Delhi District Court
Geeta Lrs Of Dec. Jagmohan vs Deen Mohd on 20 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010057202020
MACT No. : 395/2020
FIR No. : 211/2019
PS : Timarpur
u/s : 279/304 A IPC
1. Smt. Geeta
W/o Sh. Jagmohan
2. Smt. Vaishali
D/o Sh. Jagmohan
3. Ms. Simran
D/o Sh. Jagmohan
4. Ms. Dimpy
D/o Sh. Jagmohan
5. Ms. Preeti
D/o Sh. Jagmohan
6. Smt. Sulekha
W/o Sh. Surender
All R/o G-38, Balmiki Sadan, Mandir Marg,
New Delhi.
...PETITIONERS
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.09.20
15:58:26 +0530
MACT No.395/2020 Geeta & Ors. Vs. Deen Mohd. & Anr. Page 1 of 39
VERSUS
1. Deen Mohmad (Driver)
S/o Hakimuddin
R/o N-90/137, Shaym Basti,
Timarpur, Delhi
...RESPONDENT NO. 1
2.Sh. Hukum Singh (Owner)
S/o Sh. Jagan Singh,
R/o 4/1682, Kucha Jaimal,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi.
...RESPONDENT NO. 2
Date of filing of DAR : 18.09.2020
Judgment reserved on : 11.09.2025
Date of Award : 20.09.2025
AWAR D
1. In the present matter, DAR was filed by the IO on
18.09.2020 which was treated as a claim petition. The Road Traffic
Accident in question took place on 15.11.2019 at about 09:30 PM at
Tikona Park, Chaudhary Fateh Singh Marg, Timarpur, Delhi. Sh.
Jagmohan had expired in the said accident which was allegedly caused
by vehicle i.e. motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-13SB 1100.
(hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) The said vehicle was
being driven by respondent No.1 Deen Mohmmad and owned by
respondent no. 2 Sh. Hukum Singh. The offending vehicle was insured.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that on Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.09.20 15:58:36 +0530 MACT No.395/2020 Geeta & Ors. Vs. Deen Mohd. & Anr. Page 2 of 39 18.09.2020, on receipt of information of an accident vide DD No.27A, the information of present accident was handed over to SI Devender who went at the spot i.e. Tikona Park, Chaudhary Fateh Singh Marg, Timarpur, Delhi. When he reached there, he found two vehicles in an accidental condition. After interrogation he came to know that the injured were taken to hospital Trauma Center Civil Lines. After some time, Ct. Anuj also reached at the spot and after leaving Ct. Anuj at the spot, IO went to the hospital and collected MLCs No. 14172/19 and 14170/19. Doctor declared the patient of MLC No. 14172/19 as "brought dead" and patient of MLC No. 14170/19 as "unfit for statement".
3. No eyewitness was present in the hospital. Thereafter, dead body was preserved in the Mortuary. IO again reached at the spot and got the photographs done by the Crime Team. Further, FIR was registered on the basis of MLC & PCR Call u/s 279/337/304A IPC. Thereafter, IO prepared site plan of the spot and deposited the accidental vehicle in the Malkhana. Further, IO got the dead body identified from the deceased's nephew and got conducted the post mortem. Thereafter, IO handed over the dead body to the relatives of the deceased. Thereafter, IO got conducted the mechanical inspection of both the accidental vehicles. Further, IO reached at the hospital, where he came to know that the injured vide MLC No. 14170/19 had absconded from the hospital.
4. Thereafter, investigation was marked to MACT Cell SI Omveer Singh. IO searched for the absconded person vide MLC No. Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.09.20 15:58:46 +0530 MACT No.395/2020 Geeta & Ors. Vs. Deen Mohd. & Anr. Page 3 of 39 14170/19. Thereafter, IO recorded the statement of PCR caller. Thereafter, IO took the ownership of both the vehicles and served notice u/s 133 MV Act. After searching, IO found one eyewitness and recorded the statement. Thereafter, reply to u/s 133 MV Act was filed by the owner of the offending vehicle and driver of the offending vehicle was produced before the IO and he said that at the time of accident this person was driving his vehicle. He disclosed his name as Deen Mohamad. IO arrested him and released him on bail.
5. Owner handed over the RC of the offending vehicle to the IO and driver did not produce his DL to the IO. Upon this IO added the offence under Section 3/181 MV Act. Thereafter, IO took the result of the MLC No. 14170/19 of Deen Mohd. from the hospital, on which Doctor declared that he had absconded from the hospital and alcohol smell present at that time. Then, IO added Section 185 MV Act against Deen Mohd. Further, IO received the Post Mortem report. Owner did not produce any insurance of the offending vehicle. On this, IO prepared Kalandra against owner of the offending vehicle u/s 5/180, 146/196 MV Act. Thereafter, IO filed charge sheet against Deen Mohd. u/s 279/304 A IPC & 3/181, 185 MV Act and DAR was filed before this court.
