Delhi District Court
Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Lrs Of Deceased … vs Delstone Concrete Pvt Ltd (The Oriental … on 13 July, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010155542023
MACT No. : 953/2023
FIR No. : 312/2023
PS : Faridabad, Haryana
u/s : 279/304A IPC
1. Sh. Ramesh Chand Wadhwa (Father of the deceased)
S/o Lt. Baldev Raj
2.Smt. Usha Wadhwa (Mother of the deceased)
W/o Sh. Ramesh Chand Wadhwa
Both R/o B-2569, SGM Nagar,
Faridabad, District Faridabad,
Haryana-121001.
...Petitioners
Versus
1. M/s Delstone Concrete Pvt. Ltd.(Owner of the offending vehicle)
Office at Bhakri Pali Road,
Near Ravinder Phagna Cricket Stadium,
JET Road, Faridabad, Haryana-121001.
2. Mr. Gopal Yadav (Driver of the Offending Vehicle)
S/o Sh. Bhumeshwar Yadav
R/o Mamlindi Dixwan,
PO-01, Obandha Godda,
Godda Jharkhand-814133.
3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.(Insurer)
Regd. Office at Oriental House,
A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.13
16:02:41 +0530
MACT No.953/2023
Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Vs. Delstone Concrete Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 1 of 38
New Delhi-110002. ...Respondents
Date of filing of Claim Petition : 31.10.2023
Judgment reserved on : 29.05.2026
Date of Award : 13.07.2026
AWAR D
1. The Claim Petition was filed on 31.10.2023. The Road
Traffic Accident in question took place on 03.09.2023, at about 10:15
pm at NH-2, Near Honda Showroom, G.T. Road, Sector-31, Faridabad,
Haryana. Sh. Manish Wadhwa expired in the said accident which was
allegedly caused by vehicle bearing registration No. HR-38 AD 4242
TATA 609, (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle). The said
vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 2 Gopal Yadav, owned by
respondent no. 1 M/s Delstone Concrete Pvt. Ltd. and insured by
respondent no. 3 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the claim petition
are that on 03.09.2023 at about 08:00 pm the deceased was returning
from his company in Okhla, Delhi after duty on his motorcycle. He was
hit by the offending vehicle from behind. The deceased fell down from
his bike on the road. The offending vehicle involved in the accident was
intercepted by the crowd gathered there and the driver was
apprehended. The deceased on being taken to the hospital namely
Escort Fortis was declared brought dead. Hence, the FIR u/s 279/304A
IPC was registered in PS Sector -31, Faridabad, Haryana, at about
10:55 hours. The petitioners have filed the present petition seeking
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.07.13
16:02:46
+0530
MACT No.953/2023
Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Vs. Delstone Concrete Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 2 of 38
compensation from the respondents.
WRITTEN STATEMENTS
3. WS was filed on behalf of respondent no. 1. It was stated
that the accident was not caused due to the rash and negligent driving
of the respondent no.2. The deceased was driving his bike at a high
speed, due to which he lost control of his bike and slipped near the
offending vehicle. Hence, it is stated that they were not liable to pay
any compensation to the petitioner.
4. Separate WS was filed by the respondent no.2 on similar
lines as the respondent no.1.
5. WS was filed on behalf of the respondent no.3 wherein it
was admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with the
respondent no.3 vide policy no. 242596/31/2023/TMC/18512 for the
period 14.09.2022 to 13.09.2023. It was stated that the petitioner was
under the liability to prove the accident and the rash and negligent
driving of the respondent no.2. Further, it was stated that the
respondent no. 3 was entitled to take all such defences as were
available to the respondent no.3 as per law. It was also stated that the
accident was caused due to the negligence of the deceased. Further, he
was driving his motorcycle without any valid driving license. Also, the
respondent no. 2 was not holding a valid driving license to drive the
offending vehicle. Hence, it was stated that the respondent no.3 was not
liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners, as the terms of the
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.07.13
16:02:50 +0530
MACT No.953/2023
Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Vs. Delstone Concrete Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 3 of 38
insurance policy were violated.
