Delhi District Court
Rekha(P)F(213/24/Up) vs Mustakeem(Chola) on 20 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010198192024
MACT No. : 910/2024
FIR No. : 213/2024
PS : Chandi Nagar, District Baghpat
u/s : 281/125(B)/106 BNS
1. Ms. Rekha (LR/mother of deceased)
W/o. Sh. Arvind,
R/o. Village Patouli, Aminagar Sarai,
District Baghpat, UP-250606.
2. Sh. Arvind (LR/father of deceased)
S/o. Sh. Ompal,
R/o. Village Patouli, Aminagar Sarai,
District Baghpat, UP-250606.
...Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Mustakeem (driver of the offending vehicle)
S/o. Sh. Shakruddin,
R/o.147, Village Umarpur, District Muzaffarnagar,
U.P.-251318.
2. Sh. Kayyum (owner of the offending vehicle)
S/o. Sh. Ayub,
R/o.Village Islam Nagar, Kairana Rural,
Kairana, SO Muzaffarnagar, Shamli, UP-247776.
3. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Samyak Tower, Plot No.39, 2nd Floor,
Opposite Metro Pillar No.120,
Karol Bagh, Delhi.
RUCHIKA
MACT No.910/2024 SINGLA
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
Page 1 of 40
SINGLA
Date:
2026.05.20
16:20:53 +0530
4. Nodal Officer of Cholamandalam MS Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd.
PS Chandi Nagar, District Baghpat, UP.
...Respondents
Date of filing of claim petition : 20.12.2024
Judgment reserved on : 23.04.2026
Date of Award : 20.05.2026
AWAR D
1. The present claim petition was filed on 20.12.2024. The
Road Traffic Accident in question took place on 02.11.2024 at about
09:00 AM at Village-Daulatpur Marg, within the jurisdiction of PS
Chandi Nagar, District Baghpat. Mr. Vishant expired in the said accident
which was allegedly caused by a motorcycle bearing registration No.
UP-19H-5927 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle). The
offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1 Mustakeem,
owned by respondent no.2 Kayyum and insured with respondent no.3
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the claim petition
are on 02.11.2024 at about 9:00 am Sh. Vishant (since deceased) was
coming to his home after attending tuition classes from Village Patouli,
Daulatpur Road on bicycle which he was driving at a normal speed and
alongside the road. It was stated that when he reached at Daulatpur Marg
within the jurisdiction of PS Chandi Nagar, District Baghpat, the
offending vehicle tractor bearing no. UP-19H-5927 which was being
driven by driver/respondent no. 1 at a very high speed, rashly,
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.910/2024 Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Date: 2026.05.20
16:20:59 +0530
Page 2 of 40
negligently without taking necessary precautions, without proper
lookouts, violating the traffic rules in a zig zag manner and without
blowing any horn, hit the bicycle of the petitioner from its backside. It
was further stated that as a result of this, the deceased fell down on the
road alongwith his bicycle and sustained severe injuries.
3. Thereafter, he was taken to Kailashi Super Speciality
Hospital at Meerut, where he succumbed to death during treatment on
02.11.2024 at about 4:17 pm. Thereafter, his post mortem was
conducted at Mortuary District Hospital, Baghpat. It was stated that the
said accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the
respondent no. 1. It was stated that the deceased was 15 years old and
possessed sound mind and good health and was not suffering from any
kind of ailment or addicted to any vice. He was studying in 10 th class at
Shri Nehru Intercollege, Pilana, District Baghpat, UP. It was stated that
he was imparting tuition to students of class I to V classes at his home
and was earning Rs.22,000/- pm. It was further stated that the petitioners
claim a sum of Rs.50 lacs as compensation on account of unnatural,
untimely death of the deceased in the present accident.
WRITTEN STATEMENTS
4. WS was filed on behalf of the respondents no. 1 & 2 on
21.07.2025. It was stated that the petition was maintainable on the
ground of territorial jurisdiction. Further, it was stated by the
respondents no. 1 & 2 that the respondent no.1 was driving his vehicle
as per the traffic rules and regulations and the accident was caused due
RUCHIKA
MACT No.910/2024 SINGLA
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Page 3 of 40
Date: 2026.05.20
16:21:03 +0530
to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased as he suddenly came in
front of their vehicle and that the respondent no.1 tried his best to avoid
him. Hence, it is stated that the accident was not caused by due to the
rash and negligent act of the respondent no.1.
5. WS was filed on behalf of the respondents no. 3 & 4 on
09.07.2025. It was stated that the offending vehicle was insured with the
respondent no.3 vide policy no. 3380/02688510/000/00 valid for the
period from 30.08.2024 till 29.08.2025. It was stated that the present
claim is not maintainable before this Hon’ble Court for want of
jurisdiction under section 166 (2) of MV Act. It was further stated that
all the petitioners and respondents are not resident of Delhi. On facts, it
was stated that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent act
of the deceased. Further, it was stated that the respondent no. 3 was
entitled to take all such defences which are available with it under law.
ISSUES
6. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated
21.07.2025, this Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in
an accident that took place on 02.11.2024 at
about 9:00 AM at Village Daulatpur Marg, PS
Chandi Nagar, District Baghpat, U.P. involving
vehicle bearing registration no. UP-19H-5927
driven rashly and negligently by respondent no.1
Mustakeem, owned by respondent no. 2 Kayyum
and insured with respondent no. 3
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.?
