Delhi District Court
Manju And Ors vs Shankar Lal And Ors on 22 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHILASH MALHOTRA
PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-02, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
MANJU & ANR. Vs. SHANKAR LAL & ORS.
MACT NO. 221 / 2022
1. Smt. Manju (Mother )
W/o Sh. Om Prakash
2. Sh. Om Prakash (Father)
S/o Sh. Panchu Ram
Both Resident of:
H. No. 72/2, D, Sector -2,
DIZ Area, Kali Bari Marg,
New Delhi, G.P.O.
New Delhi -110001 ... Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Shankar Lal
S/o Sh. Surja Ram
R/o Main Bazar, Shri Madhopur,
Sikar, Rajasthan.
.... Driver/Respondent no.1
2. Sh. Vijaypal Singh
S/o Sh. Shyopal Singh
R/o Dhani Nitharwal, Lakhani Reengus,
Teh. Shri Madhopur, Sikar, Rajasthan.
….Owner/Respondent no.2
3. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
8th Floor, Kanchanjunga Bldg.
18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.
....Insurance Company/
Respondent no. 3
MACT No. 221/21 Page. 1 of 39
Smt. Manju & Anr. Vs Shankar Lal & Ors
Date of accident 03.12.2019
Date of filing Claim Petition 29.10.2022
Date of framing of issues 16.08.2024
Date of concluding arguments 10.04.2026
Date of decision 22.04.2026.
MACT No. 221/21 Page. 2 of 39
Smt. Manju & Anr. Vs Shankar Lal & Ors
AWARD/JUDGMENT
Index to the Judgment
I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE CLAIMANT(s)............................................5
II. FRAMING OF ISSUES……………………………………………………………………….6
III. Recording of evidence:……………………………………………………………………….. 6
IV. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS OF THE PARTIES……………………………….9
V. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO…………………………….10
(a) Issue No.1: Whether the deceased Sh. Yash Prakash sustained fatal
injuries in the accident which occurred on 03.12.2019 at about 7-7:30 PM,
near Chaumupurohitan, Khatu Road, Sikar, Rajasthan caused by rash and
negligent driving of vehicle No. RJ-14UB-3410 being driven by respondent
no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no.3?OPP….10
i. Presumption qua complicity upon filing chargesheet:……………….10
ii. The evidence on record qua negligence:………………………………….12
iii. Adverse inference qua driver:………………………………………………..13
iv. Preponderance of probabilities:………………………………………………14
v. Finding:……………………………………………………………………………… 15
(b) Issue No.2: Whether claimant is entitled to compensation, and to what
amount ?……………………………………………………………………………………………. 15
i. Principles qua assessment of compensation:…………………………….16
ii. Monthly Income of the deceased:…………………………………………..18
iii. Future prospects:………………………………………………………………….19
iv. Personal expenses of the deceased:…………………………………………21
v. Monthly & Annual Loss of dependency:…………………………………22
vi. Total Loss of Dependency:…………………………………………………….22
vii. Other Heads:………………………………………………………………………..23
MACT No. 221/21 Page. 3 of 39
Smt. Manju & Anr. Vs Shankar Lal & Ors
viii. Medical Expenses:………………………………………………………………..24
ix. Compensation for Loss of Consortium:…………………………………..25
x. Compensation for Loss of Estate:…………………………………………..27
xi. Compensation towards Funeral Expenses:……………………………….27
xii. Total Compensation:……………………………………………………………..27
(c) Issue No.3: Relief………………………………………………………………………. 28
i. Amount of Award:………………………………………………………………..28
ii. Rate of Interest:……………………………………………………………………28
VI. DEPOSIT OF AWARD& RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT…………………….29
i. Deposit of Award:…………………………………………………………………29
ii. Disbursement of the award amount & protection thereof:………….31
VII…………………………………………………………………………………………..LIABILITY
33
VIII. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN CASES OF
DEATH…………………………………………………………………………………………………..34
IX. COMPLIANCE QUA PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME………………………36
MACT No. 221/21 Page. 4 of 39
Smt. Manju & Anr. Vs Shankar Lal & Ors
I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE CLAIMANT(s)
1. In the present case, the accident had occurred out of Delhi and
petition was filed. A claim petition was filed by the legal heirs of
the deceased.