ISSUES
6. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order
dated 07.04.2025, this Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the deceased Sh. Manvish Wadhwa suffered fatal
injuries in an accident that took place on 03.09.2023 at
about 10:15 pm involving bearing registration No.
HR-38AD-42423 driven by the respondent no. 2 rashly and
negligently, owned by the respondent no. 1 and insured with
the respondent no. 3?
OPP
2. Whether the petitioners is entitled for compensation? If
yes, to what extent and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
7. Sh. Ramesh Chand Wadhwa i.e. the petitioner no.1 was
examined as PW-1. He has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit
which is Ex. PW1/A. He relied upon the following documents:
1. Copy of his Aadhar Card which was Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR).
2. Copy of ID Card of deceased Ex. PW-1/2.
3. Copy of family ID Card is marked as Mark A.
4. Copy of Aadhar Card of Mrs. Usha Wadhwa is Ex. PW-1/5
(OSR).
5. Salary Slip of deceased is marked as Mark B.
6. Copy of death certificate is marked as Mark C.
7. Post mortem report is marked as Mark D.
8. Complete criminal record is Ex. PW-1/6 (colly). Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.07.13
MACT No.953/2023 16:02:55
+0530Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Vs. Delstone Concrete Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 4 of 38
9. Copy of statement of bank account of deceased is Ex.
PW-1/7 (colly).
8. Further, Mr. Sumit Kumar, Senior Manager, Star Health &
Allied Insurance Company Ltd. was examined as PW-2. He had
brought the copy of appointment letter dt. 18.12.2022 issued by Golden
Enterprises in favour of the deceased Manvish Wadhwa which was
marked as Mark B. He stated that the deceased was working as tele-
caller in administrative and supervisory cadre on contract basis. His
annual salary was fixed at Rs. 3,04,080 (inclusive of PF, ESI etc). The
amount of salary was paid by Star Health to Golden Enterprises (who
was working with Star Health on contract basis).
9. Both the witnesses were duly cross examined by the Ld.
Counsel for respondents. Thereafter, PE was closed.
RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE
10. No RE was led by any of the respondents.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
11. The Petitioners filed their duly filled Form XIII and the
financial statements of all the petitioners were recorded in the form of
affidavits. Final arguments were heard on behalf of the petitioners as
well as respondents. Written arguments were also filed on behalf of the
petitioner and the respondent no. 3.
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.07.13
16:03:00 +0530
MACT No.953/2023
Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Vs. Delstone Concrete Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 5 of 38
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
12. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and Ld.
Counsel for respondents and perused the record. My findings on the
various issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1:
Whether the deceased Sh. Manvish Wadhwa suffered
fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 03.09.2023 at about
10:15 pm involving bearing registration No. HR-38AD-42423 driven
by the respondent no. 2 rashly and negligently, owned by the
respondent no. 1 and insured with the respondent no. 3?
13. The onus to prove the issue was upon the petitioner. It is
the case of the petitioners that on 03.09.2023 at about 10:15 pm, the
deceased Mr. Manvish Wadhwa (since deceased) was going home from
his office at Okhla, Delhi on his motorcycle. When he reached at NH 2,
near Honda showroom, GT Road, Sector 31, Faridabad at about 10.15
pm, the offending vehicle being driven in a rash and negligent manner
by the respondent no. no.2, hit the motorcycle of the deceased, due to
which he fell and suffered injuries. Subsequently, he expired. It is
submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioners that the respondent no.2
was chargesheeted by the IO in the present matter. The fact that the
accident was caused by the offending vehicle is not in dispute. Hence, it
is stated that rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.2 is
proved on record.
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.07.13
16:03:05
+0530
MACT No.953/2023
Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Vs. Delstone Concrete Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 6 of 38
14. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3
that in the present matter, the accident occurred due to the negligence of
the deceased who was driving his motorcycle rashly and negligently.
His motorcycle slipped. The accident was not caused by the offending
vehicle. The offending vehicle was just near to the motorcycle of the
deceased, due to which it was implicated. Hence, it is submitted that
there is no negligence on the part of the respondent no. 2. The
negligence can be attributed only upon the deceased. Hence, it is
submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to any compensation. If at
all, compensation is granted, then the aspect of contributory negligence
should also be taken into consideration.
