Delhi District Court
Jyoti Verma And Ors vs Sonu Kumar And Ors on 16 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF VIJAY KUMAR JHA
PRESIDING OFFICER:
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-01, SHAHDARA
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
____________________________________________________________
In the matter of :
MACT no. 429/2022
Jyoti Verma & Ors. v. Sonu Kumar & Ors.
(1) Jyoti Verma (wife of the deceased)
W/o late Sh. Mukesh Kumar Kashyap
(2) Kartik Kashyap (son of the deceased)
S/o late Sh. Mukesh Kumar Kashyap
(3) Awantika Kashyap (minor daughter of the deceased)
D/o late Sh. Mukesh Kumar Kashyap
(4) Ram Shri (mother of the deceased)
W/o late Sh. Phool Singh
(Petitioner no.2 & 3 being minors, represented through
petitioner no.1, their mother/ natural guardian)
All R/o New Defence Colony, Near Hero Honda Showroom,
Muradnagar, Ghaziabad, U.P.
Permanent Address: Flat no.107A,
Anand Gooba Garden Society, PO Kalyanpur,
District Kanpur Nagar, U.P.-208017. .................Petitioners
Versus
(1) Sonu Kumar S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar (Driver)
R/o 106, Village Tahirpur, Delhi-110095.
Also at: B-512/10, Gali no.16, Gagan Vihar,
Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P.-201005.
(2) Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Prabhu Dayal (Regd. Owner)
R/o 106, Street no.2, Village Tahirpur, Delhi-110095.
(3) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
7185-7193-E, 1st Floor, Plot no. A-1/40, Roop Nagar,
New Delhi-110007. ..............Respondents
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 429/22; Jyoti Verma & Ors. v. Sonu Kumar & Ors. 1 of 26 Pages
Date of institution : 03.09.2022
Final arguments concluded on : 16.02.2026
Date of Judgment : 16.02.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present claim petition under Section 166 of the ‘Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988‘ was filed by the claimants/ legal representatives of Sh.
Mukesh Kumar Kashyap (hereinafter, ‘the deceased’), seeking
compensation from the respondents on account fatal injury received
by the deceased in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on
30.05.2022 involving the motor-cycle, make- Passion Pro bearing
registration number UP15BP-7724, (hereinafter, ‘offending vehicle’)
allegedly being driven by respondent no.1 at a high speed, rashly and
negligently.
2. As per claim petition, on 30.05.2022 at about 05:05 p.m., the
deceased was going to his home from his office after finishing his
duty by motor-cycle bearing registration no. UP16BL-3601 at a
normal speed and on the correct side of the road. When the deceased
reached at OFM flyover, within the jurisdiction of PS Muradnagar,
District Ghaziabad, the offending vehicle which was being driven by
its driver/ respondent no.1 at a very high speed, rashly, negligently,
without taking the necessary precautions, without proper lookouts,
violating the traffic rules, in a zigzag manner and without blowing
any horn, came and hit the motor-cycle of the deceased with great
force. As a result of the impact, the deceased fell down on the road
along with his motor-cycle and sustained grievous injuries. He was
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 429/22; Jyoti Verma & Ors. v. Sonu Kumar & Ors. 2 of 26 Pages
immediately taken to the Ordinance Factory Hospital, Muradnagar,
District Ghaziabad, U.P. where his MLC was prepared by the doctor
and declared him as brought dead. The post-mortem of the deceased
was conducted at the Mortuary of District Hospital, District
Ghaziabad, U.P.
3. With respect to the accident, FIR no. 308/2022, under sections
279/338/304A IPC, was registered at PS Muradnagar, District
Ghaziabad on 31.05.2022 in which after the investigation the charge-
sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer against the respondent
no.1 as an accused.
4. The deceased is stated to be 48 years of age at the time of the
accident and was working as a Foreman with Aeronautical Quality
Assurance Wing (Armament) Muradnagar, U.P., D.G.A.Q.A.,
Ministry of Defense, Government of India and was getting a salary
of Rs.86,527/- per month. The petitioners are claiming compensation
of Rs.1.5 Crores along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date
of accident till its realization.
5. On notice of the claim petition, all the respondents appeared who
were directed to file their replies/ written-statements, which were
filed subsequently.
6. In the joint written-statement filed on behalf of the respondents no.1
and 2, it is stated that the answering respondent no.1 has not caused
the alleged accident and in fact, the driver of the motor-cycle bearing
registration number UP16BL-3601 himself was responsible for the
said accident, as he was driving the motorcycle at a high speed,
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 429/22; Jyoti Verma & Ors. v. Sonu Kumar & Ors. 3 of 26 Pages
rashly and negligently without following the traffic rules and due to
his own negligence, he struck his motorcycle to the motorcycle
driven by the respondent no.1 resulting which the respondent no.1
also suffered injuries but the police officials falsely implicated the
respondent no.1 in the alleged accident. Further, the contents of the
claim petition have also been denied on merits.
