Delhi District Court
Poonam Kumari vs Deepak Kumar on 23 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHILASH MALHOTRA
PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-02,PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
SMT. POONAM KUMARI & Ors. Vs. DEEPAK
KUMAR & ORS.
MACT NO. 67/2017
1. Smt. Poonam Kumari (Wife)
W/o Late Sh. Praveen Kumar
2. Mr. Harshit Kumar (Son)
S/o Late Sh. Praveen Kumar
3. Smt. Rekha Devi (Mother)
W/o Sh. Ganesh Mahto
4. Mr. Ganesh Mahto (Father)
S/o Sh. Dukhit Mahto
All Resident of:
R/o House No. 650/B-2, Unique Apartment,
Shalimar Garden Extension-I, Sahibabad,
Ghaziabad, UP.
Permanent Add.
Rasool Colony, Gaghonagar, Bhauwara,
Ward No. 29, P. O. PS & Distt. Madhubani,
Bihar. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Deepak Kumar
S/o Sh. Krishan Singh Nai
R/o H. No. 986, Chainpura Patti,
Bhora Kalan, PS Bilaspur,
Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana. ... Driver/
Respondent no. 1
MACT No. 67/2017 Page. 1 of 37 Smt. Poonam Kumari & Ors. Vs Deepak Kumar & Ors.
2. Mr. Jai Bhagwan S/o Sh. Chunni Lal R/o V.P.O Gudhan, P.O. Sherpur, The-Pataudi, Gurgaon, Haryana. .... Owner/ Respondent no. 2
2. M/s Chola Mandalam General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Fire Brigade Lane, Barakhamba, New Delhi -110001 ....Insurance Company/ Respondent no. 3 Date of accident 01.11.2016 Date of filing of petition 02.03.2017 Date of framing of issues 11.09.2017 Date of concluding arguments 10.03.2026 Date of decision 23.03.2026 AWARD/JUDGMENT Index to the Judgment I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE CLAIMANT(s)...........................................5 II. FRAMING OF ISSUES..................................................................................5 III. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS OF THE PARTIES.....................................8 IV. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO....................................9 MACT No. 67/2017 Page. 2 of 37 Smt. Poonam Kumari & Ors. Vs Deepak Kumar & Ors.
(a) Issue No.1: Whether Sh. Praveen Kumar sustained fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 01.11.2016 at about 10:p.m near Gausala, NH-8, Manesher, Haryana caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle no.
DL-76B-1393 being driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2, and insured with respondent no. 3?OPP...........................................................9 i. Jurisdiction..................................................................................... 10 ii. Presumption qua complicity upon filing chargesheet:...................10 iii. The evidence on record qua negligence:........................................11 iv. Adverse inference qua driver:........................................................12 v. Preponderance of probabilities:......................................................12 vi. Finding:.......................................................................................... 14
(b) Issue No.2: Whether claimant is entitled to compensation, and to what amount ?.......................................................................................................... 15 i. Principles qua assessment of compensation:..................................15 ii. Monthly Income of the deceased:..................................................17 iii. Future prospects:............................................................................18 iv. Personal expenses of the deceased:................................................19 v. Monthly & Annual Loss of dependency:.......................................21 vi. Total Loss of Dependency:.............................................................21 vii. Other Heads:...................................................................................21 viii. Medical Expenses:..........................................................................23 ix. Compensation for Loss of Consortium:.........................................23 x. Compensation for Loss of Estate:..................................................25 xi. Compensation towards Funeral Expenses:.....................................25 xii. Total Compensation:.......................................................................25
(c) Issue No.3: Relief.................................................................................. 25 i. Amount of Award:..........................................................................25 ii. Rate of Interest:..............................................................................26 V. DEPOSIT OF AWARD& RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT.........................27 MACT No. 67/2017 Page. 3 of 37 Smt. Poonam Kumari & Ors. Vs Deepak Kumar & Ors.
i. Deposit of Award:...........................................................................27 ii. Disbursement of the award amount & protection thereof:.............29 VI. LIABILITY...................................................................................................31 VII.. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN CASES OF DEATH.................................................................................................................32 VIII..............................COMPLIANCE QUA PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME 34 MACT No. 67/2017 Page. 4 of 37 Smt. Poonam Kumari & Ors. Vs Deepak Kumar & Ors.
