Delhi District Court
Gungi Alias Bimla Dec(Thr Lrs ... vs Deepak Goswami on 20 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010111272024
MACT No. : 541/2024
FIR No. : 146/2024
PS : Darya Ganj
u/s : 279/304-A IPC
Gungi @ Bimla (deceased) through LRs Vs. Deepak Goswami
1. Sh. Ujay (son of deceased)
S/o. Sh. Baldhari,
R/o. 982, G block Jhuggi, Jahangir Puri,
North West Delhi, Delhi-110033.
2. Sh. Vicky (son of deceased)
S/o. Sh. Baldhari,
R/o. H.No.10618,
Gali no.6,
Pratap Nagar, Malka Ganj, North Delhi,
Delhi-110007.
3. Ms. Jyoti (daughter of deceased)
W/o. Sh. Sunil,
R/o. H.No.10651, Main Road, Pratap Nagar,
Padam Nagar, North Delhi, Delhi-110007.
4. Sh. Kabir (son of deceased)
S/o. Sh. Baldhari,
R/o.10618/6, Pratap Nagar 6,
Pratap Nagar Metro Station,
Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110007.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.11.20
14:43:27
+0530
MACT No.541/24 Page 1 of 34
Smt. Gungi @ Bimla (through LRs) v. Deepak Goswami
5. Sh. Bharat (son of deceased)
S/o. Sh. Baldhari,
R/o. H.No.10616, Street No.6, Pratap Nagar,
Malka Ganj, North Delhi, Delhi-110007.
6. Sh. Vijay (son of deceased)
S/o. Sh. Baldhari,
R/o.Jhuggi no.310, Block G, Jahangir Puri,
North West Delhi, Delhi-110033.
7. Ms. Pooja (daughter of deceased)
W/o. Sh. Rinku
R/o. 10651,Street No.6, Pratap Nagar,
Malka Ganj, Delhi-110007.
...Petitioners
Versus
Sh. Deepak Goswami (Driver cum owner of Offending Vehicle)
S/o. Sh. Vijendar Goswami
R/o.C-1/623, Gali no.27, Harsh Vihar, Mandoli, Delhi
& C-2/800, Gali no.29, Harsh Vihar, Mandoli, Delhi.
......Respondent
Date of filing of claim petition : 23.07.2024
Judgment reserved on : 15.11.2025
Date of Award : 20.11.2025
AWAR D
1. The Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filed on
23.07.2024 and was registered as a Motor Accident Claim petition. The
Road Traffic Accident in question took place on 11.04.2024 at about
06:00 AM at T-point, Nishad Raj Marg, Daryaganj, Delhi. Smt. Gungi
@ Bimla expired in the said accident which was allegedly caused by
vehicle bearing registration No.DL-1ZC-6790 (hereinafter referred to as
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.541/24 Page 2 of 34
Date:
2025.11.20
14:43:48 +0530
Smt. Gungi @ Bimla (through LRs) v. Deepak Goswami
the offending vehicle). The said vehicle was being driven as well as
owned by respondent Deepak Goswami. Further, at the time of the
accident, the offending vehicle was uninsured.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that on 11.04.2024, on receipt of information of an accident vide GD No. 0017A, SI Priyank Rama alongwith staff went to the LNJP Hospital Emergency and collected the MLC no.116191359/24 of injured Bimla. IO got to know that the injured had been admitted in Surgery Ward and was under treatment. The patient was unconscious at that time. The family members of the injured were also present there. But no eye witness could be found. During treatment, Smt. Bimla expired. On the basis of MLC, an FIR was registered u/s. 279/304A IPC.
3. During the course of investigation, SI Priyank Rana searched for the driver of the offending vehicle but he could not find him. He recorded the statement u/s. 161 CrPC of the witnesses. He informed about the fatal case to MACT Cell and sent the file in MACT Cell for further investigation. The investigation of this case was handed over to ASI Ashok Kumar. Thereafter, the IO got conducted the post mortem of the body of the deceased and after post mortem, the body of the deceased was got identified by her sons namely Vicky and Kabir and then the body was handed over to her relatives. He recorded the statement of witnesses u/s.161 CrPC. During post mortem, the blood on gauze with sample seal of AH was handed over to the IO by the doctor.
RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.541/24 Page 3 of 34 Date: 2025.11.20 14:43:56 +0530 Smt. Gungi @ Bimla (through LRs) v. Deepak Goswami After making the list, the IO had taken the same to police custody and deposited the same in maalkhana.
