Delhi District Court
Anita Chaudhary vs Naseem Khan on 18 December, 2025
DLNW010038822023
Presented on : 25-04-2023
Registered on : 27-04-2023
Decided on : 18-12-2025
Duration : 2 years, 7 months,
23 days
IN THE COURT OF
ADJ1(NW)/MACT, NORTH WEST DISTRICT DELHI
Presided Over by Sh. Vikram
M A C T/368/2023
FIR No. 245/2022, PS Kana, Greater Noida
In the matter of : Sh. Ashok Chaudhary (Deceased)
1. Anita Chaudhary (Wife of deceased)
2. Akashdeep Gandharva (Son of deceased)
3. Avali Gandharva (Daughter of deceased)
All R/o B-89, Laxita Colony,
Garh Road, Meerut, Up-250004.
.....Petitioners
vs.
1. Naseem Khan
S/o Sh. Habbula
R/o Malhaka Mewat,
Haryana.
...... Driver/R1
2. M/s Khan Trading Company
Through its Prop.
MACT Case No. 368/2023 (FIR no. 245/2022)
Anita Chaudhary & Ors Vs.Naseem Khan & Ors.
Page no. 1 of 15
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.12.18
16:04:58 +0530
Sh. Tauhid Khan
R/o Village Chandpur,
Teh. Balabgarh, District Faridabad,
Haryana.
Also at:
Main Bazar, Ahlawat, Ice Industries PTI,
Rabupura, Greater Noida, UP.
......Owner/R2
3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Office at: CBO 15, 5th Floor,
Sachdeva Tower, Rohini,
Sector 8, New Delhi.
.......Insurance
Company/R3
Appearance (s) : Sh. Prakash Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the
petitioners.
Sh. Radhey Shyam, Ld. counsel for respondent no.
3.
J U D G M E N T/AWAR D
1. Vide this judgment/award, I shall dispose off the Claim Petition bearing MACT No. 368/2023, in regard to death of Sh. Ashok Chaudhary, (in short, the deceased), who died in a road vehicular accident dated 20.10.2022.
2. Brief facts as per claim petition are that on 20.10.2022 at about 03:30 pm deceased was coming from Eastern Peripheral Expressway in his Scorpio car bearing registration no. UP 21 BS 9292. When he reached near Sirsa Toll Plaza towards Palwal, a truck bearing registration no. HR 38 AB 5470, which was being driven by R1 rashly and negligently in a very high speed, hit the car of deceased MACT Case No. 368/2023 (FIR no. 245/2022) Anita Chaudhary & Ors Vs.Naseem Khan & Ors.
Page no. 2 of 15
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.12.18
16:05:07 +0530
due to which he sustained injuries. Deceased, from the spot, was shifted to Kailash Hospital, Greater Noida where he was declared brought dead FIR no. 245/2022 for offence punishable under Section 279/304A/427 IPC, was registered at PS Kasna District Greater Noida. PM of deceased was conducted at District Hospital, Gautam Budh Nagar vide PM report no. 1479/2022.
3. As per investigation conducted by IO, R1 was driving the offending vehicle in negligent manner which caused the accident resulting in death of deceased. As such R1 was charge-sheeted for offences under section 279/304A/437 IPC.
4. Deceased is survived by his wife, one son and one daughter (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner No. 1 to 3) who were dependent on deceased.
5. No WS/reply was filed on behalf of R1 & R2.
6. WS/reply was filed on behalf of R3/insurance company claiming that it was the deceased who hit the offending vehicle from behind as the front portion of deceased's vehicle was damaged and the offending vehicle was having damage on the rear portion. As such, deceased was negligent in driving his car.
ISSUES:
7. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed by this Tribunal on 16.07.2024: -
MACT Case No. 368/2023 (FIR no. 245/2022) Anita Chaudhary & Ors Vs.Naseem Khan & Ors.
