Delhi District Court
Rama Shankar Sahu vs Ajay Kumar on 6 July, 2026
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA MANCHANDA, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 804/23
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-014094-2023
1. Smt. Ravita Devi,
W/o Late Sh. Bablu,
(Widow of deceased)
2. Roshani Kumari,
D/o Late Sh. Bablu,
(Minor daughter of deceased)
3. Kishan,
S/o Late Sh. Bablu,
(Minor son of deceased)
4. Pooja Kumari,
D/o Late Sh. Bablu,
(Minor daughter of deceased)
Petitioners no. 1 to 4
R/o. H.No. 1671,
Near Matke Wali Gali,
Pana Mamoorpur,
Narela, Delhi.
5. Sh. Sambhu Shah,
(Father of deceased)
6. Smt. Ram Pyari,
W/o Sh. Sambhu Shah,
(Mother of deceased)
..........Petitioners
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 1 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
VERSUS
1. Sh. Ajay Kumar,
S/o Sh. Ramphal Singh,
R/o H.No. 25,
Gali No. 1,
Rajiv Colony,
Narela, Delhi.
(Driver)
2. Smt. Sushma,
W/o Late Sh. Sanjeev,
R/o Kh. No. 46/1/2/3,
Swatantar Nagar,
Narela, Delhi.
(Registered owner)
3. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Asaf Ali Road,
R.G. City,
New Delhi.
(Insurer)
............Respondents
MAC Petition No. 805/23
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-014095-2023
Sh. Ram Shankar Sahu,
S/o Sh. Maya Ram Sahu,
R/o. H.No. 1671,
Brahman Mohalla,
Pana Mamoorpur,
Narela, Delhi.
..........Petitioner
VERSUS
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 2 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
1. Sh. Ajay Kumar,
S/o Sh. Ramphal Singh,
R/o H.No. 25,
Gali No. 1,
Rajiv Colony,
Narela, Delhi.
(Driver)
2. Smt. Sushma,
W/o Late Sh. Sanjeev,
R/o Kh. No. 46/1/2/3,
Swatantar Nagar,
Narela, Delhi.
(Registered owner)
3. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Asaf Ali Road,
R.G. City,
New Delhi.
(Insurer)
............Respondents
MAC Petition No. 806/23
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-014096-2023
Sh. Virendra Kumar,
S/o Sh. Sahdev Sah,
R/o. Jhapahan Udan,
Muzaffarpur,
Bihar.
..........Petitioner
VERSUS
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 3 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
1. Sh. Ajay Kumar,
S/o Sh. Ramphal Singh,
R/o H.No. 25,
Gali No. 1,
Rajiv Colony,
Narela, Delhi.
(Driver)
2. Smt. Sushma,
W/o Late Sh. Sanjeev,
R/o Kh. No. 46/1/2/3,
Swatantar Nagar,
Narela, Delhi.
(Registered owner)
3. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Asaf Ali Road,
R.G. City,
New Delhi.
(Insurer)
............Respondents
MAC Petition No. 807/23
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-014097-2023
Sh. Shivaji Sahu,
S/o Sh. Jeetan Sahu,
R/o. H.No. 1671,
Near Matke Wali Gali,
Pana Mamoorpur,
Narela, Delhi.
..........Petitioner
VERSUS
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 4 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
1. Sh. Ajay Kumar,
S/o Sh. Ramphal Singh,
R/o H.No. 25,
Gali No. 1,
Rajiv Colony,
Narela, Delhi.
(Driver)
2. Smt. Sushma,
W/o Late Sh. Sanjeev,
R/o Kh. No. 46/1/2/3,
Swatantar Nagar,
Narela, Delhi.
(Registered owner)
3. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Asaf Ali Road,
R.G. City,
New Delhi.
(Insurer)
............Respondents
MAC Petition No. 808/23
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-014098-2023
Sh. Ramesh Sahu,
S/o Sh. Bharat Sahu,
R/o. H.No. 1671,
Near Matke Wali Gali,
Pana Mamoorpur,
Narela, Delhi.
..........Petitioner
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 5 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
VERSUS
1. Sh. Ajay Kumar,
S/o Sh. Ramphal Singh,
R/o H.No. 25,
Gali No. 1,
Rajiv Colony,
Narela, Delhi.
(Driver)
2. Smt. Sushma,
W/o Late Sh. Sanjeev,
R/o Kh. No. 46/1/2/3,
Swatantar Nagar,
Narela, Delhi.
(Registered owner)
3. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Asaf Ali Road,
R.G. City,
New Delhi.
(Insurer)
............Respondents
Date of Institution : 16.12.2023
Date of Arguments : 06.07.2026
Date of Judgment : 06.07.2026
APPEARENCE(S):
Sh. R.N. Chaudhary, Ld. Counsel for petitioner(s).
None for driver and owner (defence struck off vide order dated
26.07.2024).
Sh. Sanjay Arora, Ld. Counsel for insurance company.
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 6 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
Petition under Section 166 & 140 of M.V. Act, 1988
for grant of compensation
CONSOLIDATED AWARD
1. Vide this common order, I shall dispose of all the Detailed
Accident Reports (DARs) with regard to fatal injuries sustained by
Sh. Bablu (deceased in MACP No. 804/23) and injuries sustained by
Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar, Shivaji Sahu and Ramesh Sahu (injured
persons in MACP No. 805/23 to 808/23) in a Motor Vehicular Accident
which occurred on 16.06.2023 at about 5:00 am, near Shani Mandir, Sonepat,
GTK Road, Highway Alipur, Delhi, involving Truck bearing registration no.
DL1LT-3333 (offending vehicle) being driven in a rash and negligent manner
by its driver/respondent no.1.
2. All the DARs were consolidated for the purpose of recording of
evidence vide order dated 26.03.2025 and MACP No. 804/23 titled as "
Ravita & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors." was treated as the leading case.
Accordingly, the evidence was led on behalf of the parties in the leading case.
FACTS OF THE CASES
3. According to DAR filed in all the cases, on 16.06.2023, Bablu
(deceased) and Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar, Shivaji Sahu and
Ramesh Sahu were going towards Narela Sabzi Mandir from Azadpur Sabzi
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 7 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
Mandi in a truck bearing registration no. DL1LT-3333 after purchasing
vegetable in bulk from Azadpur Mandi. They all were sitting in
trolley/container of the aforesaid truck alongwith their vegetables. At about
5:00 AM, when they reached near Shani Mandir, Sonipat, Haryana, the
aforesaid truck turned turle as the same was being driven by its driver at a
very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which all the
aforesaid occupants suffered injuries in the accident. Thereafter, they all were
taken to SRHC Hospital, Narela, Delhi. Postmortem of deceased was
conducted at Maulana Azad Medical College & Lok Nayak Hospital, vide
PMR No. 437/2023 on 17.06.2023. FIR No. 455/23 u/s. 279/337/338/304A
IPC was registered against the driver of the aforesaid truck at PS. Alipur. It is
claimed that offending vehicle was owned by respondent no.2 and was
insured with respondent no. 3 during the period in question.
4. The respondent no. 1 & 2 i.e., driver and registered owner failed
to file their WS despite grant of sufficient time and opportunities.