2. The issue regarding the jurisdiction was raised by the Insurance
Company. The office of the Insurance Company is stated to be
within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal and in lieu of the judgment
passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as
Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Company Limited and Ors.
(2016) 3 SCC 43, the issue of jurisdiction is no more in dispute.
3. In present case, a claim petition under Section 166 of M. V. Act,
1988 is filed by the legal heirs of deceased Mrs. Manju and Mr.
Om Prakash, (parents of deceased) who lost his life in a road
accident.
4. It is stated in the claim petition that on 03.12.2019 at about 7-7:30
p.m. deceased Mr. Yash Prakash along with Mr. Aman Rai was
walking when they reached near Chaumupurohitan, Khatu Road,
Sikar, Rajasthan the insured / offending vehicle bearing
registration no. RJ-14-UB-3410 driven in rash manner at fast
speed hit the deceased. Due to the accident the pedestrian Mr.
Yash Prakash received serious injures and died.
5. R-1/driver and R-2/registered owner filed their reply. R-3
Insurance company also filed their reply and contested the matter.
MACT No. 221/21 Page. 5 of 39
Smt. Manju & Anr. Vs Shankar Lal & Ors
The issues were framed vide order dated 16.08.2024. The financial
statement of petitioner was recorded on 10.10.2025.
II. FRAMING OF ISSUES
6. Vide order dated 16.08.2024, following issues were framed by
this Tribunal:-
“1. Whether the deceased Sh. Yash Prakash
sustained fatal injuries in the accident which
occurred on 03.12.2019 at about 7-7:30 PM, near
Chaumupurohitan, Khatu Road, Sikar, Rajasthan
caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle
No. RJ-14UB-3410 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.”
III. Recording of evidence:
7. PW-1 is Mrs. Manju. She is the mother of the deceased Mr. Yash
Prakash. She tendered her affidavit in chief as Ex. PW 1/A. She
proved on record the following documents viz., Copy of Aadhar
Card as Ex. PW 1/1; Copy of Aadhar Card of Sh. Om Prakash
as Ex. PW 1/2; Copy of Aadhar Card of deceased sh. Yash
Prakash as Ex. PW 1/3; Copy of Graduate Degree of deceased
as Ex. PW 1/4; Copy of appointment letter is marked ‘A’;
MACT No. 221/21 Page. 6 of 39
Smt. Manju & Anr. Vs Shankar Lal & Ors
Certified copy of criminal case record is marked ‘B’; Original
advance payment receipt as Ex. PW 1/7 (Colly).
8. PW-1 in her testimony stated that on her son Mr. Yash Prakash
was walking on road on 03.12.2019 and insured/ offending
vehicle bearing registration no. RJ-14-UB-3410 driven in rash
manner by R-1 / driver, hit her son from behind. Due to the
impact, her son received serious injuries and died during
treatment.
9. PW-1 stated that her son was unmarried and was working as
General Manager, in Hotel New Majestic, Opp. Railway
Station, Kanavandas Pura Dargah Road, Ajmer Rajasthan and
was getting salary of Rs.5,04,000/- per annum. It is stated that
they were completely dependent upon the income of the
deceased.
10.In her financial statement PW-1 stated that the deceased is
survived by herself and her husband.
11.PW-1 in her cross-examination admitted that she was not an eye-
witnesses. She stated that her son / deceased had not taken any
degree/ diploma in hotel management. She stated that her son /
deceased was getting salary in cash. She admitted that she has
only filed on record the advance payment receipt made to the
forties hospital and the details of the bills is not filed on record.
12.PW-2 is Mr. Aman Rai. He tendered his affidavit-in-chief by
way of evidence as Ex. PW 2/A. He proved on record his Aadhar
Card as Ex. PW 2/1.
MACT No. 221/21 Page. 7 of 39
Smt. Manju & Anr. Vs Shankar Lal & Ors
13.PW-2 in his affidavit in chief stated that on 03.12.2019 at about
7-7:30 p.m. he was going on foot on a Yatra to Khatu Shyam Ji
along with deceased Mr. Yash Prakash. When they reached near
Chaumupurohitan, Khatu Road, insured / offending vehicle
bearing registration no. RJ-14-UB-3410 came at fast speed and
was driven in rash manner and hit deceased Mr. Yash Prakash
with great force. Mr. Yash Prakash received grievous injures and
was taken to Govt. Hospital Khatu Shayam ji.
