Delhi District Court
Atul Kumar Singh vs Gaurav Singh on 14 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARUL VARMA
PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-02 ,PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
ATUL KUMAR SINGH Vs. GAURAV
SINGH & ORS
DAR 126/2020
Atul Kumar Singh
S/o Late Sh Lakhan Singh
R/o H. No 22 Jalvayu Vihar
Sector-L Ashiyana Lucknow UP
......Injured/claimant
Versus
1. Sh Gaurav Singh
S/o Sh Divya Prakash
R/o H. No 154 10C Vrindavan
Colony, Lucknow, UP
....Driver-cum-owner/Respondent no. 1
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. RBI Road Lucknow UP P No 3005/AI-11544497/00/000 ....Insurance Company/Respondent no. 2 Date of accident 05.06.2019 Date of filing DAR 03.03.2020 Date of framing of issues 31.10.2022 Date of concluding arguments 14.10.2025 Date of decision 14.10.2025 DAR 126/2020 Page. 1 of 53 Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.10.14 15:48:53 +0530 AWARD/JUDGMENT Index to the Judgment I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE CLAIMANT(s)...................................4 II. FRAMING OF ISSUES.........................................................................5 III. EVIDENCE LED BY THE PARTIES..................................................6 IV. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS OF THE PARTIES.........................10 V. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO.........................14
(a) Issue No.1: Whether Riya Singh expired on account of injuries sustained in the accident which occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the respondent driver?..........................................14 i. The evidence on record qua negligence including contributory negligence, if any:............................................................................14 ii. Presumption qua complicity upon filing chargesheet:.................23 iii. Adverse inference qua driver:.....................................................24 iv. Preponderance of probabilities:...................................................25 v. Finding:.........................................................................................26
(b) Issue No.2: Whether claimant is entitled to compensation, and to what amount?........................................................................................ 27 i. Principles qua assessment of compensation:.................................27 ii. Monthly Income of the deceased:................................................31 iii. Future prospects:.........................................................................32 iv. Personal expenses of the deceased:.............................................33 v. Monthly & Annual Loss of dependency:......................................35 vi. Total Loss of Dependency:..........................................................35 vii. Other Heads:...............................................................................36 viii. Medical Expenses:....................................................................38 ix. Compensation for Loss of Consortium:......................................38 DAR 126/2020 Page. 2 of 53 Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr Digitally signed by Arul Varma Arul Date:
Varma 2025.10.14 15:49:10 +0530 x. Compensation for Loss of Estate:.................................................40 xi. Compensation towards Funeral Expenses:..................................41 xii. Total Compensation:...................................................................41
(c) Issue No.3: Relief............................................................................41 i. Amount of Award:.........................................................................41 ii. Rate of Interest:............................................................................42 VI. DEPOSIT OF AWARD& RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT..............43 i. Deposit of Award:..........................................................................43 ii. Disbursement of the award amount & protection thereof:...........44 VII. LIABILITY....................................................................................... 47 VIII. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN CASES OF DEATH...................................................................................48 IX. COMPLIANCE QUA PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME................50 Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varm Date:
DAR 126/2020 Page. 3 of 53 Varma 2025.10.1 Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr 15:49:19 +0530 I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE CLAIMANT(s)
1. The facts as asseverated by the claimant are hereby succinctly recapitulated: A road accident occurred on 05.06.2019 at about 10:30 PM, in front of Kothi No 42A Golf Links, Arch Bishop, Mark, New Delhi, which resulted in registration of FIR No. 38/2019, U/s 279/337 IPC at PS Tuglak Road. The transgressing or offending vehicle involved in this case was a motorcycle bearing registration No. UP 32 HX 3170, which at the relevant time of accident was being driven by respondent no.1 (R-1) Sh. Gaurav Singh, who was owner-cum-driver and was insured by respondent no.2 (R-2) ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. The accident resulted in the untimely demise of Ms Riya, daughter of claimant, Mr Atul Kumar Singh.
2. Investigation: A DD no 24 A dated 05.06.2019 was received to ASI Pramod Kumar regarding an accident occurred in front of Kothi no 42-A Golf Link, New Delhi. It was alleged that a motorcycle got slipped near Kothi no 42-A Golf Link, New Delhi due to which Riya Singh (deceased herein) along with one Gaurav suffered grievous injuries and were admitted to Moolchand Hospital. It was further submitted one motorcycle bearing no UP32 HX-3170, make Royal Enfield, Black DAR 126/2020 Page. 4 of 53 Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr Digitally signed by Arul Varma Arul Date:
Varma 2025.10.14 15:49:29 +0530 Colour was found standing on the place of the accident. It was further submitted that no eye witness was found there at the place of incident. It was alleged that the injured Riya Singh was unconscious and was on ventilatory support and was not able to communicate and later on she succumbed to the injuries sustained due to the accident. The said DD no 24A resulted in the registration of FIR No. 38/2019 u/s 279/337 IPC.
3. During investigation, site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared, medical documents were collected and offending vehicle was seized. The driver-cum-owner was arrested and thereafter released on bail. On completion of investigation, chargesheet under sections 279/337 IPC was filed qua the driver.
4. During proceedings before this Tribunal, written statement was filed on behalf of the R-3 Insurance Company wherein pleas were taken to the effect that the insurance company was not informed about the accident, that it was the claimant who was himself responsible for the accident etc. II. FRAMING OF ISSUES
5. Vide order dated 31.10.2022, following issues were framed by this Tribunal:-
Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Varma Date:
2025.10.14 15:49:39 DAR 126/2020 Page. 5 of 53 +0530 Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr "1. Whether deceased Ms Riya Singh expired as a result of injuries sustained in a road traffic accident which occurred on 05.06.2019 at around 10:30 PM, in front of Kothi no 42A Golf Links, Arch Bishop Mark, New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. UP32 HX 3170 driven and owned by respondent no.1, and insured with respondent no. 2?OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief."
