Delhi District Court
Rajendra Singh Nagar vs Ranoo Verma @ Ranu Verma on 4 May, 2026
:1:
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARU GUPTA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-01 (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No.239/21
Rajendra Singh Nagar & Anr. v. Ranoo Verma & Ranu Verma
CNR No.DLSE01-002253-2021
1. Rajendra Singh Nagar
S/o Late Rumal Singh
2. Smt. Oman
W/o Rajendra
Both R/O
Village-Roza Jalalpur
PS-Bisrakh,Gautam Budh
Nagar, Noida, U.P.
.....Claimants/Petitioner
Versus
1. Mr. Ranoo Verma @Ranu Verma
S/o Sh. Sarjent
R/o Village-Sujrai, Post-Kurawali
Thana-Kurawali, Mainpuri
U.P.-205265.
....Driver-cum-Owner/Respondent no.1
2. Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Office at 54, 1st floor,
Old Mathura Road,
Ishwar Nagar, New Friends Colony
New Delhi.
.... Insurance company/Respondents no.2
Digitally signed
Charu by Charu gupta
Date:
gupta 2026.05.04
17:07:32 +0530
MACT No. 239/21 Rajendra Singh Nagar v. Ranoo Verma @ Ranu Verma Page no.1 of 25 BK
:2:
Date of accident : 14.01.2021
Result of accident : Death
Date of filing of Petition : 05.03.2021
Date of Decision : 04.05.2026
AWARD
1. The present claim petition arises out of road accident in
which one Manju Nagar aged about 23 years, suffered fatal
injury resulting in her death. An application u/s 166 (1) MV Act
was accordingly filed by the petitioners (1) Rajendra Singh
Nagar (father of deceased) and Smt. Oman(mother of deceased),
as dependents of the deceased.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 14.01.2021 at 2.17
PM, victim Manju Nagar alongwith her friend was going to
Lloyd Law College, Knowledge Park, Greater Noida, U.P. on her
Scooty bearing registration no.UP-16AE-9607. At about 12.30 to
1 PM, when victim reached at Bada Gol Chakkar Knowledge
Park, a Hyundai Xcent car bearing no.UP-84T-6731 (hereinafter
referred to as offending vehicle) driven by Respondent no.1
coming from the wrong side, in rash and negligent manner, hit
the deceased. Due to the impact, victim alongwith pillion rider,
fell on the road and sustained fatal injuries. They were removed
to the hospital where deceased/victim was declared "brought
dead".
3. An FIR No.22/2021 u/s 279/338/304A/427 IPC dated
16.01.2021 was registered at PS Knowledge Park, Gautam Budh
Nagar, U.P. Police investigated the matter and filed chargesheet
against the driver of the offending vehicle before concerned
criminal court. Present claim petition was filed Charu
before this Digitally signed
by Charu gupta
Date: 2026.05.04
gupta 17:07:38 +0530
MACT No. 239/21 Rajendra Singh Nagar v. Ranoo Verma @ Ranu Verma Page no.2 of 25 BK
:3:
Tribunal.
4. As per record, the offending vehicle was driven and owned
by Respondent no.1 and insured with Respondent no.2.
5. Despite opportunity, Respondent no.1 did not file any
reply/written statement. In reply to the petition, Respondent
no.2/insurance company filed its written statement denying
involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. It has been
pleaded that there is delay of 2 days in lodging FIR raising
possibility of planting of the offending vehicle. Further, an
objection as to the territorial jurisdiction has been raised. It is,
however, admitted that the offending vehicle was insured on the
date of accident.
6. From the pleadings, following issues were framed on
07.08.2023.
1) Whether this Tribunal has territorial
jurisdiction to deal with present petition? OPD.
2) Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries
in a road traffic accident on 14.01.2021 due to
rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing
no.UP-84T-6731 driven by R-1 and owned by
R-2(inadvertently written as owned by R-2)
and insured with R-3 ? OPP.
3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from
whom ? OPP.
4) Relief.
