Delhi District Court
Rajbala(Dar) vs Ravi Kuamr Ravani (52/23 Dc) on 28 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARU GUPTA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-01 (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No.850/23
Rajbala vs. Ravi Kumar Ravani & ors.
CNR No.DLSE01-004011-2023
1. Rajbala
W/o Late Sh. Manoj Kumar Sharma
2. Ichcha
D/o Late Sh. Manoj Kumar Sharma
3. Bhumika Gaur
D/o Late Sh. Manoj Kumar Sharma
All R/o B-654, Madanpur Khadar,
Extension, Sarita Vihar, Delhi-110076
....Claimants/Petitioners
Versus
1. Ravi Kumar Ravani
S/o Sh. Bulaki Ram
R/o House no. B-8, Bhanu Building,
Harjan Basti,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.
....Driver /respondent no.1
2. Anuj Pipaliyan
S/o Sh. Ram Satan Prasad
R/o J-259, F/F Road No. 231-259,
Saket New Delhi
....Owner/Respondent no.2
3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Office at: A-25/27 Asaf Ali Road,
MACT No. 850/23 Rajbala & ors. vs. Ravi Kumar Ravani & ors. Page no. 1 of 27 ss
New Delhi
....Insurance/respondent no.3
Date of accident : 13.03.2023
Result of accident : Death
Date of filing of DAR : 07.08.2023
Date of Decision : 28.10.2025
AWARD
1. The present Detailed Accident Report (DAR) arises out of
road accident in which one Manoj Kumar Sharma, aged about 42
years, suffered fatal injury resulting in his death. The claim for
compensation is being pursued by Smt. Rajbala as dependent
wife of the deceased and two minor daughters namely Ichcha
(aged about 11 years) and Bhumika (aged about 9 years).
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 13.03.2023 on receipt of
DD no. 49A regarding accident by Chevrolet Cruze Car
no.DL3CCC-3987 with a bike, SI Sonam along with Ct. Ramdev
went to the spot i.e. C-262 Defence Colony, South Delhi. It was
informed that the injured had been taken to the AIIMS Trauma
Center. On reaching the hospital MLC of the victim was
prepared but the victim was declared unfit for statement. During
treatment, victim died. His postmortem was got conducted.
3. An FIR No.0052/2023, dated 02.04.2023, u/s 279/338 IPC,
was registered at PS Defence Colony. Matter was investigated
and chargesheet was filed under Section 279/304A of IPC. The
present DAR was filed before this Tribunal.
4. As per record, the offending vehicle was driven by
respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with
respondent no. 3.
MACT No. 850/23 Rajbala & ors. vs. Ravi Kumar Ravani & ors. Page no. 2 of 27 ss
5. Respondent no.1 and 2 did not file any written statement
despite opportunity. In its reply, respondent no.3 denied its
liability to compensate the petitioners on the ground that the
deceased victim was unmarried and had no class-I legal heirs. It
has been denied that the driver of the offending vehicle was rash
or negligent. It has been pleaded that in fact the deceased was
himself negligent as no driving licence of the victim has been
seized. It has been pleaded that as per the postmortem report the
cause of death was not the injuries sustained in the accident
alone. It is however not denied that the offending vehicle was
duly insured by respondent no.3.
6. Vide order dated 06.08.2024, following issues were
framed.
1. Whether the deceased suffered fatal injury in a
road traffic accident on 13.03.2023 due to rash and
negligent driving of vehicle no. DL-3CCC-3987
being driven and owned by R1, owned by R2 and
insured with R3? OPP.
2)Whether the petitioners are entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from
whom? OPP.
3) Relief?
7. In order to prove their claim, petitioners examined
petitioner no.1/Rajbala wife of deceased victim as PW-1. Ms.
Shubhra Srivastava, HR at DSS, Takara, Bio India Pvt. Ltd, A-5
Mohan co-operative, industrial state, Mathura Road, New Delhi
as PW-2.
Rajbala/PW-1 tendered her examination in chief by way of
affidavit as Ex.PW-1/A wherein she deposed that PW-1 was wife
of deceased victim Manoj Kumar Sharma who met with an
MACT No. 850/23 Rajbala & ors. vs. Ravi Kumar Ravani & ors. Page no. 3 of 27 ss
accident on 13.03.2023 when he was going for his job. When
deceased reached at C block, Defence Colony, he wat hit by a
vehicle which was being driven in rash and negligent manner.
