Delhi District Court
Kamlesh vs Dinesh Chand on 13 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHILASH MALHOTRA
PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-02, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
SMT. KAMLESH CHANDRA & ORS.
Vs.
DINESH CHAND & ORS.
DAR NO. 156/2020
1. Smt. Kamlesh Chandra (Wife of the deceased)
W/o Late Sh. Dheer Singh
2. Ms. Varsha (Daughter of the deceased)
D/o Late Sh. Dheer Singh
3. Sh. Sumit (Son of the deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Dheer Singh
4. Ms. Kishan Devi (Mother of the deceased)
(died and deleted vide
order dt 02.03.2022)
All resident of:
H. No. 67, Gandhi Sadan,
Mandir Marg, New Delhi. .... Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Dinesh Chand
S/o Sh. Bishan
R/o Kothi No. 2, Aurangzeb Lane,
New Delhi -110011 .... Driver/
Respondent no. 1
2. BVG India Ltd.
Through its Manager
Flat No. 106, Merchantile House,
Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi -110001 ... Owner/
Respondent No. 2
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 1 of 36
Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
3. M/s SBI General Insurance Company Ltd.
Through its Manager
Natraj, 301, Junction of Western Highway &
Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai.
....Insurance Company/
Respondent no. 3
Date of accident 09.06.2020
Date of filing of DAR 17.09.2020
Date of framing of issues 25.10.2021
Date of concluding arguments 10.02.2026
Date of decision 13.02.2026
AWARD/JUDGMENT
Index to the Judgment
I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE CLAIMANT(s)……………………………………….4
II. FRAMING OF ISSUES………………………………………………………………………..4
III. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS OF THE PARTIES……………………………….8
IV. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO………………………………9
(a) Issue No.1: Whether Sh. Dheer Singh (deceased in DAR No. 156/20)
sustained fatal injuries and Sh. Kishan Lal (injured in DAR No. 155/20)
sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on 09.06.2020 at about 6:55
a.m. round about GPO towards inner circle near Ashoka Road, New Delhi
caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DL-10CL-3343 being
driven by respondent no. 1 owned by respondent no.2 and insured with
respondent no. 3?OPP……………………………………………………………………………9
i. Presumption qua complicity upon filing chargesheet:………………………….9
ii. The evidence on record qua negligence:………………………………………….11
iii. Preponderance of probabilities:…………………………………………………….12
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 2 of 36
Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
iv. Finding:……………………………………………………………………………………..14
(b) Issue No.2: Whether claimant is entitled to compensation, and to what
amount ?……………………………………………………………………………………………. 14
i. Principles qua assessment of compensation:…………………………………….14
ii. Monthly Income of the deceased:…………………………………………………..16
iii. Future prospects:…………………………………………………………………………17
iv. Personal expenses of the deceased:………………………………………………..18
v. Monthly & Annual Loss of dependency:…………………………………………20
vi. Total Loss of Dependency:…………………………………………………………..20
vii. Other Heads:……………………………………………………………………………..20
viii. Medical Expenses:…………………………………………………………………….22
ix. Compensation for Loss of Consortium:………………………………………….22
x. Compensation for Loss of Estate:…………………………………………………..24
xi. Compensation towards Funeral Expenses:……………………………………..24
xii. Total Compensation:…………………………………………………………………..24
(c) Issue No.3: Relief……………………………………………………………………………25
i. Amount of Award:…………………………………………………………………………25
ii. Rate of Interest:……………………………………………………………………………25
V. DEPOSIT OF AWARD& RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT………………………26
i. Deposit of Award:………………………………………………………………………… 26
ii. Disbursement of the award amount & protection thereof:…………………28
VI. LIABILITY……………………………………………………………………………………… 30
VII. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN CASES OF
DEATH…………………………………………………………………………………………………..31
VIII. COMPLIANCE QUA PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME……………………34
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 3 of 36
Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE CLAIMANT(s)
1. In present case, FIR bearing no. 53/2020 was registered in PS
Mandir Marg, Delhi on the complaint made by complainant Mr.
Kishan Lal. A charge sheet was filed by the police against the
driver Mr. Dinesh Chand (R-1) under Section 279/338/304A IPC,
on the charges of rash driving of vehicle no. DL-10-CL-3343
which hit the two wheeler vehicle no. DL-12SF-7665 driven by
deceased Mr. Dheer Singh. In the accident, two wheeler driver Mr.
