Delhi District Court
Nitin(P)I(929/24/Hr) vs Sanjeev Malik(National) on 12 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010006152025
MACT No. : 36/2025
FIR No. : 929/2024
PS : Faridabad, Haryana
u/s : 125(A)/281 BNS
Sh. Nitin (injured/petitioner)
S/o. Sh. Sanjiv Kumar,
R/o.1076, Sarkari colony, NH-4,
Faridabad, Haryana-121001.
.....Petitioner
Vs.
1. Sh. Sanjeev Malik (owner of the offending vehicle)
S/o. Sh.Shree Pal Singh,
R/o.Gali no.5, Mohalla Tichar Colony,
Shamli, UP-247776.
2. Sh. Gulsher (driver of the offending vehicle)
S/o. Sh. Gulfan,
R/o.H.No.5, Gali no.3, Village Niwara, PS Baghpat,
District Baghpat, UP-250619.
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (insurer)
National Legal Vertical, 2nd Floor,
2E/9, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055.
4. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
(Through Nodal Officer Mr. Sovit Kumar)
.....Respondents
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.13
14:53:22 +0530
MACT No.36/2025 Nitin Vs. Sanjeev Malik and Ors. Page 1 of 34
Date of filing of claim petition : 16.01.2025
Judgment reserved on : 29.01.2026
Date of Award : 12.02.2026
AWAR D
1. The present claim petition was filed on 16.01.2025. The
Road Traffic Accident in question took place on 10.12.2024 at about
09:50 PM near Shamshan Ghat, PS Sector-58, Faridabad. Mr. Nitin
(hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) had suffered grievous injuries
in the said accident which was allegedly caused by vehicle bearing
registration No.UP-19T-2477 (hereinafter referred to as the offending
vehicle). The said vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 2 Sh.
Gulsher; owned by respondent No.1 Sanjeev Malik and insured with
respondent no.3, National Insurance Co. Ltd.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the claim petition
are that 10.12.2024 at about 09:50 PM the injured Nitin alongwith his
cousin brother Sumit was returning to his house from Sector-59,
Faridabad on motorcycle no. HR-87K-1181 which was being driven by
injured Nitin at normal speed and following the traffic rules. It was
further stated that both the persons were also wearing helmets. At about
9:50 PM when they reached near Shamshan Ghat, Sector-58, Faridabad,
PS Sector-58, Faridabad, then all of sudden the offending vehicle
bearing no. UP-19T-2477 i.e. Truck being driven by its driver rashly and
negligently without taking necessary precautions, without proper
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.13
14:53:29 +0530
MACT No.36/2025 Nitin Vs. Sanjeev Malik and Ors. Page 2 of 34
lookouts, without following the traffic rules came and hit the motorcycle
with a very great force, due to this the injured fell down on the road and
sustained grievous injuries in all over his body.
3. It was further stated that the injured had been taken
immediately to SSB Heart & Multispeciality Hospital, Faridabad where
the doctors on duty attributed his injuries as grievous due to the present
accident. Thereafter, he was taken to Surya Ortho & Trauma Centre,
NIT, Faridabad for further treatment. It was further stated that the
injured had incurred Rs. 2,00,000/- on medical treatment. It was further
stated that the injured is still under treatment and taking the medicines
continuously. It was further stated that at the time of accident injured
was 21 years with good health and physique and was not suffering from
any ailment. It was further stated that the injured was a clerk in Thakkar
Steel, Plot no.53/19 & 53/1, Industrial Area, NIT, Faridabad, Haryana
and was getting salary of Rs.15,100 pm. It was further stated that the
injured became permanently disabled and now he is unemployed as he is
unable to work due to the present accident.
4. It was further stated that the present accident took place due
to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the
offending vehicle and the respondents are jointly, vicariously and
severally liable to pay compensation to the injured/claimant.
WRITTEN STATEMENTS
5. No WS filed on behalf of respondents no. 1 and 2. The
respondents no. 1 and 2 did not appear in the present matter. Hence,
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.13
14:53:34 +0530MACT No.36/2025 Nitin Vs. Sanjeev Malik and Ors. Page 3 of 34
they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.08.2025.
6. WS on behalf of respondent no. 3 was filed on 17.06.2025,
wherein it was admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with the
respondent no.3 vide policy no. 8800240321988120 for the period
02.04.2024 to 01.04.2025. It was stated that the petitioner was under the
liability to prove the accident and the rash and negligent driving of the
respondent no.2. Further, it was stated that the respondent no. 3 was
entitled to take all such defences as were available to the respondent
no.3 as per law.