I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE CLAIMANT(s)
1. In present case, FIR bearing no. 547/2016 was registered in PS Manesar, Haryana on the complaint made by complainant Sh. Shiv Kumar. A charge sheet was filed by the police against the driver Mr. Deepak Kumar (R-1) under Section 279/337/338/304A IPC, on the charges of rash driving of vehicle no. HR-76B-1393. As per the investigation the offending vehicle was being driven by R-1 Deepak Kumar in high speed and rash manner. Despite request made by passenger/ deceased Mr. Praveen Kumar, R-1 / driver kept driving the vehicle in rash manner and when vehicle reached near Gausala, Manesar at NH-8, Haryana, R-1 driver lost control over the vehicle and accident took place in which deceased Mr. Praveen Kumar lost his life.
2. As per the charge sheet, the vehicle was driven by respondent no. 1 driver, owned by respondent no.2 owner and insured with respondent no. 3 Insurance Company.
3. During the proceedings issues were framed on 11.09.2017 Thereafter the written submissions were filed by the parties in the prescribed format. The financial statement of the legal representatives of deceased was recorded on 01.09.2025.
II. FRAMING OF ISSUES
4. Vide order dated 11.09.2017, following issues were framed by this Tribunal:-
MACT No. 67/2017 Page. 5 of 37 Smt. Poonam Kumari & Ors. Vs Deepak Kumar & Ors.
"1. Whether Sh. Praveen Kumar sustained fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 01.11.2016 at about 10:p.m near Gausala, NH-8, Manesher, Haryana caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DL-76B-1393 being driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2, and insured with respondent no. 3?OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief."
Recording of evidence:
5. In the present case, PW-1 Smt. Poonam Kumari examined herself and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW 1/A. She also exhibited the following documents viz., Copy of Aadhar card of deceased as Ex. PW 1/1; Copy of Aadhar Card of Smt. Poonam Kumari as Ex. PW 1/2; Copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no. 4 Sh. Ganesh Mahto as Ex. PW 1/3; Copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no. 3 Smt. Rekha Devi as Mark -A; Copy of birth certificate of petitioner no. 2 Harshit Kumar as mark 'B'; Certified copy of criminal case record as Ex. PW 1 /4 (Colly); pay slip for the month of August, 2016 of deceased as mark 'C'; statement of bank account for the period 17.06.2016 to 05.12.2016 of deceased as mark 'D'.
6. PW-1 in her testimony she stated that her husband / deceased Mr. Praveen Kumar on 01.11.2016 was travelling in car bearing MACT No. 67/2017 Page. 6 of 37 Smt. Poonam Kumari & Ors. Vs Deepak Kumar & Ors.
registration no. HR -76B-1393 and the vehicle was driven by R-1 in high speed and rash manner. Despite request made by passenger R-1 / driver kept driving the vehicle in rash manner and when vehicle reached near Gausala, Manesar at NH-8, Haryana, R-1 driver lost control over the vehicle and accident took place in which her husband Mr. Praveen Kumar lost his life.
7. PW-1 stated that her husband was working with M/s Tata AIG Insurance Company Ltd. and earning Rs.18,366/-.
8. In her cross examination she admitted that she is not an eye witness to the accident. She also admitted that a sum of Rs.16 lakhs was received towards group insurance policy. She clarified that no amount is received from employer.
9. PW-2 was Ms. Akansha Tiwari, Manager (HR) from TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. She proved on record the following documents viz., Authority letter in her favour Ex. PW 2/1; Attested copy of appointment letter of deceased as Ex. PW 2/A; Attested copy of salary slip for the month of October, 2016 as Ex. PW 2/B and attested copies of Form 16 for the Assessment Year 2016-17 & 2017-18 are Ex. PW 2/C (Colly).
10.She stated that Mr. Praveen Kumar was a permanent employee and not covered by the ESI Act. She clarified that the company was paying monthly bonus. The salary slip Ex. PW 2/B records Rs.10,117/- towards bonus pertaining to Financial Year 2015-
MACT No. 67/2017 Page. 7 of 37 Smt. Poonam Kumari & Ors. Vs Deepak Kumar & Ors.
2016. A monthly bonus of Rs.583/- was also paid . She clarified that no compassionate job was offered to family members.
11.PW-3 ASI Rekha from PS Manesar, Gurugram. She stated that FIR No. 547/2016 under Section 279/304-A/337/338 IPC was registered in this case. She proved on record copy of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C which is Ex. PW 3 /1 (Colly). She stated that as per record Mr. Deepak Kumar S/o Sh. Krishan Singh Nai is accused. She stated that as per record vehicle bearing registration no. HR-76B-1393 was seized during investigation.
