Delhi District Court
Arun Kr(D)I(366/22/Dbgr) vs Adil Khan(Oic) on 13 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA, PRESIDING
OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
DLCT010120542022
MACT No. 703/2022
Arun Kumar (injured)
s/o Sh. Lakhi Ram
r/o H No. A-118/9, Gali no. 3,
Mukund Vihar, Karawal Nagar,
Delhi.
........Petitioner/claimant
Versus
1. Adil Khan (driver of the offending vehicle)
S/o Sh. Nausad Khan,
R/o 793, Rama Park Vistar Loni
Ghaziabad, U.P.
Phone No. 7827403644
2. Smt. Sonal (owner of the offending vehicle)
W/o Sh. Akash,
R/o J 304, Gali No. 12 ½
Gandhi Medu Kartar Nagar Delhi.
3. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (insurer)
1st Floor 88 Janpath New Delhi.
........Respondents
DATE OF FILING OF DAR : 25.08.2022
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 22.09.2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.10.2025
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.10.13
16:02:25 +0530
MACT No.703/2022 Arun Kumar Vs. Adil Khan & Ors. Page 1 of 28
JUDGMENT
1. The Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred as DAR) was filed in this case on 25.08.2022, with reference to FIR No. 0366-22, U/s 279/338 IPC & 184 MV Act, PS DBG Road, Delhi, in respect of grievous injuries, sustained by the petitioner Arun Kumar, in a road accident, on 16.05.2022, at about 09.00 pm at Kalkadas Chowk Red Light Karol Bagh ND. Subsequently, chargesheet was filed by the IO, against Adil Khan S/o Sh. Naushad Khan (hereinafter referred as Respondent no.1/R1/driver), for the alleged commission of offence U/s 279/338 IPC. The Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal, vide order dated 30.08.2022, treated the DAR as claim petition U/s 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'M.V.Act')
2. Brief facts of the case, as discernible from the DAR, including the documents annexed with the DAR, are that, on receiving the DD No. 92 A the information of accident dt.16.05.2022 received by the IO, thereafter IO along with Ct. Deep Chand reached at the place of accident where they found that one motorcycle No. DL5SCU3386 and one swift car bearing No. DL3CCF0280 were stationed in an accidental condition and the injured was sent to hospital through PCR Van. Thereafter, IO/ASI reached at the hospital and collected the MLC No. E97982/337177 and MLC No.E92985/337182. Statement of both the injured could not be recorded because they both were in a pain. Thereafter, IO reached at the spot of accident. FIR was registered on the basis of MLCs, DD Entries u/s 279/337 IPC. RUCHIKA by Digitally signed RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.13 16:02:32 +0530 MACT No.703/2022 Arun Kumar Vs. Adil Khan & Ors. Page 2 of 28
3. Further, both the vehicles bearing No. DL5SCU3386 & DL3CCF0280 were taken in a police custody by the IO and thereafter deposited in the Malkhana. Thereafter, IO made mechanical inspection of both the vehicles and released the same on Superdari. Then after mechanical inspection IO gave notice u/s 133 MV Act to owner of offending vehicle and after receiving the same owner/Sonam had written reply that she had given POA of offending vehicle to her husband.
4. Thereafter, on 23.05.2022 injured Arun Kumar reached at the PS and at the instance of injured IO prepared the site plan and recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr. P.C. On 25.05.2022, other injured namely Meenakshi also reached at PS and her statement was also recorded by the IO. On 25.05.2022, driver of offending vehicle namely Adil after interrogation he accepted that the accident was committed by him only and thereafter he was arrested & he was released on bail.
5. Further, IO took the opinion on both MLCs by the Doctor and he suggested that both the MLCs were of grievous injuries. After the opinion of MLCs their Sections change into u/s 337 to 338 IPC and added one more Section i.e. 184 MV Act. Thereafter, chargesheet was filed against the driver/R1, for the commission of offence U/s 279/338 IPC & 184 MV Act.
6. As per DAR and documents annexed therewith, R1/Mohd. Adil was the driver and R2/Sonam was the registered owner of the offending vehicle and the offending vehicle was insured with Oriental Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.13 16:02:39 +0530 MACT No.703/2022 Arun Kumar Vs. Adil Khan & Ors. Page 3 of 28 Insurance Co. Ltd., (hereinafter referred as the insurance company/R2), vide Policy No. 131300/3102022/1678, valid for the period 12.07.2021 to 11.07.2022.
