Delhi District Court
Phool Vati And Ors vs Arvind Kumar on 26 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. MUKESH KUMAR,
PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-02,WEST,TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
MACT No. 76842/2016
DLWT01-001585-2015
1. Smt. Phoolwati
W/o Lt. Bhagwan
R/o B-64, Aman Puri,
Nangloi Jat, Delhi.
(Wife of the deceased)
2. Sh. Bhanwar Singh
S/o Lt. Bhagwan
R/o B-64, Aman Puri,
Nangloi Jat, Delhi.
(Son of the deceased)
3. Sh. Gajender Singh
S/o Lt. Bhagwan
R/o B-64, Aman Puri,
Nangloi Jat, Delhi.
(Son of the deceased) ...... Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Arvind Kumar
S/o Sh. Budhram
R/o Village Wazirabad,
Gurgaon, Haryana.
(Driver/Second Regd. Owner of
Pick-up Tempo No. HR 66 5434)
MACT No. 76842/2016 Date of Award : 26.12.2025
Phoolwati & Ors. Vs. Arvind & Ors. Page No. 1 of 23.
2. Kuldeep Singh
S/o Sh. Udaibir Singh
R/o Jat, Village Badala,
PS Bans, District Hisar, Haryana.
(Driver/owner Honda Civic
Regn. No. HR 70 A 3383)
3. Mahabir
S/o Sh. Sunda Ram
R/o VPO Mandola,
District Mahendergarh, Haryana
(First Regd. Owner of vehicle
Pick Up Tempo HR 66 5434) ...... Respondents
Date of Institution : 11.08.2015
Date of reserving order/judgment : 26.12.2026
Date of pronouncement : 26.12.2026
AWAR D
1. This is claim petition u/s 166 & 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'M.V. Act') filed on behalf of petitioners seeking compensation in respect of death of Sh. Bhgwan in a road accident involving vehicle bearing registration no. HR-66-5434 (Pick-up) and HR-70-A-3383 (Honda City Car). As per the facts mentioned in the claim petition as well as documents filed on record, on 04.01.2015, Bhagwan left his house at about 06:30 AM to purchase vegetables and fruits for his shop from Khandsa Mandi, Gurgaon, Haryana and he used to return at home at the most 10:30 AM. When Bhagwan not reached at his house, his family members search about him but no information was received. At about 04:00 PM the petitioners got a call from the police and it was MACT No. 76842/2016 Date of Award : 26.12.2025 Phoolwati & Ors. Vs. Arvind & Ors. Page No. 2 of 23. informed that the husband of the petitioner no. 1 met with an accident and had died in hospital namely Kathuria Hospital, Gurugram and his dead body is lying in mortuary. It is further stated that the police informed that the deceased died in road accident when the pick-up in which he was traveling skid on the road and turned turtle. It is further stated that infact the pick-up tempo colluded with the Honda city bearing registration no. HR-70-A-3383 which is evidence from the papers of compromise signed by the owner/occupier of Honda City with Arvind Kumar driver of Pick-up in which the deceased was traveling. It is further stated that the FIR has not mentioned the vehicle Honda City and it is clearly shows that the police has concocted the story with active connivance of owners of both the vehicles i.e respondent no. 1 and 2. It is further stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1 and 2, however, the respondent no. 1 and 2 managed to twist the facts to save themselves from their liabilities. It is further stated that FIR bearing No. 06/2015 PS Sadar Gurgaon, Haryana was also registered pertaining to this accident.
2. As per the claim petition, the respondent no. 1 is the driver of the Pick-up Tempo bearing no. HR-66-5434 and respondent no. 2 is the driver of Honda City Car bearing registration no. HR-70-A-3383 and respondent no. 3 is the first registered owner of the Pick-up Temp bearing no. HR-66-5434. It is further stated that deceased was aged about 49 years at the time of her death, he was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month by selling vegetables and fruits. It is further stated that deceased has MACT No. 76842/2016 Date of Award : 26.12.2025 Phoolwati & Ors. Vs. Arvind & Ors. Page No. 3 of 23. left behind his wife Smt. Phoolwati and sons namely Sh. Bhanwar Singh and Sh. Gajender Singh as the only legal heirs of deceased.
