Delhi District Court
Nisha Devi And Ors vs Bijendra And Ors on 16 July, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHILASH MALHOTRA
PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-02, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
SMT. NISHA DEVI & ORS Vs. BIJENDRA &
ORS.
MACT NO. 167 / 2021
1. Smt. Nisha Devi (Wife)
W/o Late Sh. Ravindra Kumar
2. Miss Vanshika (Daughter)
D/o Late Sh. Ravindra Kumar
3. Master Keshav (Son)
S/o Late Sh. Sh. Ravindra Kumar
4. Smt. Parkashi (Mother)
W/o Sh. Surendra
5. Sh. Surendra (Father)
S/o Late Sh. Tulsi Ram
Petitioner nos. 2 & 3 are minor and represented by natural
guardian/ mother Smt. Nisha Devi.
All Resident of :
Village - Rasoolabad, Nanpur, Hapur, UP.
Also at : R/o A-39, Mandawali Shakarpur, Delhi -110092
... Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Bijendra
S/o Sh. Deshraj
R/o Paupli Nanpur, Garhmukteswar,
District - Hapur, UP .... Driver/
Respondent no.1
2. Mr. Saleem
S/o Sh. Abdul Hameed
R/o 86 Humanyu Nagar, Meerut, UP. …. Owner/
Respondent no.2
MACT No. 167/2021 Page. 1 of 39
Smt. Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra & Ors
3. M/s Chola Mandlam MS General Insurance Company Ltd.
2nd Floor, PCM Building,
Bara Khamba Road, New Delhi ....Insurance Company/
Respondent no. 3
Date of accident 09.07.2021
Date of filing Claim Petition 30.10.2021
Date of framing of issues 02.01.2024
Date of concluding arguments 06.07.2026
Date of decision 16.07.2026
AWARD/JUDGMENT
Index to the Judgment
I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE CLAIMANT(s)...........................................4
II. FRAMING OF ISSUES……………………………………………………………………….5
III. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS OF THE PARTIES……………………………..10
IV. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO****……………………..12
(a) Issue No.1: Whether the deceased Sh. Ravindra Kumar sustained fatal
injuries in the accident which occurred on 09.07.2021 at about 8:00
p.m.,near Village Nanpur, PS Garhmukteswar, District – Hapur, UP caused by
rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. UP-15-BB-0764 being driven by
respondent no.1, owned by respondent no. 2, and insured with respondent no.
3 ?OPP……………………………………………………………………………………………… 12
i. Presumption qua complicity upon filing chargesheet:……………….12
ii. Preponderance of probabilities:………………………………………………13
iii. The evidence on record qua negligence:………………………………….15
iv. Finding:……………………………………………………………………………… 16
MACT No. 167/2021 Page. 2 of 39
Smt. Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra & Ors
(b) Issue No.2: Whether claimant is entitled to compensation, and to what
amount ?……………………………………………………………………………………………. 17
i. Principles qua assessment of compensation:…………………………….17
ii. Monthly Income of the deceased:…………………………………………..19
iii. Future prospects:………………………………………………………………….20
iv. Personal expenses of the deceased:…………………………………………22
v. Monthly & Annual Loss of dependency:…………………………………23
vi. Total Loss of Dependency:…………………………………………………….23
vii. Other Heads:………………………………………………………………………..23
viii. Medical Expenses:………………………………………………………………..25
ix. Compensation for Loss of Consortium:…………………………………..25
x. Compensation for Loss of Estate:…………………………………………..27
xi. Compensation towards Funeral Expenses:……………………………….27
xii. Total Compensation:……………………………………………………………..27
(c) Issue No.3: Relief………………………………………………………………………. 28
i. Amount of Award:………………………………………………………………..28
ii. Rate of Interest:……………………………………………………………………28
V. DEPOSIT OF AWARD& RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT…………………….30
i. Deposit of Award:…………………………………………………………………30
ii. Disbursement of the award amount & protection thereof:………….32
VI. LIABILITY………………………………………………………………………………………34
VII.. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN CASES OF
DEATH…………………………………………………………………………………………………..35
VIII…………………………COMPLIANCE QUA PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME
37
MACT No. 167/2021 Page. 3 of 39
Smt. Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra & Ors
I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE CLAIMANT(s)
1. In the present case, the accident had occurred out of Delhi and a
claim petition was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased at Delhi.
2. The office of the Insurance Company is stated to be within the
jurisdiction of this Tribunal and in view of the judgment passed by
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Malati Sardar
v. National Insurance Company Limited and Ors. (2016) 3 SCC
43, the issue of jurisdiction is no more in dispute.
3. In the present case, Mr. Ravindra Kumar S/o Sh. Surendra lost his
life in a road accident and a claim petition under Section 166 of
the M. V. Act, 1988 was filed by the legal heirs of deceased.
4. In present case, FIR bearing no. 369/2021 was registered in PS-
Garhmukhteswar, District- Hapur, UP, Under Section
279/304A/338 IPC on the complaint made by complainant Mr.
Surendra Kumar. A charge-sheet was filed by the police against
the driver Mr. Bijendra (R-1) under Section 279/304A/338 IPC, on
the charges of rash driving of vehicle no. UP-15-BB-0764. It is
stated that on 09.07.2021 at about 8:00 p.m Mr. Ravindra Kumar
(deceased) was travelling from Delhi to his hometown at Village
Nanpur, by bus and he stepped down from the bus at Village
Nanpur and was walking on the side of the road towards his house
in the said village when a vehicle bearing registration no. UP-15-
BB-0764 being driven by its driver at very high speed in a rash and
negligent manner came from behind and hit him. Due to the impact
MACT No. 167/2021 Page. 4 of 39
Smt. Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra & Ors
of the accident, Mr. Ravinder Kumar (deceased) received grievous
injuries and succumbed to his injuries and died.