7. R1 & R2 appeared and they filed their WS. The respondents no. 1 and 2 denied causing the accident. It was stated in the WS that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner who was driving the motor cycle bearing No. DL5SCU3386. It is submitted that the respondent no. 1 was driving the vehicle at a very slow speed and observing all traffic rules. Hence, it was stated that the respondents were not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner as the accident was not caused due to the negligence of the respondents.
8. Legal offer was filed by the insurance company whereby the insurance company offered the compensation of Rs. 1,26,024/- to the petitioner. However, the same was not accepted by the petitioner.
9. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Learned Predecessor, vide order dated 30.11.2024:-
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
2. Relief.
10. After framing of issues, opportunities were given to all the parties, to prove their respective averments, by leading evidence in support of the same. The respondents no.1 & 2 stopped appearing thereafter and they were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.13 16:02:46 +0530 MACT No.703/2022 Arun Kumar Vs. Adil Khan & Ors. Page 4 of 28 08.04.2025.
11. In support of his case, the petitioner summoned Sh. Anupam Sareen, Proprietor, Bit by Bit Web Services Pvt. Ltd. to prove his income. He was partly examined as PW1. However, vide the statement of the petitioner dated 02.08.2025, the petitioner dropped him. Hence, his testimony shall not be read.
12. Thereafter, the petitioner got himself examined as PW2, by way of evidence affidavit Ex.PW2/1. He has relied upon the documents which are as under:-
i) Copy of his Aadhar Card which is Ex. PW-2/A (OSR).
ii) Medical bills which are Ex. PW-2/B (Colly. Running into 112 pages)
13. He was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3. Thereafter, PE stands closed vide order dt. 02.08.2025. No evidence was led by any of the respondents. RE was also closed vide order dt. 02.08.2025.
14. This Tribunal has heard the final arguments as advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record. On appreciation of evidence, as adduced by the parties, in support of their respective versions, the issue-wise findings of this Tribunal are reproduced herein below:
Digitally signedRUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.13 16:02:54 +0530 MACT No.703/2022 Arun Kumar Vs. Adil Khan & Ors. Page 5 of 28 ISSUE NO.1:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
15. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. As the legal offer was filed by the respondent no.3, the factum of the accident cased by the rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 is admitted. Further, it is also admitted that due to the accident, the petitioner suffered injuries. To prove the same, PW-2/Arun Kumar has relied upon his medical documents which are Ex. PW-2/B (colly). He has also relied upon the disability certificate dated 16.10.2023. Perusal of his MLC dt. 16.05.2022, shows that he was taken to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital on history of accident and that on his examination, it was found that he had suffered a grevious injuries in his leg. Further, perusal of his disability certificate shows that he has suffered 43% permanent disability in his right lower limb. In view of the same, the petitioner is entitled for compensation.
16. 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.Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.13 16:03:02 +0530 MACT No.703/2022 Arun Kumar Vs. Adil Khan & Ors. Page 6 of 28 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).
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)."
Digitally signedRUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.13 16:03:08 +0530 MACT No.703/2022 Arun Kumar Vs. Adil Khan & Ors. Page 7 of 28
17. 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.
Medical expenses:
18. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- towards medical expenses. He has relied upon his medical bills Ex. PW2/B (colly) which are the tune of Rs. 83,749/-. No other bills are produced on record by the petitioner. Hence, in view of the same, the petitioner is held entitled to Rs. 83,749/- towards medical expenses.
Loss of income:
19. In this regard, it is submitted by the petitioner that at the time of the accident he was working as a Graphic Designer in one Bit by Bit Web Services Pvt. Ltd., Delhi and that he was earning a sum of Rs. 40,000/- per month. Perusal of the record shows that initially the petitioner summoned his employer to depose in this regard as PW1 but later on, he was dropped from the array of witnesses. No other document has been proved on record by the petitioner that he was working as a Graphic Designer or that he was earning a sum of Rs. 40,000/- per month. He has not proved his bank account statement to show his salary Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.13 16:03:15 +0530 MACT No.703/2022 Arun Kumar Vs. Adil Khan & Ors. Page 8 of 28 or his ITRs. Hence, considering the same, it cannot be said that the petitioner was able to prove that his monthly income was Rs. 40,000/-.
20. However, the petitioner has placed on record copies of his educational certificates, as per which the petitioner is a graduate. He has completed his B.A. from School of Open Learning, University of Delhi in 2013. Further, he has done a Diploma in Advance Desktop Publishing in 2005. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances that there is no document to prove the income of the petitioner, his income is assessed as per the minimum wages of a graduate skilled worker. The date of the accident in the present matter is 16.05.2022. Hence, as per the prevalent notification, his monthly income is assessed to be Rs. 21,756/-.
