Delhi District Court
Sushila Devi (I)(Sr. ... vs Shokendra Kumar (United India Ins Co.) on 9 February, 2026
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER MACT-02:
CENTRAL DISTRICT:
TIS HAZARI DISTRICT COURTS: DELHI.
PRESIDED OVER BY Ms. POOJA AGGARWAL, DHJS
MACT No. 984/23
CNR/UID No. DLCT-010-16075-2023
In Respect of:
FIR No. 818/23
PS Wazirabad
U/s 279/338 IPC
Sushila Devi (Injured)
W/o Sh. Bal Krishan
R/o H.No. T-66, Huts, Karampura,
West, Delhi-110015.
(Through Ld. Counsel Ms. Babita Tyagi)
.......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Shokendra Kumar (Driver/Owner)
S/o Mr. Gyan Singh
R/o H.No. 1/212, Block-B, Baba Colony,
Burari, Delhi-110084.
(Through Ld. Counsel Sh. Nagender Singh)
2. Go Digit General Insurance Company Ltd. (Insurer)
Office at:- 301, 3rd Floor, Chandra Bhawan,
Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.
(Through Ld. Counsel Sh. Sujit K. Jaiswal)
.....Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 07.11.2023
Judgment reserved on : 09.02.2026
Date of Award : 09.02.2026
MACT No. 984/23
Digitally signed
In Respect of FIR No. 818/23 PS Wazirabad by POOJA
AGGARWAL
Sushila Devi V Shokendra Kumar & Ors. POOJA
AGGARWAL Date: Page No. 1 of 36
2026.02.09
14:54:00
+0530
AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. The present Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred to as
"DAR") arises out of FIR No. 818/23, PS Wazirabad under
Section 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred
to as "IPC"), and has been filed by the Investigating Officer in
respect of an accident which took place on 05.08.2023 at 1.30
P.M. at Jagatpur Pusta Road, Near Milan Vihar, Sant Nagar,
Burari, Delhi by a Car bearing registration No. DL-1CAE-9568
(hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") when it struck a
pedestrian namely Smt. Sushila Devi W/o Sh. Bal Krishan
(hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner/ injured"), resulting in
injuries to her.
2. During investigation, it was found that at the time of the
accident, the offending vehicle was owned and was being driven
by Shokendra Kumar (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent
No.1") and it was insured with United India Insurance Company
Ltd.
3. Vide order dated 07.11.2023, passed by the Ld. Predecessor the
DAR was directed to be treated as a claim petition under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as
'MV Act').
4. Initially, the right of United India Insurance Company Ltd. to
file reply was closed by the Ld Predecessor vide order dated
11.11.2024, and issues were also framed on the same date, but
thereafter, it transpired that the offending vehicle was insured
MACT No. 984/23 Digitally signed
by POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 818/23 PS Wazirabad POOJA AGGARWAL
Sushila Devi V Shokendra Kumar & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2026.02.09 Page No. 2 of 36
14:54:06 +0530
with Go Digit General Insurance Company Ltd. Vide order
dated 03.04.2025 passed by Ld. Predecessor, Go Digit General
Insurance Company Ltd. was impleaded as Respondent No.2,
while United India Insurance Company Ltd. was deleted from
the array of parties.
Facts as per the written statement of Respondent No. 1
5. In his written statement to the DAR, the Respondent No. 1 maintained his innocence, and denied being responsible for the accident asserting that he had been falsely implicated. However, in his reply on merits, while denying the averments of the DAR, he asserted that the accident had taken place due to intentional misconduct on the part of the claimant.
Facts as per the Reply of Respondent No.2/ Insurance Company.
6. In their reply, the Respondent No.2/ Insurance Company asserted that the insured vehicle bearing no. DL-1CAE-9568 had been planted in the present case just to claim compensation as the FIR had been registered 24 hours after the accident, without any explanation for delay. However, they did not dispute that the vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1CAE-9568 was insured with them from 01.12.2021 to 30.11.2024, and also asserted that being a housewife, the Petitioner did not suffer any loss of income/earnings.
Issues
7. After impleadment of the Respondent No.2/ Insurance company, the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 11.11.2024:-
MACT No. 984/23 Digitally signed
by POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 818/23 PS Wazirabad POOJA AGGARWAL
Sushila Devi V Shokendra Kumar & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: Page No. 3 of 36
2026.02.09
14:54:11 +0530
1. Whether the Petitioner Sushila Devi suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 05.08.2023 at about 01.30 PM involving vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1CAE-9568 driven rashly and negligently and owned by the Respondent No. 1 and insured with the Respondent No. 2? OPP.
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
Evidence of the Petitioner
8. PW-1/Petitioner/injured Smt. Sushila Devi, tendered her evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex. PW-1/A wherein she, inter- alia, testified as to her having met with an accident on 05.08.2023 at about 1.30 P.M, after crossing about 50 meters of Kashan Charitable Hospital, Jagatpur Pusta Road towards Sant Nagar, Delhi, as the offending vehicle i.e. car bearing registration number DL-1CAE-9568, came from behind and hit her. She also testified that the offending vehicle was being driven by the Respondent No.1 at a very high speed; and rash, negligent, reckless and zig-zag manner, when it had hit her. She also testified to the effect that due to the impact, she had fallen down on the road and sustained injuries. She further testified that she became disabled due to the accident.
