Delhi District Court
Ashok Kr Lrs(Dec. Bharat … vs Lal Jeet Choudhary(Magma) on 17 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010155512024
MACT No. : 724/24
FIR No. : 233/2024
PS : Ranjit Nagar
u/s : 281/125 (A)/106 (1) BNS
1. Mr. Ashok Kumar (father of the deceased)
aged about 47 years
S/o Sh. Mangal Chand,
R/o C-471, Budh Nagar, JJ Colony,
Interpuri, Central, Delhi-110012.
2. Mrs. Sonia Devi (mother of the deceased)
W/o Sh. Ashok Kumar,
aged about 45 years
R/o C-471, Budh Nagar,
JJ Colony, Inderpuri,
Delhi-110012.
3. Ms. Ritika Pahadiya (Sister of the deceased)
D/o Sh. Ashok Kumar
R/o C-471, Budh Nagar,
JJ Colony, Indepuri
Delhi-110012.
4. Ms. Kashish Pahadia (Sister of the deceased)
D/o Sh. Ashok Kumar
R/o C-471, Budh Nagar,
JJ Colony, Indepuri
Delhi-110012.
...Petitioners
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.17
13:06:39 +0530
MACT No.724/24
Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 1 of 49
Versus
1. Lal Jeet Choudhary(driver of the offending vehicle)
S/o Lt. Sh. Shyam Babu Choudhary
R/o Vill. Ratan Maniya,
PS-Pair, PO Bandra District, Muzaffarpur,
Bihar, C/o 129, Near Bhumiya Chowk,
Vilalge, Bakauli, Ali Pur, Delhi
2. Praveen Kumar (Owner of the Offending Vehicle)
S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar
R/o 22, Nimri Chowk,
Village Bakoli,
Delhi-10036.
3. Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd.(Insurer)
C/o 1st Floor, H1/A/16, Sector-63,
OppElectronic City Metro Station,
Noida UP-201301.
...Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 30.09.2024
Judgment reserved on : 27.01.2026
Date of Award : 17.02.2026
AWAR D
1. The Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filed on
30.09.2024 which was treated as a claim petition. The Road Traffic
Accident in question took place on 01.07.2024 at about 07:20 pm, in
front of Satya Park, Near Sangam Colony, Girdhari Lal Goswami
Marg, towards Shadipur Red Light. Mr. Bharat Pahadia expired in the
said accident which was allegedly caused by vehicle bearing
registration No. DL-1LAC-6272, (hereinafter referred to as the
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.724/24 SINGLA Date:
2026.02.17
13:06:46 +0530
Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 2 of 49
offending vehicle). The said vehicle was being driven by respondent
no. 1 Lal Jeet Choudhary, owned by respondent no. 2 Praveen Kumar,
and insured with respondent no. 3 Magma HDI General Insurance Co.
Ltd.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that
on 30.09.2024, on receipt of information of an accident vide DD
No.49A and 50A, the investigation of present accident was marked to
the IO/SI Sandeep. Thereafter, he along with Ct. Chand went to the spot
where IO got information about the injured person who was taken to
the hospital by PCR and thereafter IO went to the hospital. It was found
that the I/C of the PCR was in the hospital. One person was handed
over to the IO who was the driver of the offending vehicle, who
disclosed his name as Lal Jeet Chaudhary. IO sent driver of the
offending vehicle to the police station by PCR Van. The doctor declared
Injured Bharat Pahadia brought dead vide MLC No. 36/24.
3. Thereafter, IO enquired from the complainant namely
Abhishek Ashwal and Hemant Pahadia about the incident. During the
investigation, complainant revealed the registration number of the
offending vehicle as DL1LAC6272. Dead body was sent to mortuary
by the IO in RML Hospital. Thereafter, two injured persons was taken
to the RML Hospital for further treatment. Thereafter, IO went to the
spot. IO tried to take videography through e-praman app but the app
was not working. Thereafter, IO took the videography from his own
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
13:06:52 +0530
MACT No.724/24
Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 3 of 49
mobile phone. Thereafter, IO had taken offending vehicle into his
custody and deposited it in the Malkhana.
4. Thereafter, IO went to the hospital and collected the MLC
bearing no. E124843/24/505470 of injured namely Abhishek Ashwal
and MLC No. E124846/24/505473 of injured namely Hemant Pahadia.
IO recorded the statement of injured person namely Abhishek Ashwal.
IO registered FIR on the basis of statement of injured, PCR call and
MLCs u/s 281/106(1) BNS. Thereafter, IO prepared the site plan at the
instance of Abhishek Ashwal and added section 125A BNS. IO also
recovered one scooty and one motor-cycle, one of deceased person and
other of injured person. Thereafter, IO deposited them in the malkhana.
Injured person namely Abhishek Ashwal correctly identified the driver
of the offending vehicle at the police station and thereafter IO
interrogated the driver of the offending vehicle and he confessed that
the accident was caused by him and IO arrested the accused.
5. Offence being bailable, the driver of the offending vehicle
was released on bail. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the MACT,
Cell, Central District, IO/SI Birender Singh for further investigation.
On 02.07.2024, IO got conducted the postmortem of the dead body and
thereafter, the dead body was handed over to the relative of the
deceased person. Thereafter, doctor handed over blood sample of
alcohol and blood on gauze for preservation of the deceased person to
the IO.
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.17
13:06:57 +0530
MACT No.724/24
Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 4 of 49
6. Thereafter, IO got conducted mechanical inspection of all
the offending vehicles. Thereafter, driver of the offending vehicle
produced his DL and documents of the offending vehicle before the IO.
Further two MLCs were deposited to the hospital for final opinion.
Doctor opined that the injuries in both the MLCs were “simple”.
Thereafter, IO searched the CCTV Footage of the spot but he was
unable to find the same. Thereafter, IO got verified the documents of
the offending vehicle, wherein it was found the permit and pollution
was invalid. Thereafter, it was found that the permit and pollution was
renewed after the incident. Thereafter, IO notice served upon the
relative of the deceased for production of DL but they informed that no
DL was brought by the deceased person at the time of incident.
7. IO served notice u/s 133 MV Act to the owner of the
offending vehicle upon which he replied that at the time of incident Sh.
Lal Jeet Chaudhary was driving the said offending vehicle. Thereafter,
IO deposited the exhibits which was taken by him from the hospital
with the FSL, Rohini, Delhi. Thereafter, IO collected the postmortem
report bearing no. 566/24. Thereafter, IO prepared the kalandara on the
basis of permit and pollution u/s 66.(1)/192,115/190 MV Act against
the respondent no.2. Thereafter, chargesheet was prepared against the
accused namely Lal Jeet Singh, u/s 281/ 125A, 106(1) BNS, which was
filed before the Ld. JMFC and DAR was filed in the present case.
