Delhi District Court
Dimpal And Ors. - - vs Garvit And Ors on 4 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF GUNJAN GUPTA: DISTRICT
JUDGE-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-01, (WEST), TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
AWARD/JUDGMENT
MACT Case No.307/2023
CNR No.-DLWT010035502023
1. Dimpal (Wife of deceased)
W/o Late Sh. Satish
Aged 34 years
2. Kanishka (Daughter of deceased)
D/o Late Sh. Satish
Aged 11 years
3. Nidhi (Daughter of deceased)
D/o Late Sh. Satis Kumar
Aged about 09 years
4. Yash (Son of deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Satish Kumar
Aged about 07 years
5. Manvi (Daughter of deceased)
D/o Late Sh. Satish Kumar
All R/o 44, Khatta Prahladpur, Khekada, Baghpath,
UP-250515
(Petitioner no.2 to 5 being minor is presented through
Dimpal)
.............petitioners
Versus
1. Garvit (Driver)
S/o Sh. Brajpal @ Lalla
R/o Village Khatta Prahladpur, P.S. Chandi Nagar,
Dimpal (LR) vs. Garvit & Ors.
MACT No.307/2023 Page no.1 of 33
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.07
17:02:40 +0530
District Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh-250515
2. Jaypal (Owner)
S/o Sh. Khamichand
R/o H. No. 466, Khatta Prahladpur, Baghpat, UP-250515
3. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
Through Manager,
A-2, 2nd Floor, Main Nazafgarh Road Near Kalra
Hospital, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015.
Email:- [email protected] &
[email protected]
(Policy No.0189574035/000000/00, validity 12.11.2018
to 11.11.2023)
4. Nodal Officer of TATA AIG General Insurance Co.
ltd. (Nodal Officer)
Plot no. E1, 1st & 2nd Floor, Sector-8, Noida, UP-201301
Contact:-7303622500, email: [email protected]
& [email protected]
........ Respondent(s)
Date of Institution of case : 26.04.2023 Date of final arguments : 20.01.2026 Date of pronouncement of order/judgment : 04.02.2026 FORM-XVII COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
1. Date of the accident 04.12.2021
2. Date of filing of Form-I - N.A. First Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II N.A. to the victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III N.A. from the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV N.A. from the Owner Dimpal (LR) vs. Garvit & Ors.
MACT No.307/2023 Page no.2 of 33
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.07
17:02:43 +0530
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- N.A.
Interim Accident Report
(IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA N.A.
and Form-VIB from the
Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - N.A.
Detailed Accident Report
(DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay No
or deficiency on the part of
the Investigating Officer? If
so, whether any action/
direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Date not mentioned
Designated Officer by the
Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated N.A.
Officer of the Insurance
Company submitted his report
within 30 days of the
petition/DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay No
or deficiency on the part of
the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company? If so,
whether any action/direction
warranted?
13. Date of response of the Legal offer was not filed by claimant(s) to the offer of the insurance company in the Insurance Company present matter
14. Date of the award 04.02.2026
15. Whether the claimant(s) Yes was/were directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which Date not mentioned claimant(s) was/were directed to open savings bank Dimpal (LR) vs. Garvit & Ors.
MACT No.307/2023 Page no.3 of 33 GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2026.02.07 17:02:46 +0530 account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Aadhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) 20.01.2026 produced the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along-with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential All R/o 44, Khatta Address of the claimant(s). Prahladpur, Khekada, Baghpath, UP-250515
19. Whether the claimant(s) Yes savings bank account(s) is/are near his/her/their place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) Yes was/were examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/her/their financial condition?
AWARD FACTUAL MATRIX & PLEADINGS
1. Vide this award, this Tribunal shall decide claim petition filed by the petitioners seeking compensation on account of the fatal injuries sustained by deceased Satish Kumar in a road vehicular accident which took place on 04.12.2021 at about 6:30 PM Near Lavnish ki Bijli, Village Khatta Prahladpur within the jurisdiction of PS Chandi Nagar, Baghpat, UP.
Dimpal (LR) vs. Garvit & Ors.
MACT No.307/2023 Page no.4 of 33
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.07
17:02:49 +0530
CASE OF THE PETITIONER
2.1 Brief facts of the case as set out in the petition are as
follows:-
2.2 On 04.12.2021, Sh. Satish Kumar (hereinafter
referred as "deceased) was going to Panchi on his bicycle. At about 6:30 PM, when he reached near Lavnish ki Bijli, Village Khatta Prahladpur, PS Chandi Nagar, Baghpat, UP, a motorcycle bearing registration no. UP17Q1217 (hereinafter referred as "Offending Vehicle") driven by respondent no.1 came from opposite/wrong direction and hit the bicycle of the deceased with great force. The offending vehicle was driven at a very high speed and in rash and negligent manner. The deceased fell down on the road and sustained fatal injuries all over his body. The deceased was shifted to District Hospital, Baghpat and was thereafter referred to GTB Hospital, Delhi. The deceased succumbed to his injuries during the course of treatment. Post mortem of the deceased was conducted at GTB Hospital, Delhi on 06.12.2021. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The deceased was 24 years of age at the time of accident and was working as a Labourer in Brick Factory and used to earn Rs.30,000/- per month. FIR No. 242/2021 under Section 279/304A IPC PS Chandi Nagar, Baghpat, UP was registered against respondent no.1. It is averred that the respondent no.01 being driver, respondent no.02 being owner and respondent no.03 being the insurer of offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
Dimpal (LR) vs. Garvit & Ors.
