Delhi District Court
Lalit Kr. Sisodia Dec.(Thr. Lrs Manjesh … vs Saif Ali(Magma) on 8 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010099792024
MACT No. : 465/2024
FIR No. : 204/2024
PS : Burari
u/s : 279/304A IPC
Lalit Kumar Sisodia
Through his LRs
1. Ms. Kanchan (LR/wife of deceased)
D/o Sh. Anil Kumar,
R/o E-42, Gali no.4, Panchwati Road, Swami Shardhanand Colony,
Delhi-110042.
2. Sh. Manjesh Kumar (LR/father of deceased)
S/o Sh. Rich Pal Singh,
R/o Khasra No.8/14, D-Block, Gali no.16,
near K.K. Builder, Kamal Vihar, Burari, PO Burari,
District North Delhi, Delhi-110084.
3. Smt. Poonam (LR/mother of deceased)
W/o Sh. Manjesh Kumar,
R/o Khasra No.8/14, D-Block, Gali no.16,
near K.K. Builder, Kamal Vihar, Burari, PO Burari,
District North Delhi, Delhi-110084.
4. Sh. Anmol (LR/brother of deceased)
S/o Sh. Manjesh Kumar,
R/o Khasra No.8/14, D-Block, Gali no.16,
near K.K. Builder, Kamal Vihar, Burari, PO Burari,
District North Delhi, Delhi-110084. Digitally
signed by
...Petitioners
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08
15:29:56
+0530
MACT No.465/2024
Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 1 of 46
Versus
1. Sh. Saif Ali (driver of the offending vehicle)
S/o. Sh. Sher Khan,
R/o. 51, Dabar Talab, Sangam Vihar,
Loni Dehat, Ghaziabad, U.P.
2. Sh. Sher Khan (owner of the offending vehicle)
S/o. Late Sh. Sanaullah,
R/o. 51, Dabar Talab, Sangam Vihar,
Loni Dehat, Ghaziabad, U.P.
3. Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Unit No.A-2, 2nd Floor, Kirti Nagar, Najafgarh Road,
Near Kalra Hospital, New Delhi-110015.
...Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 04.07.2024
Judgment reserved on : 08.04.2026
Date of Award : 08.04.2026
AWAR D
1. The present DAR was filed on 04.07.2024 which was
treated as the claim petition. The Road Traffic Accident in question took
place on 21.03.2024 at about 02:15 PM near Hanuman Mandir, Holy
Chowk, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Burari.
Mr. Lalit Kumar Sisodia expired in the said accident which was
allegedly caused by a Tractor bearing registration No. UP-14EU-1847
(hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle). The offending vehicle
was being driven by respondent no. 1 Mr. Saif Ali, owned by respondent
no. 2 Sher Khan and insured with respondent no. 3 Magma HDI General
Insurance Co. Ltd.
RUCHIKA
MACT No.465/2024 SINGLA
Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA Page 2 of 46
Date: 2026.04.08
15:30:03 +0530
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that a
PCR call vide DD No.92A dated 21.03.2024 regarding information of an
accident was received at PS Burari and handed over to ASI Raj Kumar,
who alongwith HC Narender went to the spot i.e. near Hanuman
Mandir, Holy Chowk, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi where they found one
scooty bearing no. DL-8SCZ-9744 and its driver Vechan Paswan.
Thereafter, IO recorded the statement of Sh. Vechan Paswan. Sh. Vechan
Paswan had told the IO that the another injured Lalit Kumar Sisodia had
been taken to Trauma Centre, Civil Lines, Delhi. IO called the crime
team at the spot of accident. The crime team had inspected and taken
photographs of the spot of accident.
3. Thereafter, after leaving the HC Narender at the spot of
accident, IO went to the Trauma Centre where he got to know that Sh.
Lalit Kumar Sisodia was brought dead in the said hospital. Thereafter,
IO collected the MLC no.3640/24 of Sh. Lalit Kumar Sisodia. After
collecting the MLC, IO returned to the spot of accident. IO got admitted
the injured Vechan Paswan in the Burari Hospital for treatment and
collected his MLC no.772/24. Thereafter, IO took both the accidental
vehicles i.e. Scooty no. DL-8SCZ-9744 and Tractor bearing no.
UP-14EU-1847 into his custody and deposited the same in malkhana.
Thereafter, FIR was registered on the basis of statement of injured
Vechan Paswan and MLCs of injured persons u/s.279/337/304A IPC.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.465/2024 Date: 2026.04.08
15:30:08 +0530
Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 3 of 46
4. Thereafter, IO prepared the site plan at the instance of
injured Vechan Paswan. No CCTV Footage was found at the spot of
accident. Thereafter, IO got conducted the post mortem of the body of
Sh. Lalit Kumar Sisodia from Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital. Thereafter, he
collected the post mortem report bearing no.367/24 and dead body was
handed over to the relatives of the deceased. Thereafter, IO obtained the
ownership of the offending vehicle and notice under Section 133 MV
Act was served upon the owner of the offending vehicle. Upon the
notice, owner had given reply and accepted that he was owner of the
Tractor and at the time of accident his son i.e. Saif Ali was driving the
offending vehicle/Tractor. Owner had also produced the driver of the
offending vehicle before the IO. Thereafter, complainant Vechan Paswan
came to the PS and recognized the driver of the offending vehicle and
submitted that at the time of accident the said driver was driving the
offending vehicle.
5. Thereafter, IO inquired from driver of the offending vehicle
and arrested him. The owner of the offending vehicle had handed over
the documents pertaining to the offending vehicle to the IO. Upon
producing the surety, the driver of the offending vehicle was released on
bail. Thereafter, IO had submitted the MLC of injured Vechan Paswan
for final opinion. Thereafter, he collected the MLC of injured Vechan
Paswan in which the doctors had opined the injuries as “Simple”.