Supplementary chargesheet was filed later wherein the DNA of the
deceased had matched with the petitioner.
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.02.17
13:07:03
+0530
MACT No.724/24
Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 5 of 49
WRITTEN STATEMENTS
8. WS was filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 and 2 on
26.11.2024, wherein it was stated that the respondent no.1 was driving
his vehicle as per the traffic rules and regulations. He was holding a
valid driving license and that he was not responsible for the accident, as
the accident was not caused by him. It was stated that the drivers of the
motor-cycle and the scooty were playing and the accident was caused
due to their own negligence. The respondent no.1 was implicated in the
accident as he helped the injured persons after they met with the
accident. The motor-cycle was admittedly not in a working condition.
Hence, the same should not have been plying on the road. Hence, it
was stated that the injured persons were solely responsible for the
accident.
9. Separate WS was filed on behalf of the respondent no.3
wherein it was admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with the
respondent no.3 vide policy no. P0024100026/4103/101005 for the
period 12.02.2024 to 11.02.2025. It was stated that the petitioner was
under the liability to prove the accident and the rash and negligent
driving of the respondent no.1. Further, it was stated that the
respondent no. 1 was driving the offending vehicle without a valid
permit, which was a clear violation of the terms of the policy. Further,
it was stated that the injured persons were not carrying valid driving
licenses at the time of the accident and they were riding the two-
wheelers without helmet. Further, the manner in which they were
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.17
MACT No.724/24
13:07:10 +0530Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 6 of 49
driving their vehicles clearly imply that they were driving the vehicles
rashly. Hence, it was stated that the respondent no. 3 was not liable to
pay any compensation and that the injured persons were liable for
contributory negligence.
ISSUES
10. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order
dated 04.01.2025, this Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the deceased suffered fatal injures in an
accident that took place on 01.07.2024 at about 04:20
pm in front of Satya Park, Near Sangam Colony,
Girdhari Lal Goswami Marg, towards Shadipur Red
Light, Delhi involving vehicle bearing registration No.
DL-1LAC-6272 driven rashly and negligently by
respondent no. 1 Lal Jeet Choudhary, Owned by
respondent no. 2 Praveen Kumar and insured with
respondent no. 3 Magma HDI General Insurance Co.
Ltd.? OPP
2. Whether the petitioners is entitled for compensation?
If so , to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
11. The petitioners examined herself i.e. Smt.Sonia Devi as
PW-1. PW1 has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.
PW1/A. She relied upon the following documents:
1. Copy of Aadhar Card of deceased Sh. Bharat Pahadiya is
Ex.PW-1/1.
2. Copy of Aadhar Card of Smt. Sonia Devi (Petitioner No.
Digitally signedMACT No.724/24
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
13:07:17 +0530Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 7 of 49
1) is Ex.PW-1/2.
3. Copy of Aadhar Card of Sh. Ashok Kumar (Petitioner No.
2) is Ex.PW-1/3.
4. Copy of Aadhar Card of Ritika Pahadiya (Petitioner No. 3)
is Ex.PW-1/4.
5. Copy of Aadhar Card of Kashish Pahadiya (Petitioner No. 4) is
Ex.PW-1/5.
6. Copy of DAR is Ex.PW-1/6 (Colly).
12. Further, Sh. Abhishek Aswal was examined as PW-2.
PW2 has only tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.
PW2/A.
13. All the witnesses were duly cross examined by the Ld.
Counsel for respondents. Thereafter, PE was closed vide order dated
11.11.2025.
RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE
14. Thereafter, Sh. Laljeet Choudhary was examined as RW-1
and he only tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which was Ex.
RW-1/A. He was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for petitioner.
15. Respondent no. 3 examined its Legal Manager Sh. Rahul
Kumar Sharma as R3W1 and he tendered his evidence by way of
affidavit which was Ex. R3W-1/A. He relied upon the following
documents:
a) Copy of insurance policy as Ex. R3W1/1
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
MACT No.724/24 13:07:25 +0530Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 8 of 49
b) Copy of permit of the offending vehicle Ex. R3W1/2
c) Copy of notice under Order 12 rule 8 CPC issued to respondents no.
1 & 2 with original postal receipts Ex. R3W1/3 to Ex. R3W1/6.
16. He was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for
petitioner. Further, RE was closed vide order dated 12.01.2026 on
behalf of the respondents no. 1 & 2 and on 20.01.2026 on behalf of the
respondent no.3.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
17. The Petitioners filed his duly filled Form XIII and the
financial statements of all the petitioners were recorded. Final
arguments were heard on behalf of the petitioners as well as
respondents.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
18. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and Ld.
Counsel for respondents and perused the record. My findings on the
various issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1:
Whether the deceased suffered fatal injures in an
accident that took place on 01.07.2024 at about 04:20 pm in front of
Satya Park, Near Sangam Colony, Girdhari Lal Goswami Marg,
towards Shadipur Red Light, Delhi involving vehicle bearing
registration No. DL-1LAC-6272 driven rashly and negligently by
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.17
MACT No.724/24 13:07:32 +0530
Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 9 of 49
respondent no. 1 Lal Jeet Choudhary, Owned by respondent no. 2
Praveen Kumar and insured with respondent no. 3 Magma HDI
General Insurance Co. Ltd.?
19. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. It is
the case of the petitioner that on 01.07.2024 at about 04:20 pm, when
the deceased was going on his scooty with his friend Abhishek, he
reached in front of Satya Park, Near Sangam Colony, Girdhari Lal
Goswami Marg, towards Shadipur Red Light, Delhi and the offending
vehicle being driven by the respondent no.1 hit the scooty of the
deceased, due to which he fell and subsequently expired.
20. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioners that the
respondent no.1 was chargesheeted by the IO in the present matter. The
eye witness PW2 Abhishek was also examined. All the witnesses were
cross examined by the respondents at length but as such nothing
contrary could be brought out in their cross examination. Hence, it is
stated that rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.1 is proved
on record.
21. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents that
in the present matter, the accident was caused due to the rash and
negligent act of the deceased as he was driving the scooty without a
valid driving license. Further, while driving the scooty, he was pushing
a motor-cycle being driven by his another friend for taking the same to
the repair shop. It is submitted that this by itself constitutes a rash and
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.724/24 SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
13:07:40 +0530
Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 10 of 49
negligent act. PW2 Abhishek has admitted in his cross-examination that
the said motor-cycle was not road worthy. Hence, it is apparent that the
scooty would have lost balance. Hence, the accident was caused due to
the negligence of the deceased and his friends.
