Delhi District Court
Nishi Sharma vs Shuaib on 13 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA
DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No.352/2020
FIR no. 352/20
PS: Sector 39, Noida
U/s 279/338/304A IPC
CNR No. DLSE01-
Nishi & Ors. Vs. Sahib & Ors.
1. Nishi Sharma (wife of deceased)
2. Vaishali Dadichi (daughter of deceased)
3. Mayank Dadichi (son of deceased)
4. Arnav Dadichi (minor son of deceased)
All R/o. B-53, Sector -12, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar
Pradesh.
...Claimants/LRs of deceased
Versus
1. Shuaib
R/o Vill. Ajrada, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh.
..... Driver cum Owner/ R-1
2. M/s Shriram Gen. Ins. Co. Ld.
2nd Floor, A-32, Lajpatnagar
Near Metro Station, New Delhi-110024.
............Insurance Company/R-2
MACT No.352/20 Nishi & Ors. Vs. Shuaib & Anr. Page No. 1 of 33
Date of accident : 22.06.2020
Date of filing of petition : 03.11.2020
Date of Decision : 13.05.2025
AWARD
"In a case of death, the legal heirs of the claimants cannot expect
a windfall.
Simultaneously, the compensation granted cannot be an apology
for compensation".
(As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of
National Insurance Company Limited. v Pranay Sethi And
Others (2017 SCC Online Sc 1270)
1. This Claim Petition under Section 166 M.V. Act was filed
on 03.11.2020 by Smt. Nishi Sharma, Ms. Vaishali Dadichi, Sh.
Mayank Dadichi and Master Arnav Daichi (hereinafter called the
claimants/ LRs of deceased) on account of fatal injury sustained
by Late Sh. Lalit Mohan Sharma (hereinafter referred as
deceased) in an accident which took place on 22.06.2020 due to
rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. UP 14FT 7510
(hereinafter referred as Offending Vehicle), driven & owned by
Sh. Shuaib (hereinafter called R-1) and insured with M/s Shriram
Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as R-3).
BRIEF FACTS AS ALLEGED IN THE PETITION:
2. On 22.06.2020 at about 09:00 AM, pedestrian Lalit Mohan
Sharma was hit by a Wagon R bearing Reg. no. UP 14FT 7510
near Expressway Mahamaya Flyover due to which he sustained
serious injuries and was later declared brought dead. It is stated
that he was 49 years of age at the time of accident, survived by
his wife and three children. It is also stated that he was employed
MACT No.352/20 Nishi & Ors. Vs. Shuaib & Anr. Page No. 2 of 33
as car painter and decorator with Havels India Limited with
monthly income of Rs. 87,459/- per month. An amount of Rs. 75
lakhs has been sought as compensation along with interest @
12% per annum.
Reply:
3. Both the respondents appeared in response to claim
petition and filed their replies.
4. While conceding the accident having taken place with the
offending vehicle, being driven carefully within speed limits, it is
contended by R-1 that the accident took place on account of
negligence of deceased himself.
5. In Written Statement/Response filed on behalf of
R-3/insurance company, the negligence of the deceased has been
contended to be the reason for the accident as deceased was
allegedly standing/ walking carelessly on the expressway which
is not designated for the said purpose. Identification of offending
vehicle has also been questioned as the FIR was registered
against an unknown vehicle while admitting the genuineness of
the insurance policy of the said offending vehicle. Apart from
above, other general defences were taken.
Issues:
6. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were
framed vide order dated 06.09.2021:
1) Whether the deceased suffered fatal injury in
a road traffic accident on 22.06.2020 due to
rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. UP
14FT 7510 being driven by R-1, owned by R-2
& insured with R-3 ? OPP.
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any
MACT No.352/20 Nishi & Ors. Vs. Shuaib & Anr. Page No. 3 of 33
compensation, if so, to what extent and from
whom ? OPP.
3) Relief.
Evidence:
7. Matter was then listed for evidence. Wife of deceased Smt.
Nishi Sharma stepped in the witness box as PW1 and tendered
her examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. She
relied upon following documents:
(i) Ex.PW1/1- Certified copy of criminal case records.
(ii) Ex.PW1/2- Copy of Aadhar Cards / Pan Cards of claimants
(colly)
(iii) Ex.PW1/3- Copy of Aadhar Card and Pan Card of deceased.
(iv) Ex.PW1/3- Copy of Educational documents of deceased
(v) Ex.PW1/4- Salary Certificate of deceased.
(vi) Ex.PW1/5- Copy of employee ID Card of deceased.
(vii) Ex.PW1/6- Copy of Graduation Certificate of deceased.
She was cross examined by counsel for insurance
company.
8. PW-2 Sh. Pawan Chaudhary tendered his evidentiary
affidavit as Ex.PW2/A. He was cross examined by counsel for
Insurance Company.
9. PW-3 Sh. Vikas Gaur was examined as summoned witness
who produced the Salary Slip Record of deceased for the period
w.e.f. 01.03.2020 to 30.06.2020 (Ex.PW3/1), copy of
Appointment Letter of deceased as Ex.PW3/2 and copy of Cost
to Company (CTC) Sheet as Ex.PW3/3. He was also cross
examined on behalf fo counsel for insurance company.
