Delhi District Court
Farah Shadab And Others vs United India Insurance Co Ltd And Others on 18 July, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DR. ABHILASH MALHOTRA
PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-02, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
SMT. FARAH SHADAB & ORS.
Vs.
M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
& ORS..
MACT NO. 168 / 2022
1. Smt. Farah Shadab (Wife )
W/o Late Sh. Altamash Ali
2. Master Adl Altamash Ali ( Minor Son)
S/o Late Sh. Altamash Ali
3. Mr. Ashraf Ali (Father)
S/o Sh. Akhtar Ali
4. Mrs. Nighat Ali (Mother )
W/o Sh. Ashraf Ali
Petitioner no. 2 is minor and represented through his mother/
petitioner no.1
All Resident of:
Flat No. D-403, 4th Floor, Center Tower,
Kela Nagar, Chauraha, Dodhpur,
Koil, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh -202001 ... Petitioners
Versus
1. M/s United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Office at: B-39, Inner Circle,
Connaught Place, New Delhi -110001
.... Insurance Company
Respondent no.1
MACT No. 168/2022 Page. 1 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
2. Mr. Bhupendra Singh
S/o Sh. Jagdish Singh
R/o Rajei Ka Pura Kotra,
Dholpur, Rajasthan -3280001 …. Owner/
Respondent no. 2
3. Mr. Prem Singh
S/o Sh. Gajadhar Singh
R/o Village- Chaprauli,
PS Maniya, Distt. Dhaulpur, Rajasthan ….
Respondent no. 3
4. Mr. Bholu Ram
S/o Sh. Balla
R/o Khar Ka Pura Chaproli,
Dholpur, Rajasthan -3280001 ….
Respondent no. 4
Date of accident 04.10.2021
Date of filing Claim Petition 02.09.2022
Date of framing of issues 28.05.2024
Date of concluding arguments 14.07.2026
Date of decision 18.07.2026.
MACT No. 168/2022 Page. 2 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
AWARD/JUDGMENT
Index to the Judgment
I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE CLAIMANT(s)……………………………………..5
II. FRAMING OF ISSUES……………………………………………………………………….6
III. RECORDING OF EVIDENCE:……………………………………………………………7
IV. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY LD. COUNSELS FOR THE………………14
PARTIES………………………………………………………………………………………… 14
V. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO…………………………….16
(a) Issue No.1: Whether the deceased Sh. Altamash Ali sustained fatal
injuries in the accident which occurred on 04.10.2021 at about 10:00 p.m, in
front of Police Station, NH-2, Agra Delhi Highway caused by rash and
negligent driving of vehicle no. RJ-11GA-9432 being owned by respondent
no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 1? OPP…………………………………………16
(b) Issue No.2: Whether the offending vehicle bearing No. RJ-11GA-9432
was being driven by respondent no. 3 or respondent no. 4? OPP……………….16
i. Presumption qua complicity upon filing chargesheet:……………….16
ii. Adverse inference qua driver:………………………………………………..18
iii. Preponderance of probabilities:………………………………………………18
iv. The evidence on record qua negligence:………………………………….19
v. Finding:……………………………………………………………………………… 21
(c) Issue No. 3 Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so,
to what amount and from whom?…………………………………………………………..21
i. Principles qua assessment of compensation:…………………………….21
ii. Monthly Income of the deceased:…………………………………………..24
iii. Future prospects:………………………………………………………………….25
iv. Personal expenses of the deceased:…………………………………………26
MACT No. 168/2022 Page. 3 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Monthly & Annual Loss of dependency:…………………………………27
vi. Total Loss of Dependency:…………………………………………………….28
vii. Other Heads:………………………………………………………………………..28
viii. Medical Expenses:………………………………………………………………..29
ix. Compensation for Loss of Consortium:…………………………………..30
x. Compensation for Loss of Estate:…………………………………………..32
xi. Compensation towards Funeral Expenses:……………………………….32
xii. Total Compensation:……………………………………………………………..32
(d) Issue No.3: Relief………………………………………………………………………. 33
i. Amount of Award:………………………………………………………………..33
ii. Rate of Interest:……………………………………………………………………33
VI. DEPOSIT OF AWARD& RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT…………………….34
i. Deposit of Award:…………………………………………………………………34
ii. Disbursement of the award amount & protection thereof:………….36
VII…………………………………………………………………………………………..LIABILITY
38
VIII. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN CASES OF
DEATH…………………………………………………………………………………………………..41
IX. COMPLIANCE QUA PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME………………………43
MACT No. 168/2022 Page. 4 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & 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 present case, Mr. Altamash Ali S/o Mr. Ashraf Ali 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. It is stated in the claim petition that on 04.10.2021 at about 10:00
p.m Mr. Altamash Ali (deceased) along with his two friends
Namely Mr. Girish Lohani and Mr. Mohan Thakur were standing
adjacent to his car bearing registration No. UP-24AE-9531 at
kachha road / left side in front of Police Station Highway, NH-2,
Agra, Delhi Highway and suddenly a truck bearing registration no.
