Delhi District Court
Renuka vs Manoj Kumar on 25 February, 2026
MACP No. 361/17; FIR No. 256/16; PS. Narela DOD: 25.02.2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA MANCHANDA, PRESIDING
OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 361/17
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-004680-2017
Smt. Renuka Bisht,
W/o Sh. Amit Bisht,
R/o Flat No. 229,
Pocket G,
Sector B-2,
Narela, Delhi.
(Injured) ..........Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Manoj Kumar,
S/o Sh. Rajbir Singh,
R/o. VPO Bindroli,
District Sonipat,
Haryana.
(Driver)
2. Sh. Bijender,
S/o Sh. Rajbir Singh,
R/o VPO Bhowapur,
District Sonipat,
Haryana.
(Registered owner)
3. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Having office at:-
C-30, Near Janak Cinema,
Janak Puri,
Delhi.
(Insurer) .......Respondents
Date of Institution : 13.04.2017
Date of Arguments : 25.02.2026
Date of Award : 25.02.2026
Renuka Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 1 of 32
MACP No. 361/17; FIR No. 256/16; PS. Narela DOD: 25.02.2026
APPEARANCES:-
Sh. Jatin Rana, Ld. Counsel for petitioner.
None for driver and owner.
Sh. Vikas Shokeen, Ld. Counsel for insurance co.
Petition under Section 166 and 140 of M.V. Act, 1988
for grant of compensation
AWARD
1. The petitioner is seeking compensation in the wake of Detailed
Accident Report (DAR) filed by police corresponding to the investigation
carried out in case FIR No. 256/16 U/s 279/337/338 IPC registered at PS.
Narela, with regard to Motor Vehicular Accident which occurred on
08.03.2016 at about 2:10 pm at B-2 Chowk, 80 Foota Road, Samritivan
Road, Narela, Delhi, involving vehicle bearing registration no.
HR10U-3613(offending vehicle) being driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash
and negligent manner. DAR filed by police, was treated as claim petition
under Section 166(4) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as
‘MV Act‘).
2. According to DAR, on 08.03.2016, the petitioner alongwith
her son was returning to her home after picking her son from the school by
scooty bearing registration no. DL8S-BC-6506. The said scooty was being
driven by petitioner. At about 2:10 pm, when they reached at B-2 Chowk,
80 Foota Road, Samritivan Road, Narela, Delhi, one vehicle i.e.,
motorcycle bearing registration no. HR10U-3613 which was being driven
by its driver at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, came and
hit against the aforesaid scooty, as a result thereof, both the riders of scooty
as well as driver of alleged offending vehicle fell down on the road and
Renuka Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 2 of 32
MACP No. 361/17; FIR No. 256/16; PS. Narela DOD: 25.02.2026
sustained injuries. They all were taken to SRHC Hospital, Narela, Delhi.
The offending vehicle was found to be owned by respondent no. 2 and
insured with Shriram General Insurance Company Limited/respondent no. 3
during the period in question.
3. In their joint written statement, the respondents no. 1 & 2 i.e.
driver and registered owner raised preliminary objections that at the time of
accident, minor son of the petitioner was driving the scooty and due to his
own negligence, accident had occurred. It is further claimed that the
respondent no. 1 was having valid driving licence at the time of accident.
They further claimed that alleged offending vehicle was insured with
respondent no. 3 at the time of accident and thus, they are not liable to pay
compensation, if any to the petitioner. On merits, they have denied the
averments made in the DAR and prayed for its dismissal.
4. The respondent no. 3 i.e., insurance company filed its legal
offer of Rs. 68,356/-plus medical bills which was not acceptable to the
petitioner and the matter was proceeded on merits.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were
framed vide order dated 30.05.2017 passed by my Ld. Predecessor:-
1. Whether the injured Renuka suffered injuries in
road traffic accident on 08.03.2016 at about 14:10 hrs
at 80 Foota Road, Samritivan Road, Narela, Delhi,
within the jurisdiction of PS. Narela due to rashness
and negligence on the part of the driver Manoj Kumar
who was driving vehicle bearing registration no.
HR10U-3613, owned by Bijender and insured with
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd./R3?OPP.
Renuka Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 3 of 32
MACP No. 361/17; FIR No. 256/16; PS. Narela DOD: 25.02.2026
2. Whether the injured is entitled to any
compensation if so to what amount and from whom?
OPP.
3. Relief.
6. In order to establish her claim, the petitioner has examined six
witnesses i.e., petitioner herself as PW1, PW2 Sh. Manoj Kumar, Officer
Admin, Kasturi Ram International School, PW3 Sh. Kapil Kaushik, Dy.
Manager, Endolite India Limited, PW4 Sh. Amit Kumar Jha(from the office
of employer of injured), PW5 Sh. Manmohan Sharma, Sr. Executive from
Jaipur Golden Hospital and PW6 Dr. Ashutosh Gupta and her evidence was
closed vide order dated 21.05.2024. On the other hand, respondents did not
lead any evidence and respondent’s evidence was closed vide order dated
15.10.2024.
