Delhi District Court
Shadiya vs Majid And Ors on 1 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010007642024
MACT No. : 64/2024
FIR No. : 0625/2023
PS : Baraut, District, Baghpat, U.P.
u/s : 279/338/IPC
MS. SHADIYA
D/o MR. SOUMIN,
Aged about 18 Years
R/o: Kashiram Colony, 13/202,
Delhi Road Baraut, Distt. Baghpat U.P. - 250611.
.......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. MR. MAJID S/o MR. Shaeed, ..(DRIVER)
R/0: Ward -1, Village- Khekada,
Baghpat U.P. - 250101.
2. MR. SAJID ALI s/o Mr. Shaeed,......(OWNER)
R/0: Ward-1, Village- Khekada,
Baghpat U.P. - 250101.
3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. (INSURER)
A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road New Delhi-110002.
4. Sh. Harsh Kumar
Nodal Officer/ Deputy Manager
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
"Legal Hub Meerut, 346, Anand Bhavan,
Ist Floor Kair Nagar, Meerut U.P.-250002. .....Respondents
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01
15:58:34 +0530
MACT No. 64/2024 Shadiya Vs. Majid & Ors. Page 1 of 40
Date of filing of Petition : 18.01.2024
Judgment reserved on : 25.09.2025
Date of Award : 01.11.2025
AWAR D
1. The present petition was filed on 18.01.2024 which was
treated as a claim petition. The Road Traffic Accident in question took
place on 31.08.2023 at about 01:00 PM at Baraut Bazar Near Narendra
Nurshing Home, Nehru Road Distrcit, Baghpat, U.P. Ms. Shadiya
(hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) had suffered grievous injuries
in the said accident which was allegedly caused by vehicle bearing
registration No.UP-17V-8515 (hereinafter referred to as the offending
vehicle). The said vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1 Mr.
Majid; owned by respondent No.2 Mr. Sajid Ali and insured with
respondent no.3, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the claim petition are that on 31.08.2023, the injured / petitioner Shadiya was going on foot along with her mother Smt. Munni w/o Soumin and they were proceeding towards Baraut Bazar Near Narendra Nurshing Home, Baghpat U.P from their residence. At about 01:00 P:M when the injured / petitioner Shadiya was standing at Baraut Bazar Near Narendra Nursing Home, then a Motor Cycle TVS Raider bearing registration no. UP 17V 8515 (hereinafter referred as offending vehicle) which was being driven by Mr. Majid (hereinafter referred as Respondent No-1) at Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 15:58:41 +0530 MACT No. 64/2024 Shadiya Vs. Majid & Ors. Page 2 of 40 a very high speed, rashly, negligently came from Railway Station side and violently hit the injured with a great force. As a result of this violent impact, Shadiya fell down on the road and the injured/petitioner was sustained serious / grievous injuries all over her bodies. The injured/ petitioner Shadiya was immediately taken to Dr. Narendera Kumr Murti Hospital at Baraut by public from place of the accident but they referred her to CHC (Community Health Centre) Baraut by the police and got admitted there at vide M.L.C. No. 1038/22 on dated 31.08.2023. On 04.09.2023 she was taken to District. Combined Hospital at Baghpat U.P. and she was discharged on same day and she is still under active treatment. Thereafter, FIR was registered vide no. 625/2023 u/s. 279/337 IPC at PS Baraut, Baghpat, UP. Upon completion of the investigation, the IO chargesheeted the respondent no.1.
3. WS was filed by the respondent no.1 wherein he denied causing the accident. It was stated that the petitioner had already fallen on the ground when he reached at the spot and that he had helped her. He denied causing the accident. Similar WS was filed by the respondent no.2.
4. Reply on behalf of respondent no. 3 was filed. It was stated that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition as the accident occurred at Bhagpat, U.P. Further, it was stated that the petitioner is required to prove the factum of the accident as per law. Further, it is stated that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the injured as she was going on foot at the place of accident carelessly without observing any civic or traffic rules. Hence, it Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 15:58:49 +0530 MACT No. 64/2024 Shadiya Vs. Majid & Ors. Page 3 of 40 is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation.
