Delhi District Court
Naveen Chaudhary vs Deepak Verma And Ors on 30 October, 2025
MACP Nos. 236/22 & 237/22; FIR No. 247/21 DOD: 30.10.2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA MANCHANDA,
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 236/22
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-003801-2022
Sh. Naveen Chaudhary,
S/o Late Sh. Sajjan Singh,
R/o H.No. 379, D Block,
Main Road Mukundpur,
Part I, Badli,
Delhi.
(Son of deceased)
.......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Deepak Kumar, @ Deepak Verma,
S/o Sh. Ram Murati Lal Verma,
R/o Mohalla Mohan,
Gali Karari, Kasganj
Uttar Pradesh.
(Driver)
2. Sh. Amit Sharma,
S/o Sh. Anokhe Lal Sharma,
R/o 170/H, Railway Junction Colony,
Kashi Ram Nagar, Kasganj,
Uttar Pradesh.
(Registered owner)
3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
7185-7193E, First Floor,
Plot No. A-10/40,
Roop Nagar, Delhi.
(Insurer)
........Respondents
Naveen Chaudhary Vs. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Verma & Ors. Page 1 of 33
MACP Nos. 236/22 & 237/22; FIR No. 247/21 DOD: 30.10.2025
AND
MAC Petition No. 237/22
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-003800-2022
Sh. Naveen Chaudhary,
S/o Late Sh. Sajjan Singh,
R/o H.No. 379, D Block,
Main Road Mukundpur,
Part I, Badli,
Delhi.
(Son of deceased)
.......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Deepak Kumar, @ Deepak Verma,
S/o Sh. Ram Murati Lal Verma,
R/o Mohalla Mohan,
Gali Karari, Kasganj
Uttar Pradesh.
(Driver)
2. Sh. Amit Sharma,
S/o Sh. Anokhe Lal Sharma,
R/o 170/H, Railway Junction Colony,
Kashi Ram Nagar, Kasganj,
Uttar Pradesh.
(Registered owner)
3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
7185-7193E, First Floor,
Plot No. A-10/40,
Roop Nagar, Delhi.
(Insurer)
........Respondents
Naveen Chaudhary Vs. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Verma & Ors. Page 2 of 33
MACP Nos. 236/22 & 237/22; FIR No. 247/21 DOD: 30.10.2025
Date of Institution : 07.05.2022
Date of arguments : 30.10.2025
Date of Decision : 30.10.2025
APPEARENCES
Sh. V.K. Vashisht, Ld. Counsel for petitioner in both the cases.
None for driver and owner(exparte vide order dtd. 26.03.2024).
Sh. Akshay Aggarwal, Ld. Counsel for insurance co.
Petition under Section 166 and 140 of M.V. Act, 1988
for grant of compensation
AWARD:
1. Vide this common order, I shall dispose of both the claim
petitions with regard to fatal injuries suffered by Smt. Pushpa Devi (deceased
in MACP No. 236/22) and Sh. Sajjan Singh (deceased in MACP No. 237/22)
in a Motor Vehicular Accident which occurred on 07.09.2021 at about 3:00
PM at Nehra Crossing Circle, Khair Road, Uttar Pradesh, involving offending
vehicle i.e., Car bearing registration no. UP87Q-4951 (offending vehicle)
being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver(respondent no.1).
2. Both these claim petitions were consolidated for the purpose of
recording of evidence vide order dated 26.03.2024, passed by
Ld. Predecessor and MACP No. 236/22 titled as " Naveen Chaudhary Vs.
Deepak Verma & Ors" was treated as the leading case. Accordingly, the
evidence was led in the leading case for the purpose of these matters.
Naveen Chaudhary Vs. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Verma & Ors. Page 3 of 33
MACP Nos. 236/22 & 237/22; FIR No. 247/21 DOD: 30.10.2025
FACTS OF THE CASES
3. As per both the claim petitions, on 07.09.2021, Sajjan Singh (deceased herein) and Smt. Pushpa Devi (deceased herein) met with a road accident on 07.09.2021 at about 3:00 PM when they were standing at Nehra Crossing Circle Khair Road, Lodha, UP to go to village Khair District, Aligarh, UP. It is further averred that both the aforesaid deceased were waiting for conveyance and in the meantime, one car bearing registration no. UP87Q-4951 which was being driven by its driver at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, came from Aligarh side without following traffic rules and hit the aforesaid both the deceased persons who were standing at the edge on the side of the road, as a result of which, they both fell on the road and sustained injuries. Smt. Pushpa Devi died on the spot and Sh. Sajjan Singh had become unconscious and taken to nearest hospital in Aligarh, UP. Thereafter, postmortem of deceased Smt. Pushpa Devi was conducted. FIR No. 247/21 u/s. 279/337/338/304A/427 IPC was registered at PS. Lodha, District Aligarh, UP, with regard to the said accident. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd./respondent no. 3 during the period in question.
