Delhi District Court
Narender And Ors Lrs Of Hanshi Devi vs Ccl Bajrang on 1 April, 2026
DLNW010019972024
Presented on : 27-02-2024
Registered on : 29-02-2024
Decided on : 01-04-2026
Duration : 2 years, 1 months,
3 days
IN THE COURT OF
ADJ1(NW)/MACT, NORTH WEST DISTRICT DELHI
Presided Over by Sh. Vikram
M A C T/173/2024
FIR No. 622/23, PS Prem Nagar
In the matter of : Hansi Devi (Deceased)
1. Narender (Husband of deceased)
2. Deepak (Son of deceased)
3. Hemant Kumar (Son of deceased)
4. Mala (Daughter of deceased)
5. Laxmi (Daughter of deceased)
All R/o 224A, H Block, Gali No. 7,
Prem Nagar 1st. Kirari, Delhi.
6. Sarita (Daughter of deceased)
R/o House No. 92, Ganga Vihar,
Khora Colony, Ghaziabad, UP.
.....Petitioner
vs.
1. CCL Bajrang
Through Guardian/father:
Sh. Rohtash
MACT Case No. 173/2024 (FIR no. 622/2023)
Narender & Ors. Vs.CCL Bajrang & Ors.
Page no. 1 of 19
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2026.04.01
17:05:27 +0530
R/o H-113, Gali No. 5,
Prem Nagar 1st, Kirari,
Delhi.
...... Driver/R1
2. Ravi Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Kishan
R/o E-51, Prem Nagar 1st,
Kirari Suleman Nagar, Delhi.
......Owner/R2
3. TATA AIG Insurance Co. Ltd.
Office at: 301-308, Aggarwal
Prestige Mall Tower 3rd Floor,
Plot no. 2, M2K Mall, Rani Bagh,
Delhi.
.......Insurance
Co./R3
Appearance (s) : Sh. Saurabh Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the
petitioner.
Sh. Sahil Rajput, Ld. Counsel for
respondent no. 1.
Sh. U.K. Dogra, Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2.
Sh. R K Gupta, Ld. counsel for Insurance Co./respondent no. 3.
J U D G M E N T/AWAR D
1. Vide this judgment/award, I shall dispose off DAR filed by IO ASI Ramesh Kumar, in regard to death of Smt. Hansi Devi, (in short, the deceased), who died in a road vehicular accident on 16.11.2023.
2. Brief facts as per DAR are that on 16.11.2023 deceased alongwith her daughter were standing outside their house. At that time a motorcycle bearing registration no. DL 4S DK MACT Case No. 173/2024 (FIR no. 622/2023) Narender & Ors. Vs.CCL Bajrang & Ors.
Page no. 2 of 19
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2026.04.01
17:05:33 +0530
2266, which was being driven by CCL/R1 rashly and negligently in high speed, hit the deceased and also dragged her to some distance due to which deceased received injuries. She was taken to BSA Hospital where she was declared brought dead. FIR no. 622/2023 for offence punishable under Section 279/304 A IPC was registered at PS Prem Nagar. PM was conducted vide PM report no. 1175/2023.
3. As per DAR and investigation conducted by IO, R1 was driving the offending vehicle in negligent manner which caused the accident resulting in death of deceased. As such R1 was charge-sheeted for offences under section 279/304A IPC.
4. As per DAR deceased survived by her husband, two sons and three daughters (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner no. 1 to 6) who were dependent on deceased.
5. WS/reply was filed on behalf of R1/driver claiming that R1 has been falsely implicated in the present case as family of R1 is having enmity with family of deceased. It is also claimed that R1 was minor and was not driving.
6. WS/reply was also filed on behalf of R3 claiming that there is violation of insurance policy as R1 was minor and was not having any valid DL, at the time of accident.
