Delhi District Court
Shahjahan And Ors vs Irfan Ali And Ors on 8 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHILASH MALHOTRA
PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-02 ,PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
SHAHJAHAN AND ORS. Vs. IRFAN ALI & ORS.
MACT NO. 28/2021
1. Shahjahan W/o Late Raisuddin
2. Imran Khan S/o Late Raisuddin
3. Mohd. Irfan S/o Late Raisuddin
4. Nargis Fatima D/o Late Raisuddin
5. Tabassum Malik D/o Late Raisuddin
All resident of
Flat No. D-3, 3rd Floor, Puran Singh Apartment,
147/9, Kishan garh, Opp. -4, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi -110070
Also at :
Daud Sarai, Amroha, Uttar Pradesh. Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Irfan Ali
S/o Sh. Buddhan Khan
R/o Village Harnagla,
PS Swar, Distt. Rampur, UP .... Driver/Respondent no. 1
2. Sh. Intejar Ali S/o Sh. Buddhan Ali R/o 115, Harnagla, Saur, Distt. Rampur, UP. ....Owner/Respondent no.2
3. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd, Office At 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi -110070 ....Insurance Company/ Respondent no. 3 MACT 28/21 Page. 1 of 35 Shahjahan & Ors. Vs Irfan Ali & Ors Date of accident 30.10.2020 Date of filing Claim Petition 08.02.2021 Date of framing of issues 10.08.2023 Date of concluding arguments 22.12.2025 Date of decision 08.01.2026 AWARD/JUDGMENT Index to the Judgment I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE CLAIMANT(s)...........................................4 II. FRAMING OF ISSUES..................................................................................5 III. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS OF THE PARTIES....................................7 IV. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO....................................9
(a) Issue No.1: Whether Mr. Raisuddin expired on account of injuries sustained in the accident which occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the respondent driver?......................................................................9 i. The evidence on record qua negligence:..........................................9 ii. Presumption qua complicity upon filing chargesheet:.....................9 iii. Adverse inference qua driver:........................................................10 iv. Preponderance of probabilities:......................................................11 v. Finding:..........................................................................................12
(b) Issue No.2: Whether claimant is entitled to compensation, and to what amount ?..........................................................................................................13 i. Principles qua assessment of compensation:..................................13 ii. Monthly Income of the deceased:..................................................15 iii. Future prospects:............................................................................15 iv. Personal expenses of the deceased:................................................17 v. Monthly & Annual Loss of dependency:.......................................18 MACT 28/21 Page. 2 of 35 Shahjahan & Ors. Vs Irfan Ali & Ors vi. Total Loss of Dependency:.............................................................19 vii. Other Heads:...................................................................................19 viii. Medical Expenses:..........................................................................20 ix. Compensation for Loss of Consortium:.........................................21 x. Compensation for Loss of Estate:..................................................22 xi. Compensation towards Funeral Expenses:.....................................23 xii. Total Compensation:.......................................................................23
(c) Issue No.3: Relief..................................................................................23 i. Amount of Award:..........................................................................23 ii. Rate of Interest:..............................................................................24 V. DEPOSIT OF AWARD& RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT.........................25 i. Deposit of Award:...........................................................................25 ii. Disbursement of the award amount & protection thereof:.............27 VI. LIABILITY...................................................................................................29 VII.. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN CASES OF DEATH.................................................................................................................30 VIII..............................COMPLIANCE QUA PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME 32 MACT 28/21 Page. 3 of 35 Shahjahan & Ors. Vs Irfan Ali & Ors I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE CLAIMANT(s)
1. In the present case, the accident had occurred out of Delhi and DAR was filed. A claim petition was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased.
2. The issue regarding the jurisdiction was raised by the Insurance Company. The office of the Insurance Company is stated to be within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal and in lieu of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Company Limited and Ors. (2016) 3 SCC 43, the issue of jurisdiction is no more in dispute.