7. In the written-statement filed on behalf of the respondent no.3/
insurance company, besides taking the general defences, a statutory
defence has been taken to the effect that the respondent no.1/ driver
of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving
license at the time of the accident and further, he was also not
qualified for obtaining such a license and has not satisfied the
requirements of rule no.3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
It is stated that the insured/ respondent no.3 willfully and knowingly
handed over the possession of the offending vehicle to the said
driver, who was not possessing a valid and effective driving license
and thus, the insured has committed willful breach of the terms and
conditions of the insurance policy and therefore, the insurance
company is not liable to pay any compensation in this case.
8. Upon completion of the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated
22.08.2023, following issues were framed:
1. Whether respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle
no. UP 15 HP-7724 on 30.05.2022 at about 05: 05 p.m. at
OFM flyover, within the jurisdiction of PS Muradnagar,
District Ghaziabad, U.P. in a rash and negligent manner and
caused the death of deceased Sh. Mukesh Kumar Kashyap?
OPP
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 429/22; Jyoti Verma & Ors. v. Sonu Kumar & Ors. 4 of 26 Pages
2. Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to
what extent and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
No other issue arose or pressed for and matter was adjourned for
petitioner’s evidence.
9. order dated 22.08.2024, the Court Commissioner was appointed
(refer: Gohar Mohammed v. UPSRTC, (2023) 4 SCC 381) to record
the petitioners’ evidence in this case. Ld. Court Commissioner
submitted his report containing the following depositions recorded
by him: :
(a) PW1 Smt. Jyoti Verma, wife of the deceased testified on the
strength of her affidavit Ex.PW1/A regarding the accident of the
deceased, employment and income of the deceased and regarding
the losses suffered as a result of the death of the deceased due to
road accident. PW1 relied upon the following documents:
(i) Death certificate of the deceased as Ex.PW1/1 (OSR)
(ii) Aadhaar Card of the deceased as Ex.PW1/2 (OSR).
(iii) PAN Card of the deceased as Ex.PW1/3 (OSR).
(iv) Salary slip of the deceased as Ex.PW1/4 (OSR).
(v) Aadhaar Card of petitioner no.1 as Ex.PW1/5 (OSR).
(vi) PAN Card of the petitioner no.1 as Ex.PW1/6 (OSR).
(vii) Aadhaar Card of the petitioner no.2 as Ex.PW1/7 (OSR).
(viii) Aadhaar Card of the petitioner no.3 as Ex.PW1/8 (OSR).
(ix) Aadhaar Card of the petitioner no.4 as Ex.PW1/9 (OSR).
(x) PAN Card of the petitioner no.4 as Ex.PW1/10 (OSR).
(xi) Certified copies of criminal case record as Ex.PW1/11.
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 429/22; Jyoti Verma & Ors. v. Sonu Kumar & Ors. 5 of 26 Pages
(b) PW2 Sh. Yash Kumar Pareta, Foreman, Aeronautical Quality
Assurance Wing (Armament), Muradnagar, Ghaziabad, U.P.
produced employment/ service record and salary related
documents of the deceased and proved the same as Ex.PW2/1 to
Ex.PW2/5. He proved the following documents:
(i) Appointment letter of Sh. Mukesh Kumar Kashyap
(deceased) as Chargeman, DGAQA, dated 21.01.2010 as
Ex.PW2/1 (OSR) (colly-3 pages).
(ii) Appointment letter of Sh. Mukesh Kumar Kashyap
(deceased) as Chargeman-II, DGAQA, dated 19.01.2010 as
Ex.PW2/2 (OSR).
(iii) Pay slip for the month of May 2022 as Ex.PW2/3 (OSR).
(iv) Pay voucher/ pay bill for the month of April 2022 and May
2022 as Ex.PW2/4 (OSR) (colly-16 pages).
(v) Attendance sheet for the month of May 2022 as Ex.PW2/5
(OSR).
(c) PW3 Sh. Akshay Tyagi was examined as eye-witness of the
accident. He deposed to have seen the accident. He also informed
the police and removed the injured to hospital in his car.
10. On the other hand, respondent no.3/ insurer examined the following
witnesses before this Tribunal :
(a) R3W1 Sh. Sunil Kumar Giri, Chief Pharmacist, Community
Health, Center, Muradnagar, U.P., who produced the MLC
Ex.R3W1/1 of the respondent no.1 Sonuu Kumar and also the
relevant page of the OPD register Ex.R3W1/2.
(b) R3W2 SI Vinay Singh was examined being Investigating Officer
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 429/22; Jyoti Verma & Ors. v. Sonu Kumar & Ors. 6 of 26 Pages
of the subject FIR. He deposed to have obtained the MLC
(already exhibited as Ex.R3W1/1) of the respondent no.1 Sonu
and filed the charge-sheet in the subject FIR (already exhibited as
Ex.PW1/11).
