Delhi District Court
Sirajuddin ( Dec) vs Ram Pujan Upadhayay on 18 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010013922024
MACT No. : 79/2024
FIR No. : 489/2023
PS : Timarpur
u/s : 279/304A IPC
1. Smt. Shabana (LR/wife of deceased)
2. Ms. Arsheen (LR/daughter of deceased)
3. Mr. Mohd. Shah Faisal (LR/son of deceased)
4. Mr. Subhan (LR/son of deceased)
5. Smt. Sabiran (LR/mother of deceased)
(All R/o. H.No.1735, Subhash Mohalla, Maujpur, Delhi-110053)
...Petitioners
Versus
1. Mr. Ram Pujan Upadhayay (driver of the offending vehicle)
S/o. Mr. Harish Chand,
R/o. E-60, Gali no.12, 4-1/12 Pusta,
near Hardan School Sonia Vihar, Delhi.
2. Mrs. Indu (owner of the offending vehicle)
S/o. Mr. Om Prakash,
R/o. E-60, Gali no.12, 4-1/12, Pusta,
Near Hardan School, Sonia Vihar, Delhi.
...Respondents
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.18
MACT No.79/2024
16:15:35
+0530
Sirajuddin through LRs vs. Ram Pujan Upadhayay & Ors. Page 1 of 39
Date of filing of DAR : 31.01.2024
Judgment reserved on : 03.02.2026
Date of Award : 18.02.2026
AWAR D
1. The present DAR was filed on 31.01.2024 which was
treated as the claim petition. The Road Traffic Accident in question took
place on 23.09.2023 at about 10:30 pm near Police Booth Signature
Bridge towards Khazuri within the jurisdiction of PS Timarpur. Mr.
Sirajuddin expired in the said accident which was allegedly caused by a
Mahendra Bolero Maxi Truck/vehicle bearing registration No.
DL-1LY-2813 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle). The
offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1 Mr. Ram Pujan
Upadhayay and owned by respondent no. 2 Indu.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that on
23.09.2023, a PCR call vide DD No.91A regarding information of an
accident was received at PS Timarpur and handed over to HC Manoj,
who alongwith Ct. Amit went to the spot i.e. Police Booth Signature
Bridge towards Khazuri where a motorcycle bearing no.DL-5SBQ-1233
and Mahindra Bolero bearing no. DL-1LY-2813 were found to be
stationed at the spot of accident in an accidental condition. On inquiry,
they got to know that the injured had been taken to Trauma Centre, Civil
Lines, Delhi. IO called the crime team at the spot of accident. After
leaving Ct. Amit at the spot, IO went to the Trauma Centre, Delhi where
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
MACT No.79/2024 RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.02.18
16:15:40 +0530
Sirajuddin through LRs vs. Ram Pujan Upadhayay & Ors. Page 2 of 39
he collected the MLC no.2353/23 of Sirajuddin. Doctors declared him
unfit for statement. No eye witness was found in the hospital. Thereafter,
IO returned to the spot of accident. IO got done the photographs of the
spot of accident by the crime team and collected the exhibits. Even no
eye witness was found at the spot of accident. Thereafter, FIR was
registered on the basis of PCR Call and MLC of the injured u/s.279/337
IPC.
3. During the course of investigation, IO met one eye witness
Shokeen and prepared the site plan at his instance. Thereafter IO
recorded the statement of eye witness Shokeen. IO had taken both the
accidental vehicles into his custody and deposited the same into the
maalkhana. Thereafter, notice u/s.133 MV Act was served upon the
owner of the offending vehicle. Owner of the offending vehicle had
given the reply of the said notice and produced the driver of the
offending vehicle. The owner of the offending vehicle admitted that at
the time of accident, the driver namely Ram Pujan Upadhyay was
driving the offending vehicle. The owner of the offending vehicle had
produced the RC and fitness to the IO. She had not produced the
insurance of the offending vehicle to the IO. Thereafter, IO prepared the
kalandra u/s.146/196 MV Act against the owner of the offending
vehicle. IO arrested the driver of the offending vehicle. Upon producing
surety, the driver of the offending vehicle was released on bail.
Thereafter, the mechanical inspection of both the accidental vehicles
were got conducted.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.18
16:15:44
+0530MACT No.79/2024
Sirajuddin through LRs vs. Ram Pujan Upadhayay & Ors. Page 3 of 39
4. On 25.09.2023, the further investigation of the case was
handed over to SI Gurcharan Singh. On 25.09.2023, IO got to know
that Sirajuddin had expired during the treatment. Thereafter, IO changed
the section u/s.304A IPC from 337 IPC. On 26.09.2023, the post mortem
of the body of the Sirajuddin was got conducted and his body was
handed over to his relatives. The viscera taken by the doctor was also
handed over to the IO. IO deposited the viscera into the maalkhana and
sent the same to the FSL. After completion of investigation, chargesheet
for the offences u/s 279/304(A) IPC was filed against the driver Ram
Pujan Upadhyay before the concerned Ld. JMFC and the DAR was filed
before this Tribunal.
WRITTEN STATEMENTS
5. WS was filed on behalf of the respondents no. 1 & 2 on
30.04.2024. It was stated by the respondents that no accident was caused
with the offending vehicle and that they were falsely implicated by the
petitioners to extort money from them. It was further stated that one
TSR was stationed inside the bridge. It suddenly started and came on
road and the motorcyclist could not put emergency brake and struck
with the TSR, due to which he fell down. The TSR driver fled away
from the spot of accident after causing the accident. The respondent
no.1 called the PCR and helped the deceased. Hence, it was stated that
they were not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.
