Delhi District Court
Sristhi Chauhan vs Sumit Sharma on 28 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010045512024
MACT No. : 219/2024
FIR No. : 0371/2023
PS : Link Road, District Trans Hindon
(Commissionerate Ghaziabad), U.P.
u/s : 279/338/IPC
Ms. Sristhi Chauhan (injured/petitioner)
D/o. Late Sh. Narendra Singh Chauhan
R/o. 117/179 P Block
Kaka Deo, VTC Naveen Nagar
Kanpur Nagar,
PO Naveen Nagar,
District Kanpur, UP-208025
.....Petitioner
Vs.
1. Sh. Sumit Sharma (driver of the offending vehicle)
S/o. Sh. Satish Kumar,
R/o.B-105, Jivan Apartments, Sector-6,
Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, UP-201012.
Also at : H.No.194A, Gali no. 7, Sant Nagar,
Burari, Delhi.
2. Smt. Kanchan Sharma (owner of the offending vehicle)
W/o. Sh. Sumit Sharma,
R/o.B-105, Jivan Apartments, Sector-6,
Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, UP-201012.
Also at : H.No.194A, Gali no. 7, Sant Nagar,
Burari, Delhi.
.....Respondents
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.10.28
16:22:16
+0530
MACT No. 219/2024 Sristhi Chauhan Vs. Sumit Sharma & Anr Page 1 of 31
Date of filing of claim petition : 27.03.2024
Judgment reserved on : 09.10.2025
Date of Award : 28.10.2025
AWAR D
1. The present claim petition was filed on 27.03.2024. The
Road Traffic Accident in question took place on 25.09.2023 at about
9:00 PM in front of Vaishali Metro Station PS Link Road, District Trans
Hindon (Commissionerate Ghaziabad), UP. Ms. Sristhi Chauhan
(hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) had suffered grievous injuries
in the said accident which was allegedly caused by vehicle bearing
registration No.DL-3CCK-8162 (hereinafter referred to as the offending
vehicle). The said vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1 Sumit
Sharma and owned by respondent No.2 Kanchan Sharma.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the claim petition are that 25.09.2023 at about 9:00 pm, the petitioner was crossing the road near Vaishali Metro Station. In the meantime, a vehicle bearing no. DL-3CCK-8162 came from the side of Delhi and going towards Vaishali, driven at a very high speed, rashly and negligently hit the petitioner, as a result of which, the petitioner fell on the bonnet of the car and then fell on the road and received grievous injuries. It is further stated that the impact of the accident was such that bumper, headlight and windscreen of the offending vehicle became totally damaged. Thereafter, petitioner was removed to Atlanta Hospital, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, U.P. where she was given preliminary treatment. It is further Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.28 MACT No. 219/2024 Sristhi Chauhan Vs. Sumit Sharma & Anr Page 2 of 31 16:22:34 +0530 stated that due to critical and serious injuries, the petitioner was shifted and admitted in MAX Super Specialty Hospital, Vaishali in the night intervening i.e. 25-26.09.2023 and discharged on 03.10.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner continued her further medical treatment as an outpatient. It is further stated that a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was spent on the treatment of the petitioner, Rs.1,00,000/- on her conveyance and Rs.1,00,000/- on her special diet. It is further stated that the multiple operation were done on the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner is likely to spent much more on these heads in future. Thus, the petitioner has suffered and is still suffering from great pain, mental torture and shocked besides financial loss.
3. It is further stated that the petitioner has suffered disability. It is further stated that the petitioner is of marriageable age but due to the accident, her marriage prospects have been diminished. It is further stated that the health of the petitioner has been deteriorated due to the injuries received in the present accident and the petitioner is also suffering monthly financial loss. It is further stated that due to the injuries, the life span of the petitioner has also been considerably reduced. Thus, the accident has ruined the petitioner physically, practically, mentally and financially. It is further stated that Rupees One Crore may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents with cost of the petition and interest at the rate of 18% pa from the date of filing of the petition till its realization.
4. WS on behalf of respondents no.1 & 2 was filed on 21.10.2024. The respondents sought the dismissal of the petition on the Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.28 MACT No. 219/2024 Sristhi Chauhan Vs. Sumit Sharma & Anr Page 3 of 31 16:22:40 +0530 ground of territorial jurisdiction. It is stated that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition as the accident took place at Ghaziabad. Further, it is stated that no such accident took place as alleged by the petitioner and hence, the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. Further, it was admitted that as on the accident, the offending vehicle was uninsured.