5. As per the charge sheet, the vehicle was driven by respondent no.
1 driver, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured by respondent no.
3/Insurance company.
6. During the proceedings issues were framed on 02.01.2024. On
02.01.2024, the opportunity of R-1 and R-2 to file reply was closed
by my Ld. Predecessor. Thereafter the written submissions were
filed by the parties in the prescribed format. The financial
statement of the legal representative of deceased was recorded on
29.10.2025.
II. FRAMING OF ISSUES
7. Vide order dated 02.01.2024, following issues were framed by
this Tribunal:-
“1. Whether the deceased Sh. Ravindra Kumar
sustained fatal injuries in the accident which
occurred on 09.07.2021 at about 8:00 p.m.,near
Village Nanpur, PS Garhmukteswar, District –
Hapur, UP caused by rash and negligent driving of
vehicle no. UP-15-BB-0764 being driven by
respondent no.1, owned by respondent no. 2, and
insured with respondent no. 3 ?OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and from
whom? OPP
3. Relief.”
MACT No. 167/2021 Page. 5 of 39
Smt. Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra & Ors
8. Recording of evidence: in present case, PW-1 is Smt. Nisha
Devi. She tendered her affidavit by way of evidence as Ex. PW
1/A. She has relied upon the following documents viz., Copy of
FIR, Site Plan, PMR and MIR as Ex. PW 1/1 (Colly); Copy of
Aadhar Card of petitioner no. 1 Smt. Nisha Devi as Ex. PW 1/
2; Copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no. 5 Sh. Surendra as Ex.
PW 1/ 3; Copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no. 4 Smt. Parkashi
as Ex. PW 1/ 4; Copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no. 2 Master
Keshav as Ex. PW 1/ 5; Copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no.
2 Miss Vanshika as Ex. PW 1/ 6; Copy of Aadhar Card of
deceased Ravinder Kumar as Ex. PW 1/ 7; Copy of certificate
issued by Bharat Siksha Aadan Inter College is Ex. PW 1 /8;
Certified copy of Revenue records of Agricultural Land bearing
Khasra No. 749, Khasra No. 894, Khasra No. 748, Khasra No.
893, Khasra No. 185, Khasra No. 929 is Ex. PW 1/ 9.
9. PW-1 in her testimony stated that on 09.07.2021 at about 8:00
p.m deceased Ravindra Kumar @ Ravindra Sharma @ Ravindra
Kumar Kaushik was travelling from Delhi to his hometown at
Village Nanpur, by bus. She stated that deceased stepped down
from the bus at Village Nanpur and was walking on the side of
the road towards his house in the said village when a vehicle
bearing registration no. UP-15-BB-0764 being driven by its
driver at very high speed in a rash and negligent manner came
from behind and hit the deceased. Due to the impact of the
accident, deceased received grievous injuries and succumbed toMACT No. 167/2021 Page. 6 of 39
Smt. Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra & Ors
his injuries and died on the way to hospital. The postmortem of
the deceased was conducted by the Medical Officer, PPC Hapur.
She stated that an FIR No. 369/2021 was lodged with PS
Garhmukteswar, Hapur by her husband Mr. Surendra Kumar.
10.PW-1 further stated that at the time of accident, deceased was
44 years, having good physique. She stated that deceased was
running a general store in Delhi and earning about Rs.25,000/-
per month. She stated that due to sudden death of deceased, they
suffered huge loss, loss of love and affection throughout their
life which cannot be compensated in any manner.
11.PW-1 in her cross examination stated that she is not an eye
witness to the accident. She stated that her husband was working
in a grocery shop. She stated that her husband used to give her
cash for her expenses and survival of family members whenever
he used to visit her. She stated that her husband was not Income
Tax assessee and he was not having any PAN Card.
12.PW-2 was Mr. Sarjeet S/o Sh. Bhole Singh is the eye witness of
the accident. He tendered his affidavit by way of evidence as
Ex. PW 2/A. He has relied upon copy of Aadhar Card which is
Ex. PW 2/1.
13.In his testimony PW-2 stated that on 09.07.2021 at about 8:00
p.m deceased Ravindra Kumar @ Ravindra Sharma @ Ravindra
Kumar Kaushik was travelling from Delhi to his hometown at
Village Nanpur, by bus. He stated that deceased stepped down
from the bus at Village Nanpur and was walking on the side ofMACT No. 167/2021 Page. 7 of 39
Smt. Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra & Ors
the road towards his house in the said village, when a vehicle
bearing registration no. UP-15-BB-0764 being driven by its
driver at very high speed in a rash and negligent manner came
from behind and hit the deceased. Due to the impact of the
accident, deceased received grievous injuries and died on the
way to hospital.
14.In his cross examination, PW-2 stated that he is a farmer by
profession and permanent resident of Village Nanpur. He stated
that he saw the accident from his own eyes. He stated that the
deceased was not his relative. He stated that the place of
accident is 20-30 meters from his residence and he was sitting
outside of his house at the time of accident. He stated that after
the accident they rushed to the injured / deceased and lifted him
up and also saw the offending vehicle. He stated that injured was
unconscious at the time they lifted him from the spot of accident.
He stated that deceased was working in Delhi but he do not
know nature of his job. He stated that deceased was bleeding
from his head when he saw him after the accident.