22. Further, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.
1 &2 that the accident was not caused by the respondent no.1. The
respondent no.1 had merely helped the deceased and his friends after
they fell and sustained injuries.
23. Per contra, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner
that admittedly the deceased and the petitioner were driving the two-
wheelers as mentioned above, but mere this fact shall not make the
deceased liable for contributory negligence. An overt act which
constitutes rash and negligent act must be proved by the respondents. In
the absence of the same, the deceased cannot be held guilty for
contributory negligence.
24. Record perused.
25. In the present matter, the respondents no. 1 & 2 have
alleged that they did not cause the accident. However, it is a matter of
record that the respondent no.1 was chargesheeted by the IO. The eye
witness and one of the injured PW2 Abhishek has stated on oath that
the accident was caused by the respondent no.1. It is pertinent to
mention here that in the proceedings before the claims tribunal, the
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.02.17
MACT No.724/24 13:07:45
+0530
Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 11 of 49
facts are to be established on the basis of preponderance of probabilities
and not by the strict rules of evidence or the higher standard of beyond
reasonable doubt as required in criminal cases. The burden of proof in
the present cases is much lower than as placed in civil or criminal
cases. In Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation
& Ors (2009) 13 SC 530, it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India that negligence must be decided on the touchstone of
preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view must be adopted in
reaching a conclusion.
26. Further, it is also pertinent to note that the respondent no. 1
was chargesheeted by the IO under Section 279/338 IPC. In National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 and United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepak Goel & Ors, 2014 (2) TAC 846 (Del)
decided by the Coordinate Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, it
was held as under :-
“……where the claimants filed either the certified copies of
the criminal record or the criminal record showing the
completion of investigation by police or issuance of charge
sheet under Section 279/304A IPC or the certified copy of
FIR or the recovery of the mechanical inspection report of
the offending vehicle, then these documents are sufficient
proof to reach to a conclusion that the driver was negligent
particularly when there is no defence available from the
side of driver.”
27. Reliance is also being placed upon the judgment of
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Meera Devi, 2021 LawSuit (Del) wherein it was held that
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.17
MACT No.724/24
13:07:51 +0530Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 12 of 49
“……in view of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008,
contents of DAR has to be presumed to be correct and read in
evidence without formal proof of the same unless proof to the
contrary was produced.”
28. Further, it is a settled law that the petitioner cannot be
expected to prove the accident beyond reasonable doubts and the
principle of res ipse loquitor should apply which means that the
“accident speaks for itself”. Thus, once it has been established in DAR
and chargesheet that the accident had taken place, the burden shifts on
the respondents to prove that they were not responsible for the accident
which the respondents have failed to discharge. The respondent no.1
entered in the witness box as RW1. However, the Hon’ble High Court
of Kerela in “Kerela State Road Transport Corp. Vs. C. Soman Nadar
& Anr. 1984 ACJ 607 Kerela” has held that the statement of the driver
who caused the accident cannot be believed as his testimony was
interested and unaided by any corroboration.
29. In the present case also, the testimony of the respondent
no.1 is uncorroborated. Further, the offending vehicle was seized from
the spot. Along with the DAR, the IO placed on record the photograph
and videos taken by him from his mobile phone of the spot of the
accident, immediately after the accident. The injured persons can also
be seen in the video sitting at the pavement, tending to their injuries.
Further, perusal of the same shows that the offending vehicle had
damages on the front side. The bumper was broken. Hence, in the
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.17
13:07:58
+0530MACT No.724/24
Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 13 of 49
opinion of the Tribunal, the involvement of the offending vehicle is
prima facie made out.
30. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 5 SCC 656 has laid down in paragraphs 27
& 28:
“27. …This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina Fernandes,
noted that the key of negligence on the part of the driver of
the offending vehicle as set up by the claimants was
required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of
preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard
of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice it to observe that
the exposition in the judgments already adverted to by us,
filing of chargesheet against Respondent 2 prima facie
points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle
negligently and rashly. Further, even when the accused were
to be acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opined that
the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the
liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the
Tribunal.
28. Reliance placed upon the decisions in Minu B. Mehta
and Meena Variyal, by the respondents, in our opinion, is of
no avail. The dictum in these cases is on the matter in issue
in the case concerned. Similarly, even the dictum in
Surender Kumar Arora will be of no avail. In the present
case, considering the entirety of the pleadings, evidence and
circumstances on record and in particular the finding
recorded by the Tribunal on the factum of negligence of
Respondent 2, the driver of the offending jeep, the High
Court committed manifest error in taking a contrary view
which, in our opinion, is an error apparent on the face of
record and manifestly wrong.”
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
13:08:04 +0530
MACT No.724/24
Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 14 of 49
31. It has not been disputed that respondent No.1 has been
charge-sheeted in the aforesaid FIR for offences punishable under
Section 281/125 (A)/106(1) BNS for rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle. In view of the same, considering the facts and
circumstances, the unrebutted testimony of the witnesses and the
documents filed thereto, the court is satisfied that the accident was
caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1.
From the DAR, it also stands established that respondent no. 2 was the
registered owner of the offending vehicle. It is also an admitted
position that the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no.
3.
Contributory negligence
32. It is alleged by the respondents that the deceased is guilty
of contributory negligence as he was driving the scooty without a valid
driving license. Further, it is stated that he was pushing the broken
motorcycle of his friend with his foot while driving the scooty. Hence,
he is liable for contributory negligence.
33. However, it was held in the case of Sudhir Kumar Rana
v Surinder Singh & Ors 2008 SCC OnLine SC 794 that:
“9. If a person drives a vehicle without a license,
he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion,
may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the
accident. It has been held by the courts below that it was
the driver of the mini-truck who was driving rashly and
negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLAMACT No.724/24
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
13:08:10 +0530Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 15 of 49
possessing any license but no finding of fact has been
arrived at that he was driving the two-wheeler rashly and
negligently. If he was not driving rashly and negligently
which contributed to the accident, we fail to see as to how,
only because he was not having a license, he would be held
to be guilty of contributory negligence.
10. The matter might have been different if by reason of his
rash and negligent driving, the accident had taken place.”
34. The Sudhir Kumar Rana (supra) case was affirmed in
the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V Puneet Bhatia (MAC
APP. 774/2017 & CM APPl. 41950/2018, 50140/2018 decided by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 11.12.2023 where the appeal was
rejected on the ground that merely because the driver did not have a
valid license, he cannot be said to be driving in a rash and negligent
manner unless rashness and negligence on his part is specifically
proved.
