Delhi District Court
Rita Devi (I) vs Manish on 21 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010055372022
MACT No. : 322/2022
FIR No. : 27/2022
PS : Kashmere Gate
u/s : 279/304A IPC
1. Smt. Rita Devi (LR/wife of deceased)
2. Sh. Uday Shankar (LR/son of deceased)
3. Sh. Dev Shankar (LR/son of deceased)
(All r/o. C-1/148A, Gali no.5, 3rd Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Karawal Nagar,
Delhi-110094)
...Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Manish Rajoria (driver of the offending vehicle)
S/o. Sh. Kishan Lal,
R/o. 703A,Gali no.5, Pratap Nagar, Mandoli, Delhi.
2. Sh. Goverdhan Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. (owner of the offending
vehicle)
Office at : B-2, Tyagi Vihar, Nangloi, Delhi.
3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Oriental House, A-25/27, Asas Ali Road, New Delhi.
...Respondents
MACT No.322/2022
Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 1 of 37
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.21
14:36:06
+0530
Date of filing of DAR : 29.03.2022
Judgment reserved on : 27.01.2026
Date of Award : 21.02.2026
AWAR D
1. The present DAR was filed on 29.03.2022 which was
treated as the claim petition. The Road Traffic Accident in question took
place on 20.02.2022 at about 11:36 pm at Mori Gate red light,
Nityanand Marg, Kashmere Gate, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS
Kashmere Gate. Mr. Jeevnesh Singh expired in the said accident which
was allegedly caused by a Bus bearing registration No. DL-1PD-2332
(hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle). The offending vehicle
was being driven by respondent no. 1 Mr. Manish Rajoria, owned by
respondent no. 2 Goverdhan Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. and insured with
respondent no. 3 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that a
PCR call vide DD No.45A regarding information of an accident was
received at PS Kashmere Gate and handed over to SI K.L.Kuldeep, who
alongwith Ct. Rahul went to the spot i.e. Mori Gate red light, Nityanand
Marg, Kashmere Gate, Delhi where they did not find anything.
Thereafter, IO went to the St. Stephens Hospital where he collected
MLC no.44/22 of injured namely Jeevnesh Singh. The injured was
admitted in ICU therefore, the statement of the injured could not be
recorded by the IO. No eye witness was found at the hospital. On
21.02.2022, vide DD no.8A, IO got an information that Sh. Jeevnesh
Digitally
signed by
MACT No.322/2022
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.21
Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 2 of 37
14:36:15
+0530
Singh had expired during the treatment. Thereafter, FIR was registered
on the basis of DD entry and MLC of Jeevnesh Singh u/s.279/304A IPC.
3. Further investigation of the case was handed over to ASI
Gautam. IO prepared the site plan at the instance of witness. IO recorded
the statement of the said witness. Thereafter, the deadbody of Jeevnesh
Singh was preserved in the mortuary of Hindu Rao Hospital. On
21.02.2022, the post mortem of the dead body of Jeevnesh Singh was
got conducted vide PM no.223/22 and thereafter, the dead body was
handed over to his relatives.
4. Thereafter, the ownership of the offending vehicle was
obtained by the IO. Notice u/s. 133 MV Act was served upon the owner
of the offending vehicle. AR of the offending vehicle had given reply to
the said notice and handed over the driver as well as offending vehicle to
the IO. IO interrogated the driver of the offending vehicle. The driver of
the offending vehicle had accepted that at the time of accident he was
driving the offending vehicle. Thereafter IO arrested the driver of the
offending vehicle. Upon producing the surety, the driver of the offending
vehicle was released on bail. AR of the offending vehicle had produced
the documents pertaining to the offending vehicle as well as DL of the
driver of the offending vehicle. The documents were got verified from
the concerned authorities by the IO and the same were found to be
correct. The mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle was got
conducted. Thereafter, the offending vehicle was released on superdari.
After completion of investigation, chargesheet for the offences u/s
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
MACT No.322/2022
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.21
14:36:38Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. +0530
Page 3 of 37
279/304(A) IPC was filed against the driver Manish Rajoria before the
concerned Ld. JMFC and the DAR was filed before this Tribunal.
WRITTEN STATEMENTS
5. WS was filed on behalf of the respondent no. 1. The
respondent no.1 did not clearly deny the factum of the accident. He
merely stated that the petitioner must prove the allegations.