5. It was admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no. 3 company vide policy No. 252402/31/2022/2837 valid from 25.03.2022 to 24.03.2027. However, it was stated that at the time of the accident, the respondent no. 1 was not holding a proper driving licence. Hence, the respondent no. 1 and 2 have violated the terms of the insurance policy. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.
ISSUES
6. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated 20.01.2024, this Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioner/injured suffered grievous injuries in an accident that took place on 31.08.2023 at about 01.00 P.M. at Baraut Bazar Near Narendra Nursing Home, Nehru Road Distt., Baghpat, UP involving vehicle bearing registration No. UP-17V-8515 driven rashly and negligently by respondent no. 1 Majid, owned by respondent no. 2 Sajid Ali and insured with respondent no. 3 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner/injured is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
OPP.
Digitally signed3. Relief. RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 15:58:56 +0530 MACT No. 64/2024 Shadiya Vs. Majid & Ors. Page 4 of 40 PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
7. The petitioner/injured examined himself as PW-1. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW-1/A and the same bears her signatures at points-A & Β. She relied upon the following documents:
1. Ex. PW-1/1-Aadhar card of petitioner/ deponent (OSR).
2. Ex. PW-1/2- Entire medical treatment documents, medical reports along with medical bills (COLLY 13 pages) (OSR) OBJECTION: Proper/ original medical bills not supplied, patient name is different as per affidavit of Deponent and it is different on Medical report dated 31.08.2023 on pg. 7 as Sazida
3. Ex. PW-1/3- PAN card of petitioner/ deponent (OSR)
4. Ex. PW-1/4- F.I.R., Final Report (Chargesheet) U/S 173 Cr.P.C., Release order (Superdarinama) of offending vehicle i.e., motorcycle, site plan, mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle i.e., motorcycle, M.L.C. (COLLY 25 pages) (OSR).
8. Thereafter, PW1 was also duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3. Thereafter, PE was closed vide order dated 24.05.2025.
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE
9. Thereafter, Sh. Majid Ali examined himself as RW-1, he only tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. RW-1/A and the same bears his signatures at points-A & Β. He relied upon his aadhar card which is Ex. RW1/1. Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 15:59:03 +0530 MACT No. 64/2024 Shadiya Vs. Majid & Ors. Page 5 of 40
10. Thereafter, Sh. Sajid Ali examined himself as RW-1, he tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. R2W2 and the same bears his signatures at points-A & Β. He relied upon the following documents:
a) His aadhar card which is Ex. RW2/1.
b) Insurance policy of the offending vehicle is Ex. RW2/2.
c) RC of the offending vehicle is Ex. RW2/3.
11. Both the witnesses were duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner. RE was closed on behalf of the respondent no.1 & 2 on 11.06.2025.
12. The respondent no.3 examined Ms. Bharti Meena, Deputy Manager with the respondent no. 3 as RW3. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. RW3/A and the same bears her signatures at points-A & Β. She relied upon the following documents:
a) Her Authority Letter is Ex. RW3/1.
b) Insurance policy of the offending vehicle is Ex. RW3/2.
13. Vide separate statement of Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 that he did not wish to lead further RE, RE was closed on 11.06.2025.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
14. The Petitioner has filed his duly filled Form XIV and financial statement of the injured was recorded. Final arguments were heard on behalf of the petitioner and respondents. Ld. Counsel for the Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 MACT No. 64/2024 Shadiya Vs. Majid & Ors. Page 6 of 40 15:59:11 +0530 respondent no.3 also filed written arguments.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
15. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Ld. Counsel for 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 31.08.2023 at about 01.00 P.M. at Baraut Bazar Near Narendra Nursing Home, Nehru Road Distt., Baghpat, UP involving vehicle bearing registration No. UP-17V-8515 driven rashly and negligently by respondent no. 1 Majid, owned by respondent no. 2 Sajid Ali and insured with respondent no. 3 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.? OPP
16. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. Before going into the merits of the case, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 has argued that the present matter is barred by limitation as the accident occurred on 31.08.2023 but the petition was filed on 12.07.2024. However, the same is factually incorrect. The claim petition was filed on 18.01.2024, which is within the limitation period, having being filed within 6 months of the date of accident.