7. No reply was filed by R2 MACT Case No. 173/2024 (FIR no. 622/2023) Narender & Ors. Vs.CCL Bajrang & Ors.
Page no. 3 of 19
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2026.04.01
17:05:38 +0530
ISSUES:
8. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed by this Tribunal on 02.07.2024: -
1. Whether deceased Hansi Devi, W/o Sh.
Narender Singh expired due to injuries suffered in road traffic accident on 16.11.2023 at about 08:40 pm, in front of House no. 224A, Gali No. 7, Prem Nagar 1st, Kirari Suleman Nagar, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing no. DL 4S DK 2266 which was being driven by driver CCL Bajrant @ Billu, on the said date, time and place? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
EVIDENCE:
9. In evidence petitioner no. 2/LR Deepak appeared as PW1 and filed his affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied on following documents:
(a) Copy of aadahr cards of petitioners and deceased Ex.Pw1/1 to Ex.Pw1/7 (OSR)
(b) DAR Ex.Pw1/8 (colly)
10. During his cross examination, he denied the suggestion that his father/Pw1 was working as an architect at the time of accident. He also denied the suggestion that petitioners are not financially or otherwise dependent on the deceased.
MACT Case No. 173/2024 (FIR no. 622/2023) Narender & Ors. Vs.CCL Bajrang & Ors.
Page no. 4 of 19
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
Date:
VIKRAM 2026.04.01
17:05:44
+0530
11. Petitioner no. 6 has also examined herself as Pw2. She is eye witness of the accident. During her cross examination, she denied the suggestion that R1 has been falsely implicated in the present case due to previous enmity. She also denied the suggestion that she was not present at the place of accident or that she is not the eye witness of the accident.
12. In respondents evidence, R1 examined himself as R1w1 who filed his affidavit Ex.R1w1/A and proved his aadhar card, birth certificate and school certificate as Ex.R1w1/1 to Ex.R1w1/3 (OSR). He deposed that at the time of accident, he was going to buy milk on foot. He admitted that he has no DL to drive a motorcycle.
13. R1 has also examined his father Sh. Rohtash Singh as Rw2 who filed his affidavit Ex.R1w2/A. He deposed that his brother came at his house and informed that a motorcycle hit R1 from behind due to which R1 received injuries. He admitted that he has not filed any complaint regarding false implication of R1 in the present case.
14. R2 has examined himself as R2w1 and his friend Rahul Garg as R2w2 denying the accident deposing that at the time of accident, R2 alongwth R2w2 were going to a Chemist Shop to buy medicines, on foot. R2 deposed that his bike/offending vehicle was not present at the place of accident.
MACT Case No. 173/2024 (FIR no. 622/2023) Narender & Ors. Vs.CCL Bajrang & Ors.
Page no. 5 of 19
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2026.04.01
17:05:50 +0530
15. R3 has examined Ms. Simarpreet Kaur, Senior Manager as R3w1 who filed his affidavit Ex.R3w1/A and proved copy of policy Ex.R3w1/1, copy of notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC Ex.R3w1/2, original postal receipts Ex.R3w1/3 and DAR already Ex.Pw1/8 (colly).
16. Thereafter, the evidence was closed. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the testimony of witnesses including the pleadings and the documents. My issue wise findings in the case are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1
1. Whether deceased Hansi Devi, W/o Sh.
Narender Singh expired due to injuries suffered in road traffic accident on 16.11.2023 at about 08:40 pm, in front of House no. 224A, Gali No. 7, Prem Nagar 1st, Kirari Suleman Nagar, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing no. DL 4S DK 2266 which was being driven by driver CCL Bajrant @ Billu, on the said date, time and place? OPP.
17. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in MACT Case No. 173/2024 (FIR no. 622/2023) Narender & Ors. Vs.CCL Bajrang & Ors.
Page no. 6 of 19
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
Date:
VIKRAM 2026.04.01
17:05:56
+0530
a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
18. It is claim of R2 that his motorcycle was not present at the spot of accident. However, the involvement of offending vehicle of the respondent no.2 in accident cannot be disputed as it was seized from the spot on the date of accident itself. It claim of guardian of R1 that R1 has been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity with the deceased family. It is also claimed that R1 does not to drive the motorcycle. However, the affidavit filed on behalf of R1 through guardian/his father, alongwith DAR, it is admitted therein that offending vehicle was being driven by R1 at the time of accident. It is admitted by R1w2 that he has not filed any complaint regarding false implication of R1. It is on record that the R1 was minor at the time of accident and was not having any valid DL at the time of accident and in child version recorded during inquiry R1 has admitted that he was driving the motorcycle and R2 was pillion rider.