3. Respondent no. 1 filed written statement whereby while denying the averments made in the claim petition, it is stated inter alia that respondent no. 1 ha been falsely implicated at the incident had not took place due to rash and negligent act of the Pick-up Tempo which was being driven by respondent no. 1, however, the accident took place while the Pick-up Tempo of the respondent no. 1 was slow due to speed breaker and due to thick fog and in the meanwhile Honda City was being driven by respondent no. 2 who was driving rashly and negligently and in a very fact speed hit the Pick-up Tempo from the rear side, the impact of the Honda City was so forceful, which resulted into turning of the vehicle on the road side in a turtle way resulting into the injuries to the passengers. It is further stated that the respondent no. 1 also received two fractures and other multiple injuries on his person due to the said accident. It is further stated that police has not made respondent no. 1 as an accused but on moving the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C, respondent no. 1 was made an accused by filing a supplementary charge sheet. It is further stated that the alleged accident was caused only due to rash and negligent driving by the respondent no. 2 who was driving the Honda City Car in a very fast and hit the Pick-up Tempo. It is further stated that in the Trial Court two prosecution witnesses who happened to be the eye witness of the occurrence namely Amar Singh and Rajender had not supported the prosecution story and put the entire responsibility on the shoulder MACT No. 76842/2016 Date of Award : 26.12.2025 Phoolwati & Ors. Vs. Arvind & Ors. Page No. 4 of 23. of respondent no. 2.
4. A written statement is filed on behalf of the respondent 2, wherein it is stated inter alia that the accident did not take place due to negligence of the respondent no. 2 but was only due to the negligence of the respondent no. 1. It is further stated that the respondent no. 2 was driving the car bearing no. HR-70A-3383 with due care and precaution and when he reached near Bahtawar Chowk, Gurugram, suddenly the offending Pick- up Tempo crossed with the negligent manner and collided with the Honda City Car and thereafter the Tempo turned turtle to which the deceased got injured and died during treatment.
5. A written statement is filed on behalf of the respondent 3, wherein it is stated inter alia that the alleged accident was caused only due to the rash and negligent driving by the respondent no. 2 who was driving the Honda City Car in a very fast speed and rash and negligent manner. It is further stated that respondent no. 3 sold the alleged vehicle bearing No. HR-66-5434 on 02.08.2010 to Sh. Tulsi Ram S/o Sh. Ganga Ram R/o Village Mandola, Tehsil & District Mahendergarh, Haryana and after 02.08.2010 all responsibility of said vehicle was taken by Sh. Tulsi Ram and an affidavit was also given by SH. Tulsi Ram to respondent no. 3 in this regard. It is further stated that after taking the possession of the said vehicle, the remaining sixteen installments was paid by SH. Tulsi Ram and after completion of installments of the said vehicle, the responden tno. 3 signed all the documents regarding the transfer of said vehicle as well as sales letter were handover to Sh. Tulsi Ram and the said Tulsi Ram has given assurance to the respondent no. 3 for MACT No. 76842/2016 Date of Award : 26.12.2025 Phoolwati & Ors. Vs. Arvind & Ors. Page No. 5 of 23. transfer the registration certificate of the said vehicle in his name as soon as possible. It is further stated that respondent no. 3 has no liability against the said vehicle and respondent no. 3 is not liable to pay any compensation.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal on 03.05.2023 :-
1. Whether the deceased Sh. Bhagwan suffered fatal injuries in a vehicular accident that took place on 04.01.2015 at Bakhtawar Chowk, Gurgaon, Haryana involving a Tempo bearing registration no. HR-66-5434, driven by respondent no. 1 Arvind Kumar and owned by R-3 Mahavir Singh? OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
7. In order to prove their case, petitioners got examined one witness. PW-1 is petitioner no. 2 (son of the deceased), who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A.
