Delhi District Court
Saroj (Dar) vs Arjun Ray (155/22 Jp) on 3 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. ADITI GARG
DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No.263/2023
FIR No. 155/2022
PS : Jaitpur
U/s 279/304A IPC
CNR No. DLSE01-010020-2022
Saroj & Ors. Vs. Arjun Ray & Ors
(COMPENSATION CASE OF DECEASED MOHIT SINGH )
1. Saroj (Mother son of deceased)
2. Babli Singh (Father of deceased)
3. Nancy (Sister of deceased)
4. Twinkle (Sister of deceased)
All R/o D-2/173, Gali no.4, Saurabh Vihar
Jaitpur, New Delhi.
......Claimants/ LR
Versus
1. Arjun Ray
S/o Harishankar
R/o Andauli, Bishnupur
Prihar, Sitamarhi, Bihar
.....Driver / Respondent No. 1
2. Darshana
W/o Hariom
R/o H. No.105, Krishna Vihar,
East Nazafgarh, Delhi.
Reg. Owner/ Respondent no.2
MACT No.263/2023 Saroj & Ors. Vs. Arjun Ray & Ors. (rpt) page 1 of 32
3. United India Insurance Company Ltd.
SCO 17 & 18, First Floor, Huda Shopping Complex, Sector -7
Gurugram, Haryana.
.......Insurance Company/ Respondent no.-3
Date of accident : 17.03.2024
Date of filing of DAR : 22.08.2024
Date of Decision : 03.02.2026
AWARD
"In a case of death, the legal heirs of the claimants cannot expect
a windfall.
Simultaneously, the compensation granted cannot be an apology
for compensation".
(As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of
National Insurance Company Limited.- v Pranay Sethi And
Others (2017 SCC Online Sc 1270)"
1. DAR
(a) Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred as DAR)
was filed by IO SI Satnarayan which is treated as Claim Petition
under Section 166 (1) read with Section 166 (4) MV Act. It
pertains to alleged accident of victim Late Sh. Mohit Kumar
(hereinafter referred as deceased) caused by vehicle no. HR 63C
4109 (hereinafter referred as offending vehicle), driven by Sh.
Arjun Ray, impleaded as Respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred
as R-1), owned by Smt. Darshana impleaded as Respondent No.2
MACT No.263/2023 Saroj & Ors. Vs. Arjun Ray & Ors. (rpt) page 2 of 32
(hereinafter referred as R-2), and insured with M/s United India
Insurance Company Ltd, impleaded as Respondent No.3
(hereinafter referred as R-3).
2. BRIEF FACTS:
(a) Preliminary information regarding the accident in question
was received by the Investigating Officer (IO), SI Satnarain,
during his emergency duty through a PCR call, which was
recorded vide DD No. 80A. Pursuant thereto, the IO, along with
a constable, proceeded to the spot of the accident i.e. Lohia Pul,
Chaurangi, Jaitpur, where they found a truck bearing registration
No. HR-63C-4109 and a scooty bearing No. DL-3SDV-7772 in
an accidental condition. The scooty was found lodged in the front
wheel of the offending truck, while the body of a male person, in
a severely damaged condition, was lying near the rear wheel of
the truck.
(b) The IO photographed the scene of occurrence and arranged
for the deceased to be shifted to AIIMS Trauma Centre. It was
reported that the driver of the offending vehicle had fled from the
spot. The deceased was later identified as Mohit by an
acquaintance. Thereafter, the IO reached AIIMS Trauma Centre
and collected the MLC of the victim. On the basis of the PCR
call and medico-legal report, an FIR was registered. The site plan
was prepared and the place of occurrence was inspected by the
crime team. Post-mortem examination of the deceased was
conducted, and the body was subsequently identified by the
family members.
(c) Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161
MACT No.263/2023 Saroj & Ors. Vs. Arjun Ray & Ors. (rpt) page 3 of 32
Cr.PC. Notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act was
served upon the owner of the offending vehicle, who replied that
the truck was attached with a gas agency and further affirmed
that on the date of the accident, the offending vehicle was being
driven by her driver. The disclosure statement of the driver was
also recorded, wherein he admitted the occurrence of the accident
involving the offending truck.
(d) Mechanical inspection of both the offending vehicle and
the accidental scooty was conducted. The documents of the
offending vehicle were verified from the concerned authority and
were found to be in order. Upon completion of investigation, a
charge-sheet was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle
for causing the death of the victim by driving the vehicle in a
rash and negligent manner. The Detailed Accident Report (DAR)
was also filed by the IO before the Tribunal.
3. WRITTEN STATEMENT / REPLY
(a) In response to the DAR, no reply was filed by Respondents
No. 1 and 2 despite grant of sufficient opportunities;
consequently, their right to file reply was closed vide order dated
08.11.2023.
(b) Reply/Written Statement was filed on behalf of
Respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company), wherein it was
contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not
holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive a vehicle
carrying hazardous goods, as there was no requisite endorsement
on the licence authorising him to drive such category of vehicle.
MACT No.263/2023 Saroj & Ors. Vs. Arjun Ray & Ors. (rpt) page 4 of 32
It was further stated that the scooty rider/victim was also not
possessing a valid driving licence at the time of the accident.
Apart from the above, other general defences were taken.
