Delhi District Court
Sanjay Kumar vs Simmi Sachdeva on 16 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF GUNJAN GUPTA: DISTRICT
JUDGE-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-01, (WEST), TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
AWARD/JUDGMENT
MACT Case No.383/2023
CNR No.-DLWT010042782023
Sanjay Kumar
S/o Sh. Babu Lal
R/o F-2/448, Sultan Puri, Sultanpuri F Block,
North West Delhi, Delhi-110086
....... Petitioner
Versus
1. Simi Sachdeva (Driver)
W/o Sh. Bharat Bhushan Sachdeva
R/o 4/25, Jaidev Park Road no.4,
East Punjabi Bagh, Delhi
2. Pranav Sachdeva (Owner)
S/o Sh. Bharat Bhushan Sachdevav
R/o 4/25, Jaidev Park Road no.4,
East Punjabi Bagh, Delhi
3. Universal Sompo General Insurance (Insurer)
th
Unit no. 903 & 904, 9 Floor, GDITL Netaji Subhash
Place, Pitampura, New Delhi-110034
........ Respondents
Date of Institution of case : 20.05.2023 Date of final arguments : 26.11.2025 Date of pronouncement of order/judgment : 16.12.2025 FORM-XVII COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE Sanjay vs. Simi Sachdeva & Ors.
MACT No.383/2023 Page no.1 of 21
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.12.18
17:41:35 +0530
1. Date of the accident 11.01.2023
2. Date of filing of Form-I - 12.01.2023
First Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II 20.05.2023
to the victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III 20.05.2023
from the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV 20.05.2023
from the Owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- 20.05.2023
Interim Accident Report
(IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA 20.05.2023
and Form-VIB from the
Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - 20.05.2023
Detailed Accident Report
(DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay Accident took place on or deficiency on the part of 11.01.2023 and the DAR the Investigating Officer? If was filed on 20.05.2023 so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the 21.02.2023 Designated Officer by the Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Yes Officer of the Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the petition/DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay Legal offer was filed on or deficiency on the part of 09.01.2024 the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the 01.08.2025 Sanjay vs. Simi Sachdeva & Ors.
MACT No.383/2023 Page no.2 of 21 GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.12.18 17:41:38 +0530 claimant(s) to the offer of the Insurance Company
14. Date of the award 16.12.2025
15. Whether the claimant(s) Yes was/were directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which 20.05.2023 claimant(s) was/were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Aadhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) 26.11.2025 produced the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along-with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential F-2/448, Sultan Puri, Address of the claimant(s). Sultanpuri F Block, North West Delhi, Delhi-110086.
19. Whether the claimant(s) Yes savings bank account(s) is/are near his/her/their place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) Yes was/were examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/her/their financial condition?
Sanjay vs. Simi Sachdeva & Ors.
MACT No.383/2023 Page no.3 of 21 GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.12.18 17:41:41 +0530 AWARD FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE 1.1 The present DAR was filed in the presence of the parties by the Investigation Officer on 20.05.2023 upon an application U/s 158(6) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 filed by the petitioner.
1.2 This DAR pertains to road vehicular accident dated 11.01.2023 which occurred at about 2:00 pm at Gate No.4, Deepak Enclave, near Sarvodya School, Jawed Park, New Delhi falling within the jurisdiction of PS Punjabi Nagh Nagar in which Sh. Sanjay Kumar S/o Sh. Babu Lal (hereinafter referred as "injured") sustained grievous injuries. FIR No. 15/2023 under Section 279/337/338 IPC was registered at PS Punjabi Bagh. 1.3 As per the documents annexed with the DAR, the petitioner is working as Accountant at B. S. Capfin Pvt. Ltd. at A-5, GF, New Moti Nagar, New Delhi. On 11.01.2023, the petitioner was going to BSES Office, East Punjabi Bagh Delhi, from his office, to pay the electricity bill of his office, on his motorcycle bearing registration no. DL8SAT6724. At about 2:00 pm, when he reached Near Sarvodya Co-ed Higher Secondary School, Javed Park, New Delhi, Gate No.4, Deep Enclave, New Delhi, a Honda City 5th Gen VX CVT (I-VTEC) car bearing registration no. DL10CR2655 (hereinafter referred as "offending vehicle"), which was being driven by respondent no.1 in rash and negligent manner, came from front side and hit his motorcycle with great force. He along with his motorcycle fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, respondent no.1 also hit one another scooty bearing registration No. Sanjay vs. Simi Sachdeva & Ors.
