Delhi District Court
Shiv Kumari Lr (S/C) vs Deepanshu Singh on 28 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF GUNJAN GUPTA, DISTRICT JUDGE-
CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-01, (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
AWARD/JUDGMENT
MACT Case No. 577/2024
CNR No.-DLWT010061712024
1. Shiv Kumari (Wife)
W/o Late Sh. Santram,
aged about 67 years
R/o Bishunpurwa, Post-Bishunpurwa, Bishunpur, Basti,
UP
2. Kamlesh (Son)
S/o Late Sh. Santram,
aged about 31 years.
R/o Bishunpurwa, Post-Bishunpurwa, Bishunpur, Basti,
UP
3. Kushlaawati (Daughter)
D/o Late Sh. Santram,
aged about 36 years
R/o Gram-Basthanwaa, Post-Teliyaadeeh,
Thana-Sonha, Basthanwa,
Basti, Teliha Deeh, UP.
4. Rajesh (Son)
S/o Late Sh. Santra,
Aged about 46 years
R/o C-235, Lal Bagh, Azadpur, North West Delhi,
Delhi-33
Permanent resident of Bishunpurwa, Post-Bishunpurwa,
Bishunpur, Basti, UP
5. Vinod Kumar (Son)
S/o Late Sh. Santram, aged about 48 years
Shiv Kumari & Ors. vs. Deepanshu Singh & ors.
[MACT No.577/2024] Page No.1 of 28
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.10.31
15:49:31 +0530
R/o Bishunpurwa, Post-Bishunpurwa, Bishunpur, Basti,
UP
6. Nirmala (Daughter)
D/o Late Sh. Santram,
Aged about 56 years
R/o Village Newada, Post-Mishrauliya Bhaiya,
Rudhouli Khurd, Basti Rudranagar, UP
..............Petitioners
Versus
1. Deepanshu Singh (Driver)
R/o RZ-30 Panchsheel Colony Mahaveer
Enclave-III Binda Pur, Delhi
2. Deepender Singh (Owner)
R/o RZ-30 Panchsheel Colony Mahaveer
Enclave-III Binda Pur, Delhi
3. Magma HDI General Insurance Co. ltd. (Insurer)
SCO-386, 1st Floor Sec. 29, Gurgaon Haryana
Date of Institution : 20.07.2024
Date of reserving order/judgment : 19.09.2025
Date of pronouncement : 28.10.2025
FORM-XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
1. Date of the accident 27.05.2024
2. Date of filing of Form-I - 29.05.2024
First Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II 20.07.2024
to the victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III 20.07.2024
from the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV 20.07.2024
from the Owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- 20.07.2024
Shiv Kumari & Ors. vs. Deepanshu Singh & ors.
[MACT No.577/2024] Page No.2 of 28
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.10.31
15:49:35 +0530
Interim Accident Report
(IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA 20.07.2024
and Form-VIB from the
Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - 20.07.2024
Detailed Accident Report
(DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay No
or deficiency on the part of
the Investigating Officer? If
so, whether any action/
direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Date not mentioned
Designated Officer by the
Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Yes
Officer of the Insurance
Company submitted his report
within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay NO
or deficiency on the part of
the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company? If so,
whether any action/direction
warranted?
13. Date of response of the Legal offer was not given by
claimant(s) to the offer of the the insurance company
Insurance Company
14. Date of the award 28.10.2025
15. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
was/were directed to open
savings bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which 20.07.2024
claimant(s) was/were directed
to open savings bank
account(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN
Shiv Kumari & Ors. vs. Deepanshu Singh & ors.
[MACT No.577/2024] Page No.3 of 28
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.10.31 15:49:37
+0530
Card and Aadhaar Card and
the direction to the bank not
issue any cheque book/debit
card to the claimant(s) and
make an endorsement to this
effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) 08.07.2025
produced the passbook of
their savings bank account
near the place of their
residence along-with the
endorsement, PAN Card and
Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Village Bishunpurwa Pokhar
Address of the claimant(s). Bhitwa District Basti UP
19. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
savings bank account(s) is/are
near his/her/their place of
residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
was/were examined at the
time of passing of the award
to ascertain his/her/their
financial condition?
FACTUAL MATRIX & PLEADINGS
1.1 Vide this award, this Tribunal shall decide the
petition filed by petitioner (for grant of compensation) under
Section 164 of The Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred
to as "M.V. Act") on account of death of Sant Ram in a road
vehicular accident which took place on 27.05.2024 at about 8:30
AM at Jail Road near Gate no. 3, Tihar Jail Hari Nagar, Delhi.
Initially the proceedings were initiated on the filing of the DAR
by the IO treating the same as a petition u/s 166 of the M.V. Act.
However, during the pendency of the proceedings, an application
was filed on behalf of the petitioners for converting the DAR to a
Shiv Kumari & Ors. vs. Deepanshu Singh & ors.
[MACT No.577/2024] Page No.4 of 28
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.10.31
15:49:40 +0530
petition U/s 164 M.V. Act and the same was allowed vide order
dated 19.05.2025 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal.
