Delhi District Court
Kameshwar vs Prashant Kaushik on 27 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHILASH MALHOTRA
PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-02 ,PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
KAMESHWAR MANDAL & ORS. Vs. PRASHANT
KAUSHIK & ANR.
DAR NO. 31/2023
1. Sh. Kameshwar Mandal
S/o Sh. Lakhan Mandal
(Husband of the deceased)
2. Sh. Sudhir Kumar Mandal
S/o Sh. Kameshwar Mandal
(Son of the deceased)
3. Sh. Sushil Kumar Mandal
S/o Sh. Kameshwar Mandal
(Son of the deceased)
4. Sh. Anil Kumar Mandal
S/o Sh. Kameshwar Mandal
(Son of the deceased)
All Resident of:
R/o E-47, Ankur Enclave,
Karawal Nagar, Dayalpur,
Delhi -110094. .... Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Prashant Kaushik
S/o Sh. Mool Chand Kaushik
R/o Village Junhera 87 Kurali,
Tehsil Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad, Haryana.
.... Driver-cum- owner
Respondent no. 1
DAR No. 31/23 Page. 1 of 42 Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
2. M/s Edelweiss General Insurance Company. Ltd.
1016-17-18, Naurang House, 21 K. G. Marg, New Delhi.
....Insurance Company/
Respondent no. 3
Date of accident 25.10.2022
Date of filing DAR 19.01.2023
Date of framing of issues 26.02.2024
Date of concluding arguments 22.01.2026
Date of decision 27.01.2026
AWARD/JUDGMENT
Index to the Judgment
I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE CLAIMANT(s).........................................4
II. FRAMING OF ISSUES................................................................................4 III. RECORDING OF EVIDENCE....................................................................5 IV. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS OF THE PARTIES..................................7 V. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO................................10
(a) Issue No.1: Whether Smt. Manju Devi expired on account of injuries sustained in the accident which occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the respondent driver?..................................................................10 i. Presumption qua complicity upon filing chargesheet:.................10 ii. The evidence on record qua negligence:......................................11 VI. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE...........................................................14 i. Preponderance of probabilities:....................................................15 ii. Finding:........................................................................................ 17 DAR No. 31/23 Page. 2 of 42 Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
(b) Issue No.2: Whether claimant is entitled to compensation, and to what amount ?........................................................................................................ 17 i. Principles qua assessment of compensation:................................17 ii. Monthly Income of the deceased:................................................19 iii. Future prospects:..........................................................................21 iv. Personal expenses of the deceased:..............................................23 v. Monthly & Annual Loss of dependency:.....................................26 vi. Total Loss of Dependency:...........................................................26 vii. Other Heads:.................................................................................26 viii. Medical Expenses:........................................................................28 ix. Compensation for Loss of Consortium:.......................................28 x. Compensation for Loss of Estate:................................................30 xi. Compensation towards Funeral Expenses:...................................30 xii. Total Compensation:.....................................................................30
(c) Issue No.3: Relief................................................................................ 31 i. Amount of Award:........................................................................31 ii. Rate of Interest:............................................................................31 VII............................DEPOSIT OF AWARD& RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT 32 i. Deposit of Award:.........................................................................32 ii. Disbursement of the award amount & protection thereof:...........34 VIII.................................................................................................... LIABILITY 36 IX. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN CASES OF DEATH...............................................................................................................37 X. COMPLIANCE QUA PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME.........................40 DAR No. 31/23 Page. 3 of 42 Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE CLAIMANT(s)
1. In present case, FIR bearing no. 141/2022 was registered in PS Tilak Marg, Delhi on the complaint made by complainant Mr. Sushil Kumar. A charge sheet was filed by the police against the driver-cum-owner Mr. Prashant Kaushik (R-1) under Section 279/304A IPC, on the charges of rash driving of Car bearing registration no. HR-29-AZ-6039 which hit motorcycle no. DL-5S-CP-5789 driven by Mr. Sushil Kumar Mandal in which deceased Ms. Manju Devi was travelling as pillion rider.
2. As per the charge sheet, the vehicle was driven by respondent no. 1 driver-cum-owner and insured by respondent no. 2 Insurance company.
3. During the proceedings issues were framed on 26.02.2024 Thereafter the written submissions were filed by the parties in the prescribed format. The financial statement of the legal representatives of deceased was recorded on 27.01.2026.
II. FRAMING OF ISSUES
4. Vide order dated 26.02.2024, following issues were framed by this Tribunal:-
"1. Whether the deceased Smt. Manju Devi sustained fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 25.10.2022 at about 1:30 p.m., Ring Road near Railway Bridge, Bhairon Mandir Cut, New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. HR-29-AZ-6039 being driven and owned by R-1, and insured with DAR No. 31/23 Page. 4 of 42 Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
respondent no. 2?OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief."
