Delhi District Court
Babita Devi (F)(Petition Out Side) vs Ramakant (New India Ins) on 22 September, 2025
DLCT010059752022
Presented on : 06-04-2022
Registered on : 07-04-2022
Decided on : 22-09-2025
Duration : 03 Years 05 Months
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER-MACT-02,
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI,
PRESIDED OVER BY DR. PANKAJ SHARMA
MACT No. 324/22
1. BABITA DEVI
W/o Late Sh. Kamlesh Singh
2. MONIKA SINGH
D/o Late Sh. Kamlesh Singh
3. KAUSHLYA DEVI
W/o Late Sh. Chhavinash Singh
All R/o H.No. C-42, Janak Puri,
Gali No. 1, Sahibabad Distt. Ghaziabad,
UP.
Also at:-
H.No. F-253, Garima Garden,
Gali No. 5, Shiv Mandir,
Pasonda, Sahibabad, Distt. Ghaziabad,
UP-201005.
Permanent Address:-
Village Kerka, Post Khadha,
PS Khera. N.T.P.C. Kerka Aurangabad,
Khadiha, Kekra, Bihar-824301. ....Petitioners
VERSUS
MACT No. 324/22 Babita Devi & Anr. Vs. Ramakant & Ors. Pages No. 1/26
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.09.22
16:08:04 +0530
1. RAMAKANT
S/o Sh. Patwari
R/o H.No.15/2, Hafizabad,
Mewla, T.P. Nagar, Distt. Meerut,
UP.(Driver).
2. GULSHAN RAJPAL
S/o Sh. Purshottam Dass Rajpal
R/o H.No. 33-C, LIG Flats,
Gulabi Bagh, Malka Ganj, Delhi-110007 (Owner).
3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
SC/1, 2nd Floor, Opp Liberty Cinema,
New Rohtak Road, New Delhi.(Insurer).
(Through Ld. Counsel Sh. Sanjay Kumar)
.....Respondents
The particulars as per Form-XVII, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) are as under:-
1. Date of the accident 15/09/21
2. Date of filing of Form-I - First Accident Report N.A. (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the victim(s) N.A.
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Driver N.A.
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Owner N.A.
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim Accident N.A. Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form-VIB N.A. from the Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - Detailed Accident N.A. Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on N.A. the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer N.A. by the Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance N.A. MACT No. 324/22 Babita Devi & Anr. Vs. Ramakant & Ors. Pages No. 2/26 Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on N.A. the part of the Designated officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the claimant(s) to the offer N.A. of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 22/09/25
15. Whether the claimant (s) was/were directed to Yes open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) was/were 05/08/25 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.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) produced the N.A. 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 the H.No. 573, Claimant(s). Patti Musalmanan Siana, Bulandshar, Uttar Pradesh-
245412.
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) N.A. is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) was/were examined at N.A. the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
MACT No. 324/22 Babita Devi & Anr. Vs. Ramakant & Ors. Pages No. 3/26 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.22 16:08:11 +0530 AWARD/JUDGMENT FACTUAL POSITION & PLEADINGS
1. This petition U/s 166 r/w Section 140 of M.V. Act was filed on 07/04/2022 seeking compensation in respect of the death of one Sh. Kamlesh Singh @ Babban Singh S/o Late Chhavinash Singh (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") due to a motor vehicular accident dated 15/09/2021. As per petition, on 15/09/2021 at about 01.00 A.M. (mid night), Sh. Kamlesh Singh @ Babban Singh (since deceased) was going to Deepak Auto Mobile Petrol Pump, Dilshad Garden, Delhi from his Office i.e. Ass Logistic Pvt Ltd., Bazwa Compound Gyani Border, Sahibabad, Distt. Ghaziabad, UP on his motorcycle bearing registration no. UP-14CX-7051 which was being driven by him at a normal speed and on correct side of the road and when he reached in front of Shanit Mandir, Seemapuria Border, Sahibabad, Distt. Ghaziabad, UP in the meanwhile a Truck bearing registration no. HR-73-6218 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") which was being driven by its driver/ R-1 at very high speed, rashly, negligently, without taking necessary precautions, without proper lookouts, violating the traffic rules and without blowing any horn came from back side and hit the motorcycle with a great force. It is further stated that as a result of this, he fell down on the road alongwith motorcycle and sustained grievous injury and he was immediately taken to District Hospital, Ghaziabad, UP where doctor declared hims as "brought dead" and his postmortem was conducted as mortuary District Hospital, Ghaziabad, UP vide PMR No. 1293/2021. As per petition, the deceased was 49 years old and was a Businessman as Transporter/ Owner of Trucks in addition to MACT No. 324/22 Babita Devi & Anr. Vs. Ramakant & Ors. Pages No. 4/26 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.22 16:08:15 +0530 Office Assistant with Ass Logistic Pvt.Ltd. and was earning Rs.70,000/- to Rs. 80,000/- per month. Petitioners being the wife, daughter and mother completely dependent upon the earning of the deceased and they seek compensation to the tune of Rs. 90 Lakhs in respect of the untimely death of deceased in the abovesaid accident. An FIR no. 1903/21 PS Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad UP u/s 279/304A IPC was registered in respect of the above accident. R-1 is the owner of the offending vehicle. R-2 is the driver of the offending vehicle and R-3 is the insurer of the same. Notice of this petition was issued to all the respondents.
