Delhi District Court
Ajay Kumar (I) (Fir … vs Anil Kumar (Go Digit) on 21 February, 2026
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER MACT-02:
CENTRAL DISTRICT:
TIS HAZARI DISTRICT COURTS: DELHI.
PRESIDED OVER BY Ms. POOJA AGGARWAL, DHJS
MACT No. 606/24
CNR/UID No. DLCT-01-012546-2024
In Respect of:
FIR No. 398/2024
PS Wazirabad
U/s 279/338 IPC
Ajay Kumar (Injured)
S/o Sh. Vikram Singh,
R/o H. No. B-222, Block B,
Street No. 11, Bhajanpura,
Delhi-110053.
(Through Ld. Counsel Sh. Akhilesh Kumar)
...........Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Anil Kumar (Driver-cum-owner)
S/o Mr. Ram Saroop,
R/o H. No. 938, Gali No. 20,
Shiv Mandir, Wazirabad, Delhi.
(Through Ld. Counsel Ms. Reena Luka)
2. Go Digit General Insurance Limited (Insurer)
Third Floor, Harsh Bhawan,
Nehru Place, New Delhi.
(Through Ld. Counsel Sh. Manjul Awasthi)
.....Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 13.08.2024
Judgment reserved on : 19.02.2026
Date of award : 21.02.2026
Digitally signed
MACT No. 606/24 by POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 398/24 PS Wazirabad POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 1 of 34
Ajay Kumar v. Anil Kumar & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2026.02.21
13:00:55 +0530
AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. The present Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred to as
'DAR') has been filed by the Investigating Officer in respect of
FIR No. 398/2024, PS Wazirabad, u/s 279/337 IPC regarding
injuries sustained by Sh. Ajay Kumar S/o Vikram Singh
(hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner/ injured") due to an
accident which took place on 24.04.2024, at about 10.00 pm, by
the vehicle bearing registration no. DL-5SCA-7918 (hereinafter
referred to as 'Offending Vehicle') being owned and driven by
Mr. Anil Kumar (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent No.1")
rashly and negligently and insured with Go Digit General
Insurance limited (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent No.
2"). The copy of the chargesheet filed in respect of the
commission of offences under Section 279/338 IPC against the
Respondent No.1 after investigation in respect of the said FIR,
was also annexed with the DAR.
2. Vide order dated 13.08.2024, passed by the Ld. Predecessor, the
DAR was directed to be treated as a claim petition under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as
'MV Act').
Brief Facts as per the Reply of Respondent No. 1
3. In his reply to the DAR, the Respondent No. 1 stated that there
was delay in the registration of FIR and that he was not present
with his motorcycle at the place of incident on 24.04.2024, at
around 10.00 p.m., nor he was involved in any accident.
Digitally signed
by POOJA
MACT No. 606/24 POOJA AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 398/24 PS Wazirabad AGGARWAL Date: Page No. 2 of 34
Ajay Kumar v. Anil Kumar & Ors. 2026.02.21
13:01:01 +0530
Brief Facts as per the reply filed by Respondent No. 2/
Insurance Company.
4. In its reply, the Respondent No. 2/ Insurance Company stated
that the offending vehicle No. DL-5CA-7918 was insured with it
for the period w.e.f. 10.11.2023 to 09.11.2024. It also stated that
there was delay in the registration of FIR which had not been
explained and there were no eye witnesses or CCTV cameras on
the basis of which it could be held that the accident was caused
due to Respondent No. 1 and it appeared that his vehicle had
been falsely implicated.
Issues
5. From the pleadings on record, the following issues were framed
by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 22.07.2025:-
1.Whether the petitioner Ajay Kumar suffered
injuries in an accident that took place on 25.04.2024
at about 10.00 PM, involving vehicle bearing
registration No. DL-5SCA-7918 driven rashly and
negligently and owned by Respondent No. 1 and
insured with the respondent no.2? OPP.
2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and from
whom?
3.Relief.
Evidence of the Petitioner
6. PW-1/Petitioner Ajay Kumar tendered his evidence by way of
affidavit i.e. Ex. PW1/A testifying that on 24.04.2024, he was
coming from Mukundpur and when he was crossing the Burari
flyover, at the end point of the flyover, the Respondent No. 1,
who was driving the offending vehicle bearing registration No.
DL-5SCA-7918 in a rash and negligent manner and fast speed,
hit his motorcycle from behind due to which he received
Digitally signed
MACT No. 606/24 by POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 398/24 PS Wazirabad POOJA AGGARWAL
Page No. 3 of 34
Ajay Kumar v. Anil Kumar & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2026.02.21
13:01:06 +0530
grievous injuries and iron rod was installed in his left arm on
01.05.2024 during treatment at Sushruta Trauma Center. He also
testified that he sustained 06% disability in working capacity
due to the accident and being a practicing advocate, he was
earning ₹40,000/- per month.
7. The Petitioner/PW1 also relied upon the following documents :-
S.No Description of Documents Exhibit/Mark
1. Copy of his Aadhar card Ex.PW1/B
2. Copy of registration certificate Ex.PW1/C
of offending vehicle
3. Copy of FIR Ex.PW1/D
4. Copy of chargesheet Ex.PW1/E
5. Copy of MLC Ex.PW1/F
6. Copy of site plan Ex. PW1/G
7. Copy of X-ray report Ex. PW1/H
8. Copy of registration certificate Ex. PW1/I
of his bike
9. The disability certificate Ex. PW1/J
10. Copy of his ITRs for AY 2023- Ex. PW1/K
24 and 2024-25
8. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the
Respondents No. 2 and the cross-examination was adopted on
behalf of Respondent No. 1 as well.