OPP
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.910/2024
Date: 2026.05.20
16:21:09 +0530
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Page 4 of 40
2. Whether the petitioner(s) are entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and from
whom? OPP
3. Relief.
PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
7. The petitioners examined Smt. Rekha i.e. the petitioner
no.1 as PW-1. PW1 has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit which
is Ex. PW1/A. She relied upon the following documents:
1. Copy of educational certificates of deceased as Ex. PW1/1 (OSR)
2. Copy of aadhar card of deceased as Ex. PW1/2 (OSR).
3. Copy of her PAN card as Ex. PW1/3 (OSR).
4. Copy of her aadhar card as Ex. PW1/4 (OSR).
5. Copy of PAN card of Sh. Arvind (petitioner no. 2) as Ex.PW1/5
(OSR)
6. Copy of aadhar card of Sh. Arvind (petitioner no. 2) as Ex.PW1/6
(OSR).
7. Certified copy of criminal case records as Ex. PW1/7 (colly).
8. Medical treatment record and medical bills of deceased as Ex. PW1/8
(colly 5 pages)
8. Thereafter, petitioner examined Sh. Anuj Dhaka, eye
witness as PW2. PW2 has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit
which is Ex. PW2/A. He relied upon the following documents:
1. Copy of his aadhar card as Ex. PW2/1 (OSR)
2. Copy of his statement u/s.161 CrPC as mark A.
Digitally
signed by
MACT No.910/2024 RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Page 5 of 40
Date:
2026.05.20
16:21:15
+0530
9. Both the PWs were cross examined by Ld. Counsels for
respondents. Thereafter, vide separate statement of Ld. Counsel for the
petitioner, PE was closed on 14.11.2025.
RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE
10. No evidence is led on behalf of respondents no. 1 & 2.
Hence, the same was closed vide order 19.12.2025.
11. Thereafter, respondent no. 3 has examined Sh. Sachin
Kumar, Assistant Manager as R3W1. He tendered his affidavit as Ex.
R3W1/A. He relied upon the following documents:
1. Copy of his ID card as Ex. R3W1/1
2. Copy of insurance policy as Ex. R3W1/2.
3. Notice u/s.XII Rule 8 CPC as Ex. R3W1/3.
4. Original postal receipt through which the notice sent as Ex. R3W1/4.
5. Returned Envelop (unserved) of notice mentioned at Sr. No.3 as Ex.
R3W1/5.
12. R3W1 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for petitioner.
Thereafter,vide separate statement of Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3
and 4, RE was closed on 23.04.2026.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
13. The Petitioners filed their duly filled Form XIII and the
financial statements of all the petitioners were recorded. Final arguments
were heard on behalf of the petitioners as well as respondents.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.910/2024 Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Date:
2026.05.20
16:21:20 +0530
Page 6 of 40
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
14. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and Ld.
Counsel for respondents and perused the record. My findings on the
various issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1:
Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in an
accident that took place on 02.11.2024 at about 9:00 AM at Village
Daulatpur Marg, PS Chandi Nagar, District Baghpat, U.P. involving
vehicle bearing registration no. UP-19H-5927 driven rashly and
negligently by respondent no.1 Mustakeem, owned by respondent no. 2
Kayyum and insured with respondent no. 3 Cholamandalam MS General
Insurance Co. Ltd.?
15. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. It is
the case of the petitioners that 02.11.2024 at about 9:00 AM, the
deceased was going on his bicycle. When he reached at Village
Daulatpur Marg, PS Chandi Nagar, District Baghpat, U.P., the driver of
the offending vehicle i.e. the respondent no.1 who was driving the
offending vehicle carelessly in a negligent manner came from behind
and hit the bicycle of the deceased, due to which he fell and suffered
injuries and subsequently expired. It is stated that during investigation,
the offending vehicle was seized by the IO. The respondent no.1 was
chargesheeted by the IO. He has not denied the factum of the accident.
The petitioners have also examined the eye witness. Hence, it is
submitted that it is proved that the respondent no.1 was driving the
MACT No.910/2024 RUCHIKA
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. SINGLA
Page 7 of 40
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Date: 2026.05.20
16:21:26 +0530
negligent in a rash and negligent manner due to which the deceased
suffered injuries.
16. Record perused.
17. In the present matter, the factum of the accident is not in
dispute. In the WS filed by respondent no. 1 & 2, they have merely
stated that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the
deceased. Further, the petitioners examined the eye witness as PW2 who
stood firm on the text of cross-examination. It is pertinent to mention
here that in the proceedings before the claims tribunal, the facts are to be
established on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and not by the
strict rules of evidence or the higher standard of beyond reasonable
doubt as required in criminal cases. The burden of proof in the present
cases is much lower than as placed in civil or criminal cases. In Bimla
Devi & Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors (2009) 13
SC 530, it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that
negligence must be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of
probabilities and a holistic view must be adopted in reaching a
conclusion.
18. Further, it is also pertinent to note that the respondent no.1
was chargesheeted by the IO under Section 281/125(b)/106 BNS. In
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 and United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepak Goel & Ors, 2014 (2) TAC 846 (Del)
decided by the Coordinate Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, it
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.910/2024 Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Date: 2026.05.20
16:21:31 +0530
Page 8 of 40
was held as under :-
“……where the claimants filed either the certified copies of
the criminal record or the criminal record showing the
completion of investigation by police or issuance of charge
sheet under Section 279/304A IPC or the certified copy of
FIR or the recovery of the mechanical inspection report of
the offending vehicle, then these documents are sufficient
proof to reach to a conclusion that the driver was negligent
particularly when there is no defence available from the
side of driver.”