7. Respondent 1 examined himself as R1W1 and respondent no. 3 examined himself as R3W1. None appeared for the respondent no. 2 and accordingly respondent no. 2 was proceeded ex-parte.
8. I have heard the arguments and gone through the record carefully and my issue wise findings are as under :
Issue No.1
9. It is the settled proposition of law that an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and MACT No. 76842/2016 Date of Award : 26.12.2025 Phoolwati & Ors. Vs. Arvind & Ors. Page No. 6 of 23.
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 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.
10. PW-1 Sh. Bhaver Singh (son of deceased) tendered his affidavit in evidence which is Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the documents i.e. (i) Death certificate of his deceased father as Ex.PW1/1; (ii) Copy of RTI application dated 14.06.2019 along with its reply dated 19.06.2019 from the office of Registering Authority-cum-Secy., RTA NN (RTA Mahender Garh) as Ex.PW1/2 and certified copies of FIR No. 06/15 PS Gurgaon Sadar, charge sheet, postmortem report etc. as Ex.PW1/2 (colly.)
11. In his cross examination done by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1, PW 1 deposed that he has no income proof of his deceased father and he do not have any proof regarding vocation of his deceased father. PW 1 further deposed during his cross examination that he had reached the Kathuria Hospital at about 07:00 PM on 04.01.2015 and he can not say as to who had caused the accident in question. In his cross MACT No. 76842/2016 Date of Award : 26.12.2025 Phoolwati & Ors. Vs. Arvind & Ors. Page No. 7 of 23. examination by ld Counsel for respondent no. 3, PW 1 deposed that he has no personal knowledge regarding the accident and he is not an eye witness to the accident.
13. It is an undisputed fact that FIR No. 06/2015 PS Gurgaon Sadar, Haryana was registered with regard to accident in question. Copy of said FIR (which is part of final report U/s 173 CrPC) would show that same was registered on 04.01.2015. Thus, FIR is shown to have been registered promptly and without any delay. Hence, there is no possibility of false implication of respondent no. 1 and 2 and false involvement of aforesaid vehicles at the instance of petitioners herein.
14. Furthermore, PW 1 in his evidence has also placed reliance on the FIR, charge sheet, post mortem report etc, which is Ex.PW1/3 (colly.) which includes Final Report u/s 173 Cr.P.C; Copy of FIR; Rukka; Seizure memo of both the vehicles; Seizure memo of documents of offending vehicle and copy of DL of its driver; Site plan of the place of accident; Mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle; MLC and Postmortem report of deceased; Notice u/s 133 M.V. Act given to the owner of the offending vehicle; Arrest memo of accused and Statement of witnesses u/s 161 CrPC etc. Respondent no. 1 (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 the rashness and negligence on the part of respondent no. 1 (driver of offending vehicle).
MACT No. 76842/2016 Date of Award : 26.12.2025 Phoolwati & Ors. Vs. Arvind & Ors. Page No. 8 of 23.
15. Moreover, as per the postmortem report of deceased Sh. Bhagwan vide P.M. Report dated 05.01.2015 filed by the IO alongwith the charge sheet, the opinion therein is given as "Cause of Death in this case is head injury following ante- mortem blunt force impact, consistent with the manner AS ALLEGED". Said document has not been disputed from the side of the respondents and corroborates the ocular testimony of PW-1.
16. 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. Bhagwan sustained fatal injuries in road accident which took place on 04.01.2015 at Bakhtawar Chowk, Gurgaon, Haryana due to rashness and negligence on the part of respondents. Accordingly issue no. 1 stands decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents. Issue No.2
17. In view of the finding on issue no.1, petitioners are entitled to get compensation, however, the quantum of 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 injur.
