Delhi District Court
Kela Devi vs Ravi on 18 April, 2026
Kela Devi vs Ravi and Ors. Page 1 of37
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEPIKA SINGH, PRESIDING
OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
New No. 451448/16
UNIQUE ID No.: DLNW01-006939-2016
Kela Devi
W/o Sh. Om Prakash
R/o 246, Harijan Basti,
VPO Jaunti, Delhi
........ Petitioner/claimant
Versus
1. Ravi @ Banti
S/o Sh. Subhash
R/o 233, Harijan Basti,
Village & Post Office Jaunti, Delhi
....... Driver/R1
2. Naveen
S/o Sh. Ran Singh
R/o 501, Main Bus Stand Wali Gali,
Village & Post Office Jaunti, Delhi
....... Owner/R2
..... Respondents
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 08.09.2016
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 16.04.2026
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.04.2026
FORM - V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE
MENTIONED IN THE AWARD AS PER FORMAT
REFERRED IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
DELHI HIGH COURT IN FAO 842/2003 RAJESH TYAGI Vs.
JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018.
Page 1 of37
Kela Devi vs Ravi and Ors. Page 2 of37
1. Date of the accident 23.06.2016
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the 08.09.2016
investigating officer to the Claims
Tribunal
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the Offending
investigating officer to the insurance Vehicle is
company. uninsured
4. Date of filing of Report under section Not available on
173 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan record
Magistrate
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident 08.09.2016
Information Report (DAR) by the
investigating Officer before Claims
Tribunal
6. Date of Service of DAR on the N/A
Insurance Company
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant 08.09.2016
(s).
8. Whether DAR was complete in all Yes
respects?
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR N/A
removed later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the Yes
documents filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or No
deficiency on the part of the
Investigating Officer? If so, whether
any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Offending
Officer by the insurance Company. Vehicle is
uninsured
13. Name, address and contact number of Offending
the Designated Officer of the Insurance Vehicle is
Company. uninsured
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Offending
Insurance Company submitted his Vehicle is
Page 2 of37
Kela Devi vs Ravi and Ors. Page 3 of37
report within 30 days of the DAR? uninsured
(Clause 22)
15. Whether the insurance company Offending
admitted the liability? If so, whether the Vehicle is
Designated Officer of the insurance uninsured
company fairly computed the
compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or Offending
deficiency on the part of the Designated Vehicle is
Officer of the Insurance Company? If uninsured
so, whether any action/direction
warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to Offending
the offer of the Insurance Company . Vehicle is
uninsured
18. Date of the Award 18.04.2026
19. Whether the award was passed with the No
consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed Yes
to open saving bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were 29.05.2023
directed to open saving bank account (s)
near his place of residence and produce
PAN Card and Aadhar Card and the
direction to the bank not issue any
cheque book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an endorsement to
this effect on the passbook(s).
22. Date on which the claimant (s) 02.04.2025
produced the passbook of their saving
bank account near the place of their
residence along with the endorsement,
PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned
Claimant(s) above
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Petitioner Smt.
claimant(s) and the address of the bank Kela Devi
Page 3 of37
Kela Devi vs Ravi and Ors. Page 4 of37
with IFSC Code savings bank a/c
No.40574025897
, SBI, Jonti
Village Branch,
Delhi
IFSC :
SBIN0050487
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank Yes
account(s) is near his place of
residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined Yes
at the time of passing of the award to
ascertain his/their financial condition.
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR 41065170303,
number, IFSC Code, name and branch 110002427,
of the bank of the Claims Tribunal in SBIN0010323,
which the award amount is to be SBI, Rohini
deposited/transferred. (in terms of order Courts, Delhi
dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi vs
Jaibir Singh.
JUDGMENT
1. The Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred to as
DAR), was filed in this case on 08.09.2016, with reference
to FIR No. 247/16, U/s 279/337/304A IPC, PS Kanjhawala,
Delhi, in respect of simple hurt, sustained by the petitioner
Smt. Kela Devi, in a road traffic accident, on 23.06.2016, at
about 6.30 pm, at Bamnoli Road, near Community Center,
Village Jaunti, Delhi. The Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal,
vide order dated 08.09.2016, treated the DAR, as claim
petition U/s 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act’). Subsequently,
chargesheet was filed by the IO, against Ravi @ Bantu S/o
Page 4 of37
Kela Devi vs Ravi and Ors. Page 5 of37
Sh. Subhash (hereinafter referred to as the driver of the
offending vehicle/respondent no.1/R1), for the alleged
commission of offence U/s 279/338/304A IPC and U/s
3/181, 146/196 and 185 of M.V. Act because, at the time of
accident, the offending vehicle was found to be driven by
driver under the influence of alcohol, without holding any
valid and effective driving license and without valid
insurance cover and the injuries sustained by the petitioner
were found to be grievous in nature.
2. Brief facts of the case, as discernible from the DAR,
including the documents annexed with the DAR, are that,
on 23.06.2016 at about 6.30 pm, the petitioner Smt Kela
Devi (hereinafter referred to as the
claimant/petitioner/injured), along with her daughter in law
Smt Babita, were going for walking towards the fields and
when they reached at Bamnoli Road, near Community
Center, Village Jaunti, Delhi, then one boy was coming on a
motorcycle Bajaj Platina bearing registration no.
