Delhi District Court
Ajay Sharma vs Shubham Dey on 3 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. MUKESH KUMAR,
PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-02,WEST,TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
MACT No. 317/2020
DLWT01-006081-2020
1. Sh. Ajay Sharma
S/o Sh. Dori Lal Sharma
R/o 3750/231, Chander Nagar,
Onkar Nagar, Saraswati Vihar
Delhi-110035.
(father of deceased)
2. Smt. Aarti Sharma
W/o Sh. Ajay Sharma
R/o 3750/231, Chander Nagar,
Onkar Nagar, Saraswati Vihar
Delhi-110035.
(mother of deceased)
......... Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Shubham Dey
S/o Sh. Mantush Dey
R/o T-36, 3rd Floor,
West Patel Nagar, Delhi-110008.
(Driver of the offending vehicle)
2. Sh. Vijender
S/o Sh. Jagat Singh
R/o T-235/16, First Floor,
Hill Marg, Baljeet Nagar, Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008.
(Driver of the offending vehicle)
...... Respondents
Date of Institution: : 02.12.2020 Date of reserving order/judgment : 02.02.2026 MACT No. 317/2020 Date of Award : 03.02.2026 Digitally signed Ajay Sharma & Ors. Vs. Subham Dey & Ors. . by MUKESH Page No. 1/ 20. KUMAR MUKESH Date: KUMAR 2026.02.04 10:29:21 +0530 Date of pronouncement: : 02.02.2026 AWAR D
1. Proceedings in the present case arises from filing of DAR by the investigating officer in FIR No. 620/2020 PS Moti Nagar under Section 279/304A IPC regarding the accident in question. As per the DAR, documents filed therewith as well as material available on record, on the fateful night on 27.09.2020 at about 11:05 PM, while Sh. Mukul Sharma (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') along with Shubham Dey/respondent no. 1 were going on the motorcycle bearing No. DL6S-AK-1977 and the driver of the motorcycle was driving in a zig-zac manner and in a very high speed and their motorcycle struck on the footpath nearby to the bridge/flyover ahead of main gate of A-Class Marble and both the boys fell down on the road. The deceased who was sitting as pillion rider fell down on the footpath and received grievous injuries on his head and respondent no.1 who was driving the vehicle fell down in the middle of the road. The deceased received fatal head and other injuries and due to said fatal injuries he got unconscious. It is further stated that accident was caused due to the sole rash and negligent act on the part of respondent no. 1/driver of the offending vehicle. It is further stated that the injured was taken to B. L. Kapoor Hospital. Postmortem was conducted at DDU Hospital. It is further stated that FIR No. 620/2020 PS Moti Nagaar U/s 279/304A IPC was also registered on 28.09.2020.
2. As per the DAR alongwith the documents filed therewith, respondent no. 2 Vijender is the registered owner and respondent no. 1 Shubham Dey is the driver of the offending vehicle. DAR were also accompanied by other relevant Digitally signed by MUKESH MACT No. 317/2020 MUKESH KUMAR Date of Award : 03.02.2026 Ajay Sharma & Ors. Vs. Subham Dey & Ors. . Page No. 2/ 20.
KUMAR Date:
2026.02.04
10:29:29
+0530
documents including Final Report u/s 173 Cr.PC; Copy of FIR; Rukka; Seizure memo of the vehicle; Seizure memo of documents of offending vehicle and copy of DL of its driver; Site plan of the place of accident; Mechanical inspection report of both the offending vehicle; MLC and Postmortem report of deceased; Notice u/s 133 M.V. Act given to the owner of the offending vehicle; Arrest memo of accused (respondent no. 2 herein) and Statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C etc. It is further submitted that the vehicle was without insurance.
