Delhi District Court
Arti vs Mahtab on 28 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARUN PRATAP, PO, MACT-02,
DISTRICT SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
MACT No.: 419/24
CNR No. DLSH01-004113-2024
IN THE MATTER OF:-
1. Arti
Wife of deceased Vikas
2. Palak
Daughter of deceased Vikas
3. Shivansh
Son of deceased Vikas
4. Vir Singh (father of deceased Vikas)
S/o Ram Singh
5. Jamuna Devi (mother of deceased Vikas)
W/o Vir Singh
Petitioner no. 2 & 3 are minors, through their mother and natural
guardian, petitioner no. 1
All R/o Sunita Bihar, Loni, Ghaziabad, Loni Dehat, U.P.-201102.
........ (Petitioners)
Vs.
1. Sh. Mahtab
S/o Sh. Akhatar
R/o Village Barawad, Tehsil Baraut,
Baghpat, U.P.-250611
.... (driver)
2. Sh. Mayank Malik
S/o S P Malik
R/o Fakharpur, Baghpat, U.P.-250609
.... (owner)
3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
9th Raj Block, 1st floor, Naveen Shahdara,
Near Gyanana Cinema, Delhi-110032.
.... (insurer of
offending vehicle)
MACT No. 419/24 Arti & Ors. Vs. Mehtab & Ors. Page 1 of 19
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2026.01.28
17:16:34
+0530
Date of institution of claim petition : 05.07.2024
Date of Arguments : 28.01.2026
Date of Award : 28.01.2026
Advocates appearing in the case:
For petitioners : Sh. Pradeep Kumar
For respondent no. 1 and 2 : Ms. Subhash Chandra
For respondent no. 3/ Ins. com. : Sh. Milind Awasthi
AWARD
Vide this award, the Tribunal shall decide the MACT claim petition
bearing no. 419/24 under section 166(4) & 140 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, filed for the petitioners and against the respondents as mentioned in
the memo of parties.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1. Briefly stated, the facts of the petition are that on 31.05.2024, at about 09:00 p.m., one Vikas (since deceased) was coming back to his house at Loni, Ghazibad (U.P.) from Shamli, on a motorcycle bearing registration no. DL13SX-8242. It has been alleged that when he reached near Satguru Hotel, Delhi-Saharanpur Road, Baraut, within the jurisdiction of PS Baraut, Distt Baghpat, U.P., a Truck bearing registration no. UP17AT-6100 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle), overloaded with bricks came at a very high speed and hit the aforesaid motorcycle of the deceased with a great force. It has been further alleged that the offending vehicle was being driven by its driver i.e. respondent no. 1 (R1) herein, at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner without taking necessary precautions at the time of the accident. Allegedly, the aforesaid Vikas fell down on the road after being hit by the offending vehicle and sustained fatal injuries, while the offending MACT No. 419/24 Arti & Ors. Vs. Mehtab & Ors. Page 2 of 19 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP Date:
PRATAP 2026.01.28 17:16:39 +0530 vehicle also turned turtle due to which a car bearing registration no. UP15BS-7023 also got damaged. The injured Vikas died on the spot itself and the postmortem was thereafter conducted at Distt. Hospital, Baghpat vide PM No. 189/24. An FIR in this regard was also registered vide FIR no. 389/24, for the offences u/s 279/304-A/427 IPC, at PS Baraut, Distt. Baghpat, U.P. The present claim petition thereafter came to be filed in due course on 05.07.2024.
WS / Reply of Respondents
2. In their joint WS filed by respondent no. 1 and 2, being the driver and owner of the offending vehicle respectively, it has been contended that R1 was holding a valid DL at the time of the accident. It has been further contended that the offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent no. 3 (R3) i.e. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., vide policy no. 271702/31/2024/4156, valid for the period from 02.01.2024 to 01.01.2025, as on the date and time of the alleged accident. However, the respondent no. 1 and 2 denied all the averments of the claim petition and prayed for its dismissal.
