Delhi District Court
Karan Kr vs Jan Preet Singh on 7 July, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUNIL KUMAR: PRESIDING OFFICER
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL - 01
NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MACT No. 129/19
CNR No. DLNT0100 1948 2019
FIR No. 737/18
PS: Mukherjee Nagar
Karan Kumar (Injured / Petitioner)
S/o Sh. Ram Sahay
R/o H.NO. B-1707,
Shastri Nagar, Delhi-52.
VERSUS
1. Janpreeet Singh (Driver / Respondent No. 1)
S/o Sh. Charanjeet Singh
2. Janpreet Singh (Owner / Respondent No. 2)
S/o Sh. Praduman Singh
Both R/o H. No. 718,
Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 07.03.2019
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 07.07.2026
FORM - XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME TO BE MENTIONED
IN THE AWARD, AS PER JUDGMENT PASSED IN RAJESH TYAGI & ORS.
VERSUS JAIBIR SINGH & ORS.
FAO 842/2003
1. Date of the accident 23.12.2018
2. Date of filing of Form-I First Accident Report Not available
Digitally signed
Karan Kumar Vs. Janpreet Singh & Ors. SUNIL by SUNIL
KUMAR
MACT No. 129/19
KUMAR Date: 2026.07.07
16:06:29 +0530
Page 1
(FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to victim(s) Not available
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the driver Not available
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the owner Not available
6. Date of filing of the Form-V Interim Accident Not available
Report(IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form VI B Not available
from the victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII Detailed Accident 07.03.2019
Report(DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No.
the part of the Investigating Officer? If so,
whether any action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer Vehicle is uninsured
by the insurance Company.
11. Whether the designated Officer of the Insurance Vehicle is uninsured
Company submitted his report within 30 days of
the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on Vehicle is uninsured
the part of the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the claimant to the offer of Vehicle is uninsured
the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the Award 07.07.2026
15. Whether the claimant(s) was/were directed to Yes
open saving bank account near his/her place of
residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) was/were 03.04.2024
directed to open saving bank account near
his/her place of residence and produce PAN
MACT No. 129/19
SUNIL Digitally
Karan Kumar Vs. Janpreet Singh & Ors.
signed
by SUNIL KUMAR
Page 2
KUMAR Date: 2026.07.07
16:07:05 +0530
Card and Aadhar Card and the direction to the
bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to
the claimant and make an endorsement to this
effect on the passbook(s).
17. Date on which the claimant(s) produced the Not produced.
passbook of their saving bank account near the
place of his/her residence along with the
endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
18. PAN Card Number of claimant –
19. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned above
Claimant(s)
20. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank account(s) Particulars not furnished
is near his/her place of residence?
21. Whether the claimant was examined at the time Not appeared.
of passing of the award.
AWARD
1. Vide this order I shall dispose off the ‘Detailed Accident Report’ (hereinafter
referred to as ‘DAR’) filed by the police with regard to accident occurred on
23.12.2018 in which injured Karan Kumar (hereinafter referred to as ‘petitioner’)
suffered injuries. The Copy of DAR was supplied to the petitioner as well as to
Janpreet Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent no. 1’) and Charanjeet Singh
(hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent no. 2’) who are driver and owner of vehicle
involved in the accident i.e. car bearing registration no. DL4CND 1516 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘vehicle in question’).
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that during the investigation, the Investigating
Officer has recorded the statement of injured (petitioner) under Section 161 CrPC,
translated version of which is as under: –
Digitally signed
by SUNIL
SUNIL KUMAR
Karan Kumar Vs. Janpreet Singh & Ors.