However, the validity and genuineness of the insurance policy
covering the offending vehicle were admitted.
4. ISSUES:
(a) Issues were framed vide order dated 08.11.2023:
1. Whether the injured suffered injuries in a road traffic accident
on 02.03.2022 due to rash and negligent driving of offending
vehicle no. HR 63C 4109 being driven by R-1, owned by R-2
and insured with R-3?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so,
to what extent and from whom?OPP
3. Relief.
5. Evidence:
(a) The matter was thereafter listed for evidence. PW-1 Smt.
Saroj mother of the deceased, tendered her evidentiary affidavit
as Ex. PW-1/A and relied upon various documents including
identity proves of deceased as well as family members, proves
with respect to income and employment of deceased as well as
DAR as Ex. PW-1/1 to Ex. PW-1/11.
(b) PW-1 was also cross examined by counsel insurance
company as well as by counsel for driver and owner of offending
Truck.
(c) PW-2, the Investigating Officer SI Satnarain, was also
examined, who narrated the manner of the accident and the
investigation carried out by him. He was duly cross-examined on
behalf of all the respondents.
MACT No.263/2023 Saroj & Ors. Vs. Arjun Ray & Ors. (rpt) page 5 of 32
(d) Petitioner Evidence was then closed. Matter was
subsequently listed for Respondent Evidence. No evidence was
led by driver or owner of offending vehicle.
(e) R-3/ Insurance Company, however, examined R3W1 Sh.
Ankit Kumar, (an authorised person on behalf of District
Transport Officer, Sheikhpura) who brought summoned record
related to the driving license of driver of offending vehicle which
includes copy of authorisation letter as Ex.R3W1/2, copy of
details of driving license bearing BR5220080004640 as
Ex.R3W1/3 and Extract of driving license of driver of offending
vehicle as Ex.R3W1/4. He was cross examined by counsel for
driver and owner.
(f) Insurance Company also examined its Administrative
Officer, Ms. Pooja as R3W2 who tendered her evidentiary
affidavit as Ex.RW32/1, office copy of notice dated 11.07.2024
as Ex.R3W2/1A. Original Postal Receipt dated 11.07.2024 as
Ex.R3W2/2 and Ex.R3W2/3, copy of Tracking Report as
Ex.R3W2/4 and Ex.R3W2/5 and copy of certified copy of
insurance policy as Ex.R3W2/6. She was cross examined on
behalf of R-1 & R-2.
6. Final Arguments:
(a) Arguments advanced by all the contesting parties.
(b) Learned counsel for the claimants argued that the horrific
accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the offending truck bearing registration No.
HR-63C-4109, as a result of which the victim sustained fatal
injuries. It was submitted that the sudden demise of the deceased
MACT No.263/2023 Saroj & Ors. Vs. Arjun Ray & Ors. (rpt) page 6 of 32
has shattered the entire family, leaving them in deep grief and
trauma. Learned counsel further contended that the deceased was
the sole earning member of the family and his untimely death has
caused acute financial hardship to the dependents.
(c) It was argued that the involvement of the offending vehicle
stands duly established from the police investigation, site plan,
mechanical inspection reports, post-mortem report, and the
testimony of the Investigating Officer. Learned counsel submitted
that the charge-sheet has already been filed against the driver of
the offending vehicle for rash and negligent driving, which
clearly demonstrates his culpability. It was prayed that just and
reasonable compensation be awarded in favour of the claimants.
(d) Learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 and 2 (driver and
owner) contended that the claimants have failed to establish rash
and negligent driving on the part of Respondent No. 1. It was
submitted that the accident did not occur due to any fault of the
driver of the offending vehicle and that Respondents No. 1 and 2
have been falsely implicated.
(e) Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company
submitted that although the insurance policy covering the
offending vehicle is admitted to be valid on the date of accident,
the insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured on account of
breach of policy conditions. It was argued that the driver of the
offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving
licence to drive a vehicle carrying hazardous goods, as there was
no requisite endorsement on his licence for such category of
vehicle. It was further contended that even the deceased scooty
rider was not possessing a valid driving licence at the time of the
MACT No.263/2023 Saroj & Ors. Vs. Arjun Ray & Ors. (rpt) page 7 of 32
accident and, therefore, there was contributory negligence on his
part.
7. DISCUSSION:
(a) On the basis of material on record, evidence adduced and
arguments addressed, issue wise findings are as under :-
ISSUE NO. 1
1. Whether the injured suffered injuries in a road traffic accident
on 02.03.2022 due to rash and negligent driving of offending
vehicle no. HR 63C 4109 being driven by R-1, owned by R-2
and insured with R-3?
(b) PW-1, Smt. Saroj, mother of the deceased, deposed that on
02.03.2022 at about 04:20 PM, her son Mohit left the house
riding his scooty make TVS Jupiter bearing registration No.
DL-3SDV-7772 to supply readymade ladies nightwear in the
market. She further stated that at about 04:50 PM, he met with
an accident caused by the offending truck bearing registration
No. HR-63C-4109, which was being driven by Respondent No.
1 in a rash and negligent manner. She testified that upon
receiving information about the accident, she along with other
family members reached the spot and found both vehicles in
accidental condition and bloodstains present at the site.
Subsequently, they were informed about the demise of her son.