2. A joint written statement was filed by R-1 & R-2 in which they declined the contents of the petition. However, they further averred that at the relevant time the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by R-3/ insurance company in favour of R-2 and therefore, the liability, if any, is to be discharged by R-3/ Insurance Company only.
3. R-3/Insurance Company filed a reply in which it denied the contents of petition. However, it is admitted by R-3/ Insurance Company that at the relevant time the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by itself in favour of R-2.
ISSUES
4. Vide order dated 18/04/2024, the following issues were framed by this Tribunal :-
1. Whether the deceased Sh. Kamlesh Singh @ Babban Singh suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place MACT No. 324/22 Babita Devi & Anr. Vs. Ramakant & Ors. Pages No. 5/26 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.22 16:08:38 +0530 on 15.09.2021 at about 01:00 AM involving vehicle bearing registration No. HR-73-6218 (Truck) driven by the Respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No. 2 and insured with the respondent no. 3? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3.Relief.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
5. In support of their contentions, the petitioners examined Petitioner no. 1 Smt. Babita Devi, wife of the deceased, as PW-1. PW-1, vide her affidavit Ex. PW-1/A, deposed that the deceased was her husband who lost his life on 15/09/2021 due to an accident dated 15/09/2021 involving the offending vehicle. She further deposed that the accident took place due to the rashness and negligence of R-1. She further deposed that the deceased was the deceased was 49 years old and was a Businessman as Transporter/ Owner of Trucks in addition to Office Assistant with Ass Logistic Pvt. Ltd. and was earning Rs.70,000/- to Rs. 80,000/- per month and that the petitioners, being the wife, daughter and father of the deceased, were completely dependent on the earnings of the deceased. She relied upon following documents :-
" Copy of death certificate of deceased is Ex. PW-1/1; Copy of PAN Card of deceased is Ex. PW-1/2(OSR); Copy of Aadhaar Card of deceased is Ex. PW-1/3(OSR); Copy of my PAN Card is Ex. PW-1/4(OSR); Copy of Aadhaar Card of PW-1 is Ex. PW-1/5(OSR);
MACT No. 324/22 Babita Devi & Anr. Vs. Ramakant & Ors. Pages No. 6/26
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.09.22
16:08:42 +0530
Copy of PAN Card of petitioner no. 2 Monika Singh is Ex. PW-1/6(OSR);
Copy of Aadhaar Card of petitioner no. 2 Monika Singh is Ex. PW-1/7(OSR);
Copy of PAN Card of petitioner no. 3 Kaushlya Devi is Ex. PW-1/8(OSR);
Copy of Aadhaar Card of petitioner no. 3 Kaushlya Devi is Ex. PW-1/9(OSR);
Certified copy of criminal case is Ex. PW-1/10(colly)''. 5.1 PW-1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3/Insurance Company. In her cross-examination she deposed that she has not witnessed the accident. She further deposed that on 15.09.2021 at about 01.00 AM, somebody informed her over the telephone regarding the accident of her deceased husband. She further deposed that she has not placed any proof regarding the income of her husband. She denied the suggestion that no accident was caused by driver of vehicle no. HR-73-6218. She further denied the suggestion that her deceased husband was solely rash and negligent and he himself has caused the accident or that she has falsely implicated the respondent no. 1 only to get the compensation from the Insurance Company.
