Delhi District Court
Dallo Devi vs Krishan Kumar on 30 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN GUPTA,
PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-02, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
MACT No. 522/2018
DLWT010063862018
Smt. Dallo Devi (since deceased)
Through her LRs:
1(a). Sh. Moti Lal (husband of deceased)
1(b). Sh. Padam Kumar (son of deceased)
1(c). Sh. Kadam Singh (son of deceased)
All R/o B-592, J.J. Colony,
Camp no. 2, Nangloi, Delhi-110041
1(d). Smt. Hemlata (daughter of deceased)
W/o Sh. Sohan Lal
R/o FF-77, Maliyo ki Dhani
near Kishan Bagh, Naya Khera
Jaipur, Amba Bari, Jaipur
Rajasthan 302039
1(e). Smt. Shanti (daughter of deceased)
R/o B-592, Block B,
J.J. Colony, Camp no.2, Nangloi
Delhi-110041 .....Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Krishan Kumar
S/o Sh. Umesh Chand Pathak
R/o 48/16, Bhram Puri Colony,
Ranhola, New Delhi Digitally signed
SACHIN by SACHIN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.10.30
15:36:29 +0530
MACT No. 522/2018 Date of Award: 30.10.2025
Dallo Devi through LRs Vs. Krishan Kumar & Ors. Page No. 1 of 29
2. Sh. Bharat Pathak
S/o Sh. Umesh Chand Pathak
R/o 48/16, Bhram Puri Colony,
Ranhola, New Delhi.
3. M/s Great Value Foods
R-11, Nehru Enclave,
Kalkaji, New Delhi
4. National Insurance Company Limited
Division XVIII, First Floor,
Sector 13, Ring Road, R.K. Puram,
Delhi 110066. .....Respondents
Date of Institution : 16.07.2018
Date of reserving order/judgment : 15.10.2025
Date of pronouncement : 30.10.2025
AWAR D
1. Proceedings in the present case arises from filing of DAR by the investigating officer in FIR No. 140/2018 PS Ranhola regarding the accident in question. As per the DAR, documents annexed therewith as well as other material available on record, on 18.02.2018 at about 2:50 PM in front of Hemant Kiryana Store, Nangloi-Najafgarh Road, Delhi, a vehicle i.e. Skoda car bearing registration no. DL3CAJ4177 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle'), which was being driven by respondent no. 1 Krishan Kumar in fast speed and in rash and negligent manner, hit against the pedestrian/petitioner and due to the forceful impact of hitting, she fell down on the road and sustained injuries. It is further stated that driver of the offending vehicle took the petitioner / injured to Rathi Hospital, Delhi in Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.30 15:36:38 +0530 MACT No. 522/2018 Date of Award: 30.10.2025 Dallo Devi through LRs Vs. Krishan Kumar & Ors. Page No. 2 of 29 the offending vehicle, wherein she was medically examined vide MLC no. 152/2018 dated 18.02.2018. It is further stated that petitioner remained hospitalized from 18.02.2018 to 24.02.2018; that thereafter, she was again hospitalized several times i.e. from 05.03.2018 to 08.03.2018; from 24.04.2018 to 25.04.2018; from 23.05.2018 to 01.06.2018 and 18.07.2018 to 27.07.2018 and after about 05 months, she succumbed to her injuries on 30.07.2018. It is pertinent to mention here that after filing of the DAR, petitioner Smt. Dallo Devi has died on 30.07.2018 and an application U/o XXII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC to bring LRs of deceased petitioner on record was allowed vide order dated 10.10.2018 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal.
2. IO filed the DAR giving details of respondent No. 1 being the driver of the offending vehicle; respondent no.2 being the possessory owner of the offending vehicle; respondent no.3 being the registered owner of the offending vehicle and respondent no. 4 being the insurer of the offending vehicle. DAR was also accompanied by other relevant documents including final report U/s 173 Cr.PC; MLC of petitioner; Mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle; Seizure memo of the offending vehicle and its documents; Site plan; Extracts of Driving License of respondent no.1; Notice U/s 133 M.V. Act; Arrest memo of the driver (respondent no. 1); Statement of witnesses U/s 161 Cr.PC etc.
3. In their written statement filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 and 2, it is stated inter alia that the respondent no.1 was plying the vehicle for more than 06 years, who habitually obeyed the traffic rules and regulations and was having a valid driving license issued by Zonal Office, South Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.30 15:36:47 +0530 MACT No. 522/2018 Date of Award: 30.10.2025 Dallo Devi through LRs Vs. Krishan Kumar & Ors. Page No. 3 of 29 West, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi to drive MCWG and LMV which was valid upto 02.05.2032; that the vehicle bearing registration no. DL3CAJ4177 was duly insured vide insurance policy valid for the period from 04.01.2018 to 03.01.2019; that the vehicle of the respondents was not involved in road traffic accident; that no accident was caused by the respondent no.1 and the vehicle of the respondent no.2 has been falsely implicated by the police and present case is liable to be dismissed.
