Delhi District Court
Rajman vs Amarjeet (Now Deceased) Thr Lrs Seema ... on 14 October, 2025
DLNW010041932022
Presented on : 04-05-2022
Registered on : 05-05-2022
Decided on : 14-10-2025
Duration : 3 years, 5 months,
10 days
IN THE COURT OF
ADJ1(NW)/MACT, DISTRICT NORTH WEST DELHI
Presided Over by Sh. Vikram
M A C T/376/2022
FIR No. 1102/20, PS Mangolpuri
In the matter of :
Rajman
S/o Sh. Ram Jiyawan
R/o A-35, W-85, Amar Park Zakhira,
Patel Nagar, Delhi.
.....Petitioner
Vs.
1. Delhi Transport Corporation
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Subhash Place Depot, Delhi.
Through
Ms. Durgesh Nandni
Regional Manager (North)/Deputy CGM,
Delhi Transport Corporation,
Subhash Place Bus Depot, Delhi.
....Owner/R1
2. United India Insurance Company Ltd.
MACT Case No. 376/2022 (FIR no. 1102/2020)
Rajman Vs. Amarjeet & ors
Page no. 1 of 19
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.10.14
03:13:12 +0530
Office at E-85, Himalaya House,
K G Marg, Connaught Place,
New Delhi-110001.
....Insurance
Company/R2
Appearance (s) : Sh. Jagdish Diwakar, Ld. Counsel for
petitioner.
Sh. Dheeraj, Ld. counsel for R1.
Ms. Neeru Garg, Ld. counsel for R2.
JUDGMENT/AWARD
1. Vide this judgment/award, I shall dispose off the DAR
bearing MACT No. 376/2022 pertaining to the injuries of Rajman
(in short, the injured) suffered in road accident dated 23.12.2020.
FACTULAL POSITION AND PLEADINGS
2. The brief facts relevant for disposal of the present DAR
are that on 23.12.2020 at about 12:00 noon injured was driving his
auto/TSR bearing registration no. DL 1RP 8660 towards T Point,
Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. When injured was at T Point for taking left
turn towards Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, one DTC bus, Green Colour,
bearing registration no. DL 1PC 8289 (hereinafter referred to as
offending vehicle) came towards Sanjay Gandhi Hospital driving the
offending vehicle in a very high speed and in zig zag manner and as
soon as injured took left turn, offending vehicle hit the TSR from the
right side due to which injured sustained injuries. Offending vehicle
also hit other vehicles on the road causing death of one victim.
Injured was taken to SGM Hospital from where he was referred to
Safdarjung Hospital where injured remained under treatment for
MACT Case No. 376/2022 (FIR no. 1102/2020)
Rajman Vs. Amarjeet & ors
Page no. 2 of 19
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.10.14
03:13:20 +0530
about three months. Due to the said accident, injured received 21%
permanent disability in relation to his left upper limb. FIR
no.1102/2020 was registered for offence punishable under Section
279/337 at PS Mangolpuri, on the statement of one Phool Chand
who was also an injured in the present accident.
3. As per DAR and investigation conducted by IO, R1 was
driving the offending vehicle in negligent manner which caused the
accident. As such R1 was charge-sheeted for offences under section
279/337/304A/338 IPC & 184 M V Act.
4. Driver was expired before filing of DAR.
5. Reply to DAR was filed on behalf of R1 claiming that
offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in the present case. It
is stated that driver was having valid DL at the time of accident and
offending vehicle was insured with R2 at the time of accident.
6. Reply/legal offer was filed on behalf of insurance
company/R2.
ISSUES:
7. After completion of pleadings, following issues were
framed by this Tribunal on 20.10.2022: -
1. Whether petitioner Rajman S/o Sh. Ram
Jiyawan suffered injuries in road traffic
accident on 23.12.2020 at about 12:00 pm, at
SJM T-Point, J & K Block, Mangolpuri, Delhi
due to rash and negligent driving of offending
MACT Case No. 376/2022 (FIR no. 1102/2020)
Rajman Vs. Amarjeet & ors
Page no. 3 of 19
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.10.14
03:13:26 +0530
vehicle i.e. Bus bearing no. DL 1PC 8289
which was being driven by driver Amarjeet S/o
Sh. Surajmal on the said date, time and place?
OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner/injured is entitled for
compensation, if so, to what amount and from
whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
8. In order to prove its case, petitioner examined himself as
Pw1 and tendered his evidence by way of his affidavit Ex. Pw1/A
and relied on following documents:
(a) Photocopy of complete charge sheet Ex.Pw1/1(colly)
(b) Photocopy of all medical treatment and bills Ex.Pw1/2(colly)
(c) Photocopy of address proof of the injured is Ex.Pw1/3.
9. Pw1 was cross examined on behalf of respondent no.
2/insurer (as per amended memo of parties). In his cross examination he admitted that he has no documentary proof to show that he was earning Rs. 40,000/- per month at the time of accident. He admitted that he was not having nay PSV bade at the time of accident. He also admitted that his DL is not valid for driving transport or commercial vehicle. He denied the suggestion that he was not authorized to drive the auto rickshaw. He admitted that his complete treatment was done from government hospital or that he MACT Case No. 376/2022 (FIR no. 1102/2020) Rajman Vs. Amarjeet & ors Page no. 4 of 19 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date: 2025.10.14 03:13:32 +0530 does not have any medical bills of his treatment. He also admitted that he has no document to show the loss of income suffered by him due to the accident or with respect to special diet, conveyance and attendant charges.
10. No evidence was led by respondents. Thereafter, the evidence was closed.
FINDINGS:
11. I have heard ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the testimony of P w 1 including the pleadings and the documents. My issue wise findings in the case are as under :-
ISSUE NO.1
1. Whether petitioner Rajman S/o Sh. Ram Jiyawan suffered injuries in road traffic accident on 23.12.2020 at about 12:00 pm, at SJM T-Point, J & K Block, Mangolpuri, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle i.e. Bus bearing no. DL 1PC 8289 which was being driven by driver Amarjeet S/o Sh. Surajmal on the said date, time and place? OPP.
12. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by MACT Case No. 376/2022 (FIR no. 1102/2020) Rajman Vs. Amarjeet & ors Page no. 5 of 19 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2025.10.14 03:13:38 +0530strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
13. In order to prove this issue, the petitioner has examined himself as Pw1 in this case. Petitioner has brought on record his medical record i.e. Ex.Pw1/2 and also proved DAR as Ex.Pw1/1 (colly). Factum of accident is not disputed by R3 as a legal offer has been filed on behalf of R3. R2 has taken the objection that offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in the present accident. Record shows that driver (since deceased) was apprehended from the spot and the offending vehicle was also seized from the spot. Even in reply to notice under Section 133 M.V. Act, given by an Official from DTC, it was admitted that offending vehicle was seized from the spot and driver was apprehended from the spot. R1/owner has not filed any complaint against false implication of offending vehicle in the present case. Keeping in view the facts & evidence produced by the petitioner, it has proved on record that the said MACT Case No. 376/2022 (FIR no. 1102/2020) Rajman Vs. Amarjeet & ors Page no. 6 of 19 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2025.10.14 03:13:46 +0530accident has taken place with the offending vehicle of R1 being driven by its employed driver (since deceased), as a result of which, the petitioner sustained injuries.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the rashness and negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle, which is clearly visible and as such, was responsible not only for this accident, but also for everything that followed thereafter. Accordingly issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 22. Whether the petitioner/injured is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
15. As the issue no.1 has been proved in affirmative and in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner has become entitled to be compensated for the injuries suffered in the above accident, but the computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided.