7. Final arguments were addressed by respective counsels. The
claim petition, including the evidence by the parties carefully perused. All
the documents and material relied upon considered. The issue wise
determination is as under:-
ISSUE NO. 1
8. The onus to prove, the aforesaid issue was placed on the
petitioner. To prove the said issue, petitioner/injured examined herself as
PW1 by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/1). In her evidence by way of affidavit
(Ex. PW1/1), injured/petitioner has deposed on the lines of averments made
in the DAR. She has relied upon the following documents:-
Renuka Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 4 of 32 MACP No. 361/17; FIR No. 256/16; PS. Narela DOD: 25.02.2026 S.No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of her salary certificate dated Ex. PW1/A
12.01.2017 issued by her employer
Kasturi Ram International School
2. Copy of her bank account Ex. PW1/B(colly)
statement
3. Copy of her salary certificate dated Ex. PW1/C
04.09.2018 issued by her employer
Hindustan Soft Education Limited
4. Copy of FIR No. 256/16 of PS. Ex. PW1/D
Narela
5. Copy of her Disability Certificate Ex. PW1/E
6. Her medical prescriptions Ex. PW1/F(colly)
7. Her original medical bills Ex. PW1/G(colly)
alongwith discharge summary of
Jaipur Golden Hospital
8. Copy of discharge summary of Ex. PW1/H
endolite
9. PW1/Injured was cross-examined on behalf of respondents
during which she deposed that on the date of accident, she was returning
from school to her house. She further deposed that school timings were
from 8:00 am to 2:30 pm. She further deposed that she did not have any
appointment letter with regard to her joining with school as Teacher. She
deposed that she alongwith her son was on scooty which was being driven
by her at the time of accident. She further deposed that police recorded her
statement in the hospital, however she did not remember the date of
recording of her statement. She further deposed that police had not seized
any of her document. She further deposed that she did not know as to who
took her to the hospital after the accident as she immediately became
unconscious after the accident. She further deposed that she remained
unconscious for about 3 days after the accident. She denied the suggestion
that the aforesaid scooty was being driven by her son at the time of
Renuka Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 5 of 32
MACP No. 361/17; FIR No. 256/16; PS. Narela DOD: 25.02.2026
accident. She admitted that her son was minor at the time of accident. She
deposed that her son did not know how to drive scooty. She further deposed
that she was standing at round about and going towards Sector B-2, Narela
and had given indicator for going straight and in the meanwhile, the
offending motorcycle came from her front side and he banged against her
scooty. She deposed that she was having DL at the time of accident,
however she had lost the same in the accident in question. She further
deposed that she had not obtained the duplicate copy of her DL. She
deposed that she had not made any complaint regarding loss of her DL. She
denied the suggestion that she was not holding any DL at the time of
accident or that the accident occurred due to negligence of her son as he did
not know driving. She denied the suggestion that she did not know driving.
She deposed that she was not able to understand the site plan prepared by
the IO. She further deposed that there was normal traffic at the time of
accident. She denied the suggestion that her son had suddenly stopped the
vehicle in between the round about and the accident was caused due to his
negligence.
10. It is evident from the testimony of PW1 that the respondents
could not impeach her testimony through litmus test of cross-examination
and said witness is found to have successfully withstood the test of cross-
examination. Even otherwise, PW1 herself is the injured having sustained
injuries due to the accident in question. Moreover, FIR No. 256/2016 is
shown to have been registered on the statement of petitioner herself. The
contents of said FIR would show that the complainant/petitioner has
disclosed therein the same sequence of facts leading to the accident as
deposed by her as PW1 in her evidence. Hence, there is no possibility of
Renuka Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 6 of 32
MACP No. 361/17; FIR No. 256/16; PS. Narela DOD: 25.02.2026
any false implication of driver of offending vehicle or false involvement of
the said vehicle in this case. On the other hand, none of the respondents
examined any witness in order to rebut the testimony of PW1 during the
course of inquiry. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve her uncontroverted
testimony on the point of accident in question being caused by respondent
no. 1 while driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
11. No doubt, the accident in question had occurred on 08.03.2016
and FIR in the matter was registered on 11.03.2016, however, the said delay
has been sufficiently explained by PW-1/petitioner/injured who specifically
stated in her statement recorded by the police that she could not lodge the
complaint on the date of accident due to the grievous injuries suffered by
her in the accident in question. Be that as it may, DD No. 56B regarding
accident was recorded in PS. Narela, on the basis of a call received from the
hospital on the date of accident itself i.e., 08.03.2016 at 2:15 pm. Though, it
is the contention of Ld. Counsel for insurance company that since the
injured was not having DL, therefore, she was also negligent in causing the
accident. There is no DL of victim on record, however, this fact merely does
not prove negligence of injured. The manner in which the accident took
place points out the negligence of respondent no. 1/driver of offending
vehicle.
12. Thus, it follows from the aforesaid discussion that the accident
in question had taken place while respondent no. 1 was driving the
offending vehicle at a very high speed and he could not keep control over
the offending vehicle and ultimately, hit the petitioner. The facts and
circumstances as brought on record, would show that said vehicle was being
Renuka Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 7 of 32
MACP No. 361/17; FIR No. 256/16; PS. Narela DOD: 25.02.2026
driven at very high speed due to which respondent no. 1 could not manage
to stop the vehicle, which resulted into the accident in question.
13. The facts of the case, arguments of the Ld. Counsels, evidence,
material on record and duly verified documents of the criminal case, have
been carefully examined and scrutinized. Respondent no. 1 namely
Sh. Manoj Kumar has been charge sheeted for offences punishable U/s.
279/337/338 IPC by the investigating agency after arriving at the
conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in
question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending
vehicle.
14. Further, there is no gainsaying that respondent No.1/driver of
offending vehicle was the other material witness to throw light by testifying
as to how and under what circumstances, the accident has taken place.
However, he has preferred not to enter into the witness box. Thus, an
adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the
accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle by the respondent no. 1. There is nothing on record to
show that the petitioner had any enmity with the driver of the offending
vehicle so as to falsely implicate him in this case. Reliance placed on
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Kamlesh & Ors, MAC
APP. No. 530/2008 passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 11.11.2008.