6. No WS was filed by the respondent no. 1 and 2 despite repeated opportunities. Hence, their defence was struck off vide order dated 26.08.2021. Hence, PE was lead.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
7. The petitioners examined Smt. Geeta as PW1. She tendered Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.09.20 MACT No.395/2020 Geeta & Ors. Vs. Deen Mohd. & Anr. Page 4 of 39 15:58:55 +0530 her evidence as Ex. PW-1/A which bears her signatures at point A & B. She also relied upon the following documents:
1. DAR which is Ex. PW-1/1. (colly)
2. Copy of I-Card of her deceased husband which is Ex. PW-1/2 in her affidavit stands de-exhibited being photocopy and marked as Mark PW-1/B.
3. Salary Slip of her deceased husband is Ex. PW-1/3.
4. Copies of her Aadhar Card as well as Aadhar Cards of other petitioners are Ex. Pw-1/4. (OSR 3 pages).
8. Thereafter, Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Dealing Assistant, NDMC was examined as PW-2. He was the summoned witness in the present case. He had brought the entire summoned record i.e. Service record and last drawn salary for the month of November, 2019 of Lt. Sh. Jagmohan. Attested copy of the same are Ex.PW-2/1 (colly 29 pages) and Ex. PW-2/2 respectively. As per service record the deceased Jagmohan had joined the service on 19.01.1996 and his retirement date was 31.08.2030. He had also brought consolidated statement of the salary for April 2017 to March 2020 which is Ex. PW-2/3 (colly 3 pages).
9. Further, the petitioners examined PW-3/ Ali Mohd. He was the summoned witness in the present case.he stated that on 15.11.2019 at about 09:30 pm he was standing outside his house at main road. He saw Deen Mohd. coming from Mal Road Side towards him by driving Apache motorcycle from wrong side in the negligent manner. In the mean time, the deceased Sh. Jagmohan was also coming from Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.09.20 15:59:04 +0530 MACT No.395/2020 Geeta & Ors. Vs. Deen Mohd. & Anr. Page 5 of 39 Wazirabad Side and was hit by Deen Mohd. Both fell on the road and received injuries and he took them to the Trauma Center by auto. Later he came to know that Sh. Jagmohan has died in the hospital. Due to lapse of time he had forgotten the motor cycle number as well as scooty number.
10. The respondents did not conduct cross examination of any of the witnesses. Thereafter, PE was closed vide order dt. 08.08.2025. As the defence of the respondents is already struck off, no opportunity was granted to them to lead their evidence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
11. The Petitioners filed their duly filled Form XIII and financial statement was recorded. Final arguments were heard on behalf of the petitioner. No arguments were advanced on behalf of the respondents.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
12. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. My findings are as under:-
Accident
13. It is the case of the petitioners that on 15.11.2019, when the deceased was going on his scooty at about 09:30 PM at Tikona Park, Chaudhary Fateh Singh Marg, Timarpur, Delhi Rohtak Road, the offending vehicle hit the scooty from wrong side side due to which the scooty fell and the deceased sustained injuries. Subsequent to the said Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA 15:59:12 Date: 2025.09.20 +0530 MACT No.395/2020 Geeta & Ors. Vs. Deen Mohd. & Anr. Page 6 of 39 accident, the deceased expired. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that when the police reached at the spot, the scooty and the offending vehicle were found by the IO in an accidental condition. The present respondent no. 1 has been charge sheeted by the IO in the criminal case under Section 279/304 A IPC. The petitioners have also examined the eye witness of the accident PW3 Ali Mohd. Hence, it is argued that it is proved that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1.
14. Record perused.
15. As pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, the scooty of the deceased and the offending vehicle were seized by the IO from the spot after the accident. The petitioners have also examined the eye witness of the accident PW3 Ali Mohd. He has categorically deposed in the court that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.1. Further, perusal of the notice under Section 133 MV Act which is part of the DAR Ex. PW-1/1 also shows that the respondent no. 2 gave it to writing to the IO that the accident was caused by the respondent no. 1. Further, it is settled law that the petitioner cannot be expected to prove the accident beyond reasonable doubts and the principle of res ipsa loquitor should apply which means that the "accident speaks for itself". Thus, once it has been established in DAR and chargesheet that the accident had taken place, the burden shifts on the respondents to prove that they were not responsible for the accident which the respondents have failed to discharge. Hence, an adverse inference is drawn against the respondents.
