Delhi District Court
Sangeeta Sethi Lrs Of Deceased Srishthi … vs Prabhat Suri (Iffco Tokio General Insu) on 7 April, 2026
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER MACT-02:
CENTRAL DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.
PRESIDED OVER BY Ms. POOJA AGGARWAL, DHJS
MACT No. 219/24
UID / CNRNo. DLCT01-004548-2024
In Respect of
FIR No.: 426/2023
U/s: 279/337/338 IPC
PS : Sector-58, Noida, UP.
1. Smt. Sangeeta Sethi (Mother)
W/o Late Sh. Sanjay Kumar Sethi
2. Ms. Ishita Sethi (Sister)
D/o Late Sh. Sanjay Kumar Sethi
Both R/o H.No. A-544/4 Block-A,
Shastri Nagar, Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052.
(Through Ld. Counsel Sh. H.S.Yadav)
.....Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Prabhat Suri (Driver)
S/o Sh. Arun Kumar Suri @ Arun Suri
R/o H. No. 1/37 Roop Nagar,
Delhi-110007.
(Through Ld. Counsel Sh. Sudhir Saneja)
2. Smt. Bina Suri (Owner)
W/o Sh. Arun Kumar Suri
R/o H. No. 1/37 Roop Nagar,
Delhi-110007.
(Through Ld. Counsel Sh. Sudhir Saneja)
Digitally signed
MACT No. 219/24 by POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 1 of 46
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.07
DOD: 07.04.2026 16:35:48 +0530
3. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd.
(Insurer)
Having Regd. Office at: 2nd Floor, FAI Building,
10 Saheed Jeet Singh Marg, Qutub Institution Area,
New Delhi-110067.
(Through Ld. Counsel Sh. Akshay Kumar)
.....Respondents
Date of filing of claim petition : 27.03.2024
Judgment reserved on : 24.03.2026
Date of Award : 07.04.2026
AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioners under
Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter
referred to as "MV Act") seeking compensation in respect of the
death of Ms. Srishti Sethi D/o Late Sh. Sanjay Kumar Sethi
(hereinafter referred to as "deceased") due to an accident, which
took place on 30.10.2023 at Round About (Gol Chakkar),
Sector-62, Noida, UP, by the vehicle bearing registration no.
DL-1CAG-9798 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle"),
driven by the Respondent No.1, owned by the Respondent No.2
and insured with the Respondent No.3/ Insurance Company.
Facts as per the Petition
2. In brief, the Petitioners, being the mother and sister of the
deceased, have asserted that on 30.10.2023, at about 07.30 p.m.,
the deceased Srishti Seth was returning home from her office
with her colleague namely Aditya Sharma, on a motorcycle
bearing registration no. DL-14SS-2006, and when they reached
near Gole Chakkar, Sector-62, Noida, a vehicle bearing
Digitally signed
by POOJA
AGGARWAL
MACT No. 219/24 POOJA
AGGARWAL Date:
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP 2026.04.07 Page No. 2 of 46
16:35:59
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. +0530
DOD: 07.04.2026
registration no. DL-1CAG-9798 (hereinafter referred to as
“offending vehicle”) suddenly came from behind in a very high
speed, which was being driving in a rash and negligent manner.
It has been further stated that the offending vehicle hit two other
vehicles i.e Splendor motorcycle bearing registration no.
UP-16CF-2993 and DL-3SDP-8091 and thereafter it hit the
motorcycle on which the deceased was sitting, and due to the
powerful impact, the deceased and her colleague both fell down
on the road, resulting in minor injuries to the colleague but
grievous injuries to Srishti.
3. It has also been stated that after the accident, Srishti was
admitted in nearby hospital i.e. Max Hospital, Vaishali,
Ghaziabad vide her MLR No. 6215 on 30.10.2023 from where
she was discharged on 11.09.2023. It has been further stated that
Srishti was again admitted in the said Hospital on 18.11.2023
and was discharged on 22.11.2023 and she was again admitted
on 16.12.2023 and discharged on 23.12.2023. It has also been
stated that thereafter Srishti was admitted in Max Hospital,
Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi on 01.01.2024, where she expired on
02.01.2024 during the course of treatment and her postmortem
was conducted on 04.01.2024 at Jag Jeevan Ram Hospital,
Jahangir Puri Delhi. It has been further stated that the accident
was caused due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of
the driver of the offending vehicle, resulting in the death of the
deceased.
4. It has also been stated that the deceased was aged about 27 years
and she was working as Associate Project Manager with Trio
Digitally signed by
MACT No. 219/24 POOJA
POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.07 Page No. 3 of 46
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. 16:36:05 +0530
DOD: 07.04.2026
Tree Technology Pvt Ltd, Noida, UP earning about ₹63,317/-
per month. It has been further stated that an FIR No. 426/23, u/s
279/337/338 IPC, PS Noida Sector-58, Uttar Pradesh, was
registered in respect of the accident and the Petitioners have
sought Rs.2,00,00,000/- as compensation along with 18%
interest per annum from the date of petition till realization,
asserting that they had incurred approximate expense of
₹30,00,000/- on treatment and ₹1,00,000/- on last rites.
Facts as per Written Statement/Reply of
Respondents No. 1 and 2
5. In their joint written statement/reply, the Respondents No. 1 and
2 asserted that the vehicle bearing registration no.
DL-1CAG-9798 was being driven very diligently on 30.10.2023
and when it had crossed the Gol Chakkar, near Sector-62,
Noida, some other vehicle hit the said vehicle from behind and
due to the heavy jerk, the vehicle of the Respondents lost
balance, one of the tyres of their vehicle burst, the vehicle
turned turtle and the vehicle bearing No. DL-14-SS-2006 was
hit. It has also been asserted that the Respondent No. 1 had lost
consciousness for a few minutes and when he regained
consciousness, he saw one lady entangled in the motorcycle but
she was not even wearing a helmet. They also asserted that the
discharge summaries of the deceased dated 11.11.2023,
22.11.2023 and 30.12.2023 indicated that the patient had been
stable on the date of the discharge and therefore, the cause of
death of Ms. Srishti was not the accident. It has not been
disputed that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was
being driven by the Respondent No.1, owned by the Respondent
No.2 and insured with Respondent No.3/ Insurance Company.
MACT No. 219/24
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP POOJA
Digitally signed by
POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 4 of 46
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.07
16:36:10 +0530
DOD: 07.04.2026
Facts as per the written statement of Respondent No. 3/
Insurance Company.
6. In its written statement, the Respondent No. 3/ Insurance
Company raised various preliminary objections including as to
the driver of the vehicle bearing registration no.
DL-1CAG-9798 not holding a valid and effective driving
license to drive the said vehicle. It has also been stated that even
Aman Sharma i.e. the driver of the vehicle bearing registration
no. DL-14SS-2006 not holding a valid and effective driving
license and the accident had been caused due to his rash and
negligent driving. The Respondent No.3/ Insurance Company
did not dispute that the vehicle bearing registration no.
DL-1CAG-9798 was insured with them from 23.01.2023 till
22.01.2024 in the name of the Respondent No.2.
Issues
7. From the pleadings on record, the following issues were framed
by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 28.03.2025:-
1.Whether the deceased Srishti Sethi suffered fatal
injuries in an accident that took place on 30.10.2023 at
about 07.30 PM involving vehicle bearing registration
No. DL-1CAG-9798 driven by the Respondent No. 1
rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No. 2
and insured with the respondent no. 3? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3.Relief.
Evidence of the Petitioners
8. The Petitioners examined six witnesses.
Digitally signed
by POOJA
MACT No. 219/24 POOJA AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP AGGARWAL Date: Page No. 5 of 46
2026.04.07
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. 16:36:17 +0530
DOD: 07.04.2026
9. PW-1 Smt. Sangeeta Sethi, i.e. Petitioner No.1 being the mother
of the deceased, tendered her evidence by way of affidavit i.e.