4. In their separate but identical joint written statement filed in both the cases, the respondent no. 1 & 2 i.e., driver and owner raised preliminary objections that no such accident took place as alleged on the date of accident by respondent no. 1 and thus, they are not liable to pay any Naveen Chaudhary Vs. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Verma & Ors. Page 4 of 33 MACP Nos. 236/22 & 237/22; FIR No. 247/21 DOD: 30.10.2025 compensation to the petitioners. On merits, they have denied the averments made in the claim petition and prayed for its dismissal.
5. In its separate but identical written statement filed in both the cases, the respondent no. 3 i.e., insurance company raised preliminary objections that alleged accident was not caused by the alleged offending vehicle and the same has been falsely implicated in the present case. It denied the averments made in the claim petition and prayed for its dismissal.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed in the claim petition bearing MACP No. 236/22:-
1) Whether deceased Pushpa died in the road side accident occurred on 07.09.2021 at 3:00 PM at Nehra Crossing Circle, Khair Road, Uttar Pradesh, within the jurisdiction of PS. Lodha, District Aligarh, UP due to rashness and negligence on the part of Sh. Deepak Kumar Verma/R1, who was driving vehicle bearing registration no.
UP87Q-4951, owned by Sh. Amit Sharma/R2 and insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd./R-3? OPP.
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent and from which of the respondents? OPP.
3) Relief.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed in the claim petition bearing MACP No. 237/22:-
Naveen Chaudhary Vs. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Verma & Ors. Page 5 of 33MACP Nos. 236/22 & 237/22; FIR No. 247/21 DOD: 30.10.2025
1) Whether deceased Sajjan Singh died in the road side accident occurred on 07.09.2021 at 3:00 PM at Nehra Crossing Circle, Khair Road, Uttar Pradesh, within the jurisdiction of PS. Lodha, District Aligarh, UP due to rashness and negligence on the part of Sh. Deepak Kumar Verma/R1, who was driving vehicle bearing registration no.
UP87Q-4951, owned by Sh. Amit Sharma/R2 and insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd./R-3? OPP.
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent and from which of the respondents? OPP.
3) Relief.
8. In order to establish his claim, the petitioner has examined three witnesses i.e. PW1 Sh. Naveen Chaudhary (son of deceased in both the cases), PW2 Sh. Mahendra Singh @ Titu (alleged eyewitness), PW3 Sh. Nitya Nand Hitaishi (alleged employer) and their evidence was closed vide order dated 26.03.2024. On the other hand, none of the respondents examined any witness in their respective evidence and their evidence was closed vide order dated 23.07.2024.
9. This Tribunal has carefully perused the claim petitions and evidence led by petitioners has been duly appreciated. All documents and material relied upon & proved considered. Arguments addressed by respective counsels considered. Legal position, both statutory and binding Naveen Chaudhary Vs. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Verma & Ors. Page 6 of 33 MACP Nos. 236/22 & 237/22; FIR No. 247/21 DOD: 30.10.2025 applicable precedents, has been appreciated. The issue wise determination is as under:-
ISSUE NO. 1 ( IN BOTH THE CASES)
10. The onus to prove, the aforesaid issue was placed on the petitioner/LR of deceased. To prove the said issues, petitioner has examined PW2 Sh. Mahendra Singh @ Titu (alleged eyewitness) by way of his affidavit in evidence Ex. PW2/A. In his evidence, PW2 has deposed that on 07.09.2021, he was present at Khair Road Nehra Crossing at Village Lodha, to buy some spare parts/goods for his shop and noticed that two persons were waiting for conveyance and standing at the edge on the side of the road. He further deposed that a car bearing registration no. UP87Q-4951 which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from Aligarh side and hit both the aforesaid persons who were standing on the side of the road, as a result of which, they fell down on the road and sustained injuries. He further deposed that thereafter, he immediately rushed to lift up both the aforesaid persons and saw that the lady had already died on the spot due to head injuries and the man was unconscious. He further deposed that police came on the spot and both the aforesaid persons taken to nearest hospital. He further deposed that the driver of offending car after causing the accident, fled away from the spot. He further deposed that he immediately noted down the registration number of the offending car while he was trying to run away. He categorically deposed that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of car no. UP87Q-4951.
Naveen Chaudhary Vs. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Verma & Ors. Page 7 of 33MACP Nos. 236/22 & 237/22; FIR No. 247/21 DOD: 30.10.2025
11. PW2 was cross-examined on behalf of insurance company during which he deposed that on the fateful day, the accident took place at around 3:00 pm, however, he did not remember the date. He further deposed that he was running his shop of auto parts from 8:00 am in the morning till 7:00 pm in the evening. He further deposed that the distance between him and the spot of accident was about 10 meters. He further deposed that he saw the alleged offending vehicle was Swift Dzire of silver colour. He admitted that he could not see the driver of offending vehicle as after the accident, he stopped for about 2 minutes and thereafter, he ran away from the spot with his vehicle. He further deposed that the offending vehicle was coming from Aligarh side and hit the deceased persons at point Y. He denied the suggestion that he knew both the deceased person prior to the accident. He deposed that both the deceased persons were his neighbour from neighbourhood village but he did not know them personally. He deposed that he stayed at the spot for about 15 minutes after the accident. He further deposed that he never made a call at 100 number as the same was made by some public person. He admitted that when police reached at the spot, alleged offending vehicle had already left the spot and the police did not seize it from the spot. He further deposed that after the accident, he had neither noted down the registration number of offending vehicle on paper nor click the photograph of the number plate in his mobile. However, he had memorized the registration number of abovesaid vehicle. He deposed that he did not remember the exact person who informed him that Sajjan Singh died on 12.09.2021. He further deposed that he had given his statement Naveen Chaudhary Vs. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Verma & Ors. Page 8 of 33 MACP Nos. 236/22 & 237/22; FIR No. 247/21 DOD: 30.10.2025 u/s. 161 Cr. P.C to the concerned police officer. However, he never visited any police station regarding this accident. He further deposed that the concerned police officer had not initiated the TIP proceedings. Therefore, he had never identified the driver of the alleged offending vehicle.
12. The careful perusal of testimony of aforesaid witness i.e. PW2 would go to show that the respondents more particularly insurance company have not been able to impeach his testimony through litmus test of cross- examination despite he being cross-examined at length. Moreover, it is an undisputed fact that FIR No. 247/21 u/s 279/338/304A IPC was registered at PS. Lodha with regard to accident in question. Copy of said FIR (which is part of criminal case record Ex. PW1/2 colly), would show that same was registered on 09.09.2021. The presence of aforesaid witness i.e., PW2 at the spot of accident at the time of accident can be substantiated by seeing the list of witnesses annexed alongwith the chargesheet filed in the criminal case wherein name of aforesaid witness is mentioned at S.No. 2 as eyewitness. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve his uncontroverted testimony on the point of accident in question being caused by respondent no. 1 while driving the offending vehicle. The contents of said FIR would show that the complainant has disclosed therein the same sequence of facts leading to the accident as deposed by PW2 in his evidence. Hence, there is no possibility of any false implication of driver of offending vehicle or false involvement of the said vehicle in this case.
Naveen Chaudhary Vs. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Verma & Ors. Page 9 of 33MACP Nos. 236/22 & 237/22; FIR No. 247/21 DOD: 30.10.2025
13. The facts of the case, arguments of the Ld. Counsels, evidence, material on record and duly verified documents of the criminal case, have been carefully examined and scrutinized. Respondent no. 1 namely Sh. Deepak Verma has been charge sheeted for offences punishable U/s. 279/304A IPC by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by him. Same would also point out towards rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent no. 1.
14. Further, there is no gainsaying that respondent No.1/driver of offending vehicle was the other material witness to throw light by testifying as to how and under what circumstances, the accident has taken place. However, he has preferred not to enter into the witness box. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent no. 1. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had any enmity with the driver of the offending vehicle so as to falsely implicate him in this case. Reliance placed on Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Kamlesh & Ors, MAC APP. No. 530/2008 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 11.11.2008.
15. Not only this, postmortem was got conducted on the body of both the deceased namely Pushpa Devi and Sajjan Singh. The copy of PM Naveen Chaudhary Vs. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Verma & Ors. Page 10 of 33 MACP Nos. 236/22 & 237/22; FIR No. 247/21 DOD: 30.10.2025 Report (which is also part of criminal case Ex. PW1/2 colly) of deceased Pushpa Devi, would show that cause of death of deceased was coma and hemorrhagic shock as a result of antemortem injury. The copy of PM Report (which is also part of criminal case Ex. PW1/2 colly) of deceased Sajjan Singh, would show that cause of death of deceased was cranio-cerebral damage as a result of antemortem injury sustained to head consequent to blunt force impact. The external injuries as mentioned in the relevant column correspond with the injuries which occur in Motor Vehicular Accident. Said documents have not been disputed from the side of respondents.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioner(s) have been able to prove on the basis of preponderance of probabilities that Pushpa Devi and Sajjan Singh had sustained fatal injuries in the road accident which took place on 07.09.2021 at about 3:00 PM at Nehra Crossing Circle, Khair Road, Uttar Pradesh, due to rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of offending vehicle. Thus, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents in both the cases.
ISSUE NO. 217. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 enjoins upon the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. The guiding principles for assessment of "just and reasonable Naveen Chaudhary Vs. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Verma & Ors. Page 11 of 33 MACP Nos. 236/22 & 237/22; FIR No. 247/21 DOD: 30.10.2025 compensation" in fatal case has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case titled as Smt. Anjali & Ors., Vs. Lokendra Rathod & Ors, in Civil Appeal No. 9014 of 202, decided on 06.12.2022 that: -
"The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "MV Act") gives paramount importance to the concept of 'just and fair' compensation. It is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families. Section 168 of the MV Act deals with the concept of 'just compensation' which ought to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability. Although such determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the applicant/s. In Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.3, this Court has laid down as under:
"16."Just compensation" is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit."
18. The intent and objective of the Beneficial Legislation is to grant equitable compensation to the vulnerable victims of road accidents and dynamic law has evolved towards grant of just and fair quantum of awards and has brought consistency and uniformity towards the desired goal. The Hon'ble Apex Court in "Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation" (2009) Naveen Chaudhary Vs. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Verma & Ors. Page 12 of 33 MACP Nos. 236/22 & 237/22; FIR No. 247/21 DOD: 30.10.2025 6 SCC 121, which was affirmed by a bench of three Hon'ble Judges in Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, held as under:
"16. "Just compensation" is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit.
17. Assessment of compensation though involving certain hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective. Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and uniformity in the decision making process and the decisions. While it may not be possible to have mathematical precision or identical awards, in assessing compensation, same or similar facts should lead to awards in the same range. When the factors/inputs are the same, and the formula/legal principles are the same, consistency and uniformity, and not divergence and freakiness, should be the result of adjudication to arrive at just compensation..."
19. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the compensation should be just and is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly or a pittance. Reliance is placed on 2012 (8) SLT 676 titled K. Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The aforesaid Principle of law has also been reiterated by a landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in 2017 (13) SCALE 12 : 2017 XI AD (SC) 113 titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. Accordingly, the quantum of appropriate and adequate compensation to the victims of road accident is to be derived after assessment of various relevant parameters, as per law. Hereinafter, Naveen Chaudhary Vs. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Verma & Ors. Page 13 of 33 MACP Nos. 236/22 & 237/22; FIR No. 247/21 DOD: 30.10.2025 assessment is divided into several criteria, as applicable to the facts of the present case.
Compensation in MACP No. 236/22 (Deceased Pushpa Devi) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
20. PW1 Sh. Naveen Chaudhary has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A that deceased Smt. Pushpa Devi, aged about 45 years was a housewife. He further deposed that deceased was enormously energetic experienced person. He further deposed that deceased was assisting in all the domestic work and she was rendering services to the family. He further deposed that he was only LR of deceased and was dependent upon the deceased at the time of accident. He has relied upon the following documents:-
S.No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of his Aadhaar Card Ex PW1/1(OSR)
2. Copy of criminal record Ex. PW1/2(colly)
including FIR, chargesheet, site
plan, postmortem reports of
both the deceased etc
3. Copy of Aadhaar Card of Ex. PW1/3(OSR)
deceased Sajjan Singh
4. Copy of high school marksheet Ex. PW1/4(OSR)
of deceased Sajjan Singh
5. Copy of Aadhaar Card of Ex. PW1/5(OSR)
deceased Pushpa Devi
Naveen Chaudhary Vs. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Verma & Ors. Page 14 of 33
MACP Nos. 236/22 & 237/22; FIR No. 247/21 DOD: 30.10.2025
21. During his cross examination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that he was not an eyewitness as he was at his residence at Mukundpur, Delhi at the time of accident. He further deposed that the spot of accident was around 150 km from his residence. He further deposed that he received a call from ASI Saurabh Sharma at around 3:15 PM about the accident. He further deposed that he was unaware about the registration number of the offending vehicle as the same was not informed by the abovesaid ASI. He admitted that the permanent address of his parents was of UP as per their Aadhaar Card, however, they were residing with him at his residence at Delhi. He deposed that he was not earning at the time of accident.
22. Ld. Counsel for petitioner fairly conceded during the course of arguments that deceased was housewife at the time of accident. He argued that petitioner was dependent upon the deceased for household services. He further argued that monthly income of deceased should be taken as per Minimum Wages Act applicable during the period in question.
23. As already noted above, PW1 Sh. Naveen Chaudhary who is son of deceased deposed in his evidence that deceased was housewife at the time of accident. Petitioner has failed to file any educational qualification documents of deceased.
Naveen Chaudhary Vs. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Verma & Ors. Page 15 of 33MACP Nos. 236/22 & 237/22; FIR No. 247/21 DOD: 30.10.2025
24. In case titled Kirti & Anr. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2021) 2 SCC 166, 3-Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing and highlighting the services rendered by housewife/homemaker and assessment of her notional income as per minimum wages prescribed for the State observed as under:
xxxxx " Grant of compensation, on a pecuniary basis, with respect to a homemaker, is a settled proposition of law. Taking into account the gendered nature of housework, with an overwhelming percentage of women being engaged in the same as compared to men, the fixing of notional income of a homemaker attains special significance. It becomes a recognition of the work, labour and sacrifices of homemakers and a reflection of changing attitudes. It is also in furtherance of our nation's international law obligations and our constitutional vision of social equality and ensuring dignity to all. Various methods can be employed by the Court to fix the notional income of a homemaker, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court should ensure while choosing the method, and fixing the notional income, that the same is just in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, neither assessing the compensation too conservatively, nor too liberally. The granting of future prospects,on the notional income calculated in such cases, is a component of just compensation"
xxxxx
25. In the matter titled as Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited Vs. Manmeet Singh & Ors.", reported at 2012 ACJ 721 (Delhi), it has been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that the services Naveen Chaudhary Vs. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Verma & Ors. Page 16 of 33 MACP Nos. 236/22 & 237/22; FIR No. 247/21 DOD: 30.10.2025 rendered by a housewife can not be counted; cooking, washing, ironing clothes and stitching clothes (in some cases) for the husband and children, teaching and guiding children, working as a nurse whenever the husband and child/children are sick, are some of the major activities of a housewife. She has no fixed hours of work; she is always in attendance to take care of each and every need of the whole family at the cost of her personal comfort and health. The services rendered by a housewife may differ from case to case considering her qualification, financial strata and social status of the family to which she belongs.
26. It is also relevant to note here that while deciding claim petition under M.V Act, it is the duty of Claims Tribunal to follow the principles of justice, equity and good conscience and to adopt more realistic, pragmatic and liberal approach. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered view that loss of dependency has to be assessed while taking the income of a skilled person under Minimum Wages Act applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh during the period in question. The minimum wages of a skilled person were Rs. 11,185/- per month at the time of accident in question, which had occurred on 07.09.2021.
27. As per the case of petitioners, deceased Smt. Pushpa Devi was aged about 45 years at the time of accident. It is pertinent to note that petitioners have relied upon copy of Aadhaar Card (Ex. PW1/5) of deceased wherein her date of birth is mentioned as 01.01.1976. Thus, she was more than 45 years old but less than 46 years at the time of accident(date of Naveen Chaudhary Vs. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Verma & Ors. Page 17 of 33 MACP Nos. 236/22 & 237/22; FIR No. 247/21 DOD: 30.10.2025 accident being 07.09.2021). Thus, the age of deceased is accepted as 45 years at the time of accident. Hence, the multiplier of 14 would be applicable in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "Sarla Verma Vs. DTC" 2009 ACJ 1298 SC.
28. Considering the age of deceased, future prospects @ 25% has to be awarded in favour of petitioner in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." Civil Appeal No. 6961/2015 decided on 31.10.2017, as well as in view of decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", decided on 02.11.17.
29. It is relevant to note here that as per the case of petitioner there was only one dependant i.e., major son of deceased at the time of accident. Now, a question arises that whether the major son of deceased, is entitled for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or not. In case titled "
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Birender & Ors.", passed in CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 242243 OF 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 976977 of 2020), decided on 13.01.2020 by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble Court discussed the said fact and has been pleased to hold as under:
"14. The legal representatives of the deceased could move application for compensation by virtue of clause
(c) of Section 166(1). The major married son who is also earning and not fully Dependant on the deceased, would be still covered by the Naveen Chaudhary Vs. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Verma & Ors. Page 18 of 33 MACP Nos. 236/22 & 237/22; FIR No. 247/21 DOD: 30.10.2025 expression "legal representative" of the deceased.
Reliance is placed on Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., Appeal (civil) 1702 of 2007, decided on 30.03.2007. In the said case, Hon'ble Apex Court had expounded that liability to pay compensation under the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency of the concerned legal representative. Notably, the expression "legal representative" has not been defined in the Act. In Manjuri Bera (supra), the Court observed as under:-
"9. In terms of clause (c) of subsection (1) of Section 166 of the Act in case of death, all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased become entitled to compensation and any such legal representative can file a claim petition. The proviso to said subsection makes the position clear that where all the legal representatives had not joined, then application can be made on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased by impleading those legal representatives as respondents. Therefore, the High Court was justified in its view that the appellant could maintain a claim petition in terms of Section 166 of the Act.
10. The Tribunal has a duty to make an award, determine the amount of compensation which is just and proper and specify the person or persons to whom such compensation would be paid. The latter part relates to the entitlement of compensation by a person who claims for the same.
11. According to Section 2(11) CPC, "legal representative" means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the Naveen Chaudhary Vs. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Verma & Ors. Page 19 of 33 MACP Nos. 236/22 & 237/22; FIR No. 247/21 DOD: 30.10.2025 deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. Almost in similar terms is the definition of legal representative under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 i.e. under Section 2(1)(g).
30. It has been also discussed in the aforesaid judgment titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Birender(supra) in the relevant para that Section 166 of the Act provides for filing of application for compensation by persons mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of subSection (1) thereof. Section 166 of the Act, as applicable at the relevant time, reads thus:
"Section 166. Application for compensation:-
(1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in subsection (1) of section 165 may be made
(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or
(b) by the owner of the property; or
(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or
(d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be:
31. In case titled "Ram Charan & Ors. Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.", passed in MAC. APP. 433/2013, decided on Naveen Chaudhary Vs. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Verma & Ors. Page 20 of 33 MACP Nos. 236/22 & 237/22; FIR No. 247/21 DOD: 30.10.2025 18.10.2022 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the Hon'ble Court discussed the said fact and has been pleased to hold as under:
xxxx .....13.This Court is in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Kerala High Court and Karnataka High Court in this regard. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that the loss of other forms of support endured by the Appellants is immeasurable. By virtue of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being a welfare legislation, there is no cogent reason to deny the Appellants from obtaining compensation for their loss of dependence, regardless of the nature or form of the dependence. There cannot be any discrimination between married sons and married daughters and hence both of them are entitled for the compensation under the head, Loss of Dependency‟. Based on the above findings, this court is of the view that the Appellants are entitled to receive compensation under the head of 'Loss of Dependency‟.
xxxx
32. PW1 has categorically deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that he was dependent on the deceased at the time of accident. Since the respondents have not produced any proof to the contrary, there is no reason to disregard the statement of PW1. Even no suggestion was put to the said witness regarding his non-dependency on the deceased at the time of accident. Considering all the facts and circumstances and in view of aforesaid judgments on the point of issue in question, it is held that there was one dependent i.e., major son of deceased at the time of accident. Hence, there has to be deduction of one half as held in the case of Sarla Verma mentioned supra. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Naveen Chaudhary Vs. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Verma & Ors. Page 21 of 33 MACP Nos. 236/22 & 237/22; FIR No. 247/21 DOD: 30.10.2025 Rs. 11,74,425/- (Rs. 11,185/- X 1/2 X 125/100 X 12 X 14). Hence, a sum of Rs. 11,74,425/- is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioner.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
33. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as, Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Tribunal considers that petitioner is entitled for payment of Rs. 40,000/- each towards "loss of consortium". By way of pronouncement of Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to hold that there shall be an increase of 10% on account of 'inflation' after a period of three years. Applying, the afore- cited binding law the The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Ltd. V. LR's of Sukhbir Singh, MAC. APP. 518/2013 vide judgment pronounced on 13.07.2023 has been pleased to direct the entitlement of dependents to 10% increase under this head, though, the date of accident was of 2011 and the date of impugned award was of 2013. Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs. 48,400/- (Rs. 40,000/- + 10% of Rs. 40,000/- + 10% of Rs. 44,000/-) towards "loss of consortium". [As per the judgment Pranay Sethi(Supra), two escalations of 10% each is awarded since the date of accident in the present matter is 07.09.2021].
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
34. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) Naveen Chaudhary Vs. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Verma & Ors. Page 22 of 33 MACP Nos. 236/22 & 237/22; FIR No. 247/21 DOD: 30.10.2025 which has been re-enforced in LR's of Sukhbir Singh (supra), the Tribunal considers that the petitioner is also entitled for payment of Rs. 18,150/- (Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 16,500/-) on account of "loss of estate" and for equal payment of Rs. 18,150/- (Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 16,500/-) towards "funeral expenses". [As per the judgment Pranay Sethi(Supra), two escalations of 10% each is awarded since the date of accident in the present matter is 07.09.2021].
35. Therefore, on the basis of the above discussion, the compensation is quantified as below:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 11,74,425/-
2. Loss of Consortium Rs. 48,400/-
3. Loss of Estate & Funeral Rs. 36,300/-
Expenses Total Rs. 12,59,125/-
Rounded off to Rs. 12,59,000/-
Compensation in MACP No. 237/22 (Injured Sajjan Singh) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
36. PW1 Sh. Naveen Chaudhary has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A that deceased Sh. Sajjan Singh, aged about 48 years 5 months 10 days, was working as Organizer of Jagran Party in Delhi Naveen Chaudhary Vs. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Verma & Ors. Page 23 of 33 MACP Nos. 236/22 & 237/22; FIR No. 247/21 DOD: 30.10.2025 as well as other states and he used to earn Rs. 30,000/- per month. He further deposed that deceased was having agriculture land in UP and used to earn Rs. 1,00,000/- per annum. He further deposed that deceased was the sole bread earner in his family. He further deposed that he was only LR of deceased and was dependent upon the deceased at the time of accident.
37. During his cross examination on behalf of insurance company, he admitted that the permanent address of his parents was of UP as per their Aadhaar Card, however, they were residing with him at his residence at Delhi. He deposed that he was not earning at the time of accident.
38. In order to prove the employment and income of deceased the petitioners have examined PW-3 Sh. Nitya Nand Hitaishi, who deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW3/A that he alongwith his team used to organize Jagran Party in the name of Nitya Nand Hitaishi to carry out Shrimad Bhagwat Katha and religious right long event at various places in Delhi. He further deposed that deceased Sajjan Singh was member of their Jagran Team since last 10 years. He further deposed that he used to work for managing and holding of electronic sound system to carry out jagran party and he used to earn Rs. 30,000/- per month from his work. He has relied upon copy of his Aadhaar Card exhibited as Ex. PW3/1 and visiting card of the employer who used to carry out their jagran party in the name of Nitya Nand Hitaishi exhibited as Ex. PW3/2. During his cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that he was the head of Bhagwat Katha team. He further deposed that he used to make payment to his team members for Naveen Chaudhary Vs. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Verma & Ors. Page 24 of 33 MACP Nos. 236/22 & 237/22; FIR No. 247/21 DOD: 30.10.2025 carrying out the jagran party in the name of Nityanand Hitaishi. He further deposed that there were seven persons in his team. He further deposed that on an average, he was paying Rs. 30,000/- per month to each member as their salary. He further deposed that he came to know about the death of Sh. Sajjan Singh in September 2021. He further deposed that he had not incorporated any firm for the abovesaid purpose. He further deposed that he made the payments in cash only as all the income/revenue was received in cash. He further deposed that deceased Sajjan Singh was residing at Mukundpur, Delhi. He further deposed that he had never maintained any accounts with regard to the receipts and payments as all the business was done in cash only.
