Delhi District Court
Manju Lr(Dec.Jatin … vs Raja Ram(Oriental) on 20 July, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010085352025
MACT No. : 503/25
FIR No. : 152/2025
PS : IP Estate
u/s : 281/106(1) BNS
1. Smt. Manju (LR/Mother of deceased)
2. Sh. Rajesh (LR/Father of deceased)
3. Ms. Monika (LR/Sister of deceased)
(All r/o. H.No.620, Khajur Wali Gali, Ambedkar Basti,
Ghonda, Delhi)
...Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Raja Ram (driver of the offending vehicle)
S/o Sh. Chote Lal,
R/o H.No.10, Tilak Ram Basti, Baheta, Haji Pur,
PS Loni Border, Ghaziabad, UP.
2. Antony Road Transport Solution Pvt. Ltd. (registered owner)
TPT Deptt of Delhi Bus CPD
Rajghat Depot II NR R Thermal Plant Rajghat,
New Delhi-110006.
3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (insurer)
T.P. Hub, 88, Janpath, New Delhi.
RUCHIKA
....Respondents
SINGLA
Digitally signed
MACT No.503/2025
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Date:
Manju & Ors. vs. Raja Ram and Ors. Page 1 of 35
2026.07.20
16:00:46 +0530
Date of filing of DAR : 05.06.2025
Judgment reserved on : 25.05.2026
Date of Award : 20.07.2026
AWAR D
1. The present DAR was filed on 05.06.2025 which was
treated as the claim petition. The Road Traffic Accident in question took
place on 22.03.2025 at about 08:00 AM at M.G. Road, near Veldrome
Road Cut, Below Salimgarh Flyover, towards ITO, Delhi within the
jurisdiction of PS IP Estate. Sh. Jatin Kumar expired in the said accident
which was allegedly caused by a vehicle bearing registration No.
DL-1PC-6619. The offending vehicle was being driven by respondent
no. 1 Raja Ram, owned by respondent no. 2 Antony Road Transport
Solution Pvt. Ltd. and insured with respondent no. 3 The Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that a
PCR call vide DD No.26A dated 22.03.2025 regarding information of an
accident was received at PS IP Estate and handed over to SI Sumit, who
alongwith Ct. Nitin went to the spot near M.G. Road, near Veldrome
Road Cut, below Salimgarh Flyover, towards ITO, Delhi where one
motorcycle/vehicle bearing no.DL-5SCV-4078 and one helmet were
found at the spot. IO got to know that the injured had already been taken
to LNJP hospital. After leaving the constable at the spot, IO went to the
hospital and collected MLC no. 116989952 of injured Jatin Kumar. He
MACT No.503/2025 RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Manju & Ors. vs. Raja Ram and Ors. Digitally signed
Page 2 of 35
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Date: 2026.07.20
16:00:51 +0530
was found to be unconscious. Thereafter, IO again came to the spot of
accident and called the crime team and got the photographs of the spot
of accident by the crime team. IO collected the blood gauze and
sample/exhibits from the spot of accident. IO also had taken the
motorcycle and helmet in his custody.
3. Thereafter IO prepared the site plan. Thereafter, FIR u/s
281/125 (A) BNS was registered on the basis of DD entry and MLC.
Thereafter IO had deposited the case property and exhibits into the
maalkhana. IO checked the CCTV footage and obtained the same in the
pendrive. On 23.03.2025, the IO got an information that Mr. Jatin
Kumar had expired in the hospital during treatment. Accordingly
offence u/s 125(A) BNS was changed to Section 106(1) BNS.
4. On 24.03.2025, the posmortem of the deceased was got
conducted and thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was handed
over the same to his relatives. Thereafter, IO interrogated all the callers.
Thereafter, IO recorded the statement of eye witness. Thereafter, the
present case was transferred/assigned to SI Mohar Singh, MACT Cell,
Central for further investigation. Thereafter, IO collected the PM report
bearing no.272/25.
5. Thereafter, IO served the notice u/s133 MV Act upon the
owner of the offending vehicle. Thereafter, authorised person of the
owner came to the PS alongwith offending bus and its driver. Owner
gave a written reply on the said notice that at the time of accident, Mr.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.503/2025 Digitally signed by
Manju & Ors. vs. Raja Ram and Ors. RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.07.20
Page 3 of 35
16:00:55 +0530
Raja Ram was driving the offending vehicle. He also supplied the
documents pertaining to the offending vehicle. DL of the driver was also
handed over to the IO. IO interrogated the driver of the offending bus
and arrested him. Upon producing surety, he was released on bail.
