Delhi District Court
Ravi(D)I(Fir707/24/Burari) vs Rajesh Kr.(Oriental) on 14 July, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010079612025
MACT No. : 468/2025
FIR No. : 707/2024
PS : Burari
u/s : 281/125(B) BNS
Sh. Ravi Kumar (injured/petitioner)
S/o Sh. Ram Bhool,
R/o. House No.E-821, E-Block, Gali no.3,
Nathu Colony, Nathupura, Burari, Delhi.
.....Petitioner
Vs.
1. Sh. Rajesh Kumar (driver of the offending vehicle)
S/o Sh. Preetam Singh,
R/o. H.No.E-78, Swami Shraddhanand Park Colony,
Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi.
2. Sh. Arvind Kumar Singh (owner of the offending vehicle)
S/o Sh. Kedarnath Singh,
R/o. B-732, East Shalimar Bagh, Delhi
3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
Plate A, Office Block-IV, NBCC Office Complex,
East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi-23.
.....Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 28.05.2025
Judgment reserved on : 27.04.2026
Date of Award : 14.07.2026
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Date: 2026.07.14
14:35:43 +0530
MACT No.468/2025 Ravi Kumar Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors. Page 1 of 30
AWAR D
1. The Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filed on
28.05.2025 which was treated as a claim petition. The Road Traffic
Accident in question took place on 11.11.2024 at about 03:30 PM at
Natthu Pura Mod, 100 Futa Road, Near Jharkhand Dhaba, Burari, Delhi.
Mr. Ravi (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) had suffered grievous
injuries in the said accident which was allegedly caused by vehicle
bearing registration No. DL-1VC-3256 (hereinafter referred to as the
offending vehicle). The said vehicle was being driven by respondent
no.1 Sh. Rajesh Kumar; owned by respondent No.2 Sh. Arvind Kumar
Singh and insured with respondent no.3 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that on
11.11.2024, on receipt of information of an accident vide DD No. 119A,
the information of present accident was handed over to ASI Ravinder
Kumar, who alongwith Ct. Praful went to the spot i.e. Nathu Pura Mod,
100 Futa Road, Near Jharkhand Dhaba, Burari, Delhi where an RTV bus
no. DL-1VC-3256 i.e. the offending vehicle was stationed at the spot.
One motorcycle bearing no. DL-1SV-9384 was underneath the said RTV
Bus in an accidental condition. On inquiry, IO got to know that the
injured had been taken to hospital. IO took both the accidental vehicles
into his custody. Thereafter, both the vehicles were sent to the PS
through the constable.
3. Thereafter, IO reached at Burari Hospital where he
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.468/2025 Ravi Kumar Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors. Page 2 of 30
Date: 2026.07.14
14:35:48 +0530
collected the MLC no.3687/24 of injured Ravi. IO got to know that the
injured had left for the home. Thereafter, complainant Rahul came to the
PS and IO recorded his statement. Thereafter, FIR u/s 281/125(B) BNS
against the driver of the offending vehicle was registered on the basis of
MLC and statement of complainant.
4. Thereafter, IO prepared the site plan at the instance of
complainant. Complainant told the IO about one person who had stated
that he had caused the accident. Thereafter, IO apprehended the said
person i.e. driver of the offending vehicle from the spot and took him to
the PS. IO interrogated the driver of the offending vehicle. The driver of
the offending vehicle admitted that at the time of accident, he was
driving the offending vehicle. Thereafter, IO arrested him. He produced
his driving license before the IO. Upon producing surety, the driver of
the offending vehicle was released on bail.
5. Thereafter, IO served the notice u/s 133 MV Act upon the
owner of the offending vehicle. Upon the said notice, owner had given
written reply mentioning that at the time of accident, the offending
vehicle was being driven by Mr. Rajesh Kumar. Thereafter, owner had
submitted all the documents of the offending vehicle before the IO.
Thereafter, IO recorded the statement of the injured at his house.
Thereafter, mechanical inspection of both the accidental vehicles were
got conducted. The IO got verified the documents of the offending
vehicle from the concerned authorities. The same were found to be
correct. Thereafter, MLC of the injured was submitted in the hospital for
the final opinion. The result was opined as “grievous” on MLC of the
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.468/2025 Ravi Kumar Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors. SINGLA Date:
2026.07.14
14:35:54
Page 3 of 30
+0530
injured. Accordingly, the Section 125(A) BNS was changed to Section
125 (B) BNS by the IO. Thereafter, IO released the offending vehicle on
superdari. After completion of investigation, chargesheet for the
offences u/s 281/125(B) BNS was filed against the driver of the
offending vehicle, Mr. Rajesh Kumar before the concerned Ld. JMFC
and the DAR was filed before this Tribunal.
