Delhi District Court
Sh. Satish Kumar vs Pradeep Kumar on 29 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF VIJAY KUMAR JHA
PRESIDING OFFICER:
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, SHAHDARA
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
____________________________________________________________
In the matters of:
(I). MACT no. 554/2018
Aanchal & Anr. v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors.
(II) MACT no. 555/2018
Aanchal v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors.
(III) MACT no. 553/2018
Satish Kumar v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors.
(I). MACT no. 554/2018
Aanchal & Anr. v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors.
(In Re: deceased child Akshay Singh)
1). Aanchal (mother of deceased)
W/o Sh. Satish Kumar
2). Satish Kumar (father of deceased)
S/o Sh. Narpat Singh
Both R/o D-1/456, Street no.3, Ashok Nagar,
Nand Nagri, North-East Delhi-110093. .................Petitioners
Versus
1). Pradeep Kumar (Regd. Owner)
S/o Sh. Brajpal Singh
R/o Village & PO Saroorpur Kalan, District Baghpat, U.P.
Also at : A-8/1, Nand Vihar, Rohtak Road, Meerut, U.P.-250002.
2). Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
Oriental House, PB no. 7037, A-25/27,
Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.
3). Suman Pal (Driver) (Impleaded vide order dated 07.12.2023)
S/o Sh. Ranvir Singh
R/o Village Jalalabad, P.S. Muradnagar,
District Ghaziabad, U.P. ...........Respondents
______________________________________________________________________
(i) MACT nos. 554/2018; (ii) MACT no. 555/2018 & (iii) MACT no. 553/2018 Page 1 of 40
(II). MACT no. 555/2018
Aanchal v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors.
Aanchal (Injured)
W/o Sh. Satish Kumar
R/o D-1/456, Street no.3, Ashok Nagar,
Nand Nagri, North-East Delhi-110093. .................Petitioners
Versus
1). Pradeep Kumar (Regd. Owner)
S/o Sh. Brajpal Singh
R/o Village & PO Saroorpur Kalan, District Baghpat, U.P.
Also at : A-8/1, Nand Vihar, Rohtak Road, Meerut, U.P.-250002.
2). Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
Oriental House, PB no. 7037, A-25/27,
Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.
3). Suman Pal (Driver) (Impleaded vide order dated 07.12.2023)
S/o Sh. Ranvir Singh
R/o Village Jalalabad, P.S. Muradnagar,
District Ghaziabad, U.P. ...........Respondents
(III). MACT no. 553/2018
Satish Kumar v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors.
Satish Kumar (Injured)
S/o Sh. Narpat Singh
R/o D-1/456, Street no.3, Ashok Nagar,
Nand Nagri, North-East Delhi-110093. .................Petitioners
Versus
1). Pradeep Kumar (Regd. Owner)
S/o Sh. Brajpal Singh
R/o Village & PO Saroorpur Kalan, District Baghpat, U.P.
Also at : A-8/1, Nand Vihar, Rohtak Road, Meerut, U.P.-250002.
2). Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
Oriental House, PB no. 7037, A-25/27,
Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.
______________________________________________________________________
(i) MACT nos. 554/2018; (ii) MACT no. 555/2018 & (iii) MACT no. 553/2018 Page 2 of 40
3). Suman Pal (Driver) (Impleaded vide order dated 07.12.2023)
S/o Sh. Ranvir Singh
R/o Village Jalalabad, P.S. Muradnagar,
District Ghaziabad, U.P. ...........Respondents
Date of Institution : 14.09.2018
Final arguments heard : 26.04.2025
Date of Award : 28.04.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this common judgment, I shall decide the instant three claim
petitions filed separately under Section 166 of ‘Motor Vehicles Act,
1988‘, on behalf of the claimants seeking compensation from the
respondents on account of the death of deceased Akshay Singh,
child, aged 8 months (in MACT no.554/2018) and injuries caused to
petitioner Aanchal (in MACT no.555/2018) and petitioner Satish
Kumar (in MACT no.553/2018) in the same motor vehicular
accident occurred on 21.05.2018 at about 05:30 p.m. at Chowki ITS
Opposite Village Santhali Gate, Muradnagar, U.P.
2. With respect to the accident, Sh. Narpat Singh, father of injured
Satish Kumar lodged the FIR against unknown driver, who caused
this accident, vide FIR no. 582/2018, under Sections 279/338/304-
A/427 IPC at PS Muradnagar, U.P. As per FIR, on the aforesaid date
and time, Satish Kumar (injured) along with his wife Aanchal
(injured) and his children Akshay Singh (deceased) and Aarav was
going from Muradnagar to Ghaziabad on scooty bearing registration
number UP16AW-7028 and when they reached at the aforesaid
place, a bus bearing registration number UP17T-0718 (hereinafter,
______________________________________________________________________
(i) MACT nos. 554/2018; (ii) MACT no. 555/2018 & (iii) MACT no. 553/2018 Page 3 of 40
“offending vehicle”), being driven by its driver at high speed, rashly
and negligently, came and hit the scooty from behind with a violent
force. As a result, the child Akshay Singh (aged 8 months) died on
the spot, whereas, Satish Kumar and Aanchal sustained injuries. As
per claim petitions, after the accident, the deceased Akshay was
removed to District Hospital, Ghaziabad, U.P., where postmortem of
the deceased was conducted and injured were taken to GTB Hospital,
Delhi. In the claim petitions, the registered owner and insurer of the
offending vehicle were made as respondent no.1 and 2, respectively,
and the driver without any particulars (stating that the particulars of
the driver would be disclosed by the registered owner later on) was
impleaded as respondent no.3.
3. On notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and filed their
written-statements.
4. A joint written-statement has been filed on behalf of respondents
no.1 and 3. In the written-statement, particulars of respondent no.3
have been disclosed, stating that it was respondent no.3 Raj Kumar
S/o Sh. Surat Singh, R/o Village & PO Abupur, District Ghaziabad,
U.P., who was the driver of the alleged offending vehicle. However,
it is stated that driver/ respondent no.3 has not caused any accident as
alleged. Further, it is stated that the offending vehicle was duly
insured with respondent no.2/ insurance company and driver/
respondent no.3 Raj Kumar was having a valid Driving License.
5. The respondent no.3/ insurance company in its written-statement has
taken general defences only. It is stated that the petitioners be put to
______________________________________________________________________
(i) MACT nos. 554/2018; (ii) MACT no. 555/2018 & (iii) MACT no. 553/2018 Page 4 of 40
strict proof of all the averments made in the claim petition. The
insurance company has admitted that the offending vehicle at the
time of the accident was covered under the policy of insurance issued
by them; however, the liability of the insurance company is subject
to the terms, conditions, exceptions and limitations in compliance
with statutory provisions.
6. Vide order dated 20.02.2020, while allowing the application under
Order 1 Rule 10 CPC r/w Section 151 CPC, filed on behalf of the
petitioner, the driver Raj Kumar was impleaded as respondent no.3.
7. Vide said order, on the basis of pleadings and supporting documents,
issues in the matters were framed as under:
In MACT no. 554/2018 (In Re: deceased child Akshay Singh)
1) Whether respondent no.3 (sic respondent no.1) was driving the
offending vehicle no. UP-17T-0718 on 21.05.2018 at about
05:30 p.m. at Chowki ITS, Opposite Village Santhali Gate,
P.S. Muradnagar, within the jurisdiction of PS Muradnagar,
District Ghaziabad, U.P. in rash and negligent manner and
caused the death of deceased Akshay Singh @ Akshay ? (OPP)
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to
what extent and from whom? (OPP)
3) Relief?