III. RECORDING OF EVIDENCE
5. In present case, husband of the deceased PW-1 Kameshwar Mandal examined himself and tendered his affidavit in chief is Ex. PW 1/A. He also exhibited the following documents viz., Copy of Aadhar Card and PAN Card of petitioner no. 1/ Kameshwar Mandal are Ex. PW 1/1 & Ex. PW 1 /2; Copy of Aadhar Card and PAN Card of petitioner no. 2/ Sudhir Kumar Mandal are Ex. PW 1/3 & Ex. PW 1 /4; Copy of Aadhar Card and PAN Card of petitioner no. 3/ Sushil Kumar Mandal are Ex. PW 1/5 & Ex. PW 1 /6; Copy of Aadhar Card and PAN Card of petitioner no. 4/ Anil Kumar Mandal are Ex. PW 1/7 & Ex. PW 1 /8; Copy of Aadhar Card and PAN Card of deceased Manju Devi are Ex. PW 1/9 & Ex. PW 1 /10.
6. PW-1 in his testimony stated that her deceased wife Smt. Manju Devi met with an accident on 25.10.2022 at about 1:30 p.m, Ring Road near Railway Bridge, Bhairon Mandir Cut, New Delhi. The driver of the Car bearing registration no. HR-29-AZ-6039 drove the vehicle in rash and negligent DAR No. 31/23 Page. 5 of 42 Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
manner and hit the motorcyclist (in which deceased Smt. Manju Devi was travelling as pillion rider) which was being driven by Mr. Sushil Kumar Mandal and due to the said accident pillion rider Smt. Manju Devi died. He stated that deceased was 56 years of old and running a boutique and also doing stitching work and earning more than Rs.25,000/- per month. He further stated that petitioner no. 1 is husband of deceased and is not working since 2019 and petitioners no. 2 to 4 are married sons of the deceased and are not earning a good amount, therefore, deceased used to help them financially.
7. PW-2 Mr. Sushil Kumar Mandal is the son of the deceased. He stated that on 25.10.2022 he was riding his motorcycle bearing no. DL-5S-CP-5789 and deceased /mother Smt. Manju Devi was sitting as a pillion rider. He stated that at about 1:30 p.m. when they reached Ring Road near Railway Bridge, Bhairon Mandir Cut, New Delhi, respondent no. 1 driver-cum-owner driving his car bearing registration no. HR-29-AZ-6039 in a rash and negligent manner at a very high speed, hit their motorcycle from behind, due to which his mother fell down on the road and ran over by the said offending car. He reiterated that her deceased/ mother was earning Rs. 25,000/- per month by running a boutique.
8. PW-3 Sh. Arvinder Singh, Prop. M/s Vikram Automobiles, Mechanical Experts, Delhi. He stated that upon inspection of the offending vehicle no. HR-29-AZ-6039, he found DAR No. 31/23 Page. 6 of 42 Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
'Fresh /Damages on Front Left Side Body Fender Slightly scratched' and the mechanical system of the said vehicle was found to be Fit / Ok for road test. He further stated that on inspection of the motorcycle he found 'Fresh Damages, on left rear indicator light broken and left side head light viser scratched'.
IV. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS OF THE PARTIES
9. Advocate Manoj Goel, Ld. Counsel for the claimant submitted that they have filed the copy of FIR and charge sheet. He submits that the said record clearly shows that the offending vehicle bearing no HR -29-AZ6039 was seized during the investigation and later on released on Superdari. He submits that the charge sheet in that case was already filed against the driver Prashant Kaushik u/s 279/304-A IPC which clearly establishes the rash driving on part of the offending vehicle.
10. He submits that PW-2 Sh. Sushil Kumar Mandal is the eye witness in this matter. He submits that in his testimony before the Tribunal he clearly stated that the offending vehicle was driven rashly and hit the motorcycle driven by him due to which mother of PW-2 / deceased Smt. Manju Devi fell down on road and ran over by said car. He submits that in view of the mandate given in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Chamundeswari & Ors. 2021 LawSuit (SC) 594 dated 01.10.2021 and Gurpreet Kaur & Ors Vs. National Insurance DAR No. 31/23 Page. 7 of 42 Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
Company Limited & Ors. 2024 LawSuit (SC) 1389 dated 15April, 2024 the statement on oath before the Court needs to be considered as having a high evidentiary value. He submits charge sheet is also filed against the R-1 driver of the offending vehicle and it also proves the factum of rash driving.
11.He submits that the deceased was a house wife and is survived by her husband and three married sons. He submits that PW-1 Mr. Kameshwar Mandal in his testimony has stated that the deceased was doing stitching work and he including his sons were getting financially assistance from the earnings of deceased.
12.During the arguments he submitted that though in Form VI-A, i.e. calculation fo compensation they have claimed monthly income of Rs.25,000/- but the Court may consider the wages of a skilled worker prevalent at that juncture which is Rs.20,357/-. He submits that as per the mandate given in the case titled as Tata General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Priyanka & Ors; Dharambir Singh & Ors. 2018 LawSuit(Del) 3635 dated 18 July, 2018 and Jagdish S/o Dharam Singh & Ors. Vs. Om Pal Singh, 2024 LawSuit (Del) 5684 dated 10 December, 2024 a house wife has to be considered a skilled worker for the purpose of calculating compensation.
