Delhi District Court
Deshraj @ Desa vs Prem Singh And Ors on 24 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHILASH MALHOTRA
PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-02 ,PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
DESHRAJ & ORS. Vs. PREM SINGH & ORS.
MACT NO. 142/2023
1. Deshraj @ Desa (Father)
S/o Late Sh. Sulli
R/o 256, Village Ladpura,
Post Maycha Greater Noida,
Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
2. Smt. Shyasvati @ Shyasavati (Mother)
(Mother of the deceased died and
the amended memo of parties
taken on record by order dt. 13.02.2026.
3. Mrs. Anu Devi (Sister -in-Law)
W/o Late Sh. Sunder Bhati
R/o Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
4. Mr. Yash Bhati (Nephew)
S/o Late Sh. Sunder Bhati
5. Mr. Vansh (Nephew)
S/o Late Sh. Sunder Bhati
(being minor through its natural guardian / mother)
All resident of:
R/o 256, Village Ladpura,
Post Maycha Greater Noida,
Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
...Petitioners
Versus
MACT 142/23 Page. 1 of 41
Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors
1. Sh. Prem Singh
S/o Sh. Raman Singh
R/o H. No. 285, Gali No. 1,
Padam Nagar, P.S. Kedhipur,
Old Faridabad, Haryana.
2. Sh. Sharwan
S/o Sh. Chhattrpal
R/o Village Bhatola (115)
Faridabad, Haryana -121004.
....Owner/Respondent no.2
3. SBI General Insurance Company Ltd.
Head Office,No. 11, Ground Floor,
A-Block Building, Local Head Office,
Parliament Street, New Delhi -110001.
....Insurance Company/
Respondent no. 3
Date of accident 10.11.2022
Date of filing Claim Petition 12.05.2023
Date of framing of issues 12.11.2024
Date of concluding arguments 13.02.2026
Date of decision 24.02.2026
AWARD/JUDGMENT
Index to the Judgment
I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE CLAIMANT(s)...........................................5
II. FRAMING OF ISSUES……………………………………………………………………….6
III. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS OF THE PARTIES……………………………..10
MACT 142/23 Page. 2 of 41
Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors
IV. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO…………………………….11
(a) Issue No.1: Whether the victim/deceased suffered fatal injuries in a
vehicular accident that took place on 10.11.2022 at about 9:45 p.m in front of
Jagdish Nambardar Market, Village Acheja, PS Badalpur, G. B. Nagar, UP
involving a vehicle bearing registration No. HR-51-CG-5139 (offending
vehicle) being driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner,
owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3 Insurance
company?OPP……………………………………………………………………………………..11
i. Presumption qua complicity upon filing chargesheet:……………….11
ii. The evidence on record qua negligence:………………………………….13
iii. Preponderance of probabilities:………………………………………………14
iv. Finding:……………………………………………………………………………… 15
(b) Issue No.2: Whether claimant is entitled to compensation, and to what
amount ?……………………………………………………………………………………………. 16
i. Principles qua assessment of compensation:…………………………….16
ii. Monthly Income of the deceased:…………………………………………..18
iii. Future prospects:………………………………………………………………….19
iv. Personal expenses of the deceased:…………………………………………20
v. Monthly & Annual Loss of dependency:…………………………………22
vi. Total Loss of Dependency:…………………………………………………….22
vii. Other Heads:………………………………………………………………………..22
viii. Medical Expenses:………………………………………………………………..24
ix. Compensation for Loss of Consortium:…………………………………..24
x. Compensation for Loss of Estate:…………………………………………..26
xi. Compensation towards Funeral Expenses:……………………………….26
xii. Total Compensation:……………………………………………………………..26
(c) Issue No.3: Relief………………………………………………………………………. 27
i. Amount of Award:………………………………………………………………..27
ii. Rate of Interest:……………………………………………………………………27
MACT 142/23 Page. 3 of 41
Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors
V. DEPOSIT OF AWARD& RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT…………………….29
i. Deposit of Award:…………………………………………………………………29
ii. Disbursement of the award amount & protection thereof:………….32
VI. LIABILITY………………………………………………………………………………………34
VII.. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN CASES OF
DEATH…………………………………………………………………………………………………..35
VIII…………………………COMPLIANCE QUA PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME
38
MACT 142/23 Page. 4 of 41
Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors
I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE CLAIMANT(s)
1. In the present case, the accident had occurred out of Delhi and
petition was filed. A claim petition was filed by the legal heirs of
the deceased.
2. The issue regarding the jurisdiction was raised by the Insurance
Company. The office of the Insurance Company is stated to be
within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal and in lieu of the judgment
passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as
Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Company Limited and Ors.
(2016) 3 SCC 43, the issue of jurisdiction is no more in dispute.
3. In present case, FIR bearing no. 340/2022 was registered in PS
Badal Pur, District- Middle Commissionerate, G. B. Nagar, UP, on
the complaint made by complainant Sh. Ajit Singh. A charge-sheet
was filed by the police against the driver Mr. Prem Singh under
Section 279/304A IPC, on the charges of rash driving of vehicle
no. HR-51-CG-5139. It is stated that Sh. Lala Bhati @ Om Prakash
(deceased) was going along with his cousin brother namely Ajit
Singh towards Village Acheja to Badalpur and in the meanwhile
offending vehicle bearing registration no. HR-51-CG-5139 at
about 9:45 p.m. hit him from behind and Sh. Lala Bhati @ Om
Prakash (deceased) suffered injuries and later died in the hospital.