6. Separate WS was filed on behalf of the respondent no.2. It
was stated by the respondent no.2 that the accident was caused due to
the negligence of the petitioner. Hence, it is stated that the accident was
not caused by the respondent no.1 and he was not liable to pay any
compensation to the petitioner.
7. Reply/WS on behalf of respondent no. 3 was filed on
22.10.2022, wherein it was admitted that the offending vehicle was
insured with the respondent no.3 vide policy no. 271901312022507 for
the period 06.08.2021 to 05.08.2022. 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 petitioner
was walking on the road under intoxication. He was a known alcoholic
and hence, the respondent no. 3 was entitled to take all such defences as
were available to the respondent no.3 as per law.
8. The respondents no. 1 & 2 stopped appearing thereafter.
They were proceeded against ex parte vide orders dated 07.04.2025 and
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
MACT No.322/2022
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.02.21
14:36:44 +0530
Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 4 of 37
22.09.2025 respectively.
ISSUES
9. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated
30.09.2024, this Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in
an accident that took place on 20.02.2022 at
about 11:36 PM at Mori Gate red light, Nityanand
Marg, Kashmere Gate, Delhi involving vehicle
bearing registration no. DL-1PD-2332 driven
rashly and negligently by respondent no. 1
Manish, owned by respondent no. 2 Goverdhan
Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. and insured with
respondent no. 3 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.?
OPP
2. Whether the petitioner(s) are entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and from
whom? OPP
3. Relief.
PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
10. The petitioners examined Smt. Rita Devi i.e. the petitioner
no.1 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 her Aadhar Card as Ex. PW1/1 (OSR)
2. Computerised print out of medical bill of the deceased as Ex.
PW1/2.
3. DAR is Ex. PW1/3 (colly)
4. Computerised print out of salary slip of deceased as Ex. PW1/4
(colly 3 pages).
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.322/2022 Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 5 of 37
Date: 2026.02.21
14:36:48 +0530
11. Thereafter, Mr. Uday Shankar was examined as PW2. PW2
has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW2/A. He
has relied upon his Aadhar card, copy of which is Ex. PW2/1. He has
also relied upon already exhibited documents Ex. PW1/2 to Ex. PW1/4.
12. Thereafter, Mr. Liazley Roburt Ilias, Supervisor, Medical
Records St. Stephens Hospital, Tis Hazari, Delhi was examined as PW3.
He proved the duplicate discharge bill dated 21.02.2022 of Mr. Jeevnesh
Singh as Ex. PW3/1 (colly) (running into 4 pages). He has also proved
the treatment record of Mr. Jeevnesh Singh as Ex. PW3/2 (colly)
(running into 48 pages).
13. Thereafter, Mr. Hari Singh, Manager, SD Heritage Impex
Pvt. Ltd. was examined as PW4. He proved the following documents:
a) Authority Letter as Ex.PW4/1.
b) Salary receipts of Mr. Jeevnesh Singh as Ex. PW4/2 (colly 6 pages).
c) Statement of bank account of M/s. SD Heritage Impex Pvt. Ltd.
showing the payment of salary to deceased as Ex. PW4/3 (colly 6
pages).
d) Document regarding full and final settlement amount paid to wife of
deceased after death of deceased as Ex.PW4/4.
14. PW1 to PW4 were cross examined by Ld. Counsel for
respondent no. 3 insurance company. Thereafter, PE was closed on
behalf of the petitioners on 13.10.2025.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.322/2022
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.02.21
Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 6 of 37
14:36:53 +0530
RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE
15. No evidence was led by the respondents no. 3. Evidence
was closed on behalf of respondent no. 3 vide order dated 26.11.2025.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
16. 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
17. 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 injuries in an
accident that took place on 20.02.2022 at about 11:36 PM at Mori Gate
red light, Nityanand Marg, Kashmere Gate, Delhi involving vehicle
bearing registration no. DL-1PD-2332 driven rashly and negligently by
respondent no. 1 Manish, owned by respondent no. 2 Goverdhan
Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. and insured with respondent no. 3 Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd.?
18. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. It is
the case of the petitioner that on 20.02.2022 at about 11:36 PM at Mori
RUCHIKA
MACT No.322/2022 SINGLA
Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.02.21
14:37:01 +0530
Page 7 of 37
Gate red light, Nityanand Marg, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, the driver of the
offending vehicle i.e. the respondent was driving the offending vehicle
carelessly in a negligent manner and hit the deceased, due to which he
fell and suffered injuries. It is stated that during investigation, the
offending vehicle was seized by the IO. The respondent no.1 was
chargesheeted by the IO. Hence, it is submitted that it is proved that the
respondent was driving the negligent in a rash and negligent manner due
to which the petitioner suffered injuries.