ISSUES
6. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.18
16:15:49
+0530MACT No.79/2024
Sirajuddin through LRs vs. Ram Pujan Upadhayay & Ors. Page 4 of 39
14.05.2025, this Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether Sirajuddin (since deceased) suffered
fatal injuries in an accident that took place on
23.11.2023 at about 10:30 PM near Police Booth
Signature Bridge towards Khazuri, Delhi
involving vehicle bearing registration no.
DL-1LY-2813 driven rashly and negligently by
respondent no. 1 Ram Pujan Upadhayay and
owned by respondent no. 2 Indu? OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and from
whom? OPP
3. Relief.
PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
7. The petitioners examined Ms. Shabana i.e. the petitioner
no.1 as PW-1. PW1 has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit which
is Ex. PW1/A. She relied upon the following documents:
1. The Form-VII is Ex. PW1/1.
2. The photocopy of Aadhar Card of wife of deceased is Ex.PW1/2
(OSR)
3. The photocopy of Aadhar Card of daughter of deceased is
Ex.PW1/3 (OSR)
4. The photocopy of Aadhar Card of son of deceased is Ex.PW1/4
(OSR)
5. The photocopy of Aadhar Card of son of deceased is Ex.PW1/5
(OSR)
6. The photocopy of Aadhar Card of mother of deceased is
Ex.PW1/6 (OSR)
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.18
16:15:52MACT No.79/2024
+0530Sirajuddin through LRs vs. Ram Pujan Upadhayay & Ors. Page 5 of 39
7. The photocopy of Aadhar Card of deceased Sirajuddin is
Ex.PW1/7 (OSR)
8. The photocopy of driving licence of deceased Sirajuddin is
Ex.PW1/8 (OSR)
PW1 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the
respondents no. 1 and 2.
8. Thereafter, petitioner has examined Mr. Shokeen Ali as
PW2. He has relied upon his aadhar card as mark ‘A’. He has stated that
on 23.09.2023, he alongwith his maternal uncle Sirajuddin was going
towards Wazirabad Flyover on their respective motorcycles and he was
little ahead from him. It was further stated that when they both reached
at Signature Bridge, suddenly the driver of Mahindra Balero Car bearing
registration no.DL-1LY-2813 was riding his vehicle in a negligent
manner and the offending vehicle in a high speed hit the motorcycle of
his uncle late Mr. Sirajuddin. It was further stated that public persons
stopped the offending vehicle and he had recorded the details of the
offending vehicle. After that, he took the injured to Trauma Centre for
treatment.
9. It was further stated that after two days, the police officials
called him and asked him to visit the police station Timarpur. The police
official recorded his statement in police station and after recording of hi
statement, the police official took him to the place of incident. It was
further stated that on his instance, the police official prepared site plan.
The accident took place due to negligence and rash driving of driver of
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.79/2024
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.18
16:15:55
+0530Sirajuddin through LRs vs. Ram Pujan Upadhayay & Ors. Page 6 of 39
offending vehicle. The police official asked him to identify the driver of
the offending vehicle. It was further stated that he had seen him in the
police station and pointed out that Mr. Ram Pujan Upadhaya is the
driver of the offending vehicle. After following the process as per the
directions of the police official, he left the police station.
10. The respondents did not appear for the cross-examination
of PW2. Hence, their opportunity to cross-examine this witness was
closed. Thereafter, vide separate statement of Ld. Counsel for the
petitioner, PE was closed vide order dated 04.09.2025.
RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE
11. No evidence was led by the respondents. They stopped
appearing before the court. Hence, they were proceeded against ex parte
and their evidence was closed vide order dated 25.10.2025.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
12. The Petitioners filed duly filled Form XIII. Financial
statements of all the petitioners could not be recorded due to their non-
appearance. Written arguments were filed on behalf of the petitioners.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
13. I have gone through the written arguments filed on behalf
of the petitioners and perused the record. My findings on the various
issues are as under:-
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.18
16:16:00
+0530MACT No.79/2024
Sirajuddin through LRs vs. Ram Pujan Upadhayay & Ors. Page 7 of 39
ISSUE NO.1:
Whether Sirajuddin (since deceased) suffered fatal
injuries in an accident that took place on 23.11.2023 at about 10:30 PM
near Police Booth Signature Bridge towards Khazuri, Delhi involving
vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1LY-2813 driven rashly and
negligently by respondent no. 1 Ram Pujan Upadhayay and owned by
respondent no. 2 Indu? OPP
14. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. It is
the case of the petitioner that on 23.11.2023 at about 10:30 PM, the
deceased Mr. Sirajuddin along with PW2 Shokeen Ali were going on
their respective motorcycles. When they reached near Police Booth
Signature Bridge towards Khazuri, Delhi, the offending vehicle being
driven by the respondent no.1 at a very high speed, rashly, negligently,
hit the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which the deceased fell and
the deceased sustained injuries. He was taken to Lok Nayak Hospital for
treatment. However, Mr. Sirajuddin expired during treatment.
15. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioners that the
respondent no.1 was chargesheeted by the IO in the present matter. The
eye witness PW2 Shokeen Ali was also examined. PW1 was cross
examined by the respondents at length but as such nothing contrary
could be brought out in her cross examination. The respondents did not
come forward to cross-examine PW2. Hence, it is stated that rash and
negligent driving of the respondent no.1 is proved on record.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.18
16:16:04
MACT No.79/2024 +0530Sirajuddin through LRs vs. Ram Pujan Upadhayay & Ors. Page 8 of 39
16. It is stated by respondents in the WS that in the present
matter, the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent act of
some other vehicle and not their vehicle.