Ex. PW-1/A wherein she testified on similar lines as the claim
petition. She also relied upon the following documents :-
S.No. Description of Documents Exhibit/Mark
1. Copy of her own Aadhaar Card Ex. PW-1/1
2. Copy of Aadhaar Card of the Ex.PW-1/2
deceased
3. Copy of Aadhaar Card of Ishita Ex. PW-1/3
Sethi
4. Copy of death certificate of the Ex.PW-1/4
deceased (Colly)
5. Copy of MLC of the deceased Ex.PW-1/5
of Max Hospital
6. Copy of service ID Care, Ex. PW-1/6
appointment letter and salary (Colly)
7. Copy of educational Ex. PW-1/7
qualification documents of the (Colly)
deceased
8. Original discharge summary, Ex. PW-1/8
death summary alongwith all (Colly)
medical bills
9. Copy of certified charge-sheet Ex. PW-1/9
(Colly)
10. Copy of driving license of Mark-A
Respondent No.1
11. Copy of RC of offending Mark-B
vehicle
12. Copy of insurance policy of Mark-C
offending vehicle
10. She was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsels for the
Respondents.
Digitally signed
MACT No. 219/24 by POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP POOJA AGGARWAL
Page No. 6 of 46
AGGARWAL Date:
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. 2026.04.07
16:36:23 +0530
DOD: 07.04.2026
11.PW-2 Sh. Aditya Sharma, being an eye witness of the accident
tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-2/A, wherein
he also testified on similar lines as the petition in respect of the
factum and manner of accident and also in respect of the
deceased having suffered injuries in the accident, as well as her
subsequent demise. He also relied upon following documents:-
S.No. Description of Documents Exhibit/Mark
1 Copy of his Aadhaar Card Ex. PW-2/1
2 Copy of MLC Ex.PW-2/2
12. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsels for Respondents.
13. PW-3 Sh. Manish Gupta, Medical Record Incharge, being a
summoned witness, proved the complete medical bills,
treatment record, discharge summary of patient Shristi Sethi of
Max Hospital, Vaishali, Ghaziabad vide Ex.PW-3/1 (Colly). He
was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsels for Respondents.
14. PW-4 Sh. Chandan Kumar Mishra, Admin and Accounts
Manager from Triotree Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Noida, being
another summoned witness proved the appointment letter and
salary slip of Shristi Sethi of Triotree Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Noida vide Ex.PW-4/1 (Colly). He was duly cross-examined by
the Ld. Counsels for Respondents.
15. PW-5 Sh. Pramod Arya, Medical Record Technician from Max
Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi being yet another summoned
witness, proved the death summary and medical bills of
deceased Srishti Sethi vide Ex.PW-5/1 (Colly). He was duly
Digitally signed
MACT No. 219/24 POOJA by POOJA
AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.07
Page No. 7 of 46
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. 16:36:28 +0530
DOD: 07.04.2026
cross-examined by the Ld. Counsels for Respondents.
16. PW-6 SI Jaydeep Malik, being the Investigating Officer was
examined in chief on 02.06.2025, whereafter, his cross
examination was deferred for want of time as per the report of
the LC, but thereafter, he did not appear on 09.06.2025 and
07.07.2025, whereafter on 25.07.2025, the Ld. Counsel for
Petitioners closed PE.
Evidence of the Respondents
17. The Respondents No. 1 and 2 examined three witnesses.
18. RW1 Prabhat Suri, being the driver of the offending vehicle and
Respondent No.1 himself, tendered his evidence by way of
affidavit i.e. Ex. RW1/A reiterating the contents of his written
statement/ reply. He further testified that even the mechanical
inspection of his vehicle showed that it was hit by some other
heavy vehicle from behind, due to which his car was imbalanced
and turned turtle. He further testified that the amount claimed as
compensation was exaggerated and he had no liability to pay the
same. He further testified that in the discharge summary dated
02.01.2024, the cause of death of the victim/Srishti Sethi was
mentioned as Brady Cardia FB/Cardiac Arrest and her death was
not associated with the accident. He was duly cross-examined
by Ld. Counsel for Petitioners and was not cross examined on
behalf of the Respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company despite
opportunity.
19. R1W2 Dr. Preeti, Associate Consultant, MAX Hospital,
MACT No. 219/24
Digitally signed by
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 8 of 46
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.07
16:36:40 +0530
DOD: 07.04.2026
Shalimar Bagh, Delhi being a summoned witness proved the
death summary of patient namely Srishti Sethi vide Ex.R1W2/1
(Colly). She also proved the copy of cardiology consult echo
report of patient namely Srishti Sethi vide Ex.R1W2/2(Colly).
She further testified that as per the death summary, the patient
Srishti Sethi was brought to the Hospital with the complaint of
altered mental status with hypotension, global LV Hypokinesis
(LVEF 20%) with hypothyroid with the history of Entero-
Cuntaneous Fistula with ileal perforation with faecal peritonitis,
and went on to testify that this condition led to the death of the
patient namely Srishti Sethi due to multiple organs failure with
septic shock. She was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel
for Petitioners wherein she testified that the road traffic accident
was not the direct cause of death of the deceased, but it may
have been indirect cause as she had undergone multiple
surgeries which leads to post operative complications like septic
shock.
20. R1W3 HC MT Upender Kumar, being another summoned
witness proved the mechanical inspection reports of vehicles
bearing registration no. DL-1CAG-9798, DL-3SDP-8019,
DL-14SS-2006 and UP-16CF-2993 vide Ex.R1W3/1 (Colly)
and inter alia testified that as per the mechanical inspection
report of the vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1CAG-9798,
the back side diggy glass was damaged and the back side
bumper was also damaged, but he could not say whether the
damages were fresh or old. He was duly cross-examined by the
Ld. Counsel for Petitioners as well as by Ld. Counsel for
Respondent No.3/ Insurance Company.
Digitally signed
MACT No. 219/24 by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP AGGARWAL Date:
Page No. 9 of 46
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. 2026.04.07
16:36:44 +0530
DOD: 07.04.2026
21. The Respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company did not examine
any witness.
Final Arguments
22. Final arguments were then advanced on behalf of the
Petitioners as well as the Respondents by their respective
counsels, which have been carefully considered along with the
evidence on record and after careful consideration of the same,
the issue wise findings are as under:
Issue No.1: Whether the deceased Sh. Srishti Sethi suffered
fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 30.10.2023
at about 07.30 PM involving vehicle bearing registration
No. DL-1CAG-9798 driven by the Respondent No. 1
rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No. 2 and
insured with the respondent no. 3? OPP.
23. The onus to prove this issue was upon the Petitioners. It is a
settled proposition of law that in this Tribunal strict proof of an
accident having been caused in a particular manner may not be
possible to be done by the Petitioners, and they are to establish
their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and
the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be
applied. Strength for this interpretation is drawn from the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi and
others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others,
(2009) 13 SC 530, Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
& Ors., (2018) 5 SCC 656, Geeta Dubey Vs United India
Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors, 2024 SCC Online SC 3779,
Sajeena Ikhbal and Others Vs Mini Babu George and Others,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2883.
Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL POOJA MACT No. 219/24 AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.07 In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP 16:36:49 Page No. 10 of 46 Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. +0530 DOD: 07.04.2026
24. In Prabhavathi v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corpn.,
2025 SCC OnLine SC 455, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
again reiterated that:
“13. It is the settled law that under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 it is
established that in compensation cases, the strict rules of evidence
used in criminal trials do not apply. Instead, the standard of proof is
based on the preponderance of probability. This Court in Sunita v.
Rajasthan SRTC1 observed that:
“22. It is thus well settled that in motor accident claim cases,
once the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of
the accident, has been established, then the Tribunal’s role
would be to calculate the quantum of just compensation if
the accident had taken place by reason of negligence of the
driver of a motor vehicle and, while doing so, the Tribunal
would not be strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties.