Dheer Singh died and pillion rider Mr. Kishan Pal received
injuries.
2. As per the charge sheet, the vehicle was driven by respondent no.
1 driver /owner and insured by respondent no. 2 Insurance
company.
3. During the proceedings issues were framed on 25.10.2021. By said
order, my Ld. Predecessor directed that as present case i.e. DAR
No. 156/2020 and DAR No. 155/20 (injury case of Mr. Kishan
Lal) arise out of same accident, therefore, they were consolidated
for the purposes of trial and decision.
4. Thereafter the written submissions were filed by the parties in the
prescribed format. The financial statement of the legal
representatives of deceased was recorded on 26.11.2025.
II. FRAMING OF ISSUES
5. Vide order dated 25.10.2021, following issues were framed by
this Tribunal:-
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 4 of 36
Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
“1. Whether Sh. Dheer Singh (deceased in DAR
No. 156/20) sustained fatal injuries and Sh.
Kishan Lal (injured in DAR No. 155/20)
sustained injuries in the accident which occurred
on 09.06.2020 at about 6:55 a.m. round about
GPO towards inner circle near Ashoka Road, New
Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of
vehicle no. DL-10CL-3343 being driven by
respondent no. 1 owned by respondent no.2 and
insured with respondent no. 3?OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and from
whom? OPP
3. Relief.”
6. Recording of evidence: in present case, PW-1 Mr. Vinay
Kumar, Sr. Assistant, Account Department, NDMC, Delhi
proved the statement of salary of deceased Mr. Dheer Singh and
injured Mr. Kishan Lal which are Ex. PW 1/A and Ex. PW 1/B
respectively. He stated that deceased Mr. Dheer Singh was
working as a Sweeper in NDMC vide employee code no.
282335 and injured Mr. Kishan Lal is also working Safai
Karamchari with NDMC vide employee code 152968.
7. PW-2 Mr. Chander Shekhar Verma, Clerical Assistant, Personal
Department, NDMC, New Delhi proved on record the service
record / personal file of deceased Mr. Dheer Singh which is Ex.
PW 2/A. He stated that Mr. Dheer Singh had joined the office
on 25.01.1996 and was due for retirement on 31.05.2022.
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 5 of 36
Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
8. PW-3 is injured Mr. Kishan Lal (His testimony is kept in file
bearing DAR No. 155/20) . His affidavit-in-chief is Ex. PW 3/A.
He proved on record the following documents viz., Copy of
Aadhar Card is Ex. PW 3/1; Copy of Identity Card is Ex. PW
3/2; Copy of Medical record and discharge summary is Ex. PW
3/3; Copy of bank passbook is Ex. PW 3 /4 and Copy of PAN
Card Ex. PW 3/5.
9. In his testimony, he stated that on 09.06.2020 he was travelling
as a pillion rider on scooty bearing registration no. DL-12-SF-
7665 which was driven by deceased Mr. Dheer Singh. He stated
that at about 6:55 a.m when they reached at the circle of Gol
Dak Khana, a car bearing registration no. DL-10-CL-3343
driven in rash manner at high speed hit scooty and due to
forceful impact they fell down and receive injuries and driver
Mr. Dheer Singh died. He stated that he received head and other
injuries as per MLC.
10.PW-4 is Smt. Kamlesh Chandra wife of deceased Mr. Dheer
Singh. Her affidavit in chief is Ex. PW 4/A. She proved on
record the following documents viz., Copy of Aadhar Card is
Ex. PW 4/1; Copy of PAN cards of petitioners Ex. PW 4/2
(Colly); Copy of office I. D. Card of deceased is marked ‘A’.
11.She reiterated the facts regarding the occurrence of accident as
stated by PW-2. In his testimony she stated that her husband was
the sole earning member and survived by herself, a son, a
daughter and a mother. (The mother of the deceased died during
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 6 of 36
Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
the pendency of this case and was deleted vide order dated
02.03.2022).
