Delhi District Court
Amit Kumar (Dar) vs Md. Salman (870/22 Gp) on 7 April, 2025
:1:
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARU GUPTA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-01 (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No.:233/23
Amit Kumar v. Salman
CNR No.: DLSE01-003814-2023
1. Sh. Amit Kumar
S/o Sh. Raksh Pal
R/o H.No.103, Gali No.2
Tajpur Pahari, Mohan Baba Nagar
Badarpur, Delhi.
......Petitioner/claimant
Versus
1. Mohd. Salman
S/o Sh. Rehmal Hussain
R/o H.No.290/16,
Block-H, Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi.
........Driver-cum-owner/ Respondent no. 1
2. Go Digit General Insurance Company 5th floor, B Wing, IFCI Tower Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 ....Insurance company/Respondent no.3 Date of accident : 13.12.2022 Date of filing of DAR : 03.04.2023 Result of accident : Injury Date of Decision : 07.04.2025 AWARD
1. The present accident claim is based on a detailed accident MACT NO:233/23 Amit Kumar v. Md. Salman P.No. 1 Of 19 BK :2: report (DAR) filed by the police in terms of provisions of MV Act.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 12.12.2022, one Amit Kumar, who was working as delivery boy in Zomato, was going on his motorcycle bearing no.DL-3SFF-1207 towards East of Kailash. At about 1.30 AM(night) when he reached near Majidia hospital gate no.4, one vehicle bearing no.DL9CY-2907 (hereinafter referred to offending vehicle) was found parked there. As soon as the motorcycle of the petitioner crossed by it, driver of the offending vehicle suddenly drove the vehicle and hit the motorcycle of the petitioner. Due to the impact, petitioner fell and sustained injuries. He was taken to AIIMS hospital.
3. An FIR no.870/22 dated 31.12.2022 was registered u/s 279,338 of IPC & 3/181 MV Act at PS Govindpuri and the matter was investigated. After investigation a charge sheet was filed before concerned criminal court against the driver of the offending vehicle(Respondent no.1) while DAR was filed before this Tribunal.
4. Respondent no.1 is driver and owner of offending vehicle and Respondent no.2 is the insurance company with which the offending vehicle was insured.
5. In response to the DAR, reply was filed by insurance company/Respondent no.2 pleading that the driver of offending vehicle was without a driving licence. Respondent no.1 was also chargesheeted u/s 3/181 MV Act for non possession of a valid driving licence. It is pleaded that there is an unexplained delay of 18 days in lodging the FIR and that the petitioner was self negligent.
MACT NO:233/23 Amit Kumar v. Md. Salman P.No. 2 Of 19 BK :3: No reply/written statement was filed by Respondent no.1/driver-cum-owner despite opportunity.
6. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed on 29.01.2024.
1. Whether the injured suffered injury in a road traffic accident on 13.12.2022 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DL 9CY 2907 being driven by R1/driver-cum-owner ((inadvertently mentioned as being driven by R1, owned by R2) and insured with R3? OPP.
2. Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
7. Evidence was directed to be recorded through Ld. LC.
To prove his claim, petitioner led his evidence by examining himself as PW-1 by way of affidavit as Ex.PW-1/A. I his evidence, he reiterated the fact as that of the DAR. He took initial treatment from AIIMS hospital and further treatment from ESI Hospital, Okhla, New Delhi. At the time of accident, he was working in SIS Limited and his place of posting was in Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. as Guard and also doing part time job as delivery boy in Zomato. He relied upon his Aadhar card as Ex.PW-1/1, computer generated pay slip for the month of July to December, 2022 as Ex.PW-1/2, Bank statement from 01.11.2022 to 25.04.2023 as Ex.PW-1/3, MLC, Discharge summar and medical bills as Ex.PW-1/4, DAR as Ex.PW-1/5 and some other medical bills as Mark-A(Colly).
He was duly cross-examined by learned counsel for insurance company.
Respondent no.2/insurance company led his evidence by MACT NO:233/23 Amit Kumar v. Md. Salman P.No. 3 Of 19 BK :4: examining Sh. Paramvir Singh as R-2W-1 by way of affidavit as R-2W-1/1. He relied upon letter of authority as Ex.R-2W-1/2, insurance policy as Ex.R-2W-1/3, Notice with receipt as Ex.R-2W-1/4. He was not cross-examined by petitioner and Respondent no.1.