15.R3W1 was Mr. Ajeetpal Singh S/o Sh. Jagpal Singh. He
tendered his affidavit by way of evidence as Ex. R3W1/A. He
has relied upon following documents viz., Copy of Aadhar Card
and PAN Card as Ex. R3W1/1 (Colly); Copy of tie up letter
dated 28.07.2015 is marked ‘A’ & ‘B’ respectively; Copy of
email with respect to deputation / appointment letter dated
24.11.2022 is marked ‘C’; Investigation Report datedMACT No. 167/2021 Page. 8 of 39
Smt. Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra & Ors
25.12.2022 is Ex. R3W1/2 (Colly); Copy of report of Autocratic
Management Services Pvt. Ltd. dt. 29.09.2022 is marked ‘D’.
16.In his testimony R3W1 Mr. Ajeet Pal stated that he had been
appointed as investigator by the Insurance Company in this case
to investigate and verify the factum of the residence of victim of
accident, to collect and verify the documents, record statements
of claimants, witnesses and to verify the DL of driver of insured
vehicle etc.
17.He stated that he personally visited the address given in the
claim petition but neither the claimants were found at the
address nor anyone confirmed about the claimants or deceased
Ravinder Kumar. He stated that Big Mart Grocery Store was
found running at the address and the proprietor of the same had
refused to give any statement in this regard. He stated that he
inquired from the residents in neighbourhood, they refused.
18.In his cross examination R3W1 admitted that he has not placed
on record any documents on record to show that he personally
visited the residence of the deceased. He stated that he could not
tell any names of persons whom he met during his visit.
19.No evidence was led by R-1 driver and R-2 registered owner.
R-1 driver and R-2 registered owner initially appeared but
thereafter were stopped appearing and their right to file reply
was closed by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 02.01.2024.
MACT No. 167/2021 Page. 9 of 39
Smt. Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra & Ors
III. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS OF THE PARTIES
20.Ld. Counsel for the claimant submitted that they have filed the
copy of FIR and charge sheet. He submitted that the said record
clearly shows that the offending vehicle bearing no. UP-15-
BB-0764 was seized during the investigation and later on
released on Superdari. He submitted that the charge sheet in that
case was already filed against the driver Mr. Bijendra u/s
279/304-A/338 IPC which clearly establishes the rash driving
on part of the offending vehicle.
21.Ld. counsel for the petitioner submitted that R-1 driver and R-2
registered owner failed to lead any evidence to rebut the finding
arrived by the police in the investigation regarding rash driving
by the offending vehicle.
22.He submitted that the PW-2 Mr. Sarjeet is the eye witness and
in his testimony he clearly stated that the accident occurred due
to rash driving of the offending motorcycle as it hit the deceased
from behind and it was driven at a high speed in rash manner.
23.He submitted that PW-1 Smt. Nisha Devi in her testimony stated
that her husband was earning Rs. 25,000/- and was running a
general store.
24.He submitted that PW-1 in his testimony stated that deceased
is survived by wife, two children and both parents who were
dependent upon the income of the deceased.
MACT No. 167/2021 Page. 10 of 39
Smt. Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra & Ors
25.R-1 driver and R-2 registered owner initially appeared but
thereafter were stopped appearing and their right to file reply
was closed by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 02.01.2024.
No one had appeared on their behalf to address final arguments.
26.R-3 Insurance company filed their written statement and
contested the matter.
27.Ld. Counsel for insurance company submitted that the petitioner
had failed to lead any evidence to show that deceased was
working and running a general store in Delhi. No education
qualification is filed on record. It is submitted that as per the
record, the deceased was resident of Hapur, Uttar Pradesh and
his family is also residing there. It is submitted that the
minimum wages applicable in the state of Uttar Pradesh be
considered for calculation of income.
28.Insurance company has also taken a objection as to jurisdiction
in their reply, but on 17.04.2026, Ld. Counsel for the insurance
company submitted that they are not agitating the said issue as
their office is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this
Tribunal.
MACT No. 167/2021 Page. 11 of 39
Smt. Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra & Ors
IV. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO****
(a) Issue No.1: Whether the deceased Sh. Ravindra Kumar
sustained fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on
09.07.2021 at about 8:00 p.m.,near Village Nanpur, PS
Garhmukteswar, District – Hapur, UP caused by rash and
negligent driving of vehicle no. UP-15-BB-0764 being driven
by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no. 2, and insured
with respondent no. 3 ?OPPi. Presumption qua complicity upon filing chargesheet:
29. Rule 21 of Annexure XIII of The Central Motor Vehicles Rules,
1989 mandates as follows:-
21. Claims Tribunal shall treat Dar as a claim petition for
compensation under Sub-Section (4) of Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (1) The Claims Tribunal shall treat
the DAR filed by the Investigating Officer as a claim petition
under Section (4) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988. However, where the Investigating Officer is unable to
produce the claimant(s) on the first date of hearing the Claims
Tribunal shall register the DAR as a claim petition after the
appearance of the claimant(s).
(2) where the claimant(s) have filed a separate claim petition,
the DAR may be tagged along with the claim petition.
(3) If the Report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2) of 1974 has not been filed at the time of
filing of the DAR, the Claims Tribunal may either wait till
filing of the Report under Section 173 of the said Code of
Criminal Procedure or record the statement of the eye
witness(es) to satisfy itself with respect to the negligence
before passing the award.
(4) The Claims Tribunal shall register the FAR as a
Miscellaneous application and the IAR as well as DAR shall
be taken on record in the same Miscellaneous application.
MACT No. 167/2021 Page. 12 of 39
Smt. Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra & Ors
30. In Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Meera
Devi & Ors decided on 16.02.2021, 2021 LawSuit (Del) 858 it
was held :
8. ….. In view of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules,
2008, contents of DAR had to be presumed to be correct and
read in evidence without formal proof of the same unless proof
to the contrary was produced……..”.
