Delhi District Court
Ajay Kumar vs Hargyan (New India Ass. Co.) on 13 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DR. SHIRISH AGGARWAL
PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-01, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
DLND010010102021
DAR No.86/21
Sh. Ajay Kumar @ Ajay
S/o Sh. Kishan Lal,
R/o C-44, Jain Park Gurdwara Road,
Uttam Nagar West, Delhi-110059.
......Claimant/Injured
Versus
1. Sh. Hargyan (Driver)
S/o Sh. Bhagwat Saran,
R/o Village Chikti Ram Nagar,
Teh Ram Nagar Sadar PS Patwai,
District Ram Nagar, U.P.
2. Sh. Ashok Kumar (Owner)
S/o Sh. Lal Chand,
R/o H.No. 151, Village Maneshwar,
Gurugram, Haryana.
3. New India Assurance Company Ltd. (Insurer)
J-129, DC House, Kirti Nagar,
Delhi-110015. .........Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 08.02.2021 Date of framing of issues : 28.02.2022 Date of concluding arguments : 12.12.2025 Date of decision : 13.12.2025 DAR No. 86/21 Ajay Kumar Vs. Hargyan & Ors. 13.12.2025 Page 1/40 AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. The present Detailed Accident Report (DAR) for compensation relates to grievous injury and permanent disability suffered by the claimant Sh. Ajay Kumar in a road accident that took place on 16.01.2020 at about 01:30 AM, Station Road infront of Arjan Vihar, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi, regarding which one FIR No.423/20, U/s 279/338 IPC was registered at PS Delhi Cantt.
2. The offending vehicle involved in this case is a truck bearing registration No. HR-55S-5355, which at the relevant time of accident was being driven by respondent no.1 Hargyan, owned by respondent no. 2 Ashok Kumar and insured with respondent no. 3 New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Case of the claimant
3. It is the case of the claimant that during the intervening night of 15.10.2020 and 16.10.2020, the claimant was traveling in a car bearing registration No. DL-4CAX-1916 along with his friend Chetan Rana who was driving the said car at a normal speed and on the correct side of the road. When they reached Station Road towards Delhi Cantt., New Delhi, infront of Gate No. 1, Arjan Vihar, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi, the offending vehicle bearing registration No. HR-55S-5355, being driven by respondent no. 1 at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came ahead of the car after overtaking many vehicles and suddenly applied brakes without any indicators due to which the car dashed against the offending vehicle with force and they sustained grievous injuries. It is further stated DAR No. 86/21 Ajay Kumar Vs. Hargyan & Ors. 13.12.2025 Page 2/40 that the claimant was taken to DDU Hospital, where his MLC was prepared by the doctors.
Case of respondent no. 1 and 2
4. Respondent no. 1/driver and respondent no. 2/owner filed their joint reply to the DAR wherein it is stated that the alleged offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent no. 3 w.e.f. 06.08.2020 to 05.08.2021. It is further stated that the respondent no.1 was holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. It is further stated that the alleged offending vehicle was having certificate of fitness and national permit at the time of accident and hence, they are not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant.
Case of respondent no. 3
5. Respondent no. 3/Insurance Company filed its legal offer for a sum of Rs.7,94,447/- plus actual loss of income for settlement, which was not acceptable to the claimant.
6. It is pertinent to mention that vide order dated 28.02.2022, two connected DARs bearing Nos. D-86/21 qua the claimant and D-42/21 qua the claimant Chetan Rana arising out of the same accident were consolidated for the purpose of trial and common evidence has been recorded in DAR No. 86/21.
Issues
7. On 28.02.2022, the following consolidated issues were framed by this Tribunal :-
1. Whether Chetan Rana (injured in DAR No. DAR No. 86/21 Ajay Kumar Vs. Hargyan & Ors. 13.12.2025 Page 3/40 42/21) and Ajay Kumar (injured of DAR No. 86/21) sustained grievous injuries in the accident which occurred on 16.01.2020 at about 02:00 AM, Station Road infront of Arjan Vihar, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR-55S-5355 being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3 ? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
Claimant's evidence
8. In support of his claim, the claimant examined himself as PW5. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW5/A and relied upon the following documents :-
(i). Ex. PW5/1 is the copy of his MLC filed by the IO along with the DAR.
(ii). Ex. PW5/2 (colly) is the original discharge summary dated 18.08.2021.
(iii). Ex. PW5/3 (colly) is the original bill dated 18.08.2021 for a sum of Rs.4,32,434.97 with complete details.
(iv). Ex. PW5/4 (colly) is the original bill dated 26.03.2022 for a sum of Rs.40,816/- issued by M/s Aakash Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. along with complete details.
(v). Ex. PW5/5 (colly) is the original bill dated 27.03.2022 for a sum DAR No. 86/21 Ajay Kumar Vs. Hargyan & Ors. 13.12.2025 Page 4/40 of Rs.6,980/- issued by M/s Aakash Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
(vi). Ex. PW5/6 (colly) is the original discharge summary dated 02.04.2022 issued by M/s Aakash Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
(vii). Ex. PW5/7 (colly) is the original bill dated 02.04.2022 for a sum of Rs.44,942/- along with complete details.
(viii). Ex. PW5/8 (colly) is the original discharge summary dated 18.05.2022 issued by M/s Medanta Hospital.
(ix). Ex. PW5/9 (colly) is the original bill dated 18.05.2022 for a sum of Rs. 4,67,647.75 along with complete details.
(x). Ex. PW5/10 (colly) is the original discharge summary dated 15.03.2023 issued by M/s Medanta Hospital.
