Delhi District Court
Gyarsi Lrs (Dec. … vs Dil Bag Singh(Icici) on 6 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010083222025
MACT No. : 489/25
FIR No. : 342/2025
PS : Karol Bagh
u/s : 281/106 (1) BNS
1. Smt. Gyarsi (mother of the deceased)
W/o Sh. Sachin
R/o H. No. 34 J, Beadon Pura,
Karol Bagh, Delhi-110005.
2. Mr. Sachin (father of the deceased)
S/o Raju,
R/o C-186, JJ Colony,
Bakkar Wala, West Delhi-110041.
3. Sh. Rajubhai Gulabsingh Bavri (grandfather of the deceased)
S/o Sh. Gulab Singh
R/o C-186, JJ Colony,
Bakkar Wala, West Delhi-110041.
4. Smt. Ratnaben (grandmother of the deceased)
W/o Sh. Raju
R/o C-186, JJ Colony,
Bakkar Wala, West Delhi-110041.
...Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Dilbag Singh (driver of the offending vehicle)
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA SINGLA
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA Date: 2026.04.06
14:33:13 +0530
MACT No.489/2025 Gyarsi LRs of Baby Gunja Vs. Dilbag Singh & Ors. Page 1 of 33
S/o Sh. Kesar Singh,
R/o 12/18 WEA Arya Samaj Road,
Karol Bagh, Delhi-110005.
2. Baluja Shoe Company (Owner of the Offending Vehicle)
R/o 454, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi-110006.
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.(Insurer)
R/o Fourth Parsavnath Capital Tower,
Bhai Veer Singh Marg, New Delhi-110001.
...Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 02.06.2025
Judgment reserved on : 06.04.2026
Date of Award : 06.04.2026
AWAR D
1. The Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filed on
02.06.2025 which was treated as a claim petition. The Road Traffic
Accident in question took place on 03.03.2025 at around 10:30 am near
12/18, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi-110005. Baby Gunja
expired in the said accident which was allegedly caused by vehicle
bearing registration No. DL3CCZ-1875 (Honda Car), (hereinafter
referred to as the offending vehicle). The said vehicle was being driven
by respondent no. 1 Dilbag, owned by respondent no. 2 Baluja Shoe
Company, and insured with respondent no. 3 ICICI Lombard General
Insurance Co. Ltd.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.04.06
14:33:17 +0530
MACT No.489/2025 Gyarsi LRs of Baby Gunja Vs. Dilbag Singh & Ors. Page 2 of 33
on 02.06.2025, on receipt of information of an accident vide DD
No.51A, the investigation of present accident was marked to the
IO/WSI Meenu. Thereafter, she along with HC Lokinder went to the
spot where IO got to know that injured had already been taken to the
hospital. Further, after leaving HC on the spot, IO went to the hospital
where she collected the MLC No. 199474/25 of injured namely Baby
Gunja. She was declared brought dead by the doctors on the same day.
Thereafter, IO preserved the dead body of Baby Gunja in the mortuary
of RML hospital where IO recorded the statement of eyewitness
namely Smt. Gyarsi (mother of deceased). Further, Smt. Gyarsi
produced one person namely Dilbag Singh before the IO and said that
he is the driver of the offending vehicle. Thereafter, FIR was registered
on the basis of MLC, statement of eyewitness u/s 281/106 (1) BNS.
3. Thereafter, IO prepared the site plan on the instructions of
the eye witness. Further, he took the offending vehicle into his custody
and deposited it into the malkhana. Thereafter, driver produced his DL
before the IO. Thereafter, IO served the notice u/s 133 MV Act to the
owner and he replied to the same and also produced the documents of
the offending vehicle. Further, after interrogation, the respondent no.1
accepted that the accident was caused by him only and thereafter he
was arrested and released on bail. Thereafter, IO collected the CCTV
footage of the spot in his pendrive. Further investigation of the present
case was transferred to the MACT Cell, Central to the IO /ASI Mohan
Singh.
