Delhi District Court
Sheela Devi vs Sagar on 22 May, 2025
Sheela Devi vs. Sagar and Ors Page 1 of34
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHAMA GUPTA, PRESIDING
OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MACT No. 497/17
UNIQUE ID No.: DLNW01-005157-2017
LRs of Sushil Kumar:
1. Sheela Devi W/o Sh. Tek Chand
(Mother of the deceased)
2. Tek Chand S/o Sh. Chhajan Ram
(Father of the deceased)
Both R/o U-447, DDA Flat,
Mangolpuri, Delhi-110083.
........ Petitioners/claimants
Versus
1. Sagar
S/o Sh. Bijender Singh Chaudhary
R/o C-1/35, Lawrence Road,
Keshav Puram, Delhi.
....... Driver/R1
2. Orix Auto Infrastructure Service Ltd.,
Plot no. 11A, Shivaji Marg,
Moti Nagar, New Delhi-110015. .......Owner/R2
3. The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
12/1, 2nd Floor, Jeewan Raksha Building
Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002.
....... Insurance Company/R3
..... Respondents
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 02.06.2017
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 14.05.2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.05.2025
MACT No. 497/17 Page 1 of34
Sheela Devi vs. Sagar and Ors Page 2 of34
FORM - V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE
MENTIONED IN THE AWARD AS PER FORMAT
REFERRED IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
DELHI HIGH COURT IN FAO 842/2003 RAJESH TYAGI Vs.
JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018.
1. Date of the accident 19.01.2017
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the Petition was filed
investigating officer to the Claims
Tribunal
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the Petition was filed
investigating officer to the insurance
company.
4. Date of filing of Report under section Not mentioned in
173 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan the petition
Magistrate
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Petition was filed
Information Report (DAR) by the
investigating Officer before Claims
Tribunal
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Petition was filed
Insurance Company
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant Petition was filed
(s).
8. Whether DAR was complete in all Petition was filed
respects?
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR Petition was filed
removed later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the Petition was filed
documents filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or Petition was filed
deficiency on the part of the
MACT No. 497/17 Page 2 of34
Sheela Devi vs. Sagar and Ors Page 3 of34
Investigating Officer? If so, whether
any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated 17.10.2017
Officer by the insurance Company.
13. Name, address and contact number of Sh. Shailender
the Designated Officer of the Insurance Rai, Ld. Counsel
Company. for the insurance
company
14. Whether the designated Officer of the No
Insurance Company submitted his
report within 30 days of the DAR?
(Clause 22)
15. Whether the insurance company No
admitted the liability? If so, whether the
Designated Officer of the insurance
company fairly computed the
compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or No
deficiency on the part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance Company? If
so, whether any action/direction
warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to No
the offer of the Insurance Company .
18. Date of the Award 22.05.2025
19. Whether the award was passed with the No
consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed Yes
to open saving bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were 18.03.2019
directed to open saving bank account (s)
near his place of residence and produce
PAN Card and Aadhar Card and the
direction to the bank not issue any
cheque book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an endorsement to
this effect on the passbook(s).
MACT No. 497/17 Page 3 of34
Sheela Devi vs. Sagar and Ors Page 4 of34
22. Date on which the claimant (s) 01.08.2023
produced the passbook of their saving
bank account near the place of their
residence along with the endorsement,
PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned
Claimant(s) above
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Petitioners Smt.
claimant(s) and the address of the bank Sheela -
with IFSC Code 42097628543 (2)
Tek
Chand-41932409
622, both with
SBI Mangolpuri,
Local Shopping
Centre Branch,
Mangolpuri,
Delhi. IFSC No.
SBIN0004841.
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank Yes
account(s) is near his place of
residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined Yes
at the time of passing of the award to
ascertain his/their financial condition.
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR 41065170303,
number, IFSC Code, name and branch 110002427,
of the bank of the Claims Tribunal in SBIN0010323,
which the award amount is to be SBI, Rohini
deposited/transferred. (in terms of order Courts, Delhi
dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi vs
Jaibir Singh.
JUDGMENT
1. The claim petition in the present case was filed under MACT No. 497/17 Page 4 of34 Sheela Devi vs. Sagar and Ors Page 5 of34 Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as M.V. Act), on 02.06.2017, seeking compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, in respect of demise of Sh. Sushil Kumar, in a road traffic accident. Perusal of the record reveals that FIR No. 08/2017, PS Mohangarh, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan, was registered on 19.01.2017, for the alleged commission of offence of causing simple hurt and death, not amounting to culpable homicide, by rash and negligent driving of a Scorpio Car, bearing registration number DL-1N-9661, on a public road, punishable under Section 279/337/304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as IPC). Subsequently, charge sheet against respondent no. 1 was filed under section 279/337/304A IPC, before concerned Ld. Judicial Magistrate.
