Delhi District Court
Vechan Paswan(D)I(204/24/B) vs Saif Ali(Magma) on 8 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010099882024
MACT No. : 466/2024
FIR No. : 204/2024
PS : Burari
u/s : 279/337/304A IPC
Sh. Vechan Paswan (injured/petitioner)
S/o. Sh. Mahendra Paswan,
R/o. Village Devipatti Bathnaha, Debipatti,
Supaut, Bihar-852218.
...Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Saif Ali (driver of the offending vehicle)
S/o. Sh. Sher Khan,
R/o. 51, Dabar Talab, Sangam Vihar,
Loni Dehat, Ghaziabad, U.P.
2. Sh. Sher Khan (owner of the offending vehicle)
S/o. Late Sh. Sanaullah,
R/o. 51, Dabar Talab, Sangam Vihar,
Loni Dehat, Ghaziabad, U.P.
3. Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Unit No.A-2, 2nd Floor, Kirti Nagar, Najafgarh Road,
Near Kalra Hospital, New Delhi-110015.
...Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 04.07.2024
Judgment reserved on : 08.04.2026
Date of Award : 08.04.2026
MACT No.466/2024
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 1 of 34
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08
15:07:40
+0530
AWAR D
1. The present DAR was filed on 04.07.2024 which was
treated as the claim petition. The Road Traffic Accident in question took
place on 21.03.2024 at about 02:15 PM near Hanuman Mandir, Holy
Chowk, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Burari.
Mr. Vechan Paswan sustained injuries in the said accident which was
allegedly caused by a Tractor bearing registration No. UP-14EU-1847
(hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle). The offending vehicle
was being driven by respondent no. 1 Mr. Saif Ali, owned by respondent
no. 2 Sher Khan and insured with respondent no. 3 Magma HDI General
Insurance Co. Ltd.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that a
PCR call vide DD No.92A dated 21.03.2024 regarding information of an
accident was received at PS Burari and handed over to ASI Raj Kumar,
who alongwith HC Narender went to the spot i.e. near Hanuman
Mandir, Holy Chowk, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi where they found one
scooty bearing no. DL-8SCZ-9744 and its driver Vechan Paswan.
Thereafter, IO recorded the statement of Sh. Vechan Paswan. Sh. Vechan
Paswan had told the IO that the another injured Lalit Kumar Sisodia had
been taken to Trauma Centre, Civil Lines, Delhi. IO called the crime
team at the spot of accident. The crime team had inspected and taken
photographs of the spot of accident.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
MACT No.466/2024 SINGLA
Date: 2026.04.08
15:07:45 +0530
Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 2 of 34
3. Thereafter, after leaving the HC Narender at the spot of
accident, IO went to the Trauma Centre where he got to know that Sh.
Lalit Kumar Sisodia was brought dead in the said hospital. Thereafter,
IO collected the MLC no.3640/24 of Sh. Lalit Kumar Sisodia. After
collecting the MLC, IO returned to the spot of accident. IO got admitted
the injured Vechan Paswan in the Burari Hospital for treatment and
collected his MLC no.772/24. Thereafter, IO took both the accidental
vehicles i.e. Scooty no. DL-8SCZ-9744 and Tractor bearing no.
UP-14EU-1847 into his custody and deposited the same in malkhana.
Thereafter, FIR was registered on the basis of statement of injured
Vechan Paswan and MLCs of injured persons u/s.279/337/304A IPC.
4. Thereafter, IO prepared the site plan at the instance of
injured Vechan Paswan. No CCTV Footage was found at the spot of
accident. Thereafter, IO got conducted the post mortem of the body of
Sh. Lalit Kumar Sisodia from Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital. Thereafter, he
collected the post mortem report bearing no.367/24 and dead body was
handed over to the relatives of the deceased. Thereafter, IO obtained the
ownership of the offending vehicle and notice under Section 133 MV
Act was served upon the owner of the offending vehicle. Upon the
notice, owner had given reply and accepted that he was owner of the
Tractor and at the time of accident his son i.e. Saif Ali was driving the
offending vehicle/Tractor. Owner had also produced the driver of the
offending vehicle before the IO. Thereafter, complainant Vechan Paswan
came to the PS and recognized the driver of the offending vehicle and
submitted that at the time of accident the said driver was driving the
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.466/2024 Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Date: 2026.04.08
15:07:50 +0530 Page 3 of 34
offending vehicle.