RJ-11GA-9432 came from Agra side and was driven by its driver
at a fast speed, in a rash and negligent manner. The truck hit the
deceased and his car. Due to this forceful impact, deceased
received crush injuries and his car was also damaged. Thereafter
deceased was taken to MDS, District Hospital, Mathura, UP and
due to serious condition, he was referred to K. D. Hospital and
MACT No. 168/2022 Page. 5 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
then referred to Safdarjung Hospital. On 05.10.2021 the injured
was declared brought dead.
5. R-1 Insurance company filed their written statement and contested
the matter.
6. R-2 to R-4 filed contested the matter and filed their written
statement.
7. The issues were framed vide order dated 28.05.2024. The financial
statement of petitioner was recorded on 17.09.2025.
II. FRAMING OF ISSUES
8. Vide order dated 28.05.2024, following issues were framed :-
“1. Whether the deceased Sh. Altamash Ali
sustained fatal injuries in the accident which
occurred on 04.10.2021 at about 10:00 p.m, in
front of Police Station, NH-2, Agra Delhi
Highway caused by rash and negligent driving of
vehicle no. RJ-11GA-9432 being owned by
respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent
no. 1? OPP.
2.Whether the offending vehicle bearing No.
RJ-11GA-9432 was being driven by respondent
no. 3 or respondent no. 4? OPP.
3.Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and from
whom?OPP
4. Relief.”
MACT No. 168/2022 Page. 6 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
III. RECORDING OF EVIDENCE:
9. PW-1 was Smt. Farah Shadab W/o Late Sh. Altamash Ali. She
tendered her affidavit by way of evidence as Ex. PW 1/A. She
proved on record the following documents viz., certified copy
of FIR, Final report/charge sheet, site plan, mechanical
inspection report of both vehicles and MLC and Postmortem
report of deceased as Ex. PW 1/1 (Colly); Copy of Aadhar Card
of petitioner no. 1 is Ex. PW 1/ 2; Copy of PAN Card of
petitioner no. 1 is Ex. PW 1/ 3; Copy of Birth Certificate of
petitioner no. 2 is Ex. PW 1/ 4; Copy of Aadhar Card of
petitioner no. 2 is Ex. PW 1/ 5; Copy of reference slip of MDS
District Hospital, Mathura of the deceased is marked as Mark
‘A’ ; Copies of Case Diary are marked ‘B’ (Colly); Copy of
driving licence, registration certificate of insurance policy of
offending vehicle marked ‘C’.
10.PW-1 in her testimony stated that on 04.10.2021 at about 9:45 /
10:00 p.m her deceased husband Mr. Altamash Ali along with
his two friends Namely Mr. Girish Lohani and Mr. Mohan
Thakur were standing adjacent to his car bearing registration
No. UP-24-AE-9531 at kachha road / left correct side in front of
Police Station Highway, NH-2, Agra, Delhi Highway and they
were talking amongst themselves, suddenly a truck bearing
registration no. RJ-11GA-9432 came from Agra side, which is
being driven by its driver at a fast speed, in a rash and negligent
manner, hit her deceased husband and his car, due to thisMACT No. 168/2022 Page. 7 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
forceful impact, her deceased husband received crush injuries
and his car was also damaged. She stated that thereafter
deceased was taken to MDS, District Hospital / City Hospital,
Mathura, UP from where due to serious conditions, her deceased
husband was referred to K. D. Hospital and then referred to
Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi on 05.10.2021 where he was
declared brought dead.
11.She stated that accident has caused due to rash and negligent
driving of offending vehicle bearing registration no. RJ-11-
GA-9432 and a criminal case has been registered u/s 279/304-
A/427 IPC in this regard.
12.She stated that her deceased husband was healthy, young and 34
years of age at the time of accident. She stated that her deceased
husband was a Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) and also
passed Post Graduate Diploma in Business Administration. She
stated that her deceased husband was working as a General
Manager with Shanti Hyundai (A Unit of Shanti Automart Pvt.