17. Further, it is stated that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present matter as the accident occurred at Baghpat. However, perusal of record shows that the respondent no. 3 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 15:59:19 +0530 MACT No. 64/2024 Shadiya Vs. Majid & Ors. Page 7 of 40 has its office within the jurisdiction of this court. Hence, in view of Section 166 MV Act and the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gohar Mohammad vs Uttar Pradesh State Road Civil Appeal no. 32448/2018 decided on 15.12.2022, the court in whose jurisdiction any of the parties reside has the jurisdiction to entertain the case. Hence, this Tribunal has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present matter.
18. It is the case of the petitioner that on 31.08.2023 at about 01.00 P.M. at Baraut Bazar Near Narendra Nursing Home, Nehru Road Distt., Baghpat, UP, when she was going on foot, the offending vehicle being driven rashly and negligently by respondent no. 1 hit her due to which the petitioner fell on the road and received injuries. She has stated that she was taken to the District Combined Hospital, Baraut 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 no. l has been proved.
19. Per contra, it is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents that the accident was not caused by the respondent no. 1. It is stated that the petitioner had been hit by some other vehicle and she was already on the ground when the respondent no. 1 reached at the spot. When he saw the petitioner, he stopped to help her. Further, it is stated that she was coming from the wrong side and hence, the accident was caused due to her own negligence.
20. Record perused. Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 15:59:27 +0530 MACT No. 64/2024 Shadiya Vs. Majid & Ors. Page 8 of 40
21. In the present matter, the petitioner as PW1 specifically stated that she was hit by the offending vehicle. She remained firm on her testimony and her testimony could not be shaken by the detailed cross-examination done by the respondent no. 3. Further, as per the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, there were fresh damages on the vehicles. Hence, the mechanical inspection report also supports that case of the petitioner. Even otherwise, 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 the offending vehicle.
22. No evidence was led by the respondents no. 1 & 2 to prove their version 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 as there is no evidence to corroborate his statement.
23. 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 15:59:34 +0530 MACT No. 64/2024 Shadiya Vs. Majid & Ors. Page 9 of 40 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.
24. 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."
25. Reliance is also being placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meera Devi, 2021 LawSuit (Del) wherein it was held that "......in view of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008, contents of DAR has to be presumed to be correct and read in evidence without formal proof of the same unless proof to the contrary was produced." Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 15:59:42 +0530 MACT No. 64/2024 Shadiya Vs. Majid & Ors. Page 10 of 40
26. 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. 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 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.
27. 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 Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 15:59:48 +0530 MACT No. 64/2024 Shadiya Vs. Majid & Ors. Page 11 of 40 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 record and manifestly wrong."
28. 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. It is also an admitted position that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.3. The factum of the said insurance is also admitted by the respondent no.3 insurance company.
Digitally signedRUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 15:59:55 +0530 MACT No. 64/2024 Shadiya Vs. Majid & Ors. Page 12 of 40 Contributory Negligence
29. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 that the accident was caused solely by the negligence of the petitioner as she was acting in a rash and negligent manner. However, no evidence in this regard has been led by any of the respondents. As per the respondent no.1's affidavit Ex. R1W1, the petitioner was already fallen on the ground when he reached there. However, no eye witness has been produced by any of the respondents to prove that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligence act of the petitioner. Hence, she cannot be held liable for contributory negligence.
The injury:
30. 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 bearing no. 1038/23 which is part of the certified copy of the final report Ex. PW-1/4. Perusal of the same shows that the petitioner was taken to the hospital on 31.08.2023 at about 01:30 pm. She sustained injuries due to friction against surface. Further, she was referred to Dental Surgeon Bhagpat for expert opinion regarding her injury. Then, she has relied upon certain medical documents Ex. PW-1/2 (colly). Perusal of the report dt. 31.08.2023 shows that she had suffered fracture of left parietal bone which is effectively head fracture.