(c) During cross-examination, PW-1 clarified that she was not
an eyewitness to the accident and that she did not go to AIIMS
Trauma Centre from the spot. Since she was not an eyewitness,
no specific questions were put to her by the defence with regard
to the manner of the accident. She, however, categorically denied
any negligence on the part of the deceased and attributed the
MACT No.263/2023 Saroj & Ors. Vs. Arjun Ray & Ors. (rpt) page 8 of 32
accident entirely to the rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle.
(d) PW-2, SI Satnarayan, the Investigating Officer, also entered
the witness box and deposed about the receipt of information
regarding the accident, the prompt response by the police
machinery, registration of FIR on his complaint, and the entire
chain of investigation carried out by him. In his cross-
examination by learned counsel for the driver and owner, he
stated that no CCTV camera was found installed at or near the
spot. He further stated that the deceased was not under the
influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. He specifically
denied the suggestion that the accident had occurred due to any
negligence on the part of the victim himself. PW-2 further
clarified that notices under Section 160 Cr.PC were issued to
public persons; however, none came forward to join the
investigation citing personal reasons.
(e) The police record reflects that information regarding the
accident reached the police authorities within minutes, as is
evident from GD Entry No. 80A, which records the description
of the PCR call pertaining to the accident in question. Another
GD Entry No. 89A was recorded with respect to the MLC of the
victim and the declaration of "brought dead" by the doctors at
AIIMS Trauma Centre. The promptness of police action rules out
any possibility of embellishment or false implication.
(f) The Investigating Officer, who is also the complainant of
the FIR, narrated the scene of occurrence in a cogent and
consistent manner, leaving no doubt regarding the occurrence of
the accident involving the offending truck. Black-and-white
MACT No.263/2023 Saroj & Ors. Vs. Arjun Ray & Ors. (rpt) page 9 of 32
photographs of the spot were placed on record, wherein the body
of the deceased, a helmet lying near the wheel, and the scooty of
the deceased near the truck are clearly visible. There was no
delay in registration of the FIR, which was registered on the date
of the accident itself.
(g) The site plan prepared during investigation specifically
mentions the point of impact and depicts the presence of both the
scooty and the Tata truck at the spot in accidental condition. The
mechanical inspection reports of both vehicles indicate accidental
impact on their front portions, which corroborates the manner of
accident as per charge sheet.
(h) Notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act was
served upon the owner of the offending vehicle, who responded
that the truck was being driven by driver Arjun Ray on the date
of the accident. There is no denial of involvement of the
offending vehicle, which was seized from the spot itself.
Notably, no reply or response to the DAR was filed by
Respondents No. 1 and 2 controverting the allegations of rash
and negligent driving or alleging false implication. No complaint
was lodged by Respondents No. 1 and 2 challenging the
registration of FIR or disputing the occurrence of the accident.
(i) Respondent No. 1, being the driver of the offending vehicle,
was the best person to enter the witness box to rebut the
allegations or to offer any alternative version of the accident. His
failure to do so invites an adverse inference.
(j) The entire chain of documents produced during investigation,
coupled with oral evidence, presents a clear and consistent
picture of the accident and establishes rashness on the part of the
MACT No.263/2023 Saroj & Ors. Vs. Arjun Ray & Ors. (rpt) page 10 of 32
driver of the offending vehicle. In view of the consistent and
trustworthy depositions of PW-1 and PW-2, duly corroborated by
contemporaneous police records, documentary evidence, and the
absence of any rebuttal from Respondents No. 1 and 2, there is
no reason to disbelieve the version put forth by the claimants.
(k) Further, the driver (R-1) has been charge-sheeted for
causing the fatal accident due to his rash and high-speed driving.
It is settled that filing of charge sheet itself is a significant step
towards the inference of negligence on the part of driver of the
offending vehicle. (Support drawn from the Judgment in the case
of National Insurance Company Vs. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287
Delhi as referred and relied by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in case of Ranjeet & Anr. Vs. Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr SLP (C)
No. 10351/2019). It is also settled that adverse inference can be
drawn against the driver of the offending vehicle in case he does
not appear as a witness to depose and clarify about his stance in
respect of the accident. (support drawn from the judgment in the
case of Cholamandlam insurance company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh
2009 (3) AD Delhi 310.)
(l) It is a well-established legal principle that negligence in
motor accident cases should be determined based on the
preponderance of probabilities, not on proof beyond reasonable
doubt. The facts and circumstances must be considered in a
broad and practical manner. It is also settled that proceedings
under the Motor Vehicles Act are different from regular civil
suits and are not strictly governed by the technical rules of the
Indian Evidence Act. (as observed by Their Lordships of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bimla Devi &
MACT No.263/2023 Saroj & Ors. Vs. Arjun Ray & Ors. (rpt) page 11 of 32
Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors., (2009) 13
SCC 530 further referred and relied by Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India in recent pronouncement in the case of Mathew
Alexander vs Mohammed Shafi SLP (Crl) No.8211 of 2022).
(m) In view of the cogent testimony of PW-2, duly
corroborated by the criminal case record, site plan, photographs,
medical documents and the complete absence of rebuttal
evidence from the respondents, this Tribunal holds that the
alleged accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
the aforesaid offending vehicle by Respondent No. 1, resulting in
the fatal injuries to the deceased Mohit. Accordingly, Issue No. 1
is decided in favour of the claimants and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO.2
Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation,
if so, to what extent and from whom ? OPP.
