Delhi District Court
Meera Srivastava ... vs Sarvesh Kumar Singh (Without Ins) on 4 April, 2026
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER MACT-02: CENTRAL DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI. PRESIDED OVER BY Ms. POOJA AGGARWAL, DHJS MACT No. 83/24 UID/CNR No. DLCT01-001450-2024 In Respect of FIR No. 290/23 PS Bara Hindu Rao U/s: 279/337 IPC Meera Srivastav D/o Sh. Ramji Lal Srivastav R/o H.No.B-26, Pradhan Enclave, Burari, Delhi-110084. (Through Ld. Counsel Sh. A.V. Shukla) .....Petitioner Versus 1. Sarvesh Kumar Singh (Driver/Owner) S/o Sh. Shyam Babu Singh R/o H.No. 525, Nai Basti Kishan Ganj, Malka Ganj, Delhi. (Through Ld. Counsel Sh. Hitik Bansal) 2. Kotak General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer) (impleaded vide order dated 05.11.2024) Office at:- H-78, 7th Floor, 23 Himalaya House Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Through Ld. Counsel Sh. M. Awasthi) .....Respondents Date of filing of DAR : 01.02.2024 Judgment reserved on : 04.04.2026 Date of Award : 04.04.2026 Digitally signed by POOJA MACT No. 83/24 POOJA AGGARWAL In Respect of FIR No. 290/23 PS Bara Hindu Rao AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.04 Page No. 1 of 36 Meera Srivastav v Sarvesh Kumar Singh & Anr. 15:39:42 +0530 AWARD/JUDGMENT 1. The present Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred to as "DAR") has been filed by the Investigating Officer in respect of FIR No. 290/2023, PS Bara Hindu Rao, u/s 279/337 IPC regarding injuries sustained by Smt. Meera Srivastav D/o Sh. Ramji Lal Srivastav (hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner/ injured") due to an accident which took place on 05.08.2023, at about 17.50 PM, by the vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1LAH-6069 (hereinafter referred to as 'Offending Vehicle') being driven rashly and negligently and owned Sh. Sarvesh Kumar Singh (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent No.1"). 2. A copy of the chargesheet filed in respect of the commission of offences under Section 279/337 IPC & 146/196 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "MV Act") against the Respondent No.1 after investigation in respect of the said FIR, was also annexed with the DAR. 3. Vide order dated 01.02.2024 passed by the Ld. Predecessor, the DAR was directed to be treated as a claim petition under Section 166 MV Act. 4. Upon an application of the Petitioner, under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, vide order dated 05.11.2024 passed by the Ld. Predecessor, M/s Kotak General Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent No.2") was impleaded as Respondent No. 2 as insurer of the vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1LAH-6069. MACT No. 83/24 Digitally signed by In Respect of FIR No. 290/23 PS Bara Hindu Rao POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 2 of 36 Meera Srivastav v Sarvesh Kumar Singh & Anr. AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.04 15:39:48 +0530 Facts as per Written Statement of Respondent No. 1
5. In his written statement, the Respondent No. 1 raised various preliminary objections including as to him not being negligent and as to him having a valid driving license and the offending vehicle being duly insured with Respondent No. 2.
6. A replication was also filed to the written statement by the Petitioner wherein she denied the averments made in the written statement.
Facts as per Legal Offer of Respondent No.2/ Insurance Company.
7. In its legal offer, the Respondent No.2/ Insurance Company admitted that the vehicle No. DL-1LAH-6069 was insured with it at the relevant time in the name of the Respondent no. 1 and they also offered compensation to the injured of a sum of ₹15,000/- plus original medical bills subject to production of the same.
8. A reply was filed by the Petitioner to the legal offer wherein she asserted that though her injury was simple but she had been advised bed rest and had not left the bed for about four months. She also claimed a sum of ₹5,96,662/- as compensation.
Issues
9. On the basis of the pleadings on record, the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 27.05.2025:-
MACT No. 83/24 Digitally signed
by POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 290/23 PS Bara Hindu Rao POOJA
AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL
Date:
Page No. 3 of 36
Meera Srivastav v Sarvesh Kumar Singh & Anr. 2026.04.04
15:39:52 +0530
1.Whether the petitioner Meera Srivastava suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 05.08.2023 at about 17:50 Hrs. involving vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1LAH-6069 driven rashly and negligently and owned by the respondent no. 1 and insured with the respondent no. 2? OPP.
2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3.Relief.
Evidence of the Petitioner
10. As PW1, the Petitioner tendered her evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex. PW-1/A, wherein inter alia she testified to the effect that she was travelling in an e-rickshaw which reached at Pul Mithai Avanti Bai Chowk at about 5.50 P.M., when one white Bolero Pickup, which came from the direction of Old Delhi Railway Station and was being driven by its driver in a very fast and careless manner, hit the e- Rickshaw from the right side, which resulted in the e- rickshaw overturning along with the passengers on the left side. She further testified that she was sitting on the left side at the back side of e-rickshaw and that all the passengers and luggage fell on her, both her legs got stuck in the e-rickshaw and due to injuries on her both legs, she could not get down from the e-rickshaw.
