Delhi District Court
Ankit vs Sonu on 11 August, 2025
MACP No. 272/21 & 273/21; FIR No. 481/20; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 11.08.2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA MANCHANDA, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 272/21
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-006289-2021
1. Smt. Jasho Devi,
W/o Late Sh. Sanjay Kumar Yadav,
(Widow of deceased)
2. Shivam Yadav,
S/o Late Sh. Sanjay Kumar Yadav,
(Minor Son of deceased)
3. Satyawan Yadav,
S/o Late Sh. Sanjay Kumar Yadav,
(Minor Son of deceased)
4. Shivani,
D/o Late Sh. Sanjay Kumar Yadav,
(Minor daughter of deceased)
5. Smt. Lakhiya Devi,
W/o Sh. Ram Avtar,
(Mother of deceased)
6. Sh. Ram Avtar,
S/o Sh. Bhausu Yadav,
(Father of deceased)
All R/o. W.No.-13,
Gram Fulkahi,
Post Murali,
Madhubani, Bihar.
. ..........Petitioners
Jasho Devi & Ors. & Ankit Vs. Sonu & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 1 of 36
MACP No. 272/21 & 273/21; FIR No. 481/20; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 11.08.2025
VERSUS
1. Sh. Sonu,
S/o Sh. Hari Shankar,
R/o Village Purva,
District Unnao,
Uttar Pradesh.
(Driver)
2. J.S. Enviro Services Private Ltd.,
Having office at Mayur Vihar,
Phase I, Delhi.
(Registered owner)
3. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Having office at FF-23-24,
Pearl Omaxe, Netaji Subhash Place,
Pitampura, Delhi.
(Insurer)
............Respondents
MAC Petition No. 273/21
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-006294-2021
Ankit,
S/o Sh. Ganga Vishnu,
R/o. Kasraur,
District Unnao,
Uttar Pradesh.
. ..........Petitioner
VERSUS
Jasho Devi & Ors. & Ankit Vs. Sonu & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 2 of 36
MACP No. 272/21 & 273/21; FIR No. 481/20; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 11.08.2025
1. Sh. Sonu,
S/o Sh. Hari Shankar,
R/o Village Purva,
District Unnao,
Uttar Pradesh.
(Driver)
2. J.S. Enviro Services Private Ltd.,
Having office at Mayur Vihar,
Phase I, Delhi.
(Registered owner)
3. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Having office at FF-23-24,
Pearl Omaxe, Netaji Subhash Place,
Pitampura, Delhi.
(Insurer)
............Respondents
Date of Institution : 14.09.2021
Date of Arguments : 11.08.2025
Date of Judgment : 11.08.2025
APPEARENCE(S):
Sh. A.K. Singh, Ld. Counsel for petitioner.
None for driver (exparte vide order dated 09.06.2022).
Sh. Dhirender Mathur, Ld. Counsel for owner.
Sh. V.K. Gupta, Ld. Counsel for insurance company.
Jasho Devi & Ors. & Ankit Vs. Sonu & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 3 of 36
MACP No. 272/21 & 273/21; FIR No. 481/20; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 11.08.2025
Petition under Section 166 & 140 of M.V. Act, 1988
for grant of compensation
CONSOLIDATED AWARD
1. Vide this common order, I shall dispose of both the Detailed
Accident Reports (DARs) with regard to fatal injuries sustained by
Sh. Sanjay Kumar Yadav (deceased in MACP No. 272/21) and injuries
sustained by Sh. Ankit (injured in MACP No. 273/21) in a Motor Vehicular
Accident which occurred on 09.08.2020 at about 1:30 pm at Khatta Bhalswa
Dairy, Delhi, involving Truck bearing registration no. RJ14-GH-6873
(offending vehicle) being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its
driver/respondent no.1.
2. Both the DARs were consolidated for the purpose of recording
of evidence vide order dated 23.09.2022, passed by Ld. Predecessor and
MACP No. 272/21 titled as " Jasho Devi & Ors. Vs. Sonu & Ors." was
treated as the leading case. Accordingly, the evidence was led on behalf of
the parties in the leading case.
FACTS OF THE CASES
3. According to DAR filed in both the cases, on 09.08.2020,
deceased Sanjay alongwith Ankit(injured in MACP No. 273/21) and
driver/respondent no. 1 Sonu was travelling in vehicle bearing registration
Jasho Devi & Ors. & Ankit Vs. Sonu & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 4 of 36
MACP No. 272/21 & 273/21; FIR No. 481/20; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 11.08.2025
no. RJ14-GH-6873. The aforesaid vehicle was being driven by
driver/respondent no. 1 and deceased and injured were sitting in the said
vehicle as Helper. At about 1:30 PM, when they reached at Khatta Bhalswa
Dairy, Delhi, the said vehicle got toppled as the same was being driven by its
driver at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner as a result of
which, they all sustained injuries. Thereafter, they all were taken to BJRM
Hospital, Delhi. Sanjay expired during treatment. Postmortem of deceased
was conducted at Department of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology, vide PMR
No. 1733/20 on 13.08.2020. FIR No. 481/20 u/s. 279/337/304A IPC was
registered against the driver of the aforesaid truck at PS. Bhalswa Dairy. It is
claimed that offending vehicle was owned by respondent no.2 and was
insured with respondent no. 3 during the period in question.
4. The respondent no. 1 i.e., driver failed to file his WS despite
grant of sufficient time and opportunity. Consequently, he was proceeded
exparte vide order dated 09.06.2022.
5. In its written statement, the respondent no. 2 i.e., registered
owner claimed that the alleged offending vehicle was insured with
respondent no. 3 at the time of accident and thus, respondent no. 3 is liable to
pay compensation, if any to the petitioners.
Jasho Devi & Ors. & Ankit Vs. Sonu & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 5 of 36
MACP No. 272/21 & 273/21; FIR No. 481/20; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 11.08.2025
6. The respondent no. 3 i.e., insurance company claimed that as per
RC of alleged offending, its seating capacity was 2 (including driver)
whereas three persons were travelling in the vehicle at the time of accident in
gross violation of seating capacity and traffic rules and regulations and thus,
it is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.