4. As per the charge sheet, the vehicle was driven by respondent no.
1 driver, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured by respondent no.
3/Insurance company.
MACT 142/23 Page. 5 of 41
Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors
5. During the proceedings issues were framed on 12.11.2024
Thereafter the written submissions were filed by the parties in the
prescribed format. The financial statement of the legal
representatives of deceased was recorded on 24.02.2026.
II. FRAMING OF ISSUES
6. Vide order dated 12.11.2024, following issues were framed by
this Tribunal:-
“1. Whether the victim/deceased suffered fatal
injuries in a vehicular accident that took place on
10.11.2022 at about 9:45 p.m in front of Jagdish
Nambardar Market, Village Acheja, PS Badalpur,
G. B. Nagar, UP involving a vehicle bearing
registration No. HR-51-CG-5139 (offending
vehicle) being driven by respondent no.1 in a rash
and negligent manner, owned by respondent no. 2
and insured with respondent no. 3 Insurance
company?OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and from
whom? OPP
3. Relief.”
7. Recording of evidence: in present case, Sh. Ajit Nagar @ Ajit
Singh examined himself as PW-1. His affidavit in chief is Ex.
PW 1/A. He also exhibited copy of his Aadhar Card which is
Ex. PW 1/1. In his testimony he stated that he is the eye witness
of the accident. He stated that on 10.11.2022 he along with his
MACT 142/23 Page. 6 of 41
Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors
cousin brother Sh. Lala Bhati @ Om Prakash (deceased) at
about 9:45 p.m were going towards Village Acheja to Badalpur
and when they reached in front of Jagdish Nambardar Market,
Badalpur a car bearing registration no. HR-51-CG-5139 came
at a high speed and driven in a negligent manner and hit Sh. Lala
Bhati @ Om Prakash (deceased) from behind and he fell down.
He stated that the car driver ran away from the spot along with
car and thereafter PCR Van came on the spot during patrolling
and he narrated the said incident to the police and Sh. Lala Bhati
@ Om Prakash (deceased) was taken to the hospital.
8. PW-1 in his cross examination reiterated the fact of accident due
to rash driving of vehicle bearing registration no. HR-51-
CG-5139. He stated that he noted down the registration number
of the offending vehicle and informed the police about the
same.
9. PW-2 is Deshraj @ Desa is petitioner no. 1 in this case. His
affidavit in chief is Ex. PW 2/A. He also exhibited the following
documents viz., Copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no. 1 as Ex.
PW 2/1; Copy of Voter I. D. Card of petitioner no. 2 as Ex. PW
2/2; Copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no. 3 as Ex. PW 2/3;
Copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no. 4 as Ex. PW 2/4; Copy of
Aadhar Card of petitioner no. 5 as Ex. PW 2/5; Copy of Aadhar
Card of Sh. Lala Bhati @ Om Prakash (deceased) as Ex. PW
2/6; Certified copies of Final Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C,
Site plan, Panchnama, Postmortem Report, offending vehicle
MACT 142/23 Page. 7 of 41
Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors
court release order dated 21.02.2023, mechanical inspection
report of offending vehicle dated 04.01.2023, court bail order
date 21.03.2023 of respondent no. 1, Copy of FIR are Ex. PW
2/7 (Colly); Copy of confirmation letter issued by employer of
deceased as Ex. PW 2/8; Copy of R. C. of offending vehicle
mark as ‘X’, copy of license of respondent no. 1 mark as ‘y’;
copy of insurance policy mark as ‘z’.
10.In his testimony he reiterated the manner in which the accident
has occurred. He stated that deceased was around 35 years of
old and was working as Area Supervisor with M/s Everyday
Beverages, Kasana Industrial Area, Greater Noida, Gautam
Budh Nagar, UP. He stated that he along with mother and widow
bhabhi of deceased and two children of his brother were
dependent upon the income of the deceased. He stated that the
deceased was unmarried at the time of accident and had studied
upto 9th standard.
11.PW-3 is Ajay Kumar Proprietor of M/s Everyday Beverages,
Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP. He proved on record
the following documents viz., Copy of Aadhar Card as Ex. PW
3/1; GST registration certificate of M/s Everyday Beverages as
Ex. PW 3/2; Appointment letter of Sh. Lala Bhati @ Om
Prakash (deceased) as Ex. PW 3/3; Income tax returns for the
year 2022-2023 of Sh. Ajay Kumar as Ex. PW 3/4; Salary slip
of Sh. Lala Bhati @ Om Prakash (deceased) as Ex. PW 3/5;
MACT 142/23 Page. 8 of 41
Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors
Attendance register of deceased as Ex. PW 3/6 and the
employment letter head of deceased as Ex. PW 3/7.
12.He stated that Sh. Lala Bhati @ Om Prakash (deceased) was
getting a salary of Rs.14,500/- per month and was employed in
his firm w.e.f. 05.04.2022.
13.Respondent no. 1 and Respondent no. 2 did not lead any
evidence.
14.R3W1 is Sh. Shyam Nanda Singh. This witness was examined
by the Insurance Company. His affidavit in chief is Ex.