4. During the course of investigation, the IO had met with one Smt. Saroj Bala, who had taken the injured to Lok Nayak Hospital in the offending vehicle after the accident and alongwith her reached to the spot of accident. Thereafter, IO prepared the site plan at the instance of eye witness. Thereafter, IO recorded her statement u/s.161 Cr.PC.
5. During the course of investigation, IO had searched for CCTV footage at the place of accident in which one Taxi make Maruti Suzuki Car no. DL1ZC6790 was found causing accident of a lady. After collecting the CCTV footage, IO gathered the ownership of that vehicle through Traffic Unit. As per which the name of the owner of the offending vehicle was reflected as Deepak Goswami.
6. During the course of investigation, Staff of PP Lal Quilla Chowki i.e. HC Tham Singh and HC Manish and met with the the IO and told him that they reached at the place of accident after the accident of a lady caused by a taxi. HC Manish took the photographs of the place of accident and the same were forwarded to the IO through Whatsapp. In which the face of the driver and the offending vehicle were clearly visible. IO recorded the statements u/s.161 Cr.PC of both police officials.
7. During the course of investigation, the IO reached at Lok Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.11.20 14:44:00 +0530 MACT No.541/24 Page 4 of 34 Smt. Gungi @ Bimla (through LRs) v. Deepak Goswami Nayak Hospital and checked the PWD CCTV camera installed at the hospital in which the offending vehicle, driver and injured could be seen. Accordingly, IO filed that CCTV footage in the case file.
8. During the course of investigation, the IO alongwith Ct Saneep reached the house of the owner of the offending vehicle where they got to know that Deepak Goswami (owner of offending vehicle) was residing in the tenanted premises. Notice u/s.133 MV Act was served upon the owner of the offending vehicle, who gave in writing upon the notice that he himself was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. He handed over the photocopy of RC and permit fitness as well as his DL. IO after preparing the list of the documents, took the same into his custody. IO served the notice u/s. 91 CrPC for producing the insurance of the offending vehicle. Upon which he gave in writing that the insurance of the offending vehicle was expired at the time of accident. Accordingly, offence u/s.146/196 MV Act was added against the driver cum owner of the offending vehicle. Thereafter, IO arrested the driver cum owner of the offending vehicle and informed the relatives of the driver cum owner. After producing surety, the driver cum owner was released on bail. Thereafter offending vehicle was sent to maalkhana and mechanical inspection of that vehicle was got conducted. Thereafter, IO recorded the statements of witnesses u/s.161 CrPC.
9. During the course of investigation, post mortem of the deceased was got conducted. PM report, MLC and inquest paper were Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.11.20 14:44:04 +0530 MACT No.541/24 Page 5 of 34 Smt. Gungi @ Bimla (through LRs) v. Deepak Goswami filed in the case file. Thereafter, the offending vehicle was released on superdari as per order of Hon'ble Court. Blood Gauze of deceased was sent to FSL Rohini and after obtaining the result of the same, IO filed the supplementary chargesheet. After completion the investigation, offence u/s.279/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act was found to have been committed against respondent and filed the DAR.
10. Despite opportunity, no WS was filed on behalf of respondent. He also did not appear before the court. Hence, he was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 03.12.2024 and matter was listed for PE.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
11. The petitioners examined Sh. Ujay, as PW-1. PW1 has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW1/A.
12. Thereafter, Sh. Vicky was examined as PW-2. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW-2/A.
13. Thereafter, Sh. Kabir was examined as PW-3. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW-3/A.
14. Thereafter, Sh. Bharat was examined as PW-4. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW-4/A.
15. Thereafter, Sh. Vijay was examined as PW-5. He tendered Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.11.20 14:44:09 +0530 MACT No.541/24 Page 6 of 34 Smt. Gungi @ Bimla (through LRs) v. Deepak Goswami his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW-5/A.