Deceased was taken to AIIMS Trauma Center through
ambulance, which was called by some home guard. He was
initially treated in AIIMS Trauma Center for two days and
thereafter he referred to Safdarjung hospital on 14.03.2023,
however, there was no bed available, the deceased was taken to
Holy Family Hospital wherein he was admitted on 15.03.2023
and discharged on 25.03.2023. Victim again admitted in hospital
on 27.03.2023 and he was expired on 02.04.2023.
PW-1 further deposed that at the time of accident her
husband was employed with DSS Imagetech Pvt. Ltd. as a Store
Assistant and earning of Rs.27,084/- per month.
She relied upon copy of her Adhar card of, her minor
daughter as Ex.PW1/A, DAR as Ex.PW1/B, MLAC report of
deceased as Ex.PW1/C, driving licence of deceased as
Ex.PW1/D, certificate issued by employer of the deceased s
Ex.PW1/E and medical bills as Ex.PW1/F.
PW-1 was duly cross examined by insurance
company/respondent no.3.
Ms. Shubhra Srivastava, Deputy Manager, HR at DSS,
Takara, Bio India Pvt.Ltd. A-5, Mohan co-operative, industrial
state, Mathura Road, New Delhi was examined as PW2. She
deposed that she was a summoned witness and had been working
since June 2019. DSS Imagetech Pvt Ltd. is a parent company
and DSS Takara Bio India Pvt.Ltd. is a part of group company.
Deceased Manoj Kumar joined at the salary of Rs.20,000/- per
MACT No. 850/23 Rajbala & ors. vs. Ravi Kumar Ravani & ors. Page no. 4 of 27 ss
month and he was working from 01.11.2019 as a store assistant.
His duty was to pack, load, unload, safe keeping the material and
also going to the customer place for its delivery. As per the
documents he was getting salary of Rs.27,084/- per month. He
was getting incentive of Rs.11,000/- per year which makes his
yearly package to Rs.03,36,000/- per year. He got increment of
Rs.4400/- per month w.e.f. April 2021 and 11% w.e.f. April 2022.
PW-1 relied upon her ID card issued by DSS Takara, Bio
India Pvt as Ex.PW2/1, the authorization letter issued by Ms.
Sandhya Rana, HR Head at DSS as Ex.PW2/2, copy of employer
and appointment of Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma as Ex.PW2/3,
Bonafide certificate of Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma as Ex.PW2/4,
attested copy of salary slips of Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma from
October 2022 to March 2023 as Ex.PW2/5, increment letter of
Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma of financial year 2021-2022 & 2022-
2023 as Ex.PW2/6.
PW-2 was cross examined by Ld. counsel for insurance
company.
8. Respondents did not lead any evidence despite
opportunity.
9. Final arguments were advanced by the parties. Now, on the
basis of material on record, evidence adduced and arguments
addressed, issue wise findings are as under:
Issue No.1
Whether the deceased suffered fatal injury in a road
traffic accident on 13.03.2023 due to rash and
negligent driving of vehicle no. DL-3CCC-3987 being
driven and owned by R1, owned by R2 and insured
with R3? OPP.
MACT No. 850/23 Rajbala & ors. vs. Ravi Kumar Ravani & ors. Page no. 5 of 27 ss
10. Before proceeding to decide the above issue, it is apposite
to note that as a settled principle of law, proceedings under The
Motor Vehicle Act are not considered akin to the proceedings in a
civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not applicable.
Reliance is placed upon decision in Bimla Devi & ors. vs.
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (2009) 13 SC 535,
in Parmeshwari vs. Amir Chand & Ors., 2011 (1) SCR 1096 and
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ
287, wherein it has been held that the negligence has to be
decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and
a holistic view has to be taken.
11. In the present case, though no eye witness has been cited
or examined, as per the DAR and chargesheet relied upon by the
petitioners, the accident was reported through PCR call promptly
after the occurrence of the accident. In the information so reciept,
the particulars of the offending vehicle were clearly disclosed.