In MACT no. 555/2018 (In Re: injured Aanchal)
1) Whether petitioner suffered injuries during the accident
occurred on 21.05.2018 at about 05:30 p.m. at Chowki ITS,
Opposite Village Santhali Gate, P.S. Muradnagar, within the
jurisdiction of PS Muradnagar, District Ghaziabad, U.P., due to
rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing no.
UP-17T-0718, being driven by respondent no.3/ driver? OPP
______________________________________________________________________
(i) MACT nos. 554/2018; (ii) MACT no. 555/2018 & (iii) MACT no. 553/2018 Page 5 of 40
2) Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what
extent and from whom? (OPP)
3) Relief?
In MACT no. 553/2018 (In Re: injured Satish Kumar)
1) Whether petitioner suffered injuries during the accident
occurred on 21.05.2018 at about 05:30 p.m. at Chowki ITS,
Opposite Village Santhali Gate, P.S. Muradnagar, within the
jurisdiction of PS Muradnagar, District Ghaziabad, U.P., due to
rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing no.
UP-17T-0718, being driven by respondent no.3/ driver? OPP
2) Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what
extent and from whom? (OPP)
3) Relief?
8. Vide aforesaid order dated 20.02.2020, the present three cases arising
out of the same accident, for the purpose of enquiry proceedings,
were consolidated and the claim case bearing MACT no. 554/2018
was considered as the main case with the direction that common
evidence would be recorded and kept in the main case file.
9. Another application under Order 1 rule 10 read with Section 151
CPC was moved on behalf of the petitioner(s) for impleading the
actual driver of the offending vehicle, stating that, as per criminal
case record, the actual driver of the offending vehicle at the time of
the accident, as per criminal case record, was Suman Pal S/o Sh.
Ranvir Singh. Said application was allowed vide order dated
07.12.2023 and Suman Pal was impleaded as respondent/ driver of
the offending vehicle.
10. Vide order dated 15.02.2024, on application under Section 151 CPC,
______________________________________________________________________
(i) MACT nos. 554/2018; (ii) MACT no. 555/2018 & (iii) MACT no. 553/2018 Page 6 of 40
moved on behalf of the petitioner(s), respondent no.3 Raj Kumar was
deleted from the array of parties because, as per chargesheet, Suman
Pal was the actual driver of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, as
directed by this Tribunal, fresh memo of parties was filed on record.
11. It was observed vide order dated 06.06.2024 that notice as per
tracking report filed on behalf of petitioner was served to respondent
no.3 Suman Pal, who was given 30 days time to file written-
statement, however, neither he appeared nor filed a written statement
and therefore, respondent no.3/ Suman Pal was proceeded ex-parte.
12. In order to establish their case, the petitioners in all the three cases
adduced common evidence in the main case (MACT no. 554/2018)
as under:
(a) PW1 Aanchal, the injured (in MACT no. 555/2018) deposed by
way of affidavits Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B regarding the
manner of accident, the injury sustained by her, treatment taken
and losses suffered as a result of the accident and relied upon the
documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/9 with respect to her treatment,
identity, education and also the certified copies of criminal case
record.
(b) PW2 Dr. Jasneet Singh Chawla, Senior Resident, Orthopaedics,
GTB Hospital, Delhi produced the record with respect to
issuance of Disability Certificate no. 516/39/10/2021 dated
18.10.2021 to the petitioner Aanchal. PW2 proved the Disability
Certificate as Ex.PW2/A, which shows that the petitioner______________________________________________________________________
(i) MACT nos. 554/2018; (ii) MACT no. 555/2018 & (iii) MACT no. 553/2018 Page 7 of 40
Aanchal has suffered 79% permanent disability in relation to her
left lower limb.
13. Though common evidence in all the three cases was directed to be
recorded in the main case file, however, inadvertently the petitioner
Satish Kumar examined himself separately as PW1 in MACT no.
553/2018. He deposed by way of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A with
respect to the manner of accident as well as the injuries sustained by
him and fatal injury sustained by his son/ deceased child Akshay
Singh. He relied upon the following documents:
(i). Copy of Aadhaar Card of minor child as Ex.PW1/1 (OSR).
(ii) Copy of Aadhaar Card of petitioners Satish Kumar and
Aanchal as Ex.PW1/2 (colly).
(iii). Postmortem Report of minor child as Mark-A.
14. On the other hand, respondent no.2/ insurance company got
examined the following witnesses:
(a) R2W1 Sh. Sachin Sharma, Office Assistant-2, O/o Regional
Manager, UPSRTC, Meerut, U.P. produced his Authority Letter
Ex.R2W1/A. He also produced the true certified copies of
documents of the bus bearing no. UP-17T-0718 i.e., Registration
Certificate, Fitness Certificate, Insurance Policy, Agreement
Order and Agreement of bus between UPSRTC and Sh. Gayendra
Singh and Sh. Pradeep, Vahan Anugya Patra and proved the same
as Ex.R2W1/B (colly.-17 pages).
(b) R2W2 Sh. Niket Anand, Assistant Manager, Legal Hub, Oriental
House, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, deposed to have issued
______________________________________________________________________
(i) MACT nos. 554/2018; (ii) MACT no. 555/2018 & (iii) MACT no. 553/2018 Page 8 of 40
notices under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC to the owner and driver of
the offending vehicle and proved the office copy of the same as
Ex.R2W2/1, postal receipts as Ex.R2W2/2 (colly) and computer
generated digitally signed insurance policy as Ex.R2W2/3.
R2W2 also relied upon the first bail application filed before Ld.
ACJM, Ghaziabad, dated 01.06.2018 as a proof of fact that
Suman Pal S/o Sh. Ranvir Singh was the helper on the offending
vehicle and not the driver. A certified copy of the said bail
application, which is at pages no.27 to 29 of the criminal case
record, is already exhibited as Ex.PW1/9 (colly).
(c) R2W3 Sh. Dilip Kumar, Senior Assistant, Regional Transport
Office, Baghpat, U.P., produced the summoned record. He
proved the office order dated 04.04.2005 as Ex.R2W3/A.
15. I heard the final arguments advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and perused the entire evidence and other materials placed on
record. My findings on the issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1 (in all three cases):
16. It is the settled proposition of law that, in an action founded on the
principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of
the offending vehicle is sine qua non. However, the standard of proof
is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is to be
tested on the touchstone of the preponderance of probabilities. A
holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition
based upon negligence. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in
an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. Reference may be
______________________________________________________________________
(i) MACT nos. 554/2018; (ii) MACT no. 555/2018 & (iii) MACT no. 553/2018 Page 9 of 40
made to the judgments titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v.
Sakshi Bhutani & Others., MAC APP. No. 550/2011 decided on
02.07.2012, Bimla Devi & Others v. Himachal Road Transport
Corporation & Others (2009) 13 SC 530, Parmeshwari v. Amirchand
& Others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 & Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. & Others 2018, Law Suit (SC) 303.
17. Now coming to the present cases, it is observed that issue no.1, being
interlinked in all the three cases, shall be decided here together by
my common findings. For deciding the issue in hand, the depositions
of the petitioners Satish Kumar and Aanchal, being the injured as
well as eye-witnesses of the accident, are relevant to be discussed
here.