Computation of Compensation MACT No. 76842/2016 Date of Award : 26.12.2025 Phoolwati & Ors. Vs. Arvind & Ors. Page No. 9 of 23.
18. The present case pertains to the death of deceased Sh Bhagwan. 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 :
19. PW1 Sh. Bhaver Singh has deposed that his deceased father was aged about 49 years at the time of accident. He has filed copy of AADHAR card of deceased, which shows the year of birth of deceased Sh. Bhagwan was 1966. The same remained undisputed on the part of respondents. Date of accident is 04.01.2015. As such, this fact stands concluded that age of the deceased was around 49 years at the time of accident. Assessment of Income of deceased :
20. Petitioner/PW-1 Sh. Bhaver Singh (son of deceased) has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW1/A) that his father was shop keeper and vegetable/fruits vendor at village Wazirabad, Gurgaon and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. In his cross examination done by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent, he stated that he does not have any documentary proof regarding occupation and income of deceased.
21. Ld. Counsel for petitioners submits that from the deposition of the PW1 (son of deceased), it is clear that deceased was selling vegetables and fruits and earning Rs.20,000/- per MACT No. 76842/2016 Date of Award : 26.12.2025 Phoolwati & Ors. Vs. Arvind & Ors. Page No. 10 of 23. month. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for respondent has vehemently argued that petitioners have miserably failed to prove alleged employment and monthly income of deceased. It has further argued that there is no cogent evidence available on record to prove that deceased was resident of Delhi and copy of Aadhar Card of the deceased and petitioners shows that they are all resident of Wazirabad, Haryana.
22. Admittedly, there is no document placed on record by the petitioners in support of the alleged employment and monthly income of deceased. No other witness has been examined in support thereof. As per the death certificate of deceased, he was the resident of Haryana. Thus, for want of cogent and definite evidence being led by the petitioners with regard to the actual vocation and monthly income of the deceased, this Tribunal assesses the income of deceased to be at parity with minimum wages of un-skilled person in the State of Haryana which at the time of accident i.e. 04.01.2015 were Rs. 5,547.10 p per month.
Application of Multiplier:
23. The age of deceased as on date of accident i.e. 04.01.2015 was about 49 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 46-50 years is 13.
Future Prospects:
24. 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 MACT No. 76842/2016 Date of Award : 26.12.2025 Phoolwati & Ors. Vs. Arvind & Ors. Page No. 11 of 23. 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 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 MACT No. 76842/2016 Date of Award : 26.12.2025 Phoolwati & Ors. Vs. Arvind & Ors. Page No. 12 of 23.
funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years."
25. On the day of accident, deceased was aged about 49. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the present matter, future prospects @ 25% 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:
26. 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 as well as the affidavit of petitioners, deceased has left behind his wife and two sons as the only legal heirs. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as material available on record, one-third (1/3rd) 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.
27. Thus, considering the aforementioned factors, the compensation for the loss of dependency is calculated as under:
S. No. Head Amount 1. Monthly income of deceased (A) Rs. 5,547.10/- MACT No. 76842/2016 Date of Award : 26.12.2025 Phoolwati & Ors. Vs. Arvind & Ors. Page No. 13 of 23. 2. Add future prospect (B) @ 25% Rs. 1,386.77/-
3. Less 1/3rd towards personal and Rs. 1,849.03/-
living expenses of the deceased (C)
4. Monthly loss of dependency (A+B)- Rs. 5,084.84/-
C=D
5. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs. 61,018.08/-6. Multiplier (E) 13
7. Total loss of dependency Rs. 7,93,235.04/-
(Dx12xE=F)
28. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 7,93,235/- (rounded off). Hence, a sum of Rs. 7,93,235/- (Rupees Seven Lacs Ninety Three Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Five Only) is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
29. 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 three LRs of deceased, therefore, the petitioners/claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.
