Delhi District Court
Renu Devi And Ors vs Arbind Kumar Yadav And Ors on 7 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHILASH MALHOTRA
PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-02, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
RENU DEVI & ORS. Vs. ARBIND KUMAR
YADAV & ORS.
MACT NO. 88 / 2021
1. Smt. Renu Devi (Wife)
W/o Late Sh. Budhlal Mandal
2. Sh. Rajnish Kumar (Son)
S/o Late Sh. Budhlal Mandal
3. Ms. Anisha Kumari (Daughter)
D/o Late Sh. Budhlal Mandal
4. Sh. Awanish Kumar (Son)
S/o Late Sh. Budhlal Mandal
5. Ms.Mneesha Kumari (Daughter )
D/o Late Sh. Budhlal Mandal
(Petitioners no. 2, 3, 4 & 5 are minors and
represented through their mother / Natural Guardian /
petitioner no. 1
All Resident of:
Ward No.8, Village- Kumhara Vishnupur,
PS- Dumra, Bishunpur, Distt. -Sitamarhi,
Bihar -843323 ... Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Arbind Kumar Yadav
S/o Sh. Raja Ram Yadav
R/o Village- Rampur, Bauapur,
PS Sarai Khwaja, Distt. Jaunpur, UP
.... Driver/Respondent no.1
MACT No. 88/21 Page. 1 of 42 Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors
2. Sh. Rai Kumar Yadav S/o Sh. Veer Bahadur Yadav Presently R/o House No. 152/22, Gali No. 10, Gandhi Nagar, Gurugram Haryana Also At:
Permanent R/o Village- Haridas Patti, PS Badalapur, Distt - Jaunpur, UP ....Owner/Respondent no.2
3. M/s Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd.
1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi -110070 Also having office at:
1505-1506, 15th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, KG Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi ....Insurance Company/ Respondent no. 3 Date of accident 20.09.2020 Date of filing Claim Petition 18.08.2021 Date of framing of issues 23.11.2023 Date of concluding arguments 19.03.2026 Date of decision 07.04.2026.
MACT No. 88/21 Page. 2 of 42 Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors AWARD/JUDGMENT Index to the Judgment I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE CLAIMANT(s)...........................................5 II. FRAMING OF ISSUES..................................................................................6 III. Recording of evidence:................................................................................... 6 IV. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS OF THE PARTIES...................................10 V. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO..................................12
(a) Issue No.1: Whether the deceased Sh. Budhlal Mandal sustained fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 20.09.2020 at about 3:30 PM, near Durga Mandir, Village Baskusala, Gurugram, Haryana caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR-55X-9748 being driven by respondent no.
1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no.3? OPP.........12 i. Presumption qua complicity upon filing chargesheet:...................12 ii. The evidence on record qua negligence:........................................13 iii. Preponderance of probabilities:......................................................16 iv. Finding:.......................................................................................... 18
(b) Issue No.2: Whether claimant is entitled to compensation, and to what amount ?.......................................................................................................... 18 i. Principles qua assessment of compensation:..................................18 ii. Monthly Income of the deceased:..................................................20 iii. Future prospects:............................................................................21 iv. Personal expenses of the deceased:................................................22 v. Monthly & Annual Loss of dependency:.......................................24 vi. Total Loss of Dependency:.............................................................24 vii. Other Heads:...................................................................................24 viii. Medical Expenses:..........................................................................26 MACT No. 88/21 Page. 3 of 42 Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors ix. Compensation for Loss of Consortium:.........................................26 x. Compensation for Loss of Estate:..................................................28 xi. Compensation towards Funeral Expenses:.....................................28 xii. Total Compensation:.......................................................................28
(c) Issue No.3: Relief.................................................................................. 29 i. Amount of Award:..........................................................................29 ii. Rate of Interest:..............................................................................29 VI. DEPOSIT OF AWARD& RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT.........................30 i. Deposit of Award:...........................................................................30 ii. Disbursement of the award amount & protection thereof:.............32 VII........................................................................................................LIABILITY 34 VIII. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN CASES OF DEATH.................................................................................................................35 IX. COMPLIANCE QUA PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME...........................38 MACT No. 88/21 Page. 4 of 42 Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE CLAIMANT(s)
1. In the present case, the accident had occurred out of Delhi and petition was filed. A claim petition was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased.
2. The issue regarding the jurisdiction was raised by the Insurance Company. The office of the Insurance Company is stated to be within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal and in lieu of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Company Limited and Ors. (2016) 3 SCC 43, the issue of jurisdiction is no more in dispute.
3. In present case, a claim petition under Section 166 of M. V. Act, 1988 is field by the legal heirs of deceased Mr. Budhlal Mandal who lost his life in a road accident.
