Delhi District Court
Chetna vs Radha Kishan on 3 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUDEEP RAJ SAINI
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL02
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
Chetna Jha Vs. Radha Kishan & Anr.
MACT No. 527/2022
1. Chetna Jha
W/o Sh. Krishna Deo Jha
R/o 149 A Street No. 37, Saraswati
Enclave MD Marg, Gopal Nagar
Surakhpur Road, Najafgarh
Delhi110043. ....Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Radha Kishan (Driver)
S/o Sh. B Prasad
R/o 246A/2 Hansapuri Road
Tri Nagar, North West Delhi110035
2. Rohit Sharma (Owner)
S/o Sh. Dharamvir Sharma
R/o 9/6981 Krishna Gali, Gandhi Nagar
S.O. East Delhi110031.
3. Edelweiss General Insurance Company Ltd. (Insurer)
(now known as Zuno General Insurance company Ltd.)
having its registered Office at: 2nd Floor, Tower3, Wing B, Kohinoor
City Mall, Kohinoor City, Kirol Road, Kurla (West), Mumbai400 070.
....Respondents
Date of institution : 25.05.2022
Date of concluding arguments : 03.06.2025
Date of decision : 03.06.2025
MACT No. 527/2022 Chetna Jha Vs. Radha Kishan & Ors. Page No. 1 of 22
AWARD
1. The present Detailed Accident Report (hereafter 'DAR') was filed by the investigating officer ASI Bidhyanand in FIR number 521/2021 dated 08.11.2021 lodged at police station BHD Nagar under sections 279/337/338 IPC regarding grievous injuries suffered by the petitioner Ms. Chetna Jha in a road accident. The DAR was treated as a claim petition under section 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter 'M V Act').The respondent no. 1, Sh. Radha Kishan, is the driver and respondent no. 2, Sh. Rohit Sharma, is the owner of the alleged offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL 4CAP 0845. The respondent no. 3, Edelweiss General Insurance Company Limited (now known as Zuno General Insurance company Ltd.), is the insurer of the said offending vehicle.
DAR
2. As per the claims made in the DAR, the petitioner is a resident of Saraswati Enclave, Gopal Nagar, Najafgarh, New Delhi. On 07.11.2021 at about 10.30 pm, the petitioner was coming from Chhawla to her home, with her husband, Sh. Krishna Deo Jha, on his motorcycle bearing registration no. DL 4SDJ 9587. Her husband was driving the motorcycle while the petitioner was riding pillion. A car bearing registration no. DL 4CAP 0845, being driven by its driver at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and hit the said motorcycle. As a result of the accident, the petitioner and her husband received injuries. The petitioner and her husband were treated at Rao Tula Ram Memorial Hospital (RTRM), Jaffar Pur, New Delhi.
3. On receiving the information regarding the accident, SI Sanjeev Lochan MACT No. 527/2022 Chetna Jha Vs. Radha Kishan & Ors. Page No. 2 of 22 Sharma and Constable Sushil reached the accident spot, where they found the said motorcycle in an accidental condition along with the number plate and a head light of the offending vehicle/car.
4. The FIR no. 0521 under sections 279 & 337 of IPC was lodged at 02:30 am on 08.11.2021 at PS BHD Nagar on the statement of the husband of the petitioner.
5. During investigation, on 09.11.2021, a notice u/s 133 of MV Act was issued to the respondent no. 2. In his reply to the said notice, the respondent no. 2 stated that the offending car was being driven by respondent no. 1, at the time of accident. The respondent no. 1 was arrested on 25.11.2021 in the criminal case related to the accident.
6. The results of the MLCs of the petitioner and her husband were obtained wherein the doctors opined that the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries, while her husband had suffered simple injuries.
7. On completion of investigation, the police filed the chargesheet against the respondent no. 1 under sections 279/337/338 of IPC showing the involvement of offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL 4CAP 0845 owned by respondent no. 2.
Defence of the Respondents
8. Notice of the DAR was served on the respondents. The respondents no. 1 & 2 did not file written statement and were proceeded exparte on 29.05.2024. The respondent no. 3 has filed its legal offer of Rs. 15,000/.
