Delhi District Court
Sangita Devi (Dar) vs Luvkush(469/22, Kmp) on 21 November, 2025
:1:
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARU GUPTA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-01(SOUTH-EAST), SAKET COURTS:
NEW DELHI
MACT No.194/2025
Sangita Devi vs. Luvkush & ors.
CNR No.: DLSE01-002749-2023
1. Sangita Devi
W/o Heera Lal Paswan
R/o H.No.1942-B, Pillanji,
Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi
......Petitioners/claimant
Versus
1. Luv Kush
S/o Sh. Rajola
R/o Village Majhgawan
Anand colony, Distt. Satna
Madhya Pradesh
........Driver/ Respondent no. 1
2. Ajay Bhati S/o Sh. Bijay Bhati R/o H.No.197, Aliganj, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi ........Owner/ Respondent no.2 Date of accident : 09.11.2022 Date of filing of DAR : 01.12.2023 Result of accident : Grievous injury/ MACT No. 197/25 Sangita Devi v. Luv Kush & ors. P.No 1 of 20 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.21 16:30:13 +0530 :2: permanent disability Date of Decision : 21.11.2025 AWARD
1. The present Detailed Accident Report arises out of road accident that occurred on 09.11.2022, in which one Sangita (aged about 57) allegedly suffered grievous injury.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 09.11.2022, on receiving GD No.48A regarding accident, SI Komal alongwith Ct. Nehru reached at the spot i.e. Pillanji Pul, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi, where it was informed that the victim had been taken to hospital. After receiving GD no.68A , SI Komal reached AIIMS Trauma Center. She met the injured Sangita and her husband Heeralal who deposed that on 09.11.2022 at 3 p.m. he was travelling from INA Market to Pilanji Village with his wife Sangita Devi. When they reached near Pilanji Bridge, an e-
rickshaw bearing no.DL-SERA-0626 (hereinafter referred as to the offending vehicle), came from behind at a high speed and ran over his wife Sangita. Due to the impact, she got injuries. He took her to Trauma Center for treatment.
3. An FIR no.469/2022, dated 09.11.2022 was registered u/s 279,337 A IPC, PS Kotla Mubarakpur and the matter was investigated. After investigation, chargesheet was filed u/s 279/388 of IPC, Section 3/181, Section 5/180 & Section 146/196 of MV act before concerned criminal court against the driver of the offending vehicle while DAR was filed before this Tribunal.
4. Respondent no.1 is driver of offending vehicle, Respondent no.2 is the owner. Offending vehicle is uninsured.
5. Vide order dated 18.09.2024, respondents were directed to MACT No. 197/25 Sangita Devi v. Luv Kush & ors. P.No 2 of 20 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.21 16:30:20 +0530 :3: deposit a security of Rs.50,000/- since the offending vehicle was uninsured. Respondents failed to furnish security and their defence was struck off vide order dated 04.03.2025. Vide the same order, following issues were framed :
1. Whether the injured suffered injuries in a road traffic accident on 09.11.2022 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no.
DL-5ERA-0626 being driven by R1 and owned by R2? OPP.
2. Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
7. In order to prove its case, petitioner no.1 examined herself as PW-1 wherein she tendered her examination in chief by way of affidavit as Ex.PW-1/A. She and her husband deposed that on 09.11.2022 at about 3 p.m. she along with her husband were walking down from INA Market to her residence Pillanji Village. When they reached at Pillanji Pul, Kotla Muabarakpur, New Delhi a vehicle (e-rickshaw) driven by respondent no.1 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner. The said vehicle hit her from behind and ran over both her legs. She sustained grievous injuries i.e. right bilmal fracture ankle subluxation-og 1 left BB LEC fracture and other multiple injuries all over body. She was admitted to JPN Apex Trauma Center, AIIMS Hospital, New Delhi for treatment and was discharged on 10.11.2022. PW- 1 received 56% permanent disability in this accident.
She relied upon upon documents i.e. her MLC as Ex.PW-1/1, discharge summary as Ex.PW-1/2, OPD Cards as Ex.PW-1/3, disability certificate as Ex.PW-1/4, ID proof of MACT No. 197/25 Sangita Devi v. Luv Kush & ors. P.No 3 of 20 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.21 16:30:24 +0530 :4: Aadhar card and PAN card as Ex.PW1/5 and DAR as Ex.PW-1/6.
