Delhi District Court
Ved Prakash Lr(Dec. Kapil)F(41/18/Tp) vs Yash Jain on 18 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010086232018
MACT No. : 493/2018
FIR No. : 41/2018
PS : Timarpur
u/s : 279/304A IPC
1. Sh. Ved Prakash @ Sh. Bed Prakash (LR/father of deceased)
S/o. Sh. Mahendra Singh
2. Smt. Archana Devi (LR/mother of deceased)
W/o. Sh. Ved Prakash
3. Sh. Rohit Kumar (LR/brother of deceased)
S/o. Sh. Ved Prakash
4. Ms. Neha Kumari (LR/sister of deceased)
D/o. Sh. Ved Prakash
All r/o. Deta Kalan, Deta Khurd,
Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh
...Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Yash Jain
S/o. Sh. Sanjay Jain,
R/o. H.No.B-2/240, Sultanpuri, Delhi.
2. Smt. Manju Jain
W/o. Sh. Sanjay Jain,
R/o. H.No.B-2/240, Sultanpuri, Delhi.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
MACT No.493/2018 2026.04.18
16:39:14
+0530
Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Page 1 of 52
3. Sh. Sikander,
S/o. Unknown
R/o. C-335, Gali no.12, Ganga Vihar, Delhi.
4. Sh. Babban Singh,
S/o. Sh. Bhagat Lal Singh
R/o. Village Rampur,
PO Masti Chowk PS Dariyapur,
District Saran, Bihar.
Also at: F-46, Sector A, Tronic City,
Loni, Ghaziabad, U.P.
5. Liberty General Insurance Co. Ltd.
through Regional Manager/Nodal Officer
783 & 784, 7th Floor, Agarwal Millennium, Tower-II,
Plot no.E-4, Netaji Subhash Place,
Pitampura, New Delhi, Delhi-110034.
....Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 04.07.2018
Judgment reserved on : 24.03.2026
Date of Award : 18.04.2026
AWAR D
1. The present DAR was filed on 04.07.2018 which was
treated as the claim petition. The Road Traffic Accident in question took
place on 24.02.2018 at about 09:05 PM ahead Gopalpur Red Light,
CNG Pump, Gandhi Vihar, Delhi. Mr. Kapil Kumar expired in the said
accident which was allegedly caused by a Wagon-R Car bearing
registration No. DL-8CQ-5371 (hereinafter referred to as the offending
vehicle). The offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1
Yash Jain, owned by respondent no. 2 Manju Jain and insured with
respondent no. 3 Liberty General Insurance Co. Ltd.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
MACT No.493/2018
SINGLA
Date: 2026.04.18
16:39:24 +0530
Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Page 2 of 52
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that a
PCR call vide DD No.35A dated 24.02.2018 regarding information of an
accident was received at PS Timarpur and handed over to ASI Ashok
Kumar, who alongwith HC Mukesh went to the spot i.e. ahead Gopalpur
Red Light, CNG Pump, Gandhi Vihar, Delhi where one Mahindra
Pickup bearing no. DL-1LK-7202, its driver Babban Singh and one
person namely Uttam were found at the spot. They informed the IO that
the injured and number plate of the accidental vehicle had been taken to
Trauma Centre, Civil Lines, Delhi by PCR van. After leaving HC
Mukesh at the spot of accident, IO went to the Trauma Centre, Civil
Lines, Delhi where he collected the MLC no.2089/18 of Mr. Kapil. The
doctors had declared him brought dead. Thereafter, IO preserved the
dead body of Mr. Kapil in Asaf Ali Hospital Mortuary. Thereafter, he
returned to the spot of accident and from there, he came to the PS
alongwith Mahindra Pickup, driver Babban Singh and Sh. Uttam.
3. Thereafter, IO recorded the statement of Mr. Babban in the
PS as complainant. Thereafter, FIR was registered on the basis of
statement of complainant, MLC and DD entry u/s.279/304A IPC.
Thereafter IO prepared the site plan at the instance of Mr. Babban.
Thereafter, IO deposited the Mahindra Pickup to Maalkhana. The
registration plate found at the spot belonged to a vehicle bearing no.
DL-8CQ-5371 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle no.1).
Thereafter, IO obtained the ownership of the offending vehicle no.1.
Thereafter, IO served the notice under Section 133 MV Act upon the
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.493/2018
Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Page 3 of 52
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Date: 2026.04.18
16:39:30 +0530
owner of the offending vehicle no.1 namely Smt. Manju Jain. Upon the
notice, owner had given a written reply in which she has stated that on
the day of accident, the offending vehicle no.1 was being driven by her
son namely Yash Jain and that she will produce him before the IO.
4. On 25.02.2018, the post mortem vide PM no.308/18 of the
body of deceased was got conducted by the IO. Thereafter, dead body of
the deceased was handed over to the relatives of the deceased.
5. Thereafter, owner of the offending vehicle no.1 had
produced the driver of the offending vehicle no.1 before the IO. Owner
also handed over the documents of the offending vehicle no.1 as well as
DL of the driver to the IO. Thereafter, IO interrogated the driver Yash
Jain and arrested him. Upon producing the surety, the driver of the
offending vehicle was released on bail.
6. Thereafter, IO deposited the Wagon-R Car/offending
vehicle no.1 and its number plate in the maalkhana. Mechanical
inspection of both the offending vehicle no.1 and the Mahindra Pickup
were got conducted. The owner of the offending vehicle/Wagon-R car
did not submit the insurance of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, IO
added the Section under section 146/196 MV Act. Other documents of
the offending vehicle were got verified from the concerned authorities
and the same were found to be correct. After completion of
investigation, chargesheet for the offences u/s.279/304A IPC and
146/196 MV Act was filed against the driver Yash Jain before the
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.493/2018 Digitally signed
Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Date: 2026.04.18
Page 4 of 52
16:39:35 +0530
concerned Ld. JMFC and the DAR was filed before this Tribunal.
7. During the trial of the case, the petitioner moved an
application under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleading the driver, owner
and the insurance company of the Mahindra Pickup which was found at
the spot of the accident. Notice of this application was issued to the
proposed respondents and vide order dated 02.12.2024, they were
impleaded as respondents no. 3 to 5 respectively in the present matter.
The Mahindra Pickup shall be hereinafter referred to as the offending
vehicle no. 2.