8. Section. 168 MV Act enjoins the Claim Tribunals to hold
an enquiry into the claim to make an effort determining the
amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and
reasonable. Same is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
(1) Award of the Claims Tribunal.--On receipt of an
application for compensation made under section 166, the
Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the
application to the insurer and after giving the parties
(including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold
an inquiry into the claim or, as the case may be, each of
the claims and, subject to the provisions of section 162
may make an award determining the amount of
compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying
the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid
and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify
the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or
driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or
MACT No.263/2023 Saroj & Ors. Vs. Arjun Ray & Ors. (rpt) page 12 of 32
any of them, as the case may be: Provided that where such
application makes a claim for compensation under section
140 in respect of the death or permanent disablement of
any person, such claim and any other claim (whether made
in such application or otherwise) for compensation in
respect of such death or permanent disablement shall be
disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Chapter
X.
(2) The Claims Tribunal shall arrange to deliver copies of
the award to the parties concerned expeditiously and in
any case within a period of fifteen days from the date of
the award.
(3) When an award is made under this section, the person
who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award
shall, within thirty days of the date of announcing the
award by the Claims Tribunal, deposit the entire amount
awarded in such manner as the Claims Tribunal may
direct.
9. Before putting in frame the position of law, it is noted that
the process of determining the compensation by the court is
essentially a very difficult task and can never be an exact science.
Perfect compensation is hardly possible, more so in claims of
injury and disability. (As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Sidram Vs. The Divisional Manager United
India Insurance Company Ltd, SLP (Civil) No. 19277 of 2019).
10. The basic principle in assessing motor vehicle
compensation claims, is to place the victim in as near a position
as she or he was in before the accident, with other compensatory
directions for loss of amenities and other payments. These
general principles have been stated and reiterated in several
decisions. [Support drawn from Govind Yadav v. New India
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683.]
11. This Tribunal has been tasked with determination of just
compensation. The observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court of
MACT No.263/2023 Saroj & Ors. Vs. Arjun Ray & Ors. (rpt) page 13 of 32
India in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty and
Another, (2003) 7 SCC 197, needs mention here (para 15):
"Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the
compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza;
not a source of profit but the same should not be a
pittance. The courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the
various factors and quantify the amount of compensation,
which should be just. What would be "just" compensation
is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule
applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human
life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by
precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon
the particular facts and circumstances, and attending
peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode
adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered
in the background of "just" compensation which is the
pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression
"which appears to it to be just", a wide discretion is vested
in the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be
done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of
whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness.. ..."
12. Delineating the damages as pecuniary and non pecuniary,
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case of R. D. Hattangadi Vs.
Pest Control (India) Pvt Ltd, 1995 AIR 755, made following
observations:
"9....while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a
victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed
separately as pecuniary damages and special damages.
Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually
incurred and which are capable of being calculated in
terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are
those which are incapable of being assessed by
arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two
concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses
incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss
of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other
material loss. So far non- pecuniary damages are
MACT No.263/2023 Saroj & Ors. Vs. Arjun Ray & Ors. (rpt) page 14 of 32
concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and
physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or
likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate
for the loss of amenities of life which may include a
variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant
may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the
loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the
normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened;
(iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment,
frustration and mental stress in life."
13. In The Landmark Case of National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi And Others (2017 SCC Online SC
1270), decided by constitutional bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India, regarding the concept of 'just compensation' it was held
:
"................55. Section 168 of the Act deals with the concept of
"just compensation" and the same has to be determined on the
foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on
acceptable legal standard because such determination can never
be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is
to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical
precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an
individual case. The conception of "just compensation" has to be
viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-
violation of the principle of equitability. In a case of death, the
legal heirs of the claimants cannot expect a windfall.
Simultaneously, the compensation granted cannot be an apology
for compensation. It cannot be a pittance. Though the discretion
vested in the tribunal is quite wide, yet it is obligatory on the part
of the tribunal to be guided by the expression, that is, "just
compensation". The determination has to be on the foundation of
evidence brought on record as regards the age and income of the
deceased and thereafter the apposite multiplier to be applied. The
formula relating to multiplier has been clearly stated in Sarla
Verma and it has been approved in Reshma Kumari . The age and
income, as stated earlier, have to be established by adducing
evidence. The tribunal and the courts have to bear in mind that
the basic principle lies in pragmatic computation which is in
proximity to reality. It is a well-accepted norm that money
cannot substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for grant
MACT No.263/2023 Saroj & Ors. Vs. Arjun Ray & Ors. (rpt) page 15 of 32
of just compensation having uniformity of approach. There has
to be a balance between the two extremes, that is, a windfall and
the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum. In such an
adjudication, the duty of the tribunal and the courts is difficult
and hence, an endeavour has been made by this Court for
standardisation which in its ambit includes addition of future
prospects on the proven income at present..................."