2. The brief facts of the case, as discernible from the claim petition and documents of the legal heirs/legal representatives of the deceased (hereinafter referred as LR's of the deceased/petitioners/claimants), are that, on 19.01.2017, the deceased Sushil Kumar, along with his friends namely Shaved, Ankush Mishra, Sameer Verma, Ankit Sharma, Ashish and Sabir, were going to Jaisalmer, via Punjab, in a Scorpio Car, bearing registration number DL-1N-9661(hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) and at about 9:00 am, when they reached between Hamira and Kanod village, the offending vehicle lost its MACT No. 497/17 Page 5 of34 Sheela Devi vs. Sagar and Ors Page 6 of34 control and over turned, resulting in fatal injuries to the deceased Sushil Kumar. It was further averred that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was driven by Sagar S/o Sh. Bijender Singh Chaudhary (herein after referred as respondent no.1/R1), at a very high speed, as well as rashly and negligently. It was further averred that after the accident, Sushil Kumar was shifted to Government Hospital, Jaisalmer, where he died, due to the injuries sustained in the case accident.
3. It was further stated that the postmortem on the body of the deceased Sushil Kumar was not conducted, at the request of father of the deceased.
4. As per the petition and documents annexed therewith, R1 was the driver of the offending vehicle, Orix Auto Infrastructure Service Ltd. (hereinafter referred as owner of the offending vehicle/R2), was its registered owner and the same was insured with The New India Assurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred as the insurance company/R3), vide policy number 1134003 1160300013267, valid for the period 27.10.2016 till 26.10.2016.
5. R1 has filed written statement, to the claim petition, wherein he averred that at the time of accident, he was not driving the offending vehicle and the same was driven by MACT No. 497/17 Page 6 of34 Sheela Devi vs. Sagar and Ors Page 7 of34 Sameer Verma. It was further averred that at the relevant time, he was also sitting in the offending vehicle and a cow came in front of the offending vehicle and to save the said cow, the driver of the offending vehicle lost control over it.
6. No written statement was filed by R2. Vide order dated 14.09.2018, defence of R2 was struck off and vide order dated 11.03.2024, R2 was proceeded Ex-Parte.
7. In the written statement filed by R3/insurance company, it was averred that the petition is bad on account of mis- joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, as R2 has handed over the offending vehicle to Mr. Sameer Verma, under an agreement thus, R1 was not driving the offending vehicle, under the supervision and control of R2. It was further averred that the seating capacity of the offending vehicle was of 06 persons, including driver but, more than 6 persons were travelling in the offending vehicle, at the time of accident.
8. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Learned Predecessor, vide order dated 14.09.2018:-
1. Whether the deceased Sushil Kumar died on 19.01.2017 at about 9:00 a.m. between Hamira and Kanod villages within jurisdiction of PS Mohan Garh, MACT No. 497/17 Page 7 of34 Sheela Devi vs. Sagar and Ors Page 8 of34 Rajasthan, due to rash and negligent driving of scorpio, bearing registration no. DL1N-9661, which was being driven rashly and negligently by Sagar ? OPP
2. Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
9. After framing of issues, opportunities were given to all the parties, to prove their respective averments, by leading evidence in support of the same. It is worthwhile to mention here that there are two connected petitions i.e. bearing No 497/17 & 498/17, resulting from the same accident. The said petitions are pertaining to fatal injuries sustained by Sushil Kumar and grievous injuries sustained by Ashish. Therefore, after framing of issues, when the matter was listed for petitioner's evidence, both the connected petitions were consolidated, for the purpose of evidence and MACT case no. 497/17, was taken as the main case and the entire evidence with respect to both the cases was recorded in MACT case no. 497/17. However, the entire evidence is not reiterated here and only evidence pertaining to the present case is reiterated below.
10. In support of their case, the petitioner no. 1 got herself examined as PW1, by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. She was the mother of the deceased and her deposition qua the accident in question and death of the deceased in the accident, is reiteration of the facts contained in the claim MACT No. 497/17 Page 8 of34 Sheela Devi vs. Sagar and Ors Page 9 of34 petition. She deposed that at the time of accident, the deceased was 24 years of age and was pursuing Course of Animation, from Arena Animation College, Kohat Enclave, Pitampura, New Delhi. She further deposed that after completion of the said course, the expected salary of her son would be Rs. 40,000/- per month as, he would have got job in government sector or MNC. She further deposed that the petitioners have suffered mental trauma, pain and agony, due to the said accident. PW1 further deposed that the deceased left behind her and his father, as his only legal heirs. In her evidence, PW1 has placed reliance upon the copy of criminal case record as Ex.
