Delhi District Court
Rajpal Sharma vs Lal Chand Swami on 13 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF GUNJAN GUPTA: DISTRICT
JUDGE-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-01, (WEST), TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
AWARD/JUDGMENT
MACT Case No.726/2019
CNR No.-DLWT010083012019
1. Ramwati (Wife of deceased)
Aged about 63 years
W/o Late Sh. Rajpal Sharma,
2. Pradeep (Son of deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Rajpal Sharma
Aged 45 years
Both R/o H. No. F-18, Near Rajeev Gandhi Market,
Krishna Nagar, Sultanpuri, C Block, North West,
Delhi-110086.
3. Sarita (Daughter of deceased)
W/o Sh. Mahender Sharma
D/o Late Sh. Rajpal Sharma
Aged about 46 years
R/o H. No. 294, Gharoti Khurd, Luxmi Garden, Agraula,
Ghaziabad-201102
4. Seema Rani (Daughter of deceased)
W/o Sh. Babbu Lal Sharma
D/o Late Sh. Rajpal Sharma
Aged about 44 years
R/o H. No. 103, A Block, Luxmi Garden, Loni,
Ghaziabad-201102
5. Madhu (Daughter of deceased)
W/o Sh. Ravinder Kumar
D/o Late Sh. Rajpal Sharma
Aged about 36 years
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.1 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18 15:44:08
+0530
R/o H. No. F-18, Near Rajeev Gandhi Market, Krishna
Nagar, Sultanpuri, C Block, North West Delhi,
Delhi-110086
6. Rasmi (Daughter of deceased)
W/o Sh. Amit Sharma
D/o Late Sh. Rajpal Sharma
Aged about 34 years
R/o H. No. F-18, Near Rajeev Gandhi Market, Krishna
Nagar, Sultanpuri, C Block, North West Delhi,
Delhi-110086
.............petitioners
Versus
1. Lal Chand Swami (Driver-cum-owner)
S/o Sh. Hardev Swami
R/o Village Chandpur, Tehsil-Thanagaji, Alwar,
Rajasthan
2. Iffco Tokio General Company Limited (Insurer)
3rd Floor, A-13 & 37, Hanuman Nagar, Jaipur,
Rajasthan-302021.
........ Respondent(s)
Date of Institution of case : 10.10.2019
Date of pronouncement of order/judgment : 13.02.2026
FORM-XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
1. Date of the accident 04.04.2019
2. Date of filing of Form-I – N.A.
First Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II N.A.
to the victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III N.A.
from the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV N.A.
from the Owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- N.A.
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.2 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:44:12 +0530
Interim Accident Report
(IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA N.A.
and Form-VIB from the
Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - N.A.
Detailed Accident Report
(DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay Accident took place on
or deficiency on the part of 04.04.2019 and the DAR
the Investigating Officer? If was filed on 10.10.2019
so, whether any action/
direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Date not mentioned
Designated Officer by the
Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated No
Officer of the Insurance
Company submitted his report
within 30 days of the
petition/DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay WS was filed only on
or deficiency on the part of 17.10.2020
the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company? If so,
whether any action/direction
warranted?
13. Date of response of the Legal offer was not filed by
claimant(s) to the offer of the insurance company in the
Insurance Company present matter
14. Date of the award 13.02.2026
15. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
was/were directed to open
savings bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which —
claimant(s) was/were directed
to open savings bank
account(s) near his place of
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.3 of 34
Digitally signed
GUNJAN by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
residence and produce PAN
Card and Aadhaar Card and
the direction to the bank not
issue any cheque book/debit
card to the claimant(s) and
make an endorsement to this
effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) 13.12.2025
produced the passbook of
their savings bank account
near the place of their
residence along-with the
endorsement, PAN Card and
Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Mentioned above
Address of the claimant(s).
19. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
savings bank account(s) is/are
near his/her/their place of
residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
was/were examined at the
time of passing of the award
to ascertain his/her/their
financial condition?
AWARD
FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE
1.1 The present DAR was filed on 10.10.2019 by
Investigating Officer (IO).
1.2 This DAR pertains to road vehicular accident dated
04.04.2019 which occurred at about 11:30 pm at Bhara Enclave
underpass, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi falling within the
jurisdiction of PS Paschim Vihar East in which one Sh. Rajpal
Sharma S/o Teeka Ram (hereinafter referred as “deceased”)
sustained injuries. FIR No. 170/2019 under Section 279/337 IPC
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.4 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:44:19 +0530
was registered at PS Paschim Vihar East. As per the ordersheets,
on 08.01.2020, wife of the deceased appeared before the Tribunal
and submitted that Sh. Rajpal Sharma had expired on 19.10.2019.
She filed the copy of the death certificate of deceased Sh. Rajpal
Sharma. IO was directed to verify the factum of death of the
deceased and to place on record his report in this regard. As per
order dt. 03.02.2020,,it was prayed by Ld. counsel for petitioner
that IO be directed to file report as to whether the deceased died
due to injuries suffered in accident or not. As per the order dt.
01.03.2021, reply alongwith medical opinion from Action
Medical Institute was filed on behalf of DCP-1, Outer District,
Delhi. As per the order dt. 22.03.2021, report was filed by the IO.
It was submitted by the IO that the deceased was brought dead in
emergency on 19.10.2019 and the family members of the
deceased did not inform the police about the death of the
deceased and conducted the cremation without postmortem. He
submitted that due to the said reason, the cause of death could not
be ascertained and the doctors have not given any opinion as to
cause of death. He submitted that due to the said reason, the
DAR cannot be filed U/s 304A IPC. Vide order dated 22.03.2021
passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal, the petitioner was
allowed to claim compensation for death of Rajpal Sharma and it
was observed that issue shall be framed as to whether Rajpal
Sharma died as a result of injuries sustained in accident.
