Delhi District Court
Mamta Pandey vs Rajesh on 1 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. VRINDA KUMARI
PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
MAMTA PANDEY & ORS. VS. RAJESH & ORS.
MACP No.52/17
1. Smt. Mamta Pandey (Wife of deceased)
W/o Late Sh. Dinesh Pandey
2. Sakshi Pandey (Daughter of deceased)
D/o Late Sh. Dinesh Pandey
3. Shivam Pandey (Son of deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Dinesh Pandey
All R/o 457/1/23, Heera Nagar, District Gurgaon,
Haryana-122001.
Also at :- Village Surak Pur, Post Koilari,
District Jaunpur, U.P.
......petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Rajesh (Driver)
S/o Sh. Vijay,
R/o Village Manger
Tehsil Ballabhgarh, Faridabad, Haryana.
Also at :- Village Bangar, PS Suraj Kund,
District Faridabad, Haryana.
2. Sh. Acchay Lal Gupta (Owner)
S/o Sh. Ram Dev Gupta,
R/o C-1479, Palam Vihar,
District Gurgaon, Haryana.
Also at :-H.No. 3, Wazirpur Road,
Nehar Pur, Faridabad, Haryana-121002.
3. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
th
416-421, 4 Floor, Narain Manzil Building 23,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001.
.........Respondents
MACP No. 52/17
Mamta Pandey & Ors. Vs. Rajesh & Ors. 01.04.2025 Page 1 of 25
Date of filing of claim petition : 22.02.2017 Date of framing of issues : 29.08.2017 Date of concluding arguments : 21.03.2025 Date of decision : 01.04.2025 AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. The claim for compensation raised in the present claim petition is in respect of fatal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the deceased Sh. Dinesh Pandey in a motor accident that took place on 30.12.2016, at about 09:30 AM, at IMT Manesar Chowk, Sector-1, PS Manesar, District Gurgaon, Haryana, regarding which FIR No.663/16, under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC was registered at PS Manesar, Gurgaon, Haryana. The offending vehicle involved in this case is a dumper bearing registration No. HR-55E-6027, which at the relevant time of accident was being driven by respondent no.1 (R1) Sh. Rajesh, owned by respondent no. 2 (R2) Sh. Acchay Lal and insured with respondent no. 3 (R3) IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that on 30.12.2016 at about 09:30 AM, the deceased along with his daughter Sakshi Pandey was going to NSG Central School, Manesar from his house on the motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-26BC-3992. When they reached IMT Manesar Chowk, Sector-1, PS Manesar, Gurgaon, the offending vehicle bearing registration No. HR-55E-6027, which was being driven by respondent no. 1 at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came from IMT Manesar side and hit the motorcycle MACP No. 52/17 Mamta Pandey & Ors. Vs. Rajesh & Ors. 01.04.2025 Page 2 of 25 with great force due to which he fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. It is further stated that the deceased was removed to General Hospital, Gurgaon, Haryana where his postmortem was conducted.
3. Respondent no. 1 and 2 filed their joint written statement to the claim petition wherein it is submitted that respondent no. 1 was holding a valid driving license at the time of accident. It is further submitted that the FIR under Section 663/16, U/s 279/337/304-A, PS Manesar, Gurgaon was registered against the respondent no. 1. It is further submitted that the alleged offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent no. 3 at the time of accident.
4. Respondent no. 3/Insurance Company filed its written statement to the claim petition wherein it is submitted that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the motorcycle and thus, it is a case of contributory negligence. It is further submitted that they will not be liable to pay any amount of compensation if the vehicle insured with them was not involved in the alleged accident.