6. Thereafter, mechanical inspection of both the accidental
vehicles was got conducted. The documents of the offending vehicle
were got verified and the same were found to be correct. The CDR
location of the mobile phone of driver was obtained by the IO. The
accidental vehicles were released on superdari. The blood gauze and
exhibits were deposited in FSL Rohini for further result. After
completion of investigation, chargesheet for the offences u/s 281/106(a)
BNS was filed against the driver before the concerned Ld. JMFC and
the DAR was filed before this Tribunal.
WRITTEN STATEMENTS
7. WS/reply was filed on behalf of the respondent no. 1 on
03.09.2025. It was stated that the case of the petitioners is not
maintainable as the same is lodged with malafide intention just to
extract money from the respondents. It was stated that the no accident
was caused by the respondent no. 1 nor he was driving the vehicle in
rash and negligent manner nor the deceased suffered any injuries on
account of any alleged negligence on the part of the respondent no.
1/driver.
8. WS/reply was filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2. It
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
MACT No.503/2025 2026.07.20
16:00:59
+0530
Manju & Ors. vs. Raja Ram and Ors. Page 4 of 35
was stated that the respondent no. 2 is registered under Companies Act
and it has appointed Sh. Kuldeep Gola as it AR to represent the case on
behalf of respondent no. 2 company. It was further stated that the
vehicle was insured by the insurance company namely The Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. vide policy no.272100/31/2025/1271 commencing
from 30.10.2024 to 29.10.2025 and there is no any violation of terms
and conditions of the policy.
9. WS on behalf of respondent no. 3 was filed, wherein it was
admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent
no.3 vide policy no. 272100/31/2025/1271 commencing from
30.10.2024 to 29.10.2025. It was stated that the petitioner was under the
liability to prove the accident and the rash and negligent driving of the
respondent no.1. 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. Further, it was stated that as per the documents, the deceased was
driving his motor-cycle rashly and negligently and he fell from the
flyover himself without any involvement of the offending vehicle.
ISSUES
10. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated
22.12.2025, this Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in
an accident that took place on 22.03.2025 at
about 08:00 AM at M.G. Road, near Velodrome
Road Cut, below Salimgarh Flyover, towards ITO
Delhi. involving vehicle bearing registration no.
DL-1PC-6619 driven rashly and negligently by
Digitally
signed by
MACT No.503/2025
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.20
Manju & Ors. vs. Raja Ram and Ors. Page 5 of 35
16:01:11
+0530
respondent no.1 Raja Ram, owned by respondent
no.2 Antony Road Transport Solution Pvt. Ltd.
and insured with respondent no.3 The Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd.? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner(s) are entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and from
whom? OPP
3. Relief.
PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
11. The petitioners examined the petitioner no.2 Sh. Rajesh as
PW1. PW1 has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.
PW1/A. He relied upon the following documents:
1. Copy of duty identity card issued by Diamond Security Personnel of
deceased Jatin Kumar as Ex. PW1/1 (OSR).
2. Copy of education certificates of deceased as Ex. PW1/2 (OSR) (colly
8 sheets).
3. Copy of DL of deceased as Ex. PW1/3 (OSR).
4. Copy of PAN Card of deceased as Ex. PW1/4 (OSR)
5. Copy of Aadhar card of deceased as Ex. PW1/5 (OSR)
6. Copy of PAN card of Smt. Manju (petitioner no. 1) as Ex. PW1/6
(OSR).
7. Copy of Aahdar card of Smt. Manju (petitioner no. 1) as Ex. PW1/7
(OSR).
8. Copy of PAN card of Sh. Rajesh (petitioner no. 2) as Ex. PW1/8
(OSR).
9. Copy of Aadhar card of Sh. Rajesh (petitioner no. 2) as Ex. PW1/9
(OSR).
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
MACT No.503/2025 RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.20
Manju & Ors. vs. Raja Ram and Ors. Page 6 of 35
16:01:16
+0530
10. Copy of college ID cards of Ms. Monika (petitioner no. 3) as Ex.
PW1/10 (OSR).
11. Copy of Aadhar card of Ms. Monika (petitioner no. 3) as Ex.
PW1/11 (OSR).