MACT No.307/2023 Page no.5 of 33
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.07
17:02:52 +0530
REPLY OF RESPONDENT NO.1& 2.
3. Respondent no.1 & 2 filed their separate written statements averring that there was no cause of action in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents and the petition is liable to be rejected. The offending vehicle was not responsible for the accident and the respondents have been falsely implicated in this matter. It is stated that the petition is false, frivolous, vexatious and malafide. Other contents of the petition were denied by respondent no.1 & 2 praying for dismissal of the petition.
REPLY OF RESPONDENT NO.3 & 4.
4. Respondent no.03 & 4 filed their written statement averring that the petition is false and not maintainable on facts and law and is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that there is an unexplained delay in registration of FIR and no document of intimation to the police on the day of accident has been filed on record. It is averred that this tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present petition. It is admitted that the vehicle bearing registration no. UP17Q1217 was insured with it vide policy no. 0189574035 for the period from 12.11.2018 to 11.11.2023 in the name of Jai Pal. Apart from the above, the respondent no.3 & 4 denied all other averments of petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.
ISSUES
5. Vide order dated 05.12.2023, Ld. Predecessor of this tribunal framed the following issues :-
1. Whether the deceased Satish Kumar suffered fatal injuries in the accident that took place on 04.12.2021 at about 6:30 pm Dimpal (LR) vs. Garvit & Ors.
MACT No.307/2023 Page no.6 of 33
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.07
17:02:54 +0530
at Near Lavneesh Ki Bijli, Village Khatta, Baghpat, UP due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle (motorcycle) bearing registration No. UP17Q1217 by the respondent no.1, being owned by respondent no.2 and insured with the respondent no.3? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner(s) is/are entitled to compensation, if so, of what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
6.1 Petitioners examined Smt. Dimpal, wife of the deceased/ petitioner no.1 as PW1. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A reiterating and supporting the contents of the petition. She relied upon certified copy of criminal Court records Ex.PW1/1 (colly), photocopy of Aadhar Card of her deceased husband Satish as Ex.PW1/2, photocopy of her Aadhar Card as Ex.PW1/3 (OSR), photocopy of Aadhar Card of petitioner Kanishka as Ex.PW1/4 (OSR), photocopy of Aadhar Card of petitioner Nidhi as Ex.PW1/5 (OSR), photocopy of Aadhar Card of petitioner Yash as Ex.PW1/6 (OSR), photocopy of Aadhar Card of petitioner Manvi as Ex.PW1/7 (OSR), photocopy of death certificate of her deceased husband Satish as Ex.PW1/8 (OSR), photocopy of certificate-cum-mark sheet of high school of her deceased husband Satish as Ex.PW1/9 (OSR) and photocopy of her PAN Card as Ex.PW1/10 (OSR) in her evidence. She was examined, cross- examined and discharged.
6.2(i) Petitioners have also examined Sh. Pappu as eye Dimpal (LR) vs. Garvit & Ors.
MACT No.307/2023 Page no.7 of 33
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.07
17:02:57 +0530
witness of the accident in question as PW-2. PW2 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A. PW-2 deposed that on 04.12.2021, deceased namely Sh. Satish Kumar was going to Panchi from his house on his bicycle on the correct side of the road. He deposed that at about 6:30 PM, when he reached near Lavnish ki Bijli, Village Khatta Prahladpur, PS Chandi Nagar, Baghpat, UP, the motorcycle bearing registration no. UP17Q1217 came from front/opposite side at a very high speed, driven in rash and negligent manner without proper look out and without following traffic rules and hit the deceased with great force due to which he sustained fatal injuries. He further deposed that the motorcycle was coming from the wrong direction. He deposed that he and the villagers shifted the deceased to District Hospital, Baghpat whereafter he was referred to G.T.B. Hospital, Delhi and succumbed to his injuries during treatment. He categorically deposed that the accident happened due to sole rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and he saw the incident very closely as he was present at the spot. He further deposed that even the driver sustained injuries in the accident and was caught by the public which gathered on the spot. He deposed that he can also identify the driver of the offending vehicle.
6.2(ii) In his cross-examination by counsel for respondent no. 1 & 2, he explained his presence on the spot and deposed that he is supplier of eggs and on the day of incident, he was going to deliver eggs at Village Liliyana. He also deposed that the cycle was around 25-30 meters ahead of him. He further deposed that the offending vehicular came from the front side and was trying Dimpal (LR) vs. Garvit & Ors.
MACT No.307/2023 Page no.8 of 33
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.07 17:03:00
+0530
to overtake some vehicle due to which it came to their side and hit the cyclist. He denied the suggestion that the incident did not happen with the vehicle bearing registration No. UP-17Q-1217. 6.2(iii) During the cross examination by the counsel for insurance company, the PW2 stated that he had noted the offending motorcycle before the happening of the incident and when he noted it, it was on the wrong side. He deposed that the motorcyclist remained at the spot for quite sometime and he identified the motorcyclist and the deceased as they are from his own village. He also deposed that he remained at the place of incident for 20-25 minutes and also accompanied the injured in the ambulance. He further deposed that he went to both the hospitals with the injured. The witness also detailed the scene of accident in his cross-examination. He denied the suggestion that he did not witness the accident and that he did not accompany the injured in the ambulance. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely at the instance of the family members of the deceased being from the same village.