14.PW2 in his cross examined reiterated that the insured / offending
vehicle had hit them from behind. He stated that from Govt.
Hospital Khatu Shyam Ji, they were taken to SMS Jaipur
Hospital.
15.PW-3 Mr. Harsh Gupta from Hotel New Majestic, Ajmer,
Rajasthan. He proved on record the following documents viz.,
Copy of Resolution as Ex. PW-3/1; Copy of appointment letter
od deceased Mr. Yash Prakash as Ex. PW-3/2; Copy of I.D. of
deponent as Ex. PW-3/3; Copy of Aadhar card of deponent as
Ex. PW-3/4; Copy of Salary slip as Ex. PW-3/5 (objected to);
Attested copies of salary attendance sheets of deceased Mr. Yash
Prakash as Ex. PW-3/6.
16.In his cross examination he stated that salary was paid to
deceased Mr. Yash Prakash by way of cash only. He stated that
he has not brought the joining report of deceased Mr. Yash
Prakash.
MACT No. 221/21 Page. 8 of 39
Smt. Manju & Anr. Vs Shankar Lal & Ors
17.No evidence was led by R-1/driver, R-2/registered owner and
R-3 Insurance company.
IV. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS OF THE PARTIES
18. Ld. Counsel for the claimant submitted that they have filed the
copy of FIR and charge sheet. He submitted that the said record
clearly shows that the offending vehicle bearing no.
RJ-14UB-3410 was seized during the investigation and later
on released on Superdari. He submits that the charge sheet in
that case was already filed against the driver Mr. Shankar Lal
u/s 279/304-A IPC, which clearly establishes the rash driving on
part of the offending vehicle.
19.He submitted that PW-2 Aman Rai is the eye-witnesses who
have clearly deposed regarding the rash driving on the part of
R-1 driver and has also identified the vehicle number.
20.It is submitted that PW-3 has proved on record the salary
certificate which show that deceased Mr. Yash Prakash was
earning monthly salary of Rs.42,000/- or annual gross salary of
Rs.5,04,000/-
21. Ld. Counsel for Insurance Company submits that date of
accident in this case is 03.12.2019 and the FIR has been
registered on 28.12.2019 and there is a considerable delay in
registration of FIR. It is argued that Ex. PW-1/4 is the
provisional certificate dated 02.07.2019. The degree of the
deceased is dated 04.11.2019. It is submitted that as per theMACT No. 221/21 Page. 9 of 39
Smt. Manju & Anr. Vs Shankar Lal & Ors
testimony of PW-3 Mr. Harsh Gupta, the deceased had joined
the employment as a General Manager from 01.05.2019. It is
argued that PW-1 in her testimony admitted that deceased was
not having any degree in Hotel Management. He submitted that
the appointment of deceased as a General Manager after
completion of graduation in B.A. (Hons) without having any
specialization in Hotel Management, and that too after a short
span of completion of graduation crates a doubt about
credentials of appointment of deceased.
22.R-1 driver and R-2 registered owner failed to appear and address
arguments.
V. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO
(a) Issue No.1: Whether the deceased Sh. Yash Prakash sustained
fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 03.12.2019 at
about 7-7:30 PM, near Chaumupurohitan, Khatu Road, Sikar,
Rajasthan caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.
RJ-14UB-3410 being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by
respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no.3?OPPi. Presumption qua complicity upon filing chargesheet:
23. 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 ClaimsMACT No. 221/21 Page. 10 of 39
Smt. Manju & Anr. Vs Shankar Lal & 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.
24. 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……..”.
25.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.”
MACT No. 221/21 Page. 11 of 39
Smt. Manju & Anr. Vs Shankar Lal & Ors
ii. The evidence on record qua negligence:
26.Claimant has placed on record the certified copy of charge sheet
in FIR no. 616/2019, PS Reengus District – Sikar, Rajasthan
under Section 279/304-A IPC. Record shows that the charge
sheet u/s 279/304-A IPC was filed in the present case against the
driver Sh. Shankar Lal. The charge sheet records that the due to
rash driving of the driver /(R-1) of the offending vehicle bearing
no. RJ-14-UB-3410 accident occurred.
27.PW-2 Mr. Aman Rai. is the eye-witness in the present case. He
also cited as eye witness in the final report filed by the police.
In his testimony he clearly stated that he and deceased were hit
from behind by the offending / insured vehicle. He remained
consistent in his cross examination.