18. PW1 Aanchal (in MACT no.554/2018) testified by way of her
affidavits, Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B that on 21.05.2018 at about
05:30 p.m., she along with her husband and minor child (Akshay
Singh) was going towards Ghaziabad from Muradnagar on the
scooty bearing no. UP16AW-7028, being driven by her husband
Satish Kumar at a normal speed on the correct side of the road and
when they reached at Chowki ITS, Opposite Santhali Village Gate,
suddenly a bus bearing registration number UP-17T-0718, which was
being driven by respondent no.3 at a very high speed, rashly and
negligently, without blowing any horn, came from Muradnagar side
and hit the scooty with a great force. She further deposed that, as a
result of the forceful impact, she along with scooty, her husband and
child fell down on the road and they all received injuries.
______________________________________________________________________
(i) MACT nos. 554/2018; (ii) MACT no. 555/2018 & (iii) MACT no. 553/2018 Page 10 of 40
19. In support of her deposition, PW1 Aanchal has proved the following
documents on record:
(i). Original discharge summary dtd. 16.07.2018 as Ex.PW1/1.
(ii). Original Discharge Summary dated 19.10.2018 as
Ex.PW1/2.
(iii). Original Discharge Summary of AIIMS Trauma Centre,
dated 02.11.2019 as Ex.PW1/3.
(iv). OPD Cards from 11.07.2019 to 04.12.2019, issued by
various hospitals as Ex.PW1/4 (colly).
(v). Copy of final year marksheet of B.A. as Ex.PW1/5(OSR).
(vi). Copy of Certificate of Cutting, Tailoring & Beautician as
Ex.PW1/6 (colly.-2 pages).
(vii). Copy of Aadhaar Card and Voter I.D. Card as Ex.PW1/8
(colly.-2 pages).
(viiii).Certified copies of criminal case record as Ex.PW1/9
(colly), which includes FIR, chargesheet, site plan,
mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle and
that of the vehicle of petitioners, postmortem report of the
deceased child.
20. Similarly, another petitioner/ injured Satish Kumar has also
examined himself as PW1 (sic) (in MACT no. 553/2018) and he also
deposed on the lines of her wife and in addition to that, he stated that
in the said accident, he sustained grievous injuries, his wife also
received grievous injuries, whereas their son/ minor child died on the
spot.
21. In cross-examination, on the aspect of rash and negligent act of the
respondent no.3, only a few suggestions have been put to the injured/
petitioner PW1 Aanchal that the offending vehicle is not responsible
for the accident or that the offending vehicle was not negligent and
______________________________________________________________________
(i) MACT nos. 554/2018; (ii) MACT no. 555/2018 & (iii) MACT no. 553/2018 Page 11 of 40
rash in any manner or that the claim is false and fabricated and the
same is not supported by any document, however, these suggestions
have been promptly denied by the petitioner Aanchal. The petitioner
Satish Kumar has also been given suggestions that his accident was
caused due to his own negligence or that he has deposed falsely
about involvement of the offending vehicle and he also promptly
denied these suggestions.
22. Having gone through the entire deposition of injured/ petitioners
Aanchal and Satish Kumar, who stated to have suffered injuries in
the accident and have also been cited as eye-witnesses in the charge-
sheet, this Tribunal finds nothing which may demolish or impeach
their testimony on the aspect of a rash and negligent act of
respondent no.3 while driving the offending bus. Besides, nothing
else is available on record, which may suggest any falsity or untruth
in the oral testimony of the eye-witnesses.
23. Also, it is not disputed that the respondent no.3 Suman Pal was
charge-sheeted in the criminal case for the offences under sections
279/338/304-A/427 IPC by the police after detailed investigation and in
a motor vehicle accident claim case, the contents of the charge-sheet
support the testimony of eye-witnesses regarding rash and negligent
driving of the offending bus by respondent no.3.
24. Moreover, there is no challenge from the respondent no.3/ driver of
the offending bus to the version of the petitioners. The respondent
no.3/ driver was the best witness, who could have stepped into the
witness box to challenge the testimony of the petitioners regarding
______________________________________________________________________
(i) MACT nos. 554/2018; (ii) MACT no. 555/2018 & (iii) MACT no. 553/2018 Page 12 of 40
the above accident and its manner but he preferred not to enter into
the witness box during the course of the inquiry. Thus, an adverse
inference is liable to be drawn against the respondent no.3 to the
effect that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the offending bus by him in view of the law laid down in
case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Kamlesh, 2009(3) AD (Delhi) 310.
25. Besides above, discharge summary of injured/ petitioner Aanchal
Ex.PW1/1, prepared at GTB Hospital, Delhi makes it clear that
immediately after the accident on 21.05.2018, she was removed to
GTB Hospital with the alleged history of RTA (Road Traffic
Accident).
26. The certified copy of the criminal case record, i.e., FIR, chargesheet,
site plan, mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle and
that of the vehicle of petitioners further supports the version of the
petitioners with respect to the manner of accident with respect to rash
and negligent act of the respondent no.3.
27. The certified copy of the postmortem report of the deceased child
Akshay shows that he suffered antemortem injury i.e., crush injury
over the top of the skull 20 cm x 15 cm and his death was caused due
to shock and haemorrhage due to antemortem head injury.
28. Thus, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner Aanchal has
been able to prove on the basis of the preponderance of probabilities
that her accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
the offending vehicle by respondent no.3 and that resulted into
______________________________________________________________________
(i) MACT nos. 554/2018; (ii) MACT no. 555/2018 & (iii) MACT no. 553/2018 Page 13 of 40
grievous injuries to her and fatal injuries to her minor son Akshay
(aged 8 months). Issue no.1 in claim cases bearing no. MACT nos.
554/2018 and 555/2018 is, accordingly, decided in favour of the
petitioner(s).
29. In claim case bearing MACT no. 553/2018, on perusal of original
treatment documents of petitioner Satish Kumar, placed on record in
claim petition bearing MACT no.553/2018, reveals that the same are
two Emergency Registration Cards, dated 14.07.2018 and one dated
13.10.2018 only. No medical document of date of accident dated
21.05.2018 is there on record. Perusal of Emergency Registration
Cards, dated 14.07.2018 shows that, as per one of the same, Satish
Kumar was presented before the doctor with the complaint of fever
for one day and as per another Emergency Registration Card of the
same day, complaints of swelling right foot with discharge from
swelling and fever are mentioned. Further, one more medical
document dated 14.07.2018 (doctor’s orders) shows the history of
trauma: fall from height 1½ months back. Thus, in all these medical
documents, history of RTA on 21.05.2018 is not mentioned anywhere
and therefore, from the said medical documents, which are dated
14.07.2018 and 13.10.2018, it is nowhere seen that the petitioner
Satish Kumar suffered any accidental injury on 21.05.2018, nor any
MLC dated 21.05.2018 has been placed on record. In these
circumstances, it is held that the petitioner Satish Kumar has not
been able to prove on the basis of the preponderance of probabilities
that he received any injury in the accident, which occurred on
21.05.2018. Hence, issue no.1 in this case is decided against the
______________________________________________________________________
(i) MACT nos. 554/2018; (ii) MACT no. 555/2018 & (iii) MACT no. 553/2018 Page 14 of 40
petitioner Satish Kumar. Accordingly, claim case of injured/
petitioner Satish Kumar, bearing MACT nos. 553/2018 stands
dismissed.
