Delhi District Court
Narayan Devi And Ors vs Jagdish Jat And Ors on 14 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHILASH MALHOTRA
PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-02, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
SMT. NARAYAN DEVI & ORS. Vs. JAGDISH JAT
& ORS.
MACT NO. 147 / 2022
1. Smt. Narayan Devi (Wife)
W/o Late Sh.Parashuram Pal
2. Ms. Sangeeta (Daughter)
D/o Late Sh. Parashuram Pal
3. Ms. Anjali Pal (Daughter)
D/o Late Sh. Parashuram Pal
4. Mr. Abhishek (Son)
S/o Late Sh. Parashuram Pal
5. Ms. Shweta (Daughter)
D/o Late Sh. Parashuram Pal
All resident of
RZ-C-93, Gali No. 11,
Madhu Vihar, West Delhi,
Delhi -110059 ... Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Jagdish Jat
S/o Sh. Balu Ram Jat
R/o Village Lidi, Lamana Road,
PS Mangliyawas, Tehsil Isagarh,
District Ajmer, Rajasthan -305001
.... Driver/Respondent no.1
MACT No. 147/22 Page. 1 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors
2. M/s K. M. Trans Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
1281-1285, Near Pushpraj Petrol Pump, Bhankrota, NH-8, Ajmer Express Highway, Bhankrota, S. O. Jaipur, Rajathan -302026 Also at:
X, Village Gidani, Tehsil Mojamabad, NH-8, Jaipur-Ajmer Expressway, Near D UDU Jaipur, Rajasthan -303348 ....Owner/Respondent no.2
3. M/s Raheja QBE General Ins. Co. Ltd.
Statesman House, 4th Floor, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi -110001 ....Insurance Company/ Respondent no. 3 Date of accident 04.10.2021 Date of filing Claim Petition 30.07.2022 Date of framing of issues 19.10.2024 Date of concluding arguments 02.04.2026 Date of decision 14.04.2026 AWARD/JUDGMENT Index to the Judgment I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE CLAIMANT(s)...........................................5 II. FRAMING OF ISSUES..................................................................................6 III. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS OF THE PARTIES...................................11 MACT No. 147/22 Page. 2 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors IV. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO..................................13
(a) Issue No.1: Whether the victim /deceased suffered fatal injuries in a vehicular accident that took place on 04.10.2021 at about 9:30 pm at NH-19, Near Dabchik, Hodal, Palwal, Haryana involving a vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-47-GA-3806 (offending vehicle) being driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3?OPP.........................................................13 i. Presumption qua complicity upon filing chargesheet:...................13 ii. The evidence on record qua negligence:........................................14 iii. Preponderance of probabilities:......................................................15 iv. Finding:.......................................................................................... 16
(b) Issue No.2: Whether claimant is entitled to compensation, and to what amount ?.......................................................................................................... 17 i. Principles qua assessment of compensation:..................................17 ii. Monthly Income of the deceased:..................................................19 iii. Future prospects:............................................................................25 iv. Personal expenses of the deceased:................................................26 v. Monthly & Annual Loss of dependency:.......................................28 vi. Total Loss of Dependency:.............................................................28 vii. Other Heads:...................................................................................28 viii. Medical Expenses:..........................................................................30 ix. Compensation for Loss of Consortium:.........................................30 x. Compensation for Loss of Estate:..................................................32 xi. Compensation towards Funeral Expenses:.....................................32 xii. Total Compensation:.......................................................................32
(c) Issue No.3: Relief.................................................................................. 33 i. Amount of Award:..........................................................................33 ii. Rate of Interest:..............................................................................33 V. DEPOSIT OF AWARD& RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT.........................34 MACT No. 147/22 Page. 3 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors i. Deposit of Award:...........................................................................34 ii. Disbursement of the award amount & protection thereof:.............36 VI. LIABILITY...................................................................................................38 VII.. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN CASES OF DEATH.................................................................................................................40 VIII..............................COMPLIANCE QUA PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME 43 MACT No. 147/22 Page. 4 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE CLAIMANT(s)
1. In the present case, the accident had occurred out of Delhi and petition was filed. A claim petition was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased.
2. The issue regarding the jurisdiction was raised by the Insurance Company. The office of the Insurance Company is stated to be within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal and in lieu of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Company Limited and Ors. (2016) 3 SCC 43, the issue of jurisdiction is no more in dispute. The objection as to jurisdiction has dismissed vide order dated 31.05.2024.
3. In present case, FIR bearing no. 375/2021 was registered in PS- Hodal, District Palwal, Haryana Under Section 279/304A IPC on the complaint made by complainant Mr. Naresh Baghel. A charge- sheet was filed by the police against the driver Mr. Jagdish Jat (R-1) under Section 279/304A IPC, on the charges of rash driving of vehicle no. RJ-47-GA-3806. It is stated that on 04.10.2021 Sh. Parashuram Pal (deceased) was travelling in vehicle No. DL-1LW-8685 along with Mr. Naresh who was driving the vehicle on the correct side of the road at normal speed. It is stated that the insured / offending vehicle bearing registration no. RJ-47- GA-3806 rashly and negligently took a sharp 'U' turn at high speed without giving any signal / indicator due to which the vehicle of Sh. Parashuram Pal (deceased) collied with the same and accident MACT No. 147/22 Page. 5 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors had happened in which Sh. Parashuram Pal (deceased) suffered grievous injuries and died.
