Delhi District Court
Mamtaz Begum vs Indrapal Singh on 27 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY KUMAR JAIN
PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
MAMTAZ BEGUM Vs. INDRAPAL SINGH & ORS.
MACT No. 21/18
1. Mamtaz Begum (Wife of deceased)
W/o Late Moh. Saiful Islam
2. Alimuddin (Father of deceased)
S/o Late Moh. Shukar Ali
3. Salma (Daughter of deceased)
D/o Late Mohd. Saiful Islam
4. Maiful Islam (Son of deceased)
S/o Late Mohd. Saiful Islam
Petitioner 1 to 3 are R/o
Village- Karagari Nonke, Naligaon
Barpeta, Assam.
Present Adds. In front of D.P.S School,
Sihani Jhuggi, P.S. Sihanigate, Distt. Ghaziabad
......Petitioners
Versus
1. Indrapal Singh (Driver)
S/o Sh. Asha Ram Buddha Ram
R/o Khasra No. 123, Krishna Vihar Kuti Bhopura
P.S. Sahibabad, Distt. Ghaziabad
Second Address. V.P.O Barwala, Distt. Baghpat, UP
2. Parevartan Educare Foundation (Owner)
R/o. 9/220, Rajnagar, Ghaziabad
3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
R/o. No. 28, DR. Gopaldas Bhawan, New Delhi,
Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, Delhi.
MACT No. 21/18 27.08.2025 Page 1 of 20
Mamtaz Begum Vs. Inder Pal Singh & Ors.
.........Respondents
Date of filing of claim petition : 24.01.2018
Date of framing of issues : 22.11.2018
Date of concluding arguments : 12.08.2025
Date of decision : 27.08.2025
AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. The claim for compensation raised in the present
claim petition is in respect of fatal injuries alleged to have been
sustained by the deceased Mohd. Saiful Islam in an accident that
took place on 03.08.2017, at about 7:00 p.m, at near CBI cut, Ps.
Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP regarding which FIR No.1147/17,
under Sections 279/304-A/427 IPC was registered at PS Kavi
Nagar. The offending vehicle involved in this case is a bus
bearing registration No. UP-14-ET-1354, which at the relevant
time of accident was being driven by respondent no.1 (R-1) Sh.
Indrapal Singh and owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with
respondent no. 3 (R-3) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
2. Brief facts of the present claim petition are that on
03.08.2017 at around 7:00 p.m., when the deceased Mohd. Saiful
Islam was crossing the road to pick rag material from the road on
his rickshaw and reached near CBI cut, one bus bearing no.
UP-14-ET-1354 being driven by respondent no. 1 in rash and
negligent manner hit the deceased, due to which he suffered
grievous injuries and on admission at hospital, he succumbed to
those injuries. Pursuant to which, a FIR no. 1147/2017 was
registered at PS Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP.
3. During investigation, site plan of the place of
MACT No. 21/18 27.08.2025 Page 2 of 20
Mamtaz Begum Vs. Inder Pal Singh & Ors.
occurrence was prepared. Post-mortum of the deceased Mohd.
Saiful Islam was conducted. Respondent no.1/driver was arrested
and on completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed.
4. Written statement is filed on behalf of respondent
no. 1/driver in which it is stated that his vehicle is not involved in
the said accident and if any claim made out, is to be paid by
Insurance Company/R-3.
5. Respondent no. 2/owner also stated that the bus
allegedly involved in the present case, is duly insured, however
no such accident caused by the said bus.
6. Respondent no. 3/Insurance company in the written
statement stated that the said vehicle was insured with the
Insurance company.
7. On completion of pleadings, vide order dated
22.11.2018, the following issues were framed by this Tribunal :-
1. Whether Sh. Saiful Islam sustained fateal
injuries in the accident which occurred on
03.08.2017 at about 7 PM near CBI cut PS
Kavinagar, Ghaziabad caused by rash and
negligent driving of vehicle No.
UP-14ET-1354 driven by respondent no.1,
owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with
respondent no.3 ? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and
from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
8. Vide order dated 13.03.2023, the present claim
petitioner was referred to Ld. Local Commissioner for recording
of evidence.
MACT No. 21/18 27.08.2025 Page 3 of 20
Mamtaz Begum Vs. Inder Pal Singh & Ors.
