Delhi District Court
Subhash And Ors vs Anurag And Ors on 28 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN GUPTA,
PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-02,WEST,TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
MACT no. 300/2021
DLWT010063122021
1. Sh. Subhash (father of the deceased)
S/o Sh. Ishwar Singh
2. Smt. Anita (mother of the deceased)
W/o Sh. Subhash
Both R/o A-86A, Kh. No. 2140
Amar Colony, Nangloi,
Delhi-110041 ...... Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Anurag
Through his father Sh. Rakesh Kumar
R/o House no. 43, Gali no.2,
Ashok Mohalla, Nangloi,
Delhi
2. Sh. Nikhil Singh
S/o Sh. Ram Sanjivan Singh
R/o House no. C-90,
Chanchal Park, Bakkarwala,
Nangloi, Delhi.
Digitally signed
MACT No. 300/21 Date of Award : 28.08.2025 by SACHIN
SACHIN GUPTA
Subhash & Anr. Vs. Anurag & Ors. Page No. 1 of 25 GUPTA Date:
2025.08.28
14:28:07 +0530
3. Go Digit General Insurance Ltd.
Nehru Place, Delhi ...... Respondents
Date of Institution: : 07.09.2021
Date of reserving order/judgment : 19.08.2025
Date of pronouncement: : 28.08.2025
AWAR D
1. Proceedings in the present case arises from filing of DAR by the investigating officer in FIR No. 1099/2020 PS Nihal Vihar u/s 279/304A IPC regarding the accident in question. As per the DAR as well as documents annexed therewith, on 16.11.2020 at about 2:30 PM, while Sh. Ravi Rohilla (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') alongwith his friend namely Anurag (respondent no. 1 herein) were going in a vehicle i.e. TATA ACE bearing registration no. DL1LAA2306 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle'), which was being driven by respondent no. 1 and when they reached about 30 meters ahead near Sukhi Nahar Pulia, Main Road, Behind H 2 Block, Kunwar Singh Nagar. Delhi, Sh. Ravi Rohilla (deceased) received fatal injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by the respondent no. 1. It is further stated that deceased was taken to Ardent Ganpati Hospital, Mundka, Delhi by the driver of the offending vehicle, wherein he was medically examined vide MLC No. 448/2020, where he was declared brought dead at 4:30 PM on 16.11.2020 and his postmortem was conducted at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Delhi vide PMR No. 1060/2020 dated 17.11.2020. It is further stated that FIR bearing No. 1099/2020 dated 17.11.2020 PS Nihal Vihar U/s 279/304A IPC Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.08.28 14:28:17 +0530 MACT No. 300/21 Date of Award : 28.08.2025 Subhash & Anr. Vs. Anurag & Ors. Page No. 2 of 25 was registered pertaining to the accident in question.
2. IO filed the DAR giving details of respondent no.1 being driver of offending vehicle; respondent no.2 being the registered owner of the offending vehicle, which was insured with respondent no. 3 Go Digit General Insurance Limited. DAR was also accompanied by other relevant documents including Final report u/s 173 Cr.PC; MLC and postmortem report of deceased; Seizure memo of the offending vehicle and its documents; Site plan; Mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle; Notice U/s 133 M.V. Act and statements of witnesses U/s 161 Cr.PC recorded by the IO during the course of investigation.