13.He submits that PW-1 in his testimony stated that he along with his sons were getting help from the income of the deceased. He submits that as the said testimony had remained unrebutted as DAR No. 31/23 Page. 8 of 42 Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
there are four dependents, therefore, personal expenses to the extent of 1 /4th be deducted only. He has relied upon the judgment in the case titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Birender and Ors. 2020 LawSuit(SC) 26 dated 13 January, 2020 and submits that even major married and earning sons are covered in the definition of legal representatives and need to be considered while calculating compensation.
14. Ld. Counsel for Insurance Company submitted that in the FIR recorded by the police, PW-2 Mr. Sushil Kumar / motorcycle driver stated that when he reached near the Bhairo Marg cut, the bike jumped and his mother who was a pillion rider fell down and the insured / offending vehicle which was coming from behind ran over her. He submits that in affidavit in chief, PW-2 has changed his version and stated that the accident occurred as his motorcycle hit by the insured / offending vehicle. He submits that PW-2 Mr. Sushil Kumar has taken contradictory stand and there is no rash driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and the claim is not made out.
15.He submits that there was contributory negligence as Smt. Manju Devi was not wearing any helmet.
16. He submits that PW-1 Mr. Sushil Kumar Mandal in his cross examination admitted that he got married on 05.07.1979 with Smt. Manju Devi (deceased) and at that time Smt. Manju Devi was around 17-18 years old. He submits that from his DAR No. 31/23 Page. 9 of 42 Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
testimony it is clear that on the date of accident Smt. Manju Devi was around 61 years of old and the said age be considered for the purposes of this inquiry.
V. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO
(a) Issue No.1: Whether Smt. Manju Devi expired on account of injuries sustained in the accident which occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the respondent driver?
i. Presumption qua complicity upon filing chargesheet:
17. Rule 21 of Annexure XIII of The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 mandates as follows:-
21. Claims Tribunal shall treat Dar as a claim petition for compensation under Sub-Section (4) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (1) The Claims Tribunal shall treat the DAR filed by the Investigating Officer as a claim petition under Section (4) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, where the Investigating Officer is unable to produce the claimant(s) on the first date of hearing the Claims Tribunal shall register the DAR as a claim petition after the appearance of the claimant(s).
(2) where the claimant(s) have filed a separate claim petition, the DAR may be tagged along with the claim petition. (3) If the Report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2) of 1974 has not been filed at the time of filing of the DAR, the Claims Tribunal may either wait till filing of the Report under Section 173 of the said Code of Criminal Procedure or record the statement of the eye witness(es) to satisfy itself with respect to the negligence before passing the award.
(4) The Claims Tribunal shall register the FAR as a Miscellaneous application and the IAR as well as DAR shall be taken on record in the same Miscellaneous application.
DAR No. 31/23 Page. 10 of 42 Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
18. In Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Meera Devi & Ors decided on 16.02.2021, 2021 LawSuit (Del) 858 it was held :
8. ..... In view of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008, contents of DAR had to be presumed to be correct and read in evidence without formal proof of the same unless proof to the contrary was produced........".
19.In a recent order dated 25.02.2025, passed in Ranjeet & Anr v Abdul Nayem Keb & Anr in SLP (c) 10351/2019, it was held in trenchant terms as thus:
"It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the eyewitnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver."
ii. The evidence on record qua negligence:
20.Claimant has placed on record the certified copy of charge sheet in FIR No. 141/2022 PS Tilak Marg, Delhi. Record shows that the charge sheet u/s 279/304-A IPC was filed in the present case against the driver Prashant Kaushik.
21.It is argued by Insurance company that PW-2 Mr. Sushil Kumar has taken contradictory stands in the FIR and in his affidavit in chief. Before proceeding further to appreciate the plea, it would be prudent to refer to legal position in this regard.
22.In this regard, reliance is placed in the case titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Chamundeswari & Ors. 2021 DAR No. 31/23 Page. 11 of 42 Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
LawSuit (SC) 594 dated 01.10.2021 and wherein it was held that:-
8. It is clear from the evidence on record of PW-1 as well as PW-3 that the Eicher van which was going in front of the car, has taken a sudden right turn without giving any signal or indicator. The evidence of PW-1 & PW-3 is categorical and in absence of any rebuttal evidence by examining the driver of Eicher van, the High Court has rightly held that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of Eicher van. It is to be noted that PW-1 herself travelled in the very car and PW-3, who has given statement before the police, was examined as eye-witness. In view of such evidence on record, there is no reason to give weightage to the contents of the First Information Report. If any evidence before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the First Information Report, the evidence which is recorded before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of the First Information Report.
