Delhi District Court
Anita vs Vijender on 24 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. MUKESH KUMAR
PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-02,WEST,TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
MACT No. 114/2019
DLWT010012282019
1. Smt. Anita
W/o Sh. Mukesh Kumar
2. Prashant Kumar
S/o Sh. Mukesh Kumar
3. Rahul
S/o Sh. Mukesh Kumar
4. Lalit
S/o Sh. Mukesh Kumar
(Petitioner no. 4 is minor
through petitioner no.1 his mother
and natural guardian)
5. Smt. Kamla Devi
W/o Sh. Nawal Singh
6. Sh. Naval Singh
S/o Sh. Ram Saroop
All R/o Village & PO Naya Gaon,
Barkatabad, Tehsil Bahadurgarh,
District Jhajjar,Haryana ... Petitioners
Versus
Digitally signed
by MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
Date:
KUMAR 2026.01.24
15:39:51
+0530
MACT No. 114/2019 Date of Award : 24.01.2026
Anita & Ors. Vs. Vijender & Ors. Page No. 1 of 29
1. Sh. Vijender
S/o Sh. Munshi Ram
R/o VPO Ismila, PS Sampla,
District Rohtak, Haryana
And also at
E-697, Prem Nagar, Nangloi,
Delhi
2. Sh. Rakesh
S/o Sh. Laxmi Narayan
R/o House no. 474, Hari Nagar
Shiv Chowk, Bahadurgarh,
District Jhajjar, Haryana
3. Sh. Surinder
S/o Sh. Jai Chand
R/o H. No. 306, Village Halapur
Tehsil & District Sonepat,
Haryana
4. The New India Assurance Company Limited
Vardhman Complex, Sonepat,
Haryana
...... Respondents
Date of Institution: : 15.02.2019
Date of reserving order/judgment : 13.01.2026
Date of pronouncement: : 24.01.2026
AWAR D
1. Proceedings in the present case arises from filing of DAR by the investigating officer in FIR No. 484/2018 PS Mundka West U/s 279/304A IPC regarding the accident in question. As per the documents annexed with the DAR, on Digitally signed by MUKESH 20.09.2018 at about 00.42 AM, while Sh. Mukesh Kumar MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.01.24 15:40:01 +0530 MACT No. 114/2019 Date of Award : 24.01.2026 Anita & Ors. Vs. Vijender & Ors. Page No. 2 of 29 (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') went to Delhi for filling the CNG in the intervening night on 19.09.2018 to 20.09.2018 and after parking the vehicle in the row of the vehicles at CNG Pump, he went to the hospital opposite to the road to purchase some medicines and after purchasing the medicines, he was returning to CNG station by crossing the road by foot, suddenly, the vehicle bearing registration no. HR38 A 7287 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle'), which was being driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the deceased and crushed him under the said vehicle, as a result of which, the deceased fell down on the road and sustained multiple fatal injuries all over his body. It is further stated that the injured was removed to Sonia Hospital, Nangloi, Delhi where he was medically examined vide MLC no. 3857 dated 20.09.2018 where he was declared brought dead. It is further stated that his postmortem was conducted at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Delhi vide PMR no. 878/2018 dated 20.09.2018. It is further stated that FIR bearing No. 484/2018 dated 20.09.2018 PS Mundka West U/s 279/304A IPC was registered pertaining to the accident in question.
2. IO filed the DAR giving details of respondent no.1 being driver of offending vehicle, the respondent no.2 being the present owner of the offending vehicle, the respondent no.3 being the registered owner of the offending vehicle, which was insured with respondent no. 4 The New India Assurance Company Limited. DAR was also accompanied with other relevant documents including final report u/s 173 Cr.PC, MLC Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.01.24 15:40:10 +0530 MACT No. 114/2019 Date of Award : 24.01.2026 Anita & Ors. Vs. Vijender & Ors. Page No. 3 of 29 and postmortem report of deceased, seizure memo of the vehicle, its documents, site plan, mechanical inspection report of the vehicle, notice U/s 133 M.V. Act, arrest memo of accused Vijender (respondent no. 1 herein), statements U/s 161 Cr.PC recorded by the IO during the course of investigation and crime scene report etc.
3. Written statement was filed on behalf of the respondent no.1 and 2, wherein it is stated inter alia that no accident took place from the vehicle of the respondent no.2 Rakesh; that the respondent no.1 was driving his vehicle very carefully; that the respondent no.1 was having a valid driving license and there was no fault on the part of the respondent no. 1 and 2; that the police officials have falsely implicated the answering respondent in the alleged accident; that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the respondent no.3 and there was no eye witness of the accident.