(c) R3W3 Sh. Praveen Kumar Tiwari, Law Officer of the insurance
company deposed by way of his affidavit Ex.R3W3/A and relied
upon the following documents:
(i) Authority letter in his favour, issued by the Deputy
Manager of the insurance company as Ex.R3W3/1.
(ii) Insurance policy as Ex.R3W3/2.
(iii) MLC of the driver of the offending vehicle, already
exhibited as Ex.R3W1/1.
(iv) Copy of notice dated 13.06.2024 with postal receipt and
reply of notice from the respondent no. 1 and 2 as
Ex.R3W3/4 (colly.- page no.9 to 13).
11. I have heard the final arguments advanced by learned counsels for
the parties and also perused the evidence and other materials placed
on record. My findings on the issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1
Whether respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle no. UP
15 HP-7724 on 30.05.2022 at about 05:05 p.m. at OFM flyover,
within the jurisdiction of PS Muradnagar, District Ghaziabad, U.P. in
a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of deceased Sh.
Mukesh Kumar Kashyap? OPP
12. It is settled proposition of law that, in an action founded on the
principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of
the offending vehicle is sine-qua-non. However, the standard of
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 429/22; Jyoti Verma & Ors. v. Sonu Kumar & Ors. 7 of 26 Pages
proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is to
be tested on the touchstone of the preponderance of probabilities. A
holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition
based upon negligence. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in
an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. However, that does not
mean that a Tribunal that has been approached with a claim for
compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act should ignore all basic
principles of law in determining the claim for compensation. The
relevant provisions of the Act are not intended to jettison all
principles of law relating to a claim for compensation, which is still
based on a tortious liability. Reference may be made to the
judgments titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sakshi Bhutani
& Others., MAC APP. No. 550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012; Bimla
Devi & Others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Others
(2009) 13 SC 530; Parmeshwari v. Amirchand & Others 2011 (1)
SCR 1096; Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others
2018, Law Suit (SC) 303; & Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena
Variyal & Ors., (2007) 5 SCC 428.
13. In the case in hand, the involvement of the offending vehicle in the
accident in question being driven by the respondent no.1 has not
been disputed by the respondent no.1 and 2 in their joint written
statement and what they have disputed is that it was the deceased
who himself was responsible for causing the accident as he was
driving his motorcycle at high speed, rashly and negligently, without
following traffic rules, etc. In view of this, the instant issue remains
to be decided on the limited aspect whether the respondent no.1
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 429/22; Jyoti Verma & Ors. v. Sonu Kumar & Ors. 8 of 26 Pages
caused the fatal accident of the deceased by driving his motorcycle in
rash and negligent manner.
14. On this aspect, on behalf of the petitioners, PW3 Akshay Tyagi has
been examined as eye-witness of the accident. In his examination-in-
chief, PW3 has deposed to as follows:
“I am summoned witness. On 30.05.2022, I saw a
motorcyclist met with a road accident at Ordinance
Factory, Muradnagar Flyover, within the jurisdiction
of PS Muradnagar, District Ghaziabad. At about
05:00 p.m., I saw a motorcycle bearing registration
no. UP16BL-3601 which was being driven by its
driver at normal speed and correct side of the road
and was coming from Ordinance Factory was going
towards Main Road Muradnagar. When the
motorcyclist reached Ordinance Factory Flyover
Muradnagar, in the meanwhile, an another
motorcycle bearing registration no. UP15BP-7724
which was being driven by driver at a very high
speed, rashly and negligently and hit the motorcycle
no. UP16BL-3601, with a great force. As a result of
this, motorcyclist fell from the road along with the
motorcycle, due to which motorcycle rider of
motorcycle bearing registration no. UP16BL-3601
sustained grievous/fatal injury. I help him as he
sustained grievous injury. The motorcyclist of the
bearing no. UP15 BP-7724 sustained simple injury in
his hand who try to run away from the spot. I inform
to the police to my mobile phone and removed the
injured to the hospital in the Ordinance Factory
Muradnagar by my car. Other public person also
gathered at the spot. The driver of the offending
vehicle who try to run away from the spot but he was
caught by me and other public person at the spot and
handed over to the police. Police recorded my
statement regarding this accident. Police also called
me at the spot 2 to 3 times regarding the
investigation. This accident was caused due to rash
and negligent driving by the driver of the offending
vehicle bearing no. UP15BP-7724 (Motorcycle
Passion Pro).”
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 429/22; Jyoti Verma & Ors. v. Sonu Kumar & Ors. 9 of 26 Pages
15. From the examination-in-chief of PW3, it is very much evident that
it was PW3 who had not only called the police after the accident but
had taken the injured to the Ordnance Factory Muradnagar Hospital
and has stated the manner in which the accident had happened.