Evidence of the Respondents
9. The Respondent No. 1 examined himself as R1W1 and tendered
his evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex R1W1/A, inter-alia,
testifying that he had been falsely implicated in the case and that
his motorcycle was not involved in the accident nor he caused
MACT No. 606/24 Digitally signed
by POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 398/24 PS Wazirabad POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 4 of 34
Ajay Kumar v. Anil Kumar & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2026.02.21
13:01:11 +0530
the accident. He further testified that it was the Petitioner
himself who had caused the accident by driving his motorcycle
in a rash and negligent manner and had fallen on the road. He
also testified as to his vehicle being insured with Respondent
No. 2 from 10.11.2023 to 09.11.2024. R1W1/Respondent No.1
also relied upon the following documents :-
S.No Description of Documents Exhibit/Mark
1. Copy of his Aadhar card Ex.RW1/1
2. Copy of registration Ex.RW1/2
certificate of his motorcycle
3. Copy of insurance policy Ex.RW1/3
4. Copy of his driving license Ex.PW1/4
10. He was duly cross-examined on behalf of the Petitioner.
11.The Respondent No. 2/ Insurance Company chose not to lead
any evidence.
Final Arguments and Issue Wise Findings
12. Final arguments were advanced on behalf of the Petitioner and
the Respondents by their respective counsels.
13. Thereafter, it was noted that the date of accident had been
wrongly mentioned in the issues as framed and the same was
corrected vide order dated 19.02.2026, whereafter the parties
chose not to lead any further evidence.
14. The amended issue no. 1 was framed as under:
1. Whether the petitioner Ajay Kumar suffered injuries in
an accident that took place on 24.04.2024 at about 10.00
Digitally signed
MACT No. 606/24 by POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 398/24 PS Wazirabad POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 5 of 34
Ajay Kumar v. Anil Kumar & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2026.02.21
13:01:16 +0530
PM, involving vehicle bearing registration No.
DL-5SCA-7918 driven rashly and negligently and owned
by the Respondent No. 1 and insured with the respondent
no. 2? OPP.
15. The final arguments, as advanced have been carefully
considered along with the evidence on record. After careful
consideration of the entire evidence, the issue wise findings are
as under:
Amended / corrected Issue No.1: Whether the petitioner
Ajay Kumar suffered injuries in an accident that took place
on 24.04.2024 at about 10.00 PM, involving vehicle
bearing registration No. DL-5SCA-7918 driven rashly and
negligently and owned by Respondent No. 1 and insured
with the respondent no.2? OPP.
16. The onus to prove this issue was upon the Petitioner. It is a
settled proposition of law that in this Tribunal strict proof of an
accident having been caused in a particular manner may not be
possible to be done by the petitioners, and they are to establish
their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and
the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be
applied. Strength for this interpretation is drawn from the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi and
others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others,
(2009) 13 SC 530, also reiterated in various subsequent
judgments including Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. & Ors., (2018) 5 SCC 656, Geeta Dubey Vs United India
Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors, 2024 SCC Online SC 3779 and
Sajeena Ikhbal and Others Vs Mini Babu George and Others,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2883.
Digitally signed
MACT No. 606/24 by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 398/24 PS Wazirabad Page No. 6 of 34
AGGARWAL Date:
Ajay Kumar v. Anil Kumar & Ors. 2026.02.21
13:01:21 +0530
17. In Prabhavathi v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corpn.,
2025 SCC OnLine SC 455, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
again reiterated that:
“13. It is the settled law that under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 it is
established that in compensation cases, the strict rules of evidence
used in criminal trials do not apply. Instead, the standard of proof is
based on the preponderance of probability. This Court
in Sunita v. Rajasthan SRTC1 observed that:
“22. It is thus well settled that in motor accident claim cases,
once the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of
the accident, has been established, then the Tribunal’s role
would be to calculate the quantum of just compensation if the
accident had taken place by reason of negligence of the driver
of a motor vehicle and, while doing so, the Tribunal would not
be strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties. Notably,
while deciding cases arising out of motor vehicle accidents,
the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of
preponderance of probability and not the
strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is
followed in criminal cases.”
The exposition came to be reiterated in Rajwati alias Rajjo v. United
India Insurance Company Ltd.2, wherein it was observed that:
“20. It is well settled that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a
beneficial piece of legislation and as such, while dealing with
compensation cases, once the actual occurrence of the
accident has been established, the Tribunal’s role would be to
award just and fair compensation. As held by this Court
in Sunita (Supra) and Kusum Lata(Supra), strict rules of
evidence as applicable in a criminal trial, are not applicable in
motor accident compensation cases, i.e., to say,
“the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of
preponderance of probability and not the strict standard
of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in
criminal cases”.
(Emphasis supplied)
18. As per the testimony of Petitioner/PW-1, the accident had
occurred on 24.04.2024, when his bike was hit from behind by
the offending vehicle, which was being driven by the
Respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner and at a very
1(2020) 13 SCC 486
2 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699 Digitally signed
MACT No. 606/24 by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 398/24 PS Wazirabad
Ajay Kumar v. Anil Kumar & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2026.02.21 Page No. 7 of 34
13:01:25 +0530
fast speed. Nothing material could be elicited during his cross-
examination as he withstood the rigors of the same.