17. Record perused.
18. In the present matter, the factum of the accident is not in
dispute. However, the respondents have alleged that the accident was
caused by some other vehicle and not the offending vehicle. It is a
matter of record that the respondent no.1 was chargesheeted by the IO.
Hence, the onus to prove this fact that the accident was caused by some
vehicle shifted upon the respondents, which has not been discharged by
them. However, no evidence was led by the respondents to prove this
fact. None of the respondents entered into the witness box to prove the
same. Hence, in the opinion of this Tribunal, the respondents have failed
to prove that the accident was caused due to the the rash and negligent
act of some other vehicle.
19. It is pertinent to mention here that in the proceedings before
the claims tribunal, the facts are to be established on the basis of
preponderance of probabilities and not by the strict rules of evidence or
the higher standard of beyond reasonable doubt as required in criminal
cases. The burden of proof in the present cases is much lower than as
placed in civil or criminal cases. In Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal
Road Transport Corporation & Ors (2009) 13 SC 530, it has been held
by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that negligence must be decided on
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.18
16:16:08MACT No.79/2024
+0530Sirajuddin through LRs vs. Ram Pujan Upadhayay & Ors. Page 9 of 39
the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view
must be adopted in reaching a conclusion.
20. Further, it is also pertinent to note that the respondent no. 1
was chargesheeted by the IO under Section 279/338 IPC. In National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 and United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepak Goel & Ors, 2014 (2) TAC 846 (Del)
decided by the Coordinate Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, it
was held as under :-
“……where the claimants filed either the certified copies of
the criminal record or the criminal record showing the
completion of investigation by police or issuance of charge
sheet under Section 279/304A IPC or the certified copy of
FIR or the recovery of the mechanical inspection report of
the offending vehicle, then these documents are sufficient
proof to reach to a conclusion that the driver was negligent
particularly when there is no defence available from the side
of driver.”
21. Reliance is also being placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble
Delhi High Court in case Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Meera Devi, 2021 LawSuit (Del) wherein it was held that “……in view
of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008, contents of DAR
has to be presumed to be correct and read in evidence without formal
proof of the same unless proof to the contrary was produced.”
22. Further, it is a settled law that the petitioner cannot be
expected to prove the accident beyond reasonable doubts and the
principle of res ipse loquitor should apply which means that the
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.79/2024
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.18
16:16:13
+0530Sirajuddin through LRs vs. Ram Pujan Upadhayay & Ors. Page 10 of 39
“accident speaks for itself”. Thus, once it has been established in DAR
and chargesheet that the accident had taken place, the burden shifts on
the respondents to prove that they were not responsible for the accident
which the respondents have failed to discharge. No evidence was led by
the respondents no. 1 & 2 to discharge this onus. Hence, an adverse
inference is drawn against the respondents. In this regard, reliance is
placed on the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the cases of
Teja Singh Vs Suman & Ors., MAC. APP. 1111/2018 & CM APPL.
52384/2018, 52386/2018, date of decision 06/12/2019; MAC. APP.
428/2018, titled as The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamla Devi &
Ors, date of decision 08.11.2019 and MAC. APP. 690/2017 & CM
APPL. 28108/2017, titled as Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
Vs Mona & Ors., date of decision 15.10.2019, which had relied upon the
judgment in the case of Cholamandalam Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamlesh
2009(3) AD Delhi 310.
23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 5 SCC 656 has laid down in paragraphs 27 &
28:
“27. …This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina Fernandes,
noted that the key of negligence on the part of the driver of
the offending vehicle as set up by the claimants was required
to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of
preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard
of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice it to observe that
the exposition in the judgments already adverted to by us,
filing of chargesheet against Respondent 2 prima facie points
towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and
rashly. Further, even when the accused were to be acquitted
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLAMACT No.79/2024
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.18
16:16:16
+0530Sirajuddin through LRs vs. Ram Pujan Upadhayay & Ors. Page 11 of 39
in the criminal case, this Court opined that the same may be
of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in
respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
28. Reliance placed upon the decisions in Minu B. Mehta
and Meena Variyal, by the respondents, in our opinion, is of
no avail. The dictum in these cases is on the matter in issue
in the case concerned. Similarly, even the dictum in
Surender Kumar Arora will be of no avail. In the present
case, considering the entirety of the pleadings, evidence and
circumstances on record and in particular the finding
recorded by the Tribunal on the factum of negligence of
Respondent 2, the driver of the offending jeep, the High
Court committed manifest error in taking a contrary view
which, in our opinion, is an error apparent on the face of
record and manifestly wrong.”
24. It has not been disputed that respondent No.1 has been
charge-sheeted in the aforesaid FIR for offences punishable under
Section 279/304A IPC for rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle. Further, the offending vehicle was seized by the IO from the
spot. As per the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle ,
there were fresh damages on the same. In view of the same, considering
the facts and circumstances, the unrebutted testimony of the witnesses
and the documents filed thereto, the court is satisfied that the accident
was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.
1. From the DAR, it also stands established that respondent no. 2 was
the registered owner of the offending vehicle. It is also an admitted
position that the offending vehicle was uninsured.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.18
16:16:22
+0530MACT No.79/2024
Sirajuddin through LRs vs. Ram Pujan Upadhayay & Ors. Page 12 of 39
The injury:
25. Further, the onus to prove that the deceased had suffered
injuries by way of the said accident was on the petitioner. It is the matter
of record that due to the accident, the deceased suffered injuries. To
prove the same, the petitioners have relied upon the MLC of the
deceased, as per which he was brought to Lok Nayak Hospital with
history of road accident and had suffered multiple injuries on his head
and body. Further, as per his post mortem report dated 26.09.2023 issued
by Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital and the death certificate, he has expired due
to cardiopulmonary arrest.
26. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the
opinion that on the scales of preponderance of probabilities, the
petitioner has proved that the accident in question took place due to rash
and negligent driving of offending vehicle being driven by its
driver/respondent no. 1 on the date and time of the accident and that due
to the said accident, the injured Mr. Sirajuddin had expired.
Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and
against the respondents.
ISSUE NO.2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to
what amount and from whom? (OPP)
27. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners. In
view of the discussion in the issue no.1, the petitioners are entitled for
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.18
MACT No.79/2024 16:16:27
+0530Sirajuddin through LRs vs. Ram Pujan Upadhayay & Ors. Page 13 of 39
compensation. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in matter of “Sarla
Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors.” (2003) 6 SCC
121 has held : –
“QUA BASIC PRINCIPLES
“9. Basically only three facts need to be
established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the
case of death :-
(a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the
deceased; and the (c) the number of dependents. The issues to
be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of
dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made for
arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards
the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the
multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the
deceased. If these determinants are standardized, there will be
uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will lesser
need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the
insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay.
To have uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should
determine compensation in cases of death, by the following
well settled steps :
Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand)
The income of the deceased per annum should
be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be
made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have
spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The
balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the
dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier)
Having regard to the age of the deceased and
period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be
selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years
he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having
regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a
table of multipliers with reference to the age has been
identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLAMACT No.79/2024
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.18
16:16:39
+0530Sirajuddin through LRs vs. Ram Pujan Upadhayay & Ors. Page 14 of 39
the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step 3 (Actual calculation)
The annual contribution to the family
(multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the
`loss of dependency’ to the family. Thereafter, a conventional
amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be
added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his
widow, another conventional amount in the range of 5,000/- to
10,000/- should be added under the head of loss of
consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of
pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the
deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of
the body (if incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the
deceased before death (if incurred) should also added.”
QUA ADDITIONS
“11. ………………… In view of imponderables
and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of
thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary
income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the
deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years.
[Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words
`actual salary’ should be read as `actual salary less tax’]. The
addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40
to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of
deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may
indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to
standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being
applied or different methods of calculations being adopted.
Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed
salary (without provision for annual increments etc.), the
courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of
death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and
exceptional cases involving special circumstances.”
QUA DEDUCTIONS
“14. Having considered several subsequent
decisions of this court, we are of the view that where RUCHIKA
the
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.79/2024 Date: 2026.02.18
16:16:43 +0530
Sirajuddin through LRs vs. Ram Pujan Upadhayay & Ors. Page 15 of 39
deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and
living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd)
where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-
fourth (1/3rd) where the number of dependant family members
is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant
family members exceed six.
15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are
the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In
regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal
and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor
would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there
is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in
which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is
likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the
contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will
not be considered as a dependent and the mother alone will be
considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the
contrary, brothers and daughters will not be considered as
dependents, because they will either be independent and
earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. Thus even
if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the
mother would be considered to be a dependent, and 50%
would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the
bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However,
where family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the
income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed
mother and large number of younger non-earning daughters or
brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to
one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-
third.”
QUA MULTIPLIER
“21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be
used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above
(prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and
Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for
the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one
unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.79/2024 SINGLA Date:
2026.02.18
16:16:51Sirajuddin through LRs vs. Ram Pujan Upadhayay & Ors. +0530
Page 16 of 39
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.”
28. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its Constitution Bench
decision in matter of “National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi & Ors.” (2017) 16 SCC 680 held as under : –
“58. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will
be no addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept.
We are disposed to think, there should be an addition of 15%
if the deceased is between the age of 50 to 60 years and there
should be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in case of self-
employed or person on fixed salary, the addition should be
10% between the age of 50 to 60 years. The aforesaid
yardstick has been fixed so that there can be consistency in
the approach by the tribunals and the Courts.
59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record
our conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been
well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was
taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla
Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a
coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary
view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma
Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the
decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of
actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future
prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was
below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition
should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to
50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.18
16:16:55
+0530MACT No.79/2024
Sirajuddin through LRs vs. Ram Pujan Upadhayay & Ors. Page 17 of 39
60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should
be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed
salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should
be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40
years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between
the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was
between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the
necessary method of computation. The established income
means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for
personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts
shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which
we have reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the
Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that
judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying
the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss
of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be
Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 31,001/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The
aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in
every three years.”
Loss of income
29. In the present matter, PW1 Shabana has stated in her
affidavit Ex. PW1/A that at the time of the accident, the deceased was
working as a fruit seller and earning Rs. 30,000/- per month. In the Form
13, it is stated that he was earning a sum of Rs. 70,000/- per month.
However, no proof of income of the deceased is proved on record.
Hence, his income shall be assessed as per the minimum wages. His
educational documents are not proved on record. However, his driving
license is proved on record as Ex.PW1/8. But perusal of the same shows
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.79/2024 SINGLA Date:
2026.02.18
16:17:02Sirajuddin through LRs vs. Ram Pujan Upadhayay & Ors. Page 18 of 39
+0530
that it had expired on 18.10.2021, while the accident occurred on
23.09.2023. Hence, the income of the deceased shall be assessed as per
the minimum wages payable to an unskilled person. The date of accident
is 23.09.2023. As per the relevant notification, the minimum wages
payable to an unskilled person as on that day was Rs.17,234/-. Hence,
his monthly income is assessed to be Rs.17,234/-.