12. R-1 driver, R-2 registered owner and R-3 Insurance company did not led any evidence despite grant of opportunities. Application of R-3/ Insurance to re-open the evidence was declined by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 16.09.2025.
III. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS OF THE PARTIES
13.Ld. Counsel for the claimant submitted that they have filed the copy of FIR and charge sheet. He submitted that the said record clearly shows that the offending vehicle bearing no. HR-76B-1393 was seized during the investigation and later on released on Superdari. He submitted that the charge sheet in that case was already filed against the driver Sh. Deepak Kumar under Section 279/337/338/304-A IPC which clearly establishes the rash driving on part of the offending vehicle.
MACT No. 67/2017 Page. 8 of 37 Smt. Poonam Kumari & Ors. Vs Deepak Kumar & Ors.
14.Ld. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the deceased was aged about 29 years of old at the time of accident and was working in a private company with M/s TATA AIG Insurance Company Ltd. and earning Rs.28,483/- per month.
15.Ld. counsel for R-1 and R-2 disputed the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. It is stated in their reply that as per the contents of the FIR the vehicle was driven by Mr. Praveen S/o Zile Singh and R-1 is falsely implanted in the present case.
16.Ld. counsel for Insurance company submitted that insured vehicle is wrongly involved in the present case. He submitted that in the FIR driver is mentioned as Praveeen S/o Zile Singh but the charge sheet is filed against R-1. The Insurance company is also disputed the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
17.R-1 and R-2 and R-3 Insurance company have taken a defence that in the FIR the name of the driver is written as Praveen S/o Zile Singh but the charge sheet has been filed by R-1 and the vehicle is falsely implanted.
IV. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO
(a) Issue No.1: Whether Sh. Praveen Kumar sustained fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 01.11.2016 at about 10:p.m near Gausala, NH-8, Manesher, Haryana caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DL-76B-1393 being driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2, and insured with respondent no. 3?OPP MACT No. 67/2017 Page. 9 of 37 Smt. Poonam Kumari & Ors. Vs Deepak Kumar & Ors.
i. Jurisdiction
18.Objections as to jurisdiction was taken by respondents. In the present case, the accident had occurred out of Delhi and a claim petition was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased.
19.The issue regarding the jurisdiction was raised by the Insurance Company. The office of the Insurance Company is stated to be within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal and in lieu of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Company Limited and Ors. (2016) 3 SCC 43, the issue of jurisdiction is no more in dispute.
ii. Presumption qua complicity upon filing chargesheet:
20.Rule 21 of Annexure XIII of The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 mandates as follows:-
21. Claims Tribunal shall treat Dar as a claim petition for compensation under Sub-Section (4) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (1) The Claims Tribunal shall treat the DAR filed by the Investigating Officer as a claim petition under Section (4) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, where the Investigating Officer is unable to produce the claimant(s) on the first date of hearing the Claims Tribunal shall register the DAR as a claim petition after the appearance of the claimant(s).
(2) where the claimant(s) have filed a separate claim petition, the DAR may be tagged along with the claim petition. (3) If the Report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2) of 1974 has not been filed at the time of filing of the DAR, the Claims Tribunal may either wait till filing of the Report under Section 173 of the said Code of Criminal Procedure or record the statement of the eye witness(es) to satisfy itself with respect to the negligence before passing the award.
MACT No. 67/2017 Page. 10 of 37 Smt. Poonam Kumari & Ors. Vs Deepak Kumar & Ors.
(4) The Claims Tribunal shall register the FAR as a Miscellaneous application and the IAR as well as DAR shall be taken on record in the same Miscellaneous application.
21. In Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Meera Devi & Ors decided on 16.02.2021, 2021 LawSuit (Del) 858 it was held:
8. ..... In view of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008, contents of DAR had to be presumed to be correct and read in evidence without formal proof of the same unless proof to the contrary was produced........".
22. In a recent order dated 25.02.2025, passed in Ranjeet & Anr v Abdul Nayem Keb & Anr in SLP (c) 10351/2019 , it was held in trenchant terms as thus:
"It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the eyewitnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver."
iii. The evidence on record qua negligence:
23.Claimant has placed on record the certified copy of charge sheet in FIR no 547/2016, PS Manesar, Haryana. Record shows that the charge sheet u/s 279/337/338/304-A IPC was filed in the present case against the driver/R-1 Deepak Kumar. The charge sheet records that the due to rash driving of the driver / (R-1) of the offending vehicle, the deceased suffered grievous injuries and died.