WRITTEN STATEMENTS
6. Reply was filed on behalf of respondents no. 1 and 2 on
18.08.2025, wherein it was stated that the respondent no.1 did not cause
any accident on 31.12.2024 and the said vehicle has been falsely
involved in the present case. Hence, the present case is liable to be
dismissed.
7. Legal offer on behalf of respondent no. 3 was filed on
18.08.2025, wherein it was admitted that the offending vehicle was
insured with the respondent no.3 vide policy no. 272591/31/2025/118
for the period 06.05.2024 to 05.05.2025. An offer of Rs. 1,60,368/-
excluding medical expenses was made to the petitioner but the same
was not accepted by the petitioner.
ISSUES
8. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated
18.08.2025, this Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the injured suffered injuries in an
accident that took place on 11.11.2024 at about
3:30 PM at Nathu Pura Mod, 100 Futa Road, near
Jharkhand Dhaba, Burari, Delhi involving vehicle
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKAMACT No.468/2025 Ravi Kumar Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors. RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA
Date:
2026.07.14
14:35:58
Page 4 of 30
+0530
bearing registration no.DL-1VC-3256 driven
rashly and negligently by respondent no.1 Rajesh
Kumar, owned by respondent no.2 Arvind Kumar
Singh and insured with respondent no. 3 The
Oriental 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
9. The petitioner/injured examined himself as PW-1. He
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. DAR as Ex. PW-1/1 (colly).
2. Discharge summary of the deponent as Ex. PW1/2.
3. Treatment papers of the deponent as Ex. PW1/3 (colly) (containing 39
pages).
4. Medical bills as Ex. PW1/4 (colly) (containing 12 pages)
5. Aadhar card of the deponent / injured as Ex. PW1/5 (OSR).
6. 10th Class marksheet as Ex. PW1/7 (OSR).
10. PW1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsels for
respondent no. 3 as well as respondents no. 1 and 2. Thereafter, vide
separate statement of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, the PE was closed
on 24.03.2026.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.14
14:36:03
+0530
MACT No.468/2025 Ravi Kumar Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors. Page 5 of 30
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE
11. No RE was led on behalf of the respondents. Vide separate
statement of Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3, RE on behalf of
respondent no. 3 was closed on 24.03.2026. The RE on behalf of
respondents no. 1 and 2 was also closed vide order dated 24.03.2026 as
they chose not to lead any evidence.
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 parties.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
13. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties 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 11.11.2024 at about 3:30 PM at Nathu Pura Mod, 100 Futa
Road, near Jharkhand Dhaba, Burari, Delhi involving vehicle bearing
registration no.DL-1VC-3256 driven rashly and negligently by
respondent no.1 Rajesh Kumar, owned by respondent no.2 Arvind
Kumar Singh and insured with respondent no. 3 The Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd.? OPP
14. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner.
However, perusal of record shows that legal offer RUCHIKA
was filed by the
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.07.14
MACT No.468/2025 Ravi Kumar Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors. Page 6 of 30
14:36:08 +0530
respondent no. 3 in the present matter, meaning thereby, that the factum
of the accident and the the rash and negligent act of the respondent no. 1
was not disputed by the respondent no. 3. Hence, as the said facts are
admitted, the same are not required to be proved by the petitioner.
The injury:
15. 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. He has
proved on record his MLC issued by Burari Hospital, Delhi which is
part of the DAR, as per which petitioner was brought to the hospital on
11.11.2024 at 3:24 AM with history of road traffic accident. He had
suffered multiple injuries on his body.
16. Further, his discharge summary issued by RML Hospital,
Delhi is on record as per which he was admitted in the hospital on
12.11.2024 and discharged on 01.12.2024. It was found that he had
sustained compression fracture on L1 (backbone) with paraplegia with
bladder bowel movement. Then, the petitioner’s Disability Certificate
issued by Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital dated 09.12.2025 is on record. As per
the same, his disability was assessed to be at 90% in relation to both
lower limbs which is permanent in nature.