4. On 04.03.2026, IO/ASI Mohan Singh got conducted the Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.04.06
14:33:22
+0530MACT No.489/2025 Gyarsi LRs of Baby Gunja Vs. Dilbag Singh & Ors. Page 3 of 33
post mortem of Baby Gunja and handed over the dead body to her
parents. Thereafter, mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle was
got done and documents of the offending vehicle were verified by the
concerned authority which were found to be correct. On 21.03.2025,
offending vehicle was released on superdari. Further, IO collected the
post mortem report bearing No. 160/25 from the RML hospital.
Thereafter, chargesheet was prepared against the accused namely
Dilbag Singh u/s 281/ 106(1) BNS, which was filed before the Ld.
JMFC and DAR was filed in the present case.
WRITTEN STATEMENTS
5. WS was filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 and 2 on
23.09.2025, wherein it was stated that the respondent no.1 was driving
his vehicle as per the traffic rules and regulations. He was holding a
valid driving license and that he was not responsible for the accident. It
was stated that he was driving the offending vehicle very slowly but
suddenly, the deceased child came before his vehicle. It is stated that
the incident was a pure accident and there was no rash and negligent
act on his behalf.
6. Legal offer on behalf of respondent no. 3 was filed on
29.07.2025, wherein it was admitted that the offending vehicle was
insured with the respondent no.3 vide policy no.
3001/306842809/00/000 for the period 18.09.2023 to 17.09.2024. An
offer of Rs. 2,22,500/- was made to the petitioners but the same was not
accepted by the petitioners. It was stated that the deceased was guilty of
contributory negligence as she was playing alone on the road without
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.04.06
MACT No.489/2025 Gyarsi LRs of Baby Gunja Vs. Dilbag Singh & Ors. Page 4 of 33
14:33:27 +0530
any supervision.
ISSUES
7. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order
dated 23.09.2025, this Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation?
If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
2. Relief.
PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
8. The petitioners examined petitioner no.3 i.e. Sh. Rajubhai
Gulabsingh Bavri @ Rajubhai as PW-1. PW1 has tendered his
evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW1/A. He relied upon the
following documents:
1. DAR filed by the IO was Ex. PW-1/1.
2. MLC prepared at Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, Delhi was
Ex. PW-1/2.
3. Aadhar Card of Sh. Rajubhai was Ex. PW-1/3 (OSR).
4. Aadhar Card of Sh. Sachin was Ex. PW-1/4 (OSR).
5. Aadhar Card of Smt. Gyarsi was Ex. PW-1/5 (OSR).
6. Aadhar Card of Sh. Ratnaben was Ex. PW-1/6 (OSR).
7. Birth Certificate of the deceased namely Baby Gunja was
Ex. PW-1/7 (OSR).
8. Medical report of father of the deceased namely Sh. Sachin
(running into 2 pages) was Ex. PW-1/8 (OSR).
9. He was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.06
14:33:32 +0530MACT No.489/2025 Gyarsi LRs of Baby Gunja Vs. Dilbag Singh & Ors. Page 5 of 33
respondents. Thereafter, PE was closed vide order dated 09.12.2025.
RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE
10. No RE was led by the respondents. Hence, vide separate
statement of the Ld. Counsels for respondents, RE was closed on
09.12.2025.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
11. The Petitioners filed his duly filled Form XIII and the
financial statements of all the petitioners were recorded. Final
arguments were heard on behalf of the petitioners as well as
respondents.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
12. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and Ld.
Counsel for respondents and perused the record. My findings on the
various issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If
so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
13. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. As
legal offer was filed by the respondent no. 3 in the present matter, the
factum of the accident and the rash and negligent act of the respondent
no. 1 was not disputed by the respondent no. 3. Hence, as the said facts
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.06
14:34:48 +0530MACT No.489/2025 Gyarsi LRs of Baby Gunja Vs. Dilbag Singh & Ors. Page 6 of 33
are admitted, the same are not required to be proved by the petitioner.