7. In order to prove their claim, petitioners examined Sh.
Rajendra Singh Nagar,father of the deceased as PW-1. He
tendered is evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW-1/A. He
deposed on the lines of petition. He deposed that deceased was
aged about 23 years of age and hale and healthy and highly
Digitally signed
Charu by Charu gupta
Date:
2026.05.04
gupta 17:07:43
+0530
MACT No. 239/21 Rajendra Singh Nagar v. Ranoo Verma @ Ranu Verma Page no.3 of 25 BK
:4:
educated. She was doing job of home tutor at her home i.e. Roza
Jalalpur, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. and earning Rs.5000/- per
month.
PW-1 relied upon Aadhar card of deceased as Ex.PW-1/1,
Aadhar card of petitioner no.1 as Ex.PW-1/2, postmortem and
panchnama of deceased as Ex.PW-1/3, Education certificate &
marksheets of deceased as Ex.PW-1/4, newspaper cutting as
Mark-A, chargesheet as Mark-B, hospital papers as Mark-C. He
was cross-examined by counsel for insurance company.
8. Respondents did not lead any evidence despite
opportunity. Final arguments in detail were addressed on behalf
the Petitioner as well as the insurance company.
Issue No.1
Whether this Tribunal has territorial
jurisdiction to deal with present petition? OPD.
9. It is a matter of record that the accident took place within
the territorial limits of police station Knowledge Park,
Noida,U.P., the petitioners as well as respondent no.1 are
permanent residents of U.P. and the registered office of
Respondent no.2/Insurance company is also situated outside
Delhi. It is however not denied that the respondent no.2 has one
of the branch office at New Friends Colony, New Delhi which
falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The law
regarding territorial jurisdiction has been settled in Malati Sardar
vs National Insurance Company Ltd. Decided on 5 January, 2016
by Hon'ble SC, in Civil Appeal No10/2016, arising out of SLP
(Civil) No.27243 Of 2015), wherein it was observed: Digitally
signed by
Charu Charu
Date:
gupta
gupta 17:07:50
2026.05.04
+0530
MACT No. 239/21 Rajendra Singh Nagar v. Ranoo Verma @ Ranu Verma Page no.4 of 25 BK
:5:
14. The provision in question, in the present
case, is a benevolent provision for the
victims of accidents of negligent driving.
The provision for territorial jurisdiction has
to be interpreted consistent with the object of
facilitating remedies for the victims of
accidents. Hyper technical approach in such
matters can hardly be appreciated. There is
no bar to a claim petition being filed at a
place where the insurance company, which is
the main contesting parties in such cases, has
its business. In such cases, there is no
prejudice to any party. There is no failure of
justice. Moreover, in view of categorical
decision of this Court in Mantoo Sarkar
(supra), contrary view taken by the High
Court cannot be sustained. The High Court
failed to notice the provision of Section 21
CPC.
As such, since Respondent no.2 was carrying on its
business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal,
jurisdiction of this Tribunal is made out. Issue no.1 is decided
accordingly.
Issue No.2
Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in
a road traffic accident on 14.01.2021 due to
rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing
no.UP-84T-6731 driven by R-1 and owned by
R-2(inadvertently written as owned by R-2)
and insured with R-3 ? OPP.
10. Before proceeding to decide the above issue, it is apposite
to note that as a settled principle of law, proceedings under The
Motor Vehicle Act are not considered akin to the proceedings in a
civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not applicable.
Reliance is placed upon decision in Bimla Devi & ors. vs.
Digitally
signed by
Charu Charu
Date:
gupta
gupta 17:08:03
2026.05.04
+0530
MACT No. 239/21 Rajendra Singh Nagar v. Ranoo Verma @ Ranu Verma Page no.5 of 25 BK
:6:
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (2009) 13 SC 535,
in Parmeshwari vs. Amir Chand & Ors., 2011 (1) SCR 1096 and
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ
287, wherein it has been held that the negligence has to be
decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and
a holistic view has to be taken.
11. In the instant case, petitioners have examined Rajendra
Singh Nagar (father of the deceased) as PW-1. PW-1, though not
an eye witness to the accident, has testified the factum and the
manner of accident. Insurance company has challenged his
testimony on the ground that PW-1 is not an eye witness and
further on the ground that there is a delay of two days in filing of
the complaint/lodging of the FIR and thereby questioned the
occurrence of the accident involving the offending vehicle.