11.PW-1 further testified that the driver of the Bolero Pickup bearing registration no. DL-1LAH-6069 came to her, told her his name as Sarvesh Kumar, sat with her in the e-rickshaw and took her to St. Stephen's Hospital for treatment where her MLC was prepared and she was treated from 22.02.2025 MACT No. 83/24 Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL In Respect of FIR No. 290/23 PS Bara Hindu Rao AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.04 Page No. 4 of 36 15:39:56 +0530 Meera Srivastav v Sarvesh Kumar Singh & Anr. to 10.05.2025. She further testified that she had sustained injuries on 05.08.2023 and due to the accident she was suffering and was under treatment till date. She further testified that she had sustained grievous injuries in the accident.
12. The Petitioner also relied upon the following documents :-
S. No. Description of document Exhibits
1. The copy of FIR Ex. PW-1/1
2. The copy of MLCs Ex. PW-1/2(colly)
3. Copy of insurance policy Ex.PW-1/3
4. Copy of medical Ex. PW-1/4 (Colly) prescription dated 08.08.2023
5. Medical Bills Ex.PW-1/5 (Colly)
6. Coloured Photographs of Ex.PW-1/6 (Colly) injuries of both legs
7. Copy of her Aadhaar Card Ex.PW-1/7
8. Certificate u/s 63 of Ex. PW-1/8 BSA,2023
9. Copy of her I-Card of Bar Ex.PW-1/9 Council of Delhi
10. Copy of her I-Card of Delhi Ex.PW-1/10 Bar Association
13. She was duly cross-examined on behalf of the Respondent No.2/ Insurance Company.
Evidence of the Respondents
14. Respondent No.2/ Insurance Company examined R2W1 Dr. Sanjay Yadav, Incharge, Disability Board, Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, Delhi, who proved the disability certificate of the MACT No. 83/24 POOJA Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL In Respect of FIR No. 290/23 PS Bara Hindu Rao AGGARWAL 15:40:00 Date: 2026.04.04 +0530 Page No. 5 of 36 Meera Srivastav v Sarvesh Kumar Singh & Anr. Petitioner i.e. Ex. R2W1/1, testifying that she was found having 21% permanent physical disability in relation to her left lower limb. He also produced the copy of MLC/treatment record submitted by the petitioner i.e. Ex. R2W1/2 and Ex. R2W1/3 respectively. He also testified that FUC of STI Lt Foot as mentioned in Ex. R2W1/1 refers to follow up case of soft tissue injury left foot. He further testified that as per the MLC, the patient Meera Srivastava had suffered only simple injury and her injuries comprised of swelling and tenderness as well as superficial abrasions as mentioned in the MLC itself. He further testified that the Board had considered both the documents i.e. Ex. R2W1/2 and Ex. R2W1/3 prior to issuance of the certificate. Further, as per R2W1, no medical tests or X-ray were performed prior to the issuance of the disability certificate, however, an assessment proforma in respect of the lower extremity was prepared i.e. Ex. R2W1/4. He went on to testify that the patient Meera had not sustained any fracture and he did not know whether she had any existing co-morbid conditions. He also testified that even in the disability certificate, simple injuries are reflected i.e. soft tissue injuries. He was not cross-examined on behalf of the Petitioner despite opportunity and none appeared on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 to cross-examine him.
Final Arguments and Issue Wise Findings
15. Final arguments were advanced on behalf of only the Petitioner and Respondent No.2/ Insurance Company by their respective counsels, which have been carefully considered along with the evidence on record. After careful MACT No. 83/24 Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA In Respect of FIR No. 290/23 PS Bara Hindu Rao AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.04 Page No. 6 of 36 Meera Srivastav v Sarvesh Kumar Singh & Anr. 15:40:05 +0530 consideration of the entire evidence, the issue wise findings are as under:
Issue no.1: Whether the petitioner Meera Srivastava suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 05.08.2023 at about 17:50 Hrs. involving vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1LAH-6069 driven rashly and negligently and owned by the respondent no. 1 and insured with the respondent no. 2? OPP.
16. The onus to prove this issue was upon the Petitioner. As per the testimony of the Petitioner/PW1, the accident occurred when she was travelling in an E-Rickshaw which had reached at Pul Mithai, Avanti Bai Chowk, Delhi and the offending vehicle, i.e. Bolero car bearing registration No. DL-1LAH-6069 hit her E-Rickshaw with great force resulting in her fall and grievous injuries all over her body. She has categorically testified that the offending vehicle was being driven by its driver very fast and carelessly.
17. The testimony of the PW1/Petitioner as to the factum of the accident and as to the accident having occurred as the offending vehicle was being driven by Respondent No.1 at high speed, and in a careless manner is clear and unequivocal, and nothing material could be elicited in her cross-examination to discredit either the factum or even the manner of the accident.
18. It is also noted that for reasons best known to him, the Respondent No.1 did not even step into the witness box to controvert the manner of accident nor set up any defence MACT No. 83/24 POOJA Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL In Respect of FIR No. 290/23 PS Bara Hindu Rao AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.04 Page No. 7 of 36Meera Srivastav v Sarvesh Kumar Singh & Anr. 15:40:11 +0530 despite being the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident, and thus being the best person to controvert existence of any rashness or negligence on his part, which warrants an adverse inference to be drawn against him, even more so when no other evidence has been brought on record by the Respondents to prove that the accident resulted due to any other factor except rashness and negligence on the part of the Respondent No.1.