ISSUES
5. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated 21.10.2024, this Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioner/injured suffered grievous injuries in an accident that took place on 25.09.2023 at about 9:00 PM in front of Vaishali Metro Station, PS Link Road, Distt.
Trans Hindon (Commissionerate Ghaziabad) involving vehicle bearing DL-3CCK-8162 driven rashly and negligently by respondent no. 1 Sumit Sharma, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3 Liberty Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner/injured is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.28 16:22:44 +0530 MACT No. 219/2024 Sristhi Chauhan Vs. Sumit Sharma & Anr Page 4 of 31 PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
6. The petitioner/injured examined herself as PW-1. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW-1/A and the same bears his signatures at points-A & Β. She relied upon the following documents:
1. Copy of her Aadhar Card which is Ex. PW1/1 (OSR).
2. Copy of her PAN Card which is Ex. PW1/2 (OSR).
3. Her medical treatment documents and medical bills which are Ex. PW1/3 (colly).
4. Her salary slip which is Ex. PW1/4 (colly)
5. Certified copies of criminal case record which are Ex. PW1/5 (colly).
7. She was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for respondents. Thereafter PE was closed vide order dated 08.05.2025.
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE
8. Respondent no. 1 has examined himself as R1W1 and relied upon his Aadhar Card which is Ex. R1W1/1 (OSR). He was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for petitioner.
9. Vide separate statement of Ld. Counsel for respondents no. 1 & 2 has closed that he did not wish to lead further RE, the RE was closed on 31.07.2025.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
10. The Petitioner has filed his duly filled Form XIV and financial statement of the injured was recorded. Final arguments were Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No. 219/2024 Sristhi Chauhan Vs. Sumit Sharma & Anr SINGLA Page 5 of 31 Date:
2025.10.28 16:23:01 +0530 heard on behalf of the petitioner and respondents no. 1 and 2.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
11. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the petitioner and respondents and perused the record. My findings on the various issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1:
Whether the petitioner/injured suffered grievous injuries in an accident that took place on 25.09.2023 at about 9:00 PM in front of Vaishali Metro Station, PS Link Road, Distt. Trans Hindon (Commissionerate Ghaziabad) involving vehicle bearing DL-3CCK-8162 driven rashly and negligently by respondent no. 1 Sumit Sharma, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3 Liberty Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.? OPP
12. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that on 25.09.2023 at about 9:00 PM, when the petitioner was crossing road in front of Vaishali Metro Station, PS Link Road, Distt. Trans Hindon (Commissionerate Ghaziabad), the offending vehicle being driven rashly and negligently by respondent no. 1 hit her, due to which she fell on the bonnet of the offending vehicle, then on the ground and received injuries. She has stated that she was taken to Atlanta Hospital, Ghaziabad for treatment. The petitioner has reiterated these facts on oath as PW-1 by way of her affidavit Ex. PW1/A. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that in view of the facts and circumstances, the accident and the rash and negligent act of respondent Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.28 16:23:07 MACT No. 219/2024 Sristhi Chauhan Vs. Sumit Sharma & Anr Page 6 of 31 +0530 no. l has been proved.
13. Per contra, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for respondents that no accident was caused by the respondent no.1. It is submitted that as per the petitioner's own statement, there was a footover bridge at the spot but she was crossing the road on the main road. Hence, she is guilty of contributory negligence. Further, the accident was caused by some other vehicle and the respondent no.1 had merely helped her. However, he was later on implicated in the case. Further, this Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present case as no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
14. Record perused.
15. In the present matter, the petitioner as PW1 specifically stated that she was hit by the offending vehicle when she was crossing the road. She remained firm on her testimony and her testimony could not be shaken by the detailed cross-examination done by the respondents. Further the copy of the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle is on record as per which there was fresh damages on the offending vehicle. Hence, the mechanical inspection report also supports that case of the petitioner.
16. Furthermore, the petitioner was unknown to respondent no.1 prior to the accident and admittedly, there was no prior enmity with respondent no. 1 and hence, it is beyond comprehension as to why the petitioner will implicate respondent no.1 falsely, had he not been driving RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No. 219/2024 Sristhi Chauhan Vs. Sumit Sharma & Anr Page 7 of 31 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.28 16:23:11 +0530 the offending vehicle. It is pertinent to mention here that in the proceedings before the claims tribunal, the facts are to be established on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and not by the strict rules of evidence or the higher standard of beyond reasonable doubt as required in criminal cases. The burden of proof in the present cases is much lower than as placed in civil or criminal cases. In Bimla Devi & Ors. v.