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE 7.1 The respondent no. 2 was examined as R2W1. He tendered his affidavit of evidence as Ex.R2W1/A. He relied upon copy of his Aadhar Card as Ex.RW2/1, copy of insurance policy as mark RW2/2 and copy of extract of RC verification as Mark RW2/3 in his evidence. He was examined, cross-examined and discharged.
7.2 Perusal of record shows that an application for summoning of the witnesses was filed on behalf of respondent no. 3 for examining respondent no. 1 & 2 as witnesses in the Dimpal (LR) vs. Garvit & Ors.
MACT No.307/2023 Page no.9 of 33
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.07
17:03:03 +0530
present matter. The said application was allowed vide order dt. 04.10.2024 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal. On 22.10.2024, respondent no. 2 appeared and was instead examined as R2W1 and was cross examined by the counsel for respondent no. 3 and the counsel for petitioner.
7.3 The respondent no.3 examined its Manager (Legal) Sh. Daksh Arora as R3W1. He has exhibited his affidavit as Ex.R3W1/A, original authority letter as Ex.R3W1/1 and copy of insurance policy as Ex.R3W1/2(colly). He was examined, cross- examined and discharged.
7.4 The respondent no.3 also examined respondent no.1 Garvit as R3W2. He deposed that on 04.12.2021, no accident had taken place involving the vehicle No. UP17Q1217(motorcycle). He further deposed that on 04.12.2021, he was not holding any driving license authorizing him to drive any type of motor vehicle. He deposed that on the said date, he was not driving the aforesaid motorcycle. In his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for petitioner, he deposed that he was arrested by the police and was released on bail granted from Baghpat Court. He admitted that he has not filed any written complaint to the police or in any court of law against his false implication in the accident matter. ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER 8.1 It was argued by Ld. Counsel for petitioners that the petitioners have positively proved that the incident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.01 and the deceased succumbed to his injuries sustained in the accident, during treatment. It is submitted that the income of the deceased may be calculated as per minimum wages of a Matriculate person Dimpal (LR) vs. Garvit & Ors.
MACT No.307/2023 Page no.10 of 33
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.07
17:03:06 +0530
and the matriculation certificate of the deceased is exhibited as Ex.PW1/9. It is submitted that all the petitioners were dependent upon the deceased at the time of accident and keeping in view the above, the award may be passed by this Tribunal as per entitlement of petitioners.
ARGUMENTS OF Ld. COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 & 2 8.2 It was argued by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 & 2 that the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in the present case. It was further argued that mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle does not show any accidental damages and even PW2 has not stated the registration number of the offending vehicle in his evidence. It was argued that there is nothing on record to show the involvement of the offending vehicle. With these averment, respondent no.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the petition. ARGUMENTS OF Ld. COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 8.3 It was argued by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.03 that the petitioner has failed to prove on record his income and, therefore, the income may be assessed as per the minimum wages chart of state of Uttar Pradesh. It was further argued that the respondent no.1 does not have a valid driving license to drive the offending vehicle at the time of accident and respondent no.1 has also admitted in his evidence that on the date of accident, he was not holding any driving license authorizing him to drive any type of motor vehicle and hence, the insurance company is entitled to recovery rights.
Dimpal (LR) vs. Garvit & Ors.
MACT No.307/2023 Page no.11 of 33 GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2026.02.07 17:03:10 +0530 ANALYSIS & FINDINGS ON ISSUES ISSUE NO. 1 Whether the deceased Satish Kumar suffered fatal injuries in the accident that took place on 04.12.2021 at about 6:30 pm at Near Lavneesh Ki Bijli, Village Khatta, Baghpat, UP due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle (motorcycle) bearing registration No. UP17Q1217 by the respondent no.1, being owned by respondent no.2 and insured with the respondent no.3? OPP.
9.1 Before adverting to the facts of the case, at the very outset, it would be apposite to note here that strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The standard of proof is not as strict as in criminal cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities only. In fact, the burden of proof in a claim petition under the M.V. Act, is even lesser than a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of "Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors." (2009) 13 SC 530, "Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and Ors." 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and "Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.", 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc. Keeping in mind the aforesaid legal preposition, this Tribunal has gone through the testimony of the witnesses and entire material available on record. This Tribunal has also given Dimpal (LR) vs. Garvit & Ors.
MACT No.307/2023 Page no.12 of 33
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.07
17:03:13 +0530
its thoughtful consideration to arguments addressed by Ld. Counsels for the parties.
9.2 It has been averred by the respondent no.1 & 2 in their pleadings that the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in this matter.
9.3 In support of their case, the petitioners have examined Smt. Dimpal, wife of the deceased/ petitioner no.1 as PW1 who has relied upon complete criminal case records as Ex.PW1/1(colly) in her evidence amongst other documents. She was cross-examined, however, nothing favourable to the respondents came on record. The documents relied upon by PW1 remained unrebutted.