Inquiry
9. There is no pleading by the respondents disputing either the factum of accident or the negligence of the respondent no.1 in causing the same. It is MACT No. 527/2022 Chetna Jha Vs. Radha Kishan & Ors. Page No. 3 of 22 not in dispute that the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the grievous injury suffered by her in the said road accident. The only dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no. 3 is regarding the quantum of compensation. Therefore, only the following issue was framed:
Whether the petitioner in the above mentioned case is entitled to claim higher amount of compensation than the amount being offered by the Insurance Company, if yes, the quantum thereof? ... OPP.
Thereafter, the claim petition was fixed for petitioner's evidence.
10. In order to prove her claim, the petitioner examined herself as PW1 and filed her evidence by way of affidavit and the same is Ex. PW1/A. The petitioner deposed about the accident on the same lines as the claims made in the DAR. She has also deposed regarding her qualifications, employment and income. She has deposed that she was initially treated at RTRM hospital and subsequently at Yatharth Super Speciality Hospital, Greater Noida.
The petitioner has relied upon following documents in support of her testimony:
Ex. PW1/1(colly) are her medical treatment records and medical bills. Ex. PW1/2 is the DAR.
Ex. PW1/3 is the copy of her Aadhar card. Ex. PW1/4 is the disability certificate. Ex. PW1/5 (colly) are documents related to her educational qualifications.
11. The disability of the petitioner was assessed by the Medical Board of Deen Dayal Upadhyay (DDU) Hospital, Delhi in compliance of order dated 27.04.2023 of my ld. predecessor. As per the disability certificate dated MACT No. 527/2022 Chetna Jha Vs. Radha Kishan & Ors. Page No. 4 of 22 31.07.2023 issued by the said Medical Board (Ex. PW1/4), the petitioner has suffered permanent physical disability of 2% (two percent) in relation to the left lower limb.
12. The respondents have not led any evidence.
13. I have heard ld. counsel Sh. R.K. Singh for the petitioner and ld. counsel Ms. Sunanda Nimisha for the respondent no. 3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by them. I have also perused the record. My issuewise findings are as under:
Issue :
Whether the petitioner in the above mentioned case is entitled to claim higher amount of compensation than the amount being offered by the Insurance Company, if yes, the quantum thereof? ... OPP.
14. Onus to prove this issue was on the petitioner. The petitioner has relied on her testimony as well as the DAR to prove this issue.
15. The ld. counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled to compensation as per claims made by her in her evidence by way of affidavit.
Per contra, the ld. counsel for the respondent no. 3 submitted that the compensation is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit. She further submitted that the insurance company has made a fair offer to the petitioner and the petitioner is not entitled to even a rupee more.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr.
(2011) 1 SCC 343 has laid down the general principles relating to compensation in injury cases and held:
"6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
MACT No. 527/2022 Chetna Jha Vs. Radha Kishan & Ors. Page No. 5 of 22 Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, 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.
Nonpecuniary 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). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads
(ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life." The Hon'ble Supreme Court also laid down the principles regarding assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability:
"19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above:
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as the percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors."
MACT No. 527/2022 Chetna Jha Vs. Radha Kishan & Ors. Page No. 6 of 22
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rekha Jain vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. MANU/SC/0773/2013, while dealing with the case of a 24 years old model and actress, who had suffered grievous injuries on her face and parts of her body held as follows:
"38. For a film actress, the physical appearance particularly the facial features are very important to act in the films and in T.V. serials. It is in her evidence that on account of the accident her face was disfigured, she has put on weight and has become fat and therefore she is unable to perform the role as an actress in films in future. Having regard to the nature of vocation she has been carrying on and wishes to carry on with in future, the opportunity is lost on account of the disfigurement of her face, to act in the films as an actress either as a heroine or actress in supporting role or any other role to be played in T.V. serials, albums and also as a model. It is in the evidence of the Appellant that as per the District Medical Board of Sambalpur, her permanent disability is 30%. Having regard to the nature of injuries and observations made by this Court and Karnataka High Court in the cases referred to supra, we have to record a finding of fact that the Appellant's permanent disability should be treated as 100% functional disablement as she cannot act in the films and in T.V. serials in future at all. Therefore, on account of the aforesaid reasons, she has suffered functional disability..."
