Delhi District Court
Rani And Ors vs M/S Shri Ram Gen Ins Co Ltd on 13 April, 2026
Rani vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEPIKA SINGH, PRESIDING
OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MACT no. 701/18
UNIQUE ID No.: DLNW01-012301-2018
LRs of deceased Harichandra:-
1. Rani W/o Late Sh. Harichandra
2. Asta d/o Sh. Harichandra
3. Shiva S/o Late Sh. Harichandra,
(petitioner no. 2 and 3 are minor through her mother
petitioner no. 1 being natural guardian)
R/o Village Durkhurum PS Garautha, District Jhansi
UP-284203
........ Petitioners/claimants
Versus
1. M/s Sri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Plot no. B-08, Unit No. 402, 403, 4th Floor,
GD ITL Tower, Netaji Subhash Place, PS
Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi-110034.
....... Insurance Company/R1
2. Mohd. Shadan @ Mohd Shadab
S/o Mohd. Iqbal, R/o A-26, Jhuggi Basti
Goyla Dairy, PS Chhawla, Delhi-110071
.............Owner/R2
3. Joginder S/o Sh. Dharamvir
R/o Village Durkhuru, PS Garautha, District
Jhansi, UP-284203. .............driver/R3
4. Smt. Dhanti W/o Late Sh. Brij Pal
(now deceased through her LRs)
A. Baboo Lal S/o Sh. Brij Lal
MACT no. 701/18 Page 1 of35
Rani vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.
R/o H. no. 144, Duurukhuru, Alam Pura,
Jhansi, Gursarai, UP
B. Dharamraj S/o Brij Lal
C. Kishori S/o Brij Lal
Both R/o H. No. 136, Dukhuroo, Jhansi
Dumrai, UP.
......... Proforma respondent
..... Respondents
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 14.11.2018
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 08.04.2026
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.04.2026
FORM - V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE
MENTIONED IN THE AWARD AS PER FORMAT
REFERRED IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
DELHI HIGH COURT IN FAO 842/2003 RAJESH TYAGI Vs.
JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018.
1. Date of the accident 11.04.2018
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the Petition was filed
investigating officer to the Claims
Tribunal
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the 04.02.2019
investigating officer to the insurance
company.
4. Date of filing of Report under section Petition was
173 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan filed.
Magistrate
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Petition was filed
Information Report (DAR) by the
MACT no. 701/18 Page 2 of35
Rani vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.
investigating Officer before Claims
Tribunal
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Petition was filed
Insurance Company
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant Petition was filed
(s).
8. Whether DAR was complete in all Petition was filed
respects?
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR Petition was filed
removed later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the Petition was filed
documents filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or Petition was filed
deficiency on the part of the
Investigating Officer? If so, whether
any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated 04.02.2019
Officer by the insurance Company.
13. Name, address and contact number of Sh. Pankaj
the Designated Officer of the Insurance Sharma, Ld.
Company. Counsel for the
insurance
company
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Yes
Insurance Company submitted his
report within 30 days of the DAR?
(Clause 22)
15. Whether the insurance company No
admitted the liability? If so, whether the
Designated Officer of the insurance
company fairly computed the
compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or No
deficiency on the part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance Company? If
so, whether any action/direction
warranted?
MACT no. 701/18 Page 3 of35
Rani vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to N/A
the offer of the Insurance Company .
18. Date of the Award 13.04.2026
19. Whether the award was passed with the No
consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed Yes
to open saving bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were 02.05.2019
directed to open saving bank account (s)
near his place of residence and produce
PAN Card and Aadhar Card and the
direction to the bank not issue any
cheque book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an endorsement to
this effect on the passbook(s).
22. Date on which the claimant (s) 21.01.2016
produced the passbook of their saving
bank account near the place of their
residence along with the endorsement,
PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned
Claimant(s) above
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Petitioner-
claimant(s) and the address of the bank (1) Rani
with IFSC Code Devi-377181827
10, SBI, Rohini
Courts Branch,
Delhi IFSC no.
SBIN0010323
(2)Asta-5853155
481, (3)
Shiva-586384963
7 with Central
Bank of India,
Miya Pur Branch,
District
Hamirpur, UP,
IFSC NO.
MACT no. 701/18 Page 4 of35
Rani vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.
CBIN0283395
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank Yes
account(s) is near his/her place of
residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined Yes
at the time of passing of the award to
ascertain his/their financial condition.
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR 41065170303,
number, IFSC Code, name and branch 110002427,
of the bank of the Claims Tribunal in SBIN0010323,
which the award amount is to be SBI, Rohini
deposited/transferred. (in terms of order Courts, Delhi
dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in FAO 842/2003, Rajesh Tyagi
vs. Jaibir Singh.