4. It is stated in the claim petition that on 20.09.2020 deceased Mr. Budhlal Mandal was going along with his friend Mohd. Imamul on motorcycle bearing registration no. HR-26DH-9739. The motorcycle was driven by Mohd. Imamul and deceased Budhlal Mandal was the pillion rider. When the motorcycle reached near Durga Mandir, Ban Kusala, the insured/offending vehicle bearing No. HR-55X-9748, driven by R-1 at high speed in rash manner hit the motorcycle. Due to the accident, Mohd. Imamul and pillion rider Mr. Budhlal Mandal received injuries. Pillion rider Mr. Bundhlal Mandal died during the course of his treatment.
MACT No. 88/21 Page. 5 of 42 Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors
5. R-1/driver and R-2/registered owner failed to appear before the Tribunal. Their rights to file reply was closed vide order dated 09.05.2023. They were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 23.11.2023. R-3/Insurance company contested the matter. The issues were framed vide order dated 23.11.2023. The financial statement of petitioner was recorded on 15.02.2025.
II. FRAMING OF ISSUES
6. Vide order dated 23.11.2023, following issues were framed by this Tribunal:-
"1. Whether the deceased Sh. Budhlal Mandal sustained fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 20.09.2020 at about 3:30 PM, near Durga Mandir, Village Baskusala, Gurugram, Haryana caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR-55X-9748 being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no.3?OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief."
III. Recording of evidence:
7. PW-1 is Mrs. Renu Devi. She is the wife of the deceased Mr. Budhlal Mandal. She tendered her affidavit in chief as Ex. PW 1/A. She proved on record the following documents viz., Statements u/s 161 of Cr.P.C of witnesses as Ex. PW 1/1 (Colly);
MACT No. 88/21 Page. 6 of 42 Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors Copy of Insurance policy of the offending vehicle as Ex. PW 1/2 (Colly); Certified copies of MLR (medico-Legal Report), treatment record and Post Mortem Report, Death Summary and death report of deceased as Ex. PW 1/3 (Colly); Copy of death certificate, Aadhar Card and PAN card of deceased as Ex. PW 1/4 (Colly); Copy of Salary Certificate issued by the employer as Ex. PW 1/ 5; Copies of Aadhar cards of petitioners no. 1 to 5 as Ex. PW 1/ 6 (Colly); Copies of PAN cards of petitioners no.
1 to 5 as Ex. PW 1/ 7 (Colly).
8. PW-1 in her testimony stated that on 20.09.2020, at about 03:30 PM, her husband was going to Bas Kusala Market along with friend Mohd. Imamul on motorcycle No. HR-26-DH-7939. The motorcycle was driven by Mohd. Imamul and her husband was pillion rider. When the motorcycle reached near Durga Mandir, it was hit by the insured/offending vehicle bearing no. HR-55X- 9748 which was driven by R-1 in rash manner. She stated that the driver of the offending vehicle ran away from the spot.
9. PW-1 states that her husband was taken to KVS hospital and Trauma Cenre, Manesar, Gurugram. Thereafter, he was referred to Medeor Hospital Ltd. (Rockland Hospital) Manesar, Haryana and from their he was referred to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi where he died on 21.09.2020.
10.PW-1 stated that her husband was 35 years old on the date of accident and was working as Head Mechanic with M/s MACT No. 88/21 Page. 7 of 42 Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors Chaudhary Movers Pvt. Ltd., and was getting a salary of Rs. 40,000/- p.m.
11.In her financial statement PW-1 stated that the deceased is survived by herself, two minor sons and two minor daughters.
12.PW-1 in her cross-examination admitted that she was not an eye-
witnesses. She stated that she do not know whether her husband and his friend Mohd. Imamul were under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. She stated that deceased was residing in Gurugram at the time of the accident.
13.PW-2 is Mohd. Imamul. He tendered his affidavit-in-chief which is affidavit as Ex. PW 2/A. He relied upon his Aadhar Card and Driving License are Ex. PW 2/1 (Colly).
14.PW-2 stated that on 20.09.2020 he along with his friend Mr. Budhlal Mandal (deceased) were going to Bas Kusala Market. He was driving the motorcycle no. HR-26-DH-7939 and his friend Mr. Budhlal Mandal was the pillion rider. When they reached near Durga Mandir the insured/offending no. HR-55- X-7948 driven by R-1 in rash manner at high speed hit their motorcycle. Due to the accident he along with pillion rider received injuries and pillion rider Mr. Budhlal Mandal died during his treatment. He stated that R-1/driver fled away from the accident and did not help them.
15.PW-2 in his cross-examination stated he as well as pillion rider Mr. Budhlal Mandal were wearing the helmets at the time of accident. He denied the consumption of alcohol. He reiterated MACT No. 88/21 Page. 8 of 42 Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors that the accident had occurred due to rash driving of insured vehicle by R-1/driver.