19. Record perused.
20. In the present matter, the factum of the accident is not in
dispute. In the Ws filed by respondent no.2, he has merely stated that the
accident was caused due to the negligence of the deceased. As such, the
fact that accident was caused with the offending vehicle has not been
disputed. It is pertinent to mention here that in the proceedings before
the claims tribunal, the 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.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.322/2022
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Date: 2026.02.21
Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 8 of 37
14:37:07 +0530
21. 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.”
22. 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 “……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.”
23. Even otherwise, the petitioner was unknown to respondent
no.1 prior to the accident and admittedly, there was no prior enmity with
respondent no.1 and hence, it is beyond comprehension as to why the
petitioner will implicate respondent no.1 falsely, had he not been driving
the offending vehicle.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.322/2022 Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Date: 2026.02.21
14:37:11 +0530 Page 9 of 37
24. 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. Hence, an adverse inference is
drawn against the respondent no.1. In this regard, reliance is placed on
the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the cases of Teja Singh
Vs Suman & Ors., MAC. APP. 1111/2018 & CM APPL. 52384/2018,
52386/2018, date of decision 06/12/2019; MAC. APP. 428/2018, titled
as The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamla Devi & Ors, date of
decision 08.11.2019 and MAC. APP. 690/2017 & CM APPL.
28108/2017, titled as Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs
Mona & Ors., date of decision 15.10.2019, which had relied upon the
judgment in the case of Cholamandalam Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamlesh
2009(3) AD Delhi 310.
25. 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
RUCHIKA
SINGLAMACT No.322/2022 Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLARita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Date: 2026.02.21
14:37:17 +0530
Page 10 of 37
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.”
26. It has not been disputed that respondent No.1 has been
charge-sheeted in the aforesaid FIR for offences punishable under
Section 279/338 IPC for rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle. In view of the same, considering the facts and circumstances,
the unrebutted testimony of the petitioner 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 the respondent no.2 was the registered owner of
the offending vehicle and that the offending vehicle was insured with
respondent no.3.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
MACT No.322/2022 RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.21
Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 11 of 37
14:37:21
+0530
Contributory negligence
27. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 argued that the deceased
was under influence of alcohol at the time of the accident and that he
was a habitual alcoholic. Hence, he is liable for contributory negligence.
28. Perusal of record shows that the FSL result qua the alcohol
was filed by the IO. Perusal of the report shows that it has been opined
that upon examination, ethyl alcohol and methyl alcohol were not found
in the blood sample of the deceased. Hence, there is no reason to impute
contributory negligence upon the deceased.
The injury:
29. Further, the onus to prove that the deceased had suffered
fatal injuries by way of the said accident was on the petitioners. In this
regard, the petitioners have relied upon the MLC dated 20.02.2022, as
per which the deceased was brought to the hospital with the history of
road traffic accident. As per the MLC, he had suffered various injuries
on his body. Further, his Death Summary issued by St. Stephens
Hospital is on record as per which, he expired during treatment. He had
crush injury on his lower limb. Further, as per his Medical Certificate of
Cause of Death issued by St. Stephens Hospital, the cause of death was
cardiac arrest and hypovolemic shock consequent upon RTA and crush
injury on leg.
30. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.21
MACT No.322/2022 14:37:28
+0530Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 12 of 37
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 due
to the said accident, the injured unfortunately 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)
31. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners. In
view of the discussion in the 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 lesserMACT No.322/2022
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLARita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 13 of 37
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.21
14:37:33
+0530
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 :
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
RUCHIKA
MACT No.322/2022 SINGLARita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 14 of 37
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.02.21
14:37:39 +0530
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 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
Digitally
signed by
MACT No.322/2022
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 15 of 37
2026.02.21
14:37:44
+0530
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
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.”
32. 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
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.322/2022 Digitally signed byRita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 16 of 37
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.02.21
14:37:50 +0530
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 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.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.322/2022
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Date: 2026.02.21
Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 17 of 37
14:37:55 +0530
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for 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. 31,001/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The
aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in
every three years.”