19. Though, the factum of there being an accident between the
vehicle of the injured and the offending vehicle being driven by
the Respondent No.1 was initially denied by the Respondent
No.1 in his reply/written statement, however, during his cross-
examination, the Respondent No.1 himself testified that his
testimony in the affidavit from portion A to A1 i.e. as to “The
motorcycle bearing No. DL-5CA-7918 was not involved in the
alleged accident in question” was incorrect. He also admitted
that he had not filed any GPS receipt, toll receipt or call record
in respect of the whereabout of his vehicle at the time of the
accident nor he had disclosed the name of any person who could
prove that his vehicle was not involved in the accident.
20. It is not in dispute that in respect of the accident in question, the
Respondent No. 1 was charge-sheeted by the investigating
agency for the commission of offences punishable under
Sections 279/338 IPC in respect of FIR No.398/2024, PS
Wazirabad, after concluding its investigation on the aspect of
manner of the accident as well as the identity of the offender.
21. After initially having denied the very involvement of his
vehicle in the accident in the reply/written statement, the
Respondent No. 1, being the driver of the offending vehicle
testified in his evidence affidavit that he had not caused the
accident which was caused by the Petitioner himself, who was
driving his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. This
MACT No. 606/24 Digitally signed
In Respect of FIR No. 398/24 PS Wazirabad by POOJA Page No. 8 of 34
POOJA AGGARWAL
Ajay Kumar v. Anil Kumar & Ors.
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.02.21
13:01:31 +0530
testimony proves that the Respondent No.1 admitted the factum
of involvement of his vehicle in the accident, though he disputed
the existence of rashness/negligence on his part.
22. In his cross-examination, the Respondent No.1 went on to
testify that the accident had occurred when he was coming from
Burari and the Petitioner was ahead of him, and when he tried to
overtake him from the right side, he had come towards his right
resulting in the accident. However, except the said self serving
testimony, the Respondent No.1 did not lead any further
evidence to prove the manner of the accident.
23. Rather, the Respondent No.1 has admitted in his cross-
examination that he had not made any call to the PCR after the
accident nor he had filed any application for quashing of the FIR
pertaining to the accident. The said inaction of the Respondent
No.1 as well as the fact that the filing of the chargesheet against
the Respondent No.1 indicates existence of rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle by the Respondent No. 1, even
more so, as the Respondent No.1 has failed to bring on record
the existence of any reason for false implication of the offending
vehicle nor any evidence has been led to believe that the
accident did not take place due to the rash and negligent driving
of Respondent No.1. Strength for this interpretation is drawn
from the judgement of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa
Rana, 2009 ACJ 287 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Deepak Goel & Ors, 2014 (2) TAC 846 (Del) wherein the
Coordinate Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, held as
under:-
Digitally signed
by POOJA
MACT No. 606/24 POOJA AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 398/24 PS Wazirabad AGGARWAL Date: 2026.02.21 Page No. 9 of 34
Ajay Kumar v. Anil Kumar & Ors. 13:01:36 +0530
“……where the claimants filed either the certified copies of the
criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of
investigation by police or issuance of charge sheet under Section
279/304A IPC or the certified copy of FIR or the recovery of the
mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, then these
documents are sufficient proof to reach to a conclusion that the
driver was negligent particularly when there is no defence available
from the side of driver.”
(Emphasis supplied)
24. Further, considering that the Petitioner cannot be expected to
prove the accident beyond reasonable doubts and the principle
of res ipse loquitor i.e. “accident speaks for itself” is applicable,
it would imply that once it has been established in DAR and
chargesheet that the accident had taken place, the burden shifts
on the Respondents to prove that they were not responsible for
the accident which the Respondents have failed to discharge.
25. Thus, in view of the aforesaid reasons and discussion, in view
of the evidence as led including the chargesheet, as well as oral
testimony of PW-1 who is an eye-witness of the accident being
the injured himself, and in the absence of any evidence
depicting any negligent/ sudden act or omission on the part of
injured having been brought on record, it is held that on the
scale of preponderance of probability, the Petitioner has
discharged his burden and has proved that an accident that took
place on 24.04.2024, at about 10.00 PM, involving vehicle
bearing registration No. DL-5SCA-7918, owned and driven by
the Respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, and insured with
the Respondent No. 2/ insurance company.
[[
MACT No. 606/24 Digitally signed by
In Respect of FIR No. 398/24 PS Wazirabad
POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL
Page No. 10 of 34
Ajay Kumar v. Anil Kumar & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2026.02.21
13:01:42 +0530
Injury
26. In respect of the injury sustained by the Petitioner in the
accident, as per the MLC No. 925/24, dated 24.04.2024 of the
Petitioner prepared at Lok Nayak Hospital, i.e. Ex PW1/F, the
Petitioner sustained various injuries including tenderness,
crepitus, deformity at left arm and elbow in a road traffic
accident as per the alleged history, and the nature of injury has
been opined to be grievous.
27. Even the discharge summary issued by Sushruta Trauma Centre
reflects the Petitioner to have remained admitted there from
30.04.2024 to 03.05.2024 due to the injuries including fracture
of humerus and 1/3rd shaft, which also corroborates the factum
of grievous injuries having been sustained by the Petitioner due
to the accident.
28. Even as per the disability certificate dated 27.02.2025 issued by
Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital i.e. Ex PW1/J, the petitioner has 06%
permanent physical impairment in relation to his left upper limb,
which is non-progressive and not likely to improve.
29. No reason has been brought on record to disbelieve either the
MLC or even the discharge summary, as well as the disability
certificate, which on the scale of preponderance of probabilities,
sufficiently proves that the accident in question resulted in
grievous injury to the Petitioner.