3. Written statement was filed by respondent no. 1 wherein it is stated inter alia that on 27.09.2020, the respondent no. 1 along with the deceased had to attend a party of one of their friend an respondent no. 1 had taken a motorcycle of his friend Vijender/respondent no. 2 for attending the party. It is further stated that the respondent no. 1 was driving the motorcycle and deceased was on another Scooty with his another friend as pillion rider. It is further stated that after attending the party, the respondent no. 1 and the decease were coming back to their home, however, deceased insisted that he would drive the motorcycle but respondent no. 1 had refused to allow him to drive motorcycle because he had consumed a large quantity of liquor but he did not agree and remained adamant to drive the motorcycle himself and due to his rigidness, the respondent no. 1 had allowed him to ply the motorcycle and while returning to their house deceased was driving the motorcycle at a very high speed and respondent no.1 cautioned him for the same but deceased did not obey. It is further stated that when they reached opposite A-Class Marble Market, Moti Nagar, all of a sudden a car came from behind at a very high speed in rash and negligent manner and struck against their motorcycle from the side and due MACT No. 317/2020 Digitally Date of Award : 03.02.2026 signed by Ajay Sharma & Ors. Vs. Subham Dey & Ors. . MUKESH Page No. 3/ 20.
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.02.04
10:29:38
+0530
to this impact, Mukesh lost his control over the said motorcycle and due to which the motorcycle was rammed into the divider. It is further stated that the deceased and respondent no. 1 fell down on the road and both sustained injuries. It is further stated that people had put both of them in a vehicle and had left them in B.L. Kapoor Hospital, New Delhi where the doctors had declared Mukesh Sharma as dead. It is further stated that when the respondent no. 2 Vijender who is owner of the motorcycle came to know about the accident, he had started threatening the respondent no. 1 to sign on some papers but respondent no. 1 refused to do so. It is further stated that on 03.12.2020, the respondent no. 2 along with his some friends had stopped the respondent no. 1 Near Mehta Medicos, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi and they all started beating and threatening the respondent no. 1 and forcibly got his signatures on some blank papers. It is further stated that the respondent no. 1 had also lodged a report to this effect with the police of PS Patel Nagar, on the same day. It is further stated that the family members of deceased who died n the accident in collusion with police have filed a false case against the respondent no. 1. It is further stated that none of the witnesses was present at the time of accident whose statements have been recorded by the concerned police. It is further stated that the said accident was occurred due to sole rash and negligent driving on the part of the said car driver who fled from the spot after causing the said accident and hence, the respondent no. 1 has no concerned whatsoever with the aforesaid alleged accident in any manner.
4. Written statement was filed by respondent no. 2 wherein it is stated inter alia that the respondent no. 2 has already sold his vehicle to the respondent no. 1 in a sum of Rs. 50,000/-
Digitally MACT No. 317/2020 signed by Date of Award : 03.02.2026 MUKESH Ajay Sharma & Ors. Vs. Subham Dey & Ors. . MUKESH KUMAR Page No. 4/ 20.
KUMAR Date:
2026.02.04
10:29:47
+0530
much prior to the alleged accident on 30.07.2020 and requested several times to respondent no. 1 to get the same transferred in his name. It is further stated that the respondent no. 2 is not liable to pay any amount of compensation to the petitioners.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal on 11.03.2022 :-
1. Whether deceased Mukul Sharma suffered fatal injuries in a vehicular accident that took place on 27.09.2020 at about 11:05 PM at Moti Nagar Flyover, New Delhi, involving a car bearing registration no. DL6S-AK-1977 (motorcycle) (offending vehicle) being driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner and owned by respondent no. 2? OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
6. In order to prove their case, petitioner no. 1/Sh.
Ajay Sharma examined himself as PW-1, Sh. Mahender Kumar as PW 2 and IO SI Yad Ram as PW 3.
7. Respondent no. 1 examined himself as R1W1 and respondent no. 2 examined himself as R2W1.
8. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsels for the parties and 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 Digitally signed by MUKESH MACT No. 317/2020 MUKESH KUMAR Date of Award : 03.02.2026 Ajay Sharma & Ors. Vs. Subham Dey & Ors. .KUMAR Date: Page No. 5/ 20.
2026.02.04 10:29:55 +0530 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. vs. Sakshi Bhutani & Others., MAC APP. No. 550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012, Bimla Devi & Others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Others (2009) 13 SC 530, Parmeshwari vs. Amirchand & Others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 & Mangla Ram vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Others 2018, Law Suit (SC)
303.
10. PW-1 Sh. Ajay Sharma (Father of the deceased) tendered his affidavit in evidence which is Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the documents i.e. Ex.PW1/1 (colly.) which is copy of DAR, Copy of Aadhar of petitioner no. 1 as Ex.PW1/2, copy of Aadhar card of petitioner no. 2 as Ex.PW1/3, Copy of Aadhar card of Sh. Vishal Sharma as Ex.PW1/4, Copy of Aadhar card of deceased as Ex.PW1/5 and copy of educational documents of the deceased as Ex.PW1/5.