6. Recording of evidence:15.12.2022 was a watershed moment as far as recording of evidence is concerned, as on that date, judgment titled Gohar Mohammed v Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (2023) 4 SCC 381 was pronounced, which mandated inter alia that the Claims Tribunal was duty bound to record the evidence through a Local Commissioner. Ergo, vide order dated 11.04.2023, a Local Commissioner was appointed for recording of evidence, report whereof was submitted on 17.03.2025.
III. EVIDENCE LED BY THE PARTIES
7. In the proceedings conducted before the Tribunal, three witnesses were examined, succinct testimonies whereof are as follows:
DAR 126/2020 Page. 6 of 53 Arul Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr Varma Digitally signed by Arul Varma Date: 2025.10.14 15:49:49 +0530
8. PW1 Claimant Sh Atul Kumar Singh(father of deceased) : He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. He relied upon certain documents i.e. Copy of his Aadhar card Ex Pw1/1, copy of his Pan card as Ex PW1/2, copy of Aadhar card of his deceased daughter as Ex PW1/3, Copy of PAN card of his deceased daughter as Ex PW1/4, copy of qualification documents of his deceased daughter as Ex PW1/5, copy of identity of his deceased daughter Mark A, Copy of original case summary of deceased issued by Moolchand hospital showing admission on 06.06.2019 along with reports as Ex PW1/6, copy of LAMA summary of deceased issued by Moolchand hospital as Mark B, Original inpatient bill dated 10.06.2019 for a sum of Rs 3,63,050, along with payment receipts as Ex PW1/7, copy of death certificate of his wife as Mark C, Discharge summar and certificate/letter dated 26.08.2019 issued by Avadh Hospital, Lucknow filed by IO with the DARas Ex PW1/8, bill cum receipt dated 13.06.2019 for a sum of Rs 80,000/-issued by Avadh Hospital Lucknow, filed by IO with DAR as Ex PW1/9, verified death certificate of deceased filed by IO with the DAR as Ex PW1/10, verified retainership letter issued by employer of the deceased filed by the IO with DAR showing monthly retainership fee of Rs 22,000/- to deceased as Ex DAR 126/2020 Page. 7 of 53 Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr Digitally signed by Arul Varma Arul Date:
Varma 2025.10.14 15:49:58 +0530 PW1/11, and verified Ambulance bill dated 10.06.2019 for a sum of Rs 30,000/- filed by the IO with the DAR as Ex PW1/12. He was cross examined by Ld Counsel for R1 and also by Ld Counsel for R2/Insurance Company.
9. PW-2 Mrs Sandhya Chawla, Chief People Officer- She was the summoned witness. She had been authorised to appear and depose vide authority letter dated 27.03.2024 as Ex PW2/1. This witness had brought the summoned records pertaining to Ms Riya Singh who was working with their company with effect from 08.04.2019 as a Management trainee on the retainer ship of Rs 22,000/- per month and the same was being paid to her by transferring the same into her bank account. She had brought the entire records pertaining to deceased such as copy of her resume, copy of joining letter, background check form employee updation form for KYC, application for employment form, copy of her PAN card, Aadhar card, copy of her all qualification documents as submitted by her with the company and the same were Ex. PW2/2. This witness proved the retainership letter already Ex PW1/11 and attested copy of the same along with retainership terms as Ex PW2/3. This witness also proved the document/letter dated 12.02.2020 issued by the company to the ASI Anil Kumar in response to the notice given by ASI Anil Kumar to the company as DAR 126/2020 Page. 8 of 53 Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr Digitally signed by Arul Varma Arul Date:
Varma 2025.10.14 15:50:07 +0530 ExPW2/4. She was cross examined by Ld Counsel for the respondent no 2/Insurance Company.
10.PW-3 ASI Anil Kumar (retired) no 1538/ND PIS 28822724- He was the summoned witness. He stated that the investigation of this case was assigned to him. He also stated that during the course of investigation, site plan was prepared at the instance of Sh Sohan Lal Yadav (eye witness) and thereafter the offending motorcycle no UP32HX3170 was seized and that the documents of the said motorcycle were also seized, driving license of the driver was also seized, mechanical inspection of the motorcycle was also got conducted, notice u/s 133 MV Act was given to the registered owner of the offending vehicle. Witness also contended that notice u/s 133 of MV Act was given to registered owner of the motorcycle who gave his reply tot he notice in his own handwriting. It was also stated that statements of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.PC were also recorded and that accused/respondent herein was arrested and was released on police bail. This witness proved the letter and retainership letter already Ex as PW2/4 and Ex. PW1/11. He was cross examined by Ld Counsel for the respondent no 2/Insurance Company.
11.R-3/Insurance Company preferred not to lead any evidence.
DAR 126/2020 Page. 9 of 53 Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr Arul Varma Digitally signed by Arul Varma Date: 2025.10.14 15:50:14 +0530
12.Financial statement of the claimant was recorded on 14.10.2025 written submissions were filed by the parties and final arguments were heard.