10. No other evidence was led on behalf of claimants.
MACT No.352/20 Nishi & Ors. Vs. Shuaib & Anr. Page No. 4 of 33
Petitioners Evidence was thus closed. Any evidence has not been
led on behalf of R-1 & 2.
11. Insurance Company examined Sh. Amit Sharma,
Investigator of this case as R3W1 who tendered his evidentiary
affidavit as Ex.R3W1/A. He relied upon a communication to
investigate the case as Ex.R3W1/1 and Investigation Report as
Ex.R3W1/2. He was cross examined on behalf of counsel for
claimant.
12. Respondent Evidence was accordingly closed. Matter was
then listed for Final Arguments.
Final Arguments:
13. Final Arguments were advanced by counsel for claimant as
well as counsel for R-2/ Insurance Company. Counsel for the
claimant argued that the eye witness has proved that the
offending vehicle was being driven speedily and rashly which
had hit the victim while he was standing near the Expressway
causing fatal injuries contending that non mention of his name in
charge sheet would not relegate him as unreliable. She also stated
that the official from the employer also appeared to furnish the
employment record including the salary details of deceased. She
contended that benefits received on behalf of Personal or Group
Insurance Policy are not to be deducted against MACT claim.
She has filed following judgments in support of her contention:
(a) Ranjeet & Ors. Vs. Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr. SLP ©
No.10351/2019
(b) Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. SMT
Deepika Talwar & Ors. 2025 DHC 419.
14. Detailed Written Arguments were filed by counsel for
Insurance Company. Ld. Counsel for insurance company argued
MACT No.352/20 Nishi & Ors. Vs. Shuaib & Anr. Page No. 5 of 33
that the accident is attributed to the negligence of the deceased
himself as evident from the conjoint reading of the evidence led
in the matter. Counsel for insurance company has specifically
contended that the identification of the offending vehicle is itself
doubtful as the FIR was lodged against an unknown vehicle that
too after a considerable delay as also evident from the
Investigator's Report filed on behalf of insurance company. He
has also argued that eye-witness was never present at the spot
and has been planted in order to extract compensation illegally. It
has also been argued that there is no CCTV Footage on record
showing the accident in question nor there is anything on record
that any effort was made to examine or collect the CCTV
footage. It was further argued that no photograph of the accident
has been placed on record by the claimant. It was vehemently
argued that deceased had died in Hit and Run Accident and not
by involvement of offending vehicle. It was also argued that no
Call Detail Records (CDRs) of the claimant or other family
members have been collected or placed on record to confirm the
sequence /presence of claimant at the spot of accident.
Discussion:
ISSUE NO.1
1) Whether the deceased suffered fatal injury in
a road traffic accident on 22.06.2020 due to
rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. UP
14FT 7510 being driven by R-1, owned by R-2
& insured with R-3 ? OPP.
15. At the offset, there is no denial by any of contesting sides
that road traffic accident caused death of Sh. Lalit Mohan
Sharma on 22.06.2020 at about 9 AM. There are three basic
pillars of discussion involved to determine the issue. One is
MACT No.352/20 Nishi & Ors. Vs. Shuaib & Anr. Page No. 6 of 33
death of victim on account of road traffic accident; two, the
identification and involvement of offending vehicle; and, third,
whether accident was caused due to rash or negligent driving on
the part of driver of offending vehicle.
16. PW-2 Pawan Chaudhary appeared as an eye witness who
deposed that he had witnessed Sh. Lalit Mohan Sharma, standing
at the edge of Expressway, Mahamaya Flyover, having been hit
by speedily and rashly driven offending vehicle, being a fruit
vendor besides the road. He was put to detailed cross
examination by counsel for insurance company. He stated that
his family runs a fruit stall allotted in the name of his mother by
Noida Authority in August 2021 in Sector 34 Noida which is
being run by him and his brother jointly. He also responded that
he was a college student back in the year 2020 but due to Corona,
there were no studies and he was simply promoted to the next
year. He stated that he never visited the police station and never
revealed regarding the accident or the vehicle number. He was
unable to clarify as to whether any other fruit vendor was also
there at the time of accident. He declined the suggestion he did
not see the accident. He admitted that he did not make any call
from his number to police in regard to the accident. He declined
the suggestion that the vehicle number has been told to him by
claimant so as to get the compensation.
17. Case record perused. It is correct that there is no mention
of the name of this witness in the list of witnesses filed along
with charge sheet. It is also noted that FIR was lodged against an
unknown vehicle on 24.06.2020 while accident reportedly
happened on 22.06.2020 at about 09.00 AM. MLC of JP Hospital
has been filed on record which mentions the date and time of
MACT No.352/20 Nishi & Ors. Vs. Shuaib & Anr. Page No. 7 of 33
accident on 22.06.2020 at 09.25 AM. Further, Certified copy of
Post Examination Report of the District Medical Officer of the
Mortuary is on record which mentions that the Post Mortem
Examination was done on 23.06.2020 at 02.20 PM while the
Time Since Death (TSD) has been mentioned to be two-third
day. It also mentions that the police papers were handed over the
concerned police person. Apart from that, certified copy of
Panchnama is also dated 23.06.2020 wherein the body was
identified and police official was deputed for getting the post
mortem conducted. As mentioned in the FIR, registered on the
statement of brother of deceased Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, the time of
accident has been mentioned to be about 09.00 AM on
22.06.2020 while he was declared dead by doctors at about 11.00
PM on the same day. The MLC of JP Hospital also mentions the
name of brother of deceased as Sanjeev Kumar.