4. As per the charge sheet, the vehicle was driven by respondent no. 1 driver, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured by respondent no. 3/Insurance company.
5. During the proceedings issues were framed on 19.10.2024 Thereafter the written submissions were filed by the parties in the prescribed format. The financial statement of the legal representative of deceased was recorded on 13.11.2025.
II. FRAMING OF ISSUES
6. Vide order dated 19.10.2024, following issues were framed by this Tribunal:-
"1. Whether the victim /deceased suffered fatal injuries in a vehicular accident that took place on 04.10.2021 at about 9:30 pm at NH-19, Near Dabchik, Hodal, Palwal, Haryana involving a vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-47-GA-3806 (offending vehicle) being driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3?OPP
2. Whether the petitioner (s) is/are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief."
MACT No. 147/22 Page. 6 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors
7. Recording of evidence: in present case, PW-1 is Smt. Narayan Devi. She tendered her affidavit in chief by way of evidence as Ex. PW 1/A. She has relied upon the following documents viz., Copy of Aadhar Card and PAN card of herself as Ex. PW1/ 1& Ex. PW 1/ 2; Copy of Aadhar Card and PAN card of petitioner no. 2 Sangeeta as Ex. PW1/ 3& Ex. PW 1/ 4; Copy of Aadhar Card and PAN card of petitioner no. 3 Anjali as Ex. PW1/ 5 & Ex. PW 1/ 6; Copy of Aadhar Card and PAN card of petitioner no. 4 Abhishek as Ex. PW1/ 7 & Ex. PW 1/ 8; Copy of Aadhar Card and PAN card of petitioner no. 5 Ms. Shweta as Ex. PW1/ 9 & Ex. PW 1/ 10; Copy of Aadhar Card of Late Smt. Gulab Rani, mother of deceased expired on 23.06.2022 as Ex. PW1/ 11; Copy of death certificate of Smt. Gulab Rani is marked 'A'; Copy of Aadhar Card and PAN card of deceased Parashuram Pal as Ex. PW1/ 12 & Ex. PW 1/ 13; Copy of qualification documents of deceased Parashuram Pal as Ex. PW1/ 14 (Colly); Copy of registration certificate and insurance policy of vehicle no. DL-1LW-8685 marked 'B'; Copy of driving license of sh. Naresh Baghel as Ex. PW 1 /15; Copy of downloaded bank statement of deceased as Ex. PW 1 /16; Certified copy of charge sheet including initial complaint, tehrir, rukka, FIR, final report u/s 173 Cr.PC, site plan, notice under Section 133 of M. V. Act seizure memo of deceased, MLC, post mortem report, dead body hand over slip, arrest memo, disclosure statement of accused, Jamatalashi, Mechanical inspection report etc. vehicle MACT No. 147/22 Page. 7 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors release order, statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C as Ex. PW 1 /17 (Colly); Copy of loan account settlement statement taken from Indusland Bank on 05.11.2024 as Ex. PW 1 /18 (Colly).
8. PW-1 in her testimony stated that on 04.10.2021 her deceased husband Sh. Parashuram Pal was travelling in vehicle No. DL-1LW-8685 along with Mr. Naresh. Mr. Naresh was driving the vehicle on the correct side of the road at normal speed. She stated that the insured / offending vehicle bearing registration no. RJ-47-GA-3806 rashly and negligently took a sharp 'U' turn at high speed without giving any signal / indicator due to which the vehicle of her husband collied with the same and accident had happened in which her husband suffered grievous injuries and died. She stated that her deceased husband was graduate and his date of birth is 30.01.1960. She stated that her deceased husband was traveling as helper in the vehicle and was earning around Rs.50,000/- per month.
9. PW-1 further stated that the vehicle belonging to her husband was financed with M/s Indusland Bank for 29 months EMI of Rs.19,048/-. She stated that after the accident 07 EMI remained unpaid and thereafter the loan was finally settled in January, 2022.
10.PW-1 stated that deceased is survived by herself, 03 daughters and a son who were dependent upon the income of the deceased.
MACT No. 147/22 Page. 8 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors
11.PW-1 in her cross examination admitted that she is not the eye witness to the accident. She stated that she did not know whether her deceased husband was filing income tax returns or not. She admitted that no documents in respect of income / earning of Rs.50,000/- per month is filed on record. She admitted that her daughter Ms. Sangeeta and Ms. Anjali Pal are married and their husbands are government employees.
12.PW-2 is Mr. Vipin Kaushal, Senior Assistant from Transport Department, Rajpura Road, New Delhi. He proved on record the following documents viz., Authority letter dated 16.12.2024 as Ex. PW 2/1; NOC issued in favour of Mr. Jitendra Parmar in respect of vehicle no. DL-1LW-8685 vide NOC No. DL2022- NOC-1297J dt. 03.11.2022.
13.He stated that vehicle no. DL-1LW-8685 was transferred in the name of deceased Mr. Parashuram Pal vide receipt dated 15.11.2019 and thereafter NOC was issued in favour of Mr. Jitendra Parmar.