R3W1 /A. He also exhibited the following documents viz.,
Authority letter as Ex.R3W1/1; Copy of Aadhar card as
Ex.R3W1/2; The Investigator report as Ex.R3W1/3.
15.In his examination in chief he stated that he is an independent
investigator and was appointed to conduct the investigation in
the present matter. He stated that the family of deceased and
respondent nos. 1 & 2 are connected with each other being
relatives and the insured vehicle is falsely planted in this case.
16. In his cross examination, he admitted that he has given findings
about his relation between family of deceased/ claimants and
respondents on the basis of oral statement of one Sh.
Chhattarpal. He stated that he has not filed any statement or
documents on record in proof of his findings.
MACT 142/23 Page. 9 of 41 Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors III. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS OF THE PARTIES
17.Ld. Counsel for the claimant submitted that they have filed the
copy of FIR and charge sheet. He submits that the said record
clearly shows that the offending vehicle bearing no. HR-51-
CG-5139 was seized during the investigation and later on
released on Superdari. He submits that the charge sheet in that
case was already filed against the driver Prem Singh (R-1) u/s
279/304-A IPC which clearly establishes the rash driving on part
of the offending vehicle. He submits that PW-1 Mr. Ajit Nagar
@ Ajit Singh is the eye witness of the accident who stated that
on 10.11.2022 he along with his cousin brother Sh. Lala Bhati
@ Om Prakash (deceased) at about 9:45 p.m were going towards
Village Acheja to Badalpur and when they reached in front of
Jagdish Nambardar market, Badalpur a car bearing registration
no. HR-51-CG-5139 came at a high speed and driven in a
negligent manner and hit Sh. Lala Bhati @ Om Prakash
(deceased) from behind and he fell down. PW-1 further stated
that the car driver ran away from the spot along with car and
thereafter PCR Van came on the spot during patrolling and he
narrated the said incident to the police and Sh. Lala Bhati @
Om Prakash (deceased) was taken to the hospital where later he
died.
18.Ld. counsel for R-1 and R-2 submitted that vehicle was insured
on the date of accident. They stated that there was no negligence
MACT 142/23 Page. 10 of 41
Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors
of R-1 driver and they have been falsely implicated in the
present matter.
19.Ld. counsel for Insurance company stated that FIR in this case
was lodged after a gap of 08 days of accident and creates doubt
about the case of the petitioners. It is stated that deceased was
careless in walking on the main road without adhering to the
traffic rules and is liable for contributory negligence. It is
submitted that as per the Investigator Report the petitioner and
respondents are relatives and the insured vehicle is wrongly
planted in this case.
IV. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO
(a) Issue No.1: Whether the victim/deceased suffered fatal injuries
in a vehicular accident that took place on 10.11.2022 at about
9:45 p.m in front of Jagdish Nambardar Market, Village
Acheja, PS Badalpur, G. B. Nagar, UP involving a vehicle
bearing registration No. HR-51-CG-5139 (offending vehicle)
being driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent
manner, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with
respondent no. 3 Insurance company?OPP
i. Presumption qua complicity upon filing chargesheet:
20. Rule 21 of Annexure XIII of The Central Motor Vehicles Rules,
1989 mandates as follows:-
21. Claims Tribunal shall treat Dar as a claim petition for
compensation under Sub-Section (4) of Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (1) The Claims Tribunal shall treat
the DAR filed by the Investigating Officer as a claim petition
under Section (4) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988. However, where the Investigating Officer is unable to
MACT 142/23 Page. 11 of 41
Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors
produce the claimant(s) on the first date of hearing the Claims
Tribunal shall register the DAR as a claim petition after the
appearance of the claimant(s).
(2) where the claimant(s) have filed a separate claim petition,
the DAR may be tagged along with the claim petition.
(3) If the Report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2) of 1974 has not been filed at the time of
filing of the DAR, the Claims Tribunal may either wait till
filing of the Report under Section 173 of the said Code of
Criminal Procedure or record the statement of the eye
witness(es) to satisfy itself with respect to the negligence
before passing the award.
(4) The Claims Tribunal shall register the FAR as a
Miscellaneous application and the IAR as well as DAR shall
be taken on record in the same Miscellaneous application.
21. In Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Meera
Devi & Ors decided on 16.02.2021, 2021 LawSuit (Del) 858 it
was held :
8. ….. In view of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules,
2008, contents of DAR had to be presumed to be correct and
read in evidence without formal proof of the same unless proof
to the contrary was produced……..”.
22.In a recent order dated 25.02.2025, passed in Ranjeet & Anr v
Abdul Nayem Keb & Anr in SLP (c) 10351/2019, it was held in
trenchant terms as thus:
“It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been filed and
the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is
required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by
the bus driver. Even if the eyewitnesses are not examined, that
will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due
to negligence of the bus driver.”
MACT 142/23 Page. 12 of 41 Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors ii. The evidence on record qua negligence:
23.Claimants have placed on record the certified copy of charge
sheet in FIR no 340/2022, PS Badalpur, District – Middle
Commissionerate, G. B. Nagar, UP. Record shows that the
charge sheet u/s 279/304-A IPC was filed in the present case
against the driver Sh. Prem Singh. The charge sheet records that
the due to rash driving of the driver /(R-1) of the offending
vehicle bearing no. HR-51-CG-5139, due to which passenger
Mr. Lala Bhati @ Om Prakash suffered injuries and died.