5. On 29.08.2017, the following issues were framed by this Tribunal :-
1. Whether Sh. Dinesh Pandey sustained fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 30.12.2016 at about 09:30 AM at IMT Manesar Chowk, Sector-1, PS Manesar, District Gurgaon, Haryana caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR-55E-6027 being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3 ? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for MACP No. 52/17 Mamta Pandey & Ors. Vs. Rajesh & Ors. 01.04.2025 Page 3 of 25 compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
6. In support of their claim, the petitioner no. 1 Smt. Mamta Pandey, wife of deceased examined herself as PW1. Her affidavit in evidence is Ex. PW1/A. She relied upon certain documents. Copy of death certificate of deceased is Ex. PW1/1 (OSR). Salary slip of deceased for the month of July 2016 issued by Kay Cee Enterprises is Ex. PW1/2. Salary certificate and salary slip of deceased for the month of December 2016 issued by NC Enterprises is Ex. PW1/3 (colly). Copy of educational certificates of deceased are Ex. PW1/4 (colly). Copy of PAN card of deceased is Ex. PW1/5 (OSR). Copy of Aadhaar card of deceased is Ex. PW1/6 (OSR). Copy of election ID of deceased is Ex. PW1/7. Copy of her PAN card, Aadhaar card and election ID card are Ex. PW1/8 to Ex. PW1/10 (OSR) respectively. Copy of school identity card of petitioner no. 2 Sakshi Pandey is Ex. PW1/11. Copy of Aadhaar card of petitioner no. 2 is Ex. PW1/12. Copy of fee card and fee slips of petitioner no. 2 are Ex. PW1/13 (colly). Copy of Aadhaar card of petitioner no. 3 Shivam Pandey is Ex. PW1/14.
7. Petitioner no. 2 Ms. Sakshi Pande, i.e. daughter of deceased examined herself as PW2.
8. Petitioners examined Sh. Mahipal Singh, Human Resource Manager from NC Enterprises, IMT Manesar, Gurugram, Haryana as PW3 who has placed on record authority letter in his favour as Ex. PW3/A, attested copy of appointment MACP No. 52/17 Mamta Pandey & Ors. Vs. Rajesh & Ors. 01.04.2025 Page 4 of 25 letter of deceased as Ex. PW3/B, salary voucher for the month of December, 2016 received by wife of deceased as Ex. PW3/C, PF enclosure of deceased as Ex. PW3/D (colly) and attendance sheet of deceased for the month of December 2016 as Ex. PW3/E.
9. The petitioners also examined Sh. Virender Yadav, Manager from KAY CEE Enterprises, Gurugram, Haryana as PW4 who has proved authority letter in his favour as Ex. PW4/1, salary structure of deceased as Ex. PW4/2, attested copy of salary slip for the month of July 2016 as Ex. PW4/3 and PF contribution details as Ex. PW4/4.
10. Respondent no. 3/Insurance Company examined respondent no. 1 as R3W1 who has placed on record copy of his Aadhaar card as Ex. R3W1/1 (OSR).
11. The Tribunal heard the final arguments advanced by Sh. A.K. Jha, Ld. Counsel for petitioners and Sh. Abhishek Yadav, Ld. Counsel for R-3/Insurance Company and has carefully perused the entire case record along with written submissions/arguments filed on behalf of petitioners and Insurance Company. However, none has turned up on behalf of R-1 and R-2 to address final arguments.
12. The findings on the aforementioned issues are rendered hereinafter in the succeeding paragraphs.
13. ISSUE NO. 1Whether Sh. Dinesh Pandey sustained fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 30.12.2016 at about 09:30 AM at IMT Manesar Chowk, Sector-1, PS Manesar, District Gurgaon, Haryana caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR-55E-6027 being MACP No. 52/17 Mamta Pandey & Ors. Vs. Rajesh & Ors. 01.04.2025 Page 5 of 25 driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3 ? OPP.
14. Onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners. The first question that needs to be decided is whether the accident was caused by the vehicle bearing registration No. HR-55E-6027.
