Delhi District Court
Yogesh Kr Sharma(D)I(44/23/Kg) vs Aditya Arora(New India) on 1 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA, PRESIDING
OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
DLCT010051022023
MACT No. 319/23
Yogesh Kumar Sharma (injured)
S/o Sh.S.P. Sharma
R/o H. No. X-4/16A, Shiv Gali No. 6,
Brahampuri,North East Delhi-110053.
........Petitioner/claimant
Versus
1. Aditya Arora (driver of the offending vehicle)
S/o Sh. Kewal Arora
2. Geeta Arora (Owner)
W/o Sh. Aditya Arora
Both r/o H. No. 153, State Bank Colony,
G.T. Karnal Road, Model Town-II, Delhi-110009.
3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
Through its officials
13/46, Sindhiya House, Second Floor, K.G. Marg,
New Delhi-110001.
........Respondents
DATE OF FILING OF DAR : 13.04.2023
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 13.10.2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.11.2025
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01
14:33:19 +0530
MACT No.319/2023 Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Aditya Arora & Ors. Page 1 of 35
JUDGMENT
1. The Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred as DAR) was filed in this case on 13.04.2023, with reference to FIR No.44/2023, U/s 279/338 IPC, PS Kashmiri Gate in respect of grievous injuries, sustained by the petitioner Yogesh Kumar Sharma, in a road accident, on 20.01.2023, at about 11:30 am, Lothian Road, Election Commission Infront of Church Kashmere Gate, Delhi. Subsequently, chargesheet was filed by the IO against Sh. Aditya Arora, S/o Sh. Kewal Arora (hereinafter referred as Respondent no.1/R1/driver), for the alleged commission of offence U/s 279/338 IPC. The Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal, vide order dated 13.04.2023, treated the DAR as claim petition U/s 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'M.V.Act') BRIEF FACTS
2. Brief facts of the case, as discernible from the DAR, including the documents annexed with the DAR, are that on receiving the DD No.34A, the information of accident dt.20.01.2023 was received by the IO. Thereafter, IO reached at the place of accident where they found two vehicles in accidental condition and one HC Brijesh was also there. Further, IO came to know that the injured was taken to the hospital by Ambulance. Further, IO after leaving the HC on spot reached to the Trauma Center. After reaching at the Trauma Center, IO collected the MLC No. 139/23 namely Yogesh Kumar Sharma. Injured had submitted written the complaint to the IO.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKARUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.11.01 14:33:27 +0530 MACT No.319/2023 Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Aditya Arora & Ors. Page 2 of 35
3. Thereafter, FIR was registered on the basis of MLC, PCR Call and written complaint of injured u/s 279/337 IPC. Site plan was prepared at the instance of the injured. Further, IO took both the accidental vehicle into his custody and deposited them in the Malkhana. Then after IO gave notice u/s 133 MV Act to owner of offending vehicle and after receiving the same, owner gave written reply that at the time of the accident, her husband i.e. respondent no.1 was driving the said vehicle and she produced him before the IO. Further, IO interrogated driver of the offending vehicle. He was arrested & released on bail. Thereafter, mechanical inspection of both accidental vehicles were got done. Further, the documents of the offending vehicle was verified by the IO and they were found to be correct. Thereafter, offending vehicle was released on superdari. Thereafter, MLC was deposited in the hospital for final opinion, whereby it was found that the injured had suffered grievous injury. After obtaining the opinion of MLC, IO changed the sections from 337 to 338 IPC. Thereafter, chargesheet was filed against the driver/R1, for the commission of offence U/s 279/338 IPC before the concerned Ld. JMFC and DAR was filed here.
WRITTEN STATEMENTS
4. Reply on behalf of respondent no. 1 & 2 was filed on 21.08.2023, wherein the respondent no.1 stated that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the petitioner. It was stated that the the accident was not caused by the respondent no.1 and that he was falsely implicated. Hence, it was stated that the respondent no.1 & 2 were not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.