1.2. Succinctly, the case put forth vide DAR is that the
deceased sustained fatal injuries in an accident that took place on
27.05.2024 at about 8:30 AM at Jail Road near Gate no. 3, Tihar
Jail Hari Nagar, Delhi with offending vehicle bearing registration
no. HR98J9601. FIR Bearing No.250/2024 under Section
279/337 IPC PS Hari Nagar was registered. Upon investigation,
the respondent no. 1 was charged with the offence U/s 279/304A
IPC and Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicle Act & respondent no. 2 was charged with the offence U/s 5/180 Motor Vehicle Act. As per the final report, the respondent no. 1 was driving the offending vehicle on learner's license. The incident happened due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by its driver/respondent no.01. Respondent no. 2 is the owner of the offending vehicle and respondent no. 3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. As per record, Sh. Sant Ram expired during treatment.
RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT NO.01 & 022.1 Respondent no.01 filed their reply wherein it is inter alia stated as follows :-
2.2 Respondent no.1 & 2 have been falsely implicated in the present case as no such alleged accident was caused by the respondent no.1 with the offending vehicle. On the day of alleged accident, the respondent no.1 was driving his motorcycle bearing registration no. HR98J9601 at a normal speed and when he reached at Jail Road, near Gate No.3, an old age person who was standing at Central Patri, all of a sudden, stepped down from the Shiv Kumari & Ors. vs. Deepanshu Singh & ors.[MACT No.577/2024] Page No.5 of 28
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.10.31
15:49:43 +0530
patri for crossing the road without caring for other moving vehicles on the road. On seeing the vehicle, the old age man got confused and fell down on the road and sustained injuries. On seeing old age man, respondent no.1 applied sharp brakes and due to this, he fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. Deceased sustained injuries due to his own negligence.
Respondent no.1 was having effective and valid driving license for driving the motorcycle. The motorcycle in question was duly insured with Megma HDI General Insurance Company Ltd. at the time of accident and liability if any is that of insurance company and not of respondent no. 1 & 2. It is prayed that the petition be dismissed against them.
RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT NO.03
3. Respondent no.03 filed its reply denying the liability to compensate the victim and inter alia stating that vehicle in question bearing registration no. HR98J9601 was duly insured with it vide policy no. P0023100021/4113/130700 valid from 01.02.2023 to 31.01.2028 in the name of respondent no.2 Deependra Singh. Respondent no.1 was holding a learner's license and he was driving the vehicle in question alone and was not accompanied by any person having a driving license. Thus, the vehicle was driven in contravention of Rule 3 of The Motor Vehicle Rule, 1989. It is averred that the respondents were charge-sheeted U/s 3/181 and 5/180 of Motor Vehicle Act. It is stated that after the amendment of Motor Vehicle Act, 2019 which came into force on 01.01.2024, Section 149 clause 4 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1989 has been deleted and the defence available to an insurance company u/s 150 of Motor Vehicle Act Shiv Kumari & Ors. vs. Deepanshu Singh & ors.
[MACT No.577/2024] Page No.6 of 28GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.10.31 15:49:45 +0530 have been enlarged and the insurance company can avail the defence u/s 150 of MV Act of "no driving license" at the time of an accident being the violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and thus is not liable to indemnify the owner. ISSUES 4.1 Ld. predecessor of this tribunal framed following issues vide order dated 19.11.2024:-
1. Whether the deceased Sant Ram suffered fatal injuries in the accident that took place on 27.05.2024 at about 8:30 am at Near Gate No.3, Tihar Jail, Jail Road, Hari Nagar, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration number HR98J9601 by respondent no.01, being owned by respondent no.02 and being insured with respondent no.03? OPP
2. Whether the applicant(s) is/are entitled to compensation, if yes, of what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
4.2 Thereafter, matter was fixed for evidence of petitioner side.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE :
5.1 The petitioner examined petitioner no.1 Smt. Shiv Kumari as PW1 who tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A reiterating and supporting the contents of the DAR/petition. She relied upon complete set of DAR/criminal documents Ex.PW1/1, photocopies of Aadhar Card of all petitioners Ex.PW1/2 and photocopy of ambulance bill Ex.PW1/3 in her evidence. PW1 was cross-examined at length by respondents, which is not reproduced herein for sake of brevity, and was discharged.
Shiv Kumari & Ors. vs. Deepanshu Singh & ors.
[MACT No.577/2024] Page No.7 of 28 GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.10.31
15:49:48 +0530
5.2 No other witnesses were examined by petitioner.
RESPONDENT"S EVIDENCE
6. Respondent no.3/Insurance Company examined its Legal Officer Ms. Harshita Mittal as R3W1 who tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.R3W1/A. In her evidence, she relied upon legal notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC sent by their counsel Sh. S. K. Sharma to respondent no.1/driver and respondent no.2/owner as Ex.R3W1/1 and postal receipts of the same as Ex.R3W1/2 and Ex.R3W1/3. R3W1 deposed that respondent no.1 was holding only learner's license and was driving alone at the time of incident in violation of Rule 3 of Motor Vehicles Rules 1989. She was examined, cross-examined by respondent no. 1 & 2 and was discharged. No cross examination was done by petitioner.
FINAL ARGUMENTS 7.1 It was argued by Ld. counsel for petitioner that petitioner has established on record that the deceased died due to road vehicular accident and since this is a petition under Section 164 of MV Act, award may be passed by this Tribunal as per entitlement of LR(s) of the deceased.