MACT No.383/2023 Page no.4 of 21
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.12.18 17:41:44
+0530
DL10SV3354, while parking her vehicle on the side of the road. He called his colleague Kapil for help. Kapil reached the accident spot and also called the PCR. PCR came at the spot and injured was shifted to Archarya Bikshu Hospital, Moti Nagar, New Delhi for treatment where concerned doctors prepared the MLC No. 88/2023. The family of the petitioner shifted him to MGS Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi for treatment. In the final report annexed with the DAR, respondent no.1 was charged with the offences U/s 279/337/338 of IPC.
1.4 DAR mentions the respondent no.01 as driver, the respondent no.02 as owner and respondent no.03 as the insurer of offending vehicle.
REPLY OF RESPONDENTS 2.1 Respondent no.01 & 02 filed their reply inter alia stating that on the date of accident, the respondent no.1 was driving her car from her residence towards East Punjabi Bagh market in a very moderate speed. When she took a left turn towards Deepak Enclave Gate No.4, one motorcycle bearing registration no. DL8SAT6724 being plied by petitioner in a very rash and negligent manner struck into front bumper (driver's side) of the car of the respondent no.1. As a result, the petitioner fell down and received some minor injuries. The petitioner was driving his motorcycle without caring for traffic on the road and without proper care. The accident in question took place due to sole negligence of the petitioner himself. The offending vehicle was validly insured with respondent no.3 at the time of accident. With these averments, respondent no.1 &2 have prayed for dismissal of the DAR.
Sanjay vs. Simi Sachdeva & Ors.
MACT No.383/2023 Page no.5 of 21
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.12.18 17:41:46 +0530
2.2 Respondent no.03 filed its legal offer of Rs.40,000/-
in the present case.
ISSUES
3. Ld. Predecessor of this tribunal framed following issues vide order dated 09.01.2024:-
1. Whether the injured Sanjay Kumar sustained injuries in the accident that took place on 11.01.2023 at about 02:00 pm at Gate no.04, Deepak Enclave, Sarvodaya School, Jaidev Park Extn. Punjabi Bagh, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL10CR2655 by the respondent no.1, being owned by the respondent no.2 and insured with the respondent no.3? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if yes, at what amount from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
EVIDENCE 4.1 Petitioner examined himself as PW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He relied upon photocopy of his discharge summary as Ex.PW1/1(OSR), treatment papers as Ex.PW1/2(colly)(OSR), original medical bills as Ex.PW1/3(colly) (OSR), complete DAR as Ex.PW1/4(colly), copy of his Aadhar Card as Ex.PW1/5(OSR) and disability certificate as Ex.PW1/6 in his evidence. He was examined-in-chief, cross-examined and discharged.
4.2 No evidence was led by respondents. Vide order dated 05.05.2025, RE of respondents was closed by Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal.
Sanjay vs. Simi Sachdeva & Ors.
MACT No.383/2023 Page no.6 of 21
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.12.18 17:41:48
+0530
ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER 5.1 It was argued by Ld. Counsel for petitioner that the petitioner has positively proved that the incident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.01, the expenses of the medical treatment of the injured and that the injured was working as Accountant and used to earn Rs.25,000/- per month at the time of accident. It is submitted that there is also a disability assessment report on record, as per which, the injured has suffered 03% temporary disability in relation to left lower limb. Keeping in view the above, the award may be passed by this Tribunal as per entitlement/claim of petitioner. ARGUMENTS OF RESPONDENT NO.01 & 02 5.2 No arguments were addressed by respondent no.1 & 2 despite opportunities granted.
ARGUMENTS OF Ld. COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 5.3. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3 that the petitioner has failed to prove on record his income and loss of earning capacity due to disability and therefore, the quantum of compensation shall be assessed as per applicable minimum wages.
ANALYSIS/FINDINGS ON ISSUES Issue No.(1) Whether the injured Sanjay Kumar sustained injuries in the accident that took place on 11.01.2023 at about 02:00 pm at Gate no.04, Deepak Enclave, Sarvodaya School, Jaidev Park Extn.
Punjabi Bagh, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL10CR2655 by the respondent no.1, being owned by the Sanjay vs. Simi Sachdeva & Ors.
MACT No.383/2023 Page no.7 of 21
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.12.18
17:41:51 +0530
respondent no.2 and insured with the respondent no.3? OPP.
6.1 In the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Gohar Mohammed vs. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Ors", Civil Appeal no. 9322 of 2022 decided on 15.12.2022, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows:-
"......54. It is contended by learned Amicus Curiae that in case the liability of the insurance company is not disputed in terms of the policy conditions commensurate to Section 147 of the Act, the offer so made by the Designated Officer ought to be reasonable specifying the detailed reasons to make such offer within the time as prescribed. On the said offer, the Claims Tribunal shall seek consent of the claimant(s), whether they agree for the same. In case, the claimant(s) does not agree with the said offer, the enquiry under Section 149(3) should be limited to the extent of enhancement of compensation shifting onus to claim such enhancement on claimant(s) which is required to be discharged by the claimant(s).