Loss of income
33. In the present matter, it is alleged that at the time of the
accident, the deceased was working with SD Heritage Impex Pvt. Ltd as
a driver. It is submitted that his employment record and income were
proved by PW4 Mr. Hari Singh, Manager, SD Heritage Impex Pvt. Ltd.
Hence, it is submitted that his income may be assessed accordingly.
34. Per contra, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3
that the testimony of PW4 Mr. Hari Singh, Manager, SD Heritage Impex
Pvt. Ltd. does not prove anything.
35. Record perused.
36. Perusaal of the record produced by PW4 Mr. Hari Singh,
Manager, SD Heritage Impex Pvt. Ltd. shows that he proved salary
receipts of Mr. Jeevnesh Singh as Ex. PW4/2 (colly 6 pages) along with
the salary register. He further proved the statement of bank account of
M/s. SD Heritage Impex Pvt. Ltd. showing the payment of salary to
deceased as Ex. PW4/3 (colly 6 pages). Hence, in the opinion of this
Tribunal, the testimony of PW4 is sufficient to prove that the deceased
was employed with the said company. Further, as per the salary register
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.322/2022
Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 18 of 37
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.02.21
14:38:00 +0530
and the salary slips, the gross income of the deceased was Rs. 19,473/-.
Hence, his gross annual income would have been Rs. 2,31,492/-. As per
the income tax slab for financial year 2021-22, no income tax was
payable on the annual income of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Hence, the income of
the deceased is assessed to be Rs. 19,473/-.
Age determination of the deceased:
37. As per the Aashar card and the driving license of the
deceased, his date of birth was 01.01.1967. The date of the accident is
20.02.2022. Hence, as on the date of the accident, the deceased was
aged 55 years.
Future Prospects: –
38. 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 also be entitled to 10% for future prospects as the
deceased was between the age bracket 50 to 60 years of age at the time
of the accident. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased needs
to be taken as Rs. 21,420.30 (Rs. 19,473/- + Rs. 1,947.30 which is 10%
of Rs. 19,473/-).
Determination of Dependent
39. In the present case, the deceased is survived by his wife and
two major sons. Perusal of the statement of PW2 Uday Shankar i.e. the
son of the deceased shows that he has admitted that both the major sons
are earning a sum of Rs.23,000/- to Rs. 24,000/- each. Hence, only the
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.21
MACT No.322/2022
14:38:07
+0530Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 19 of 37
wife of the deceased shall be considered as dependent on the deceased.
Determination of multiplicand
40. The monthly income of the deceased after enhancement
needs to be taken as Rs. 21,420.30. 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 had only one
dependent. So, in this matter, monthly loss of dependency would come
out to be Rs. 10,710.15 (1/2 of Rs. 21,420.30). This needs to be
multiplied by 12 to workout multiplicand/annual loss of dependency.
Hence, multiplicand for this matter would be Rs. 1,28,521.80 ( Rs.
10,710.15 x 12).
Award Towards Loss of Dependency
41. Further, as the deceased was 55 years of age at the time of
the accident, multiplier applicable in this matter as per above discussion
would be 9. The total loss of dependency would come out to be
Rs.11,56,697/- (Rs. 1,28,521.80 x 9), hence, so awarded.
Medical expenses:
42. The petitioners have filed medical bill Ex. PW1/2 on
record, which is to the tune of Rs. 16,546/-. Hence, the petitioners are
awarded a sum of Rs. 16,546/- towards medical expenses.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
MACT No.322/2022
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.02.21
14:38:13 +0530
Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 20 of 37
Non-Pecuniary Heads:-
43. 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
MACT No.322/2022 RUCHIKA
SINGLA
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Date:
Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 21 of 37
2026.02.21
14:38:18
+0530
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 SINGLA
MACT No.322/2022 SINGLA Date:
2026.02.21
14:38:21Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. +0530
Page 22 of 37
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.25,000
each for loss of Filial Consortium…..”.
44. 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…”.
45. In the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), it was held that in the
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.322/2022
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.21
14:38:28
+0530Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 23 of 37
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.
46. Thus, an amount of Rs. 19,965/- is granted towards the
Loss of Estate and Rs. 19,965/- towards funeral charges.
47. Further, though the father and siblings of the deceased were
not dependent on him, but they are entitled to loss of consortium. Hence,
Rs. 53,240/- each is granted to the petitioners i.e. total of Rs. 53,240 x 3
= Rs.1,59,720/- towards Loss of Consortium.