31. Further, there is a report issued by Dental Implant and Facial Surgery Center dt. 31.08.2023 which states that she has suffered Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 MACT No. 64/2024 Shadiya Vs. Majid & Ors. 16:00:04 +0530 Page 13 of 40 "avulsed missing" 2 /12 which seems that her teeth were pulled out due to the accident. An objection has been taken at the time of the exhibition of these documents that the patient's name in all the documents is different. At some places the name is mentioned as Sadiya, at some places Sazida, then Shajiye. Hence, it is stated that the documents do not pertain to the petitioner.
32. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is illiterate and could not check whether the spellings of her name were mentioned correctly on the medical documents. However, the original documents have been produced by the victim. The documents, when read together, show that the same are the part of the sequence/event. Hence, it is submitted that the documents pertains to the petitioner only.
33. Record perused.
34. As submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, all the original documents were produced. The documents show that the injuries were sustained by the person subsequent to an accident on 31.08.2023. The documents seem to pertain to the same person/injuries. Hence, it seems that the spellings of the name of the petitioner were mistakenly mentioned incorrectly in the documents. In view of the said documents, it is clear that the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries.
35. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the opinion that on the scales of preponderance of probabilities, the Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 16:00:11 +0530 MACT No. 64/2024 Shadiya Vs. Majid & Ors. Page 14 of 40 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 against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If yes, to what extend and from whom? (OPP)
36. 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 Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 16:00:17 +0530 MACT No. 64/2024 Shadiya Vs. Majid & Ors. Page 15 of 40 inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467).
5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising :
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(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)."
37. 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.11.01 16:00:24 +0530 MACT No. 64/2024 Shadiya Vs. Majid & Ors. Page 16 of 40 petitioner has claimed that he suffered grievous injury due to the accident, hence, this Tribunal now proceeds further step by step to decide the compensation/award under different heads applicable to the present matter in light of above preposition.
Medical expenses:
38. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs.59,200/- approximately towards medical expenses. However, she has placed on record bills to the tune of Rs. 6,700/-. Hence, a sum of Rs. 6,700/- is granted to her under this head.
Loss of income:
39. In this regard, the petitioner has alleged that at the time of accident, she was doing tailoring work and was earning Rs.15,000/- pm. However, no evidence has been led to prove the same. Hence, it is conceded that her income may be assessed as per the Minimum Wages Act.
40. Perused.
41. The petitioner has also not placed on record any document to show her education or source of income. Even though the petitioner was allegedly working, but the fact that she is married and also maintaining her household cannot be ignored. In Abdul Awal @ Auwal v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. MAC App. 989/2018 decided on 02.03.2023 and in Muhammed Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 8960/2017 decided on 01.12.2022, it has been observed that Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 16:00:31 +0530 MACT No. 64/2024 Shadiya Vs. Majid & Ors. Page 17 of 40 the income of a housewife is to be assessed as per the minimum wages of an unskilled person. However, in a recent judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dalvir Singh & Ors. [(2025) SCC OnLine Del 844], it has been held that minimum wages of a skilled workman to be taken for the purpose of assessment of income in case of housewives. The date of the accident in the present matter is 31.08.2023 and it is an undisputed fact that she is residing in Baghpat, UP. Hence, as per the prevalent notification, Rs.12,432/- is ascertained to be the monthly income of the injured.
42. It is stated that due to the said injuries, the petitioner was unable to work since then. As per her medical records which are placed on record, she was not admitted in the hospital. However, she was undertaking treatment for her broken teeth and fracture. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances, it can be said that the petitioner may not have been able to work for three months at least. Accordingly, the petitioner shall be entitled to loss of income for eight months i.e. Rs.12,432/- x 3 = Rs.37,296/-.
Special diet:
43. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 80,000/- 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 her treatment, it seems that she must have required special diet and must have incurred expenditure towards special diet, therefore, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- is awarded to the petitioner Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA under the head of special diet. SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 16:00:38 +0530 MACT No. 64/2024 Shadiya Vs. Majid & Ors. Page 18 of 40 Conveyance charges:
44. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards conveyance charges. Admittedly there is no document showing expense 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. 10,000/- towards conveyance charges.