The driver of the offending vehicle did not file any reply to refute
the allegations of rash and negligent driving. The owner of the
offending vehicle also did not question the involvement of the
offending vehicle. Though, there is a delay in registration of FIR,
perhaps as the statement of victim could not be recorded during
the treatment he was undergoing from 13.03.2023 till his death in
the hospital on 02.04.2023, the fact that the accident was reported
on time vide GD no.0049A, leaves no scope for doubting the
allegations as manipulative or assume that the offending vehicle
was planted subsequently.
12. Further since even the police after investigation, had filed
chargesheet against respondent no.1 under Section 279/304-A of
MACT No. 850/23 Rajbala & ors. vs. Ravi Kumar Ravani & ors. Page no. 6 of 27 ss
IPC relying upon the statement of witnesses recorded u/s 161
Cr.PC, site plan, mechanical inspection report, MLC and
postmortem report of the victim, is also suggestive of negligence
of respondent no.1 in causing the accident. In National Insurance
Co. vs. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, it was laid down that
completion of investigation and filing of chargesheet are
sufficient proof of negligence of the driver of the offending
vehicle.
13. It may further be noted that in Cholamandlam Insurance
company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh 2009 (3) AD Delhi 310, it was held
that if driver of offending vehicle does not enter the witness box,
an adverse inference can be drawn against him. In the present
case also, neither the driver nor owner of the offending vehicle
entered into the witness box to controvert the claim of petitioners
or even to explain circumstances of accident.
14. In totality of circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion
that the petitioner been able to prove on the scales of
preponderance of probabilities that the accident in question, took
place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle
bearing no. DL-3CCC-3987 by its driver/respondent no.1 on the
date and time of accident. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in
favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
Issue no. 2
Whether the petitioners are entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?
OPP.
15. In the instant case insurance company/respondent no.3 has
not raised any statutory defence and as such is under contractual
liability arising out of the insurance policy/contract of insurance,
MACT No. 850/23 Rajbala & ors. vs. Ravi Kumar Ravani & ors. Page no. 7 of 27 ss
to indemnify respondent no.2 (owner of the offending vehicle) by
compensating the petitioners. As such, respondent no.3 is liable
to pay compensation to the petitioners.
16. As regards entitlement of the petitioners to compensation,
petitioner no.1 has claimed to be widow /wife of the deceased
while petitioner no.2 and 3 are claimed to be minor daughters of
the deceased. Petitioner has relied upon her Adhar Card and
Adhar card of her children to prove that she was married with
deceased and that petitioner no. 2 and 3 are his children. Though,
insurance company has disputed the marital status of the
deceased in their written statement, no evidence has been led by
the insurance company to prove that the deceased was unmarried
or to counter the proof filed by the petitioners. As such, all
petitioners are entitled to compensation under the head of
dependency.
17. Before further proceeding decide the quantum of
compensation, it would be apposite to encapsulate the law laid
down by the Apex Court in its various judgments qua
methodology and considerations for assessing/ascertaining just
compensation in road vehicular death cases laid down in Sarla
Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. (2003) 6
SCC. The relevant principles for ascertainment of compensation
are quoted here under:
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
MACT No. 850/23 Rajbala & ors. vs. Ravi Kumar Ravani & ors. Page no. 8 of 27 ss
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 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."
ADDITIONS
"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,
MACT No. 850/23 Rajbala & ors. vs. Ravi Kumar Ravani & ors. Page no. 9 of 27 ss
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."
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 dependent 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 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
MACT No. 850/23 Rajbala & ors. vs. Ravi Kumar Ravani & ors. Page no. 10 of 27 ss
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."
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."
18. As regards, computation of the future prospects, observations
made in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi
& Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 are noteworthy:
"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 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
MACT No. 850/23 Rajbala & ors. vs. Ravi Kumar Ravani & ors. Page no. 11 of 27 ss
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 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.
19. In view of the above settled principles, in order to archive
at or ascertain a just compensation payable to the petitioners, this
Tribunal first needs to ascertain the age of deceased/victim, the
appropriate multiplier, income of the deceased at the time of
incident, the educational qualification of deceased, the number of
dependents, whether deceased was married or unmarried,
whether deceased was having permanent employment or private
job etc. Award also needs to be passed qua non-pecuniary heads
as envisaged and in terms of above judgments.
