Delhi District Court
Seema Khatoon And Ors vs Naveen And Ors on 22 January, 2026
MACP No. 581/19; FIR No. 156/19 DOD:22.01.2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA MANCHANDA, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 581/19
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-009431-2019
1. Smt. Seema Khatoon,
W/o Late Md. Izharul,
(Widow of deceased)
2. Baby Osima Khatoon,
D/o Late Md. Izharul,
(Minor daughter of deceased)
3. Baby Ayasha Khatoon,
D/o Late Md. Izharul,
(Minor daughter of deceased)
4. Md. Jamir,
S/o Late Md. Sabdul,
(Father of deceased)
5. Smt. Najamul Nisha,
W/o Md. Jamir,
(Mother of deceased)
6. Miss Sagira Khatoon,
D/o Md. Jamir
(Sister of deceased)
Seema Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Naveen & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 1 of 22
MACP No. 581/19; FIR No. 156/19 DOD:22.01.2026
All R/o. H.No. 356,
Pocket 11, Primary School,
Sector A-6, Narela,
Delhi.
..........Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Naveen,
S/o Sh. Ranbir,
R/o VPO Bupania Bahadurgarh,
Bupania,
Jhajjar.
(Driver)
2. Sh. Sonu,
S/o Sh. Jaipal,
R/o Village Shahpur,
PO Bhupania,
Bahadurgarh,
UP.
(Registered Owner)
3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
DO-122200, New India Centre,
1st Floor, 17-A,
Cooperage Road,
Mumbai,
Maharashtra.
(Insurer)
............Respondents
Date of Institution : 21.09.2019
Date of Arguments : 22.01.2026
Date of Judgment : 22.01.2026
Seema Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Naveen & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 2 of 22
MACP No. 581/19; FIR No. 156/19 DOD:22.01.2026
APPEARENCE(S):
Sh. Vivek Kumar, Ld. Counsels for petitioners.
None for driver and owner.
Sh. Lalit Dhingra, Ld. Counsel for insurance company.
Petition under Section 166 & 140 of M.V. Act, 1988 for grant of compensation AWARD
1. The petitioners have filed the present claim petition U/s 166/140 M.V Act, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 31,50,000/- from the date of accident till its realization for the fatal injury sustained by Mohd. Izaharul, aged about 33 years in Motor Vehicular Accident which occurred on 21.05.2019 at about 12:00 AM at KMP Highway, Near Village Asauda, Haryana, involving Truck bearing registration no. HR63D-4784 (offending vehicle) which was being driven by its driver/respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner.
2. The concise material facts relevant to decide the present claim are that on 21.05.2019, deceased Mohd. Izaharul was driving a container bearing registration no. HR55-AD-0601 behind a truck bearing registration no. HR63D-4784 on KMP Highway, near Asauda Village. All of a sudden, the driver of aforesaid truck who was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner, applied brakes due to which, the aforesaid Container rammed into back portion of the truck, due to which the engine of the container caught fire Seema Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Naveen & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 3 of 22 MACP No. 581/19; FIR No. 156/19 DOD:22.01.2026 and the driver of the container got charred in the fire, resulting into his death on the spot. His postmortem was conducted at Civil Hospital, Jhajjar, Haryana. A case U/s 279/304A IPC was registered at PS. Jhajjar vide FIR No. 156/2019 with regard to the accident in question. The petitioners have claimed that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of aforementioned offending vehicle which was allegedly being driven by respondent no.1/driver. The offending vehicle was found to be owned by respondent no. 2 and was insured with respondent no. 3 at the time of accident in question.
3. In their joint written statement, the respondents no. 1 & 2 i.e., driver and registered owner raised preliminary objections that the alleged accident has not been caused by respondent no. 1. They claimed that respondent no.1 was having valid and effective DL at the time of accident. The also claimed that alleged offending vehicle was insured with respondent no. 3 at the time of accident and thus, they are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. On merits, they denied the averments made in the claim petition and prayed for its dismissal.