ISSUE NO.2
30. In view of common finding on issue no.1, petitioners in two cases
bearing MACT nos. 554/2018 and 555/2018 shall be entitled to get
compensation, however, the quantum of compensation still needs to
be adjudicated. Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 enjoins the
claim Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award
determining the amount of compensation, which appears to be just
and reasonable. As per settled law, compensation is not expected to
be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be pittances. A man is not
compensated for the physical injury; he is compensated for the loss,
which he suffers as a result of that injury (Baker v. Willoughby
(1970) AC 467 at page 492 per Lord Reid).
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION :
MACT no. 554/2018
Aanchal & Anr. v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors
(In re: deceased child Akshay Singh)
31. The present case pertains to the death of minor child Akshay Singh,
who at the time of the accident was about 8 months of age, making
the assessment of compensation fraught with some difficulty, as in
the case of the deceased at such a tender age, there is no visible
income earned by the deceased at the time of the accident, which is
one of a very important fulcrums on the basis of which the Tribunal
assesses the compensation payable to the injured/ legal
______________________________________________________________________
(i) MACT nos. 554/2018; (ii) MACT no. 555/2018 & (iii) MACT no. 553/2018 Page 15 of 40
representative of the deceased in an accident involving a motor
vehicle. The judgments of the Superior Courts could be a cynosure in
determining just and fair compensation, which is to be awarded in
the present case.
32. In a recent judgment dated 30.09.2024, titled as Royal Sundaram
General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Zeenat Khan & Ors., MAC.APP.
242/2024, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has held that the Ld.
Tribunal has correctly taken the income of deceased child, aged 3½
years at par with minimum wages of unskilled workers. In the
judgment and award dated 29.02.2024 which was impugned before
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Zeenat Khan (Supra) case, Ld.
Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs.13,80,500/- to the
claimants on account of the demise of their 3½ year-old daughter in
the road accident while assessing the monthly income of the child
deceased as Rs.8,250/- at par with minimum wages of unskilled
workers of Himachal Pradesh, adding future prospects of 40% and
applying a multiplier of 18 with personal deduction of 50%. In the
Zeenat Khan (Supra), Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has observed:
“18. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly calculated the notional
income of the child @ Rs.8,250/- p.a. which was the minimum wages
for unskilled worker in Himachal Pradesh. The Annual income has
thus been rightly calculated as Rs.99,000/- p.a. 40% of this Income,
amounting to Rs.39,600/- has been further added to this amount
towards future prospects in terms of Pranay Sethi (Supra). The
notional income thus, calculated as Rs.1,38,600/- is in accordance
with the observations made by the Apex Court, as discussed above.
33. With respect to the application of multiplier, the Hon’ble High Court has
observed:
______________________________________________________________________
(i) MACT nos. 554/2018; (ii) MACT no. 555/2018 & (iii) MACT no. 553/2018 Page 16 of 40
Ascertaining the Multiplier:
21. The Counsel for the Appellants has pleaded that a multiplier of 15,
instead of 18, should have been applied in case of death of children up
to the age of 15 years.
22. For calculating pecuniary loss or dependency, the courts
consistently use the “multiplier method” This method is based on the
principle that a claimant should receive a lump sum that generates
enough interest to provide the same level of support the deceased
would have given to their dependents if they had lived. The yearly
loss of dependency is equated to the interest that could be earned on
the invested capital sum, which becomes the compensation for the
pecuniary loss. The uniform application of the multiplier method
ensures consistency and fairness, preventing varying compensation
amounts in similar cases.
23. The calculation of Multiplier has been laid down in the case of
Sarla Varma (Supra) as under:
“21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should
be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared
by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and
Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for
the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by
one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30
years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years,
M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then
reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for
51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65
years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.”
24. Evidently, the judgment is silent on the multiplier to be used for
the victims under 15 years of age. This incongruity in the matter of
selection of multiplier in the case of persons belonging to the age
group up to 15 years was noted in by the Apex the case of Divya vs.
National Insurance Company Ltd.,Civil Appeal No. 7605/2022.
25. The Apex Court made a reference to the observations of the
Constitutional Bench in the case of Sarla Varma (Supra) which was
followed in the case of Reshma Kumari & Ors. vs. Madan Mohan &
Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 65, to observe that in cases where the deceased is
______________________________________________________________________
(i) MACT nos. 554/2018; (ii) MACT no. 555/2018 & (iii) MACT no. 553/2018 Page 17 of 40
upto 15 years, irrespective of Section 166 or 163(A) under which the
claim for compensation has been made, the multiplier of 15 and the
assessment as indicated in second Schedule subject to correction as
pointed out in the Table given in the Sarla Varma (Supra), should be
followed.
26. The Apex Court further observed that it was high time to move to
a standard method of selection of multiplier income for future
prospects and deductions for personal and living expenses. The Table
given in Sarla Varma was approved for the selection of multiplier in
Claim Applications under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, in cases of
death. The multiplier of 15 was recommended in the cases of death of
a child upto 15 years.
27. Thus, in light of the above, it is observed that in the impugned
judgment, the multiplier has been taken as 18, which should actually
have been 15.”
34. Thus, in the Zeenat Khan (Supra) case, the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi did not interfere with the income of deceased child, which was
assessed at par with minimum wages of unskilled worker, nor it
interfered with the aspect of future prospects @ 40% and personal
deduction of 50% in case of child deceased and the only aspect
which was interfered with is the multiplier, which was taken as 15 in
case of children upto the age of 15 years, instead of 18.
35. In the present case, the deceased Akshay Singh was a child of 8
months. The residential address of the deceased and that of his
parents as per their Aadhaar Cards, which have been placed on
record, is of Delhi. Therefore, income of deceased child herein
would be assessed at par with minimum wages applicable to an
unskilled category worker of Delhi on the date of accident
(21.05.2018), which were Rs.13,896/- per month. Thus, considering
______________________________________________________________________
(i) MACT nos. 554/2018; (ii) MACT no. 555/2018 & (iii) MACT no. 553/2018 Page 18 of 40
the income of the deceased as Rs.13,896/- per month, by adding the
future prospects @ 40% to the annual income of the deceased,
applying the multiplier of 15 and making 50% deduction towards
personal living expenses of the deceased, the loss of dependency is
computed as Rs.17,50,896/- (13,896×140/100×1/2 x15x12).
NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES
36. With respect to non-pecuniary damages, Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in Zeenat Khan (Supra) case has observed:
“31. In, Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu
Ram, (2018) R 18 SCC 113, the Supreme Court had held that the
parents are entitled to filial consortium as compensation on
accidental death of their child. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680 while dealing with the
various heads under which the claimant is entitled to
compensation in death cases, it was explained that one such head
of loss is consortium. In legal parlance, consortium is a
compendious term, which encompasses “spousal consortium,
parental consortium and filial consortium, the right to
consortium would include company, care, help, comfort,
guidance, society, solace and affection of the deceased, which is
lost to the family.”
32. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock
and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest
agony for the parents, is to lose their child during their lifetime.
The children are valued for their love and affection and their role
in the family unit. Thus, the consortium is a special prism
reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of the
actual relationship. The value of the child’s consortium far
accedes the economic value of the compensation awarded in the
case of death of a child the amount awarded to the parents,
which is a compensation for loss of love, affection, care and
companionship of the child.