Perusal of the record including the chargesheet reveals that
the intimation regarding the accident was recorded/registered
vide GD no.029 of 14.01.2021 at 14:17 hrs. The GD entry clearly
shows that victim Manju died on the spot in a road accident.
Further, the chargesheet is accompanied by photographs of the
offending vehicle as well as the scooty involved in the accident,
which were apparently taken on the spot. The postmortem report
of the victim also suggests death due to ante-mortem injury over
the head, which is likely to have resulted from the accident.
In fact the driver-cum-owner/Respondent no.1 did not
deny the occrrence of the accident involving his vehicle nor did
he refute the allegations of rash and negligence on his part
throughout the inquiry proceedings. Such driver-cum-owner has
Digitally
signed by
Charu Charu gupta
Date:
gupta 2026.05.04
17:08:09
+0530
MACT No. 239/21 Rajendra Singh Nagar v. Ranoo Verma @ Ranu Verma Page no.6 of 25 BK
:7:
not even entered any defence. Considering that the matter was
otherwise informed to the police without any delay but that the
police registered an FIR only after two days awaiting a formal
complaint from the father of the victim reflects adversely on the
part of the police and not the petitioners.
12. Also, considering that even the police after investigation,
has come to a finding against the driver of the offending vehicle
and filed a chargesheet against respondent no.1 under Section
279/337/338/427/304-A of IPC, the same is also suggestive of
negligence of respondent no.1 in causing the accident. In
National Insurance Co. vs. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, it
was laid down that completion of investigation and filing of
chargesheet are sufficient proof of negligence of the driver of the
offending vehicle.
13. It may further be noted that in Cholamandlam Insurance
company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh 2009 (3) AD Delhi 310, it was held
that if driver of offending vehicle does not enter the witness box,
an adverse inference can be drawn against him. In the present
case also, the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle has not
entered into the witness box to controvert the claim of petitioners
or even to explain circumstances of accident.
14. In totality of circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion
that the petitioner been able to prove on the scales of
preponderance of probabilities that the accident in question, took
place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle
by its driver-cum-owner/respondent no.1 on the date and time of
accident. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of
Digitally signed
Charu by Charu gupta
Date:
gupta 2026.05.04
17:08:15 +0530
MACT No. 239/21 Rajendra Singh Nagar v. Ranoo Verma @ Ranu Verma Page no.7 of 25 BK
:8:
petitioners and against the respondents.
Issue no. 2
Whether the petitioner is entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from
whom ? OPP.
15. Insurance company has raised statutory defence pleading
that the offending vehicle was being driven by Respondent no.1
without a driving licence however has not led any evidence in
this regard. As such, insurance company is liable to indemnify
the respondent no.1 (driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle)
by compensating the petitioners.
16. The claimants/petitioners no.1 and 2 have claimed
dependency on the deceased being her parents. Hence, they are
held to be dependent on the deceased and hence entitled to
compensation.
17. Before proceeding further, on quantum of compensation, it
would be apposite to encapsulate the law laid down by the Apex
Court in its various judgments qua methodology and
considerations for assessing/ascertaining just compensation in
road vehicular death cases laid down in Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. (2003) 6 SCC. The relevant
principles for ascertainment of compensation are quoted here
under:
BASIC PRINCIPLES
"9. Basically only three facts need to be established by
the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of
death :-
(a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased;
and the (c) the number of dependents. The issues to
be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of
dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made for Digitally signed
Charu by Charu gupta
Date:
gupta 2026.05.04
17:08:20 +0530
MACT No. 239/21 Rajendra Singh Nagar v. Ranoo Verma @ Ranu Verma Page no.8 of 25 BK
:9:
arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made
towards the personal living expenses of the deceased;
and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of
the age of the deceased. If these determinants are
standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency
in the decisions. There will lesser need for detailed
evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance
companies to settle accident claims without delay. To
have uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should
determine compensation in cases of death, by the
following well settled steps : -
Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand)
The income of the deceased per annum should be
determined. Out of the said income a deduction should
be made in regard to the amount which the deceased
would have spent on himself by way of personal and
living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be
the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the
multiplicand.