3. In present case, FIR bearing no. 0309/2020 was registered in PS Amroha Dehat District Amroha. On the complaint made by complainant Mohd. Irfan. A charge sheet was filed by the police against the driver Mr. Irfan under Section 279/337/338/304A IPC, on the charges of rash driving of vehicle no. UP-22-AR- 1104 which hit the vehicle no. UP-20-AA-5387 driven by Mr. Raisuddin who suffered the accident and died.
4. As per the charge sheet, the vehicle was driven by respondent no. 1 driver, owned by respondent no 2 and insured by respondent no. 3 Insurance company.
5. During the proceedings issues were framed on 10.08.2023 Thereafter the written submissions were filed by the parties in the prescribed format. The financial statement of the legal representatives of deceased was recorded on 29.11.2024.
MACT 28/21 Page. 4 of 35 Shahjahan & Ors. Vs Irfan Ali & Ors II. FRAMING OF ISSUES
6. Vide order dated 10.08.2023, following issues were framed by this Tribunal:-
"1. Whether the deceased Sh. Raisuddin sustained fatal fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 30.10.2020 at about 4-4:30 p.m near Village Chhabi, Kanth Road, District Amroha, UP caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. UP-22AR-1104 driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3?OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief."
7. Recording of evidence: in present case, the petitioner Ms. Shahjahan examined herself as PW-1. Her affidavit in chief is Ex. PW 1/A. She also exhibited copy of Identity Card issued by Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA), Amroha in favour of deceased as Ex. PW1/1; copy of DL of deceased Raisuddin is Ex. PW1/2; copy of Pan card of deceased as Ex. PW1/3; copy of PAN card of Shahjahan (petitioner no. 1) is Ex. PW1/4; copy of Aadhar card of Shahjahan (petitioner no. 1) is Ex. PW1/5; copy of Aadhar card of Imran Khan (petitioner no. 2) is Ex. PW1/6; copy of Aadhar card of Mohd. Irfan (petitioner no. 3) is Ex. PW1/7; copy of Aadhar card of Nargis Fatima MACT 28/21 Page. 5 of 35 Shahjahan & Ors. Vs Irfan Ali & Ors (petitioner no. 4) is Ex. PW1/8; copy of Aadhar card of Tabsum Malik (petitioner no. 5) is Ex. PW1/9; certified copy of criminal case is Ex. PW1/10; attested copy of appointment letter of deceased BSA office Amroha, in favour of deceased Raisuddin is Ex. PW1/11; attested copy of salary slips month of August, September and October, 2020 of deceased BSA office amroha, in favour of deceased is Ex. PW1/12; copy of first joining letter dated 07.07.1989 of deceased BSA office Amroha in favour of deceased is Ex. PW1/13; photocopy of service records of deceased BSA office Amroha in favour of deceased is marked -X (colly).
8. PW-1 in her testimony stated that on 30.10.2020 at about 4- 4:30 p.m, she along with her husband Mr. Raisuddin was going on the motorcycle bearing no. UP-20-AA-5387. The motorcycle was driven by her husband and PW-1 was pillion rider. She stated that when they reached near Village Chhabi Kanth Road, the offending vehicle bearing no. UP-22-AR- 1104 which was driven in a rash manner with high speed hit their motorcycle from backside with great force. Due to the impact, they fell down and received injuries and her husband Mr. Raisuddin died.
9. She stated that her husband was working as a head master with above primary school Dhakwara, Block Amroha, District- Amroha and was getting a salary of Rs.83,770/- per month.
MACT 28/21 Page. 6 of 35 Shahjahan & Ors. Vs Irfan Ali & Ors She stated that deceased is survived by herself and their children i.e. R-2 to R-5.