______________________________________________________________________
(i) MACT nos. 554/2018; (ii) MACT no. 555/2018 & (iii) MACT no. 553/2018 Page 19 of 40
33. In the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), it was held that in the
case of death, Rs.15,000/- is liable to be paid towards the loss of
estate and funeral charges, while Rs.40,000/- was payable
towards the loss of consortium and the same may be enhanced
by 10% every three years.
34. The learned Presiding Officer has thus, rightly granted
Rs.18,150/- towards the loss of estate, Rs.18,150/- towards
funeral charges and Rs.48,400/- to each parent towards loss of
consortium i.e. total of Rs.1,33,100/- towards these non-
pecuniary losses.
35. This has not been challenged on behalf of the Insurance
Company.”
37. In view of the above, in the present case, the accident had occurred
on 21.05.2018, therefore, a compensation of Rs.40,000/-, Rs.15,000/-
and Rs.15,000/- respectively on account of loss of consortium, loss
of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted. Further, both
the claimants, who are parents of the deceased child in this case shall
be entitled to parental consortium. Hence, the following amounts are
awarded under the conventional heads:
S. No. Conventional Head Amount
1. Parental Consortium Rs.80,000/- (40,000x2)
2. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
3. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
Total = Rs.1,10,000/-
38. Thus, petitioners shall be entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,10,000/-
under this head.
39. Accordingly, the total compensation in this case is computed as
Rs.18,60,896/- (17,50,896+1,10,000), rounded off to Rs.18,61,000/-.
______________________________________________________________________
(i) MACT nos. 554/2018; (ii) MACT no. 555/2018 & (iii) MACT no. 553/2018 Page 20 of 40
MACT no.555/2018
Aanchal v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors.
(In re: injured Aanchal)
40. The scope of compensation in injury cases has been considered by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Mr. R.D. Hattangadi v. M/S
Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 AIR 755. Further, in Raj Kumar
v. Ajay Kumar & another (2011) 1 SCC 343, Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India laid down general principles for computation of
compensation in injury cases. In the light of the aforementioned
judgments, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled shall
be as under:-
PECUNIARY DAMAGES :
Medical Expenses
41. The petitioner/ injured (PW1) has not placed on record any medical
bill with respect to her treatment. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled
to any compensation under this head.
Loss of Earning During Treatment
42. As a result of the accident, which occurred on 21.05.2018, the
injured/ petitioner Aanchal sustained vertical shear pelvic fracture
injury with SSI. She remained hospitalized on three occasions from
21.05.2018 to 16.07.2018; 04.10.2018 to 19.10.2018 and 31.10.2019
to 02.11.2019. During each hospitalization, she had to undergo
surgical operations. Her treatment continued for a long period till
04.12.2019 when she lastly visited the hospital. Considering the
nature of the injury and period of treatment, it may be safely
assumed that the petitioner must not have been able to do any work
______________________________________________________________________
(i) MACT nos. 554/2018; (ii) MACT no. 555/2018 & (iii) MACT no. 553/2018 Page 21 of 40
for at least one year during her treatment period and therefore, she
would be entitled for loss of income of said period during treatment.
43. The injured/ petitioner Aanchal (PW1) has deposed that at the time
of accident, she was engaged in sewing and stitching work and was
earning Rs.15,000/- per month. She has placed on record Vocational
Certificates of having successfully completed the course of (i)
Certificate in Computer Application (Ex.PW1/6); (ii) Beauty Culture
and (iii) Cutting & Tailoring (Ex.PW1/7). She also placed on record
‘Statement of Marks of B.A. (Programme) (Ex.PW1/5)’, issued from
Delhi University. The Aadhaar Card of the petitioner Ex.PW1/8
reflects her residential address as that of Delhi. Though the petitioner
has claimed that she was earning Rs.15,000/- per month from sewing
and stitching work, however, the petitioner has not placed on record
any document to show her income. In the circumstances, in order to
grant her a fair and just compensation as she was a graduate, her
income has to be ascertained at par with minimum wages of graduate
category of workers of Delhi on the date of accident (21.05.2018),
which were Rs.18,332/- per month. Thus, income of the petitioner is
assessed as Rs.18,332/- per month and accordingly, a sum of
Rs.2,19,984/- (18,332×12) is granted to the petitioner on account of
loss of income of one year during treatment.
Loss of Future Earnings (Due to Disability)
44. As per disability certificate bearing Ex.PW2/A, issued by the
Medical Board of GTB Hospital, the petitioner Aanchal was assessed
to have suffered 79% permanent disability in relation to her left
lower limb.
______________________________________________________________________
(i) MACT nos. 554/2018; (ii) MACT no. 555/2018 & (iii) MACT no. 553/2018 Page 22 of 40
45. The disablement and loss of earning capacity are two different
aspects and not substitute for each other and the loss of income has
to be seen considering the profession in which the petitioner was
engaged at the time of the accident. In the instant case, PW2 Dr.
Jasneet Singh Chawla, Senior Resident, Orthopaedics, GTB
Hospital, Delhi, has deposed that the disability of the petitioner is
permanent in nature. In reply to court question that what difficulty
the petitioner will face in her daily routine works due to disability,
the doctor (PW2) stated that the petitioner will not be able to do
squatting, running, minimum walking distance with support only,
kneeling, walking on uneven surfaces, sitting cross-legged and she
also cannot wear her clothes while standing.
46. As deposed by the doctor (PW2), there remains no doubt that with
the above explained restrictions due to 79% permanent disability in
relation to her left lower limb, the petitioner would face difficulties
to a greater extent in performing the daily chores. It cannot be
ignored that the petitioner, being a married woman, was a home
maker as well and on account of aforesaid physical hindrances, she
would not be able to perform her duties as a home maker completely
and also would face difficulties to a greater extent in carrying out
sewing or stitching work, as she claims to have been doing prior to
the accident. In these circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion
that functional disability in relation to the whole body of the
petitioner may be considered to be 50% for the purpose of assessing
corresponding loss of her future income.
47. Further, the law is well settled that there should be no departure from
______________________________________________________________________
(i) MACT nos. 554/2018; (ii) MACT no. 555/2018 & (iii) MACT no. 553/2018 Page 23 of 40
the multiplier method in injury cases also [refer: Sandeep Khanuja
vs. Atul Dande & Anr., (2017) 3 SCC 351]. The Aadhaar Card of the
petitioner (Ex.PW1/8) shows her date of birth as 15.10.1987, which
would mean that she was 30 years of age on the date of accident
(21.05.2018) and thus, a multiplier of 17 as applicable to age group
between 26-30 years would be applicable as per settled principle laid
down in case of Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121. Moreover,
the law has been well settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court
in the cases of Sandeep Khanuja (supra) and Erudhaya Priya vs.
State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine SC
601, that while applying the multiplier method, future prospects on
advancement in life and career are also to be taken into
consideration. Thus, considering the petitioner, who was below 40
years of age, a self-employed, an addition of income to the extent of
40% towards future prospects has to be counted.