Accordingly, their defence was struck off vide order dated 26.07.2024.
5. In its written statement, the respondent no. 3 i.e., insurance
company claimed that it is not liable to pay compensation in the present case
as offending vehicle was being driven by its driver in contravention and
violation of the insurance policy as there were 10 vegetable vendors sitting in
the load carriage alongwith the vegetables and in addition to above, three
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 8 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
persons including driver were sitting in the cabin of the vehicle. However, it
is admitted that offending vehicle was insured with it at the time of accident.
6. From the pleading of the parties, the following issues were
framed in MACP No. 804/23 vide order dated 26.07.2024:-
1) Whether the deceased Bablu has died in the
road traffic accident on 16.06.2023 at about 5:00
AM near Sani Mandir, Sonipat Side, GTK Road,
Highway Alipur, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS.
Alipur, due to rashness and negligence on the part
of Sh. Ajay Kumar/R1 who was driving vehicle
bearing registration no. DL1LT-3333 owned by
Sushma and insured with SBI General Insurance
Company Ltd./R3? OPP.
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to
compensation, if so, to what extent and from which
of the respondents? OPP.
3) Relief.
7. From the pleading of the parties, the following issues were
framed in MACP No. 805/2023 vide order dated 26.07.2024 :-
1) Whether the injured Ram Shankar Sahu
suffered injuries in the road traffic accident occurred
on 16.06.2023 at about 5:00 AM near Sani Mandir,
Sonipat Side, GTK Road, Highway Alipur, Delhi,
within the jurisdiction of PS. Alipur, due to rashness
and negligence on the part of Sh. Ajay Kumar/R1
who was driving vehicle bearing registration no.
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 9 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
DL1LT-3333 owned by Sushma and insured with
SBI General Insurance Company Ltd./R3? OPP.
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from which
of the respondents? OPP.
3) Relief.
8. From the pleading of the parties, the following issues were
framed in MACP No. 806/2023 vide order dated 26.07.2024 :-
1) Whether the injured Virender Kumar suffered
injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on
16.06.2023 at about 5:00 AM near Sani Mandir,
Sonipat Side, GTK Road, Highway Alipur, Delhi,
within the jurisdiction of PS. Alipur, due to rashness
and negligence on the part of Sh. Ajay Kumar/R1
who was driving vehicle bearing registration no.
DL1LT-3333 owned by Sushma and insured with
SBI General Insurance Company Ltd./R3? OPP.
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from which
of the respondents? OPP.
3) Relief.
9. From the pleading of the parties, the following issues were
framed in MACP No. 807/2023 vide order dated 26.07.2024 :-
1) Whether the injured Shivaji Sahu suffered
injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on
16.06.2023 at about 5:00 AM near Sani Mandir,
Sonipat Side, GTK Road, Highway Alipur, Delhi,Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 10 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026within the jurisdiction of PS. Alipur, due to rashness
and negligence on the part of Sh. Ajay Kumar/R1
who was driving vehicle bearing registration no.
DL1LT-3333 owned by Sushma and insured with
SBI General Insurance Company Ltd./R3? OPP.
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from which
of the respondents? OPP.
3) Relief.
10. From the pleading of the parties, the following issues were
framed in MACP No. 808/2023 vide order dated 26.07.2024 :-
1) Whether the injured Ramesh Sahu suffered
injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on
16.06.2023 at about 5:00 AM near Sani Mandir,
Sonipat Side, GTK Road, Highway Alipur, Delhi,
within the jurisdiction of PS. Alipur, due to rashness
and negligence on the part of Sh. Ajay Kumar/R1
who was driving vehicle bearing registration no.
DL1LT-3333 owned by Sushma and insured with
SBI General Insurance Company Ltd./R3? OPP.
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from which
of the respondents? OPP.
3) Relief.
11. In order to establish their claim, the petitioners have examined
four witnesses i.e. PW1 Smt. Ravita Devi (Widow of deceased), PW2
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 11 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
Sh. Shivaji Sahu, PW3 Sh. Ram Shankar Sahu and PW4 Sh. Virender Kumar
(injured persons as well as eyewitness) and their evidence was closed vide
order dated 26.03.2025. On the other hand, no evidence was adduced by
respondent no. 1 & 2. However, respondent no. 3/insurance company has
examined one witness i.e., Sh. Jagdish Kumar, Senior Manager, SBI General
Insurance Company Limited as R3W1 and its evidence was closed vide order
dated 10.12.2025.
12. This Tribunal has carefully perused DAR and evidence led by
parties has been duly appreciated. All documents and material relied upon
perused and considered. Arguments addressed by respective counsels heard
and considered. Legal position, both statutory and binding applicable
precedents, has been appreciated. The issue wise determination is as under:-
ISSUE NO. 1 ( IN BOTH THE CASES)
13. The onus to prove, the aforesaid issue was placed on the
petitioners. To prove the said issues, petitioner(s) have examined PW2 to
PW4 who are injured in the accident in question by way of their respective
affidavit in evidence Ex. PW2/A, Ex. PW3/A & Ex. PW4/A. In their
respective evidence, they have deposed on the similar lines of averments
made in the DAR(s).
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 12 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
14. PW2 has relied upon the following documents:-
S.No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of his Aadhaar Card Ex. PW2/1(colly)(OSR)
and PAN Card
2. His original treatment record Ex. PW2/2(colly)
and medical bills with bill
summary
3. DAR Ex. PW1/1(colly)
15. PW2/injured was cross-examined on behalf of insurance
company during which he deposed that he was sitting on the vegetable sack
kept in the container. He further deposed that he had shouted upon the driver
to drive slow when he was driving recklessly. He further deposed that the
vehicle in which he was travelling overturned as driver was driving the same
at high speed and lost control.
16. PW3 has relied upon the following documents:-
S.No. Description of documents Remarks
1. His original treatment record Ex. PW3/1(colly)
and medical bills with bill
summary
2. DAR Ex. PW1/1(colly)
17. PW3/injured was cross-examined on behalf of insurance
company during which he deposed that he was sitting on the vegetable sack
kept in the container. He further deposed that he had shouted upon the driver
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 13 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
to drive slow when he was driving recklessly. He further deposed that the
vehicle in which he was travelling overturned as driver was driving the same
at high speed and lost control.
18. PW4 has relied upon DAR which is already exhibited as
Ex. PW1/1(colly). During his cross-examination on behalf of insurance
company, he deposed that he was sitting on the vegetable sack kept in the
container. He further deposed that he had shouted upon the driver to drive
slow when he was driving recklessly. He further deposed that the vehicle in
which he was travelling overturned as driver was driving the same at high
speed and lost control.
19. Nothing has come out in the examination of these witnesses so
as to discredit their testimony. Further, it is an undisputed fact that FIR No.
455/23 u/s 279/337 IPC was registered at PS. Alipur with regard to accident
in question. Copy of said FIR (which is part of DAR), would show that same
was registered on 16.06.2023 on the basis of GD Entry No. 0016A with
regard to accident call received in PS. Alipur on the date of accident itself
i.e., 16.06.2023. The FIR is shown to have been registered on the date of
accident itself i.e., 16.06.2023. Thus, there is no possibility of false
implication of driver and owner and / or false involvement of offending
vehicle at the instance of the petitioners.