28.R-1 driver and R-2 registered owner have failed to lead any
evidence to rebut the testimony of PW-2 and the conclusions
arrived by the police in the investigation.
29.R-3 Insurance company has taken a defence that there is a delay
in registration of FIR. The testimony of PW-1 and 2 clearly
records that accident occurred on 03.12.2019. Thereafter the
deceased was taken to Govt. Hospital, Khatu Shyam Ji and then
referred to hospital at Jaipur. The death summary made in the
Fortis Hospital also records the fact that the accident occurred
on 03.12.2019 near Khatu Shyam Ji when the patient was
walking on the side of road and was hit by a four wheeler. It isMACT No. 221/21 Page. 12 of 39
Smt. Manju & Anr. Vs Shankar Lal & Ors
argued that as the treatment was continuing and the family of
victim could not follow up registration of the case. After the
death of the deceased, on 15.12.2019, the family approached the
police and got the FIR registered. From the aforesaid
circumstances, the delay in registration of FIR stands explained
and no mischief is found. Accordingly, the plea of the insurance
company regarding delay in registration of FIR is rejected.
30.From the aforesaid, it is clear that the accident had occurred due
to rash driving of offending/insured vehicle driven by
R-1/driver.
iii. Adverse inference qua driver:
31.The driver of the offending vehicle steered clear of the witness
box and did not lead any controvertible evidence to negate or
refute the allegations of rash and negligent driving. It may
further be noted that in Cholamandlam insurance company Ltd.
Vs. Kamlesh 2009 (3) AD Delhi 310, it was held that if driver
of offending vehicle does not enter the witness box, an adverse
inference can be drawn against him. In the present case also,
since the driver exercised his volition to not enter into the
witness box to controvert the claim of petitioner or even to
explain circumstances of accident, an adverse inference ought
to be drawn against him.
MACT No. 221/21 Page. 13 of 39
Smt. Manju & Anr. Vs Shankar Lal & Ors
iv. Preponderance of probabilities:
32.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.
33.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 ofMACT No. 221/21 Page. 14 of 39
Smt. Manju & Anr. Vs Shankar Lal & Ors
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.”
v. Finding:
34.In view of foregoing discussion, it stands proved on the
touchstone of preponderance of probabilities that the aforesaid
accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the
transgressing/offending vehicle bearing registration no. RJ-14-
UB-3410 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.
35.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 ?
MACT No. 221/21 Page. 15 of 39
Smt. Manju & Anr. Vs Shankar Lal & Ors
i. Principles qua assessment of compensation:
36.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.
37.An essential ingredient of the award is the loss of dependency.
To calculate the same, it would be of utmost significance to
peruse the following seminal directions issued in Sarla Verma
(supra):
“18.Basically only three facts need to be established by the
claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death:
(a)age of the deceased;
(b) income of the deceased; and
(c) the number of dependants
The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the
loss of dependency are:
(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:
MACT No. 221/21 Page. 16 of 39
Smt. Manju & Anr. Vs Shankar Lal & Ors
Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand)
The income of the deceased per annum should be determined.
Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard
to the amount which the deceased would have spent on
himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance,
which is considered to be the contribution to the dependant
family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier)
Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active
career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does
not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have
lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to
several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of
multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this
Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table
with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step 3 (Actual calculation)
The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when
multiplied by such multiplier gives the “loss of dependency”
to the family.”
38.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.”
39.Further, in terms of the mandate of Rajesh Tyagi v Jaibir Singh
FAO 842/2003, which is the cause célèbre qua cases pertaining
MACT No. 221/21 Page. 17 of 39
Smt. Manju & Anr. Vs Shankar Lal & Ors
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:
40.PW-1 Smt. Manju in her testimony stated that her son was
working as General Manager with Hotel New Majestic, Ajmer,
Rajasthan and was getting Rs.5,04,000/- as annual salary.
41.PW-3 Mr. Harsh Gupta in his testimony proved on record the
appointment letter, salary slip, and attendance slip of deceased.
The appointment letter dated 01.05.2019 Ex. PW 3/2 and the
salary slip shows that deceased Mr. Yash Prakash was earning
Rs.42,000/- per month. Ld. Counsel for petitioner conceded that
the remaining amount was variable incentives which can be
excluded for the purposes of computation of income of the
deceased.