12. Attested copy of DAR as Ex. PW1/12 (colly).
12. Thereafter, the petitioners examined Sh. Diwan Yadav as
PW2. He was a summoned witness, who has stated that he was working
as a driver in DTC. He has further stated that on 22.03.2025, his duty
was at Ring Road, Gandhi Darshan, Bus Stop, road going towards Sarai
Kale Khan as Ticket Checker. He has stated that he alongwith one
Anurag (DTC driver, who was also checking staff), were present at the
bus stop and saw that the offending vehicle was being driven by its
driver at a very high speed, rashly and negligently. It came from red
light of Rajghat and was going towards Sachivalaya, when it hit the
motorcycle of the deceased with a great force, as a result of which the
motorcyclist alongwith motorcycle fell down on the road and sustained
grievous injuries. He relied upon his statement Ex. PW2/1, which was
recorded by the IO during the investigation of the case.
13. Both the PWs were cross examined by Ld. Counsel for
respondent no.3 and respondents no. 1 and 2. Thereafter, PE was closed
on behalf of the petitioner on 12.02.2026 before Ld. LC.
RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE
14. No evidence was led on behalf of the respondents. The RE
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLAMACT No.503/2025 SINGLA Date:
2026.07.20
16:01:21
Manju & Ors. vs. Raja Ram and Ors. +0530 Page 7 of 35
on behalf of all respondents was closed vide order dated 20.04.2026.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
15. The petitioner filed his duly filled Form XIII and the
financial statement of the petitioners were recorded. Final arguments
were heard on behalf of the petitioner as well as respondents.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
16. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the
record. My findings on the various issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1:
Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in an
accident that took place on 22.03.2025 at about 08:00 AM at M.G.
Road, near Velodrome Road Cut, below Salimgarh Flyover, towards
ITO Delhi. involving vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1PC-6619
driven rashly and negligently by respondent no.1 Raja Ram, owned by
respondent no.2 Antony Road Transport Solution Pvt. Ltd. and insured
with respondent no.3 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.?
17. The onus to prove this issue was upon petitioner. It is the
case of the petitioners that on 22.03.2025 at about 08:00 AM, the
deceased was going on his motor-cycle and when he reached at M.G.
Road, near Velodrome Road Cut, below Salimgarh Flyover, towards
ITO Delhi, the driver of the offending vehicle who was driving his
vehicle in a negligent manner hit the motorcycle of the deceased. Due toRUCHIKA
MACT No.503/2025 SINGLAManju & Ors. vs. Raja Ram and Ors. Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Page 8 of 35
Date: 2026.07.20
16:01:24 +0530
the same, the deceased fell and subsequently, he expired. It is submitted
by Ld. Counsel for the petitioners that both the accidental vehicles were
seized by the IO from the spot. The respondent no.1 was chargesheeted
by the IO in the present matter. The petitioners have examined an
eyewitness PW2 in the present matter, who has withstood the test of
cross-examination. Hence, it is submitted that the rash and negligent act
of the respondent no.1 is proved.
18. Per contra, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the
respondents that the respondent no.1 is not guilty of any rash and
negligent act. It is submitted that the deceased was driving his motor-
cycle rashly and negligently and he fell from the flyover himself without
any involvement of the offending vehicle. There are two PCR calls in
this respect. Hence, it is submitted that the rash and negligent act of the
respondent no. 1 and the involvement of the offending vehicle is not
proved on record.
19. Record perused.
20. In the present matter, there are two PCR calls vide GD no.
26A and GD no. 28A, vide which it was informed that one biker had
fallen down from the flyover alongwith his motor-cycle. However, the
said callers were not examined in the court. The respondents made no
effort to summon them. Per contra, the petitioners examined PW2
Diwan Yadav, who incidentally also made a PCR call vide GD no. 27A.
In his call, he merely stated that a person had met with an accident.
Digitally
signed by
MACT No.503/2025 RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Manju & Ors. vs. Raja Ram and Ors. SINGLA Date: Page 9 of 35
2026.07.20
16:01:28
+0530
However, in his statement to the IO and his deposition before the
Tribunal, he specifically stated that the accident was caused due to the
rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.1 and that the accident
was caused by the offending vehicle. He was duly cross-examined by
the Ld. Counsels for respondents and remained firm on his testimony.