(xi). Ex. PW5/11 (colly) is the original bill dated 15.03.2023 for a sum of Rs.1,36,426.32 with complete details.
(xii). Ex. PW5/12 is the copy of his Aadhaar card.
(xiii). Ex. PW5/13 is the copy of his PAN card.
(xiv). Ex. PW5/14 (colly) is the copy of his educational qualification.
(xv). Ex. PW5/15 (colly) is the downloaded copy of registration certificate of proprietorship concern along with Annexure A and B. (xvi). Ex. PW5/16 (colly) are the original bills/receipts of Rs.1,59,905.10.
(xvii). Ex. PW5/17 (colly) are the original bills/receipts of Rs.1,32,314/- filed by the IO along with the DAR. (xviii). Mark A is copy of RC of the car.
(xix). Mark B is the copy of insurance policy of RC of car.
DAR No. 86/21 Ajay Kumar Vs. Hargyan & Ors. 13.12.2025 Page 5/40(xx). Ex. PW5/18 are the photographs of the damaged car. (xxi). Ex. PW5/19 is the original bill/receipt of Rs.11,800/- dated 09.09.2021.
(xxii). Ex. PW5/20 (colly) is the original estimated bill dated 07.09.2021 for a sum of Rs.15,25,665/-.
9. The claimant examined Dr. Gorav Malhotra, Junior Medical Record Officer from Sir Ganga Ram Hospital as PW1 who has placed on record the following documents :-
(i). Ex. PW1/1 is the copy of his authority letter.
(ii). Ex. PW1/2 (colly) is the attested copy of entire treatment record of claimant pertaining to the period from 16.10.2020 to 25.10.2020.
(iii). Ex. PW1/3 (colly) is the original discharge summary dated 25.10.2020 available in the court file.
(iv). Ex. PW1/4 (colly) is the original final bill dated 25.10.2020 of Rs.6,07,133/- available in the court file.
(v). Ex. PW1/5 is the original bill dated 19.03.2022 of Rs. 2,593/- available in the court file.
(vi). Ex. PW1/6 (colly) are the original bills available in the court file.
10. The claimant also examined Dr. Sachin Dhiman, B.P.T. (physiotherapist) from Alipur, Delhi as PW2 who has placed on record his registration certificate as Ex. PW2/1 (OSR), copy of his degree of bachelor of physiotherapy as Ex. PW2/2 (OSR) and bills of physiotherapy of claimant for the period w.e.f. December 2020 to May 2023 as Ex. PW2/3 (colly).
DAR No. 86/21 Ajay Kumar Vs. Hargyan & Ors. 13.12.2025 Page 6/4011. The claimant also examined Dr. Vasu, MBBS, MS Ortho/Assistant Professor from Dr. RML Hospital as PW3 who has proved the disability certificate of claimant as Ex. PW3/1.
12. The claimant also examined Sh. Dishant, Stenographer from Income Tax Department as PW4 who has placed on record his authority letter as Ex. PW4/1 and certified true copy of income tax returns for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20.
13. The claimant also examined Mr. Chetan Rana, injured of connected matter as PW6. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW5/A and relied upon the following documents :-
(i). Ex. PW6/1 is the copy of his MLC.
(ii). Ex. PW6/2 (OSR) is the copy of his Aadhaar card.
(iii). Ex. PW6/3 (OSR) is the copy of his PAN card.
(iv). Ex. PW6/4 (OSR) is the copy of his driving license.
(v). Ex. PW6/5 (colly) is the copy of his appointment letter dated 18.06.2020 along with Annexure filed by the IO in the DAR.
(vi). Ex. PW6/6 (colly) is the copy of treatment document filed by the IO in the DAR.
(vii). Ex. PW6/7 is the final bill of Rs.2,16,748/- filed by the IO in the DAR.
(viii). Ex. PW6/8 (colly) are the original bills/receipts filed by the IO in the DAR amounting to Rs.25,663/-.
(ix). Mark A is the copy of mediclaim policy.
(x). Ex. PW6/9 (colly) is the certified copy of order and statement dated 14.11.2022 passed by the Ld. MM.
DAR No. 86/21 Ajay Kumar Vs. Hargyan & Ors. 13.12.2025 Page 7/40(xi). Mark B is the copy of his salary slip of September, 2020.
(xii). Ex. PW6/10 (colly) is the copy of his educational qualification documents.
(xiii). Ex. PW6/11 (colly) is the original discharge summary dated 20.10.2020 issued by M/s Action Medical Institute.
(xiv). Ex. PW6/12 (colly) are the original treatment documents/OPD cards.
(xv). Ex. PW6/13 (colly) are the photographs showing his injuries. (xvi). Ex. PW6/14 (colly) are the original bills of Rs.9,762/-.
14. The claimant also examined Mr. Niraj Kumar, HR/Admin from Universal Hyundai, Najafgarh, New Delhi as PW7 who has placed on record copy of his identity card as Ex. PW7/A (OSR), attested copy of invoice dated 09.09.2021 as Ex. PW7/1 and attested copy of estimated bill dated 07.09.2021 as Ex. PW7/2 (colly).
15. The claimant and all the aforesaid witnesses were cross-examined and discharged.
Respondents'evidence
16. No witness was examined on behalf by the respondents in rebuttal despite opportunities.
Findings
17. I have heard arguments and have carefully perused the entire case record.
18. The findings on the aforementioned issues are rendered DAR No. 86/21 Ajay Kumar Vs. Hargyan & Ors. 13.12.2025 Page 8/40 hereinafter in the succeeding paragraphs.
