Delhi District Court
Ashok Kumar vs Ccl Shan Mohamd on 13 July, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARUN PRATAP, PO, MACT-02,
DISTRICT SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
MACT No.: 611/22
CNR No. DLSH01-7576-2022
IN THE MATTER OF:-
1. Mr. Ashok Kumar
S/o Sh. Ram Avtar
R/o H No. 90, Kasturba Gram Tahirpur,
Delhi.
........ Petitioner/injured
Vs.
1. Sh. Shan Mohd. (CCL)
S/o Imran
R/o H No. E-D161,
New Seemapuri, Delhi.
.... (Driver)
2. Sh. Imran
S/o Munna Khan
R/o H No. E-D161,
New Seemapuri, Delhi.
.... (Owner in possession)
3. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd.
.... (Insurer of
offending vehicle)
4. Sh. Hafiz Qureshi
S/o Mannan Kureshi,
R/o E-43A/D556, Road no. 70,
Seemapuri, Delhi-110025
.... (registered owner)
... Respondents
Date of institution of DAR petition : 18.11.2022
Date of Arguments : 13.07.2026
MACT No. 611/22 Ashok Kumar Vs. CCL Shan Mohd. & Ors. Page No. 1 of 32
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2026.07.13
17:11:50
+0530
Date of Award : 13.07.2026
Advocates appearing in the case:
For petitioner : Ms. Pooja Goel
For R1 and R2 : Sh. Mukesh Sharma
For Insurance company i.e. R3 : Sh. S P S Chauhan
For R4/registered owner : None
AWARD
Vide this award, the Tribunal shall decide the DAR treated as MACT
claim petition bearing no. 611/22, under section 166(4) & 140 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, filed for the petitioner and against the respondents as
mentioned in the memo of parties.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1. Brief stated, the facts of this case are that on 08.05.2022, at about
06:30 p.m, the petitioner namely Ashok Kumar was on his way to his house
i.e. 90, Kasturba Gram Tahirpur, Delhi as a pedestrian. It has been alleged
that when he was crossing the road at Tahirpur, near Karuna Hospital Red
Light, within the jurisdiction of PS Nand Nagri, a Scooty bearing
registration no. DL-5SCS-3341 (hereinafter referred to as offending
vehicle), came at a fast speed and hit him with a great force. It has been
alleged that due to such forceful impact, the petitioner fell down on the road
and sustained grievous injuries. It has been further alleged that the said
scooty was being driven by its juvenile rider i.e. respondent no. 1 (R1)
herein, at a fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner. Allegedly, the R1
stayed at the spot of the accident for some moments before speeding away,
while the injured petitioner was thereon immediately taken to GTB
MACT No. 611/22 Ashok Kumar Vs. CCL Shan Mohd. & Ors. Page No. 2 of 32
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2026.07.13
17:11:58
+0530
Hospital, where his MLC was prepared vide MLC no. C/3276/18/22. The
petitioner thereafter took further treatment from Karuna Hospital. An FIR
bearing no. 428/22, PS Nand Nagri, for the offences u/s 279/338 IPC &
3/181 MV Act, also came to be registered against the driver of the offending
vehicle. Finally, the present DAR petition came to be filed in due course on
18.11.2022.
WS / Reply of Respondents
2. In their joint WS filed by respondent no. 1 and 2, being the driver and
alleged owner of the offending vehicle by possession respectively, it has
been contended that the respondent no. 1 was a minor as on the date of the
alleged accident and thus, he could not have been made a party and/or sued
directly in this case. It has been further contended that on the alleged date
and time of the accident, the offending vehicle had not been in the
possession or ownership of the respondent no. 2 and that they have been
falsely implicated in the present case. It has been further contended that the
DAR has been filed on the basis of a false FIR by the police and in
collusion with the petitioner to extort money from the respondents.
Nevertheless, it has been admitted that the offending vehicle was duly
insured with R3 i.e. insurance company, at the time of the accident in
question.
3. Respondent no. 3 (R-3) i.e. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company
Ltd., filed its separate detailed written statement, wherein it has been
admitted that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the company vide
insurance policy no. 2312 2042 9735 4500 000, in the name of one Hafiz
MACT No. 611/22 Ashok Kumar Vs. CCL Shan Mohd. & Ors. Page No. 3 of 32
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2026.07.13
17:12:02 +0530
Qureshi, with its validity from 14.09.2021 to 13.09.2026. However, it has
been further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was a minor
and was not having a valid and effective DL at the time of the accident. The
R-3 thus denied its liability to make the payment of compensation to the
petitioner.
4. The respondent no. 4 i.e. registered owner of the offending vehicle,
failed to appear and even failed to file his WS despite being granted several
opportunities in this regard. Hence, the said respondent no. 4 was proceeded
ex parte vide order dated 01.12.2025.
ISSUES
5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by
the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 26.10.2023 as under:-
(i) Whether petitioner suffered injuries during the accident occurred on
08.05.2022 at about 06:30 pm at Niar Kasturba Hospital, Sundar Nagri,
Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Nand Nagri due to rash and negligent
driving of the vehicle Scooty bearing no. DL-5SCS-3341 being driven by
respondent no. 1/driver ? OPP
(ii) Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent
and from whom? OPP
(iii) Relief.
PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
6. The evidence in this case was recorded before Local Commissioner
under Rule 150A of Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. In order to prove the case,
the petitioner examined himself as PW1. He tendered his evidence by way
of affidavit Ex. PW1/A, wherein he reiterated the contents of the DAR
MACT No. 611/22 Ashok Kumar Vs. CCL Shan Mohd. & Ors. Page No. 4 of 32
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2026.07.13
17:12:05
+0530
petition and relied upon the following documents:-
Sl. No. Exhibit No. Particulars
1 Ex.PW1/1 (colly) Attested copy of DAR
2 Ex.PW1/2 (OSR) Copy of Aadhar card
3 Ex.PW1/3 (OSR) Copy of PAN Card
4 Ex.PW1/4 (OSR) (colly) Photographs of injury
5 Ex.PW1/5 (OSR) (colly Medical treatment papers
6 sheets)
6 Ex.PW1/6 (OSR) (Colly Medical bills
4 sheets)
He was cross-examined and discharged.
7. The petitioner also examined Dr. Rahul Kumar, Sr. Resident
Department of Orthopedics, GTB hospital, Delhi as PW-2, who brought on
record clinical examination record as Ex. PW2/1 (OSR) and proved the
permanent disability certificate of petitioner as Ex. PW2/2.
8. The petitioner did not examine any other witness and PE was
accordingly closed before the Ld. LC.
Respondents’ Evidence
9. In order to prove the defence, respondent no. 1 i.e. driver of the
offending vehicle namely Shan Mohd., examined himself as RW1. He
tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. R1W1/A and relied upon the
copy of his Aadhar card as Ex. RW1/1. He was cross-examined and
discharged.
MACT No. 611/22 Ashok Kumar Vs. CCL Shan Mohd. & Ors. Page No. 5 of 32
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2026.07.13
17:12:10
+0530
10. In order to prove the defence, respondent examined one Sameena i.e.
Aunt of Shan Mohd., as R1W2. She tendered her evidence by way of
affidavit Ex. R1W2/A and relied upon the following documents:-
Sl. No. Exhibit No. Particulars
1 Ex. R1W2/1 (OSR) Copy of Aadhar card
2 Ex. R1W2/2 (OSR) Copy of Voter ID card
She was cross-examined and discharged.
11. In order to prove the defence, respondent no. 2, i.e. alleged owner of
the offending vehicle by possession, examined himself as R2W1. He
tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW2/A and relied upon copy
of his Aadhar card as Ex. RW2/1. He was cross-examined and discharged.
12. In order to prove the defence, respondent no. 3 also examined Sh.
Ayush Dabas, Legal Manager, HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company
Ltd. as R3W1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. R3W1/A
and relied upon the following documents:-
Sl. No. Exhibit No. Particulars
1 Ex. R3W1/1 Authority letter/identity card of A.R.
2 Ex. R3W1/2 Insurance policy
3 Ex. R3W1/3 Notice under Order 12 Rule 8 read with 151 CPC
4 Ex. R3W1/4 and DTC courier receipts no. Z44247124 dated
Ex. R3W1/5 02.10.2024 and Z44247123 dated 02.10.2024
5 Ex. R3W1/6 to Speed post receipt no. ED913568789IN dated
Ex. R3W1/9 14.10.2024 and ED9135688501IN dated
02.10.2024 and postal track record
MACT No. 611/22 Ashok Kumar Vs. CCL Shan Mohd. & Ors. Page No. 6 of 32
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2026.07.13
17:12:18 +0530
He was cross-examined and discharged.
13. Respondents did not examine any other witness despite opportunity
being given in this regard and RE was finally closed by the Tribunal vide
order dated 03.12.2024, in view of the separate statement of Ld. Counsel for
R1 and R2 recorded to this effect.
14. Final arguments heard. File perused.
ISSUE WISE FINDINGS
ISSUE NO. 1
Whether petitioner suffered injuries during the accident occurred on
08.05.2022 at about 06:30 pm at Niar Kasturba Hospital, Sundar Nagri,
Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Nand Nagri due to rash and negligent
driving of the vehicle Scooty bearing no. DL-5SCS-3341 being driven by
respondent no. 1/driver ? OPP
15. In an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of
rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non.
However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases
and evidence is tested on the touchstone of principle of preponderance of
probabilities. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings
conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court
and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by
preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or
beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The
burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a
criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this
MACT No. 611/22 Ashok Kumar Vs. CCL Shan Mohd. & Ors. Page No. 7 of 32
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2026.07.13
17:12:23
+0530
burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard
can be made to the propositions of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Bimla Devi & Ors. Vs Himachal Road Transport
Corporation & Ors, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in
the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs Amir Chand & Ors,
2011 (1) SCR 1906 (Civil Appeal No. 1082 of 2011) and also recently in
another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law
Suit (SC) 303.
16. Herein the present case, the petitioner has examined himself as the
star witness to show that the R-1 being the driver of the offending vehicle
was rash and negligent in his driving of the scooty, due to which the
petitioner suffered grievous injuries. It has been specifically stated by the
PW-1 that he was hit by the scooty being driven by R-1 and that the scooty
was being driven rashly, negligently, recklessly and without following the
traffic rules by R-1. The said assertion made by the petitioner while
deposing as PW-1 has remained unimpeached despite his extensive cross
examination by the respondent no. 1 and 2. In fact, the petitioner has even
reiterated during his cross-examination that after hitting him, the offending
vehicle had also fallen down on the road and that he had noted down the
number of the offending vehicle before becoming unconscious himself. The
respondent no. 1 and 2 on the other hand have merely given a suggestion to
PW-1 that he was not hit by any vehicle and that he had fallen down on his
own. The said suggestion has been specifically denied by PW-1 and it is
pertinent to note that the R1 and R2 have not denied or disputed the
MACT No. 611/22 Ashok Kumar Vs. CCL Shan Mohd. & Ors. Page No. 8 of 32
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2026.07.13
17:12:28
+0530
assertions made by PW-1 in his examination in chief by even giving
suggestions to the contrary. The respondent no. 1 and 2 have failed to deny
the fact that the R1 was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident
or that the offending vehicle was in the ownership of R-2, while putting
questions to the PW-1 during his cross-examination in any manner. The
respondent no. 1 and 2 have not even cross-examined the PW-1 on the
aspect of alleged rash and negligent act of R-1. In absence of such questions
or suggestions, it is apparent that the factum regarding the R-1 driving the
offending vehicle at the time of the incident or the petitioner suffering
injuries due to the incident in question has neither been denied nor even
disputed in any manner by the respondents. The fact that the respondent no.
