Delhi District Court
Ashvani Kumar Dubey vs Virendra Kumar Mishra on 30 April, 2026
Ashvani Kumar Dube vs. Virender Kumar and Ors
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEPIKA SINGH, PRESIDING
OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MACT NO. 543/19
CNR No. : DLNW01-00008647-2010
Sh. Ashvani Kumar Dube @ Ashwani Kumar Dubey
S/o Sh. Janardhan Dubey R/o H. No. 443, Ground Floor,
Gali no. 8, Block B, Village Shalimar Bagh,
North West, Delhi-110088
........ Petitioner/claimant
Vs.
1. Sh. Virendra Kumar Mishra
S/o Sh. Nagendra Nath Mishra
R/o Village Samrauta, PS Shiv Ratan Gaj,
District Raibarelly, UP.
....... Driver/R1
2. General Manager
UPSTRC Tehri Kothi,
Lucknow, UP ....... Regd Owner.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 11.09.2019
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 24.04.2026
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.04.2026
FORM - V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE
MENTIONED IN THE AWARD AS PER FORMAT
REFERRED IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
DELHI HIGH COURT IN FAO 842/2003 RAJESH TYAGI Vs.
JAIBIR SINGH and ORS. VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018.
1. Date of the accident 09.03.2018
2. Date of intimation of the accident Petition was filed.
by the investigating officer to the
Claims Tribunal
CIS No. 543/19 Page 1 of38
Ashvani Kumar Dube vs. Virender Kumar and Ors
3. Date of intimation of the accident Petition was filed
by the investigating officer to the
insurance company.
4. Date of filing of Report under Petition was filed
section 173 Cr.P.C. before the
Metropolitan Magistrate
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Petition was filed
Information Report (DAR) by the
investigating Officer before Claims
Tribunal
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Petition was filed
Insurance Company
7. Date of service of DAR on the Petition was filed
claimant (s).
8. Whether DAR was complete in all N/A
respects?
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the N/A
DAR removed later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the N/A
documents filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or No
deficiency on the part of the
Investigating Officer? If so,
whether any action/direction
warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the 26.02.2020
Designated Officer by the
insurance Company.
13. Name, address and contact number Ms. Umesh Kaushal,
of the Designated Officer of the Advocate, Ld.
Insurance Company. Counsel.
14. Whether the designated Officer of No
the Insurance Company submitted
his report within 30 days of the
DAR? (Clause 22)
15. Whether the insurance company No
admitted the liability? If so,
whether the Designated Officer of
the insurance company fairly
computed the compensation in
CIS No. 543/19 Page 2 of38
Ashvani Kumar Dube vs. Virender Kumar and Ors
accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or N/A
deficiency on the part of the
Designated Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) Legal offer not filed
to the offer of the Insurance
Company .
18. Date of the Award 30.04.2026
19. Whether the award was passed with No
the consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were Yes
directed to open saving bank
account(s) near their place of
residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) 11.09.2019
were directed to open saving bank
account (s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN Card
and Aadhar 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(s).
22. Date on which the claimant (s) 01.09.2025
produced the passbook of their
saving bank account near the place
of their residence along with the
endorsement, PAN Card and
Aadhar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of As mentioned above
the Claimant(s)
24. Details of saving bank account(s) Petitioner saving bank
of the claimant(s) and the address account No.
of the bank with IFSC Code 18720110052747 with
UCO Bank, Rohini
Branch, Delhi, which
is near to his place of
residence. Its IFSC
No. is UCBA0001872.
CIS No. 543/19 Page 3 of38
Ashvani Kumar Dube vs. Virender Kumar and Ors
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving Yes
bank account(s) is near his place of
residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were Yes
examined at the time of passing of
the award to ascertain his/their
financial condition.
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR 41065170303, IFSC
number, IFSC Code, name and No. SBIN0010323,
branch of the bank of the Claims SBI, Rohini Courts,
Tribunal in which the award Delhi
amount is to be
deposited/transferred. (in terms of
order dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble
Delhi High Court in FAO 842/2003
Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh.
JUDGMENT
1. The claim petition in the present case was filed under Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as M.V. Act), on 11.09.2019, seeking compensation in the sum of Rs. 80,00,000/-, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, in respect of commission of offence of grievous hurt, as well as death, not amounting to culpable homicide, by rash and negligent driving of motor vehicle, on a public road, in a road traffic accident. Perusal of the record reveals that after the accident, FIR No. 162/18, PS Bisrakh, was registered on 09.03.2018, for the commission of offence, punishable under Section 279/338/304A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC). Subsequently, charge sheet against respondent no. 1 was filed under section CIS No. 543/19 Page 4 of38 Ashvani Kumar Dube vs. Virender Kumar and Ors 279/338/304A IPC, before concerned Ld. concerned Judicial Magistrate.