4. In its written reply/offer filed on behalf of the respondent no.3/insurance company, it is stated inter alia that the vehicle bearing registration no. DL3CAJ4177 was duly insured with National Insurance Company Limited at the time of alleged accident vide policy valid for period from 04.01.2018 to 03.01.2019, however, the liability of the insurance company is subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The insurance company gave a settlement offer for payment of compensation amount of Rs.74,000/- plus medical bills for grievous injuries. However, the same was not accepted by the petitioners.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal on 10.10.2018:-
1. Whether the petitioner Dallo Devi (expired during the pendency of the claim proceedings) suffered injuries in a vehicular accident that took place on 18.02.2018 at about 02:50 pm in front of Hemant Store, Nangloi Najafgarh Road, Chanchal Park, Delhi involving a car bearing registration no. DL3CAJ 4177, driven by respondent no.1 Krishan Kumar in a rash and negligent Digitally signed manner owned by respondent no.2 by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.30 15:36:57 +0530 MACT No. 522/2018 Date of Award: 30.10.2025 Dallo Devi through LRs Vs. Krishan Kumar & Ors. Page No. 4 of 29 Bharat Pathak and registered in the name of R-3 M/s Great Value Food Co.
and insured with respondent no.4 National Insurance Company Limited? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
6. In order to prove their case, petitioners/LRs of the deceased examined four witnesses. PW-1 is Sh. Moti Lal (husband of the deceased Smt. Dallo Devi), who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A; PW2 is Dr. Vikas Shama, Consultant Physician, Rathi Hospital, Delhi; PW3 is Sh. Hemant Singh and PW4 SI Arun Kumar is IO of the case.
7. In respondent evidence, one witness viz. R3W1 Dr. Vinod Gandotra, On Panel of Insurance Company was examined on behalf of insurance company/respondent no.3.
8. I have heard arguments and also gone through the record carefully and my issue wise findings are as under : ISSUE No.1
9. It is settled proposition of law that an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non. However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition based upon negligence. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. Reference may be made to the judgments titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sakshi Bhutani & Others., MAC Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.30 15:37:06 +0530 MACT No. 522/2018 Date of Award: 30.10.2025 Dallo Devi through LRs Vs. Krishan Kumar & Ors. Page No. 5 of 29 APP. No. 550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012, Bimla Devi & Others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Others (2009) 13 SC 530, Parmeshwari v. Amirchand & Others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 & Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Others 2018, Law Suit (SC) 303.
10. The onus to prove this issue was placed on the petitioners. PW-1 Moti Lal tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the documents i.e. (i) Photocopy of his Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/1 (OSR); (ii) Photocopy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no.2/Padam Kumar Mark A; (iii) Photocopy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no.3/Kadam Singh Mark B; (iv) Photocopy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no.4/Hemlata Mark C;
(v) Photocopy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no.5/Shanti Mark D;
(vi) Photocopy of Aadhar Card of his deceased wife Dallo Devi Mark E; (vii) Copy of death certificate of his wife Dallo Devi Mark F; (viii) Original discharge summaries of his wife (deceased) Ex.PW1/2 (Colly); (ix) Original OPD Card Ex.PW1/3 (Colly); (x) Original medical bills Ex.PW1/4 (colly); (xi) Medical bill summary Mark G and (xii) DAR filed by IO Ex.PW1/5 (Colly).
11. In his cross examination done by the Ld. Counsel for the insurance company, PW1 states that he was not an eye witness to the accident. PW1 admitted that his deceased wife was LAMA as per discharge summary of Rathi Hospital dated 27.07.2018 and his wife died at home and no postmortem of his deceased wife was ever conducted. He denied to the suggestion that his wife did not die due to the accident or that she died due to her own negligence and carelessness.