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 14 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
20. The facts of the case, arguments of the Ld. Counsels, evidence,
material on record and duly verified documents of the criminal case, have
been carefully examined and scrutinized. Respondent no. 1 namely Ajay
Kumar has been charge sheeted for offences punishable U/s.
279/337/338/304A IPC by the investigating agency after arriving at the
conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in
question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending
vehicle by him. Same would also point out towards rash and negligent
driving of offending vehicle by respondent no. 1.
21. Further, there is no gainsaying that respondent No.1/driver of
offending vehicle was the other material witness to throw light by testifying
as to how and under what circumstances, the accident has taken place.
However, he has preferred not to enter into the witness box. Thus, an adverse
inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in
question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle by the respondent no. 1. There is nothing on record to show that the
petitioner had any enmity with the driver of the offending vehicle so as to
falsely implicate him in this case. Reliance placed on Cholamandalam MS
General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Kamlesh & Ors, MAC APP. No. 530/2008
passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 11.11.2008.
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 15 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
22. Copy of MLCs (which are also part of DAR) of injured persons
would show that they were taken to SRHC Hospital, Delhi with alleged
history of RTA on the date of accident i.e., 16.06.2023. Petitioner Virender
and Ramesh are shown to have sustained ‘Simple’ injuries as mentioned in
their respective MLCs. However, the remaining petitioners namely Ram
Shankar Sahu and Shivaji are shown to have sustained ‘Grievous’ injuries as
mentioned in their respective MLCs. Not only this, postmortem was got
conducted on the body of deceased Bablu. The copy of PM Report (which is
also part of DAR) of deceased, would show that cause of death of deceased
was antemortem cranio-cerebral injury to the head produced by blunt force
impact. The external injuries as mentioned in the relevant column correspond
with the injuries which occur in Motor Vehicular Accident. Said documents
have not been disputed from the side of respondents.
23. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has
come on record, it is held that the petitioner(s) have been able to prove on the
basis of preponderance of probabilities that Bablu had sustained fatal injuries,
whereas petitioners namely Ram Shankar Sahu and Shivaji had sustained
grievous injuries and petitioners namely Virendra Kumar and Ramesh Sahu
had sustained simple injuries in the road accident which took place on
16.06.2023 at about 5:00 am, near Shani Mandir, Sonepat, GTK Road,
Highway Alipur, Delhi, due to rash and negligent driving on the part of driver
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 16 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
of offending vehicle. Thus, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of petitioners and
against the respondents in both the cases.
ISSUE NO. 2
24. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 enjoins upon the
Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award
determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and
reasonable. The guiding principles for assessment of “just and reasonable
compensation” in fatal case has been laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India, in case titled as Smt. Anjali & Ors., Vs. Lokendra Rathod & Ors, in
Civil Appeal No. 9014 of 202, decided on 06.12.2022 that: –
“The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for
short, “MV Act“) gives paramount importance to the
concept of ‘just and fair’ compensation. It is a
beneficial legislation which has been framed with the
object of providing relief to the victims or their
families. Section 168 of the MV Act deals with the
concept of ‘just compensation’ which ought to be
determined on the foundation of fairness,
reasonableness and equitability. Although such
determination can never be arithmetically exact or
perfect, an endeavor should be made by the Court to
award just and fair compensation irrespective of the
amount claimed by the applicant/s. In Sarla Verma &
Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.3, this
Court has laid down as under:
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 17 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026“16.”Just compensation” is adequate compensation
which is fair and equitable, on the facts and
circumstances of the case, to make good the loss
suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can
do so, by applying the well settled principles relating
to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a
bonanza, largesse or source of profit.”
25. The intent and objective of the Beneficial Legislation is to grant
equitable compensation to the vulnerable victims of road accidents and
dynamic law has evolved towards grant of just and fair quantum of awards
and has brought consistency and uniformity towards the desired goal. The
Hon’ble Apex Court in “Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation” (2009)
6 SCC 121, which was affirmed by a bench of three Hon’ble Judges in
Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, held
as under:
“16. “Just compensation” is adequate compensation which is fair
and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to
make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as
money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating
to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza,
largesse or source of profit.
17. Assessment of compensation though involving certain
hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective.
Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment,
consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and
uniformity in the decision making process and the decisions.
While it may not be possible to have mathematical precision or
identical awards, in assessing compensation, same or similar
facts should lead to awards in the same range. When the
factors/inputs are the same, and the formula/legal principles are
the same, consistency and uniformity, and not divergence andRavita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 18 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026freakiness, should be the result of adjudication to arrive at just
compensation…”
26. These guiding principles for assessment of “just and reasonable
compensation” have been torch bearer in injury cases also as laid down by
Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in III (2007), ACC 676 titled as Oriental
Insurance Co,. Ltd., Vs. Vijay Kumar Mittal & Ors, wherein it has been
held:-
“10. The possession of one’s own body is the first and most
valuable all human rights and while awarding compensation for
bodily injuries this primary element is to be kept in mind.
Bodily injury is to be treated and varies on account of gravity of
bodily injury. Though it is impossible to equate money with
human suffering, agony and personal deprivation, the Court and
Tribunal should make an honest and serious attempt to award
damages so far as money can compensate the loss. Regard
must be given to the gravity and degree of deprivation as well
as the degree of awareness of the deprivation. Damages
awarded in personal injury cases must be substantial and not
token damages…..”
11. The general principle which should govern the assessment
of damages in persons injury cases is that the Court should
award to injured persons such a sum as will put him in the same
position as he would have been in the same position as he
would have been in if he had not sustained injuries”.
27. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the compensation should
be just and is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be
niggardly or a pittance. Reliance is placed on 2012 (8) SLT 676 titled K.
Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The aforesaid Principle of law has
also been reiterated by a landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court in
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 19 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
2017 (13) SCALE 12 : 2017 XI AD (SC) 113 titled National Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. Accordingly, the quantum of appropriate and
adequate compensation to the victims of road accident is to be derived after
assessment of various relevant parameters, as per law. Hereinafter,
assessment is divided into several criteria, as applicable to the facts of the
present case.
COMPENSATION IN CASE MACP NO. 804/23
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY(DECEASED BABLU)
28. The claimants/petitioners are the widow, three children and
parents of deceased. The petitioners have examined PW1 Smt. Ravita Devi
(widow of deceased) under this head by way of her affidavit Ex. PW1/A.
PW1 has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A that
deceased was aged about 33 years, he was working as Vegetable Seller and
used to earn Rs. 20,000/- per month. She further deposed that all the
petitioners were dependent upon the deceased at the time of accident. She has
relied upon DAR and exhibited the same as Ex. PW1/1(colly).
29. During cross-examination of PW1 (widow of deceased) on
behalf of insurance company, she deposed that she did not have any
documentary proof regarding earning of his husband to the tune of Rs.
20,000/- per month. She further deposed that her husband Bablu was 10 th
pass. She further deposed that she did not file any document to show that
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 20 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
deceased was 10th pass. She deposed that her parents in law were residing in
Bihar. She deposed that she had not received any compensation regarding the
death of her husband in the accident.