55. We find force in the said contention. Therefore, we direct that the Designated Officer, while making offer, shall assign detailed reasons to show that the amount which is offered is just and reasonable. In case, the said offer is not accepted by the claimant(s), the onus would shift on the claimant(s) to seek for enhancement of the amount of compensation and the said enquiry under Section 149(3) would be limited for enhancement only."
(emphasis supplied ) 6.2 Since the legal offer was filed by the insurance company in the present matter, this Tribunal is only required to assess the quantum of compensation and accordingly, the present issue is striked off.
Issue No. (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if yes, of what Sanjay vs. Simi Sachdeva & Ors.
MACT No.383/2023 Page no.8 of 21
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.12.18 17:41:53
+0530
amount and from whom? OPP.
7.1 The legal offer of Rs.40,000/- was filed by the
insurance company, however, the offer was not accepted by the petitioner. In view of the judgment in "Gohar Mohammed vs. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Ors"
(supra), this Tribunal shall now ascertain the amount of compensation which the insurance company is liable to pay to petitioner.
7.2 At the outset, it is to be noted that the petitioner has not suffered any permanent disability and has suffered only a temporary disability of 3% in relation to left lower limb. The same was opined to be non progressive and likely to improve with physiotherapy. Reassessment after 1 year was recommended. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors." (2011) 1 SCC
343. It was held : -
"General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
4. The provision of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The Court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467).
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, Sanjay vs. Simi Sachdeva & Ors.
MACT No.383/2023 Page no.9 of 21
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.12.18
17:41:58 +0530
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). 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. 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. Award under the head of future medical expenses - item (iii) -- depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. 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. Decision of this Court and High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability - item (ii)(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this case. Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability. 5-8 xxx
9. ...If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity."
Emphasis supplied.
MEDICAL EXPENSES 7.3(i) The petitioner has stated in his evidence that he has suffered fracture in neck of left femur due to the accident and has Sanjay vs. Simi Sachdeva & Ors.
MACT No.383/2023 Page no.10 of 21
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.12.18
17:42:01 +0530
incurred an expenses of Rs.3,00,000/- on medical treatment. 7.3(ii) To prove his medical expenses, the petitioner has filed on record his treatment papers as Ex.PW1/2(colly) and original medical bills as Ex.PW1/3(colly). Total amount of medical bills which include the bills for treatment during hospitalization as well as medicine bills come to Rs.1,77,488/-. No evidence has been led by respondents to disprove the claim of petitioner. There is no reason to disbelieve the above documents. 7.3(iii) Hence, injured/petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,77,488/- on account of medical bills/expenses. 7.3(iv) Further as already discussed above, the petitioner was required to take physiotherapy treatment for improvement of his temporary disability. Reassessment was recommended after 1 year. In view of the same, a notional sum of Rs.1 Lakhs is awarded to the petitioner towards expenses on physiotherapy treatment. Accordingly, petitioner is awarded Rs.2,77,488/- (Rs.1,77,488/- +Rs.1,00,000/-) on account of medical expenses. ASSESSMENT OF EXPENSES TOWARDS FUTURE TREATMENT 7.4 Petitioner has not claimed any amount required for future treatment. Petitioner has also not filed any document/medical evidence on record to show that petitioner requires any future treatment, hence, petitioner is not entitled for any amount under this head.
DETERMINATION OF LOSS OF INCOME DURING TREATMENT PERIOD 7.5(i) The petitioner has claimed that he was working as Accountant and used to earn Rs.25,000/- per month. But no Sanjay vs. Simi Sachdeva & Ors.
MACT No.383/2023 Page no.11 of 21
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.12.18
17:42:03 +0530
documentary proof has been filed by the petitioner to prove the income of the injured. As per the Aadhar Card of the petitioner Ex.PW1/5(OSR), the petitioner was a resident of Delhi. Petitioner has filed copy of marksheet of Secondary School Examination, 2009 on record. Hence, the income of injured/petitioner has to be assessed on the basis of chart of Minimum Wages of a Matriculate person in the State of NCT of Delhi. The minimum wages for a Matriculate person of State of NCT of Delhi on the date of accident i.e. 11.01.2023 were Rs.20,357/-.
7.5(ii) Accordingly, the monthly income of the injured needs to be considered as Rs.20,357/- per month on the date of accident.
