Delhi District Court
Devender Singh vs Mohd. Hashim on 23 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARU GUPTA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-01 (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No. 304/2017
Devinder Singh vs Mohd. Hashim & ors.
CNR No. DLSE01-002911-2017
1. Priyanka Chaudhary
D/o Late Sh. Devinder Singh
2. Basmati Devi
W/o Late Sh. Devinder Singh
3. Arvind Singh
S/o Late Sh. Devinder Singh
4. Manish Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Devinder Singh
All are R/o H.No. GG-62, Chandan Van Phase-I,
Thana Highway, Tehsil & District Mathura.
....Claimants/Petitioners
Versus
1. Mohd. Hashim
S/o Sh. Wasiuddin
R/o House no. 57/815, Neem Sarai,
Thana Dhoomanh Ganj, Allahabad.
....Driver /respondent no.1
2. Mohd. Faizi Khan
S/o Sh. Mohd. Aziz Khan
R/o H. no.184/IE, Karbala, Allahabad
....Owner/respondent no.2
3. New India Insurance General Insurance Company Ltd.
MACT No. 304/17 Priyanka Chaudhary & ors. vs. Mohd. Hashim & ors. Page no. 1 of 29 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.09.23
16:56:12
+0530
301-310, 3rd floor, Bhandari House,
Nehru Place, New Delhi -110019.
....Insurance/respondent no.3
Date of accident : 12.08.2016
Result of accident : Grievous injury resulting
in death during
trial/proceedings.
Date of filing of Petition : 13.04.2017
Date of Decision : 23.09.2025
AWARD
1. The present claim petition arises out of road accident in
which one Devinder Singh, aged about 46 years, suffered
grievous injury resulting in his death during present proceedings.
An application u/s 166(1) Motor Vehicle Act was initially filed
by the claimant/injured Devinder Singh through his daughter
Kumari Priyanka, claiming compensation for the brain injury
sustained by the injured which led him to coma and a state of
unconsciousness till filing of the petition. It is claimed that
during the pendency of proceedings, injuries turned fatal and
resulted in his death in 2020.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 12.08.2016, victim
Devinder Singh (since deceased) who was posted as Head
Constable, was on duty at Usayanai Chauraha Distinction of
Tundla Police station, District Firozabad along with another
police official. At 10:30 a.m., a truck bearing no. UP62-AT-3567
(hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) came driven in a
rash and negligent manner, violating the traffic rules and hit the
victim. Due to the impact, victim sustained serious injuries and
was rushed to SNM District Hospital, Firozabad, from where he
MACT No. 304/17 Priyanka Chaudhary & ors. vs. Mohd. Hashim & ors. Page no. 2 of 29 ss
Digitally signed
by CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.09.23
16:56:18
+0530
was referred to Rainbow Hospital, Agra and thereafter to AIIMS
Trauma Center Delhi.
3. An FIR No.0639/2016, dated 12.08.2016, u/s 279/338 IPC
was registered at PS Tundla, District Firozabad. Police
investigated the matter and filed a chargesheet u/s 279/338 of
IPC before concerned Criminal court while a claim petition was
filed before this Tribunal.
4. As per record, the offending vehicle was driven by
respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with
respondent no. 3.
5. Vide order dated 23.08.2017, respondent no.1 and 2 were
proceeded ex parte. As no reply was filed by the insurance
company/Respondent no.3 despite opportunity, its right to file
written statement was closed vide order dated 06.09.2018.
6. Vide order dated 06.09.2018, the following issues were
framed.
1) Whether the injured Devinder Singh suffered injuries in
a road traffic accident on 12.08.2016 due to rash and
negligent driving of vehicle no. UP62-AT-3567 being
driven by R1, owned by R2 and insured with R3? OPP.
2)Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation, if
so, to what extent and from whom ? OPP.
3) Relief.