16. In terms of provisions contained in Section 168 of the MV Act the compensation which is to be awarded by this tribunal is required to be 'just'. In the injury cases a claimant is entitled to two different kinds of compensations i.e. pecuniary as well as non- pecuniary damages. The pecuniary damages or special damages are those damages which are awarded and designed to make good the MACT Case No. 376/2022 (FIR no. 1102/2020) Rajman Vs. Amarjeet & ors Page no. 7 of 19 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2025.10.14 03:13:52 +0530losses which are capable of being calculated in terms of money and the object of awarding these damages is to indemnify the claimant for the expenses which he had already incurred or is likely to incur in respect of the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The non- pecuniary or general damages are those damages which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. The pecuniary or special damages generally include the expenses incurred by the claimant towards his treatment, special diet, conveyance, cost of nursing/ attendant, loss of income/earning capacity etc. and the non-pecuniary damages generally include the compensation for the mental or physical shock, pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, marriage prospects and disfiguration etc. The above categories falling under both the heads of compensation are not exhaustive in nature but only illustrative. It is also necessary to state here that no amount of money or compensation can put the injured/claimant exactly in the same position or place where he was before the accident and an effort is to be made only to reasonably compensate him or to put him almost in the same place or position where he could have been if the alleged accident had not taken place and this compensation is to be assessed in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The object of compensating him is also not to reward him or to make him rich in an unjust manner. It is also well settled that the 'just' compensation to be awarded to the claimant has to be calculated objectively and it may involve some guess work in calculating the different amounts which the claimant may be entitled under the different heads of compensation. Reference in this regard MACT Case No. 376/2022 (FIR no. 1102/2020) Rajman Vs. Amarjeet & ors Page no. 8 of 19 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date: 2025.10.14 03:14:01 +0530 can be made on some of important judgments on the subject like the judgment in the case of R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 755, Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2010) 10 SCC 254 and Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343.
17. In light of the above legal prepositions, the amount of compensation which could be considered to be 'just' in the opinion of this tribunal shall be as under:-
Medical or Treatment Expenses:
18. All the medical treatment of injured/Petitioner was done from government hospital and he has not proved any medical bills to show the expenses incurred by him on the medicines. This fact is also admitted by him in his evidence. Therefore, nothing is granted under this head.
Conveyance, special diet and attendant charges
19. Ld. Counsel for petitioner argued that petitioner had spent considerable amount on special diet, conveyance and attendant of injured but he has failed to lead any cogent evidence to prove the amount actually spent by him under the aforesaid heads. After the accident, injured was taken to SGM Hospital from where he was referred to SGM Hospital and he remained under treatment for about three months. Injured has also suffered 21% permanent disability in respect to his left upper limb due to the accident. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that injured had sustained MACT Case No. 376/2022 (FIR no. 1102/2020) Rajman Vs. Amarjeet & ors Page no. 9 of 19 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2025.10.14 03:14:16 +0530grievous injuries in the accident. Thus, he would have taken special rich protein diet for his speedy recovery and would have also incurred considerable amount towards conveyance charges while commuting to the concerned hospital as OPD patient for his regular check up & follow up during the period of his medical treatment. He would have been definitely helped by some person either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of his medical treatment. In these facts and circumstances, I hereby award a notional sum of Rs. 50,000/- for special diet, Rs, 50,000/- for attendant charges and Rs. 25,000/- for conveyance charges to the petitioner. Hence, an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- be awarded as attendant and special diet head.
Pain and Suffering
20. As per the MLC and medical documents, injured suffered grievous injuries in the road traffic accident on 23.12.2020. After the accident, injured was taken to SGM Hospital from where he was referred to SGM Hospital and he remained under treatment for about three months. Injured has also suffered 21% permanent disability in respect to his left upper limb due to the accident. It is not possible to quantify the compensation admissible to injured 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 him for the same in a just and reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the injuries suffered by injured and duration of the treatment of injured etc., an MACT Case No. 376/2022 (FIR no. 1102/2020) Rajman Vs. Amarjeet & ors Page no. 10 of 19 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2025.10.14 03:14:22 +0530amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- is being awarded to him towards pain and sufferings during the said period of his treatment and immobility. Thus, he is awarded a total amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- under this head.