30. Ld. Counsel for petitioners vehemently argued that since
deceased was not having permanent job and he was aged about 33 years at
the time of accident, future prospects @ 40% should also be awarded in
favour of the petitioners.
31. As already noted above, PW1 Smt. Ravita Devi, who is widow
of deceased deposed in her evidence that deceased was Vegetable Seller and
used to earn Rs. 20,000/- per month at the time of accident. Apart from the
bald statement made by PW1 that deceased was earning Rs. 20,000/- per
month, no definite evidence whatsoever has been brought on record to prove
the monthly income of deceased at the time of accident in question.
Petitioners have also failed to file any educational qualification documents of
the deceased.
32. It is seen that the petitioners are not having any proof regarding
income of deceased nor having any qualification documents, either
educational or vocational, of deceased. Thus, in the absence of any relevant
document in respect of working and earning of deceased, I am of the view
that income of deceased should be assessed as per the minimum wages of an
unskilled person, applicable in the State of Delhi as on the date of accident.
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 21 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
The minimum wages of an unskilled person were Rs. 17,234/-per month as
on the date of accident which is 16.06.2023.
33. The petitioners have claimed that deceased was aged about 33
years as on the date of accident. In order to consider the age of deceased, the
relevant document on record is copy of his Aadhaar Card (which is part of
DAR Ex. PW1/1 colly) wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 01.01.1990.
This document has not been disproved by the respondents. Therefore, it
stands proved that date of birth of deceased is 01.01.1990 and thus, he was
aged about 33 years as on the date of accident i.e. 16.06.2023. Hence, the
multiplier of 16 would be applicable in view of pronouncement made by
Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as “Sarla Verma Vs.
DTC” 2009 ACJ 1298 SC.
34. Considering the age of deceased, future prospects @ 40% has to
be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of pronouncement made by
Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as “National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.” Civil Appeal No. 6961/2015 decided
on 31.10.2017, as well as in view of decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as “Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors“, decided on 02.11.17.
35. It is stated that the deceased was survived by six dependents i.e.
widow, three minor children and parents of deceased. Considering all the
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 22 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
facts and circumstances, it is held that there were six dependents i.e. widow,
three minor children and parents of deceased at the time of accident. Hence,
there has to be deduction of one fourth as held in the case of Sarla Verma
mentioned supra. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to
Rs. 34,74,374.40p (Rs. 17,234/- X 3/4 X 140/100 X 12 X 16). Hence, a sum
of Rs. 34,74,374.40p is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
36. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
case titled as, Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Tribunal considers that all the
petitioners are entitled for payment of Rs. 40,000/- each towards “loss of
consortium”. By way of pronouncement of Pranay Sethi case (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to hold that there shall be
an increase of 10% on account of ‘inflation’ after a period of three years.
Applying, the afore-cited binding law the The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Hasina Yasmin & Ors. V. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., Special Leave
Petition ( C ). No. 27285 of 2025 vide judgment pronounced on 17.12.2025
has been pleased to direct the entitlement of dependents to 10% increase in
the year 2020, only in those cases where the accident had occurred after
2017. Accordingly, all the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs. 44,000/-
each (Rs. 40,000/- + 10% of Rs. 40,000/-) towards “loss of consortium”.[As
per the judgment Hasina Yasmin (Supra), one escalation of 10% is awarded
since the date of accident in the present matter is 16.06.2023].
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 23 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
37. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in
view of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra)
which has been re-enforced in Hasina Yasmin (supra), the Tribunal considers
that all the petitioners are also entitled for payment of Rs. 16,500/-
(Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 15,000/-) on account of “loss of estate” and for
equal payment of Rs. 16,500/- (Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 15,000/-) towards
“funeral expenses”. [As per the judgment Hasina Yasmin (Supra), one
escalation of 10% is awarded since the date of accident in the present matter
is 16.06.2023].
38. Therefore, on the basis of the above discussion, the
compensation is quantified as below:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 34,74,374.40/-
2. Loss of Consortium Rs. 2,64,000/-
3. Loss of Estate & Funeral Rs. 33,000/-
Expenses
Total Rs. 37,71,374.40p
Rounded off to Rs. 37,71,000/-
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 24 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
COMPENSATION IN CASE MACP NO. 805/23
(INJURED RAM SHANKAR SAHU)
MEDICAL EXPENSES
39. PW3 Sh. Ram Shankar Sahu i.e. injured himself, has deposed in
his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW3/A) that after the accident, he was
taken to SRHC Hospital, Narela, Delhi, where he was medically examined
and remained under treatment in the aforesaid hospital w.e.f., 16.06.2023 to
19.06.2026 as OPD patient. He further deposed that he had also visited Rathi
Hospital, Narela, Delhi and remained under treatment in the said hospital
from 03.07.2023 to 07.07.2023 and ORIF was done. He further deposed that
he again admitted in Rathi Hospital for removal of his implant from
25.04.2024 to 26.04.2024. He further deposed that he has incurred a sum of
Rs. 1,07,500/- on his treatment. For this, he has relied upon his original
treatment record and medical bills with bill summary Ex. PW3/1(colly),
40. It is relevant to note that the injured Ram Shankar Sahu has
relied upon medical bills which are Ex. PW3/1(colly). It may be noted here
that petitioner has relied upon medical bills to the tune of Rs. 1,07,500/-. It is
quite evident that the respondents have not disputed the authenticity and
genuineness of the said medical bills during the course of inquiry as except
mere suggestions, no questions regarding the medical bills were put to the
witness. They have also not led any evidence in rebuttal so as to create any
doubt on the genuineness of said bills. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 1,07,500/-
is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 25 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
LOSS OF INCOME
41. Petitioner has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.
PW3/A) that he was working as Vegetable Seller and used to earn Rs.
20,000/- per month. He further deposed that he was unemployed till that day
due to accident and disability. During his cross-examination on behalf of
insurance company, he deposed that he did not have any documentary proof
regarding his earning to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- per month. He further
deposed that he had not worked after the accident and he had only started
working from the last two months. He further deposed that he had filed his
medical documents in order to show that he was unable to work during the
said period. He further deposed that he was unable to work due to his
injuries.
42. The treatment record (Ex. PW3/1 colly) of petitioner shows that
he received treatment from SRHC Hospital and Rathi Hospital. The petitioner
is found to have suffered fracture calcaneum right and fracture of posterior
margin of tallus. As per the treatment record filed by the petitioner, he lastly
visited Rathi Hospital for treatment on 09.11.2024. Apart from the aforesaid
document, the petitioner has failed to file any other treatment record. In the
absence of any definite evidence being brought on record showing the actual
period till which the petitioner had received medical treatment for the injuries
sustained by him due to accident in question, it would necessarily involve
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 26 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
some guess work in assessing the loss of income. It can not be overlooked
that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries in the accident in question.
Apart from this petitioner has also suffered permanent disability to the extent
of 24% in relation to right lower limb. Considering the nature of injuries,
treatment record and permanent disability suffered by the petitioner, it is
presumed that he would not have been able to work at least for a period of 9
months or so including his recovery period.