9. In support of their claim, the petitioner no. 1 Smt.
Mamtaz Begum, wife of deceased examined herself as PW1. Her
affidavit in evidence is exhibited as Ex. PW1/A. She relied upon
certain documents i.e. certified copy of criminal case record as
Ex.PW1/1 (colly), copy of Aadhar Card of the deceased as
Ex.PW1/2 (OSR), copy of her Aadhar Card as Ex.PW1/3 (OSR),
copy of Aadhar Card of her son Maiful Islam as Ex.PW1/4
(OSR), copy of her Pan Card as Ex.PW1/5 (OSR), copy of birth
certificate of her son Maiful Islam as ExPW1/6 (OSR) and copy
of election ID card of petitioner no. 2 Alimuddin as Mark-A.
10. PW-1 in her testimony stated that deceased Mohd.
Saiful Islam was died due to fatal injuries suffered in the road
accident. PW-2 Rahajuddin also stated that he is eyewitness who
saw the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the
respondent no. 1. Petitioner also examined PW-3 Rajkumar
Tyagi who is purchaser of rag chiker material from the deceased.
11. No evidence lead by the respondents.
12. Ld. counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of R-1.
The deceased Mohd Saiful Islam survived with wife, two
children and mother & father, therefore entitled for
compensation.
13. The insurance company in written submissions took
the plea that the present case is a private case filed by the
petitioner intending to falsely claim compensation from the
respondents.
14. Arguments heard. Record perused
15. The findings on the aforementioned issues are
MACT No. 21/18 27.08.2025 Page 4 of 20
Mamtaz Begum Vs. Inder Pal Singh & Ors.
rendered hereinafter in the succeeding paragraphs.
16. ISSUE NO. 1
1. Whether Sh. Saiful Islam sustained fateal
injuries in the accident which occurred on
03.08.2017 at about 7 PM near CBI cut PS
Kavinagar, Ghaziabad caused by rash and
negligent driving of vehicle No.
UP-14ET-1354 driven by respondent no.1,
owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with
respondent no.3 ? OPP.
17. The petitioners examined PW-2 Rahajuddin who is
eyewitness in this case. PW-2 in his testimony stated that
deceased Mohd. Saiful Islam was hit by offending vehicle/school
bus bearing no. UP-14ET-1354 which was driven in very rash
and negligent manner by the R-1/Indrapal Singh, due to which
the deceased suffered fatal injuries and thereafter with the help of
police he has taken the injured to the hospital. In cross-
examination, he stated that at the time of accident, he was with
the deceased and there were few other who were behind us. He
denied suggestion that the offending bus was not driven by
respondent no. 1/driver. He also stated that after the accident, he
took the deceased to Sarvodya Hospital with the help of police
and passersby, however stated that he did not note the number of
offending vehicle and the same was given by police to him.
18. Ld. Counsel for Insurance company submitted that
PW-2 is the eyewitness who did not note the number of
offending vehicle, therefore, the petitioners not able to prove the
involvement of alleged offending bus in the accident.
19. The testimony of the witnesses is duly supported
with the police investigation. The police after investigation filed
MACT No. 21/18 27.08.2025 Page 5 of 20
Mamtaz Begum Vs. Inder Pal Singh & Ors.
chargesheet under section 279/304A/427 against the R-1/driver
of the offending vehicle and also recorded the statement of
eyewitness PW-2 Rahajuddin. None has been examined on
behalf of the respondents to bring the fact that there is no
involvement of offending bus in the said accident. There is
nothing in evidence or in police investigation to discredit the
claim of the petitioners, hence the plea of the Insurance company
regarding non-involvement of the offending vehicle stands
negated.
20. In cases National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 287 and United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Deepak Goel and Ors., 2014 (2) TAC 846 (Del.)
decided by the Coordinate Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High
Court, it was held that
"......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."
21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mangla Ram Vs.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303
has observed that filing of charge sheet against the driver prima
facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle rashly
and negligently. It has been further observed that even when the
accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, the same may
MACT No. 21/18 27.08.2025 Page 6 of 20
Mamtaz Begum Vs. Inder Pal Singh & Ors.
be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in
respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
22. 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 on preponderance of probabilities and
not beyond reasonable doubt, as are required in a criminal
prosecution. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court reported as (2009) 13 SC 530 in Bimla Devi
and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and
others, wherein it has been observed that strict proof of an
accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner
may not be possible to be done by the petitioners and the
petitioners were merely to establish their case on the touchstone
of preponderance of probability.
23. In view of foregoing discussion, it stands proved by
evidence of PW-2 who is eyewitness and police investigation
that the aforesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. UP-14-
ET-1354 and the said vehicle at that time of accident was driven
by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with
respondent no. 3. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the
petitioners and against the respondents.
24. ISSUE NO. 2
Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and from
whom? OPP.