17. 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
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
MACT No.468/2025 Ravi Kumar Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors. RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.14
Page 7 of 30
14:36:19 +0530
driver/respondent no. 1 on the date and time of the accident and that due
to the said accident, the petitioner had suffered grievous injury.
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.
18. 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
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLAMACT No.468/2025 Ravi Kumar Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors. SINGLA Date:
2026.07.14
14:36:23
Page 8 of 30
+0530
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).
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).”
19. 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
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.14
14:36:27MACT No.468/2025 Ravi Kumar Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors. +0530
Page 9 of 30
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.
Medical expenses:
20. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. 50,782/-
approximately towards medical expenses. The petitioner has filed
certain bills on record which are Ex. PW1/4 towards the same. Hence, a
sum of Rs. 50,782/- is awarded to him under this head.
Loss of income:
21. In this regard, it is submitted by the petitioner that at the
time of the accident, he was working as a driver and earning Rs.
25,000/- per month. Further, he has been unable to work since his
accident due to his disability due to which he is unable to stand. It is
submitted that the disability has rendered him incapable to work.
22. Record perused.
23. To prove the income of the petitioner, no evidence has been
led. He has alleged that he was working as a driver but his driving
license has not been proved on record. However, his 10 th class marksheet
is proved on record which is Ex. PW1/4. Hence, in the absence of any
evidence qua his income, his income shall be assessed as per the
minimum wages payable to a non-matriculate person. The date of
accident is 11.11.2024. Hence, as per the relevant notification, the
income of the petitioner is assessed to be Rs. 19,929/-.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.468/2025 Ravi Kumar Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors. Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Date: 2026.07.14
14:36:32 +0530
Page 10 of 30
24. It is the matter of record that due to the accident, the
petitioner suffered injuries. Further it is stated that due to the accident,
the petitioner suffered multiple injuries on his body. It is stated that he
has suffered 90% permanent disability in his both lower limbs. Hence, it
is submitted that since the accident, the petitioner has been unable to
work. Hence, he may be granted loss of income till date i.e. for 24
months.
25. Record perused.
26. As mentioned earlier, as per the medical record of the
petitioner, he had suffered multiple injuries. He had sustained
compression fracture on L1 (backbone) with paraplegia with bladder
bowel movement. Then, the petitioner’s Disability Certificate issued by
Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital dated 09.12.2025 is on record. As per the same,
his disability was assessed to be at 90% in relation to both lower limbs
which is permanent in nature. Hence, it is apparent that he has lost his
capacity to work. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner shall be
entitled to the loss of income for 12 months i.e. Rs.19,929/- x 12 = Rs.
2,39,148/-. Loss of income for 24 months is not granted as the same
shall be covered under loss of future income, as the same shall be
calculated as per his age as on the date of the accident.
Loss of future earnings due to disability:
27. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner has suffered 90% permanent disability. Due to the same, he is
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
MACT No.468/2025 Ravi Kumar Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors. SINGLA 2026.07.14
14:36:37
+0530
Page 11 of 30
unable to work. Hence, his functional disability may be considered as
100%.
28. 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, 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).”
29. Hence, the Tribunal has to examine as to how the disability
suffered by the petitioner affects his ability to earn. The disability of the
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.14
14:36:47
+0530MACT No.468/2025 Ravi Kumar Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors. Page 12 of 30
petitioner is not disputed. As per the Disability Certificate, the petitioner
has suffered 90% permanent disability in his both lower limbs.
30. The petitioner has proved his medical record. His discharge
summary issued by RML Hospital, Delhi is on record as per which he
had sustained compression fracture on L1 (backbone) with paraplegia
with bladder bowel movement. Then, the petitioner’s Disability
Certificate issued by Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital dated 09.12.2025 is on
record. As per the same, his disability was assessed to be at 90% in
relation to both lower limbs which is permanent in nature. Hence, it is
apparent that the petitioner would be unable to work in the future. Due
to the said accident, he has been rendered incapable to walk, control his
bowel movements and even move his lower part of the body. Hence, his
functional disability is ascertained to be as 100%.