1 being a minor hit the petitioner with his scooty while the latter was on
foot and he was hit with such a force that he suffered grievous injuries, is
ipso-facto sufficient proof to show rashness and negligence on part of R-1
in driving the offending vehicle.
17. The very fact that R-1 has already been specifically arrayed as an
accused in case FIR No. 428/22, PS Nand Nagri, for the offences u/s
279/338 IPC & 3/181 MV Act is also a strong circumstance to support the
above said testimony of PW-1 on these issues. The copies of FIR, Site plan,
report u/s 173 Cr.PC, MLC and mechanical inspection report brought on
record also corroborate the oral testimony of PW-1. Moreover, the position
of law in this regard has been made clear in the case of “National Insurance
Co., Vs Puspha Rana”, 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, wherein it has been held that
filing of Chargesheet is sufficient proof of the negligence and involvement
MACT No. 611/22 Ashok Kumar Vs. CCL Shan Mohd. & Ors. Page No. 9 of 32
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2026.07.13
17:12:32
+0530
of the offending vehicle. Similar observations have been made in the case of
“United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deepak Goel and Ors.“, 2014 (2) Tac
846 Del, that if the claimant was able to prove the criminal case on record
pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, whereby the criminal
records showing completion of investigation by the police and filing of
Chargesheet under Section 279/304-A/337 IPC against the driver have been
proved, then, the documents mentioned above are sufficient to establish the
fact that the driver was negligent in causing the accident. Where FIR is
lodged, Chargesheet is filed, especially in a case where driver after causing
the accident had fled away from the spot, then the documents mentioned
above are sufficient to establish the fact that the driver of the offending
vehicle was negligent in causing the accident particularly when there was
no defence available from his side before the Learned Tribunal. The
position of law has been recently reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
case titled as “Ranjeet & Anr. Vs. Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr.” Arising out of
SLP (C ) No. 10351/2019, wherein it has been held that:-
“It is settled in law that once a charge-sheet has been filed and the driver
has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the
bus was being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the eye
witnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the
deceased due to negligence of the bus driver.”
18. The respondents on the other hand have merely tried to put up a
defence in their evidence only that the R1 was not driving the offending
vehicle at the time of the accident and that the R2 was not connected with
the offending vehicle in any manner. However, it is worthwhile to mention
MACT No. 611/22 Ashok Kumar Vs. CCL Shan Mohd. & Ors. Page No. 10 of 32
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2026.07.13
17:12:36
+0530
that the evidence affidavit of R1 examined as RW1 in this case specifically
states in para 3 that: “I further say that at the alleged time of accident, I was
not driving the vehicle of the respondent no. 2”.
At the same time, it also an admitted fact by R1 and R2 during their
respective cross-examination that the R1 was a minor on the date of the
accident in question. It is also an admitted fact by R2 during his cross-
examination as R2W1 that he had accepted mistake along with his son i.e.
R1, before concerned Juvenile Justice Board on 26.08.2022, for a charge
framed u/s 279/338 IPC and u/s 3/181 MV Act. The certified copy of those
proceedings have been brought on record as Ex. RW1/P1 (colly) and it has
been specifically admitted by R2W1 during his cross-examination that:
“It is correct that on 26.08.2022, before the Ld. JJB, I and my son had
stated that Shan Mohammad has been involved in the offence for the
first time and there is scope of reformation and I had stated that I
acknowledge my mistake and I ensure before the Ld. JJB that my son
will not indulge any such activity of driving the vehicle and causing the
accident without DL.
The said admissions thus make it apparent that the R1 was indeed
driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident in question and
that the R2 was the owner of the offending vehicle by possession and
control.
19. The respondents have also tried to raise the defence of alibi by
claiming that the R1 was at the house of his Aunt (mausi) namely Ms.
Sameena at Loni, Ghaziabad from 01.05.2022 till 10.05.2022. The said Ms.
Sameena has also been examined during the course of proceedings as
MACT No. 611/22 Ashok Kumar Vs. CCL Shan Mohd. & Ors. Page No. 11 of 32
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2026.07.13
17:12:41
+0530
R1W2. However, it is pertinent to note that the said witness has stated about
being resident of New Seemapuri, Delhi, continuously since her marriage at
one place and she has simultaneously stated about her current address at the
time of deposition being Loni, Ghaziabad. The R1W2 has subsequently
admitted during her cross-examination that her statement regarding her
residence at Loni, Ghaziabad is incorrect. Furthermore, the R1W2 has
repeatedly changed her stance regarding her place of residence during her
cross-examination and she has specifically stated that she cannot tell the
exact distance of place of accident and her house as she resides in Loni,
Ghaziabad. The continuous shifting of her stance by R1W2 regarding her
place of residence thus completely erodes her credibility and the Tribunal
has no hesitation in hereby arriving at the fact that she is a tutored witness
and has given false evidence to protect her near relatives from liability to
make the payment of compensation amount to the petitioner.