Hence, it is proved that the accident was caused by the the rash and
negligent act of the respondent no.1.
Contributory negligence
14. It is alleged by the respondents that the deceased is guilty
of contributory negligence as she was playing on the road alone
without her parents’ supervision. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the
petitioner has argued that the deceased was a minor child of two years.
She was unable to understand the gravity and the consequences of
playing on the road. Hence, contributory negligence cannot be fastened
on the deceased.
15. Record perused.
16. Admittedly, the deceased was playing on the road when
she met with the fatal accident. However, as submitted by Ld. Counsel
for the petitioner, the deceased was a minor child of merely two years.
She could not understand the consequences of playing on the road.
Hence, in the opinion of this Tribunal, the deceased cannot be held
liable for contributory negligence.
The injury:
17. Further, the onus to prove that the deceased had suffered
injuries by way of the said accident was on the petitioner. It is the
matter of record that due to the accident, the deceased suffered injuries.
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.04.06
14:34:53 +0530
MACT No.489/2025 Gyarsi LRs of Baby Gunja Vs. Dilbag Singh & Ors. Page 7 of 33
To prove the same, the petitioners have relied upon the MLC of the
deceased, as per which she was brought to RML Hospital with history
of road accident and was declared brought dead. Further, as per her post
mortem report dated 04.03.2025 issued by RML Hospital, she expired
due to cranio-cerebral damage in case of blunt force impact to the head,
possible in the manner alleged.
18. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the
opinion that on the scales of preponderance of probabilities, the
petitioner has proved that the accident in question took place due to
rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle being driven by its
driver/respondent no. 1 on the date and time of the accident and that
due to the said accident, the injured Baby Gunja had expired.
Compensation
19. In view of the above discussion, the petitioners are
entitled for compensation. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in matter
of “Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors.”
(2003) 6 SCC 121 has held : –
“QUA BASIC PRINCIPLES
“9. Basically only three facts need to be established
by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of
death :-
(a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased;
and the (c) the number of dependents. The issues 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
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.06
14:34:58 +0530MACT No.489/2025 Gyarsi LRs of Baby Gunja Vs. Dilbag Singh & Ors. Page 8 of 33
multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the
deceased. If these determinants are standardized, there will
be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will
lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the
insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay.
To have uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should
determine compensation in cases of death, by the following
well settled steps :
Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand)
The income of the deceased per annum should be
determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be
made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have
spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The
balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the
dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier)
Having regard to the age of the deceased and period
of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be
selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of
years he would have lived or worked but for the accident.
Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic
factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has
been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen
from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step 3 (Actual calculation)
The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand)
when multiplied by such multiplier gives the `loss of
dependency’ to the family. Thereafter, a conventional amount
in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be added as
loss of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his widow,
another conventional amount in the range of 5,000/- to
10,000/- should be added under the head of loss of
consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head
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
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.06
14:35:05 +0530MACT No.489/2025 Gyarsi LRs of Baby Gunja Vs. Dilbag Singh & Ors. Page 9 of 33
deceased before death (if incurred) should also added.”
QUA ADDITIONS
“11. ………………… In view of imponderables and
uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of
thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual
salary income of the deceased towards future prospects,
where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40
years. [Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the
words `actual salary’ should be read as `actual salary less
tax’]. The addition should be only 30% if the age of the
deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition,
where the age of deceased is more than 50 years. Though the
evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is
necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different
yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations
being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was
on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments
etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at
the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only
in rare and exceptional cases involving special
circumstances.”
QUA DEDUCTIONS
“14. Having considered several subsequent decisions
of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was
married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses
of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the
number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth
(1/3rd) where the number of dependant family members is 4
to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant
family members exceed six.