24.Respondent no.1/driver and Respondent no.2/owner in their
written statement did not dispute the fact of accident.
25.The Insurance company has taken a plea regarding contributory
negligence by the deceased as he was walking on road
carelessly. The site plan filed along with charge sheet shows that
the accident had taken on the extreme left side of the road and
no negligence can be attributed to the deceased when he was
walking on the extreme corner of the road. The Insurance
company did not lead any evidence to substantiate their plea in
this regard. Accordingly, the said plea is rejected.
26.The Insurance company has further taken a plea that the
petitioners and respondents are relatives and has relied upon the
testimonies of R3W1 Sh. Shyam Nandan Singh who was the
investigator. In his testimony R3W1 admitted that he has given
report on the basis of oral statement of Mr. Chhattarpal andMACT 142/23 Page. 13 of 41
Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors
admitted that no written statement of any of the witnesses
examined by him were filed along with report.
27.In absence of any concrete evidence, the testimony of R3W1 is
not free from doubts and the fact of any relation between
petitioner and the respondent nos. 1 & 2 is not proved.
28.PW-1 Mr. Ajit Nagar @ Ajit Singh is the eye witness. In his
testimony he has categorically stated that the accident had
occurred due to rash driving of insured / offending vehicle
bearing registration no. HR-51-CG-5139. His testimony
remained consistent in his cross examination also.
29.From the aforesaid, it is clear that the accident had occurred due
to rash driving of offending/insured vehicle driven by
R-1/driver.
iii. Preponderance of probabilities:
30.It is trite law that in a proceeding before the Claims Tribunal,
the claimant does not have to establish negligence on the part of
the driver respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The standards
of establishing negligence is predicated on preponderance of
probabilities. In the present case too, negligence has been
established on this principle.
31.In this context, it would be useful to peruse Mathew Alexander
v. Mohd. Shafi, (2023) 13 SCC 510 wherein it was observed as
thus:
“In this context, we could refer to the judgments of
this Court in N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. KarumaiMACT 142/23 Page. 14 of 41
Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors
Ammal [N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai
Ammal, (1980) 3 SCC 457 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 774] ,
wherein the plea that the criminal case had ended in
acquittal and that, therefore, the civil suit must
follow suit, was rejected. It was observed that
culpable rashness under Section 304-AIPC is more
drastic than negligence under the law of torts to
create liability. Similarly, in Bimla
Devi v. Himachal RTC [Bimla Devi v. Himachal
RTC, (2009) 13 SCC 530 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ)
189 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1101] (“Bimla Devi”), it
was observed that in a claim petition filed under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the
Tribunal has to determine the amount of fair
compensation to be granted in the event an accident
has taken place by reason of negligence of a driver
of a motor vehicle. A holistic view of the evidence
has to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal
and strict proof of an accident caused by a
particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be
established by the claimants. The claimants have to
establish their case on the touchstone of
preponderance of probabilities. The standard of
proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied
while considering the petition seeking
compensation on account of death or injury in a road
traffic accident. To the same effect is the observation
made by this Court in Dulcina
Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz [Dulcina
Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC
646 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri)
13] which has referred to the aforesaid judgment
in Bimla Devi [Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC
(2009) 13 SCC 530.”
iv. Finding:
32.In view of foregoing discussion, it stands proved on the
touchstone of preponderance of probabilities that the aforesaid
accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the
transgressing/offending vehicle bearing registration no. HR-51-
MACT 142/23 Page. 15 of 41
Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors
CG-5139. and the said vehicle at that time was driven by
respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured by
respondent no.3. Hence, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the
claimant and against the respondents.
33. It is clarified that the finding given are limited for the purposes
of this inquiry and shall not impact the trial of the criminal
case.
(b) Issue No.2: Whether claimant is entitled to compensation, and
to what amount ?
i. Principles qua assessment of compensation:
34.Before adverting to the submissions of the counsels in this
regard, it would be apposite to refer to the law of the land qua
this aspect. The law has been enunciated by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation &
Ors. (2003) 6SCC 121 and National Insurance Company
Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.(2017) 16 SCC 680.
35.An essential ingredient of the award is the loss of dependency.
To calculate the same, it would be of utmost significance to
peruse the following seminal directions issued in Sarla Verma
(supra):
“18.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
(c) the number of dependants
MACT 142/23 Page. 16 of 41
Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors
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 to the age of
the deceased.
If these determinants are standardised, there will be uniformity
and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need
for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance
companies to settle accident claims without delay
19.To have uniformity and consistency, the 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 dependant
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.”
36.To ascertain the ‘multiplier’ mentioned in Step 2 above, it was
further laid down in Sarla Verma (supra) as thus:
MACT 142/23 Page. 17 of 41
Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors
“42 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
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-
55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years ,M-7 for 61 to 65
years and M- 5 for 66 to 70 years.”
