Delhi District Court
Barun Kumar Jha (Deceased) vs Rakhi on 9 February, 2026
DLNW010023862024
Presented on : 12-03-2024
Registered on : 19-03-2024
Decided on : 09-02-2026
Duration : 1 years, 10 months,
28 days
IN THE COURT OF
ADJ1(NW)/MACT, NORTH WEST DISTRICT DELHI
Presided Over by Sh. Vikram
M A C T/230/2024
FIR No. 772/2023, PS Raj Park
In the matter of : Sh. Barun Kumar Jha (Deceased)
1. Rina @ Rina Devi (Wife of deceased)
2. Tulsi Kumari (Daughter of deceased)
3. Alok Kumar Jha (Son of deceased)
All R/o L-1415, Mangolpuri, Delhi.
.....Petitioners
vs.
1. Rakhi
D/o Sh. Aganbir
R/o House No. 25, T-Huts,
A-2 Block, Sultanpuri,
Delhi.
......Driver/R1
2. Mamta
W/o Sh. Aganbir
R/o House No. 25, T-Huts,
A-2 Block, Sultanpuri,
Delhi.
MACT Case No. 230/2024 (FIR no. 772/2023)
Barun Kumar Jha (deceased) &Ors. Vs. Rakhi & Ors.
Page no. 1 of 14
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2026.02.09
15:29:34 +0530
Also at Rz I-47, Gali no. 02,
Sagarpur, Delhi.
......Owner/R2
3. Go Digit General Insurance Co. Ltd.
.......Insurance
Co./R3
Appearance (s) : Sh. Satyajit Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for
the petitioner no. 1
Sh. Mahesh Kumar Chandra, Ld. counsel
for respondent no. 1 & 2.
Ms. V.K. Gupta, Ld. counsel for Insurance Co./respondent no. 3.
J U D G M E N T/AWAR D
1. Vide this judgment/award, I shall dispose off the DAR bearing MACT no. 230/2024 filed by IO SI Neeraj, PS Raj Park, in regard to death of Sh. Barun Kumar Jha (in short, the deceased), who died on 16.12.2023 in a road vehicular accident on 15.12.2023.
2. Brief facts as per claim petition are that on 15.12.2023 at about 09:00 pm, opposite Durlabh Nath Park Gate near Suzuki Showroom, Road no. 316, Mangolpuri, while deceased was crossing the road, a scooty bearing registration no. DL 11 N 8616, which was being driven by its driver/R1 rashly and negligently, hit the deceased due to which deceased fell down on the road and sustained injuries. R1 also received injuries due to the accident. Deceased was rushed to SGM Hospital and admitted there vide MLC no. 26170. From there deceased was referred to Safdarjung Hospital where deceased was MACT Case No. 230/2024 (FIR no. 772/2023) Barun Kumar Jha (deceased) &Ors. Vs. Rakhi & Ors.
Page no. 2 of 14
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2026.02.09
15:29:42 +0530
expired on 16.12.2013. PM on the body of deceased was done vide PM Report No. 3059/2023. FIR no. 230/2024 for offence punishable under Section 279/337 IPC was registered at PS Raj Park.
3. As per DAR and investigation conducted by IO, R1 was driving the offending vehicle in negligent manner which caused the accident resulting in death of deceased. As per PM report the cause of death was due to cranio-cerebral damage consequent to blunt force impact to the head. R1 was also not having valid driving licence at the time of accident. As such R1 was charge-sheeted for offences under section 279/304A IPC & 3/181 & 5/181 M V Act.
4. As per DAR deceased survived by his wife, daughter and son (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner no. 1 to 3) who were dependent on deceased.
5. No WS/reply to DAR was filed on behalf of R1 & R2 despite opportunity.
6. WS/reply was filed on behalf of R3/insurance company admitting that offending vehicle was insured with R3. However, it is claimed that R1 was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident which is a breach of insurance policy.
ISSUES:
7. After completion of pleadings, following issues were MACT Case No. 230/2024 (FIR no. 772/2023) Barun Kumar Jha (deceased) &Ors. Vs. Rakhi & Ors.