23.In the case of Gurpreet Kaur & Ors Vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Ors. (Supra) wherein it was held that:-
5. We are of the opinion that such a conclusion is unjustified and unwarranted. There was no reason for the High Court to have interfered with a well-reasoned order passed by the MACT. The MACT made the following pertinent observations regarding the manner in which the accident had taken place:
"11. The fact remains that Ramandeep Singh, has come present in the court and categorically deposed on oath regarding the accident having taken place due to negligence of the respondent No.1, as a result of which the deceased Parminder Singh and respondent no.1 suffered injuries which resulted into their death has not been controverted by respondents by leading evidence. Merely on the basis of the fact that a DDR was got registered regarding the accident having taken place without anyone's fault, it cannot be conceded or held that the present claim petition has been filed on false facts. It is a settled principle of law that statement on DAR No. 31/23 Page. 12 of 42 Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
oath before the Court is kept at a much higher pedestal when compared to a statement made to the police and it carries much higher evidentiary value and cannot be discarded. Perusal of the cross-examination of Ramandeep Singh reveals that nothing has come of such a nature so as to create any, doubt regarding the mode and the manner of the accident as stated by him in his examination in chief......
12. So, in these circumstances whatever evidence has come on record from both the sides in this aspect, after evaluating the same, the claimants have proved that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. Accordingly, this issue no. 1 is decided in favour of claimants and against the respondent."
24.From the aforesaid legal precedent it is amply clear that FIR is not a complete code in itself and the weightage has to be given to the evidence recoded before the Tribunal for the obvious reasons that firstly, that the evidence is recorded on oath and secondly, it is subjected to cross examination and is on much higher pedestal as compared to statement recorded before the police.
25.In present case, PW-2 Mr. Sushil Kumar Mandal in his testimony categorically stated that the offending vehicle was driven at high speed in rash manner and hit the motorcycle driven by him from behind due to which pillion rider / his mother Smt. Manju Devi fell down and was ran over by the offending car. He was cross examined and remained consistent in his testimony.
26.The R-1 / driver of the offending vehicle neither cross examined PW-1 Sushil Kumar Mandal nor entered into the DAR No. 31/23 Page. 13 of 42 Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
witness box to depose regarding the accident. In such circumstances, when the R-1 driver of offending vehicle has chosen to stay away from cross examination and did not come to witness box, the testimony of eye witness cannot be discarded.
27.In the aforesaid circumstances when the driver has been already charge sheeted and eye witness PW-2 has given a categorical testimony, the rash driving on the part of R-1 driver stands proved for the purpose of this inquiry.
VI. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
28.Ld. Counsel or the insurance company has argued that as the deceased was not wearing the helmet therefore she is liable for contributory negligence. The plea is disputed by Ld. Counsel for petitioner.
29.To appreciate the contention, it would be prudent to refer to the judgment in the case titled as Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. Insurer Vs. Baby Khushi 2023 LawSuit (Del) 4362 dated 11 July 2023 wherein their lordship observed as under:-
(13) In the present case, PW-1, who was driving the Scooty, has been examined and cross-examined at length. The police has also investigated the accident and has charged the respondent no.1 for offences punishable under Sections 279/338 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860, and The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Merely because the driver of the Scooty, that is the Aunty of the claimant, was unable to produce her DAR No. 31/23 Page. 14 of 42 Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
license, it cannot be said that the accident was caused due to her rash and negligent driving or that the rash and negligent driving of the truck stood disproved or a case of contributory negligence was made out.
[14] In Dinesh Kumar Alias Dinesh J v. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, 2018 1 SCC 750, the Supreme Court, relying upon its earlier Judgment in Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh and Ors, 2008 12 SCC 436, has held that if a person drives a vehicle without a license, he commits an offence, however, that by itself may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. If such a driver was not driving the vehicle rashly or negligently which contributed to the accident. only because he was not having a license, he would not be held guilty of contributory negligence. No deduction on the ground of contributory negligence can, therefore, be made on the sole ground that the driver was not in possession of the requisite license.
30.From the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that to attract the contributory negligence, the rashness or negligent on the part of the victim needs to be proved. Non-wearing of helmet may be an offence under the motor vehicle act, but cannot be termed as rash or negligent act. No evidence has been led by the insurance company or the R-1 driver / owner to show any kind of rashness or negligence on the part of motorcycle driver or the pillion rider / deceased. Therefore, the contention of the insurance is without any merit and rejected.
i. Preponderance of probabilities:
31.It is trite law that in a proceeding before the Claims Tribunal, the claimant does not have to establish negligence on the part of the driver respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The DAR No. 31/23 Page. 15 of 42 Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
standards of establishing negligence is predicated on preponderance of probabilities. In the present case too, negligence has been established on this principle.