Age and multiplier
MACT No. 850/23 Rajbala & ors. vs. Ravi Kumar Ravani & ors. Page no. 12 of 27 ss
20. Age of the deceased is claimed to be 42 years at the time
of accident/death. The same is proved by his Aadhar card which
shows his date of birth as 26.06.1981. The accident is claimed to
have occurred on 13.03.2023, the age of victim would have been
42 years at the time of accident and hence, as per Sarla Verma
Judgment for determination of compensation, a multiplier of 14
shall be applicable.
Determination of monthly and annual income
21. At the time of accident, deceased victim is claimed to be
working as Store Assistant at DSS, Takara, Bio India Pvt. Ltd,
A-5 Mohan co-operative, industrial state, Mathura Road, New
Delhi and earning of Rs.27,084/- per month. PW-2 has filed
salary slip of October, 2022, November 2022, December 2022,
January 2023, February 2023 and March 2023 along with an
annual appraisal effective from 01.04.2022. Same is Ex.PW2/6
(colly). This document reflects the net, in hand annual salary as
Rs.2,81,808/-. These are not disputed by any of the respondents.
Same reflects the last drawn salary of victim and his net income
for the months preceding the month of accident to be
Rs.23,484/-.
As such, his annual income is assessed as Rs.23,484/-
X12=Rs.2,81,808/- p.a.
Determination of future prospects
22. Having regard to the age of the deceased and ratio laid
down in Pranay Sethi (Supra) and other judgments, the
percentage towards future prospect would be calculated @ 25%
where the deceased was between the age of 40-50 years, in case
the deceased was self employee. Thus, the enhanced income
MACT No. 850/23 Rajbala & ors. vs. Ravi Kumar Ravani & ors. Page no. 13 of 27 ss
(after adding 25% of his annual income, as future prospects)
would be Rs.2,81,808/- + Rs.70,452/-= Rs.3,52,260/-.
Deduction
23. It has been pleaded by the insurance company that a sum
of Rs.20,00,000/- was received by the petitioners from Group
Term Life Insurance and Group Personal Accidental Insurance
and that the same is liable to be deducted from the compensation.
During cross examination, PW2 had stated that the
deceased was covered under Group Term Life Insurance of
Rs.10,00,000/- and Group Personal Accident Insurance of
Rs.10,00,000/-. PW2 relied upon Ex.PW2/YR3(colly) which is a
certificate issued by an employer declaring payment of
Rs.2,15,000/- to petitioner no.1, Rs.10,00,000/- to petitioner no.2
and Rs.8,00,000/- to petitioner no.3 under Group Term Life
Insurance of Rs.10,00,000/- and Group Personal Accidental
Insurance of Rs.10,00,000/-. The document further consist of an
acknowledgement of receipt of this amount by petitioner no.1 for
herself and on behalf of petitioner no.2 and 3. The payment is
proved by deposit receipts. PW2 has also filed document to show
that a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid to petitioner no.1, towards
Group Mediclaim of the deceased.
As regards whether the compensation paid under the
Group Mediclaim, Group of Life insurance and Group Personal
Accident Policy is deductible from the compensation calculated
by the Tribunal under Motor Vehicle Act, relying on law settled
in United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Patricia Jean
Mahajan (2022) 6SCC 281 and Helen C Rebello vs. Maharashtra
State Road Transport Corporation (1999) 1SCC 90, Hon'ble
MACT No. 850/23 Rajbala & ors. vs. Ravi Kumar Ravani & ors. Page no. 14 of 27 ss
Delhi High Court in its judgment Noorjadi Khatoon v. Pintoo
Yadav and United India Insurance Company, MAC.APP
458/2015, decided on 29.05.2015 made the following
observation:
...36. We are in full agreement with the observations made in the
case of Helen Rebello that principle of balancing between losses
and gains, by reason of death, to arrive at the amount of
compensation is a general rule, but what is more important is that
such receipts by the claimants must have some correlation with the
accidental death by reason of which alone the claimants have
received the amounts. We do not think it would be necessary for us
to go into the question of distinction made between the provisions
of the Fatal Accidents Act and the Motor Vehicles Act. According
to the decisions referred to in the earlier part of this judgment, it is
clear that the amount on account of social security as may have
been received must have a nexus or relation with the accidental
injury or death, so far to be deductible from the amount of
compensation. There must be some correlation between the
amount received and the accidental death.or it may be in the same
sphere, absence (sic) the amount received shall not be deducted
from the amount of compensation Thus, the amount received on
account of insurance policy of the deceased cannot be deducted
from the amount of compensation though no doubt the receipt of
the insurance amount is accelerated due to premature death of the
insured. So far as other items in respect of which learned counsel
for the Insurance Company has vehemently urged, for example
some allowance paid to the children, and Mrs Patricia Mahajan
under the social security system, no correlation of those receipts
with the accidental death has been shown much less established.