Digitally signed byRUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA 15:59:21 Date: 2025.09.20 MACT No.395/2020 Geeta & Ors. Vs. Deen Mohd. & Anr. Page 7 of 39 +0530 In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the cases of Teja Singh Vs Suman & Ors., MAC. APP. 1111/2018 & CM APPL. 52384/2018, 52386/2018, date of decision 06/12/2019; MAC. APP. 428/2018, titled as The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamla Devi & Ors, date of decision 08.11.2019 and MAC. APP. 690/2017 & CM APPL. 28108/2017, titled as Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mona & Ors., date of decision 15.10.2019, which had relied upon the judgment in the case of Cholamandalam Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamlesh 2009(3) AD Delhi 310.
16. Further, in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepak Goel & Ors, 2014 (2) TAC 846 (Del) decided by the Coordinate Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it was held as under :-
"......where the claimants filed either the certified copies of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of investigation by police or issuance of charge sheet under Section 279/304A IPC or the certified copy of FIR or the recovery of the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, then these documents are sufficient proof to reach to a conclusion that the driver was negligent particularly when there is no defence available from the side of driver."
17. Reliance is also being placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meera Devi, 2021 LawSuit (Del) wherein it was held that "......in view of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008, contents of DAR has to be presumed to be correct and read in evidence without formal Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.09.20 15:59:30 +0530 MACT No.395/2020 Geeta & Ors. Vs. Deen Mohd. & Anr. Page 8 of 39 proof of the same unless proof to the contrary was produced."
18. It also has to be considered that in the present matter, the incident of the accident cannot be denied. It is pertinent to mention here that in the proceedings before the claims tribunal, the facts are to be established on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and not by the strict rules of evidence or the higher standard of beyond reasonable doubt as required in criminal cases. The burden of proof in the present cases is much lower than as placed in civil or criminal cases. In Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors (2009) 13 SC 530, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that negligence must be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view must be adopted in reaching a conclusion.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 5 SCC 656 has laid down in paragraphs 27 & 28:
"27. ...This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina Fernandes, noted that the key of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the judgments already adverted to by us, filing of charge- sheet against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opined that the Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.09.20 15:59:38 +0530 MACT No.395/2020 Geeta & Ors. Vs. Deen Mohd. & Anr. Page 9 of 39 same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
28. Reliance placed upon the decisions in Minu B. Mehta and Meena Variyal, by the respondents, in our opinion, is of no avail. The dictum in these cases is on the matter in issue in the case concerned. Similarly, even the dictum in Surender Kumar Arora will be of no avail. In the present case, considering the entirety of the pleadings, evidence and circumstances on record and in particular the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the factum of negligence of Respondent 2, the driver of the offending jeep, the High Court committed manifest error in taking a contrary view which, in our opinion, is an error apparent on the face of record and manifestly wrong."
20. In view of the same, considering the facts and circumstances, the unrebutted testimony of the eye witness and the documents filed thereto, the court is satisfied that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1. From the DAR, it also stands established that respondent no. 2 was the registered owner of the offending vehicle.
The injury:
21. It is a matter of record that the deceased expired subsequent to the accident. The copy of his MLC is part of the DAR which is Ex.PW-1/1. Perusal of the MLC bearing no. 14172/19 shows that the deceased was brought at Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi on 15.11.2019 at about 10.24 pm and he was declared brought dead. His post mortem Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.09.20 15:59:47 +0530 MACT No.395/2020 Geeta & Ors. Vs. Deen Mohd. & Anr. Page 10 of 39 report dated 16.11.2019 is on record, as per which he had suffered multiple injuries. It has been opined that he expired due to cranio cerebral damage consequent upon blunt force trauma, which are possible in a road traffic accident. In view of the same, it is proved on record that the deceased expired subsequent to a road traffic accident.
22. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the opinion that on the scales of preponderance of probabilities, the petitioner has proved that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle being driven by its driver/respondent no. 1 on the date and time of the accident and that due to the said accident, the injured Jagmohan unfortunately expired.
Compensation
23. In view of the observations as given above, the petitioners are entitled for compensation. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of "Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors." (2003) 6 SCC 121 has held : -
"QUA BASIC PRINCIPLES "9. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death :-
(a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased;
and the (c) the number of dependents. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the deceased. If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA 15:59:54 Date: 2025.09.20 +0530 MACT No.395/2020 Geeta & Ors. Vs. Deen Mohd. & Anr. Page 11 of 39 consistency in the decisions. There will lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay. To have uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well settled steps :
Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step 3 (Actual calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the `loss of dependency' to the family. Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of 5,000/- to 10,000/- should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also added."