4. Written statement was filed on behalf of the respondent no.3 Sh. Surender Singh (registered owner), wherein it is stated inter alia that the offending vehicle no. HR 38A 7287 was sold to Sh. Amit and Sh. Ram Chander on 25.04.2018 and the possession of the vehicle was delivered/handed over to the above purchasers on the same day i.e. 25.04.2018; that an agreement to sell and purchase dated 05.05.2018 was executed between the answering respondent and the abovesaid purchasers at Delhi and as per clause 3 of the said agreement, it has been agreed that after 25.04.2018, all the liabilities i.e. accident, court cases, challans etc shall be of the abovesaid purchasers and the alleged accident took place Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.01.24 15:40:18 +0530 MACT No. 114/2019 Date of Award : 24.01.2026 Anita & Ors. Vs. Vijender & Ors. Page No. 4 of 29 on 20.09.2018 at about 00:40 am and as such, the answering respondent is not responsible or liable for any accident, challan, court cases etc of the said vehicle.
5. In its reply filed on behalf of respondent no.4/insurance company, it is stated inter alia that as per the copy of the FIR and copy of challan, the deceased was hit by unknown vehicle and no details of the offending vehicle were mentioned; that the IO after five days of the incident has claimed to come across an alleged eye witness and no statement of the said witness has been shared. It is further stated that the insured vehicle was not involved in the accident and the vehicle has been planted to help the petitioner. It is further stated that the vehicle no. HR 38 Q 7287 was insured vide policy for the period from 01.05.2018 to 30.04.2018, however, the policy was subject to terms and conditions.
6. Following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal on 12.04.2019:-
1. Whether the petitioner Mukesh Kumar suffered fatal injuries in a vehicular accident that took on 20.09.2018 at about 07.40 am at Tikri Border, Opposite Toll Tax, Delhi involving a Goods Carrier (LGV) bearing registration no. HR 38 Q 7287, driven by respondent no.1 Vijender, owned by respondent no.2 Rakesh (present owner) and respondent no.3 Surender Singh (registered owner) and insured with respondent no.4 New India Assurance Company Limited? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.01.24 15:40:25 +0530 MACT No. 114/2019 Date of Award : 24.01.2026 Anita & Ors. Vs. Vijender & Ors. Page No. 5 of 29 amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
7. In order to prove their case, petitioners got examined five witnesses i.e. PW1 Smt. Anita (wife of the deceased); PW2 Sh. Manoj Kumar, who has brought the salary record of the deceased from Jannat Restaurant; PW3 Sh. Jai Bhagwan is stated to be eye witness; PW4 Sh. Ravinder Kumar, who is stated to be neighbourer of the deceased and PW5 IO SI Rajbir Singh.
8. In respondent evidence on behalf of respondent no.4, two witnesses i.e. IO SI Rajbir Singh as R4W1 and Sh. Vijender (respondent no.1) Sh. Vijender were examined.
9. I have heard arguments and have gone through the record carefully and my issue wise findings are as under :
Issue No.1
10. It is the settled proposition of law that an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non.
However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition based upon negligence. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. Reference may be made to the judgments titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sakshi Bhutani & Others., MAC APP. No. 550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012, Bimla Devi & Others v. Himachal Road Transport Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.01.24 15:40:33 +0530 MACT No. 114/2019 Date of Award : 24.01.2026 Anita & Ors. Vs. Vijender & Ors. Page No. 6 of 29 Corporation & Others (2009) 13 SC 530, Parmeshwari v. Amirchand & Others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 & Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Others 2018, Law Suit (SC) 303.
11. PW-1 Smt. Anita tendered her affidavit in evidence which is Ex.PW1/A. In her cross examination done by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.4/insurance company, she admitted that the accident has not taken in her presence and she could not tell about the manner of the accident.