19. Reliance is also being placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble
Delhi High Court in case Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Meera Devi, 2021 LawSuit (Del) wherein it was held that “……in view
of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008, contents of DAR
has to be presumed to be correct and read in evidence without formal
proof of the same unless proof to the contrary was produced.”
20. Even otherwise, the deceased and the eye witness were
unknown to respondent no.1 prior to the accident and admittedly, there
was no prior enmity with respondent no.1 and hence, it is beyond
comprehension as to why they will implicate respondent no.1 falsely,
had he not been driving the offending vehicle.
21. It is a settled law that the petitioner cannot be expected to
prove the accident beyond reasonable doubts and the principle of res
ipse loquitor should apply which means that the “accident speaks for
itself”. Thus, once it has been established in DAR and chargesheet that
the accident had taken place, the burden shifts on the respondents to
RUCHIKA
MACT No.910/2024 SINGLA
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
Page 9 of 40
SINGLA
Date: 2026.05.20
16:21:35 +0530
prove that they were not responsible for the accident which the
respondents have failed to discharge. Hence, an adverse inference is
drawn against the respondent no.1. In this regard, reliance is placed on
the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the cases of Teja Singh
Vs Suman & Ors., MAC. APP. 1111/2018 & CM APPL. 52384/2018,
52386/2018, date of decision 06/12/2019; MAC. APP. 428/2018, titled
as The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamla Devi & Ors, date of
decision 08.11.2019 and MAC. APP. 690/2017 & CM APPL.
28108/2017, titled as Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs
Mona & Ors., date of decision 15.10.2019, which had relied upon the
judgment in the case of Cholamandalam Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamlesh
2009(3) AD Delhi 310.
22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 5 SCC 656 has laid down in paragraphs 27 &
28:
“27. …This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina
Fernandes, noted that the key of negligence on the part of
the driver of the offending vehicle as set up by the
claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on
the touchstone of preponderance of probability and
certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable
doubt. Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the
judgments already adverted to by us, filing of chargesheet
against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards his
complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly.
Further, even when the accused were to be acquitted in the
criminal case, this Court opined that the same may be of no
effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect
of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
MACT No.910/2024 RUCHIKA Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. SINGLA Digitally signed Page 10 of 40 by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.05.20 16:21:39 +0530
28. Reliance placed upon the decisions in Minu B. Mehta
and Meena Variyal, by the respondents, in our opinion, is
of no avail. The dictum in these cases is on the matter in
issue in the case concerned. Similarly, even the dictum in
Surender Kumar Arora will be of no avail. In the present
case, considering the entirety of the pleadings, evidence
and circumstances on record and in particular the finding
recorded by the Tribunal on the factum of negligence of
Respondent 2, the driver of the offending jeep, the High
Court committed manifest error in taking a contrary view
which, in our opinion, is an error apparent on the face of
record and manifestly wrong.”
23. It has not been disputed that respondent No.1 has been
charge-sheeted in the aforesaid FIR for offences punishable under
Section 281/125(b)/106 BNS for rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle. In view of the same, considering the facts and
circumstances, the unrebutted testimony of the petitioner and the
documents filed thereto, the court is satisfied that the accident was
caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.1.
From the DAR, it also stands established that the respondent no.2 was
the registered owner of the offending vehicle and that the offending
vehicle was insured with respondent no.3.
The injury:
24. Further, the onus to prove that the deceased had suffered
fatal injuries by way of the said accident was on the petitioners. In this
regard, the petitioners have relied upon the Post Mortem Report dated
02.11.2024 issued by Post Mortem House, Meerut, as per which the
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.910/2024
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Date:
2026.05.20
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Page 11 of 40
16:21:43 +0530
cause of death was shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem
injuries.
25. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the
opinion that on the scales of preponderance of probabilities, the
petitioner has proved that the accident in question took place due to rash
and negligent driving of offending vehicle being driven by its
driver/respondent no. 1 on the date and time of the accident and that due
to the said accident, the injured Vishant unfortunately expired.
Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and
against the respondents.
ISSUE NO.2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to
what amount and from whom? (OPP)
26. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners. In
view of the discussion in the issue no.1, the petitioners are entitled for
compensation. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in matter of “Sarla
Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors.” (2003) 6 SCC
121 has held : –
“QUA BASIC PRINCIPLES
“9. Basically only three facts need to be established by
the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of
death :-
(a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased;
and the (c) the number of dependents. The issues to be
determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
MACT No.910/2024 RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.05.20
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Page 12 of 40
16:21:47
+0530
are (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the
income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal
living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be
applied with reference of the age of the deceased. If these
determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and
consistency in the decisions. There will lesser need for
detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance
companies to settle accident claims without delay. To have
uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should determine
compensation in cases of death, by the following well settled
steps :
Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand)
The income of the deceased per annum should be
determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be
made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have
spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The
balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the
dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier)
Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of
active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected.
This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would
have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to
several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of
multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by
this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table
with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step 3 (Actual calculation)
The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand)
when multiplied by such multiplier gives the `loss of
dependency’ to the family. Thereafter, a conventional amount
in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be added as loss
of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his widow,
another conventional amount in the range of 5,000/- to
10,000/- should be added under the head of loss of
consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of
pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the
RUCHIKA
MACT No.910/2024 SINGLA
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Digitally signed by Page 13 of 40
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.05.20
16:21:51 +0530
deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body
(if incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased
before death (if incurred) should also added.”