18. It is clear from the above discussed authoritative pronouncements that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability. The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors.
Pecuniary damages (Special damages) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure
19. The petitioner, in her evidence by way of affidavit, has claimed that she spent Rs. 2,00,000/ on her treatment and Rs. 90,000/ on physiotherapy MACT No. 527/2022 Chetna Jha Vs. Radha Kishan & Ors. Page No. 7 of 22 However, the medical bills related to the medicines, treatment and physiotherapy placed on record by the petitioner amount to Rs. 1,83,634/.
One of these bills, from Yatharth Wellness Hospital amounting to Rs. 42,000/, is disputed by the respondent no. 3 on the ground that the said bill was paid by Raksha TPA Pvt. Ltd.
In view of the Tribunal, the petitioner is only entitled to bills which have not been paid by her insurance/Raksha TPA Pvt. Ltd.
Subtracting the said amount of Rs. 42,000/ from Rs. 1,83,634/ equals Rs. 1,41,634/ (Rs. 1,83,634 Rs. 42,000= Rs. 1,41,634) .
The petitioner has also placed on record bills of Sinha Hospital, Najafgarh, Delhi. These bills cannot be considered as the same pertain to the period prior to the date of accident and do not relate to the accident.
Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,41,634/ under the head medicines, treatment and physiotherapy.
20. The petitioner, in her evidence by way of affidavit, has claimed that she spent Rs. 90,000/ each towards conveyance and special diet. In her cross examination, the petitioner has admitted that she has not filed any documentary proof regarding the same.
The petitioner has suffered permanent physical disability in her left lower limb. Hence, the petitioner must have incurred expenses on conveyance and special diet.
Keeping in view the same, this Tribunal is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to Rs. 20,000/ towards special diet and Rs. 20,000/ towards MACT No. 527/2022 Chetna Jha Vs. Radha Kishan & Ors. Page No. 8 of 22 conveyance.
21. The petitioner, in her evidence by way of affidavit, has claimed Rs.
90,000/ towards attendant charges. The petitioner has not provided any proof regarding hiring of any attendant. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. Vs. Kumari Lalita 1982 SCC Online Delhi 123 has held that the victim cannot be deprived of compensation towards gratuitous service rendered by some family members for the benefit of tortfeasor.
In view of the ratio of Kumari Lalita (supra), a sum of Rs. 20,000/ is granted to the petitioner towards attendant charges.
Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had she not been injured Loss of earning during the period of treatment
22. The petitioner, in her evidence by way of affidavit, has claimed that she was working as yoga instructor and earning Rs. 40,000/ per month.
However, no documentary proof regarding income and employment has been furnished by the petitioner. She has also not examined any of her pupils or any other person in support of her claim of being a practicing yoga instructor.
However, the petitioner has placed on record her education document, which shows that she has obtained an MA in Yoga and Science of Living.
23. Since the petitioner is a resident of Delhi and has failed to prove her income, so her income has to be assessed as per Minimum Wages Act, 1948, as applicable to Delhi. As per the said Act, the minimum wages payable to a graduate on 07.11.2021 (the date of accident) was Rs. 21,184/ per month.
MACT No. 527/2022 Chetna Jha Vs. Radha Kishan & Ors. Page No. 9 of 22 The same is taken to be the income of the petitioner.
24. In the present case, the accident occurred on 07.11.2021 and the petitioner underwent procedure for removal of proximal screws for dynamizations under local anesthesia by orthopedic team from 27.03.2022 to 28.03.2022 at Yatharth Super Speciality Hospital. In view of the same, it is presumed that it would have taken her around five months to recover from her injuries. The petitioner is therefore entitled to Rs. 21,184/ x 05 = Rs. 1,05,920/ towards loss of earning during the period of treatment.
Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability
25. The ld. counsel for petitioner submitted that the permanent physical impairment of 2% suffered by the petitioner in her left lower limb, as opined by the Medical Board in the disability certificate (Ex. PW1/4), has adversely impacted the future earning capacity of the petitioner.