ISSUE NO. 1 - Whether Chetan Rana (injured in DAR No. 42/21) and Ajay Kumar (injured of DAR No. 86/21) sustained grievous injuries in the accident which occurred on 16.01.2020 at about 02:00 AM, Station Road infront of Arjan Vihar, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR-55S-5355 being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3 ? OPP.
19. Onus to prove this issue was upon the claimant. The claimant deposed as PW5. The claimant deposed that he along with his friend Chetan Rana were traveling in a car bearing registration No. DL-4CAX-1916, which was being driven by Chetan Rana and when they reached Station Road towards Delhi Cantt., New Delhi, in front of Gate No. 1, Arjan Vihar, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi, the offending vehicle bearing registration No. HR-55S-5355, being driven by respondent no. 1 at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came ahead of the car after overtaking many vehicles and suddenly applied brakes without any indicators due to which the car dashed against the offending vehicle with force, they sustained grievous injuries and the car got totally damaged.
20. During cross-examination, he deposed that the offending truck came after overtaking many vehicles and in order to overtake another car running ahead of the said offending truck, the driver of the truck suddenly brought his truck ahead of his car and DAR No. 86/21 Ajay Kumar Vs. Hargyan & Ors. 13.12.2025 Page 9/40 suddenly applied brakes without giving any indicator. He admitted that the visibility at the time of accident was clear on the road and the speed of their car was around 80 Km per hour which hit the said offending truck from its right back. He admitted that the average driving speed of the cars in Delhi roads is around 50 to 60 km per hour. He further admitted that 'influence of alcohol' is mentioned in his MLC issued by DDU Hospital. He further admitted that the right way to overtake any vehicle is from the right side and the front left side portion of his car was badly damaged in the said accident as compared to right portion.
21. It is stated in the written submission filed by the respondent no. 3 that Mr. Chetan Rana left the DDU Hospital without getting his MLC done which indicates that he was also under the influence of alcohol while driving his car at the time of accident.
22. Ld. Counsel for claimant has argued that the respondent no. 1 was chargesheeted and he was convicted for the offence under Section 279 IPC upon plea of guilt before the concerned court vide order dated 14.11.2022. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for claimant has relied upon the Judgment in case titled as Naresh Kumar Gupta Vs. Gurpreet Singh, MAC Appeal No. 397 of 2018, decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 14.05.2018.
23. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for Insurance Company has placed reliance upon the Judgment in case titled as Lantu DAR No. 86/21 Ajay Kumar Vs. Hargyan & Ors. 13.12.2025 Page 10/40 Chandrashekar Vs. A. Hari Prasad Reddy, MACMA No. 758 of 2011, decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana on 12.11.2020 in which it was held that pleading of guilt before the criminal court will not be binding on the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Hon'ble High Court relied upon the previous decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in which it was held that the civil suit should be determined on its own keeping in view the evidence which has been brought on record before it and not in terms of evidence brought in the criminal proceedings. It was held that there was no admission of guilt by the driver of the offending vehicle before the civil court.
24. Similarly, in the present case, the respondent no.1/driver did not come before the Tribunal and admit his guilt of driving the truck rashly and negligently.
25. The Tribunal can not uniformly apply the decision passed in the case of Naresh Kumar Gupta Vs. Gurpreet Singh to all cases, including the present case, where the driver has pleaded guilty in the criminal case. The decision taken in the said case was on the basis of the facts of the said case.
26. Several other judgments have also been filed by Ld. Counsel for claimant in support of the contention that the contents of DAR are presumed to be correct and that since the respondent no.1/driver did not come to the witness box, it is to be presumed that negligence was that of respondent no. 1 only.
DAR No. 86/21 Ajay Kumar Vs. Hargyan & Ors. 13.12.2025 Page 11/4027. However, none of the judgments apply to the present case. What is most peculiar about the present case is that the claimant has himself admitted during cross-examination that his car was being driven at a fast speed of 80 kms per hour.
28. It is not in dispute that the truck has been hit from behind by the vehicle of the claimant. Even if it is presumed that this accident took place since the driver of the truck had suddenly applied brakes, for which there must have been some reason, if the car of the claimant was being driven at a controlled and within the permissible speed limit, it is possible that the accident would not have taken place. It can be inferred that since the vehicle of claimant was being driven at a fast speed, the vehicle of the claimant could not be stopped on time to avoid collision.
29. In support of the argument that there was contributory negligence on the part of driver of the car, Ld. Counsel for Insurance Company has relied upon the judgment in case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rinki @ Rinku & Ors., MAC Appeal No. 200/2012, decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 23.07.2012 wherein the following was held as under :-
"8. The learned counsel for the Appellant has taken me through the FIR No.480/2009, site plan and the mechanical inspection reports of both the vehicles involved in the accident. In this case, the FIR was registered merely on the ground that the accident had taken place. The driver of the truck was not accused of the negligence in the FIR. A perusal of the mechanical inspection reports reveals that there was extensive damage in the front portion of the DAR No. 86/21 Ajay Kumar Vs. Hargyan & Ors. 13.12.2025 Page 12/40 maruti van No.DL-1CE-6568 and some fresh damages on the rear of truck/trolla No.HR-46- 8209. It is, therefore, apparent that the maruti van was also being driven at an excessive speed and the driver was not maintaining proper distance to stop the vehicle. Thus, there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as well. The Respondent No.8 cannot be held solely responsible for the accident. In the circumstances of the case, I hold that there was equal negligence i.e. in the ratio of 50:50 on the part of the deceased and the Eighth Respondent. The Claimants would, therefore, be entitled to only 50% of the compensation from the owner driver and the Appellant Insurance Company."
