- Meham, Dist.

Rohtak, Haryana, due to rash and negligent driving of motor vehicle bearing registration No. DL-8CNA-1463 (WAGON R Car) driven by Sh. Munesh Kumar (now deceased) and motor vehicle bearing Registration No. HR-12AD-2771 (Tractor) driven by respondent No. 1/Satyabir Singh (OPP)

ii). Whether there was composite negligence on the part of the drivers of vehicle bearing Registration No. DL-8CNA-1463 (WAGON R Car) driven by Sh. Munesh Kumar/now deceased and motor vehicle bearing Registration No. HR-12AD-2771 driven by respondent No. 1/Satyabir Singh in causing the accident, if so, its effect ? OPP

iii). Whether there was breach of any term and condition of insurance policy, if so, its effect ? (OPR 3 & 5)

iv). Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom ? ( OPP)

v). Whether the petitioners are entitled to interest on the award amount, if so, at what rate and from which period?

vi).    Relief.

In MACP No. 7/18 :
(i)     Whether Master Punit Kumar died in a motor vehicular

accident on 18.10.2017 at about 11:30 a.m. near Kharkoda Toll Plaza, within jurisdiction of PS- Meham, Dist. Rohtak, Haryana, due to rash and negligent driving of motor vehicle bearing registration No. DL-8CNA-1463 (WAGON R _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 10 of 100

Car) driven by Sh. Munesh Kumar (now deceased) and motor vehicle bearing Registration No. HR-12AD-2771 (Tractor) driven by respondent No. 1/Satyabir Singh (OPP)

(ii) Whether there was composite negligence on the part of the drivers of vehicle bearing Registration No. DL-8CNA-1463 (WAGON R Car) driven by Sh. Munesh Kumar (now deceased) and motor vehicle bearing Registration No. HR- 12AD-2771 driven by respondent No. 1/Satyabir Singh in causing the accident, if so, its effect ? OPP

(iii) Whether there was breach of any term and condition of insurance policy, if so, its effect ? (OPR 3 & 5)

(iv) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom ? ( OPP)

(v) Whether the petitioners are entitled to interest on the award a mount, if so, at what rate and from which period?

(vi)    Relief.


In MACP No. 8/18 :
(i)     Whether Mr. Sanjeet Kumar suffered injuries in a motor

vehicular accident on 18.10.2017 at about 11:30 a.m. near Kharkoda Toll Plaza, within jurisdiction of PS- Meham, Dist. Rohtak, Haryana, due to rash and negligent driving of motor vehicle bearing registration No. DL-8CNA-1463 (WAGON R Car) driven by Sh. Munesh Kumar (now deceased) and motor vehicle bearing Registration No. HR-12AD-2771 (Tractor) driven by respondent No. 1/Satyabir Singh (OPP)

(iii) Whether there was breach of any term and condition of insurance policy, if so, its effect ? (OPR 3 & 5)

(iv) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 11 of 100

what amount and from whom ? ( OPP)

(v) Whether the petitioners are entitled to interest on the award a mount, if so, at what rate and from which period?

(vi)    Relief.


In MACP No. 9/18 :
(i)     Whether Mr. Munesh Kumar died in a motor vehicular

(ii) Whether there was composite negligence on the part of the deceased bearing Registration No. DL-8CNA-1463 (WAGON R Car) and causing the accident, if so, its effect ? OPP

(iii) Whether there was breach of any term and condition of insurance policy, if so, its effect ? (OPR 3 & 5)

(iv) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom ? ( OPP)

(v) Whether the petitioners are entitled to interest on the award amount, if so, at what rate and from which period?

(vi)    Relief.


In MACP No. 10/18 :
(i)     Whether Mr. Ajay suffered injuries in a motor vehicular

accident on 18.10.2017 at about 11:30 a.m. near Kharkoda Toll Plaza, within jurisdiction of PS- Meham, Dist. Rohtak, Haryana, due to rash and negligent driving of motor vehicle bearing registration No. DL-8CNA-1463 (WAGON R Car) driven by Sh. Munesh Kumar (now deceased) and motor vehicle bearing Registration No. HR-12AD-2771 (Tractor) driven by respondent No. 1/Satyabir Singh (OPP) _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 12 of 100

(iii) Whether there was breach of any term and condition of insurance policy, if so, its effect ? (OPR 3 & 5)

(iv) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom ? ( OPP)

(v) Whether the petitioners are entitled to interest on the award a mount, if so, at what rate and from which period?

(vi)    Relief.
In MACP No. 11/18 :
(i)     Whether Mr. Naresh Kumar died in a motor vehicular

(iii) Whether there was breach of any term and condition of insurance policy, if so, its effect ? (OPR 3 & 5)

(iv) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom ? ( OPP)

(v) Whether the petitioners are entitled to interest on the award a mount, if so, at what rate and from which period?

(vi) Relief.

_____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 13 of 100

10. Vide order dt. 08.05.2019, all the six claim cases bearing MACT Nos. 6/18, 7/18, 8/18, 9/18, 10/18 & 11/18 were consolidated for the purpose of enquiry and MACP No. 6/18 (Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.) was considered as a main case and it was mentioned that common evidence would be recorded and shall be kept in the lead case MACP No. 6/18. It was also made clear that evidence already recorded shall be read in all of the cases.

11. In order to establish their claim, petitioners have examined the following witnesses:-

11(a) PW1 is Ms. Kusum Dahiya, Medical Record In-charge, Shanti Mukund Hospital. She produced the Medical Treatment Record of petitioner Ajay (petitioner in MACP No. 10/18), which is Ex.PW1/2. The authority letter executed in her favour by AMS is Ex.PW1/1.

11(b) PW2 Sh. Anil, Employee at Madhu Nursing Home, produced the medical treatment Record of Sanjeet (petitioner in MACT No. 8/18), which is Ex.PW2/1. The authority letter executed in his favour is Ex.PW2/2. He deposed that Sanjeet was admitted in Madhu Nursing Home on 14.01.2018 and discharged on 16.01.2018.

_____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 14 of 100

11(c) PW3 Ms. Meena (Petitioner No. 1 in MACP No. 11/18 and wife of deceased injured Sh. Naresh Kumar in the said claim petition) deposed on the strength of affidavit Ex.PW3/A. She deposed about on receiving of telephonic message from Mr. Ajay (one of the occupants of the car) to the effect that their Maruti Wagon R bearing No. DL-8CNA-1463- which was being driven by Sh. Munesh Kumar- had met with an accident with a tractor at toll plaza Karkada and all the injured persons had been removed to Meham Rohtak Hospital. She all alongwith other relatives reached at the said hospital and found that Mr. Naresh Kumar had succumbed to injuries at the spot alongwith Mr. Rajeev and Master Punit, who had also died on the spot whereas others had sustained grievous injuries and they were first admitted in Meham Hospital, Rohtak and out of those injured persons, Mr. Munesh Kumar had also died during treatment in the PGI Hospital, Rohtak. Deceased Naresh Kumar had left behind his wife, two married daughters namely Aarti and Rachna, one mentally retarded daughter Sandhya, major son Ajay and minor son Ankit. The parents of the deceased had pre-deceased him. Mr. Naresh Kumar was working as a Work Assistant with MTNL, Mayur Vihar and earning Rs.51,496/- per month as salary and was contributing towards household expenses and looking after the children, especially mentally retarded daughter and all the petitioners were totally dependent on the income of the deceased, as he was the sole bread earner. She relied on the following documents:

_____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 15 of 100

* Photocopy of her Aadhar Card is Ex.PW3/1. * Photocopy of bank passbook of son of deceased Sh. Naresh Kumar, namely Master Ankit is Ex.PW3/2. * Photocopy of bank passbook of daughter of deceased Sh. Naresh Kumar, namely Aarti is Ex.PW3/3. * Photocopy of bank passbook of son of deceased Sh. Naresh Kumar, namely Ajay is Ex.PW3/4.

* Photocopy of bank passbook of daughter of deceased Sh. Naresh Kumar, namely Rachna is Ex.PW3/5. * Photocopy of PAN Card of daughter of deceased Sh. Naresh Kumar, namely Sandhya is Ex.PW3/6.

* Photocopy of Aadhar Card of daughter of deceased Sh. Naresh Kumar, namely Master Ankit is Ex.PW3/7. * Photocopy of I.D. Card of deceased Sh. Naresh Kumar, issued by his employer MTNL is Ex.PW3/8.

* Photocopy of PAN Card of deceased Sh. Naresh Kumar is Ex.PW3/9.

* Photocopy of Aadhar Card of deceased Sh. Naresh Kumar is Ex.PW3/10.

* Photocopy of her Aadhar Card is Ex.PW3/11. * Photocopy of Aadhar Card of daughter of deceased Sh. Naresh Kumar, namely Aarti is Ex.PW3/12.

* Photocopy of Aadhar Card of daughter of deceased Sh. Naresh Kumar, namely Rachna is Ex.PW3/13.

* Photocopy of Aadhar Card of son of deceased Sh. Naresh Kumar, namely Ajay is Ex.PW3/14.

_____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 16 of 100

* Photocopy of Aadhar Card of son of deceased Sh. Naresh Kumar, namely Ankit is Ex.PW3/15.

* The attested copy of criminal case record, filed by the IO of that case, is collectively exhibited as Ex.PW3/16. * Attested photocopy of postmortem report of deceased Naresh Kumar, which is part of the criminal case record filed by the IO is Ex.PW3/17.

11(d) PW4 Ms. Renu (Petitioner No. 1 in MACP No. 9/18 and wife of deceased injured Sh. Munesh Kumar in the said claim petition) deposed on the strength of affidavit Ex.PW4/A. She deposed that on receipt of telephonic message from Mr. Ajay (one of the occupants of the car) that their Maruti Wagon R bearing No.DL-8CNA-1463- which was being driven by Sh. Munesh Kumar- had met with an accident with a tractor at toll plaza Karkada and all the injured persons had been removed to Meham Rohtak Hospital, she all alongwith other relatives reached at the said hospital and found that Mr. Naresh Kumar had succumbed to injuries at the spot alongwith Mr. Rajeev and Master Punit, who had also died on the spot whereas others had sustained grievous injuries and they were first admitted in Meham Hospital, Rohtak and out of those injured persons, Mr. Munish Kumar had also died during treatment in the PGI Hospital, Rohtak. Deceased Munesh Kumar had left behind his wife Renu, minor sons namely Master Pranav and Master Parth and mother Murti Devi. The father of the deceased had pre- _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 17 of 100

deceased him. Mr. Munesh Kumar was working as a driver with M/s Fox Mandal & Company, Noida and earning Rs.23,414/- per month as salary and contributing towards household expenses and looking after the children and old aged mother. All the petitioners were totally dependent on the income of the deceased as he was a sole bread earner. She relied on the following documents:

* Original death certificate of her deceased husband Munesh Kumar is Ex.PW4/1.

* Photocopy of Aadhar Card of deceased Munesh Kumar is Ex.PW4/2.

* Photocopy of PAN Card of deceased Munesh Kumar is Ex.PW4/3.