DL-8SAQ-6218 (hereinafter referred to as the offending
vehicle) from the front side, which was being driven in a
rash and negligent manner by its driver Sh. Ravi @ Banti
S/o Sh. Subhash (hereinafter referred to as ‘Respondent
no.1/R1/driver) who had hit the petitioner as well as one
other lady Smt Vimla W/o Sh. Hari Ram. It was further
alleged that, as a result of the said impact, the petitioner as
well as other lady Smt Vimla fell down on the road and
sustained injuries. It was further alleged that R1 also fell
Page 5 of37
Kela Devi vs Ravi and Ors. Page 6 of37
down on the road. It was further alleged that thereafter,
somebody had called at 100 number and she took the
petitioner in a private car to Savitri Hospital, Kanjhawala,
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Savitri Hospital), where
the petitioner was medically examined, vide MLC No.
521/2016 dated 23.06.2016. The other lady Smt Bimla had
been taken to Jaipur Golden Hospital, Sector-3, Rohini,
Delhi where she was medically examined but she
succumbed to the injuries vide MLC No. 13343/2016.
3. As per DAR, at the time of accident, the offending vehicle
was driven by R1, the same was registered in the name of
Naveen S/o Sh. Ran Singh (hereinafter referred as owner of
the offending vehicle/respondent no.2/R2) and the
offending vehicle was found to be uninsured at the time of
accident.
4. R1 filed his written statement, wherein it was stated that R1
has been falsely implicated by the police in the alleged
accident case vide FIR No. 247/2016, U/s 279/338/304A
IPC & 185, 3/181,146/196 M.V. Act PS Kanjhawala. It was
further stated that he has nothing to do with the said
accident the accident was probably took place. It was
further stated that R1 never consumed the liquor at any
point of time. It was further stated that eye witness Smt
Babita W/o Sh. Joginder R/o Harijan Basit VPO Jaunti,
Delhi and other witnesses have been falsely planted in the
above said case. It was further stated that R1 is neither the
Page 6 of37
Kela Devi vs Ravi and Ors. Page 7 of37
owner of the vehicle no. DL-8S-AQ-6218 nor it is
pertaining to R1 in any manner. It is prayed that the claim
petition be dismissed.
5. No written statement had been filed on behalf of R2.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed by the Learned Predecessor, vide order dated
11.05.2017:-
1. Whether on 23.06.2016 at about 6.30 pm, at Sadak Sare
Aam, Bamnoli Road, near Community Centre, Village
Jaunti, Delhi, one motorcycle bearing registration no.
DL8S-AQ-6218, which was being driven rashly and
negligently by Ravi and hit Smt Kela Devi and caused
injuries to her? OPP
2. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to
what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
7. After framing of issues, opportunities were given to all the
parties, to prove their respective averments, by leading
evidence in support of the same. In support of their
respective versions, the petitioner has examined herself as
PW1 and R1 has examined himself as R1W1.
8. In support of her case, the petitioner got herself examined
as PW1, by way of evidence affidavit Ex.PW1/A. She has
relied upon the copy of her aadhar card as Ex.PW1/1 and
Page 7 of37
Kela Devi vs Ravi and Ors. Page 8 of37
the entire DAR as Ex.PW1/2(Colly). Her deposition qua the
accident and injuries sustained in the case accident, is
reiteration of the facts mentioned in the DAR/claim
petition. She further deposed that he has spent more than
Rs. 2 lacs on her treatment, operation, medicines,
conveyance, tests, scan, X-rays, special diet, attendant
charges etc. She further deposed that she is housewife and
she was taking care of the family and was having lot of
responsibilities to be performed. She further deposed that
she is compelled to bear the unbearable pain, agony,
physical and mental pain, harassment. She further deposed
that she has become disabled from the left leg and she has
to live entire life with this disability in future. She further
deposed that driver, owner and insurer of the offending
vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation
to her. She further deposed that she claims an amount of Rs.
20 lacs on account of expenditure occurred on her treatment
and towards mental pain and suffering and agony, loss of
enjoyment of life, permanent disability, loss of prospective
income and future prospective income, attendant charges,
medical bills, future treatment and special diet etc.
9. PW1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R1, wherein
she deposed that the accident occurred on 23.06.2016. She
further deposed that on that day, at about 6:30 pm, she
alongwith her daughter-in-law and 7-8 other women were
going for walking from the house. She further deposed that
the name of her said daughter-in-law was Smt. Babita. She
Page 8 of37
Kela Devi vs Ravi and Ors. Page 9 of37
further deposed that the names of other women with her at
that time were Smt. Santra Devi, Smt. Bimla, Smt. Darshan,
Smt. Bala, Smt. Shubham and Smt. Suman. She further
deposed that the said Smt. Suman is aged about 30-35
years. She admitted that in her evidence by way of
affidavit, she has not mentioned that there were 7-8 other
women with her at the time of accident. She denied the
suggestion that as she has not mentioned the names of said
7-8 women in her evidence by way of affidavit, hence they
were not accompanying her at that time. She further
deposed that while she was going for walking towards the
farms then a motorcycle being driven at a high speed with
his foot on the safety guard was coming from the opposite
direction and hit her. She further deposed that the
motorcycle driver was in a muffled face with a cloth and
only his eyes were visible. She further deposed that she
was conscious after the accident. She further deposed that
the motorcycle hit her right leg. She denied the suggestion
that she fell down after hitting a stone lying on the road or
that she was not hit by any motorcycle. She further
deposed that after about five minutes of the accident, one of
his neighbour namely Sh. Ramesh (since expired) was
coming on that road in his car and he shifted her to Savitri
Hospital, Kanjhawala. She further deposed that she cannot
tell the registration number of the car in which she was
shifted to said hospital. She further deposed that the
registration number of the offending motorcycle was 6218.