15. In order to prove the same, the petitioner no. 1 Smt. Mamta Pandey has examined herself as PW1 who deposed in her affidavit in evidence Ex. PW1/A as follows :-
"2. I say that on 31.12.2016 at about 09:30 am, my husband Sh. Dinesh Pandey along with my daughter Sakshi Pandey was going to NSG Central School Manesar from his house i.e. 457/1/23, Heera Nagar, District Gurgaon on his motorcycle No. HR-26BC-3992 which was being driven by my husband Sh. Dinesh Pandey at a normal speed and on correct side of the road. When the motorcycle reached IMT Manesar Chowk, Sector-1, PS Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, in the meanwhile a Dumper bearing registration No. HR-55E-6027, which was being driven by its driver, at a very high speed, rashly, negligently, without blowing any horn, without taking necessary precautions, without proper lookouts, violating the traffic rules came from IMT Manesar side and hit the motorcycle with great force. As a result of this motorcycle fell down on the road both the motorcycle riders sustained grievous injuries, due to which my husband Dinesh Pandey died on the spot. He was taken to General Hospital, Gurgaon, Haryana, where his postmortem was conducted vide PMR No. YSG/906/2016 on 30.12.2016."
16. During cross examination, she admitted that she was MACP No. 52/17 Mamta Pandey & Ors. Vs. Rajesh & Ors. 01.04.2025 Page 6 of 25 not an eye witness to the accident.
17. Petitioner no. 2 Ms. Sakshi Pandey, i.e. daughter of deceased examined herself as PW2 who deposed that on 30.12.2016 at about 09:30 am, she along with her father (since deceased) was going to NSG Central School, Manesar by motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-26BC-3992 which was being driven by her father at a normal speed and on the correct side of the road. When she reached IMT Manesar Chowk, one dumper bearing registration No. HR-55E-6027, which was being driven by its driver at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, hit their motorcycle with great force on their right side from left side of the truck due to which they fell down on the road. She further deposed that she sustained simple injuries and her father suffered grievous injuries due to which her father died on the spot. She further deposed that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R-1 at a very high speed without blowing horn.
18. During cross examination, she deposed that there was intersection at the point of accident. She further deposed that there was no traffic light at the intersection. She further deposed that the speed of their motorcycle was around 30-40 km per hour.
19. Nothing material could be elicited from the cross- examination of PW-2 to disbelieve or discard her testimony. Her testimony and site plan makes it amply clear that both the vehicles were going in the same direction when the offending vehicle hit the motorcycle.
20. Respondent no. 3 examined respondent no. 1 as R3W1. During cross examination, he admitted that the FIR No. MACP No. 52/17 Mamta Pandey & Ors. Vs. Rajesh & Ors. 01.04.2025 Page 7 of 25 663/16, under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC, PS Manesar had been registered against him and he was facing trial in the concerned court in Gurugram. He further admitted that he had not filed any complaint to any higher authority regarding his false implication in the present matter till date.
21. The testimony of PW-2 has been duly corroborated with the copies of criminal case record which has not been called into question by any of the respondents.
22. In cases National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 287 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deepak Goel and Ors., 2014 (2) TAC 846 (Del.) decided by the Coordinate Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it was held that "......where the petitioners filed either the certified copies of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of investigation by police or issuance of charge sheet under Section 279/304A IPC or the certified copy of FIR or the recovery of the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, then these documents are sufficient proof to reach to a conclusion that the driver was negligent particularly when there is no defence available from the side of driver."
23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 has observed that filing of charge sheet against the driver prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It has been further observed that even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in MACP No. 52/17 Mamta Pandey & Ors. Vs. Rajesh & Ors. 01.04.2025 Page 8 of 25 respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
24. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a Civil Court and in Civil matters, the facts are required to be established on preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt, as are required in a criminal prosecution. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported as (2009) 13 SC 530 in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, wherein it has been observed that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the petitioners and the petitioners were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.
25. In view of foregoing discussion, it stands proved on preponderance of probability that the aforesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. HR-55E-6027 and the said vehicle at that time was driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
26. ISSUE NO. 2Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
27. As rashness and negligence on part of driver of the offending vehicle/respondent No. 1 has been proved, the petitioners have become entitled to be compensated for death of their family member in the said accident, but the computation of MACP No. 52/17 Mamta Pandey & Ors. Vs. Rajesh & Ors. 01.04.2025 Page 9 of 25 compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided. The compensation to which the petitioners are entitled shall be under the heads as discussed hereinafter.