MACT No. 76842/2016 Date of Award : 26.12.2025 Phoolwati & Ors. Vs. Arvind & Ors. Page No. 14 of 23. 1,80,000/- (48,000 X 3 + 18,000 + 18,000) under this head.
30. Considering the aforementioned factors, the total compensation is calculated as under:
S. No. Head Amount Awarded 1. Total loss of dependency Rs. 7,93,235/-
2. Compensation for loss of consortium Rs. 1,44,000/-
(48,000 X 3)
3. Compensation for loss of estate (H) Rs.18,000/-
4. Compensation for funeral expenses Rs.18,000/-
(I)
Total compensation Rs. 9,73,235/-
31. Thus, petitioners in this case shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 9,73,235/- (Rupees Nine Lacs Seventy Three Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty Five Only). INTEREST ON AWARD
32. Petitioners shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 11.08.2015 till realization. LIABILITY
33. Ld. Counsels for respondent no. 1 and 3 have relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Nishan Singh & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 10145 of 2016, decided on 27.04.2018 wherein it is held as under :
"10. The moot question is whether the Tribunal committed any error in answering issue No. 1 against the appellants and in favour of the respondents. The Tribunal, while answering the said issue No.1, analysed the evidence, both oral and documentary, including the chargesheet filed by the appellants and observed thus:
MACT No. 76842/2016 Date of Award : 26.12.2025 Phoolwati & Ors. Vs. Arvind & Ors. Page No. 15 of 23.
"20. In site plan paper No.6C/6 which is filed on record, the breadth of the road in question appears to be 14 feet and about 7 steps Kachcha Lekh appears at the both sides of the road. This fact is remarkable that the said accident is not of front accident but the accident occurred as a result of collision of the Maruti Car on the rear part of the truck in question by the driver of the car in question and the same fact is also mentioned in the evidence of the petitioners.
PW2 Manjeet Singh driver of the car in question as stated in his cross examination that he was driving the car behind the truck at the distance of about 1015 feet. Despite there being the breadth of the road 14 feet Pucca, the driver of the car in question kept the vehicle only at the distance of 1015 feet from the truck which does not appear in accordance with traffic rules. He should have driven the vehicle maintaining the proper distance in order to escape from each circumstance but he has admitted in his cross examination as PW2 that, "he knows that he should maintain proper distance from the heavy vehicle". Under such circumstance if the vehicle which is running behind the heavy vehicle, must maintain the proper distance if the proper distance is not maintain then the whole negligence shall be determined on the part of rear vehicle in regard to the occurrence of accident in question. In addition no evidence in regard to the seizing of truck in question on the place of occurrence and taking into police custody the vehicles from the place of occurrence and getting done their technical survey is not available on place of occurrence.
21. By the facts mentioned in the petition and by the evidence of PW1 and PW2 it doesn't appear reliable that rash and negligent driving in the accident in question was on the part of the driver of the truck in question and for this purpose only by registering of F.I.R. of said accident and submitting of charge- sheet against the driver of the truck in question, the driver of the truck in question cannot be held guilty for the said accident, whereas by the evidence of the petitioner on record this fact comes forward that the accident occurred as the driver of the car in question was not driving the car in question in accordance with traffic rules i.e. the accident occurred as the vehicle was not being driven maintaining proper distance from the truck and it appears clearly that the speed of the car would have been fast whereby the car in question collided with the rear part of the MACT No. 76842/2016 Date of Award : 26.12.2025 Phoolwati & Ors. Vs. Arvind & Ors. Page No. 16 of 23.
truck in question being uncontrolled and the said accident took place. Under such circumstance there was no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of truck bearing No. U.P.32Z-2397 regarding the accident in question but the sameisdetermined on the part of Manjeet Singh driver of Mar utiCar bearing No.UP.02 D5292.
