Delhi District Court
Suresh (Dar) vs Naval Kishore Meena (95/19, Hnd) on 30 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA
DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No.141/2020
FIR No. 95/2019
PS : H N Din
U/s 279/304 A IPC
CNR NO. DLSE01-001231-2020
Suresh Vs. Naval Kishore & Ors.
1. Suresh Kumar (Father of deceased)
2. Maya (Mother of deceased)
R/o H. No. A-2nd, 175, Madangir
Pushpa Bhawan, South Delhi.
...Claimants
Versus
1. Naval Kishore Meena
S/o Sh. Ram Pratap Meena
R/o 296-D Block, Gali no. 4,
Sangam Vihar, New Delhi.
.....driver of DTC vehicle No. DL 01PC 9572
Respondent No. 1
2. Delhi Transport Corporation
T. No. 16668, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar
DTC Bust, Depot, New Delhi.
.....owner/ Respondent No. 2
MACT No.141/2020 Suresh Vs. Naval Kishore Meena & ors. page 1 of 34
3. M/s United India Insurance Company Ltd
Himalya House, K. G. Marg, Cannought Place
New Delhi.
.......Insurance Company/ Respondent no.-3
4. Gaurav Verma
S/o Sh. Bal Ram
R/o S-135/46, T Huts, Sai Baba Camp
Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
Driver of motorcycle bearing Reg. no. DL 12SL 4504/ R-4
5. Ajay Kumar
S/o Late Balrma,
R/o S-135/46, T Huts
Sai Baba Camp, Lodhi Colony
New Delhi.
Owner of motorcycle bearing Reg. no. DL 12SL 4504/ R-5
Date of accident : 18.04.2019
Date of filing of DAR : 15.02.2020
Date of Decision : 30.07.2025
AWARD
"In a case of death, the legal heirs of the claimants cannot expect
a windfall.
Simultaneously, the compensation granted cannot be an apology
for compensation".
(As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of
National Insurance Company Limited.- v Pranay Sethi And
Others (2017 SCC Online Sc 1270)
1. DAR
1(a) Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred as DAR)
was filed by ASI Laxmi Narain, PS H. N. Din which is treated as
MACT No.141/2020 Suresh Vs. Naval Kishore Meena & ors. page 2 of 34
Claim Petition under Section 166 (1) read with Section 166 (4)
MV Act. It pertains to alleged accident of victim Late Sh. Honey
(hereinafter referred as deceased), by composite negligence of
Vehicle no. DL 01PC 9572 driven by Sh. Naval Kishore Meena,
impleaded as Respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred as R-1),
owned by Delhi Transport Corporation, impleaded as Respondent
No.2 (hereinafter referred as R-2) and insured with M/s United
India Insurance Company Ltd, impleaded as Respondent No.3
(hereinafter referred as R-3) and Motorcycle bearing Reg. No.
DL 12SL 4504, driven by Sh. Gaurav Verma, impleaded as
Respondent no.4, (hereinafter referred as R-1) and owned by Sh.
Ajay Kumar, impleaded as Respondent No.5 (hereinafter referred
as R-5).
2. Brief Facts:
2(a) Preliminary information regarding accident in question
was received at PS H. N. Din recorded as DD no. 37 A dt.
18.04.2019, upon receipt of which, ASI Laxmi Narayan along
with Ct. Jitender proceeded to the spot on the road from Bhogal
to Nizamuddin about 50 meters after the Read Light, where he
found a motorcycle bearing Reg. No. DL 12SL 4504 make Hero
Splendor with broken left side indicator and a bus with blood and
flesh stained rear tyre. Corresponding stains were also found on
the road. He was informed that injured was already admitted in
AIIMS Trauma Center vide MLC no. 500164216/2019 with the
remarks "A/H/O RTA at Nizamuddin Bus Stand near Dargah,
when patient was crossing the road was hit by a two-wheeler
then rammed over by a bus Patient was then brought to JPNATC
by his friends in auto" and nature of injury was mentioned to be
pending investigation, however, subsequently, it was informed
MACT No.141/2020 Suresh Vs. Naval Kishore Meena & ors. page 3 of 34
that injured namely Honey had died. Death Summary was
procured by ASI Laxmi Narain and statement of Azmat Ansari,
eye witness to the incident, who was also present in the hospital
was recorded. He stated that deceased was his friend and final
year student of Motor Mechanic Diploma, in ITI, Sarai
Nizamuddin. He informed that on 18.04.2019, at about 12.00
noon, both of them were crossing the road towards Nizamuddin
and that while he was able to cross over to Nizamuddin, his
friend Honey halted at the divider and while crossing the
remaining limb of road, he was hit by a speedily and rashly
driven motorcycle bearing Reg. No. DL 12SL 4504 make Hero
Splendor, (black colour) because of which the motorcyclist as
well as Honey fell down on the road and within moments, his
head was crushed under the rear right wheel of the DTC bus,
coming from behind. He stated that motorcyclist left his
motorcycle and ran away from spot. Similarly, DTC bus driver
also parked his vehicle on one side and informed his name to be
Kishore Meena. Then the injured was rushed to AIIMS Trauma
Center along with another student Mukesh. It is alleged that the
accident happened on account of rash and negligent driving of
the motorcycle as well as the DTC bus. FIR was registered on the
basis of statement as well as the death summary. The accidental
vehicles were seized and taken into police possession. Statement
under Section 161 Cr.PC was recorded. Documents pertaining to
offending vehicle were produced upon service of notice under
Section 133 MV Act. Motorcyclist produced learning driving
license whereas the owner of motorcycle admitted that the
motorcycle was without insurance and therefore, relevant penal
provisions were added against the driver and owner of the
MACT No.141/2020 Suresh Vs. Naval Kishore Meena & ors. page 4 of 34
motorcycle. The documents pertaining to DTC bus was found to
be in order. Upon conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was
filed against motorcyclist Gaurav under Section 279/337 IPC and
3/181 MV, 146/196 MV Act while motorcycle owner was charge
sheeted additionally under Section 56/192 MV Act and 5/180
MV Act. Driver of the DTC Bus Naval Kishore Meena was
charge sheeted under Section 279/304A IPC. DAR was filed by
the Investigating Officer with the driver of motorcycle as well as
driver of DTC bus, however, only owner and driver of the DTC
bus were impleaded as parties. Subsequently, an application was
filed on behalf of insurance company for impleading the owner
of offending motorcycle as one of the parties which was allowed
vide order dated 29.09.2021.