12. For the purpose of this issue, the testimony of PW-3 Sh. Jai Bhagwan, is very relevant. PW3 Sh. Jai Bhagwan deposed that on 20.09.2018, when he was in line of CNG Pump at Tikri Border in his Wagon R, he heard a loud voice of some impact, he saw a truck after causing accident; that the truck was at the distance of 50 meters; that the number of the truck was HR 38 Q 7287; that he tried to stop the said truck but the truck driver did not stop the vehicle; that he noted the registration number of the truck in his dairy; that thereafter, he went to the place of accident where he saw large number of people gathered and police had also came to the spot. He further deposed that they asked him about the vehicle number and he had given the vehicle number to the police on that day itself; that all the public persons also noted the vehicle number; that thereafter he left the place of incident and after 4-5 days, he again came to CNG Pump of Tikro Border for getting CNG for his Wagon R and he saw a police gypsy. He further deposed that he enquired from the police about the accident which had taken place 4-5 days back to which they pleaded their Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2026.01.24 15:40:41 +0530 MACT No. 114/2019 Date of Award : 24.01.2026 Anita & Ors. Vs. Vijender & Ors. Page No. 7 of 29 ignorance about the number of the truck; that he told the truck number to the police and got his name and whereabouts noted to them; that the police had called him to Tihar Jail for TIP where he had identified the driver of the aforementioned truck. In his cross examination done by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.4, he admitted that he had not seen the accident but he had seen the truck only after hearing the sound of impact. He further deposed that it was about 12.30 am when the alleged accident took place. He admitted that at the relevant place and time, large number of vehicles moved through the spot and there remains heavy traffic at the spot and the number of Toll Officials and Police Officials remain present at the spot at the relevant time. He further deposed that the police recorded his statement at PS after about 10 days of the accident; that he had given in writing his statement to the police officials; that he had not brought the diary in which he had allegedly noted down the vehicle number and he had not furnished the page/entry of the said diary to the police. He denied to the suggestion that he was neither present at the spot nor he had noted any vehicle number on the said date of accident in any diary. He further deposed that he does not remember the date when he had gone to Tihar Jail for TIP but he had gone for TIP subsequently after giving his statement to the police; that the police had called him after 10 days of the accident; that no notice was issued to him by the police but he was telephonically called by the police as he had furnished his number to official of police Gypsy whom he met after about 4- 5 days at the spot when he had gone to CNG Pump to get Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.01.24 15:40:49 +0530 MACT No. 114/2019 Date of Award : 24.01.2026 Anita & Ors. Vs. Vijender & Ors. Page No. 8 of 29 CNG. He denied to the suggestion that he had not furnished his number or his details to any police officials or for this reason only, he does not know the name of those police officials. He denied to the suggestion that he was not present at at the spot at the time of accident or that he was deposing at the instance of petitioner or that his statement was never recorded by the police or that he had not furnished his details to any police officials.
13. Petitioners have also examined IO SI Rajbir Singh as PW5, who deposed that on 20.09.2018, on receipt of DD no. 5A, he had gone to Sonia Hospital; that he had obtained the MLC of injured Mukesh S/o Sh. Naval Kishore and shifted him to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital; that the injured died on the same night and his post mortem was got conducted; that he got registered the FIR on the basis of DD no. 5A; that during investigation, an eye witness met him and on the basis of his statement, he tried to search the offending vehicle; that during investigation, it transpired that there were three owners of the offending vehicle; that he had given notices U/2 133 of M.V. Act to the owners Surender S/o Sh. Jai Chand, Ram Chander S/o Sh. Balbir and Rakesh S/o Sh. Laxmi Narain for producing the driver of the offending vehicle and on receipt of notice, Rakesh had produced the driver Bijender. He further deposed that after completion of the investigation, he had prepared the DAR and filed before this Tribunal, which is Ex.PW5/1. In his cross examination done by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.4, he deposed that he had met the eye witness after number of days of the accident; that the facts Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2026.01.24 15:40:56 +0530 MACT No. 114/2019 Date of Award : 24.01.2026 Anita & Ors. Vs. Vijender & Ors. Page No. 9 of 29 regarding the meeting of eye witness has been mentioned in his case diary and he could tell the same after seeing the same. He further deposed that after 4-5 days of the accident, when he was on patrolling/checking duty, eye witness Jai Bhagwan approached him and inquired about the tracing of the involved vehicle in this accident and he disclosed the number of the vehicles involved in this accident. He further deposed that the TIP of the accused was conducted at Tihar Jail and the eye witness was called for TIP after giving him notice. He admitted that the place where accident occurred was a busy road. He further deposed that he visited the spot of accident next day in the morning and inquired about eye witness; that no eye witness met him in the morning and there were three owners of the alleged offending vehicle; that he gave notice to all the three owners. He denied to the suggestion that Jai Bhagwan was not an eye witness and the vehicle no. HR38Q 7287 was not involved in the accident.