(i) Loss of dependency
28. The petitioner no. 1 being wife of the deceased stepped into the witness box as PW1 and filed her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A wherein she claimed that her deceased husband was working as Supervisor with NC Enterprises, Village Bass Kusla, Sector-7, IMT Manesar, Gurugram, Haryana and was getting salary of Rs.37,500/- per month. She further claimed that earlier her deceased husband was working as Supervisor with M/s Kay Cee Enterprises, Sukhma Tower, Old Delhi Road Gurgaon, Haryana on a monthly salary of Rs.32,170/- per month. She has tendered on record salary slip of her deceased husband for the month of July, 2016 issued by Kay Cee Enterprises as Ex. PW1/2 as well as salary certificate and salary slip of her deceased husband for the month of December 2016 issued by NC Enterprises as Ex. PW1/3 (colly).
29. In order to prove the same, the petitioners have examined Sh. Mahipal Singh, Human Resource Manager from NC Enterprises as PW3 who has placed on record attested copy of appointment letter of deceased as Ex. PW3/B, salary voucher for the month of December, 2016 received by wife of deceased as Ex. PW3/C, PF enclosure of deceased as Ex. PW3/D (colly) and attendance sheet of deceased for the month of December 2016 as Ex. PW3/E. He deposed that the deceased was getting salary of Rs. 37,500/- per month from the Company.
MACP No. 52/17 Mamta Pandey & Ors. Vs. Rajesh & Ors. 01.04.2025 Page 10 of 2530. During cross examination, he deposed that the deceased joined the company in the year 2016. He further deposed that the employment of deceased was permanent (volunteered) it was to be renewed every year. He further deposed that the deceased worked for one month only (volunteered) as the deceased expired in December 2016. He further deposed that no TDS was deducted by the company.
31. The petitioners have also examined Sh. Virender Yadav, Manager of the previous employer Kay Cee Enterprises as PW4 who has placed on record salary structure of deceased as Ex. PW4/2, attested copy of salary slip for the month of July 2016 as Ex. PW4/3 and PF contribution detail as Ex. PW4/4. He deposed that the deceased had worked with their company since 1996 to September, 2016 on the post of Supervisor and his last drawn salary was Rs. 32,170/- per month.
32. It is explicit from the testimony of PW3 coupled with the aforesaid exhibited documents that the deceased was working on the post of Supervisor with N.C. Enterprises on monthly salary of Rs.37,500/- per month. Further, para no. 3 of the appointment letter of deceased dated 30.11.2016 issued by N.C. Enterprises reads as under :-
"3. Your appointment in NC Enterprises will be effective from the date you report for duty and are taken on strength. The fixed tenure of employment will be commenced from that date and will expired on completion of one year of service. Your continuance in employment is subject to satisfactory completion of your one year tenure."
33. In view of the above, the Tribunal deems it fit to MACP No. 52/17 Mamta Pandey & Ors. Vs. Rajesh & Ors. 01.04.2025 Page 11 of 25 consider the employment of deceased as permanent in nature. Merely because the deceased had joined the job one month prior to the date of accident is no ground to discard the testimony of PW3. Further, placing on record the attendance record of the deceased at work place is not necessary in view of testimonies of PW3 and PW4. The Tribunal does not find testimonies of PW3 and PW4 doubtful.
34. In order to prove the age of deceased, PW1 has tendered on record copy of PAN card and Aadhaar card of deceased as Ex. PW1/5 (OSR) and Ex. PW1/6 (OSR) respectively. In both these documents, the date of birth of deceased is found recorded as 19.07.1976. Hence, going by this document, the age of deceased as on the date of accident i.e. on 30.12.2016 was 40 years, 5 months and 11 days. He had yet not completed the age of 41 years.
35. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sonia & Ors., 2023 LawSuit(Del) 3687, decided on 08.11.2023 wherein it was reiterated as under :-
MULTIPLIER AND FUTURE PROSPECTS "xxxx 31. The next challenge of the Insurance Company is towards the applicability of the multiplier of 15, while the Claimant challenges the Future Prospects being confined only to 30%. Both these challenge are dependent on the age of the deceased to be taken into account for the purposes of the Multiplier and the addition for Future Prospects of Income.
32. It has been established on record that the deceased was aged around 40 years and 9 months at the time of the accident.
33. In Sheeba @ Shiva v. Tata AIG Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. & Ors.
2023:DHC:5084, this Court considering the question of the adoption of a proper multiplier, has held as under:
"10. In Shashikala and Ors. v.MACP No. 52/17 Mamta Pandey & Ors. Vs. Rajesh & Ors. 01.04.2025 Page 12 of 25
Gangalakshmamma and Anr., 2015 ACJ 1239, relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, it has been held as under:
"17. Insofar as appropriate multiplier, the date of birth of the deceased as per driving licence was 16.6.1961. On the date of accident, i.e., 14.12.2006, the deceased was aged 45 years, 5 months and 28 days and the Tribunal has taken the age as 46 years. Since the deceased has completed only 45 years, the High Court has rightly taken the age of the deceased as 45 years and adopted multiplier of 14 which is the appropriate multiplier and the same is maintained. The total loss of dependency is calculated at Rs.16,82,310 (Rs.1,20,165 x 14)."
11. In Navin Parcha & Ors. v. Deepak Kumar & Ors., Neutral Citation No- 2019:DHC:4441, this Court has also held that where the deceased had not attained the age of 31 years, which is a next slab, the multiplier applicable to the previous slab would be applied.
12. Though in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meenakshi & Ors., Neutral Citation No-2012:DHC:3735, relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1, it has been held that to apply the judgment of Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav (1996) 3 SCC 179, purposely, the multiplier has to be taken as per the age which is nearer to the birth on the date of the accident, in view of the subsequent judgment in Shashikala (supra), I am bound by the judgment of the Supreme Court.
13. Taking into account the multiplier as prescribed in Sarla Dixit (supra), and taking the age of the appellant as 25 years for purposes of the multiplier slab stipulated therein, it is held that the multiplier to be adopted was 18, which is applicable to the age group of 21-25, and the learned Tribunal has erred in adopting the multiplier of 17 for determining compensation. The Impugned Award is modified to the above limited extent."
34. In M.H. Uma Maheshwari & Ors. (supra), the Supreme Court extended the benefit of the lower age slab for purposes of determining the Future Prospects to be applied, by holding as under:
"9. The Tribunal, by recording a finding that the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years, MACP No. 52/17 Mamta Pandey & Ors. Vs. Rajesh & Ors. 01.04.2025 Page 13 of 25 applied the multiplier of 13 while calculating the compensation. The High Court, curiously while maintaining the multiplier of 13 as per the judgment of this Court in Sarla Verma, has reduced the compensation only on the ground that the deceased was aged 50 years 3 months on the date of the accident, as such the compensation is to be calculated on account of loss of dependency by granting future prospects at 15% but not 30%. So far as the application of multiplier of 13 by the Tribunal is concerned, the High Court has not interfered with the same. When the age of the deceased was considered in the group of 40 to 50 years, we are of the view that the High Court has committed error in granting only 15% towards future prospects instead of 30%. As per the judgments of this Court, primarily the age group is to be considered. Considering the age group as 40 to 50 years, when the multiplier of 13 is maintained by the High Court, there is no reason or justification for reducing the compensation by granting 15% towards future prospects. Though the learned counsel appearing for Respondent 1 Insurance Company has submitted that the compensation towards future prospects was awarded as per the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi but at the same time it is to be noticed that in the very same judgment in para 59.3, while considering the grant of future prospects, this Court has specifically said that the addition should be 30% if the age of the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years. For application of multiplier, the High Court has also accepted the age group of the deceased between 40 and 50 years. In that view of the matter, there is no reason for reducing the compensation by granting future prospects at 15% only. In absence of any challenge to the findings recorded by the High Court confirming the application of multiplier of 13, we are of the view that the High Court has committed error in reducing the compensation on account of loss of dependency. For loss of love and affection, when the compensation of Rs 1,00,000 on account of loss of consortium was awarded to the first appellant, she was not entitled for another Rs 1,00,000 towards the same but, at the same time though the appellants have claimed Rs 2,00,000 towards MACP No. 52/17 Mamta Pandey & Ors. Vs. Rajesh & Ors. 01.04.2025 Page 14 of 25 transportation of dead body and funeral expenses, only an amount of Rs 20,000 and Rs 25,000 was awarded towards the respective heads. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that even such grant of Rs 1,00,000 ought not have been reduced by the High Court."