Digitally signedRUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 14:33:40 +0530 MACT No.319/2023 Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Aditya Arora & Ors. Page 3 of 35
5. The respondent no.3 filed the Legal Offer whereby a sum of Rs.1,26,438/- was offered to the petitioner, but the same was not accepted by him. It was submitted that the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no.3 vide policy no. 31030031220100127012 valid from 21.07.2022 till 20.07.2023.
ISSUES
6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Learned Predecessor, vide order dated 25.01.2024:-
1.Whether the petitioner/injured suffered grievous injuries in an accident that took place on 20.01.2023 at about 11:30 AM at Lothian Road, Election Commission, in front of Church, Kashmere Gate, Delhi involving vehicle bearing registration no. DL-ICS-2559 driven rashly and negligently by respondent no. 1 Aditya Arora, owned by respondent no. 2 Geeta Sachdeva and insured with respondent no. 3 The New India Insurance 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
7. Thereafter, matter was listed for PE. Sh. Yogesh Kumar Sharma i.e. the petitioner was examined as PW-1. 1. He tendered his affidavit which is Ex. PW-1/A and the same bears his signatures at point A and B.
1. DAR which is Ex. PW-1/1 (Colly.)
2. Copy of HIS Driving License is Ex. PW-1/2 (OSR).
3. Copy of Chamber Allotment Letter dated 06.05.2010 is Ex. PW-1/3 Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 14:34:00 +0530 MACT No.319/2023 Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Aditya Arora & Ors. Page 4 of 35 (OSR).
4. Copy of his Aadhar Card is Ex. PW-1/4 (OSR).
5. Copy of his Pan Card is Ex. PW-1/5 (OSR).
6. Income Tax Return for the year A.Y. 2021-22 is Ex. PW-1/6 (Colly.)
7. Income Tax Return for the year A.Y. 2022-23 is Ex. PW-1/7 (Colly.)
8. Income Tax Return for the year A.Y. 2023-24 is Ex. PW-1/8 (Colly
9. Medical Insurance Policy which is Ex. PW-1/9(Colly.)
10. Copy of Leave Certificate which is Ex. PW-1/10 (Colly.) (OSR).
11. Copy of Estimate of future treatment which is Ex.PW-1/11(OSR).
12. Disability Certificate and Unique Disability ID which are Ex.PW-1/12 (Colly.) (OSR).
13. X-ray dated 02.03.2023 which is Ex. PW-1/13.
14. Copy of his Bar Council of Delhi Registration Certificate which is Ex. PW-1/14 (OSR).
15. Copies of Medical Treatment record i.e. discharge slips, test reports, prescription and medical bills which are Ex. PW-1/15. (colly). (OSR)
8. He was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for respondents. Thereafter, PE stands closed vide order dt. 24.07.2025.
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE
9. No evidence was led by any of the respondents. Hence, RE was closed vide order dt. 25.09.2025.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
10. The Petitioner has filed his duly filled Form XIV and financial statement of the injured was recorded. Final arguments were Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 14:34:08 +0530 MACT No.319/2023 Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Aditya Arora & Ors. Page 5 of 35 heard on behalf of the petitioner as well as respondents. Written arguments were also filed on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent no.3.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
11. This Tribunal has heard the final arguments as advanced by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Ld. Counsel for respondent and has carefully perused the record. On appreciation of evidence, as adduced by the parties, in support of their respective versions, the issue wise findings of this Tribunal are as under:
ISSUE NO.1:
Whether the petitioner/injured suffered grievous injuries in an accident that took place on 20.01.2023 at about 11:30 AM at Lothian Road, Election Commission, in front of Church, Kashmere Gate, Delhi involving vehicle bearing registration no. DL-ICS-2559 driven rashly and negligently by respondent no. 1 Aditya Arora, owned by respondent no. 2 Geeta Sachdeva and insured with respondent no. 3 The New India Insurance Co. Ltd.? OPP
12. The onus to prove this issue was on the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that on 20.01.2023 at about 11:30 AM, when he was going towards Tis Hazari Courts on his motorcycle and reached at Lothian Road, Election Commission, in front of Church, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, the respondent no.1 reached at the spot driving the offending vehicle at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle of the petitioner, due to which he fell and sustained Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 14:34:17 +0530 MACT No.319/2023 Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Aditya Arora & Ors. Page 6 of 35 injuries. It is further stated that thereafter, he was taken to Lok Nayak Hospital, Trauma Centre, Civil Lines, Delhi.
13. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has reiterated these allegations on oath in the witness box as PW-1. He was duly cross examined by the respondents but nothing contrary could come out from his cross examination. Further, it is stated that the IO charge-sheeted the respondent no.1. Hence, it is submitted that the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.1 is proved on record.
14. Per contra, it is stated on behalf of the respondent no. 1 & 2 that the accident was not caused by the offending vehicle. However, no evidence was led by the respondents to prove the said fact. It is settled law that the petitioner cannot be expected to prove the accident beyond reasonable doubts and the principle of res ipsa 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 respondent has failed to discharge. 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 14:34:28 +0530 MACT No.319/2023 Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Aditya Arora & Ors. Page 7 of 35 15.10.2019, which had relied upon the judgment in the case of Cholamandalam Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamlesh 2009(3) AD Delhi 310.
15. Further, 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.
16. Further, it is also pertinent to note that the respondent no.1 was chargesheeted by the IO under Section 279/338 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." RUCHIKA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 14:34:35 +0530 MACT No.319/2023 Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Aditya Arora & Ors. Page 8 of 35
17. 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."
18. 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 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 RUCHIKA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 14:34:47 +0530 MACT No.319/2023 Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Aditya Arora & Ors. Page 9 of 35 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."
19. 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. Furthermore, the respondent no.3 filed the legal offer and hence, as such, the accident being caused by the offending vehicle is admitted. 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. Further, it is proved that the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no. 3.
The injury:
20. It is a matter of record that due to the accident, petitioner suffered injuries. In this regard, he has relied upon his MLC which is part of the DAR Ex.PW-1/1. Perusal of the MLC shows that on 20.01.2023, he was taken to LNJP Hospital with history of road accident. He was examined there and it was opined that he had suffered grievous injury. Further, the petitioner has relied upon his medical treatment documents which are Ex. PW-1/15 (colly). Perusal of his discharge summary dt. 31.01.2023 shows that he had taken further treatment at Max Hospital, Parparganj. He was admitted in the hospital on 21.01.2023 and discharged on 25.01.2023. He had suffered a displaced fracture in right ankle. He was operated upon and cast Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 14:34:56 +0530 MACT No.319/2023 Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Aditya Arora & Ors. Page 10 of 35 application was done. Further, implants were used for his surgery. Further, he had relied upon his disability certificate Ex. PW-1/R31, as per which he had suffered 40 % temporary disability. He has also relied upon the disability certificate issued by Jag Parvesh Chandra Hospital North East Delhi dt. 12.07.2024 as per which he had suffered 40 % permanent disability. In view of the same, it is proved that the petitioner has suffered grievous injury.
21. 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 on the date and time of the accident and that due to the said accident, the petitioner had suffered grievous injury. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
ISSUE NO. 2:
Whether the petitioner/injured is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
22. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. In view of the discussion in issue no.1, the petitioner is entitled to 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 14:35:03 +0530 MACT No.319/2023 Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Aditya Arora & Ors. Page 11 of 35
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.
(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) Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 14:35:11 +0530 MACT No.319/2023 Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Aditya Arora & Ors. Page 12 of 35
(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)."
