Delhi District Court
Uma Rajak And Ors vs Dharamveer And Ors on 11 July, 2026
IN THE COURT OF VIJAY KUMAR JHA
PRESIDING OFFICER:
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-01, SHAHDARA
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
____________________________________________________________
In the matter of :
Uma Rajak & Ors. v. Dharamveer & Ors.
MACT no. 220/2019
(Attached DAR (MACT) no. 158/2019)
1. Uma Rajak
Wife of deceased/ late Sh. Sanjay Rajak
2. Archana Rajak
Daughter of deceased/ late Sh. Sanjay Rajak
3. Naman
Son of deceased/ late Sh. Sanjay Rajak
4. Maya Rajak (mother of deceased)
W/o Sh. Baluva Rajak
All R/o Village & Post Lakhanguwan,
Tehsil Bijawar, Distt. Chhatarpur, M.P.-471408. .........Petitioners
Versus
1. Dharamveer (Driver)
S/o Sh. Son Pal
R/o Village Hasanpur Bangar, PS Ahar,
District Bulandshahaar, U.P.
2. Chaman (Regd. Owner)
S/o Sh. Deewan Singh
R/o B-12/ 175, Gali no.12, Near Little Gem Public School,
Kabir nagar, Shahdara, Delhi.
3. Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Head Office at: Magma House, 24 Park Street,
Kolkata-700016.
Also at: F-14, 1st Floor, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-I, South Delhi-110020. .............Respondents
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 220/19 Uma Rajak & Ors. v. Dharamveer & Ors. Page 1 of 32
Date of filing of DAR : 11.04.2019
Date of filing of claim petition : 06.06.2019
Final arguments heard : 11.07.2026
Date of Award : 11.07.2026
JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment, I shall decide the present claim petition under
section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, filed on behalf of the
petitioners/ legal representatives of the deceased Sanjay Rajak, who
died as a result of a motor vehicular accident. The DAR (Detailed
Accident Report) has also been filed in the matter by the
Investigating Agency against the respondents, which was separately
registered vide MACT no.158/2019, which was clubbed/ attached
with the claim petition vide order dated 19.12.2019.
2. Important facts of the case as per claim petition, DAR are that on
09.02.2019 at about 12.32 p.m, Sh. Sanjay Rajak @ Sanju (deceased
herein) was going to Chhota Bazar from his workplace, i.e.
Dayanand Vihar, Delhi-110092 through his bicycle. When the
deceased reached Red Light near Ginger Hotel, a tractor with trolley
bearing no. UP-14CZ-6250 (hereinafter, ‘offending vehicle’) came in
a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased due to which
deceased sustained grievous injuries. The deceased was taken to
Headgewar Arogya Sansthan, Karkardooma, Delhi, where his MLC
No.405/19 was prepared and he was declared brought dead.
3. In connection with the accident, FIR no. 0044/2019, under sections
279/304A IPC & 3/181 of Motor Vehicles Act, was lodged at Police
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 220/19 Uma Rajak & Ors. v. Dharamveer & Ors. Page 2 of 32
Station Vivek Vihar, Delhi against the driver of offending vehicle on
the statement of Constable Niranjan. Postmortem of the deceased
was conducted vide postmortem report bearing no.233/2019, dated
10.02.2019.
4. It is further stated that the deceased was doing a private job of
Driver-cum-Care Taker at Dayanand Vihar. He was taking salary of
Rs.20,000/- per month. As per the petitioners, the deceased was only
27 years old and all the petitioners were totally dependent upon him.
Petitioners have prayed for awarding the compensation of Rs.60
Lakhs.
5. All the respondents were got served with the notice of claim petition.
Separate written statements were filed by respondents no.2 & 3 but
despite giving several opportunities, respondent no.1 did not file any
written statement and accordingly, the opportunity of respondent
no.1 to file reply/ written statement was closed vide order dated
15.03.2022.
6. Respondent no.2, namely Chaman (the owner of the offending
vehicle) has filed its reply and vehemently denied the claim of the
petitioners stating therein that he along with his helper Dharamveer
(respondent no.1) has been falsely implicated in the accident, as on
the day of accident, the tractor bearing no. UP-14CZ-6250 was lying
200 meters away from the place of incident and the helper/
respondent no.1 was there with the vehicle. The driver of the
offending vehicle/ tractor was not there, as he went for some work.
Meanwhile, the police officials came there and prepared the case
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 220/19 Uma Rajak & Ors. v. Dharamveer & Ors. Page 3 of 32
against the helper without any proof. The respondent no.2 had also
moved an application to SHO, PS Vivek Vihar requesting to remove
the name of helper and accordingly, he prayed for rejection/
dismissal of the claim petition.
7. Respondent no.3/ Magma HDI General Insurance Company Ltd. has
contested the case and filed its reply and denied the claim of the
petitioners. It is stated that the FIR has been lodged against some
unknown person and the vehicle in question has been implicated
without any basis. In the FIR, no eye-witness of the accident has
been mentioned and therefore, the involvement of the alleged
offending vehicle and negligence of the driver is highly questionable.
8. It is further stated that the petitioners have not filed the driving
licence of the driver in question. However, it is admitted that the
vehicle in question, i.e. tractor bearing registration no.UP14CZ-6250
was insured with the respondent/ insurance company vide policy
no.P0219400002/4107/165101 from 17.09.20218 to 16.09.2019.
With above averments, the insurance company has prayed for
dismissal of the claim petition.
9. Upon completion of pleadings, my learned predecessor framed the
issues on 15.03.2022, as under:-
i). Whether respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle no.
UP-14CZ-6250 on 09.02.2019 at about 12.32 p.m. at Red Light,
near Ginger Hotel, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Vivek
Vihar in rash and negligent manner and caused the death of
deceased Sh. Sanjay Rajak @ Sanju? OPP.