42.It is argued by Ld. Counsel for Insurance Company that no proof
of payment of salary is filed on record and PW-3 in his
testimony admitted that the salary was paid in cash to the
deceased. Merely, because salary was paid in cash that cannot
be a ground to discard the documents brought on record by
PW-3 employer i.e. appointment letter, pay slips and attendance
register. Insurance company has failed to lead any evidence to
dent the veracity of the said documents and in the absence of
MACT No. 221/21 Page. 18 of 39
Smt. Manju & Anr. Vs Shankar Lal & Ors
any cogent evidence merely because payment of salary was in
cash, the income of deceased @ Rs.42,000/- per month cannot
be discarded.
43.Insurance company has taken a defence that deceased got the
employment soon after his graduation as General Manager in
hotel industry without any specialization course in hotel
industry and therefore, the employment looks shady and
doubtful.
44.PW-1 has placed on record the graduation degree of deceased.
Deceased was a graduate in B.A. (Hons.) from Delhi University.
Merely because deceased got his job soon after completion of
his graduation, that cannot be said to a shady circumstance. In a
country where a graduate is eligible to appear in Administrative
Service Examination, the arguments of the Insurance company
that the deceased was inducted as a General Manager is baseless
and without any merits. The plea of the Insurance company is
therefore, rejected. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased
is quantified as Rs. 42,000/- p.m.
iii. Future prospects:
45.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 deceasedMACT No. 221/21 Page. 19 of 39
Smt. Manju & Anr. Vs Shankar Lal & Ors
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.
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.”
46.To determine the age of the deceased, the claimants had filed
on record Aadhar Card which shows the year of birth of the
deceased as 1996. The deceased was 23 years old on the date of
death. As per mandate in Sarla Verma (Supra) and Pranay Sethi
(Supra) the future prospects for a person having age less than
MACT No. 221/21 Page. 20 of 39
Smt. Manju & Anr. Vs Shankar Lal & Ors
40 years is 40% and accordingly the same is calculated as Rs.
16,800/-.
iv. Personal expenses of the deceased:
47.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-
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.
MACT No. 221/21 Page. 21 of 39
Smt. Manju & Anr. Vs Shankar Lal & Ors
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.”
48.PW-1 Smt. Manju in her testimony stated that deceased was
unmarried and is survived by his parents only. Accordingly, in
view of the mandate of Sarla Verma (supra) the deductions
towards personal and living expenses is considered as 50
percent.
49. Thus, the net deduction in the present case is (Rs.42,000 + Rs.
16,800/- = Rs. 58,800/- divided by 1/2 i.e. Rs. 29,400/-.
v. Monthly & Annual Loss of dependency:
50.The monthly loss of dependency would be Rs. 29,400/-. The
annual loss of dependency Rs. 29,400/- X 12 = Rs. 3,52,800/-.
vi. Total Loss of Dependency:
51. Since the deceased was around 23 years old, the applicable
multiplier in terms of the verdict of Sarla Verma(supra) is 18.
The total loss of dependency is thus Rs. 3,52,800 X 18 =
Rs.63,50,400/-.
MACT No. 221/21 Page. 22 of 39
Smt. Manju & Anr. Vs Shankar Lal & Ors
vii. Other Heads:
52.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.”
53.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 anMACT No. 221/21 Page. 23 of 39
Smt. Manju & Anr. Vs Shankar Lal & Ors
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.”
54.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:
55.PW-1 has proved on record the payment receipts of the money
deposited in Fortis Hospital for treatment of deceased Mr. Yash
Prakash. PW-1 in her cross examination admitted that though
she had filed advance payment receipts, but the detail of the bills
is not filed. In the absence of bill of the hospital giving breakup
of the expenses, advance payment receipts are not sufficient to
quantify the compensation under this head. Accordingly, due to
MACT No. 221/21 Page. 24 of 39
Smt. Manju & Anr. Vs Shankar Lal & Ors
lack of evidence, the relief under this head is declined and
treated as NIL.
ix. Compensation for Loss of Consortium:
56.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.
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
MACT No. 221/21 Page. 25 of 39
Smt. Manju & Anr. Vs Shankar Lal & Ors
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.”
57.The deceased is survived by his parents only. 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 2 = Rs.96,800/-.