3. The respondent no. 3 i.e. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., filed its separate detailed written statement, wherein it has been admitted that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the company vide insurance policy no. 271702/31/2024/4156, in the name of Sh. Mayank Malik i.e. respondent no. 2 (R2) herein, with its validity from 02.01.2024 to 01.01.2025. However, the respondent no. 3 denied any liability on its part and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
ISSUES MACT No. 419/24 Arti & Ors. Vs. Mehtab & Ors. Page 3 of 19 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP Date:
PRATAP 2026.01.28 17:16:45 +0530
4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 17.02.2025, as under:-
(i) Whether deceased namely Vikas died on account of injuries suffered in accident having taken place on 31.05.2024 at about 09:00 pm near Satguru Hotel, Delhi-Saharanpur Road, Baraut, U.P. within the jurisdiction of PS Baraut, Distt. Baghpat, U.P. due to rash and negligent driving of driver of vehicle no. UP17AT-6100 by respondent no. 1? OPP
(ii) Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP.
(iii) Relief.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
5. In order to prove their case, petitioners examined Smt. Arti i.e wife of the deceased, as PW-1. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A, wherein she reiterated the contents of the claim petition and relied upon the following documents:-
Sr. No. Exhibit No. Particulars
1. Ex. PW1/1 (OSR) Copy of Aadhar card of deponent
2. Ex. PW1/2 (OSR) Copy of PAN card of deponent
3. Ex. PW1/3 (OSR) Copy of Aadhar card of petitioner namely Palak
4. Ex. PW1/4 (OSR) Copy of Aadhar card of petitioner namely Shivansh
5. Ex. PW1/5 (OSR) Copy of Aadhar card of petitioner namely Vir Singh
6. Ex. PW1/6 (OSR) Copy of PAN card of petitioner namely Vir Singh
7. Ex. PW1/7 (OSR) Copy of Aadhar card of petitioner namely Jamuna Devi
8. Ex. PW1/8 (OSR) Copy of PAN card of petitioner namely Jamuna Devi
9. Ex. PW1/9 (OSR) Copy of Aadhar card of deceased
10. Ex.PW1/10 (OSR) Copy of PAN card of deceased
11. Mark A (colly) Copy of FIR MACT No. 419/24 Arti & Ors. Vs. Mehtab & Ors. Page 4 of 19 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date:
2026.01.28 17:16:49 +0530
12. Mark B Copy of bail bond
13. Ex.PW1/R3 Copy of driving licence of deceased (OSR) She was cross-examined and discharged.
6. In order to prove their case, petitioners also examined a purported eye witness namely Sh. Ankit as PW-2. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW-2/A, wherein he reiterated the contents of the claim petition and relied upon the copy of his Aadhar card as Ex. PW2/1.
He was cross-examined and discharged.
7. Petitioners did not examine any other witness and PE was thereon closed by the Tribunal vide order dated 29.10.2025, in view of the separate statement of Ld. Counsel for petitioners recorded to this effect.