QUA ADDITIONS
“11. ………………… In view of imponderables and
uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb,
an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income
of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased
had a permanent job and was below 40 years. [Where the
annual income is in the taxable range, the words `actual salary’
should be read as `actual salary less tax’]. The addition should
be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years.
There should be no addition, where the age of deceased is
more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a
different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize
the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or
different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the
deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without
provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will usually
take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure
therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases
involving special circumstances.”
QUA DEDUCTIONS
“14. Having considered several subsequent decisions of
this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was
married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses
of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number
of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/3rd)
where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and
one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family
members exceed six.
15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the
claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different
principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as
personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a
bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even
MACT No.910/2024 RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Digitally signed by
Page 14 of 40
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.05.20
16:22:07 +0530
otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in
a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s
and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to
evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own
income and will not be considered as a dependent and the
mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence
of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be
considered as dependents, because they will either be
independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the
father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and
siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a
dependent, and 50% would be treated as the personal and
living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to
the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large
and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case
where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger
non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living
expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the
family will be taken as two-third.”
QUA MULTIPLIER
“21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used
should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above
(prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and
Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for
the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one
unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16
for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45
years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units
for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for
56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70
years.”
27. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its Constitution Bench
decision in matter of “National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi & Ors.” (2017) 16 SCC 680 held as under : –
RUCHIKA
SINGLAMACT No.910/2024 Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.05.20Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. 16:22:12 +0530
Page 15 of 40
“58. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be no
addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept. We
are disposed to think, there should be an addition of 15% if
the deceased is between the age of 50 to 60 years and there
should be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in case of self-
employed or person on fixed salary, the addition should be
10% between the age of 50 to 60 years. The aforesaid
yardstick has been fixed so that there can be consistency in
the approach by the tribunals and the Courts.
59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to
record our conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have
been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it
was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla
Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a
coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary
view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in
Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time,
the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50%
of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future
prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was
below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition
should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to
50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to
60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should
be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a
fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income
should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age
of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was
between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the
deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be
regarded as the necessary method of computation. The
established income means the income minus the tax
component.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.910/2024 Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Date: 2026.05.20
16:22:17 +0530
Page 16 of 40
(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the
deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and
the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla
Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in
the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that
judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for
applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads,
namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral
expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 31,001/- and Rs.
15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be
enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.”
Loss of income
28. In the present matter, it is alleged on behalf of the
petitioners that the deceased was imparting tuition and was earning a
sum of Rs. 22,000/- per month. However, it is conceded as there is no
income proof available on record, his income may be assessed as per the
minimum wages.
29. No proof income or employment or educational documents
were produced. The Hon’ble High court of Delhi recently in matter of
“Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ld. Vs. Bhupan Paswan &
Ors.” MAC. APP. 324/2018, CM APPL. 12428/2018 decided on
24.02.2025 while summarizing the earlier law of assessment of
compensation in case of death of a child has observed and held as
under:-
“Loss of Dependency:-
“8…
17. However, it is apposite to note that in the above judgments
MACT No.910/2024 Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKARekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.05.20
16:22:22
Page 17 of 40
+0530
while Notional income as defined in Second Schedule was
taken as a basis but the amount was being modified by
applying Cost Inflation Index, in the facts of each case.
18. The Second Schedule however, stands deleted w.e.f.
01.09.2019. Thus, the question that what would be the basis of
assessing the notional income of a child/ i.e. a non-earning
member below 15 years of age, who is a victim of a motor
vehicle accident, became a subject of extensive judicial
discourse….”
30. The Minimum Wage criteria has been adopted by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Kajal vs Jagdish Chand AIR
2020 SC 776 and Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Baby Ahmad Simon
&Anr., SLP (C) No. 10996/2018 decided on on 11 December, 2024,
wherein the Apex Court applied the approach taken in Kajal (supra) and
Master Ayush, (supra) and ascertained the notional income of a 7-year-
old injured child on the basis of the ‘Minimum Wages paid to a skilled
worker on a fulltime basis’. Same has been upheld by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case titled as Devendra Kumar Tripathi v. Oriental
Insurance Company SLP No. 2195 of 2024 decided on 15.12.2025 and
Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr. Civil
Appeal no. 10278 of 2025 decided on 8th August 2025. Hence, the
income of the deceased is assessed as per the minimum wages payable
to a skilled person matriculate level. The date of accident is 02.11.2024.
31. As per the facts of the case, the deceased was residing at
UP with his parents. There is no evidence on record that he was residing
or working at Delhi. As per the relevant notification, minimum wages
payable to a skilled labour at UP at that time is Rs. 13,186/-. Hence, the
RUCHIKA
MACT No.910/2024 SINGLA
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
Page 18 of 40
SINGLA
Date: 2026.05.20
16:22:31 +0530
income of the deceased is assessed to be Rs. 13,186/-.
Age determination of the deceased:
32. As per his educational documents and aadhar card Ex.
PW1/1 and Ex. PW1/2, his date of birth was 01.01.2009. The date of the
accident is 02.11.2024. Hence, as on the date of the accident, the
deceased was aged 15 years.
Future Prospects: –
33. In view of the judgment of National Insurance Company
Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors; (2017) 16 SCC 680, it was observed that
the Claimants would also be entitled to 40% for future prospects as the
deceased was less than 40 years of age at the time of the accident.
Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased needs to be taken as
Rs. 18,460.40 (Rs. 13,186/- + Rs. 5,274.40 which is 40% of Rs.
13,186/-).
Determination of Dependent
34. In the present case, the deceased is survived by his parents.
As per the Sarla Verma judgment (supra), only the mother of the
deceased shall be considered as dependent on him. It is stated that the
father of the deceased was also dependent on him. However, no
evidence is led in this regard. The father of the deceased is only 42 years
of age and able bodied. Hence, he cannot be considered as dependent on
the deceased.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed
MACT No.910/2024 by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Page 19 of 40
Date: 2026.05.20
16:22:37 +0530
Determination of multiplicand
35. The monthly income of the deceased after enhancement
needs to be taken as Rs. 18,460.40. In light of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, and United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur & Ors., (2021) 11 SCC 780 ,
out of the above amount so assessed, 1/2 amount has to be deducted on
account of personal and living expenses as the deceased was unmarried.
So, in this matter, monthly loss of dependency would come out to be Rs.
9,230.20 (1/2 of Rs. 18,460.40). This needs to be multiplied by 12 to
workout multiplicand/annual loss of dependency. Hence, multiplicand
for this matter would be Rs. 1,10,762.40 (rounded off to Rs. 1,10,762/-)
( Rs. 9,230.20 x 12).
Award Towards Loss of Dependency
36. Further, as the deceased was 15 years of age at the time of
the accident, multiplier applicable in this matter as per above discussion
would be 18. The total loss of dependency would come out to be
Rs.19,93,716/- (Rs. 1,10,762/- x 18), hence, so awarded.
Medical expenses:
37. The petitioners have not claimed any amount under this
head. However, bills to the tune of Rs. 37,791/-. Hence, an amount of
Rs. 37,791/- is awarded to the petitioners under this head.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Date: 2026.05.20
16:22:42 +0530
MACT No.910/2024
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Page 20 of 40
Non-Pecuniary Heads:-
38. The Respondents/Claimants shall be entitled to the
compensation under Non-Pecuniary Heads in terms of National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi And Others, (2017) 16
SCC 680. The case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi &
Ors. 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) was considered and clarified by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 9581/2018 decided
on 18.09.2018 whereby after considering the case of Pranay Sethi’s
(supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to award loss of
consortium of Rs.40,000/- to each dependent of the deceased and further
pleased to award a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to each dependent of
the deceased towards loss of love and affection. The relevant portion is
as under:
“…… A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi
(supra) dealt with the various heads under which
compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these
heads is Loss of Consortium.
In legal parlance, “consortium” is a compendious term which
encompasses ‘spousal consortium’, ‘parental consortium’, and
‘filial consortium’.
The right to consortium would include the company, care,
help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased,
which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it
would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse.
Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining
to the relationship of a husband wife which allows
compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of “company,
society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every
conjugal relation.”
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.910/2024
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.05.20
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Page 21 of 40
16:22:48 +0530
Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the
premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid,
protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and
training.”
Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation
in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident
leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony
to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony
for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime.
Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship
and their role in the family unit.
Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms
about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern
jurisdictions world-over have recognized that the value of a
child’s consortium far exceeds the economic value of the
compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child.
Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded
compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a
child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation
for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the
deceased child.
The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at
providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of
genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor
child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to
be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial
Consortium.
Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their
parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act.
A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count.
However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles
on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial
Consortium.
The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium
will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation
under ‘Loss of Consortium’ as laid down in Pranay Sethi
RUCHIKA
MACT No.910/2024 SINGLA
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.05.20
Page 22 of 40
16:22:54 +0530
(supra).
In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the
father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs.25,000
each for loss of Filial Consortium…..”.
39. However, in the case of United India Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur 2020 SCC Online SC 410 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that there is no justification to
award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate
head. The relevant portion of the observations are reproduced as under:
“…… The amount to be awarded for loss consortium will be
as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra). At this stage,
we consider it necessary to provide uniformity with respect to
the grant of consortium, and loss of love and affection.
Several Tribunals and High Courts have been awarding
compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love
and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi
(supra), has recognized only three conventional heads under
which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss
of consortium and funeral expenses.
In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a
comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include
spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial
consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in
loss of consortium.
The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to award
compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate
conventional head. There is no justification to award
compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate
head…”.
40. In the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), it was held that in the
case of death, Rs.15,000/- is liable to be paid towards the loss of estate
and funeral charges each, while Rs.40,000/- was payable towards the
MACT No.910/2024 RUCHIKA
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. SINGLA Page 23 of 40
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.05.20
16:22:59 +0530
loss of consortium to each legal heir and the same may be enhanced by
10% every three years.
41. Thus, an amount of Rs. 19,965/- is granted towards the
Loss of Estate and Rs. 19,965/- towards funeral charges.
42. Hence, Rs. 53,240/- each is granted to the petitioners i.e.
total of Rs. 53,240/- x 2 = Rs.1,06,480/- towards Loss of Consortium.