WRITTEN STATEMENTS
8. WS was filed on behalf of the respondents no. 1 & 2 i.e. the
driver and the owner of the offending vehicle no.1 on 15.10.2018. It was
stated by the respondents that at the time of accident the deceased was
repairing the faulty Mahindra Pickup bearing no.DL-1LK-7200 and was
underneath of that Mahindra Pickup in middle of ring road, during
heavy fog at night, without any light and precautions, where heavy
traffic prevails all the time. It was further stated that it was the duty of
the deceased, driver and owner of the faulty Mahindra Pickup to remove
the faulty vehicle from the site by crane and send it to workshop for
repairing the same. It was further stated that the respondent no. 1/driver
has been wrongly impleaded in the present case as no accident took
place due to the negligence on his part and the accident did not took
place with the vehicle of the answering respondents and that they are
falsely implicated in the present case. Hence, the present DAR is liable
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed
MACT No.493/2018
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Date: 2026.04.18
16:39:40 +0530
Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Page 5 of 52
to be dismissed.
9. WS/reply on behalf of respondent no. 5 i.e. the insurer of
the offending vehicle no.2 was filed. It was admitted that the offending
vehicle no.2 was insured with respondent no. 5 vide policy no.2013-
200102-17-1000017-01-000 valid and effective from 02.04.2018 to
01.04.2018 in the name of Mr. Surender Singh. However, it was stated
that at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle no.1 was
driving the vehicle without having any insurance. The accident was
caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
offending vehicle no.1. It was further stated that the offending vehicle
no.2 has been added in the array of parties with the intention to grab the
compensation from the insurer. It was further stated that the offending
vehicle no.2 has no role to play in the accident and required precaution
were also taken for the stationery vehicle. In addition to that, the driver
of the offending vehicle no.2 was also standing on the road to indicate
the side of coming traffic/vehicle to ensure safety. Hence, it is stated that
there was no rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle no.2
and that the respondent no. 5 was not liable to pay any compensation to
the petitioners.
10. The respondents no. 3 and 4 did not appear in the court nor
they filed their WS. Hence, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide
order dated 02.12.2024.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.18
16:39:46
+0530MACT No.493/2018
Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Page 6 of 52
ISSUES
11. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated
15.10.2018, this Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the deceased Sh. Kapil suffered fatal injuries
in an accident that took place on 24.02.2018 at about
09:05 PM involving Car bearing registration No.
DL-8CQ-5371 driven by Respondent no. 1 rashly and
negligently, and owned by Respondent no. 2? OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation?
If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
12. In view of the impleadment of respondents no. 3 to 5, an
additional issue was framed vide order dated 11.03.2025 which is as
under :
4. Whether the deceased Kapil suffered fatal injuries
in an accident that took place on 24.02.2018 at about
09:05 P.M. involving vehicle i.e. Mahindra Pick Up Van
bearing registration No. DL 1LK 7200, which was
stationed on the road by respondent no. 3, owned by
respondent no. 4 and insured with respondent no. 5 and
another vehicle i.e. Wagon R bearing registration no.
DL8CQ5371 which was being driven rashly and
negligently by respondent no. 1 and owned by
respondent no.2? OPP
13. However, in view of the framing of the above issue, the
issue no.1 as framed earlier is deleted. The issues are reproduced as
under:
1. Whether the deceased Kapil suffered fatal injuries
in an accident that took place on 24.02.2018 at about
09:05 P.M. involving vehicle i.e. Mahindra Pick Up Van
bearing registration No. DL 1LK 7200, which was
Digitally
MACT No.493/2018 signed by
RUCHIKAVed Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA
Date: Page 7 of 52
2026.04.18
16:39:51
+0530
stationed on the road by respondent no. 3, owned by
respondent no. 4 and insured with respondent no. 5 and
another vehicle i.e. Wagon R bearing registration no.
DL8CQ5371 which was being driven rashly and
negligently by respondent no. 1 and owned by
respondent no.2? OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation?
If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
14. The petitioners examined Smt. Archana Devi as PW-1.
PW1 has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW1/1.
She relied upon the following documents:
1. Ex. PW1/A are the copies of Aadhar Card of the petitioners
(OSR) (colly).
2. Ex.PW1/B are the copies of aadhar card and death certificate of
deceased Kapil Kumar.
3. Ex. PW1/C is the DAR.
15. Thereafter, petitioners examined IO/SI Ashok Kumar
(Retired) as PW-2. PW2 IO/SI Ashok Kumar was the Investigation
Officer of the present case. He stated that the accident was caused due to
the negligence of offending vehicle no. 2 as well.
16. Thereafter, petitioners examined Sh. Uttam Singh as PW-3.
PW3 Sh. Uttam Singh is the registered owner of the offending vehicle
no.2.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
MACT No.493/2018
SINGLA
Date:
2026.04.18
16:39:54 +0530Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Page 8 of 52
17. Thereafter, petitioners examined Sh. Babban Singh as
PW-4. He has relied upon the statement of witness recorded by IO as
Ex. PW4/A. He is the driver of the offending vehicle no.2 and
complainant in the present case on whose statement the FIR was
registered. He stated that the deceased was repairing his vehicle at the
time of the accident and that it was totally dark as that time. Further, he
stated that he saw a TSR/auto coming from behind in a rash and
negligent manner in a zig zag manner which hit his vehicle. He further
stated that due to the impact of the hit, the offending vehicle no.2 fell on
the road and the deceased who was working underneath the offending
vehicle no. 2 was crushed underneath. He expired on the spot due to the
impact of the same. He further stated that the driver of the said TSR
reversed his TSR at that time and he collided with the offending vehicle
no. 1 due to which the number plate of the offending vehicle no. 1 broke
and fell down on the road.
18. All PWs was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for
respondents no. 1 and 2. Thereafter, vide separate statement of Ld.
Counsel for the petitioners, PE was closed on 31.10.2025.
RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE
19. The respondent no. 1 examined himself as R1W1. He has
tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. R1W1/A. He has
relied upon the certified copy of cross examination of eye witness
Babbn Singh before the Ld. JMFC-02 as Ex. R1W1 (colly) (containing
MACT No.493/2018 Digitally
signed by
Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Page 9 of 52
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.18
16:39:59
+0530
5 pages). He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the petitioners
20. Thereafter, vide separate statement of the Ld. Counsel for
respondents no.1 & 2, RE was closed vide order dated 19.01.2026.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
21. The Petitioners filed his duly filled Form XIII and the
financial statements of the petitioners no.1 & 2 were recorded. Final
arguments were heard on behalf of the petitioners as well as
respondents. Written arguments were filed on behalf of the respondents
no. 1 & 2 and the respondent no.5.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
22. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and Ld.