35. The dicta laid down in the cases of Sudhir Kumar Rana
(supra) as well as Puneet Bhatia (supra) make it amply clear that an
overt act of rashness and negligence had to be proved on behalf of the
injured and merely because he did not have a driving license, he cannot
be termed to have been riding his scooty in a rash and negligent
manner.
36. Similarly, on the same principle, admittedly the deceased
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.17
13:08:16 +0530MACT No.724/24
Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 16 of 49
was pushing the motor-cycle with his foot while driving the scooty, but
the respondents must prove that he was driving the scooty rashly and
negligently. An overt act on his behalf must be proved, which has not
been done in the present case. Therefore, it is concluded that the
injured suffered injuries in the accident in question and also that there
was no wilful act, neglect or default on the part of the injured. Thus,
the respondent no. 3 has not been able to prove its defence that the
injured was rash and negligent.
The injury:
37. Further, the onus to prove that the deceased had suffered
injuries by way of the said accident was on the petitioner. It is the
matter of record that due to the accident, the deceased suffered injuries.
To prove the same, the petitioners have relied upon the MLC of the
deceased, as per which he was brought to RLKC Hospital with history
of road accident and had suffered multiple injuries on his body and was
declared dead. Further, as per his post mortem report dated 02.07.2024
issued by RML Hospital, he has expired due to respiratory failure
consequent upon blunt force impact to the chest, possible in the manner
alleged.
38. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the
opinion that on the scales of preponderance of probabilities, the
petitioner has proved that the accident in question took place due to
rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle being driven by its
driver/respondent no. 1 on the date and time of the accident and that
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
13:08:23 +0530
MACT No.724/24
Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 17 of 49
due to the said accident, the injured Mr. Bharat Pahadia had
expired. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the
petitioner and against the respondents.
Issue no.2
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to
what amount and from whom? (OPP)
39. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners. In
view of the discussion in issue no.1, the petitioners are entitled for
compensation. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in matter of “Sarla
Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors.” (2003) 6
SCC 121 has held : –
“QUA BASIC PRINCIPLES
“9. Basically only three facts need to be
established by the claimants for assessing compensation in
the case of death :-
(a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the
deceased; and the (c) the number of dependents. The issues
to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of
dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made for
arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards
the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the
multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the
deceased. If these determinants are standardized, there will
be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will
lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the
insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay.
To have uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should
determine compensation in cases of death, by the following
well settled steps :
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
13:08:27 +0530MACT No.724/24
Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 18 of 49
Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand)
The income of the deceased per annum should
be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be
made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have
spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The
balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the
dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier)
Having regard to the age of the deceased and
period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be
selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of
years he would have lived or worked but for the accident.
Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic
factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has
been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen
from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step 3 (Actual calculation)
The annual contribution to the family
(multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the
`loss of dependency’ to the family. Thereafter, a conventional
amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be
added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his
widow, another conventional amount in the range of 5,000/-
to 10,000/- should be added under the head of loss of
consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head
of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the
deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of
the body (if incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of
the deceased before death (if incurred) should also added.”
QUA ADDITIONS
“11. ………………… In view of imponderables
and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of
thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual
salary income of the deceased towards future prospects,
where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40
years. [Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
MACT No.724/24 2026.02.17
13:08:35 +0530
Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 19 of 49
words `actual salary’ should be read as `actual salary less
tax’]. The addition should be only 30% if the age of the
deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition,
where the age of deceased is more than 50 years. Though the
evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is
necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different
yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations
being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was
on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments
etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at
the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only
in rare and exceptional cases involving special
circumstances.”
QUA DEDUCTIONS
“14. Having considered several subsequent
decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the
deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and
living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd)
where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3,
one-fourth (1/3rd) where the number of dependant family
members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of
dependant family members exceed six.
15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants
are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In
regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal
and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor
would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there
is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in
which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is
likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the
contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will
not be considered as a dependent and the mother alone will
be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to
the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as
dependents, because they will either be independent and
earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. Thus even
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.724/24 SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
13:08:41 +0530Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 20 of 49
if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the
mother would be considered to be a dependent, and 50%
would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the
bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family.
However, where family of the bachelor is large and
dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where
he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-
earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses
may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family
will be taken as two-third.”
QUA MULTIPLIER
“21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be
used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above
(prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra
and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18
(for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced
by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30
years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years,
M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then
reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51
to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years
and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.”
40. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its Constitution
Bench decision in matter of “National Insurance Company Limited
Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.” (2017) 16 SCC 680 held as under : –
“58. To lay down as a thumb rule that there
will be no addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable
concept. We are disposed to think, there should be an
addition of 15% if the deceased is between the age of 50 to
60 years and there should be no addition thereafter.
Similarly, in case of self- employed or person on fixed
salary, the addition should be 10% between the age of 50 to
60 years. The aforesaid yardstick has been fixed so that
there can be consistency in the approach by the tribunals
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
13:08:48 +0530
MACT No.724/24
Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 21 of 49
and the Courts.
59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record
our conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been
well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was
taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla
Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a
coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a
contrary view than what has been held by another
coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma
Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the
decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of
actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future
prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was
below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition
should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to
50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to
60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should
be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed
salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should
be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40
years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between
the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was
between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the
necessary method of computation. The established income
means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for
personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts
shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma
which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the
Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that
judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.724/24 SINGLA Date:
2026.02.17
13:08:55 +0530Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 22 of 49
applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely,
loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses
should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 21,813/- and Rs. 15,000/-
respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at
the rate of 10% in every three years.”
Loss of income
41. In the present matter, it is alleged on behalf of the
petitioners that the deceased was working as a Sales Executive at
Gaffar Market, Karol Bagh and that he was earning about Rs. 25,000/-
to Rs. 30,000/- per month. However, it is conceded as there is no
income proof available on record, his income may be assessed as per
the minimum wages applicable in Delhi.
42. No proof income or employment was produced. However,
the copy of the marksheet of the 10th class of the deceased is placed on
record. Hence, the income of the deceased is assessed as per the
minimum wages payable to an unskilled person matriculate level. The
date of accident is 01.07.2024. As per the relevant notification,
minimum wages payable to an unskilled labour at that time is Rs.
21,813/-. Hence, his monthly income is assessed to be Rs.21,813/-.