Notably, while deciding cases arising out of motor vehicle
accidents, the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be
of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of
proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in
criminal cases.”
The exposition came to be reiterated in Rajwati alias Rajjo v. United
India Insurance Company Ltd.2, wherein it was observed that:
“20. It is well settled that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a
beneficial piece of legislation and as such, while dealing
with compensation cases, once the actual occurrence of the
accident has been established, the Tribunal’s role would be to
award just and fair compensation. As held by this Court in
Sunita (Supra) and Kusum Lata(Supra), strict rules of
evidence as applicable in a criminal trial, are not applicable
in motor accident compensation cases, i.e., to say, “the
standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of
preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of
proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in
criminal cases”.
(Emphasis supplied)
25. In the present case, as per the testimony of PW-2 Aditya
Sharma, the accident had occurred on 30.10.2023 at about 7.30
P.M., when he was driving his motorcycle bearing registration
no. DL-14SS-2006, on which the deceased Srishti was a pillion
rider. In respect of the manner of the accident, he has
categorically and unequivocally testified that the accident had
1(2020) 13 SCC 486
2 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699 Digitally signed
MACT No. 219/24 POOJA
by POOJA
AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.07 Page No. 11 of 46
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. 16:36:54
+0530
DOD: 07.04.2026
taken place when they had reached near the Gole Chakkar of
Sector-62, Noida, as vehicle bearing registration no.
DL-1CAG-9798 (Maruti Suzuki Brezza) had come from behind,
and first hit two other motorcycles bearing registration no.
UP-16CF-2993 & DL-3SDP-8019, and thereafter hit his
motorcycle on which he was travelling with his colleague/
deceased Srishti. He has also categorically testified that the
offending vehicle was being driven at a very high speed and in
rash and negligent manner, and that due to the powerful impact,
he and his colleague (deceased) had both fallen on the road
along with the motorcycle, sustaining grievous injuries and even
the mechanical inspection report reflects extensive damage to
his vehicle including on the rear side. His testimony could not
be discredited and nothing material could be elicited in his
cross-examination by the Respondents, nor any reason has been
brought on record to disbelieve the mechanical inspection report
of the vehicle of the victim.
26. On the other hand, in his evidence affidavit i.e. Ex RW1/A, the
Respondent No. 1 has testified to the effect that some other
vehicle had hit his vehicle from behind due to which he lost
balance, one of the tyres of his vehicles burst, his vehicle turned
turtle and the motorcycle bearing registration No.
DL-14SS-2006, which was being driven by its driver in a rash
and negligent manner, rammed into his car and fell down.
27. It is thus evident, that in the testimony of both PW2 Aditya
Sharma as well as Respondent no.1, the factum of the accident
having taken place on 30.10.2023 between vehicle bearing
MACT No. 219/24 Digitally signed
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP POOJA by POOJA
AGGARWAL
Page No. 12 of 46
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.07
DOD: 07.04.2026 16:37:00 +0530
registration No. DL-1CAG-9798 and the motorcycle bearing
registration No. DL-14SS-2006, is not disputed, which fact thus
stands proved.
28. In respect of the manner of accident, it is noted that despite not
being able to discredit the testimony of PW2 Aditya Sharma as
to the accident having been caused by rash and negligent driving
of the Respondent No.1, the Respondent No. 1 has taken the
defence of him driving the vehicle diligently and he has
attributed the accident to a burst tyre due to his vehicle having
been hit from behind by another vehicle.
29. However, except self serving oral testimony, the Respondent
No.1 did not lead any evidence to prove the involvement of any
other vehicle in the accident which had hit his vehicle from
behind, nor the existence of any such vehicle is mentioned even
in the chargesheet as filed by the investigating agency. It is also
noted that in his reply/written statement, and even in his
evidence, the Respondent No.1 did not even mention the make,
model or registration number of the other vehicle which had
purportedly hit his car from behind at the time of the accident,
nor furnished any explanation for such omission. The
Respondents did not even examine any expert to prove that the
burst tyre was the result of the offending vehicle having been hit
from behind, and not due to any other reason, including but not
limited to vehicle being driven in a high speed or the tyres not
being roadworthy at the time of the accident, and hence his self
serving oral testimony is not worthy of credence.
Digitally signed
MACT No. 219/24 by POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP POOJA AGGARWAL
Page No. 13 of 46
AGGARWAL Date:
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. 2026.04.07
16:37:06 +0530
DOD: 07.04.2026
30. Further, it is duly noted that Respondent No. 1 has admitted in
his cross-examination that FIR No. 0426/2023, PS Noida
Sector-58, U.P was registered against him. As per the certified
copy of the chargesheet placed on record, the Respondent no.1
was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections
279/337/338 IPC in FIR No. 0426/2023, PS Noida Sector-58,
U.P. by the investigating agency after concluding its
investigation on the aspect of cause of the accident as well as
the identity of the offender, and therefore the same also indicates
existence of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle
by the Respondent No. 1. Strength for this interpretation is
drawn from the judgment of 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) wherein the
Coordinate Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, 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.”
(Emphasis supplied)
31. The act of hitting the vehicle of the deceased from behind by
the vehicle of the Respondent No.1 is itself indicative of rash
and negligent driving by the Respondent No.1. It is a settled
proposition of law, that the Petitioners cannot be expected to
prove the accident beyond reasonable doubts and the principle
of res ipsa loquitor i.e. “accident speaks for itself” is applicable,
which implies that once it has been established in chargesheet
MACT No. 219/24 Digitally
signed by
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP POOJA
POOJA
AGGARWAL Page No. 14 of 46
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.07
DOD: 07.04.2026 16:37:11
+0530
that the accident had taken place, the burden shifts on the
Respondents to prove that they were not responsible for the
accident which the Respondents have failed to discharge.
32. Thus, on a scale of preponderance of probabilities, upon
consideration of the evidence as led including the chargesheet,
as well as oral testimony of PW-2 Aditya Sharma and in the
absence of any evidence as to the existence of any negligent/
sudden act or omission on the part of the deceased/ driver of the
motorcycle having been brought on record, it is held that the
Petitioners have discharged their burden and proved that an
accident that took place on 30.10.2023 at about 07.30 PM
involving vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1CAG-9798
driven rashly and negligently by the Respondent No. 1, owned
by the Respondent No. 2 and insured with the Respondent No.
3/ Insurance Company.
33. During the course of final arguments, the Respondent No.1 has
relied upon the mechanical inspection report of the offending
vehicle to contend that the same proved their defence. However,
it is duly noted that though the mechanical inspection report of
the offending vehicle does in fact reflect damage to the rear
diggy and the back side bumper, it does not reflect such damage
to be fresh, and even R1W3 HC MT Upender Kumar testified
that he could not say whether the damage were fresh or not. In
the absence of any cogent evidence as to the damages being
fresh, the mere recording in the mechanical inspection report of
damage to the rear of the offending vehicle, does not render the
defence of the Respondent No. 1 probable enough so as to
Digitally signed
MACT No. 219/24 POOJA by POOJA
AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.07
Page No. 15 of 46
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. 16:37:18 +0530
DOD: 07.04.2026
disbelieve the oral testimony of PW2 Aditya Sharma, which
could not be discredited in the cross-examination.
34. It has also been argued on behalf of the Respondent No.3/
Insurance company, that as the deceased was not wearing a
helmet at the time of the accident, there was contributory
negligence on her part. However, the Respondent No.3/
Insurance Company led no evidence to prove the factum of the
deceased not wearing any helmet at the time of the accident, nor
they could elicit any admission from the PW2 Aditya Sharma
who was driving the vehicle on which the deceased was
travelling, rather not even a single suggestion was put to PW2
Aditya Sharma as to the deceased not wearing any helmet. Thus,
in the absence of any cogent creditworthy evidence having been
brought on record by the Respondents, the factum of the
deceased not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident
remains unproved, and no contributory negligence is brought
forth. Thus, the argument as raised by the Respondent No. 3/
Insurance Company is rejected.
