Delhi District Court
Reeta vs Mukesh Kumar on 27 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010035342024
MACT No. : 175/2024
FIR No. : 743/23
PS : Kashmere Gate
u/s : 279/338 IPC
Smt. Reeta (Injured)
W/o Sh. Vijay Kumar,
R/o H. No. K-485, Gali No. 7,
Near Khadde Wali Masjid,
Gautam Vihar, Ghonda,
Delhi-110053. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Mukesh Kumar (driver of the offending vehicle)
S/o Sh. Jeet Singh,
R/o 139/4, Baipass Road,
New Shanti Nagar Vijay Nagar,
Ghaziabad, U.P.
2.TML CV Mobility Solutions Ltd.(Owner of the Offending Vehicle)
Office at: Plot No. 1, Ghazipur
Patparganj, East Delhi.
3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
A-74 Main Road, Swami
Dayanand Marg, Kanti Nagar,
Delhi. Digitally
...Respondents
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.27
16:16:20
+0530
MACT No.175/2024 Reeta Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. Page 1 of 29
Date of filing of DAR : 07.03.2024
Judgment reserved on : 10.03.2026
Date of Award : 27.04.2026
AWAR D
1. The Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filed on
07.03.2024 which was treated as a claim petition. The Road Traffic
Accident in question took place on 04.12.2023, at 1400 hours, near
metro gate No. 4 Nityanand Marg, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. Smt. Reeta
suffered injuries in the said accident which was allegedly caused by
vehicle bearing registration No. DL51EV1786, (hereinafter referred to
as the offending vehicle). The said vehicle was being driven by
respondent no. 1 Sh. Mukesh Kumar, owned by respondent no. 2 TML
CV Mobility Solutions Ltd. and insured with respondent no. 3 New
India Assurance Co. Ltd.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that on 07.03.2024, on receipt of information of an accident vide DD No.44A, the investigation of present accident was marked to the IO/ASI Ravinder Singh. Thereafter, he along with Ct. Vipin went to the spot where IO got information that the injured person was taken to the Trauma Center hospital Civil Lines. Thereafter, IO went to the Trauma Center and collected MLC No. 18886/23 of injured Ms. Reetu. IO could not record the statement of the injured at that time, as injured was unable to give the same. Thereafter, FIR was registered u/s 279/337 IPC on basis of PCR Call and MLC. RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.04.27 MACT No.175/2024 Reeta Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. Page 2 of 29 16:16:26 +0530
3. Further, IO prepared the site plan. Thereafter, IO checked the CCTV footage and he found one CCTV footage and collected it in a pendrive. Thereafter, IO collected the information about the accidental vehicle that the said bus belongs to Hasanpur Depot. Upon this, he went to the Hasanpur Depot. After reaching there, he served the notice to the Depot Manager u/s160 & 91 Cr.P.C. On 09.12.2023, IO collected CCTV footage of the Bus i.e. accidental vehicle. Further, IO recorded the statement of Ms. Reeta (injured). Thereafter, on 19.12.2023, Sh. Sumit Rathi from the depot came to the PS along with accidental vehicle and driver and IO served notice u/s 133 MV Act upon Sh. Sumit Rathi. Upon this, he replied that at the time of the accident, Sh. Mukesh Kumar was driving the accidental vehicle. Further, he also produced photocopy of the documents of the offending vehicle before the IO.
4. Thereafter, IO interrogated the driver of the offending vehicle and he accepted that the said accident was caused by him. Thereafter, he was arrested by the IO. Driver of the offending vehicle produced his surety. Thereafter, he was released on police bail. Mechanical inspection of the offending accidental vehicle was got conducted by the IO. Further, IO got verified the documents of the offending vehicle by the concerned authority which were found to be correct. Thereafter, IO got deposited the MLC of the injured for final opinion and doctor opined the injury as "Grevious". Upon this, IO changed the Section 337 IPC to Section 338 IPC. Thereafter, offending vehicle was released on superdari. Thereafter, chargesheet was prepared Digitally signed by RUCHIKA MACT No.175/2024 Reeta Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. Page 3 of 29 RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.27 16:16:31 +0530 against the accused namely Mukesh Kumar, u/s 279/338 IPC, which was filed before the Ld. JMFC and DAR was filed in the present case.
WRITTEN STATEMENTS
5. No WS was filed on behalf of the respondent no.1. He also did not appear before the court. Hence, his right to file the WS was closed vide order dated 03.06.2024.