16. In cross-examination, conducted by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.1
and 2, PW3 has stated that:
“I am working in DMRC. I was going towards my
village from Main Road National Highway,
Muradnagar, U.P. by my Baleno Car. I myself was
driving the aforesaid car. There is no divider on the
flyover where the accident took place. Other vehicle
also running/ plying on the road ahead of my car. As
per the site plan, the victim motorcycle was coming
from Ordinance Factory and was going towards
main road while the offending motorcycle was
going towards Ordinance Factory from main road
side and the accident took place at Point A as per
site plan. The offending vehicle coming from wrong
side. The driver of the victim vehicle was wearing
helmet. I had seen the vehicles from the distance of
10 to 20 meter. I had informed the police from my
mobile number 7895251371.”
17. In the cross-examination of PW3 done by learned counsel for
respondent no.1 and 2, there is nothing that would impeach or call in
doubt the veracity of the facts deposed to by PW3. Rather from the
cross-examination of PW3, the fact that has come on record is that
there was no divider on the flyover where the accident had taken
place and that the offending vehicle was coming from the wrong
side. Said fact stands corroborated with the site plan, which shows
the flyover not having any divider. Moreover, on behalf of the
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 429/22; Jyoti Verma & Ors. v. Sonu Kumar & Ors. 10 of 26 Pages
respondents no.1 and 2, no evidence has been led to dislodge the fact
that the respondent no.1 was not driving on the wrong side of the
road where the accident happened. From the site plan, it is also
evident that, in all probability, the road where the accident had
happened was a two-way road without any divider and after
completing his duty, the deceased was going from Ordinance Factory
to OFM Gate to go to his home; therefore, the deceased had to be on
the left side of the road and since the accident was a head-on
collision and since the place of accident shown as ‘A’ on the site
plan; (part of the charge sheet) which is on the left side of the road,
the offending vehicle had to be on the wrong side. Thus, the
deposition of PW3 Akshay Tyagi, who has also been cited as eye-
witness in the charge-sheet, has remained intact with respect to the
mode and manner of the accident.
18. Besides, it is evident that FIR was registered and charge-sheet was
filed against the respondent no.1 after detailed investigation and in
case of motor vehicular accident claims, contents of charge-sheet are
relevant in evidence.
19. A perusal of certified copy of the postmortem report, which is part of
the criminal case record Ex.PW1/11 (colly) reflects that deceased
Mukesh Kumar Kashyap was found to have sustained multiple
antemortem injuries and his death was caused due to shock and
hemorrhage as a result of antemortem injuries.
20. Thus, in the light of the above discussion and the evidence brought
on record, it is held that the petitioners have been able to prove on
the basis of preponderance of probabilities that the accident had
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 429/22; Jyoti Verma & Ors. v. Sonu Kumar & Ors. 11 of 26 Pages
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle
by respondent no.1 and that resulted into fatal injuries to the
deceased Mukesh Kumar Kashyap. Issue no.1 is, accordingly,
decided in favour of petitioners.
ISSUE NO.2
Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what
extent and from whom? OPP
21. On the basis of findings upon issue no.1 above, it is established on
record that the incident in question had occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of offending vehicle by the respondent no.1,
resulting in the death of the deceased. Hence, it is held that
petitioners are entitled to get the compensation in this case.
QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION
22. Section Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an
inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of
compensation, which appears to be just and reasonable. It has to be
borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall
or a bonanza nor it should be a pittance.
23. In Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.
(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, the relevant guidelines were laid
down for death cases, which have been reiterated by the Constitution
Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case titled as National
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (AIR 2017 SC 5157
laying down the general principles for computation of compensation
in death cases. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgments, it is
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 429/22; Jyoti Verma & Ors. v. Sonu Kumar & Ors. 12 of 26 Pages
essential to take into consideration the following parameters:
PECUNIARY DAMAGE
Age of the deceased
24. The petitioners have placed on record the copy of the Aadhaar Card
and that of the PAN Card of the deceased Mukesh Kumar Kashyap
and proved the same as Ex.PW1/2 (OSR) and Ex.PW1/3 (OSR),
which show his date of birth as 09.04.1974, which would mean that
on the date of accident on 30.05.2022, he was aged 48 years.
Assessment of Income of the deceased
25. PW2 Sh. Yash Kumar Pareta, Foreman, Aeronautical Quality
Assurance Wing (Armament), Muradnagar, Ghaziabad, U.P.
produced the documents pertaining to service and salary record of
the deceased Mukesh Kumar Kashyap and proved the same as
follows:
(i) Appointment letter of Sh. Mukesh Kumar Kashyap
(deceased) as Chargeman, DGAQA, dated 21.01.2010 as
Ex.PW2/1 (OSR) (colly-3 pages).
(ii) Appointment letter of Sh. Mukesh Kumar Kashyap
(deceased) as Chargeman-II, DGAQA, dated 19.01.2010 as
Ex.PW2/2 (OSR).