She denied the suggestion that she is telling a false
Page 9 of37
Kela Devi vs Ravi and Ors. Page 10 of37
registration number. She further deposed that the said
motorcycle was of black colour. She further deposed that
she cannot tell the make of said motorcycle as she is
illiterate. She further deposed that her dewrani namely
Smt. Bharpai and the daughter of her Jeth namely Smt.
Indra also sustained minor injuries in the said accident. She
further deposed that they were not shifted to the hospital
and went back on their own to their respective houses after
the accident. She further deposed that the police inquired
from her at the hospital. She further deposed that police
took her thumb impressions on the statement and
documents. She admitted that she has not placed on record
any bill regarding the attendant charges or special diet or
future treatment etc. She further admittd that she has not
filed any medical bills and medical prescription on record.
She further deposed that she remained admitted in the
hospital for about one month after the case accident i.e from
23.06.2016 till 22.07.2016. She denied the suggestion that
she did not remain admitted in the hospital for one month
after the accident. She further deposed that she, Bharpai
and Indra sustained injuries in the accident whereas Smt.
Bimla expired due to the injuries sustained in the accident.
She further deposed that Smt. Bimla was shifted with her in
the abovesaid car of her neighbour to Savitri Hospital and
at that time she was having some breaths, from said hospital
she was shifted to some other hospital and she expired
there. She admitted that she has not mentioned in her
evidence by way of affidavit that Smt. Bimla was also
Page 10 of37
Kela Devi vs Ravi and Ors. Page 11 of37
shifted to Savitri Hospital with her in the same car. She
denied the suggestion that as she has not mentioned this
fact in her evidence by way of affidavit, hence she is
deposing falsely qua this fact. She denied the suggestion
that she is relying upon false documents. She further
denied the suggestion that she is relying upon false
documents as mentioned in paragraph No.6 of her affidavit
Ex.PW1/1 in file bearing MACT No. 51448-16. She
further denied the suggestion that Smt. Bimla also expired
due to injuries sustained while hitting a stone on the road or
that she is deposing falsely to help her LR’s to get the
MACT Claim. She denied the suggestion that she is
deposing falsely.
10. PW1 was not cross-examined on behalf of R2 despite grant
of opportunity.
11. R1 has examined himself as R1W1, by way of evidence
affidavit Ex.R1W1/A. He deposed that he has been falsely
implicated by the police in the alleged accident case vide
FIR No. 247/2016, U/s 279/338/304A IPC & Sec. 185,
3/181, 146/196 M.V. Act PS Kanjhawala. He further
deposed that he has nothing to do with the said accident. He
further deposed that the eye witness Smt Babita W/o Sh.
Joginder R/o Harijan Basti, VPO Jaunti, Delhi and other
witnesses have been falsely planted in the above said case
in order to get MACT compensation. He further deposed
Page 11 of37
Kela Devi vs Ravi and Ors. Page 12 of37
that he is neither owner of vehicle no. DL-8SAQ-6218 nor
is is pertaining to him in any manner. He further deposed
that he has no concern with present DAR and the contents
which have implicated him are false and specifically
denied.
12. R1W2 was cross-examined Ld. Counsel for petitioner,
wherein he admitted that he admitted that the FIR in the
present case has been registered against him. He further
admitted that he had been arrested by the police and
thereafter, released on bail in the present case. He denied
the suggestion that he is the owner of the offending vehicle.
He admitted that a criminal case is also pending trial before
the court of Ld. MM against him. He denied the suggestion
that he has committed any accident as mentioned in the
present case or the said accident had taken place due to his
negligence. He denied the suggestion that he has filed the
false affidavit. R1W1 was not cross-examined by R2
despite grant of opportunity.
13. This Tribunal has heard the final arguments, as advanced
by Ld. Counsel for the parties and have carefully perused
the records.
14. On appreciation of evidence, as adduced by the parties, in
support of their respective versions, the issue-wise findings
of this Tribunal are reproduced herein below:
Page 12 of37
Kela Devi vs Ravi and Ors. Page 13 of37ISSUE No. 1
Whether on 23.06.2016 at about 6.30 pm, at Sadak Sare Aam,
Bamnoli Road, near Community Centre, Village Jaunti, Delhi,
one motorcycle bearing registration no. DL8S-AQ-6218, which
was being driven rashly and negligently by Ravi and hit Smt
Kela Devi and caused injuries to her? OPP
15. The onus of proving this issue, on preponderance of
probabilities was upon the petitioner/claimant. For deciding
the present issue, the testimony of PW1 Smt. Kela Devi is
relevant, being an eyewitness as well as the
injured/petitioner. PW1 Smt. Kela Devi has deposed that on
23.06.2016 at about 6.30 pm, she along with her daughter
in law Smt Babita, were going for walking towards the
fields and when they reached at Bamnoli Road, near
Community Center, Village Jaunti, Delhi, then one boy was
coming on a motorcycle Bajaj Platina bearing registration
no. DL-8SAQ-6218 from the front side, which was being
driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver/R1 Ravi
@ Banti S/o Sh. Subhash who had hit her as well as one
other lady Smt Vimla W/o Sh. Hari Ram. She further
deposed that as a result of the said impact, she as well as
other lady Smt Vimla fell down on the road and sustained
injuries. She further deposed that R1 also fell down on the
road. She further deposed that thereafter, somebody had
called at 100 number and Smt Babita took her in a private
car to Savitri Hospital, Kanjhawala, Delhi, where she was
medically examined, vide MLC No. 521/2016 dated
23.06.2016. She further deposed that the other lady Smt
Page 13 of37
Kela Devi vs Ravi and Ors. Page 14 of37
Vimla had been taken to Jaipur Golden Hospital, Sector-3,
Rohini, Delhi where she was medically examined but she
succumbed to the injuries vide MLC No. 13343/2016.