16.PW-3 is Mr. Lalit Chand S/o Sh. Chanri Chand, working as Accountant, Office at M-Block, Plot No. 12, 3rd Floor Old, DLF, Gurugram, Haryana. He has relied upon the following documents viz., Authorization letter dated 22.02.2024 issued by the company as Ex. PW 3/1; Copy of Aadhar Card as Ex. PW 3/ 2; Attested copy of monthly summary period from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2021 of Late Sh. Budhlal Mandal as Ex. PW 3/ 3; Attested copyof Ledger Account period from 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2021 of Late Sh. Budhlal Mandal as Ex. PW 3/ 4; Online printout copies of Bank statement of M/s Choudhary Movers Pvt. Ltd. period from 03.03.2019 to 07.09.2020 mark 'A'; Copy of PAN card of M/s Choudhary Movers Pvt. Ltd. as mark 'B'; Copy of income certificate of deceased as Ex. PW 3/ 5 which was issued by M/s Choudhary Movers Pvt. Ltd.
17.PW-3 stated that deceased Mr. Budhlal Mandal was working in their company M/s Chaudhary Movers Pvt. Ltd. as Head Mechanic for the last 20 years. He stated that no payment was given to LRs of deceased on account of his death.
18.R-1/driver and R-2/registered owner did not appear and did not led any evidence.
19.R-3/Insurance company examined R3W1 Mr. Mohit Kumar S/o Sh. Ajay Kumar. He tendered his affidavit-in-chief which is Ex. R3W1/A. He stated that an FIR No. 258/2020 was registered MACT No. 88/21 Page. 9 of 42 Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors with Police Station, IMT Manesar, Gurugram and as per the contents of FIR there was a head on collision between both the vehicles. He stated that the vehicle of deceased was also negligent at the time of accident and liable to contributory negligence. He stated that MLC 363 and 364 of the deceased and injured prepared by KVS hospital records the smell of alcohol, which shows that they have consumed alcohol at the time of accident. He stated that the deceased and injured were not wearing any helmet as no seizure memo is prepared by police in this regard.
20.R3W1 in his cross-examination admitted that there is no violation of breach of insurance policy in the present case. He admitted that the connected case pertaining to injured Mohd. Imamul bearing case no. MACT 91/2021 is already settled by the insurance company. He admitted that he is not the eye- witness to the said accident. He also admitted that no record is available to show quantity/percentage consumption of alcohol. He stated that he cannot say whether the deceased was wearing a helmet at the time of the accident.
IV. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS OF THE PARTIES
21. Ld. Counsel for the claimant submitted that they have filed the copy of FIR and charge sheet. He submitted that the said record clearly shows that the offending vehicle bearing no. HR-55X-9748 was seized during the investigation and later on MACT No. 88/21 Page. 10 of 42 Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors released on Superdari. He submits that the charge sheet in that case was already filed against the driver Mr. Arvind Kumar Yadav u/s 279/337/304-A IPC, which clearly establishes the rash driving on part of the offending vehicle.
22.He submitted that PW-1 Mohd. Imamul is the eye-witnesses who have clearly deposed regarding the rash driving on the part of R-1 driver.
23.It is submitted that PW-2 in his cross-examination has clearly stated that he as well as pillion rider were wearing helmets at the time of accident. He submitted that R3W1 is not the eye-witness and merely because the police did not prepare a seizure memo, it cannot be concluded that the motorcycle riders were not wearing helmets.
24.He submitted that in the charge-sheet filed by the police, no rash driving on the part of motorcycle driver Mohd. Imamul is pointed out. PW-2 Mohd. Imamul in his cross-examination also stated that there was not head on collision. He submitted that the said testimony has remained unrebutted and insurance company has failed to show any contributory negligence.
25.It is submitted that the smell of alcohol as recorded in the MLC cannot be considered as alcohol consumption unless and until blood analysis was done. He submits that the deceased in this case was sitting as a pillion rider and any proof regarding of consumption of alcohol in his case is irrelevant.
MACT No. 88/21 Page. 11 of 42 Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors
26.R-1 and R-2/registered owner were failed to appear and were proceeded ex-parte.
27.R3/Insurance company argued that smell of alcohol is recorded in the MLC. It is stated that the motorcycle riders including deceased were not wearing helmets. It is also argued that as per the contents of FIR there is head on collision between the vehicles and contributory negligence on the part of motorcycle cannot be ignored.
V. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO
(a) Issue No.1: Whether the deceased Sh. Budhlal Mandal sustained fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 20.09.2020 at about 3:30 PM, near Durga Mandir, Village Baskusala, Gurugram, Haryana caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR-55X-9748 being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no.3? OPP i. Presumption qua complicity upon filing chargesheet:
28. Rule 21 of Annexure XIII of The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 mandates as follows:-
21. Claims Tribunal shall treat Dar as a claim petition for compensation under Sub-Section (4) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (1) The Claims Tribunal shall treat the DAR filed by the Investigating Officer as a claim petition under Section (4) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, where the Investigating Officer is unable to produce the claimant(s) on the first date of hearing the Claims Tribunal shall register the DAR as a claim petition after the appearance of the claimant(s).