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 220/19 Uma Rajak & Ors. v. Dharamveer & Ors. Page 4 of 32
ii). Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what
extent and from whom? OPP.
iii). Relief.
10. In order to establish the case, claimants examined the following
witnesses:-
i). PW1 Uma Rajak, wife of deceased appeared in the witness box
and filed her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A regarding
the manner of accident, age, occupation and income of deceased
and about the losses suffered on account of his death. She relied
upon the following documents:-
a) Copy of the driving license of deceased as Ex.PW1/1.
b) Copy of Aadhar card of the petitioner no.1 and deceased as
Ex.PW1/2 (colly)
c) Copy of Aadhar card of the petitioner no.2 & 3 (minor
children) as Ex.PW1/3 (colly).
d) Copy of school IDs of petitioner no.2 & 3 (minor children)
as Ex.PW1/4 (colly).
e) DAR filed by the IO as Ex.PW1/5.
f) Copy of death certificate of deceased as Ex.PW1/6.
ii). PW2 Anil Kumar Madaan deposed that the deceased was
employed as care taker and driver at plot no.193, Dayanand
Vihar, Delhi, which is a four storeyed building where PW2 was
living at first floor. PW2 deposed that he used to pay Rs.4,900/-
per month to the deceased. PW2 proved copy of his Aadhaar
Card as Ex.PW2/A and salary certificate of deceased prepared by
him as Ex.PW2/B.
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 220/19 Uma Rajak & Ors. v. Dharamveer & Ors. Page 5 of 32
iii). PW3 Sh. H.K. Chawla @ Hari Kishan Chawla, resident of 2 nd
Floor in building at plot no.193, Dayanand Vihar, Delhi deposed
on the lines of PW2 and proved copy of his Aadhaar Card as
Ex.PW3/A and salary certificate of deceased (already exhibited
as Ex.PW3/B) bearing his signatures at point C.
iv). PW4 Sh. Raman Sharma @ Raman Kumar Sharma, resident of
3rd Floor in building at plot no.193, Dayanand Vihar, Delhi
deposed on the lines of PW2 and proved copy of his Aadhaar
Card as Ex.PW4/A and salary certificate of deceased (already
exhibited as Ex.PW3/B) bearing his signatures at point D.
v). PW5 Head Constable Niranjan Singh deposed as a witness of the
accident. He deposed that driver of the offending tractor was
caught by the public persons in his presence and he removed the
injured to the hospital. He proved the site plan at page no.23 of
the DAR Ex.PW1/5 which bears his signatures at point A.
11. On the other hand, the respondents examined the following
witnesses:
i). R1W1 Sh. Dharambeer, the driver/ respondent no.1 deposed by
way of his affidavit Ex.R1W1/A.
ii). R2W1 Sh. Chaman, the owner/ respondent no.2 deposed by way
of his affidavit Ex.R2W1/A. He relied upon the copy of his
application dated 30.03.2019 addressed to SHO, PS Vivek Vihar,
bearing receipt/ seal of PS Vivek Vihar, dated 01.04.2019 as
Ex.R2W1/3 (OSR).
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 220/19 Uma Rajak & Ors. v. Dharamveer & Ors. Page 6 of 32
iii). R3W1 Sh. Rahul Kumar, Deputy Manager Sh. Rahul Kumar
deposed by way of his affidavit Ex.R3W1/A and relied upon the
following documents:-
a) Copy of authority letter as Ex.R3W1/1 (colly, 2 pages).
b) Copy of insurance policy Ex.R3W1/2 (colly, 4 pages).
c) Copy of legal notice Ex.R3W1/3.
d) The original postal receipt w.r.t. legal notice Ex.R3W1/4.
e) Copy of track consignment receipt Ex.R3W1/5.
12. This Tribunal has also examined one witness i.e. ASI Roop Kishore
(complainant of FIR) under Section 1638 of Bhartiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam.
13. I heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the evidence and other material placed on record. My
findings on the issues are as under:
ISSUE NO. 1
Whether respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle
no.UP-14CZ-6250 on 09.02.2019 at about 12.32 p.m. at Red Light,
near Ginger Hotel, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Vivek Vihar
in rash and negligent manner and caused the death of deceased Sh.
Sanjay Rajak @ Sanju? OPP.
14. It is the settled proposition of law that in an action founded on the
principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of
the offending vehicle is sine qua non. However, the standard of proof
is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is to be
tested on the touchstone of the preponderance of probabilities.
Holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 220/19 Uma Rajak & Ors. v. Dharamveer & Ors. Page 7 of 32
based upon negligence. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in
an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. Reference may be
made to the judgments titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v.
Sakshi Bhutani & Others., MAC APP. No. 550/2011 decided on
02.07.2012, Bimla Devi & Others v. Himachal Road Transport
Corporation & Others (2009) 13 SC 530, Parmeshwari v. Amirchand
& Others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 & Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. & Others 2018, Law Suit (SC) 303.
15. Before touching the issue under discussion, the arguments of the
learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 need to be evaluated. It is
argued that respondents no.1 and 2 have been falsely implicated in
the accident because, on the date of the accident, the offending
vehicle was present at a distance of about 200 meters away from the
place of the accident and that the helper of the respondent no.2,
namely Dharamveer (respondent no.1) was there with the vehicle,
whereas, the driver of the offending vehicle, namely Santosh Kumar,
was not present there at that time, as he had gone somewhere for
some work. And meanwhile, police officials came there and
intentionally and deliberately leveled all the allegations upon the
helper/ respondent no.1 and vehicle of the respondent no.2 to fulfill
their legal formalities and accordingly prepared charge-sheet against
the respondent no.1/ helper and DAR against the respondents no.1
and 2, who had no concern with the alleged accident. It has also been
submitted by learned counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 that the
respondent no.2 had sent a written application/ complaint to the SHO
of PS Vivek Vihar with the request to remove the name of the helper
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 220/19 Uma Rajak & Ors. v. Dharamveer & Ors. Page 8 of 32
Dharamveer from the FIR and also to acquit him from the case
regarding the accident.