ISSUES
7. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated
20.08.2025, this Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the injured suffered injuries in an
accident that took place on 10.12.2024 at about 09:50
PM near Shamshan Ghat, Sector-58, Faridabad, PS
Sector-58, Faridabad, Haryana involving vehicle
bearing registration no.UP-19T-2477 driven rashly
and negligently by respondent no.2 Sh. Gulsher,
owned with respondent no. 1 Sh. Sanjeev Malik and
insured with respondent no. 3 National Insurance Co.
Ltd.? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and from
whom? OPP
3. Relief.
PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
8. The petitioner/injured examined himself as PW-1. He
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.13
MACT No.36/2025 Nitin Vs. Sanjeev Malik and Ors. Page 4 of 34
14:53:40 +0530
tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW-1/A and the
same bears his signatures at points-A & Î’. He relied upon the following
documents:
1. Certified copies of criminal court record (already on record) as Ex.
PW1/1.
2. photocopy of Aadhar Card already on record as Ex. PW1/2 (OSR)
3. photocopy of his PAN Card already on record as Ex. PW1/3 (OSR)
4. His pay slip already on record as Ex. PW1/4.
5. Disability certificate already on record as Ex. PW1/5.
6. Original treatment papers and bills as Ex. PW1/6 (colly 23 pages)
9. Thereafter, petitioner has examined Sh. Krishan Kumar,
Accountant, Thakkar Steel as PW2. He was a summoned witness and
relied upon his Aadhar card’s copy as Ex. PW2/1 (OSR), authority letter
as Ex. PW2/2, certificate u/s.63(4) of BSA,2023 as Ex. PW2/3,
petitioner’s salary slip for month of September 2024 to November 2024
as Ex. PW2/4 (colly).
10. Both the witnesses were duly cross-examined by Ld.
Counsel for respondents no. 3 and 4. Thereafter, the PE was closed
vide order dated 22.11.2025.
RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE
11. No RE was led by the respondents. Vide separate statement
of Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 and 4, the RE was closed vide
order dated 24.01.2026.
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.02.13
14:53:45
+0530
MACT No.36/2025 Nitin Vs. Sanjeev Malik and Ors. Page 5 of 34
FINAL ARGUMENTS
12. The Petitioner has filed his duly filled Form XIV and
financial statement of the injured was recorded. Final arguments were
heard on behalf of the parties.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
13. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Ld. Counsel
for respondent and perused the record. My findings on the various issues
are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1:
Whether the injured suffered injuries in an accident
that took place on 10.12.2024 at about 09:50 PM near Shamshan
Ghat, Sector-58, Faridabad, PS Sector-58, Faridabad, Haryana
involving vehicle bearing registration no.UP-19T-2477 driven rashly
and negligently by respondent no.2 Sh. Gulsher, owned with
respondent no. 1 Sh. Sanjeev Malik and insured with respondent no. 3
National Insurance Co. Ltd.?
14. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. It is
the case of the petitioner that on 10.12.2024 at about 09:50 PM, he was
travelling on his motorcycle with his cousin Sumit and when he reached
near Shamshan Ghat, Sector-58, Faridabad, PS Sector-58, Faridabad,
Haryana, the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. the respondent no. 2
driving very fast and carelessly in a negligent manner hit him with great
force. It is stated that due to the said accident, the petitioner fell and
suffered injuries. The petitioner has reiterated the said facts on oath as
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.13
14:53:50 +0530MACT No.36/2025 Nitin Vs. Sanjeev Malik and Ors. Page 6 of 34
PW1. The petitioner was treated at the hospital wherein it has
specifically mentioned that the injuries are due to a road traffic accident.
After investigation, the IO chargesheeted the respondent no. 2 for the
offences under Section 279/338 IPC. Hence, it is submitted that it is
proved that the respondent no. 2 was driving the negligent in a rash and
negligent manner due to which the petitioner suffered injuries.
15. Per contra, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the
respondents no. 3 that the respondent no.2 is not guilty of any rash and
negligent act. It is submitted that the version of the petitioner is not
reliable. He has made contradictory statements in his testimony. At one
place, he has said that the offending vehicle had hit him from the left
side, while at other place, he has stated that the offending vehicle hit him
from the front side. Further, his signatures on his PAN card Ex. PW1/3
are different from his signatures at other places. Hence, even this is not
proved that he is the same person who had met with the accident. Hence,
it is submitted that the petitioner has failed to prove his case.
16. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the
manner of the accident has been explained by the petitioner in his
testimony. His testimony has to be read in whole and not in pieces.
Further, the signatures seem different because on the PAN card, the
same are reduced in size while printing. All the documents were
produced by the petitioner in original. If he was not the same person,
how could he have the documents in original. It is submitted that the
respondent no.3 is only trying to evade its liability by raising
Digitally signed
unnecessary and frivolous objections.
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.02.13
14:53:56
+0530MACT No.36/2025 Nitin Vs. Sanjeev Malik and Ors. Page 7 of 34
17. Record perused.
18. In the present matter, as per the chargesheet, the accident
was caused by the offending vehicle. The respondents no. 1 & 2 did not
file the WS nor they appeared in the witness box. Hence, as such, it is
deemed that they have admitted the allegations of the petitioner that the
accident was caused by the offending vehicle due to the rash and
negligent driving of the respondent no.2.
19. Now, Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 has argued that the
petitioner has given contradictory statements regarding the accident.
Firstly, once the respondent no.2 failed to challenge the claim of the
petitioner, the petitioner was not required to prove the same. Even
otherwise, as pointed out by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, the
testimony of the petitioner has to be read in whole and not in parts. A
specific question was put to the petitioner during his examination as
under:
“Que: Earlier you stated that the truck had hit you from the
front side , now you have stated that the truck had hit you
from the left side. Which statement is correct?
Ans. Both the statements are correct. The truck came from the
gali from my front side and hit me on the left.”
20. Hence, in the opinion of this Tribunal, the petitioner has
clearly explained the manner of the accident and there is no
contradictory statement. Regarding the signatures on the PAN card Ex.
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.02.13
14:54:01
MACT No.36/2025 Nitin Vs. Sanjeev Malik and Ors. Page 8 of 34
+0530
PW1/3, the court is inclined to accept the arguments of the Ld. Counsel
for the petitioner. The signatures may be seeming different because on
the PAN card as the same are reduced in size while printing. Further, all
the documents were produced by the petitioner in original. If he was not
the same person, how could he have the documents in original. Hence,
the objection taken by the Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 are
inconsequential.
21. Further, 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.”
22. 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.”
23. It is also pertinent to mention here that in the proceedings
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.13
14:54:06 +0530MACT No.36/2025 Nitin Vs. Sanjeev Malik and Ors. Page 9 of 34
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. Hence, in view
of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the rash and negligent
act of the respondent no.2 is proved.
24. Further, it is settled law that the petitioner cannot be
expected to prove the accident beyond reasonable doubts and the
principle of res ipsa 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
which the respondents have failed to discharge. 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.
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.13
14:54:11 +0530MACT No.36/2025 Nitin Vs. Sanjeev Malik and Ors. Page 10 of 34
Vs Kamlesh 2009(3) AD Delhi 310.
25. In view of the same, considering the facts and
circumstances, the court is satisfied that the accident was caused due to
the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 2. From the DAR, it
also stands established that respondent no. 1 was the registered owner of
the offending vehicle. It is also an admitted position that the offending
vehicle was insured with respondent no.3.
The injury:
26. Further, the onus to prove that the petitioner 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 petitioner suffered injuries. To
prove the same, the petitioner has relied upon his medical record which
is Ex. PW1/6. Perusal of the same shows that he had suffered two
fractures in his wrist. He remained admitted in SSB Central Hospital,
Faridabad for 1 day and at Surya Ortho and Trauma Centre, Faridabad
for two days. Further, his Disability Certificate Ex. PW1/5 is on record
as per which he has suffered 24% permanent disability in his right upper
limb.
27. 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. 2 on the date and time of the accident and that due
to the said accident, the petitioner had suffered grievous injury. Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.02.13
14:54:17
+0530MACT No.36/2025 Nitin Vs. Sanjeev Malik and Ors. Page 11 of 34
Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and
against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2:
Whether the petitioner/injured is entitled for compensation?
If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
28. The onus to prove this issue was also upon the petitioner. In
view of the observations as given in issue no.1, the petitioner is entitled
for compensation. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors.
(2011) 1 SCC 34, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
“General principles relating to compensation in
injury cases
4. The provision of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act’ for
short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which
means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully
and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to
the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make
good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as
money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner.