37. Further, in terms of the mandate of Rajesh Tyagi v Jaibir Singh
FAO 842/2003, which is the cause célèbre qua cases pertaining
to motor accident claims, the claimant filed Form XIII of the
Scheme for Motor Accident Claims qua compensation under
various heads which have been elucidated in the paragraphs
hereafter.
ii. Monthly Income of the deceased:
38.PW-3 Sh. Ajay Kumar, owner / proprietor of M/s Everyday
Beverages in his testimony stated that Sh. Lala Bhati @ Om
Prakash (deceased) was working with their firm as a Marketing
Area Supervisor and was earning a salary of Rs.14,000/- p.m.
Ld. counsel for the respondents did not dispute the same. Thus,
the monthly income of the deceased is quantified as Rs.
14,500/- p.m.
MACT 142/23 Page. 18 of 41
Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors
iii. Future prospects:
39.To factor into account future prospects, it would be apt to refer
to National Insurance Co Ltd v Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16
SCC 680 wherein it was laid down as thus:
“59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to
record our conclusions:
59.3 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.
59.4 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.
59.5 For determination of the multiplicand, the
deduction for personal and living expenses, the
tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paras 30 to
32 of Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6
SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC
(Cri) 1002] which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
59.6 The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in
the Table in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC,
(2009) 6 SCC 121 read with para 42 of that judgment
59.7 The age of the deceased should be the basis for
applying the multiplier.
59.8 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.”
MACT 142/23 Page. 19 of 41
Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors
40.To determine the age of the deceased, the claimants has filed on
record the Aadhar Card which shows date of birth of the
deceased as 01.11.1987. As deceased was 35 years old on the
date of death. As per mandate in Sarla Verma (Supra) and Pranay
Sethi (Supra) the future prospects for a person having age less
than 40 years is 40% and accordingly the same is calculated as
Rs. 5,800/-
iv. Personal expenses of the deceased:
41.The Expenses incurred by the deceased in himself are deducted
while calculating the loss of dependency. To calculate the
personal expenses, recourse can be had to the following
instructions of Sarla Verma (supra) which were approved by the
Constitutional Bench in Pranay Sethi(supra):
“30.Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards
personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units
indicated in Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362] , the general
practice is to apply standardised deductions. 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 (1/4th) where the number of dependent
family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the
number of dependent family members exceeds six.
31.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 cutMACT 142/23 Page. 20 of 41
Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors
drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the
father is likely to have his own income and will not be
considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be
considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the
contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as
dependants, because they will either be independent and
earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.
32.Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and
siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a
dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living
expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the
family. However, where the 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.”
42.PW-2 Sh. Deshraj @ Desa in his testimony stated that he along
with mother and widow bhabhi of deceased and two children of
his brother were depending upon the income of the deceased.
Mother of the deceased died during the pendency of this case.
Accordingly, in view of the mandate of Sarla Verma (supra) the
deductions towards personal and living expenses is considered
as 1/3rd as they are mother and father.
43.Thus, the net deduction in the present case is ( Rs.14,500/- + Rs.
5,800/-= Rs. 20,300/- divided by 1/3) is calculated as Rs.
6,766/-.
v. Monthly & Annual Loss of dependency:
44.The monthly loss of dependency would be Rs. 13,534/-. The
annual loss of dependency Rs. 13,534/- X 12 = Rs. 1,62,408/-
MACT 142/23 Page. 21 of 41 Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors vi. Total Loss of Dependency:
45. Since the deceased was 35 years old, the applicable multiplier
in terms of the verdict of Sarla Verma(supra) is 16. The total loss
of dependency is thus Rs. 1,62,408/ X 16 =Rs. 25,98,528/-)
vii. Other Heads:
46.In Sarla Verma (supra) it was also laid down that after
calculating the ‘Loss of Dependency’, certain amounts were to
be added under conventional heads such as loss of estate, loss of
consortium etc. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are
extracted hereunder:
“Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs 5000 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 5000 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 be added.”
47.The amount qua the above heads were further quantified in
Pranay Sethi(supra), which clarified as thus:
“52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find
it difficult to agree with the view expressed
in Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4
SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S)
149] . It has granted Rs 25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs
1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs 1,00,000 towards
loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating
to loss of care and minor children does not exist.
Though Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 :
MACT 142/23 Page. 22 of 41
Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors
(2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1
SCC (L&S) 149] refers to Santosh Devi [Santosh
Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421 :
(2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 726 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2
SCC (L&S) 167] , it does not seem to follow the same. The
conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be
determined on percentage basis because that would not be an
acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said
heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a
reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact
that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many
a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to
the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise,
there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same
and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense
variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of
which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely
to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable
sums. It seems to us that 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 principle of revisiting the said heads is an
acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric
or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the
amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on
percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement
should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are
disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in
respect of those heads.”
48.The above verdict was passed in the year 2017. Almost eight
years have elapsed, and therefore the above heads would be
enhanced at the rate of 20%.
viii. Medical Expenses:
54.No amount is claimed under this head.
MACT 142/23 Page. 23 of 41 Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors ix. Compensation for Loss of Consortium:
55.The concept of consortium was expounded in Magnum General
Insurance Co Ltd v Nanu Ram 2018 18 SCC 130 in the
following words:
“21.A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay
Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16
SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205]
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 : [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh,
(2013) 9 SCC 54.
21.1 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
conjugal relation”. [Black’s Law Dictionary (5th Edn., 1979).]
21.2 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.
21.3 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.