3. In its reply filed on behalf of respondent no.
3/Insurance Co., it is stated inter alia that the vehicle bearing registration No. DL1LAA2306 was insured with the answering respondent at the time of alleged accident in favour of respondent no. 2 Sh. Nikhil Singh vide insurance policy valid for the period w.e.f. 18.03.2020 to 17.03.2021, however, liability of insurance company is subject to the compliance of terms and conditions of the insurance policy as well as provisions of M.V. Act by the insured / owner of the vehicle in question; that after the alleged accident, the criminal case was registered by the police against the driver of the insured vehicle under section 279/304A IPC; that the driver Anurag @ Annu was challaned by the police U/s 4/181 M.V. Act as he was minor at the time of accident and was not holding a valid and effective driving license while driving the insured vehicle no. DL1LAA2306; that the insured Nikhil Singh as well as owner in possession of vehicle in question Sh. Ashish Goel have also been challaned by the police U/s 5/180 of M.V. MACT No. 300/21 Date of Award : 28.08.2025 SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA Subhash & Anr. Vs. Anurag & Ors. Page No. 3 of 25 GUPTA Date: 2025.08.28 14:28:27 +0530 Act for allowing the respondent no.1 to drive the insured vehicle being a minor and also for not holding a valid driving license; that the deceased was travelling in the insured vehicle as an unauthorized occupant and this risk was not covered under the policy in question issued by the respondent no.3; that the owner of the vehicle in question has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy for allowing the respondent no.1 to drive the insured vehicle without holding a valid and effective driving license and the respondent no.3 has no liability to pay any amount of compensation to the claimants or to indemnify the owner/insured of the vehicle. It is further stated that the deceased had died due to his own negligence while travelling in the insured vehicle; that during the investigation, it has come on record that the deceased was sitting on the door of the vehicle and he was trying to take his own selfie/photo while the vehicle was moving and during this process, his head struck against a tree and the claimants are not entitled for the compensation in the present case on account of the death of their son.
4. No reply/written statement was filed on behalf of the respondent no.1 and 2 and their right to file written statement was closed and they were also proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 12.09.2022 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal on 12.09.2022:-
1. Whether Ravi (since deceased) suffered injuries a vehicular accident that took place on 16.11.2020 at about 2:30 PM near Sukhi Nahar and Pulia, Main Road, Behind H-2 Block, Kunwar Digitally signed Singh Nagar, Delhi involving a vehicle SACHIN by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.08.28 14:28:36 +0530 MACT No. 300/21 Date of Award : 28.08.2025 Subhash & Anr. Vs. Anurag & Ors. Page No. 4 of 25 no. DL1LAA2306 (offending vehicle) being driven by respondent no.1 Anurag Kumar @ Annu in a rash and negligent manner, owned by respondent no.2 Nikhil Singh and insured with respondent no.3 Go Digit General Insurance Limited? 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/father of the deceased got examined himself as PW-1.
7. In respondent evidence on behalf of respondent no. 3 /insurance company, it examined one witness viz. R3W1 Ms. Sakshi Sharma, Manager (Legal), Go Digit General Insurance Limited.
8. I have heard arguments and also gone through the record carefully and my issue wise findings are as under :
Issue No.1
9. It is the settled proposition of law that an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non.
However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition based upon negligence. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. Reference may be made to the judgments titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sakshi Bhutani & Others., MAC APP. No. 550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012, Bimla Devi & Others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Digitally signed by SACHIN MACT No. 300/21 Date of Award : 28.08.2025 SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
Subhash & Anr. Vs. Anurag & Ors. Page No. 5 of 25 2025.08.28 14:28:57 +0530 Others (2009) 13 SC 530, Parmeshwari v. Amirchand & Others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 & Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Others 2018, Law Suit (SC) 303.
10. PW-1 Sh. Subhash (father of deceased) tendered his affidavit in evidence which is Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the documents i.e. (i) Copy of his Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/1 (OSR); (ii) Copy of his PAN Card Ex.PW1/2 (OSR); (iii) Copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no. 2 Ex.PW1/3 (OSR); (iv) Copy of PAN Card of petitioner no.2 Ex.PW1/4 (OSR); (v) DAR Ex.PW1/5 (Colly); (vi) Copy of Aadhar Card of deceased Ex.PW1/6 (OSR);
(vii) Copy of PAN Card of deceased Ex.PW1/7 (OSR); (viii) Copy of Salary slip of deceased for the month of October, 2020 Ex.PW1/8 (OSR) and copy of Death certificate of the deceased Ex.PW1/9 (OSR). In his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 / Insurance Company, he stated inter alia that he was not an eye-witness to the accident. He has denied to the suggestion that his deceased son was taking a selfie from the mobile phone while sitting on the door of the offending vehicle, as a result, head of his deceased son was struck against the branch of a tree, resulting in his death. He also denied to the suggestion that accident took place due to the negligence on the part of his deceased son or that his deceased son was an unauthorized passenger in the offending vehicle or that he was deposing falsely.
11. Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.3 has argued that deceased received the fatal injuries on account of his own negligence, while taking a selfie in a moving vehicle and petitioners have failed to prove rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent no. 1. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for Digitally signed SACHIN by SACHIN MACT No. 300/21 Date of Award : 28.08.2025 GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.08.28 Subhash & Anr. Vs. Anurag & Ors. Page No. 6 of 25 14:29:14 +0530 petitioners has vehemently argued that respondent no. 1, who was minor at the time of accident, was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, son of the petitioners sustained fatal injuries and respondent no. 3 / Insurance Company has failed to establish its plea of negligence on the part of deceased. It is further argued that IO has filed Final Report U/s 173 CrPC (Police Investigation Report) for offences U/s 279/304A IPC and 4/181 M.V. Act against the respondent no. 1 after concluding the investigation, which itself is sufficient to show the negligence on the part of respondent no. 1 while driving offending vehicle by him, due to which, deceased suffered fatal injuries and the plea raised on behalf of respondent no. 3 / Insurance Company is not sustainable.
12. In the case titled 'Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs. Karan Bhatia, MAC APP. 271/2018 decided on 26.11.2024", it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court as under:-
"12. Shri Mehtab Singh, the eye witness, may have failed to support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile during the trial, but that does not take away the factum of accident and demise of Smt.Surjit Kaur. The investigations were duly carried out which revealed not only the involvement of the vehicle, but also that it was the offending vehicle which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the accident. The manner of accident is also evident from the Site Plan prepared during the criminal investigations.
13. In the case of National Insurance Co.,vs Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, it has been held that filing of Chargesheet is sufficient proof of the negligence and Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.08.28 MACT No. 300/21 Date of Award : 28.08.2025 14:29:28 +0530 Subhash & Anr. Vs. Anurag & Ors. Page No. 7 of 25 involvement of the Offending Vehicle. Similar observations have been made in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepak Goel and Ors., 2014 (2) TAC 846 Del, that if the claimant was able to prove the criminal case on record pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, whereby the criminal records showing completion of investigation by the police and filing of Chargesheet under Sections 279/304-A IPC against the driver have been proved, then the documents mentioned above are sufficient to establish the fact that the driver was negligent in causing the accident. Where FIR is lodged, Chargesheet is filed, especially in a case where driver after causing the accident had fled away from the spot, then the documents mentioned above are sufficient to establish the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent in causing the accident particularly when there was no defence available from his side before the learned Tribunal.
14. Similar observations have been made in the cases of Jamanti Devi and Ors. v.
Maheshwar Rai, MAC Appeal no. 831/2015 decided on 19.11.2022.
15. The Apex Court has opined in the judgment of Mangla Ram Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, AIR 2018 SC 1900 that the key-point of negligence of the driver as set up by the Claimants, is required to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and not by the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, filing of Chargesheet against the driver of the offending vehicle prima facie, points towards the complicity in driving the vehicle Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.08.28 14:29:37 +0530 MACT No. 300/21 Date of Award : 28.08.2025 Subhash & Anr. Vs. Anurag & Ors. Page No. 8 of 25 negligently and rashly. The subsequent acquittal of the accused may of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in motor vehicle accident cases."
13. In the case titled "Meera Bai & Ors. Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company limited & Anr.", Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3886 of 2019, decided on 30.04.2025, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under:-
"4. As far as examining the eye witness, such a witness will not be available in all cases. The FIR having been lodged and the charge sheet filed against the owner driver of the offending vehicle, we are of the opinion that there could be no finding that negligence was not established."
14. In the present case also, the only witness i.e. PW1 Sh. Subhash (father of deceased) examined on behalf of petitioners, is not an eye-witness to the accident in question. However, in view of the settled proposition of law, merely because, there is no eye-witness to the accident in question, the same itself does not become fatal to the case of the petitioners, especially when, the FIR was lodged and after concluding the investigation, Investigating Officer (IO) has filed police investigation report (Final Report U/s 173 CrPC) against the driver of the offending vehicle for offence U/s 279/304A IPC.