11. In his cross examination done by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 1, PW 1 deposed that on 27.09.2020, his son had left the house in the morning alone to office at about 08:30 AM and his office situated at Kirti Nagar, Delhi. ...... he was working in the said office as Telecaller.... He was unmarried. He was 10th passed and after passing out he took admission in 11th class in Aligarh but could not appearing in the examination due to some reason and thereafter he did not taken admission in further classes. I have been residing in Delhi alone since 25 years ....... It is correct that it is nowhere mention in Digitally MACT No. 317/2020 signed by MUKESH Date of Award : 03.02.2026 Ajay Sharma & Ors. Vs. Subham Dey & Ors. . MUKESH KUMAR Page No. 6/ 20.
KUMAR Date:
2026.02.04
10:30:08
+0530
the affidavit that his son was doing any job or that he had gone in the morning to join any duty, I had inquired about the incident from the witnesses namely Mahinder, Uttam and Sanjeev who have disclosed about the occurrence of the accident. The said witnesses had disclosed that my son was riding on the motorcycle as a pillion rider. The said witness had met me in the hospital. .......I am not an eye witness of the accident. It is correct that I have not filed any document to show that my son was working anywhere or that he was earning anything. It is correct that I have not filed any document to show that I had spent a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on last rites. .......
12. For the purpose of this issue, the testimony of PW 2 Sh. Mahender Kumar, who is stated to be an eye-witness of the accident in question, is very relevant and PW2 Sh. Mahender Kumar has filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2 and stated as under :
"On 27.09.2020, was on my duty which start from 8:00 P.M. in the night till morning. I was doing my job outside the main gate, near main road, at about 11:05 P.M. in the night two boys came on a motorcycle bearing No. DL-6S-AK-1977 from Moti Nagar Chowk. The boy who was driving the motorcycle was driving in a zig-zac manner and in a very high speed and their motorcycle struck/hit in the footpath nearby to the bridge/flyover ahead of the main gate of A-Class Marble and both the boys fell down on the road. The boy who was the pillion rider fell down on the footpath and receive grievous injuries on his head and the boy who was driving the motorcycle fell down in the middle of Digitally MACT No. 317/2020 signed by MUKESH Date of Award : 03.02.2026 Ajay Sharma & Ors. Vs. Subham Dey & Ors. .MUKESH KUMAR Page No. 7/ 20.
KUMAR Date:
2026.02.04
10:30:19
+0530
the road. That at the same time one Auto was also coming behind their motorcycle and in the mean time another vehicle came there and I with the help of the Auto driver sent both the injured to the Hospital. Later on some police official came at the spot for enquiry and I told the entire incident before the said police official. Upon asking of the said police official, I accompany him to the B.L. Kapoor Hospital and identify both the boys and the boy whose name was disclosed as Mukul Sharma S/o Ajay Sharma got expired was the pillion rider and the boy namely Shubham Dey S/o Mantush Dey who was lying injured in the hospital was driving the motorcycle. Later on I help the IO in preparing the site plan of the place of accident".
13. In his cross examination PW 2 deposed as under :
"Today I am not a summoned witness. I have come at the instance of father of the deceased. It is correct I was present on the spot at the time of incident. I was on duty from 8 PM to 8AM on the date of accident. At that relevant time one Mr. Sanjeev, another security guard was on duty with me. I am an illiterate person. I cannot read or write either English or Hindi. It is correct that there is my signature on my affidavit marked as A and B. I have signed the affidavit EX PW2/A before oath commissioner. I am not aware about the contents of the affidavit (Vol. I know that the contents in the affidavit are regarding the accident case). At the time of signing the affidavit it was already typed.
Digitally MACT No. 317/2020 signed by Date of Award : 03.02.2026 MUKESH Ajay Sharma & Ors. Vs. Subham Dey & Ors. . Page No. 8/ 20.
MUKESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.02.04
10:30:27
+0530
There was no street light on the spot and even at the time of incident there was very dark. Both the boys riding on the motorcycle were of the similar age group and of the same physique. It is correct that the speed of motorcycle was very high approx. 60-70 KM/hr. It is correct that the boy who was pillion rider on the motorcycle had fallen on the footpath and another boy had fallen on the footpath at the distance of 2-3 meter. No media person was present on the spot at the time of accident and even not in my presence. I have not given any statement to the media persons. It is correct that two persons were riding on the motorcycle. One boy had expired and one boy had suffered grievous injuries. It is correct that the motorcycle, where both the boys were riding, was hit by another car. I cannot note down the number of the said car, as it was at a very high speed. An auto had come on the spot after 5-7 minutes of the incident. The police was called by the auto driver. It is correct that both boys were heavily drunkard. The police had reached on the spot after one to one and half hour of the incident. It is correct that the police had recorded my statement on the same day after accident. The police also took me to the hospital. I had identified both the boys in the hospital in front of the police officials. Police had not taken me again to the spot. I am not aware that whatever was written by the police in my statement. 2-3 times after the incident, father of the deceased met me. I had visited to the police station only one Digitally MACT No. 317/2020 signed by Date of Award : 03.02.2026 MUKESH Ajay Sharma & Ors. Vs. Subham Dey & Ors. . MUKESH KUMAR Page No. 9/ 20.
KUMAR Date:
2026.02.04
10:30:36
+0530
time to collect my aadhar card. The boy who was driving the motorcycle had expired in the incident. At this stage, the counsel for respondent No.1 shown the respondent No.1 to the witness who stated that I can not identify the respondent no. 1 as after the incident he was having lean/skinny physique and now he is very healthy......".
14. Petitioners also examined PW 3 IO SI Yad Ram in support of their case. The presence of the PW 2 at the spot at the time of accident in question is duly established. He is the eye- witness to the accident in question and on 27.09.2020, he was on his duty which start from 8:00 P.M. in the night till morning. He was doing his job outside the main gate, near main road, at about 11:05 P.M. in the night two boys came on a motorcycle bearing No. DL-6S-AK-1977 from Moti Nagar Chowk. The boy who was driving the motorcycle was driving in a zig-zac manner and in a very high speed and their motorcycle struck/hit in the footpath nearby to the bridge/flyover ahead of the main gate of A-Class Marble and both the boys fell down on the road. The boy who was the pillion rider fell down on the footpath and receive grievous injuries on his head and the boy who was driving the motorcycle fell down in the middle of the road.
15. It is an undisputed fact that FIR No. 620/2020, PS Moti Nagar was registered with regard to accident in question. Copy of said FIR (which is part of final report U/s 173 CrPC filed along with the DAR) would show that same was registered on 28.09.2020. 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 false involvement of Digitally signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2026.02.04 MACT No. 317/2020 10:30:45 Date of Award : 03.02.2026 +0530 Ajay Sharma & Ors. Vs. Subham Dey & Ors. . Page No. 10/ 20. aforesaid vehicle bearing No. DL6S-AK-1977 at the instance of petitioners herein.
16. Furthermore, PW 1 in his evidence has also placed reliance on the DAR, which is Ex.PW1/I which includes Final Report u/s 173 Cr.P.C; Copy of FIR; Rukka; Seizure memo of the vehicle; Seizure memo of documents of offending vehicle and copy of DL of its driver; Site plan of the place of accident; Mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle; MLC and Postmortem report of deceased; Notice u/s 133 M.V. Act given to the owner of the offending vehicle; Arrest memo of accused (respondent no.1 herein) and Statement of witnesses u/s 161 CrPC etc. Respondent no. 1 Shubham Dey (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 the rashness and negligence on the part of respondent no. 1 (driver of offending vehicle).
17. Respondent no. 1 and 2 also examined themselves as R1W1 and R2W1 but nothing new has come on record.
18. The provisions regarding awarding of compensation in motor accident cases are required to be construed liberally as provisions of motor Vehicle Act are benevolent and the factum of accident by rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle is proved even by preponderance of probabilities. 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 Mukul Sharma had sustained injuries in road accident which took place Digitally MACT No. 317/2020 signed by Date of Award : 03.02.2026 Ajay Sharma & Ors. Vs. Subham Dey & Ors. . MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR Page No. 11/ 20.
KUMAR Date:
2026.02.04
10:30:54
+0530
on 28.09.2020, due to the rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by the respondent no. 1. Accordingly, issue no.1 stands decided in favour of petitioner.