20. The R2 being the father of the R1 has also examined himself in this
case as R2W1 and he has completely denied all the assertions made by the
petitioner against the respondents in his evidence affidavit. However, the
falsehood in the testimony of R2W1 in denying the said assertions against
him is apparent from the bare reading of his cross-examination itself which
is reproduced as under:
“I did not receive any notice u/s 133 MV Act from police. I
never replied to any notice of the police.
At this stage, witness is shown document i.e. notice u/s 133
MV Act which forms part of DAR already Ex. PW1/1 and is
confronted with his purported signatures at point A and is askedMACT No. 611/22 Ashok Kumar Vs. CCL Shan Mohd. & Ors. Page No. 12 of 32
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2026.07.13
17:12:46 +0530
whether the said signatures are his or not?
Answer: Yes. These signatures are mine. (Vol. These signatures were
part of 10/15 signatures taken by police officials).
It is wrong to suggest that the handwriting in the reply to the aforesaid
notice is mine. It is wrong to suggest that I had replied that on
08.05.2022, at about 05:30 pm, my son Shan Mohammad took my
scooty no. DL-5SCS-3341 from my house and took the key of the said
scooty from the Almirah. I never received any information regarding
the accident in this case. It is wrong to suggest that I got the vehicle
bearing registration no. DL-5SCS-3341 released from the court. ( Vol.
I had got released my vehicle i.e. scooty bearing registration no.
DL-5S-0431).
At this stage, witness is shown the superdarinama and the order of the
Ld. MM dated 28.06.2022, regarding release of the offending vehicle
in this case, FIR no. 428/22 of PS Nand Nagari and is asked whether
he furnished the superdarinama with his signatures at point A or not?
Answer: The signatures are mine but I did not furnish the
superdarinama.
It is wrong to suggest that I had furnished the aforesaid
superdarinama and that I had got the vehicle released from the court.
I did not purchase/bought the vehicle bearing registration no.
DL-5SCS-3341, from Hafiz Qureshi.
At this stage, witness is shown the Panchnama, already a part of DAR
and he identifies his signatures on the same at point A. Witness also
identifies the signatures of Farzan at point B. Farzan is my son. I do
not know anyone called Mohd. Safi. It is wrong to suggest that I had
furnished the Panchnama for release of the offending vehicle.
It is correct that the photograph forming part of DAR at page no. 105
and 106 are mine along with the scooty no. DL-5SCS-3341. The said
photo was clicked by the official photographer at the police station
Nand Nagari. The said photographer was called by me. (Vol. I called
him on the instructions of the IO). It is wrong to suggest that I had got
MACT No. 611/22 Ashok Kumar Vs. CCL Shan Mohd. & Ors. Page No. 13 of 32
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2026.07.13
17:12:50
+0530
the aforesaid photograph clicked to complete the formalities for
release of the offending vehicle.
It is wrong to suggest that I had furnished the bond for release of my
son before the concerned JJB. It is correct that I had accepted mistake
along with my son before concerned JJB on 26.08.2022, for a charge
framed u/s 279/338 IPC and u/s 3/181 M.V. Act. The certified copy of
the same is already Ex. RW1/P1 (colly). It is correct that on
26.08.2022, before the Ld. JJB, I and my son had stated that Shan
Mohammad has been involved in the offence for the first time and
there is scope of reformation and I had stated that I acknowledge my
mistake and I ensure before the Ld. JJB that my son will not indulge
any such activity of driving the vehicle and causing the accident
without DL.
It is wrong to suggest that my son was rash and negligent while
driving the scooty no. DL-5SCS-3341 on 08.05.2022 and caused the
accident of the injured. It is correct that my son was not having the DL
on 08.05.2022.
I do not know what is written in my evidence affidavit (shown to
witness). It is wrong to suggest that my son had not gone to the house
of his aunt namely Sameena on 08.05.2022. Sameena is my sister in
law. I asked Sameena to appear and depose in this case after the court
had summoned her. It is wrong to suggest that I called Sameena to
depose falsely in order to help me and my son to avoid liability for the
accident caused by my son.
Court observation: The said Sameena has never been summoned by
the Tribunal at any point of time and the said witness examined as
R1W2 has been brought forth as a witness by the respondents only
and the testimony of this witness to the contrary is apparently false.
Court question: Did you prepare the evidence affidavit Ex. R2W1/A ?
Answer: Yes. Again said, it was prepared by my counsel on my
instructions.
Court question: Do you know the contents of your evidence affidavit ?
MACT No. 611/22 Ashok Kumar Vs. CCL Shan Mohd. & Ors. Page No. 14 of 32 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP Date: PRATAP 2026.07.13 17:12:55 +0530 Answer: Yes.
Court question: To whom you handed over the offending vehicle after
getting it released from the court ?
Answer: I handed it over to Toni, who has scrap shop in front of my
house across the road.
Court question: Para 7 of your evidence affidavit states that ” THAT
the FIR itself reveals that there is no eye witness in the present case,
who can identify the driver of the alleged offending vehicle and in
absence of the same, the report filed by the IO has no meaning at all. It
is submitted here that nothing is against on the record against the
deponent, which can be proved against him that he is the registered
owner of the vehicle”, did you read the FIR of this case ?
Answer: No. I can’t read. I have no idea about the FIR. I do not know
as to whether there is any eye witness or not.