3. REPLY:
3(a) In Written Statement filed by driver and owner of DTC
Bus, it is admitted that driver was on wheels on Route No. 405A
from Badarpur to Tilak Bridge when the accident happened. It is
stated that deceased as pedestrian crossing the road was hit by a
speedy and rashly driven motorcycle because of which he fell on
the road and got crushed under its wheels. He also stated that
driver halted the bus and offered help to seek immediate medical
attention for the injured whereas motorcyclist fled the spot of
accident. It is also stated that the driver himself visited the police
station and narrated the entire sequence of events leading to
accident. It is also stated that had the driver of the bus been
negligent, the injured would have been hit by the front tyre of the
bus and not the rear right tyre. It is stated that the vehicle was
duly insured.
3(b) Written Statement filed by motorcyclist Gaurav Verma and
MACT No.141/2020 Suresh Vs. Naval Kishore Meena & ors. page 5 of 34
owner Ajay Kumar wherein it is stated that there was no
negligence on the part of motorcyclist and it was bus which was
being speedily and rashly driven thereby crushing the deceased
under its wheel.
3(c) In the WS filed by insurance company, it is admitted that
the bus was validly insured, however, it is asserted that the
accident happened on account of rash driving on the part of
motorcyclist which is fortified as he was not holding a valid
driving license and was also uninsured.
4. Issues:
4(a) Issues were framed vide order dated 21.10.2021:
1. Whether the deceased received fatal injuries in a
road traffic accident on 18.04.2019 due to rash and
negligent driving of vehicle no. DL 1PC 9572 being
driven by R-1, owned by R-2 and insured with R-3
and DL 12SL 4504 being driven by R-4 and owned
by R-5? OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?
OPP
3. Relief.
5. Evidence:
5(a) Matter was then listed for recording of Petitioner
Evidence. PW-1 Sh. Suresh Kumar (father of deceased) appeared
in the witness box and tendered his evidentiary affidavit
Ex.PW1/A. He also relied upon following documents:
(i) Ex.PW1/1- Copy of Aadhar Card of deponent
(ii) Ex.PW1/2- Copy of PAN Card of deponent
(iii) Ex.PW1/3- Copy of Aadhar Card of claimant no.2
(iv) Ex.PW1/4-Copy of PAN Card of claimant no.2
(v) Ex.PW1/5 - Copy of Aadhar Card of deceased
(vi) Ex.PW1/6 -Copy of ID Card of deceased
MACT No.141/2020 Suresh Vs. Naval Kishore Meena & ors. page 6 of 34
(vii) Ex.PW1/7- Copy of Educational documents of deceased
(viii) Ex.PW1/8- Computer generated copies of marksheets of
semester 1 to 3
(ix) Ex.PW1/9-Copy of technical/ extra qualifications/ job
certificate
(x) Ex.PW1/10- Copy of DAR
5(b) PW-1 was cross examined by counsel for insurance
company of DTC bus as well as counsel for R-1 to R-5.
5(c) PW-2 Sh. Azmat Ansari tendered his evidentiary affidavit
as Ex.PW2/A and relied upon copy of his Aadhar Card as
Ex.PW2/1. He deposed about the mode and manner of the
accident being the eye witness to the present accident. He was
also cross examined by all respondents.
5(d) Petitioner Evidence was closed accordingly. Matter was
then listed for Respondent Evidence.
5(e) R4W1 Sh. Gaurav (driver of aforesaid motorcycle)
tendered his evidentiary affidavit as Ex.R4W1/A and relied on
his Aadhar Card as Ex.R4W1/1. He was cross examined by
counsel for claimant, as well as respondents impleaded on behalf
of offending DTC bus.
5(f) Respondent Evidence was closed. Matter was then listed
for Final Arguments.
6. Final Arguments:
6(a) Counsel for the claimant has argued that the accident
happened on account of rash and negligent driving of both the
offending vehicle. Further, there is no dispute in the identification
of the two offending vehicles which were found at the spot by
Investigation Officer concerned. It is stated that deceased was a
young man with a bright future and his loss has shattered the
MACT No.141/2020 Suresh Vs. Naval Kishore Meena & ors. page 7 of 34
entire family. He also argued that spot was crowded road with
heavy public movement thus it is incumbent upon moving
vehicles specially heavy ones to mind their speed. He relied upon
judgment in the case of Khenyei (supra) v. New India Assurance
Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No.4244 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C)
No. 14015/2010) to show that claimant can proceed against any
of tort feasor in cases of composite negligence. He also asserted
that no evidence has come on record to show negligence on the
part of deceased who can crossing the road mindfully. Reliance
was placed upon the observations made in the case of Gayatri
Devi & Ors. Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd MAC App.
22/2024.