Mechanical inspection of both the accidental vehicles were got
conducted. The documents of the offending vehicle was got verified
from the concerned authorities and the same were found to be correct.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.465/2024 Digitally signed by
Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 4 of 46
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.04.08
15:30:11 +0530
Both the vehicles were released on superdari.
6. It was found by the IO that the offending vehicle was being
driven by its driver without having registration number plate.
Accordingly, the offence u/s.50/177 MV Act was added. After
completion of investigation, chargesheet for the offences u/s
279/337/304(A) IPC & 50/177 MV Act was filed against the driver Saif
Ali before the concerned Ld. JMFC and the DAR was filed before this
Tribunal.
WRITTEN STATEMENTS
7. WS was filed on behalf of the respondents no. 1 & 2 on
12.09.2024. It was stated that the present accident was not caused due to
the fault and negligence of the respondent no.1. Hence, it was stated that
the respondents were not liable to pay any compensation.
8. Reply was filed on behalf of the respondent no. 3 on
12.09.2024. It was stated that the offending vehicle was insured with the
insurance company vide policy no.P0224400002/4017/100410 for the
period 30.04.2023 to 29.04.2024. It was stated that as per the record of
respondent no. 3, the respondent no. 2 owner/insured has paid the
insurance premium for insuring his tractor bearing registration no.
UP-14EU-1847 but he had not paid any additional insurance premium
for covering the risk of any attachments to the tractor such as safety tank
which was attached with the tractor at the time of alleged accident. It
was stated that the accident was caused by the safety tank. Hence, the
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
MACT No.465/2024
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.04.08
15:30:16 +0530
Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 5 of 46
insurance policy could not be used as the same did not cover an accident
caused by an attachment.
9. It was further stated that as per the DAR, the aforesaid
tractor was registered with the transport authority with the description of
“agriculture tractor” whereas during investigation, it has come on record
in the disclosure statement of the respondent no. 1 that he was using the
said tractor alongwith the safety tank for commercial purposes for
cleaning residential houses. It is stated that as the respondent no. 2 was
using the offending vehicle for a purpose other than the one for which it
was registered, the insurance policy was violated and the respondent
no.3 was not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.
ISSUES
10. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated
12.09.2024, this Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in an
accident that took place on 21.03.2024 at about 02:15
PM near Hanuman Mandir, Holy Chowk, Sant Nagar,
Burari, Delhi involving vehicle bearing registration no.
UP-14EU-1847 driven rashly and negligently by
respondent no. 1 Saif Ali, owned by respondent no. 2
Sher Khan and insured with respondent no. 3 Magma
HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner(s) are entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
OPP
3. Relief.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.04.08
MACT No.465/2024
15:30:20 +0530
Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 6 of 46
PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
11. The petitioners examined Smt. Kanchan i.e. the petitioner
no.1 as PW-1. PW1 has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit which
is Ex. PW1/1. She relied upon the following documents:
1. Copy of DAR as Ex. PW1/A (colly).
2. Copy of final report filed u/s.173 CrPC which is Ex.PW1/B
(colly).
3. Copy of Aadhar Card of deponent which is Ex. PW1/C (OSR).
12. PW1 was cross examined by Ld. Counsels for respondents
as well as by Ld. Counsel for petitioners no. 2 to 4. Thereafter,
Petitioner Kanchan had closed PE on 26.05.2026.
13. Thereafter, Ms. Poonam i.e. petitioner no.3 was examined
as PW2. PW2 has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit which is
Ex. PW2/A. She has relied upon the following documents :
1. Copy of education certificates of deceased is Ex. PW2/1
(OSR).
2. Copy of aadhar card of deceased is Ex. PW2/2.
3. Copy of aadhar card of Smt. Poonam is Ex. PW2/3.
4. Copy of aadhar card of Sh. Manjesh Kumar is Ex. PW2/4.
5. Memo of undertaking/settlement between Smt. Kanchan and
Sh.Manjesh Kumar is Ex PW2/5 in evidence by way of affidavit
was already Ex. PW1/X1.
6. Attested copy of DAR as Ex. PW2/6 (colly).
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.465/2024 Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 7 of 46
Date:
2026.04.08
15:30:24 +0530
14. PW2 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for petitioner
no.1 and Ld. Counsels for respondents.
15. Thereafter, Mr. Vechan Paswan i.e. the eye witness was
examined as PW3. PW3 has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as
Ex. PW3/A. He was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsels for
respondents. Thereafter, PE was closed on behalf of petitioner no. 2 to 4
on 14.10.2025.
RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE
16. The respondent no. 1 examined himself as R1W1. He has
tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. R1W1/A. He
was cross examined by Ld. Counsels for respondent no. 3, petitioner no.
2 to 4 as well as petitioner no. 1.
17. The respondent no. 2 examined himself as R2W1. He has
tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. R2W1/A. He
was cross examined by Ld. Counsels for respondent no. 3, petitioner no.
2 to 4 as well as petitioner no. 1. Vide separate statement of the
respondent no. 1 & 2, their RE was closed vide order dated 22.01.2026.
18. The respondent no. 3 examined Sh. Rahul Kumar Sharma,
its Deputy Manager (Legal) as R3W1. He has tendered his evidence by
way of affidavit which is Ex. R3W1/A. He relied upon the following
documents:
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
MACT No.465/2024 2026.04.08
15:30:30
+0530
Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 8 of 46
a) Copy of his Authority Letter Ex. R3W1/1.
b) Copy of insurance policy Ex. R3W1/2.
19. He was cross examined by Ld. Counsels for respondent no.
1 & 2, petitioner no. 2 to 4 as well as petitioner no. 1. Vide separate
statement of the Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3, RE was closed vide
order dated 20.11.2025.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
20. 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
21. 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 deceased suffered fatal injuries in an
accident that took place on 21.03.2024 at about 02:15 PM near
Hanuman Mandir, Holy Chowk, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi involving
vehicle bearing registration no. UP-14EU-1847 driven rashly and
negligently by respondent no. 1 Saif Ali, owned by respondent no. 2
Sher Khan and insured with respondent no. 3 Magma HDI General
Insurance Co. Ltd?