14. SI Rajbir Singh was also examined by the insurance company as R4W1 and he deposed that on 25.09.2018, he was on checking duty at Petrol Pump, Tikri Border; that Jai Bhagwan approached him and disclosed about the accident which was occurred on 19/20.09.2018; that he informed that the accident had occurred with the Truck bearing no. HR38Q 7287; that he has given number of the truck to PCR van on the date of accident; that the details of PCR was not available; statement of Jai Bhagwan was recorded on 25.09.2018; that TIP was conducted in Tihar Jail no.3; that he had given notice to Jai Bhagwan to appear for TIP and TIP was Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.01.24 15:41:04 +0530 MACT No. 114/2019 Date of Award : 24.01.2026 Anita & Ors. Vs. Vijender & Ors. Page No. 10 of 29 conducted on 27.10.2018. In his cross examination done by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1, he denied to the suggestion that the accident had not occurred in the intervening night of 19/20.09.2018 with truck bearing no. HR 38Q 7287 as the number of truck and name of the driver were not mentioned in FIR and the vehicle has been planted only to get compensation in MACT matter.
15. Respondent no. 1 Vijender was examined by the insurance company as R4W2, who deposed that he was respondent no.1 in the present matter; that on 19/20.09.2018, no accident had occurred by him; that he has been falsely implicated in the present matter and the truck number HR 38Q 7287 was not involved in the accident which was occurred on 19/20.09.2018. In his cross examination done by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, he admitted that FIR no. 484/2018 PS Mundka dated 20.09.2018 was registered against him; that he was arrested and granted bail in the aforesaid FIR and the TIP was conducted against him in Tihar Jail. He further admitted that the chargesheet has already been filed against him and the same is pending adjudication. He denied to the suggestion that the accident was caused due to his rash and negligent driving.
16. In the case titled 'Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs. Karan Bhatia", MAC APP. 271/2018 decided on 26.11.2024, it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court as under:-
"12. Shri Mehtab Singh, the eye witness, may have failed to support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile during the trial, but that does Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2026.01.24 MACT No. 114/2019 Date of Award : 24.01.2026 15:41:12 +0530 Anita & Ors. Vs. Vijender & Ors. Page No. 11 of 29 not take away the factum of accident and demise of Smt.Surjit Kaur. The investigations were duly carried out which revealed not only the involvement of the vehicle, but also it was the offending vehicle which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the accident. The manner of accident is also evident from the Site Plan prepared during the criminal investigations.
13. In the case of National Insurance Co.,vs Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, it has been held that filing of Chargesheet is sufficient proof of the negligence and involvement of the Offending Vehicle. Similar observations have been made in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepak Goel and Ors., 2014 (2) TAC 846 Del, that if the claimant was able to prove the criminal case on record pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, whereby the criminal records showing completion of investigation by the police and filing of Chargesheet under Sections 279/304-A IPC against the driver have been proved, then the documents mentioned above are sufficient to establish the fact that the driver was negligent in causing the accident. Where FIR is lodged, Chargesheet is filed, especially in a case where driver after causing the accident had fled away from the spot, then the documents mentioned above are sufficient to establish the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent in causing the accident particularly when there was no defence available from his side before the learned Tribunal.
14. Similar observations have been made in the cases of Jamanti Devi and Ors. v. Maheshwar Rai, MAC Appeal no. 831/2015 decided on 19.11.2022.
15. The Apex Court has opined in the judgment of Mangla Ram Vs. The Oriental Insurance Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2026.01.24 15:41:19 +0530 MACT No. 114/2019 Date of Award : 24.01.2026 Anita & Ors. Vs. Vijender & Ors. Page No. 12 of 29 Company Ltd, AIR 2018 SC 1900 that the key- point of negligence of the driver as set up by the Claimants, is required to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and not by the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, filing of Chargesheet against the driver of the offending vehicle prima facie, points towards the complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. The subsequent acquittal of the accused may of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in motor vehicle accident cases."
17. In the case titled "Meera Bai & Ors. Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company limited & Anr.", Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3886 of 2019, decided on 30.04.2025, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under:-
"4. As far as examining the eye witness, such a witness will not be available in all cases. The FIR having been lodged and the charge sheet filed against the owner driver of the offending vehicle, we are of the opinion that there could be no finding that negligence was not established."