16. Thereafter, Ms. Jyoti was examined as PW-6. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW-6/A.
17. Thereafter, Ms. Pooja was examined as PW-7. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW-7/A.
18. Thereafter, PE was closed vide order dated 20.08.2025.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
19. The Petitioners filed the duly filled Form XIII and their financial statements were recorded. Final arguments were heard on behalf of the petitioners.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
20. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. My findings are as under:-
Accident
21. It is the case of the petitioners that on 11.04.2024 at about 06:00 AM at T-point, Nishad Raj Marg, Daryaganj, Delhi, when the deceased was present there, the offending vehicle which was being driven by the respondent at a very high speed in rash and negligent manner came and hit Smt. Bimla. Due to the forceful impact, Smt. Bimla fell down on the road and sustained injuries and ultimately Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.11.20 14:44:15 +0530 MACT No.541/24 Page 7 of 34 Smt. Gungi @ Bimla (through LRs) v. Deepak Goswami expired. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the factum of the accident is proved on record as the IO has chargesheeted the respondent under Section 279/304A IPC. In view of the same, it is submitted that it is proved on record that the respondent was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently resulting in the death of the deceased.
22. Record perused.
23. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepak Goel & Ors, 2014 (2) TAC 846 (Del) decided by the Coordinate Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it was held as under :-
"......where the claimants filed either the certified copies of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of investigation by police or issuance of charge sheet under Section 279/304A IPC or the certified copy of FIR or the recovery of the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, then these documents are sufficient proof to reach to a conclusion that the driver was negligent particularly when there is no defence available from the side of driver."
24. Reliance is also being placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meera Devi, 2021 LawSuit (Del) 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."
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.11.20 MACT No.541/24 Page 8 of 34 14:44:19 +0530 Smt. Gungi @ Bimla (through LRs) v. Deepak Goswami
25. It is pertinent to mention here that in the proceedings before the claims tribunal, the facts are to be established on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and not by the strict rules of evidence or the higher standard of beyond reasonable doubt as required in criminal cases. The burden of proof in the present cases is much lower than as placed in civil or criminal cases. In Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors (2009) 13 SC 530, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that negligence must be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view must be adopted in reaching a conclusion. It is a matter of record that the respondent was chargesheeted by the IO in the present case. He did not appear in the court to prove that he had not caused the accident. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the rash and negligent act of the respondent is proved.
26. Further, it is settled law that the petitioner cannot be expected to prove the accident beyond reasonable doubts and the principle of res ipsa loquitor should apply which means that the "accident speaks for itself". Thus, once it has been established in DAR and chargesheet that the accident had taken place, the burden shifts on the respondents to prove that they were not responsible for the accident which the respondents have failed to discharge. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the cases of Teja Singh Vs Suman & Ors., MAC. APP. 1111/2018 & CM APPL. 52384/2018, 52386/2018, date of decision 06/12/2019; MAC. APP. Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.11.20 14:44:23 +0530 MACT No.541/24 Page 9 of 34 Smt. Gungi @ Bimla (through LRs) v. Deepak Goswami 428/2018, titled as The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamla Devi & Ors, date of decision 08.11.2019 and MAC. APP. 690/2017 & CM APPL. 28108/2017, titled as Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mona & Ors., date of decision 15.10.2019, which had relied upon the judgment in the case of Cholamandalam Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamlesh 2009(3) AD Delhi 310.
27. In view of the same, considering the facts and circumstances, the court is satisfied that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent. From the DAR, it also stands established that respondent was the registered owner of the offending vehicle. It is also proved that the offending vehicle was uninsured.
The injury:
28. Further, the onus to prove that the deceased had suffered fatal injuries by way of the said accident was on the petitioners. In this regard, the petitioners have relied upon the Post Mortem Report dated 12.04.2024 prepared at Maulana Azad Medical College and Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi as per which it has been opined by the concerned doctor that there was history of road traffic accident. She had suffered multiple injuries due to which she expired. Further, it is opined that the cause of death was due to injuries produced by blunt force/surface impact.
29. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the opinion that on the scales of preponderance of probabilities, the Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.11.20 14:44:28 +0530 MACT No.541/24 Page 10 of 34 Smt. Gungi @ Bimla (through LRs) v. Deepak Goswami petitioner has proved that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle being driven by its driver/respondent no. 1 on the date and time of the accident and that due to the said accident, the injured Smt. Bimla unfortunately expired.
Compensation
30. In view of the above observations, the petitioners are entitled for compensation. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of "Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors." (2003) 6 SCC 121 has held : -
"QUA BASIC PRINCIPLES "9. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death :-
(a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and the (c) the number of dependents. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the deceased. If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay.
To have uniformity and consistency, 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.541/24 Page 11 of 34 SINGLA Date:
2025.11.20 14:44:33 +0530 Smt. Gungi @ Bimla (through LRs) v. Deepak Goswami balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent 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. Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/- 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 5,000/- 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 added."