7.2 It was argued by Ld. counsel for respondent no.01 & 02 that the petitioner has failed to prove that accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. That the deceased in the present matter has sustained injuries due to his own negligence and there was no fault on the part of respondent no. 1. It was submitted that the respondent no. 1 was having a valid learners license at the time of an incident and, therefore, the liability, if any, is that of the insurance company.
Shiv Kumari & Ors. vs. Deepanshu Singh & ors.
[MACT No.577/2024] Page No.8 of 28 GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.10.31
15:49:51 +0530
Ld. Counsel for respondent no.1 & 2 has placed reliance on the judgments i.e. (i) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh & Others, SLP 9027/2003 dated 05.01.2020 and (iii) "Mahamoods & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2004 Legal Eagle (SC) 1277" in respect of his contention.
7.3 It was further argued that the pay & recover principle is still applicable and the insurance company shall be held liable to pay the compensation amount. The Ld. Counsel placed reliance upon the judgment i.e. "ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Arti Devi & Others, First Appeal from Order no.1780 of 2024 in support of his contention. 7.4 It was argued by Ld. counsel for respondent no.3 that the petitioner has failed to prove that incident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. It was further argued that it has been proved on record that respondent no. 1 was driving a vehicle on learner's license and was not accompanied by any person having any valid driving license at the time of an accident and, therefore, he was driving in contravention of Rule 3 of Motor Vehicle rules. It is submitted that even in the charge sheet, the respondent no. 1 was charged for an offence of U/s 3/181 of Motor Vehicle Act and respondent no. 2 was charged for an offence of U/s 5/180 of Motor Vehicle Act and, therefore, it is clear that the respondent no. 1 was driving the vehicle in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Ld. counsel for respondent no. 3 has drawn attention of this Tribunal to the clause of the insurance policy wherein it has been mentioned that the driver should be Shiv Kumari & Ors. vs. Deepanshu Singh & ors.
[MACT No.577/2024] Page No.9 of 28 GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.10.31
15:49:53 +0530
holding an effective driving license at the time of the accident and in case of an effective learner's license, he shall satisfy the requirements of rule 3 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1989. It is submitted that since the said clause has been violated by respondent no. 1 & 2, respondent no. 3 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners and the liability to pay the compensation to the petitioners falls upon the respondent nos. 1 & 2. It is further argued that after the amendment of MV Act, the proviso to Section 149 of Motor Vehicle Act has been deleted and the right of the insurer to pay and recover has been done away with and, therefore, in the absence of the said proviso, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation, only respondent no. 1 & 2 are liable to pay the compensation. In support of his contention, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3 has placed reliance on the following judgments:-
(i) Go Digit General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mohd. Javed through Shehnaz & Ors. MAC.
APP No. 416/2025 & CM Appl. 39671/2025 decided on 09.07.2025 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
7.5 I have heard the contentions of the both the sides, gone through the record carefully including the judgments cited by the counsels and given my thoughtful consideration to the same.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS 8.1 My issuewise findings are as under :-
Issue No. 1. : Whether the deceased Sant Ram suffered fatal injuries in the accident that took place on 27.05.2024 at about 8:30 am at Near Gate No.3, Tihar Jail, Jail Road, Hari Nagar, New Delhi due to rash Shiv Kumari & Ors. vs. Deepanshu Singh & ors.
[MACT No.577/2024] Digitally
Page No.10 ofsigned
28
GUNJAN by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.10.31
15:49:56 +0530
and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration number HR98J9601 by respondent no.01, being owned by respondent no.02 and being insured with respondent no.03? OPP 8.2 In the present matter, the issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal qua rashness and negligence on 19.11.2024. However, thereafter, an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner to convert the DAR into a petition U/s 164 of Motor Vehicle Act which was allowed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal vide order dated 19.05.2025. Section 164 of Motor Vehicle Act is a no fault liability clause and it is not required to prove that the driver was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Thus, this Tribunal does not deem it necessary to give any finding qua rashness and negligence.
8.3 The only issue which needs to be decided by this Tribunal is whether the deceased Sant Ram died in a road vehicle accident caused by the offending vehicle. The respondent nos. 1 & 2 have denied the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident and have averred that the deceased suddenly stepped down from the central divider (patri) and got confused and fell down due to which he sustained injuries. Respondent no. 1 who was driving the vehicle cautiously and at a normal speed applied sharp breaks and slipped and also sustained injuries. 8.4 The PW1 has deposed that the deceased sustained fatal injuries in a road vehicle accident on 27.05.2024 which was caused by motorcycle bearing no. HR-98J-9601. The said part of the testimony of PW1 remains uncontroverted and unrebutted by the respondents in her cross examination. Further the perusal of Shiv Kumari & Ors. vs. Deepanshu Singh & ors.[MACT No.577/2024] Page No.11 of 28
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.10.31
15:49:58 +0530
the MLC filed alongwith charge-sheet shows that the patient was admitted with an alleged history of RTA at 3.30 a.m. on 27.05.2024 "as stated by self" and, thus the same corroborates the case of the petitioner that the deceased was hit by offending vehicle bearing registration no. HR98J9601 being driven by the respondent no. 1. The charge sheet has been filed in the matter wherein the respondent no. 1 has been charged with the offences U/s 279/304A and Section 3/181 of Motor Vehicle Act and respondent no. 2 is charged with the offence U/s 5/180 of Motor Vehicle Act and sufficiently proves the complicity of the respondent no.1 in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. 8.5 Further, respondent no.1 was the best person to depose as to how and in what circumstances, the deceased suffered the fatal injuries and whether or not the deceased was hit by motorcycle being driven by him. However, the respondent no.1 did not enter the witness box and in the given circumstances, adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him, to the effect that the accident occurred with the offending vehicle being driven by him.