5. Thereafter, IO inquired from driver of the offending vehicle
and arrested him. The owner of the offending vehicle had handed over
the documents pertaining to the offending vehicle to the IO. Upon
producing the surety, the driver of the offending vehicle was released on
bail. Thereafter, IO had submitted the MLC of injured Vechan Paswan
for final opinion. Thereafter, he collected the MLC of injured Vechan
Paswan in which the doctors had opined the injuries as “Simple”.
Mechanical inspection of both the accidental vehicles were got
conducted. The documents of the offending vehicle was got verified
from the concerned authorities and the same were found to be correct.
Both the vehicles were released on superdari.
6. It was found by the IO that the offending vehicle was being
driven by its driver without having registration number plate.
Accordingly, the offence u/s.50/177 MV Act was added. After
completion of investigation, chargesheet for the offences u/s
279/337/304(A) IPC & 50/177 MV Act was filed against the driver Saif
Ali before the concerned Ld. JMFC and the DAR was filed before this
Tribunal.
WRITTEN STATEMENTS
7. WS was filed on behalf of the respondents no. 1 & 2 on
12.09.2024. It was stated that the present accident was not caused due to
the fault and negligence of the respondent no.1. Hence, it was stated that
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.466/2024 Digitally signed
Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 4 of 34
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Date:
2026.04.08
15:08:01 +0530
the respondents were not liable to pay any compensation.
8. Reply was filed on behalf of the respondent no. 3 on
12.09.2024. It was stated that the offending vehicle was insured with the
insurance company vide policy no.P0224400002/4017/100410 for the
period 30.04.2023 to 29.04.2024. It was stated that as per the record of
respondent no. 3, the respondent no. 2 owner/insured has paid the
insurance premium for insuring his tractor bearing registration no.
UP-14EU-1847 but he had not paid any additional insurance premium
for covering the risk of any attachments to the tractor such as safety tank
which was attached with the tractor at the time of alleged accident. It
was stated that the accident was caused by the safety tank. Hence, the
insurance policy could not be used as the same did not cover an accident
caused by an attachment.
9. It was further stated that as per the DAR, the aforesaid
tractor was registered with the transport authority with the description of
“agriculture tractor” whereas during investigation, it has come on record
in the disclosure statement of the respondent no. 1 that he was using the
said tractor alongwith the safety tank for commercial purposes for
cleaning residential houses. It is stated that as the respondent no. 2 was
using the offending vehicle for a purpose other than the one for which it
was registered, the insurance policy was violated and the respondent
no.3 was not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08
15:08:07
+0530MACT No.466/2024
Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 5 of 34
ISSUES
10. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated
12.09.2024, this Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the injured suffered simple injuries in
an accident that took place on 21.03.2024 at
about 02:15 PM near Hanuman Mandir, Holy
Chowk, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi involving
vehicle bearing registration no. UP-14EU-1847
driven rashly and negligently by respondent no. 1
Saif Ali, owned by respondent no. 2 Sher Khan
and insured with respondent no. 3 Magma HDI
General Insurance Co. Ltd? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and from
whom? OPP
3. Relief.
PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
11. The petitioner examined himself as PW-1. PW1 has
tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW1/A. He
relied upon the following documents:
1.Medical treatment records and medical bills are Ex.PW1/1 in
affidavit were de-exhibited.
2.Copy of PAN Card of deponent as Ex. PW1/2 (OSR).
3.Copy of Aadhar card of deponent as Ex. PW1/3 (OSR).
4.Attested copy of DAR as Ex. PW1/4.
12. PW1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for respondents
no. 1 and 2 and respondent no.3. Thereafter, vide separate statement of
Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, PE was closed on 14.10.2025.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.466/2024 Digitally signed by
Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 6 of 34
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.04.08
15:08:13 +0530
RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE
13. The respondent no. 1 examined himself as R1W1. He has
tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. R1W1/A. He
was cross examined by Ld. Counsels for respondent no. 3 and Ld.
Counsel for the petitioner.
14. The respondent no. 2 examined himself as R2W1. He has
tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. R2W1/A. He
was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3 and Ld.
Counsel for the petitioner.
Vide separate joint statement of respondents no. 1 and 2,
the RE was closed on 22.01.2026.