Page no. 3 of 15
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.12.18
16:05:14 +0530
1. Whether deceased Ashok Chaudhary, S/o Sh. Mahendra expired due to injuries suffered in road traffic accident on 20.10.2022 at about 03:30 P.M., near Eastern Peripheral Expressway, near Sirsa Toll Plaza due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing no. HR 38 AB 5470 which was being driven by driver Naseem Khan S/o Sh. Habbula, on the said date, time and place? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
EVIDENCE:
8. In evidence petitioner no. 1/LR Anita Chaudhary appeared as PW1 and filed her affidavit Ex.PW1/A. She proved aadhar cards and PAN cards of petitioners Ex.Pw1/1 (OSR), copy of educational certificate of deceased Ex.Pw1/2, copy of aadhar card and PAN Card of deceased Ex.Pw1/3 (colly), offer of appointment, joining letter and salary slip of deceased Mark Pw1/A, copy of criminal record Ex.Pw1/5(colly). During her cross examination, she denied the suggestion that accident has occurred due to negligence of deceased or that deceased was driving his vehicle in zig zag manner.
9. Petitioners have also examined Sh. Siddharth Mohan Patil who proved employment certificate of deceased Ex.Pw2/3, offer letter Ex.Pw2/4 & salary slip of deceased Ex.Pw2/5.
10. Petitioners have also examined Sh. Suresh Pal Singh(eye witness) who deposed that the offending vehicle overtook the car of of MACT Case No. 368/2023 (FIR no. 245/2022) Anita Chaudhary & Ors Vs.Naseem Khan & Ors.
Page no. 4 of 15
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.12.18
16:05:21 +0530
deceased and applied sudden brakes due to which accident occurred. He also deposed that he had seen the R1. He also deposed that at the time of accident he was travelling with his son. He denied the suggestion that he knew the deceased before the accident.
11. In respondents evidence, R3 has examined Sh. Manoj Kumar, SIMT from Police Line Gaziabad as R3w1 who proved mechanical inspection reports of offending vehicle as well as car of deceased Ex.R3w1/1 (colly).
12. Thereafter, the evidence was closed. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the testimony of witnesses including the pleadings and the documents. My issue wise findings in the case are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1
1.Whether deceased Ashok Chaudhary, S/o Sh. Mahendra expired due to injuries suffered in road traffic accident on 20.10.2022 at about 03:30 P.M., near Eastern Peripheral Expressway, near Sirsa Toll Plaza due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing no. HR 38 AB 5470 which was being driven by driver Naseem Khan S/o Sh. Habbula, on the said date, time and place? OPP.
13. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence MACT Case No. 368/2023 (FIR no. 245/2022) Anita Chaudhary & Ors Vs.Naseem Khan & Ors.
Page no. 5 of 15
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
Date:
VIKRAM 2025.12.18
16:05:27
+0530
or beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
14. The involvement of offending vehicle of the respondent no.2 in accident is not only undisputed but also corroborated by the documentary evidence collected in FIR No. 245/2022. R1 & R2 has not filed any WS or led any evidence to deny the accident. It is claim of R3 that accident had occurred due to negligence of deceased as he hit the offending vehicle from behind. However, petitioners have examined Pw3 who deposed that on the date of accident he was travelling with his son and he saw that offending vehicle over took the deceased's vehicle and applied sudden brakes due to which accident occurred. The deposition of Pw3 is in corroboration with the mechanical inspection report Ex.R3w1/1 (colly) which shows damage in front side of the deceased's vehicle and in rear portion of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the case does not warrant any other best evidence. R3 would still claim that since the deceased has hit the MACT Case No. 368/2023 (FIR no. 245/2022) Anita Chaudhary & Ors Vs.Naseem Khan & Ors.
Page no. 6 of 15
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.12.18
16:05:34 +0530
offending vehicle from behind, the negligence is of deceased alone. It is a fact that vehicle of deceased has damage at front and of offending vehicle at back. However, this is explained by Pw3 that the offending vehicle first over took the vehicle of deceased and then suddenly slowed down the speed. Given the fact that a toll plaza was nearing. The version given by Pw3 cannot be doubted when there is no contest from R1. Keeping in view the facts & evidence produced by the petitioner, it is established that the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle being driven by respondent No.1. Hence, the issue no. 1 is decided in favour of petitioners.
ISSUE NO. 22. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
15. As this Tribunal has already held that R1 was responsible for the death of the deceased due to his neglect and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Therefore, the petitioners have become entitled to be compensated for death of deceased in the above accident, but computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided.