PW1/1 (colly.), photocopy of Aadhar Card of the deceased as Ex. PW1/2 (OSR), Photocopy of Aadhar card of her husband as Ex. PW1/3 (OSR), Photocopy of her Aadhar card as Ex. PW1/4 (OSR), Photocopies of senior school certificate examination of her deceased son as Ex. PW1/4 (OSR), Photocopy of educational qualification documents of the deceased as Ex. PW1/6 (OSR).
11. PW1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R3/insurance company, wherein she deposed that she is not the eye witness of the case accident. PW1 further deposed that date of birth of her deceased son Sushil Kumar is 10.08.1993. She further deposed that apart from the deceased, she is having one son namely Deepak, aged about 35 years and one married daughter namely Kavita, aged about 36 years. PW1 further deposed that her son MACT No. 497/17 Page 9 of34 Sheela Devi vs. Sagar and Ors Page 10 of34 Deepak was working in gas agency, married and having children. PW1 further deposed that she does not know about his monthly income. PW1 further deposed that her husband is aged about 65 years and he is not earning. PW1 further deposed that she has no document, to show that her deceased son would have earned Rs. 40,000/-, after completing of the animation course. PW1 further denied the suggestion, that she along with her husband were dependent on her son Deepak.
12. The petitioners further examined Sh. Ashish/eye witness, as PW3, who led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW3/A, wherein he deposed that on 19.01.2017, he along with his friends namely Sushil Kumar (deceased), Shaved, Ankush Mishra, Sameer Verma, Sabir and Ankit Sharma were travelling in a Scorpio Car, bearing registration No. DL-1N-9661, which was driven by R1, at a very high speed, rashly and negligently. PW3 further deposed that the occupants of the said Scorpio car, requested the driver, to drive the same, at a slow speed but, he did not hear the request and he continued driving the said vehicle, at a fast speed. PW3 further deposed that at about 9 a.m., they reached between Hamira and Konod villages and due to the fast speed, R1 could not control his vehicle and struck against the side of the road, due to which, the Scorpio car overturned. PW3 further deposed that due to the fast driving, all the occupants sustained grievous injuries. PW3 further deposed that all the injured were removed to MACT No. 497/17 Page 10 of34 Sheela Devi vs. Sagar and Ors Page 11 of34 Rajasthan Medicare Leave Society, Jawahir Hospital, Jaisalmer and thereafter, he was taken to Delhi, where he remains admitted at Indian Spinal Injuries Centre, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, from 17.02.2017 to 21.03.2017. He further deposed that during the period of his hospitalization, he was treated and operated for the injuries, sustained in the said accident. PW3 further deposed that he has suffered permanent disability. PW3 further deposed that he is totally confined to wheel chair and both his lower limbs are not working, due to which, he has to remain unemployed, throughout his life and he also became dependent on the services of attendant and family members. PW3 further deposed that at the time of accident, he was only 21 years old and was doing the course from Arena Animation, Kohat Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi. He further deposed that on completion of the course, he would have earned Rs. 50,000/- per month. PW3 further deposed that the accident has taken place, due to rash and negligent driving, by the driver of the offending vehicle/ R1. In his evidence, PW3 has placed reliance upon his discharge summary, including treatment record as Ex. PW3/1 (Colly.), Medical bills as Ex. PW3/2 (colly.), Copy of his Aadhar Card as Ex. PW3/3 (OSR), copy of his educational documents as Ex. PW3/4 (colly.) (OSR).
