Delhi District Court
Reeta Devi And Ors vs Rajendra (Deceased) Thr Lrs And Ors on 11 November, 2025
DLNW010091102022
Presented on : 08-09-2022
Registered on : 12-09-2022
Decided on : 11-11-2025
Duration : 3 years, 2 months,
3 days
IN THE COURT OF
ADJ1(NW)/MACT, NORTH WEST DISTRICT DELHI
Presided Over by Sh. Vikram
M A C T/844/2022
FIR No. 308/2020, PS Saurikh, District Kannauj, UP
In the matter of : Sh. Lalbabu Ray (Deceased)
1. Smt. Reeta Devi (Wife of deceased)
2. Ms. Kavita Kumari (Daughter of deceased)
3. Ms. Chanda Kumari (Daughter of deceased)
4. Ms. Chanchal Kumari (Daughter of deceased)
5. Ms. Kanchan Kumari (Daughter of deceased)
6. Master Krishnamani @ Krishanmani Raj (Son of deceased)
7. Master Suryamani @ Suryamani Raj (Son of deceased)
All R/o A-60/10, North Block,
West Vinod Nagar, Shakurpur,
New Delhi-110092.
Permanent address:
MACT Case No. 844/2022 (FIR no. 308/2020)
Reeta Devi & Ors. Vs. Rajendra (Deceased) through LRs & Ors.
Page no. 1 of 19
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
Date:
VIKRAM 2025.11.11
16:34:40
+0530
Village & PO Chhitrauli-Kurhani,
District Muzaffarpur, Bihar-843119.
.....Petitioners
vs.
1. Rajendra (since deceased)
S/o Sh. Chhotu Ram
Through his LRs
(i) Smt. Anita Devi (wife)
(ii) Aman (son)
(iii) Khushi (daughter)
(iv) Dhanu (son)
All R/o Village & PO Kheeri Kalan,
Munda Mohalla, Near Param Hans School,
Faridabad, Haryana-121002.
...... Driver/R1
2. Travel Point World LLP
Regd. Office at: Shop No. 5,
Khasra No. 151/2, Ground Floor,
Village Mangolpur Khurd,
Delhi-110083.
Through its partners
Also at: Shop No. 214,
Anand Vihar, Near EDM Mall,
Metro Pillar No. 214, Delhi-110092.
......Owner/R2
3. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Office at: 19A, 2nd Floor,
Sarti Complex, Jawala Heri Market,
Delhi-110063.
......Insurance Co./R3
Appearance (s) : Sh. Deepak Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the
petitioners.
Sh. Umesh Kaushal, Ld. Counsel for respondent
no. 3.
MACT Case No. 844/2022 (FIR no. 308/2020) Reeta Devi & Ors. Vs. Rajendra (Deceased) through LRs & Ors.
Page no. 2 of 19
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.11.11
16:34:48 +0530
J U D G M E N T/AWAR D
1. Vide this judgment/award, I shall dispose off the claim petition filed under Section 166 & 140 M.V. Act, in regard to death of Sh. Lalbabu Ray, (in short, the deceased), who died in a road vehicular accident on 19.07.2020.
2. Brief facts as per claim petition are that on 18.07.2020, deceased boarded a double decker bus bearing registration no. UP 17 AT 4782 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle) from Muzaffarpur, Bihar to travel to Delhi for his work. R1 was driving the bus recklessly at a terrific speed in violation of traffic rules, despite several requests made by some passengers to slow down the speed. On 19.07.2020 at about 04:30 am when the offending bus reached at Rasulpur, Kannauj, UP, R1 lost his control over the offending vehicle and hit a black colour Mahindra Xylo car bearing registration no. HP 10A 6309 from behind which was static at service lane on the left side of the road and after hitting the Xylo car the offending vehicle plunged into the gorge due to which deceased sustained injuries and died at the spot. Deceased was shifted to post mortem house Kannauj where his autopsy was conducted vide PM Report no. 369/2020. FIR no. 308/2020 for offence punishable under Section 279/337/338/304-A A IPC was registered at PS Saurikh, District Kannauj, UP.