32.In this context, it would be useful to peruse Mathew Alexander v. Mohd. Shafi, (2023) 13 SCC 510 wherein it was observed as thus:
"In this context, we could refer to the judgments of this Court in N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal [N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal, (1980) 3 SCC 457 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 774] , wherein the plea that the criminal case had ended in acquittal and that, therefore, the civil suit must follow suit, was rejected. It was observed that culpable rashness under Section 304-
AIPC is more drastic than negligence under the law of torts to create liability. Similarly, in Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC [Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC, (2009) 13 SCC 530 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 189 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1101] ("Bimla Devi"), it was observed that in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal has to determine the amount of fair compensation to be granted in the event an accident has taken place by reason of negligence of a driver of a motor vehicle. A holistic view of the evidence has to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal and strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be established by the claimants. The claimants have to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in a road traffic accident. To the same effect is the observation made by this Court in Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz [Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) DAR No. 31/23 Page. 16 of 42 Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
13] which has referred to the aforesaid judgment in Bimla Devi [Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC (2009) 13 SCC 530."
ii. Finding:
33.In view of foregoing discussion, it stands proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities that the aforesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the transgressing/offending vehicle bearing registration no. HR-29 AZ-6039 and the said vehicle at that time was driven and owned by respondent no. 1, and insured by respondent no.2. Hence, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the claimants and against the respondents.
34.It is clarified that the finding given are limited for the purposes of this inquiry and shall not impact the trial of the criminal case.
(b) Issue No.2: Whether claimant is entitled to compensation, and to what amount ?
i. Principles qua assessment of compensation:
35.Before adverting to the submissions of the counsels in this regard, it would be apposite to refer to the law of the land qua this aspect. The law has been enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. (2003) 6SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.(2017) 16 SCC 680.
DAR No. 31/23 Page. 17 of 42 Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
36.An essential ingredient of the award is the loss of dependency. To calculate the same, it would be of utmost significance to peruse the following seminal directions issued in Sarla Verma (supra):
"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 dependants The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are:
(i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income;
(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and
(iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.
If these determinants are standardised, 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:
Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependant family, constitutes the multiplicand. Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of DAR No. 31/23 Page. 18 of 42 Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
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."
37.To ascertain the 'multiplier' mentioned in Step 2 above, it was further laid down in Sarla Verma (supra) as thus:
"42 We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie) which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years,) reduced by one unit for every years that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years , M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M -13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51-55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years ,M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M- 5 for 66 to 70 years."
38. Further, in terms of the mandate of Rajesh Tyagi v Jaibir Singh FAO 842/2003, which is the cause célèbre qua cases pertaining to motor accident claims, the claimant filed Form XIII of the Scheme for Motor Accident Claims qua compensation under various heads which have been elucidated in the paragraphs hereafter.
ii. Monthly Income of the deceased:
39.PW-1 Mr. Kameshwar Mandal in his testimony stated that the deceased was as home maker and doing stitching work to help DAR No. 31/23 Page. 19 of 42 Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
them financially. In Form VI-A the claimant has claimed monthly income of Rs.25,000/- per month. But during the arguments Ld. Counsel for the claimant / petitioner conceded that minimum wages for the skilled worker be considered.
40.In the case titled as Jagdish S/o Dharam Singh & Anr. Vs. Om Pal Singh (Supra) wherein it was held that:-
(11). Indisputably, deceased Smt. Savitri, aged 37 years, was the housewife which is considered as the skilled worker.
Therefore, her income is taken on the basis of Minimum Wages for skilled worker i.e.. Rs. 336.84/- per day and Rs. 336.84 x 30 days Rs. 10.105.2/-p.m.
41.In the case titled as Tata General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Priyanka & Ors (Supra), wherein it was held that:-
[9] So far as grant of compensation under the head of 'loss of dependency' is concerned. I find that deceased was a housewife and the Tribunal has rightly considered her to be a skilled person and has assessed 'loss of dependency' on the basis of minimum wages payable to a skilled person because a house wife takes care of the family. I find no reason to take a different view than the one taken by the Tribunal. However, assessment of the services rendered by a skilled person has to be on minimum wages payable in the State of Haryana and not on the basis of minimum wages payable in Delhi. On the day of the accident, the minimum wages payable to a skilled person in Haryana were Rs. 6,202/- per month. Thus, 'loss of dependency' is re-assessed as under:
Rs. 6,202/- X 12 X 13 X 2/3 = Rs. 6,45,008/
42.From the aforesaid precedent, it is clear that the income of the house wife has to be considered as skilled person. As per Circular No.(142)/02/MW/VIII/Part file/5972-5986 dated 14.10.2022 issued by the office of the Commissioner (Labour), DAR No. 31/23 Page. 20 of 42 Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Sham Nath Marg, Delhi, the minimum wages for skilled work at that relevant juncture was Rs.20,357/-. Accordingly, the same is considered for the purposes of calculation of income of the deceased.
43.Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid, the the monthly income of the deceased is quantified as Rs.20,357/-.
iii. Future prospects:
44.To factor into account future prospects, several guidelines have been laid down.
45.In this context, it would be apt to refer to National Insurance Co Ltd v Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 wherein it was laid down as thus:
"59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:
59.3 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. 59.4 In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. 59.5 For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the DAR No. 31/23 Page. 21 of 42 Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
59.6 The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 read with para 42 of that judgment 59.7 The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
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."
46.To determine the age of the deceased, the claimants has filed on record the Aadhar Card of deceased Ex. PW 1/9 and PAN Card Ex. PW 1/10. Both documents record her date of birth as 01.01.1966.