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier)
Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of
active career, the appropriate multiplier should be
selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number
of years he would have lived or worked but for the
accident. Having regard to several imponderables in
life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with
reference to the age has been identified by this Court.
The multiplier should be chosen from the said table
with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step 3 (Actual calculation)
The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand)
when multiplied by such multiplier gives the `loss of
dependency' to the family. Thereafter, a conventional
amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may
be added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is
survived by his widow, another conventional amount in
the range of 5,000/- to 10,000/- should be added under
the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be
awarded under the head of pain, suffering or
hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the
body (if incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of
the deceased before death (if incurred) should also
added."
ADDITIONS
"11. ...In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we
are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an
addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary
Charu Digitally signed
by Charu gupta
gupta 17:08:25 +0530
Date: 2026.05.04
MACT No. 239/21 Rajendra Singh Nagar v. Ranoo Verma @ Ranu Verma Page no.9 of 25 BK
:10:
income of the deceased towards future prospects,
where the deceased had a permanent job and was
below 40 years. [Where the annual income is in the
taxable range, the words `actual salary' should be read
as `actual salary less tax']. The addition should be only
30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years.
There should be no addition, where the age of deceased
is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may
indicate a different percentage of increase, it is
necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different
yardsticks being applied or different methods of
calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was
self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without
provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will
usually take only the actual income at the time of
death. A departure therefrom should be made only in
rare and exceptional cases involving special
circumstances."
DEDUCTIONS
"14. Having considered several subsequent decisions of
this court, we are of the view that where the deceased
was married, the deduction towards personal and living
expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd)
where the number of dependent family members is 2 to
3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant
family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where
the number of dependant family members exceed six.
15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the
claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a
different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally,
50% is deducted as personal and living expenses,
because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to
spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also
the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in
which event the contribution to the parent/s and
siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject
to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have
his own income and will not be considered as a
dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a
dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary,
brothers and sisters will not be considered as
dependents, because they will either be independent
and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.
Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and
siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a
dependent, and 50% would be treated as the personal
and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the
contribution to the family. However, where family of Digitally signed
Charu by Charu gupta
Date:
gupta 2026.05.04
17:08:30 +0530
MACT No. 239/21 Rajendra Singh Nagar v. Ranoo Verma @ Ranu Verma Page no.10 of 25 BK
:11:
the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of
the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed
mother and large number of younger non-earning
sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses
may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the
family will be taken as two-third."
MULTIPLIER
"21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used
should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table
above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok
Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative
multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21
to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years,
that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35
years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45
years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by
two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to
55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65
years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."
18. As regards, computation of the future prospects, observations
made in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi
& Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 are noteworthy:
"58. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be no
addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept.
We are disposed to think, there should be an addition of
15% if the deceased is between the age of 50 to 60 years
and there should be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in
case of self- employed or person on fixed salary, the
addition should be 10% between the age of 50 to 60
years. The aforesaid yardstick has been fixed so that
there can be consistency in the approach by the tribunals
and the Courts.
59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to
record our conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi 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 has not taken note of the decision in
Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of Digitally signed
Charu by Charu gupta
Date:
2026.05.04
gupta 17:08:35
+0530
MACT No. 239/21 Rajendra Singh Nagar v. Ranoo Verma @ Ranu Verma Page no.11 of 25 BK
:12:
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 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 42 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.
19. In view of the above settled principles, in order to archive
at or ascertain a just compensation payable to the petitioners, this
Tribunal first needs to ascertain the age of deceased/victim, the
appropriate multiplier, income of the deceased at the time of
incident, the educational qualification of deceased, the number of
dependents, whether deceased was married or unmarried,
whether deceased was having permanent employment or private
job etc. Award also needs to be passed qua non-pecuniary heads Digitally signed
Charu by Charu gupta
Date:
gupta 2026.05.04
17:08:41 +0530
MACT No. 239/21 Rajendra Singh Nagar v. Ranoo Verma @ Ranu Verma Page no.12 of 25 BK
:13:
as envisaged and in terms of above judgments.