Respondents' Evidence
8. Respondents did not examine any witness and RE was thereon closed by the Tribunal vide order dated 03.12.2025.
Issue wise findings Issue no.1 Whether deceased namely Vikas died on account of injuries suffered in accident having taken place on 31.05.2024 at about 09:00 pm near Satguru Hotel, Delhi-Saharanpur Road, Baraut, U.P. within the jurisdiction of PS Baraut, Distt. Baghpat, U.P. due to rash and negligent driving of driver of vehicle no. UP17AT-6100 by respondent no. 1? OPP
9. In an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non. However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is tested on the touchstone of principle of preponderance of probabilities. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings MACT No. 419/24 Arti & Ors. Vs. Mehtab & Ors. Page 5 of 19 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP Date: PRATAP 2026.01.28 17:16:53 +0530 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 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi & Ors. Vs Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs Amir Chand & Ors, 2011 (1) SCR 1906 (Civil Appeal No. 1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
10. In the present case, the petitioners have examined an eye witness of the accident namely Sh. Ankit as their star witness to prove the contentions regarding the claim for compensation, apart from examining the wife of the deceased, as PW-2 and PW-1 respectively. Both the said witnesses have categorically stated in their examination on oath that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent act of respondent no. 1 being driver of the offending vehicle. The said contentions are duly corroborated by the findings of the police as mentioned in the FIR, Site plan, charge sheet, postmortem report along with other documents pertaining to criminal case in respect of the incident in question brought on record as Ex. P1 (colly) and no ground has been made out by the respondents to disbelieve the same. The PW-2 has specifically deposed about the mode and manner of the MACT No. 419/24 Arti & Ors. Vs. Mehtab & Ors. Page 6 of 19 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date:
2026.01.28 17:16:58 +0530 accident and has even stated that he stayed at the spot of the accident for about 45 minutes. On the other hand, the respondents have neither brought any material on record to show any reason for their alleged false implication in the present case nor they have pleaded or proved any complaint to the concerned authorities regarding their alleged false implication.
11. The very fact that R-1 has already been specifically arrayed as an accused in case FIR No. 389/24, PS Baraut, Distt. Baghpat, U.P., for the offences u/s 279/304-A/427 IPC is also a strong circumstance to support the above said testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 on these issues. The copies of FIR, Site plan, report u/s 173 Cr.PC and postmortem report brought on record also corroborate the oral testimony of PW-1 & PW2. Moreover, the position of law in this regard has been made clear in the case of "National Insurance Co., Vs Puspha Rana", 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, wherein it has been held that filing of Chargesheet is sufficient proof of the negligence and involvement of the offending vehicle. Similar observations have been made in the case of "United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deepak Goel and Ors.", 2014 (2) Tac 846 Del, that if the claimant was able to prove the criminal case on record pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, whereby the criminal records showing completion of investigation by the police and filing of Chargesheet under Section 279/304-A/337 IPC against the driver have been proved, then, the documents mentioned above are sufficient to establish the fact that the driver was negligent in causing the accident. Where FIR is lodged, Chargesheet is filed, especially in a case where driver after causing the accident had fled away from the spot, then the documents mentioned above are sufficient to establish the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent in causing the accident particularly when MACT No. 419/24 Arti & Ors. Vs. Mehtab & Ors. Page 7 of 19 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP Date:
PRATAP 2026.01.28 17:17:01 +0530 there was no defence available from his side before the Learned Tribunal. The position of law has been recently reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as "Ranjeet & Anr. Vs. Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr." Arising out of SLP (C ) No. 10351/2019, wherein it has been held that:-
"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 eye witnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver."
12. Besides the above, respondent no. 1 i.e. the driver namely Mahtab was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the depositions being made by PW-1 and PW-2 regarding the above accident and its manner etc., but he has not done so. Therefore, an adverse inference on this aspect is also required to be drawn against the respondents in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi).
13. Furthermore, respondent no.1 i.e. owner of the offending vehicle, respondent no. 2 i.e. driver of the offending vehicle and respondent no. 3 i.e. Insurance Company, have neither impeached the testimony of PW-1 & PW-2 nor they have led any defence evidence to substantiate their claim that the accident was caused due to fault of the deceased or that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. The evidence of the star witness in this case i.e. PW-2, on the aspect of rash and negligent act of respondent no. 1 while driving the offending vehicle, has remained unimpeached and MACT No. 419/24 Arti & Ors. Vs. Mehtab & Ors. Page 8 of 19 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP Date:
PRATAP 2026.01.28 17:17:05 +0530 his testimony has to be accepted on its face value itself as the same has successfully stood the test of cross-examination.
14. In view of the above, it could be safely assumed that the offending vehicle was being driven by R-1 indeed at the time of incident and the fatal injuries to the deceased took place on account of the incident in question itself.