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
MACT No.465/2024
2026.04.08
15:30:35
+0530Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 9 of 46
22. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. It is
the case of the petitioners that on 21.03.2024 at about 02:15 PM,
21.03.2024, the deceased Lalit Kumar alongwith PW3 Vechan Paswan
were going on their scooty bearing no. DL 8SCZ 9744. When they
reached near Hanuman Mandir, Holy Chowk, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi,
the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. the respondent no.1 who was
driving the offending vehicle carelessly in a negligent manner came
from opposite side and hit the scooty of the deceased, due to which he
fell and suffered injuries and subsequently expired. It is stated that
during investigation, the offending vehicle was seized by the IO. The
respondent no.1 was chargesheeted by the IO. Hence, it is submitted that
it is proved that the respondent was driving the negligent in a rash and
negligent manner due to which the petitioner suffered injuries.
23. Record perused.
24. In the present matter, the factum of the accident is not in
dispute. In the WS filed by respondent no. 1 & 2, they have merely
stated that the accident was not caused due to the negligence of the
respondent no.1. It is not even alleged that the accident was caused due
to the rash and negligent act of some other person. It is pertinent to
mention here that in the proceedings before the claims tribunal, the facts
are to be established on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and
not by the strict rules of evidence or the higher standard of beyond
reasonable doubt as required in criminal cases. The burden of proof in
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.465/2024 Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA
SINGLALalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Date: 2026.04.08
15:30:40 +0530 Page 10 of 46
the present cases is much lower than as placed in civil or criminal cases.
In Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors
(2009) 13 SC 530, it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
that negligence must be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of
probabilities and a holistic view must be adopted in reaching a
conclusion.
25. Further, it is also pertinent to note that the respondent no.1
was chargesheeted by the IO under Section 279/337/304A IPC. In
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 and United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepak Goel & Ors, 2014 (2) TAC 846 (Del)
decided by the Coordinate Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, it
was held as under :-
“……where the claimants filed either the certified copies of
the criminal record or the criminal record showing the
completion of investigation by police or issuance of charge
sheet under Section 279/304A IPC or the certified copy of
FIR or the recovery of the mechanical inspection report of
the offending vehicle, then these documents are sufficient
proof to reach to a conclusion that the driver was negligent
particularly when there is no defence available from the
side of driver.”
26. Reliance is also being placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble
Delhi High Court in case Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Meera Devi, 2021 LawSuit (Del) wherein it was held that “……in view
of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008, contents of DAR
has to be presumed to be correct and read in evidence without formal
RUCHIKA
MACT No.465/2024 SINGLA
Digitally signed by
Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 11 of 46
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.04.08
15:30:45 +0530
proof of the same unless proof to the contrary was produced.”
27. Even otherwise, the deceased and the eye witness were
unknown to respondent no.1 prior to the accident and admittedly, there
was no prior enmity with respondent no.1 and hence, it is beyond
comprehension as to why they will implicate respondent no.1 falsely,
had he not been driving the offending vehicle.
28. It is a settled law that the petitioner cannot be expected to
prove the accident beyond reasonable doubts and the principle of res
ipse loquitor should apply which means that the “accident speaks for
itself”. Thus, once it has been established in DAR and chargesheet that
the accident had taken place, the burden shifts on the respondents to
prove that they were not responsible for the accident which the
respondents have failed to discharge. Hence, an adverse inference is
drawn against the respondent no.1. In this regard, reliance is placed on
the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the cases of Teja Singh
Vs Suman & Ors., MAC. APP. 1111/2018 & CM APPL. 52384/2018,
52386/2018, date of decision 06/12/2019; MAC. APP. 428/2018, titled
as The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamla Devi & Ors, date of
decision 08.11.2019 and MAC. APP. 690/2017 & CM APPL.
28108/2017, titled as Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs
Mona & Ors., date of decision 15.10.2019, which had relied upon the
judgment in the case of Cholamandalam Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamlesh
2009(3) AD Delhi 310.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
MACT No.465/2024
2026.04.08
15:30:50
+0530Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 12 of 46
29. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 5 SCC 656 has laid down in paragraphs 27 &
28:
“27. …This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina
Fernandes, noted that the key of negligence on the part of
the driver of the offending vehicle as set up by the
claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on
the touchstone of preponderance of probability and
certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable
doubt. Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the
judgments already adverted to by us, filing of chargesheet
against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards his
complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly.
Further, even when the accused were to be acquitted in the
criminal case, this Court opined that the same may be of no
effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect
of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
28. Reliance placed upon the decisions in Minu B. Mehta
and Meena Variyal, by the respondents, in our opinion, is
of no avail. The dictum in these cases is on the matter in
issue in the case concerned. Similarly, even the dictum in
Surender Kumar Arora will be of no avail. In the present
case, considering the entirety of the pleadings, evidence
and circumstances on record and in particular the finding
recorded by the Tribunal on the factum of negligence of
Respondent 2, the driver of the offending jeep, the High
Court committed manifest error in taking a contrary view
which, in our opinion, is an error apparent on the face of
record and manifestly wrong.”
30. It has not been disputed that respondent No.1 has been
charge-sheeted in the aforesaid FIR for offences punishable under
Section 279/338 IPC for rash and negligent driving of the offending
Digitally
signed by
MACT No.465/2024
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08
Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. 15:30:53
+0530
Page 13 of 46
vehicle. In view of the same, considering the facts and circumstances,
the unrebutted testimony of the petitioner and the documents filed
thereto, the court is satisfied that the accident was caused due to the rash
and negligent driving of the respondent no.1. From the DAR, it also
stands established that the respondent no.2 was the registered owner of
the offending vehicle and that the offending vehicle was insured with
respondent no.3.