15. It is relevant to mention here that copy of MLC (which is part
of DAR) of petitioner filed would show that she was taken to SRHC
Hospital, Narela, Delhi with alleged history of RTA on the date of accident
Renuka Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 8 of 32
MACP No. 361/17; FIR No. 256/16; PS. Narela DOD: 25.02.2026
itself i.e., on 08.03.2016 at about 2:29 pm. On her local examination, she
was found to have sustained multiple injuries as mentioned therein. The
said injuries are consistent with the injuries which are sustained in motor
vehicular accident. Again, there is no challenge to the said document from
the side of respondents including insurance company.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has
come on record, it is held that the petitioner has been able to prove his case
on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, that she sustained injuries in
road accident which took place on 08.03.2016 at about 2:10 pm at B-2
Chowk, 80 Foota Road, Samritivan Road, Narela, Delhi, due to rash and
negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent no. 1. Thus, issue no. 1
is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 2
17. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 enjoins upon the
Claims 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.
18. The intent and objective of the Beneficial Legislation is to
grant equitable compensation to the vulnerable victims of road accidents
and dynamic law has evolved towards grant of just and fair quantum of
awards and has brought consistency and uniformity towards the desired
goal. The Hon’ble Apex Court in “Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation” (2009) 6 SCC 121, which was affirmed by a bench of three
Renuka Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 9 of 32
MACP No. 361/17; FIR No. 256/16; PS. Narela DOD: 25.02.2026
Hon’ble Judges in Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr.,
(2013) 9 SCC 65, held 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.
17. Assessment of compensation though involving certain
hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be
objective. Justice and justness emanate from equality in
treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication,
and fairness and uniformity in the decision making process
and the decisions. While it may not be possible to have
mathematical precision or identical awards, in assessing
compensation, same or similar facts should lead to awards
in the same range. When the factors/inputs are the same,
and the formula/legal principles are the same, consistency
and uniformity, and not divergence and freakiness, should
be the result of adjudication to arrive at just
compensation…”
19. These guiding principles for assessment of “just and
reasonable compensation” have been torch bearer in injury cases also as laid
down by Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in III (2007), ACC 676 titled as
Oriental Insurance Co,. Ltd., Vs. Vijay Kumar Mittal & Ors, wherein it has
been held:-
“10. The possession of one’s own body is the first and
most valuable all human rights and while awarding
compensation for bodily injuries this primary element is to
be kept in mind. Bodily injury is to be treated and varies
on account of gravity of bodily injury. Though it is
impossible to equate money with human suffering, agony
and personal deprivation, the Court and Tribunal should
make an honest and serious attempt to award damages so
far as money can compensate the loss. Regard must be
given to the gravity and degree of deprivation as well as
the degree of awareness of the deprivation. Damages
awarded in personal injury cases must be substantial and
not token damages…..”
Renuka Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 10 of 32 MACP No. 361/17; FIR No. 256/16; PS. Narela DOD: 25.02.2026
11. The general principle which should govern the
assessment of damages in persons injury cases is that the
Court should award to injured persons such a sum as will
put him in the same position as he would have been in the
same position as he would have been in if he had not
sustained injuries”.
20. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in further development of the legal
position for grant of reasonable and fair compensation, has pronounced
guiding parameters that “the compensation should be just and is not
expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly or a
pittance”. Reliance is placed on 2012 (8) SLT 676 titled K. Suresh Vs. New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. The golden principles for assessment of adequate
compensation to victims of road accident have been appreciated by the full
bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in 2017 (13) SCALE 12 : 2017 XI AD (SC)
113 titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., wherein it
has been held:-
“…..The Tribunal and the Courts have to bear in mind that
the basic principle lies in pragmatic computation which is
in proximity to reality. It is a well expected norm that
money can not substitute a life lost but an effort has to be
made for grant of just compensation having uniformity of
approach. There has to be a balance between the two
extremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance, a bonanza and
the modicum…..”
21. Accordingly, the entitlement of petitioner to just compensation
is being assessed in the background of well settled parameters and
guidelines as discussed herein-above.
Renuka Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 11 of 32
MACP No. 361/17; FIR No. 256/16; PS. Narela DOD: 25.02.2026
MEDICAL EXPENSES
22. The petitioner has deposed in her evidence by way of
affidavit(Ex. PW1/1) that after the accident, she was immediately taken to
SRHC Hospital, Narela, Delhi, wherefrom she was shifted to Jaipur Golden
Hospital. She further deposed that she had suffered grievous injury in the
accident in question. She further deposed that she has suffered 75%
permanent disability in relation to her left leg due to the accident. She
further deposed that she had spent around Rs. 9,68,808/- on her medical
treatment. For this, she has relied upon medical bills Ex. PW1/G(colly).
During her cross-examination on behalf of respondents, she denied the
suggestion that her bills of Rs. 9,68,808/- were false and fabricated or that
the same were not related to the injuries sustained by him in the accident.
23. It is relevant to note that the injured has relied upon medical
bills(Ex. PW1/G colly) to the tune of Rs. 8,48,001/-. It is quite evident that
the respondents have not disputed the authenticity and genuineness of the
said medical bills during the course of inquiry. They have also not led any
evidence in rebuttal so as to create any doubt on the genuineness of said
bills. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 8,48,001/- is awarded to the petitioner
under this head.
LOSS OF INCOME
24. PW1 has deposed that she was working as a Teacher in Kasturi
Ram International School, Sector A-10, Narela, Delhi in the year 2016 and
was earning an amount of Rs. 18,000/- per month. She further deposed that
Renuka Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 12 of 32
MACP No. 361/17; FIR No. 256/16; PS. Narela DOD: 25.02.2026
during the time of accident, she was also working as Communication
Trainer with Oxford Software Institute in evening shift at a salary of
Rs. 18,000/- per month. During her cross-examination on behalf of
respondents, she deposed that she did not have any document to show that
she was advised by the treating doctor for not working for about 2 years.