JUDGMENT
1. The claim petition in the present case was filed under
Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as M.V. Act), on 14.11.2018,
seeking compensation in the sum of Rs. 50,00,000/-, with
interest at the rate of 18% per annum, in respect of demise
of Harichandra, in a road traffic accident. Perusal of the
record reveals that FIR No. 154, PS Kundli, District
Sonipat, Haryana, was registered, for the alleged
commission of offence for causing death, not amounting to
culpable homicide, by rash and negligent driving of a
truck, bearing registration number HR14N-9296, on a
public road, punishable under Section 279/304A of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as IPC).
Subsequently, charge sheet against respondent no. 3 was
filed under section 279/304A IPC, before concerned Ld.
MACT no. 701/18 Page 5 of35
Rani vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.
Judicial Magistrate.
2. The brief facts of the case, as discernible from the claim
petition and documents of the legal heirs/legal
representatives of the deceased (hereinafter referred as
LR’s of the deceased/petitioners/claimants), are that, on
11.04.2018, at about 6.30 pm, the deceased namely
Harichandra, was driving his motor cycle bearing
registration no. DL11-ST-1717, (herein after referred as
victim’s vehicle) and he reached at Katlupur Mod, Nahari,
District Sonipat, Haryana, his motorcycle was hit by a
Tractor, bearing registration no. HR13-L-9608 (herein
after referred as offending vehicle). It was further averred
that the offending vehicle was driven by its driver Joginder
(herein after referred as driver/respondent no.3/R3), in a
rash and negligent manner and without caring for traffic
rules. It was further averred that as a result of the said
impact, Harichandra sustained injuries, after which, he was
taken to Civil Hospital, Sonipat, where he was declared as
‘brought dead’.
3. It was further stated that the postmortem on the body of the
deceased Harichandra was conducted at Mortuary Civil
Hospital, Sonipat, vide PMR No. PM/YG/23/2018, dated
12.04.2018, wherein cause of his death was due to
haemmorrhage and shock due to injuries described which
are antemortem and sufficient to cause death.
MACT no. 701/18 Page 6 of35
Rani vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.
4. As per petition and documents annexed therewith,
R2/Mohd. Shadan @ Mohd. Shadab was the registered
owner of the offending vehicle and the same was insured
with Sri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd.
(hereinafter referred as the insurance company/R1), vide
policy number 10003/31/18/11787, valid for the period
07.06.2017 till 06.06.2018.
5. In the written statement filed by R1/insurance company,
R1 admitted that offending vehicle was insured with R1 in
the name of R2 vide policy No. 10003/31/18/117871 for
the period from 07.06.2017 to 06.06.2018. It was further
averred that DL no. 45249 issued by Sonipat Transport
Authority seems to be fake. It was further averred that the
R1 is not liable to pay anything to petitioners.
6. Joint written statement was filed by R2 and R3, wherein
they denied the involvement of the offending vehicle in the
case accident, as well as his rashness or negligence, in
driving the offending vehicle, resulting in the case
accident. Further, all the contents of petition are denied
and stated to be false.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed by the Learned Predecessor, vide order dated
10.10.2019:-
MACT no. 701/18 Page 7 of35
Rani vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.
1. Whether on 11.04.2018 at about 6:30 p.m. at Katlupur
Mod Nahari, District Sonipat, Haryana, one tractor with
trolly bearing registration no. HR13L-9608, which was
being driven rashly and negligently by Joginder, hit a
motorcycle bearing registration no. HR11-ST-1717 and
caused the death of Harichandra?OPP
2. Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to
what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
8. During the pendency of case, proforma respondent no. 4
expired and her LRs were impleaded vide order dated
30.05.2025.
9. After framing of issues, opportunities were given to all the
parties, to prove their respective averments, by leading
evidence in support of the same.
10. In support of their claim petition, the petitioners examined
petitioner no. 1 namely Rani as PW1. She has led her
evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. Her deposition
qua the accident in question and death of the deceased, as a
result of the injuries, sustained in the case accident, is
reiteration of the contents of the petition. PW1 deposed
that at the time of accident, the deceased was 33 years old.
PW1 further deposed that the deceased left behind her, his
minor daughter Asta, his minor son Shiva and Smt. Dhanti
MACT no. 701/18 Page 8 of35
Rani vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.
his mother as, his legal heirs and they are fully dependent
on the income of the deceased. She further deposed that at
the time of his death, the deceased was working as a Raj
Mistri and self employed working in Narela Area and was
earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. In her evidence, PW1 has
placed reliance upon certified copy of criminal case record
as Ex. PW1/A and Copy of her aadhar cards, her children
Astha and Shiva and Pan cards as Ex. PW1/2 (colly.)
11. PW1 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for R4 wherein
she deposed that she was married about nine years ago in
the month of February but she does not remember the year.
PW1 further deposed that she is having photographs of her
marriage and she can produce the same, if required. PW1
denied the suggestion that she is not the legally wedded
wife of deceased Sh. Harichandra. PW1 denied the
suggestion that she was priorly married to some other
person before the marriage with late Sh. Harichandra. PW1
deposed that her father in law has expired prior to their
marriage.