15. Thereafter, respondent no. 3 examined Sh. Rahul Kumar
Sharma as R3W1. He has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit
which is Ex. R3W1/A. He relied upon the following documents:
1. Copy of his Aadhar Card as Ex. R3W1/1.
2. Copy of insurance policy is Ex. R3W1/2.
16. He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for petitioner and
Ld. Counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2. Vide separate statement of the
Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3, RE was closed vide order dated
20.11.2025.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08
15:08:18
+0530MACT No.466/2024
Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 7 of 34
FINAL ARGUMENTS
17. The Petitioner filed his duly filled Form XIV and the
financial statement of the petitioner was recorded. Final arguments were
heard on behalf of the petitioner as well as respondents.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
18. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Ld. Counsel
for respondents and perused the record. My findings on the various
issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1:
Whether the injured suffered simple injuries in an
accident that took place on 21.03.2024 at about 02:15 PM near
Hanuman Mandir, Holy Chowk, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi involving
vehicle bearing registration no. UP-14EU-1847 driven rashly and
negligently by respondent no. 1 Saif Ali, owned by respondent no. 2
Sher Khan and insured with respondent no. 3 Magma HDI General
Insurance Co. Ltd?
19. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. It is
the case of the petitioners that on 21.03.2024 at about 02:15 PM,
21.03.2024, the deceased Lalit Kumar alongwith the petitioner were
going on their scooty bearing no. DL 8SCZ 9744. When they reached
near Hanuman Mandir, Holy Chowk, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi, the
driver of the offending vehicle i.e. the respondent no.1 who was driving
the offending vehicle carelessly in a negligent manner came from
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.466/2024
Date: 2026.04.08
15:08:23 +0530
Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 8 of 34
opposite side and hit the scooty of the petitioner, due to which he fell
and suffered injuries. It is stated that during investigation, the offending
vehicle was seized by the IO. The respondent no.1 was chargesheeted by
the IO. Hence, it is submitted that it is proved that the respondent no.1
was driving the negligent in a rash and negligent manner due to which
the petitioner suffered injuries.
20. Record perused.
21. In the present matter, the factum of the accident is not in
dispute. In the WS filed by respondent no. 1 & 2, they have merely
stated that the accident was not caused due to the negligence of the
respondent no.1. It is not even alleged that the accident was caused due
to the rash and negligent act of some other person. It is pertinent to
mention here that in the proceedings before the claims tribunal, the facts
are to be established on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and
not by the strict rules of evidence or the higher standard of beyond
reasonable doubt as required in criminal cases. The burden of proof in
the present cases is much lower than as placed in civil or criminal cases.
In Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors
(2009) 13 SC 530, it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
that negligence must be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of
probabilities and a holistic view must be adopted in reaching a
conclusion.
22. Further, it is also pertinent to note that the respondent no.1
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
MACT No.466/2024
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08
15:08:28Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 9 of 34
+0530
was chargesheeted by the IO under Section 279/337/304A IPC. In
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 and United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepak Goel & Ors, 2014 (2) TAC 846 (Del)
decided by the Coordinate Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, it
was held as under :-
“……where the claimants filed either the certified copies of
the criminal record or the criminal record showing the
completion of investigation by police or issuance of charge
sheet under Section 279/304A IPC or the certified copy of
FIR or the recovery of the mechanical inspection report of
the offending vehicle, then these documents are sufficient
proof to reach to a conclusion that the driver was negligent
particularly when there is no defence available from the
side of driver.”
23. Reliance is also being placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble
Delhi High Court in case Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Meera Devi, 2021 LawSuit (Del) wherein it was held that “……in view
of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008, contents of DAR
has to be presumed to be correct and read in evidence without formal
proof of the same unless proof to the contrary was produced.”
24. Even otherwise, the deceased and the eye witness were
unknown to respondent no.1 prior to the accident and admittedly, there
was no prior enmity with respondent no.1 and hence, it is beyond
comprehension as to why they will implicate respondent no.1 falsely,
had he not been driving the offending vehicle.
25. It is a settled law that the petitioner cannot be expected to
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.466/2024
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08
15:08:33
+0530Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 10 of 34
prove the accident beyond reasonable doubts and the principle of res
ipse loquitor should apply which means that the “accident speaks for
itself”. Thus, once it has been established in DAR and chargesheet that
the accident had taken place, the burden shifts on the respondents to
prove that they were not responsible for the accident which the
respondents have failed to discharge. Hence, an adverse inference is
drawn against the respondent no.1. In this regard, reliance is placed on
the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the cases of Teja Singh
Vs Suman & Ors., MAC. APP. 1111/2018 & CM APPL. 52384/2018,
52386/2018, date of decision 06/12/2019; MAC. APP. 428/2018, titled
as The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamla Devi & Ors, date of
decision 08.11.2019 and MAC. APP. 690/2017 & CM APPL.
28108/2017, titled as Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs
Mona & Ors., date of decision 15.10.2019, which had relied upon the
judgment in the case of Cholamandalam Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamlesh
2009(3) AD Delhi 310.