She was not cross-examined by any of the respondents despite opportunity.
8. Final arguments in detail were addressed by learned counsel for the claimant/petitioner. No arguments were advanced by the respondents.
9 Now, on the basis of material on record, evidence adduced and arguments addressed, issue wise findings are as under :
Issue No.1 Whether the injured suffered injuries in a road traffic accident on 09.11.2022 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DL-5ERA-0626 being driven by R1 amd owned by R2? OPP.
10. Before proceeding to decide the above issue, it is apposite to note that as a settled principle of law, proceedings under The Motor Vehicle Act are not considered akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not applicable.
Reliance is placed upon decision in Bimla Devi & ors. vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (2009) 13 SC 535, in Parmeshwari vs. Amir Chand & Ors., 2011 (1) SCR 1096 and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 287, wherein it has been held that the negligence has to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view has to be taken.
11. In the present case, petitioner has testified the factum and manner of the accident as PW-1. She has categorically alleged that the offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently and that it hit the petitioner from behind with great force and despite her falling, ran over her legs resulting in MACT No. 197/25 Sangita Devi v. Luv Kush & ors. P.No 4 of 20 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.21 16:30:27 +0530 :5: permanent disability. These allegations have not been controverted by the respondents.
12. Further, the fact that the police after investigation had filed charge-sheet against driver/respondent no.1 under section 279/388 of IPC, Section 3/181, Section 5/180 & Section 146/196 of MV Act is also suggestive of negligence on the part of Respondent no.1. Reliance is placed on the decision in National Insurance Co. Vs. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, wherein it was laid down that completion of investigation and filing of chargesheet are sufficient proof of negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
To rebut the claim of the petitioner, none of the respondents have led any evidence in their defence. It may further be noted that in Cholamandlam insurance company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh 2009 (3) AD Delhi 310, it was held that if driver of offending vehicle does not enter the witness box, an adverse inference can be drawn against him. Thus, it stands proved that the petitioner suffered injuries in road traffic accident due to rash and negligence of respondent no.1.
13. In totality of circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner has been able to prove on the scales of preponderance of probabilities that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver/respondent no.1 on the date and time of accident. Issue no.1 is accordingly decided.
Issue no. 2 Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP.
MACT No. 197/25 Sangita Devi v. Luv Kush & ors. P.No 5 of 20 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.21 16:30:31 +0530 :6:
14. As discussed in issue no.1, petitioner is entitled to compensation. Since it stands proved that the accident occurred due to rashness and negligence of respondent no.1 as already discussed in issue no.1, respondents no.2 are vicariously liable to compensate the petitioner. Further, as offending vehicle is not insured, liability to compensate the petitioner falls upon all the Respondents jointly and severally.
15. As regards the quantum of compensation, this court is governed by the law laid down by Hon'le Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 Supreme Court cases 343, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. (2003) 6SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.(2017) 16 SCC 680. The gist of the law is that 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 the 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.
16. Further it can be noted that the heads under which MACT No. 197/25 Sangita Devi v. Luv Kush & ors. P.No 6 of 20 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.21 16:30:35 +0530 :7: 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).
16.1. In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). 16.2. It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii),
(v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.
MACT No. 197/25 Sangita Devi v. Luv Kush & ors. P.No 7 of 20 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.11.21 16:30:39 +0530 :8: 16.3. Assessment of pecuniary damages under Item (i) and under Item (ii) (a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence.
16.4. Award under the head of future medical expenses--Item
(iii)--depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof.
16.5. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages--Items (iv), (v) and (vi)--involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. 16.6. Observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. is quoted hereunder:
"10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional MACT No. 197/25 Sangita Devi v. Luv Kush & ors. P.No 8 of 20 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.21 16:30:43 +0530 :9: disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of `loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation.
Pecuniary /Special Damages
(i) Loss of earnings.
Actual loss of earning:
17. As per the medical record, petitioner remained hospitalized in AIIMS Trauma Center from 09.11.2022 to 10.11.2022.
Petitioner suffered fracture in right bimal with ankle subluxation- OG1, Left BB Leg fracture. It is a matter of record that the petitioner was about 57 years of age at the time of accident and MACT No. 197/25 Sangita Devi v. Luv Kush & ors. P.No 9 of 20 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.21 16:30:49 +0530 : 10 : considering the period of recovery at her age, it is assumed that the petitioner would have remained incapacitated for atleast 2 months.
As regards income, petitioner has claimed to be working as a tailor from home and used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month. However, she has not placed on record any proof of her employment or salary nor any proof of educational qualification has been filed. In absence of any proof of the same, income of the petitioner has to be assessed as minimum wages of unskilled labour as per the minimum wages that prevailed in the state of Delhi (address reflected as Delhi as per Aadhar card) on the date of accident. Same were Rs.16,792/- per month. Her actual loss of income is taken as Rs.16,792X2(months)=Rs.33,584/-.
Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to compensation towards loss of income as Rs.33,584/-.
(i) Loss of future income/earnings:
18. In the present case, petitioner has relied upon disability certificate issued by Pt. Madan Mohan Malviya hospital, noticing 56% disability in relation to both her lower limbs. Keeping in view the age of the petitioner, the disability percentage cannot entirely be attributed to the injury sustained in the accident but also the disability naturally occurring due to the age. In such circumstances functional disability arising out of the injuries sustained in the accident is assessed to be 25%.
Since the date of birth of the petitioner as per his Aadhar card, is 01.01.1971, her age at the time of accident on 09.11.2022 would have been 51 years and 10 months, for purpose of calculating loss of future income, a multiplier of 11 (petitioner MACT No. 197/25 Sangita Devi v. Luv Kush & ors. P.No 10 of 20 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.21 16:30:53 +0530 : 11 : aged about 51 years), as per Sarla Verma judgment, would be applicable in the case and 10% would be added as future prospect as Pranay Sethi judgment. Hence, compensation towards loss of future income is assessed as Rs.16,792/-(monthly income)X12(annual computation) X11(multiplier)+10% of total income(as future prospect)=Rs.24,38,198/-. 25%(functional disability) of this amount would be Rs.6,09,550/-. Hence so awarded.
(ii) Future Medical Expenses:
19. No proof of requirement of any future medical expenses has been filed or pleaded. No evidence has been led to show that the disability has rendered the petitioner bedridden or completely dependent on an attendant. As such, petitioner is not entitled to any future medical expenses.
(iii) Expenses relating to treatment:
20. Petitioner has not placed any medical bills. Hence no compensation granted under this head.
Apart from expenditure on treatment, a sum of Rs.10,000/- under each head i.e. conveyance and special diet is granted to the petitioner. Rs.20,000/- is granted towards nursing attendant.
21. In this background, considering the material and evidence on record and the law on compensation in such like cases, as already discussed above, compensation in the present case is calculated as under for injured:
Sl. Pecuniary loss : - Quantum
no.
1. (I) Expenditure on treatment : Nil
MACT No. 197/25 Sangita Devi v. Luv Kush & ors. P.No 11 of 20 ss
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.11.21
16:30:57
+0530
: 12 :
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance : Rs.10,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : Rs.10,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing / attendant : Rs.20,000/-
(v) Loss of income:Rs.16,792/-X2 month Rs.33,584/-
(vi) Cost of artificial limbs (if Nil
applicable) :
(vii) Any other loss/expenditure : Future Nil
Medical expenses.
2. Non-Pecuniary Loss :
(I) Compensation of mental and physical Rs.25,000/-
shock :
(ii) Pain and suffering : Rs.25,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life : Rs.10,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration : Nil
(v) Loss of marriage prospects : Nil
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity (I) Percentage of disability assessed and The petitioner nature of disability as permanent or has suffered temporary 56% disability in relation to both lower limbs.
25% assessed to
be functional
disability.
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Already granted
expectation of life span on account of disability :
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity Already granted in relation to disability:
(iv) Loss of future Income: Rs.6,09,550/-.
MACT No. 197/25 Sangita Devi v. Luv Kush & ors. P.No 12 of 20 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.21 16:31:02 +0530 : 13 : Total Compensation Rs.7,43,134/-
Deduction, if any, Nil
Total Compensation Rs.7,43,134/-
Interest Simple interest
@7.5% p.a. from
the date of filing
of DAR till
actual realization
of Award
amount/
compensation.
22. The total compensation payable to the petitioner/claimant would be Rs.7,43,134/- by respondents with simple interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR till its actual realization.