8.6 It is also important to note that the damages on the offending vehicle as assessed in the mechanical inspection report on record do not appear to be such as may be caused by mere slipping of a vehicle. The front side of the offending vehicle is stated to be damaged and parts dislocated and there is possibility of some impact by a hit on the front side of the vehicle. 8.7 Furthermore, DAR filed by the IO also includes the statement of eye witnesses namely SI Nirmal Chander Nath, ASI Deshraj and Sh. Sonu Giri etc which clearly show that the Shiv Kumari & Ors. vs. Deepanshu Singh & ors.[MACT No.577/2024] Page No.12 of 28
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.10.31
15:50:04 +0530
deceased sustained fatal injuries in the road vehicular accident caused with the offending vehicle driven by respondent no.1. 8.8 In view of the above discussions, it is held that it is proved on a scale of preponderance of probabilities that the deceased Sant Ram had died in a road accident caused by the offending vehicle i.e. motorcycle bearing no. HR98J9601 driven by respondent no. 1 at the time of incident i.e. 27.05.2024 at 8.30 a.m. at Jail Road near Gate no. 3, Tihar Jail Hari Nagar, Delhi.
The issue no.1 qua the involvement of the offending vehicle is acordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2Issue No. 2. Whether the applicant(s) is/are entitled to compensation, if yes, of what amount and from whom? OPP 9.1 In view of the discussion & findings in issue No.1 above, the requirement of Section 164 of Motor Vehicle Act stands satisfied and petitioners are entitled to the compensation as per the said section.
9.2 In view of the above, the compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) is awarded to the petitioner with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of petition till its realization.
LIABILITY 10.1 Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3 has argued that the respondent no.3 should be exonerated from the liability on account of deletion of proviso to section 149(4) of The MV Act. It is contended by the respondent no.3 Insurance Company that driver/respondent no.1 was holding only learner license at the Shiv Kumari & Ors. vs. Deepanshu Singh & ors.
[MACT No.577/2024] Page No.13 of 28 GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.10.31 15:50:06
+0530
time of incident and he was not accompanied by any person holding a valid driving license at the time of incident. Respondent Insurance Company has examined its Legal Officer Ms. Harshita Mittal as R3W1 to prove the said fact. Her deposition to that effect was not challanged by respondent no.1 & 2 in cross-examination. Perusal of DAR reveals that IO has also mentioned that respondent no.1 was holding only learner's license at the time of incident. It is not the case of the respondent no.1 & 2 that respondent no.1 was accompanied by a person having effective driving license at the time of incident. As per records of DAR, no person having valid driving license to drive the vehicle in question was accompanying the respondent no.1 at the time of incident. IO has also filed challan under Section 3/181 MV Act against the respondent no.1. Same is violation of the Rule 3 of The Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 and violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as provided under the head of limitations as to use. Hence, it is established on record that respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle in contravention of the terms of the insurance policy and hence, respondent no.1 & 2 are held libale. However, merely for this reason, the insurance company cannot be exonerated from its liability to pay the award amount to the petitioner.
10.2 The MV Act is a social welfare legislation enacted amongst other purposes for the benefit of the victim of Road Traffic Accident and for speedy disposal of such cases. A mere glance at the aims and objectives of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2019 would show Shiv Kumari & Ors. vs. Deepanshu Singh & ors.
[MACT No.577/2024] Page No.14 of 28 GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.10.31
15:50:08 +0530
that one of the main objective that the act aims to achieve is to ensure expeditious help to accident victim and their families. The act provides compulsory insurance qua third party risk making the insurance company liable to reimburse the insured in case of any liability incurred by him towards third party, arising out of motor vehicle accident involving his vehicle. The act aims at providing compensation to the victim of the accident who have suffered injuries 'grievous or simple' or the loss of their loved ones to ensure that they are able to lead a decent life post accident. Though the compensation awarded to a victim of a accident under the MV Act cannot relegate the person to the same position as he was in, before the accident, yet the financial assistance provided to him in the form of compensation provides some ray of light to him and enables him to lead a decent life post accident. Therefore, it is important to ensure that the compensation to which a victim of an accident is held entitled in the judgment or an award passed by MACT Tribunal, is made available to him without any delay and the victim is not made to run from pillar to post to obtain the same and also does not have to wait for years and years to receive the compensation. Any delay in payment of compensation would amount to rendering the provisions of the MV Act meaningless. It also cannot be lost sight of that where the driver and the owner are the persons with weak financial background, the payment of the compensation to the victim would infact become impossible. 10.3 Recently, a similar issue was raised before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in matter of "ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Vs. Arti Devi & Ors", First Appeal Shiv Kumari & Ors. vs. Deepanshu Singh & ors.