Attendant charges:
45. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 30,000/- under this head. Admittedly there is no document showing expense on attendant. However, considering the injuries of the petitioner, the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards attendant charges .
Pain & Suffering:
46. The petitioner/injured has claim 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 her etc., she is awarded a total amount of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
Mental and physical shock: RUCHIKA by Digitally signed RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 16:00:44 +0530 MACT No. 64/2024 Shadiya Vs. Majid & Ors. Page 19 of 40
47. The petitioner/injured has claim Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss due to mental shock. Keeping in view her injuries, it cannot be denied that she would definitely have suffered mental agony. Hence, a sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under head of "Loss due to Mental & Physical Shock".
Loss of amenities:
48. The petitioner/injured has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under this head. Keeping in view her injuries, it cannot be denied that she would definitely have loss of amenities. Hence, a sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under head of "Loss of amenities".
Disfiguration:
49. The petitioner/injured has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under this head. Keeping in view her injuries that she has suffered broken teeth, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under head of "Disfiguration".
Loss of marriage prospects
50. Nil Loss of earning, inconvenience, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.:
51. The petitioner/injured has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under this head. Keeping in view her injuries that she has suffered broken teeth, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 16:00:51 +0530 MACT No. 64/2024 Shadiya Vs. Majid & Ors. Page 20 of 40 this head.
Future medical expenses
52. The petitioner has alleged that she is still taking treatment for her broken teeth and that she has to get dental implants. She has further claimed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- for this purpose. However, no evidence was led by the petitioner qua the same. She did not prove any quotation regarding the proposed implants. However, considering the facts and circumstances that she had her teeth broken, it is understandable that she would need dental implants. Hence, a lumpsum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded to her for this purpose.
53. 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. 6,700/- Monthly income of injured Rs. 12,432/- Loss of income x 3 months Rs. 12,432/- x 3 = Rs.37,296/-. Add future prospects Nil Loss of future income (income X Nil % Earning Capacity X Multiplier)
Any other loss/expenditure (Future Rs. 1,00,000/-
Digitally signedRUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 16:00:58 +0530 MACT No. 64/2024 Shadiya Vs. Majid & Ors. Page 21 of 40 medical expenses) Expense on special diet Rs. 30,000/-
Conveyance charges Rs.10,000/- Attendant charges Rs.10,000/-
Mental & Physical Shock & Pain & Rs.30,000/- + Rs. 30,000/- = Rs.
Suffering 60,000/- Loss of amenities Rs.20,000/- Disfiguration Rs. 25,000/- Loss of marriage prospects Nil
Loss of earning, inconvenience, Rs. 15,000/-
hardship, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc. Total Rs. 3,13,996/-
54. 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. 18.01.2024 till realization.
DISBURSEMENT
55. The Financial Statement of petitioner/injured was recorded by this Court/Tribunal. As per the said statement, the monthly expenses Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 16:01:05 +0530 MACT No. 64/2024 Shadiya Vs. Majid & Ors. Page 22 of 40 of his family are approximately Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per month.
56. 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.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 16:01:13 +0530 MACT No. 64/2024 Shadiya Vs. Majid & Ors. Page 23 of 40 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."
57. 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 particulars of the Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 16:01:20 +0530 MACT No. 64/2024 Shadiya Vs. Majid & Ors. Page 24 of 40 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."
58. 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.
59. After considering the financial statement of the petitioner, it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 3,64,554/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Four only), the entire amount be released to the petitioner/claimant immediately in her bank account maintained at Punjab National Bank, Baraut, Baghpat bearing no. 0042001501040485, IFSC no. PUNB0004200, CIF no. ABP015259.
60. In compliance of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 16:01:27 +0530 MACT No. 64/2024 Shadiya Vs. Majid & Ors. Page 25 of 40 in the prescribed Format-XVI is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
Date of Accident: 31.08.2023
Name of the Injured: Shadiya
Age of the Injured: Presently 20 years
Occupation of the Injured: Not proved
Income of the Injured: Rs. 12,432/-
Nature of Injury: Grievous
Medical Treatment taken: Dr. Narendra Kr Murti Hospital, UP
District Combined Hospital, UP
Dental Implant and Facial Surgery
Center, UP
Period of Hospitalization: Nil
Whether any permanent: No
disability?