18. Investigator Report Ex.R3W1/2 puts the factum of
accident in doubt on account of delay in FIR, however as already
mentioned above, there appears no unexplained delay in
registration of the FIR. Further, it is evident that the factum of
accident was very much in cognizance of the concerned police
officials but they chose not to register the FIR without a formal
complaint in place by relative of the deceased. Further, it is
settled that the genuineness of the contents of FIR are more
important than the promptness itself. It is also settled that a
person or family member is not expected to rush to the police
station for registration of a formal document at the cost of life
saving precarious moments of their loved ones. Further, there is
no reason as to what stopped the insurance company to summon
the hospital records when it contended that the MLC report of the
MACT No.352/20 Nishi & Ors. Vs. Shuaib & Anr. Page No. 8 of 33
deceased was never prepared as relied by the claimants.
19. The Investigator Report (ExR3W1/2) also mentions about
the statement of eye witness Mahesh who purportedly allegedly
informed about the registration number of the offending vehicle
to the brother of deceased, but any such statement has not been
filed on record by any of the contesting sides, however, it implies
that the offending vehicle was charge sheeted on the basis of
statement of eye witness Mahesh who however was not produced
as a witness by the claimant. The Investigator Report Ex.R3W1/2
also claims that there is no record / GD Entry of any accident
having occurred on the date of accident in the concerned police
station. However, it is clear from the record that the information
was formally received in the police station only after death of
deceased late night on the date of accident to initiate the request
for identification, release and post mortem examination of the
body. The post mortem examination as well as the MLC clearly
notes about the factum of accident and the death caused on
account of those injuries. The reliance upon the media report as
part of Investigator's Report is not sufficient to create any doubt
on the affirmations made on oath in the matter and therefore,
cannot be the basis to doubt the case of the claimant.
20. There is no denial on the part of Respondent no.1 that his
was not involved in the accident or that he was not driving the
vehicle at the time of accident. R-1 has admitted in WS that the
accident happened, however, he was not responsible for the same
as deceased himself was negligently standing on the expressway
thereby invited the trouble without any fault on his part. No
evidence has been adduced on behalf of R-1 that the accident did
not happen because of the involvement of offending vehicle or
MACT No.352/20 Nishi & Ors. Vs. Shuaib & Anr. Page No. 9 of 33
that he was driving the vehicle within speed limits, on correct
side of the road and exercised complete control over the vehicle.
PW-2 Pawan Kumar Gupta has testified having witnessed the
accident due to speedy and rash driving of the offending vehicle.
He was cross examined at length to create doubt on his presence
at the spot, however, there is virtually no cross examination on
the factual matrix of the accident. There is nothing on record to
show that witness was in any way related to the family of the
injured and therefore, had any interest or motivation in
implicating the offending vehicle for getting the claim. As per the
site plan, filed as part of the certified copy of charge sheet, the
spot of accident has been shown to be towards extreme side of
the road just abutting the footpath. Investigation Report/Charge-
sheet conclusively indicates that the driver of the offending
vehicle acted rashly, leading to the accident. Thus, it can be
inferred that the offending vehicle was being driven speedily,
recklessly due to which it ended up hitting the deceased standing
by the side of the road.
21. Another contention raised by counsel for insurance company
is about the accident having happened on account of negligence
on the part of deceased himself. The factors relevant to adjudicate
upon this contention have already been discussed in the
preceding paragraphs. The position of the deceased, at the time of
accident, as reflected in charge sheet is an important parameter in
the context. There is no direct evidence on the part of R-1 who
could have been the best person to divulge about the factual
matrix of the accident and the details from the perspective of a
driver which could have been instrumental in effective
adjudication of the contention, however, at this stage there is
MACT No.352/20 Nishi & Ors. Vs. Shuaib & Anr. Page No. 10 of 33
nothing on record to conclude that there was any action or
inaction on the part of deceased who was standing right next to
the footpath on a wide expressway to have averted the accident.
This aspect has also been put to the eye witness of the accident.
Another person Mahesh, whose statement has been made a basis
in the investigator report to doubt the involvement of the
offending vehicle has also not been produced in the witness box
by the insurance company. Accordingly, the arguments of the
behalf of insurance company to attribute negligence upon the
deceased in causing the accident or contributing towards the
accident are rejected.
22. The contention in respect of absence of CCTV coverage or
non service of the notice u/s 133 MV Act or CDRs or not
obtaining the call detail record of the petitioner or the family
member were also raised by counsel for the insurance company,
however, these aspects were within the active domain and control
of the investigating officer and not of the family members of
deceased. The investigating officer has not been summoned by
the insurance company to seek explanation or clarification in
respect of the above contentions. There is no independent
evidence to show that the spot of accident were duly covered
with the CCTVs and the footage was intentionally or deliberately
not obtained or not filed as part of the criminal case record or the
petition herein.