12. The petitioner also examined Dr. Vikas Sharma, Digitally signed SACHIN by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.10.30 15:37:16 +0530 MACT No. 522/2018 Date of Award: 30.10.2025 Dallo Devi through LRs Vs. Krishan Kumar & Ors. Page No. 6 of 29 Consultant Physician, Rathi Hospital, Najafgarh Road, Delhi as PW2, who deposed that he had seen the treatment record i.e. discharge summary and OPD Cards in respect of Dallo Devi; that he had seen the MLC which was prepared at their hospital. He admitted that the injuries sustained by Dallo Devi/injured (since deceased) was due to the road traffic accident. He further deposed that he was one of the treating doctor at the time of admission of Dallo Devi at their hospital; that as per discharge summaries of their hospital, patient Dallo Devi was admitted in their hospital five times i.e. from 18.02.2018 to 24.02.2018; 05.03.2018 to 08.03.2018; 24.04.2018 to 25.04.2018; 23.05.2018 to 01.06.2018 and 18.07.2018 to 27.07.2018. He further deposed that as per OPD cards, Dallo Devi visited the OPD of their hospital from 05.02.2018 to 23.05.2018; that as per treatment record, patient was type II diabetes with polytraunma with fracture left humurous with distal right radius with acute on chronic kidney disease with urosepsis with metobolic acidosis with septic shock; that all sequence of complications occurred due to RTA and the cause of death of patient was due to complications occurred on account of RTA. In his cross examination done by the Ld. Counsel for the Insurance Company, he stated inter alia that as per MLC, patient Dallo Devi sustained grievous injuries i.e. fracture left humurous with distal right radius; that no postmortem of Dallo Devi was conducted in their hospital; that the patient left hospital without medical advise i.e. LAMA on 27.07.20018; that as the patient was on dialysis, so her attendant had taken her to her house as her chances of survival were very less. He denied the suggestion that the patient Dallo Devi had not died due to the injuries sustained by her in Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2025.10.30 15:37:32 +0530 MACT No. 522/2018 Date of Award: 30.10.2025 Dallo Devi through LRs Vs. Krishan Kumar & Ors. Page No. 7 of 29 RTA or that patient Dallo Devi died due to her prolonged diabetes and hypertension. He further stated that the diabetes of Dallo Devi was under control at the time of treatment.
13. PW-3 Sh. Hemant Singh has deposed inter alia that on the date of accident, he was on his shop 9/1, Brahm Puri Ranhola; that he did not know anything about the accident as he had not seen the same and police never recorded his statement. Ld. Counsel for petitioner cross examined this witness on the ground that he was resiling from his previous statement given to the police. In his cross examination, done by Ld. Counsel for petitioner, he admitted that on 18.02.2018, he was present in his shop. He deposed that he was told by some person that some accident had occurred in front of his shop on that day. He denied the suggestion that the accident occurred in front of his shop or that he had witnessed the accident in question. He admitted that the police made enquiries from him about the accident. He further stated that the accident occurred at a distance of after 7-8 shops from his shop.
14. PW4 SI Arun Kumar, who is the Investigating Officer, has inter alia deposed that on 18.02.2018, an information vide DD No. 33A with respect to the Road Traffic Accident was received from Rathi Hospital vide MLC no.152/2018 at PS Ranhola and the said DD number was marked to him for investigation; that after receiving the said DD number, he reached at Rathi Hospital and inquired about the alleged accident, where he met one injured Dallo Devi admitted in the said hospital who was unconscious and under treatment; that doctor concerned told him that the injured was unfit for giving statement with respect to the alleged accident and the said call Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.30 15:37:43 +0530 MACT No. 522/2018 Date of Award: 30.10.2025 Dallo Devi through LRs Vs. Krishan Kumar & Ors. Page No. 8 of 29 was kept pending for further investigation. He further deposed that on 19.02.2018, he recorded the statement of injured / petitioner in the said hospital; who disclosed in her statement that she met with an accident in the road traffic accident due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle; that the injured/deceased also disclosed the number of offending vehicle which was mentioned in her statement; that after recording the statement, he reached at the place of accident and inquired about the alleged accident and prepared a rukka, which was sent through Const. Surender to the police station for registration of FIR; that after registration of the FIR, during investigation, he prepared the site plan and seized the offending vehicle. He further deposed that thereafter, he arrested the driver of the offending vehicle under the relevant section and released him on police bail from PS; that he issued the notice u/s 133 M. V. Act to the registered owner of the offending vehicle; that he recorded the statement of the injured / petitioner in the presence of her husband and below the recorded statement, the injured gave her thumb impression and also got signature of her husband. He further deposed that he also recorded the disclosure statement of the driver of the offending vehicle, copy of which was filed by him alongwith DAR and the same is exhibited as ExPW4/1. He further deposed that during the course of investigation, he recorded the statement of eye witness namely Hemant Kumar u/s 161 Cr.P.C., copy of which was filed by him alongwith DAR and the same is exhibited as Ex.PW4/2 and after concluding investigation, he filed the chargesheet against the accused namely Krishan Kumar before the Concerned Court of Ld. MM Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2025.10.30 15:37:53 +0530 MACT No. 522/2018 Date of Award: 30.10.2025 Dallo Devi through LRs Vs. Krishan Kumar & Ors. Page No. 9 of 29 and also filed the DAR pertaining to the accident in question before this Tribunal.
15. In his cross examination done by the Ld. Counsel for the Insurance Company, he admitted that he had received call from Rathi hospital regarding accident; that he was not present where the accident took place and that he was not the eye- witness of the accident. In his cross examination done by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2, he denied to the suggestion that no accident was caused by respondent no.1 Krishan Kumar or that he did not record statement of any eye witness during the course of investigation or that respondent no.1 has been falsely implicated in the present matter.