9. PW1/ Petitioner also testified as to having been taken to Trauma Centre, Civil Lines, Delhi in an ambulance, where her MLC bearing No. 1847/23, dated 05.08.2023 was prepared. She also testified that FIR No. 818/23, dated 06.08.2023 PS Wazirabad under Section 279/338 IPC was also registered against the Respondents.
MACT No. 984/23 Digitally signed
by POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 818/23 PS Wazirabad POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
Sushila Devi V Shokendra Kumar & Ors. 2026.02.09
14:54:19 +0530 Page No. 4 of 36
10. The Petitioner/PW1 has also testified that at the time of the accident, she was aged about 60 years; and was a housewife and was doing stitching work. She has also testified that she was earning about ₹25,000/- per month, and had incurred an expense of ₹50,000/- on her medical treatment, ₹40,000/- on conveyance, ₹40,000/- special diet and ₹30,000/- for attendant. She also testified that she was entitled to a compensation of ₹30,00,000/- due to the injuries, loss of earning, future prospect, humiliation, harassment, mental torture and agony.
11. The Petitioner has also relied upon the following documents:-
S.No Description of Documents Exhibit/Mark
1. Complete set of DAR Ex.PW-1/1(Colly)
2. Treatment papers Ex.PW-1/2
3. Copy of her Aadhar Card Ex.PW-1/3
4. Disability Certificate Ex. PW-1/6
12. The documents i.e. discharge summary and medical bills, mentioned in her evidence affidavit as Ex. PW-1/4 and Ex PW1/5 respectively in her evidence affidavit, were de-exhibited as same were not available. She was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 2/ Insurance Company.
Evidence of the Respondents
13. The Respondents chose not to lead any evidence.
Final Arguments and Issue Wise Findings
14. Final arguments were advanced on behalf of the Petitioner and the Respondents by their respective counsels. It has been argued MACT No. 984/23 Digitally signed by POOJA In Respect of FIR No. 818/23 PS Wazirabad POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2026.02.09 Sushila Devi V Shokendra Kumar & Ors. 14:54:26 +0530 Page No. 5 of 36 on behalf of the Petitioner that she be awarded maximum compensation as she sustained 18% permanent disability due to the accident, whereas Ld. Counsel for Respondent No. 1 has argued that the driver/ Respondent No. 1 had a valid driving license and the vehicle was duly ensured with Respondent No. 2, hence, they have not liability to pay the compensation. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 / Insurance Company has argued that the Petitioner has failed to prove her income and even in the evidence as led, she has not led any evidence as to any functional disability, and therefore, no compensation be awarded to her under the head of loss of future income. Ld Counsel for the Respondent No.2/ insurance company has further argued that the testimony of the Petitioner as to her doing the stitching work was an improvement over her earlier statement on the basis of which FIR was registered, as per which she was a housewife and she has subsequently improved her version to the extent of her doing the stitching work.
15. The arguments as advanced have been carefully considered along with the evidence on record and after careful consideration of the same, the issue wise findings are as under:
Issue No. 1: Whether the Petitioner Sushila Devi suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 05.08.2023 at about 01.30 PM involving vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1CAE-9568 driven rashly and negligently and owned by the Respondent No. 1 and insured with the Respondent No. 2? OPP.MACT No. 984/23
In Respect of FIR No. 818/23 PS Wazirabad Digitally signed by Sushila Devi V Shokendra Kumar & Ors. POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 6 of 36 AGGARWAL Date: 2026.02.09 14:54:34 +0530
16. The onus to prove this issue was upon the Petitioner. It is a settled proposition of law that in this Tribunal strict proof of an accident having been caused in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the petitioners, and they are to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied. Strength for this interpretation is drawn from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, (2009) 13 SC 530, also reiterated in various subsequent judgments including Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., (2018) 5 SCC 656, Geeta Dubey Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors, 2024 SCC Online SC 3779 and Sajeena Ikhbal and Others Vs Mini Babu George and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2883.
17. In Prabhavathi v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corpn., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 455, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has again reiterated that:
"13. It is the settled law that under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 it is established that in compensation cases, the strict rules of evidence used in criminal trials do not apply. Instead, the standard of proof is based on the preponderance of probability. This Court in Sunita v. Rajasthan SRTC1 observed that:
"22. It is thus well settled that in motor accident claim cases, once the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of the accident, has been established, then the Tribunal's role would be to calculate the quantum of just compensation if the accident had taken place by reason of negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle and, while doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties. Notably, while deciding cases arising out of motor vehicle accidents, the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the 1(2020) 13 SCC 486 MACT No. 984/23 Digitally signed In Respect of FIR No. 818/23 PS Wazirabad POOJA by POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Sushila Devi V Shokendra Kumar & Ors. Date: 2026.02.09 14:54:42 +0530 Page No. 7 of 36 strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases."
The exposition came to be reiterated in Rajwati alias Rajjo v. United India Insurance Company Ltd.2, wherein it was observed that:
"20. It is well settled that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation and as such, while dealing with compensation cases, once the actual occurrence of the accident has been established, the Tribunal's role would be to award just and fair compensation. As held by this Court in Sunita (Supra) and Kusum Lata(Supra), strict rules of evidence as applicable in a criminal trial, are not applicable in motor accident compensation cases, i.e., to say, "the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases".