14.PW-3 is Mr. Naresh Baghel. He tendered his affidavit in chief as Ex. PW3/A and has relied upon the following documents viz., Copy of Aadhar card as Ex. PW 3/1 and copy of Driving License as Ex. PW 3/2. In his affidavit in chief he stated that on 04.10.2021 he was driving the goods vehicle bearing no. DL-1LW-8685 and was working in employment of deceased Mr. Parashuram Pal who was the registered owner of the vehicle. He stated that on 04.10.2021 deceased Parashuram Pal MACT No. 147/22 Page. 9 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors was sitting as a helper in the said vehicle and they were coming from Nagpur, Maharashtra to deliver the goods at Okhla, Delhi. At about 9:30 p.m when they reached NH-19, near Dabchik, Hodal, Palwal, Haryana, R-1/ driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. RJ-47-GA-3806 rashly and negligently took a sharp U turn at high speed without giving any signal or indicator. He stated that due to the said negligence the vehicle driven by him collied with the insured vehicle and accident occurred, Mr. Parashuram Pal sustained grievous injuries and died.
15.PW-3 Mr. Naresh Baghel in his cross examination reiterated that he was driving the vehicle. He stated that he had seen the offending vehicle from a distance of 1 k.m and later Volunteered that offending vehicle was at the distance of half km. He reiterated that accident had occurred because insured / offending vehicle took 'U' turn from illegal/ unauthorized cut on the road without giving any signal / indicator.
16.PW-4 is Mr. Sumit Mishra, Assistant Manager from Indusland Bank, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. He proved on record the following documents viz., Copy of GPA as Ex. PW 4/1 (Colly); Attested copy of Loan Agreement along with First Schedule and Second Schedule, Irrevocable Power of Attorney and Consumer Finance Loan Application as Ex. PW 4/2 (Colly); Attested copy of statement of accounts as Ex. PW 4/3 (Colly). He stated that as per record total 29 months EMI of Rs.19,048/-
MACT No. 147/22 Page. 10 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors per month were settled w.e.f. 21.01.2020 till September, 2021 and EMIs were being paid by the deceased regularly.
17.R-1 driver and R-2 registered owner were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 19.10.2024 and did not lead any evidence.
18.R-3 Insurance company did not lead any evidence.
III. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS OF THE PARTIES
19.Ld. Counsel for the claimant submitted that they have filed the copy of FIR and charge sheet. He submitted that the said record clearly shows that the offending vehicle bearing no. RJ-47- GA-3806 was seized during the investigation and later on released on Superdari. He submitted that the charge sheet in that case was already filed against the driver Mr. Jagdish u/s 279/304-A IPC which clearly establishes the rash driving on part of the offending vehicle.
20.Ld. counsel for the petitioner submitted that Mr. Naresh Baghel is the eye witness of the incident. He submitted that PW-3 in his affidavit in chief as well as in his cross examination stated that accident had occurred due to rash driving by R-1/ insured vehicle. He submitted that site plan field along with charge sheet shows that the insured / offending vehicle had taken a 'U' turn from unauthorized cut on road / national highway. He submitted that the act of taking 'U' turn from unauthorized cut on National Highway without any indicator is highly rash and negligent act on the part of the driver / R-1 of insured vehicle.
MACT No. 147/22 Page. 11 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors
21.He submitted that insurance company has not disputed the aspect of rash and negligent driving. R-1 and R-2 have also failed to appear and lead any evidence to rebut the aspect of rash and negligent driving.
22.He submitted that insurance company took an objection in respect of territorial jurisdiction which was rejected by this Tribunal vide order dated 31.05.2024.
23.It is argued that the petitioner has completed 12th examination and was pursuing his graduation and therefore, the minimum wages applicable to a person who has completed 12 th and pursuing graduation should be considered. He submitted that as petitioner was paying EMI, the EMI amount also needs to be added to the minimum wages in view of the judgment in the case titled as Gurpreet Kaur & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. 2022 LawSuit (SC) 1648; National Insurance Company Vs. Parvesh & Ors. 2023 LawSuit (Del) 3071 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. VS. Najamum Khatun 2017 LawSuit (Del) 2590.
24.R-1 and R-2 were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 19.01.2024 and did not appear before this Tribunal. Ld. counsel for R-3 Insurance company submitted that no income proof is filed on record by the petitioners. She did not press the territorial jurisdiction as it was settled vide order dated 31.05.2024. She also submitted that Insurance company is not disputing the fact of rash and negligent driving on the part of R-1 driver of insured MACT No. 147/22 Page. 12 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors vehicle. She stated that minimum wages should be considered for the purpose of calculation of income of the deceased.
IV. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO
(a) Issue No.1: Whether the victim /deceased suffered fatal injuries in a vehicular accident that took place on 04.10.2021 at about 9:30 pm at NH-19, Near Dabchik, Hodal, Palwal, Haryana involving a vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-47-GA-3806 (offending vehicle) being driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3?OPP i. Presumption qua complicity upon filing chargesheet:
25. Rule 21 of Annexure XIII of The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 mandates as follows:-
21. Claims Tribunal shall treat Dar as a claim petition for compensation under Sub-Section (4) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (1) The Claims Tribunal shall treat the DAR filed by the Investigating Officer as a claim petition under Section (4) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, where the Investigating Officer is unable to produce the claimant(s) on the first date of hearing the Claims Tribunal shall register the DAR as a claim petition after the appearance of the claimant(s).
(2) where the claimant(s) have filed a separate claim petition, the DAR may be tagged along with the claim petition. (3) If the Report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2) of 1974 has not been filed at the time of filing of the DAR, the Claims Tribunal may either wait till filing of the Report under Section 173 of the said Code of Criminal Procedure or record the statement of the eye witness(es) to satisfy itself with respect to the negligence before passing the award.
