Delhi District Court
Firoja Khatoon(P)I(337/22/Kg) vs Ganga Ram (New India) on 17 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010175552022
MACT No. : 1008/2022
FIR No. : 337/2022
PS : Kashmere Gate
u/s : 279/338/IPC
Smt. Firoja Khatoon (injured/petitioner)
C/o. Sh. Mohd. Javed,
R/o.H.No.E-467, T/F
Gali no.15, Chand Masjid,
Shastri Park, PO Seelampur, Delhi-110053.
.....Petitioner
Vs.
1. Sh. Ganga Ram (driver of the offending vehicle)
S/o. Sh. Sultana,
R/o.Village Marka Sandha,
P.O. Arbhar, P.S. Marka,
District Bandha, U.P.
2. Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Sabharwal (owner of the offending vehicle)
S/o. Sh. Om Prakash Sabharwal,
R/o.C-714, Sudarshan Park,
Near Moti Nagar, Delhi-15.
3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
C-2, Mahavir Bhawan, Karampura, New Delhi-15.
.....Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 22.09.2022
Judgment reserved on : 18.09.2025
Date of Award : 17.10.2025
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.10.17
15:50:23
+0530
MACT No. 1008/2022 Firoja Khatoon Vs. Ganga Ram and ors. Page 1 of 27
AWAR D
1. The Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filed on
26.09.2022 which was treated as a claim petition. The Road Traffic
Accident in question took place on 17.05.2022 at about 5:15 AM on
Road, near Sant Parmanand Hospital, Near Nigam Bodh Ghat,
Kashmere Gate, Delhi. Smt. Firoza Khatoon (hereinafter referred to as
the petitioner) had suffered grievous injuries in the said accident which
was allegedly caused by vehicle bearing registration No.HR55T2122
(hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle). The said vehicle was
being driven by respondent no.1 Sh. Ganga Ram; owned by respondent
No.2 Sudershan Kumar Sabharwal and insured with respondent no.3,
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that on 17.05.2022, on receipt of information of an accident vide DD No. 24A, the on receiving the information of present accident PSI Sunil Kumar, went to the spot near Sant Parmanand Hospital, Near Nigam Bodh Ghat, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. After reaching at the spot, he got to know that the injured had been taken to LNJP Hospital. He also found one Truck bearing no.HR55T2122 colour white green and brown on the road side in an accidental condition. Ct. Vipul was there on the spot of accident who produced one person namely Ganga Ram before the IO and told him that he is the driver of the offending truck bearing no. HR55T2122, Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.17 15:50:29 MACT No. 1008/2022 Firoja Khatoon Vs. Ganga Ram and ors. Page 2 of 27 +0530 who was identified by the victim Firoza Khatoon as she had narrated that the said driver had hit her by his truck as a result of which she suffered injuries.
3. During the course of investigation, inspection of the spot of accident was got conducted by the Crime Team. Thereafter, after leaving Ct. Vipul at the spot with the driver of the offending vehicle, IO went to the hospital and collected the MLC no. 114505497 of the injured. As per the doctor injured was fit for statement. Accordingly, IO recorded the statement of the injured. IO returned to the spot of the accident. On the basis of MLC and statement of injured, an FIR was registered u/s.
279/337 IPC.
4. During the course of investigation, IO prepared the site plan. No CCTV camera was found at the spot. Even no eye witness was found. Thereafter, IO had taken the offending vehicle into the custody and deposited in maalkhana. Notice u/s. 133 MV Act was served upon the owner of the offending vehicle. Owner had given in writing that he was a owner of the offending vehicle and at the time of accident, Ganga Ram was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Photocopies of documents pertaining to offending vehicle was handed over to the IO by the owner. The same were taken into custody. Thereafter, IO had arrested the driver of the offending vehicle and after producing the surety, driver was released on bail as the offence was bailable. The documents were got verified and the same were found to be correct. Mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle was got conducted by the IO. Further, MLC of the injured was deposited to the Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA Date:
SINGLA 2025.10.17 15:50:34 +0530 MACT No. 1008/2022 Firoja Khatoon Vs. Ganga Ram and ors. Page 3 of 27 hospital for final opinion. On the MLC of the injured, it was opined by the doctors that his injury were "Grievous" and IO changed the Section from 337 IPC to 338 IPC. Upon completion of the investigation, the IO chargesheeted the respondent no.1 and filed the DAR.