MACT No. 129/19
KUMAR Date:
2026.07.07 Page 3
16:07:26 +0530
“On 22.12.2018, my duty was from 12 noon to 12 midnight, after delivering the
vehicle near Batra Cinema Mukherjee Nagar at night, I was coming back to GTB
Nagar on my motorcycle No-DL 1S AD 7837. When I reached near Hakikat Nagar
Bus stop, at around 12.30 AM, a Car No. DL-4CND 1516 white colour coming from
the wrong side at a very high speed and carelessly and negligently hit my motorcycle
No. DL 1SA D 7837 from the front and I jumped and fell on the road. The vehicle
which caused the accident Car No. DL 4CND 1516 stopped and its driver got down
and came to me and seeing my injuries ran away with his car… Legal action should be
taken against the driver of Car No. DL 4CAD 1516 which hit me”
3. Further, it is matter of record that vehicle in question was not insured at the time
of accident and a criminal case vide FIR No. 737/18 under Section 279/338 IPC read
with Section 15(2)177, 134/187 M.V Act & was registered in PS Mukherjee Nagar
and charge sheet under Section 173 Cr.PC under the above FIR was filed against
respondent no. 1 for causing the said accident and a Kalandra under Section 146/196
of M. V. Act also filed.
4. Respondent no. 1 has filed his written statement, which was also adopted by the
respondent no. 2, being father of respondent no. 1. It is stated in the written statement
that material facts have been suppressed by the police from this court as the
respondent no. 1 has not caused any accident rather when he was going to his home he
saw injured / petitioner lying on road and with a view to provide medical help /
treatment, he taken the injured / petitioner to hospital by parking his car near the place
of accident and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
5. After completion of the pleadings, following issues were framed vide order
dated 25.10.2024:-
1. Whether petitioner suffered injuries in a vehicular accident occurred on
23.12.2018 at 12:30 am at Hakikat Nagar Bus Stop, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi
due to rash or negligent driving of car no. DL-4CND-1516 by Jaspreet Singh
(respondent no.1)? OPP. Digitally signed
by SUNIL
SUNIL KUMAR
Karan Kumar Vs. Janpreet Singh & Ors.
MACT No. 129/19 KUMAR Date:
2026.07.07 Page 4
16:07:35 +0530
2. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, what amount and from
whom of respondents? OPP.
3. Relief.
6. In order to prove his claim, petitioner examined himself as PW1 and tendered
his affidavit Ex. PW1/A in evidence. Petitioner has also examined Dr. Debasish as
PW2 and IO Vishnu Singh as PW3. Respondents have examined R1W1 (respondent
no. 1 himself), R1W2 (Manan Arora) and R1W3 (Sidharth Arora) in their defence.
7. I have heard Ld. counsels appearing on behalf of petitioner and respondents and
gone through the file thoroughly.
8. My issue-wise findings are as under:-
ISSUE No.1
Whether petitioner suffered injuries in a vehicular accident occurred on
23.12.2018 at 12:30 am at Hakikat Nagar Bus Stop, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi
due to rash or negligent driving of car no. DL-4CND-1516 by Jaspreet Singh
(respondent no.1)? OPP.
The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner and to prove that he suffered
grievous injuries in this accident on account of rashness and negligence on the part of
respondent, he examined himself as PW1 and tendered his evidence by way of
affidavit Ex.PW1/A. Petitioner as PW1 in his evidence affidavit deposed that on
23.12.18 at about 12:30 A.M, he was returning from Mukherjee Nagar to GTB Nagar
by his motorcycle, which he was driving with due precaution and at a normal speed
and he has also having an effective and valid driving license and when he reached near
bus stop of Hakikat Nagar, at the same time a car bearing registration. no. DL4CND
1516, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed
came from wrong side/front side and hit him with a violent force, as a result of which
he fell down on the road and sustained multiple injuries. PW1 / petitioner further
Digitally signed
by SUNIL
Karan Kumar Vs. Janpreet Singh & Ors.