15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the
claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different
principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted
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 Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.06
14:35:11 +0530MACT No.489/2025 Gyarsi LRs of Baby Gunja Vs. Dilbag Singh & Ors. Page 10 of 33
in a short time, in which event the contribution to the
parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further,
subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have
his own income and will not be considered as a dependent
and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In
the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters
will not be considered as dependents, because they will either
be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on
the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents
and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a
dependent, and 50% would be treated as the personal and
living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution
to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large
and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case
where he has a widowed mother and large number of
younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and
living expenses may be restricted to one-third and
contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.”
QUA MULTIPLIER
“21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used
should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above
(prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra
and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18
(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.”
20. 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
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.06
14:35:16 +0530MACT No.489/2025 Gyarsi LRs of Baby Gunja Vs. Dilbag Singh & Ors. Page 11 of 33
no addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept.
We are disposed to think, there should be an addition of 15%
if the deceased is between the age of 50 to 60 years and
there should be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in case of
self- employed or person on fixed salary, the addition should
be 10% between the age of 50 to 60 years. The aforesaid
yardstick has been fixed so that there can be consistency in
the approach by the tribunals and the Courts.
59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to
record our conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have
been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it
was taking a different view than what has been stated in
Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is
because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot
take a contrary view than what has been held by another
coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in
Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of
time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of
50% of 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.
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.04.06
14:35:21 +0530
MACT No.489/2025 Gyarsi LRs of Baby Gunja Vs. Dilbag Singh & Ors. Page 12 of 33
(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the
deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals
and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of
Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated
in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that
judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for
applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads,
namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral
expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 21,917/- and Rs.
15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be
enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.”
Loss of income
21. In the present matter, it is a matter of record that the
deceased was a minor child of 2 years of age. The Hon’ble High court
of Delhi in the matter of “Cholamandalam MS General Insurance
Co. Ld. Vs. Bhupan Paswan & Ors.” MAC. APP. 324/2018, CM
APPL. 12428/2018 decided on 24.02.2025 while summarizing the
earlier law of assessment of compensation in case of death of a child
below 15 years has observed and held as under:-
“Loss of Dependency:-
“8…
17. However, it is apposite to note that in the above
judgments while Notional income as defined in Second
Schedule was taken as a basis but the amount was being
modified by applying Cost Inflation Index, in the facts of
each case.
18. The Second Schedule however, stands deleted w.e.f.
01.09.2019. Thus, the question that what would be the basis
of assessing the notional income of a child/ i.e. a non-
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.04.06
14:35:26
+0530MACT No.489/2025 Gyarsi LRs of Baby Gunja Vs. Dilbag Singh & Ors. Page 13 of 33
earning member below 15 years of age, who is a victim of a
motor vehicle accident, became a subject of extensive
judicial discourse….”
22. While discussing the law as laid down, the Hon’ble High
Court applied the Minimum Wage criteria paid to a skilled worker on
a fulltime basis’, which has been adopted by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the judgment of Kajal vs Jagdish Chand AIR 2020 SC 776,
Master Ayush v. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co.
Ltd. (2022) 7 SCC 738 and Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Baby
Ahmad Simon &Anr., SLP (C) No. 10996/2018 decided on on 11
December, 2024. Same has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in case titled as Devendra Kumar Tripathi v. Oriental Insurance
Company SLP No. 2195 of 2024 decided on 15.12.2025 and Hitesh
Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr. Civil Appeal
no. 10278 of 2025 decided on 8th August 2025.
23. Hence, the income of the deceased is assessed as per the
minimum wages payable to a skilled person. The date of accident is
03.03.2025. As per the relevant notification, minimum wages payable
to a skilled labour at that time is Rs. 21,917/-. Hence, her monthly
income is assessed to be Rs.21,917/-.
Age determination of the deceased:
24. As per the Birth Certificate of the deceased Ex. PW1/7,
her date of birth was 15.04.2023. The date of the accident is
03.03.2025. Hence, as on the date of the accident, the deceased was
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.06
14:35:30MACT No.489/2025 Gyarsi LRs of Baby Gunja Vs. Dilbag Singh & Ors. Page 14 of 33
+0530
aged 1 years 10 months.
