Delhi District Court
Shikha Lrs(Dec Rajat Kr … vs Shrikesh Yadav(Shriram) on 4 July, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010032372022
MACT No. : 143/2022
FIR No. : 784/2021
PS : Burari
u/s : 279/283/304A IPC
1. Smt. Shikha Singla (LR/wife of deceased)
W/o. Late Sh. Rajat Kumar Jain,
R/o. C-332/1, Street no.14,
Bhajanpura, Delhi-110053.
2. Smt. Manju Jain (LR/mother of deceased)
W/o. Late Sh. Dinesh Kumar,
R/o. C-226, Street no.9,
Bhajanpura, Delhi-110053.
...Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Shrikesh Yadav
(driver of the offending vehicle no. DL-1LAB-4697)
S/o Sh. Kamaldeep Yadav,
R/o Village Birbhadrapur, PO Sherpur,
District Azamgarh, UP
2. Sh. Gama Prashad
(owner of the offending vehicle no. DL-1LAB-4697)
S/o Sh. Hori Lal,
R/o H.No.3147/1, Gali No.9,
Radha Vihar, Mukund Pur, Delhi.
MACT No.143/2022 Digitally
signed by
Shikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. Page 1 of 41
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.04
15:09:21
+0530
3. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.
(insurer of the offending vehicle no. DL-1LAB-4697)
C-30, First Floor, Community Centre,
Near Janak Cinema, Janak Puri, New Delhi.
4. Sh. Ashif
(driver and owner of the offending vehicle no. UP-17AT-5729)
S/o Alisher,
R/o Nayi Basti, Baghpat, UP-250609.
....Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 18.02.2022
Judgment reserved on : 04.07.2026
Date of Award : 04.07.2026
AWAR D
1. The present DAR was filed on 18.02.2022 which was
treated as the claim petition. The Road Traffic Accident in question took
place on 21.09.2021 at about 01:30 AM near Christian Cemetery, Outer
Ring Road, Burari, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Burari. Sh. Rajat
Kumar Jain expired in the said accident which was allegedly caused by
a vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1LAB-4697. The offending
vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1 Shrikesh Yadav, owned by
respondent no. 2 Gama Prashad and insured with respondent no. 3
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that a
PCR call vide DD No.7A dated 21.09.2021 regarding information of an
accident was received at PS Burari and handed over to ASI Harswaroop,
who alongwith Ct. Dharmender went to the spot near Christian Cemetry,
RUCHIKA
MACT No.143/2022 SINGLA
Shikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.07.04
Page 2 of 41
15:09:32 +0530
Outer Ring Road, Burari, Delhi where one TATA-909 bearing no.
UP-17AT5729, an Activa Scooty bearing no. DL 5SAY 1976 and TATA
407 bearing no. DL-1LAB-4697 were found stationed in an accidental
condition. On inquiry, they got to know that the injured had already been
taken to the Jagjeevan Ram hospital. After leaving the Constable at the
spot, IO went to the said hospital and collected MLC no.179213/21 of
namely Rajat Jain. On the MLC, doctor declared him “brought dead”.
Thereafter, FIR was registered on the basis of MLC and DD Entry
u/s.279/304(A) IPC.
3. Thereafter IO prepared the site plan. IO called the mobile
crime team at the spot and got the photographs of the spot done.
Thereafter, IO had taken all the accidental vehicles into his custody and
deposited the same in the maalkhana. Thereafter, the dead body of the
deceased was got preserved in the mortuary. Thereafter, notice under
Section 133 MV Act was served upon the owner of the offending
vehicle no. DL-1LAB-4697 (hereinafter referred to as the offending
vehicle no.1). Upon notice, owner had given written reply and produced
the driver of the offending vehicle no.1 Shrikesh Yadav before the IO.
IO interrogated the driver and arrested him. Owner had produced the DL
of driver and documents pertaining to the offending vehicle. Upon
producing surety, the driver of the offending vehicle was released on
bail.
4. Thereafter, IO interrogated the owner and driver of the
offending vehicle no. UP-17AT5729 (hereinafter referred to as the
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.143/2022 Digitally signed by
Shikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. Page 3 of 41
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.07.04
15:09:37 +0530
offending vehicle no. 2), who informed that their vehicle was damaged
and was stationed at the side of the road. No safety features were
reflected on the said offending vehicle. Thereafter, IO arrested the driver
of the said vehicle. Upon producing the surety, driver of the said vehicle
was released on bail. IO obtained the documents pertaining to the said
vehicle from owner and driver.
5. Thereafter, post mortem vide no. 861/21 was got conducted
on the body of the deceased. Thereafter, dead body of deceased was
handed over to the relatives of deceased.
6. Thereafter, mechanical inspection of the vehicles was got
conducted and the offending vehicles were released on superdari.
Further investigation was handed over to SI Manish. The present IO got
the documents verified from the concerned authorities. The same were
found to be correct. IO collected the PM report. After completion of
investigation, chargesheet for the offences u/s.279/304(A) IPC was filed
against the driver Shrikesh Yadav and for the offence u/s. 283 IPC
against driver Asif Malik before the concerned Ld. JMFC and the DAR
was filed before this Tribunal against the driver, owner and the
insurance company of the offending vehicle no.1.