31. This Tribunal has already assumed the monthly income of
petitioner to be Rs.19,929/- at the relevant time. As far as the age of
petitioner at the time of accident is concerned, as per the petitioner’s 10th
class marksheet Ex. PW1/5, his date of birth is 02.10.1989. The date of
accident is 11.11.2024. Hence, the age of petitioner as on the date of
accident was 35 years, 1 month and 9 days. 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 ’16’ is held applicable for
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.468/2025 Ravi Kumar Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors. Page 13 of 30
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Date: 2026.07.14
14:36:58 +0530
calculating the loss of future earnings of petitioner arising out of his
above disability.
32. In view of the judgment of National Insurance Company
Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors; (2017) 16 SCC 680, it was observed that
the Claimants would be entitled to 40% for future prospects as the
deceased was less than 40 years of age. As already discussed in the
preceding para, the income of the petitioner has been taken as
Rs.19,929/-. In view of the above, the loss of Income on account of
functional disability is calculated as under:
Monthly income Rs.19,929/-
Annual Income Rs.19,929/- x 12 =
Rs. 2,39,148/-
Add Future Prospects @40% Rs. 95,659.20 (rounded off to Rs.
95,659/-)
Total income Rs. 3,34,807/-
Disability @ 100% Rs. 3,34,807/- x 100%= Rs.
3,34,807/-
Loss of Income after multiplier Rs. 3,34,807/- x 16 = Rs.
(16) 53,56,912/-
33. 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. 53,56,912/- under the head future loss
of income.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.07.14
14:37:03 +0530
MACT No.468/2025 Ravi Kumar Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors. Page 14 of 30
Special diet:
34. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards
special diet. There is no bill to support his plea. In the present case, the
petitioner has suffered paraplegia with loss of bowel control. In Jyoti
Singh v. Nand Kishore & Ors. (2023) 300 DLT 436, in a case with
similar facts, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi observed that:
“In the appellant’s case, a special diet has been necessitated
on account of her extended debilitation and for her to keep
herself in fair health, she would need high protein
supplements for the rest of her life as opined by Dr. Mathew
Varghese. The MACT has awarded her only Rs. 36,200/-.
Since she would need this special diet for the rest of her
life, therefore, by using the multiplier of 18, the
compensation for special diet is increased to Rs.
6,51,600/-.”
35. In view of the said observations and keeping in view the
nature of injury suffered by the petitioner, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is
awarded to the petitioner under the head of special diet. Further,
applying the multiplier of 16 as applied by the Hon’ble High Court, an
amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under the head of
special diet.
Conveyance charges:
36. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 75,000/- towards
conveyance charges. Admittedly there is no document showing expense
on conveyance, however, considering his injuries and paralysis, this
Tribunal is of the view that the petitioner must have spent money on
conveyance and shall require funds for this purpose in the future, thus,
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.14
14:37:13
+0530MACT No.468/2025 Ravi Kumar Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors. Page 15 of 30
the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 75,000/- towards conveyance
charges.
Attendant charges:
37. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. 3,00,00,000/-
towards attendant charges. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the
petitioner that due to the disability of the petitioner, he is unable to move
and two attendants were hired by the petitioner. However, no evidence
has been led to prove the same.
38. In a similar case decided by the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in Pritam Singh vs Oriental Insurance Co. & Ors. MAC.APP.
952/2011 on 28 March, 2016 has observed as under:
“13. The tribunal calculated the attendant
charges that were incurred by the claimant during the
treatment till the filing of the petition at `3,35,000/- but for
future such expenses it awarded ` 50,000/-, in lumpsum.
This may not be a correct approach to the issue. Since the
claimant has been rendered permanently disabled to the
extent of 100%, there is no doubt that he would require
constant presence of attendant throughout his life. In these
circumstances, the proper course would be to take care of
attendant charges incurred during treatment and for future
on the assumption that he would need to engage an
attendant on regular basis. The expenditure towards this end
can be computed on the basis of minimum wages of an
unskilled worker relevant to the date of accident which was
` 3516 per month. Calculated thus, the compensation for
attendant charges comes to (3516 x 12 x 15) ` 6,32,800/-,
rounded off to ` 6,35,000/-.”
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.468/2025 Ravi Kumar Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors. SINGLA Date:
2026.07.14
14:37:19
+0530
Page 16 of 30
39. Further, in Jyoti Singh v. Nand Kishore & Ors. (2023) 300
DLT 436, in a case with similar facts, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
appreciated the fact that due to the disability of the petitioner, she would
need attendant 24 hours. Hence, attendant charges for 2 attendants (2
shifts of 12 hours) were awarded. Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand (2020) 4 SCC 413 was relied upon. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court took the basis of calculation of attendant
charges on the basis of minimum wages payable to a skilled worker. As
per the prevalent notification, the minimum wages payable to a skilled
worker as on 11.11.2024 were Rs. 21,917/-. Hence, the petitioner is
awarded a sum of Rs. 84,16,128/- towards attendant charges (Rs.