5.2 Petitioners further examined one Sh. Binay Shankar Pandey, Vehicle Maintenance Incharge, at Aash Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Office at D-62, Sector-10, Noida-201301(U.P.) as PW-2. PW-2 deposed that he is a summoned witness. He further deposed that he has been authorized by Sh. Ishwar Giri, Director of aforesaid company vide authority letter Ex. PW-2/1 to depose before this Tribunal. He relied upon the documents i.e. MACT No. 324/22 Babita Devi & Anr. Vs. Ramakant & Ors. Pages No. 7/26 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.22 16:08:46 +0530 Appointment letter, salary slips, joining letter, Aadhaar Card, Voter I-Card, PAN Card, payment schedule and attendance sheets of deceased Kamlesh vide Ex. PW-2/2 (colly). He further deposed that at the time of joining, he was working as a Booking Clerk and was getting salary of around Rs.15,000/- per month and at the time of accident, he was working as Booking Clerk and was getting salary of Rs.22,000/- per month. He further deposed that he was a permanent employee and his salary was transferred to his bank account. He further deposed that two vehicles were attached with their company bearing registration no. UP-14JT-0915 and UK-08CA-6951 and Company used to pay on average monthly basis of Rs.40 thousand. He further deposed that both the vehicles have been sold.
5.3 PW-2 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R-3/Insurance Company. In his cross-examination he deposee that Aash Logistics Pvt. Ltd. is a registered company. He further deposed that as per their company norm, after three months of joining, the employee is deemed to be permanent. He further deposed that the deceased employee used to receive a salary of Rs.22,000/- per month inclusive of Rs.3,000/- towards conveyance allowance and Rs.2,000/- towards other allowance. He denied the suggestion that he has not been duly authorised by the company to depose before this Tribunal. He further denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely to favour the petitioner.
5.4 Petitioners further examined Statement of Sh. Abhishek Kumar Panday, Manager(Operation), Kotak Mahindra Bank, Noida, Sector-18, G.B. Nagar, U.P as PW-3. He proved the MACT No. 324/22 Babita Devi & Anr. Vs. Ramakant & Ors. Pages No. 8/26 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA 16:08:50 +0530 Date: 2025.09.22 relevant record i.e. statement of the bank account no. 2413259587 in the name of Kamlesh Singh for the period 01.04.2021 to 21.03.2022 vide Ex. PW-3/1(colly).
5.4 PW-3 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company. In his cross-examination he deposed that he is dealing with the operation of Accounts lying with their bank. He further deposed that he does not have personal knowledge of the entries debited and credited in the aforesaid account.
5.5 Petitioners further examined SI Krishan Kumar Sharma, PNO NO. 152291716, presently posted at : Suraj Pur Police Office, Gautam Budh Nagar as PW-4. PW-4 deposed that he is the IO of case FIR No. 1903/2021, PS Sahibabad.He relied upon the the certified copy of the chargesheet of the said FIR which is exhibited as Ex.PW-4/1 (colly). He further deposed that the chargesheet was filed against Ramakant i.e. driver of the offending vehicle.
5.6 PW-4 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company. In his cross-examination he deposed that he got information about the accident at about 01.00 AM in the night of 15.09.2021. He further deposed that he got immediate information as the spot was a busy place and police presence was always there and he was informed by the picket staff about the accident as he was on night patrolling duty. He further deposed that the driver of the offending vehicle fled from the spot and he was apprehended later. He further deposed that the pickets staff did not witness the accident but after the accident, they MACT No. 324/22 Babita Devi & Anr. Vs. Ramakant & Ors. Pages No. 9/26 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.22 16:08:54 +0530 immediately reached the spot and informed him. He further deposed that the accident was witnesses by many passerby and he tried his best to record statement of passerby, however, none obliged him. He further deposed that he does not remember the exact time when he reached at the spot, however, he removed the body of the deceased from the spot which came under the wheels of the offending truck. He denied the suggestion that the offending vehicle has been wrongly implicated in the present case at the instance of the family of the deceased. He further deposed that the driver and owner of the offending vehicle came to police station after obtaining bail from the concerned CJM for release of the offending vehicle. He further denied the suggestion that since no eye witness was found, the truck was falsely implicated.