1.3 As per the documents annexed with the DAR, on
04.04.2019 at about 11:30 PM at Bhara Enclave under Pass, the
deceased sustained grievous injuries in the accident in question
due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle Truck bearing
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.5 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:44:22 +0530
registration No.RJ32GC1457 (hereinafter referred as “Offending
Vehicle”). As per the documents annexed with the DAR, the
deceased was on scooty and was hit by the offending vehicle and
fled from the spot. The offending vehicle was chased by the eye
witness Balbir and intercepted at Bhera Enclave Flyover.
However, the driver of the offending vehicle fled from there. The
deceased was taken to Sehgal Neo Hospital, Paschim Vihar
where the MLC No. 1043 dated 04.04.2019 was prepared. In the
final report annexed with the DAR, respondent no.1 was charged
with the offences U/s 279/338/379 IPC.
1.4 DAR mentions the respondent no.01 as driver-cum-
owner and the respondent no.02 as the insurer of offending
vehicle.
REPLY OF RESPONDENT NO.01 .
2.1 Respondent no.01 filed the reply inter alia stating
that the alleged offending vehicle was not involved in any
accident nor the respondent no.1 was driving the alleged
offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner. It is stated that
the police in connivance with family of the deceased has
manipulated the present case just to claim compensation. With
these contentions, the respondent no. 1 prayed for dismissal of
the DAR.
REPLY OF RESPONDENT NO.2
2.2 Respondent no.02 filed its reply wherein it is inter
alia stated that no document has been filed on record by the
petitioners to show that the deceased expired on account of the
injuries sustained in the accident and the postmortem report of
the deceased has not been placed on record. It is stated that the
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.6 of 34
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:44:25 +0530
driving license of the deceased has not been filed with the DAR
and since the deceased was not having a valid driving license, the
claim is not maintainable. It is admitted that the offending
vehicle was insured with it vide policy No. M4001819 valid from
31.10.2018 to 30.10.2019 in the name of Lal Chand Swami.
ISSUES
3. Vide order dt. 25.11.2021, Ld. Predecessor of this
tribunal framed the following issues: –
1. Whether the deceased Rajpal Sharma
sustained injuries in the accident that took
place on 04.04.2019 at about 11:30 PM due
to rash and negligent driving of vehicle
bearing No. RJ32GC1457 by respondent
no.01 Sh. Lal Chand Swami, being owned
by the respondent no.2 and insured with the
respondent no.3? OPP.
2. Whether the deceased died as a result of
injuries sustained by him in the road
accident? OPP.
3. Whether the LR’s of the deceased are
entitled to compensation, if so, at what
amount and from whom? OPP.
4. Relief.
EVIDENCE
4.1 The petitioners examined petitioner no.6 Rasmi as
PW-1 in support of their claim. She tendered her evidence by
way of affidavit as Ex.PW1/A. She relied upon copy of MLC of
deceased as Ex.PW1/1, copy of discharge summary as
Ex.PW1/2, DAR as Ex.PW1/3, copies of medical records of
deceased as Mark A(colly) and copies of medical records of
deceased as Mark B(colly) in her evidence. She was examined,
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.7 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:44:29 +0530
cross-examined and discharged.
4.2 Petitioners have also examined Dr. Prashant Kumar
Chaudhary, Neuro Surgeon from Sri Balaji Medical Institute,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi as PW-2. He deposed that on
05.04.2019, Sh. Raj Pal Sharma was admitted with history of
road traffic accident, he had injuries upon his head and the brain
surgery of the patient was done and hametoma was removed
from the affected portion. He deposed that the patient was
discharged on 01.06.2019. He brought the original records of the
treatment of Sh. Raj Pal Sharma after comparing the same with
the medical documents – Mark ‘B’, Mark B was exhibited as
Ex.PW2/A (OSR).
4.3(i) He further deposed that the patient on the date of
admission was brought unconscious. He deposed that at the time
of his discharge, the condition of patient improved, however, the
patient was not following commands as right portion of brain
was effected and hence, could be said to be in unconscious state
at the time of his discharge also.
4.3(ii) In the cross-examination, PW-2 has deposed that
Ex.PW2/A mentions that the patient was not fully conscious even
at the time of his discharge. He stated that it has been technically
mentioned that patient is E4V1M5 which means E4 – eye
opening is normal and spontaneous, V1 – no verbal response and
M5 is localization of limbs to the pain. He further deposed that
the further medication given to the patient was given to stop any
further complications and the improvement would be natural
only. He admitted that the patient was improving from the date
of admission till his discharge due to the treatment/surgery done
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.8 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:44:32 +0530
and the patient was expected to improve further. Answering the
Tribunal question, he stated that it takes around six months to
one year for complete brain recovery. He also stated that no
definite answer could be given as to how much a patient would
improve and it depends upon case to case. After cross-
examination, the witness was discharged.
4.4(i) The petitioners also examined Dr. Devender Sehra,
Senior Consultant, Department of Medicine from Maharaja
Agrasen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi as PW-3. He
deposed that Sh. Raj Pal Sharma was admitted in their hospital
on 13.06.2019 and he remained under his care and that of Dr.
Pooja Relia. He further deposed that the case of the patient was
of Road Traffic Accident with Traumatic Brain injury and with
history of being admitted in Balaji Hospital from 05.04.2019 to
01.06.2019. He further deposed that the said patient was
discharged on 01.08.2019. He exhibited the discharge summary
as Ex.PW3/1. He deposed that the patient at the time of
admission had specticimia and was in critical condition as he was
gasping at the time of admission and no surgery of the patient
could be planned due to his bad condition. He deposed that at
the time of his discharge on 01.08.2019, the patient was drowsy
and arousable, the patient was discharged with advice for home
care under the watch of some competent nurse and that the
patient was discharged as there could be much progress in his
condition even with more time of admission with their hospital
under optimal care of experts.