Ltd.) at 83, Navada, PO- Aduki, Near St. Francis School
Mathura Agra Bus Pass, NH-2, Mathura -281002 and his last
drawn salary was Rs.44,000/- per month. She stated that her
deceased husband was getting Rs.5,000/- as incentive per month
and was earning Rs.49,000/- per month. She stated that deceased
is survived by herself, their minor son and both parents.
13.PW-1 in her cross examination stated that she is not eye witness
to the accident. She stated that deceased husband was going toMACT No. 168/2022 Page. 8 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
drop his friends namely Mr. Girish Lohani and Mr. Mohan
Thakur to their homes. She stated that she is living with her
parents along with their minor child.
14.PW-2 was Mr. Ashraf Ali, Father of the deceased. He tendered
his affidavit by way of evidence as Ex. PW 2/A. He proved on
record following documents viz., Copy of his Aadhar Card as
marked ‘A’; Copy of his PAN Card as marked ‘B’; Copy of
Aadhar Card and PAN Card of petitioner no. 4 as marked ‘C’ &
‘D’; Copy of death report as Ex. PW 2/5; Copy of death
certificate, Aadhar Card, PAN Card and driving license of
deceased as Ex. PW 2/ 6 (Colly); Copy of passport of deceased
as Ex. PW 2/ 7; Copies of Mark sheets of 10 th, 12th and Post
Graduate Diploma in Business Administration and Certificates
of Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical ) and Post Graduate
Diploma in Business Administration of deceased as Ex. PW 2/
8 (Colly); Copy of appointment letter as Ex. PW 2/ 9; Copy of
Salary Certificate issued by employer is marked E; Copy of
Incentive receipt as Ex. PW 2/ 11; Copy of Income Tax Return
acknowledgment, Assessment year 2020-21 of deceased is
marked F; Certificate of Service Advisor issued by employer
with photograph as Ex. PW 2/ 13; Original visiting card of
deceased as Ex. PW 2/ 14; Copy of Marksheet of all semesters
of Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) of deceased as
Ex. PW 2/ 15.
MACT No. 168/2022 Page. 9 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
15.In his testimony PW-2 stated that on 04.10.2021 at about 9:45 /
10:00 p.m his deceased son Mr. Altamash Ali along with his
two friends Namely Mr. Girish Lohani and Mr. Mohan Thakur
were standing adjacent to his car bearing registration No.
UP-24-AE-9531 at kachha road / left correct side in front of
Police Station Highway, NH-2, Agra, Delhi Highway and they
were talking amongst themselves, suddenly a truck bearing
registration no. RJ-11GA-9432 came from Agra side, which is
being driven by its driver at a fast speed, in a rash and negligent
manner, hit his deceased son and his car, due to this forceful
impact, his deceased son received crush injuries and his car was
also damaged. He stated that thereafter deceased son was taken
to MDS, District Hospital / City Hospital, Mathura, UP from
where due to serious conditions, deceased son was referred to
K. D. Hospital and then referred to Safdarjung Hospital, New
Delhi on 05.10.2021 where he was declared brought dead. The
postmortem on the body of the deceased son was conducted at
Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi.
16.He reiterated that accident was caused due to rash and negligent
driving of offending vehicle bearing registration no. RJ-11-
GA-9432 and a criminal case has been registered u/s 279/304-
A/427 IPC in this regard.
17.He further reiterated that his deceased son was healthy, young
and 34 years of age at the time of accident. He stated that his
deceased son had done Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical)MACT No. 168/2022 Page. 10 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
and Post Graduate Diploma in Business Administration. He
stated that his deceased son was working as a General Manager
with Shanti Hyundai (A Unit of Shanti Automart Pvt. Ltd.) at
83, Navada, PO- Aduki, Near St. Francis School Mathura Agra
Bus Pass, NH-2, Mathura -281002 and his last drawn salary was
Rs.44,000/- per month. He stated that deceased son was getting
Rs.5,000/- as incentive per month, thus deceased was earning
Rs.49,000/- per month.
18.In his cross examination, PW-2 stated that the deceased was his
only son and his two married daughters who are settled out of
India. He stated that deceased used to help him financially. He
stated that deceased along with his friends namely Mr. Girish
Lohani and Mr. Mohan Thakur were working in the same
company and were talking to each other at the time of accident.
He stated that they have not received any amount from the
company of deceased son as compensation except 04 days of
salary for the month of October, 2021.