7. From the pleading of the parties, the following issues were
framed in MACP No. 272/21 by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated
09.06.2022:-
1) Whether the deceased Sanjay, S/o Shri. Ram
Avtar, suffered fatal injuries in road traffic accident
on 09.08.2020 at about 1:30 PM at Khatta Bhalswa
Dairy, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS. Bhalswa
Dairy, due to rashness and negligence on the part of
the driver Sonu/R-1, who was driving truck
(dumper) bearing registration no. RJ14-GH-6873,
owned by M/s. J.S. Enviro Services Pvt.
Limited/R-2 and insured with IFFCO Tokio General
Insurance Company Ltd./R-3? OPP.
2) Whether the LRs of deceased are entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what amount and from
whom? OPP.
3) Relief.
8. From the pleading of the parties, the following issues were
framed in MACP No. 273/2021 by Ld.Predecessor vide order dated
09.06.2022 :-
Jasho Devi & Ors. & Ankit Vs. Sonu & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 6 of 36
MACP No. 272/21 & 273/21; FIR No. 481/20; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 11.08.2025
1) Whether the injured Ankit, S/o Shri Ganga
Vishnu suffered injuries in road traffic accident on
09.08.2020, at about 1:30 PM at Khatta Bhalswa
Dairy, Delhi, due to rashness and negligence on the
part of the driver Sonu/R-1, who was driving truck
(dumper)bearing registration no. RJ-14GH-6873,
owned by M/s. J.S. Enviro Services Pvt.
Limited/R-2 and insured with IFFCO Tokio General
Insurance Company Ltd./R3? OPP.
2) Whether the injured is entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what amount and from
whom? OPP.
3) Relief.
9. In order to establish their claim, the petitioners have examined
three witnesses i.e. PW1 Smt. Jasho Devi (Widow of deceased) and PW2
Sh. Ankit (injured as well as eyewitness) and their evidence was closed vide
order dated 05.04.2024. The respondent no. 2 has examined one witness i.e.,
Sh. Jitesh Kumar as R2W1 and insurance company has also examined one
witness i.e., Sh. Mritunjay as R3W1 and their respective evidence was
closed vide order dated 25.10.2024.
10. This Tribunal has carefully perused DAR and evidence led by
parties has been duly appreciated. All documents and material relied upon
perused and considered. Arguments addressed by respective counsels heard
and considered. Legal position, both statutory and binding applicable
precedents, has been appreciated. The issue wise determination is as under:-
Jasho Devi & Ors. & Ankit Vs. Sonu & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 7 of 36
MACP No. 272/21 & 273/21; FIR No. 481/20; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 11.08.2025
ISSUE NO. 1 ( IN BOTH THE CASES)
11. The onus to prove, the aforesaid issue was placed on the
petitioner(s)/injured. To prove the said issues, petitioner(s) have examined
PW2 Sh. Ankit (injured in the accident in question) by way of his affidavit in
evidence Ex. PW2/A. In his evidence, PW2 has deposed on the lines of
averments made in the DAR(s). He has relied upon the following
documents:-
S.No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of his Aadhaar Card Ex PW2/1(OSR)
2. Discharge Slip Ex. PW2/2
3. Medical bills Ex. PW2/3(Colly)
4. DAR Ex. PW1/4(Colly)
12. PW2 (injured himself) in his testimony by way of affidavit
(Ex. PW2/A) has deposed that he met with an accident on 09.08.2020
between 1 to 1:30 PM. He further deposed that he alongwith deceased Sanjay
were sitting in the truck bearing no. RJ14-GH-6873 who were working as
Helper in the offending vehicle. He further deposed that on that day, he was
doing his job with driver Sonu and co-worker Sanjay on the offending
vehicle. He further deposed that he and deceased asked the driver Sonu to
drive he vehicle slowly but he ignored them and continued to drive the
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner due to which truck got toppled, as a
result of which they sustained injuries.
Jasho Devi & Ors. & Ankit Vs. Sonu & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 8 of 36
MACP No. 272/21 & 273/21; FIR No. 481/20; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 11.08.2025
13. PW2/injured was cross-examined on behalf of insurance
company during which he deposed that he was having mobile phone in
working condition on the date of accident. He further deposed that he did not
lodge any police report regarding the accident through his mobile phone or
otherwise at any point of time. He further deposed that he never gave any
statement to the police. He further deposed that the vehicle was being driven
by Mr. Sonu. He further deposed that he was in between the driver and
Sanjay on the front seat. He further deposed that Sanjay was working as a
JCB driver. He further deposed that on the date of accident, Sanjay was
coming with them in the vehicle to have food, at the time of accident. He
further deposed that they had started in the vehicle about 15-20 minutes
before the accident. He further deposed that registration number of the
offending vehicle was RJ14-GH-6873. He denied the suggestion that no such
accident took place with the alleged offending vehicle or that the said vehicle
had falsely been implicated in the present case as an after thought in
collusion of respondent no. 1 & 2 and the police official. During his cross-
examination on behalf of registered owner, he deposed that at the time of
accident, he was residing at Wazirabad, Delhi, however, he can not recollect
the house number as the same was tenanted accommodation. He further
deposed that on the date of accident, it had rained but at the time of accident,
the rain had stopped. He further deposed that the path on which their vehicle
was plying was a kaccha road. He further deposed that there was a slope on
which their vehicle was being plied at the time of accident. He admitted that
Jasho Devi & Ors. & Ankit Vs. Sonu & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 9 of 36
MACP No. 272/21 & 273/21; FIR No. 481/20; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 11.08.2025
the road where their vehicle was plying got slippery due to rain which had
taken place just half an hour before the accident. He further admitted that
accident had taken place due to slippery road on which their vehicle was
being plied. He again said that the accident had taken place due to rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver/R1.