MACT No. 221/21 Page. 26 of 39
Smt. Manju & Anr. Vs Shankar Lal & Ors
x. Compensation for Loss of Estate:
58.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:
59.On the basis of the above verdict, the compensation of funeral
expenses is hereby quantified as Rs 18,150/-
xii. Total Compensation:
60. Thus, the total amount of compensation to be awarded is
calculated as follows:-
Sr. No. Head Amount
1. Total loss of dependency 63,50,400/-
2. Medical Expenses NIL
3. Compensation for Loss of 96,800/-
Consortium
4. Compensation for Loss of Estate 18,150/-
5. Compensation towards Funeral 18,150/-
Expenses
6. Total Compensation Rs. 64,83,500/-
MACT No. 221/21 Page. 27 of 39
Smt. Manju & Anr. Vs Shankar Lal & Ors
(c) Issue No.3: Relief.
i. Amount of Award:
61.Thus, the claimant is awarded as sum of Rs.64,83,500/- 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:
62.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.
63.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”
MACT No. 221/21 Page. 28 of 39
Smt. Manju & Anr. Vs Shankar Lal & Ors
64.Ergo, the amount of compensation/award amount will be
payable by the respondent insurance company with simple
interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the claim petition
till actual realisation. The date of filing of petition is 29.10.2022
therefore the amount of Interest is calculated at @ 9 % from the
date of filing of petition i.e. Rs. 19,93,676/- for a period of 41
months. Thus, the total amount of award is Rs. 84,77,176/-.
65.It is also clarified that in case the interest of petitioner was
stopped or excluded during the present inquiry proceedings,
same is liable to be adjusted from the total interest calculated on
the Award amount. Similarly, amount awarded and released as
interim Award, if any, during pendency of the case, be deducted
from the total compensation.
VI. DEPOSIT OF AWARD& RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT
i. Deposit of Award:
66.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
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 respectMACT No. 221/21 Page. 29 of 39
Smt. Manju & Anr. Vs Shankar Lal & Ors
to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the
deposit with the interest upto the date of notice of deposit to the
claimant(s) with a copy to their counsel.
APPORTIONMENT & RELEASE
67.PW-1 Smt. Manju in her testimony stated that deceased was
unmarried and is survived by his parents only. Accordingly, the
award amount shall be apportioned amongst the legal heirs as
follows:-
Sl Name Relation % of Release of awarded amount
share
1. Smt. Mother 50 % Rs. 10 lakhs of the award amount out of the
Manju 50% share of mother be released in her bank
account immediately and remaining awarded
amount be invested and deposited in 60
monthly fixed deposits receipts (FDR) of
equal amounts for a period of 60 months as per
Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposits
Schemes.
2. Mr. Om Father 50% Rs. 10 lakhs of the award amount out of the
Prakash 50% share of father be released in his bank
account immediately and remaining awarded
amount be invested and deposited in 60
monthly fixed deposits receipts (FDR) of
equal amounts for a period of 60 months as per
Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposits
Schemes.
68. The Nodal officer of the bank shall ensure disbursement of the
award within 3 weeks of receipt thereof by email or otherwise.
69.The disbursement to the claimant is, however, subject to the
addition of future interest till deposit proportionately and alsoMACT No. 221/21 Page. 30 of 39
Smt. Manju & Anr. Vs Shankar Lal & Ors
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:
70.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.
71.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.
(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 releasedMACT No. 221/21 Page. 31 of 39
Smt. Manju & Anr. Vs Shankar Lal & Ors
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 debit
card have been issued and shall not be issued without the
permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the
passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court
on the next date fixed for compliance.
MACT No. 221/21 Page. 32 of 39
Smt. Manju & Anr. Vs Shankar Lal & Ors
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along
with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the
passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of
clause above.
VII. LIABILITY
72.R-1, R-2 and R-3 are held jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation amount. The Insurance Company has failed to
prove any statutory defence. The factum of insurance on the date
of accident is undisputed.
73.Accordingly, insurance company is directed to pay award
amount to the petitioner. Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the award amount with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court
Branch, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of
filing of claim petition by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in bank account
being maintained in the above said bank in name of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal within 30 days from today, failing
which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for
the period of delay. In case even after lapse of 90 days from
today, respondent no. 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
Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal 2007 ACJ 688 , this
compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account
of respondent no. 3 with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.
MACT No. 221/21 Page. 33 of 39
Smt. Manju & Anr. Vs Shankar Lal & Ors
74.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.