39. After referring to the testimonies of PW1 & PW3 and the documents produced by them, Ld. counsel for petitioners vehemently argued that last drawn monthly salary of deceased should be taken as Rs. 30,000/- in order to calculate the loss of dependency. He further argued that future prospects @ 25% should also be awarded in favour of the petitioners.
40. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the insurance company argued that there is no concrete evidence led by petitioners to establish monthly income of deceased. Thus, loss of dependency should be calculated on the basis of notional income as per Minimum Wages Act applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh, during the relevant period.
Naveen Chaudhary Vs. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Verma & Ors. Page 25 of 33MACP Nos. 236/22 & 237/22; FIR No. 247/21 DOD: 30.10.2025
41. It may be noted here that as per the testimony of PW3, deceased was working with him at the time of accident and he was paying him Rs. 30,000/- per month. However, he has not filed any document in this regard. It is also relevant to note here that PW3 has relied upon his visiting card in order to prove that he alongwith his team used to organize Jagran Party. However, there is no mentioning of name of deceased on the said visiting card. Therefore, mere bald statement of PW3 with regard to working and earning of Rs. 30,000/- per month by the deceased at the time of accident, is not sufficient.
42. Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides and in the light of material available on record, I find substance in the contention raised on behalf of insurance company that monthly income of deceased should be considered as per the minimum wages applicable in the State of UP in order to calculate the loss of dependency. It is relevant to mention here that petitioner has relied upon copy of High School Marksheet (Ex. PW1/4) of deceased. As per the said document, deceased had not cleared the said class and was fail in that examination. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered view that loss of dependency has to be assessed while taking the income of a Non-Matriculate person under Minimum Wages Act applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh during the period in question. It may be noted here that in the list of minimum wages provided in the State of Delhi, minimum wages of semi-skilled person is equivalent to minimum wages of non-matriculate person. Since, there is no Naveen Chaudhary Vs. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Verma & Ors. Page 26 of 33 MACP Nos. 236/22 & 237/22; FIR No. 247/21 DOD: 30.10.2025 category of non-matriculate person in the list of minimum wages applicable in the State of UP during the relevant period, the minimum wages of semi- skilled person is taken as income of deceased drawing analogy from the Minimum Wages of Delhi for computation under this head. The minimum wages of a semi-skilled person were Rs. 9,985/- per month in Uttar Pradesh at the time of accident in question, which had occurred on 07.09.2021.
43. As per the case of petitioners, deceased Sh. Sajjan Singh was aged about 48 years at the time of accident. It is pertinent to note that petitioners have relied upon copy of Aadhaar Card (Ex. PW1/3) of deceased wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 01.04.1973. Thus, he was aged about 48 years as on the date of accident(date of accident being 07.09.2021). Thus, the age of deceased is accepted as 48 years at the time of accident. Hence, the multiplier of 13 would be applicable in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "Sarla Verma Vs. DTC" 2009 ACJ 1298 SC.
44. Considering the age of deceased, future prospects @ 25% has to be awarded in favour of petitioner in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." Civil Appeal No. 6961/2015 decided on 31.10.2017, as well as in view of decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", decided on 02.11.17.
Naveen Chaudhary Vs. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Verma & Ors. Page 27 of 33MACP Nos. 236/22 & 237/22; FIR No. 247/21 DOD: 30.10.2025
45. PW1 has categorically deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that he was dependent on the deceased at the time of accident. Since the respondents have not produced any proof to the contrary, there is no reason to disregard the statement of PW1. Even no suggestion was put to the said witness regarding his non-dependency on the deceased at the time of accident. Considering all the facts and circumstances and in view of aforesaid judgments on the point of issue in question, it is held that there was one dependent i.e., major son of deceased at the time of accident. Hence, there has to be deduction of one half as held in the case of Sarla Verma mentioned supra. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 9,73,537.50p (Rs. 9,985/- X 1/2 X 125/100 X 12 X 13). Hence, a sum of Rs. 9,73,537.50p is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioner.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
46. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as, Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Tribunal considers that petitioner is entitled for payment of Rs. 40,000/- each towards "loss of consortium". By way of pronouncement of Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to hold that there shall be an increase of 10% on account of 'inflation' after a period of three years. Applying, the afore- cited binding law the The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Ltd. V. LR's of Sukhbir Singh, MAC. APP. 518/2013 vide judgment pronounced on 13.07.2023 has been pleased to direct the entitlement of Naveen Chaudhary Vs. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Verma & Ors. Page 28 of 33 MACP Nos. 236/22 & 237/22; FIR No. 247/21 DOD: 30.10.2025 dependents to 10% increase under this head, though, the date of accident was of 2011 and the date of impugned award was of 2013. Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs. 48,400/- (Rs. 40,000/- + 10% of Rs. 40,000/- + 10% of Rs. 44,000/-) towards "loss of consortium". [As per the judgment Pranay Sethi(Supra), two escalations of 10% each is awarded since the date of accident in the present matter is 07.09.2021].