30. In the present case, there is clear admission of claimant in his cross-examination that the speed of their car was around 80 Km per hour which hit the truck from behind. He admitted that the average driving speed of cars on Delhi roads is around 50 to 60 km per hour. These admissions prove that there was contributory negligence on the part of driver of the car.
31. The Court has found inconsistencies in the testimony of claimant and his friend Mr. Chetan Rana due to which it is unable to accept their testimonies at the face value. During cross-examination, the claimant first stated that he was not drunk at the time of accident and later admitted that as per his MLC, he had consumed alcohol.
32. Dr. Sachin Dhiman, Physiotherapist examined as PW2 deposed for the benefit of the claimant that Rs.2,27,500/- had been paid by the claimant to him. As per the testimony of the physiotherapist, numerous physiotherapy sessions were given to the DAR No. 86/21 Ajay Kumar Vs. Hargyan & Ors. 13.12.2025 Page 13/40 claimant from December 2020 till May 2023.
33. However, the claimant, during cross-examination stated that he does not remember the name of his physiotherapist. It is strange that the claimant did not remember the name of physiotherapist even though as per the testimony of PW2, physiotherapy sessions were obtained for a long period of around two and half years at the residence of the claimant.
34. Another contradiction noticed is that as per the claimant, he took physiotherapy sessions only for six months, even though, as per testimony of PW2, who has placed on record bills of physiotherapy, physiotherapy went on for a period of around two and half years.
35. The claimant also stated that he does not remember the mode of payment made to the physiotherapist.
36. For the above reasons, the Tribunal is unable to completely believe the testimony of claimant.
37. Further, no reasonable explanation has been furnished by Mr. Chetan Rana during his cross-examination as to why his MLC was prepared at Balaji Hospital on 17.10.2020 at 12:55 pm after a gap of around 36 hours from the accident. The claimant had consumed alcohol and since Mr. Chetan Rana avoided having himself examined at DDU Hospital along with the claimant herein, on 16.10.2020 itself, it is possible that Mr. Chetan Rana was also under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident.
DAR No. 86/21 Ajay Kumar Vs. Hargyan & Ors. 13.12.2025 Page 14/4038. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a Civil Court and in Civil matters, the facts are required to be established on preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt, as are required in a criminal prosecution. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported as (2009) 13 SC 530 in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, wherein it has been observed that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants and the claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.
39. In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances, this Tribunal is of the view that there was contributory negligence on the part of driver of the car.
40. Ordinarily, the contributory negligence of a driver cannot be vicariously attached to the passengers so as to reduce the compensation awarded to the passengers. However, what is peculiar in the present case is that the passenger was the owner of the car and driver was his friend. The owner permitted his friend Mr. Chetan Rana to not only drive his car, but also drive the car at a fast speed. No evidence has been led by the claimant to establish that he tried to stop Mr. Chetan Rana from driving the car fast. There is not an averment of the claimant that he advised Mr. Chetan Rana to drive within the permissible limits and at a slow speed. They both had DAR No. 86/21 Ajay Kumar Vs. Hargyan & Ors. 13.12.2025 Page 15/40 gone out to have dinner. Atleast one of them, i.e. the claimant herein had consumed alcohol. In the peculiar facts of the present case, that the claimant is the owner of the car, which was being driven negligently, this Tribunal is of the view that the claimant/passenger can be held vicariously liable for the negligence of the driver Mr. Chetan Rana.
41. In view of foregoing discussion, it stands proved on preponderance of probability that the claimant suffered grievous injuries in the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles, i.e. truck bearing registration no. HR-55S-5355 and the car bearing registration No. DL-4CAX-1916, which also got damaged. The Tribunal deems it fit to deduct 50% amount towards contributory negligence from the total awarded amount of compensation. Reference is made to the aforementioned decision in case United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Rinki, in which also 50% amount was deducted due to contributory negligence. It also stands proved that the truck was being driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3. This issue is accordingly decided.
ISSUE NO. 2 - Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
42. As the issue No.1 has been decided in favour of the claimant, he has become entitled to be compensated for the injuries suffered by him in the accident, but the computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be DAR No. 86/21 Ajay Kumar Vs. Hargyan & Ors. 13.12.2025 Page 16/40 decided.
43. In terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the compensation which is to be awarded by this Tribunal is required to be 'just'. In injury cases, a claimant is entitled to two different kinds of compensation i.e. pecuniary as well as non- pecuniary damages. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343, has laid down heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases as:-
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).DAR No. 86/21 Ajay Kumar Vs. Hargyan & Ors. 13.12.2025 Page 17/40
44. Having considered the ratio of aforesaid judgment, the compensation payable to claimant is assessed hereinafter under the following heads as:-
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
45. Claimant in his affidavit in evidence Ex. PW5/A, has tendered on record original discharge summary dated 18.08.2021 as Ex. PW5/2 (colly), original discharge summary dated 02.04.2022 issued by M/s Akash Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. as Ex. PW5/6 (colly), original discharge summary dated 18.05.2022 issued by M/s Medanta Hospital as Ex. PW5/8 (colly) and original discharge summary dated 15.03.2023 issued by M/s Medanta Hospital as Ex. PW5/10 (colly).
46. As per discharge summary Ex. PW5/2 (colly), the claimant was admitted in Medanta Hospital on 10.08.2021 and discharged on 18.08.2021 where he was diagnosed with post traumatic left upper limb brachial plexopathy with complete flail limb and underwent operative procedures.
