Delhi District Court
Gulshan Jahan vs Lalit Kumar And Ors on 12 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF VIJAY KUMAR JHA
PRESIDING OFFICER:
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-01, SHAHDARA
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
____________________________________________________________
In the matter of :
MACT no. 414/2021
Gulshan Jahan v. Lalit Kumar & Ors.
Gulshan Jahan
W/o late Sh. Khursheed Ahmad
R/o Ward no.25, Mohalla Mirdagan,
B-15, Bijnor City, District Bijnor, U.P.-246701. ..................Petitioner
Versus
(1) Lalit Kumar S/o Sh. Vinod Kumar (Driver)
R/o Village Sikandarpur Basi, PS Nazibabad,
District Bijnor, U.P.-246763.
(2) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
Through Manager: C-93, Keshav Chowk,
Opposite Welcome Metro Station, Block-D,
Naveen Shahdara, Delhi-110032.
(3) M/s Neelkanth Stone Crusher (Registered Owner)
Through is Prop. Sh. Pawan Kumar S/o Sh. Jagram Singh
R/o Narainpur Ratan Bhaguwala, Post Mohanpur,
PS Mandawali, District Bijnor, U.P. -246763. ..............Respondents
Date of institution : 01.12.2021
Final arguments concluded on : 10.03.2026
Date of Judgment : 12.03.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present claim petition under Section 166 of the 'Motor Vehicles Act, 1988' was filed by the petitioner Smt. Gulshan Jahan seeking ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 414/21; Gulshan Jahan v. Lalit Kumar & Ors. 1 of 18 Pages compensation on account of fatal injuries sustained by her daughter Gulnaz (hereinafter, 'the deceased') in a motor vehicular accident.
2. Brief facts of the case as per claim petition and accompanied documents are that, on 27.06.2021 at about 05:40 p.m., the deceased Gulnaz with her uncle Tasleem Ahmad was waiting for a bus for Nazibabad at village Samipur, Kotdwar Nazibabad Road. At the same time, a truck/ dumper bearing registration no. UP20T-6893 (hereinafter, 'offending vehicle') which was being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner, came from Kotdwar side and hit the deceased standing at the side of the road, whereas, the other persons escaped themselves narrowly. In the accident, the injured/ deceased Gulnaz received grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, she was taken to St. Marrys Hospital, Nazibabad, where the doctors did not attend her and then she was taken to District Hospital, Bijnor. The condition of the injured being critical, she was referred to LLRM Medical College & Hospital, Meerut but the injured was admitted to Kailashi Super Speciality Hospital, Meerut, where she remained admitted for two days and then she was shifted to Sushruta Trauma Centre, Delhi, where she succumbed to injuries on 30.06.2021 during the course of treatment.
3. In connection with the accident, FIR no.333/2021 was lodged at PS Nazibabad, District Bijnor, U.P. As per the investigation, at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was being driven by the respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.3 and insured with respondent no.2.
______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 414/21; Gulshan Jahan v. Lalit Kumar & Ors. 2 of 18 Pages
4. The deceased is stated to be 19 years of age at the time of the accident and was engaged in stitching and weaving work and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month. The deceased is stated to be the only bread earner for her family consisting of her widowed mother i.e. the petitioner herein. By filing the present claim petition, the petitioner is claiming a compensation of Rs.40 lakhs along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
5. On notice of the claim petition, all the respondents appeared who were directed to file their replies/ written-statements, which were filed subsequently.
6. In the joint written-statement filed on behalf of the respondents no.1 (driver) and 3 (registered owner), they have stated that no accident was caused by the offending vehicle on the alleged date, place and time and that the offending vehicle (in the written statement stated to be car) has been falsely implicated in this case and the FIR was registered as an afterthought with a delay of one week. It is also contended that the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no.2/ insurance company and the respondent no.1 had all the relevant documents including the driving license and therefore, the liability to satisfy the compensation is upon the respondent no.2/ insurance company.
7. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent no.2/ insurance company, it is stated that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to conduct the enquiry proceedings; that there is an unexplained delay of approximately three days in registration of FIR because of ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 414/21; Gulshan Jahan v. Lalit Kumar & Ors. 3 of 18 Pages which involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident is doubtful; that entire negligence was on the part of the deceased who was standing at the road waiting for a bus without there being a safe waiting area or Bus Stand. The respondent no.2/ insurance company while taking other technical/ legal objections and defences has admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with it vide policy no. 252903/31/2022/406 w.e.f. 05.06.2021 to midnight of 04.06.2022 and the policy was in the name of M/s Neelkanth Stone Crusher, subject to terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
8. Upon completion of the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 09.02.2023, following issues were framed:
1. Whether respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle no. UP20T-6893 on 27.06.2021 at about 05:40 PM at village Samipur Bus Stop, Kotdwar, Nazibabad Road, within the jurisdiction of PS Nazibabad, U.P. in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of deceased Ms. Gulnaz?
2. Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
No other issue arose or pressed for and matter was adjourned for petitioner's evidence.
9. Vide aforesaid order dated 09.02.2023, the Court Commissioner was appointed (refer: Gohar Mohammed v. UPSRTC, (2023) 4 SCC 381) to record the petitioners' evidence in this case. Ld. Court Commissioner submitted her report containing the following depositions recorded by her:
______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 414/21; Gulshan Jahan v. Lalit Kumar & Ors. 4 of 18 Pages
(a) PW1 Gulshan Jahan, mother of the deceased Gulnaz testified on the strength of her affidavit Ex.PW1/A regarding the accident of the deceased, vocation and income of the deceased and regarding the losses suffered as a result of the death of the deceased due to road accident. PW1 relied upon the following documents:
(i) Certified copy of the criminal case record as Ex.PW1/1 (colly).
(ii) Complete medical treatment record as Ex.PW1/2 (colly).
(iii) Copy of Aadhaar Card of the deceased as Ex.PW1/3.
(iv) Copy of Aadhaar Card of the petitioner Gulshan Jahan as Ex.PW1/4.
(b) PW2 Kashif was examined as eye-witness of the accident. He deposed by way of his affidavit Ex.PW2/A and produced copy of his Aadhaar Card Ex.PW2/1.
10. This Tribunal also examined one witness namely Sh. Tasleem Ahmed as CW1, on whose statement FIR was registered. CW1 deposed to have witnessed the accident and to have taken the injured to hospital.
11. None of the respondents opted to lead any evidence in their defence.
12. I have heard the final arguments advanced by learned counsels for the parties and also perused the evidence and other materials placed on record. My findings on the issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1 Whether respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle no. UP20T-6893 on 27.06.2021 at about 05:40 PM at village Samipur Bus Stop, Kotdwar, Nazibabad Road, within the jurisdiction of PS Nazibabad, U.P. in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of deceased Ms. Gulnaz?
______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 414/21; Gulshan Jahan v. Lalit Kumar & Ors. 5 of 18 Pages
13. It is settled proposition of law that, in an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine-qua-non. However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of the preponderance of probabilities. A holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition based upon negligence. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. However, that does not mean that a Tribunal that has been approached with a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act should ignore all basic principles of law in determining the claim for compensation. The relevant provisions of the Act are not intended to jettison all principles of law relating to a claim for compensation, which is still based on a tortious liability. Reference may be made to the judgments titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sakshi Bhutani & Others., MAC APP. No. 550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012; Bimla Devi & Others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Others (2009) 13 SC 530; Parmeshwari v. Amirchand & Others 2011 (1) SCR 1096; Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others 2018, Law Suit (SC) 303; & Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal & Ors., (2007) 5 SCC 428.
14. Now coming to the issue in hand, it is pertinent to mention here that this Tribunal in its order dated 19.02.2025 had observed that the date of the accident was 27.06.2021 and FIR was registered on 30.06.2021 on the written complaint dated 30.06.2021 of Tasleem Ahmad. It was observed that as per the version given in the ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 414/21; Gulshan Jahan v. Lalit Kumar & Ors. 6 of 18 Pages complaint dated 30.06.2021, after the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle after alighting from the vehicle had run away from the spot of the accident and, as per the case diary, the offending vehicle was seized on 04.07.2021. The Tribunal further observed that from the deposition of witnesses recorded on behalf of the petitioner and from the facts and circumstances of the case, it was not clear as to how the offending vehicle was involved in the accident and that it was imperative that the complainant Tasleem Ahmad on whose complaint the FIR was lodged and the Investigating Officer who filed the charge-sheet and did the investigation be examined by this Tribunal.