7.5(iii) As per treatment record, the petitioner was admitted at MGS Hospital, Super Speciality Hospital from 11.01.2023 to 13.01.2023. As per the discharge summary, the procedure conducted upon him was "open reduction internal fixation with DHS with Derotation screw fixator left hip was done on 12.01.2023". The treatment of the petitioner continued till 18.10.2023. Thus, clearly the petitioner would not have been able to work for at least a period of 12 months. Accordingly, this tribunal grants compensation of sum of Rs.2,44,284/- (Rs.20,357/- x 12) towards loss of income during treatment period.
PAIN & SUFFERINGS 7.6(i) Pain & suffering is a non pecuniary loss and cannot be arithmetically calculated. It is a settled law that while assessing compensation payable to petitioners on account of pain Sanjay vs. Simi Sachdeva & Ors.
MACT No.383/2023 Page no.12 of 21
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.12.18
17:42:05 +0530
& suffering, special circumstances of claimant have to be taken into account including victim's age, the unusual deprivation suffered by victim and effect thereof on his future life. As per the discharge summary Ex.PW1/1(colly) and treatment records/papers Ex.PW1/2(colly), the petitioner has suffered fracture neck of femur left side. The petitioner remained admitted MGS Super Speciality Hospital for 3 days. As already noted above, his treatment continued uptil 18.10.2023. The petitioner has also undergone a complex procedure for fracture fixation i.e. "open reduction internal fixation with DHS with Derotation screw fixator left hip". Thus, clearly, the petitioner must have suffered acute pain & suffering during the treatment as well as post treatment during the time of recovery. 7.6(ii) Further, the petitioner was merely 31 years of age at the time of accident. At this young age, he has suffered a 03% temporary disability in relation to left lower limb. 7.6(iii) In view of the same and considering the nature of the injury, the period of hospitalization, the follow-up treatment taken and the suffering and the trauma undergone by him, the petitioner is held entitled for a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner. SPECIAL DIET 7.7 The nature of injuries and treatment undergone by the injured has already been discussed in the foregoing part of the judgment. Thus, considering the same and further considering that the petitioner must have required a long time to recover from the injuries and must have required a special high protein rich diet for his recovery, this Tribunal deems it fit to grant compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards expenses incurred on special diet.
Sanjay vs. Simi Sachdeva & Ors.
MACT No.383/2023 Page no.13 of 21
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.12.18
17:42:07 +0530
ATTENDANT CHARGES
7.8 It has already been discussed above, the petitioner had
suffered suffered fracture neck of femur left side and as per discharge summary, he was advised not to bear weight on left lower limb. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner would have required attendant at home during his recovery period as well as during his visits to the hospitals. Considering the nature of injuries and the material available on record, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner must have required attendant for at least 06 months. Accordingly, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to grant compensation of Rs.60,000/- towards attendant charges. CONVEYANCE CHARGES 7.9 Though there is no cogent evidence on record of money spent by the petitioner upon conveyance, yet considering the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner, the follow-up treatment taken, this Tribunal grants compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards expenses incurred on conveyance. THE TOTAL COMPENSATION AWARDED TO THE PETITIONER IS AS UNDER:-
S.No. Heads of Compensation Amount in Rupees
1. Reimbursement of medical Rs.2,77,488/-
expenses
2. Compensation on account of Nil future treatment
3. Loss of Income during Rs.2,44,284/-
treatment period
4. Pain and Suffering Rs.2,00,000/-
5. Special Diet Rs.1,00,000/-
6. Attendant charges Rs.60,000/-
7. Conveyance Rs.50,000/-
Total Rs.9,31,772/-
8. In view of the above discussions, the petitioner is held Sanjay vs. Simi Sachdeva & Ors.
MACT No.383/2023 Page no.14 of 21
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.12.18
17:42:11 +0530
entitled to a compensation amount of Rs.9,31,772/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Two Only) RELIEF:-
9. In view of the above discussion and findings on issues, this Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.9,31,772/-
(Rupees Nine Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Two Only) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 20.05.2023 till the date of the payment of the award amount to be paid by the respondent No.3/Insurance Company. Respondent no.3/Insurance Company is hereby directed to deposit the award amount in favour of the petitioner(s) with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account No.40711767202, CIF No.90891362578, IFSC Code - SBIN0000726, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this award together with the interest as stated herein above under intimation to this Tribunal and under intimation to the petitioner. In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
DISBURSEMENT OF AWARD AMOUNT 10.1(i) Statement of the petitioner in terms of provisions of MCTAP was recorded on 26.11.2025. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the said statement, it is hereby ordered that out of the award amount, a sum of Rs.2,31,772/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Two Only)shall be immediately released to the petitioner through his saving bank account and remaining Sanjay vs. Simi Sachdeva & Ors.