12.PW-4 is (wrongly numbered by Local Commissioner) Retired
SI Vijay Pal Singh. In his testimony he stated that he was the
Investigating Officer in the case and came to know about the
registration number of the offending vehicle from Mr. Sumit,
son of the deceased. He stated that Mr. Sumit informed that
some unknown person who were present at the spot had
informed him about the registration number of offending
vehicle. He stated that the CCTV footage was obtained in which
a grey colour car was found hitting the scooty but the
registration number was not visible. He stated that a notice was
issued under Section 133 M. V. Act to the registered owner who
produced the driver Dinesh Chand and the make and colour of
the vehicle produced also matched with the vehicle seen in
CCTV footage. He stated that owner of the vehicle submitted
reply to the notice under Section 133 of the M. V. Act and did
not dispute the involvement of the vehicle in accident.
13. No evidence was led by any of the respondents.
III. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS OF THE PARTIES
14.Ld. Counsel for the claimant submitted that they have filed the
copy of FIR and charge sheet. He submits that the said record
clearly shows that the offending vehicle bearing no. DL-10-
CL-3343 was seized during the investigation and later on
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 7 of 36
Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
released on Superdari. He submits that the charge sheet in that
case was already filed against the driver Dinesh Chand under
Section 279/338/304-A IPC which clearly establishes the rash
driving on part of the offending vehicle. It is argued that the
driver of the vehicle ran away from the spot which also
corroborates the factum of rash driving on his part.
15.It is argued that PW-3 Mr. Kishan Lal is the eye witness of the
accident. In his testimony he categorically stated that the
accident had occurred due to rash driving of the offending
vehicle. Ld. counsel for petitioner submitted that PW-3 in his
cross examination also reiterated that the accident had occurred
due to negligence of car. He submitted that the car is clearly
visible in the CCTV footage. He submitted that respondents
have failed to lead any evidence to rebut the fact of rash driving
and occurrence of accident.
16.Ld. counsel for petitioner submitted that the deceased was
working as a Sweeper in NDMC and was earning a salary of
Rs.52,209/-. He submitted that the tax as per salary slip was
deducted Rs.600/- and the salary for the purposes of
compensation be considered as Rs.51,609/-.
17.Ld. counsel for R-1 and R-2 submitted that their vehicle is
falsely roped in the present case. He stated that the vehicle is
insured and the liability if any, to pay compensation in on the
insurance company. He submitted that the driver of the vehicle
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 8 of 36
Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
was having license and there was no breach of policy
condition.
18.Ld. Counsel for R-3 Insurance company stated that it is a case
of hit and run and the offending / insured vehicle was not
recovered from the spot. He submitted that the CCTV footage
does not clearly capture the registration number. He submitted
that the driver of the scooty was not having any driving license
and therefore, negligence is attributable to his conduct.
IV. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO
(a) Issue No.1: Whether Sh. Dheer Singh (deceased in DAR No.
156/20) sustained fatal injuries and Sh. Kishan Lal (injured in
DAR No. 155/20) sustained injuries in the accident which
occurred on 09.06.2020 at about 6:55 a.m. round about GPO
towards inner circle near Ashoka Road, New Delhi caused by
rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DL-10CL-3343 being
driven by respondent no. 1 owned by respondent no.2 and
insured with respondent no. 3?OPP
i. Presumption qua complicity upon filing chargesheet:
19. 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 ClaimsDAR No. 156/20 Page. 9 of 36
Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
Tribunal shall register the DAR as a claim petition after the
appearance of the claimant(s).
(2) where the claimant(s) have filed a separate claim petition,
the DAR may be tagged along with the claim petition.
(3) If the Report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2) of 1974 has not been filed at the time of
filing of the DAR, the Claims Tribunal may either wait till
filing of the Report under Section 173 of the said Code of
Criminal Procedure or record the statement of the eye
witness(es) to satisfy itself with respect to the negligence
before passing the award.
(4) The Claims Tribunal shall register the FAR as a
Miscellaneous application and the IAR as well as DAR shall
be taken on record in the same Miscellaneous application.
20. 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……..”.
21.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. The evidence on record qua negligence:
22.Claimant has placed on record the certified copy of charge sheet
in FIR no 53/2020, PS Mandir Marg, Delhi. Record shows that
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 10 of 36
Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
the charge sheet u/s 279/338/304-A IPC was filed in the present
case against the driver/owner Dinesh Chand. The charge sheet
records that the due to rash driving of the driver /owner (R-1) of
the offending vehicle, the deceased suffered injuries and died.