The Court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages
objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation
or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature
of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is
not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also
for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This
means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a
full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which
he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability
to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned.
(See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair – AIR
1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. –
1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby – 1970 AC 467).
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.13
14:54:22 +0530MACT No.36/2025 Nitin Vs. Sanjeev Malik and Ors. Page 12 of 34
5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in
personal injury cases are the following :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization,
medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and
miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the
injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising
:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of
treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of
permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a
consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of
marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life
(shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation
will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv).”
29. In view of the above law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India, in injury cases, award needs to be passed only under
heads of medical expenses, loss of earning during treatment period and
damages for pain, suffering and trauma. This is a case where the
petitioner has claimed that he suffered grievous injury due to the
accident, hence, this Tribunal now proceeds further step by step to
decide the compensation/award under different heads applicable to the
present matter in light of above preposition.
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.13
14:54:28 +0530MACT No.36/2025 Nitin Vs. Sanjeev Malik and Ors. Page 13 of 34
Medical expenses:
30. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs.75,181/-
approximately towards medical expenses. However, the petitioner has
placed bills Ex. PW1/6 to the tune of Rs. 76,181/- on record. Hence, a
sum of Rs. 76,181/- is awarded to him under this head.
Future Medical expenses:
31. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards
future medical expenses. However, the petitioner has not proved on
record to show that he is or shall undergo future medical treatment.
Hence, no amount is awarded to him under this head.
Loss of income:
32. In this regard, it is submitted by the petitioner that at the
time of the accident, he was working as a clerk with one Thakkar Steel,
Faridabad and earning a sum of Rs.15,100/- pm. To prove the same, he
has relied upon the statement of PW2 Sh. Krishan Kumar, Accountant,
Thakkar Steel as PW2. He produced his authority letter which was
proved as Ex. PW2/2. He also produced the petitioner’s salary slips for
month of September 2024 to November 2024 which were proved as Ex.
PW2/4 (colly). Hence, it is submitted that the income of the petitioner be
assessed accordingly.
33. Same is opposed by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.3. It
is submitted that the documents furnished by the PW2 are not sufficient
to prove the income of the petitioner. There is no corroborative evidence
to the testimony of PW2. Hence, the same cannot be relied upon. Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.13
14:54:34 +0530
MACT No.36/2025 Nitin Vs. Sanjeev Malik and Ors. Page 14 of 34
34. Record perused.
35. The petitioner had summoned PW2 to prove his
employment and income. PW2 produced not only the salary slips of the
petitioner but also his authority letter which was issued on the letter
head of the said company. Further, he has proved the salary slips of three
months. The alleged salary is also not so high that it would seem
exaggerated. Hence, the Tribunal finds no reason to disbelieve the
veracity of these documents.
36. As per the salary Ex. PW2/4 (colly), the petitioner was
earning a sum of Rs. 15,100/- as gross salary. The Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6
SCC 121 held that for calculating compensation, the income of the
victim less the income tax should be treated as the actual income. His
annual income i.e. Rs. 1,81,200/- shall not come under the income tax
slab for the financial year 2024-25 as income less than Rs. 3,00,000/-
was exempted. Hence, his monthly income is assessed to be
Rs.15,100/-.
37. It is the matter of record that due to the accident, the
petitioner suffered multiple injuries. Further it is stated that due to the
accident, the petitioner had suffered multiple fractures and lost his job.
Hence, it is submitted that since the accident, the petitioner has been
unable to work for 12 months. Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.13
14:54:41 +0530MACT No.36/2025 Nitin Vs. Sanjeev Malik and Ors. Page 15 of 34
38. Record perused.
39. As mentioned above, as per the medical record of the
petitioner, he had suffered two wrist fractures. He was admitted in the
hospital for 3 days. In view of the nature of the injuries sustained by the
petitioner, it could be safely assumed that the petitioner could not have
worked for about 3 months due to the injuries. Accordingly, it is held
that the petitioner shall be entitled to the loss of income for 3
months i.e. Rs.15,100/- x 3= Rs. 45,300/-.
Special diet:
40. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards
special diet. No bills qua the same have been proved. However, keeping
in view the nature of injury suffered by the petitioner, it seems that he
must have required special diet and must have incurred expenditure
towards special diet, therefore, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded to
the petitioner under the head of special diet.
