Delhi District Court
Satyapal And Ors (Lrs Of Nepal Singh) vs Suraj on 10 July, 2026
MACP No. 467/19; FIR No. 83/19; PS. Narela DOD: 10.07.2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA MANCHANDA, PRESIDING
OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 467/19
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-007529-2019
Sh. Satyapal,
S/o Sh. Tara Chand,
R/o Village Nanhera Khurd Aahat,
Saharanpur, Baheda,
UP.
(Father of deceased)
..........Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Suraj,
S/o Sh. Satish,
R/o H.No. 339,
Dahisra,
Sonipat,
Haryana.
(Driver)
2. Sh. Ashok Kumar,
S/o Sh. Chander,
R/o H.No. 224,
Balmiki Palla,
Alipur,Delhi.
(Registered owner)
3. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.
DTJ-415, 4th Floor,
DLF Tower B, Jasola District Center,
New Delhi.
(Insurer)
............Respondents
Satyapal Vs. Suraj & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 1 of 37
MACP No. 467/19; FIR No. 83/19; PS. Narela DOD: 10.07.2026
Date of Institution : 07.08.2019
Date of Arguments : 10.07.2026
Date of Judgment : 10.07.2026
APPEARENCE(S):
Sh. Giriraj Singh, Ld. Counsel for petitioners/Lrs of deceased.
Sh. Abhinav Shrivastav, Ld. Counsel for driver and owner.
Ms. Shivani Kaushik, Ld. Counsel for insurance company.
Petition under Section 166 & 140 of M.V. Act, 1988
for grant of compensationAWARD
1. By way of present judgment/award, I shall dispose of the
DAR for compensation to LRs of the deceased Nepal Singh qua the fatal
injury suffered by him in the road accident on 10.03.2019 at about 05:30
am, on the Narela to Singhu Border road, near Ramdev Chowk, Narela,
Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Narela, involving alleged offending
vehicle, motorcycle bearing registration no. DL 11SX 0347 which was
being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver Suraj
(Respondent no.1 herein) , owned by Ashok Kumar (Respondent no.2)
and insured with TATA AIG GeneralCompany Ltd. ( Respondent no.3) at
the time of accident.
2. The concise material facts relevant to decide the present
claim are that on 10.03.2019, on receiving DD no.35A regardingSatyapal Vs. Suraj & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 2 of 37
MACP No. 467/19; FIR No. 83/19; PS. Narela DOD: 10.07.2026admission of deceased Nepal Singh in hospital, police officials reached
the hospital where he was declared dead. Statement of eye witness Vishal
@ Monu was recorded in the hospital who stated that on 10.03.2019 at
about 05:30 am he along with deceased and Suraj were returning on
motorcycle after attending a marriage and the same was being driven by
Respondent no.1. Deceased and him were pillion riders where deceased
was sitting in the middle. He stated that near the spot the motorcycle
dashed against the road divider and motorcycle slipped. They all fell
down and head of deceased struck against the tree and he became
unconscious. He and Suraj took the deceased to hospital where he was
declared dead. He stated that the accident took place due to rash and
negligent driving of Suraj ( Respondent no.1) The FIR no. 83/19 u/s
279,304A IPC was registered. The petitioners have claimed that the
accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent
no. 1 involving the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL 11SX
0347 owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3.
Charge sheet was also filed by the IO against respondent no.1 in the
court of concerned Ld. JMFC.
3. Respondent no. 1 & 2 filed their joint written statement
stating Respondent no.1 was not driving the vehicle and rather the
deceased was driving the vehicle. It is stated that vehicle was borrowed
by Monu@Vishal and after attending marriage, deceased was driving the
Satyapal Vs. Suraj & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 3 of 37
MACP No. 467/19; FIR No. 83/19; PS. Narela DOD: 10.07.2026
vehicle at the time of accident. It is stated that the IO has falsely stated
name of respondent no. 1 as the driver of the vehicle. It is further stated
respondent no.2 gave the vehicle to Vishal @ Monu upon seeing his
Driving License. Therefore they prayed for dismissal of petition.
4. Respondent no.3 filed written statement stating that driver
of offending vehicle was not having valid Driving License at the time of
accident therefore there is no liability of insurance company. It is further
stated that there is no dependent on the deceased as the only LRs are
father and brother and they both are major and earning. However they
admitted the valid insurance policy of the offending vehicle at the time
of accident
5. From the pleadings of the parties and the documents,
following issues were framed vide order dated 25.09.2019 :-
1) Whether the deceased Nepal died in road traffic
accident on 10.03.2019 at 06:00 am at Main road,
near Ramdev Chowk, Delhi within the jurisdiction
of PS Narela, due to rash and negligent driving of
motorcycle no. DL11 SX 0347 by its driver namely
Suraj / R1 owned by Sh Ashok Kumar /R2 and
insured with TATA AIG General Insurance
Company Ltd/R3? OPP.
2) Whether the LRs of the deceased are entitled to
any compensation, if so, to what amount and from
whom ? OPPSatyapal Vs. Suraj & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 4 of 37
MACP No. 467/19; FIR No. 83/19; PS. Narela DOD: 10.07.2026
3)Relief
6. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners have examined
two witnessi.e., PW1 Satyapal (Father of the deceased) and PW2 SI Anil
Kumar/IO. PE was closed on 09.10.2024. On the other hand,
Respondents no.1 &2 have not lead any evidence in the support of their
contentions. Respondent no.3 examined R3W1 and RE was closed on
06.08.2025.
7. This Tribunal has carefully perused DAR, evidence led by
petitioners has been duly appreciated. All documents and material relied
upon perused and considered. Arguments addressed by counsels for the
petitioners and insurance company considered. Legal position, both
statutory and binding applicable precedents, has been appreciated. The
issue wise determination is as under:-
ISSUE NO. 1
8. The onus to prove the aforesaid issue was placed on the
petitioner. PW2 has deposed on the lines of averments made in DAR. In
his cross examination he stated that he recorded the statement of the
eyewitness Monu@Vishal on the same day of the accident in the hospital
but had not arrested the accused Suraj though he was present in the
hospital. He denied the suggestion that he had not arrested Suraj as there
was no negligence of Suraj.