15. Record perused.
16. In the present matter, the respondent no. 2 was
chargesheeted by the IO. It has been alleged that the accident was not
caused by the offending vehicle but no evidence has been led by the
respondents to prove this fact. As this fact was specifically alleged by
them, the onus to prove the same was upon the respondents, which has
not been discharged. Further, perusal of the chargesheet shows that the
offending vehicle was seized by the IO from the spot. 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
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.07.13
16:03:10 +0530
MACT No.953/2023
Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Vs. Delstone Concrete Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 7 of 38
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. Further, it is a settled law that the petitioner
cannot be expected to prove the accident beyond reasonable doubts and
the principle of res ipsa loquitor should apply which means that the
“accident speaks for itself”.
17. Further, it is also pertinent to note that the respondent no. 2
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 sufficient
proof to reach to a conclusion that the driver was negligent
particularly when there is no defence available from the
side of driver.”
18. 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,
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.953/2023
Date:
SINGLA 2026.07.13
16:03:14
+0530Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Vs. Delstone Concrete Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 8 of 38
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.”
19. At the cost of repetition, no evidence was led by any of the
respondents that the accident was not caused by the respondent no.2 or
it was caused due to the negligence of the deceased. In view of the
same, considering the facts and circumstances, the court is satisfied that
the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the
respondent no. 2. From the DAR, it also stands established that
respondent no. 1 was the registered owner of the offending vehicle. It is
also an admitted position that the offending vehicle was insured with
the respondent no. 3.
The injury:
20. Further, the onus to prove that the deceased had suffered
injuries by way of the said accident was on the petitioner. It is the
matter of record that due to the accident, the deceased suffered injuries.
To prove the same, the petitioners have relied upon his medical record.
As per the reply given by Fortis Hospital to the IO, the deceased was
brought dead on 03.09.2023 at 10.15 pm. The post mortem was
conducted at B.K. Hospital, Faridabad. The report dated 04.09.2023 is
as per record, as per which he sustained various ante mortem injuries
on his body including head, leg and arm. The Death Report prepared by
the IO is also on record as per which the injuries were caused in a road
traffic accident.
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.07.13
16:03:19
+0530
MACT No.953/2023
Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Vs. Delstone Concrete Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 9 of 38
Contributory negligence:
21. 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 without a helmet. Hence, it is stated that the deceased is guilty of
contributory negligence.
22. 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,
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.”
23. 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
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.953/2023 SINGLA Date:
2026.07.13
16:03:24 +0530
Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Vs. Delstone Concrete Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 10 of 38
manner unless rashness and negligence on his part is specifically
proved.
24. 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 motor-cycle in a rash and negligent
manner. Respondent no. 2 has not examined himself to prove that the
injured was riding his motor-cycle in a rash and negligent manner.
Hence, it is not proved on record that the deceased was driving his
motor-cycle in a rash and negligent manner.
25. Secondly, it is alleged that the deceased was driving his
motor-cycle without helmet. Hence, he is guilty of contributory
negligence. In Ram Niwas Meena & Anr vs Neeraj Kumar Mishra
MAC.APP. 577/2017 decided on 5 September, 2017, the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi has observed:
“7. It, however, must be noted in this very context that the
entire record of investigation does not indicate, not even
remotely, presence of any helmet either of the rider Ranjeet
Mishra or of the pillion rider Naresh Kumar Mishra having
been found either at the scene or on their person. No injury
on account of impact of helmets on their respective heads if
worn at the relevant point of time has been noticed either in
the MLC or by the autopsy doctor. In these circumstances,
mere word of PW-1 that both the riders were sporting
helmets cannot be accepted. A finding must be returned that
both were riding on the motorcycle without taking the
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.13
16:03:29 +0530MACT No.953/2023
Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Vs. Delstone Concrete Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 11 of 38
precaution of wearing helmets.