Age determination of the deceased:
30. As per the driving license of the deceased Ex. PW1/8, his
date of birth was 06.04.1976. The date of the accident is 23.09.2023.
Hence, as on the date of the accident, the deceased was aged 47 years.
Future Prospects: –
31. In view of the judgment of National Insurance Company
Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors; (2017) 16 SCC 680, it was observed that
the Claimants would be entitled to 25% for future prospects as the
deceased was aged between 40 to 50 years of age. Accordingly, the
monthly income of the deceased needs to be taken as Rs. 21,542.50. (Rs.
17,234/- + Rs. 4,308.50 which is 25% of Rs. 17,234/-).
Determination of Dependent
32. In the present case, the deceased is survived by his wife,
mother, one daughter and two sons. One son Faisal was major and the
other son Subhan was minor at the time of the accident. The daughter is
stated to be unmarried. It is submitted that the entire family was
dependent on the deceased for their livelihood. Hence, it is submitted
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
MACT No.79/2024 2026.02.18
16:17:10
+0530
Sirajuddin through LRs vs. Ram Pujan Upadhayay & Ors. Page 19 of 39
that the present petitioners may be considered as the dependents on the
deceased.
33. Record perused.
34. As per the affidavit dated 17.02.2026 furnished by the
petitioner no.1, her son Faisal is working and earning Rs. 8,000/- per
month. Hence, his wife, mother, one daughter and one son shall be
considered dependents on the deceased.
Determination of multiplicand
35. The monthly income of the deceased after enhancement
needs to be taken as Rs. 21,542.50. In light of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, and United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur & Ors., (2021) 11 SCC 780 ,
out of the above amount so assessed, 1/4 amount has to be deducted on
account of personal and living expenses as the deceased had 4 to 6
dependents on him. So, in this matter, monthly loss of dependency
would come out to be Rs. 16,157/- (3/4th of Rs. 21,542.50). This needs
to be multiplied by 12 to workout multiplicand/annual loss of
dependency. Hence, multiplicand for this matter would be Rs. 1,93,884/-
( Rs. 16,157/- x 12).
Award Towards Loss of Dependency
36. Further, as the deceased was 47 years of age at the time of
the accident, multiplier applicable in this matter as per above discussion
Digitally
MACT No.79/2024
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Sirajuddin through LRs vs. Ram Pujan Upadhayay & Ors. SINGLA Date:
Page 20 of 39
2026.02.18
16:17:15
+0530
would be 13. The total loss of dependency would come out to be
Rs.25,20,492/- (Rs. 1,93,884/- x 13), hence, so awarded.
Medical expenses:
37. The petitioners have not filed any medical bills on record.
Hence, in the absence of any medical bills, the petitioners shall not be
entitled to any amount towards medical expenses.
Non-Pecuniary Heads:-
38. The Respondents/Claimants shall be entitled to the
compensation under Non-Pecuniary Heads in terms of National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi And Others, (2017) 16
SCC 680. The case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi &
Ors. 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) was considered and clarified by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 9581/2018 decided
on 18.09.2018 whereby after considering the case of Pranay Sethi’s
(supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to award loss of
consortium of Rs.40,000/- to each dependent of the deceased and further
pleased to award a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to each dependent of
the deceased towards loss of love and affection. The relevant portion is
as under:
“…… A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi
(supra) dealt with the various heads under which
compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these
heads is Loss of Consortium.
In legal parlance, “consortium” is a compendious term which
encompasses ‘spousal consortium’, ‘parental consortium’, and
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
MACT No.79/2024
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.18
16:17:21
+0530Sirajuddin through LRs vs. Ram Pujan Upadhayay & Ors. Page 21 of 39
‘filial consortium’.
The right to consortium would include the company, care,
help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased,
which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it
would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse.
Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining
to the relationship of a husband wife which allows
compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of “company,
society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every
conjugal relation.”
Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the
premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid,
protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and
training.”
Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation
in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident
leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony
to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony
for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime.
Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship
and their role in the family unit.
Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms
about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern
jurisdictions world-over have recognized that the value of a
child’s consortium far exceeds the economic value of the
compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child.
Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded
compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a
child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation
for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the
deceased child.
The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at
providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of
genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor
child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to
be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.79/2024 Digitally signed bySirajuddin through LRs vs. Ram Pujan Upadhayay & Ors. Page 22 of 39
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.02.18
16:17:26 +0530
Consortium.
Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their
parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act.
A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count.
However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles
on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial
Consortium.
The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium
will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation
under ‘Loss of Consortium’ as laid down in Pranay Sethi
(supra).
In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the
father and the daughter of the deceased, an amount of
Rs.17,234 each for loss of Filial Consortium…..”.
39. However, in the case of United India Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur 2020 SCC Online SC 410 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that there is no justification to
award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate
head. The relevant portion of the observations are reproduced as under:
“…… The amount to be awarded for loss consortium will be
as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra). At this stage,
we consider it necessary to provide uniformity with respect to
the grant of consortium, and loss of love and affection.
Several Tribunals and High Courts have been awarding
compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love
and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi
(supra), has recognized only three conventional heads under
which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss
of consortium and funeral expenses.
In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a
comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include
spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial
consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in
Digitally
MACT No.79/2024
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
Sirajuddin through LRs vs. Ram Pujan Upadhayay & Ors. 2026.02.18
16:17:30
+0530 Page 23 of 39
loss of consortium.
The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to award
compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate
conventional head. There is no justification to award
compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate
head…”.