Counsel for respondents and perused the record. My findings on the
various issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1:
Whether the deceased Kapil suffered fatal injuries in an
accident that took place on 24.02.2018 at about 09:05 P.M. involving
vehicle i.e. Mahindra Pick Up Van bearing registration No. DL 1LK
7200, which was stationed on the road by respondent no. 3, owned by
respondent no. 4 and insured with respondent no. 5 and another vehicle
i.e. Wagon R bearing registration no. DL8CQ5371 which was being
driven rashly and negligently by respondent no. 1 and owned by
respondent no.2?
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.493/2018 Date: 2026.04.18
16:40:03 +0530
Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Page 10 of 52
23. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. It is an
admitted case in the present matter that the deceased Kapil was working
on the offending vehicle no. 2 at the time of the accident. He was lying
underneath the offending vehicle no. 2 when another vehicle hit the
same due to which, the offending vehicle no. 2 fell and the deceased was
crushed beneath it.
24. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the FIR
was registered on the basis of the statement of the complainant Sh.
Babban Singh (respondent no.3) who is the driver of the offending
vehicle no. 2. He was examined by the petitioner as PW4 in the present
matter and he stated on oath that at the time of the accident, a TSR/auto
came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and hit the offending
vehicle no. 2 due to which the offending vehicle no. 2 fell. It is
submitted that the IO did not do any investigation qua the said alleged
auto. Further, the offending vehicle no. 2 i.e. the Truck was parked on
the main road without any parking lights and without any indicator. The
truck was parked since the afternoon at 1:30 pm till the time of the
accident at 9:05 pm when the same shall have been taken to a workshop
for repair. Hence, it is submitted that both the vehicles i.e. the TSR and
the truck are rash and negligent in the present matter. Hence, they are
jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
25. Per contra, it is argued by the Ld. Counsel for respondents
no.1 and 2 (the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle no.1) that
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.18
MACT No.493/2018
16:40:07
+0530Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Page 11 of 52
there is no rash and negligent act on behalf of the offending vehicle no.
1. It is submitted that as pointed above, the FIR was registered on the
basis of the statement of PW4 Babban Singh. In the statement before the
IO, he stated that the accident was caused by the offending vehicle no. 1
but when he appeared in the court and was examined as PW4, he stated
that the accident was actually caused by an unknown TSR/auto who hit
the offending vehicle no. 2. When the auto driver was reversing his auto
to abscond from the spot, he hit into the Wagon-R i.e. the offending
vehicle no. 1 due to which the registration plate of the offending vehicle
no. 1 fell on the road. It is submitted that the accident was not caused by
the offending vehicle no. 1 at all, as per the petitioner’s own case. The
accident was caused between the TSR/auto and the offending vehicle no.
2. Hence, it is submitted that there is no liability upon the driver and the
owner of the offending vehicle no. 1.
26. Further, it is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents
no. 1 and 2 that in the present matter, as mentioned above, admittedly
the offending vehicle no. 2 was parked on the ring road from 1:30 pm
till 9:30 pm. There is nothing on record to suggest that the offending
vehicle no. 2 had given any indicator or had switched on the parking
lights that the truck had broken down. It is submitted that even if the
truck could not be moved at the time when it broke down, the driver of
the offending vehicle no. 2 had sufficient time to get the same moved to
a workshop for repairs. As per the statement of PW4 Babban Singh, the
mechanic i.e. the deceased Kapil had come at the spot at about 2:30 pm
and he was still repairing the vehicle till 9:05 pm in the night. Hence, it
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.18
16:40:19
+0530MACT No.493/2018
Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Page 12 of 52
is apparent that the repair work required on the vehicle was a lot and
could not be completed soon. Hence, the reasonable thing which should
have been done was to move the vehicle to the workshop, which was not
done. It is submitted that PW4 Babban Singh admitted in his cross
examination that the vehicle could have been taken to a workshop
through a crane. It is submitted that the same was not done by him only
to save cost. It is submitted that the ring road is a busy road on which
heavy traffic plies entire day. As per the traffic rules and regulations, the
owner and the driver of the offending vehicle no. 2 were under a duty to
remove the broken vehicle from the road. As the same was not done,
their rash and negligent act is apparent. Hence, in view of the testimony
of PW4 Babban Singh, as the accident was caused between an unknown
auto/TSR and due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the
offending vehicle no. 2 (respondent no. 3), no liability can be imposed
upon the respondent no. 1 and 2. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1 & 2
has relied upon the following judgments in support of his arguments:
• Sithara N.S. & Ors. Etc. Vs. Sai Ram General Insurance
Company Limited in Civil Appeal Nos.14718-14719 of 2025
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.281-282/2019) decided by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 12.12.2025.
• National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rakhi and others, FAO No.3836
of 2014 and XOBJC No.211-CII of 2015 (O&M); decided by
Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 05.12.2019.
• Manjit Kaur and Ors. Vs. Jagtar Singh and Ors. , FAO No.569 and
2673 of 2006 (O&M); decided by Hon’ble High Court of Punjab
and Haryana at Chandigarh on 20.12.2026.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.493/2018 Digitally signed byVed Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.04.18 Page 13 of 52
16:40:25 +0530
• General Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Rajendra Singh and Ors., MFA No.31686 of 2013 (MV) and
others; decided by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi
Bench on 20.01.2016.
• United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Raj Bala and Ors. , FAO
No.4808 of 2023 (O&M), decided by Hon’ble High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh on 31.05.2024.
• Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhupati Sujatha and Ors.,
MACMA No.2717 of 2018 and Cross objection no. 17 of 2022,
decided by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh on
16.06.2022.
• Mukesh Kumar Vs. Shabir Khan and others, FAO Nos.319 and
1393 of 2017 (O&M), decided by Hon’ble High Court of Punjab
and Haryana at Chandigarh on 26.07.2018.
• Laxmi Devi and others Vs. Mehboob Ali and others, CA No.5420
of 2023, decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on
25.08.2023.
• United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Priya and Ors., FAO No.4214
of 2013 and 178 of 2014, decided by Hon’ble High Court of
Himachal Pradesh at Shimla on 11.08.2023.
• National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Babla Bagchi and Ors. , MA
No.138 of 2013 and cross objection no.8 of 2020, decided by
Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi on 17.02.2022.
• Virsa Singh and Ors. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , CA No.
3443 of 2023, decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on
08.05.2023.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.493/2018 Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Date: 2026.04.18
16:40:29 +0530 Page 14 of 52
• Sushma Vs. Nitin Ganapati Rangole and Ors. , CA No.10648 of
2024 and Ors. Decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on
19.09.2024.
• Devaraju T. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another,
MFA Nos. 1049 of 2013 and 6922 of 2012 (MV),decided by
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore on 19.12.2013.
• United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rani Kaushal and Ors. , FAO
No.581 of 2013 and Cross objection No.45-CII of 2015 (O&M),
decided by Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh on 07.04.2016.
• Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co .Ltd. Vs. Savita and Ors.,
MFA no.201373 of 2015 (MV), decided by Hon’ble High Court
of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench on 17.07.2017.
• Jumani Begum Vs. Ram Narayan and Ors., CA No.9343 of 2019,
decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 11.12.2019.
• National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mansi Swapnil Deokar and Ors.,
FA No.533 of 2014, decided by Hon’ble High Court of Judicature
at Bombay on 20.06.2019.
• Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parul Hazarika and Ors.,
MAC Appeal No.376 of 2018, decided by Hon’ble High Court of
Judicature at Gauhati on 03.03.2022.
27. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 5 has opposed the same. It
is submitted that as per the investigation done by the IO, the rash and
negligent act has been attributed upon the respondent no. 1 i.e. the driver
of the offending vehicle no. 1. At a later stage, the petitioner moved an
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.18
16:40:43
+0530MACT No.493/2018
Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Page 15 of 52
application for impleadment of the owner, driver and insurance
company of the offending vehicle no.2. This has been done only because
the offending vehicle no. 1 was uninsured and compensation could be
taken from the respondent no.5. Further it is argued that the story qua
the auto/TSR was introduced for the first time during the course of the
evidence. There is no such mention about the auto/TSR in the
investigation done by the IO. Again this has been done so that the
respondents no. 1 and 2 can escape the liability to pay compensation to
the petitioner. The same is indicative of the collusion between the
petitioner and respondents no. 1 and 2. Further till date, though the FIR
was registered in the year 2018, no protest petition was filed by the
respondent no. 1 regarding the investigation done by the IO. If the
accident was caused by the unknown TSR, the respondent no. 1 should
have moved an application or filed a complaint against the IO for not
investigating the case properly but the same has not been done.
28. Further, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 5
that the respondent no. 3 had taken necessary precautions when the
offending vehicle no. 2 was parked at the road. The parking lights were
on and in addition to the same, the respondent no. 3 was also standing
on the road to indicate the side to the coming traffic/vehicle to ensure
safety. Further it is a matter of record that the respondent no. 1
absconded from the spot which is also indicative of his guilt. Hence, it is
submitted that there is no role of the offending vehicle no. 2 in the
accident and the respondent no. 5 has no liability to pay the
compensation amount to the petitioners.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.18
16:40:49
+0530MACT No.493/2018
Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Page 16 of 52
29. Record perused.
30. In the present matter, as per the investigation done by the
IO, the offending vehicle no. 2 was stationed at the left side of the road
and the offending vehicle no. 1 being driven by the respondent no. 1 in
rash and negligent manner hit the offending vehicle no. 2 due to which
the same fell on the road and the deceased expired. As mentioned above,
the IO chargesheeted the respondent no. 1 as the accused in the criminal
case which was filed before the Ld. MM. 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.”
31. 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.”
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
MACT No.493/2018 2026.04.18
16:40:54
+0530
Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Page 17 of 52
32. In Meera Bai v. ICICI Lombard GIC SLP no. 3886/2019
decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 30.04.2025, it has been held
that:
“As far as examining the eye witness, such a witness will
not be available in all cases. The FIR having been lodged
and the chargesheet filed against the owner driver of the
offending vehicle, we are of the opinion that there could be
no finding that negligence was not established.”
33. Further, another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Ranjeet & Anr. v. Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr. SLP no. 10351/19 decided
on 25.02.2025 can be relied upon, where it has been held that:
“It is settled in law that once a chargesheet has been filed and
the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is
required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by
the bus driver. Even if the eyewitnesses are not examined,
that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due to
the negligence of the bus driver.”
34. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that in the
proceedings before the claims tribunal, the facts are to be established on
the basis of preponderance of probabilities and not by the strict rules of
evidence or the higher standard of beyond reasonable doubt as required
in criminal cases. The burden of proof in the present cases is much
lower than as placed in civil or criminal cases. In Bimla Devi & Ors. v.
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors (2009) 13 SC 530 , it has
been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that negligence must be
decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a
holistic view must be adopted in reaching a conclusion.
Digitally
signed by
MACT No.493/2018 RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. 2026.04.18
16:40:58
+0530
Page 18 of 52
35. It is a settled law that the petitioner cannot be expected to
prove the accident beyond reasonable doubts and the principle of res
ipse loquitor should apply which means that the “accident speaks for
itself”. Thus, once it has been established in DAR and chargesheet that
the accident had taken place, the burden shifts on the respondents to
prove that they were not responsible for the accident. 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.
36. 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
Digitally
MACT No.493/2018 signed by
RUCHIKAVed Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: Page 19 of 52
2026.04.18
16:41:02
+0530
complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly.
Further, even when the accused were to be acquitted in the
criminal case, this Court opined that the same may be of no
effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect
of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
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.”
37. 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. Hence, the respondent no. 1 and 2 had the onus to prove that the
accident was caused by some other vehicle as alleged by them. Now for
the first time in the evidence, it was stated by the respondent no. 3 i.e.
PW4 Babban Singh that the accident was caused by an unknown
auto/TSR. There was no such mention in the initial statement given to
the IO. He has stated in his evidence that he had informed the said fact
to the IO. However, when the IO came into the witness box as PW2, he
denied the same. A specific suggestion was given to him in this regard
which was denied by him that the respondent no. 3 i.e. PW4 had told
him regarding the involvement of the TSR. Further, it is a matter of
RUCHIKA
MACT No.493/2018 SINGLA
Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.04.18
Page 20 of 52
16:41:06 +0530
record that the respondents no. 1 and 2 have not proved on record any
complaint or protest petition which they filed before the Ld. MM
regarding the involvement of the alleged TSR and there false
involvement in the present matter. The FIR was registered in the year
2018 and now it is year 2026 and still the same has not been filed.
Hence, the respondent no.1 has failed to discharge the onus that his
vehicle was not involved in the accident. Consequently, prima facie, the
involvement of the respondent no.1 in the accident is made out.
38. Further, for the reasons mentioned above, this Tribunal is of
the opinion that there is nothing on record to suggest the involvement of
the unknown TSR/auto. In the opinion of this Tribunal, the said fact has
not been proved by any of the parties. Hence, this Tribunal is not
inclined to accept the same.