MACT No. 129/19 SUNIL KUMAR Page 5
KUMAR Date:
2026.07.07
16:07:40 +0530
deposed that driver of the offending car get down from his car and fled away within
few minutes from the spot of accident and he informed the police and he was shifted to
Nulife Hospital, Mukharjee Nagar by the public persons for treatment. Petitioner
further examined PW2 Vishnu Singh (Retired SI). PW2 deposed that he was
investigating officer of FIR no. 737/2018 U/s 279/338 IPC read with Section 15.2/177,
134/187, 146/196 of M.V. Act PS Mukherjee Nagar and he arrested the accused
Janpreet Singh (respondent no. 1) and released him on police bail. He further deposed
that the offending vehicle was taken into custody and same was released on superdari.
Since the offending vehicle was uninsured and the owner of the vehicle submitted FD
of Rs. 75,000/- as per Hon’ble Court direction for releasing the same. PW2 further
deposed that respondent no. 1 met him 5-6 times after the accident but respondent no.
1 never submitted any CD / audio / video / tape recording in this regard, which shows
a conversation took place between the injured and any person. Even, respondent no. 1
never told him or communicated that he is having a above said audio / video / tape
recording nor respondent no. 1 has ever submitted the same electronic documents to
any senior officer of police. PW2 further deposed that respondent no. 1 never
submitted the same above said electronic documents at the time of filing the charge
sheet or filing the detailed accident report before this Tribunal. Though PW2 has been
duly cross examined by the respondents, but testimony of PW2 could not be
impeached and nothing material has come on record to disbelieve his testimony.
9. Respondent No. 1, to substantiate his defense, examined himself as R1W1 but
he categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he never lodged a single
complaint before any higher authority or legal forum regarding his alleged false
implication. Furthermore, he failed to file any protest petition before the concerned
Digitally signed
bycompletely
criminal court. If he was truly innocent, it is SUNIL contrary to normal human
SUNIL KUMAR
Date:
MACT No. 129/19
KUMAR
Karan Kumar Vs. Janpreet Singh & Ors. 2026.07.07
16:07:45 Page 6
+0530
conduct to remain silent and take no legal recourse against a false FIR. Respondent
No. 1 further examined R1W2 (Manan Arora) and R1W3 (Sidharth Arora). However,
both witnesses admitted during their cross-examination that they are close friends of
respondent No. 1 but these witnesses never approached the police to record their
statements or report the alleged true facts during the investigation. Their sudden
appearance as defense witnesses is a sheer attempt to shield respondent No. 1.
Although, the respondents claim that they helped the injured petitioner at the spot of
the accident, but they have failed to examine any independent public witness. It is a
settled fact that public persons inevitably gather at an accident site. Instead of
presenting a neutral bystander, the respondent chose to rely solely on interested
friends, drawing an adverse inference against the credibility of their defense. Further,
there is nothing on record to suggest any prior enmity, malice, or grudge between the
petitioner and respondent No. 1 and all this establish, on the touchstone of
preponderance of probabilities, that the accident was caused solely due to the rash and
negligent driving of Respondent No. 1. The defense witnesses have utterly failed to
disprove the involvement of the offending vehicle. Further, apart from deposition of
PWs, the fact that petitioner suffered injuries in the accident is also supported by his
MLC filed along with DAR collectively Ex. PW1/4, Respondent has not placed on
record any document to disprove the factum of rash and negligent driving by him.
Relying upon the judgment of Mahila Dhanvanti and Ors Vs. Phulwant Mahendra
Singh, Miscellaneous Appeal no.239/1992 decided by Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High
Court on 29.07.1993 in which it is held as under:-
“The plaintiff can prove the accident but cannot prove how it happened to establish
negligence. This hardship is to be avoided by applying the principle of res ipsa
loquitur. The general purport of the words res ipsa loquitur is that the accident speaks
Digitally signed
for itself or tells its own story”. by SUNIL
SUNIL KUMAR
MACT No. 129/19
KUMAR
Karan Kumar Vs. Janpreet Singh & Ors. Date:
2026.07.07 Page 7
16:07:50 +0530
Thus, Claims Tribunal while dealing with the law of torts in motor accident
cases applies the principle of “res ipsa loquitur”. Considering all this, it stands proved
that accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending
vehicle by the respondent and petitioner suffered grievous injuries in the said accident.
Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of petitioner and against the
respondents.
ISSUE No. 2
Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation if so, what amount and from
whom of respondents? OPP.
10. As far as the issue with respect to right to claim compensation is concerned,
being injured, petitioner is the natural eye-witness of accident and is well within his
rights to claim compensation from the respondent. Accordingly, the question of right
of the injured for claiming of compensation is decided in favour of the petitioner.
Now, the second part of the issue in hand with respect to the quantum of compensation
is to be adjudicated and below are the finding: –
11. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, mandate the Tribunal to hold an
inquiry into claims under section 166 and to determine the amount of compensation
which appears to be just and reasonable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Sarla Verma
v. Delhi Transport Corporation” (2009), held as under:
“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”. Digitally signed
by SUNIL
SUNIL KUMARMACT No. 129/19
KUMAR
Karan Kumar Vs. Janpreet Singh & Ors. Date:
2026.07.07 Page 8
16:07:56 +0530
12. Petitioner as PW1 deposed that he was doing the work of Food Delivery Boy
with Zomato company and used to earn about Rs. 20,000/- p.m. and he could not
continue his work after his accident due to his disability. He further deposed that as he
suffered disability/deformity in relation to his right lower limb due to his accident, he
is not able to run, taking turn and using Indian toilet due to his above said
disability/deformity and can’t drive his motor cycle after his accident. PW1 further
deposed that he has incurred Rs. 20,000/- on his treatment Rs.20,000/ on special diet
and Rs. 20,000/- on conveyance during his treatment. Petitioner / PW1 relied upon
his Aadhar card, driving license and PAN collectively Ex. PW1/1, original treatment
record collectively Ex. PW1/2 and 10th class pass certificate Ex. PW1/3. Original
medical bills placed and proved on record are of Rs16,099/- Accordingly, this amount
of Rs. 16,099/- is awarded to the petitioner/injured towards medical expenses. Further,
there is no evidence to verify that petitioner has spent any amount on special diet,
conveyance, attendant etc., however, keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained
by the petitioner and considering the treatment record, this Tribunal is of the opinion
that the petitioner must have undergone surgeries and procedures and thus he must
have incurred expenses on special diet required for his speedy recovery as well as on
travel to hospitals etc. Accordingly, Rs.20,000/- each towards special diet and
conveyance is awarded to the petitioner/injured.
13. During the pendency, petitioner was referred to Hindu Rao Hospital for
assessment of his permanent disability and a disability certificate received on record,
as per which, medical board opined 24% disability in relation to right lower limb and
to prove the disability certificate, petitioner examined PW2 Dr. Debasish Panigrahi,
CMO (SAG), Department of Orthopedic, HR Hospital, Delhi. PW2 brought the
disability record pertaining disability certificate no.signed
Digitally 12/2020 dated 01.01.2020 and
by SUNILKaran Kumar Vs. Janpreet Singh & Ors.
SUNIL KUMAR
MACT No. 129/19 KUMAR Date:
2026.07.07 Page 9
16:08:01 +0530
proved the disability certificate Ex. PW2/1. He deposed that petitioner has a stiff
right hip following surgery due to which he cannot sit, cross-legged and squat
normally and may have difficulty to use stairs, running. PW2 has not at all cross
examined by the respondents. Since the said disability certificate has been issued by
the medical board of a government hospital, the Tribunal has no reason to disbelieve
the same.
14. As far as percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation of disability is
concerned, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that
petitioner has suffered 24% disability, which is permanent in nature and not likely to
improve and following the principles of justice, equity and good conscience and to
adopt more realistic, pragmatic and liberal approach, the Tribunal is of the view that
this kind of disability would somehow hamper day to day activity of petitioner and
work for gain. Accordingly, the functional disability of petitioner is taken as 12% qua
whole body for calculating the loss of earning capacity.