15. Having ruled so, this Tribunal now proceeds to assess the wrongful act, neglect or default of R-1, if any, in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Admittedly, R-1 has not explained the circumstances under which his vehicle (i.e. the offending Truck) hit the motorcycle of deceased Vikas. In the absence of any averment or evidence regarding any mechanical defect in the offending vehicle or any material depicting any negligent/sudden act or omission on the part of the deceased or any other such person, the only inference possible in the given facts and circumstances is that of neglect and default on the part of R-1 in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. In view of the above discussion, this tribunal is constrained to hold R-1 guilty of gross neglect and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time leading to the fatal injuries to the deceased Vikas.
16. Furthermore, in view of the medical records, postmortem report placed on record by the petitioners, no doubt or dispute is left regarding the fatal injuries to the deceased Vikas in the above accident.
17. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this Tribunal holds that the deceased Vikas suffered fatal injuries on account of neglect and default of R-1 while driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. The issue at MACT No. 419/24 Arti & Ors. Vs. Mehtab & Ors. Page 9 of 19 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date:
2026.01.28 17:17:09 +0530 hand is thus decided against the respondents and in favour of the petitioners.
Issue no. (ii) Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP
18. On the basis of findings upon issue no. (i), it is clear that the incident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by R-1 and fatal injuries had been caused to the deceased in the incident. Hence, the petitioners being the wife, children and aged parents are entitled to compensation in this case as the claim of the petitioners being dependents of the deceased has neither been denied nor disputed in any manner by the respondents during the entire proceedings.
19. The issue at hand is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
LIABILITY
20. Now, the question arises as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. The respondent no. 1 Mehtab is the principal tort feasor being driver, while the respondent no. 2 is vicariously liable being the owner of the offending vehicle. Herein, it is pertinent to note that the respondent no. 3 i.e. Insurance Company has specifically admitted in its written statement that the offending vehicle was duly insured at the time of accident with respondent no. 1 vide insurance policy no. 271702/31/2024/4156, in the name of Mayank Malik i.e. respondent no. 2 (R2) herein, with its validity from 02.01.2024 to 01.01.2025. At the same time, the respondent no. 3 has failed to bring on record or to prove any MACT No. 419/24 Arti & Ors. Vs. Mehtab & Ors. Page 10 of 19 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP Date: PRATAP 2026.01.28 17:17:13 +0530 breach of the terms or conditions of the said insurance policy by the respondents no. 1 and 2 in any manner.
21. Hence, on the basis of entire above stated facts and circumstances and discussion of evidence, this Tribunal is of the opinion that respondent no. 3 i.e. insurance company, is liable to pay the entire compensation to the petitioner on behalf of respondent no. 1 and 2, without any recovery rights.
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
22. As far as computation of compensation is concerned, the same shall be under the following heads :-
MEDICAL EXPENSES
23. It is clear from above stated facts and circumstances that the deceased had expired soon after the accident and no medical expenditure was undertaken by the petitioners in the treatment of the deceased before his death. Hence, petitioners are not entitled to any compensation under this head on account of absence of any evidence brought on record in this regard.
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
24. In the present case, perusal of the Aadhar card of deceased Vikas Ex. PW1/9 reveals that date of birth of the deceased was 02.05.1989 and the same has not been disputed in any manner by the respondents. Therefore, the deceased was thus aged about 35 years at the time of the incident resulting in his death on 31.05.2024.
25. The petitioners have failed to file any document pertaining to the employment or income of the deceased Vikas to show that he was working MACT No. 419/24 Arti & Ors. Vs. Mehtab & Ors. Page 11 of 19 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP Date: PRATAP 2026.01.28 17:17:16 +0530 as a Machine Operator and he used to earn Rs. 20,000/- per month. Therefore, in absence of any documents filed on record to show that the deceased used to earn Rs. 20,000/- or that he possessed any specific skill, this Tribunal has assessed the income of deceased at parity with minimum wages of 'unskilled worker' in U.P. prevalent at the time of accident i.e. Rs. 10,648/- per month as the documents brought on record show that the deceased and his family were resident of State of U.P. at the time of the accident.