Conveyance charges:
41. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards
conveyance charges. No bills qua the same have been proved. However,
considering his injuries, this Tribunal is of the view that the petitioner
must have spent money on conveyance thus, the petitioner is
awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards conveyance charges.
Future Conveyance charges:
42. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towardsDigitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.13
14:54:47 +0530MACT No.36/2025 Nitin Vs. Sanjeev Malik and Ors. Page 16 of 34
future conveyance charges. It is submitted that due to the injuries
sustained by the petitioner, he has suffered a permanent disability and
wouldn’t be able to drive. Hence, future conveyance charges may be
granted.
43. Considering his injuries that he has suffered a permanent
disability in his right hand, it is understandable that he may not be able
to drive in the future. Hence, the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.
1,50,000/- towards future conveyance charges.
Attendant charges:
44. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards
attendant charges. Admittedly there is no document showing expense on
an attendant. However, considering the period of treatment of the
petitioner and his injuries, the said amount does not seem to be
unreasonable. Hence, the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/-
towards attendant charges.
Pain & Suffering:
45. The petitioner/injured has claim Rs. 2,00,000/- under the
head pain and suffering. It is not possible to quantify the compensation
admissible to petitioner for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which he
actually suffered because of the above injuries, but as stated above, an
effort has to be made to compensate him for the same in a just and
reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the
injuries suffered by petitioner and duration of the treatment taken by him
etc., he is awarded a total amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.02.13
14:54:52MACT No.36/2025 Nitin Vs. Sanjeev Malik and Ors. Page 17 of 34
+0530
sufferings to the petitioner.
Mental and physical shock:
46. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 3,00,000/- for loss
due to mental shock. Although, there is nothing on record to prove the
same but keeping in view his injuries, it cannot be denied that he would
definitely have suffered mental agony. Hence, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is
awarded to the petitioner under head of “Loss due to Mental &
Physical Shock”.
Loss of amenities:
47. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- under this
head. Although, there is nothing on record to prove the same but keeping
in view his injuries, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded to the
petitioner under this head.
Disfiguration:
48. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- under this
head. Although, there is nothing on record to prove the same but keeping
in view his injuries, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded to the petitioner
under this head.
Loss of marriage prospects
49. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- under this
head. Keeping in view his injuries, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded to
the petitioner under this head.
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.02.13
14:54:57
+0530
MACT No.36/2025 Nitin Vs. Sanjeev Malik and Ors. Page 18 of 34
Loss of earning, inconvenience, disappointment, frustration, mental
stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.:
50. Nil
Loss of future earnings due to disability:
51. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner has suffered 24% permanent disability in his right upper left
lower limb. Due to the same, he is unable to work. Hence, his functional
disability may be considered as 50%.
52. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. (2011)
1 SCC 34, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
“Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as
a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under
the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the
effect and impact of such permanent disability on his
earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically
apply the percentage of permanent disability as the
percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In
most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is,
percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a
permanent disability will be different from the percentage
of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume
that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of
permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of
earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced
show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is
45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.02.13
14:55:03
+0530MACT No.36/2025 Nitin Vs. Sanjeev Malik and Ors. Page 19 of 34
equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity
to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result
in award of either too low or too high a compensation. What
requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the
permanently disability on the earning capacity of the
injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in
terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified
in terns of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings
(by applying the standard multiplier method used to
determine loss of dependency).”
53. Hence, the Tribunal has to examine as to how the disability
suffered by the petitioner affects his ability to earn. The disability of
the petitioner is not disputed. As per the Disability Certificate dated Ex.
PW1/5, the petitioner has suffered 25% permanent disability in his right
upper limb. The petitioner has stated that he was working as a clerk in a
private company and has lost his job due to the said disability. Though
the disability shall affect his normal routine but in the opinion of this
Tribunal, the same does not render the petitioner unable to work. He is
not involved in manual labour but was working as a clerk in a private
company. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances, his functional
disability is ascertained to be as 15%.
54. This Tribunal has already assumed the monthly income of
petitioner to be Rs.15,100/- at the relevant time. As far as the age of
petitioner at the time of accident is concerned, as per the petitioner’s
Aadhar card Ex. PW1/2 and his PAN card Ex. PW1/3, his date of birth is
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.02.13
14:55:08
+0530
MACT No.36/2025 Nitin Vs. Sanjeev Malik and Ors. Page 20 of 34
06.04.2003. The date of accident is 10.12.2024. Hence, the age of
petitioner as on the date of accident was 21 years. Therefore, in view of
the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla
Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.,(2009) 6
SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitution Bench of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment dated 31.10.2017 given in
the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi &
Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, the multiplier of ’18’ is held
applicable for calculating the loss of future earnings of petitioner arising
out of his above disability.