10. PW-2 is Mr. Raju Singh Yadav. Office Assistant B.E.O. Amroha. He proved the documents :- copy of authority leter dated 14.05.2024 is Ex. PW 2/A; copy of service book records of deceased Raisuddin is Ex. PW 2/1 (Colly); copy of salary bill, salary slip of month, August, September, October, 2020 of deceased Raisuddin are Ex. PW 2/2; copy of appointment letter dated 07.07.1989 of deceased Raisuddin is Ex. PW 2/3; copy of promotion letter dated 30.06.2023 and 16.07.2015 of deceased Raisuddin is Ex. PW 2/4. In his testimony he stated that the deceased Mr. Raisuddin was a government employee with UP Government in Education Department and his last drawn salary was Rs.83,770/- on the post of Head Master, UPS Uttar Pradesh. He clarified that the family of the deceased did not get any compensation from department due to his death in the road accident.
11. The respondent no. 1 driver and respondent no. 2 owner did not led any evidence and did not conduct cross examination of PW-1 and PW-2 despite the opportunity.
12.R-3 Insurance company also did not led any evidence and RE was closed on 30.05.2024 by the Ld. Local Commissioner.
MACT 28/21 Page. 7 of 35 Shahjahan & Ors. Vs Irfan Ali & Ors III. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS OF THE PARTIES
13.Ld. Counsel for the claimant submitted that they have filed the copy of FIR and charge sheet. He submits that the said record clearly shows that the offending vehicle bearing no. UP-22- AR-1104 was seized during the investigation and later on released on Superdari. He submits that the charge sheet in that case was already filed against the driver Irfan u/s 279/337/338/304-A IPC which clearly establishes the rash driving on part of the offending vehicle.
14.It is argued that PW-1 Ms. Shahjahan is the eye witness in the charge sheet. In her testimony PW-1 categorically stated that the accident had occurred due to rash driving by the driver of the offending vehicle and no evidence is led by the respondents including the insurance company to rebut the said fact.
15. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that they are claiming the compensation on the basis of last drawn salary as deceased was a govt. employee.
16.During the course of argument, Ld. Counsel admitted that the monthly salary of the deceased after deducting tax as per the prevalent rates at that time was Rs.74,264/-.
17.Respondent no. 1 & 2 in their written statement stated that their vehicle bearing no. UP-22-AR-1104 is not involved in the accident. It is stated that the motorcycle was driven in rash and negligent manner which led to the accident. No evidence was led by R-1 and R-2 to prove their contentions.
MACT 28/21 Page. 8 of 35 Shahjahan & Ors. Vs Irfan Ali & Ors
18.R-3 Insurance company in their written statement disputed the involvement of vehicle no. UP-22-AR-1104. It is stated that the motorcycle was driven in rash and negligent manner which led to the accident. No evidence was led by R-3 to prove their contentions. However during the course of final arguments, Ld. Counsel for insurance company conceded that they are not claiming any statutory defence of breach of policy and the case may be decided as per law.
19.It is admitted by insurance company that the offending vehicle bearing no. UP-22-AR-1104 was insured on the date of accident.
IV. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO
(a) Issue No.1: Whether Mr. Raisuddin expired on account of injuries sustained in the accident which occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the respondent driver?
i. The evidence on record qua negligence:
20.Claimant has placed on record the certified copy of charge sheet in FIR no 0309/20, PS Amroha Dehat District Amroha. Record shows that the charge sheet u/s 279/337/338/304-A IPC was filed in the present case against the driver Irfan. The charge sheet records that the due to rash driving of the driver of the offending vehicle / R-1, the deceased suffered injuries and died.
MACT 28/21 Page. 9 of 35 Shahjahan & Ors. Vs Irfan Ali & Ors ii. Presumption qua complicity upon filing chargesheet:
21.In a recent order dated 25.02.2025, passed in Ranjeet & Anr v Abdul Nayem Keb & Anr in SLP (c) 10351/2019, it was held in trenchant terms as thus:
"It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the eyewitnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver."
22.In the present case, not only the chargesheet was filed but PW- 1 Ms. Shahjahan who is the eye witness in the charge sheet categorically deposed before the Tribunal that the accident had occurred due to rash driver of the driver / R-1 of offending vehicle no. UP-22-AR-1104.