43. Apart from the bald statement made by PW3 Sh. Ram Shankar
Sahu that he was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month, no definite evidence
whatsoever has been brought on record to prove his monthly income at the
time of accident in question. Mere bald testimony of PW3 in this regard,
would not suffice. The petitioner has also failed to file his educational
qualification documents. Thus, his loss of income has to be assessed while
taking the income of an unskilled person under Minimum Wages Act
applicable during the period in question. The minimum wages of an
unskilled person were Rs. 17,234/- per month as on the date of accident
which is 16.06.2023. Thus, a sum of Rs. 1,55,106/- (Rs. 17,234/- x 9) is
awarded in favour of petitioner under this head.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
44. For the purpose of ascertaining compensation against non-
pecuniary heads, guidance is derived from ruling of Hon’ble High Court of
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 27 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
Delhi in the matter titled as ” Nathu Lal Vs. Sandeep Gulati & Ors.” passed
in appeal bearing no. MAC.APP 770/2011 decided on 21.05.12, has been
held as under:-
“15. It is settled law that a particular amount cannot be
fixed on pain and sufferings for all cases as is varies
from case to case. Judicial notice can be taken on the
fact that since the petitioner had got injuries/fracture as
aforesaid, he mighthave suffered acute pain and
sufferings owing to the said injuries. He might have also
consumed heavy dose of anti-biotic etc. and also might
have remained without movements of his body for a
considerable period of time. In order to ascertain the
pain and sufferings compensation, I am guided by the
judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case Satya
Narain v. Jai Kishan, FAO No.709/02, date of decision:
2.2.2007, Delhi High Court by Hon’ble Mr. Justice
Pradeep Nandrajog wherein it was held that:-“On
account of pain and suffering, suffice would it be to note
that it is difficult to measure pain and suffering in terms
of a money value, However, compensation which has to
be paid must bear some objectives co-relation with the
pain and suffering. The objective facts relatable to pain
and suffering would be:(a)Nature of injury.
(b)Body part affected.
(c)Duration of the treatment.”
45. As already considered, the petitioner suffered fracture calcaneum
right and fracture of posterior margin of tallus and remained incapacitated to
resume his work of earnings for a period of about 9 months owing to
grievous injuries suffered in the road traffic accident. It is relevant to mention
here that upon the order of this court, disaibility of petitioner was assessed by
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 28 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
the Medical Board constituted at Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi and
accordingly, disability certificate of petitioner was received in the court. As
per the said disability certificate, the petitioner is also shown to have
sustained permanent disability to the extent of 24% in relation to his right
lower limb. Thus, he would have undergone great physical sufferings,
inconvenience and mental trauma on account of the accident in question.
Keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, duration of
treatment and permanent disability suffered by him, a sum of Rs. 70,000/- is
considered reasonable towards pain & sufferings.
LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
46. As already mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence on
record to establish that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries in the
accident. Apart from this, the petitioner is also shown to have sustained
permanent disability to the extent of 24% in relation to his right lower limb.
Thus, he would not be able to enjoy general amenities of life after the
accident in question and his quality of life has been definitely affected. In
view of the nature of injuries suffered by him and permanent disability
suffered by him, I award a notional sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of
general amenities and enjoyment of life to the petitioner.
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 29 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES
47. It is further claimed that petitioner has spent considerable
amount on his special diet, conveyance and attendant. It is relevant to note
here that the petitioner has failed to lead any cogent evidence to prove the
amount, if any spent on special diet, conveyance and attendant as aforesaid
by him. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that petitioner has
sustained grievous injuries in the accident. Apart from this, the petitioner is
also shown to have sustained permanent disability to the extent of 24% in
relation to his right lower limb. Thus, he would have taken special rich
protein diet for his speedy recovery and would have also incurred
considerable amount towards conveyance charges while commuting to the
concerned hospital as OPD patient for his regular check up & follow up
during the period of his medical treatment. He would have been definitely
helped by some person either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily
activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of his medical
treatment. There is no definite quantum of the expenses that has been proved
by the claimant through any bills, transport expenses or receipts from any
attendant. However, in view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, it is
considered reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 15,000/-each for special diet and
conveyance charges and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for attendant charges to the
petitioner under this head.
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 30 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME
48. As already stated above, the petitioner is shown to have
sustained 24% permanent disability in relation to his right lower limb. Same
is quite evident from Disability Certificate dated 08.05.2025 of Medical
Board of Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi. The said Medical Board assessed
the disability of the patient to be permanent in nature which is not likely to
improve.
49. Now coming back to the facts of present case, as per the case of
the petitioner, he was self employed as he was vegetable seller at the time of
accident and he has suffered 24% permanent disability in relation to right
lower limb. It is pertinent to mention here that any type of work requires
physical dexterity in limbs and digits to operate hand and power driven tools
and equipment commonly used in the profession of fabrication, physical
ability to lift, carry and ability to continually walk, stand, climb, stoop, bend,
kneel, reach in all directions, etc. It may be noted here that for any
profession, proper movement of all the limbs are very necessary which is not
possible in the case of petitioner due to permanent disability suffered by him
in the accident. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the
case including the nature of injuries sustained by petitioner as well as the
disability suffered by him, his functional disability is taken as 12% with
regard to whole body.
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 31 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
50. In copy of Aadhaar Card of petitioner, his date of birth is
mentioned as 01.01.1984. The date of accident is 16.06.2023. Thus, the
petitioner was aged about 39 years as on the date of accident. Hence, the
appropriate multiplier would be 15 in view of judgment passed in case titled
as “Sarla Verma Vs. DTC”, 2009 ACJ 1298 SC. The monthly income of
petitioner has been taken as Rs. 17,234/- per month as discussed above. Thus,
the loss of monthly future income would be Rs. 2,068.08p (Rs. 17,234/- x
12/100). The total loss of future income would be Rs. 5,21,156.16p
(Rs. 2,068.08p x 12 x 140/100 x 15). Thus, a sum of Rs. 5,21,156.16p is
awarded in favour of petitioner under this head.
Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:-
1. Medical Expenses Rs. 1,07,500/-
2. Loss of income Rs. 1,55,106/-
3. Pain and suffering Rs. 70,000/-
4. Loss of general amenities and Rs. 50,000/-
enjoyment of life
5. Conveyance, special diet and Rs. 50,000/-
attendant charges
6. Loss of future income Rs. 5,21,156.16p
Total Rs. 9,53,762.16p
Rounded off to Rs. 9,54,000/-
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 32 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
COMPENSATION IN CASE MACP NO. 806/23
(INJURED VIRENDRA KUMAR)
COMPENSATION
51. PW4 Virendra Kumar (injured) has deposed in his evidence by
way of affidavit Ex. PW4/A that he had also suffered injuries in the accident.
Perusal of the record reveals that in the MLC of petitioner/injured, nature of
injury has been opined as ‘simple’. Accordingly, in the aforesaid
circumstances, notional amount of Rs. 25,000/- is considered reasonable and
is awarded to the petitioner in his claim petition.
COMPENSATION IN CASE MACP NO. 807/23
(INJURED SHIVAJI SAHU)
MEDICAL EXPENSES
52. PW2 Sh. Shivaji Sahu i.e. injured himself, has deposed in his
evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW2/A) that after the accident, he was
taken to SRHC Hospital, Narela, Delhi, where he was medically examined.