(4) The Claims Tribunal shall register the FAR as a Miscellaneous application and the IAR as well as DAR shall be taken on record in the same Miscellaneous application.
MACT No. 147/22 Page. 13 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors
26. In Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Meera Devi & Ors decided on 16.02.2021, 2021 LawSuit (Del) 858 it was held :
8. ..... In view of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008, contents of DAR had to be presumed to be correct and read in evidence without formal proof of the same unless proof to the contrary was produced........".
27.In a recent order dated 25.02.2025, passed in Ranjeet & Anr v Abdul Nayem Keb & Anr in SLP (c) 10351/2019, it was held in trenchant terms as thus:
"It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the eyewitnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver."
ii. The evidence on record qua negligence:
28.Claimant has placed on record the certified copy of charge sheet in FIR no. 375/2021, PS Hodal, District Palwal, Haryana under Section 279/304-A IPC. Record shows that the charge sheet u/s 279/304-A IPC was filed in the present case against the driver Sh. Jagdish. The charge sheet records that the due to rash driving of the driver /(R-1) of the offending vehicle bearing no. RJ-47- GA-3806, accident occurred in which Mr. Parashuram Pal suffered multiple injuries and died.
MACT No. 147/22 Page. 14 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors
29.R-1 driver and R-2 owner failed to lead any evidence to rebut the aspect of rashness on the part of insured vehicle. R-3/ Insurance company also did not dispute this aspect.
30.From the aforesaid, it is clear that the accident had occurred due to rash driving of offending/insured vehicle driven by R-1/driver.
iii. Preponderance of probabilities:
31.It is trite law that in a proceeding before the Claims Tribunal, the claimant does not have to establish negligence on the part of the driver respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The standards of establishing negligence is predicated on preponderance of probabilities. In the present case too, negligence has been established on this principle.
32.In this context, it would be useful to peruse Mathew Alexander v. Mohd. Shafi, (2023) 13 SCC 510 wherein it was observed as thus:
"In this context, we could refer to the judgments of this Court in N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal [N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal, (1980) 3 SCC 457 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 774] , wherein the plea that the criminal case had ended in acquittal and that, therefore, the civil suit must follow suit, was rejected. It was observed that culpable rashness under Section 304-AIPC is more drastic than negligence under the law of torts to create liability. Similarly, in Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC [Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC, (2009) 13 SCC 530 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 189 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1101] ("Bimla Devi"), it MACT No. 147/22 Page. 15 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors was observed that in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal has to determine the amount of fair compensation to be granted in the event an accident has taken place by reason of negligence of a driver of a motor vehicle. A holistic view of the evidence has to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal and strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be established by the claimants. The claimants have to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in a road traffic accident. To the same effect is the observation made by this Court in Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz [Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 13] which has referred to the aforesaid judgment in Bimla Devi [Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC (2009) 13 SCC 530."
iv. Finding:
33.In view of foregoing discussion, it stands proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities that the aforesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the transgressing/offending vehicle bearing registration no. RJ-47-
GA-3806 and the said vehicle at that time was driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured by respondent no.3. Hence, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the claimant and against the respondents.
MACT No. 147/22 Page. 16 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors
34.It is clarified that the findings given are limited for the purposes of this inquiry and shall not impact the trial of the criminal case.
(b) Issue No.2: Whether claimant is entitled to compensation, and to what amount ?
i. Principles qua assessment of compensation:
35.Before adverting to the submissions of the counsels in this regard, it would be apposite to refer to the law of the land qua this aspect. The law has been enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. (2003) 6SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.(2017) 16 SCC 680.
36.An essential ingredient of the award is the loss of dependency. To calculate the same, it would be of utmost significance to peruse the following seminal directions issued in Sarla Verma (supra):
"18.Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death:
(a)age of the deceased;
(b) income of the deceased; and
(c) the number of dependants The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are:
(i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income;
(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and MACT No. 147/22 Page. 17 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors
(iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.
If these determinants are standardised, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay
19.To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well-settled steps:
Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependant family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased. Step 3 (Actual calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the "loss of dependency"
to the family."
37.To ascertain the 'multiplier' mentioned in Step 2 above, it was further laid down in Sarla Verma (supra) as thus:
"42 We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie) which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years,) reduced by one unit for every MACT No. 147/22 Page. 18 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors years that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years , M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M -13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51- 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years ,M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M- 5 for 66 to 70 years."
38.Further, in terms of the mandate of Rajesh Tyagi v Jaibir Singh FAO 842/2003, which is the cause célèbre qua cases pertaining to motor accident claims, the claimant filed Form XIII of the Scheme for Motor Accident Claims qua compensation under various heads which have been elucidated in the paragraphs hereafter..
ii. Monthly Income of the deceased:
39. In the calculation sheet filed on record the petitioner has claimed income of the deceased as Rs.50,000/- per month. During the course of arguments Ld. counsel for petitioner conceded that minimum wags along with installment amount be considered as income of the deceased.