WRITTEN STATEMENTS
7. WS was filed on behalf of the respondents no. 1 & 2
(driver and owner of the offending vehicle no.1) on 02.09.2022. It was
stated by the respondents that on 21.09.2021, the respondent no.1 was
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.143/2022 Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
Shikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. Page 4 of 41
SINGLA
Date: 2026.07.04
15:09:42 +0530
coming from Wazirabad side and when he reached near Kabristan, he
suddenly heard a noise from his vehicle. He stopped and saw that the
scooty and the driver had fallen on the road. The respondent no.1 called
at 100 number and then the driver of the offending vehicle was caught
or brought by the police official of PS Burari, Delhi for some enquiry
from the spot and thereafter, he was falsely arrested by the police
officials of PS Burari, Delhi in the present FIR. Further, it was stated
that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol at that time. Hence,
it was stated that they were not liable to pay any compensation to the
petitioners.
8. WS on behalf of respondent no. 3 (insurer of offending
vehicle no.1) was filed, wherein it was admitted that the offending
vehicle no.1 was insured with the respondent no.3 at the relevant time
i.e. on 21.09.2021 vide policy no. 101023/31/21/004286 for a period
from 30.10.2020 to 29.10.2021 in the name of Gama Prasad. It was
further stated that the liability of respondent insurance company is
limited subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
Further, it was stated that the accident was caused due to the sole
negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle no.2 as he had parked
the truck on road without any safety indicators. Hence, it was stated that
the respondent no. 3 was not liable to pay any compensation to the
petitioners.
9. WS was filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4. It was
stated by the respondent no.4 that he is owner of the offending vehicle
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.143/2022 Digitally signed by
Shikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.07.04
Page 5 of 41
15:09:47 +0530
no.2 and on the day of accident i.e. 21.09.2021, the vehicle of the
respondent no. 4 was parked at the side of the road in damaged
condition as the tyre had burst. However, it was stated that he was
following all precautionary measures and indicators etc. It was further
stated that perusal of site plan prepared by IO shall show that the vehicle
of the respondent no. 4 was parked alongside the divider. Further, the
alleged accident happened far away from the vehicle of the respondent
no. 4. Hence, it was stated that his vehicle was not involved in the
accident and that he was not liable to pay any compensation to the
petitioner.
ISSUES
10. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated
22.04.2025, this Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in
an accident that took place on 21.09.2021 at
about 1:30 AM near Christian Cemetery, Outer
Ring Road, Burari, Delhi involving vehicle
bearing registration no.DL-1LAB-4697 driven
rashly and negligently by respondent no.1
Shrikesh Yadav, owned by respondent no. 2
Gama Prashad, insured with respondent no. 3
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. for vehicle
no. DL-1LAB-4697 and driver-cum-owner of the
stationed vehicle bearing registration
no.UP-17AT-5729? OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and from
whom? OPP
3. Relief.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
MACT No.143/2022 RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.07.04
Shikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. Page 6 of 41
15:09:53 +0530
PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
11. The petitioner examined Ms. Shikha 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. DAR as Ex. PW1/1
2. Aadhar Card of the petitioner no. 1 namely Shikha as Ex. PW1/2
(OSR).
3. Aadhar card of petitioner no. 2 namely Manju Jain is Ex. PW1/3 in
evidence by way of affidavit is now marked as Mark A.
4. Aadhar Card of deceased namely Sh. Rajat Jain as Ex. PW1/4.
5. Surviving member certificate of Sh. Rajat Jain as Ex. PW1/5.
6. Death certificate of Sh. Rajat Jain as Ex. PW1/6.
7. ITR of Sh. Rajat Jain of AY 2019-20 and 2020-21 as Ex. PW1/7
(colly 2 pages).
8. FIR bearing No.784/2021 as Ex. PW1/8.
9. Site plan of where the incident took place as Ex. PW1/9.
10. MLC of Lt. Sh. Rajat Jain as Ex. PW1/10.
11. Post Mortem Report as Ex. PW1/11.
12. Certificate u/s. 63 BSA, 2023 as Ex. PW1/12.
12. PW1 was cross examined by Ld. Counsels for respondents
no. 1 and 2, respondent no. 3 and respondent no. 4. Thereafter, PE was
closed on behalf of the petitioner on 13.10.2025.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.143/2022 Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Shikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. Page 7 of 41
Date: 2026.07.04
15:10:00 +0530
RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE
13. The respondent no. 1 examined himself as RW1. RW1 has
tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. RW1/A. He
relied upon DAR, already exhibited as Ex. PW1/1 (colly). RW1 was
cross examined by Ld. Counsels for the petitioner, respondent no. 3 and
respondent no. 4.
14. The respondent no. 2 examined himself as RW2. RW2 has
tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. RW2/A. He
relied upon DAR, already exhibited as Ex. PW1/1 (colly). RW2 was
cross examined by Ld. Counsels for the petitioner, respondent no. 3 and
respondent no. 4.
15. No evidence was led on behalf of the respondent no. 3 and
accordingly, the RE on behalf of respondent no. 3 was closed on
17.02.2026.