25. As rashness and negligence on part of driver of the
offending vehicle/respondent No. 1 has been proved, the
MACT No. 21/18 27.08.2025 Page 7 of 20
Mamtaz Begum Vs. Inder Pal Singh & Ors.
petitioners have become entitled to be compensated for death of
their family member in the said accident, but the computation of
compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be
decided. The compensation to which the petitioners are entitled
shall be under the heads as discussed hereinafter.
(i) Loss of dependency
26. The petitioner no. 1 being wife of the deceased
stepped into the witness box as PW1 and filed his evidence by
way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A wherein she claimed that the
deceased Mohd. Saiful Islam was working as rag picker at
Ghaziabad, UP. Petitioners also examined PW-3 Raj Kumar
Tyagi, purchaser of rag material from the deceased who deposed
that he used to give cash to deceased who was earning Rs.
1,000/- per day, however PW-1 has not placed on record any
document in support of employment and income of her deceased
husband.
27. In these circumstances, since income and
employment of the deceased has not been established on record,
however the deceased is found to be rag picker at Ghaziabad, UP,
thus the minimum wages of unskilled person is taken into
account as per rates prevalent in UP, which was Rs.7,400/- per
month at the time of accident.
28. The petitioners have claimed the age of deceased as
25 years in the claim petition. Petitioners have placed on record
their Aadhaar cards to show their age and Aadhar Card of the
deceased Mohd. Saiful Islam to show his age. In the Aadhar Card
(Ex.PW1/2 (OSR)), the date of birth of deceased is found
MACT No. 21/18 27.08.2025 Page 8 of 20
Mamtaz Begum Vs. Inder Pal Singh & Ors.
recorded as 01.01.1992. Going by the said document, the age of
deceased comes out to be 25 years, 7 months. Accordingly, in
terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation &
Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been approved by the
Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.,
(2017) 16 SCC 680, the multiplier of '18' is applicable in the
present case.
29. Now coming to calculation of loss of dependency,
this petition was filed by wife Mamtaz Begum of deceased
Mohd. Saiful Islam showing herself dependent along with her
one daughter Salma (minor) and one son Maiful Islam who was
born after the date of accident as well as Alimuddin father of the
deceased Saiful Islam who was also also dependent on him,
however Noor Nisha is stated to be step mother of the deceased
in written submissons filed on behalf of claimants. Therefore,
Noor Nisha is not entitled for any claim. Only wife of deceaseed
alongwith her daughter and son (minor children) as well as father
of deceased Mohd. Saiful Islam. Therefore, number of
dependents are found to be four. Hence, in terms of above
judgment as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. (Supra) and Pranay Sethi
& Ors. (Supra), 1/4th earnings of deceased shall be deducted
towards his personal and living expenses.
30. In view of the law laid down in the case of Pranay
Sethi (Supra), the petitioners are also held entitled to addition of
40% of earning of the deceased towards future prospects. Thus,
MACT No. 21/18 27.08.2025 Page 9 of 20
Mamtaz Begum Vs. Inder Pal Singh & Ors.
the loss of dependency in the present case comes to Rs.
16,78,320/- (Rs.7,400/-X 12 X 18 X 3/4 X 140/100).
(ii) COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY
HEADS
31. To calculate compensation under the non pecuniary
heads, reference has to be drawn from decision in Pranay Sethi
case (supra) wherein it was observed:
''...Unlike determination of income, the said heads
have to be quantified. Any quantification must have
a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute
over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest,
escalation of rates in many a field have to be
noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the
same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect.
Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in
determination of the same and unless the thumb
rule is applied, there will be immense variation
lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of
which, the orders passed by the tribunals and
courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we
think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us
that reasonable figures on conventional heads,
namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and
funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000
and Rs 15,000 respectively. The principle of
revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle.
But the revisit should not be fact-centric or
quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign
that the amount that we have quantified should be
enhanced on percentage basis in every three years
and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10%
in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so
because that will bring in consistency in respect of
those heads.
.
.
59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years...'' MACT No. 21/18 27.08.2025 Page 10 of 20 Mamtaz Begum Vs. Inder Pal Singh & Ors.
32. In terms of propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the petitioners are also held entitled to amount of Rs.15,000/- each under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses, i.e. Rs.30,000/- under both heads. Further, in view of Full Court judgment dated 30.06.2020 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. (2020) 06 SC CK 0036 (Civil Appeal Nos. 2705 and 2706 of 2020), the petitioners are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards 'loss of consortium', in addition to Rs.30,000/- granted under the conventional head of 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses'.