MACT No. 67/2017 Page. 11 of 37 Smt. Poonam Kumari & Ors. Vs Deepak Kumar & Ors.
24. It is settled legal position that for the purposes of MACT inquiry the examination of the eye witnesses is not necessary to establish the factum of accident. Reference in this regard can be had to decision in the case of Ranjeet & Anr. Vs. Abdul Nayem Keb & Anr. (Supra).
25.It is settled position that FIR is not a complete code and it is only during the investigation true facts are unearth. As per final report filed by the police after investigation, it was found that R-1 / accused Deepak Kumar S/o Krishan Kumar was driver of the offending vehicle. PW-3 Rekha also confirmed the same in her testimony. No evidence was led by R-1, R-2 and R-3 to substantiate their pleas. There is nothing on record to rebut the findings arrived by the police in the charge sheet. Accordingly, from the investigation and evidence on record it is clear that R-1 driver driving the offending insured vehicle on the date of accident.
26.As per the charge sheet, the vehicle was driven by respondent no. 1 driver, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured by respondent no. 3/Insurance company.
27.It is admitted by Insurance company that the offending vehicle bearing no. HR-76B-1393 was insured on the date of accident.
28.From the aforesaid, it is clear that the accident had occurred due to rash driving of offending / insured vehicle by R-1/ driver.
MACT No. 67/2017 Page. 12 of 37 Smt. Poonam Kumari & Ors. Vs Deepak Kumar & Ors.
iv. Adverse inference qua driver:
29.The driver of the offending vehicle steered clear of the witness box and did not lead any controvertible evidence to negate or refute the allegations of rash and negligent driving. 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, since the driver exercised his volition to not enter into the witness box to controvert the claim of petitioner or even to explain circumstances of accident, an adverse inference ought to be drawn against him.
v. Preponderance of probabilities:
30.It is trite law that in a proceeding before the Claims Tribunal, the claimant does not have to establish negligence on the part of the driver respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The standards of establishing negligence is predicated on preponderance of probabilities. In the present case too, negligence has been established on this principle.
31. In this context, it would be useful to peruse Mathew Alexander v. Mohd. Shafi, (2023) 13 SCC 510 wherein it was observed as thus:
"In this context, we could refer to the judgments of this Court in N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal [N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. MACT No. 67/2017 Page. 13 of 37 Smt. Poonam Kumari & Ors. Vs Deepak Kumar & Ors.
Karumai Ammal, (1980) 3 SCC 457 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 774] , wherein the plea that the criminal case had ended in acquittal and that, therefore, the civil suit must follow suit, was rejected. It was observed that culpable rashness under Section 304-AIPC is more drastic than negligence under the law of torts to create liability. Similarly, in Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC [Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC, (2009) 13 SCC 530 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 189 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1101] ("Bimla Devi"), it was observed that in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal has to determine the amount of fair compensation to be granted in the event an accident has taken place by reason of negligence of a driver of a motor vehicle. A holistic view of the evidence has to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal and strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be established by the claimants. The claimants have to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in a road traffic accident. To the same effect is the observation made by this Court in Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz [Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 13] which has referred to the aforesaid judgment in Bimla Devi [Bimla Devi v.
Himachal RTC (2009) 13 SCC 530."
vi. Finding:
32.In view of foregoing discussion, it stands proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities that the aforesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the MACT No. 67/2017 Page. 14 of 37 Smt. Poonam Kumari & Ors. Vs Deepak Kumar & Ors.
transgressing/offending vehicle bearing registration no. HR-76B-1393 and the said vehicle at that time was driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured by respondent no.3. Hence, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the claimant and against the respondents. It is clarified that the finding given are limited for the purposes of this inquiry and shall not impact the trial of the criminal case.
(b) Issue No.2: Whether claimant is entitled to compensation, and to what amount ?
i. Principles qua assessment of compensation:
33.Before adverting to the submissions of the counsels in this regard, it would be apposite to refer to the law of the land qua this aspect. The law has been enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. (2003) 6SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.(2017) 16 SCC 680.
34.An essential ingredient of the award is the loss of dependency. To calculate the same, it would be of utmost significance to peruse the following seminal directions issued in Sarla Verma (supra):
"18.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
(c) the number of dependants MACT No. 67/2017 Page. 15 of 37 Smt. Poonam Kumari & Ors. Vs Deepak Kumar & Ors.