MACT Case No. 173/2024 (FIR no. 622/2023) Narender & Ors. Vs.CCL Bajrang & Ors.
Page no. 7 of 19
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
Date:
VIKRAM 2026.04.01
17:06:02
+0530
19. Further, the FIR has been lodged against the respondent no.1 and he has faced inquiry before JJB for causing death by rash and negligent driving in the said accident. Therefore, an adverse inference on this aspect is also required to be drawn against the respondents in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310. The Charge sheet before the Criminal Court has been filed against R1 279/304A IPC.
20. In view of the facts disclose in the DAR which proves place of incident as well as caused of death and on the basis of aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the rashness and negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle, which is clearly visible and as such, was responsible not only for this accident, but also for everything that followed thereafter. Accordingly issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 22. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
21. As this Tribunal has already held that R1 was responsible for the death of the deceased due to his neglect and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Therefore, the petitioners have become entitled to be compensated for death of deceased in the above accident, but computation of MACT Case No. 173/2024 (FIR no. 622/2023) Narender & Ors. Vs.CCL Bajrang & Ors.
Page no. 8 of 19
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2026.04.01
17:06:08 +0530
compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided.
COMPENSATION
22. 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 be lesser need for detailed evidence. In this regard, though not quoted, reliance is placed upon, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121.
23. As already stated above, the claimants/petitioners are husband, two sons and three daughters of deceased. Deceased was a housewife and as per aadhar card she was aged about 56 years old on the date of accident. No document is filed on record to show the educational qualification of deceased.
24. In case titled Kirti & Anr. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2021) 2 SCC 166, 3-Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing and highlighting the MACT Case No. 173/2024 (FIR no. 622/2023) Narender & Ors. Vs.CCL Bajrang & Ors.
Page no. 9 of 19
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
Date:
VIKRAM 2026.04.01
17:06:14
+0530
services rendered by housewife/homemaker and assessment of her notional income as per minimum wages prescribed for the State observed as under:
xxxxx " Grant of compensation, on a pecuniary basis, with respect to a homemaker, is a settled proposition of law. Taking into account the gendered nature of housework, with an overwhelming percentage of women being engaged in the same as compared to men, the fixing of notional income of a homemaker attains special significance. It becomes a recognition of the work, labour and sacrifices of homemakers and a reflection of changing attitudes. It is also in furtherance of our nation's international law obligations and our constitutional vision of social equality and ensuring dignity to all. Various methods can be employed by the Court to fix the notional income of a homemaker, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court should ensure while choosing the method, and fixing the notional income, that the same is just in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, neither assessing the compensation too conservatively, nor too liberally. The granting of future prospects,on the notional income calculated in such cases, is a component of just compensation"
25. In the matter titled as Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited Vs. Manmeet Singh & Ors. ", reported at 2012 ACJ 721 (Delhi), it has been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that the services rendered by a housewife can not be discounted; cooking, washing, ironing clothes and stitching clothes (in some cases) for the husband and children, teaching and guiding children, working as a nurse whenever the husband and child/children are sick, are some of the major activities of a housewife. She has no fixed hours of work; she is always in attendance to take care of each and every need of the whole family at the cost of her personal comfort and health. The services rendered by a housewife may differ from case to case considering her qualification, financial strata and social status of the family to which she belongs.
MACT Case No. 173/2024 (FIR no. 622/2023) Narender & Ors. Vs.CCL Bajrang & Ors.
Page no. 10 of 19
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
Date:
VIKRAM 2026.04.01
17:06:21
+0530
26. The contribution made by the wife to the house is invaluable and cannot be computed in terms of money. The gratuitous services rendered by the wife with true love and affection to the children and her husband and managing the household affairs cannot be equated with the services rendered by others. A wife/mother does not work by the clock. She is in the constant attendance of the family throughout the day and night unless she is employed and is required to attend the employer's work for particular hours. She takes care of all the requirements of the husband and children including cooking of food, washing of clothes, etc. She teaches small children and provides invaluable guidance to them for their future life. A housekeeper or maidservant can do the household work, such as cooking food, washing clothes and utensils, keeping the house clean, etc., but she can never be a substitute for a wife/mother who renders selfless service to her husband and children.