16. No evidence was led by the respondent no. 4. RE on behalf
of respondent no. 4 was closed on 13.10.2025.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
17. The petitioner filed his duly filled Form XIII and the
financial statements of all the petitioner were recorded. Final arguments
were heard on behalf of the petitioner as well as respondents.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.143/2022
Shikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. Page 8 of 41
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.07.04
15:10:06 +0530
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
18. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties 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 21.09.2021 at about 1:30 AM near Christian
Cemetery, Outer Ring Road, Burari, Delhi involving vehicle bearing
registration no. DL-1LAB-4697 driven rashly and negligently by
respondent no.1 Shrikesh Yadav, owned by respondent no. 2 Gama
Prashad, insured with respondent no. 3 Shriram General Insurance Co.
Ltd. for vehicle no. DL-1LAB-4697 and driver-cum-owner of the
stationed vehicle bearing registration no.UP-17AT-5729?
19. The onus to prove this issue was upon petitioner. It is the
case of the petitioners that on 21.09.2021 at about 1:30 am, the deceased
was going on his scooty. When he reached near Christian Cemetry,
Outer Ring Road, Burari, Delhi, the driver of the offending vehicle no. 1
who was driving his vehicle in a negligent manner hit the scooty of the
deceased, while trying to avoid hitting the offending vehicle no. 2 which
was parked on the road. Due to the same, the deceased fell and
subsequently, he expired. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the
petitioners that all the accidental vehicles were seized by the IO from the
spot. The offending vehicle no. 2 was parked on the road in a negligent
manner. Further the offending vehicle no. 1 was being driven rashly and
negligently by the respondent no. 1. Hence, it is submitted that both the
Digitally
MACT No.143/2022
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
Shikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. 2026.07.04
15:10:14
+0530 Page 9 of 41
vehicles are involved in the said accident.
20. Per contra, it is submitted by Ld. Counsels for respondents
no. 1 to 3 that there is no negligence on the part of the respondent no. 1.
It is submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle no. 2 i.e. the
respondent no.4 had parked his vehicle on the road without any
precautions or indicators. It is submitted that the accident was caused
late at night at 1:30 am. In such a circumstance, it was the duty of the
respondent no. 4 to park the vehicle with proper indication. Further, the
place where the vehicle was parked was not a designated parking area.
Hence, it is submitted that the rash and negligent act is to be attributed
upon the respondent no. 4 only.
21. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 4 has argued that
there was no rash or negligent act on the part of the respondent no. 4. It
is submitted that the offending vehicle no.2 had broken down as its tyre
had burst. The vehicle was parked on the side of the road and not in the
middle of the road. The indicators of the said truck were on and the
truck was clearly visible on the road. The accident occurred at 1:30 am
in the night and hence, there was no heavy traffic at that time of the
road. The rash and negligent driving was being done by the respondent
no. 1 while he hit the scooty of the deceased. The accident was not
caused by the offending vehicle no. 2 and neither the deceased’s scooty
nor the offending vehicle no. 1 even touched the offending vehicle no. 2.
Hence, it is submitted that there is no fault of the respondent no. 4 in the
present accident. Hence, he is not liable to pay any compensation to the
RUCHIKA
MACT No.143/2022 SINGLA
Shikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Page 10 of 41
Date: 2026.07.04
15:10:20 +0530
petitioners.
22. Record perused.
23. In the present matter, this is an admitted position that the
offending vehicle no. 2 was parked on the road. As per the site plan, the
said vehicle was parked at the right side of the road and the offending
vehicle no.1 was being driven by the respondent no. 1 on the left side of
the offending vehicle no. 2 and it hit the scooty of the deceased from its
left back side. It is a matter of record that neither the deceased’s scooty
nor the offending vehicle no. 1 touched the offending vehicle no. 2.
Hence, it is not the case that the offending vehicle no. 2 was parked in
the middle of the road and the scooty or the offending vehicle no. 1
rammed into it. Further from the site plan it is clear that the offending
vehicle no. 2 was not in the direct line of way of either the scooty of the
deceased or the offending vehicle no.1.
24. Having said that, from the WS of the respondent no. 1 and
2, this version comes out that the respondent no. 1 was driving the
vehicle and suddenly he heard a noise from his vehicle and when he
stopped his vehicle and checked the same, he found that his vehicle had
hit the scooty of the deceased. Hence, the respondent no. 1 did not even
realize when the accident was caused between his vehicle and the
vehicle of the deceased. There is no such averment in the WS that he
had to change the lane or apply brakes or change his driving style due to
the parked offending vehicle no. 2. Similar facts have been alleged by
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.143/2022 Digitally signed by
Shikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.07.04
Page 11 of 41
15:10:25 +0530
the respondent no. 1 in his affidavit Ex. RW1/A. Further when the
respondent no. 1 entered into the witness box as RW1, during his cross-
examination he admitted that the visibility at that time was fine. During
his cross examination he stated that:
“It is correct that a vehicle was already stationed in the
same lane in which I was driving my aforesaid vehicle. It
is wrong to suggest that I had changed my lane to the left
of already stationed vehicle without any signal and in a
rash and negligent manner due to which I hit the scooty
which was driven by the deceased.”