23. It is well settled that the proceedings before the Claims
Tribunal are in the nature of inquiry and the finding of rash and
negligent driving by driver of the offending vehicle is to be
returned only at the touch stone of preponderance of
probabilities. {support drawn from the cases of Bimla Devi &
MACT No.352/20 Nishi & Ors. Vs. Shuaib & Anr. Page No. 11 of 33
Ors. Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors, (2009) 13
SC 530, Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India
Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, and from the
case of National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pushpa Rana cited as
2009 ACJ 287}.
24. Recently, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal arising
out of SLP© No. 10351/2019 titled Ranjeet & Anr. Vs. Abdul
Kayam Neb & Anr. Decided on 25.02.2025, has observed as
under :
"4. 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."
25. In view of above settled law and on the basis of discussion
made above, it is held that claimant has been able to prove that
accident occurred due to speedy and rash driving of offending
vehicle unmindful of anticipated consequences causing death of
victim. Issue No. 1 is hereby decided in favor of the petitioners
and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO.2
"Whether the petitioners are entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from
whom ? OPP."
26. Section 168 MV Act enjoins the Claim Tribunals to hold
an enquiry into the claim to make an effort determining the
amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and
reasonable. Same is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
MACT No.352/20 Nishi & Ors. Vs. Shuaib & Anr. Page No. 12 of 33
(1) Award of the Claims Tribunal.--On receipt of
an application for compensation made under
section 166, the Claims Tribunal shall, after
giving notice of the application to the insurer and
after giving the parties (including the insurer) an
opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into
the claim or, as the case may be, each of the
claims and, subject to the provisions of section
162 may make an award determining the amount
of compensation which appears to it to be just and
specifying the person or persons to whom
compensation shall be paid and in making the
award the Claims Tribunal shall specify the
amount which shall be paid by the insurer or
owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the
accident or by all or any of them, as the case may
be: Provided that where such application makes a
claim for compensation under section 140 in
respect of the death or permanent disablement of
any person, such claim and any other claim
(whether made in such application or otherwise)
for compensation in respect of such death or
permanent disablement shall be disposed of in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter X.
(2) The Claims Tribunal shall arrange to deliver
copies of the award to the parties concerned
expeditiously and in any case within a period of
fifteen days from the date of the award.
(3) When an award is made under this section, the
person who is required to pay any amount in
terms of such award shall, within thirty days of
the date of announcing the award by the Claims
Tribunal, deposit the entire amount awarded in
such manner as the Claims Tribunal may direct.
27. Before putting in frame the position of law, it is noted that
the process of determining the compensation by the court is
essentially a very difficult task and can never be an exact science.
Perfect compensation is hardly possible, more so in claims of
injury and disability. (As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Sidram Vs. The Divisional Manager United
MACT No.352/20 Nishi & Ors. Vs. Shuaib & Anr. Page No. 13 of 33
India Insurance Company Ltd, SLP (Civil) No. 19277 of 2019).
28. The basic principle in assessing motor vehicle
compensation claims, is to place the victim in as near a position
as she or he was in before the accident, with other compensatory
directions for loss of amenities and other payments. These
general principles have been stated and reiterated in several
decisions. [Support drawn from Govind Yadav v. New India
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683.]
29. This Tribunal has been tasked with determination of just
compensation. The observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty and
Another, (2003) 7 SCC 197, needs mention here (para 15):
"Statutory provisions clearly indicate that
the compensation must be "just" and it
cannot be a bonanza; not a source of
profit but the same should not be a
pittance. The courts and tribunals have a
duty to weigh the various factors and
quantify the amount of compensation,
which should be just. What would be
"just" compensation is a vexed question.
There can be no golden rule applicable to
all cases for measuring the value of
human life or a limb. Measure of
damages cannot be arrived at by precise
mathematical calculations. It would
depend upon the particular facts and
circumstances, and attending peculiar or
special features, if any. Every method or
mode adopted for assessing compensation
has to be considered in the background of
"just" compensation which is the pivotal
consideration. Though by use of the
expression "which appears to it to be
just", a wide discretion is vested in the
Tribunal, the determination has to be
MACT No.352/20 Nishi & Ors. Vs. Shuaib & Anr. Page No. 14 of 33
rational, to be done by a judicious
approach and not the outcome of whims,
wild guesses and arbitrariness.. ..."
30. Delineating the damages as pecuniary and non pecuniary,
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case of R. D. Hattangadi Vs.
Pest Control (India) Pvt Ltd, 1995 AIR 755, made following
observations:
"9....while fixing an amount of compensation
payable to a victim of an accident, the damages
have to be assessed separately as pecuniary
damages and special damages. Pecuniary
damages are those which the victim has actually
incurred and which are capable of being
calculated in terms of money; whereas non-
pecuniary damages are those which are incapable
of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In
order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary
damages may include expenses incurred by the
claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of
earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other
material loss. So far non- pecuniary damages are
concerned, they may include (i) damages for
mental and physical shock, pain and suffering,
already suffered or likely to be suffered in future;
(ii) damages to compensate for the loss of
amenities of life which may include a variety of
matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may
not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for
the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of
injury the normal longevity of the person
concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience,
hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration
and mental stress in life."