6. WS was filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 on 24.02.2024, wherein it was stated that the respondent no.1 was driving his vehicle as per the traffic rules and regulations. He was holding a valid driving license and that he was not responsible for the accident. It was stated by the respondent no.1 that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the petitioner who was crossing the road casually and ignoring the traffic rules. Hence, it is stated that the accident was not caused by the respondent and they were not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.
7. Legal offer on behalf of respondent no. 3 was filed on 09.04.2024, wherein it was admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no.3 vide policy no. 12140031230100001341 for the period 06.10.2023 to 05.10.2024. An offer of Rs. 92,116/- was made to the petitioner but the same was not accepted by the petitioners.
ISSUES
8. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order Digitally MACT No.175/2024 Reeta Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. Page 4 of 29 signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.27 16:16:36 +0530 dated 03.06.2024, this Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioner/injured suffered grievous injuries in an accident that took place on 04.12.2023 at about 02:00 pm near Metro Gate No. 4, Nityanand Marg, Kashmere Gate, Delhi involving vehicle bearing registration no.
DL-51EV1786 driven rashly and negligently by respondent no. 1 Mr. Mukesh Kumar, owned by TML CV Mobility Solutions Ltd. and insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.?
OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner/injured is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
OPP.
3. Relief.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
9. The petitioner examined herself i.e. Smt. Reeta as PW-1. PW1 has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW1/A. She relied upon the following documents:
1) Original discharge card of Trauma Centre Hospital, Delhi which is Ex. PW-1/1.
2) Original OPD cards, which are Ex. PW-1/2 (colly) (running into 3 sheets).
3) Original medical bill of Rs. 282, which is Ex. PW-1/3.
4) Photocopy of her aadhar card which is Ex. PW-1/4. (OSR).
5) Photocopy of her PAN card which is Ex. PW-1/5 (OSR).
6) Copy of DAR which is Ex. PW-1/6 (colly).
RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.04.27 16:16:40 +0530 MACT No.175/2024 Reeta Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. Page 5 of 29
10. She was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for respondents. Thereafter, PE was closed vide order dated 07.07.2025.
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE
11. Thereafter, matter was listed for RE. No evidence was led by any of the respondents. Hence, RE was closed vide order dated 27.10.2025.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
12. The Petitioner filed his duly filled Form XIII and the financial statements of the petitioner was recorded. Final arguments were heard on behalf of the petitioner as well as respondents.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
13. 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 petitioner/injured suffered grievous injuries in an accident that took place on 04.12.2023 at about 02:00 pm near Metro Gate No. 4, Nityanand Marg, Kashmere Gate, Delhi involving vehicle bearing registration no. DL-51EV1786 driven rashly and negligently by respondent no. 1 Mr. Mukesh Kumar, owned by TML CV Mobility Solutions Ltd. and insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.? RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.04.27 16:16:45 +0530 MACT No.175/2024 Reeta Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. Page 6 of 29
14. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. However, perusal of record shows that legal offer was filed by the respondent no. 3 in the present matter, meaning thereby, that the factum of the accident and the rash and negligent act of the respondent no. 1 was not disputed by the respondent no. 3. Hence, as the said facts are admitted, the same are not required to be proved by the petitioner.
Contributory negligence
15. However, it is submitted by Ld. Counsels for respondents that the petitioner is guilty of contributory negligence as she was crossing the road without adhering to the traffic rules and she herself came in front of the offending vehicle. Ld. Counsels for respondents have relied upon the CCTV footage placed on record by the IO along with the DAR. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner is guilty of contributory negligence and the compensation be reduced by 45%. Reliance placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ajay Kumar v. Deepak Kumar MAC App no. 23/2017 decided on 27th July 2017 wherein the Hon'ble Court reduced the compensation by 45% on account of contributory negligence of the claimant, who was crossing a busy road at a non-zebra crossing point. In that case, the evidence indicated that the offending vehicle was being driven within permissible limits, and the pedestrian's decision to cross a busy thoroughfare without using safe crossing facilities constituted a significant causal factor.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.27 16:16:50 +0530 MACT No.175/2024 Reeta Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. Page 7 of 29
16. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sahana MAC App no. 373/2013 decided on 6th February 2020 wherein the Hon'ble Court refused to reduce the awarded amount of compensation on the ground of contributory negligence.
17. Record perused.
18. The petitioner's statement recorded before the IO is on record in which she has admitted that she was crossing the road at the time of the accident. However, in her affidavit Ex. PW1/A, she has stated that she was standing at the road side waiting to cross the road. The CCTV footage placed on record by the IO alongwith the DAR is on record. The DAR was relied upon by the petitioner and was exhibited as Ex. PW1/6. Hence, the CCTV footage was as such admitted by the petitioner.