27. In view of the aforesaid, I am inclined to accept the monthly income of petitioner as per minimum wages of a skilled person prevalent in Delhi during the period in question. The minimum wages of a skilled person were Rs. 21,215/- per month.
28. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners further argued that future prospects should also be awarded to the petitioner as per law.
29. Accordingly, on the basis of aforementioned documents, age of the deceased is taken as 56 years as on the date of accident. Hence, the multiplier of "9" would be applicable in MACT Case No. 173/2024 (FIR no. 622/2023) Narender & Ors. Vs.CCL Bajrang & Ors.
Page no. 11 of 19
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date: 2026.04.01
17:06:27 +0530
view of pronouncement made in case titled as Sarla Verma (supra).
30. Considering the fact that deceased was aged about 56 years at the time of accident, future prospects @ 10 % has to be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of recent pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, as well as in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors, in MAC APP No. 798/2011.
31. Claimant/petitioner are husband, two sons and three daughters out of which petitioner Mala was unmarried and petitioner Laxmi was widow. Both sons and one daughter namely Sarita are married. Thus, there should be deduction of "one third (1/3th)". Thus, total loss of dependency would come out as under:
32. Thus, total loss of dependency would come out as under:
Head Amount Remarks
(Rs.)
Monthly Income of 21,215
deceased
(A)
Less: Personal expenses of 7,071.67 (A)/3= (B)
deceased @ one third (1/3th)
(B)
Monthly loss of dependency 14,143.33 [(A)-
(C) (B)]=(C)
Annual Loss of dependency 1,69,719.96 (C) x 12 =
MACT Case No. 173/2024 (FIR no. 622/2023) Narender & Ors. Vs.CCL Bajrang & Ors.
Page no. 12 of 19
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2026.04.01
17:06:33 +0530
(D) (D)
Multiplier @ 9 15,27,479.64 (D) x 9
(E) (multiplier)
= (E)
Add: Future Prospects @ 1,52,747.964 (E) X 10%
10% (E)
Total 16,80,227.6
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
33. After the judgment passed in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra) and recent judgment titled as New India Assurance Company Limited v. Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020 the petitioners are not entitled to be compensated under this head. Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors, (supra) has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the Constitution Bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) does not recognize any other non-pecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
34. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as, "Rojalini Nayak & Ors. Vs. Ajit Sahoo & Ors.", Civil Appeal dated 07.08.2024, I am of the considered opinion that LRs of deceased is entitled for payment of Rs. 2,90,400/- (Rs. 48,400/- x 6) towards loss of consortium. Consequently, a sum of Rs. 2,90,400/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
35. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case MACT Case No. 173/2024 (FIR no. 622/2023) Narender & Ors. Vs.CCL Bajrang & Ors.
Page no. 13 of 19
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
Date:
VIKRAM 2026.04.01
17:06:38
+0530
and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Rojalini Nayak & Ors. Vs. Ajit Sahoo & Ors. ", Civil Appeal dated 07.08.2024 mentioned supra, a sum of Rs. 18,150/- is awarded in favour of petitioner on account of loss of estate and and a sum of Rs. 18,150/- is awarded in favour of petitioner towards funeral expenses.
36. Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:
S. No. Head Amount (Rs.)
1 Loss of dependency 16,80,227.6/-
2 Loss of Consortium 2,90,400/-
3 Loss of Estate &Funeral 36,300/-
Expenses
TOTAL 20,06,937.6/-
Rounded off 20,07,000/-
LIABILITY
37. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. The offending vehicle was insured with R3. R3 would, however, submits that insurance company is absolved of his liability to pay the compensation as the R1/driver of the offending vehicle was minor and was not having valid DL. In support, R3 would place reliance on Go Digit General Insurance Co. Ltd, MAC.APP.416/2025. However, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Go Digit General Insurance Co. Ltd (Supra) has not decided the issue as the matter was disposed off as withdrawn with certain observations including the observation on pay and recovery. Therefore, the observation made by Hon'ble High MACT Case No. 173/2024 (FIR no. 622/2023) Narender & Ors. Vs.CCL Bajrang & Ors.