21. The petitioner's medical documents are on record. As per his Discharge Summary dated 19.05.2022 issued by RML Hospital, he was admitted on 17.05.2022. He has filed another Discharge Summary dated 14.09.2022, as per which he was admitted in the hospital on 01.09.2022 and discharged on 14.09.2022. It is mentioned therein that subsequent to his accident, his limb was immobilized and he was having persistent pain in his right leg. He underwent surgery comprising of bone grafting. He was advised medication for 5 weeks.
22. He has filed another Discharge Summary dated 11.04.2023, as per which he was admitted in the hospital on 27.03.2023 and discharged on 11.04.2023. He underwent surgery comprising of debridement with proximal locking screw removal. He was advised medication for 2 weeks. He has filed another Discharge Summary datedDigitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.13 16:03:22 +0530 MACT No.703/2022 Arun Kumar Vs. Adil Khan & Ors. Page 9 of 28 26.05.2023, as per which he was admitted in the hospital on 18.05.2023 and discharged on 26.05.2023. He underwent surgery comprising of tibia nail and antibiotic beads removal with debridement. He was advised medication for 5 days. Hence, from the above mentioned documents, it is clear that the petitioner was under treatment for almost a year. Further, it can be said that he would not have been able to work for another three months. Hence, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to loss of income for fifteen months i.e. Rs. 21,756 x 15 = Rs.
3,26,340/-.
Special diet:
23. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/- (Rs. 10,000/- per month) towards special diet. Although, there is no bill to support his plea, but keeping in view the nature of injury suffered by the petitioner, it seems that he must have required special diet and must have incurred expenditure towards special diet, therefore, a notional sum of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under the head of special diet.
Conveyance charges:
24. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards conveyance charges. Admittedly there is no document showing expense on conveyance, however, considering his 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. 1,00,000/- towards conveyance charges.
Digitally signedRUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.13 16:03:34 +0530 MACT No.703/2022 Arun Kumar Vs. Adil Khan & Ors. Page 10 of 28 Attendant charges:
25. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,92,000/- (Rs. 12,000/- per month) towards attendant charges. Admittedly there is no document showing expense on attendant, however, considering his injuries, the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 75,000/- towards attendant charges.
Pain & Suffering:
26. The petitioner/injured has not claimed any amount under the head pain and suffering. As per medical documents, the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries and also sustained 43% permanent disability. It is not possible to quantify the compensation admissible to petitioner for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which he actually suffered because of the above injuries, but as stated above, an effort has to be made to compensate him 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., an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is being awarded to him towards pain and sufferings.
Mental and physical shock:
27. The petitioner/injured has not claimed any amount for loss due to mental shock. Although, there is nothing on record to prove the same but keeping in view his injuries, it cannot be denied that he would definitely have suffered mental agony. Hence, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under head of "Loss due to Mental & Physical Shock". Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.13 16:03:45 +0530 MACT No.703/2022 Arun Kumar Vs. Adil Khan & Ors. Page 11 of 28 Loss of amenities:
28. The petitioner/injured has not claimed any amount under this head. Although, there is nothing on record to prove the same, a lumpsum amount of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded to him under this head.
Disfiguration, Loss of marriage prospects and Loss of earning, inconvenience, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.:
29. The petitioner/injured has not claimed any amount under these heads.
Loss of future earnings due to disability:
30. The petitioner has suffered a 43% permanent disability in his leg. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that due to the said accident, he is unable to walk properly. Further, it is stated that due to the said disability, he is not able to work anymore. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 34, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.13 16:03:53 +0530 MACT No.703/2022 Arun Kumar Vs. Adil Khan & Ors. Page 12 of 28 earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terns of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency)"
31. Hence, the Tribunal has to examine as to how the disability suffered by the petitioner affects his ability to earn. In the present matter, as mentioned above, the petitioner has alleged that he was working as a Graphic Designer. The work of a Graphic Designer is basically a sitting job which involves working on a computer. It is not a physical job, but an intellectual one. Hence, it cannot be said that due to his permanent disability in his leg, the petitioner is no longer competent or qualified to work as a Graphic Designer, as the job mainly involves mind application and usage of hands, which in the present case are fortunately intact. Hence, in the opinion of this Tribunal, he cannot be considered to have Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.13 16:04:00 +0530 MACT No.703/2022 Arun Kumar Vs. Adil Khan & Ors. Page 13 of 28 suffered 43% functional disability. Considering the facts and circumstances, his functional disability is assessed at 20%.