5. No WS filed on behalf of respondents no. 1 and 2. Their right to file WS was closed vide order dated 06.05.2025.
6. Legal offer on behalf of respondent no. 3 was filed on 06.03.2023 for a sum of Rs. 60,000/- but the same was not accepted by the petitioner. The insurance company admitted that the offending vehicle was duly insured with it vide policy no.31170031210100000736 valid from 22.10.2021 till 21.10.2022.
ISSUES
7. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated 06.05.2025, this Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP.
2. Relief.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
8. The petitioner/injured examined herself as PW-1. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW-1/A and the same bears her signatures at points-A & Β. She relied upon the Digitally following documents:
signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.17 15:50:40 +0530 MACT No. 1008/2022 Firoja Khatoon Vs. Ganga Ram and ors. Page 4 of 27
1. Copy of vehicle particular Govt. Haryana which is Ex. PW1/A.
2. Copy of Policy Schedule cum certificate of Insurance are exhibited as Ex. PW1/B (Colly) (running into 3 pages).
3. Copy of FIR is exhibited as Ex. PW1/C (Colly) (running into 3 pages).
4. Copy of Aadhar Card is exhibited as Ex. PW1/D (OSR).
5. Copy of Lok Nayak Hospital Medical documents which were marked as Mark "B" (running into 11 pages) (The said documents were exhibited as Ex. PW1/E in the affidavit).
6. Copy of photo of truck is marked as "A".
7. Photo of Firoja Khatoon which is Ex. PW1/F.
8. Disability certificate dated 07.06.2023 is Ex. PW1/G (colly) (running into 2 pages).
9. PW1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 insurance company. Thereafter, PE was closed vide order dated 01.08.2025.
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE
10. Vide separate statement of Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 that he did not wish to lead RE, the RE was closed on 04.09.2025.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
11. The Petitioner has filed his duly filled Form XIV and financial statement of the injured was recorded. Final arguments were heard on behalf of the petitioner and respondent no.3.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.17 15:50:45 +0530 MACT No. 1008/2022 Firoja Khatoon Vs. Ganga Ram and ors. Page 5 of 27 FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
12. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. My findings on the various issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1:
1. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP.
13. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. In the present matter, as the legal offer was filed by the respondent no.3, the factum of the accident and the the rash and negligent act of the respondent no.1 is deemed to be admitted. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 34, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
4. The provision of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner.
The Court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.17 15:50:51 +0530 MACT No. 1008/2022 Firoja Khatoon Vs. Ganga Ram and ors. Page 6 of 27 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)."
14. 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
MACT No. 1008/2022 Firoja Khatoon Vs. Ganga Ram and ors. Page 7 of 272025.10.17 15:50:57 +0530 decide the compensation/award under different heads applicable to the present matter in light of above preposition.
Medical expenses:
15. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. However, she has not placed on record any bills towards the same. Hence, no compensation is granted to her under this head.
Loss of income:
16. In this regard, the petitioner has alleged that at the time of accident, she was doing household maid job and was earning Rs.18,000/- pm. It is stated that after the accident, the petitioner suffered amputation in her lower limb and permanent disability to the extent of 70%. Hence, she has been unable to work since then. However, it was conceded that her income may be assessed as per the Minimum Wages Act as no proof was income was available.
17. Perused. The petitioner has not placed on record any document to show her education or source of income. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muhammed Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 8960/2017 decided on 01.12.2022 has observed that the income of a housewife is to be assessed as per the minimum wages of an unskilled worker. Further, in a recent judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dalvir Singh & Ors. [(2025) SCC OnLine Del 844], it has been held that minimum wages of a skilled workman to be taken for the purpose of assessment of income Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: SINGLA 2025.10.17 15:51:02 MACT No. 1008/2022 Firoja Khatoon Vs. Ganga Ram and ors. Page 8 of 27 +0530 in case of housewives.
