Delhi District Court
Dipmala Devi And Ors vs Nand Lal And Ors on 7 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. MUKESH KUMAR
PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-02,WEST,TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
MACT No. 114/2019
DLWT010012282019
1. Smt. Dipmala Devi
W/o Sh. Dukhi Ray
2. Kajal Kumari
D/o Sh. Dukhi Ray
3. Savan Kumar
S/o Sh. Dukhi Ray
4. Gauri Kumari
D/o Sh. Dukhi Ray
5. Badal Kumar
S/o Sh. Dukhi Ray
6. Gulshan Kumar
S/o Sh. Dukhi Ray
(Petitioner no. 4 to 6, minor
through petitioner no.1 their mother
and natural guardian)
All R/o Village & PO Naya Gaon,
Barkatabad, Tehsil Bahadurgarh,
District Jhajjar,Haryana ... Petitioners
Versus Digitally
signed by
MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07
11:38:16
+0530
MACT No. 385/2023 Date of Award : 07.02.2026
Dipmala Devi & Ors. Vs. Nand Lal & Anr. Page No. 1 of 28
1. Sh. Nand Lal
S/o Sh. Virender Singh
R/o village Duder, PO Duder
Tehsil Sadar District Mandi State
Himachal Pradesh
2. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited
Delhi
...... Respondents
Date of Institution: : 20.05.2023 Date of reserving order/judgment : 02.02.2026 Date of pronouncement: : 07.02.2026 AWAR D
1. Proceedings in the present case arises from filing of DAR by the investigating officer in FIR No. 68/2023 PS Tilak Nagar U/s 279/304A IPC regarding the accident in question. As per the documents annexed with the DAR, on 28/29.01.2023, while Sh. Dukho Ray (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') was found death opposite Shop no.10, Keshopur Mandi, Delhi, whose head was found to be crushed under the tyye of some vehicle and thereafter, on investigation and on seeing the CCTV footage, a Truck bearing no. HP 65 8972 was found to be the offending vehicle. It is further stated that the injured was removed to DDU Hospital Delhi where he was medically examined vide MLC no. 869/23 and he was declared brought dead. It is further stated that his postmortem was conducted at Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, Delhi vide PMR no. 175/2023 dated 29.01.2023. It is further stated that FIR Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2026.02.07 11:38:22 +0530 MACT No. 385/2023 Date of Award : 07.02.2026 Dipmala Devi & Ors. Vs. Nand Lal & Anr. Page No. 2 of 28 bearing No. 68/23 dated 29.01.2023 PS Tilak Nagar U/s 279/304A IPC was registered pertaining to the accident in question.
2. IO filed the DAR giving details of respondent no.1 being driver cum owner of offending vehicle, which was insured with respondent no. 2 HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited. DAR was also accompanied with other relevant documents including final report u/s 173 Cr.PC, MLC and postmortem report of deceased, seizure memo of the vehicle, its documents, site plan, mechanical inspection report of the vehicle, notice U/s 133 M.V. Act, arrest memo of accused Nand Lal (respondent no. 1 herein), statements U/s 161 Cr.PC recorded by the IO during the course of investigation and crime scene report etc.
3. In its reply filed on behalf of the respondent no.3/insurance company, it is stated inter alia that the truck bearing no. HP 65-8972 was insured with HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited at the time of alleged accident in favour of the respondent no. 1 vide policy for a period from 29.12.2022 to 28.12.2023, however, the liability of the respondent no.2,is subject to the compliance of the terms and conditions of the insurance company as well as provisions of M.V.Act. It has been further stated that after receiving DD no. 12A dated 29.01.2023, IO reached at the place of the accident, where he found a dead body whose head was crushed and might have come under a tyre; that no eye witness was found at the spot of the accident; that police met with a person namely Kamlesh and in his statement, he has informed the Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2026.02.07 11:38:30 +0530 MACT No. 385/2023 Date of Award : 07.02.2026 Dipmala Devi & Ors. Vs. Nand Lal & Anr. Page No. 3 of 28 police that on 28.01.2023, he saw a person who was going on the side of the vehicle and this witness has stated that the aforesaid person died after coming beneath the type of the vehicle; that the police had also obtained the CCTV footage of the shop installed at the place of accident, however, the police could not search for any eye witness, who has seen the occurrence of the accident involving the offending vehicle in question. It is further stated that the deceased had died due to his own negligence while sleeping beneath the trucks which was parked at the place of accident.