15. IO has filed the DAR including the Final report u/s 173 Cr.PC; MLC and postmortem report of deceased; Seizure memo of the offending vehicle and its documents; Site plan; Mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle; Notice U/s 133 M.V. Act and statements of witnesses U/s 161 Cr.PC recorded by the IO during the course of investigation etc. From Digitally signed SACHIN by SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA 14:29:50 MACT No. 300/21 Date of Award : 28.08.2025 Date: 2025.08.28 +0530 Subhash & Anr. Vs. Anurag & Ors. Page No. 9 of 25 the final report U/s 173 CrPC alongwith the seizure memo of the offending vehicle filed by the IO, it is evident that the offending vehicle was found standing at the spot, when the police officials visited the spot on the date of accident upon receiving of GD No. 124A dated 16.11.2020 and the offending vehicle was seized by the IO from the spot. Further, there is also no dispute as to the driving of offending vehicle by the respondent no. 1 at the time of accident. It is also remained undisputed that deceased accompanied the respondent no. 1 in the offending vehicle at the time of accident. After concluding investigation, Investigating Officer (IO), has filed Police Investigation Report U/s 173 CrPC against the driver of the offending vehicle (respondent no.1 herein) for offences punishable U/s 279/304A IPC and 4/181 M.V. Act after arriving at the conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by him that the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent no.1. The investigation was duly carried out which revealed not only the involvement of the offending vehicle, but also that it was the offending vehicle which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the accident.
16. Furthermore, copy of MLC report of deceased shows that he was removed to Ardent Ganpati Hospital, Mundka, Delhi on 16.11.2020 with alleged history of RTA. On his examination, he was found to have sustained injuries as mentioned therein and he was declared brought dead at 4:30 PM on 16.11.2020. The said injuries are consistent with the injuries which are sustained in motor vehicular accident. Again, there is no challenge to the said document from the side of respondents Digitally signed SACHIN by SACHIN GUPTA MACT No. 300/21 Date of Award : 28.08.2025 GUPTA Date: 2025.08.28 14:30:01 +0530 Subhash & Anr. Vs. Anurag & Ors. Page No. 10 of 25 including insurance company.
17. Moreover, as per the postmortem report of deceased Ravi Rohilla, bearing no. 1060/2020 dated 17.11.2020, " cause of death is cerebral damage as a result of blunt force impact. All injuries are antemortem in nature and possible in manner as alleged." Said document has not been disputed from the side of the respondents and corroborates the ocular testimony of PW to that extent.
18. Furthermore, the respondent no. 1 Anurag, driver of the offending vehicle, was also the other material witness who could have thrown sufficient light as to how and under what circumstances, the accident in question took place. However, he had chosen not to contest the case and did not appear in the witness box during the course of inquiry. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him for not entering into the witness box, to the effect that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by him.
19. In the case titled "Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Amit Kumar & Ors., (2009) 12 DEL CK 0036 ", the Hon'ble High Court has observed as under:-
"12. Best witness to state about contributory negligence was the driver of the offending bus. But driver of the offending bus, has chosen not to contest the case and did not appear in the witness-box. Thus, plea of contributory negligence on behalf of appellant, falls to the ground...".
20. In the present case also, respondent no. 3 / Insurance Company has taken the plea of negligence on the part of deceased, while he was travelling in the offending vehicle Digitally signed MACT No. 300/21 Date of Award : 28.08.2025 by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA Subhash & Anr. Vs. Anurag & Ors. Page No. 11 of 25 GUPTA Date:
2025.08.28 14:30:11 +0530 alongwith the respondent no. 1. However, Insurance Company has failed to lead any cogent evidence to substantiate its plea of negligence/contributory negligence on the part of deceased leading to the accident. It was incumbent upon the insurance company to summon and examine the driver of the offending vehicle to establish negligence on the part of the deceased. However, it failed to summon and examine the driver of offending vehicle to prove the same. Accordingly, in the absence of any cogent evidence, the plea of insurance company regarding the negligence on the part of deceased is not found sustainable and the same is thus, rejected.
21. 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 scale of preponderance of probabilities that deceased Sh. Ravi Rohilla sustained fatal injuries in road accident which took place on 16.11.2020 at about 2:30 PM near Sukhi Nahar and Pulia, Main Road, Behind H-2 Block, Kunwar Singh Nagar, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by the respondent no. 1. Accordingly issue no.1 stands decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
Issue No.2
22. 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 Digitally signed by SACHIN MACT No. 300/21 Date of Award : 28.08.2025 SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
Subhash & Anr. Vs. Anurag & Ors. Page No. 12 of 252025.08.28 14:30:21 +0530 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 (Baker v. Willoughby (1970) Ac 467 at page 492 per Lord Reid).