7. In order to prove the claim, daughter of the injured namely
Priyanka was examined as PW-1. She tendered her evidence by
way of affidavit as Ex.PW-1/A and deposed that her father was
serving as Head Constable in UP Police and was posted at
District Firozabad, U.P. On 12.08.2016, at 10:30 a.m. while
father of PW1 was on duty at Usayanai Chauraha, PS Tundla,
District Firozabad, a truck bearing no. UP62-AT-3567 came
MACT No. 304/17 Priyanka Chaudhary & ors. vs. Mohd. Hashim & ors. Page no. 3 of 29 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.09.23
16:56:21
+0530
from Tundla side at a high speed, driven in a rash and negligent
manner and hit her father/victim. Victim sustained severe
injuries. An FIR was lodged at Firozabad Police Station and a
chargesheet against the driver of the offending truck was filed.
Victim sustained severe head injuries and was rushed to
government hospital from where he was referred to Rainbow
Hospital where his MLC was prepared. Victim was then referred
to AIIMS Hospital, Delhi and his condition remained extremely
critical. He was operated on several occasions. PW1 stated that
her father had been rendered 90% mentally challenged and was
continuing treatment from various hospitals. Victim has lost his
memory and had become mentally incapacitated.
PW-1 further deposed that the victim had become
completely bedridden and incapable of performing his duties as
head constable, resulting in loss of income. She deposed that at
the time of accident her father was earning Rs.45,168/- per
month as salary. The date of birth of the victim was 15.10.1965
and he was 50 years old at the time of accident. PW-1 further
stated that a sum of Rs.18,000/- per months was being incurred
for attendant /nursing staff to take care of the victim.
PW-1 relied upon certified copy of the FIR as Ex.PW1/1,
certified copy of the site plan as Ex.PW1/2, certified copy of the
final report as Ex.PW1/3, certified copy of MLC as Ex.PW1/4,
MLC prepared at Rainbow hospital as Ex.PW1/5, medical
prescription of Sunayan Hospital as Ex.PW1/6, treatment papers
of Center of Neuro Spinal Injury as Ex.PW1/7, discharge
summary of Trauma Center as Ex.PW1/8, discharge certificate of
Surendra Nursing Home as Ex.PW1/9, medical bills as
MACT No. 304/17 Priyanka Chaudhary & ors. vs. Mohd. Hashim & ors. Page no. 4 of 29 Digitallyss
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.09.23
16:56:24
+0530
Ex.PW/10, ambulance bills as Ex.PW1/11, salary certificate of
father of PW-1 as Ex.PW1/12, service I-card and Adhar card of
victim as Ex.PW1/13, form 16 of victim as Ex.PW1/14, OPD
card as Ex.PW1/15 and disability report as Ex.PW1/16.
PW-1 was duly cross examined by insurance
company/respondent no.3.
Ct. Satish Kumar was examined as PW-2 to prove the
employment and salary of the victim. He produced and relied
upon pay slip of the victim for the month of April 2015 to July
2016 as Ex.PW2/1. He relied upon his I-Card as Ex.PW2/2.
He was cross examined by Ld.counsel for insurance
company.
HC Arjun Singh was examined as PW-3 as eye witness.
PW-3 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW3/A and
stated that on 12.08.2016 at 10:30 a.m. PW-3 and victim
Devinder Singh were on duty at Usayanai Chauraha in PS
Tundla, District Firozabad along with other policeman. He
testified that a truck no. UP16AT-3567 came from Tundla side,
driven at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and hit the
victim. Due to the accident victim sustained severe injury and
was rushed to Hospital. Anil Kumar Gotam lodged FIR at
Firozabad Police station. Matter was investigated and upon
investigation, IO filed chargesheet against driver of the offending
truck. He relied upon his ID card and Adhar card as Ex.PW3/1.
PW-3 was duly cross examined by ld.counsel for insurance
company.