4. No reply/written statement was filed on behalf of the respondent no. 1 and his right to file written statement was closed vide order dated 06.02.2024 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal.
5. Following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal on 06.02.2024:-
1. Whether the deceased Dukho Ray suffered fatal injuries in a vehicular accident that took on 29.01.2023 at 12 am in front of Shop no. 10, Keshopur Mandi, Tilak Nagar, Delhi involving a vehicle no.HP 65 8972 (offending vehicle) being driven by respondent no.1/Nand Lal, who is also its owner and which was insured with respondent no.2 HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited? OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07 11:38:37 +0530 MACT No. 385/2023 Date of Award : 07.02.2026 Dipmala Devi & Ors. Vs. Nand Lal & Anr. Page No. 4 of 28
6. In order to prove their case, petitioners got examined three witnesses i.e. PW1 Smt. Dipmala Devi (wife of the deceased); PW2 IO ASI Ramesh Chand and PW3 is Sh.
Babloo Ray, who is stated to be working with the deceased in Keshopur Mandi.
7. No witness was got examined on behalf of the respondents.
8. I have heard arguments and have gone through the record carefully and my issue wise findings are as under :
Issue No.1
9. It is the settled proposition of law that an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non. However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition based upon negligence. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. Reference may be made to the judgments titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sakshi Bhutani & Others., MAC APP. No. 550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012, Bimla Devi & Others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Others (2009) 13 SC 530, Parmeshwari v. Amirchand & Others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 & Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Others 2018, Law Suit (SC) 303.
Digitally
signed by
MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07
11:38:43
+0530
MACT No. 385/2023 Date of Award : 07.02.2026
Dipmala Devi & Ors. Vs. Nand Lal & Anr. Page No. 5 of 28
10. PW-1 Smt. Dipmala Devi tendered her affidavit in evidence which is Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the documents i.e. (I) Copy of Aadhar Card and PAN Card of petitioner no.1 Ex.PW1/1(colly), (ii) Copy of Aadhar Card of deceased Ex.PW1/2 (OSR); (iii)Copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no.2 Ex.PW1/3 (OSR); (iv) Copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no.3 Ex.PW1/4 (OSR); (v) Copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no.4 Ex.PW1/5(OSR); (vi) Copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no.5 Ex.PW1/6(OSR); (vii) Copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no.6 Ex.PW1/7 (OSR);(viii) Death certificate of deceased Ex.PW1/8 (OSR) and (ix) DAR Ex.PW1/9. In her cross examination done by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2, she admitted that they all are the permanent residents of Bihar.
11. Petitioners have also examined IO ASI Ram Chand as PW2, who deposed that i nitially, the investigation of the present case FIR no. 68/23 dated 29.01.2023 U/s 279/304 A IPC PS Tilak Nagar was assigned to HC Praveen no. 1426/W; that he received a PCR call vide GD no. 12A during his emergency duty and he was assigned with said call and he registered the abovesaid FIR on the said DD entry; that copy of said DD entry and endorsement on the said DD entry by HC Praveen is Ex.PW2/1 bearing signature of HC Praveen at point A and that of DO ASI Sarita at point A. He further deposed that he identified the signature of HC Praveen and ASI Sarita on Ex.PW2/1 as he had seen signing them in the PS; that FIR no. 68/23 is Ex.PW2/2. He further deposed that certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act by ASI Sarita is Ex.PW2/3 bearing signature of DO at point B; that GD no. 49A and 114 A qua the name change and assigning of DD to him are Ex.PW2/4(colly, 2 Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07 11:38:51 +0530 MACT No. 385/2023 Date of Award : 07.02.2026 Dipmala Devi & Ors. Vs. Nand Lal & Anr. Page No. 6 of 28 pages). He further deposed that thereafter, crime team visited the site and took the photographs of the place of occurrence and the photographs of place of occurrence taken by Crime Team are Ex.PW2/5(colly, 4 pages), one of the said photographs bears the SOC no. 134 dated 29.01.2023; that the Crime Team report with SCO number and certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act are Ex.PW2/6 and Ex.PW2/7 bearing signature of ASI Ram Avtar, who signed in his presence at point A and of HC Surender at point B; that the call regarding the accident was received at 1.45 am on 29.01.2023. He further deposed that during the day light, he alongwith his team of chowki PP Tilak Nagar checked the CCTV footage of shop no.7, Keshopur Mandi and they found that a truck started in front of shop no.10 and the lights of the said truck were seen being put on and he found the movement and on proper checking, it was revealed