15. As far as loss of income is concerned, except deposition of petitioner, there is
nothing on record to prove that petitioner was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month yet as
the petitioner was matriculate as per certificate Ex. PW1/3, he is entitled to claim
compensation on the basis of his educational qualification. At the time of accident, the
minimum wages of matriculate was Rs. 16,962/-, hence same is taken for calculating
the loss of income during the period of treatment as well as loss to future income.
16. So far as loss of future income due to disability is concerned, as per Aadhar card
of petitioner, his date of birth is 01.04.1999 which inter alias means that petitioner was
19 years and 8 months in age at the time of accident and as per the judgment passed
by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarla Verma vs Delhi Transport
Digitally signed
by SUNIL
SUNIL
Karan Kumar Vs. Janpreet Singh & Ors.
KUMAR
MACT No. 129/19 KUMAR Date:
2026.07.07 Page 10
16:08:06 +0530
Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298, a multiplier of 18 for the victim aged upto 20 years is
applicable. Accordingly, multiplier of 18 is thus taken for calculating his loss to future
earnings. Further, as per the judgment in the case of National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, of Hon’ble Supreme Court, petitioner is also
entitled to get 40% of enhancement of salary, as he was below 40 years in age at the
time of accident. Counting in this way, his loss to future earnings, comes to
Rs.6,15,517/-, details of which are well mentioned in the attached proforma.
Accordingly, this amount of Rs.6,15,517/- is allowed to the petitioner, as loss of future
earnings, due to permanent disability.
17. As far as loss of income during the treatment is concerned, as stated above
petitioner has suffered 24% permanent disability and considering the long treatment,
as stated above, it is presumed that petitioner would have not been able to continue his
work for about 6 months. Accordingly, Rs.1,01,772/- (16,962×6) is awarded to the
petitioner towards loss of income during the period of his treatment and during this
period he must have availed the services of an attendant and hence a sum of
Rs.30,000/- (5000×6) for six months towards attendant charges are also awarded to the
petitioner.
18. Further, apart from the above mentioned amounts, petitioner is entitled for
compensation regarding mental pain and suffering, disfiguration etc. Accordingly, after
giving due weight-age to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum
of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental pain and physical shock as well as for pain and suffering
due to this accident, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities of life, Rs.1,00,000/- for
disfiguration, Rs. 2,00,000/- towards marriage prospects and Rs.50,000/- for loss of
inconvenience, hardship disappointment, frustration, mental stress dejectment and
unhappiness in future life etc. are also awarded to the petitioner, making a total sum of
Digitally signed
SUNIL
Karan Kumar Vs. Janpreet Singh & Ors.
by SUNIL
KUMAR
MACT No. 129/19
KUMAR Date: 2026.07.07
16:08:12 +0530
Page 11
Rs.13,03,388/-, details of which is mentioned in the attached proforma.
In the light of the above discussion, the aspect of liability of the respondents is to
be adjudicated and findings are mentioned below: –
19. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was not insured, at the time of accident and
the vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1. and respondent no. 1 has failed to
prove that he was not rash and negligent or that accident has been occurred due to
negligence on the part of petitioner. Further, there is nothing on record, which shows
that respondents have approached to any higher authority against false implication in
the present case, which inter alias shows that respondent no. 1 was driving the vehicle
at the time of accident in a rash and negligent manner and caused the injuries upon the
petitioner and since vehicle in question was not insured, respondents, being the driver
and owner of the vehicle in question are liable to pay the compensation to the
petitioner jointly and severally.
This issue is therefore decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents
holding that petitioner is entitled to get compensation from the respondents jointly and
severally.
ISSUE NO. 3 (RELIEF)
20. Petition in hand is allowed and an award in the sum of Rs. 21,64,000/-
(13,03,388 + 8,60,236 = 21,63,624/- rounded up to Rs. 21,64,000/-), which includes
88 months interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of
award is passed in favour of petitioner and against the respondents, details of which
are well mentioned in the attached proforma.