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors (2009) 13 SC 530 , it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that negligence must be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view must be adopted in reaching a conclusion.
17. Further, it is also pertinent to note that the respondent no. 1 was chargesheeted by the IO under Section 279/338 IPC. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepak Goel & Ors, 2014 (2) TAC 846 (Del) decided by the Coordinate Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it was held as under :-
"......where the claimants filed either the certified copies of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of investigation by police or issuance of charge sheet under Section 279/304A IPC or the certified copy of FIR or the recovery of the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, then these documents are sufficient proof to reach to a conclusion that the driver was negligent particularly when there is no defence available from the side of driver."
18. Reliance is also being placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.28 16:23:15 MACT No. 219/2024 Sristhi Chauhan Vs. Sumit Sharma & Anr Page 8 of 31 +0530 Meera Devi, 2021 LawSuit (Del) wherein it was held that "......in view of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008, contents of DAR has to be presumed to be correct and read in evidence without formal proof of the same unless proof to the contrary was produced."
19. It is a settled law that the petitioner cannot be expected to prove the accident beyond reasonable doubts and the principle of res ipsa loquitor should apply which means that the "accident speaks for itself". Thus, once it has been established in DAR and chargesheet that the accident had taken place, the burden shifts on the respondents to prove that they were not responsible for the accident which the respondents have failed to discharge. No evidence was led by the respondents no. 1 & 2 to discharge this onus except the testimony of the respondent no.1. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerela in "Kerela State Road Transport Corp. Vs. C. Soman Nadar & Anr. 1984 ACJ 607 Kerela" has held that the statement of the driver who caused the accident cannot be believed as his testimony was interested and unaided by any corroboration. In view of the same and also considering the observations of Hon'ble High Court of Kerela, the present Tribunal is of the opinion that the version of the respondent no.1 is unbelievable and cannot be relied upon.
20. Hence, an adverse inference is drawn against the respondents. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the cases of Teja Singh Vs Suman & Ors., MAC. APP. 1111/2018 & CM APPL. 52384/2018, 52386/2018, date of decision 06/12/2019; MAC. APP. 428/2018, titled as The Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.28 16:23:21 MACT No. 219/2024 Sristhi Chauhan Vs. Sumit Sharma & Anr Page 9 of 31 +0530 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamla Devi & Ors, date of decision 08.11.2019 and MAC. APP. 690/2017 & CM APPL. 28108/2017, titled as Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mona & Ors., date of decision 15.10.2019, which had relied upon the judgment in the case of Cholamandalam Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamlesh 2009(3) AD Delhi 310.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 5 SCC 656 has laid down in paragraphs 27 & 28:
"27. ...This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina Fernandes, noted that the key of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the judgments already adverted to by us, filing of chargesheet against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opined that the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
28. Reliance placed upon the decisions in Minu B. Mehta and Meena Variyal, by the respondents, in our opinion, is of no avail. The dictum in these cases is on the matter in issue in the case concerned. Similarly, even the dictum in Surender Kumar Arora will be of no avail. In the present case, considering the entirety of the pleadings, evidence and circumstances on record and in particular the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the factum of negligence of Respondent 2, the driver of the offending jeep, the High Court committed manifest error in taking a contrary view which, in our opinion, is an error apparent on the face of RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No. 219/2024 Sristhi Chauhan Vs. Sumit Sharma & Anr Page 10 of 31 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.28 16:23:32 +0530 record and manifestly wrong."
22. It has not been disputed that respondent No.1 has been charge-sheeted in the aforesaid FIR for offences punishable under Section 279/338 IPC for rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. In view of the same, considering the facts and circumstances, the unrebutted testimony of the petitioner and the documents filed thereto, the court is satisfied that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1. From the DAR, it also stands established that respondent no. 2 was the registered owner of the offending vehicle. However, it is stated by the respondents that at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was uninsured.