16. In nutshell, there are two defences, first, that the offending vehicle
was not involved in the accident and second, that respondent no.1
Dharamveer was not the driver of the offending vehicle, which was
parked 200 meters away from the spot of the accident. And it was
Santosh Kumar, son of Umesh Yadav, who was the driver of the
offending vehicle at the time when the police came where the
offending vehicle was standing/ parked and the police official, in
order to close the case, made the helper/ respondent no.1
Dharamveer as accused/ driver of the offending vehicle.
17. ASI Roop Kishore, IO (Investigating Officer) of the criminal case
was examined under section 168 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam by
the Tribunal on 11.04.2026. The very first query put by the Tribunal
was on the basis of which evidence, the IO came to know that it was
Dharamveer/ respondent no.1 who was driving the offending vehicle.
ASI Roop Kishore replied as follows:
“Ct. Niranjan Singh of Traffic Police, who was performing
duty near the spot of accident, had given his statement that at
the time of the accident, it was Dharamveer who was driving
the offending tractor. Ct. Niranjan Singh had also signed the
Arrest Memo of the Dharamveer at point A. The Arrest Memo
at page no. 32 of the DAR is now exhibited as Ex. CWI/1. The
FIR was lodged on the basis of DD entry. Further, in the reply
to the notice u/s 133 of M. V. Act served upon the owner of
the offending tractor, the owner had stated that it was
Dharamveer, who was the driver of the offending tractor at
the time of the accident.”
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 220/19 Uma Rajak & Ors. v. Dharamveer & Ors. Page 9 of 32
18. As per deposition of the IO, it was Dharamveer/ respondent no.1
who at the time of the accident was driving the offending vehicle and
the IO came to know about the said fact on the basis of the statement
of Constable Niranjan Singh. Constable/ Head Constable Niranjan
Singh has been examined as PW5, who deposed as follows:
“On 09.02.2019, I was posted as Constable at Vivek Vihar
Traffic Cirlce, Delhi. On that day at about 12:00/ 12:30 noon,
I heard a noise because of which my attention was drawn to it.
I saw that public persons were following a tractor. The driver
of the tractor after seeing us (i. e. police officials) ran away
after leaving the tractor. The public persons caught the driver,
who was fleeing after leaving the tractor. After we reached the
spot of the accident, I saw one person in injured condition and
his bicycle was lying on the road. I made an e-rickshaw
stopped and took the injured in e-rickshaw to Dr. Hedgewar
Hospital. The public who was following the tractor were
shouting that the tractor was running after causing the
accident. I am not certain if the IO prepared any site plan at
my instance. After seeing the site plan at page no. 23 of the
DAR Ex. PWl/5 (colly), the witness admits his signatures at
point A on the site plan. After leaving the injured at Dr.
Hedgewar Hospital, I joined my duty and, in the evening, I
had gone to Police Station. In the evening, I came to know
about the name of the driver and that was Dharamveer.
Court Q: At the spot of the accident, had you seen the
driver of the tractor?
Answer: Yes.”
19. From the examination-in-chief of PW5, it is evident that, on the date
of the accident i.e., on 09.02.2019, PW5 was present near the spot
and his attention was drawn because of the noise and what PW5 saw
was that the public persons were following a tractor that was moving______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 220/19 Uma Rajak & Ors. v. Dharamveer & Ors. Page 10 of 32
towards PW5 and the driver of the tractor after seeing PW5 in police
uniform tried to run away after leaving the tractor but the public
persons caught him. When PW5 reached the spot where the accident
had occurred, which was about 200 meters from the place where the
offending vehicle had come to a standstill after the driver of the
offending vehicle had tried to run away, PW5 saw one person in
injured condition who was the deceased and a bicycle which the
deceased was riding at the time of the accident. It was PW5 who had
taken the injured to Dr. Hedgewar Hospital in e-rickshaw. PW5 also
deposed that the public persons who were following the tractor were
shouting that the tractor was going after causing the accident. At the
spot of accident, PW5 saw the driver of the offending vehicle, whose
name he came to know in the evening as Dharamveer/ respondent
no.1. From the deposition of PW5, the identity of the driver of the
offending vehicle has come out to be that of respondent no.1
Dharamveer and the identity of the offending vehicle has also been
ascertained and also the fact as to why the offending vehicle was at a
distance of about 200 meters from the spot of accident and that was
because after the accident the respondent no.1 was trying to flee in
his tractor but when the respondent no.1 saw the police officials in
the uniform, he tried to flee, leaving the offending vehicle.
20. It is observed that, instead of demolishing the case of the petitioners
in the cross-examination conducted by learned counsel for the
respondent no.1 and 2, said cross-examination has further
strengthened the case of the petitioners. In his cross-examination,
PW5 deposed that the place where he along with 2-3 other police
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 220/19 Uma Rajak & Ors. v. Dharamveer & Ors. Page 11 of 32
officials was discharging the duties, was at a distance of 100-200
meters from the spot of accident; that the tractor came to standstill
between point 10 (i.e., the spot where PW5 along with 2-3 other
police officials was discharging the duties) and the spot of accident,
as the driver of the tractor tried to flee after leaving the tractor in
running condition and that it was someone from the public who
switched off the tractor.