4.4(ii) Answering to the Tribunal question, the witness
stated that a Neuro surgeon/neuro surgery department who
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.9 of 34 Digitally signed GUNJAN by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18 15:44:35 +0530
operated the patient could answer correctly as to the chances of
survival of the patient after discharge and he can only say that
such patients could survive for years in same condition and if
there be any infection, the life chances could be affected.
4.4(iii) Answering the Tribunal question qua the probability
of the survival of the patient considering his condition at
discharge, the witness stated that given the type of three-three
infections which the patient had, the patient could have survived
for some months, if he could have got the best of the care
available.
4.4(iv) Petitioners also examined Sh. Sudhir Panwar,
Executive Engineer from Janakpuri Office, Delhi Jal Board as
PW-4. He deposed that the deceased Rajpal Sharma was posted
in their office as Assistant Pump Driver with Employee Code:
40011854. He deposed that the deceased expired on 19.10.2019
and his retirement was due on 31.01.2021. He further deposed
that last pay of the deceased Rajpal Sharma was Rs.49,773/- for
the month of September, 2019. He exhibited the report qua same
as Ex.PW4/A. He further deposed that Rs.49,773/- was the gross
salary of the deceased without deduction. In his cross-
examination, he denied the suggestion that the record produced
by him is false. He stated that the pay of the deceased used to be
disbursed by way of NEFT in his account. After cross-
examination, he was discharged.
RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE
5.1(i) No evidence was led by respondent no. 1 and the
right of respondent no. 1 to lead evidence was closed vide order
dt. 17.11.2025 as no one was appearing on behalf of respondent
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.10 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:44:40 +0530
no. 1.
5.1(ii) Respondent no.2 has examined IO ASI Dinesh
Kumar as R3W1. He deposed that he was deputed IO in the
present case on 04.04.2019. That on receiving the intimation of
accident through a call on 100 number, he went to the spot of
accident. He further deposed that neither the vehicle nor the
injured was found at the spot of accident and also no eye witness
was found. He stated that he received information from the
police station that another call was received at the police station
whereby it was informed that a truck has been stopped by one
Balbeer Singh at the elevator road going from Bhera Enclave to
District Centre, Janakpuri, whereafter he went to the disclosed
spot and impounded the truck from that spot. He further deposed
that he did not find any scooty at the spot of accident and even
during the investigation no scooty was recovered/seized. He
stated that despite his several visits to Balaji Action Hospital, he
could not record the statement of the injured as he remained
unconscious during his several visits to the hospital and the
version of the accident was narrated to him by one Balbeer who
had seen the accident.
5.1(iii) On being confronted with page no. 33 from point A
to A1, of the charge-sheet, wherein it has been mentioned that
“driver ghabra kar truck ko leke chala gya”, the witness deposed
that the truck was at Elevator road going from Bhera Enclave to
District Centre, Janakpuri and it was impounded there only.
5.1(iv) He further deposed that he had got the mechanical
inspection done of the offending truck bearing registration no.
RJ32GC1457.
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.11 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:44:44 +0530
5.1(v) In the cross-examination, he admitted that the owner
was served with the notice under Section 133 MV Act for
disclosing details of driver and for producing the vehicle.
5.2(vi) No further evidence was led on behalf of respondent
no. 2 and the evidence was closed on 17.11.2025.
ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS
6.1 It was argued by Ld. Counsel for petitioners that the
deceased never recovered from the injuries sustained in the
accident and had slipped into the Coma and eventually died on
19.10.2019. It is submitted that since the deceased had expired at
home, his postmortem was not conducted, however, it would be
clear from the treatment record of the deceased that the deceased
did not die a natural death but owing to the injuries sustained in
the accident. It was argued that petitioners have proved that the
incident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the
respondent no.01. It was submitted that it has also been proved
on record that the deceased was working as APD with Delhi Jal
Board and proof of his salary has been brought on record as
Ex.PW4/A. It is submitted that all the petitioners were dependent
upon the deceased at the time of accident and keeping in view the
above, the award may be passed by this Tribunal as per
entitlement of petitioners.
ARGUMENTS OF Ld. COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT
NO.2
6.2 It was argued by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2
that the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in the
present case. It was submitted that as per the mechanical
inspection report, there was no damage on the vehicle and,
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.12 of 34
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:44:48 +0530
therefore, the factum of the accident and involvement of the
offending vehicle is not established on record. He further argued
that it is also not proved that the injured expired on account of
the injuries sustained in the accident as no postmortem report has
been filed by the petitioners and the treatment record of the
deceased is also not verified by the IO, though the DAR was filed
on 10.10.2019 and the injured remained under treatment only
uptil 01.08.2019. He argued that as per the statement of PW2, the
patient was improving and, therefore, it cannot be said that the
deceased expired due to the injuries sustained in the accident. He
further argued that even PW3 stated that he could not affirm or
deny regarding the cause of death of the injured. He further
argued that there are also contradictions in the statement of the
IO and the charge sheet qua the spot of recovery/ seizure of the
offending vehicle. He submitted that as per the statement of the
IO, he had seized the vehicle from some place near the place of
accident whereas as per the charge sheet, the same was seized
after service of notice. The counsel further argued that even the
scooty of the deceased was not recovered and, therefore, the
same raises a suspicion on the case of the petitioners. It was
argued that in view of the evidence on record, the factum of the
happening of the incident and the involvement of the truck is not
established. Ld. Counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of “Rajamma &
Ors. vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.” Civil
Appeal Nos. 5172 of 2025 decided on 26.09.2025 and the
judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the
matter of “Keith Rowe vs. Prashant Sagar & Ors.” MAC. APP.