(Emphasis supplied)
18. As per the testimony of PW1/ Petitioner, on 05.08.2023 at about 1.30 pm, while she was on foot and had crossed about 50 meters of Kashan Charitable Hospital, Jagatpur Pusta Road towards Sant Nagar, Delhi, the car bearing registration No. DL-1CAE-9568 came behind her and hit her. She has also testified that the offending vehicle was being driven by the Respondent no.1 at a very high speed; and rash, negligent, reckless and zig-zag manner, when it had hit her.
19. Her testimony in respect of the factum as well as the manner of the accident is clear and unequivocal, and consistent with her previous statement on the basis of which the FIR 818/2023 had been registered at PS Wazirabad, and could not be discredited during her cross-examination by the Respondent No.2, nor the Respondents brought on record any evidence or reason to disbelieve the same.
2 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699
MACT No. 984/23 Digitally signed
In Respect of FIR No. 818/23 PS Wazirabad POOJA by POOJA
AGGARWAL
Sushila Devi V Shokendra Kumar & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2026.02.09
14:54:50 +0530
Page No. 8 of 36
20. It is pertinent to note here that no defence has been proved by the Respondents as the Respondent No. 1, being the driver/ owner of the offending vehicle did not step into the witness box to either controvert the factum of the accident having taken place by his vehicle or even to explain the circumstances under which the accident took place, despite having raised a plea of false implication in his written statement.
21. It cannot be overlooked that despite taking the plea of false implication, the Respondent no.1 had also raised the plea that in his written statement itself that the accident had occurred due to the intentional conduct of the Petitioner herself, yet for reasons best known to him, he still chose not to testify in this case, nor to cross-examine the Petitioner, which resulted in no evidence having been brought on record to hold that the accident did not take place due to the rash and negligent driving of Respondent No.1 himself or to infer that the accident was the result of any act of omission on the part of the Petitioner or by any other vehicle. Hence, the pleas raised by the Respondent No.1 in his written statement remain unproved.
22. It is a settled proposition of law that in MACT cases, the Petitioner cannot be expected to prove the accident beyond reasonable doubt and the principle of res ipse loquitor should apply which means that the "accident speaks for itself". In the present case, as per the evidence on record, the accident took place when the Petitioner was on foot and the offending vehicle hit her from behind. The act of a vehicle hitting a pedestrian from MACT No. 984/23 Digitally signed by In Respect of FIR No. 818/23 PS Wazirabad POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL Sushila Devi V Shokendra Kumar & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2026.02.09 Page No. 9 of 36 14:55:06 +0530 behind is itself indicative of existence of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver/ Respondent No.1.
23. It is not lost sight of that in respect of accident in question, the Respondent No. 1 was charge-sheeted by the investigating agency for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279/338 IPC in the FIR No. 818/23, PS Wazirabad after concluding its investigation on the aspect of cause of the accident as well as the identity of the offender. Therefore, the filing of the chargesheet against the Respondent No.1 also indicates existence of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by him. Strength for this interpretation is also drawn from the judgement of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepak Goel & Ors, 2014 (2) TAC 846 (Del) wherein the Coordinate Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, held as under:-
"......where the claimants filed either the certified copies of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of investigation by police or issuance of charge sheet under Section 279/304A IPC or the certified copy of FIR or the recovery of the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, then these documents are sufficient proof to reach to a conclusion that the driver was negligent particularly when there is no defence available from the side of driver."
(Emphasis supplied)
24. Thus, once it has been established in the chargesheet that the accident had taken place by offending vehicle driven by the Respondent No.1, the burden shifts on the Respondent to prove that he was not responsible for the accident which the Respondent No.1 has failed to discharge in this case. Hence, MACT No. 984/23 Digitally signed In Respect of FIR No. 818/23 PS Wazirabad POOJA by POOJA AGGARWAL Sushila Devi V Shokendra Kumar & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2026.02.09 Page No. 10 of 3614:55:13 +0530 upon consideration of the evidence on record, on the scale of preponderance of probabilities, it is held that the factum of the accident being the result of rash and negligent driving of Respondent No. 1 stands proved.
25. Hence, from the evidence on record, including the chargesheet, as well as oral testimony of PW-1 who is an eye-witness of the accident being the injured herself, and in the absence of any evidence regarding any mechanical defect in the offending vehicle or any material depicting any negligent/ sudden act or omission on the part of injured having been brought on record, it is held that on the scale of preponderance of probability, the Petitioner has discharged her burden, and has proved that the accident took place on 05.08.2023 at about 01.30 PM due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1CAE-9568 by the Respondent No. 1.
Injury
26. In respect of the injury, it is noted that as per the testimony of PW1/ Petitioner, she had sustained grievous injury i.e. fracture in her right foot and grievous injuries all over her body due to the accident. She has also relied upon the DAR i.e. Ex.PW-1/1(colly), which includes MLC No. 1847/2023 dated 05.08.2023 issued by Lok Nayak Hospital, which reflects tenderness on the right knee and ankle, with decreased ROM (range of motion) and the injury has been opined to be grievous. Even the treatment documents annexed in the DAR i.e. Ex.PW-1/1(colly) and relied upon by the Petitioner as MACT No. 984/23 Digitally signed by POOJA In Respect of FIR No. 818/23 PS Wazirabad POOJA AGGARWAL Sushila Devi V Shokendra Kumar & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2026.02.09 Page No. 11 of 36 14:55:19 +0530 Ex.PW-1/2, corroborate the factum of grievous injury having been sustained by the Petitioner. Even the disability certificate i.e. Ex.PW-1/6 issued by Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, reflects that the Petitioner has 18% permanent physical impairment in relation to her right lower limb, which is non-progressive and not likely to improve.