47.Ld. counsel for the Insurance company submits that PW-1 Mr. Kameshwar Mandal in his cross stated that he got married with deceased Smt. Manju Devi on 05.03.1979 and at that time she was aged about 17-18 years. He submits that in view of the said testimony the deceased was around 61 years of old at the time of accident and not entitled to any future prospects.
48.The petitioner has placed on record Aadhar Card and PAN Card to prove the age of the deceased. The said documents have remained unrebutted on record. In his testimony PW-2 has used the expression 'aged about' and has not given any exact numbers. His testimony is clearly based on a rough DAR No. 31/23 Page. 22 of 42 Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
estimate about the age of his wife at the time of marriage and cannot be considered to rule out the documentary evidence which is available on record. Accordingly on the date of accident, i.e. 25.10.2022 the deceased was 56 years and 09 months and the future prospects has to be considered @ 10% for self employed persons which comes to Rs.2,035/-.
iv. Personal expenses of the deceased:
49.Expenses incurred by the deceased in himself are deducted while calculating the loss of dependency. To calculate the personal expenses, recourse can be had to the following instructions of Sarla Verma (supra) which were approved by the Constitutional Bench in Pranay Sethi(supra):
"30.Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362] , the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one- fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.
31.Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the DAR No. 31/23 Page. 23 of 42 Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.
32.Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third."
50.PW-1 Mr. Kamesh Mandal in his testimony stated that his wife / deceased was doing stitching work and helping the family with her earnings. He stated that he was not working since 2019 and his three sons were also financially helped by their mother.
51.To appreciate the dependency of the legal representatives, it would be relevant to refer the mandate given by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Birender and Ors. (Supra), wherein it was held that:-
[14] The legal representatives of the deceased could move application for compensation by virtue of clause (c) of Section 166(1). The major married son who is also earning and not fully dependant on the deceased, would be still covered by the expression "legal representative" of the deceased. This Court in Manjuri Bera (supra) had expounded that liability to pay compensation under the Act does not cease because of absence DAR No. 31/23 Page. 24 of 42 Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
of dependency of the concerned legal representative. Notably, the expression "legal representative" has not been defined in the Act.
[15] It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependant on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only. The evidence on record in the present case would suggest that the claimants were working as agricultural labourers on contract basis and were earning meagre income between Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- per annum. In that sense, they were largely dependant on the earning of their mother and in fact were staying with her, who met with an accident at the young age of 48 years.
52.The testimony of PW-1 Mr. Sushil Kumar Mandal has remained consistent and unrebutted in respect of his dependency as well his three sons dependency on the income of the deceased. PW-2 has also corroborated the said facts. In such circumstances, it is clear that four family members were financially dependent upon the income of the deceased. Accordingly, 1/4th component of the income needs to be deducted towards the head of personal expenses i.e. (Rs. 20,357 + 2035 = Rs.22392 - 1/4th = Rs.5,598/- . The monthly loss of income thus calculated as Rs.16,794/-.
DAR No. 31/23 Page. 25 of 42 Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
v. Monthly & Annual Loss of dependency:
53.The monthly loss of dependency would be Rs16,794/-. The annual loss of dependency Rs.16,794 X 12 = Rs.2,01,528/-.
vi. Total Loss of Dependency:
54. Since the deceased was 56 years and nine months, the applicable multiplier in terms of the verdict of Sarla Verma(supra) is 09. The total loss of dependency is thus Rs.18,13,752-/- (Rs.2,01,528/- X 9 ) vii. Other Heads:
55.In Sarla Verma (supra) it was also laid down that after calculating the 'Loss of Dependency', certain amounts were to be added under conventional heads such as loss of estate, loss of consortium etc. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are extracted hereunder:
"Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs 5000 to Rs 10,000 may be added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of 5000 to 10,000 should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also be added."
56.The amount qua the above heads were further quantified in Pranay Sethi(supra), which clarified as thus:
DAR No. 31/23 Page. 26 of 42 Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
"52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] . It has granted Rs 25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] refers to Santosh Devi [Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 726 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 167] , it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. 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."
57.The above verdict was passed in the year 2017. Almost eight years have elapsed, and therefore the above heads would be DAR No. 31/23 Page. 27 of 42 Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
enhanced at the rate of 20%.
viii. Medical Expenses:
58. After the incident, the injured was taken to hospital and died. No medical expenses have been claimed.
ix. Compensation for Loss of Consortium:
59.The concept of consortium was expounded in Magnum General Insurance Co Ltd v Nanu Ram 2018 18 SCC 130 in the following words:
"21.A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses "spousal consortium", "parental consortium", and "filial consortium". The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse : [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54.
21.1 Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation". [Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edn., 1979).] 21.2 Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training.
21.3 Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest DAR No. 31/23 Page. 28 of 42 Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.
22 .Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognised that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium. Parental consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count [ Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram v. Sohi Ram, 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 3848 : (2017) 4 RLW 3368; Uttarakhand High Court in Rita Rana v. Pradeep Kumar, 2013 SCC OnLine Utt 2435 : (2014) 3 UC 1687; Karnataka High Court in Lakshman v. Susheela Chand Choudhary, 1996 SCC OnLine Kar 74 : (1996) 3 Kant LJ 570] . However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium.