21,917/- x 12 x 16 x 2 = Rs.84,16,128/-).
Pain & Suffering, mental and physical shock & loss of amenities:
40. The petitioner/injured has compositely claimed Rs.
13,00,000/- under these heads. In the present matter, the accident has
rendered the petitioner immobile and confined to a chair for his life. His
whole future has been destroyed. Hence, he is awarded a total amount of
Rs. 13,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, mental and physical shock
& loss of amenities.
Disfiguration:
41. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- under
this head. In view of the injuries sustained by him, the petitioner is
awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards this head.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.07.14
MACT No.468/2025 Ravi Kumar Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors. 14:37:27 +0530
Page 17 of 30
Loss of marriage prospects
42. The petitioner/injured has not claimed any amount under
this head being married.
Loss of earning, inconvenience, disappointment, frustration, mental
stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.:
43. The petitioner/injured has not claimed any amount under
this head. However, considering the nature of the injuries suffered by the
petitioner, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this
head.
Reimbursement apropos lifetime sanitary expenses & future medical
expenses:
44. No such amount is claimed. However, in the present case,
due to the partial paralysis suffered by the petitioner, he has lost the
ability to control his bowel movement. In a similar case in Jyoti Singh v.
Nand Kishore & Ors. (2023) 300 DLT 43, the Hon’ble High Court
observed that:
“For a person suffering from incontinence and not in
control of urinary or bowel movement, there would be need
for diapers, pads, sanitary sheets, regular changing of bed-
sheets, wet wipes, tissue-papers, medical gloves, etc. For
this expense, Rs. 5,000/- per month has been assessed by
the MACT. The annual expense for the same would be Rs.
60,000/-. Although the impugned award has factored this
annual expense but has provided for the same through
interest on FDRs. This is unfair to the injured because
compensation needs to be provided on a legitimate ground.
In the present case this is a necessary expense because of
her medical condition, it would therefore be categorised as
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
MACT No.468/2025 Ravi Kumar Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors. 2026.07.14
14:37:47
+0530
Page 18 of 30
a lifetime medical expense. Also, the impugned award has
assumed that the FDR rates would always be not less than
8%. The earnings from FDRs are from monies which has
already been awarded to her over which the insurer cannot
have any right, claim or say. The awardee has absolute right
over utilisation of the same. The interest earned cannot be
adjusted to set-off the liability of the person who is to pay
compensation. This will be a life-time expense. Therefore,
applying a multiplier of 18 for the appellant, the
compensation towards ‘medical and sanitary expenses’ of
Rs. 10,80,000/- is awarded.”
45. Hence, there would be need for diapers, pads, sanitary
sheets, regular changing of bed-sheets, wet wipes, tissue-papers, medical
gloves, etc. Hence, relying upon the above mentioned judgment, he is
awarded a total amount of Rs. 10,80,000/- towards reimbursement
apropos lifetime sanitary expenses & future medical expenses.
46. 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. 50,782/- Monthly income of injured Rs.19,929/- Loss of income x 12 months Rs. 2,39,148/- Add future prospects 40%
Loss of future income (income X % Earning Rs. 53,56,912/-
Capacity X Multiplier)
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Date: 2026.07.14
14:37:52 +0530
MACT No.468/2025 Ravi Kumar Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors. Page 19 of 30
Any other loss/expenditure (Reimbursement Rs. 10,80,000/-
apropos lifetime sanitary expenses & future
medical expenses)
Expense on special diet Rs. 8,00,000/-
Conveyance charges Rs. 75,000/- Attendant charges Rs. 84,16,128/-
Mental & Physical Shock, Pain & Suffering Rs. 13,00,000
& Loss of amenities
Disfiguration Rs. 1,00,000/-
Loss of marriage prospects Nil
Loss of earning, inconvenience, hardship, Rs. 1,00,000/-
disappointment, frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
Total Rs. 1,21,61,058/-
47. 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 DAR i.e. 28.05.2025 till realization.