Apart from the fact that contribution comes from different sources
for constituting the fund out of which payment on account of
social security system is made, one of the constituents of the fund
is tax which is deducted from income for the purpose. We feel that
the High Court has rightly disallowed any deduction on account of
receipts under the insurance policy and other receipts under the
social security system which the claimant would have also
otherwise been entitled to receive irrespective of accidental death
of Dr Mahajan. If the proposition "receipts from whatever source"
is interpreted so widely that it may cover all the receipts, which
may come into the hands of the claimants, in view of the mere
death of the victim, it would only defeat the purpose of the Act
providing for just compensation on account of accidental death.
Such gains, maybe on account of savings or other investment etc.
made by the deceased, would not go to the benefit of the
wrongdoer and the claimant should not be left worse off, if he had
never taken an insurance policy or had not made investments for
future returns."
16. Thus, on the basis of the ratio in Helen C. Rebello (supra) and
Patricia Jean Mahajan (supra), it can be safely concluded that only
MACT No. 850/23 Rajbala & ors. vs. Ravi Kumar Ravani & ors. Page no. 15 of 27 ss
those amounts which are payable to the Claimant/Claimants by
reason of death or injury in an accident are only liable to be
deducted..."
Hon'ble Delhi High Court further held that the amount
paid by the employer under any Group Personal Accident policy
towards accidental death is liable to be deducted from the amount
of compensation.
In view of the above, the amount of Rs.10,00,000/-
received under the Group Personal Accidental Policy by the
ptitioners is deductable from the total compensation however,
any amount received by the petitioners under the Group Life
Insurance or the Mediclaim, which had no nexus or co-relation
with the accidental death of the victim, cannot be so deducted.
24. The deceased is proved to be married at the time of
accident. Petitioner no.1, 2 and 3 have been considered to be
dependent on the deceased. Having regard to the ratio in Sarla
Verma case (supra) deductions towards personal and living
expenses of the victim in such a case would be taken as 1/3 Thus,
a deduction of 1/3 of the total calculated income i.e.
Rs.3,52,260/- which is equal to Rs.1,17,420/-. Hence, deceased
would have contributed Rs.2,34,840/- towards the petitioners.
Determination of Multiplicand
25. As the total income of the deceased (after deductions) is
calculated to be Rs.2,34,840/-, the multiplicand, in terms of
judgment of Sarla Verma would be 14.
Loss of dependency upon applying multiplier
26. Since the age of the victim was between 50-60 years, in
view of the above discussion, the total loss of dependency after
MACT No. 850/23 Rajbala & ors. vs. Ravi Kumar Ravani & ors. Page no. 16 of 27 ss
applying multiplier of 14 would be Rs.2,34,840/-
X14=Rs.32,87,760/- and Rs.10,00,000/- deducted from the
amount of compensation i.e. Rs.32,87,760-Rs.10,00,000/-
=22,87,760/-.
Compensation under Non-Pecuniary Heads (Grant of Loss of
Estate, Loss of Consortium and Funeral Expenses):
27. To calculate compensation under the non pecuniary heads,
reference has to be drawn from decision in Pranay Sethi case
(supra) wherein it was observed:
''...Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be
quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable
foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price
index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field
have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the
same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise,
there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and
unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation
lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the
orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be
unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums.
It seems to us 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. The
principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle.
But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We
think that it would be condign that the amount that we have
quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three
years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span
of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring
in consistency in respect of those heads.
.
.
59.8. 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...''
28. It may further be noted that the date of judgment of Pranay Sethi case (supra) is 31/10/2017. Further, as per the judgment, the MACT No. 850/23 Rajbala & ors. vs. Ravi Kumar Ravani & ors. Page no. 17 of 27 ss amount so quantified under the non pecuniary heads have to be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. As such, the funeral expenses and expenses towards loss of estate would, as on date, be Rs.18150/-, under each of these heads while compensation for loss of consortium would stand enhanced to Rs.48400/-.