MACT No. 88/21 Page. 12 of 42 Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors (2) where the claimant(s) have filed a separate claim petition, the DAR may be tagged along with the claim petition.
(3) If the Report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2) of 1974 has not been filed at the time of filing of the DAR, the Claims Tribunal may either wait till filing of the Report under Section 173 of the said Code of Criminal Procedure or record the statement of the eye witness(es) to satisfy itself with respect to the negligence before passing the award.
(4) The Claims Tribunal shall register the FAR as a Miscellaneous application and the IAR as well as DAR shall be taken on record in the same Miscellaneous application.
29. In Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Meera Devi & Ors decided on 16.02.2021, 2021 LawSuit (Del) 858 it was held :
8. ..... In view of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008, contents of DAR had to be presumed to be correct and read in evidence without formal proof of the same unless proof to the contrary was produced........".
30.In a recent order dated 25.02.2025, passed in Ranjeet & Anr v Abdul Nayem Keb & Anr in SLP (c) 10351/2019, it was held in trenchant terms as thus:
"It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the eyewitnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver."
MACT No. 88/21 Page. 13 of 42 Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors ii. The evidence on record qua negligence:
31.Claimant has placed on record the certified copy of charge sheet in FIR no. 258/2020, PS Industrial Area, Sector-7 Manesar, Gurugram , Haryana under Section 279/337/304-A IPC. Record shows that the charge sheet u/s 279/337/304-A IPC was filed in the present case against the driver Sh. Arvind Kumar Yadav. The charge sheet records that the due to rash driving of the driver /(R-1) of the offending vehicle bearing no. HR-55-X-9748 accident occurred and driver Mohd. Imamul received injuries and pillion rider Mr. Budhlal Mandal suffered multiple injuries and died.
32.PW-2 Mohd Imamul is the eye-witnesses in the present case. In his affidavit in chief, he stated that the accident occurred due to rash driving of vehicle bearing registration no. HR-55-X-9748 which hit the motorcycle driven by him. In his cross examination PW-2 remained consistent.
33.R-1/driver and R-2/registered vehicle of the insured vehicle failed to appear and rebut the testimony of PW-2/eye-witnesses in respect of rash driving. The witness R3W1 examined by the Insurance company admitted that he was not the eye-witnesses. Insurance company has taken a plea of contributory negligence but there is no whisper in respect of negligent driving of motorcycle driver/PW-2 in the charge-sheet. The testimony of MACT No. 88/21 Page. 14 of 42 Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors PW-2 has also remained consistent. Therefore, the insurance company has failed to prove any contributory negligence on the part of the victim's motorcycle driver. It is also matter of record that Insurance company has settled matter with motorcycle driver.
34.Insurance company has argued that the motorcycle driver and deceased were not wearing helmet as no seizure memo is prepared by the police in that regard. PW-2 in his cross- examination categorically stated that they were wearing helmets. Merely because the seizure memo is not prepared by police is respect of helmets, it cannot be concluded that the motorcycle riders were not wearing the helmets. In the absence of any positive evidence the insurance company has failed to prove this plea.
35.Insurance company has also argued that the MLC records that there was a smell of alcohol and the riders of motorcycle have consumed alcohol. In this regard, it will be prudent to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jayantilal Mochi, 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 3822 held that:
"23. Furthermore, this Court also takes into consideration the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma Mohan,, (2013) 9 SCC 166 : AIR 2013 SC 2293, wherein it was observed by the Supreme Court that even when the Post-Mortem Report had specifically mentioned that there was a strong smell of spirit, however, the same cannot lead to the conclusion that the deceased had been negligent while driving the vehicle. The relevant para is reproduced as under:
MACT No. 88/21 Page. 15 of 42 Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors "25. Post Mortem report, Ext.-A5 shows the condition of the deceased at the time of death. The said report reflects that the deceased had already taken meal as his stomach was half full and contained rice, vegetables and meat pieces in a fluid with strong smell of spirit.
26. The aforesaid evidence, Ext.-A5 clearly suggests that the deceased had taken liquor but on the basis of the same, no definite finding can be given that the deceased was driving the car rashly and negligently at the time of accident. The mere suspicion based on Ext.- B2, 'Scene Mahazar' and the Ext.-A5, post mortem report cannot fake the place of evidence, particularly, when the direct evidence like PW 3, independent eye-witness, Ext.-Al(FIR), Ext.-A4 (charge- sheet) and Ext.-Bl (F.I. statement) are on record."
Therefore, in the present case too, merely a poor smell of alcohol as determined by the Doctor cannot lead to the conclusion that the deceased, Late Sanjay Kumar had been negligent while driving the motorcycle at the time of the accident as he was under the influence of alcohol."
36.In the present case, no blood test report is available on record to prove the alcohol consumption. The smell of alcohol cannot be taken as a conclusive proof for consumption of alcohol. Moreover, the deceased in the present case was a pillion rider and this plea do not impact the compensation claim in case of a pillion rider.