19. The Respondents have also failed to bring on record any false implication of the offending vehicle or of the Respondent No.1 nor any defence has been proved by the Respondents.
20. The act of driving a vehicle in such a manner that it hits another vehicle with great force resulting in the overturn of the other vehicle is itself indicative of rashness and negligence by the driver of the offending vehicle, as he failed to control his vehicle causing the accident.
21. Further, it is also noted that the Respondent No. 1 was charge-sheeted by the investigating agency for the commission of various offences including offences punishable under Sections 279/337 IPC in the FIR No. 290/2023, PS Bara Hindu Rao in respect of accident in question, after concluding its investigation on the aspect of cause of the accident as well as the identity of the offender, which also indicates existence of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the Respondent No. 1. Strength Digitally signed MACT No. 83/24 POOJA by POOJA AGGARWAL In Respect of FIR No. 290/23 PS Bara Hindu Rao AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.04 Page No. 8 of 36Meera Srivastav v Sarvesh Kumar Singh & Anr.
15:40:16 +0530 for this interpretation is also drawn from the judgment of 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) wherein the Coordinate Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, 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."
(Emphasis supplied)
22. It is a settled proposition of law that in this Tribunal strict proof of an accident caused in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the petitioners, and they are to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied. Strength for this interpretation is drawn from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, (2009) 13 SC 530, Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., (2018) 5 SCC 656, Geeta Dubey Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors, 2024 SCC Online SC 3779, Sajeena Ikhbal and Others Vs Mini Babu George and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2883 and Prabhavati v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corpn., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 455.
Digitally signed by POOJAMACT No. 83/24 POOJA AGGARWAL In Respect of FIR No. 290/23 PS Bara Hindu Rao AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.04 Page No. 9 of 36 Meera Srivastav v Sarvesh Kumar Singh & Anr. 15:40:26 +0530
23. The Petitioner cannot be expected to prove the accident beyond reasonable doubts and the principle of res ipsa loquitor i.e. "accident speaks for itself" is applicable, which would imply that once it has been established in DAR and chargesheet that the accident had taken place, the burden shifts on the Respondents to prove that they were not responsible for the accident which the Respondents have failed to discharge in this case.
24. Thus, in view of the aforesaid reasons and discussion, on the basis of the evidence as led including the chargesheet, as well as oral testimony of PW-1 who is an eye-witness of the accident being the injured herself, and in the absence of any evidence regarding any mechanical defect in the offending vehicle or any material depicting any negligent/ sudden act or omission on the part of injured having been brought on record, it is held that on the scale of preponderance of probability, the Petitioner has discharged her burden and has proved that the accident took place involving vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1LAH-6069, driven rashly and negligently and owned by the Respondent No.1 and insured with Respondent No.2.
Injury
25. In respect of the injury sustained by the Petitioner in the accident, it is noted that as per the testimony of PW1/ Petitioner, she had sustained grievous injuries on her body due to the accident, however, her MLC No. 304/23 dated 05.08.2023 issued by St. Stephen's Hospital, New Delhi i.e. MACT No. 83/24 In Respect of FIR No. 290/23 PS Bara Hindu Rao POOJA Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 10 of 36 Meera Srivastav v Sarvesh Kumar Singh & Anr. AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.04 15:40:33 +0530 Ex PW-1/2 reflects the alleged history of road traffic accident on 05.082023 at around 5.50 p.m., further reflecting various injuries including swelling and tenderness on her bilateral ankle, right foot phalanges, left foot phalanges and abrasion on her bilateral Foot, with the nature of injury having been opined to be simple. The said MLC also reflects that the diagnosis to be RTA-lower limb trauma, which also corroborates the testimony of the Petitioner as to her having been injured in the accident, though it does not prove that the nature of injury sustained to be grievous.
26. The disability certificate issued by Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, i.e. Ex R2W1/1, which was duly proved by R2W1 Dr. Sanjay Yadav, is also on record which reflects that the Petitioner was a follow up case of soft tissue injury of left foot, and has 21% permanent physical impairment in relation to her left lower limb which is non-progressive and not likely to improve.
27. The testimony of R2W1 Dr. Sanjay Yadav is also categorical to the effect that as per the MLC i.e. Ex R2W1/2, the injury of the Petitioner was simple, and the same was considered along with her treatment record dated 05.08.2023 i.e. Ex R2W1/3 prior to issuance of the certificate. No reason has been brought on record to disbelieve either the MLC Ex. PW-1/2 (also Ex R2W1/2) or the disability certificate Ex.R2W1/1.
28. During the course of final arguments, Ld. Counsel for Respondent No.2/ Insurance Company has vehemently Digitally MACT No. 83/24 signed by POOJA AGGARWAL In Respect of FIR No. 290/23 PS Bara Hindu Rao POOJA AGGARWAL Date: Page No. 11 of 36 2026.04.04 Meera Srivastav v Sarvesh Kumar Singh & Anr. 15:40:39 +0530 argued that as per the MLC itself the injury was only simple in nature, yet the disability certificate reflects permanent physical disability. In respect of this argument, it is duly noted that the Respondents did not bring on record any medical/expert evidence to conclude that simple injury cannot result in permanent disability and in the absence of any expert evidence, it cannot be concluded that the disability certificate is not worthy of reliance.