16. The insurance company has examined Dr. Vinod Gandotra, on panel of insurance company as R3W1. He deposed that he had received complete file pertaining to Mrs. Dallo Devi including MLC dated 18.02.2018 which is part of present DAR exhibited collectively as Ex.PW1/5 from National Insurance Co. Limited DRO-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi for his opinion in relation to accidental injuries of Mrs. Dallo Devi which she sustained on 18.02.2018; that as per his opinion and as per MLC also, the deceased Dallo Devi sustained injuries due to hit by a car while she was walking on the road on her feet and which led injury to the right forearm and left upperarm and for the same, she was managed conservatively with the external fixator and supporting medicine due to her existing ailment, diabetics mellitus and for fracture injury, the treatment continued till 25.04.2018. He further deposed that in the meantime, she had hospitalization for her existing problem i.e. diabetics mellitus in medicine department till 27.07.2018 and that time, she got Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.30 15:38:04 +0530 MACT No. 522/2018 Date of Award: 30.10.2025 Dallo Devi through LRs Vs. Krishan Kumar & Ors. Page No. 10 of 29 discharged against medical advise (LAMA) and as per death certificate of NDMC, she was expired on 30.07.2018 at her residence. He further deposed that she had hospitalized four times for her medical problem and its related complication in medicine department. In his cross examination done by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, he admitted that he had not given any treatment to the injured and his opinion was given on the basis of treatment documents provided to him. He denied to the suggestion that he had come to depose the evidence in favour of insurance company as he was on panel of insurance company. He further deposed that he had not made witness by the police/IO neither in the present case nor in the charge sheet and he had not examined the petitioner personally. He denied of deposing falsely.
17. Ld. Counsel for the insurance company has argued that there is no evidence available on record to prove that injured Dallo Devi has died due to the injuries sustained by her in the accident in question. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that there is sufficient evidence available on record in the form of the medical documents including discharge summaries Ex.PW1/2(colly), OPD cards of the deceased Ex.PW1/3(colly), which would show that she was hospitalized several times after the accident in question and also visited many times in the hospital as OPD patient for the treatment of injuries sustained by her in the accident and she finally succumbed to her injuries on 30.07.2018 and the same is duly corroborated by the medical opinion of her treating doctor i.e. PW2 Dr. Vikas Sharma. He further argued that there is sufficient material on record to establish that deceased Smt. Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.30 15:38:13 +0530 MACT No. 522/2018 Date of Award: 30.10.2025 Dallo Devi through LRs Vs. Krishan Kumar & Ors. Page No. 11 of 29 Dallo Devi received fatal injuries due to the accident in question and the plea on behalf of insurance company is not sustainable.
18. In the case titled 'Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs. Karan Bhatia, MAC APP. 271/2018 decided on 26.11.2024" , it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court as under:-
"12. Shri Mehtab Singh, the eye witness, may have failed to support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile during the trial, but that does not take away the factum of accident and demise of Smt.Surjit Kaur.
The investigations were duly carried out which revealed not only the involvement of the vehicle, but also that it was the offending vehicle which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the accident. The manner of accident is also evident from the Site Plan prepared during the criminal investigations.
13. In the case of National Insurance Co.,vs Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, it has been held that filing of Chargesheet is sufficient proof of the negligence and involvement of the Offending Vehicle.
Similar observations have been made in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepak Goel and Ors., 2014 (2) TAC 846 Del, that if the claimant was able to prove the criminal case on record pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, whereby the criminal records showing completion of investigation by the police and filing of Chargesheet under Sections 279/304-A IPC against the driver have been proved, then the documents mentioned above are sufficient to establish the fact that the driver was negligent in causing the accident. Where FIR is lodged, Chargesheet Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.30 15:38:21 +0530 MACT No. 522/2018 Date of Award: 30.10.2025 Dallo Devi through LRs Vs. Krishan Kumar & Ors. Page No. 12 of 29 is filed, especially in a case where driver after causing the accident had fled away from the spot, then the documents mentioned above are sufficient to establish the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent in causing the accident particularly when there was no defence available from his side before the learned Tribunal.
14. Similar observations have been made in the cases of Jamanti Devi and Ors. v.
Maheshwar Rai, MAC Appeal no. 831/2015 decided on 19.11.2022.
15. The Apex Court has opined in the judgment of Mangla Ram Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, AIR 2018 SC 1900 that the key-point of negligence of the driver as set up by the Claimants, is required to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and not by the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, filing of Chargesheet against the driver of the offending vehicle prima facie, points towards the complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. The subsequent acquittal of the accused may of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in motor vehicle accident cases."
19. In the case titled "Meera Bai & Ors. Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company limited & Anr.", Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3886 of 2019, decided on 30.04.2025, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under:-
"4. As far as examining the eye witness, such a witness will not be available in all cases. The FIR having been lodged and the charge sheet filed against the owner driver of the offending vehicle, we are of the opinion that there could be no finding that negligence was Digitally signed SACHIN by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA 15:38:28 Date: 2025.10.30 +0530 MACT No. 522/2018 Date of Award: 30.10.2025 Dallo Devi through LRs Vs. Krishan Kumar & Ors. Page No. 13 of 29 not established."