18. In the present matter, PW1 / petitioner Smt. Anita is not an eye witness of the accident. It is an undisputed fact that FIR No. 484/2018 (supra) was registered at PS Mundka with regard to accident in question. Copy of said FIR (which is part of final report U/s 173 CrPC filed by IO alongwith DAR) would show that same was registered on 20.09.2018. Thus, FIR is shown to have been registered promptly and without any delay. Hence, there is no possibility of false implication of Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.01.24 15:41:29 +0530 MACT No. 114/2019 Date of Award : 24.01.2026 Anita & Ors. Vs. Vijender & Ors. Page No. 13 of 29 respondent no. 1 and/or false involvement of aforesaid vehicle bearing No. HR 38Q 7287 at the instance of petitioner herein.
19. Further, copy of MLC report of deceased shows that after the accident, he was removed to Sonia Hospital on 20.09.2018 at 1:15 am with the alleged history of RTA and he expired on the same day at 1:45 am. The said injuries are consistent with the injuries which are sustained in motor vehicular accident. Again, there is no challenge to the said document from the side of respondents including insurance company.
20. Although, the respondent no. 1 was examined by the insurance company, however, the said statement does not render any help to him much less to absolve him of his culpability in causing the accident in question. There is nothing on record to show that he had filed any complaint before the higher police officials against his alleged false implication in the present case. In view of the aforesaid discussion, material available on record, the statement of the respondent no. 1, does not render any help to him much less to absolve him of his culpability in the accident in question.
21. Moreover, as per the postmortem report of deceased Mukesh Kumar vide P.M. Report No. 878/2018 dated 20.09.2018 filed by the IO alongwith present DAR, the opinion is given as " Cause of Death is shock, due to blunt force impact over the chest. All injuries are antemortem in nature and possible in nature as alleged." Said document has not been disputed from the side of the respondents and corroborates the ocular testimony of PWs as discussed above. Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.01.24 15:41:39 +0530 MACT No. 114/2019 Date of Award : 24.01.2026 Anita & Ors. Vs. Vijender & Ors. Page No. 14 of 29
22. PW5 SI Rajbir Singh is the Investigating Officer in the present matter, who has categorically deposed that he has investigated the present matter and thereafter, filed the chargesheet against the accused Vijender(respondent no.1 herein). He further deposed that during the investigation, eye witness met him and he had given notices U/s 133 of M.V. Act to the owners of the vehicles and on receipt of notice, Rakesh produced the driver Bijender. He further deposed that after completion of investigation, he had prepared the DAR and file the same before the court. He was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents, however, nothing material elicited from his cross examination, which would impeach his testimony or cast any doubt over the said version regarding the accident.
23. Testimony of PW3 / IO SI Rajbir Singh is further corroborated by various documents / reports obtained by him during the course of investigation, which have been filed alongwith the DAR. As per the seizure memo of the offending vehicle filed by IO alongwith the chargesheet / final report, the offending vehicle was also seized. The said document remained undisputed on the part of the respondent. Further, IO has also filed copy of reply given by the owner of the offending vehicle to the notice U/s 133 M.V. Act and as per said reply, offending vehicle was being driven by driver Vijender who caused the accident on 20.09.2018. The said document / reply also remained undisputed on the part of the respondents. Hence, it becomes clear that at the time of accident, offending vehicle bearing registration No. HR Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.01.24 15:41:48 +0530 MACT No. 114/2019 Date of Award : 24.01.2026 Anita & Ors. Vs. Vijender & Ors. Page No. 15 of 29 38Q7287 was being driven by respondent no. 1, which was involved in the accident in question. Respondent no. 1 namely Vijender (accused in State case) has been charge-sheeted (which is part of copies of criminal case available on record) for offences punishable U/s 279/304A IPC by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by him. Same also supports the case of the petitioners and points out towards the rash and negligent driving of aforesaid vehicle by respondent no.1. The investigation was duly carried out which revealed not only the involvement of the offending vehicle, but also that it was the offending vehicle which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the accident.
24. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioners have been able to prove on the scale of preponderance of probabilities that deceased Sh. Mukesh Kumar sustained fatal injuries in road accident which took place on 20.09.2018 at about 7:40 am at Tikri Border, Opposite Toll Tax, Delhi due to rashness and negligence on the part of respondent no. 1(driver of the offending vehicle). Accordingly issue no.1 stands decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
Issue No.2
25. In view of the finding on issue no.1, petitioners are entitled to get compensation, however, the quantum of Digitally signed MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2026.01.24 15:41:57 +0530 MACT No. 114/2019 Date of Award : 24.01.2026 Anita & Ors. Vs. Vijender & Ors. Page No. 16 of 29 compensation still needs to be adjudicated. Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 enjoins upon the claim Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation, which appears to be just and reasonable. As per settled law, compensation is not expected to be windfall or a bonanza nor it should be pittance. A man is not compensated for the physical injury, he is compensated for the loss which he suffers as a result of that injury. Computation of Compensation
26. The present case pertains to the death of deceased Sh. Mukesh Kumar. In death cases, the guidelines for computation of compensation have been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases
121. Further, the guidelines have been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., 2017 ACJ 2700, decided on 31.10.2017, laying down the general principles for computation of compensation in death cases. Age of deceased :
27. PW1 Smt. Anita (wife of deceased) has deposed that her husband was aged about 35 years at the time of accident. As per Aadhar Card of the deceased, his date of birth was shown as 01.08.1983. The same remains undisputed on the part of the respondents. Date of accident is 20.09.2018. As such, this fact stands concluded that age of the deceased was around 35 years 01 month at the time of accident. Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.01.24 15:42:07 +0530 MACT No. 114/2019 Date of Award : 24.01.2026 Anita & Ors. Vs. Vijender & Ors. Page No. 17 of 29 Assessment of Income of deceased :
28. Petitioner/PW Smt. Anita has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit that her deceased husband was plying his vehicle in Sant Paul School, Kulasi, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, Haryana and Jannat Restaurant, M.I.T. near MIT Metro Station, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, Haryana and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month and Rs. 20,000/-
per month respectively. In her cross examination done by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.4/insurance company, she stated that she does not have any document to show that her deceased husband was running a restaurant or that he was having monthly income of Rs. 35,000/-; that she does not have any document to show that her deceased husband was plying a school van and she does not have any document to show that he was getting Rs. 15,000/- per month from the school.
29. The petitioners have examined Sh. Manoj Kumar as PW2, who deposed that the deceased was plying the vehicle no. HR 13E 6841, Maruti Eeco Car in Sant Paul School, District Jhajjar, Haryana and Jannat Restaurant, District Jhajjar,Haryana and earning Rs.15,000/- per month from school and Rs. 20,000/- from the said restaurant. In his cross examination done by the Ld. counsel for the insurance company, he stated that he does not have any document to show that the deceased was running his Maruti Eeco Car for transportation of school children and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month.
30. The petitioners have also examined Sh. Ravinder Kumar as PW4, who deposed that the deceased was plying his Digitally signed MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2026.01.24 15:42:16 +0530 MACT No. 114/2019 Date of Award : 24.01.2026 Anita & Ors. Vs. Vijender & Ors. Page No. 18 of 29 vehicle in St. Paul School; that he was also plying his vehicle in the same school and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. In his cross examination done by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.4, he stated that he does not have any document to show that he used to ply car for transporting children of St. Paul School and he was doing the said work for transportation on private basis. He admitted that neither he himself nor the deceased was having any license to drive the commercial vehicle; that Maruti Eeco car which has been mentioned by him in his affidavit was a private vehicle and could not be used for commercial purpose. He stated that he does not have any document to show that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month.
31. Ld. Counsel for petitioners argued that deceased was earning Rs. 35,000/- per month. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 4 / Insurance Co. has vehemently argued that there is no cogent evidence available on record to prove the alleged vocation and monthly income of deceased and petitioners have failed to establish the same.
32. As per the documents, it becomes clear that the deceased was a resident of Haryana at the time of accident. Admittedly, there is no document placed on record by the petitioners to establish the alleged monthly income of deceased. Further, it is admitted fact that the deceased was a resident of Haryana. It is also admitted that the deceased plying his Maruti Eeco Car bearing no. HR 13E 6841 in Sant Paul School and this fact is repeatedly mentioned in the DAR and even in the statement of witnesses recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC.
Digitally signed by MUKESHMUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.01.24 15:42:24 +0530 MACT No. 114/2019 Date of Award : 24.01.2026 Anita & Ors. Vs. Vijender & Ors. Page No. 19 of 29 As such, this Tribunal assesses the income of deceased as Notional Income to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- per month. Application of Multiplier:
33. As held above, deceased was around 35 years 1 month of age at the time of accident. As per settled principle laid down in case of Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier as applicable to the age group between 31-35 years is 16.