13. PW3 was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the insurance company/R3, wherein he deposed that at the time of MACT No. 497/17 Page 11 of34 Sheela Devi vs. Sagar and Ors Page 12 of34 accident, he was a student and not doing any job. PW3 admitted that he has completed his graduation from School of Open Learning, after the accident. He further deposed that the accident has taken place on 19.01.2017 however, he was admitted for the first time, in a hospital on 21.01.2017. He further deposed that he got admitted in the hospital, for the second time on 17.02.2017. PW3 further deposed that he had not filed any document, to show that he was admitted in Indian Spinal Injuries Centre, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, on 21.01.2017 and his admission summary qua his admission on 21.01.2017 but, he voluntarily deposed that the said papers are with the hospital. PW3 denied the suggestion, that neither he was admitted in the Indian Spinal Centre Hospital on 21.01.2017 nor discharged from that hospital. PW3 further denied the suggestion, that he was medically fit on 17.02.2017. PW3 further deposed that his father is a freelancer worker and his entire treatment of Indian Spinal hospital has taken place in a general ward. He further deposed that he is not sure, as to the total amount paid for medical treatment in ISIC. PW3 further deposed that he has paid the charges towards bed and meals, for the month of January 2017, at ISIC however, the said charges were not paid for the month of February 2017. PW3 further deposed that there were 8 persons, including driver of Scorpio car, at the time of accident. PW3 further deposed that they had taken the said Scorpio on rent, for self-driven purpose. PW3 further deposed that one Sameer Verma had taken the MACT No. 497/17 Page 12 of34 Sheela Devi vs. Sagar and Ors Page 13 of34 said Scorpio car on rent, for sell driven purpose. PW3 further deposed that the said vehicle was driven by Sagar, at the time of accident. He further deposed that the vehicle was initially driven by Sameer Verma, then en-route, it was driven by Shaved, however, when Shaved alighted to respond to the call of nature, then Sagar came, to drive the vehicle and he was driving the vehicle, at the time of accident. PW3 further deposed that Sameer Verma had not asked Sagar, to drive the said Scorpio vehicle. He further deposed that the advance for hiring the said car, had already been paid by Sameer Verma, however, they kept their money, with one person, who was to pay the said amount to Sameer Verma, as they all were required to contribute their share, towards the hiring of the said vehicle. He further deposed that his date of birth is 23.07.1996. PW3 admitted that he has completed the course of computer graphics, after his accident. PW3 further denied the suggestion, that he can do the work of computer animation, even while sitting on a chair but, voluntarily deposed that he can only do the work of computer graphics, while sitting on a chair. PW3 denied the suggestion, that he did not spend Rs. 10 lakhs, on his medical treatment, conveyance, attendant and special diet. PW3 denied the suggestion, that he has no document to show that he has completed the course of computer animation so far. PW3 deposed that police recorded his statement, regarding the case accident, at the hospital in Jaisalmer. PW3 denied the suggestion, that there was MACT No. 497/17 Page 13 of34 Sheela Devi vs. Sagar and Ors Page 14 of34 difference in his statement, as recorded by the police, as compared to his evidence by way of affidavit. PW3 further admitted that he has not placed on record any document, to prove that he would have earned Rs. 50,000/- in future.
14. None of the respondents lead any evidence, in their defence.
15. This Tribunal has heard the final arguments, as advanced by Learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the material on record.
16. On appreciation of evidence, as adduced by the parties, in support of their respective versions, the issue-wise findings of this Tribunal are reproduced herein below:
ISSUE No. 1Whether the deceased Sushi Kumar died on 19.01.2017 at about 9:00 a.m. between Hamira and Kanod villages within jurisdiction of PS Mohan Garh, Rajasthan, due to rash and negligent driving of scorpio, bearing registration no. DL1N-9661, which was being driven rashly and negligently by Sagar ? OPP
17. The onus of proving this issue, on preponderance of probabilities was upon the petitioners/claimants. For deciding the present issue, the testimony of PW3 Sh. Ashish, who himself was an injured in the accident, is relevant, being an eyewitness. PW3 deposed that on 19.01.2017, he MACT No. 497/17 Page 14 of34 Sheela Devi vs. Sagar and Ors Page 15 of34 along with his friends namely Sushil Kumar (deceased), Shaved, Ankush Mishra, Sameer Verma, Sabir and Ankit Sharma, were travelling in a Scorpio Car, bearing registration No. DL1N-9661, which was driven by R1, at a very high speed, rashly and negligently. PW3 further deposed that the occupants of the said Scorpio Car, requested the driver to drive the same, at a slow speed but, he did not hear the request and continued driving the said vehicle, at a fast speed. PW3 further deposed that at about 9 a.m., they reached between Hamira and Konod villages and due to the fast speed, R1 could not control his vehicle and struck against the side of the road, due to which, the Scorpio overturned. PW3 further deposed that due to the fast driving, all the occupants sustained grievous injuries. PW3 further deposed that the accident has taken place, due to rash and negligent driving, by the driver of the offending vehicle/ R1.
18. PW3 has been cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R3/insurance company but, R3 failed to impeach the credibility of PW3 and failed to elicit any admission, from the testimony of PW3, so as to prove that the alleged accident had not taken place, with the offending vehicle or due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1.