Age and multiplier
20. Age of the deceased is claimed to be 24 years at the time
of accident/death. Same is proved by his Aadhar Card Ex.PW-1/1
showing her date of birth as 24.10.1997. As such, she would fall
in the age bracket of 21-25 years. The multiplier applicable in the
present case would be 18.
Determination of monthly and annual income
21. At the time of accident, deceased victim is stated to have
done Post-graduation(MSc.) and was going to deposit fees for
B.Ed at the time of accident. Copy of educational certificate has
been filed on record by the petitioners as Ex.PW-1/4. Further, as
stated by PW-1 that deceased was a tutor but no proof in this
regard has been filed.
As such, considering the educational qualifications, victim
is assumed to be a skilled worker and her income has to be
assessed as minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in U.P.
at the time of accident. The same were Rs.10,791/- p.m. Her
annual income would have, therefore, been Rs.10,791/-
X12=Rs.1,29,492/- per annum.
Determination of future prospects
22. Having regard to the age of the deceased and ratio laid
down in Pranay Sethi (Supra) and other judgments, the
percentage towards future prospect would be calculated @40%
where the deceased was below the age of 40 years and on a fixed
salary or self employed.
Thus, the enhanced income (after adding 40% of his
Charu Digitally signed
by Charu gupta
Date: 2026.05.04
gupta 17:08:46 +0530
MACT No. 239/21 Rajendra Singh Nagar v. Ranoo Verma @ Ranu Verma Page no.13 of 25 BK
:14:
annual income, as future prospects) would be Rs.1,29,492/-+
Rs.51,797/-=Rs.1,81,289/- P.A.
Deduction
23. As regards dependency, petitioner no.1 and 2/parents
claimed to be dependents. Thus, considering the age of the
deceased and that she is survived by 2 dependents, as per Sarla
Verma judgment (supra), deductions towards personal and living
expenses of deceased on herself would be taken as 1/2nd. Thus,
the net deduction in the present case is ascertained to be 1/2nd of
the total calculated income i.e. Rs.1,81,289/-which equal to
Rs.90,644.5. Hence, deceased would have been contributing
Rs.1,81,289-90644.5=Rs.90,644.5/-(Rs.90,645/-) per annum
towards petitioners.
Determination of Multiplicand
24. The multiplicand would thus be the annual contributed
income of deceased i.e. Rs.90,645/-.
Loss of dependency upon applying multiplier
25. Since the age of the victim is 24 years, as per Sarla Verma
Judgment (supra), multiplier of 18 is applicable. The total loss of
dependency would come out to be Rs.90,645/-X18=
Rs.16,31,610/-.
Compensation under Non-Pecuniary Heads (Grant of Loss of
Estate, Loss of Consortium and Funeral Expenses):
26. To calculate compensation under the non pecuniary heads,
reference has to be drawn from decision in Pranay Sethi case
(supra) wherein it was observed:
''...Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be
quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable Digitally signed
Charu by Charu gupta
Date:
2026.05.04
gupta 17:08:53
+0530
MACT No. 239/21 Rajendra Singh Nagar v. Ranoo Verma @ Ranu Verma Page no.14 of 25 BK
:15:
foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price
index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field
have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the
same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise,
there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and
unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation
lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the
orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be
unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums.
It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads,
namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses
should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The
principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle.
But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We
think that it would be condign that the amount that we have
quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three
years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span
of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring
in consistency in respect of those heads.
.
.
59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years...''
27. It may further be noted that the date of judgment of Pranay Sethi case (supra) is 31/10/2017. Further, as per the judgment, the amount so quantified under the non pecuniary heads have to be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. As such, the funeral expenses and expenses towards loss of estate would, as on date, be Rs.19,965/-, under each of these heads while compensation for loss of consortium would stand enhanced to Rs.53,240/-.