Future Prospects: –
25. In view of the judgment of National Insurance Company
Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors; (2017) 16 SCC 680, it was observed
that the Claimants would be entitled to 40% for future prospects as the
deceased was less than 40 years of age. Accordingly, the monthly
income of the deceased needs to be taken as Rs. 30,683.80. (Rs.
21,917/- + Rs. 8,766.80 which is 40% of Rs. 21,917/-).
Determination of Dependent
26. In the present case, the deceased is survived by her parents
and her grandparents. However, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Ors., only the mother of the deceased shall be
considered as dependent on her.
Determination of multiplicand
27. The monthly income of the deceased after enhancement
needs to be taken as Rs. 30,683.80. 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
was unmarried. So, in this matter, monthly loss of dependency would
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.04.06
14:35:36 +0530
MACT No.489/2025 Gyarsi LRs of Baby Gunja Vs. Dilbag Singh & Ors. Page 15 of 33
come out to be Rs. 15,341.90 (1/2 of Rs. 30,683.80). This needs to be
multiplied by 12 to workout multiplicand/annual loss of dependency.
Hence, multiplicand for this matter would be Rs. 1,84,102.80
(rounded off to Rs. 1,84,103/-) ( Rs. 15,341.90 x 12).
Award Towards Loss of Dependency
28. Further, as the deceased was 1 year of age at the time of
the accident, multiplier applicable in this matter as per above discussion
would be 18. Reliance placed on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr.
Civil Appeal no. 10278 of 2025 decided on 8th August 2025. The total
loss of dependency would come out to be Rs.33,13,854/- (Rs.
1,84,103/- x 18), hence, so awarded.
Medical expenses:
29. The petitioners have not filed any medical bills on record.
Hence, in the absence of any medical bills, the petitioners shall not be
entitled to any amount towards medical expenses.
Non-Pecuniary Heads:-
30. 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
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.04.06
14:35:42
+0530
MACT No.489/2025 Gyarsi LRs of Baby Gunja Vs. Dilbag Singh & Ors. Page 16 of 33
Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. Civil Appeal
No. 9581/2018 decided on 18.09.2018 whereby after considering the
case of Pranay Sethi‘s (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to
award loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/- to each dependent of the
deceased and further pleased to award a compensation of Rs. 50,000/-
to each dependent of the deceased towards loss of love and affection.
The relevant portion is as under:
“…… A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi
(supra) dealt with the various heads under which
compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these
heads is Loss of Consortium.
In legal parlance, “consortium” is a compendious term
which encompasses ‘spousal consortium’, ‘parental
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.
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.06
MACT No.489/2025 Gyarsi LRs of Baby Gunja Vs. Dilbag Singh & Ors. Page 17 of 33
14:35:47 +0530
Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship
and their role in the family unit.
Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms
about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern
jurisdictions world-over have recognized that the value of a
child’s consortium far exceeds the economic value of the
compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child.
Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded
compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a
child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation
for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the
deceased child.
The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at
providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of
genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor
child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled
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.21,917 each for loss of Filial Consortium…..”.
31. 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 Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.06
MACT No.489/2025 Gyarsi LRs of Baby Gunja Vs. Dilbag Singh & Ors. Page 18 of 33
14:35:52 +0530
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
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…”.
32. 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.
33. Thus, an amount of Rs. 19,965/- is granted towards the
Loss of Estate and Rs. 19,965/- towards funeral charges.
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.04.06
14:35:57 +0530
MACT No.489/2025 Gyarsi LRs of Baby Gunja Vs. Dilbag Singh & Ors. Page 19 of 33
34 Further, Rs. 53,240/- each is granted to the petitioners
i.e. the parents and grandparents i.e. total of Rs. 53,240/- x 4 = Rs.