25. These facts are contrary to the site plan which was prepared
by the IO. At the cost of repetition all the three accidental vehicles were
seized by the IO from the spot. Hence, it is highly improbable that after
the accident, the position of the offending vehicle no.1 and 2 was
changed by the respondent no. 1 and 4. Hence, the version of the
respondent no. 1 does not match the version of the state of things which
were seen by the IO when he reached at the spot after the accident.
26. Furthermore, from the statement of the respondent no.1 as
reproduced above, it is clear that the parked offending vehicle no.2 did
not affect the driving of the respondent no.1. He even did not change the
lane due to the same. It is also discussed earlier that the offending
vehicle no.2 did not collide with either the offending vehicle no.1 or the
scooty of the deceased. Hence, in the opinion of this Tribunal, no
negligence can be attributed upon the offending vehicle no. 2 as the
position of that vehicle did not affect the accident.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.143/2022 Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
Shikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. Page 12 of 41
SINGLA
Date: 2026.07.04
15:10:31 +0530
27. In the opinion of this Tribunal, negligence can be attributed
only upon the respondent no.1. At the cost of repetition, the respondent
no.1 has stated in both his WS and his affidavit that he did not realize
when the accident occurred. He only heard a noise from his vehicle and
found that the scooty had hit his vehicle. 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.
28. Further, it is also pertinent to note that the respondent no.1
was chargesheeted by the IO under Section 279/304A 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 sufficientMACT No.143/2022 Digitally
signed byShikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. Page 13 of 41
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.04
15:10:37
+0530
proof to reach to a conclusion that the driver was negligent
particularly when there is no defence available from the
side of driver.”
29. 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.”
30. Even otherwise, the petitioners are 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
petitioners will implicate respondent no.1 falsely, had he not been
driving the offending vehicle.
31. 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,
MACT No.143/2022 Digitally
Shikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. Page 14 of 41
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.04
15:10:43
+0530
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.
32. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 5 SCC 656 has laid down in paragraphs 27 &
28:
“27. …This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina
Fernandes, noted that the key of negligence on the part of
the driver of the offending vehicle as set up by the
claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on
the touchstone of preponderance of probability and
certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable
doubt. Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the
judgments already adverted to by us, filing of chargesheet
against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards his
complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly.
Further, even when the accused were to be acquitted in the
criminal case, this Court opined that the same may be of no
effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect
of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
28. Reliance placed upon the decisions in Minu B. Mehta
and Meena Variyal, by the respondents, in our opinion, is
of no avail. The dictum in these cases is on the matter in
issue in the case concerned. Similarly, even the dictum in
Surender Kumar Arora will be of no avail. In the present
case, considering the entirety of the pleadings, evidence
and circumstances on record and in particular the finding
MACT No.143/2022 RUCHIKAShikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. SINGLA
Page 15 of 41
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Date: 2026.07.04
15:10:48 +0530
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.”
33. It has not been disputed that respondent No.1 has been
charge-sheeted in the aforesaid FIR for offences punishable under
Section 279/304A 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.
Contributory negligence
34. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 argued that it is a matter
of record that the injured was driving without a valid driving license
and since he was violating the laws, he was at fault and was not
competent to drive. Hence, contributory negligence should be attributed
upon him.
35. However, it was held in the case of Sudhir Kumar Rana v
Surinder Singh & Ors 2008 SCC OnLine SC 794 that:
“9. If a person drives a vehicle without a license, he
commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion,MACT No.143/2022 Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKAShikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.04
15:10:53
Page 16 of 41
+0530
may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the
accident. It has been held by the courts below that it was
the driver of the mini-truck who was driving rashly and
negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not
possessing any license but no finding of fact has been
arrived at that he was driving the two-wheeler rashly and
negligently. If he was not driving rashly and negligently
which contributed to the accident, we fail to see as to how,
only because he was not having a license, he would be held
to be guilty of contributory negligence.
10. The matter might have been different if by reason of
his rash and negligent driving, the accident had taken
place.”
36. The Sudhir Kumar Rana (supra) case was affirmed in the
case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V Puneet Bhatia (MAC APP.
774/2017 & CM APPl. 41950/2018, 50140/2018 decided by the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi on 11.12.2023 where the appeal was rejected on the
ground that merely because the driver did not have a valid license, he
cannot be said to be driving in a rash and negligent manner unless
rashness and negligence on his part is specifically proved.
37. The dicta laid down in the cases of Sudhir Kumar Rana
(supra) as well as Puneet Bhatia (supra) make it amply clear that an
overt act of rashness and negligence had to be proved on behalf of the
injured and merely because he did not have a driving license, he cannot
be termed to have been riding his scooty in a rash and negligent manner.
Therefore, it is concluded that the injured suffered grievous injuries in
the accident in question and also that there was no wilful act, neglect or
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.143/2022 Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Shikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. Page 17 of 41
Date: 2026.07.04
15:10:58 +0530
default on the part of the injured. Thus, the respondent no. 3 has not
been able to prove its defence that the injured was rash and negligent.