4. In its Written Statement, the respondent no. 3 i.e. insurance company has claimed that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the present claim petition as deceased never resided in Delhi and was permanent resident of Bihar. It is further claimed that accident had occurred due to own Seema Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Naveen & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 4 of 22 MACP No. 581/19; FIR No. 156/19 DOD:22.01.2026 negligence of deceased who could not control his vehicle and hit/rammed in back side of alleged offending vehicle which was moving ahead of his vehicle. It is also claimed that present claim petition is bad on account of non-joinder of necessary parties as registered owner and insurer of vehicle no. HR55-AD-0601 were not made party in the claim petition. It has been admitted that offending vehicle was insured with it at the time of accident. On merits, it has denied the averments made in the claim petition and prayed for its dismissal.
5. From the pleadings of the parties and the documents, following issues were framed vide order dated 01.08.2022:-
1) Whether the deceased Mohammad Izaharul, S/o Mohammad Jamir, suffered fatal injuries in road traffice accident on 21.05.2019 at about 12:00 AM in the night at K.M.P Highway, near Village Asauda, District Jhajjar, Haryana, due to rashness and negligence on the part of driver Naveen, S/o Shri Ranbir/R-1, who was driving truck bearing registration no. HR63D-4784, owned by Shri Sonu, S/o Shri Jaipal/R-2 and insured with M/s. New India Assurance Company Limited/R-3?OPP.
2) Whether the LRs of deceased are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
OPP.
3) Relief.
6. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners have examined two witnesses i.e. Seema Khatoon (Widow of deceased) as PW-1 and Seema Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Naveen & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 5 of 22 MACP No. 581/19; FIR No. 156/19 DOD:22.01.2026 Sh. Naushad Alam as PW-2 and their evidence was closed vide order dated 22.07.2024. On the other hand, no evidence was adduced by any of the respondents and RE in the matter was closed vide order dated 03.02.2025.
7. This Tribunal has carefully perused claim petition, evidence led by petitioners has been duly appreciated. All documents and material relied upon perused and considered. Arguments addressed by counsels for the petitioners and insurance company considered. Legal position, both statutory and binding applicable precedents, has been appreciated. The issue wise determination is as under:-
ISSUE NO. 18. For the purpose of this issue, the testimony of PW2 Sh. Naushad Alam is relevant. He deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW2/A) that at the time of accident, he was in Noida and received phone call from Md. Tufail who was working as driver in the same company i.e., Gateway Rail Company and was driving another vehicle and was driving vehicle behind vehicle of Sh. Rakesh. He further deposed that he had received a call from Md. Tufail at about 11:45 PM on 21.05.2019 that a vehicle bearing registration no. HR55-AD-0601 has met with an accident with HR63D-4784 and had caught fire. He further deposed that after receiving the aforesaid information, he reached at the spot at about 12:456 on 22.05.2019. He further deposed that when he reached there he found that Seema Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Naveen & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 6 of 22 MACP No. 581/19; FIR No. 156/19 DOD:22.01.2026 body of Mohammad Izaharul was charred in the accident and fire was extinguished by fire brigade. He further deposed that the driver of the vehicle bearing no. HR63D-4784 had fled from the site of accident. He further deposed that the accident has been caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1 as he suddenly applied the brakes of his vehicle, as a result of which, the truck bearing no. HR55-AD-0601 got rammed against it. He has relied upon copy of his Aadhaar Card exhibited as Ex. PW2/1(OSR).
9. During his cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that he was not the eyewitness. He further deposed that he was in A-87, Sector - 2, Noida when the incident took place and he was holding the driving licence of the same address. He further deposed that deceased was his relative/brother-in-law.
10. Counsel for petitioners heavily relied upon the FIR and chargesheet (Ex. PW1/1 & Ex. PW1/2 respectively) in order to bring home his point that the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration no. HR63D-4784. He further argued that FIR No. 156/2019 was registered at PS. Asauda and respondent no. 1 was also chargesheeted by police for offences punishable U/s 279/304A IPC, which clearly establish that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of aforesaid vehicle by respondent no. 1.