23. R-1, R-2 and R-3 filed their written statement but failed to lead any evidence to substantiate their contentions.
24.The charge sheet, evidence of the eye witness as well as medical record proves the place of occurrence and it is established that the deceased suffered injuries while de- boarding the bus/insured vehicle.
25.From the aforesaid, it is clear that the accident had occurred due to rash driving of offending / insured vehicle by R-1.
MACT 28/21 Page. 10 of 35 Shahjahan & Ors. Vs Irfan Ali & Ors iii. Adverse inference qua driver:
26.The driver of the offending vehicle steered clear of the witness box and did not lead any controvertible evidence to negate or refute the allegations of rash and negligent driving. 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 a adverse inference can be drawn against him. In the present case also, since the driver exercised his volition to not enter into the witness box to controvert the claim of petitioner or even to explain circumstances of accident, an adverse inference ought to be drawn against him.
iv. Preponderance of probabilities:
27.It is trite law that in a proceeding before the Claims Tribunal, the claimant does not have to establish negligence on the part of the driver respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The standards of establishing negligence is predicated on preponderance of probabilities. In the present case too, negligence has been established on this principle.
28.In this context, it would be useful to peruse Mathew Alexander v. Mohd. Shafi, (2023) 13 SCC 510 wherein it was observed as thus:
"In this context, we could refer to the judgments of this Court in N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai MACT 28/21 Page. 11 of 35 Shahjahan & Ors. Vs Irfan Ali & Ors Ammal [N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal, (1980) 3 SCC 457 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 774] , wherein the plea that the criminal case had ended in acquittal and that, therefore, the civil suit must follow suit, was rejected. It was observed that culpable rashness under Section 304-AIPC is more drastic than negligence under the law of torts to create liability. Similarly, in Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC [Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC, (2009) 13 SCC 530 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 189 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1101] ("Bimla Devi"), it was observed that in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal has to determine the amount of fair compensation to be granted in the event an accident has taken place by reason of negligence of a driver of a motor vehicle. A holistic view of the evidence has to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal and strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be established by the claimants. The claimants have to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in a road traffic accident. To the same effect is the observation made by this Court in Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz [Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 13] which has referred to the aforesaid judgment in Bimla Devi [Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC (2009) 13 SCC 530."
v. Finding:
29.In view of foregoing discussion, it stands proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities that the aforesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the MACT 28/21 Page. 12 of 35 Shahjahan & Ors. Vs Irfan Ali & Ors transgressing/offending vehicle bearing registration no. UP-22-
AR-1104 and the said vehicle at that time was driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured by respondent no.3. Hence, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the claimant and against the respondents.
(b) Issue No.2: Whether claimant is entitled to compensation, and to what amount ?
i. Principles qua assessment of compensation:
30.Before adverting to the submissions of the counsels in this regard, it would be apposite to refer to the law of the land qua this aspect. The law has been enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. (2003) 6SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.(2017) 16 SCC 680.
31.An essential ingredient of the award is the loss of dependency.
To calculate the same, it would be of utmost significance to peruse the following seminal directions issued in Sarla Verma (supra):
"18.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
(c) the number of dependants 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;
MACT 28/21 Page. 13 of 35 Shahjahan & Ors. Vs Irfan Ali & Ors
(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and
(iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.
If these determinants are standardised, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay
19.To have uniformity and consistency, the 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 dependant 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."
32.To ascertain the 'multiplier' mentioned in Step 2 above, it was further laid down in Sarla Verma (supra) as thus:
"42 We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table MACT 28/21 Page. 14 of 35 Shahjahan & Ors. Vs Irfan Ali & Ors 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 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 51-55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years ,M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M- 5 for 66 to 70 years."