26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 5 SCC 656 has laid down in paragraphs 27 &
28:
“27. …This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina
Fernandes, noted that the key of negligence on the part of
the driver of the offending vehicle as set up by the
claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on
the touchstone of preponderance of probability and
certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable
doubt. Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the
judgments already adverted to by us, filing of chargesheet
against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards his
Digitally
signed by
MACT No.466/2024
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08
Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. 15:08:39
+0530
Page 11 of 34
complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly.
Further, even when the accused were to be acquitted in the
criminal case, this Court opined that the same may be of no
effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect
of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
28. Reliance placed upon the decisions in Minu B. Mehta
and Meena Variyal, by the respondents, in our opinion, is
of no avail. The dictum in these cases is on the matter in
issue in the case concerned. Similarly, even the dictum in
Surender Kumar Arora will be of no avail. In the present
case, considering the entirety of the pleadings, evidence
and circumstances on record and in particular the finding
recorded by the Tribunal on the factum of negligence of
Respondent 2, the driver of the offending jeep, the High
Court committed manifest error in taking a contrary view
which, in our opinion, is an error apparent on the face of
record and manifestly wrong.”
27. It has not been disputed that respondent No.1 has been
charge-sheeted in the aforesaid FIR for offences punishable under
Section 279/338 IPC for rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle. In view of the same, considering the facts and circumstances,
the unrebutted testimony of the petitioner and the documents filed
thereto, the court is satisfied that the accident was caused due to the rash
and negligent driving of the respondent no.1. From the DAR, it also
stands established that the respondent no.2 was the registered owner of
the offending vehicle and that the offending vehicle was insured with
respondent no.3.
The injury:
28. Further, the onus to prove that the petitioner had suffered
Digitally
MACT No.466/2024
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. 2026.04.08
15:08:44
+0530
Page 12 of 34
injuries by way of the said accident was on the petitioner. In this regard,
the petitioner have relied upon the MLC dated 21.03.2024, as per which
the petitioner was brought to the hospital with the history of road traffic
accident. As per the MLC, he had suffered various injuries on his body
i.e. swelling over right elbow joint, right knee joint and pain. Further, it
was stated that the injuries were simple in nature.
29. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the
opinion that on the scales of preponderance of probabilities, the
petitioner has proved that the accident in question took place due to rash
and negligent driving of offending vehicle being driven by its
driver/respondent no. 1 on the date and time of the accident and that due
to the said accident, the injured suffered simple injury. Accordingly,
issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the
respondents.
ISSUE NO.2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to
what amount and from whom? (OPP)
30. The onus to prove this issue was also upon the petitioner. In
view of the observations as given in issue no.1, the petitioner is entitled
for compensation. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors.
(2011) 1 SCC 34, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
“General principles relating to compensation in
injury cases
4. The provision of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act’ for
RUCHIKA
SINGLAMACT No.466/2024 Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.04.08
15:08:49 +0530Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 13 of 34
short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which
means that compensation should, to the extent possible,
fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position
prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to
make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far
as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable
manner. The Court or tribunal shall have to assess the
damages objectively and exclude from consideration any
speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference
to the nature of disability and its consequences, is
inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the
physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a
result of such injury. This means that he is to be
compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability
to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have
enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as
much as he used to earn or could have earned. ( See C. K.
Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair – AIR 1970 SC
376, R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd . – 1995
(1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby – 1970 AC 467).
5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in
personal injury cases are the following :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment,
hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food,
and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the
injured would have made had he not been injured,
comprising :
(a) Loss of earning during the period of
treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of
permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as
a consequence of the injuries. RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.04.08
15:08:54 +0530MACT No.466/2024
Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 14 of 34
(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).”
31. In view of the above law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India, in injury cases, award needs to be passed only under
heads of medical expenses, loss of earning during treatment period and
damages for pain, suffering and trauma. This is a case where the
petitioner has claimed that he suffered simple injury due to the accident,
hence, this Tribunal now proceeds further step by step to decide the
compensation/award under different heads applicable to the present
matter in light of above preposition.
Medical expenses:
32. The petitioner has not claimed any amount under this head.
Loss of income:
33. In this regard, it is submitted by the petitioner that at the
time of the accident, the petitioner was doing labour work with Anmol
Wall Fashion, Rohini, Delhi and earning Rs.20,000/- pm. However, it is
conceded that he does not have any proof of income. Hence, it is
submitted that his income may be calculated as per the applicable
minimum wages payable at Delhi.
34. Per contra, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for respondent
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
MACT No.466/2024 2026.04.08
15:08:59
+0530
Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 15 of 34
no. 3 that the petitioner has not led any evidence to prove that he was
working at Delhi. Admittedly, he is a permanent resident of Bihar.