3. As per PM report no. 369/2020, Mark F, the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage. As such R1 was charge-sheeted for offences under section 279/337/338/304A IPC.
MACT Case No. 844/2022 (FIR no. 308/2020) Reeta Devi & Ors. Vs. Rajendra (Deceased) through LRs & Ors.
Page no. 3 of 19
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.11.11
16:34:55 +0530
4. As per claim petition deceased survived by his wife, four
daughters and two sons (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner No. 1 to
7) who were dependent on deceased.
5. R1/driver of the offending vehicle was also expired in the said accident.
6. WS/reply was filed on behalf of R2 claiming that offending vehicle was insured with R3 at the time of accident.
7. In his reply/WS filed on behalf of R3, it is claimed by R3 that deceased was not traveling in the offending vehicle as there is not proof of bus ticket to show that deceased was in the bus. It is also claimed that as per petition the bus was overloaded with passengers and R1 was in inebriated state, therefore, R3 is not liable to indemnify any amount of compensation.
ISSUES:
8. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed by this Tribunal on 02.11.2023: -
1. Whether deceased Lalbabu Ray, S/o Late Sh. Ishwari Chand Rai expired due to injuries suffered in road traffic accident on 19.07.2020 at about 04:30 A.M., near Rasulpur, Kannauj, UP (located in South-West direction at 147 km, Agra-Lucknow-Expressway) due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing no. UP 17 AT 4782 which was being driven by MACT Case No. 844/2022 (FIR no. 308/2020) Reeta Devi & Ors. Vs. Rajendra (Deceased) through LRs & Ors.
Page no. 4 of 19 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2025.11.11 16:35:09 +0530driver Sh. Rajendra (since deceased) S/o Md. Chhotu Ram, 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. 1/LR Reeta Devi appeared as Pw1 and filed her affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied on following documents:
(a) Copy of aadhar card of petitioners Ex.Pw1/1(OSR) (colly)
(b) Copy of FIR no. 308/2020, Mark A
(c) Copy of final report in relation to FIR no. 308/2020 Mark B
(d) Copy of detail of RC and insurance Mark C
(e) copy of insurance of offending vehicle Mark D
(f) Copy fo site plan Mark E
(g) Copy of post mortem report of deceased Mark F
(h) Copy of second inquiry report dated 19.07.2020 Mark G
(i) Certified copy of general diary details dated 19.07.2020 Mark H
(j) Copy of requisition for post mortem of dead body Mark I
(k) Certified copy of S.P. Challan Form no. 13 Mark J
(l) Copy of aadhar card of deceased Mark K
(m) Copy of income tax return for assessment year 2018-19 of deceased Ex.Pw1/3.
10. In her cross examination, she denied the suggestion that deceased was not working anywhere at the time of accident or that the deceased was not travelling in the offending vehicle. She also denied MACT Case No. 844/2022 (FIR no. 308/2020) Reeta Devi & Ors. Vs. Rajendra (Deceased) through LRs & Ors.
Page no. 5 of 19
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.11.11
16:35:17 +0530
the suggestion that deceased was permanently residing in Ghaziabad, UP.
11. Petitioner has also examined Sh. Rohit Singh, IO of FIR no.
308/2020 as Pw2 who proved certified copy of FIR, Panchayatnama dated 19.07.2020, site plan, post mortem report, charge sheet and attested copies of case diary, mechanical inspection report, RC of offending vehicle, insurance policy of offending vehicle and DL of R1 as Ex.Pw2/1 to Ex.Pw2/10 respectively.
12. No witness was examined by respondents. Thereafter, the evidence was closed.
13. 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 Lalbabu Ray, S/o Late Sh. Ishwari Chand Rai expired due to injuries suffered in road traffic accident on 19.07.2020 at about 04:30 A.M., near Rasulpur, Kannauj, UP (located in South-West direction at 147 km, Agra-Lucknow-Expressway) due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing no. UP 17 AT 4782 which was being driven by driver Sh. Rajendra (since deceased) S/o Md. Chhotu Ram, on the said date, time and place? OPP.