8. In above facts and circumstances, while the finding of the
tribunal holding the bus driver responsible for the collision
cannot be questioned, it must be concluded that both the
riders of the motorcycle had also contributed to the cause
for the serious injuries suffered by each of them in that they
did not take precaution of wearing the helmets on their
respective heads. The element of contributory negligence, in
the facts and circumstances, is assessed to the extent of
twenty five per cent (25%). Deduction to that extent from the
compensation awarded by the tribunal will have to be made.
Ordered accordingly.
9. Thus, both appeals are partly allowed. The compensation
determined by the tribunal in the two cases shall be paid
after deducting twenty five per cent (25%) on account of
contributory negligence.”
26. In the present matter, there is no evidence that the
deceased was not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident. Further,
as per the post mortem report dated 04.09.2023, the deceased sustained
various ante mortem injuries on his body including head, leg and arm.
The nature of injuries have been given on page 3 of the report. Perusal
of the same shows that the injuries on the head included a fracture. He
also suffered a fracture on the arm. There is no such finding of the
doctor that the death was due to the head injury. Hence, there is no
nexus between the cause of death and non-wearing of the helmet by the
deceased. Hence, the Tribunal is not inclined to deduct compensation
on the ground of contributory negligence. Therefore, it is concluded
that the injured suffered injuries in the accident in question and also
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.07.13
16:03:34 +0530
MACT No.953/2023
Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Vs. Delstone Concrete Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 12 of 38
that there was no wilful act, neglect or 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.
27. 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 Mr. Manvish Wadhwa had
expired. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the
petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO.2
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to
what amount and from whom? (OPP)
28. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners. In
view of the discussion in issue no.1 & 2, the petitioners are entitled for
compensation. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in matter of “Sarla
Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors.” (2003) 6
SCC 121 has held : –
“QUA BASIC PRINCIPLES
“9. Basically only three facts need to be
established by the claimants for assessing compensation in
the case of death :-
(a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the
deceased; and the (c) the number of dependents. The issues
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.953/2023 SINGLA Date:
2026.07.13
16:03:39 +0530Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Vs. Delstone Concrete Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 13 of 38
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 of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be
selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of
years he would have lived or worked but for the accident.
Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic
factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has
been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen
from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step 3 (Actual calculation)
The annual contribution to the family
(multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the
`loss of dependency’ to the family. Thereafter, a conventional
amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be
added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his
widow, another conventional amount in the range of 5,000/-
to 10,000/- should be added under the head of loss of
consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.07.13MACT No.953/2023 16:03:43 +0530
Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Vs. Delstone Concrete Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 14 of 38
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 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
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.953/2023 SINGLA Date:
2026.07.13
Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Vs. Delstone Concrete Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 16:03:48 +0530
Page 15 of 38
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
“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
“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:- Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.13
MACT No.953/2023
16:03:52
+0530Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Vs. Delstone Concrete Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 16 of 38
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been
well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was
taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla
Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a
coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a
contrary view than what has been held by another
coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma
Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the
decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of
actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future
prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was
below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition
should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to
50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to
60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should
be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed
salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should
be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40
years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between
the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was
between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the
necessary method of computation. The established income
means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for
personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts
shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma
which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the
Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that
judgment.
(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
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.07.13
MACT No.953/2023 16:03:58
+0530
Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Vs. Delstone Concrete Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 17 of 38
Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 25,115/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The
aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in
every three years.”(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.”
29. 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.
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.953/2023 SINGLA Date:
2026.07.13
16:04:03 +0530Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Vs. Delstone Concrete Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 18 of 38
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. 25,115/- and Rs. 15,000/-
respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at
the rate of 10% in every three years.”
Loss of income
30. In the present matter, it is alleged on the behalf of the
petitioners that the deceased was working as tele-caller with Star Health
& Allied Insurance Company Ltd. and was earning about Rs. 3,04,080/-
per annum. It is submitted that to prove the same, the petitioners
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
MACT No.953/2023
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.07.13
16:04:08 +0530
Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Vs. Delstone Concrete Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 19 of 38
summoned PW-2 Mr. Sumit Kumar, Senior Manager, Star Health &
Allied Insurance Company Ltd. and he proved the employment and
salary record of the deceased. Hence, it is submitted that his income
may be considered accordingly.