12. PW1 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for R1/insurance
company wherein she deposed that she is not an
eyewitness of the case accident. PW1 denied the
suggestion that her deceased husband was unemployed at
the time of accident. PW1 deposed that she cannot show
any document of his working as a Raj Mistri. PW1 further
MACT no. 701/18 Page 9 of35
Rani vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.
deposed that they do not own any land in her native
village. PW1 denied the suggestion that they own
agriculture land in their native village and earning their
livelihood through same. PW1 deposed that her husband
was aged about 33 years of age at the time of accident. She
placed reliance upon copy of Aadhar card of her husband
as Ex.PW1/R1PX(OSR). PW1 denied the suggestion that
she and other family members were dependent upon the
deceased. PW1 denied the suggestion that she has filed
false and fabricated documents in support of her case.
13. The petitioners further examined SI Sukhbir Singh,
Sonipat, Haryana as PW2. He deposed that he is a
summoned witness and he is investigating officer in the
present matter. PW2 deposed that on 12.04.2018, he was
posted as SI at PP Bahrotha, District Sonepat, Haryana and
on that day, he was on patrolling duty with ASI Ramesh
and at about 3:30 am, upon reaching at Village Chhetera
Majra, he had received a telephonic call regarding the case
accident from PP Bahrotha, District Sonepat, Haryana and
thereafter he alongwith ASI Ramesh had reached at the
spot, situated at Village Nahri, where they found that one
motorcycle bearing registration No. DL11-ST-1717 make
Bajaj CT-100 in an accidental condition and one dead body
of Hari Chander. PW2 deposed that one person by the
name of Pradeep was also found at the spot, who identified
the dead body as Hari Chander and told the entire facts of
the case accident. PW2 further deposed that during the
MACT no. 701/18 Page 10 of35
Rani vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.
investigation, one person by the name of Bhura had told
him that the case accident had occurred by a tractor
bearing registration No.HR13-L-9608, which was being
driven rashly and negligently by its driver/Jogender and
had hit the above motorcycle of the deceased. PW2
deposed that after completion of investigation, he had filed
the charge sheet in the concerned court and as per his
investigation the occurrence of the case accident had
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver
Jogender. He has placed reliance upon the copy of
statement of eye witness, namely, Bhura as Ex.PW2/1.
14. PW2 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for R1 wherein
he admitted that he was not an eye witness of the case
accident. PW2 deposed that as per his investigation the
deceased was not having any valid DL. PW2 deposed that
case U/s 279/304 A IPC was registered against the said
Jogender.
15. The respondents failed to lead any evidence, in their
defence. Therefore, RE was closed.
16. This Tribunal has heard the final arguments, as advanced
by Ld. Counsels for the parties.
17. On appreciation of evidence, as adduced by the parties, in
support of their respective versions, the issue-wise findings
MACT no. 701/18 Page 11 of35
Rani vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.
of this Tribunal are reproduced herein below:
ISSUE No. 1
Whether on 11.04.2018 at about 6:30 p.m. at Katlupur
Mod Nahari, District Sonipat, Haryana, one tractor with
trolly bearing registration no. HR13L-9608, which was
being driven rashly and negligently by Joginder, hit a
motorcycle bearing registration no. HR11-ST-1717 and
caused the death of Harichandra?OPP
18. The onus of proving this issue, on preponderance of
probabilities, was upon the petitioners/claimants.
19. In the present matter, perusal of contents of petition and
FIR reveals that driver of the offending vehicle/R3 was
negligent, as offending vehicle came from opposite
direction at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent
manner and hit the motorcycle of victim with great force.
20. Further, even by applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur,
which envisages that the accident speaks for itself, this
Tribunal can look into the extent of damage suffered by the
vehicles involved in the accident as well as the nature of
injuries suffered by the victims, so as to ascertain the cause
behind the accident and to arrive at a finding, as to whether
the accident in question had occurred due to negligence of
the driver of the offending vehicle or not.
MACT no. 701/18 Page 12 of35
Rani vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.
21. Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Ravi Kapur vs State of
Rajasthan Criminal Appeal number1838 of 2009, decided
on 16 August, 2012, had reiterated that the doctrine of res
ipsa loquitur is applicable in cases, wherein the accident in
question speaks for itself and there are reasonable ground
to arrive at a finding that the accident could not have
occurred without any negligence on the part of the driver
of the offending vehicle. Relevant extract of observations
made in para 13 of the judgement passed in the case are
noteworthy in this context and are reproduced herein
below:
“13. The other principle that is pressed in aid
by the courts in such cases is the doctrine of res
ipsa loquitur. This doctrine serves two purposes –
one that an accident may by its nature be more
consistent with its being caused by negligence for
which the opposite party is responsible than by any
other causes and that in such a case, the mere fact
of the accident is prima facie evidence of such
negligence. Secondly, it is to avoid hardship in
cases where the claimant is able to prove the
accident but cannot prove how the accident
occurred. The courts have also applied the
principle of res ipsa loquitur in cases where no
direct evidence was brought on record. The Act
itself contains a provision which concerns with the
consequences of driving dangerously alike the
provision in the IPC that the vehicle is driven in a
manner dangerous to public life. Where a person
does such an offence he is punished as per the
provisions of Section 184 of the Act. The courts
have also taken the concept of ‘culpable rashness’
and ‘culpable negligence’ into consideration in
cases of road accidents. ‘Culpable rashness’ is
acting with the consciousness that mischievous and
illegal consequences may follow but with the hope
MACT no. 701/18 Page 13 of35
Rani vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.