IV. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS OF THE PARTIES
13.Sh. Manoj Goel, Ld Counsel for the claimant contended that the accident occurred due to the wanton negligence of the driver of the motorcycle bearing registration no. UP32HX 3170. Ld Counsel further contended that the factum of filing of chargesheet itself and of framing of charges establishes negligence on the part of the driver. Ld Counsel further contended that the pleas taken by the respondent /Insurance Company ought not to be given any weightage. It was contended that mere factum of consumption of liquor would not provide any statutory defence to the respondent/Insurance Company. It was further contended that the claimant was the sole dependent of the deceased and therefore he is entitled to the award of compensation. It was lastly contended that even though the pillion rider was not wearing a helmet, yet that by itself would not tantamount to assumption of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased pillion rider. To establish the income of the deceased, PW-2 Mrs Sandhya Chawla from the HR Department of M/s Continental Carriers Pvt Ltd was examined, who DAR 126/2020 Page. 10 of 53 Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Varma Date:
2025.10.1 15:50:21 +0530 adduced on record the relevant document viz. retainership letter Ex PW1/11and documents to establish that the deceased was employed in the organisation w.e.f 08.04.2019 as a Management Trainee on a retainership of Rs 22,000/- per month, and the same was being paid by transferring her in her bank account. To fortify his submissions, Ld Counsel placed reliance on the following judgments:
(a) National Insurance Co Ltd Vs Puneet Bhatia & Ors MAC App 774/2017 ,
(b) Smt Dhaneshwari & Anr Vs Tejeshwar Singh & Ors MAC App 997/2011.
(c) National Insurance Company Limited Vs Nicolletta Rohtagi 2002 LawSuit (SC) 888
(d) Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Vs Vijay & Vicky & Anr MAC App 678/2011
(e) Khem Chand Vs Uma Devi & Ors 2009 LawSuit (HP) 552
(f) United India Insurance Company Ltd Vs Anil Kumar & Ors 2018 LawSuit (HP) 1658
(g) Babu Ram Vs Ajay Kumar & Ors 2016 LawSuit (HP) 465
(h) Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Vs Sangeyum & Ors Prem Kumar Raj Bhagat Charan Pyari & Ors Jagdish and ors 2015 LawSuit (HP) 749 Digitally signed by Arul DAR 126/2020 Page. 11 of 53 Arul Varma Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr Varma Date:
2025.10.1 15:50:29 +0530
(i) National Insurance Company Ltd Vs Smt Sushma & Ors 2019 LawSuit (HP) 1638
(j) United India Insurance Co Ltd Vs Raghav Singh Ors MAC App 788/2019
(k) IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Vs Mukesh Devi and Ors MACP App 615/2011
(l) The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs Smt Kusum and Ors MAC App 90/2024 & CM Appl 7879/2024
(m) Shri Ram General Ins. Co Ltd Vs Sh Swapan Saha MAC App 176/2024
(n) Sukhdev Prasad Vs Sunil Kumar & Ors (IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co Ltd. 2021 LawSuit (Del) 1144
(o) Indrawati & Anr Vs Ranbir Singh & Ors 2021 LawSuit (Del) 179
(p) Mithilesh & Anr Vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors (Oriental Insurance Co Ltd) 2017 LawSuit (Del) 3724
(q) National Insurance Company Ltd; Sarika & Ors Vs Sarika & Ors Karam Chand and ors 2024 LawSuit (P&H) 222
(r) New India Assurance Co Ltd Vs Pooja Bhatia & Ors 2013 LawSuit (Del) 1476
(s) Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd Vs Bholi & Ors 2023 LawSuit (Del) 4100 DAR 126/2020 Page. 12 of 53 Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr Digitally signed b Arul Arul Varma Varma Date:
2025.10 15:50:3 +0530
(t) Ranjeet & Anr Vs Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr 2025 LawSuit (SC) 327 (u) National Insurance Company Ltd Vs Pushpa Rana & Ors 2007 LawSuit (Del) 2353
(v) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd Vs Meera Devi & Ors 2021 LawSuit (Del) 858
14. Per contra, Sh Sandeep Jha, Ld Counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company submitted that the accident took place as the deceased was travelling in a motorcycle driven by driver Gaurav Singh, who was under the influence of liquor at the time of riding the motorcycle. This, according to Ld Counsel was a breach of policy of Insurance and therefore the Insurance Company would not be liable to pay the compensation. It was further argued that the father of the deceased had an independent source of income and therefore cannot be considered to be a dependent, and as such the award ought not to be passed in his favour. It was also submitted that the death in the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the deceased. It was submitted that a perusal of the discharge summary would reveal that the motorcycle rider only suffered simple injuries on account of the accident inasmuch as he was wearing a helmet whereas the pillion rider suffered DAR 126/2020 Page. 13 of 53 Digitally Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr signed by Arul Arul Varma Varma Date:
2025.10.14 15:50:45 +0530 several fractures on her skull as she did not wear the helmet and thus contributory negligence ought to be attributed to her. It was also submitted that the deceased, at the time of treatment, had left the hospital against medical advise which may have exacerbated her condition. However, this argument was refuted forthwith by the father of the deceased, who was present in the court and who stated that the injured was taken to their native place Lucknow as they had run out of funds incurred in her medical expenses in the hospital in Delhi. Ld Counsel for the Insurance Company did not dispute the income of the deceased.
V. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO
(a) Issue No.1: Whether Riya Singh expired on account of injuries sustained in the accident which occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the respondent driver?
i. The evidence on record qua negligence including contributory negligence, if any:
15.A plea was taken by the respondent insurance company that the deceased, being a pillion rider did not wear a helmet and therefore sustained injuries which resulted in her death. This contention is bereft of any legal justification inasmuch as it has been held in a catena of DAR 126/2020 Page. 14 of 53 Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr Digitally signed by Arul Varma Arul Date:
Varma 2025.10.14 15:50:59 +0530 judgments that merely because the pillion rider was not wearing a helmet, contributory negligence cannot be attributed to the pillion rider. Recourse can be had to Smt Dhaneshwari (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Court observed as thus:
159. The Appellant Insurance Company claims that the deceased contributed to the accident as no helmet was recovered from the spot. Puneet Gupta as affidavit Ex R3w1/A to the effect that the dceased was not wearing a helmet as it was not seized from the spot cannot be relied upon, to hold that the deceased was not wearing a helmet. The IO was not summoned to deposed on this aspect. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to believe the version as put forth by Puneet Gupta, an employee of the Appellant Insurance Company. Moreover, even if is is assumed that the deceased was not wearing a helmet, he cannot be said to have contributed to the accident. Reference is made to a Division Bench Judgment of MP High Court in Miss Vidya Soni & Anr. v Pushpesh Dwivedi & Ors, AIR 2008 MP 319 wherein it was held that if a motorcyclist did not wear a helmet at the time of accident, he cannot be said to have contributed to the accident."16.
17. Similarly, in National Insurance Co Ltd (supra) the Hon'ble Court held as thus:
26. The question remains as to the effect of the deceased not wearing a helmet.
27. In Vimla Devi (supra) this court rejected a similar plea of attribution of contributory negligence on the person /deceased for not wearing a helmet while riding as a pillion rider on a two-wheeler by observing as under:
"4. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the DAR 126/2020 Page. 15 of 53 Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.10.14 15:51:19 +0530 deceased fully knew that the mounting of three persons on a moving scooty was impermissible under motor traffic rules.The accident occurred in the middle of the road. The pillion riders were not wearing helmets, therefore there appears to be contributory negligence. The Court is of the view that the aforesaid argument is untenable because not wearing a helmet could at best be a traffic offence and not necessarily be regarded as contributing to the motor accident itself. After an accident occurs, its consequence depends upon the impact......"
28. Even though in Manju (supra( an in Ramasami (supra) the Madras High Court has taken a view that non-wearing a helmet justifies attribution of 10% 15% contributory negligence on the deceased, I am bound by the above judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Vimla Devi (supra)
29. Even otherwise, applying the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sudhir Kumar Rana (supra) I am also of the view that though not wearing a helmet would have magnified the injuries suffered by the deceased, the same were caused by the accident in question, where the cause of the accident was the overloading of the offending vehicle which had led to the overhanging electric wires being stuck with the bales that were being carried in the Offending Vehicle and the said wires falling over the deceased, entangling her scooty and making her fell down. Non wearing of the helmet by the deceased, therefore, did not cause or contributed to the accident, though had the deceased worn a helmet the injuries DAR 126/2020 Page. 16 of 53 Digitally Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr signed by Arul Arul Varma Varma Date:
2025.10.14 15:51:38 +0530 suffered by the deceased due to the accident may have been reduced (though this also remains in the realm of conjecture)"
18.It was also contended by the Ld Counsel for Insurance Company that since the driver had consumed liquor, that tantamounted to breach of Insurance policy, and therefore the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation amount. However, as rightly pointed out by Ld Counsel for the claimant, this contention too is bereft of any justification. It is pertinent to note that the accident took place in the year 2019, and at that particular point of time the unamended Section 149 MV Act was in force, which did not lay down driving under the influence of liquor/drugs as a ground for breach of Insurance policy. The said ground was incorporated only after the amendment to the MV Act u/s 150 thereof w.e.f 01.04.2022. The unamended Section 149 (2) is reproduced hereunder:
149. Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risk (2) No sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub-section (1) in respect of any judgment or award unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment or award is given the insurer had notice through the Court or, as the case may be, the Claims Tribunal of the bringing of the proceedings, or in respect of such judgment or award so long as execution is stayed thereon pending an appeal; and an insurer to whom DAR 126/2020 Page. 17 of 53 Digitally Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr signed by Arul Varma Arul Date:
Varma 2025.10.14 15:51:48 +0530 notice of the bringing of any such proceedings is so given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action on any of the following grounds,namely--
(a) that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy, being one of the following conditions, namely--
(i) a condition excluding the use of the vehicle--
(a) for hire or reward, where the vehicle is on the date of the contract of insurance a vehicle not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward, or
(b) for organised racing and speed testing, or
(c) for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, or
(d) without side-car being attached where the vehicle is a motor cycle; or \
(ii) condition excluding driving by a named person or persons or by any person who is not duly licensed, or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving license during the period of disqualification; or
(iii) a condition excluding liability for injury caused or contributed to by conditions of war, civil war, riot or civil commotion; or
(b) that the policy is void on the ground that it was obtained by the non- disclosure of a material fact or by a representation of fact which was false in some material particular.