33. Pertinently, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also held in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (Supra) that compensation awarded under the conventional heads shall be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years and a period of 6 years since then stands already expired. Hence, the petitioners in this case are also entitled to an increase @ 10% on the amount awarded under the conventional head of 'loss of estate', 'funeral charges' and 'loss of consortium' after expiry of three years and further 10% after expiry of another three years. The total compensation towards the Non-Pecuniary Heads is calculated as under :
i) Loss of Consortium: Rs.40,000/- + (10% of Rs.40,000/-)= Rs.
44,000/- + (10% of Rs. 44,000/-) = Rs. 48,400/- X 4 = Rs.1,93,600/-.
ii. Loss of Estate :Rs. 15,000/- + (10% of Rs.15,000/-) = Rs.16,500/- + (10% of Rs. 16,500/-) = Rs. 18,150/-.
MACT No. 21/18 27.08.2025 Page 11 of 20Mamtaz Begum Vs. Inder Pal Singh & Ors. iii. Funeral Charges : Rs. 15,000/- + (10% of Rs.15,000/-) = Rs.16,500/- + (10% of Rs. 16,500/-) = Rs. 18,150/-.
34. Therefore, the total compensation towards the non- pecuniary heads comes to Rs. 2,29,900/-.
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
35. In view of finding on issue number 2, the petitioners are held entitled to a sum of Rs. 19,08,220/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakh Eight Thousand Two Hundred Twenty only) (Rs.16,78,320/- + Rs. 2,29,900/-) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. 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 award amount.
APPORTIONMENT
36. Out of the awarded amount, 50% amount is being awarded to petitioner no. 1, i.e. wife of deceased and 20 % amount each is being awarded to petitioner no. 3 and 4, i.e. children of deceased and remaining 10% share is being awarded in favour of petitioner no. 2 i.e. father of the deceased.
RELEASE
37. Out of amount awarded to petitioner no. 1, 90% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in form of 125 monthly fixed deposit MACT No. 21/18 27.08.2025 Page 12 of 20 Mamtaz Begum Vs. Inder Pal Singh & Ors. receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 125 months in succession, as per scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as implemented vide subsequent order dated 07.12.2018 and order dated 08.01.2021 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in his savings/MACT Claims SB Account, opened/to be opened near the place of her residence, as directed vide Order dated 24.01.2018 and the remaining 10% amount is also directed to be released into her above said account, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by her.
38. Out of amount awarded to petitioners no. 2, 80% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in form of 40 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 40 months in succession, as per scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as implemented vide subsequent order dated 07.12.2018 and order dated 08.01.2021 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in their respective savings/MACT Claims SB Accounts opened/to opened near the place of their residence, as directed vide Order dated 24.01.2018 and the remaining 20% amount each is also directed to be released into their above said accounts, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by them.
MACT No. 21/18 27.08.2025 Page 13 of 20Mamtaz Begum Vs. Inder Pal Singh & Ors.
39. The entire share of petitioner no. 3 & 4 shall be kept in FDR for the period till they attain the age of majority. However, the monthly interest accrued thereon shall also be released in the above bank account of his/her mother/petitioner no. 1 in order to meet his educational and other expenses and amounts of FDR on maturity would be released in saving/MACT Claims SB Account opened/to be opened near the place of his residence, as directed vide Order dated 24.01.2018.
40. The disbursement to the petitioners is, however, subject to addition of future interest till deposit proportionately and also deduction of proportionate tax on the interest amount or amount of interim award, if any, to/from their shares.
41. The bank shall not permit any joint names to be added in the savings bank accounts or MACAD scheme accounts of petitioners i.e. the bank account of petitioners shall be individual account and not a joint account.
42. The original fixed deposits shall be retained by the UCO Bank, PHC, New Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR numbers, amounts, dates of maturity and maturity amounts shall be furnished by the said bank to the petitioners and the above amount shall be released in account of petitioners by the Manager, UCO Bank, PHC, ND through RTGS/NEFT/or any other electronic mode.
43. The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank accounts of the petitioner(s) near the place of their residence.
44. The maturity amount of the FDR (s) on monthly basis net of TDS be credited by Electronic Clearing System MACT No. 21/18 27.08.2025 Page 14 of 20 Mamtaz Begum Vs. Inder Pal Singh & Ors. (ECS) in the above accounts of petitioners.
45. No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the MACAD without permission of the Court.
46. The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to petitioner(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 petitioner(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the petitioner(s) from any other branch of the bank.
47. The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the petitioner(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 petitioner(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
48. 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 petitioner(s) is sufficient compliance of clause above.