* Photocopy of DL of deceased Munesh Kumar is Ex.PW4/4. * Photocopy of her Aadhar Card is Ex.PW4/5. * Photocopy of Aadhar Card of her son Parth Chauhan/son of deceased Munesh Kumar is Ex.PW4/6.

* Photocopy of Aadhar Card of her son Pranav Chauhan/son of deceased Munesh Kumar is Ex.PW4/7.

* Photocopy of Aadhar Card of Smt. Murti Devi/mother of deceased Munesh Kumar is Ex.PW4/8.

* Photocopy of my PAN Card is Ex.PW4/9.

* Photocopy of bank passbook of her son Pranav Chauhan is Ex.PW4/10.

* Photocopy of bank passbook of her son Parth Chauhan is Ex.PW4/11.

_____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 18 of 100

* Photocopy of bank passbook of Smt. Murti Devi, mother of deceased husband is Ex.PW4/12.

* The letter dt. 02.02.2018 written by Smt. Murti Devi to Branch In-charge, Syndicate Bank, Khandawali, Meerut, having endorsement of said Branch In-charge to the effect that no ATM, cheque facility has been issued is Ex.PW4/13. * Photocopy of election ID card of Smt. Murti Devi, mother of deceased Sh. Munesh Kumar is Ex.PW4/14. * Photocopy of PAN Card of Smt. Murti Devi, mother of deceased Sh. Munesh Kumar is Ex.PW4/15.

11(e) PW5 Ms. Shalu (Petitioner No. 1 in MACP No. 6/18 and wife of deceased injured Sh. Rajeev Kumar in the said claim petition) deposed on the strength of affidavit Ex.PW5/A. She deposed that on receipt of telephonic message from Mr. Ajay (one of the occupants of the car) that their Maruti Wagon R bearing No. DL-8CNA-1463- which was being driven by Sh. Munesh Kumar- had met with an accident with a tractor at toll plaza Karkada and all the injured persons had been removed to Meham Rohtak Hospital, she alongwith other relatives reached at the said hospital and found that Mr. Naresh Kumar had succumbed at the spot alongwith Mr. Rajeev and Maste Punit who had also died on the spot whereas others had sustained grievous injuries and they were first admitted in Meham Hospital, Rohtak and out of those injured persons, Mr. Munesh Kumar had also died during treatment in the PGI Hospital, _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 19 of 100

Rohtak. Deceased Rajeev Kumar had left behind his wife, one minor son namely Avneet Kumar and his parents Mr. Rajeev Kumar was working as a driver and was self employed and earning Rs.20,000/- per month as salary and contributing towards household expenses and looking after the child and mother. All the petitioners were totally dependent on the income of the deceased as he was the sole bread earner. She relied on the following documents:

* Photocopy of her Aadhar Card is Ex.PW5/1. * Photocopy of her PAN Card is Ex.PW5/2. * Photocopy of Aadhar Card of mother of deceased is Ex.PW5/3. * Photocopy of PAN Card of mother of deceased is Ex.PW5/4. * Photocopy of Aadhar Card of father of deceased is Ex.PW5/5. * Photocopy of PAN Card of father of deceased is Ex.PW5/6. * Photocopy of PAN Card of deceased is Ex.PW5/7. * Photocopy of DL of deceased is Ex.PW5/8.

11(f) PW6 Sh. Sanjeet Kumar (Petitioner in MACP No. 8/18) deposed on the strength of his affidavit Ex.PW6/A as well as additional affidavit Ex.PW6/B (with respect to death of his minor son Punit). He deposed that on 18.10.2017, he alongwith other relatives were returning from a religious tour after paying respect to Gogamedi (Rajasthan) and were returning in Maruti WagonR Car bearing No. DL-8C-NA1463, being driven by Mr. Munesh Kumar and at about 11:30 AM, when the car reached near Kharkhoda Toll Plaza, suddenly a tractor bearing registration No. _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 20 of 100

HR-12-AD-2771, which was being driver rashly at a high speed and was going ahead of their car, took a sudden sharp turn by blocking the remaining portion of the road and thus despite applying of sudden brakes, Mr. Munesh Kumar could not succeed to save the collision and car struck against the tractor, resulting in injuries to all occupants of the car and on the spot death of three persons namely Mr. Naresh Kumar, Mr. Rajeev Kumar and Master Punit (son of petitioner Mr. Sanjeet Kumar) and death of Mr. Munesh Kumar in the hospital later. Petitioner Mr. Sanjeet and Mr. Ajay received multiple injuries and were firstly admitted in Maham Hospital, Rohtak, Haryana and thereafter, Mr. Sanjeet had taken treatment from Kailash Hospital, Noida, UP, Ramlal Kundan Lal Hospital as well as in Madhu Nursing Hospital, Meerut, UP. The accident was caused due to negligent and careless driving on the part of R1. Police came and inquired from Mr. Sanjeet and Mr. Ajay about the manner of accident and FIR was registered on the statement of Mr. Ajay. He relied upon the following documents: * Original Medical Treatment documents of his treatment is Ex.PW6/1.

* Original medical bills for a total sum of Rs.3,26,366 alongwith calculation sheet are Ex.PW6/2.

* Photocopy of his aadhar card is Ex.PW6/3. * Photocopy of school I.D. of his deceased son Punit is Ex.PW6/4.

* Photocopy of Aadhar Card of his deceased son Punit is _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 21 of 100

Ex.PW6/5.

* Photocopy of death certificate of his deceased son Punit is Ex.PW6/6.

* Photocopy of Aadhar Card of mother of his deceased son Punit is Ex.PW6/7.

* Photocopy of PAN Card of mother of his deceased son Punit is Ex.PW6/8.

11(g) PW7 Sh. Ajay Kumar (Petitioner in MACP No. 8/18) deposed on the strength of his affidavit Ex.PW7/A. He deposed on the lines of testimony of PW6. He relied upon the following documents:

* Copy of his discharge summary alongwith original medical treatment record of Shanti Mukumd Hospital are Ex.PW7/1. * His original medical bills for a total sum of Rs. 3,796/- alongwith summary/list thereof are Ex.PW7/2. * Copy of his aadhar card and PAN Card are Ex.PW7/3 and Ex.PW7/4 respectively.

11(h) PW8 is Sh. Mukesh Kumar Srivastava, Clerk M/s. Fox Mandal & Comp. He relied upon authority letter Ex.PW8/A. He also relied upon the salary slip consisting of two sheets for the month of October, 2017, bio data of deceased Munesh Kumar, copy of ration card, driving licence and 10th class mark sheet of deceased Munesh Kumar are Ex.PW8/B. _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 22 of 100

11(i) PW9 Sh. Saurabh Tiwari is Asst. MRD, Kailash Hospital. He relied upon his identity card Ex.PW9/A. He also relied upon the treatment record of injured Sh. Sanjeet Kumar Ex.PW9/B. Thereafter, petitioners closed their PE.

12. Respondents did not choose to examine any witness on their behalf.

13. I have heard Sh. V.K. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for petitioner/s, Sh. M. Awasthi, Ld. Counsel for R3/Magma Insurer GIC Ltd., Sh. Mohit Garg, Ld. Counsel for R4 and Sh. Rajesh Goel, Ld. Counsel for Respondent No.5/Reliance GIC. Record of the case has also been perused.

ISSUE Nos.1 & 2: (In MACP No.6/18 to 11/18)

14. Issue Nos. 1 & 2 being intimately connected, are being taken up together. 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 in fact is the preponderance of probabilities which is applied in civil cases. It is also the law that the tribunal is not bound by the technical rules of evidence. Further in holding any inquiry under section 168, The Claims Tribunal may follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit.

Page 23 of 100

15. In order to prove their cases, the petitioner/s in the above-stated claim petitions MACP Nos. 6/18 to 11/ 18 have examined 09 witnesses, including eye-witness Sh. Sanjeet (PW6) and Sh. Ajay (PW7). PW6 deposed that on 18.10.2017, when he alongwith other relatives was returning from the Village to after paying their respects to deity Goga Medi, at Goga Medi (Rajasthan) and was returning to Delhi in the victim vehicle/Maruti Wagon R bearing No. DL-8CNA-1463, being driven by Mr. Munesh Kumar, by observing all traffic rules and at a moderate speed, at about 11:30 a.m. when the car reached near Kharkoda Toll Plaza, suddenly the offending Tractor bearing No. HR-12AD-2771, which was being driven rashly and at a high speed and was moving ahead of the victim car, suddenly took a sharp turn blocking the remaining portion of the road and due to this, despite applying sudden brakes in the car, Mr. Munesh Kumar could not save the collusion and the Wagon R Car struck against the Tractor, resulting in injuries to all of the occupants of the car. Eye-witness Ajay deposed by way of affidavit Ex.PW7/A on the lines of the testimony of PW6 and testified regarding the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor resulting in the accident in question. Their testimonies have to be considered in all of the above-stated claim petitions. Accident was reported to the police on the same day by injured Ajay alleging that the driver of the offending tractor was driving the tractor alongwith trolley at a fast speed and negligent manner and further that he was sometimes taking the tractor trolley on _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 24 of 100

one side of the road and sometimes on the other side and his uncle Munesh (driver of the Wagon R Car) was driving properly and when their car came behind the tractor trolley, the driver of tractor trolley suddenly turned the offending tractor trolley towards their car due to which, the right side of the car hit on the back side of tractor trolley, resulting in the accident. The petitioners/ eye-witnesses were cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 & 5. Nothing has come in cross-examination of PW6 & PW7 so as to cast doubt on their testimonies. They have clearly stated that R-1 caused the accident and no suggestion was given to them by Respondent Nos. 3 & 5 that R-1 was not driving the offending vehicle at the date, time and place of accident or that he did not cause any accident.

16. In the FIR itself, it is clearly stated by the informant namely Ajay, who is also an eye-witness to the accident and was present in the victim vehicle at the time of accident, that the accident occurred as the offending tractor trolley was being driven at a fast speed and in a zig zag manner and when the victim vehicle came behind the offending vehicle, the offending vehicle suddenly turned towards the victim vehicle, due to which the car collided against the trolley of the tractor on back side. PW6 Mr. Sanjeet who is also an eye witness and occupant in the victim vehicle deposed that the offending vehicle was being driven in a zig zag manner and car had hit the rear portion of its trolley, when the tractor trolley had taken sudden right turn.