29. On the date of accident, deceased was survived by his wife, mother, and three children. As such, in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as noted above, all the petitioners would be entitled Rs.48400/- each towards loss of consortium, while, petitioner no.1/wife is entitled to expenses towards funeral and loss of estate also.
Share of petitioners
30. (I) Petitioner no.1/Rajbala (wife of deceased) is entitled to Rs.8,87,760/- towards loss of financial dependency and Rs.48400/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.18150/- towards loss of estate and Rs.18150/- towards funeral expenses. The total comes out to be Rs.9,72,460/-.
(II) Petitioner no.2/Ichcha (daughter of deceased) is entitled to Rs.7,00,000/- towards loss of financial dependence and Rs.48400/- towards loss of consortium. The total comes out to be Rs.7,48,400/-.
(III) Petitioner no.3/Bhumika (daughter of deceased) is entitled to Rs.7,00,000/- towards loss of financial dependence and Rs.48400/- towards loss of consortium. The total comes out to be Rs.7,48,400/-.
Thus, the total amount payable by respondent no.3 is MACT No. 850/23 Rajbala & ors. vs. Ravi Kumar Ravani & ors. Page no. 18 of 27 ss Rs.24,69,260/-.
Liability
31. As already discussed, respondent no.3/insurance company is liable to compensate the petitioners. The principal award amount/compensation shall be with simple interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of petition till actual realization.
In case, the interest of petitioners was stopped or excluded during the present inquiry proceedings, same is liable to be adjusted from the total interest calculated on the Award amount. Similarly, amount awarded and released as interim Award, if any, during pendency of the case, be deducted from the total compensation amount.
Directions Regarding Deposit of Award Amount in Bank
32. In compliance of directions issued vide order dated 16.11.2021 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition Civil No.534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India the award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT PARKING FUND, A/c No. 00000042706875094, IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir in the prescribed format i.e. MCOP Number on the file of (Claims Tribunal Name) Date of award, Compensation Amount, Income Tax Deduction at Source, Bank Transaction Reference No./Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. In turn, the State Bank of India, Saket Courts Branch shall receive the deposited sum and capture the above information and furnish a statement of account on a daily basis to the Nazir of this Tribunal MACT No. 850/23 Rajbala & ors. vs. Ravi Kumar Ravani & ors. Page no. 19 of 27 ss to reconcile the deposits of compensation and the respective MCOPs towards which such deposits are made. On such deposits being made, the insurance company shall submit a letter to the Nazir of this Tribunal enclosing a copy of the said bank advice, in prescribed format as above, as per which the deposit made to the bank account of this Tribunal, to enable this Tribunal to keep tab on the deposits made and the MCOPs for which they were made. The Payment advice for remittance of compensation is as under:
PAYMENT ADVICE FOR REMITTANCE OF COMPENSATION :
............ Bank ................... To:
............... Court ........................ We confirm remittance of compensation as follows on instructions of ................................... (insurance company):- MCOP Number On the file of (Claims Tribunal Name), Place Date of award Amount Deposited, Income Tax Deduction at Source, if any Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. Insurance company of offending vehicle, on deposit, shall also send a copy of the payment advice in above format to this Tribunal and serve a copy of the same on the claimants or their counsel as the case may be.
DISBURSEMENT
33. 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.
MACT No. 850/23 Rajbala & ors. vs. Ravi Kumar Ravani & ors. Page no. 20 of 27 ss
(ii) 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 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."
34. 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 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 MACT No. 850/23 Rajbala & ors. vs. Ravi Kumar Ravani & ors. Page no. 21 of 27 ss 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."
35. 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.
Apportionment
36. Out of the total compensation amount awarded to petitioner no.1/Rajbala i.e. Rs.9,72,460/-, Rs.4,72,460/- be released to her in her bank account near her place of residence and remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/- be kept in the form of monthly FDRs of Rs.25,000/- p.m. Out of the total compensation amount awarded to petitioner no.2/Ichcha i.e. Rs.7,48,400/-, entire amount be kept in the form of FDR till her age of majority as per directions/rules.