Satyapal Vs. Suraj & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 5 of 37
MACP No. 467/19; FIR No. 83/19; PS. Narela DOD: 10.07.2026
9. Nothing has come out in the cross examination of PW2 so
as to discredit his testimony. The delayed arrest (2 days after the
accident) of the respondent no.1 cannot be seen as an advantage to him
for the reason that despite filing of chargesheet and FIR against him, no
steps were ever taken by him against false implication. He has also not
bothered to enter the witness box in the present case. Nothing has been
brought on record to disprove the investigation conducted by the IO.
10. Regarding non examination of eye witness , it is well settled
legal position as laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court as well as by various
High Courts in plethora of judgments delivered from time to time that in
claim petitions preferred U/s 160/144 M.V Act, the claimants have to
prove on the basis of preponderance of probabilities that accident was
caused due to rash and negligent driving of alleged offending vehicles by
its drivers. Same is the essence of legal position discussed by Hon’ble
Apex Court in celebrated case of Meena Variyal mentioned supra. At the
same time, it is no more res-integra that claim petition filed under
relevant provisions of M.V Act, is the outcome of social welfare
legislation and the proceedings are summary in nature and do not require
strict compliance of rules of evidence and pleadings. It needs no
emphasis that in case replies filed by respondents, are evasive then it is
deemed that they have admitted the averments made by the claimants.
The purpose of granting compensation is to ameliorate the sufferings of
Satyapal Vs. Suraj & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 6 of 37
MACP No. 467/19; FIR No. 83/19; PS. Narela DOD: 10.07.2026
the victims of Motor Vehicle Accidents and the niceties, hyper
technicalities, procedural wrangles and tangles and mystic maybes have
no role to play and same should not be any ground to dismiss the claim
petitions and to defeat the rights of the claimants. While saying so, I am
fortified by the decisions rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases
titled as ” N.KV. Bros (P) Ltd Vs. M. Karumai Ammal“, 1980 ACJ 435
(SC); ” Sohan Lal Passi Vs. P. Sesh Reddy“, 1996 ACJ 1044 (SC) and “
Dulcina Fernandes Vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz“, 2013 ACJ 2712 (SC) . It is
also relevant to mention here that while deciding claim petition under
M.V Act, it is the duty of Claims Tribunal to follow the principles of
justice, equity and good conscience and to adopt more realistic,
pragmatic and liberal approach. Reliance is also placed on judgment
passed in case titled “Ranjeet & Anr. Vs. Abdul Kayam Neb & Ors.”,
SLP( C ) No. 10351/2019 decided on 25.02.2025, by Hon’ble Apex
Court. 16. The aforesaid issue later on came up for discussion before
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Vimla Devi & Ors. Vs. National
Insurance Company Limited & Ors.”, Civil Appeal No. 11042 of 2018 ,
decided on 16.11.18. After referring to the previous judicial precedents
on the point in issue and the fact that M.V. Act is a social welfare
legislation, Hon’ble Apex Court held in para 29 of its judgment as
under:-
Satyapal Vs. Suraj & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 7 of 37
MACP No. 467/19; FIR No. 83/19; PS. Narela DOD: 10.07.2026
xxxxx
29. In our view, what more documents could be
filed then the documents filed by the appellants to
prove the factum of the accident and the persons
involved therein.
xxxxx
11. In the above cited decision, the claimants had not examined
any eyewitness. Still, Hon’ble Apex Court held that in view of filing of
criminal case record including charge-sheet showing that driver of
alleged offending vehicle had been charge-sheeted for causing the
accident due to rash and negligent driving of said vehicle and the driver
himself did not enter into witness box, claimants were able to prove the
issue of accident being caused due to rash and negligent driving of said
vehicle by said driver on the basis of pre-ponderance of the probabilities.
12. Now, turning back to the facts of the present case. No doubt,
the petitioners have not examined any eye witness to prove the
negligence on the part of driver of the alleged vehicle described above
but nevertheless, there is ample material brought on record during the
course of inquiry, which is sufficient to establish that the accident had
taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by its
driver/Respondent no. 1.
Satyapal Vs. Suraj & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 8 of 37
MACP No. 467/19; FIR No. 83/19; PS. Narela DOD: 10.07.2026
13. Though petitioner has not examined any eye witness,
However the FIR was recorded on the same day on the statement of
eyewitness.
14. After thorough investigation, IO concluded the same by
filing of chargesheet against respondent no.1. There is no document to
show that the respondent no.1 has filed any complaint qua his false
implication.
15. Further, respondent no. 1 has not shown any enmity with the
petitioner so as to show any false implication by them. There is nothing
on record to show that respondent no. 1 was in any way related to the
petitioners so as to show any connivance
16. There is no gainsaying that respondent No.1/driver of
offending vehicle was the other material witness to throw light by
testifying as to how and under what circumstances, the accident has
taken place. However, he has preferred not to enter into the witness box.
Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect
that the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent no. 1. There is nothing
on record to show that the petitioner had any enmity with the driver of
the offending vehicle so as to falsely implicate him in this case. Reliance
Satyapal Vs. Suraj & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 9 of 37
MACP No. 467/19; FIR No. 83/19; PS. Narela DOD: 10.07.2026
placed on Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Kamlesh
& Ors, MAC APP. No. 530/2008 passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court on
11.11.2008.