The injury:
38. Further, the onus to prove that the deceased had suffered
fatal injuries by way of the said accident was on the petitioner. In this
regard, the petitioner has relied upon the MLC dated 21.09.2021, as per
which the deceased was brought to the hospital with the history of road
traffic accident. As per the MLC, he was declared brought dead. Further,
Post Mortem Report issued by Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital is
on record as per which, he expired due to shock and hemorrhagic shock
consequent upon heavy blunt force impact. Further, it was opined that
all injuries were ante mortem and could be caused in the manner as
alleged.
39. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the
opinion that on the scales of preponderance of probabilities, the
petitioner has proved that the accident in question took place due to rash
and negligent driving of offending vehicle being driven by its
driver/respondent no. 1 on the date and time of the accident and that due
to the said accident, the injured Rajat Kumar Jain 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
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed byMACT No.143/2022
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.07.04
15:11:11 +0530Shikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. Page 18 of 41
what amount and from whom? (OPP)
40. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. In
view of the discussion in the issue no.1, the petitioner is entitled for
compensation. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in matter of “Sarla
Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors.” (2003) 6 SCC
121 has held : –
“QUA BASIC PRINCIPLES
“9. Basically only three facts need to be established by
the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of
death :-
(a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased;
and the (c) the number of dependents. The issues to be
determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency
are (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the
income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal
living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be
applied with reference of the age of the deceased. If these
determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and
consistency in the decisions. There will lesser need for
detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance
companies to settle accident claims without delay. To have
uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should determine
compensation in cases of death, by the following well settled
steps :
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 ofMACT No.143/2022 RUCHIKA
Shikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. SINGLA Page 19 of 41
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.07.04
15:11:17 +0530
active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected.
This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would
have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to
several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of
multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by
this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table
with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step 3 (Actual calculation)
The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand)
when multiplied by such multiplier gives the `loss of
dependency’ to the family. Thereafter, a conventional amount
in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be added as loss
of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his widow,
another conventional amount in the range of 5,000/- to
10,000/- should be added under the head of loss of
consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of
pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the
deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body
(if incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased
before death (if incurred) should also added.”
QUA ADDITIONS
“11. ………………… In view of imponderables and
uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb,
an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income
of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased
had a permanent job and was below 40 years. [Where the
annual income is in the taxable range, the 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
Digitally
MACT No.143/2022 signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Shikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. SINGLA Date:
2026.07.04
15:11:22
Page 20 of 41
+0530
take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure
therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases
involving special circumstances.”
QUA DEDUCTIONS
“14. Having considered several subsequent decisions of
this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was
married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses
of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number
of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/3rd)
where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and
one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family
members exceed six.
15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the
claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different
principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as
personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a
bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even
otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in
a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s
and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to
evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own
income and will not be considered as a dependent and the
mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence
of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be
considered as dependents, because they will either be
independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the
father. Thus even 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
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.143/2022
Shikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Page 21 of 41
Date: 2026.07.04
15:11:28 +0530
“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.”
41. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its Constitution Bench
decision in matter of “National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi & Ors.” (2017) 16 SCC 680 held as under : –
“58. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be no
addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept. We
are disposed to think, there should be an addition of 15% if
the deceased is between the age of 50 to 60 years and there
should be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in case of self-
employed or person on fixed salary, the addition should be
10% between the age of 50 to 60 years. The aforesaid
yardstick has been fixed so that there can be consistency in
the approach by the tribunals 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.
MACT No.143/2022 RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Shikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.07.04
Page 22 of 41
15:11:33 +0530
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50%
of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future
prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was
below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition
should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to
50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to
60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should
be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a
fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income
should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age
of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was
between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the
deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be
regarded as the necessary method of computation. The
established income means the income minus the tax
component.
(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the
deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and
the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla
Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in
the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that
judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for
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
42. In the present matter, it is alleged that at the time of the
accident, the deceased was doing his own business and earning a sum of
Rs. 2,43,500/- per annum. His ITR for AY 2019-20 and 2020-21 were
RUCHIKA
MACT No.143/2022 SINGLA
Shikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Page 23 of 41
Date: 2026.07.04
15:11:38 +0530
proved as Ex. PW1/7. Hence, it is submitted that his income may be
assessed accordingly.
43. Record perused.
44. As per the ITR of the deceased for the assessment year
2020-21 (financial year 2019-2020), his annual income was Rs.
2,43,500/-. The ITR is the best piece of evidence to prove income of a
person. Hence, his monthly income is assessed to be Rs. 20,292/-
(rounded off from Rs. 20,291.6)
Age determination of the deceased:
45. As per the Aadhar card of the deceased, his date of birth
was 15.03.1994. The date of the accident is 21.09.2021. Hence, as on the
date of the accident, the deceased was aged 27 years.
Future Prospects: –
46. 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 40% for future prospects as the
deceased was less than 40 years of age at the time of the accident.
Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased needs to be taken as
Rs. 28,408.80 (Rs. 20,292/- + Rs. 8,116.80 which is 40% of Rs.