23.PW-3 Mr. Kishan Lal is the pillion rider and eye witness in this
case. In his testimony he has clearly stated that the accident had
occurred due to rash driving of the offending vehicle.
24.R-1 driver and R-2 owner and R-3 Insurance company have
failed to lead any evidence to substantiate their pleas and the
testimony of petitioner’s witnesses have remained consistent
and unrebutted.
25.The CCTV footage shows that the deceased driver and the
pillion rider Mr. Kishan Lal who were riding on the scooty were
wearing helmets and therefore, the plea of the insurance
company that the scooty riders were without any helmets is
without any merits.
26.It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the insurance company that
the deceased / scooty driver was not having any driving license
and liable for contributory negligence. Insurance company has
failed to lead any evidence in this regard. The charge sheet filed
in the criminal case does not whisper anything about the said
plea. In the absence of any evidence on record it cannot be
presumed that the deceased scooty driver was not having any
driving license.
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 11 of 36
Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
27.It is also argued by Ld. Counsel for insurance company that the
CCTV footage do not show the registration number of the
vehicle and therefore, identity of the vehicle remained
undisputed. The final report shows that PW-3 Mr. Kishan Lal
who was the pillion rider has identified the accused driver and
the vehicle. In the CCTV footage the colour of the vehicle and
its make is clearly visible. The vehicle seized by the police is of
the same colour and make. In the investigation the police has
reached a finding that accident had occurred due to negligent
driving of vehicle bearing registration no. DL-10-CL-3343,
PW-3 has also given unrebutted testimony in that regard.
Insurance company has failed to lead any positive evidence to
prove their plea and accordingly, the stand of the insurance
company is not proved.
28.The factum of insurance of the offending vehicle on the date of
accident has remained undisputed.
iii. Preponderance of probabilities:
29.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.
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 12 of 36
Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
30.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 claim petition filed under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the
Tribunal has to determine the amount of fair
compensation to be granted in the event an accident
has taken place by reason of negligence of a driver
of a motor vehicle. A holistic view of the evidence
has to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal
and strict proof of an accident caused by a
particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be
established by the claimants. The claimants have to
establish their case on the touchstone of
preponderance of probabilities. The standard of
proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied
while considering the petition seeking
compensation on account of death or injury in a road
traffic accident. To the same effect is the observation
made by this Court in Dulcina
Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz [Dulcina
Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC
646 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri)
13] which has referred to the aforesaid judgment
in Bimla Devi [Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC
(2009) 13 SCC 530.”
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 13 of 36
Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
iv. Finding:
31.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. DL-10-
CL-3343 and the said vehicle at that time was driven by
respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured by
respondent no.3. Hence, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the
claimant and against the respondents. It is clarified that the
findings given are limited for the purposes of this inquiry and
shall not impact the trial of the criminal case.
(b) Issue No.2: Whether claimant is entitled to compensation, and
to what amount ?
i. Principles qua assessment of compensation:
32.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.
33.An essential ingredient of the award is the loss of dependency.
To calculate the same, it would be of utmost significance to
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 14 of 36
Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
peruse the following seminal directions issued in Sarla Verma
(supra):
“18.Basically only three facts need to be established by the
claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death:
(a)age of the deceased;
(b) income of the deceased; and
(c) the number of dependants
The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the
loss of dependency are:
(i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the
income;
(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living
expenses of the deceased; and
(iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of
the deceased.
If these determinants are standardised, there will be uniformity
and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need
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)
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 15 of 36
Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when
multiplied by such multiplier gives the “loss of dependency”
to the family.”
34.To ascertain the ‘multiplier’ mentioned in Step 2 above, it was
further laid down in Sarla Verma (supra) as thus:
“42 We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used
should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table
above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas,
Trilok Chandra and Charlie) which starts with an
operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to
20 and 21 to 25 years,) reduced by one unit for every
years that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to
35 years , M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to
45 years, and M -13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced
by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51-
55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years ,M-7 for 61 to 65
years and M- 5 for 66 to 70 years.”
35. 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:
36.PW-1 Mr. Vinay Kumar and PW-2 Mr. Chander Shekhar Verma,
Worthy Officers from NDMC who proved the service record
and the salary statement of the deceased. As per the record, the
deceased Mr. Dheer Singh was working as Sweeper in NDMC
and was earning a salary of Rs.52,209/- per month. A tax of
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 16 of 36
Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
Rs.600/- was being deducted against the said salary and Ld.