29. Thus, on the scale of preponderance of probabilities, it stands sufficiently proved that the accident in question resulted in injury to the Petitioner. Issue no.1 is, thus, decided in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents.
Issue no 2.Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom; and Issue no. 3.Relief.
30. Since the Petitioner sustained injuries as a result of the accident in question, he is entitled to be compensated for the same and Section 168 of the MV Act enjoins upon this Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable.
Quantum of compensation
31. The guiding principles for assessment of "just and reasonable compensation" has been enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683, wherein it has been MACT No. 83/24 Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL In Respect of FIR No. 290/23 PS Bara Hindu Rao AGGARWAL Date: Page No. 12 of 36 Meera Srivastav v Sarvesh Kumar Singh & Anr. 2026.04.04 15:40:45 +0530 observed that: -
"The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "MV Act") gives paramount importance to the concept of 'just and fair' compensation. It is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families. Section 168 of the MV Act deals with the concept of 'just compensation' which ought to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability. Although such determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the applicant/s. In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, this Court has laid down as under:
16."Just compensation" is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit."
(Emphasis supplied)
32. It is a settled proposition of law that in cases where the Petitioner has suffered injuries due to the accident, the grant of compensation is under two broad categories, i.e. Pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary damages. The two categories of damages has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551, which has also been reiterated in Atul Tiwari v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2025) 3 SCC 6 as under:
"9. Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which MACT No. 83/24 Digitally signed by POOJA In Respect of FIR No. 290/23 PS Bara Hindu Rao POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 13 of 36 AGGARWAL Meera Srivastav v Sarvesh Kumar Singh & Anr. Date: 2026.04.04 15:40:49 +0530 may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."
(Emphasis supplied)
33. The principles guiding such grant of compensation have been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 34, as under:
"General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
5. 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).
6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). Digitally signed by POOJA MACT No. 83/24 POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
In Respect of FIR No. 290/23 PS Bara Hindu Rao 2026.04.04 15:40:53 Page No. 14 of 36 Meera Srivastav v Sarvesh Kumar Singh & Anr. +0530 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."
(Emphasis supplied)
34. Further in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413, it has been held that:
"It is impossible to equate human suffering and personal deprivation with money. However, this is what the Act enjoins upon the courts to do. The court has to make a judicious attempt to award damages, so as to compensate the claimant for the loss suffered by the victim. On the one hand, the compensation should not be assessed very conservatively, but on the other hand, compensation should also not be assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to make it a bounty to the claimant. The court while assessing the compensation should have regard to the degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation. Such compensation is what is termed as just compensation. The compensation or damages assessed for personal injuries should be substantial to compensate the injured for the deprivation suffered by the injured throughout his/her life. They should not be just token damages."
(Emphasis supplied)
35. In view of the above legal propositions, the amount of compensation shall be computed in this case.
A: Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
36. The evidence affidavit of Petitioner i.e. Ex.PW-1/A is conspicuously silent in respect of any expense having been incurred by her on her treatment/ medicine/ hospitalization MACT No. 83/24 Digitally signed by POOJA In Respect of FIR No. 290/23 PS Bara Hindu Rao POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.04 Page No. 15 of 36 Meera Srivastav v Sarvesh Kumar Singh & Anr. 15:40:58 +0530 etc., testifying in her cross-examination that she was not admitted at St. Stephen's Hospital, however, she has relied upon the medical bills i.e. Ex. PW-1/5 (Colly) for the total sum of Rs. 30,342.76./-.
37. However, the bills on Page No. 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 & 48 of Ex. PW-1/5 (Colly) do not bear any stamp/ signatures, nor any witness was summoned by the Petitioner from Divya Yogantavya to prove the same, in the absence of which the bills remain unproved and cannot be considered, even more so as the bills pertain to the year 2024 while the last treatment paper placed on record by the Petitioner pertains to 05.10.2023 and no further treatment paper has been annexed.
38. It is further noted that though the bill on Page No. 42 dated 11.12.2024 purportedly issued by Divya Yogantavya bears some signature, the same is also unstamped and has not been corroborated with any medical prescription and thus same is also not considered.
39. It is further noted that the Petitioner has also annexed certain physiotherapist receipts purportedly issued by Akhil Bhartiya Shree Paramdham Sewa Samiti (Regd) at Page No. 47 to 49, the bills do not bear any stamp and despite being dated 14.10.2024, 22.10.2024 and 07.11.2024 respectively, the receipt Nos 4940, 4995 & 4982 respectively. No witness has been examined by the Petitioner to explain as to in what circumstances the receipt bearing No. 4995 was issued on 22.10.2024 i.e. prior to receipt bearing No. 4982 which was MACT No. 83/24 Digitally signed In Respect of FIR No. 290/23 PS Bara Hindu Rao POOJA by POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 16 of 36 AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.04 Meera Srivastav v Sarvesh Kumar Singh & Anr. 15:41:01 +0530 only issued on 07.11.2024. Further, the Petitioner has failed to bring on record any medical prescription to prove that physiotherapy was required or prescribed in respect of injuries which resulted from the accident. That being so, these three bills are not being considered.
40. In view of the same, the Petitioner is awarded a sum of ₹18,132/- (rounded off from ₹18,131.72/-) towards medicine/ treatment.