6(b) Counsel for the insurance company has also filed Written
Submissions with assertion that the the accident happened on
account of negligence on the part of motorcyclist as well as the
bus driver as per the testimony of eye witness and also as both
were charge sheeted by the Investigating Officer and therefore,
composite negligence must be adjudicated. It is also stated that
liability to pay compensation ought to be equally borne by both
the vehicles. The validity and genuineness of the insurance policy
of DTC bus, however, is conceded.
6(c) Counsel for R1/ driver of DTC as well as R-2 also filed
Written Submissions where it is stated that the accident happened
only on account of rash driving on the part of motorcyclist as the
deceased got crushed under the rear right wheel of the bus and
therefore, no negligence can be imputed upon the driver of the
DTC bus. It is also contended that Respondent No.4 was himself
a victim impacted by DTC bus.
MACT No.141/2020 Suresh Vs. Naval Kishore Meena & ors. page 8 of 34
7. Discussion:
7(a). On the basis of material on record, evidence adduced and
arguments addressed, issue wise findings are as under :-
ISSUE NO. 1
Whether the deceased received fatal injuries in a road traffic
accident on 18.04.2019 due to rash and negligent driving of
vehicle no. DL 1PC 9572 being driven by R-1, owned by R-2
and insured with R-3 and DL 12SL 4504 being driven by R-4
and owned by R-5? OPP
7(b) PW-2 Sh. Azmat Ansari appeared in the witness box as eye
witness and testified about the mode and manner of the accident.
He affirmed that he along with deceased started crossing the road
but his friend Honey / deceased stopped on the middle divider
while he was able to cross over to the opposite side. He further
deposed that his friend/ deceased was hit first by rashly driven
offending motorcycle coming from Bhogal side because of which
he fell down on the road and moments later DTC offending
vehicle also coming from Bhogal side, being speedily and rashly
driven/ crushed the head of his friend. He affirmed that both
motorcyclist as well as bus driver fled away from the spot,
leaving the vehicles behind.
7(c) PW-2 Azmat Ansari was extensively cross examined by
counsel for R-1/ driver of bus & R-2/ owner of bus, Counsel for
insurance company of the bus and by counsel for R-4 & R-5/
driver and owner of the motorcycle. During cross examination,
he declined the suggestion that deceased jumped on the road and
got hit by motorcycle on account of which he fell down and
thereby got crushed under rear tyre of DTC bus. He also declined
the suggestion that there was no occasion for the driver of the
DTC bus to apply brakes since he had not seen the driver in front
MACT No.141/2020 Suresh Vs. Naval Kishore Meena & ors. page 9 of 34
of the bus rather deceased suddenly fell and got crushed under
the rear tyre of the bus. He further declined that DTC driver was
plying the bus in compliance of the traffic rules and as such,
there was no rash and negligent driving on his part in the present
accident. During cross examination by counsel for driver and
owner of the motorcycle, he admitted that there was no zebra
crossing and red light at the spot where accident took place,
however that there was a passage for crossing the road
frequented by the public persons. He admitted that there is a
traffic light signal 100 meters before the place of accident. He
admitted that the deceased did not suffer any injury on account of
any impact of bike. He also stated that deceased died on account
of injuries sustained due to rash and speedy driving of the bus
driver. He also stated that that driver of the DTC was responsible
for the death of his friend due to his rash and speedy driving. He
also clarified that the motorcycle and the bus were being plied on
the road only with a little distance between the two.
Rash Driving of Motorcyclist R-4 / Gaurav:
7(d) PW-2 Azmat Ansari testified that the deceased fell on the
road as motorcycle rammed into him. The story projected by
R4W1 Gaurav Verma, however, is that the DTC bus had dashed
into his motorcycle because of which, he fell down on the road
and sustained bodily injuries and in the meanwhile, said DTC
bus impacted and crushed the pedestrian who was crossing the
road. He denied any collision with the deceased causing his fall.
However, there is no independent evidence to suggest that he
had received any injuries or his motorcycle got damaged, having
been impacted by the DTC bus. R-4/ Gaurav has not placed on
record any medical document in support of his assertion. As per
MACT No.141/2020 Suresh Vs. Naval Kishore Meena & ors. page 10 of 34
PW-2/ Azmat Ansari, the motorcyclist fell down on the road on
the left side while deceased fell down on the right side which is
when his head got crushed under the wheels of the bus. There is
no independent evidence to suggest that the DTC bus had
rammed into the motorcycle and then ended up crushing the
pedestrian.
7(e) The affirmation by R-4 Gaurav appears to be a last minute
effort to screen him from any possible liability towards the
accident. Per contra, there is no reason why testimony of PW-2,
who was first informant in this matter and was right there along
with the deceased having crossed the road moments ago, should
not be considered credible and thus relied upon. It is evident
that the trigger for the final event was pressed on account of
speedy and rash driving of the motorcyclist due to which, he
could not effectively manage and control the motorcycle and
ended up ramming into the pedestrian. Although, this is not the
right stage to consider the liability, if any on the part of
motorcyclist, however, as per record, motorcyclist only
possessed a learner's license and was admittedly driving without
any pillion rider possessing a valid driving license.