Hence, It is submitted that his income be calculated as per the minimum
wages payable at Bihar.
35. Record perused.
36. As mentioned above, no income proof of the petitioner is
proved on record and it is conceded that his income be assessed as per
the minimum wages criteria. His educational documents are not proved
on record. Hence, his income shall be assessed as per the minimum
wages payable to an unskilled worker.
37. Now, it is submitted by the petitioner that he was working
at Delhi. He did not lead any evidence qua his employment at Delhi and
admittedly, he is a permanent resident of Bihar. However, perusal of the
chargesheet shows that the FIR was registered on the statement of the
petitioner on the same day as the accident. In his statement before the
IO, he has specifically stated that he was residing at Village Naharpur,
Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi and that he was working at a wallpaper shop in
Gali no. 4, Muthoot wali gali which was owned by one Sh. Manjesh.
When his statement was recorded by the IO, the petitioner may not have
even known that he may get compensation from the court or his
address/place of employment shall be a relevant factor for computation
of compensation. Further, it is highly improbable that he would make up
his residence address and place of employment. Hence, from the record,
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed
MACT No.466/2024 by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Date: 2026.04.08
15:09:04 +0530
Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 16 of 34
it seems that as on the date of accident, the petitioner was working at
Delhi.
38. Hence, the petitioner’s income shall be ascertained as per
the minimum wages payable at Delhi. The date of the accident is
21.03.2024. As per the relevant notification, the minimum wages
payable to an unskilled worker on that day were Rs. 17,494/-. Hence, the
income of the petitioner is assessed to be Rs. 17,494/-.
39. As mentioned above, as per the medical record of the
petitioner, he has suffered swelling and pain in his arm and leg. Hence,
he had suffered simple injuries. No other treatment papers were proved.
Hence, he is granted loss of income for one month. Accordingly, it is
held that the petitioner shall be entitled to the loss of income for 1 month
i.e. Rs. 17,494/- x 1 = Rs. 17,494/-.
Special diet:
40. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month
towards special diet. Although, there is no bill to support his plea, but
keeping in view the fact the facts and circumstances, it is understandable
that he must have required special diet and must have incurred
expenditure towards special diet, therefore, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- is
awarded to the petitioner under the head of special diet.
Conveyance charges:
41. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
MACT No.466/2024
2026.04.08
15:09:09
+0530Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 17 of 34
conveyance charges. Admittedly there is no document showing expense
on conveyance, however, considering his injuries, this Tribunal is of the
view that the petitioner must have spent money on conveyance thus, the
petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards conveyance charges.
Attendant charges:
42. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards
attendant charges. Admittedly there is no document showing expense on
attendant, however, considering his injuries, this Tribunal is of the view
that the petitioner must have spent money on attendant thus, the
petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards attendant charges.
Pain & Suffering:
43. The petitioner/injured has claim Rs. 50,000/- under the
head pain and suffering. It is not possible to quantify the compensation
admissible to petitioner for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which he
actually suffered because of the above injuries, but as stated above, an
effort has to be made to compensate him for the same in a just and
reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the
injuries suffered by petitioner and duration of the treatment taken by him
etc., an amount of Rs.5,000/- is being awarded to him towards pain and
sufferings.
Mental and physical shock:
44. The petitioner has not claimed any amount under this head.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08
15:09:14
+0530MACT No.466/2024
Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 18 of 34
Loss of amenities
45. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 50,000/- under this
head. Although, there is nothing on record to prove the same but keeping
in view his injuries, it cannot be denied that he would definitely have
suffered loss of amenities. Hence, a sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded to the
petitioner under this head.
Disfiguration, Loss of marriage prospects & Loss of earning,
inconvenience, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment
and unhappiness in future life etc.
46. The petitioner/injured has not claimed any amount under
these heads. Hence, no amount is awarded.
47. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances,
the material on record, and the settled principles and guidelines
governing the injury cases like the present one, the compensation is
being derived in the present case as under:-
NAME OF HEAD AMOUNT (in Rupees) Expenditure on Treatment Nil Monthly income of injured Rs. 17,494/- Loss of income x 1 month Rs. 17,494/- Add future prospects Nil
Loss of future income (income X Nil
% Earning Capacity X Multiplier)
Any other loss/expenditure Nil
Expense on special diet Rs. 5,000/-
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
MACT No.466/2024
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08
15:09:27Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 19 of 34
+0530
Conveyance charges Rs. 5,000/-
Attendant charges Rs. 5,000/-
Mental & Physical Shock & Pain & Rs. 5,000/-
Suffering Loss of amenities Rs. 5,000/- Disfiguration Nil Loss of marriage prospects Nil
Loss of earning, inconvenience, Nil
hardship, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
Total Rs. 42,494/-
48. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @
Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 , the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld awarding of 9% interest per annum.