5.7 Petitioner's evidence was then closed.
6. Respondents did not lead any evidence in their defence.
FINDINGS
7. Oral submissions were advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties.
8. I have perused the record and my issue wise findings are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 1"Whether the deceased Sh. Kamlesh Singh @ Babban Singh suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place MACT No. 324/22 Babita Devi & Anr. Vs. Ramakant & Ors. Pages No. 10/26 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.22 16:09:00 +0530 on 15.09.2021 at about 01:00 AM involving vehicle bearing registration No. HR-73-6218 (Truck) driven by the Respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No. 2 and insured with the respondent no. 3? OPP.''
9. 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 by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
10. In order to prove the present issue, the petitioners have examined PW-1, Smt. Babita Devi, wife of the deceased. PW-1 deposed during the course of present enquiry that the at the relevant date, time and place, Sh. Kamlesh Singh @ Babban Singh (since deceased) was going to Deepak Auto Mobile Petrol Pump, Dilshad Garden, Delhi from his Office i.e. Ass Logistic MACT No. 324/22 Babita Devi & Anr. Vs. Ramakant & Ors. Pages No. 11/26 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.22 16:09:08 +0530 Pvt Ltd., Bazwa Compound Gyani Border, Sahibabad, Distt. Ghaziabad, UP on his motorcycle bearing registration no. UP-14CX-7051 which was being driven by him at a normal speed and on correct side of the road and when he reached in front of Shanit Mandir, Seemapuria Border, Sahibabad, Distt. Ghaziabad, UP in the meanwhile a Truck bearing registration no. HR-73-6218 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") which was being driven by its driver/ R-1 at very high speed, rashly, negligently, without taking necessary precautions, without proper lookouts, violating the traffic rules and without blowing any horn came from back side and hit the motorcycle with a great force. It is further stated that as a result of this, he fell down on the road alongwith motorcycle and sustained grievous injury and he was immediately taken to District Hospital, Ghaziabad, UP where doctor declared hims as "brought dead" and his postmortem was conducted as mortuary District Hospital, Ghaziabad, UP vide PMR No. 1293/2021. As per petition, the deceased was 49 years old and was a Businessman as Transporter/ Owner of Trucks in addition to Office Assistant with Ass Logistic Pvt.Ltd. and was earning Rs.70,000/- to Rs. 80,000/- per month. Petitioners being the wife, daughter and mother completely dependent upon the earning of the deceased and they seek compensation to the tune of Rs. 90 Lakhs in respect of the untimely death of deceased in the abovesaid accident. She was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company but nothing favourable came to the respondents. In totality, the testimony of PW-1 seems reliable and worth acting upon. Since, PW-1 has categorically stated that the deceased Sh. Kamlesh Singh @ Babban Singh died as driver of MACT No. 324/22 Babita Devi & Anr. Vs. Ramakant & Ors. Pages No. 12/26 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.22 16:09:16 +0530 the offending vehicle hit the deceased due to his rash and negligent driving.
11. It is not denied that R-1 was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279/304A IPC in the above FIR, which in itself is a strong circumstance to support the above oral testimony of PW-1 and the case of petitioners on this issue. The certified copies of FIR, charge-sheet, FIR, site plan, Mechanical Inspection Report of the both vehicles, Postmortem Report of deceased and the copy of complete case diary also corroborate the testimony of PW-1.
12. In view of the above, it could be safely assumed that at the relevant time the deceased had died due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle being driven by R-1.
13. Having ruled so, this Tribunal now proceeds to assess the wrongful act, neglect or default of R-1, if any, in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Admittedly, R-1 has not explained the circumstances under which the accident took place due to his rash and negligent driving. In the absence of any evidence regarding any mechanical defect in the offending vehicle or any material depicting any negligent/sudden act or omission on the part of the deceased, the only inference possible in the given facts and circumstances is that of neglect and default on the part of R-1 while driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is constrained to hold R-1 guilty of gross neglect and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time.