(iii) Pay slip for the month of May 2022 as Ex.PW2/3 (OSR).
(iv) Pay voucher/ pay bill for the month of April 2022 and May
2022 as Ex.PW2/4 (OSR) (colly-16 pages).
(v) Attendance sheet for the month of May 2022 as Ex.PW2/5
(OSR).
26. The above service and salary record as produced by PW2 shows that
the deceased Mukesh Kumar Kashyap was initially appointed as
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 429/22; Jyoti Verma & Ors. v. Sonu Kumar & Ors. 13 of 26 Pages
Chargeman in DGAQA (Directorate of General of Aeronautical
Quality Assurance, Ministry of Defence, H, Block, New
Delhi-110001 and was posted at DETT. AQAW (Armt), DGAQA,
Ministry of Defence, Muradnagar-201206. The date of accident is
30.05.2022. The salary slip for the month of May-2022 Ex.PW2/3
reveals that the deceased was then posted as Foreman and his last
drawn gross salary was Rs.86,527/-.
27. As per settled law, for the purpose of computing the loss of income
in motor accident claim cases, the income after deducting the income
tax has to be taken into consideration (refer: National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors, AIR 2017 SC 5157).
Accordingly, the applicable income tax on the annual income of the
deceased in the relevant year of 2022 is computed as under:
Total Annual Income = Rs.10,38,324/- (86,527×12)
Taxable Income Tax Rate Tax applicable
Upto Rs.2,50,000/- Nil Nil
Rs.2,50,001 to Rs.5,00,000/- 5% Rs.12,500/-
Rs.5,00,001 to Rs.7,50,000/- 10% Rs.25,000/-
Rs.7,50,000 to Rs.10,00,000/- 15% Rs.37,500/-
Rs.10,00,000 to Rs.12,50,000/- 20% Rs.7,665/- (20% of 38,324/-)
Total Tax Rs.82,665/-
Thus, after deduction of the income tax, the actual income of the
deceased for the purpose of computing loss of dependency is
determined as Rs.9,55,659/- (10,38,324-82,665) per annum.
Application of Multiplier
28. The deceased was 48 years of age at the time of the accident.
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 429/22; Jyoti Verma & Ors. v. Sonu Kumar & Ors. 14 of 26 Pages
Accordingly, a multiplier of 13, applicable to the age group of 46-50
years, has to be applied in this case to determine the compensation
(refer: Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121).
Future Prospects:
29. The deceased was 48 years of age. He was posted as Foreman in
DGAQA (Directorate of General of Aeronautical Quality Assurance),
Ministry of Defence. Hence, the deceased being a government
employee and belonging to age group between 40 to 50 years, an
addition of 30% to his income has to be taken into consideration
(refer: National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (AIR
2017 SC 5157).
Deduction towards Personal Living Expenses:
30. There are four claimants in this case, who are wife, two minor
children and mother of the deceased. Hence, considering the four
dependents upon the deceased, 1/4th of the income of the deceased is
to be deducted towards his personal living expenses.
Loss of Dependency:
31. In view of the settled guidelines as laid down in the various
judgments herein above, by adding the future prospects @ 30% to
the annual income of the deceased (Rs.9,14,327/-), applying the
multiplier of 18, after making deduction of 1/4 th of the income of the
deceased, the loss of dependency is computed as Rs.1,21,12,978/-
(9,55,659×130/100×3/4×13).
NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES
32. In the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, dated
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 429/22; Jyoti Verma & Ors. v. Sonu Kumar & Ors. 15 of 26 Pages
31.10.2017, in case of Pranay Sethi & Others (Supra), a
compensation of Rs.40,000/-, 15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively
has been fixed on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and
funeral expenses and further, it is required to be enhanced @ 10% in
every three years. The accident of the deceased in this case occurred
on 30.05.2022. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.44,000/-,
Rs.16,500/- and Rs.16,500/- respectively on account of loss of
consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be
granted. Further, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder
Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 2705 of 2020,
decided on 30.06.2020, claimants are required to be granted spousal
consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium. Accordingly,
petitioner no.1 being wife of the deceased shall be entitled to spousal
consortium, petitioner no.2 and 3 being children shall be entitled to
parental consortium and petitioner no.4 being mother of the deceased
shall be entitled to filial consortium. Thus, the following amounts are
awarded under the conventional heads:
S. No. Conventional Head Amount
1. Spousal Consortium Rs.44,000/-
Parental Consortium Rs.88,000/- (44,000x2)
Filial Consortium Rs.44,000/-
2. Loss of Estate Rs.16,500/-
3. Loss of Funeral Expenses Rs.16,500/-
Total = Rs.2,09,000/-
Accordingly, the total compensation comes to Rs.1,23,21,978/-
(1,21,12,978+2,09,000), rounded off to Rs.1,23,22,000/-.