LIABILITY
49. The Insurance Company has no statutory defense in the present case.
50. All the respondents are though being held jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to petitioners, but respondent no.3 being insurer of offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount with UCO Bank, MACT No. 21/18 27.08.2025 Page 15 of 20 Mamtaz Begum Vs. Inder Pal Singh & Ors. Patiala House Court Branch, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in bank account being maintained in the above said bank in name of this tribunal within 30 days from today, failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay. In case even after lapse of 90 days from today, respondent no. 2 fails to deposit this compensation with interest, in that event, in light of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal 2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of respondent no. 2 with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.
51. The respondent no. 2 shall inform the petitioners and their counsels through registered post that the awarded amount has been deposited so as to facilitate them to collect the same.
52. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost or be sent to them by email. Ahlmad is directed to send a copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Judgment titled as Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. passed in FAO No.842/2003 dated 12.12.2014.
53. Further, Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 08.01.2021.
54. The particulars of Form-XVII of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, in terms of directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 08.01.2021, are as under:
MACT No. 21/18 27.08.2025 Page 16 of 20Mamtaz Begum Vs. Inder Pal Singh & Ors.
1. Date of the accident 03.08.2017
2. Date of filing of Form I- First N.A. Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the N.A. victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from N.A. the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from N.A. the owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- N.A. Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and N.A. Form VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII- N.A Detailed Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or No deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Not given Designated Officer by the Insurance Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of No the Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or No deficiencies on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the NA petitioner(s) of the offer of the Insurance Company.MACT No. 21/18 27.08.2025 Page 17 of 20
Mamtaz Begum Vs. Inder Pal Singh & Ors.
14. Date of the award 27.08.2025
15. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which 24.01.2018 petitioner(s) were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the petitioner (s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17. Date on which the petitioner(s) Yet to furnish produced the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of As mentioned above the petitioner(s)
19. Whether the petitioner(s) savings No bank account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
55. File be consigned to record room after compliance of necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 01.12.2025.
Announced in the open court (Ajay Kumar Jain) on 27.08.2025 PO/MACT, New Delhi Encl: SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM XV MACT No. 21/18 27.08.2025 Page 18 of 20 Mamtaz Begum Vs. Inder Pal Singh & Ors. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM XV
1. Date of accident 03.08.2017
2. Name of the deceased Saiful Islam
3. Age of the deceased 25 years
4. Occupation of the deceased Minimum wages of unskilled worker in UP
5. Income of the deceased Rs.7,400/- per month
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased :
Sl. No. Name Age Relation
i) Mamtaz Begum 30 years (at present) Wife
ii) Alimuddin 52 years (at present) Father
iii) Salma 10 years (at present) Daughter
iv) Maiful Islam 7 years (at present) Son
Sl. No. Head Amount Awarded
(Rs.)
7. Income of deceased (A) Rs. 7,400/-
8. Add : Future Prospects (B) Rs. 2,960/-
9. Less-Personal expenses of the Rs.2,590/-
deceased (C)
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs. 7,770/-
[(A+B) - C = D]
11. Annual loss of dependency Rs.93,240/-
(D x 12) 12. Multiplier 18
13. Total loss of dependency Rs.16,78,320/-
(D x 12 x E = F)
14. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15. Compensation for loss of love Nil and affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of Rs.1,93,600/-
MACT No. 21/18 27.08.2025 Page 19 of 20Mamtaz Begum Vs. Inder Pal Singh & Ors.
consortium (I)
17. Compensation for loss of estate Rs.18,150/-
(J)
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs.18,150/-
expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.19,08,220/-
(F + G + H + I + J+K =L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST 7.5% pa from date of AWARDED filing of claim petition till the date of award to be deposited within 30 days and 9% thereafter.
21. Interest amount up to the date Rs. 10,86,492.76/-
of award (M)
22. Total amount including interest Rs. 29,94,712.76/-
(L + M) (rounded off to Rs.
29,94,750/-)
23. Award amount released P-1=10% share
P-2=20% share
P-3=Nil
P-4=Nil
24. Award amount kept in FDRs/ P-1=90% share MACAD P-2=80% share P-3=Entire share P-4=Entire share
25. Mode of disbursement of the Through Bank award amount to petitioner(s)
26. Next date for compliance of 01.12.2025 the award (Ajay Kumar Jain) PO/MACT, New Delhi 27.08.2025 MACT No. 21/18 27.08.2025 Page 20 of 20 Mamtaz Begum Vs. Inder Pal Singh & Ors.