19. Further, as rightly contended by Ld Counsel for the claimant, there are a plethora of verdicts which make it amply clear that the Insurance Company cannot be absolved from its duty to pay compensation to the claimant by taking a defence that the driver of the offending vehicle was in an inebriated condition. In this context, it would be fruitful to reproduce the following DAR 126/2020 Page. 18 of 53 Digitally Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr signed by Arul Arul Varma Varma Date:
2025.10.14 15:52:02 +0530 verdict of Nicoletta Rohtagi (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Court observed as thus:
"13. To answer the question, it is necessary to find out on what grounds the insurer is entitled to defend/contest against a claim by an injured or dependents of the victims of motor vehicle accident. Under Section 96(2) of 1939 Act which corresponds to Section 149(2) of 1988 Act, an insurance company has no right to be a party to an action by injured person or dependents of deceased against the insured. However, the said provision gives the insurer the right to be made a party of the case and to defend it. It is therefore obvious that the said right is a creature of the statute and its content depends on the provisions of the statute. After the insurer has been made a party to a case or claim, the question arises what are the defences available to it under the statute. The language employed in enacting sub-section (2) of Section 149 appears to be plain and simple and there is no ambiguity in it. It shows that when an insurer is impleaded and has been given notice of the case, he is entitled to defend the action on grounds enumerated in sub-section namely sub-section (2) of Section 149 of 1988 Act and no other ground is available to him. The insurer is not allowed to contest the claim of the injured or heirs of the deceased on other ground which is available to an insured or breach of any other conditions of the policy which do not find place in sub-section (2) of Section 149 of 1988 Act. If an insurer is permitted to contest the claim on other grounds it would mean adding more grounds of contest to the insurer than what the statute has specifically provided for."
16. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the statutory defences which are available to the insurer to contest a claim are DAR 126/2020 Page. 19 of 53 Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr Arul Varma Digitally signed by Arul Varma Date: 2025.10. confirmed to what are provided in sub-section (2) of Section 149 of 1988 Act and not more and for that reason if an insurer is to file an appeal the challenge in the appeal would confine to only those grounds."
20. Further, in Universal Sompo (supra) it was observed as thus:
"3. The sole contention raised by the Learned counsel for the Appellant is that since the insured i.e. the First Respondent was driving the two wheeler under the influence of alcohol, which was confirmed by medical examination, the First Respondent committed a breach of terms of the policy and was therefore, entitled to recovery rights. No such defence has been made available to an insurer by virtue of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicle Act."
21. Similarly, in Khem Chand (supra) Hon'ble Court ordained as thus:
"4. The law is very well settled that a claim which falls within the purview of an Act Policy, i.e. a liability falling within the ambit of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (the Act) can only be contested by the insurance company on the grounds available to it under section 149 of the Act. It is not permitted to contest the proceedings on any other ground. Intoxication of the driver is not a ground available to the insurance company under section 149 of the Act. Therefore, the liability, which is statutory under section 147 of the Act has to be satisfied by the insurer. It may be clarified that in case the insurer in addition to the liability which it is bound to cover under the Act covers other liability then in case of such extended liability, it may raise the defences available to it as per terms of the policy, but as far as statutory liability is concerned, the insurer has no authority to DAR 126/2020 Page. 20 of 53 Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr Arul Varma Digitally signed by Arul Varma Date: 2025.10.14 15:52:26 +0530 incorporate any term in the policy which is not contemplated in terms of Section 149 of the Act. Therefore, the insurance company could not have been permitted to raise this defence and it could not be permitted to recover the awarded amount from the insured."
22. The above verdicts makes it explicit that mere intoxication by the driver of the offending vehicle would not be sufficient for the Insurance Company to take a plea that they are not liable to pay the compensation. In fact, the factum of intoxication has not be cogently established in the present case as it has only been averred by the investigating authorities that the driver was smelling of alcohol. In the absence of cogent evidence in this regard, drunkenness of the rider cannot be presumed. In this regard also, reliance can be placed on Raghav Singh (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Court held as thus:
"1. This appeal impugns the award of compensation dated 10.05.2019 passed by the learned MACT in Case No. 599/2017 on the ground that the motor vehicular accident which resulted in one fatality and injuries to the other pillion riders was caused because of the scooter rider was drunk. The appellant relies upon the noting in the MLC to the effect that there was smell of alcohol in his breath.
2. On a query put to the learned counsel for the appellant whether the deceased had died on the spot and/or had been brought to the hospital and then declared dead, the answer is in the affirmative for the latter. In the circumstances when there is no breath, the likelihood of detection of alcohol in the breath is an DAR 126/2020 Page. 21 of 53 Digitally Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr signed by Arul Varma Arul Date:
Varma 2025.10.14 15:52:46 +0530 impossibility. Even if there was smell of alcohol near the mouth of the deceased, the degree of the alcohol in his body should have been tested to ascertain whether it was in excess of the permissible limits. In the absence of any evidence in this regard, the drunkenness of the rider cannot be presumed. Accordingly, no culpability or negligence can be attributed to the deceased rider. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that MLC of the injured too recorded detection of alcohol in his breath and a chargesheet was filed against him. Be that as it may, for a rider on a motorcycle or for a passenger in motor vehicle to have alcohol in his breath is not prohibited. It is impairment of the driving ability of the rider or the driver that needs to be determined. That determination was not done and cannot be done now."
23. Also in IFFCO Tokio (supra) the Hon'ble Court was of the view that"
"8. As the issue of the contributory negligence is concerned, there is no proof or material produced by the appellant to ascertain that the deceased had consumed Alcohol on the date of accident. They were given liberty by the ld. Tribunal, however, they failed to produce any evidence or documentary proof to prove that he was in a drunken condition. Mere mentioning of alcoholic smell in Post Mortem Report does not serve the purpose unless quantity of alcohol is determined."