The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are:
(i) additions/deductions to be made for 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 to the age of the deceased.
If these determinants are standardised, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay
19.To have uniformity and consistency, the 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 dependant 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."
35.To ascertain the 'multiplier' mentioned in Step 2 above, it was further laid down in Sarla Verma (supra) as thus:
"42 We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table MACT No. 67/2017 Page. 16 of 37 Smt. Poonam Kumari & Ors. Vs Deepak Kumar & Ors.
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 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- 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years ,M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M- 5 for 66 to 70 years."
36. Further, in terms of the mandate of Rajesh Tyagi v Jaibir Singh FAO 842/2003, which is the cause célèbre qua cases pertaining to motor accident claims, the claimant filed Form XIII of the Scheme for Motor Accident Claims qua compensation under various heads which have been elucidated in the paragraphs hereafter.
ii. Monthly Income of the deceased:
37.Petitioner initially filed Form No. VI-A on 01.09.2025 and thereafter a fresh form VI-A was filed on 11.02.2026 by petitioner. Ld. counsel for petitioner submitted that previous form was having some calculation defects and therefore they have filed afresh calculations as per Form VI-A. In their form VI-A, petitioner considered income of the deceased as Rs.28,483/-. The salary slip of the deceased for the month of October, 2016 is Ex. PW 2/B and the gross earning as per said salary slip is Rs.28,483/-.
38.PW-2 Ms. Akanksha Tiwari, Manager (HR) from M/s TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. stated that the salary of MACT No. 67/2017 Page. 17 of 37 Smt. Poonam Kumari & Ors. Vs Deepak Kumar & Ors.
October, 2016 was including a bonus of Rs.10,117/ towards financial year 2015-2016 and bonus of Rs.583/- is towards monthly bonus. Accordingly, the yearly bonus of Rs.10,117/- cannot be considered as component of salary and the salary is taken as Rs.18,366/- per month. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased is quantified as Rs.18,366/-.
iii. Future prospects:
39.To factor into account future prospects, it would be apt to refer to National Insurance Co Ltd v Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 wherein it was laid down as thus:
"59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:
59.3 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.
59.4 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. 59.5 For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 MACT No. 67/2017 Page. 18 of 37 Smt. Poonam Kumari & Ors. Vs Deepak Kumar & Ors.
SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] which we have reproduced hereinbefore. 59.6 The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 read with para 42 of that judgment 59.7 The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
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."
40.To determine the age of the deceased, the claimants has filed on record the Aadhar Card which shows date of birth of the deceased as 04.11.1987. The deceased was 29 years and 09 months of old on the date of death. As per mandate in Sarla Verma (Supra) and Pranay Sethi (Supra) the future prospects for a person age less than 40 years is 40% and accordingly the same is calculated as Rs.7,346/-.
iv. Personal expenses of the deceased:
41.The Expenses incurred by the deceased in himself are deducted while calculating the loss of dependency. To calculate the personal expenses, recourse can be had to the following instructions of Sarla Verma (supra) which were approved by the Constitutional Bench in Pranay Sethi(supra):
"30.Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362] , the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards MACT No. 67/2017 Page. 19 of 37 Smt. Poonam Kumari & Ors. Vs Deepak Kumar & Ors.
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 dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.
31.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 dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.
32.Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of 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."
42.PW-1 Smt. Poonam Kumari in her testimony stated that deceased is survived by herself, their son namely Mr. Harshit Kumar, mother Smt. Rekha Devi and father Mr. Ganesh Mehto. Accordingly, the expenditure towards personal expenses is considered as 1/4th in view of the mandate of Sarla Verma (Supra).
MACT No. 67/2017 Page. 20 of 37 Smt. Poonam Kumari & Ors. Vs Deepak Kumar & Ors.
43.Thus, the 1/4 net deduction in the present case is (Rs.18,366/- + Rs. 7,346/- = Rs. 25,712/- divided by 1 / 4) of total income is calculated as i.e Rs. 6,428/-.
v. Monthly & Annual Loss of dependency:
44.The monthly loss of dependency would be Rs. 19,284/-. The annual loss of dependency Rs.19,284/- X 12 = Rs. 2,31,408/-
vi. Total Loss of Dependency:
45. Since the deceased was 29 years and 09 months old, the applicable multiplier in terms of the verdict of Sarla Verma(supra) is 17. The total loss of dependency is thus Rs.2,31,408 X 17 = Rs.39,33,936/-) vii. Other Heads:
46.In Sarla Verma (supra) it was also laid down that after calculating the 'Loss of Dependency', certain amounts were to be added under conventional heads such as loss of estate, loss of consortium etc. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are extracted hereunder:
"Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs 5000 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 5000 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 be added."