7(f) It is evident that motorcyclist/ respondent was not
authorised to carry full fledged independent driving on a busy
public road. It is also evident that he did not possess the
necessary technical qualification for independent driving on a
public way putting his own life and others at peril. He therefore,
cannot be allowed to just turn around and state later that the
pedestrian did not receive any significant injury on account of
fall due to collision with the motorcycle. It cannot be ignored
that the fall itself further led to the death of pedestrian, having
MACT No.141/2020 Suresh Vs. Naval Kishore Meena & ors. page 11 of 34
been run over by the bus. It is thus evident that deceased
pedestrian would not have been crushed had he not fallen on
account of the impact of the motorcycle. The motorcyclist
therefore cannot be absolved of his primary role in putting the
life of pedestrian at direct risk from any possible dangerous
consequences which that situation could entail. It is not to be
forgotten that the motorcyclist himself could have been crushed
under the wheels of the bus had he fallen on the right side with
heavy traffic movement in place of the pedestrian who became
victim of the circumstances and lost his life. Therefore, to state
that the victim was not significantly injured due to collision with
the bike is of no consequence. As evident, bus was plying on the
right side abutting the motorcycle and the victim got crushed
under its wheels when he fell on the road within moments before
he could try to gather himself to stand or to screen himself from
the impending traffic. Thus he was spiralled out of control over
the consequences due to fall as an ill-trained, unqualified and
unauthorised motorcyclist ventured onto the arterial roads
buzzing with heavy traffic movements oblivious towards his
own life and that of other public road users. R-4 Gaurav Verma
also affirmed himself to be a victim of the incident stating that
he was also hit by the DTC bus which later ran over the
pedestrian causing his death. Thus he projected that the victim
did not have any interface with him as a biker. There is no
evidence to suggest that the bus had rammed into the bike. Had
it been so, probably the pedestrian would have been able to
safely cross the road. It is noted that any such suggestion was not
given to PW-2 eye witness Azmat Ansari that the motorcyclist
had no interface with the victim pedestrian, rather it was put to
MACT No.141/2020 Suresh Vs. Naval Kishore Meena & ors. page 12 of 34
the witness that deceased did not receive any injury when he
collided with the bike which itself contradicts the affirmation
made by R-4 Gaurav Verma in evidentiary affidavit R4W1/A.
Therefore, the assertion made by Respondent no.4 is far from
truth and cannot be accepted. It is thus evident and so held that
rash driving of motorcyclist contributed to the accident of the
victim.
Rash driving by R-1/ Bus Driver Sh. Nawal Kishore Meena
7(g) Analysing the role of bus driver, PW-2 Azmat Ansari
testified that the bus was being plied very speedily and rashly.
During cross examination, PW-2 declined the suggestion that
there was no occasion for the driver of the DTC bus to apply
brakes since the deceased was not seen by driver in front of the
bus and suddenly got ran over by the bus. PW-2 stated in cross
examination that driver of DTC bus was responsible for the
accident and death of his friend. He declined the suggestion that
deceased was in a hurry to cross the road and therefore jumped
and hit by motorcycle, lost his balance and fell down on the
road, thereby got crushed under the rear tyre of the DTC bus.
The place of accident is admittedly a busy road buzzing with
traffic which was a sufficient reason for the bus driver to watch
the speed of the bus. Further, as stated by PW-2, there was a red
light 100 meters before the place of accident. Certified copy of
testimony of Azmat Ansari, before the Ld. Criminal court have
also been placed on record wherein he stated during cross
examination that the traffic red light was situated at a distance of
around 100 steps away from the place of accident while the bus
stop was around 100 meters away from the place of occurrence.
Considering both, the red light as well as the bus stop, it was
MACT No.141/2020 Suresh Vs. Naval Kishore Meena & ors. page 13 of 34
imperative for the bus driver to control the speed of moving bus
so as to be able to navigate its stoppage with the right speed.
PW-2 also stated during cross examination that the bus was
being driven at speed of 50-60 kmph which is largely
corroborated by the deposition of R-4 Gaurav Verma that the bus
was being plied at the speed of 40-50 kmph. Respondent bus
driver did not come in the witness box to testify about
circumstances of accident as he perceived or navigated. In the
nutshell, it is evident that the bus driver could not apply the
brakes timely due to disproportionate speed in order to prevent
the accident, thereby crushing the head of victim under its
wheels. The bus driver was under an obligation to mind its speed
and to drive with care and caution considering that there was no
zebra crossing for a significant distance from the spot of
accident. The manner of accident itself reflects upon the speedy
and reckless driving on the part of bus driver.
Contributory Negligence of Pedestrian / Deceased:
7(h) Counsel for the respondents have asserted during oral
arguments that victim was himself negligent in crossing the road
leading to the accident. PW-2 Azmat Ansari denied before Ld.
Criminal Court as well as before this Tribunal that the victim
was in any hurry or jumped on the road which is why he got run
over by the bus. There is no evidence to the suggest that the
victim was unmindful in crossing the road, leading to the
accident. PW-2 has admitted in the testimony before respective
jurisdiction that there was no red light or zebra crossing at the
juncture of the road where accident happened, however, asserted
at the same time there was a passage which was used by the
commuters to safely navigate through the road. In fact moments
MACT No.141/2020 Suresh Vs. Naval Kishore Meena & ors. page 14 of 34
ago, he had also crossed the road safely. It is clear that the victim
would not have met with an accident and died had he chosen not
to be present on the road at that point of time. However, there is
no evidence to show that he was unmindful in crossing the road
or he acted in blatant negligence of the basic traffic rules,
applicable for a pedestrian in crossing the road. None of the
respondents have tried to project the case that the deceased
suddenly showed up on the road or was negligent. In fact,
motorcyclist did not affirm in his affidavit that he ever collided
with the deceased and tried to put the entire blame on the DTC
driver. PW-2 Azmat Ansari has stated in the cross examination
before the court of Ld. MM that the traffic was not very heavy at
the time of accident which also corroborates the claimant's
version of speedy and rash driving on the part of motorist on the
public road rather than negligence on the part of victim at the
time of accident. There is no assertion on the part of any of the
respondent in Written Statement or Written submission/
Computation that claimant himself contributed to the accident.