17. Apart from above, Copy of MLC of deceased would show
that he was admitted in the hospital on the same day of accident with
alleged history of Road traffic accident and was declared dead. Copy of
PM Report of deceased Nepal Singh shows death due to cerebral damage
consequent to injury to the head. All injuries reported to be ante mortem
in nature , fresh in duration prior to death caused by blunt force/surface
impact. The injuries as noted in the relevant column as mentioned
therein, are consistent with the injuries which are sustained in motor
vehicular accident. Again, there is no challenge to the aforesaid
document from the side of respondents
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which
has come on record, it is held that the petitioners have been able to prove
on the basis of preponderence of probabilities that deceased Nepal Singh
had sustained fatal injuries in road accident which took place on
10.03.2019 near Ramdev Chowk, Narela, Delhi within the jurisdiction of
PS Narela, involving alleged offending vehicle, motor cycle bearing
registration no. DL 11SX 0347 which was being driven in a rash and
negligent manner by its driver Suraj (Respondent no.1 herein) Thus,
Satyapal Vs. Suraj & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 10 of 37
MACP No. 467/19; FIR No. 83/19; PS. Narela DOD: 10.07.2026
issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the
respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2
19. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 enjoins upon the
Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award
determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just
and reasonable. The guiding principles for assessment of “just and
reasonable compensation” in fatal case has been laid down by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, in case titled as Smt. Anjali & Ors., Vs.
Lokendra Rathod & Ors, in Civil Appeal No. 9014 of 202, decided on
06.12.2022 that: –
“The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(for short, “MV Act“) gives paramount
importance to the concept of ‘just and fair’
compensation. It is a beneficial legislation which
has been framed with the object of providing
relief to the victims or their families. Section 168
of the MV Act deals with the concept of ‘just
compensation’ which ought to be determined on
the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and
equitability. Although such determination can
never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an
endeavor should be made by the Court to award
just and fair compensation irrespective of the
amount claimed by the applicant/s. In Sarla Verma
& Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.3,
this Court has laid down as under:
Satyapal Vs. Suraj & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 11 of 37
MACP No. 467/19; FIR No. 83/19; PS. Narela DOD: 10.07.2026
“16.”Just compensation” is adequate
compensation which is fair and equitable, on the
facts and circumstances of the case, to make good
the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as
money can do so, by applying the well settled
principles relating to award of compensation. It is
not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of
profit.”
20. The intent and objective of the Beneficial Legislation is to
grant equitable compensation to the vulnerable victims of road accidents
and dynamic law has evolved towards grant of just and fair quantum of
awards and has brought consistency and uniformity towards the desired
goal. The Hon’ble Apex Court in “Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation” (2009) 6 SCC 121, which was affirmed by a bench of three
Hon’ble Judges in Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr.,
(2013) 9 SCC 65, held as under:
“16. “Just compensation” is adequate compensation which
is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the
case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the
wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well
settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is
not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit.
17. Assessment of compensation though involving certain
hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be
objective. Justice and justness emanate from equality in
treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication,
and fairness and uniformity in the decision making process
and the decisions. While it may not be possible to have
mathematical precision or identical awards, in assessing
compensation, same or similar facts should lead to awardsSatyapal Vs. Suraj & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 12 of 37
MACP No. 467/19; FIR No. 83/19; PS. Narela DOD: 10.07.2026in 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…”
21. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the compensation
should be just and is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it
should be niggardly or a pittance. Reliance is placed on 2012 (8) SLT
676 titled K. Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The aforesaid
Principle of law has also been reiterated by a landmark judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme court in 2017 (13) SCALE 12 : 2017 XI AD (SC) 113
titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors.
Accordingly, the quantum of appropriate and adequate compensation to
the victims of road accident is to be derived after assessment of various
relevant parameters, as per law. Hereinafter, assessment is divided into
several criteria, as applicable to the facts of the present case.
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
22. There are 2 claimants/ petitioners i.e. father and brother of
the deceased. In his affidavit in evidence PW1 stated that apart from
them there are no other legal heirs. It is further stated that deceased was
27 yrs of age and was MA. B.Ed. He relied upon following documents :-
Satyapal Vs. Suraj & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 13 of 37
MACP No. 467/19; FIR No. 83/19; PS. Narela DOD: 10.07.2026
S.No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of his Aadhaar Card Ex PW1/1(OSR)
2. Copy of educational Ex.PW1/2(OSR)(objected to as to
documents of the deceased the mode of proof)
Nepal Singh
3. Copy of Aadhaar Card of Ex.PW1/3(OSR)
deceased
4. DAR Ex.PW1/4(colly)
23. Documents Ex PW1/2 (colly) were objected to mode of
proof however the petitioner has not examined any witness to prove the
said documents to remove the said objection. However considering that
strict rules of evidence are not applied in MACT cases and that the said
documents are educational documents of the deceased, the said objection
is dismissed and the said documents are read for the purpose of this
case.
24. In his cross examination he stated that he has no document
to show relationship of petitioner Jitender. He further stated that he is a
farmer. He denied the suggestion that they were not financially
dependent on the deceased.
25. Apparently, nothing has been brought on record that Jitender
was brother of deceased. Neither there is any identity proof on record nor
he was examined as a witness. His name was also not mentioned in DAR
as LR of the deceased. Hence he is not considered as dependent.
Satyapal Vs. Suraj & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 14 of 37
MACP No. 467/19; FIR No. 83/19; PS. Narela DOD: 10.07.2026
26. The learned counsel for the insurance company further made
a strong pitch that father of deceased was not dependent upon the
deceased as deceased was not contributing anything towards the family
and as such he is not entitled to any compensation. As regards the
dependency of father of deceased upon deceased, it is noted that in
“Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s Nanu Ram”, (2018) 18 SCC
130, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had reaffirmed the rights of parents to
compensation in case of accidental death of a child. Furthermore, in case
reported as, “(2021) 276 DLT 415”, titled as, “Indrawati V/s Ranvir
Singh”, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has been pleased to hold as
under:
xxxxx
12. This Court is of the view that the parents of the
deceased are considered in law as dependent on their
children, considering that the children are bound to
support their parents in their old age, when the
parents would be unable to maintain themselves and
the law imposes a responsibility on the children to
maintain their parents. Even if the parents are not
dependent on their children at the time of the
accident, they will certainly be dependent, both
financially and emotionally, upon their children at
the later stage of their life, as the children were
dependent upon their parents in their initial years. It
would therefore be unfair as well as inequitable to
deny compensation for loss of dependency to a
parent, who may not be dependent on his/her childSatyapal Vs. Suraj & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 15 of 37
MACP No. 467/19; FIR No. 83/19; PS. Narela DOD: 10.07.2026at the time of accident per se but would become
dependent at his/her later age.
xxxxx
27. The contention of learned counsel for the insurance
company to the effect that father of deceased should not be considered as
dependent of deceased, stands rejected.