Age determination of the deceased:
43. As per the aadhar card of the deceased Ex. PW1/1, his date
of birth was 10.10.2005. The date of the accident is 01.07.2024. Hence,
as on the date of the accident, the deceased was aged 18 years.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.17
13:09:01
+0530
MACT No.724/24
Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 23 of 49
Future Prospects: -
44. In view of the judgment of National Insurance Company
Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors; (2017) 16 SCC 680, it was observed
that the Claimants would be entitled to 40% for future prospects as the
deceased was less than 40 years of age. Accordingly, the monthly
income of the deceased needs to be taken as Rs. 30,538.20. (Rs.
21,813/- + Rs. 8,725.20 which is 40% of Rs. 21,813/-).
Determination of Dependent
45. In the present case, the deceased is survived by his parents
and two sisters. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the
father of the deceased is not working. The entire family was dependent
on the deceased for their livelihood. Hence, it is submitted that the
present petitioners may be considered as the dependents on the
deceased.
46. Record perused.
47. It is stated that the father of the deceased is unable to work
due to illness. However, no evidence is produced to prove the same. He
is only 42 years of age. Hence, in the absence of substantive evidence
qua the same, the father of the deceased cannot be taken to be
dependent upon the deceased. Further, as held in the Sarla Verma case,
the siblings of the deceased shall be considered to be dependents on the
father of the deceased.
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.17
13:09:09 +0530MACT No.724/24
Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 24 of 49
Determination of multiplicand
48. The monthly income of the deceased after enhancement
needs to be taken as Rs. 30,538.20. In light of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, and United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur & Ors., (2021) 11
SCC 780, out of the above amount so assessed, 1/2 amount has to be
deducted on account of personal and living expenses as the deceased
was unmarried. So, in this matter, monthly loss of dependency would
come out to be Rs. 15,269.10 (1/2 of Rs. 30,538.20). This needs to be
multiplied by 12 to workout multiplicand/annual loss of dependency.
Hence, multiplicand for this matter would be Rs. 1,83,229.2 (rounded
off to Rs. 1,83,230/-) ( Rs. 15,269.10 x 12).
Award Towards Loss of Dependency
49. Further, as the deceased was 18 years of age at the time of
the accident, multiplier applicable in this matter as per above discussion
would be 18. The total loss of dependency would come out to be
Rs.32,98,140/- (Rs. 1,83,230/- x 18), hence, so awarded.
Medical expenses:
50. The petitioners have not filed any medical bills on record.
Hence, in the absence of any medical bills, the petitioners shall not be
entitled to any amount towards medical expenses.
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.02.17
13:09:17
+0530
MACT No.724/24
Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 25 of 49
Non-Pecuniary Heads:-
51. The Respondents/Claimants shall be entitled to the
compensation under Non-Pecuniary Heads in terms of National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi And Others, (2017) 16
SCC 680. The case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi
& Ors. 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) was considered and clarified by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. Civil Appeal
No. 9581/2018 decided on 18.09.2018 whereby after considering the
case of Pranay Sethi‘s (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to
award loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/- to each dependent of the
deceased and further pleased to award a compensation of Rs. 50,000/-
to each dependent of the deceased towards loss of love and affection.
The relevant portion is as under:
“…… A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi
(supra) dealt with the various heads under which
compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these
heads is Loss of Consortium.
In legal parlance, “consortium” is a compendious term
which encompasses ‘spousal consortium’, ‘parental
consortium’, and ‘filial consortium’.
The right to consortium would include the company, care,
help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the
deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a
spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased
spouse.
Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining
to the relationship of a husband wife which allows
compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of “company,
society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.17
13:09:23 +0530MACT No.724/24
Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 26 of 49
conjugal relation.”
Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the
premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid,
protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and
training.”
Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation
in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident
leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony
to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest
agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime.
Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship
and their role in the family unit.
Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms
about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern
jurisdictions world-over have recognized that the value of a
child’s consortium far exceeds the economic value of the
compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child.
Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded
compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a
child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation
for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the
deceased child.
The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at
providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of
genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor
child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled
to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial
Consortium.
Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their
parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act.
A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this
count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the
principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss
of Filial Consortium.
The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLASINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
13:09:31 +0530MACT No.724/24
Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 27 of 49
will be governed by the principles of awarding
compensation under ‘Loss of Consortium’ as laid down in
Pranay Sethi (supra).
In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the
father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of
Rs.21,813 each for loss of Filial Consortium…..”.
52. However, in the case of United India Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur 2020 SCC
Online SC 410 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that there is
no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and
affection as a separate head. The relevant portion of the observations
are reproduced as under:
“…… The amount to be awarded for loss consortium will be
as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra). At this
stage, we consider it necessary to provide uniformity with
respect to the grant of consortium, and loss of love and
affection. Several Tribunals and High Courts have been
awarding compensation for both loss of consortium and loss
of love and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay
Sethi (supra), has recognized only three conventional heads
under which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of
estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a
comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include
spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial
consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in
loss of consortium.
The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to award
compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate
conventional head. There is no justification to award
compensation towards loss of love and affection as a
separate head…”.
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.02.17
13:09:36
+0530
MACT No.724/24
Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 28 of 49
53. In the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), it was held that in the
case of death, Rs.15,000/- is liable to be paid towards the loss of estate
and funeral charges each, while Rs.40,000/- was payable towards the
loss of consortium to each legal heir and the same may be enhanced by
10% every three years.
54. Thus, an amount of Rs. 19,965/- is granted towards the
Loss of Estate and Rs. 19,965/- towards funeral charges.
55 Further, Rs. 53,240/- each is granted to the petitioners
i.e. total of Rs. 53,240 x 4 = Rs. 2,12,960/- towards Loss of
Consortium.
Computation of compensation:
56. Applying the settled guidelines in the various judgments,
the compensation payable to the petitioners is calculated as under:
Head Awarded by the Claims Tribunal Monthly Income of deceased (A) Rs. 21,813/- Add future prospect (B) @ 40%= Rs. 8,725.20
Less 1/2 deductions towards (Rs. 21,813/- + Rs. 8,725.20) =
personal and living expenses of the Rs. 30,538.20 x 1/2 = Rs.
deceased (C) 15,269.10 Monthly loss of dependency (Rs. 21,813/- + Rs. 8,725.20) - [(A+B) - C = D] Rs. 15,269.10 = Rs. 15,269.10) Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 15,269.10 x 12= Rs. (D x 12) 1,83,230/- Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17 MACT No.724/24 13:09:42 +0530 Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 29 of 49 Multiplier (E) 18 Total loss of dependency (Rs. 1,83,230/- x 18) = DxE=F Rs. 32,98,140/- Medical Expenses (G) Nil
Compensation for loss of love and Nil.
affection (H)
Compensation for loss of Rs. 53,240/- x 4 = Rs. 2,12,960/-
consortium (I) to the petitioners
Compensation for loss of Estate (J) Rs. 19,965/-
Compensation for funeral expenses Rs. 19,965/-
(K)
Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 35,51,030/-
57. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru
@ Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld awarding of 9% interest per annum.