MACT Case No. 844/2022 (FIR no. 308/2020) Reeta Devi & Ors. Vs. Rajendra (Deceased) through LRs & Ors.
Page no. 6 of 19
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.11.11
16:35:24 +0530
14. 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 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.
15. The involvement of offending vehicle of the respondent no.2 in accident is not only undisputed but also corroborated by the documentary evidence collected in FIR No. 308/2020. It is also admitted by R2 that offending vehicle met with an accident on 19.07.2020. It is claim of R3 that deceased was not travelling in the offending vehicle as no bus ticket of deceased was filed or proved. Record brought and proved by Pw2 shows that FIR was registered on the statement of one Ashish Kumar Jha who was also in the offending vehicle at the time of accident and stated to police about the death of MACT Case No. 844/2022 (FIR no. 308/2020) Reeta Devi & Ors. Vs. Rajendra (Deceased) through LRs & Ors.
Page no. 7 of 19
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.11.11
16:35:31 +0530
deceased in the accident. It is also claim of R3 that as per claim petition, R1 was in inebriated state at the time of accident. However, there is no such allegation in the complaint of Ashish Kumar Jha, who was the eye witness of the incident and passenger in the offending vehicle. It is mere an averment in the petition by the petitioners who are not the eye witness of the accident. Therefore, the case does not warrant any other best evidence. Keeping in view the facts & evidence produced by the petitioner, it is established that the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle being driven by respondent No.1.
16. Further, the FIR has been lodged against the respondent no.1 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.
17. 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 MACT Case No. 844/2022 (FIR no. 308/2020) Reeta Devi & Ors. Vs. Rajendra (Deceased) through LRs & Ors.
Page no. 8 of 19
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.11.11
16:35:38 +0530
against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
18. 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 compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided.
COMPENSATION
19. 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.
MACT Case No. 844/2022 (FIR no. 308/2020) Reeta Devi & Ors. Vs. Rajendra (Deceased) through LRs & Ors.
Page no. 9 of 19
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.11.11
16:35:45 +0530
20. As already stated above, the claimant/petitioners are wife and children of deceased. As per aadhar card of deceased, deceased was about 40 years old on the date of accident. It is claimed by petitioner that deceased was running a contractor and working in the area of Delhi NCR and was earning Rs. 24,168/- per month at the time of accident. Petitioner has filed ITR of deceased for the assessment year 2018-19 as per which the gross income of the deceased for the assessment year 2018-19 was Rs. 2,90,012/- per annum. Though the income proof/ITR for the assessment year 2019-20 is not proved on record but it can be fairly assumed while relying on the income of deceased for the assessment year 2018-19 that petitioner would certainly earn more than Rs. 2,90,012/- in the assessment year 2019-
20. Therefore, the income of the deceased, as on the date of the accident, was Rs. 24,168/- per month.
21. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners further argued that future prospects should also be awarded to the petitioners as per law. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the deceased was the sole earning member of the family and all the petitioners/claimants were dependent upon him for their livelihood.
22. Accordingly, on the basis of aforementioned documents, age of the deceased is taken as 40 years as on the date of accident. Hence, the multiplier of "15" would be applicable in view of pronouncement made in case titled as Sarla Verma (supra).
23. Considering the fact that deceased was aged about 40 years at the MACT Case No. 844/2022 (FIR no. 308/2020) Reeta Devi & Ors. Vs. Rajendra (Deceased) through LRs & Ors.
Page no. 10 of 19
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.11.11
16:35:53 +0530
time of accident, future prospects @ 25 % 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.
24. Claimant/petitioners are wife, four daughter and two sons of deceased. Thus, there are 7 claimants/ dependents upon him. There has to be deduction of "one fifth (1/5th)", as per the mandate of Sarla Verma (supra). Thus, total loss of dependency would come out as under:
25. Thus, total loss of dependency would come out as under:
Head Amount Remarks
(Rs.)