Counsel for petitioner conceded the salary after tax i.e.
Rs.51,609/- per month may be considered for the purposes of
calculating compensation. Thus, the monthly income of the
deceased is quantified as Rs.51,609/- p.m.
iii. Future prospects:
37.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.
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.
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 17 of 36
Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
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.”
38.To determine the age of the deceased, the claimants has filed on
record the service book record which shows date of birth of the
deceased as 26.05.1962. As deceased was 58 years and 14 days
old on the date of death. As per mandate in Sarla Verma (Supra)
and Pranay Sethi (Supra) the future prospects for a person age
between 50-60 years having permanent job is 15% and
accordingly the same is calculated as Rs.7,741/-.
iv. Personal expenses of the deceased:
39.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):
“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-
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 18 of 36
Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
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.”
40. The claimant has placed on record her affidavit stating that the
deceased is survived by his wife and two children. The mother
of deceased died and was deleted vid order dated 02.03.2022.
Accordingly, the expenditure towards personal expenses is
considered as 1/3rd in view of the mandate of Sarla Verma
(Supra).
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 19 of 36
Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
41. Thus, the 1/3rd net deduction in the present case is (Rs.51,609/-
+ Rs.7,741/- = Rs.59,350/- ) of total income is calculated as i.e
Rs.19,783/-.
v. Monthly & Annual Loss of dependency:
42.The monthly loss of dependency would be Rs.39,567-. The
annual loss of dependency Rs.39,567 X 12 = Rs.4,74,804/-
vi. Total Loss of Dependency:
43. Since the deceased was 58 years , the applicable multiplier in
terms of the verdict of Sarla Verma(supra) is 09. The total loss
of dependency is thus Rs.4,74,804 X 09 =Rs.42,73,236/- )
vii. Other Heads:
44.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.
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.”
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 20 of 36
Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
45.The amount qua the above heads were further quantified in
Pranay Sethi(supra), which clarified as thus:
“52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find
it difficult to agree with the view expressed
in Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4
SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S)
149] . It has granted Rs 25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs
1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs 1,00,000 towards
loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating
to loss of care and minor children does not exist.
Though Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 :
(2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1
SCC (L&S) 149] refers to Santosh Devi [Santosh
Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421 :
(2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 726 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2
SCC (L&S) 167] , it does not seem to follow the same. The
conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be
determined on percentage basis because that would not be an
acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said
heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a
reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact
that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many
a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to
the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise,
there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same
and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense
variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of
which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely
to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable
sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional
heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral
expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000
respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an
acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric
or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the
amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on
percentage basis in every three years and the 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.”
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 21 of 36
Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
46.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:
47. After the incident, the injured was taken to hospital and died.
No medical expenses have been claimed.
ix. Compensation for Loss of Consortium:
48.The concept of consortium was expounded in Magnum General
Insurance Co Ltd v Nanu Ram 2018 18 SCC 130 in the
following words:
“21.A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay
Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16
SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205]
dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be
awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of
consortium. In legal parlance, “consortium” is a compendious
term which encompasses “spousal consortium”, “parental
consortium”, and “filial consortium”. The right to consortium
would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance,
solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his
family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual
relations with the deceased spouse : [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh,
(2013) 9 SCC 54.
21.1 Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights
pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows
compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of “company,
society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every
conjugal relation”. [Black’s Law Dictionary (5th Edn., 1979).]
21.2 Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the
premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid, protection,
affection, society, discipline, guidance and training.
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 22 of 36
Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
21.3 Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation
in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading
to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the
parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a
parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are
valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in
the family unit.
22 .Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms
about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern
jurisdictions world-over have recognised that the value of a
child’s consortium far exceeds the economic value of the
compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most
jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded
compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child.
The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of
the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased
child.
23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at
providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of
genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child,
or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be
awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium.
Parental consortium is awarded to children who lose their
parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High
Courts have awarded compensation on this count [ Rajasthan
High Court in Jagmala Ram v. Sohi Ram, 2017 SCC OnLine
Raj 3848 : (2017) 4 RLW 3368; Uttarakhand High Court in Rita
Rana v. Pradeep Kumar, 2013 SCC OnLine Utt 2435 : (2014) 3
UC 1687; Karnataka High Court in Lakshman v. Susheela
Chand Choudhary, 1996 SCC OnLine Kar 74 : (1996) 3 Kant LJ
570] . However, there was no clarity with respect to the
principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of
filial consortium.
