Delhi District Court
Om Parkash Sharma And Ors vs Prashant And Ors on 18 February, 2026
MACT 747/17
OM PARKASH SHARMA AND ORS Vs. PRASHANT AND
ORS.
18.02.2026
Present: Advocate Sh. Anupam Yashovardhan for claimant.
None for R1 and R2.
Advocate Sh. Mehtab Singh for insurance company.
Arguments heard on merits of the case.
1. The petition under Section 166 M.V. Act was initially filed
for claiming compensation for death of Harsh Sharma. Later on
however the petitioners converted the petition into one of Section
163A of M.V. Act.
2. This case has arisen out of accident which occurred on
RAKESH
KUMAR 04.02.2017 at about 1:00 pm at Panchgaon Chowk, Near NSG
SINGH
Digitally signed by Gate, Manesar, District Gurgaon, Haryana. Pillion rider Sh.
RAKESH KUMAR
SINGH
Date: 2026.02.18
Harsh Sharma was going on a bike No. HR-26CS-1073 being
16:34:56 +0530
driven by Prashant but an unknown bus hit the said bike from
behind due to which bike collided with the divider and Harsh
Sharma suffered injuries and died. The police registered an FIR
for offences punishable U/s 279/337/304A IPC.
3. The petitioners (father and mother of deceased) have
impleaded driver Prashant, owner Gyanendra Kumar and
insurance company IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. as
party respondent. The insurance company filed its WS denying
the negligence. Owner did not appear to contest the case. On some occasions, appearance of the owner was noted by the ld. Predecessor but driver has not participated in the evidence.
Page No. 1 of 44. The petitioners side examined Om Prakash Sharma and Rinku as witnesses whereas insurance company examined Ashna Khan.
5. Though, the petitioners have claimed in their written submissions that income of deceased was Rs.11,830/- but he has not filed any documentary proof. Even further the deceased was RAKESH minor. Moreover, the petition has been converted to be under KUMAR SINGH Section 163A of M.V. Act. Though, earlier the said provision was Digitally signed by RAKESH KUMAR SINGH contemplating compensation as per schedule but in the year Date: 2026.02.18 16:35:02 +0530 2018, a notification was issued by the Government fixing Rs.5 Lakhs compensation for death. The accident in the instant case occurred in the year 2017 i.e. prior to the amendment notification but the retrospective application has been accepted by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Suman Malhotra Vs. Gulfam, 2025 DHC 10366. Therefore, it has to be accepted the claimants in the present case shall be entitled to receive a fixed sum of Rs.5 Lakhs as compensation.
6. In the instant case, PW-1 Om Prakash has stated that motorcycle was being driver by Prashant and that he had compromised the criminal case against the said Prashant. PW-2 Rinku who appeared from the hospital proved the postmortem report. As such, death of Harsh Sharma is not in dispute. Even a pillion rider on motorcycle can be subjected to compensation claim filed under Section 163A of M.V. Act. A three judges bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chandrakanta Tiwari Vs. New India Assurance Company (2020) 2 SCC 550 has held the Page No. 2 of 4 victim's family entitled for compensation irrespective of whether deceased was driver or pillion rider. Therefore, the present petitioners shall be entitled for compensation of Rs.5 Lakhs.
7. So far as the interest is concerned, the same shall be counted from 22.05.2018 when the amendment notification was issued. However, Ld. Counsel for insurance company has pointed RAKESH out that the evidence was adduced by the petitioners side after KUMAR SINGH more than two years from the framing of issues and therefore, Digitally signed by RAKESH KUMAR SINGH insurance company should not be burdened with interest for such Date: 2026.02.18 16:35:09 +0530 period. I think a balance needs to be made. Therefore, the petitioners shall not be entitled for one year interest. The insurance company shall give the compensation amount by calculating the interest till realization but with deduction of one year interest. The rate of interest shall be 7.5% simple per annum.
8. The insurance company has established that driver did not have any driving licence. Driver Prashant did appear on some occasion before the Ld. Predecessor but has not claimed to have any valid DL. The owner has chosen not to appear in this case. The case pertains to pre amendment era when pay and recover principle was not in dispute. Therefore, it is directed that insurance company shall be the compensation to the victims and thereafter may recover the same from the owner. Compensation amount be released in favour of Smt. Sandesha (mother of deceased) in her bank account.
9. The award amount shall be deposited/transferred by insurance company in Account No.42709452600 of MACT, Page No. 3 of 4 South West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi at State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi (IFSC Code SBIN0011566 and MICR Code 110002483) through RTGS/NEFT/IMPS, within 30 days of the award as per section 168(3) of M.V. Act under intimation to the Nazir of this court with proof of notice to the claimant/counsel.
10. Claimant Smt. Sandesha has mentioned her SB Account No.44302500877 with SBI, Dwarka Courts, Sector-10, Dwarka New Delhi (IFSC Code:SBIN0011566).
11. Branch Manager, SBI, District Courts Complex, Dwarka, Sector-10, New Delhi is directed to transfer Rs.5,00,000/- with interest in SB Account of claimant Smt. Sandesha (mother of deceased).
12. The insurance company shall deposit the amount withing 30 days.
13. Copy of this order be given dasti to parties.
14. Compliance File on the basis of this court be prepared and be put up on 27.03.2026.
15. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
RAKESH Digitally signed
by RAKESH
KUMAR KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2026.02.18
SINGH 16:35:15 +0530
(Rakesh Kumar Singh)
PO, MACT-01, Dwarka Courts,
New Delhi/18.02.2026
Page No. 4 of 4