28. Before arriving at any conclusion in respect of income of
deceased, it is relevant to have a look on the observations made by
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in following two cases:
a) MAC.APP No.136/2017, titled as, “New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. V/s Dilip Kumar & Ors.” (Date of Decision:
25.05.2018) and;
b) MAC.APP No.376/2017, titled as, “Bharti AXA General
Insurance Company Limited V/s Upender Kumar Shastri &
Ors.” (Date of Decision: 07.03.2018).
29. In case of New India Assurance Co.Ltd. V/s Dilip Kumar
(supra), one Prateek, who had passed Class 12th with 82% marks and was
pursuing B.Sc. (Nautical Sciences) six semsester course had met with a
road traffic accident on 01.03.2012 and suffered 100% disability relating
to post-traumatic paraplegia with B/B in involvement and loss of vision
(left). Prateek was aged about 22 years at the time of accident. He
ultimately succumbed to his injuries on 04.07.2014. The Hon’ble High
Satyapal Vs. Suraj & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 16 of 37
MACP No. 467/19; FIR No. 83/19; PS. Narela DOD: 10.07.2026
Court of Delhi after considering his professional qualification refused to
take the minimum wages and instead went on to take the earning
capacity of Prateek as Rs.25,500/- per month. The observations of
Hon’ble High Court in this regard are re-produced hereunder:
xxxxx
16. The Claims Tribunal has taken the earning
capacity of the deceased as Rs.40,000/- per month
which is under challenge in this appeal. The law
with respect to the earning capacity of a student
pursuing a professional course is well-settled that
the Claims Tribunal has to assess the earning
capacity of the deceased considering the nature of
the professional course being pursued by the
deceased and the prospects of his income after
completing the course. The relevant judgments on
this principle are as under:
16.1 In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Deo
Patodi, (2009) 13 SCC 123, the accident dated
12th June, 2003 resulted in the death of a 22 year
old brilliant student who had completed Business
Administration Course and had an offer of job
from a US based company at the time of the
accident. The Claims Tribunal took his earning
capacity as Rs.18,000/- per month. The Supreme
Court enhanced the earning capacity of the
deceased from Rs.18,000/- per month to
Rs.25,000/- per month.
16.2 In New India Assurance Company Limited v.
Ganga Devi, MANU/DE/3623/2009, the accident
dated 12th August, 2003 resulted in the death of an
MBBS graduate who was doing internship and
Satyapal Vs. Suraj & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 17 of 37
MACP No. 467/19; FIR No. 83/19; PS. Narela DOD: 10.07.2026
was getting a stipend of Rs.5,000/- per month. The
Claims Tribunal took minimum wages of
Rs.3,543/- per month in respect of a graduate. This
Court rejected the principle of minimum wages
applied by the Claims Tribunal and took the
earning capacity of the deceased as Rs.18,000/-
per month and added 50% was towards future
prospects. This Court enhanced the compensation
from Rs.9,60,352/- to Rs.21,36,000/-.
16.3 In Ramesh Chand Joshi v. New India
Assurance Company Limited MAC. APP. 212-
13/2006 decided on 20th January, 2010, the
accident dated 30th July, 2004 resulted in the
death of a first year student of B. Tech in Delhi
College of Engineering. The Claims Tribunal took
the minimum wages of Rs.1,875/- per month which
was challenged before this Court. This Court
again rejected that principle of the minimum
wages applied by the Claims Tribunal. Following
the Supreme Court judgment in Deo Patodi,
(supra), this Court assessed the earning capacity
of the deceased after completing the graduation
course to be Rs.38,333/- per month and the
compensation was enhanced from Rs.3,25,000/- to
Rs.22,78,980/-. The relevant portion of the
judgment is as under:
“7. The learned Tribunal has taken the notional
income of the deceased as Rs.22,500/- per annum
i.e. Rs.1,875/- per month which is less than even
the minimum wages of a daily wager. The
approach and finding of the learned Tribunal is
absurd and without any basis. The law in this
regard is well settled by catena of judgments. TheSatyapal Vs. Suraj & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 18 of 37
MACP No. 467/19; FIR No. 83/19; PS. Narela DOD: 10.07.2026minimum wages are permissible to be taken where
the deceased is illiterate and does not possess any
professional or technical qualification. Where the
deceased is educated or is pursuing the
professional course, income has to be taken on the
basis of his earning. Reference in this regard may
be made to judgment of Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Deo Pataudi, 2009 (8) Scale 194,
in which case the deceased aged 22 years was a
student having a brilliant career and offer of
employment from a US Based Company at the time
of accident. The learned Tribunal took his earning
capacity to be Rs.18,000/- per month. The High
Court in appeal upheld the earning capacity of the
deceased at 18,000/- per month. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court enhanced the earning capacity of
the deceased from Rs.18,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per
month.
8. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides
that the learned Tribunal shall conduct an inquiry
into the claim petition. Section 169 of the Motor
Vehicles Act provides that the learned Tribunal
shall follow such summary procedure as it deem fit
to conduct such an inquiry. The inquiry stipulated
in Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act is
different from the civil trial. The learned Tribunal
has not conducted any inquiry whatsoever for
assessing the earning capacity of the deceased. Be
that as it may, this Court in appellate jurisdiction
has the same power of conducting such an enquiry
into this matter and, therefore, vide order dated
26th November, 2009, this Court issued a notice to
the Dean of Delhi College of Engineering, Bawana
to place on record the average salary of a freshSatyapal Vs. Suraj & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 19 of 37
MACP No. 467/19; FIR No. 83/19; PS. Narela DOD: 10.07.2026Engineering graduate of Delhi College of
Engineering, in pursuance to which the Joint
Registrar of Delhi College of Engineering (now
known as Delhi Technological University) has filed
an affidavit along with the chart of average salary
drawn by a fresh engineering graduates of Delhi
College of Engineering. The chart contains the
names of different Companies and salaries offered
by them in the year 2009 to fresh graduates in Bio-
Technology from Delhi College of Engineering.
xxx xxx xxx
9. The average salary of a graduate in Bio-
Technology from Delhi College of Engineering
during 2009 is 4.6 lacs per annum. The chart
further shows that there were 18 eligible students
who all got the job offers and the placement was
100%. The chart further shows that the minimum
salary offered was Rs.3. lacs per annum and
highest salary offered to an Engineering graduate
in Bio-Technology was Rs.9 lacs per annum. 10.