8. Final arguments in details were addressed on behalf of the claimant/injured and the insurance company. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, evidence adduced and arguments addressed, issue wise findings are as under:
Issue No. 1Whether the injured suffered injury in a road traffic accident on 13.12.2022 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DL 9CY 2907 being driven by R1/driver-cum-owner ((inadvertently mentioned as being driven by R1, owned by R2) and insured with R3? OPP.
9. Before proceeding to decide the above issue, it is apposite to note that as a settled principle of law, proceedings under The Motor Vehicle Act are not considered akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not applicable. Reliance is placed upon decision in Bimla Devi & ors. vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (2009) 13 SC 535, in Parmeshwari vs. Amir Chand & Ors., 2011 (1) SCR 1096 and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 287, wherein it has been held that the negligence has to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view has to be taken.
10. In the instant case, petitioner Amit Kumar has testified the date as well as the manner of accident. Petitioner has denied MACT NO:233/23 Amit Kumar v. Md. Salman P.No. 4 Of 19 BK :5: suggestions of having been negligent or having tried to overtake to offending vehicle. Though the insurance company has insisted that the petitioner was self negligent, negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle has not been denied either by the driver or the owner of the offending vehicle. No evidence has been led by the respondents to prove contributory negligence of the petitioner. The site plan of the incident as well as the mechanical inspection report corroborates the testimony of PW-1. Though the victim has been unable to produce his driving licence, even if it is assumed that he did not possess a driving licence, does not render him negligent or liable to deduction in the compensation unless it is proved that he contributed to the accident.
11. Further, after investigation, the police has filed a chargesheet against Respondent no.1. In National Insurance Co. vs. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, it was laid down that completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet are sufficient proof of negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
12. In the present case, the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle have neither filed his written statement nor cross- examined PW-1. To rebut the claim of the petitioner he has not led any evidence in his defence. It may further be noted that in Cholamandlam insurance company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh 2009 (3) AD Delhi 310, it was held that if driver of offending vehicle does not enter the witness box, an adverse inference can be drawn against him. Thus, it stands proved that the petitioner suffered injuries in road traffic accident due to rash and negligence of MACT NO:233/23 Amit Kumar v. Md. Salman P.No. 5 Of 19 BK :6: Respondent no.1.
13. In totality of circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner has been able to prove on the scales of preponderance of probabilities that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver/respondent no.1 on the date and time of accident while no contributory negligence is proved on the part of the petitioner. Issue no.1 is accordingly decided.
Issue no. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP.
14. Insurance company has raised statutory defence submitting that the offending vehicle was being driven by Respondent no.1 without a driving licence. Respondent no.1 neither cross- examined the petitioner nor appeared in the witness box. As such, Respondent no.1/driver-cum-owner is held to be vicariously liable for his negligence to drive his vehicle without a driving licence. The following observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amrit Paul Singh And Another Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited And Others (2018) 7 SCC 558 is relevant to the present facts and quoted as under:
''...15. We may fruitfully note that the three-Judge Bench adverted to situations where the driver does not have a licence and the same has been allowed to be driven by the owner of the vehicle by such person, the insurer would be entitled to succeed in defence and avoid liability, but the position would be different where the disputed question of fact arises as to whether the driver had a valid licence and where the owner of the vehicle committed a breach of the terms of the contract of insurance as also the provisions of MACT NO:233/23 Amit Kumar v. Md. Salman P.No. 6 Of 19 BK :7: the Act by consciously allowing any person to drive a vehicle who did not have a valid driving licence."
In such circumstances, the liability of compensation falls primarily upon the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, in view of the settled law, the compensation will be payable in the first instance by the insurance company/R-2 but with liberty to recover the same from the driver-cum-owner of the vehicle in question i.e. Respondent no. 1.
15. As regards the quantum of compensation, this court is governed by the law laid down by Hon'le Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 Supreme Court cases 343, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. (2003) 6SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.(2017) 16 SCC 680. The gist of the law is that the object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned.