The injury:
31. Further, the onus to prove that the deceased had suffered
fatal injuries by way of the said accident was on the petitioners. In this
regard, the petitioners have relied upon the MLC dated 21.03.2024, as
per which the deceased was brought to the hospital with the history of
road traffic accident. As per the MLC, he had suffered various injuries
on his body and was declared brought dead. Further, as per his Post
Mortem Report dated 22.03.2024 issued by Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, the
cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to lung laceration and liver
laceration consequent upon blunt force trauma to the chest and the
abdomen. Further, it was stated that all injuries were ante-mortem and
caused due to impact against blunt surface/object.
32. 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
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.04.08
MACT No.465/2024
15:30:58 +0530
Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 14 of 46
to the said accident, the injured Lalit Kumar unfortunately expired.
Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and
against the respondents.
ISSUE NO.2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to
what amount and from whom? (OPP)
33. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners. In
view of the discussion in the issue no.1, 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 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)
RUCHIKA
SINGLAMACT No.465/2024 Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLALalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 15 of 46
Date: 2026.04.08
15:31:03 +0530
The income of the deceased per annum should be
determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be
made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have
spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The
balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the
dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier)
Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of
active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected.
This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would
have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to
several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of
multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by
this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table
with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step 3 (Actual calculation)
The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand)
when multiplied by such multiplier gives the `loss of
dependency’ to the family. Thereafter, a conventional amount
in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be added as loss
of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his widow,
another conventional amount in the range of 5,000/- to
10,000/- should be added under the head of loss of
consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of
pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the
deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body
(if incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased
before death (if incurred) should also added.”
QUA ADDITIONS
“11. ………………… In view of imponderables and
uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb,
an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income
of the deceased towards future prospects, where the 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 shouldMACT No.465/2024 Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKALalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 16 of 46
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08
15:31:08
+0530
be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years.
There should be no addition, where the age of deceased is
more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a
different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize
the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or
different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the
deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without
provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will usually
take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure
therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases
involving special circumstances.”
QUA DEDUCTIONS
“14. Having considered several subsequent decisions of
this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was
married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses
of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number
of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/3rd)
where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and
one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family
members exceed six.
15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the
claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different
principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as
personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a
bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even
otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in
a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s
and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to
evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own
income and will not be considered as a dependent and the
mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence
of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be
considered as dependents, because they will either be
independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the
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
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.465/2024
Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 17 of 46
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.04.08
15:31:12 +0530
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.”
34. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its Constitution Bench
decision in matter of “National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi & Ors.” (2017) 16 SCC 680 held as under : –
“58. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be no
addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept. We
are disposed to think, there should be an addition of 15% if
the deceased is between the age of 50 to 60 years and there
should be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in case of self-
employed or person on fixed salary, the addition should be
10% between the age of 50 to 60 years. The aforesaid
yardstick has been fixed so that there can be consistency in
the approach by the tribunals and the Courts.
59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to
record our conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed byMACT No.465/2024
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.04.08
15:31:15 +0530Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 18 of 46
been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it
was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla
Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a
coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary
view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in
Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time,
the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50%
of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future
prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was
below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition
should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to
50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to
60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should
be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a
fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income
should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age
of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was
between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the
deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be
regarded as the necessary method of computation. The
established income means the income minus the tax
component.
(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the
deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and
the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla
Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in
the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that
judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for
applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads,
namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral
expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 31,001/- and Rs.
Digitally
signed by
MACT No.465/2024
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 19 of 46
2026.04.08
15:31:20
+0530
15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be
enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.”
Loss of income
35. In the present matter, it is alleged that at the time of the
accident, the deceased was doing his own business under the name and
style of Anmol Wall Fashion and was earning Rs. 35,000/- to Rs.
40,000/- per month. However, it was conceded that no income proof was
available. Hence, it is submitted that his income may be assessed as per
the minimum wages accordingly.
36. Record perused.
37. As mentioned above, no income proof of the deceased is
proved on record and it is conceded that his income be assessed as per
the minimum wages criteria. The petitioners have proved the 10th class
marksheet of the deceased as Ex. PW2/1. Hence, his income shall be
assessed as per the minimum wages payable to a matriculate. The date
of the accident is 21.03.2024. As per the relevant notification, the
minimum wages payable to a matriculate on that day were Rs. 21,215/-.
Hence, the income of the deceased is assessed to be Rs. 21,215/-.
Age determination of the deceased:
38. As per the 10th class marksheet of the deceased as Ex.
PW2/1, his date of birth was 19.10.1999. The date of the accident is
21.03.2024. Hence, as on the date of the accident, the deceased was
aged 24 years. RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Date: 2026.04.08
MACT No.465/2024 15:31:25 +0530
Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 20 of 46
Future Prospects: –
39. In view of the judgment of National Insurance Company
Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors; (2017) 16 SCC 680, it was observed that
the Claimants would also be entitled to 40% for future prospects as the
deceased was less than 40 years of age at the time of the accident.
Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased needs to be taken as
Rs. 29,701/- (Rs. 21,215/- + Rs. 8,486/- which is 40% of Rs. 21,215/-).
Determination of Dependent
40. In the present case, the deceased is survived by his wife, his
parents and brother. It is stated that all the said persons be considered as
dependent on him. Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dincy Devassy MAC App. 779/2018
decided on 12.12.2019 relied upon.
41. In the present case, the father of the deceased is only 42
years of age as on today and there is no document to suggest that he is
unable to work. It is merely stated that he is unemployed. In the case
before the Hon’ble High Court, the father of the deceased was 63 years
of age. Hence, the circumstances of that case are different from that of
the present case. Hence, in the absence of any substantive proof of the
same, the father and the brother of the deceased shall not be considered
as dependents on the deceased.
42. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 that no
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.04.08
MACT No.465/2024
15:31:29 +0530
Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 21 of 46
proof of marriage of the deceased and the petitioner no. 1 is placed on
record. Hence, there is nothing on record to prove that she is the wife of
the deceased.
43. As per record, in the DAR, the IO has verified the details of
the LRs and the name of the petitioner no. 1 has been mentioned as the
wife of the deceased. Further, the same is not disputed by the parents of
the deceased. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve that the petitioner
no. 1 is the wife of the deceased. In view of the same, the wife and the
mother of the deceased shall be considered as dependents upon him.
Determination of multiplicand
44. The monthly income of the deceased after enhancement
needs to be taken as Rs. 29,701/-. 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, 1/3 amount has to be deducted on
account of personal and living expenses as the deceased had 2-3
dependents. So, in this matter, monthly loss of dependency would come
out to be Rs. 19,801/- (2/3 of Rs. 29,701/-). This needs to be multiplied
by 12 to workout multiplicand/annual loss of dependency. Hence,
multiplicand for this matter would be Rs. 2,37,612/- ( Rs. 19,801/- x 12).
Award Towards Loss of Dependency
45. Further, as the deceased was 24 years of age at the time of
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.04.08
MACT No.465/2024 15:31:34 +0530
Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 22 of 46
the accident, multiplier applicable in this matter as per above discussion
would be 18. The total loss of dependency would come out to be
Rs.42,77,016/- (Rs. 2,37,612/- x 18), hence, so awarded.
Medical expenses:
46. The petitioners have not claimed any amount under this
head. Hence, no amount is awarded to the petitioners under this head.
Non-Pecuniary Heads:-
47. The Respondents/Claimants shall be entitled to the
compensation under Non-Pecuniary Heads in terms of National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi And Others, (2017) 16
SCC 680. The case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi &
Ors. 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) was considered and clarified by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 9581/2018 decided
on 18.09.2018 whereby after considering the case of Pranay Sethi’s
(supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to award loss of
consortium of Rs.40,000/- to each dependent of the deceased and further
pleased to award a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to each dependent of
the deceased towards loss of love and affection. The relevant portion is
as under:
“…… A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi
(supra) dealt with the various heads under which
compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these
heads is Loss of Consortium.
In legal parlance, “consortium” is a compendious term which
encompasses ‘spousal consortium’, ‘parental consortium’, and
Digitally
signed by
MACT No.465/2024 RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. 2026.04.08
15:31:41
+0530 Page 23 of 46
‘filial consortium’.
The right to consortium would include the company, care,
help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased,
which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it
would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse.
Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining
to the relationship of a husband wife which allows
compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of “company,
society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every
conjugal relation.”
Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the
premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid,
protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and
training.”
Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation
in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident
leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony
to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony
for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime.
Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship
and their role in the family unit.
Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms
about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern
jurisdictions world-over have recognized that the value of a
child’s consortium far exceeds the economic value of the
compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child.
Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded
compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a
child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation
for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the
deceased child.
The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at
providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of
genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor
child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to
be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLAMACT No.465/2024 SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08
15:31:46
+0530Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 24 of 46
Consortium.
Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their
parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act.
A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count.
However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles
on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial
Consortium.
The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium
will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation
under ‘Loss of Consortium’ as laid down in Pranay Sethi
(supra).
In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the
father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs.25,000
each for loss of Filial Consortium…..”.
48. However, in the case of United India Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur 2020 SCC Online SC 410 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that there is no justification to
award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate
head. The relevant portion of the observations are reproduced as under:
“…… The amount to be awarded for loss consortium will be
as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra). At this stage,
we consider it necessary to provide uniformity with respect to
the grant of consortium, and loss of love and affection.
Several Tribunals and High Courts have been awarding
compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love
and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi
(supra), has recognized only three conventional heads under
which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss
of consortium and funeral expenses.
In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a
comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include
spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial
consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.465/2024 Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Date: 2026.04.08
15:31:51 +0530 Page 25 of 46
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…”.
49. 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.
50. Thus, an amount of Rs. 19,965/- is granted towards the
Loss of Estate and Rs. 19,965/- towards funeral charges.
51. Hence, Rs. 53,240/- each is granted to the petitioners i.e.
total of Rs. 53,240/- x 4 = Rs.2,12,960/- towards Loss of Consortium.
Computation of compensation:
52. 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. 21,215/- Add future prospect (B) @ 40%= Rs. 8,486/-
Less 1/3 deductions towards (Rs. 21,215/- + Rs. 8,486/-) = Rs.
personal and living expenses of the 29,701/- x 1/3 = Rs. 9,900/-
deceased (C)
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
MACT No.465/2024
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08
15:31:57Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. +0530
Page 26 of 46
Monthly loss of dependency (Rs. 21,215/- + Rs. 8,486/-) – Rs.
[(A+B) - C = D] 9,900/- = Rs. 19,801/-
Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 19,801/- x 12= Rs. 2,37,612/-
(D x 12)
Multiplier (E) 18
Total loss of dependency (Rs. 2,37,612/- x 18) =
DxE=F Rs.42,77,016/-
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 petitionersCompensation for loss of Estate (J) Rs. 19,965/-
Compensation for funeral expenses Rs. 19,965/-
(K)
Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 45,29,906/-
53. 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. 04.07.2024 till
realization.