that they will not and often with the belief that the
actor has taken sufficient precautions to prevent
their happening. The imputability arises from
acting despite consciousness (luxuria). ‘Culpable
negligence’ is acting without the consciousness
that the illegal and mischievous effect will follow,
but in circumstances which show that the actor has
not exercised the caution incumbent upon him and
that if he had, he would have had the
consciousness. The imputability arises from the
neglect of civic duty of circumspection. In such a
case the mere fact of accident is prima facie
evidence of such negligence. This maxim suggests
that on the circumstances of a given case the res
speaks and is eloquent because the facts stand
unexplained, with the result that the natural and
reasonable inference from the facts, not a
conjectural inference, shows that the act is
attributable to some person’s negligent conduct.
[Ref. Justice Rajesh Tandon’s ‘An Exhaustive
Commentary on Motor Vehicles Act, 1988’ (First
Edition, 2010].”
22. In the case of Sayad Akbar vs. State of Karnataka 1980
SCR (1) 25, 1979 AIR 1848 decided on 25.07.1979 , it was
held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that when an
accident is of such a nature which could not have occurred
without the negligence of the person having management
or control over the offending vehicle, then, the doctrine of
res ipsa loquitur can be invoked to arrive at a finding of
negligence against the driver of the offending vehicle, in
the absence of other direct evidence, pointing towards the
guilt of the driver of the offending vehicle. Relevant
extract of the observation made in Sayad Akbar vs. State
of Karnataka is reproduced herein below:
MACT no. 701/18 Page 14 of35
Rani vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.
“As a rule, mere proof that an event has happened
or an accident has occurred, the cause of which is
unknown, is not evidence of negligence. But the
peculiar circumstances constituting the event or
accident, in a particular case, may themselves
proclaim in concordant, clear and unambiguous
voices the negligence of somebody as the cause of
the event or accident. It is to such cases that the
maxim res ipsa loquitur may apply, if the cause of
the accident is unknown and no reasonable
explanation as to the cause is coming forth from
the defendant. To emphasise the point, it may be
reiterated, that in such cases, the event or accident
must be of a kind which does not happen in the
ordinary course of things if those who have the
management and control use due care. But,
according to some decisions, satisfaction of this
condition alone is not sufficient for res ipsa to
come into play and it has to be further satisfied that
the event which caused the accident was within the
defendant’s control. The reason for this second
requirement is that where the defendant has control
of the thing caused the injury, he is in a better
position than the plaintiff to explain how the
accident occurred. Instances of such special kind of
accidents which “tell their own story” of being off-
springs of negligence, are furnished by cases, such
as where a motor vehicle mounts or projects over a
pavement and hurts somebody there or travelling
in the vehicle; one car ramming another from
behind, or even a head-on-collision on the wrong
side of the road. See per Lord Normand in
Barkway v. South Wales Transport Co.(1); Cream
v. Smith(2) and Richlev v. Fanll(3).”
23. Besides, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi had also
elaborately explained the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and
discussed its applicability in the cases of road traffic
MACT no. 701/18 Page 15 of35
Rani vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.
accident in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Gita
Bindal & Ors. MAC.APP.No.179/2004 and CM
No.5285/2008 on 12 October, 2012 in following words:
“12. The principle of res ipsa loquitur laid down in
the aforesaid four judgments is summarized as under:
i. Res ipsa loquitur means that the accident speaks for
itself. In such cases, it is sufficient for the plaintiff to
prove the accident and nothing more.
ii. Where the thing is shown to be under the
management of the defendant or his servants, and the
accident is such as in the ordinary course of things
does not happen if those who have the management
use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence in the
absence of explanation by the defendants, that the
accident arose from want of care.
iii. There are two requirements to attract res ipsa
loquitur, (i) that the “thing” causing the damage be
under the control of the defendant and (ii) that the
accident must be such as would not in the ordinary
course of things have happened without negligence.
iv. Res ipsa loquitur is an exception to the normal rule
that mere happening of an accident is no evidence of
negligence on the part of the driver. This maxim
means the mere proof of accident raises the
presumption of negligence unless rebutted by the
wrongdoer.
v. In some cases considerable hardship is caused to
the plaintiff as the true cause of the accident is not
known to him, but is solely within the knowledge of
the defendant who caused it, the plaintiff can prove
the accident, but cannot prove how it happened to
establish negligence. This hardship is to be avoided
by applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur is that
the accident speaks for itself or tells its own story.