COMPENSATION
16. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death : (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and the (c) the number of dependents. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at MACT Case No. 368/2023 (FIR no. 245/2022) Anita Chaudhary & Ors Vs.Naseem Khan & Ors.
Page no. 7 of 15
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.12.18
16:05:41 +0530
the loss of dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the deceased. If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. In this regard, though not quoted, reliance is placed upon, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121.
17. As per DAR, deceased was about 57 years old on the date of accident. It is claimed by petitioners that deceased was employed with M/s Anshula Technological Engineering Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (ATEC) as Process Design Manager with basic salary of Rs. 1,44,000/-. Petitioners have proved the employment offer Ex.Pw2/4 and salary slilp Ex.Pw2/5. Therefore, the income of the deceased, as on the date of the accident, was Rs. 1,44,000/-per month.
18. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners further argued that future prospects should also be awarded to the petitioners as per law.
19. Accordingly, on the basis of aforementioned documents, age of the deceased is taken as 57 years as on the date of accident. Hence, the multiplier of "9" would be applicable in view of pronouncement made in case titled as Sarla Verma (supra).
20. Claimant/petitioners are wife, son and daughter of deceased.
MACT Case No. 368/2023 (FIR no. 245/2022) Anita Chaudhary & Ors Vs.Naseem Khan & Ors.
Page no. 8 of 15
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
Date:
VIKRAM 2025.12.18
16:05:47
+0530
There are three claimants/dependents upon him. Therefore, there has to be deduction of "one third (1/3th)", as per the mandate of Sarla Verma (supra). Thus, total loss of dependency would come out as under:
21. Thus, total loss of dependency would come out as under:
Head Amount Remarks
(Rs.)
Monthly Income of 1,44,000/-
deceased
(A)
Less: Personal expenses of 48,000 (A)/3= (B)
deceased @ one third (1/3th)
(B)
Monthly loss of dependency 96,000 [(A)-
(C) (B)]=(C)
Annual Loss of dependency 11,52,000 (C) x 12 =
(D) (D)
Multiplier @ 9 1,03,68,000 (D) x 7
(E) (multiplier)
= (E)
Add: Future Prospects @ 10,36,800 (E) X 10%
10% (E)
Total 1,14,04,800
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
22. After the judgment passed in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra) and recent judgment titled as New India Assurance Company Limited v. Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020 the petitioners are not entitled to be compensated under this head. Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors, (supra) has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the Constitution MACT Case No. 368/2023 (FIR no. 245/2022) Anita Chaudhary & Ors Vs.Naseem Khan & Ors.
Page no. 9 of 15
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.12.18
16:05:54 +0530
Bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) does not recognize any other non-pecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
23. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as, "Rojalini Nayak & Ors. Vs. Ajit Sahoo & Ors. ", Civil Appeal dated 07.08.2024, I am of the considered opinion that all LRs of deceased are entitled for payment of Rs. 1,45,000/- towards loss of consortium. Consequently, a sum of Rs. 1,45,000/- (Rs.48,400/- x 3) is awarded to the petitioners under this head.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
24. 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 "Rojalini Nayak & Ors. Vs. Ajit Sahoo & Ors.", Civil Appeal dated 07.08.2024 mentioned supra, a sum of Rs.18,150/- is awarded in favour of petitioners on account of loss of estate and and a sum of Rs. 18,150/- is awarded in favour of petitioners towards funeral expenses.
25. Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:
S. No. Head Amount (Rs.)
1 Loss of dependency 1,14,04,800/-
2 Loss of Consortium 1,45,000/-
(Rs.48,400/- x 3)
3 Loss of Estate &Funeral 36,300/-
Expenses
TOTAL 1,15,86,300/-
MACT Case No. 368/2023 (FIR no. 245/2022) Anita Chaudhary & Ors Vs.Naseem Khan & Ors.