9.4 Petitioners also examined eye witness PW-2 Sh. Pappu. PW-2 has deposed in detail the circumstances and the manner of the accident. He has categorically deposed that he has seen the incident very closely as he was present at the spot. He has categorically deposed that the motorcycle bearing registration no. UP17Q1217 came from front/opposite side at a very high speed, driven in rash and negligent manner without proper look out and without following traffic rules and hit the deceased with great force due to which he sustained fatal injuries. He has also categorically stated that the motorcycle was coming from the wrong direction. He has stated that he and the villagers shifted the deceased to District Hospital, Baghpat whereafter he was referred to G.T.B. Hospital, Delhi and succumbed to his injuries during treatment. He further deposed that even the driver sustained injuries in the accident and was caught by the public which gathered on the spot. He deposed that he can also identify the driver of the offending vehicle.
Dimpal (LR) vs. Garvit & Ors.
MACT No.307/2023 Page no.13 of 33
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.07
17:03:15 +0530
9.5 In his cross-examination by counsel for respondent
no. 1 & 2, he explained his presence on the spot and deposed that he is supplier of eggs and on the day of incident, he was going to deliver eggs at Village Liliyana. He deposed that the cycle was around 25-30 meters ahead of him. He further deposed that the offending vehicle came from the front side and was trying to overtake some vehicle due to which it came to their side and hit the cyclist. He deposed that the driver Garvit is from his village. He denied the suggestion that the incident did not happen with the vehicle bearing registration No. UP-17Q-1217. 9.6 During the cross examination by the counsel for insurance company, the PW2 again remained consistent in his testimony and stated that he had noted the offending motorcycle before the happening of the incident and when he noted it, it was on the wrong side. He deposed that the motorcyclist remained at the spot for quite sometime and he identified the motorcyclist and the deceased as they are from his own village. He also deposed that he remained at the place of incident for 20-25 minutes and also accompanied the injured in the ambulance. He testified that he went to both the hospitals with the injured. PW2 has also detailed the scene of accident in his cross-examination. He denied the suggestion that he did not witness the accident and that he did not accompany the injured in the ambulance. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely at the instance of the family members of the deceased being from the same village.
Thus, the presence of the witness on the spot of accident, the manner of the incident, the events after the incident Dimpal (LR) vs. Garvit & Ors.
MACT No.307/2023 Page no.14 of 33
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.07
17:03:18 +0530
and the involvement of the offending vehicle as well as the respondent no. 1 has been clearly explained in the cross- examination. The witness has remained consistent in his testimony and has withstood the test of cross-examination. The respondents have not brought any evidence on record to rebut the testimony of the witness. The testimony of the witness inspires confidence and there is no reason to discredit his testimony. 9.7 Further, the FIR which has been registered at the instance of one Sunil and his written complaint to the concerned SHO PS Chandi Nagar clearly mentions the name of the driver of the offending vehicle and description of the offending vehicle as "motorcycle splendor". The description of the offending vehicle has not been disputed by the respondents. The mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle filed on record described damage to the vehicle at serial no.12 of its report as damage to indicator. The certificate of registration of the offending vehicle is also on record.
9.8 Furthermore, respondent no. 2, who was examined as R2W1 in the present matter, has admitted in his cross- examination that his vehicle was seized by the police in the FIR in question and he got it released on superdari from the concerned court. He has deposed in his cross-examination that on the relevant date, the marriage of his daughter was scheduled and he was busy in her marriage and his vehicle was also with him, however, he admitted to have not filing any complaint before any authority regarding his false implication. Though later, he again said that he had filed one complaint at Baghpat Court, however, no such record was produced by him in support of his Dimpal (LR) vs. Garvit & Ors.
MACT No.307/2023 Page no.15 of 33
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.07
17:03:20 +0530
contentions and in his defence. He has also admitted that the respondent no.1 has been accused in the FIR to be the driver of his vehicle at the time of accident.
9.9 It is pertinent to mention here that the respondent no. 2 in his testimony has stated that respondent no. 1 has not been caught by the police till date whereas the respondent no. 1 examined as R3W2 has admitted in his cross-examination that he was arrested and was released on bail from Baghpat Court. It is also pertinent to mention that R2W1/ respondent no. 2 contradicted his own statement in his cross-examination. On one hand, he stated that Garavit/ respondent no. 1 is not related to him in any manner and is not known to him and on the other hand, he stated the age as well as the occupation of the respondent no. 1 and about his marital status and family. He stated that Garvit is aged about 20-22 years, he works as a Tractor driver with the Pradhan of the village, is not married and has only his parent as family members. If the respondent no. 2 did not know respondent no. 1 as deposed by him then it is not explained as to how he knew all the personal details of respondent no. 1. It is also pertinent to mention here that the respondent no. 2 has also stated about meeting Garvit after 04.12.2021 i.e. the day of the incident. He has deposed that the respondent no. 1 told him that he does not have a driving license. This very fact points towards the involvement of respondent no. 1 in the accident in question as driver of ofending vehicle as there was no reason why respondent no 2 would inquire about the driving license of respondent no. 1 that too when he met him for the first time and was not even known to him. The conduct of the Dimpal (LR) vs. Garvit & Ors.