14. Further about the principles relating to Assessment of
compensation in case of death, it was held in Pranay Sethi (supra)
that detailed analysis of Sarla Verma (SMT) And Others Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation And Another (2009 Scc Online Sc
797) is necessary as in the said case, the Court recapitulated the
relevant principles relating to assessment of compensation in case
of death. In fact, Hon'ble SC in Pranay Sethi (supra) mainly
relied and approved the earlier judgment of Sarla Verma( Supra)
read with Reshma Kumari[( 2013) 9 SCC 65 : (2013) 4 SCC
(Civ) 191 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 826 ], with some modification,
regarding all the aspects like aspect of multiplier,the steps and
guidelines stated in para 19 of Sarla Verma for determination of
compensation in cases of death, future prospects, deduction to be
made towards personal and living expenses.
15. ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION
(a). PW-1 (mother of the deceased) deposed that her son Mohit
was engaged in the family business of manufacturing and
wholesale supply of ladies nightwear/Maxis under the name
"Beauty Plus" and was earning about Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/-
per month. She further stated that he used to spend his entire
income towards treatment of his father and other family
responsibilities and that after his death the said business had shut
MACT No.263/2023 Saroj & Ors. Vs. Arjun Ray & Ors. (rpt) page 16 of 32
down. In support thereof, PW-1 placed on record photographs of
the business premises, a visiting card in the name of "Beauty
Plus Night Wear," and copies of certain bills. The photographs
show a business board in the name of "Beauty Plus Night Wear"
bearing the names of Babli Singh (father of the deceased) and
Mohit Singh, besides photographs depicting sewing machines.
The visiting card also reflects the name of "Beauty Plus Night
Wear" along with contact details and names of Babli Singh and
Mohit Singh. Some tax invoices pertaining to consignments in
the name of Babli Singh have also been filed on record.
(b) During cross-examination, PW-1 stated that they had about
8 sewing machines and 8-9 workers, that the gross monthly
turnover was approximately Rs.3,00,000/-, and that after meeting
expenses towards labour and raw material, the profit used to be
around Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per month. She further
admitted that all transactions were conducted in cash and that no
amount was deposited in any bank.
(c) From the material placed on record, it can be accepted that
a small family business under the name "Beauty Plus Night
Wear" was being run and that the deceased was associated with
the said business. However, there is no cogent documentary
evidence to establish the exact income of the deceased. No bank
statements, books of accounts, cash receipts, GST returns, or
income tax records have been produced. Notably, the business
board, visiting card, and invoices primarily reflect the name of
the father of the deceased, Babli Singh, indicating that the
business was a family venture. There is also no material to
demonstrate that the alleged income of Rs.30,000/- to
MACT No.263/2023 Saroj & Ors. Vs. Arjun Ray & Ors. (rpt) page 17 of 32
Rs.40,000/- per month was exclusively earned by the deceased
himself as opposed to being the collective family income from
the business. In absence of reliable documentary proof of
earnings, the oral testimony regarding income cannot be
accepted.
(e) The educational qualification of the deceased is reflected
as up to 8th class, as per marksheet placed on record. As per
Aadhaar card, the deceased was a resident of Delhi. In these
circumstances, income of the deceased is appropriately assessed
on the basis of minimum wages applicable in Delhi for a non-
matriculate worker prevailing at the time of accident. Learned
counsel for the claimants also filed computation on the basis of
minimum wages. Accordingly, the income of the deceased is
taken as per minimum wages for a non-matriculate worker in
Delhi as on the date of accident which was 17,693/-.
(f). As per the Aadhaar Card of the deceased Ex.PW1/1, his
date year of birth is to be of 2000. Accordingly, the deceased was
about 22 years of age at the time of the accident. Since the
deceased was below 40 years of age at the time of accident and
was engaged in a private job, the addition towards future
prospects is required to be made in terms of the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) and other
connected judgments. Accordingly, an addition of 40% of the
established income of the deceased is made towards future
prospects. The appropriate multiplier would be 18.
Ascertainment of Multiplicand:
(g) As per the affidavits of the legal representatives, the
deceased was stated to be a bachelor and survived by his parents
MACT No.263/2023 Saroj & Ors. Vs. Arjun Ray & Ors. (rpt) page 18 of 32
and two unmarried sisters. Three other sisters are already
married. It is further alleged that the father of the deceased had
become paralysed and that the entire family business was being
looked after by the deceased, who was also stated to be bearing
the household expenses as well as the medical treatment of his
father. In support of the said averments, certain medical papers
purportedly issued by Ayurvedic hospitals have been placed on
record. However, no treating doctor has been examined and no
cogent medical evidence has been produced to substantiate the
alleged paralysis of the father. In absence of reliable medical
proof, the said assertion cannot be accepted for the purpose of
altering the standard deduction. Further, though it is claimed that
the deceased was the sole earning member and that the family
business closed after his demise, no documentary evidence has
been brought on record to establish exclusive financial
dependency of all family members upon the deceased or closure
of business solely on account of his death. As already observed,
the business documents primarily reflect the name of the father,
indicating that it was a family venture. There is also no material
to demonstrate that the entire income of the family was derived
only from the deceased.
(h) The deceased admittedly was unmarried. In cases of bachelor
victims, the settled legal position is that 50% of the income is to
be deducted towards personal and living expenses, as a bachelor
is presumed to spend a substantial part of his earnings on
himself. Deviation from this standard deduction is warranted
only in exceptional circumstances supported by clear and cogent
evidence, which is lacking in the present case.