26. Furthermore, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680", 40% addition shall be given to the deceased towards future prospects as he was below 40 years at the time of incident and he was self employed. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased with 40% future prospects comes out to be Rs. 10,648/- + 4,259/- (10,648/- X 40/100) = Rs. 14,907/- per month.
27. As borne out from the record, the deceased Vikas was married and was having his wife, a daughter, a son and his parents as dependents on the day of the accident. Therefore, all the five original petitioners shall be treated as dependents of the deceased for the purpose of the present petition. Furthermore, since there were total 05 dependents of the deceased, hence, 1/4th of the earnings of the deceased Vikas shall be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Therefore, in the entire given facts and circumstances, deduction of 1/4th of total income is made for personal living expenses of deceased. Hence, an amount of Rs.3,726.75/- (Rs. 14,907/4) is required to be deducted from monthly income of deceased.
MACT No. 419/24 Arti & Ors. Vs. Mehtab & Ors. Page 12 of 19 Digitally signed by HARUNHARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date:
2026.01.28 17:17:20 +0530 Finally, annual dependency of dependents is calculated as under (annual income) - (annual expenses of deceased) i.e. (Rs.1,78,884/- - Rs. 44,721/-) = Rs. 1,34,163/- per annum.
28. Moreover, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of "Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr"., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of " National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi & Ors". SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, decided on 31.10.2017, the multiplier of '16' is held applicable for calculating the loss of dependency caused to the petitioners on account of death of the deceased. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the total loss of dependency qua the deceased in the present case comes out to be Rs. 1,34,163/- X 16 = Rs. 21,46,608/-.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM / LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION
29. In "Magma Vs. General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Nanu Ram & Ors". 2018 ACJ 2782, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that '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 entire family. Spousal Consortium allows compensation to surviving spouse for loss of 'company, society, co-operation, affection and aid of the other in every conjugal relation'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed in said judgment that parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of 'parental aid, protection, affection, MACT No. 419/24 Arti & Ors. Vs. Mehtab & Ors. Page 13 of 19 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date:
2026.01.28 17:17:24 +0530 society, discipline, guidance and training. Similarly, filial consortium is to be granted to each of the surviving dependent parents on the death of their child.
30. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the computation of compensation under this head is as follows :
Filial Consortium : Rs. 96,000/- (Rs. 48,000/- X 2) Spousal Consortium : Rs. 48,000/- (Rs. 48,000/- X 1) Parental Consortium : Rs. 96,000/- (Rs. 48,000/- X 2)
31. Hence, the petitioners are hereby awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- on account of loss of consortium/loss of love and affection under this head.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
32. A total sum of Rs. 36,000/- is awarded in favour of petitioners under both the heads i.e. Rs. 18,000/- on account of 'loss of estate' and Rs.18,000/- for 'funeral expenses' of the deceased, as per the law laid down in "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." (Supra).
33. The total amount of compensation to be granted in favour of the petitioners in this case is thus Rs.21,46,608/- + Rs. 2,40,000/- + Rs. 36,000/- = Rs. 24,22,608/-.
ISSUE NO.3 / RELIEF
34. In view of the the findings on the aforesaid issues, the petitioners are hereby awarded a sum of Rs. 24,22,608/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakh MACT No. 419/24 Arti & Ors. Vs. Mehtab & Ors. Page 14 of 19 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date:
2026.01.28 17:17:29 +0530 Twenty Two Thousand Six Hundred and Eight Only) along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its deposition by the insurer i.e. respondent no. 3. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award along with waiver of interest, if any, shall be excluded from the above amount and calculations of compensation.
RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION TO THE PETITIONER
35. As per the aforesaid statement, none of the dependent were earning anything and petitioners had their bank account in UCO Bank, KKD Branch, Delhi. The photocopy of the passbooks of the bank accounts of the petitioners maintained with respective Banks, were also placed on record by the petitioners. Photocopies of Aadhar Card and PAN Card were also placed on record by the petitioners, apart from two photographs each of the petitioners.