Apart from a bare oral arguments at the fag end, no evidence has
been led by any of the respondent to show that any negligence
on the part of victim contributed to the accident. It is not
disputed that the accident happened abutting the middle divider
where he paused before crossing the second limb of the road and
not in the middle of the road. Further the zebra crossing was
about 100 meters away from the spot. It cannot be stated that any
pedestrian who is not crossing the road through zebra crossing
would presumably be negligent. It is settled that the pedestrian
has a right to way which has to be honoured by the vehicles
plying on the road. (support drawn from the judgment in the case
MACT No.141/2020 Suresh Vs. Naval Kishore Meena & ors. page 15 of 34
of Smt. Gayatri Devi (supra).
7(i) Although, PW2 Azmat Ansari admitted that there was no
zebra crossing or red light at the spot where accident took place,
however, he deposed that said passage was frequented by public
persons to cross the road. In this respect, testimony of Gaurav
Verma, the motorcyclist could be fundamental considering that,
he was part of the sequence of events which caused the accident.
He has nowhere affirmed in his affidavit Ex.R4W1/A that
deceased jumped on the road unmindful or unconscious of the
moving traffic because of which he met with an accident.
Further, it is evident that deceased stopped on the divider of the
road and therefore, cannot be stated to have reflected any hurry
in order to cross the road. There is no evidence on record to
suggest that deceased was negligent and unmindful in crossing
the road because of which he met with an accident. This aspect
is put to rest at this stage rejecting that victim conducted himself
negligently to have met with an accident.
7(j) It is a well-established legal principle that negligence in
motor accident cases should be determined based on the
preponderance of probabilities, not on proof beyond reasonable
doubt. The facts and circumstances must be considered in a
broad and practical manner. It is also settled that proceedings
under the Motor Vehicles Act are different from regular civil
suits and are not strictly governed by the technical rules of the
Indian Evidence Act. (as observed by Their Lordships of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bimla Devi &
Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors., (2009) 13
SCC 530 further referred and relied by Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India in recent pronouncement in the case of Mathew
MACT No.141/2020 Suresh Vs. Naval Kishore Meena & ors. page 16 of 34
Alexander vs Mohammed Shafi SLP (Crl) No.8211 of 2022).
7(k) It has already been discussed in detail that both the
Respondents i.e. R-4 motorcyclist as well as R-1/driver of DTC
bus were driving unmindfully of anticipated consequence and
did not exercise care expected of any reasonable motorist under
the circumstances at hand causing accident and consequent death
of pedestrian deceased. Accordingly, it is held that both R-1 and
R-4 Sh. Gaurav Verma are equally responsible for causing the
accident, thus their liability is apportioned at 50% each, being a
case of composite negligence. Issue No.1 is decided accordingly,
in favour of the petitioner and against driver of both offending
vehicles i.e. motorcycle and DTC bus.
ISSUE NO.2
Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation,
if so, to what extent and from whom ? OPP.
8. Section. 168 MV Act enjoins the Claim Tribunals to hold
an enquiry into the claim to make an effort determining the
amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and
reasonable. Same is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
"(1) Award of the Claims Tribunal.--On receipt of an
application for compensation made under section 166, the
Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to
the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an
opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as
the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the
provisions of section 162 may make an award determining the
amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and
specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be
paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify
the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver
of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them,
as the case may be: Provided that where such application makes
a claim for compensation under section 140 in respect of the
death or permanent disablement of any person, such claim and
any other claim (whether made in such application or otherwise)
for compensation in respect of such death or permanent
MACT No.141/2020 Suresh Vs. Naval Kishore Meena & ors. page 17 of 34
disablement shall be disposed of in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter X.
(2) The Claims Tribunal shall arrange to deliver copies of the
award to the parties concerned expeditiously and in any case
within a period of fifteen days from the date of the award.
(3) When an award is made under this section, the person who is
required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall, within
thirty days of the date of announcing the award by the Claims
Tribunal, deposit the entire amount awarded in such manner as
the Claims Tribunal may direct."
9. Before putting in frame the position of law, it is noted that
the process of determining the compensation by the court is
essentially a very difficult task and can never be an exact science.
Perfect compensation is hardly possible, more so in claims of
injury and disability. (As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Sidram Vs. The Divisional Manager United
India Insurance Company Ltd, SLP (Civil) No. 19277 of 2019).
10. The basic principle in assessing motor vehicle
compensation claims, is to place the victim in as near a position
as she or he was in before the accident, with other compensatory
directions for loss of amenities and other payments. These
general principles have been stated and reiterated in several
decisions. [Support drawn from Govind Yadav v. New India
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683.]
11. This Tribunal has been tasked with determination of just
compensation. The observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty and
Another, (2003) 7 SCC 197, needs mention here (para 15):
"Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation
must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit
but the same should not be a pittance. The courts and tribunals
have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the
amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be
"just" compensation is a vexed question. There can be no
MACT No.141/2020 Suresh Vs. Naval Kishore Meena & ors. page 18 of 34
golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of
human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at
by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the
particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or
special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for
assessing compensation has to be considered in the background
of "just" compensation which is the pivotal consideration.
Though by use of the expression "which appears to it to be
just", a wide discretion is vested in the Tribunal, the
determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious
approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and
arbitrariness.. ..."
12. Delineating the damages as pecuniary and non pecuniary,
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case of R. D. Hattangadi Vs.
Pest Control (India) Pvt Ltd, 1995 AIR 755, made following
observations:
"9....while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a
victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed
separately as pecuniary damages and special damages.
Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually
incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of
money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are
incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In
order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may
include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical
attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial;
(iii) other material loss. So far non- pecuniary damages are
concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and
physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to
be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of
amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on
account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or
sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on
account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned
is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort,
disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."