36. Accordingly, in view of above judgment as well as in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been approved by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, the multiplier of '15' is applicable in the present case.
37. Now coming to calculation of loss of dependency, the present claim petition has been filed by four petitioners i.e. wife, daughter, son and mother of deceased. During the pendency of trial, the petitioner no. 4, i.e. mother of deceased had expired. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as "Kirti & Anr. Etc. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., LawSuit (SC) 6, decided on 05.01.2021, wherein it was held as under :-
"10. We have thoughtfully considered the rival submissions. It cannot be disputed that at the time of death, there in fact were four dependents of the deceased and not three. The subsequent death of the deceased's dependent mother ought not to be a reason for reduction of motor accident compensation. Claims and legal liabilities crystallise at the time of the accident itself, and changes post thereto ought not to ordinarily affect pending proceedings. Just like how appellant-MACP No. 52/17 Mamta Pandey & Ors. Vs. Rajesh & Ors. 01.04.2025 Page 15 of 25
claimants cannot rely upon subsequent increases in minimum wages, the respondent-insurer too cannot seek benefit of the subsequent death of a dependent during the pendency of legal proceedings."
38. Hence, in terms of above judgment as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. (Supra) and Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), 1/4th earnings of deceased shall be deducted towards his personal and living expenses.
39. In view of the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), the petitioners are also held entitled to addition of 30% of earning of the deceased towards future prospects as the employment of deceased was permanent in nature. Thus, the loss of dependency in the present case comes to Rs.65,81,250/- {(Rs.37,500/-X 12 X 15 X 3/4 X 130/100)}.
(ii) COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY HEADS
40. In terms of propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (Supra), the petitioners are also held entitled to amount of Rs.15,000/- each under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses, i.e. Rs.30,000/- under both heads. Further, in view of Full Court judgment dated 30.06.2020 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. (2020) 06 SC CK 0036 (Civil Appeal Nos. 2705 and 2706 of 2020), the petitioners are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards 'loss of consortium', in addition to Rs.30,000/- granted under the conventional head of MACP No. 52/17 Mamta Pandey & Ors. Vs. Rajesh & Ors. 01.04.2025 Page 16 of 25 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses'.
41. Pertinently, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also held in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (Supra) that compensation awarded under the conventional heads shall be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years and a period of 6 years since then stands already expired. Hence, the petitioners in this case are also entitled to an increase @ 10% on the amount awarded under the conventional head of 'loss of estate', 'funeral charges' and 'loss of consortium' after expiry of three years and further 10% after expiry of another three years. The petitioners are thus awarded a total sum of Rs.2,29,900/- [(Rs.40,000/- + 10% of Rs.40,000/-= Rs. 44,000/- + 10% of Rs. 44,000/- = Rs. 48,400/- X 4 = Rs.1,93,600/-) + (Rs. 30,000/- + 10% of Rs.30,000/- = Rs.33,000/- + 10% of Rs. 33,000/- = Rs. 36,300/-)] under this head.