Apportionment:
54. It is evident from the record that the deceased had left
behind his wife and parents. However, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for
the petitioners no. 2 to 4 that the petitioner no. 1 i.e. the wife of the
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.465/2024
Date: 2026.04.08
15:32:02 +0530
Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 27 of 46
deceased is of a young age and is likely to be remarried. He submits that
the petitioner no. 1 had filed matrimonial cases against the petitioners
no. 2 and 3. On 27.11.2024, they entered into a settlement which was
reduced in writing as memorandum of undertaking / settlement which is
proved on record as Ex. PW1/X1. As per the said settlement, the
petitioners no. 2 and 3 gave compensation to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- to
the petitioner no. 1 alongwith all her jewellery including stridhan and all
other expenses including the past, present and future alimony. This
MOU was admitted by the petitioner no. 1 in her cross-examination. She
has also admitted that she had signed the same and has received the
compensation amount. Hence, it is submitted that a lesser share be given
to her. It is submitted that the court of Sh. Rakesh Kumar-III, the then
Ld. P.O. MACT-2, Central, Delhi, in a similar case, awarded
compensation to the wife of the deceased only till the date of her re-
marriage. Hence, it is submitted that in the present matter also, the
petitioner no. 1 be awarded compensation accordingly. Similar
arguments have been advanced by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 as
well.
55. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner no. 1 has opposed the same.
It is submitted that the petitioner no. 1 being the legally wedded wife of
the deceased is entitled to her lawful share. Whether or not she remarries
in the future is of no consequence. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner no. 1
has submitted that the said MOU is not in dispute. However, the same
clearly mentions in clause no. 5 that the said settlement has no concern
with the MACT case pending before this court. As on date, the petitioner
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08
MACT No.465/2024
15:32:07
+0530Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 28 of 46
no. 1 is still unmarried. It is already two years since the death of her
husband. Whether or not she will remarry is a future contingency which
cannot be foreseen at this stage. Hence, it is submitted that she may be
given the share which is due to her. Further, Ld. Counsel for the
petitioner no.1 has submitted that in fact as the petitioner no.1 is the
widow of the deceased, only she is entitled to compensation.
56. Record perused.
57. Admittedly the petitioner no. 1 is of a young age without
any child. However as on date, there is nothing on record to suggest that
she has re-married. The judgment which was before Sh. Rakesh Kumar-
III, the then Ld. P.O. MACT-2, Central, Delhi, the widow of the
deceased had already married. In the present matter, as mentioned above
there is nothing on record to suggest that she has remarried since the
death of her husband. Hence, there is no ground for refusing
compensation to her at this stage.
58. Further, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner no.1 has argued that
as the petitioner no.1 is the widow of the deceased, only she is entitled
to compensation. However, the court is not inclined to accept this
argument. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
Sarla Verma case as well as the rules of succession, the mother and the
wife both are class-I legal heirs of the deceased. Further in the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Sarla Verma case, there is no such
stipulation that in case the deceased is survived by his wife, then the
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.465/2024 SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08
15:32:13Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. +0530
Page 29 of 46
mother or the parents shall be not considered for compensation. Hence,
both the mother and the wife of the deceased shall be entitled to
compensation. The shares of the petitioners are as under:
S.No Name of the Share of the Interest upto Total amount
claimant petitioner date including
interest
1. Smt. Kanchan Rs. 18,77,016/- + Rs. Rs. 3,06,038/- Rs. 22,36,294/-
53,240/- = Rs.
19,30,256/-
2. Smt. Poonam Rs. 24,00,000/- + Rs. Rs. 3,88,956/- Rs. 28,42,196/-
53,240/- = Rs.
24,53,240/-
3. Sh. Manjesh Rs. 53,240/- + Rs. Rs. 14,772/- Rs. 1,07,942/-
Kumar 19,965/- + Rs.
19,965/- = Rs.
93,170/-
4. Sh. Anmol Rs. 53,240/- Rs. 8,441/- Rs. 61,681/-
DISBURSEMENT
59. 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. 25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month.
60. 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
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
MACT No.465/2024
2026.04.08
15:32:18
+0530Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 30 of 46
individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in
safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number,
FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be
furnished by bank to the claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the
ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place
of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge
be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the
court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book
and/or debit card to claimants. However, in case the debit card
and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall
cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount.
The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of claimants so
that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of
claimants from any other branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook
of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque books and/or debit
card have been issued and shall not be issued without the
permission of the Court and the claimant shall produced the
passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court for
compliance.”
61. However, in a recent judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India titled as Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal on 18
March, 2025 in S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020 has held that :
“17. The case in hand pertains to the compensation awarded
under the Motor Vehicles Act. The general practice followed
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLAMACT No.465/2024
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08
15:32:24
+0530Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 31 of 46
by the insurance companies, where the compensation is not
disputed, is to deposit the same before the Tribunal. Instead
of following that process, a direction can always be issued to
transfer the amount into the bank account(s) of the
claimant(s) with intimation to the Tribunal.
17.1 For that purpose, the Tribunals at the initial stage of
pleadings or at the stage of leading evidence may require the
claimant(s) to furnish their bank account particulars to the
Tribunal along with the requisite proof, so that at the stage of
passing of the award the Tribunal may direct that the amount
of compensation be transferred in the account of the claimant
and if there are more than one then in their respective
accounts. If there is no bank account, then they should be
required to open the bank account either individually or
jointly with family members only. It should also be mandated
that, in case there is any change in the bank account
particulars of the claimant(s) during the pendency of the
claim petition they should update the same before the
Tribunal. This should be ensured before passing of the final
award. It may be ensured that the bank account should be in
the name of the claimant(s) and if minor, through guardian(s)
and in no case it should be a joint account with any person,
who is not a family member. The transfer of the amount in the
bank account, particulars of which have been furnished by the
claimant(s), as mentioned in the award, shall be treated as
satisfaction of the award. Intimation of compliance should be
furnished to the Tribunal.”