[MACT No.577/2024] Page No.15 of 28GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.10.31 15:50:10 +0530 from order No.1780 of 2024. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 31.01.2025 held that the principle of pay & recover would still be applicable. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced here as under:-
"21. When the language used in sub-Section (4) of Section 149 prior to amendment as replaced by sub- Section (4) of Section 150 by the Amendment Act of 2019, is carefully examined, the words "shall, as respects such liabilities as are required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 147, be of no effect" would only mean that under the circumstances covered by sub-Section (4), either of Section 149 or Section 150, the insurer would be well within its rights to avoid liability flowing from the insurance policy. Meaning thereby that the insurer would be absolved of bearing liability to pay compensation to the claimants. It does not mean that the insurer would also be absolved from its liability to indemnify the owner's risk. Such indemnification will still continue to remain alive and the insurer shall have to first pay the compensation through indemnification and, then, it shall have a right to recover from the owner the amount paid as the ultimate liability shall have to be borne by the owner and not by insurer. In such an event, there would be no financial loss to the insurer as it would be compensated through recovery from the owner. The aforesaid provisions are expressly to give defence to the insurer and have to be read to that extent only and not to interpret as if the liability to indemnify stands washed away. It therefore follows that even if the proviso to sub- Section (4) would not have been there before the amendment, the indemnification concept would have till remained alive and operative and, hence, mere omission of the proviso by the Amendment Act of 2019 would be of no avail.
22. Therefore, when Shri Parihar urges that if, in every case, liability to pay compensation has to be borne by the Insurance Company, there would be no effect of providing grounds for defence either under sub-section (2) of the Act prior to amendment or under sub-section (2) of the Act after amendment, this Court finds no force in the submission. The reason is that providing grounds of defence under the said provisions would be read so as to give an opportunity to the Insurance Company to avoid passing of award against it, i,e, holding it liable to bear the award. The said liability to have an award against the Insurance Company is distinct from the situation where award is against the owner and insurer is made liable to pay compensation to the claimants and then recover the same from the owner. Non-receipt of premium as required under Section 64(V)B of the Insurance Act, 1938 has now been added in Section 150(2). It reflects that even in a case where premium is not received by the Insurance Company, it can raise a ground of challenge so as to avoid passing of award against it and, in that event also, award would be drawn against the owner. When payment or non-payment of premium is significant after amendment and has been made a ground of defence, the Court observes that a third party risk is covered under the policy which is a contract and premium qua third party risk is received by the insurer in relation to the Shiv Kumari & Ors. vs. Deepanshu Singh & ors.[MACT No.577/2024] Page No.16 of 28
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.10.31 15:50:13 +0530 contract. Therefore, policy continues to subsist to cover third party risk so long the premium is received and non-payment hereof would absolve the Insurance Company from its liability of an award being passed against it.
23-24 xxx
25. The Court cannot overlook an aspect that Section 147(5) of the Act, prior to amendment has been replaced by Section 147(6) of the Act after amendment but there are no qualifying words referable to section 150. Sub-section (6) of section 147 reads as under:-
"(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, an insurer issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons."
From renumbering of the sub-section, as above, it follows that once the liability to indemnify the person specified in the policy, as per sub-section (6) of Section 147, even after amendment, continues to exist in the Statute book and it excludes applicability of any other law for the time being in force, indemnification by the insurer does not vanish even after amendments incorporated by the Act of 2019. The right to recover the amount paid to the claimants as per conditions mentioned in section 150 would still be available to the insurer as indemnification has not been taken away by the legislature nor has it been explained by adding words to section 147 or anywhere else.
26. This Court also finds that since the contract of insurance is between insurer and the owner and has no concern with the claimants who are in fact victims of the accident, language used in Section 149 (prior to amendment) and Section 150 (after amendment) would show that notwithstanding the fact that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel the policy on account of breach of terms thereof, it shall pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the award. Therefore, whether Insurance Company cancels or does not cancel an insurance policy, the same has nothing to do with the claimants and they are entitled to get the amount from insurer. It means that claimants' right to receive compensation from the insurer at the first instance is unaffected by the inter-se rights and liabilities arising out of contract between the insurer and the owner.
27. Words "no sum shall be payable by the insurer under sub- ection (1)" used either in Section 149 of the Act of 1988 (prior to amendment) in Section 150 (after amendment) would mean that if the grounds of defence set-forth in sub-section (2) of Section 149 or Section 150, as the case may be, exist, no sum shall be payable by the insurer. It does not mean that the sum shall not be paid by the insurer if the award contains a direction to the insurer to pay and recover. Liability to pay the amount has to be segregated from actual payment made by the insurer in case of survival and existence of insurance policy issued under Section 147 of the Act. Word "liability" has to be understood as the "final liability to bear the award for all time to come" separate from concept of indemnification by the insurer by making immediate payment.
28. xxx
29. Therefore, when the provisions of the Act of 1988 are read with C.P.C., it becomes clear that as soon as an award is passed, Shiv Kumari & Ors. vs. Deepanshu Singh & ors.