30. Issue no.1 is, thus, decided in favour of the Petitioner and
against the Respondents.
Digitally signed
by POOJA
MACT No. 606/24 POOJA AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 398/24 PS Wazirabad AGGARWAL Date: Page No. 11 of 34
2026.02.21
Ajay Kumar v. Anil Kumar & Ors. 13:01:48 +0530
Issue no 2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
and
Issue no. 3.Relief.
31. Since the Petitioner sustained grievous injuries as a result of the
accident in question, he is entitled to be compensated for the
same and Section 168 of the MV Act enjoins upon this 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.
Quantum of compensation
32. The guiding principles for assessment of “just and reasonable
compensation” have been enumerated by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India, in Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod, 2022 SCC OnLine
SC 1683, wherein it has been observed that: –
“The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “MV
Act“) gives paramount importance to the concept of ‘just and fair’
compensation. It is a beneficial legislation which has been framed
with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families.
Section 168 of the MV Act deals with the concept of ‘just
compensation’ which ought to be determined on the foundation of
fairness, reasonableness and equitability. Although such
determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an
endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair
compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the
applicant/s. In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009)
6 SCC 121, this Court has laid down as under:
16.”Just compensation” is adequate compensation which is
fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case,
to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far
as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles
relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a
bonanza, largesse or source of profit.”
(Emphasis supplied)
Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
MACT No. 606/24 AGGARWAL Date:
2026.02.21
In Respect of FIR No. 398/24 PS Wazirabad 13:03:11 +0530 Page No. 12 of 34
Ajay Kumar v. Anil Kumar & Ors.
33. It is a settled proposition of law that in cases where the
petitioner has suffered injuries due to the accident, the grant of
compensation is under two broad categories, i.e. Pecuniary as
well as non-pecuniary damages. The two categories of damages
has been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.D.
Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551,
which has also been reiterated in Atul Tiwari v. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2025) 3 SCC 6 as under:
“9. Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation
payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed
separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary
damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and
which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas
non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being
assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two
concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the
claimant: (I) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to
the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary
damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental
and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to
be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of
amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on
account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit;
(iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of
injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened;
(iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment,
frustration and mental stress in life.”
(Emphasis supplied)
34. The principles guiding such grant of compensation have been
reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay
Kumar & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 34, as under:
“General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
5. 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
MACT No. 606/24
In Respect of FIR No. 398/24 PS Wazirabad Digitally signed Page No. 13 of 34
by POOJA
Ajay Kumar v. Anil Kumar & Ors. POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.02.21
13:03:17 +0530
nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is
not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the
loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that
he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his
inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have
enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he
used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs.
T. Kunhikuttan Nair – AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest
Control (India) Ltd. – 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby
– 1970 AC 467).
6. 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). It is only in serious cases of
injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the
evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under
any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future
earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical
expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage)
and loss of expectation of life.”
(Emphasis supplied)
35. Further in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413, it has
been held that:
“It is impossible to equate human suffering and personal
deprivation with money. However, this is what the Act enjoins
upon the courts to do. The court has to make a judicious attempt to
award damages, so as to compensate the claimant for the loss
suffered by the victim. On the one hand, the compensation should
not be assessed very conservatively, but on the other hand,
compensation should also not be assessed in so liberal a fashion so
as to make it a bounty to the claimant. The court while assessing
the compensation should have regard to the degree of deprivation
and the loss caused by such deprivation. Such compensation is
what is termed as just compensation. The compensation or damages
Digitally signed
MACT No. 606/24 by POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 398/24 PS Wazirabad POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 14 of 34
Ajay Kumar v. Anil Kumar & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2026.02.21
13:03:25 +0530
assessed for personal injuries should be substantial to compensate
the injured for the deprivation suffered by the injured throughout
his/her life. They should not be just token damages.”
(Emphasis supplied)
36. In view of the above legal propositions, the amount of
compensation shall be computed in this case.
A: Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization,
medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and
miscellaneous expenditure.
37. In respect of his treatment/ medicine and hospitalization, the
Petitioner has nowhere testified either in his evidence affidavit
i.e. Ex PW1/A or even in his cross-examination as to him having
incurred any expense on his treatment/ medicine and / or
hospitalization. Even in his cross-examination, he admitted that
he had not filed any record pertaining to his medical bills and
treatment record, but he took no further steps to bring the same
on record nor took any steps to summon any witness from the
concerned hospital to prove any expenses towards his treatment/
medicines or hospitalization. Thus, in the absence of any
evidence having been brought on record in respect of any
medical/treatment expense, he is not awarded any amount under
this head.
38. In respect of expenses towards nourishing food/ conveyance
and attendant charges, it is noted that the Petitioner has led no
evidence to prove that he had incurred any expense on the same,
and even admitted in his cross-examination that he had not filed
any document qua the same. Be that as it may, though he has not
Digitally signed
MACT No. 606/24 by POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 398/24 PS Wazirabad POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 15 of 34
Ajay Kumar v. Anil Kumar & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2026.02.21
13:03:31 +0530
brought on record any document to substantiate his claim of the
expenses, but at the same time, it is not overlooked that in view
of the injuries sustained by the Petitioner and considering that
he remained under treatment for about two weeks after the
accident, i.e. till atleast 03.05.2024, the Petitioner would have
incurred expenses on special diet for his speedy recovery/
conveyance and misc expenses (including attendant charges).