22.On the basis of the aforesaid interpretation it appears that the said accident didn't occur on 28.11.2010 at about 6:45 p.m. at village Kunda KashipurJashpur Road under area of PS Kunda district Udham Singh Nagar by the driver of the truck bearing No. U.P.32 Z2397 due to rash and negligent driving of the truck and by applying sudden break but it occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving of Maruti Car bearing No. U.P.02 D5292 in question by Manjeet Singh driver, wherein Balvinder Kaur who was sitting in the car sustained serious injuries and expired during her treatment on account of serious injuries." The finding so recorded by the Tribunal has been af firmed by the High Court, by observing that the evidence was clearly indicative of the fact that the maruti car was being driver in a rash and negligent manner, which was the cause for accident of this nature and resulting in death of one of the passengers in the maruti car. The maruti car was driven by none other than PW2 Manjeet Singh. In his evidence, he has admitted that the subject truck was running ahead of the maruti car for quite some time about one kilometre and at the time of accident, the distance between the truck and maruti car was only 10 - 15 feet. He has also admitted that the law mandates maintaining sufficient distance between two vehicles running in the same direction. It is also not in dispute that the road on which the two vehicles were moving was only about 14 feet wide. It is unfathomable that on such a narrow road, the subject truck would move at a high speed as alleged. In any case, the maruti car which was following the truck was expected to maintain a safe distance, as envisaged in Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, which reads thus:
"23. Distance from vehicles in front. The driver of a motor vehicle moving behind another vehicle MACT No. 76842/2016 Date of Award : 26.12.2025 Phoolwati & Ors. Vs. Arvind & Ors. Page No. 17 of 23.
shall keep at a sufficient distance from that other vehicle to avoid collision if the vehicle in front should suddenly slow down or stop."
The expression 'sufficient distance' has not been defined in the Regulations or elsewhere. The thumb rule of sufficientdistance is at least a safe distance of two to three seconds gap in ideal conditions to avert collision and to allow the following driver time to respond. The distance of 10- 15 feet between the truck and maruti car was certainly not a safe distance for which the driver of the maruti car must take the blame. It must necessarily follow that the finding on the issue under consideration ought to be against the claimants.
34. Ld. Counsels for respondent no. 1 and 3 have contended that respondent no. 1 and 3 are not liable to pay any compensation as the accident took place due to negligence of the driver of the Honda City Car bearing No. HR-70-A-3383. I have gone through the record. Perusal of record reveals that the present case was registered by PS Sadar Gurugram, Haryana and respondent no. 2 Kuldeep was arrested. Thereafter respondent no. 1 Arvind was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C vide order dated 30.05.2017 passed by the Court of Ld. JMIC, Gurugram, Haryana. Certified copy of the charge sheet, Judgment passed by Ld. JMIC, Gurugram, Haryana, and Court proceedings also filed on record. I have gone through the statement of PW 11 Sh. Surajbhan recorded before the Ld. JMIC, Gurugram, Haryana wherein PW 11 deposed that the accident occurred due to negligent driving by driver of the Honda City car namely Kuldeep (respondent no. 2) who hit the Pick-up Tempo vehicle from back side due to which Shri Bhagwan had died and Amar Singh received injuries. He further deposed stated that driver of the Pick-up Tempo bearing No. HR-66- 5434 was not guilty. In his cross examination before the Ld. JMIC, Gurugram, Haryana, IO Insp. Deep Chand in his cross examination also admitted that in his investigation Arvind who was driving the Pick-up No. HR-66-5434 was not guilty and Kuldeep Singh (respondent no. 2) is responsible for the death of Sh. Bhagwan as he was driving his MACT No. 76842/2016 Date of Award : 26.12.2025 Phoolwati & Ors. Vs. Arvind & Ors. Page No. 18 of 23. Honda City Car in a rash and negligent manner.