She volunteered that she was under rehabilitation for the amputation as the
procedure for prosthetic leg was going on during the relevant period. She
further deposed that she did not have any document to show that she was
advised by the Rehabilitation Centre for not working for about 2 years.
25. The document i.e., Discharge Summary (which is part of DAR)
of Jaipur Golden Hospital, in respect of injured would reveal that she was
admitted in the said hospital on 08.03.2016 and was discharged on
19.03.2016. It may be noted here that as per the aforesaid discharge
summary, she had suffered crush injury left knee with thrombosed popliteal
artery and unstable knee left. As per the treatment record and medical bills
filed on record, the treatment of petitioner continued for a considerable
period due to the grievous injuries suffered by her in the accident and her
last treatment record of Jaipur Golden Hospital is dated 25.05.2016 . The
date of accident in the present case is 08.03.2016. It is apparent on record
that treatment of petitioner continued for a considerable period. Thus, after
considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and in view of
the treatment record brought on record, it can be presumed that she would
not have been able to work at all atleast for a period of 9 months or so
including period of recovery also.
Renuka Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 13 of 32 MACP No. 361/17; FIR No. 256/16; PS. Narela DOD: 25.02.2026
26. In order to prove the employment and income of petitioner,
petitioner has examined PW2 Sh. Manoj Kumar (official from Kasturi Ram
International School) and PW4 Sh. Amit Kumar Jha (official from Oxford
Software Institute). PW2 has produced the salary register containing salary
details of Ms. Renuka for the period from June 2015 to Feb 2016 and
exhibited the relevant page of the said register as Ex. PW2/1. He further
deposed that as per their record, Ms. Renuka was working as TGT (English)
and was withdrawing monthly salary of Rs. 18,000/-. He admitted that
salary certificate already Ex. PW1/A was issued by the Principal of their
school. During his cross-examination on behalf of respondents, he deposed
that the last drawn salary of Rs. 18,000/- of Ms. Renuka was in the month
of February 2016. He further deposed that Ms. Renuka was working in the
aforesaid school on contractual basis. He further deposed that Ms. Renuka
had not worked with their school after February 2016 and she had not been
paid any salary after that. He admitted that in the month of March 2016,
Ms. Renuka was not working in abovesaid school. He further admitted that
he had brought the record for the period for the year 2015 and 2016 only.
He denied the suggestion that Ms. Renuka was never in employment of
their school or that false and fabricated salary register had been prepared in
collusion with the petitioner.
27. PW4 Sh. Amit Kumar Jha produced the employment certificate
of injured Ms. Renuka Bisht who was working as Communication Trainer
with their Institute and exhibited the same as Ex.PW4/B. He deposed that
Renuka Bisht started working in Hindustan Software in 2010 and
discontinued from March 2016 till January 2018 because of the injuries
suffered in the accident. During his cross-examination on behalf of
Renuka Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 14 of 32
MACP No. 361/17; FIR No. 256/16; PS. Narela DOD: 25.02.2026
insurance company, he deposed that their company was not issuing any
joining/offer letter to any employee. He further deposed that he had not
brought any record regarding any joining/offer letter given to the
petitioner/injured. He admitted that they were not maintaining attendance
register of their employees. He deposed that he had not brought any
attendance register of the petitioner. He volunteered that it was old record.
He deposed that the salary was being paid in cash. He further deposed that
he had not brought any voucher regarding the payment of the salary in cash
to the petitioner/injured. He further deposed that petitioner was still
working with their organization. He further deposed that they had not
deducted any TDS/Income Tax from the salary of the petitioner/injured. He
deposed that he did not know the amount of salary being paid to the
petitioner/injured as on that day. He further deposed that the salary of the
petitioner/injured must be more than as being paid earlier. He further
deposed that the petitioner/injured had submitted an application regarding
her accident, however, he had not brought that application. He further
deposed that their staff namely Bhumika called the petitioner/injured and
then she informed about her accident. He further deposed that the
petitioner/injured had again joined their office in the month of January or
February, 2018. However, he had not brought any such record. He denied
the suggestion that petitioner was not working with their office. He further
denied the suggestion that no amount of salary was ever paid to the
petitioner from their office. He further denied the suggestion that he had not
brought any record with regard to employment of petitioner as she never
worked with them. He further denied the suggestion that the salary
certificate Ex. PW4/B was false and fabricated.
Renuka Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 15 of 32 MACP No. 361/17; FIR No. 256/16; PS. Narela DOD: 25.02.2026
28. After referring to the testimonies of PW1, PW2 & PW4 and
the documents filed by the said witnesses, Ld. counsel for petitioner
vehemently argued that salary of petitioner may be taken as Rs. 36,000/-
per month as per documents produced by PW2 & PW4 in order to calculate
the loss of income.
29. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the insurance company
argued that there is no concrete evidence led by petitioner to establish her
monthly income at the time of accident. Thus, loss of dependency should be
calculated on the basis of notional income as per Minimum Wages Act
applicable during the relevant period.
30. As per the the document produced by PW1 & PW2, it is
apparent that petitioner was working with Kasturi Ram International School
from June 2015 to February 2016. It is relevant to note here that as per
document (Ex. PW1/A) of Kasturi Ram International School, petitioner had
worked as TGT(English) in the said school and had withdrawn salary of Rs.
18,000/- in February 2016.