QUA ADDITIONS Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA 16:00:02 Date: 2025.09.20 +0530 MACT No.395/2020 Geeta & Ors. Vs. Deen Mohd. & Anr. Page 12 of 39 "11. ..................... In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. [Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words `actual salary' should be read as `actual salary less tax']. The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years.
There should be no addition, where the age of deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances."
QUA DEDUCTIONS "14. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one- fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six.
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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.09.20 16:00:11 +0530 MACT No.395/2020 Geeta & Ors. Vs. Deen Mohd. & Anr. Page 13 of 39 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- third."
QUA MULTIPLIER "21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."
24. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its Constitution Bench decision in matter of "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." (2017) 16 SCC 680 held as under : -
"58. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be no addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept. We are disposed to think, there should be an addition of 15% if the deceased is between the age of 50 to 60 years and there should be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in case of self- employed or person on fixed salary, the addition should be 10% between Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.09.20 16:00:20 +0530 MACT No.395/2020 Geeta & Ors. Vs. Deen Mohd. & Anr. Page 14 of 39 the age of 50 to 60 years. The aforesaid yardstick has been fixed so that there can be consistency in the approach by the tribunals and the Courts.
59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi 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 has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, 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 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 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA 16:00:27 Date: 2025.09.20 +0530 MACT No.395/2020 Geeta & Ors. Vs. Deen Mohd. & Anr. Page 15 of 39 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 three years."
Loss of income
25. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was working as a Sawai Karamchari with NDMC. To prove the same the petitioner summoned PW-2 Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma from NDMC who proved on record the Service record and last drawn salary for the month of November, 2019 of Lt. Sh. Jagmohan. Attested copy of the same are Ex.PW-2/1 (colly 29 pages) and Ex. PW-2/2 respectively. He had also brought consolidated statement of the salary for April 2017 to March 2020 which is Ex. PW-2/3 (colly 3 pages).
26. Perusal of the salary slip Ex. PW-2/2 shows that his gross income for November 2019 was Rs. 52,209/-. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 held that for calculating compensation, the income of the victim less the income tax should be treated as the actual income. Further, in case titled as Universal Sompo General Insurance vs Sh. Dinesh Kumar Singh & Ors MAC.APP. 106/2025 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 9 June, 2025, it has been observed that the Tribunal must deduct applicable income tax and other permissible statutory deductions from the gross income of the deceased while computing compensation payable to the petitioner. It was observed that:
"13. The learned Tribunal after a perusal of the salary Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.09.20 MACT No.395/2020 Geeta & Ors. Vs. Deen Mohd. & Anr. Page 16 of 39 16:00:35 +0530 slips and testimony of PW-2 who proved the said salary slips assessed the income of the deceased at ₹34,300/- per month. Thereby his gross annual income would be ₹4,11,600/-. The said income undoubtedly would be subject to tax as applicable at the relevant time. Thus, the learned Tribunal in the opinion of this Court ought to have considered the applicable tax and its deduction for the purpose of assessing the income of the deceased.
15. Even though the gross income of ₹4,11,600/- is subject to payment of tax under the relevant slab, however, the assessee is also entitled to benefit of standard deduction and other benefits as available to the tax payers."
27. In the present case, perusal of the salary statement of the deceased shows that his statuary deductions as shown in the same are Rs. 12,730/- which is inclusive of income tax. A sum of Rs. 25,592/- is deducted towards recovery of pay, which is not a standard deduction. Hence, his net income shall be Rs. 39,479/-. Hence, his monthly income is assessed to be Rs. 39,479/-.
Age determination of the deceased:
28. As per the service record of the deceased Ex.PW2/1, his date of birth was 21.08.1970. The date of the accident is 15.11.2019. Hence, as on the date of the accident, the deceased was aged 49 years.
Future Prospects: -
29. In view of the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors; (2017) 16 SCC 680, it was Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.09.20 16:00:43 +0530 MACT No.395/2020 Geeta & Ors. Vs. Deen Mohd. & Anr. Page 17 of 39 observed that the Claimants would also be entitled to 25% for future prospects. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased needs to be taken as Rs. 49,348.75 (rounded off to Rs. 49,349/-) (Rs. 39,479/- + Rs.9,869.75 which is 25% of Rs. 39,479/-).
Determination of Dependent
30. In the present case, the deceased is survived by his wife, his mother and 4 daughters. One daughter Vaishali was already married at the time of the accident. Another daughter Simran is stated to be married a month ago.