MACT No. 67/2017 Page. 21 of 37 Smt. Poonam Kumari & Ors. Vs Deepak Kumar & Ors.
47.The amount qua the above heads were further quantified in Pranay Sethi(supra), which clarified as thus:
"52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] . It has granted Rs 25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 :
(2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] refers to Santosh Devi [Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 726 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 167] , it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads."
MACT No. 67/2017 Page. 22 of 37 Smt. Poonam Kumari & Ors. Vs Deepak Kumar & Ors.
48.The above verdict was passed in the year 2017. Almost eight years have elapsed, and therefore the above heads would be enhanced at the rate of 20%.
viii. Medical Expenses:
49.No amount is claimed under this head.
ix. Compensation for Loss of Consortium:
50.The concept of consortium was expounded in Magnum General Insurance Co Ltd v Nanu Ram 2018 18 SCC 130 in the following words:
"21.A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses "spousal consortium", "parental consortium", and "filial consortium". The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse : [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54.
21.1 Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation". [Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edn., 1979).] 21.2 Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training. 21.3 Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the MACT No. 67/2017 Page. 23 of 37 Smt. Poonam Kumari & Ors. Vs Deepak Kumar & Ors.
parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.
22 .Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognised that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium. Parental consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count [ Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram v. Sohi Ram, 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 3848 : (2017) 4 RLW 3368; Uttarakhand High Court in Rita Rana v. Pradeep Kumar, 2013 SCC OnLine Utt 2435 : (2014) 3 UC 1687; Karnataka High Court in Lakshman v. Susheela Chand Choudhary, 1996 SCC OnLine Kar 74 : (1996) 3 Kant LJ 570] . However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium.
24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under "loss of consortium" as laid down in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] . In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial consortium."
51.The deceased is survived by his wife, son and both parents.
Thus, On the basis of the above verdict and mandated in Pranay MACT No. 67/2017 Page. 24 of 37 Smt. Poonam Kumari & Ors. Vs Deepak Kumar & Ors.
Sethi'(Supra), the compensation for Consortium is hereby quantified as Rs 48,400 X 4 = Rs.1,93,600/-
x. Compensation for Loss of Estate:
52.On the basis of the above verdict, the compensation for loss of estate is hereby quantified as Rs 18,150/-
xi. Compensation towards Funeral Expenses:
53.On the basis of the above verdict, the compensation of funeral expenses is hereby quantified as Rs 18,150/-
xii. Total Compensation:
54. Thus, the total amount of compensation to be awarded is calculated as follows:
Sr. No. Head Amount
1. Total loss of dependency Rs. 39,33,936/-
2. Medical Expenses -NIl-
3. Compensation for Loss of Rs. 1,93,600/-
Consortium (48,400 x 4)
4. Compensation for Loss of Estate Rs. 18,150/-
5. Compensation towards Funeral Rs. 18,150/-
Expenses
6. Total Compensation Rs.41,63,836/-
MACT No. 67/2017 Page. 25 of 37 Smt. Poonam Kumari & Ors. Vs Deepak Kumar & Ors.
(c) Issue No.3: Relief. i. Amount of Award:
55.Thus, the claimant is awarded as sum of Rs.41,63,836/- along with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. The rate of interest has been calculated in terms of the succeeding paragraphs.
ii. Rate of Interest:
56.It was contended by Ld Counsel for the respondent insurance company that the amount of interest ought to at @7.5%, in accordance with the general prevalent practice in Courts. However, Ld Counsel for the claimant sought 9% as the rate of interest.
57.In order to adjudicate these rival claims, recourse can be had to Erudhaya Priya v State Transport Corporation 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601 wherein the aspect of rate of interest was categorically enunciated as thus:
(c) The third and the last aspect is the interest rate claimed as 12% "15.In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has watered down the interest rate during the course of hearing to 9% in view of the judicial pronouncements including in the Jagdish case (supra). On this aspect, once again, there was no serious dispute raised by the learned counsel for the respondent once the claim was confined to 9% in line with the interest rates applied by this Court".