14. The careful perusal of testimony of aforesaid witness i.e. PW2
would go to show that the respondents have not been able to impeach his
testimony through litmus test of cross-examination. Moreover, it is an
undisputed fact that FIR No. 481/20 u/s 279/337/304A IPC was registered at
PS. Bhalswa Dairy with regard to accident in question. Copy of said FIR
(which is part of DAR), would show that same was registered on 12.08.2020
on the statement of aforesaid witness PW2. The presence of said witness at
the spot of accident at the time of accident can be substantiated by seeing the
list of witnesses annexed alongwith the chargesheet filed in the criminal case
wherein name of complainant/Sh. Ankit is mentioned at S.No. 1. Hence,
there is no reason to disbelieve his uncontroverted testimony on the point of
accident in question being caused by respondent no. 1 while driving the
offending vehicle. The contents of said FIR would show that the complainant
has disclosed therein the same sequence of facts leading to the accident as
deposed by him in his evidence as PW2. Hence, there is no possibility of any
false implication of driver of offending vehicle or false involvement of the
said vehicle in this case.
Jasho Devi & Ors. & Ankit Vs. Sonu & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 10 of 36
MACP No. 272/21 & 273/21; FIR No. 481/20; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 11.08.2025
15. The facts of the case, arguments of the Ld. Counsels, evidence,
material on record and duly verified documents of the criminal case, have
been carefully examined and scrutinized. Respondent no. 1 namely Sh. Sonu
Kushwaha has been charge sheeted for offences punishable U/s.
279/338/304A IPC by the investigating agency after arriving at the
conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in
question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending
vehicle by him. Same would also point out towards rash and negligent
driving of offending vehicle by respondent no. 1.
16. Further, there is no gainsaying that respondent No.1/driver of
offending vehicle was the other material witness to throw light by testifying
as to how and under what circumstances, the accident has taken place.
However, he has preferred not to enter into the witness box. Thus, an adverse
inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in
question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle by the respondent no. 1. There is nothing on record to show that the
petitioner had any enmity with the driver of the offending vehicle so as to
falsely implicate him in this case. Reliance placed on Cholamandalam MS
General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Kamlesh & Ors, MAC APP. No. 530/2008
passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 11.11.2008.
Jasho Devi & Ors. & Ankit Vs. Sonu & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 11 of 36
MACP No. 272/21 & 273/21; FIR No. 481/20; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 11.08.2025
17. Copy of MLC (which is also part of DAR) of injured would
show that he was taken to Max Hospital, Delhi with alleged history of RTA
on 09.08.2020 at 2:40 PM. He is shown to have sustained simple injuries as
mentioned therein. Not only this, postmortem was got conducted on the body
of deceased Sanjay Yadav. The copy of PM Report (which is also part of
DAR) of deceased, would show that cause of death of deceased was severe
head injury with frontal SDH with SAH with small hemorrhagic contusion.
All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. The external injuries as
mentioned in the relevant column correspond with the injuries which occur in
Motor Vehicular Accident. Said documents have not been disputed from the
side of respondents.
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has
come on record, it is held that the petitioner(s) have been able to prove on the
basis of preponderance of probabilities that Sanjay Yadav had sustained fatal
injuries, whereas petitioner Ankit had sustained grievous injuries in the road
accident which took place on 09.08.2020 at about 1:30 pm at Khatta Bhalswa
Dairy, Delhi, due to rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of
offending vehicle. Thus, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of petitioners and
against the respondents in both the cases.
ISSUE NO. 2
19. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 enjoins upon the
Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award
Jasho Devi & Ors. & Ankit Vs. Sonu & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 12 of 36
MACP No. 272/21 & 273/21; FIR No. 481/20; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 11.08.2025
determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and
reasonable. The guiding principles for assessment of “just and reasonable
compensation” in fatal case has been laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India, in case titled as Smt. Anjali & Ors., Vs. Lokendra Rathod & Ors, in
Civil Appeal No. 9014 of 202, decided on 06.12.2022 that: –
“The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for
short, “MV Act“) gives paramount importance to the
concept of ‘just and fair’ compensation. It is a
beneficial legislation which has been framed with the
object of providing relief to the victims or their
families. Section 168 of the MV Act deals with the
concept of ‘just compensation’ which ought to be
determined on the foundation of fairness,
reasonableness and equitability. Although such
determination can never be arithmetically exact or
perfect, an endeavor should be made by the Court to
award just and fair compensation irrespective of the
amount claimed by the applicant/s. In Sarla Verma &
Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.3, this
Court has laid down as under:
“16.”Just compensation” is adequate compensation
which is fair and equitable, on the facts and
circumstances of the case, to make good the loss
suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can
do so, by applying the well settled principles relating
to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a
bonanza, largesse or source of profit.”
20. The intent and objective of the Beneficial Legislation is to grant
equitable compensation to the vulnerable victims of road accidents and
Jasho Devi & Ors. & Ankit Vs. Sonu & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 13 of 36
MACP No. 272/21 & 273/21; FIR No. 481/20; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 11.08.2025
dynamic law has evolved towards grant of just and fair quantum of awards
and has brought consistency and uniformity towards the desired goal. The
Hon’ble Apex Court in “Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation” (2009)
6 SCC 121, which was affirmed by a bench of three Hon’ble Judges in
Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, held
as under:
“16. “Just compensation” is adequate compensation which is fair
and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to
make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as
money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating
to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza,
largesse or source of profit.
17. Assessment of compensation though involving certain
hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective.
Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment,
consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and
uniformity in the decision making process and the decisions.