37.From the aforesaid, it is clear that the accident had occurred due to rash driving of offending/insured vehicle driven by R-1/driver.
MACT No. 88/21 Page. 16 of 42 Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors iii. Preponderance of probabilities:
38.It is trite law that in a proceeding before the Claims Tribunal, the claimant does not have to establish negligence on the part of the driver respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The standards of establishing negligence is predicated on preponderance of probabilities. In the present case too, negligence has been established on this principle.
39.In this context, it would be useful to peruse Mathew Alexander v. Mohd. Shafi, (2023) 13 SCC 510 wherein it was observed as thus:
"In this context, we could refer to the judgments of this Court in N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal [N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal, (1980) 3 SCC 457 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 774] , wherein the plea that the criminal case had ended in acquittal and that, therefore, the civil suit must follow suit, was rejected. It was observed that culpable rashness under Section 304-AIPC is more drastic than negligence under the law of torts to create liability. Similarly, in Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC [Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC, (2009) 13 SCC 530 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 189 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1101] ("Bimla Devi"), it was observed that in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal has to determine the amount of fair compensation to be granted in the event an accident has taken place by reason of negligence of a driver of a motor vehicle. A holistic view of the evidence has to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal and strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be established by the claimants. The claimants have to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The standard of MACT No. 88/21 Page. 17 of 42 Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in a road traffic accident. To the same effect is the observation made by this Court in Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz [Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 13] which has referred to the aforesaid judgment in Bimla Devi [Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC (2009) 13 SCC 530."
iv. Finding:
40.In view of foregoing discussion, it stands proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities that the aforesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the transgressing/offending vehicle bearing registration no. HR-55-
X-9748 and the said vehicle at that time was driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured by respondent no.3. Hence, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the claimant and against the respondents.
41.It is clarified that the findings given are limited for the purposes of this inquiry and shall not impact the trial of the criminal case.
(b) Issue No.2: Whether claimant is entitled to compensation, and to what amount ?
MACT No. 88/21 Page. 18 of 42 Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors i. Principles qua assessment of compensation:
42.Before adverting to the submissions of the counsels in this regard, it would be apposite to refer to the law of the land qua this aspect. The law has been enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. (2003) 6SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.(2017) 16 SCC 680.
43.An essential ingredient of the award is the loss of dependency. To calculate the same, it would be of utmost significance to peruse the following seminal directions issued in Sarla Verma (supra):
"18.Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death:
(a)age of the deceased;
(b) income of the deceased; and
(c) the number of dependants The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are:
(i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income;
(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and
(iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.
If these determinants are standardised, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay
19.To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well-settled steps:
MACT No. 88/21 Page. 19 of 42 Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependant family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased. Step 3 (Actual calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the "loss of dependency"
to the family."
44.To ascertain the 'multiplier' mentioned in Step 2 above, it was further laid down in Sarla Verma (supra) as thus:
"42 We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie) which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years,) reduced by one unit for every years that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years , M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to
45 years, and M -13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51- 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years ,M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M- 5 for 66 to 70 years."
45.Further, in terms of the mandate of Rajesh Tyagi v Jaibir Singh FAO 842/2003, which is the cause célèbre qua cases pertaining MACT No. 88/21 Page. 20 of 42 Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors to motor accident claims, the claimant filed Form XIII of the Scheme for Motor Accident Claims qua compensation under various heads which have been elucidated in the paragraphs hereafter..
ii. Monthly Income of the deceased:
46.PW-1 Smt. Renu Devi stated that her husband was working as head mechanic with M/s Choudhary Movers Pvt. Ltd having its office at Gurugram Haryana. In her cross-examination she stated that her husband was a resident of Gurugram at the time of the accident. She has filed on record certificate of income issued by M/S Choudhary Movers Pvt. Ltd. The said certificate records that deceased Mr. Budhlal Mandal was earing around Rs.40,000/-.
47.PW-3 Mr. Lalit Chand proved on record the monthly summary, ledger account and bank statement. The monthly ledger records the variable income of Mr. Budhlal Mandal. The ledger for the year 1st April, 2019 to 1st March 2020 records the total credit amount of Rs. 4,78,789/- and when the same is divided by 12, the monthly average comes as Rs. 39,899/-. From the evidence on record it is clear that Mr. Budhlal Mandal was earning around Rs. 40,000 p.m. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased is quantified as Rs. 40,000/- p.m. MACT No. 88/21 Page. 21 of 42 Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors iii. Future prospects:
48.To factor into account future prospects, it would be apt to refer to National Insurance Co Ltd v Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 wherein it was laid down as thus:
"59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:
59.3 While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
59.4 In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. 59.5 For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
59.6 The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 read with para 42 of that judgment 59.7 The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
59.8 Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years."