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 429/22; Jyoti Verma & Ors. v. Sonu Kumar & Ors. 16 of 26 Pages
INTEREST
33. The petitioners shall also be entitled for interest @ 7% per annum on
the award amount from the date of filing of the claim petition till
realization.
LIABILITY
34. Ld. counsel for the insurance company has argued that at the time of
the accident, the driver/ respondent no.1 was driving the offending
vehicle under influence of alcohol. He has relied upon the evidence
of R3W3 Sh. Praveen Kumar Tiwari , Law Officer of the Insurance
Company, who by way of his affidavit Ex.R3W3/A stated that at the
time of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was under
the influence of alcohol and this fact has also been recorded in the
MLC of driver/ respondent no.1. R3W3 has relied upon the MLC of
the driver as Ex.R3W1/1. Perusal of Ex.R3W1/1, the MLC of driver/
respondent no.1 Sonu Kumar, dated 30.05.2022, prepared at
Community Health Centre, Muradnagar finds mention “opinion-
person has consumed alcohol and he is under its influence” . The
MLC further shows that the blood sample collected (3 ml), sealed
and handed over to concerned IO.
35. I have perused the deposition of R3W2 SI Vinay Singh, Investigating
Officer, who states that as per MLC, the blood sample of Sonu was
taken, which was handed over to the attending constable, who
deposited the same in Malkhana. The Investigating Officer further
states that he got the sample sent for its examination and as per his
information, no report on blood sample has been received till yet.
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 429/22; Jyoti Verma & Ors. v. Sonu Kumar & Ors. 17 of 26 Pages
36. Learned counsel for insurance company further argued that though as
per section 185 of Motor Vehicle Act, the BAC (Blood Alcohol
Concentration) in the blood of the driver should be more than
30mg/100 ml, which has nowhere been mentioned in the MLC but
since the driver was “under influence of alcohol” as per MLC of the
driver/ respondent no.1, there is no doubt that he was heavily drunk
and even in absence of quantity of BAC content in his blood, the
insurance company is entitled to get recovery rights from the insured
of the offending vehicle. In support of his argument, learned counsel
for the insurance company has relied upon the case of IFFCO-Tokio
General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Pearl Beverages Ltd., (2021) 7 SCC 704.
37. Any judgment of the Superior Courts is only an authority for what it
actually decides and not for what might logically flow from it. What
is the essence in the judgment of the Superior Courts is its ratio
decidendi and not every observation found in the judgment (i.e., the
obiter dicta). Every judgment has to be read as applicable to the
peculiar/particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved, since the
generality of the expression that may be found in the judgment might
not have been intended to be an exposition of the whole or the entire
law, but the exposition of the law is governed and qualified by the
particular facts of the case in which such expressions and the
exposition of the law is found in the judgment. [Ref. State of Orissa
v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra, 1967 SCC OnLine SC 17, Mavilayi
Service Coop. Bank Ltd. v. CIT, (2021) 7 SCC 90 and Padma
Sundara Rao v. State of T.N., (2002) 3 SCC 533].
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 429/22; Jyoti Verma & Ors. v. Sonu Kumar & Ors. 18 of 26 Pages
38. In Pearl beverages (supra), the case pertains to own-damage claim
with respect to comprehensive insurance policy that had an exclusion
clause regarding driving, “under the influence of intoxicating
liquor”. In the said judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it
must be shown in the facts and circumstances of each case that the
consumption of liquor had; if not caused the accident (which
undoubtedly would bring the accident within the mischief of the
clause) but at least contributed in a perceptible way to the causing of
the accident.
39. In the facts of the Pearl Beverages case (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court was of the opinion that, in the facts and
circumstances of the said case, the consumption of liquor had
contributed in a perceptible way to the causing of accident and that
the driver of the offending vehicle was under the influence of
intoxicating liquor could be proved before the competent forum even
if the blood test, breath analyser or other test were not done because
of which a case under section 185 of MV Act was not proved or
established for the conviction under the said section.
40. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pearl Beverages (supra), further held
that own-damage’s claim must be considered on the basis of nature
of the accident, evidence after drinking before or during travel,
impact on driver and the case set up by the parties, the manner in
which the accident had occurred, etc. in the Pearl Beverages case, it
was established by way of evidence that the driver of the Porsche car
which had completely gone damaged in the accident, had consumed
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 429/22; Jyoti Verma & Ors. v. Sonu Kumar & Ors. 19 of 26 Pages
liquor and was under the influence of liquor.