2. The brief facts of the case as discernible from the petition and documents of the petitioner are that on 09.03.2018, at about 5:30 a.m., when the petitioner Ashvani Kumar Dube was on foot at main road Dadri Road, Chipiyana for awaiting the bus going towards his residence at Shalimar Bagh, Delhi from his native village, on the extreme corner of the road, a UPSTRC bus bearing registration no. UP-33AT-0806, (hereinafter referred as offending vehicle), which was being driven by Virender Kumar (hereinafter referred as to R1/respondent no. 1/driver of offending vehicle) in a very high speed, rash and negligent manner, hit the petitioner. It is further mentioned that due to the said impact, the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries and his left leg crushed under the wheels of the offending vehicle. It is further alleged that initially he was removed to Sarvodaya Hospital & research Centre, Kavi Nagar, Ghaziadbad, UP and thereafter he was shifted to Anand Nursing Home and on 12.03.2018, he was taken to Dr. Ram Manohar Hospital (hereinafter referred as RML Hospital).
3. Written statement was filed by R1/driver, wherein he raised the defence, that he has been falsely implicated in the case accident. It was further averred that R1 was not negligent, CIS No. 543/19 Page 5 of38 Ashvani Kumar Dube vs. Virender Kumar and Ors while driving the offending vehicle. It was further averred that petitioner himself was negligent.
4. The UPSTRC (hereinafter referred as R2), the owner of the offending vehicle had filed its written statement, in which it is stated that R1 was not negligent in driving the offending vehicle. It was averred that one passenger was trying to get off from moving bus from back side door and fell on the road and due to this reason, he received injuries. It was further averred that petitioner not received injury in the accident and he was not passenger of the alleged bus and R1 has been falsely implicated. It was further averred that R2 is not liable to pay anything to the petitioner.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Learned Predecessor of this Court, vide order dated 26.02.2020:-
(1) Whether on 09.03.2018, at about 5:30 a.m., at main road Dadri Road, Chipiyana, District Gautam Budh Nagar, UP one UPSTRC bus bearing no. UP33-AT-0806, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver Virendra Kumar, hit Ashwani Kumar and caused injuries to him ? OPP (2) Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP (3) Relief.
CIS No. 543/19 Page 6 of38 Ashvani Kumar Dube vs. Virender Kumar and Ors
6. After framing of issues, opportunities were given to all the parties to prove their respective versions of the case, by leading evidence in support of the same.
7. In support of his case, the petitioner got himself examined as PW1 and led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A, in which he deposed that on 09.03.2018, at about 5:30 a.m., when he was on foot main road Dadri Road, Chipiyana and was awaiting for bus going towards his residence at Shalimar Bagh, Delhi from his native village, on the extreme corner of the road, a UPSTRC bus bearing registration no. UP-33AT-0806, which was being driven by R1, at a very high speed, rash and negligent manner, hit him as a result of said impact, he fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries and his left leg crushed under the wheels of the offending vehicle and he also received multiple grievous injuries all parts of the body. PW1 deposed that initially he was removed to Sarvodaya Hospital & research Centre, Kavi Nagar, Ghaziadbad, UP where the concerned doctor diagnosed him and he was referred to higher centre and on 12.03.2018, he was again admitted in RML Hospital where doctor dignosed him swelling in left thigh knee entering to ankle above knee brace in situ and asis fracture tibial platen left and gultter ampution B/K SA on 10.04.2018 and he was discharged on 11.04.2018. He further deposed that after discharge from the hospital, he was continuously taking treatment in OPD CIS No. 543/19 Page 7 of38 Ashvani Kumar Dube vs. Virender Kumar and Ors in various hospital till 30.04.2018. PW1 further deposed that he was bed ridden for about 6 months and he has spent Rs. 67,110/- on his medical medicines. PW1 further deposed that he has spent Rs.1,00,000/- on special diet, Rs. 60,000/- on attendant charges and Rs. 30,000/- on conveyance. PW1 further deposed that at the time of accident, he was 34 years of age, working in private sector, and was earning Rs 20,000/- per month. PW1 deposed that he is 10th class passed. PW1 deposed that he could not attend/carry on his duty due to amputation on his left and could not perform his work as driver. PW1 deposed that he has suffered 70% permanent disability in relation to his below left knee amputation and have lost his working capacity. PW1 deposed that accident has taken place due to rash and negligent manner of driver of the offending vehicle. He has placed reliance upon original medical report of Anand Nursing Home, Deewan Diagnostics and his discharge summary from RML hospital, his discharge summary of RML Hospital as Ex. PW1/1 (colly.), his original medical reports and X ray report of various hospital as Ex. PW1/2 (colly.), his original medical bills amounting to Rs. 67,110/- as Ex. PW1/3 (colly.), photocopy of aadhar card as Ex. PW1/4 (OSR), Photocopy of his driving license as Ex PW1/5 (OSR), photocopy of his educational qualification certificates of 10th class as Ex PW1/6 (OSR) and photocopy of his disability certificate as Ex. PW1/7 (OSR).