19. Perusal of the CCTV footage shows that the offending vehicle was being driven at the right side of the road. The speed of the same cannot be told definitively but the same does not seem to be too high. It was a busy road with heavy traffic plying at the time of the accident. Then, it can be seen that one person came on the left side of the offending vehicle, in the middle of the road and he/she was hit by the offending vehicle from the left side. Hence, it is apparent that the petitioner was not waiting on the side of the road but was walking in Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.27 16:16:55 +0530 MACT No.175/2024 Reeta Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. Page 8 of 29 the middle of the road. There was no zebra crossing at that spot. Hence, it cannot be ignored that the claimant opted to cross the road amidst heavy traffic, thereby knowingly exposing herself to danger. It is not only the duty of the drivers to adhere to traffic rules and avoid speeding, but also the duty of the pedestrians to exercise due care while crossing roads such as use of zebra crossings. Safe pedestrian behavior is a matter of self-discipline and public awareness; the Tribunal cannot reiterate it in every instance, but it remains a fundamental aspect of road safety. In conclusion, while the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is primary and established, the contributory factor arising from the claimant's choice to cross the road unsafely cannot be ignored.
20. In the present case, while it is true that the claimant was crossing the road amidst heavy traffic without zebra crossing and thus exposed herself to hazardous traffic, the primary cause of the accident remains the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1. The petitioner came in front of the offending vehicle. However, from the CCTV footage, it is clear that the respondent no.1 did not slow down the vehicle. Despite the fault of the petitioner, the respondent no.1 should have had control over the vehicle and should have been able to stop the vehicle before the same hit the petitioner. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, a reduction of 25% on account of the claimant's contributory conduct is considered appropriate and just in the circumstances of this case.
RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.04.27 16:16:59 +0530 MACT No.175/2024 Reeta Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. Page 9 of 29 The injury:
21. Further, the onus to prove that the petitioner had suffered injuries by way of the said accident was on the petitioner. To prove the same, the petitioner have relied upon her MLC, as per which she was brought to Trauma Centre Hospital with history of road accident and had suffered injuries on her body including head. As per the MLC, her injuries were opined to be grievous. Her Discharge Summary issued by Trauma Centre Hospital, Delhi which is Ex. PW-1/1 is on record, as per which, she was admitted in the hospital on 04.12.2023 and discharged on 27.12.2023. Her Disability Certificate dated 22.12.2025 is also on record, as per which she has suffered 1% permanent hearing disability and 32% temporary disability in her right lower limb, to be re-assessed after one year.
22. 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 Smt. Reeta Devi suffered grievous 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) Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.27 16:17:04 +0530 MACT No.175/2024 Reeta Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. Page 10 of 29
23. 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 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. Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.27 16:17:08 +0530 MACT No.175/2024 Reeta Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. Page 11 of 29
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising :
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv)."
24. 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 grievous 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:
25. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 282/- towards medical expenses. She has placed on record the bill for the same. Hence, in view of the same, the petitioner is held entitled to Rs. 282/- towards medical expenses. Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.27 16:17:12 +0530 MACT No.175/2024 Reeta Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. Page 12 of 29 Loss of income:
26. In this regard, the petitioner has alleged that at the time of accident, she was working as a sweeper in a private school and was earning Rs.18,000/- pm. However, no evidence has been led to prove the same. Hence, it is conceded that her income may be assessed as per the Minimum Wages Act.
27. Perused.
28. The petitioner has also not placed on record any document to show her education or source of income. Even though the petitioner was allegedly working, but the fact that she is married and also maintaining her household cannot be ignored. In Abdul Awal @ Auwal v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. MAC App. 989/2018 decided on 02.03.2023 and in Muhammed Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 8960/2017 decided on 01.12.2022, it has been observed that the income of a housewife is to be assessed as per the minimum wages of an unskilled person. However, in a recent judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dalvir Singh & Ors. [(2025) SCC OnLine Del 844], it has been held that minimum wages of a skilled workman to be taken for the purpose of assessment of income in case of housewives. The date of the accident in the present matter is 04.12.2023 and it is an undisputed fact that she is residing in Delhi. Hence, as per the prevalent notification, Rs.21,215/- is ascertained to be the monthly income of the injured.
RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.175/2024 Reeta Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. Page 13 of 29 Date: 2026.04.27 16:17:23 +0530
29. It is stated that due to the said injuries, the petitioner was unable to work since then. As per her medical records which are placed on record, she was admitted in the hospital for about 23 days. Her Disability Certificate dated 22.12.2025 is also on record, as per which she has suffered 1% permanent hearing disability and 32% temporary disability in her right lower limb, to be re-assessed after one year. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances, it can be said that the petitioner may not have been able to work for three months at least. Accordingly, the petitioner shall be entitled to loss of income for eight months i.e. Rs.21,215/- x 3 = Rs.63,645/-.