Hence, on the one hand, there are two PCR calls whose callers were not
examined in the court and then, a third PCR caller who was examined
and deposed qua the guilt of the respondent no.1. Out of the two, the
Tribunal is inclined to accept the testimony of PW2, who gave his
deposition on oath. In a similar set of facts, the Hon’ble High Court of
Madhya Pradesh in case titled as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamli
and others 2009 SCC OnLine MP 632, it was observed by the Hon’ble
High Court that:
“4. After having heard learned counsel for appellant at
length and going through the record of the case, we do not
find any merit and substance in this appeal. It is submitted
that Nansingh was examined as PW 2 and in his
deposition, he has denied the fact that the deceased was
travelling in the tractor-trolley. He further stated that he
was not aware as to how in the F.I.R. this fact was
mentioned. In view of this, the question is whether we
should go by F.I.R. or the statement made by Nansingh,
PW 2, before the Claims Tribunal on oath.
5. F.I.R. is not a substantive piece of evidence and as such,
it cannot be placed on pedestal higher than the statement
made before the Claims Tribunal on oath. Nansingh, PW 2,
in his statement on oath had clearly stated that the
deceased was going on foot when he was hit by the tractor-
trolley, which came from behind, therefore, we do not find
any illegality in the approach of the Claims Tribunal while
coming to the conclusion that deceased was not travelling
RUCHIKA
MACT No.503/2025 SINGLA
Manju & Ors. vs. Raja Ram and Ors. Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA Page 10 of 35
Date: 2026.07.20
16:01:33 +0530
in the tractor-trolley. This finding is based on proper
appreciation of evidence and as such, it does not call for
any interference by this court. No other point is raised in
this appeal. Hence, appeal fails.”
21. Hence, in the opinion of this Tribunal, in view of the
testimony of PW2 Diwan Yadav, the rash and negligent act of the
respondent no.1 while driving the offending vehicle is proved. 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. 1. From the DAR, it also stands
established that respondent no. 2 was the registered owner of the
offending vehicle. It is also an admitted position that the offending
vehicle was insured with respondent no.3.
The injury:
22. Further, the onus to prove that the deceased had suffered
fatal injuries by way of the said accident was on the petitioner. In this
regard, the petitioner has relied upon the MLC dated 22.03.2025, as per
which the deceased suffered various injuries. Further, Post Mortem
Report issued by Lok Nayak Hospital is on record as per which, he
expired due to cranio cerebral damage as a result of blunt force impact.
Further, it was opined that all injuries were ante mortem and could be
possible in a road side accident.
23. 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
MACT No.503/2025 Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
Manju & Ors. vs. Raja Ram and Ors. Page 11 of 35
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.20
16:01:38
+0530
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 Jatin Kumar unfortunately expired.
Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and
against the respondents.
ISSUE NO.2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to
what amount and from whom? (OPP)
24. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. In
view of the discussion in the issue no.1, the petitioner is entitled for
compensation. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in matter of “Sarla
Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors.” (2003) 6 SCC
121 has held : –
“QUA BASIC PRINCIPLES
“9. Basically only three facts need to be established by
the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of
death :-
(a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased;
and the (c) the number of dependents. The issues to be
determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency
are (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the
income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal
living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be
applied with reference of the age of the deceased. If these
determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and
consistency in the decisions. There will lesser need for
detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance
companies to settle accident claims without delay. To have
uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should determine
MACT No.503/2025 Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
Manju & Ors. vs. Raja Ram and Ors. RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.20
16:01:43
Page 12 of 35
+0530
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 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 deceasedMACT No.503/2025 Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKAManju & Ors. vs. Raja Ram and Ors. RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA
Date:
2026.07.20
Page 13 of 35
16:01:48
+0530
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 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
RUCHIKA
SINGLAMACT No.503/2025 Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLAManju & Ors. vs. Raja Ram and Ors. Date: 2026.07.20
16:01:53 +0530
Page 14 of 35
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 (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.”
25. 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.
MACT No.503/2025 RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Manju & Ors. vs. Raja Ram and Ors. Page 15 of 35
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.07.20
16:02:03 +0530
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 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.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.503/2025
Manju & Ors. vs. Raja Ram and Ors. Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA Page 16 of 35
Date: 2026.07.20
16:02:08 +0530
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads,
namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral
expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 31,001/- and Rs.
15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be
enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.”