16. PW1 was also cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R1 but,
he failed to impeach the credibility of PW1 and failed to
elicit any admissions, from the testimony of PW1, so as to
prove, that the alleged accident had not taken place, with
the offending vehicle or due to rash and negligent driving
of the offending vehicle by R1. Though, during the course
of cross examination of PW1, suggestions were put to
PW1, that she fell down after hitting a stone lying on the
road or that she was not hit by any motorcycle or that Smt
Bimla also expired due to injuries sustained while hitting a
stone on the road, but, PW1 denied the said suggestions.
Moreover, R1 has examined himself as R1W1 by way of
evidence affidavit as Ex.R1W1/A, who deposed that he has
been falsely implicated by the police in the alleged
accident case vide FIR No. 247/2016, U/s 279/338/304A
IPC & Sec. 185, 3/181, 146/196 M.V. Act PS Kanjhawala.
He further deposed that he has nothing to do with the said
accident. He further deposed that the eye witness Smt
Babita W/o Sh. Joginder R/o Harijan Basti, VPO Jaunti,
Delhi and other witnesses have been falsely planted in the
above said case in order to get MACT compensation. He
further deposed that he is neither owner of vehicle no.
DL-8SAQ-6218 nor it is pertaining to him in any manner.
However, when R1W1 was cross-examined by Ld. counsel
Page 14 of37
Kela Devi vs Ravi and Ors. Page 15 of37
for petitioner, wherein he admitted that the FIR in the
present case has been registered against him. He further
admitted that he had been arrested by the police and
thereafter, released on bail in the present case. He admitted
that a criminal case is also pending trial before the court of
Ld. MM against him.
17. The testimony of PW1 and R1W1 proves that R1 was the
driver of the offending vehicle and he was driving the
offending vehicle at the time of accident. The version of
the petitioner/PW1 corroborates with the MLC No. 520/16
of R1 prepared in Savitri Hospital, placed on record in the
DAR that he also fell down on the road and sustained
injuries. Post mortem report of one of the victim Smt Vimla
also corroborates the version of PW1/petitioner wherein on
perusal, it reveals the cause of death is due to hemorrhagic
shock as a result of pelvic injury due to the blunt force
impact and the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and
possible in manner as alleged. Moreover, the FIR has been
registered on the basis of statement made by the daughter
in law of petitioner namely Smt Babita which also
corroborates the version of PW1 that the accident has been
caused by R1 while driving the offending vehicle in a rash
and negligent manner. Even otherwise, R1 failed to lead
any evidence, in his defence, to prove that there was no
negligence on his part or that he was falsely implicated in
this case by the IO, in connivance with the petitioner.
Further, R1 also failed to prove, that he has ever
Page 15 of37
Kela Devi vs Ravi and Ors. Page 16 of37
approached to any higher authority, with respect to his false
implication, in the present case. Consequently, in view of
the unrebutted testimony of PW1, it stands duly proved,
that the accident had taken place, due to rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle by R1.
Issue no.1 is accordingly decided in favour of the
petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE No. 2
Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what
amount and from whom?OPP
18. In view of the findings of this Tribunal, qua issue no.1
regarding negligence of R1, resulting in the occurrence of
the case accident, this Tribunal is of the considered
opinion that the petitioner/claimant is entitled to
compensation, in respect of pain and suffering, medical
expenses, special diet charges, conveyance charges and
other expenditure incurred by her, on the account of
injuries sustained in the above-mentioned road traffic
accident. This Tribunal shall now examine the entire
evidence including the documents of the
petitioner/claimant, for the purpose of arriving at a finding
about the quantum of compensation, to which the
petitioner/claimant is entitled.
Page 16 of37
Kela Devi vs Ravi and Ors. Page 17 of37
19. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claim Tribunal to hold
an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining
the amount of compensation, which appears to it to be just
and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the
compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza
nor it should be niggardly.
MEDICAL EXPENSES
20. The petitioner has failed to prove on record any medical
bills pertaining to her treatment for the injuries sustained in
the case accident. Thus, this Tribunal deems it appropriate,
to award Nil compensation to the petitioner, under the head
of medical expenses.
SPECIAL DIET AND CONVEYANCE
21. The petitioner had sought compensation, on account of
special diet and conveyance but she has not specified the
exact amount. However, she has not placed on record, any
prescription slip of a doctor, medical practitioner or
dietitian, issued in her name (the name of the petitioner),
advising her to take any form of special diet or any bill of
special diet, such as high protein diet or liquid diet or
nutritional supplements, for speedy recovery of the injuries,
sustained in the case accident.
Page 17 of37
Kela Devi vs Ravi and Ors. Page 18 of37
22. Further, the petitioner has also not placed on record, any
bill of conveyance, such as bills raised by any private taxi
service or ambulance service, availed by her, for travelling
to the hospital, from her residence or vice versa, during her
treatment period. In such circumstances, the requirement of
special diet and conveyance, if any faced by the petitioner,
during her treatment period, has to be ascertained, in
accordance with the nature of injuries sustained by the
petitioner.