19.PW-3 was Mr. Girish Chandra Lohani, HR Manager from M/s
Shanti Automart Pvt. Ltd. He has proved on record the following
documents viz., Copy of his office ID as Ex. PW 3/ 1; Copy of
his Aadhar Card as Ex. PW 3/ 2; Copy of Authority Letter as Ex.
PW 3/ 3; Copy of appointment letter of deceased which is
already Ex. PW 2/ 9; Copy of attested salary certificate of
deceased from April 2021 to October, 2021 issued by the
employer as Ex. PW 3/ 4; Copy of ledger statement of deceasedMACT No. 168/2022 Page. 11 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
as Ex. PW 3/ 5; Copy of cash voucher of incentive which is
already Ex. PW 2/ 11; Copy of attendance register of deceased
maintained by the employer as Ex. PW 3/ 6 (Colly).
20.In his testimony he stated that he is a summoned witness in the
present case and have brought the summoned / employment
record of deceased Mr. Altamash Ali from the said Company.
He stated that deceased Mr. Altamash Ali was a permanent
employee of the company and appointed as General Manager
(Service) on 12.06.2019 and was drawing the last salary of
Rs.44,000/- per month and also getting Rs.5,000/- per month as
incentive regularly.
21.He stated that he is an eye witness to the accident. He stated that
on 04.10.2021 at about 9:45 / 10:00 p.m he along with deceased
Mr. Altamash Ali and Mr. Mohan Thakur were standing adjacent
to car bearing registration No. UP-24-AE-9531 at kachha road /
left correct side near the Police Station NH-2, Agra, Delhi
Highway (Naroli) and they were talking amongst themselves,
suddenly a truck bearing registration no. RJ-11GA-9432 came
from Agra side, which is being driven by its driver at a fast
speed, in a rash and negligent manner, hit Mr. Altamash Ali
(deceased) and his car ran over the legs of deceased due to
which he received crush injuries and his car was also damaged.
He stated that after sometime police reached the spot and took
the deceased to MDS, District Hospital, Mathura, UP from
where due to serious conditions, deceased was referred to K. D.MACT No. 168/2022 Page. 12 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Hospital and thereafter referred to Safdarjung Hospital, New
Delhi on 05.10.2021 where he was declared brought dead.
22.In his cross examination PW-3 stated that after 5-7days of the
accident, the IO had recorded his statement. He stated that he
had not received any injury in this accident and he was
accompanied with deceased. He stated that at the time of
accident, they all were outside the car.
23.He stated that deceased Mr. Altamash Ali was getting a salary of
Rs.49,000/- per month including incentive of Rs.5,000/- and the
same would have enhanced in case deceased was able to
generate more revenue for the company. He confirmed the name
of the deceased at Serial No. 19 on the said Muster Roll which
is Ex. PW3/6 (Colly). He stated that the salary of the deceased
does not come under the slab of income tax.
24.R1W1 was Ms. Apoorva Yashana, Admin. Officer from M/s
United India Insurance Company Ltd.. She tendered her
affidavit by way of evidence as Ex. R1W1/A. She proved on
record following documents viz., Copy of original policy of
vehicle as Ex. R1W1/1; Copy of notice under Order XII Rule 8
CPC as Ex. R1W1/ 2; Copy of speed post receipts of notices
under Order XII Rule 8 CPC as Ex. R1W1/ 3, Ex. R1W1/ 4 and
Ex. R1W1/ 5 respectively.
25.R1W1 in her testimony stated that she is working with M/s
United India Insurance Company Ltd., as an Administrative
Officer and brought the office record of the present case. SheMACT No. 168/2022 Page. 13 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
stated that offending vehicle bearing registration no. RJ-11-
GA-9432 was insured with their company in the name of Mr.
Bhupendra Singh which is valid w.e.f. 14.07.2021 to
13.07.2022. She stated that the offending / insured vehicle come
under the category of commercial vehicle. She stated that the
owner has not intimated their office about the accident and thus
has violated the terms and conditions of the policy.
26.R1W1 in her cross examination admitted that the policy cover
the date of accident. She stated that she has not filed
investigation report of Mr. R. V. Singh and she is not aware
whether the same is filed before this Tribunal or not. She
admitted that no DL was submitted to the investigator by the
driver and charge sheet has been filed against respondent no.
3 / driver of offending / insured vehicle bearing registration no.
RJ-11-GA-9432.
IV. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY LD. COUNSELS FOR THE
PARTIES
27.Ld. Counsel for the claimants 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. RJ-11-
GA-9432 was seized during the investigation and later on
released on Superdari. He submits that the charge sheet in that
case was already filed against the driver Mr. Prem Singh u/sMACT No. 168/2022 Page. 14 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
279/427/304-A IPC, which clearly establishes the rash driving
on part of the offending vehicle.