Computation of Compensation
23. The present case pertains to the death of deceased Sh. Ravi Rohilla. 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 :
24. PW-1 Sh. Subhash (father of deceased) has filed on record the copy of Aadhar Card of deceased (Ex.PW1/6) and copy of PAN Card of deceased (Ex.PW1/7). As per the above- mentioned documents, the date of birth of deceased is 29.05.2002. The same remained undisputed on the part of respondents. Date of accident is 16.11.2020. As such, age of deceased Ravi Rohilla was around 18 years 5 months at the time of accident. As such this fact stands concluded that age of the deceased was around 18 years 5 months at the time of accident. Assessment of Income of deceased :
25. Petitioner/PW-1 Sh. Subhash (father of deceased) has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that his son was working as a Assistant Mechanic at Green City MACT No. 300/21 Date of Award : 28.08.2025 SACHIN by Digitally signed SACHIN GUPTA Subhash & Anr. Vs. Anurag & Ors. Page No. 13 of 25 GUPTA Date: 2025.08.28 14:30:29 +0530 Transport Corporation Pvt. Limited and getting salary of Rs.14,842/- per month. He has filed and relied upon copy of salary slip of the deceased for the month of October 2020, which is Ex.PW1/8. In his cross-examination done by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.3, he stated that his deceased son was employed with M/s Green City Transport Corporation for about 06 months prior to the date of the accident and no appointment letter was issued by the employer of his deceased son except Ex.PW1/8 and ID card of the deceased, filed in the DAR and he does not have any document with regard to the employment of his deceased son.
26. In order to prove the employment and monthly income of deceased Sh. Ravi Rohilla, PW1 (father of deceased) examined himself as PW-1 and filed on record copy of pay slip of the deceased for the month of October 2020. He was also subjected to cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3. However, there is nothing material elicited from the cross examination of the aforesaid witness, which would impeach his credibility and trustworthiness with respect to the aforesaid fact of the employment and income of the deceased or cast any doubt over genuineness of the aforesaid document. As per the salary slip of deceased Ex.PW1/8 and ID which was filed by the IO alongwith DAR, it is established that deceased was working with the Green City Transport Corporation Pvt. Ltd. as Assistant Mechanic. As per the salary slip Ex.PW1/8, total income of deceased was Rs.14,842/- for the month of October, 2020. The same remained undisputed on the part of the respondents. As such, the monthly income of Rs. 14,842/- of the deceased is taken for the purpose of computation of compensation in the Digitally signed by SACHIN MACT No. 300/21 Date of Award : 28.08.2025 SACHIN GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.08.28 Subhash & Anr. Vs. Anurag & Ors. Page No. 14 of 25 14:30:39 +0530 present matter.
Application of Multiplier:
27. As held above, deceased was about aged about 18 years 5 months at the time of accident. As per settled principle laid down in case of Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier as applicable to the age group between 15-20 years is
18. Accordingly, multiplier to be applied in the present case would be 18.
Future Prospects:
28. The Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment which has arisen out of SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014 titled as National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors decided on 31.10.2017 has held as under:- "61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi,2012 ACJ 1428 (SC) should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh,2013 ACJ 1403 (SC) has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, 2013 ACJ 1253 (SC), which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of Digitally signed by SACHIN MACT No. 300/21 Date of Award : 28.08.2025 SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date:Subhash & Anr. Vs. Anurag & Ors. Page No. 15 of 25
2025.08.28 14:30:48 +0530 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-
employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years.
An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 21 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs.
15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years."
29. Moreover, the law has been well settled by the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sandeep Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA MACT No. 300/21 Date of Award : 28.08.2025 Date:
GUPTA 2025.08.28 Subhash & Anr. Vs. Anurag & Ors. Page No. 16 of 25 14:30:56 +0530 Khanuja (supra) and Erudhaya Priya vs. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601, that while applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are also to be taken into consideration. Thus, considering the petitioner being 18 years and 5 months of age at the time of accident, an addition of income to the extent of 40% towards future prospects has to be counted. Deduction towards Personal and Living Expenses:
30. 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. PW1 has deposed that deceased was unmarried and survived by his parents and there are no legal heirs of his deceased son.
31. 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 SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.08.28 14:31:11 +0530 MACT No. 300/21 Date of Award : 28.08.2025 Subhash & Anr. Vs. Anurag & Ors. Page No. 17 of 25 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".