Issue No.2
19. 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 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
20. The present case pertains to the death of deceased Mukul Sharma. 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 :
21. PW1 Sh. Ajay Sharma (father of deceased) has deposed that his deceased son was aged about 21 years at the time of accident. He has filed and relied upon the copy of 10 th mark sheet (Ex.PW1/6), which shows date of birth of deceased as 16.07.1999. The same remains undisputed on the part of the Digitally signed by MACT No. 317/2020 MUKESH Date of Award : 03.02.2026 Ajay Sharma & Ors. Vs. Subham Dey & Ors. . MUKESH KUMAR Page No. 12/ 20.
KUMAR Date:
2026.02.04
10:31:07
+0530
respondents. Date of accident is 28.09.2020. As such, this fact stands concluded that age of the deceased was around 21 years at the time of accident.
Assessment of Income of deceased :
22. Petitioner/PW-1 Sh. Ajay Sharma (father of deceased) has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW1/A) that his deceased son was matriculate and as doing course from Noble Institute Designing & Solutions in Delhi and was very brilliant student. The Aadhar Cards of the deceased and legal heirs of deceased shows that their address is of U.P. Thus, for want of cogent and definite evidence being led by the petitioners with regard to the actual vocation and monthly income of the deceased, this Tribunal assesses the income of deceased to be at parity with minimum wages of skilled person in the Uttar Pradesh which at the time of accident i.e. 28.09.2020 were Rs. 10,627/- per month.
Application of Multiplier:
23. As held above, deceased was around 21 years of age at the time of accident. As per settled principle laid down in case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier as applicable to the age group between 21-25 years is 18.
Accordingly, multiplier to be applied in the present case would be 18.
Future Prospects:
24. On the day of accident, deceased was aged about 21 years. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the present matter, future prospects @ 40% has to be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of pronouncement made by the Apex Court in the case titled as "NIC Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017 ACJ2700 S.C)).
MACT No. 317/2020 Digitally signed Date of Award : 03.02.2026 by MUKESH Ajay Sharma & Ors. Vs. Subham Dey & Ors. . MUKESH KUMAR Page No. 13/ 20.
Date:
KUMAR 2026.02.04
10:31:16
+0530
Deduction towards Personal and Living Expenses:
25. 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. PW-1 Sh.
Ajay Sharma (father of deceased) has deposed that the deceased was the permanent source of income for his family, who was taking care of his siblings in addition to his parents. In the present matter, the age of deceased is about 21 years, who was unmarried at the time of accident.
26. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled as "Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121") held as under:-
"15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependent and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two- MACT No. 317/2020 Digitally signed Date of Award : 03.02.2026 Ajay Sharma & Ors. Vs. Subham Dey & Ors. . by MUKESH Page No. 14/ 20.
MUKESH KUMAR Date:
KUMAR 2026.02.04 10:31:24 +0530 third".
27. Hence, it is well settled that subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, all brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents. There is no cogent evidence available on record that petitioner no. 1 Ajay Sharma (father of deceased) was dependent on his deceased son. Further, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as settled propositions of law, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, brother and sisters of deceased cannot be considered as dependents. In such circumstances, only the mother of the deceased namely Smt. Arti Sharma (petitioner no. 2) would be considered to be a dependent and 50% of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses.
28. 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. 10,627/- 2. Add future prospect (B) @ 40% Rs. 4,250.8/-
3. Less 1/2 towards personal and living Rs. 7,438.9/-
expenses of the deceased (C)
4. Monthly loss of dependency (A+B)- Rs. 7,438.9/-
C=D
5. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs. 89,266.8/-
6. Multiplier (E) 187. Total loss of dependency Rs. 16,06,802.4/-
(Dx12xE=F)
29. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come Digitally MACT No. 317/2020 signed by Date of Award : 03.02.2026 Ajay Sharma & Ors. Vs. Subham Dey & Ors. . MUKESH MUKESH Page No. 15/ 20.
KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.02.04
10:31:33
+0530
out to Rs. 16,06,802.4/- (rounded off to Rs. 16,06,802/-) . Hence, a sum of Rs. 16,06,802/- (Rupees Sixteen Lacs Six Thousand Eight Hundred Two Only) is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
30. 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, the deceased has left behind two LRs, therefore, the petitioners/claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,32,000/- (48,000 X 2 + 18,000 + 18,000) under this head.