Loss of income
26. In the present matter, it is alleged that at the time of the
accident, the deceased was working as a Security Guard/Officer with
one M/s Diamond Security Personnel, Delhi and was earning a sum of
Rs. 25,000/- per month. Further, the deceased was educated and a had
completed his 12th class. However, it is conceded that the petitioners
were unable to prove his employment and salary. Hence, it is submitted
that his income may be assessed as per the minimum wages payable to a
matriculate.
27. Record perused.
28. The petitioners have conceded that they were unable to
prove that the deceased was working as a Security Guard/Officer with
one M/s Diamond Security Personnel, Delhi and was earning a sum of
Rs. 25,000/- per month. However, they have proved the 12 th class
documents of the deceased which are Ex. PW1/2. Hence, his income
shall be assessed as per the minimum wages payable to a matriculate.
The date of accident is 22.03.2025. As per the relevant notification, the
minimum wages payable to a matriculate on that day were Rs. 21,927/-.
Hence, his monthly income is assessed to be Rs. 21,927/-.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.07.20
MACT No.503/2025 16:02:12 +0530
Manju & Ors. vs. Raja Ram and Ors. Page 17 of 35
Age determination of the deceased:
29. As per the 12th class documents of the deceased which are
Ex. PW1/2, his date of birth was 10.06.2001. The date of the accident is
22.03.2025. Hence, as on the date of the accident, the deceased was
aged 23 years.
Future Prospects: –
30. In view of the judgment of National Insurance Company
Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors; (2017) 16 SCC 680, it was observed that
the Claimants would also be entitled to 40% for future prospects as the
deceased was less than 40 years of age at the time of the accident.
Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased needs to be taken as
Rs. 30,697.80 (Rs. 21,927/- + Rs. 8,770.80 which is 40% of Rs.
21,927/-).
Determination of Dependent
31. In the present case, the deceased is survived by his parents
and sister. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the
family of the deceased was entirely dependent on him. The father of the
deceased is not working and has no source of income. Hence, all of the
petitioners be considered as dependent on the deceased.
32. As per the Sarla Verma case (supra), in the case of a
bachelor, ordinarily, only the mother is considered to be a dependent.
Hence, the petitioners should have led substantive evidence qua the
same that the entire family was dependent on the deceased. However,
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.20
16:02:17MACT No.503/2025 +0530
Manju & Ors. vs. Raja Ram and Ors. Page 18 of 35
apart from the oral testimony of PW1, no evidence is led. PW1 i.e. the
father of the deceased is only 51 years of age. There is no medical
document proved on record that his health does not permit him to work.
Hence, in the absence of any substantive proof, the Tribunal cannot
accept that he was dependent upon the deceased. Further, the sister of
the deceased shall be considered dependent upon her father. Hence, only
the mother of the deceased shall be considered as dependent upon the
deceased, in view of the Sarla Verma case.
Determination of multiplicand
33. The monthly income of the deceased after enhancement
needs to be taken as Rs. 30,697.80. In light of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, and United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur & Ors., (2021) 11 SCC 780 ,
out of the above amount so assessed, 1/2 amount has to be deducted on
account of personal and living expenses as the deceased had only 1
dependent. So, in this matter, monthly loss of dependency would come
out to be Rs. 15,348.90 (1/2 of Rs. 30,697.80). This needs to be
multiplied by 12 to workout multiplicand/annual loss of dependency.
Hence, multiplicand for this matter would be Rs. 1,84,186.80 ( Rs.
15,348.90 x 12).
Award Towards Loss of Dependency
34. Further, as the deceased was 23 years of age at the time of
the accident, multiplier applicable in this matter as per above discussion
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.503/2025 Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Manju & Ors. vs. Raja Ram and Ors. Date: 2026.07.20
16:02:23 +0530
Page 19 of 35
would be 18. The total loss of dependency would come out to be Rs.
33,15,362.40 (Rs. 1,84,186.80 x 18) (rounded off to Rs. 33,15,362/-),
hence, so awarded.
Medical expenses:
35. The petitioner has not filed any medical bills on record.
Hence, in the absence of any medical bills, the petitioner shall not be
entitled to any amount towards medical expenses.
Non-Pecuniary Heads:-
36. 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.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
MACT No.503/2025 RUCHIKA SINGLA
Manju & Ors. vs. Raja Ram and Ors. Date: 2026.07.20
16:02:29 +0530 Page 20 of 35
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.