Page 25 of 100

During his cross-examination, he denied that the accident took place due to negligence of the driver of the car. In his examination in chief, he did not utter a word against the driver of the victim vehicle. PW7 deposed on the lines of the testimony of PW6 and during his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for R-5, he explained the manner of accident stating that "The offending tractor was moving ahead of our car on the extreme left portion of the road and had given us way to overtake and while our car was in the process of overtaking the tractor, it suddenly took a sharp right turn and in the process hit our car. The accident took place solely due to the negligence of the driver of the tractor-trolley." He was not cross-examined by R-1 to R-3 with respect to this clarification. During his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for R-3, he stated that there were 07 persons in the car at the time of accident including two minors namely Pranav and Punit. Certified copy of some case diaries are filed on record by petitioner side and suggests that number of occupants could have been more than that but PW6 and PW7 were not confronted with any statement of witnesses recorded during investigation and further there is no evidence to suggest that more than the seating capacity of the victim vehicle, attributed to the magnitude of the damage caused in the accident. PW7 did not state anything in his testimony as could establish that the driver of the victim vehicle was at fault and contributed to the accident. The speed of the vehicles, as per the testimony of PW7 was different with offending vehicle being at a higher speed and argument was _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 26 of 100

raised that the accident occurred as victim vehicle was not maintaining appropriate distance. However, I do not find merit in such a contention. The testimonies of PW6 and PW7 have to be read as a whole and both of them deposed in their testimonies that sudden sharp turn was taken by the offending tractor by blocking the remaining passage of road and leaving no passage for the driver of victim wagon R car. They have also stated that driver of the wagon R had tried his level best to avoid collision by applying emergency brakes but could not succeed. The place of occurrence is stated to be a highway with wide roads. The position of the victim vehicle and offending tractor is stated to be on left side of the road. However, the tractor is stated to be being driven in a zig zag manner. Both PW6 and PW7 deposed that the tractor trolley had remained (stopped) at the place of accident post accident. PW7 disclosed in his cross-examination that driver of the offending tractor had fled away after the accident. PW6 stated that tractor trolley was stopped by public person at the place of accident. PW7 informed to the police in FIR that he could not note down the number of the offending tractor. However, PW6 deposed in his cross-examination that he had noted down the number of offending tractor. The tractor trolley is stated to have been apprehended at the spot of accident and hence, false planting of vehicle is ruled out. R1 and R2 did not choose to cross-examine the eye-witnesses and hence, they have not disputed the negligence and rashness of R-1 being the cause of accident in question. In view of above-said discussion, it is _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 27 of 100

concluded that no contributory negligence on the part of Wagon R car (victim vehicle bearing Registration No. DL-8CNA-1463) is established on record.

17. After investigation, police filed the charge-sheet against Respondent No.1 the driver of the offending vehicle. Record shows that charge-sheet is document Ex.PW3/16. Filing of charge-sheet against the driver of offending vehicle prima-facie points to his culpability. (New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Washeema Bano (2022) SCC OnLine All 403 and Mangla Ram vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd (2018) 5SCC 656).

18. In New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Pazhaniammal (2011) (2) KLT 648, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala has held that as a general rule, it can be accepted that production of charge-sheet is prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence for the purpose of claim under section 166 MV Act. If any party does not accept such charge-sheet, the burden must be on such party to adduce evidence. If the Tribunal feels that charge-sheet is collusive, it can record that charge-sheet cannot be accepted and call upon the parties at any stage to adduce oral evidence of accident and alleged negligence. In such cases, issue of negligence must be decided on other evidence ignoring the charge-sheet.

19. Respondent No.1 & Respondent No. 2 i.e. the owner and driver of the offending vehicle did not lead any evidence to prove _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 28 of 100

anything contrary to the claim of the petitioner. In the case of Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Kamlesh and Others2009 (3) AD Delhi 310 it was held that an adverse inference can be drawn when the driver of the offending vehicle does not enter into the witness box.

20. Notice under Section 133 M.V. Act was given to the registered owner/R2 and in response to the notice, he stated that on 18.10.2017, R1 Satyabir, S/o- Sh. Jogi Ram was driving the offending vehicle. The certified copy of the notice under Section 133 MV Act has been filed on record. Thus, prima-facie, it is clear that R1 was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at the time of accident. Certified copy of mechanical inspection report of the victim vehicle shows damages, further corroborating the testimonies of PW6 and PW7.

21. The MLC of the petitioners Sanjeet and Ajay and treatment papers make it clear that both of them suffered grievous injuries in the accident. Further, medical documents/post-moretms of Rajeev, Naresh, Munesh and Master Punit show that they received fatal injuries in the accident.

22. In view of above, it stands proved that petitioner Sanjeet Kumar and Ajay sustained grievous injury and Rajeev Kumar, Munesh Kumar, Naresh Kumar and Master Punit Kumar received fatal injuries due to rash and negligent driving of offending _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 29 of 100

vehicle by respondent no.1. Thus, Issue No.1 and Issue No.2 is decided in favour of petitioner(s) and against the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

ISSUE No. 3

23. As Issue No. 2 is decided in favour of R-4 and R-5, there is no need for the Tribunal to delve into the issue of whether there was any breach of terms and condition of insurance policy by the deceased driver and R-4, more so, when petitioners did not even choose to join the LRs of the deceased driver (Munesh) of the victim vehicle in the array of respondents on their own. Even, R3 did not choose to join them. R4 and R5 were impleaded on request of R3 and R3 failed to lead any evidence and establish composite negligence on the part of deceased Munesh. Further, no evidence has been led by R-5 to prove any breach of terms and condition of insurance policy by R4.

Moving forward, it is seen that R-3 has taken up the plea in the written statement that in case the trolley was not having a transport permit, R-3 is not liable. However,R-3 failed to lead any evidence to prove that there was any breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy. Thus, Issue No.3 is decided in favour of Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and against R3.

ISSUE No. 4

24. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 30 of 100

an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. The compensation should not be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be pittance.

25. The scope of compensation in injury cases has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Mr. R.D. Hattangadi v. M/S Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 AIR 755. The relevant extract is as under:

"Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which is capable of being calculated in terms of money-, whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may, include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit upto the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non- pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future;

(ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e. on account of injury _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 31 of 100

the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, discomfort, disappointment, hardship, frustration and mental stress in life."

26. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & another (2011) 1 SCC 343, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India laid down general principles for computation of compensation in injury cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced as under:

4. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act", for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned.

5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 32 of 100

following:

Pecuniary Damages (special damages)

(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure.

(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:

(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment.

(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.

(iii) Future medical expenses.

            Non-Pecuniary         Damages        (general
            damages)

            (iv) Damages to pain, suffering and

trauma as a consequence of the injuries.

            (v)    Loss of amenities (and/or loss of
            prospects of marriage)

(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).

In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii), (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii), (b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.

Page 33 of 100

27. In the light of the aforementioned judgments, the compensation to which the petitioners in injury cases are entitled shall be as under:-

In MACP No. 8/18 (In re: Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors) PECUNIARY DAMAGES :

Medical Expenses :

28. Petitioner denied the suggestion of Ld. Counsel for R-3 that his entire medical expenses were reimbursed under mediclaim policy and stated that he was not having any mediclaim policy. Petitioner has filed one calculation of medical bill which is part of document Ex.PW6/2 and in the said calculation, there is reference to documents at Page No. 15, 18 and 25 but the same cannot be considered as medical bills and from the language of the document, it can be seen to be mere requests for deposit of further advance and final bill includes the description of all of the receipts vide which the payments were made towards the final bill and hence, the entries made by the petitioner in the list of bills at serial No. 15, 18 and 25 are apparently incorrect and these have been added merely with a view to hoodwink the tribunal and to get extra money under this head, beyond the expenses actually incurred. Petitioner Sanjeet Kumar has relied on other medical bills and after deduction of the amount towards the _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 34 of 100

document above-referred (demand letters), the calculation of bills comes to Rs. 2,11,366/-. No serious dispute to the bills have been raised and bills are found to be in order. Hence, an amount of Rs. 2,11,366/- is granted to the petitioner under this head.

Pain & Sufferings:

29. Petitioner (PW6) claimed that after the accident firstly he was admitted in MAHAM Hospital, Rohtak, Haryana and thereafter, he had also taken treatment in Kailash Hospital, Noida, Ram Lal Kundan Lal Hospital and in Madhu Nursing Home, Meerut, U.P. As per his testimony, he received multiple injuries on his head, compound fracture on his right hand, injuries on his spinal cord and abdomen & during his stay in hospital, several surgical operation were performed and steel rod was inserted in his right hand. He deposed that he also suffered fracture on his neck. In his testimony by way of affidavit as verified on 07.05.2019, petitioner claimed that he was still taking private treatment and number of stitches were applied on his right eyebrow and had already incurred more than 2.50 lakhs and his treatment was continuing. As per discharge summary of Kailash Hospital which is part of document Ex.PW6/1, petitioner Sanjeet remained under hospitalization there from 19.10.2017 to 25.10.2017. He was admitted to the hospital with alleged history of RTA in early morning of 18.10.2017,with history of head injuries, facial injury and blunt trauma abdomen with fracture in _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 35 of 100

right arm/forearm. He was admitted to PGI Rohtak after the accident and was given primary treatment there. As final diagnosis on discharge, it was mentioned that his is a case of RTA with head injury and facial trauma with blunt trauma abdomen and fracture ulna left. It is mentioned in the discharge summary that several diagnostic tests were performed and CTVS surgeon advised that no active CTVS intervention was required at that stage. Several other doctors advised for general management. Petitioner was advised for O.R.I.F for ulna fracture but he refused for surgery. He was treated in ward with supportive treatment. The OPD card of 01.11.2017 of Kailash Hospital shows that petitioner visited with complaint of pain in abdomen while walking. He refused for surgery of ulna. The discharge card of Madhu Nursing Home shows that he was admitted there on 14.01.2018 and discharged on 16.01.2018 and diagnosed with history of injury on 13.10.2018 (?), (it is observed that there is apparent error in date as the date of injury is post-dated). X-ray showed fracture of ulna and ORIF with BG was done. Medical documents of the petitioner show that he visited the various doctors/hospital in connection with the complaint post accidental injuries and remained under treatment at least till the end of May 2018. His prescription of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital dated 21.05.2018 shows that petitioner complained of neck pain to the doctor. In view of above, I am of the opinion that an amount of Rs.40,000/- would be just and fair compensation for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 36 of 100

the injuries sustained in the accident. Accordingly, Rs.40,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.

Loss of earning during treatment :

30. Petitioner has not averred a word in his testimony to suggest how long he was on bed rest and could not work. However, he stated in his affidavit Ex.PW6/A, as verified on 07.05.2019, that he was doing labour work and earning Rs.20,000/- per month but was unable to work due to injuries & insertion of rod and his treatment was still continuing. He deposed that he remained in hospital and underwent a number of surgical procedures and that a steel rod had been inserted in his right hand and he suffered from fracture in his neck and was still taking private treatment. He deposed that he was having difficulty in lifting weight from right hand was not able to drive any vehicle due to insertion of rod in his hand. He deposed in his cross-examination that he was removed to PGI hospital post accident, where he remained till evening and thereafter,he was shifted to Kailash Nursing Home, Noida, where he remained admitted for 3-4 days. Thereafter, he took treatment from Ram Lal Kundan Lal Hospital and Madhu Nursing Home, Meerut as an OPD patient. He deposed that he received multiple injuries on his head, compound fracture on his right hand, injuries in his spinal cord and abdomen and underwent a number of surgical operations and steel rod was inserted in his right hand and he _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 37 of 100

suffered from fracture in his neck. He deposed further that a number of stitches were applied on his right eyebrow. The discharge summary of Kailash Hospital shows that he was admitted there from 19.10.2017 to 25.10.2017. The document of Madhu Nursing Home shows that he remained admitted there from 14.01.2018 to 16.01.2018. The document of J.J. Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak shows that petitioner was treated there from 18.10.2017 and took LAMA. He had doctor visits uptill at least 15.02.2018 and OPD card of Kailash Hospital shows that he had visited hospital with complaint of neck pain. He does not suffer from any permanent disability and there is no claim made in this regard and there is no document filed in this regard. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, it can be easily inferred that he was indisposed to work for about 3- 4 months.