31. Per contra, It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for respondent
no. 3 that the employment and salary of the deceased is not proved as
per law.
32. Record perused. Mr. Sumit Kumar, Senior Manager, Star
Health & Allied Insurance Company Ltd. was examined as PW-2. He
prodcued the copy of appointment letter dt. 18.12.2022 issued by
Golden Enterprises in favour of the deceased Manvish Wadhwa which
was marked as Mark B. The said document could not be found in the
case file at the time of the judgment. Hence, Ld. Counsel for the
petitioner placed on record a copy of the same on record. Perusal of the
said document shows that the deceased was working in the said
company as tele-caller in administrative and supervisory cadre on
contract basis. His annual salary was fixed at Rs. 3,04,080/- (inclusive
of PF, ESI etc). In the opinion of this Tribunal, on the basis of the
testimony of PW2 Mr. Sumit Kumar, Senior Manager, Star Health &
Allied Insurance Company Ltd., the employment and salary of the
deceased is proved.
33. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v.
Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 held that for
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.07.13
MACT No.953/2023 16:04:13 +0530
Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Vs. Delstone Concrete Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 20 of 38
calculating compensation, the income of the victim less the income tax
should be treated as the actual income. As per the income tax slab for
the financial year 2022-23, no income tax was payable till the income
of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Then, a tax of 5% was payable for the income in the
bracket of Rs. 2,50,000/- till Rs. 5,00,000/-. Hence, income tax @ 5%
has to be deducted on Rs. 54,080/- which comes to Rs. 2,704/-. Hence,
his annual income after payment of tax was Rs. 3,01,376/-. Hence, his
average monthly salary for the financial year 2022-23 comes to be
Rs.25,114.66 (rounded off to Rs.25,115/-). His monthly income is
assessed accordingly.
Age determination of the deceased:
34. As per his aadhar card, the deceased’s date of birth was
02.05.2001. The date of the accident is 02.09.2023. Hence, as on the
date of the accident, the deceased was aged 22 years.
Future Prospects: –
35. 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 be entitled to 40% for future prospects as the
deceased was less than 40 years of age. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that the future prospects be taken as 50%. However, the
same is permissible only in case of a permanent job. PW2 has clearly
deposed in his testimony that the deceased was a contractual employee.
Hence, future prospects shall be taken at 40%. Accordingly, the
monthly income of the deceased needs to be taken as Rs. 35,161/-.
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.13
16:04:20 +0530MACT No.953/2023
Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Vs. Delstone Concrete Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 21 of 38
(Rs. 25,115/- + Rs. 10,046/- which is 40% of Rs. 25,115/-).
Determination of Dependent
36. In the present case, the deceased is survived by his parents.
It is an admitted fact that the father of the deceased is working and
earning. As the deceased was unmarried, only the petitioner no. 2 i.e.
the mother of the deceased shall be considered as dependent on the
deceased.
Determination of multiplicand
37. The monthly income of the deceased after enhancement
needs to be taken as Rs. 35,161/-. In light of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, and United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur & Ors., (2021) 11
SCC 780, out of the above amount so assessed, 1/2 amount has to be
deducted on account of personal and living expenses as the deceased
was unmarried. So, in this matter, monthly loss of dependency would
come out to be Rs. 17,580.50 (1/2 of Rs. 35,161/-). This needs to be
multiplied by 12 to workout multiplicand/annual loss of dependency.
Hence, multiplicand for this matter would be Rs. 2,10,966/- ( Rs.
17,580.50 x 12).
Award Towards Loss of Dependency
38. Further, as the deceased was 22 years of age at the time of
the accident, multiplier applicable in this matter as per above discussion
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.07.13
MACT No.953/2023
16:04:25
+0530
Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Vs. Delstone Concrete Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 22 of 38
would be 18. The total loss of dependency would come out to be
Rs.37,97,388/- (Rs. 2,10,966/- x 18), hence, so awarded.