Computation of compensation:
48. 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. 19,473/-
Add future prospect (B) @ 10%= Rs. 1,947.30
Less 1/2 deductions towards (Rs. 19,473/- + Rs. 1,947.30) = Rs.
personal and living expenses of the 21,420.30 x 1/2 = Rs. 10,710.15
deceased (C)
Monthly loss of dependency (Rs. 19,473/- + Rs. 1,947.30) – Rs.
[(A+B) – C = D] 10,710.15 = Rs. 10,710.15
Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 10,710.15 x 12= Rs.
(D x 12) 1,28,521.80 Multiplier (E) 9 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: MACT No.322/2022 2026.02.21 14:38:33 +0530 Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 24 of 37 Total loss of dependency (Rs. 1,28,521.80 x 9) = DxE=F Rs.11,56,697/- Medical Expenses (G) Rs. 16,546/-
Compensation for loss of love and Nil.
affection (H)
Compensation for loss of Rs. 53,240 x 3 = Rs.1,59,720/-
consortium (I) to the petitionersCompensation for loss of Estate (J) Rs. 19,965/-
Compensation for funeral expenses Rs. 19,965/-
(K)
Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 13,72,893/-
49. 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. 29.03.2022 till
realization.
Apportionment:
50. It is evident from the record that the deceased had left
behind his wife and two major sons. The shares of the petitioners are as
under:
S.No Name of the Share of the Interest upto Total amount
claimant petitioner date including
interest
1. Smt. Rita Devi Rs. 11,73,243/- + Rs. Rs.
RUCHIKA
MACT No.322/2022 SINGLA
Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.02.21
Page 25 of 37
14:38:40 +0530
Rs. 53,240/- + Rs. 4,44,979.36 17,11,392.36
19,965/- + Rs. (rounded off to
19,965/- = Rs. Rs.
12,66,413/- 17,11,393/-)
2. Sh. Uday Shankar Rs. 53,240/- Rs. Rs. 71,946.93
18,706.93 (rounded off to
Rs. 71,947/-)
3. Sh. Dev Shankar Rs. 53,240/- Rs. Rs. 71,946.93
18,706.93 (rounded off to
Rs. 71,947/-)
DISBURSEMENT
51. 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. 25,000/- per month.
52. 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.
(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
Digitally
MACT No.322/2022 signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 26 of 37
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.21
14:38:45
+0530
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.”
53. 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 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
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKAMACT No.322/2022
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.21
14:38:51Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. +0530
Page 27 of 37
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 Tribunal.”
54. 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.
Smt. Rita Devi (LR/Wife of deceased)
55. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners,
it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 18,55,287/-, out
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
MACT No.322/2022 RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.21
Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 28 of 37
14:38:57
+0530
of the share of the petitioner/Wife Smt. Rita Devi Rs. 17,11,393/-
(Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Eleven Thousand Three Hundred Ninety
Three only), Rs. 5,11,393/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Eleven Thousand Three
Hundred Ninety Three only) shall be released to the petitioner/Wife
immediately in her Bank Account on furnishing of her bank account
passbook with SBI, THC.
56. The balance amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve
Lacs only) shall be put in 48 monthly fixed deposits in her name in her
account as mentioned above of equal amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Five Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 48
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.
Sh. Uday Shankar (LR/Son of deceased)
57. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners,
it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 18,55,287/-, out
of the share of the petitioner/Son Sh. Uday Shankar Rs. 71,947/-
(Rupees Seventy One Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Seven only), the
entire amount shall be released to the petitioner/Son immediately in his
Bank Account, on furnishing copy of his passbook with SBI, THC.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.21
14:39:03
+0530MACT No.322/2022
Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 29 of 37
Sh. Dev Shankar (LR/Son of deceased)
58. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners,
it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 18,55,287/-, out
of the share of the petitioner/Son Sh. Dev Shankar Rs. 71,947/- (Rupees
Seventy One Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Seven only), the entire
amount shall be released to the petitioner/Son immediately in his Bank
Account, on furnishing copy of his passbook with SBI, THC.
59. 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: 20.02.2022 Name of the deceased: Mr. Jeevnesh Singh Age of the deceased: 55 years Occupation of the deceased: Driver Income of the deceased : Rs. 19,473/-
Name and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No. Name of the claimant Relation with deceased
1. Smt. Rita Devi Wife
2. Sh. Uday Shankar Son
3. Sh. Dev Shankar Son
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
MACT No.322/2022
2026.02.21
14:39:11
+0530Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 30 of 37
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATIONSr. Head Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
No.