47. As per discharge summary Ex. PW5/6, the claimant was admitted in Aakash Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. on 31.03.2022 and discharged on 02.04.2022 where he was diagnosed with post right hydrocoelectomy hematoma with scrotal oedema and underwent operative procedures.
48. As per discharge summary Ex. PW5/8 (colly), the claimant again admitted in Medanta Hospital on 10.05.2022 for DAR No. 86/21 Ajay Kumar Vs. Hargyan & Ors. 13.12.2025 Page 18/40 surgery and discharged on 18.05.2022.
49. As per discharge summary Ex. PW5/10 (colly), the claimant again admitted in Medanta Hospital on 14.03.2023 for surgery and discharged on 15.03.2023.
50. The claimant examined Sh. Gorav Malhotra, Junior Medical Record Officer from Sir Ganga Ram Hospital as PW1 who deposed that the claimant was admitted in their hospital on 16.10.2020 and was discharged on 25.10.2020 and proved the final bill of Rs.6,07,133/- for the said period of hospitalization as Ex. PW1/2 (colly). He also proved the original discharge summary dated 25.10.2020 available in the court file as Ex. PW1/3 (colly).He also proved the original final bill dated 25.10.2020 for a sum of Rs.6,07,133/- as Ex. PW1/4 (colly), original bill dated 19.03.2022 for a sum of Rs.2,593/- as Ex. PW1/5 and other original bills as Ex. PW1/6 (colly).
51. As per discharge summary Ex. PW1/2 (colly), the claimant was admitted in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital on 16.10.2020 and discharged on 25.10.2020 where he was diagnosed with right fronto parietal SDH with left shoulder injury and underwent re- exploration, debridement and re-suturing of scalp laceration.
52. The claimant in his affidavit has tendered on record original bill dated 18.08.2021 for a sum of Rs.4,32,434.97 with complete details as Ex. PW5/3 (colly), original bill dated 26.03.2022 for a sum of Rs.40,816/- issued by M/s Akash Healthcare Pvt Ltd. along with complete details as Ex. PW5/4 DAR No. 86/21 Ajay Kumar Vs. Hargyan & Ors. 13.12.2025 Page 19/40 (colly), original bill dated 27.03.2022 for a sum of Rs.6,980/- issued by M/s Akash Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. as Ex. PW5/5 (colly), original bill dated 02.04.2022 for a sum of Rs.44,942/- along with complete details as Ex. PW5/7 (colly), original bill dated 18.05.2022 for a sum of Rs.4,67,647.75 along with complete details as Ex. PW5/9 (colly), original bill dated 15.03.2023 for a sum of Rs.1,36,426.32 with complete details as Ex. PW5/11 (colly), original bills/receipts of Rs.1,59,905.10 as Ex. PW5/16 (colly) and original bills/receipts of Rs.1,32,314/- filed by the IO along with the DAR as Ex. PW5/17 (colly) which are totaling to a sum of Rs.14,21,466.14.
53. PW1 also proved the original final bill dated 25.10.2020 for a sum of Rs.6,07,133/- as Ex. PW1/4 (colly), original bill dated 19.03.2022 for a sum of Rs.2,593/- as Ex. PW1/5 and other original bills for a sum of Rs. 17,958/- as Ex. PW1/6 (colly) which are totaling to a sum of Rs.6,27,684/-.
54. The total medical bills are of Rs.20,49,150.14/-.
55. The respondents have failed to lead any evidence to show that the said medical bills do not relate to the injuries suffered by the claimant in the aforesaid accident. Thus, the testimony of PW-5 that he had spent the aforesaid amount towards medical expenses remains unrebutted and uncontroverted. In the absence of any plausible evidence produced by respondents, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-5 that he had spent the aforesaid amount towards medical expenses. Hence, he is held entitled to Rs.20,49,150/- (rounded off) towards his medical expenses.
DAR No. 86/21 Ajay Kumar Vs. Hargyan & Ors. 13.12.2025 Page 20/40(ii) Loss of earnings
56. The claimant in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A has deposed that he was running his proprietorship concern/shop under the name and style of M/s Arora Cycle House, Main Najafgarh Road, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. He further deposed that besides selling bicycles, he also used to do the repairing works of bicycles which is completely a manual work. He further deposed that he was an income tax assessee.
57. In order to prove the income, the claimant examined Sh. Dishant, Stenographer from Income Tax Department as PW4 who has placed on record income tax returns of claimant for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 as Ex. PW4/2 (colly). He deposed that as per record, the income tax returns for the assessment year 2019-20 was filed on 30.11.2020 for a total sum of Rs.4,30,104/- and income tax of Rs.1,210/- was paid by the claimant.
58. Perusal of income tax returns for the assessment year 2019-20 reveals the gross annual income of claimant as Rs.4,30,104/- from which income tax of Rs.1210/- was deducted. After deducting the tax amount of Rs.1210/-, the gross annual income of claimant is Rs. 4,28,894/- (Rs.4,30,104/- - Rs.1210/-) and the monthly income of claimant is Rs.35,741/- (rounded off).
59. Keeping in view the nature of injuries, disability and duration of claimant's treatment including the multiple times he was admitted in the hospital, this Tribunal finds it just and reasonable to DAR No. 86/21 Ajay Kumar Vs. Hargyan & Ors. 13.12.2025 Page 21/40 compensate him for loss of earning equivalent to a period of six months. Therefore, under this head, he is being awarded an amount of Rs.2,14,446/- (Rs.35,741/- X 6 months).