24. Similarly, in The oriental Insurance (supra) the Hon'ble Court opined as thus:
"13. The second ground of challenge by the Appellant Insurance Company is that there was smell of alcohol present breath of the deceased, as is reflected in the MLC. However, mere presence of smell of alcohol is not sufficient to conclude that the deceased was in inebriated DAR 126/2020 Page. 22 of 53 Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr Digitally signed by Arul Varma Arul Date:
Varma 2025.10.14 15:52:59 +0530 condition especially when the extent of alcohol in his blood , has not been specified. and was in any manner responsible for the accident. Presence of alcohol smell can be for multiple reasons which may be like taking of some expectorant or such like medicine. Moreover, even if it is accepted that the deceased had consumed some alcohol, there is no evidence whatsoever that he was not in control of the vehicle or was in any manner, responsible for the accident. This contention of the Insurance Company is also not tenable."
25. Thus, the above discussion in extenso makes it abundantly explicit that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased herein.
ii. Presumption qua complicity upon filing chargesheet:
26.In a recent order dated 25.02.2025, passed in Ranjeet & Anr v Abdul Nayem Keb & Anr in SLP© 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."
27.In the present case, not only the chargesheet was filed u/s 279/337 IPC but charges were framed by the Court concerned u/s 304A IPC as well qua respondent no 1 driver Gaurav Singh. Thus, a presumption of negligence DAR 126/2020 Page. 23 of 53 Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.10.14 15:53:07 exists qua the driver respondent, a presumption which could not be rebutted.
28. As per DAR, the accident in question took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driven by R-1.
29. As per the mandate of law, there is a presumption that the contents of DAR are correct. Reliance is being placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meera Devi & ors., 2021 LawSuit (Del) 2021 wherein it was held that "......in view of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008, contents of DAR has to be presumed to be correct and read in evidence without formal proof of the same unless proof to the contrary was produced."
iii. Adverse inference qua driver:
30.The driver of the offending vehicle steered clear of the witness box and did not lead any controvertible evidence to negate or refute the allegations of rash and negligent driving. It may further be noted that in Cholamandlam insurance company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh 2009 (3) AD Delhi 310, it was held that if driver of offending vehicle does not enter the witness box, an adverse inference can be drawn against him. In the present case also, since the driver exercised his volition to not enter into the witness box to controvert the claim of petitioner or even to DAR 126/2020 Page. 24 of 53 Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Varma Date:
2025.10.14 15:53:19 +0530 explain circumstances of accident, an adverse inference ought to be drawn against him.
iv. Preponderance of probabilities:
31.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.
32.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 Digitally DAR 126/2020 Page. 25 of 53 signed by Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr Arul Arul Varma Varma Date:
2025.10.14 15:53:25 +0530 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 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."
v. Finding:
33.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. UP32HX3170 and the said vehicle at that time was driven and owned by respondent no. 1, and insured by respondent no.2. Hence, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the claimant and against the respondents.
DAR 126/2020 Page. 26 of 53
Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr Digitally
signed by
Arul
Arul Varma
Varma Date:
2025.10.14
15:53:32
+0530
(b) Issue No.2: Whether claimant is entitled to
compensation, and to what amount?
i. Principles qua assessment of compensation:
34.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.
35.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.
DAR 126/2020 Page. 27 of 53 Digitally Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr signed by Arul Arul Varma Varma Date:
2025.10.14 15:53:39 +0530 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:
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."
DAR 126/2020 Page. 28 of 53
Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr Digitally
signed by
Arul Varma
Arul Date:
Varma 2025.10.14
15:53:47
+0530
36.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, 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."
37. It was contended by Ld Counsel for the Insurance Company that in terms of Sarla Verma (supra) the father of the deceased i.e the claimant herein is not entitled to claim compensation inasmuch as only the mother of a deceased victim of road accident can claim compensation as a dependent. This contention is not only fallacious but is predicated on an erroneous understanding of the import of Sarla Verma (supra). The verdict nowhere debars a sole parent, be it either the mother or the father, to claim compensation in case of a deceased progeny. On the contrary, it would be useful to reproduce the extracts of Sunil Kumar (supra) wherein it was held as thus:
"5.This case is squarely covered by the recent judgment of this Court in Indrawati (supra) in which this Court had held that the parents of the deceased are considered in law as dependent on their children, considering that DAR 126/2020 Page. 29 of 53 Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.10.14 15:53:55 +0530 the children are bound to support their parents in their old age, when the parents would be unable to maintain their parents. Even if the parents are not dependent on their children at the time of accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon their children at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years. It would be unfair as well as inequitable to deny compensation for loss of dependency to a parent, who may not be dependent on his/her child at the time of accident per se but would become dependent at his/her later age.
38. Similarly in Indrawati (supra) the Hon'ble court ordained as thus:
4. The claims Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing no HR-63A-0270 driven by the respondent no1 owned by respondent no 2 and insured by respondent no 3. The Claims Tribunal held that PW-2 father of deceased, was working with the Delhi Police as Sub-Inspector and was therefore not dependent upon the deceased. The Claims Tribunal further held that petitioner No 1 mother of the deceased, cannot be said to be dependent upon the deceased as her husband was employed with the Delhi Police. The Claims Tribunal held that the appellants were not entitled to compensation for loss of dependency but only to compensation for loss of the estate in terms of the principles laid down in Keith Rowe v Prashant Sagar, 2011 ACJ 1734."
12. This Court is of the view that the parents of the deceased are considered in law as dependent on their children, considering that the children are bound to support their parents in their old age, when the parents would be unable to maintain themselves and the law DAR 126/2020 Page. 30 of 53 Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr Arul Varma Digitally signed by Arul Varma Date: 2025.10.14 15:54:03 +0530 imposes a responsibility on the children to maintain their parents. Even if the parents are not dependent on their children at the time of accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally upon their children at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their paretns in their initial years. It would therefore be unfair as well as inequitable to deny compensation for loss of dependency to a parent, who may not be dependent on his/her child at the time of accident per se but would become dependent at his/her later age."