MACT No. 850/23 Rajbala & ors. vs. Ravi Kumar Ravani & ors. Page no. 22 of 27 ss Out of the total compensation amount awarded to petitioner no.3/Bhumika i.e. Rs.7,48,400/-, entire amount be kept in the form of FDR till her age of majority as per directions/rules.
37. The following directions are also given to the bank for compliance:
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name (s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of victim i.e. the savings bank account of the claimant shall be individual savings bank account and not a joint account.
(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 (s) 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 or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/ or debit card to claimant (s). However, in case the debit card and/ or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit freeze the account of the claimant so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook MACT No. 850/23 Rajbala & ors. vs. Ravi Kumar Ravani & ors. Page no. 23 of 27 ss of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque book and / or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1. Date of accident 13.03.2023
2. Name of deceased Manoj Kumar Sharma
3. Age of the deceased 42 years
4. Occupation of the deceased Store Assistant at DSS Takara Bio India Pvt.Ltd
5. Income of the deceased Rs.2,81,808/- p.a. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased:
S No. Name Age (at the Relation
time of
accident)
(i) Rajbala 35 years Wife
(ii) Ichcha 11 years Daughter
(iii) Bhumika 9 years Daughter
Computation of compensation:-
S. No Heads Awarded by the
Claims Tribunal
1 A. Income of the deceased per year Rs.2,81,808/-
2 B. Add-Future Prospects 25% of A Rs.70,452/-
(per year)
MACT No. 850/23 Rajbala & ors. vs. Ravi Kumar Ravani & ors. Page no. 24 of 27 ss
3 C. Total Rs.3,52,260/-
4 D. Less-Personal Expenses of the Rs.1,17,420/-
deceased 1/3 of (C)
5 E. Yearly loss of dependency [C -D] Rs.2,34,840/-
6 F. Multiplier. 14
7 G. Total loss of dependency (E x F = Rs.32,87,760/-
G)
8 H. Medical Expenses Nil
9 I. Deduction, if any Rs.10,00,000/-
10 J. Compensation after deduction, if any Rs.22,87,760/-
11 K. Compensation for loss of (Rs.48400/-
consortium X3 )
Rs.1,45,200/-
12 L. Compensation for loss of estate Rs.18,150/-
13 M. Compensation towards funeral Rs.18,150/-
expenses
14 N. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.24,69,260/-
total of J+K+L+M=N
15 O. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED: @ 7.5%
from date of filing of petition till actual per annum
realization of principal amount awarded.
16 Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.20,96,800/- 17 Award amount released Rs.3,72,460/-
18 Mode of disbursement of the award (I) Out of the amount to the claimant (s). (Clause 29) total compensation amount awarded to petitioner no.1/Rajbala i.e. Rs.9,72,460/-, MACT No. 850/23 Rajbala & ors. vs. Ravi Kumar Ravani & ors. Page no. 25 of 27 ss Rs.4,72,460/-
be released to
her in her bank
account near
her place of
residence and
remaining
amount of
Rs.5,00,000/-
be kept in the
form of
monthly FDRs
of Rs.25,000/-
p.m.
(II) Out of
the total
compensation
amount
awarded to
petitioner
no.2/Ichcha i.e.
Rs.7,48,400/-,
entire amount
be kept in the
form of FDR
till her age of
majority as per
directions/rules
(III) Out of
the total
compensation
amount
awarded to
petitioner
no.3/Bhumika
i.e.
MACT No. 850/23 Rajbala & ors. vs. Ravi Kumar Ravani & ors. Page no. 26 of 27 ss
Rs.7,48,400/-,
entire amount
be kept in the
form of FDR
till her age of
majority as per
directions/rules
.
All above
amount shall be
along with
interest @ 7.5
% per annum
on total
principal award
amount from
date of filing of
DAR till actual
realization.
19 Next Date for compliance of the award 12.12.2025
(Clause 31)
38. Put up on 12.12.2025 for compliance.
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
Announced in the open court GUPTA Date:
2025.10.28
on 28th October, 2025
16:56:22
+0530
(Charu Gupta)
PO-MACT-01 (South East)
Saket Courts/New Delhi
MACT No. 850/23 Rajbala & ors. vs. Ravi Kumar Ravani & ors. Page no. 27 of 27 ss