31. As per the the document produced by PW4, petitioner was
working with Hindustan Soft Education Limited since 2010 and she had to
discontinue from March 2016 till January 2018 as she met with an accident.
It is apparent from document Ex. PW4/B that petitioner was working as
Communication Trainer in evening shift and was withdrawing monthly
salary of Rs. 18,000/-.
Renuka Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 16 of 32 MACP No. 361/17; FIR No. 256/16; PS. Narela DOD: 25.02.2026
32. In view of the documents produced by PW1, PW2 to PW4 and
documents filed alongwith the DAR, I deem it fit to accept the salary of
petitioner as Rs. 36,000/- per month as on the date of accident. I am
fortified in my view with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in
case titled “Mohammed Siddique & Anr. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. &
Ors.”, Civil Appeal No. 79 of 2020, decided on 08.01.2020. The relevant
paragraphs from S.No. 16 to 18 of the aforesaid decision are reproduced as
under:-
xxxxx
“16. But unfortunately the High Court thought that
the employer should have produced salary
vouchers and other records including income tax
returns, to substantiate the nature of the
employment and the monthly income. On the
ground that in the absence of other records, the
salary certificate and the oral testimony of the
employer could not be accepted, the High Court
proceeded to take the minimum wages paid for the
unskilled workers at the relevant point of time as
the benchmark.
17. But we do not think that the approach adopted
by the High court could be approved. To a specific
question in cross−examination, calling upon
PW−2 to produce the salary vouchers, he seems to
have replied that his business establishment had
been wound up and that the records are not
available. This cannot be a ground for the High
Court to hold that the testimony of PW−2 is
unacceptable.
18. The High Court ought to have appreciated that
the Court of first instance was in a better position
to appreciate the oral testimony. So long as the
oral testimony of PW−2 remained unshaken and
Renuka Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 17 of 32
MACP No. 361/17; FIR No. 256/16; PS. Narela DOD: 25.02.2026hence believed by the Court of first instance, the
High Court ought not to have rejected his
evidence. After all, there was no allegation that
PW−2 was set up for the purposes of this case.
There were also no contradictions in his
testimony. As against the testimony of an
employer supported by a certificate issued by him,
the High Court ought not to have chosen a
theoretical presumption relating to the minimum
wages fixed for unskilled employment. Therefore,
the interference made by the High Court with the
findings of the Tribunal with regard to the
monthly income of the deceased, was uncalled for.
Xxxxx
33. In view of the aforesaid discussion, a sum of Rs. 3,24,000/-
(Rs. 36,000/- x 9 months) is awarded in favour of petitioner under this head.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
34. For the purpose of ascertaining compensation against non-
pecuniary heads, reliance is placed upon ruling of Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in the matter titled as ” Nathu Lal Vs. Sandeep Gulati & Ors.” passed
in appeal bearing no. MAC.APP 770/2011 decided on 21.05.12, wherein it
has been held as under:-
“15. It is settled law that a particular amount cannot be
fixed on pain and sufferings for all cases as is varies from
case to case. Judicial notice can be taken on the fact that
since the petitioner had got injuries/fracture as aforesaid,
he mighthave suffered acute pain and sufferings owing to
the said injuries. He might have also consumed heavy dose
of anti-biotic etc. and also might have remained without
movements of his body for a considerable period of time.
In order to ascertain the pain and sufferings compensation,
I am guided by the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of
Renuka Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 18 of 32
MACP No. 361/17; FIR No. 256/16; PS. Narela DOD: 25.02.2026Delhi in case Satya Narain v. Jai Kishan, FAO No.709/02,
date of decision: 2.2.2007, Delhi High Court by Hon’ble
Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog wherein it was held
that:-“On account of pain and suffering, suffice would it be
to note that it is difficult to measure pain and suffering in
terms of a money value, However, compensation which has
to be paid must bear some objectives co-relation with the
pain and suffering. The objective facts relatable to pain and
suffering would be:(a)Nature of injury.
(b)Body part affected.
(c)Duration of the treatment.”
35. As already considered, the petitioner required treatment for a
considerable period from the date of accident owing to grievous injuries
suffered by her in the road traffic accident. Apart from this, the petitioner is
also shown to have sustained permanent disability to the extent of 75% in
relation to left lower limb with disarticulation left knee joint. Thus, she
would have undergone great physical sufferings, inconvenience and mental
trauma on account of the accident in question. Keeping in view the nature
of injuries, duration of treatment and permanent disability suffered by her, a
sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- is considered reasonable towards pain & sufferings.
LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
36. As already mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence on
record to establish that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries in the
accident. Apart from this, the petitioner is also shown to have sustained
permanent disability to the extent of 75% in relation to left lower limb with
disarticulation left knee joint. Thus, she would not be able to enjoy general
amenities of life after the accident in question and her quality of life has
been definitely affected. In view of the nature of injuries including
Renuka Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 19 of 32
MACP No. 361/17; FIR No. 256/16; PS. Narela DOD: 25.02.2026
permanent disability suffered by her and her continued treatment for a
considerable period, I award a notional sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards loss
of general amenities and enjoyment of life to the petitioner.
CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES
37. During course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for petitioner argued
that petitioner has spent considerable amount on special diet, conveyance
and attendant charges. The petitioner has failed to lead any cogent evidence
on record in respect of amount incurred by her under the aforesaid heads. At
the same time, it cannot be overlooked that she had sustained grievous
injuries in the accident in question. Apart from this, the petitioner is also
shown to have sustained permanent disability to the extent of 75%
permanent disability in relation to her left lower limb with disatriculation
left knee joint. Thus, she would have taken special rich protein diet for her
speedy recovery and would have also incurred considerable amount towards
conveyance charges while commuting to the concerned hospital as OPD
patient for her regular check up & follow up during the period of her
medical treatment. She would have been definitely helped by some person
either outsider or from her family, to perform her daily activities as also
while visiting the hospital during the course of her medical treatment. In
these facts and circumstances, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 25,000/-each for
conveyance charges and special diet and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for attendant
charges to the petitioner.