40. In the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), it was held that in the
case of death, Rs.15,000/- is liable to be paid towards the loss of estate
and funeral charges each, while Rs.40,000/- was payable towards the
loss of consortium to each legal heir and the same may be enhanced by
10% every three years.
41. Thus, an amount of Rs. 19,965/- is granted towards the
Loss of Estate and Rs. 19,965/- towards funeral charges.
42. Further, Rs. 53,240/- each is granted to the petitioners i.e.
total of Rs. 53,240 x 5 = Rs. 2,66,200/- towards Loss of Consortium.
Computation of compensation:
43. Applying the settled guidelines in the various judgments,
the compensation payable to the petitioners is calculated as under:
Head Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
Monthly Income of deceased (A) Rs. 17,234/-
Add future prospect (B) @ 25%= Rs. 4,308.50
Less 1/4 deductions towards (Rs. 17,234/- + Rs. 4,308.50) = Rs.
personal and living expenses of the 21,542.50 x 1/4 = Rs. 5,385.50
deceased (C)
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.79/2024 Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLASirajuddin through LRs vs. Ram Pujan Upadhayay & Ors. Date: 2026.02.18
16:17:36 +0530 Page 24 of 39
Monthly loss of dependency (Rs. 17,234/- + Rs. 4,308.50) – Rs.
[(A+B) – C = D] 5,385.50 = Rs. 16,157/-)
Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 16,157/- x 12= Rs. 1,93,884/-
(D x 12)
Multiplier (E) 13
Total loss of dependency (Rs. 1,93,884/- x 13) =
DxE=F Rs. 25,20,492/-
Medical Expenses (G) Nil
Compensation for loss of love and Nil.
affection (H)
Compensation for loss of Rs. 53,240 x 5 = Rs. 2,66,200/-
consortium (I) to the petitionersCompensation for loss of Estate (J) Rs. 19,965/-
Compensation for funeral expenses Rs. 19,965/-
(K)
Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 28,26,622/-
44. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @
Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 , the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld awarding of 9% interest per annum.
Therefore, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9%
per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 31.01.2024 till
realization.
Apportionment:
45. It is evident from the record that the deceased had left
behind his 5 legal heirs i.e. wife, mother and three children. For the sake
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.18
16:17:41
+0530MACT No.79/2024
Sirajuddin through LRs vs. Ram Pujan Upadhayay & Ors. Page 25 of 39
of convenience, the individual shares of the dependents of the deceased
are tabulated as under:-
S.No. Name of the Relation Amount in Total amount
claimant with (Rupees) including interest
deceased
1. Smt. Shabana Wife Rs. 12,20,492/- + Rs. 13,13,662/- +
Rs. 53,240/- + Rs. Rs. 2,42,613.58 =
19,965/- + Rs. Rs. 15,56,275.58
19,965/- = Rs. (rounded off to Rs.
13,13,662/- 15,56,276/-)
2. Ms. Arsheen Daughter Rs. 4,00,000/- + Rs. 4,53,240/- + Rs.
Rs. 53,240/- = Rs. 83,706.60 = Rs.
4,53,240/- 5,36,946.60
(rounded off to Rs.
5,36,947/-)
3. Mr. Mohd. Son Rs. 53,240/- Rs. 53,240/- + Rs.
Shah Faisal 9,832.63 = Rs.
63,072.63 (rounded
off to Rs. 63,073/-)
4. Mr. Subhan Son Rs. 4,00,000/- + Rs. 4,53,240/- + Rs.
Rs. 53,240/- = Rs. 83,706.60 = Rs.
4,53,240/- 5,36,946.60
(rounded off to Rs.
5,36,947/-)
5. Smt. Sabiran Mother Rs. 5,00,000/- + Rs. 5,53,240/- + Rs.
Rs. 53,240/- = Rs. 1,02,175.09 = Rs.
5,53,240/- 6,55,415.09
(rounded off to Rs.
6,55,415/-)
DISBURSEMENT
46. The Financial Statement of petitioner/injured was not
recorded due to non appearance of the petitioners.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.18
16:17:47
+0530MACT No.79/2024
Sirajuddin through LRs vs. Ram Pujan Upadhayay & Ors. Page 26 of 39
47. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated
07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh
Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors. has given the following directions:
“(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in
the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants
i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an
individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in
safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number,
FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be
furnished by bank to the claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the
ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place
of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge
be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the
court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book
and/or debit card to claimants. However, in case the debit card
and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall
cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount.
The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of claimants so
that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of
claimants from any other branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook
of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque books and/or debit
card have been issued and shall not be issued without the
permission of the Court and the claimant shall produced the
passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court for
compliance.”
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.18
16:17:53
+0530MACT No.79/2024
Sirajuddin through LRs vs. Ram Pujan Upadhayay & Ors. Page 27 of 39
48. However, in a recent judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India titled as Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal on 18
March, 2025 in S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020 has held that :
“17. The case in hand pertains to the compensation awarded
under the Motor Vehicles Act. The general practice followed
by the insurance companies, where the compensation is not
disputed, is to deposit the same before the Tribunal. Instead
of following that process, a direction can always be issued to
transfer the amount into the bank account(s) of the
claimant(s) with intimation to the Tribunal.