that face was towards shop no.10; that the said truck had little movement and thereafter, in the footage, the driver was seen going towards the rear side of the truck and thereafter the said driver went to conductor side and was observed as going away. He further deposed that he collected the footage of shop no. 27 and on developing the said footage, he got the number of the truck; that he further checked the footage of shop no. 153 and there from, he saw the abovesaid offending truck going outside from Keshopur Mandi and time of the going out was got connected from the starting time of the abovesaid offending truck and it was found matching; that thereafter he collected the gate pass from Agriculture Produce Market, Keshopur, Delhi and computer copy of gate pass is Ex.PW2/8 in which the number of truck is at point A. He further deposed that he got the post mortem conducted and the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. He further deposed that he Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
MACT No. 385/2023 Date of Award : 07.02.2026 2026.02.07 11:39:00 Dipmala Devi & Ors. Vs. Nand Lal & Anr. Page No. 7 of 28 +0530 investigated the matter from shop no.7 and came to know that the offending vehicle was plying between Madhya Pradesh and Delhi and used to bring tomatoes to Keshopur Mandi; that he had already instructed the shop owner of shop no. 7 to intimate him as and when the said truck comes to said shop; that on 02.02.2023, the offending truck came to shop no.7 for offloading of tomatoes and both the truck driver cum owner alongwith truck came to PP Tilak Vihar.; that he gave notice to the driver cum owner U/s 133 M.V. Act and on coming to know about the driver, he interrogated him and arrested him and released on bail; that he also seized the documents of the truck and truck; that he gave notice to the shopkeepers and collected the CCTV footage of the shops; that the CCTV footage of the shop was collected in pen drive which is Ex.PW2/9; that the certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act qua the said footage is Ex.2/10(colly); that he had also collected the CDR of mobile phone of the driver cum owner of the offending vehicle; that he had also matched the trye marks of the offending truck with the tyres of truck and found the same were matching. He further deposed that all the documents prepared and collected by him during the investigation are part of DAR Ex.PW1/9 and the same are being relied upon by him; that the photographs taken by him are also part of the DAR and thereafter, he filed the charge sheet in the said case and same is also part of DAR.
12. In his cross examination done by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2, he admitted that the FIR was registered against unknown offending vehicle and unknown driver. He further deposed that the investigation of the case was handed over to him on 29.01.2023 at around 4 AM and within 10 Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07 11:39:06 +0530 MACT No. 385/2023 Date of Award : 07.02.2026 Dipmala Devi & Ors. Vs. Nand Lal & Anr. Page No. 8 of 28 minutes of handing over the investigation, he reached at the place of accident. He further admitted that throughout investigation, he could not find any eye witness who had seen the actual occurrence of the accident. He further deposed that one Kamlesh was sitting in his truck which was standing besides the offending truck and he had seen the deceased going in between both the trucks. He also admitted that Kamlesh had not seen the actual occurrence of the accident; that in none of the CCTV footage, which he filed on record, there was no footage regarding the actual occurrence of accident. He futher deposed that on 29.01.2023 in the evening, he came to know regarding the registration number of offending vehicle; that a notice u/s 133 M.V. Act was served upon the respondent no.1 during his visit in the police post Tilak Vihar on 02.02.2023. he further deposed that on 02.02.2023, the shop owner of shop no.7 namely Sh. Narender informed him that the offending truck has come at Keshopur Mandi and notice U/s 133 M.V. Act was handed over to HC Sanjay no. 918 West and the respondent no.1 came to PS with HC Sanjay. He further deposed that the disclosure statement of driver Nand Lal was also recorded during investigation. He futher deposed that the sample of mud alongwith blood was seized and the same is at malkhana; that the photographs of the tyre of the offending vehicle was also obtained at the time when the respondent no.1 came to the police station alongwith offending vehicle on 02.02.2023; that the Crime team had obtained the photographs of the tyre of the vehicle from the place of accident and the same was got matched by him from the tyre of the offending Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07 11:39:13 +0530 MACT No. 385/2023 Date of Award : 07.02.2026 Dipmala Devi & Ors. Vs. Nand Lal & Anr. Page No. 9 of 28 vehicle. He denied to the suggestion that the offending vehicle falsely implanted by the police and that he has not investigated the present accident case. He denied of deposing falsely.
13. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 / Insurance Co. has argued that it is well settled that it is for the petitioners to establish the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle. It is further argued that there is no eye-witness to the accident in question and petitioners have failed to prove that accident in question has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid vehicle bearing no. HR 65 8972 by the respondent no. 1.
14. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that mere absence of an eye-witness does not become fatal to the case of the petitioners and it is well settled that filing of Charge-sheet is sufficient proof of the negligence and involvement of the Offending Vehicle. He further argued that during the course of investigation, it was revealed that offending vehicle which was driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner and crushed the head of the deceased and accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent no. 1 and after concluding investigation, IO filed charge-sheet against the driver of offending vehicle (respondent no. 1 herein) for offence U/s 279/304A IPC.
15. In the case titled 'Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs. Karan Bhatia", MAC APP. 271/2018 decided on 26.11.2024 , it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court as under:-
Digitally signed by MUKESHMUKESH KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2026.02.07 "12. Shri Mehtab Singh, the eye witness, may 11:39:25 +0530 MACT No. 385/2023 Date of Award : 07.02.2026 Dipmala Devi & Ors. Vs. Nand Lal & Anr. Page No. 10 of 28 have failed to support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile during the trial, but that does not take away the factum of accident and demise of Smt.Surjit Kaur. The investigations were duly carried out which revealed not only the involvement of the vehicle, but also it was the offending vehicle which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the accident. The manner of accident is also evident from the Site Plan prepared during the criminal investigations.
13. In the case of National Insurance Co.,vs Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, it has been held that filing of Chargesheet is sufficient proof of the negligence and involvement of the Offending Vehicle. Similar observations have been made in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepak Goel and Ors., 2014 (2) TAC 846 Del, that if the claimant was able to prove the criminal case on record pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, whereby the criminal records showing completion of investigation by the police and filing of Chargesheet under Sections 279/304-A IPC against the driver have been proved, then the documents mentioned above are sufficient to establish the fact that the driver was negligent in causing the accident. Where FIR is lodged, Chargesheet is filed, especially in a case where driver after causing the accident had fled away from the spot, then the documents mentioned above are sufficient to establish the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent in causing the accident particularly when there was no defence available from his side before the learned Tribunal.
14. Similar observations have been made in the cases of Jamanti Devi and Ors. v. Maheshwar Rai, MAC Appeal no. 831/2015 decided on 19.11.2022. Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07 11:39:33 +0530 MACT No. 385/2023 Date of Award : 07.02.2026 Dipmala Devi & Ors. Vs. Nand Lal & Anr. Page No. 11 of 28
15. The Apex Court has opined in the judgment of Mangla Ram Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, AIR 2018 SC 1900 that the key-
point of negligence of the driver as set up by the Claimants, is required to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and not by the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, filing of Chargesheet against the driver of the offending vehicle prima facie, points towards the complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. The subsequent acquittal of the accused may of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in motor vehicle accident cases."
16. In the case titled "Meera Bai & Ors. Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company limited & Anr.", Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3886 of 2019, decided on 30.04.2025, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under:-
"4. As far as examining the eye witness, such a witness will not be available in all cases. The FIR having been lodged and the charge sheet filed against the owner driver of the offending vehicle, we are of the opinion that there could be no finding that negligence was not established."
17. In the present case, admittedly, PW1 Smt. Dipmala Devi (wife of deceased) is not the eye-witness to the present accident. Petitioner / PW1 Smt. Dipmala Devi has heavily relied upon the DAR which also includes chargesheet as well as other documents / reports filed by the IO after concluding his investigation pertaining to the accident in Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07 11:39:40 +0530 MACT No. 385/2023 Date of Award : 07.02.2026 Dipmala Devi & Ors. Vs. Nand Lal & Anr. Page No. 12 of 28 question. IO has filed the final report u/s 173 CrPC (charge- sheet) in FIR No. 68/23 PS Tilak Nagar U/s 279/304A IPC against the respondent no. 1 Nand Lal alongwith other documents / reports i.e. site plan of the accident, MLC and postmortem report of deceased, seizure memo of the offending vehicle and rickshaw of victims, documents of the offending vehicle, mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle as well as rickshaw of victims, statement of witnesses U/s 161 CrPC etc.