24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium
will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation
under “loss of consortium” as laid down in Pranay
Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16
SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] .
In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father
and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for
loss of filial consortium.”
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 23 of 36
Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
49. The deceased is survived by his wife and two children . Thus,
On the basis of the above verdict and mandated in Pranay
Sethi‘(Supra), the compensation for Consortium is hereby
quantified as Rs 48,400/- X 3 = 1,45,200/-
x. Compensation for Loss of Estate:
50.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:
51.On the basis of the above verdict, the compensation of funeral
expenses is hereby quantified as Rs 18,150/-
xii. Total Compensation:
52. Thus, the total amount of compensation to be awarded is
calculated as follows:
Sr. No. Head Amount
1. Total loss of dependency Rs. 42,73,236/-
2. Medical Expenses -NIL-
3. Compensation for Loss of Rs.1,45,200/-
Consortium
4. Compensation for Loss of Estate Rs 18,150/-
5. Compensation towards Funeral Rs 18,150/-
Expenses
6. Total Compensation Rs. 44,54,736/-
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 24 of 36
Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
(c) Issue No.3: Relief. i. Amount of Award:
53.Thus, the claimant is awarded as sum of Rs 44,54,736/- 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:
54.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.
55.In order to adjudicate these rival claims, recourse can be had to
Erudhaya Priya v State Transport Corporation 2020 SCC
OnLine SC 601 wherein the aspect of rate of interest was
categorically enunciated as thus:
(c) The third and the last aspect is the interest
rate claimed as 12%
“15.In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant
has watered down the interest rate during the
course of hearing to 9% in view of the judicial
pronouncements including in the Jagdish
case (supra). On this aspect, once again, there
was no serious dispute raised by the learned
counsel for the respondent once the claim was
confined to 9% in line with the interest rates
applied by this Court”.
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 25 of 36
Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
56.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/DAR till actual realisation. The date of filing of DAR
is 17.09.2020 therefore the amount of Interest is calculated at @
9 % from the date of filing of petition i.e. Rs.21,71,683/- for a
period of 64 months and 27 days (approximately 65 months).
Thus, the total amount of award is Rs.66,26,419/- rounded off
Rs.66,26,420/-.
57.It is also clarified that in case the interest of petitioner was
stopped or excluded during the present inquiry proceedings,
same is liable to be adjusted from the total interest calculated on
the Award amount. Similarly, amount awarded and released as
interim Award, if any, during pendency of the case, be deducted
from the total compensation.
V. DEPOSIT OF AWARD& RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT i. Deposit of Award:
58.In terms of the mandate of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh
Tyagi (supra) the respondent Insurance Company/driver/owner
shall deposit the award amount or transfer the same by
RTGS/NEFT/IMPS directly to the bank account of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal in UCO Bank, Patiala House Courts
within 30 days of the award. The respondent(s) held liable to
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 26 of 36
Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
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.
RELEASE
59.In the present case, the award amount be released to the legal
heirs as follows:-
Sr. Name Relations
Percentage Amount to Amount awarded
No. with share of be released to the legal heirs of
Deceased
each legal immediately the victim /
heir deceased
1. Smt. Wife 80% 50% 50% share
belonging to wife
Kamlesh
out of remaining
Chandra 50% of award
amount be
deposited in 60
monthly fixed
deposits receipts
(FDR) of equal
amounts as per
Motor Accident
Claims Annuity
Deposits Schemes.
2. Ms. Varsha Daughter 10% 100% 100% of share
belonging to
of deceased
daughter be
released to her
immediately.
3. Mr. Sumit Son of the 10% 100% 100% of share
belonging to son be
deceased
released to him
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 27 of 36
Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
immediately.
60. The Nodal officer of the bank shall ensure disbursement of the
award within 3 weeks of receipt thereof by email or otherwise.
61.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:
62.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.
63.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 of
claimant i.e. the bank account of claimant shall be individual
account and not a joint account.
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 28 of 36
Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
(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.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the
claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debitDAR No. 156/20 Page. 29 of 36
Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
card have been issued and shall not be issued without the
permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the
passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court
on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along
with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the
passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of
clause above.