[MACT No.577/2024] Page No.17 of 28GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.10.31 15:50:15 +0530 the claimants become entitled to get the amount of compensation and they get financial relief even during the pendency of the appeal filed by the insurer.
30. xxx
31. A bare perusal of clause 2 read with clause 5 (b) and clause 51 reflects that the intention of the legislature was never to withdraw protection and reliefs as regards compensation ensured by the previous existing provisions. Rather, the Bill strives more towards ensuring expeditious help to the accident victims and their families. The emotional and social trauma caused to the family which loses its bread winner, is still one of the special considerations as set forth in the Statement above, The Bill was brought with an object to replace the existing provisions of insurance with simplified provisions in order to provide expeditious help to accident victims and their families. There is nothing in the Statement of Objects and Reasons which may, either directly or indirectly, infer withdrawal of insurer's liability to pay compensation as soon as the award is declared, even in case of occurrence of breach of policy or other existence of similar grounds of defence available to the insurer. Therefore, the purpose behind bringing amendments in the Act of 1988 was clearly to provide immediate financial help to the accident victims and their dependents and not to create a situation where they are made to run from pillar to post even after an award is declared in their favour.
32-37. xxx
38. The Court, therefore, holds that mere omission of proviso attached to sub-section (4) of Section 149 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 after its replacement by Section 150 of Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 (32 of 2019), neither takes away the liability of the insurer to pay the claimants nor its right to recover the said amount from the owner. The law to this effect remains intact and unaffected by Amendment Act, 2019 and, hence, insurer shall continue to indemnify the owner's risk in relation to accidents taking place after 01.04.2022 and "PAY & RECOVER"
principle will still continue to govern the field advancing social object of the Statute protecting third party interest. Principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh and others, JT 2004 (1) SC 109 has not lost its significance and binding effect despite omission of proviso. Held accordingly."
Emphasis supplied.
10.4 It is also pertinent to note that recently, the hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of "Go Digit General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Naved Ors" MAC App. No.543/2025 & CM Appl. 53146-53146/2025 dated 26.08.2025, has directed the insurance company to deposit the entire compensation amount and has further directed that 35% of the Shiv Kumari & Ors. vs. Deepanshu Singh & ors.
[MACT No.577/2024] Page No.18 of 28 GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.10.31 15:50:17
+0530
amount deposited be released to the victim and the issue of pay & recover has been kept pending for adjudication. 10.5 From the above discussions, it is clear that the exonerating the insurance company from the liability to pay the compensation to the petitioner would render award meaningless and would be against the benevolent provisions of the MV Act. 10.6 It would be also apposite to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of "United India General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Santro Devi & Ors" (2009) 1 SCC 558 has observed as under:-
"14. The provisions of compulsory insurance have been framed to advance a social object. It is in a way part of the social justice doctrine. When a certificate of insurance is issued, in law, the insurance company is bound to reimburse the owner. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that a contract of insurance must fulfill the statutory requirements of formation of a valid contract but in case of a third party risk, the question has to be considered from a different angle. It was further held that Section 146 of the Act gives complete protection to third party in respect of or bodily injury or damage to the property while using the vehicle in public place. For that purpose, insurance of the vehicle has been made compulsory to the vehicle or to the owner. This would further reflect that compulsory insurance is obviously for the benefit of Thirty party..."
10.7 It is also pertinent to note that in the judgment in "National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh & Ors", a question of law pertaining to interpretation of Section 149(2)(a)
(ii) vis a vis the proviso to sub-section 4 & 5 of the said Section of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, as it then existed, was raised before Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was argued on behalf of the insurance company that the defences provided in Section 149(2) must be allowed to be invoked by the insurer to its full effect and once the defence is proved, the Tribunal should be bound to discharge the insurer and affix the liability only on the owner and driver of the offending vehicle without any directions to pay the Shiv Kumari & Ors. vs. Deepanshu Singh & ors.
[MACT No.577/2024] Page No.19 of 28 GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.10.31
15:50:20 +0530
award amount and recover the same from the owner. The
hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment while referring to Section 149(1) of the MV Act as it then existed (now Section 150(1) of the MV Act as amended by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 adopted a liberal approach to protect the rights of third party and held that even if, the insurance company is able to establish its defence under Section 149(2) of the MV Act, the insurance company would be liable to satisfy the decree with the right to recover the same from the owner. It was held that the liability of the insurer arises from the contract as well as the statute and therefore, it would not be proper to apply the rules of interpretation of contract in interpreting a statute. It was held by the Hon'ble Court:-
"Proviso appended to sub-section (4) of Section 149 is referable only to sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act. It is an independent provision and must be read in the context of Section 96(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Furthermore, it is one thing to say that the insurer will be entitled to avoid its liability owing to breach of terms of a contract of insurance but it is another thing to say that the vehicle is not insured at all. If the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, the same would render the proviso to sub-section (4) as well as sub-section (5) of Section 149 of the Act otiose, nor any effective meaning can be attributed to the liability clause of the insurance company contained in sub-section (1). The decision in Kamla's case (supra) has to be read in the aforementioned context.