2,12,960/- towards Loss of Consortium.
Computation of compensation:
35. Applying the settled guidelines in the various judgments,
the compensation payable to the petitioners is calculated as under:
Head Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
Monthly Income of deceased (A) Rs. 21,917/-
Add future prospect (B) @ 40%= Rs. 8,766.80
Less 1/2 deductions towards (Rs. 21,917/- + Rs. 8,766.80) =
personal and living expenses of the Rs. 30,683.80 x 1/2 = Rs.
deceased (C) 15,341.90
Monthly loss of dependency (Rs. 21,917/- + Rs. 8,766.80) -
[(A+B) - C = D] Rs. 15,341.90 = Rs. 15,341.90)
Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 15,341.90 x 12= Rs.
(D x 12) 1,84,103/-
Multiplier (E) 18
Total loss of dependency (Rs. 1,84,103/- x 18) =
DxE=F Rs. 33,13,854/-
Medical Expenses (G) Nil
Compensation for loss of love and Nil.
affection (H)
Compensation for loss of Rs. 53,240/- x 4 = Rs. 2,12,960/-
consortium (I) to the petitioners
Compensation for loss of Estate (J) Rs. 19,965/-
Compensation for funeral expenses Rs. 19,965/-
(K)
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.06
14:36:03 +0530MACT No.489/2025 Gyarsi LRs of Baby Gunja Vs. Dilbag Singh & Ors. Page 20 of 33
Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 35,66,744/-
36. 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.
Therefore, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @
9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 02.06.2025 till
realization.
Apportionment:
37. It is evident from the record that the deceased had left
behind her parents and grandparents. For the sake of convenience, the
individual shares of the petitioners are tabulated as under:-
S.No. Name of the Relation Amount in Total amount
claimant with (Rupees) including interest
deceased
1. Mr. Sachin Father Rs. 53,240/- + Rs. Rs. 93,170/- + Rs.
19,965/- + Rs. 7,098.79 = Rs.
19,965/- = Rs. 1,00,268.79
93,170/- (rounded off to Rs.
1,00,269/-)
2. Mrs. Gyarsi Mother Rs. 33,13,854/- + Rs. 33,67,094/- +
Rs. 53,240/- = Rs. 2,56,544.89 =
Rs. 33,67,094/- Rs. 36,23,638.89
(rounded off to Rs.
36,23,639/-)
3. Sh. Rajubhai Grandfather Rs. 53,240/- Rs. 53,240/- + Rs.
Gulabsingh 4,056/- = Rs.
Bavri 57,296/-
4. Smt. Ratnaben Grandmother Rs. 53,240/- Rs. 53,240/- + Rs.
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.04.06
14:36:09 +0530
MACT No.489/2025 Gyarsi LRs of Baby Gunja Vs. Dilbag Singh & Ors. Page 21 of 33
4,056/- = Rs.
57,296/-
DISBURSEMENT
38. The Financial Statement of petitioner/injured was recorded
by this Court/Tribunal. As per the said statement, the monthly expenses
of his family are approximately Rs. 30,000/- per month.
39. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated
07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh
Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors. has given the following
directions:
“(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added
in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the
claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be
an individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
(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 Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.06
MACT No.489/2025 Gyarsi LRs of Baby Gunja Vs. Dilbag Singh & Ors. Page 22 of 33
14:36:14 +0530
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.”
40. However, in a recent judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India titled as Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal on
18 March, 2025 in S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020 has held that :
“17. The case in hand pertains to the compensation
awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. The general practice
followed by the insurance companies, where the
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
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.04.06
14:36:19 +0530
MACT No.489/2025 Gyarsi LRs of Baby Gunja Vs. Dilbag Singh & Ors. Page 23 of 33
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.”
41. In view of the same, the award amount can now be
disbursed in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioners. However, the
remaining directions as passed by the Hon’ble High Court shall be
complied with.