Therefore, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9%
per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 04.07.2024 till
realization.
DISBURSEMENT
49. The Financial Statement of petitioner/injured was recorded
by this Court/Tribunal. As per the said statement, the monthly expenses
of his family are approximately Rs. 20,000/- per month.
50. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
MACT No.466/2024 2026.04.08
15:09:33
+0530
Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 20 of 34
07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh
Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors. has given the following directions:
“(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added
in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the
claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be
an individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in
safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR
number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity
amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the
ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the
place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature
discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the
permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book
and/or debit card to claimants. However, in case the debit
card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank
shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award
amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of
claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the
account of claimants from any other branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook
of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque books and/or
debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without
the permission of the Court and the claimant shall produced
the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the
Court for compliance.”
51. However, in a recent judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
MACT No.466/2024
2026.04.08
15:09:39
+0530Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 21 of 34
Supreme Court of India titled as Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal on 18
March, 2025 in S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020 has held that :
“17. The case in hand pertains to the compensation
awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. The general
practice followed by the insurance companies, where the
compensation is not disputed, is to deposit the same before
the Tribunal. Instead of following that process, a direction
can always be issued to transfer the amount into the bank
account(s) of the claimant(s) with intimation to the
Tribunal.
17.1 For that purpose, the Tribunals at the initial stage of
pleadings or at the stage of leading evidence may require
the claimant(s) to furnish their bank account particulars to
the Tribunal along with the requisite proof, so that at the
stage of passing of the award the Tribunal may direct that
the amount of compensation be transferred in the account
of the claimant and if there are more than one then in their
respective accounts. If there is no bank account, then they
should be required to open the bank account either
individually or jointly with family members only. It should
also be mandated that, in case there is any change in the
bank account particulars of the claimant(s) during the
pendency of the claim petition they should update the same
before the Tribunal. This should be ensured before passing
of the final award. It may be ensured that the bank account
should be in the name of the claimant(s) and if minor,
through guardian(s) and in no case it should be a joint
account with any person, who is not a family member. The
transfer of the amount in the bank account, particulars of
which have been furnished by the claimant(s), as
mentioned in the award, shall be treated as satisfaction of
the award. Intimation of compliance should be furnished to
the Tribunal.”
52. In view of the same, the award amount can now be
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
MACT No.466/2024 RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08
Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 22 of 34
15:09:43
+0530
disbursed in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioner. However, the
remaining directions as passed by the Hon’ble High Court shall be
complied with.
53. After considering the financial statement of the petitioner, it
is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 49,232/- (Rupees
Forty Nine Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Two only), the entire amount
be released to the petitioner/claimant immediately in his bank account
maintained at Central Bank of India, P.O. Aamaha Via Pipka Bazar,
Distt Supaul, Bihar bearing no. 4015069820, IFSC no. CBIN0282809.
54. In compliance of the directions given by Hon’ble High
Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award
in the prescribed Format-XVI is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
Date of Accident: 21.03.2024
Name of the Injured: Vechan Paswan
Age of the Injured: Presently 39 years
Occupation of the Injured: Private Job
Income of the Injured: Rs. 17,494/- pm
Nature of Injury: Simple
Medical Treatment taken: Sushruta Trauma Centre, Delhi
Period of Hospitalization: Nil
Whether any permanent: No
disability?
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08
15:09:48
+0530
MACT No.466/2024
Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 23 of 34
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
Sr. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
No.
1. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on Treatment Nil
(ii) Expenditure on Special Diet Rs. 5,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on Rs. 5,000/-
Nursing/Attendant charges
(iv) Expenditure on Conveyance Rs. 5,000/-
(v) Monthly income of injured Rs. 17,494/-
(vi) Loss of income x 1 month Rs. 17,494/-
(vii) Add future prospects Nil
viii) Any other loss which may Nil
require any special treatment or
aid to the injured for the rest of
his life
2. Non Pecuniary Loss
(i) Compensation for mental and Rs. 5,000/-
physical shock
(ii) Pain and Sufferings
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 5,000/-
(iv)
Disfiguration Nil
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Nil
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
Digitally
signed byMACT No.466/2024
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 24 of 34
2026.04.08
15:09:52
+0530
(i) Percentage of disability assessed Nil
and nature of disability as
permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Nil
expectation of life span on
account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning Nil
capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income – (income Nil
x % earning capacity x
Multiplier)
4. Total Compensation Rs. 42,494/-
5. Interest awarded 9%
6. Earlier award amount (which has
already been received by the
petitioner in terms of previous –
award passed by Ld.