There are cases in which the accident speaks for itself
MACT no. 701/18 Page 16 of35
Rani vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.
so that it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove the
accident and nothing more.
vi. The effect of doctrine of ‘res ipsa loquitur’ is to
shift the onus to the defendant in the sense that the
doctrine continues to operate unless the defendant
calls credible evidence which explains how the
accident or mishap may have occurred without
negligence, and it seems that the operation of the rule
is not displaced merely by expert evidence showing,
theoretically, possible ways in which the accident
might have happened without the defendant’s
negligence. The doctrine of ‘res ipsa loquitur’,
therefore, plays a very significant role in the law of
tort and it is not the relic of the past, but the living
force of the day in determining the tortuous liability.
vii. The principal function of the maxim is to prevent
injustice which would result if a plaintiff were
invariably compelled to prove the precise cause of the
accident and the defendant responsible for it, even
when the facts bearing in the matter are at the outset
unknown to him and often within the knowledge of
the defendant.
viii. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has been applied
by the Courts in the following cases:-
Where victim was sleeping on a cot placed in front
of his house by the side of the road when the
offending vehicle dashed against the cot and injured
the claimant.
Where a bus had dashed against a tree, causing death
of a passenger.
Where a vehicle negotiating a sharp “U” turn dashed
against a tree, moved away to a distance of 150 feet
from the road and then overturned.
Where a vehicle went-off the road, hit against the
tree and rolled down killing a passenger.
MACT no. 701/18 Page 17 of35
Rani vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.
Where a truck dashed against the victim standing by
roadside.
Where a truck came at breakneck speed without blowing
horn and dashed against a 9 years old boy, who was
walking on the extreme left side of the road, from behind
resulting in instantaneous death.”
24. Although, R2 and R3 contested the claim petition, by filing
written statement, in which, they denied involvement of the
offending vehicle, in the case accident, or any rashness or
negligence on his part, resulting in the case accident.
Further, R3 even failed to cross examine and failed to lead
any positive evidence, to rebut the fact that accident has
not taken place with the offending vehicle. Thus, the
evidence as led by the petitioners as well as material
available on record, on the said aspect went unrebutted and
same prima facie proves, that the accident, in which the
deceased has sustained fatal injuries, has taken place, due
to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by
R1.
25. PW2/IO was although cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for
the insurance company/R1 but, R1 also failed to impeach
the credibility of PW2 and failed to elicit any admission,
from the testimony of PW2, so as to prove that the alleged
accident had not taken place, with the offending vehicle or
due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle
by R1.
MACT no. 701/18 Page 18 of35
Rani vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.
26. Further, there is nothing on record, which will prove that
R3 was falsely implicated in this case by the IO, in
connivance with the petitioners. Further, R3 also failed to
prove that he has ever approached to any higher authority,
with respect to his false implication in the present case.
Consequently, in view of the criminal case record, wherein,
R3 was shown as the driver of the offending vehicle,
responsible for causing the accident in question, it stands
duly proved, that the accident in question, has taken place,
due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle
by R1.
27. The fact that the deceased Harichandra suffered fatal
injuries in the case accident, stands duly corroborated by
the post mortem report of the deceased, as per which,
cause of death was due to haemmorrhage and shock due to
injuries described, which are antemortem and sufficient to
cause death.
28. In view of the above said discussion, criminal case record,
including charge sheet and testimony of PW2/IO, it has
been duly proved by the petitioners, on preponderance of
probabilities, that the case accident had been caused by
R3, who was driving the offending vehicle i.e. tractor
bearing registration no. HR13L-9608, hit the motorcycle
bearing registration no. HR11-ST-1717, in a rash and
negligent manner, at the above said date, time and place,
MACT no. 701/18 Page 19 of35
Rani vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.
due to which, the victim Harichandra has sustained fatal
injuries.
Issue no. 1 is accordingly decided in favour of petitioners
and against the respondents.
ISSUE No. 2
Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what
amount and from whom?OPP
29. In view of the findings of this Tribunal, qua issue no.1
regarding negligence of R1, resulting in the occurrence of
the case accident, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion
that the petitioners/claimants are entitled, for
compensation, on the account of fatal injuries, sustained by
the deceased Harichandra, in the above-mentioned road
traffic accident. This Tribunal shall now examine the entire
evidence including the documents of the petitioners/
claimants, for the purpose of arriving at a finding about the
quantum of compensation, to which the petitioners/
claimants are entitled.
30. Section 168 of the Act enjoins 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. It has to be borne in mind that the
compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza
nor it should be niggardly.
MACT no. 701/18 Page 20 of35
Rani vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
31. To prove this aspect, Ms. Rani, wife of the deceased, got
herself examined as PW1. PW1 deposed that the deceased
left behind her, Asta minor daughter, Shiva minor son and
his mother Smt Dhanti, as his legal heirs and they are fully
dependent on the income of the deceased. She further
deposed that at the time of his death, the deceased was
working as Raj Mistri and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month.