48. As discussed above, the income of the petitioner has been assessed to
be Rs.18,332/- per month. Thus, applying the multiplier of 17 and
future prospects @ 40% with 50% loss of income on account of
whole-body functional disability, the total loss of future income
would come to Rs.26,17,810/- [50% of (18,332×140/100x17x12)]
and the same is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Special Diet, Conveyance & Attendant Charges
49. The treatment documents available on record make it clear that the
petitioner received grievous injury in the accident, which occurred
on 21.05.2018 and for treatment of the injuries received in the
accident, she remained hospitalized on three occasions, i.e., from
______________________________________________________________________
(i) MACT nos. 554/2018; (ii) MACT no. 555/2018 & (iii) MACT no. 553/2018 Page 24 of 40
21.05.2018 to 16.07.2018; 04.10.2018 to 19.10.2018 and 31.10.2019
to 02.11.2019 and during each hospitalization, she had to undergo
surgical operations. Her treatment continued for a long time till
04.12.2019 when she lastly visited the OPD of JPN Apex Trauma
Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi, as per treatment documents available on
record. It is also evident that even after completion of treatment, she
suffered 79% permanent disability in relation to her left lower limb.
Considering the nature of injury and the period of treatment, an
inference can be drawn that the petitioner had to spend a reasonable
amount on high and rich protein diet for the purpose of early
recovery, especially post surgery. And also, she must have had to
incur money for visiting the hospital/ doctor during treatment, which
continued for a long period. The petitioner is also required to be
granted attendant charges to compensate the work/ job of his family
members, which would definitely have suffered in providing
assistance to her in her routine activities during treatment period
(Refer : DTC & Ors Vs. Lalita, 1983 ACJ 253). In view of the above,
the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- for Special Diet,
Rs.50,000/- towards Conveyance Charges and Rs.1,00,000/- for
Attendant Charges. Accordingly, a total sum of Rs.2,00,000/- is
awarded to the petitioner under this head.
NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
Pain & Sufferings
50. While discussing the criteria to ascertain the compensation for pain
and sufferings by victims of vehicular accident, observations of
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Satya Narain v. Jai Kishan, FAO No:
______________________________________________________________________
(i) MACT nos. 554/2018; (ii) MACT no. 555/2018 & (iii) MACT no. 553/2018 Page 25 of 40
709/02, date of decision: 02.02.2007 can be considered:
“12. On account of pain and suffering, suffice, would it be to
note that it is difficult to measure pain and suffering in terms of
money value. However, compensation which has to be paid
must bear some objective co-relation with the pain and
suffering.
13. The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering would be:
(a) Nature of injury, (b) Body part affected and (c) Duration of
the treatment.”
51. In the instant case, as per MLC, the injuries sustained by the
petitioner/ injured Aanchal were opined to be grievous in nature. As
per discharge summary Ex.PW1/1, the petitioner after her RTA on
21.05.2018, was admitted in GTB Hospital, Delhi, where she
remained hospitalized from 21.05.2018 to 16.07.2018. Again she was
admitted in GTB Hospital, Delhi, from 04.10.2018 to 19.10.2018, as
per discharge summary Ex.PW1/2. As per discharge summary
Ex.PW1/3, she further remained admitted from 31.10.2019 to
02.11.2019 in JPN Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi. As per
discharge summaries, the injured/ petitioner Aanchal was diagnosed
to have sustained a vertical shear pelvic fracture injury with SSI. Her
left sacroiliac side was fixed with two plates anteriorly on
30.05.2018 and she also had to undergo MTP. Further, she underwent
SSG, which was done on 20.06.2018 in GTB Hospital F/B removal
of plate after four months of initial fixation in GTB Hospital. She
developed sinus in the left iliac region postoperatively. Sinus tract
excision was done on 01.10.2019 in JPN Apex Trauma Centre,
AIIMS, New Delhi. Further, the treatment record Ex.PW1/4 reveals
that during the intervening period of these hospitalizations, her
treatment remained continued in the OPD of hospital and lastly, she
______________________________________________________________________
(i) MACT nos. 554/2018; (ii) MACT no. 555/2018 & (iii) MACT no. 553/2018 Page 26 of 40
visited the hospital on 04.12.2019 with the complaints of pain in the
left gluteal region, though the wound was observed to be healthy.
Thus, it is clear that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the
petitioner/ injured must have gone through immense pain and
suffering during her treatment and therefore, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-
is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Loss of Amenities
52. It is evident that even after completion of treatment, the petitioner
suffered 79% permanent disability in relation to her left lower limb,
which has been assessed by this Tribunal to be 50% functional
disability in relation to the whole body of the petitioner. It may be
safely assumed that with the aforementioned disability, petitioner
will not be able to enjoy the amenities of life to the fullest. Hence, an
amount of Rs.1,50,000/- is granted to the petitioner under this head.
53. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner is summarized as
under:-
Sl. No. Head of compensation Amount
1. Medical Expenses Nil
2. Loss of Earnings (During Treatment) Rs.2,19,984/-
3. Loss of Future Earnings (Due to Disability) Rs.26,17,810/-
4. Special Diet, Conveyance & Attendant Charges Rs.2,00,000/-
5. Pain & Sufferings Rs.1,50,000/-
6. Loss of Amenities Rs.1,50,000/-
Total Rs.33,37,794/-
54. Thus, the total compensation in this case is computed as
Rs.33,37,794/-, rounded off to Rs.33,38,000/-.
______________________________________________________________________
(i) MACT nos. 554/2018; (ii) MACT no. 555/2018 & (iii) MACT no. 553/2018 Page 27 of 40
INTEREST
55. The petitioners in both the claim cases bearing MACT nos. 554/2018
and 555/2018 shall be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the
award amount from the date of filing of claim petitions till
realization.
LIABILITY
56. It is the argument of learned counsel for the respondent no.2/
insurance company that the insurance company is not liable to pay
any compensation in these cases, as there are violations of the terms
and conditions of the insurance policy.
57. It is argued that the offending bus was not permitted to be driven on
the route on which the accident happened, as it was being driven
without a valid Permit. Learned counsel for the insurance company
has argued that she has examined R2W1 Sh. Sachin Sharma (Office
Asssitant Grade-2 from the office of Regional Manager, UPSRTC,
Meerut), who produced copies of Registratin Certificate, Certificate
of Fitness, Insurance Policy and Office Order dated 04.04.2015 of
UPSRTC, Contract between the UPSRTC and Gyanendra Singh and
Sh. Pradeep Kumar (owner of offending bus), dated 01.04.2015 and
Anugya Patra Form-29R(1), issued on 22.03.1997 and proved the
same as Ex.R2W1/B (colly.-17 pages). Ld. Counsel for the insurance
company relied upon the deposition of R2W1, who stated that he
cannot tell the registration number of 50 vehicles on the route on
dated 22.03.1997 and also cannot show anywhere in the said Anugya
Patra that the offending vehicle bearing no. UP17T-0718 was one of
the said 50 vehicles permitted by UPSRTC.
______________________________________________________________________
(i) MACT nos. 554/2018; (ii) MACT no. 555/2018 & (iii) MACT no. 553/2018 Page 28 of 40
58. Having pointed out so, learned counsel for the insurance company
argued that there was no Permit for plying the offending vehicle on
the route where the accident happened and thus, there is a clear
violation of the ‘Limitation as to Use’ clause of the insurance policy,
which states, “The Policy covers use only under a Permit within the
meaning of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 or such a carriage falling
under Sub-section 3 of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988″.
59. The aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the insurance
company appears to be of no help to the insurance company in the
light of deposition of R2W3 Sh. Dilip Kumar (Senior Assistant, RTO
Baghpat). R2W3 deposed that no Permit was issued with respect to
the offending vehicle, as the said vehicle was contracted with
UPSRTC and such vehicles are not required to have any Permit in
lieu of document i.e. Office Order dated 04.04.2005, a copy of which
is Ex.R2W3/A.