Predecessor) to be deducted
from present award amount .
7. Interest amount upto the date of Rs.6,737.34 (rounded off to Rs.6,738/-)
award w.e.f. 04.07.2024 till
realization
8. Total amount including Interest Rs. 49,232/-
9. Award amount released As mentioned in para no. 53
10. Award amount kept in FDRs Nil
11. Mode of disbursement of the As mentioned in para no. 53
award amount of the claimant(s)
12. Next date for compliance of the 08.05.2026
award
LIABILITY:
55. It has been established that accident was caused due to the
DigitallyMACT No.466/2024
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 25 of 34
2026.04.08
15:09:59
+0530
rash and negligent act of the respondent no.1 who was driving the
offending vehicle no.1 and that respondent no.2 is the owner of the
same and the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no.3.
56. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 that
in the present matter, the conditions of the insurance policy were
violated. Hence, the respondent no. 3 is not liable to pay compensation.
It is submitted that as per the insurance policy Ex. R3W1/2, only the
tractor was covered. The attachments to the tractor were not covered. It
is submitted that this is an admitted fact that at the time of the accident,
the tractor had a septic tank attached with it. The accident was caused
by the septic tank and not by the tractor. Hence, the insurance policy is
violated.
57. Record perused.
58. The onus to prove that the insurance policy was violated is
upon the respondent no. 3. Perusal of the record shows that no such
question was put by the respondent no. 3 to either the petitioner or the
respondents no. 1 and 2 who entered the witness box as R1W1 and
R2W1 that the accident was not caused by the tractor and by the septic
tank. Further, perusal of the statement of the petitioner which was
recorded by the IO at the time of the accident shows that he has stated
that when, while driving the scooty, he reached West Sant Nagar, Gali
no. 15, then one tractor was coming from the opposite side, who hit his
scooty directly from the front due to which he and the deceased fell.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08
15:10:04
+0530MACT No.466/2024
Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 26 of 34
Further, he states that the driver of the tractor then ran over the
deceased. The septic tank was admittedly attached behind the tractor
and not in front of it. Hence, from the statement of the complainant, it
transpires that the accident occurred due to a head on collusion. If the
tractor came towards the scooter from the front and hit it from the front
side, there is in no way a possibility that the accident was caused by the
septic tank and not the tractor. Hence, as the accident was caused by the
tractor itself and not the septic tank, the terms of the insurance policy
are not violated.
59. Further, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Honnamma & ors. SLP No.2135/2023 decided
on 05.05.2025. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has a
case of similar facts in front of it where the accident was caused by a
tractor which had a trailer attached to it. While discussing the liability
of the insurance company in such a case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that :
“…Thus, the accident was caused by the tractor, as during
the course of being driven/pulled by the tractor, the
accident occurred.
12. Thus, the liability of the tractor/its insurer extended to
the accident caused by the tractor resulting in the death of
the deceased, through the trailer. This being the position in
the present case, the principles emanating from the
decisions where the Courts have held that the trailer has to
be separately registered with the insurance company to
make it liable, would not be applicable. To that extent, the
facts in the present case are clearly distinguishable from
DigitallyMACT No.466/2024
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 27 of 34
2026.04.08
15:10:08
+0530
the ones cited by learned counsel for the appellant. The
legislation i.e., the MV Act, being beneficial and welfare-
oriented in nature [Ningamma v United India Insurance
Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710; K Ramya v National
Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338, and;
Shivaleela v Divisional Manager, United India Insurance
Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 563] and ultimately the
root cause of the accident being the tractor, which was
insured, this crucial fact cannot be lost sight of. For further
clarification, we might illustrate: if an insured vehicle hits
another vehicle which in turn hits a third vehicle, then for
the entire chain of accidents, the liability would pass on to
the vehicle which was the root cause of the accident
because it is the result of the action in the same chain of
events which cannot be segregated or compartmentalized.
Moreover, this Court is duty-bound to be mindful of the
ground realities of our nation and cannot let practicality be
overshadowed by technicality.”
60. In the present matter, as in the case before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, the septic tank was attached with the tractor. Hence,
even if the accident was caused by the septic tank, even then, the
insurance company shall have the liability to pay the compensation to
the petitioner. However, as discussed above, the accident was caused by
the tractor itself. Hence, the liability of the insurance company is
absolute.