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
42. In view of finding on issue number 2, the petitioners are held entitled to a sum of Rs.68,11,150/- (Rupees Sixty Eight Lakh Eleven Thousand One Hundred Fifty only) (Rs.65,81,250/- + Rs.2,29,900/-) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be liable to be excluded from the award amount.
APPORTIONMENT
43. Out of the awarded amount, 80% amount is being awarded to petitioner no. 1, i.e. wife of deceased and the remaining 10% share each is being awarded to petitioner no. 2 MACP No. 52/17 Mamta Pandey & Ors. Vs. Rajesh & Ors. 01.04.2025 Page 17 of 25 and 3, i.e. children of deceased.
RELEASE
44. Out of amount awarded to petitioner no. 1, 90% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in form of 200 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 200 months in succession, as per scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as implemented vide subsequent order dated 07.12.2018 and order dated 08.01.2021 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in her savings/MACT Claims SB Accounts opened/to opened near the place of her residence, as directed vide Order dated 16.04.2018 and the remaining 10% amount is also directed to be released into her above said account, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by her.
45. Petitioners no. 2 and 3 have now attained the age of majority. Hence, out of amount awarded to petitioners no. 2 and 3 each, 90% amount each is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in form of 75 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of 1 to 75 months in succession, as per scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as implemented vide subsequent order dated 07.12.2018 and order dated 08.01.2021 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs MACP No. 52/17 Mamta Pandey & Ors. Vs. Rajesh & Ors. 01.04.2025 Page 18 of 25 on maturity would be released in their respective savings/MACT Claims SB Accounts opened/to opened near the place of their residence, as directed vide Order dated 16.04.2018 and the remaining 10% amount each is also directed to be released into their above said accounts, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by them.
46. The disbursement to the petitioners is, however, subject to addition of future interest till deposit proportionately and also deduction of proportionate tax on the interest amount or amount of interim award, if any, to/from their shares.
47. The bank shall not permit any joint names to be added in the savings bank accounts or MACAD scheme accounts of petitioners i.e. the bank account of petitioners shall be individual account and not a joint account.
48. The original fixed deposits shall be retained by the UCO Bank, PHC, New Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR numbers, amounts, dates of maturity and maturity amounts shall be furnished by the said bank to the petitioners and the above amount shall be released in account of petitioners by the Manager, UCO Bank, PHC, ND through RTGS/NEFT/or any other electronic mode.
49. The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank accounts of the petitioner(s) near the place of their residence.
50. The maturity amount of the FDR (s) on monthly basis net of TDS be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the above accounts of petitioners.
51. No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature MACP No. 52/17 Mamta Pandey & Ors. Vs. Rajesh & Ors. 01.04.2025 Page 19 of 25 discharge be allowed on the MACAD without permission of the Court.
52. The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to petitioner(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the petitioner(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the petitioner(s) from any other branch of the bank.
53. The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the petitioner(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and petitioner(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
54. It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the petitioner(s) is sufficient compliance of clause above.
LIABILITY
55. During the course of final arguments, Ld. Counsel for Insurance Company has argued that there is no statutory defence available with them in the present matter.
56. All the respondents are though being held jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to petitioners, but respondent no.3 being insurer of offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, along with interest @ 7.5% per MACP No. 52/17 Mamta Pandey & Ors. Vs. Rajesh & Ors. 01.04.2025 Page 20 of 25 annum from the date of filing of claim petition by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in bank account being maintained in the above said bank in name of this tribunal within 30 days from today, failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay. In case even after lapse of 90 days from today, respondent no. 3 fails to deposit this compensation with interest, in that event, in light of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal 2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of respondent no. 3 with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.
57. The respondent no. 3 shall inform the petitioners and their counsels through registered post that the awarded amount has been deposited so as to facilitate them to collect the same.
58. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost or be sent to them by email. Ahlmad is directed to send a copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Judgment titled as Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. passed in FAO No.842/2003 dated 12.12.2014.