27. No reason has been brought on record to disbelieve either the MLC (forming part of the DAR i.e. Ex PW1/1 (colly)) and treatment documents of the Petitioner i.e. Ex.PW-1/2, or the disability certificate i.e. Ex.PW-1/6, which on the scale of preponderance of probabilities, sufficiently proves that the accident in question resulted in injury to the Petitioner in her right lower limb.
28. Issue no.1 is, thus, decided in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents.
Issue no 2.Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?; and Issue no. 3.Relief.
29. Since the Petitioner sustained injuries as a result of the accident in question, she is entitled to be compensated for the same and Section 168 of the MV Act enjoins upon this Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable.
Digitally signed by POOJA MACT No. 984/23 AGGARWAL
POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 818/23 PS Wazirabad AGGARWAL Date:
2026.02.09 Sushila Devi V Shokendra Kumar & Ors. 14:55:27 Page No. 12 of 36 +0530 Quantum of compensation
30. The guiding principles for assessment of "just and reasonable compensation" have been enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683, wherein it has been observed that: -
"The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "MV Act") gives paramount importance to the concept of 'just and fair' compensation. It is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families. Section 168 of the MV Act deals with the concept of 'just compensation' which ought to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability. Although such determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the applicant/s. In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, this Court has laid down as under:
16."Just compensation" is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit."
(Emphasis supplied)
31. It is a settled proposition of law that in cases where the Petitioner has suffered injuries due to the accident, the grant of compensation is under two broad categories, i.e. Pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary damages. The two categories of damages has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551, which has also been reiterated in Atul Tiwari v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2025) 3 SCC 6 as under:
"9. Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas MACT No. 984/23 Digitally signed by POOJA In Respect of FIR No. 818/23 PS Wazirabad POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
Sushila Devi V Shokendra Kumar & Ors. 2026.02.09 Page No. 13 of 36 14:55:32 +0530 non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (I) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit;
(iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened;
(iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."
(Emphasis supplied)
32. The principles guiding such grant of compensation have been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 34, as under:
"General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
5. The provision of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The Court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby
- 1970 AC 467).
6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:MACT No. 984/23
In Respect of FIR No. 818/23 PS Wazirabad Digitally signed by POOJA Sushila Devi V Shokendra Kumar & Ors. POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 14 of 36 AGGARWAL Date: 2026.02.09 14:55:40 +0530
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life."
(Emphasis supplied)
33. Further in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413, it has been held that:
" It is impossible to equate human suffering and personal deprivation with money. However, this is what the Act enjoins upon the courts to do. The court has to make a judicious attempt to award damages, so as to compensate the claimant for the loss suffered by the victim. On the one hand, the compensation should not be assessed very conservatively, but on the other hand, compensation should also not be assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to make it a bounty to the claimant. The court while assessing the compensation should have regard to the degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation. Such compensation is what is termed as just compensation. The compensation or damages assessed for personal injuries should be substantial to compensate the injured for the deprivation suffered by the injured throughout his/her life. They should not be just token damages."
(Emphasis supplied)
34. In view of the above legal propositions, the amount of compensation shall be computed in this case.
A: Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
MACT No. 984/23 Digitally signed
In Respect of FIR No. 818/23 PS Wazirabad POOJA by POOJA
AGGARWAL
Sushila Devi V Shokendra Kumar & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2026.02.09 Page No. 15 of 36
14:55:45 +0530
35. In respect of her treatment/ medicine/ hospitalization etc., the Petitioner has testified in her evidence affidavit i.e. Ex PW-1/A, to the effect that she has incurred an expense of ₹50,000/- on her medical treatment. However, she has not placed on record any raised bill in respect of her treatment, nor she took any steps to summon any witness from any hospital etc. to prove any such expense. Rather, in her cross-examination, she admitted that she was treated at government hospital. That being so, there is no evidence to conclude that the medical expense of ₹50,000/- was incurred by the Petitioner, and thus, she is not awarded any amount under this head.
36. In respect of expenses towards nourishing food, conveyance and attendant charges, though the Petitioner has testified in Ex. PW-1/A that she has spent ₹40,000/- on special diet, ₹40,000/- on conveyance and ₹30,000/- on attendant charges, she has not brought on record any further evidence to substantiate her claim. Being that as it may, considering the nature of her injury, she is likely to have incurred some expenses towards nourishing food for faster recovery, conveyance and miscellaneous expenses as suffered 18% disability in relation to her right lower limb, a sum of ₹10,000/- each is awarded to the Petitioner under the head of special diet, conveyance and miscellaneous expenses.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
MACT No. 984/23 Digitally signed
In Respect of FIR No. 818/23 PS Wazirabad POOJA by POOJA
AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.02.09
Sushila Devi V Shokendra Kumar & Ors. 14:55:51 +0530 Page No. 16 of 36
37. In respect of loss of earning during the period of treatment, it is noted that as per the medical documents on record i.e. Ex.PW-1/2, the Petitioner remained under treatment on 05.08.2023 and was thereafter called for follow up in ortho department, but no further treatment document have been brought on record by the Petitioner nor she has summoned any witness from the hospital to prove her continued treatment. In the absence of the treatment documents having been brought on record, the Petitioner is not granted any amount under this head.