Determination of multiplicand
31. The monthly income of the deceased after enhancement needs to be taken as Rs. 49,349/-. In light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur & Ors., (2021) 11 SCC 780 , out of the above amount so assessed, 1/4th amount has to be deducted on account of personal and living expenses as the number of dependent family members is 1. So, in this matter, monthly loss of dependency would come out to be Rs. 37,011.75 (75% of Rs. 49,349/-). This needs to be multiplied by 12 to workout multiplicand/annual loss of dependency. Hence, multiplicand for this matter would be Rs.4,44,141/- ( Rs. 37,011.75 x 12).
Award Towards Loss of Dependency Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.09.20 16:00:52 +0530 MACT No.395/2020 Geeta & Ors. Vs. Deen Mohd. & Anr. Page 18 of 39
32. Further, as the deceased was 49 years of age at the time of the accident, multiplier applicable in this matter as per above discussion would be 13. The total loss of dependency would come out to be Rs.57,73,833/- (Rs.4,44,141/- x 13), hence, so awarded.
Medical expenses:
33. The petitioners have not filed any medical bills on record. Hence, in the absence of any medical bills, the petitioners shall not be entitled to any amount towards medical expenses.
Non-Pecuniary Heads:-
34. The Respondents/Claimants shall be entitled to the compensation under Non-Pecuniary Heads in terms of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi And Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. The case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) was considered and clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 9581/2018 decided on 18.09.2018 whereby after considering the case of Pranay Sethi's (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to award loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/- to each dependent of the deceased and further pleased to award a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to each dependent of the deceased towards loss of love and affection. The relevant portion is as under:
"...... A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of Consortium. Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.09.20 16:01:00 +0530 MACT No.395/2020 Geeta & Ors. Vs. Deen Mohd. & Anr. Page 19 of 39 In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses 'spousal consortium', 'parental consortium', and 'filial consortium'.
The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse.
Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation."
Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training."
Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.
Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognized that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.09.20 16:01:09 +0530 MACT No.395/2020 Geeta & Ors. Vs. Deen Mohd. & Anr. Page 20 of 39 child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium.
Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act.
A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium.
The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under 'Loss of Consortium' as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra).
In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs.40,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium.....".
35. However, in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur 2020 SCC Online SC 410 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that there is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head. The relevant portion of the observations are reproduced as under:
"...... The amount to be awarded for loss consortium will be as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra). At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide uniformity with respect to the grant of consortium, and loss of love and affection. Several Tribunals and High Courts have been awarding compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), has recognized only three conventional heads under which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.09.20 16:01:16 +0530 MACT No.395/2020 Geeta & Ors. Vs. Deen Mohd. & Anr. Page 21 of 39 spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in loss of consortium.
The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to award compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate conventional head. There is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head...".
36. In the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), it was held that in the case of death, Rs.15,000/- is liable to be paid towards the loss of estate and funeral charges each, while Rs.40,000/- was payable towards the loss of consortium to each legal heir and the same may be enhanced by 10% every three years.
37. In the present case, the accident is of 2019 and the Award was passed in 2025. Thus, an amount of Rs. 18,150/- is granted towards the Loss of Estate and Rs. 18,150/- towards funeral charges.
38. Further, Rs. 48,400/- each is granted to the petitioners i.e. total of Rs. 48,400 x 6 = Rs. 2,90,400/- towards Loss of Consortium.
Computation of compensation:
39. Applying the settled guidelines in the various judgments, the compensation payable to the petitioners is calculated as under:
Sr. Head Awarded by the Claims No. Tribunal 1 Monthly Income of deceased (A) Rs. 39,479/- Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA 16:01:24 Date: 2025.09.20 +0530 MACT No.395/2020 Geeta & Ors. Vs. Deen Mohd. & Anr. Page 22 of 39 2 Add future prospect (B) @ 25%= Rs.9,869.75 3 Less 1/4 deductions towards (Rs. 39,479/- + Rs.9,869.75) =
personal and living expenses of Rs. 49,349/- x 25% = Rs.
the deceased (C) 12,337.25
4 Monthly loss of dependency Rs. 49,349/- - Rs 12,337.25 =
[(A+B) - C = D] Rs. 37,011.75
5 Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 37,011.75 x 12 =
(D x 12)
Rs.4,44,141/-
6 Multiplier (E) 13
7 Total loss of dependency (Rs.4,44,141/- x 13)=
DxE=F Rs.57,73,833/-
8 Medical Expenses (G) Nil
9 Compensation for loss of love Nil.
and affection (H)
10 Compensation for loss of Rs. 48,400 x 6 = Rs. 2,90,400/-
consortium (I) to both the
petitioners
11 Compensation for loss of Estate Rs. 18,150/-
(J)
12 Compensation for funeral Rs. 18,150/-
expenses (K)
13 Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 61,00,533/-
40. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld awarding of 9% interest per annum. Therefore, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.09.20 16:01:31 +0530 MACT No.395/2020 Geeta & Ors. Vs. Deen Mohd. & Anr. Page 23 of 39 per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 18.09.2020 till realization.