Contributory negligence
23. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for respondents that in the present case, the petitioner is guilty of contributory negligence and hence, she is not entitled to any compensation. It is submitted that it is the case of the petitioner that she was crossing the road when the offending vehicle hit her. However, she admitted in her cross- examination that there was a footover bridge at the spot which could have been used for crossing the road. It is submitted that the accident occurred late at night. Hence, the respondent no.1 was unable to see her as she suddenly came in front of the offending vehicle. When there was a footover bridge to cross the road in existence, it was the responsibility of the petitioner to cross the road using the said bridge. As she was not using the same, she was not exercising due diligence and was not obeying the traffic rules. Hence, it is submitted that she is guilty of Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.28 16:23:38 MACT No. 219/2024 Sristhi Chauhan Vs. Sumit Sharma & Anr +0530 Page 11 of 31 contributory negligence and is not entitled to any compensation. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for respondents has relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G. Nagarathna & Ors. v. G. Manjunatha & Anr. SLP (Civil) No. 22411/2025 decided on 2nd July 2025.
24. Perused.
25. In the opinion of this Tribunal, the above mentioned judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the victim was held to be driving his vehicle rashly and negligently. In those circumstances, it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that where the victim himself was guilty of rash and negligent driving, he is not entitled to any compensation. The facts of the present case can be differentiated from the said case. In the present case, the petitioner was on foot and was crossing the road. Even though there was a footover bridge at the spot, the duty of the respondent no.1 to drive the vehicle in a proper manner cannot be done away with. Perusal of the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle shows that the driver side mirror was broken and the front bumper was broken. Further, the petitioner has categorically deposed on oath that when the offending vehicle hit her, she fell on the bonnet and then on the ground. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances, there is no evidence that the accident was due to the rash and negligent act of the petitioner. Merely because she was not using the footover bridge and crossing the road on foot does not constitute a rash and negligent act. Hence, in the opinion of this Tribunal, she is not guilty of contributory Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.28 MACT No. 219/2024 Sristhi Chauhan Vs. Sumit Sharma & Anr Page 12 of 31 16:23:43 +0530 negligence.
The injury:
26. Further, the onus to prove that the fact that the petitioner had suffered injuries by way of the accident was upon the petitioner. In this regard, the petitioner has relied upon her MLC dated 25.09.2023 as per which she was taken to the hospital upon the accident. Further as per the MLC, upon her examination, it was found that she had suffered a grievous head injury.
27. Thereafter, the petitioner has relied upon her treatment papers Ex. PW1/3. As per the report dated 25.09.2023 issued by Atlanta Hospital, Ghaziabad, she suffered multiple injuries on her head, hands and feet. Her Discharge Summary issued by Max Hospital Ghaziabad is on record, as per which she had suffered supracondylar fracture right femur with right clavicle fracture with head injury. She was admitted in the hospital on 26.09.2023 and discharged on 03.10.2023. She was advised armpouch sling, ice packs and physiotherapy.
28. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the opinion that on the scales of preponderance of probabilities, the petitioner has proved that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle being driven by its driver/respondent no. 1 on the date and time of the accident and that due to the said accident, the petitioner had suffered grievous injury. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and RUCHIKA SINGLA against the respondents. Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.28 16:23:48 +0530 MACT No. 219/2024 Sristhi Chauhan Vs. Sumit Sharma & Anr Page 13 of 31 ISSUE NO. 2:
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If yes, to what extend and from whom? (OPP)
29. The onus to prove this issue was also upon the petitioner. In view of the observations as given in issue no.1, the petitioner is entitled for compensation. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 34, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
4. The provision of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner.
The Court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467).
RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.28 16:23:52 +0530 MACT No. 219/2024 Sristhi Chauhan Vs. Sumit Sharma & Anr Page 14 of 31
5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising :
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(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)."
30. In view of the above law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in injury cases, award needs to be passed only under heads of medical expenses, loss of earning during treatment period and damages for pain, suffering and trauma. This is a case where the petitioner has claimed that he suffered grievous injury due to the accident, hence, this Tribunal now proceeds further step by step to decide the compensation/award under different heads applicable to the present matter in light of above preposition.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.28 16:23:58 +0530 MACT No. 219/2024 Sristhi Chauhan Vs. Sumit Sharma & Anr Page 15 of 31 Medical expenses:
31. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards her medical expenses. In this regard she has relied upon her medical treatment paper which are Ex. PW1/3. As per the invoice dated 03.10.2023 a sum of Rs.6,18,704.05/- was spent by her at MAX Hospital. During the course of her cross-examination, she admitted that out of this amount, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was paid by the insurance company and that Rs.41,008.95/- was refunded to her. In view of the same she is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,77,595.1/- towards this bill. Apart from this, she has placed on record medical bills to the tune of Rs.14,756/-. Hence, she is entitled to Rs.1,92,351.1 (rounded off to Rs.1,92,352/-) under this head.