Renuka Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 20 of 32
MACP No. 361/17; FIR No. 256/16; PS. Narela DOD: 25.02.2026
LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME
38. The petitioner is shown to have sustained 75% permanent
disability in relation to her left lower limb with disatriculation left knee
joint. Same is quite evident from Disability Certificate dated 28.07.2018 of
Medical Board of SRHC Hospital, Narela, Delhi.
39. As per the testimony of PW6 Dr. Ashutosh Gupta, SRHC
Hospital, Narela, Delhi, the petitioner was found to have suffered 75%
permanent disability in relation to her left lower limb in terms of Disability
Certificate (Ex. PW1/E). He further deposed that the case of the petitioner
was of disatriculation left knee joint(amputation through knee joint). He
deposed that the said disability was permanent in nature and thus,
reassessment was not recommended. During his cross-examination on
behalf of insurance company, he deposed that the disability certificate was
pertaining to one part of the body i.e., left lower limb only. He further
deposed that petitioner would never be able to stand and walk without any
support and the said disability was permanent and was never likely to
improve.
40. It is argued on behalf of petitioner that petitioner was working
as TGT (English) with Kasturi Ram International School and
Communication Trainer in evening shift in Hindustan Soft Education
Limmited at the time of accident. It is further argued that since the
petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 75% in relation to her left
lower limb and there was disarticulation left knee joint, she would never be
able to continue her profession as her avocation involves standing and
Renuka Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 21 of 32
MACP No. 361/17; FIR No. 256/16; PS. Narela DOD: 25.02.2026
walking which is not possible in her case and thus, the loss of earning
capacity be taken as 100% in relation to whole body.
41. For the purpose of calculating functional disability of the
petitioner in relation to whole body, it is relevant to discuss the relevant
judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court as well as Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi. In case titled “Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain Vs. Regional
Manager, U.P State Road, Civil Appeal Nos. 9070-9071 of 2022, decided
on 09.12.2022, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold in
para no. 16 as under:-
xxxx
“16. The Appellant herein has suffered permanent
disability of 70% and has an amputated right lower
limb amongst other injuries. The High Court has
wrongly taken the view that the Appellant has only
suffered 35% functional disability. The Appellant is
not a salaried person but is self-employed who
manages his business. For the Appellant to be able to
augment his income, he is most definitely required to
move around. The Appellant can also not drive on his
own, which hinders his mobility further. This proves
that the functional disability of the Appellant will
severely impact his earning capacity, and the 35%
functional disability calculated by the High Court is
incorrect in the facts and circumstances of the case
and in our view the loss of future earning capacity
must be calculated at 60%.”
Xxxxx
42. In the judgment “Raj Kumar Vs. Nitin Kumar Goyal & Ors.”,
MAC. APP. 74/2022, dated 20.11.2024, injured had suffered 76%
permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb and his functional
disability with relation to whole body was taken as 40% by the Tribunal.
Renuka Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 22 of 32 MACP No. 361/17; FIR No. 256/16; PS. Narela DOD: 25.02.2026
However, in the appeal preferred by the injured before the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi, the functional disability has been taken as 100% in relation
to whole body. In the said judgment, petitioner/injured Ram Kumar has
suffered 76% disability in relation to his left lower limb and he was labourer
by profession and the disability suffered by him had considerable effect on
his work of labourer.
43. With regard to assessment of functional disability in the
accident cases, I am guided by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case
titled as Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., CIVIL APPEAL NO.8981 OF
2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10383 of 2007) wherein Hon’ble Apex
Court has been pleased to held as under:
10. 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. For example, if
the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent
physical or functional disablement may be assessed
around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a
Renuka Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 23 of 32
MACP No. 361/17; FIR No. 256/16; PS. Narela DOD: 25.02.2026carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may
virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to
drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the
claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of
his left hand may not result in loss of employment and
he may still be continued as a clerk as he could
perform his clerical functions; and in that event the
loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case
of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual
physical disability, but far less.
44. Now coming back to the facts of present case, it is noted that
the petitioner was stated to be working as Teacher in a private school and
was also working as Communication Trainer in evening shift and she has
suffered 75% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb. PW-6
Dr. Ashutosh Gupta, Specialist Orthopedic, SRHC Hospital has deposed
that the disability of the petitioner is permanent in nature and same is not
likely to improve. It is pertinent to mention here that any type of work
requires physical dexterity in limbs and digits to operate hand and power
driven tools and equipment commonly used in the profession of fabrication,
physical ability to lift, carry and ability to continually walk, stand, climb,
stoop, bend, kneel, reach in all directions, etc. It may be noted here that
petitioner was stated to be working as Teacher in a private school at the time
of accident and it is quite obvious that for any teacher, proper movement of
the all limbs are very necessary which is not possible in the case of
petitioner due to the amputation suffered by her in the accident. Moreover,
PW6 Dr. Ashutosh Gupta deposed in her cross-examination that petitioner
will never be able to stand and walk without any support. Thus, in view of
the aforesaid discussion, 75% permanent physical impairment in relation to
her left lower limb and amputation through knee joint is going to adversely
Renuka Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 24 of 32
MACP No. 361/17; FIR No. 256/16; PS. Narela DOD: 25.02.2026
affect her avocation. In view of case (supra), I am of the considered
opinion that due to disability suffered (permanent physical impairment in
relation to his left upper limb and amputation of left upper limb) in the
present accident, the petitioner will suffer 100% loss of earning capacity.