MACT No.307/2023 Page no.16 of 33
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.07
17:03:22 +0530
witness is also to be noted from the fact that he denied the suggestion that the respondent no. 1 did not have a valid driving license and later in his testimony, he stated that he has not produced the driving license of respondent no. 1 as he has already stated in the testimony that respondent no. 1 did not have a valid driving license. Thus, there are inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimony of respondent no. 2. Further, it is pertinent to mention that the respondent no. 2 has not led any evidence in support of his defence though when he appeared as a summoned witness of respondent no. 3, he was examined as witness of respondent no. 2 instead of respondent no. 3. Clearly, the respondent no. 2 did not intend to lead any evidence in support of his defence and was examined as a witness only when summoned to appear as such.
9.10 Even the testimony of PW1 and PW-2 with regard to the involvement of the offending vehicle has remained unrebutted. Thus, the involvement of the offending vehicle i.e. motorcycle bearing registration No. UP17Q1217 has been proved.
9.11 Now, the next question is whether the offending vehicle was driven by respondent no.1 rashly and negligently. 9.12 It has already been discussed above that PW-2 clearly deposed that the respondent no.1 was coming from the wrong side, it was overtaking some vehicle and in that process, it hit the deceased. He has categorically deposed that respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle at high speed, rashly and negligently and without observing traffic rules. It has been discussed in the foregoing part of this award that the testimony of Dimpal (LR) vs. Garvit & Ors.
MACT No.307/2023 Page no.17 of 33
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.07
17:03:25 +0530
PW1 & PW-2 has remained unrebutted and uncontroverted. 9.13 The respondent no. 1 who was examined as R3W2 by respondent no. 3 has stated in his testimony that no accident had taken place on 04.12.2021 involving the vehicle No. UP-17Q-1217 motorcycle and he was not driving the vehicle on the said date. However, in the cross-examination, he admitted that he was arrested by the police and was released on bail granted from Baghpat Court. He also admitted that he did not file any written complaint to the police or to any court of law regarding his false implication in the accident in question. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondent no. 1 did not lead any evidence in support of his defence and in fact, was summoned to appear as a witness for respondent no. 3. 9.14 Further, respondent no.1 namely Garvit has been charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 279/304A IPC by the Investigating Agency after arriving at the conclusion, on the basis of detailed investigation carried out by it, that the accident in question had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1. 9.15 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment titled as "Ranjeet & Anr. vs. Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr." SLP (C) No. 10351/2019 decided on 25.02.2025 has held as under :-
"4. 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 eye witnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver."
9.16 In the judgment of "Mangla Rama vs. The Oriental Dimpal (LR) vs. Garvit & Ors.
MACT No.307/2023 Page no.18 of 33
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.07
17:03:27 +0530
Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors." Civil Appeal Nos.2499-2500 of 2018 decided on 06.04.2018, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in para no.21 of the judgment as under:-
"21. Another reason which weighed with the High Court to interfere in the First Appeal filed by respondent Nos.2 & 3, was absence of finding by the Tribunal about the factum of negligence of the driver of the subject jeep. Factually, this view is untenable. Our understanding of the analysis done by the Tribunal is to hold that Jeep No. RST 4701 was driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.2 when it collided with the motorcycle of the appellant leading to the accident. This can be discerned from the evidence of witnesses and the contents of the chargesheet filed by the police, naming respondent No.2. This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina Fernandes (supra), noted that the key of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the judgments already adverted to by us, filing of charge sheet against respondent No.2 prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly..."
emphasis supplied 9.17 In the judgment of "Munesh & Anr. vs. Minendra Kumar & Ors (National Insurance Co. ltd.)", MAC. APP. 102/2019 decided on 28.11.2024, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed in para no.11 & 12 of the judgment as under:-
"11. In the case of National Insurance Co. vs Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, it has been held that filing of Chargesheet is sufficient proof of the negligence and involvement of the Offending Vehicle. Similar observations have been made in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepak Goel and Ors., 2014 (2) TAC 846 Del, that if the Claimant was able to prove the criminal case on record pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, whereby the criminal records showing completion of investigation by the police and Dimpal (LR) vs. Garvit & Ors.
MACT No.307/2023 Page no.19 of 33
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.07
17:03:29 +0530
filing of chargesheet under Sections 279/304-A IPC against the driver have been proved, then the documents mentioned above are sufficient to establish the fact that the driver was negligent in causing the accident. Where FIR is lodged, Chargesheet is filed and specially in a case where driver after causing the accident had fled away from the spot, then the documents mentioned above are sufficient to establish the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent in causing the accident particularly when there was no defence available from his side before the learned Tribunal. Similar observations have been made in the cases of Jamanti Devi and Ors. v. Maheshwar Rai, MAC Appeal no. 831/2015 decided on 19.11.2022.
12. The Apex Court has opined in the judgment of Mangla Ram vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., AIR 2018 SC 1900 that the key- point of negligence of the driver as set up by the Claimants is required to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and not by the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, filing of chargesheet against the driver of the offending vehicle prima facie points towards the complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. The subsequent acquittal of the accused may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in motor vehicle accident cases."
9.18 Thus, the complicity of the respondent no.1 in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly is sufficiently proved. 9.19 Furthermore, certified copies of criminal case records filed by petitioners which includes the FIR No.242/2021, final report under Section 173 Cr. PC filed by IO, site plan of the place of accident, the mechanical inspection report and the complaint to SHO PS Chandi Nagar filed by the brother of the deceased, corroborate the case of petitioners. 9.20 Also, the factum of death of the deceased due to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident has not been Dimpal (LR) vs. Garvit & Ors.