40.In order to appreciate this plea it would be prudent to refer to the law laid down by the higher courts in this regard. In the case titled as Gurpreet Kaur & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. 2022 LawSuit (SC) 1648, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that:-
6. Keeping in mind the rate at which EMI was being paid, the Tribunal held that the deceased must be earning at least Rs.25,000/- per month prior to his death in the accident. After taking 1 /4 th of monthly income of the deceased towards MACT No. 147/22 Page. 19 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors personal expenses, the Tribunal applied multiplier of 18 and assessed the total compensation as Rs.43,75,000/-. The High Court, unfortunately, overlooked the factors relied upon by the Tribunal to assess the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/- per month. The High Court came to the conclusion that the mere fact that the deceased had paid instalments of the loan could not itself be an evidence that the money actually represented his income or can form the basis for assessment of income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/- per month. Taking into consideration the Notification issued by the State of Haryana, fixing minimum wage at the relevant time, the High Court assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month, and on this premise, as stated above, the compensation was reduced.
7. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and carefully perused the material placed on record.
8. Though, there is no evidence on record regarding the income of deceased Pyara Singh, however, from the testimony of PW.4 - Amar Kumar, Assistant Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, it is clear that the deceased - Pyara Singh was regularly making the payment of Rs.11,550/- as instalment to discharge his loan liability towards the tractor.
At this rate, the entire loan was paid back within a year or so. That clearly establishes the earning capacity of the deceased. It is also the case of the appellants- claimants that the deceased was working as a contractor and was earning Rs.50,000/- per month. The Tribunal adopted a balanced approach and keeping in view factors like : (i) the payment of monthly instalment of Rs.11,550/- towards loan of the tractor; (ii) Maintaining a family comprising of wife, two minor children and parents; (iii) Affording tractor and motorcycle; (iv) that the deceased was working as a contractor; assessed his income at Rs.25,000/- per month.
9. In our considered view, the Tribunal's approach is quite justified in law as well as on facts. In the summary proceedings where the approach of the Tribunal's determination must be in conformity with the object of the welfare legislation, it was rightly held that the monthly income of the deceased could not be less than Rs.25,000/-. The reason assigned by the High Court to reduce the monthly income of the deceased is totally cryptic and has no rationale. The Notification of Minimum Wages Act can be a MACT No. 147/22 Page. 20 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors guiding factor only in a case where there is no clue available to evaluate monthly income of the deceased. Where positive evidence has been led, no reliance on the Notification could be placed, particularly when it was nobody's case that the deceased was a labourer as presumed by the High Court.
10. For the reasons aforestated, we are inclined to allow these appeals. Ordered accordingly.
41.In the case titled as National Insurance Company Vs. Parvesh & Ors. 2023 LawSuit (Del) 3071, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that:-
7. PW-2, Mr.Johnson Andrews, working as Assistant Manager (Legal), Tata Motor Finance Limited, was summoned by the claimants before the learned Tribunal. He stated that the deceased had taken a loan for his vehicle, that is, the truck bearing no.
UP-13T-9355, on 31.10.2014. The loan amount of Rs.10,80,000/- which was to be repaid in 47 equal monthly instalments, with the first being of Rs.34,327/- and the remaining of Rs.33,650/- per month. The deceased had paid 20 EMIs from 02.12.2014 to 02.08.2016 'in cash' against the loan.
8. Though PW-2 could not state the source of the income of the borrower or the person who was making the repayment of the loan, in my view, the learned Tribunal should have relied upon the statement of PW-2 to assess the income of the deceased. The deceased was paying monthly instalment of Rs.33,650/-. His income would certainly have been more than that as he would have also spent on his own self and his family's day-to-day expenses. Merely because the claimants were unable to produce the income tax records or other cogent material in support of their assertion of the income of the deceased, their claim should not have been reduced on this account. In Chandra alias Chanda alias Chandraram & Anr. v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav & Ors., (2022) 1 SCC 198, [LQ/SC/2021/3112 ;] the Supreme Court has held that in absence of documentary evidence on record for the income of the deceased, some amount of guesswork is required to be done. Though the minimum wages notification can be a yardstick but, at the same time, it cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. Merely because the claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of the deceased, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of MACT No. 147/22 Page. 21 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors minimum wages while computing the income. I may quote from the judgment as under:-
"9. It is the specific case of the claimants that the deceased was possessing heavy vehicle driving licence and was earning Rs 15,000 per month. Possessing such licence and driving of heavy vehicle on the date of accident is proved from the evidence on record. Though the wife of the deceased has categorically deposed as AW 1 that her husband Shivpal was earning Rs 15,000 per month, same was not considered only on the ground that salary certificate was not filed. The Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased by adopting minimum wage notified for the skilled labour in the year 2016. In absence of salary certificate the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In absence of documentary evidence on record some amount of guesswork is required to be done. But at the same time the guesswork for assessing the income of the deceased should not be totally detached from reality. Merely because the claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of Shivpal, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the income. There is no reason to discard the oral evidence of the wife of the deceased who has deposed that late Shivpal was earning around Rs 15,000 per month.
10. In Minu Rout v. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra this Court while dealing with the claim relating to an accident which occurred on 8-11-2004 has taken the salary of the driver of light motor vehicle at Rs 6000 per month. In this case the accident was on 27-2-2016 and it is clearly proved that the deceased was in possession of heavy vehicle driving licence and was driving such vehicle on the day of accident. Keeping in mind the enormous growth of vehicle population and demand for good drivers and by considering oral evidence on record we may take the income of the deceased at Rs 8000 per month for the purpose of loss of dependency. Deceased was aged about 32 years on the date of the accident and as he was on fixed salary, 40% enhancement is to be MACT No. 147/22 Page. 22 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors made towards loss of future prospects. At the same time deduction of one-third is to be made from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. Accordingly, the income of the deceased can be arrived at Rs 7467 per month. By applying the multiplier of '16' the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs 14,33,664."