Mr. Sachin (Father):
42. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners,
it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 38,38,500/-, out
of the share of the petitioner/father Mr. Sachin Rs. 1,00,269/- (Rupees
One Lakh Two Hundred Sixty Nine only), the entire amount shall be
released to the petitioner immediately in his Bank Account no.
44870113958 State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, IFSC Code
SBIN0000726, CIF No. 92348736994.
Mrs. Gyarsi (mother):
43. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners,
it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 38,38,500/-, out
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.04.06
MACT No.489/2025 Gyarsi LRs of Baby Gunja Vs. Dilbag Singh & Ors.
14:36:24 +0530
Page 24 of 33
of the share of the petitioner/mother Mrs. Gyarsi Rs. 36,23,639/-
(Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Six Hundred Thirty
Nine only), Rs. 6,23,639/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand
Six Hundred Thirty Nine only) shall be released to the petitioner
immediately in her Bank Account no. 44865752530 State Bank of
India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, IFSC Code SBIN0000726, CIF No.
92347926012.
44. The balance amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty
Lacs only) shall be put in 100 monthly fixed deposits in her name in her
account as mentioned above of equal amount of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees
Thirty Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 100 months
respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions
contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021.
Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall
automatically be transferred in her saving account maintained in a
nationalized bank situated near the place of her residence.
Sh. Rajubhai Gulabsingh Bavri (grandfather)
45. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners,
it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 38,38,500/-, out
of the share of the petitioner/grandfather Sh. Rajubhai Gulabsingh
Bavri Rs. 57,296/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Thousand Two Hundred Ninety
Six only), the entire amount shall be released to the petitioner
immediately in his Bank Account on furnishing of his bank account
Digitally signed
details. by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.06
14:36:27 +0530MACT No.489/2025 Gyarsi LRs of Baby Gunja Vs. Dilbag Singh & Ors. Page 25 of 33
Smt. Ratnaben (grandmother)
46. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners,
it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 38,38,500/-, out
of the share of the petitioner/grandmother Smt. Ratnaben Rs. 57,296/-
(Rupees Fifty Seven Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Six only), the
entire amount shall be released to the petitioner immediately in her
Bank Account on furnishing of her bank account details.
47. In compliance of the directions given by Hon’ble High
Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award
in the prescribed Format-XVI is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
Date of Accident: 03.03.2025 Name of the deceased: Baby Gunja Age of the deceased: 1 year Occupation of the deceased: - Income of the deceased : Rs. 21,917/- p.m.
Name and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No. Name of the claimant Relation with
deceased
1. Mr. Sachin Father
2. Mrs. Gyarsi Mother
3. Sh. Rajubhai Gulabsingh Bavri Grandfather
4. Smt. Ratnaben Grandmother Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.06
14:36:34 +0530MACT No.489/2025 Gyarsi LRs of Baby Gunja Vs. Dilbag Singh & Ors. Page 26 of 33
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATIONSr. Head Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
No.
1 Monthly Income of deceased Rs. 21,917/-
(A)
2 Add future prospect (B) @ 40%= Rs. 8,766.80
3 Less 1/2 deductions towards (Rs. 21,917/- + Rs. 8,766.80) = Rs.
personal and living expenses of 30,683.80 x 1/2 = Rs. 15,341.90
the deceased (C)