Medical expenses:
39. No bills qua treatment to the deceased are proved. Hence,
in the absence of any medical bills, the petitioners shall not be
entitled to any amount towards medical expenses.
Non-Pecuniary Heads:-
40. 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
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
MACT No.953/2023 RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.13
Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Vs. Delstone Concrete Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 23 of 38
16:04:30 +0530
consortium’, and ‘filial consortium’.
The right to consortium would include the company, care,
help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the
deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a
spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased
spouse.
Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining
to the relationship of a husband wife which allows
compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of “company,
society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every
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
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.07.13MACT No.953/2023
16:04:35
+0530Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Vs. Delstone Concrete Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 24 of 38
to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial
Consortium.
Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their
parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act.
A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this
count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the
principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss
of Filial Consortium.
The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium
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.25,115 each for loss of Filial Consortium…..”.
41. 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
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.953/2023 SINGLA Date: 2026.07.13
16:04:41 +0530Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Vs. Delstone Concrete Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 25 of 38
comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include
spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial
consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in
loss of consortium.
The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to award
compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate
conventional head. There is no justification to award
compensation towards loss of love and affection as a
separate head…”.
42. 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. The judgment was pronounced by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in 2017 and the accident in the present case occurred in
2023, after 7 years of the pronouncement of the said judgment. Hence,
in the present case, the said expenses are to be enhanced by 10% twice.
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.
43. Thus, an amount of Rs. 18,150/- is granted towards the
Loss of Estate and Rs. 18,150/- towards funeral charges.
44. Further, Rs. 48,400/- each is granted to the petitioners
i.e. total of Rs. 48,400/- x 2 = Rs. 96,800/- towards Loss of
Consortium.
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.07.13
16:04:48
MACT No.953/2023
+0530
Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Vs. Delstone Concrete Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 26 of 38
Computation of compensation:
45. Applying the settled guidelines in the various judgments,
the compensation payable to the petitioners is calculated as under:
Head Awarded by the Claims Tribunal Monthly Income of deceased (A) Rs. 25,115/- Add future prospect (B) @ 40%= Rs. 10,046/-
Less 1/2 deductions towards (Rs. 25,115/- + Rs. 10,046/-) = Rs.
personal and living expenses of the 35,161/- x 1/2 = Rs. 17,580.50
deceased (C)
Monthly loss of dependency (Rs. 25,115/- + Rs. 10,046/-) – Rs.
[(A+B) – C = D] 17,580.50 = Rs. 17,580.50
Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 17,580.50 x 12= Rs.
(D x 12) 2,10,966/-
Multiplier (E) 18
Total loss of dependency (Rs. 2,10,966/- x 18) =
DxE=F Rs. 37,97,388/-
Medical Expenses (G) Nil
Compensation for loss of love and Nil
affection (H)
Compensation for loss of Rs. 48,400/- x 2 = Rs. 96,800/-
consortium (I) to the petitioners
Compensation for loss of Estate (J) Rs. 18,150/-
Compensation for funeral expenses Rs. 18,150/-
(K) Total Compensation Rs. 39,30,488/-
46. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru
@ Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025, the
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.07.13
16:04:53 +0530
MACT No.953/2023
Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Vs. Delstone Concrete Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 27 of 38
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. 31.10.2023 till
realization.
Apportionment:
47. It is evident from the record that the deceased had left
behind his parents as his legal heirs. For the sake of convenience, the
individual shares of the petitioners are tabulated as under:-
S.No. Name of the Amount Interest Total amount
claimant including interest
1. Sh. Ramesh Rs. 48,400/- + Rs. 20,613.43 Rs. 1,05,313.43
Chand Wadhwa Rs. 18,150/- + (rounded off to
Rs. 18,150/- = Rs. 1,05,313/-)
Rs. 84,700/-
2. Smt. Usha Rs. 38,45,788/- Rs. 9,35,948.90 Rs. 47,81,736.90
Wadhwa (rounded off to
Rs. 47,81,737/-)DISBURSEMENT
48. The Financial Statement of petitioner/injured was recorded
by this Court/Tribunal.