9. In the present case, the learned Tribunal had before it the evidence in form of PW-2, who stated that the deceased had taken a loan on his vehicle and was paying instalment of Rs.33,650/- per month. In my view, therefore, the income of the deceased should have been assessed at Rs.33,650/- per month for determining the compensation payable to the appellants.
42.Further, in the case titled as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. VS.
Najamum Khatun 2017 LawSuit (Del) 2590, the relevant paras are as under:-
3. It is noted that the Tribunal has given detailed and sufficient reasons for reaching the conclusion that the income of the deceased would have been about Rs.17,000/- per month. After all, he was paying Rs.6050/- per month as refund of the loan taken out for finance of the ISR, which he was driving and, therefore could not have been assumed to be earning minimum wages which would be a meager sum and impossible to sustain with. The conclusion reached by the Tribunal on the subject does not call for interference.
43. From the mandate given in the aforesaid judgments, it is amply clear that Courts have considered the earning capacity of an individual who was paying the loan installments. Notional income of an individual in such cases was considered over and above the minimum wages. In the present case deceased was not only working as a helper but was paying an installments of Rs.19,048/- per month.
MACT No. 147/22 Page. 23 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors
44.In view of the precedents cited above, it would be prudent to consider the income of the deceased as sum total of installments amount and the minimum wags applicable on that day.
45.As per Circular F. No. 12 (142)/02/MW/VIII/Part File/4456 dated 11.11.2021 issued by the Office of the Commissioner, (Labour), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Sham Nath Marg, Delhi
-110054, the minimum wages in the category of matriculate but not graduate was Rs.19,473/- p.m. at that relevant juncture. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased is quantified as ( Rs. 19,048/- + Rs.19,473/-) = Rs.38,521/-.
iii. Future prospects:
46.To factor into account future prospects, it would be apt to refer to National Insurance Co Ltd v Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 wherein it was laid down as thus:
"59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:
59.3 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.
59.4 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 MACT No. 147/22 Page. 24 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. 59.5 For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
59.6 The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 read with para 42 of that judgment 59.7 The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
59.8 Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years."
47. To determine the age of the deceased, the claimants has filed on record the Aadhar Card which shows date of birth of the deceased as 30.01.1960. Deceased was 61 years and 08 months old on the date of death. As per mandate in Sarla Verma (Supra) and Pranay Sethi (Supra), no future prospects is available for a person having age more than 60 years. Therefore, no amount is given under this head and the same is NIL.
iv. Personal expenses of the deceased:
48.The Expenses incurred by the deceased on himself are deducted while calculating the loss of dependency. To calculate the personal expenses, recourse can be had to the following instructions of Sarla Verma (supra) which were approved by the Constitutional Bench in Pranay Sethi(supra):
MACT No. 147/22 Page. 25 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors "30.Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362] , the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one- third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.
31.Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.
32.Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third."
49. As per financial statement given by PW-1 Smt. Naryan Devi, deceased is survived by his wife, three daughters and a son. Two daughters of the deceased are stated to be married. PW-1 in her MACT No. 147/22 Page. 26 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors cross examination admitted that the husband of married daughters are government servants. In these circumstances, the deceased is survived by three dependents. Accordingly, in view of the mandate of Sarla Verma (supra) the deductions towards personal and living expenses is considered as 1/3.
50. Thus, the net deduction in the present case is (Rs.38,521 + NIL = Rs. 38,521/- X 1/3 i.e. Rs. 12,840/-.
v. Monthly & Annual Loss of dependency:
51.The monthly loss of dependency would be Rs. 25,681/-. The annual loss of dependency Rs. 25,681/- X 12 = Rs. 3,08,172/-
vi. Total Loss of Dependency:
52.Since the deceased was more than 60 years old, the applicable multiplier in terms of the verdict of Sarla Verma(supra) is 07. The total loss of dependency is thus Rs.3,08,172 X 07 = Rs. 21,57,204/-.
vii. Other Heads:
53.In Sarla Verma (supra) it was also laid down that after calculating the 'Loss of Dependency', certain amounts were to be added under conventional heads such as loss of estate, loss of consortium etc. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are extracted hereunder:
"Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs 5000 to Rs 10,000 may be added as loss of estate. Where the deceased MACT No. 147/22 Page. 27 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of 5000 to 10,000 should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also be added."
54.The amount qua the above heads were further quantified in Pranay Sethi(supra), which clarified as thus:
"52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] . 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 [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 :
(2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] refers to Santosh Devi [Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 726 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 167] , 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 MACT No. 147/22 Page. 28 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors 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."
55.The above verdict was passed in the year 2017. Almost eight years have elapsed, and therefore the above heads would be enhanced at the rate of 20%.
viii. Medical Expenses:
56.No claim is made under this head.
ix. Compensation for Loss of Consortium:
57.The concept of consortium was expounded in Magnum General Insurance Co Ltd v Nanu Ram 2018 18 SCC 130 in the following words:
"21.A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses "spousal consortium", "parental consortium", and "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 : [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54.
21.1 Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, MACT No. 147/22 Page. 29 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation". [Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edn., 1979).] 21.2 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. 21.3 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, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.