He further deposed that thereafter, he visited Hasija Hospital and Trauma
Centre and remained admitted there w.e.f., 16.06.2023 to 19.06.2026. He
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 33 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
further deposed that during the aforesaid period, ORIF with locking plate
distal end radius left was done on 17.06.2023 and ORIF with K wire
capitulum left was done on 17.06.2023 and his implant was removed on
22.05.2024. He further deposed that he has incurred a sum of Rs. 1,20,553/-
on his treatment. For this, he has relied upon his original treatment record and
medical bills with bill summary Ex. PW2/2(colly).
53. It is relevant to note that the injured Shivaji Sahu has relied upon
medical bills which are Ex. PW2/2(colly). It may be noted here that petitioner
has relied upon medical bills to the tune of Rs. 1,20,553/-. It is quite evident
that the respondents have not disputed the authenticity and genuineness of the
said medical bills during the course of inquiry as except mere suggestions, no
questions regarding the medical bills were put to the witness. They have also
not led any evidence in rebuttal so as to create any doubt on the genuineness
of said bills. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 1,20,553/- is awarded to the petitioner
under this head.
LOSS OF INCOME
54. Petitioner has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit
(Ex. PW2/A) that he was working as Vegetable Seller and used to earn
Rs. 20,000/- per month. He further deposed that he was unemployed till that
day due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident in question. During his
cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that he did
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 34 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
not have any documentary proof regarding his earning to the tune of
Rs. 20,000/- per month. He further deposed that he had started working after
about six month of the accident. He further deposed that he had not filed any
doctor’s certificate or advised asking for six months of bed rest.
55. The treatment record (Ex. PW2/2 colly) of petitioner shows that
he received treatment from SRHC Hospital and Hasija Hospital. The
petitioner is found to have suffered comminuted displaced fracture distal end
radius left and displaced fracture capitulum left. As per the treatment record
filed by the petitioner, he lastly visited Hasija Hospital for treatment on
23.05.2024. Apart from the aforesaid document, the petitioner has failed to
file any other treatment record. In the absence of any definite evidence
being brought on record showing the actual period till which the petitioner
had received medical treatment for the injuries sustained by him due to
accident in question, it would necessarily involve some guess work in
assessing the loss of income. It can not be overlooked that the petitioner had
sustained grievous injuries in the accident in question. Considering the nature
of injuries and treatment record filed by the petitioner, it is presumed that he
would not have been able to work at least for a period of 6 months or so
including his recovery period.
56. Apart from the bald statement made by PW2 Sh. Shivaji Sahu
that he was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month, no definite evidence whatsoever
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 35 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
has been brought on record to prove his monthly income at the time of
accident in question. Mere bald testimony of PW2 in this regard, would not
suffice. The petitioner has also failed to file his educational qualification
documents. Thus, his loss of income has to be assessed while taking the
income of an unskilled person under Minimum Wages Act applicable during
the period in question. The minimum wages of an unskilled person were Rs.
17,234/- per month as on the date of accident which is 16.06.2023. Thus, a
sum of Rs. 1,03,404/- (Rs. 17,234/- x 6) is awarded in favour of petitioner
under this head.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
57. For the purpose of ascertaining compensation against non-
pecuniary heads, guidance is derived from ruling of Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in the matter titled as ” Nathu Lal Vs. Sandeep Gulati & Ors.” passed
in appeal bearing no. MAC.APP 770/2011 decided on 21.05.12, has been
held as under:-
“15. It is settled law that a particular amount cannot be
fixed on pain and sufferings for all cases as is varies
from case to case. Judicial notice can be taken on the
fact that since the petitioner had got injuries/fracture as
aforesaid, he mighthave suffered acute pain and
sufferings owing to the said injuries. He might have also
consumed heavy dose of anti-biotic etc. and also might
have remained without movements of his body for a
considerable period of time. In order to ascertain the
pain and sufferings compensation, I am guided by the
judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case Satya
Narain v. Jai Kishan, FAO No.709/02, date of decision:
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 36 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.20262.2.2007, Delhi High Court by Hon’ble Mr. Justice
Pradeep Nandrajog wherein it was held that:-“On
account of pain and suffering, suffice would it be to note
that it is difficult to measure pain and suffering in terms
of a money value, However, compensation which has to
be paid must bear some objectives co-relation with the
pain and suffering. The objective facts relatable to pain
and suffering would be:(a)Nature of injury.
(b)Body part affected.
(c)Duration of the treatment.”
58. As already considered, the petitioner suffered comminuted
displaced fracture distal end radius left and displaced fracture capitulum left
and remained incapacitated to resume his work of earnings for a period of
about 6 months owing to grievous injuries suffered in the road traffic
accident. Thus, he would have undergone great physical sufferings,
inconvenience and mental trauma on account of the accident in question.
Keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, duration of
treatment and permanent disability suffered by him, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is
considered reasonable towards pain & sufferings.
CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES
59. It is further claimed that petitioner has spent considerable
amount on his special diet, conveyance and attendant. It is relevant to note
here that the petitioner has failed to lead any cogent evidence to prove the
amount, if any spent on special diet, conveyance and attendant as aforesaid
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 37 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
by him. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that petitioner has
sustained grievous injuries in the accident. Thus, he would have taken special
rich protein diet for his speedy recovery and would have also incurred
considerable amount towards conveyance charges while commuting to the
concerned hospital as OPD patient for his regular check up & follow up
during the period of his medical treatment. He would have been definitely
helped by some person either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily
activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of his medical
treatment. There is no definite quantum of the expenses that has been proved
by the claimant through any bills, transport expenses or receipts from any
attendant. However, in view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, it is
considered reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 10,000/-each for special diet,
conveyance charges and attendant charges to the petitioner under this head.
Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:-
1. Medical Expenses Rs. 1,20,553/-
2. Loss of income Rs. 1,03,404/-
3. Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/-
4. Conveyance, special diet and Rs. 30,000/-
attendant charges
Total Rs. 3,03,957/-
Rounded off to Rs. 3,04,000/-
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 38 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
COMPENSATION IN CASE MACP NO. 808/23
(INJURED RAMESH SAHU)
COMPENSATION
60. It is relevant to mention here that although, the petitioner/injured
has failed to lead any evidence but it can not be overlooked that he has also
suffered simple injury in the accident in question as discussed above. In view
of the same, looking at the simple nature of injuries, a notional sum of
Rs. 25,000/- is awarded to the petitioner towards medical expenditure, loss of
studies, pain and suffering and also towards conveyance and special diet.
LIABILITY TO PAY COMPENSATION IN ALL THE CASES
61. Now, the question arises as to which of the respondents is liable
to pay the compensation amount as determined herein above. Counsel for
insurance company sought to avoid its liability to pay the compensation
amount on the ground that deceased as well as all the injured persons were
travelling as an unauthorised passenger/gratuitous passenger in the offending
vehicle bearing registration no.DL1LT-3333 at the time of accident in
question. Hence, there was fundamental breach in the terms and conditions of
the insurance policy on the part of insured and insurance company is entitled
to be absolved from its liability to pay the compensation amount in this case.