Hence, the functional disability of the petitioner is considered as 100%
towards loss of earning capacity. (Reliance placed on “Arjun & Ors., Vs.
IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.”, MAC Appeal No. 223/16,
decided on 04.01.2018, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Malti Devi
& Ors., in MAC. APP. 572/2012, decided on 20.05.2015, Bajaj Allianz
General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shamim Akhtar & Anr, in MAC. APP.
616/2018 & C.Ms. 26742/2018, decided on 26.09.2018 and Bajaj Allianz
General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nasruddin & Ors., in MAC. APP. 585/2012,
decided on 28.05.2015 , decided on 28.05.2015″, passed by Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi).
45. It may be noted here that PW-4 during his cross-examination
by counsel for insurance company has deposed that the petitioner was still
working their organization. However, the petitioner has suffered amputation
due to the injuries suffered by her in the accident and it was her part time
job. It has been observed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in latest judgment
titled “Govind Singh Mauni Vs. Tej Bhan & Ors.”, MAC. APP. 1113/2013,
DOD:09.02.2026 which is reproduced as under:-
“The denial of compensation for loss of future
earning capacity solely on the ground that the
claimant continues in employment or has not
suffered immediate wage loss would be
inconsistent with settled Supreme Court
jurisprudence. The law recognises that economic
vulnerability, reduced employability, and
Renuka Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 25 of 32
MACP No. 361/17; FIR No. 256/16; PS. Narela DOD: 25.02.2026diminished labour-market acceptability and
inability to secure employment are real and
compensable consequences of permanent
disability.”
46. Hence, I deem it appropriate to accept the monthly income of
petitioner as Rs. 36,000/- as on the date of accident for computation of loss
of future income.
47. In copy of Aadhaar Card (which is part of DAR) of petitioner,
her date of birth is mentioned as 21.06.1982. The date of accident is
08.03.2016. In view of said document, her age was about 34 years as on the
date of accident. Hence, the appropriate multiplier would be 16 in view of
pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case
titled as “National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.“,
passed in SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17. The monthly
income of petitioner has been taken as Rs. 36,000/- per month as discussed
above. Thus, the loss of monthly future income would be Rs. 27,000/-
(Rs. 36,000/- x 75/100 ). The total loss of future income would be
Rs. 72,57,600/- (Rs. 27,000/- x 12 x 16 x 140/100). Thus, a sum of
Rs. 72,57,600/- is awarded in favour of petitioner under this head.
ARTIFICIAL LIMB EXPENSES
48. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for petitioner
argued that petitioner had already undergone the transfemoral prosthesis
due to the amputation and thus, appropriate amount should be awarded to
the petitioner under this head. For this, he has relied upon the invoice (Ex.
Renuka Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 26 of 32 MACP No. 361/17; FIR No. 256/16; PS. Narela DOD: 25.02.2026
PW1/H) issued by Endolite India Ltd as well as the testimony of PW3 Sh.
Kapil Kaushik, Dy. Manager, Endolite India Limited.
49. Apart from the ocular testimony of PW1, the petitioner has
also examined PW3 Sh. Kapil Kaushik who is the official from Endolite
India Limited, which deals in artificial limb. PW3 has produced the
discharge summary and invoice of patient namely Ms. Renuka Bisht. He
admitted that discharge summary and invoice already Ex. PW1/H(colly)
were issued by their company to the aforesaid patient. He further deposed
that apart from the aforesaid invoice, said patient was also required to bear
maintenance expenses towards components and sockets fabricates in future.
He further deposed that in case of loosening of socket, the patient was
required to change/replace the socket and the expenses for the same was
about Rs. 15,000/-. He further deposed that there were no regular
maintenance expenses. He further deposed that after every five years, the
hydraulic knee cylinder was to be changed and the expenses for the same as
on the date was about Rs. 90,000/-. He further deposed that the average life
of prosthesis leg was 5 to 6 years or depends upon its use by the patient and
thereafter, a new prosthetic leg was to be fitted. During his cross-
examination on behalf of respondents, he deposed that he only looked after
the stock available in the store of aforesaid company. He denied the
suggestion that since he only look after the stock available in the store of
the company, he was not aware about the maintenance expenses towards the
prosthetic leg. He volunteered that he had been working in the company for
the last 10 years, hence, he was aware about the maintenance expenses of
prosthetic leg. He admitted that life of prosthetic leg can be more than 5 to 6
years if the same is maintained properly by the patient. He further deposed
Renuka Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 27 of 32
MACP No. 361/17; FIR No. 256/16; PS. Narela DOD: 25.02.2026
that there was no requirement of admission for more than a day in case of
fitment of prosthetic leg. He deposed that the fitment of prosthetic leg was
done on 23.09.2016. He further deposed that the patient had not demanded
any quotation for prosthetic leg prior to the fitment of prosthetic leg. He
denied the suggestion that exaggerated invoice had been raised by their
company in collusion with the aforesaid patient. He denied the suggestion
that the life of prosthetic leg was more than 20 years.
50. Further, Ld. counsel for petitioner argued that artificial limb
fitted to the petitioner is required to be replaced after every 5-6 years as per
the testimony of PW3. He also contended that cost of artificial limb already
fitted to the patient was Rs. 3,99,626/- as per invoice(Ex. PW1/H) issued by
Endolite India Ltd. He therefore urged that appropriate compensation
amount may also be awarded to the petitioner under this head.
51. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for insurance company
vehemently argued that no amount should be awarded to the petitioner
under this head.