19. Although, R1 had contested the claim petition, by filing written statement, in which, he has taken the defence, that MACT No. 497/17 Page 15 of34 Sheela Devi vs. Sagar and Ors Page 16 of34 at the time of accident, he was not driving the offending vehicle and the same was driven by Sameer Verma. He further stated that at the relevant time, a cow came in front of the offending vehicle and to save the said cow, the driver of the offending vehicle lost control over it but, R1 failed to cross-examine PW3, so as to elicit any admission, to prove that PW3 was deposing falsely, as to the factum of the offending vehicle being driven by R1 or as to absence of rashness or negligence, on the part of R1, resulting in the case accident. R1 further failed to lead any evidence, to rebut the testimony of PW3. Thus, the testimony of PW3, on the said aspect went unrebutted and same prima facie proves, that the accident, in which the deceased has sustained fatal injuries, has taken place, due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1.
20. Further, there is nothing on record, which will prove that R1 was falsely implicated in this case by the IO, in connivance with the petitioners. Further, R1 also failed to prove that he has ever approached to any higher authority, with respect to his false implication, in the present case. Rather, R1 stopped appearing, after filing of his written statement. Consequently, in view of the unrebutted testimony of PW3, which stands corroborated from the criminal case record, wherein, R1 was shown as driver of the offending vehicle, responsible for causing the accident in question, it stands duly proved, that the accident in question has taken place, due to rash and negligent driving MACT No. 497/17 Page 16 of34 Sheela Devi vs. Sagar and Ors Page 17 of34 of the offending vehicle by R1.
21. The fact that the deceased Sushil Kumar suffered fatal injuries, in the case accident, stands duly corroborated by the criminal case record, as per which, fatal injuries sustained by the deceased, has resulted in a road traffic accident.
22. In view of the above said discussion, criminal case record, including charge sheet and testimony of PW3 Ashish, it has been duly proved by the petitioners, on preponderance of probabilities, that the case accident had been caused by R1, who was driving the offending vehicle, bearing registration no. DL-1N-9661, in a rash and negligent manner, at the above said date, time and place, due to which, the victim Sushil Kumar has sustained fatal injuries.
Issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents accordingly.
ISSUE No. 2Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?OPP
23. In view of the findings of this Tribunal, qua issue no.1 regarding negligence of R1, resulting in the occurrence of the case accident, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the petitioners/claimants are entitled to MACT No. 497/17 Page 17 of34 Sheela Devi vs. Sagar and Ors Page 18 of34 compensation, on account of fatal injuries, sustained by the deceased Sushil Kumar, in the above mentioned road traffic accident. This Tribunal shall now examine the entire evidence including the documents of the petitioners/claimants, for the purpose of arriving at a finding about the quantum of compensation, to which the petitioners/claimants are entitled.
24. Section 168 of the Act enjoins 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. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly.
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
25. To prove the dependency of the petitioners, on the deceased, Smt. Sheela Devi, mother of the deceased got herself examined as PW1. In her evidence, PW1 deposed that petitioner no. 2 is the father of the deceased and the petitioner no. 1 is the mother of the deceased. PW1 further deposed at the time of accident, the deceased was 24 years of age, possessing sound health and was pursuing course of Animation, from Arena Animation College, Kohat Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi. She further deposed that after completion of his Animation course, the expected salary of his son would be Rs. 40,000/- per month and he would got MACT No. 497/17 Page 18 of34 Sheela Devi vs. Sagar and Ors Page 19 of34 better job in Government Sector or MNC. PW1 further deposed that the deceased left behind her and his father, as his only legal heirs.
26. PW1 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for R3/insurance company. During the course of her cross- examination by Ld. Counsel for R3, no suggestion was put to PW1, in denial to the fact that the deceased was pursuing course of Animation, from Arena Animation College, or to dispute genuineness of educational qualification documents of the deceased, which prima facie proves that at the time of his death, the deceased was pursuing course of Animation, from Arena Animation College, Kohat Enclave, after clearing 12th class.
27. During the course of arguments, it was argued by Ld. Counsel for R3, that PW1 was not able to prove income of the deceased and that the deceased was a student and was not earning anything, at the time of accident. Per contra, it was argued by Ld. Counsel for the petitioners, that the deceased was a meritorious student and after completion of his Animation course, he would have earned at-least Rs. 40,000/- per month. In support of his contention, Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court of Delhi titled as Ratna Chaudhuri vs. State of Haryana & Ors III (2006) ACC 659, judgment of Hon'ble High Court MACT No. 497/17 Page 19 of34 Sheela Devi vs. Sagar and Ors Page 20 of34 of Delhi titled as United India Insurance Co Ltd., II (2012) ACC 407, judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand I (2010) ACC 593 (DB). On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for R3/insurance company has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in MAC App. no. 33/2022, CM No.6083/22 and CM no. 3307/2023, judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bhagat Singh Rawat & Ors. 2023 ACJ 2330.