61. Further Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 has submitted
that as per the admitted case of the respondents no. 1 and 2, the tractor
was being used for cleaning houses but as per the policy, the permitted
use of the tractor was only agriculture and forestry purposes. Hence, it
is submitted that due to this reason, the terms of the insurance policy are
MACT No.466/2024
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 28 of 34
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08
15:10:15
+0530
violated.
62. Record perused.
63. To prove the same, Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 has
relied upon the disclosure statement of the respondent no. 1 which was
recorded by the IO during the investigation of the case. In the said
statement, the respondent no. 1 has stated that he was using the said
tractor with septic tank for cleaning of the houses. A statement recorded
before the IO during investigation is not admissible as per the Indian
Evidence Act. Apart from this, there is no such evidence to prove that
the tractor was being used for cleaning houses i.e. commercial purpose
and not agricultural or forestry purpose. Again, no such question was
put by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 to either the respondent no.
1 or the respondent no.2 when they entered into the witness box as
R1W1 and R2W1 respectively. Hence, the respondent no. 3 has failed to
prove that at the time of the accident, the tractor i.e. the offending
vehicle was not being used for agricultural purposes. Hence, in the
absence of the same, the respondent no. 3 cannot be exempted from its
liability. Hence, the respondent no. 3 shall be liable to pay the
compensation amount to the petitioners. Issue No. 2 is accordingly
decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
64. In view of the above, the respondent no.3 is directed to
deposit a sum of Rs.42,494/- (Rupees Forty Two Thousand Four
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08
MACT No.466/2024 15:10:19
+0530Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 29 of 34
Hundred Ninety Four Only) along with interest @ 9% from the date of
filing of DAR i.e. w.e.f. 04.07.2024 till realization with the Civil Nazir
of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the claimants, failing
which the respondents shall be liable to pay interest @12% per annum
for the period of delay beyond 30 days. Reliance placed on case titled as
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP no.
22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
65. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the
award to the insurance company for compliance within the time granted
as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No.
534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. The said respondent is further
directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the
claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal
with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days
of the deposit with a copy to the Claimant and his counsel.
Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the
award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties
free of cost.
Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to
Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services
Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules,
2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of
Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.466/2024
Date: 2026.04.08
15:10:24 +0530
Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 30 of 34
Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on
08.05.2026 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation
amount within the time granted.
Further, Civil Nazir is directed to maintain the record in
Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment)
Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation
of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021
titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors.,
date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally
Announced in the open Court today
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
on this 08th April, 2026
2026.04.08
15:10:29
+0530(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
MACT No.466/2024
Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 31 of 34
THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL MOTOR
VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022 (PL. SEE RULE
150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 21.03.2024
2 Date of filing of Form-I –
First Accident Report 23.03.2024
(FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II
04.07.2024
to the victim(s)
4 Date of receipt of Form-III
10.05.2024
from the Driver
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV
from the Owner 10.05.2024
6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the insurance 10.05.2024
of the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-
04.07.2024
VIA from the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII –
04.07.2024
Detail Accident Report
(DAR)
9 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Investigating No
Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the 04.07.2024
Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company admitted his Yes
report within 30 days of the
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.466/2024 SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08
15:10:35
Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. +0530
Page 32 of 34
DAR/claim petition?
12 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the No
part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether
any action/direction
warranted?
13 Date of response of the
claimant(s) to the offer of NA
the Insurance Company.
14 Date of award 08.04.2026
15 Whether the claimant(s)
were directed to open Yes
savings bank account(s)
near their place of
residence?
16 Date of order by which
claimant(s) were directed to
open Savings Bank
Account(s) near his place of 04.07.2024
residence and produce PAN
card and Aadhar Card and
the direction to the bank not
to issue any cheque
book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an
endorsement to this effect
on the passbook(s).
17 Date on which the
claimant(s) produced the
passbook of their savings
26.02.2026
bank account(s) near the
place of their residence
alongwith the endorsement,
PAN card and Aadhaar
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
MACT No.466/2024 RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08
Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 33 of 34
15:10:43
+0530
Card?
18 Permanent residential
address of the claimant(s). As per Award.
19 Whether the claimant(s)
savings bank account(s) is
Yes
near their place of
residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s)
were examined at the time
Yes. The Financial Statement of the claimant
of passing of the Award to
was recorded on 26.02.2026.
ascertain his/their financial
condition?
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08
15:10:47
+0530(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
08.04.2026
MACT No.466/2024
Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 34 of 34
[ad_1]
Source link