24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under "loss of consortium" as laid down in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] . In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial consortium."
60. As per the evidence on record the deceased is survived by her three sons and her husband.
DAR No. 31/23 Page. 29 of 42 Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
61.Thus, On the basis of the above verdict and mandated in Pranay Sethi'(Supra), the compensation for Consortium is hereby quantified as Rs 48,400/- x 4 = 1,93,600/-
x. Compensation for Loss of Estate:
62.On the basis of the above verdict, the compensation for loss of estate is hereby quantified as Rs 18,150/-.
xi. Compensation towards Funeral Expenses:
63.On the basis of the above verdict, the compensation for funeral expenses is hereby quantified as Rs 18,150/-.
xii. Total Compensation:
64. Thus, the total amount of compensation to be awarded is calculated as follows:
Sr. No. Head Amount
1. Total loss of dependency Rs.18,13,752/-
2. Medical Expenses Nil
3. Compensation for Loss of Rs.1,93,600/-
Consortium
4. Compensation for Loss of Estate Rs 18,150/-
5. Compensation towards Funeral Rs 18,150/-
Expenses
6. Total Compensation Rs. 20,43,652/-
DAR No. 31/23 Page. 30 of 42
Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
(c) Issue No.3: Relief. i. Amount of Award:
65.Thus, the claimant is awarded as sum of Rs. 20,43,652- along with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. The rate of interest has been calculated in terms of the succeeding paragraphs.
ii. Rate of Interest:
66.It was contended by Ld Counsel for the respondent insurance company that the amount of interest ought to at @7.5%, in accordance with the general prevalent practice in Courts. However, Ld Counsel for the claimant sought 9% as the rate of interest.
67.In order to adjudicate these rival claims, recourse can be had to Erudhaya Priya v State Transport Corporation 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601 wherein the aspect of rate of interest was categorically enunciated as thus:
(c) The third and the last aspect is the interest rate claimed as 12% "15.In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has watered down the interest rate during the course of hearing to 9% in view of the judicial pronouncements including in the Jagdish case (supra). On this aspect, once again, there was no serious dispute raised by the learned counsel for the respondent once the claim was confined to 9% in line with the interest rates applied by this Court"
DAR No. 31/23 Page. 31 of 42 Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
68.Ergo, the amount of compensation/award amount will be payable by the respondent insurance company with simple interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the claim petition/DAR till actual realisation. The date of filing of DAR is 19.01.2023 therefore the amount of Interest is calculated at @ 9 % from the date of filing of petition i.e. Rs. 5,51,786/- for a period of 36 months. Thus, the total amount of award is Rs. 25,95,438/-.
69.It is also clarified that in case the interest of petitioner was stopped or excluded during the present inquiry proceedings, same is liable to be adjusted from the total interest calculated on the Award amount. Similarly, amount awarded and released as interim Award, if any, during pendency of the case, be deducted from the total compensation.
VII. DEPOSIT OF AWARD& RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT i. Deposit of Award:
70.In terms of the mandate of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) the respondent Insurance Company/driver/owner shall deposit the award amount or transfer the same by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS directly to the bank account of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in UCO Bank, Patiala House Courts within 30 days of the award. The respondent(s) held liable to pay compensation by the Claims Tribunal shall give notice of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant(s) and DAR No. 31/23 Page. 32 of 42 Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the deposit with the interest upto the date of notice of deposit to the claimant(s) with a copy to their counsel.
71.Release: In the present matter, award amount be released immediately to the legal heirs of the deceased / victim as follows:
Sr. Name Relations Percen Mode of Amount to be Amount to N. with tage Disburse released be kept in Deceased share ment immediately FDR of each legal heir
1. Sh.Kameshwar Husband 70% Through 50% 50% Mandal Electronic Bank Transfer
2. Sh. Sudhir Kumar Son 10% Through 100% Nil Mandal Electronic Bank Transfer
3. Sh. Sushil Kumar Son 10% Through 100% Nil Mandal Electronic Bank Transfer
4. Sh. Anil Kumar Son 10% Through 100% Nil Mandal Electronic Bank Transfer
72.The complete share of awarded amount of there sons of the deceased be released immediately. 50% of the share of DAR No. 31/23 Page. 33 of 42 Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
petitioner no.1 husband (out of his 70% share) be released to him immediately and the remaining 50% awarded amount be invested and deposited in 60 monthly fixed deposits receipts (FDR) of equal amounts for a period of 60 months as per Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposits Schemes.
73.The Nodal officer of the bank shall ensure disbursement of the award within 3 weeks of receipt thereof by email or otherwise.
74.The disbursement to the claimant is, however, subject to the 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 his share.
ii. Disbursement of the award amount & protection thereof:
75.The amount of award shall be disbursed through the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD)Scheme formulated vide order dated 01.05.2018 passed in Rajesh Tyagi(supra). 21 banks, including UCO Bank, is implementing the MACAD scheme.