31.In a recent order dated 25.02.2025, passed in Ranjeet & Anr v
Abdul Nayem Keb & Anr in SLP (c) 10351/2019, it was held in
trenchant terms as thus:
“It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been filed and
the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is
required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by
the bus driver. Even if the eyewitnesses are not examined, that
will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due
to negligence of the bus driver.”
ii. Preponderance of probabilities:
32.It is trite law that in a proceeding before the Claims Tribunal,
the claimant does not have to establish negligence on the part of
the driver respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The standards
of establishing negligence is predicated on preponderance of
probabilities. In the present case too, negligence has been
established on this principle.
33.In this context, it would be useful to peruse Mathew Alexander
v. Mohd. Shafi, (2023) 13 SCC 510 wherein it was observed as
thus:
MACT No. 167/2021 Page. 13 of 39
Smt. Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra & Ors
“In this context, we could refer to the judgments of
this Court in N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai
Ammal [N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai
Ammal, (1980) 3 SCC 457 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 774] ,
wherein the plea that the criminal case had ended in
acquittal and that, therefore, the civil suit must
follow suit, was rejected. It was observed that
culpable rashness under Section 304-AIPC is more
drastic than negligence under the law of torts to
create liability. Similarly, in Bimla Devi v. Himachal
RTC [Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC, (2009) 13 SCC
530 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 189 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri)
1101] (“Bimla Devi”), it was observed that in a claim
petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal has to determine the
amount of fair compensation to be granted in the
event an accident has taken place by reason of
negligence of a driver of a motor vehicle. A holistic
view of the evidence has to be taken into
consideration by the Tribunal and strict proof of an
accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular
manner need not be established by the claimants. The
claimants have to establish their case on the
touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The
standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be
applied while considering the petition seeking
compensation on account of death or injury in a road
traffic accident. To the same effect is the observation
made by this Court in Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim
Xavier Cruz [Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier
Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 :
(2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 13] which has referred to the
aforesaid judgment in Bimla Devi [Bimla
Devi v. Himachal RTC (2009) 13 SCC 530.”
iii. The evidence on record qua negligence:
34.Claimant has placed on record the certified copy of charge sheet
in FIR no. 369/2021, PS Garhmukteswar, District Hapur under
Section 279/304-A/338 IPC. Record shows that the charge sheetMACT No. 167/2021 Page. 14 of 39
Smt. Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra & Ors
u/s 279/304-A/338 IPC was filed in the present case against the
driver Sh. Bijendra. The charge sheet records that the due to rash
driving of the driver /(R-1) of the offending vehicle bearing no.
UP-15-BB-0764, accident occurred in which Mr. Ravindra
Kumar suffered grievous injuries and died.
35.PW-1 Smt. Nisha Devi in her cross examination has admitted
that she is not the eyewitness of the accident. PW-2 Mr. Sarjeet
stated that he is eye witness of the accident and the offending
vehicle which was driver at high speed in rash manner hit the
deceased from behind. In his cross examination also he
reiterated the fact that he had seen the accident. PW-2 Mr.
Sarjeet is also sighted as eyewitnesses in the charge-sheet by the
Police.
36.R-1 driver and R-2 registered owner in their written statement
did not dispute the occurrence of accident from their vehicle.
The alleged that the accident had occurred due to the negligence
of the victim. R-1 and R-2 failed to lead any evidence to
substantiate their plea. The findings of the charge-sheet and the
testimony of PW-2 remained unrebutted.
37.Insurance company also did not lead any evidence to rebut the
factum of rash driving. In fact contradictory stands were taken
by the insurance company in the cross examination of the
witnesses. In cross examination of PW-1 counsel for the
insurance company suggested that accident had occurred at a
construction site. Thereafter, in the same cross examination
MACT No. 167/2021 Page. 15 of 39
Smt. Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra & Ors
another suggestion was given by counsel for the Insurance
company; that the husband of PW-1 had died as he was hit on
his head by some unknown miscreant for the purpose of
robbing. Thereafter, another version of insurance cropped up
during the cross examination of the PW 2 wherein Insurance
company suggested that the deceased himself was driving the
bike at the time of the accident. It is clear that the insurance
company has taken inconsistent stand during cross examination
of PW-1 and PW-2 and has failed to bring on record any
concrete evidence to rebut the factum of rash driving by R-1
driver.
38.From the aforesaid, it is clear that the accident had occurred due
to rash driving of offending/insured vehicle driven by
R-1/driver.
iv. Finding:
39.In view of foregoing discussion, it stands proved on the
touchstone of preponderance of probabilities that the aforesaid
accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the
transgressing/offending vehicle bearing registration no. UP-15-
BB-0764 and the said vehicle at that time was driven by
respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured by
respondent no.3. Hence, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the
claimant and against the respondents.
MACT No. 167/2021 Page. 16 of 39
Smt. Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra & Ors
40.It is clarified that the findings given are limited for the purposes
of this inquiry and shall not impact the trial of the criminal case.
(b) Issue No.2: Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
i. Principles qua assessment of compensation:
41.Before adverting to the submissions of the counsels in this
regard, it would be apposite to refer to the law of the land qua
this aspect. The law has been enunciated by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation &
Ors. (2003) 6SCC 121 and National Insurance Company
Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.(2017) 16 SCC 680.
42.An essential ingredient of the award is the loss of dependency.
To calculate the same, it would be of utmost significance to
peruse the following seminal directions issued in Sarla Verma
(supra):
“18.Basically only three facts need to be established by the
claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death:
(a)age of the deceased;
(b) income of the deceased; and
(c) the number of dependants
The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the
loss of dependency are:
(i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income;
(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living
expenses of the deceased; and
(iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of
the deceased.