31. In The Landmark Case of National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi And Others (2017 SCC Online SC
1270), decided by constitutional bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India, regarding the concept of 'just compensation' it was
MACT No.352/20 Nishi & Ors. Vs. Shuaib & Anr. Page No. 15 of 33
held :
"................55. Section 168 of the Act deals with
the concept of "just compensation" and the same
has to be determined on the foundation of
fairness, reasonableness and equitability on
acceptable legal standard because such
determination can never be in arithmetical
exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is to
achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to
arithmetical precision on the basis of materials
brought on record in an individual case. The
conception of "just compensation" has to be
viewed through the prism of fairness,
reasonableness and non-violation of the principle
of equitability. In a case of death, the legal heirs
of the claimants cannot expect a windfall.
Simultaneously, the compensation granted cannot
be an apology for compensation. It cannot be a
pittance. Though the discretion vested in the
tribunal is quite wide, yet it is obligatory on the
part of the tribunal to be guided by the
expression, that is, "just compensation". The
determination has to be on the foundation of
evidence brought on record as regards the age
and income of the deceased and thereafter the
apposite multiplier to be applied. The formula
relating to multiplier has been clearly stated in
Sarla Verma and it has been approved in Reshma
Kumari . The age and income, as stated earlier,
have to be established by adducing evidence. The
tribunal and the courts have to bear in mind that
the basic principle lies in pragmatic computation
which is in proximity to reality. It is a well-
accepted norm that money cannot substitute a life
lost but an effort has to be made for grant of just
compensation having uniformity of approach.
There has to be a balance between the two
extremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance, a
bonanza and the modicum. In such an
adjudication, the duty of the tribunal and the
courts is difficult and hence, an endeavour has
MACT No.352/20 Nishi & Ors. Vs. Shuaib & Anr. Page No. 16 of 33
been made by this Court for standardisation
which in its ambit includes addition of future
prospects on the proven income at
present..................."
32. Further about the principles relating to Assessment of
compensation in case of death, it was held in Pranay Sethi (supra)
that detailed analysis of Sarla Verma (SMT) And Others Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation And Another (2009 Scc Online Sc
797) is necessary as in the said case, the Court recapitulated the
relevant principles relating to assessment of compensation in case
of death. In fact , Hon'ble SC in Pranay Sethi (supra) mainly
relied and approved the earlier judgment of Sarla Verma( Supra)
read with Reshma Kumari[( 2013) 9 SCC 65 : (2013) 4 SCC
(Civ) 191 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 826 ], with some modification,
regarding all the aspects like aspect of multiplier, the steps and
guidelines stated in para 19 of Sarla Verma for determination of
compensation in cases of death, future prospects, deduction to be
made towards personal and living expenses.
33. PW-3 Vikash Gaur appeared upon authorisation of Director
of Havells India Limited and produced details of the settlement
amount as Ex.PW3/5 along with the salary details. He produced
the Appointment Letter dated 15.05.2006 of Mr. Lalit Mohan
Sharma with Havells India Limited along with salary slips of
March to June 2020, as Ex.PW3/1 (colly) and the detailed
breakup of salary as on 22.06.2020 as Ex.PW3/3 as per which his
monthly salary as on the date of accident was Rs. 87,459/-. Apart
from this, salary included various other benefits as Rs. 4,820/- for
Provident Fund, Rs. 4,200/- for Bonus, Rs. 1,928/- for Gratuity,
and additional company contributions such as Rs. 1,100/- for
Mediclaim Insurance and Rs. 900/- for meals. The total Cost to
MACT No.352/20 Nishi & Ors. Vs. Shuaib & Anr. Page No. 17 of 33
Company (CTC) as on 22.06.2020 amounted to Rs. 1,00,407/- as
per the document Ex.PW3/3 which shall be used to form further
computation in this case. Salary slips for the month March to
June 2020 has been placed on record. The total earnings in the
month of March 2020 as reflected in the salary slip is 86,048/-
whereas for the month of April and May with the change in basic
salary, it increased to Rs.87,459/- and in June 2020, the employee
died and therefore, the salary for working days was paid. The
salary slips do not reflect the benefits extended by the company
towards the employee on monthly basis and the costs incurred by
the company for the benefit of the employee on monthly basis.
However, as testified by PW-3 Sh. Vikash Gaur, the benefits
extended towards Provident Fund, Bonus and Gratuity have
already been settled and paid by the company to the wife of
deceased. Similarly, the claim against Group Term Insurance was
settled with the wife of deceased. The benefit towards meal can
be taken to be a personal benefit / consumption and cannot be
extended to the family members. Therefore, the income / salary
of deceased as on the date of accident is taken to be Rs. 87,459/-
which included all the fixed components/ allowances for the
benefit of the employee and family members. (reliance placed
upon the case of Sunil Sharma & Ors. v. Bachitar Singh & Ors.,
(2011) 11 SCC 425 wherein it is held that the fixed allowance
meant for the benefit of deceased as well as the family members
ought be considered as part of the monthly income as basis to
determine compensation).