23. In case, the interest of petitioner was stopped or excluded during the present inquiry proceedings, same is liable to be adjusted from the total interest calculated on the Award amount.
Similarly, amount awarded and released as interim Award, if any, during pendency of the case, be deducted from the total compensation amount.
LIABILITY
24. As already decided, principal award amount/ compensation will be payable by respondents with simple interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR till actual realization.
Directions Regarding Deposit of Award Amount in Bank:
25. In compliance of directions issued vide order dated 16.11.2021 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition Civil No.534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.
MACT No. 197/25 Sangita Devi v. Luv Kush & ors. P.No 13 of 20 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.21 16:31:06 +0530 : 14 : Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India the award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT SAVING ACCOUNT No. 00000042706875094, IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir in the prescribed format i.e. MCOP Number on the file of (Claims Tribunal Name) Date of award, Compensation Amount, Income Tax Deduction at Source, Bank Transaction Reference No./Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. In turn, the State Bank of India, Saket Courts Branch shall receive the deposited sum and capture the above information and furnish a statement of account on a daily basis to the Nazir of this Tribunal to reconcile the deposits of compensation and the respective MCOPs towards which such deposits are made. On such deposits being made, the insurance company shall submit a letter to the Nazir of this Tribunal enclosing a copy of the said bank advice, in prescribed format as above, as per which the deposit made to the bank account of this Tribunal, to enable this Tribunal to keep tab on the deposits made and the MCOPs for which they were made. The Payment advice for remittance of compensation is as under:
PAYMENT ADVICE FOR REMITTANCE OF COMPENSATION :
............ Bank ................... To:
............... Court ........................ We confirm remittance of compensation as follows on instructions of ................................... (insurance company):- MCOP Number On the file of (Claims Tribunal Name), Place Date of award Amount Deposited, Income Tax Deduction at MACT No. 197/25 Sangita Devi v. Luv Kush & ors. P.No 14 of 20 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.21 16:31:10 +0530 : 15 : Source, if any Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. Insurance company of offending vehicle, on deposit, shall also send a copy of the payment advice in above format to this Tribunal and serve a copy of the same on the claimants or their counsel as the case may be.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP).
26. This court is in receipt of the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors whereby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has formulated MACAD(Motor Accident Claims Annunity Deposit Scheme) which has been made effective from 01.01.2019. The said orders dated 07.12.2018 also mentions that 21 banks including State Bank of India is one of such banks which are to adhere to MACAD. The State Bank of India, Saket Courts, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Apportionment:-
27. Another issue which is to be decided is out of such Award amount, how much is to be released at present and how much is to kept in the form of FDR for future financial used of the petitioner.
28. At this stage, it is relevant to the refer to the judgment of A. V. Padma & Ors. Vs., R. Venugopal & Ors. (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 378:
"......In the case of Susamma Thomas (supra), this MACT No. 197/25 Sangita Devi v. Luv Kush & ors. P.No 15 of 20 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.21 16:31:14 +0530 : 16 : Court issued certain guidelines in order to "safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries due to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation".
Even as per the guidelines issued by this Court Court, long term fixed deposit of amount of compensation is mandatory only in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows. In the case of illiterate claimants, the Tribunal is allowed to consider the request for lumpsum payment for effecting purchase of any movable property such as agricultural implements, rickshaws etc. to earn a living. However, in such cases, the Tribunal shall make sure that the amount is actually spent for the purpose and the demand is not a ruse to withdraw money. In the case of semi-illiterate claimants, the Tribunal should ordinarily invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. But if the Tribunal is satisfied for reasons to be stated in writing that the whole or part of the amount is required for expanding an existing business or for purchasing some property for earning a livelihood, the Tribunal can release the whole or part of the amount of compensation to the claimant provided the Tribunal will ensure that the amount is invested for the purpose for which it is demanded and paid. In the case of literate persons, it is not mandatory to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit.
The expression used in guideline No. (iv) issued by this Court is that in the case of literate persons also the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i), whereas in the guideline Nos.
(i), (ii), (iii) and (v), the expression used is that the Tribunal should. Moreover, in the case of literate persons, the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i) only if, having regard to the age, fiscal background and strata of the society to which the claimant belongs and such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks that in the MACT No. 197/25 Sangita Devi v. Luv Kush & ors. P.No 16 of 20 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.21 16:31:18 +0530 : 17 : larger interest of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded, it is necessary to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit.