23. In this context, a perusal of court record reveals that as per
the MLC of the petitioner, the petitioner has sustained
grievous injuries, due to the accident. Perusal of record
further reveals that no treatment record has been placed on
record by the petitioner qua the injuries sustained in the
case accident.
24. Besides this, the disability certificate of the petitioner,
bearing No. 1384, dated 18.10.2018 issued by Dr. Baba
Sahab Ambedkar Hospital, has been received in this court,
as per which, the petitioner has sustained 9% permanent
disability, in relation to right lower limb, with diagnosis of
post traumatic stiffness of right ankle and foot. During the
course of cross-examination of PW1, no suggestion or
question was put to her as to the genuineness of said
disability certificate.
Page 18 of37
Kela Devi vs Ravi and Ors. Page 19 of37
25. Thus, considering 9% physical permanent disability, in
relation to right lower limb, as sustained by the petitioner,
the period of treatment cum recuperation, in case of the
petitioner is ascertained to be about 06 months.
Consequently, this Tribunal is of the opinion that during her
treatment cum recuperation period, the petitioner must have
incurred expenses, in procuring special diet, for speedy
recovery, as well as in travelling from her residence to
hospital and vice versa. Accordingly, a lump sum amount of
Rs.40,000/-, is granted under this head, to the petitioner,
which includes Rs. 20,000/- each, towards special diet and
conveyance respectively.
ATTENDANT CHARGES
26. The petitioner had sought compensation, on account of
expenditure, incurred by her, towards attendant charges etc.
She has however, not specified the exact amount spent by
her, towards attendant charges. The petitioner has further
failed to place on record, any receipt, as to any payment
being made by her to any agency, from which, she had
hired any attendant or any document to show credit of any
amount to any attendant or agency. She had also failed to
examine any attendant, allegedly hired by her, during the
said period. However, taking into consideration, the fact
that the petitioner has duly proved that as a result of the
accident, she has sustained grievous injuries, with 15%
permanent disability, in relation to right lower limb, with
Page 19 of37
Kela Devi vs Ravi and Ors. Page 20 of37
with diagnosis of post traumatic myalgia of left leg, and as
her treatment cum recuperation period has already been
assessed to be about 06 months, therefore, this Tribunal is
of the opinion, that the petitioner must have felt compelled
to avail services of a medical attendant or a family member
as an attendant for self care activities, such as, bathing,
dressing up, using the rest room, combing her hairs, eating
etc., during her treatment cum recuperation period of 06
months. Accordingly, this Tribunal deems it appropriate, to
award a lump sum amount of Rs.30,000/-, as compensation
to the petitioner, under this head, towards attendant charges.
COMPENSATION DUE TO PERMANENT DISABILITY/
LOSS OF FUTURE EARNING CAPACITY DUE TO
DISABILITY
27. In her evidence, the petitioner has claimed compensation,
on account of loss of income, due to permanent disability
sustained by the petitioner, in the case accident.
28. Perusal of the court record reveals that as per disability
certificate bearing No. 1384, dated 18.10.2018, as per
which, the petitioner has sustained 9% permanent disability,
in relation to right lower limb, with diagnosis of post
traumatic stiffness of right ankle and foot.
29. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its order passed in case of
Rajesh Tyagi & Ors vs Jaibir Singh & Ors, FAO 842/2003,
Page 20 of37
Kela Devi vs Ravi and Ors. Page 21 of37
date of order 09.03.2018 has inter alia held that same
percentage of permanent disability may have different
impact upon earning capacity of different individuals based
upon the nature of their work. Relevant extract of
observations made in para no.6.4 and 6.5 of the judgment
passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the above named
case is reproduced hereinbelow:
“6.4 The same permanent disability may result in different
percentages of loss of earning capacity in different
persons, depending upon the nature of profession,
occupation or job, education and other factors.
6.5. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent
disability on the actual earning capacity involves three
steps:
(i) The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the
claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability
and what he could not do as a result of the permanent
disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation
under the head of loss of amenities of life).
(ii) The second step is to ascertain his avocation,
profession and nature of work before the accident, as also
his age.
(iii) The third step is to find out whether :
a) The claimant is totally disabled, earning any kind of
livelihood, or
b) Whether in spite of the permanent disability, the
claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and
functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or
c) Whether he was prevented all restricted from
discharging his previous activities and functions, but could
carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and
functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to
earn his livelihood.”
30. In the light of above cited observations made by Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi, in the decided case of Rajesh Tyagi &
Page 21 of37
Kela Devi vs Ravi and Ors. Page 22 of37
Ors vs Jaibir Singh & Ors (supra), it can be safely
concluded that same percentage of permanent disability can
have different impact on functional capacity and earning
potential of an individual depending upon the nature of his
job. Therefore, the functional disability has to be
ascertained, taking into consideration its impact on the
work of the claimant.
31. In the present matter, the petitioner/PW1 deposed that at the
time of accident, she is a housewife and she was taking care
of her family and was having a lot of responsibilities to be
performed but now she is compelled to bear the unbearable
pain and agony and she has become disabled. However,
during the course of cross-examination of PW1, no
suggestion or question has been put to the petitioner that
she was doing nothing.