22 .Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms
about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern
jurisdictions world-over have recognised 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
MACT 142/23 Page. 24 of 41
Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors
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.
23. 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 [ Rajasthan
High Court in Jagmala Ram v. Sohi Ram, 2017 SCC OnLine
Raj 3848 : (2017) 4 RLW 3368; Uttarakhand High Court in Rita
Rana v. Pradeep Kumar, 2013 SCC OnLine Utt 2435 : (2014) 3
UC 1687; Karnataka High Court in Lakshman v. Susheela
Chand Choudhary, 1996 SCC OnLine Kar 74 : (1996) 3 Kant LJ
570] . However, there was no clarity with respect to the
principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of
filial consortium.
24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium
will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation
under “loss of consortium” as laid down in Pranay
Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16
SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] .
In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father
and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for
loss of filial consortium.”
56.The present claim petition is filed by the parents who are
petitioner nos. 1 & 2, sister -in-law /bhabhi of the deceased as
petitioner no. 3 and her children are petitioner nos. 4 & 5. During
the pendency of the case Smt. Shyasvati, mother of the deceased
died and the amended memo of parties taken on record vide
order dated 13.02.2026.
57.In view of the judgment in the case of Magnum General
Insurance Co Ltd v Nanu Ram (Supra) loss of consortium is
MACT 142/23 Page. 25 of 41
Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors
available to parents and not available to petitioner nos. 2 to 4 as
per amended memo of parties. Mother of the deceased died
during the pendency of this case. Thus, On the basis of the above
verdict and mandated in Pranay Sethi‘(Supra), the
compensation for Consortium is hereby quantified as
Rs 48,400/-.
x. Compensation for Loss of Estate:
58.On the basis of the above verdict, the compensation for loss of
estate is hereby quantified as Rs 18,150/-
xi. Compensation towards Funeral Expenses:
59.On the basis of the above verdict, the compensation of funeral
expenses is hereby quantified as Rs 18,150/-
xii. Total Compensation:
60. Thus, the total amount of compensation to be awarded is
calculated as follows:-
Sr. No. Head Amount
1. Total loss of dependency Rs. 25,98,528/-
2. Medical Expenses NIL
3. Compensation for Loss of 48,400/-
Consortium
4. Compensation for Loss of Estate 18,150/-
5. Compensation towards Funeral 18,150/-
Expenses
6. Total Compensation Rs. 26,83,228/-
MACT 142/23 Page. 26 of 41
Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors
(c) Issue No.3: Relief.
i. Amount of Award:
61.Thus, the claimant is awarded as sum of Rs. 26,83,228/- along
with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of claim
petition. The rate of interest has been calculated in terms of the
succeeding paragraphs.
ii. Rate of Interest:
62.It was contended by Ld Counsel for the respondent insurance
company that the amount of interest ought to at @7.5%, in
accordance with the general prevalent practice in Courts.
However, Ld Counsel for the claimant sought 9% as the rate of
interest.
63.In order to adjudicate these rival claims, recourse can be had to
Erudhaya Priya v State Transport Corporation 2020 SCC
OnLine SC 601 wherein the aspect of rate of interest was
categorically enunciated as thus:
(c) The third and the last aspect is the interest
rate claimed as 12%
“15.In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant
has watered down the interest rate during the
course of hearing to 9% in view of the judicial
pronouncements including in the Jagdish
case (supra). On this aspect, once again, there
was no serious dispute raised by the learned
counsel for the respondent once the claim was
confined to 9% in line with the interest rates
applied by this Court”
MACT 142/23 Page. 27 of 41
Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors
64.Ergo, the amount of compensation/award amount will be
payable by the respondent insurance company with simple
interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the claim
petition/DAR till actual realisation. The date of filing of petition
is 12.05.2023 therefore the amount of Interest is calculated at
@ 9 % from the date of filing of petition i.e. Rs.6,64,098/- for
a period of 33 months. Thus, the total amount of award is
Rs.33,47,326/-.
65.It is also clarified that in case the interest of petitioner was
stopped or excluded during the present inquiry proceedings,
same is liable to be adjusted from the total interest calculated on
the Award amount. Similarly, amount awarded and released as
interim Award, if any, during pendency of the case, be deducted
from the total compensation.
V. DEPOSIT OF AWARD& RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT
i. Deposit of Award:
66. In terms of the mandate of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh
Tyagi (supra) the respondent Insurance Company/driver/owner
shall deposit the award amount or transfer the same by
RTGS/NEFT/IMPS directly to the bank account of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal in UCO Bank, Patiala House Courts
within 30 days of the award. The respondent(s) held liable to
pay compensation by the Claims Tribunal shall give notice ofMACT 142/23 Page. 28 of 41
Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors
deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant(s) 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 the interest upto the date of notice of deposit to the
claimant(s) with a copy to their counsel.