(iii) Loss of future earnings
60. As per disability certificate issued by Dr. RML Hospital Ex. PW3/1, the claimant is a case of RTA with left brachial plexus injury with traumatic thin right parietal acute SDH with left scapular fracture with grade 4 varicocele and his permanent physical impairment is 90%.
61. The law with regard to grant of compensation due to permanent disability and determination of functional disability etc. was well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343, wherein it has been held as under :-
"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 DAR No. 86/21 Ajay Kumar Vs. Hargyan & Ors. 13.12.2025 Page 22/40 injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467).
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 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. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of `loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not found suitable for DAR No. 86/21 Ajay Kumar Vs. Hargyan & Ors. 13.12.2025 Page 23/40 discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may..."
62. In order to prove the disability certificate, the claimant examined Dr. Vasu, MBBS, MS Ortho/Assistant Professor from Dr. RML Hospital as PW3 who has proved the disability certificate of claimant as Ex. PW3/1. He deposed that the claimant can not lift overhead objects, touching nose with end of extremity, eating indian style, combing and plating, putting on shirt, ablution glass of water, drinking glass of water, buttoning, tying nada, dhoti and writing. He further deposed that the claimant cannot do his day to day chores by using his left hand but he can do by using his right hand. He further deposed that the claimant requires long term physiotherapy in order to avoid further contractures and deterioration. He further deposed that claimant cannot ride any two wheeler or bicycle or motorcycle, can not do any work requiring both hands and will face little difficulty in using public transport.
63. During cross-examination, he admitted that the disability certificate was issued with respect to left upper limb only DAR No. 86/21 Ajay Kumar Vs. Hargyan & Ors. 13.12.2025 Page 24/40 and not for the whole body and the disability is permanent in nature. He further admitted that both legs of claimant are working properly and his mobility is fine. He further admitted that the claimant can climb stairs up and down and perform his work by using right hand. He stated that the claimant requires attendant while doing any work involving both hands.
64. The claimant also examined Dr. Sachin Dhiman, Physiotherapist as PW2 who deposed that due to the injuries, the claimant will not be able to perform any kind of activities and daily chores by using left upper limb. He testified that the claimant will not be able to hold anything with his left hand. He deposed that the claimant can not ride any two wheeler, four wheeler or bicycle whole life. He testified that the claimant can not wear clothes on his own and can not wear shoes without help of others. He stated that the claimant will not be able to do repairs of cycles.
65. The Tribunal has already noted the contradictions hereinabove in the testimony of PW2 vis a viz the testimony of claimant and as such, it has created a doubt on the veracity of deposition of PW2.
66. Another reason for doubting the testimony of PW2, who is a private practitioner is that PW2 had deposed that the claimant will require physiotherapy throughout his life, even though PW3 who is a doctor from Dr. RML Hospital, which is a government hospital, stated that the claimant only requires long term physiotherapy.
DAR No. 86/21 Ajay Kumar Vs. Hargyan & Ors. 13.12.2025 Page 25/4067. The claimant has stated in his evidence by way of affidavit that he used to not only sell bicycles, but also repair bicycles.
68. Ld. Counsel for Insurance Company has argued that on one hand, the claimant owned an expensive car (i20), was returning late night after consuming food and alcohol outside and files ITR of Rs.4,30,104/- and on the other hand, the claimant claims to be himself doing repair work of bicycles. It is contended that this contention of the claimant is false.
69. The Tribunal agrees with the submission that keeping in view the financial status of the claimant and his lifestyle, it is unlikely that he may be himself doing the repair work of bicycles. However, there is no direct evidence on record which establishes that this contention of claimant is false.
70. In view of testimony of doctors, it is only this repair work of bicycles which could be affected due to the injuries since repairing would require usage of both hands.
71. Considering the legal position discussed above, coupled with the testimonies of PW2 and PW3 and particularly testimony of PW3 that the disability is with respect to left upper limb only and not for the whole body, both legs of claimant are working properly and his mobility is fine, the functional disability of claimant is taken as 30% in relation to whole body.
72. To apply the multiplier, it is necessary to ascertain the age of the claimant. The claimant has tendered on record copy of his DAR No. 86/21 Ajay Kumar Vs. Hargyan & Ors. 13.12.2025 Page 26/40 Aadhaar card and PAN card as Ex. PW5/12 and Ex. PW5/13 (OSR). In the Aadhaar card, the year of birth of claimant is mentioned as 1992 whereas in the PAN card, his date of birth is found recorded as 21.11.1992. Hence, going by these documents, the age of claimant comes out to be around 27 years, 10 months and 24 days at the time of accident. Accordingly, in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been approved by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, the multiplier of '17' is applicable in the present case.
73. In view of the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the claimant is also held entitled to addition of 40% of earning towards future prospects. Thus, the loss of future earnings caused to the claimant due to his permanent disability comes to Rs.30,62,289/- (rounded off) (Rs.35,741/- X 12 X 30/100 X 17 X 140/100).
(iv) Mental and Physical Shock, Pain and Sufferings & Loss of Amenities
74. As stated above, the claimant had suffered grievous injuries and permanent disability in the accident. Though, it is not possible to exactly compensate him for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which he had actually suffered because of the above injuries, but an effort has to be made to compensate him for the same in a just and reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view the DAR No. 86/21 Ajay Kumar Vs. Hargyan & Ors. 13.12.2025 Page 27/40 extent and nature of the injuries suffered by the claimant and duration of the treatment taken by him etc., an amount of Rs.50,000/- each is being awarded to him towards (i) mental and physical shock and (ii) for pain and sufferings respectively. Further, an amount of Rs.25,000/- is also awarded to him towards the loss of amenities suffered by him during said period of his treatment. Thus, he is awarded total amount of Rs.1,25,000/- under this head.