MACT No. 88/21 Page. 22 of 42 Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors
49.To determine the age of the deceased, the claimants has filed on record the PAN Card which shows the date of birth of the deceased as 15.02.1986. The deceased was 34 years and 07 months old on the date of death. As per mandate in Sarla Verma (Supra) and Pranay Sethi (Supra) the future prospects for a person having age less than 40 years is 40% and accordingly the same is calculated as Rs. 16,000/-.
iv. Personal expenses of the deceased:
50.The Expenses incurred by the deceased in himself are deducted while calculating the loss of dependency. To calculate the personal expenses, recourse can be had to the following instructions of Sarla Verma (supra) which were approved by the Constitutional Bench in Pranay Sethi(supra):
"30.Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362] , the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one- third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.
31.Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event MACT No. 88/21 Page. 23 of 42 Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.
32.Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third."
51.PW-1 Smt. Renu Devi in her testimony stated that deceased is survived by herself, two minor sons and two minor daughters. Accordingly, in view of the mandate of Sarla Verma (supra) the deductions towards personal and living expenses is considered as 1/4th.
52. Thus, the net deduction in the present case is (Rs.40,000 + Rs. 16,000/- = Rs. 56,000/- divided by 1/4 i.e. Rs. 14,000/-.
v. Monthly & Annual Loss of dependency:
53.The monthly loss of dependency would be Rs. 42,000/-. The annual loss of dependency Rs. 42,000/- X 12 = Rs. 5,04,000/-
MACT No. 88/21 Page. 24 of 42 Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors vi. Total Loss of Dependency:
54. Since the deceased was 34 years 07 months old, the applicable multiplier in terms of the verdict of Sarla Verma(supra) is 16. The total loss of dependency is thus Rs. 5,04,000 X 16 = Rs. 80,64,000/-.
vii. Other Heads:
55.In Sarla Verma (supra) it was also laid down that after calculating the 'Loss of Dependency', certain amounts were to be added under conventional heads such as loss of estate, loss of consortium etc. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are extracted hereunder:
"Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs 5000 to Rs 10,000 may be added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of 5000 to 10,000 should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also be added."
56.The amount qua the above heads were further quantified in Pranay Sethi(supra), which clarified as thus:
"52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] . It has granted Rs 25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs 1,00,000 towards MACT No. 88/21 Page. 25 of 42 Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 :
(2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] refers to Santosh Devi [Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 726 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 167] , it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 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."
57.The above verdict was passed in the year 2017. Almost eight years have elapsed, and therefore the above heads would be enhanced at the rate of 20%.
viii. Medical Expenses:
58.No claim is made under this head.
MACT No. 88/21 Page. 26 of 42 Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors ix. Compensation for Loss of Consortium:
59.The concept of consortium was expounded in Magnum General Insurance Co Ltd v Nanu Ram 2018 18 SCC 130 in the following words:
"21.A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses "spousal consortium", "parental consortium", and "filial consortium". The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse : [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54.
21.1 Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation". [Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edn., 1979).] 21.2 Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training. 21.3 Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.
22 .Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognised that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded MACT No. 88/21 Page. 27 of 42 Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium. Parental consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count [ Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram v. Sohi Ram, 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 3848 : (2017) 4 RLW 3368; Uttarakhand High Court in Rita Rana v. Pradeep Kumar, 2013 SCC OnLine Utt 2435 : (2014) 3 UC 1687; Karnataka High Court in Lakshman v. Susheela Chand Choudhary, 1996 SCC OnLine Kar 74 : (1996) 3 Kant LJ 570] . However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium.
24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under "loss of consortium" as laid down in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] . In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial consortium."
60.The deceased is survived by his wife and four minor children.
Parents of deceased are stated to have died. Thus, on the basis of the above verdict and mandated in Pranay Sethi'(Supra), the compensation for Consortium is hereby quantified as Rs 48,400 X 5 = 2,42,000/-
MACT No. 88/21 Page. 28 of 42 Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors x. Compensation for Loss of Estate:
61.On the basis of the above verdict, the compensation for loss of estate is hereby quantified as Rs 18,150/-
xi. Compensation towards Funeral Expenses:
62.On the basis of the above verdict, the compensation of funeral expenses is hereby quantified as Rs 18,150/-
xii. Total Compensation:
63. Thus, the total amount of compensation to be awarded is calculated as follows:-
Sr. No. Head Amount
1. Total loss of dependency 80,64,000/-
2. Medical Expenses NIL
3. Compensation for Loss of 2,42,000/-
Consortium
4. Compensation for Loss of Estate 18,150/-
5. Compensation towards Funeral 18,150/-
Expenses
6. Total Compensation Rs. 83,42,300/-
MACT No. 88/21 Page. 29 of 42
Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors
(c) Issue No.3: Relief.
i. Amount of Award:
64.Thus, the claimant is awarded as sum of Rs.83,42,300/- along with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. The rate of interest has been calculated in terms of the succeeding paragraphs.
ii. Rate of Interest:
65.It was contended by Ld Counsel for the respondent insurance company that the amount of interest ought to at @7.5%, in accordance with the general prevalent practice in Courts. However, Ld Counsel for the claimant sought 9% as the rate of interest.