If these determinants are standardised, there will be uniformity
and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need
MACT No. 167/2021 Page. 17 of 39
Smt. Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra & Ors
for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance
companies to settle accident claims without delay
19.To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should
determine compensation in cases of death, by the following
well-settled steps:
Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand)
The income of the deceased per annum should be determined.
Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard
to the amount which the deceased would have spent on
himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance,
which is considered to be the contribution to the dependant
family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier)
Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active
career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does
not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have
lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to
several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of
multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this
Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table
with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step 3 (Actual calculation)
The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when
multiplied by such multiplier gives the “loss of dependency”
to the family.”
43.To ascertain the ‘multiplier’ mentioned in Step 2 above, it was
further laid down in Sarla Verma (supra) as thus:
“42 We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used
should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table
above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas,
Trilok Chandra and Charlie) which starts with an
operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to
20 and 21 to 25 years,) reduced by one unit for every
years that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to
35 years , M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to
45 years, and M -13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced
by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51-
MACT No. 167/2021 Page. 18 of 39
Smt. Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra & Ors
55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years ,M-7 for 61 to 65
years and M- 5 for 66 to 70 years.”
44.Further, in terms of the mandate of Rajesh Tyagi v Jaibir Singh
FAO 842/2003, which is the cause célèbre qua cases pertaining
to motor accident claims, the claimant filed Form XIII of the
Scheme for Motor Accident Claims qua compensation under
various heads which have been elucidated in the paragraphs
hereafter..
ii. Monthly Income of the deceased:
45.PW-1 Smt. Nisha Devi in her testimony stated that her husband/
deceased was running a general store in Delhi and was earning
around Rs. 25,000/- per month. She did not depose anything
regarding education of deceased and no educational documents
were filed on record.
46.In her cross examination she admitted that she has not place on
record any document of her husband/deceased to prove
deceased is residence in Delhi. She admitted that she had never
stayed with her husband in Delhi. She stated that her husband
was not a income tax assessee and was not having any PAN
Card.
47. Petitioners have failed to bring on record any evidence to show
that the deceased was working in Delhi. The Aadhar Cards of
the family of the deceased bear address at Hapur, UP. The
Aadhar of the deceased also bears his address at Hapur, UP. In
MACT No. 167/2021 Page. 19 of 39
Smt. Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra & Ors
the absence of any positive evidence it cannot be presumed that
the deceased was working in Delhi. No educational documents
of the deceased is placed on record. Accordingly in these
circumstances the minimum wages of unskilled worker
prevalent in Uttar Pradesh at relevant period needs to be
considered as per Circular No. 336-61/Pravartan-(M.W.)/15
dated May 26, 2021. The minimum wages applicable in the
State of Uttar Pradesh at the time of the accident were
Rs.9,078/-. Accordingly, the income of the deceased for the
purposes of computation of income is quantified as 9,078/- p.m.
iii. Future prospects:
48.To factor into account future prospects, it would be apt to refer
to National Insurance Co Ltd v Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16
SCC 680 wherein it was laid down as thus:
“59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to
record our conclusions:
59.3 While determining the income, an addition of
50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased
towards future prospects, where the deceased had a
permanent job and was below the age of 40 years,
should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age
of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the
deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the
addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read
as actual salary less tax.
59.4 In case the deceased was self-employed or on a
fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established
income should be the warrant where the deceased
was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25%
where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50
years and 10% where the deceased was between the
age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as theMACT No. 167/2021 Page. 20 of 39
Smt. Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra & Ors
necessary method of computation. The established
income means the income minus the tax component.
59.5 For determination of the multiplicand, the
deduction for personal and living expenses, the
tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paras 30 to
32 of Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC
121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri)
1002] which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
59.6 The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in
the Table in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC,
(2009) 6 SCC 121 read with para 42 of that judgment
59.7 The age of the deceased should be the basis for
applying the multiplier.
59.8 Reasonable figures on conventional heads,
namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral
expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs
15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be
enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.”
49. To determine the age of the deceased, the claimants has filed
on record the Aadhar Card which shows date of birth of the
deceased as 01.01.1977. Deceased was 44 years 06 Months old
on the date of death. As per mandate in Sarla Verma (Supra) and
Pranay Sethi (Supra), additional income towards future
prospect for a person having aged 40 -50 years and in self-
employment is 25% of established income. Accordingly, the
same is quantified as Rs. 2,269/-.
iv. Personal expenses of the deceased:
50.The Expenses incurred by the deceased on himself are deducted
while calculating the loss of dependency. To calculate the
personal expenses, recourse can be had to the following
instructions of Sarla Verma (supra) which were approved by the
Constitutional Bench in Pranay Sethi(supra):
MACT No. 167/2021 Page. 21 of 39
Smt. Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra & Ors
“30.Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards
personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units
indicated in Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362] , the general
practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered
several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view
that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards
personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-
third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members
is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent
family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the
number of dependent family members exceeds six.
31.Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are
the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In
regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and
living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would
tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the
possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event
the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be 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 dependant and the mother alone will be
considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the
contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as
dependants, because they will either be independent and
earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.
32.Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and
siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a
dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living
expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the
family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large
and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case
where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger
non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living
expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to
the family will be taken as two-third.”
51. As per testimony of PW-1 Smt. Nisha Devi, deceased is
survived by his wife, two children and parents. In these
circumstances, the deceased is survived by five dependents.
MACT No. 167/2021 Page. 22 of 39
Smt. Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra & Ors
Accordingly, in view of the mandate of Sarla Verma (supra) the
deductions towards personal and living expenses is considered
as 1/4.