Negligence
39. From the above discussion, it is proved on record that the
accident was caused between the two offending vehicles as mentioned
above. Now, the Tribunal must ascertain as to which offending vehicle
was rash and negligent. In the present case, as per the site plan, the
offending vehicle no. 2 was parked on the left side of the road, which is
not a parking spot. The road where the accident occurred is the ring road
which is usually busy. The accident occurred on 24.02.2018 at 9:05 pm
in the night which is one of the peak hours of traffic. There is nothing on
record to suggest that on that day there was heavy fog or there was no
visibility on the road. However, even if that may be, the respondent no.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.18
16:41:11
MACT No.493/2018
+0530
Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Page 21 of 52
3 i.e. the driver of the offending vehicle no. 2 was duty bound to park
the vehicle in a precautionary manner. In Shivaji Dayanu Patil & Anr vs
Smt. Vatschala Uttam More 1991 (3) SCC 530 , the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has observed that:
“3. The word ‘use’ has a wider connotation as to cover the
period when the vehicle is not moving and is stationary and
the use of a vehicle does not cease on account of the vehicle
having been rendered immobile on account of a break-down
or mechanical defect or accident.”
40. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even a stationed
vehicle can be termed to be in use for the purposes of ascertaining the
rash and negligent act. It is only the oral statement of respondent no. 3
as PW4 that his parking lights were on and that he was standing on the
road to indicate the traffic regarding the parking of the vehicle.
However, no corroborative evidence has been led in this regard. No
question was put by the Ld. Counsel to the IO regarding the manner in
which the offending vehicle no. 2 was parked/found, whether the
parking lights/indicator was on or not. No photographs of the offending
vehicle at the spot were produced. In Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd
vs Harsh Mann & Ors MAC.APP. 690/2018 decided by the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi on 6 August, 2024, it has been observed that:
“15. Having heard the arguments advanced by Id. Counsel
for the parties, this Tribunal is of the considered view that
Sh. Narender Mann S/o Sh. Narain Mann, father of the
injured, has tendered his affidavit of evidence Ex. PW4/A
wherein he has categorically deposed that the accident took
place because of the stationary position of the
vehicle/dumper in the middle of the road without any signal
or blinker. There was no indicator on the truck/dumper to
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
MACT No.493/2018 2026.04.18
16:41:14
+0530
Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Page 22 of 52
indicate that the truck/dumper was parked so that any
person coming from behind could be cautious. Therefore,
there was negligence on the part of the driver of the
offending truck/dumper bearing registration no. HR-56-
7679. Reliance is placed upon New India Assurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Kalpana & Ors., 2007, ACJ 825, decided
by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Dt. 17.01.2007.”
41. In General Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Singh and Ors. (supra), the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnatka observed that:
“16. On the question of negligence, admitted facts are :
lorry was parked on the left side of the road (highway) at a
place not being a notified parking place, without any
indication or lights as is discernible from the statement of
objections of the insurance company admitting said fact, as
well as the spot sketch – Exh. P6 in MVC No. 89 of 2011;
the driver of the bus belonging to NEKRTC traversing on
the road in question, noticed the lorry ahead of it in a
stationary position, despite efforts to avoid a collision,
dashed against the hind right side portion of the lorry, at
about 6 a.m., in the wee hours of the morning of 27.4.2010;
the insurer in the written statement did not advance the plea
of contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the
bus, the MACT did not frame an issue or a point for
consideration over contributory negligence and the oral
testimony of the witnesses for the insurer did not testify to
contribution of negligence of the driver of the bus.
18. Whether the driver of the offending lorry could have
parked the vehicle on the left side of the road without
switching on the parking lights, takes us to an examination
of sections 117 and 122 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
which read thus:
“117. Parking places and halting stations.–The State
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
MACT No.493/2018 2026.04.18
16:41:19
+0530
Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Page 23 of 52
Government or any authority authorised in this behalf by
the State Government may, in consultation with the local
authority having jurisdiction in the area concerned,
determine places at which motor vehicles may stand either
indefinitely or for a specified period of time, and may
determine the places at which public service vehicles may
stop for a longer time than is necessary for the taking up
and setting down of passengers.
122. Leaving vehicle in dangerous position.–No person in
charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or allow the vehicle or
any trailer to be abandoned or to remain at rest on any
public place in such a position or in such a condition or in
such circumstances as to cause or likely to cause danger,
obstruction or undue inconvenience to other users of the
public place or to the passengers.”
19. Rule 109 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989,
provides for ‘parking light’ and reads thus:
109. Parking light.–Every construction equipment vehicle
and every motor vehicle other than motor cycles and three-
wheeled invalid carriages shall be provided with one white
or amber parking light on each side in the front. In addition
to the front lights, two red parking lights one on each side in
the rear shall be provided. The front and rear parking lights
shall remain lit even when the vehicle is kept stationary on
the road:
Provided that these rear lamps can be the same as the rear
lamps referred to in rule 105, sub-rule (2):
Provided also that construction equipment vehicles, which
are installed with floodlight lamps or sport lights at the
front, rear or side of the vehicle for their off-highway or
construction operations, shall have separate control for such
lamps or lights and these shall be permanently switched off
when the vehicle is travelling on the road.”
20. In the light of the aforesaid statutory provisions, the
Digitally
signed by
MACT No.493/2018 RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Page 24 of 52
2026.04.18
16:41:24
+0530
offending lorry when not parked at a notified parking place
or halting station and the driver having left the vehicle in a
dangerous position likely to cause danger or undue
inconvenience to other users of the public place, coupled
with the fact that parking lights were not lit when the
vehicle was kept stationary on the road; a mandate of rule
109 of the Rules, there can be no more doubt that the driver
of the offending vehicle, i.e., lorry was negligent in parking
the lorry on the road put to use by other motor vehicles, the
cause of accident.”
42. In the above mentioned case, the need to park the vehicle in
a parking spot was stressed upon and it was held that leaving the vehicle
in an open spot is leaving the vehicle in a dangerous position. Further, it
was held that the lorry driver was solely responsible for the accident.
Similarly, in all the other judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for
respondent no. 1 & 2, the Hon’ble High Courts and Hon’ble Supreme
Court in similar facts have observed that the sole negligence can be
attributed upon the offending vehicle which was stationed on the road.
43. Further as submitted by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1
and 2, as per the statement of PW4 Babban Singh, the repair work was
started by the deceased at about 2:30 pm and same continued till the
accident occurred i.e. about 9:05 pm. Hence, the offending vehicle no. 2
was being repaired on the road for about six and a half hours which
clearly implied that long repairs were needed in the vehicle. Hence, the
appropriate and reasonable thing which should have been done was to
remove the vehicle to a workshop for repairs, which was not done.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.18
16:41:29
+0530MACT No.493/2018
Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Page 25 of 52
44. Further, as per record, the deceased was a minor child who
was working on the truck. In that scenario, the respondent no. 3 should
have taken steps for providing precautionary measures to the deceased
while he was working on the truck, which he was probably not properly
qualified to do. Hence, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the rash and
negligent act can be attributed on the offending vehicle no. 2. Hence, in
the opinion of the court, the respondent no. 3 was rash and negligent at
the time of the accident. From the case record, it also stands established
that the respondent no.4 was the registered owner of the offending
vehicle no. 2 and that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent
no.5.