Dr. Manoj Phalak, Assistant Professor, neurosurgery,
AIIMS, New Delhi was examined as PW-4 who testified that he
MACT No. 304/17 Priyanka Chaudhary & ors. vs. Mohd. Hashim & ors. Page no. 5 of 29 ss Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.09.23
16:56:28
+0530
had seen the file of victim on the day of his testimony. He had
not seen the victim since 2017. He testified that he had treated
the victim from the next day of his injury till 22.08.2017 and as
per medical examination of the victim, he was unlikely to be
independent for his activity of daily living and the disability
appeared to be permanent. He further deposed that the victim was
also unlikely to be employed in any vocation. He deposed that he
was not a member of the Disability Board which issued the
disability certificate.
PW-4 was cross examined by learned counsel for
insurance company.
8. Before petitioner evidence could be concluded, victim
passed away on 24.10.2020. Vide order dated 22.01.2021 legal
heirs of the victim were impleaded as parties.
Smt. Basmati Devi, wife of the victim was examined as
PW-5 who tendered her evidence by way of affidavit as
Ex.PW5/A. She deposed on the lines of the claim petition and
stated that the expenditure on the treatment of the victim at
various hospitals was so far Rs.8,63,319/-. She deposed that the
victim was continuously suffering from fits for which a special
bed and chair had to be purchased. A nursing attendant at a salary
of Rs.18,000/- per month had to be employed. She deposed that
the victim had suffered 90% physical disability and also suffered
loss of income and status as he was due to be promoted as sub-
inspector. She further deposed that the victim was survived by
PW-5/wife and their three children namely Priyanka
Chaudhary(daughter, 29 years of age and unmarried), Arvind
Singh (son, 30 years of age) and Manish Kumar (son, 26 years of
MACT No. 304/17 Priyanka Chaudhary & ors. vs. Mohd. Hashim & ors. Page no. 6 of 29 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.09.23
16:56:31
+0530
age). PW-5 relied upon her Adhar card and Adhar card of her
children as Ex.PW5/1, punchnama /postmortem report of the
victim as Ex.PW5/2, educational certificate of Arvind Singh and
Manish Kumar as Ex.PW5/3, treatment and medicine bills as
Ex.PW5/4 and death certificate as Ex.PW5/5.
PW-5 also led additional evidence. She was duly cross
examined by learned counsel for insurance company.
Dr. Chaudhary Rishabh Singh CMP, Railway Hospital
Mathura, U.P., examined as PW6 who deposed that Devinder
Singh was his patient in 2016. PW-6 was being treated at AIIMS
Hospital and he was following up for conservative treatment. He
further deposed that after the surgery, whatever treatment is
required by the patient for post surgery symptoms such as fever,
bed stools etc. he used to take care of that. PW-6 was rendering
in house treatment to Mr. Devinder Singh as he was completely
bedridden after his 3 brain surgeries. PW-6 used to visit the
patient after every 15 days. After 3 brain surgeries, prognosis of
such patient is very poor and so was the case of Devinder Singh.
PW-6 treated Devinder Singh from 2016 till his demise and did
not find any improvement in his condition during that period.
PW-6 treated him for free of cost and did not raised any bill for
his consultation. AS a treating doctor of Devinder Singh he can
deposed that the demise of Devinder Singh was due to the injury
suffered by him in the road accident for which he underwent
brain surgeries and as the prognosis in such patient is very poor,
the vital organs keep deteriorating and gradually lead to death.
PW-6 was cross examined by learned counsel for
insurance company.
MACT No. 304/17 Priyanka Chaudhary & ors. vs. Mohd. Hashim & ors. Page no. 7 of 29 CHARU
ss
GUPTA
Digitally signed by
CHARU GUPTA
Date: 2025.09.23
16:56:34 +0530
9. Respondents no.3 led its evidence by examining Sh. Vikas
Kumar Administrative officer of the New India Assurance
Company as R3W1. R3W1/A tendered his evidence by way of
affidavit as Ex.R3W1/A and relied upon insurance policy as
Ex.R3W1/1, copy of notice u/O 12 Rule 8 CPC as Ex.R3W1/2,
postal receipts as Ex.RW2W1/3 and Ex.R3W1/4. He testified that
the offending vehicle was being driven by R1, Mohd. Hashim
who was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the
accident and thus there was a breach of the terms of the insurance
policy.