Sub-section (5) of Section 149 which imposes a liability on the insurer must also be given its full effect. The insurance company may not be liable to satisfy the decree and, therefore, its liability may be zero but it does mean that it did not have initial liability at all. Thus, if the insurance company is made liable to pay any amount, it can recover the entire amount paid to the third party on behalf of the assured. If this interpretation is not given to the beneficent provisions of the Act having regard to its purport and object, we fail to see a situation where beneficent provisions can be given effect to. Sub-section (7) of Section 149 of the Act, to which pointed attention of the Court has been drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which is in negative language may now be noticed. The said provision must be read with sub- section (1) thereof. The right to avoid liability in terms of sub- section (2) of Section 149 is restricted as has been discussed hereinbefore. It is one thing to say that the insurance companies are entitled to raise a defence but it is another thing to say that despite the fact that its defence Shiv Kumari & Ors. vs. Deepanshu Singh & ors.[MACT No.577/2024] Page No.20 of 28
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.10.31 15:50:22 +0530 has been accepted having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has power to direct them to satisfy the decree at the first instance and then direct recovery of the same from the owner. These two matters stand apart and require contextual reading."
10.8 Section 149(1) of the MV Act, 1988 (as it existed prior to the Motor Vehicles (Amendment), Act 2019) has now been renumbered as Section 150(1) of the MV Act 1988 (as amended by Motor Vehicles (Amendment), Act 2019) and thus, the said provision in its letter and spirit still exists on the statute book, and, therefore, the judgment in Swaran Singh (supra) is still binding upon this Tribunal.
10.9 It would also be apposite to reproduce the following findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swaran Singh (supra):-
"The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions are as follows:
"(i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of vehicles against third party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object.
(ii) Insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed under Section 163 A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 inter alia in terms of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act.
(iii)-(vii). Xxx
(viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having a learner's licence, the insurance companies would be liable to satisfy the decree.
(ix) The claims tribunal constituted under Section 165 read with Section 168 is empowered to adjudicate all claims in respect of the accidents involving death or of bodily injury or damage to property of third party arising in use of motor vehicle. The said power of the tribunal is not restricted to decide the claims inter se between claimant or claimants on one side and insured, insurer and driver on the other. In the course of adjudicating the claim for compensation and to decide the availability of defence or defences to the insurer, the Tribunal has necessarily the power and jurisdiction to decide disputes inter se between insurer and the insured. The decision rendered on the claims and disputes inter se between the insurer and insured in the course of adjudication of claim for compensation by the claimants and the award made thereon is enforceable and executable in the same manner as Shiv Kumari & Ors. vs. Deepanshu Singh & ors.[MACT No.577/2024] Page No.21 of 28
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.10.31 15:50:24 +0530 provided in Section 174 of the Act for enforcement and execution of the award in favour of the claimants.
(x) Where on adjudication of the claim under the Act the tribunal arrives at a conclusion that the insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with the provisions of section 149(2) read with sub-section (7), as interpreted by this Court above, the Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the tribunal. Such determination of claim by the Tribunal will be enforceable and the money found due to the insurer from the insured will be recoverable on a certificate issued by the tribunal to the Collector in the same manner under Section 174 of the Act as arrears of land revenue. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by sub- section (3) of Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from the date of announcement of the award by the tribunal.
(xi) The provisions contained in sub-section (4) with proviso thereunder and sub-section (5) which are intended to cover specified contingencies mentioned therein to enable the insurer to recover amount paid under the contract of insurance on behalf of the insured can be taken recourse of by the Tribunal and be extended to claims and defences of insurer against insured by relegating them to the remedy before regular court in cases where on given facts and circumstances adjudication of their claims inter se might delay the adjudication of the claims of the victims."
10.10 Thus, even in cases where the insurance company has been able to make out a defence as per the provision of 149(2) [now Section 150(2)], the insurance company has been held liable to pay the compensation amount and recover the same from the insured.
10.11 In view of the foregoing discussion, the binding precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Section 150 sub- section 1 & 5 of the MV Act, 1988, Section 147(6) of the MV Act, 1988 and the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited (supra), the principle of pay & recover would still be applicable to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the insurance company is held liable to pay compensation to the petitioner as a valid policy was effective on the date of the accident and shall also Shiv Kumari & Ors. vs. Deepanshu Singh & ors.
[MACT No.577/2024] Page No.22 of 28GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.10.31 15:50:29 +0530 be entitled to recover the said amount from the insured as per contract between them. Hence, insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount in favour of the petitioner.
RELIEF :
11. In view of the above findings, this Tribunal hereby passes an award of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition/DAR i.e. 20.07.2024 till the date of the payment of the award amount to be paid by the respondent No.3/Insurance Company. Respondent no.3/Insurance Company is hereby directed to deposit the award amount in favour of the petitioner(s) with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account No.40711767202, CIF No.90891362578, IFSC Code - SBIN0000726, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this award together with the interest as stated herein above under intimation to this Tribunal and under intimation to the petitioners. In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay.