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.13 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:44:52 +0530
No. 601/2007 decided on 15.01.2010 in support of his
contentions.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS ON ISSUES
7.1 Before proceeding with the analysis and findings on
issues, at the very outset, it would be apposite to note here that
strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted
by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The standard of proof is not
as strict as in criminal cases and evidence is to be tested on the
touchstone of preponderance of probabilities only. In fact, the
burden of proof in a claim petition under the M.V. Act, is even
lesser than a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to
the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in case of “Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road
Transport Corporation and Ors.” (2009) 13 SC 530,
“Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and Ors.” 2011 (1) SCR 1096
(Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and “Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.”, 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc.
7.2 Keeping in mind the aforesaid legal preposition, this
Tribunal has gone through the testimony of the witnesses and
entire material available on record. This Tribunal has also given
its thoughtful consideration to arguments addressed by Ld.
Counsels for the parties including the judgments cited on record.
Keeping in mind the above legal propositions, the issues framed
in the present matter are decided as under :
ISSUE NO.1
Whether the deceased Rajpal Sharma
sustained injuries in the accident that took
place on 04.04.2019 at about 11:30 PM due
to rash and negligent driving of vehicle
bearing No. RJ32GC1457 by respondentRajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.14 of 34
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:44:54 +0530
no.01 Sh. Lal Chand Swami, being owned
by the respondent no.2 and insured with the
respondent no.3? OPP.
8.1 In support of their case, the petitioners have
examined Ms. Rasmi as PW-1 who has relied upon the copy of
MLC of deceased as Ex.PW1/1, copy of discharge summary as
Ex.PW1/2, DAR as Ex.PW1/3, copies of medical records of the
deceased Mark A(colly) and copies of medical records of the
deceased as Mark B(colly) in her evidence. She has categorically
stated that the deceased was admitted at Sehgal Neo Hospital
where his MLC was prepared and thereafter the deceased was
treated at Shri Balaji Action Hospital, Paschim Vihar. She was
cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2. No cross
examination was done on the aspect of occurrence of the accident
on 04.04.2019, rashness and negligence of respondent no.1 and
involvement of the offending vehicle in the said accident as well
as qua the cause of the injuries of the deceased Rajpal Sharma.
The documents relied upon by the PW1 remained unrebutted and
uncontroverted. Further, the statement of PW1 is corroborated by
the testimony of PW2 and the medical record of the petitioner
Ex.PW2/A (OSR) as per which, the deceased was brought to
Balaji Action Hospital on 05.04.2019 with the history of RTA as
well as by the MLC No. 1043 dated 04.04.2019 wherein also it is
recorded that the patient has been brought with alleged RTA. The
DAR filed by the IO and the documents annexed with it also
corroborate the testimony of PW1.
8.2 Further respondent no.1 namely Lal Chand Swami
has been charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under
Section 279/338/379 IPC by the Investigating Agency after
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.15 of 34 Digitally signed GUNJAN by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18 15:44:58 +0530
arriving at the conclusion, on the basis of detailed investigation
carried out by it, that the accident in question had occurred due to
the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by
respondent no.1. The investigations were duly carried out which
revealed not only the involvement of the offending vehicle, but
also that it was being driven in rash and negligent manner which
resulted in the accident. Thus, it sufficiently proves the
complicity of the respondent no.1 in driving the offending
vehicle rashly and negligently.
8.3 Furthermore, DAR filed by the IO also includes the
final report under Section 173 Cr. PC filed by IO in FIR
No.170/2019, MLC of deceased, site plan of the place of
accident, notice U/s 133 of M.V. Act and its reply, statement of
eye witness Balbir singh recorded on 06.04.2019, seizure memos
etc., which clearly show that the deceased sustained injuries in
the road vehicular accident caused by rash and negligent driving
of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1.
8.4 It has been averred by respondent no. 1 in his
pleadings that the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated
in the present matter. However, respondent no. 1 has not led any
evidence to prove his defence. There is nothing on record to
suggest that any complaint has been filed by respondent no. 1
before any authority regarding his false implication. Respondent
no.01/driver was the best witness who could have rebutted the
case of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and
could have thrown some light as to how and under what
circumstances, the accident in question took place. However,
respondent no.01/driver has chosen not to step into the witness
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.16 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:45:00 +0530
box during the course of inquiry. In the given circumstances,
adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him, to the effect
that the accident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving of
the offending vehicle.
8.5 As per the charge-sheet, during investigation the eye
witness Sh. Balbeer Singh was found who had provided the
details of the offending vehicle whereafter the ownership details
of the same were traced and notice U/s 133 of M.V. Act was
issued to the owner. Upon service of the notice, the respondent
no. 1 appeared in the police station on 07.04.2019 and produced
the offending vehicle whereupon it was seized vide the seizure
memo. The RC, the DL, the insurance, the permit and fitness of
the offending vehicle were also seized. Notice U/s 133 of M.V.
Act and its reply by respondent no. 1 is on record. In the reply,
the respondent no. 1 has admitted the ownership of the offending
vehicle and also that on the date of incident and at the time of
accident, he was driving the offending vehicle. As per the record
filed with the DAR, the offending vehicle has been released to
the respondent no. 1 on superdari.
8.6 It is also pertinent to mention here that it is not the
case of the respondent/ insurance company that the offending
vehicle has been planted by the police and the respondent no. 1
has been falsely implicated. The insurance company has also not
pleaded any collusion between the petitioner and the respondent
no. 1. There is nothing on record to show that the insurance
company has filed any complaint with any authority regarding
the false implication of the offending vehicle.