62. 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.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08
MACT No.465/2024 15:32:29
+0530Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 32 of 46
Smt. Kanchan (LR/Wife of deceased)
63. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners,
it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 52,48,113/-, out
of the share of the petitioner/Wife Smt. Kanchan Rs. 22,36,294/-
(Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand Two Hundred Ninety
Four only), Rs. 4,36,294/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand
Two Hundred Ninety Four only) shall be released to the petitioner/Wife
immediately in her Bank Account no. 43116124530 maintained at SBI,
Azadpur, New Subji Mandi Azadpur, Delhi, IFSC Code SBIN0001707
CIF no. 91651836785.
64. The balance amount of Rs. 18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen
Lacs only) shall be put in 60 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 60 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.
Smt. Poonam (LR/Mother of deceased)
65. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners,
it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 52,48,113/-, out
of the share of the petitioner/mother Smt. Poonam Rs. 28,42,196/-
(Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Forty Two Thousand One Hundred Ninety
Six only), Rs. 6,42,196/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Forty Two Thousand One
RUCHIKA
MACT No.465/2024 SINGLA
Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA Page 33 of 46
Date: 2026.04.08
15:32:34 +0530
Hundred Ninety Six only) shall be released to the petitioner/mother
immediately in her Bank Account no. 608310110002275 maintained at
Bank of India, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, IFSC Code BKID0006083
Customer ID 139468924.
66. The balance amount of Rs. 22,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Two Lacs only) shall be put in 55 monthly fixed deposits in her name in
her account as mentioned above of equal amount of Rs. 40,000/-
(Rupees Forty Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 55
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. Manjesh Kumar (LR/father of deceased)
67. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners,
it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 52,48,113/-, out
of the share of the petitioner/father Sh. Manjesh Kumar Rs. 1,07,942/-
(Rupees One Lakh Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Two only), the
entire amount shall be released to the petitioner/father immediately in
his Bank Account no. 43111813058 maintained at SBI, Burari, Delhi,
IFSC Code SBIN0017930 CIF no. 91635579511.
Sh. Anmol (LR/brother of deceased)
68. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners,
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08
15:32:40
+0530MACT No.465/2024
Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 34 of 46
it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 52,48,113/-, out
of the share of the petitioner/brother Sh. Anmol Rs. 61,681/- (Rupees
Sixty One Thousand Six Hundred Eighty One only), the entire amount
shall be released to the petitioner/brother immediately in his Bank
Account, on furnishing copy of his passbook with SBI, THC.
69. 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: 21.03.2024 Name of the deceased: Lalit Kumar Sisodia Age of the deceased: 24 years Occupation of the deceased: Not proved Income of the deceased : Rs. 21,215/-
Name and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No. Name of the claimant Relation with deceased
1. Smt. Kanchan Wife
2. Smt. Poonam Mother
3. Sh. Manjesh Kumar Father
4. Sh. Anmol Brother
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08
15:32:45
+0530MACT No.465/2024
Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 35 of 46
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATIONSr. Head Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
No.
1 Monthly Income of deceased Rs. 21,215/-
(A)
2 Add future prospect (B) @ 40%= Rs. 8,486/-
3 Less 1/3 deductions towards (Rs. 21,215/- + Rs. 8,486/-) = Rs.
personal and living expenses of 29,701/- x 1/3 = Rs. 9,900/-
the deceased (C)
4 Monthly loss of dependency (Rs. 21,215/- + Rs. 8,486/-) – Rs.
[(A+B) - C = D] 9,900/- = Rs. 19,801/-
5 Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 19,801/- x 12 = Rs. 2,37,612/-
(D x 12)
6 Multiplier (E) 18
7 Total loss of dependency (Rs. 2,37,612/- x 18) =
DxE=F Rs.42,77,016/-
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. 45,29,906/-
14 Rate of Interest Awarded 9%
15 Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 7,18,207/-
Digitally
signed by
MACT No.465/2024
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08
Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 36 of 46
15:32:50
+0530
award w.e.f. 04.07.2024 till
realization
16 Total amount including interest Rs. 52,48,113/-
17 Award amount released As per paragraph Nos. 63 to 68
18 Award amount kept in FDRs As per paragraph Nos. 64 & 66
19 Mode of disbursement of the As per paragraph Nos. 63 to 68
award amount to the
claimant(s)
20 Next Date of compliance of the 08.05.2026
award
LIABILITY:
70. It has been established that accident was caused due to the
rash and negligent act of the respondent no.1 who was driving the
offending vehicle no.1 and that respondent no.2 is the owner of the
same and the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no.3.
71. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 that
in the present matter, the conditions of the insurance policy were
violated. Hence, the respondent no. 3 is not liable to pay compensation.
It is submitted that as per the insurance policy Ex. R3W1/2, only the
tractor was covered. The attachments to the tractor were not covered. It
is submitted that this is an admitted fact that at the time of the accident,
the tractor had a septic tank attached with it. The accident was caused
by the septic tank and not by the tractor. Hence, the insurance policy is
violated.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08
15:32:56
+0530MACT No.465/2024
Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 37 of 46
72. Record perused.
73. The onus to prove that the insurance policy was violated is
upon the respondent no. 3. Perusal of the record shows that no such
question was put by the respondent no. 3 to either the eye witness PW3
Vechan Kumar or the respondents no. 1 and 2 who entered the witness
box as R1W1 and R2W1 that the accident was not caused by the tractor
and by the septic tank. Further, perusal of the statement of the eye
witness PW3 Vechan Kumar which was recorded by the IO at the time
of the accident shows that he has stated that when, while driving the
scooty, he reached West Sant Nagar, Gali no. 15, then one tractor was
coming from the opposite side, who hit his scooty directly from the
front due to which he and the deceased fell. Further, he states that the
driver of the tractor then ran over the deceased. The septic tank was
admittedly attached behind the tractor and not in front of it. Hence, from
the statement of the complainant/PW3 Vechan Kumar, it transpires that
the accident occurred due to a head on collusion. If the tractor came
towards the scooter from the front and hit it from the front side, there is
in no way a possibility that the accident was caused by the septic tank
and not the tractor. Hence, as the accident was caused by the tractor
itself and not the septic tank, the terms of the insurance policy are not
violated.