CIS No. 543/19 Page 8 of38 Ashvani Kumar Dube vs. Virender Kumar and Ors
8. PW1 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for R1 and R2 wherein he deposed that he is permanent resident of Village Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. PW1 deposed that at present, he is unemployed however, occasionally, he is doing the work of print on demand and earning Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- per month. PW1 deposed that he has not placed any documentary proof regarding his profession as driver and his earning Rs. 20,000/- from the said profession at the time of case accident. PW1 denied the suggestion that he was not working anywhere at the time of accident. PW1 admitted that he has not filed any document regarding his special diet, conveyance and attendant. PW1 denied the suggestion that all medical bills and treatment records are false and fabricated. He further denied the suggestion that he had not suffered any loss of income due to case accident. PW1 deposed that on day of accident, he was standing at the left side of the road waiting for bus. PW1 denied the suggestion that he was boarding the bus from back door, which was in running condition and due to the said reason, the case accident had occurred. PW1 denied the suggestion that the case accident had occurred due to his negligence. PW1 denied the suggestion that there was no negligence on part of the driver of the offending bus. PW1 denied the suggestion that he had not sustained fracture due to the case accident. PW1 denied the suggestion that he was residing in Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. at the time of case accident. PW1 admitted that the driving licence placed by him on record is issued for CIS No. 543/19 Page 9 of38 Ashvani Kumar Dube vs. Virender Kumar and Ors driving car and motorcycle. PW1 deposed that he had not got issued any order from the Court regarding assessment of his disability certificate. PW1 denied the suggestion that his disability certificate placed on record is false and fabricated. PW1 denied the suggestion that he had not suffered any disability due to the case accident. PW1 denied the suggestion that affidavit Ex.PW1/A is false and fabricated. PW1 denied the suggestion that his claim petition is false and fabricated. PW1 denied the suggestion that no such accident had occurred by bus bearing No.UP-33AT-0806 on 09.03.2018.
9. PW2 Dr. Sanjay Kumar, Specialist, Orthopedics, Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, deposed that he is a summoned witness and that day he has appeared on behalf of Dr. Navneet Rastogi, Chairperson Disability Board, Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, Pitampur, Delhi to depose in this case. PW2 deposed that the patient Ashvani Kumar Dube, aged 35 years was medically examined by Dr. Navneet Rastogi of Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital to ascertain his permanent disability, if any. PW2 deposed that he has seen the disability certificate No. 1710, dt. 03.01.2019, Ex. PW1/7, issued by Dr. Navneet Rastogi qua patient Ashwani Kumar Dubey and he can identify the signature of Dr. Navneet Rastogi. PW2 deposed that as per the said disability certificate, the patient suffered permanent physical disability to the tune of 70% in relation to left lower limb with diagnosis of below knee amputation left side. PW2 deposed that the petitioner cannot continue/perform his job as a driver with CIS No. 543/19 Page 10 of38 Ashvani Kumar Dube vs. Virender Kumar and Ors the abovesaid disability.
10. PW2 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for R1 and R2 wherein he deposed that the patient was not examined in his presence and the said certificate was not issued in his presence nor signed in his presence. PW2 deposed that he cannot tell the disability qua the whole body as there are no such guidelines. PW2 admitted that the assessment sheet regarding disability was also not prepared in his presence. PW2 admitted that the said patient was never examined nor the said disability assessed in his presence. PW2 deposed that he does not have any personal knowledge of the case. PW2 denied the suggestion that the disability has not been assessed as per the guidelines.
11. R1 has led its evidence and examined himself as R1W1, by way of evidence Ex. R1W1/A. R1W1 deposed that he is working as driver with R2 and on 09.03.2018 at about 5:00 a.m. he was driving the offending vehicle bearing No. UP-33AT-0806 and was driving the offending vehicle very carefully, at normal speed by following the traffic rules and on the correct side of the road. R1W1 deposed that when he reached near Lal Kuan suddenly one passenger of the bus tried to get off from moving bus from conductor/back side due to which he fell on the road and sustained injuries. R1W1 deposed that petitioner received injuries due to his own negligence. He has placed reliance upon his driving license as Ex. R1W1/1.
CIS No. 543/19 Page 11 of38 Ashvani Kumar Dube vs. Virender Kumar and Ors
12. R1W1 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for petitioner wherein he deposed that no criminal case is pending against him. R1W1 deposed that no written complaint filed by him against FIR no. 162/2018. R1W1 denied the suggestion that no accident occurred due to his negligence.
13. This Tribunal has heard the final arguments as addressed by Ld. Counsel for parties. Issue-wise findings of this Tribunal based on appreciation of the evidence, led by the parties in support of their respective versions of the case are reproduced herein below.
ISSUE No. 1Whether on 09.03.2018, at about 5:30 a.m., at main road Dadri Road, Chipiyana, District Gautam Budh Nagar, UP one UPSTRC bus bearing no. UP33-AT-0806, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver Virendra Kumar, hit Ashwani Kumar and caused injuries to him ? OPP
14. The onus of proving this issue on preponderance of probabilities was upon the petitioner/ claimant. For deciding the present issue, the testimony of PW1 is relevant, being injured. PW1 deposed that on 09.03.2018, at about 5:30 a.m., he was on foot at main road Dadri Road, Chipiyana and awaiting for bus going towards his residence at Shalimar Bagh, Delhi from his native village, on the extreme corner of the road, PW1 deposed that UPSTRC bus bearing registration no. UP-33AT-0806, which was being CIS No. 543/19 Page 12 of38 Ashvani Kumar Dube vs. Virender Kumar and Ors driven by respondent no. 1 in a very high speed, rash and negligent manner, hit him. PW1 deposed that due to the said impact, he fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries and his left leg crushed under the wheels of the offending vehicle. It is further alleged that initially he was removed to Sarvodaya Hospital & research Centre, Kavi Nagar, Ghaziadbad, UP and thereafter he was shifted to Anand Nursing Home fromwhere he was referred to higher centre and on 12.03.2018, he was taken to Dr. Ram Manohar Hospital for treatment. PW1 deposed that accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.