35. In as far as the factum of the deceased having sustained fatal
injuries due the accident is concerned, it is noted that as per the
testimony of PW-1 Smt. Sangeeta Sethi, the accident resulted in
grievous injury to her daughter, who was admitted to MAX
Hospital Vaishali from 30.10.2023 to 11.11.2023, then from
18.11.2023 to 22.11.2023 and again from 16.12.2023 to
30.12.2023. She has also testified that the deceased was then
admitted to Max Hospital Shalimar Bagh, Delhi on 01.01.2024,
where she expired during course of treatment on 02.01.2024 i.e.
MACT No. 219/24 Digitally signed
by POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
Page No. 16 of 46
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. 2026.04.07
16:37:24 +0530
DOD: 07.04.2026
after three months of the accident.
36. PW1 has relied upon the MLC dated 30.10.2023 of Ms. Srishti
Sethi, issued by MAX Health Care i.e. Ex.PW-1/5, as per which,
the patient had been brought with alleged history of road traffic
accident with injuries including depressed skull fracture over
frontal region with multiple abrasions, degloving injuries over
anterior aspect of left leg and multiple abrasion over both upper
and lower limbs.
37. She has also relied upon the discharge summary of Ms. Srishti
issued by MAX Health Care i.e. Ex. PW1/8 which reflects that
the deceased remained admitted in the Hospital from 30.10.2023
to 11.11.2023 and was diagnosed with “Open book injury pelvis
(Pubic symphysis disruption) with right side sacroiliac joint
dislocation with B/L hip bone anterior colum fracture with
polytrauma left leg degloving injury and nasal bone fracture”.
38. The Petitioners have also examined PW-3 Manish Gupta who
proved the discharge summary of Ms. Srishti, issued by MAX
Super Speciality Hospital reflecting that she remained admitted
in the Hospital from 18.11.2023 to 22.11.2023 and was
diagnosed as being a follow up case of degloving injury of left
leg. PW-3 Manish Gupta also proved the discharge summary of
Ms. Srishti, issued by MAX Super Speciality Hospital reflecting
that she remained admitted in the Hospital from 16.12.2023 to
30.12.2023 and was diagnosed with “Entro-cuntaneous fistula
with ileal perforation with faecal peritonitis”.
Digitally signed
MACT No. 219/24 by POOJA
AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP POOJA Page No. 17 of 46
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.07
16:37:31
DOD: 07.04.2026 +0530
39. PW-5 Pramod Arya has produced the death summary of Srishti
Sethi, issued by Max Health Care (forming part of Ex. PW5/1
(colly) reflecting the date of admission as 01.01.2024 and date
of death as 02.01.2024 reflecting primary diagnosis as “AMS
WITH SHOCK U/E; ? METABOLIC ENCEPHALOPATHY; ?
SEPTIC SHOCK; TO R/O INTRACRAINAL PATHOLOGY;
TO R/O PE/DVT” and secondary diagnosis “? METABOLIC
ENCEPHALOPATHY POST OP ENTERO-CUNTANEOUS
FISTULA WITH ILEAL PERFORATION WITH FAECAL
PERITONITIS “, and the report (also Ex R1W2/1) also reflects
the said secondary diagnosis to be the antecedent cause.
40. These medical documents sufficiently prove that the injured
remained under treatment since the date of the accident.
41. It is also noted that R1W2 Dr. Preeti who proved the death
summary Ex. R1W2/1, being the author thereof, has testified
during her cross examination that the road traffic accident was
not the direct cause of death of the deceased, but it may have
been indirect cause as she had undergone multiple surgeries
which leads to post operative complications like septic shock.
Nothing has been brought on record to disbelieve the medical
documents relied upon by the Petitioners or the testimony of
R1W2 Dr. Preeti as to the accident being the antecedent cause of
the death of the deceased.
42. Thus, from the evidence on record, including medical
documents/discharge summaries on record, it stands proved that
the deceased remained under treatment since the date of
MACT No. 219/24 Digitally signed by
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 18 of 46
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.07
16:37:36 +0530
DOD: 07.04.2026
accident, and though she may have been discharged in stable
condition as per the discharge summaries on record, no evidence
has been brought on record by the Respondents to disbelieve
that she remained under treatment as a result of injuries
sustained by her in the accident, eventually leading to her death
due to post operative complications like septic shock, with the
antecedent cause being the accident. Hence, the factum of the
accident having resulted in fatal injuries to the deceased Srishti
Sethi stands proved.
43. Issue no.1 is, accordingly, decided in favour of the Petitioners
against the Respondents.
Issue No. 2: Whether the Petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?;
and
Issue no.3 / Relief
44. As the issue no. 1 has been decided in favour of Petitioners and
against Respondents, the Petitioners are entitled to be
compensated for the fatal injuries suffered by the deceased in
the above accident and Section 168 of the MV Act enjoins upon
this 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.
45. The guiding principles for assessment of “just and reasonable
compensation” in fatal case has been enumerated by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, in Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod, 2022
SCC OnLine SC 1683, wherein it has been observed that: –
Digitally signed
MACT No. 219/24 POOJA by POOJA
AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.07 Page No. 19 of 46
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. 16:37:44 +0530
DOD: 07.04.2026
“The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “MV
Act“) gives paramount importance to the concept of ‘just and fair’
compensation. It is a beneficial legislation which has been framed
with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families.
Section 168 of the MV Act deals with the concept of ‘just
compensation’ which ought to be determined on the foundation of
fairness, reasonableness and equitability. Although such
determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an
endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair
compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the
applicant/s. In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009)
6 SCC 121, this Court has laid down as under:
16.”Just compensation” is adequate compensation which is
fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case,
to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far
as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles
relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a
bonanza, largesse or source of profit.”
(Emphasis supplied)
46. In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC
121 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also observed that:
“17. Assessment of compensation though involving certain
hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective.
Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment, consistency
and thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and uniformity in the
decision making process and the decisions. While it may not be
possible to have mathematical precision or identical awards, in
assessing compensation, same or similar facts should lead to awards
in the same range. When the factors/inputs are the same, and the
formula/legal principles are the same, consistency and uniformity,
and not divergence and freakiness, should be the result of
adjudication to arrive at just compensation.
18. Basically only three facts need to be established by the
claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death:
(a) age of the deceased;
(b) income of the deceased; and
(c) the number of dependents.
The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of
dependency are:
(i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income;
(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living
expenses of the deceased; and
(iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the
deceased.
If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and
consistency in the decisions. There will lesser need for detailed
evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle
accident claims without delay. Digitally signed
by POOJA
MACT No. 219/24 POOJA AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.07 Page No. 20 of 46
16:37:59 +0530
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors.
DOD: 07.04.2026
19. 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 dependant family, constitutes the
multiplicand.
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier)
Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active
career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not
mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or
worked but for the accident. Having regard to several
imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers
with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The
multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to
the age of the deceased.
Step 3 (Actual calculation) The annual contribution to the
family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the
`loss of dependency’ to the family.
Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to
Rs.10,000/- may be added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is
survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range
of 5,000/- to 10,000/- should be added under the head of loss of
consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain,
suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if
incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before
death (if incurred) should also added.”
(Emphasis supplied)
47. In view of the above legal propositions, the amount of
compensation shall be computed.
Age and Income of Deceased
48. In respect of age and income of the deceased, PW-1/ Petitioner
No. 1 has testified in her evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex.
PW1/A to the effect that at the time of accident, her daughter i.e.
deceased was aged about 27 years and she was working as an
Associate Project Manager in Trio Tree Technologies Pvt. Ltd
Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
MACT No. 219/24 AGGARWAL Date:
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP 2026.04.07 Page No. 21 of 46
16:38:06 +0530
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors.