While it may not be possible to have mathematical precision or
identical awards, in assessing compensation, same or similar
facts should lead to awards in the same range. When the
factors/inputs are the same, and the formula/legal principles are
the same, consistency and uniformity, and not divergence and
freakiness, should be the result of adjudication to arrive at just
compensation…”
21. These guiding principles for assessment of “just and reasonable
compensation” have been torch bearer in injury cases also as laid down by
Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in III (2007), ACC 676 titled as Oriental
Insurance Co,. Ltd., Vs. Vijay Kumar Mittal & Ors, wherein it has been
held:-
Jasho Devi & Ors. & Ankit Vs. Sonu & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 14 of 36
MACP No. 272/21 & 273/21; FIR No. 481/20; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 11.08.2025
“10. The possession of one’s own body is the first and most
valuable all human rights and while awarding compensation for
bodily injuries this primary element is to be kept in mind.
Bodily injury is to be treated and varies on account of gravity of
bodily injury. Though it is impossible to equate money with
human suffering, agony and personal deprivation, the Court and
Tribunal should make an honest and serious attempt to award
damages so far as money can compensate the loss. Regard
must be given to the gravity and degree of deprivation as well
as the degree of awareness of the deprivation. Damages
awarded in personal injury cases must be substantial and not
token damages…..”
11. The general principle which should govern the assessment
of damages in persons injury cases is that the Court should
award to injured persons such a sum as will put him in the same
position as he would have been in the same position as he
would have been in if he had not sustained injuries”.
22. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the compensation should
be just and is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be
niggardly or a pittance. Reliance is placed on 2012 (8) SLT 676 titled K.
Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The aforesaid Principle of law has
also been reiterated by a landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court in
2017 (13) SCALE 12 : 2017 XI AD (SC) 113 titled National Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. Accordingly, the quantum of appropriate and
adequate compensation to the victims of road accident is to be derived after
assessment of various relevant parameters, as per law. Hereinafter,
assessment is divided into several criteria, as applicable to the facts of the
present case.
Jasho Devi & Ors. & Ankit Vs. Sonu & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 15 of 36
MACP No. 272/21 & 273/21; FIR No. 481/20; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 11.08.2025
COMPENSATION IN CASE MACP NO. 272/21
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY(DECEASED SANJAY YADAV)
23. The claimants/petitioners are the widow, three minor children
and parents of deceased. The petitioners have examined PW1 Smt. Jasho
Devi (widow of deceased) under this head by way of her affidavit Ex.
PW1/A. PW1 has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A
that deceased was doing private job as driver and was earning Rs. 20,000/-
per month and was contributing about Rs. 15,000/- per month towards
household expenses. She further deposed that all the petitioners were
dependent upon the deceased at the time of accident. She has relied upon
following documents:-
S.No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of Aadhaar Card of all the Ex PW1/1(Colly)
petitioners (OSR)
2. Copy of Aadhaar Card and driving Ex. PW1/2(Colly)
licence of deceased (OSR)
3. Copy of death certificate of Ex. PW1/3
deceased
24. During cross-examination of PW1 (widow of deceased) on
behalf of insurance company, she deposed that she did not have any
documentary proof regarding the income as well as occupation of deceased.
She denied the suggestion that deceased was not employed at the time of
accident or that he was not earning anything at the time of accident. She
Jasho Devi & Ors. & Ankit Vs. Sonu & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 16 of 36
MACP No. 272/21 & 273/21; FIR No. 481/20; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 11.08.2025
further deposed that she did not have any documentary proof to show that
deceased was residing in Delhi at the time of accident. She further deposed
that she as well as deceased and her family were permanent resident of Bihar.
She denied the suggestion that deceased was neither working and earning in
Delhi nor he was residing in Delhi at the time of accident. She further denied
the suggestion that petitioners were not financially dependent upon the
deceased. She deposed that she did not know the date of birth of deceased.
She further deposed that deceased was elder to her, however, she did not
know as to how much elder the deceased was from her. She denied the
suggestion that deceased was more than 36 years of age at the time of
accident.
25. Ld. Counsel for petitioners vehemently argued that since
deceased was not having permanent job and he was aged about 25 years at
the time of accident, future prospects @ 40% should also be awarded in
favour of the petitioners.
26. As already noted above, PW1 Smt. Jasho Devi, who is widow of
deceased deposed in her evidence that deceased was doing private job as
driver and was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month at the time of accident. Apart
from the bald statement made by PW1 that deceased was earning
Rs. 20,000/- per month, no definite evidence whatsoever has been brought on
record to prove the monthly income of deceased at the time of accident in
Jasho Devi & Ors. & Ankit Vs. Sonu & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 17 of 36
MACP No. 272/21 & 273/21; FIR No. 481/20; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 11.08.2025
question. Petitioners have also failed to file any educational qualification
documents of the deceased.
27. It is seen that the petitioners are not having any proof regarding
income of deceased nor having any qualification documents, either
educational or vocational, of deceased. Thus, in the absence of any relevant
document in respect of working and earning of deceased, I am of the view
that income of deceased should be assessed as per the minimum wages of an
unskilled person, applicable in the State of Delhi as on the date of accident.
The minimum wages of an unskilled person were Rs. 15,310/-per month as
on the date of accident which is 09.08.2020.
28. The petitioners have claimed that deceased was aged about 25
years as on the date of accident. In order to consider the age of deceased, the
relevant document on record is copy of his Aadhaar Card (which is part of
Ex. PW1/2 colly) wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 01.01.1997. This
document has not been disproved by the respondents. Therefore, it stands
proved that date of birth of deceased is 01.01.1987 and thus, he was aged
about 33 years as on the date of accident i.e. 09.08.2020. Hence, the
multiplier of 16 would be applicable in view of pronouncement made by
Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as “Sarla Verma Vs.
DTC” 2009 ACJ 1298 SC.
Jasho Devi & Ors. & Ankit Vs. Sonu & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 18 of 36
MACP No. 272/21 & 273/21; FIR No. 481/20; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 11.08.2025
29. Considering the age of deceased, future prospects @ 40% has to
be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of pronouncement made by
Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as “National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.” Civil Appeal No. 6961/2015 decided
on 31.10.2017, as well as in view of decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as “Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors“, decided on 02.11.17.