15. Accordingly, Tasleem Ahmad has been examined as Court Witness i.e. CW1, who deposed as under:
"The deceased Gulnaz was my niece. The accident of deceased had happened on 27.06.2021 at about 05:40 P.M. The accident had occurred by a truck. After the accident, the driver of the offending truck had left the truck at the spot and fled away. Some public person had informed the police. The police did not arrive till I was present at the spot of accident. I took the injured Gulnaz in e-rickshaw to St. Mary Hospital, Nazibabad. I gave complaint to the police on 30.06.2021 by going to the Police Station which was recorded in writing by the police. As the driver of the offending vehicle had run away after leaving the offending vehicle at the spot, I memorized the registration number of the offending vehicle, which I mentioned in my complaint to the police. After the accident, again I did not visit the spot of accident. After I had reached the Hospital, I had noted down the registration no. of the offending vehicle on a piece of paper."
______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 414/21; Gulshan Jahan v. Lalit Kumar & Ors. 7 of 18 Pages
16. From the deposition of CW1 Tasleem Ahmad, the fact which becomes clear is that at the time of accident, Tasleem Ahmad was present at the spot of the accident. The respondent no.1/ driver of the offending truck after the accident had fled from the spot after leaving the truck giving an opportunity to Tasleem Ahmad to observe and memorize the registration number of the offending vehicle, which he later noted down.
17. The facts as deposed to by CW1 Tasleem Ahmad in his deposition have not been seriously challenged by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2/ insurance company in the cross-examination and the testimony of CW1 Tasleem Ahmad despite cross-examination has remained unscathed.
18. As far as the rash and negligence of the respondent no.1/ driver of the offending vehicle is concerned in the accident in question, the facts speak for itself (res ipsa loquitur) that the deceased along with the other public persons including Tasleem Ahmad was waiting for a bus on the side of the road and the offending vehicle severed to the place where the deceased along with other persons was waiting because of which the accident was caused. The reason why the offending vehicle severed was in the exclusive knowledge of the respondent no.1 who neither averred anything regarding it in his written statement nor led any evidence. Though one of the defences of the respondent no.1 is that the accident in question did not happen with offending vehicle, however, in the facts and circumstances, especially keeping into consideration the deposition of CW1 Tasleem Ahmad, the fact of registration of FIR against the respondent no.1 in ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 414/21; Gulshan Jahan v. Lalit Kumar & Ors. 8 of 18 Pages which it the charge-sheet against the respondent no.1 was filed after the completion of investigation, on the balance of probability lead to the conclusion that the averments made in the written statement by the respondent no.1 that no accident involving the offending vehicle took place on the date, time and place as mentioned in the FIR/claim petition, is a false averment.
19. The MLC of the deceased bearing no.22448/21, prepared at Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi clearly mentions the alleged history of RTA on 27.06.2021 at 05:00 p.m. at near Bijnor, Nazibabad as told by the brought by. The MLC further mentions the description of multiple injuries received by the injured (deceased).
20. A perusal of certified copy of the postmortem report bearing no.825/21, dated 30.06.2021, which is part of the criminal case record Ex.PW1/1 (colly) reflects that postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Gulnaz was conducted at Aruna Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital, Delhi. As per postmortem report, the deceased was observed to have sustained multiple antemortem injuries and her death was caused due to septicemic shock in a case of head injury and injury to limbs consequent upon blunt force impact.
21. Thus, in the light of the above discussion and the evidence brought on record, it is held that the petitioner has been able to prove on the basis of preponderance of probabilities that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1 and that resulted into fatal injuries to the deceased Gulnaz. Issue no.1 is, accordingly, decided in favour of petitioner. ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 414/21; Gulshan Jahan v. Lalit Kumar & Ors. 9 of 18 Pages ISSUE NO.2 Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP
22. On the basis of findings upon issue no.1 above, it is established on record that the incident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by the respondent no.1, resulting in the death of the deceased. Hence, it is held that petitioner is entitled to get the compensation in this case.
QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION
23. Section Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation, which appears to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be a pittance.
24. In Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.
(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, the relevant guidelines were laid down for death cases, which have been reiterated by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (AIR 2017 SC 5157 laying down the general principles for computation of compensation in death cases. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgments, it is essential to take into consideration the following parameters:
PECUNIARY DAMAGE Medical Expenses:
25. As per discharge summary issued by Kailashi Super Speciality ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 414/21; Gulshan Jahan v. Lalit Kumar & Ors. 10 of 18 Pages Hospital, Meerut, after the accident on 27.06.2021, the injured (deceased) Gulnaz was admitted in the said hospital, where she was diagnosed 'RTA with crush injury B/L hands' and remained hospitalized till 28.06.2021. Thereafter, as per death summary prepared at Sushruta Trauma Centre, Delhi, the injured was shifted to said Trauma Centre at 04:50 p.m. on 28.06.2021 and during the course of treatment, she died there at 06:10 p.m. on 30.06.2021. Perusal of record shows that during hospitalization in Kailashi Hospital, the petitioner had to spend a total sum of Rs.28,655/- on the treatment of the injured/ deceased Gulnaz and said medical expenses have been proved on record as Ex.PW1/2 (colly). Hence, a sum of Rs.28,655/- is granted to the petitioner under this head.
Age of the deceased
26. The Aadhaar Card of the deceased Gulnaz, copy of which has been proved on record as Ex.PW1/3 shows the year of birth of the deceased as 2002. Accordingly, on the date of accident on 27.06.2021, the deceased was 19 years of age.
Assessment of Income of the deceased
27. PW1 Gulshan Jahan, mother of the deceased Gulnaz in her affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/A has deposed that her deceased daughter was doing the work of stitching and weaving ladies garments and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month, however, in her cross-examination, PW1 has fairly admitted that she did not file any documentary evidence about the income of her deceased daughter. It is observed that there is no document on record to show education of the deceased. The ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 414/21; Gulshan Jahan v. Lalit Kumar & Ors. 11 of 18 Pages Aadhhar Card of the deceased shows her residential address of Bijnor, U.P. In these circumstances, in the absence of any documentary evidence regarding education, vocation and income of the deceased, her income has to be assessed at par with minimum wages of unskilled worker of U.P. on the date of accident (27.06.2021), which were Rs.9,078/- per month. Accordingly, income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.9,078/- per month.
Application of Multiplier
28. The deceased was 19 years of age at the time of the accident.
Accordingly, a multiplier of 18, applicable to the age group of 18-25 years, has to be applied in this case to determine the compensation (refer: Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121).
Future Prospects
29. Considering the deceased to be self-employed, who belonged to the age group below 40 years an addition of 40% as future prospects to her income has to be taken into consideration (refer: National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (AIR 2017 SC 5157).
Deduction towards Personal Living Expenses:
30. Admittedly, the deceased was unmarried at the time of the accident.
Hence, the deceased being unmarried, half of her income is to be deducted towards her personal living expenses [refer: Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65].
Loss of Dependency:
31. In view of the settled guidelines as laid down in various judgments herein above, by adding the future prospects @ 40% to income of ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 414/21; Gulshan Jahan v. Lalit Kumar & Ors. 12 of 18 Pages the deceased, applying the multiplier of 18, after making deduction of half of the income of the deceased, the loss of dependency is computed as Rs.13,72,594/- (9,078x140/100x1/2x18x12).
NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES
32. In the light of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 31.10.2017, in case of Pranay Sethi & Others (Supra), a compensation of Rs.40,000/-, 15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively has been fixed on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses and further, it is required to be enhanced @ 10% in every three years. The accident of the deceased in this case occurred on 27.06.2021. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.44,000/-, Rs.16,500/- and Rs.16,500/- respectively on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted. Further, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 2705 of 2020, decided on 30.06.2020, claimants are required to be granted spousal consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium. Accordingly, petitioner herein being mother of the deceased shall be entitled to filial consortium. Thus, the following amounts are awarded under the conventional heads:
S. No. Conventional Head Amount
1. Filial Consortium Rs.44,000/-
2. Loss of Estate Rs.16,500/-
3. Loss of Funeral Expenses Rs.16,500/-
Total = Rs.77,000/-
______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 414/21; Gulshan Jahan v. Lalit Kumar & Ors. 13 of 18 Pages Accordingly, the total compensation comes to Rs.14,78,249/- (28,655+13,72,594+77,000).
INTEREST
33. The petitioner shall also be entitled for interest @ 7% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
LIABILITY
34. Now, the question arises as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Admittedly, the insurance company has contractual and statutory liability to indemnify the insured in case there is no breach/ violation of the terms of the insurance policy. Since, in the present case, insurance company has not been able to prove on record that any of the terms/ conditions of the insurance policy has been breached/ violated on the part of the insured, therefore, the respondent no.2/ insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.
RELIEF
35. In the light of the decision on substantive issues framed, the present claim petition is allowed and the following award is being passed:
AWARD
36. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.14,78,294/- (Rs.
Fourteen Lakhs Seventy-Eight Thousand Two-Hundred Ninety-Four Only) along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 414/21; Gulshan Jahan v. Lalit Kumar & Ors. 14 of 18 Pages this claim petition till realization in favour of the petitioner to be paid by the respondent no.2/ insurance company. The interim compensation, if any, shall be adjusted against this award amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case.
37. The respondent no.2/ Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed to deposit the award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code UCBA0002078), UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT, Shahdara, through RTGS/ NEFT, within 30 days from today.
Entitlement, Apportionment and Disbursement
38. The apportionment and disbursement of the award amount shall be made after the respondent/insurance company deposits the award amount and the petitioner furnishes the detail of the Bank account near the place of her residence.
39. The petitioner is directed to open Saving Bank Account in any nationalized Bank near the place of his/ her residence, if already not opened. The concerned Branch Manager of the Bank where the petitioner already has a Bank account or a new Bank account, is directed as follows:
(i). No Cheque Book and ATM/Debit Card be issued to the claimant/ petitioner without permission of the Court/ Tribunal.
However, in case the ATM/Debit Card and/or Cheque Book have already been issued, Bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the amount.
(ii). The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 414/21; Gulshan Jahan v. Lalit Kumar & Ors. 15 of 18 Pages claimant. However, money may be released by means of withdrawal slip.
(iii) The Bank Manager of petitioner's bank is also directed to make endorsement regarding compliance of aforesaid directions on the passbook of the petitioner/ claimant.
40. The petitioner shall produce the original bank passbook having the abovesaid endorsements as well as Aadhar Card and PAN Card before the Tribunal on the next date of hearing in the compliance proceedings. If the petitioner fails to comply with the said direction the award amount (if the award is passed) shall be made subject to the following conditions:
(a) The petitioner shall have to open anMACT compliant Bank account in the UCO Bank, Karkardooma, subject to aforesaid terms and conditions and the petitioner shall furnish the details of his/her any Bank account near the place of his/her residence in which the amount of matured FDRs or any other amount may be electronically transferred.
(b) The Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma shall transfer the Bank Account of UCO Bank, Karkardooma to a Branch of UCO Bank, near the place of residence of the petitioner subject to all hereinabove conditions if the claimant already has Bank account or opens a new Bank account with the UCO Bank.
41. As per 'The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (Annexure-XIII)', the relevant Form to be incorporated in the award is as under:
FORM - XV SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 27.06.2021 ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 414/21; Gulshan Jahan v. Lalit Kumar & Ors. 16 of 18 Pages
2. Name of the deceased : Gulnaz
3. Age of the deceased : 19 years
4. Occupation of the deceased : Unskilled worker of U.P.
5. Income of the deceased : Rs.9,078/- per month (as per minimum wages)
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S. No. Name Age Relation
i Gulshan Jahan 52 years Mother
Computation of Compensation
S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs.9,078/-
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) @ 40% Rs.3,631.20/-
9. Less- Personal expenses of the deceased Rs.6,354.60 (C) @ 50%
10. Monthly loss of dependency [(A+B)-C = Rs.6,354.60 D]
11. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs.76,255.20/-12. Multiplier (E) 18
13. Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE = F) Rs.13,72,594/-
14. Medical Expenses (G) Rs.28,655/-
15. Compensation for loss of consortium (H) Rs.44,000/-
(44,000x1)
16. Compensation for love & affection (I) --
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs.16,500/-
18. Compensation for funeral expenses (K) Rs.16,500/-
19. TOTALCOMPENSATION Rs.14,78,294/-
(F+G+H+I+J+K= L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 7%
21. Interest amount up to the date of award Rs.4,42,577/-
(M) (for 04 years, 03 months & 10 days)
22. Total amount including interest (L+M) Rs.19,20,871/-
______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 414/21; Gulshan Jahan v. Lalit Kumar & Ors. 17 of 18 Pages
23. Award amount released Would be released after furnishing bank details
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Yet to be decided
25. Mode of disbursement of the award Bank transfer amount to the claimants (s).
26. Next Date for compliance of the award. 25.04.2026
42. With these observations, the claim petition/ DAR is disposed of. File be consigned to Record Room. VIJAY Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR KUMAR JHA Date: 2026.03.12 JHA 16:02:13 +0530 Announced in the open (VIJAY KUMAR JHA) Court on 12.03.2026 Presiding Officer-MACT-01 (Shahdara) Karkardooma, Delhi ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 414/21; Gulshan Jahan v. Lalit Kumar & Ors. 18 of 18 Pages