Loss of income:
32. In this regard, the petitioner has alleged that at the time of the accident, he was working as a Consultant with Genpact India Pvt.
Ltd., Gurgaon and she was earning a sum of Rs.83,000/- pm. It is submitted that due to her accident and her treatment, she was unable to work for three months.
33. To prove the same, the petitioner has relied upon her salary slip issued by the Genpact India Pvt. Ltd. for the month of September 2023 which is Ex. PW1/4. Perusal of the same shows that her gross pay during that time was Rs.82,808/- and that after subtracting her deductions, her net income was Rs.72,661/-. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 held that for calculating compensation, the income of the victim less Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.28 MACT No. 219/2024 Sristhi Chauhan Vs. Sumit Sharma & Anr Page 16 of 31 16:24:03 +0530 the income tax should be treated as the actual income. Further, in case titled as Universal Sompo General Insurance vs Sh. Dinesh Kumar Singh & Ors MAC.APP. 106/2025 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 9 June, 2025, it has been observed that the Tribunal must deduct applicable income tax and other permissible statutory deductions from the gross income of the deceased while computing compensation payable to the petitioner.
34. In view of the same, her income is assessed to be Rs.72,661/- per month. Perusal of record show that as per her medical bills, her treatment was going on till at least December 2023. Hence, it is apparent that she is unable to work for three months. Hence, she is held entitled to loss of income for three months i.e. Rs.72,661/- x 3 = Rs.2,17,983/-.
Special diet:
35. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month towards special diet. Although, there is no bill to support her plea, but keeping in view the nature of injury suffered by the petitioner and considering the time of his treatment, it seems that she must have required special diet and must have incurred expenditure towards special diet, therefore, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under the head of special diet.
Conveyance charges:
36. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards conveyance charges. Admittedly there is no document showing expense Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.28 16:24:08 MACT No. 219/2024 Sristhi Chauhan Vs. Sumit Sharma & Anr Page 17 of 31 +0530 on conveyance, however, considering her injuries, this Tribunal is of the view that the petitioner must have spent money on conveyance thus, the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards conveyance charges.
Attendant charges:
37. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 60,000/- (Rs.
10,000/- per month for 6 months) towards attendant charges. Admittedly there is no document showing expense on attendant. Further, she herself has sought loss of income for 3 months only. Hence, considering her injuries, this Tribunal is of the view that the petitioner must have spent money on attendant thus, the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- under this head.
Pain & Suffering:
38. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head pain and suffering. It is not possible to quantify the compensation admissible to petitioner for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which she actually suffered because of the above injuries, but as stated above, an effort has to be made to compensate her for the same in a just and reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the injuries suffered by petitioner and duration of the treatment taken by him etc., she is awarded a total amount of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
Mental and physical shock:
39. The petitioner/injured has has claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss due to mental shock. Keeping in view her injuries, it cannot be Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.28 MACT No. 219/2024 Sristhi Chauhan Vs. Sumit Sharma & Anr Page 18 of 31 16:24:16 +0530 denied that she would definitely have suffered mental agony. Hence, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under head of "Loss due to Mental & Physical Shock".
Loss of amenities, Disfiguration & Loss of marriage prospects:
40. The petitioner/injured has not claimed any amount under these heads.
Loss of earning, inconvenience, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.:
41. The petitioner/injured has claimed a sum of Rs. 50,000/-
under this head. Keeping in view her injuries, a notional sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Loss of future earnings due to disability:
42. Nil
43. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the material on record, and the settled principles and guidelines governing the injury cases like the present one, the compensation is being derived in the present case as under:-
NAME OF HEAD AMOUNT (in Rupees)
Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 1,92,352/-
Monthly income of injured Rs. 72,661/-
Loss of income x 3 months Rs. 72,661/- x 3 = Rs.2,17,983/-.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2025.10.28
MACT No. 219/2024 Sristhi Chauhan Vs. Sumit Sharma & Anr Page 19 of 31
16:24:22 +0530
Add future prospects Nil
Loss of future income (income X Nil % Earning Capacity X Multiplier) Any other loss/expenditure Nil Expense on special diet Rs. 50,000/-
Conveyance charges Rs.50,000/- Attendant charges Rs.30,000/-
Mental & Physical Shock & Pain & Rs.25,000/- + Rs. 25,000/- = Rs.