Page no. 3 of 14
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
Date:
VIKRAM 2026.02.09
15:29:48
+0530
framed by this Tribunal on 05.07.2024: -
1. Whether deceased Barun Kumar Jha, S/o Sh.
Kamlesh Jha expired due to injuries suffered in road traffic accident on 15.12.2023 at about 09:00 pm, Opposite Durlabh Nath Park Gate, near Suzuki Showroom, Road no. 316, Mangolpuri, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing no. DL 11 N 8616 which was being driven by driver Ms. Rakhi, D/o Sh. Agan Bir on the said date, time and place? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
EVIDENCE:
8. In evidence petitioner no. 1/LR Rini Devi appeared as Pw1 and filed her affidavit Ex.Pw1/A and relied on following documents:
a. Copy of FIR Ex.Pw1/A b. Copy of charge sheet Ex.Pw1/B c. DAR Ex.Pw1/C d. Copy of FAR Ex.Pw1/D e. Copy of RC and mechanical report of offending vehicle Ex.Pw1/E & Ex.Pw1/F f. Copy of site plan Ex.Pw1/G g. Copy of insurance policy Ex.Pw1/H h. Copy of MLC Ex.Pw1/I MACT Case No. 230/2024 (FIR no. 772/2023) Barun Kumar Jha (deceased) &Ors. Vs. Rakhi & Ors.
Page no. 4 of 14
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2026.02.09
15:29:56 +0530
I. Copy of PM report and death certificate of deceased Ex.Pw1/J & Ex.Pw1/K J. Copy of superdari order dated 19.01.2024 Ex.Pw1/L k. Copy of arrest memo and bail bond Ex.Pw1/M & Ex.Pw1/N l. Aadhar card and PAN card Ex.Pw1/O m. Copy of aadhar card of Pw1 Ex.Pw1/P n. Copy of aadhar card and school certificate of petitioner no. 2 & 3 Ex.Pw1/Q & Ex.Pw1/R respectively.
9. During her cross examination, she denied that deceased was not earning at the time of accident or that deceased has no concern with the address of Delhi. She also denied that petitioners are not LRs of deceased or that they were not dependent on the deceased. She denied that documents filed by her on record are false and fabricated. She admitted that she has no document to show the educational qualification of deceased.
10. Petitioner has also examined Sh. Pushp Kumar as Pw-2 who filed his affidavit Ex.Pw2/A claiming that he is the eye witness of the accident. He deposed that on the date of accident he was about 15-20 feet behind the offending vehicle and the rider of offending vehicle hit a person aged about 50- 60 years who was crossing the road. He also deposed that he made a call at 100 number which was lodged at PS vide GD no. 110A dated 15.12.2023. He denied that vehicle has been falsely implicated in the present case or that he was not an eye witness of the accident. He also denied the no such MACT Case No. 230/2024 (FIR no. 772/2023) Barun Kumar Jha (deceased) &Ors. Vs. Rakhi & Ors.
Page no. 5 of 14 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2026.02.09 15:30:04 +0530accident took place.
11. In respondents evidence, R3 has examined Sh. Abhishek Devel as R3w1 who filed his affidavit Ex.R3w1/A and proved copy of notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC, postal receipts, copy of insurance policy as Ex.R3w1/1 to Ex.R3w1/4.
12. Thereafter, the evidence was closed.
ISSUE NO.1
1. Whether deceased Barun Kumar Jha, S/o Sh.
Kamlesh Jha expired due to injuries suffered in road traffic accident on 15.12.2023 at about 09:00 pm, Opposite Durlabh Nath Park Gate, near Suzuki Showroom, Road no. 316, Mangolpuri, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing no. DL 11 N 8616 which was being driven by driver Ms. Rakhi, D/o Sh. Agan Bir on the said date, time and place? OPP.
13. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor MACT Case No. 230/2024 (FIR no. 772/2023) Barun Kumar Jha (deceased) &Ors. Vs. Rakhi & Ors.