MACT No.263/2023 Saroj & Ors. Vs. Arjun Ray & Ors. (rpt) page 19 of 32
(i) Accordingly, in view of the deceased being a bachelor and in
absence of any proved special circumstances, 50% of the income
is deducted towards personal and living expenses, in terms of the
law laid down in Sarla Verma (supra).
(j) Actual Calculation ( actual loss/loss of dependency):
In view of the backdrop of above factual and legal
discussion, the calculation in the present case is as under:
(i). Annual income of the deceased
(Rs.17,693/- per month x 12) = Rs.2,12,316/-
(ii) Future prospect (40 %) + Rs.84,926/-
------------------
(iii) Total = Rs.2,97,242/-
===========
(iv) Deduction for personal expenses
(50% of Rs.2,97,242/-) = (-) Rs.1,48,621/-
(v) Multiplicand
(Rs.2,97,242/- (-) Rs.1,48,621/-) = Rs.1,48,621/-
(vi) As such, the total loss of dependency is:
Rs.1,48,621/- (multiplicand) x 18 (multiplier) = Rs.26,75,178/-
16. Grant of Loss of Estate, Loss Of Consortium And Funeral Expenses:
(a). In respect of above heads, following observations as relevant to the context were made in Pranay Sethi (supra):
''...............46. Another aspect which has created confusion pertains to grant of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.....
MACT No.263/2023 Saroj & Ors. Vs. Arjun Ray & Ors. (rpt) page 20 of 32 .
.
52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh . 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 refers to Santosh Devi , 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. .
.
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...............''
(b). The above reproduced observations entail that Their Lordship in Pranay Sethi (Supra), intended to avoid immense variations and instead ensure consistency in awarding compensation under conventional heads. The claimants are also entitled to certain sums towards grant of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
MACT No.263/2023 Saroj & Ors. Vs. Arjun Ray & Ors. (rpt) page 21 of 32
(c). Observations made in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130, by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also clarify about compensation as consortium towards/ against death of a dear one:
"This Court interpreted "consortium" to be a compendious term, which encompasses spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as 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.
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.
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 agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love and affection, and their role in the family unit.
Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognized 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 permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is the compensation for loss of love and affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of 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 the children who lose the care and protection of their parents in motor vehicle accidents.
The amount to be awarded for loss consortium will be as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra).
At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide uniformity MACT No.263/2023 Saroj & Ors. Vs. Arjun Ray & Ors. (rpt) page 22 of 32 with respect to the grant of consortium, and loss of love and affection. Several Tribunals and High Courts have been awarding compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), has recognized only three conventional heads under which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in loss of consortium.
The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to award compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate conventional head. There is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head."
(d). Periodic uniform enhancement have also been mandated in case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Thus, applying the criteria, a sum of Rs.19,965 for cremation expenses; and Rs.19,965 towards loss of estate is also payable.
(e). The deceased is survived by his parents and two unmarried sisters. Since the deceased was a bachelor, consortium is awarded only to the parents, who are held entitled to Rs.53,240/- each towards filial consortium. The unmarried sisters are treated as legal representatives but are not entitled to consortium.
17. Total Award Amount
(a) Thus the total award amount comes to Rs.26,75,178/- (+) Rs.19,965/- (Loss to estate) + Rs.19,965/- (funeral expenses) + Rs.1,06,480/- (loss of consortium payable only to parents @ Rs.53,240/- each) = Rs.28,21,588/-.
18. Interest:
(a) It is settled that any fixed rate of interest cannot be prescribed for all cases at all times and would largely depend MACT No.263/2023 Saroj & Ors. Vs. Arjun Ray & Ors. (rpt) page 23 of 32 upon the prevailing rate of interest as per the applicable guidelines. As such, interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is deemed fit and accordingly granted in the present case. (Reliance placed upon National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Yad Ram MAC APP 526/2018 also referred and relied in case of The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors. MAC APP 70/2024 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court).
19. Liability:-
(a). Learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that although the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid licence to drive a transport vehicle, he was not possessing the mandatory endorsement authorising him to drive a vehicle carrying hazardous goods, which constitutes breach of the terms and conditions of the policy as well as statutory provisions. On this basis, the Insurance Company sought complete exoneration or, in the alternative, recovery rights. At the same time, learned counsel fairly conceded that the insurance policy was valid and effective on the date of accident. Per contra, respondent no.1/driver asserted that he was holding a valid driving licence at the relevant time.
(b). To substantiate its defence, the Insurance Company examined Ms. Pooja, Administrative Officer, as R3W2. She deposed that notice dated 11.07.2024 under Order XII Rule 8 CPC was issued to respondent nos. 1 and 2 to produce the valid driving licence covering the date of accident, which remained unreplied. She further deposed that the driver of the offending vehicle was not authorised to drive a vehicle carrying hazardous MACT No.263/2023 Saroj & Ors. Vs. Arjun Ray & Ors. (rpt) page 24 of 32 goods and that the offending vehicle was carrying gas cylinders.