From the inquiry conducted by this Court as to the
earning capacity of the deceased, it is held that the
earning capacity of the deceased after completing
graduation course would have been Rs.4.6 lacs per
annum i.e. Rs.38,333/- per month.” (Emphasis
Supplied)16.4 In HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Rattan Kumar Dwivedi, 2017 SCC OnLine Del
9874, the accident dated 21st July, 2008 resulted
in the death of a national level sportsperson who
was a student of B. Com. (Hons.). The Claims
Tribunal awarded Rs.10,40,000/- by taking theSatyapal Vs. Suraj & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 20 of 37
MACP No. 467/19; FIR No. 83/19; PS. Narela DOD: 10.07.2026earning capacity of the deceased as Rs.10,000/-
per month which was challenged on the ground
that minimum wages should have been applied by
the Claims Tribunal. Applying the principles laid
down by the Supreme Court in Municipal
Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of
Uphaar Tragedy, AIR 2012 SC 100, this Court
rejected the application of minimum wages to such
cases. Considering the brilliant record of the
student as a sportsperson, this Court determined
the earning capacity of the deceased as
Rs.25,000/- per month and enhanced the
compensation from Rs.10,40,000/- to
Rs.24,50,000/-. The relevant portion of the
judgment is as under:
“14. In the present case, the deceased Apoorva
Dwivedi was a student of B.Com (Hons.) at Bharti
College, Delhi University. She was a sports person
having won 86 prizes/certificates in athletics, track
and field, gymnastics, baseball, soft ball,
basketball, cricket etc. The deceased had secured
second place in team event at 40th Delhi State
Gymnastics Championship, 2001; best athlete of
the year 2003-2004 at school and zonal level and
first position in baseball in 52nd National School
Games conducted by School Games Federation of
India held from 23rd December to 28th December,
2006. The deceased was sports captain of Holy
Child Senior Secondary School, Tagore Garden,
New Delhi for the academic year 2007-08.
Judicial notice is taken of the notifications for
government job for sports persons as well as
advertisements in private jobs for sports persons,
under which a graduate sports person can secure aSatyapal Vs. Suraj & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 21 of 37
MACP No. 467/19; FIR No. 83/19; PS. Narela DOD: 10.07.2026job with a job in the pay scale of Rs.30,000/- to
Rs.40,000/- per month. Considering that the
deceased was a sports person with an
extraordinary talent in various sports, namely,
athletics, track and field, gymnastics, baseball, soft
ball, basketball, cricket etc. and having been
awarded 86 prizes/certificates, it is presumed that
the deceased would have earned Rs.25,000/- per
month after completing her graduation. Deducting
50% towards the personal expenses of the
deceased and applying the multiplier of 14
according to the age of her mother, the loss of
dependency is computed as Rs.21,00,000/-
[(Rs.25,000- 50%)x12x14]. The compensation for
loss of love and affection is enhanced from
Rs.25,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-; and compensation
for pain and suffering is enhanced from
Rs.25,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. Adding Rs.1,30,000/-
towards medical expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards
funeral expenses, total compensation is computed
as Rs.24,50,000/- [21,00,000/- + 1,00,000/- +
1,30,000/- + 1,00,000/- + 20,000/-]. The Claims
Tribunal has awarded interest @ 7.5% per annum
which is on a lower side considering that the
Supreme Court as well as this Court are
consistently awarding interest @ 9% per annum.
The rate of interest is enhanced from 7.5% to 9%
per annum.”
16.5 In HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Lalta Devi, 2015 ACJ 2526, the accident dated
19th June, 2011 resulted in the death of a third
year student of B. Tech. The Claims Tribunal
awarded compensation of Rs.19,50,000/- by taking
the earning capacity of the deceased as
Satyapal Vs. Suraj & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 22 of 37
MACP No. 467/19; FIR No. 83/19; PS. Narela DOD: 10.07.2026
Rs.25,000/- per month. The insurance company
and the claimants both challenged the award
before this Court. This Court held the earning
capacity of the deceased to be Rs.26,815/- per
month by relying on the basic pay of a junior
engineer and the compensation amount was
enhanced from Rs.19,50,000/- to Rs.22,94,871/-.
16.6 In United India Insurance Company Limited
v. Anita, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 11152, the accident
dated 16th June, 2009 resulted in the death of a 21
year old student of B. Tech. (Mechanical and
Automation Engineering). The Claims Tribunal
awarded Rs.34,65,689/- by taking the earning
capacity of the deceased as Rs.26,815/- per month
and 50% future prospects thereon, which was
challenged by the insurance company. This Court
upheld the award of the Claims Tribunal and
dismissed the appeal. The relevant portion of the
judgment is as under:
“5. The Claims Tribunal took the income of the
deceased as Rs.26,851/- following the judgment of
this Court in HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Lalta Devi, 2015 ACJ 2526 in which this
Court took the income of a B.Tech third year
student in a similar university as Rs.26,851/-
according to the salary drawn by a Junior
Engineer. The learned Tribunal has also taken into
consideration that the deceased had passed the 5
th semester in December 2008 and had received
the approval for six weeks industrial training with
Indian Airlines. The Claims Tribunal also
considered the mark sheets of the deceased for 3rd,
4th and 5th semester along with certificate ofSatyapal Vs. Suraj & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 23 of 37
MACP No. 467/19; FIR No. 83/19; PS. Narela DOD: 10.07.2026excellence for 3rd semester and deceased had
stood first in the 3rd semester examination in
December, 2007. The Claims Tribunal also
considered the statement of PW-2 who was a class
fellow of the deceased and had initially joined
Maxim Group in 2011 at a monthly salary of
Rs.16,000/- as Production Engineer and thereafter,
another company with a package of Rs.4,34,000/-
per annum with 18% increment in the salary. 6.