32. She has also not proved on record, her educational
qualification. Thus, this Tribunal is of the considered view,
that the petitioner, at best can be considered as housewife
and considering her social status, entitled for minimum
wages, of a skilled person.
33. As per Aadhar card of the petitioner, at the time of accident,
the petitioner was residing at House No. 246, Harijan Basti,
VPO Jaunti, District North West Delhi, Delhi-1100081.
Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to minimum wages,
payable to a skilled person, in the area of NCT of Delhi, as
Page 22 of37
Kela Devi vs Ravi and Ors. Page 23 of37
on the date of occurrence of the case accident. The
minimum wages of a skilled person, in the area of NCT of
Delhi was Rs.10,764/- per month, as on the date of
accident. Accordingly, it would be reasonable and just to
consider the income of the petitioner as Rs.10,764/- per
month, on the date of occurrence of the case accident i.e. on
23.06.2016.
34. Though, as per disability certificate bearing No. 1384, dated
18.10.2018, the petitioner has sustained 9%, permanent
disability in relation to right lower limb, with diagnosis of
post traumatic stiffness of right ankle and foot. The
petitioner would be unable to do squatting, cross legged
sitting, kneeling and taking turns and the patient would feel
difficulty in climbing stairs, walking on slope and plain
surface. Therefore, considering the foregoing discussion,
her functional disability is taken as 4.5%.
Addition of Future Prospects.
35. In respect of entitlement of the petitioner to addition of
future prospects in her monthly income, reference should be
made to the latest Constitutional Bench Judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, SLP
(Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision 31.10.2017,
wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court interalia held as under:-.
61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record
Page 23 of37
Kela Devi vs Ravi and Ors. Page 24 of37
our conclusions:-
(i)……………………………………………………………………………..
(ii) ………………………………………………………………………….
(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 the 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 herein before.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the
Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that
judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for
applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely,
loss of estate, loss of consortium and future expenses
should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/-
respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at
the rate of 10% in every three years. ”
(…. Emphasis Supplied)
36. Reference is also made to the case of Sanjay Oberoi vs
Manoj Bageriya, MAC APPEAL 829/2011 decided on
03.11.2017 & Prem Chand vs Shamim Husain & Ors,
Page 24 of37
Kela Devi vs Ravi and Ors. Page 25 of37MAC.APP. 1003/2017 decided on October 11,2018 by
Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
37. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sanjay Oberoi
(Supra), after referring to the judgment of the Constitution
bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in case of
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi &
Ors, SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision
31.10.2017 granted element of future prospects of increase
in the income, in a case where the income of the petitioner
was notionally assessed on the basis of minimum wages
with functional disability @ 10%.
38. As per PAN card and Aadhar card of the petitioner, her date
of birth is 01.01.1960 and the accident in question has taken
place on 23.06.2016, therefore the age of the injured, at the
time of accident was 56 years, 05 months and 22 days. In
view of paragraph no. 61 (iv) of above said judgment in
Pranay Sethi (Supra), the petitioner would be entitled to an
addition of 10% of the established income, as she was
between the age of 50 to 60 years at the time of her
accident. The monthly income of the petitioner is thus
calculated as Rs.10,764/- + 10% of 10,764, which comes to
Rs.9,542/-+ 1,076.4 = Rs. 11,840.4.
39. The age of the petitioner, at the time of accident was about
56 years, 05 months and 22 days. In the said circumstances,
the relevant multiplier has to be calculated, as per the
Page 25 of37
Kela Devi vs Ravi and Ors. Page 26 of37
judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Sarla Verma vs Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009
ACJ 1298. As per the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma
case by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, multiplier of 09 is
to be applied for computing compensation payable to a
victim of Road Traffic Accident aged between 56 to 60
years. The compensation is accordingly assessed towards
loss of earning capacity at Rs.57,544.34 (rounded of to Rs.
57,545/-) [(Rs.11,840.4/- per month x 12 months x 9 (age
multiplier) x 4.5/100 (functional disability)].
Loss of Amenities of Life.
40. In the present matter, the petitioner has duly proved, that as
a result of the accident, she has sustained grievous injuries,
with 9% permanent disability, in relation to right lower
limb, with diagnosis of post traumatic stiffness of right
ankle and foot and as her treatment cum recuperation period
has already been assessed to be about 06 months
accordingly, it can be safely concluded that the petitioner
must have suffered loss of enjoyment of life and its
amenities, due to permanent disability sustained by her,
which is 9%, on account of having met with the case
accident and therefore, this Tribunal deems it appropriate,
to grant a total sum of Rs. 30,000/-, as compensation to the
petitioner, under the said head of loss of amenities of life.
Page 26 of37
Kela Devi vs Ravi and Ors. Page 27 of37
PAIN AND SUFFERING
41. In the evidence, the petitioner has claimed compensation,
on account of trauma suffered by her, due to the injuries
sustained in the case accident. However, the petitioner has
not specified the exact compensation amount, as claimed by
the petitioner under this head. In the present matter, the
petitioner has duly proved that as a result of the accident,
she has sustained grievous injuries, with 9% permanent
disability, in relation to right lower limb, with diagnosis of
post traumatic stiffness of right ankle and foot and as her
treatment cum recuperation period has already been
assessed to be about 06 months accordingly, this Tribunal is
of the opinion that the petitioner must have suffered acute
pain and mental agony, during her treatment and on account
permanent disability suffered by her. Accordingly, a lump
sum amount of Rs. 40,000/-, is granted in favour of the
petitioner under the said head.