31. Petitioner (PW7) has testified that he was doing labour work and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. However, no documentary proof of income and occupation is placed on record by the petitioner and suggestion was put to him that he was not earning as claimed. Petitioner is a resident of Delhi. No educational/qualification documents has been placed or proved on record. Therefore, his income has to be assessed at par with the minimum wages applicable to unskilled category in NCT of Delhi at the time of accident (18.10.2017), which was Rs.13,584/- per month. Therefore, income of petitioner is _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 38 of 100

considered to be Rs.13,584/- per month. In view of above, petitioner is granted a sum of Rs.54,336/- (13,584 x 4 months) on account of loss of income during treatment.

Special Diet & Conveyance Charges :

32. The petitioner has not proved any actual expenses in relation to these heads and has not placed any material on record to substantiate any expenses towards the said heads. He did not aver in his testimony in respect of any expense in relation to above-stated heads. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it fit to grant Rs.15,000/- to petitioner for conveyance and Rs.10,000/- towards special diet charges.

Attendant Charges :

33. Petitioner has not averred a word in his testimony regarding having been rendered assistance by attendant or family members during course of recuperating at home, after discharge from hospital. He had only made a bald assertion in his testimony that due to injuries, he would not move freely for the rest of his life without help of others but no document is filed to suggest that he suffered from any such permanent or temporary disability. However, it cannot be ignored that family members of petitioner must have had to render their services for providing assistance to the petitioner for his routine activities and that would definitely suffer their work/job. For claiming compensation, necessity of _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 39 of 100

employing a professional attendant/ care taker is not required and the petitioner should be compensated for the value of services of the family members, which has been or would be necessitated by the wrong doing of the driver. (DTC & Ors Vs. Lalita, 1983 ACJ

253). Therefore, the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-. as attendant charges.

34. Thus, petitioner is granted a total compensation of Rs.35,000/- (15,000+10,000+ 10,000) under this head.

35. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner is summarized as under:-

             Head of compensation                      Amount
  Sl. No.

      1.     Medical Expenses`                         Rs.2,11,366/-
             Loss of income                            Rs.54,336/-
      2.
             (during treatment)
      3.     Special Diet & Conveyance                 Rs.25,000/-
      4.     Attendant Charges                         Rs.10,000/-
      5.     Pain & Suffering                          Rs.40,000/-
                        Total                          Rs.3,40,702/-

                                                       rounded off to
                                                       Rs.3,41,000/-

36. Accordingly, petitioner Sanjeet Kumar is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3,41,000/-.

In MACP No.10/18 (In re: Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors) PECUNIARY DAMAGES :

_____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 40 of 100

Medical Expenses :

37. Petitioner has relied on his medical bills Ex.PW7/2 for a sum of Rs.3796/-. He has also filed on record his medical treatment record Ex.PW7/1. Under this head, only original treatment expenses are considered. No serious dispute to the bills have been raised and bills are found to be in order. Hence, an amount of Rs.3,796/- is granted to the petitioner under this head.

Pain & Suffering:

38. The petitioner (PW7) claimed that after the accident firstly he was admitted in MAHAM PGI Hospital, Rohtak, Haryana and KAINOS Hospital and from there, he was also taken for treatment to Shanti Mukund Hospital and also to Maulana Azand Hospital, Delhi. PW7 claimed that he received multiple injuries on his body and sustained fracture on his right hand and jaw a steel rod was inserted in his right hand and he suffered fracture in his jaw and screw were tightened in his mouth to support the teeth. In his testimony by way of affidavit as verified on 07.01.2020, petitioner claimed that he was still taking treatment and that he had already incurred more than 2,5000/- and his treatment was continuing and he was having problem while chewing food, lifting weight from right hand & was unable to drive. As per discharge summary of Shanti Mukund Hospital which is part of document Ex.PW7/1, _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 41 of 100

petitioner Ajay remained under hospitalization there from 23.10.2017 to 28.10.2017 under BPL category. Column of history was blank in the document and as per the finding and diagnosis, petitioner was having pain and swelling in right arm with wrist drop, finder drop and thumb drop and his was case of close commuted fracture right shaft humerus with radial n. palsy. Open reduction and internal fixation with narrow DCP right humerus and radial n exploration was done. Radial n was found to be intact but contused. Medical document show that petitioner visited Shanti Mukund Hospital on 21.10.2017 and prescription of the said date is on record. Petitioner has not placed on record any medial documents of the hospital claimed to be attended by him post accident. No document of PGI, Rohtak and KAINOS hospital Rohtak are placed on record. There is nothing in the document of Shanti Mukund hospital to suggest that petitioner suffered from any head or face injury and dental fracture. Petitioners claims to have been treated in Maulana Azad Hospital but there is absolute nothing to connect the treatment with accident in question. The outpatient card of Maulana Azad Institute of Dental sciences dated 07.11.2017 shows that patient visited with case of pain of lower front tooth since 15 days with alleged history of RTA 15 days back and slip from motorbike was reported to the doctor, whereas in the case at hand, the victim vehicle is a car. No MLC was reported to the doctor. In another OPD card of same date, 'RTA two weeks back in Kalyan Puri, Delhi' is mentioned, which is contrary to version in the claim _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 42 of 100

petition, which specified that the accident took place at Haryana. Hence, the medical documents including bills relating to treatment of petitioner in Maulana Azad Hospital, cannot be looked into. In view of above, I am of the opinion that an amount of Rs.40,000/- would be just and fair compensation for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries sustained in the accident. Accordingly, Rs.40,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.

Loss of earning during treatment :

39. The petitioner has stated in his testimony that he was aged 19 years at the time of accident and self employed as labour and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month but due to injuries, he was unable to work. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, it can be easily inferred that he was indisposed to work for about 03 months.

40. Petitioner (PW7) has testified that he was doing labour work and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. However, no documentary proof of income and occupation is placed on record by the petitioner and suggestion was put to him that he was not earning as claimed. Petitioner is a resident of Delhi. No educational / qualification documents has been placed or proved on record. Therefore, his income has to be assessed at par with the minimum wages applicable to unskilled category in NCT of Delhi at the time of accident (18.10.2017), which was _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 43 of 100

Rs.13,584/- per month. Therefore, income of petitioner is considered to be Rs.13,584/- per month. In view of above, petitioner is granted a sum of Rs.40,752/- (13,584 x3 months) on account of loss of income during treatment.

Special Diet & Conveyance Charges :

41. The petitioner has not proved any actual expenses in relation to these heads and has not placed any material on record to substantiate any expenses towards the said heads. He did not aver in his testimony in respect of any expense in relation to above-stated heads. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it fit to grant Rs.10,000/- to petitioner for conveyance and Rs.10,000/- towards special diet charges.

Attendant Charges :

42. Petitioner has not averred a word in his testimony regarding having been rendered assistance by attendant or family members during course of recuperating at home after discharge from hospital. He had only made a bald assertion in his testimony that due to injuries, he would not move freely for the rest of his life without help of others but no document is filed to suggest that he suffered from any such permanent or temporary disability.

However, it cannot be ignored that family members of petitioner must have had to render their services for providing assistance to the petitioner for his routine activities and that would definitely _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 44 of 100

suffer their work/job. For claiming compensation, necessity of employing a professional attendant/ care taker is not required and the petitioner should be compensated for the value of services of the family members, which has been or would be necessitated by the wrong doing of the driver. (DTC & Ors Vs. Lalita, 1983 ACJ

253). Therefore, the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-. as attendant charges.

43. Thus, petitioner is granted a total compensation of Rs.30,000/- (10,000+10,000+ 10,000) under this head.

44. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner is summarized as under:-

             Head of compensation                      Amount
  Sl. No.

      1.     Medical Expenses                          Rs.3796/-
             Loss of income                            Rs.40,752/-
      2.
             (during treatment)
      3.     Special Diet & Conveyance                 Rs.20,000/-
      4.     Attendant Charges                         Rs.10,000/-
      5.     Pain & Suffering                          Rs.40,000/-
                        Total                          Rs.1,14,548/-

                                                       rounded off to
                                                       Rs.1,15,000/-

45. Accordingly, petitioner Ajay is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,15,000/-.

In MACP No. 7/18 (In re: Sanjeet Kumar & Anr. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors):

_____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 45 of 100

COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION

46. 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 (Baker v. Willoughby (1970) Ac 467 at page 492 per Lord Reid).

47. 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 Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., decided on 31.10.2017, laying down the general principles for computation of compensation in death cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced here as under:

"18. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death:

(a) age of the deceased;

(b) income of the deceased; and

(c) the number of dependents.

Page 46 of 100

These 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 to the age of the deceased.

If these determinations are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay.

19. To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well-settled steps:death case 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 expired e which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.

Step-2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) death case Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 47 of 100

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 estates. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of Rs.5,000 to Rs.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 the cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also be added."

48. Further, in the case of death of a minor some other guidelines have been laid down to decide on the compensation to be awarded to aggrieved. In case bearing citation Meena Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mehto @ Nem Chand Mehto & Ors SLP(Civil) No. 5345 of 2009 Supreme Court as decided on 13.10.2022, it is _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 48 of 100

observed that for the purpose of determination of compensation in case of death of child, it may be left open to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case. It was further observed that:

"11. Recently in the case of Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali & another vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and another (2022)1 SCC 317, wherein a child aged about 7 years died in a road accident took place on 06.09.2004, this Court taking notional income as Rs.25,000/-,applying the multiplier of15, calculated the loss of dependency as Rs. 3,75,000/- and adding Rs. 55,000/- in conventional heads, awarded Rs. 4,70,000/-."

49. It was held through various judicial pronouncement earlier that in the case of young non-working children upto the age of 12 years, the notional income of the deceased child has to be assumed. Further, it was held that upto the age of 12 years, the multiplier of 15 has to be applied.

50. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment, it is essential to take into consideration the following parameters:-

PECUNIARY DAMAGES:

AGE OF DECEASED :

51. As per the claim petition and the document filed (Ex. PW6/4 & 5), the deceased child was about 6 years and 11 months years old at the time of accident and was a school student and _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 49 of 100

studying in Class-2nd.

ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF DECEASED CHILD:

52. Insofar as the assessment of income of a child is concerned, the same cannot be considered on the basis of any actual income of the child as he/she has none. In a plethora of judgments, it has been held from time to time that notional income of a child has to be fixed, keeping in mind the variable factors like inflation index and place of accident and residence of the child and his parents.