Per contra, ld. counsel for respondent no. 3 has claimed that the percentage of disability being minor, there is no loss of future earning capacity. She further submits that despite having ample opportunity, the petitioner has not examined any doctor from the Medical Board to elaborate on how the disability has affected the yoga practice of the petitioner.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down in Raj Kumar (supra) that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability.
The petitioner is a qualified yoga instructor. It is the part of job of a yoga instructor to demonstrate the various yoga asanas (postures) to her pupils. It is an essential requirement for any yoga instructor to be physically fit.
MACT No. 527/2022 Chetna Jha Vs. Radha Kishan & Ors. Page No. 10 of 22 In her crossexamination, the petitioner admitted that she can do routine chores on her own. However, she volunteered that her yoga practice has been affected.
Bearing in mind the importance of physical fitness to a yoga instructor, this Tribunal is of the view that the permanent physical impairment of 2% in relation to the left lower limb has resulted in 1% loss of earning capacity to the petitioner.
26. As per her Aadhar card (Ex. PW1/3), the petitioner was born on 05.08.1978. Therefore, her age at the time of accident was 43 years. As per law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680, the multiplier has to be taken on the basis of the age of the petitioner and for the age group 4145 years, a multiplier of 14 is applicable. The petitioner is also entitled to addition of 25% of the established income towards future prospects since she was in between 4050 years of age at the time of accident.
27. Loss of future earnings is calculated as follows:
Annual Income before the accident =Rs. 21,184/ x 12 = Rs. 2,54,208/ Future Prospects (addition of 25% of the established income)=Rs. 63,552/ Annual Income including Future Prospects (A)= Rs. 3,17,760/ Loss of Future Earning per annum (1% of A)= Rs. 3,177.60 Multiplier applicable with reference to age = 14 Loss of Future Earnings = Rs. 3,177.60 x14 = Rs. 44.486.4/ Future medical expenses
28. No evidence has been led by the petitioner regarding future medical MACT No. 527/2022 Chetna Jha Vs. Radha Kishan & Ors. Page No. 11 of 22 expenses. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any future medical expenses.
Nonpecuniary damages (General damages) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries
29. The following factors that are to be taken into account for assessing compensation under the head pain and suffering:
i. Nature of injury ii. Parts of body where injuries occurred iii. Surgeries, if any iv. Confinement in hospital v. Duration of the treatment The petitioner has suffered permanent physical disability of 2% in relation to her left lower limb.
As per the Cash Final Bill of Yatharth Super Speciality Hospital, the petitioner remained admitted from 09.11.20221 to 13.11.2021. As per the Discharge Summary of Yatharth Super Speciality Hospital, she again remained admitted from 27.03.2022 to 28.03.2022.
The respondent no. 3 has offered Rs. 5,000/ to the petitioner under the head pain and suffering.
In light of the permanent physical disability suffered by her and period of confinement in the hospital, this Tribunal is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to Rs. 25,000/ under the head pain and suffering and Rs. 15,000/ under the head mental and physical shock. Other heads claimed by the petitioner MACT No. 527/2022 Chetna Jha Vs. Radha Kishan & Ors. Page No. 12 of 22
30. In the absence of any evidence on record, no case is made out for grant of compensation under any other head.
31. The compensation payable under various heads is summarized below:
Serial No. Heads Amount Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
1. Medicines, Treatment and Physiotherapy Rs. 1,41,634/
2. Special Diet Rs. 20,000/
3. Conveyance Rs. 20,000/
4. Attendant Charges Rs. 20,000/
5. Loss of Earning during the period of Rs. 1,05,920/ treatment 6 Loss of Future Earnings Rs. 44,486.4/ Nonpecuniary damages (General damages)