Page no. 14 of 19
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
Date:
VIKRAM 2026.04.01
17:06:45
+0530
Court in Go Digit General Insurance Co. Ltd (Supra) do not set the precedents. On the other hand, recently in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Vs Arti Devi 2025:AHC:14110,MANU/UP/0194/2025 while dwelling on the issue of pay and recovery after the amended Act of 2019 which came into force on 01.04.2022, it was held by Hon'ble High Court that:
"21. When the language used in sub-Section (4) of Section 149 prior to amendment as replaced by sub- Section (4) of Section 150 by the Amendment Act of 2019, is carefully examined, the words "shall, as respects such liabilities as are required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 147, be of no effect" would only mean that under the circumstances covered by sub-Section (4), either of Section 149 or Section 150, the insurer would be well within its rights to avoid liability flowing from the insurance policy. Meaning thereby that the insurer would be absolved of bearing liability to pay compensation to the claimants. It does not mean that the insurer would also be absolved from its liability to indemnify the owner's risk. Such indemnification will still continue to remain alive and the insurer shall have to first pay the compensation through indemnification and, then, it shall have a right to recover from the owner the amount paid as the ultimate liability shall have to be borne by the owner and not by insurer. In such an event, there would be no financial loss to the insurer as it would be compensated through recovery from the owner. The aforesaid provisions are expressly to give defence to the insurer and have to be read to that extent only and not to interpret as if the liability to indemnify stands washed away. It therefore follows that even if the proviso to sub-Section (4) would not have been there before the amendment, the indemnification concept would have still remained alive and operative and, hence, mere omission of the proviso by the Amendment Act of 2019 would be of no avail.
22. Therefore, when Shri Parihar urges that if, in every case, liability to pay compensation has to be borne by the Insurance Company, there would be no effect of providing grounds for defence either under sub-section (2) of the Act prior to amendment or under sub-section (2) of the Act after amendment, this Court finds no force in the MACT Case No. 173/2024 (FIR no. 622/2023) Narender & Ors. Vs.CCL Bajrang & Ors.
Page no. 15 of 19
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
Date:
VIKRAM 2026.04.01
17:06:50
+0530
submission. The reason is that providing grounds of defence under the said provisions would be read so as to give an opportunity to the Insurance Company to avoid passing of award against it, i,e, holding it liable to bear the award. The said liability to have an award against the Insurance Company is distinct from the situation where award is against the owner and insurer is made liable to pay compensation to the claimants and then recover the same from the owner. Non-receipt of premium as required under Section 64(V)B of the Insurance Act, 1938 has now been added in Section 150(2). It reflects that even in a case where premium is not received by the Insurance Company, it can raise a ground of challenge so as to avoid passing of award against it and, in that event also, award would be drawn against the owner. When payment or non-payment of premium is significant after amendment and has been made a ground of defence, the Court observes that a third party risk is covered under the policy which is a contract and premium qua third party risk is received by the insurer in relation to the contract. Therefore, policy continues to subsist to cover third party risk so long the premium is received and non-payment thereof would absolve the Insurance Company from its liability of an award being passed against it."
38. Hon'ble High Court further dwells on the object of the Act and observing same made following observations:
"31. A bare perusal of clause 2 read with clause 5 (b) and clause 51 reflects that the intention of the legislature was never to withdraw protection and reliefs as regards compensation ensured by the previous existing provisions. Rather, the Bill strives more towards ensuring expeditious help to the accident victims and their families. The emotional and social trauma caused to the family which loses its bread winner, is still one of the special considerations as set forth in the Statement above, The Bill was brought with an object to replace the existing provisions of insurance with simplified provisions in order to provide expeditious help to accident victims and their families. There is nothing in the Statement of Objects and Reasons which may, either directly or indirectly, infer withdrawal of insurer's liability to pay compensation as soon as the award is declared, even in case of occurrence of breach of policy or other existence of similar grounds of defence available to the insurer. Therefore, the purpose behind bringing amendments in the Act of 1988 was clearly to provide immediate financial help to the accident MACT Case No. 173/2024 (FIR no. 622/2023) Narender & Ors. Vs.CCL Bajrang & Ors.