32. This Tribunal has already assumed the monthly income of petitioner to be Rs. 21,756/- at the relevant time. As far as the age of petitioner at the time of accident is concerned, as per the petitioner's educational documents, his date of birth is 17.01.1987. The date of accident is 16.05.2022. Hence, the age of petitioner as on the date of accident was 35 years. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.,(2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment dated 31.10.2017 given in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, the multiplier of '16' is held applicable for calculating the loss of future earnings of petitioner arising out of his above disability.
33. Further, by adopting the principles laid down in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), the future prospects of the petitioner shall be 40% as he was below 40 years at the time of accident. As already discussed in the preceding para, the income of the petitioner has been taken as Rs. 21,756/-. In view of the above, the loss of Income on account of functional disability is calculated as under:
Monthly income Rs. 21,756/- Annual Income Rs. 21,756/- x 12 = Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.13 16:04:07 +0530 MACT No.703/2022 Arun Kumar Vs. Adil Khan & Ors. Page 14 of 28 Rs. 2,61,072/- Add Future Prospects @40% Rs. 1,04,428.80 Total income Rs. 3,65,500.80 Disability @ 20% Rs. 3,65,500.80 x 20%= Rs. 73,100.16
Loss of Income after multiplier Rs. 73,100.16 x 16 = Rs. 11,69,602.56 (9) (rounded off to Rs. 11,69,603/-)
34. 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. 83,749/- Monthly income of injured Rs. 21,756 Loss of income x 15 months Rs. 3,26,340/- Add future prospects 40%
Loss of future income (income X Rs. 11,69,603/-
% Earning Capacity X Multiplier) Any other loss/expenditure Nil Expense on special diet Rs. 25,000/- Conveyance charges Rs. 1,00,000/- Attendant charges Rs. 75,000/-
Mental & Physical Shock & Pain & Rs. 1,00,000 + Rs. 50,000/- = Suffering Rs. 1,50,000/-
Loss of amenities Rs. 50,000/- Disfiguration Nil Loss of marriage prospects Nil.
Loss of earning, inconvenience, Nil Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.13 16:04:14 +0530 MACT No.703/2022 Arun Kumar Vs. Adil Khan & Ors. Page 15 of 28 hardship, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc. Total Rs. 19,79,692/-
35. 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. 25.08.2022 till realization.
DISBURSEMENT
36. 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. 25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month.
37. 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.Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.13 16:04:20 +0530 MACT No.703/2022 Arun Kumar Vs. Adil Khan & Ors. Page 16 of 28
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimants. However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque books and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and the claimant shall produced the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court for compliance."
38. 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 Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.13 16:04:27 +0530 MACT No.703/2022 Arun Kumar Vs. Adil Khan & Ors. Page 17 of 28 claimant(s) with intimation to the Tribunal.
17.1 For that purpose, the Tribunals at the initial stage of pleadings or at the stage of leading evidence may require the claimant(s) to furnish their bank account particulars to the Tribunal along with the requisite proof, so that at the stage of passing of the award the Tribunal may direct that the amount of compensation be transferred in the account of the claimant and if there are more than one then in their respective accounts. If there is no bank account, then they should be required to open the bank account either individually or jointly with family members only. It should also be mandated that, in case there is any change in the bank account particulars of the claimant(s) during the pendency of the claim petition they should update the same before the Tribunal. This should be ensured before passing of the final award. It may be ensured that the bank account should be in the name of the claimant(s) and if minor, through guardian(s) and in no case it should be a joint account with any person, who is not a family member. The transfer of the amount in the bank account, particulars of which have been furnished by the claimant(s), as mentioned in the award, shall be treated as satisfaction of the award. Intimation of compliance should be furnished to the Tribunal."
39. In view of the same, the award amount can now be disbursed in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioner. However, the remaining directions as passed by the Hon'ble High Court shall be Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.13 16:04:34 +0530 MACT No.703/2022 Arun Kumar Vs. Adil Khan & Ors. Page 18 of 28 complied with.
40. After considering the financial statement of the petitioner, it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 25,38,616/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand Six Hundred Sixteen only), Rs.5,38,616/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand Six Hundred Sixteen only) be released to the petitioner/claimant immediately in his bank account maintained at State Bank of India, THC bearing no. 44174787568, IFSC no. SBIN0000726, CIF no. 92142797394.
41. The balance amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) shall be put in 50 monthly fixed deposits in his name in MACAD account of equal amount of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 50 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.