MACT No.383/2023 Page no.15 of 21
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.12.18 17:42:14
+0530
amount of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Only) along with interest on the entire award amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs (fixed deposit receipts) in the multiples of Rs.20,000/- each for a period of one month, two months and three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest. 10.1(ii) The amount of FDRs on maturity shall directly be released in petitioner's Saving Bank Account. 10.1(iii) All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The 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 claimant(s).
(c) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the MACT bank account of the claimant (s) near the place of their residence.
(d) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(e) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). 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 the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(f) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(g) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
11. Respondent no.3 i.e. Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited, being insurer of offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the compensation amount with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be Sanjay vs. Simi Sachdeva & Ors.
MACT No.383/2023 Page no.16 of 21
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.12.18
17:42:16 +0530
liable to pay interest @ 12% p. a. for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch is directed to transfer the award amount, in the above- mentioned manner, as per award in the saving bank account of claimant/petitioner, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
12. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph, specimen signature, copy of bank passbook and copy of residence proof of the petitioner, be sent to Nodal Officer of State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
13. Nazir of this Court shall prepare a separate file regarding the status of deposition/non-deposition of the award amount by the respondent(s) after making necessary entry on CIS on 16.01.2026.
14. A digital copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost through email.
15. Ahlmad staff is directed to send the copy of award to Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority as per the procedure of Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure (MCTAD).
16. Ahlmad staff is also directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors." decided on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-email an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex Branch Sanjay vs. Simi Sachdeva & Ors.
MACT No.383/2023 Page no.17 of 21
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.12.18
17:42:18 +0530
for information.
17. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 16th of December, 2025 (GUNJAN GUPTA) District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01, West/THC/Delhi/16.12.2025 Sanjay vs. Simi Sachdeva & Ors.
MACT No.383/2023 Page no.18 of 21
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.12.18
17:42:21 +0530
FORM-XVI
SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE
1. Date of accident : 11.01.2023
2. Name of the injured : Sanjay Kumar
3. Age of the injured : 22.01.1992(DOB)
4. Occupation of the injured: Not proved
5. Income of the injured : Rs.20,357/- per month
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken : 11.01.2023 to 18.10.2023
8. Period of Hospitalization : W.e.f. 11.01.2023 to 13.01.2023
9. Whether any permanent disability ? : Yes If yes, give details : 03% temporary disability in relation to left lower limb
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss :-
(I) Expenditure on Rs.2,77,488/-
treatment
(ii) Expenditure on Rs.50,000/-
conveyance
(iii) Expenditure on special Rs.1,00,000/-
diet
(iv) Cost of Rs.60,000/-
nursing/attendant
(v) Loss of earning capacity Nil
(vi) Loss of Income Rs.2,44,284/-
(loss of earning during
treatment period)
(vii) Any other loss which NIL
may require any special
treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his
life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss :-
(i) Compensation for NIL
Sanjay vs. Simi Sachdeva & Ors.
MACT No.383/2023 Page no.19 of 21
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.12.18
17:42:23 +0530
mental and physical
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.2,00,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life NA
(iv) Dis-figuration NA
(v) Loss of marriage NA
prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, NIL
inconvenience,
hardships,
disappointment,
frustration, mental
stress, dejectment and
unhappiness in future
life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity :-
(i) Percentage of disability NA
assessed and nature of
disability as permanent
or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or NA
loss of expectation of
life span on account of
disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of NA
earning capacity in
relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - NIL
(Income x% Earning
Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL Rs.9,31,772/-
COMPENSATION
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% per annum
16. Interest amount up to Rs.2,15,705/-
the date of award w.e.f. 20.05.2023 to
16.12.2025 ie.. 2 years 6
months and 26 days
17. TOTAL AMOUNT Rs.11,47,477/-
INCLUDING (Rs.9,31,772/- +
INTEREST Rs.2,15,705/-)
18. Award amount released Rs.2,31,772/-
19. Award amount kept in Rs.7,00,000/- + interest
Sanjay vs. Simi Sachdeva & Ors.
MACT No.383/2023 Page no.20 of 21
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.12.18
17:42:26 +0530
FDRs accrued
20. Mode of disbursement Mentioned in the award
of the award amount to
the claimant (s).
21. Next date for 16.01.2026
compliance of the
award.
(GUNJAN GUPTA)
District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01, West/THC/Delhi/16.12.2025 Sanjay vs. Simi Sachdeva & Ors.
MACT No.383/2023 Page no.21 of 21
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.12.18
17:42:28 +0530