30. It is stated that the deceased was survived by six dependents i.e.
widow, three minor children and parents of deceased. However, Ld. Counsel
for insurance company argued that parents of deceased were not dependent
upon the deceased at the time of accident. However, no evidence in this
regard has been adduced by insurance company to prove the said fact.
31. In view of the aforesaid and considering all the facts and
circumstances, it is held that there were six dependents i.e. widow, minor
daughter and parents of deceased at the time of accident. Hence, there has to
be deduction of one fourth as held in the case of Sarla Verma mentioned
supra. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to
Rs. 30,86,496/- (Rs. 15,310/- X 3/4 X 140/100 X 12 X 16). Hence, a sum of
Rs. 30,86,496/- is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
Jasho Devi & Ors. & Ankit Vs. Sonu & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 19 of 36
MACP No. 272/21 & 273/21; FIR No. 481/20; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 11.08.2025
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
32. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
case titled as, Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Tribunal considers that all the
petitioners are entitled for payment of Rs. 40,000/- each towards “loss of
consortium”. By way of pronouncement of Pranay Sethi case (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to hold that there shall be
an increase of 10% on account of ‘inflation’ after a period of three years.
Applying, the afore-cited binding law the The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Ltd. V. LR‘s of Sukhbir Singh, MAC. APP.
518/2013 vide judgment pronounced on 13.07.2023 has been pleased to
direct the entitlement of dependents to 10% increase under this head, though,
the date of accident was of 2011 and the date of impugned award was of
2013. Accordingly, all the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs. 48,400/-
each (Rs. 40,000/- + 10% of Rs. 40,000/- + 10% of Rs. 44,000/-) towards
“loss of consortium”.[As per the judgment Pranay Sethi(Supra), two
escalations of 10% each is awarded since the date of accident in the present
matter is 09.08.2020].
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
33. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in
view of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra)
Jasho Devi & Ors. & Ankit Vs. Sonu & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 20 of 36
MACP No. 272/21 & 273/21; FIR No. 481/20; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 11.08.2025
which has been re-enforced in LR’s of Sukhbir Singh (supra), the Tribunal
considers that all the petitioners are also entitled for payment of Rs. 18,150/-
(Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 16,500/-) on account of
“loss of estate” and for equal payment of Rs. 18,150/- (Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of
Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 16,500/-) towards “funeral expenses”. [As per the
judgment Pranay Sethi(Supra), two escalations of 10% each is awarded since
the date of accident in the present matter is 09.08.2020].
34. Therefore, on the basis of the above discussion, the
compensation is quantified as below:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 30,86,496/-
2. Loss of Consortium Rs. 2,90,400/-
3. Loss of Estate & Funeral Rs. 36,300/-
Expenses
Total Rs. 34,13,196/-
Rounded off to Rs. 34,13,000/-
COMPENSATION IN CASE MACP NO. 273/21(INJURED ANKIT)
MEDICAL EXPENSES
35. The petitioner has deposed in his evidence by way of
affidavit(Ex. PW2/A) that after the accident, he was taken to BJRM Hospital,
Jasho Devi & Ors. & Ankit Vs. Sonu & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 21 of 36
MACP No. 272/21 & 273/21; FIR No. 481/20; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 11.08.2025
Delhi and thereafter, he was shifted to Max Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.
He further deposed that he had sustained grievous injuries. He further
deposed that he had spent more than Rs. 1,50,000/- on his medical treatment,
medicines, diets, conveyance etc. He has relied upon list of medical bills
Ex. PW1/3(Colly). During his cross-examination on behalf of insurance
company, he denied the suggestion that he had not incurred any amount on
his treatment, special diet, conveyance etc or that the medical bills and
treatment record filed by him on record, were false and fabricated.
36. It is relevant to note that the injured has relied upon medical bills
amounting to Rs. 2,134/- (Ex. PW1/3 colly). It is not out of place to mention
that the respondents have not been able to dispute the authenticity and
genuineness of the medical bills filed on record during the course of inquiry.
They have also not led any evidence in rebuttal so as to create any doubt on
the genuineness of said bills. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 2,134/- is awarded to
the petitioner under this head.
LOSS OF INCOME
37. Petitioner has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit
(Ex. PW2/A) that he was working as Helper on garbage truck and was
earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. He further deposed that due to the injuries
suffered by him in the accident, he was unable to work and thus, suffered loss
of income. During his cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, he
deposed that he did not have any document to show that he was employed on
Jasho Devi & Ors. & Ankit Vs. Sonu & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 22 of 36
MACP No. 272/21 & 273/21; FIR No. 481/20; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 11.08.2025
the said vehicle or that he was earning any amount as on the date of accident.
He further deposed that he was employed by Mr. Sonu. He denied the
suggestion that he was not employed on the said vehicle or that he was not
earning any amount as on the date of accident. He denied the suggestion that
he had not suffered any permanent disability of loss of earning capacity due
to the accident. He deposed that he was permanent resident of Uttar Pradesh
and at the time of accident also, he was residing in UP.
38. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for injured argued
that due to the injuries suffered by him, he could not work for considerable
period and thus, he has suffered loss of income and as such, appropriate
compensation shall be awarded to the petitioner under this head.
39. The treatment record (Ex. PW2/2) of Max Hospital of petitioner
shows that he was admitted in said hospital on 09.08.2020 and was
discharged on 14.08.2020. As per the said discharge summary, petitioner had
suffered mild head injury with right radius fracture. The petitioner has also
filed OPD slips of Prasad Institute of Medical Sciences and the last OPD Slip
is dated 28.09.2020. Apart from above, the petitioner has failed to file any
other treatment record. In the absence of any definite evidence being
brought on record showing the actual period till which the petitioner had
received medical treatment for the injuries sustained by him due to accident
in question, it would necessarily involve some guess work in assessing the
Jasho Devi & Ors. & Ankit Vs. Sonu & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 23 of 36
MACP No. 272/21 & 273/21; FIR No. 481/20; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 11.08.2025
loss of income. It can not be overlooked that the petitioner had sustained
dangerous injuries in the accident in question. Considering the nature of
injuries suffered by the petitioner and treatment record filed by him, it is
presumed that he would not have been able to work at least for a period of 4
months or so including his recovery period.