MACT No. 67/2017 Page. 26 of 37 Smt. Poonam Kumari & Ors. Vs Deepak Kumar & Ors.
58.Ergo, the amount of compensation/award amount will be payable by the respondent insurance company with simple interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the claim petition/DAR till actual realisation. The date of filing of petition is 02.03.2017 therefore the amount of Interest is calculated at @ 9 % from the date of filing of petition i.e. Rs. 33,72,707/- for a period of 108 months. Thus, the total amount of award is Rs.75,36,543/-.
59.It is also clarified that in case the interest of petitioner was 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.
V. DEPOSIT OF AWARD& RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT i. Deposit of Award:
60.In terms of the mandate of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) the respondent Insurance Company/driver/owner shall deposit the award amount or transfer the same by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS directly to the bank account of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in UCO Bank, Patiala House Courts within 30 days of the award. The respondent(s) held liable to pay compensation by the Claims Tribunal shall give notice of MACT No. 67/2017 Page. 27 of 37 Smt. Poonam Kumari & Ors. Vs Deepak Kumar & Ors.
deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant(s) and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the deposit with the interest upto the date of notice of deposit to the claimant(s) with a copy to their counsel.
RELEASE / APPORTIONMENT
61.The award amount be apportioned amongst the legal heirs as follows:-
Sl Name Relation % of Release of awarded amount share
1. Smt. Wife 60 % Rs.5,36,543/- out of the 60% share of wife be Poonam released in her bank account immediately and remaining awarded amount be invested and deposited in 60 monthly fixed deposits receipts (FDR) of equal amounts for a period of 60 months as per Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposits Schemes.
2. Mr. Son 20% 100% of his share be released in his bank Harshit account immediately.
3. Smt. Mother 10 % 100 % of his share be released in her bank Rekha account immediately.
Devi
4. Mr. Father 10 % 100 % of her share be released in his bank Ganesh account immediately.
Mahto
62. The Nodal officer of the bank shall ensure disbursement of the award within 3 weeks of receipt thereof by email or otherwise.
MACT No. 67/2017 Page. 28 of 37 Smt. Poonam Kumari & Ors. Vs Deepak Kumar & Ors.
63. The disbursement to the claimant is, however, subject to the addition of future interest till deposit proportionately and also deduction of proportionate tax on the interest amount or amount of interim award, if any, to/from his share.
ii. Disbursement of the award amount & protection thereof:
64. The amount of award shall be disbursed through the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD)Scheme formulated vide order dated 01.05.2018 passed in Rajesh Tyagi(supra). 21 banks, including UCO Bank, is implementing the MACAD scheme.
65. Further, to protect the award amount, the entire amount of compensation is not being released forthwith to the claimant, and part of the compensation amount has been directed to be kept in fixed deposits in a phased manner. Further, the following conditions are hereby reiterated and being imposed upon the concerned bank with respect to the fixed deposits:
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint names to be added in the savings bank account or MACAD scheme account of claimant i.e. the bank account of claimant shall be individual account and not a joint account.
(b) The original fixed deposits shall be retained by the UCO Bank, PHC, New Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR numbers, amounts, dates of maturity and maturity amounts shall be furnished by the said MACT No. 67/2017 Page. 29 of 37 Smt. Poonam Kumari & Ors. Vs Deepak Kumar & Ors.
bank to the claimant and the above amount shall be released in account of claimant by the Manager, UCO Bank, PHC, ND through RTGS/NEFT/or any other electronic mode.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of his residence.
(d) The maturity amount of the FDR(s) on monthly basis net of TDS be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the above account of the claimant.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the MACAD 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 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.
(g) 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.
MACT No. 67/2017 Page. 30 of 37 Smt. Poonam Kumari & Ors. Vs Deepak Kumar & Ors.
(h) 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 above.
VI. LIABILITY
66. All the respondents are jointly and severely liable to pay compensation. The offending vehicle was insured and the fact of the insurance is undisputed. The insurance company is liable to pay award amount to the petitioners. Respondent no.3 being insurer of offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in bank account being maintained in the above said bank in name of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal within 30 days from today, failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay. In case even after lapse of 90 days from today, respondent no. 2 fails to deposit this compensation with interest, in that event, in light of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal 2007 ACJ 688 , this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of respondent no. 2 with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.
MACT No. 67/2017 Page. 31 of 37 Smt. Poonam Kumari & Ors. Vs Deepak Kumar & Ors.