20,292/-).
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.04
15:11:46
+0530MACT No.143/2022
Shikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. Page 24 of 41
Determination of Dependent
47. In the present case, the deceased is survived by his wife and
mother who shall be considered as dependent on the deceased.
Determination of multiplicand
48. The monthly income of the deceased after enhancement
needs to be taken as Rs. 28,408.80. 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, 1/3 amount has to be deducted on
account of personal and living expenses as the deceased had only 2-3
dependents. So, in this matter, monthly loss of dependency would come
out to be Rs. 18,939.20 (2/3 of Rs. 28,408.80). This needs to be
multiplied by 12 to workout multiplicand/annual loss of dependency.
Hence, multiplicand for this matter would be Rs. 2,27,270.40 ( Rs.
18,939.20 x 12).
Award Towards Loss of Dependency
49. Further, as the deceased was 27 years of age at the time of
the accident, multiplier applicable in this matter as per above discussion
would be 17. The total loss of dependency would come out to be
Rs.38,63,596.80 (Rs. 2,27,270.40 x 17) (rounded off to Rs.38,63,597/-),
hence, so awarded.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.143/2022 Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Shikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. Date: 2026.07.04
15:11:51 +0530
Page 25 of 41
Medical expenses:
50. The petitioner has not filed any medical bills on record.
Hence, in the absence of any medical bills, the petitioner shall not be
entitled to any amount towards medical expenses.
Non-Pecuniary Heads:-
51. The Respondents/Claimants shall be entitled to the
compensation under Non-Pecuniary Heads in terms of National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi And Others, (2017) 16
SCC 680. The case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi &
Ors. 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) was considered and clarified by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 9581/2018 decided
on 18.09.2018 whereby after considering the case of Pranay Sethi’s
(supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to award loss of
consortium of Rs.40,000/- to each dependent of the deceased and further
pleased to award a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to each dependent of
the deceased towards loss of love and affection. The relevant portion is
as under:
“…… A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi
(supra) dealt with the various heads under which
compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these
heads is Loss of Consortium.
In legal parlance, “consortium” is a compendious term which
encompasses ‘spousal consortium’, ‘parental consortium’, and
‘filial consortium’.
The right to consortium would include the company, care,
help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased,
which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it
MACT No.143/2022
Shikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Page 26 of 41
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.04
15:11:56
+0530
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
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.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.143/2022 Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Shikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. Date: 2026.07.04
15:12:00 +0530 Page 27 of 41
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
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…..”.
52. However, in the case of United India Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur 2020 SCC Online SC 410 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that there is no justification to
award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate
head. The relevant portion of the observations are reproduced as under:
“…… The amount to be awarded for loss consortium will be
as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra). At this stage,
we consider it necessary to provide uniformity with respect to
the grant of consortium, and loss of love and affection.
Several Tribunals and High Courts have been awarding
compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love
and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi
(supra), has recognized only three conventional heads under
which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss
of consortium and funeral expenses.
In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a
comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include
spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial
consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in
loss of consortium.
The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to award
compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate
conventional head. There is no justification to award
MACT No.143/2022 Digitally
Shikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. Page 28 of 41
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.04
15:12:06
+0530
compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate
head…”.
53. In the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), it was held that in the
case of death, Rs.15,000/- is liable to be paid towards the loss of estate
and funeral charges each, while Rs.40,000/- was payable towards the
loss of consortium to each legal heir and the same may be enhanced by
10% every three years.
54. The judgment was pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in 2017 and the accident in the present case occurred in 2021,
after 4 years of the pronouncement of the said judgement. Hence, in the
present case, the said expenses are to be enhanced by 10%. Reliance
placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hasina Yasmin
& Ors v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. SLP no. 27285 of 2025 decided on
17th of December 2025. Thus, an amount of Rs. 16,500/- is granted
towards the Loss of Estate and Rs. 16,500/- towards funeral charges.
55. Further, the petitioners are entitled to loss of consortium.
Hence, Rs. 44,000/- each is granted to each petitioner towards Loss of
Consortium.
Computation of compensation:
56. Applying the settled guidelines in the various judgments,
the compensation payable to the petitioner is calculated as under:
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKAMACT No.143/2022
SINGLA
Date: 2026.07.04
15:12:11 +0530Shikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. Page 29 of 41
Head Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
Monthly Income of deceased (A) Rs. 20,292/-
Add future prospect (B) @ 40%= Rs. 8,116.80
Less 1/3 deductions towards (Rs. 20,292/- + Rs. 8,116.80) = Rs.
personal and living expenses of the 28,408.80 x 1/3 = Rs. 9,469.60
deceased (C)
Monthly loss of dependency (Rs. 20,292/- + Rs. 8,116.80) – Rs.
[(A+B) – C = D] 9,469.60 = Rs. 18,939.20
Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 18,939.20 x 12= Rs.