Seema Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Naveen & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 7 of 22MACP No. 581/19; FIR No. 156/19 DOD:22.01.2026
11. On the other hand, counsel for insurance company vehemently argued that PW2 Sh. Naushad Alam is undisputedly not an eye witness of the accident in question and no eye witness has been examined by petitioners during the course of inquiry. He, therefore, contended that the petitioners have failed to prove that the accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of aforesaid vehicle by respondent no. 1.
12. Now, turning back to the facts of the present case. No doubt, the petitioners have not examined any eye witness to prove the negligence on the part of driver of the alleged vehicle described above but nevertheless, there is ample material brought on record during the course of inquiry, which is sufficient to establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration no. HR63D-4784 by its driver. It is seen that FIR No. 156/2019 was registered at PS. Asauda with regard to accident in question. Copy of said FIR would show that same was registered on the statement of Sh. Rakesh, eyewitness wherein he stated about the same sequence of events which led to the accident in question, as narrated by PW2 during his testimony recorded in this case. The very fact that respondent no. 1 namely Sh. Naveen was charge-sheeted (Ex. PW1/2) by the police for offences punishable u/s. 279/304A IPC would further show that Investigating Agency also concluded after completion of the investigation that said accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent no. 1. The registration number of offending vehicle to Seema Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Naveen & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 8 of 22 MACP No. 581/19; FIR No. 156/19 DOD:22.01.2026 be truck no. HR63D-4784, is also disclosed therein. The respondents no. 1 & 2 have failed to substantiate the plea that petitioners had any kind of ill will or enmity against them so as to falsely implicate respondent no. 1 in criminal case or to depose falsely against them during the course of inquiry.
13. Moreover, it is an undisputed fact that FIR No. 156/2019 u/s 279/304A IPC was registered at PS. Asauda with regard to accident in question. Copy of said FIR (Ex. PW1/1), would show that same was registered on 22.05.2019(accident being caused on 21.05.2019). Thus, FIR is shown to have been registered promptly and without any delay. After conclusion of investigation, the chargesheet was also filed against respondent no. 1. Hence, there is no possibility of false implication of respondent no.1 and/or false involvement of offending vehicle at the instance of petitioners herein. On the other hand, respondents have not examined any witness in order to rebut the testimony of PW2 in this regard during the course of inquiry. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve his uncontroverted testimony on the point of accident in question being caused by respondent no. 1 due to his rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle.
14. Further, there is no gainsaying that respondent No.1/driver of offending vehicle was the other material witness to throw light by testifying as to how and under what circumstances, the accident has taken place. However, he has preferred not to enter into the witness box. Thus, an adverse Seema Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Naveen & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 9 of 22 MACP No. 581/19; FIR No. 156/19 DOD:22.01.2026 inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent no. 1. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had any enmity with the driver of the offending vehicle so as to falsely implicate him in this case. Reliance placed on Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Kamlesh & Ors, MAC APP. No. 530/2008 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 11.11.2008.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioners have been able to prove on the basis of preponderance of probabilities that deceased Mohammad Izaharul had sustained fatal injuries in the road accident which took place on 21.05.2019 at about 12:00 AM at KMP Highway, Near Village Asauda, Haryana, due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent no. 1/driver of the offending vehicle. Thus, this issue is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 216. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 enjoins upon the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. The guiding principles for assessment of "just and reasonable Seema Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Naveen & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 10 of 22 MACP No. 581/19; FIR No. 156/19 DOD:22.01.2026 compensation" in fatal case has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case titled as Smt. Anjali & Ors., Vs. Lokendra Rathod & Ors, in Civil Appeal No. 9014 of 202, decided on 06.12.2022 that: -
"The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "MV Act") gives paramount importance to the concept of 'just and fair' compensation. It is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families. Section 168 of the MV Act deals with the concept of 'just compensation' which ought to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability. Although such determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the applicant/s. In Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.3, this Court has laid down as under:
"16."Just compensation" is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit."