17.1 For that purpose, the Tribunals at the initial stage of
pleadings or at the stage of leading evidence may require the
claimant(s) to furnish their bank account particulars to the
Tribunal along with the requisite proof, so that at the stage of
passing of the award the Tribunal may direct that the amount
of compensation be transferred in the account of the claimant
and if there are more than one then in their respective
accounts. If there is no bank account, then they should be
required to open the bank account either individually or
jointly with family members only. It should also be mandated
that, in case there is any change in the bank account
particulars of the claimant(s) during the pendency of the
claim petition they should update the same before the
Tribunal. This should be ensured before passing of the final
award. It may be ensured that the bank account should be in
the name of the claimant(s) and if minor, through guardian(s)
and in no case it should be a joint account with any person,
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLAMACT No.79/2024 SINGLA Date:
2026.02.18
16:17:57Sirajuddin through LRs vs. Ram Pujan Upadhayay & Ors. Page 28 of 39
+0530
who is not a family member. The transfer of the amount in the
bank account, particulars of which have been furnished by the
claimant(s), as mentioned in the award, shall be treated as
satisfaction of the award. Intimation of compliance should be
furnished to the Tribunal.”
49. In view of the same, the award amount can now be
disbursed in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioners. However, the
remaining directions as passed by the Hon’ble High Court shall be
complied with.
Smt. Shabana (wife):
50. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners,
it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 33,48,658/-, out
of the share of the petitioner/Smt. Shabana (wife) Rs. 15,56,276/-
(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Six
only), Rs. 3,56,276/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand Two
Hundred Seventy Six only) shall be released to the petitioner
immediately in her bank account no.6574000100221363, Punjab
National Bank, Ghonda Road, Delhi, IFSC code: PUNB0657400, CIF
ID: R43918747.
51. The balance amount of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve
Lacs only) shall be put in 40 monthly fixed deposits in her name in her
account as mentioned above of equal amount of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees
Thirty Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 40 months
respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions
Digitally
signed by
MACT No.79/2024 RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
Sirajuddin through LRs vs. Ram Pujan Upadhayay & Ors. 2026.02.18
16:18:01
+0530 Page 29 of 39
contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021.
Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall
automatically be transferred in her saving account maintained in a
nationalized bank situated near the place of her residence.
Ms. Arsheen (daughter):
52. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners,
it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 33,48,658/-, out
of the share of the petitioner/daughter Ms. Arsheen Rs. 5,36,947/-
(Rupees Five Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Seven
only), Rs. 1,36,947/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Six Thousand Nine
Hundred Forty Seven only) shall be released to the petitioner
immediately in her Bank Account no.42862944253, SBI, Ghonda,
Gamri Road, Delhi, IFSC : SBIN0006818, CIF No.91457914892.
53. The balance amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs
only) shall be put in 20 monthly fixed deposits in her name in her
account as mentioned above of equal amount of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 20 months
respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions
contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021.
Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall
automatically be transferred in her saving account maintained in a
nationalized bank situated near the place of her residence.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.18
16:18:06
+0530
MACT No.79/2024
Sirajuddin through LRs vs. Ram Pujan Upadhayay & Ors. Page 30 of 39
Mr. Mohd. Shah Faisal (son):
54. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners,
it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 33,48,658/-, out
of the share of the petitioner/son Mr. Mohd. Shah Faisal Rs. 63,073/-
(Rupees Sixty Three Thousand Seventy Three only), the entire amount
shall be released to the petitioner immediately in his Bank Account
no.42940835846, SBI, Ghonda, Gamri Road, Delhi, IFSC:
SBIN0006818, CIF No.91477581427.
Mr. Subhan (son):
55. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners,
it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 33,48,658/-, out
of the share of the petitioner/son Mr. Subhan Rs. 5,36,947/- (Rupees
Five Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Seven only), Rs.
1,36,947/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Six Thousand Nine Hundred Forty
Seven only) shall be released to the petitioner immediately in his Bank
Account no.42850167458, SBI, Ghonda, Gamri Road, Delhi, IFSC :
SBIN0006818, CIF No.91454742154.
56. The balance amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs
only) shall be put in 20 monthly fixed deposits in his name in his
account as mentioned above of equal amount of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 20 months
respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions
contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021.
Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall
automatically be transferred in his saving account maintained in a
Digitally
MACT No.79/2024 signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
Sirajuddin through LRs vs. Ram Pujan Upadhayay & Ors. 2026.02.18
16:18:12
+0530
Page 31 of 39
nationalized bank situated near the place of his residence.
Mrs. Sabiran (mother):
57. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners,
it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 33,48,658/-, out
of the share of the petitioner/mother Mrs. Sabiran Rs. 6,55,415/-
(Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand Four Hundred Fifteen only), Rs.
2,55,415/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand Four Hundred
Fifteen only) shall be released to the petitioner immediately in her Bank
Account no.6574000100221372, Punjab National Bank, Ghonda Road,
Delhi, IFSC code: PUNB0657400, CIF ID: R43918748.
58. The balance amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs
only) shall be put in 10 monthly fixed deposits in her name in her
account as mentioned above of equal amount of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees
Forty Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 10 months
respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions
contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021.
Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall
automatically be transferred in her saving account maintained in a
nationalized bank situated near the place of her residence.
59. In compliance of the directions given by Hon’ble High
Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award
in the prescribed Format-XVI is as under:
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Date: 2026.02.18
16:18:16 +0530MACT No.79/2024
Sirajuddin through LRs vs. Ram Pujan Upadhayay & Ors. Page 32 of 39
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
Date of Accident: 23.09.2023
Name of the deceased: Mr. Sirajuddin
Age of the deceased: 47 years
Occupation of the deceased: Self employed
Income of the
deceased : Rs. 17,234/- p.m.
Name and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No. Name of the claimant Relation with deceased
1. Smt. Shabana Wife
2. Ms. Arsheen Daughter
3. Mr. Mohd. Shah Faisal Son
4. Mr. Subhan Son
5. Smt. Sabiran Mother
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
Sr. Head Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
No.