21. The deposition of PW5 in cross-examination that the driver of the
offending vehicle tried to flee after leaving the offending vehicle in
running condition assumes a lot of significance as far as the identity
of respondent no.1 as the driver of the offending vehicle is
concerned. As the person who was caught by the public was one who
was trying to flee after leaving the tractor and after apprehension, his
identity was revealed as Dharamveer (respondent no.1 herein).
22. It may also be noted that, in his cross-examination, PW5 has deposed
to that he had not seen the accident of the tractor and the bicycle
rider happening. The human beings do not have 360 degree vision
and even if a person is present at the spot where something has
happened, it is not necessary that, to be cognizant about what has
actually happened, the person has to actually see the event, from his
own eyes, ‘happening’. Every day in going about one’s business in
life one presumes many things and it is not necessary that every
presumption come out to be wrong. Even in the provisions of
Evidence Act, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, it is provided that the
Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 220/19 Uma Rajak & Ors. v. Dharamveer & Ors. Page 12 of 32
have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural
events, human conduct in public and private business in relation to
the facts of the particular case.
23. It is but natural presumption that if a vehicle is running behind which
public persons are running shouting something and it is found that
some accident has happened behind, then, in all probability, the
accident was caused by the vehicle behind which public persons
were running and the person driving it was the driver of that vehicle
who caused the accident with that vehicle. All presumptions of facts
are rebuttable, however, there is nothing in the cross-examination of
PW5 that would rebut the presumption that even if PW5 had not seen
the accident happening on 09.02.2019 still he witnessed public
persons following a tractor catching the driver who was trying to flee
after leaving the tractor; that the driver being caught by public
persons was the respondent no.1 Dharamveer. Thus, it may be
concluded that, in all probability, it was respondent no.1 who had
caused the accident in which the deceased expired. It may be
specifically noted that in his cross-examination, PW5 has deposed
unambiguously that, “After the tractor causing the accident was
coming towards me, I had seen respondent no.1 Dharamveer driving
the tractor.” The deposition of PW5 inspires confidence of being a
truthful witness.
24. The respondent no.1 has not filed his written statement. However,
the respondent no.1 has examined himself in his defense and has
filed his evidence/ examination-in-chief by way of affidavit______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 220/19 Uma Rajak & Ors. v. Dharamveer & Ors. Page 13 of 32
Ex.R1W1/A. As such, without pleading, leading evidence is of no
consequence. However, in the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal
is considering the evidence as is led by respondent no.1.
25. As per Ex.R1W1/A which is the affidavit of evidence/ examination-
in-chief of respondent no.1 (R1W1), on 09.02.2019 at about 06:00
a.m., respondent no.2 had handed over the possession of the
offending vehicle to its driver, namely Santosh for loading debris
from the construction site from Jagatpuri, Krishna Nagar, Delhi and
to unload the same to other construction sites near Apsara Border,
Transport Colony, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh and the driver Santosh
was accompanied by another helper Mr. Madan Kamat, other than
the respondent no.1 Dharamveer. But no such facts as stated
hereinabove have been averred to by the respondent no.2/ owner of
the offending vehicle in his written statement.
26. In the entire written statement filed on behalf of respondent no.2,
there is no reference to any Mr. Madan Kamat. As the facts are
concerned with respondent no.2 and had it been true, such facts were
so essential for the defense of the respondents no.1 and 2 and so
material that the absence of the same in the written statement of
respondent no.2 indicates that all the facts have been manufactured
only to take a false defense. It may also be noted that no such facts as
deposed to by respondent no.1, as mentioned hereinabove, have been
referred to by the respondent no.2 in his complaint dated 30.03.2019
(Ex.R2W1/3) as well as in the reply to the notice under section 133
of the Motor Vehicles Act, dated 09.02.2019.
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 220/19 Uma Rajak & Ors. v. Dharamveer & Ors. Page 14 of 32
27. It has been further deposed to by respondent no.1 in his examination-
in-chief that on 09.02.2019 after loading the debris from the
construction site, the driver Mr. Santosh was taking the offending
vehicle to unload the debris at another site and at about 12:15 p.m.,
Mr. Santosh had stopped the tractor trolley at about 250 meters away
from the accident spot and left for passing urine and in the meantime,
some people came and gathered around the tractor trolley. The
respondent no.1 has further deposed that after some time, one traffic
police official came to him and asked his name and took them to PS
Vivek Vihar and that other police officials had beaten him
mercilessly, forcing him to accept that he had committed the
accident. That, on the same day i.e 09.02.2019, respondent no.1
made calls to the respondent no.2, owner of the offending vehicle,
and told him that Police Officer had illegally detained him without
any cause and falsely implicated him in the road accident which was
not committed by the offending vehicle, as the same was stopped and
was standing far away from the place of the accident. That
respondent no.1 had also stated that, at that time, the driver was
Santosh Kumar who was not available on the tractor (offending
vehicle) and the police official had illegally detained him.
28. In the facts which have been deposed to by the respondent no.1 in his
examination-in-chief are not worthy of credence because of the facts
which have been proved in the deposition of PW5 Constable
Niranjan Singh and also in view of the contemporaneous document,
which is the reply of the respondent no.2 to the notice under section
133 of Motor Vehicles Act at page no.31 of the DAR. In the said
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 220/19 Uma Rajak & Ors. v. Dharamveer & Ors. Page 15 of 32
reply, respondent no.2 has stated that on the notice he had appeared
in the Police Station and gave documents of his tractor and that at the
time of accident, respondent no.1 was driving the same, who was
present in the Police Station.
29. Respondent no.2 Chaman Lal as R2W1 has examined himself in his
defense by way of his affidavit Ex.R2W1/A and it is evident that the
material facts deposed to by him in paragraph no.4 of Ex.R2W1/A
are missing in his written statement and therefore, the same are of no
consequence.