14. In view of the postmortem report pertaining to the MACT No. 324/22 Babita Devi & Anr. Vs. Ramakant & Ors. Pages No. 13/26 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA 16:09:22 +0530 Date: 2025.09.22 deceased placed on record by the petitioners, no dispute is left regarding the death of the deceased on account of injuries sustained by him in the above accident.
15. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal holds that the deceased lost his life on account of neglect and default of R-1 while driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. This issue thus stands decided against the respondents and in favour of the petitioners.
ISSUE NO. 2"Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?"
16. As this Tribunal has already held that R1 was responsible for the death of the deceased due to his neglect and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time, therefore, the petitioners have become entitled to be compensated for death of deceased in the above accident, but computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided.
COMPENSATION
17. The compensation to which the petitioners are entitled shall be under the following heads:-
(i) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
18. In this regard, the petitioners have examined Petitioner No. 1 who was the wife of deceased as PW-1. PW-1 deposed that at the relevant time, the deceased was 49 years MACT No. 324/22 Babita Devi & Anr. Vs. Ramakant & Ors. Pages No. 14/26 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.22 16:09:27 +0530 old and was a Businessman as Transporter/ Owner of Trucks in addition working as Office Assistant with Ass Logistic Pvt. Ltd. and was earning Rs.70,000/- to Rs. 80,000/- per month.
18.1 On behalf of petitioners it was pleaded that the deceased was running a Transport Business alongwith his job and the same may be considered his additional income. It was argued that he had contracted three vehicles with the company and was getting monthly amount from the company which was utilized by the deceased to pay the EMIs of the said vehicles and the payments of the EMIs be considered at his additional income. However, the said plea was opposed on behalf fo R-3/ Insurance Company submitting that the same cannot be considered as income as there is not document on record to prove the same in form of ITRs or otherwise. It is submitted that payment of EMIs towards loan is not an income.
18.2 Having heard contention of both sides, this Tribunal is of the view that mere paying the EMIs from the contracted amount received monthly for the commercial vehicles cannot be considered as income. The income has to be an amount which is left after all the expenditures have been deducted from the contracted amount and there is no evidence on record which could indicate the amount which can be considered as income from the monthly contracted amount of the commercial vehicles. Therefore, the plea of the petitioners for considering the EMIs payment amount made towards loan of vehicles as income is hereby declined. Further, the judgments relied upon by the petitioners are distinguishable from the point in consideration before this Tribunal.
MACT No. 324/22 Babita Devi & Anr. Vs. Ramakant & Ors. Pages No. 15/26 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2025.09.22 16:09:31 +0530 18.3 The petitioners have examined one Sh. Binay Shankar Pandey, Vehicle Maintenance Incharge at Aash Logistics Pvt Ltd as PW-2. He proved the appointment letter, salary slips, joining letter, Aadhar Card, Voter I-Card, PAN Card, payment schedule and attendance sheets of the deceased Kamlesh vide Ex. PW-2/2 (Colly).As per salary slip of the deceased for the month of July, 2021 (Ex. PW-2/2 (Colly) his Gross Pay is Rs.22,000/-. Accordingly, after deduction of conveyance allowance his net income comes to Rs. 19,000/-
(Rs. 22,000/- Less Rs. 3,000/- [conveyance allowances] ) and same is considered for the purpose of quantification of compensation amount.
19. Petitioners have claimed that the deceased was aged about 49 years at the time of his death. They have also placed on record a copy of Aadhar Card of deceased Ex-PW-1/3 as per which the date of birth of deceased was 15/12/1972. The date of accident is 15/09/2021. Going by the said documents of the deceased, the age of deceased would be around 48 years as on the date of accident. Hence, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, decided on 31.10.2017, the multiplier of '13' is held applicable for calculating the loss of dependency caused to the petitioners on account of death of the deceased.