Special diet:
30. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 30,000/- per month towards special diet. Although, there is no bill to support her plea, but keeping in view the nature of injury suffered by the petitioner and considering the time of her treatment, it seems that she must have required special diet and must have incurred expenditure towards special diet, therefore, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under the head of special diet.
Conveyance charges:
31. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards conveyance charges. Admittedly there is no document showing expense on conveyance, however, considering her injuries, this Tribunal is of the view that the petitioner must have spent money on conveyance thus, RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.04.27 16:17:27 +0530 MACT No.175/2024 Reeta Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. Page 14 of 29 the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards conveyance charges.
Attendant charges:
32. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 30,000/- under this head. Admittedly there is no document showing expense on attendant. However, considering the injuries of the petitioner, the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards attendant charges .
Pain & Suffering:
33. The petitioner/injured has claim Rs. 1,00,000/- 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 she actually suffered because of the above injuries, but as stated above, an effort has to be made to compensate her 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 her etc., she is awarded a total amount of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
Mental and physical shock:
34. The petitioner/injured has claim Rs. 50,000/- for loss due to mental shock. Keeping in view her injuries, it cannot be denied that she would definitely have suffered mental agony. Hence, a sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under head of "Loss due to Mental & Physical Shock".
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.27 16:17:33 +0530 MACT No.175/2024 Reeta Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. Page 15 of 29 Loss of amenities:
35. The petitioner/injured has claimed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- under this head. Keeping in view her injuries, it cannot be denied that she would definitely have loss of amenities. Hence, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under head of "Loss of amenities".
Disfiguration & Loss of marriage prospects:
36. Nil Loss of earning, inconvenience, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.:
37. The petitioner/injured has claimed a sum of Rs. 25,000/- under this head. Keeping in view her injuries, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Future medical expenses
38. The petitioner has alleged that she is still taking treatment. She has further claimed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for this purpose. However, no evidence was led by the petitioner qua the same. However, her Disability Certificate dated 22.12.2025 is on record, as per which she has suffered 1% permanent hearing disability and 32% temporary disability in her right lower limb, to be re-assessed after one year. Hence, she may need physiotherapy and other treatment. Hence, a lumpsum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded to her for this purpose.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.27
16:17:37
+0530
MACT No.175/2024 Reeta Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. Page 16 of 29
Loss of future earnings due to disability:
39. As mentioned above, the petitioner has suffered 1% permanent hearing disability and 32% temporary disability in her right lower limb. The 1% permanent hearing disability shall not result in loss of functional capacity. Further, the temporary disability can be improved with medical treatment. Hence, she is not entitled to any compensation under this head.
40. 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 Rs. 282/- Monthly income of injured Rs. 21,215/- Loss of income x 3 months Rs. 21,215/- x 3 = Rs. 63,645/- Add future prospects Nil
Loss of future income (income X Nil % Earning Capacity X Multiplier) Any other loss/expenditure (Future Rs. 1,00,000/- medical expenses) Expense on special diet Rs. 30,000/- Conveyance charges Rs. 30,000/-
Attendant charges Rs. 30,000/-
Mental & Physical Shock & Pain & Rs.50,000/- + Rs. 30,000/- = Rs.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
MACT No.175/2024 Reeta Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. Page 17 of 292026.04.27 16:17:42 +0530 Suffering 80,000/-
Loss of amenities Rs.25,000/- Disfiguration Nil Loss of marriage prospects Nil
Loss of earning, inconvenience, Rs. 25,000/-
hardship, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc. Total Rs. 3,83,927/-
Less contributory negligence @ Rs. 95,982/-
25% Total Rs. 2,87,945/-
41. 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 DAR i.e. 07.03.2024 till realization.
DISBURSEMENT
42. 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. 30,000/- per month.
43. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.27 16:17:45 +0530 MACT No.175/2024 Reeta Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. Page 18 of 29 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 RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.175/2024 Reeta Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Page 19 of 29 Date: 2026.04.27 16:17:50 +0530 claimant shall produced the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court for compliance."
44. However, in a recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble 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, Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:MACT No.175/2024 Reeta Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. Page 20 of 29
2026.04.27 16:17:55 +0530 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."
45. In view of the same, the award amount can now be disbursed in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioners. However, the remaining directions as passed by the Hon'ble High Court shall be complied with.