13. In The Landmark Case of National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi And Others (2017 SCC Online SC
1270), decided by constitutional bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India, regarding the concept of 'just compensation' it was held
:
MACT No.141/2020 Suresh Vs. Naval Kishore Meena & ors. page 19 of 34
"................55. Section 168 of the Act deals with the concept of
"just compensation" and the same has to be determined on the
foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on
acceptable legal standard because such determination can never
be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is
to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical
precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an
individual case. The conception of "just compensation" has to
be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and
non-violation of the principle of equitability. In a case of death,
the legal heirs of the claimants cannot expect a windfall.
Simultaneously, the compensation granted cannot be an apology
for compensation. It cannot be a pittance. Though the discretion
vested in the tribunal is quite wide, yet it is obligatory on the
part of the tribunal to be guided by the expression, that is, "just
compensation". The determination has to be on the foundation
of evidence brought on record as regards the age and income of
the deceased and thereafter the apposite multiplier to be applied.
The formula relating to multiplier has been clearly stated in
Sarla Verma and it has been approved in Reshma Kumari . The
age and income, as stated earlier, have to be established by
adducing evidence. The tribunal and the courts have to bear in
mind that the basic principle lies in pragmatic computation
which is in proximity to reality. It is a well-accepted norm that
money cannot substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made
for grant of just compensation having uniformity of approach.
There has to be a balance between the two extremes, that is, a
windfall and the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum. In such
an adjudication, the duty of the tribunal and the courts is
difficult and hence, an endeavour has been made by this Court
for standardisation which in its ambit includes addition of future
prospects on the proven income at present..................."
14. Further about the principles relating to Assessment of
compensation in case of death, it was held in Pranay Sethi (supra)
that detailed analysis of Sarla Verma (SMT) And Others Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation And Another (2009 Scc Online Sc
797) is necessary as in the said case, the Court recapitulated the
relevant principles relating to assessment of compensation in case
of death. In fact , Hon'ble SC in Pranay Sethi (supra) mainly
relied and approved the earlier judgment of Sarla Verma( Supra)
read with Reshma Kumari[( 2013) 9 SCC 65 : (2013) 4 SCC
(Civ) 191 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 826 ], with some modification,
MACT No.141/2020 Suresh Vs. Naval Kishore Meena & ors. page 20 of 34
regarding all the aspects like aspect of multiplier,the steps and
guidelines stated in para 19 of Sarla Verma for determination of
compensation in cases of death, future prospects, deduction to be
made towards personal and living expenses.
15. PW-1, Sh. Suresh Kumar/ father of the deceased, testified
that his son had graduated in B.A. (Hons) in Hindi from Shaheed
Bhagat Singh College under Delhi University. He also mentioned
that the deceased was pursuing an ITI course in Motor Mechanic
at Arab Ki Sarai, Nizamuddin, New Delhi, and was in final year
(4th semester) of the course. PW-1 also confirmed that the name
of deceased had been shortlisted by the International Centre for
Automotive Technology (ICAT) for a position as a Motor
Mechanic. Additionally, the deceased was employed in a Call
Centre, specifically in Domestic/International training at
Achievers Planners Pvt. Ltd (BPO) in 2016. PW-1 also testified
that his son had completed a Soft Skills course at Mahindra Pride
Classroom in March 2019. During cross-examination, PW-1
stated that date of birth of his son was 05.06.1995, and that he
passed his Higher Secondary Examination in 2014. Educational
documents, including the Mark Sheet, Certificate of Higher
Secondary Examination, and marks for the VI Semester of the
B.A. (Hons), were filed as Ex.PW1/7 (colly). Additionally,
computer-generated copies of Mark Sheet for Semesters 1 to 3 of
the ITI course were filed as Ex.PW1/8, and copies of certificates
for technical and extra qualifications, as well as job-related
documents, were filed as Ex.PW1/9.
16. It is reflected from the Statement of Marks for the B.A.
(Hons) course that although the deceased passed all six
semesters, however, he failed in qualifying papers, namely
MACT No.141/2020 Suresh Vs. Naval Kishore Meena & ors. page 21 of 34
English Higher (Qualifying) and Environmental Studies which
purportedly makes him ineligible for a Degree. Therefore,
deceased cannot be taken to be a Graduate as on the date of
accident.
17. It is also important to note that there is no document with
respect to income from the call centre job, as mentioned by
PW-1, and no supplementary documentation regarding
employment of deceased in the Call Center. It is also noted that
the deceased could not complete the ITI Motor Mechanic Course,
however, considering that he had already completed three
semesters and was pursuing the 4th / Final Semester, he can still
presumably be taken to be a skilled person. As noted in preceding
paragraphs, deceased had successfully completed his High
School as well as Senior Secondary Examination as evident by
the documents on record, his income is thus determined based on
the minimum wages for a Matriculate (commensurate with
skilled) in the NCT of Delhi at the time of the accident which
was Rs. 17,508/-.
18. As per Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/5 of deceased, his date of
birth is 05.06.1995 as such he was about 23 years and 10 months
of age at the time of accident. As deceased was below the age of
40 years (at the time of accident) and was on fixed salary
(minimum wages), thus as mandated in case of Pranay Sethi
(Supra) and other case laws, the percentage towards future
prospect is taken to be @ 40 %.
Step No- 1 : Ascertainment of Multiplicand:
19. It is testified that deceased was unmarried and left behind
MACT No.141/2020 Suresh Vs. Naval Kishore Meena & ors. page 22 of 34
his parents as Legal Heirs. It is held in Sarla Verma (Supra) that
deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased
shall be 1/2 where the deceased is unmarried. As such, deduction
toward personal expenses of deceased is taken as 50%.