Therefore, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @
9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 30.09.2024 till
realization.
Apportionment:
58. It is evident from the record that the deceased had left
behind his 4 legal heirs i.e. parents and 2 sisters. For the sake of
convenience, the individual shares of the petitioners are tabulated as
under:-
S.No. Name of the Relation Amount in Total amount
claimant with (Rupees) including interest
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.724/24 SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
13:09:49 +0530Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 30 of 49
deceased
1. Mr. Ashok Father Rs. 53,240/- + Rs. Rs. 93,170/- + Rs.
Kumar 19,965/- + Rs. 11,601.58 = Rs.
19,965/- = Rs. 1,04,771.58
93,170/- (rounded off to Rs.
1,04,772/-)
2. Mrs. Sonia Mother Rs. 32,98,140/- + Rs. 33,51,380/- +
Devi Rs. 53,240/- = Rs. Rs. 4,17,315.67 =
33,51,380/- Rs. 37,68,695.67
(rounded off to Rs.
37,68,696/-)
3. Ms. Ritika Sister Rs. 53,240/- Rs. 53,240/- + Rs.
Pahadiya 6,629.47 = Rs.
59,869.47 (rounded
off to Rs. 59,870/-)
4. Ms. Kashish Sister Rs. 53,240/- Rs. 53,240/- + Rs.
Pahadiya 6,629.47 = Rs.
59,869.47 (rounded
off to Rs. 59,870/-)
DISBURSEMENT
59. The Financial Statement of petitioner/injured was recorded
by this Court/Tribunal. As per the said statement, the monthly expenses
of his family are approximately Rs. 30,000/- per month.
60. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated
07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh
Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors. has given the following
directions:
“(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added
in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the
claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be
an individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
13:09:55 +0530
MACT No.724/24
Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 31 of 49
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in
safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR
number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount
shall be furnished by bank to the claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the
ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the
place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature
discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the
permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book
and/or debit card to claimants. However, in case the debit
card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank
shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award
amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of
claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the
account of claimants from any other branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the
passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque books
and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued
without the permission of the Court and the claimant shall
produced the passbook with the necessary endorsement
before the Court for compliance.”
61. However, in a recent judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India titled as Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal on
18 March, 2025 in S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020 has held that :
“17. The case in hand pertains to the compensation
awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. The general practice
followed by the insurance companies, where the
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.724/24 SINGLA Date:
2026.02.17
13:10:03 +0530Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 32 of 49
compensation is not disputed, is to deposit the same before
the Tribunal. Instead of following that process, a direction
can always be issued to transfer the amount into the bank
account(s) of the claimant(s) with intimation to the
Tribunal.
17.1 For that purpose, the Tribunals at the initial stage of
pleadings or at the stage of leading evidence may require
the claimant(s) to furnish their bank account particulars to
the Tribunal along with the requisite proof, so that at the
stage of passing of the award the Tribunal may direct that
the amount of compensation be transferred in the account
of the claimant and if there are more than one then in
their respective accounts. If there is no bank account, then
they should be required to open the bank account either
individually or jointly with family members only. It should
also be mandated that, in case there is any change in the
bank account particulars of the claimant(s) during the
pendency of the claim petition they should update the same
before the Tribunal. This should be ensured before passing
of the final award. It may be ensured that the bank account
should be in the name of the claimant(s) and if minor,
through guardian(s) and in no case it should be a joint
account with any person, who is not a family member. The
transfer of the amount in the bank account, particulars of
which have been furnished by the claimant(s), as mentioned
in the award, shall be treated as satisfaction of the award.
Intimation of compliance should be furnished to the
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.02.17
13:10:09
+0530
MACT No.724/24
Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 33 of 49
Tribunal.”
62. In view of the same, the award amount can now be
disbursed in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioners. However, the
remaining directions as passed by the Hon’ble High Court shall be
complied with.
Mr. Ashok Kumar (Father):
63. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners,
it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 39,93,208/-, out
of the share of the petitioner/father Mr. Ashok Kumar Rs. 1,04,772/-
(Rupees One Lakh Four Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Two only),
the entire amount shall be released to the petitioner immediately in his
Bank Account no. 35369934352 State Bank of India, Inderpuri, Delhi,
IFSC Code SBIN0002358, CIF No. 88786063788.
Mrs. Sonia Devi (mother):
64. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners,
it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 39,93,208/-, out
of the share of the petitioner/mother Mrs. Sonia Devi Rs. 37,68,696/-
(Rupees Thirty Seven Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousand Six Hundred Ninety
Six only), Rs. 7,68,696/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousand
Six Hundred Ninety Six only) shall be released to the petitioner
immediately in her Bank Account no. 076601000068844 Indian
Overseas Bank, Naraina, JJ Colony, Delhi IFSC Code:IOBA0000766,
Customer ID 59962631.
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.17
13:10:16 +0530MACT No.724/24
Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 34 of 49
65. The balance amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty
Lacs only) shall be put in 100 monthly fixed deposits in her name in her
account as mentioned above of equal amount of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees
Thirty Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 100 months
respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions
contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021.
Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall
automatically be transferred in her saving account maintained in a
nationalized bank situated near the place of her residence.
Ms. Ritika Pahadiya (sister):
66. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners,
it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 39,93,208/-, out
of the share of the petitioner/sister Ms. Ritika Pahadiya Rs. 59,870/-
(Rupees Fifty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy only), the entire
amount shall be released to the petitioner immediately in her Bank
Account bearing no. 43384582300 State Bank of India, Inderpuri,
Delhi, IFSC Code SBIN0002358, CIF No. 91886816080.
Ms. Kashish Pahadiya (sister):
67. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners,
it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 39,93,208/-, out
of the share of the petitioner/sister Ms. Kashish Pahadiya Rs. 59,870/-
(Rupees Fifty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy only), the entire
amount shall be released to the petitioner immediately in her Bank
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.17
13:10:22 +0530MACT No.724/24
Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 35 of 49
Account bearing no. 43402908619 State Bank of India, Inderpuri,
Delhi, IFSC Code SBIN0002358, CIF No. 91891037448.
68. In compliance of the directions given by Hon’ble High
Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award
in the prescribed Format-XVI is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
Date of Accident: 01.07.2024
Name of the deceased: Bharat Pahadiya
Age of the deceased: 18 years
Occupation of the deceased: Self employed
Income of the
deceased : Rs. 21,813/- p.m.