52. Thus, the net deduction in the present case is (Rs.9078 + 2269
= Rs. 11,347/- = divided by 1/4 i.e. Rs. 2,836/-.
v. Monthly & Annual Loss of dependency:
53.The monthly loss of dependency would be Rs. 8,511-. The
annual loss of dependency Rs. 8,511/- X 12 = Rs. 1,02,132/-
vi. Total Loss of Dependency:
54.Since the deceased was more than 44 years 6 months old on the
date of accident, the applicable multiplier in terms of the verdict
of Sarla Verma(supra) is 14. The total loss of dependency is thus
Rs. 1,02,132 X 14 = Rs. 14,29,848/-.
vii. Other Heads:
55.In Sarla Verma (supra) it was also laid down that after
calculating the ‘Loss of Dependency’, certain amounts were to
be added under conventional heads such as loss of estate, loss of
consortium etc. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are
extracted hereunder:
“Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs 5000 to
Rs 10,000 may be added as loss of estate. Where the deceased
is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the
range of 5000 to 10,000 should be added under the head of
loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the
head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of
the deceased.
MACT No. 167/2021 Page. 23 of 39
Smt. Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra & Ors
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if
incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased
before death (if incurred) should also be added.”
56.The amount qua the above heads were further quantified in
Pranay Sethi(supra), which clarified as thus:
“52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find
it difficult to agree with the view expressed
in Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4
SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S)
149] . It has granted Rs 25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs
1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs 1,00,000 towards
loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating
to loss of care and minor children does not exist.
Though Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 :
(2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1
SCC (L&S) 149] refers to Santosh Devi [Santosh
Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421 : (2012)
3 SCC (Civ) 726 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC
(L&S) 167] , it does not seem to follow the same. The
conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be
determined on percentage basis because that would not be an
acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said
heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a
reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact
that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many
a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to
the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise,
there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same
and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense
variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of
which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely
to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable
sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional
heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral
expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000
respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an
acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric
or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the
amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on
percentage basis in every three years and the enhancementMACT No. 167/2021 Page. 24 of 39
Smt. Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra & Ors
should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are
disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in
respect of those heads.”
57.The above verdict was passed in the year 2017. Almost eight
years have elapsed, and therefore the above heads would be
enhanced at the rate of 20%.
viii. Medical Expenses:
58.No claim is made under this head.
ix. Compensation for Loss of Consortium:
59.The concept of consortium was expounded in Magnum General
Insurance Co Ltd v Nanu Ram 2018 18 SCC 130 in the
following words:
“21.A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay
Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16
SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205]
dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be
awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of
consortium. In legal parlance, “consortium” is a compendious
term which encompasses “spousal consortium”, “parental
consortium”, and “filial consortium”. The right to consortium
would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance,
solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his
family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual
relations with the deceased spouse : [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh,
(2013) 9 SCC 54.
21.1 Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights
pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows
compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of “company,
society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every
conjugal relation”. [Black’s Law Dictionary (5th Edn., 1979).]
21.2 Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the
premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid, protection,
affection, society, discipline, guidance and training.
MACT No. 167/2021 Page. 25 of 39
Smt. Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra & Ors
21.3 Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation
in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading
to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the
parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a
parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are
valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in
the family unit.
22 .Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms
about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern
jurisdictions world-over have recognised that the value of a
child’s consortium far exceeds the economic value of the
compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most
jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded
compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child.
The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of
the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased
child.
23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at
providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of
genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child,
or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be
awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium.
Parental consortium is awarded to children who lose their
parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High
Courts have awarded compensation on this count [ Rajasthan
High Court in Jagmala Ram v. Sohi Ram, 2017 SCC OnLine
Raj 3848 : (2017) 4 RLW 3368; Uttarakhand High Court in Rita
Rana v. Pradeep Kumar, 2013 SCC OnLine Utt 2435 : (2014) 3
UC 1687; Karnataka High Court in Lakshman v. Susheela
Chand Choudhary, 1996 SCC OnLine Kar 74 : (1996) 3 Kant LJ
570] . However, there was no clarity with respect to the
principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of
filial consortium.
24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium
will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation
under “loss of consortium” as laid down in Pranay
Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16
SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] .
In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father
and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for
loss of filial consortium.”
MACT No. 167/2021 Page. 26 of 39
Smt. Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra & Ors
60.The deceased is survived by his wife, 02 children and parents
who were dependents upon his income. Thus, on the basis of the
above verdict and mandated in Pranay Sethi‘(Supra), the
compensation for Consortium is hereby quantified as Rs
48,400/- x 5 = Rs.2,42,000/-.
x. Compensation for Loss of Estate:
61.On the basis of the above verdict, the compensation for loss of
estate is hereby quantified as Rs 18,150/-
xi. Compensation towards Funeral Expenses:
62.On the basis of the above verdict, the compensation of funeral
expenses is hereby quantified as Rs 18,150/-.
xii. Total Compensation:
63. Thus, the total amount of compensation to be awarded is
calculated as follows:-
Sr. No. Head Amount
1. Total loss of dependency 14,29,848/-
2. Medical Expenses NIL
3. Compensation for Loss of 2,42,000/-
Consortium (48,400 X 5)
4. Compensation for Loss of Estate 18,150/-
5. Compensation towards Funeral 18,150/-
Expenses
6. Total Compensation Rs. 17,08,148/-
MACT No. 167/2021 Page. 27 of 39
Smt. Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra & Ors
(c) Issue No.3: Relief.
i. Amount of Award:
64.Thus, the claimant is awarded as sum of Rs.17,08,148/- along
with interest per annum from the date of filing of claim petition.