15. Although, R1 has contested the claim petition, by filing his written statement, in which, he denied involvement of the offending vehicle in the case accident, or any rashness or negligence on his part, resulting in the case accident but, R1 failed to elicit any admissions, to prove absence of rashness or negligence, on his part, resulting in the case accident. R1 further led evidence by way of affidavit Ex. R1W1/A, to rebut the testimony of PW1 that PW1/petitioner was negligent and accident has taken place due to negligence of petitioner. However, during the course of cross examination of R1W1 by Ld. Counsel for petitioner, respondent no. 1 denied that no accident has taken place due to his own negligence. Further, R1W1 admitted that he has not filed any complaint against FIR CIS No. 543/19 Page 13 of38 Ashvani Kumar Dube vs. Virender Kumar and Ors no. 162/18. Thus, from the testimony of PW1, on the said aspect it prima facie proves, that the accident, in which the injured has sustained injuries, has taken place, due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1.
16. Further, there is nothing on record, which will prove that R1 was falsely implicated in this case by the IO, in connivance with the petitioner. Further, R1 also failed to prove that he has ever approached to any higher authority, with respect to his false implication in the present case. Mere putting suggestions do not prove the averments made by any party in the pleadings. The testimony of PW1 stands further corroborated by the criminal case record, which includes the charge sheet, as filed by the IO, in which R1 was charge sheeted, for the commission of offence U/s 279/338/304A IPC.
17. Consequently, in view of the testimony of PW1, which stands corroborated from the criminal case record, wherein, R1 was shown as the driver of the offending vehicle, responsible for causing the accident in question, it stands duly proved, that the accident in question has taken place, due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1. Further, the fact that the injured Ashvani Kumar Dube suffered grievous injuries, in the case accident, stands duly corroborated by the medical documents of the petitioner, as per which, grievous injuries sustained by the CIS No. 543/19 Page 14 of38 Ashvani Kumar Dube vs. Virender Kumar and Ors petitioner, has resulted in a road traffic accident.
Issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 2Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
18. In view of the findings of this Tribunal qua issue no. 1, regarding negligence of R1, resulting in the occurrence of the case accident, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to compensation, in respect of medical expenses, conveyance expenses, special diet charges etc., incurred by him. This Tribunal shall now examine the entire evidence led by the parties, including the documents of the petitioner, for the purpose of arriving at a finding about the quantum of compensation, to which the petitioner is entitled.
MEDICAL EXPENSES.
19. Perusal of the record reveals that after the accident, petitioner was taken to initially he was removed to Sarvodaya Hospital & research Centre, Kavi Nagar, Ghaziadbad, UP and thereafter he was shifted to Anand Nursing Home fromwhere he was referred to higher centre and on 12.03.2018, he was taken to Dr. Ram Manohar Hospital for treatment from where he was discharged on CIS No. 543/19 Page 15 of38 Ashvani Kumar Dube vs. Virender Kumar and Ors 11.04.2018. PW1 deposed that during treatment doctor swelling in left thigh knee entering to ankle above knee in situ and asis fracture tibial platen left and gultter amputation B/K SA on 10.04.2018 and he was discharged on 11.04.2018. PW1 further deposed that after his discharge, he was taking continuous treatment in OPD of various hospitals. PW1 further deposed that he remained bed ridden for about 6 months and spent Rs. 67,110/- on his medical treatment.
20. In his evidence, the petitioner has placed on record original prescriptions as well as medical bills Ex. PW1/1 (colly.) to Ex. PW1/3 (colly.), towards treatment and purchase of medicines. Perusal of the original medical bills, as placed on record by the petitioner, reveals that he has incurred aggregate expenditure of Rs. 66,016/-, on his medical treatment. Accordingly, in view of the original medical bills, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs. 66,016/-, towards medical expenses. Thus, this Tribunal deems it appropriate, to award compensation of Rs. 66,016/-, to the petitioner, under the head of medical expenses.
SPECIAL DIET AND CONVEYANCE
21. PW1 has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.
PW1/A that he had incurred expenses of Rs. 1,00,000/- on special diet and Rs. 30,000/- on conveyance. In his CIS No. 543/19 Page 16 of38 Ashvani Kumar Dube vs. Virender Kumar and Ors affidavit, he deposed that during the hospitalization period, he has undergone surgery. The petitioner has also not endeavored to prove the expenses incurred by him on special diet and conveyance, by placing on record any documentary evidence, in the form of prescription of special diet, issued in the name of the petitioner, by any doctor or dietitian, bills for purchases made by him towards special diet, such as nutritional supplements, liquid diets, protein diets, etc. or any bills towards transportation.