18. Even though in the present matter, it is alleged that the petitioner was working, but she is also a housewife. Hence, considering the beneficial nature of this legislation, her income shall be assessed as per the minimum wages applicable on a skilled person. The date of accident is 17.05.2022. As on that day, the minimum wages payable to an unskilled labour were Rs.20,019/- pm. Hence, Rs.20,019/- is ascertained to be the monthly income of the injured.
19. It is stated that due to the said injuries, the petitioner was unable to work since then. It is a matter of record that she has suffered amputation. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances and that she would have taken some post surgery rest, it can be said that the petitioner may not have been able to work for six months at least. Accordingly, the petitioner shall be entitled to loss of income for six months i.e. Rs.20,019/- x 6 = Rs.1,20,114/-.
Special diet:
20. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards special diet. Although, there is no bill to support her plea, but keeping in view the nature of injury suffered by the petitioner and considering the time of her treatment, it seems that she must have required special diet and must have incurred expenditure towards special diet, therefore, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under the head of special diet.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.17 15:51:06 +0530 MACT No. 1008/2022 Firoja Khatoon Vs. Ganga Ram and ors. Page 9 of 27 Conveyance charges:
21. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 25,000/- 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. 25,000/- towards conveyance charges.
Attendant charges:
22. No compensation has been claimed under this head. However, considering the injuries of the petitioner, the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards attendant charges .
Pain & Suffering:
23. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head pain and suffering. As per medical documents, the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries and also sustained 70% permanent disability. It is not possible to quantify the compensation admissible to petitioner for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which she actually suffered because of the above injuries, but as stated above, an effort has to be made to compensate her for the same in a just and reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the injuries suffered by petitioner and duration of the treatment taken by him etc., she is awarded a total amount of Rs.75,000/- towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
Mental and physical shock:
24. The petitioner/injured has claimed an amount of RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No. 1008/2022 Firoja Khatoon Vs. Ganga Ram and ors. Page 10 of 27 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.17 15:51:12 +0530 Rs.1,50,000/- for loss due to mental shock. Keeping in view his injuries, it cannot be denied that she would definitely have suffered mental agony. Hence, a sum of Rs. 75,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under head of "Loss due to Mental & Physical Shock".
Loss of amenities:
25. The petitioner/injured has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under this head. Keeping in view her injuries, it cannot be denied that he would definitely have loss of amenities. Hence, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under head of "Loss of amenities".
Disfiguration:
26. The petitioner/injured has claimed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss due to disfiguration. However, keeping in view her injuries that she has suffered amputation, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under head of "Disfiguration".
Loss of marriage prospects
27. Nil Loss of earning, inconvenience, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.:
28. The petitioner/injured has claimed an amount of Rs. 50,000/- under this head. Keeping in view her injuries that she has suffered amputation, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.17 15:51:17 +0530 MACT No. 1008/2022 Firoja Khatoon Vs. Ganga Ram and ors. Page 11 of 27 Loss of future earnings due to disability:
29. 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 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)".
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.17 15:51:22 +0530 MACT No. 1008/2022 Firoja Khatoon Vs. Ganga Ram and ors. Page 12 of 27
30. Hence, the Tribunal has to examine as to how the disability suffered by the petitioner affects his ability to earn. As mentioned above, the petitioner's disability certificate is already filed on record as per which she has suffered a permanent disability of 70% in her leg. The petitioner has stated that she was working as a household maid and due to her injuries, she is unable to work. Considering her injuries and amputation, it is natural that she won't be able to work as a housemaid now. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances, her functional disability is ascertained to be 100%.
Determination of the age of the injured:
31. The injured has only relied upon her Aadhar Card to prove her age, which is Ex.C1. As per her Aadhar Card, her date of birth is 01.01.1990 and the date of accident is 17.05.2022. Hence, on the date of accident, she was aged 32 years.
Future prospects and applicable multiplier
32. 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.
RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.17 15:51:27 +0530 MACT No. 1008/2022 Firoja Khatoon Vs. Ganga Ram and ors. Page 13 of 27
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 she was within the age bracket of 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.20,019/-. In view of the above, the loss of Income on account of functional disability is calculated as under:
Monthly income Rs. 20,019/-
Annual Income Rs. 20,019/- x 12 =
Rs. 2,40,228/-
Add Future Prospects @40% Rs. 96,091.20
Total income Rs. 3,36,319.20
Disability @ 100% Rs. 3,36,319.20 x 100% = Rs.