Monthly Income of 24,168/-
deceased
(A)
Less: Personal expenses of 4,833.6/- (A)/5= (B)
deceased @ one fifth (1/5th)
(B)
Monthly loss of dependency 19,334.4/- [(A)-
(C) (B)]=(C)
Annual Loss of dependency 2,32,012.8/- (C) x 12 =
(D) (D)
Multiplier @ 15 34,80,192/- (D) x 15
(E) (multiplier)
= (E)
Add: Future Prospects @ 8,70,048/- (E) X 40%
25% (E)
MACT Case No. 844/2022 (FIR no. 308/2020) Reeta Devi & Ors. Vs. Rajendra (Deceased) through LRs & Ors.
Page no. 11 of 19
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
Date:
VIKRAM 2025.11.11
16:36:01
+0530
Total 43,50,240/-
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
26. 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
27. 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 all LRs of deceased are entitled for payment of Rs. 3,38,800/- towards loss of consortium. Consequently, a sum of Rs. 3,38,800/- (Rs.48,400/- x 7) is awarded to the petitioners under this head.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
28. 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 "Rojalini Nayak & Ors. Vs. Ajit Sahoo & Ors.", Civil Appeal dated 07.08.2024 mentioned supra, a sum of Rs. 1,27,050/- (18,150 x 7) is awarded in favour of MACT Case No. 844/2022 (FIR no. 308/2020) Reeta Devi & Ors. Vs. Rajendra (Deceased) through LRs & Ors.
Page no. 12 of 19
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
Date:
VIKRAM 2025.11.11
16:36:08
+0530
petitioners on account of loss of estate and and a sum of Rs. 18,150/- is awarded in favour of petitioners towards funeral expenses.
29. Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:
S. No. Head Amount (Rs.)
1 Loss of dependency 43,50,240/-
2 Loss of Consortium 3,38,800/-
(Rs.48,400/- x 7)
3 Loss of Estate &Funeral 1,45,200/-
Expenses (Rs. 1,27,050 +
18,150/-)
TOTAL 48,34,240/-
LIABILITY
30. 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. However, it is the claim of R3 that as the offending vehicle was overloaded with passengers, there is violation of insurance policy and thus R3 is not liable to pay the compensation to petitioners. Merely because the offending vehicle was overloaded with passengers does not absolve the insurance company from its liability under Section 149(2) M.V. Act. Reliance is placed on The Oriental Insurance Com. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Meena Devi & Ors. 2012 AAC 1474 (P & H). As such, R3 is directed to pay the compensation in favour of petitioners. Issue No.2 is decided accordingly. The parties are directed to download the digital copy of judgment online.
ISSUE NO.3: RELIEF MACT Case No. 844/2022 (FIR no. 308/2020) Reeta Devi & Ors. Vs. Rajendra (Deceased) through LRs & Ors.
Page no. 13 of 19
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.11.11
16:36:14 +0530
31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I award compensation of Rs. 48,34,240/- (Rupees Forty Eight Lacs Thirty Four Thousand Two Hundred Forty Only) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 12.09.2022 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.
APPORTIONMENT
32. The statement of Petitioner in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP has been recorded on 04.08.2025 & 16.09.2025. Out of the total awarded amount, 22 % of the awarded amount be released in favour of petitioner no. 1 and 13% each in favour of petitioner no. 2 to 7, through their MACT saving bank accounts.
33. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby ordered that:
Out of the awarded amount i.e. 22% of 53,56,270/- of petitioner Reeta Devi, an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- be released to her immediately in her saving bank account no. 42545925741, IFSC Code: SBIN0010323 in State Bank of India, Branch District Court Rohini. The remaining amount alongwith interest amount of the petitioner is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 10,000/- each for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
Out of the awarded amount i.e. 13% of 53,56,270/- of petitioner MACT Case No. 844/2022 (FIR no. 308/2020) Reeta Devi & Ors. Vs. Rajendra (Deceased) through LRs & Ors.