46. After considering the financial statement of the petitioner, it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 3,43,396/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Six only), the entire amount be released to the petitioner/claimant immediately in her bank account maintained at State Bank of India, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi bearing no. 40729082036, IFSC no. SBIN0011558, CIF no. 90897168745.
47. 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: 04.12.2023
Name of the Injured: Smt. Reeta
Age of the Injured: Presently 46 years
Occupation of the Injured: Not proved
Income of the Injured: Rs. 21,215/- RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.175/2024 Reeta Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. Page 21 of 29
Date: 2026.04.27
16:18:01 +0530
Nature of Injury: Grievous
Medical Treatment taken: Trauma Centre Hospital, Delhi
Period of Hospitalization: 04.12.2023 to 27.12.2023
Whether any permanent: Yes
disability?
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
Sr. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
No.
1. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 282/-
(ii) Expenditure on Special Diet Rs. 30,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on Rs. 30,000/-
Nursing/Attendant charges
(iv) Expenditure on Conveyance Rs. 30,000/-
(v) Monthly income of injured Rs. 21,215/-
(vi) Loss of income x 3 months Rs.63,645/-
(vii) Add future prospects Nil
viii) Any other loss which may Rs. 1,00,000/-
require any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
2. Non Pecuniary Loss
(i) Compensation for mental and physical shock Rs.50,000/- + Rs. 30,000/- = Rs. 80,000/-
(ii) Pain and Sufferings
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.25,000/-
(iv)
Disfiguration Nil
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Rs. 25,000/-
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.175/2024 Reeta Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. Digitally signed by
Page 22 of 29
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.04.27
16:18:05 +0530
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed 1% hearing disability 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 Rs. 3,83,927/-
1(ii+iii+iv+vi)+2(i+ii+vi)
5. Less contributory negligence @ Rs. 95,982/-
25%
6. Total Rs. 2,87,945/-
7. Interest awarded 9%
9. 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 .
10. Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 55,451.11 award w.e.f. 07.03.2024 till realization
11. Total amount including Interest Rs. 3,43,396.11 (rounded off to Rs.
Digitally MACT No.175/2024 Reeta Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. Page 23 of 29 signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.27 16:18:11 +0530 3,43,396/-)
12. Award amount released As mentioned in para no. 46
13. Award amount kept in FDRs Nil
14. Mode of disbursement of the As mentioned in para no. 46 award amount of the claimant(s)
15. Next date for compliance of the 28.05.2026 award LIABILITY:
48. It has been established that the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1 and that respondent no.2 is the owner of the same and the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.
3. Hence, it is directed that the respondent no. 3 shall be liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
49. The respondent no. 3 is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.
2,87,945/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Eight Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Five only) along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 07.03.2024 till realization with the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the claimant, failing which the said respondent 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.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.27 16:18:15 +0530 MACT No.175/2024 Reeta Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. Page 24 of 29
50. 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)].
Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on 28.05.2026 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.27 16:18:20 MACT No.175/2024 Reeta Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. Page 25 of 29 +0530 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.
Announced in the open Court today RUCHIKA SINGLA on this 27th April 2026 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.04.27 16:18:24 +0530 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.MACT No.175/2024 Reeta Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. Page 26 of 29
THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL MOTOR VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022 (PL. SEE RULE 150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 04.12.2023 2 Date of filing of Form-I -
First Accident Report 06.12.2023 (FAR) 3 Date of delivery of Form-II 07.03.2024 to the victim(s) 4 Date of receipt of Form-III 19.01.2026 from the Driver 5 Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Owner 19.01.2026 6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the insurance 19.01.2026 of the vehicle 7 Date of receipt of Form-
07.03.2024 VIA from the Victim(s) 8 Date of filing of Form-VII
- Detail Accident Report 07.03.2024 (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 07.03.2024 Insurance Company 11 Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company admitted his Yes (Legal Offer) report within 30 days of the DAR/claim petition?
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.175/2024 Reeta Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. SINGLA Date:
2026.04.27 16:18:31 Page 27 of 29 +0530
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 NA
claimant(s) to the offer of
the Insurance Company.
14 Date of award 27.04.2026
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
residence and produce PAN
card and Aadhar Card and 07.03.2024
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
bank account(s) near the
02.02.2026
place of their residence
alongwith the endorsement,
PAN card and Aadhaar
Card?
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.27
16:18:36
MACT No.175/2024 Reeta Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. +0530
Page 28 of 29
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 Statements of the claimants of passing of the Award to were recorded on 02.02.2026.
ascertain his/their financial condition?
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.27 16:18:40 +0530 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
27.04.2026 MACT No.175/2024 Reeta Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. Page 29 of 29