3,36,319.20
Loss of Income after multiplier Rs. 3,36,319.20 x 16 = Rs.
(16) 53,81,107.20 (rounded off to Rs.
53,81,108/- )
34. Thus, keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner as well as the disability suffered by him, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to Rs. 53,81,108/- under the head future loss of income.
35. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the material on record, and the settled principles and guidelines Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: SINGLA 2025.10.17 15:51:33 +0530 MACT No. 1008/2022 Firoja Khatoon Vs. Ganga Ram and ors. Page 14 of 27 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 Nil Monthly income of injured Rs. 20,019/- Loss of income x 6 months Rs. 20,019/- x 6 = Rs.1,20,114/-. Add future prospects 40%
Loss of future income (income X Rs. 53,81,108/- % Earning Capacity X Multiplier) Any other loss/expenditure Nil Expense on special diet Rs. 25,000/-
Conveyance charges Rs.25,000/-
Attendant charges Rs.30,000/-
Mental & Physical Shock & Pain & Rs.75,000/- + Rs. 75,000/- = Rs.
Suffering 1,50,000/- Loss of amenities Rs.25,000/- Disfiguration Rs. 1,00,000/- Loss of marriage prospects Nil
Loss of earning, inconvenience, Rs.25,000/-
hardship, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.10.17
MACT No. 1008/2022 Firoja Khatoon Vs. Ganga Ram and ors. Page 15 of 27
15:51:37
+0530
Total Rs. 58,81,222/-
36. 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. 22.09.2022 till realization.
DISBURSEMENT
37. 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. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- per month.
38. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors. has given the following directions:
"(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.17 15:51:41 +0530 MACT No. 1008/2022 Firoja Khatoon Vs. Ganga Ram and ors. Page 16 of 27
(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."
39. However, in a recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal on 18 March, 2025 in S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020 has held that :
"17. The case in hand pertains to the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. The general practice followed by the insurance companies, where the compensation is not disputed, is to deposit the same before the Tribunal. Instead of following that process, a direction can always be issued to transfer the amount into the bank account(s) of the claimant(s) with intimation to the Tribunal.
17.1 For that purpose, the Tribunals at the initial stage of RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.17 15:51:45 +0530 MACT No. 1008/2022 Firoja Khatoon Vs. Ganga Ram and ors. Page 17 of 27 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."
40. In view of the same, the award amount can now be disbursed in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioners. However, the remaining directions as passed by the Hon'ble High Court shall be complied with.
41. After considering the financial statement of the petitioner, it Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.17 15:51:49 +0530 MACT No. 1008/2022 Firoja Khatoon Vs. Ganga Ram and ors. Page 18 of 27 is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 75,06,857/- (Rupees Seventy Five Lakhs Six Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Seven only), Rs. 5,06,857/- (Rupees Seventy Five Lakhs Six Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Seven only) be released to the petitioner/claimant immediately in her bank account maintained at Kotak Mahindra Bank, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi bearing no. 1046274509, IFSC no.
KKBK0004608.
42. The balance amount of Rs. 70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs only) shall be put in 100 monthly fixed deposits in his name in MACAD account of equal amount of Rs. 70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 100 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.
43. In compliance of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award in the prescribed Format-XVI is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
Date of Accident: 17.05.2022
Name of the Injured: Firoja Khatoon
Age of the Injured: Presently 35 years
Occupation of the Injured: Housemaid Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.10.17
MACT No. 1008/2022 Firoja Khatoon Vs. Ganga Ram and ors. Page 19 of 27
15:51:55
+0530
Income of the Injured: Rs. 20,019/-
Nature of Injury: Grievous
Medical Treatment taken: Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi.
Period of Hospitalization: Not proved
Whether any permanent: Yes.
disability?
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
Sr. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
No.
1. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on Treatment Nil
(ii) Expenditure on Special Diet Rs. 25,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on Rs.30,000/-
Nursing/Attendant charges
(iv) Expenditure on Conveyance Rs.25,000/-
(v) Monthly income of injured Rs. 20,019/-
(vi) Loss of income x 8 months Rs.1,20,114/-
(vii) Add future prospects 40%
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.75,000/- + Rs. 75,000/- = Rs. 1,50,000/-
(ii) Pain and Sufferings
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.25,000/-
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.17 15:52:00 MACT No. 1008/2022 Firoja Khatoon Vs. Ganga Ram and ors. Page 20 of 27 +0530
(iv) Rs. 1,00,000/-
Disfiguration
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Rs.25,000/-
hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed 70% 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 100% capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (income Rs. 53,81,108/-
x % earning capacity x Multiplier)
4. Total Rs. 58,81,222/-
1(ii+iii+iv+vi)+2(i+ii+vi)
5. Interest awarded 9%
6. Earlier award amount (which has already been received by the petitioner in terms of previous -
award passed by Ld. Predecessor) to be deducted from present award amount .
7. Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 16,25,634.21 award w.e.f. 22.09.2022 till realization RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.17 15:52:06 +0530 MACT No. 1008/2022 Firoja Khatoon Vs. Ganga Ram and ors. Page 21 of 27
9. Total amount including Interest Rs. 75,06,856.21 (rounded off to Rs.
75,06,857/-)
10. Award amount released As mentioned in para nos. 41 & 42
11. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.70,00,000/-
12. Mode of disbursement of the As mentioned in para nos. 41 & 42 award amount of the claimant(s)
13. Next date for compliance of the 17.11.2025 award LIABILITY:
44. 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.
Hence, the respondent no. 3 shall be liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
45. The respondent no. 3 is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.
58,81,222/- (Rupees Fifty Eight Lakhs Eighty One Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Two only) along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 22.09.2022 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.
RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.17 15:52:12 +0530 MACT No. 1008/2022 Firoja Khatoon Vs. Ganga Ram and ors. Page 22 of 27
46. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurance company for compliance within the time granted as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. The said respondent is further directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the deposit with a copy to the Claimant and his counsel.
Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost.
Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on 17.11.2025 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA MACT No. 1008/2022 Firoja Khatoon Vs. Ganga Ram and ors. Page 23 of 27 RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.17 15:52:18 +0530 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 17th Day of October, 2025 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.17 15:52:22 +0530 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.MACT No. 1008/2022 Firoja Khatoon Vs. Ganga Ram and ors. Page 24 of 27
THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL MOTOR VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022 (PL. SEE RULE 150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 17.05.2022 2 Date of filing of Form-I -
N.A. First Accident Report (FAR) 3 Date of delivery of Form-II N.A. to the victim(s) 4 Date of receipt of Form-III N.A. from the Driver 5 Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Owner N.A. 6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the insurance N.A. of the vehicle 7 Date of receipt of Form-
VIA & VIB from the N.A.
Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII -
Detail Accident Report
22.09.2022
(DAR)
9 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Investigating No
Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the 22.09.2022
Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company admitted his Yes
report within 30 days of the
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
MACT No. 1008/2022 Firoja Khatoon Vs. Ganga Ram and ors. Page 25 of 27
2025.10.17
15:52:29
+0530
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 N.A.
claimant(s) to the offer of
the Insurance Company.
14 Date of award 17.10.2025
15 Whether the claimant(s)
were directed to open Yes.
savings bank account(s)
near their place of
residence?
16 Date of order by which
claimant(s) were directed to
open Savings Bank
Account(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN
card and Aadhar Card and 26.09.2022
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
18.09.2025
place of their residence
alongwith the endorsement,
PAN card and Aadhar Card?
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No. 1008/2022 Firoja Khatoon Vs. Ganga Ram and ors. Date: 2025.10.17
15:52:45 +0530 Page 26 of 27
18 Permanent residential
address of the claimant(s). As per Award.
19 Whether the claimant(s)
savings bank account(s) is
Yes
near their place of
residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s)
were examined at the time
Yes. The Financial Statement of the claimant of passing of the Award to was recorded 18.09.2025.
ascertain his/their financial condition?
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.17 15:52:49 +0530 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
17.10.2025 MACT No. 1008/2022 Firoja Khatoon Vs. Ganga Ram and ors. Page 27 of 27