41. In respect of expenses towards nourishing food, conveyance and misc expenses (attendant), it is noted that the entire testimony of the Petitioner is silent as to her having incurred any expenditure on these heads nor she led any evidence to prove the same. Be that as it may, it can not be overlooked that in view of the injuries sustained by the Petitioner which resulted in 21% permanent disability in relation to her left lower limb, she would have taken some time for recovery and incurred extra expenditure on her food, conveyance as well as certain misc expenses. That being so, a sum of ₹5,000/- each is awarded to the Petitioner under the head of special diet, conveyance and misc expenses.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
42. In respect of loss of earning during the period of treatment, it is noted that as per the medical documents on record i.e. Ex MACT No. 83/24 Digitally signed by POOJA In Respect of FIR No. 290/23 PS Bara Hindu Rao POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.04 Page No. 17 of 36 Meera Srivastav v Sarvesh Kumar Singh & Anr. 15:41:06 +0530 PW-1/4 (Colly) issued by St. Stephen's Hospital, Tis Hazari, Delhi, the Petitioner has remained under treatment since 05.08.2023 to 05.10.2023 and in view of the nature of her injuries and treatment, she is bound to have suffered loss of income for the period thereof. Hence, she is entitled to be compensated for the loss of her income for the aforementioned period of treatment of about two months.
43. To compute the same, the quantum of monthly income of Petitioner needs to be ascertained. It is noted that as PW1, the Petitioner produced the copy of her I-Cards of Bar Council of Delhi and Delhi Bar Association vide Ex.PW-1/9 and Ex.PW-10 respectively, however, she neither testified as to the quantum of her monthly income nor produced any document in respect of the same. In these circumstances, considering that the Petitioner is enrolled with Bar Council of Delhi, she would be a Graduate and hence, her notional income shall be assessed on the basis of the minimum wages payable to a Graduate Person in Delhi at the time of the accident i.e. on 05.08.2023 i.e. ₹22,744/- per month and consequently, her loss of income is computed to be ₹45,488/- (₹22,744/-x 2). Hence, the Petitioner is awarded a sum of ₹45,488/- towards loss of income due to treatment.
44. In respect of the loss of future earnings, the Petitioner has relied upon her disability certificate issued by Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital dated 28.07.2025 i.e. Ex. R2W1/1 as per which she has 21% permanent physical impairment in relation to her left lower limb which is non-progressive and not likely to MACT No. 83/24 Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA In Respect of FIR No. 290/23 PS Bara Hindu Rao Page No. 18 of 36 AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.04 Meera Srivastav v Sarvesh Kumar Singh & Anr. 15:41:12 +0530 improve. She has testified in her evidence affidavit that due to her injury, her movement is very difficult and her routine work is also difficult.
45. In Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 34, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has noted that:
"Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human-being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995(`Disabilities Act' for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation.
(Emphasis supplied)
46. It is has been further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors., (2011) 1 SCC 34 that:
"9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 40% of all his four limbs, it is not the same as 40% MACT No. 83/24 Digitally signed In Respect of FIR No. 290/23 PS Bara Hindu Rao by POOJA Page No. 19 of 36 POOJA AGGARWAL Meera Srivastav v Sarvesh Kumar Singh & Anr. AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.04 15:41:17 +0530 permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body, cannot obviously exceed 100%.
10. 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.
11. 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 terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation (see for example, the decisions of this court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567).
12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence:
(i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary;
(ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is MACT No. 83/24 Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA In Respect of FIR No. 290/23 PS Bara Hindu Rao AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.04 Page No. 20 of 36 Meera Srivastav v Sarvesh Kumar Singh & Anr. 15:41:21 +0530 permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement,
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by the person.
If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity.
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 ability (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."
(Emphasis supplied)
47. In the present case, the 21% permanent physical impairment reflected in the disability certificate is in relation to left lower limb of the Petitioner Meera Srivastav, and not with reference to her whole body. As per the assessment proforma i.e. Ex.R2W1/4, produced by R2W1 Dr. Sanjay Yadav, the Petitioner can walk on plain surface-little with dragging, walk on slope with support, climb stairs with support, stand on both legs with support, stand of affected leg, squat on floor, sit cross leg, kneel with support and take turns. The MACT No. 83/24 Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA In Respect of FIR No. 290/23 PS Bara Hindu Rao AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.04 Page No. 21 of 36 Meera Srivastav v Sarvesh Kumar Singh & Anr. 15:41:31 +0530 Respondents have not brought on record anything to disbelieve the said disability report.
48. In the final arguments filed on behalf of the Petitioner, she has stated that she is an Advocate by profession but is presently not fit for proper working and is hand to mouth. Despite, such arguments, it is noted that the Petitioner never stated as to the same on oath during her evidence, and her aforesaid submissions cannot be considered as it has not been subjected to any cross-examination.
49. Be that as it may, it cannot be ignored that the Petitioner has testified in Ex. PW-1/A as to her not been able to perform even daily routine work without difficulty and has also testified that her movement has become difficult, which is duly corroborated with the assessment proforma Ex.R2W1/4, and no reason has been brought on record to disbelieve that the injury/ disability in respect of her left lower limb would have resulted in difficulty to the Petitioner while doing her routine work, which is bound to involve walking and standing. That being so, keeping in view the nature of the injuries sustained by the Petitioner, her functional disability is taken to be 10.5% in relation to the whole body.