22 .Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognised 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 therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the 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 children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count [ Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram v. Sohi Ram, 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 3848 : (2017) 4 RLW 3368; Uttarakhand High Court in Rita Rana v. Pradeep Kumar, 2013 SCC OnLine Utt 2435 : (2014) 3 UC 1687; Karnataka High Court in Lakshman v. Susheela Chand Choudhary, 1996 SCC OnLine Kar 74 : (1996) 3 Kant LJ 570] . However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium.
24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under "loss of consortium" as laid down in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 MACT No. 147/22 Page. 30 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] . In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial consortium."
58.The deceased is survived by his wife, 03 daughters and one son. Thus, on the basis of the above verdict and mandated in Pranay Sethi'(Supra), the compensation for Consortium is hereby quantified as Rs 48,400/- X 5 = Rs.2,42,000/-.
x. Compensation for Loss of Estate:
59.On the basis of the above verdict, the compensation for loss of estate is hereby quantified as Rs 18,150/-
xi. Compensation towards Funeral Expenses:
60.On the basis of the above verdict, the compensation of funeral expenses is hereby quantified as Rs 18,150/-.
xii. Total Compensation:
54. Thus, the total amount of compensation to be awarded is calculated as follows Sr. No. Head Amount
1. Total loss of dependency 21,57,204/-
2. Medical Expenses NIL
3. Compensation for Loss of 2,42,000/-
Consortium (48,400 X 5)
4. Compensation for Loss of Estate 18,150/-
5. Compensation towards Funeral 18,150/-
MACT No. 147/22 Page. 31 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors Expenses
6. Total Compensation Rs. 24,35,504/-
(c) Issue No.3: Relief. i. Amount of Award:
55.Thus, the claimant is awarded as sum of Rs.24,35,504/- along with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. The rate of interest has been calculated in terms of the succeeding paragraphs.
ii. Rate of Interest:
56.It was contended by Ld Counsel for the respondent insurance company that the amount of interest ought to at @7.5%, in accordance with the general prevalent practice in Courts. However, Ld Counsel for the claimant sought 9% as the rate of interest.
57.In order to adjudicate these rival claims, recourse can be had to Erudhaya Priya v State Transport Corporation 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601 wherein the aspect of rate of interest was categorically enunciated as thus:
(c) The third and the last aspect is the interest rate claimed as 12% "15.In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has watered down the interest rate during the course of hearing to 9% in view of the judicial pronouncements including in the Jagdish case (supra). On this aspect, once again, there was no serious dispute raised by the learned MACT No. 147/22 Page. 32 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors counsel for the respondent once the claim was confined to 9% in line with the interest rates applied by this Court"
58.Ergo, the amount of compensation/award amount will be payable by the respondent insurance company with simple interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual realisation. The date of filing of petition is 30.07.2022 therefore the amount of Interest is calculated at @ 9 % from the date of filing of petition i.e. Rs.8,03,716/- for a period of 44 months. Thus, the total amount of award is Rs.32,39,220/-.
59.It is also clarified that in case the interest of petitioner was stopped or excluded during the present inquiry proceedings, same is liable to be adjusted from the total interest calculated on the Award amount. Similarly, amount awarded and released as interim Award, if any, during pendency of the case, be deducted from the total compensation.
V. DEPOSIT OF AWARD& RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT i. Deposit of Award:
60.In terms of the mandate of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) the respondent Insurance Company/driver/owner shall deposit the award amount or transfer the same by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS directly to the bank account of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in UCO Bank, Patiala House Courts within 30 days of the award. The respondent(s) held liable to MACT No. 147/22 Page. 33 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors pay compensation by the Claims Tribunal shall give notice of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant(s) and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the deposit with the interest upto the date of notice of deposit to the claimant(s) with a copy to their counsel.
APPORTIONMENT & RELEASE
61.Smt. Narayan Devi has filed her evidence by way of affidavit and stated that deceased is survived by herself, three daughters and a son who were dependent upon the income of the deceased. Two daughters of the deceased i.e. Ms. Sangeeta and Ms. Anjali Pal are stated to be married and were not dependent upon the income of the deceased. Accordingly, the award amount be apportioned amongst the legal heirs as follows:-
Sl Name Relation
% of Release of awarded amount
share
1. Smt. Wife 80 % Rs.5,00,000/- out of the 60% share of wife be
Narayan released in her bank account immediately and
Devi remaining awarded amount be invested and
deposited in 60 monthly fixed deposits
receipts (FDR) of equal amounts for a period of 60 months as per Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposits Schemes.
2. Mr. Son 10 % 100 % of his share be released in his bank Abhishek account immediately.
3. Ms. Daughter 10% 100 % of her share be released in her bank Shweta account immediately.
MACT No. 147/22 Page. 34 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors
62. The Nodal officer of the bank shall ensure disbursement of the award within 3 weeks of receipt thereof by email or otherwise.
63.The disbursement to the claimant is, however, subject to the addition of future interest till deposit proportionately and also deduction of proportionate tax on the interest amount or amount of interim award, if any, to/from his share.
ii. Disbursement of the award amount & protection thereof:
64.The amount of award shall be disbursed through the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme formulated vide order dated 01.05.2018 passed in Rajesh Tyagi(supra). 21 banks, including UCO Bank, is implementing the MACAD scheme.