Apportionment:
41. It is evident from the record that the deceased had left behind his wife, his mother and four daughters as his legal heirs. For the sake of convenience, the individual shares of the dependents of the deceased are tabulated as under:-
S.N Name of the Relation Age Amount in Amount after o claimant with (Rupees) including interest deceased
1. Smt. Geeta Wife 52 Rs. 27,73,833/- + Rs. 28,58,533/- + Rs. 48,400/- + Rs. Rs. 12,88,454.38 = 18,150/- + Rs. Rs. 41,46,987.38 18,150/- = Rs. (rounded off to Rs.
28,58,533/- 41,46,988/-)
2. Smt. Mother 73 Rs. 10,00,000/- + Rs. 10,48,400/- +
Sulekha Rs. 48,400/- = Rs. Rs. 4,72,555.53 =
10,48,400/- Rs. 15,20,955.53
(rounded off to Rs.
15,20,956/-)
3. Smt. Daughter 33 Rs. 2,00,000/- + Rs. 2,48,400/- +
Vaishali Rs. 48,400/- = Rs. Rs. 1,11,963.75 =
2,48,400/- Rs. 3,60,363.75
(rounded off to Rs.
3,60,364/-)
4. Ms. Simran Daughter 28 Rs. 6,00,000/- + Rs. 6,48,400/- +
Rs. 48,400/- = Rs. Rs. 2,92,259.64 =
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.09.20
16:01:39 +0530
MACT No.395/2020 Geeta & Ors. Vs. Deen Mohd. & Anr. Page 24 of 39
6,48,400/- Rs. 9,40,659.64
(rounded off to Rs.
9,40,660/-)
5. Ms. Dimpy Daughter 22 Rs. 6,00,000/- + Rs. 6,48,400/- +
Rs. 48,400/- = Rs. Rs. 2,92,259.64 =
6,48,400/- Rs. 9,40,659.64
(rounded off to Rs.
9,40,660/-)
6. Ms. Preeti Daughter 19 Rs. 6,00,000/- + Rs. 6,48,400/- +
Rs. 48,400/- = Rs. Rs. 2,92,259.64 =
6,48,400/- Rs. 9,40,659.64
(rounded off to Rs.
9,40,660/-)
DISBURSEMENT
42. The Financial Statement of petitioner/injured was recorded by this Court/Tribunal. As per the said statement, the monthly expenses of his family are approximately Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- per month.
43. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh Tyagi & Ors.
Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors. has given the following directions:
(i)The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA 16:01:46 Date: 2025.09.20 +0530 MACT No.395/2020 Geeta & Ors. Vs. Deen Mohd. & Anr. Page 25 of 39 containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimants. 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 claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque books and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and the claimant shall produced the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court for compliance."
44. However, in a recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal on 18 March, 2025 in S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020 has held that :
"17. The case in hand pertains to the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. The general practice followed by the insurance companies, where the compensation is not Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.09.20 16:01:53 +0530 MACT No.395/2020 Geeta & Ors. Vs. Deen Mohd. & Anr. Page 26 of 39 disputed, is to deposit the same before the Tribunal. Instead of following that process, a direction can always be issued to transfer the amount into the bank account(s) of the claimant(s) with intimation to the Tribunal.
17.1 For that purpose, the Tribunals at the initial stage of pleadings or at the stage of leading evidence may require the claimant(s) to furnish their bank account particulars to the Tribunal along with the requisite proof, so that at the stage of passing of the award the Tribunal may direct that the amount of compensation be transferred in the account of the claimant and if there are more than one then in their respective accounts. If there is no bank account, then they should be required to open the bank account either individually or jointly with family members only. It should also be mandated that, in case there is any change in the bank account particulars of the claimant(s) during the pendency of the claim petition they should update the same before the Tribunal. This should be ensured before passing of the final award. It may be ensured that the bank account should be in the name of the claimant(s) and if minor, through guardian(s) and in no case it should be a joint account with any person, who is not a family member. The transfer of the amount in the bank account, particulars of which have been furnished by the claimant(s), as mentioned in the award, shall be treated as satisfaction of the award. Intimation of compliance should be furnished to the Tribunal."Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.09.20 16:02:01 +0530 MACT No.395/2020 Geeta & Ors. Vs. Deen Mohd. & Anr. Page 27 of 39
45. In view of the same, the award amount can now be disbursed in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioners. However, the remaining directions as passed by the Hon'ble High Court shall be complied with.