55. Further, by adopting the principles laid down in the case of
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2017 ACJ
2700 (SC), the future prospects of the petitioner shall be 40% as he
was less than 40 years of age at the time of accident. As already
discussed in the preceding para, the income of the petitioner has been
taken as Rs.15,100/-. In view of the above, the loss of Income on
account of functional disability is calculated as under:
Monthly income Rs.15,100/-
Annual Income Rs.15,100/- x 12 =
Rs. 1,81,200/-
Add Future Prospects @40% Rs. 72,480/-
Total income Rs. 2,56,680/-
Disability @ 15% Rs. 2,56,680/- x 15%= Rs. 38,052/-
Loss of Income after multiplier Rs. 38,052/- x 18 = Rs. 6,84,936/-
(18)
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.13
14:55:14 +0530MACT No.36/2025 Nitin Vs. Sanjeev Malik and Ors. Page 21 of 34
56. Thus, keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by
the petitioner as well as the disability suffered by him, it is held that
the petitioner shall be entitled to Rs. 6,84,936/- under the head
future loss of income.
57. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances,
the material on record, and the settled principles and guidelines
governing the injury cases like the present one, the compensation is
being derived in the present case as under:-
NAME OF HEAD AMOUNT (in Rupees) Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 76,181/- Monthly income of injured Rs.15,100/- Loss of income x 3 months Rs. 45,300/-. Add future prospects 40%
Loss of future income (income X Rs. 6,84,936/-
% Earning Capacity X Multiplier)
Any other loss/expenditure Rs. 1,50,000/-
(Future conveyance charges)
Expense on special diet Rs. 25,000/-
Conveyance charges Rs. 30,000/- Attendant charges Rs. 30,000/-
Mental & Physical Shock & Pain & Rs. 50,000+ Rs. 50,000/- =
Suffering Rs. 1,00,000/-
Loss of amenities Rs. 50,000/- Disfiguration Rs.25,000/- Loss of marriage prospects Rs. 50,000/- Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2026.02.13 14:55:19 +0530 MACT No.36/2025 Nitin Vs. Sanjeev Malik and Ors. Page 22 of 34
Loss of earning, inconvenience, Nil
hardship, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
Total Rs. 12,66,417/-
58. 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 the petition i.e. 16.01.2025
till realization.
DISBURSEMENT
59. 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/- per month.
60. 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,
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.13
MACT No.36/2025 Nitin Vs. Sanjeev Malik and Ors. Page 23 of 34
14:55:23 +0530
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.”
61. 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
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.13
14:55:29 +0530MACT No.36/2025 Nitin Vs. Sanjeev Malik and Ors. Page 24 of 34
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, 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.”
62. In view of the same, the award amount can now be
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.13
14:55:33
+0530MACT No.36/2025 Nitin Vs. Sanjeev Malik and Ors. Page 25 of 34
disbursed in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioner. However, the
remaining directions as passed by the Hon’ble High Court shall be
complied with.
63. After considering the financial statement of the petitioner, it
is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 13,88,826/-
(Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Eight Eight Thousand Eight Hundred
Twenty Six only), Rs. 3,88,826/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eight Eight
Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Six only) be released to the
petitioner/claimant immediately in his bank account maintained at
Kotak Mahindra Bank, BP Railway Road, Faridabad, Haryana
bearing no. 7049508580, IFSC no. KKBK0004335.
64. The balance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten
Lakhs only) shall be put in 40 monthly fixed deposits in his name in
MACAD account of equal amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Five Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 40 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
nationalized bank situated near the place of his residence without the
facility of cheque book and ATM card.
65. 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:
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.13
14:55:38 +0530MACT No.36/2025 Nitin Vs. Sanjeev Malik and Ors. Page 26 of 34
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
Date of Accident: 10.12.2024
Name of the Injured: Nitin
Age of the Injured: Presently 21 years
Occupation of the Injured: Private Job
Income of the Injured: Rs. 15,100/- pm
Nature of Injury: Grievous
Medical Treatment taken: SSB Central Hospital, Faridabad &
Surya Ortho and Trauma Centre,
Faridabad
Period of Hospitalization: 10.12.2024 to 12.12.2024.