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
Sr. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
No.
1. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 6,700/-
(ii) Expenditure on Special Diet Rs. 30,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on Rs.10,000/-
Nursing/Attendant charges
(iv) Expenditure on Conveyance Rs.10,000/-
(v) Monthly income of injured Rs. 12,432/-
RUCHIKA Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01
16:01:46 +0530
MACT No. 64/2024 Shadiya Vs. Majid & Ors. Page 26 of 40
(vi) Loss of income x 3 months Rs.37,296/-
(vii) Add future prospects Nil
viii) Any other loss which may Rs. 1,00,000/-
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.30,000/- + Rs. 30,000/- = Rs. 60,000/-
(ii) Pain and Sufferings
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.20,000/-
(iv) Rs. 25,000/-
Disfiguration
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Rs. 15,000/-
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(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) Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 16:01:53 +0530 MACT No. 64/2024 Shadiya Vs. Majid & Ors. Page 27 of 40
4. Total Rs. 3,13,996/-
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. 50,557.66
award w.e.f. 18.01.2024 till
realization
9. Total amount including Interest Rs. 3,64,553.66 (rounded off to Rs.
3,64,554/-)
10. Award amount released As mentioned in para nos. 59
11. Award amount kept in FDRs Nil
12. Mode of disbursement of the As mentioned in para nos. 59
award amount of the claimant(s)
13. Next date for compliance of the 01.12.2025
award
LIABILITY:
61. It has been established that the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1 and that respondent no.2 is the owner of the same and the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no. 3. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 that by virtue of the amendment in Section 150 MV Act, as the respondent no. 1 was not carrying a valid driving license at the time of the accident, the respondent no. 3 insurance company is entitled to take the defence under Section 150 (2)(a)(ii) MV Act. It is submitted that prior to the Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 16:02:00 +0530 MACT No. 64/2024 Shadiya Vs. Majid & Ors. Page 28 of 40 Amendment of April, 2022, where any of the defences was available to the company as stipulated under the Act, the insurance company had the liability to pay the compensation amount and was entitled to recover the same from the driver/owner. Now, the provision of pay and recover has been deleted by the introduction of the Amendment Act, meaning thereby that the defences, as provided in the Act, if proved on record by the insurance company, then the insurance company shall not be liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners.
62. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 that the respondent no. 1 has admitted in his cross examination as RW1 that he was not carrying a valid driving license at the time of the accident. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation in the present case.
63. Per contra, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the present case is filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, which is a beneficial legislation.
64. Record perused.
65. It is a matter of record that by virtue of the Amendment Act of 2022, the principle of pay and recover has been removed by the Parliament. Our own Hon'ble High Court has taken a similar view in Go Digit General Insurance Co. v. Mohd Javed MAC. App 416/2025 decided on 09.07.2025, in a similar matter, wherein it has observed that:
"So far as concerns the award of recovery rights, clearly that Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 MACT No. 64/2024 Shadiya Vs. Majid & Ors. Page 29 of 40 16:02:09 +0530 appears to be an inadvertent error by the Ld. Trial Court since, after the amendment to Section 166 (3) of the MV Act w.e.f. 01.04.2022 which is the provision for grant of recovery rights is no longer available in the statute book."