Smt. Geeta (wife):
46. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners, it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 88,50,288/-, out of the share of the petitioner/wife Rs. 41,46,988/- (Rupees Forty One Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Eight Only), Rs.6,46,988/- shall be released to the petitioner/wife immediately in her Bank Account No.605210110003303 IFSC Code BKID0006052, Branch Mandir Marg, Bank of India.
47. The balance amount of Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) shall be put in 100 monthly fixed deposits in her name in her account as mentioned above of equal amount of Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 100 months respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in her saving account maintained in a nationalized bank situated near the place of her residence.
Smt. Vaishali (daughter):
48. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners, it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 88,50,288/-, out Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.09.20 16:02:09 +0530 MACT No.395/2020 Geeta & Ors. Vs. Deen Mohd. & Anr. Page 28 of 39 of the share of the petitioner Rs. 3,60,364/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Four Only), the entire amount shall be released to the petitioner immediately in her Bank Account on furnishing of her bank account details.
Ms. Simran
49. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners, it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 88,50,288/-, out of the share of the petitioner Rs. 9,40,660/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Forty Thousand Six Hundred Sixty only), Rs. 1,40,660/- shall be released to the petitioner immediately in her Bank Account No.6052100110003317 IFSC Code BKID0006052 Branch Mandir Marg, Bank of India.
50. The balance amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) shall be put in 32 monthly fixed deposits in her name in her account as mentioned above of equal amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 32 months respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in her saving account maintained in a nationalized bank situated near the place of her residence.
Ms. Dimpy
51. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners, it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 88,50,288/-, out of the share of the petitioner Rs. 9,40,660/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Forty Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.09.20 16:02:18 +0530 MACT No.395/2020 Geeta & Ors. Vs. Deen Mohd. & Anr. Page 29 of 39 Thousand Six Hundred Sixty only), Rs. 1,40,660/- shall be released to the petitioner immediately in her Bank Account No.32901232374 IFSC Code SBIN0013183 Branch Gole Market, State Bank of India.
52. The balance amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) shall be put in 32 monthly fixed deposits in her name in her account as mentioned above of equal amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 32 months respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in her saving account maintained in a nationalized bank situated near the place of her residence.
Ms. Preeti
53. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners, it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 88,50,288/-, out of the share of the petitioner Rs. 9,40,660/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Forty Thousand Six Hundred Sixty only), Rs. 1,40,660/- shall be released to the petitioner immediately in her Bank Account No.34459589364 IFSC Code SBIN0013183 Branch Gole Market, State Bank of India.
54. The balance amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) shall be put in 32 monthly fixed deposits in her name in her account as mentioned above of equal amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 32 months respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.09.20 MACT No.395/2020 Geeta & Ors. Vs. Deen Mohd. & Anr. 16:02:27 +0530 Page 30 of 39 contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in her saving account maintained in a nationalized bank situated near the place of her residence.
Smt. Sulekha (mother):
55. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners, it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 88,50,288/-, out of the share of the petitioner/mother Rs. 15,20,956/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Twenty Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Six Only), Rs.5,20,956/- shall be released to the petitioner immediately in her Bank Account on furnishing of her bank account details.
56. The balance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) shall be put in 40 monthly fixed deposits in her name in her account as mentioned above of equal amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 40 months respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in her saving account maintained in a nationalized bank situated near the place of her residence.
57. In compliance of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award in the prescribed Format-XVI is as under:
Digitally signedRUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.09.20 16:02:35 +0530 MACT No.395/2020 Geeta & Ors. Vs. Deen Mohd. & Anr. Page 31 of 39 SUMMARY OF AWARD:
Date of Accident: 15.11.2019
Name of the deceased: Jagmohan
Age of the deceased: 49 years
Occupation of the deceased: Safai Karamchari
Income of the
deceased : Rs. 39,479/-
Name and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No Name of the claimant Relation with deceased Age 1. Smt. Geeta Wife 52 2. Smt. Sulekha Mother 73 3. Smt. Vaishali Daughter 33 4. Ms. Simran Daughter 28 5. Ms. Dimpy Daughter 22 6. Ms. Preeti Daughter 19 COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION Sr. Head Awarded by the Claims Tribunal No. 1 Monthly Income of deceased Rs. 39,479/-
(A) 2 Add future prospect (B) @ 25%= Rs.9,869.75 3 Less 1/4 deductions towards (Rs. 39,479/- + Rs.9,869.75) = Rs.
personal and living expenses of 49,349/- x 25% = Rs. 12,337.25 the deceased (C) Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.09.20 16:02:42 +0530 MACT No.395/2020 Geeta & Ors. Vs. Deen Mohd. & Anr. Page 32 of 39 4 Monthly loss of dependency Rs. 49,349/- - Rs 12,337.25 = Rs.