Future Prospects:
34. The Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment which has arisen out of SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014 titled as National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors decided on 31.10.2017 has held as under:-
"61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi,2012 ACJ 1428 (SC) should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh,2013 ACJ 1403 (SC) has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, 2013 ACJ 1253 (SC), which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.01.24 15:42:33 +0530 MACT No. 114/2019 Date of Award : 24.01.2026 Anita & Ors. Vs. Vijender & Ors. Page No. 20 of 29 prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-
employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 21 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs.
40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.01.24 15:42:43 +0530 MACT No. 114/2019 Date of Award : 24.01.2026 Anita & Ors. Vs. Vijender & Ors. Page No. 21 of 29 three years."
35. On the day of accident, deceased was aged about 35 years 1 month. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the present matter, future prospects @ 40% has to be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of pronouncement made by the Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors."
Civil Appeal No. 6961/2015 decided on 31.10.2017, as well as in view of decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", decided on 02.11.17.
Deduction towards Personal and Living Expenses:
36. After choosing the age, multiplier and income of the deceased, necessary deductions have to be made out of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. As per the claim petition/DAR as well as affidavit in evidence of petitioner / PW1 Anita (Ex.PW1/A), deceased left behind his 06 legal representatives i.e. his wife, three children and parents and since, the deceased was married and survived by six LRs at the time of accident, one-fourth (1/4th) of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses, as held in the case titled as "Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation", 2009 ACJ 1298 SC.
37. Thus, considering the aforementioned factors, the compensation for the loss of dependency is calculated as under: MUKESH by Digitally signed MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2026.01.24 15:42:55 +0530 MACT No. 114/2019 Date of Award : 24.01.2026 Anita & Ors. Vs. Vijender & Ors. Page No. 22 of 29 S. No. Head Amount
1. Monthly income of deceased (A) Rs. 15,000/-
2. Add future prospect (B) @ 40% Rs. 6,000/-
3. Less 1/4th towards personal and Rs. 5,250/-
living expenses of the deceased (C)
4. Monthly loss of dependency (A+B)- Rs. 15,750/-
C=D
5. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs. 1,89,000/-6. Multiplier (E) 16
7. Total loss of dependency Rs. 30,24,000/-
(Dx12xE=F)
38. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 30,24,000/-. Hence, a sum of Rs. 30,24,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs Twenty Four Thousand Only) is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners. NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
39. In case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), it has been held 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 and the aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.48,000/-, Rs. 18,000/- and Rs.18,000/- respectively on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted. Further, in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 2705 of 2020, decided on 30.06.2020, loss of consortium has to be fixed for each of the LRs. Since, there are only six MUKESH Digitally signed by MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2026.01.24 15:43:03 +0530 MACT No. 114/2019 Date of Award : 24.01.2026 Anita & Ors. Vs. Vijender & Ors. Page No. 23 of 29 LRs of deceased, therefore, the petitioners/claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,24,000/- (48,000 X 6 + 18,000 + 18,000) under this head.
40. Considering the aforementioned factors, the total compensation is calculated as under:
S. No. Head Amount Awarded 1. Total loss of dependency Rs. 30,24,000/-
2. Compensation for loss of consortium Rs. 2,88,000/-
(48,000 X 6)
3. Compensation for loss of estate (H) Rs. 18,000/-
4. Compensation for funeral expenses Rs.18,000/-
(I) Total compensation Rs. 33,48,000/-
41. Thus, petitioners in this case shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 33,48,000/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Forty Eight Thousand Only).
INTEREST ON AWARD
42. Petitioners shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 15.02.2019 till realization. LIABILITY
43. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Since, it is an admitted case of the respondent No. 4 / Insurance Company that the aforesaid vehicle No. HR38Q7287 (offending vehicle) was duly insured with it, therefore, respondent No. 4 / Insurance Co. is liable to pay the amount of compensation to the petitioners / claimants. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly. Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.01.24 15:43:12 +0530 MACT No. 114/2019 Date of Award : 24.01.2026 Anita & Ors. Vs. Vijender & Ors. Page No. 24 of 29 Relief
44. In view of my finding on issues no. 1 and 2, this Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs. 33,48,000/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Forty Eight Thousand Only) to the petitioners/claimants alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum in favour of petitioners and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of DAR i.e 15.02.2019 till realization, to be paid by the respondent no.4/insurance company. Amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the compensation amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case. The respondent no.4/insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in the MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account no. 40714429271, IFSC Code. SBIN0000726 Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, within 30 days from today. The respondent no. 3 is also directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioners.