22. Thus, in the absence of any documentary proof, the requirement of special diet, need to travel to hospital, have to be determined in accordance with the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner.
23. In this context, a perusal of the disability certificate Ex.
PW1/7, the petitioner sustained 70% permanent disability, with below knee amputation. Further, as per his treatment papers and medical bills Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/3 colly, petitioner has received treatment since 09.03.2018 till 30.04.2018. Further, as per the deposition of PW1, petitioner was dignosed him swelling in left thigh knee entering to ankle above knee brace in situ and asis fracture tibial platen left and gultter amputation B/K SA on 10.04.2018, which was corroborated by medical treatment papers of the petitioner. Accordingly, considering the above said deposition in the light of nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner in the case accident, the period CIS No. 543/19 Page 17 of38 Ashvani Kumar Dube vs. Virender Kumar and Ors of treatment-cum-recuperation, in the case of the petitioner, is ascertained to be about 06 months.
24. Thus, in view of the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner as well as his period of treatment cum recuperation as assessed, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner was required to take some special diets, including nutrition supplements, high protein diet, liquid diet etc., for speedy recovery of the injuries sustained by him in the case accident and was required to incur expenses on travel to hospital and clinics from his residence during his treatment period. Thus, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to grant a sum of Rs. 60,000/-, as compensation to the petitioner under this head, which includes Rs. 30,000/- each towards special diet and conveyance respectively.
ATTENDANT CHARGES
25. Petitioner as PW1 has deposed by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A, that petitioner is claiming compensation towards medical attendant, and has deposed that he has spent Rs 60,000/- on attendant charges. He had however not placed on record any document to prove payment of any amount to any attendant. Nevertheless, as the petitioner had sustained injuries with 70% permanent disability with below knee amputation, in the case accident therefore, in view of the factum of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the petitioner must have required services of a medical CIS No. 543/19 Page 18 of38 Ashvani Kumar Dube vs. Virender Kumar and Ors attendant, for his care and look after. Further, as the treatment cum recuperation period of the petitioner has already been determined to be about 6 months accordingly, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to award Rs. 30,000/-, as compensation to the petitioner under this head.
Compensation due to permanent disability/Loss of future earning capacity due to disability
26. A perusal of court record reveals that as per the disability certificate Ex. PW1/7, the petitioner had sustained 70% permanent disability in the case accident.
27. It is argued on behalf of petitioner that petitioner was doing the work of print on demand as well as driver, at the time of accident. It is further argued that since the petitioner has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 70% in relation to left lower limb with amputation below knee, he would never be able to do any type of work as his avocation involves proper movement of his all limbs and thus, the loss of earning capacity be taken as 100% in relation to whole body.
28. Per contra, it is argued on behalf of insurance company that the disability of the petitioner is not that much which could amount to 100% loss of earning capacity.
29. For the purpose of calculating functional disability of the petitioner in relation to whole body, it is relevant to discuss CIS No. 543/19 Page 19 of38 Ashvani Kumar Dube vs. Virender Kumar and Ors the relevant judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. In case titled "Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain Vs. Regional Manager, U.P State Road, Civil Appeal Nos. 9070-9071 of 2022, decided on 09.12.2022, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold in para no. 16 as under:-
xxxx "16. The Appellant herein has suffered permanent disability of 70% and has an amputated right lower limb amongst other injuries. The High Court has wrongly taken the view that the Appellant has only suffered 35% functional disability. The Appellant is not a salaried person but is self-employed who manages his business. For the Appellant to be able to augment his income, he is most definitely required to move around. The Appellant can also not drive on his own, which hinders his mobility further.
This proves that the functional disability of the Appellant will severely impact his earning capacity, and the 35% functional disability calculated by the High Court is incorrect in the facts and circumstances of the case and in our view the loss of future earning capacity must be calculated at 60%."
Xxxxx
30. In the judgment "Raj Kumar Vs. Nitin Kumar Goyal & Ors.", MAC. APP. 74/2022, dated 20.11.2024, injured had suffered 76% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb and his functional disability with relation to whole body was taken as 40% by the Tribunal. However, in the appeal preferred by the injured before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the functional disability has been taken as 100% in relation to whole body. In the said judgment, CIS No. 543/19 Page 20 of38 Ashvani Kumar Dube vs. Virender Kumar and Ors petitioner/injured Ram Kumar has suffered 76% disability in relation to his left lower limb and he was labourer by profession and the disability suffered by him had considerable effect on his work of labourer.
31. With regard to assessment of functional disability in the accident cases, I am guided by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., CIVIL APPEAL NO.8981 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10383 of 2007) wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold as under:
10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. For example, if the, left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if CIS No. 543/19 Page 21 of38 Ashvani Kumar Dube vs. Virender Kumar and Ors the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less.