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
47. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) which has been re-enforced in LR's of Sukhbir Singh (supra), the Tribunal considers that the petitioner is also entitled for payment of Rs. 18,150/- (Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 16,500/-) on account of "loss of estate" and for equal payment of Rs. 18,150/- (Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 16,500/-) towards "funeral expenses". [As per the judgment Pranay Sethi(Supra), two escalations of 10% each is awarded since the date of accident in the present matter is 07.09.2021].
48. Therefore, on the basis of the above discussion, the compensation is quantified as below:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 9,73,537.50p
2. Loss of Consortium Rs. 48,400/-Naveen Chaudhary Vs. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Verma & Ors. Page 29 of 33
MACP Nos. 236/22 & 237/22; FIR No. 247/21 DOD: 30.10.2025
3. Loss of Estate & Funeral Rs. 36,300/-
Expenses
Total Rs. 10,58,237.50p
Rounded off to Rs. 10,58,000/-
49. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Respondent no. 3/insurance company did not adduce any evidence as it had no statutory defence. It is nowhere the case of insurance company that any term or condition of insurance policy was breached/violated by insured. Keeping in view the existence of valid insurance policy, respondent no. 3/insurance company becomes liable to pay the compensation amount, as insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF
50. In view of my findings on issues no. 1 & 2, following order is passed after relying upon judgment "United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baby Raksha & Ors.", MAC APP. No. 36/2023 on 21.04.2023, on the point of interest.
a) A sum of Rs. 12,59,000/-(Rupees Twelve Lakhs and Fifty Nine Thousand Only) (including interim award amount, if any) in MAC Petition No. 236/22 alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of petitioners and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e. 07.05.2022 till the date of its realization.
Naveen Chaudhary Vs. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Verma & Ors. Page 30 of 33MACP Nos. 236/22 & 237/22; FIR No. 247/21 DOD: 30.10.2025
b) A sum of Rs. 10,58,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs and Fifty Eight Thousand only) in MAC Petition No. 237/22 alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of petitioner and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e. 07.05.2022 till the date of its realization.
Issue no. 3 is decided accordingly.
APPORTIONMENT
51. Statements of petitioner in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP were recorded on 10.09.2024 in both the cases. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of his statement, it is hereby ordered that out of total compensation amount in MAC Petition No. 236/22, a sum of Rs. 3,59,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Fifty Nine Thousand Only) is directed to be immediately released to him through his bank account no. 43323101312 with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi, having IFSC Code SBIN0000726 and remaining amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 25,000/- each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest. The said FDRs be released to the said petitioner on the monthly basis as aforesaid.
52. In MACP No. 237/22, out of total compensation amount, a sum of Rs. 2,58,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Eight Thousand Only) is directed to be immediately released to him through his bank account no.
Naveen Chaudhary Vs. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Verma & Ors. Page 31 of 33MACP Nos. 236/22 & 237/22; FIR No. 247/21 DOD: 30.10.2025 43323101312 with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi, having IFSC Code SBIN0000726 and remaining amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 25,000/- each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest. The said FDRs be released to the said petitioner on the monthly basis as aforesaid.
53. Respondent no. 3/Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., being insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the entire award amount in the aforesaid bank account of the claimant as aforesaid, within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a for the period of delay in terms of directions passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in its latest judgment titled "Parminder Singh Vs. Honey Goyal & Ors.", S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020, DOD:18.03.2025.
54. Concerned Manager of petitioner's bank is directed to release the amount to the petitioner as aforesaid, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. He is further directed to keep the remaining amount in fixed deposit, if any, in terms of aforesaid directions and send compliance report to this Court. He is also directed to ensure that no loan, advance or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioner and also to counsel for the insurance company for compliance. Petitioner is also directed to provide copy of this award to his bank Manager for compliance. Form XV, XVI & Naveen Chaudhary Vs. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Verma & Ors. Page 32 of 33 MACP Nos. 236/22 & 237/22; FIR No. 247/21 DOD: 30.10.2025 Form XVII in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A. Copy of order be also sent to concerned CJM/JMFC and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP. Signed copy of this Award be placed on the judicial record of MAC Petition No. 237/22, as per the rules.
Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA MANCHANDA
MANCHANDA Date:
Announced in the open 2025.10.30
16:49:15 +0545
Court on 30.10.2025
(RICHA MANCHANDA)
Judge MACT-2 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
Naveen Chaudhary Vs. Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Verma & Ors. Page 33 of 33