16. Further it can be noted that the heads under which MACT NO:233/23 Amit Kumar v. Md. Salman P.No. 7 Of 19 BK :8: compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
16.1. In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). 16.2. It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii),
(v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.
MACT NO:233/23 Amit Kumar v. Md. Salman P.No. 8 Of 19 BK :9: 16.3. Assessment of pecuniary damages under Item (i) and under Item (ii) (a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence.
16.4. Award under the head of future medical expenses--Item
(iii)--depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof.
16.5. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages--Items (iv), (v) and (vi)--involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decisions of Hon'ble SC and Hon'ble High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. 16.6. It was observed by Hon'ble Sc in such case of Raj Kumar (supra) that what usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability
--Item (ii) (a).
16.7. We are not concerned with assessment regarding loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability in this case, as petitioner did not suffer any permanent disability.
17. As per Aadhar card, date of birth of petitioner is 02.07.1994. Further, as regards the income of the petitioner, while petitioner has relied upon his Aadhar card Ex.PW-1/1 to show that he was residing in Delhi, insurance company has refuted the averment on the ground that the police has verified the address of the petitioner as that of U.P. Admittedly, petitioner's initial Aadhar card reflected his address of U.P. but it MACT NO:233/23 Amit Kumar v. Md. Salman P.No. 9 Of 19 BK : 10 : is claimed that at the time of accident, he was working in Delhi as a Guard and a delivery boy with Zomato. He has denied that he got the address changed on the Aadhar card only after the accident. To ascertain this fact, it is seen that one of the documents relied upon by the petitioner is Ex.PW-1/3. Ex.PW-1/3 is the bank account statement of the petitioner which is duly stamped by the concerned bank. The same reveals his income from Zomato as well as SIS Limited, which is consistent with the salary slips relied upon by the petitioner as Ex.PW-1/2. As such, it is proved that the petitioner was working as a Guard with SIS Ltd. and as a delivery boy with Zomato at the time of accident and thus, irrespective of his address on the Aadhar card, his income has to be assumed on the basis of the salary slips Ex.PW-1/2. As per Ex.PW-1/3(Bank statement for the month of November,2022), amount of Rs.9695/- is reflected in the account of petitioner, being paid by the Zomato and Rs.17,451/- being paid by SIS Ltd. Further, as per pay slip placed on record as Ex.PW-1/2(colly), salary paid by SIS Limited to petitioner is reflected as Rs.17,451/-, which is same as reflected in the account of petitioner.
As per MLC Ex.PW-1/4 of the injured prepared at JPN Apex Truama Cente, petitioner has suffered grievous injury and soft tissue injury. He did not undergo any hospitalization. As per Mark-A(colly), he took treatment from ESIC hospital, Okhla, Delhi. Further, doctor of ESI hospital examined petitioner on 06.01.2023 and issued a certificate and observed that he is incapable of working for one month due to fracture of lower limb. Thus, keeping in view the nature of injuries, petitioner is MACT NO:233/23 Amit Kumar v. Md. Salman P.No. 10 Of 19 BK : 11 : said to have suffered loss of income on account of injury sustained in the accident for 3 months. Hence, compensation for two months of salary can be awarded towards loss of income. Accordingly, Rs.27,146(9695+17451)X3=Rs.81,438/- is awarded towards loss of income.
18. Further, petitioner has filed medical bills amounting Rs.13,820/-. Hence awarded towards medical expenses.
19. No compensation towards future loss of income can be granted in cases where petitioner has not proved to have sustained any permanent disability.
20. In this background of material and evidence on record, in the present case having regard to the law as also discussed above regarding compensation, in the present case award amount is calculated as under:
Sl. Pecuniary loss : - Quantum
no.
1. (I) Expenditure on treatment : Rs.13,820/-
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance : 10,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : 10,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing / attendant (two 30,000/-
months):
(v) Loss of income Rs.81,438/-
(vi) Cost of artificial limbs (if Not applicable
applicable) :
(vii) Any other loss / expenditure : Not applicable
2. Non-Pecuniary Loss :
(I) Compensation of mental and physical Rs.10,000/-
shock :
(ii) Pain and suffering : Rs.10,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life : Nil
MACT NO:233/23 Amit Kumar v. Md. Salman P.No. 11 Of 19 BK
: 12 :
(iv) Disfiguration : Nil
(v) Loss of marriage prospects : NA
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity (I) Percentage of disability assessed and NA nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of NA expectation of life span on account of disability :
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity NA in relation to disability: In this case no permanent disability is proved on record.