R3W1 was not cross examined by the petitioner or
respondent no.1 and 2.
10. Final arguments in detail were addressed by Ld. Counsel
for petitioner and insurance company. Now, on the basis of
material on record, evidence adduced and arguments addressed,
issue wise findings are as under:
Issue No.1
Whether the injured Devinder Singh suffered injuries in a
road traffic accident on 12.08.2016 due to rash and negligent
driving of vehicle no. UP62-AT-3567 being driven by R1,
owned by R2 and insured with R3? OPP.
11. 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.
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (2009) 13 SC 535,
MACT No. 304/17 Priyanka Chaudhary & ors. vs. Mohd. Hashim & ors. Page no. 8 of 29 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.09.23
16:56:37
+0530
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.
12. In the present case, petitioner has examined HC Arjun
Singh (PW3) as eye witness who has testified the factum and
manner of accident on the lines of the claim petition. PW-3 has
claimed to have been on traffic duty along with the petitioner and
his presence on the spot at the relevant time has not been refuted
by any of the respondents. In fact, in absence of any substantial
defence raised by the insurance company or the driver and the
owner of the offending vehicle in the form of a reply or written
statement, the factum or manner of accident remain
unchallenged. Also the fact that the accident was immediately
reported and an FIR was lodged without any inordinate delay,
leaves no ground to doubt the genuineness of the circumstances
in which the accident is claimed to have occurred.
13. Further, the police after investigation, had filed
chargesheet against respondent no.1 under Section 279/338 of
IPC which 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.
14. 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,
MACT No. 304/17 Priyanka Chaudhary & ors. vs. Mohd. Hashim & ors. Page no. 9 of 29 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.09.23
16:56:43
+0530
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.
15. In totality of circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion
that it has been proved on the scales of preponderance of
probabilities that the accident in question, took place due to rash
and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing no.
BR-07-PC-4342 by its driver/respondent no.1 on the date and
time of accident. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of
petitioners and against the respondents.
16. As regards, the nexus between the injuries sustained in the
accident and the subsequent death of the victim during pendency
of the proceedings, LRs of the petitioner have examined Dr.
Manoj Phalak, Assistant Professor, Neuro surgery, AIIMS as
PW4 and Dr. Chuadhary Rishabh Singh, CMP, Railway Hospital,
Mathura, UP as PW6. PW4 testified that he had treated the
petitioner/victim from the next date of his injuries till 22.08.2017
and that the condition of the petitioner was such that he was
unlikely to be independent for his activity of daily living and the
injury had rendered him permanently disabled. Even the
disability report Ex.PW1/6 relied upon by PW1 reveals
permanent disability of 90% in relation to the whole body.
In fact, the medical document prepared at the time of first
admission of the injured at SNM District Hospital, Firozabad
reveals that the injured was admitted in relation to head injury for
which he was advised a CT scan of the brain/head. The
subsequent medical documents of the hospitals in which he was
MACT No. 304/17 Priyanka Chaudhary & ors. vs. Mohd. Hashim & ors. Page no. 10 of 29 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.09.23
16:56:47
+0530
referred to, also reveal persistent issues in relation to the head
injury including fracture of right parietal and temporal regions
and hemorrhagic contusions and subdural bleeding. The medical
record proves that the victim remained hospitalized at AIIMS for
a long duration during which he underwent several brain
surgeries. It is seen from the record that he was discharged on
01.11.2017. It has categorically been recorded in the discharge
summary dt. 01.11.2017 that after the discharge there may be
chance of infection, deterioration or no improvement in power. It
has also been opined that the patient will need long term
physiotherapy and good nursing at home. This shows that even at
the time of discharge of the victim, there was no improvement in
his condition and there were chances of his condition getting
deteriorated. Though, PW-6 Dr. Chaudhary Rishabh Singh could
not prove that he rendered medical services to the victim by way
of in house nursing, through any record such as medical
prescription prepared by him or any bill towards such services
raised by him, the discharge summary dated 01.11.2017 is
sufficient to prove that the victim was not fit at the time of his
discharge. In these circumstances, it is possible that such severe
brain injury could have directly and gradually caused organ
failures and disruption of proper functioning of organs which
could have possibly resulted in his death. Even as per the
postmortem report, the injured died due to sever head injury
sustained in the accident. In such circumstances, a direct nexus
between the injury and the death of the victim stands established.