40. As already noted above, PW1/injured has deposed in his
evidence that he was doing the work of Helper on a garbage truck and was
earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. Apart from the bald statement made by PW1
that he was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month, no definite evidence whatsoever
has been brought on record to prove his monthly income at the time of
accident in question. Mere bald testimony of PW1 in this regard, would not
suffice. The petitioner has also failed to file his educational qualification
documents. It is relevant to mention here that petitioner himself deposed
during his cross-examination that he was the permanent resident of UP and at
the time of accident also, he was residing in UP. Thus, his loss of income has
to be assessed while taking the income of an unskilled person under
Minimum Wages Act applicable in the State of UP during the period in
question. The minimum wages of an unskilled person were Rs. 14,468/- per
month as on the date of accident which is 09.08.2020. Thus, a sum of Rs.
23,000/- (Rs. 5,750/- x 8) is awarded in favour of petitioner under this head.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
Jasho Devi & Ors. & Ankit Vs. Sonu & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 24 of 36
MACP No. 272/21 & 273/21; FIR No. 481/20; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 11.08.2025
41. For the purpose of ascertaining compensation against non-
pecuniary heads, reliance is placed upon ruling of Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in the matter titled as ” Nathu Lal Vs. Sandeep Gulati & Ors.” passed
in appeal bearing no. MAC.APP 770/2011 decided on 21.05.12, wherein it
has been held as under:-
“15. It is settled law that a particular amount cannot be fixed
on pain and sufferings for all cases as is varies from case to
case. Judicial notice can be taken on the fact that since the
petitioner had got injuries/fracture as aforesaid, he mighthave
suffered acute pain and sufferings owing to the said injuries.
He might have also consumed heavy dose of anti-biotic etc.
and also might have remained without movements of his
body for a considerable period of time. In order to ascertain
the pain and sufferings compensation, I am guided by the
judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case Satya
Narain v. Jai Kishan, FAO No.709/02, date of decision:
2.2.2007, Delhi High Court by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pradeep
Nandrajog wherein it was held that:-“On account of pain and
suffering, suffice would it be to note that it is difficult to
measure pain and suffering in terms of a money value,
However, compensation which has to be paid must bear
some objectives co-relation with the pain and suffering. The
objective facts relatable to pain and suffering would be:
(a)Nature of injury.
(b)Body part affected.
(c)Duration of the treatment.”
42. It may be noted here that petitioner had suffered dangerous
injuries in the road traffic accident. Thus, he would have undergone great
physical sufferings, inconvenience and mental trauma on account of the
accident in question. Keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by the
Jasho Devi & Ors. & Ankit Vs. Sonu & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 25 of 36
MACP No. 272/21 & 273/21; FIR No. 481/20; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 11.08.2025
petitioner, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is considered reasonable towards pain &
sufferings.
CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES
43. During course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for petitioner argued
that petitioner has spent considerable amount on special diet, conveyance and
attendant charges. The petitioner has failed to lead any cogent evidence on
record in respect of amount incurred by him under the aforesaid heads. At the
same time, it cannot be overlooked that he had sustained grievous injuries in
the accident in question. Thus, he would have taken special rich protein diet
for his speedy recovery and would have also incurred considerable amount
towards conveyance charges while commuting to the concerned hospital as
OPD patient for his regular check up & follow up during the period of his
medical treatment. He would have been definitely helped by some person
either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily activities as also while
visiting the hospital during the course of his medical treatment. In these facts
and circumstances, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 10,000/-each for conveyance
charges and special diet and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for attendant charges to the
petitioner.
Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:-
Jasho Devi & Ors. & Ankit Vs. Sonu & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 26 of 36
MACP No. 272/21 & 273/21; FIR No. 481/20; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 11.08.2025
1. Medical Expenses Rs. 2134/-
2. Loss of income Rs. 23,000/-
3. Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/-
4. Conveyance, special diet and Rs. 35,000/-
attendant charges
Total Rs. 1,10,134/-
Rounded off Rs. 1,10,000/-
44. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which
of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. The
Ld. counsel for the insurance company has very vehemently argued that as
per registration certificate of the offending vehicle, its seating capacity was
only 2 including driver, however, three persons were including driver were
travelling in the said vehicle at the time of accident in gross violation of
seating capacity and traffic rules and thus, insurance company is not liable to
pay compensation to the petitioners. It is very strenuously argued that
deceased as well as injured were travelling in the offending vehicle as a
“gratuitous passengers” and as such, risk of gratuitous passenger and even
any passenger not covered under the policy. In support of his aforesaid
contention, he heavily relied upon testimony of R3W1 Sh. Mritunjay,
Jasho Devi & Ors. & Ankit Vs. Sonu & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 27 of 36
MACP No. 272/21 & 273/21; FIR No. 481/20; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 11.08.2025
Executive, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited.
45. R3W1 has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.
R3W1/A) that the seating capacity of the vehicle as per the Registration
Certificate was only 2 including driver while 3 persons were treavelling in
the vehicle in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and
provisions of Traffic Rules and Regulations. He further deposed that injured
and deceased were travelling as a gratuitous passengers in the vehicle and the
risk of gratuitous passengers and even any passenger was not covered under
the facts and circumstances of the case and coverage of the policy. He further
deposed that there was willful violation of terms and conditions of insurance
policy on the part of insured as well as driver and thus, insurance company is
not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. He has relied upon
office copy of notice u/o 12 Rule 8 CPC as Ex. R3W1/1, registered postal
receipts as Ex. R3W1/2 to Ex. R3W1/5, copy of insurance policy as Ex.