66. However, the said observations were given by the Hon'ble High Court in a passing reference and is not a ratio decidendi. However, in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt. Arti Devi And Others 2025:AHC:14110 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahbad on 31 January, 2025, in a similar set of circumstances, it was observed that:
"21. When the language used in sub-Section (4) of Section 149 prior to amendment as replaced by sub-Section (4) of Section 150 by the Amendment Act of 2019, is carefully examined, the words "shall, as respects such liabilities as are required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub- section (1) of section 147, be of no effect" would only mean that under the circumstances covered by sub-Section (4), either of Section 149 or Section 150, the insurer would be well within its rights to avoid liability flowing from the insurance policy. Meaning thereby that the insurer would be absolved of bearing liability to pay compensation to the claimants. It does not mean that the insurer would also be absolved from its liability to indemnify the owner's risk. Such indemnification will still continue to remain alive and the insurer shall have to first pay the compensation through indemnification and, then, it shall have a right to recover from the owner the amount paid as the ultimate liability shall Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 16:02:20 +0530 MACT No. 64/2024 Shadiya Vs. Majid & Ors. Page 30 of 40 have to be borne by the owner and not by insurer. In such an event, there would be no financial loss to the insurer as it would be compensated through recovery from the owner. The aforesaid provisions are expressly to give defence to the insurer and have to be read to that extent only and not to interpret as if the liability to indemnify stands washed away. It therefore follows that even if the proviso to sub-Section (4) would not have been there before the amendment, the indemnification concept would have still remained alive and operative and, hence, mere omission of the proviso by the Amendment Act of 2019 would be of no avail.
22. Therefore, when Shri Parihar urges that if, in every case, liability to pay compensation has to be borne by the Insurance Company, there would be no effect of providing grounds for defence either under sub-section (2) of the Act prior to amendment or under sub-section (2) of the Act after amendment, this Court finds no force in the submission. The reason is that providing grounds of defence under the said provisions would be read so as to give an opportunity to the Insurance Company to avoid passing of award against it, i,e, holding it liable to bear the award. The said liability to have an award against the Insurance Company is distinct from the situation where award is against the owner and insurer is made liable to pay compensation to the claimants and then recover the same from the owner. Non-receipt of premium as required under Section 64(V)B of the Insurance Act, 1938 has now been added in Section 150(2). It reflects that even in a case where premium is not received by the Insurance Digitally signed RUCHIKA SINGLA by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 16:02:28 +0530 MACT No. 64/2024 Shadiya Vs. Majid & Ors. Page 31 of 40 Company, it can raise a ground of challenge so as to avoid passing of award against it and, in that event also, award would be drawn against the owner. When payment or non- payment of premium is significant after amendment and has been made a ground of defence, the Court observes that a third party risk is covered under the policy which is a contract and premium qua third party risk is received by the insurer in relation to the contract. Therefore, policy continues to subsist to cover third party risk so long the premium is received and non-payment thereof would absolve the Insurance Company from its liability of an award being passed against it.
31. A bare perusal of clause 2 read with clause 5 (b) and clause 51 reflects that the intention of the legislature was never to withdraw protection and reliefs as regards compensation ensured by the previous existing provisions. Rather, the Bill strives more towards ensuring expeditious help to the accident victims and their families. The emotional and social trauma caused to the family which loses its bread winner, is still one of the special considerations as set forth in the Statement above, The Bill was brought with an object to replace the existing provisions of insurance with simplified provisions in order to provide expeditious help to accident victims and their families. There is nothing in the Statement of Objects and Reasons which may, either directly or indirectly, infer withdrawal of insurer's liability to pay compensation as soon as the award is declared, even in case of occurrence of breach of policy or other existence of similar grounds of defence available to the insurer. Therefore, the RUCHIKA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 16:02:36 +0530 MACT No. 64/2024 Shadiya Vs. Majid & Ors. Page 32 of 40 purpose behind bringing amendments in the Act of 1988 was clearly to provide immediate financial help to the accident victims and their dependents and not to create a situation where they are made to run from pillar to post even after an award is declared in their favour.