33. Further, in terms of the mandate of Rajesh Tyagi v Jaibir Singh FAO 842/2003, which is the cause célèbre qua cases pertaining to motor accident claims, the claimant filed Form XIII of the Scheme for Motor Accident Claims qua compensation under various heads which have been elucidated in the paragraphs hereafter..
ii. Monthly Income of the deceased:
34.PW-2 Mr. Raju Singh Yadav appeared with the service record from the office B.E.O Amroha. He stated that deceased Mr. Raisuddin was aged 58 years and was working as a permanent government employee on the post of Head Master, UPS, Uttar Pradesh. He stated that last drawn salary of deceased was Rs.83,770/-. The salary slip was also proved on record.
35.During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the claimant conceded that after deducting the tax prevalent at that time, the monthly salary of deceased was Rs.74,264/-. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased is quantified as Rs. 74,264/-
p.m.
MACT 28/21 Page. 15 of 35
Shahjahan & Ors. Vs Irfan Ali & Ors
iii. Future prospects:
36.To factor into account future prospects, it would be apt to refer to National Insurance Co Ltd v Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 wherein it was laid down as thus:
"59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:
59.3 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. 59.4 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. 59.5 For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
59.6 The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 read with para 42 of that judgment 59.7 The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
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."
MACT 28/21 Page. 16 of 35 Shahjahan & Ors. Vs Irfan Ali & Ors
37.To determine the age of the deceased, the claimants has filed on record the PAN Card which shows date of birth of the deceased as 01.04.1962. As deceased was 58 years and six months of old on the date of death. As per mandate in Sarla Verma (Supra) and Pranay Sethi (Supra) the future prospects for a person age between 50 to 60 years having permanent job is 15% and accordingly the same is calculated as Rs.11,139/-
iv. Personal expenses of the deceased:
38.The Expenses incurred by the deceased in himself are deducted while calculating the loss of dependency. To calculate the personal expenses, recourse can be had to the following instructions of Sarla Verma (supra) which were approved by the Constitutional Bench in Pranay Sethi(supra):
"30.Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362] , the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. 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 dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one- fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.
31.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 MACT 28/21 Page. 17 of 35 Shahjahan & Ors. Vs Irfan Ali & Ors 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 dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.
32.Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the 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."
39.As per the case of the claimant, the deceased is survived by his wife and four children i.e. R-2 to R-5. R-2 and R-3 are sons aged 36 years and 31 years. PW-1 in her testimony admitted that her sons were working in private jobs. She stated that three of her children are married. She stated that her one daughter is unmarried and studying. From the aforesaid position, it is clear that deceased is survived by two dependent legal heirs and accordingly, the expenditure towards personal expenses is considered as 1/3rd in view of the mandate of Sarla Verma (Supra).
40. Thus, the net deduction in the present case is ( Rs.74,264/- + Rs. 11,139 = Rs. 85,403/-) of total income is calculated as i.e Rs.28,467/-
MACT 28/21 Page. 18 of 35 Shahjahan & Ors. Vs Irfan Ali & Ors v. Monthly & Annual Loss of dependency:
41.The monthly loss of dependency would be Rs. 56,936/-. The annual loss of dependency Rs. 56,936 X 12 = Rs. 6,83,282/-
vi. Total Loss of Dependency:
42. Since the deceased was 58 years old, the applicable multiplier in terms of the verdict of Sarla Verma(supra) is 9. The total loss of dependency is thus Rs.6,83,282/ X 9 =Rs.61,49,538/-) vii. Other Heads:
43.In Sarla Verma (supra) it was also laid down that after calculating the 'Loss of Dependency', certain amounts were to be added under conventional heads such as loss of estate, loss of consortium etc. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are extracted hereunder:
"Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs 5000 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 5000 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 be added."
44.The amount qua the above heads were further quantified in Pranay Sethi(supra), which clarified as thus:
"52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) MACT 28/21 Page. 19 of 35 Shahjahan & Ors. Vs Irfan Ali & Ors 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] . It has granted Rs 25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] refers to Santosh Devi [Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 726 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 160 :
(2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 167] , it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. 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."
45.The above verdict was passed in the year 2017. Almost eight years have elapsed, and therefore the above heads would be enhanced at the rate of 20%.