17. The intent and objective of the Beneficial Legislation is to grant equitable compensation to the vulnerable victims of road accidents and dynamic law has evolved towards grant of just and fair quantum of awards and has brought consistency and uniformity towards the desired goal. The Seema Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Naveen & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 11 of 22 MACP No. 581/19; FIR No. 156/19 DOD:22.01.2026 Hon'ble Apex Court in "Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation" (2009) 6 SCC 121, which was affirmed by a bench of three Hon'ble Judges in Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, held as under:
"16. "Just compensation" is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit.
17. Assessment of compensation though involving certain hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective. Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and uniformity in the decision making process and the decisions. While it may not be possible to have mathematical precision or identical awards, in assessing compensation, same or similar facts should lead to awards in the same range. When the factors/inputs are the same, and the formula/legal principles are the same, consistency and uniformity, and not divergence and freakiness, should be the result of adjudication to arrive at just compensation..."
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the compensation should be just and is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly or a pittance. Reliance is placed on 2012 (8) SLT 676 titled K. Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The aforesaid Principle of law has also been reiterated by a landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in 2017 (13) SCALE 12 : 2017 XI AD (SC) 113 titled National Insurance Co.
Seema Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Naveen & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 12 of 22MACP No. 581/19; FIR No. 156/19 DOD:22.01.2026 Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. Accordingly, the quantum of appropriate and adequate compensation to the victims of road accident is to be derived after assessment of various relevant parameters, as per law. Hereinafter, assessment is divided into several criteria, as applicable to the facts of the present case.
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
19. PW1 Smt. Seema Khatoon has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A that deceased was aged about 33 years; he was working as driver with a Transport Company i.e., Gateway Rail Freight Ltd, Gurgaon and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. She further deposed that deceased used to contribute towards his family about Rs. 12,000/- per month. She further deposed that all the petitioners were financially dependent upon the deceased. She relied upon the following documents:-
S.No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Attested copy of FIR Ex PW1/1
2. Attested copy of final report Ex. PW1/2
3. Attested copy of driving licence Ex. PW1/3
of driver Naveen
4. Attested copy of RC of vehicle Ex. PW1/4
no. HR63D-4784
5. Copy of Aadhaar card of Ex. PW1/5(OSR)
deceased
6. Copy of death certificate of Ex. PW1/6(OSR)
deceased
Seema Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Naveen & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 13 of 22
MACP No. 581/19; FIR No. 156/19 DOD:22.01.2026
7. Copies of Aadhaar Cards of Ex. PW1/8(Colly)
petitioners no. 1 to 6
8. Photocopy of complete Mark-1(colly)
chargesheet
20. During her cross examination on behalf of insurance company, she deposed that she had Nikahnama as proof of her marriage with the deceased, however, she had not brought the same on that day. She further deposed that her parents in law were alive and were residing at Deokuli Dham, Darbhanga, Bihar. She deposed that she did not have any document like Aadhaar, Volter I Card, Ration Card etc, which shows that she was residing in Delhi. She volunteered that she was residing in Delhi with her deceased husband. She further deposed that Mohd. Jaan was the brother of deceased. She denied the suggestion that she was not residing in Delhi alongwith her husband and co-petitioners. She deposed that petitioner no. 6 Ms. Sagira Khatoon got married in the year 2021. She further deposed that she was not drawing any pension or compensation from any authority with regard to death of her deceased husband. She further deposed that she was not having any document showing that deceased was working as a driver and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month at the time of accident. She further deposed that she was not having driving licence of deceased. She further deposed that except the present one, she had not filed any other MACT claim case before any Tribunal with respect to death of deceased.
Seema Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Naveen & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 14 of 22MACP No. 581/19; FIR No. 156/19 DOD:22.01.2026
21. During the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for petitioners fairly conceded that for want of any cogent and definite evidence being led by petitioners regarding monthly income of deceased, his income may be considered as per Minimum Wages Act in order to calculate the loss of dependency. He however argued that future prospects should also be awarded to the petitioners as per law.