20. In the present case also, admittedly, PW1 Sh. Moti Lal (husband of deceased) is not an eye-witness to the accident in question. Moreover, PW3 Sh. Hemant Singh became hostile, who deposed of not witnessing the accident in question. However, the same does not become fatal to the case of the petitioner. In his cross examination done by Ld. Counsel for petitioner, PW3 admitted that on 18.02.2018, he was present on his shop and he was told by some persons that some accident had occurred in front of his shop on that day. However, he denied of witnessing the accident in question. The same does not wash away other incriminating material against the respondent no. 1 (driver of the offending vehicle) as available on record. PW1 Sh. Moti Lal has also relied upon DAR filed by IO, which is Ex.PW1/5 (Colly) which includes chargesheet against the respondent no. 1; Copy of FIR; Mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle; Seizure memo of offending vehicle and its documents; Site plan; MLC of deceased; Notice U/s 133 M.V. Act; Statement of witnesses U/s 161 CrPC etc.
21. Petitioner also got examined SI Arun Kumar as PW4, who was the investigating officer of the case, who has categorically deposed that he recorded the statement of the injured in the hospital on 19.02.2018, who disclosed that she met with an accident in the road traffic accident due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and she also disclosed the number of offending vehicle which is mentioned in her statement. The aforesaid statement has been filed by the IO alongwith the chargesheet, wherein the mode and manner of the accident, regisration number of the offending vehicle and the Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.10.30 15:38:38 +0530 MACT No. 522/2018 Date of Award: 30.10.2025 Dallo Devi through LRs Vs. Krishan Kumar & Ors. Page No. 14 of 29 details of its driver is duly mentioned. The same remained undisputed/uncontroveted on the part of the respondents. Furthermore, PW4 / IO SI Arun Kumar also deposed of the investigation part conducted by him, which also remained undisputed on the part of the respondents including insurance company. He also deposed of recording the disclosure statement of driver of offending vehicle, copy of which is Ex.PW4/1, which also remained undisputed / uncontroverted on the part of respondents including insurance company. Respondent no. 1 namely Krishan Kumar (accused in State case) has been charge- sheeted (which is part of copies of criminal case available on record) by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by the respondent no. 1. Same also points out towards the rashness and negligence of the respondent no. 1 to that extent. The investigation was duly carried out which revealed not only the involvement of the vehicle, but also that it was the offending vehicle which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the accident. Hence, it becomes clear that at the time of accident, offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL3CAJ4177 was being driven by respondent no. 1, who caused the accident in question by driving the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner.
22. The plea raised on behalf of the insurance company that there is no evidence available on record to prove that injured Smt. Dallo Devi has died due to the injuries sustained by her in the accident in question, is not found sustainable, in view of the medical treatment record including discharge summaries Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2025.10.30 15:38:47 +0530 MACT No. 522/2018 Date of Award: 30.10.2025 Dallo Devi through LRs Vs. Krishan Kumar & Ors. Page No. 15 of 29 Ex.PW1/2 (Colly) and other medical record Ex.PW1/3 (Colly) pertaining to her regular visits to the hospital as OPD patient for the purpose of her treatment as well as deposition of her treating doctor i.e. PW2 Dr. Vikas Sharma.
23. As per the discharge summaries Ex.PW1/2 (Colly) of the injured Smt. Dallo Devi, she was hospitalized five times after the accident in question i.e. from 18.02.2018 to 24.02.2018; from 05.03.2018 to 08.03.2018; from 24.04.2018 to 25.04.2018; from 23.05.2018 to 01.06.2018 and 18.07.2018 to 27.07.2018 and she died on 30.07.2018. Her discharge summaries shows that she was subjected to various procedures in the hospital including surgeries for the purpose of her treatment. Further, her medical treatment record Ex.PW1/3 (Colly) shows that her regular visits to the Rathi Hospital, New Delhi for the purpose of her medical treatment. Furthermore, PW3 Dr. Vikas Sharma, who was also one of the treating doctors at the time of admission of injured Dallo Devi in the Rathi Hospital has categorically deposed that injuries sustained by Smt. Dallo Devi / injured (since deceased) was due to the road traffic accident. He further deposed that as per treatment record, patient was type II diabetes with polytraunma with fracture left humurous with distal right radius with acute on chronic kidney disease with urosepsis with metobolic acidosis with septic shock; that all sequence of complications occurred due to RTA and the cause of death of patient was due to complications occurred on account of RTA. The deposition of PW2 Dr. Vikas Sharma leaves no iota of doubt to come to the conclusion that cause of death of the injured Smt. Dallo Devi was due to the complications occurred on account of road traffic accident (RTA). Insurance company also got Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2025.10.30 15:38:56 +0530 MACT No. 522/2018 Date of Award: 30.10.2025 Dallo Devi through LRs Vs. Krishan Kumar & Ors. Page No. 16 of 29 examined Dr. Vinod Gadotra (R3W1), on Panel of insurance company, who was admittedly not a treating doctor of the injured and his deposition does not affect the testimony of treating doctor PW2 Dr. Vikas Sharma and other material available on record, which goes to establish that injured Smt. Dallo Devi died on account of the complications occurred due to the injuries suffered by her in the road traffic accident (RTA). Furthermore, in the given facts and circumstances, merely because, deceased was not subjected to postmortem, the same does not become fatal to the case of petitioner.