VIII. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT
IN CASES OF DEATH
75.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 03.12.2019
2. Name of the deceased Sh. Yash Prakash
3. Age of the deceased 23 years
4. Occupation of the deceased Private job
5. Income of the deceased Rs. 42,000/-
6. Name, Age and relationship of legal representatives of
the deceased:
S.NO NAME AGE RELATION 1. Smt. Manju 55 Mother 2. Sh. Om Prakash 61 Father MACT No. 221/21 Page. 34 of 39 Smt. Manju & Anr. Vs Shankar Lal & Ors COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION S.No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal 7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs. 42,000/- 8. Add: Future Prospects (B) Rs.16,500/- 9. Less: Personal expenses of the Rs. 29,400/- deceased (C) 10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs. 29,400/- [(A+B)- C = D] 11. Annual Loss of dependency (D x Rs. 3,52,800/- 12) 12. Multiplier (E) 18 13. Total loss of dependency (D x 12 Rs. 63,50,400/- x E = F) 14. Medical Expenses (G) NIL 15. Compensation for loss of Rs 96,800/- consortium (H) (48,400 X 5) 16. Compensation for loss of love & NA- in terms of New affection (I) India Assurance Co v Somwati (2020) 9 SCC 644 17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs 18,150/- 18. Compensation towards funeral Rs 18,150/- MACT No. 221/21 Page. 35 of 39 Smt. Manju & Anr. Vs Shankar Lal & Ors expenses (K) 19. TOTAL COMPENSATION (F + Rs.64,83,500/- G + H + I + J + K = L) 20. Rate of Interest Awarded @9% 21. Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 19,93,676/- award (M) (41 months) 22. Total amount including interest (L Rs. 84,77,176/- + M) 23. Award amount released As per para no.67 24. Award kept in FDRs As per para no. 67 25. Mode of disbursement of the Through Bank award to the claimant(s) 26. Next date for compliance of the 25.05.2026 award
IX. COMPLIANCE QUA PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME
76.The particulars of Form XVII of the Scheme For Motor
Accidents Claims Formulated by the Delhi High Court, in terms
of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) are as
hereunder:
MACT No. 221/21 Page. 36 of 39 Smt. Manju & Anr. Vs Shankar Lal & Ors 1. Date of the accident 03.12.2019 2. Date of filing of Form I- First Not filed as accident took place Accident Report (FAR) out of Delhi and claim petition is filed by legal heirs. 3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the Same as above. victim(s) 4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Same as above. Driver 5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Same as above owner 6. Date of filing of the Form-V- Same as above Interim Accident Report (IAR) 7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Same as above Form VIB from the Victim (s) 8. Date of filing of Form-VII-Detailed Same as above Accident Report (DAR) 9. Whether there was any delay or DAR not filed. deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted? 10. Date of appointment of the Not given Designated Officer by the Insurance Company. 11. Whether the Designated Officer of No the Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR? 12. Whether there was any delay or No deficiencies on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted? MACT No. 221/21 Page. 37 of 39 Smt. Manju & Anr. Vs Shankar Lal & Ors 13. Date of response of the Matter was contested by the petitioner(s) of the offer of the Insurance Company. Insurance Company. 14. Date of the Award 22.04.2026. 15. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence? 16. Date of order by which petitioner(s) 29.10.2022 were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the petitioner (s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17. Date on which the petitioner(s) Not furnished. Directions issued.
produced the passbook of their
savings bank account near the place
of their residence along with the
endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar
Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of As mentioned above
the petitioner(s)
19. Whether the petitioner(s) savings
bank account(s) is near his place of
residence?
20. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes.
examined at the time of passing of
the award to ascertain his/their
financial condition?
MACT No. 221/21 Page. 38 of 39
Smt. Manju & Anr. Vs Shankar Lal & Ors
77.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.
78.File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary
formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up
on 25.05.2026. Digitally
signed by
Abhilash
Abhilash Malhotra
Malhotra Date:
2026.04.21
Announced in the open court 14:14:10
+0530
on 22.04.2026
(Dr. Abhilash Malhotra)
Judge/PO, MACT-02,
New Delhi/22.04.2026(s)DLND010092742022
MACT No. 221/21 Page. 39 of 39
Smt. Manju & Anr. Vs Shankar Lal & Ors