R3W1/6 and authority letter in his favour as Ex. R3W1/7. During his cross-
examination on behalf of registered owner, he deposed that the coverage
under the policy was mentioned u/s. 4 for the personal accident of owner and
driver at point A on the policy. He further deposed that the coverage towards
the third party was mentioned at point B on the policy and the detailed points
were mentioned at point C on the policy. He further deposed that at point D
in the policy, it has been mentioned that the coverage of excess passenger
was not covered by the policy. He further deposed that he did not have any
Jasho Devi & Ors. & Ankit Vs. Sonu & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 28 of 36
MACP No. 272/21 & 273/21; FIR No. 481/20; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 11.08.2025
document to show that the accident occurred due to excess number of
passengers in the offending vehicle. He further deposed that as per the
chargesheet, there was no document regarding employment of passengers and
therefore, the said passengers were considered as gratuitous passengers by
the insurance company. He further deposed that it is nowhere mentioned in
the DAR that the passengers travelling in the offending vehicle alongwith
driver were the gratuitous passengers. He further deposed that he did not
remember whether it has been mentioned in the DAR that at the time of
accident, there was one driver and two helpers namely Sanjay and Ankit in
the offending vehicle. He admitted that he did not know that insured/owner of
the offending vehicle was having knowledge that at the time of accident that
there were three employees in the offending vehicle. He denied the
suggestion that the persons sitting in the cabin of the offending vehicle were
not gratuitous passengers or that they were driver and employees of the
registered owner.
46. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for registered owner vehemently
argued that alleged offending vehicle was insured with respondent no. 3 at
the time of accident and thus, insurance company is liable to pay
compensation, if any to the petitioners. In support of his aforesaid contention,
he heavily relied upon testimony of R2W1 Sh. Jitesh Kumar Jha, AR of
respondent no. 2 who deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.
R2W1/A that the alleged offending vehicle was owned by respondent no. 2
Jasho Devi & Ors. & Ankit Vs. Sonu & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 29 of 36
MACP No. 272/21 & 273/21; FIR No. 481/20; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 11.08.2025
and the same was used by the company for transportation of municipal solid
waste/garbage. He further deposed that on 09.08.2020, the aforesaid vehicle
met with an accident while it was coming down from the Bhalswa Land fill
site. He further deposed that at the time of accident, three employees of the
abovesaid company were on duty in the abovesaid truck and these were
driver Sonu and two helpers namely Sanjay Kumar Yadav and Ankit. He
further deposed that driver Sonu and helper Ankit suffered injuries and helper
Sanjay Kumar Yadav died in this accident. He has relied upon salary slips of
deceased Sanjay Yadav for the month of June & July, 2020 and salary slips of
injured Ankit for the month June to July 2020 and exhibited the same as Ex.
R2W1/1(Colly). During his cross-examination on behalf of insurance
company, he deposed that he did not have any record regarding the
appointment, attendance and payment of salary to the deceased Sanjay Yadav
and injured Ankit. He volunteered that the company used to pay salary to the
deceased and injured in cash. He further deposed that he did not have any
document in the writing of the deceased and the injured which might have
been prepared during their employment with their company. He admitted that
the salary slips Ex. R2W1/1(colly) did not bear the signatures of the
concerned employees despite there was a specific column at point X on the
said Ex. R2W/1(Colly) for the same. He denied the suggestion that deceased
Sanjay Kumar Yadav, injured Ankit and other person Sonu travelling in the
offending vehicle at the time of accident, were not employed with their
company. He further denied the suggestion that the aforesaid persons were
Jasho Devi & Ors. & Ankit Vs. Sonu & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 30 of 36
MACP No. 272/21 & 273/21; FIR No. 481/20; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 11.08.2025
travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passengers. He further
denied the suggestion that he had prepared the false and fabricated document
Ex. R2W1/1(Colly) to avoid the liability of the company/R2. After seeing the
registration particulars as well as permit particulars, said witness admitted
that the seating capacity mentioned in both the aforesaid documents was 2
and exhibited the aforesaid documents as Ex. R2W1/R3X1 and Ex.
R2W1/R3X2 respectively. He further admitted that seating capacity of the
offending vehicle was ‘2’ only at the time of accident. After seeing the
insurance policy of the offending vehicle, he admitted that the same pertained
to the policy of offending vehicle. He further deposed that he can not admit
or deny the suggestion that legal liability to the employees as mentioned at
point Y to Y1 was zero on the insurance policy.
47. It may be noted here that in the present case, insurance company
has taken the defence that since the seating capacity in the offending vehicle
was only 2 including driver and there were 3 persons including driver were
travelling in the offending vehicle, insurance company is not liable to pay
compensation to the petitioners as the same was in violation of terms and
conditions of the insurance policy. It is apparent on record that as per the
insurance policy Ex. R3W1/6 and RC of offending vehicle, the seating
capacity of the offending vehicle is 2 including driver, however, three persons
were travelling in the offending vehicle at the time of accident. It has been
proved by R2W1 that deceased and injured were employee of respondent no.
Jasho Devi & Ors. & Ankit Vs. Sonu & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 31 of 36
MACP No. 272/21 & 273/21; FIR No. 481/20; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 11.08.2025
2 at the time of accident. It is relevant to note here that insurance policy in
the present case is ‘Comprehensive Policy’ which covers the third party risk
also. It is apparent on record that there were three passengers including driver
who were travelling in the offending vehicle at the time of accident.
However, insurance company has failed to prove that the accident took place
due to excess number of persons sitting in the cabin of offending vehicle.
Further, it is nowhere the contention of the insurance company that
employees were not covered by the policy. However, as per RC of offending
vehicle, only one person in addition to driver was permitted to sit.