Name and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No. Name of the claimant Relation with deceased
1. Mr. Ashok Kumar Father
2. Mrs. Sonia Devi Mother
3. Ms. Ritika Pahadiya Sister
4. Ms. Kashish Pahadiya Sister
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
Sr. Head Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
No.
1 Monthly Income of deceased Rs. 21,813/-
(A)
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
MACT No.724/24
2026.02.17
13:10:29
+0530Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 36 of 49
2 Add future prospect (B) @ 40%= Rs. 8,725.20
3 Less 1/2 deductions towards (Rs. 21,813/- + Rs. 8,725.20) = Rs.
personal and living expenses of 30,538.20 x 1/2 = Rs. 15,269.10
the deceased (C)
4 Monthly loss of dependency (Rs. 21,813/- + Rs. 8,725.20) – Rs.
[(A+B) – C = D] 15,269.10 = Rs. 15,269.10)
5 Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 15,269.10 x 12 = Rs. 1,83,230/-
(D x 12)
6 Multiplier (E) 18
7 Total loss of dependency (Rs. 1,83,230/- x 18) =
DxE=F Rs. 32,98,140/-
8 Medical Expenses (G) Nil
9 Compensation for loss of love Nil.
and affection (H)
10 Compensation for loss of Rs. 53,240 x 3 = Rs. 2,12,960/-
consortium (I) to the petitioners
11 Compensation for loss of Rs. 19,965/-
Estate (J)
12 Compensation for funeral Rs. 19,965/-
expenses (K)
13 Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 35,51,030/-
14 Rate of Interest Awarded 9%
15 Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 4,42,178/-
award w.e.f. 30.09.2024 till
realization
16 Total amount including interest Rs. 39,93,208/-
17 Award amount released As per paragraph Nos.61 to 66
18 Award amount kept in FDRs As per paragraph Nos. 63
19 Mode of disbursement of the As per paragraph Nos. 61 to 66
award amount to the
RUCHIKA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17 13:10:35
+0530
MACT No.724/24
Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 37 of 49
claimant(s)
20 Next Date of compliance of the 17.03.2026
award
LIABILITY:
69. It has been established that the offending vehicle was
being driven by respondent no.1 and that respondent no.2 is the owner
of the same and the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent
no.3. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 that by
virtue of the amendment in Section 150 MV Act, as the respondents no.
1 & 2 were not having a valid permit at the time of the accident, the
respondent no. 3 insurance company is entitled to take the defence
under Section 150 (2)(a)(ii) MV Act. It is submitted that prior to the
Amendment of April, 2022, where any of the defences was available to
the company as stipulated under the Act, the insurance company had
the liability to pay the compensation amount and was entitled to
recover the same from the driver/owner. Now, the provision of pay and
recover has been deleted by the introduction of the Amendment Act,
meaning thereby that the defences, as provided in the Act, if proved on
record by the insurance company, then the insurance company shall not
be liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners.
70. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 that
the respondent no.3 issued a notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC to the
respondents no. 1 & 2 to produce the valid permit but they failed to do
so. The same is proved as Ex. R3W1/3. Hence, the insurance company
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA 13:10:41
Date: 2026.02.17
+0530
MACT No.724/24
Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 38 of 49
is not liable to pay any compensation in the present case.
71. Per contra, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the
petitioner that the present case is filed under the Motor Vehicles Act,
which is a beneficial legislation.
72. Record perused.
73. It is a matter of record that by virtue of the Amendment
Act of 2022, the principle of pay and recover has been removed by the
Parliament. Our own Hon’ble High Court has taken a similar view in
Go Digit General Insurance Co. v. Mohd Javed MAC. App 416/2025
decided on 09.07.2025, in a similar matter, wherein it has observed
that:
“So far as concerns the award of recovery rights, clearly
that appears to be an inadvertent error by the Ld. Trial
Court since, after the amendment to Section 166 (3) of the
MV Act w.e.f. 01.04.2022 which is the provision for grant of
recovery rights is no longer available in the statute book.”
74. However, the said observations were given by the Hon’ble
High Court in a passing reference and is not a ratio decidendi.
However, in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt. Arti
Devi And Others 2025:AHC:14110 decided by the Hon’ble High
Court of Allahbad on 31 January, 2025, in a similar set of
circumstances, it was observed that:
“21. When the language used in sub-Section (4) of Section
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:MACT No.724/24
SINGLA 2026.02.17
13:10:48
+0530Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 39 of 49
149 prior to amendment as replaced by sub-Section (4) of
Section 150 by the Amendment Act of 2019, is carefully
examined, the words “shall, as respects such liabilities as
are required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of
sub-section (1) of section 147, be of no effect” would only
mean that under the circumstances covered by sub-Section
(4), either of Section 149 or Section 150, the insurer would
be well within its rights to avoid liability flowing from the
insurance policy. Meaning thereby that the insurer would
be absolved of bearing liability to pay compensation to the
claimants. It does not mean that the insurer would also be
absolved from its liability to indemnify the owner’s risk.
Such indemnification will still continue to remain alive
and the insurer shall have to first pay the compensation
through indemnification and, then, it shall have a right to
recover from the owner the amount paid as the ultimate
liability shall have to be borne by the owner and not by
insurer. In such an event, there would be no financial loss
to the insurer as it would be compensated through recovery
from the owner. The aforesaid provisions are expressly to
give defence to the insurer and have to be read to that
extent only and not to interpret as if the liability to
indemnify stands washed away. It therefore follows that
even if the proviso to sub-Section (4) would not have been
there before the amendment, the indemnification concept
would have still remained alive and operative and, hence,
mere omission of the proviso by the Amendment Act of
2019 would be of no avail. Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.02.17
13:10:54
+0530MACT No.724/24
Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 40 of 49
22. Therefore, when Shri Parihar urges that if, in every case,
liability to pay compensation has to be borne by the
Insurance Company, there would be no effect of providing
grounds for defence either under sub-section (2) of the Act
prior to amendment or under sub-section (2) of the Act after
amendment, this Court finds no force in the submission. The
reason is that providing grounds of defence under the said
provisions would be read so as to give an opportunity to the
Insurance Company to avoid passing of award against it,
i,e, holding it liable to bear the award. The said liability to
have an award against the Insurance Company is distinct
from the situation where award is against the owner and
insurer is made liable to pay compensation to the claimants
and then recover the same from the owner. Non-receipt of
premium as required under Section 64(V)B of the Insurance
Act, 1938 has now been added in Section 150(2). It reflects
that even in a case where premium is not received by the
Insurance Company, it can raise a ground of challenge so as
to avoid passing of award against it and, in that event also,
award would be drawn against the owner. When payment or
non-payment of premium is significant after amendment and
has been made a ground of defence, the Court observes that
a third party risk is covered under the policy which is a
contract and premium qua third party risk is received by the
insurer in relation to the contract. Therefore, policy
continues to subsist to cover third party risk so long the
premium is received and non-payment thereof would absolve
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.17
MACT No.724/24 13:11:02 +0530
Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 41 of 49
the Insurance Company from its liability of an award being
passed against it.