22. As already noted above, PW1 Smt. Seema Khatoon, widow of deceased has failed to file any document regarding monthly earning of deceased at the time of accident. Petitioners have also failed to file any educational qualification documents of deceased. Petitioners have also failed to file any document showing that deceased was working and earning in Gurugram, Haryana at the time of accident. Therefore, his notional monthly income is being taken as equivalent to that of an unskilled person under Minimum Wages Act applicable in the State of Bihar during the relevant period. The minimum wages of an unskilled person were Rs. 6,968/- per month (Rs. 268/- per day X 26 days) as the accident in question had occurred on 21.05.2019.
23. As per the case of petitioners, deceased was aged about 33 years at the time of accident. It is pertinent to note that petitioners have filed copy of Aadhaar Card (Ex. PW1/5) of deceased, wherein date of birth of deceased is mentioned as 01.01.1986. The date of accident in the present case is Seema Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Naveen & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 15 of 22 MACP No. 581/19; FIR No. 156/19 DOD:22.01.2026 21.05.2019. Thus, the deceased was aged about 33 years at the time of accident. Thus, the multiplier of 16 would be applicable in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." passed in SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17.
24. Considering the age of deceased at the time of accident, future prospects @ 40% has to be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." mentioned supra, as well as in view of decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", decided on 02.11.17.
25. PW1 has categorically deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that all the petitioners were financially dependent upon the income of deceased. It is stated that the deceased was survived by six dependents i.e. widow, two minor daughters, parents and unmarried sister of deceased. Since the respondents have not produced any proof to the contrary, there is no reason to disregard the statement of PW1. Even no suggestion was put to the said witness regarding non-dependency of petitioners on the deceased at the time of accident. Considering all the facts and circumstances, it is held that there were six dependents i.e. widow, two minor daughters of Seema Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Naveen & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 16 of 22 MACP No. 581/19; FIR No. 156/19 DOD:22.01.2026 deceased, parents of deceased and unmarried sister of deceased at the time of accident. Thus, one fourth is liable to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 14,04,748.80p (Rs. 6,968/- X 12 X 3/4 X 140/100 X 16). Hence, a sum of Rs. 14,04,748.80p is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
26. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as, Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Tribunal considers that all the petitioners are entitled for payment of Rs. 40,000/- each towards "loss of consortium". By way of pronouncement of Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to hold that there shall be an increase of 10% on account of 'inflation' after a period of three years. Applying, the afore-cited binding law the The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hasina Yasmin & Ors. V. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., Special Leave Petition ( C ). No. 27285 of 2025 vide judgment pronounced on 17.12.2025 has been pleased to direct the entitlement of dependents to 10% increase in the year 2020, only in those cases where the accident had occurred after 2017. Accordingly, all the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each towards "loss of consortium" since the date of accident in the present matter is 21.05.2019.
Seema Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Naveen & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 17 of 22MACP No. 581/19; FIR No. 156/19 DOD:22.01.2026 LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
27. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) which has been re-enforced in Hasina Yasmin (supra), the Tribunal considers that all the petitioners are also entitled for payment of Rs. 15,000/-on account of "loss of estate" and for equal payment of Rs. 15,000/- towards "funeral expenses" since the date of accident in the present matter is 21.05.2019.
28. Therefore, on the basis of the above discussion, the compensation is quantified as below:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 14,04,748.80p
2. Loss of Consortium Rs. 2,40,000/-
3. Loss of Estate & Funeral Rs. 30,000/-
Expenses Total Rs. 16,74,748.80p Rounded off to Rs. 16,75,000/-
29. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Respondent no. 3/insurance company did not adduce any evidence as it had no statutory defence. It is nowhere the case of insurance company that any term or Seema Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Naveen & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 18 of 22 MACP No. 581/19; FIR No. 156/19 DOD:22.01.2026 condition of insurance policy was breached/violated by insured. Keeping in view the existence of valid insurance policy, respondent no. 3/insurance company becomes liable to pay the compensation amount, as insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF
30. In view of my finding on issues no. 1 & 2, I award a sum of Rs. 16,75,000/- (including interim award amount, if any) alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum w.e.f date of filing the claim petition i.e. 21.09.2019(except for the period of delay w.e.f., 04.03.2024 till conclusion of PE i.e., 22.07.2024) till the date of its realization, in favour of Lrs of deceased/petitioners and against the respondents. (Reliance placed on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baby Raksha & Ors, MAC APP. No. 36/2023 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 21.04.2023).