32. 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. PW1 (father of deceased) has stated in his cross examination that he is running a shop of photocopy and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as settled proposition of law, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, father of deceased cannot be considered as dependent. In such circumstances, only the mother of the deceased namely Smt. Anita (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.
33. Thus, Considering the aforementioned factors, the compensation for the loss of dependency is calculated as under:
Digitally signed by SACHINSACHIN GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2025.08.28 14:31:21 +0530 MACT No. 300/21 Date of Award : 28.08.2025 Subhash & Anr. Vs. Anurag & Ors. Page No. 18 of 25 S. No. Head Amount
1. Monthly income of deceased (A) Rs. 14,842/-
2. Add future prospect (B) @ 40% Rs. 5,936.8/-
3. Less 1/2 towards personal and living Rs. 10,389.4/-
expenses of the deceased (C)
4. Monthly loss of dependency (A+B)- Rs. 10,389.4/-
C=D
5. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs. 1,24,672.8/-6. Multiplier (E) 18
7. Total loss of dependency Rs. 22,44,110.4/-
(Dx12xE=F)
34. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 22,44,110/- (rounded off). Hence, a sum of Rs. 22,44,110/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Forty Four Thousand One Hundred and Ten Only) is awarded to petitioner no. 2 Smt. Anita under this head.
NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
35. 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 Digitally signed SACHIN by SACHIN MACT No. 300/21 Date of Award : 28.08.2025 GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.08.28 14:31:32 +0530 Subhash & Anr. Vs. Anurag & Ors. Page No. 19 of 25 each of the legal representatives. Since, there are two LRs of deceased, accordingly, a sum of Rs. 1,32,000/- (48,000 X 2 + 18,000 + 18,000) is awarded under this head.
36. Thus, Considering the aforementioned factors, the total compensation is calculated as under:
S. No. Head Amount Awarded 1. Total loss of dependency Rs. 22,44,110/-
2. Compensation for loss of consortium Rs. 96,000/-
(48,000 X 2)
3. Compensation for loss of estate (H) Rs.18,000/-
4. Compensation for funeral expenses Rs.18,000/-
(I) Total compensation Rs. 23,76,110/-
INTEREST ON AWARD
37. Petitioners shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of the DAR i.e. 07.09.2021 till realization. LIABILITY
38. Now the question arises as to which of the respondent is liable to pay the compensation amount. Respondent no. 3 has sought to avoid its liability to pay the compensation amount on the ground that there was fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of insurance policy on the part of insured as respondent no. 1, who was minor, was driving the offending vehicle without having driving license at the time of accident and also on the ground that deceased was travelling in the insured vehicle as an unauthorized occupant.
39. In order to substantiate the said plea, insurance company/respondent no.3 has examined one witness viz. R3W1 Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
MACT No. 300/21 Date of Award : 28.08.2025 2025.08.28 14:31:44 +0530 Subhash & Anr. Vs. Anurag & Ors. Page No. 20 of 25 Ms. Sakshi Sharma, Manager (Legal), Go Digit General Insurance Limited, who tendered her affidavit in evidence which is Ex.R3W1/A, wherein she deposed on the lines of reply filed on behalf of the Insurance Co. She has relied upon documents i.e. Insurance Policy Ex.R3W1/1; (ii) Notice dated 01.11.2022 under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC Ex.R3W1/2 and (iii) Postal receipt Ex.R3W1/3.
40. So far as the plea of the respondent no. 3 / Insurance Company that deceased was travelling in the insured vehicle as an unauthorized occupant is concerned, the same is not found sustainable in view of the vehicle particulars of the offending vehicle filed by the IO alongwith the DAR, which shows that the offending vehicle was having seating capacity of two seats. Meaning thereby, that the offending vehicle i.e. TATA ACE bearing registration no. DL1LAA2306 provides for two persons to travel in the vehicle. At the time of accident, only two persons (driver and deceased) were travelling in the offending vehicle and therefore, there was no breach by the insured on this count. (Reliance is also placed on the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case titled " ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vs. V. Shanthi & Ors., CMA No. 990 of 2022, Date of Decision:10.08.2023".
41. Now, coming to the another limb of arguments raised on behalf of Insurance Company that there was fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of insurance policy on the part of insured as respondent no. 1, who was minor, was driving the offending vehicle without having driving license at the time of accident.