The injury:
45. Further, the onus to prove that the deceased had suffered
fatal injuries by way of the said accident was on the petitioners. In this
regard, the petitioners have relied upon the MLC dated 24.02.2018, as
per which the deceased was brought to the hospital with the history of
road traffic accident. As per the MLC, he had suffered various injuries
on his body and was declared brought dead. Further, as per his Post
Mortem Report dated 25.02.2018 issued by Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, the
cause of death was shock due to ante mortem injury to head, vertebra
and long bones produced by blunt force impact and possible in road
traffic accident.
46. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the
opinion that on the scales of preponderance of probabilities, the
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.18
MACT No.493/2018
16:41:34
+0530Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Page 26 of 52
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 Kapil Kumar unfortunately expired.
Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and
against the respondents.
ISSUE NO.2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to
what amount and from whom? (OPP)
47. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners. In
view of the discussion in the issue no.1, the petitioners are entitled for
compensation. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in matter of “Sarla
Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors.” (2003) 6 SCC
121 has held : –
“QUA BASIC PRINCIPLES
“9. Basically only three facts need to be established by
the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of
death :-
(a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased;
and the (c) the number of dependents. The issues to be
determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency
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
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.18
MACT No.493/2018
16:41:40
+0530Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Page 27 of 52
companies to settle accident claims without delay. To have
uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should determine
compensation in cases of death, by the following well settled
steps :
Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand)
The income of the deceased per annum should be
determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be
made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have
spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The
balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the
dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier)
Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of
active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected.
This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would
have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to
several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of
multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by
this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table
with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step 3 (Actual calculation)
The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand)
when multiplied by such multiplier gives the `loss of
dependency’ to the family. Thereafter, a conventional amount
in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be added as loss
of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his widow,
another conventional amount in the range of 5,000/- to
10,000/- should be added under the head of loss of
consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of
pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the
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,
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLAMACT No.493/2018 SINGLA Date:
2026.04.18
16:41:45
+0530Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Page 28 of 52
an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income
of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased
had a permanent job and was below 40 years. [Where the
annual income is in the taxable range, the words `actual salary’
should be read as `actual salary less tax’]. The addition should
be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years.
There should be no addition, where the age of deceased is
more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a
different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize
the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or
different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the
deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without
provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will usually
take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure
therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases
involving special circumstances.”
QUA DEDUCTIONS
“14. Having considered several subsequent decisions of
this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was
married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses
of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number
of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/3rd)
where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and
one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family
members exceed six.
15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the
claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different
principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as
personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a
bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even
otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in
a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s
and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to
evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own
income and will not be considered as a dependent and the
mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence
of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be
DigitallyMACT No.493/2018
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Page 29 of 52
2026.04.18
16:41:50
+0530
considered as dependents, because they will either be
independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the
father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and
siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a
dependent, and 50% would be treated as the personal and
living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to
the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large
and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case
where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger
non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living
expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the
family will be taken as two-third.”
QUA MULTIPLIER
“21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used
should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above
(prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and
Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for
the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one
unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16
for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45
years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units
for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for
56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70
years.”
48. 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
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
MACT No.493/2018
2026.04.18
16:41:56
+0530Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Page 30 of 52
yardstick has been fixed so that there can be consistency in
the approach by the tribunals and the Courts.
59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to
record our conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have
been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it
was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla
Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a
coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary
view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in
Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time,
the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50%
of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future
prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was
below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition
should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to
50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to
60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should
be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a
fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income
should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age
of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was
between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the
deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be
regarded as the necessary method of computation. The
established income means the income minus the tax
component.
(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. Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.18
16:42:01MACT No.493/2018
+0530Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Page 31 of 52
(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.”
Age determination of the deceased:
49. Perusal of the DAR shows that the IO has verified the
educational documents of the deceased, as per which, his date of birth
was 09.07.2001. The date of the accident is 24.02.2018. Hence, as on the
date of the accident, the deceased was aged 16 years.
Loss of income
50. In the present matter, it is a matter of record that the
deceased was a minor. The Hon’ble High court of Delhi in the matter of
“Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ld. Vs. Bhupan Paswan &
Ors.” MAC. APP. 324/2018, CM APPL. 12428/2018 decided on
24.02.2025 while summarizing the earlier law of assessment of
compensation in case of death of a child below 15 years has observed
and held as under:-
“Loss of Dependency:-
“8…
17. However, it is apposite to note that in the above
judgments while Notional income as defined in Second
Schedule was taken as a basis but the amount was being
modified by applying Cost Inflation Index, in the facts of
each case.
18. The Second Schedule however, stands deleted w.e.f.
01.09.2019. Thus, the question that what would be the basis
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKAMACT No.493/2018
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.18
16:42:06Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Page 32 of 52
+0530
of assessing the notional income of a child/ i.e. a non-
earning member below 15 years of age, who is a victim of a
motor vehicle accident, became a subject of extensive
judicial discourse….”
51. While discussing the law as laid down, the Hon’ble High
Court applied the Minimum Wage criteria paid to a skilled worker on a
fulltime basis’, which has been adopted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the judgment of Kajal vs Jagdish Chand AIR 2020 SC 776, Master
Ayush v. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2022) 7
SCC 738 and Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Baby Ahmad Simon
&Anr., SLP (C) No. 10996/2018 decided on on 11 December, 2024.
Same has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as
Devendra Kumar Tripathi v. Oriental Insurance Company SLP No. 2195
of 2024 decided on 15.12.2025 and Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai
Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr. Civil Appeal no. 10278 of 2025 decided on 8th
August 2025.
52. Hence, the income of the deceased is assessed as per the
minimum wages payable to a skilled person. The date of accident is
24.02.2018. As per the relevant notification, minimum wages payable to
a skilled labour at that time is Rs. 16,468/-. Hence, his monthly income
is assessed to be Rs.16,468/-.
Future Prospects: –
53. 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 40% for future prospects as the
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.493/2018 Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLAVed Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Page 33 of 52
Date: 2026.04.18
16:42:10 +0530
deceased was less than 40 years of age. Accordingly, the monthly
income of the deceased needs to be taken as Rs. 23,055.20. (Rs. 16,468/-
+ Rs. 6,587.20 which is 40% of Rs. 16,468/-).