Issue no. 2
Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation, if
MACT No. 304/17 Priyanka Chaudhary & ors. vs. Mohd. Hashim & ors. Page no. 11 of 29 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.09.23
16:56:50
+0530
so, to what extent and from whom? OPP.
17. At the time of filing of the claim petition, the petitioner
was alive. He would have been entitled to the medical expenses
borne by him or his family during that time. Subsequent to his
death during the pendency of proceedings and treating the
present case as a death case, Smt. Basmati Devi (wife of
deceased victim), Ms. Priyanka Chaudhary (unmarried daughter
29 years of age), Sh. Arvind Singh and Sh. Manish Kumar (sons
of the deceased victim, aged 30 & 26 years respectively, claimed
to be pursuing studies) have been impleaded as dependent Legal
heirs/representatives of victim Sh. Devinder Singh. LRs of the
petitioner will be entitled to compensation under the head of
dependency considering their relationship with the deceased as
well as their age and status in life.
18. As regards liability to pay compensation, insurance
company/respondent no. 2 has raised statutory defence alleging
that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid
driving licence at the time of accident. Insurance company has
examined R3W1 to prove breach of terms of the contract of
insurance policy by owner of the offending vehicle/respondent
no.2 by handing over his vehicle to respondent no.1/driver
without ensuring a valid driving licence with the latter. Neither
respondent no.1 nor respondent no.2 have filed or provided
details of any driving licence of respondent no.2. As such, they
are proved to be in breach of contract of insurance policy.
In such circumstances, the liability of compensation falls
primarily upon the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle.
Accordingly, in view of the settled law, the compensation will be
MACT No. 304/17 Priyanka Chaudhary & ors. vs. Mohd. Hashim & ors. Page no. 12 of 29 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.09.23
16:56:54
+0530
payable in the first instance by the insurance
company/respondent no.3 but with liberty to recover the same
jointly and severally from the driver and owner of the vehicle in
question i.e. respondent no.1 and 2.
19. Before further proceeding decide the 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
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.
MACT No. 304/17 Priyanka Chaudhary & ors. vs. Mohd. Hashim & ors. Page no. 13 of 29 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.09.23
16:56:57
+0530
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
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
MACT No. 304/17 Priyanka Chaudhary & ors. vs. Mohd. Hashim & ors. Page no. 14 of 29 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.09.23
16:57:01
+0530
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
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."
MACT No. 304/17 Priyanka Chaudhary & ors. vs. Mohd. Hashim & ors. Page no. 15 of 29 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.09.23
16:57:04
+0530
20. 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
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.
MACT No. 304/17 Priyanka Chaudhary & ors. vs. Mohd. Hashim & ors. Page no. 16 of 29 ss
Digitally signed
by CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.09.23
16:57:07
+0530
(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.
21. 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
as envisaged and in terms of above judgments.
Age and multiplier
22. Age of the deceased is claimed to be 46 years at the time
of accident/death. The same is proved by his Aadhar Card which
shows his date of birth as 15.10.1965. The accident is claimed to
have occurred on 12.08.2016, the age of victim would have been
50 years and 9 months at the time of accident and hence, as per
Sarla Verma Judgment for determination of compensation, a
multiplier of 13 shall be applicable.