Thus, sufficient discretion has been given to the Tribunal not to insist on investment of the compensation amount in long term fixed deposit and to release even the whole amount in the case of literate persons. However, the Tribunals are often taking a very rigid stand and are mechanically ordering in almost all cases that the amount of compensation shall be invested in long term fixed deposit. They are taking such a rigid and mechanical approach without understanding and appreciating the distinction drawn by this Court in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows and in the case of semiliterate and literate persons. It needs to be clarified that the above guidelines were issued by this Court only to safeguard the interests of the claimants, particularly the minors, illiterates and others whose amounts are sought to be withdrawn on some fictitious grounds. The guidelines were not to be understood to mean that the Tribunals were to take a rigid stand while considering an application seeking release of the money.
The guidelines cast a responsibility on the Tribunals to pass appropriate orders after examining each case on its own merits. However, it is seen that even in cases when there is no possibility or chance of the feed being frittered away by the beneficiary owing to ignorance, illiteracy or susceptibility to exploitation, investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit is directed by the Tribunals as a matter of course and in a routine manner, ignoring the object and the spirit of the guidelines issued by this Court and the genuine requirements of the claimants. Even in the case of literate persons, the Tribunals are automatically ordering investment of the amount of compensation MACT No. 197/25 Sangita Devi v. Luv Kush & ors. P.No 17 of 20 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.21 16:31:21 +0530 : 18 : in long term fixed deposit without recording that having regard to the age or fiscal background or the strata of the society to which the claimant belongs or such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks it necessary to direct such investment in the larger interests of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded to him.
The Tribunals very often dispose of the claimant's application for withdrawal of the amount of compensation in a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind. This has resulted in serious injustice and hardship to the claimants. The Tribunals appear to think that in view of the guidelines issued by this Court, in every case the amount of compensation should be invested in long term fixed deposit and under no circumstances the Tribunal can release the entire amount of compensation to the claimant even if it is required by him. Hence a change of attitude and approach on the part of the Tribunals is necessary in the interest of justice..."
29. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and the abovesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme Court, out of the total award amount i.e. Rs.7,43,134/-, Rs.2,43,134/- be released to her and remaining Rs.5,00,000/- be kept in the form of monthly FDR of Rs.15000/-
alongwith simple interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR till its actual realization, in her bank account near her place of residence.
30. In accordance with the orders dated 08.02.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 in Rajesh Tyagi and others Vs. Jaibir Singh and others, Mr. Rajan Singh, MACT No. 197/25 Sangita Devi v. Luv Kush & ors. P.No 18 of 20 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.21 16:31:26 +0530 : 19 : Assistant General Manager has been appointed as Nodal Officer of SBI having Phone no. 022-22741336/9414048606 and e-mail ID [email protected]. In case of any assistance or non compliance, the aforesaid Nodal Officer may be contacted to. A copy of this order be sent by e-mail to the aforesaid Nodal Officer of the aforesaid bank by the Ahlmad of the Court immediately in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court as contained in the orders dated 07.12.2018. The Nodal Officer of the bank shall ensure the disbursement of the award amount within three weeks of the receipt of the e-mail as mentioned in the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1 Date of accident 09.11.2022 2 Name of injured Sangita Devi 3 Age of the injured 51 years 4 Occupation of the injured Unskilled labour of Delhi 5 Income of the injured as on Rs.16,792/-PM the date of accident 6 Nature injury Grievous/disability 7 Medical treatment taken by AIIMS Trauma Center.
the injured:
8 Period of Hospitalization Nil 9 Whether any permanent The petitioner has suffered 56% MACT No. 197/25 Sangita Devi v. Luv Kush & ors. P.No 19 of 20 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.11.21 16:31:30 +0530 : 20 : disability? disability in relation to her both lower limbs.
25% assessed to be functional disability.
31. List for compliance on 06.01.2026.
Digitally
signed by
Announced in open Court CHARU
CHARU
GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
On 21st November, 2025 2025.11.21
16:31:35
+0530
(Charu Gupta)
PO-MACT-01(South-East)
Saket Court/ New Delhi
MACT No. 197/25 Sangita Devi v. Luv Kush & ors. P.No 20 of 20 ss