20. Coming to the dependency of deceased at the time of MACT No. 324/22 Babita Devi & Anr. Vs. Ramakant & Ors. Pages No. 16/26 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.22 16:09:35 +0530 accident, it may be observed that the deceased is survived by his wife, daughter and mother who are considered to be dependent upon the deceased.
21. Irrespective of this, one third of the earnings of deceased shall be deducted towards his personal and living expenses in view of the law already discussed above. Further, since this Tribunal has assumed that the age of deceased was 35 years at the time of accident., in view of the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), the petitioners are also held entitled to an addition of 30% of the above amount of his earnings towards future prospects.
22. Thus, the loss of dependency qua the deceased in the present case comes to Rs.25,68,800/- (rounded off) (Rs.19,000/- X 130/100 X 2/3 X 12 X 13). This amount is awarded to the petitioners under this head.
(ii) COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY HEADS
23. In terms of propositions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajwati @ Rajjo & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 8179/2022 decided on 09/12/2022, the petitioners are also held entitled to amounts of Rs. 20,000/- each under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses. Further, in view of subsequent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd Vs Satinder Kaur & Ors MANU/HC/0500/2020 and The New India Assurance Company Ltd & Ors Vs Somwati & Ors MANU/HC/0674/2020, the petitioners are also entitled to compensation under the head MACT No. 324/22 Babita Devi & Anr. Vs. Ramakant & Ors. Pages No. 17/26 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA 16:09:39 Date: 2025.09.22 +0530 "loss of consortium": -
Spousal Consortium : Rs. 48,000/- (Rs. 48,000/- x 1) Parental Consortium : Rs. 48,000 /- (Rs. 48,000/- x 1) Filial Consortium : Rs. 48,000/- (Rs. 48,000/- x 1)
24. Hence, the petitioners are awarded a total sum of Rs.1,84,000/- (Rs.20,000/- + 20,000/- + Rs. 1,44,000/-) under this head.
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
25. The petitioners are thus awarded a sum of Rs.27,52,800/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Eight Hundred Only) (Rs.25,68,800/- + Rs.1,84,000/-) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 07/04/2022. Since no interim compensation has been awarded, therefore no deduction is applicable.
RELEASE
26. Petitioners did not bother to appear before this Tribunal for recording their statements regarding financial needs and requirements.
26.1 Out of the awarded amount, Petitioner No. 1 is awarded a sum of Rs.26,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Only) and the said amount is directed to be kept with State Bank of India, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in MACAD in the form of 130 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 130 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Central Motor Vehicles (fifth MACT No. 324/22 Babita Devi & Anr. Vs. Ramakant & Ors. Pages No. 18/26 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.22 16:09:43 +0530 Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 35, 36 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her savings/MACT Claims SB Account as and when she furnishes the details of her bank account which is near the place of her residence to the Bank Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi under intimation to the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal. The remaining amount of Rs.2,79,428/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Eight Only) is also directed to be released into her above said account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the Petitioner No. 1.
26.2 Out of the awarded amount, Petitioners No. 2 & 3 are awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- each (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) and the said amount is directed to be kept with State Bank of India, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in MACAD in the form of 15 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 15 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 35, 36 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in their savings/MACT Claims SB Account as and when they furnish the details of their bank account whichs is near the place of their residence to the Bank Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi under intimation to the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal. The remaining amount of Rs.59,929/- each (Rupees Fifty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty Nine MACT No. 324/22 Babita Devi & Anr. Vs. Ramakant & Ors. Pages No. 19/26 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.22 16:09:47 +0530 Only) is also directed to be released into their above said accounts, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the Petitioner No. 2 & 3 respectively.
27. The Bank(s) shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the petitioner(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the petitioner(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s). The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the SBI, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by the bank to the petitioner(s). The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credit by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the petitioner(s) near the place of their residence. No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of this Tribunal.
LIABILITY
28. So far as the plea on behalf of R-3/ Insurance Company that 50% of the compensation amount may be deducted owning to contributory negligence, the said plea is vague and baseless and same stands declined.