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
MACT No.503/2025
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
Manju & Ors. vs. Raja Ram and Ors. RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.20
Page 21 of 35
16:02:40
+0530
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.
However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles
on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial
Consortium.
The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium
will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation
under ‘Loss of Consortium’ as laid down in Pranay Sethi
(supra).
In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the
father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs.25,000
each for loss of Filial Consortium…..”.
37. However, in the case of United India Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur 2020 SCC Online SC 410 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that there is no justification to
award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate
head. The relevant portion of the observations are reproduced as under:
“…… The amount to be awarded for loss consortium will be
as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra). At this stage,
we consider it necessary to provide uniformity with respect to
the grant of consortium, and loss of love and affection.
Several Tribunals and High Courts have been awarding
compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love
and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi
(supra), has recognized only three conventional heads under
which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss
of consortium and funeral expenses.
In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a
comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include
RUCHIKA
MACT No.503/2025 SINGLA
Manju & Ors. vs. Raja Ram and Ors. Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Page 22 of 35
Date: 2026.07.20
16:02:52 +0530
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…”.
38. 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.
39. The judgment was pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in 2017 and the accident in the present case occurred in 2025,
after 8 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. Thus, an amount of Rs. 18,150/- is
granted towards the Loss of Estate and Rs. 18,150/- towards funeral
charges.
40. Further, the petitioners are entitled to loss of consortium.
Hence, Rs. 48,400/- each is granted to each petitioner towards Loss of
Consortium i.e. Rs. 48,400/- x 3 = Rs. 1,45,200/-.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.503/2025
Manju & Ors. vs. Raja Ram and Ors. Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Page 23 of 35
Date: 2026.07.20
16:02:58 +0530
Computation of compensation:
41. Applying the settled guidelines in the various judgments,
the compensation payable to the petitioner is calculated as under:
Head Awarded by the Claims Tribunal Monthly Income of deceased (A) Rs. 21,927/- Add future prospect (B) @ 40%= Rs. 8,770.80
Less 1/2 deductions towards (Rs. 21,927/- + Rs. 8,770.80) = Rs.
personal and living expenses of the 30,697.80 x 1/2 = Rs. 15,348.90
deceased (C)
Monthly loss of dependency (Rs. 21,927/- + Rs. 8,770.80) – Rs.
[(A+B) – C = D] 15,348.90 = Rs. 15,348.90
Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 15,348.90 x 12= Rs.
(D x 12) 1,84,186.80
Multiplier (E) 18
Total loss of dependency (Rs. 1,84,186.80 x 18) =
DxE=F Rs.33,15,362/-
Medical Expenses (G) Nil
Compensation for loss of love and Nil
affection (H)
Compensation for loss of Rs. 48,400/- x 3 = Rs. 1,45,200/-
consortium (I) to the petitioner
Compensation for loss of Estate (J) Rs. 18,150/-
Compensation for funeral expenses Rs. 18,150/-
(K)
Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 34,96,862/-
42. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @
Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 , the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld awarding of 9% interest per annum.
RUCHIKA
MACT No.503/2025 SINGLA
Manju & Ors. vs. Raja Ram and Ors. Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Page 24 of 35
Date: 2026.07.20
16:03:58 +0530
Therefore, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9%
per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 05.06.2025 till
realization.
Apportionment:
43. It is evident from the record that the deceased had left
behind his parents and sister. The shares of the petitioners are as under:
S.No Name of the Share of the Interest upto Total amount
claimant petitioner date including interest
1. Smt. Manju Rs. 33,15,362/- + Rs. Rs. 37,04,653.94
Rs. 48,400/- = Rs. 3,40,891.94 (rounded off to Rs.
33,63,762/- 37,04,654/-)
2. Sh. Rajesh Rs. 48,400/- + Rs. Rs. 8,583.71 Rs. 93,283.71
18,150/- + Rs. (Rounded off to
18,150/- = Rs. Rs. 93,284/-)
84,700/-
3. Ms. Monika Rs. 48,400/- Rs. 4,904.98 Rs. 53,304.98
(Rounded off to
Rs. 53,305/-)
DISBURSEMENT
44. The Financial Statement of petitioner/injured was recorded
by this Court/Tribunal. It was stated that their monthly expenses were
Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 35,000/-.
45. 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
MACT No.503/2025 Digitally
signed by
Manju & Ors. vs. Raja Ram and Ors. RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA Page 25 of 35
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.20
16:04:02
+0530
individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in
safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number,
FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be
furnished by bank to the claimants.