MACT No.307/2023 Page no.20 of 33
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.07
17:03:31 +0530
disputed by the respondents.
9.21 Thus, the only conclusion that can be drawn from
the testimony of the witnesses and evidence on record is that the respondent no. 1 was driving the offending vehicle on the date of incident and caused the accident in question by his rash and negligent act leading to the death of Sh. Satish Kumar. 9.22 In view of the above discussion and considering the evidence on record, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the claimants have successfully proved that the deceased sustained fatal injuries in road accident on 02.12.2021 at about 3.00 am at Near Rahimpur Naka, towards Palwal, Haryana due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration number DL1MA1722 being driven by respondent no.1. Accordingly, issue no.02 & 03 are decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. ISSUE NO. (ii) :
Whether the petitioner(s) is/are entitled to compensation, if so, of what amount and from whom? OPP.
10.1 In view of the findings & decision in issue no.1 above, the petitioner is entitled to compensation. 10.2 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgments in "Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors." (2003) 6 SCC 121 and "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." (2017) 16 SCC 680 laid down the guidelines for assessing compensation payable in death cases. In the light of the same, the compensation payable is determined as under:-
AGE OF THE DECEASED AND THE APPLICABLE Dimpal (LR) vs. Garvit & Ors.
MACT No.307/2023 Page no.21 of 33
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.07 17:03:34
+0530
MULTIPLIER
10.3 The date of incident is 04.12.2021. As per Aadhar Card and photocopy of certificate-cum-marksheet of high school of deceased available on record as Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/9 respectively, the date of birth of the deceased is 15.06.1997.
Hence, deceased was 24 years of age at the time of incident. Thus, the multiplier applicable would be 18. INCOME OF THE DECEASED 10.4(i) Petitioners have claimed that deceased was working as Labourer in Brick Factory and used to earn Rs.30,000/- per month. No evidence has been led by the petitioner to prove the employment of the deceased as such. It was submitted by the counsel for petitioner during arguments that the income of the deceased may be calculated as per minimum wages of a matriculate person as the matriculation certificate of the deceased Ex.PW1/9 has been proved on record.
10.4(ii) As per the Aadhar Card of the deceased, it appears that the deceased was a resident of Delhi. Hence, the income of injured/petitioner has to be assessed on the basis of chart of Minimum Wages of a Matriculate person in the State of NCT of Delhi. The minimum wages for a Matriculate person of State of NCT of Delhi on the date of accident i.e. 04.12.2021 were Rs.19,473/-.
10.4(iii) Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased needs to be considered as Rs.19,473/- per month on the date of accident.
FUTURE PROSPECTS 10.5(i) The deceased was 24 years at the time of incident, so, the future prospects have to be calculated at 40% as per the Dimpal (LR) vs. Garvit & Ors.
MACT No.307/2023 Page no.22 of 33
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.07
17:03:36 +0530
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.," (supra). 10.5(ii) Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased after adding future prospects would be Rs.27,262/- (after rounding off Rs.27,262.2/-) (Rs.19,473/- + Rs.7789.2/- which is 40% of Rs.19,473/-).
DEDUCTIONS 10.6 The present claim petition is pursued by the wife of the deceased and his four minor children. Thus, the wife and the four minor children of the deceased have to be considered as dependent upon the deceased. Deduction towards personal and living expenses of a deceased should be assumed 1/4th as per judgment of "Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors." (2003) 6 SCC 121. Hence, 1/4th deductions would be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased.
10.7 Thus, the monthly loss of dependency would be Rs.20,447/- (after rounding off Rs.20,446.5/-) (after deducting 1/4th of Rs.27,262/-) and accordingly, the multiplicand/annual loss of dependency would be Rs. 2,45,364/- (Rs.20,447/- x 12). 10.8 Thus, the total loss of dependency is ascertained as Rs.44,16,552/- (Rs. 2,45,364/- x 18).
COMPENSATION QUA NON-PECUNIARY HEADS 10.9(i) In "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680", it was held by The Hon'ble Apex court as under:-
"61... (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 Dimpal (LR) vs. Garvit & Ors.
MACT No.307/2023 Page no.23 of 33
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.07
17:03:43 +0530
of 10% in every three years".
10.9(ii) In view of the same and further in view of the
judgment in " Rajwati @ Rajjo & Ors. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Civil Appeal no. 8179/2022 decided on 09.12.2022, the compensation under this head is awarded as under:-
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES 10.10 The loss of estate and funeral expenses are awarded as Rs.20,000/- each.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM 10.11 Original there were five claimants i.e. wife, four minor children of the deceased. Thus, an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- (Rs.48,000 x 05) is awarded under this head. TOTAL COMPENSATION 10.12 In view of above discussions, the total compensation is calculated as under:-
SL.N HEADS RUPEES
O.
1. Total Loss of Dependency Rs.44,16,552/-
2. Loss of Estate Rs.20,000/-
3. Funeral expenses Rs.20,000/-
4. Loss of Consortium Rs.2,40,000/-
TOTAL Rs.46,96,552/-
11. Thus, total compensation of Rs.46,96,552/-
(Rupees Forty Six Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Two Only) is awarded in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
12.1 Perusal of record reveals that one application under Order 5 of Limitation Act has been filed on behalf of petitioner is Dimpal (LR) vs. Garvit & Ors.