(iv) Loss of future Income: NA
Total Compensation Rs.1,65,258/-
Deduction, if any Nil
Total compensation after deduction Rs.1,65,258/-
Interest: Simple interest
@7.5% p.a.
from the date
of filing of
DAR till
actual
realization of
Award
amount/
compensation.
LIABILITY
21. As already discussed, principal award amount/
compensation will be payable by Insurance company/
MACT NO:233/23 Amit Kumar v. Md. Salman P.No. 12 Of 19 BK
: 13 :
Respondent no.2 with simple interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR till actual realization with recovery rights to the insurance company against the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle.
In case, the interest of petitioner was stopped or excluded during the present inquiry proceedings, same is liable to be adjusted from the total interest calculated on the Award amount. Similarly, amount awarded and released as interim Award, if any, during pendency of the case, be deducted from the total compensation amount.
Directions Regarding Deposit of Award Amount in Bank:
22. In compliance of directions issued vide order dated 16.11.2021 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition Civil No.534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India the award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT SAVING ACCOUNT No. 00000042706875094, IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir in the prescribed format i.e. MCOP Number on the file of (Claims Tribunal Name) Date of award, Compensation Amount, Income Tax Deduction at Source, Bank Transaction Reference No./Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. In turn, the State Bank of India, Saket Courts Branch shall receive the deposited sum and capture the above information and furnish a statement of account on a daily basis to the Nazir of this Tribunal to reconcile the deposits of compensation and the respective MACT NO:233/23 Amit Kumar v. Md. Salman P.No. 13 Of 19 BK : 14 : MCOPs towards which such deposits are made. On such deposits being made, the insurance company shall submit a letter to the Nazir of this Tribunal enclosing a copy of the said bank advice, in prescribed format as above, as per which the deposit made to the bank account of this Tribunal, to enable this Tribunal to keep tab on the deposits made and the MCOPs for which they were made. The Payment advice for remittance of compensation is as under:
PAYMENT ADVICE FOR REMITTANCE OF
COMPENSATION :
............ Bank ................... To:
............... Court ........................ We confirm remittance of compensation as follows on instructions of ................................... (insurance company):-
MCOP Number On the file of (Claims Tribunal Name), Place Date of award Amount Deposited, Income Tax Deduction at Source, if any Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. Insurance company of offending vehicle, on deposit, shall also send a copy of the payment advice in above format to this Tribunal and serve a copy of the same on the claimants or their counsel as the case may be.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP).
23. This court is in receipt of the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors whereby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has formulated MACAD(Motor Accident Claims Annunity Deposit Scheme) which has been MACT NO:233/23 Amit Kumar v. Md. Salman P.No. 14 Of 19 BK : 15 : made effective from 01.01.2019. The said orders dated 07.12.2018 also mentions that 21 banks including State Bank of India is one of such banks which are to adhere to MACAD. The State Bank of India, Saket Courts, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Apportionment:-
24. Another issue which is to be decided is out of such Award amount, how much is to be released at present and how much is to kept in the form of FDR for future financial used of the petitioner.
25. At this stage, it is relevant to the refer to the judgment of A. V. Padma & Ors. Vs., R. Venugopal & Ors. (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 378:
"......In the case of Susamma Thomas (supra), this Court issued certain guidelines in order to "safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries due to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation".
Even as per the guidelines issued by this Court Court, long term fixed deposit of amount of compensation is mandatory only in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows. In the case of illiterate claimants, the Tribunal is allowed to consider the request for lumpsum payment for effecting purchase of any movable property such as agricultural implements, rickshaws etc. to earn a living. However, in such cases, the Tribunal shall make sure that the amount is actually spent for the purpose and the demand is not a ruse to withdraw money. In the case of semi-illiterate claimants, the Tribunal should ordinarily invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. But if the Tribunal is satisfied for reasons to be stated in MACT NO:233/23 Amit Kumar v. Md. Salman P.No. 15 Of 19 BK : 16 : writing that the whole or part of the amount is required for expanding an existing business or for purchasing some property for earning a livelihood, the Tribunal can release the whole or part of the amount of compensation to the claimant provided the Tribunal will ensure that the amount is invested for the purpose for which it is demanded and paid. In the case of literate persons, it is not mandatory to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit.