42. As per the final report U/s 173 Cr.PC filed by the IO Digitally signed by SACHIN MACT No. 300/21 Date of Award : 28.08.2025 SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
Subhash & Anr. Vs. Anurag & Ors. Page No. 21 of 252025.08.28 14:32:00 +0530 alongwith DAR, offence U/s 4/181 M.V. Act was also invoked against the driver of the offending vehicle (respondent no. 1 herein), who was minor at the time of accident and driving the offending vehicle without having any driving license. Owner of offending vehicle has also been challaned for offence U/s 5/180 M.V. Act. Since, offending vehicle was being driven by the respondent no. 1 without having driving license, who was minor at the time of accident, hence, there is breach in the terms and conditions of insurance policy on the part of insured i.e. respondent no. 2, hence, insurance company is entitled to recovery rights against the respondent no. 2 Nikhil Singh.
43. In such circumstances, this Tribunal holds that the amount of compensation though would be payable by respondent no.3/insurance company but with recovery rights as against respondent no. 2 Nikhil Singh. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly. RELIEF
44. In view of my finding on issues no. 1 and 2, this Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs. 23,76,110/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Seventy Six Thousand One Hundred and Ten Only ) (including interim award amount, if any) alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum in favour of petitioners w.e.f. date of filing of DAR i.e. 07.09.2021 till realization, to be paid by the respondent no.3/insurance company, with recovery rights against respondent no.2. The respondent no.3/insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in the MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account no. 40714429271, IFSC Code. SBIN0000726 Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, within 30 days from today. The respondent no. 3 is also directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said Digitally signed SACHIN by SACHIN MACT No. 300/21 Date of Award : 28.08.2025 GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.08.28 14:32:14 +0530 Subhash & Anr. Vs. Anurag & Ors. Page No. 22 of 25 amount to the petitioners.
Disbursement and Apportionment of Award Amount
45. Statements of petitioners in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP were recorded on 18.07.2024. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of aforesaid discussion, it is hereby ordered that out of total compensation amount, the petitioner no. 2 Smt. Anita shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 23,28,110/- (Rs. 22,44,110/- + Rs. 48,000/- + Rs. 18,000/- + Rs. 18,000/-) (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Twenty Eight Thousand One Hundred and Ten Only) alongwith proportionate interest.
46. The petitioner no. 1 Subhash shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 48,000/- (Rupees Forty Eight Thousand only) alongwith proportionate interest.
47. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 2 Smt. Anita, a sum of Rs. 5,28,110/- (Rupees Five Lacs Twenty Eight Thousand One Hundred and Ten Only) shall be immediately released to her through her saving bank account and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 25,000/- each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest.
48. The entire share amount of petitioner no. 1 Sh. Subhash is directed to be immediately released to him through his saving bank account.
49. The amount of FDRs on maturity shall directly be released in petitioner's Saving Bank Account.
50. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:- Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.08.28 14:32:26 +0530 MACT No. 300/21 Date of Award : 28.08.2025 Subhash & Anr. Vs. Anurag & Ors. Page No. 23 of 25
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant i.e., the savings bank account of the claimant shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
51. Respondent no.3 i.e. Go Digit General Insurance Limited, being insurer of offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the compensation amount with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 10% p.a. for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts branch is directed to transfer the respective amounts of petitioners in their aforesaid saving bank accounts, as per the award, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
52. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph, specimen signature, copy of bank passbook and copy of residence proof of the petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts branch, Delhi for Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.08.28 MACT No. 300/21 Date of Award : 28.08.2025 14:32:38 +0530 Subhash & Anr. Vs. Anurag & Ors. Page No. 24 of 25 information and necessary compliance.
53. Form XV and Form XVII in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A.
54. A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir .
55. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost.
56. A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class as well as DSLSA as per the provisions of the Modified Claim Tribunal Agreed Procedure (MCTAP). Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.08.28 14:32:44 +0530 Announced in the open Court (SACHIN GUPTA) On 28th August, 2025 P.O. MACT-02 (WEST) THC/Delhi/28.08.2025 MACT No. 300/21 Date of Award : 28.08.2025 Subhash & Anr. Vs. Anurag & Ors. Page No. 25 of 25