That being so, a sum of ₹10,000/- is awarded to the Petitioner
under the head of special diet/ conveyance and misc expenses
(attendant charges).
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent
disability.
39. In respect of loss of earning during the period of treatment , it is
noted that as per the medical documents on record along with
the DAR, the Petitioner has remained remained hospitalized
since 24.04.2024 till atleast 03.05.2024 i.e. the date of his
discharge, and as per in view of the nature of his injuries and
treatment i.e. fracture and plating thereof, he is bound to have
suffered loss of income for the period of treatment. Hence, he is
entitled to be compensated for the loss of his income for the
aforementioned period of treatment of about 10 days.
40. To compute the same, the quantum of monthly income of
Petitioner needs to be ascertained. It is noted that as PW1, the
Petitioner he has testified in Ex PW1/A that he was earning
about ₹40,000/- per month being an advocate. He also relied
upon his ITRs for the Assessment Year 2023-2024 and 2024-
MACT No. 606/24
Digitally signed by
In Respect of FIR No. 398/24 PS Wazirabad POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 16 of 34
Ajay Kumar v. Anil Kumar & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2026.02.21
13:03:41 +0530
2025 i.e. Ex PW1/K(colly) as well as on his ID issued by the
Bar Council of Delhi i.e. Ex X2 and ITR for the Assessment
Year 2025-2026 i.e. Ex X1.
41. A perusal of the ITR, Ex. PW1/K(colly) for the assessment year
2024-2025 reveals that as per the said ITR, the income of the
Petitioner is reflected as ₹4,66,040/-, which implies his monthly
income would be around ₹38,836.66/- per month immediately
prior to the accident. The Petitioner has also brought on record
the ITR for the Assessment Year 2025-2026 i.e. Ex. X1, as per
which his annual income was ₹2,90,750/- after the accident.
That being so, the income of the Petitioner shall be considered
as per the ITR immediately prior to the accident, as
determination of income is to be made on the basis of ITR when
available.
42. Strength for this interpretation is drawn from the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malarvizhi v. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 4 SCC 228, wherein it was held that:
“We are in agreement with the High Court that the determination
must proceed on the basis of the income tax return, where
available. The income tax return is a statutory document on which
reliance may be placed to determine the annual income of the
deceased.”
(Emphasis supplied)
43. In view of the ITR for the assessment year 2024-2025 i.e. Ex
PW1/K(colly), where the income of the Petitioner is reflected as
₹4,66,040/-,his monthly income would be taken to ₹38,836.66/-
per month and consequently, his loss of income is computed to
be ₹12,946/- (rounded off from ₹12,945.55/-) (₹38,836.66/-x
Digitally signed by
MACT No. 606/24 POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 398/24 PS Wazirabad AGGARWAL Date: 2026.02.21 Page No. 17 of 34
Ajay Kumar v. Anil Kumar & Ors. 13:03:49 +0530
10/30). Hence, the Petitioner is awarded a sum of ₹12,946/ –
towards loss of income due to treatment.
44. In respect of the loss of future earnings, the Petitioner has relied
upon his disability certificate issued by Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital
dated 27.02.2025 i.e. Ex PW1/J, as per which he has 06%
permanent physical impairment in relation to his right upper
limb, which is non-progressive and not likely to improve and he
has, inter-alia, claimed compensation on account of prospective
income as well.
45. In Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 34, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has noted that:
“Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an
activity in the manner considered normal for a human-being.
Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of
use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the
period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum
bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the
remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the
incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the
injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of
treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either
partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person’s
inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he
could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform
some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity.
Total permanent disability refers to a person’s inability to perform
any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the
accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor
accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to
the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons
with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and
Full Participation) Act, 1995(`Disabilities Act’ for short). But if
any of the disabilities enumerated in section 2(i) of the Disabilities
Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they
can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming
compensation.
(Emphasis supplied)
Digitally signed
by POOJA
MACT No. 606/24 POOJA AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 398/24 PS Wazirabad AGGARWAL Date: Page No. 18 of 34
2026.02.21
Ajay Kumar v. Anil Kumar & Ors. 13:03:58 +0530
46. It is has been further observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors., (2011) 1 SCC 34 that:
“9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the
Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not,
with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate
states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent
of 40% of all his four limbs, it is not the same as 40% permanent
disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability
of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of
the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be
the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent
disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg,
it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with
reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If
different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of
disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the
permanent disability with reference to the whole body, cannot
obviously exceed 100%.
10. 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.
11. 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 terms of money, to arrive at
the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier
method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however
note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and
assessment, the Tribunal may find that percentage of loss of earning
capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the
same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of
course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination
of compensation (see for example, the decisions of this court
in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. –
Digitally signed
by POOJA
MACT No. 606/24 POOJA AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 398/24 PS Wazirabad AGGARWAL Date: Page No. 19 of 34
2026.02.21
Ajay Kumar v. Anil Kumar & Ors. 13:04:06 +0530
2010(10) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National
Insurance Co. Ltd. – 2010 (8) SCALE 567).
12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any
permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent
disability. This means that the tribunal should consider and decide
with reference to the evidence:
(i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary;
(ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total
disablement or permanent partial disablement,
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any
specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the
functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent disability
suffered by the person.
If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then
there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss
of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is
permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent.
After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent
disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to
determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will
affect his earning capacity.
13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the
actual earning capacity involves three steps. 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 ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation
under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to
ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the
accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the
claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or
(ii) 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 (iii) whether he was prevented or 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.”