18. PW2 IO ASI Ram Chand, who is the IO of the case has categorically deposed that after investigation, he came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to negligence on the part of the respondent no.1. The document / reports filed by the IO remained unrebutted on the part of the respondents. He also deposed that he conducted the entire investigation of the case and also gave notice U/s 133 M.V. Act to the respondents.
19. The factum of accident has not been disputed by the respondents. Respondent no. 1 namely Nand Lal (accused in State case) has been charge-sheeted (which is part of copies of criminal case available on record) for offences punishable U/s 279/304A IPC by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by him. The investigation was duly carried out which revealed not only the involvement of the offending vehicle, but also that it was the offending vehicle which was being driven in a rash and Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07 11:39:48 +0530 MACT No. 385/2023 Date of Award : 07.02.2026 Dipmala Devi & Ors. Vs. Nand Lal & Anr. Page No. 13 of 28 negligent manner which resulted in the accident.
20. Moreover, it is an undisputed fact that FIR No. 68/23 (supra) was registered at PS Tilak Nagaar with regard to accident in question. Copy of said FIR (which is part of final report U/s 173 Cr.PC filed by IO alongwith DAR) would show that same was registered on 29.01.2023. Thus, FIR is shown to have been registered promptly and without any delay. Hence, there is no possibility of false implication of respondent no. 1 and/or false involvement of aforesaid vehicle bearing No. HR 65 8972 at the instance of petitioners herein.
21. Furthermore, as per the postmortem report of deceased Dukha Ray vide P.M. Report No. 175/2023 dated 29.01.2023 filed by the IO alongwith DAR, the cause of death is is given as "The cause of death is due to cranio-cerebral injury (head injury) as a result of blunt force impact by falling over a hard surface. All injuries are ante-mortem in nature, same in duration and are possible in road traffic accident." Said document has not been disputed from the side of the respondents and corroborates the ocular testimonies of PWs as discussed above.
22. Moreover, the respondent no. 1 Nand Lal, driver of the offending vehicle, was also the other material witness who could have thrown sufficient light as to how and under what circumstances, the accident in question took place. However, he neither appeared nor entered into witness box during the course of inquiry. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him for not entering into the witness box, to the effect that the accident occurred due to rash and Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07 11:39:55 +0530 MACT No. 385/2023 Date of Award : 07.02.2026 Dipmala Devi & Ors. Vs. Nand Lal & Anr. Page No. 14 of 28 negligent driving of offending vehicle by him.
23. Furthermore, in the given facts and circumstances of the present case, the rashness and negligence of the driver (respondent no.1) would also be assumed by virtue of res ipsa loquitur. The very factum that the respondent no. 1 had caused the death of deceased, itself shows that offending vehicle was being driven by the respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner. There was an implicit duty on the respondent no.1 to see that his driving did not endanger the life of any other user of the road. He has failed to exercise the caution incumbent upon him and has clearly neglected his duty of circumspection.
24. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioners have been able to prove on the basis of preponderance of probabilities that deceased Sh. Dukho Ray sustained fatal injuries in road accident which took place on 29.01.2023 at 12 am in front of Shop no. 10, Keshopur Mandi,Tilak Nagar, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no. 1. Accordingly issue no.1 stands decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
Issue No.2
25. In view of the finding on issue no.1, petitioners are entitled to get compensation, however, the quantum of compensation still needs to be adjudicated. Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 enjoins upon the claim Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07 11:40:04 +0530 MACT No. 385/2023 Date of Award : 07.02.2026 Dipmala Devi & Ors. Vs. Nand Lal & Anr. Page No. 15 of 28 the amount of compensation, which appears to be just and reasonable. As per settled law, compensation is not expected to be windfall or a bonanza nor it should be pittance. A man is not compensated for the physical injury, he is compensated for the loss which he suffers as a result of that injury. Computation of Compensation
26. The present case pertains to the death of deceased Sh. Dukho Ray. In death cases, the guidelines for computation of compensation have been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121. Further, the guidelines have been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., 2017 ACJ 2700, decided on 31.10.2017, laying down the general principles for computation of compensation in death cases. Age of deceased :
27. PW1 Smt. Dipmala Devi (wife of deceased) has filed on record the Aadhar Card of deceased Ex.PW1/2. As per the Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/2, his date of birth was shown as 01.01.1972. The same remains undisputed on the part of the respondents. Date of accident is 29.01.2023. As such, this fact stands concluded that age of the deceased was around 51 years at the time of accident.