MACT 28/21 Page. 20 of 35 Shahjahan & Ors. Vs Irfan Ali & Ors viii. Medical Expenses:
54.After the incident, the injured was taken to hospital and died. No medical expenses have been claimed.
ix. Compensation for Loss of Consortium:
55.The concept of consortium was expounded in Magnum General Insurance Co Ltd v Nanu Ram 2018 18 SCC 130 in the following words:
"21.A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. 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 : [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54.
21.1 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". [Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edn., 1979).] 21.2 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. 21.3 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.
MACT 28/21 Page. 21 of 35 Shahjahan & Ors. Vs Irfan Ali & Ors 22 .Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognised 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.
23. 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 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 [ Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram v. Sohi Ram, 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 3848 : (2017) 4 RLW 3368; Uttarakhand High Court in Rita Rana v. Pradeep Kumar, 2013 SCC OnLine Utt 2435 : (2014) 3 UC 1687; Karnataka High Court in Lakshman v. Susheela Chand Choudhary, 1996 SCC OnLine Kar 74 : (1996) 3 Kant LJ 570] . However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium.
24. 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 [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] . 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."
56. The deceased is survived by five legal heirs including wife.
Thus, On the basis of the above verdict and mandated in Pranay Sethi'(Supra), the compensation for Consortium is hereby quantified as Rs 48,400/- X 5 = 2,42,000/-
MACT 28/21 Page. 22 of 35 Shahjahan & Ors. Vs Irfan Ali & Ors x. Compensation for Loss of Estate:
57.On the basis of the above verdict, the compensation for loss of estate is hereby quantified as Rs 18,150/-
xi. Compensation towards Funeral Expenses:
58.On the basis of the above verdict, the compensation of funeral expenses is hereby quantified as Rs 18,150/-
xii. Total Compensation:
59. Thus, the total amount of compensation to be awarded is calculated as follows:
Sr. No. Head Amount
1. Total loss of dependency Rs. 61,49,538/--
2. Medical Expenses -NIL-
3. Compensation for Loss of Rs. 2,42,000/-
Consortium
4. Compensation for Loss of Estate Rs 18,150/-
5. Compensation towards Funeral Rs 18,150/-
Expenses
6. Total Compensation Rs.64,27,838/-
MACT 28/21 Page. 23 of 35
Shahjahan & Ors. Vs Irfan Ali & Ors
(c) Issue No.3: Relief.
i. Amount of Award:
60.Thus, the claimant is awarded as sum of Rs. 64,27,838/- along with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. The rate of interest has been calculated in terms of the succeeding paragraphs.
ii. Rate of Interest:
61.It was contended by Ld Counsel for the respondent insurance company that the amount of interest ought to at @7.5%, in accordance with the general prevalent practice in Courts. However, Ld Counsel for the claimant sought 9% as the rate of interest.
62.In order to adjudicate these rival claims, recourse can be had to Erudhaya Priya v State Transport Corporation 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601 wherein the aspect of rate of interest was categorically enunciated as thus:
(c) The third and the last aspect is the interest rate claimed as 12% "15.In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has watered down the interest rate during the course of hearing to 9% in view of the judicial pronouncements including in the Jagdish case (supra). On this aspect, once again, there was no serious dispute raised by the learned counsel for the respondent once the claim was confined to 9% in line with the interest rates applied by this Court"
MACT 28/21 Page. 24 of 35 Shahjahan & Ors. Vs Irfan Ali & Ors
63.Ergo, the amount of compensation/award amount will be payable by the respondent insurance company with simple interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the claim petition/DAR till actual realisation. The date of filing of petition is 08.02.2021 therefore the amount of Interest is calculated at @ 9 % from the date of filing of petition i.e. Rs.28,44,318/- for a period of 59 months. Thus, the total amount of award is Rs.92,72,156/- rounded off Rs.92,72,160/-.
64.It is also clarified that in case the interest of petitioner 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.