50. It is further noted that as the time of the accident i.e. on 05.08.2023, the injured/Petitioner Meera Srivastav was aged about 53 years as her date of birth is reflected as 01.07.1970 in her Aadhaar Card i.e. Ex.PW-1/7. Her notional income has already been assessed to be ₹22,744/- per month on the basis MACT No. 83/24 Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL In Respect of FIR No. 290/23 PS Bara Hindu Rao AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.04 Page No. 22 of 36 Meera Srivastav v Sarvesh Kumar Singh & Anr. 15:41:38 +0530 of the minimum wages payable to a Graduate Person at the time of the accident i.e. on 05.08.2023. In view of the proposition laid down in Erudhaya Priya v. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601 (citing Jagdish v. Mohan, (2018) 4 SCC 571), the Petitioner is also entitled to the grant of future prospects. Thus, in view of the judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, 10% of the established income is to be added to the monthly income towards future prospects, if the injured is aged less than 60 years. That being so, an amount of ₹2,274.4/- shall be added to the notional monthly income, and thus the monthly income inclusive of the future prospects comes to be ₹25,018.4/- and the annual income comes to be ₹3,00,220.8/-.
51. Further, as the Petitioner was aged about 53 years at the time of the accident, a multiplier of 11 shall be applicable (Ref:
Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121) and therefore, the notional income of the Petitioner/ injured comes to be ₹33,02,428.8/-(₹3,00,220.8/-
x 11).
52. As the functional disability of the Petitioner has been taken to 10.5%, the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability caused to the Petitioner arising out of the accident comes to be ₹3,46,755/- (rounded off from ₹3,46,755.024/-) (i.e.10.5% of the notional income) and the Petitioner/injured is awarded the same.
MACT No. 83/24 Digitally signed
by POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 290/23 PS Bara Hindu Rao POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.04
Page No. 23 of 36
Meera Srivastav v Sarvesh Kumar Singh & Anr. 15:41:43 +0530
(iii) Future medical expenses.
53. The Petitioner has not led any evidence as to any foreseeable medical expenses arising in the future due to the injury sustained by her in the accident. Hence, no amount is awarded to her under this head.
B. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
54. In respect of the damages under this head, it is noted that the factum of the petitioner/injured having sustained grievous injuries with 21% permanent disability in her left lower limb already stands proved. Further, as per the treatment documents placed on record by the Petitioner, she remained under treatment since 05.08.2023 till atleast 05.10.2023. Due to the nature of injuries and considering the age of the Petitioner/injured at the time of the accident, it can safely be inferred that she must have suffered pain and trauma due to the accident. Accordingly, a lump sum amount of ₹25,000/- is granted in favour of the Petitioner towards damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage, disfiguration).
55. In the present case, as the Petitioner has sustained grievous injury in the accident resulting in 21% disability, it cannot be ignored that she faces a possibility of denial of enjoyment of the simple pleasures of life and companionship as well as enjoyment of life. That being so, a sum of ₹25,000/- is MACT No. 83/24 Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL In Respect of FIR No. 290/23 PS Bara Hindu Rao AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.04 Page No. 24 of 36 Meera Srivastav v Sarvesh Kumar Singh & Anr. 15:41:48 +0530 awarded to the Petitioner/ injured towards loss of amenities.
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
56. No evidence has been brought on record by the Petitioner to show as to whether there is any loss of expectation of life due to the injuries sustained by her in the accident. That being so, no amount is awarded to the Petitioner under this head.
57. For the sake of convenience, the amount as awarded to the Petitioner is summarized as under:-
S. No. HEAD AMOUNT
1. Treatment / medicine expenses ₹18,132/-
2. Hospitalization expenses (rounded off)
3. Special Diet ₹5,000/-
4. Misc expenses ₹5,000/-
5. Transport/conveyance ₹5,000/-
6. Loss of earning during ₹45,488/-
hospitalization
7. Loss of future earnings on ₹3,46,755/-
account of permanent (rounded off)
disability
8. Future medical expenses N.A.
9. Damages for pain, suffering ₹25,000/- and trauma as a consequence of the injuries
10. Loss of amenities and loss of ₹25,000/- marriage prospects
11. Loss of expectation of life NIL TOTAL ₹4,75,375/-
58. In respect of entitlement of the Petitioner to interest on the awarded amount, it is duly noted that in the present matter is MACT No. 83/24 Digitally signed by POOJA In Respect of FIR No. 290/23 PS Bara Hindu Rao POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.04 Page No. 25 of 36 15:41:53 +0530 Meera Srivastav v Sarvesh Kumar Singh & Anr. pending since 01.02.2024 and the rate of interest of fixed deposits in Nationalized banks has fluctuated several times during the pendency of the present proceedings. Thus, in the interest of justice and keeping in view the principles discussed in order dated 21.04.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Baby Raksha & Ors, MAC APP. No. 36/2023, the Petitioner is awarded interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of DAR, that is, with effect from 01.02.2024 till the date of the award i.e. a sum of ₹77,546/- (rounded off from ₹77,545.545/-) towards interest. The amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the Petitioner.