33(a). At this stage, it would be relevant to discuss the
contentions raised by counsel for insurance company that
substantial benefits against death of deceased have already been
MACT No.352/20 Nishi & Ors. Vs. Shuaib & Anr. Page No. 18 of 33
released to the wife of deceased and therefore, no compensation
is meant to be awarded against death of victim. The amount paid
to wife of deceased against the Gratuity or the Group Term Life
Insurance or the Employee Deposit Link Insurance were paid
against the service conditions and service benefits and would
have been payable in case of death of employee by any other
means as well and therefore, cannot be treated to be
compensation against accidental death of the victim. (Reliance
placed upon National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Mannat Johal
on 23 April, 2019).
33(b). As far as Group Personal Accident Claim is concerned,
same was paid against Group Insurance availed for the benefit in
case of accidental death of employee for which he must have
paid the premium for necessary coverage and cannot be taken to
be a replacement of the statutory liability of the Insurance
Company to pay against the death of victim on account of rash
and negligent driving of offending vehicle. Reliance placed upon
observations made by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in MAC
APP.244/2021 Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company
Ltd. vs. Smt. Deepika Talwar & Ors.
33(c) The annual income is thus calculated to be (Rs.87,459×12)
Rs.10,49,508/-.
33(d). Income Tax is deducted as per the Tax Slab for the
Assessment Year 2020-2021 as follows:
Upto 2,50,000/- Nil.
Rs. 2,50,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/- (5%) Rs. 12,500/-
Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 10,00,000/- (20%) Rs.1,00,000/-
MACT No.352/20 Nishi & Ors. Vs. Shuaib & Anr. Page No. 19 of 33
Above Rs.10,00,000/- (30%) Rs.14,852/-
-------------------------
Total Tax- Rs.1,27,352/- 33 (e). Thus the total annual income (after deducting
Income Tax) would be Rs.9,22,156/- (Rs.1049508/- {-} Rs.1,27,352/-).
34. As per Aadhar Card (Mark A), date of birth of deceased was 12.10.1970 and as such he was about 49 years & 8 months of age at the time of accident. As deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years (at the time of accident) and had a permanent job and thus, having regard to ratio and direction in Pranay Sethi (Supra) and other case laws, the percentage towards future prospect is taken to be @ 30 % upon application of category of ''permanent job''.
Step No- 1 : Ascertainment of Multiplicand:
35. Further, as per evidence on record, deceased left behind his wife, one unmarried daughter and two sons. It is asserted that his daughter is a Graduate and pursuing language course whereas elder son is pursuing graduation and the youngest one is in 11 th standard. There is nothing on record to infer that any of them was employed or not dependent upon the income of their father as on the date of accident. There is thus no dispute with respect to dependency of wife, and children. It is held in Sarla Verma (Supra) that deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 1/4th where number of legal heirs are 4 to
6. As such, deduction toward personal expenses of deceased is MACT No.352/20 Nishi & Ors. Vs. Shuaib & Anr. Page No. 20 of 33 taken as one-fourth.
Step No- -2 : Ascertainment of Multiplier:
36. Age of the deceased was about 49 years as per Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/3. In para 42 of National Insurance Company Ltd.
vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., the Constitution Bench effectively affirmed the multiplier method to be used as mentioned in the table in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), in which multiplier of 13 was applied in the age group of 46 to 50 year. Accordingly, since age of claimant was 49 years as on the date of accident, multiplier of 13 is taken.
Step No- -3 : Actual Calculation ( actual loss/loss of dependency):
37. In view of the above discussion of law, the calculation in the present case is as under:
37.1. Annual income of the deceased. ( Rs.9,22,156/-) = Rs.9,22,156/- 37.2. Future prospect (30 % of Rs.9,22,156/-) = Rs.2,76,647/-
------------------
37.3. Total = Rs.11,98,803/-
=========== 37.4. Deduction for personal expenses (1/4 of Rs.11,98,803/-) = (-)Rs.2,99,701/-
37.5. Multiplicand (Rs.11,98,803/- (-) Rs.2,99,701/-) = Rs.8,99,102/- 37.6. As such, the total loss of dependency is:
MACT No.352/20 Nishi & Ors. Vs. Shuaib & Anr. Page No. 21 of 33 Rs.8,99,102/- (multiplicand) x 13 (multiplier) = Rs.1,16,88,326/-
Grant of Loss of Estate, Loss Of Consortium And Funeral Expenses:
38. In this regard in Pranay Sethi (supra) it was held :
''...............46. Another aspect which has created confusion pertains to grant of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses..... .
.
52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh . It has granted Rs 25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi , it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation.
There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses MACT No.352/20 Nishi & Ors. Vs. Shuaib & Anr. Page No. 22 of 33 should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads.
.
.
59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years...............''
39. Thus in view of such finding in Pranay Sethi (Supra), in Which Hon'ble Supreme Court wanted to avoid immense variations and instead ensure consistency, the claimants are also entitled to certain sums towards grant of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
40. In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under:
"This Court interpreted "consortium" to be a compendious term, which encompasses spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse.