Assessment of Income of deceased :
28. Petitioner/PW Smt. Dipmala Devi has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit that her deceased husband was working as a vegetable vendor in Keshopur Subzi Mandi Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07 11:40:12 +0530 MACT No. 385/2023 Date of Award : 07.02.2026 Dipmala Devi & Ors. Vs. Nand Lal & Anr. Page No. 16 of 28 and earning Rs. 20,000/-per month. In his cross examination done by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2, she stated that she does not have any documentary proof to show that he was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month.
29. The petitioners have examined Sh. Babloo Ray as PW3 has tendered his evidence Ex.PW3/A and has relied upon the documents: (i) Receipt of Rs. 5,100/- issued by Bittoo Arathi Ex.PW3/1, (ii) Statement recorded by IO Ex.PW3/2 and
(ii) copy of his Aadhar Card Mark A. In his cross examination done by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2, he stated that he was selling vegetables for the last three year prior to the death of deceased, who was his cousin; that he was selling vegetable at Shop no. 15, Keshopur Subzi Mandi; that he and his cousin used to sell vegetable at the same place; that he used to purchase vegetable from Sh. Jagdish,Sh.Bittoo and Sh. Arun having stall no. 14,15 and 23 and he does not have any receipt of purchasing vegetables from these persons with him at present. He denied to the suggestion that he does not have any such receipts with him. He further deposed that he used to earn Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 1,500/- per day; that Sh. Bittoo was the owner of stall no. 15; that he used to pay Rs. 500/- per day to Sh. Bittoo for selling vegetable in front of his stall; that the deceased was also paying the same amount to Sh. Bittoo; that there was no document issued by any authority authorizing him to sell the vegetable at the place; that there was no photograph of selling vegetable of him and his deceased cousin; that no receipt was issued by the owner of the stall in lieu of the rent paid by the deceased and himself. He denied to Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07 11:40:22 +0530 MACT No. 385/2023 Date of Award : 07.02.2026 Dipmala Devi & Ors. Vs. Nand Lal & Anr. Page No. 17 of 28 the suggestion that the deceased was not selling vegetable in Delhi in front of shop no. 15, Keshopur Subzi Mandi. He denied to the suggestion that he was not selling vegetable at Delhi.
30. Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 argued that petitioners have not been able to prove the alleged employment and income of the deceased. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the petitioners have argued that it is duly established on record that the deceased was residing in Delhi at the time of accident; that deceased was working in Delhi and there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW1 in respect of employment and monthly income of deceased.
31. PW1 has deposed that her deceased husband was doing the work of vegetable vendor in Keshopur Subzi Mandi and earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. However, in her cross examination, she has stated that she was having no document to show the income and employment of deceased. The petitioners have also examined PW3 Sh. Babloo Ray, who deposed that he was working with the deceased at Kesho Pur Subzi Mandi. Further, as deposed by the petitioners, deceased was working in Delhi at the time of accident, which is further corroborated from the testimony of the PW3 Babloo Ray.
There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW3. Hence, it is established that deceased was working in Delhi at the time of accident. However, for want of cogent and definite evidence being led by the petitioner with regard to the vocation and monthly income of the deceased, this Tribunal assesses the income of deceased to be at parity with minimum wages of Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07 11:40:30 +0530 MACT No. 385/2023 Date of Award : 07.02.2026 Dipmala Devi & Ors. Vs. Nand Lal & Anr. Page No. 18 of 28 Unskilled person in the State of Delhi which at the time of accident i.e. 29.01.2023 were Rs. 16,792/- per month. Application of Multiplier:
32. As held above, deceased was around 51 years of age at the time of accident. As per settled principle laid down in case of Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier as applicable to the age group between 51-55 years is 11.
Future Prospects:
33. The Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment which has arisen out of SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014 titled as National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors decided on 31.10.2017 has held as under:-
"61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi,2012 ACJ 1428 (SC) should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh,2013 ACJ 1403 (SC) has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, 2013 ACJ 1253 (SC), which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07 11:40:39 +0530 MACT No. 385/2023 Date of Award : 07.02.2026 Dipmala Devi & Ors. Vs. Nand Lal & Anr. Page No. 19 of 28 prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-
employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 21 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) 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 Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07 11:40:47 +0530 MACT No. 385/2023 Date of Award : 07.02.2026 Dipmala Devi & Ors. Vs. Nand Lal & Anr. Page No. 20 of 28 three years."