(Emphasis supplied)
47. In the present case, the 06% permanent physical impairment
reflected in the disability certificate is in relation to the left
upper limb of the Petitioner, and not with reference to the whole
body, but the Respondents have not brought on record anything
to disbelieve the said disability report. No specific evidence has
been brought on record by the Petitioner to prove his functional
disability, but keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by
Digitally signed
MACT No. 606/24 by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 398/24 PS Wazirabad AGGARWAL Date: 2026.02.21 Page No. 20 of 34
Ajay Kumar v. Anil Kumar & Ors. 13:04:13 +0530
the Petitioner and considering that he was working as an
advocate, his functional disability is taken to be 03% in relation
to the whole body.
48. In respect of the loss of future income on account of permanent
disability, it is noted that as the time of the accident i.e. on
24.04.2024, the injured/Petitioner was aged about 33 years as
his date of birth is reflected as 15.06.1990 in his Aadhar Card
i.e. Ex PW1/B.
49. His notional income has already been assessed to be
₹38,836.66/- per month on the basis of his ITR. I n view of the
proposition laid down in Erudhaya Priya v. State Express
Transport Corporation Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601 (citing
Jagdish v. Mohan, (2018) 4 SCC 571), the Petitioner is also
entitled to the grant of future prospects. Thus, in view of the
judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi,
(2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% of the established income is to be
added to the monthly income towards future prospects, if the
injured is aged less than 40 years. That being so, an amount of
₹15,535/- (rounded off from ₹15,534.66/-) shall be added to the
notional monthly income, and thus the monthly income
inclusive of the future prospects comes to be ₹54,371/-
(rounded off from ₹54,371.32/-) and the annual income comes
to be ₹6,52,452/-(₹54,371- x 12).
50. Further, as the Petitioner was aged about 33 years at the time of
the accident, a multiplier of 16 shall be applicable (Ref: Sarla
Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6
Digitally signed
by POOJA
MACT No. 606/24 POOJA AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 398/24 PS Wazirabad AGGARWAL Date: 2026.02.21 Page No. 21 of 34
Ajay Kumar v. Anil Kumar & Ors.
13:04:23 +0530
SCC 121) and therefore, the notional income of the Petitioner/
injured comes to be ₹1,04,39,232/-(₹6,52,452/- x 16).
51. As the functional disability of the Petitioner has been taken to
03%, the loss of future earnings on account of permanent
disability caused to the Petitioner arising out of the accident
comes to be ₹3,13,177/- (i.e.03% of the notional income)
(rounded off from ₹3,13,176.96/-) and the Petitioner/injured is
awarded the same.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
52. The Petitioner has not led any evidence as to any foreseeable
medical expenses arising in the future due to the injury
sustained by him in the accident. Hence, no amount is awarded
to him under this head.
B. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a
consequence of the injuries.
53. In respect of the damages under this head, it is noted that the
factum of the Petitioner/injured having sustained grievous
injuries with 06% permanent disability in his left upper limb
already stands proved. Further, as per the treatment documents
placed on record alongwith the DAR, he remained under
treatment from the date of the accident i.e. 24.04.2024 till atleast
17.05.2024. Due to the nature of injuries and considering the
age of the Petitioner/injured at the time of the accident, it can
safely be inferred that he must have suffered pain and trauma
due to the accident. Accordingly, a lump sum amount of
₹25,000/- is granted in favour of the Petitioner towards
MACT No. 606/24
In Respect of FIR No. 398/24 PS Wazirabad Page No. 22 of 34
Ajay Kumar v. Anil Kumar & Ors. POOJA
Digitally signed by
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.02.21
13:04:30 +0530
damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the
injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
54. In the present case, as the Petitioner has sustained grievous
injury in the accident resulting in 06% disability, it cannot be
ignored that he faces a possibility of denial of enjoyment of the
simple pleasures of life. That being so, a sum of ₹5,000/- is
awarded to the Petitioner/ injured towards loss of amenities.
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal
longevity).
55. No evidence has been brought on record by the petitioners to
show as to whether there is any loss of expectation of life due to
the injuries sustained by the Petitioner in the accident. That
being so, no amount is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
56. For the sake of convenience, the amount as awarded to the
Petitioner in respect of issue no.2 is summarized as under:-
S. No. HEAD AMOUNT
1. Treatment /medicine expenses NIL
2. Hospitalization expenses
3. Special Diet ₹10,000/-
4. Transport/conveyance ₹10,000/-
5. Misc Expenses/ Attendant ₹10,000/-
Charges
6. Loss of earning during ₹12,946/-
hospitalization
7. Loss of future earnings on ₹3,13,177/-
account of permanent
disability
MACT No. 606/24
Digitally signed by
In Respect of FIR No. 398/24 PS Wazirabad POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 23 of 34
Ajay Kumar v. Anil Kumar & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2026.02.21
13:04:36 +0530
8. Damages for pain, suffering ₹25,000/-
and trauma as a consequence
of the injuries
9. Loss of amenities ₹5,000/-
10. Loss of expectation of life NIL
TOTAL ₹3,86,123/-
57. In respect of entitlement of the Petitioner to interest on the
awarded amount, it is duly noted that in the present matter is
pending since 13.08.2024 and the rate of interest of fixed
deposits in Nationalized banks has fluctuated several times
during the pendency of the present proceedings. Thus, in the
interest of justice and keeping in view the principles discussed
in order dated 21.04.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High
Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Baby Raksha &
Ors, MAC APP. No. 36/2023, the Petitioner is awarded interest
@ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of petition, that is,
with effect from 13.08.2024 till the date of the award towards
interest. The amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from
the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the
Petitioners.