APPORTIONMENT
31. Statement of petitioners were recorded on 19.05.2025 in compliance of directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2023 in case titled Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. V. Jaibir Singh & Ors., decided on 13.08.2025 as per clause 29 of MCTAP. It is pertinent to mention here that petitioner no. 2/father of deceased has expired during the trial. keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby ordered that out Seema Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Naveen & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 19 of 22 MACP No. 581/19; FIR No. 156/19 DOD:22.01.2026 of the awarded amount, the petitioner no. 1 namely Smt. Seema Khatoon (widow of deceased) shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 5,31,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs and Thirty One Thousand Only) alongwith proportionate interest, the petitioner no. 2 & 3 namely Baby Osima Khatoon and Baby Ayasha Khatoon (both minor daughters of deceased) shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- each (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) alongwith proportionate interest, the petitioner no. 4 namely Md. Jamir (father of deceased) shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) alongwith proportionate interest, the petitioner no. 5 namely Smt. Najamul Nisha (mother of deceased) shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) alongwith proportionate interest and the petitioner no. 6 namely Sagira Khatoon (sister of deceased) shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) alongwith proportionate interest.
32. Out of share amount of petitioner no.1, a sum of Rs. 2,31,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Thirty One Thousand Only) is directed to be immediately released to her through her saving bank account and remaining amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 20,000/-each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest. The said FDRs be released to the said petitioners on the monthly basis as aforesaid.
Seema Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Naveen & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 20 of 22MACP No. 581/19; FIR No. 156/19 DOD:22.01.2026
33. The entire respective share amount of petitioner no. 2 & 3 alongwith proportionate interest is directed to be kept in FDRs for the period they attain the age of majority and thereafter, entire amount alongwith interest be released to them, as per rules. However, the said petitioners are at liberty to withdraw their monthly interest in order to meet their educational expenses through their mother/natural guardian.
34. Considering the fact that petitioner no. 4/father of deceased has already expired, his entire respective share amount alongwith proportionate interest is directed to be released to his wife/petitioner no. 6 Smt. Najamul Nisha as nominee of petitioner no. 4, through her saving bank account, as per rules.
35. The entire respective share amounts of petitioners no. 5 & 6 alongwith interest is directed to be released to them immediately through their respective saving bank accounts, as per rules.
36. Petitioners are directed to provide details of their respective saving bank accounts to the insurance company within 7 days from the date of award for transfer of aforesaid amounts in their respective bank accounts.
37. Respondent no. 3/New India Assurance Co. Ltd., being insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the aforesaid award amount in the respective bank accounts of the claimants within 30 days from the date Seema Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Naveen & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 21 of 22 MACP No. 581/19; FIR No. 156/19 DOD:22.01.2026 when details are provided by the claimants as aforesaid, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a for the period of delay in terms of directions passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in its latest judgment titled "Parminder Singh Vs. Honey Goyal & Ors.", S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020, DOD:18.03.2025.
38. Concerned Manager of petitioner's bank is directed to release the amount to the petitioners as aforesaid, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. He is further directed to keep the remaining amount in fixed deposit, if any, in terms of aforesaid directions and send compliance report to this Court. He is also directed to ensure that no loan, advance or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioners and also to counsel for the insurance company for compliance. Petitioners are also directed to provide copy of this award to their bank Manager for compliance. Form XV & Form XVII in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A. Copy of order be also sent to concerned CJM/JMFC and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP.
Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA Announced in the open MANCHANDA MANCHANDA Date: 2026.01.22 Court on 22.01.2026 16:16:06 +0530 (RICHA MANCHANDA) Judge MACT-2 (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi Seema Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Naveen & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 22 of 22