In order to buttress the aforesaid submissions, he heavily relied upon the
testimony of R3W1 i.e. Senior Manager of Insurance Company examined
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 39 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
during the course of inquiry, as also on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in
the matter titled as “National Insurance Co Ltd. Vs. Cholleti Bharatamma“,
AIR 2008 SC 484 and on decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the
matter titled as “Go Digit Geneal Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Javed & Ors.,
MAC. APP. 416/2025.
62. On the other hand, counsel for claimants vehemently argued that
the insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured qua third party risk
and at the most, it may be given recovery rights based on the principle of
” Pay & Recover”. He however, urged that insurance company should not be
absolved from its liability to pay the compensation amount. In support of said
submissions, he relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in
case titled “Brij Bihari Gupta Vs. Manmet & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 6338-
6339 of 2024 dated 08.08.2025 and also on judgment passed by Hon’ble
Allahabad High Court in case titled “ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Arti Devi & Ors.“. He also relied upon judgment passed by Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi in case titled “National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Baljit
Kaur & Ors.”, Appeal (Civil) 16 of 2004 dated 06.01.2004.
63. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf
of both the sides, it would be appropriate to discuss the testimonies of
witnesses examined on the aforesaid aspect during the course of inquiry. It
may be noted here that PW2 to PW4/eyewitnesses have deposed during their
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 40 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
cross examination that they were sitting on the vegetable sack kept in the
container.
64. Now, it would be appropriate to discuss the testimony of R3W1,
who has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. R3W1/A) that
deceased as well as all the injured persons were travelling as gratuitous
passengers in the aforesaid vehicle at the time of accident as no premium was
collected for gratuitous passengers and only the owner or representative of
goods were permitted to travel in accordance with Section 147 M.V. Act,
1988 subject to the maximum number of passengers specified in the
insurance policy. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay any
compensation amount as there was willful breach and violation of terms and
conditions of insurance policy by the insured i.e. respondent no. 2. He also
deposed that the aforesaid vehicle was insured with his company in the name
of respondent no. 2 for the relevant period. He has relied upon copy of
insurance policy Ex. R3W1/1(colly), copy of RC of offending vehicle Ex.
R3W1/2 and copy of permit of offending vehicle Ex. R3W1/3. During his
cross examination on behalf of petitioners, he deposed that he was the Legal
Manager in the insurance company. He further deposed that he had appointed
Investigator in the present case. He admitted that he had not enclosed any
report of investigator alongwith his affidavit in evidence. He denied the
suggestion that he had not enclosed the report of investigator as no
investigator was appointed by him in the present case. On being specifically
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 41 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
asked by the counsel for petitioners whether the persons travelling in the
offending vehicle including deceased were unauthorized passengers or
gratuitous passengers, he replied that they were both as the term is used
synonymously. Further, on being asked who is unauthorized passenger, he
deposed that unauthorized persons is a person who is not covered by the
insurance policy as he is travelling beyond the permissible limit of number of
person allowed to travel as per RC. He further deposed that he could not
show any definition of unauthorized passenger on the afroresaid lines in the
Statue. He further deposed that insurance company came to know about the
accident in question only when the DAR was received by the company. He
further deposed that the policy of offending vehicle has not been cancelled
after the accident. He admitted that in certain violations, the company has the
right to cancel the insurance policy after gross violations by insured are
noticed by the insurance company. He further deposed that in cases of breach
of condition of insurance policy, they do not cancel the policy as the matter
of routine. He denied the suggestion that the company has the right to cancel
the policy in case of breach of condition of insurance policy. He further
denied the suggestion that in the present case, policy was not cancelled as
there was no breach of condition of the policy. He admitted that the owner of
the goods are permitted to be seated in the offending vehicle alongwith the
goods subject to terms and conditions. He denied the suggestion that there
was no breach in the terms and conditions of insurance policy in the present
case. He further denied the suggestion that insurance company was liable to
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 42 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
pay compensation in the present case as there was no breach in the present
case and they were the third party liable to be compensated as per M.V. Act.
65. At this juncture, it may be noted here that by virtue of Motor
Vehicles (Amendment) Act 1994, Section 147 of the said Act came to be
amended. The expression “including owner of the goods or his authorized
representative carried in the vehicle” was added in Section 147(1)(b)(i) of
M.V. Act. In view of the said amendment carried out in the year 1994, the
risk of owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the
vehicle, is also covered.
66. Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held in the case of
” National Insurance Co Ltd. Vs. Cholleti Bharatamma“, (mentioned supra)
that even owner of the goods or the authorized representative of the owner of
goods, are required to sit in the cabin of the insured vehicle and not with the
goods in the rear portion, in order to claim protection U/s 147 of the M.V Act
1988. Considering the fact that deceased as well as injured persons in the
present case were undisputedly not travelling in the cabin of the vehicle, it is
concluded that they were unauthorized/gratuitous passengers in the insured
vehicle i.e. vehicle bearing registration no. DL1LT-3333.
67. This brings me down to the next question as to whether in case
of gratuitous passenger, insurance company should be absolved from its
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 43 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
liability to pay the compensation amount or it should be granted recovery
rights. In the above noted decisions relied by counsel for insurance company,
it has been held that insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability
to pay the compensation amount in such a situation. It may be noted that in
judgments titled ” National Insurance Co Ltd Vs. Baljeet Kaur & Ors.” and “
Singh Ram Vs, Nirmala & Ors.” which have been delivered by three Judges
Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court, it is seen in Baljeet Kaur (supra), deceased
was found to be travelling as passenger in goods vehicle and it was held in
para 21 of the judgment that insurance company should satisfy the awarded
amount in favour of the claimant and to recover the same from the owner of
the vehicle.
68. Further, in a recent judgment titled ” Kaminiben & Ors. Vs. The
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.” passed by Hon’ble Apex Court, it is held
as under:-
10. In the present case, the deceased was travelling in the
subject tempo along with Ganesh Idol, which was taken for
immersion in Narmada River. Thus, the dominant purpose
for hiring the vehicle was not for travelling but for carrying
the Ganesh idol for immersion. Travelling in the vehicle
was only incidental, therefore, at best, the deceased can be
treated as gratuitous passenger travelling with his goods
(Ganesh idol). This being the circumstance, we rely on the
judgment in the matter of Manuara Khatun & Ors. (supra),
wherein this Court has held thus in paragraph Nos. 15 and
16:-
“15. This question also fell for consideration recently
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 44 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul
[National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul, (2013) 2
SCC 41 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 968 : (2013) 1 SCC
(Cri) 812 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 399] wherein this
Court took note of entire previous case law on the
subject mentioned above and examined the question
in the context of Section 147 of the Act. While
allowing the appeal filed by the insurance company
by reversing the judgment [Saju P. Paul v. National
Insurance Co., 2011 SCC OnLine Ker 3791:2012 ACJ
1852] of the High Court, it was held on facts that 3
.2025 INSC 1219 since the victim was travelling in
offending vehicle as “gratuitous passenger” and
hence, the insurance company cannot be held liable to
suffer the liability arising out of accident on the
strength of the insurance policy. However, this Court
keeping in view the benevolent object of the Act and
other relevant factors arising in the case, issued the
directions against the insurance company to pay the
awarded sum to the claimants and then to recover the
said sum from the insured in the same proceedings by
applying the principle of “pay and recover”.