65.The rate of interest has been calculated in terms of the
succeeding paragraphs.
ii. Rate of Interest:
66.In the reply filed by the Insurance company, it is stated that the
amount of interest ought to at @7.5%, in accordance with the
general prevalent practice in Courts. However, Ld Counsel for
the claimant sought 9% as the rate of interest.
67.In order to adjudicate these rival claims, recourse can be had to
Erudhaya Priya v State Transport Corporation 2020 SCC
OnLine SC 601 wherein the aspect of rate of interest was
categorically enunciated as thus:
(c) The third and the last aspect is the interest
rate claimed as 12%
“15.In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant
has watered down the interest rate during the
course of hearing to 9% in view of the judicial
pronouncements including in the Jagdish
case (supra). On this aspect, once again, there
was no serious dispute raised by the learned
counsel for the respondent once the claim was
confined to 9% in line with the interest rates
applied by this Court”
MACT No. 167/2021 Page. 28 of 39
Smt. Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra & Ors
68.Ergo, the amount of compensation/award amount will be
payable by the respondent insurance company with simple
interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the claim petition
till actual realisation. The date of filing of petition is 30.10.2021
therefore the amount of Interest is calculated at @ 9 % from the
date of filing of petition i.e. Rs. 7,17,422/- for a period of 56
months. Thus, the total amount of award is Rs. 24,25,570/-.
69.It is also clarified that in case the interest of petitioner was
stopped or excluded during the present inquiry proceedings,
same is liable to be adjusted from the total interest calculated on
the Award amount. Similarly, amount awarded and released as
interim Award, if any, during pendency of the case, be deducted
from the total compensation.
V. DEPOSIT OF AWARD& RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT
i. Deposit of Award:
70.In terms of the mandate of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh
Tyagi (supra) the respondent Insurance Company/driver/owner
shall deposit the award amount or transfer the same by
RTGS/NEFT/IMPS directly to the bank account of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal in UCO Bank, Patiala House Courts
within 30 days of the award. The respondent(s) held liable to
pay compensation by the Claims Tribunal shall give notice of
deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant(s) and shallMACT No. 167/2021 Page. 29 of 39
Smt. Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra & Ors
file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal with respect
to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the
deposit with the interest upto the date of notice of deposit to the
claimant(s) with a copy to their counsel.
APPORTIONMENT & RELEASE
71.PW-1 Smt. Nisha Devi has filed her evidence by way of
affidavit and stated that deceased is survived by herself, two
children and both parents who were dependent upon the income
of the deceased. Accordingly, the award amount be apportioned
amongst the legal heirs as follows:-
Sl Name Relation
% of Release of awarded amount
share
1. Smt. Wife 50 % Rs.5,00,000/- out of the 50% share of wife be
Nisha released in her bank account immediately and
Devi remaining awarded amount be invested and
deposited in 60 monthly fixed deposits
receipts (FDR) of equal amounts for a period
of 60 months as per Motor Accident Claims
Annuity Deposits Schemes.
2. Miss Daughter 15 % The awarded amount be invested and
Vanshika deposited in FDR until attaining the age of
majority by child. The FDR be released to the
child on attaining the age of majority.
However, if required the interest of the FDR
be credited quarterly in the bank account of the
minor child till she attains the age of majority
for the purposes of financing her education
and personal needs.
3. Master Son 15 % The awarded amount be invested and
Keshav deposited in FDR until attaining the age of
majority by child. The FDR be released to the
child on attaining the age of majority.
MACT No. 167/2021 Page. 30 of 39
Smt. Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra & Ors
However, if required the interest of the FDR
be credited quarterly in the bank account of the
minor child till he attains the age of majority
for the purposes of financing his education and
personal needs.
4. Smt. Mother 10% 100 % of her share be released in her bank
Parkashi account immediately.
5. Mr. Father 10 % 100 % of his share be released in his bank
Surendra account immediately.
72. The Nodal officer of the bank shall ensure disbursement of the
award within 3 weeks of receipt thereof by email or otherwise.
73.The disbursement to the claimant is, however, subject to the
addition of future interest till deposit proportionately and also
deduction of proportionate tax on the interest amount or amount
of interim award, if any, to/from his share.
ii. Disbursement of the award amount & protection thereof:
74.The amount of award shall be disbursed through the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme
formulated vide order dated 01.05.2018 passed in Rajesh
Tyagi(supra). 21 banks, including UCO Bank, is implementing
the MACAD scheme.
75.Further, to protect the award amount, the entire amount of
compensation is not being released forthwith to the claimant,
and part of the compensation amount has been directed to be
kept in fixed deposits in a phased manner. Further, the following
conditions are hereby reiterated and being imposed upon the
concerned bank with respect to the fixed deposits:
MACT No. 167/2021 Page. 31 of 39
Smt. Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra & Ors
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint names to be added in the
savings bank account or MACAD scheme account of
claimant i.e. the bank account of claimant shall be individual
account and not a joint account.
(b) The original fixed deposits shall be retained by the UCO
Bank, PHC, New Delhi in safe custody. However, the
statement containing FDR numbers, amounts, dates of
maturity and maturity amounts shall be furnished by the said
bank to the claimant and the above amount shall be released
in account of claimant by the Manager, UCO Bank, PHC,
ND through RTGS/NEFT/or any other electronic mode.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing
System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant
near the place of his residence.
(d) The maturity amount of the FDR(s) on monthly basis net of
TDS be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the
above account of the claimant.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be
allowed on the MACAD without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or
debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card
and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall
cancel the same before the disbursement of the award
amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of
the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of
MACT No. 167/2021 Page. 32 of 39
Smt. Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra & Ors
the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the
bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the
claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit
card have been issued and shall not be issued without the
permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the
passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court
on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along
with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the
passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of
clause above.
