Delhi District Court
Sushma (Lr) vs Sadik on 27 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF GUNJAN GUPTA, DISTRICT JUDGE-
CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-01, (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
AWARD/JUDGMENT
MACT Case No. 1391/2022
CNR No.DLWT010114662022
1. Sushma (mother of deceased)
W/o late Sh. Bharat
Aged about 42 years
R/o Plot No. 240, Khasra no. 637, Block-B,
Balbir Vihar, Kirari Suleman Nagar,
P.O. Sultan Puri, Block-C,
District North-West, Delhi-110086
Earlier residing at
House no. 162, C-3,
Block, Sultan Puri, Delhi-110086.
...Petitioner
Versus
1. Mohd. Sadik (Driver)
S/o Sh. Mohd. Irfan
R/o W.Z. 257-C,
Madipur Village, District West,
Delhi-110063.
Also at:
Gram Rewadi Dewas
Distt. Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh, PIN-456001
(Driver of Motorcycle Apache RTR No. DL3SCN7646)
Sushma (LR) vs. Sadik & Ors.
[MACT No.1391/2022] Page No.1 of 26
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.10.09
15:31:47 +0530
2. Mohd. Imran (Owner)
S/o Mohd. Irfan
R/o W.Z. 257-C,
Madipur Village, District West,
Delhi-110063.
(Owner of Motorcycle Apache RTR No. DL3SCN7646)
3. Cholamandalam MS General (Insurer)
Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Manager,
Plot no. 6, First Floor,
Near Metro Pillar no.81,
Main Pusha Road, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005
Policy No. 9361/60062990/000/00
Valid from 07.02.2022 to 06.02.2023
(Insurer of Motor cycle Apachhe RTR No.
DL3SCN7646)
Date of Institution : 30.11.2022
Date of reserving order/judgment : 23.09.2025
Date of pronouncement : 27.09.2025
FORM-XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
1. Date of the accident 05.06.2022
2. Date of filing of Form-I - 30.11.2022
First Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II 30.11.2022
to the victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III 30.11.2022
from the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV 30.11.2022
from the Owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- 30.11.2022
Interim Accident Report
(IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA 30.11.2022
Sushma (LR) vs. Sadik & Ors.
[MACT No.1391/2022] Page No.2 of 26
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.10.09 15:31:51
+0530
and Form-VIB from the
Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - 30.11.2022
Detailed Accident Report
(DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay Accident took place on
or deficiency on the part of 05.06.2022 and the DAR
the Investigating Officer? If was filed on 30.11.2022
so, whether any action/
direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Date not mentioned
Designated Officer by the
Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated WS filed by respondent no.3
Officer of the Insurance on 12.05.2023 Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay No or deficiency on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the Legal offer was not filed in claimant(s) to the offer of the this matter Insurance Company
14. Date of the award 27.09.2025
15. Whether the claimant(s) Yes was/were directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which 30.11.2023 claimant(s) was/were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Aadhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit Sushma (LR) vs. Sadik & Ors.
[MACT No.1391/2022] Page No.3 of 26GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.10.09 15:31:54 +0530 card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) 03.06.2025 produced the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along-with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Plot No. 240, Khasra no. Address of the claimant(s). 637, Block-B, Balbir Vihar, Kirari Suleman Nagar, P.O. Sultan Puri, Block-C, District North-West, Delhi-110086 Earlier residing at House no.
162, C-3,Block, Sultan Puri, Delhi-110086.
19. Whether the claimant(s) Yes savings bank account(s) is/are near his/her/their place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) Yes was/were examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/her/their financial condition?
AWARD FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE 1.1 The present DAR was filed on 30.11.2022 by Investigating Officer (IO) upon an application U/s 158(6) of Motor Vehicle Act filed by the petitioner. As per record, it was submitted by the IO on 14.10.2022 that initially, an untrace report was filed in FIR in question, however, Ld. Area Metropolitan Magistrate had directed to carryout further investigation in the Sushma (LR) vs. Sadik & Ors.
[MACT No.1391/2022] Page No.4 of 26GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.10.09 15:31:57 +0530 matter. Finally, the present DAR was filed in the presence of the parties by the IO on 30.11.2022.
1.2 This DAR pertains to road vehicular accident dated 05.06.2022 which occurred at about 1:40 AM at Pillar No. 190, Rohtak Road towards Peeragarhi, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi falling within the jurisdiction of PS Punjabi Bagh in which one Sh. Rohit S/o Sh. Bharat (hereinafter referred as "deceased") sustained fatal injuries. FIR No. 425/2022 under Section 279/337/304A IPC was registered at PS Punjabi Bagh. 1.3 As per the documents annexed with the DAR, the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.01. Deceased was working as Barbar with D-Skill Saloon, Punjabi Bagh Club Road, Delhi and used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month at the time of accident. 1.4 DAR mentions the respondent no.01 as driver, the respondent no.02 as owner and respondent no.03 as the insurer of offending vehicle.
1.5 In the final report annexed with the DAR, respondent no.1 was charged with the offences U/s 279/337/ 304A of IPC and Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act and respondent no.2 was charged with the offences U/s 5/181 of Motor Vehicles Act.
1.6 On 30.11.2022, the DL of the respondent no.1 was filed on record.
1.7 As per order dated 17.08.2023 passed by Ld. Predecessor, the IO filed the verification report stating the same to have been verified by the RTO.
Sushma (LR) vs. Sadik & Ors.
[MACT No.1391/2022] Page No.5 of 26 GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.10.09
15:32:00 +0530
REPLY OF RESPONDENT NO.01 & 02.
2.1 Respondent no.01 & 02 filed the reply inter alia
stating that respondent no.1 was driving his motorcycle in a proper manner at a normal speed and as per traffic rules. One Truck-Tempo came from behind and hit his vehicle forcefully, due to which, he lost control over his vehicle and hit against the deceased. Accident in question did not occur due to his negligence but due to the forceful impact of the vehicle which hit his vehicle from behind. It is stated that deceased was standing in the middle of the road negligently without taking care of the traffic and he would have even otherwise, definitely met with an accident with some vehicle. Respondents no.1 & 2 have been falsely implicated in the present case. Respondent no.1 was having a valid driving license at the time of accident. Offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.3 vide policy No. 3361/66062990/000/00 valid from 07.02.2022 to 06.02.2023. REPLY OF RESPONDENT NO.3 2.2 Respondent no.03 filed its written statement wherein it is inter alia stated that the respondent no.1 was not holding any driving license at the time of accident and the same constituted a breach of policy and, therefore, respondent no. 3 is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. As per DAR, accident was caused by unknown truck which hit the offending vehicle, which further led to its disbalance causing the fatal injuries to the deceased. The respondents have been impleaded in the matter to obtain compensation as the actual offending vehicle could not be traced. Vehicle bearing registration no. DL3SCN7646 was insured with it vide policy no.3361/66062990/000/00 valid from Sushma (LR) vs. Sadik & Ors.
[MACT No.1391/2022] Page No.6 of 26 GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.10.09
15:32:03 +0530
07.02.2022 to 06.02.2023 in the name of Mr. Imran. Relying upon the DAR, the respondent no.3 prayed for dismissal of claim against it.
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS
3. During the course of the proceedings, the petitioner no. 2 i.e. father of the deceased expired and his name was deleted from array of the parties vide order dt. 03.06.2025 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this court.
ISSUES
4. After completion of pleadings, on 12.10.2023, this tribunal framed following issues: -
1. Whether the deceased Rohit Kumar sustained fatal injuries in the accident that took place on 05.06.2022 at about 01:30 am at Near Pillar No.190, Rohtak Road towards Peera Garhi, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle (motorcycle) bearing registration number DL3SCN7646 by respondent no.01, being owned by the respondent no.2 and insured with the respondent no.3? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner(s) is/are entitled to compensation, if yes, of what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
EVIDENCE
5.1 The petitioner examined herself as PW-1 to establish her claim. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit. She relied upon complete DAR Ex.PW1/1, photocopies of her Aadhar Card, Rohit Kumar(deceased) and her Sushma (LR) vs. Sadik & Ors.
[MACT No.1391/2022] Page No.7 of 26GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.10.09 15:32:06 +0530 husband Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/4 (OSR), photocopies of her PAN card, Rohit Kumar (deceased) and her husband Ex.PW1/5 to Ex.PW1/7, original statement of mark-sheets of Rohit Kumar of 8th class Ex.PW1/8, original report book of Rohit Kumar of 6 th class Ex.PW1/9 and original death certificate of deceased Rohit Kumar Ex.PW1/10 in her evidence. She was examined, cross- examined and was discharged.
5.2 Petitioner also examined Ms. Kajal as PW-2 who was the pillion rider on the offending vehicle. She deposed that on 05.06.2022 at about 00:30 hours (night), she along-with her friend Sadik was going from Punjabi Bagh to Paschim Vihar on motorcycle belonging to brother of Sadik. When they were at Ordinance Depot, their motorcycle was hit from behind by a heavy vehicle/truck due to which, it got imbalanced and hit one person standing in the front side and they fell on the road. They both also sustained injuries. However, she could not note the condition of the other person who was hit by their motorcycle. She called two of their friends namely Sunny and Chand who started from the point of journey along-with them and who were ahead of them. The said friends came back to the spot and took them to the hospital in one auto-rickshaw. She deposed that their vehicle would not have got imbalanced and they would not have received injuries had they not been hit by said heavy vehicle/truck from behind.
5.3 She was cross examined by Ld. counsel for petitioner with the permission of the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal. In cross-examination, she stated that deceased was hit only by the motorcycle on which she & Sadik were riding and Sushma (LR) vs. Sadik & Ors.
[MACT No.1391/2022] Page No.8 of 26GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.10.09 15:32:08 +0530 not by any other vehicle.
5.4 In cross-examination by Ld. counsel for respondent no. 3, she stated that the motorcycle on which she was riding was at a speed of 50-55 Km per hour at the time of accident and was driven on left side of road and the incident happened due to unknown heavy vehicle.
5.5 No evidence was led by the respondents. ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS 6.1 It was argued by Ld. counsel for petitioner that the story that the offending vehicle driven by respondent no. 1 was hit by a truck from behind due to which it got disbalanced and hit the deceased, is a concocted and afterthought story. He submitted that in the discharge summary of respondent no. 1, the brief summary of the case history states the alleged history of RTA due to fall from bike while saving someone in front of his bike on 05.06.2022 at 2.00 PM. Ld. counsel argued that the said statement is the very first statement of respondent no. 1 which stated the correct facts as there was no time to think or consult anybody and, therefore, the same is to be relied upon and not the subsequent statements filed with the DAR. 6.2 He argued that even PW2 has admitted in her cross- examination that the deceased was hit by offending vehicle i.e. motorcycle driven by respondent no.1 only and not by any other vehicle.
6.3 Ld. counsel further argued that perusal of the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle would also show that there are no damages on the vehicle on the rear side which can be opined to be the damages resulting from a hit by a Sushma (LR) vs. Sadik & Ors.
[MACT No.1391/2022] Page No.9 of 26GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.10.09 15:32:11 +0530 heavy vehicle like a truck. He argued that had the offending vehicle been hit by a truck then the damages would have been much more than stated in the mechanical inspection report on record wherein only the back light is stated to be damaged. He argued that the damages on the front side of the offending vehicle are such which would show that the offending vehicle i.e. motorcycle of respondent no. 1 had hit the deceased due to which the deceased suffered fatal injuries. 6.4 Ld. counsel also argued that the driver i.e. respondent no. 1 has not stepped into the witness box and, therefore, adverse inference can be drawn against him. 6.5 He submitted that there was no CCTV footage available of the incident on record and even no steps were taken by the respondent nos. 1 & 2 for quashing of the FIR against them. It was submitted by Ld. counsel that the statement of the eye witness of the incident has been recorded after two months of the incident and, therefore, her statement cannot be relied upon and the story in the statement is made out to save the respondent nos. 1 & 2.
6.6 He submitted that the charge sheet filed in the matter proves his case of rash and negligent driving and, therefore, the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. In support of his contentions, Ld. counsel for petitioner has relied upon the following judgments :-
(i) Meera Bai Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., SLP (C) No. 3886/2019 decided on 30.04.2025;
(ii) Ranjeet & Anr.Vs. Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr., SLP (C) No. 10351/2019 decided on 25.02.2025;
(iii) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Sushma (LR) vs. Sadik & Ors.
[MACT No.1391/2022] Page No.10 of 26GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.10.09 15:32:13 +0530 Kumar Joshi & Ors., CM Appl. No. 69688/2024 decided on 29.11.2024; and
(iv) National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Rana & Ors. decided on 20.12.2007 6.7 He further submitted that the petitioner was 19 years of age who was working as Barbar at D-Skill Saloon, Punjabi Bagh Club Road, Delhi and earning a salary of Rs. 20,000/- per month at the time of accident. It is submitted that petitioner was dependent upon the deceased at the time of accident. Keeping in view the same, the award may be passed as per her entitlement. ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO. & 1 & 2 7.1 It was argued by Ld. counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2 that respondent nos. 1 & 2 have been falsely implicated in the present case and the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck which hit the motorcycle of respondent nos. 1 & 2 from behind due to which the deceased sustained fatal injuries.
7.2 It was argued by Ld. counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2 that the respondent no. 1 has suffered grievous injuries in the accident in question and the same is clear from the medical record of respondent no. 1 on record.
7.3 It was further argued that as per mechanical inspection report of the alleged offending vehicle, the damages have occurred on the rear side of the vehicle. 7.4 Lastly, it was argued that in case respondent nos. 1 & 2 are held liable, the liability shall be borne by the insurance company as the offending vehicle was having valid insurance at the time of accident and it had already come on record that Sushma (LR) vs. Sadik & Ors.
[MACT No.1391/2022] Page No.11 of 26 Digitally signed by GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.10.09
15:32:15 +0530
respondent no. 1 was having a valid driving license. ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO. & 3
8. 1 It was argued by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3 that the petitioners have failed to prove that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. It was argued that no independent witness has been examined by the police or even by the petitioner to prove that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the alleged offending vehicle by the respondent no.1. 8.2 It is submitted that even though there was a minor damage on the rear side of the vehicle yet it establishes that the same was hit by a vehicle from behind.
8.3 He argued that the petitioners have failed to prove the employment and income of the deceased. 8.4 It was submitted by Ld. counsel for respondent no. 3 that there was no evidence on record to show that the father of the deceased was dependent upon the deceased and was not working and even otherwise, he had been deleted from the array of the parties due to his demise during the course of the proceedings. With these contentions, the respondent no.3 has prayed for dismissal of the petition. ANALYSIS/FINDINGS ON ISSUES 9.1 ISSUE NO.1 Whether the deceased Rohit Kumar sustained fatal injuries in the accident that took place on 05.06.2022 at about 01:30 am at Near Pillar No.190, Rohtak Road towards Peera Garhi, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of Sushma (LR) vs. Sadik & Ors.
[MACT No.1391/2022] Page No.12 of 26 Digitally signedGUNJAN by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.10.09 15:32:18 +0530 offending vehicle (motorcycle) bearing registration number DL3SCN7646 by respondent no.01, being owned by the respondent no.2 and insured with the respondent no.3? OPP.
9.2 Before adverting to the facts of the present petition for deciding the above issue, at the very outset, it would be apposite to note here that strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The standard of proof is not as strict as in criminal cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities only. In fact, the burden of proof in a claim petition under the M.V. Act, is even lesser than a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of "Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors." (2009) 13 SC 530, "Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and Ors." 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and "Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.", 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc. 9.3 Keeping in mind the aforesaid legal preposition, this Tribunal has gone through the testimony of the witnesses and entire material available on record. This Tribunal has also given its thoughtful consideration to arguments addressed by Ld. Counsels for the parties and the judgments relied upon by Ld. Counsel for petitioner.
9.4 It is the case of the respondents that the accident in question did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1 and happening of the incident is solely Sushma (LR) vs. Sadik & Ors.
[MACT No.1391/2022] Page No.13 of 26GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.10.09 15:32:20 +0530 attributable to the unknown truck which had hit the motorcycle driven by respondent no. 1 from behind. It is their case that due to hit by a speeding truck from behind, the driver/ respondent no. 1 lost balance of the offending vehicle and hit the deceased who sustained fatal injuries in the accident. It is further the case of respondents no. 1 & 2 that the deceased himself was standing in the middle of the road without taking care of the traffic. 9.5 To prove the rashness and negligence of respondent no. 1 and the involvement of the offending vehicle, the petitioner examined PW1 i.e. the mother of the deceased and one Ms. Kajal as PW2 who was the pillion rider of the motorcycle driven by respondent no. 1.
9.6 PW1 has stated in her evidence that the deceased sustained fatal injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no. 1. In her cross- examination, she stated that her statement as to manner of accident is based on the information given to her by the police. She relied upon the DAR as Ex.PW1/1 in her testimony. 9.7 PW2 has supported the case of the respondent that the offending vehicle was hit by a truck from behind due to which the offending vehicle lost the balance and hit the deceased. She was cross examined by ld. Counsel for petitioner with the permission of Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal. On cross examination by Ld. Counsel for petitioner, she stated that the deceased was hit by the offending vehicle only and not by any other vehicle.
9.8 The respondents have not led any evidence in this matter to support their case or to rebut the evidence led by Sushma (LR) vs. Sadik & Ors.
[MACT No.1391/2022] Page No.14 of 26 GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.10.09
15:32:23 +0530
petitioner.
9.9 There is nothing on record to show that any truck
was involved in the accident except the chargesheet filed by the police on the basis of the statement recorded by the police U/s 161 CrPC. The said statements are that of Sadik/ respondent no. 1 (recorded on 24.08.2022), Mohd. Imran (recorded on 10.07.2022), Ms. Kajal/ PW2 (recorded on 01.08.2022) and one Sunny (undated) who is alleged to be the friend of respondent no. 1 and is stated to have taken injured and the deceased to the hospital. All the statements have been recorded after a considerable delay. In the FAR, IAR and the DAR, the offending vehicle has been clearly identified as a black colour two wheeler motorcycle of make TVS Model Apache bearing registration no.DL3SCN7646. The driver has been identified as Sh. Sadik (respondent no. 1) and the owner as Mohd. Imran (respondent no.
2). In the charge sheet, which has been filed after a thorough investigation, the respondent no. 1 has been charge sheeted for the offences U/s 279/337/304A of IPC and Section 3/181 of M.V. Act and respondent no. 2 has been charge sheeted for the offence U/s5/18 of M.V Act. There is nothing on record to corroborate the story of respondents that the offending vehicle was hit from behind by a heavy vehicle and the same appears to be a cooked up and after thought story.
9.10 Further, no FIR was registered on the complaint of Sadik or PW2. This court also finds merit in the contentions of the Ld. Counsel for petitioner that the respondents have not brought anything on record to show that they have moved the appropriate forum for quashing of FIR against them or have filed Sushma (LR) vs. Sadik & Ors.
[MACT No.1391/2022] Page No.15 of 26GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.10.09 15:32:26 +0530 any claim for the injuries sustained in the accident. 9.11 This Tribunal also finds force in the contention of Ld. Counsel for petitioner that the first statement of the respondent no. 1 in the matter was the one recorded in his discharge summary wherein he has stated that he fell down from the bike while saving a man on the road. The said statement is the first statement made by respondent no.1 as to the factum of accident, after the incident. He was seriously injured at that time and there could not have been a chance of any manipulation or concoction of facts at that stage and, therefore, the same has to be given due weightage in deciding the present issue. 9.12 It is also important to note that the statement of eye witness and the respondents have been recorded by the police after considerable delay despite the fact that the offending vehicle was seized and the details of the respondents were also available on hospital record.
9.13 Further, it is not in dispute that the deceased was ultimately hit by the offending vehicle due to which he sustained fatal injuries.
9.14 Further, the mechanical inspection report on record has detailed the damages on the offending vehicle. None of the damages stated to have occurred on the rear side of the offending vehicle, can be said to have occurred solely due to forceful hit from the back side and there is a possibility that the same may have occurred due to falling on road. The damage on the front side is much more than the damage on the rear side. In fact, in the considered opinion of this Tribunal, the damage on the rear side is not to such an extent that it can be said to have been Sushma (LR) vs. Sadik & Ors.
[MACT No.1391/2022] Page No.16 of 26 GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.10.09
15:32:28 +0530
caused by a forceful hit of a heavy vehicle. Had the offending vehicle been hit by a heavy vehicle as alleged, the impact and the damage would have been much greater.
9.15 Respondent no. 1/ driver has been charge sheeted for the offences punishable U/s 279/337/304A of IPC by the investigation agency after arriving at a conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in question had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no. 1. Thus, the complicity of the respondent no. 1 in driving the vehicle rashly and negligently is established.
9.16 Even otherwise, respondent no. 1/ driver was the best witness who could have rebutted the case of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and could have thrown some light as to how and under what circumstances, the accident in question took place. However, the respondent no. 1 has chosen not to step into the witness box during the course of inquiry. In the given circumstances, adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him, to the effect that the accident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving.
9.17 The averments of the respondent no. 1 & 2 that the deceased was negligent has not been proved on record. 9.18 In the absence of any evidence to show the involvement of any truck/ heavy vehicle in the accident and in view of the above discussions, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner has proved on a scale of preponderance of probabilities that the deceased sustained fatal injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.
Sushma (LR) vs. Sadik & Ors.
[MACT No.1391/2022] Page No.17 of 26 Digitally signed byGUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.10.09 15:32:31 +0530 1 and this issue is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner. Issue No.(ii) :
Whether the applicants are entitled to compensation, if yes, of what amount and from whom? OPP.
10.1 In view of the findings & decision in issue no.1 above, the petitioner is entitled to compensation. 10.2 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgments in "Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors." (2003) 6 SCC 121 and "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." (2017) 16 SCC 680 laid down the guidelines for assessing compensation payable in death cases. In the light of the same, the compensation payable is determined as under:-
AGE OF THE DECEASED AND THE APPLICABLE MULTIPLIER 10.3 The date of incident is 05.06.2022. As per Aadhar Card and PAN Card of deceased available on record as Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/5 respectively, the date of birth of the deceased is 03.05.2003. Hence, deceased was 19 years of age at the time of incident and his age is considered accordingly. Thus, the multiplier applicable would be 18.
INCOME OF THE DECEASED 10.4 Petitioners have claimed that deceased was working as a Barber at D-Skill Saloon, (Unisex Saloon), Punjabi Bagh Club,Delhi and was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. However, the factum of his employment and his salary has not been proved on record. In view of the same, the income of the deceased is ascertained as per the minimum wages in Delhi i.e. Rs.18,187/-
Sushma (LR) vs. Sadik & Ors.
[MACT No.1391/2022] Page No.18 of 26 GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.10.09
15:32:33 +0530
(non-matriculate). Hence, the monthly income of the deceased is ascertained as Rs. 18,187/-.
FUTURE PROSPECTS 10.5(i) The deceased was 19 years at the time of incident, so the future prospects have to be calculated at 40% as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.," (supra).
10.5(ii) Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased after adding future prospects would be Rs. 25,462/- (Rs.18,187/- + Rs.7274.8/- which is 40% of Rs.18,187/-). DEDUCTIONS 10.6 There is no dispute that the deceased was a bachelor. The present claim petition is pursued by mother. Father of the deceased expired during the course of inquiry and was deleted from array of parties vide order dated 03.06.2025 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal. Thus, only the mother has to be considered as dependent upon the deceased. Deduction towards personal and living expenses of a deceased being bachelor should be assumed 50% as per judgment of "Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors." (2003) 6 SCC 121. Hence, 50% would be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased.
10.7 Thus, the monthly loss of dependency would be Rs.12,731/- (after deducting 50% of Rs.25,462/-) and accordingly, the multiplicand/annual loss of dependency would be Rs.1,52,772/- (Rs.12,731/- x 12). 10.8 Thus, the total loss of dependency is ascertained as Sushma (LR) vs. Sadik & Ors.
[MACT No.1391/2022] Page No.19 of 26GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.10.09 15:32:36 +0530 Rs.27,49,896/- (Rs.1,52,772/- x 18). COMPENSATION QUA NON-PECUNIARY HEADS 10.9(i) In "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680", it was held by The Hon'ble Apex court as under:-
"61... (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".
10.9(ii) In view of the same and further in view of the judgment in " Rajwati @ Rajjo & Ors. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Civil Appeal no. 8179/2022 decided on 09.12.2022, the compensation under this head is awarded as under:-
LOSS OF ESTATE& FUNERAL EXPENSES
10.10 The loss of estate and funeral expenses are awarded as Rs.20,000/- each.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM 10.11 Original there were two claimants i.e. the mother and father. The father expired during the course of inquiry. Thus, an amount of Rs.96,000/- (Rs.48,000 x 02) is awarded under this head.
TOTAL COMPENSATION 10.12 In view of above discussions, the total compensation is calculated as under:-
SL.N HEADS RUPEES
O.
1. Total Loss of Dependency Rs.27,49,896/-
2. Loss of Estate Rs.20,000/-
Sushma (LR) vs. Sadik & Ors.
[MACT No.1391/2022] Page No.20 of 26
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.10.09
15:32:39 +0530
3. Funeral expenses Rs.20,000/-
4. Loss of Consortium Rs.96,000/-
TOTAL Rs.28,85,896/-
11. Thus, total compensation of Rs.28,85,896/-
(Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety Six Only) is awarded in favour of petitioners and against the respondents. LIABILITY
12. Since, the offending vehicle is duly insured with respondent no.3 and the DL of respondent no.1 has been filed on record and the verification of the same has not been disputed by respondent no.3, respondent no.3/insurance company is held liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. R E L I EF / ISSUE NO.03
13. In view of the above findings, this Tribunal hereby passes an award of Rs.28,85,896/-(Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety Six Only) along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition/DAR i.e. 30.11.2022 till the date of the payment of the award amount to be paid by the respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Respondent no.3/Insurance Company is hereby directed to deposit the award amount in favour of the petitioner(s) with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account No.40711767202, CIF No.90891362578, IFSC Code - SBIN0000726, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this award together with the interest as stated herein above under intimation to this Tribunal Sushma (LR) vs. Sadik & Ors.
[MACT No.1391/2022] Page No.21 of 26GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.10.09 15:32:41 +0530 and under intimation to the petitioners. In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay.
APPORTIONMENT & DISBURSEMENT OF AWARD AMOUNT 14.1 Statement of the petitioners in terms of provisions of MCTAP was recorded on 03.06.2025 having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the said statement, the compensation to the petitioners shall be distributed/disbursed as follows:-
Sr. Name of Age/ Relation Award Amount of Amount kept Period of No petitione DOB with Amount award to in FDRs FDRs with . r/ injured/ be cumulative claimant decease released interest d
1. Sushma 01.01. Mother Rs.28,85,896/- 3,85,896/- 25,00,000/- Rs. 25,00,000/-
1983 along with along with shall be kept in interest interest the form of FDRs (fixed deposit receipts) in the multiples of Rs.20,000/-
each for a
period of one
month, two
months and
three months
and so on and
so forth, having
cumulative
interest.
TOTAL Rs.28,85,896/-
14.2 The amount of FDRs on maturity shall directly be
released in petitioner's Saving Bank Account. 14.3 All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:-
Sushma (LR) vs. Sadik & Ors.[MACT No.1391/2022] Page No.22 of 26
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.10.09 15:32:44 +0530
(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(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) 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(s).
(c) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the MACT bank account of the claimant
(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(e) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card (s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(f) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(g) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause
(g) above.
15. Respondent no.3 i.e Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., 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 @ 9% p. a. for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch is directed to transfer the award amount, in the above-mentioned manner, as per award in the saving bank account of claimant/petitioner, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
16. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph, Sushma (LR) vs. Sadik & Ors.
[MACT No.1391/2022] Page No.23 of 26GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.10.09 15:32:46 +0530 specimen signature, copy of bank passbook and copy of residence proof of the petitioner, be sent to Nodal Officer of State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
17. Nazir of this Court shall prepare a separate file regarding the status of deposition/non-deposition of the award amount by the respondent(s) after making necessary entry on CIS on 07.11.2025.
18. A digital copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost through email.
19. Ahlmad staff is directed to send the copy of award to Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority as per the procedure of Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure (MCTAP).
20. Ahlmad staff is also 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." decided on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-email an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex Branch for information.
21. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 27th of September, 2025 (GUNJAN GUPTA) District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01, West/THC/Delhi/27.09.2025 Sushma (LR) vs. Sadik & Ors.
[MACT No.1391/2022] Page No.24 of 26 GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.10.09
15:32:50 +0530
FORM -XV
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident : 05.06.2022
2. Name of the deceased : Rohit Kumar
3. Age of the deceased : 03.05.2003(DOB)
4. Occupation of the deceased : Not proved
5. Income of the deceased : Rs.18,187/- as per Minimum Wages
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased : -
S.No. Name Age/DOB Relation
(i) Sushma 01.01.1983 Mother
Computation of Compensation : -
Sr.No. Heads Awarded by the Claim
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs.18,187/-
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) 40%
9. Less-Personal expenses of the 50%
deceased(C)
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.12,731/-
[(A+B)-C=D]
11. Annual loss of dependency (D Rs.1,52,772/-
x 12)
12. Multiplier(E) 18
13. Total loss of dependency Rs.27,49,896/-
(Dx12xE= F)
14. Medical Expenses(G) NIL
15. Compensation for loss of Rs.96,000/-
consortium(H)
16. Compensation for loss of love NIL
and affection(I)
17. Compensation for loss of Rs.20,000/-
estate(J)
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs.20,000/-
Sushma (LR) vs. Sadik & Ors.
[MACT No.1391/2022] Page No.25 of 26
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.10.09
15:32:54 +0530
expenses(K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.28,85,896/-
(F+G+H+I+J+K=L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST 8% per annum
AWARDED
21. Interest amount up to the date Rs.6,52,212/-
of award (M) (w.e.f. 30.11.2022 till
27.09.2025 i.e. 2 years,
9 months and 27 days)
22. Total amount including interest Rs.35,38,108/-
(L + M) (Rs.28,85,896/- +
Rs.6,52,212/-)
23. Award amount released Rs.3,85,896/-
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.25,00,000/- along
interest
25. Mode of disbursement of the Mentioned in the award award amount to the claimant(s).
26. Next date for compliance of 07.11.2025 the award.
(GUNJAN GUPTA) District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01, West/THC/Delhi/27.09.2025 Sushma (LR) vs. Sadik & Ors.
[MACT No.1391/2022] Page No.26 of 26 Digitally signed byGUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.10.09 15:32:56 +0530