37. From the over all discussion made above, it is crystal clear that the object of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, either before the amendment or thereafter, particularly covered by Chapter XI thereof, is to compensate victims of accidents in case of an insurance policy being in existence. In view of the interpretation made, holding that omission of the proviso would exonerate the insurer of its liability to indemnify at the first instance would be too wild a proposition and would result in creating a situation where the insurer would be out of scene despite an insurance policy being there and the claimants would have to again fight for getting the amount of compensation through execution proceedings in one way or the other, searching the owner through the process of Court. In such an event, the claimants would face further harassment and nobody knows that despite a money decree in the nature of an award being there in their favour, as to whether the claimants would ever be able to get the compensation realized through recovery proceedings directly from the owner. Accordingly, the legislative intent becomes clear and there is nothing to support the insurer's arguments flowing from interpretation of Statute or Causus Omissus. The contention advanced on behalf of insurer stands discarded.Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 16:02:43 +0530 MACT No. 64/2024 Shadiya Vs. Majid & Ors. Page 33 of 40
38. The Court, therefore, holds that mere omission of proviso attached to sub-section (4) of Section 149 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 after its replacement by Section 150 of Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 (32 of 2019), neither takes away the liability of the insurer to pay the claimants nor its right to recover the said amount from the owner. The law to this effect remains intact and unaffected by Amendment Act, 2019 and, hence, insurer shall continue to indemnify the owner's risk in relation to accidents taking place after 01.04.2022 and "PAY & RECOVER" principle will still continue to govern the field advancing social object of the Statute protecting third party interest. Principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh and others, JT 2004 (1) SC 109 has not lost its significance and binding effect despite omission of proviso. Held accordingly. "
67. Similar observations have been given by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Ram Kumar 2025:MPHC-GWL:27009 decided on 28 October, 2025 . it was observed that:
"8. So far as Section 149 (5) is concerned, it is with regard to the extent of liability, and the present case is not covered by the erstwhile provision of Section 149 (5) of the Act. Proviso to sub- section 4 of Section 149 had given authority to the insurer to recover the compensation from the insured if any compensation amount is paid. However, in the present case, the insurance company has been exonerated from the liability Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 16:02:50 +0530 MACT No. 64/2024 Shadiya Vs. Majid & Ors. Page 34 of 40 on the ground of violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The insurance policy is a statutory contract entered into between the insurer and the insured for the benefit of the third party. If the insured has violated the conditions of the insurance policy, it is a matter between the insurer and the insured, and the third party cannot be made to suffer by going for execution against a private person instead of the insurer. Therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, paragraph 102
(x) of the judgment in the case of Swaran Singh (supra) would apply even if the proviso to sub- section 4 and sub-section 5 of Section 149 of Act has been omitted, and that has not brought any difference in the application of the principle of pay and recover."
68. Hence, in view of the above mentioned observations, it is directed that the respondent no. 3 shall be liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner and then the respondent no.3 shall be entitled to recover the said amount from the respondents no. 1 & 2. Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
69. The respondent no. 3 is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,13,996/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Six only) along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 18.01.2024 till realization with the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the claimant, failing which the said Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 16:02:58 +0530 MACT No. 64/2024 Shadiya Vs. Majid & Ors. Page 35 of 40 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.
70. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurance company for compliance within the time granted as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. The said respondent is further directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the deposit with a copy to the Claimant and his counsel.
Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost.
Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on 01.12.2025 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
Further, Civil Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 16:03:05 +0530 MACT No. 64/2024 Shadiya Vs. Majid & Ors. Page 36 of 40 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
on this 1st November, 2025 RUCHIKA Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01
16:03:13 +0530
(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
MACT No. 64/2024 Shadiya Vs. Majid & Ors. Page 37 of 40
THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL MOTOR VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022 (PL. SEE RULE 150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 31.08.2023 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-VIA
NA
from the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Claim
petition 18.01.2024
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 22.11.2024
Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company admitted his Yes.
report within 30 days of the
DAR?
12 Whether there was any
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01
16:03:21 +0530
MACT No. 64/2024 Shadiya Vs. Majid & Ors. Page 38 of 40
delay or deficiency on the N/A
part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether
any action/direction
warranted?
13 Date of response of the 12.12.2024
claimant(s) to the offer of
the Insurance Company.
14 Date of award 01.11.2025
15 Whether the claimant(s)
were directed to open 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 26.07.2025
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
25.09.2025
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: 2025.11.01
16:03:28 +0530
MACT No. 64/2024 Shadiya Vs. Majid & Ors. Page 39 of 40
19 Whether the claimant(s)
savings bank account(s) is
No.
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 25.09.2025.
ascertain his/their financial condition?
Digitally signed byRUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.11.01 16:03:40 +0530 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
01.11.2025 MACT No. 64/2024 Shadiya Vs. Majid & Ors. Page 40 of 40