APPORTIONMENT & RELEASE
67.The present case was filed by the parents and sister-in-law and
her children. It is submitted by Ld. counsel for the petitioner that
the brother of deceased had already died and sister-in-law and
her children were also dependent upon the income of the
deceased. He submits that as per mandate given by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case Gujarat State Road Transport
Corpn., Vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and another, 1987 ACJ 561
SC the family members are also entitled to claim compensation
under the Motor Accident Claim. The relevant extract of
judgment is reproduced here-in-below:-
12. We feel that the view taken by the Gujarat High Court
is in consonance with the principles of justice, equity and
good conscience having regard to the conditions of the
Indian society. Every legal representative who suffers on
account of the death of a person due to a motor vehicle
accident should have a remedy for realisation of
compensation and that is provided by sections 110-
A to 110-F of the Act. These provisions are in consonance
with the principles of law of torts that every injury must
have a remedy. It is for the Motor Vehicles Accidents
Tribunal to determine the compensation which appears to
it to be just as provided in section 110-B of the Act and to
MACT 142/23 Page. 29 of 41
Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors
specify the person or persons to whom compensation
shall be paid. The determination of the compensation
payable and its apportionment as required by section
110B of the Act amongst the legal representatives for
whose benefit an application may be filed under section
110-A of the Act have to be done in accordance with well-
known principles of law. We should remember that in an
Indian family brothers, sisters and brothers’ children and
some times foster children live together and they are
dependent upon the bread-winner of the family and if the
bread-winner is killed on account of a motor vehicle
accident, there is no justification to deny them
compensation relying upon the provisions of the Fatal
Accidents Act, 1855 which as we have already held has
been substantially modified by the provisions contained
in the Act in relation to cases arising out of motor vehicles
accidents. We express our approval of the decision
in Megjibhai Khimji Vira and another v. Chaturbhai
Taljabhai and others, 1977 ACJ 253 (Gujarat) and hold
that the brother of a person who dies in a motor vehicle
accident is entitled to maintain a petition under section
110-A of the Act if he is a legal representative of the
deceased.
68.From the mandate given in the aforesaid judgment, it is clear
that in Indian family the brother, sister and brothers’ children are
also covered in the definition of the dependents for the purposes
of Motor Accident Claim. In the present case, it is stated that
respondent no. 3 being widow and respondent nos. 4 & 5 are
being children were also dependent upon the income of
unmarried deceased Sh. Lala Bhati @ Om Prakash. The
complete compensation towards loss of consortium i.e.
Rs.48,400/- is to be paid to the father of the deceased. The
MACT 142/23 Page. 30 of 41
Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors
remaining award amount i.e. Rs.33,47,326 – Rs.48,400/- =
Rs.32,98,926/- is apportioned against the depending members
of the family of the deceased and released as follows:
Sr. Name Relations Percentage Amount to be Amount to be Kept in
No. with share of each released FDR
Deceased legal heir
1. Sh. Deshraj @ Father 60% 50% share of
Desa father be
released Remaining 50% of
immediately amount pertaining to his
share be deposited in
Motor Accident Claims
Annuity Deposit
(MACAD) in form of 60
Monthly fixed deposit.
2. Smt. Anu Sister -in- 20%
Devi law / BhabhiThrough 100%
Electronic
Bank Transfer
3. Master Yash Child /
Bhati Nephew10% Through 100%
Electronic
Bank Transfer
4. Vansh Child
/Nephew10% Through 100%
MACT 142/23 Page. 31 of 41
Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors
Electronic
Bank Transfer
69. The Nodal officer of the bank shall ensure disbursement of the
award within 3 weeks of receipt thereof by email or otherwise.
70. The disbursement to the claimant is, however, subject to the
addition of future interest till deposit proportionately and also
deduction of proportionate tax on the interest amount or amount
of interim award, if any, to/from his share.
ii. Disbursement of the award amount & protection thereof:
71.The amount of award shall be disbursed through the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme
formulated vide order dated 01.05.2018 passed in Rajesh
Tyagi(supra). 21 banks, including UCO Bank, is implementing
the MACAD scheme.
72.Further, to protect the award amount, the entire amount of
compensation is not being released forthwith to the claimant,
and part of the compensation amount has been directed to be
kept in fixed deposits in a phased manner. Further, the following
conditions are hereby reiterated and being imposed upon the
concerned bank with respect to the fixed deposits:
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint names to be added in the
savings bank account or MACAD scheme account ofMACT 142/23 Page. 32 of 41
Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors
claimant i.e. the bank account of claimant shall be individual
account and not a joint account.
(b) The original fixed deposits shall be retained by the UCO
Bank, PHC, New Delhi in safe custody. However, the
statement containing FDR numbers, amounts, dates of
maturity and maturity amounts shall be furnished by the said
bank to the claimant and the above amount shall be released
in account of claimant by the Manager, UCO Bank, PHC,
ND through RTGS/NEFT/or any other electronic mode.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing
System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant
near the place of his residence.
(d) The maturity amount of the FDR(s) on monthly basis net of
TDS be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the
above account of the claimant.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be
allowed on the MACAD without permission of the Court.
(f) 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.
MACT 142/23 Page. 33 of 41
Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors
(g) 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.
(h) 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 above.