Page no. 10 of 15
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
Date:
VIKRAM 2025.12.18
16:06:06
+0530
LIABILITY
26. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. The offending vehicle was insured with R3. As such, R3 is liable to pay the compensation amount to petitioners. R3 is directed to deposit the above award amount within 30 days from the date of this Award by way of NEFT or RTGS mode in the account of this Tribunal maintained with SBI, Rohini Courts, Delhi under intimation to the petitioner/ injured and this Tribunal in terms of the format for remittance of compensation as provided in Divisional Manager Vs. Rajesh, 2016 SCC Online Mad. 1913 (and reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the orders dated 16.03.2021 and 16.11.2021 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors) along with interest @ 9% per annum. Issue No.2 is decided accordingly. The parties are directed to download the digital copy of judgment online.
ISSUE NO.3: RELIEF
27. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I award compensation of Rs. 1,15,86,300/- (Rupees One Crore Fifteen Lacs Eighty Six Thousand Three Hundred Only) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 27.04.2023 till compliance and @ 12% per annum thereafter. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be liable to be excluded from the above amount and calculations of compensation.
MACT Case No. 368/2023 (FIR no. 245/2022) Anita Chaudhary & Ors Vs.Naseem Khan & Ors.
Page no. 11 of 15
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
Date:
VIKRAM 2025.12.18
16:06:12
+0530
APPORTIONMENT
28. Statement of petitioners under Clause 29 MCTAP are not recorded. Petitioners Anita Chaudhary is awarded 40% of the award and petitioners Akashdeep Gandharva and Avali Gandharva are awarded 30% each of the award.
29. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby ordered that:
Out of the awarded amount of Rs. 46,34,520/- (i.e. 40% of the award) of petitioner Anita Chaudhary, an amount of Rs. 6,34,520/- be released to her immediately in her MACT/saving bank account no.
43595342390, IFSC Code: SBIN0016607, SBI, Branch Jagrati Vihar, Meerut. The remaining amount alongwith interest amount of the petitioner is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 40,000/- each for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
Out of the awarded amount of Rs. 34,75,890/- (i.e. 30% of the award) of petitioner Akashdeep Gandharva, an amount of Rs. 4,75,890/- be released to him immediately in his MACT/saving bank account no. 43628230818, IFSC Code: SBIN0016607, SBI, Branch Jagrati Vihar, Meerut. The remaining amount alongwith interest amount of the petitioner is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 20,000/- each for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
Out of the awarded amount of Rs. 34,75,890/- (i.e. 30% of the award) of petitioner Avali Gandharva, an amount of Rs. 4,75,890/- be released to her immediately in her MACT/saving bank account no.
MACT Case No. 368/2023 (FIR no. 245/2022) Anita Chaudhary & Ors Vs.Naseem Khan & Ors.
Page no. 12 of 15
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
Date:
VIKRAM 2025.12.18
16:06:19
+0530
43598139894, IFSC Code: SBIN0016607, SBI, Branch Jagrati Vihar, Meerut. The remaining amount alongwith interest amount of the petitioner is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 20,000/- each for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
30. The following conditions are to be adhered to by SBI, Rohini Courts, Delhi with respect to the fixed deposits:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) 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 (s) near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not be issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card (s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
MACT Case No. 368/2023 (FIR no. 245/2022) Anita Chaudhary & Ors Vs.Naseem Khan & Ors.
Page no. 13 of 15
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
Date:
VIKRAM 2025.12.18
16:06:26
+0530
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
31. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the disbursed amount immediately to the petitioners in their MACT saving bank accounts, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
32. Copy of this Award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank passbook and copy of residence proof of the petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
33. A digital copy of this award be provided to the parties. Ahlmad is directed to send a copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
34. Ahlmad is also directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the MACT Case No. 368/2023 (FIR no. 245/2022) Anita Chaudhary & Ors Vs.Naseem Khan & Ors.
Page no. 14 of 15
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
Date:
VIKRAM 2025.12.18
16:06:33
+0530
award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Rohini Courts for information.
35. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
36. Form V and IVB in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A.
37. A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 19.01.2026.
38. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT VIKRAM
ON 18th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 VIKRAM Date:
2025.12.18
16:06:39
+0530
VIKRAM
DJ-1+MACT, NORTH WEST,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MACT Case No. 368/2023 (FIR no. 245/2022) Anita Chaudhary & Ors Vs.Naseem Khan & Ors.
Page no. 15 of 15