This Court is of the view that the income of the
deceased computed by the Claims Tribunal and the
future prospects added thereon are fair and
reasonable and does not warrant any
interference.”
16.7 In Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Upender Kumar Shastri, 2018 SCC OnLine Del
7855, the accident dated 01st September, 2014
resulted in the death of an 18 years old student of
B.A. (Hons.) in Kamla Nehru College, Delhi
University. The Claims Tribunal awarded
compensation of Rs.30,05,000/- by taking the
earning capacity as Rs.40,000/- per month. This
Court held that the earning capacity of Rs.40,000/-
per month was on higher side and reduced the
earning capacity of the deceased to Rs.27,600/-.
The relevant portion of the judgment is as under:
“2. The accident dated 01st September, 2014
resulted in the death of Deepti. The deceased was
aged 18 years at the time of the accident and was a
student of B.A. (Hons) in Kamla Nehru College,
Delhi University. The Claims Tribunal took the
earning capacity of the deceased as Rs.40,000/-
considering her brilliant academic record and herSatyapal Vs. Suraj & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 24 of 37
MACP No. 467/19; FIR No. 83/19; PS. Narela DOD: 10.07.2026aspiration to join Indian Police Service. Relevant
portion of the award is reproduced hereunder: –
“As far as the income of the deceased is
concerned, admittedly she was a student when she
met with an accident and died. In order to assess
her notional income her academic record is
required to be seen. PW-1 in his affidavit has
alleged that he deceased was doing BA hon. 1st
year course from Kamla Nehru College, she was
brilliant in her studies and extraordinary in sport
and since her childhood she was maintaining a
good academic record and was doing very well at
sports at state and national level and secured top
positions. It is stated that the deceased has secured
90% marks in her XIIth class and she secured 99%
marks in Geography and secured all India top
position, she was congratulated by the then HRD
Minster Smt. Smriti Zuben Irani vide letter dated
02.06.2014 i.e. Ex.PW1/5. It is stated that the
deceased was sincere, hard working student and
she was preparing for civil services examination
as she wanted to join Indian Police Services. Her
educational and sports record were proved as
Ex.PW1/6 (Colly) which shows that the deceased
was a brilliant student, both in education as well
as in sports and it can be safely assumed that she
was having a bright future. Her various
certificates of merits have been proved on record
with respect to her various achievements in sports
and education. But it is known to all that life is full
of probabilities and improbabilities and nothing
can be said with certainly about anyone’s future
and the same is with the deceased also but having
regard to her achievements in her educational
carrier as well as in supports and the fact that sheSatyapal Vs. Suraj & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 25 of 37
MACP No. 467/19; FIR No. 83/19; PS. Narela DOD: 10.07.2026was studying in well reputed college of Delhi
University, it can be said with certainly that had
she lived longer she must have achieved success in
her life. In the totality of facts and circumstances,
of the case, the evidence on record and having
regard to the uncertainities of life and the fact that
the deceased was a girl and she would have
married after completing her education and
establishing in her carrier in all probabilities and
the fact that her parents were not financially
dependent upon her at the time of her death, I am
of the opinion that it cannot be assumed at this
stage that she in all circumstances, would have
cleared civil services examination in future, but it
can be said with some certainly that even if she
would not have cleared he civil services
examination, she would have had a great future.
Even if she would have worked in a private sector
or even if she would have cleared a clerical exam
in Govt. Sector, after completing her education she
must have got an initial salary of Rs.40,000/- per
month. Therefore, the loss of estate would come to
Rs.40,000/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.86,40,000/-. (Emphasis
supplied)”
xxx xxx xxx
4. Learned counsel for the appellant in MAC APP.
376/2017 urged at the time of hearing that the
minimum wages be taken into consideration to
compute the compensation. It is submitted that the
earning capacity of Rs.40,000/- per month taken
by the Claims Tribunal is on a higher side.
xxx xxx xxx
6. The present case relates to an accident dated
01st September, 2014 whereas Rattan Kumar
Satyapal Vs. Suraj & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 26 of 37
MACP No. 467/19; FIR No. 83/19; PS. Narela DOD: 10.07.2026
Dwivedi (supra) related to the accident of the year
2008. This Court is of the view that the earning
capacity of Rs.40,000/- taken by the Claims
Tribunal is on a higher side. The earning capacity
of the deceased is reduced to Rs.27,600/- per
month. The deceased was unmarried and,
therefore, 50% has to be deducted towards her
personal expenses. The deceased was 18 years of
age, therefore the multiplier of 18 has to be
applied according to the age of the deceased in
terms of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi 2017 SCC Online SC 1270.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
17. There is no merit in the contention of the
insurance company that the compensation be
computed by taking the minimum wages of
Rs.8,814/- per month as the income of the
deceased. The law is well settled that it is not
mandatory to resort to minimum wages to compute
the compensation in each and every case.