49. 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.
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.953/2023 SINGLA Date:
2026.07.13
16:04:58 +0530Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Vs. Delstone Concrete Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 28 of 38
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in
safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR
number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount
shall be furnished by bank to the claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the
ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the
place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature
discharge 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.”
50. 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
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.13
MACT No.953/2023 16:05:03 +0530Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Vs. Delstone Concrete Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 29 of 38
compensation is not disputed, is to deposit the same before
the Tribunal. Instead of following that process, a direction
can always be issued to transfer the amount into the bank
account(s) of the claimant(s) with intimation to the
Tribunal.
17.1 For that purpose, the Tribunals at the initial stage of
pleadings or at the stage of leading evidence may require
the claimant(s) to furnish their bank account particulars to
the 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.”
51. In view of the same, the award amount can now be
disbursed in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioners. However, the
remaining directions as passed by the Hon’ble High Court shall be
complied with. It is directed that the award amount be deposited by the
respondent no. 3 in the bank account of Tribunal bearing A/c no.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.953/2023 SINGLA Date: 2026.07.13 16:05:08 +0530 Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Vs. Delstone Concrete Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 30 of 38
42704293960, SBI, THC, Delhi in the name of MACT-01, Central,
IFSC Code: SBIN0000726.
Sh. Ramesh Chand Wadhwa (Father):
52. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners,
it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 49,58,763/-, out
of the share of the petitioner/father Mr. Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Rs.
1,05,313/- (Rupees One Lac Five Thousand Three Hundred Thirteen
only), SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi shall release the entire amount
along with accumulated interest to the petitioner/father
immediately in his Bank Account no. 2258000100234148
maintained at Punjab National Bank, Sector 37, Faridabad, IFSC
Code PUNB0225800.
Mrs. Usha Wadhwa (Mother):
53. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners,
it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 49,58,763/-, out
of the share of the petitioner/mother Mrs. Usha Wadhwa Rs.
47,81,737/- (Rupees Forty Seven Lacs Eighty One Thousand Seven
Hundred Thirty Seven only), Rs. 7,81,737/- (Rupees Seven Lacs Eighty
One Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Seven only) along with
accumulated interest shall be released to the petitioner immediately in
her Bank Account no. 4860000100041521 maintained at Punjab
National Bank, DAV Centenary College, Faridabad, IFSC Code
PUNB0486000.
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.13
16:05:13 +0530MACT No.953/2023
Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Vs. Delstone Concrete Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 31 of 38
54. The balance amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty
Lakhs only) shall be put in 100 monthly fixed deposits in her name
in MACAD account of equal amount of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty
Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 100 months
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.
55. 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.
56. In compliance of the directions given by Hon’ble High
Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award
in the prescribed Format-XVI is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
Date of Accident: 02.09.2023
Name of the deceased: Mr. Manvish Wadhwa
Age of the deceased: 22 years
Occupation of the deceased: Telecaller
Income of the
deceased : Rs. 25,115/- p.m. Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.13
16:05:18 +0530
MACT No.953/2023
Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Vs. Delstone Concrete Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 32 of 38
Name and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No. Name of the claimant Relation with deceased
1. Mr. Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Father
2. Mrs. Usha Wadhwa Mother
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
Sr. Head Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
No.
1 Monthly Income of deceased Rs. 25,115/-
(A)
2 Add future prospect (B) @ 40%= Rs. 10,046/-
3 Less 1/2 deductions towards (Rs. 25,115/- + Rs. 10,046/-) = Rs.
personal and living expenses of 35,161/- x 1/2 = Rs. 17,580.50
the deceased (C)