28. As per judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in MAC App. No. 163/18 titled as Babli Dixit and Anr. vs. Satendra Kumar and Ors, (IFFCO TOKIO GEN. INS. CO. LTD.), decided on 14.12.2018, MAC App. no. 376/17 and C.M. Appeal No. 14647/17, titled as Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Upender Kumar Shastri, MAC APP. no. 126/18, titled as Upender Kumar Shastri and Ors vs. Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Raj Bala and Another vs. Sumit Dahiya and Ors 2019 (1) T.A.C. 760 (Del.), the Court while assessing the income of student of professional courses, after considering their academic record, has observed and assessed the monthly income, as the same income, which would have been earned by the concerned professional, at the entry level.
29. In the present case also, as per the case of the petitioners, the deceased was aged about 24 years, at the time of MACT No. 497/17 Page 20 of34 Sheela Devi vs. Sagar and Ors Page 21 of34 accident and was a student of Animation course. Thus, on completion of his education, the deceased must have earned, at-least an initial salary of Rs. 20,000/- p.m, which was the minimum salary, at entry level, for a student pursuing a animation course, in the year 2017 i.e. the year of accident. Thus, income of the deceased is assessed as Rs. 20,000/- p.m.
30. It is pertinent to note that petitioners/PW1 has filed copy of school certificate of the deceased, wherein date of birth of the deceased was mentioned as 16.08.1993. The date of accident in the present case is 19.01.2017. Thus, the age of deceased is accepted as 23 years, 05 months & 03 days, at the time of accident. Hence, the multiplier of 18 would be applicable, in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 ACJ 1298 SC.
31. Considering the age of the 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 02.11.2017.
MACT No. 497/17 Page 21 of34
Sheela Devi vs. Sagar and Ors Page 22 of34
32. PW1 has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.
PW1/A) that the deceased was 24 years of age, was unmarried and PW1 and petitioner no. 2 are only surviving legal heirs of the deceased. Though, suggestion was put to PW1, that they were not dependent upon the deceased, but, PW1 denied the said suggestion. Perusal of record reveals that it has come on record, that the deceased was a student, at the time of accident but, as the petitioners are father and mother of the deceased, therefore, it cannot be said, that they will not be dependent upon the deceased, in future. Therefore, both legal heirs of the deceased i.e. father and mother of the deceased, are entitled to receive compensation, being dependent upon the deceased. In such circumstances, the deceased was likely to spare 1/2 of his income for his personal and living expenses and to contribute the remaining 1/2 of his income towards household expenses/maintenance of his family members i.e. her father and mother. Hence, there has to be deduction of 50% as held in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 ACJ 1298 SC. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 30,24,000/- (20,000 + 40% (8,000) = 28,000 - 1/2 (14,000) = 14,000 x 12 x 18). Hence, a sum of Rs. 30,24,000/- is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioner.
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
33. After the celebrated judgment of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. mentioned supra MACT No. 497/17 Page 22 of34 Sheela Devi vs. Sagar and Ors Page 23 of34 and recent judgment titled New India Assurance Company Limited versus Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020 dated 07.09.2020, 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", mentioned 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 New India Assurance Company Limited versus Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020, dated 07.09.2020, this Tribunal is of considered opinion that father and mother of the deceased are the only legal heirs of the deceased and they are entitled for payment of Rs. 48,400/- each, towards loss of consortium. Consequently, a sum of Rs. 96,800/- (Rs. 48,400/- X 2) is awarded to the petitioners under this head.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
35. 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 "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." mentioned supra, a sum of Rs. 18,150/- each towards MACT No. 497/17 Page 23 of34 Sheela Devi vs. Sagar and Ors Page 24 of34 loss of estate and funeral expenses, is awarded in favour of petitioners.
36. Petitioners/claimants are accordingly entitled to compensation computed as under:
Loss of financial dependency Rs. 30,24,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs. 18,150/-
Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,150/-
Loss of Consortium Rs. 96,800/-
Medical Expenses Nil
Loss of Love and Affection Nil.
________________
Total Rs. 31,57,100/-
________________
(Rupees Thirty One Lakhs Fifty Seven Thousand One Hundred only).