39. The above verdicts make it pellucid that the father of the deceased herein can rightfully claim the compensation amount.
40. Further, in terms of the mandate of Rajesh Tyagi v Jaibir Singh FAO 842/2003, which is the cause célèbre qua cases pertaining 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:
41. To establish the monthly income of the deceased, the claimant had placed reliance on the testimony of PW-2 Mrs Sandhya Chawla as well as the documents adduced in evidence by her, which reflect that she was earning a retainership of Rs 22,000/- pm and which was being transferred in her bank account. Since the income DAR 126/2020 Page. 31 of 53 Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr Digitally signed by Arul Varma Arul Date:
Varma 2025.10.14 15:54:14 +0530 documents were not disputed by the Ld Counsel for the Insurance Company, the contents of the said documents and the testimony is not being discussed herein for the sake of brevity, the monthly income of the deceased is quantified as Rs. 22,000/-p.m. iii. Future prospects:
42.To factor into account future prospects, several guidelines have been laid down.
43.In this context, 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.
DAR 126/2020 Page. 32 of 53
Digitally
Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr signed by
Arul
Arul Varma
Varma Date:
2025.10.14
15:54:31
+0530
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."
44.To determine the age of the deceased, the claimants relied on copy of Aadhar card and Pan Card of the deceased Ex PW 1/3 and ex PW1/4 as per which her date of birth 15.10.1995. The incident occurred on 05.06.2019. Hence the age of the deceased is proved to be 24 years.
45.Since the age of the deceased was 24 years,and she was working in a pvt job, the percentage of future prospects in terms of the above judgment is hereby determined as 40 %. Therefore, the income of the deceased after adding future prospects is Rs 30,800/-(Rs 22,000/-+Rs 8,800/-) iv. Personal expenses of the deceased:
46.Expenses incurred by the deceased in himself are deducted while calculating the loss of dependency. To DAR 126/2020 Page. 33 of 53 Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Varma Date:
2025.10.14 15:54:41 +0530 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 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. Digitally signed by Arul Varma Arul Date:
Varma 2025.10.14 DAR 126/2020 Page. 34 of 53 15:54:48 +0530 Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr
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."
47..Considering the age of the deceased and the fact that she was unmarried deduction towards her personal expenses are hereby taken as 1/2. Thus, the net deduction in the present case is 1/2 of total calculated income i.e Rs 15,400/-
v. Monthly & Annual Loss of dependency:
48.The monthly loss of dependency would be Rs. 15,400. The annual loss of dependency Rs. 15,400/- X 12 = Rs.1,84,800/-.
vi. Total Loss of Dependency:
49. Since the deceased was 24 years, the applicable multiplier in terms of the verdict of Sarla Verma(supra) is
18. The total loss of dependency is thus The total loss of dependency is thus Rs.33,26,400/- (Rs.1,84,800/- X 18) DAR 126/2020 Page. 35 of 53 Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.10.14 15:54:55 +0530 vii. Other Heads:
50.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."
51.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 loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor Digitally signed b children does not exist. Arul Arul Varm Date:
Varma 2025.10.
15:55:02 DAR 126/2020 Page. 36 of 53 +0530 Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr 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."
Digitally
DAR 126/2020 Page. 37 of 53 signed by
Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr Arul
Arul Varma
Varma Date:
2025.10.14
15:55:09
+0530
52. 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:
53. Ld Counsel for claimant had placed relevant bills to contend that the medical bills amounted to Rs 4,43,050/- and this too was not disputed by Ld Counsel for Insurance Company. Thus, the medical expenses are hereby quantified as Rs 4,43,050/-.
ix. Compensation for Loss of Consortium:
54.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 DAR 126/2020 Page. 38 of 53 Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Varma Date:
2025.10.14 15:55:14 +0530 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 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 Digitally DAR 126/2020 Page. 39 of 53 signed by Arul Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr Arul Varma Varma Date:
2025.10.14 15:55:20 +0530 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."
55.Thus, On the basis of the above verdict, the compensation for Consortium is hereby quantified as Rs 48,400/-
x. Compensation for Loss of Estate:
56.On the basis of the above verdict, the compensation for loss of estate is hereby quantified as Rs 18,150/-
Arul Varma Digitally signed DAR 126/2020 Page. 40 of 53 by Arul Varma Date: 2025.10.14 Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr 15:55:27 +0530 xi. Compensation towards Funeral Expenses:
57.On the basis of the above verdict, the compensation for funeral expenses is hereby quantified as Rs 18,150/-
xii. Total Compensation:
58. Thus, the total amount of compensation to be awarded is calculated as follows:
(a) Total loss of dependency -Rs 33,26,400/-
(b) Medical Expenses - Rs 4,43,050/-
(c) Compensation for Loss of Consortium - Rs 48,400/-
(d) Compensation for Loss of Estate- Rs 18,150/-
(e) Compensation towards Funeral Expenses - Rs 18,150/-
(f) Total Compensation - Rs 38,54,150/- [(a)+(b)+(c)+(d) +(e)]
(c) Issue No.3: Relief.
i. Amount of Award:
59.Thus, the claimant is awarded as sum of Rs 38,54,150/-
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.
Arul Varma Digitally signed by Arul Varma DAR 126/2020 Page. 41 of 53 Date: 2025.10.14 15:55:34 +0530 Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr ii. Rate of Interest:
60.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.