41. Section 185 of MV Act in view of section 150(2)(a)(ii) of MV Act is
a statutory defence and to avoid the liability then the sine qua non for
successful proving the case under section 185 of MV Act is proved
by way of leading evidence that the driver of the offending vehicle
was having blood alcohol content exceeding 30 mg per 100 ml of
blood detected in the test by breath analyser or in any other test
including laboratory test which is also required to be proved before
the Tribunal by the insurance company to avoid its
contractual/statutory liability. For successful prosecution under
section 185 of MV Act, it could also be proved that while driving or
attempting to driving a motor vehicle, the driver was under the
‘influence of drugs’ (NOT UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF
ALCOHOL) to such an extent as to be incapable of exercising proper
control over the vehicle.
42. From section 185 of MV Act, it is very much clear that in case of
allegations of the driver of an offending vehicle under the influence
of alcohol for successful prosecution, it is required to prove the
blood alcohol concentration exceeding 30 ml per 100 ml of blood
and not that under the influence of alcohol the driver of the offending
vehicle was incapable of exercising proper control over the vehicle,
which is applicable with respect to the taking of the drugs.
43. It may also be pointed out that after the amendment of Motor
Vehicles Act by Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act 2019, section 150
inter-alia provides that the breach of specified condition of the
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 429/22; Jyoti Verma & Ors. v. Sonu Kumar & Ors. 20 of 26 Pages
insurance policy giving rise to the insurer/ insurance company to
avoid its liability towards the insured, would be a condition, namely
driving under the ‘influence of alcohol or drugs’ as laid down in
section 185 of MV Act which implies that for breach of policy
condition for driving under the ‘influence of alcohol’ under section
150 of MV Act, the insurance company is liable to prove that the
blood-alcohol concentration of the driver of the offending vehicle at
the time of the accident was 30 mg per 100 ml of blood.
44. It may also be pointed out that the respondent/insurance company
has not led any evidence to prove that immediately before the
accident, in question, the respondent no. 1 had consumed alcohol.
The fact of consumption of alcohol to be proved is important because
the smell of alcohol could be because of other reasons as well, for
example, using mouth freshener containing alcohol or consuming
any drug that has one of the ingredients, like alcohol. Merely a
statement of fact in the MLC of the respondent no.1 ‘under the
influence of alcohol’ does not attract section 185 of MV Act or, for
matter of fact, does not even prove that the respondent no.1 did, in
fact, consume alcohol before the accident. The opinion of doctor in
MLC of Sonu Kumar, driver/ respondent no.1 that he was under
influence of alcohol is primarily an opinion that is not admissible in
evidence. Generally, any decision is made on proved facts which are
legally admissible.
45. In the light of discussion herein above, this Tribunal is of the opinion
that the ratio decidendi of Pearl Beverages (supra) is not applicable
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 429/22; Jyoti Verma & Ors. v. Sonu Kumar & Ors. 21 of 26 Pages
in the facts and circumstances of the present case and insurance
company cannot avoid its statutory liability. Therefore, it is held that
the respondent no.3/ insurance company shall not have any right to
recover the award amount from any of the respondents.
46. The liability to satisfy the award as per section 150 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 has been fixed upon the respondent no.3/
insurance company only because ‘as on today’ no report on blood
sample of respondent no.1 Sonu Kumar which was collected at the
time of his medical examination and probably sent to FSL has not
been received and it is not within the power of the respondent
no.3/insurance company to do anything for having the report on the
blood sample of respondent no.1 and therefore, it will be unjust, if in
future in the report/ blood alcohol content of the blood sample of the
respondent no.1 is found to be more than 30 mg per 100 ml of
alcohol and then the insurance company would have no recourse to
recoup the award amount so paid; consequently, the right is hereby
given to the respondent no.3/ insurance company to recover the
award amount paid by it in the present case from the respondents no.
1 and 2 jointly or severally, as per law on proving that at the time of
the accident in question the blood alcohol content in the blood of the
respondent no.1 was more than 30 mg per 100 ml in the blood of the
respondent no.1.
RELIEF
47. In the light of the decision on substantive issues framed, the present
claim petition is allowed and the following award is being passed:
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 429/22; Jyoti Verma & Ors. v. Sonu Kumar & Ors. 22 of 26 Pages
AWARD
48. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.1,23,22,000/- (Rs. One
Crore Twenty Three Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand Only) along with
interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of this claim
petition till realization in favour of the petitioners to be paid by the
respondent no.3/ insurance company. The interim compensation, if
any, shall be adjusted against this award amount along with the
waiver of interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the
pendency of this case.
49. The respondent no.3/ Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. Ltd. is directed
to deposit the award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code
UCBA0002078), UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT,
Shahdara, through RTGS/ NEFT, within 30 days from today.
Entitlement, Apportionment and Disbursement
50. All the petitioners being wife, minor children and mother of the
deceased shall be entitled to the compensation and they shall share
the award amount of Rs.1,23,22,000/- along with interest @ 7% per
annum thereon, in the following manner:
Petitioner Name of the Petitioners Share in Award Amount
No.
1. Jyoti Verma Rs.63,22,000/- along with
(mother of the deceased) the corresponding interest.