37. In respect of entitlement of the petitioners to interest on the awarded amount, it is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Apex Court had in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC) had observed that the victims of Uphaar Tragedy be awarded compensation with interest @ 9% per annum. The present matter is pending trial since 02.06.2017 and the rate of interest of fixed deposits in Nationalized banks has fluctuated/dropped several times during the pendency of the present proceedings. Therefore, in the interest of justice and keeping in view the judgment titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Baby Raksha & Ors MAC APP. No. 36/2023 passed by Hon'ble High MACT No. 497/17 Page 24 of34 Sheela Devi vs. Sagar and Ors Page 25 of34 Court on 21.04.2023, this court is of the opinion that the claimant/petitioner is entitled to interest at the prevailing bank rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of petition, that is, with effect from 02.06.2017 till realization of the compensation amount.
38. The amount of interim award, if any, shall however be deducted from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the petitioners.
LIABILITY
39. In the case in hand, The New India Assurance Company Ltd./R3, in its written statement has raised the defence, that petition is bad on account of misjoinder and non- joinder of necessary parties, as R2 has handed over the offending vehicle to Mr. Sameer Verma, under agreement and there is no relationship between owner and driver, at the time of accident or that the driver was not driving the offending vehicle, under supervision and control of R2. It was further averred that seating capacity of the offending vehicle was 06 persons including driver, whereas more than 6 persons were travelling in the offending vehicle, at the time of accident.
40. Though, during the course of cross examination of PW3, it came on record that Sameer Verma has taken the offending vehicle, on rent, on self-driven basis, to go to Jaisalmer, MACT No. 497/17 Page 25 of34 Sheela Devi vs. Sagar and Ors Page 26 of34 with his friends but, R3 failed to prove on record, that there was any agreement between R2 and Sameer Verma, that the same will be driven only by Sameer Verma and as proved by PW3, that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was driven by R1, one of the friend of Sameer Verma, therefore, R3 cannot avoid its liability to indemnify the insured.
41. Further, by cross examination of PW3, R3 has been able to prove that 8 persons, including the driver, were sitting in the offending vehicle but, R3 failed to prove that the accident has taken place, due to presence of unauthorized occupant in the offending vehicle. Therefore, considering the fact, that admittedly the offending vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company/R3, hence R3 is liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the petitioners as per law.
42. Accordingly, in the case in hand, in terms of order dated 16.05.2017 of Hon'ble High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors., Liberty General Insurance Co. Ltd/R2 is directed to deposit the awarded amount of Rs. 31,57,100/-within 30 days from today within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, that is, State Bank of India, Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till notice of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3 to the petitioners and MACT No. 497/17 Page 26 of34 Sheela Devi vs. Sagar and Ors Page 27 of34 his advocates and to show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgment with the Nazir as per rules. R3 is further directed to deposit the awarded amount in the above said bank by means of cheque drawn in the name of above said bank along with the name of the claimants mentioned therein. The said bank is further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimants approach the bank for disbursement, so that the awarded amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheque.
APPORTIONMENT
43. Separate statement of petitioners in terms of clause 29 MCTAP was recorded on 01.08.2023 regarding savings bank account of the petitioners with no loan, cheque book and ATM/debit card. I have heard the petitioners and Ld. counsel for the petitioners/claimants regarding financial needs of the petitioners and in view of the judgment in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas and Others, 1994 (2) SC, 1631, for appropriate investments to safeguard the amount from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to their ignorance, illiteracy and being susceptible to exploitation, following arrangements are hereby ordered:-
44. It is deemed appropriate by this court after hearing MACT No. 497/17 Page 27 of34 Sheela Devi vs. Sagar and Ors Page 28 of34 Learned counsels for all parties that maximum amount of compensation be kept in FDRs and only a very small amount be released to the claimants. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the statement made by the petitioners, it is hereby directed that on realization of the entire award amount, the compensation to the Petitioners be distributed as follows:-
Sl. Name/No. of Relation Share of Release of Amount Period N petitioner ship with amount award of kept in of FDR o deceased of award amount. FDR 1 Smt. Sheela mother Rs. Rs. 3,78,550/- Rs. 60 Devi/petitioner 15,78,550 12,00,000/ months no. 1 /- -
2 Tek father Rs. Rs. 3,78,550/- Rs. 60
Chand/petitioner 15,78,550 12,00,000/ months
no 2. /- -
45. The amount as per the arrangement of aforesaid table be credited in the saving bank accounts of petitioners i.e. Smt. Sheela - 42097628543 (2) Tek Chand-41932409622, both with SBI Mangolpuri, Local Shopping Centre Branch, Mangolpuri, Delhi. IFSC No. SBIN0004841 i.e. the branch near their place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause 29 MCTAP) and remaining amount of petitioners be kept in the form of FDRs for the aforesaid period as mentioned in the aforesaid table, with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and premature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
46. It shall be subject to the following further conditions and MACT No. 497/17 Page 28 of34 Sheela Devi vs. Sagar and Ors Page 29 of34 directions in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, FAO 842/2003 with respect to 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 victim i.e. the saving bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be individual savings account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the 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 amount of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence i.e. above said a/c.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the court.