23. 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:
24. The petitioner has claimed Rs.93,016/- towards medical expenses. He has relied upon his medical bills Ex. PW1/15 (colly). He has placed on record the detailed bill dated 25.01.2023 issued by Max Hospital, Patparganj, as per which an amount of Rs. 2,08,526/- was payable by the petitioner and an amount of Rs. 2,07,600/- was paid by the insurance. Further, he has placed on record bills which are the tune of Rs. 1,21,248/-. Hence, the total bills relied upon are for Rs. 3,29,774/-. He has specifically stated that he had paid Rs. 93,016/- and that the remaining amount was reimbursed by the medical insurance. Hence, in view of the same, the petitioner is held entitled to Rs. 93,016/-
Digitally signed byRUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 14:35:18 +0530 MACT No.319/2023 Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Aditya Arora & Ors. Page 13 of 35 towards medical expenses.
Loss of income:
25. In this regard, it is submitted by the petitioner that at the time of the accident, he was a practising lawyer at Delhi. It is stated that the petitioner is an enrolled advocate and was earning about Rs.80,000/- per month. Further, it is stated that due to the accident and permanent disability, he hardly earns Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- per month now. In this regard, the petitioner has proved on record his Bar Counsel of Delhi Registration Certificate which is Ex. PW-1/14. He has also relied upon his ITRs for the years 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 which are Ex. PW-1/6 to Ex. PW-1/8 (colly).
26. Record perused.
27. As per the latest ITR of the petitioner which is Ex. PW-1/8, his gross income was Rs. 3,53,561/-. This ITR is for the assessment period 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2023. The date of accident is 20.01.2023. Hence, this ITR cannot be considered as it is obvious that he was unable to work from the date of accident till 31.03.2023. Hence, taking this ITR as the basis of his income shall not be proper.
28. As per the ITR of the petitioner for the financial year 2021- 22, which is Ex. PW-1/7, his gross income was Rs. 4,38,446/-, on which income tax of Rs. 15,000/- is payable. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 held that for calculating compensation, the income of the victim less the Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 14:35:26 +0530 MACT No.319/2023 Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Aditya Arora & Ors. Page 14 of 35 income tax should be treated as the actual income. Further, in case titled as Universal Sompo General Insurance vs Sh. Dinesh Kumar Singh & Ors MAC.APP. 106/2025 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 9 June, 2025, it has been observed that the Tribunal must deduct applicable income tax and other permissible statutory deductions from the gross income of the deceased while computing compensation payable to the petitioner. Hence, his total annual income is assessed to be Rs. 4,23,446/-. Hence, his monthly income is assessed to be Rs. 35,287.16 (rounded off to Rs. 35,288/-).
29. The petitioner's medical documents are on record. His discharge summary dt. 31.01.2023 shows that he had further treatment at Max Hospital, Parparganj. He was admitted in the hospital on 21.01.2023 and discharged on 25.01.2023. Further, he has placed on record bills of his physiotherapy sessions, as per which he was taking sessions till September 2023. Hence, it can be said that he would not have been able to work for another three months. Hence, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to loss of income for twelve months i.e. Rs. 35,288 x 12 = Rs. 4,23,456/-.
Special diet & Conveyance:
30. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards special diet and conveyance. Although, there is no bill to support his plea, but keeping in view the nature of injury suffered by the petitioner, it seems that he must have required special diet. Further, considering his medical documents, he must have incurred expenditure towards special diet and conveyance, therefore, a notional sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- is Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 14:35:38 +0530 MACT No.319/2023 Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Aditya Arora & Ors. Page 15 of 35 awarded to the petitioner under the head of special diet and conveyance.
Attendant charges:
31. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards attendant charges for 10 months. Admittedly there is no document showing expense on attendant. However, considering his injuries and the medical documents that he had to go for physiotherapy sessions regularly, it can be considered that the petitioner may have spent a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month for an attendant. Hence, the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards attendant charges.