32. But, PW1 failed to prove that the deceased was self
employed or earning Rs. 15,000/- p.m, as alleged, by
placing on record any document. PW1 further failed to
prove the educational qualification of the deceased or any
certificate, so as to prove that the deceased has acquired
any technical skills. Therefore, the income of the deceased,
can be assessed, only as per minimum wages, payable to
an unskilled person.
33. The petitioners has placed on record, copy of Aadhar Card
of the deceased Ex. PW1/R1PX, as per which, at the time
of accident, the deceased was shown as resident of
Durkhuroo, Dumrai, Jhansi, Garautha, UP. Accordingly, it
stands proved, that at the time of accident, the deceased
was residing in UP. Therefore, the monthly income of the
deceased, at the relevant time, has to be calculated, as per
minimum wages, payable to an unskilled person, in the
area of UP, as on the date of occurrence of the case
accident i.e. on 11.04.2018, which was Rs. 7,613.42 per
MACT no. 701/18 Page 21 of35
Rani vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.
month.
34. As per the case of the petitioners, the deceased was aged
about 33 years, at the time of accident. In her evidence,
PW1 has placed reliance on Aadhar card of the deceased,
in which date of birth of the deceased has been mentioned
as 01.01.1985. As the accident in question has taken place
on 11.04.2018 therefore, the age of the deceased, as on the
date of accident is accepted as 33 years, 03 months and 10
days. 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.
35. Considering the age of deceased at the time of accident,
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.” SLP (civil) no. 25590/2014, 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 02.11.2017.
36. PW1 has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.
PW1/A, that she as well as Petitioner no. 2, 3 and
MACT no. 701/18 Page 22 of35
Rani vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.
proforma R4 were totally dependent upon the deceased, at
the time of accident. During the course of cross-
examination of PW1, by Ld. Counsel for the insurance
company/R1, R1 failed to elicit any admission, to the
effect that the petitioners/proforma R4 were gainfully
employed and not dependent upon the deceased.
Therefore, petitioner no. 1 to 3 and proforma R4 are
considered as dependant legal heirs of the deceased, at the
time of accident and are entitled to receive compensation,
under this head. In such circumstances, the deceased was
likely to spare 1/4th of his income, for his personal and
living expenses and to contribute the remaining 3/4 th of his
income, towards household expenses/maintenance of his
family members.
37. Hence, there has to be deduction of one fourth, as held in
the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 ACJ 1298 SC.
Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to
Rs. 15,34,865.28 ( 7,613.42 + 40% (3,045.36) = 10,658.78
– 1/4th (2,664.69) = 7,994.09 x 12 x 16). Hence, a sum
of Rs. 15,34,865.28/- is awarded under this head in favour
of the petitioners no. 1 to 3 and proposed R4 and since,
proposed R4 got expired, during the pendency of
proceedings, therefore, her share will be apportioned, in
favour of petitioner no. 1 to 3 and LRs of proposed R4.
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
38. After the celebrated judgment of “National Insurance
MACT no. 701/18 Page 23 of35
Rani vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. mentioned supra
and recent judgment titled New India Assurance Company
Limited versus Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of
2020 dated 07.09.2020, the petitioners are not entitled to
be compensated under this head. Further Hon’ble Delhi
High Court in appeal titled as “Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors“, mentioned
supra has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the
judgment that the constitution bench decision in Pranay
Sethi (supra) does not recognize any other non pecuniary
head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is
being awarded under this head.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
39. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in case titled as, Praney 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 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 aforecited binding law the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Hasina Yasmin & Ors. vs. 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
MACT no. 701/18 Page 24 of35
Rani vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.
accident had occurred after 2017. Accordingly, a sum of
Rs. 1,60,000/- (Rs. 40,000/- X 4) is awarded in favour of
petitioners under this head and since, proforma respondent
no. 4 got expired, during the pendency of proceedings,
therefore, her share will be apportioned, in favour of
petitioners 1 to 3 and LRs of proforma R4.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
40. 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 “National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi &
Ors.” mentioned supra, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- each towards
loss of estate and funeral expenses is awarded in favour of
petitioners and proforma R4, under this head and since,
proforma respondent no. 4 got expired, during the
pendency of proceedings, therefore, her share will be
apportioned, in favour of petitioners 1 to 3 and LRs of
proforma R4.
Petitioners/claimants are accordingly entitled to compensation
computed as under:
Loss of financial dependency Rs. 15,34,865.28/-
Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Consortium Rs. 1,60,000/-
Loss of Love and Affection Nil.
________________
Total Rs. 17,24,865.28
(Rounded off to Rs. 17,24,866/-
________________
MACT no. 701/18 Page 25 of35
(Rupees Seventeen Lacs Twenty four Thousand Eight
Hundred Sixty Six only).