Computation of compensation:
43. Applying the settled guidelines in the various judgments,
the compensation payable to the petitioners is calculated as under:
Head Awarded by the Claims Tribunal Monthly Income of deceased (A) Rs. 13,186/- Add future prospect (B) @ 40%= Rs. 5,274.40
Less 1/2 deductions towards (Rs. 13,186/- + Rs. 5,274.40) = Rs.
personal and living expenses of the 18,460.40 x 1/2 = Rs. 9,230.20
deceased (C)
Monthly loss of dependency (Rs. 13,186/- + Rs. 5,274.40) – Rs.
[(A+B) – C = D] 9,230.20 = Rs. 9,230.20
Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 9,230.20 x 12= Rs. 1,10,762/-
(D x 12)
Multiplier (E) 18
Total loss of dependency (Rs. 1,10,762/- x 18) =
DxE=F Rs.19,93,716/-
Medical Expenses (G) Rs. 37,791/-
Compensation for loss of love and Nil
affection (H)
RUCHIKA
MACT No.910/2024 SINGLA
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.05.20
Page 24 of 40
16:23:04 +0530
Compensation for loss of Rs. 53,240/- x 2 = Rs.1,06,480/-
consortium (I) to the petitioners
Compensation for loss of Estate (J) Rs. 19,965/-
Compensation for funeral expenses Rs. 19,965/-
(K)
Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 21,77,917/-
44. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @
Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 , the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld awarding of 9% interest per annum.
Therefore, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9%
per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 20.12.2024 till
realization.
Apportionment:
45. It is evident from the record that the deceased had left
behind his parents. The shares of the petitioners are as under:
S.No Name of the Share of the Interest upto Total amount
claimant petitioner date including interest
1. Smt. Rekha Rs. 19,93,716/- + Rs. 2,60,944.83 Rs. 23,07,900.83
Rs. 53,240/- = (rounded off to
Rs. 20,46,956/- Rs. 23,07,901/-)
2. Sh. Arvind Rs. 53,240/- + Rs. 16,694.84 Rs. 1,47,655.84
Rs. 19,965/- + (rounded off to
Rs. 19,965/- + Rs. 1,47,656/-)
Rs. 37,791/- =
Rs. 1,30,961/-
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Date: 2026.05.20
16:23:09 +0530
MACT No.910/2024
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Page 25 of 40
DISBURSEMENT
46. The Financial Statement of petitioner/injured was recorded
by this Court/Tribunal. As per the said statement, the monthly expenses
of his family are approximately Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month.
47. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated
07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh
Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors. has given the following directions:
“(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in
the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants
i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an
individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in
safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number,
FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be
furnished by bank to the claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the
ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place
of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge
be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the
court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book
and/or debit card to claimants. However, in case the debit card
and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall
cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount.
The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of claimants so
that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of
claimants from any other branch of the bank.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.910/2024 Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Date: 2026.05.20
16:23:16 +0530 Page 26 of 40
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook
of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque books and/or debit
card have been issued and shall not be issued without the
permission of the Court and the claimant shall produced the
passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court for
compliance.”
48. However, in a recent judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India titled as Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal on 18
March, 2025 in S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020 has held that :
“17. The case in hand pertains to the compensation awarded
under the Motor Vehicles Act. The general practice followed
by the insurance companies, where the compensation is not
disputed, is to deposit the same before the Tribunal. Instead
of following that process, a direction can always be issued to
transfer the amount into the bank account(s) of the
claimant(s) with intimation to the Tribunal.
17.1 For that purpose, the Tribunals at the initial stage of
pleadings or at the stage of leading evidence may require the
claimant(s) to furnish their bank account particulars to the
Tribunal along with the requisite proof, so that at the stage of
passing of the award the Tribunal may direct that the amount
of compensation be transferred in the account of the claimant
and if there are more than one then in their respective
accounts. If there is no bank account, then they should be
required to open the bank account either individually or
jointly with family members only. It should also be mandated
that, in case there is any change in the bank account
particulars of the claimant(s) during the pendency of the
claim petition they should update the same before the
Tribunal. This should be ensured before passing of the final
award. It may be ensured that the bank account should be in
the name of the claimant(s) and if minor, through guardian(s)
and in no case it should be a joint account with any person,Digitally
MACT No.910/2024
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. 2026.05.20
16:23:20
+0530 Page 27 of 40
who is not a family member. The transfer of the amount in the
bank account, particulars of which have been furnished by the
claimant(s), as mentioned in the award, shall be treated as
satisfaction of the award. Intimation of compliance should be
furnished to the Tribunal.”
49. In view of the same, the award amount can now be
disbursed in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioners. However, the
remaining directions as passed by the Hon’ble High Court shall be
complied with. It is directed that the award amount be deposited by the
respondent no. 3 in the bank account of Tribunal bearing A/c. no.
42704293960, SBI, THC, Delhi in the name of MACT-01, Central,
IFSC Code: SBIN0000726.
Smt. Rekha (LR/mother of deceased)
50. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners,
it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 24,55,557/-, out
of the share of the petitioner/mother Smt. Rekha Rs. 23,07,901/-
(Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Seven Thousand Nine Hundred One only),
SBI THC shall release Rs. 3,07,901/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Seven
Thousand Nine Hundred One only) to the petitioner/mother immediately
in her Bank Account no. 110234832562 maintained at Canara Bank,
VPO Pilana, Baghpat, UP, IFSC Code CNRB0018570 Customer ID
330904060.
51. The balance amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Lacs only) shall be put in 50 monthly fixed deposits in her name in her
account as mentioned above of equal amount of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees
MACT No.910/2024 RUCHIKA
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Page 28 of 40
SINGLA
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Date: 2026.05.20
16:23:24 +0530
Forty Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 50 respectively,
with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO
No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said
amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred
in her saving account maintained in a nationalized bank situated near the
place of her residence.