MACT No.307/2023 Page no.24 of 33
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.07
17:03:45 +0530
pending on record. However, the same was not pressed by the petitioners at any stage of inquiry. The accident in question took place on 04.12.2021 which is prior to 01.04.2022 i.e. the date on which Section 166(3) of M.V. Act came into force. Since Section 166(3) of The MV Act came income effect from 01.04.2022, the same cannot be applied retrospectively to a cause of action which has arisen prior to the said amendment coming in force. Doing so would affect the substantive right of the petitioners/victims of accident to file a claim petition seeking compensation for the loses suffered by them due to the wrongful act of the respondents, even though, on the date of the accident, there was no embargo in filing a petition beyond 06 months. Even otherwise, Motor Vehicles Act is a welfare legislation and the provisions of the said act have to be given a liberal interpretation and the one which serves its purpose rather than the one taking away the right of the claimants. I am also fortified by the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the "Antony Sahaya Sundar Vs. K. Vijayan and Others." In CRP (MD) No. 481/2023, decided on 04.03.2023. In the said judgment, it was held by Hon'ble High Court that Section 166(3) of M.V. Act does not apply to the cases in which the accident has happened prior to 01.04.2022. The relevant part of the judgment is re-produced as under :-
"....14.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgement reported in (2003) 7 SCC Page 713 (New India Assurance Co-Ltd., Vs. C.Padma) in Paragraph No.12 has held as follows:
"12. Learned counsel for the appellant, next contended that since no period of limitation has been prescribed by the Legislature, Article 137 of the Limitation Act may be invoked, otherwise, according to him, stale claims would Dimpal (LR) vs. Garvit & Ors.
MACT No.307/2023 Page no.25 of 33
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.07
17:03:48 +0530
be encouraged leading to multiplicity of litigation for non prescribing the period of limitation. We are unable to countenance with the contention of the appellant for more than one reason. Firstly, such an Act like Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, if otherwise the claim is found genuine. Secondly, it is a self contained Act which prescribes mode of filing the application, procedure to be followed and award to be made...."
15.Therefore the period of limitation introduced in a beneficial legislation like that of the Motor Vehicles Act can never be construed to have retrospective/ retro active operation unless express or implied provisions of law provide for the same. Admittedly, Amending Act 32 of 2019 nowhere expressly or impliedly provided for retrospective or retroactive operation for the amendment introduced for the period of limitation under Section 166(3) of the Act. Therefore, it is clear that the amendment that is introduced with effect from 01.04.2022 will apply only to those accidents that had occurred on or before 01.04.2022.
16.In view of the above said deliberations, the accident having taken place on 11.02.2020, the limitation prescribed under the Amending Act 32 of 2019 is not applicable and hence, the Tribunal is directed to number the claim petition and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law."
12.2 In view of the above discussions, the application under Order 5 of Limitation Act stands disposed off. LIABILITY :
13.1 It is contended by the respondent no.3 Insurance Company that driver/respondent no.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of incident and, therefore, the respondent no. 3 is entitled to recovery rights. The respondent no.1/driver of the offending vehicle has also admitted in his cross examination conducted on 24.11.2025 that on 04.12.2021, he was not holding any driving license authorizing him to drive any type of motor vehicle. Thus, it stands established on record that the Dimpal (LR) vs. Garvit & Ors.
MACT No.307/2023 Page no.26 of 33
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.07 17:03:50
+0530
respondent no.1 was not holding any valid driving license to drive the offending vehicle at the time of incident. 13.2 In the light of the abovesaid discussions, it is held that the respondent No.1 being driver & respondent no.2 being the registered owner of the offending vehicle have violated the terms & conditions of the insurance policy. Since, the offending vehicle was duly insured and the insurance policy was valid on the date of accident, the respondent no.3/insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount. However, since respondent no.1 & 2 have violated the terms and condition of the insurance policy, the insurance company is entitled to recovery rights against the respondents No.1 & 2. Respondent no.3/insurance company is accordingly, granted recovery rights against respondent no.1 & 2 in said terms.
RELIEF/ISSUE NO.03
14. In view of the above findings, this Tribunal hereby passes an award of Rs.46,96,552/- (Rupees Forty Six Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Two Only) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition/DAR i.e. 26.04.2023 till the date of the payment of the award amount to be paid by the respondent No.03/Insurance Company. Respondent no.3/Insurance Company is hereby directed to deposit the award amount in favour of the petitioner(s) with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account No.40711767202, CIF No.90891362578, IFSC Code - SBIN0000726, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this award together with the interest as stated herein above under intimation to this Tribunal and under intimation to the petitioners.
Dimpal (LR) vs. Garvit & Ors.
MACT No.307/2023 Page no.27 of 33
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.07
17:03:53 +0530
In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
APPORTIONMENT & DISBURSEMENT OF AWARD AMOUNT 15.1 Statement of the petitioners in terms of provisions of MCTAP was recorded on 20.01.2026. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the said statement, the compensation to the petitioners shall be distributed/disbursed as follows:-
Sr. Name of Age/ Relation Award Amount of Amount kept Period of No petitione DOB with Amount award to in FDRs FDRs with . r/ injured/ be released cumulative claimant decease interest d
1. Dimpal DOB: Wife 18,96,552/- 4,96,552/- 14,00,000/- Rs. 14,00,000/-
01.01. along with along with shall be kept in
1989 proportionate proportionate the form of
interest interest FDRs (fixed
deposit
receipts) in the
multiples of
Rs.20,000/-
each for a
period of one
month, two
months and
three months
and so on and
so forth, having
cumulative
interest.