7. Pain & Suffering Rs. 25,000/
8. Mental & Physical Shock Rs. 15,000/ Total Rs. 3,92,040.4/ (rounded off to Rs.
3,92,100/) Liability
32. The respondents no. 1 & 2 being the principal tortfeasors, are primarily liable to make payment of compensation awarded to the petitioner. However, since the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL 4CAP 0845 was insured by respondent no. 3 against third party risks, therefore, the respondent no. 3 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
The respondent no. 3 has not placed anything on record showing any right to recover against the respondents no. 1 & 2. Therefore, the respondent no. 3 / Edelweiss General Insurance Company Ltd. (now known as Zuno General Insurance company Ltd.) shall pay the award amount with interest to the MACT No. 527/2022 Chetna Jha Vs. Radha Kishan & Ors. Page No. 13 of 22 petitioner without any right to recover the same from the respondents no. 1 &
2. Relief
33. In view of findings on issue number 1, the petitioner is held entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,92,100/ (Rupees Three Lacs Ninety Two Thousand One Hundred Only) along with simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition that is, 25.05.2022 till the date of compliance that is, 03.07.2025. Thereafter, simple interest @ 12% per annum for delayed payment, if any. The amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be excluded from the award amount.
Release
34. As per the provisions of section 168(3) of MV Act, the award amount along with interest shall be deposited/transferred by respondent no.3/ Edelweiss General Insurance Company Ltd. (now known as Zuno General Insurance company Ltd.) in bank account of this Tribunal (Bank Account No. 42709452600 at State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector10, Dwarka New Delhi, IFSC Code SBIN0011566 and MICR Code 110002483) by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS within 30 days of award under intimation to the Nazir of this Tribunal and with notice of deposit to the petitioner and her counsel.
35. The statement of the petitioner regarding her financial status, needs and liabilities was recorded.
The petitioner has provided the details of her Savings Bank Account MACT Claims (hereafter 'MACT account') and the same is as follows:
Name Bank Details
Chetna Jha A/c Type: Savings Bank Account MACT Claims
MACT No. 527/2022 Chetna Jha Vs. Radha Kishan & Ors. Page No. 14 of 22
A/c No. : 43276281599 at State Bank of India, Branch Sector65, Gurugram Haryana, IFSC Code SBIN0064540.
36. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. FAO No. 842/2003 has formulated the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) scheme vide its order dated 01.05.2018 and implemented the same vide its subsequent orders dated 07.12.2018 and 08.01.2021. As per this scheme, the compensation is to be released to the petitioner in a phased manner.
37. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 16.07.2024 in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Private Ltd. Vs. Union Of India & Ors. Writ Petition (Civil) no. 534/2020 has held:
"9. To clarify the aforesaid position, it is for the Tribunal in a given case to make a decision as to whether the entire amount has to be released or if it is to be released in part. Suffice it is to state that the Tribunal is expected to give its own reasoning while undertaking such an exercise."
38. Keeping in view the quantum of the award, expenses incurred by the petitioner on treatment, special diet and conveyance, fifty percent (50%) of the award amount be immediately released to the petitioner. The remaining 50% of the award amount of the petitioner be kept in the form of one FDR for a period of one year in terms of the aforesaid MACAD scheme.
Directions to the Bank(s)
39. The Manager, State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector10, MACT No. 527/2022 Chetna Jha Vs. Radha Kishan & Ors. Page No. 15 of 22 Dwarka, New Delhi and the Manager, State Bank of India, Sector65, Gurugram, Haryana, Delhi are directed:
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the MACT accounts of the petitioner.
(b) The original fixed deposit/FDRs 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 the concerned bank to the petitioner.
(c) No loan, advance, withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the FDRs without permission of this Tribunal.
(d) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/ or debit card to petitioner for her MACT account. However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, the bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount.
40. The FormXVI of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, as per the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) on 08.01.2021 is as under:
FORMXVI SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident: 07.11.2021
2. Name of injured: Chetna Jha
3. Age of the injured: 43 years
4. Occupation of the injured: Yoga Teacher MACT No. 527/2022 Chetna Jha Vs. Radha Kishan & Ors. Page No. 16 of 22
5. Income of the injured: Rs. 40,000/ pm (as claimed)
6. Nature of injury: Grievous injury
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured: Rao Tula Ram Memorial Hospital, New Delhi and Yatharth Super Speciality Hospital, Greater Noida.