24. Moreover, the respondent no. 1 Krishan Kumar was the other material witness who could have thrown sufficient light as to how and under what circumstances, the accident in question took place. However, he did not enter into witness box during the course of inquiry. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him for not entering into the witness box, to the effect that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by him.
25. Furthermore, in the given facts and circumstances of the present case, the rashness and negligence of the driver (R1) would also be assumed by virtue of res ipsa loquitur. The very factum that the respondent no. 1 while driving offending vehicle, had hit against the pedestrian, would show that offending vehicle was being driven by the respondent no. 1 in a very rash and negligent manner. There was an implicit duty on the respondent no.1 to see that his driving did not endanger the life of any other user of the road. He has failed to exercise the caution incumbent upon him and has clearly neglected his duty of circumspection.
Digitally signed by SACHINSACHIN GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2025.10.30 15:39:04 +0530 MACT No. 522/2018 Date of Award: 30.10.2025 Dallo Devi through LRs Vs. Krishan Kumar & Ors. Page No. 17 of 29
26. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioner has been able to prove on the scale of preponderance of probabilities that Smt. Dallo Devi sustained fatal injuries in road accident which took place on 18.02.2018 at about 2:50 PM in front of Hemant Store, Nangloi Najafgarh Road, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent no. 1. Accordingly issue no.1 stands decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents. ISSUE No.2
27. In view of the finding on issue no.1, petitioners are entitled to get compensation for the death of Smt. Dallo Devi due to the fatal injuries sustained by her in the accident in question, however, the quantum of compensation still needs to be adjudicated. Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 enjoins upon the claim Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation, which appears to be just and reasonable. As per settled law, compensation is not expected to be windfall or a bonanza nor it should be pittance. A man is not compensated for the physical injury, he is compensated for the loss which he suffers as a result of that injury (Baker v. Willoughby (1970) Ac 467 at page 492 per Lord Reid).
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION Medical Expenses:
28. PW1 Sh. Moti Lal has inter alia deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A that he had incurred an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on the treatment of his wife, some of the medical bills are available with him and some are either Digitally signed SACHIN by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.10.30 15:39:13 +0530 MACT No. 522/2018 Date of Award: 30.10.2025 Dallo Devi through LRs Vs. Krishan Kumar & Ors. Page No. 18 of 29 misplaced or lost. He has filed and relied upon the original discharge summaries of his wife Ex.PW1/2 (colly); original OPD Cards Ex.PW1/3 (colly) and original medical bills Ex.PW1/4 (Colly). In his cross examination done by the Ld. Counsel for the insurance company, he denied the suggestion that he had not incurred a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on medical treatment of his deceased wife or that all medical bills and treatment record are false and fabricated or that the injured died due to her own negligence and careless.
29. PW1 (husband of deceased) has filed original medical bills which are Ex.PW1/4 (Colly) and which are total amounting Rs.5,13,203/- approximately. He has not filed any other medical bills in support of his plea of incurring expenditure to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- on the medical treatment of his wife. However, there is nothing material elicited from his cross examination to doubt the veracity and genuineness of the aforesaid medical bills, which are filed by him and there is no reason to disbelieve the said medical bills. In view of the aforesaid discussion and material available on record including medical bills Ex.PW1/4, I find it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.5,15,000/- to the petitioners under this head. Age of deceased :
30. PW1 Sh. Moti Lal has deposed that his deceased wife was aged about 57 years at the time of accident. He has filed copy of Aadhar Card of deceased Mark E, which shows the year of birth of deceased Smt. Dallo Devi was 1961. The same remained undisputed on the part of respondents. Date of accident is 18.02.2018. As such, this fact stands concluded that age of the deceased was around 57 years at the time of accident.
Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.30 15:39:22 +0530 MACT No. 522/2018 Date of Award: 30.10.2025 Dallo Devi through LRs Vs. Krishan Kumar & Ors. Page No. 19 of 29 Assessment of Income of deceased :
31. Petitioner/PW-1 Sh. Moti Lal (husband of deceased) has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW1/A) that deceased was a housewife.