Page no. 14 of 19
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
Date:
VIKRAM 2025.11.11
16:36:20
+0530
Kavita Kumari, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- be released to her immediately in her saving bank account no. 43986574644, IFSC Code:
SBIN0010323 in State Bank of India, Branch District Court Rohini. The remaining amount alongwith interest amount of the petitioner is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 5,000/- each for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
Out of the awarded amount i.e. 13% of 53,56,270/- of petitioner Chanda Kumari, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- be released to her immediately in her saving bank account no. 43989170886, IFSC Code: SBIN0010323 in State Bank of India, Branch District Court Rohini. The remaining amount alongwith interest amount of the petitioner is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 5,000/- each for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
Out of the awarded amount i.e. 13% of 53,56,270/- of petitioner Chanchal Kumari, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- be released to her immediately in her saving bank account no. 44347543571, IFSC Code: SBIN0010323 in State Bank of India, Branch District Court Rohini. The remaining amount alongwith interest amount of the petitioner is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 5,000/- each for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
Out of the awarded amount i.e. 13% of 53,56,270/- of petitioner Kanchan Kumari, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- be released to her immediately in her saving bank account no. 42719017393, IFSC Code: SBIN0010323 in State Bank of India, Branch District Court Rohini. The MACT Case No. 844/2022 (FIR no. 308/2020) Reeta Devi & Ors. Vs. Rajendra (Deceased) through LRs & Ors.
Page no. 15 of 19
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.11.11
16:36:28 +0530
remaining amount alongwith interest amount of the petitioner is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 5,000/- each for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
Out of the awarded amount i.e. 13% of 53,56,270/- of petitioner Krishanmani Raj, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- be released to her immediately in her saving bank account no. 44347386980, IFSC Code: SBIN0010323 in State Bank of India, Branch District Court Rohini. The remaining amount alongwith interest amount of the petitioner is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 5,000/- each for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
Out of the awarded amount i.e. 13% of 53,56,270/- of petitioner Suryamani Raj, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- be released to her immediately in her saving bank account no. 42655293498, IFSC Code: SBIN0010323 in State Bank of India, Branch District Court Rohini. The remaining amount alongwith interest amount of the petitioner is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 5,000/- each for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
34. The following conditions are to be adhered to by SBI, Rohini Courts, Delhi with respect to the fixed deposits:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe MACT Case No. 844/2022 (FIR no. 308/2020) Reeta Devi & Ors. Vs. Rajendra (Deceased) through LRs & Ors.
Page no. 16 of 19 Digitally signed by VIKRAM Date: VIKRAM 2025.11.11 16:36:35 +0530 custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant (s) near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not be issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card (s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
35. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the disbursed amount immediately to the petitioners in their saving bank accounts, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
36. Copy of this Award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank passbook and copy of residence proof of the MACT Case No. 844/2022 (FIR no. 308/2020) Reeta Devi & Ors. Vs. Rajendra (Deceased) through LRs & Ors.
Page no. 17 of 19
Digitally
signed by
VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.11.11
16:36:41
+0530
petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
37. A digital copy of this award be provided to the parties. Ahlmad is directed to send a 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)]. Further 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).
38. Ahlmad is also directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer 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. Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Rohini Courts for information.
39. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions 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.
40. Form V and IVB in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A. MACT Case No. 844/2022 (FIR no. 308/2020) Reeta Devi & Ors. Vs. Rajendra (Deceased) through LRs & Ors.
Page no. 18 of 19
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.11.11
16:36:48 +0530
41. A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 11.12.2025.
42. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT signed by
VIKRAM
ON 11th DAY OF November, 2025 VIKRAM Date:
2025.11.11
16:36:55
+0530
VIKRAM
DJ-1+MACT, NORTH WEST,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MACT Case No. 844/2022 (FIR no. 308/2020) Reeta Devi & Ors. Vs. Rajendra (Deceased) through LRs & Ors.
Page no. 19 of 19