Whether any permanent: Yes
disability?
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
Sr. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
No.
1. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 76,181/-
(ii) Expenditure on Special Diet Rs. 25,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on Rs. 30,000/-
Nursing/Attendant charges
(iv) Expenditure on Conveyance Rs. 30,000/-
(v) Monthly income of injured Rs.15,100/-
(vi) Loss of income x 3 months Rs. 45,300/-
(vii) Add future prospects 40%
viii) Any other loss which may Rs. 1,50,000/-
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.13
MACT No.36/2025 Nitin Vs. Sanjeev Malik and Ors. Page 27 of 34
14:55:45 +0530
require any special treatment or
aid to the injured for the rest of
his life (Future conveyance
charges)
2. Non Pecuniary Loss
(i) Compensation for mental and Rs. 50,000+ Rs. 50,000/- =
physical shock
Rs. 1,00,000/-
(ii) Pain and Sufferings
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 50,000/-
(iv)
Disfiguration Rs.25,000/-
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Rs. 50,000/-
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Nil
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed 24% permanent disability
and nature of disability as
permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Nil.
expectation of life span on
account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning 15%
capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income – (income Rs. 6,84,936/-
x % earning capacity x
Multiplier)
4. Total Compensation Rs. 12,66,417/-
5. Interest awarded 9%
6. Earlier award amount (which has
already been received by the
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.13
14:55:50 +0530
MACT No.36/2025 Nitin Vs. Sanjeev Malik and Ors. Page 28 of 34
petitioner in terms of previous –
award passed by Ld.
Predecessor) to be deducted
from present award amount .
7. Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 1,22,408.74 (rounded off to Rs.
award w.e.f. 16.01.2025 till 1,22,409/-)
realization
8. Total amount including Interest Rs. 13,88,826/-
9. Award amount released As mentioned in para nos. 63 & 64
10. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.10,00,000/-
11. Mode of disbursement of the As mentioned in para nos. 63 & 64
award amount of the claimant(s)
12. Next date for compliance of the 12.03.2026
award
LIABILITY:
66. It has been established that the offending vehicle was being
driven by respondent no.1 and that respondent no.2 is the owner of the
same and the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no. 3.
Hence, it is directed that the respondent no. 3 shall be liable to pay the
compensation to the petitioner. Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in
favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
67. The respondent no.3 is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.
12,66,417/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand Four
Hundred Seventeen only) along with interest @ 9% from the date of
filing of DAR i.e. 16.01.2025 till realization with the Civil Nazir of
this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the claimant,
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.13
MACT No.36/2025 Nitin Vs. Sanjeev Malik and Ors. Page 29 of 34
14:55:55 +0530
failing which the said respondent 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.
68. 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
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
12.03.2026 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation
amount within the time granted. Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.02.13
14:56:01
+0530MACT No.36/2025 Nitin Vs. Sanjeev Malik and Ors. Page 30 of 34
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
on this 12th February, 2026 RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.13
14:56:06 +0530(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
MACT No.36/2025 Nitin Vs. Sanjeev Malik and Ors. Page 31 of 34
THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL
MOTOR VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022
(PL. SEE RULE 150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 10.12.2024
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 NA
insurance of the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-
NA
VIA from the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII
NA
- Detail Accident Report
(DAR)
9 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Investigating No
Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the ...
Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company admitted his ...
report within 30 days of the
DAR?
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.13
14:56:12 +0530
MACT No.36/2025 Nitin Vs. Sanjeev Malik and Ors. Page 32 of 34
12 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the No
part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether
any action/direction
warranted?
13 Date of response of the NA
claimant(s) to the offer of
the Insurance Company.
14 Date of award 12.02.2026
15 Whether the claimant(s)
were directed to open No
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
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
29.01.2026
place of their residence
alongwith the endorsement,
PAN card and Aadhar Card?
18 Permanent residential
address of the claimant(s). As per Award.
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.13
14:56:17 +0530
MACT No.36/2025 Nitin Vs. Sanjeev Malik and Ors. Page 33 of 34
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 Statement of the
of passing of the Award to
claimant was recorded 29.01.2026.
ascertain his/their financial
condition?
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.13
14:56:23 +0530
(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
12.02.2026
MACT No.36/2025 Nitin Vs. Sanjeev Malik and Ors. Page 34 of 34