8.7 Further, no reason has been deputed as to why the
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.17 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:45:03 +0530
Investigating Officer would falsely implicate the offending
vehicle.
8.8 Thus, from the above discussion and upon holistic
analysis of the material on record, it is clear that the deceased
sustained injuries in the accident in question due to rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1.
8.9 As far as the contradiction in the statement of the IO
and the contents of the charge sheet qua the spot of impounding
of the offending vehicle is concerned, it is pertinent to mention
that since the involvement of the offending vehicle in the
accident in question has been proved, merely a contradiction qua
the spot of seizure of the offending vehicle cannot be treated as
fatal to the case of the claimants to deny compensation to them
when there is nothing on record to doubt the involvement of the
offending vehicle. Even otherwise, as per the charge sheet, the
offending vehicle was impounded vide seizure memo. As per the
seizure memo dt. 07.04.2019 on record, the offending vehicle
was produced by the respondent no. 1 Sh. Lal Chand Swami at
the police station whereupon it was impounded. There is also
statement of eye witness Sh. Balbeer Singh recorded U/s 161
CrPC on 06.04.2019 in which the said witness had stated that the
truck No. RJ-32GC-1457 had hit someone on a scooty and fled
from the spot and he had chased him and stopped him at Bhrav
underpass, however, he fled from there. In his subsequent
statement also recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC, the said witness has
stated that he had visited the police station on 07.04.2019 where
he found the driver of the offending vehicle. In the said
statement, the said witness had identified the driver of the
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.18 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:45:05 +0530
offending vehicle to be the same person whom he had stopped.
The site plan on record has also been signed by the said Balbeer
Singh. The said Balbeer Singh has not been examined as a
witness by the respondents.
8.10 The judgment in “Rajamma & Ors. vs. Reliance
General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr (Supra).” relied upon by the
counsel for respondent no. 2 is not applicable to the facts of the
case.
8.11 In view of the above discussion and considering the
evidence on record, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the
claimants have successfully proved that the deceased sustained
fatal injuries in road accident on 04.04.2019 at about 11:30 pm at
Bhara Enclave underpass, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi due to rash
and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration
number RJ32GC1457 being driven by respondent no.1.
Accordingly, issue no.01 is decided in favour of the petitioner
and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO.2
Whether the deceased died as a result of
injuries sustained by him in the road
accident? OPP.
9.1 The burden to prove the present issue was placed on
petitioners. In order to prove the same, the petitioners have
examined Dr. Prashant Kumar Chaudhary, Neuro Surgeon from
Sri Balaji Action Medical Institute, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi as
PW-2. He deposed that on 05.04.2019, deceased Rajpal Sharma
was admitted in an unconscious state with history of road traffic
accident and injuries upon his head. He deposed that the brain
surgery of the patient was done and hametoma was removed
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.19 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:45:08 +0530
from the affected portion. He further deposed that the patient was
discharged on 01.06.2019 and at the time of discharge, his
condition had improved, however, could be said to be in
unconscious state at the time of his discharge as he was not
following commands as right portion of brain was effected. The
witness has proved the medical record of the patient as
Ex.PW2/A (OSR).
9.2 In his cross-examination, he has deposed that the
fact of his not being fully conscious is mentioned in the
Ex.PW2/A. The witness also deposed that the improvement of
the patient had to be natural and medications were given only to
prevent further complications. He has deposed that the patient
had improved uptil his discharge and was expected to improve
further. However, he stated that it depends upon case to case as to
how much a patient would improve and no definite answer can
be given. He stated that it takes around 6 months to one year for
complete brain recovery. Thus, clearly even after around 2
months of treatment at the hospital, the deceased was discharged
in an unconscious state with only an expectation of his
improvement. Also as per the testimony of PW2, improvement of
such patients depends upon case to case and there is no definite
opinion as to whether the deceased would have certainly
improved.
9.3 The petitioner has also examined Dr. Devender
Sehra, Senior Consultant, Department of Medicine from
Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi as PW-3.
As per the testimony of PW3, the deceased was re-hospitalized
on 13.06.2019 in critical condition with specticimia and was
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.20 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18 15:45:11
+0530
gasping at the time of admission. As per PW3, no surgery could
be planned due to the bad condition of the deceased and he was
discharged on 01.08.2019 in a drowsy and arousable state with
advice for home care under the watch of some competent nurse.
As per PW3, the deceased could have survived for some months
if given the best of care available, given the kind of infections
which he had. The witness has proved the discharge summary of
the deceased as Ex.PW3/1.
9.4 From the testimony of PW2 and PW3, it is clear that
the deceased remained hospitalized for around 4 months from the
date of accident except the interregnum period of a few days. On
his second admission, he was put on a ventilator, was affected
with hypokalemia and pneumonia and was given unit of packed
blood cells on several dates and was drousy and arousable at the
time of his discharge, as per his discharge summary dt.
01.08.2019 Ex.PW3/1. As per the prescription dated 03.10.2019,
the deceased had developed bed sores which in the considered
opinion of this Tribunal is indicative of his continuous bed ridden
state. As per the prescription dated 03.10.2019, the deceased was
also diagnosed with ‘yellow secretion TT’. On 19.10.2019, the
deceased was declared brought dead as per the prescription cum
triage card dated 19.10.2019. Under the head presenting
complaints, it is mentioned “Pt. K/C/O- RTA- 4 months back F/B
tracheotomy-bed ridden….”. Thus, from the above, it is clear that
the deceased never fully recovered from the injuries sustained in
the accident and was repeatedly taken to hospital with complaints
of gasping, infections, pneumonia and bed sores etc. During his
two hospitalization, he was never discharged in a fully conscious
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.21 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:45:14 +0530
or a recovered state. In fact, as per PW3, the patient could have
survived for some months given the kind of injections he had.