(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.”
46. 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
Digitally
signed by
MACT No.503/2025 RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLAManju & Ors. vs. Raja Ram and Ors. Page 26 of 35
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.20
16:04:06
+0530
by the insurance companies, where the compensation is not
disputed, is to deposit the same before the Tribunal. Instead
of following that process, a direction can always be issued to
transfer the amount into the bank account(s) of the
claimant(s) with intimation to the Tribunal.
17.1 For that purpose, the Tribunals at the initial stage of
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.”
47. In view of the same, the award amount can now be
disbursed in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioner. However, the
remaining directions as passed by the Hon’ble High Court shall be
complied with. It is directed that the award amount be deposited by the
respondent no. 3 in the bank account of Tribunal bearing A/c no.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
MACT No.503/2025
2026.07.20
16:04:11
+0530Manju & Ors. vs. Raja Ram and Ors. Page 27 of 35
42704293960, SBI, THC, Delhi in the name of MACT-01, Central,
IFSC Code: SBIN0000726.
Smt. Manju (LR/mother of deceased)
48. After considering the financial statement of the petitioner, it
is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 38,51,243/-
(Rupees Fifty Five Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Five
only), out of the share of the petitioner/mother of deceased of Rs.
37,04,654/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Lakhs Four Thousand Six Hundred
Fifty Four only), SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi shall release Rs.
4,04,654/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Four Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Four
only with accumulated interest, if any to the petitioner/mother of
deceased immediately in her Bank Account no. 6574000100051096
maintained at Punjab National Bank, Ghonda Road, Delhi, IFSC
PUNB0657400, CIF ID JSV005548.
49. The balance amount of Rs. 33,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty
Three Lacs only) shall be put in 100 monthly fixed deposits in her name
in her account as mentioned above of equal amount of Rs. 33,000/-
(Rupees Thirty Three Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to
100 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.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.503/2025
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Manju & Ors. vs. Raja Ram and Ors. Page 28 of 35
Date: 2026.07.20
16:04:16 +0530
Sh. Rajesh (LR/father of deceased)
50. After considering the financial statement of the petitioner, it
is held that on realization of the award amount, out of the share of the
petitioner/father of deceased of Rs. 93,284/- (Rupees Ninety Three
Thousand Two Hundred Eighty Four only), SBI, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi shall release the entire amount with accumulated interest, if any to
the petitioner/father of deceased immediately in his Bank Account no.
6574000100060678 maintained at Punjab National Bank, Ghonda Road,
Delhi, IFSC PUNB0657400, CIF ID JSV006511.
Ms. Monika (LR/sister of deceased)
51. After considering the financial statement of the petitioner, it
is held that on realization of the award amount, out of the share of the
petitioner/sister of deceased of Rs. 53,305/- (Rupees Fifty Three
Thousand Three Hundred Five only), SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi shall
release the entire amount with accumulated interest, if any to the
petitioner/sister of deceased immediately in her Bank Account on
furnishing of copy of her passbook with SBI, THC.
52. 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.
53. In compliance of the directions given by Hon’ble High
Digitally
signed by
MACT No.503/2025
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
Manju & Ors. vs. Raja Ram and Ors. 2026.07.20
16:04:21 Page 29 of 35
+0530
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: 22.03.2025
Name of the deceased: Sh. Jatin Kumar
Age of the deceased: 27 years
Occupation of the deceased: Not proved
Income of the
deceased : Rs. 21,927/- pm
Name and relationship of legal representative of deceased:
Name of the claimant Relation with deceased
Smt. Manju Mother
Sh. Rajesh Father
Ms. Monika Sister
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
Sr. Head Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
No.
1 Monthly Income of deceased Rs. 21,927/-
(A)
2 Add future prospect (B) @ 40%= Rs. 8,770.80
3 Less 1/2 deductions towards (Rs. 21,927/- + Rs. 8,770.80) = Rs.
personal and living expenses of 30,697.80 x 1/2 = Rs. 15,348.90
the deceased (C)4 Monthly loss of dependency (Rs. 21,927/- + Rs. 8,770.80) – Rs.
[(A+B) – C = D] 15,348.90 = Rs. 15,348.90
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.503/2025 Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Manju & Ors. vs. Raja Ram and Ors. Date: 2026.07.20
16:04:26 +0530
Page 30 of 35
5 Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 15,348.90 x 12 = Rs.