32. The services rendered by a housewife can not be counted; cooking, washing, ironing clothes and stitching clothes (in some cases) for the husband and children, teaching and guiding children, working as a nurse whenever the husband and child/children are sick, are some of the major activities of a housewife. She has no fixed hours of work; she is always in attendance to take care of each and every need of the whole family at the cost of her personal comfort and health. The services rendered by a housewife may differ from case to case considering her qualification, financial strata and social status of the family to which she belongs.
33. As per her Aadhar card, deceased Smt. Dallo Devi was a resident of Delhi. No document as to the educational qualification of the deceased has been placed and proved on record. This Tribunal is of the considered view that petitioners are entitled to compensation for loss of gratuitous services rendered by deceased Smt. Dallo Devi as a housewife and accordingly, assesses the income of the deceased to be at parity with minimum wages of a Skilled person in the State of Delhi which at the time of accident i.e. 18.02.2018 was Rs.16,468/- per month.
Application of Multiplier:
34. The age of deceased as on date of accident i.e. 18.02.2018 was about 57 years at the time of accident. As per settled principle laid down in case of Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.30 15:39:30 +0530 MACT No. 522/2018 Date of Award: 30.10.2025 Dallo Devi through LRs Vs. Krishan Kumar & Ors. Page No. 20 of 29 6 SCC 121, the multiplier as applicable to the age group between 56-60 years is 9.
Future Prospects:
35. The Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment which has arisen out of SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014 titled as National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors decided on 31.10.2017 has held as under:-
"61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi,2012 ACJ 1428 (SC) should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh,2013 ACJ 1403 (SC) has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, 2013 ACJ 1253 (SC), which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-
employed or on a fixed salary, an Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.30 15:39:38 +0530 MACT No. 522/2018 Date of Award: 30.10.2025 Dallo Devi through LRs Vs. Krishan Kumar & Ors. Page No. 21 of 29 addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 21 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) 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."
36. On the day of accident, deceased was aged about 57 years. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the present matter, future prospects @ 10% has to be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of pronouncement made by the Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." Civil Appeal No. 6961/2015 decided on 31.10.2017, as well as in view of decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2025.10.30 15:39:45 MACT No. 522/2018 Date of Award: 30.10.2025 +0530 Dallo Devi through LRs Vs. Krishan Kumar & Ors. Page No. 22 of 29 Pooja & Ors", decided on 02.11.17.
Deduction towards Personal and Living Expenses:
37. After choosing the age, multiplier and income of the deceased, necessary deductions have to be made out of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses. As per the DAR as well as the affidavit of the PW1, deceased has left behind her LRs i.e. her husband, two sons and two daughters. It cannot be overlooked that a housewife has no fixed hours of work; she is always in attendance to take care of each and every need of the whole family at the cost of her personal comfort and health. Hence, her family members are always dependent upon her for one reason or the another. In these circumstances and taking note of the fact that deceased Smt. Dallo Devi left surviving her five LRs, one-fourth (1/4th) of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards her personal and living expenses (Reliance is placed on the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled as "Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation", 2009 ACJ 1298 SC).
38. Thus, considering the aforementioned factors, the compensation for the loss of dependency is calculated as under:
S. No. Head Amount 1. Monthly income of deceased (A) Rs. 16,468/- 2. Add future prospect (B) @ 10% Rs. 1,646.8/-
3. Less 1/4th towards personal and Rs. 4,528.7/-
living expenses of the deceased (C)
4. Monthly loss of dependency (A+B)- Rs. 13,586.1/-
C=D
5. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs. 1,63,033.2/-
6. Multiplier (E) 97. Total loss of dependency Rs. 14,67,298.8/-
(Dx12xE=F) Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.30 MACT No. 522/2018 Date of Award: 30.10.2025 15:39:54 +0530 Dallo Devi through LRs Vs. Krishan Kumar & Ors. Page No. 23 of 29
39. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 14,67,299/- (rounded off). Hence, a sum of Rs.
14,67,299/- (Rupees Fourteen Lacs Sixty Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Nine Only) is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
40. In case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), it has been held 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 and the aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.48,000/-, Rs. 18,000/-
and Rs.18,000/- respectively on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted. Further, in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 2705 of 2020, decided on 30.06.2020, loss of consortium has to be fixed for each of the LRs. Since, there are five LRs of deceased, therefore, the petitioners/claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,76,000/- (48,000 X 5 + 18,000 + 18,000) under this head.