(v) Conveyance, Special Diet and Attendant Charges
75. The claimant in his affidavit is silent with regard to the amounts spent towards conveyance and special diet. Still this Tribunal can very well take note of the requirement of conveyance for claimant for visiting the hospitals and doctors in connection with his treatment and special diet for his early recovery from the injuries suffered because of the accident. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, an amount of Rs.25,000/- each is being awarded to the claimant towards conveyance and special diet.
76. The claimant in his affidavit deposed that he requires an attendant throughout his life, but due to lack of funds, he is unable to hire any attendant and his parents always accompanied him for doing all daily routine works. On one hand, the claimant owns an expensive car, eats and drinks outside till late night, but on the other hand, does not have money to hire an attendant, if at all that has become essential for him.
77. Keeping in view the nature of injuries and disability suffered by the claimant, he would have required assistance of some family member/attendant for doing his daily routine work.
DAR No. 86/21 Ajay Kumar Vs. Hargyan & Ors. 13.12.2025 Page 28/40Therefore, a lumpsum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is also being awarded to the claimant towards attendant charges. The claimant is thus entitled to an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.25,000/- + Rs.25,000 + Rs. 1,00,000/-) under this head.
(vi) Expenses towards Physiotherapy
78. The claimant in his affidavit deposed that he has been advised by the doctors to take physiotherapy throughout his life to avoid further deterioration and to maintain muscle strength and range of motion, but he is not able to take physiotherapy treatment due to lack of funds.
79. The claimant examined Dr. Sachin Dhiman, BPT (Physiotherapist) as PW2 who deposed that he visited the claimant w.e.f. December 2020 to May 2023 and gave physiotherapy treatment to him and charged Rs.700/- per visit/session. He has proved the physiotherapy bills of claimant for the period December 2020 to May 2023 as Ex. PW2/3 (colly). He deposed that the claimant requires physiotherapy throughout his life in order to avoid further deterioration in his muscle power and strength in his left upper limb.
80. During cross-examination, the claimant deposed that he did not remember the name of my physiotherapist and the exact date when he started taking physiotherapy sessions. He further deposed that he did not know the clinic address of his physiotherapist and did not remember the mode of payment of fees to the physiotherapist. He admitted that he has not filed any bank DAR No. 86/21 Ajay Kumar Vs. Hargyan & Ors. 13.12.2025 Page 29/40 account statement showing deduction on account of payment of physiotherapy fees. He further deposed that he had taken the physiotherapy for six months and thereafter, he did not take any further physiotherapy till date.
81. On the other hand, the physiotherapist examined as PW2 deposed that the physiotherapy was given to the claimant for a period of around two and a half years.
82. Also, as has already been pointed hereinabove, the testimony of PW2 that the claimant requires physiotherapy throughout his life is in contradiction with the testimony of PW3, who is a doctor from a reputed government hospital that the claimant will require physiotherapy for a "long term".
83. Since no proof of actual payment has been brought on record and due to inconsistencies in the testimonies discussed hereinabove, the Tribunal is unable to believe that payment of Rs.2,27,500/- was actually made to PW2 by the claimant.
84. Having held the same, the Tribunal is inclined to accept the testimony of doctor from Dr. RML Hospital, which is a government hospital, that the claimant requires long term physiotherapy.
85. Accordingly, a lumpsum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded to the claimant under this head.
(vii) Loss of prospects of marriage
86. Claimant during his financial statement has stated that he is still bachelor.
DAR No. 86/21 Ajay Kumar Vs. Hargyan & Ors. 13.12.2025 Page 30/4087. Keeping in view the nature and extent of disability, an inference can also be drawn that the marriage prospects of the claimant will certainly be affected and that he will have difficulties in finding a suitable match. Hence, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is also awarded to the claimant under this head.
ISSUE No. 3/Relief
88. In view of foregoing discussion, the claimant is thus awarded a sum of Rs.58,00,885/- (Rupees Fifty Eight Lakh Eight Hundred Eighty Five only) (Rs.20,49,150/- + Rs.2,14,446/- + Rs.30,62,289/- + Rs.1,25,000/- + Rs.1,50,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/-) along with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of DAR. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be liable to be excluded from the award amount. As already discussed above, 50% amount towards contributory negligence should be deducted from the total awarded amount of compensation. Accordingly, after deducting 50% amount towards contributory negligence, the total awarded amount is Rs.29,00,443/- (rounded off) (Rs.58,00,885/2).
RELEASE
89. Out of the awarded amount, 90% amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in form of 200 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a DAR No. 86/21 Ajay Kumar Vs. Hargyan & Ors. 13.12.2025 Page 31/40 period of 1 to 200 months in succession, as per scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. and as implemented vide subsequent order dated 07.12.2018 and order dated 08.01.2021 passed in the said case. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in his saving/MACT Claims SB Account opened/to be opened near the place of his residence, as directed vide Order dated 28.02.2022 and the remaining 10% amount is also directed to be released into his above said account, which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by him.
90. The disbursement to the claimant is, however, subject to addition of future interest till deposit proportionately and also deduction of proportionate tax on the interest amount or amount of interim award, if any, to/from his share.
91. The bank shall not permit any joint names to be added in the savings bank account or MACAD scheme account of claimant i.e. the bank account of claimant shall be individual account and not a joint account.