Determination of monthly and annual income
23. At the time of accident, deceased victim is claimed to be
constable in UP police and earning of Rs.37,000/- per month.
PW-1 has admitted that the injured was receiving regular salary
MACT No. 304/17 Priyanka Chaudhary & ors. vs. Mohd. Hashim & ors. Page no. 17 of 29 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.09.23
16:57:11
+0530
till his death. In order to prove his employment and income,
petitioners filed salary slip of deceased victim as Ex.PW1/2
showing his net salary of July, 2016 to be Rs.33,038/- and annual
income of Rs.4 lacs (after tax deducted) for the assessment year
2016-17 as Ex.PW1/14. Hence, the annual income of the
deceased is assessed as Rs.4,00,000/-.
Determination of future prospects
24. 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 @ 15%
where the deceased was between the age of 50-60 years, in case
the deceased had a permanent job. Thus, the enhanced income
(after adding 15% of his annual income, as future prospects)
would be Rs.60,000/- + Rs.4,00,000/- = Rs.4,60,000/-.
Deduction
25. The deceased is claimed to be married at the time of
accident. Petitioner no.1, 2, 3 and 4 have been considered to be
dependent on the deceased. Having regard to the ratio in Sarla
Verma case (supra) deductions towards personal and living
expenses of the victim in such a case would be taken as 1/4 Thus,
a deduction of 1/4 of the total calculated income i.e.
Rs.1,15,000/- of Rs.4,60,000/- which is equal to Rs.3,45,000/-.
Hence, deceased would have contributed Rs.3,45,000/- towards
the petitioners.
Determination of Multiplicand
26. As the total income of the deceased (after deductions) is
calculated to be Rs.3,45,000/-, the multiplicand, in terms of
judgment of Sarla Verma would be 13.
MACT No. 304/17 Priyanka Chaudhary & ors. vs. Mohd. Hashim & ors. Page no. 18 of 29 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.09.23
16:57:14
+0530
Loss of dependency upon applying multiplier
27. Since the age of the victim was between 40-50 years, in
view of the above discussion, the total loss of dependency after
applying multiplier of 13 would be Rs.3,45,000/-
X13=Rs.44,85,000/-.
Expenses related to the medical treatment
LRs of the petitioner have relied upon medical bills to the
tune of Rs.7,25,189/-. All the original bills have been filed on the
record and not been challenged. As such, they are entitled of
Rs.7,25,189/- to towards medical expenses prior to his death.
Compensation under Non-Pecuniary Heads (Grant of Loss of
Estate, Loss of Consortium and Funeral Expenses):
28. 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
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. 304/17 Priyanka Chaudhary & ors. vs. Mohd. Hashim & ors. Page no. 19 of 29 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.09.23
16:57:17
+0530
.
.
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...''
29. 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.18150/-, under each of these heads while compensation for loss of consortium would stand enhanced to Rs.48400/-.
30. On the date of accident, deceased was survived by his wife, daughter and two sons. As such, in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as noted above, all the petitioners would be entitled Rs.48400/- each towards loss of consortium, while, petitioner no.2/wife is entitled to expenses towards funeral and loss of estate also.
Share of petitioners
31. (I) Petitioner no.1/Priyanka (daughter of deceased) is entitled to Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss of financial dependency and Rs.48400/- towards loss of consortium. The total comes out to be Rs.5,48,400/-.
(II) Petitioner no.2/Basmati Devi (mother of deceased) is entitled to Rs.29,85,000/- towards loss of financial dependence and Rs.48400/- towards loss of consortium. Rs.18150/- towards MACT No. 304/17 Priyanka Chaudhary & ors. vs. Mohd. Hashim & ors. Page no. 20 of 29 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.09.23 16:57:21 +0530 loss of estate and Rs.18150/- towards funeral expenses.