41. In respect of entitlement of the petitioners, to interest on
the awarded amount, it is noteworthy that the Hon’ble
Apex Court had in the case of Municipal Corporation of
Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012
ACJ 48 (SC) had observed that the victims of Uphaar
Tragedy be awarded compensation with interest @ 9% per
annum. The present matter is pending trial since
14.11.2018 and the rate of interest of fixed deposits in
Nationalized banks has fluctuated/dropped several times
during the pendency of the present proceedings. Therefore,
in the interest of justice and keeping in view the judgment
titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Baby Raksha
& Ors MAC APP. No. 36/2023 passed by Hon’ble High
Court on 21.04.2023, this Tribunal is of the opinion that
the claimants/petitioners are entitled to interest at the
prevailing bank rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of
filing of petition, that is, with effect from 14.11.2018 till
realization of the compensation amount.
42. The amount of interim award, if any, shall however be
deducted from the above amount, if the same has already
been paid to the petitioners.
LIABILITY
43. In the case in hand, Shriram General Insurance Company
MACT no. 701/18 Page 26 of35
Rani vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.
Ltd./R1 in its written statement has raised the defence that
DL no. 45249 issued by Sonipat, Haryana transport
authority filed by claimant seems to be fake. Since,
R1/insurance company failed to prove that the said license
was not genuine therefore, it stands duly proved that at the
time of accident, R1 was holding valid and effective
driving license. Therefore, considering the fact that
admittedly the offending vehicle was duly insured with the
insurance company/R1, hence R1 is liable to pay the entire
compensation amount to the petitioners as per law.
44. Accordingly, in the case in hand, in terms of order dated
16.05.2017 of Hon’ble High Court by Hon’ble Mr. Justice
J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and
Ors., Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd/R1 is directed to
deposit the awarded amount of Rs. 17,24,866/- within 30
days from today within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal,
that is, State Bank of India, Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi
along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the
date of filing of the petition till notice of deposition of the
awarded amount to be given by R1 to the petitioners and
his advocates and to show or deposit the receipt of the
acknowledgment with the Nazir as per rules. R1 is further
directed to deposit the awarded amount in the above said
bank by means of cheque drawn in the name of above said
bank along with the name of the claimants mentioned
therein. The said bank is further directed to keep the said
amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimants
MACT no. 701/18 Page 27 of35
Rani vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.
approach the bank for disbursement, so that the awarded
amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of
the cheque.
APPORTIONMENT
45. Separate statement of petitioners in terms of clause 29
MCTAP was recorded on 21.01.2026 regarding savings
bank account of the petitioners, with no loan, cheque book
and ATM/debit card. I have heard the petitioners regarding
financial needs of the petitioners and in view of the
judgment in the case of General Manager, Kerala State
Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas and
Others, 1994 (2) SC, 1631, for appropriate investments to
safeguard the amount from being frittered away by the
beneficiaries owing to their ignorance, illiteracy and being
susceptible to exploitation.
46. It is deemed appropriate by this court after hearing
Learned counsels for all parties that maximum amount of
compensation be kept in FDRs and only a very small
amount be released to the claimants. Keeping in view the
facts and circumstances of the case, the statement made by
the petitioners, it is hereby directed that on realization of
the award amount, the compensation to the Petitioners as
well as LRs of proforma respondent no. 4 be distributed as
follows:-
MACT no. 701/18 Page 28 of35
Rani vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.
Sl. Name/No. of Relations Share of Release Amount Period of
No petitioner hip with amount of of award kept in FDR
deceased award of FDR
amount.
1 Rani Devi Wife Rs. Rs. Rs. One
10,24,866/- 3,41,532/ 7,00,000/- month to
+ - 40
Rs.16,666/- months
=
10,41,532/-
2 Asta Daughter Rs. - Rs. Kept in
3,00,000/- + 3,16,666/- the form
Rs.16,666/- of FDR
= Rs. till she
3,16,666/- attains the
age of
majority
3 Shiva Son Rs. - Rs. Kept in
3,00,000/- + 3,16,667/- the form
Rs.16,667/- of FDR
= Rs. till he
3,16,667/- attains the
age of
majority
4 Dhanti Mother Rs.
1,00,000/-
A Baboo Lal Rs.16,667/- Kept in
the form
of FDR
B Dharamraj LRs of Rs. 16,667/- Kept in
Dhanti/ Amount withheld the form
Proforma of FDR
R4
C Kishori Rs. 16,667/- Kept in
the form
of FDR
47. The amount as per the arrangement of aforesaid table be
credited in the saving bank accounts of petitioner Rani
Devi-37718182710, SBI, Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi
IFSC no. SBIN0010323 i.e. the branch near their place of
residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under
MACT no. 701/18 Page 29 of35
Rani vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.
clause 29 MCTAP) and remaining amount of petitioners be
kept in the form of FDRs in term of aforesaid schedule,
with cumulative interest without the facility of advance,
loan and premature withdrawal without the prior
permission of the Tribunal.
48. It shall be subject to the following further conditions and
directions in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 of Hon’ble
Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir
Singh, FAO 842/2003 with respect to fixed deposits :-
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added
in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of
the victim i.e. the saving bank account(s) of the claimant(s)
shall be individual savings account(s) and not a joint
account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank
in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR
number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity
amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing
System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the
claimant/(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amount of the FDR(s) be credited by
Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank
account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence
i.e. above said a/c.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature
discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without
MACT no. 701/18 Page 30 of35
Rani vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.
permission of the court.