66.In order to adjudicate these rival claims, recourse can be had to Erudhaya Priya v State Transport Corporation 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601 wherein the aspect of rate of interest was categorically enunciated as thus:
(c) The third and the last aspect is the interest rate claimed as 12% "15.In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has watered down the interest rate during the course of hearing to 9% in view of the judicial pronouncements including in the Jagdish case (supra). On this aspect, once again, there was no serious dispute raised by the learned counsel for the respondent once the claim was confined to 9% in line with the interest rates applied by this Court"
MACT No. 88/21 Page. 30 of 42 Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors
67.Ergo, the amount of compensation/award amount will be payable by the respondent insurance company with simple interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual realisation. The date of filing of petition is 18.08.2021 therefore the amount of Interest is calculated at @ 9 % from the date of filing of petition i.e. Rs. 34,41,198/- for a period of 55 months. Thus, the total amount of award is Rs. 1,17,83,498/-.
68.It is also clarified that in case the interest of petitioner was stopped or excluded during the present inquiry proceedings, same is liable to be adjusted from the total interest calculated on the Award amount. Similarly, amount awarded and released as interim Award, if any, during pendency of the case, be deducted from the total compensation.
VI. DEPOSIT OF AWARD& RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT i. Deposit of Award:
69.In terms of the mandate of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) the respondent Insurance Company/driver/owner shall deposit the award amount or transfer the same by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS directly to the bank account of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in UCO Bank, Patiala House Courts within 30 days of the award. The respondent(s) held liable to pay compensation by the Claims Tribunal shall give notice of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant(s) and shall MACT No. 88/21 Page. 31 of 42 Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the deposit with the interest upto the date of notice of deposit to the claimant(s) with a copy to their counsel.
APPORTIONMENT & RELEASE
70.PW-1Smt Renu Devi in her statement has stated that deceased Mr. Budhlal Mandal is survived by herself and four minor children. She stated that parents of deceased have already died. Accordingly, the award amount shall be apportioned amongst the legal heirs as follows:-
Sl Name Relation % of Release of awarded amount share
1. Smt. Wife 60 % 20% of the award amount out of the 60% share Renu of wife be released in her bank account Devi immediately and remaining awarded amount be invested and deposited in 120 monthly fixed deposits receipts (FDR) of equal amounts for a period of 120 months as per Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposits Schemes.
2. Mr. Son 10% 100 % of his share be invested in an FDR and Rajnish be released on attaining the age of majority. In Kumar case parents opts the monthly / quarterly interest of FDR be released in the bank account of child for maintaining his education / other need.
3. Ms. Daughter 10 % 100 % of her share be invested in an FDR and Anisha be released on attaining the age of majority. In Kumari case parents opts the monthly / quarterly interest of FDR be released in the bank account of child for maintaining her education / other need.
MACT No. 88/21 Page. 32 of 42 Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors
4. Mr. Son 10 % 100 % of his share be invested in an FDR and Awanish be released on attaining the age of majority. In Kumar case parents opts the monthly / quarterly interest of FDR be released in the bank account of child for maintaining his education / other need.
5. Ms. Daughter 10 % 100 % of her share be invested in an FDR and Mneesha be released on attaining the age of majority. In Kumari case parents opts the monthly / quarterly interest of FDR be released in the bank account of child for maintaining her education / other need.
71. The Nodal officer of the bank shall ensure disbursement of the award within 3 weeks of receipt thereof by email or otherwise.
72.The disbursement to the claimant is, however, subject to the addition of future interest till deposit proportionately and also deduction of proportionate tax on the interest amount or amount of interim award, if any, to/from his share.
ii. Disbursement of the award amount & protection thereof:
73.The amount of award shall be disbursed through the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme formulated vide order dated 01.05.2018 passed in Rajesh Tyagi(supra). 21 banks, including UCO Bank, is implementing the MACAD scheme.
74.Further, to protect the award amount, the entire amount of compensation is not being released forthwith to the claimant, and part of the compensation amount has been directed to be kept in fixed deposits in a phased manner. Further, the following MACT No. 88/21 Page. 33 of 42 Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors conditions are hereby reiterated and being imposed upon the concerned bank with respect to the fixed deposits:
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint names to be added in the savings bank account or MACAD scheme account of claimant i.e. the bank account of claimant shall be individual account and not a joint account.
(b) The original fixed deposits shall be retained by the UCO Bank, PHC, New Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR numbers, amounts, dates of maturity and maturity amounts shall be furnished by the said bank to the claimant and the above amount shall be released in account of claimant by the Manager, UCO Bank, PHC, ND through RTGS/NEFT/or any other electronic mode.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of his residence.
(d) The maturity amount of the FDR(s) on monthly basis net of TDS be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the above account of the claimant.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the MACAD without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award MACT No. 88/21 Page. 34 of 42 Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause above.