DISBURSEMENT
48. The Financial Statement of father of petitioner/injured was
recorded by this Court/Tribunal. As per the said statement, the monthly
expenses of his family are approximately Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 35,000/-
per month.
49. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 07.12.2018
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.468/2025 Ravi Kumar Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors. Page 20 of 30
Date: 2026.07.14
14:37:59 +0530
& 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh Tyagi & Ors.
Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors. has given the following directions:
“(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added
in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the
claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall
be an individual saving bank account and not a joint
account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in
safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR
number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity
amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the
ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the
place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature
discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the
permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book
and/or debit card to claimants. However, in case the debit
card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank
shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award
amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of
claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the
account of claimants from any other branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the
passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque
books and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be
issued without the permission of the Court and the
claimant shall produced the passbook with the necessary
endorsement before the Court for compliance.”
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.468/2025 Ravi Kumar Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors. Date: 2026.07.14
14:38:18 +0530 Page 21 of 30
50. However, in a recent judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India titled as Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal on 18
March, 2025 in S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020 has held that :
“17. The case in hand pertains to the compensation
awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. The general
practice followed by the insurance companies, where the
compensation is not disputed, is to deposit the same before
the Tribunal. Instead of following that process, a direction
can always be issued to transfer the amount into the bank
account(s) of the claimant(s) with intimation to the
Tribunal.
17.1 For that purpose, the Tribunals at the initial stage of
pleadings or at the stage of leading evidence may require
the claimant(s) to furnish their bank account particulars to
the Tribunal along with the requisite proof, so that at the
stage of passing of the award the Tribunal may direct that
the amount of compensation be transferred in the account
of the claimant and if there are more than one then in their
respective accounts. If there is no bank account, then they
should be required to open the bank account either
individually or jointly with family members only. It should
also be mandated that, in case there is any change in the
bank account particulars of the claimant(s) during the
pendency of the claim petition they should update the same
before the Tribunal. This should be ensured before passing
of the final award. It may be ensured that the bank account
should be in the name of the claimant(s) and if minor,
through guardian(s) and in no case it should be a joint
account with any person, 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.”
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
MACT No.468/2025 Ravi Kumar Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors. RUCHIKA SINGLA Page 22 of 30
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.14
14:38:29
+0530
51. In view of the same, the award amount can now be
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. It is directed that the award amount be deposited by the
respondent no. 3 in the bank account of Tribunal bearing A/c. no.
42704293960, SBI, THC, Delhi in the name of MACT-01, Central,
IFSC Code: SBIN0000726.
52. After considering the financial statement of the petitioner, it
is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 1,23,01,993/-
(Rupees One Crore Twenty Three Lakhs One Thousand Nine Hundred
Ninety Three only), Rs. 18,01,993/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs One
Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Three only) alongwith accumulated
interest, if any be released to the petitioner/claimant immediately by
SBI, THC in his bank account maintained at State Bank of India, THC,
Delhi bearing no. 44588277668, IFSC no. SBIN0000726, CIF no.
92276437429.
53. The balance amount of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- (Rupees One
Crore Five Lakhs only) shall be put in 140 monthly fixed deposits in his
name in MACAD account of equal amount of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees
Seventy Five Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 140
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
Digitally
signed by
MACT No.468/2025 Ravi Kumar Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors. Page 23 of 30
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.14
14:38:34
+0530
facility of cheque book and ATM card.
54. Further, it is directed that if the amount is being disbursed
to the petitioner in his savings bank accounts, he shall not avail any
loan/advance facility on the FDRs without the permission of this
Tribunal. Further, he shall not encash the FDRs before their maturity
without the permission of this Tribunal.
55. In compliance of the directions given by Hon’ble High
Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award
in the prescribed Format-XVI is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
Date of Accident: 11.11.2024
Name of the Injured: Ravi Kumar
Age of the Injured: Presently 36 years
Occupation of the Injured: Not proved
Income of the Injured: Rs. 19,929/- pm
Nature of Injury: Grievous
Medical Treatment taken: Burari Hospital, Delhi
RML, Delhi
Period of Hospitalization: 12.11.2024 to 01.12.2024
Whether any permanent: Yes
disability?
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.07.14
14:38:39 +0530
MACT No.468/2025 Ravi Kumar Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors. Page 24 of 30
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
Sr. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
No.
1. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 50,782/-
(ii) Expenditure on Special Diet Rs. 8,00,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on Rs. 84,16,128/-
Nursing/Attendant charges
(iv) Expenditure on Conveyance Rs. 75,000/-
(v) Monthly income of injured Rs.19,929/-
(vi) Loss of income x 12 months Rs. 2,39,148/-
(vii) Add future prospects 40%
viii) Any other loss/expenditure Rs. 10,80,000/-
(Reimbursement apropos lifetime
sanitary expenses & future medical
expenses)
2. Non Pecuniary Loss
(i) Compensation for mental and physical
shock
Rs. 13,00,000/-
(ii) Pain and Sufferings
(iii) Loss of amenities of life
(iv)
Disfiguration Rs. 1,00,000/-
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Rs. 1,00,000/-
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 and 90% permanent disability
nature of disability as permanent or
temporary
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.14
MACT No.468/2025 Ravi Kumar Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors. 14:38:44
+0530 Page 25 of 30
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of expectation Nil
of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity 100%
in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income – (income x % Rs. 53,56,912/-
earning capacity x Multiplier)
4. Total Compensation Rs. 1,21,61,058/-
5. Interest awarded 9%
6. Earlier award amount (which has
already been received by the petitioner
in terms of previous award passed by Nil
Ld. Predecessor) to be deducted from
present award amount .
7. Interest amount upto the date of award Rs. 1,40,935/-
w.e.f. 28.05.2025 till realization
8. Total amount including Interest Rs. 1,23,01,993/-
9. Award amount released As mentioned in para nos. 52 & 53
10. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.1,05,00,000/-
11. Mode of disbursement of the award As mentioned in para nos. 52 & 53
amount of the claimant(s)
12. Next date for compliance of the award 14.08.2026
LIABILITY:
56. 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.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.14
MACT No.468/2025 Ravi Kumar Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors. 14:38:49
+0530 Page 26 of 30
RELIEF:
57. The respondent no.3 is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.
1,21,61,058/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty One Lakhs Sixty One
Thousand Fifty Eight only) along with interest @ 9% from the date of
filing of DAR i.e. 28.05.2025 till realization with the bank account of
this Tribunal at SBI, THC within 30 days under intimation to the
claimant, 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.
58. 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
Digitally
signed by
MACT No.468/2025 Ravi Kumar Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors. Page 27 of 30
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.14
14:38:55
+0530
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
14.08.2026 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation
amount within the time granted.
Further, Civil Nazir is directed to maintain the record in
Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment)
Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation
of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021
titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors.,
date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court today
on this 14th July, 2026 Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.14
14:38:59 +0530(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
MACT No.468/2025 Ravi Kumar Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors. Page 28 of 30
THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL MOTOR
VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022 (PL. SEE RULE
150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 11.11.2024
2 Date of filing of Form-I – First Accident
Report (FAR) 13.11.20243 Date of delivery of Form-II to the
28.05.2025
victim(s)
4 Date of receipt of Form-III from the Driver 07.01.2025
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV from the
Owner 07.01.20256 Date of filing of Form-V-
07.01.2025
Particulars of the insurance of the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-VIA from the
28.05.2025
Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII – Detail
28.05.2025
Accident Report (DAR)
9 Whether there was any delay or deficiency
on the part of the Investigating Officer? If
Yes
so, whether any action/direction
warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the Designated
28.05.2025
Officer by the Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company admitted his report
within 30 days of the DAR? Yes
12 Whether there was any delay or deficiency
on the part of the Designated Officer of the No
Insurance Company? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
13 Date of response of the claimant(s) to the NA
offer of the Insurance Company.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.468/2025 Ravi Kumar Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors. SINGLA Date:
2026.07.14
14:39:10
Page 29 of 30
+0530
14 Date of award 14.07.2026
15 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to
open savings bank account(s) near their Yes
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) 28.05.2025
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 place of their residence 27.04.2026
alongwith the endorsement, PAN card and
Aadhar Card?
18 Permanent residential address of the
claimant(s). As per Award.
19 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank
No
account(s) is near their place of residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s) were examined at Yes. The Financial Statement
the time of passing of the Award to of the injured/petitioner was
ascertain his/their financial condition? recorded on 27.04.2026
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.07.14
14:39:16
+0530(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
14.07.2026
MACT No.468/2025 Ravi Kumar Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors. Page 30 of 30