Reference is made to Municipal Corporation of
Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy
(supra), in which 59 persons died in 1997 and the
Supreme Court granted compensation of
Rs.10,00,000/- to the victims above 20 years of age
by taking their income as Rs.8,333/- per month
whereas the minimum wages at the relevant time
were less than Rs.2600/- per month. The relevant
portion of the judgment is as under:
“38. … It can be by way of making monetary
amounts for the wrong done or by way of
exemplary damages, exclusive of any amount
recoverable in a civil action based on tortuousSatyapal Vs. Suraj & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 27 of 37
MACP No. 467/19; FIR No. 83/19; PS. Narela DOD: 10.07.2026liability. But in such a case it is improper to
assume admittedly without any basis, that every
person who visits a cinema theatre and purchases
a balcony ticket should be of a high income group
person. In the year 1997, Rs. 15,000 per month
was rather a high income. The movie was a new
movie with patriotic undertones. It is known that
zealous movie goers, even from low income
groups, would not mind purchasing a balcony
ticket to enjoy the film on the first day itself. To
make a sweeping assumption that every person
who purchased a balcony class ticket in 1997
should have had a monthly income of Rs. 15,000
and on that basis apply high multiplier of 15 to
determine the compensation at a uniform rate of
Rs. 18 lakhs in the case of persons above the age
of 20 years and Rs. 15 lakhs for persons below
that age, as a public law remedy, may not be
proper. While awarding compensation to a large
group of persons, by way of public law remedy, it
will be unsafe to use a high income as the
determinative factor. The reliance upon Neelabati
Behera (AIR 1993 SC 1960 : 1993 AIR SCW 2366)
in this behalf is of no assistance as that case
related to a single individual and there was
specific evidence available in regard to the
income. Therefore, the proper course would be to
award a uniform amount keeping in view the
principles relating to award of compensation in
public law remedy cases reserving liberty to the
legal heirs of deceased victims to claim additional
amount wherever they were not satisfied with the
amount awarded. Taking note of the facts and
circumstances, the amount of compensation
awarded in public law remedy cases, and the needSatyapal Vs. Suraj & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 28 of 37
MACP No. 467/19; FIR No. 83/19; PS. Narela DOD: 10.07.2026to provide a deterrent, we are of the view that
award of Rs. 10 lakhs in the case of persons aged
above 20 years and Rs. 7.5 lakhs in regard to those
who were 20 years or below as on the date of the
incident, would be appropriate. We do not propose
to disturb the award of Rs. 1 lakh each in the case
of injured. The amount awarded as compensation
will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum
from the date of writ petition as ordered by the
High Court, reserve liberty to the victims or the
LRs. of the victims as the case may be to seek
higher remedy wherever they are not satisfied with
the compensation. Any increase shall be borne by
the Licensee (theatre owner) exclusively.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
xxxxx
30. Somewhat, similar observations has been made by Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi in case of Upender Kumar Shastri (supra), wherein
the Hon’ble High Court has been pleased to take the earning capacity of
a girl named Deepti, who suffered fatal injuries in road traffic accident
on 01.09.2014 as Rs.27,600/- per month. She was aged about 18 years
as the time of accident and a student of B.A (Hons.) in Kamla Nehru
College, University of Delhi.
31. Admittedly, the deceased was not working anywhere
however, he had passed MA in Hindi from Delhi University in 1st
division and had also passed 2nd Semester examinations of B.Ed. During
the course of arguments it was admitted that deceased could not
Satyapal Vs. Suraj & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 29 of 37
MACP No. 467/19; FIR No. 83/19; PS. Narela DOD: 10.07.2026
complete B.Ed. It is also relevant to note here that deceased was only 27
years of age at the time of accident and he could have sufficient
opportunities to get the job in future if he would have survived. In view
of the above judicial precedents and considering the exceptional
qualification of deceased, this Tribunal is inclined to take his “earning
capacity” as Rs. 22,000/- per month.
32. As per his Aadhar card, deceased was residing in Uttar
Pradesh, however as per the marksheet, he pursued his MA from
University of Delhi in 2014-15 and his ID card from college from where
he was pursuing B.Ed is also of Delhi, valid upto June 2018. Both his
colleges were situated in Delhi. The accident took place on 10.03.2019
and there is no document on record to show that he was resident of Delhi
at the time of accident.
33. As per his Aadhar card as well as educational documents on
record his date of birth is 01.05.1992. Hence, it stands proved that he
was 26 years 10 months of age at the time of accident. Hence, the
multiplier of 17 would be applicable in view of the case “Sarla Verma
Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation“, 2009 ACJ 1298 SC which has been
reaffirmed by the pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex
Court in the case titled as “National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay
Sethi & Ors.“, passed in SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17.
Satyapal Vs. Suraj & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 30 of 37
MACP No. 467/19; FIR No. 83/19; PS. Narela DOD: 10.07.2026
34. Considering the age of deceased, future prospects @ 40%
has to be awarded in favour of petitioner in view of pronouncement
made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as
“National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.” Civil
Appeal No. 6961/2015 decided on 31.10.2017, as well as in view of
decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in appeal bearing MAC APP
No. 798/2011 titled as “Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.
Vs. Pooja & Ors“, decided on 02.11.17. 30.
35. Considering the fact that deceased was unmarried and in
view of the aforesaid discussion, there has to be deduction of one half as
held in the case of Sarla Verma mentioned supra. Thus, the total of loss
of dependency would come out to Rs. 31,41,600/- (Rs. 22,000/- X 1/2 X
140/100 X 12 X 17). Hence, a sum of Rs. 31,41,600/- is awarded under
this head in favour of the petitioners.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
36. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in case titled as, Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Tribunal considers that
petitioner/father of deceased is entitled for payment of Rs. 40,000/- each
towards “loss of consortium”. By way of pronouncement of Pranay
Sethi case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased
to hold that there shall be an increase of 10% on account of ‘inflation’
Satyapal Vs. Suraj & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 31 of 37
MACP No. 467/19; FIR No. 83/19; PS. Narela DOD: 10.07.2026
after a period of three years. Applying, the afore-cited binding law the
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hasina Yasmin & Ors. V. National
Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., Special Leave Petition ( C ). No. 27285 of
2025 vide judgment pronounced on 17.12.2025 has been pleased to
direct the entitlement of dependents to 10% increase in the year 2020,
only in those cases where the accident had occurred after 2017.
Accordingly, petitioner/father of deceased is entitled to a sum of
Rs. 40,000/- towards “loss of consortium” since the date of accident in
the present matter is 10.03.2019.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
37. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case
and in view of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay
Sethi (supra) which has been re-enforced in Hasina Yasmin (supra), the
Tribunal considers that petitioner is also entitled for payment of
Rs. 15,000/-on account of “loss of estate” and for equal payment of
Rs. 15,000/- towards “funeral expenses” since the date of accident in the
present matter is 10.03.2019.