32. Now coming back to the facts of present case it is noted that the petitioner was doing work of print on demand as well as driver and he has suffered 70% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb. PW-2 Dr. Sanjay Kumar has deposed that the disability of the petitioner is permanent in nature. It is pertinent to mention here that any type of work requires physical dexterity in limbs and digits to operate hand and power driven tools and equipment commonly used in the profession of fabrication, physical ability to lift, carry and ability to continually walk, stand, climb, stoop, bend, kneel, reach in all directions, etc. It may be noted here that petitioner was stated to be doing the work of print on demand as well as driver at the time of accident and it is quite obvious that for any work, proper movement of the all limbs are very necessary which is not possible in the case of petitioner due to the permanent disability suffered by him in the accident. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, 70% permanent physical impairment in relation to his left lower limb is going to adversely affect his avocation as a driver. Further, as per the deposition of PW2 Dr. Sanjay Kumar, petitioner cannot continue/perform his job as a driver with the above CIS No. 543/19 Page 22 of38 Ashvani Kumar Dube vs. Virender Kumar and Ors mentioned disability. Further, petitioner is 10th class pass as per the document which is part of Ex. PW1/6. Hence, in view of aforesaid discussion and in view of case (supra), I am of the considered opinion that due to disability suffered (permanent physical impairment in relation to his left lower limb with amputation below knee) in the present accident, the petitioner will suffer 100% loss of earning capacity. Hence, the functional disability of the petitioner is considered as 100% towards loss of earning capacity. (Reliance placed on "Arjun & Ors., Vs. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.", MAC Appeal No. 223/16, decided on 04.01.2018, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Malti Devi & Ors., in MAC. APP. 572/2012, decided on 20.05.2015, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shamim Akhtar & Anr, in MAC. APP. 616/2018 & C.Ms. 26742/2018, decided on 26.09.2018 and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nasruddin & Ors., in MAC. APP. 585/2012, decided on 28.05.2015 , decided on 28.05.2015", passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi).
33. It has been claimed by the petitioner that he was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month as he is driver by profession. Further, he was earning Rs. 2,000/- to 3,000/- per month by doing the print work on demand. He has however, not filed any bank account statement reflecting credit of his income, for the relevant period when the accident has occurred. Further, the petitioner has placed on record educational CIS No. 543/19 Page 23 of38 Ashvani Kumar Dube vs. Virender Kumar and Ors qualification certificate of 10th class Ex PW1/6, therefore, the petitioner is at best entitled to minimum wages, payable to a Matriculate. Further, as per the Aadhar Card of the petitioner, he was a resident of H No. 443, Ground floor, Gali no. 8, Block B, Village Shalimar, Shalimar Bagh, North West, Delhi. In the said circumstances and discussion, the monthly income of the petitioner at the relevant time has to be calculated as per minimum wages payable to matriculate in the area of Delhi, as on the date of occurrence of the case accident i.e. on 09.03.2018, which was Rs. 16,468/- per month. The petitioner's monthly income is accordingly taken as Rs. 16,468/- per month.
Addition of Future Prospects.
34. In respect of entitlement of the petitioner to addition of future prospects in his monthly income, reference should be made to the latest Constitutional Bench Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision 31.10.2017, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court interalia held as under:-.
61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-
(i).........................................................................................
(ii) .....................................................................................
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30% , if the age CIS No. 543/19 Page 24 of38 Ashvani Kumar Dube vs. Virender Kumar and Ors of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For the determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced herein before.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and future expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. "
(.... Emphasis Supplied)
35. Reference is also made to the case of Sanjay Oberoi vs Manoj Bageriya, MAC APPEAL 829/2011 decided on 03.11.2017 & Prem Chand vs Shamim Husain & Ors, MAC.APP. 1003/2017 decided on October 11,2018 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
36. In the case in hand, the petitioner was stated to be doing the work of print as well as driver, thus, while determining his income for computing compensation, future prospects have to be added to fall within the ambit and sweep of just compensation under Section 168 of M.V. Act.
CIS No. 543/19 Page 25 of38 Ashvani Kumar Dube vs. Virender Kumar and Ors
37. As per matriculate certificate Ex. PW1/6 of the petitioner, date of birth of the petitioner is 02.08.1985 and the accident in question had occurred on 09.03.2018, therefore the age of the injured at the time of accident was 32 years 07 months and 07 days and he was a self employed person. In view of paragraph no. 61 (iv) of above said judgment in Pranay Sethi (Supra), the petitioner would be entitled of 40% addition, as at the time of accident, the petitioner was 32 years, 07 month and 07 days old. The monthly income of the petitioner is thus calculated as 16,468 + 40% of 16,468, which comes to Rs. 16,468/- + 6,587.2 = Rs. 23,055.2.
38. In the said circumstances, the relevant multiplier has to be calculated as per the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarla Verma vs Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298. As per the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma case by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, multiplier of 16 is to be applied for computing compensation payable to a victim of Road Traffic Accident aged between 31 to 35 years. The compensation is accordingly assessed towards loss of earning capacity at Rs. 44,26,598.4 /- [(Rs. 23,055.2./- per month x 12 months x 16 (age multiplier) x 100/100 (functional disability)].