30. All the facts that have been deposed to by the respondent no.2 in his
examination-in-chief do not explain his signatures on the reply to the
notice under section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act. Even if it is assumed
that on 09.02.2019, the respondent no.2 had got scared after the
respondent no.1 told him about police brutality because of which he
was forced to sign some documents before the Investigating Officer,
but as soon he was out of the Police Station, he was out of fear of the
Investigating Officer and had all the means to take appropriate
action, including calling the PCR by dialing telephone no.100;
impeaching the documents in civil proceedings; making the
complaint to the higher police officials. But all action which the
respondent no.2 took was to prefer a complaint (Ex.R2W1/3)
belatedly on 30.03.2019, presumably when it had dawned on the
respondent no.2 that as the respondent no.1 did not have the driving
license, the financial liability to pay the compensation would
ultimately fall upon him (respondent no.2).
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 220/19 Uma Rajak & Ors. v. Dharamveer & Ors. Page 16 of 32
31. The relevant query put to R2W1 (respondent no.2) by the Tribunal
and his reply are as under:
“Court Q: If you were knowing from the very first day that
Dharambeer and your tractor was falsely implicated in the
accident, which happened on 09.02.2019, why you made the
complaint regarding it to the concerned SHO on 01.04.2019?
Answer: Santosh, the driver of the offending tractor had
run away and Dharambeer was beaten up by the police. I do
not have the money to engage an Advocate, therefore, the
prompt complaint was not made by me.
Court Q: Do you mean to say that the complaint given by
you to the police on 01.04.2019 Ex.R2Wl/3 was drafted on
legal advice from an Advocate?
Answer: No. The true facts have been given in the
complaint Ex.R2Wl/3.”
32. Even if it is assumed that the respondent no.2 states the true facts in
Ex.R2W1/3, the very important facts regarding the Investigating
Officer forcing him to write that the offending vehicle was driven by
respondent no.1 and forcibly got his signature on the said statement
have not been referred to in the complaint Ex.R2W1/3. The Tribunal
after taking into consideration the facts averred by the respondent
no.2 in his written statement, facts deposed to by respondent no.2 in
his examination-in-chief Ex.R2W1/A and the facts deposed to by
respondent no.2 in his cross-examination conducted on 24.04.2025,
the written statement of respondent no.2 was shown to him and
following observation was made by the Tribunal:
“Court Observation: The witness (respondent no.2) has been
shown his written statement and he admits his signature on the
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 220/19 Uma Rajak & Ors. v. Dharamveer & Ors. Page 17 of 32
same and submits that his signatures were taken but he does
not know the contents of the same.”
33. In the light of the deposition of PW5 Constable Niranjan Singh and
the discussion hereinabove, on the balance of probability, the
Tribunal is of the opinion that the accident which occurred on
09.02.2019 in which the deceased expired was caused by the
offending vehicle which was being driven by the respondent no.1
Dharamveer.
34. The defense raised by the respondent no.1 and 2 that the offending
vehicle was not involved in the accident and that the offending
vehicle was not being driven by the respondent no.1 at the time of
the accident is an afterthought and that the respondents have tried to
take the mileage out of certain lose statement of facts written by the
Investigating Officer in his rukka/ endorsement which is at page
no.16 of DAR wherein inter-alia it has been stated that the offending
vehicle was found at the distance of 200-250 meters from the spot of
the accident and on the offending vehicle one boy whose name on
inquiry was found to be in Dharamveer stated that the driver of the
tractor after the accident ran away from the spot and the public
apprehended him. The Investigating Officer had committed various
lapses in the investigation. Maybe because of the fact that he was
inexperienced in investigating such kind of cases and also because of
the fact that the investigation was not supervised by the senior police
officers in the manner in which they should have.
35. As stated hereinabove, the Investigating Officer has been examined
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 220/19 Uma Rajak & Ors. v. Dharamveer & Ors. Page 18 of 32
by the Tribunal under section 168 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
and one of the ambiguities regarding the boy on the tractor, saying
the driver having fled was clarified by the Investigating Officer as
follows:
“Court Q: Clarify the statement as mentioned in the FIR
that the boy was sitting in the tractor informed you that the
driver of the offending tractor after the accident had run away
from the spot and that public had caught him. Also clarify
who was the boy who had stated so?
Answer: The above said statement was made by
respondent no. 1 Dharamveer. Ct. Niranjan after coming from
the hospital, had identified Dharamveer as the driver of the
offending tractor and Dharamveer had made misleading
statement regarding the driver of the offending tractor having
run away from the spot to save himself from the
consequences. After getting the postmortem of the deceased
done, the case file was transferred to MACT Cell. Till I was
the IO, Santosh Kumar did not lodge any complaint with me
and also I did not receive any complaint marked to me
regarding the Santosh Kumar being alleged driver of the
offending tractor.”
36. One of the patent and glaring mistakes committed by the
Investigating Officer was that if the respondent no.1 had disclosed
the names of various persons alleging that it was them who was
driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident the Investigating
Officer ought to have mentioned those names specifically in the case
diary and ought to have done investigation. However, on the balance
of probability, in view of the deposition of PW5, the Tribunal is of
the opinion that it has been proved on record that it was the
respondent no.1 who at the time of accident was driving the
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 220/19 Uma Rajak & Ors. v. Dharamveer & Ors. Page 19 of 32
offending vehicle and that the accident which happened on
09.02.2019 in which the deceased died happened with offending
vehicle.
37. Now coming to the issue whether respondent no.1 was driving the
offending vehicle rashly and negligently; the facts speaks for itself.
The offending vehicle, which is a tractor-trolley, crushed the
deceased who was riding a bicycle, in all probability from behind.
The respondent no.1 has not come with any innocent explanation/
alternate version of facts in which the responsibility of the accident
could have been foisted upon the deceased himself i.e. the accident
was caused because of the rash and negligent act of the deceased
himself and not that of the respondent no. 1.