APPORTIONMENT & DISBURSEMENT OF AWARD AMOUNT 12.1 Statement of the petitioners in terms of provisions of MCTAP was recorded on 08.07.2025 having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the said statement, the compensation to the petitioners shall be distributed/disbursed as follows:-
Sr. Name of Age/ Relation Award Amount of Amount kept Period of Shiv Kumari & Ors. vs. Deepanshu Singh & ors.[MACT No.577/2024] Page No.23 of 28
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.10.31 15:50:32 +0530 No petitione DOB with Amount award to in FDRs FDRs with . r/ injured/ be cumulative claimant decease released interest d
1. Shivkum 01.01. Wife Rs.4,52,000/- + Rs.2,52,000 Rs.2,00,000/- Rs. 2,00,000/-
ari 1958 accrued /- + accrued shall be kept in interest interest the form of FDRs (fixed deposit receipts) in the multiples of Rs.10,000/-
each for a
period of one
month, two
months and
three months
and so on and
so forth, having
cumulative
interest.
2. Kamlesh 01.01. Son Rs.9600/- Rs.9600/- Nil Nil
1994
3. Kushlaa 03.08. Daughter Rs.9600/- Rs.9600/- Nil Nil
wati 1989
4. Rajesh 01.01. Son Rs.9600/- Rs.9600/- Nil Nil
1979
5. Vinod 01.01. Son Rs.9600/- Rs.9600/- Nil Nil
Kumar 1977
6. Nirmala 01.01. Daughter Rs.9600/- Rs.9600/- Nil Nil
1969
TOTAL Rs.5,00,000/-
12.2 The amount of FDRs on maturity shall directly be
released in petitioner's Saving Bank Account. 12.3 All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
Shiv Kumari & Ors. vs. Deepanshu Singh & ors.
[MACT No.577/2024] Page No.24 of 28 GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.10.31
15:50:34 +0530
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the MACT bank account of the claimant (s) near the place of their residence.
(d) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(e) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card (s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(f) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(g) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
13. Respondent no.3 i.e Magma HDI General Insurance Company Ltd., being insurer of offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the compensation amount with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p. a. for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch is directed to transfer the award amount, in the above-mentioned manner, as per award in the saving bank account of claimant/petitioner, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
14. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph, Shiv Kumari & Ors. vs. Deepanshu Singh & ors.
[MACT No.577/2024] Page No.25 of 28GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.10.31 15:50:37 +0530 specimen signature, copy of bank passbook and copy of residence proof of the petitioner, be sent to Nodal Officer of State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
15. Nazir of this Court shall prepare a separate file regarding the status of deposition/non-deposition of the award amount by the respondent no.3 after making necessary entry on CIS on 21.11.2025.
16. A digital copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost through email.
17. Ahlmad staff is directed to send the copy of award to Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority as per the procedure of Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure (MCTAP).
18. Ahlmad staff is also directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors." decided on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-email an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex Branch for information.
19. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 28th of October, 2025 (GUNJAN GUPTA) District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01, West/THC/Delhi/28.10.2025 Shiv Kumari & Ors. vs. Deepanshu Singh & ors.
[MACT No.577/2024] Page No.26 of 28 GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.10.31
15:50:39 +0530
FORM -XV
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT
IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident : 27.05.2024
2. Name of the deceased : Sant Ram
3. Age of the deceased : 01.01.1957 (DOB)
4. Occupation of the deceased : NIL
5. Income of the deceased : NIL
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased : -
S.No. Name Age/DOB Relation
(i) Shivkumari 01.01.1958 Wife
(ii) Kamlesh 01.01.1994 Son
(iii) Kushlaawati 03.08.1989 Daughter
(iv) Rajesh 01.01.1979 Son
(v) Vinod Kumar 01.01.1977 Son
(vi) Nirmala 01.01.1969 Daughter
Computation of Compensation : -
Sr.No. Heads Awarded by the Claim
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased(A) NIL
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) NIL
9. Less-Personal expenses of the NIL
deceased(C)
10. Monthly loss of dependency NIL
[(A+B)-C=D]
11. Annual loss of dependency (D NIL
x 12)
12. Multiplier(E) NIL
13. Total loss of dependency NIL
Shiv Kumari & Ors. vs. Deepanshu Singh & ors.
[MACT No.577/2024] Page No.27 of 28 Digitally signed byGUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.10.31 15:50:41 +0530 (Dx12xE= F)
14. Medical Expenses(G) NIL
15. Compensation for loss of NIL consortium(H)
16. Compensation for loss of love NIL and affection(I)
17. Compensation for loss of NIL estate(J)
18. Compensation towards funeral NIL expenses(K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.5,00,000/-
(F+G+H+I+J+K=L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST 9% per annum AWARDED
21. Interest amount up to the Rs.50,889/-
date of award (M) (w.e.f.20.07.2024 to
28.10.2025 i.e. 1 year 3
months and 8 days)
22. Total amount including Rs.5,50,889/-
interest (L + M) (Rs.5,00,000/- +
Rs.50,889/-)
23. Award amount released Rs.3,00,000/-
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.2,00,000/- + accrued interest
25. Mode of disbursement of the Mentioned in the award award amount to the claimant (s).
26. Next date for compliance of 28.11.2025 the award.
(GUNJAN GUPTA) District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01, West District, Tis Hazari Courts Delhi/28.10.2025 Shiv Kumari & Ors. vs. Deepanshu Singh & ors.
[MACT No.577/2024] Page No.28 of 28 GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.10.31 15:50:45
+0530