Page no. 6 of 14
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2026.02.09
15:30:10 +0530
Vehicles Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
14. No WS/reply was filed by R1 & R2 disputing the accident. Record shows tht R1 & R2 in their affidavits, filed alongwith DAR, did not dispute the accident. Petitioners have also examined Pw2/eye witness of the accident who, after accident, made call to police which was lodged at PS vide GD no. 110A dated 15.12.2023.
15. In view of the facts disclose in the DAR which proves place of accident as well as caused of death and on the basis of aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the rashness and negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle was responsible not only for this accident, but also for everything that followed thereafter. Accordingly issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 22. Whether the petitioners are entitled for MACT Case No. 230/2024 (FIR no. 772/2023) Barun Kumar Jha (deceased) &Ors. Vs. Rakhi & Ors.
Page no. 7 of 14
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
Date:
VIKRAM 2026.02.09
15:30:17
+0530
compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
16. As this Tribunal has already held that R1 was responsible for the death of the deceased due to his neglect and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Therefore, the petitioners have become entitled to be compensated for death of deceased in the above accident, but computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided.
COMPENSATION
17. 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 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 be lesser need for detailed evidence. In this regard, though not quoted, reliance is placed upon, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121.
18. As already stated above, the claimants/petitioners are wife, daughter and son of deceased. It is claimed by Pw1 that deceased was working as a salesman with Mother Dairy and MACT Case No. 230/2024 (FIR no. 772/2023) Barun Kumar Jha (deceased) &Ors. Vs. Rakhi & Ors.
Page no. 8 of 14
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2026.02.09
15:30:24 +0530
was earning Rs. 25,000/- per month. It is also claimed that deceased was 12th passed. However, in her cross examination, she herself admitted that she has not document to show the income, employment and educational qualification of deceased. As per aadhar card, deceased was about 49 years old on the date of accident. Therefore, the income of the deceased, as on the date of the accident, has been treated as that of an "Unskilled". On the date of accident i.e 15.12.2023, the minimum wages of an Unskilled in Delhi were Rs. 17,494/- per month.
19. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners further argued that future prospects should also be awarded to the petitioners as per law. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that all the petitioners/claimants were dependent upon deceased for their livelihood.
20. Accordingly, on the basis of aforementioned documents, age of the deceased is taken as 49 years as on the date of accident. Hence, the multiplier of "13" would be applicable in view of pronouncement made in case titled as Sarla Verma (supra).
21. Considering the fact that deceased was aged about 49 years at the time of accident, future prospects @ 25 % has to be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of recent pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, as well as in view of MACT Case No. 230/2024 (FIR no. 772/2023) Barun Kumar Jha (deceased) &Ors. Vs. Rakhi & Ors.
Page no. 9 of 14
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2026.02.09
15:30:30 +0530
recent decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors, in MAC APP No. 798/2011.
22. Claimants/petitioners are wife, daughter and son of deceased. Thus, there has to be deduction of "one third (1/3th)", as per the mandate of Sarla Verma (supra). Thus, total loss of dependency would come out as under:
23. Thus, total loss of dependency would come out as under:
Head Amount Remarks
(Rs.)
Monthly Income of 17,494
deceased
(A)
Less: Personal expenses of 5,831.333 (A)/3= (B)
deceased @ one half (1/3th)
(B)
Monthly loss of dependency 11,662.667 [(A)-
(C) (B)]=(C)
Annual Loss of dependency 1,39,952.004 (C) x 12 =
(D) (D)
Multiplier @ 13 18,19,376.05 (D) x 13
(E) (multiplier)
= (E)
Add: Future Prospects @ 4,54,844.013 (E) X 25%
25% (E)
Total 22,74,220.06
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
24. After the judgment passed in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra) and recent judgment titled as New India Assurance Company Limited v. Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020 the petitioners MACT Case No. 230/2024 (FIR no. 772/2023) Barun Kumar Jha (deceased) &Ors. Vs. Rakhi & Ors.