Parental consortium is granted to the child upon MACT No.352/20 Nishi & Ors. Vs. Shuaib & Anr. Page No. 23 of 33 the premature death of a parent, for loss of parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training.
Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love and affection, and their role in the family unit.
Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognized that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is the compensation for loss of love and affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims, or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium.
Parental Consortium is awarded to the children who lose the care and protection of their parents in motor vehicle accidents.
The amount to be awarded for loss consortium will be as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra).
At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide uniformity with respect to the grant of MACT No.352/20 Nishi & Ors. Vs. Shuaib & Anr. Page No. 24 of 33 consortium, and loss of love and affection. Several Tribunals and High Courts have been awarding compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), has recognized only three conventional heads under which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in loss of consortium.
The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to award compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate conventional head. There is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head."
41. It may further be noted that the date of judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) is 31/10/2017. Further it was stated in such judgment itself that the amount that Hon'ble SC 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. As such a sum of Rs.18,150/- for cremation expenses; and Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate is also payable.
42. Further, on the date of accident, deceased had left behind, his wife, and three children. As such in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as noted above, all of them would further be entitled to Rs. 48,400/- each towards loss of consortium.
Total Award Amount
43. Thus the amount comes to Rs.1,16,88,326/- (+) Rs 18,150/-(Loss to estate) + Rs. 18,150/-( funeral expenses) + Rs.
MACT No.352/20 Nishi & Ors. Vs. Shuaib & Anr. Page No. 25 of 33 1,93,600/- ( loss of consortium) = Rs.1,19,18,226/- Interest :
44. In the case of Ram Charan & Ors. Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., MAC Appeal no. 433/2013, decided on 18.10.2022, The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed that particular interest rate cannot be made to be universally applicable. Relevant extracts are reproduced as under :
"25 to evaluate the submission made by counsel for the applicants, it is imperative to examine the guiding principles for the grant of interest. In Abati Bezbaruah Vs. Geological Survey of India, (2003) 3 SCC 148, the following was held while interpreting section 171 of the MV Act, 1988:-
Three decisions were cited before us by Mr. A. P. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, in support of his contentions. No ratio has been laid down in any of the decisions in regard to the rate of interest and the rate of interest was awarded on the amount of compensation as a matter of judicial discretion. The rate of interest must be just and reasonable depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and taking all relevant factors including inflation, change of economy, policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from time to time, how long the case is pending, permanent injuries suffered by the victim, enormity of suffering, loss of future income, loss of enjoyment of life etc. into consideration. No rate of interest is fixed under Section 171 of the MV Act 1988. Varying rates of interest are being awarded by Tribunals, High Courts and the Supreme Court. Interest can be granted even if a claimant does not specifically plead for the same as it is consequential in the eye of the law. MACT No.352/20 Nishi & Ors. Vs. Shuaib & Anr. Page No. 26 of 33 Interest is compensation for forbearance or detention of money and that interest being awarded to a party only for being kept out of the money which ought to have been paid to him. No principle could be deduced nor can any rate of interest be fixed to have a general application in motor accident provision under Section 171 giving discretion to the Tribunal in such matter. In other matters, awarding of interest depends upon the statutory provisions mercantile usage and doctrine of equity. Neither Sec. 34 CPC nor Sec. 4-A(3) of Workmen's Compensation Act are applicable in the matter of fixing are of interest in a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. The courts have awarded the interest at different rates depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, in my opinion, there cannot be any hard and fast rule in awarding interest and the award of interest is solely on the discretion of the Tribunal or the High Court as indicated above."
45. Claimant sought interest @ 12% per annum. In a Three Judges Bench in the case of Erudhaya Priya vs State Express Transport decided on 27 July, 2020, Civil Appeal Nos. 2811- 2812 OF 2020 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.8495-8496 of 2018] , wherein claimant sought interest @ 12%, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India relied upon case of Jagdish vs. Mohan AIR 2018 SC 1347, and held that interest @ 9% is deemed fit. Accordingly, interest @ 9% is being granted in the present case.
Liability:-
46. Insurance Company has conceded valid and effective Insurance Policy on the date of accident and has not raised any MACT No.352/20 Nishi & Ors. Vs. Shuaib & Anr. Page No. 27 of 33 statutory defence. It has already been held that accident occurred on account of speedy and rash driving of offending vehicle. It is settled that Insurance Company is responsible to indemnify owner / insured for vicarious liability incurred by tort feaser. Therefore, such principal award amount/compensation will be payable by the insurance company of offending vehicle with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition till actual realization. (If there is any order regarding excluding of interest for specific period same be complied at the time of calculation of award amount).
47. The award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT FUND PARKING, A/c No. 00000042706870765, IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir along with calculation of interest and to the Counsel for the petitioner. Insurance company shall also furnish TDS certificate, if any to the petitioner.