Liability
59. The Respondent No.1 being the driver/ owner is liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to Petitioner. However, since the offending vehicle was insured with Respondent No.2 at the time of accident and the Respondent No.2 / Insurance Company has not raised any statutory defence in denial of their liability, hence, the Respondent No.2/ Insurance Company shall be liable to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioner.
60. Issue no.2 and 3 are accordingly decided in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents.
Disbursement/ Release
61. As per the Financial Statement of Petitioner, her monthly MACT No. 83/24 Digitally signed In Respect of FIR No. 290/23 PS Bara Hindu Rao POOJA by POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 26 of 36 AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.04 Meera Srivastav v Sarvesh Kumar Singh & Anr. 15:41:58 +0530 expenses are approximately ₹30,000/- to ₹40,000/-. Hence, while deciding the quantum and manner of disbursement of the awarded amount, the following directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 titled Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors. have to be borne in mind:
"(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimants. However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque books and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and the claimant shall produced the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court for compliance."
(Emphasis Supplied)
62. Thereafter, in Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal, S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020 as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 18 March, 2025 it has been further directed that:
MACT No. 83/24 Digitally signed
by POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 290/23 PS Bara Hindu Rao POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.04
Page No. 27 of 36
Meera Srivastav v Sarvesh Kumar Singh & Anr. 15:42:04 +0530
"17. The case in hand pertains to the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. The general practice followed by the insurance companies, where the compensation is not disputed, is to deposit the same before the Tribunal. Instead of following that process, a direction can always be issued to transfer the amount into the bank account(s) of the claimant(s) with intimation to the Tribunal.
17.1 For that purpose, the Tribunals at the initial stage of pleadings or at the stage of leading evidence may require the claimant(s) to furnish their bank account particulars to the Tribunal along with the requisite proof, so that at the stage of passing of the award the Tribunal may direct that the amount of compensation be transferred in the account of the claimant and if there are more than one then in their respective accounts. If there is no bank account, then they should be required to open the bank account either individually or jointly with family members only. It should also be mandated that, in case there is any change in the bank account particulars of the claimant(s) during the pendency of the claim petition they should update the same before the Tribunal. This should be ensured before passing of the final award. It may be ensured that the bank account should be in the name of the claimant(s) and if minor, through guardian(s) and in no case it should be a joint account with any person, who is not a family member. The transfer of the amount in the bank account, particulars of which have been furnished by the claimant(s), as mentioned in the award, shall be treated as satisfaction of the award. Intimation of compliance should be furnished to the Tribunal."
(Emphasis supplied)
63. 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 Delhi High Court shall be complied with.
64. In view of the aforesaid directions, in respect of the disbursement of the awarded amount, it is directed that upon realization of the awarded amount of ₹5,52,921/-(Rupees Five Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty One only) inclusive of interest (rounded off), a sum of ₹1,02,921/- (Rupees One Lakh Two Thousand Nine Hundred Digitally signed MACT No. 83/24 POOJA by POOJA AGGARWAL In Respect of FIR No. 290/23 PS Bara Hindu Rao AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.04 Page No. 28 of 36 15:42:12 +0530 Meera Srivastav v Sarvesh Kumar Singh & Anr. and Twenty One only) shall be released to the Petitioner immediately in her Bank Account No. 44880854666, IFSC Code SBIN0000726 with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi as furnished by her at the time of recording of her financial statement.
65. The balance amount of ₹4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) shall be put in 15 monthly fixed deposits in her name in her account as mentioned above of equal amount of ₹30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 15 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 her saving account maintained in the nationalized bank situated near the place of her residence.
66. The Respondent No.2 / Kotak General Insurance Co. Ltd is directed to deposit the awarded sum of ₹5,52,921/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty One only), inclusive of interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR till the date of the award within 30 days by way of NEFT or RTGS mode directly in the MACT account of the Petitioner as mentioned in the Para No. 64 of this award under intimation to the Petitioner as well as this Tribunal failing which the said Respondent No. 2 shall be liable to pay interest @ 12 % per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days. (Ref: Oriental Insurance Company MACT No. 83/24 POOJA Digitally signed by POOJA In Respect of FIR No. 290/23 PS Bara Hindu Rao AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.04 Page No. 29 of 36 Meera Srivastav v Sarvesh Kumar Singh & Anr. 15:42:17 +0530 Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court).
67. The concerned Manager of the bank of the Petitioner is directed to release the amount to the Petitioner as per the award upon completion of necessary formalities as per the rules. He/She is directed to keep the amount in fixed deposits as per the directions given in the award and to send a compliance report to this court. He/She is also directed to ensure that no loan, advance or pre mature discharge is allowed on the fixed deposit without an order of this court.
68. The summary of the award as per Form XVI of the Annexure XIII and particulars of compliance of the Provisions of the Scheme as per Form XVII of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 as amended by the Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022, are also annexed with this Award as Annexure A and B respectively, and shall form a part of this award.
69. A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost.
70. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class 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)].
Digitally signed by POOJAMACT No. 83/24 POOJA AGGARWAL In Respect of FIR No. 290/23 PS Bara Hindu Rao AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.04 Page No. 30 of 3615:42:25 Meera Srivastav v Sarvesh Kumar Singh & Anr. +0530
71. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 06.01.2021 in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., regarding digitization of the records.