28.Ld. Counsel for petitioner submitted that the deceased is
survived by his wife, child and parents who were dependent
upon his income.
29.He submitted that the deceased was earning Rs.44,000/- per
month as salary and was getting Rs. 5,000/- as incentive. Ld.
Counsel submitted that PW-3 Mr. Girish Chandra Lohani is an
eye witness in the present case and he has deposed that the
accident had occurred due to rash driving of the insured /
offending vehicle.
30.Ld. counsel for the petitioner during the final augments on
14.07.2026 clarified that though they have impleaded R-4 Mr.
Bholu Ram but they are pressing the present claim against R-1
to R-3 only.
31.Ld. counsel for R-2 to R-4 submitted that the police had wrongly
charge sheeted R-3 Driver Mr. Prem Singh. He submitted that
on the date of accident the vehicle was driven by R-4 Mr. Bholu
Ram. He stated that no accident had occurred from the insured /
offending vehicle. He submitted that the vehicle was insured on
the date of accident.
32.Ld. counsel for R-1 Insurance company submitted that no
evidence is led by R-2 to R-4 to show that the vehicle was driven
by Mr. Bholu Ram. He submitted that the charge sheet in the
present case is filed against R-3 driver Mr. Prem Singh who wasMACT No. 168/2022 Page. 15 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
not having any driving licence and there is nothing on record to
contradict the said findings arrived in the charge sheet. The
factum of insurance on the date of accident is not disputed.
V. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO
(a) Issue No.1: Whether the deceased Sh. Altamash Ali sustained
fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 04.10.2021 at
about 10:00 p.m, in front of Police Station, NH-2, Agra Delhi
Highway caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle no.
RJ-11GA-9432 being owned by respondent no. 2 and insured
with respondent no. 1? OPP.
(b) Issue No.2: Whether the offending vehicle bearing No.
RJ-11GA-9432 was being driven by respondent no. 3 or
respondent no. 4? OPP.
i. Presumption qua complicity upon filing chargesheet:
33. 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
MACT No. 168/2022 Page. 16 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
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.
34.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……..”.
35.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. Adverse inference qua driver:
36.The driver of the offending vehicle steered clear of the witness
box and did not lead any controvertible evidence to negate or
refute the allegations of rash and negligent driving. It may
further be noted that in Cholamandlam insurance company Ltd.
MACT No. 168/2022 Page. 17 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Vs. Kamlesh 2009 (3) AD Delhi 310, it was held that if driver
of offending vehicle does not enter the witness box, an adverse
inference can be drawn against him. In the present case also,
since the driver exercised his volition to not enter into the
witness box to controvert the claim of petitioner or even to
explain circumstances of accident, an adverse inference ought
to be drawn against him.
iii. Preponderance of probabilities:
37.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.
38.In this context, it would be useful to peruse Mathew Alexander
v. Mohd. Shafi, (2023) 13 SCC 510 wherein it was observed as
thus:
“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 claimMACT No. 168/2022 Page. 18 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
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.”
iv. The evidence on record qua negligence:
39.It is the case of the claimant that a criminal case bearing FIR
No. 1116/21 at PS Highway, District Mathura, UP was
registered under Section 279/427/304-A IPC and Driver Mr.
Prem Singh is chargesheeted for offence under Section
279/427/304-A IPC.
40.PW-3 Mr. Girish Chandra Lohani is the eye witness in the
present case. In his testimony he clearly stated that he along with
deceased Mr. Altamash Ali was standing on the side of the road.
The offending / insured vehicle was driven in rash manner at
high speed which hit the deceased and his car and ran over his
MACT No. 168/2022 Page. 19 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
legs. Due to the accident Mr. Altamash Ali received grievous
injuries and died later on.
41.R-2 to R-4 filed joint written statements wherein they stated that
the accident is not caused by their vehicle. They stated that on
the date of accident the vehicle was driven by R-4 Mr. Bholu
Ram and not by R-3 Mr. Prem Singh.
42.R-2 to R-4 have failed to lead any evidence to substantiate their
contentions. In the charge sheet the police after investigation
concluded that the vehicle was driven by R-3 Mr. Prem Singh
who was not having any driving licence.
43.The Insurance Company has also failed to lead any evidence to
rebut the findings arrived by the police in the investigation. The
testimony of eye witness PW-3 Mr. Girish Chandra Lohani
clearly shows that the accident occurred due to rash driving of
insured / offending vehicle.
44.From the aforesaid, it is clear that the accident had occurred due
to rash driving of offending/insured vehicle driven by R-3
/driver.
v. Finding:
45.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.
RJ-11GA-9432 and the said vehicle at that time was driven by
MACT No. 168/2022 Page. 20 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
respondent no. 3 driver and insured with respondent no.1
insurance. Hence, issue no. 1 & 2 are decided in favour of the
claimant and against the respondents.
46.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.
(c) Issue No. 3 Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
i. Principles qua assessment of compensation:
47.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.
48.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:
MACT No. 168/2022 Page. 21 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
(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
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.”
49.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,MACT No. 168/2022 Page. 22 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
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-
55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years ,M-7 for 61 to 65
years and M- 5 for 66 to 70 years.”
50.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:
51.PW-3 Mr. Girish Chandra Lohani in his testimony stated that
deceased was a permanent employee and drawing salary of Rs.
44,000/ per month and was getting Rs. 5,000/- as incentive. He
has proved on record appointment letter of deceased which was
already Ex. PW-2/9, the salary certificate Ex. PW3/4 and other
records. The appointment letter of the deceased shows that he
was working as General Manager and was on probation period
of three months which started from 12.06.2019 and expired well
before the date of accident. The superannuation age of deceased
was 58 years. It is clear that the deceased was a permanent
employee.
MACT No. 168/2022 Page. 23 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
52.PW-3 stated that Rs. 5,000/- paid to the deceased towards
incentive. The incentives are variable in nature and are
dependent upon the performance. The incentive cannot be
considered as component of salary especially under
circumstances when future prospects are added to compensate
towards the promotion /increase of salary during the course of
employment.
53.Thus, the monthly income of the deceased is quantified as Rs.
44,000/- p.m.
iii. Future prospects:
54.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 the
necessary method of computation. The established
income means the income minus the tax component.
MACT No. 168/2022 Page. 24 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
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.”
55.To determine the age of the deceased, the claimants had filed
on record Aadhar Card which shows Date of birth 26.12.1987.
The deceased was 33 years and 09 months old on the date of
death. As per mandate in Sarla Verma (Supra) and Pranay Sethi
(Supra) the future prospects for a person having age less than
40 years and in permanent job is 50% and accordingly the same
is calculated as Rs. 22,000/-.
iv. Personal expenses of the deceased:
56.The Expenses incurred by the deceased in 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. 168/2022 Page. 25 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & 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.”
57.PW-1 and PW-2 Smt. Farah Shadab and Mr. Ashraf Ali in their
testimony stated that deceased is survived by his wife, child and
both parents. Accordingly, in view of the mandate of Sarla
MACT No. 168/2022 Page. 26 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Verma (supra) the deductions towards personal and living
expenses is considered as 1/4th .
58.Thus, the net deduction in the present case is (Rs. 44,000 + Rs.
22,000/- = Rs.66,000/- divided by 1/4 i.e. Rs. 16,500/-.
v. Monthly & Annual Loss of dependency:
59.The monthly loss of dependency would be Rs. 49,500/-
(approx.). The annual loss of dependency Rs. 49,500/- X 12 =
Rs.5,94,000/-.
vi. Total Loss of Dependency:
60.Since the deceased was 33 year 09 months old, the applicable
multiplier in terms of the verdict of Sarla Verma(supra) is 16.
The total loss of dependency is thus Rs. 5,94,000 X 16 =
Rs. 95,04,000/-,
vii. Other Heads:
61.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. 168/2022 Page. 27 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & 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.”
62.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 onMACT No. 168/2022 Page. 28 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement
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.”
63.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:
64.No amount is claimed under this head.
ix. Compensation for Loss of Consortium:
65.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).]
MACT No. 168/2022 Page. 29 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
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.
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
MACT No. 168/2022 Page. 30 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for
loss of filial consortium.”