DOD: 07.04.2026
earning ₹63,317/- per month. She also relied upon a copy of
Aadhaar Card of the deceased i.e. Ex. PW-1/2 as well as
educational documents i.e. Ex.PW-1/7 (Colly), as per which the
date of of birth of the deceased was 24.12.1996. As the accident
took place on 30.10.2023, the age of deceased was around 26
years at the time of the accident, hence, the age of the deceased
would be considered to be 26 years for the purpose of
computation of compensation.
49. In respect of the income of the deceased, it is noted that the
PW4 Chandan Kumar Mishra has produced the salary slip of the
deceased as a part of Ex PW4/1 as per which the gross salary
(including allowances) is ₹65,367/-, and the net salary is
₹63,317/- after deductions towards PF contribution (₹1,800/-)
and towards medical deduction (₹250/-), and no Income Tax has
been deducted therefrom. During his cross-examination, PW4
Chandan Kumar Mishra has testified that no income tax was
deducted by them, as the deceased was on the new taxable
regime for the financial year 2023-24.
50. The law is well settled that while calculating the income, there
should be no exclusion of the allowances payable as per the last
pay slip, and allowances, under the head of Transport
Allowance, House Rent Allowance, provident fund and Special
Allowances, have to be added while considering the benchmark
income.
51. Strength for this interpretation is drawn from the judgment in
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meenakshi, 2026 SCC
MACT No. 219/24 Digitally
signed by
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP POOJA
POOJA
AGGARWAL Page No. 22 of 46
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.07
DOD: 07.04.2026 16:38:10
+0530
OnLine Del 902, wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has also
observed that:
20. There is yet another order of the Supreme Court
in Meenakshi v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine SC
1872, wherein it has been held that allowances, under the head of
Transport Allowance, House Rent Allowance, provident fund and
Special Allowances, have to be added while considering the
benchmark income.” Relevant paragraph is extracted as under:
“8. In Raghuvir Singh Matolya v. Hari Singh Malviya4, this
Court held that the house rent allowance ought to be included
for determining the income of the deceased. The relevant paras
are extracted hereinbelow for ready reference:–
“6. Dearness allowance, in our opinion, should form a
part of the income. House rent allowance is paid for the
benefit of the family members and not for the employee
alone. What would constitute an income, albeit in a
different fact situation, came up for consideration before
this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira
Srivastava [(2008) 2 SCC 763 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ)
744 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 550] wherein it was held:
“19. The amounts, therefore, which were required
to be paid to the deceased by his employer by
way of perks, should be included for computation
of his monthly income as that would have been
added to his monthly income by way of
contribution to the family as contradistinguished
to the ones which were for his benefit. We may,
however, hasten to add that from the said amount
of income, the statutory amount of tax payable
thereupon must be deducted.
20. The term ‘income’ in P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s
Advanced Law Lexicon (3rd Edn.) has been
defined as under:
(iii) the value of any benefit or perquisite whether
convertible into money or not, obtained from a
company either by a Director or a person who has
substantial interest in the company, and any sum
paid by such company in respect of any
obligation, which but for such payment would
have been payable by the Director or other person
aforesaid, occurring or arising to a person within
the State from any profession, trade or calling
other than agriculture
‘It has also been stated:'”Income” signifies “what
comes in” (per Selborne,
C., Jones v. Ogle [[1861-73] All ER Rep 918]).
“It is as large a word as can be used” to denote a
person’s receipts (per Jessel, M.R., Huggins, ex
p., Re [51 LJ Ch 935]). Income is not confined to
MACT No. 219/24 Digitally signed by
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP POOJA POOJA
AGGARWAL
Page No. 23 of 46
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.07
DOD: 07.04.2026 16:38:15 +0530
receipts from business only and means periodical
receipts from one’s work, lands, investments,
etc. Secy. to the Board of Revenue, income
tax v. Al. Ar. Rm. Arunachalam Chettiar &
Bros. [1920 SCC OnLine Mad 207 : AIR 1921
Mad 427] Ref. Vulvun Insurance Co. Ltd. v
Corpn of Madras [1929 SCC OnLine Mad
217 : AIR 1930 Mad 626 (2)].’
21. If the dictionary meaning of the word
‘income’ is taken to its logical conclusion, it
should include those benefits, either in terms of
money or otherwise, which are taken into
consideration for the purpose of payment of
income tax or professional tax although some
elements thereof may or may not be taxable or
would have been otherwise taxable but for the
exemption conferred thereupon under the statute.
To the same effect is the decision of this Court
in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Ram
Prasad Varma [(2009) 2 SCC 712 : (2009) 1 SCC
(Civ) 705 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 853 : (2009) 1
Scale 598].
7. We, therefore, are of the opinion that “dearness
allowance” and “house rent allowance” payable
to the deceased should have been included for
determining the income of the deceased and
consequently the amount of compensation.”
(emphasis supplied)
9. Recently in a judgment dated 11-7-2024
in National Insurance Company Ltd. v.Nalini [Petition
for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 4230/2019], this
Court held that, allowances under the heads of transport
allowance, house rent allowance, provident fund loan,
provident fund and special allowance ought to be added
while considering the basic salary of the victim/deceased
to arrive at the dependency factor.
10. Therefore, components of house rent allowance,
flexible benefit plan and company contribution to
provident fund have to be included in the salary of the
deceased while applying the component of rise in income
by future prospects to determine the dependency factor.
The Accident Claims Tribunal was justified in factoring
these components into the salary of the deceased, before
applying 50% rise by future prospects due to future
prospects, while calculating the total compensation
payable to the appellant.”
(Emphasis added)
52. It is also a settled proposition of law that the actual income is to
Digitally signed
by POOJA
MACT No. 219/24 POOJA AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.07
Page No. 24 of 46
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. 16:38:24 +0530DOD: 07.04.2026
be arrived at after income tax payable is to be deducted.
Strength for this interpretation is drawn from Vimal Kanwar v.
Kishore Dan, (2013) 7 SCC 476, (also referred to in Universal
Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Dinesh Kumar
Singh, 2025: DHC: 4930) where the Hon’ble Apex Court while
relying on the judgment of Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Anr (supra) observed as under:
“22. The third issue is “whether the income tax is liable to be
deducted for determination of compensation under the Motor
Vehicles Act“.
23. In Sarla Verma this Court held:
“20. Generally, the actual income of the deceased less income tax
should be the starting point for calculating compensation”
This Court further observed that:
“24. … Where the annual income is in taxable range, the words
‘actual salary’ should be read as ‘actual salary less tax’.”
Therefore, it is clear that if the annual income comes within the
taxable range, income tax is required to be deducted for
determination of the actual salary. But while deducting income tax
from the salary, it is necessary to notice the nature of the income of
the victim. If the victim is receiving income chargeable under the
head “salaries” one should keep in mind that under Section 192(1)
of the Income Tax Act, 1961 any person responsible for paying any
income chargeable under the head “salaries” shall at the time of
payment, deduct income tax on estimated income of the employee
from “salaries” for that financial year. Such deduction is commonly
known as tax deducted at source (“TDS”, for short). When the
employer fails in default to deduct the TDS from the employee’s
salary, as it is his duty to deduct the TDS, then the penalty for non-
deduction of TDS is prescribed under Section 201(1-A) of the
Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, in case the income of the victim
is only from “salary”, the presumption would be that the employer
under Section 192 (1) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 has deducted the
tax at source from the employee’s salary. In case if an objection is
raised by any party, the objector is required to prove by producing
evidence such as LPC to suggest that the employer failed to deduct
the TDS from the salary of the employee. However, there can be
cases where the victim is not a salaried person i.e. his income is
from sources other than salary, and the annual income falls within
taxable range, in such cases, if any objection as to deduction of tax
is made by a party then the claimant is required to prove that the
victim has already paid income tax and no further tax has to be
deducted from the income.”
(Emphasis supplied)
MACT No. 219/24 POOJA
Digitally signed by
POOJA AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.07 Page No. 25 of 46
16:38:30 +0530
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors.