41. Considering the aforementioned factors, the total compensation is calculated as under:
S. No. Head Amount
Awarded
1. Total loss of dependency Rs. 14,67,299/-
2. Compensation for loss of consortium Rs. 2,40,000/-
(48,000 X 5) Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA MACT No. 522/2018 Date of Award: 30.10.2025 GUPTA Date:
2025.10.30 15:40:02 +0530 Dallo Devi through LRs Vs. Krishan Kumar & Ors. Page No. 24 of 29
3. Compensation for loss of estate Rs.18,000/-
4. Compensation for funeral expenses Rs.18,000/-
5. Medical Expenses Rs. 5,15,000/-
Total compensation Rs. 22,58,299/-
42. Thus, petitioners in this case shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 22,58,299/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Fifty Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Nine Only). INTEREST ON AWARD
43. Petitioners shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of the DAR i.e. 16.07.2018 till realization. LIABILITY
44. Now the question arises as to which of the respondent is liable to pay the compensation amount. Since, it is an admitted case of the respondent No. 4 / Insurance Company that the aforesaid vehicle No. DL3CAJ4177 (offending vehicle) was duly insured with it, therefore, respondent No. 4 / Insurance Co. is liable to pay the amount of compensation to the petitioners / claimants.
Relief
45. In view of my finding on issues no. 1 and 2, this Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs. 22,58,299/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Fifty Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Nine Only) to the petitioners/claimants alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum in favour of petitioners w.e.f. i.e. 16.07.2018 till realization, to be paid by the respondent no.4/insurance company. The respondent no.4/insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in the MACT Account of this Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2025.10.30 MACT No. 522/2018 Date of Award: 30.10.2025 15:40:11 +0530 Dallo Devi through LRs Vs. Krishan Kumar & Ors. Page No. 25 of 29 Tribunal having Account no. 40714429271, IFSC Code. SBIN0000726 Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, within 30 days from today. The respondent no. 4 is also directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioners. Apportionment
46. Statements of petitioners / LRs of deceased in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP were recorded on 07.08.2024 and considering the totality of circumstances of the case, share of petitioners in the award amount shall be as under:-
S. No. Name Relationship with Share in the deceased award amount 1 (a) Moti Lal Husband 60% 1 (b) Padam Kumar Son 10% 1 (c ) Kadam Singh Son 10% 1 (d) Hemlata Daughter 10% 1 (e) Shanti Daughter 10% Disbursement of Award Amount
47. In view of the aforesaid, it is hereby ordered that out of total compensation amount, the petitioner no. 1 (a) namely Sh. Moti Lal shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 13,54,979/- (Rupees Thirteen Lacs Fifty Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Nine Only) alongwith proportionate interest; the petitioner no. 1(b) namely Sh. Padam Kumar shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 2,25,830/- (Rupees Two Lacs Twenty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty Only) alongwith proportionate interest; the petitioner no. 1 (c) namely Sh. Kadam Singh shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 2,25,830/- (Rupees Two Lacs Twenty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty Only) alongwith proportionate interest; the petitioner no. 1(d) Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.30 15:40:21 +0530 MACT No. 522/2018 Date of Award: 30.10.2025 Dallo Devi through LRs Vs. Krishan Kumar & Ors. Page No. 26 of 29 namely Smt. Hemlata shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 2,25,830/- (Rupees Two Lacs Twenty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty Only) alongwith proportionate interest and the petitioner no. 1(e) namely Smt. Shanti shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 2,25,830/- (Rupees Two Lacs Twenty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty Only) alongwith proportionate interest.
48. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 1 (a) Sh. Moti Lal, a sum of Rs. 6,54,979/- (Rupees Six Lacs Fifty Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Nine Only) shall be immediately released to him through his saving bank account and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs.50,000/- each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
49. The entire share amount of petitioner no. 1(b) to 1(e) are directed to be immediately released to them through their respective saving bank accounts.
50. The amount of FDRs on maturity shall directly be released in petitioner's Saving Bank Account.
51. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant i.e., the savings bank account of the claimant shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) 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. Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.10.30 15:40:30 +0530 MACT No. 522/2018 Date of Award: 30.10.2025 Dallo Devi through LRs Vs. Krishan Kumar & Ors. Page No. 27 of 29
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
52. Respondent no. 4 i.e. National Insurance Company Limited, being insurer of offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the compensation amount with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts branch is directed to transfer the respective amounts of petitioners in their MACT saving bank accounts, as per the award, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
53. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph, specimen signature, copy of bank passbook and copy of residence proof of the petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
54. Form XV and Form XVII in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A.
55. A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir .
56. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost.
57. A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class as well as DSLSA as per the Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.10.30 15:40:39 +0530 MACT No. 522/2018 Date of Award: 30.10.2025 Dallo Devi through LRs Vs. Krishan Kumar & Ors. Page No. 28 of 29 provisions of the Modified Claim Tribunal Agreed Procedure (MCTAP).Digitally signed by SACHIN
SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.30 15:40:47 +0530 Announced in the open Court (SACHIN GUPTA) On 30th October, 2025 PO-MACT-02(WEST) THC/Delhi/30.10.2025 MACT No. 522/2018 Date of Award: 30.10.2025 Dallo Devi through LRs Vs. Krishan Kumar & Ors. Page No. 29 of 29