28. As already discussed above and in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as noted above, both the petitioners would be entitled Rs.53,240/- each towards loss of Digitally signed Charu by Charu gupta Date:
2026.05.04 gupta 17:08:59 +0530 MACT No. 239/21 Rajendra Singh Nagar v. Ranoo Verma @ Ranu Verma Page no.15 of 25 BK :16: consortium and petitioner no.1 is also entitled to expenses towards funeral and loss of estate.
Share of petitioners
29. (I) Petitioner no.1/Rajendra Singh Nagar (father of deceased)is entitled to Rs.8,15,805/- towards loss of financial dependency, Rs.53,240/- towards loss of consortium,Rs.19,965/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.19,965/- towards loss of estate. The total comes out to be Rs.9,08,975/-. (II) Petitioner no.2/Smt. Oman (mother of deceased)is entitled to Rs.8,15,805/- towards loss of financial dependency, Rs.53,240/- towards loss of consortium,. The total comes out to be Rs.8,69,045/-
Thus, the total amount payable by respondent no.1 and 2 to claimants is Rs.17,78,020/-.
Liability
30. As already discussed, insurance company is liable to compensate the petitioners. The principal award amount/ compensation shall be payable by insurance company with simple interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of petition till actual realization.
In case, the interest of petitioners were stopped or excluded during the present inquiry proceedings, same is liable to be adjusted from the total interest calculated on the Award amount. Similarly, amount awarded and released as interim Award, if any, during pendency of the case, be deducted from the total compensation amount.
Digitally
signed by
Charu Charu gupta
Date:
gupta 2026.05.04
17:09:04
+0530
MACT No. 239/21 Rajendra Singh Nagar v. Ranoo Verma @ Ranu Verma Page no.16 of 25 BK
:17:
Directions Regarding Deposit of Award Amount in Bank
31. In compliance of directions issued vide order dated 16.11.2021 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition Civil No.534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India the award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT PARKING FUND, A/c No. 00000042706875094, IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir in the prescribed format i.e. MCOP Number on the file of (Claims Tribunal Name) Date of award, Compensation Amount, Income Tax Deduction at Source, Bank Transaction Reference No./Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. In turn, the State Bank of India, Saket Courts Branch shall receive the deposited sum and capture the above information and furnish a statement of account on a daily basis to the Nazir of this Tribunal to reconcile the deposits of compensation and the respective MCOPs towards which such deposits are made. On such deposits being made, the Respondents shall submit a letter to the Nazir of this Tribunal enclosing a copy of the said bank advice, in prescribed format as above, as per which the deposit made to the bank account of this Tribunal, to enable this Tribunal to keep tab on the deposits made and the MCOPs for which they were made. The Payment advice for remittance of compensation is as under:
PAYMENT ADVICE FOR REMITTANCE OF COMPENSATION :
............ Bank ...................
Digitally
To: Charu
signed by
Charu gupta
Date:
gupta 2026.05.04
17:09:11
+0530
MACT No. 239/21 Rajendra Singh Nagar v. Ranoo Verma @ Ranu Verma Page no.17 of 25 BK
:18:
............... Court ........................ We confirm remittance of compensation as follows on instructions of ................................... (insurance company):- MCOP Number On the file of (Claims Tribunal Name), Place Date of award Amount Deposited, Income Tax Deduction at Source, if any Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. Insurance company of offending vehicle, on deposit, shall also send a copy of the payment advice in above format to this Tribunal and serve a copy of the same on the claimants or their counsel as the case may be.
DISBURSEMENT
32. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors. has given the following directions:
"(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) 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 claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimants. 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 claimants so that no Digitally signed Charu byDate:Charu gupta gupta 2026.05.04 17:09:16 +0530 MACT No. 239/21 Rajendra Singh Nagar v. Ranoo Verma @ Ranu Verma Page no.18 of 25 BK :19: debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque books and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and the claimant shall produced the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court for compliance."