The expression used in guideline No. (iv) issued by this Court is that in the case of literate persons also the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i), whereas in the guideline Nos.
(i), (ii), (iii) and (v), the expression used is that the Tribunal should. Moreover, in the case of literate persons, the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i) only if, having regard to the age, fiscal background and strata of the society to which the claimant belongs and such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks that in the larger interest of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded, it is necessary to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit.
Thus, sufficient discretion has been given to the Tribunal not to insist on investment of the compensation amount in long term fixed deposit and to release even the whole amount in the case of literate persons. However, the Tribunals are often taking a very rigid stand and are mechanically ordering in almost all cases that the amount of compensation shall be invested in long term fixed deposit. They are taking such a rigid and mechanical approach without understanding and appreciating the distinction drawn by this Court in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows and in the case of semiliterate and literate persons. It needs to be clarified that the above guidelines were issued by this Court only to safeguard the interests MACT NO:233/23 Amit Kumar v. Md. Salman P.No. 16 Of 19 BK : 17 : of the claimants, particularly the minors, illiterates and others whose amounts are sought to be withdrawn on some fictitious grounds. The guidelines were not to be understood to mean that the Tribunals were to take a rigid stand while considering an application seeking release of the money.
The guidelines cast a responsibility on the Tribunals to pass appropriate orders after examining each case on its own merits. However, it is seen that even in cases when there is no possibility or chance of the feed being frittered away by the beneficiary owing to ignorance, illiteracy or susceptibility to exploitation, investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit is directed by the Tribunals as a matter of course and in a routine manner, ignoring the object and the spirit of the guidelines issued by this Court and the genuine requirements of the claimants. Even in the case of literate persons, the Tribunals are automatically ordering investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit without recording that having regard to the age or fiscal background or the strata of the society to which the claimant belongs or such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks it necessary to direct such investment in the larger interests of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded to him.
The Tribunals very often dispose of the claimant's application for withdrawal of the amount of compensation in a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind. This has resulted in serious injustice and hardship to the claimants. The Tribunals appear to think that in view of the guidelines issued by this Court, in every case the amount of compensation should be invested in long term fixed deposit and under no circumstances the Tribunal can release the entire amount of compensation to the claimant even if it is required by him. Hence a change of attitude and approach on MACT NO:233/23 Amit Kumar v. Md. Salman P.No. 17 Of 19 BK : 18 : the part of the Tribunals is necessary in the interest of justice..."
26. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and the abovesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme Court, whole of Award amount is released to the petitioner/injured, alongwith simple interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR till its actual realization, in her bank account near her place of residence as per rule/ directions.
27. In accordance with the orders dated 08.02.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 in Rajesh Tyagi and others Vs. Jaibir Singh and others, Nodal Officer of the bank shall ensure the disbursement of the award amount within three weeks of the receipt of the e-mail as mentioned in the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
FORM -VI-B SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1 Date of accident 13.12.2022 2 Name of injured Amit Kumar 3 Age of the injured 28 years 4 Occupation of the injured Guard and part time delivery boy 5 Income of the injured Rs.27,146/- p.m. MACT NO:233/23 Amit Kumar v. Md. Salman P.No. 18 Of 19 BK : 19 : 6 Nature of injury grievous 7 Medical treatment taken by JPN Trauma center and ESI injured hospital, Okhla 8 Period of Hospitalization of Nil injured 9 Whether any permanent NA disability injured
28. List for compliance on 07.05.2025.
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.04.07
Announced in open Court 17:31:01
+0530
On 07th April, 2025
(Charu Gupta)
PO-MACT-01(South-East)
Saket Court/ New Delhi
MACT NO:233/23 Amit Kumar v. Md. Salman P.No. 19 Of 19 BK