36. Finally, out of the aforesaid awarded amount, the petitioner no. 1 namely Smt. Arti i.e. wife of deceased is hereby awarded a sum of Rs. 12,22,608/-, out of which Rs.10,00,000/- is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch, Delhi bearing account no. 20780110171912; IFSC: UCBA0002078 in MACAD in the form of 50 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of Rs. 20,000/- payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 50 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her savings/MACT Claims SB Account, maintained with UCO Bank, KKD Branch, Delhi.
MACT No. 419/24 Arti & Ors. Vs. Mehtab & Ors. Page 15 of 19 Digitally signed by HARUNHARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date:
2026.01.28 17:17:33 +0530 Remaining amount of Rs.2,22,608/- and the interest component to be paid by the respondent no. 3 is directed to be released into her account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the petitioner as per her volition.
37. Out of the total awarded amount, the petitioner no. 2 namely Palak being minor daughter of deceased is hereby awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. The aforesaid amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch, Delhi bearing account no. 20780110171912; IFSC: UCBA0002078 in MACAD in FDRs till the date she attain majority, as per the scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her savings account.
38. Out of the total awarded amount, the petitioner no. 3 namely Shivansh being minor son of deceased is hereby awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. The aforesaid amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch, Delhi bearing account no. 20780110171912; IFSC: UCBA0002078 in MACAD in FDRs till the date he attain majority, as per the scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in his savings account.
39. Out of the aforesaid awarded amount, the petitioner no. 4 namely Sh. Vir Singh i.e. father of deceased, is hereby awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, out of which total amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is directed to be kept with UCO MACT No. 419/24 Arti & Ors. Vs. Mehtab & Ors. Page 16 of 19 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date:
2026.01.28 17:17:40 +0530 Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch, Delhi bearing account no. 20780110171912; IFSC: UCBA0002078 in MACAD in the form of 10 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of Rs.20,000/- payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 10 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in his savings/MACT Claims SB Account, maintained with UCO Bank, KKD Branch, Delhi.
40. Out of the aforesaid awarded amount, the petitioner no. 5 namely Smt. Jamuna Devi i.e. mother of deceased, is hereby awarded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-, out of which total amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch, Delhi bearing account no. 20780110171912; IFSC: UCBA0002078 in MACAD in the form of 10 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of Rs.20,000/- payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 10 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her savings/MACT Claims SB Account, maintained with UCO Bank, KKD Branch, Delhi.
41. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody and copies of the same be provided to the petitioner with the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount.MACT No. 419/24 Arti & Ors. Vs. Mehtab & Ors. Page 17 of 19 Digitally signed by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2026.01.28
17:17:44
+0530
(b) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic
Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant.
(c) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(d) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant / his guardian. 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.
(e) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court.
42. Respondent no. 3, being insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount with interest @ 8% per annum till date with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a for the period of delay. Concerned Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch is directed to transfer the share amount of the petitioner in his bank account / FDRs as per above-said directions, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. The Branch Manager, is further directed to keep the said amounts in fixed deposits in name of this Court in auto renewal mode every 15 days, till the claimants approach the bank for disbursement, so that the award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheques. Soft copy of the award be uploaded on official website of Delhi District Courts i.e. https://delhidistrictcourts.nic.in.
43. Form IV-A and Form-V, in terms of MCTAP, shall be read as part of the Award. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioner and also to counsel MACT No. 419/24 Arti & Ors. Vs. Mehtab & Ors. Page 18 of 19 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP Date:
PRATAP 2026.01.28 17:17:48 +0530 for the insurance company for compliance. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank passbooks and copy of residence proof of the petitioner, be sent to Nodal Officer of UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.Digitally signed by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP Date: Announced in open Court PRATAP 2026.01.28 17:17:52 On this 28th Day of January, 2026 +0530 (HARUN PRATAP) PO (MACT), SHAHDARA KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI MACT No. 419/24 Arti & Ors. Vs. Mehtab & Ors. Page 19 of 19