1 Monthly Income of deceased Rs. 19,473/-
(A)
2 Add future prospect (B) @ 10%= Rs. 1,947.30
3 Less 1/2 deductions towards (Rs. 19,473/- + Rs. 1,947.30) = Rs.
personal and living expenses of 21,420.30 x 1/2 = Rs. 10,710.15
the deceased (C)
4 Monthly loss of dependency (Rs. 19,473/- + Rs. 1,947.30) – Rs.
[(A+B) – C = D] 10,710.15 = Rs. 10,710.15
5 Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 10,710.15 x 12 = Rs.
(D x 12) 1,28,521.80 6 Multiplier (E) 9 7 Total loss of dependency (Rs. 1,28,521.80 x 9) = DxE=F Rs.11,56,697/- 8 Medical Expenses (G) Rs. 16,546/- 9 Compensation for loss of love Nil. and affection (H) 10 Compensation for loss of Rs. 53,240/- x 3 = Rs.1,59,720/- 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. 13,72,893/- 14 Rate of Interest Awarded 9% 15 Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 4,82,394/- award w.e.f. 29.03.2022 till Digitally MACT No.322/2022 signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. 2026.02.21 14:39:29 +0530 Page 31 of 37 realization 16 Total amount including interest Rs. 18,55,287/- 17 Award amount released As per paragraph Nos. 55 to 58 18 Award amount kept in FDRs As per paragraph Nos. 56 19 Mode of disbursement of the As per paragraph Nos. 55 to 58 award amount to the claimant(s) 20 Next Date of compliance of the 23.03.2026 award LIABILITY:
60. It has been established that accident was caused due to the
rash and negligent act of the respondent no.1 who was driving the
offending vehicle no.1 and that respondent no.2 is the owner of the
same and the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no.3.
Hence, the respondent no. 3 shall be liable to pay the compensation
amount to the petitioners. Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in favour
of the petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
61. In view of the above, the respondent no.3 is directed to
deposit a sum of Rs.13,72,893/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Seventy Two
Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Three Only) along with interest @ 9%
from the date of filing of DAR i.e. w.e.f. 29.03.2022 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 interest
@12% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days. Reliance
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.322/2022 Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 32 of 37
SINGLA
Date: 2026.02.21
14:39:34 +0530
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.
62. 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
23.03.2026 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation
amount within the time granted.
Further, Civil Nazir is directed to maintain the record in
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.322/2022 Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 33 of 37
SINGLA
Date: 2026.02.21
14:39:49 +0530
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 Digitally
signed by
on this 21st February, 2026
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.21
14:39:53
+0530(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
MACT No.322/2022
Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 34 of 37
THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL MOTOR
VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022 (PL. SEE RULE
150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 20.02.2022
2 Date of filing of Form-I –
First Accident Report NA
(FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II
NA
to the victim(s)
4 Date of receipt of Form-III
NA
from the Driver
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV
from the Owner NA
6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the insurance NA
of the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-
NA
VIA from the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII -
29.03.2022
Detail Accident Report
(DAR)
9 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Investigating NA
Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the 29.03.2022
Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company admitted his No
report within 30 days of the
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
MACT No.322/2022 RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.21
Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. 14:40:00
+0530 Page 35 of 37
DAR/claim petition?
12 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the Yes
part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether
any action/direction
warranted?
13 Date of response of the
claimant(s) to the offer of NA
the Insurance Company.
14 Date of award 21.02.2026
15 Whether the claimant(s)
were directed to open No
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 NA
residence and produce PAN
card and Aadhar Card and
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 passbook not produced.
bank account(s) near the Other documents produced on 30.01.2026
place of their residence
alongwith the endorsement,
PAN card and Aadhaar
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.322/2022 Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Date: 2026.02.21
14:40:05 +0530 Page 36 of 37
Card?
18 Permanent residential
address of the claimant(s). As per Award.
19 Whether the claimant(s)
savings bank account(s) is
N.A.
near their place of
residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s)
were examined at the time
Yes. The Financial Statements of the claimants
of passing of the Award to
were recorded on 30.01.2026.
ascertain his/their financial
condition?
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.02.21
14:40:09 +0530
(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
21.02.2026
MACT No.322/2022
Rita Devi & Ors. vs. Manish Rajoria and Ors. Page 37 of 37