Court question: Do you know the meaning of eye witness ?
Answer: No.
Court question: If so, then who has got the said fact mentioned in the
para 7 of your evidence affidavit regarding absence of eye witness
being revealed by FIR ?
Answer: I do not know. The evidence affidavit has been got prepared
by my counsel Sh. Mukesh Sharma.
Question: Who had told you to state the alleged fact in your evidence
that your son had gone to the house of Sameena ?
Answer: It was decided by me.”
Bare perusal of the aforementioned cross-examination of R2W1 thus
reveals that the R2 has admitted about his signatures on the reply to notice
u/s 133 MV Act, admitting his guilt/mistake before the concerned JJB in the
matter pertaining to the accident in question only and he has also admitted
his signatures on the panchnama along with his photographs furnished for
MACT No. 611/22 Ashok Kumar Vs. CCL Shan Mohd. & Ors. Page No. 15 of 32
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2026.07.13
17:13:00
+0530
the release of the offending vehicle from police. It is also apparent on record
that a bundle of lies has been sought to be propagated by the R2 in active
collusion with his counsel in a malafide manner merely to abuse the process
of law and the same has been totally laid bare in his cross-examination.
21. Therefore in view of the above, it could be safely assumed that the
scooty being driven by R-1 at the relevant time had indeed hit the petitioner
thus resulting into grievous injuries being caused to the petitioner.
22. Having ruled so, this Tribunal now proceeds to assess the wrongful
act, neglect or default of R-1 CCL Shan Mohd., if any, in driving the
offending vehicle at the relevant time. Admittedly, the respondents have not
explained the circumstances under which the vehicle in question (i.e. the
offending scooty) hit the petitioner and thus causing grievous injuries to the
petitioner. In the absence of any averment or evidence regarding any
mechanical defect in the offending vehicle or any material depicting any
negligent/sudden act or omission on the part of the injured, the only
inference possible in the given facts and circumstances is that of neglect and
default on the part of R-1 in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant
time.
23. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this Tribunal has no
hesitation in hereby arriving at the finding that the petitioner suffered
grievous injuries on his person on account of neglect and default of R-1
while driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. The issue at hand
thus hereby stands decided against the respondents and in favour of the
MACT No. 611/22 Ashok Kumar Vs. CCL Shan Mohd. & Ors. Page No. 16 of 32
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2026.07.13
17:13:08 +0530
petitioner accordingly.
Issue no. (ii)
Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and
from whom? OPP
24. In view of the finding on Issue no. 1, petitioner Ashok Kumar is
hereby held entitled to compensation being the injured victim in the road
accident. However, the quantum of compensation still needs to be
adjudicated. Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 enjoins upon the
claim Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award
determining the amount of compensation, which appears to be just and
reasonable. As per settled law, compensation is not expected to be windfall
or a bonanza nor it should be pittance. A man is not compensated for the
physical injury : he is compensated for the loss which he suffers as a result
of that injury (Baker v. Willoughby (1970) Ac 467 at page 492 per Lord
Reid).
25. The present claim petition pertains to injury and scope of
compensation in injury cases has been considered by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in case titled as Mr. R.D. Hattangadi v. M/S Pest Control (India) Pvt.
Ltd., 1995 AIR 755. The relevant extract is as under:
“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 is capable of being calculated in terms of
money-, whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are
incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. InMACT No. 611/22 Ashok Kumar Vs. CCL Shan Mohd. & Ors. Page No. 17 of 32
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2026.07.13
17:13:15
+0530
order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may,
include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical
attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit upto 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 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, discomfort, disappointment,
hardship, frustration and mental stress in life.”
26. Further, in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & another (2011) 1 SCC 343,
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India laid down general principles for
computation of compensation in injury cases. The relevant paras of the
judgment are reproduced as under:
5. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the
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 the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages
objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or
fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of
disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not
only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for
the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This
means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a
full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which
he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to
earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned.
6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in
MACT No. 611/22 Ashok Kumar Vs. CCL Shan Mohd. & Ors. Page No. 18 of 32
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2026.07.13
17:13:19 +0530
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 to 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.
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
NATURE AND EXTENT OF INJURIES
27. As per the medical treatment record pertaining to petitioner /
injured Ashok Kumar has sustained grievous injuries due to the accident in
MACT No. 611/22 Ashok Kumar Vs. CCL Shan Mohd. & Ors. Page No. 19 of 32
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2026.07.13
17:13:24 +0530
this case.
Nature of Injuries: As per the MLC of the victim/injured, the
latter suffered “Fracture at mid shaft of right clavicle and fracture of greater
tuberosity of right humerus”. The injuries suffered by the petitioner resulted
into permanent locomotor disability of 53% in relation to right upper limb
and the said disability is non progressive and not likely to improve. The
said disability has been proved on record as Ex. PW-2/2.
Disability, if any: As per the aforementioned disability
certificate, the petitioner has suffered permanent physical disability of 53%
in relation to right upper limb. The petitioner happens to be a plumber by
profession and was earning Rs. 27,000/- per month and as such he needs
fully functional limbs to continue his profession for earning his livelihood.
Therefore, keeping in view the said nature of injuries and the permanent
disability suffered by the petitioner as aforesaid, the Tribunal is of the
opinion that the petitioner will suffer a functional disability of 27% and
hence, the functional disability of the petitioner is hereby assessed to be
27%.
