Delhi District Court
Sunita vs Sushil Kumar on 26 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY KUMAR JAIN
PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
SUNITA & ORS. Vs. SUSHIL KUMAR & ORS.
DAR No. 468/21
1. Smt. Sunita (mother of deceased)
W/o Late Jagdish
2. Vinod (brother of deceased)
S/o Late Jagdish
3. Ajay Kumar (brother of deceased)
S/o Late Jagdish
4. Sushma (Sister of deceased)
D/o Late Jagdish
Claimant 1 to 4 are R/o
B.S.S, Near Bharat Sewak
Samaj Society, Rajokari Pahari,
Rajokri, Delhi.
......Petitioners/Claimants
Versus
1. Sushil Kumar (Driver)
S/o Sh. Jagpal Singh
R/o H. No. 180, Village Piplka
Surtapur, Distt. G. B. Nagar, UP
2. AB Grain Spirits Pvt. Ltd. (Owner)
Add. 24-A, Bharat Nagar,
New Friends Colony, New Delhi-25
3. United India Insurance Pvt. Ltd. (Insurer)
Vikas Building, 30-31-A, Asaf Ali Road,
New Delhi- 110002
.........Respondents
DAR No. 468/21 26.07.2025 Page 1 of 18
Sunita & Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors.
Date of filing of claim petition : 10.09.2021
Date of filing of DAR : 01.11.2021
Date of framing of issues : 19.04.2023
Date of concluding arguments : 23.07.2025
Date of decision : 26.07.2025
AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. The present Detailed Accident Report (DAR) for
compensation relates to fatal injury suffered by deceased Arjun
in a road accident that took place on 11.07.2021 at about 8:30
p.m., at NH-8, Service Lane, towards Gurugram, Near Dee Mark
Hotel, regarding which one FIR No.387/2021, U/s 279/337/304A
IPC was registered at PS Vasant Kunj (South), Delhi. The
vehicle involved in this case is a Orange Colour cluster Bus
bearing no. DL-1PD-1443, which at the relevant time of accident
was being driven by respondent no.1 Sh. Sushil Kumar (Driver)
and owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3
United India Insurance Pvt. Ltd.
2. Brief facts as per DAR filed that on receiving GD
No. 111A SI Ravinder alongwith Ct. Amit reached NH-8 Service
Lane, towards Gurugram, Near Dee Mark Hotel and found black
colour Yamha FZ Bike bearing no. DlL-3SAN-4147 in
accidental condition and one boy was also lying in accidental
condition. One eyewitness Mr. Manish stated that this boy was
driving motorcycle and one lady was also sitting on the said bike
and one orange colour Cluster Bus route no. 717 hit the
motorcycle. It was found that the injured Kalpana was taken to
Indian Spinal Injury Center where her statement was recorded. In
her statement she stated that on 11.07.2021 on around 7:00 p.m
DAR No. 468/21 26.07.2025 Page 2 of 18
Sunita & Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors.
she alongwith Arjun @ Golu was going on motorcycle and in the
meanwhile, one orange colour cluster bus hit them and she fell
on the side of road and Arjun came under the tyre of bus and
thereafter ambulance took her to Indian Spinal Hospital.
Deceased Arjun was taken to Safdarjung Hospital where he
declared brought dead. After collecting MLC registered FIR
under section 279/337/304A IPC.
3. During investigation, site plan of the place of
occurrence was prepared. Post-mortum of the deceased Arjun
was conducted. In the supplementary statement, injured Kalpana
has given number of bus i.e. DL-1PD-1443 which is also
corroborated by PCR caller Manish in his statement recorded U/S
161 Cr.PC.
4. During investigation, notice U/Sec. 91 Cr.P.C was
sent to concerned Depot of the offending bus. Thereafter, the
driver/Sushil Kumar was found to be driver of the bus as per
GPS location of the bus at the time of accident. Mechanical
inspection of the bike and offending bus was done.
5. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was
filed against driver/Sushil Kumar for committing the offence
under section 279/337/304A IPC.
6. Vide order dated 28.01.2022, claim petition filed by
the petitioners was clubbed with the DAR. Legal offer has been
filed on behalf of the R2/Insurance Company.
7. During proceedings, the driver appeared, however
Jagdish (father of deceased) died during proceedings on
10.02.2022, hence vide order dated 13.05.2022 application under
Order 22 Rule 3 r/w section 151 for impleading the LRs which
DAR No. 468/21 26.07.2025 Page 3 of 18
Sunita & Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors.
was allowed. SHO also verified the employment of the deceased
and in this regard also filed report. R-1/driver did not file any
reply, however as the legal offer was also filed by Insurance
company.
8. On 19.04.2023, Ld. Counsel for Insurance
Company not disputed on any other aspect except the income of
deceased, therefore following issues were framed by this
Tribunal :-
1.Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
2. Whether the deceased was working on the post of
Business Consultant with M/s Web4Business Solutions
and was getting the salary of Rs. 24,500/- per month ?
OPP.
3. Relief.
9. Thereafter, the matter was referred to Ld. Local
Commissioner for recording of evidence.
10. During evidence, claimants examined PW-1 Santosh
Kumar, employer of deceased Arjun, though mentioned as
PW-2
11. Ld. Counsel for claimants submitted that deceased is
survived by father and mother, however during the proceedings
father of the deceased was expired, therefore impleaded
remaining LRs of the deceased who are entitled for
compensation.
DAR No. 468/21 26.07.2025 Page 4 of 18
Sunita & Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors.
12. Ld. Counsel for Insurance Company submitted that
claimants were unable to prove the salary of the deceased/Arjun
and PW-1 Santosh Kumar is not at all a credible witness as could
not produce salary slip, therefore the income of the deceased is to
be calculated on the basis of minimum wages
13. Arguments heard. Record perused
14. The findings on the aforementioned issues are
rendered hereinafter in the succeeding paragraphs.
15. ISSUE NO. 1 & 2
1.Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
2. Whether the deceased was working on the post of
Business Consultant with M/s Web4Business Solutions
and was getting the salary of Rs. 24,500/- per month ?
OPP.
16. For proving the income of the deceased, claimants
examined PW-1, Santosh Kumar, proprietor of
WEB4BUSINESS Solutions, who stated that the deceased was
his employee and worked as Website Designer from 10.06.2021
and offer letter was also issued (Ex.PW1/1). In cross-
examination, he could not produce any receipt regarding the
payment of salary, however denied suggestion that the deceased
was not working with his firm. PW1 statement is corroborated
with offer letter (Ex.PW1/1). The factum of working of the
deceased in this firm is also verified by SHO. In terms of order
dated 09.11.2022, SHO filed a report showing that the deceased
has joined this firm/company on 10.06.2021 at the salary of Rs.
DAR No. 468/21 26.07.2025 Page 5 of 18
Sunita & Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors.
24,500/-, however has been paid salary of Rs. 17,136/- by cash as
the bank account of the deceased was not working properly.
17. In these circumstances, there is nothing to disbelieve
the testimony of PW-1 Santosh Kumar particularly when the
factum of employment of deceased in his company/firm is also
verified by the SHO. Though, as per offer letter, deceased joined
the service at the salary of Rs. 24,500/-, however given salary is
of Rs. 17,136/-, therefore the monthly income of the deceased is
assessed as Rs. 17,136/- per month.
(i) Loss of dependency
18. The income of deceased is found Rs. 17,136/- per
month at the time of accident. To show the age of deceased
Arjun, claimants placed some documents i.e. Aadhar Card, 10 th
class certificate, Pan Card on record. The claimants have also
placed on record their Aadhaar cards to show their age. In these
documents, the date of birth of deceased is found recorded as
21.04.2001. Going by these documents, the age of deceased
comes out to be 20 years 2 months 20 days on the date of
accident i.e. 11.07.2021. Accordingly, in terms of law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors.
Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121,
which has also been approved by the Constitution Bench of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, the multiplier
of '18' is applicable in the present case.
19. Now coming to calculation of loss of dependency,
the present claim has been filed by four claimants i.e. mother,
two brother and sister of deceased. During financial statement,
DAR No. 468/21 26.07.2025 Page 6 of 18
Sunita & Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors.
claimant no. 1 deposed that her husband Jagdish expired on
10.02.2022. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as "Kirti & Anr. Etc. Vs.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., LawSuit (SC) 6, decided on
05.01.2021, wherein it was held as under :-
"10. We have thoughtfully considered the rival
submissions. It cannot be disputed that at the time of
death, there in fact were four dependents of the deceased
and not three. The subsequent death of the deceased's
dependent mother ought not to be a reason for reduction
of motor accident compensation. Claims and legal
liabilities crystallise at the time of the accident itself, and
changes post thereto ought not to ordinarily affect
pending proceedings. Just like how appellant-claimants
cannot rely upon subsequent increases in minimum
wages, the respondent-insurer too cannot seek benefit of
the subsequent death of a dependent during the pendency
of legal proceedings."
20. Hence, in terms of above judgment as well as
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla
Verma & Ors. (Supra) and Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), 1/2th
earnings of deceased shall be deducted towards his personal and
living expenses.
21. In view of the law laid down in the case of Pranay
Sethi (Supra), the petitioners are also held entitled to addition of
40% of earning of the deceased towards future prospects. Thus,
the loss of dependency in the present case comes to Rs.
25,90,963.20/- (rounded off Rs. 25,90,964/-) (Rs.17,136/-X 12 X
18 X 1/2 X 140/100).
(ii) COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY HEADS
22. To calculate compensation under the non pecuniary
heads, reference has to be drawn from decision in Pranay Sethi
DAR No. 468/21 26.07.2025 Page 7 of 18
Sunita & Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors.
case (supra) wherein it was observed:
''...Unlike determination of income, the said heads
have to be quantified. Any quantification must have
a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute
over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest,
escalation of rates in many a field have to be
noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the
same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect.
Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in
determination of the same and unless the thumb rule
is applied, there will be immense variation lacking
any kind of consistency as a consequence of which,
the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are
likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly
to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that
reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely,
loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral
expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs
15,000 respectively. The principle of revisiting the
said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit
should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We
think that it would be condign that the amount that
we have quantified should be enhanced on
percentage basis in every three years and the
enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span
of three years. We are disposed to hold so because
that will bring in consistency in respect of those
heads.
.
.
59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years...''
23. In terms of propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the petitioners are also held entitled to amount of Rs.15,000/- each under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses, i.e. Rs.30,000/- under both heads. Further, in view of Full Court judgment dated 30.06.2020 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur DAR No. 468/21 26.07.2025 Page 8 of 18 Sunita & Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors.
& Ors. (2020) 06 SC CK 0036 (Civil Appeal Nos. 2705 and 2706 of 2020), the petitioners are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards 'loss of consortium', in addition to Rs.30,000/- granted under the conventional head of 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses'.
24. Pertinently, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also held in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (Supra) that compensation awarded under the conventional heads shall be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years and a period of 6 years since then stands already expired. Hence, the petitioners in this case are also entitled to an increase @ 10% on the amount awarded under the conventional head of 'loss of estate', 'funeral charges' and 'loss of consortium' after expiry of three years and further 10% after expiry of another three years. The total compensation towards the Non-Pecuniary Heads is calculated as under :
i) Loss of Consortium: Rs.40,000/- + (10% of Rs.40,000/-)= Rs.