Sh. Arvind (LR/father of deceased)
52. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners,
it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 24,55,557/-, out
of the share of the petitioner/father Sh. Arvind Rs. 1,47,656/- (Rupees
One Lakh Forty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Six only), the entire
amount shall be released by SBI THC to the petitioner/father
immediately in his Bank Account no. 110234813416 maintained at
Canara Bank, VPO Pilana, Baghpat, UP, IFSC Code CNRB0018570
Customer ID 330902088.
53. Further, it is directed that as the amount is being disbursed
to the petitioners in their savings bank accounts, they shall not avail any
loan/advance facility on the FDRs without the permission of this
Tribunal. Further, they shall not encash the FDRs before their maturity
without the permission of this Tribunal.
54. In compliance of the directions given by Hon’ble High
Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award
in the prescribed Format-XVI is as under:
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.05.20
16:23:31MACT No.910/2024 +0530
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Page 29 of 40
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
Date of Accident: 02.11.2024
Name of the deceased: Vishant
Age of the deceased: 15 years
Occupation of the deceased: Not proved
Income of the
deceased : Rs. 13,186/-
Name and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No. Name of the claimant Relation with deceased
1. Smt. Rekha Wife
2. Sh. Arvind Father
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
Sr. Head Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
No.
1 Monthly Income of deceased Rs. 13,186/-
(A)
2 Add future prospect (B) @ 40%= Rs. 5,274.40
3 Less 1/2 deductions towards (Rs. 13,186/- + Rs. 5,274.40) = Rs.
personal and living expenses of 18,460.40 x 1/2 = Rs. 9,230.20
the deceased (C)
4 Monthly loss of dependency (Rs. 13,186/- + Rs. 5,274.40) – Rs.
[(A+B) – C = D] 9,230.20 = Rs. 9,230.20
5 Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 9,230.20 x 12 = Rs. 1,10,762/-
(D x 12)
6 Multiplier (E) 18
7 Total loss of dependency (Rs. 1,10,762/- x 18) =
DxE=F Rs.19,93,716/-
MACT No.910/2024 RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Page 30 of 40
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Date: 2026.05.20
16:23:35 +0530
8 Medical Expenses (G) Rs. 37,791/-
9 Compensation for loss of love Nil
and affection (H)
10 Compensation for loss of Rs. 53,240/- x 2 = Rs. 1,06,480/-
consortium (I) to the petitioners
11 Compensation for loss of Rs. 19,965/-
Estate (J)
12 Compensation for funeral Rs. 19,965/-
expenses (K)
13 Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 21,77,917/-
14 Rate of Interest Awarded 9%
15 Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 2,77,640/-
award w.e.f. 20.12.2024 till
realization
16 Total amount including interest Rs. 24,55,557/-
17 Award amount released As per paragraph Nos. 50 to 52
18 Award amount kept in FDRs As per paragraph No. 51
19 Mode of disbursement of the As per paragraph Nos. 50 to 52
award amount to the
claimant(s)
20 Next Date of compliance of the 04.07.2026
award
LIABILITY:
55. It has been established that accident was caused due to the
rash and negligent act of the respondent no.1 who was driving the
offending vehicle no.1 and that respondent no.2 is the owner of the
same and the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no.3.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Date:
2026.05.20
MACT No.910/2024 16:23:44 +0530
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Page 31 of 40
56. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 that
in the present matter, the conditions of the insurance policy were
violated. Hence, the respondent no. 3 is not liable to pay compensation.
It is submitted that as per the insurance policy Ex. R3W1/2, only the
tractor was covered. The attachments to the tractor were not covered. It
is submitted that this is an admitted fact that at the time of the accident,
the tractor had a trolley attached with it. The accident was caused by the
trolley and not by the tractor. Hence, the insurance policy is violated.
57. Record perused.
58. The onus to prove that the insurance policy was violated is
upon the respondent no. 3. Perusal of the record shows that no such
question was put by the respondent no. 3 to the eye witness PW2 Anuj
Dhaka that the accident was not caused by the tractor and by the trolley.
Further, perusal of the statement of the eye witness PW2 Anuj Dhaka
shows that he has specifically stated that the offending vehicle had hit
the bicycle of the deceased from behind. A trolley shall always be
attached to the tractor at its back side. Hence, if the tractor hit the
deceased from behind the deceased, there is in no way a possibility that
the accident was caused by the trolley and not the tractor. Further, as per
the mechanical inspection report as well, there were damages on the
bumper of the offending vehicle. Hence, as the accident was caused by
the tractor itself and not the trolley, the terms of the insurance policy are
not violated.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.05.20
MACT No.910/2024 16:23:48 +0530
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Page 32 of 40
59. Further, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Honnamma & ors. SLP No.2135/2023 decided
on 05.05.2025. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has a
case of similar facts in front of it where the accident was caused by a
tractor which had a trailer attached to it. While discussing the liability
of the insurance company in such a case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that :
“…Thus, the accident was caused by the tractor, as during
the course of being driven/pulled by the tractor, the
accident occurred.