60. Witness R2W3 stated that their office (RTO Baghpat) did not give
any permission to ply and authorize any bus of UPSRTC on any
route and it is the decision of UPSRTC as to on which route a
particular bus would ply. R2W3 further stated that their office does
not have any office order/ notification which authorizes UPSRTC to
determine the route on which any particular bus would be plied.
R2W3 made it clear that their office did not supply any list of buses
to UPSRTC to ply the buses under office order Ex.R2W3/A. R2W3
stated that the bus bearing registration no. UP17T-0718 (offending
bus) has been registered through RTO Baghpat. R2W3 stated that
other than the Permit, all other relevant documents concerning the
______________________________________________________________________
(i) MACT nos. 554/2018; (ii) MACT no. 555/2018 & (iii) MACT no. 553/2018 Page 29 of 40
aforesaid bus, like fitness, etc. would be issued by RTO Baghpat.
Cross-examination of R2W3 remained nil as none appeared on
behalf of the respondent no.1 and 3 to cross-examine him.
61. In view of the deposition of R2W3, and the fact that, in the case of
Uttar Pradesh because of Uttar Pradesh Amendment Act 5 of 1993 to
section 103 of Motor Vehicles Act which deals with the provision of
issuing a permit to the State Transport Undertakings, sub-section (1-
A) has been inserted after sub-section (1) of section 103 w.e.f.
16.01.1993 which reads as follows:
“103(1-A). It shall be lawful for a State Transport
Undertaking to operate on any route as stage carriage,
under any permit issued therefore to such undertaking
under sub-section (1), any vehicle placed at the disposal
and under the domain and control of such undertaking by
the owner of such vehicle under an arrangement entered
into between such owner and the undertaking for the use
of the said vehicle by the undertaking.”
62. By virtue of the aforesaid incorporated sub-section (1-A) to Section
103 of the Act, the Corporation became entitled to hire any vehicle
which could be plied on any route for which permit had been issued
by the Transport Authority in its favour because of which, in fact and
circumstances of the case, there is no permit violation of any kind by
the offending vehicle [Ref. U.P. SRTC v. Kulsum, (2011) 8 SCC
142].
63. Another contention of learned counsel for the insurance company is
that the driver/ respondent no.3 Suman Pal was not holding a valid
Driving License on the date of the accident. He pointed out towards
______________________________________________________________________
(i) MACT nos. 554/2018; (ii) MACT no. 555/2018 & (iii) MACT no. 553/2018 Page 30 of 40
the deposition of R2W2 Sh. Niket Anand, Assistant Manager of
Insurance Company, who deposed to have sent notices under Order
12 Rule 8 CPC to Pradeep Kumar and Suman Pal, respectively the
owner and driver of the offending vehicle, to produce the original
insurance policy, Permit, Fitness and Registration Certificate besides
the Driving License of the person driving the offending vehicle on
21.05.2018. R2W2 proved the copy of said notices sent to the owner
and driver as Ex.R2W2/1 and original postal receipts as Ex.R2W2/2
(colly) qua sending the said notices. R2W2 deposed that there was
no response to the said notices from the owner and driver and neither
the Driving License has been filed on record nor the same has been
supplied to the insurance company. The witness R2W2 also proved
the insurance policy Ex.R2W2/3. Having drawn the attention of this
Tribunal to the said deposition of R2W2, learned counsel for the
insurance company submitted that there is a violation of the Driver’s
Clause of the insurance policy and therefore, the insurance company
is not liable to pay any compensation in the present cases.
64. I have perused the deposition of R2W2 and also have gone through
the record. It is interesting to note that during the entire enquiry
proceedings, no Driving License of driver/ respondent no.3 Suman
Pal was produced before this Tribunal, which could have been easily
done nor anyone appeared on behalf of the owner and driver of the
offending vehicle to cross-examine the R2W2 to disprove the version
of R2W2 that the person driving the offending vehicle on 21.05.2018
was not having a valid Driving License. The best proof of any
document is the document itself and had the respondent no. 3/driver
______________________________________________________________________
(i) MACT nos. 554/2018; (ii) MACT no. 555/2018 & (iii) MACT no. 553/2018 Page 31 of 40
of the offending vehicle had within himself the requisite driving
license nothing had stopped from producing the same before the
Tribunal at any stage of the inquiry. As respondent no.3 did not
produce any Driving License, adverse inference could be drawn
against the respondent no.3 that respondent no.3 did not possess the
requisite Driving License to drive the offending vehicle as on the
date of the accident.
65. The record of the case also indicates the possibility that the
respondent no.3 did not have an effective and valid driving license
with him to drive the offending vehicle as on the date of the accident.
When the petitioner has filed a claim petition, the petitioners did not
have the details of the driver of the offending bus. When the owner
of the offending bus filed a joint written statement with the driver of
the offending bus, in the written statement, the name of the driver of
the offending vehicle, as on the date of the accident, was disclosed as
Raj Kumar with the averment and that the said Raj Kumar had a
valid driving license. The petitioners moved an application under
Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading Raj Kumar as respondent no.3
which vide order dated 20.02.2020 was allowed.
66. In averring and disclosing the name of Raj Kumar as the driver of the
offending vehicle in the joint written statement appears to have been
due to the malafide intention of the owner of the offending vehicle,
who being the owner of the offending vehicle, must have had the
knowledge of the actual driver of the offending vehicle, as on the
date of the accident, he disclosed the name of Raj Kumar so that the
liability to satisfy the award in the claim petition would fall solely
______________________________________________________________________
(i) MACT nos. 554/2018; (ii) MACT no. 555/2018 & (iii) MACT no. 553/2018 Page 32 of 40
upon the insurance company.
67. It appears that the owner of the offending bus forgot about the
investigation of the criminal case, which was registered with respect
to the accident and in the final report/ charge-sheet, the name of the
driver was disclosed as that of Suman Pal, the present respondent
no.3/ driver of the offending vehicle, who was impleaded as a
respondent consequent upon application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC,
which was allowed vide order dated 07.12.2023 and Suman Pal did
not have the driving license and it could be the reason why the name
of Raj Kumar was disclosed by the owner of the offending bus in
their joint written statement as the driver of the offending bus.
68. I have perused the insurance policy Ex.R3W1/2 which contains the
Drivers Clause, which reads as “Any person including the insured:
provided that a person driving holds an effective driving license at
the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or
obtaining such a license”. Since no driving license of respondent
no.3 has ever been produced on record during the entire enquiry
proceedings, the deposition of R2W2 stands substantiated on record
that respondent no.3 was driving the offending vehicle without
holding a valid Driving License. In view of the same, violation of the
Driver’s Clause of the insurance policy stands proved on record.
69. Hence, this Tribunal is of the view that in order to serve the ends of
justice in the facts and circumstances of this case, respondent no.2/
insurance company should be directed to pay the compensation and
thereafter, it should recover the same from the owner and driver.
______________________________________________________________________
(i) MACT nos. 554/2018; (ii) MACT no. 555/2018 & (iii) MACT no. 553/2018 Page 33 of 40
Accordingly, it is held that respondent no.2/ insurance company shall
deposit the awarded amount with this Tribunal within 30 days from
today and thereafter, it shall be entitled to get the paid amount
recovered from the respondent no.1 and 3, jointly and/ or severally,
in accordance with law.