44,000/- + (10% of Rs. 44,000/-) = Rs. 48,400/- X 5 = Rs.2,42,000/-.
ii. Loss of Estate : Rs. 15,000/- + (10% of Rs.15,000/-) = Rs.16,500/- + (10% of Rs. 16,500/-) = Rs. 18,150/-. iii. Funeral Charges : Rs. 15,000/- + (10% of Rs.15,000/-) = Rs.16,500/- + (10% of Rs. 16,500/-) = Rs. 18,150/-.
25. Therefore, the total compensation towards the non- pecuniary heads comes to Rs. 2,78,300/-.
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
26. In view of finding on issue number 2, the petitioners DAR No. 468/21 26.07.2025 Page 9 of 18 Sunita & Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors.
are held entitled to a sum of Rs. 28,69,264/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakh Sixty Nine Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Four only) (Rs.25,90,964/- + Rs. 2,78,300/-) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be liable to be excluded from the award amount.
APPORTIONMENT
27. Out of the awarded amount, 70% amount is being awarded to claimant no. 1, i.e. mother of deceased and 10% amount each is being awarded to no. 2 to 4, i.e. two brother and one sister of deceased.
RELEASE
28. Out of amount awarded to claimant no. 1, 80% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in form of 125 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 125 months in succession, as per scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as implemented vide subsequent order dated 07.12.2018 and order dated 08.01.2021 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in his savings/MACT Claims SB Account, opened/to be opened near the place of her residence, as directed vide Order dated 16.09.2021 and the remaining 20% amount is also directed DAR No. 468/21 26.07.2025 Page 10 of 18 Sunita & Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors.
to be released into her above said account, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by her.
29. Out of amount awarded to petitioners no. 2 and 4 each, 90% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in form of 40 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 40 months in succession, as per scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as implemented vide subsequent order dated 07.12.2018 and order dated 08.01.2021 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in their respective savings/MACT Claims SB Accounts opened/to opened near the place of their residence, as directed vide Order dated 16.09.2021 and the remaining 10% amount each is also directed to be released into their above said accounts, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by them.
30. The disbursement to the claimants/petitioners is, however, subject to addition of future interest till deposit proportionately and also deduction of proportionate tax on the interest amount or amount of interim award, if any, to/from their shares.
31. The bank shall not permit any joint names to be added in the savings bank accounts or MACAD scheme accounts of petitioners i.e. the bank account of petitioners shall be individual account and not a joint account.
32. The original fixed deposits shall be retained by the DAR No. 468/21 26.07.2025 Page 11 of 18 Sunita & Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors.
UCO Bank, PHC, New Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR numbers, amounts, dates of maturity and maturity amounts shall be furnished by the said bank to the petitioners and the above amount shall be released in account of petitioners by the Manager, UCO Bank, PHC, ND through RTGS/NEFT/or any other electronic mode.
33. The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank accounts of the petitioner(s) near the place of their residence.
34. The maturity amount of the FDR (s) on monthly basis net of TDS be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the above accounts of petitioners.
35. No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the MACAD without permission of the Court.
36. The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to petitioner(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 petitioner(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the petitioner(s) from any other branch of the bank.
37. The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the petitioner(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 petitioner(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
DAR No. 468/21 26.07.2025 Page 12 of 18Sunita & Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors.
38. It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the petitioner(s) is sufficient compliance of clause above.
LIABILITY
39. There is no dispute raised regarding negligence on the part of deceased/Arjun, therefore it is found that the said accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1/Sushil Kumar. There is no statutory defense of Insurance Company which also filed legal offer.
40. All the respondents are though being held jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to petitioners, but respondent no.3 being insurer of offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in bank account being maintained in the above said bank in name of this tribunal within 30 days from today, failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay. In case even after lapse of 90 days from today, respondent no. 3 fails to deposit this compensation with interest, in that event, in light of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal 2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of respondent no. 3 with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.
41. The respondent no. 3 shall inform the petitioners/claimants and their counsels through registered post DAR No. 468/21 26.07.2025 Page 13 of 18 Sunita & Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors.
that the awarded amount has been deposited so as to facilitate them to collect the same.
42. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost or be sent to them by email. Ahlmad is directed to send a copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Judgment titled as Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. passed in FAO No.842/2003 dated 12.12.2014.
43. Further, Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 08.01.2021.
44. The particulars of Form-XVII of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, in terms of directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 08.01.2021, are as under:
1. Date of the accident 11.07.2021
2. Date of filing of Form I- First N.A. Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the N.A. victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from N.A. the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from N.A. the owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- N.A. Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and N.A. Form VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing Form-VII-
of 01.11.2021 Detailed Accident Report (DAR) DAR No. 468/21 26.07.2025 Page 14 of 18 Sunita & Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors.
9. Whether there was any delay or No deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Not given Designated Officer by the Insurance Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of No the Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or No deficiencies on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the NA petitioner(s) of the offer of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 26.07.2025
15. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which 16.09.2021 petitioner(s) were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the petitioner (s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17. Date on which the petitioner(s) Yet to furnish produced the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with DAR No. 468/21 26.07.2025 Page 15 of 18 Sunita & Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors.
the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of As mentioned above the petitioner(s)
19. Whether the petitioner(s) savings No bank account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
45. File be consigned to record room after compliance of necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance Digitally report and be put up on 02.09.2025. AJAY signed by AJAY KUMAR JAIN KUMAR Date:
2025.07.26 JAIN 16:53:44 +0530 Announced in the open court (Ajay Kumar Jain) on 26.07.2025 PO/MACT, New Delhi Encl: SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM XV DAR No. 468/21 26.07.2025 Page 16 of 18 Sunita & Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM XV
1. Date of accident 11.07.2021
2. Name of the deceased Sh. Arjun
3. Age of the deceased 20 years
4. Occupation of the deceased Pvt. Job
5. Income of the deceased Rs.17,136/- per month
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased :
Sl. Name Age Relation No. i) Sunita 47 years Mother ii) Vinod 29 years Brother iii) Ajay Kumar 25 years Brother iv) Sushma 23 years Sister Sl. Head Amount Awarded No. (Rs.) 7. Income of deceased (A) Rs. 17,136/- 8. Add : Future Prospects (B) Rs. 6,854.4/-
9. Less-Personal expenses of the deceased Rs. 11,995.2/-
(C)
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs. 11,995.2/-
[(A+B) - C = D]
11. Annual loss of dependency Rs.1,43,942.4/-
(D x 12) 12. Multiplier (E) 18
13. Total loss of dependency Rs.25,90,963.4/-
(D x 12 x E = F)
14. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15. Compensation for loss of love and Nil affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of consortium (I) Rs.2,42,000/-
DAR No. 468/21 26.07.2025 Page 17 of 18Sunita & Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors.
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs.18,150/-
18. Compensation towards funeral expenses Rs.18,150/-
(K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 28,69,264/-
(F + G + H + I + J+K =L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 7.5% pa from date of filing of claim petition till the date of award to be deposited within 30 days and 9% thereafter.
21. Interest amount up to the date of award Rs.8,31,488.80/-
(M)
22. Total amount including interest Rs.37,00,752.80/-
(L + M) (rounded off to
Rs.37,00,753/-)
23. Award amount released P-1=20% share
P-2=10% share
P-3=10% share
P-4=10% share
24. Award amount kept in FDRs/ MACAD P-1=80% share P-2=90% share P-3=90% share P-4=90% share
25. Mode of disbursement of the award Through Bank amount to petitioner(s)
26. Next date for compliance of the 02.09.2025 award Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY KUMAR JAIN KUMAR Date:
JAIN 2025.07.26 16:53:33 +0530 (Ajay Kumar Jain) PO/MACT, New Delhi 26.07.2025 DAR No. 468/21 26.07.2025 Page 18 of 18 Sunita & Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors.