Delhi District Court
Deepanshu Sachdeva vs Arun Kataria on 19 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. VRINDA KUMARI
PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
DEEPANSHU SACHDEVA VS. ARUN KATARIA & ORS.
DAR No. 377/21
Sh. Deepanshu Sachdeva
S/o Sh. Jagdish Kumar Sachdeva,
R/o RU-141, Pitampura, Delhi-110034.
......Claimant
Versus
1. Sh. Arun Kataria @ Annu (Driver)
S/o Sh. Satish Kumar,
R/o F-34, Near Shiv Mandir, Katwaria Sarai,
New Delhi.
2. Sh. Rajbir Singh
S/o Sh. Bhim Singh,
R/o WZ-81, Palam Village, Delhi.
3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
60, Skylark Building, Vth Floor, Nehru Place,
New Delhi.
.........Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 06.10.2021
Date of framing of issues : 21.11.2023
Date of concluding arguments : 15.05.2025
Date of decision : 19.05.2025
AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. The claim for compensation raised in the present Detailed Accident Report (DAR) is in respect of fatal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the deceased Smt. Jyotsna Kakwani in a motor accident that took place on 06.01.2018, at DAR No. 377/21 19.05.2025 Page 1 of 20 Deepanshu Sachdeva Vs. Arun Kataria & Ors. about 11 pm, infront of IIFT Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi, regarding which one FIR No.18/18, under Sections 279/338 IPC was registered at PS Vasant Kunj (North). The vehicle involved in this case is a Hyundai I-10 car bearing registration No. DL-4CAQ-0776, which at the relevant time of accident was being driven by respondent no.1 (R1), owned by respondent no. 2 (R2) and insured with respondent no. 3 (R3).
2. Case of the claimants is that on 06.01.2018 at about 11 pm, the deceased Ms. Jyotsna along with her husband was going on foot from IIFT to Fore Management Institute, Qutub Institutional Area. All of a sudden, the offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL-4CAQ-0776, which was being driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and hit the deceased with great force due to which the deceased sustained fatal injuries. She was immediately shifted to Rockland Hospital, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi where she was declared dead during the course of her treatment.
3. Respondents no.1 and 2 did not file their reply/written statement to the DAR despite opportunity being given.
4. Respondent no. 3/Insurance Company filed its written statement to the DAR wherein it is submitted that the respondent no. 1 was under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident. It is further submitted that the alleged offending vehicle was duly insured with them in the name of respondent no. 2 w.e.f. 19.12.2017 to 18.12.2018.
5. On 21.11.2023, the following issues were framed by this tribunal as:-
DAR No. 377/21 19.05.2025 Page 2 of 20Deepanshu Sachdeva Vs. Arun Kataria & Ors.
1. Whether the deceased sustained fatal injuries in a vehicular accident that took place on
06.01.2018 at about 11:00 p.m. infront of IIFT Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi, involving a vehicle bearing registration No. DL-4CAQ-0776 (offending vehicle) being driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with R-3/Insurance Company ? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
6. In support of their claim, the claimant/husband of deceased examined himself as PW1. His affidavit in evidence is Ex.PW1/A. He relied upon certain documents. Aadhaar card of petitioner is Ex. PW1/1 (OSR). DAR filed by the IO is Ex. PW1/2. ITRs of deceased are Ex. PW1/3 (colly).
7. The Insurance examined Ms. Apoorva Yashana, Administrative Officer from their Company as R3W1. Her affidavit in evidence is Ex.R3W1/1. She relied upon copy of insurance policy as Ex. R3W1/A and copy of her ID card is Ex.R3W1/B.
8. The Tribunal heard the final arguments advanced by Sh. Sh. Pawan Karwani, Ld. Counsel for claimant and Sh. Ajay Shanker, Ld. Counsel for R-3/Insurance Company and has carefully perused the entire case record. However, none has turned up on behalf of R-1 and R-2 to address final arguments. The findings on the aforementioned issues are rendered hereinafter in the succeeding paragraphs.
DAR No. 377/21 19.05.2025 Page 3 of 20Deepanshu Sachdeva Vs. Arun Kataria & Ors.
9. ISSUE NO. 11. Whether the deceased sustained fatal injuries in a vehicular accident that took place on 06.01.2018 at about 11:00 p.m. infront of IIFT Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi, involving a vehicle bearing registration No. DL-4CAQ-0776 (offending vehicle) being driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with R-3/Insurance Company ? OPP.
10. Onus to prove this issue was upon the claimant. The first question that needs to be decided is whether the accident was caused by the vehicle bearing registration No. DL-4CAQ-0776.
11. In order to prove the same, the claimant examined himself as PW1. In his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A, he narrated the manner of accident as follows :-
"2. That on 06.01.2018 at about 10:30 p.m Mrs. Jyotsna Kakwani (now deceased) alongwith the petitioner were walking from IIFT to Fore Management Institute, Qutub Institutional Area suddenly the car bearing No. DL-4CAQ-0776 hit my wife from behind. Due to the said hit by the driver of the said car Mr. Arun Kataria my wife impact of the said hit from behind my wife flew in the air and hit with the nearby tree. My wife Mrs. Jyotsna Kakwani was walking on the side of the road observing the traffic rules and the conventions of the road on the day of accident. The respondent no. 1 namely Sh. Arun Kataria was driving the vehicle bearing No. DL-4CAQ-0776 (car). The respondent no. 1 was driving his car rashly, negligently, without taking DAR No. 377/21 19.05.2025 Page 4 of 20 Deepanshu Sachdeva Vs. Arun Kataria & Ors.
necessary precautions, without observing the traffic rules and without proper look out and without blowing horn and violently hit the deceased with a great force. Due to which the deceased flew in air and was hit by the nearby tree and fell down and sustained serious grievous injuries and was immediately shifted to Rockland Hospital, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi-16. During the treatment Mrs. Jyotsna Kakwani was declared dead due to injuries suffered in Road Accident. Thus, this accident was caused due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the I-10 car bearing No. DL-4CAQ-0776. The FIR bearing No. 0018/2018 with PS Vasant Kunj, North, New Delhi was registered. The DAR is Ex. PW1/2".
12. During cross examination, he deposed that he along with his wife (now deceased) was walking together alongside the yellow line which is drawn for foot pedestrian. He further deposed that the alleged car hit his wife from backside. However, he was not able to see who the driver of the said car was.
13. During the course of final arguments, the mode and manner of accident was not disputed by the Insurance Company. The two pronged defense of the Insurance Company is that the present claim petition was not maintainable as the claimant had married again after two years of the accident and that R-1 was intoxicated at the time of accident. These factors shall be discussed in succeeding paragraphs under issue no. 2.
14. DAR/chargesheet supports the assertions of the claimant in the present matter that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R-1.
15. Reliance is being placed upon the judgment of DAR No. 377/21 19.05.2025 Page 5 of 20 Deepanshu Sachdeva Vs. Arun Kataria & Ors. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meera Devi & ors., 2021 LawSuit (Del) 2021 wherein it was held that "......in view of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008, contents of DAR has to be presumed to be correct and read in evidence without formal proof of the same unless proof to the contrary was produced."
16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 has observed that filing of charge sheet against the driver prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It has been further observed that even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
17. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a Civil Court and in Civil matters, the facts are required to be established on preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt, as are required in a criminal prosecution. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported as (2009) 13 SC 530 in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, wherein it has been observed that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants and the claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.
18. Pertinently, respondent no. 1 himself was the best DAR No. 377/21 19.05.2025 Page 6 of 20 Deepanshu Sachdeva Vs. Arun Kataria & Ors. witness who could have stepped into the witness box to deny his involvement in the accident or to deny negligence on his part, which he failed to do. Therefore, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the respondent no. 1 in terms of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
19. In view of foregoing discussion, it stands proved on preponderance of probability that the aforesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL-4CAQ-0776 and the said vehicle at that time was driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2, insured with respondent no. 3. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the claimants and against the respondents.
20. ISSUE NO. 2Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
21. As rashness and negligence on part of driver of the offending vehicle/respondent No. 1 has been proved, the claimants have become entitled to be compensation for death of their family member in the said accident, but the computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided. The compensation to which the claimants are entitled shall be under the heads as discussed hereinafter.
(i) Loss of dependency
22. Before deciding the quantum of compensation, I DAR No. 377/21 19.05.2025 Page 7 of 20 Deepanshu Sachdeva Vs. Arun Kataria & Ors. shall decide whether or not the present claim petition is maintainable in light of remarriage of claimant after two years of the accident. Incidentally, the second marriage of the claimant ended up in divorce.
23. As per DAR, the deceased was the wife of the claimant. In light of the averments of the DAR, the Tribunal finds no merit in the arguments of the Insurance Company that the claimant should have put forth the proof of his marriage to the deceased. R-3/Insurance Company did not bring anything on record to negate the assertions of the claimant and averment in DAR that the deceased was wife of the claimant.
24. On the point of remarriage, the Insurance Company has relied upon following Judgments :-
i. Judgment dated 10.01.2024 of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in MACA No. 555 of 2009 (C) titled as Girija Vs. Nallamuthu.
ii. Judgment dated 06.03.2024 of Hon'ble Telangana High Court in MACMA No. 621 of 2023 titled as Pilli, Pittala Rajitha Vs. Mohd. Taher, Tahir.
25. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for claimant has relied upon the following Judgments :-
i. Judgment dated 30.06.2020 of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in MACA No. 1936 of 2008 titled as Glanis Vs. Lazar Manjila.
ii. Judgment dated 08.08.2016 of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in FAO No. 739 of 2010 in case titled as Surjit Kaur Vs. Rajwinder Singh. iii. Judgment dated 03.02.2010 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 512-13/2006 in case titled as D.T.C. & Ors. Vs. Meena Kumari & Anr.DAR No. 377/21 19.05.2025 Page 8 of 20
Deepanshu Sachdeva Vs. Arun Kataria & Ors.
26. I have considered the above said Judgments carefully.
27. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, I shall place reliance upon Meena Kumari's case wherein it has been held that remarriage/possibility of remarriage will not deprive the person from compensation for the death of his/her spouse.
28. In the Judgment dated 03.05.2023, in First Appeal No. 111/2019 titled as IFFCO General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Bhagyashri Ganesh Gaikwad & Ors., it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay that remarriage of widow cannot be a taboo to get compensation.
29. In light of the above said judgment, the claimant being the LR of deceased is entitled to compensation under the MACT Act.
30. The claimant being husband of the deceased has stepped into the witness box as PW1 and filed his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A wherein, he has claimed that her deceased wife was earning more than Rs. 25,000/- per month and was expert in her profession. During cross examination, he admitted that he did not exhibit any document regarding the proof of business of fruits being done by his deceased wife at the time of alleged accident. He has, however, tendered on record ITRs of his deceased wife for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18 as Ex. PW1/3 (colly).
31. As per income tax return of deceased for the assessment year 2016-17, the gross annual income of deceased DAR No. 377/21 19.05.2025 Page 9 of 20 Deepanshu Sachdeva Vs. Arun Kataria & Ors. was Rs.2,71,418/-. As per income tax return of deceased for the assessment year 2017-18, the gross annual income of deceased was Rs.3,01,411/- and no tax was deducted. Hence, going by the ITR of deceased for the assessment year 2017-18, the income of deceased comes out to be Rs.25,118/- (round off) per month.
32. In the passport of the deceased available on record, the date of birth of deceased is found recorded as 11.12.1990. Hence, going by this document, the age of deceased as on the date of accident i.e. on 06.01.2018 was 27 years and 26 days. In terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been approved by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, the multiplier of '17' is applicable in the present case.
33. Now coming to calculation of loss of dependency, the present claim petition has been filed by the claimant i.e. husband of deceased. Hence, in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. (Supra) and Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), 1/3rd of earnings of deceased shall be deducted towards his personal and living expenses.
34. Further, in view of the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), the claimants are also held entitled to addition of 40% of earning of the deceased towards future prospects. Thus, the loss of dependency in the claimants case comes to Rs. 47,82,467/- (rounded off) {(Rs.25,118/-X 12 X 17 DAR No. 377/21 19.05.2025 Page 10 of 20 Deepanshu Sachdeva Vs. Arun Kataria & Ors. X 2/3 X 140/100)}.
(ii) COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY HEADS
35. In terms of propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (Supra), the claimant is also held entitled to amount of Rs.15,000/- each under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses, i.e. Rs.30,000/- under both heads. Further, in view of Full Court judgment dated 30.06.2020 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. (2020) 06 SC CK 0036 (Civil Appeal Nos. 2705 and 2706 of 2020), the claimant is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss of consortium', in addition to Rs.30,000/- granted under the conventional head of 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses'.
36. Pertinently, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also held in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (Supra) that compensation awarded under the conventional heads shall be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years and a period of 6 years since then stands already expired. Hence, the claimant in this case is also entitled to an increase @ 10% on the amount awarded under the conventional head of 'loss of estate', 'funeral charges' and 'loss of consortium' after expiry of three years and further 10% after expiry of another three years. The claimant is thus awarded a total sum of Rs.84,700/- [(Rs.40,000/- + 10% of Rs.40,000/-= Rs. 44,000/- + 10% of Rs. 44,000/- = Rs. 48,400/-) + (Rs. 30,000/- + 10% of Rs.30,000/- = Rs.33,000/- + 10% of Rs. 33,000/- = Rs. 36,300/-)] under this head.
DAR No. 377/21 19.05.2025 Page 11 of 20Deepanshu Sachdeva Vs. Arun Kataria & Ors.
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
37. In view of finding on issue number 2, the claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.48,67,167/- (Rupees Fourty Eight Lakh Sixty Seven Thousand One Hundred Sixty Seven only) (Rs.47,82,467/- + Rs.84,700/-) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of DAR. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be liable to be excluded from the award amount.
RELEASE
38. Out of amount awarded, 90% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in form of 200 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 200 months in succession, as per scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as implemented vide subsequent order dated 07.12.2018 and order dated 08.01.2021 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in his saving/MACT Claims SB Account opened/to be opened near the place of his residence, as directed vide separate order passed today and the remaining 10% amount is also directed to be released into his above said account, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by him.
39. The disbursement to the claimant is, however, subject to addition of future interest till deposit proportionately DAR No. 377/21 19.05.2025 Page 12 of 20 Deepanshu Sachdeva Vs. Arun Kataria & Ors. and also deduction of proportionate tax on the interest amount or amount of interim award, if any, to/from his share.
40. 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.
41. 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 claimants and the above amount shall be released in account of claimants by the Manager, UCO Bank, PHC, ND through RTGS/NEFT/or any other electronic mode.
42. The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of his residence.
43. The maturity amount of the FDR (s) on monthly basis net of TDS be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the above accounts of claimants.
44. No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the MACAD without permission of the Court.
45. The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) DAR No. 377/21 19.05.2025 Page 13 of 20 Deepanshu Sachdeva Vs. Arun Kataria & Ors. from any other branch of the bank.
46. 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.
47. 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.
LIABILITY
48. Ld. Counsel for Insurance Company has claimed recovery right on the basis of statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of witness Sh. Bijender Sejwal wherein he has stated that he along with three other friends including R-1/driver Arun Kataria were having drinks together on 06.01.2018 at Laado Sarai. As per this statement, Sh. Bijender gave his car to Arun Kataria as they were quite drunk. Arun Kataria left in the offending vehicle with friends Laxman and Gaurav. Later, the accident in question took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R-1. Perusal of record, however, would show that the blood sample of R-1 was not taken during investigation. There is nothing to show whether or not the alcohol level in the blood of R-1 was above the permissible limit. The Insurance Company has not examined any witness in this regard. Accordingly, the recovery rights cannot be granted to the DAR No. 377/21 19.05.2025 Page 14 of 20 Deepanshu Sachdeva Vs. Arun Kataria & Ors. Insurance Company against the registered owner on this ground.
49. All the respondents are though being held jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to claimants, but respondent no.3 being insurer of offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in bank account being maintained in the above said bank in name of this tribunal within 30 days from today, failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay. In case even after lapse of 90 days from today, respondent no. 3 fails to deposit this compensation with interest, in that event, in light of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal 2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of respondent no. 3 with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.
50. The respondent no. 3 shall inform the claimants and their counsels through registered post that the awarded amount has been deposited so as to facilitate them to collect the same.
51. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost or be sent to them by email. Ahlmad is directed to send a copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Judgment titled as Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. passed in FAO No.842/2003 dated 12.12.2014.
52. Further, Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi DAR No. 377/21 19.05.2025 Page 15 of 20 Deepanshu Sachdeva Vs. Arun Kataria & Ors. High Court in the above case on 08.01.2021.
53. The particulars of Form-XVII of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, in terms of directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 08.01.2021, are as under:
1. Date of the accident 06.01.2018
2. Date of filing of Form I- First N.A. Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the N.A. victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from N.A. the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from N.A. the owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- N.A. Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and N.A. Form VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing Form-VII-
of 06.10.2021
Detailed Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or No
deficiency on the part of the
Investigating Officer? If so,
whether any action/direction
warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Not given
Designated Officer by the Insurance Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of No the Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or No deficiencies on the part of the DAR No. 377/21 19.05.2025 Page 16 of 20 Deepanshu Sachdeva Vs. Arun Kataria & Ors.
Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the claimant(s) Legal offer not filed of the offer of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 19.05.2025
15. Whether the claimant(s) were Yes directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) 19.05.2025 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 claimant (s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17. Date on which the claimant(s) Yet to furnish produced the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of As mentioned above the claimant(s)
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings Yet to furnish bank account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were Yes examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?DAR No. 377/21 19.05.2025 Page 17 of 20
Deepanshu Sachdeva Vs. Arun Kataria & Ors.
54. File be consigned to record room after compliance of necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 25.08.2025.Digitally signed
VRINDA by VRINDA KUMARI KUMARI Date: 2025.05.19 16:43:42 +0530 Announced in the open court. (Vrinda Kumari) on 19.05.2025 PO/MACT, New Delhi Encl: SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM XV DAR No. 377/21 19.05.2025 Page 18 of 20 Deepanshu Sachdeva Vs. Arun Kataria & Ors. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM XV
1. Date of accident 06.01.2018
2. Name of the deceased Smt. Jyotsna Kakwani
3. Age of the deceased 27 years and 26 days
4. Occupation of the deceased Fruit seller
5. Income of the deceased Rs.25,118/- per month
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased :
Sl. No. Name Age Relation
i) Sh. Deepanshu - Husband
Sachdeva
Sl. No. Head Amount Awarded
(Rs.)
7. Income of deceased (A) Rs. 25,118/-
8. Add : Future Prospects (B) Rs. 10,047.2/-
9. Less-Personal expenses of the Rs. 11,721.73/-
deceased (C)
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs. 23,443.47/-
[(A+B) - C = D]
11. Annual loss of dependency Rs.
(D x 12) 2,81,321.64/-
12. Multiplier 17
13. Total loss of dependency Rs.47,82,467/-
(D x 12 x E = F)
14. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15. Compensation for loss of love Nil and affection (H) DAR No. 377/21 19.05.2025 Page 19 of 20 Deepanshu Sachdeva Vs. Arun Kataria & Ors.
16. Compensation for loss of Rs.48,400/-
consortium (I)
17. Compensation for loss of estate Rs.18,150/-
(J)
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs.18,150/-
expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.48,67,167/-
(F + G + H + I + J+K =L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST 7.5% pa from date AWARDED of filing of DAR till the date of award to be deposited within 30 days and 9% thereafter.
21. Interest amount up to the date of Rs.13,21,233/-
award (M)
22. Total amount including interest Rs.61,88,400/-
(L + M) (rounded off to
Rs. 61,88,500/-)
23. Award amount released 10% share
24. Award amount kept in FDRs/ 90% share MACAD
25. Mode of disbursement of the Through Bank award amount to claimant(s)
26. Next date for compliance of the 25.08.2025 award Digitally signed VRINDA by VRINDA KUMARI KUMARI Date: 2025.05.19 16:43:51 +0530 (Vrinda Kumari) PO/MACT, New Delhi 19.05.2025 DAR No. 377/21 19.05.2025 Page 20 of 20 Deepanshu Sachdeva Vs. Arun Kataria & Ors.