4 Monthly loss of dependency (Rs. 25,115/- + Rs. 10,046/-) – Rs.
[(A+B) – C = D] 17,580.50 = Rs. 17,580.50
5 Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 17,580.50 x 12 = Rs. 2,10,966/-
(D x 12)
6 Multiplier (E) 18
7 Total loss of dependency (Rs. 2,10,966/- x 18) =
DxE=F Rs. 37,97,388/-
8 Medical Expenses (G) Nil
9 Compensation for loss of love Nil
and affection (H)
10 Compensation for loss of Rs. 48,400/- x 2 = Rs. 96,800/-
consortium (I) to the petitioners
11 Compensation for loss of Rs. 18,150/-
Estate (J)
12 Compensation for funeral Rs. 18,150/-
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.13
MACT No.953/2023 16:05:23 +0530
Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Vs. Delstone Concrete Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 33 of 38
expenses (K)
13 Total Compensation Rs. 39,30,488/-
14 Rate of Interest Awarded 9%
15 Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 9,56,562/-
award w.e.f. 31.10.2023 till
realization
16 Total amount including interest Rs. 49,58,763/-
17 Award amount released As per paragraph Nos. 52 to 54
18 Award amount kept in FDRs As per paragraph Nos. 54
19 Mode of disbursement of the As per paragraph Nos. 52 to 54
award amount to the
claimant(s)
20 Next Date of compliance of the 13.08.2026
award
LIABILITY:
57. It has been established that the offending vehicle was
being driven by respondent no.2 and that respondent no.1 is the owner
of the same and the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent
no.3. In the WS, it was alleged by the respondent no. 3 that the
respondent no. 2 was driving the offending vehicle without a valid
valid driving license. However, at the time of the conclusion of the
trial, this ground was not pressed. It was also not mentioned in the
written arguments. Hence, it is deemed that the same is not pressed
upon by the respondent no.3. Hence, the respondent no. 3 shall be
liable to pay compensation to the petitioner in the present matter. Issue
No. 3 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against
the respondents. Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.07.13
16:05:28
+0530
MACT No.953/2023
Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Vs. Delstone Concrete Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 34 of 38
RELIEF:
58. In view of the above, the respondent no. 3 is directed to
deposit a sum of Rs. 39,30,488/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Thirty
Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Eight only) along with interest @
9% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. w.e.f. 31.10.2023 till
realization with the bank account of this Tribunal at SBI, THC
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.
59. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the
award to the insurance company for compliance within the time granted
as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No.
534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. The said respondent is further
directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to
the claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal
with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days
of the deposit with a copy to the Claimant and his counsel.
Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the
award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information. A
digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost.
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.07.13
16:05:33 +0530
MACT No.953/2023
Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Vs. Delstone Concrete Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 35 of 38
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
13.08.2026 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
on this 13th July 2026 RUCHIKA by
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.07.13
16:05:38 +0530
(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
MACT No.953/2023
Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Vs. Delstone Concrete Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 36 of 38
THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL
MOTOR VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022
(PL. SEE RULE 150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 03.09.2023
2 Date of filing of Form-I – First Accident
NA
Report (FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II to the victim(s) NA
4 Date of receipt of Form-III from the Driver NA
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 Victim(s) NA
8 Date of filing of Form-VII – Claim petition 31.10.2023
9 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on
the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, NA
whether any action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer
15.05.2024
by the Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance
Company admitted his report within 30 days of No
the DAR/claim petition?
12 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on
the part of the Designated Officer of the NA
Insurance Company?
If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13 Date of response of the claimant(s) to the offer NA
of the Insurance Company.
14 Date of award 13.07.2026
15 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.953/2023 SINGLA Date: 2026.07.13
16:05:43 +0530
Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Vs. Delstone Concrete Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 37 of 38
savings bank account(s) near their place of No
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 direction to the bank
not to issue any cheque book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this NA
effect on the passbook(s).
17 Date on which the claimant(s) produced the
passbook of their savings bank account(s) near
19.03.2026
the place of their residence alongwith the
endorsement, PAN card and Aadhaar Card?
18 Permanent residential address of the claimant(s).
As per Award.
19 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s)
Yes.
is near their place of residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s) were examined at the Yes. The affidavit in the
time of passing of the Award to ascertain form of Financial
his/their financial condition? Statements of the
claimants were filed on
19.03.2026.
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.07.13
16:05:49 +0530
(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
13.07.2026
MACT No.953/2023
Ramesh Chand Wadhwa Vs. Delstone Concrete Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 38 of 38