38. The MLC no.405/19, dated 09.02.2019 (at page no.17 of the DAR)
makes it clear that the deceased was brought to Dr. Hedgewar
Hospital, Karkardooma, Delhi by Ct. Niranjan of traffic police at
12:50 p.m on 09.02.2019 in injured condition with the alleged
history of RTA and the deceased was declared brought dead by the
doctor. Further, the postmortem report no.233/2019, prepared at
Aruna Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital, Delhi (at page nos. 18 to 22 of the
DAR) reveals that the death of the deceased Sanjay @ Sanju was
caused due to shock, consequent upon blunt force trauma to chest,
abdomen and spinal cord and it was opined that all the injuries are
ante-mortem in nature, caused by blunt force/ impact and are
possible in road traffic incident.
39. Thus, in the light of the above discussion and the evidence brought
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 220/19 Uma Rajak & Ors. v. Dharamveer & Ors. Page 20 of 32
on record, it is held that the petitioners have been able to prove on
the basis of preponderance of probabilities that the accident had
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle
by respondent no.1 and that resulted into fatal injuries to the
deceased Sanjay Rajak. Issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioners.
ISSUE NO. 2
Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what
extent and from whom? OPP.
40. In view of the finding on issue no.1, petitioners herein are held
entitled to get compensation, however, the quantum of compensation
still needs to be adjudicated.
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
41. Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 enjoins upon the claim
Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award
determining the amount of compensation, which appears to be just
and reasonable. As per settled law, compensation is not expected to
be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be pittances. A man is not
compensated for the physical injury, he is compensated for the loss
which he suffers as a result of that injury (Baker v. Willoughby
(1970) AC 467 at page 492 per Lord Reid).
42. In Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.
(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, the relevant guidelines for
compensation were laid down in death cases, which have been
reiterated by the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in a
case titled as National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 220/19 Uma Rajak & Ors. v. Dharamveer & Ors. Page 21 of 32
Decided on 31.10.2017, laying down the general principles for
computation of compensation in death cases. In view of the aforesaid
judgments, the compensation in the present case has to be
ascertained as under:
PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
Age of deceased & Application of Multiplier
43. The Driving License of the deceased, copy of which has been proved
on record as Ex.PW1/1, reveals the date of birth of the deceased as
20.05.1991 and the Aadhaar Card Ex.PW1/2 also shows his year of
birth as 1991. Accordingly, on the date of accident on 09.02.2019,
the deceased was 27 years of age. Accordingly, the multiplier of 17
belonging to the age group 26-30 years shall be applicable (refer:
Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121.
Assessment of Income of deceased
44. In her examination-in-chief which is by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A,
PW1 Uma Rajak, wife of the deceased, has deposed that, at the time
of the accident of her deceased husband Sanjay Rajak @ Sanju, he
was doing a private job of driver-cum-care taker at 193, Dayanand
Vihar, Delhi-110092 and was taking a gross salary of Rs.20,000/- per
month. On this aspect, PW2 Anil Kumar Madaan, PW3 Sh. H.K.
Chawla and PW4 Sh. Raman Sharma, who is residing at 1 st Floor, 2nd
Floor and 3rd Floor, respectively, in building at 193, Dayanand Vihar,
Delhi-110092 have proved a salary certificate Ex.PW3/B, bearing
their signatures at points B, C and D, respectively. PW2, PW3 and
PW4 have deposed that the deceased Sanju Rajak was working as______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 220/19 Uma Rajak & Ors. v. Dharamveer & Ors. Page 22 of 32
driver-cum-care take in the building at 193, Dayanand Vihar, Delhi,
where they are residing at 1st Floor, 2nd Floor and 3rd Floor,
respectively, and the deceased was drawing a gross salary of
Rs.19,500/-, which was being paid by them jointly i.e., Rs.4,900/-
each per month. I have perused the salary certificate, which also
bears signatures of Mr. Aman Chopra of Upper Ground Floor of the
said building, however, Mr. Aman Chopra has not been examined by
the petitioners. It is noteworthy that PW2, PW3 and PW4 have been
cross-examined by learned counsel for the insurance company and,
in their entire cross-examination, this Tribunal does not find any
concrete substance, which may raise any doubt to their deposition
with respect to employment and income of the deceased as deposed
by them. In view of this, income of the deceased is assumed as
Rs.19,500/- per month.
Future Prospects
45. The deceased was 27 years of age. Considering him self-employed,
belonging to age group below 40 years, an addition of 40% to his
income has to be considered (refer: National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Pranay Sethi & Ors. (AIR 2017 SC 5157).
Deduction towards Personal Living Expenses
46. In this case, the deceased left behind his wife, two minor children
and parents. Vide order dated 06.06.2026, on the application moved
on behalf of the petitioners, petitioner no.4 Baluva Rajak, father of
the deceased who had expired on 30.05.2026, has been deleted from
the array of parties. However, considering the said five family
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 220/19 Uma Rajak & Ors. v. Dharamveer & Ors. Page 23 of 32
members as dependents upon the deceased, 1/4th of the income of the
deceased has to be deducted towards his personal living expenses
(refer: Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9
SCC 65).
Loss of Dependency
47. In view of the settled guidelines as laid down in the various
judgments herein above, by adding the future prospects @ 40% to
the income of the deceased (Rs.19,500/-), applying the multiplier of
17, making deduction of 1/4th of the income of the deceased, the loss
of dependency is computed as Rs.41,76,900/- (19,500×140/100×3/4
x17x12).
NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES
48. In the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, dated
31.10.2017, in case of Pranay Sethi & Others (Supra), a
compensation of Rs.40,000/-, 15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively
has been fixed on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and
funeral expenses and further, it is required to be enhanced @ 10% in
every three years. The accident of the deceased in this case occurred
on 09.02.2019, therefore, a compensation of Rs.40,000/-, Rs.15,000/-
and Rs.15,000/- respectively on account of loss of consortium, loss
of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted. Further, in
view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled as
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder
Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 2705 of 2020, decided on 30.06.2020,
claimants are required to be granted spousal consortium, parental
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 220/19 Uma Rajak & Ors. v. Dharamveer & Ors. Page 24 of 32
consortium and filial consortium. Accordingly, petitioner no.1 being
wife of the deceased shall be entitled to spousal consortium, the
petitioner no.2 and 3 being children of the deceased shall be entitled
to parental consortium and petitioner no.4 being mother of the
deceased shall be entitled to filial consortium. Thus, the following
amounts are awarded under the conventional heads:
S. No. Conventional Head Amount
1. Spousal Consortium Rs.40,000/-
Parental Consortium Rs.80,000/- (40,000x2)
Filial Consortium Rs.40,000/-
2. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
3. Loss of Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
Total = Rs.1,90,000/-
Accordingly, the total compensation comes to Rs.43,66,900/-
(41,76,900+1,90,000), rounded off to Rs.43,67,000/-.
INTEREST
49. The petitioners shall also be entitled to interest @ 7% per annum on
the award amount from the date of filing of the DAR till realization.
LIABILITY
50. Now, the question arises as to which of the respondents is liable to
pay the compensation amount. An insurance company has
contractual and statutory liability to indemnify the insured, in case,
the insurance company has not been able to prove on record that any
term or condition of insurance policy was breached/ violated by
insured. However, in the present case, the insurance company has
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 220/19 Uma Rajak & Ors. v. Dharamveer & Ors. Page 25 of 32
examined its Deputy Manager Sh. Rahul Kumar as R3W1, who
deposed by way of his affidavit Ex.R3W1/A that driver of the
offending vehicle was not holding a valid Driving License at the time
of the accident. He further deposed that despite receipt of the notice
under Order 2 Rule 8 CPC served upon the respondent no.2/ owner
of the offending vehicle, the Driving License of the respondent no.1/
driver of the offending vehicle has not been produced which clearly
shows that the insured committed breach of the policy terms and
conditions and hence, no liability can be fastened upon the insurance
company. R3W1 relied upon the following documents:
a) Copy of his authority letter as Ex.R3W1/1 (colly, 2 pages).
b) Copy of insurance policy Ex.R3W1/2 (colly, 4 pages).
c) Copy of legal notice Ex.R3W1/3.
d) The original postal receipt w.r.t. legal notice Ex.R3W1/4.
e) Copy of track consignment receipt Ex.R3W1/5.
51. I have perused the DAR. Part III of the DAR, titled as ‘Particulars of
Driver(s)’ clearly shows that the driver/ respondent no.1 was without
Driving License. Moreover, no Driving License of the driver/
respondent no.1 Dharamveer was produced on behalf of the
respondent no.1 and 2 before the Tribunal during the entire enquiry
proceedings. Therefore, it is held that the driver/ respondent no.1
Dharamveer was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the
accident without a valid Driving License, which is clear violation of
the insurance policy term “Persons or classes of persons entitled to
drive”, which provides that “Any person including insured: Provided
that the person driving holds an effective driving license at the time
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 220/19 Uma Rajak & Ors. v. Dharamveer & Ors. Page 26 of 32
of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such
a license.”
52. In view of above, the respondent no.1 being the driver of the
offending vehicle is the principal tortfeasor and the respondent no.2
being registered owner would have the vicarious liability.
Accordingly, the respondent no.1 and 2 shall be liable to satisfy the
award. However, this Tribunal is of the view that in order to serve
the ends of justice in the facts and circumstances of this case,
respondent no.3/ insurance company should be directed to pay the
compensation and thereafter, it should recover the same from the
owner and driver and therefore, it is held that respondent no.3/
insurance company shall deposit the awarded amount with this
Tribunal and thereafter, it shall be entitled to get the paid amount
recovered from the respondent no.1 and 2, jointly or severally in
accordance with law.
RELIEF
53. In the light of the decision on substantive issues framed, the present
claim petition is allowed and the following award is being passed:
AWARD
54. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.43,67,000/- (Rs. Forty
Three Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Only) along with interest @ 7%
per annum from the date of filing of the DAR (11.04.2019) till
realization in favour of the petitioners to be paid by the insurance
company which shall have the right to recover the paid amount from
respondent no.1 and 2, jointly and severally in accordance with law.
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 220/19 Uma Rajak & Ors. v. Dharamveer & Ors. Page 27 of 32
The interim compensation, if any, shall be adjusted against this
award amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by
the Tribunal during the pendency of this case.
55. The insurance company/ respondent no.3 is directed to deposit the
award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC: UCBA0002078),
UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT, Shahdara, through
RTGS/ NEFT, within 30 days from today.
Entitlement, Apportionment and Disbursement
56. All the petitioners shall be entitled to the compensation and they
shall share the award amount of Rs.43,67,000/- along with the
interest in the following manner:
Petitioner Name of the Age Relation with Share in the Award
No. Petitioner (current age) the deceased
1 Uma Rajak 29 years Wife Rs.19,67,000/- along with
corresponding interest
2 Archana 12 years Daughter Rs.8,00,000/- along with
Rajak corresponding interest
3 Naman 09 years Son Rs.8,00,000/- along with
corresponding interest
4 Maya Rajak 54 years Mother Rs.8,00,000/- along with
corresponding interest
57. The Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi is directed that after
deposit of the award amount, a sum of Rs.4,67,000/- shall be
released immediately to the petitioner no.1 Uma Rajak and rest of
her share amounting to Rs.15 lakhs along with the corresponding
interest shall be kept secured with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts,
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 220/19 Uma Rajak & Ors. v. Dharamveer & Ors. Page 28 of 32
Delhi in MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit) in the
form of 100 monthly FDRs (fixed deposit receipts) to be prepared in
her name, payable to her in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 100
months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Hon’ble
Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in FAO No.