67. The respondent no. 3 shall inform the petitioner and his counsel that the awarded amount has been deposited so as to facilitate him to collect the same.
VII. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN CASES OF DEATH
68. Since this is a case pertaining to death, particulars of Form-XV of the Scheme For Motor Accidents Claims Formulated by the Delhi High Court in terms of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) are as under:
1. Date of Accident 01.11.2026
2. Name of the deceased Mr. Praveen Kumar
3. Age of the deceased 29 years 09 months.
4. Occupation of the deceased Private job,
5. Income of the deceased Rs.18,366/-
6. Name, Age and relationship of legal representatives of the deceased:
S.NO NAME AGE RELATION
(i) Smt. Poonam 36 years Wife
(ii) Mr. Harshit 09 years Son
(iii) Smt. Rekha Devi 63 years Mother
(iv) Mr. Ganesh Mahto 66 years Father
MACT No. 67/2017 Page. 32 of 37
Smt. Poonam Kumari & Ors. Vs Deepak Kumar & Ors.
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION S.No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs.18,366/-
8. Add: Future Prospects (B) Rs.7,346/-
9. Less: Personal expenses of the Rs.6,428/-
deceased (C)
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.19,248/-
[(A+B)- C = D]
11. Annual Loss of dependency (D x Rs.2,31,408/-
12) 12. Multiplier (E) 17
13. Total loss of dependency (D x 12 Rs.39,33,936/-
x E = F)
14. Medical Expenses (G) -NIL-
15. Compensation for loss of Rs.1,93,600/-
consortium (H) Rs.48,400 X 4)
16. Compensation for loss of love & NA- in terms of New affection (I) India Assurance Co v Somwati (2020) 9 MACT No. 67/2017 Page. 33 of 37 Smt. Poonam Kumari & Ors. Vs Deepak Kumar & Ors.
SCC 644
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs.18,150/-
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs.18,150/-
expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION (F + Rs.41,63,836/-
G + H + I + J + K = L)
20. Rate of Interest Awarded @9%
21. Interest amount up to the date of Rs.33,72,707/-
award (M) (78 months
22. Total amount including interest (L Rs. 75,36,543/-
+ M)
23. Award amount released As per para no. 61
24. Award kept in FDRs As per para no.61
25. Mode of disbursement of the Through Bank award to the claimant(s)
26. Next date for compliance of the 27.04.2026 award VIII. COMPLIANCE QUA PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME
69. The particulars of Form XVII of the Scheme For Motor Accidents Claims Formulated by the Delhi High Court, in terms of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) are as hereunder:
MACT No. 67/2017 Page. 34 of 37 Smt. Poonam Kumari & Ors. Vs Deepak Kumar & Ors.
1. Date of the accident 01.11.2016
2. Date of filing of Form I- First N.A. Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the Same as above.
victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Same as above.
Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Same as above owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- Same as above Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Same as above Form VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII-Detailed Same as above Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or Yes.
deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Not given Designated Officer by the Insurance Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of No the Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or No deficiencies on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
MACT No. 67/2017 Page. 35 of 37 Smt. Poonam Kumari & Ors. Vs Deepak Kumar & Ors.
13. Date of response of the Matter was contested by the petitioner(s) of the offer of the Insurance Company. Insurance Company.
14. Date of the Award 23.03.2026.
15. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which petitioner(s) 08.05.2018 were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the petitioner (s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17. Date on which the petitioner(s) Not furnished. Directions issued.
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 Address of As mentioned above the petitioner(s)
19. Whether the petitioner(s) savings bank account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes.
examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
MACT No. 67/2017 Page. 36 of 37 Smt. Poonam Kumari & Ors. Vs Deepak Kumar & Ors.
70. Further, in terms of the directions given vide order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra), the Ahlmad shall send a certified copy of this award to the concerned Criminal Court and to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority through e-mail. Copy of the award be also sent to the bank concerned. The Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given in the above case.
71. File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 27.04.2026. Digitally signed by Abhilash Abhilash Malhotra Malhotra Date:
2026.03.23 Announced in the open court 13:22:50 +0530 on 23.03.2026 (Abhilash Malhotra) Judge/PO, MACT-02, New Delhi/23.03.2026 DLND010143872018 MACT No. 67/2017 Page. 37 of 37 Smt. Poonam Kumari & Ors. Vs Deepak Kumar & Ors.