42. 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:
Digitally signedRUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.13 16:04:41 +0530 MACT No.703/2022 Arun Kumar Vs. Adil Khan & Ors. Page 19 of 28 SUMMARY OF AWARD:
Date of Accident: 16.05.2022
Name of the Injured: Arun Kumar
Age of the Injured: Presently 38 years
Occupation of the Injured: Private Job
Income of the Injured: Rs. 21,756/-
Nature of Injury: Grievous
Medical Treatment taken: RML Hospital, Delhi.
Period of Hospitalization: 17.05.2022 to 19.05.2022
01.09.2022 to 14.09.2022
27.03.2023 to 11.04.2023
18.05.2023 to 26.05.2023
Whether any permanent: Yes.
disability?
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
Sr. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
No.
1. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 83,749/-
(ii) Expenditure on Special Diet Rs. 25,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on Rs. 75,000/-
Nursing/Attendant charges
(iv) Expenditure on Conveyance Rs. 1,00,000/-
(v) Monthly income of injured Rs. 21,756/-
(vi) Loss of income x 3 months Rs. 3,26,340/-
(vii) Add future prospects 40%
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.10.13
Page 20 of 28
16:04:47 +0530
MACT No.703/2022 Arun Kumar Vs. Adil Khan & Ors.
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. 1,00,000 + Rs. 50,000/- =
(ii) Pain and Sufferings Rs. 1,50,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 50,000/-
(iv)
Disfiguration Nil
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil.
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Nil
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 43% 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 20% capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (income Rs. 11,69,603/-
RUCHIKA Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.10.13
16:04:54 +0530
MACT No.703/2022 Arun Kumar Vs. Adil Khan & Ors. Page 21 of 28
x % earning capacity x
Multiplier)
4. Total Rs. 19,79,692/-
1(ii+iii+iv+vi)+2(i+ii+vi)
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. 5,58,924/-
award w.e.f. 25.08.2022 till
realization
8. Total amount including Interest Rs. 25,38,616/-
9. Award amount released As mentioned in para nos. 40 & 41
10. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.20,00,000/-
11. Mode of disbursement of the As mentioned in para nos. 40 & 41
award amount of the claimant(s)
12. Next date for compliance of the 13.11.2025
award
LIABILITY:
43. 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.
Digitally signedRUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.13 16:05:01 +0530 MACT No.703/2022 Arun Kumar Vs. Adil Khan & Ors. Page 22 of 28 Hence, the respondent no.3 is liable to pay the award amount to the petitioner. Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
44. The respondent no. 3 is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 19,79,692/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Two only) along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 25.08.2022 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.
45. 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.13 16:05:08 +0530 MACT No.703/2022 Arun Kumar Vs. Adil Khan & Ors. Page 23 of 28 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 13.11.2025 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 on this 13th October, 2025 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.13 16:05:16 +0530 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
MACT No.703/2022 Arun Kumar Vs. Adil Khan & Ors. Page 24 of 28THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL MOTOR VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022 (PL. SEE RULE 150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 16.05.2022 2 Date of filing of Form-I -
First Accident Report Not attached
(FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II
Not attached
to the victim(s)
4 Date of receipt of Form-III
Not attached
from the Driver
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV
Not attached
from the Owner
6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the insurance Not attached
of the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-
VIA and Form VIB from Not attached
the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII -
25.08.2022
Detail Accident Report
(DAR)
9 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
No.
part of the Investigating
Officer? If so, whether any
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.10.13
16:05:24 +0530
MACT No.703/2022 Arun Kumar Vs. Adil Khan & Ors. Page 25 of 28
action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the 25.08.2022
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
delay or deficiency on the No.
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 13.10.2025
15 Whether the claimant(s)
were directed to open No.
savings bank account(s)
near their place of
residence?
16 Date of order by which
claimant(s) were directed to
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.10.13
16:05:33 +0530
MACT No.703/2022 Arun Kumar Vs. Adil Khan & Ors. Page 26 of 28
open Savings Bank
Account(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN
card and Aadhar Card and 30.08.2022
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
02.08.2025
place of their residence
alongwith the endorsement,
PAN card and Aadhar Card?
18 Permanent residential
address of the claimant(s). As per Award.
19 Whether the claimant(s)
savings bank account(s) is
No
near their place of
residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s) Yes. The Financial Statement of the claimant
were examined at the time was recorded 02.08.2025.Digitally signed by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.13 16:05:39 +0530 MACT No.703/2022 Arun Kumar Vs. Adil Khan & Ors. Page 27 of 28 of passing of the Award to ascertain his/their financial condition?Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.13 16:05:48 +0530 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
13.10.2025 MACT No.703/2022 Arun Kumar Vs. Adil Khan & Ors. Page 28 of 28