There is nothing on record to suggest that after his second
discharge from the hospital, the condition of the deceased
improved. The conclusion that can be drawn from the combined
reading of the testimony of PW2 and PW3 is that though the
condition of such patients, as the deceased, may improve,
however, there is no certainty of improvement in every case. In
fact, as per PW3, the deceased could have survived for a few
months.
9.5 The deceased has expired within six and a half
months from the date of accident while under continuous
treatment. No intervening new circumstances have been proved
on record to show that the deceased did not die of the injuries
sustained in the accident but due to some other reasons. In these
circumstances, the non-existence of a postmortem report or
information to the police is not fatal to the case of the petitioners.
From a conjoint reading of the entire medical evidence on record
and the testimony of the witnesses examined in the present
matter, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the deceased
died on 19.10.2019 on account of the injuries sustained in the
accident on 04.04.2019.
9.6 I am also fortified by the judgment of Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in “National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Meenakshi
Gupta & Ors.”, MAC. APP.1122/2017 decided on 19.07.2019
wherein it was held as under :
“6. Interestingly, in Abdul Rahim (supra) reference was
made to the decision of the Patna High Court in Vijaylaxmi
Devi & Ors. vs. Ram Naresh & Ors. 2003 ACJ 1140, in
which neither the post-mortem report nor Medical ReportsRajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.22 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:45:17 +0530
from the doctor, who had examined the deceased and
declared him dead, were produced to prove that he had
died due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident.
Furthermore, in Abdul Rahim (supra) the Court had also
referred to the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court
in Khairullah vs. Amita 1994 ACJ 1017, wherein the
injured died 25 days after the accident but no post-mortem
was done, yet it was held that the accident could be
deduced as the cause of death from the Death Certificate
as well as evidence of the public witnesses. In effect, failure
of the doctors to either perform a post-mortem or the same
not being issued by the hospital for any reason, cannot be a
ground to stop a claim for compensation.
7. In the present case too, the non-filing of the post-mortem
report would not defeat the claimants’ case, as all the other
medical reports, post surgery medication, bills of
medicines, frequent follow up visits of hospitals clearly
indicate that his injured condition worsened with the
passage of time, to which he ultimately succumbed.”
9.7 Thus, the issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the
petitioners.
ISSUE NO. 3
Whether the LR’s of the deceased are
entitled to compensation, if so, at what
amount and from whom? OPP.
10.1 In view of the findings & decision in above issues,
the petitioners are entitled to compensation.
10.2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
judgments in “Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Ors.” (2003) 6 SCC 121 and “National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.” (2017)
16 SCC 680 laid down the guidelines for assessing compensation
payable in death cases. In the light of the same, the compensation
payable is determined as under:-
AGE OF THE DECEASED AND THE APPLICABLE
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.23 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:45:20 +0530
MULTIPLIER
10.3 The date of incident is 04.04.2019. As per the
discharge summary of the deceased dt. 05.04.2019, the deceased
was 58 years 1 month and 13 days of age at the time of his
admission in hospital on 05.04.2019. Hence, age of the deceased
is considered as such i.e. 58 years 1 month and 13 days.
INCOME OF THE DECEASED
10.4 Petitioners have claimed that deceased was working
as Assistant Pump Driver (E& M) with Delhi Jal Board and was
getting a salary of Rs.55,000/- per month at the time of incident.
The petitioner side examined Sh. Sudhir Panwar, Executive
Engineer from Delhi Jal Board as PW-4 who has proved on
record the report of salary of deceased as PW4/A. As per
Ex.PW4/A, the total salary of the deceased was Rs.49,773/- per
month. Ex.PW4/A is a report providing the emolument details of
the preceeding month before the death of the employee i.e. the
deceased and is not a salary slip. The said report give the various
heads of the salary of the deceased as basic pay, DA and HRA.
Thus, the above mentioned amount is the gross salary of the
deceased and as per the judgment in Sarla Verma and Another
(Supra) and Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), the income tax is
liable to be deducted from the gross salary as proved vide
Ex.PW4/A, for the purposes of calculating just compensation
awardable to the petitioners. The assessment year applicable in
the instant case would be 2020-2021. The rate of tax on the
income slab of Rs.5,00,001/- to Rs.7,50,000/- was 10%. As such,
the salary of the deceased on the date of incident needs to be
taken as Rs. 44,796/- (after deduction of income tax @10%).
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.24 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:45:23 +0530
FUTURE PROSPECTS
10.5(i) The deceased was 58 years at the time of incident,
had a permanent job, so the future prospects have to be
calculated at 15% as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in “National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi & Ors.“(supra).
10.5(ii) Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased
after adding future prospects would be Rs. 51,516/- (after
rounding off Rs.51,515.4/-) (Rs.44,796/- + Rs.6719.4/- which is
15% of Rs.44,796/-).
DEDUCTIONS
10.6(i) There is no dispute that the deceased was survived
by his wife (petitioner no.1), one major son(petitioner no.2) and
married daughters (petitioner no.3 to 6). In the cross-examination
of PW-1, merely a suggestion has been given that petitioner no.2
to 6 were not financial dependent upon deceased at the time of
incident. Thus, all the LR’s of the deceased have to be treated as
dependent in view of the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in matter of “National Insurance Company Limited vs.
Birender & Ors.” Civil Appeal Nos.242-243 of 2020 decided on
13.01.2020, and in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in “Seema Rani & Ors. vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
& Ors“, Civil Appeal no. 2323 of 2025 decided on 11.02.2025
and in “Balesh Devi & ors Vs. Royal Sundaram Alliance Co.
Ltd. & Ors.” MAC. APP. 606/2025 decided on 12.11.2025.