QUA ADDITIONS "11. ..................... In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years.
[Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words `actual salary' should be read as `actual salary less tax']. The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.541/24 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.20 Page 12 of 34 Smt. Gungi @ Bimla (through LRs) v. Deepak Goswami 14:44:38 +0530 standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances."
QUA DEDUCTIONS "14. 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 dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six.
15. 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 dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependent, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.541/24 SINGLA Date:
2025.11.20 14:44:42 +0530 Page 13 of 34 Smt. Gungi @ Bimla (through LRs) v. Deepak Goswami brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two- third."
QUA MULTIPLIER "21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."
31. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its constitution bench decision in matter of "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." (2017) 16 SCC 680 held as under : -
"58. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be no addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept. We are disposed to think, there should be an addition of 15% if the deceased is between the age of 50 to 60 years and there should be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in case of self- employed or person on fixed salary, the addition should be 10% between the age of 50 to 60 years. The aforesaid yardstick has been fixed so that there can be consistency in the approach by the tribunals and the Courts.
59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.541/24 Page 14 of 34 SINGLA Date:
2025.11.20 14:44:47 +0530 Smt. Gungi @ Bimla (through LRs) v. Deepak Goswami view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
(iii) 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.
(iv) 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.
(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) 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."
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.11.20 14:44:53 +0530 MACT No.541/24 Page 15 of 34 Smt. Gungi @ Bimla (through LRs) v. Deepak Goswami Loss of income
32. In the present matter, it is alleged on behalf of the petitioners that at the time of the accident, the deceased was working as a vegetable vendor and was earning Rs.30,000/- pm. However, it was conceded that there was no proof of income available.
33. Record perused.
34. As admittedly no proof of income of the deceased has been proved on record, her income shall be ascertained as per the criterion of minimum wages. Though it is alleged that she was earning but it is a matter of record that she was married and looking after her family. In case titled as Abdul Awal @ Auwal v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
MAC App. 989/2018 decided on 02.03.2023 by the Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati, it has been observed that a housewife's income may be assessed as per the minimum wages applicable for an unskilled worker. Similar observations have been given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muhammed Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 8960/2017 decided on 01.12.2022. However, in a recent judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dalvir Singh & Ors. [(2025) SCC OnLine Del 844], it has been held that minimum wages of a skilled workman is to be taken for the purpose of assessment of income in case of housewives. The date of the accident is 11.04.2024. As per the prevalent notification, her income is assessed to be Rs.21,813/- pm. RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.20 MACT No.541/24 14:44:57 +0530 Page 16 of 34 Smt. Gungi @ Bimla (through LRs) v. Deepak Goswami Age determination of the deceased:
35. As per the aadhar card of the deceased which is filed in the DAR by the IO, her date of birth was 01.01.1956. The date of the accident is 11.04.2024. Hence, as on the date of the accident, the deceased was aged 68 years.
Future Prospects: -
36. In view of the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors; (2017) 16 SCC 680, it was observed that the Claimants would not be entitled to any future prospects as the deceased was aged more than 60 years.
Determination of Dependent
37. In the present case, the deceased is survived by five major sons and two major daughters. All of them are married. However, in their financial statements, they have stated that apart from their incomes, their mother i.e. the deceased was giving money to them for their expenses. Hence, it is stated that they were all financially dependent on their mother i.e. the deceased. Hence, they all shall be considered as dependents. Reliance placed on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Birender & Ors. (2020) 11 SCC 356 and Seema Rani v. Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. Civil Appeal no. 2323 of 2025 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 11.02.2025.
Determination of multiplicand
38. The monthly income of the deceased after enhancement RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.541/24 Page 17 of 34 Date: 2025.11.20 14:45:02 +0530 Smt. Gungi @ Bimla (through LRs) v. Deepak Goswami needs to be taken as Rs. 21,813/-. In light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur & Ors., (2021) 11 SCC 780 , out of the above amount so assessed, 1/5th amount has to be deducted on account of personal and living expenses as the number of dependent family members is 7. So, in this matter, monthly loss of dependency would come out to be Rs. 17,450.40 (4/5th of Rs. 21,813/-). This needs to be multiplied by 12 to workout multiplicand/annual loss of dependency. Hence, multiplicand for this matter would be Rs.209,404.80 (rounded off to Rs.209,405/-) ( Rs. 17,450.40 x 12).