65.Further, to protect the award amount, the entire amount of compensation is not being released forthwith to the claimant, and part of the compensation amount has been directed to be kept in fixed deposits in a phased manner. Further, the following conditions are hereby reiterated and being imposed upon the concerned bank with respect to the fixed deposits:
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint names to be added in the savings bank account or MACAD scheme account of claimant i.e. the bank account of claimant shall be individual account and not a joint account.
(b) The original fixed deposits shall be retained by the UCO Bank, PHC, New Delhi in safe custody. However, the MACT No. 147/22 Page. 35 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors statement containing FDR numbers, amounts, dates of maturity and maturity amounts shall be furnished by the said bank to the claimant and the above amount shall be released in account of claimant by the Manager, UCO Bank, PHC, ND through RTGS/NEFT/or any other electronic mode.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of his residence.
(d) The maturity amount of the FDR(s) on monthly basis net of TDS be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the above account of the claimant.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the MACAD 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 card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the MACT No. 147/22 Page. 36 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause above.
VI. LIABILITY
66.All the respondents are jointly and severely liable to pay compensation. The offending vehicle was insured and the fact of the insurance is undisputed. The insurance company is liable to pay award amount to the petitioners. Respondent no.3 being insurer of offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in bank account being maintained in the above said bank in name of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal within 30 days from today, failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay. In case even after lapse of 90 days from today, respondent no. 2 fails to deposit this compensation with interest, in that event, in light of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal 2007 ACJ 688 , this MACT No. 147/22 Page. 37 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of respondent no. 2 with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.
61.The respondent no. 3 shall inform the petitioner and his counsel that the awarded amount has been deposited so as to facilitate him to collect the same.
VII. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN CASES OF DEATH
67.Since this is a case pertaining to death, particulars of Form-XV of the Scheme For Motor Accidents Claims Formulated by the Delhi High Court in terms of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) are as under:
1. Date of Accident 04.10.2021
2. Name of the deceased Sh. Parashuram Pal
3. Age of the deceased More than 60 years
4. Occupation of the deceased Private job
5. Income of the deceased Rs. 38,521/-
6. Name, Age and relationship of legal representatives of the deceased:
S.NO NAME AGE RELATION
1. Smt. Narayan Devi 58 Wife
2. Ms. Sageeta 34 Daughter
3. Ms. Anjali Pal 32 Daughter
MACT No. 147/22 Page. 38 of 43
Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors
4. Mr. Abhishek 30 Son
5. Ms. Shweta 23 Daughter COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION S.No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs. 38,521/-
8. Add: Future Prospects (B) NIL
9. Less: Personal expenses of the Rs. 12,840/-
deceased (C)
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs. 25,681/-
[(A+B)- C = D]
11. Annual Loss of dependency (D x Rs. 3,08,172/-
12) 12. Multiplier (E) 07
13. Total loss of dependency (D x 12 Rs. 21,57,204/-
x E = F)
14. Medical Expenses (G) NIL
15. Compensation for loss of Rs 2,42,000/-
consortium (H) 48,400 X 5
16. Compensation for loss of love & NA- in terms of New affection (I) India Assurance Co v Somwati (2020) 9 MACT No. 147/22 Page. 39 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors SCC 644
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs 18,150/-
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs 18,150/-
expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION (F + Rs.24,35,504/-
G + H + I + J + K = L)
20. Rate of Interest Awarded @9%
21. Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 8,03,716/-
award (M) (44 months)
22. Total amount including interest (L Rs. 32,39,220/-
+ M)
23. Award amount released As per para no. 61
24. Award kept in FDRs As per para no. 61
25. Mode of disbursement of the Through Bank award to the claimant(s)
26. Next date for compliance of the 18.05.2026 award VIII. COMPLIANCE QUA PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME
68.The particulars of Form XVII of the Scheme For Motor Accidents Claims Formulated by the Delhi High Court, in terms of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) are as hereunder:
MACT No. 147/22 Page. 40 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors
1. Date of the accident 04.10.2021
2. Date of filing of Form I- First Not filed as accident took place Accident Report (FAR) out of Delhi and claim petition is filed by legal heirs.
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the Same as above.
victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Same as above.
Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Same as above owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- Same as above Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Same as above Form VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII-Detailed Same as above Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or DAR not filed.
deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Not given Designated Officer by the Insurance Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of No the Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or No deficiencies on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
MACT No. 147/22 Page. 41 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors
13. Date of response of the Matter was contested by the petitioner(s) of the offer of the Insurance Company. Insurance Company.
14. Date of the Award 14.04.2026.
15. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which petitioner(s) 30.07.2022 were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the petitioner (s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17. Date on which the petitioner(s) Not furnished. Directions issued.
produced the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of As mentioned above the petitioner(s)
19. Whether the petitioner(s) savings bank account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes.
examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
MACT No. 147/22 Page. 42 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors
69.Further, in terms of the directions given vide order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra), the Ahlmad shall send a certified copy of this award to the concerned Criminal Court and to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority through e-mail. Copy of the award be also sent to the bank concerned. The Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given in the above case.
70.File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 18.05.2026.
Announced in the open court on 14.04.2026 (Abhilash Malhotra) Judge/PO, MACT-02, New Delhi/14.04.2026 corrected.....125 MACT No. 147/22 Page. 43 of 43 Smt. Narayan Devi & Ors. Vs Jagdish Jat & Ors