38. In respect of the loss of future earnings, the Petitioner has relied upon her disability certificate i.e. Ex.PW-1/6 issued by Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, as per which she has 18% permanent physical impairment in relation to her right lower limb, which is non- progressive and not likely to improve, and she has, inter-alia, claimed compensation on account of loss of earning, future prospects as well.
39. In Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 34, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has noted that:
"Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human-being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity.MACT No. 984/23
In Respect of FIR No. 818/23 PS Wazirabad POOJA Digitally signed by POOJA AGGARWAL Sushila Devi V Shokendra Kumar & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2026.02.09 14:55:56 +0530 Page No. 17 of 36 Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995(`Disabilities Act' for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation.
(Emphasis supplied)
40. It is has been further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors., (2011) 1 SCC 34 that:
"9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 40% of all his four limbs, it is not the same as 40% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body, cannot obviously exceed 100%.
10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to Digitally signed MACT No. 984/23 by POOJA AGGARWAL In Respect of FIR No. 818/23 PS Wazirabad POOJA AGGARWAL Date:
2026.02.09 Sushila Devi V Shokendra Kumar & Ors. 14:56:02 Page No. 18 of 36 +0530 the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation.
11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in ter ms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation (see for example, the decisions of this court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. -
2010(10) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567).
12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence:
(i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary;
(ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement,
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by the person.
If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity.
13. 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 MACT No. 984/23 In Respect of FIR No. 818/23 PS Wazirabad Digitally signed by Sushila Devi V Shokendra Kumar & Ors. POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 19 of 36 AGGARWAL Date: 2026.02.09 14:56:07 +0530 carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood."
(Emphasis supplied)
41. In the present case, though the disability certificate relied upon by the Petitioner i.e. Ex.PW-1/6, reflects 18% permanent physical impairment, but the same is in relation to her right lower limb, and not with reference to the whole body. However, to ascertain the future loss of income of the Petitioner, it is her functional disability that needs to be ascertained, and for that the impact on her work of the disability arising out of the accident is to be assessed.
42. It is duly noted that as per her testimony in Ex. PW1/A, the Petitioner was a housewife and was doing stitching work earning about ₹25,000/-. Despite such testimony, the Petitioner did not bring on record any document including salary slip or even ITR to corroborate her self serving testimony in respect of her doing any stitching work or income therefrom. She also admitted in her cross-examination that she did not have any document to show that she was earning ₹25,000/- per month.
43. However, considering that she was a married woman, it can reasonably expected that she was atleast taking care of the household tasks, and was a housewife, even more so when the Respondent No.2 itself put it to her in her cross-examination that she was a housewife, and even during final arguments, the Ld Counsel for the Respondent No.2 referred to the FIR as per which the Petitioner was a housewife.
MACT No. 984/23 Digitally signed
by POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 818/23 PS Wazirabad POOJA
AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL
Date:
Sushila Devi V Shokendra Kumar & Ors. 2026.02.09
14:56:15 +0530 Page No. 20 of 36
44. In as far as the impact of the disability on the work of the Petitioner is concerned, it is noted that the Petitioner has categorically denied the suggestion of the Respondent No.2/ insurance company as to her not having suffered any functional disability or as to her working as before, nor the Respondents have brought on record any other evidence to prove that the disability sustained by the Petitioner has had no impact on her work. The very nature of her disability would indicate that the 18% disability in relation to her right lower limb, would impact her in the discharge of her functions as a housewife, though the exact extent of such impact has not been proved by the Petitioner.
45. That being so, keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the Petitioner and the evidence as led, the functional disability of the Petitioner is taken to be 9% in relation to the whole body.
46. In respect of the quantum of the loss towards future prospects, the monthly income of the Petitioner needs to be ascertained. As per the settled legal proposition, the notional monthly income of a housewife is to be taken to be equivalent to that of a skilled- person as per the prevailing Minimum Wages. Strength for this interpretation is drawn from the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dalvir Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 844, wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that:
"22. It is therefore, now well established that notional income of the deceased housewife, who has been rendering gratuitous services to the household, may be taken not less than prevailing Minimum Wages as notified by the State, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.
MACT No. 984/23 Digitally signed
In Respect of FIR No. 818/23 PS Wazirabad POOJA by POOJA
AGGARWAL
Sushila Devi V Shokendra Kumar & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2026.02.09 Page No. 21 of 36
14:56:25 +0530
23. In the present case, though the Claimants have not been able to prove that the deceased was a Ladies Tailor having professional income, it cannot be overlooked that the deceased was rendering her gratuitous services to the family members of which they have been deprived on account of her demise.
24.Considering the extensive contribution of the deceased/Smt. Asha in the household and in absence of any evidence regarding the educational qualification, the Minimum wages of a skilled worker which was Rs. 4358/- per month is taken as the income of the deceased."