(D x 12) 2,27,270.40
Multiplier (E) 17
Total loss of dependency (Rs. 2,27,270.40 x 17) =
DxE=F Rs.38,63,597/-
Medical Expenses (G) Nil
Compensation for loss of love and Nil.
affection (H)
Compensation for loss of Rs. 44,000/- x 2 = Rs. 88,000/-
consortium (I) to the petitionerCompensation for loss of Estate (J) Rs. 16,500/-
Compensation for funeral expenses Rs. 16,500/-
(K)
Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 39,84,597/-
57. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @
Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 , the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld awarding of 9% interest per annum.
Therefore, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9%
per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 18.02.2022 till
realization.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.143/2022
Shikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.07.04
Page 30 of 41
15:12:15 +0530
Apportionment:
58. It is evident from the record that the deceased had left
behind his wife and mother. The shares of the petitioners are as under:
S.No Name of the Share of the Interest upto date Total amount
claimant petitioner including interest
1. Smt. Shikha Rs. 21,84,597/- Rs. 8,60,252.40 Rs. 30,44,849.40
Singla (rounded off to Rs.
30,44,850/-)
2. Smt. Manju Jain Rs. 18,00,000/- Rs. 7,08,805.48 Rs. 25,08,805.48
(Rounded off to Rs.
25,08,805/-)
DISBURSEMENT
59. The Financial Statement of petitioner/injured was not
recorded by this Court/Tribunal as they did not appear for the same
despite repeated directions. However, the petitioners furnished their
affidavits in compliance of the same.
60. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated
07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh
Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors. has given the following directions:
“(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in
the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants
i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an
individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
(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.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.143/2022
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.07.04
Shikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. 15:12:19 +0530
Page 31 of 41
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the
ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place
of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge
be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the
court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book
and/or debit card to claimants. However, in case the debit card
and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall
cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount.
The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of claimants so
that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of
claimants from any other branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook
of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque books and/or debit
card have been issued and shall not be issued without the
permission of the Court and the claimant shall produced the
passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court for
compliance.”
61. However, in a recent judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India titled as Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal on 18
March, 2025 in S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020 has held that :
“17. The case in hand pertains to the compensation awarded
under the Motor Vehicles Act. The general practice followed
by the insurance companies, where the 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
Digitally
signed byMACT No.143/2022
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
Shikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. 2026.07.04
15:12:23
+0530
Page 32 of 41
pleadings or at the stage of leading evidence may require the
claimant(s) to furnish their bank account particulars to the
Tribunal along with the requisite proof, so that at the stage of
passing of the award the Tribunal may direct that the amount
of compensation be transferred in the account of the claimant
and if there are more than one then in their respective
accounts. If there is no bank account, then they should be
required to open the bank account either individually or
jointly with family members only. It should also be mandated
that, in case there is any change in the bank account
particulars of the claimant(s) during the pendency of the
claim petition they should update the same before the
Tribunal. This should be ensured before passing of the final
award. It may be ensured that the bank account should be in
the name of the claimant(s) and if minor, through guardian(s)
and in no case it should be a joint account with any person,
who is not a family member. The transfer of the amount in the
bank account, particulars of which have been furnished by the
claimant(s), as mentioned in the award, shall be treated as
satisfaction of the award. Intimation of compliance should be
furnished to the Tribunal.”
62. In view of the same, the award amount can now be
disbursed in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioner. However, the
remaining directions as passed by the Hon’ble High Court shall be
complied with. It is directed that the award amount be deposited by the
respondent no. 3 in the bank account of Tribunal bearing A/c no.
42704293960, SBI, THC, Delhi in the name of MACT-01, Central,
IFSC Code: SBIN0000726.
Smt. Shikha Singla (LR/Wife of deceased)
63. After considering the financial statement of the petitioner, it
RUCHIKA
MACT No.143/2022 SINGLA
Shikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
Page 33 of 41
SINGLA
Date: 2026.07.04
15:12:29 +0530
is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 55,53,655/-
(Rupees Fifty Five Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Five
only), out of the share of the petitioner/wife of deceased of Rs.
30,44,850/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Forty Four Thousand Eight Hundred
Fifty only), SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi shall release Rs. 6,44,850/-
(Rupees Six Lakhs Forty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty only) with
accumulated interest, if any to the petitioner/wife of deceased
immediately in her Bank Account on furnishing of a copy of her
passbook with SBI THC, as the copy furnished in the court is illegible.
64. The balance amount of Rs. 24,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Four Lacs only) shall be put in 60 monthly fixed deposits in her name in
her account as mentioned above of equal amount of Rs. 40,000/-
(Rupees Forty Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 60
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.
Smt. Manju Jain (LR/mother of deceased)
65. After considering the financial statement of the petitioner, it
is held that on realization of the award amount, out of the share of the
petitioner/wife of deceased of Rs. 25,08,805/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Lakhs Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Five only), SBI, Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi shall release Rs. 5,08,805/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Eight
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.143/2022 Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
Shikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. Page 34 of 41
SINGLA
Date: 2026.07.04
15:12:34 +0530
Thousand Eight Hundred Five only) with accumulated interest, if any to
the petitioner/mother of deceased immediately in her Bank Account on
furnishing of a copy of her passbook with SBI THC, as the copy
furnished in the court does not contain the IFSC Code.