1 Monthly Income of deceased Rs. 17,234/-
(A)
2 Add future prospect (B) @ 25%= Rs. 4,308.50
3 Less 1/4 deductions towards (Rs. 17,234/- + Rs. 4,308.50) = Rs.
personal and living expenses of 21,542.50 x 1/4 = Rs. 5,385.50
the deceased (C)
4 Monthly loss of dependency (Rs. 17,234/- + Rs. 4,308.50) – Rs.
[(A+B) – C = D] 5,385.50 = Rs. 16,157/-)
5 Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 16,157/- x 12 = Rs. 1,93,884/-
Digitally
signed by
MACT No.79/2024
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
Sirajuddin through LRs vs. Ram Pujan Upadhayay & Ors. Page 33 of 39
2026.02.18
16:18:21
+0530
(D x 12)
6 Multiplier (E) 13
7 Total loss of dependency (Rs. 1,93,884/- x 13) =
DxE=F Rs. 25,20,492/-
8 Medical Expenses (G) Nil
9 Compensation for loss of love Nil.
and affection (H)
10 Compensation for loss of Rs. 53,240 x 3 = Rs. 2,66,200/-
consortium (I) to the petitioners
11 Compensation for loss of Rs. 19,965/-
Estate (J)
12 Compensation for funeral Rs. 19,965/-
expenses (K)
13 Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 28,26,622/-
14 Rate of Interest Awarded 9%
15 Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 5,22,036/-
award w.e.f. 31.01.2024 till
realization
16 Total amount including interest Rs. 33,48,658/-
17 Award amount released As per paragraph Nos.50 to 59
18 Award amount kept in FDRs As per paragraph Nos. 51, 53, 56 &
58
19 Mode of disbursement of the As per paragraph Nos. 50 to 59
award amount to the
claimant(s)
20 Next Date of compliance of the 18.03.2026
award
LIABILITY:
60. It has been established that the offending vehicle was being
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.02.18
MACT No.79/2024 16:18:25 +0530Sirajuddin through LRs vs. Ram Pujan Upadhayay & Ors. Page 34 of 39
driven by respondent no.1 and that respondent no.2 is the owner of the
same and the offending vehicle was uninsured at the time of the
accident. Hence, the respondent no. 1 & 2 shall be jointly and severally
liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners. Issue No. 2 is
accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the
respondents.
RELIEF:
61. In view of the above, the respondents no. 1 & 2 are directed
to deposit a sum of Rs. 28,26,622/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Twenty
Six Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Two Only) along with interest @ 9%
from the date of filing of DAR i.e. w.e.f. 31.01.2024 till realization with
the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the
claimants, failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay interest @
12 % per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days. Reliance placed
on case titled as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika
& Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
62. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the
award to the insurance company for compliance within the time granted
as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No.
534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. The said respondent is further
directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the
claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
MACT No.79/2024 2026.02.18
16:18:32
+0530
Sirajuddin through LRs vs. Ram Pujan Upadhayay & Ors. Page 35 of 39
with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days
of the deposit with a copy to the Claimant and his counsel.
Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the
award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties
free of cost.
Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to
Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services
Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules,
2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of
Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on
18.03.2026 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation
amount within the time granted.
Further, Civil Nazir is directed to maintain the record in
Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment)
Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation
of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021
titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors.,
date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court today Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
on this 18th February, 2026 SINGLA Date:
2026.02.18
16:18:42(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
+0530PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
MACT No.79/2024
Sirajuddin through LRs vs. Ram Pujan Upadhayay & Ors. Page 36 of 39
THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL MOTOR
VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022 (PL. SEE RULE
150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 23.09.2023
2 Date of filing of Form-I –
First Accident Report 27.09.2023
(FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II
31.01.2024
to the victim(s)
4 Date of receipt of Form-III
31.01.2024
from the Driver
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV
from the Owner 31.01.2024
6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the insurance 31.01.2024
of the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-
31.01.2024
VIA from the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII -
31.01.2024
Detail Accident Report
(DAR)
9 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Investigating NA
Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the NA
Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company admitted his NA
report within 30 days of the
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.79/2024 Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.02.18
16:18:47 +0530
Sirajuddin through LRs vs. Ram Pujan Upadhayay & Ors. Page 37 of 39
DAR/claim petition?
12 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the NA
part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether
any action/direction
warranted?
13 Date of response of the
claimant(s) to the offer of NA
the Insurance Company.
14 Date of award 18.02.2026
15 Whether the claimant(s)
were directed to open Yes
savings bank account(s)
near their place of
residence?
16 Date of order by which
claimant(s) were directed to
open Savings Bank
Account(s) near his place of 31.01.2024
residence and produce PAN
card and Aadhar Card and
the direction to the bank not
to issue any cheque
book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an
endorsement to this effect
on the passbook(s).
17 Date on which the
claimant(s) produced the
passbook of their savings
18.02.2026
bank account(s) near the
place of their residence
alongwith the endorsement,
PAN card and Aadhaar
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.79/2024 Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Sirajuddin through LRs vs. Ram Pujan Upadhayay & Ors. Date: 2026.02.18
16:18:52 +0530 Page 38 of 39
Card?
18 Permanent residential
address of the claimant(s). As per Award.
19 Whether the claimant(s)
savings bank account(s) is
Yes
near their place of
residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s)
were examined at the time
No. The petitioners did not appear despite
of passing of the Award to
repeated directions.
ascertain his/their financial
condition?
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.18
16:18:56
+0530
(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
18.02.2026
MACT No.79/2024
Sirajuddin through LRs vs. Ram Pujan Upadhayay & Ors. Page 39 of 39