VII. LIABILITY
75.R-1, R-2 and R-3 are held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. The Insurance Company has failed to prove their plea regarding contributory negligence, consumption of alcohol and wearing of helmet. R3W1 Mr. Mohit Kumar, Regional Head Legal of insurance company in his cross-examination has stated that there is no violation for breach of policy in the present case. The fact of insurance on the date of accident is not disputed.
MACT No. 88/21 Page. 35 of 42 Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors
76.Accordingly, insurance company is directed to pay award amount to the petitioner. Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in bank account being maintained in the above said bank in name of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal within 30 days from today, failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay. In case even after lapse of 90 days from today, respondent no. 3 fails to deposit this compensation with interest, in that event, in light of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal 2007 ACJ 688 , this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of respondent no. 3 with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.
77.The respondent no. 3 shall inform the petitioner and his counsel that the awarded amount has been deposited so as to facilitate him to collect the same.
VIII. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN CASES OF DEATH
78.Since this is a case pertaining to death, particulars of Form-XV of the Scheme For Motor Accidents Claims Formulated by the MACT No. 88/21 Page. 36 of 42 Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors Delhi High Court in terms of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) are as under:
1. Date of Accident 20.09.2020
2. Name of the deceased Sh. Budhlal Mandal
3. Age of the deceased 34 years and 07 months
4. Occupation of the deceased Private job
5. Income of the deceased Rs. 40,000/-
6. Name, Age and relationship of legal representatives of the deceased:
S.NO NAME AGE RELATION
1. Smt. Renu Devi 33 Wife
2. Sh. Rajnish Kumar 11 Son
3. Ms. Anisha Kumari 10 Daughter
4. Sh. Awanish Kumar 09 Son
5. Ms. Mneesha Kumari 07 Daughter
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
S.No. Heads Awarded by the
Claims Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs. 40,000/-
8. Add: Future Prospects (B) Rs.16,000/-
MACT No. 88/21 Page. 37 of 42
Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors
9. Less: Personal expenses of the Rs. 14,000/-
deceased (C)
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs. 42,000/-
[(A+B)- C = D]
11. Annual Loss of dependency (D x Rs. 5,04,000/-
12) 12. Multiplier (E) 16
13. Total loss of dependency (D x 12 Rs. 80,64,000/-
x E = F)
14. Medical Expenses (G) NIL
15. Compensation for loss of Rs 2,42,000/-
consortium (H) (48,400 X 5)
16. Compensation for loss of love & NA- in terms of New affection (I) India Assurance Co v Somwati (2020) 9 SCC 644
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs 18,150/-
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs 18,150/-
expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION (F + Rs.83,42,300/-
G + H + I + J + K = L)
20. Rate of Interest Awarded @9%
21. Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 34,41,198/-
MACT No. 88/21 Page. 38 of 42 Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors award (M) (55 months)
22. Total amount including interest (L Rs. 1,17,83,498/-
+ M)
23. Award amount released As per para no. 70
24. Award kept in FDRs As per para no. 70
25. Mode of disbursement of the Through Bank award to the claimant(s)
26. Next date for compliance of the 11.05.2026 award IX. COMPLIANCE QUA PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME
79.The particulars of Form XVII of the Scheme For Motor Accidents Claims Formulated by the Delhi High Court, in terms of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) are as hereunder:
1. Date of the accident 20.09.2020
2. Date of filing of Form I- First Not filed as accident took place Accident Report (FAR) out of Delhi and claim petition is filed by legal heirs.
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the Same as above.
victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Same as above.
Driver MACT No. 88/21 Page. 39 of 42 Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Same as above owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- Same as above Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Same as above Form VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII-Detailed Same as above Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or DAR not filed.
deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Not given Designated Officer by the Insurance Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of No the Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or No deficiencies on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the Matter was contested by the petitioner(s) of the offer of the Insurance Company. Insurance Company.
14. Date of the Award 07.04.2026.
15. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
MACT No. 88/21 Page. 40 of 42 Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors
16. Date of order by which petitioner(s) 18.08.2021 were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the petitioner (s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17. Date on which the petitioner(s) Not furnished. Directions issued.
produced the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of As mentioned above the petitioner(s)
19. Whether the petitioner(s) savings bank account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes.
examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
80.Further, in terms of the directions given vide order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra), the Ahlmad shall send a certified copy of this award to the concerned Criminal Court and to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority through e-mail. Copy of the award be also sent to the bank concerned. The Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given in the above case.
MACT No. 88/21 Page. 41 of 42 Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors
81.File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 11.05.2026. Digitally signed by Abhilash Abhilash Malhotra Malhotra Date:
2026.04.07 Announced in the open court 12:02:40 +0530 on 07.04.2026 (Abhilash Malhotra) Judge/PO, MACT-02, New Delhi/07.04.2026(s) DLND010045422021 MACT No. 88/21 Page. 42 of 42 Smt. Renu Devi & Ors. Vs Arbind Kumar Yadav & Ors