66. The balance amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Lacs only) shall be put in 50 monthly fixed deposits in her name in her
account as mentioned above of equal amount of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees
Forty Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 50 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.
67. Further, it is directed that as the amount is being disbursed
to the petitioners in their savings bank accounts, they shall not avail any
loan/advance facility on the FDRs without the permission of this
Tribunal. Further, they shall not encash the FDRs before their maturity
without the permission of this Tribunal.
68. In compliance of the directions given by Hon’ble High
Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award
in the prescribed Format-XVI is as under:
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLAMACT No.143/2022 Date: 2026.07.04
15:12:41 +0530Shikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. Page 35 of 41
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
Date of Accident: 21.09.2021
Name of the deceased: Sh. Rajat Kumar Jain
Age of the deceased: 27 years
Occupation of the deceased: Businessman
Income of the
deceased : Rs. 20,292/- pm
Name and relationship of legal representative of deceased:
Name of the claimant Relation with deceased
Smt. Shikha Singla Wife
Smt. Manju Jain MotherCOMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
Sr. Head Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
No.
1 Monthly Income of deceased Rs. 20,292/-
(A)
2 Add future prospect (B) @ 40%= Rs. 8,116.80
3 Less 1/3 deductions towards (Rs. 20,292/- + Rs. 8,116.80) = Rs.
personal and living expenses of 28,408.80 x 1/3 = Rs. 9,469.60
the deceased (C)
4 Monthly loss of dependency (Rs. 20,292/- + Rs. 8,116.80) – Rs.
[(A+B) – C = D] 9,469.60 = Rs. 18,939.20
5 Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 18,939.20 x 12 = Rs.
(D x 12) 2,27,270.40 6 Multiplier (E) 17 7 Total loss of dependency (Rs. 2,27,270.40 x 17) = DxE=F Rs.38,63,597/- RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.143/2022 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Shikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. Page 36 of 41 Date: 2026.07.04 15:12:47 +0530 8 Medical Expenses (G) Nil 9 Compensation for loss of love Nil and affection (H) 10 Compensation for loss of Rs. 44,000/- x 2 = Rs. 88,000/- consortium (I) to the petitioner 11 Compensation for loss of Rs. 16,500/- Estate (J) 12 Compensation for funeral Rs. 16,500/- expenses (K) 13 Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 39,84,597/- 14 Rate of Interest Awarded 9% 15 Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 15,69,058/- award w.e.f. 18.02.2022 till realization 16 Total amount including interest Rs. 55,53,655/- 17 Award amount released As per paragraph Nos. 63 to 66 18 Award amount kept in FDRs As per paragraph No. 64 and 66 19 Mode of disbursement of the As per paragraph Nos. 63 to 66 award amount to the claimant(s) 20 Next Date of compliance of the 04.08.2026 award LIABILITY:
69. 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
Digitally
MACT No.143/2022 signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Shikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. Page 37 of 41
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.04
15:12:52
+0530
amount to the petitioner. Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in favour of
the petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
70. In view of the above, the respondent no.3 is directed to
deposit a sum of Rs.39,84,597/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Eighty Four
Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Seven Only) along with interest @ 9%
from the date of filing of DAR i.e. w.e.f. 18.02.2022 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
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.
71. 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.
Digitally
MACT No.143/2022
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Shikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. SINGLA Date:
2026.07.04
15:12:58
Page 38 of 41
+0530
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
04.08.2026 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
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
on this 4th July, 2026 RUCHIKA
SINGLA
signed by
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Date:
2026.07.04
15:13:03
+0530
(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
MACT No.143/2022
Shikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. Page 39 of 41
THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL MOTOR
VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022 (PL. SEE RULE
150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 21.09.2021
2 Date of filing of Form-I – First Accident
23.09.2021
Report (FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II to the
NA
victim(s)
4 Date of receipt of Form-III from the
NA
Driver
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV from the
Owner NA6 Date of filing of Form-V-
NA
Particulars of the insurance of the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-VIA from the
NA
Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII – Detail
18.02.2022
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
18.02.2022
Officer by the Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company admitted his report Yes
within 30 days of the DAR/claim
petition?
12 Whether there was any delay or
deficiency on the part of the Designated No
Officer of the Insurance Company? If so,
whether any action/direction warranted?
13 Date of response of the claimant(s) to the
MACT No.143/2022 Digitally
Shikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Page 40 of 41
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.04
15:13:09
+0530
offer of the Insurance Company. NA
14 Date of award 04.07.2026
15 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to
open savings bank account(s) near their No
place of residence?
16 Date of order by which claimant(s) were
directed to open Savings Bank Account(s)
near his place of residence and produce
PAN card and Aadhar Card and the NA
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
17.03.2026/30.04.2026
account(s) near the place of their
residence alongwith PAN card and
Aadhaar Card?
18 Permanent residential address of the
claimant(s). As per record.
19 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank
account(s) is near their place of Yes
residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s) were examined The petitioners have filed their
at the time of passing of the Award to affidavit of financial statement
ascertain his/their financial condition? on 17.03.2026.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.04
15:13:14
+0530
(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
04.07.2026
MACT No.143/2022
Shikha vs. Shrikesh Yadav and Ors. Page 41 of 41