During cross-examination by learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2, she referred to Clause Mark X to X-1 of the policy, stating that the policy requires the driver to hold an effective driving licence and, in case of a learner's licence, compliance with Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. She specifically denied the suggestion that respondent no.1 was holding a valid licence to drive a hazardous goods vehicle. Insurance Company also examined concerned person from Licensing Authority Sheikhpura, Bihar who also confirmed that as per record no hazardous validity is available.
(c). Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 mandates that no person shall drive a motor vehicle unless he holds an effective driving licence authorising him to drive that class of vehicle, and that in case of transport vehicles, specific entitlement is required. Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 merely prescribes conditions for driving under a learner's licence. Further, Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 lays down additional statutory requirements for drivers of goods carriages carrying dangerous or hazardous goods, including prescribed training and certification.
(d). In the present case, there is no dispute regarding the genuineness of the driving licence of respondent no.1 as such. However, it stands admitted that the said licence did not carry any endorsement authorising him to transport hazardous goods. Perusal of the extract of driving licence placed on record (Ex. R3W1/4) also reveals absence of any such endorsement. Admittedly, no evidence has been led by respondent no.1 to MACT No.263/2023 Saroj & Ors. Vs. Arjun Ray & Ors. (rpt) page 25 of 32 establish compliance with Rule 9 of CMVR, 1989.
(e). The next issue is whether the offending vehicle was carrying hazardous goods at the time of accident. The owner disclosed to the police that the driver was returning with empty gas cylinders after supply to Oorja Gas Agency. A delivery receipt placed on record reflects receipt of 306 filled cylinders by the said agency on the date of accident, from which it can reasonably be inferred that the driver was returning with empty cylinders. Even otherwise, it is a matter of common safety standards that so- called "empty" gas cylinders are not rendered non-hazardous, as they ordinarily retain residual inflammable vapours and pressure, unless specifically degassed and certified. Mere assertion that the cylinders were empty, therefore, does not take the vehicle outside the category of hazardous goods carriage, particularly in absence of any proof of complete de-gassing or certification.
(f). The Insurance Company relied upon United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kanchan Sharma 2023 ACJ 459 to contend that absence of specific endorsement, when not expressly mentioned in the policy, should be treated as a technical defect. On the other hand, respondent nos. 1 and 2 placed reliance upon Chatha Service Station vs. Lalmati Devi & Ors., SLP (C) No. 25789- 25792/2019, National Insurance Co. vs. Jawahar Prasad Keshri @ Jawahar Shah & Ors., MAC App. 328/2023 and K. Nagendra vs. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. SLP (C) 7139-7140 of 2023. Notably, even the authorities cited by respondent nos. 1 and 2 are founded upon the principle of pay and recover and do not lay down that the insurer is to be completely exonerated in case of statutory breach.
MACT No.263/2023 Saroj & Ors. Vs. Arjun Ray & Ors. (rpt) page 26 of 32
(g). Reliance on Kanchan Sharma (supra) is misplaced in the facts of the present case, as the said judgment pertains to ordinary licence disputes. The present matter concerns transportation of gas cylinders, attracting the special statutory regime governing hazardous goods. The requirement of endorsement and training under Rule 9 of CMVR, 1989 is statutory in nature and not dependent upon policy wording. Absence thereof constitutes a fundamental breach. This position stands clarified by the Supreme Court of India in Chatha Service (supra) wherein it has been held that in such circumstances, the insurer is liable to satisfy the award in favour of third parties with corresponding right of recovery.
(h) It is further pertinent to note that despite service of notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC, respondent nos. 1 and 2 neither filed any reply thereto nor produced any material to show that respondent no.1 was duly authorised to drive a hazardous goods vehicle or that he possessed the requisite training certificate under Rule 9 of CMVR, 1989. No independent evidence has been led by respondent nos. 1 and 2 to rebut the testimony of R3W2 or to establish statutory compliance. The driver also did not step into the witness box to prove his entitlement to drive a hazardous goods vehicle. Such omission on the part of respondent nos. 1 and 2 attracts an adverse inference against them.
(i) Accordingly, in view of the absence of hazardous-goods endorsement and non-compliance with Rule 9 of CMVR, 1989, the Insurance Company is directed to pay the awarded compensation to the claimants and shall thereafter be entitled to MACT No.263/2023 Saroj & Ors. Vs. Arjun Ray & Ors. (rpt) page 27 of 32 recover the same from respondent nos. 1 and 2.
(j). It is admitted that the insurance policy was valid and effective as on the date of accident. Keeping in view the statutory obligation of the Insurance Company to indemnify third-party victims and in the interest of justice, the Insurance Company is directed to pay the entire awarded compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of DAR till realisation. (If there is any order regarding excluding of interest for specific period same be complied at the time of calculation of award amount. Further, in case the matter adjourned sine die, interest for the period i.e. the date of concerned order till revival of the case, shall not be awarded. Further, if any auction proceeds is received, same be adjusted in the final award amount).
20. The award amount shall be deposited by the Insurance Company. Counsel for the Insurance Company is also directed to furnish the complete case details, including the MACT case number, CNR number, FIR number, name of Police Station, name of the deceased/claimant(s), date of accident, and any other relevant particulars, to the State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi at the time of getting the amount deposited. The amount shall be deposited through RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in the account titled "MACT FUND PARKING", Account No. 00000042706870765, IFSC Code SBIN0014244, MICR Code 110002342, under intimation to the Nazir of this Tribunal.