31. Considering the aforementioned factors, the total compensation is calculated as under:
S. No. Head Amount Awarded 1. Total loss of dependency Rs. 16,06,802/-
2. Compensation for loss of consortium Rs. 96,000/-
(48,000/- x 5)
3. Compensation for loss of estate Rs.18,000/-
4. Compensation for funeral expenses Rs.18,000/-
Total compensation Rs. 17,38,802/-
Digitally signed by MUKESHMUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.02.04 MACT No. 317/2020 10:31:40 +0530 Date of Award : 03.02.2026 Ajay Sharma & Ors. Vs. Subham Dey & Ors. . Page No. 16/ 20.
32. Thus, petitioners in this case shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 17,38,802/- (Rupees Seventeen Lacs Thirty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Two Only). INTEREST ON AWARD
33. Petitioners shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of petition i.e. 02.12.2020 till realization. LIABILITY
34. Now the question arises as to which of the respondent is liable to pay the compensation amount. The offending vehicle was without insurance at the time of accident.
In such circumstances, this Tribunal holds that the amount of compensation shall be payable by the respondent no. 1 and 2 driver and owner of the offending vehicle.. Relief
35. In view of my finding on issues no. 1 and 2, this Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs. 17,38,802/- (Rupees Seventeen Lacs Thirty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Two Only) to the petitioner/claimant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum in favour of petitioners w.e.f. date of filing of DAR i.e 02.12.2020 till realization, to be paid by the respondent no. 1 and
2. 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. 1 and 2 are 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. 1 and 2 are also directed to Digitally signed by MUKESH MACT No. 317/2020 MUKESH KUMAR Date of Award : 03.02.2026 Ajay Sharma & Ors. Vs. Subham Dey & Ors. . KUMAR Date:
2026.02.04 Page No. 17/ 20.
10:31:48
+0530
give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioners.
Apportionment
36. Statements of petitioners in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP were recorded on 25.01.2025 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. Ajay Sharma Father Rs. 48,000/-
2. Arti Sharma Mother Rs. 16,90,802/-
Disbursement of Award Amount
37. In view of the aforesaid, it is hereby ordered that out of total compensation amount, the petitioner no. 1 namely Ajay Sharma shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 48,000/- (Rupees Forty Eight Thousand Only) alongwith proportionate interest; the petitioner no. 2 namely Smt. Arti Sharma shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 16,90,802/- (Rupees Sixteen Lacs Ninety Thousand Eight hundred and Two Only) alongwith proportionate interest.
38. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the said statement, it is hereby ordered that the entire award amount of Rs. 48,000/- (Rupees Forty Eight Thousand Only) alongwith interest be released to the petitioner no. 1 Sh. Ajay Sharma.
39. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 2 Aarti Sharma, a sum of Rs. 2,90,802/- (Rupees Two Lacs ninety Thousand Eight hundred and Two Only) shall be immediately released to her through her MACT saving bank account and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be MACT No. 317/2020 Digitally signed Date of Award : 03.02.2026 by MUKESH Ajay Sharma & Ors. Vs. Subham Dey & Ors. . KUMAR Page No. 18/ 20.
MUKESH Date:
KUMAR 2026.02.04
10:31:56
+0530
kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 50,000/- each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
40. The amount of FDRs on maturity shall directly be released in petitioners' MACT Saving Bank Account.
41. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:-
(a) 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.
(b) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(c) 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.
(d) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
42. Respondent no. 2 i.e. Royal Sundarum General Insurance Co. Ltd., 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 MACT saving bank accounts, as per the award, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
43. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph, specimen signature, copy of bank passbook and copy of Digitally signed MACT No. 317/2020 by MUKESH KUMAR Date of Award : 03.02.2026 Ajay Sharma & Ors. Vs. Subham Dey & Ors. . MUKESH Date: Page No. 19/ 20.
KUMAR 2026.02.04
10:32:04
+0530
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.
44. Form XV and Form XVII in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A.
45. A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir .
46. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost.
47. 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 Digitally signed (MCTAP). MUKESH by MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2026.02.04 10:32:09 +0530 Announced in the open Court (MUKESH KUMAR) On February 03, 2026. PO-MACT-02, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
MACT No. 317/2020 Date of Award : 03.02.2026 Ajay Sharma & Ors. Vs. Subham Dey & Ors. . Page No. 20/ 20.