LOSS OF INCOME
42. Petitioner in her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A,
has deposed that prior to the accident, she was doing
household and has various responsibilities to be performed.
Further, in preceding paragraphs, her monthly income has
already been assessed as Rs. 10,764/- and since the
treatment-cum-recuperation period of the petitioner has
already been determined as 06 months. Accordingly, a sum
Page 27 of37
Kela Devi vs Ravi and Ors. Page 28 of37
of Rs.64,584/- (Rs.10,764 x 06 months), is awarded in
favour of the petitioner, as compensation, under the head of
loss of income.
43. Accordingly, the over all compensation which is to be
awarded to the petitioner comes to Rs. 2,62,129/- which is
tabulated as below:-
Sl. No Compensation Award amount
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 40,000/-
2 Special diet & Conveyance Rs. 40,000/-
3. Attendant Charges Rs. 30,000/-
4. Medical Expenses Nil
5. Loss of income Rs.64,584/-
6. Loss of amenities of life Rs. 30,000/-
7. Loss of future earning capacity Rs. 57,545/-
Total Rs. 2,62,129/-
(Rupees Two lakhs Sixty Two Thousand One Hundred and
Twenty Nine only)
44. In respect of entitlement of the petitioner to interest on the
awarded amount, it is noteworthy that the Hon’ble Apex
Court had in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs.
Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48
(SC) of the back the victims of Uphaar Tragedy be awarded
compensation with interest @ 9% per annum. Therefore, in
the interest of justice, in the present case also this court is of
the opinion that the claimant/petitioner is entitled to interest
@ 7.50% per annum from the date of filing of
DAR/petition i.e. w.e.f. 08.09.2016 till realisation of the
compensation amount.
Page 28 of37
Kela Devi vs Ravi and Ors. Page 29 of37
45. The amount of interim award, if any, shall however be
deducted from the above amount, if the same has already
been paid to the petitioner.
LIABILITY
46. In the case in hand, R1 have raised the defence, that he has
been falsely implicated by the police in the alleged accident
case and he has nothing to do with the said accident and
even the eye witness Smt Babita and other witnesses have
been falsely planted in the above said case in order to get
MACT compensation. He also raised the defence that the
petitioner fell down after hitting a stone lying on the road,
but, the said defence has already been decided against R1
and R2, while deciding issue no.1, wherein it has already
been decided that R1 was driving the offending vehicle, in a
rash and negligent and hit the petitioner, thereby caused
injuries to her.
47. In the present matter, the question which arises for
determination, is as to which of the respondents, is liable to
pay the compensation amount. Perusal of chargesheet
reveals that the same has been filed against R1, for the
commission of offence U/s 279/337 IPC and U/s 185, 3/181
and U/s 146/196 M.V. Act because, R1 failed to produce his
valid and effective driving license, found to be driven by
R1 under the influence of alcohol, and without valid
insurance cover. R1 failed to lead any evidence to refute the
Page 29 of37
Kela Devi vs Ravi and Ors. Page 30 of37
offences chargesheeted against him It was further stated
that in reply to notice u/s 133 M.V. Act, R2 has stated that
offending vehicle was taken by R1 on 23.06.2026 without
his permission.
48. Perusal of the record reveals that the offending vehicle was
registered in the name of R2 Naveen S/o Ran Singh. As
offending vehicle was registered in the name of R2 Naveen
but he failed to lead any evidence that R1 has taken away
his motorcycle/offending vehicle without his permission.
Had R1 taken away the offending vehicle from possession
of R2 without his permission, then R2 would have made
any complaint with the police that R1 has taken away the
offending vehicle without his permission. As per settled
proposal of law of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case titled as
“Naveen Kumar vs Vijay Kumar and ors, [2018] 2 SCR
572, wherein it has been held that registered owner shall be
liable to pay the compensation. Further, as R1 was driving
the offending vehicle without holding an effective driving
license and R2 has also not got his vehicle insured,
therefore, both R1 and R2, being driver and registered
owner of the offending vehicle respectively, are jointly and
severally liable to pay the entire compensation amount to
the petitioner.
49. Accordingly, in the case in hand, in terms of order dated
16.05.2017 of Hon’ble High Court by Hon’ble Mr. Justice
Page 30 of37
Kela Devi vs Ravi and Ors. Page 31 of37
J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and
Ors., R1 and R2 are directed to deposit the awarded amount
of Rs. 2,62,129/- within 30 days from today within the
jurisdiction of this Tribunal at State Bank of India, Rohini
Courts Branch, Delhi along with interest at the rate of 7.5%
per annum from the date of filing of the petition till notice
of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R1 and
R2 to the petitioner and his advocates and to show or
deposit the receipt of the acknowledgment with the Nazir as
per rules. R1 and R2 are further directed to deposit the
awarded amount in the above said bank by means of cheque
drawn in the name of above said bank along with the name
of the claimant mentioned therein. The said bank is further
directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own
name till the claimant approaches the bank for
disbursement, so that the awarded amount starts earning
interest from the date of clearance of the cheque.
APPORTIONMENT
50. Statement of petitioner in terms of clause 29 of MCTAP
was recorded on 02.04.2025 regarding her savings bank A/c
with endorsement of MACT claims SB A/c, no loan,
cheque book & ATM/debit card. I have heard the petitioner
and learned counsel for the petitioner/claimant regarding
the financial needs of the injured/petitioner and in view of
the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the judgment passed in the case of General
Page 31 of37
Kela Devi vs Ravi and Ors. Page 32 of37
Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs.