59. Further, Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 08.01.2021.
60. The particulars of Form-XVII of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, in terms of directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 08.01.2021, are as under:
1. Date of the accident 30.12.2016 MACP No. 52/17 Mamta Pandey & Ors. Vs. Rajesh & Ors. 01.04.2025 Page 21 of 25
2. Date of filing of Form I- First N.A. Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the N.A. victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from N.A. the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from N.A. the owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- N.A. Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and N.A. Form VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing Form-VII-
of NA as it is an Detailed Accident Report (DAR) outstation matter
9. Whether there was any delay or No deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Not given Designated Officer by the Insurance Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of No the Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or No deficiencies on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the Legal offer not filed petitioner(s) of the offer of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 01.04.2025
15. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes directed to open savings bank MACP No. 52/17 Mamta Pandey & Ors. Vs. Rajesh & Ors. 01.04.2025 Page 22 of 25 account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which 16.04.2018 petitioner(s) were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the petitioner (s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17. Date on which the petitioner(s) Yet to furnish produced the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of As mentioned above the petitioner(s)
19. Whether the petitioner(s) savings Yet to furnish bank account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
61. File be consigned to record room after compliance of necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 11.07.2025. VRINDA by Digitally signed VRINDA KUMARI KUMARI 16:03:01 Date: 2025.04.01 +0530 Announced in the open court (Vrinda Kumari) on 01.04.2025 PO/MACT, New Delhi Encl: SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM XV MACP No. 52/17 Mamta Pandey & Ors. Vs. Rajesh & Ors. 01.04.2025 Page 23 of 25 SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN FORM XV
1. Date of accident 30.12.2016
2. Name of the deceased Sh. Dinesh Pandey
3. Age of the deceased 40 years, 5 months and 11 days
4. Occupation of the deceased Supervisor with NC Enterprises
5. Income of the deceased Rs.37,500/- per month
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased :
Sl. No. Name Age Relation
i) Mamta Pandey 40 years Wife
ii) Sakshi Pandey 15 years Daugther
iii) Shivam Pandey 13 years Son
Sl. No. Head Amount Awarded
(Rs.)
7. Income of deceased (A) Rs. 37,500/-
8. Add : Future Prospects (B) Rs. 11,250/-
9. Less-Personal expenses of the Rs. 12,187.5/-
deceased (C)
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs. 36,562.5/-
[(A+B) - C = D]
11. Annual loss of dependency Rs.4,38,750/-
(D x 12) 12. Multiplier 15
13. Total loss of dependency Rs.65,81,250/-
(D x 12 x E = F)
14. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15. Compensation for loss of love Nil and affection (H) MACP No. 52/17 Mamta Pandey & Ors. Vs. Rajesh & Ors. 01.04.2025 Page 24 of 25
16. Compensation for loss of Rs.1,93,600/-
consortium (I)
17. Compensation for loss of estate Rs.18,150/-
(J)
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs.18,150/-
expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.68,11,150/-
(F + G + H + I + J+K =L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST 7.5% pa from date of AWARDED filing of claim petition till the date of award to be deposited within 30 days and 9% thereafter.
21. Interest amount up to the date of Rs.41,42,031/-
award (M)
22. Total amount including interest Rs.1,09,53,181/-
(L + M) (rounded off to
Rs. 1,09,53,500/-)
23. Award amount released P-1=10% share
P-2=10% share
P-3=10% share
24. Award amount kept in FDRs/ P-1=90% share MACAD P-2=90% share P-3=90% share
25. Mode of disbursement of the Through Bank award amount to petitioner(s)
26. Next date for compliance of the 11.07.2025 award VRINDA Digitally signed by VRINDA KUMARI KUMARI Date: 2025.04.01 16:03:21 +0530 (Vrinda Kumari) PO/MACT, New Delhi 01.04.2025 MACP No. 52/17 Mamta Pandey & Ors. Vs. Rajesh & Ors. 01.04.2025 Page 25 of 25