33. However, in a recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal on 18 March, 2025 in S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020 has held that :
"17. The case in hand pertains to the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. The general practice followed by the insurance companies, where the compensation is not disputed, is to deposit the same before the Tribunal. Instead of following that process, a direction can always be issued to transfer the amount into the bank account(s) of the claimant(s) with intimation to the Tribunal. 17.1 For that purpose, the Tribunals at the initial stage of pleadings or at the stage of leading evidence may require the claimant(s) to furnish their bank account particulars to the Tribunal along with the requisite proof, so that at the stage of passing of the award the Tribunal may direct that the amount of compensation be transferred in the account of the claimant and if there are more than one then in their respective accounts. If there is no bank account, then they should be required to open the bank account either individually or jointly with family members only. It should also be mandated that, in case there is any change in the bank account particulars of the claimant(s) during the pendency of the claim petition they should update the same before the Tribunal. This should be ensured before passing of the final award. It Digitally signed by Charu Charu Date:
gupta gupta 2026.05.04 17:09:22 +0530 MACT No. 239/21 Rajendra Singh Nagar v. Ranoo Verma @ Ranu Verma Page no.19 of 25 BK :20: may be ensured that the bank account should be in the name of the claimant(s) and if minor, through guardian(s) and in no case it should be a joint account with any person, who is not a family member. The transfer of the amount in the bank account, particulars of which have been furnished by the claimant(s), as mentioned in the award, shall be treated as satisfaction of the award. Intimation of compliance should be furnished to the Tribunal."
34. In view of the same, the award amount can now be disbursed in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioners. However, the remaining directions as passed by the Hon'ble High Court shall be complied with.
Apportionment
35. Out of the total compensation amount awarded to petitioner no.1/father i.e. Rs.9,08,975/-, Rs.4,08,975/- be released to him in his bank account and remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith proportionate interest thereon be kept in the form of FDRs in the following phased manner:
1. Rs.1,00,000/- for period of 1 years.
2. Rs.1,00,000/- for period of 2 years.
3. Rs.1,00,000/- for period of 3 years.
4. Rs.1,00,000/- for period of 4 years.
5. Rs.1,00,000/- for period of 5 years.
The interest accruing on the said FDRs shall be credited to the designated Saving Bank Account of the petitioner. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released to the Saving Bank Account of petitioner near his place of residence as per rule/directions.
36. Out of the total compensation amount awarded to Digitally signed Charu by Charu gupta Date:
gupta 2026.05.04
17:09:29 +0530
MACT No. 239/21 Rajendra Singh Nagar v. Ranoo Verma @ Ranu Verma Page no.20 of 25 BK
:21:
petitioner no.2/mother i.e. Rs.8,69,045/-, Rs.3,69,045/- be released to her in her bank account and remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith proportionate interest thereon be kept in the form of FDRs in the following phased manner:
1. Rs.1,00,000/- for period of 1 years.
2. Rs.1,00,000/- for period of 2 years.
3. Rs.1,00,000/- for period of 3 years.
4. Rs.1,00,000/- for period of 4 years.
5. Rs.1,00,000/- for period of 5 years.
The interest accruing on the said FDRs shall be credited to the designated Saving Bank Account of the petitioner. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released to the Saving Bank Account of petitioner near her place of residence as per rule/directions.
37. The following directions are also given to the bank for compliance:
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name (s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of victim i.e. the savings bank account of the claimant shall be individual savings bank account and not a joint account.
(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.
(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 (s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank Digitally signed Charu by Charu gupta Date: gupta 2026.05.04 17:09:34 +0530 MACT No. 239/21 Rajendra Singh Nagar v. Ranoo Verma @ Ranu Verma Page no.21 of 25 BK :22: account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/ or debit card to claimant (s). However, in case the debit card and/ or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit freeze the account of the claimant so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque book and / or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) The bank shall not call upon the petitioners physically in the bank beyond RBI guidelines.
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1. Date of accident 14.01.2021
2. Name of deceased Manju Nagar
3. Age of the deceased 24 years
4. Occupation of the deceased Skilled worker of U.P.
5. Income of the deceased Rs.10,791/- p.m. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:
S Name Age Relation Digitally signed Charu by Charu gupta Date:
MACT No. 239/21 Rajendra Singh Nagar v. Ranoo Verma @ Ranu Verma gupta Page no.22 of 25 2026.05.04 BK 17:09:40 +0530 :23: No.