76.Further, to protect the award amount, the entire amount of compensation is not being released forthwith to the claimant, and part of the compensation amount has been directed to be kept in fixed deposits in a phased manner. Further, the following conditions are hereby reiterated and being imposed upon the concerned bank with respect to the fixed deposits:
DAR No. 31/23 Page. 34 of 42 Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint names to be added in the savings bank account or MACAD scheme account of claimant i.e. the bank account of claimant shall be individual account and not a joint account.
(b) The original fixed deposits shall be retained by the 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 claimant and the above amount shall be released in account of claimant by the Manager, UCO Bank, PHC, ND through RTGS/NEFT/or any other electronic mode.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of his residence.
(d) The maturity amount of the FDR(s) on monthly basis net of TDS be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the above account of the claimant.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the MACAD without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of DAR No. 31/23 Page. 35 of 42 Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
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.
(h) 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 claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause above.
VIII. LIABILITY
77. All the respondents are though being held jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to petitioner, 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 @ 9% 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 the Motor Accident Claims 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.
DAR No. 31/23 Page. 36 of 42 Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
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/-.
78.The respondent no. 3 shall inform the petitioner and his counsel that the awarded amount has been deposited so as to facilitate him to collect the same.
IX. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN CASES OF DEATH
79.Since this is a case pertaining to death, particulars of Form-XV of the Scheme For Motor Accidents Claims Formulated by the Delhi High Court in terms of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) are as under:
1. Date of Accident 25.10.2022
2. Name of the deceased Smt. Manju Devi
3. Age of the deceased 38 Years
4. Occupation of the deceased Running boutique
5. Income of the deceased Income of the deceased considered as a skilled worker i.e. 20,357/-.
6. Name, Age and relationship of legal representatives of DAR No. 31/23 Page. 37 of 42 Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
the deceased:
S.NO NAME AGE RELATION
(i) Sh.Kameshwar 60 Years Husband
Mandal
(ii) Sh. Sudhir Kumar 41 Years Son
Mandal
(iii) Sh. Sushil Kumar 38 Years Son
Mandal
(iv) Sh. Anil Kumar 36 Years Son
Mandal
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
S.No. Heads Awarded by the
Claims Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs. 20,357/-
8. Add: Future Prospects (B) Rs.2,035/-
9. Less: Personal expenses of the Rs.5,598/-
deceased (C)
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.16,794/-
[(A+B)- C = D]
11. Annual Loss of dependency (D x Rs.2,01,528/-
12)
12. Multiplier (E) 09
13. Total loss of dependency (D x 12 Rs. 18,13,752/-
x E = F)
14. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
DAR No. 31/23 Page. 38 of 42
Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
15. Compensation for loss of Rs.1,93,600/-
consortium (H)
16. Compensation for loss of love & NA- in terms of New affection (I) India Assurance Co v Somwati (2020) 9 SCC 644
17. Compensation for loss of estate Rs 18,150/-
(J)
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs 18,150/-
expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION (F + Rs. 20,43,652/-
G + H + I + J + K = L)
20. Rate of Interest Awarded @9%
21. Interest amount up to the date of Rs.5,51,786/-
award (M) (36 months)
22. Total amount including interest (L Rs. 25,95,438/-
+ M)
23. Award amount released As per paragraph nos. 71 & 72 of this award
24. Award kept in FDRs As above
25. Mode of disbursement of the Through Bank DAR No. 31/23 Page. 39 of 42 Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
award to the claimant(s)
26. Next date for compliance of the 10.03.2026 award X. COMPLIANCE QUA PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME
80.The particulars of Form XVII of the Scheme For Motor Accidents Claims Formulated by the Delhi High Court , in terms of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) are as hereunder:
1. Date of the accident 25.10.2022
2. Date of filing of Form I- First Not available as the Accident Report (FAR) matter was received by transfer.
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the Same as above.
victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Same as above.
Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Same as above owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim Same as above Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form Same as above VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII-Detailed Same as 19.01.2023 Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or No DAR No. 31/23 Page. 40 of 42 Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the Insurance Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the No 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 petitioner(s) Matter was contested of the offer of the Insurance Company. by the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the Award 24.01.2026
15. Whether the petitioner(s) were directed Yes.
to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which petitioner(s) 19.01.2023 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) Not furnished.
produced the passbook of their savings Directions issued. bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned above petitioner(s) DAR No. 31/23 Page. 41 of 42 Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.
19. Whether the petitioner(s) savings bank Not Furnished account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes recorded on examined at the time of passing of the 27.01.2026 award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
81.Further, in terms of the directions given vide order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra), the Ahlmad shall send a certified copy of this award to the concerned Criminal Court and to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority through e-mail. Copy of the award be also sent to the bank concerned. The Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given in the above case.
82.File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 10.03.2026.
Announced in the open court on 27.01.2026 (Abhilash Malhotra) Judge/PO, MACT-02, New Delhi/27.01.2026 (s) DLND010008042023 DAR No. 31/23 Page. 42 of 42 Kameshwar Mandal & Ors. Vs Prashant Kaushik & Anr.