Step No- -2 : Ascertainment of Multiplier:
20. Since the deceased was aged about 23 years and 10 months
as on the date of accident, thus as tabulated in the case of Sarla
Verma (supra), multiplier of 18 is applicable.
Step No- -3 : Actual Calculation ( actual loss/loss of
dependency):
21. In view of the backdrop of above factual and legal
discussion, the calculation in the present case is as under:
21.1. Annual income of the deceased.
(Rs.17,508/-. per month x 12) = Rs.2,10,096/-
21.2. Future prospect (40%) + Rs.84,038/-
------------------
21.3. Total = Rs. 2,94,134/-
===========
21.4. Deduction for personal expenses (1/2 of Rs.2,94,134/-) = (-) Rs. 1,47,067/-
21.5. Multiplicand ( Rs.1,68,000/- (-) Rs. 56,000/-) = Rs. 1,12,000/- 21.6. As such, the total loss of dependency is:
Rs. 1,47,067 ( multiplicand) x 8 (multiplier) = Rs.26,47,206/-
MACT No.141/2020 Suresh Vs. Naval Kishore Meena & ors. page 23 of 34
22. Grant of Loss of Estate, Loss Of Consortium And Funeral Expenses:
22(a). In respect of above heads, following observations as relevant to the context were made in Pranay Sethi (supra):
''...............46. Another aspect which has created confusion pertains to grant of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.....
.
.
52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh . It has granted Rs 25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi , it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums.
It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads.
.
.
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 MACT No.141/2020 Suresh Vs. Naval Kishore Meena & ors. page 24 of 34 years...............'' 22(b). The above reproduced observations entail that Their Lordship in Pranay Sethi (Supra), intended to avoid immense variations and instead ensure consistency in awarding compensation under conventional heads. The claimants are also entitled to certain sums towards grant of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
22(c). Observations made in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130, by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also clarify about compensation as consortium towards/ against death of a dear one:
"This Court interpreted "consortium" to be a compendious term, which encompasses spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse.
Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training.
Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love and affection, and their role in the family unit.
Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognized that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is the compensation for loss of love and affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the MACT No.141/2020 Suresh Vs. Naval Kishore Meena & ors. page 25 of 34 victims, or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium.
Parental Consortium is awarded to the children who lose the care and protection of their parents in motor vehicle accidents.
The amount to be awarded for loss consortium will be as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra).
At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide uniformity with respect to the grant of consortium, and loss of love and affection. Several Tribunals and High Courts have been awarding compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), has recognized only three conventional heads under which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in loss of consortium.
The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to award compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate conventional head. There is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head."
22(d). Periodic uniform enhancement have also been mandated in case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Thus, applying the criteria, a sum of Rs.18,150/- for cremation expenses; and Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate is also payable. 22(e). Deceased has left behind only his parents as his legal heirs. Both of them are held entitled to parental consortium of Rs. 48,400/- each towards loss of consortium.
23. Total Award Amount 23(a) Thus the total award amount comes to Rs.26,47,206/- (+) Rs 18,150/-( Loss to estate) + Rs. 18,150/-
MACT No.141/2020 Suresh Vs. Naval Kishore Meena & ors. page 26 of 34 ( funeral expenses) + Rs.96,800/- (loss of consortium) = Rs. 27,80,306/-.
24. Interest:
24(a) It is settled that any fixed rate of interest cannot be prescribed for all cases at all times and would largely depend upon the prevailing rate of interest as per the applicable guidelines. As such, interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is deemed fit and accordingly granted in the present case. (Reliance placed upon National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Yad Ram MAC APP 526/2018 also referred and relied in case of The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors. MAC APP 70/2024 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court).
25. Liability:-
25(a) In the matter at hand, Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 are respectively the driver and owner of the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) bus, while Respondent No. 4 and Respondent No. 5 are respectively the driver and owner of the offending motorcycle bearing Registration No. DL 12SL 4504. The investigation revealed that Respondent No. 4, the driver of the motorcycle plied the vehicle without a valid license and insurance policy, invoking relevant provisions against both the driver and owner of the motorcycle. The insurance company of the DTC bus, however conceded genuineness and validity of insurance policy and has not placed any statutory defence on the date of the accident. It has been conclusively established that the accident resulted out of rash and negligent driving of both, the motorcyclist and the driver of the DTC bus, thus rendering both MACT No.141/2020 Suresh Vs. Naval Kishore Meena & ors. page 27 of 34 of them equally liable as tort feasors.
25(b) At this stage, it is pertinent to refer to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Khenyei (supra) wherein it was held that:
"However, in case when both the tortfeasors are before the court/tribunal, if evidence is sufficient, it may determine the extent of their negligence so that one joint tortfeasor can recover the amount so determined from the other joint tortfeasor in the execution proceedings, whereas the claimant has right to recover the compensation from both or any one of them."
25(c) It is a settled that Insurance Company/ R-3 is under an obligation to indemnify the owner/insured of Bus for the vicarious liability arising from the tortious acts of the driver/ R-1. Accordingly, the principal award amount, along with simple interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR, shall be fully payable to claimants by the R-3 as Insurance Company of the DTC bus, however with liberty to recover 50% of the awarded / paid amount from the driver and owner of the motorcycle bearing Reg. No. DL 12SL 4504 (If there is any order regarding excluding of interest for specific period same be complied at the time of calculation of award amount).
26. The award amount shall be deposited by the Insurance Company. Counsel for the Insurance Company is also directed to furnish the complete case details, including the MACT case number, CNR number, FIR number, name of Police Station, name of the deceased/claimant(s), date of accident, and any other relevant particulars, to the State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi at the time of getting the amount deposited.