69. Similar view has been taken by two Judges Bench of Hon’ble
Apex Court in the cases Manuara Khatun & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh &
Ors., 2017 ACJ 1031 (SC) & Shivaraj Vs. Rajendra & Anr., Civil Appeal
Nos. 8278-8279 of 2018 decided on 05.09.2018 by Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India as also by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in recent decision in the case of
“Bhom Singh & Anr. Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd. & Anr.”, MAC
APP No. 81/18 decided on 27.07.18 by Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 45 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
70. While applying the dictum of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex
Court as well as by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the above referred decisions
to the facts of the present case, it is held that the insurance company is liable
to satisfy the third party risk by paying the compensation amount at the first
instance and thereafter, to recover the said amount from the insured i.e.
respondent no. 2. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF
71. In view of my findings on issues no. 1 & 2, following order is
passed after relying upon judgment “United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baby
Raksha & Ors.”, MAC APP. No. 36/2023 on 21.04.2023, on the point of
interest.
a) A sum of Rs. 37,71,000/-(Rupees Thirty Seven Lakhs and
Seventy One Thousand Only) (including interim award amount, if any) in
MAC Petition No. 804/23 alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of
petitioners and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e.
16.12.2023 till the date of its realization.
b) A sum of Rs. 9,54,000/-(Rupees Nine Lakhs and Fifty Four
Thousand only) in MAC Petition No. 805/23 alongwith interest @ 7.5% per
annum in favour of petitioner and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing
of the petition i.e. 16.12.2023 till the date of its realization.
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 46 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
c) A sum of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) in
MAC Petition No. 806/23 alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of
petitioner and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e.
16.12.2023 till the date of its realization.
d) A sum of Rs. 3,04,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs and Four
Thousand only) in MAC Petition No. 807/23 alongwith interest @ 7.5% per
annum in favour of petitioner and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing
of the petition i.e. 16.12.2023 till the date of its realization.
e) A sum of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) in
MAC Petition No. 808/23 alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of
petitioner and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e.
16.12.2023 till the date of its realization.
Issue no. 3 is decided accordingly.
APPORTIONMENT
72. Statements of petitioners in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP were
recorded in both the cases on 18.02.2026. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case and in view of their statements, it is hereby ordered
that out of total compensation amount in MAC Petition No. 535/24, the
petitioner no. 1 Smt. Ravita Devi (Widow of deceased) shall be entitled to
share amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) alongwith
proportionate interest, the petitioner no. 2 to 4 namely Roshani Kumari,
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 47 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
Mastr Kishan and Pooja Kumari (Minor children of deceased) shall be
entitled to share amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- each (Rupees Seven Lakhs Only)
alongwith proportionate interest, the petitioner no. 5 (father of deceased)
shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 1,71,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and
Seventy One Thousand Only) alongwith proportionate interest and the
petitioner no. 6 (mother of deceased) shall be entitled to share amount of
Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) alongwith proportionate interest.
73. In MACP No. 804/23, out of share amount of petitioner no. 1, a
sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) is directed to be
immediately released to her through her saving bank account and remaining
amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of
Rs. 25,000/-each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so
forth, having cumulative interest. The said FDRs be released to the said
petitioner on the monthly basis as aforesaid.
74. In MACP No. 804/23, the entire respective share amount of
petitioner no. 2 to 4 alongwith proportionate interest is directed to be kept in
FDRs for the period they attain the age of majority. However, the said
petitioners are at liberty to withdraw their monthly interest in order to meet
their educational expenses through their mother/natural guardian.
75. In MACP No. 804/23, considering the age of petitioner no. 5 &
6, it is hereby directed that their entire respective share amount alongwith
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 48 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
interest be released to them through their respective saving bank accounts, as
per rules. It is seen that the statement of aforesaid petitioner no. 5 & 6 in
terms of clause 29 MCTAP were not recorded as they have failed to appear
before this Tribunal for recording of their statement. In view of the same,
insurance company is at liberty to deposit respective share amounts of
petitioners no. 5 & 6 in the bank account of this Tribunal with SBI, Rohini
Court Branch, Delhi, in case the said petitioners are failed to provide their
bank details to insurance company within 7 days from today.
76. In MACP No. 805/23, considering the permanent disability
suffered by the petitioner, it is directed that a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees
Five Lakhs Only) is directed to be immediately released to him through his
saving bank account and remaining amount is directed to be kept in the form
of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 20,000/-each for one month, two months,
three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest. The said
FDRs be released to the said petitioner on the monthly basis as aforesaid.
77. In MACP No. 806/23, the entire award amount of Rs. 25,000/-
alongwith interest shall be immediately released to petitioner through his
saving bank account, as per rules.
78. In MACP No. 807/23, the entire award amount of Rs. 3,04,000/-
alongwith interest shall be immediately released to petitioner through his
saving bank account, as per rules.
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 49 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
79. In MACP No. 808/23, the entire award amount of Rs. 25,000/-
alongwith interest shall be immediately released to petitioner through his
saving bank account, as per rules. It is seen that neither petitioner nor his
counsel are appearing before this Tribunal for the last several dates. Thus, his
statement in terms of clause 29 MCTAP could not be recorded. In view of the
same, insurance company is at liberty to deposit the awarded amount in the
present case in the bank account of this Tribunal with SBI, Rohini Court
Branch, Delhi, in case the petitioner is failed to provide his bank details to
insurance company within 7 days from today.
80. Petitioner(s) in all the cases are directed to provide details of
their respective saving bank accounts to the insurance company within 7 days
from the date of award against proper acknowledgment, for transfer of
aforesaid amounts in their respective bank accounts.
81. Respondent no. 3/The SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd., being
insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the aforesaid award
amount in the respective bank accounts of the claimants within 30 days from
the date when details are provided by the claimants as aforesaid, failing
which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a for the
period of delay in terms of directions passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in its
latest judgment titled “Parminder Singh Vs. Honey Goyal & Ors.”, S.L.P. (C)
No. 4484 OF 2020, DOD:18.03.2025.
Ravita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 50 of 51
MACP No. 804/23 to 808/23; FIR No. 455/23; PS. Alipur DOD:06.07.2026
82. Concerned Manager of petitioner’s bank is directed to release
the amount to the petitioners as aforesaid, on completing necessary
formalities as per rules. He is further directed to keep the remaining amount
in fixed deposit, if any, in terms of aforesaid directions and send compliance
report to this Court. He is also directed to ensure that no loan, advance or
pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of
the Court. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioners and also to
counsel for the insurance company for compliance. Petitioners are also
directed to provide copy of this award to their bank Manager for compliance.
Form XV, XVI & Form XVII in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as
Annexure-A. Copy of order be also sent to concerned CJM/JMFC and DLSA
as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP. Signed copy of this Award be placed on
the judicial record of MAC Petition No. 805/23 to 808/23, as per the rules.
Digitally signed
by RICHA
MANCHANDA
RICHA
MANCHANDA Date:
2026.07.06
Announced in the open 14:52:09
+0530
Court on 06.07.2026
(RICHA MANCHANDA)
Judge MACT-2 (North)
Rohini Courts, DelhiRavita & Ors., Ram Shankar Sahu, Virendra Kumar,
Shivaji Sahu & Ramesh Sahu Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Page 51 of 51