61.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"
62.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/DAR till actual realisation. The date of filing of petition is 03.03.2020 therefore the amount of Interest is calculated at @ 9 % from the date of filing of Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma DAR 126/2020 Page. 42 of 53 Varma Date:
2025.10.14 15:55:41 Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr +0530 petition i.e. Rs 19,49,144/ -.Thus, the total amount of award is Rs 58,03,294/-
63.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:
64. 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 file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days Arul DAR 126/2020 Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr Page. 43 of 53 Varma Digitally signed by Arul Varma Date: 2025.10.14 15:55:47 +0530 of the deposit with the interest upto the date of notice of deposit to the claimant(s) with a copy to their counsel.
65.Release: In the present matter, the entire awarded amount is being awarded to claimant i.e. the father of deceased. Out of amount awarded to claimants, 50% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in form of 200 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 200 months in succession.
66.Remaining amount be released to the claimants in the bank account of the claimant. The Nodal officer of the bank shall ensure disbursement of the award within 3 weeks of receipt thereof by email or otherwise.
67.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:
68.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, DAR 126/2020 Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr Page. 44 of 53 Arul Varma Digitally signed by Arul Varma Date: 2025.10.14 15:55:55 +0530 including UCO Bank, is implementing the MACAD scheme.
69.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 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.
DAR 126/2020 Page. 45 of 53 Digitally
Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr signed by
Arul
Arul Varma
Varma Date:
2025.10.14
15:56:02
+0530
(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 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.
DAR 126/2020 Page. 46 of 53
Digitally
Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr signed by
Arul
Arul Varma
Varma Date:
2025.10.14
15:56:09
+0530
VII. LIABILITY
70.There is no statutory defense of Insurance Company. The Insurance Company had also filed a legal offer. All the respondents are though being held jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to petitioner, but respondent no.3 being insurer of offending vehicle, 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/-
71.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.
DAR 126/2020 Page. 47 of 53 Arul Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr Varma Digitally signed by Arul Varma Date: 2025.10.14 15:56:16 +0530 VIII. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN CASES OF DEATH
72.Since this is a case pertaining to death, particulars of Form-XV 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 under:
1. Date of Accident 05.06.2019
2. Name of the deceased Ms Riya Singh
3. Age of the deceased 24 years
4. Occupation of the deceased Management Trainee
5. Income of the deceased Rs 22,000/- p.m.
6. Name, Age and relationship of legal representatives of the deceased:
S.NO NAME AGE RELATION
(i) Mr Atul Kumar 57 years Father
Singh
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
S.No. Heads Awarded by the
Claims Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs 22,000/-
8. Add: Future Prospects (B) Rs 8,800/-
DAR 126/2020 Page. 48 of 53
Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr Digitally
signed by
Arul Varma
Arul Date:
Varma 2025.10.14
15:56:22
+0530
9. Less: Personal expenses of the 15,400/-
deceased (C)
10. Monthly loss of dependency 15,400/-
[(A+B)- C = D]
11. Annual Loss of dependency (D 1,84,800/-
x 12) 12. Multiplier (E) 18
13. Total loss of dependency (D x Rs 33,24,400/-
12 x E = F)
14. Medical Expenses (G) Rs 4,43,050/-
15. Compensation for loss of Rs 48,400/-
consortium (H)
16. Compensation for loss of love NA- in terms of & affection (I) New India Assurance Co v Somwati (2020) 9 SCC 644
17. Compensation for loss of estate Rs 18,150/-
(J)
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs 18,150/-
expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION (F Rs 38,54,150/-
Digitally
signed by
Arul
Arul Varma
DAR 126/2020 Page. 49 of 53 Varma Date:
2025.10.1
Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr 15:56:33
+0530
+ G + H + I + J + K = L)
20. Rate of Interest Awarded @9%
21. Interest amount up to the date Rs 19,49,144/-
of award (M)
22. Total amount including interest Rs 58,03,294/-
(L + M)
23. Award amount released Father of deceased = 100%
24. Award kept in FDRs Father of deceased = 50%
25. Mode of disbursement of the Through Bank award to the claimant(s)
26. Next date for compliance of the 18.12.2025 award IX. COMPLIANCE QUA PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME
73.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 05.06.2019
2. Date of filing of Form I- First NA DAR 126/2020 Page. 50 of 53 Digitally signed by Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr Arul Varma Arul Date:
Varma 2025.10.14 15:56:40 +0530 Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the NA victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the NA Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from NA the owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- NA Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and NA Form VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII-Detailed 03.03.2020 Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or No 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 NA petitioner(s) of the offer of the Insurance Company.
DAR 126/2020 Page. 51 of 53
Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr Digitally
signed by
Arul Varma
Arul Date:
Varma 2025.10.14
15:57:05
+0530
14. Date of the Award 14.10.2025
15. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes.
directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which petitioner(s) 03.03.2025 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) furnished on 14.10.2025 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 NA 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?
74.Further, in terms of the directions given vide order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra), the Ahlmad shall Arul send a certified copy of this award to the concerned Varma Digitally signed by Arul Varma Date: 2025.10.14 DAR 126/2020 Page. 52 of 53 15:57:14 +0530 Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr 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.
75.File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 18.12.2025.
Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.10.14 15:57:41 Announced in the open court +0530 on 14.10.2025 (Arul Varma) Judge/PO, MACT-02, New Delhi/14.10.2025 DLND010020972020 DAR 126/2020 Page. 53 of 53 Atul Kumar Singh Vs Gaurav Singh & Anr