(D x 12) 1,84,186.80
6 Multiplier (E) 18
7 Total loss of dependency (Rs. 1,84,186.80 x 18) =
DxE=F Rs.33,15,362/-
8 Medical Expenses (G) Nil
9 Compensation for loss of love Nil
and affection (H)
10 Compensation for loss of Rs. 48,400/- x 3 = Rs. 1,45,200/-
consortium (I) to the petitioner
11 Compensation for loss of Rs. 18,150/-
Estate (J)
12 Compensation for funeral Rs. 18,150/-
expenses (K)
13 Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 34,96,862/-
14 Rate of Interest Awarded 9%
15 Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 3,54,381/-
award w.e.f. 05.06.2025 till
realization
16 Total amount including interest Rs. 38,51,243/-
17 Award amount released As per paragraph Nos. 48 to 51
18 Award amount kept in FDRs Rs. 33,00,000/-
19 Mode of disbursement of the As per paragraph Nos. 48 to 51
award amount to the
claimant(s)
20 Next Date of compliance of the 20.08.2026
award
LIABILITY:
54. It has been established that accident was caused due to the
rash and negligent act of the respondent no.1 who was driving the
MACT No.503/2025 Digitally
signed by
Manju & Ors. vs. Raja Ram and Ors. RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
Page 31 of 35
2026.07.20
16:04:31
+0530
offending vehicle no.1 and that respondent no.2 is the owner of the
same and the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no.3.
Hence, the respondent no. 3 shall be liable to pay the compensation
amount to the petitioner. Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in favour of
the petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
55. In view of the above, the respondent no.3 is directed to
deposit a sum of Rs.34,96,862/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lakhs Ninety Six
Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Two Only) along with interest @ 9%
from the date of filing of DAR i.e. w.e.f. 05.06.2025 till realization with
the Bank Account of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the
claimants, failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay interest
@12% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days. Reliance
placed on case titled as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @
Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
56. 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
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.503/2025 Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Manju & Ors. vs. Raja Ram and Ors. Date: 2026.07.20
16:04:42 +0530 Page 32 of 35
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.
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
20.08.2026 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 20th July, 2026
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.20
16:04:48
+0530(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
MACT No.503/2025
Manju & Ors. vs. Raja Ram and Ors. Page 33 of 35
THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL MOTOR
VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022 (PL. SEE RULE
150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 22.03.2025
2 Date of filing of Form-I – First Accident
24.03.2025
Report (FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II to the
05.06.2025
victim(s)
4 Date of receipt of Form-III from the
13.05.2025
Driver
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV from the
Owner 13.05.20256 Date of filing of Form-V-
13.05.2025
Particulars of the insurance of the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-VIA from the
05.06.2025
Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII – Detail
05.06.2025
Accident Report (DAR)
9 Whether there was any delay or
deficiency on the part of the Investigating
No
Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the Designated
05.06.2025
Officer by the Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company admitted his report No
within 30 days of the DAR/claim
petition?
12 Whether there was any delay or
deficiency on the part of the Designated Yes
Officer of the Insurance Company? If so,
whether any action/direction warranted?
13 Date of response of the claimant(s) to the
DigitallyMACT No.503/2025
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLAManju & Ors. vs. Raja Ram and Ors. SINGLA Date:
2026.07.20
16:04:55
Page 34 of 35
+0530
offer of the Insurance Company. NA
14 Date of award 20.07.2026
15 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to
open savings bank account(s) near their Yes
place of residence?
16 Date of order by which claimant(s) were
directed to open Savings Bank Account(s)
near his place of residence and produce
PAN card and Aadhar Card and the 05.06.2025
direction to the bank not to issue any
cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s)
and make an endorsement to this effect on
the passbook(s).
17 Date on which the claimant(s) produced
the passbook of their savings bank
16.03.2026
account(s) near the place of their
residence alongwith PAN card and
Aadhaar Card?
18 Permanent residential address of the
claimant(s). As per record.
19 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank
account(s) is near their place of Yes
residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s) were examined Yes. The financial statements of
at the time of passing of the Award to LR/mother and LR/father of
ascertain his/their financial condition? deceased was recorded on
16.03.2026.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.20
16:05:00
+0530(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
20.07.2026
MACT No.503/2025
Manju & Ors. vs. Raja Ram and Ors. Page 35 of 35