2. Kartik Kashyap Rs.24,00,000/- along with
(minor son of the deceased) the corresponding interest.
3. Awantika Kashyap Rs.24,00,000/- along with
(minor daughter of the deceased) the corresponding interest.
4. Ram Shri Rs.12,00,000/- along with
(mother of the deceased) the corresponding interest.
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 429/22; Jyoti Verma & Ors. v. Sonu Kumar & Ors. 23 of 26 Pages
51. The Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma shall forthwith release a
sum of Rs.13,22,000/- along with the corresponding interest to the
petitioner no.1 Jyoti Verma by way of transferring the said amount
into his MACT Saving Bank Account and rest of her share
amounting to Rs.50 lakhs along with the corresponding interest shall
be kept secured with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in
MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit) in the form of
120 monthly FDRs (fixed deposit receipts) to be prepared in her
name, payable to her in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 120
months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Hon’ble
Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in FAO No.
8433/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Others v. Jaibir Singh & Others.
52. The share of petitioner no.2 & 3 i.e. minor children of the deceased,
namely Kartik Kashyap and Awantika Kashyap, amounting to Rs.24
lakhs each along with corresponding interest shall be kept secured
with UCO Bank, Karkardooma in their respective name in the form
of one FDR each for the period till they attain the age of majority.
53. The share of petitioner no.4 Ram Shri i.e. mother of the deceased,
amounting to Rs.12 lakh along with the corresponding interest shall
be kept secured with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in
MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit) in the form of
100 monthly FDRs (fixed deposit receipts) to be prepared in her
name, payable to her in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 100
months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Hon’ble
Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in FAO No.
8433/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Others v. Jaibir Singh & Others.
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 429/22; Jyoti Verma & Ors. v. Sonu Kumar & Ors. 24 of 26 Pages
Directions for opening bank account of claimants
54. The petitioners are directed to get opened their saving bank account
near the place of their residence. The Bank of petitioner(s) is directed
to comply with the following conditions:
(i). No Cheque Book and ATM/Debit Card be issued to the
claimants/ petitioners without permission of the Court.
However, in case the ATM/Debit Card and/or Cheque Book
have already been issued bank shall cancel the same before
the disbursement of the amount.
(ii). 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). However, money may be released by means of
withdrawal slip.
(iii). The Bank Manager of petitioners’ bank is/are also directed
to make endorsement regarding compliance of aforesaid
directions on the passbook(s).
55. As per ‘The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (Annexure-XIII),
the relevant Form to be incorporated in the award is as under:
FORM – XV
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE
INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 30.05.2022
2. Name of the deceased : Mukesh Kumar Kashyap
3. Age of the deceased : 28 years
4. Occupation of the deceased : Govt. Employee
5. Income of the deceased : Rs.9,55,659/- per annum
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S. No. Name Age Relation i Jyoti Verma 47 years Mother ii Kartik Kashyap 11 years Son iii Awantika Kashyap 10 years Daughter iv Ram Shri 71 years Mother
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 429/22; Jyoti Verma & Ors. v. Sonu Kumar & Ors. 25 of 26 Pages
Computation of Compensation
S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
7. Annual Income of the deceased (A) Rs.9,55,659/-
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) @ 30% Rs.2,86,697.7/-
9. Less- Personal expenses of deceased (C) Rs.3,10,589.175/-
@ 1/4
10. Annual loss of dependency [(A+B)-C = D] Rs.9,31,767.525/-
11. Multiplier (E) 13
12. Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE = F) Rs.1,21,12,978/-
13. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
14. Compensation for loss of consortium (H) Rs.1,76,000/-
(44,000×4)
15. Compensation for love & affection (I) —
16. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs.16,500/-
17. Compensation for funeral expenses (K) Rs.16,500/-
18. TOTALCOMPENSATION Rs.1,23,21,978/-, rounded off to
(F+G+H+I+J+K= L) Rs.1,23,22,000/-
19. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 7%
20. Interest amount up to the date of award Rs.29,78,159/-
(M) (for 03 years, 05 months & 11 days)
21. Total amount including interest (L+M) Rs.1,53,00,159/-
22. Award amount released Rs.13,22,000/- along with
corresponding interest
23. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.1,10,00,000/- along with
corresponding interest
24. Mode of disbursement of the award Bank transfer
amount to the claimants (s).
25. Next Date for compliance of the award. 27.03.2026
56. With these observations, the claim petition/ DAR is disposed of. File
Digitally signed by
be consigned to Record Room. VIJAY VIJAY KUMAR JHA
KUMAR JHA Date: 2026.02.16
16:53:25 +0530
Announced in the open (VIJAY KUMAR JHA)
Court on 16.02.2026 Presiding Officer-MACT-01 (Shahdara)
Karkardooma, Delhi
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 429/22; Jyoti Verma & Ors. v. Sonu Kumar & Ors. 26 of 26 Pages