VI. LIABILITY
76. R-1, R-2 and R-3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the
award amount. Insurance have no statutory defence in the
present matter. The factum of Insurance on the date of accident
is not disputed. Accordingly R-3 / Insurance Company is liable
to pay the award amount.
77.Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount
with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, along with
interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim
petition by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in bank account being
maintained in the above said bank in name of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal within 30 days from today, failing
MACT No. 167/2021 Page. 33 of 39
Smt. Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra & Ors
which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for
the period of delay. In case even after lapse of 90 days from
today, respondent no. 3 fails to deposit this compensation with
interest, in that event, in light of judgment of the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi passed in the case of New India Assurance
Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal 2007 ACJ 688 , this
compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account
of respondent no. 3 with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.
78.The respondent no. 3 shall inform the petitioner and his counsel
that the awarded amount has been deposited so as to facilitate
him to collect the same.
VII. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT
IN CASES OF DEATH
79.Since this is a case pertaining to death, particulars of Form-XV
of the Scheme For Motor Accidents Claims Formulated by the
Delhi High Court in terms of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh
Tyagi (supra) are as under:
1. Date of Accident 09.07.2021
2. Name of the deceased Sh. Ravindra Kumar
3. Age of the deceased 44 years
4. Occupation of the deceased Private job
5. Income of the deceased Rs. 9,078/-
MACT No. 167/2021 Page. 34 of 39
Smt. Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra & Ors
6. Name, Age and relationship of legal representatives of
the deceased:
S.NO NAME AGE RELATION
1. Smt. Nisha Devi 3 Wife
2. Miss Vanshika 13 Daughter
3. Mister Keshav 11 Son
4. Smt. Parkashi 56 Mother
5. Sh. Surendra 65 Father
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
S.No. Heads Awarded by the
Claims Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs. 9,078/-
8. Add: Future Prospects (B) Rs.2,269/-
9. Less: Personal expenses of the Rs. 2,836/-
deceased (C)
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs. 8,511/-
[(A+B)- C = D]
11. Annual Loss of dependency (D x Rs. 1,02,132/-
12)
12. Multiplier (E) 14
13. Total loss of dependency (D x 12 Rs. 14,29,848/-
x E = F)
14. Medical Expenses (G) NIL
15. Compensation for loss of Rs 2,42,000/-
MACT No. 167/2021 Page. 35 of 39
Smt. Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra & Ors
consortium (H) 48,400 X 5
16. Compensation for loss of love & NA- in terms of New
affection (I) India Assurance Co v
Somwati (2020) 9
SCC 644
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs 18,150/-
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs 18,150/-
expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION (F + Rs.17,08,148/-
G + H + I + J + K = L)
20. Rate of Interest Awarded @9%
21. Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 7,17,422/-
award (M) (56 months)
22. Total amount including interest (L Rs. 24,25,570/-
+ M)
23. Award amount released As per para no. 72
24. Award kept in FDRs As per para no. 72
25. Mode of disbursement of the Through Bank
award to the claimant(s)
26. Next date for compliance of the 20.08.2026
award
MACT No. 167/2021 Page. 36 of 39
Smt. Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra & Ors
VIII. COMPLIANCE QUA PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME
80.The particulars of Form XVII of the Scheme For Motor
Accidents Claims Formulated by the Delhi High Court, in terms
of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) are as
hereunder:
1. Date of the accident 09.07.2021
2. Date of filing of Form I- First Accident Not filed as accident took
Report (FAR) place out of Delhi and claim
petition is filed by legal heirs.
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the Same as above.
victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Same as above.
Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Same as above
owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim Same as above
Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form Same as above
VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII-Detailed Same as above
Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or DAR not filed.
deficiency on the part of the
Investigating Officer? If so, whether
any action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Not given
Officer by the Insurance Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the No
Insurance Company submitted his
MACT No. 167/2021 Page. 37 of 39
Smt. Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra & Ors
report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or No
deficiencies on the part of the
Designated Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the petitioner(s) of Matter was contested by the
the offer of the Insurance Company. Insurance Company.
14. Date of the Award 16.07.2026.
15. Whether the petitioner(s) were directed Yes
to open savings bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which petitioner(s) 30.10.2021
were directed to open savings bank
account(s) near his place of residence
and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card
and the direction to the bank not issue
any cheque book/debit card to the
petitioner (s) and make an endorsement
to this effect on the passbook(s).
17. Date on which the petitioner(s) Not furnished. Directions
produced the passbook of their savings issued.
bank account near the place of their
residence along with the endorsement,
PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned above
petitioner(s)
19. Whether the petitioner(s) savings bank
account(s) is near his place of
residence?
20. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes.
examined at the time of passing of the
award to ascertain his/their financial
condition?
MACT No. 167/2021 Page. 38 of 39
Smt. Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra & Ors
81.Further, in terms of the directions given vide order dated
08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra), the Ahlmad shall send a
certified copy of this award to the concerned Criminal Court and
to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority through e-mail.
Copy of the award be also sent to the bank concerned. The Nazir
is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the
directions given in the above case.
82.File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary
formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and
be put up on 20.08.2026.
Digitally
signed by
Abhilash
Abhilash Malhotra
Malhotra Date:
2026.07.16
Announced in the open court 13:27:11
+0530
on 16.07.2026
(Dr. Abhilash Malhotra)
Judge/PO, MACT-02,
New Delhi/16.07.2026
DLND010072472021
MACT No. 167/2021 Page. 39 of 39
Smt. Nisha Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra & Ors