92. The original fixed deposits shall be retained by the UCO Bank, PHC, New Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR numbers, amounts, dates of maturity and maturity amounts shall be furnished by the said bank to the claimant and the above amount shall be released in account of claimant by the Manager, UCO Bank, PHC, ND through RTGS/NEFT/or any other electronic mode.
DAR No. 86/21 Ajay Kumar Vs. Hargyan & Ors. 13.12.2025 Page 32/4093. The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of his residence.
94. The maturity amount of the FDR (s) on monthly basis net of TDS be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the above account of claimant.
95. No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the MACAD without permission of the Court.
96. The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
97. 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.
98. It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause DAR No. 86/21 Ajay Kumar Vs. Hargyan & Ors. 13.12.2025 Page 33/40 above.
LIABILITY
99. All the respondents are though being held jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to claimant, but respondent no.3 being insurer of offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of DAR by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in bank account being maintained in the above said bank in name of this tribunal within 30 days from today, failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay. In case even after lapse of 90 days from today, respondent no. 3 fails to deposit this compensation with interest, in that event, in light of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal 2007 ACJ 688 , this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of respondent no. 3 with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.
100. The respondent no.3 shall inform the claimant and his counsel through registered post that the awarded amount has been deposited so as to facilitate him to collect the same.
101. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost or be sent to them by email. Ahlmad is directed to send a copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Judgment titled as Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. passed in FAO No.842/2003 dated 12.12.2014.
DAR No. 86/21 Ajay Kumar Vs. Hargyan & Ors. 13.12.2025 Page 34/40102. Further, Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 08.01.2021.
103. The particulars of Form-XVII of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, in terms of directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 08.01.2021, are as under:
1. Date of the accident 15/16.10.2020
2. Date of filing of Form I- First NA Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the NA victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the NA Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from NA the owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- NA Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and NA Form VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII-Detailed 08.02.2021 Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or No deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Not given Designated Officer by the Insurance Company.DAR No. 86/21 Ajay Kumar Vs. Hargyan & Ors. 13.12.2025 Page 35/40
11. Whether the Designated Officer of No the Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or Yes deficiencies on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the claimant(s) Legal offer filed, but of the offer of the Insurance not acceptable to the Company. claimant.
14. Date of the Award 13.12.2025
15. Whether the claimant(s) were Yes directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) 28.02.2022 were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar 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).
17. Date on which the claimant(s) Yet to furnish produced the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of As mentioned above the claimant(s) DAR No. 86/21 Ajay Kumar Vs. Hargyan & Ors. 13.12.2025 Page 36/40
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings Yet to furnish bank account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were Yes examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
104. File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 19.03.2026. Digitally signed by SHIRISH AGGARWAL SHIRISH Date:
AGGARWAL 2025.12.13 16:51:32 +0530 Announced in the open court (Shirish Aggarwal) on 13.12.2025 PO/MACT-01, New Delhi Encl: The summary of computation in the prescribed format DAR No. 86/21 Ajay Kumar Vs. Hargyan & Ors. 13.12.2025 Page 37/40 SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD IN INJURY CASES IN FORM XVI
1. Date of accident : 15/16.10.2020
2. Name of the injured : Sh. Ajay Kumar
3. Age of the injured : 27 years, 10 months and 24 days
4. Occupation of the injured : Running Proprietorship concern/shop
5. Income of the injured : Rs.35,741/- per month
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by : Sir Ganga Ram Hospital the injured Medanta Hospital Aakash Healthcare Pvt.
Ltd.
8. Period of hospitalization : As mentioned above
9. Whether any permanent : 90% permanent disability? disability and functional disability taken as 30%.
10. Computation of Compensation Sr.No. Heads
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment : Rs.20,49,150/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance : Rs.25,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : Rs.25,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant : Rs.1,00,000/-
(v) Loss of earning capacity : Nil
(vi) Loss of Income : Rs.2,14,446/-
(vii) Any other loss which may : Nil
require any special
DAR No. 86/21
Ajay Kumar Vs. Hargyan & Ors. 13.12.2025 Page 38/40
treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his life
(viii) Expenses towards : Rs.1,00,000/-
physiotherapy
12. Non-pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental : Rs.50,000/-
and physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering : Rs.50,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life : Rs.25,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration : Nil
(v) Loss of marriage prospects : Rs.1,00,000/-
(vi) Loss of earning, : Nil
inconvenience, hardships,
disappointment,frustration,
mental stress, dejectment
and unhappiness in future
life etc.
13. Disability resulting in
loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability : 90% permanent
assessed and nature of disability
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 : 30% functional disability
earning relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income : Rs.30,62,289/-
14. Total Compensation Rs.29,00,443/- (after
deducting 50% amount
towards contributory
negligence)
DAR No. 86/21
Ajay Kumar Vs. Hargyan & Ors. 13.12.2025 Page 39/40
15. Interest Awarded : 7.5% pa from date of
filing of DAR till the
date of award to be
deposited in 30 days
and 9% thereafter.
16. Interest amount up to the : Rs.10,54,432/-
date of award
17. Total amount including : Rs.39,54,875/- (rounded interest off to Rs.39,55,000/-)
18. Award amount released : 10% share
19. Award amount kept in the : 90% share FDRs/ Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD)
20. Mode of disbursement of : Through Bank the award amount to the claimant (s)
21. Next date for compliance : 19.03.2026 of the award Digitally signed by SHIRISH SHIRISH AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.12.13 16:51:42 +0530 (Shirish Aggarwal) PO/MACT-01, New Delhi 13.12.2025 DAR No. 86/21 Ajay Kumar Vs. Hargyan & Ors. 13.12.2025 Page 40/40