DOD: 07.04.2026
53. In view of the aforesaid propositions of law, the income of the
deceased payable at the time of her death shall be computed.
54. It is duly noted that the monthly income of the deceased as
reflected from her payslip inclusive of all allowances comes to
₹65,117/- (after deducting only medical deduction of ₹250/- per
month), which thus comes to be ₹7,81,404/- annually. No other
source of income of the deceased has been brought on record.
55. As per the testimony of PW4 Chandan Kumar Mishra, they did
not deduct any tax, as the deceased was on the new taxable
regime for the financial year 2023-24. Thus, from the testimony
of PW4 Chandan Kumar Mishra it stands proved that no income
tax was deducted by them being the employer of the deceased.
However, in view of the legal proposition discussed above, even
if no tax is deducted at source by the employer, if the income of
the deceased was taxable, resulting in a liability for her to pay,
the same would have to be deducted from her income.
56. In the case at hand, no ITR of the deceased has been placed or
proved on record. In such a scenario, her tax liability would
have to be worked out on the basis of her computed annual
salary of ₹7,81,404/-.
57. It is duly noted that the accident took place on 30.10.2023, and
The Ministry of Finance by way of the Finance Bill, 2023
notified the tax slabs applicable for the financial year 2023-24
as per which no tax is payable for income up to ₹3,00,000; a tax
MACT No. 219/24 POOJA
Digitally signed by
POOJA AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.07 Page No. 26 of 46
16:38:37 +0530
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors.
DOD: 07.04.2026
of 5% is payable in respect of the income between ₹3,00,001 –
₹6,00,000 and 10% of the income is payable for income
between ₹6,00,001 – ₹9,00,000. Further, a standard deduction
of ₹50,000/- has also been made applicable for the tax payer,
while a Health & Education Cess of 4% is also applicable.
58. That being so, in respect of the present case, as the income of
the deceased was ₹7,81,404/- annually, a sum of ₹50,000/-
would be deducted therefrom as standard deduction resulting in
the taxable income being ₹7,31,404/-. For the said income,
there would be NIL tax payable for the income upto
₹3,00,000/-; ₹15,000/- as tax for the income between ₹3,00,001
to ₹6,00,000/- (being 5% of ₹3,00,000) and ₹13,140/- as tax for
the income between ₹6,00,001 to ₹7,31,404 being 10% of
₹1,31,404. Hence, the total tax before the cess would be
₹28,140/-. After considering the 4% Health & Education Cess
(4%), additional tax of ₹1,126/- would have been payable, and
hence the Total Tax Payable comes to be ₹29,266/- which has to
be deducted from the computed income of ₹7,31,404/- which
then comes to ₹7,02,138/-.
59. Hence, the post tax income of the deceased has been computed
to be ₹7,02,138/- annual income, which shall be considered for
the purpose of computation of the quantum of compensation.
Dependency upon the Deceased
60. In respect of the question of dependency, it is noted that the
Petitioners No.1 and 2 are the mother and sister of the deceased,
and PW-1/ Petitioner No.1 has categorically testified that the
Digitally signed
MACT No. 219/24 by POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 27 of 46
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.07
DOD: 07.04.2026 16:38:43 +0530
deceased was supporting her family financially from her
income, and they were completely dependent upon the
deceased. The memo of parties as well as the affidavit of the
Petitioners filed along with the Petition reflects the name of the
husband / father of the Petitioners No.1 and 2 respectively as
Late Sh Sanjay Kumar Sethi, and no reason has been brought on
record to disbelieve that the father of the deceased as well as
Petitioner No.2 had already expired.
61. It is duly noted that the Respondents did not even controvert the
factum of the dependency of the Petitioners upon the deceased,
and no source of income of the Petitioners have been brought on
record including that of Petitioner No.2 who was merely about
18 years old at the time of the accident, whose father has already
expired. That being so, both the Petitioners would be considered
as dependents of the deceased for the purpose of computation of
compensation.
A) Computation of compensation
on account of loss of dependency
62. In respect of the computation under this head, it is noted that as
laid down in the judgment of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, the loss of
dependency to the family is to be calculated by multiplying the
annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) by the
multiplier.
Multiplicand
63. For the calculation of the Multiplicand, as per the judgment of
Sarla Verma, after the income of the deceased per annum is
MACT No. 219/24 Digitally signed
by POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 28 of 46
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.07
16:38:47 +0530
DOD: 07.04.2026
determined, a deduction is to be made from such annual income
in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on
himself by way of personal and living expenses, and the
balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the
dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.
64. In the present case, the deceased was aged about 26 years at the
time of the accident, in view of the law laid down in the case of
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16
SCC 680, an addition of 40% of her income is to be made to her
earnings towards future prospects. Hence the monthly income
of the deceased is calculated to be ₹81,916.10/- (₹7,02,138/-
divided by 12 + ₹23,404.60/- which is 40% of ₹58,511.5/-).
65. Further, with it having been brought on record that there were 2
dependents of the deceased at the time of her demise, the
deduction of 1/3rd is applicable. Hence, in view of 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, a sum of ₹27,305.36/- has to be deducted on account
of her personal and living expenses. That being so, the monthly
loss of dependency is calculated to be ₹54,610.73/- (i.e. 2/3rd of
₹81,916.10/-) which has to be multiplied by 12 to arrive at the
multiplicand i.e. annual loss of dependency. Hence, multiplicand
would be ₹6,55,328.8/- (₹54,610.73/- x 12).
Digitally signed
by POOJA
MACT No. 219/24 POOJA AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP AGGARWAL Date: Page No. 29 of 46
2026.04.07
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. 16:38:51 +0530
DOD: 07.04.2026
Multiplier
66. In the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been
upheld by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2017 (16) SCC 680, the multipliers have
been enumerated for calculating the loss of dependency caused
on account of death of the deceased. The relevant portion of the
judgment of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 is reproduced as under
for ready reference:
” 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.”
(Emphasis supplied)
67. In the present case, with the deceased being aged 26 years at the
time of the accident, the multiplier of 17 would be applicable.
Thus, the loss of dependency qua the deceased in the present
case is calculated to be ₹1,11,40,590/- (rounded off from
₹1,11,40,589.60) (i.e. Multiplicand of ₹6,55,328.8/- x
Multiplier of 17).
B) Computation of Compensation
under Non-Pecuniary Heads
68. In respect of the compensation under non-pecuniary heads, in
Rajwati @ Rajjo & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ,
MACT No. 219/24 Digitally signed by
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 30 of 46
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.07
16:38:56 +0530
DOD: 07.04.2026
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India has held that:
“A three Judge Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co.
Ltd vs Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors.(2021) 11 SCC
780 , has awarded spousal consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/-
and towards loss of parental consortium to each child at the rate of
Rs.40,000/-. The compensation under these heads also needs to be
increased by 10% after every three years. Accordingly, the grant of
Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium is increased to Rs.44,000/-
to each Appellant, amounting to a total of Rs.2,20,000/-. Along
with this, Rs.15,000/- each for the heads of ‘funeral expenses’ and
‘loss of estate’ is also very meagre. In our considered opinion, an
amount of Rs.20,000/- is liable to be paid towards funeral
expenses. Similarly, award of Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’
is liable to be increased to Rs.20,000/-.”
(Emphasis supplied)
69. In view of the aforesaid legal proposition, the Petitioners herein
are also awarded a sum of ₹20,000/- towards funeral expenses
and another sum of ₹20,000/- towards loss of estate. Further, a
sum of ₹48,400/- each is granted to the Petitioners i.e. total of
₹48,400/- x 2 = ₹96,800/- towards Loss of Consortium.
70. In respect of loss of love and affection as a separate head, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in the case of United India
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur,
2020 SCC Online SC 410 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:
“33. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation which
has been framed with the object of 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 the children who
lose the care and protection of their parents in motor vehicle
accidents. The amount to be awarded for loss consortium will be as
per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra).