[(A+B) - C = D] 37,011.75
5 Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 37,011.75 x 12 = Rs.4,44,141/-
(D x 12)
6 Multiplier (E) 13
7 Total loss of dependency (Rs. 4,44,141/- x 13)=
DxE=F Rs.57,73,833/-
8 Medical Expenses (G) Nil
9 Compensation for loss of love Nil.
and affection (H)
10 Compensation for loss of Rs. 48,400 x 6 = Rs. 2,90,400/-
consortium (I) to both the
petitioners
11 Compensation for loss of Rs. 18,150/-
Estate (J)
12 Compensation for funeral Rs. 18,150/-
expenses (K)
13 Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 61,00,533/-
14 Rate of Interest Awarded 9%
15 Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 27,49,755/-
award w.e.f. 18.09.2020 till
realization
16 Total amount including interest Rs. 88,50,288/-
17 Award amount released As per paragraph No.46 to 56
18 Award amount kept in FDRs As per paragraph No. 47,50,52,54
& 56
19 Mode of disbursement of the As per paragraph No.46 to 56
award amount to the
claimant(s)
20 Next Date of compliance of the 25.10.2025
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.09.20
MACT No.395/2020 Geeta & Ors. Vs. Deen Mohd. & Anr. Page 33 of 39
16:02:50 +0530
award
LIABILITY:
58. It has been established that the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1 and that respondent no.2 is the owner of the same and the offending vehicle was uninsured. Hence, the respondents no. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners.
RELIEF:
59. In view of the above, the respondents no. 1 &2 are jointly and severally directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 61,00,533/- (Rupees Sixty One Lakhs Five Hundred Thirty Three only) along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. w.e.f. 18.09.2020 till realization with the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the claimants, failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay interest @ 12 % per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days. Reliance placed on case titled as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
60. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurance company for compliance within the time granted as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.09.20 16:02:57 +0530 MACT No.395/2020 Geeta & Ors. Vs. Deen Mohd. & Anr. Page 34 of 39 Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. The said respondent is further directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the deposit with a copy to the Claimant and his counsel.
Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost.
Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on 25.10.2025 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
Further, Civil Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.09.20 16:03:05 +0530 MACT No.395/2020 Geeta & Ors. Vs. Deen Mohd. & Anr. Page 35 of 39 date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed byRUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.09.20 16:03:13 +0530 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
20.09.2025 MACT No.395/2020 Geeta & Ors. Vs. Deen Mohd. & Anr. Page 36 of 39 THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL MOTOR VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022 (PL. SEE RULE 150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 15.11.2019 2 Date of filing of Form-I -
First Accident Report 16.12.2019
(FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II
Not attached
to the victim(s)
4 Date of receipt of Form-III
Not attached
from the Driver
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV
from the Owner Not attached
6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the insurance Not attached
of the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-
VIA and Form VIB from Not attached
the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII -
18.09.2020
Detail Accident Report
(DAR)
9 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Investigating No.
Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the -
Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company admitted his -
report within 30 days of the
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.09.20
16:03:22 +0530
MACT No.395/2020 Geeta & Ors. Vs. Deen Mohd. & Anr. Page 37 of 39
DAR?
12 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the -
part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether
any action/direction
warranted?
13 Date of response of the -
claimant(s) to the offer of
the Insurance Company.
14 Date of award 20.09.2025
15 Whether the claimant(s)
were directed to open Yes
savings bank account(s)
near their place of
residence?
16 Date of order by which
claimant(s) were directed to
open Savings Bank
Account(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN
card and Aadhar Card and 23.09.2020
the direction to the bank not
to issue any cheque
book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an
endorsement to this effect
on the passbook(s).
17 Date on which the
claimant(s) produced the
passbook of their savings
bank account(s) near the
place of their residence 20.09.2025
alongwith the endorsement,
PAN card and Aadhaar
Card?
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.09.20
MACT No.395/2020 Geeta & Ors. Vs. Deen Mohd. & Anr. Page 38 of 39
16:03:30 +0530
18 Permanent residential
address of the claimant(s). As per Award.
19 Whether the claimant(s)
savings bank account(s) is
Yes
near their place of
residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s)
were examined at the time Yes. The Financial Statement of the claimant of passing of the Award to was recorded on 11.09.2025, 18.09.2025 and ascertain his/their financial 20.09.2025.
condition?
Digitally signedRUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.09.20 16:03:38 +0530 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
20.09.2025 MACT No.395/2020 Geeta & Ors. Vs. Deen Mohd. & Anr. Page 39 of 39