10.6(ii) The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in matter of
“National Insurance Company Limited vs. Birender & Ors.” has
held as under:-
15. It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.25 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:45:26 +0530
the deceased have a right to apply for compensation.
Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the
major married and earning sons of the deceased being
legal representatives have a right to apply for
compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the
Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the
fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully
dependant on the deceased and not to limit the claim
towards conventional heads only. The evidence on record
in the present case would suggest that the claimants were
working as agricultural labourers on contract basis and
were earning meagre income between Rs.1,00,000/ and
Rs.1,50,000/ per annum. In that sense, they were largely
dependant on the earning of their mother and in fact, were
staying with her, who met with an accident at the young
age of 48 years”.
10.6(iii) In view of the same, all the petitioners are
considered as dependent upon the deceased. Thus, Deduction
towards personal and living expenses of deceased in case of
06 dependent needs to be taken as 1/4th . Hence, 1/4th of the
income would be deducted towards personal and living
expenses of the deceased.
10.7 Thus, the monthly loss of dependency would be
Rs.38,637/- (after deducting 1/4th of Rs.51,516/-) and
accordingly, the multiplicand/annual loss of dependency would
be Rs.4,63,644/- (Rs.38,637/- x 12).
10.8 It has already been discussed above that the
deceased was an employee with Delhi Jal Board and was aged
about 58 years at the time of the accident. Thus, as per settled
principles laid down in case of Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6
SCC 121 and also in view of the law discussed in the judgment
in Govind Singh Mauni Vs. Tej Bhan & Ors., MAC. APP
No.1113/2013 decided on 09.02.2026, the multiplier as
applicable in the present case is 9.
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.26 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:45:28 +0530
10.9 Thus, the total loss of dependency is ascertained as
Rs.41,72,796/- (Rs.4,63,644/- x 9).
COMPENSATION QUA NON-PECUNIARY HEADS
10.10(i) In “National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680″, it was held by The
Hon’ble Apex court as under :-
“61… (viii) Reasonable figures on conventional
heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium
and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs.
40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The
aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate
of 10% in every three years”.
10.10(ii) In view of the same and further in view of the
judgment in ” Rajwati @ Rajjo & Ors. vs. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. Civil Appeal no. 8179/2022 decided on
09.12.2022, the compensation under this head is awarded as
under:-
LOSS OF ESTATE& FUNERAL EXPENSES
10.11 The loss of estate and funeral expenses are awarded
as Rs.20,000/- each.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
10.12 Since, there were six claimants i.e. the wife and five
children of the deceased, an amount of Rs.2,88,000/- (Rs.48,000
x 06) is awarded under this head.
TOTAL COMPENSATION
10.13 In view of above discussions, the total compensation
is calculated as under:-
SL.NO. HEADS RUPEES
1. Total Loss of Dependency Rs.41,72,796/-
2. Loss of Estate Rs.20,000/-
3. Funeral expenses Rs.20,000/-
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.27 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:45:31 +0530
4. Loss of Consortium Rs.2,88,000/-
TOTAL Rs.45,00,796/-
11. Thus, total compensation of Rs.45,00,796/-
(Rupees Forty Five Lakhs Seven Hundred and Ninety Six
Only) is awarded in favour of petitioners and against the
respondents.
R E L I E F / ISSUE NO.05
12. In view of the above findings, this Tribunal hereby
passes an award of Rs.45,00,796/-(Rupees Forty Five Lakhs
Seven Hundred and Ninety Six Only) along with interest at the
rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition
i.e. 10.10.2019 till the date of the payment of the award amount
(excluding interest w.e.f. 31.08.2022 to 09.09.2024) to be paid
by the respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Respondent
no.2/Insurance Company is hereby directed to deposit the award
amount in favour of the petitioner(s) with State Bank of India, Tis
Hazari Courts, Delhi in MACT Account of this Tribunal having
Account No.40711767202, CIF No.90891362578, IFSC Code –
SBIN0000726, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi within a period of 30
days from the date of passing of this award together with the
interest as stated herein above under intimation to this Tribunal
and under intimation to the petitioners. In case of any delay, it
shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the
period of delay.
APPORTIONMENT & DISBURSEMENT OF AWARD
AMOUNT
13.1 Statement of the petitioners in terms of provisions of
MCTAP was recorded on 13.12.2025. It is pertinent to mention
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.28 of 34
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:45:35 +0530
here that during the pendency of the case, the petitioner Ramwati
has expired on 08.11.2024. Petitioner Seema in the statement
recorded on 13.12.2025 has deposed that she wants to give her
share of compensation to all legal heirs of the deceased in equal
shares and thus, the same may be equally distributed amongst
them. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case
and in view of the said statement, the compensation to the
petitioners shall be distributed/disbursed as follows:-
Sr. Name of Age/ Relation Award Amount of Amount kept Period of FDRs
No petitione DOB with Amount award to in FDRs with cumulative
. r/ injured/ be released interest
claimant decease
d
1. Pradeep DOB: Son Rs. 1,25,199/- 10,00,000/- Rs. 10,00,000/-
@ 04.10. 11,25,199/- along with along with
Pradeep 1978 along with proportionate proportionate
Kumar proportionate interest interest shall be
interest kept in the form of
FDRs (fixed deposit
receipts) in the
multiples of
Rs.10,000/- each for
a period of one
month, two months
and three months
and so on and so
forth, having
cumulative interest.
2. Sarita @ DOB: Daughte Rs. 1,25,199/- 10,00,000/- Rs. 10,00,000/-
Sareeta 01.01. r 11,25,199/- along with along with
1977 along with proportionate proportionate
proportionate interest interest shall be
interest kept in the form of
FDRs (fixed deposit
receipts) in the
multiples of
Rs.10,000/- each for
a period of one
month, two months
and three months
and so on and so
forth, having
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.29 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18 15:45:43
+0530
cumulative interest.