53. It is seen that no evidence has been led regarding the academic record and considering the tender age of victim, no conjuncture could be made regarding the career prospect of the child. Petitioners have not disclosed anything in their claim petition regarding the family status and education and no documents in this regard is filed either. As discussed above, the income of a child used to be assumed and notional income used to be fixed on the basis of second Schedule to Motor Vehicles Act earlier. Further, with the passage of time, the approach of the Court was that the notional income cannot remain static and has to be taken keeping in mind various parameters including the family status, career prospects and exact age of the child. Further, as the second Schedule is no longer existing, the approach of the Superior Courts has further shifted, with a view to do complete justice to the claimants. In case "Royal Sundaram General _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 50 of 100

Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Zeenat Khan & Ors., MAC. App. 242/2024, CM Appl. 26702/2024, decided on 30.09.2024, it has been observed by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, Delhi High Court that:

"15. Thus, it is now settled that when it comes to a child, since their actual or potential income cannot be precisely determined, the minimum wages applicable on the date of the accident provides a reasonable basis for estimating the child's income.

16. In light of the aforementioned rulings by the Supreme Court and this Court, the most reasonable approach to assess loss of dependency, even for a minor, would be to refer to the minimum wages established by the State Government in the location where the minor lived at the time of the accident."

Considering the above-said judgments, the income of the deceased child has to be taken as an unskilled worker on the date of accident i.e. 13.07.2023, as per the minimum wages applicable in the NCT of Delhi, as deceased child was a resident of Delhi. Hence, his income is considered to be Rs.1,63,008/- (Rs.13,584 X 12) per annum.

DEDUCTION TOWARDS PERSONAL AND LIVING EXPENSES :

54. As per above quoted judgment and keeping in mind _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 51 of 100

the judgment bearing citations "Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.", (2009) 6 SCC 121, and "United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur & Ors.", (2021) 11 SCC 780, 40% has to be added towards future prospects and hence annual income is taken as Rs.2,28,211/- (163,008+40% of 1,63,008). Further, out of the above amount so assessed, 50% has to be deducted on account of personal and living expenses of the child as he was a bachelor. Hence the notional income of the child is determined as Rs.1,14,105.6/-.

APPLICATION OF MULTIPLIER:

55. As discussed above, an appropriate multiplier to be applied for computation of compensation in the case at hand where the deceased boy was only 6 years and 11 months old, which is multiplier of 15.

56. Thus, the loss of dependency is computed as Rs.17,11,584/- (1,14,105.6x 15). Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to compensation for a sum of Rs. 17,12,000/- (rounded off to Rs. Seventeen Lakhs and Twelve Thousand only).

NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:

57. In case of Pranay Sethi (supra), a compensation of Rs.40,000/-, 15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively has been fixed _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 52 of 100

on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses and further, it is required to be enhanced @ 10% in every three years. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.48,400/-, 18,150/- and Rs.18,150/- 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. In this case, there are two legal heirs claimants i.e. parents of the deceased. Thus, claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,33,100/- (48,400x2+18,150+18,150) under this head.

58. Considering the aforementioned factors, the total compensation is calculated as under Rs.18,45,100/- (17,12,000/- +1,33,100) only.

59. Thus, both the petitioners i.e parents of deceased in the instant case shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.18,45,100/- only.

COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION IN REMAINING CASES:

60. As discussed above, Section 168 of Motor Vehicles _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 53 of 100

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.

61. 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 Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., decided on 31.10.2017, laying down the general principles for computation of compensation in death cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced here as under:

"18. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death:

(a) age of the deceased;

(b) income of the deceased; and

(c) the number of dependents.

These 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;

Page 54 of 100

and

iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.

19. To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well-settled steps:death case 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 expired which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.

Step-2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) death case 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.

Page 55 of 100

Step-3 (Actual Calculation) The annual contribution to the family(multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the 'loss of dependency' to the family.

The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and the cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also be added."

62. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment, it is essential to take into consideration the following parameters:-

In MACP No. 9/18 (In re: Renu & Ors Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors) PECUNIARY DAMAGES:

Age of deceased :

63. As per the aadhar card of the deceased Munesh Kumar Ex. PW4/2, his date of birth is 01.01.1976. The date of accident is 18.10.2017. Thus, the age of the deceased was 41 years and 09 _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 56 of 100

months at the time of accident.

Assessment of Income of deceased :

64. PW1 testified that her deceased husband was working as a driver with M/s Fox Mandal & Company, Noida, U.P. and was getting a salary of Rs.23,414/- per month. In support of this version, petitioners examined PW8 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Srivastava, who brought and proved on record the salary slip of October 2017 of deceased Munesh Kumar Ex.PW8/B. As per salary slip, which is part of document Ex.PW8/B, salary for the month of October 2017 of deceased Munesh is shown as Rs.12,519/-. Though, Ld. Counsel for insurer has raised objection to the genuineness of the document Ex.PW8/B and during cross- examination of PW8, a suggestion was given to him that document Ex.PW8/B are forged and fabricated documents, to which the witness replied in denial. However, respondent side did not led any evidence to disprove the salary or document Ex.PW8/B. Even, insurance company did not led any evidence contrary to the version of petitioners regarding working of deceased with M/s Fox Mandal & Company or salary of the deceased. Hence, in my considered view, the income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.12,519/- as mentioned in the document Ex.PW8/B. Thus, the income of the deceased is considered to be Rs.12,519/- per month.

Number of dependents :

_____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 57 of 100

65. In the claim petition, there are petitioners / legal heirs of the deceased, who are wife, children and mother of deceased. Thus, for the purpose of ascertaining the dependency of the deceased, all the petitioners are considered dependents on the deceased.

Application of Multiplier:

66. As discussed above, the deceased was considered to be 41 years and 09 months of age at the time of accident. An appropriate multiplier has to be determined for computation of compensation. The judgment titled as Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 is relevant to consider the multiplier. In Para 21 of the judgment, the guidelines for the multiplier were laid down in accordance with age are as under:-

             MULTIPLIER                 AGE GROUP OF DECEASED

             M-18                      Age group between 15 to 20 &
                                       21 to 25 years)
             M-17                      Age group between 26 to 30 yrs
             M-16                      Age group between 31 to 35 yrs
             M-15                      Age group between 36 to 40 yrs

             M-14                      Age group between 41 to 45 yrs

             M-13                      Age group between 46 to 50 yrs

             M-11                      Age group between 51 to 55 yrs

             M-9                       Age group between 56 to 60 yrs

             M-7                       Age group between 61 to 65 yrs

Page 58 of 100

M-5 Age group between 66 and above

67. In view of the above, multiplier of 14 shall be applicable in the present case.

Future Prospects:

68. This issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi & Others (Supra). Relevant parts of the judgment are reproduced here as under:

"(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 _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 59 of 100

component."

69. The deceased can be considered a self-employed. In view of the above said judgment, the deceased, who was 41 years and 09 months of age, an addition of income of deceased to the extent of 25% has to be considered in view of decision of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors . (Supra). benefit of future prospects.

Deduction towards Personal Living Expenses:

70. 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. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, in para 30, laid down the necessary deductions towards personal living and expenses of deceased as under :

Deductions out of earning of the deceased Number of dependents Where dependent is 1 Half Where the number of dependent family 1/3rd members is 2 to 3 Where the number of dependent family 1/4th members is 4 to 6 _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 60 of 100

Where the number of dependent family 1/5th members exceeds 6 (six)

71. All the four petitioners i.e. wife, mother and children of deceased Munesh Kumar are considered as dependents upon the deceased as held above. Accordingly, one-fourth of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards his personal living expenses.

72. Thus, the loss of dependency is computed as Rs.19,71,743/- (12,519 x 3/4 x 125/100 x 12 x 14).

NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:

73. In case of Pranay Sethi (supra), a compensation of Rs.40,000/-, 15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively has been fixed on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses and further, it is required to be enhanced @ 10% in every three years. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.48,000/-, 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. In this case, there are four legal heirs of the deceased. Thus, claimants are entitled to a sum of _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 61 of 100

Rs.2,29,900/- (48,400x4+18,150+18,150) under this head.

74. Thus, all the petitioners i.e. wife, children and mother of the deceased in the instant case shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.22,01,643/- (Rs.19,71,743/-+2,29,900) only. Accordingly, petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.22,02,000/- (rounded off).

In MACP No. 6/18 (In re: Shalu & Ors Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors) PECUNIARY DAMAGES:

Age of deceased :

75. As per the DL of the deceased Rajeev Kumar Ex.PW5/8, his date of birth is 15.01.1988. The date of accident is 18.10.2017. Thus, the age of the deceased was 29 years and 09 months at the time of accident.

Assessment of Income of deceased :

76. PW5 testified that her deceased husband was working as a driver and was a self employed and was having an earning of Rs.20,000/- per month. In support of this version, petitioners examined have not produced or proved on record any documentary proof to suggest that deceased was working as a driver. No witness is summoned to prove the plea that deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. PW1 has simply uttered that _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 62 of 100

her deceased husband was driver but she is silent as to which kind of vehicle he was driving or whether it is auto-rickshaw, car, bus or truck. PW1 proved on record the driving licence of the deceased Ex.PW5/8 and perusal of the same reflect that it is a LMV-NT licence. There is not a single document proved on record which could suggest that deceased was working as a 'driver'. His work place is also not mentioned. No registration number of any vehicle is disclosed either, to suggest that he was driver on the same. No educational document of the deceased is placed on record. Deceased was stated to be resident of Delhi. Hence, his income has to be considered as per minimum wages applicable to unskilled worker in NCT of Delhi. Thus, the income of the deceased is considered to be Rs. 13,584/-monthly.

Number of dependents :

77. In the claim petition, there are petitioners / legal heirs of the deceased, who are wife, child and parents of deceased. Thus, for the purpose of ascertaining the dependency of the deceased, all the petitioners are considered dependents on the deceased.

Application of Multiplier:

78. As discussed above, the deceased was considered to be 29 years and 10 months of age at the time of accident. An appropriate multiplier has to be determined for computation of compensation. The judgment titled as Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 63 of 100

6 SCC 121 is relevant to consider the multiplier. In Para 21 of the judgment, the guidelines for the multiplier were laid down in accordance with age are as under:-

             MULTIPLIER                 AGE GROUP OF DECEASED

             M-18                      Age group between 15 to 20 &
                                       21 to 25 years)
             M-17                      Age group between 26 to 30 yrs
             M-16                      Age group between 31 to 35 yrs
             M-15                      Age group between 36 to 40 yrs

             M-14                      Age group between 41 to 45 yrs

             M-13                      Age group between 46 to 50 yrs

             M-11                      Age group between 51 to 55 yrs

             M-9                       Age group between 56 to 60 yrs

             M-7                       Age group between 61 to 65 yrs

             M-5                       Age group between 66 and above

79. In view of the above, multiplier of 17 shall be applicable in the present case.

Future Prospects:

80. This issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi & Others (Supra). Relevant parts of the judgment are reproduced here as under:

_____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 64 of 100

"(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-

81. The deceased can be considered a self-employed. In view of the above said judgment, the deceased, who was 29 years and 10 months of age, an addition of income of deceased to the extent of 40% has to be considered in view of decision of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors . (Supra). benefit of future prospects.

Deduction towards Personal Living Expenses:

_____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 65 of 100

82. 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. During her cross-examination, PW5 has replied that petitioner No. 4 / her father in law is doing a private job but she is not aware how much he is earning. A suggestion was also given to PW5 that P-3 and P-4 were not dependent on her deceased husband. No documentary proof or any evidence has come on record which could suggest that P-4 was incapacitated to work and he was not doing any work. Hence, P-4 cannot be considered as dependent of the deceased. However, he shall be entitled for amount for loss of consortium. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, in para 30, laid down the necessary deductions towards personal living and expenses of deceased as under :

Deductions out of earning of the deceased Number of dependents Where dependent is 1 Half Where the number of dependent family 1/3rd members is 2 to 3 Where the number of dependent family 1/4th members is 4 to 6 Where the number of dependent family 1/5th members exceeds 6 (six)

83. In view of above, petitioners No.1 to 3 are considered _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 66 of 100

as dependents upon the deceased as held above. Accordingly, one-third of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards his personal living expenses.

84. Thus, the loss of dependency is computed as Rs.25,86,394/- (13,584 x 2/3 x 140/100 x 12 x 17).

NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:

85. In case of Pranay Sethi (supra), a compensation of Rs.40,000/-, 15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively has been fixed on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses and further, it is required to be enhanced @ 10% in every three years. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.48,000/-, 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. In this case, there are four legal heirs of the deceased. Thus, claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,29,900/- (48,400x4+18,150+18,150) under this head.

86. Thus, all the petitioners i.e. wife, child and mother of the deceased in the instant case shall be entitled to a total _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 67 of 100

compensation and P-4 shall be entitled towards consortium, totalling to a sum of Rs.28,16,294/-(Rs.25,86,394/-+2,29,600) only.

In MACP No. 11/18 (In re: Meena & Ors Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors) PECUNIARY DAMAGES:

Age of deceased :

87. As per the aadhar card of the deceased Naresh Kumar Ex.PW3/10, his date of birth is 01.01.1961. Petitioner has also relied upon PAN card of deceased Ex.PW3/9, as per which his date of birth is 07.06.1961. There appears to be discrepancy in the date of birth of the deceased. Petitioners are silent on this. No other document is there which could reflect the actual date of birth of deceased. Hence, in absence of any other document with respect to actual age proof, I am of the considered view that the date of birth of deceased shall be considered as 01.01.1961. The date of accident is 18.10.2017. Thus, the age of the deceased was 56 years and 09 months at the time of accident.

Assessment of Income of deceased :

88. PW3 testified that her deceased husband was working as a work Assistant with MTNL, Mayur Vihar, Phase-II, Delhi and was getting a salary of Rs.51,096/- per month. In support of her assertion, PW3 has relied upon one document Ex.PW3/8, _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 68 of 100

which is Identity card of the deceased issued by the MTNL Department. No salary slip / certificate issued by the MTNL Department has been placed or proved on record which could reflect that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs.51,096/-. No witness from the MTNL was summoned to corroborate the version of PW3. Even otherwise, document Ex.PW3/8 which appears to be the identity card of deceased Naresh Kumar, is valid till 30.06.2017 and date of accident is 18.10.2017 and it could suggest that the validity of the document 30.06.2017 expired about 04 months prior to the accident. No educational document of the deceased is placed on record. Even the nature of employment is not disclosed as to whether the same was permanent or temporary. Deceased was stated to be resident of Delhi. Hence, his income has to be considered as per minimum wages applicable to unskilled worker in NCT of Delhi. Thus, the income of the deceased is considered to be Rs. 13,584/-monthly.

Number of dependents :

89. In the claim petition, there are as much as 6 petitioners/legal heirs of the deceased, who are wife and children of deceased. During her cross-examination, PW3/wife of deceased Smt. Meena admitted that her daughters namely Aarti and Rachna were married prior to the death of her husband in the accident. She further deposed that her son Ajay is working as a labourer and Ankit is presently unemployed. Married daughters _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 69 of 100

cannot be considered to be dependents of the deceased. Though, PW3 admitted in her cross-examination that presently his son Ajay is working as labourer, however, no question was asked to her about working and occupation of Ajay on the date of accident. Thus, for the purpose of ascertaining the dependency of the deceased, petitioners No.1,3,5&6 are considered dependents on the deceased.

Application of Multiplier:

90. As discussed above, the deceased was considered to be 56 years and 09 months of age at the time of accident. An appropriate multiplier has to be determined for computation of compensation. The judgment titled as Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 is relevant to consider the multiplier. In Para 21 of the judgment, the guidelines for the multiplier were laid down in accordance with age are as under:-

             MULTIPLIER                 AGE GROUP OF DECEASED

             M-18                      Age group between 15 to 20 &
                                       21 to 25 years)
             M-17                      Age group between 26 to 30 yrs
             M-16                      Age group between 31 to 35 yrs
             M-15                      Age group between 36 to 40 yrs

             M-14                      Age group between 41 to 45 yrs

             M-13                      Age group between 46 to 50 yrs

_____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 70 of 100

              M-11                      Age group between 51 to 55 yrs

             M-9                       Age group between 56 to 60 yrs

             M-7                       Age group between 61 to 65 yrs

             M-5                       Age group between 66 and above

91. In view of the above, multiplier of 9 shall be applicable in the present case.

Future Prospects:

92. This issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi & Others (Supra). Relevant parts of the judgment are reproduced here as under:

"(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 _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 71 of 100

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."

93. The deceased can be considered a self-employed. In view of the above said judgment, the deceased, who was 56 years and 09 months of age, an addition of income of deceased to the extent of 10% has to be considered in view of decision of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors . (Supra). benefit of future prospects.

Deduction towards Personal Living Expenses:

94. 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. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, in para 30, laid down the necessary deductions towards personal living and expenses of deceased as under :

Deductions out of earning of the deceased Number of dependents Where dependent is 1 Half Where the number of dependent family 1/3rd _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 72 of 100

members is 2 to 3 Where the number of dependent family 1/4th members is 4 to 6 Where the number of dependent family 1/5th members exceeds 6 (six)

95. The petitioners i.e. wife and unmarried children of deceased Naresh Kumar are considered as dependents upon the deceased as held above. Accordingly, one-fourth of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards his personal living expenses.

96. Thus, the loss of dependency is computed as Rs.12,10,334/- (13,584 x 3/4 x 110/100 x 12 x 9).

NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:

97. In case of Pranay Sethi (supra), a compensation of Rs.40,000/-, 15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively has been fixed on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses and further, it is required to be enhanced @ 10% in every three years. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.48,000/-, 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. _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 73 of 100

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. In this case, there are six legal heirs of the deceased including the married daughters of the deceased, who are also entitled to loss of consortium. Thus, all the claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs.3,26,700/- (48,400x6+18,150+18,150) under this head.

98. Thus, all the petitioners i.e. wife, children and mother of the deceased in the instant case shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.15,37,034/- (Rs.12,10,334+3,26,700) only (P2 & P4 are entitled only to compensation towards loss of consortium). Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the total compensation of Rs.15,37,000/- (rounded off).

LIABILITY

99. Now, the question arises as to which of the respondents are liable to pay the compensation amount. As insurance company has contractual and statutory liability to indemnify the insured and in view of the above-said discussion, the R3/ Magma HDI General Insurance Company is liable to compensate the third party. As discussed above, it is held that Respondent No.3/ Magma HDI General Insurance Company Ltd shall be liabled to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner(s).

Page 74 of 100

ISSUE No. 5/INTEREST :

100. The petitioner(s) have conducted the proceedings in their cases since year 2018. Therefore, the petitioner(s) in all the six claim petitions are entitled for interest @ 7.5% per annum on the aforesaid award amount from the date of filing of the petition till date of realization.

ISSUE No.6/RELIEF:

(In re: MACP No.6/18 ;Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.)

101. In view of the findings on said issues, this Tribunal awards a total compensation of Rs.28,16,294/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Sixteen Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Four Only) alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum w.e.f. date of filing of the petition till the date of its realization in favour of petitioners and against the respondent no. 3 / Magma HDI GIC Ltd and same is required to be deposited with this Tribunal within 30 days.

Entitlement, Apportionment and Disbursement

102. The petitioners in this case are the wife, minor son and parents of the deceased. Accordingly, the award amount of Rs.,28,16,290/- along with interest thereon shall be shared by the _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 75 of 100

petitioners in the following manner:-

S. Name of the Age Relation Share in the Award Amount No Petitioner (Present with Age) Deceased 1 Shalu 29 years Wife Rs.17,67,894/-

along with the corresponding interest.

 2    Master     Avneet 8 years         Son            Rs.5,00,000/- along with the
      Kumar                                            corresponding interest
3.    Smt. Rani          61 years       Mother         Rs.5,00,000/- along with the
                                                       corresponding interest
4.    Rajender Singh 59 years           Father         Rs.48,400/- along with the
                                                       corresponding interest

103. Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi is directed that after the deposit of the award amount, entire share amount of Rs. 48,400/- alongwith corresponding interest towards consortium shall be forthwith released to petitioner no.4 by way of transferring the said amount into his MACT Saving Bank Account. Further, out of her share amount of Rs.5 lakhs, a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs alongwith corresponding interest shall be forthwith released to petitioner no.3 by way of transferring the said amount into her MACT Saving Bank Account and balance amount of Rs.3 lakhs alongwith corresponding thereon shall be kept secured with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit) in the name of petitioners No.3, in the following manner :-

_____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 76 of 100

           SL No.                  Amount                           Period of FDR
                 1.                Rs.1,00,000/-                      1 year
                 2.                Rs.1,00,000/-                      2 years
                 3.                Rs.1,00,000/-                      3 years
                 4.                Interest amount                    4 years

Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi is further directed that after the deposit of the award amount, out of her share of Rs.17,67,894/- of petitioner No.1, a sum of Rs.3,67,894/- alongwith corresponding interest shall be forthwith released to petitioner no.1 by way of transferring the said amount into their respective MACT Saving Bank Account and balance amount of Rs.14 lakhs alongwith corresponding thereon shall be kept secured with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit) in the name of petitioners No.1, in the following manner :-

        SL No.          Amount                           Period of FDR
           1.                        Rs.1,50,000/-       1 year
           2.                        Rs.1,50,000/-       2 years
           3.                        Rs.1,50,000/-       3 years
           4.                        Rs.1,50,000/-       4 years
           5.                        Rs.1,50,000/-       5 years
           6.                        Rs.1,50,000/-       6 years
           7.                        Rs.1,50,000/-       7 years
           8.                        Rs.1,50,000/-       8 years
           9.                        Rs.2,00,000/-       9 years
           10.                      Half of interest     10 years

_____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 77 of 100

amount

11. Half of Interest 11 years amount Further, Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi is directed to convert entire share amount of Rs.5 lakhs of petitioner No.2 / Master Avneet Kumar till the time he attains age of majority.