(f) The concerned Bank shall not to 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.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank
along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank
official on the pass book(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient
compliance of clause (g) above.
RELIEF
49. As discussed above, Shriram General Insurance Company
Ltd./R1 is directed to deposit the awarded amount of Rs.
17,24,866/-, with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date
of filing of petition that is, 14.11.2018 till realization
within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal that is, SBI, Rohini
Court Branch, Delhi within 30 days from today under
intimation of deposition of the awarded amount to be given
MACT no. 701/18 Page 31 of35
Rani vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.
by R1 to the petitioners and their advocate failing which
the R1 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum
from the period of delay beyond 30 days.
50. R1 is also directed to place on record the proof of deposit
of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect
of deposit of the award amount in the above said bank to
the claimants and complete details in respect of
calculations of interest etc. in the court within 30 days
from today.
51. Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of
non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the
granted time.
52. In terms of directions contained in the order dated
07.12.2018 and subsequent order dated 22.02.2019 of
Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in the case of Rajesh Tyagi
and Ors vs Jaibir Singh and Ors., FAO 842/2003, the copy
of the award be also sent by the Ahlmad of the court to Mr.
Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of
India (as per the list of nodal officers of 21 banks of Indian
Bank’s Association as circulated to the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal vide above mentioned order dated
22.02.2019 of Hon’ble Delhi High Court) who is the Nodal
Officer with contact details (022-22741336/9414048606)
{other details-Personal Banking Business Unit (LIMA)
13th Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road,
MACT no. 701/18 Page 32 of35
Rani vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.
Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021} through email
([email protected]) through the computer branch of
Rohini Courts, Delhi. Ahlmad of the court is directed to
take immediate steps in that regard.
53. A copy of this award be forwarded to the concerned Ld.
JMFC and DLSA in terms of the orders passed by the
Hon’ble High Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi Vs.
Jaibir Singh and Ors. vide order dated 12.12.2014.
In view of the directions contained in order dated
18.01.2018 of Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in FAO no.
842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, statement
of petitioners was also recorded on 21.01.2016, wherein
they had stated that they were entitled to exemption from
deduction of TDS and that they would submit form 15G
to insurance co. so that no TDS is deducted.
54. Form IVA which has been duly filled in has also been
attached herewith. File be consigned to record room as per
rules after compliance of necessary legal formalities. Copy
of order be given to parties for necessary compliance as
per rules. Digitally signed
by DEEPIKA
DEEPIKA SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.04.15
16:44:00 +0530Announced in open court (DEEPIKA SINGH)
on 13th April, 2026 P.O. MACT (N/W)
Rohini Courts, DelhiMACT no. 701/18 Page 33 of35
Rani vs. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.
FORM – IV A
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN
DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 11.04.2018
2. Name of deceased: Harichandra
3. Age of the deceased: 33 years, 03 months and 10 days
at the time of accident.
4. Occupation of the deceased: Not proved.
5. Income of the deceased: Rs. 7,613.42 per month (minimum
wages)
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of
deceased:
S.No. Name Age Relation
(i) Smt. Rani 37 years wife
(ii) Asta Minor daughter
(iii) Shiva Minor Son
(iv) Dhanti through LRs - Mother
(a) Baboo Lal (b) Dharamraj (c)
(Brothers)
Kishori
Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs. 7,613.42/-
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) 40% = Rs. 3,045.36
9. Less-Personal expenses of the 1/4
deceased (C )
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs. 10,658.78 - 2,664.69 =
{ (A+B) - C =D}
7,994.09
11. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs. 7,994.09 x 12 =
95,929.08/-
12. Multiplier (E) 16
MACT no. 701/18 Page 34 of35
13. Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE = 7,994.09 x 12 x 16 = Rs.
F)
15,34,865.28/-
14. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
15. Compensation for loss of love and Nil
affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of Rs. 1,60,000/- (40,000×4)
consortium (I)
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs.15,000/-
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs.15,000/-
expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 17,24,865.28 (rounded
(F+G+H+I+J+K =L) off to Rs. 17,24,866)
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 7.5%
21 Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 9,59,456.71
award (M)
22. Total amount including interest Rs. 26,84,322.71 (rounded
(L+M) off to Rs. 26,84,323/-)
23. Award amount released Rs. 3,41,532/-
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs. 23,42,791/-
25. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms of
amount to the claimant (s) (Clause
clause 29 of MCTAP.
29)
26. Next date for compliance of the 12.05.2026
award. (Clause 31)
Digitally signed
by DEEPIKA
Announced in open court (DEEPIKA SINGH) DEEPIKA SINGH
Date:
SINGH
on 13th April 2026 P.O. MACT N/W
2026.04.15
16:44:08
+0530
Rohini Courts, Delhi
MACT no. 701/18 Page 35 of35