Determination of Dependent
54. In the present case, the deceased is survived by his parents
and his siblings. However, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
& Ors., only the mother of the deceased shall be considered as
dependent on her.
Determination of multiplicand
55. The monthly income of the deceased after enhancement
needs to be taken as Rs. 23,055.20. In light of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, and United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur & Ors., (2021) 11 SCC 780 ,
out of the above amount so assessed, 1/2 amount has to be deducted on
account of personal and living expenses as the deceased was unmarried.
So, in this matter, monthly loss of dependency would come out to be Rs.
11,527.60 (1/2 of Rs. 23,055.20). This needs to be multiplied by 12 to
workout multiplicand/annual loss of dependency. Hence, multiplicand
for this matter would be Rs. 1,38,331.20 (rounded off to Rs. 1,38,332/-)
( Rs. 11,527.60 x 12).
Award Towards Loss of Dependency
56. Further, as the deceased was 16 year of age at the time of
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.493/2018 Digitally signed by
Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Page 34 of 52
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.04.18
16:42:15 +0530
the accident, multiplier applicable in this matter as per above discussion
would be 18. Reliance placed on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr.
Civil Appeal no. 10278 of 2025 decided on 8th August 2025. The total
loss of dependency would come out to be Rs.24,89,976/- (Rs. 1,38,332/-
x 18), hence, so awarded.
Medical expenses:
57. 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:-
58. 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:
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Date: 2026.04.18MACT No.493/2018
16:42:18 +0530Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Page 35 of 52
“…… A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi
(supra) dealt with the various heads under which
compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these
heads is Loss of Consortium.
In legal parlance, “consortium” is a compendious term which
encompasses ‘spousal consortium’, ‘parental consortium’, and
‘filial consortium’.
The right to consortium would include the company, care,
help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased,
which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it
would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse.
Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining
to the relationship of a husband wife which allows
compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of “company,
society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every
conjugal relation.”
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
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
MACT No.493/2018 RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.18
Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. 16:42:24
+0530 Page 36 of 52
deceased child.
The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at
providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of
genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor
child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to
be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial
Consortium.
Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their
parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act.
A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count.
However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles
on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial
Consortium.
The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium
will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation
under ‘Loss of Consortium’ as laid down in Pranay Sethi
(supra).
In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the
father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs.16,468
each for loss of Filial Consortium…..”.
59. 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
MACT No.493/2018 Digitally
signed byVed Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Page 37 of 52
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.18
16:42:28
+0530
which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss
of consortium and funeral expenses.
In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a
comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include
spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial
consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in
loss of consortium.
The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to award
compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate
conventional head. There is no justification to award
compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate
head…”.
60. 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.
61. Thus, an amount of Rs. 19,965/- is granted towards the
Loss of Estate and Rs. 19,965/- towards funeral charges.
62. Further, Rs. 53,240/- each is granted to the petitioners i.e.
the parents and siblings i.e. total of Rs. 53,240/- x 4 = Rs. 2,12,960/-
towards Loss of Consortium.
Computation of compensation:
63. Applying the settled guidelines in the various judgments,
the compensation payable to the petitioners is calculated as under:
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.18
16:42:33
+0530MACT No.493/2018
Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Page 38 of 52
Head Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
Monthly Income of deceased (A) Rs. 16,468/-
Add future prospect (B) @ 40%= Rs. 6,587.20
Less 1/2 deductions towards (Rs. 16,468/- + Rs. 6,587.20) = Rs.
personal and living expenses of the 23,055.20 x 1/2 = Rs. 11,527.60
deceased (C)Monthly loss of dependency (Rs. 16,468/- + Rs. 6,587.20) – Rs.
[(A+B) – C = D] 11,527.60 = Rs. 11,527.60)
Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 11,527.60 x 12= Rs. 1,38,332/-
(D x 12)
Multiplier (E) 18
Total loss of dependency (Rs. 1,38,332/- x 18) =
DxE=F Rs. 24,89,976/-
Medical Expenses (G) Nil
Compensation for loss of love and Nil
affection (H)
Compensation for loss of Rs. 53,240/- x 4 = Rs. 2,12,960/-
consortium (I) to the petitioners
Compensation for loss of Estate (J) Rs. 19,965/-
Compensation for funeral expenses Rs. 19,965/-
(K)
Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 27,42,866/-
64. 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. 04.07.2018 till
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.18
16:42:38
+0530MACT No.493/2018
Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Page 39 of 52
realization. However, vide order dated 18.03.2024, it was directed that
the petitioners shall not be entitled to interest till the conclusion of PE,
which was concluded on 31.10.2025. Hence, the petitioners shall not be
entitled to interest w.e.f 18.03.2024 till 31.10.2025.
Apportionment:
65. It is evident from the record that the deceased had left
behind his parents and siblings. For the sake of convenience, the
individual shares of the petitioners are tabulated as under:-
S.No. Name of the Relation Amount in Total amount including
claimant with (Rupees) interest
deceased
1. Sh. Ved Father Rs. 53,240/- + Rs. 93,170/- + Rs.
Prakash Rs. 19,965/- + 47,876.62 + Rs.
Rs. 19,965/- = 3,905.48 = Rs.
Rs. 93,170/- 1,44,952.10 (rounded
off to Rs. 1,44,952/-)
2. Smt. Archana Mother Rs. 24,89,976/- + Rs. 25,43,216/- + Rs.
Devi Rs. 53,240/- = 13,06,864.64 + Rs.
Rs. 25,43,216/- 1,06,606.04 = Rs.
39,56,686.68 (rounded
off to Rs. 39,56,687/-)
3. Sh. Rohit Brother Rs. 53,240/- Rs. 53,240/- + Rs.
Kumar 27,358.07 +
Rs.2,231.70 = Rs.
82,829.77 (rounded off
to Rs. 82,830/-)
4. Ms. Neha Sister Rs. 53,240/- Rs. 53,240/- + Rs.
Kumari 27,358.07 +
Rs.2,231.70 = Rs.
82,829.77 (rounded off
to Rs. 82,830/-)
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.18
16:42:43
+0530
MACT No.493/2018
Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Page 40 of 52
DISBURSEMENT
66. The Financial Statement of petitioner/injured was recorded
by this Court/Tribunal. As per the said statement, the monthly expenses
of his family are approximately Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- per month.
67. 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.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.493/2018 SINGLA Date:
2026.04.18
16:42:47
Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. +0530 Page 41 of 52
(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.”
68. 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 byMACT No.493/2018
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. 2026.04.18
16:42:52
+0530
Page 42 of 52
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.”
69. 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.