Loss of Amenities of Life.
CIS No. 543/19 Page 26 of38 Ashvani Kumar Dube vs. Virender Kumar and Ors
39. As per the disability certificate of the petitioner Ex PW1/7, the petitioner had sustained 70% permanent disability in relation to left lower limb below knee amputation. Accordingly, it can be safely concluded that the petitioner must have suffered loss of enjoyment of life and its amenities, due to permanent disability with amputation, sustained by him on account of having met with the case accident and therefore, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to grant a total sum of Rs. 50,000/-, as compensation to the petitioner under the said head of loss of amenities of life.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
40. As per the disability certificate of the petitioner Ex PW1/7, the petitioner had sustained 70% permanent disability in relation to left lower limb below knee amputation, thus, in view of the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner must have endured physical pain and mental agony during his treatment cum recuperation period, which is assessed as 6 months. Accordingly, a lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000/- is granted as compensation to the petitioner under the said head of pain and suffering.
LOSS OF INCOME
41. Petitioner had tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A, wherein he has deposed that he was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month as well as Rs. 2,000/- to 3000/- per month by doing print work on demand. As above, the CIS No. 543/19 Page 27 of38 Ashvani Kumar Dube vs. Virender Kumar and Ors monthly income of the petitioner at the relevant time is assessed to be Rs. 16,468/- per month. Besides, the period of treatment-cum-recuperation in the case of petitioner has already been determined to be 06 months. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for loss of income for 06 months amounting to Rs. 16,468 x 06 = Rs. 98,808/-).
DISFIGURATION.
42. In the present case, it is evident from medical records available on record that the petitioner has suffered 70% permanent disability with amputation below knee, and further due to the injury, the petitioner is unable to walk properly. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- is granted under this head of disfiguration, in favour of the petitioner.
43. Accordingly, the overall compensation which is to be awarded to the petitioners, thus comes to Rs. 35,66,680/- which is tabulated as under:-
Sl. No Compensation Award amount
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000 /-
2 Special diet & Conveyance Rs. 60,000/-
3. Attendant Charges Rs 30,000 /-
4. Medical Expenses Rs. 66,016/-
5. Loss of income Rs. 98,808/-
6. Loss of amenities of life Rs. 50,000/-
7. Loss of future earning capacity Rs. 44,26,598.4/-
8. Disfiguration Rs. 50,000/-
Total Rs. 48,31,422.4/-
(rounded off to
Rs. 48,31,423/-
CIS No. 543/19 Page 28 of38
Ashvani Kumar Dube vs. Virender Kumar and Ors (Rupees Forty Eight Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Four Hundred Twnenty Three only)
44. In respect of entitlement of the petitioner to interest on the awarded amount, it is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Apex Court had in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC) of the back the victims of Uphaar Tragedy be awarded compensation with interest @ 9% per annum. The present claim petition/DAR had been instituted on 11.09.2019 and the rate of interest on fixed deposits in nationalized banks had fluctuated/dropped several times during the pendency of the present matter. Therefore, in the interest of justice, in the present case also this court is of the opinion that the claimant/petitioner is entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. w.e.f 11.09.2019 till realisation of the compensation amount.
45. The amount of interim award, if any, shall however be deducted from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the petitioner.
LIABILITY
46. In the case in hand, General Manager, UPSTRC /R2 has no statutory defence in denial to their liability. Since admittedly, the vehicle in question pertains to UPSTRC, therefore, R2 is held liable to pay compensation to the CIS No. 543/19 Page 29 of38 Ashvani Kumar Dube vs. Virender Kumar and Ors petitioner.
Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly in favour of petitioner and against the respondents,
47. Accordingly, in the case in hand, in terms of order dated 16.05.2017 of Hon'ble High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors., UPSTRC/R2 is directed to deposit the awarded amount of Rs. 48,31,423/- within 30 days from today within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal at State Bank of India, Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till notice of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R2 to the petitioner and his advocates and to show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgment with the Nazir as per rules. R2 is further directed to deposit the awarded amount in the above said bank by means of cheque drawn in the name of above said bank along with the name of the claimant mentioned therein. The said bank is further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimant approaches the bank for disbursement, so that the awarded amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheque.
APPORTIONMENT
48. Statements of petitioner in terms of clause 29 of MCTAP was recorded on 01.09.2025 regarding their saving banks A/c with endorsement of MACT claims SB Account, no loan, cheque book and ATM/debit card. This Tribunal has CIS No. 543/19 Page 30 of38 Ashvani Kumar Dube vs. Virender Kumar and Ors heard the Ld. Counsel for petitioner regarding their financial needs and in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment passed in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others, 1994 (2) SC, 1631, for appropriate investments to safeguard the amount from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to their ignorance, illiteracy and being susceptible to exploitation, following arrangements are hereby ordered
49. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, said statements of petitioner/injured and clause 32 of MCTAP regarding protection of the award amount, it is hereby directed that on realization of award amount, an amount of Rs. 5,31,423/- be released to petitioner in his SB A/C no. 18720110052747 with UCO Bank, Rohini Branch, Delhi IFSC No. is UCBA0001872, as per rules, that is, the branch near his place of residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause 29 MCTAP) and remaining amount be kept in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Account (MACAD) so that the maximum benefits can be availed by the petitioner. In case, the MACAD scheme has not become fully operational in the concerned bank, till the time the same becomes fully operational, the remaining amount be kept in FDRs of equal amount for a period of one month to 120 months respectively with cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan CIS No. 543/19 Page 31 of38 Ashvani Kumar Dube vs. Virender Kumar and Ors and pre-mature withdrawal without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
50. The aforesaid award amount shall be disbursed to the claimant through the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in case of Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, FAO 842/2003. However, till the time MACAD Scheme becomes fully operational and to ensure that the petitioner is not put to any undue inconvenience, the fixed deposits shall be subject to 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 victim, that is, the saving bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be individual savings 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 monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant/(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amount of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their CIS No. 543/19 Page 32 of38 Ashvani Kumar Dube vs. Virender Kumar and Ors residence i.e. above said a/c.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the court.
(f) The concerned Bank shall not to 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.
(g) 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.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the pass book(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
RELIEF
51. As discussed above, General Manager UPSTRC/R2 is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs. 48,31,423/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of CIS No. 543/19 Page 33 of38 Ashvani Kumar Dube vs. Virender Kumar and Ors petition, that is, 11.09.2019 till realization within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal at SBI, Rohini Court Branch, Delhi within 30 days from today under intimation of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R2 to the petitioner and his advocate failing which the R2 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the period of delay beyond 30 days.
52. R2 is also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the amount in the above said bank to the claimants and complete details in respect of calculations of interest etc. in the court within 30 days from today. A copy of this judgment/award be sent to respondent no. 2 for compliance within the granted time.
53. Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the granted time.
In terms of directions contained in the order dated 07.12.2018 and subsequent order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in the case of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors vs Jaibir Singh & Ors., FAO 842/2003, the copy of the award be also sent by the Ahlmad of the court to Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India (as per the list of nodal officers of 21 banks of Indian Bank's Association as circulated to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide above mentioned order dated CIS No. 543/19 Page 34 of38 Ashvani Kumar Dube vs. Virender Kumar and Ors 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court) who is the Nodal Officer with contact details (022-22741336/9414048606) {other details-Personal Banking Business Unit (LIMA) 13th Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021} through email ([email protected]) through the computer branch of Rohini Courts, Delhi. Ahlmad of the court is directed to take immediate steps in that regard.
54. A copy of this award be forwarded to the concerned Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class and DLSA in terms of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. vide order dated 12.12.2014.
In view of the directions contained in order dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, the statement of petitioner was also recorded on 01.09.2025.
55. Form IVB which has been duly filled in has also been attached herewith. File be consigned to record room as per rules after compliance of necessary legal formalities. Copy of order be given to parties for necessary compliance as per rules. Digitally signed by DEEPIKA DEEPIKA SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.05.04 Announced in open court 16:35:59 +0530 On 30th April, 2026 (DEEPIKA SINGH) PO MACT/NORTH WEST ROHINI, DELHI.
CIS No. 543/19 Page 35 of38 Ashvani Kumar Dube vs. Virender Kumar and Ors FORM - IV B SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1.Date of accident: 09.03.2018
2. Name of injured: Ashwani Kumar Dube
3. Age of the injured: 32 years 07 months and 07 days
4. Occupation of the injured: Not proved
5. Income of the injured: Rs. 16,468/- per month.
6. Nature of injury: Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured: About 06 months.
8. Period of hospitalization: As per record.
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details: No.
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 66,016/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 30,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 30,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 30,000/-
(v) Loss of Income Rs. 98,808/-
(vi) Loss of earning capacity Rs. 44,26,598.4
(vii)
(viii) Any other loss which may require N/A
any special treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his life
CIS No. 543/19 Page 36 of38
Ashvani Kumar Dube vs. Virender Kumar and Ors
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and N/A
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 50,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration Rs. 50,000/-
(v) Loss of earning, inconvenience, N/A
hardships,disappointment,
frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and N/A nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N/A expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning N/A capacity in relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (Income N/A X%Earning capacity X Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 48,31,422.4 (rounded off to Rs. 48,31,423/-)
15. INTEREST AWARDED 7.5%
16. Interest amount up to the date of Rs. 24,04,639.48 /- (after rounding of Rs.
award 24,04,640/-)
17. Total amount including interest Rs. 72,36,063/-
18. Award amount released Rs. 5,31,423/-
19. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs. 67,04,640/-
CIS No. 543/19 Page 37 of38 Ashvani Kumar Dube vs. Virender Kumar and Ors
20. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms of clause 29 of amount to the claimant (s) MCTAP (Clause29)
21. Next date for compliance of the 30.05.2026 award. (Clause 31) Digitally (DEEPIKA SINGH) signed by DEEPIKA PO MACT/NORTH WEST DEEPIKA SINGH SINGH Date:
ROHINI, DELHI. 2026.05.04
16:36:09
+0530
CIS No. 543/19 Page 38 of38