34. On the day of accident, deceased was aged about
51 years. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the present matter, future prospects @ 10% has to be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of pronouncement made by the Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." Civil Appeal No. 6961/2015 decided on 31.10.2017, as well as in view of decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", decided on 02.11.17. Deduction towards Personal and Living Expenses:
35. After choosing the age, multiplier and income of the deceased, necessary deductions have to be made out of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. As per the DAR as well as affidavit in evidence of petitioner / PW1 Dipmala Devi (Ex.PW1/A), deceased left behind his 06 legal representatives i.e. his wife and five children and since, the deceased was married and survived by six LRs at the time of accident, one-fourth (1/4th) of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses, as held in the case titled as "Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation", 2009 ACJ 1298 SC.
36. Thus, considering the aforementioned factors, the compensation for the loss of dependency is calculated as under:
S. No. Head Amount
1. Monthly income of deceased (A) Rs. 16,792/-
Digitally
signed by
MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07
11:40:53
+0530
MACT No. 385/2023 Date of Award : 07.02.2026
Dipmala Devi & Ors. Vs. Nand Lal & Anr. Page No. 21 of 28
2. Add future prospect (B) @ 10% Rs. 1,679.2/-
3. Less 1/4th towards personal and Rs. 4,617.8/-
living expenses of the deceased (C)
4. Monthly loss of dependency (A+B)- Rs. 13,853.4/-
C=D
5. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs. 1,66,240.8/-6. Multiplier (E) 11
7. Total loss of dependency Rs.
(Dx12xE=F) 18,28,648.8/-
37. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 18,28,649/- (rounded off). Hence, a sum of Rs.
18,28,649/- (Rupees Eighteen Lacs Twenty Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Forty Nine Only) is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
38. In case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), it has been held 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 and the aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.48,000/-, Rs. 18,000/- and Rs.18,000/- respectively on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted. Further, in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 2705 of 2020, decided on 30.06.2020, loss of consortium has to be fixed for each of the LRs. Since, there are only six LRs of deceased, therefore, the petitioners/claimants are Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07 11:41:01 MACT No. 385/2023 Date of Award : 07.02.2026 +0530 Dipmala Devi & Ors. Vs. Nand Lal & Anr. Page No. 22 of 28 entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,24,000/- (48,000 X 6 + 18,000 + 18,000) under this head.
39. Considering the aforementioned factors, the total compensation is calculated as under:
S. No. Head Amount Awarded 1. Total loss of dependency Rs. 18,28,649/-
2. Compensation for loss of consortium Rs. 2,88,000/-
(48,000 X 6)
3. Compensation for loss of estate (H) Rs. 18,000/-
4. Compensation for funeral expenses Rs.18,000/-
(I) Total compensation Rs. 21,52,649/-
40. Thus, petitioners in this case shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 21,52,649/- (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Fifty Two Thousand Six Hundred and Forty Nine Only). INTEREST ON AWARD
41. Petitioners shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 20.05.2023 till realization. LIABILITY
42. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Since, it is an admitted case of the respondent No. 2 / Insurance Company that the aforesaid vehicle No. HP 65 8972 (offending vehicle) was duly insured with it, therefore, respondent No. 2 / Insurance Co. is liable to pay the amount of compensation to the petitioners / claimants.