Release of Award Amount/ Disbursement
(a) Share of wife of deceased: Out of total Award amount Rs.84,18,226/- along with proportionate (to the principle amount) up to date interest awarded to wife of deceased out of which Rs.74 lakhs is kept in form of monthly FDR of Rs.50,000/-. Remaining amount of Rs. 10,18,226/- along with proportionate up to date interest shall be released in her bank account near her place of residence.
MACT No.352/20 Nishi & Ors. Vs. Shuaib & Anr. Page No. 28 of 33
(b) Share of daughter of deceased / Ms. Vaishali Dadichi and son Mayank Dadichi: Out of total Award amount, Rs. 10,00,000/- each along with proportionate (to the principle amount) up to date interest awarded to daughter Vaishali Dadichi and Sh. Mayank Dadichi, which amount be kept in FDRs till they attain the age of majority, if they have already attained the age of majority, entire amount along with proportionate up to date interest shall be released in their bank accounts near their place of residence.
(c) Share of minor son of deceased / Arnav Dadichi: Out of total Award amount, Rs. 15,00,000/- along with proportionate (to the principle amount) up to date interest awarded to minor son of deceased and whole amount is kept in form of FD till he attains the age of majority.
48. Directions to bank:
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name (s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of victim i.e. the savings bank account of the claimant shall be individual savings bank account and not a joint account.
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR (s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court. MACT No.352/20 Nishi & Ors. Vs. Shuaib & Anr. Page No. 29 of 33
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/ or debit card to claimant (s). However, in case the debit card and/ or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit freeze the account of the claimant so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque book and / or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1. Date of accident 22.06.2020
2. Name of deceased Late Sh. Lalit Mohan Sharma
3. Age of the deceased 49 years
4. Occupation of the deceased Permanent job
5. Income of the deceased Rs.9,22,156/- per annum Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:
S No. Name Relation
(i) Nishi Wife
(ii) Vaishali Dadichi daughter
(iii) Mayank Dadichi Son
(iv) Arnav Dadichi Minor Son
MACT No.352/20 Nishi & Ors. Vs. Shuaib & Anr. Page No. 30 of 33
Computation of compensation:-
S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
1 A. Income of the deceased per year Rs.9,22,156/-
2 B. Add-Future Prospects 30% of A (per Rs. 2,76,647/-
year)
3 C. Total Rs.11,98,803/-
4 D. Less-Personal Expenses of the deceased Rs.2,99,701/-
¼ of (C)
5 E. Yearly loss of dependency [C -D] Rs.8,99,102/-
6 F. Multiplier. 13
7 G. Total loss of dependency (E x F = G) Rs.1,16,88,326/-
8 H. Medical Expenses Nil
9 I. Compensation for loss of consortium Rs.1,93,600/-
10 J. Compensation for loss of estate Rs. 18,150/-
11 K. Compensation towards funeral expenses Rs. 18,150/-
12 M. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.1,19,18,226/-
total of G+H+I+J+K =L
13 Deduction if any Nil
14 Total amount after deduction: Rs.1,19,18,226/-
13 O. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED: @ 9% per annum
14 Award amount kept in FDRs Rs. 1,09,00,000/-
15 Award amount released Remaining principal
award of Rs. 10,18,226/-
PLUS interest @ 9% p.a.
on total principal award
amount from date of
filing petition till actual
realization of principal
amount awarded.
16 Mode of disbursement of the award amount Share of wife of
to the claimant (s). (Clause 29) deceased: Out of total
Award amount
Rs.84,18,226/- along with
proportionate (to the
MACT No.352/20 Nishi & Ors. Vs. Shuaib & Anr. Page No. 31 of 33
principle amount) up to
date interest awarded to
wife of deceased out of
which Rs.74 lakhs is kept
in form of monthly FDR
of Rs.50,000/-.
Remaining amount of Rs.
10,18,226/- along with
proportionate up to date
interest shall be released
in her bank account near
her place of residence.
(b) Share of daughter
of deceased / Ms. Vaishali
Dadichi and son Mayank
Dadichi: Out of total
Award amount, Rs.
10,00,000/- each along
with proportionate (to the
principle amount) up to
date interest awarded to
daughter Vaishali Dadichi
and Sh. Mayank Dadichi,
which amount be kept in
FDRs till they attain the
age of majority, if they
have already attained the
age of majority, entire
amount along with
proportionate up to date
interest shall be released
in their bank accounts
near their place of
residence.
(c) Share of minor son of
deceased / Arnav
Dadichi: Out of total
Award amount, Rs.
15,00,000/- along with
proportionate (to the
principle amount) up to
date interest awarded to
MACT No.352/20 Nishi & Ors. Vs. Shuaib & Anr. Page No. 32 of 33 minor son of deceased and whole amount is kept in form of FD till he attains the age of majority.
19 Next Date for reporting compliance of the award (Clause 31)
49. Copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. The copy of award be sent to Ld. Secretary, DLSA and Ld. Concerned Criminal Court. Digitally signed by SHELLY SHELLY ARORA ARORA Date:
2025.05.13 Announced in the open court 16:54:19 +0530 on 13.05.2025 Shelly Arora PO (MACT)-02, SE/Saket/Delhi 13.05.2025 MACT No.352/20 Nishi & Ors. Vs. Shuaib & Anr. Page No. 33 of 33