Award Towards Loss of Dependency
39. Further, as the deceased was 68 years of age at the time of the accident, multiplier applicable in this matter as per above discussion would be 5. The total loss of dependency would come out to be Rs.10,47,025/- (Rs.209,405/- x 5), hence, so awarded.
Medical expenses:
40. The petitioners have not filed any medical bills on record. Hence, in the absence of any medical bills, the petitioners shall not be entitled to any amount towards medical expenses.
Non-Pecuniary Heads:-
41. The Respondents/Claimants shall be entitled to the compensation under Non-Pecuniary Heads in terms of National Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.11.20 14:45:09 +0530 MACT No.541/24 Page 18 of 34 Smt. Gungi @ Bimla (through LRs) v. Deepak Goswami Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi And Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. The case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) was considered and clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 9581/2018 decided on 18.09.2018 whereby after considering the case of Pranay Sethi's (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to award loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/- to each dependent of the deceased and further pleased to award a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to each dependent of the deceased towards loss of love and affection. The relevant portion is as under:
"...... A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) 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.
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."
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." RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.20 14:45:13 +0530 MACT No.541/24 Page 19 of 34 Smt. Gungi @ Bimla (through LRs) v. Deepak Goswami 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.
Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognized 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.
The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium.
Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act.
A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium.
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 (supra).
In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs.40,000 RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.541/24 Date: 2025.11.20 14:45:17 +0530 Page 20 of 34 Smt. Gungi @ Bimla (through LRs) v. Deepak Goswami each for loss of Filial Consortium.....".
42. However, in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur 2020 SCC Online SC 410 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that there is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head. The relevant portion of the observations are reproduced as under:
"...... The amount to be awarded for loss consortium will be as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra). At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide uniformity with respect to the grant of consortium, and loss of love and affection. Several Tribunals and High Courts have been awarding compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), has recognized only three conventional heads under which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in loss of consortium.
The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to award compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate conventional head. There is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head...".
43. In the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), it was held that in the case of death, Rs.15,000/- is liable to be paid towards the loss of estate and funeral charges each, while Rs.40,000/- was payable towards the loss of consortium to each legal heir and the same may be enhanced by 10% every three years.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.11.20
14:45:22
+0530
MACT No.541/24 Page 21 of 34
Smt. Gungi @ Bimla (through LRs) v. Deepak Goswami
44. In the present case, the accident is of 2024 and the Award was passed in 2025. Thus, an amount of Rs. 18,150/- is granted towards the Loss of Estate and Rs. 18,150/- towards funeral charges.
45. Further, Rs. 48,400/- each is granted to the petitioners i.e. total of Rs. 48,400 x 7 = Rs. 3,38,800/- towards Loss of Consortium.
Computation of compensation:
46. Applying the settled guidelines in the various judgments, the compensation payable to the petitioners is calculated as under:
Sr. Head Awarded by the Claims No. Tribunal 1 Monthly Income of deceased (A) Rs.21,813/- 2 Add future prospect (B) Nil 3 Less 1/5 deductions towards Rs. 21,813/- x 1/5 = Rs.
personal and living expenses of 4,362.60 the deceased (C) 4 Monthly loss of dependency Rs.21,813/- - Rs. 4,362.60 = [(A+B) - C = D] Rs. 17,450.40 5 Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 17,450.40 x 12= (D x 12) Rs.209,405/-
6 Multiplier (E) 5 7 Total loss of dependency (Rs.209,405/- x 5)= DxE=F Rs.10,47,025/- 8 Medical Expenses (G) Nil 9 Compensation for loss of love Nil. and affection (H) 10 Compensation for loss of Rs. 48,400 x 7= Rs. 3,38,800/- Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.541/24 Page 22 of 34 SINGLA Date: 2025.11.20 14:45:26 +0530
Smt. Gungi @ Bimla (through LRs) v. Deepak Goswami consortium (I) to both the petitioners 11 Compensation for loss of Estate Rs. 18,150/-
(J) 12 Compensation for funeral Rs. 18,150/-
expenses (K) 13 Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 14,22,125/-
47. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld awarding of 9% interest per annum. Therefore, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 23.07.2024 till realization.
Apportionment:
48. It is evident from the record that the deceased had left behind his 7 legal heirs i.e. her children. All the children shall be entitled to equal shares of Rs. 2,27,471/- each.
DISBURSEMENT
49. The Financial Statement of petitioner/injured was recorded by this Court/Tribunal. As per the said statement, the monthly expenses of his family are approximately Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per month.
50. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 07.12.2018 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.11.20 14:45:32 +0530 MACT No.541/24 Page 23 of 34 Smt. Gungi @ Bimla (through LRs) v. Deepak Goswami & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors. has given the following directions:
"(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimants. 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 claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque books and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and the claimant shall produced the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court for compliance."
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.11.20 14:45:37 MACT No.541/24 Page 24 of 34 +0530 Smt. Gungi @ Bimla (through LRs) v. Deepak Goswami
51. However, in a recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal on 18 March, 2025 in S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020 has held that :
"17. The case in hand pertains to the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. The general practice followed by the insurance companies, where the compensation is not disputed, is to deposit the same before the Tribunal. Instead of following that process, a direction can always be issued to transfer the amount into the bank account(s) of the claimant(s) with intimation to the Tribunal.
17.1 For that purpose, the Tribunals at the initial stage of pleadings or at the stage of leading evidence may require the claimant(s) to furnish their bank account particulars to the Tribunal along with the requisite proof, so that at the stage of passing of the award the Tribunal may direct that the amount of compensation be transferred in the account of the claimant and if there are more than one then in their respective accounts. If there is no bank account, then they should be required to open the bank account either individually or jointly with family members only. It should also be mandated that, in case there is any change in the bank account particulars of the claimant(s) during the pendency of the claim petition they should update the same before the Tribunal. This should be ensured before passing of the final award. It may be ensured that the bank account should be in the name of the claimant(s) and if minor, through guardian(s) and in no case it should be a joint account with any person, Digitally signed by RUCHIKA MACT No.541/24 RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: Page 25 of 34 2025.11.20 Smt. Gungi @ Bimla (through LRs) v. Deepak Goswami 14:45:41 +0530 who is not a family member. The transfer of the amount in the bank account, particulars of which have been furnished by the claimant(s), as mentioned in the award, shall be treated as satisfaction of the award. Intimation of compliance should be furnished to the Tribunal."
52. In view of the same, the award amount can now be disbursed in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioners. However, the remaining directions as passed by the Hon'ble High Court shall be complied with.
53. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners, it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 15,92,297/-, all the petitioners shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,27,471/- each. The entire share amount be released to the petitioners in their respective accounts whose details are as under:
S. No. Name Bank & Branch Account no. IFSC Code
1. Sh. Ujay SBI, New Subzi Mandi, 43810109134 SBIN0001707 Azadpur.
2. Sh. Vicky SBI,Tis Hazari Courts, 44480692461 SBIN0000726 Delhi
3. Ms. Jyoti Canara Bank,Old 110116750100 CNRB0002751 Rajender Nagar, Delhi
4. Sh. Kabir SBI, Tis Hazari Court 44009616332 SBIN0000726 complex, Delhi
5. Sh. Bharat SBI, Shopping Complex, 20139957532 SBIN0008120 Gulabi Bagh, Delhi
6. Sh. Vijay Bank of Baroda, 332881000377 BARB0JAHA Jahangirpuri, Delhi 66 NG Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.541/24 Page 26 of 34 Date:
SINGLA 2025.11.20 14:45:50 +0530 Smt. Gungi @ Bimla (through LRs) v. Deepak Goswami
7. Ms. Pooja SBI, Shopping Complex, 20139956651 SBIN0008120 Gulabi Bagh, Delhi
54. In compliance of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award in the prescribed Format-XVI is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
Date of Accident: 11.04.2024 Name of the deceased: Smt. Bimla Age of the deceased: 68 years Occupation of the deceased: Vegetable vendor Income of the deceased : Not proved
Name and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No. Name of the claimant Relation with deceased
1. Sh. Ujay Son
2. Sh. Vicky Son
3. Ms. Jyoti Daughter
4. Sh. Kabir Son
5. Sh. Bharat Son
6. Sh. Vijay Son
7. Ms. Pooja Daughter Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.11.20 14:45:55 +0530 MACT No.541/24 Page 27 of 34 Smt. Gungi @ Bimla (through LRs) v. Deepak Goswami COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION Sr. Head Awarded by the Claims Tribunal No. 1 Monthly Income of deceased Rs.21,813/-
(A) 2 Add future prospect (B) Nil 3 Less 1/5 deductions towards Rs. 21,813/- x 1/5 = Rs. 4,362.60 personal and living expenses of the deceased (C) 4 Monthly loss of dependency Rs.21,813/- - Rs. 4,362.60 = Rs.