Digitally signed by Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07 11:41:09 +0530 MACT No. 385/2023 Date of Award : 07.02.2026 Dipmala Devi & Ors. Vs. Nand Lal & Anr. Page No. 23 of 28 Relief
43. In view of my finding on issues no. 1 and 2, this Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs. 21,52,649/- (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Fifty Two Thousand Six Hundred and Forty Nine Only) to the petitioners/claimants alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum in favour of petitioners and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of DAR i.e 20.05.2023 till realization, to be paid by the respondent no.2/insurance company. Amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the compensation amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case. The respondent no.2/insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in the MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account no. 40714429271, IFSC Code. SBIN0000726 Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, within 30 days from today. The respondent no. 2 is also directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioners. Apportionment
44. Statements of petitioners in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP were recorded on 08.01.2026 and considering the totality of circumstances of the case, share of petitioners in the award amount shall be as under:-
S. No. Name Relationship with Share in the deceased award amount
1. Dipmala Devi Wife 50%
2. Kajal Kumari Daughter 10%
3. Savan Kumar Son 10% Digitally
4. Gauri Kumari Daughter 10% signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07 11:41:16 +0530 MACT No. 385/2023 Date of Award : 07.02.2026 Dipmala Devi & Ors. Vs. Nand Lal & Anr. Page No. 24 of 28
5. Badal Kumar Son 10%
6. Gulshan Kumar Son 10% Disbursement of Award Amount
45. In view of the aforesaid, it is hereby ordered that out of total compensation amount, the petitioner no. 1 namely Smt. Dipmala Devi shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 10,76,325/- (Rupees Ten Lacs Seventy Six Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty Five Only) alongwith proportionate interest; the petitioner no. 2 namely Ms. Kajal Kumari be entitled to share amount of Rs. 2,15,265/- (Rupees Two Lacs Fifteen Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Five Only) alongwith proportionate interest; the petitioner no. 3 namely Savan Kumar shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 2,15,265/- (Rupees Two Lacs Fifteen Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Five Only) alongwith proportionate interest; the petitioner no. 4 namely Gauri Kumari shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 2,15,265/- (Rupees Two Lacs Fifteen Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Five Only) alongwith proportionate interest; the petitioner no. 5 namely Badal Kumar shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 2,15,265/- (Rupees Two Lacs Fifteen Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Five Only) alongwith proportionate interest and the petitioner no. 6 namely Gulshan Kumar shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 2,15,264/- (Rupees Two Lacs Fifteen Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Four Only) alongwith proportionate interest.
46. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 1 Smt. Dipmala Devi, a sum of Rs. 3,76,325/- (Rupees Three Lacs Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2026.02.07 11:41:25 +0530 MACT No. 385/2023 Date of Award : 07.02.2026 Dipmala Devi & Ors. Vs. Nand Lal & Anr. Page No. 25 of 28 Seventy Six Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty Five Only) shall be immediately released to her through her MACT saving bank account and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 30,000/- each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
47. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 2 Ms. Kajal Kumari, a sum of Rs. 1,15,265/- (Rupees One Lac Fifteen Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Five Only) shall be immediately released to her through her MACT saving bank account and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 20,000/- each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
48. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 3 Sh. Savan Kumar, a sum of Rs. 1,15,265/- (Rupees One Lac Fifteen Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Five Only) shall be immediately released to him through his MACT saving bank account and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 20,000/- each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
49. The entire share amount alongwith proportionate interest of petitioner No. 4 to 6 namely Gauri Kumari, Badal Kumar and Gulshan Kumar be kept in the form of FDR(s) for the period till they attain the age of majority.
50. The amount of FDRs on maturity shall directly be released in petitioners' MACT Saving Bank Account.
Digitally
signed by
MUKESH
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07
11:41:32
+0530
MACT No. 385/2023 Date of Award : 07.02.2026
Dipmala Devi & Ors. Vs. Nand Lal & Anr. Page No. 26 of 28
51. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:-
(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 i.e., the savings bank account of the claimant 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 custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
52. Respondent no. 3 i.e. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, being insurer of offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the compensation amount with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts branch is directed to transfer the respective amounts of petitioners in their aforesaid MACT saving bank accounts, as per the award, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
53. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph, specimen signature, copy of bank passbook and copy of Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07 11:41:40 +0530 MACT No. 385/2023 Date of Award : 07.02.2026 Dipmala Devi & Ors. Vs. Nand Lal & Anr. Page No. 27 of 28 residence proof of the petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
54. Form XV and Form XVII in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A.
55. A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir .
56. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost.
57. A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class as well as DSLSA as per the provisions of the Modified Claim Tribunal Agreed Procedure (MCTAP). Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.02.07 11:41:46 +0530 Announced in the open Court (MUKESH KUMAR) On 7th February, 2026 P.O. MACT-02 (WEST) THC/Delhi/07.02.2026 MACT No. 385/2023 Date of Award : 07.02.2026 Dipmala Devi & Ors. Vs. Nand Lal & Anr. Page No. 28 of 28