RELIEF
70. In the light of the decision on substantive issues framed herein
above, the two claim petitions bearing nos. 554/2018 and 555/2018
are allowed and the following awards are being passed:
AWARD
MACT no. 554/2018
Aanchal & Anr. v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors
(In re: deceased child Akshay)
71. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.18,61,000/- (Rs.
Eighteen Lakhs Sixty-One Thousand Only) to the petitioners along
with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition
(14.09.2018) till realization to be paid by the respondent no.2/
insurance company.
72. The insurance company shall deposit the award amount in A/c
no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code UCBA0002078), UCO Bank,
Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT, Shahdara, through RTGS/
NEFT, within 30 days from today and thereafter, the insurance
company shall recover the paid amount from the respondents no.1
and 3, jointly and/ or severally, in accordance with law.
______________________________________________________________________
(i) MACT nos. 554/2018; (ii) MACT no. 555/2018 & (iii) MACT no. 553/2018 Page 34 of 40
Entitlement, Apportionment and Disbursement
73. The petitioners herein are the parents of deceased child Akshay
Singh and they shall be entitled to the award amount. The petitioners
shall be entitled to the compensation. The apportionment and
disbursement of the award shall be decided after compliance of the
award.
AWARD
MACT no. 555/2018
Aanchal v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors
(In re: injured Aanchal)
74. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.33,38,000/- (Rs. Thirty-
Three Lakh Thirty-Eight Thousand Only) to the petitioner Aanchal
along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the
claim petition (14.09.2018) till realization to be paid by the
respondent no.2/ insurance company.
75. The insurance company shall deposit the award amount in A/c
no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code UCBA0002078), UCO Bank,
Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT, Shahdara, through RTGS/
NEFT, within 30 days from today and thereafter, the insurance
company shall recover the paid amount from the respondents no.1
and 3, jointly and/ or severally, in accordance with law.
Mode of Disbursement
76. The mode of disbursement of the compensation amount shall be
decided after compliance of the award.
______________________________________________________________________
(i) MACT nos. 554/2018; (ii) MACT no. 555/2018 & (iii) MACT no. 553/2018 Page 35 of 40
Direction to Petitioner(s) & their Bank(s):
77. The claimant(s) in MACT nos. 554/2018 and 555/2018 are directed
to get opened their savings bank accounts near the place of their
residence. The Bank of claimant(s) is/ are directed to comply with
the following conditions:
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings
bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e., the
savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual
savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe
custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR
amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by
the bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS)
in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their
residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic
Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s)
near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on
the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card
to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book
have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the
disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze
the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect
of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the
claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have
been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the
Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary
endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
______________________________________________________________________
(i) MACT nos. 554/2018; (ii) MACT no. 555/2018 & (iii) MACT no. 553/2018 Page 36 of 40
78. As per ‘The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (Annexure-XIII),
the relevant Forms to be incorporated in the award are as under:
MACT no. 554/2018
Aanchal & Anr. v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors.
FORM – XV
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES
TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 21.05.2018
2. Name of the deceased : Akshay Singh
3. Age of the deceased : 08 months
4. Occupation of the deceased : —
5. Income of the deceased : Rs.13,896/– per annum
(As per minimum wages of unskilled
category of workers of Delhi)
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S. No. Name Age (Present Age) Relation with Deceased
i Aanchal 37 years Mother
ii Satish Kumar 35 years FatherComputation of Compensation
S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
7. Notional ncome of the deceased child (A) Rs.13,896/- per month
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) @ Rs.5,558.40/-
9. Less- Personal expenses of the deceased (C)- Rs.9,727.20/-
@ 50%
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs.9,727.20/-
[(A+B)-C = D]
11. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs.1,16,726.40/-
12. Multiplier (E) 15
13. Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE = F) Rs.17,50,896/-
14. Medical Expenses (G) Nil
______________________________________________________________________
(i) MACT nos. 554/2018; (ii) MACT no. 555/2018 & (iii) MACT no. 553/2018 Page 37 of 40
15. Compensation for loss of consortium (H) Rs.80,000/-
(40,000×2)
16. Compensation for loss of love and affection —
(I)
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs.15,000/-
18. Compensation towards funeral expenses (K) Rs.15,000/-
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.18,61,000/-
(F+G+H+I+J+K = L) (rounded off from
Rs.18,60,896/-)
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 6%
21. Interest amount up to the date of award (M) Rs.7,29,747/-
(06 years, 07 months & 15 days)
22. Total amount including interest (L+M) Rs.25,90,747/-
23. Award amount released Would be decided after
compliance
24. Award amount kept in FDRs Would be decided after
compliance
25. Mode of disbursement of the award amount to Bank transfer
the claimants (s).
26. Next Date for compliance of the award. 06.06.2025
MACT no. 555/2018
Aanchal v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors.
FORM -XVI
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES
TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 21.05.2018
2. Name of the injured : Aanchal
3. Age of the injured : 37 years (current age)
4. Occupation of the injured : Self employed
5. Income of the injured : Rs.18,332/- per month
(as per minimum wages applicable to
a Graduate Workers of Delhi)
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
______________________________________________________________________
(i) MACT nos. 554/2018; (ii) MACT no. 555/2018 & (iii) MACT no. 553/2018 Page 38 of 40
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured : Hospitalization & OPD treatment
8. Period of hospitalization : 21.05.18 to 16.07.18; 04.10.18 to
19.10.18 & 31.10.19 to 02.11.19
9. Whether any permanent disability? : Yes. 79% permanent disability in left
(If yes, give details) lower limb
10. Computation of Compensation
S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment Nil
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.50,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs.50,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.1,00,000/-
(v) Cost of artificial limb N.A.
(vi) Loss of earning capacity --
(vii) Loss of income (during treatment) Rs.2,19,984/--
(viii) Any other loss which may require N.A.
any special treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and Rs.1,50,000/-
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.1,50,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration N.A.
(v) Loss of marriage prospects N.A.
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, --
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress, dejectment
and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning
capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and 79% permanent disability of left
nature of disability as permanent or lower limb
______________________________________________________________________
(i) MACT nos. 554/2018; (ii) MACT no. 555/2018 & (iii) MACT no. 553/2018 Page 39 of 40
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of —
expectation of life span on account
of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning 50% functional disability of
capacity in relation to disability whole body
(iv) Loss of future income – Rs.26,17,810/-
(Income x% Earning Capacity x [50% (18,332×140/100x17x12)]
Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.33,38,000/-
(rounded off from Rs.33,37,794)
15. INTEREST AWARDED @ 6% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the date of the Rs.13,26,855/-
award (for 06 years, 07 months & 15
days)
17. Total amount including interest Rs.46,64,855/-
18. Award amount released would be decided after
compliance
19. Award amount kept in FDRs Would be decided after
compliance
20. Mode of disbursement of the award Bank Transfer
amount to the claimants(s).
21. Next Date for compliance of the 06.06.2025
award.
79. The claim petitions are accordingly disposed of. Files be consigned
to Record Room. VIJAY Digitally signed by
VIJAY KUMAR JHA
KUMAR Date: 2025.04.29
JHA 15:14:40 +0530
Announced in the open (VIJAY KUMAR JHA)
Court on 29.04.2025 Presiding Officer-MACT (Shahdara)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
______________________________________________________________________
(i) MACT nos. 554/2018; (ii) MACT no. 555/2018 & (iii) MACT no. 553/2018 Page 40 of 40