V. DEPOSIT OF AWARD& RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT i. Deposit of Award:
65. In terms of the mandate of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) the respondent Insurance Company/driver/owner shall deposit the award amount or transfer the same by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS directly to the bank account of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in UCO Bank, Patiala House Courts within 30 days of the award. The respondent(s) held liable to pay compensation by the Claims Tribunal shall give notice of MACT 28/21 Page. 25 of 35 Shahjahan & Ors. Vs Irfan Ali & Ors deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant(s) 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 the interest upto the date of notice of deposit to the claimant(s) with a copy to their counsel.
APPORTIONMENT
66.In the present case, the award amount is apportioned among the legal heirs of the deceased as follows:
Sr. Name Relations with Percentage share of No. Deceased each legal heir
1. Ms. Shahjahan Wife 60%
2. Imran Khan Son 10%
3. Mohd. Ifran Son 10%
4. Nargis Fatima Daughter 10%
5. Tabassum Malik Daughter 10% RELEASE
67.In the present matter, 20% of the award amount be released immediately to the petitioner nos. 1 to 5 in the bank account of the petitioners through electronic mode opened/to be opened near the place of their residence, as directed vide Order dated 08.02.2021.
68.The remaining 80% of the awarded amount be invested and deposited in 60 monthly fixed deposits receipts (FDR) of equal MACT 28/21 Page. 26 of 35 Shahjahan & Ors. Vs Irfan Ali & Ors amounts for a period of 60 months as per Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposits Schemes.
69. The Nodal officer of the bank shall ensure disbursement of the award within 3 weeks of receipt thereof by email or otherwise.
70.The disbursement to the claimant is, however, subject to the addition of future interest till deposit proportionately and also deduction of proportionate tax on the interest amount or amount of interim award, if any, to/from his share.
ii. Disbursement of the award amount & protection thereof:
71.The amount of award shall be disbursed through the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD)Scheme formulated vide order dated 01.05.2018 passed in Rajesh Tyagi(supra). 21 banks, including UCO Bank, is implementing the MACAD scheme.
72.Further, to protect the award amount, the entire amount of compensation is not being released forthwith to the claimant, and part of the compensation amount has been directed to be kept in fixed deposits in a phased manner. Further, the following conditions are hereby reiterated and being imposed upon the concerned bank with respect to the fixed deposits:
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint names to be added in the savings bank account or MACAD scheme account of claimant i.e. the bank account of claimant shall be individual account and not a joint account.
MACT 28/21 Page. 27 of 35 Shahjahan & Ors. Vs Irfan Ali & Ors
(b) The original fixed deposits shall be retained by the UCO Bank, PHC, New Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR numbers, amounts, dates of maturity and maturity amounts shall be furnished by the said bank to the claimant and the above amount shall be released in account of claimant by the Manager, UCO Bank, PHC, ND through RTGS/NEFT/or any other electronic mode.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of his residence.
(d) The maturity amount of the FDR(s) on monthly basis net of TDS be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the above account of the claimant.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the MACAD 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 card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
MACT 28/21 Page. 28 of 35 Shahjahan & Ors. Vs Irfan Ali & Ors
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause above.
VI. LIABILITY
73. All the respondents are though being held jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to petitioner, but respondent no.3 being insurer of offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in bank account being maintained in the above said bank in name of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal within 30 days from today, failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay.
In case even after lapse of 90 days from today, respondent no. 3 fails to deposit this compensation with interest, in that event, in light of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed MACT 28/21 Page. 29 of 35 Shahjahan & Ors. Vs Irfan Ali & Ors in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal 2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of respondent no. 3 with a cost of Rs.5,000/-
74.The respondent no. 3 shall inform the petitioner and his counsel that the awarded amount has been deposited so as to facilitate him to collect the same.