MACT No. 219/24 Digitally signed by
POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.07 Page No. 31 of 46
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. 16:39:01 +0530
DOD: 07.04.2026
34. 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.
35. 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.”
(Emphasis supplied)
71. That being so, in the present case, the Petitioners are not
awarded separate compensation towards loss of love and
affection.
Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, and medicines
prior to the death of the deceased
72. The Petitioners have proved the various medical bills through
PW-3 and PW-5 vide Ex. PW-3/1 (Colly) and Ex.PW-5/1
(Colly) in respect of the medical bills/ treatment of the deceased
which they have incurred prior to her death to the tune of
₹23,30,733/-. The bills placed on record by Petitioners have not
been discredited or disputed or disproved by the Respondents
either during the evidence or even during the course of final
arguments, and are in respect of expenses which have been
incurred on the medical treatment of the deceased just prior to
her death. That being so, the Petitioners are awarded a sum of
₹23,30,733/- which is the total of the bills produced by them on
record towards treatment/ medicine expenses of the deceased.
Digitally signed
MACT No. 219/24 by POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP
POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 32 of 46
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.07
16:39:08 +0530
DOD: 07.04.2026
73. Thus, the total compensation awarded to the Petitioners towards
loss of dependency as well as non-pecuniary head is
₹1,36,08,123/- under the following heads:
i) Loss of Dependency: ₹1,11,40,590/- (rounded off)
ii) Loss of Consortium: ₹96,800/-
iii) Funeral Expenses: ₹20,000/-
iv) Loss of estate: ₹20,000/-
v) Medical Expenses: ₹23,30,733/-
74. In respect of entitlement of the Petitioners to interest on the
awarded amount, it is duly noted that the case is pending since
27.03.2024, and the rate of interest of fixed deposits in
Nationalized banks has fluctuated/dropped several times during
the pendency of the present proceedings. Thus, in the interest of
justice and keeping in view the principles discussed in order
dated 21.04.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court
in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Baby Raksha & Ors,
MAC APP. No. 36/2023, the claimants/ Petitioners are awarded
interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the
petition i.e. with effect from 27.03.2024 till date of the award.
The amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the
above amount, if the same has already been paid to the
Petitioners.
Liability
75. As already stated above, Respondent No.1 being the driver and
principal tortfeasor; and Respondent No.2 being owner of the
offending vehicle being vicariously liable for the acts of
Respondent No.1, are jointly and severally liable to pay the
Digitally signed
MACT No. 219/24 POOJA
by POOJA
AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.07 Page No. 33 of 46
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. 16:39:13 +0530
DOD: 07.04.2026
awarded amount of compensation to petitioners. However, since
the offending vehicle was insured with Respondent No.3 at the
time of accident and the Respondent No.3 / Insurance Company
has not raised any statutory defence in denial of their liability,
hence, the Respondent No.3 shall be liable to pay the
compensation amount to the Petitioners.
76. Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in favour of the Petitioners
and against the Respondents.
Apportionment
77. In respect of issue no.3, as the Petitioners have been held to be
entitled to a compensation of ₹1,56,77,692/- inclusive of
interest (i.e. ₹20,69,569/- (rounded off)) and it has been brought
on record that the deceased is survived by her mother and sister
only, the individual shares of the dependents of the deceased are
apportioned and tabulated as under:
S.No. Name of the Relation Share of the Calculation of
beneficiary with the beneficiary the amount as
deceased per share
1. Smt. Mother 60% of ₹66,84,354/-+
Sangeeta compensation ₹48,400/- +
Sethi account of loss ₹20,000/- +
of dependency ₹20,000/- +
(i.e. 60% of ₹23,30,733/- i.e.
₹1,11,40,590/-) total of
+ Loss of ₹91,03,487/-
consortium+ along with
funeral interest @ 7.5%
expenses+ Loss per annum from
of Estate + date of filing of
Medical the petition till
expenses the date of
award
MACT No. 219/24 Digitally signed
by POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 34 of 46
AGGARWAL Date:
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. 2026.04.07
16:39:17 +0530
DOD: 07.04.2026
i.e. ₹13,84,489/-
(rounded off
from
₹13,84,488.648)
total being
₹1,04,87,976/-
(rounded off)
2. Ishita Sethi Sister 40% of ₹44,56,236/-
compensation +₹48,400/- i.e.
account of loss total of
of dependency ₹45,04,636/-
(i.e. 40% of along with
₹1,11,40,590/-) interest @ 7.5%
+ Loss of per annum from
consortium date of filing of
the petition till
the date of
award
i.e. ₹6,85,080/-
(rounded off
from
₹6,85,080.058/-)
i.e. total being
₹51,89,716/-
Release/ Disbursement
78. As per the Financial Statement of Petitioners recorded in this
case, the monthly expenses of the family are approximately
₹30,000/- to ₹35,000/- per month. Hence, while deciding the
quantum and manner of disbursement of the awarded amounts,
the following directions given by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court
vide orders dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No.
842/2003 titled Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors.
have to be borne in mind:
“(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
Digitally signed
MACT No. 219/24 POOJA by POOJA
AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.07 Page No. 35 of 46
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. 16:39:21 +0530
DOD: 07.04.2026
saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe
custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR
amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished
by bank to the claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in
the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their
residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be
allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or
debit card to claimants. However, in case the debit card and/or
cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the
same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank
shall debit card(s) freeze the account of claimants so that no debit
card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any
other branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the
claimant to the effect, that no cheque books and/or debit card
have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission
of the Court and the claimant shall produced the passbook with
the necessary endorsement before the Court for compliance.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
79. It is also noted that thereafter, in Parminder Singh vs Honey
Goyal, S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020 as decided by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India on 18 March, 2025 it has been further
directed 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
MACT No. 219/24 Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.07 Page No. 36 of 46
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. 16:39:26 +0530DOD: 07.04.2026
either individually or jointly with family members only. It should
also be mandated that, in case there is any change in the bank
account particulars of the claimant(s) during the pendency of the
claim petition they should update the same before the Tribunal.
This should be ensured before passing of the final award. It may be
ensured that the bank account should be in the name of the
claimant(s) and if minor, through guardian(s) and in no case it
should be a joint account with any person, who is not a family
member. The transfer of the amount in the bank account,
particulars of which have been furnished by the claimant(s), as
mentioned in the award, shall be treated as satisfaction of the
award. Intimation of compliance should be furnished to the
Tribunal.”
(Emphasis supplied)
80. 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 Delhi High Court
shall be complied with.
81. In view of the aforesaid directions, the disbursement of the
awarded amount is directed as under:
Disbursement qua Smt. Sangeeta Sethi (Mother):
82. After considering the financial statement of the Petitioners, it is
directed that upon realization of the awarded amount, out of the
share of the Petitioner No. 1/ Mother, a sum of ₹32,87,976/-
(Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand Nine
Hundred Seventy Six only) (inclusive of the medical expenses)
shall be released to her immediately in her Bank Account No.
44226863872, IFSC Code SBIN0000726, State Bank of India,
Tis Hazari Court as furnished by her at the time of recording of
her financial statement.
83. The balance amount of ₹72,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Two
MACT No. 219/24 Digitally signed
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP POOJA
by POOJA
AGGARWAL Page No. 37 of 46
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.07
DOD: 07.04.2026 16:39:32 +0530
Lakhs Only) shall be put in 240 monthly fixed deposits in her
name in her account as mentioned above of equal amount of
₹30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) each for a period of
01 month to 240 months 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 the nationalized bank
situated near the place of her residence.
Disbursement qua Ms. Ishita Sethi (Sister):
84. After considering the financial statement of the Petitioner No.2,
it is directed that upon realization of the awarded amount, out of
the share of the Petitioner No.2 / Sister, the sum of ₹5,39,716/-
(Rupees Five Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand Seven and Sixteen
only) shall be released to her immediately in her Bank Account
No. 44226593359, IFSC Code SBIN0000726, State Bank of
India, Tis Hazari Court as furnished by her at the time of
recording of her financial statement.