66.PW-1 & 2 in their testimony stated that the deceased is survived
by his wife, child and both parents. Thus, on the basis of the
above verdict and mandated in Pranay Sethi‘(Supra), the
compensation for Consortium is granted to mother and father
and hereby quantified as Rs 48,400 x 4 = Rs.1,93,600/-.
x. Compensation for Loss of Estate:
67.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:
68.On the basis of the above verdict, the compensation of funeral
expenses is hereby quantified as Rs 18,150/-
xii. Total Compensation:
69. Thus, the total amount of compensation to be awarded is
calculated as follows:-
Sr. No. Head Amount
1. Total loss of dependency 95,04,000/-
2. Medical Expenses NIL
3. Compensation for Loss of 1,93,600/-
Consortium (48,400 X 4)
4. Compensation for Loss of Estate 18,150/-
MACT No. 168/2022 Page. 31 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
5. Compensation towards Funeral 18,150/-
Expenses
6. Total Compensation Rs.97,33,900/-
(d) Issue No.3: Relief. i. Amount of Award:
70.Thus, the claimant is awarded as sum of Rs. 97,33,900/- along
with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of claim
petition The rate of interest has been calculated in terms of the
succeeding paragraphs.
ii. Rate of Interest:
71.It was contended by Ld Counsel for the respondent insurance
company 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.
72.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 judicialMACT No. 168/2022 Page. 32 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
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”
73.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 02.09.2022
therefore the amount of Interest is calculated at @ 9 % from the
date of filing of petition i.e. Rs.33,58,195/- for a period of 46
months. Thus, the total amount of award is Rs. 1,30,92,095/-.
74.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.
VI. DEPOSIT OF AWARD& RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT
i. Deposit of Award:
75.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
MACT No. 168/2022 Page. 33 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
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 shall
file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal with respect
to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the
deposit with the interest upto the date of notice of deposit to the
claimant(s) with a copy to their counsel.
APPORTIONMENT & RELEASE
76.As per testimony of PW-1, deceased is survived by herself,
father and sister who were dependent upon the income of the
deceased. Accordingly, the award amount shall be apportioned
amongst the legal heirs as follows:-
Sl Name Relation % of Release of awarded amount
share
1. Smt. Farah Wife 50 % Rs. 5,00,000/- of the award amount out of
Shadab the 50% share of wife be released in her
bank account immediately and 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
Scheme.
2. Master Adl Minor 30 % The awarded amount be invested and
Atlamash Ali Son 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 child
attains the age of majority for the
purposes of financing education and
personal needs.
MACT No. 168/2022 Page. 34 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
3. Mr. Ashraf Ali Father 10 % 100% of his share be released in his bank
account immediately.
4. Mrs. Nighat Ali Mother 10 % 100% of her share be released in her bank
account immediately.
77.The Nodal officer of the bank shall ensure disbursement of the
award within 3 weeks of receipt thereof by email or otherwise.
78.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:
79.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.
80.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:
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint names to be added in the
savings bank account or MACAD scheme account ofMACT No. 168/2022 Page. 35 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
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
the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the
bank.
MACT No. 168/2022 Page. 36 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
(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.
VII. LIABILITY
81.During the course of final arguments on 14.07.2026 Ld. Counsel
for petitioner submitted that they are only claiming
compensation against R-1 to R-3. R-1 is the Insurance
Company. R-2 is the registered owner of offending vehicle and
R-3 is the driver of offending vehicle as per charge sheet. R-2 to
R-4 have failed to bring on record any evidence to show that
R-4 Mr. Bholu Ram was driving the vehicle. Even the petitioner
did not claim anything against the R-4 during the final
arguments. In view of the evidence on record R-1 to R-3 are
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
82.As per the charge sheet R-3 Mr. Prem Singh was not having any
driving license. Accordingly, there is breach of term of policy.
MACT No. 168/2022 Page. 37 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
83.It would be relevant to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble High
Court of Madras in the case of Branch Manager, SBI General
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Muthulakshmi and Others,
2025 SCC Online mad 2541 held that:
“17. In case, the insurer becomes successful in pleading
and proving defences available to it under Section 150
Sub-Section 2, it need not honour its duty under the
contract of insurance towards the insured. However, the
statutory liability under Section 150(1) towards third
party remains unaffected, the natural corollary would be
after making payment under Section 150 (1), the insurer
is entitled to recover the said amount from the insured
by virtue of its successful defence raised under Section
150 (2). The liability of insurer under Section 149 (1)
[New Section 150 (1)] is a statutory liability and on the
other hand it is concomitant with liability of insurer
towards insured. If we say that the liability of insurer to
satisfy award passed against insured is subject to terms
and conditions of contract between insurer and insured,
over which innocent third party victims have no control,
the very object of statutory liability enshrined in Section
147 (1)(b) read with Section 149 (1) [New Section 147
(1)(b) read with Section 150 (1)] of Motor Vehicles Act
will get defeated. The object of said provision is better
served by concept of “pay and recovery” enunciated
in Swaran Singh case cited infra. Infact, in Swaran
Singh case (in paragraphs 96 and 97), the Apex Court
emphasised that the concept of pay and recovery has
been holding the field for a long time and the same need
not be deviated. The concept of “pay and recovery” will
achieve the object of providing hassle free mechanism
for poor accident victims to recover the damages
awarded to them with certainty and on the other hand it
also takes care of insurer’s right under contract of
insurance by enabling insurer to recover the amount
paid by it to third parties, which insurer is not bound to
pay to the insured.