(f) The concerned Bank shall not to 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 MACT No. 497/17 Page 29 of34 Sheela Devi vs. Sagar and Ors Page 30 of34 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 pass book(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
RELIEF
47. As discussed above, The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,/R3 is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs. 31,57,100/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition, that is, 02.06.2017 till realization within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, that is, SBI, Rohini Court Branch, Delhi within 30 days from today under intimation of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3 to the petitioner and his advocate failing which the R3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the period of delay beyond 30 days.
48. R3 is also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect MACT No. 497/17 Page 30 of34 Sheela Devi vs. Sagar and Ors Page 31 of34 of deposit of the award amount in the above said bank to the claimants and complete details in respect of calculations of interest etc. in the court within 30 days from today.
49. Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the granted time.
50. In terms of directions contained in the order dated 07.12.2018 and subsequent order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in the case of Rajesh Tyagi and Ors vs Jaibir Singh and Ors., FAO 842/2003, the copy of the award be also sent by the Ahlmad of the court to Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India (as per the list of nodal officers of 21 banks of Indian Bank's Association as circulated to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide above mentioned order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court) who is the Nodal Officer with contact details (022- 22741336/9414048606) {other details-Personal Banking Business Unit (LIMA) 13th Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021} through email ([email protected]) through the computer branch of Rohini Courts, Delhi. Ahlmad of the court is directed to take immediate steps in that regard.
MACT No. 497/17 Page 31 of34
Sheela Devi vs. Sagar and Ors Page 32 of34
51. A copy of this award be forwarded to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and DLSA in terms of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors. vide order dated 12.12.2014.
52. In view of the directions contained in order dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, joint statement of petitioners was also recorded on 01.08.2023 wherein they had stated that they were entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS and that they would submit form 15G to insurance co. so that no TDS is deducted.
53. Form IVA which has been duly filled in has also been attached herewith. File be consigned to record room as per rules after compliance of necessary legal formalities. Copy of order be given to parties for necessary compliance as per rules. Digitally signed by SHAMA SHAMA GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.05.22 Announced in open court (SHAMA GUPTA) 17:07:25 +0530 on 22h May, 2025 P.O. MACT (N/W) Rohini Courts, Delhi MACT No. 497/17 Page 32 of34 Sheela Devi vs. Sagar and Ors Page 33 of34 FORM - IV A SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 19.01.2017
2. Name of deceased: Sushil Kumar
3. Age of the deceased: About 23 years, 05 months & 03 days at the time of accident days
4. Occupation of the deceased: Student
5. Income of the deceased: Rs. 25,000/- p.m.
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No. Name Age Relation
(i) Sheela 58 years Mother
(ii) Tek Chand 74 years Father
Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs. 20,000/-
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) 40%
9. Less-Personal expenses of the 1/2
deceased (C )
10. Monthly loss of dependency 28,000/- - 14,000/- =
{ (A+B) - C =D-Family Pension}
14,000/-
11. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs. 14,000/- x 12 =
1,68,000/-
12. Multiplier (E) 18
13. Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE = Rs. 30,24,000/-
MACT No. 497/17 Page 33 of34
Sheela Devi vs. Sagar and Ors Page 34 of34
F)
14. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15. Compensation for loss of love and Nil affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of Rs. 96,800/- (48,400x2) consortium (I)
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs.18,150/-
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs.18,150/-
expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 31,57,100/-
(F+G+H+I+J+K =L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 7.5% 21 Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 18,87,682.70 award (M)
22. Total amount including interest Rs. 50,44,782.70 (rounded (L+M) off to Rs. 50,44,783/-)
23. Award amount released Rs. 7,57,100/-
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs. 42,87,683/-
25. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms of amount to the claimant (s) (Clause clause 29 of MCTAP.
29)
26. Next date for compliance of the 21.06.2025 award. (Clause 31) Digitally signed by SHAMA Announced in open court (SHAMA GUPTA) SHAMA GUPTA GUPTA Date:
on 22th May, 2025 P.O. MACT N/W
2025.05.22
17:07:33
+0530
Rohini Courts, Delhi
MACT No. 497/17 Page 34 of34