MEDICINES AND TREATMENT
28. In the present case, as per record, the petitioner / injured has
undergone initial treatment at GTB Hospital, Dilshad Garden, Delhi apart
from subsequent treatment in Karuna hospital where he remained admitted
from 11.05.2022 to 15.05.2022. Further, in regard to the treatment
undergone by him, petitioner / injured Ashok Kumar has deposed that his
entire treatment was from Govt Hospital i.e. GTB and the treatment in Govt
MACT No. 611/22 Ashok Kumar Vs. CCL Shan Mohd. & Ors. Page No. 20 of 32
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2026.07.13
17:13:31
+0530
Hospital in Delhi is free of cost. At the same time, the petitioner has also
filed some bills for his treatment from Karuna hospital and a particular cost
of treatment has also been mentioned in the evidence affidavit by the
petitioner. The petitioner has brought on record bills of Rs. 1,317/- as the
cost of his treatment and medicines borne by him during the treatment and
the same have not been denied or disputed by the respondents. There is no
reason to doubt the veracity or genuineness of the said bills / receipts. In
these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner /
injured shall be entitled to sum of Rs. 1,317/- and accordingly, the petitioner
/ injured Ashok Kumar is hereby awarded the said amount i.e. Rs. 1,317/-
towards Medicines and Medical Treatment.
CONVEYANCE AND SPECIAL DIET
29. In the present case, as per the medical treatment record, petitioner /
injured Ashok Kumar suffered “Fracture at mid shaft of right clavicle and
fracture of greater tuberosity of right humerus” for which he had to be
operated upon. In these circumstances, the petitioner / injured must have
visited the hospital / doctors for his treatment and would also have required
special diet for certain period to recover from the injuries sustained in the
accident. In the present case, the petitioner must have undergone treatment
for about three months from the date of accident as is apparent from his
treatment record. In these circumstances and in view of the material on
record, the petitioner / injured shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/-
towards conveyance charges. Furthermore, in view of the above-said
grievous injuries suffered by him, the petitioner / injured must have needed
MACT No. 611/22 Ashok Kumar Vs. CCL Shan Mohd. & Ors. Page No. 21 of 32
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2026.07.13
17:13:35 +0530
special diet for a similar period to have a fast and proper recovery. Hence,
the petitioner / injured is hereby awarded Rs.25,000/- towards expenses for
special diet.
LOSS OF INCOME
30. In the present case, the petitioner / injured stated that at the time of
accident, he was working as a plumber and that he was earning Rs. 27,000/-
per month. However, no documentary evidence in this regard has been
placed on record to substantiate that the petitioner was indeed engaged in a
job or that he had acquired any specific skill. Nevertheless, the Tribunal is
of the view that the petitioner must have suffered loss of earning for a
reasonable period of three months during the course of his treatment for the
injuries suffered in the accident. Therefore, this Tribunal has thus assessed
the income of deceased at parity with minimum wages of ‘ unskilled worker ‘
of Delhi prevalent at the time of accident i.e. Rs. 16,506/- per month.
Hence, petitioner is hereby held entitled to a sum of Rs. 16,506/- X 3
months = Rs. 49,518/- under the head Loss of Income during the treatment.
ATTENDANT CHARGES
31. The petitioner / injured has deposed about keeping an attendant or
spending Rs. 5,000/- per month on an attendant during the time of his
treatment for the injuries suffered by him on account of incident in question.
Neither any attendant has been examined nor any documentary proof
regarding the payment being made to any such attendant have been brought
on record by the petitioner / injured in this case. However, considering the
nature of injuries, extensive treatment and the prolonged recovery period,
MACT No. 611/22 Ashok Kumar Vs. CCL Shan Mohd. & Ors. Page No. 22 of 32
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2026.07.13
17:13:40
+0530
the petitioner must have required the services of attendant for about 03
months. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner / injured would have also
needed an attendant to look after him, even if the gratuitous services were
rendered by the some or the other of his family members. In the case titled
as Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. Vs. Lalita (AIR 1981 Delhi 558), it
has been held by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi that a victim cannot be
deprived of compensation towards gratuitous services rendered by some of
the family members. Further, the petitioner must have spent atleast Rs.
10,000/- per month if he had an attendant. In these circumstances, the
petitioner shall be entitled to an amount of Rs. 30,000/- (Rs. 10,000/- X 3
months) towards attendant charges.
PAIN AND SUFFERINGS
32. As per the settled law, for assessing the pain and sufferings, the
following factors have to be taken into account:-
(a) Nature of injury (b) Parts of body where injuries occurred (c) Surgeries, if any (d) Confinement in hospital (e) Duration of the treatment
33. In the instant case, the petitioner has suffered 53% permanent
physical disability in his right upper limb, but the same will not render him
as 100% disabled person for several jobs and day to day activities of life.
However, undergoing the operation for the injuries suffered by the
petitioner would have caused him unimaginable pain and sufferings. In
MACT No. 611/22 Ashok Kumar Vs. CCL Shan Mohd. & Ors. Page No. 23 of 32
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2026.07.13
17:13:44
+0530
these circumstances and in view of the law laid down in the case titled as
Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (arising out of SLP (C) No.
5649-51 of 2012), the petitioner / injured is entitled to compensation on
account of pain and suffering due to the accident. The pain and sufferings of
petitioner / injured cannot be adequately compensated in terms of money as
no amount of money can be substitute for the lost function of a limb, but
nevertheless, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is hereby awarded to petitioner towards
the head “pain and sufferings”.
LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE AND AMENITIES
34. The petitioner / injured has claimed that he has suffered loss of
enjoyment of life and other amenities on account of the accident. The
petitioner / injured was about 55 years old at the time of accident and has
suffered grievous injuries. His permanent disability would hinder his daily
activities as well as his enjoyment of life. Loss of ability to indulge in
physical activity is also likely to adversely affect his overall health. In these
circumstances and in view of the law laid down in the case titled as Rekha
Jain (Supra), the petitioner / injured is hereby awarded a sum of Rs.
25,000/- as compensation towards loss of enjoyment of life and amenities.
In addition to this, the petitioner is also awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as
just and fair compensation for mental and physical shock suffered by him
due to the accident in this case.
LOSS OF MARRIAGE PROSPECTS
35. The petitioner in this case happened to be 55 years of age and was
married at the time of the incident. Hence, no compensation is applicable
MACT No. 611/22 Ashok Kumar Vs. CCL Shan Mohd. & Ors. Page No. 24 of 32
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2026.07.13
17:13:48
+0530
under this head.
LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME / PROSPECTS
36. In the present case, as per medical record, petitioner / injured Ashok
Kumar is a case of “Fracture at mid shaft of right clavicle and fracture of
greater tuberosity of right humerus” and has permanent physical disability
of 53% in relation to right upper limb and has received treatment for about 3
months. As discussed above, the income of the petitioner has been assessed
as Rs. 16,506/- per month at the time of accident and it has already been
held that the injuries suffered by the petitioner would result in 27%
functional disability in pursuing the profession of plumber. Hence, the
functional disability of the petitioner is taken to be at 27%. Further in terms
of the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay
Sethi (2017 (13) SCALE 12), the petitioner is also entitled to future
prospects.
AGE: As per his Aadhar card on record, the petitioner was born
in the year 1967. Thus, at the time of accident, he was about 55 years old.
Further in terms of the principles laid down in the case Sarla Verma Vs.
DTC (AIR 2009 SC 2104), a multiplier of 11 would be applicable to the
present case. Hence, he will be entitled to future prospects @ 10% as he
was between the age group of 51 to 60 years of age at the time of accident
and was not having permanent job. Therefore, the loss of future prospects /
income is calculated as:
Minimum Wages Rs. 16,506/- X 10% (Future Prospects) Rs. 1,650-
Rs. 16,506/- + Rs.1,650/- Rs. 18,156/- MACT No. 611/22 Ashok Kumar Vs. CCL Shan Mohd. & Ors. Page No. 25 of 32 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date: 2026.07.13 17:13:51 +0530 Rs.18,156/- X 27% (Disability) Rs. 4,902/- Rs. 4,902/- X 12 X 11 (Multiplier) Rs.6,47,064/-
Hence, the petitioner shall be entitled to compensation of
Rs.6,47,064/- under this head.
37. The break-up of compensation that has been awarded to
petitioner / injured Ashok Kumar is tabulated as below:-
S. No. HEADS AMOUNT (Rs.)
1 Medicines and Treatment 1,317.00
2 Conveyance 25,000.00
3 Special Diet 25,000.00
4 Loss of income 49,518.00
5 Attendant Charges 30,000.00
6 Pain and Sufferings 50,000.00
7 Loss of Enjoyment of Life and Amenities 25,000.00
8 Compensation for mental and physical 25,000.00
shock
9 Loss of marriage prospects 00.00
10 Loss of future income / prospects 6,47,064.00
Total 8,77,899.00
LIABILITY
38. Now, the question arises as to which of the respondents is liable to
pay the compensation amount. The respondent no. 1 Shan Mohd. is the
principal tort feasor being driver of the offending vehicle while R2 is
vicariously liable being the owner of the offending vehicle. Herein, it is
MACT No. 611/22 Ashok Kumar Vs. CCL Shan Mohd. & Ors. Page No. 26 of 32
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2026.07.13
17:13:56
+0530
pertinent to note that the respondent no. 3 i.e. Insurance Company has
specifically admitted in its written statement that the offending vehicle was
duly insured at the time of accident with respondent no. 3 vide policy No.
2312 2042 9735 4500 000, in the name of one Hafiz Qureshi, with its
validity from 14.09.2021 to 13.09.2026. However, it is an admitted fact on
record that the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. R-1 was a minor and he
was not holding a valid driving license on the date of the accident. The R-3
has thus successfully proved the breach of the terms and conditions of the
insurance policy in question. Furthermore, the position of law in this regard
has been made clear by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as
“Go Digit Vs Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Javed through Shehnaz & Ors”
MAC Appl. 416/2025, wherein it has been held that:-
“so far as concerns the award of recovery rights, clearly that appears
to be an inadvertent error by the learned Trial Court since, after the
amendment to Section 166 (3) of the MV Act with effect from 01.04.2022
which is the provisions for grant of recovery rights is no longer available in
the statue book”.
Now, as far as the liability of the owner of the offending vehicle is
concerned, it has been contended on behalf of R2 that he was not the
registered owner of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident and
hence, he is not liable to make the payment of compensation to the victim.
Herein, it is an apparent fact on record that the respondent namely Hafiz
Kureshi happens to be the registered owner of the offending vehicle till
date.
However, it has been reported in the DAR that the said offending
vehicle was under the control, supervision and in possession of R2 i.e.