Susamma Thomas & Others, 1994 (2) SC, 1631, for
appropriate investments to safeguard the amount from
being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to their
ignorance, illiteracy and being susceptible to exploitation,
following arrangements are hereby ordered:-
51. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case,
and clause 32 of MCTAP, regarding protection of the award
amount, it is hereby directed that on realization, an amount
of Rs. 2,62,129/- with uptodate interest be released to her
in her MACT Claims SB A/c no. 40574025897, SBI Jonti
Village Branch, Delhi, as per rules, that is, the branch near
her place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded
under clause 29 MCTAP).
RELIEF
52. As discussed above, R1 and R2 are directed to deposit the
award amount of Rs. 2,62,129/- with interest @ 7.50% per
annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition, that is,
08.09.2016 till realization within the jurisdiction of this
Tribunal at SBI, Rohini Court Branch, Delhi within 30 days
from today under intimation of deposition of the awarded
amount to be given by R1 and R2 to the petitioner and her
advocate failing which the R1 and R2 shall be liable to pay
interest @ 9% per annum from the period of delay beyond
30 days.
Page 32 of37
Kela Devi vs Ravi and Ors. Page 33 of37
53. R1 and R2 are also directed to place on record the proof of
deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in
respect of deposit of the amount in the above said bank to
the claimants and complete details in respect of calculations
of interest etc. in the court within 30 days from today.
54. Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of
non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the
granted time.
55. In terms of directions contained in the order dated
07.12.2018 and subsequent order dated 22.02.2019 of
Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in the case of Rajesh Tyagi
& Ors vs Jaibir Singh & Ors., FAO 842/2003, the copy of
the award be also sent by the Ahlmad of the court to Mr.
Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of
India (as per the list of nodal officers of 21 banks of Indian
Bank’s Association as circulated to the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal vide above mentioned order dated
22.02.2019 of Hon’ble Delhi High Court) who is the Nodal
Officer with contact details (022-22741336/9414048606)
{other details-Personal Banking Business Unit (LIMA)
13th Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road,
Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021} through email
([email protected]) through the computer branch of
Rohini Courts, Delhi. Ahlmad of the court is directed to
take immediate steps in that regard.
Page 33 of37
Kela Devi vs Ravi and Ors. Page 34 of37
56. A copy of this award be forwarded to the concerned Ld.
Judicial Magistrate First Class and DLSA in terms of the
orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court in FAO 842/2003
Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. vide order dated
12.12.2014.
57. In view of the directions contained in order dated
18.01.2018 of Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in FAO no.
842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, the
statement of petitioner was also recorded on 02.04.2025.
58. Form IVB which has been duly filled in has also been
attached herewith. File be consigned to record room as per
rules after compliance of necessary legal formalities. Copy
of order be given to parties for necessary compliance as per
rules. Digitally signed by
DEEPIKA DEEPIKA SINGH
SINGH Date: 2026.04.20
16:51:48 +0530
Announced in open court (DEEPIKA SINGH)
on 18th April, 2026 P.O. MACT N/W
Rohini Courts, Delhi
Page 34 of37
Kela Devi vs Ravi and Ors. Page 35 of37
FORM – IV B
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN
INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1.Date of accident: 23.06.2016
2. Name of injured: Kela Devi
3. Age of the injured: About 56 years, 05 months and 22 days at
the time of accident.
4. Occupation of the injured: Homemaker
5. Income of the injured: Rs. 10,764/- per month.
6. Nature of injury: Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured: About 06 months.
8. Period of hospitalization: Not applicable
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details: Yes.
9% Permanent Physical Disability
10. Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Nil
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.20,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs.20,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.30,000/-
(v) Loss of earning capacity Rs.57,544.34/- (rounded off
Page 35 of37
Kela Devi vs Ravi and Ors. Page 36 of37
to Rs. 57,545/-)
(vi) Loss of income Rs.64,584/-
(vii) Any other loss which may require N/A
any special treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(I) Compensation for mental and N/A
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.30,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration N/A
(v) Loss of marriage prospects N/A
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, N/A
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress, dejectment
and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and 9% Permanent Physical
nature of disability as permanent or Disability
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N/A
expectation of life span on account
of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning 4.5%
capacity in relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income – (Income X Rs.57,544.34/-[(Rs.
11,840.4/- per month x12
% Earning capacity X Multiplier)
months x 9(age multiplier) x
Page 36 of37
Kela Devi vs Ravi and Ors. Page 37 of37
4.5/100 (functional
disability)].
(v) Future Medical Expenses N/A
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 2,62,129/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 7.50%
16. Interest amount up to the date of Rs.1,56,185.19
(interest stopped w.e.f.
award
02.08.2023 to 02.04.2025
vide order dated 23.09.2024)
17. Total amount including interest Rs.4,18,314.19 (rounded off
to Rs. 4,18,315/-)
18. Award amount released Rs. 4,18,315/-
19. Award amount kept in FDRs Nil
20. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms of
amount to the claimant (s) clause 29 of MCTAP
(Clause29)
21. Next date for compliance of the 17.05.2026
award. (Clause 31)
Digitally signed
DEEPIKA by DEEPIKA
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2026.04.20
16:51:38 +0530
Announced in open court (DEEPIKA SINGH)
on 18th April, 2026 P.O. MACT N/W
Rohini Courts, Delhi
Page 37 of37