Liability
58. At the very outset, it is noted that it is not in dispute that the
offending vehicle was insured with the Respondent No.2/
insurance company at the time of the accident i.e. as on
24.04.2024. The Respondent No.1 being the driver-cum-owner
is liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to
Petitioner. However, since the offending vehicle was insured
with Respondent No.2 at the time of accident and the
Digitally signed
by POOJA
MACT No. 606/24 POOJA AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 398/24 PS Wazirabad
AGGARWAL Date: Page No. 24 of 34
2026.02.21
Ajay Kumar v. Anil Kumar & Ors. 13:04:43 +0530
Respondent No.2 / Insurance Company has not raised any
statutory defence in denial of their liability, hence, the
Respondent No.2 shall be liable to pay the compensation
amount to the Petitioner.
59. Issue No. 2 and 3 are decided, accordingly.
Disbursement/ Release
60. As per the Financial Statement of Petitioner, the monthly
expenses of the family are approximately ₹30,000/- per month.
Hence, while deciding the quantum and manner of disbursement
of the awarded amounts, the following directions given by the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 07.12.2018 &
08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 titled Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs.
Jaivir Singh & Ors. have to be borne in mind:
“(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the
saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants i.e.
saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an individual
saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe
custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR
amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished
by bank to the claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in
the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their
residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be
allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or
debit card to claimants. However, in case the debit card and/or
cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same
before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall
debit card(s) freeze the account of claimants so that no debit card
be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other
branch of the bank.
Digitally signed
by POOJA
MACT No. 606/24 POOJA AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 398/24 PS Wazirabad AGGARWAL Date: 2026.02.21 Page No. 25 of 34
Ajay Kumar v. Anil Kumar & Ors. 13:04:49 +0530
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the
claimant to the effect, that no cheque books and/or debit card have
been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the
Court and the claimant shall produced the passbook with the
necessary endorsement before the Court for compliance.”
61. Thereafter, in Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal, S.L.P. (C) No.
4484 OF 2020 as decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India on 18 March, 2025 it has been further directed 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.”
(Emphasis supplied)
62. 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 Delhi High Court
shall be complied with.
Digitally signed
MACT No. 606/24 by POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 398/24 PS Wazirabad POOJA AGGARWAL
Page No. 26 of 34
Ajay Kumar v. Anil Kumar & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2026.02.21
13:04:56 +0530
63. After considering the financial statement of the Petitioner Ajay
Kumar, it is directed that upon realization of the awarded
amount of ₹4,30,205/-(inclusive of interest of ₹44,802/-
(rounded off), a sum of ₹70,205/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand
Two Hundred and Five Only) shall be released to him
immediately in his Bank Account No. 44900595859, IFSC Code
SBIN0000726, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch,
Delhi as furnished by him at the time of recording of his
financial statement.
64. The balance amount of ₹3,60,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty
Thousand Only) shall be put in 12 monthly fixed deposits in his
name in his account as mentioned above of equal amount of
₹30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) each for a period of
01 month to 12 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 the nationalized bank
situated near the place of his residence.
65. The Respondent No.2 / Go Digit General Insurance Co. Ltd is
directed to deposit the awarded sum of ₹4,30,205/- (Rupees
Four Lakhs Thirty Thousand Two Hundred and Five Only)
inclusive of interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of
petition i.e. w.e.f. 13.08.2024 till the date of the award within 30
days by way of NEFT or RTGS mode directly in the MACT
account of the petitioner as mentioned in the Para No. 63 of this
award under intimation to the Petitioner as well as this Tribunal
MACT No. 606/24
In Respect of FIR No. 398/24 PS Wazirabad Digitally signed by POOJA
Page No. 27 of 34
Ajay Kumar v. Anil Kumar & Ors. POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL +0530
Date: 2026.02.21 13:05:03
failing which the said Respondent shall be liable to pay interest
@ 12 % per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days.
(Ref: Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika &
Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.)
66. The concerned Manager of the bank of the Petitioner is directed
to release the amount to the Petitioner as per the award upon
completion of necessary formalities as per the rules under
intimation to the Tribunal. He is directed to keep the amount in
fixed deposits as per the directions given in the award and to
send a compliance report to this court. He is also directed to
ensure that no loan, advance or pre mature discharge is allowed
on the fixed deposit without an order of this court.
67. A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of
cost.
68. The summary of the award as per Form XV of the Annexure
XIII and particulars of compliance of the Provisions of the
Scheme as per Form XVII of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules,
1989 as amended by the Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth
Amendment) Rules, 2022, are also annexed with this Award as
Annexure A and B respectively, and shall form a part of this
award.
69. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Judicial
Magistrate First Class concerned and Delhi Legal Services
Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment)
Digitally signed by
MACT No. 606/24 POOJA POOJA
AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 398/24 PS Wazirabad AGGARWAL Date: 2026.02.21 Page No. 28 of 34
Ajay Kumar v. Anil Kumar & Ors. 13:05:10 +0530
Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for
Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
70. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed
by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 06.01.2021 in MAC.APP
No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., regarding digitization of the records.
71. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award
to the insurer 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 and also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award
to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information and
compliance.
72. 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).
73. This file be consigned to the Record Room after necessary
compliance and a separate file be prepared for compliance
report and put up the same on 23.03.2026.