(Emphasis supplied)
47. Even recently in Amarti Devi v. Pramod Kumar, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 10537, wherein the income of the injured was a taken to be that of a housewife and she had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 40% in relation to two limbs, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that:
"11. Coming to the second aspect of the matter, it is not disputed that the appellant's income should have been computed on the basis of the minimum wages of a skilled worker, as held inter alia in Jagdish v. Om Pal Singh Mr. Maini and Mr. Tripathi also accept that the correct addition for purposes of future prospects, given the appellant's age of 53 years, was 10%. It is not disputed that the minimum wage of a skilled worker at the relevant time was Rs. 4,377/- per month. Computing the monthly wages on this basis and adding 10% by way of future prospects, the monthly loss of earnings is to be calculated at Rs.4,814.7/-. Instead, the Tribunal, by the impugned award, read with a rectification order dated 07.06.2013, has computed the monthly loss of earnings at Rs. 3,953/- + 15% = Rs. 4,546/- per month. The Tribunal's award on this account, is accordingly modified."
(Emphasis supplied)
48. In view of the aforesaid legal proposition, and considering that the Petitioner has failed to prove that she was doing stitching work, her monthly notional income is taken to be as per the notional income of a housewife, i.e. income equivalent to that of a skilled-person as per the prevailing Minimum Wages in Delhi at the time of accident i.e. 05.08.2023, which were ₹20,903/- per MACT No. 984/23 Digitally signed In Respect of FIR No. 818/23 PS Wazirabad POOJA by POOJA AGGARWAL Sushila Devi V Shokendra Kumar & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2026.02.09 Page No. 22 of 36 14:56:31 +0530 month and consequently, her notional annual income would be ₹2,50,836/- (i.e. ₹20,903/- x 12).
49. It is further noted that at the time of the accident i.e. on 05.08.2023, the Petitioner was aged about 62 years as her date of birth is reflected as 04.08.1961 in her Aadhar Card Ex. PW-1/3, and hence, in view of the judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, there shall be no addition to the monthly income towards future prospects as the injured is aged more than 60 years.
50. Further, as the Petitioner was aged about 62 years at the time of the accident, a multiplier of 7 shall be applicable (Ref: Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121) and therefore, the notional income of the Petitioner comes to be ₹17,55,852/- (i.e. ₹2,50,836/- x 7).
51. As the functional disability of the petitioner has been taken to 9%, the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability caused to the Petitioner arising out of the accident comes to be ₹1,58,027/- (rounded off from ₹1,58,026.68/-) (i.e.9% of the notional income) and the Petitioner is awarded the same towards loss of future income.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
52. No amount has been claimed by the Petitioner towards the expenses expected to be incurred on her future treatment nor she had brought on record any evidence as to any foreseeable MACT No. 984/23 Digitally signed by In Respect of FIR No. 818/23 PS Wazirabad POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL Sushila Devi V Shokendra Kumar & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: Page No. 23 of 36 2026.02.09 14:56:37 +0530 medical expenses arising in the future due to the injury sustained by her in the accident. Hence, no amount is awarded to her under this head.
B. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
53. In respect of the damages under this head, it is noted that the factum of the Petitioner having sustained grievous injuries with 18% permanent disability in her right lower limb already stands proved. Due to the nature of injuries and considering the age of the Petitioner at the time of the accident, it can safely be inferred that she must have suffered pain and trauma due to the accident. Accordingly, a lump sum amount of ₹25,000/- is granted in favour of the Petitioner towards damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage)
54. In the present case, as the petitioner has sustained grievous injury in the accident resulting in 18% disability, it cannot be ignored that she faces a possibility of denial of enjoyment of the simple pleasures of life as well as enjoyment of life. That being so, a sum of ₹10,000/- is awarded to the Petitioner towards loss of amenities.
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
55. No evidence has been brought on record by the Petitioner to show as to whether there is any loss of expectation of life due to MACT No. 984/23 Digitally signed by POOJA In Respect of FIR No. 818/23 PS Wazirabad POOJA AGGARWAL Date:
Sushila Devi V Shokendra Kumar & Ors. AGGARWAL 2026.02.09 Page No. 24 of 36 14:56:41 +0530 the injuries sustained by her in the accident. That being so, no amount is awarded to the Petitioner under this head.
56. For the sake of convenience, the amount as awarded to the Petitioner in respect of issue no.2 is summarized as under:-
S. No. HEAD AMOUNT
1. Treatment /medicine expenses NIL
2. Hospitalization expenses.
3. Special Diet ₹10,000/-
4. Transport/conveyance ₹10,000/-
5. Misc Expenses ₹10,000/-
6. Loss of earning during NIL
hospitalization
7. Loss of future earnings on ₹1,58,027/-
account of permanent
(rounded off)
disability
8. Damages for pain, suffering ₹25,000/-
and trauma as a consequence of the injuries
9. Loss of amenities ₹10,000/-
10. Loss of expectation of life NIL TOTAL ₹2,23,027/-
57. In respect of entitlement of the Petitioner to interest on the awarded amount, it is duly noted that in the present matter is pending since 07.11.2023 and the rate of interest of fixed deposits in Nationalized banks has fluctuated several times during the pendency of the present proceedings. Thus, in the interest of justice and keeping in view the principles discussed in order dated 21.04.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Baby Raksha & Ors, MAC MACT No. 984/23 Digitally signed In Respect of FIR No. 818/23 PS Wazirabad POOJA by POOJA AGGARWAL Sushila Devi V Shokendra Kumar & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: Page No. 25 of 36 2026.02.09 14:56:54 +0530 APP. No. 36/2023, the Petitioner is awarded interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of DAR, that is, with effect from 07.11.2023 till the date of the award towards interest. The amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the Petitioner.