(In MACT No. 7/18 (In re: Sanjeet Kumar & Anr.Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors))

104. In view of the findings on said issues, this Tribunal awards a total compensation of Rs.18,45,100/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Forty Five Thousands One Hundred Only) alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum w.e.f. date of filing of the petition till the date of its realization in favour of petitioners and against the respondent no. 3 / Magma HDI GIC Ltd and same is required to be deposited with this Tribunal within 30 days.

Entitlement, Apportionment and Disbursement

105. The petitioners in this case are the parents of the deceased. Accordingly, the award amount of Rs.,18,45,100/- along with interest thereon shall be shared by the petitioners in the following manner:-

_____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

                                                            Page 78 of 100
 S.    Name of the        Age            Relation       Share in the Award Amount
No    Petitioner         (Present       with
                         Age)           Deceased
 1    Sanjeet Kumar 34 years            Father         Rs.9,22,550/-
                                                       along with the corresponding
                                                       interest.
 2     Pooja             33 years       Mother         Rs.9,22,550/- along with the
                                                       corresponding interest

106. Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi is further directed that after the deposit of the award amount, out of their respective shares of Rs.9,22,550/- each of petitioners No.1 & 2, a sum of Rs.3,22,550/-each alongwith corresponding interest shall be forthwith released to Petitioner Nos.1 & 2 by way of transferring the said amount into their respective MACT Saving Bank Account and balance amount of Rs.6 lakhs each alongwith corresponding thereon shall be kept secured with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit) in the respective names of Petitioner Nos.1 & 2, in the following manner :-

        SL No.          Amount                           Period of FDR
           1.                        Rs.1,00,000/-       1 year
           2.                        Rs.1,00,000/-       2 years
           3.                        Rs.1,00,000/-       3 years
           4.                        Rs.1,00,000/-       4 years
           5.                        Rs.1,00,000/-       5 years
           6.                        Rs.1,00,000/-       6 years
           7.                           Interest         7 years
                                        amount.

_____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 79 of 100

(In re: MACP No.9/18 ;Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.)

107. In view of the findings on said issues, this Tribunal awards a total compensation of Rs.22,02,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Two Thousand Only) alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum w.e.f. date of filing of the petition till the date of its realization in favour of petitioners and against the respondent no. 3 / Magma HDI GIC Ltd and same is required to be deposited with this Tribunal within 30 days.

Entitlement, Apportionment and Disbursement:

108. The petitioners in this case are the wife, minor sons and mother of the deceased. Accordingly, the award amount of Rs.,22,02,000/- along with interest thereon shall be shared by the petitioners in the following manner:-

S. Name of the Age Relation Share in the Award Amount No Petitioner (Present with Age) Deceased 1 Renu Devi 45 years Wife Rs.14,02,000/-

along with the corresponding interest.

 2    Pranav             16 years       Son            Rs.3,00,00/- along with the
      Chauhan                                          corresponding interest
3.    Parth Chauhan      11 years       Son            Rs.3,00,000/- along with the
                                                       corresponding interest

Page 80 of 100

4. Murti Devi 78 years Mother Rs.2,00,000/- along with the corresponding interest

109. Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi is directed that after the deposit of the award amount, entire share amount of Rs. 2 lakhs alongwith corresponding interest shall be forthwith released to petitioner no.4 by way of transferring the said amount into her MACT Saving Bank Account.

Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi is further directed that after the deposit of the award amount, out of her share of Rs.14,02,000/- of petitioner No.1, a sum of Rs.3.52 lakhs alongwith corresponding interest shall be forthwith released to petitioner no.1 by way of transferring the said amount into her MACT Saving Bank Account and balance amount of Rs.10.50 lakhs alongwith corresponding thereon shall be kept secured with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit) in the name of petitioner No.1, in the following manner :-

        SL No.          Amount                           Period of FDR
           1.                        Rs.1,00,000/-       1 year
           2.                        Rs.1,00,000/-       2 years
           3.                        Rs.1,00,000/-       3 years
           4.                        Rs.1,00,000/-       4 years
           5.                        Rs.1,00,000/-       5 years
           6.                        Rs.1,00,000/-       6 years
           7.                        Rs.1,00,000/-       7 years

Page 81 of 100

8. Rs.1,00,000/- 8 years

9. Rs.1,00,000/- 9 years

10. Rs.1,50,000/- 10 years

11. Interest amount 11 years Further, Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi is directed to convert entire share amount of Rs.3 lakhs each of petitioner No.2 / Master Pranav Chauhan and petitioner No. 3 / Parth Chauhan till the time they attain age of majority.

(In re: MACP No.11/18 ; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.)

110. In view of the findings on said issues, this Tribunal awards a total compensation of Rs.15,37,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Only) alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum w.e.f. date of filing of the petition till the date of its realization in favour of petitioners and against the respondent no. 3 / Magma HDI GIC Ltd and same is required to be deposited with this Tribunal within 30 days.

Entitlement, Apportionment and Disbursement

111. The petitioners in this case are the wife, sons and daughter of the deceased. Accordingly, the award amount of Rs.,15,37,000/- along with interest thereon shall be shared by the _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 82 of 100

petitioners in the following manner:-

S. Name of the Age Relation Share in the Award Amount No Petitioner (Present with Age) Deceased 1 Meena 59 years Wife Rs.8,40,200/-

along with the corresponding interest.

 2    Arti               31 years       Married        Rs.48,400/- along with the
                                        daughter       corresponding interest
3.    Sandhya             27 years      Daughter       Rs.2,00,000/- along with the
                                                       corresponding interest
4.    Rachna             28 years       Married        Rs.48,400/- along with the
                                        daughter       corresponding interest
5.    Ajay               27 years       Son            Rs.2,00,000/- along with the
                                                       corresponding interest
6.    Ankit Kumar        24 years       Son            Rs.2,00,000/- along with the
                                                       corresponding interest

112. Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi is directed that after the deposit of the award amount, entire share amount of Rs.1 lakhs each alongwith corresponding interest shall be forthwith released to petitioners no.3 & 5 respectively by way of transferring the said amount into their respective MACT Saving Bank Account and balance amount of Rs.1 lakh each alongwith corresponding thereon shall be kept secured with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit) in their respective names, for a period of one year. Further, entire share amount of Rs.48,400/- each alongwith corresponding interest (towards consortium) shall be forthwith released to petitioners no.2 & 4 respectively by way of _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 83 of 100

transferring the said amount into their respective MACT Saving Bank Account. Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi is further directed that after the deposit of the award amount, out of her share of Rs.8,40,200/- of petitioner No.1, a sum of Rs.2,40,200/- alongwith corresponding interest shall be forthwith released to petitioner no.1 by way of transferring the said amount into her MACT Saving Bank Account and balance amount of Rs.6 lakhs alongwith corresponding thereon shall be kept secured with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit) in the name of petitioners No.1, in the following manner :-

        SL No.          Amount                           Period of FDR
           1.                        Rs.1,00,000/-       1 year
           2.                        Rs.1,00,000/-       2 years
           3.                        Rs.1,00,000/-       3 years
           4.                        Rs.1,00,000/-       4 years
           5.                        Rs.1,00,000/-       5 years
           6.                        Rs.1,00,000/-       6 years
           7.                           Interest         7 years
                                        Amount

Further, Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi is directed to convert entire share amount of Rs.2 lakhs of petitioner No.3 / Sandhya for a period of 3 years or till the time of her marriage, whichever is earlier.

(In re: MACP No.8/18 ; Sanjeev Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 84 of 100

Ors.)

113. In view of the findings on said issues, this Tribunal awards a total compensation of Rs.3,41,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Forty One Thousand Only) alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum w.e.f. date of filing of the petition till the date of its realization in favour of petitioner and against the respondent no. 3 / Magma HDI GIC Ltd and same is required to be deposited with this Tribunal within 30 days.

Disbursement of Award Amount :

114. Entire amount of Rs.3,41,000/- alongwith corresponding interest is directed to be released forthwith into the MACT Savings Bank Account of the petitioner Sanjeet Kumar.

(In re: MACP No.10/18 ; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.)

115. In view of the findings on said issues, this Tribunal awards a total compensation of Rs.1,15,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifteen Thousand Only) alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum w.e.f. date of filing of the petition till the date of its realization in favour of petitioner and against the respondent no. 3 / Magma HDI GIC Ltd and same is required to be deposited with this Tribunal within 30 days.

Page 85 of 100

Disbursement of Award Amount :

116. Entire amount of Rs.1,15,000/- alongwith corresponding interest is directed to be released forthwith into the MACT Savings Bank Account of the petitioner Ajay.

Direction to the Petitioners & their Banks:

117. The petitioners shall open a saving bank account near the place of their residence. Further, the bank of petitioner is directed to comply with the following conditions: -

(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e., the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).

(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by the bank to the claimant(s).

(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.

(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.

(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 86 of 100

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 card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.

(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.

118. As per 'The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (Annexure-XIII), the relevant Forms to be incorporated in the award are as under:

119. As per 'The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (Annexure-XIII), the relevant Forms to be incorporated in the award are as under:

(In re: MACP No.6/18 ;Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.) FORM - XV SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 87 of 100

1. Date of accident : 18.10.2017

2. Name of the deceased : Rajeev Kumar

3. Age of the deceased : 29 years 9 months

4. Occupation of the deceased : Self employed

5. Income of the deceased : Rs.13,584,/- per month

6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:

S. No Name of the Petitioner Age (Present Age) Relation with Deceased 1 Shalu 29 years Wife 2 Master Avneet Kumar 8 years Son 3 Smt. Rani 61 years Mother

4. Rajender Singh 59 years Father Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal

1. Income of the deceased (A) Rs.1,63,008/- per annum

2. Add-Future Prospects (B) @ 40% Rs.65,203

3. Less- Personal expenses of the deceased (C) @ Rs.76,070.4 1/3rd (1,63,008+65203 = Rs.260,265.6)

4. Annual loss of dependency Rs.1,52,140.6 [(A+B)-C = D] 5. Multiplier (E) 17

6. Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE = F) Rs.25,86,394

7. Medical Expenses (G) Nil

8. Compensation for loss of consortium (H) Rs.1,93,600/-

(48,400x4)

9. Compensation for loss of love and affection (I) --

Page 88 of 100

10. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs.18,150/-

11. Compensation towards funeral expenses (K) Rs.18,150/-

12. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.28,16,294/-

          (F+G+H+I+J+K = L)                                   rounded     off     to
                                                              Rs.28,16,290/-

 13.      RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED                            7.5%

14. Interest amount up to the date of award (M) Rs.16,18,495/-

(for 7 years, 7 months & 28 days)

15. Total amount including interest (L+M) Rs.44,34,785/-

16. Award amount released Rs.6,16,890/-

along with interest on this amount

17. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.21,99,000/-

along with interest on this amount

18. Mode of disbursement of the award amount to Bank transfer the claimants (s).

19. Next Date for compliance of the award. 15.10.2025 (In re: MACP No.9/18 ; Renu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.) FORM - XV SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD

1. Date of accident : 18.10.2017

2. Name of the deceased : Munesh Kumar

3. Age of the deceased : 41 years 9 months

4. Occupation of the deceased : Private Job

5. Income of the deceased : Rs.12,519/- per month

6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 89 of 100

deceased:

S. No Name of the Petitioner Age (Present Age) Relation with Deceased 1 Renu Devi 45 years Wife 2 Pranav Chauhan 16 years Son 3 Parth Chauhan 11 years Son

4. Murti Devi 78 years Mother Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal

1. Income of the deceased (A) Rs.1,50,228/- per annum

2. Add-Future Prospects (B) @ 25% Rs.37,557/-

3. Less- Personal expenses of the deceased (C) @ Rs.46,959.5 1/4th (1,50,228+37,557 = Rs.187,785)

4. Annual loss of dependency Rs.1,40,838.75.6 [(A+B)-C = D] 5. Multiplier (E) 14

6. Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE = F) Rs.19,71,742.5

7. Medical Expenses (G) Nil

8. Compensation for loss of consortium (H) Rs.1,93,600/-

(48,400x4)

9. Compensation for loss of love and affection (I) --

10. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs.18,150/-

11. Compensation towards funeral expenses (K) Rs.18,150/-

12. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.22,01,642/-

          (F+G+H+I+J+K = L)                                   rounded     off     to
                                                              Rs.22,02,000/-

_____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 90 of 100

13. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 7.5%

14. Interest amount up to the date of award (M) Rs.12,65,232/-

(for 7 years, 7 months & 28 days)

15. Total amount including interest (L+M) Rs.34,66,232/-

16. Award amount released Rs.5,52,000/-

along with interest on this amount

17. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.10,50,000/-

along with interest on this amount

18. Mode of disbursement of the award amount to Bank transfer the claimants (s).

19. Next Date for compliance of the award. 15.10.2025 (In re: MACP No.11/18 ; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.) FORM - XV SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD

1. Date of accident : 18.10.2017

2. Name of the deceased : Naresh Kumar

3. Age of the deceased : 56 years 9 months

4. Occupation of the deceased : Private Job

5. Income of the deceased : Rs.13,584/- per month

6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:

S. No Name of the Petitioner Age (Present Age) Relation with Deceased 1 Meena 59 years Wife _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 91 of 100

2 Sandhya 27 years Daughter 3 Ajay 26 years Son

4. Ankit Kumar 24 years Son

5. Arti 31 years Married Daughter

6. Rachna 28 years Married Daughter Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal

1. Income of the deceased (A) Rs.1,63,008/- per annum

2. Add-Future Prospects (B) @ 10% Rs.16,300.8/-

3. Less- Personal expenses of the deceased (C) @ Rs.44,827.2 1/4th (1,63,008+16,300.8 = Rs.179,308.8)

4. Annual loss of dependency Rs.1,34,481.6 [(A+B)-C = D] 5. Multiplier (E) 9

6. Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE = F) Rs.12,10,334.4

7. Medical Expenses (G) Nil

8. Compensation for loss of consortium (H) Rs.2,90,400/-

(48,400x6)

9. Compensation for loss of love and affection (I) --

10. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs.18,150/-

11. Compensation towards funeral expenses (K) Rs.18,150/-

12. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.15,37,034/-

          (F+G+H+I+J+K = L)                                   rounded     off    to
                                                              Rs.15,37,000/-

 13.      RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED                            7.5%

14. Interest amount up to the date of award (M) Rs.8,83,135/-

(for 7 years, 7 months & 28 days) _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 92 of 100

15. Total amount including interest (L+M) Rs.24,20,135/-

16. Award amount released Rs.5,37,000/-

along with interest on this amount

17. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.10,00,000/-

along with interest on this amount

18. Mode of disbursement of the award amount to Bank transfer the claimants (s).

19. Next Date for compliance of the award. 15.10.2025 (In re: MACP No.7/18 ; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.) FORM - XV SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD

1. Date of accident : 18.10.2017

2. Name of the deceased : Punit Kumar

3. Age of the deceased : 6 years 6 months

4. Occupation of the deceased :-

5. Income of the deceased : Rs.13,584/- per month

6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:

S. No Name of the Petitioner Age (Present Age) Relation with Deceased 1 Sanjeet Kumar 34 years Father 2 Pooja 33 years Mother Computation of Compensation _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 93 of 100

  S. No. Heads                                                 Awarded by the
                                                              Claims Tribunal
 1.       Income of the deceased (A)                          Rs.1,63,008/-     per
                                                              annum
 2.       Add-Future Prospects (B) @ 40%                      Rs.65,203.2

3. Less- Personal expenses of the deceased (C) Rs.1,14,105.6 @ 1/2 (1,63,008+65,203.2 = Rs.228,211.2)

4. Annual loss of dependency Rs.1,14,105.6 [(A+B)-C = D] 5. Multiplier (E) 15

6. Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE = F) Rs.17,11,584

7. Medical Expenses (G) Nil

8. Compensation for loss of consortium (H) Rs.96,800 (48,400x2)

9. Compensation for loss of love and affection --

(I)

10. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs.18,150/-

11. Compensation towards funeral expenses (K) Rs.18,150/-

12. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.18,44,684/-

          (F+G+H+I+J+K = L)                                   rounded    off      to
                                                              Rs.18,45,000/-

 13.      RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED                            7.5%

14. Interest amount up to the date of award (M) Rs.10,60,107/-

(for 7 years, 7 months & 28 days)

15. Total amount including interest (L+M) Rs.29,05,107/-

16. Award amount released Rs.6,44,000/-

along with interest on this amount

17. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.12,00,000/-

along with interest on _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 94 of 100

this amount

18. Mode of disbursement of the award amount Bank transfer to the claimants (s).

19. Next Date for compliance of the award. 15.10.2025 In MACP No. 8/18 (In re: Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors) FORM -XVI SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD

1. Date of accident : 18.10.2017

2. Name of the injured : Sanjeet Kumar

3. Age of the injured : 34 years

4. Occupation of the injured : Private work

5. Income of the injured : Rs.13,584/-per month

6. Nature of injury : Grievous injuries,

7. Medical treatment taken by the injured : Yes

8. Period of hospitalization : Hospitalization

9. Whether any permanent disability?

   (If yes, give details)     : No




1.                            Computation of Compensation
S. No. Heads                                       Awarded by the Claims
                                                   Tribunal
2.        Pecuniary Loss:
(i)       Expenditure on treatment                  Rs.2,11,366/-
(ii)      Expenditure on conveyance                 Rs.25,000/-
(iii)     Expenditure on special diet

Page 95 of 100

(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.10,000/-

(v)       Cost of artificial limb                  NA
(vi)      Loss of earning capacity                 --
(vii)     Loss of income (during treatment) Rs54,336
(viii)    Any other loss which may require N.A.
          any special treatment or aid to the
          injured for the rest of his life
3.        Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i)       Compensation for mental and Rs.40,000/-
          physical shock
(ii)      Pain and suffering
(iii)     Loss of amenities of life                -
(iv)      Disfiguration                            -
(v)       Loss of marriage prospects
(vi)      Loss of earning, inconvenience, --
          hardships,        disappointment,
          frustration,     mental    stress,
          dejectment and unhappiness in
          future life etc.
4.        Disability resulting in loss of
          earning capacity:
(i)       Percentage of disability assessed NA
          and nature of disability as
          permanent or temporary
(ii)      Loss of amenities or loss of
          expectation of life span on
          account of disability
(iii)     Percentage of loss of earning NA
          capacity in relation to disability
(iv)      Loss of future income -
          (Income x% Earning Capacity x
          Multiplier)

Page 96 of 100

5. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.3,40,702/-

(rounded off 3,41,000/-)

6. INTEREST AWARDED 7.5 %

7. Interest amount up to the date of Rs.195,933 the award @ 7.5% (for 7 years, 7 months & 28 days)

8. Total amount including interest Rs.5,36,933/-

9. Award amount released Entire Amount released alongwith corresponding interest

10. Award amount kept in FDRs -

11. Mode of disbursements of the Bank Transfer award amount to the claimants(s).

12. Next Date for compliance of the 15.10.2025 award.

In MACP No. 10/18 (In re: Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors) FORM -XVI SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD

1. Date of accident : 18.10.2017

2. Name of the injured : Ajay Kumar

3. Age of the injured : 26 years

4. Occupation of the injured : Private work

5. Income of the injured : Rs.13,584/-per month

6. Nature of injury : Grievous injuries,

7. Medical treatment taken by the injured : Yes

8. Period of hospitalization : Hospitalization

9. Whether any permanent disability?

Page 97 of 100

      (If yes, give details)                 : No



                              Computation of Compensation
S. No. Heads                                       Awarded by the Claims
                                                   Tribunal
1.         Pecuniary Loss:
(i)        Expenditure on treatment                 Rs.3796
(ii)       Expenditure on conveyance                Rs.20,000/-
(iii)      Expenditure on special diet
(iv)       Cost of nursing/attendant               Rs.10,000/-
(v)        Cost of artificial limb                 NA
(vi)       Loss of earning capacity                --
(vii)      Loss of income (during treatment) Rs40,752/-
(viii)     Any other loss which may require N.A.
           any special treatment or aid to the
           injured for the rest of his life
2.         Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i)        Compensation for mental and Rs.40,000/-
           physical shock
(ii)       Pain and suffering
(iii)      Loss of amenities of life               -
(iv)       Disfiguration                           -
(v)        Loss of marriage prospects
(vi)       Loss of earning, inconvenience, --
           hardships,        disappointment,
           frustration,     mental    stress,
           dejectment and unhappiness in
           future life etc.
3.         Disability resulting in loss of
           earning capacity:

                                                            Page 98 of 100
 (i)       Percentage of disability assessed NA
          and nature of disability as
          permanent or temporary
(ii)      Loss of amenities or loss of
          expectation of life span on
          account of disability
(iii)     Percentage of loss of earning NA
          capacity in relation to disability
(iv)      Loss of future income -
          (Income x% Earning Capacity x
          Multiplier)
4.        TOTAL COMPENSATION                       Rs.1,14,548/-
                                                   (rounded off 1,15,000/-)

5.        INTEREST AWARDED                         7.5 %

6. Interest amount up to the date of Rs.66,077/-

the award @ 7.5% (for 7 years, 7 months & 28 days)

7. Total amount including interest Rs.1,81,077/-

8. Award amount released Entire Amount released alongwith corresponding interest

9. Award amount kept in FDRs -

10. Mode of disbursements of the Bank Transfer award amount to the claimants(s).

11. Next Date for compliance of the 15.10.2025 award.

120. With these observations, all the six claim petitions are disposed off.

121. Files be consigned to Record Room.

Page 99 of 100

Digitally signed by MAYURI MAYURI SINGH SINGH Date:

2025.09.12 15:41:04 +0530 Announced in the open (Mayuri Singh) Court on 12.09.2025 Presiding Officer-MACT (East) (Total 100 pages) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi _____________________________________________________________ MACP No. 6/18; Shalu & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 7/18; Sanjeet Kumar & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 8/18; Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 9/18; Renu Devi & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 10/18; Ajay Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors. MACP No. 11/18; Meena & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh & Ors.

Page 100 of 100

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Sanjeet Kumar vs Satybir Singh And Ors on 12 September, 2025