VI. LIABILITY
64.All respondents are liable to pay compensation amount jointly
and severally. The offending vehicle was insured and the fact of
the insurance is undisputed. The insurance company is liable to
pay award amount to the petitioner. Respondent no.3 being
insurer of offending vehicle, 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. 3 fails to deposit this compensation with
interest, in that event, in light of judgment of the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi passed in the case of New India Assurance
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 30 of 36
Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal 2007 ACJ 688 , this
compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account
of respondent no. 2 with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.
65.The respondent no. 3 shall inform the petitioner and his counsel
that the awarded amount has been deposited so as to facilitate
him to collect the same.
VII. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT
IN CASES OF DEATH
66.Since this is a case pertaining to death, particulars of Form-XV
of the Scheme For Motor Accidents Claims Formulated by the
Delhi High Court in terms of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh
Tyagi (supra) are as under:
1. Date of Accident 09.06.2020
2. Name of the deceased Dheer Singh
3. Age of the deceased 58 years
4. Occupation of the deceased Government job,
5. Income of the deceased Rs.51,609/- after
deduction of tax.
6. Name, Age and relationship of legal representatives of
the deceased:
S.NO NAME AGE RELATION
(i) Smt. Kamlesh 58 years Wife
Chandra
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 31 of 36
(ii) Ms. Varsha 28 years Daughter
(iii) Mr. Sumit 33 years Son
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
S.No. Heads Awarded by the
Claims Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs. 51,609/- after
deduction of tax.
8. Add: Future Prospects (B) Rs.7,741/-
9. Less: Personal expenses of the Rs.19,783/-
deceased (C)
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.39,567/-
[(A+B)- C = D]
11. Annual Loss of dependency (D x Rs.4,74,804/-
12)
12. Multiplier (E) 09
13. Total loss of dependency (D x 12 Rs.42,73,236/-
x E = F)
14. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15. Compensation for loss of Rs.1,45,200/-
consortium (H)
16. Compensation for loss of love & NA- in terms of New
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 32 of 36
affection (I) India Assurance Co v
Somwati (2020) 9
SCC 644
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs.18,150/-
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs.18,150/-
expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION (F + Rs.44,54,736/-
G + H + I + J + K = L)
20. Rate of Interest Awarded @9%
21. Interest amount up to the date of Rs.21,71,683/-
award (M) (65 months)
22. Total amount including interest (L Rs. 66,26,419/-
+ M) rounded off
Rs.66,26,420/-
23. Award amount released As per para no. 59 of
the judgment.
24. Award kept in FDRs As per para no. 59 of
the judgment.
25. Mode of disbursement of the Through Bank
award to the claimant(s)
26. Next date for compliance of the 20.03.2026
award
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 33 of 36
Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
VIII. COMPLIANCE QUA PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME
67.The particulars of Form XVII of the Scheme For Motor
Accidents Claims Formulated by the Delhi High Court, in terms
of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) are as
hereunder:
1. Date of the accident 09.06.2020
2. Date of filing of Form I- First Not available as case was received
Accident Report (FAR) by way of transfer.
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the Same as above.
victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Same as above.
Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Same as above
owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim Same as above
Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form Same as above
VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII-Detailed 17.09.2020
Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or Yes.
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 the No
Insurance Company submitted his
report within 30 days of the DAR?
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 34 of 36
Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
12. Whether there was any delay or No
deficiencies on the part of the
Designated Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the petitioner(s) Matter was contested by the
of the offer of the Insurance Company. Insurance Company.
14. Date of the Award 13.02.2026.
15. Whether the petitioner(s) were directed Yes
to open savings bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which petitioner(s) 13.02.2026.
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 the As mentioned above
petitioner(s)
19. Whether the petitioner(s) savings bank
account(s) is near his place of
residence?
20. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes.
examined at the time of passing of the
award to ascertain his/their financial
condition?
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 35 of 36
Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
68.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.
69.File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary
formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and
be put up on 20.03.2026.
DLND010040022020
Announced in the open court
on 13.02.2026
(Abhilash Malhotra)
Judge/PO, MACT-02,
New Delhi/13.02.2026
DAR No. 156/20 Page. 36 of 36
Smt. Kamlesh Chandra & Ors. Vs Dinesh Chand & Ors.