21. Release of Award Amount/ Disbursement
(a) Share of mother of deceased: Out of the total awarded amount, a sum of Rs. 20,21,558/- along with proportionate interest is awarded to the mother of the deceased. Out of the said amount, Rs. 17,00,000/- shall be kept in MACT No.263/2023 Saroj & Ors. Vs. Arjun Ray & Ors. (rpt) page 28 of 32 monthly FDRs of Rs. 15,000/- each. The remaining amount shall be released to her bank account.
(b) Share of father of deceased: Out of the total awarded amount, a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- along with proportionate interest is awarded to the father of the deceased. Out of the said amount, Rs. 5,00,000/- shall be kept in monthly FDRs of Rs. 10,000/- each. The remaining amount shall be released to his bank account.
22. In terms of the Practice Directions issued by Hon'ble High Court, vide reference no. 134/Rules/DHC, dated 14.05.2025, the claimant (s) are directed to produce their bank account details along with either a certificate of the banker giving all details of the bank account of the person or persons entitled to receive the compensation including IFS Code, or a copy of cancelled cheque of the bank account to this Tribunal with seven days of the date of Award, if not already placed on record. They are also directed to file their Aadhar Card and PAN Card if not already filed.
23 Directions to the Branch Manager, SBI, Saket Court Complex
(a) The Manager, SBI, Saket Court Complex, is further directed to verify the documents and details submitted by the claimant pertaining to their bank account, and upon proper verification, under certification of the Branch Manager (of the bank whose details have been provided by the claimant for release of the compensation amount) disburse the amount, directed to be released to the claimant, directly into the verified bank account of the claimant under notice to the Tribunal.
24. Directions with respect to Fixed Deposit:
(a) As per Practice Directions, Hon'ble High Court, vide reference no.
134/Rules/DHC, dated 14.05.2025, the bank shall invest the amount to be deposited in fixed deposit with any nationalised bank and fixed deposit shall be with the standing instructions to the bank to renew the same after MACT No.263/2023 Saroj & Ors. Vs. Arjun Ray & Ors. (rpt) page 29 of 32 periodical intervals till further orders are passed by the Tribunal.
(b) The Bank shall not permit any joint name (s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of victim i.e. the savings bank account of the claimant shall be individual savings bank account and not a joint account.
(c) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant.
(d) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(e) The maturity amounts of the FDR (s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(f) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(g) 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 freeze the account of the claimant so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant from any other branch of the bank.
(h) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant 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 shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
25. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1. Date of accident 02.03.2022
2. Name of deceased Late Sh. Mohit Singh
3. Age of the deceased 22 years
4. Occupation of the deceased Private Job
5. Income of the deceased As per minimum wages MACT No.263/2023 Saroj & Ors. Vs. Arjun Ray & Ors. (rpt) page 30 of 32
26. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:
1. Saroj (Mother son of deceased)
2. Babli Singh (Father of deceased)
3. Nancy (Sister of deceased)
4. Twinkle (Sister of deceased)
27. Computation of compensation:-
S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
1 A. Income of the deceased per year (As Rs.2,12,316/-
per Minimum Wages)
B. Add-Future Prospects 40% Rs.84,926/-
C. Total (A+B) Rs.2,97,242/-
D Deduction 1/2 Rs.1,48,621/-
E. Multiplicand (C-D) Rs.1,48,621/-
F. Multiplier 18
G. Total Loss of Dependency Rs.26,75,178/-
2 Compensation for loss of consortium Rs.1,06,480/-
3 Compensation for loss of estate Rs. 19,965/-
4 Compensation towards funeral expenses Rs. 19,965/-
5 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.28,21,588/-
6 O. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED: @ 7.5% per
annum
7 Award amount kept in FDRs 22,00,000/-
8 Award amount released Rs.6,21,588/-
9 Mode of disbursement of the award (a) Share of mother of
amount to the claimant (s). (Clause 29) deceased: Out of the total awarded amount, a sum of Rs.
MACT No.263/2023 Saroj & Ors. Vs. Arjun Ray & Ors. (rpt) page 31 of 32
20,21,558/- along with
proportionate interest is
awarded to the mother of the
deceased. Out of the said
amount, Rs. 17,00,000/- shall
be kept in monthly FDRs of
Rs. 15,000/- each. The
remaining amount shall be
released to her bank account.
(b) Share of father of
deceased: Out of the total
awarded amount, a sum of Rs.
8,00,000/- along with
proportionate interest is
awarded to the father of the
deceased. Out of the said
amount, Rs. 5,00,000/- shall
be kept in monthly FDRs of
Rs. 10,000/- each. The
remaining amount shall be
released to his bank account.
10 Next Date for reporting of compliance of 03.03.2026
the award (Clause 31)
28. Copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. The copy of award be sent to the Ld. Secretary DLSA and concerned criminal court. Digitally signed (Pronounced in the ADITI by ADITI GARG Date:
2026.02.03 open court on 03.02.2026) GARG (Aditi Garg) 16:46:35 +0530 PO-MACT-01 (South-East) Saket Court/ New Delhi 03.02.2026 MACT No.263/2023 Saroj & Ors. Vs. Arjun Ray & Ors. (rpt) page 32 of 32