Pain & Suffering:
32. The petitioner/injured has claimed an amount of Rs.
8,00,000/- under the head pain and suffering. As per medical documents, the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries and also sustained 40% permanent disability. 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.1,50,000/- is being awarded to him towards pain and sufferings.
Mental and physical shock:
33. The petitioner/injured has not claimed any amount under Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 14:35:46 +0530 MACT No.319/2023 Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Aditya Arora & Ors. Page 16 of 35 this head. However, keeping in view his injuries, it cannot be denied that he would definitely have suffered mental agony. Hence, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under head of "Loss due to Mental & Physical Shock".
Loss of amenities & Disfigurement:
34. The petitioner/injured has claimed an amount of Rs.
5,00,000/- under this head. Although, there is nothing on record to prove the same, a lumpsum amount of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded to him under this head.
Loss of marriage prospects & Loss of earning, inconvenience, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
35. Nil Loss of future earnings due to disability:
36. The petitioner has suffered a 40% permanent disability in his leg. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is a practicing lawyer and due to the said accident, he is unable to walk properly. Being a lawyer requires a lot of leg work and he is unable to work properly. Hence, his functional disability may be taken to be 40%.
37. Per contra, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.3 that the disability proceedings were initiated by this court and the Disability Certificate dated 23.02.2024 issued by LNJP Hospital was received as per which the petitioner had suffered 40% RUCHIKA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 14:35:55 +0530 MACT No.319/2023 Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Aditya Arora & Ors. Page 17 of 35 temporary disability. Then, the petitioner filed a Disability Certificate issued by Jag Pravesh Chandra Hospital, Delhi dated 12.07.2024 Ex. PW1/12, as per which, he allegedly suffered 40% permanent disability. The said doctors who prepared the said Disability Certificate were not produced in the court. Hence, it is submitted that the Disability Certificate Ex. PW1/12 cannot be read in evidence.
38. Per contra, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the Disability Certificate Ex. PW1/12 is issued by a government hospital. The disability proceedings were carried out in compliance of the directions of this court. Hence, the same may be considered.
39. Record perused.
40. It is a matter of record that the disability proceedings were initiated by the order of this court with the LNJP Hospital. It is also a matter of record that Disability Certificate dated 23.02.2024 issued by LNJP Hospital was received as per which the petitioner had suffered 40% temporary disability. Further, as per the Disability Certificate issued by Jag Pravesh Chandra Hospital, Delhi dated 12.07.2024 Ex. PW1/12, the petitioner has allegedly suffered 40% permanent disability. Admittedly, no doctor was produced by the petitioner to prove the same. However, considering that the same has been issued by a government hospital on the basis of the medical documents of the petitioner, the court finds no reason to disbelieve the same.
41. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 34, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: RUCHIKA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 14:36:03 +0530 MACT No.319/2023 Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Aditya Arora & Ors. Page 18 of 35 "Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terns of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency)".
42. Hence, the Tribunal has to examine as to how the disability suffered by the petitioner affects his ability to earn. In the present matter, Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 14:36:11 +0530 MACT No.319/2023 Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Aditya Arora & Ors. Page 19 of 35 as mentioned above, the petitioner is a practicing lawyer. Hence, he needs to move around a lot. As per his Disability Certificate, he has suffered 40% permanent disability in his left lower limb. Hence, naturally his leg movement and ability to walk shall be affected. However, his working capacity is not merely restricted on the same as the work is more on an intellectual level. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances, his functional disability is assessed at 25%.
43. This Tribunal has already assumed the monthly income of petitioner to be Rs. 35,288/- at the relevant time. As far as the age of petitioner at the time of accident is concerned, as per the petitioner's educational documents, his date of birth is 08.11.1984. The date of accident is 20.01.2023. Hence, the age of petitioner as on the date of accident was 38 years. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.,(2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment dated 31.10.2017 given in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, the multiplier of '15' is held applicable for calculating the loss of future earnings of petitioner arising out of his above disability.