74. Further, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Honnamma & ors. SLP No.2135/2023 decided
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
MACT No.465/2024
2026.04.08
15:33:01
+0530Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 38 of 46
on 05.05.2025. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has a
case of similar facts in front of it where the accident was caused by a
tractor which had a trailer attached to it. While discussing the liability
of the insurance company in such a case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that :
“…Thus, the accident was caused by the tractor, as
during the course of being driven/pulled by the tractor,
the accident occurred.
12. Thus, the liability of the tractor/its insurer extended
to the accident caused by the tractor resulting in the
death of the deceased, through the trailer. This being
the position in the present case, the principles
emanating from the decisions where the Courts have
held that the trailer has to be separately registered with
the insurance company to make it liable, would not be
applicable. To that extent, the facts in the present case
are clearly distinguishable from the ones cited by
learned counsel for the appellant. The legislation i.e.,
the MV Act, being beneficial and welfare-oriented in
nature [Ningamma v United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
(2009) 13 SCC 710; K Ramya v National Insurance
Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338, and; Shivaleela
v Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co.
Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 563] and ultimately the
root cause of the accident being the tractor, which was
insured, this crucial fact cannot be lost sight of. For
further clarification, we might illustrate: if an insured
vehicle hits another vehicle which in turn hits a third
vehicle, then for the entire chain of accidents, the
liability would pass on to the vehicle which was the
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.465/2024 SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08
15:33:06Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. +0530
Page 39 of 46
root cause of the accident because it is the result of the
action in the same chain of events which cannot be
segregated or compartmentalized. Moreover, this
Court is duty-bound to be mindful of the ground
realities of our nation and cannot let practicality be
overshadowed by technicality.”
75. In the present matter, as in the case before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, the septic tank was attached with the tractor. Hence,
even if the accident was caused by the septic tank, even then, the
insurance company shall have the liability to pay the compensation to
the petitioner. However, as discussed above, the accident was caused by
the tractor itself. Hence, the liability of the insurance company is
absolute.
76. Further Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 has submitted
that as per the admitted case of the respondents no. 1 and 2, the tractor
was being used for cleaning houses but as per the policy, the permitted
use of the tractor was only agriculture and forestry purposes. Hence, it
is submitted that due to this reason, the terms of the insurance policy are
violated.
77. Record perused.
78. To prove the same, Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 has
relied upon the disclosure statement of the respondent no. 1 which was
recorded by the IO during the investigation of the case. In the said
statement, the respondent no. 1 has stated that he was using the said
Digitally
signed by
MACT No.465/2024
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08
Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 40 of 46
15:33:11
+0530
tractor with septic tank for cleaning of the houses. A statement recorded
before the IO during investigation is not admissible as per the Indian
Evidence Act. Apart from this, there is no such evidence to prove that
the tractor was being used for cleaning houses i.e. commercial purpose
and not agricultural or forestry purpose. Again, no such question was
put by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 to either the respondent no.
1 or the respondent no.2 when they entered into the witness box as
R1W1 and R2W1 respectively. Hence, the respondent no. 3 has failed to
prove that at the time of the accident, the tractor i.e. the offending
vehicle was not being used for agricultural purposes. Hence, in the
absence of the same, the respondent no. 3 cannot be exempted from its
liability. Hence, the respondent no. 3 shall be liable to pay the
compensation amount to the petitioners. Issue No. 2 is accordingly
decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
79. In view of the above, the respondent no.3 is directed to
deposit a sum of Rs.45,29,906/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs Twenty Nine
Thousand Nine Hundred Six Only) along with interest @ 9% from the
date of filing of DAR i.e. w.e.f. 04.07.2024 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 Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors.
SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08
15:33:19MACT No.465/2024
+0530Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 41 of 46
80. 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
08.05.2026 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)
Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation
of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08
15:33:25MACT No.465/2024 +0530
Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 42 of 46
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 08th April, 2026 SINGLA
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
2026.04.08
15:33:29
+0530
(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
MACT No.465/2024
Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 43 of 46
THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL MOTOR
VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022 (PL. SEE RULE
150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 21.03.2024
2 Date of filing of Form-I –
First Accident Report 23.03.2024
(FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II
04.07.2024
to the victim(s)
4 Date of receipt of Form-III
10.05.2024
from the Driver
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV
from the Owner 10.05.2024
6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the insurance 10.05.2024
of the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-
04.07.2024
VIA from the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII -
04.07.2024
Detail Accident Report
(DAR)
9 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Investigating No
Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the 04.07.2024
Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company admitted his Yes
report within 30 days of the
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08
MACT No.465/2024
15:33:35
+0530
Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 44 of 46
DAR/claim petition?
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
claimant(s) to the offer of NA
the Insurance Company.
14 Date of award 08.04.2026
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 04.07.2024
residence and produce PAN
card and Aadhar Card and
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
19.02.2026/26.02.2026
bank account(s) near the
place of their residence
alongwith the endorsement,
PAN card and Aadhaar
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.04.08
15:33:41
MACT No.465/2024
+0530
Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 45 of 46
Card?
18 Permanent residential
address of the claimant(s). As per Award.
19 Whether the claimant(s)
savings bank account(s) is
Yes
near their place of
residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s)
Yes. The Financial Statements of the claimants
were examined at the time
namely Manjesh Kumar and Poonam was
of passing of the Award to
recorded on 19.02.2026 and claimant Kanchan
ascertain his/their financial
was recorded on 26.02.2026.
condition?
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.04.08
15:33:46
+0530
(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
08.04.2026
MACT No.465/2024
Lalit Kumar Sisodia through LRs vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 46 of 46