35. Before Ld. JMIC, Gurgaon, Haryana statement of PW12 HC Manoj Kumar is also recorded who inspected both the vehicles and proved his mechanical inspection report as Ex.PW8/H. PW 12 further deposed during his cross by Ld. Counsel for accused Arvind (respondent no. 1) that the Honda City Car front portion has been damaged and it is possible that the Honda City car hit other car back side. On record certified copy of the judgment passed by Ld. JMIC, Gurugram is also filed wherein the respondent No. 1 Arvind was acquitted from the charges. Further, as per the statements of IO and Mechanical Inspection Report shows that front portion of Honda City was got damaged in the accident. Perusal of chargesheet also shows that Pick-Up Tempo bearing No. HR-66-5434 was going on and driver of Honda City car No. HR-70-A-3383 hit the Pick-up from behind. Therefore, evidence on record shows rash and negligent driving on part of driver of Honda City car who hit the Pick-up from behind rather than the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Pick-up. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Tribunal hold that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 2. Kuldeep Singh. In such circumstances, this Tribunal holds that the amount of compensation shall be payable by the respondent no. 2 Kuldeep Singh driver of the offending Honda City car. Relief
36. In view of my finding on issues no. 1 and 2, this Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs. 9,73,235/- (Rupees Nine Lacs Seventy Three Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty Five 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. i.e. 11.08.2015 till realization, to be paid by the respondent no. 2. The respondent no.2 is directed to deposit MACT No. 76842/2016 Date of Award : 26.12.2025 Phoolwati & Ors. Vs. Arvind & Ors. Page No. 19 of 23. 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. 2 is also directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioners.
Apportionment
37. Statements of petitioners in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP were recorded on 18.10.2024 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. Phoolwati wife 50%
2. Bhanwar Singh Son 25%
3. Gajender Singh Son 25% Disbursement of Award Amount
38. In view of the aforesaid, it is hereby ordered that out of total compensation amount, the petitioner no. 1 namely Smt. Phoolwati shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 4,86,617/- (Rupees Four Lacs Eighty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Seventeen Only) alongwith proportionate interest and the petitioner no. 2 namely Bhanwar Singh and petitioner no. 3 Gajender Singh shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 2,43,308/- each (Rupees Two Lacs Forty Three Thousand Three Hundred and Eight OnlyOnly) alongwith proportionate interest.
39. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 1 Smt. Phoolwati, a sum of Rs. 1,86,617/- (Rupees One Lac Eighty Sic MACT No. 76842/2016 Date of Award : 26.12.2025 Phoolwati & Ors. Vs. Arvind & Ors. Page No. 20 of 23. Thousand Six Hundred and Seventeen Only) shall be immediately released to her 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.
40. Out of share amount of petitioners no. 2 and 3, a sum of Rs. 43,308/- each (Rupees Forty Three Thousand Three Hundred and Eight 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.
41. The amount of FDRs on maturity shall directly be released in petitioners' MACT Saving Bank Account.
42. 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 MACT No. 76842/2016 Date of Award : 26.12.2025 Phoolwati & Ors. Vs. Arvind & Ors. Page No. 21 of 23.
Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, 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. 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.
(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.
43. Respondent no. 2 Kuldeep Singh, being driver of offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the compensation amount with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts branch is directed to transfer the respective amounts of petitioners in their MACT saving bank accounts, as per the award, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
44. 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.
MACT No. 76842/2016 Date of Award : 26.12.2025 Phoolwati & Ors. Vs. Arvind & Ors. Page No. 22 of 23.
45. Form XV and Form XVII in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A.
46. A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir .
46. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost.
48. 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 Digitally signed by (MCTAP). MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.12.26 16:29:42 +0530 Announced in the open court (MUKESH KUMAR) On 26th December, 2025 P.O. MACT-02 (WEST) THC/Delhi/26.12.2025.
MACT No. 76842/2016 Date of Award : 26.12.2025 Phoolwati & Ors. Vs. Arvind & Ors. Page No. 23 of 23.