72. Ahlmad is 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 and also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
73. 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).
74. This file be consigned to the Record Room after necessary compliance.
75. A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 04.05.2026.
Digitally signedAnnounced in the Open Court POOJA by POOJA AGGARWAL today i.e. on 4th April 2026 AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.04 15:42:31 +0530 (POOJA AGGARWAL)
Presiding Officer, MACT-02 (Central) Tis Hazari, Delhi MACT No. 83/24 Digitally signed by POOJA In Respect of FIR No. 290/23 PS Bara Hindu Rao POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 31 of 36 Meera Srivastav v Sarvesh Kumar Singh & Anr. AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.04 15:42:35 +0530 ANNEXURE A FORM - XVI, Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (part of Annexure XIII. Ref: Rule 150A) SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 05.08.2023
2. Name of the injured : Meera Srivastav
3. Age of the injured : 53 years
4. Occupation of the injured : Advocate
5. Income of the injured : Assessed on the basis of Minimum Wages of a Graduate Person prevailing in Delhi at the relevant time.
6. Nature of injury : Simple
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured : As per record
8. Period of hospitalisation : NA
9. Whether any permanent disability?
If yes, give details : Yes, permanent
physical disability of
21% in relation to left
lower limb
10. Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the
Claims Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment ₹18,132/-
(rounded off)
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance ₹5,000/-
MACT No. 83/24 POOJA
Digitally signed by
POOJA AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 290/23 PS Bara Hindu Rao AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.04 15:42:39 +0530 Page No. 32 of 36 Meera Srivastav v Sarvesh Kumar Singh & Anr.
(iii) Expenditure on special diet ₹5,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant/ ₹5,000/-
misc expenses
(v) Cost of artificial limb --
(vi) Loss of earning capacity --
(vii) Loss of income ₹45,488/-
(viii) Any other loss which may NIL
require any special treatment
or aid to the injured for the
rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and ₹25,000/-
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering
(iii) Loss of amenities of life ₹25,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration
(v) Loss of marriage prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, --
inconvenience, hardships,
disappointment, frustration,
mental stress, dejectment and
unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability Permanent physical assessed and nature of disability of 21% in disability as permanent or relation to Left temporary Lower Limb
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of --
expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning 10.5% capacity in relation to disability MACT No. 83/24 Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA In Respect of FIR No. 290/23 PS Bara Hindu Rao AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.04 Page No. 33 of 36 15:42:46 +0530 Meera Srivastav v Sarvesh Kumar Singh & Anr.
(iv) Loss of future Income - ₹3,46,755/-
(Income × % Earning (rounded off) Capacity = Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION ₹4,75,375/-
(rounded off)
15. INTEREST AWARDED 7.5% p.a.
16. Interest amount up to the date ₹77,546/-
of award (rounded off)
17. Total amount including ₹5,52,921/-
interest (rounded off)
18. Award amount released ₹1,02,921/-
19. Award amount kept in FDRs ₹4,50,000/-
20. Mode of disbursement of the Mentioned in the
award amount to the award
claimant(s)
21. Next date for compliance of 04.05.2026
the award
1. Prepared as per award dated 04.04.2026.
2. A separate file was ordered to be prepared by the Nazir with directions to put up the same on 04.05.2026.
Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.04
15:42:52 +0530
(POOJA AGGARWAL)
Presiding Officer, MACT-02 (Central) Tis Hazari, Delhi 04.04.2026 Digitally signed by POOJA MACT No. 83/24 POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
In Respect of FIR No. 290/23 PS Bara Hindu Rao 2026.04.04 15:42:55 Page No. 34 of 36 Meera Srivastav v Sarvesh Kumar Singh & Anr. +0530 ANNEXURE B FORM - XVII, Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (part of Annexure XIII. Ref: Rule 150A) Compliance of provisions of Scheme to be mentioned in the Award
1. Date of the accident 05.08.2023
2. Date of filing of Form-I - First Accident 16.08.2023 Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the N.A. victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the N.A. Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the N.A. Owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim N.A. Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form- N.A. VIB from the Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - Detailed 01.02.2024 Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Yes Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Not mentioned Officer by the Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the No Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or Yes.
deficiency on the part of the Designated No officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the petitioner(s) to N.A. MACT No. 83/24 Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL In Respect of FIR No. 290/23 PS Bara Hindu Rao POOJA AGGARWAL Date:
Page No. 35 of 36Meera Srivastav v Sarvesh Kumar Singh & Anr. 2026.04.04 15:43:00 +0530 the offer of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 04.04.2026
15. Whether the petitioner (s) was/were Yes directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) 01.02.2024 was/were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his 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 claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) produced 04.04.2026 the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the H.No.B-126, Claimant(s). Pradhan Enclave, Burari, Delhi-110084
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank No account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were examined Yes at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.04
15:43:06 +0530
(POOJA AGGARWAL)
Presiding Officer, MACT-02 (Central) Tis Hazari, Delhi 04.04.2026 Digitally signed MACT No. 83/24 by POOJA POOJA In Respect of FIR No. 290/23 PS Bara Hindu Rao AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.04Page No. 36 of 36 AGGARWAL Meera Srivastav v Sarvesh Kumar Singh & Anr. 15:43:09 +0530