Page no. 16 of 19
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2026.04.01
17:06:56 +0530
victims and their dependents and not to create a situation where they are made to run from pillar to post even after an award is declared in their favour.
39. Further in para 37 it was observed by Hon'ble High Court that:
"37. From the overall discussion made above, it is crystal clear that the object of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, either before the amendment or thereafter, particularly covered by Chapter XI thereof, is to compensate victims of accidents in case of an insurance policy being in existence. In view of the interpretation made, holding that omission of the proviso would exonerate the insurer of its liability to indemnify at the first instance would be too wild a proposition and would result in creating a situation where the insurer would be out of scene despite an insurance policy being there and the claimants would have to again fight for getting the amount of compensation through execution proceedings in one way or the other, searching the owner through the process of Court. In such an event, the claimants would face further harassment and nobody knows that despite a money decree in the nature of an award being there in their favour, as to whether the claimants would ever be able to get the compensation realized through recovery proceedings directly from the owner. Accordingly, the legislative intent becomes clear and there is nothing to support the insurer's arguments flowing from interpretation of Statute or Causus Omissus. The contention advanced on behalf of insurer stands discarded."
40. Hon'ble High Court finally concluded that :
38. The Court, therefore, holds that mere omission of proviso attached to sub-section (4) of Section 149 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 after its replacement by Section 150 of Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 (32 of 2019), neither takes away the liability of the insurer to pay the claimants nor its right to recover the said amount from the owner. The law to this effect remains intact and unaffected by Amendment Act, 2019 and, hence, insurer shall continue to indemnify the owner's risk in relation to accidents taking place after 01.04.2022 and "PAY & RECOVER" principle will still continue to govern the field advancing social object of the Statute protecting third party interest. Principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited MACT Case No. 173/2024 (FIR no. 622/2023) Narender & Ors. Vs.CCL Bajrang & Ors.
Page no. 17 of 19 Digitally signed by VIKRAM Date: VIKRAM 2026.04.01 17:07:02 vs. Swaran Singh and others, MANU/SC/0021/2004 :
2004:INSC:4 : JT 2004 (1) SC 109 has not lost its significance and binding effect despite omission of proviso. Held accordingly.
41. As such, R3/Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation in favour of petitioners with recovery rights from R1 & R2 of the amount paid. Issue No.2 is decided accordingly. The parties are directed to download the digital copy of judgment online. R3 is hereby directed to deposit the award amount within 30 days from the date of this Award by way of NEFT or RTGS mode in the account of this Tribunal maintained with SBI, Rohini Courts, Delhi under intimation to the petitioner/ injured and this Tribunal in terms of the format for remittance of compensation as provided in Divisional Manager Vs. Rajesh, 2016 SCC Online Mad. 1913 (and reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the orders dated 16.03.2021 and 16.11.2021 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors) along with interest @ 9% per annum.
ISSUE NO.3: RELIEF
42. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I award compensation of Rs. 20,07,000/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lacs Sixty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Only) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f the date of filing of FAR i.e. 24.11.2023 till compliance and @ 12% per annum thereafter. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be liable to be excluded from the above amount and calculations of compensation.
MACT Case No. 173/2024 (FIR no. 622/2023) Narender & Ors. Vs.CCL Bajrang & Ors.
Page no. 18 of 19
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
Date:
VIKRAM 2026.04.01
17:07:21
+0530
APPORTIONMENT
43. Statement of petitioners under Clause 29 MCTAP not recorded. Out of award amount 40% each is awarded to petitioner Narender Singh and Mala, and 20% is awarded to petitioner Laxmi. Same be released to them on after recording their statements under Clause 29 MCTAP.
44. Form V and IVB in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A.
45. A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 02.05.2026.
46. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signedANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT by VIKRAM
Date:
ON 01th DAY OF APRIL, 2026 VIKRAM 2026.04.01
17:07:26
+0530
VIKRAM
DJ-1+MACT, NORTH WEST,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MACT Case No. 173/2024 (FIR no. 622/2023) Narender & Ors. Vs.CCL Bajrang & Ors.
Page no. 19 of 19