Petitioner no.2 also entitled under the head of expenses related to treatment of Rs.7,25,189/-. The total comes out to be Rs.37,94,889/-.
(III) Petitioner no.3/Arvind Singh (son of deceased) is entitled to Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss of financial dependence and Rs.48400/- towards loss of consortium. The total comes out to be Rs.5,48,400/-.
(IV) Petitioner no.4/Manish Kumar (son of deceased) is entitled to Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss of financial dependence and Rs.48400/- towards loss of consortium. The total comes out to be Rs.5,48,400/-.
Thus, the total amount payable by respondent no.3 is Rs.54,40,089/-.
Liability
32. As already discussed, respondent no.3 /insurance company is liable to compensate the petitioners with liberty to recover the same jointly and severally from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. The principal award amount/compensation shall be with simple interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of petition till actual realization.
In case, the interest of petitioners 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 amount.
Directions Regarding Deposit of Award Amount in Bank MACT No. 304/17 Priyanka Chaudhary & ors. vs. Mohd. Hashim & ors. Page no. 21 of 29 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.09.23 16:57:25 +0530
33. 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 insurance company 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 ................... To:
............... Court ........................
MACT No. 304/17 Priyanka Chaudhary & ors. vs. Mohd. Hashim & ors. Page no. 22 of 29 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.09.23
16:57:29
+0530
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.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP).
34. This Tribunal is in receipt of the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors whereby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has formulated MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annunity Deposit Scheme) which has been made effective from 01.01.2019. The said orders dated 07.12.2018 also mentions that 21 banks including State Bank of India is one of such banks which are to adhere to MACAD. The State Bank of India, Saket Courts, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Apportionment
35. Out of the total compensation amount awarded to petitioner no.1/Priyanka Chaudhary i.e. Rs.5,48,400/-, Rs.1,48,400/- be released to her in her bank account near her place of residence and remaining amount of Rs.4,00,000/- be kept in the form of monthly FDRs of Rs.10,000/- p.m.
36. Out of the total compensation amount awarded to petitioner no.2/Basmati Devi i.e. Rs.37,94,889/-, Rs.12,94,889/-
MACT No. 304/17 Priyanka Chaudhary & ors. vs. Mohd. Hashim & ors. Page no. 23 of 29 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.09.23 16:57:32 +0530 be released to her in her bank account near her place of residence and remaining amount of Rs.25,00,000/- be kept in the form of monthly FDRs of Rs.30,000/- p.m.
37. Out of the total compensation amount awarded to petitioner no.3/Arvind Singh i.e. Rs.5,48,400/-, Rs.1,48,400/- be released to him in his bank account near his place of residence and remaining amount of Rs.4,00,000/- be kept in the form of monthly FDRs of Rs.10,000/- p.m.
38. Out of the total compensation amount awarded to petitioner no.4/Manish Kumar i.e. Rs.5,48,400/-, Rs.1,48,400/-
be released to him in his bank account near his place of residence and remaining amount of Rs.4,00,000/- be kept in the form of monthly FDRs of Rs.10,000/- p.m.
39. 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 account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature MACT No. 304/17 Priyanka Chaudhary & ors. vs. Mohd. Hashim & ors. Page no. 24 of 29 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.09.23 16:57:36 +0530 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.