2. Kanishka DOB: Daughte Rs.7,00,000/- Nil Rs.7,00,000/- Rs.7,00,000/-
03.08. r along with along with shall be kept in
2011 proportionate proportionate the form of one
interest interest FDR and the
same shall be
released to the
petitioner on
attaining
majority.
3. Nidhi DOB: Daughte Rs.7,00,000/- Nil Rs.7,00,000/- Rs.7,00,000/-
Dimpal (LR) vs. Garvit & Ors.
MACT No.307/2023 Page no.28 of 33
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.07
17:03:56 +0530
04.02. r along with along with shall be kept in
2014 proportionate proportionate the form of one
interest interest FDR and the
same shall be
released to the
petitioner on
attaining
majority.
4. Yash DOB: Son Rs.7,00,000/- Nil Rs.7,00,000/- Rs.7,00,000/-
04.02. along with along with shall be kept in
2016 proportionate proportionate the form of one
interest interest FDR and the
same shall be
released to the
petitioner on
attaining
majority.
5. Manvi DOB: Daughte Rs.7,00,000/- Nil Rs.7,00,000/- Rs.7,00,000/-
02.07. r along with along with shall be kept in
2020 proportionate proportionate the form of one
interest interest FDR and the
same shall be
released to the
petitioner on
attaining
majority.
TOTAL Rs.46,96,552/-
15.2 The amount of FDRs on maturity shall directly be
released in petitioner's Saving Bank Account. 15.3 All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the MACT bank account of the claimant
(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
Dimpal (LR) vs. Garvit & Ors.
MACT No.307/2023 Page no.29 of 33
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.07
17:03:59 +0530
(e) 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.
(f) 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.
(g) 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
(g) above.
16. Concerned Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch is directed to transfer the award amount, in the above-mentioned manner, as per award in the saving bank account of claimant/petitioner, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
17. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph, specimen signature, copy of bank passbook and copy of residence proof of the petitioner, be sent to Nodal Officer of State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
18. Nazir of this Court shall prepare a separate file regarding the status of deposition/non-deposition of the award amount by the respondent(s) after making necessary entry on CIS on 06.03.2026.
19. A digital copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost through email.
20. Ahlmad staff is directed to send the copy of award to Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class concerned and Delhi Legal Dimpal (LR) vs. Garvit & Ors.
MACT No.307/2023 Page no.30 of 33
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.07
17:04:02 +0530
Services Authority as per the procedure of Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure (MCTAP).
21. Ahlmad staff is also directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors." decided on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-email an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex Branch for information.
22. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 4th of February, 2026 (GUNJAN GUPTA) District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01, West/THC/Delhi/04.02.2026 Dimpal (LR) vs. Garvit & Ors.
MACT No.307/2023 Page no.31 of 33
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.07
17:04:05 +0530
FORM -XV
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident : 04.12.2021
2. Name of the deceased : Satish Kumar
3. Age of the deceased : 15.06.1997(DOB)
4. Occupation of the deceased : Labourer
5. Income of the deceased : Rs.19,473/-
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of deceased : -
S.No. Name Age/DOB Relation
(i) Dimpal DOB: 01.01.1989 Wife
(ii) Kanishka DOB: 03.08.2011 Daughter
(iii) Nidhi DOB:04.02.2014 Daughter
(iv) Yash DOB:04.02.2016 Son
(v) Manvi DOB:02.07.2020 Daughter
Computation of Compensation : -
Sr.No. Heads Awarded by the Claim
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs.19,473/-
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) 40%
9. Less-Personal expenses of the 1/4th
deceased(C)
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.20,447/-
[(A+B)-C=D]
11. Annual loss of dependency (D Rs.2,45,364/-
x 12)
12. Multiplier(E) 18
13. Total loss of dependency Rs.44,16,552/-
(Dx12xE= F)
14. Medical Expenses(G) NIL
15. Compensation for loss of Rs.2,40,000/-
consortium(H)
16. Compensation for loss of love NIL
and affection(I)
Dimpal (LR) vs. Garvit & Ors.
MACT No.307/2023 Page no.32 of 33
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.07
17:04:07 +0530
17. Compensation for loss of Rs.20,000/-
estate(J)
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs.20,000/-
expenses(K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.46,96,552/-
(F+G+H+I+J+K=L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST 9% per annum
AWARDED
21. Interest amount up to the date Rs. 11,72,964/-
of award (M) (W.e.f. 26.04.2023 to
04.02.2026 i.e. 2 years
9 months and 9 days)
22. Total amount including interest Rs.58,69,516/-
(L + M) (Rs.46,96,552/- +
Rs.11,72,964/-)
23. Award amount released Rs.4,96,552/-
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.42,00,000/- along
with proportionate
interest
25. Mode of disbursement of the Mentioned in the award award amount to the claimant(s).
26. Next date for compliance of 06.03.2026 the award.
(GUNJAN GUPTA) District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01, West/THC/Delhi/04.02.2026 Dimpal (LR) vs. Garvit & Ors.
MACT No.307/2023 Page no.33 of 33
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.07
17:04:11 +0530