Loss of Actual Earnings
21. Injured deposed that he was a driver by profession and was earning Rs. 40,000/- per month at the time of accident. However, he has not proved any document to show his monthly income at the time of accident. As such, it would be appropriate that the monthly income of petitioner be assessed as per the minimum wages payable to a Skilled person (being driver) in Delhi at the relevant time. The age of injured, as per aadhar card, was 41 years at the time of accident. As per relevant notification, the minimum wages admissible to a skilled person as on 23.12.2020 in the Delhi were Rs. 18,797/- per month (also offered by R2/insurance company). Keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner as well as his medical treatment which extended for approximately three months affecting the ability to resume work. As such, the petitioner is held entitled to a sum of Rs. 56,391/- (Rs. 18,797 x 3). The said sum is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Loss of future earnings due to disability
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down the law with regard to assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability in the case of Sidram Vs. The Divisional MACT Case No. 376/2022 (FIR no. 1102/2020) Rajman Vs. Amarjeet & ors Page no. 11 of 19 Digitally signed by VIKRAM Date: VIKRAM 2025.10.14 03:14:29 +0530 Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2022 (16) SCALE As follows:
"13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood.
14. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred per cent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of "loss of future earnings", if the claimant continues in government service, though he maybe awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not be found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited MACT Case No. 376/2022 (FIR no. 1102/2020) Rajman Vs. Amarjeet & ors Page no. 12 of 19 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:2025.10.14 03:14:37 +0530
award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity.
15. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may."
23. In view of the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case titled Sidram Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company (supra) the effect of permanent disability of the injured has to be assessed in order to quantify the future loss of earnings due to disability. As per the disability certificate, petitioner has suffered 21% Permanent Disability in relation to upper left limb. Disability certificate has been issued by VMMC & Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi.
24. As the injured is a driver by profession, the above disability would definitely hamper his earning capacity in future also, because, he will not be able to use his left hand properly which will have effect on his driving of any vehicle. Hence, it would be appropriate to hold that the functional disability of petitioner be considered as 50%. This Tribunal has already held that the income of petitioner is Rs. 18,797/- per month at the relevant time. As far as the age of petitioner at the time of accident is concerned, aadhar card filed alongwith DAR reflects that he was aged about 41 years at the time of accident. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by MACT Case No. 376/2022 (FIR no. 1102/2020) Rajman Vs. Amarjeet & ors Page no. 13 of 19 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2025.10.14 03:14:43 +0530the 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 '14' is held applicable for calculating the loss of future earnings of petitioner arising out of his above disability. The petitioner is not entitled to future prospects as per the observations made by Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, SLP (CIVIL) 25590 of 2014 decided on 31.10.2017.
25. Thus, the loss of future earnings of petitioner due to his above injury and permanent disability comes to is calculated as follows:
S. Head Amount (Rs.) Remarks
No.
1 Monthly Income of injuredRs. 18,797/-
(A)
2 Monthly loss of earning 9,398.5/- 50 % of (A)
(B)
3 Annual Loss of earning 1,12,782/- (B) x 12 =
(C) (C)
4 Multiplier @ 14
5 Total Loss of earnings (D) 15,78,948/- (C) x
14(multiplie
r) = (D)
6 Add: Future prospects 25 3,94,737/-
%
Total : 19,73,685/-
MACT Case No. 376/2022 (FIR no. 1102/2020) Rajman Vs. Amarjeet & ors Page no. 14 of 19 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date: 2025.10.14 03:14:50 +0530 Loss of General Amenities and Enjoyment of Life
26. As already mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence on record i.e. disability certificate to establish that the petitioner is suffering from 21% Loco Motor Disability with regard to his left upper limb. Considering the aforesaid, it is quite apparent that petitioner would not be able to enjoy general amenities of life after the said accident, during rest of his life and his quality of life has been definitely affected. Hence, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, a notional sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- is granted towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life to the petitioner.
27. Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under : -
S. No. Head Amount
1 Medical Expenses Nil
2 Attendant charges, special diet & 1,25,000
conveyance charges
3 Pain and suffering Rs. 2,00,000
4 Loss of actual earning 56,391
5 Loss of future earning due to disability Rs. 19,73,685
6 Loss of Amenities and Enjoyment of Life 2,00,000
Total 25,55,076
Rounded off 25,56,000/-
Issue No.3/Relief
28. The petitioner is thus entitled to a sum of Rs. 25,56,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Lacs Fifty Six Thousand) along with interest @ MACT Case No. 376/2022 (FIR no. 1102/2020) Rajman Vs. Amarjeet & ors Page no. 15 of 19 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2025.10.14 03:14:57 +05307.5% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR i.e. 05.05.2022 till compliance and @ 12% per annum thereafter. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be liable to be excluded from the above amount and calculations of compensation.
LIABILITY
29. In the case in hand, offending vehicle was insured with R2/insurance company. But it is claimed by Insurance company that the driving licence of injured was not valid to drive the TSR/commercial vehicle at the time of accident. In Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rambha Devi & Ors. 2024 INSC 840 it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that even if the vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose and was for commercial use, the driver who was having LMV is also authorized to ply the vehicle, unless it is shown that the weight of the vehicle exceeds 7500 kg. As per registration certificate of TSR, annexed with the DAR, the unladen weight of the offending vehicle is is not more then 7500 kg. It is also claimed by insurance company that injured was not having PSV Badge at the time of accident. The lack of a PSV badge is a minor technical breach that cannot be used by an insurance company to deny compensation. [See Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited 2024 INSC 840]. Thus Insurance Company cannot dispute liability on this account. As such R3/insurance company (R2 in amended memo of parties) is directed to deposit the above award amount within 30 MACT Case No. 376/2022 (FIR no. 1102/2020) Rajman Vs. Amarjeet & ors Page no. 16 of 19 Digitally signed by VIKRAM Date: VIKRAM 2025.10.14 03:15:05 +0530 days from the date of this Award by way of NEFT or RTGS mode in the account of this Tribunal maintained with SBI, Rohini Courts, Delhi under intimation to the petitioner/ injured and this Tribunal in terms of the format for remittance of compensation as provided in Divisional Manager Vs. Rajesh, 2016 SCC Online Mad. 1913 (and reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the orders dated 16.03.2021 and 16.11.2021 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
APPORTIONMENT
30. The statement of Petitioner in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP has not been recorded. It is hereby ordered that petitioner Rajman is awarded entire amount of award i.e. Rs. 14,10,400/- (Rs. Fourteen Lacs Ten Thousand Four Hundred Only)
31. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the disbursed amount immediately to the petitioners in their MACT saving bank accounts, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
32. Copy of this Award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank passbook and copy of residence proof of the petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
MACT Case No. 376/2022 (FIR no. 1102/2020) Rajman Vs. Amarjeet & ors Page no. 17 of 19 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2025.10.14 03:15:11 +053033. A digital copy of this award be provided to the parties. Ahlmad is directed to send a 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)]. Further 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).
34. Ahlmad is also directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer 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. Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Rohini Courts for information.
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.
36. Form V and IVB in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A. MACT Case No. 376/2022 (FIR no. 1102/2020) Rajman Vs. Amarjeet & ors Page no. 18 of 19 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2025.10.14 03:15:18 +053037. A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 04.11.2025.
38. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by VIKRAMANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT Date:
VIKRAM
ON 14th DAY OF October, 2025 2025.10.14
03:15:23
+0530
VIKRAM
DISTRICT JUDGE-01 + MACT
NORTH WEST DISTRICT
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MACT Case No. 376/2022 (FIR no. 1102/2020) Rajman Vs. Amarjeet & ors Page no. 19 of 19