Announced in the Open Court by POOJA
Digitally signed
today i.e. on 21 February 2026 POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.02.21
13:05:17 +0530
(POOJA AGGARWAL)
Presiding Officer, MACT-02 (Central)
Tis Hazari, Delhi
Digitally signed
by POOJA
MACT No. 606/24 POOJA AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 398/24 PS Wazirabad AGGARWAL Date: Page No. 29 of 34
Ajay Kumar v. Anil Kumar & Ors. 2026.02.21
13:05:29 +0530
ANNEXURE A
FORM – XVI, Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment) Rules,
2022 (part of Annexure XIII. Ref: Rule 150A)
SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT
IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE
AWARD
1. Date of accident : 24.04.2024
2. Name of the injured : Mr. Ajay Kumar
3. Age of the injured : 33 years
4. Occupation of the injured : Practicing Advocate
5. Income of the injured : Assessed on the basis of
ITR
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken
by the injured : As per record
8. Period of Hospitalization : 24.04.2024 to 03.05.2024
9. Whether any permanent disability?
If yes, give details : Yes, permanent physical
disability of 06% in
relation to his left Upper
Limb
10. Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by Claims Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment NIL
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance ₹10,,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet ₹10,000/-
(iv) Cost of Misc expenses/ ₹10,000/-
attendant
(v) Cost of artificial limb --
(vi) Loss of earning capacity --
MACT No. 606/24 Digitally signed by
In Respect of FIR No. 398/24 PS Wazirabad POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 30 of 34
Ajay Kumar v. Anil Kumar & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2026.02.21
13:05:38 +0530
(vii) Loss of income ₹12,946/- (rounded off)
(viii) Any other loss which may --
require any special treatment
or aid to the injured for the
rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and ₹25,000/-
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering
(iii) Loss of amenities of life ₹5,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration N.A.
(v) Loss of marriage prospects N.A.
(vi) Loss of earning, N.A.
inconvenience, hardships,
disappointment, frustration,
mental stress, dejectment and
unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability Permanent physical
assessed and nature of disability of 06% in relation
disability as permanent or to his left upper limb.
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N.A.
expectation of life span on
account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning 03%
capacity in relation to
disability
(iv) Loss of future Income - ₹3,13,177/- (rounded off)
(Income × % Earning
Capacity = Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION ₹3,86,123/- (rounded off)
15. INTEREST AWARDED 7.5% p.a.
16. Interest amount up to the date ₹44,802/- (rounded off)
MACT No. 606/24 Digitally signed
by POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 398/24 PS Wazirabad POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 31 of 34
Ajay Kumar v. Anil Kumar & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2026.02.21
13:05:44 +0530
of award
17. Total amount including ₹4,30,205/- (rounded off)
interest
18. Award amount released ₹70,205/-
19. Award amount kept in FDRs ₹3,60,000/-
20. Mode of disbursement of the Mentioned in the award
award amount to the
claimant(s)
21. Next date for compliance of 23.03.2026
the award
1. Prepared as per award dated 21.02.2026.
2. A separate file was ordered to be prepared by the Nazir
with directions to put up the same on 23.03.2026.
Digitally signed by
POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.02.21
13:05:51 +0530
(POOJA AGGARWAL)
Presiding Officer, MACT-02 (Central)
Tis Hazari, Delhi
21.02.2026
Digitally signed
MACT No. 606/24 by POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 398/24 PS Wazirabad POOJA AGGARWAL
Page No. 32 of 34
Ajay Kumar v. Anil Kumar & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2026.02.21
13:05:58 +0530
ANNEXURE B
FORM – XVII, Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment)
Rules, 2022 (part of Annexure XIII. Ref: Rule 150A)Compliance of provisions of Scheme to be mentioned in the
Award
1. Date of the accident 24.04.2024
2. Date of filing of Form-I – First Accident 30.05.2024
Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the N.A.
victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the N.A.
Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the N.A.
Owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim N.A.
Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form- N.A.
VIB from the Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII – Detailed 13.08.2024
Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or
deficiency on the part of the Investigating No
Officer? If so, whether any action/
direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Not mentioned
Officer by the Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the No
Insurance Company submitted his report
within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or Yes.
deficiency on the part of the Designated No
officer of the Insurance Company? If so,
whether any action/ direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the petitioner(s) to the N.A.
offer of the Insurance Company.
MACT No. 606/24 Digitally signed
In Respect of FIR No. 398/24 PS Wazirabad POOJA by POOJA Page No. 33 of 34
AGGARWAL
Ajay Kumar v. Anil Kumar & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2026.02.21
13:06:03 +0530
14. Date of the award 21.02.2026
15. Whether the petitioner (s) was/were Yes
directed to open savings bank account(s)
near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) 13.08.2024
was/were directed to open savings bank
account(s) near his place of residence and
produce PAN Card and Adhaar 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.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) produced 19.02.2026
the passbook of their savings bank
account near the place of their residence
along with the endorsement, PAN Card
and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the H. No. B-222,
Claimant(s). Block B,
Street No. 11,
Bhajanpura,
Delhi-110053
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank No
account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at Yes
the time of passing of the award to
ascertain his/their financial condition?
Digitally signed by
POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.02.21
13:06:09 +0530
(POOJA AGGARWAL)
Presiding Officer, MACT-02 (Central)
Tis Hazari, Delhi
21.02.2026
MACT No. 606/24 Digitally signed
by POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 398/24 PS Wazirabad POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 34 of 34
Ajay Kumar v. Anil Kumar & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2026.02.21
13:06:14 +0530