52. No evidence has been led by the insurance company to dispute
the amount of prosthesisor its requirement by the petitioner. It goes without
saying that it is a beneficial legislation enacted by our Parliament in order to
compensate the victims of road accidents and to alleviate their sufferings to
some extent. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that notional amount
representing the cost of artificial limb required by petitioner to lead normal
life, should also be awarded separately to him under this head.
Renuka Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 28 of 32 MACP No. 361/17; FIR No. 256/16; PS. Narela DOD: 25.02.2026
53. It may be noted here that as per testimony of PW3, the average
life of prosthetic leg is about 5-6 years and after every five years, the
hydraulic knee cylinder is to be changed and the expenses for the same was
about Rs. 90,000/-. Presently, the age of petitioner/injured is about 34 years
and the average life of a human being is about 70 years. Hence, it can be
presumed that the petitioner would require replacement of artificial limb
seven times during his life time and would also require to incur amount on
its maintenance. After carefully perusing the deposition of PW1 & PW3
and keeping in view the fact that petitioner has suffered amputation of left
knee joint and consequently, she has suffered 75% permanent disability in
relation to her left lower limb and the prosthetic leg has already been fitted
to the petitioner, I hereby award a notional sum of Rs. 32,00,000/-(rounded
off) (Rs. 3,99,626/- + 3,99,626/- X 7) under this head for installation of
artificial limb.
Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:-
1. Medical Expenses Rs. 8,48,001/-
2. Loss of income Rs. 3,24,000/-
3. Pain and suffering Rs. 2,50,000/-
4. Loss of general amenities and Rs. 1,50,000/-
enjoyment of life
5. Conveyance, Special diet & Rs. 1,00,000/-
Attendant Charges
6. Loss of future income Rs. 72,57,600/-
7. Artificial limb and its maintenance Rs. 32,00,000/-
expenses
Total Rs. 1,21,29,601/-
Rounded off to Rs. 1,21,30,000/-
Renuka Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 29 of 32 MACP No. 361/17; FIR No. 256/16; PS. Narela DOD: 25.02.2026
54. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which
of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Respondent
no. 3/insurance company did not adduce any evidence as it had no statutory
defence. Rather, it had given legal offer to the petitioner which was not
acceptable to her. It is nowhere the case of insurance company that any term
or condition of insurance policy was breached/violated by insured. Keeping
in view the existence of valid insurance policy, respondent no. 3/insurance
company becomes liable to pay the compensation amount, as insurance
company is liable to indemnify the insured. Issue no. 2 is decided
accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF
55. In view of my findings on issues no. 1 and 2, I award
compensation of Rs. 1,21,30,000/- (including interim award amount, if any)
alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum w.e.f date of filing the claim petition
i.e., 13.04.2017(except for the period of delay w.e.f., 15.03.2024 till
21.05.2024 and further, w.e.f., 15.10.2024 till 27.01.2026) till the date of its
realization, in favour of petitioner and against the respondents. The
petitioner shall entitled for interest @ 7.5% per annum only on the amount
of Rs. 89,30,000/- (excluding the amount of Rs. 32,00,000/- awarded under
the head of artificial limb). (Reliance placed on United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. V. Baby Raksha & Ors, MAC APP. No. 36/2023 passed by Hon’ble
Delhi High Court on 21.04.2023).
Renuka Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 30 of 32
MACP No. 361/17; FIR No. 256/16; PS. Narela DOD: 25.02.2026
APPORTIONMENT
56. Statement of petitioner in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP was
recorded on 25.02.2026. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
present case and the fact that petitioner has suffered 75% permanent
disability in relation to her left lower limb with disarticulation left knee
joint and she had already spent an amount of Rs. 8,48,000/- on her medical
treatment, I deem it appropriate to release a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Lakhs Only) immediately to the petitioner through her saving bank
account no. 520291020051651 with Union Bank of India, Tikri Khurd,
Delhi, having IFSC Code UBIN0919446 and remaining amount is directed
to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 30,000/- each for one
month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative
interest. The said FDRs be released to the said petitioner on the monthly
basis as aforesaid.
57. It is made clear that the entire amount of Rs. 32,00,000/-
awarded under the head artificial limb shall be kept separate and the amount
from the same shall be released to the petitioner only on the basis of
requirement of replacement of prosthesis only after production of original
bill and certificate of doctor in this regard by the petitioner.
58. Respondent no. 3/Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., being
insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the aforesaid award
amount in the aforesaid bank account of the claimant within 30 days from
the date award, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay
interest @ 12% p.a for the period of delay in terms of directions passed by
Renuka Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 31 of 32
MACP No. 361/17; FIR No. 256/16; PS. Narela DOD: 25.02.2026
Hon’ble Apex Court in its latest judgment titled “Parminder Singh Vs.
Honey Goyal & Ors.”, S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020, DOD:18.03.2025.
59. Concerned Manager of petitioner’s bank is directed to release
the amount to the petitioner as aforesaid, on completing necessary
formalities as per rules. He is further directed to keep the remaining amount
in fixed deposit, if any, in terms of aforesaid directions and send compliance
report to this Court. He is also directed to ensure that no loan, advance or
pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission
of the Court. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioner and also to
counsel for the insurance company for compliance. Petitioner is also
directed to provide copy of this award to her bank Manager for compliance.
Form XVI & Form XVII in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as
Annexure-A. Copy of order be also sent to concerned CJM/JMFC and
DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP.
Digitally signed
by RICHA
RICHA MANCHANDA
Announced in the open MANCHANDA Date:
2026.02.25
Court on 25.02.2026 15:04:30 +0530
(RICHA MANCHANDA)
Judge MACT-2 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
Renuka Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Page No. 32 of 32