Suffering 50,000/- Loss of amenities Nil Disfiguration Nil Loss of marriage prospects Nil
Loss of earning, inconvenience, Rs. 10,000/-
hardship, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc. Total Rs. 6,00,335/-
44. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld awarding of 9% interest per annum.
Therefore, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 27.03.2024 till realization. Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.28 16:24:26 +0530 MACT No. 219/2024 Sristhi Chauhan Vs. Sumit Sharma & Anr Page 20 of 31 DISBURSEMENT
45. The Financial Statement of petitioner/injured was recorded by this Court/Tribunal. As per the said statement, the monthly expenses of his family are approximately Rs. 50,000/- per month.
46. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh Tyagi & Ors.
Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors. has given the following directions:
"(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimants. However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount.
The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other branch of the bank. Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.28 16:24:30 +0530 MACT No. 219/2024 Sristhi Chauhan Vs. Sumit Sharma & Anr Page 21 of 31
(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."
47. However, in a recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal on 18 March, 2025 in S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020 has held that :
"17. The case in hand pertains to the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. The general practice followed by the insurance companies, where the compensation is not disputed, is to deposit the same before the Tribunal. Instead of following that process, a direction can always be issued to transfer the amount into the bank account(s) of the claimant(s) with intimation to the Tribunal.
17.1 For that purpose, the Tribunals at the initial stage of pleadings or at the stage of leading evidence may require the claimant(s) to furnish their bank account particulars to the Tribunal along with the requisite proof, so that at the stage of passing of the award the Tribunal may direct that the amount of compensation be transferred in the account of the claimant and if there are more than one then in their respective accounts. If there is no bank account, then they should be required to open the bank account either individually or jointly with family members only. It should also be mandated that, in case there is any change in the bank account Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.28 16:24:35 +0530 MACT No. 219/2024 Sristhi Chauhan Vs. Sumit Sharma & Anr Page 22 of 31 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."
48. In view of the same, the award amount can now be disbursed in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioners. However, the remaining directions as passed by the Hon'ble High Court shall be complied with.
49. After considering the financial statement of the petitioner, it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 6,86,192/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand One Hundred Ninety Two only), Rs. 1,86,192/- (Rupees One Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand One Hundred Ninety Two only) be released to the petitioner/claimant immediately in her bank account maintained at State Bank of India, Sector-5, Vasundhara Branch. Uttaranchal Plaza bearing no. 44430107844, IFSC no. SBIN0017738, CIF no. 92234050531.
50. The balance amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.28 16:24:48 +0530 MACT No. 219/2024 Sristhi Chauhan Vs. Sumit Sharma & Anr Page 23 of 31 only) shall be put in 10 monthly fixed deposits in her name in MACAD account of equal amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 10 months respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in his saving account maintained in a nationalized bank situated near the place of his residence.
51. In compliance of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award in the prescribed Format-XVI is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
Date of Accident: 25.09.2023
Name of the Injured: Sristhi Chauhan
Age of the Injured: Presently 29 years
Occupation of the Injured: Private Job
Income of the Injured: Rs. 72,661/- pm
Nature of Injury: Grievous
Medical Treatment taken: Atlanta Hospital, Vasundhara,
Ghaziabad, UP and MAX Super
Specialty Hospital, Vaishali.
Period of Hospitalization: 25/26.09.2023 to 03.10.2023 in MAX
Super Specialty Hospital
Whether any permanent: No
Digitally
disability?
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.10.28
16:24:55
+0530
MACT No. 219/2024 Sristhi Chauhan Vs. Sumit Sharma & Anr Page 24 of 31
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
Sr. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
No.
1. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 1,92,352/-
(ii) Expenditure on Special Diet Rs. 50,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on Rs.30,000/-
Nursing/Attendant charges
(iv) Expenditure on Conveyance Rs.50,000/-
(v) Monthly income of injured Rs. 72,661/-
(vi) Loss of income x 3 months Rs.2,17,983/-
(vii) Add future prospects Nil
viii) Any other loss which may Nil
require any special treatment or
aid to the injured for the rest of
his life
2. Non Pecuniary Loss
(i) Compensation for mental and
physical shock Rs.25,000/- + Rs. 25,000/- = Rs. 50,000/-
(ii) Pain and Sufferings
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Nil
(iv)
Disfiguration Nil
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Rs.10,000/-
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:MACT No. 219/2024 Sristhi Chauhan Vs. Sumit Sharma & Anr Page 25 of 31
2025.10.28 16:25:03 +0530
(i) Percentage of disability assessed Nil and nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Nil.
expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning Nil capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (income Nil x % earning capacity x Multiplier)
4. Total Rs. 6,00,335/-
1(ii+iii+iv+vi)+2(i+ii+vi)
5. Interest awarded 9%
6. Earlier award amount (which has already been received by the petitioner in terms of previous -
award passed by Ld.
Predecessor) to be deducted from
present award amount .
7. Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 85,856.13
award w.e.f. 27.03.2024 till
realization
9. Total amount including Interest Rs. 6,86,191.13 (rounded off to Rs.
6,86,192/-)
10. Award amount released As mentioned in para nos. 49 & 50
11. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.5,00,000/-
12. Mode of disbursement of the As mentioned in para nos 49 & 50
award amount of the claimant(s)
13. Next date for compliance of the 28.11.2025
award
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2025.10.28
16:25:11 +0530
MACT No. 219/2024 Sristhi Chauhan Vs. Sumit Sharma & Anr Page 26 of 31
LIABILITY:
52. It has been established that the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1 and that respondent no.2 is the owner of the same. The offending vehicle was uninsured. Hence, the respondent no. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
53. The respondent no. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 6,00,335/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Three Hundred Thirty Five only) along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 27.03.2024 till realization with the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the claimant, failing which the said respondent shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days. Reliance placed on case titled as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP no.
22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
54. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurance company for compliance within the time granted as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. The said respondent is further directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.28 MACT No. 219/2024 Sristhi Chauhan Vs. Sumit Sharma & Anr Page 27 of 31 16:25:19 +0530 of the deposit with a copy to the Claimant and his counsel.
Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost.
Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on 28.11.2025 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
Further, Civil Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. Announced in the open Court today RUCHIKA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA on this 28th Day of October, 2025 SINGLA Date:
2025.10.28 16:25:23 +0530 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.MACT No. 219/2024 Sristhi Chauhan Vs. Sumit Sharma & Anr Page 28 of 31
THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL MOTOR VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022 (PL. SEE RULE 150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 25.09.2023 2 Date of filing of Form-I -
NA First Accident Report (FAR) 3 Date of delivery of Form-II NA to the victim(s) 4 Date of receipt of Form-III NA from the Driver 5 Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Owner NA 6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the insurance NA
of the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-
NA
VIA from the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII - This is a claim petition, which was filed on Detail Accident Report 27.03.2024 (DAR) 9 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Investigating NA Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the NA
Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company admitted his NA
report within 30 days of the
DAR?
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.10.28
16:25:30
+0530
MACT No. 219/2024 Sristhi Chauhan Vs. Sumit Sharma & Anr Page 29 of 31
12 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the NA
part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether
any action/direction
warranted?
13 Date of response of the NA
claimant(s) to the offer of
the Insurance Company.
14 Date of award 28.10.2025
15 Whether the claimant(s)
were directed to open Yes
savings bank account(s)
near their place of
residence?
16 Date of order by which
claimant(s) were directed to
open Savings Bank
Account(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN
card and Aadhar Card and 31.07.2025
the direction to the bank not
to issue any cheque
book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an
endorsement to this effect
on the passbook(s).
17 Date on which the
claimant(s) produced the
passbook of their savings
bank account(s) near the
09.10.2025
place of their residence
alongwith the endorsement,
PAN card and Aadhar Card?
18 Permanent residential
address of the claimant(s). As per Award.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.10.28
16:25:36
+0530
MACT No. 219/2024 Sristhi Chauhan Vs. Sumit Sharma & Anr Page 30 of 31
19 Whether the claimant(s)
savings bank account(s) is
Yes
near their place of
residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s)
were examined at the time
Yes. The Financial Statement of the claimant of passing of the Award to was recorded 09.10.2025.
ascertain his/their financial condition?
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.28 16:25:39 +0530 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
28.10.2025 MACT No. 219/2024 Sristhi Chauhan Vs. Sumit Sharma & Anr Page 31 of 31