Page no. 10 of 14
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2026.02.09
15:30:36 +0530
are not entitled to be compensated under this head. Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors, (supra) has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the Constitution Bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) does not recognize any other non-pecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
25. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as, "Rojalini Nayak & Ors. Vs. Ajit Sahoo & Ors.", Civil Appeal dated 07.08.2024, I am of the considered opinion that LRs of deceased is entitled for payment of Rs. 1,45,200/- (Rs. 48,400/- x 3) towards loss of consortium. Consequently, a sum of Rs. 1,45,200/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
26. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Rojalini Nayak & Ors. Vs. Ajit Sahoo & Ors. ", Civil Appeal dated 07.08.2024 mentioned supra, a sum of Rs, 18,150/- is awarded in favour of petitioner on account of loss of estate and and a sum of Rs. 18,150/- is awarded in favour of petitioner towards funeral expenses.
27. Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:
S. No. Head Amount (Rs.)
1 Loss of dependency 22,74,220.06/-
MACT Case No. 230/2024 (FIR no. 772/2023) Barun Kumar Jha (deceased) &Ors. Vs. Rakhi & Ors.
Page no. 11 of 14
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2026.02.09
15:30:43 +0530
2 Loss of Consortium 1,45,200/-
3 Loss of Estate &Funeral 36,300/-
Expenses
TOTAL 24,55,720.06/-
Round Off 24,55,721/-
LIABILITY
28. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. It is claim of R3 that R1 was not having valid DL at the time of accident and as such there is breach of insurance policy, therefore, R3 is not liable to compensate the petitioners. It is on record that R1 was charge sheet for offence under Section 3/181 M V Act. There is breach of insurance policy. However, as the offending vehicle was insured with R3 at the time of accident, R3 cannot be directly absolved from its liability. [See: ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Vs. Arti Devi 2025:AHC:14110,MANU/UP/0194/2025] As such, R3/Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation in favour of petitioners. Issue No.2 is decided accordingly. The parties are directed to download the digital copy of judgment online. R3 is hereby directed to deposit the award amount within 30 days from the date of this Award by way of NEFT or RTGS mode in the account of this Tribunal maintained with SBI, Rohini Courts, Delhi under intimation to the petitioner/ injured and this Tribunal in terms of the format for remittance of compensation as provided in Divisional Manager Vs. Rajesh, 2016 SCC Online Mad. 1913 (and reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the orders dated 16.03.2021 and 16.11.2021 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors) along MACT Case No. 230/2024 (FIR no. 772/2023) Barun Kumar Jha (deceased) &Ors. Vs. Rakhi & Ors.
Page no. 12 of 14
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
Date:
VIKRAM 2026.02.09
15:30:49
+0530
with interest @ 9% per annum. R3 shall have recovery rights from R1 & R2, jointly or severally, for the amount paid.
ISSUE NO.3: RELIEF
29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I award compensation of Rs. 24,55,721/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Fifty Five Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty One Only) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f the date of filing of FAR i.e. 19.12.2023 till compliance and @ 12% per annum thereafter. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be liable to be excluded from the above amount and calculations of compensation.
APPORTIONMENT
30. Statement of petitioners under Clause 29 MCTAP are not recorded. The award amount is apportioned as follows: Petitioner no. 1 is awarded a sum of Rs. 8,55,721/-, Petitioner no. 2 & 3 are awarded a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- each, out of award amount. Same be released to them after recording their statement under Clause 29 MCTAP and recording statement under Clause 29 MCTAP.
31. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the disbursed amount immediately to the petitioners in their MACT saving bank accounts, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
32. Copy of this Award alongwith one photograph each, MACT Case No. 230/2024 (FIR no. 772/2023) Barun Kumar Jha (deceased) &Ors. Vs. Rakhi & Ors.
Page no. 13 of 14
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2026.02.09
15:31:14 +0530
specimen signatures, copy of bank passbook and copy of residence proof of the petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
33. Form V and IVB in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A.
34. Nazir is directed to report before the Court after 30 days about the payment of award amount.
35. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT Digitally signed by VIKRAM ON 09th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 VIKRAM Date:
2026.02.09 15:31:04 +0530 VIKRAM DJ-1+MACT, NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI MACT Case No. 230/2024 (FIR no. 772/2023) Barun Kumar Jha (deceased) &Ors. Vs. Rakhi & Ors.
Page no. 14 of 14