Sh. Ved Prakash @ Sh. Bed Prakash (Father):
70. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners,
it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 42,67,299/-, out
of the share of the petitioner/father Sh. Bed Prakash Rs. 1,44,952/-
(Rupees One Lakh Forty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Two only),
the entire amount shall be released to the petitioner immediately in his
Bank Account no. 37941315746 State Bank of India, Tehsil Gabhana,
Pisawa, IFSC Code SBIN0003195, CIF No. 81479226259.
Smt. Archana Devi (mother):
71. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners,
it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 42,67,299/-, out
of the share of the petitioner/mother Smt. Archana Devi Rs. 39,56,687/-
(Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand Six Hundred Eighty
Seven only), Rs. 5,56,687/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand Six
Hundred Eighty Seven only) shall be released to the petitioner
immediately in her Bank Account no. 37997463187 State Bank of India,
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.493/2018
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.04.18
Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. 16:42:57 +0530
Page 43 of 52
Tehsil Gabhana, Pisawa, IFSC Code SBIN0003195, CIF No.
81479226260.
72. The balance amount of Rs. 34,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Four
Lacs only) shall be put in 100 monthly fixed deposits in her name in her
account as mentioned above of equal amount of Rs. 34,000/- (Rupees
Thirty Four Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 100
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.
Sh. Rohit Kumar (brother)
73. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners,
it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 42,67,299/-, out
of the share of the petitioner/brother Sh. Rohit Kumar Rs. 82,830/-
(Rupees Eighty Two Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty only), the entire
amount shall be released to the petitioner immediately in his Bank
Account on furnishing of his bank account details.
Ms. Neha Kumari (sister)
74. After considering the financial statement of the petitioners,
it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 42,67,299/-, out
of the share of the petitioner/sister Ms. Neha Kumari Rs. 82,830/-
(Rupees Eighty Two Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty only), the entire
amount shall be released to the petitioner immediately in her Bank
Digitally
MACT No.493/2018
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. SINGLA Date:
2026.04.18
16:43:01
Page 44 of 52
+0530
Account on furnishing of her bank account details.
75. 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:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
Date of Accident: 24.02.2018
Name of the deceased: Kapil
Age of the deceased: 16 year
Occupation of the deceased: Mechanic
Income of the
deceased : Rs. 16,468/- p.m.
Name and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No. Name of the claimant Relation with
deceased
1. Sh. Ved Prakash Father
2. Smt. Archana Devi Mother
3. Sh. Rohit Kumar Brother
4. Ms. Neha Kumari Sister
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
Sr. Head Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
No.
1 Monthly Income of deceased Rs. 16,468/-
(A)
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.18
MACT No.493/2018
16:43:07
+0530Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Page 45 of 52
2 Add future prospect (B) @ 40%= Rs. 6,587.20
3 Less 1/2 deductions towards (Rs. 16,468/- + Rs. 6,587.20) = Rs.
personal and living expenses of 23,055.20 x 1/2 = Rs. 11,527.60
the deceased (C)
4 Monthly loss of dependency (Rs. 16,468/- + Rs. 6,587.20) – Rs.
[(A+B) – C = D] 11,527.60 = Rs. 11,527.60)
5 Annual loss of Dependency Rs. 11,527.60 x 12 = Rs. 1,38,332/-
(D x 12)
6 Multiplier (E) 18
7 Total loss of dependency (Rs. 1,38,332/- x 18) =
DxE=F Rs. 24,89,976/-
8 Medical Expenses (G) Nil
9 Compensation for loss of love Nil.
and affection (H)
10 Compensation for loss of Rs. 53,240 x 4 = Rs. 2,12,960/-
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. 27,42,866/-
14 Rate of Interest Awarded 9%
15 Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 15,24,433/-
award w.e.f. 04.07.2018 till
18.03.2024 and w.e.f.
31.10.2025 till realization
16 Total amount including interest Rs. 42,67,299/-
17 Award amount released As per paragraph Nos.70 to 74
18 Award amount kept in FDRs As per paragraph No. 72
19 Mode of disbursement of the As per paragraph Nos. 70 to 74
RUCHIKA
MACT No.493/2018 SINGLA
Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Page 46 of 52
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.04.18
16:43:13 +0530
award amount to the
claimant(s)
20 Next Date of compliance of the 18.05.2026
award
LIABILITY:
76. It has been established that the offending vehicle no.2 was
being driven by respondent no.3 and that respondent no.4 is the owner
of the same and the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent
no.5. Hence, it is directed that the respondent no. 5 shall be liable to pay
the compensation to the petitioner. Issue No. 1 is accordingly decided in
favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
77. In view of the above, the respondent no. 5 is directed to
deposit a sum of Rs. 27,42,866/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Forty
Two Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Six only) along with interest @ 9%
from the date of filing of DAR i.e. w.e.f. 04.07.2018 till 18.03.2024 and
w.e.f. 31.10.2025 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.
78. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the
award to the insurance company for compliance within the time granted
RUCHIKA
MACT No.493/2018 SINGLA
Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.04.18
Page 47 of 52
16:43:18 +0530
as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No.
534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. The said respondent is further
directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the
claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal
with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days
of the deposit with a copy to the Claimant and his counsel.
Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the
award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties
free of cost.
Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to
Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services
Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules,
2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of
Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on
18.05.2026 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.,
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.18
16:43:23
+0530MACT No.493/2018
Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Page 48 of 52
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 RUCHIKA
SINGLA
on this 18th April, 2026 Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.04.18
16:43:26 +0530(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
MACT No.493/2018
Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Page 49 of 52
THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL MOTOR
VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022 (PL. SEE RULE
150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 24.02.2018
2 Date of filing of Form-I –
First Accident Report NA
(FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II
NA
to the victim(s)
4 Date of receipt of Form-III
NA
from the Driver
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV
from the Owner NA
6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the insurance NA
of the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-
NA
VIA from the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII -
Detail Accident Report 04.07.2018
(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
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
MACT No.493/2018
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.18
Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Page 50 of 52
16:43:33
+0530
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 18.04.2026
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 04.07.2018
Account(s) near his place of
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
bank account(s) near the 09.02.2026
place of their residence
alongwith the endorsement,
PAN card and Aadhaar
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
MACT No.493/2018 2026.04.18
16:43:38
Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. +0530
Page 51 of 52
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 Yes. The Financial Statements of the claimants
of passing of the Award to namely Bed Prakash and Archana Devi was
ascertain his/their financial recorded on 09.02.2026.
condition?
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.18
16:43:41
+0530(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
18.04.2026
MACT No.493/2018
Ved Prakash and Ors. Vs. Yash Jain and Ors. Page 52 of 52