38. Therefore, on the basis of the above discussion, the
compensation is quantified as below:
Satyapal Vs. Suraj & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 32 of 37
MACP No. 467/19; FIR No. 83/19; PS. Narela DOD: 10.07.2026
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 31,41,600/-
2. Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/-
3. Loss of Estate & Rs. 30,000/-
Funeral Expenses
Total Rs. 32,11,600/-
Rounded off to Rs. 32,12,000/-
39. This brings me down to the next question as to whether
insurance company has been able to prove the statutory defence raised
by it in its written statement, wherein it has claimed that respondent no. 1
was not having valid DL at the time of accident in question. In order to
substantiate the said plea, the insurance company has examined Sh.
Aniket Sharma, Associate, Legal Claims, TATA AIG General Insurance
Co. Ltd as R3W1. He deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.
R3W1/A) that respondent no. 1 was not having valid driving licence at
the time of accident and thus, insurance company is not liable to pay any
compensation to the petitioners. He has relied upon copy of insurance
policy Ex. R3W1/2, copy of notice u/o 12 Rule 8 CPC Ex. R3W1/3;
postal receipts in respect of dispatch of notice Ex. R3W1/4 and delivery
report Ex. R3W1/5. During his cross-examination on behalf of
petitioners, he admitted that the insurance policy of the offending vehicle
was valid at the time of accident. He deposed that he was not present at
Satyapal Vs. Suraj & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 33 of 37
MACP No. 467/19; FIR No. 83/19; PS. Narela DOD: 10.07.2026
the spot at the time of accident. He deposed that he did not remember the
date on which the insurance company had issued the notice u/o 12 Rule 8
CPC to the driver and owner.
40. As already noted above, the respondent no. 1/driver himself
did not enter into witness box during the course of enquiry and he has
failed to produce any valid DL in his favour as on the date of accident in
question. Respondent no. 2 also failed to produce any valid DL in favour
of respondent no. 1 as on the date of accident. Moreover, copy of charge-
sheet filed in State case arising out of FIR No. 83/19 supra, would
clearly show that respondent no. 1/driver namely Sh. Suraj also been
chargesheeted for offence punishable u/s. 3/181 M.V. Act by
investigating agency after conclusion of the investigation. Copy of said
charge-sheet is also part of DAR, which carries presumption of
genuineness of its contents as provided in Rule 7 of Delhi Motor
Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008. Even otherwise, the respondent
no. 1 has not disputed the said document throughout the enquiry. Hence,
I find substance in the submission made on behalf of insurance company
that had there been any valid DL in favour of respondent no. 1 to drive
the type of vehicle like the present one, copy thereof would have been
provided by him to the police but no such copy of DL has been filed
alongwith DAR or brought on record during the course of inquiry.
Satyapal Vs. Suraj & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 34 of 37
MACP No. 467/19; FIR No. 83/19; PS. Narela DOD: 10.07.2026
41. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find substance in the
plea raised on behalf of insurance company that for want of valid and
effective DL in favour of respondent no. 1 being proved on record, it
would be termed as breach in the terms and conditions of insurance
policy. Thus, insurance company is entitled to recovery rights against
both the respondents i.e. driver and registered owner jointly and
severally. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF
42. In view of my finding on issues no. 1 & 2, I award a sum of
Rs. 31,12,000/- (including interim award amount, if any) alongwith
interest @ 7.5% per annum w.e.f date of filing the claim petition i.e.
07.08.2019 till the date of its realization, in favour of Lrs of
deceased/petitioners and against the respondents. (Reliance placed on
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baby Raksha & Ors, MAC APP. No.
36/2023 passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 21.04.2023).
APPORTIONMENT
43. Statement of petitioner was recorded on 21.05.2025 in
compliance of directions of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No.
842/2023 in case titled Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. V. Jaibir Singh & Ors.,
decided on 08.01.2021 as per clause 29 of MCTAP. Keeping in view the
Satyapal Vs. Suraj & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 35 of 37
MACP No. 467/19; FIR No. 83/19; PS. Narela DOD: 10.07.2026
facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that petitioner is a senior
citizen aged about 67 years, it is hereby ordered that a sum of
Rs. 9,12,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs and Twelve Thousand Only) is
directed to be immediately released to him through his saving bank
account no. 32126383551 with State Bank of India, Budgaon, Tehsil
Deoband, having IFSC Code SBIN0011462 and remaining amount is
directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 30,000/-
each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth,
having cumulative interest. The said FDRs be released to the said
petitioner on the monthly basis as aforesaid.
44. Respondent no. 3/TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
being insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the aforesaid
award amount in the aforesaid saving bank account of the claimant
within 30 days from today failing which insurance company shall be
liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a for the period of delay in terms of
directions passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in its latest judgment titled
“Parminder Singh Vs. Honey Goyal & Ors.”, S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF
2020, DOD:18.03.2025.
45. Concerned Manager of petitioner’s bank is directed to
release the amount to the petitioner as aforesaid, on completing
necessary formalities as per rules. He is further directed to keep the
Satyapal Vs. Suraj & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 36 of 37
MACP No. 467/19; FIR No. 83/19; PS. Narela DOD: 10.07.2026
remaining amount in fixed deposit, if any, in terms of aforesaid
directions and send compliance report to this Court. He is also directed
to ensure that no loan, advance or pre-mature discharge be allowed on
the fixed deposits without permission of the Court. Copy of the award be
given dasti to the petitioners and also to counsel for the insurance
company for compliance. Petitioners are also directed to provide copy of
this award to their bank Manager for compliance. Form XV & Form
XVII in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A. Copy of
order be also sent to concerned CJM/JMFC and DLSA as per clause 31
and 32 of MCTAP.
Digitally signed
by RICHA
RICHA MANCHANDA
MANCHANDA Date:
Announced in the open 2026.07.10
15:42:33 +0530
Court on 10.07.2026
(RICHA MANCHANDA)
Judge MACT-2 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
Satyapal Vs. Suraj & Ors. Judge MACT -02(North) Page 37 of 37