44. Further, by adopting the principles laid down in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), the future prospects of the petitioner shall be 40% as he was below 40 years at the time of accident. As already discussed in the preceding para, the income of the petitioner has been taken as Rs.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 14:36:20 +0530 MACT No.319/2023 Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Aditya Arora & Ors. Page 20 of 35
35,288/-. In view of the above, the loss of Income on account of functional disability is calculated as under:
Monthly income Rs. 35,288/-
Annual Income Rs. 35,288/- x 12 =
Rs. 4,23,456/-
Add Future Prospects @40% Rs. 1,69,382.40
Total income Rs. 5,92,838.40
Disability @ 25% Rs. 5,92,838.40 x 25%= Rs.
1,48,209.60
Loss of Income after multiplier Rs. 1,48,209.60 x 15 = Rs.
(15) 22,23,144/-
Future medical expenses
45. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. 2,68,000/- towards future medical expenses. No break up has been given as to how the said amount was calculated. Further, as per his medical documents, he had taken last physiotherapy sessions in September 2023. His evidence was recorded in July 2024. Further, as per his Disability Certificate Ex. PW1/12, his permanent disability is already assessed. There is nothing on record to suggest that he is undertaking further treatment. Hence, no sum is awarded under this head.
46. 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)
RUCHIKA Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01
14:36:27 +0530
MACT No.319/2023 Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Aditya Arora & Ors. Page 21 of 35
Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 93,016/-
Monthly income of injured Rs. 35,288/-
Loss of income x 12 months Rs. 4,23,456/-
Add future prospects 40%
Loss of future income (income X Rs. 22,23,144/-
% Earning Capacity X Multiplier) Any other loss/expenditure Nil Expense on special diet & Rs. 1,50,000/- conveyance Attendant charges Rs. 1,50,000/-
Mental & Physical Shock & Pain & Rs. 1,50,000 + Rs. 50,000/- = Suffering Rs. 2,00,000/-
Loss of amenities & Disfiguration Rs. 50,000/-
Loss of marriage prospects Nil Loss of earning, inconvenience, Nil hardship, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc. Total Rs. 32,89,616/-
47. 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. 13.04.2023 till realization.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKARUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.11.01 14:36:34 +0530 MACT No.319/2023 Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Aditya Arora & Ors. Page 22 of 35 DISBURSEMENT
48. 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. 35,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- per month.
49. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 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 Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 14:36:43 +0530 MACT No.319/2023 Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Aditya Arora & Ors. Page 23 of 35 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."
50. 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 Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 14:36:59 +0530 MACT No.319/2023 Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Aditya Arora & Ors. Page 24 of 35 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."
51. In view of the same, the award amount can now be 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.
52. After considering the financial statement of the petitioner, it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 40,46,408/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Four Hundred Eight only), Rs.5,46,408/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Four Hundred Eight only be released to the petitioner/claimant immediately in his bank account maintained at State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court bearing no.
Digitally signed byRUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 14:37:21 +0530 MACT No.319/2023 Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Aditya Arora & Ors. Page 25 of 35 44438021776 IFSC no. SBIN0000726.
53. The balance amount of Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs only) shall be put in 100 monthly fixed deposits in his name in MACAD account of equal amount of Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 100 months respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in his saving account maintained in a nationalized bank situated near the place of his residence.
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: 20.01.2023
Name of the Injured: Yogesh Kumar Sharma
Age of the Injured: Presently 40 years
Occupation of the Injured: Lawyer
Income of the Injured: Rs. 35,288/-
Nature of Injury: Grievous
Medical Treatment taken: Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi
Max Hosptial, Patparganj
Period of Hospitalization: 21.01.2023 to 25.01.2023
Whether any permanent: Yes.
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.11.01
14:37:29 +0530
MACT No.319/2023 Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Aditya Arora & Ors. Page 26 of 35
disability?
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
Sr. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
No.
1. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on Treatment Rs.93,016 /-
(ii) Expenditure on Special Diet & Rs. 1,50,000/-
Conveyance
(iii) Expenditure on Rs. 1,50,000/-
Nursing/Attendant charges
(iv) Monthly income of injured Rs. 35,288/-
(v) Loss of income x 12 months Rs. 4,23,456/-
(vi) Add future prospects 40%
(vii) 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
physical shock Rs. 1,50,000 + Rs. 50,000/- =
(ii) Pain and Sufferings Rs. 2,00,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life &
Disfiguration Rs. 50,000/-
(iv) Loss of marriage prospects Nil
(v) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Nil
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
RUCHIKA Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01
14:37:36 +0530
MACT No.319/2023 Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Aditya Arora & Ors. Page 27 of 35
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed 40% 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 25% capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (income Rs. 22,23,144/-
x % earning capacity x Multiplier)
4. Total Rs. 32,89,616/-
1(ii+iii+iv+vi)+2(i+ii+vi)
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. 7,56,791.93
award w.e.f. 13.04.2023 till
RUCHIKA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 14:37:44 +0530
MACT No.319/2023 Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Aditya Arora & Ors. Page 28 of 35
realization
8. Total amount including Interest Rs. 40,46,407.93 (rounded off to Rs.
40,46,408/-)
9. Award amount released As mentioned in para nos. 52 & 53
10. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.35,00,000/-
11. Mode of disbursement of the As mentioned in para nos. 52 & 53
award amount of the claimant(s)
12. Next date for compliance of the 01.12.2025
award
LIABILITY:
55. 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, 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:
56. The respondent no. 3 is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 32,89,616/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Eighty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Sixteen only) along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 13.04.2023 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. Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 14:37:52 +0530 MACT No.319/2023 Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Aditya Arora & Ors. Page 29 of 35 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
57. 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 01.12.2025 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). RUCHIKA by SINGLA Digitally signed RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 14:37:59 +0530 MACT No.319/2023 Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Aditya Arora & Ors. Page 30 of 35 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.
Announced in the open Court today on this 1st November, 2025 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 14:38:07 +0530 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
MACT No.319/2023 Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Aditya Arora & Ors. Page 31 of 35THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL MOTOR VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022 (PL. SEE RULE 150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 20.01.2023 2 Date of filing of Form-I -
First Accident Report 24.01.2023
(FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II
Not attached
to the victim(s)
4 Date of receipt of Form-III
Not attached
from the Driver
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV
Not attached
from the Owner
6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the insurance Not attached
of the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-
VIA and Form VIB from 13.04.2023
the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII -
13.04.2023
Detail Accident Report
(DAR)
9 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
No.
part of the Investigating
Officer? If so, whether any
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01
14:38:27 +0530
MACT No.319/2023 Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Aditya Arora & Ors. Page 32 of 35
action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the 21.07.2023
Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company admitted his Yes.
report within 30 days of the
DAR?
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 01.11.2025
15 Whether the claimant(s)
were directed to open No.
savings bank account(s)
near their place of
residence?
16 Date of order by which
claimant(s) were directed to
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01
14:38:33 +0530
MACT No.319/2023 Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Aditya Arora & Ors. Page 33 of 35
open Savings Bank
Account(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN
card and Aadhar Card and 19.04.2023
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
25.09.2025
bank account(s) near the
place of their residence
alongwith the endorsement,
PAN card and Aadhar Card?
18 Permanent residential
address of the claimant(s). As per Award.
19 Whether the claimant(s)
savings bank account(s) is
No.
near their place of
residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s) Yes. The Financial Statement of the claimant
were examined at the time was recorded 25.09.2025.Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 14:38:42 +0530 MACT No.319/2023 Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Aditya Arora & Ors. Page 34 of 35 of passing of the Award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
Digitally signed byRUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 14:38:58 +0530 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
01.11.2025 MACT No.319/2023 Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Aditya Arora & Ors. Page 35 of 35