28.1 As already stated above, R-1 being the driver and principal tortfeasor and R-2 being owner of the offending vehicle, and also being vicariously liable for the acts of R-1, are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of MACT No. 324/22 Babita Devi & Anr. Vs. Ramakant & Ors. Pages No. 20/26 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.22 16:09:52 +0530 compensation to petitioner. However, since the offending vehicle was insured with R-3 at the time of accident, therefore, R-3/ Insurance Company is liable to indemnify R-2 in respect of above liability. As such R-3 is directed to deposit the above award amount within 30 days from the date of this Award by way of NEFT or RTGS mode in the account of this Tribunal maintained with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (account holder's name-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 02 Central, A/C No. 40743576901, IFSC Code SBIN0000726) under intimation to the petitioners and this Tribunal in terms of the format for remittance of compensation as provided in Divisional Manager Vs. Rajesh, 2016 SCC Online Mad. 1913 (and reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the orders dated 16.03.2021 and 16.11.2021 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors) along with interest @ 9% per annum till the deposit of the compensation as awarded, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
29. A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of MACT No. 324/22 Babita Devi & Anr. Vs. Ramakant & Ors. Pages No. 21/26 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.22 16:09:56 +0530 Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
30. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
31. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 25.10.2025. PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.22 16:10:01 +0530 Announced in the open court (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA) On this 22.09.2025 Judge, MACT-02 (CENTRAL) Delhi/22/09/2025 MACT No. 324/22 Babita Devi & Anr. Vs. Ramakant & Ors. Pages No. 22/26 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.22 16:10:09 +0530 FORM - XV, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident. : 15/09/2021
2. Name of the deceased : Sh. Kamlesh Singh @ Babban Singh
3. Age of the deceased : 48 years
4. Occupation of the deceased : Transporter & Office Assistant
5. Income of the deceased : Assessed on the basis of Pay Slip of the deceased at the relevant time
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:-
MACT No. 324/22 Babita Devi & Anr. Vs. Ramakant & Ors. Pages No. 23/26 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.22 16:10:15 +0530 S. No. Name Age Relation (1) Babita Devi 46 Years Wife of the deceased (2) Monika Singh 26 Years Daughter of the deceased (3) Kaushlya Devi 71 Years Mother of the deceased Computation of Compensation Sr. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
7. Monthly Income of the Rs.19,000/-
deceased(A)
8. Add-Future Prospects 30% (B)
9. Less-Personal expenses 1/3rd deduction has been of the deceased(C) done
10. Monthly loss of Rs.16,467.67/-
dependency[(A+B)-
C=D] MACT No. 324/22 Babita Devi & Anr. Vs. Ramakant & Ors. Pages No. 24/26 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.22 16:10:19 +0530
11. Annual loss of Rs.197,600/- (rounded dependency (Dx12) off)
12. Multiplier(E) '13'
13. Total loss of dependency Rs.25,98,800/-
(Dx12xE= F)
14. Medical Expenses(G) NIL
15. Compensation for loss of Rs.1,44,000/-
consortium(H)
16. Compensation for loss of NIL love and affection (I)
17. Compensation for loss of Rs. 20,000/-
estate(J)
18. Compensation towards Rs. 20,000/-
funeral expenses(K)
19.
TOTAL Rs.27,52,800/-
COMPENSATION(F+G
+H+I+J+K=L)
20.
RATE OF INTEREST 9%
AWARDED
MACT No. 324/22 Babita Devi & Anr. Vs. Ramakant & Ors. Pages No. 25/26
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.09.22
16:10:23 +0530
21.
Interest amount up to the Rs.8,46,486/- (rounded date of award(M) off)
22. Total amount including Rs.35,99,286/- interest(L + M) P-1 : Rs.2,79,428/-
23. Award amount released P-2 : Rs.59,929/-
P-3 : Rs.59,929
24.
Award amount kept in As per award
FDRs
25.
Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award the award amount to the petitioner (s) 26 .
Next date for compliance 25/10/2025 of the award CONCLUSION:-
1. As per award dated 22.09.2025.
2. A separate file was ordered to be prepared by the Nazir with directions to put up the same on 25.10.2025.Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.22 16:10:29 +0530 (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA) PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL) DELHI/22.09.2025 MACT No. 324/22 Babita Devi & Anr. Vs. Ramakant & Ors. Pages No. 26/26 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.22 16:10:34 +0530