Jamshed Alam v. Tata Aig General Insurance Co Ltd & ANR.
$~42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 357/2026 JAMSHED ALAM .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate.
versus TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD & ANR.
.....Respondents Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
O R D E R
% 23.02.2026 CM. APPL No. 9818/2026 (Exemption) 1.
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2.
Application is accordingly disposed of.
CM(M) 357/2026 1.
This petition has been filed seeking assailing the order dated 22nd January 2025 in Misc. DJ No. 1431/2025 titled as "Jamshed Alam v. Ankit Aggarwal" passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ['Tribunal'], North Rohini Courts, Delhi.
2.
A claim petition [MACT No.209/20] was filed by Jamshed Alam, husband of the deceased, Shain Parveen, along with three children, namely Rukshar, Rukshana and Sameer, in November, 2020. 3.
On 21st August, 2022, the matter was settled in the National Lok The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
Adalat, and compensation of Rs. 32,00,000/- was agreed to be awarded in favour of petitioners, the apportionment being 50% to Jamshed Alam, 20% to Rukshar, 15% to Rukshana and another 15% to Mohd. Sameer, as informed by Mr. Anshuman Bal, counsel for petitioner. 4.
Rukshar has since passed away on 14th January 2024. An application seeking release of the 20% of the compensation awarded to Late Rukshar, moved by the father Jamshed Alam, was disposed of by the impugned order directing that the amount lying in the name of Rukshar be distributed to other two children, namely, Rukshana and Mohd. Sameer, in equal proportion.
5.
Though, the submission of counsel for petitioner/Jamshed Alam, was recorded that Jamshed Alam had 'no objection' to such distribution of the share of Late Rukshar, Mr. Anshuman Bal, counsel for petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner/Jamshed Alam, was not present before the Tribunal and certain submissions were made by counsel without any instructions.
6.
He further states that the father is the only legal heir apart from the other two siblings of Late Rukshar and that he was taking care of all the three children and continues to take care of Rukshana and Mohd. Sameer.
7.
He has further submitted that petitioner/Jamshed Alam, had taken a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- from relatives and friends for the treatment of his daughter Late Rukshar and that has to repay the lenders; therefore, in any event, he is in dire need of money. 8.
Aside from the above, being the guardian of the two surviving children, he also must take care of their education and well being. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
9.
In these circumstances, this Court does not find any impediment in ordering the release of the 20% compensation, along with accrued interest, deposited qua Late Rukshar to petitioner/Jamshed Alam in the following manner:
i.
An amount of Rs. 4 lacs, shall be released in favour of Jamshed Alam.
ii.
The balance amount, shall be equally distributed in the accounts of Mohd. Sameer and Rukshana.
10.
This is to ensure that the money provided for the upkeep of the children is not dissipated without any reason. 11.
Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications (if any) are also rendered infructuous.
12.
Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J FEBRUARY 23, 2026/RK/tk The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.