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1. Date of accident 12.08.2016
2. Name of deceased Devinder Singh
3. Age of the deceased 50 years & 9 months
4. Occupation of the deceased Constable in U.P. Police
5. Income of the deceased Rs.4,00,000/- p.a. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:
S No. Name Age (at the Relation time of accident)
(i) Priyanka Chaudhary 25 years Daughter
(ii) Basmati Devi 52 years Wife MACT No. 304/17 Priyanka Chaudhary & ors. vs. Mohd. Hashim & ors. Page no. 25 of 29 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.09.23 16:57:39 +0530
(iii) Arvind Singh 26 years Son
(iv) Manish Kumar 23 years Son Computation of compensation:-
S. No Heads Awarded by the
Claims Tribunal
1 A. Income of the deceased per year Rs.4,00,000/-
2 B. Add-Future Prospects 30% of A Rs.60,000/-
(per year)
3 C. Total Rs.4,60,000/-
4 D. Less-Personal Expenses of the Rs.1,15,000/-
deceased 1/4 of (C)
5 E. Yearly loss of dependency [C -D] Rs.3,45,000/-
6 F. Multiplier. 13
7 G. Total loss of dependency (E x F = Rs.44,85,000/-
G)
8 H. Medical Expenses Rs.7,25,189/-
9 I. Deduction, if any Nil
10 J. Total loss of dependency after Nil
deduction, if any
11 K. Compensation for loss of (Rs. 48400/-
consortium X4 )
Rs.1,93,600/-
12 L. Compensation for loss of estate Rs.18,150/-
13 M. Compensation towards funeral Rs.18,150/-
expenses
14 N. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.54,40,089/-
total of J+K+L+M =N
15 O. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED: @ 7.5%
from date of filing of petition till actual per annum
realization of principal amount awarded.
MACT No. 304/17 Priyanka Chaudhary & ors. vs. Mohd. Hashim & ors. Page no. 26 of 29 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.09.23 16:57:42 +0530 16 Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.37,00,000/- 17 Award amount released Rs.17,40,089/-
18 Mode of disbursement of the award Share of amount to the claimant (s). (Clause 29) petitioners (I) Petitioner no.1/Priyanka (daughter of deceased) is entitled to Rs.5,00,000/-
towards loss of financial dependency and Rs.48400/-
towards loss of consortium.
The total comes
out to be
Rs.5,48,400/-.
(II) Petitioner
no.2/Basmati
Devi (mother of
deceased) is
entitled to
Rs.29,85,000/-
towards loss of
financial
dependence and
Rs.48400/-
towards loss of
consortium.
Rs.18150/-
towards loss of
estate and
Rs.18150/-
towards funeral
expenses.
Petitioner
no.2 also
entitled under
MACT No. 304/17 Priyanka Chaudhary & ors. vs. Mohd. Hashim & ors. Page no. 27 of 29 ss
CHARU
GUPTA
Digitally signed by
CHARU GUPTA
Date: 2025.09.23
16:57:46 +0530
the head of
expenses
related to
treatment of
Rs.7,25,189/-.
The total comes
out to be
Rs.37,94,889/-.
(III) Petitioner
no.3/Arvind
Singh (son of
deceased) is
entitled to
Rs.5,00,000/-
towards loss of
financial
dependence and
Rs.48400/-
towards loss of
consortium.
The total comes
out to be
Rs.5,48,400/-.
(IV) Petitioner
no.4/Manish
Kumar (son of
deceased) is
entitled to
Rs.5,00,000/-
towards loss of
financial
dependence and
Rs.48400/-
towards loss of
consortium.
The total comes
out to be
Rs.5,48,400/-.
All above
amount shall be
along with
MACT No. 304/17 Priyanka Chaudhary & ors. vs. Mohd. Hashim & ors. Page no. 28 of 29 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.09.23
16:57:49
+0530
interest @ 7.5
% per annum
on total
principal award
amount from
date of filing of
petition till
actual
realization.
19 Next Date for compliance of the award 02.12.2025
(Clause 31)
40. Put up on 02.12.2025 for compliance.
Digitally signedAnnounced in the open court CHARU GUPTA by CHARU on 23rd September, 2025 GUPTA Date:
2025.09.23 16:57:53 +0530 (Charu Gupta) PO-MACT-01 (South East) Saket Courts/New Delhi MACT No. 304/17 Priyanka Chaudhary & ors. vs. Mohd. Hashim & ors. Page no. 29 of 29 ss