24. Therefore, if the insured is guilty of negligence or
failed to exercise reasonable care in the matters of
MACT No. 168/2022 Page. 38 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
fulfilling conditions of the policy, the insurer is entitled
to avoid its liability towards insured under the contract
of insurance. However, its statutory liability under
Section 149 (1) [now Section 150 (1)] towards innocent
third parties remains unaffected. The insurer by virtue
of its statutory liability shall pay the amount payable by
the insured to the third party victims and recover the
said amount from the insured as insurer is entitled to
refuse indemnity in view of the breach committed by
the insured.”
84.Accordingly in view of the aforesaid, R-1 /Insurance company
is granted pay and recovery rights from R-2 and R-3 jointly and
severally. R-1/ Insurance company is directed to pay award
amount to the petitioners with liberty to recover the same from
R-2 and R-3. 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
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. 1 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. 1 with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.
MACT No. 168/2022 Page. 39 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
85.The respondent no. 1 shall inform the petitioners and his counsel
that the awarded amount has been deposited so as to facilitate
him to collect the same.
VIII. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT
IN CASES OF DEATH
86.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 04.10.2021
2. Name of the deceased Sh. Altamash Ali
3. Age of the deceased 33 years 09 months
4. Occupation of the deceased Permanent job
5. Income of the deceased Rs. 44,000/-
6. Name, Age and relationship of legal representatives of
the deceased:
S.NO NAME AGE RELATION
1. Smt. Farah Shadab 34 Wife
2. Master Adl Altamash Ali 05 Son
months
3. Mr. Ashraf Ali 67 Father
4. Mrs. Nighat Ali 63 Mother
MACT No. 168/2022 Page. 40 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
S.No. Heads Awarded by the
Claims Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs. 44,000/-
8. Add: Future Prospects (B) Rs.22,000/-
9. Less: Personal expenses of the Rs. 16,500/-
deceased (C)
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs. 49,500/-
[(A+B)- C = D]
11. Annual Loss of dependency (D x Rs. 5,94,000/-
12)
12. Multiplier (E) 16
13. Total loss of dependency (D x 12 Rs. 95,04,000/-
x E = F)
14. Medical Expenses (G) NIL
15. Compensation for loss of Rs 1,93,600/-
consortium (H) (48,400 X 4)
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/-
MACT No. 168/2022 Page. 41 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION (F + Rs. 97,33,900/-
G + H + I + J + K = L)
20. Rate of Interest Awarded @ 9%
21. Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 33,58,195/-
award (M) (46 months)
22. Total amount including interest Rs. 1,30,92,095/-
(L + M)
23. Award amount released As per para no. 76
24. Award kept in FDRs As per para no. 76
25. Mode of disbursement of the Through Bank
award to the claimant(s)
26. Next date for compliance of the 25.08.2026
award
IX. COMPLIANCE QUA PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME
87.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:
MACT No. 168/2022 Page. 42 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
1. Date of the accident 04.10.2021
2. Date of filing of Form I- First Not filed as accident took place
Accident Report (FAR) 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- Same as above
Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Same as above
Form 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 Not given
Designated Officer by the Insurance
Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of No
the Insurance Company submitted
his 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?
MACT No. 168/2022 Page. 43 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
13. Date of response of the petitioner(s) Matter was contested by the
of the offer of the Insurance Insurance Company.
Company.
14. Date of the Award 18.07.2026.
15. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes
directed to open savings bank
account(s) near their place of
residence?
16. Date of order by which petitioner(s) 02.09.2022
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 issued.
produced the passbook of their
savings bank account near the place
of their residence along with the
endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar
Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of As mentioned above
the 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. 168/2022 Page. 44 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
88.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.
89.File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary
formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up
on 25.08.2026.
Digitally signed
by Abhilash
Malhotra
Abhilash Date:
Malhotra 2026.07.18
Announced in the open court 16:04:30
+0530
on 18.07.2026
(Dr. Abhilash Malhotra)
Judge/PO, MACT-02,
New Delhi/18.07.2026(s)DLND010074012022
MACT No. 168/2022 Page. 45 of 45
Smt. Farah Shadab & Ors. Vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