8. Period of hospitalization: 09.11.2021 to 13.11.2021 & 27.03.2022 to 28.03.2022
9. Whether any permanent disability? Stiff left ankle with permanent physical disability of 2% in relation to left lower limb
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 1,41,634/
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 20,000/
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 20,000/
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 20,000/
(v) Cost of artificial limb Nil.
(vi) Loss of earning capacity Nil. (vii) Loss of income Rs. 1,05,920/
(viii) Any other loss which may require any Nil special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of her life
12. NonPecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and physical Rs. 15,000/ shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 25,000/
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Nil.
(iv) Disfiguration Nil.
MACT No. 527/2022 Chetna Jha Vs. Radha Kishan & Ors. Page No. 17 of 22
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil.
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, As above.
hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and Not Applicable nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of expectation Not Applicable of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity Not Applicable in relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income (Income x % Rs. 44,486.4/ Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 3,92,040.4/ (rounded off to Rs. 3,92,100/)
15. INTEREST AWARDED Simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of institution of the petition (25.05.2022) till the date of compliance (03.07.2025) Thereafter, simple interest @ 12% per annum.
16. Interest amount up to the date of award Rs. 88,876/
17. Total amount including interest Rs. 4,80,976/
18. Award amount released 50%
19. Award amount kept in FDRs 50%
20. Mode of disbursement of the award Account Transfer amount to the claimant(s)
21. Next date for compliance of the award 03.07.2025.
MACT No. 527/2022 Chetna Jha Vs. Radha Kishan & Ors. Page No. 18 of 22
41. The FormXVII of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, as per the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) on 08.01.2021 is as under:
FORMXVII COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of the accident 07.11.2021
2. Date of filing of Form I First Not Known Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of FormII to the Not Known victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of FormIII from Not Known the Driver
5. Date of receipt of FormIV from Not Known the owner
6. Date of filing of the Form Not Known V Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of FormVIA and Not Known Form VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing of FormVII 25.05.2022 Detailed Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or Yes.
deficiency on the part of
DAR was filed on 25.05.2022
the Investigating Officer? If so,
whether any action/direction while the accident occurred on
warranted? 07.11.2021.
No action warranted as it is not a
case of prolonged delay.
MACT No. 527/2022 Chetna Jha Vs. Radha Kishan & Ors. Page No. 19 of 22
10. Date of appointment of the Not Known
Designated Officer by the
Insurance Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of Not Known the Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or Not Known deficiencies on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company?If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the claimants(s) Legal Offer filed on 24.03.2023 of the offer of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 03.06.2025
15. Whether the claimants(s) was/were Yes directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which 25.05.2022 claimants(s) was/were directed to open savings bank account(s) near her place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimants(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17. Date on which the claimant(s) 29.11.2024 produced the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and MACT No. 527/2022 Chetna Jha Vs. Radha Kishan & Ors. Page No. 20 of 22 Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of 149 A Street No. 37, Saraswati the claimant(s) Enclave MD Marg, Gopal Nagar Surakhpur Road, Najafgarh Delhi110043.
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings Yes bank account(s) is near her place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) was/were Yes examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain her/their financial condition?
42. Dasti copy of Award be given to the parties free of cost.
43. Attested copy of Award be sent to the following banks for information/ compliance:
(i) SBI, District Courts Complex, Sector10, Dwarka, New Delhi.
(ii) State Bank of India, Sector65, Gurugram, Haryana.
44. Copy of Award be also sent to the concerned ld. Judicial Magistrate and Delhi State Legal Services Authority.
45. Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra).
46. Ahlmad is directed to prepare a separate miscellaneous file to be listed on MACT No. 527/2022 Chetna Jha Vs. Radha Kishan & Ors. Page No. 21 of 22 28.07.2025 for compliance report.
47. File be consigned to the record room after compliance of necessary formalities.
Digitally signed
SUDEEP by SUDEEP RAJ
SAINI
RAJ Date:
SAINI 2025.06.03
12:37:13 +0530
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (SUDEEP RAJ SAINI)
COURT ON 03.06.2025 POMACT02, SOUTHWEST DISTRICT DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI MACT No. 527/2022 Chetna Jha Vs. Radha Kishan & Ors. Page No. 22 of 22