Liability
58. The Respondent No.1 being the driver/owner is liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to Petitioner. However, since the offending vehicle was insured with Respondent No.2 at the time of accident and the Respondent No.2 / Insurance Company has not raised any statutory defence in denial of their liability, hence, the Respondent No.2/insurance company shall be liable to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioner.
59. Issue no.2 and 3 are accordingly decided in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents.
Disbursement/ Release
60. As per the Financial Statement of Petitioner, the monthly expenses of the family are approximately ₹20,000/- per month. Hence, while deciding the quantum and manner of disbursement of the awarded amounts, the following directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 titled Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors. have to be borne in mind:
"(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants i.e. Digitally signed MACT No. 984/23 by POOJA AGGARWAL In Respect of FIR No. 818/23 PS Wazirabad POOJA Date:
Sushila Devi V Shokendra Kumar & Ors. AGGARWAL 2026.02.09 Page No. 26 of 36 14:56:59 +0530 saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimants. However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque books and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and the claimant shall produced the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court for compliance."
61. Thereafter, in Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal, S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020 as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 18 March, 2025 it has been further directed that:
"17. The case in hand pertains to the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. The general practice followed by the insurance companies, where the compensation is not disputed, is to deposit the same before the Tribunal. Instead of following that process, a direction can always be issued to transfer the amount into the bank account(s) of the claimant(s) with intimation to the Tribunal.
17.1 For that purpose, the Tribunals at the initial stage of pleadings or at the stage of leading evidence may require the claimant(s) to furnish their bank account particulars to the Tribunal along with the requisite proof, so that at the stage of passing of the award the Tribunal may direct that the amount of compensation be transferred in the account of the claimant and if there are more than one then in their respective accounts. If there is no bank account, then they should be required to open the bank account either individually or MACT No. 984/23 Digitally signed In Respect of FIR No. 818/23 PS Wazirabad POOJA by POOJA AGGARWAL Sushila Devi V Shokendra Kumar & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2026.02.09 Page No. 27 of 36 14:57:05 +0530 jointly with family members only. It should also be mandated that, in case there is any change in the bank account particulars of the claimant(s) during the pendency of the claim petition they should update the same before the Tribunal. This should be ensured before passing of the final award. It may be ensured that the bank account should be in the name of the claimant(s) and if minor, through guardian(s) and in no case it should be a joint account with any person, who is not a family member. The transfer of the amount in the bank account, particulars of which have been furnished by the claimant(s), as mentioned in the award, shall be treated as satisfaction of the award. Intimation of compliance should be furnished to the Tribunal."
(Emphasis supplied)
62. In view of the same, the award amount can now be disbursed in the Savings Bank Account of the Petitioner. However, the remaining directions as passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court shall be complied with.
63. After considering the financial statement of the Petitioner, it is directed that upon realization of the awarded amount of ₹2,60,756/- (rounded off) (Rupees Two Lakhs Sixty Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Six only) (inclusive of interest of ₹37,729/- (rounded off)), a sum of ₹80,756/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Six only) shall be released to her immediately in her Bank Account No. 44565230229, with State Bank of India, Branch, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, IFSC Code SBIN0000726 as furnished by her at the time of recording of her financial statement.
64. The balance amount of ₹1,80,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Thousand Only) shall be put in 09 monthly fixed deposits in her name in her account as mentioned above of equal amount of MACT No. 984/23 Digitally signed In Respect of FIR No. 818/23 PS Wazirabad POOJA by POOJA AGGARWAL Sushila Devi V Shokendra Kumar & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2026.02.09 Page No. 28 of 36 14:57:11 +0530 ₹20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 09 months respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in her saving account maintained in the nationalized bank situated near the place of her residence.
65. The Respondent No.2/ Go Digit General Insurance Co. Ltd is directed to deposit the awarded sum of ₹2,60,756/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Sixty Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Six only) inclusive of interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR i.e. w.e.f. 07.11.2023 till the date of the award within 30 days by way of NEFT or RTGS mode directly in the account of the Petitioner as mentioned in the Para No. 63 of this award under intimation to the Petitioner as well as this Tribunal failing which the said Respondent shall be liable to pay interest @ 12 % per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days. (Ref: Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.)
66. The concerned Manager of the bank of the Petitioner is directed to release the amount to the Petitioner as per the award upon completion of necessary formalities as per the rules. He is directed to keep the amount in fixed deposits as per the directions given in the award and to send a compliance report to this court. He is also directed to ensure that no loan, advance or pre mature MACT No. 984/23 Digitally signed In Respect of FIR No. 818/23 PS Wazirabad POOJA by POOJA AGGARWAL Sushila Devi V Shokendra Kumar & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2026.02.09 Page No. 29 of 3614:57:15 +0530 discharge is allowed on the fixed deposit without an order of this court.
67. A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost.
68. The summary of the award as per Form XV of the Annexure XIII and particulars of compliance of the Provisions of the Scheme as per Form XVII of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 as amended by the Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022, are also annexed with this Award as Annexure A and B respectively, and shall form a part of this award.
69. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
70. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 06.01.2021 in MAC.APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., regarding digitization of the records.
71. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021 MACT No. 984/23 Digitally signed In Respect of FIR No. 818/23 PS Wazirabad POOJA by POOJA AGGARWAL Sushila Devi V Shokendra Kumar & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2026.02.09 14:57:19 Page No. 30 of 36 +0530 and also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information and compliance.
72. Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
73. This file be consigned to the Record Room after necessary compliance and a separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 12.03.2026.
Announced in the Open Court Digitally signed
by POOJA
today i.e. on 9th February, 2026 POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.02.09
14:57:23 +0530
(POOJA AGGARWAL)
Presiding Officer, MACT-02 (Central)
Tis Hazari, Delhi
MACT No. 984/23 Digitally signed
In Respect of FIR No. 818/23 PS Wazirabad POOJA by POOJA
AGGARWAL
Sushila Devi V Shokendra Kumar & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2026.02.09 Page No. 31 of 36
14:57:27 +0530
ANNEXURE A
FORM - XVI, Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (part of Annexure XIII. Ref: Rule 150A) SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 05.08.2023
2. Name of the injured : Smt. Sushila Devi
3. Age of the injured : 62 years
4. Occupation of injured : Housewife
5. Income of the injured : Assessed on the basis of Minimum Wages of a skilled Person prevailing in Delhi at relevant time
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured : As per record
8. Period of hospitalisation : 05.08.2023
9. Whether any permanent disability? If yes, give details : Yes, permanent physical disability of 18% in relation to Right Lower Limb
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by Claims Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment NIL
(ii) Expenditure on ₹10,000/-
conveyance
(iii) Expenditure on special diet ₹10,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant ₹10,000/-
(v) Cost of artificial limb N.A.
MACT No. 984/23 Digitally signed
In Respect of FIR No. 818/23 PS Wazirabad by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
Sushila Devi V Shokendra Kumar & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: Page No. 32 of 36
2026.02.09
14:57:32 +0530
(vi) Loss of earning capacity N.A.
(vii) Loss of income N.A.
(viii) Any other loss which may N.A.
require any special
treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his
life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental ₹25,000/-
and physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering
(iii) Loss of amenities of life ₹10,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration
(v) Loss of marriage prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, N.A.
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 Permanent physical assessed and nature of disability of 18% in disability as permanent or relation to right lower temporary limb
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss N.A. of expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of 9% earning capacity in relation to disability MACT No. 984/23 Digitally signed In Respect of FIR No. 818/23 PS Wazirabad POOJA by POOJA AGGARWAL Sushila Devi V Shokendra Kumar & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2026.02.09 Page No. 33 of 36 14:57:38 +0530
(iv) Loss of future Income - ₹1,58,027/- (rounded off) (Income × % Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL ₹2,23,027/- (rounded off) COMPENSATION
15. INTEREST AWARDED 7.5% p.a.
16. Interest amount up to the ₹37,729/- (rounded off) date of award
17. Total amount including ₹2,60,756/-
interest
18. Award amount released ₹80,756/-
19. Award amount kept in ₹1,80,000/-
FDRs
20. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award the award amount to the claimant(s)
21. Next date for compliance 12.03.2026 of the award
1. Prepared as per award dated 09.02.2026.
2. A separate file was ordered to be prepared by the Nazir with directions to put up the same on 12.03.2026.
Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.02.09
14:57:43 +0530
(POOJA AGGARWAL)
Presiding Officer, MACT-02 (Central)
Tis Hazari, Delhi
09.02.2026
MACT No. 984/23 Digitally signed
by POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 818/23 PS Wazirabad POOJA
AGGARWAL
Sushila Devi V Shokendra Kumar & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2026.02.09 Page No. 34 of 36
14:57:50
+0530
ANNEXURE B
FORM - XVII, Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (part of Annexure XIII. Ref: Rule 150A) Compliance of provisions of Scheme to be mentioned in the Award
1. Date of the accident 05.08.2023
2. Date of filing of Form-I - First Accident 09.08.2023 Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the N.A. victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the N.A. Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the N.A. Owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim N.A. Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form- N.A. VIB from the Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - Detailed 07.11.2023 Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or Yes deficiency on the part of the No Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Not mentioned Officer by the Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the No Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or Yes.
deficiency on the part of the Designated No officer of the Insurance Company? If so, MACT No. 984/23 Digitally signed by POOJA In Respect of FIR No. 818/23 PS Wazirabad POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
Sushila Devi V Shokendra Kumar & Ors. 2026.02.09 14:57:55 +0530 Page No. 35 of 36 whether any action/ direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the petitioner(s) to N.A. the offer of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 09.02.2026
15. Whether the petitioner (s) was/were Yes directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) 07.11.2023 was/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.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) produced 09.02.2026 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 the H.No. T-66, Huts, Claimant(s). Karampura, West Delhi-110015
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank No account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were examined Yes at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
Digitally signed by
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.02.09
14:58:01 +0530
(POOJA AGGARWAL)
Presiding Officer, MACT-02 (Central)
Tis Hazari, Delhi
09.02.2026
MACT No. 984/23 Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 818/23 PS Wazirabad AGGARWAL Date:
Sushila Devi V Shokendra Kumar & Ors. 2026.02.09
14:58:06 +0530 Page No. 36 of 36