(i) Sh. Rajendra Singh Nagar 53 years Father
(ii) Smt. Oman 50 years Mother Computation of compensation:-
S. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal No 1 A. Income of the deceased per Rs.1,29,492/- year 2 Add-Future Prospects 40% of Rs.51,797/- A (per year) 3 C. Total Rs.1,81,289/-
4 D.Less-Personal Expenses of Rs.90,645/- the deceased 1/2nd of (C) 5 E. Yearly loss of dependency Rs.90,645/-
[C -D] 6 F. Multiplier. 18 7 G. Total loss of dependency (E Rs.16,31,610/- x F = G) 8 H. Medical Expenses Nil 9 I. Deduction, if any Nil 10 J. Total loss of dependency Nil after deduction, if any 11 K. Compensation for loss of Rs. 53,240/-(Rs.53,240X2= consortium Rs.1,06,480/-
12 L. Compensation for loss of Rs.19,965/- estate 13 M. Compensation towards Rs.19,965/- funeral expenses 14 N. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.17,78,020/- total of J+K+L+M =N 15 O. RATE OF INTEREST @9% per annum AWARDED:
Digitally signed by Charu Charu Date:
gupta gupta 2026.05.04 17:09:46 +0530 MACT No. 239/21 Rajendra Singh Nagar v. Ranoo Verma @ Ranu Verma Page no.23 of 25 BK :24: from date of filing of Petition till actual realization of principal amount awarded.
16 Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.10,00,000/- 17 Award amount released Rs.7,78,020/- 18 Mode of disbursement of the (I) Share of Petitioner award amount to the claimant no.1/Wife: Out of the total
(s). (Clause 29) compensation amount awarded to petitioner no.1/father i.e. Rs.9,08,975/-, Rs.4,08,975/- be released to him in his bank account and remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith proportionate interest thereon be kept in the form of FDRs in the following phased manner:
1.Rs.1,00,000/- for period of 1 years.
2.Rs.1,00,000/- for period of 2 years.
3.Rs.1,00,000/- for period of 3 years.
4.Rs.1,00,000/- for period of 4 years.
5.Rs.1,00,000/- for period of 5 years.
The interest accruing on the said FDRs shall be credited to the designated Saving Bank Account of the petitioner. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released to the Saving Bank Account of petitioner near his place of residence as per rule/directions.
(II) Share of Petitioner no.2/Mother:Out of the total compensation amount awarded to petitioner no.2/mother i.e. Rs.8,69,045/-, Rs.3,69,045/- be Charu Digitally signed by Charu gupta Page no.24 gupta Date: 2026.05.04 MACT No. 239/21 Rajendra Singh Nagar v. Ranoo Verma @ Ranu Verma of 25 BK 17:09:51 +0530 :25: released to her in her bank account and remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith proportionate interest thereon be kept in the form of FDRs in the following phased manner:
1.Rs.1,00,000/- for period of 1 years.
2.Rs.1,00,000/- for period of 2 years.
3.Rs.1,00,000/- for period of 3 years.
4.Rs.1,00,000/- for period of 4 years.
5.Rs.1,00,000/- for period of 5 years.
The interest accruing on the said FDRs shall be credited to the designated Saving Bank Account of the petitioner. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released to the Saving Bank Account of petitioner near her place of residence as per rule/directions.
All above amount shall be along with interest @9% per annum on total principal award amount from date of filing of Petition till actual realization.
19 Next Date for compliance of 02.07.2026 the award (Clause 31)
38. Put up on 02.07.2026 for compliance.
Digitally
signed by
Charu Charu gupta
Announced in the open court gupta
Date:
2026.05.04
17:09:57
on 04th May, 2026. +0530
(Charu Gupta)
PO-MACT-01 (South East)
Saket Courts/New Delhi
MACT No. 239/21 Rajendra Singh Nagar v. Ranoo Verma @ Ranu Verma Page no.25 of 25 BK