21. Accordingly, respondents are directed to deposit the above said awarded amount
as compensation in this case, within the jurisdiction of signed
Digitally this Tribunal at SBI, Rohini
by SUNIL
Karan Kumar Vs. Janpreet Singh & Ors.
SUNIL KUMAR
MACT No. 129/19 KUMAR Date:
2026.07.07 Page 12
16:08:16 +0530
Court Branch, Delhi within 30 days from today under intimation of deposition of the
awarded amount to be given by him to the petitioner and his advocate failing which
the award amount shall further carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of award
till its realization. Interim amount, if any paid to the petitioner be deducted from this
amount.
DISBURSEMENT
22. The entire award amount would be kept in interest bearing FDR and order with
respect to disbursement would only be passed after petitioner comply with the
direction of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and after recording his statement under
Digitally signed
Clause 29 of MCTAP.
SUNIL by SUNIL KUMAR
File be consigned to record room.
KUMAR Date: 2026.07.07
16:08:21 +0530
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (SUNIL KUMAR)
COURT ON 07.07.2026 PO:MACT-01, NORTH, ROHINI, DELHI
Karan Kumar Vs. Janpreet Singh & Ors.
MACT No. 129/19 Page 13
FORM - XVI
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE
INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1 Date of accident 23.12.2018
2 Name of injured Karan Kumar
3 Age of the injured 19 years
4 Occupation of the injured Private work
5 Income of the injured 20,000/- per month (not proved)
6 Nature of injury Grievous
7 Medical treatment taken by the Nulife Hospital, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi, Shushruta
injured Trauma Centre and Lok Nayak Hospital.
8 Period of hospitalization –
9 Whether any permanent 24% permanent disability in relation to right lower
disability? If yes, give details limb.
10. Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment 16,099/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance 20,000/- (iii) Expenditure on special diet 20,000/- (iv) Cost of nursing/attendant 30,000/- (5000x3) (v) Loss of earning capacity Nil. (vi) Loss of income during treatment 1,01,772/- (vii) Any other loss which may require any Nil.
special treatment or aid to the injured for the
rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(I) Compensation for mental and physical shock 1,00,000/-
(ii) Pain and suffering (iii) Loss of amenities of life 500,000/- (iv) Disfiguration 1,00,000/- Digitally signed SUNIL Karan Kumar Vs. Janpreet Singh & Ors. by SUNIL KUMAR MACT No. 129/19 KUMAR Date: 2026.07.07 16:08:26 +0530 Page 14 (v) Loss of marriage prospects 2,00,000/- (vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, hardships, 50,000/-
disappointment, frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in future life
etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and nature 24% permanent disability in relation to
of disability as permanent or temporary right lower limb.
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of expectation of
life span on account of disability
Nil.
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in
relation of disability 12% qua whole body
(iv) Loss of future income - (Income
X%Earning capacity X Multiplier)
6,15,517/-
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION 13,03,388/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the date of award 8,60,236/- (for 88 months, from the date
of filing the DAR till passing the award)
17. Total amount including interest 21,63,624/- rounded up to
Rs. 21,64,000/-
18. Award amount released Nil.
19. Award amount kept in FDRs Entire.
20. Mode of disbursement of the award amount In a phased manner that too after
to the claimant (s) (Clause29) recording the statement of petitioner
under Clause 29 of MCTAP.
21. Next date for compliance of the award. 07.08.2026
(Clause 31)
(SUNIL KUMAR)
PO:MACT-01, DISTRICT NORTH
ROHINI, DELHI/07.07.2026
Digitally signed
SUNIL by SUNIL
KUMAR
Karan Kumar Vs. Janpreet Singh & Ors.
MACT No. 129/19
KUMAR Date: 2026.07.07
16:08:31 +0530
Page 15