VII. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN CASES OF DEATH
75.Since this is a case pertaining to death, particulars of Form-XV of the Scheme For Motor Accidents Claims Formulated by the Delhi High Court in terms of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) are as under:
1. Date of Accident 30.10.2020
2. Name of the deceased Raisuddin
3. Age of the deceased 58 years
4. Occupation of the deceased Govt. Servant.
5. Income of the deceased Rs.74,264/ after deduction of tax.
6. Name, Age and relationship of legal representatives of the deceased:
S.NO NAME AGE RELATION
MACT 28/21 Page. 30 of 35
Shahjahan & Ors. Vs Irfan Ali & Ors
1. Ms. Shahjahan 57 Wife
2. Imran Khan 39 Son
3. Mohd. Ifran 36 Son
4. Nargis Fatima 33 Daughter
5. Tabassum Malik 28 Daughter
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
S.No. Heads Awarded by the
Claims Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs. 74,264/- after
deduction of tax.
8. Add: Future Prospects (B) Rs.11,139/-
9. Less: Personal expenses of the Rs.28,467/--
deceased (C)
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.56,936/-
[(A+B)- C = D]
11. Annual Loss of dependency (D x Rs.6,83,232/-
12)
12. Multiplier (E) 09
13. Total loss of dependency (D x 12 Rs. 61,49,532/-
x E = F)
14. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
MACT 28/21 Page. 31 of 35
Shahjahan & Ors. Vs Irfan Ali & Ors
15. Compensation for loss of Rs 2,42,000/-
consortium (H)
16. Compensation for loss of love & NA- in terms of New
affection (I) India Assurance Co v
Somwati (2020) 9
SCC 644
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs 18,150/-
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs 18,150/-
expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION (F + Rs.64,27,838/-
G + H + I + J + K = L)
20. Rate of Interest Awarded @9%
21. Interest amount up to the date of Rs.28,44,318/ award (M) (93 months & 16 days)
22. Total amount including interest (L Rs. 92,72,156/-
+ M) rounded off
Rs.92,72,160/-
23. Award amount released 20 %
24. Award kept in FDRs 80 %
25. Mode of disbursement of the Through Bank
award to the claimant(s)
26. Next date for compliance of the 16.02.2026
MACT 28/21 Page. 32 of 35
Shahjahan & Ors. Vs Irfan Ali & Ors
award
VIII. COMPLIANCE QUA PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME
76.The particulars of Form XVII of the Scheme For Motor Accidents Claims Formulated by the Delhi High Court , in terms of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) are as hereunder:
1. Date of the accident 30.10.2020
2. Date of filing of Form I- First Not filed as accident took place Accident Report (FAR) out of Delhi and claim petition is filed by legal heirs.
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the Same as above.
victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Same as above.
Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from Same as above the owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- Same as above Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Same as above Form VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII-Detailed Same as above Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or DAR not filed.
deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
MACT 28/21 Page. 33 of 35
Shahjahan & Ors. Vs Irfan Ali & Ors
10. Date of appointment of the Not given
Designated Officer by the Insurance
Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of No the Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or No deficiencies on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the Matter was contested by the petitioner(s) of the offer of the Insurance Company. Insurance Company.
14. Date of the Award 08.01.2026.
15. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which petitioner(s) 08.02.2021 were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the petitioner (s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17. Date on which the petitioner(s) Not furnished. Directions issued.
produced the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
MACT 28/21 Page. 34 of 35
Shahjahan & Ors. Vs Irfan Ali & Ors
18. Permanent Residential Address of As mentioned above
the petitioner(s)
19. Whether the petitioner(s) savings bank account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes.
examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
77.Further, in terms of the directions given vide order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra), the Ahlmad shall send a certified copy of this award to the concerned Criminal Court and to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority through e-mail. Copy of the award be also sent to the bank concerned. The Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given in the above case.
78.File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 16.02.2026.
Announced in the open court on 08.01.2026 (Abhilash Malhotra) Judge/PO, MACT-02, New Delhi/08.01.2026 .....full MACT 28/21 Page. 35 of 35 Shahjahan & Ors. Vs Irfan Ali & Ors