85. The balance amount of ₹46,50,000/- (Rupees Forty Six Lakhs
Fifty Thousand Only) shall be put in 186 monthly fixed deposits
in her name in her account as mentioned above of equal amount
of ₹25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each for a
period of 01 month to 186 months 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 the
Digitally signed
MACT No. 219/24 by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP AGGARWAL Date: Page No. 38 of 46
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. 2026.04.07
16:39:47 +0530
DOD: 07.04.2026
nationalized bank situated near the place of her residence.
86. The Respondent No.3/ IFFCO Tokio General Insurance
Company Ltd. is directed to deposit the awarded sum of
₹1,56,77,692/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Six Lakhs Seventy
Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Two only), inclusive
of interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of petition till the
date of the award (as rounded off) within 30 days by way of
NEFT or RTGS mode directly in the MACT account of the
Petitioners as mentioned in the Para No. 82 and 84 of this award
under intimation to the Petitioners as well as this Tribunal
failing which the said Respondent shall be liable to pay interest
@ 12 % per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days.
(Ref: Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika &
Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.).
87. The concerned Manager of the bank of the Petitioners is
directed to release the amount to the Petitioners only as per the
award upon completion of necessary formalities as per the rules.
He/ She is directed to keep the amount in fixed deposits as per
the directions given in the award and to send a compliance
report to this court. He/ She is also directed to ensure that no
loan, advance or pre mature discharge is allowed on the fixed
deposit without an order of this court.
88. A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of
cost.
89. The summary of the award as per Form XV of the Annexure
MACT No. 219/24 Digitally signed
by POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 39 of 46
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.07
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. 16:39:55 +0530
DOD: 07.04.2026
XIII and particulars of compliance of the Provisions of the
Scheme as per Form XVII of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules,
1989 as amended by the Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth
Amendment) Rules, 2022, are also annexed with this Award as
Annexure A and B respectively, and shall form a part of this
award.
90. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Judicial
Magistrate First Class 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)].
91. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed
by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 06.01.2021 in MAC.APP
No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., regarding digitization of the records.
92. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award
to the insurer 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 and also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award
to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information and
compliance.
93. Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view
of Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022
[(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of
Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A). Digitally signed
by POOJA
MACT No. 219/24 POOJA AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP AGGARWAL Date: Page No. 40 of 46
2026.04.07
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. 16:40:03 +0530
DOD: 07.04.2026
94. This file be consigned to the Record Room after necessary
compliance and a separate file be prepared for compliance
report and put up the same on 07.05.2026.
Digitally signed
Announced in the Open Court POOJA
by POOJA
AGGARWAL
today i.e. on 7th April, 2026 AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.07
16:40:09 +0530
(POOJA AGGARWAL)
Presiding Officer, MACT-02 (Central)
Tis Hazari, Delhi(K)
MACT No. 219/24 Digitally signed
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP POOJA
by POOJA
AGGARWAL
Page No. 41 of 46
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.07
DOD: 07.04.2026 16:40:15 +0530
ANNEXURE AFORM – XV, Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment) Rules,
2022 (part of Annexure XIII. Ref: Rule 150A)SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN
DEATH CASES
1. Date of accident : 30.10.2023
2. Name of the deceased : Ms. Srishti Sethi
3. Age of the deceased : 26 years
4. Occupation of the deceased : Job
5. Income of the deceased : Assessed on the basis of
salary slip
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representative of
deceased:-
S. No. Name Age Relation
(1) Sangeeta Sethi 53 Years Mother of the
deceased
(2) Ishita Sethi 20 Years Sister of the
deceased
Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
7. Monthly income of the ₹58,511.50/- per month
deceased (A)
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) ₹23,404.60/- per month
9. Less-Personal expenses of ₹27,305.36/- per month
the deceased(C)
10. Monthly loss of ₹54,610.73/-
dependency[(A+B)-C=D]
11. Annual loss of ₹6,55,328.80/-
dependency (Dx12)
MACT No. 219/24
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP POOJA
Digitally signed by
POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 42 of 46
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.07
16:40:18 +0530
DOD: 07.04.2026
12. Multiplier(E) 17
13. Total loss of dependency ₹1,11,40,590/-
(Dx12xE= F) (rounded off from
₹1,11,40,589.60/-)
14. Medical Expenses(G) ₹23,30,733/-
15. Compensation for loss of ₹96,800/-
consortium(H)
16. Compensation for loss of NIL
love and affection (I)
17. Compensation for loss of ₹20,000/-
estate(J)
18. Compensation towards ₹20,000/-
funeral expenses(K)
19. TOTAL ₹1,36,08,123/-
COMPENSATION
(F+G+H+I+J+K=L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST 7.5% p.a.
AWARDED
21. Interest amount up to the ₹20,69,569/- (rounded off)
date of award(M)
22. Total amount including ₹1,56,77,692/- (rounded off)
interest(L + M)
23. Award amount released Petitioner no.1: ₹32,87,976/-
Petitioner no.2: ₹5,39,716/-
24. Award amount kept in As per Award
FDRs
25. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award
the award amount to the
petitioner (s)
26. Next date for compliance 07.05.2026
of the award
MACT No. 219/24 Digitally signed
by POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 43 of 46
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.07
DOD: 07.04.2026 16:40:22 +0530
1. Prepared as per award dated 07.04.2026.
2. A separate file was ordered to be prepared by the Nazir
with directions to put up the same on 07.05.2026.
Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.07
16:40:27 +0530
(POOJA AGGARWAL)
Presiding Officer, MACT-02 (Central)
Tis Hazari, Delhi
07.04.2026(K)
MACT No. 219/24 Digitally signed
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP POOJA by POOJA
AGGARWAL
Page No. 44 of 46
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.07
16:40:34 +0530
DOD: 07.04.2026
ANNEXURE B
FORM – XVII, Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment)
Rules, 2022 (part of Annexure XIII. Ref: Rule 150A)
Compliance of provisions of Scheme to be mentioned in the
Award
1. Date of the accident 30.10.2023
2. Date of filing of Form-I – First Accident N.A.
Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the N.A.
victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the N.A.
Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the N.A.
Owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim N.A.
Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form- N.A.
VIB from the Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII – Detailed N.A.
Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or N.A.
deficiency on the part of the
Investigating Officer? If so, whether any
action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Not mentioned
Officer by the Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the N.A.
Insurance Company submitted his report
within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or N.A.
deficiency on the part of the Designated
officer of the Insurance Company? If so,
whether any action/ direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the petitioner(s) to N.A.
the offer of the Insurance Company.
MACT No. 219/24 Digitally signed by In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 45 of 46 Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.07 DOD: 07.04.2026 16:40:41 +0530 14. Date of the award 07.04.2026 15. Whether the petitioner (s) was/were Yes
directed to open savings bank account(s)
near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) 19.05.2025
was/were directed to open savings bank
account(s) near his place of residence
and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card
and the direction to the bank not issue
any cheque book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an endorsement to
this effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) produced 26.02.2026
the passbook of their savings bank
account near the place of their residence
along with the endorsement, PAN Card
and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the H.No. A-544/4,
Claimant(s). Shastri Nagar,
Ashok Vihar,
Delhi-110052
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank No
account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were examined Yes
at the time of passing of the award to
ascertain his/their financial condition?
Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.07
16:40:47 +0530
(POOJA AGGARWAL)
Presiding Officer, MACT-02 (Central)
Tis Hazari, Delhi
07.04.2026(K)
Digitally signed
MACT No. 219/24 by POOJA
POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 426/23 PS Noida Sector-58, UP AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.07 Page No. 46 of 46
Sangeeta Sethi & Ors. v Prabhat Suri & Ors. 16:40:51 +0530
DOD: 07.04.2026