[(A+B) - C = D] 17,450.40
5 Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 17,450.40 x 12=
(D x 12) Rs.209,405/-
6 Multiplier (E) 5
7 Total loss of dependency (Rs.209,405/- x 5)=
DxE=F Rs.10,47,025/-
8 Medical Expenses (G) Nil
9 Compensation for loss of love Nil.
and affection (H)
10 Compensation for loss of Rs. 48,400 x 7 = Rs. 3,38,800/-
consortium (I) to both the
petitioners
11 Compensation for loss of Rs. 18,150/-
Estate (J)
12 Compensation for funeral Rs. 18,150/-
expenses (K)
13 Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 14,22,125/-
14 Rate of Interest Awarded 9%
15 Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 1,70,081.33 (rounded off to Rs.
award w.e.f. 23.07.2024 till 1,70,082/-)
realization
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
MACT No.541/24 Page 28 of 34
2025.11.20
14:46:05
+0530
Smt. Gungi @ Bimla (through LRs) v. Deepak Goswami 16 Total amount including interest Rs. 15,92,297/- 17 Award amount released As per paragraph Nos. 53 18 Award amount kept in FDRs Nil 19 Mode of disbursement of the As per paragraph Nos. 53 award amount to the claimant(s) 20 Next Date of compliance of the 20.12.2025 award LIABILITY:
55. It has been established that the offending vehicle was being driven and owned by respondent and the offending vehicle was uninsured. Hence, the respondent shall be liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners.
RELIEF:
56. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 14,22,125/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand One Hundred Twenty Five only) along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. w.e.f. 23.07.2024 till realization with the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the claimants, failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay interest @ 12 % per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days. Reliance placed on case titled as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.20 14:46:13 +0530 MACT No.541/24 Page 29 of 34 Smt. Gungi @ Bimla (through LRs) v. Deepak Goswami
57. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurance company for compliance within the time granted as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. The said respondent is further directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the deposit with a copy to the Claimant and his counsel.
Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost.
Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on 20.12.2025 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
Further, Civil Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.20 14:46:16 +0530 MACT No.541/24 Page 30 of 34 Smt. Gungi @ Bimla (through LRs) v. Deepak Goswami passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court today on this 20th November, 2025 RUCHIKA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.11.20 14:46:22 +0530 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.MACT No.541/24 Page 31 of 34
Smt. Gungi @ Bimla (through LRs) v. Deepak Goswami THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL MOTOR VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022 (PL. SEE RULE 150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 11.04.2024 2 Date of filing of Form-I -
First Accident Report 15.04.2024 (FAR) 3 Date of delivery of Form-II 23.07.2024 to the victim(s) 4 Date of receipt of Form-III 31.05.2024 from the Driver 5 Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Owner 31.05.2024 6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the insurance 31.05.2024 of the vehicle 7 Date of receipt of Form-
23.07.2024 VIA from the Victim(s) 8 Date of filing of Form-VII -
23.07.2024
Detail Accident Report
(DAR)
9 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Investigating No
Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the N.A.
Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company admitted his N.A.
report within 30 days of the
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2025.11.20
14:46:27
+0530
MACT No.541/24 Page 32 of 34
Smt. Gungi @ Bimla (through LRs) v. Deepak Goswami DAR/claim petition?
12 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the N.A. part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13 Date of response of the N.A. claimant(s) to the offer of the Insurance Company.
14 Date of award 20.11.2025 15 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16 Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open Savings Bank Account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN card and Aadhar Card and 23.07.2024 the direction to the bank not to issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17 Date on which the claimant(s) produced the passbook of their savings bank account(s) near the 15.11.2025 place of their residence alongwith the endorsement, PAN card and Aadhaar Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: SINGLA 2025.11.20 14:46:31 +0530 MACT No.541/24 Page 33 of 34 Smt. Gungi @ Bimla (through LRs) v. Deepak Goswami Card?
18 Permanent residential address of the claimant(s). As per Award.
19 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) is Yes near their place of residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s) were examined at the time Yes. The Financial Statements of the claimants of passing of the Award to was recorded 20.08.2025.
ascertain his/their financial condition?
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.11.20
14:46:35
+0530
(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
20.11.2025
MACT No.541/24 Page 34 of 34
Smt. Gungi @ Bimla (through LRs) v. Deepak Goswami