MACT No.141/2020 Suresh Vs. Naval Kishore Meena & ors. page 28 of 34 The amount shall be deposited through RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in the account titled "MACT FUND PARKING", Account No. 00000042706870765, IFSC Code SBIN0014244, MICR Code 110002342, under intimation to the Nazir of this Tribunal.
27. Release of Award Amount/ Disbursement
(a) Share of mother of deceased: Out of total award amount, Rs.17,80,306/- was awarded to mother of deceased along with proportionate interest (to the principle amount) up to date interest out of which Rs.15,00,000/- along with interest is kept in form of monthly FDR of Rs. 10,000/- each. Remaining amount along with proportionate up to date interest shall be released in her bank account near her place of residence.
(b) Share of Father of deceased: Out of total award amount, Rs.10,00,000/- was awarded to father of deceased along with proportionate interest (to the principle amount) up to date interest out of which Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest is kept in form of monthly FDR of Rs. 10,000/- each. Remaining amount along with proportionate up to date interest shall be released in his bank account.
28. In terms of the Practice Directions issued by Hon'ble High Court, vide reference no. 134/Rules/DHC, dated 14.05.2025, the claimant (s) are directed to produce their bank account details along with either a certificate of the banker giving all details of the bank account of the person or persons entitled to receive the compensation including IFS Code, or a copy of cancelled cheque of the bank account to this Tribunal with seven days of the date MACT No.141/2020 Suresh Vs. Naval Kishore Meena & ors. page 29 of 34 of Award, if not already placed on record. They are also directed to file their Aadhar Card and PAN Card if not already filed.
29 Directions to the Branch Manager, SBI, Saket Court Complex 29(a) The Manager, SBI, Saket Court Complex, is further directed to verify the documents and details submitted by the claimant pertaining to their bank account, and upon proper verification, under certification of the Branch Manager (of the bank whose details have been provided by the claimant for release of the compensation amount) disburse the amount, directed to be released to the claimant, directly into the verified bank account of the claimant under notice to the Tribunal.
30. Directions with respect to Fixed Deposit:
(a) As per Practice Directions, Hon'ble Delhi High Court, vide reference no. 134/Rules/DHC, dated 14.05.2025, the bank shall invest the amount to be deposited in fixed deposit with any nationalised bank and fixed deposit shall be with the standing instructions to the bank to renew the same after periodical intervals till further orders are passed by the Tribunal.
(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 MACT No.141/2020 Suresh Vs. Naval Kishore Meena & ors. page 30 of 34 the claimant near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/ or debit card to claimant (s). However, in case the debit card and/ or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit freeze the account of the claimant so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque book and / or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
31. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1. Date of accident 18.04.2019
2. Name of deceased Honey
3. Age of the deceased 23 years 10 months
4. Occupation of the deceased Not proved
5. Income of the deceased Minimum wages for skilled workman at the time of accident.
32.Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:
1. Suresh Kumar (Father of deceased) MACT No.141/2020 Suresh Vs. Naval Kishore Meena & ors. page 31 of 34
2. Maya (Mother of deceased)
33. Computation of compensation:-
S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
1 A. Income of the deceased per year (As Rs.2,10,096/-
per Minimum Wages) (A)
B. Add-Future Prospects (B) (40%) Rs.84,038/-
C. Total (A+B) = C Rs.2,94,134/-
D. Deduction towards personal expenses Rs.1,47,067/-
(½) (D)
E. Multiplicand (C-D) =E Rs.1,47,067/-
F Multiplier =F 18
F. Yearly loss of Dependancy Rs. 26,47,206/-
G. Medical Expenses Nil
Total Amount (ExF) Rs. 26,47,206/-
2 Compensation for loss of consortium Rs.96,800/-
3 Compensation for loss of estate Rs. 18,150/-
4 Compensation towards funeral expenses Rs. 18,150/-/-
5 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.27,80,306/-
6 O. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED: @ 7.5% per
annum
7 Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.23,00,000/-
8 Award amount released Remaining principal
award of Rs. 4,80,306/-
PLUS interest @ 7.5%
p.a. on total principal
award amount from date
of filing DAR till actual
realization of principal
amount awarded.
9 Mode of disbursement of the award (a) Share of mother of
amount to the claimant (s). (Clause 29) deceased: Out of total MACT No.141/2020 Suresh Vs. Naval Kishore Meena & ors. page 32 of 34 award amount, Rs.17,80,306/- was awarded to mother of deceased along with proportionate interest (to the principle amount) up to date interest out of which Rs.15,00,000/-
along with interest is kept in form of monthly FDR of Rs. 10,000/- each.
Remaining amount along
with proportionate up to
date interest shall be
released in her bank
account near her place of
residence.
(b) Share of Father of
deceased: Out of total
award amount,
Rs.10,00,000/- was
awarded to father of
deceased along with
proportionate interest (to
the principle amount) up
to date interest out of
which Rs.8,00,000/-
along with interest is kept
in form of monthly FDR
MACT No.141/2020 Suresh Vs. Naval Kishore Meena & ors. page 33 of 34
of Rs. 10,000/- each.
Remaining amount along
with proportionate up to
date interest shall be
released in his bank
account.
10 Next Date for reporting of compliance of 30.08.2025
the award (Clause 31)
34. Copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. The copy of award be sent to the Ld. Secretary DLSA and concerned criminal court. Digitally signed SHELLY by SHELLY ARORA (Pronounced in the ARORA Date: 2025.07.30 16:49:33 +0530 open court on 30.07.2025) (Shelly Arora) PO-MACT-01 (South-East) Saket Court/ New Delhi 30.07.2025 MACT No.141/2020 Suresh Vs. Naval Kishore Meena & ors. page 34 of 34