31. A bare perusal of clause 2 read with clause 5 (b) and
clause 51 reflects that the intention of the legislature was
never to withdraw protection and reliefs as regards
compensation ensured by the previous existing provisions.
Rather, the Bill strives more towards ensuring expeditious
help to the accident victims and their families. The
emotional and social trauma caused to the family which
loses its bread winner, is still one of the special
considerations as set forth in the Statement above, The Bill
was brought with an object to replace the existing provisions
of insurance with simplified provisions in order to provide
expeditious help to accident victims and their families. There
is nothing in the Statement of Objects and Reasons which
may, either directly or indirectly, infer withdrawal of
insurer’s liability to pay compensation as soon as the award
is declared, even in case of occurrence of breach of policy
or other existence of similar grounds of defence available to
the insurer. Therefore, the purpose behind bringing
amendments in the Act of 1988 was clearly to provide
immediate financial help to the accident victims and their
dependents and not to create a situation where they are
made to run from pillar to post even after an award is
declared in their favour.
37. From the over all discussion made above, it is crystal
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
MACT No.724/24
2026.02.17
13:11:08 +0530Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 42 of 49
clear that the object of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, either
before the amendment or thereafter, particularly covered by
Chapter XI thereof, is to compensate victims of accidents in
case of an insurance policy being in existence. In view of the
interpretation made, holding that omission of the proviso
would exonerate the insurer of its liability to indemnify at
the first instance would be too wild a proposition and would
result in creating a situation where the insurer would be out
of scene despite an insurance policy being there and the
claimants would have to again fight for getting the amount
of compensation through execution proceedings in one way
or the other, searching the owner through the process of
Court. In such an event, the claimants would face further
harassment and nobody knows that despite a money decree
in the nature of an award being there in their favour, as to
whether the claimants would ever be able to get the
compensation realized through recovery proceedings
directly from the owner. Accordingly, the legislative intent
becomes clear and there is nothing to support the insurer’s
arguments flowing from interpretation of Statute or Causus
Omissus. The contention advanced on behalf of insurer
stands discarded.
38. The Court, therefore, holds that mere omission of
proviso attached to sub-section (4) of Section 149 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 after its replacement by Section 150 of
Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 (32 of 2019),
neither takes away the liability of the insurer to pay the
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.02.17
13:11:17
+0530
MACT No.724/24
Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 43 of 49
claimants nor its right to recover the said amount from the
owner. The law to this effect remains intact and unaffected
by Amendment Act, 2019 and, hence, insurer shall
continue to indemnify the owner’s risk in relation to
accidents taking place after 01.04.2022 and “PAY &
RECOVER” principle will still continue to govern the field
advancing social object of the Statute protecting third
party interest. Principle of law laid down by the Supreme
Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran
Singh and others, JT 2004 (1) SC 109 has not lost its
significance and binding effect despite omission of proviso.
Held accordingly. “
75. Hence, in view of the above mentioned
observations, it is directed that the respondent no. 3 shall be liable to
pay the compensation to the petitioner and then the respondent no.3
shall be entitled to recover the said amount from the respondents no. 1
& 2. Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner
and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
76. In view of the above, the respondent no. 3 is directed to
deposit a sum of Rs. 35,51,030/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Fifty
One Thousand Thirty only) along with interest @ 9% from the date
of filing of DAR i.e. w.e.f. 30.09.2024 till realization with the Civil
Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the
claimants, failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.17
13:11:24 +0530MACT No.724/24
Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 44 of 49
interest @ 12 % per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days.
Reliance placed on case titled as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on
14.07.2025 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
77. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the
award to the insurance company for compliance within the time granted
as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No.
534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. The said respondent is further
directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to
the claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal
with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days
of the deposit with a copy to the Claimant and his counsel.
Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the
award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties
free of cost.
Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to
Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services
Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules,
2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of
Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on
17.03.2026 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation
amount within the time granted. Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
13:11:30 +0530
MACT No.724/24
Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 45 of 49
Further, Civil Nazir is directed to maintain the record in
Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment)
Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation
of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021
titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid &
Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the
records.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court today
on this 17th February 2026 RUCHIKA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
13:11:37 +0530
(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
MACT No.724/24
Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 46 of 49
THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL
MOTOR VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022
(PL. SEE RULE 150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 01.07.2024
2 Date of filing of Form-I –
First Accident Report 30.09.2024
(FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II
30.09.2024
to the victim(s)
4 Date of receipt of Form-III
20.08.2024
from the Driver
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV
from the Owner 20.08.2024
6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the 20.08.2024
insurance of the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-
30.09.2024
VIA from the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII
- Detail Accident Report 30.09.2024
(DAR)
9 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Investigating No
Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the 30.09.2024
Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company admitted his NA
report within 30 days of the
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.17
13:11:44 +0530
MACT No.724/24
Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 47 of 49
DAR/claim petition?
12 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the NO.
part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company?
If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
13 Date of response of the NA
claimant(s) to the offer of
the Insurance Company.
14 Date of award 17.02.2026
15 Whether the claimant(s)
were directed to open Yes
savings bank account(s)
near their place of
residence?
16 Date of order by which
claimant(s) were directed to
open Savings Bank
Account(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN
card and Aadhar Card and 30.09.2024
the direction to the bank not
to issue any cheque
book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an
endorsement to this effect
on the passbook(s).
17 Date on which the
claimant(s) produced the
passbook of their savings
bank account(s) near the 27.01.2026
place of their residence
alongwith the endorsement,
PAN card and Aadhaar
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
MACT No.724/24 SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
13:11:50 +0530
Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 48 of 49
Card?
18 Permanent residential
address of the claimant(s). As per Award.
19 Whether the claimant(s)
savings bank account(s) is
Yes.
near their place of
residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s)
were examined at the time
Yes. The Financial Statements of the
of passing of the Award to
claimants were recorded on 27.01.2026.
ascertain his/their financial
condition?
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
13:11:55 +0530
(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
17.02.2026
MACT No.724/24
Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 49 of 49