VI. LIABILITY
73.The Insurance company has failed to prove any statutory
defence in the matter. All the respondents are jointly and
severely liable to pay compensation. The offending vehicle was
insured and the fact of the insurance is undisputed. The
insurance company is liable to pay award amount to the
petitioners. Respondent no.3 being insurer of offending vehicle,
is directed to deposit the award amount with UCO Bank, Patiala
House Court Branch, along with interest @ 9% per annum from
the date of filing of claim petition by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in
bank account being maintained in the above said bank in name
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal within 30 days from
today, failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9%
per annum for the period of delay. In case even after lapse of 90
MACT 142/23 Page. 34 of 41
Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors
days from today, respondent no. 2 fails to deposit this
compensation with interest, in that event, in light of judgment
of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of New
India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal 2007
ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the
bank account of respondent no. 2 with a cost of Rs.5,000/-
74.The respondent no. 3 shall inform the petitioner and his counsel
that the awarded amount has been deposited so as to facilitate
him to collect the same.
VII. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT
IN CASES OF DEATH
75.Since this is a case pertaining to death, particulars of Form-XV
of the Scheme For Motor Accidents Claims Formulated by the
Delhi High Court in terms of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh
Tyagi (supra) are as under:
1. Date of Accident 10.11.2022
2. Name of the deceased Sh. Lala Bhati @ Om
Prakash
3. Age of the deceased 35 years
4. Occupation of the deceased Private Servant
5. Income of the deceased Rs. 14,500/-
6. Name, Age and relationship of legal representatives of
MACT 142/23 Page. 35 of 41
Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors
the deceased:
S.NO NAME AGE RELATION
1. Sh. Deshraj @ Desa 82 years Father
2. Smt. Annu Devi 48 years Sister-in-law
/Bhabhi
3. Mr. Yash Bhati 19 years Nephew
4. Mr. Vansh 14 years Nephew
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
S.No. Heads Awarded by the
Claims Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs. 14,500/-
8. Add: Future Prospects (B) Rs.5,800/-
9. Less: Personal expenses of the Rs. 6,766/-
deceased (C)
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs. 13,534/-
[(A+B)- C = D]
11. Annual Loss of dependency (D x Rs. 1,62,408/-
12)
12. Multiplier (E) 16
13. Total loss of dependency (D x 12 Rs. 25,98,528/-
x E = F)
MACT 142/23 Page. 36 of 41
Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors
14. Medical Expenses (G) -NIL-
15. Compensation for loss of Rs 48,400/-
consortium (H)
16. Compensation for loss of love & NA- in terms of New
affection (I) India Assurance Co v
Somwati (2020) 9
SCC 644
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs 18,150/-
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs 18,150/-
expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION (F + Rs.26,83,228/-
G + H + I + J + K = L)
20. Rate of Interest Awarded @9%
21. Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 6,64,098/-
award (M) (33 months)
22. Total amount including interest (L Rs. 33,47,326/-
+ M)
23. Award amount released As per para no. 68
24. Award kept in FDRs As per para no. 68
25. Mode of disbursement of the Through Bank
award to the claimant(s)
26. Next date for compliance of the 30.03.2026
MACT 142/23 Page. 37 of 41
Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors
award
VIII. COMPLIANCE QUA PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME
76.The particulars of Form XVII of the Scheme For Motor
Accidents Claims Formulated by the Delhi High Court, in terms
of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) are as
hereunder:
1. Date of the accident 10.11.2022
2. Date of filing of Form I- First Not filed as accident took place
Accident Report (FAR) out of Delhi and claim petition is
filed by legal heirs.
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the Same as above.
victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Same as above.
Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Same as above
owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- Same as above
Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Same as above
Form VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII-Detailed Same as above
Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or DAR not filed.
deficiency on the part of the
Investigating Officer? If so, whether
any action/direction warranted?
MACT 142/23 Page. 38 of 41
Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors
10. Date of appointment of the Not given
Designated Officer by the Insurance
Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of No
the Insurance Company submitted
his report within 30 days of the
DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or No
deficiencies on the part of the
Designated Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the Matter was contested by the
petitioner(s) of the offer of the Insurance Company.
Insurance Company.
14. Date of the Award 24.02.2026.
15. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes
directed to open savings bank
account(s) near their place of
residence?
16. Date of order by which petitioner(s) 12.05.2023
were directed to open savings bank
account(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN Card
and Adhaar Card and the direction to
the bank not issue any cheque
book/debit card to the petitioner (s)
and make an endorsement to this
effect on the passbook(s).
17. Date on which the petitioner(s) Not furnished. Directions issued.
produced the passbook of their
savings bank account near the place
of their residence along with the
endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar
Card?
MACT 142/23 Page. 39 of 41
Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors
18. Permanent Residential Address of As mentioned above
the petitioner(s)
19. Whether the petitioner(s) savings
bank account(s) is near his place of
residence?
20. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes.
examined at the time of passing of
the award to ascertain his/their
financial condition?
77.Further, in terms of the directions given vide order dated
08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra), the Ahlmad shall send a
certified copy of this award to the concerned Criminal Court and
to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority through e-mail.
Copy of the award be also sent to the bank concerned. The Nazir
is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the
directions given in the above case.
MACT 142/23 Page. 40 of 41
Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors
78.File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary
formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and
be put up on 30.03.2026.
Digitally
signed by
Abhilash
Abhilash Malhotra
Malhotra Date:
2026.02.25
Announced in the open court 16:30:54
+0530
on 24.02.2026
(Abhilash Malhotra)
Judge/PO, MACT-02,
New Delhi/24.02.2026
DLND010044242023
MACT 142/23 Page. 41 of 41
Deshraj & Ors. Vs Prem Singh & Ors