MACT No. 611/22 Ashok Kumar Vs. CCL Shan Mohd. & Ors. Page No. 27 of 32
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2026.07.13
17:14:00
+0530
Imran, at the time of the accident. The notice issued u/s 133 M.V. Act by the
IO to the said respondents i.e. R2 and R4 respectively, substantiates the said
possession and control of R2 over the offending vehicle. Perusal of the case
file also reveals that a notice u/s 133 M.V. Act was indeed served upon R2
and R4 and that the same also bears the signatures of R2 and R4
respectively. The said document has been brought on record by the IO as
part of DAR and no material has been brought on record by the respondents
to disprove its contents. The offending vehicle has also been got released by
R2 only by furnishing a panchnama to this effect after the accident in
question. In such circumstances as revealed no record, it is apparent that the
ownership by possession of the offending vehicle was indeed with R2 only
at the time of the accident and that R1 was driving the offending vehicle as
the agent of his father i.e. R2. In such circumstances the position of the law
has been laid down in case titled as Vaibhav Jain Vs. Hindustan Motors Pvt.
Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 10192/2024) (arising out of SLP (C) No.
29868/2018) wherein it has been held that;
“definition of “owner” u/s 2 (19) of the old M.V. Act is not
exhaustive and that it has to be construed in a wider sense based
on the facts and circumstances of the given case; and it must
include, in a given case, the person who has the actual possession
and control of the vehicle and under whose direction and
command the driver is obliged to operate the same. It was also
observed that to confine the meaning of owner to the registered
owner only would not be proper where the vehicle is in the actual
possession and control of the hirer at the time of the accident”.
Moreover, in another case titled as Karikho Kri Vs. Nuney Tayang
and another [2024] 4 S.C.R. 394;2024 INSC 289, it has been held that;
MACT No. 611/22 Ashok Kumar Vs. CCL Shan Mohd. & Ors. Page No. 28 of 32
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2026.07.13
17:14:03 +0530
“mere failure to get registered the name of the new owner of an
already registered vehicle does not mean that the sale/gift
transaction would stand invalidated and such a vehicle, despite
being physically handed over to the new owner, cannot, by any
stretch of imagination be treated as still being in the possession and
control of the former owner”.
39. Therefore, in view of the afore-said facts and circumstances, the
Tribunal has no hesitation in hereby arriving at the finding that the liability
to make the payment of compensation amount in this case is of R1 and R2
jointly and severally. The issue at hand is accordingly decided in favour of
the petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF
40. In view of the the findings on the aforesaid issues, the petitioner is
hereby awarded a sum of Rs. 8,77,899/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Seventy Seven
Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety Nine only) along with interest @ 8%
per annum from the date of filing of DAR petition till its deposition by the
R1 and R2 jointly and severally. However, it is directed that the amount of
interim award, if any, shall be excluded from the above amount and
calculations of compensation.
RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION TO THE
PETITIONER
41. Finally, out of the aforesaid awarded amount, the petitioner Sh. Ashok
Kumar is hereby awarded Rs.8,77,899/-, out of which Rs.7,00,000/- is
MACT No. 611/22 Ashok Kumar Vs. CCL Shan Mohd. & Ors. Page No. 29 of 32
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2026.07.13
17:14:07
+0530
directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch, Delhi
bearing account no. 20780110171912; IFSC: UCBA0002078 in MACAD in
the form of 35 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of Rs. 20,000/-
payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 35 months in succession, as
per the scheme formulated by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide order
dated 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs.
Jaibir Singh & Ors. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in
his savings/MACT Claims SB Account, maintained with UCO Bank, KKD
Branch, Delhi. Remaining amount of Rs.1,77,899/- and the interest
component to be paid by the respondent no. 3 is directed to be released into
his savings account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by him as per his
volition.
42. The FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject
to the following conditions:-
(a) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe
custody and copies of the same be provided to the petitioner with the
statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and
maturity amount.
(b) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic
Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant.
(c) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on
the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(d) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit
card to claimant / his guardian. However, in case the debit card and /orMACT No. 611/22 Ashok Kumar Vs. CCL Shan Mohd. & Ors. Page No. 30 of 32
Digitally signed
HARUN by HARUN
PRATAP
PRATAP Date: 2026.07.13
17:14:11 +0530
cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before
the disbursement of the award amount.
(e) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant
to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and
shall not be issued without the permission of the Court.
43. Respondent no. 1 and 2, being the driver and owner in possession of
the offending vehicle, are directed to deposit the award amount jointly and
severally with interest @ 8% per annum till date with UCO Bank,
Karkardooma Court Branch within 30 days as per above order, failing
which R1 and R2 shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a for the period of
delay. Concerned Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch
is directed to transfer the share amount of the petitioners in their bank
account / FDRs as per above-said directions, on completing necessary
formalities as per rules. The Branch Manager, is further directed to keep the
said amounts in fixed deposits in name of this Court in auto renewal mode
every 15 days, till the claimants approach the bank for disbursement, so that
the award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the
cheques. Soft copy of the award be uploaded on official website of Delhi
District Courts i.e. https://delhidistrictcourts.nic.in.
44. Form IV-A and Form-V, in terms of MCTAP, shall be read as part of
the Award. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioner and also to
counsel for the respondents for compliance. Copy of this award alongwith
one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank passbooks and
MACT No. 611/22 Ashok Kumar Vs. CCL Shan Mohd. & Ors. Page No. 31 of 32
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2026.07.13
17:14:15
+0530
copy of residence proof of the petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of UCO
Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch, Delhi for information and necessary
compliance.
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
Announced in open Court on this PRATAP 2026.07.13
17:14:19
On this 13th Day of July, 2026 +0530
(HARUN PRATAP)
PO-(MACT-02), SHAHDARA
KKD COURTS/DELHI
MACT No. 611/22 Ashok Kumar Vs. CCL Shan Mohd. & Ors. Page No. 32 of 32