Apportionment
45. Statements of petitioners in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP were recorded on 05.08.2023 and considering the totality of circumstances of the case, share of petitioners in the award amount shall be as under:-
S. No. Name Relationship with Share in the deceased award amount
1. Anita Wife 50%
2. Prashant Kumar Son 10%
3. Rahul Son 10%
4. Lalit Son 10% Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.01.24 15:43:20 +0530 MACT No. 114/2019 Date of Award : 24.01.2026 Anita & Ors. Vs. Vijender & Ors. Page No. 25 of 29
5. Nawal Singh Father 10%
6. Kamla Devi Mother 10% Disbursement of Award Amount
46. In view of the aforesaid, it is hereby ordered that out of total compensation amount, the petitioner no. 1 namely Smt. Anita shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 16,74,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lacs Seventy Four Thousand Only) alongwith proportionate interest; the petitioner no. 2 namely Sh. Prashant Kumar be entitled to share amount of Rs. 3,34,800/- (Rupees Three Lacs Thirty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Only) alongwith proportionate interest; the petitioner no. 3 namely Rahul shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 3,34,800/- (Rupees Three Lacs Thirty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Only) alongwith proportionate interest; the petitioner no. 4 namely Lalit shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 3,34,800/- (Rupees Three Lacs Thirty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Only) alongwith proportionate interest; the petitioner no. 5 namely Nawal Singh shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 3,34,800/- (Rupees Three Lacs Thirty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Only) alongwith proportionate interest and the petitioner no. 6 namely Kamla Devi shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 3,34,800/- (Rupees Three Lacs Thirty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Only) alongwith proportionate interest
47. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 1 Smt. Anita, a sum of Rs. 3,74,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs Seventy Four Thousand Only) shall be immediately released to her through her MACT saving bank account and remaining Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2026.01.24 15:43:29 +0530 MACT No. 114/2019 Date of Award : 24.01.2026 Anita & Ors. Vs. Vijender & Ors. Page No. 26 of 29 amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 30,000/- each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
48. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 2 Sh. Prashant Kumar, a sum of Rs. 1,34,800/- (Rupees One Lac Thirty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Only) shall be immediately released to him through his MACT saving bank account and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 20,000/- each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
49. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 3 Sh. Rahul, a sum of Rs. 1,34,800/- (Rupees One Lac Thirty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Only) shall be immediately released to him through his MACT saving bank account and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 20,000/- each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
50. The entire share amount alongwith proportionate interest of petitioner No. 4 namely Lalit be kept in the form of FDR(s) for the period till he attains the age of majority.
51. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 5 Sh. Nawal Singh, a sum of Rs. 1,34,800/- (Rupees One Lac Thirty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Only) shall be immediately released to him through his MACT saving bank account and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the MUKESH Digitally signed by MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2026.01.24 15:43:42 +0530 MACT No. 114/2019 Date of Award : 24.01.2026 Anita & Ors. Vs. Vijender & Ors. Page No. 27 of 29 form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 20,000/- each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
52. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 6 Smt. Kamla Devi, a sum of Rs. 1,34,800/- (Rupees One Lac Thirty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Only) shall be immediately released to her through her MACT saving bank account and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 20,000/- each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
53. The amount of FDRs on maturity shall directly be released in petitioners' MACT Saving Bank Account.
54. 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 i.e., the savings bank account of the claimant shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(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 be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.Digitally signed by MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2026.01.24 15:43:50 +0530 MACT No. 114/2019 Date of Award : 24.01.2026 Anita & Ors. Vs. Vijender & Ors. Page No. 28 of 29
55. Respondent no. 3 i.e. Go Digit General Insurance Company Limited, 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 @ 12% p.a. for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts branch is directed to transfer the respective amounts of petitioners in their aforesaid MACT saving bank accounts, as per the award, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
56. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph, specimen signature, copy of bank passbook and copy of residence proof of the petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
57. Form XV and Form XVII in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A.
58. A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir .
59. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost.
60. A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class as well as DSLSA as per the provisions of the Modified Claim Tribunal Agreed Procedure (MCTAP). Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.01.24 15:43:58 Announced in the open Court (MUKESH KUMAR) +0530 On 24th January, 2026 P.O. MACT-02 (WEST) THC/Delhi/24.01.2026 MACT No. 114/2019 Date of Award : 24.01.2026 Anita & Ors. Vs. Vijender & Ors. Page No. 29 of 29