Considering the fact that the seating capacity of the offending vehicle was 2
including driver, insurance company is directed to pay compensation in the
fatal case bearing MACP No. 272/21 as insurance company is liable to
indemnify the insured. However, the respondent no. 2 is liable to pay
compensation/award to the claimant/petitioner in MACP No. 273/21. Issue
No.2 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF
48. In view of my findings on issues no. 1 & 2, following order is
passed after relying upon judgment “United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baby
Raksha & Ors.”, MAC APP. No. 36/2023 on 21.04.2023, on the point of
interest.
a) A sum of Rs. 34,13,000/-(Rupees Thirty Four Lakhs and
Thirteen Thousand Only) (including interim award amount, if any) in MAC
Petition No. 272/21 alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of
Jasho Devi & Ors. & Ankit Vs. Sonu & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 32 of 36
MACP No. 272/21 & 273/21; FIR No. 481/20; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 11.08.2025
petitioners and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e.
14.09.2021 till the date of its realization.
b) A sum of Rs. 1,10,000/-(Rupees One Lakh and Ten Thousand
only) in MAC Petition No. 273/21 alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum in
favour of petitioner and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the
petition i.e. 14.09.2021 till the date of its realization.
Issue no. 3 is decided accordingly.
APPORTIONMENT
49. Statements of petitioners in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP in
MACP No. 272/21 were recorded on 25.10.2024. Having regard to the facts
and circumstances of the case and in view of their statements, it is hereby
ordered that out of total compensation amount in MAC Petition No. 4/23, the
petitioner no. 1 Smt. Jasho Devi (Widow of deceased) shall be entitled to
share amount of Rs. 10,13,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs and Thirteen Thousand
Only) alongwith proportionate interest, the petitioner no. 2 to 4 namely
Shivam Kumar, Satyavan Yadav and Shivani Kumari (Minor children of
deceased) shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- each (Rupees
Five Lakhs Only) alongwith proportionate interest, the petitioner no. 5
Smt. Lakhiya Devi (mother of deceased) shall be entitled to share amount of
Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) alongwith proportionate interest
and the petitioner no. 6 Sh. Ramavtar Yadav (Father of deceased) shall be
entitled to share amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Only)
Jasho Devi & Ors. & Ankit Vs. Sonu & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 33 of 36
MACP No. 272/21 & 273/21; FIR No. 481/20; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 11.08.2025
alongwith proportionate interest.
50. In MACP No. 272/21, out of share amount of petitioner no. 1, a
sum of Rs. 3,13,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Thirteen Thousand Only) is
directed to be immediately released to her through her bank account no.
21987247814 with Indian Bank, Mansapur, District Madhubani, having IFSC
Code IDIB000M632 and remaining amount is directed to be kept in the form
of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 25,000/-each for one month, two months,
three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest. The said
FDRs be released to the said petitioner on the monthly basis as aforesaid.
51. In MACP No. 272/21, the entire respective share amounts
alongwith proportionate interest of petitioner no. 2 (A/c No. 7425551014),
petitioner no. 3 (7447443955) and petitioner no. 4 (7425497033) with Indian
Bank, Mansapur, District Madhubani, having IFSC Code IDIB000M632, be
kept in FDRs for the period till they attain the age of majority. The said
petitioners are at liberty to withdraw their monthly interest till they attains the
age of majority in order to meet their educational expenses through their
mother/natural guardian.
52. The entire respective share amount of petitioners no. 5 & 6 be
immediately released to them through their respective bank accounts no.
21987157941 (of petitioner no. 5 Lakhiya Devi) and no. 7434943792 (of
petitioner no. 6 Ramavtar Yadav) with Indian Bank, Mansapur, District
Jasho Devi & Ors. & Ankit Vs. Sonu & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 34 of 36
MACP No. 272/21 & 273/21; FIR No. 481/20; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 11.08.2025
Madhubani, having IFSC Code IDIB000M632, , as per rules.
53. In MACP No. 273/21, the entire award amount of Rs. 1,10000/-
alongwith interest shall be immediately released to petitioner through his
bank account no. 519602010532660 with Union Bank of India, Unnao, RO
Kanpur, having IFSC Code UBIN0551961, as per rules.
54. Respondent no. 3/IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
being insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award
amount in the aforesaid bank accounts of the claimants in case MACP No.
272/21, within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company
shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a for the period of delay in terms of
directions passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in its latest judgment titled
“Parminder Singh Vs. Honey Goyal & Ors.”, S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020,
DOD:18.03.2025.
55. Respondent no. 2 is directed to deposit the entire award amount
in case MACP No. 273/21 with the bank account of this Tribunal bearing
account no. 40721617562, SBI, Rohini Courts branch, having IFSC Code
SBIN0010323 within 30 days as per above order, failing which they shall be
liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a for the period of delay. Concerned Manager,
SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the aforesaid amount
immediately to petitioner Ankit in his aforesaid bank account, on completing
Jasho Devi & Ors. & Ankit Vs. Sonu & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 35 of 36
MACP No. 272/21 & 273/21; FIR No. 481/20; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 11.08.2025
necessary formalities as per rules. He be further directed to keep the said
amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimant approaches the bank
for disbursement so that the award amount starts earning interest from the
date of clearance of the cheques.
56. Concerned Manager of petitioners bank in MACP No. 272/21 is
directed to release the amount to the petitioners as aforesaid, on completing
necessary formalities as per rules. He is further directed to keep the
remaining amount in fixed deposit, if any, in terms of aforesaid directions and
send compliance report to this Court. He is also directed to ensure that no
loan, advance or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits
without permission of the Court. Copy of the award be given dasti to the
petitioners and also to counsel for the insurance company for compliance.
Petitioners are also directed to provide copy of this award to their bank
Manager for compliance. Form XV, XVI & Form XVII in terms of MCTAP
are annexed herewith as Annexure-A. Copy of order be also sent to
concerned CJM/JMFC and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP. Signed
copy of this Award be placed on the judicial record of MAC Petition No.
273/21, as per the rules. Digitally signed
by RICHA
RICHA MANCHANDA
Announced in the open MANCHANDA Date:
2025.08.11
Court on 11.08.2025 15:12:04 +0545(RICHA MANCHANDA)
Judge MACT-2 (North)
Rohini Courts, DelhiJasho Devi & Ors. & Ankit Vs. Sonu & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 36 of 36