12. Thus, the liability of the tractor/its insurer extended to
the accident caused by the tractor resulting in the death of
the deceased, through the trailer. This being the position in
the present case, the principles emanating from the
decisions where the Courts have held that the trailer has to
be separately registered with the insurance company to
make it liable, would not be applicable. To that extent, the
facts in the present case are clearly distinguishable from
the ones cited by learned counsel for the appellant. The
legislation i.e., the MV Act, being beneficial and welfare-
oriented in nature [Ningamma v United India Insurance
Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710; K Ramya v National
Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338, and;
Shivaleela v Divisional Manager, United India Insurance
Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 563] and ultimately the
root cause of the accident being the tractor, which was
insured, this crucial fact cannot be lost sight of. For further
clarification, we might illustrate: if an insured vehicle hits
another vehicle which in turn hits a third vehicle, then for
the entire chain of accidents, the liability would pass on to
the vehicle which was the root cause of the accident
because it is the result of the action in the same chain of
MACT No.910/2024
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLARekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. SINGLA Date:
2026.05.20
16:23:53
+0530
Page 33 of 40
events which cannot be segregated or compartmentalized.
Moreover, this Court is duty-bound to be mindful of the
ground realities of our nation and cannot let practicality be
overshadowed by technicality.”
60. In the present matter, as in the case before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, the trolley was attached with the tractor. Hence, even if
the accident was caused by the trolley, even then, the insurance
company shall have the liability to pay the compensation to the
petitioner. However, as discussed above, the accident was caused by the
tractor itself. Hence, the liability of the insurance company is absolute.
61. Further Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 has submitted
that the tractor was being used for commercial purposes but as per the
policy, the permitted use of the tractor was only agriculture and forestry
purposes. Hence, it is submitted that due to this reason, the terms of the
insurance policy are violated.
62. Record perused.
63. There is no such evidence to prove that the tractor was
being used for commercial purpose and not agricultural or forestry
purpose. Hence, the respondent no. 3 has failed to prove that at the time
of the accident, the tractor i.e. the offending vehicle was not being used
for agricultural purposes. Hence, in the absence of the same, the
respondent no. 3 cannot be exempted from its liability.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.910/2024 Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.05.20
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. 16:23:56 +0530
Page 34 of 40
64. Further, it is submitted that the offending vehicle was being
driven by the respondent no.1 without valid permit. A notice under
Order 12 Rule 8 CPC was also issued by the respondent no.3 to the
respondent no.2 in this regard. However, it may be noted that a permit is
not required for the use of a tractor for agricultural purposes. As
mentioned above, there is no such evidence on record that the offending
vehicle was being used for commercial purposes. Hence, no violation of
the insurance policy is proved by the respondent no.3. Hence, the
respondent no. 3 shall be liable to pay the compensation amount to the
petitioners. Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in favour of the
petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
65. In view of the above, the respondent no.3 is directed to
deposit a sum of Rs.21,77,917/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Seventy
Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Seventeen Only) along with interest @
9% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. w.e.f. 20.12.2024 till realization
with the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to
the claimants, failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay
interest @12% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days.
Reliance placed on case titled as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
66. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the
award to the insurance company for compliance within the time granted
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.910/2024 Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Page 35 of 40
Date: 2026.05.20
16:24:00 +0530
as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No.
534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. The said respondent is further
directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the
claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal
with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days
of the deposit with a copy to the Claimant and his counsel.
Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the
award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties
free of cost.
Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to
Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services
Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules,
2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of
Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on
04.07.2026 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation
amount within the time granted.
Further, Civil Nazir is directed to maintain the record in
Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment)
Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation
of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021
titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors.,
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
MACT No.910/2024 RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.05.20
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Page 36 of 40
16:24:05 +0530
date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court today
on this 20th May, 2026
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.05.20
16:24:09 +0530(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
MACT No.910/2024
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Page 37 of 40
THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL MOTOR
VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022 (PL. SEE RULE
150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 02.11.2024
2 Date of filing of Form-I –
First Accident Report NA
(FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II
NA
to the victim(s)
4 Date of receipt of Form-III
NA
from the Driver
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV
from the Owner NA
6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the insurance NA
of the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-
NA
VIA from the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of claim 20.12.2024
petition
9 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Investigating NA
Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the 23.04.2025
Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company admitted his Yes
report within 30 days of the
DAR/claim petition?
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
MACT No.910/2024 2026.05.20
16:24:15
+0530
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Page 38 of 40
12 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the Yes
part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether
any action/direction
warranted?
13 Date of response of the
claimant(s) to the offer of NA
the Insurance Company.
14 Date of award 20.05.2026
15 Whether the claimant(s)
were directed to open No
savings bank account(s)
near their place of
residence?
16 Date of order by which
claimant(s) were directed to
open Savings Bank
Account(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN NA
card and Aadhar Card and
the direction to the bank not
to issue any cheque
book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an
endorsement to this effect
on the passbook(s).
17 Date on which the
claimant(s) produced the
passbook of their savings
bank account(s) near the
21.01.2026
place of their residence
alongwith the endorsement,
PAN card and Aadhaar
Card?
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.910/2024 Digitally signed by
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.05.20 Page 39 of 40
16:24:20 +0530
18 Permanent residential
address of the claimant(s). As per Award.
19 Whether the claimant(s)
savings bank account(s) is
No
near their place of
residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s)
were examined at the time
Yes. The financial statement of the LR/father
of passing of the Award to
of deceased was recorded on 21.01.2026.
ascertain his/their financial
condition?
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.05.20
16:24:24
+0530
(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
20.05.2026
MACT No.910/2024
Rekha Vs. Mustakeem and Ors. Page 40 of 40