8433/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Others v. Jaibir Singh & Others.
58. The entire share of petitioner no.2 and 3 i.e. the minor children of the
deceased, amounting to Rs.8,00,000/- each along with respective
corresponding interest shall be kept secured with UCO Bank,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in the form of one FDR each to be
prepared in their respective name for the period till they attain the
age of majority. Manager, UCO Bank is further directed that on the
date of attaining majority by the petitioner no.2 and 3, the matured
amount of their respective FDR shall be converted into further 50
monthly FDRs (fixed deposit receipts) each to be prepared in their
name, payable to them in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 50
months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Hon’ble
Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in FAO No.
8433/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Others v. Jaibir Singh & Others.
59. The entire share of petitioner no.4 Maya Rajak, amounting to
Rs.8,00,000/- along with corresponding interest shall be kept secured
with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in MACAD (Motor
Accident Claims Annuity Deposit) in the form of 100 monthly FDRs
each to be prepared in her name payable to her in equal amounts for
a period of 1 to 100 months in succession, as per the scheme
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 220/19 Uma Rajak & Ors. v. Dharamveer & Ors. Page 29 of 32
formulated by Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018
in FAO No. 8433/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Others v. Jaibir
Singh & Others.
Directions to the Petitioners & their Bank
60. The terms of disbursement as directed above shall come into effect
subject to the compliance of following conditions:
(a) The petitioners shall get opened their Saving Bank Account in any
nationalized bank near the place of their residence, if already not
opened. The concerned Bank Manager(s) of the Bank(s) where the
petitioner(s) already has/have bank account or a new bank account is
opened, is/are directed as follows:
(i) No Cheque Book and ATM/ Debit Card be issued to the
petitioner(s) without permission of the Court/MACT Tribunal.
However, in case the ATM/Debit Card and/or Cheque Book have
already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the
disbursement of the amount.
(ii) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the
savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the
petitioner(s). However, money may be released by means of a
withdrawal slip.
(iii) The Bank Manager of petitioners’ bank is also directed to make
endorsement regarding compliance of aforesaid directions on the
passbook.
(b) After the Bank Manager makes the endorsement regarding compliance
of the aforesaid directions on the bank passbook of the petitioner(s),
the petitioner(s) shall produce the original passbook having the said
endorsements as well as their Aadhaar Card and PAN Card before the
Tribunal on the next date of hearing or in any case before hearing the
final arguments.
(c) If the petitioner(s) fail to comply with the said direction, the
disbursement of the award amount (if the award is passed) shall be
made subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner(s) shall have to open a MACT compliant Bank
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 220/19 Uma Rajak & Ors. v. Dharamveer & Ors. Page 30 of 32
account in the UCO Bank, Karkardooma, subject to aforesaid
terms and conditions and the petitioner(s) shall also furnish
details of the branch of UCO bank near the place of petitioner’s
residence to which the bank account of the petitioner in the UCO
bank, Karkardooma branch may be transferred subject to all
hereinabove conditions.
61. As per ‘The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (Annexure-XIII),
the relevant Form to be incorporated in the award is as under:
FORM – XV
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES
TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 09.02.2019
2. Name of the deceased : Sanjay Rajak @ Sanju
3. Age of the deceased : 27 years
4. Occupation of the deceased : Private job
5. Income of the deceased : Rs.19,500/- per month
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S. No. Name Age Relation
1 Uma Rajak 29 years Wife
2 Archana Rajak 12 years Daughter
3 Naman 09 years Son
4 Maya Rajak 54 years Mother
Computation of Compensation
S. No. Heads Awarded by the
Claims Tribunal
7. Monthly income of the deceased (A) Rs.19,500/-
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) @ 40% Rs.7,800/-
9. Less- Personal expenses of the deceased (C) @ Rs.6,825/-
1/4
10. Monthly loss of dependency [(A+B)-C = D] Rs.20,475/-
11. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs.2,45,700/-
12. Multiplier (E) 17
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 220/19 Uma Rajak & Ors. v. Dharamveer & Ors. Page 31 of 32
13. Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE = F) Rs.41,76,900/-
14. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15. Compensation for loss of consortium (H) Rs.1,60,000/-
(40,000×4)
16. Compensation for loss & affection (I) —
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs.15,000/-
18. Compensation towards funeral expenses (K) Rs.15,000/-
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.43,66,900/-
(F+G+H+I+J+K = L) rounded off to
Rs.43,67,000/-.
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 7%
21. Interest amount up to the date of award (M) (for Rs.22,16,252/-
07 years & 03 months)
22. Total amount including interest (L+M) Rs.65,83,252/-
23. Award amount released Rs.4,67,000/- along
with corresponding
interest
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.39,00,000/- along
with corresponding
interest
25. Mode of disbursement of the award amount to Bank transfer
the claimants (s).
26. Next Date for compliance of the award. 22.08.2026.
62. With these observations, the claim petition is disposed of. The claim
petition file along with the tagged DAR (MACT no.158/19) file be
Digitally signed
consigned to Record Room. VIJAY by VIJAY KUMAR
KUMAR JHA
Date: 2026.07.11
JHA 16:22:03 +0530
Announced in the open (VIJAY KUMAR JHA)
Court on 11.07.2026 Presiding Officer-MACT-01 (Shahdara)
Karkardooma, Delhi
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 220/19 Uma Rajak & Ors. v. Dharamveer & Ors. Page 32 of 32