4 Monthly loss of dependency (Rs. 21,917/- + Rs. 8,766.80) – Rs.
[(A+B) – C = D] 15,341.90 = Rs. 15,341.90)
5 Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 15,341.90 x 12 = Rs. 1,84,103/-
(D x 12)
6 Multiplier (E) 18
7 Total loss of dependency (Rs. 1,84,103/- x 18) =
DxE=F Rs. 33,13,854/-
8 Medical Expenses (G) Nil
9 Compensation for loss of love Nil.
and affection (H)
10 Compensation for loss of Rs. 53,240 x 4 = Rs. 2,12,960/-
consortium (I) to the petitioners
11 Compensation for loss of Rs. 19,965/-
Estate (J)
12 Compensation for funeral Rs. 19,965/-
expenses (K)
13 Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 35,66,744/-
14 Rate of Interest Awarded 9%
15 Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 2,71,756/-
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.489/2025 Gyarsi LRs of Baby Gunja Vs. Dilbag Singh & Ors. SINGLA
Page 27 of 33
Date:
2026.04.06
14:36:39 +0530
award w.e.f. 02.06.2025 till
realization
16 Total amount including interest Rs. 38,38,500/-
17 Award amount released As per paragraph Nos.42 to 46
18 Award amount kept in FDRs As per paragraph Nos. 44
19 Mode of disbursement of the As per paragraph Nos. 42 to 46
award amount to the
claimant(s)
20 Next Date of compliance of the 06.05.2026
award
LIABILITY:
48. It has been established that the offending vehicle was
being driven by respondent 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, it is directed that the respondent no. 3 shall be liable to
pay the compensation to the petitioner. Issue No. 1 is accordingly
decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
49. In view of the above, the respondent no. 3 is directed to
deposit a sum of Rs. 35,66,744/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Sixty
Six Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Four only) along with interest
@ 9% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. w.e.f. 02.06.2025 till
realization with the Civil Nazir 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 Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.06
14:36:43 +0530MACT No.489/2025 Gyarsi LRs of Baby Gunja Vs. Dilbag Singh & Ors. Page 28 of 33
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136
of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
50. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the
award to the insurance company for compliance within the time granted
as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No.
534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. The said respondent is further
directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to
the claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal
with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days
of the deposit with a copy to the Claimant and his counsel.
Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the
award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties
free of cost.
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
06.05.2026 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)
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.06
14:36:48 +0530MACT No.489/2025 Gyarsi LRs of Baby Gunja Vs. Dilbag Singh & Ors. Page 29 of 33
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 6th April 2026 Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.04.06
14:36:54 +0530(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
MACT No.489/2025 Gyarsi LRs of Baby Gunja Vs. Dilbag Singh & Ors. Page 30 of 33
THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL
MOTOR VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022
(PL. SEE RULE 150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 03.03.2025
2 Date of filing of Form-I –
First Accident Report 28.03.2025
(FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II
02.06.2025
to the victim(s)
4 Date of receipt of Form-III
22.04.2025
from the Driver
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV
from the Owner 22.04.20256 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the 22.04.2025
insurance of the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-
02.06.2025
VIA from the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII
– Detail Accident Report 02.06.2025
(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 Officer by the 02.06.2025
Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company admitted his Yes/Legal offer
report within 30 days of the
DAR/claim petition?
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.04.06MACT No.489/2025 Gyarsi LRs of Baby Gunja Vs. Dilbag Singh & Ors. Page 31 of 33
14:36:59 +0530
12 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the NO.
part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company?
If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
13 Date of response of the NA
claimant(s) to the offer of
the Insurance Company.
14 Date of award 06.04.2026
15 Whether the claimant(s)
were directed to open Yes
savings bank account(s)
near their 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 02.06.2025
the 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
02.02.2026
bank account(s) near the
place of their residence
alongwith the endorsement,
PAN card and Aadhaar
Card?
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.06
14:37:04 +0530MACT No.489/2025 Gyarsi LRs of Baby Gunja Vs. Dilbag Singh & Ors. Page 32 of 33
18 Permanent residential
address of the claimant(s). As per Award.
19 Whether the claimant(s)
savings bank account(s) is
No. (THC)
near their place of
residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s)
were examined at the time
Yes. The Financial Statements of the
of passing of the Award to
claimants were recorded on 02.02.2026
ascertain his/their financial
condition?
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.04.06
14:37:10 +0530
(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
06.04.2026
MACT No.489/2025 Gyarsi LRs of Baby Gunja Vs. Dilbag Singh & Ors. Page 33 of 33