3. Madhu DOB: Daughte Rs. 1,25,199/- 10,00,000/- Rs. 10,00,000/-
05.05. r 11,25,199/- along with along with
1987 along with proportionate proportionate
proportionate interest interest shall be
interest kept in the form of
FDRs (fixed deposit
receipts) in the
multiples of
Rs.10,000/- each for
a period of one
month, two months
and three months
and so on and so
forth, having
cumulative interest.
4. Rasmi @ DOB: Daughte Rs. 1,25,199/- 10,00,000/- Rs. 10,00,000/-
Rashmi 01.10. r 11,25,199/- along with along with
Sharma 1989 along with proportionate proportionate
proportionate interest interest shall be
interest kept in the form of
FDRs (fixed deposit
receipts) in the
multiples of
Rs.10,000/- each for
a period of one
month, two months
and three months
and so on and so
forth, having
cumulative interest.
TOTAL Rs.45,00,796/-(Rupees Forty Five
Lakhs Seven Hundred and Ninety
Six Only)
13.2 The amount of FDRs on maturity shall directly be
released in petitioner’s Saving Bank Account.
13.3 All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid
directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the
savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the
savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings
bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.30 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:45:47 +0530
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe
custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount,
date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the
claimant(s).
(c) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic
Clearing System (ECS) in the MACT bank account of the claimant (s)
near the place of their residence.
(d) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on
the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(e) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit
card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book
have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the
disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card (s) freeze
the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of
the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(f) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the
claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been
issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and
claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement
before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(g) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the
duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the
claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
14. Petitioners are directed to file photocopies of bank
passbook of their MACT Bank within 15 days from today vide
separate application.
15. The Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi is directed to release/disburse share of award
amount of petitioners in their MACT bank accounts near the
place of their residence to be disclosed by the petitioners vide
separate application within 15 days from today as
mentioned/directed hereinbefore in tabulated form.
16. Concerned Manager, State Bank of India, Tis
Hazari Courts Branch is directed to transfer the award amount,
in the above-mentioned manner, as per award in the saving
bank account of claimant/petitioner, on completing necessary
formalities as per rules.
17. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph,
specimen signature, copy of bank passbook and copy of
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.31 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18 15:45:51
+0530
residence proof of the petitioner, be sent to Nodal Officer of
State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch, Delhi for
information and necessary compliance.
18. Nazir of this Court shall prepare a separate file
regarding the status of deposition/non-deposition of the award
amount by the respondent no.2 after making necessary entry on
CIS on 20.03.2026.
19. A digital copy of this award be given to the parties
free of cost through email.
20. Ahlmad staff is directed to send the copy of award
to Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class concerned and Delhi Legal
Services Authority as per the procedure of Modified Claims
Tribunal Agreed Procedure (MCTAP).
21. Ahlmad staff is also directed to e-mail an
authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020
titled as “Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Union of India & Ors.” decided on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall
also e-email an authenticated copy of the award to Branch
Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex Branch
for information.
22. File be consigned to Record Room after due
compliance.
Announced in the open Court
on 13th of February, 2026
(GUNJAN GUPTA)
District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01,
West/THC/Delhi/13.02.2026
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.32 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:45:54 +0530
FORM -XV
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT
IN DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident : 04.04.2019
2. Name of the deceased : Rajpal Sharma
3. Age of the deceased : 58 years
4. Occupation of the deceased : Assistant Pump
Driver (E& M) with
Delhi Jal Board
5. Income of the deceased : Rs.44,796/-
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of
deceased : –
S.No. Name Age/DOB Relation
(i) Pradeep @ Pradeep DOB: 04.10.1978 Son
Kumar
(ii) Sarita @ Sareeta DOB: 01.01.1977 Daughter
(iii) Madhu DOB:05.05.1987 Daughter
(iv) Rasmi @ Rashmi DOB: 01.10.1989 Daughter
Sharma
Computation of Compensation : -
Sr.No. Heads Awarded by the Claim
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs.44,796/-
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) 15%
9. Less-Personal expenses of the 1/4th
deceased(C)
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.38637/-
[(A+B)-C=D]
11. Annual loss of dependency (D Rs.4,63,644/-
x 12)
12. Multiplier(E) 9
13. Total loss of dependency Rs.41,72,796/-
(Dx12xE= F)
14. Medical Expenses(G) NIL
15. Compensation for loss of Rs.2,88,000/-
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.33 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18
15:45:57 +0530
consortium(H)
16. Compensation for loss of love NIL
and affection(I)
17. Compensation for loss of Rs.20,000/-
estate(J)
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs.20,000/-
expenses(K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.45,00,796/-
(F+G+H+I+J+K=L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST 9% per annum
AWARDED
21. Interest amount up to the date Rs.17,49,684/-
of award (M) (W.e.f. 10.10.2019 to
13.02.2026 excluding
interest w.e.f.
31.08.2022 to
09.09.2024 which
comes to 4 years 3
months and 25 days)
22. Total amount including interest Rs.62,50,480/-
(L + M) (Rs.45,00,796/- +
Rs.17,49,684/-)
23. Award amount released Rs.45,00,796/-
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.40,00,000/- along
with proportionate
interest
25. Mode of disbursement of the Mentioned in the award
award amount to the
claimant(s).
26. Next date for compliance of 20.03.2026
the award.
(GUNJAN GUPTA)
District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01,
West/THC/Delhi/13.02.2026
Rajpal Sharma vs. Lal Chand & Anr.
MACT No.726/2019 Page no.34 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.18 15:46:05
+0530
