Delhi District Court
Budhni Devi (Dar) vs Rajinder Singh (Fir 609/21 Ps Malviya ... on 12 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANJANI MAHAJAN, PRESIDING
OFFICER : MACT : SOUTH DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS :
NEW DELHI
AWARD/JUDGMENT
MACT No. : 237/2022
CNR No. DLST01-006294-2022
Budhani Devi @ Kavita
W/o Late Sudama Sah,
R/o H. No. 21, C-2, Raju Park,
Gali No. 4, Devli Road South Delhi.
&
Permanent R/o Village Jhitkia, P.O.,
Kishanpour Ankhori, PS Sajaur,
District Bhagalpur, Bihar.
...Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajinder Singh
S/o Sh. Dharam Singh,
R/o H. No. C-84, Panchsheel Vihar,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
...Driver cum owner
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
having office at L-5 First Floor,
Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi.
...Insurance Company
...Respondents
Date of Institution : 19.07.2022
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 28.02.2026
Date of pronouncement : 12.03.2026
FORM-XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
Budhani Devi Vs Rajinder & Anr
MACT No. 237/2022 Page No.1 of 27
1. Date of the accident 29.06.2019
2. Date of filing of Form-I - 25.11.2021
First Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to 25.11.2021
the victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III 28.11.2021
from the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV 28.11.2021
from the Owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- Not Mentioned
Interim Accident Report
(IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA Not Mentioned
and Form-VIB from the
Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII-
Detailed Accident Report 19.07.2022
(DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay
or deficiency on the part of NA
the Investigating Officer? If
so, whether any action/
direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Not Mentioned
Designated Officer by the
Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance Not mentioned
Company submitted his report
within 30 days of the
petition/DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay
or deficiency on the part of NA
the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company? If so,
whether any action/direction
warranted?
Budhani Devi Vs Rajinder & Anr
MACT No. 237/2022 Page No.2 of 27
13. Date of response of the No legal offer was filed.
petitioner(s) to the offer of the
Insurance Company
14. Date of the award 12.03.2026
15. Whether the petitioner(s)
was/were directed to open NA
savings bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which Vide order dated
petitioner(s) was/were 19.07.2022, the petitioner
directed to open savings bank was directed to bring her
account(s) near his place of passbook on the next date of
residence and produce PAN hearing for appropriate
Card and Aadhaar Card and endorsement to be made.
the direction to the bank not
issue any cheque book/debit
card to the petitioner(s) and
make an endorsement to this
effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the Vide order dated
petitioner(s) produced the 12.02.2026, the petitioner
passbook of their savings produced her Pan Card and
bank account near the place photocopy of her Adhar
of their residence along-with Card was already on record.
the endorsement, PAN Card The petitioner stated that she
and Adhaar Card? had not yet opened bank
account near her place of
residence and would get the
same opened shortly.
18. Permanent Residential R/o H. No. 21, C-2, Raju
Address of the petitioner(s). Park,
Gali No. 4, Devli Road
South Delhi.
&
Permanent R/o Village
Jhitkia, P.O.,
Kishanpour Ankhori, PS
Sajaur,
District Bhagalpur, Bihar.
19. Whether the petitioner(s)
Budhani Devi Vs Rajinder & Anr
MACT No. 237/2022 Page No.3 of 27
savings bank account(s) is/are NA
near his/her/their place of
residence?
20. Whether the petitioner(s)
was/were examined at the Yes
time of passing of the award
to ascertain his/her/their
financial condition?
JUDGMENT
(1) Vide this judgment/award, I shall decide the Detailed Accident Report (DAR) which was treated as a claim petition U/s 166 of The Motors Vehicles Act 1988 (MV Act in short) filed for compensation on account of injuries sustained by the injured/petitioner Budhani Devi @ Kavita in a road vehicular accident which took place on 29.06.2019.
Case Set up in the DAR (2) In the DAR, in column 31 pertaining to the detailed description of the accident, it is merely stated that the petitioner was working near APJ School at "ganda nala" and at the time one car hit her from behind and she sustained injury. The copy of the charge-sheet is annexed alongwith the DAR and the averments made therein are to be considered for the purpose of culling out the relevant facts.
(3) Succinctly stated, pursuant to an application filed by the petitioner before the Learned (Ld.) Criminal Court concerned, seeking registration of the First Information Report (FIR) U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C., being allowed, the FIR was registered. The complaint of the petitioner has been reproduced in the charge-sheet wherein inter-alia it is averred that on 29.06.2019, the petitioner was doing the work of cleaning of the sewer/drain Budhani Devi Vs Rajinder & Anr MACT No. 237/2022 Page No.4 of 27 near APJ school. At the time, one car bearing registration no. DL-6CN-4729 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) being driven at a high speed rashly and negligently by its driver hit the petitioner from behind. A crowd gathered due to which the driver of the offending vehicle took the petitioner to the hospital and got her admitted there and thereafter left the hospital. After being discharged from the hospital, the petitioner went back home and from there she went to her native village. (4) Upon conclusion of the investigation, the charge- sheet U/s 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was filed before the Ld. Criminal Court concerned and the DAR was filed before this Tribunal.
Miscellaneous Proceedings (5) Both the respondents i.e. respondent no. 1 Rajinder Singh (driver cum owner) and respondent no. 2 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. entered appearance on the date of filing of the DAR i.e. 19.07.2022.
(6) Replies to the DAR were filed on behalf of the respondents no. 1 and 2 respectively. No legal offer was filed by the respondent no. 2 insurance company.
Stand of the Respondent No. 1 Driver-cum-owner (7) The respondent no. 1 contended that the FIR and DAR were based on false concocted and frivolous facts. It was the contention of the respondent no.1 that he had been falsely implicated in the alleged accident by the injured with the ulterior motive to illegally extract money from him. The respondent no. 1 inter-alia averred that no accident took place in the manner alleged and/or due to alleged negligence or rash driving of the Budhani Devi Vs Rajinder & Anr MACT No. 237/2022 Page No.5 of 27 respondent no. 1. Further, the petitioner was lying injured and the respondent no. 1 had extended help to the petitioner purely on humanitarian consideration. The respondent no. 1 also alleged that he was driving his vehicle carefully at the relevant time which was fully insured by the respondent no. 2 insurance company. It was prayed that the DAR be dismissed.
Stand of the Respondent No. 2 Insurance Company (8) In the reply to the DAR filed by the respondent no. 2 insurance company, preliminary objections were taken. Inter-alia it was contended that the DAR was not maintainable as the alleged accident had occurred on 29.06.2019 but the FIR was registered almost after a delay of two years and five months. Further, the mechanical inspection report dated 25.11.2021 had mentioned the nature of damages as fresh damages which could not be considered to be fresh damages after period of two years. The respondent no. 2 alleged that the delay in the FIR and more specifically the nature of damage mentioned in the mechanical inspection report created a heavy doubt on the genuineness of the alleged accident as well as the mechanical inspection report. (9) The fact that the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no. 2 at the time of the accident, was however conceded.
Framing of Issues (10) After completion of the pleadings on 07.11.2022, the following issues were framed in the present case -
(i) Whether injured Budhni Devi received injuries in the road accident on 29.06.2019 near APJ School, Sheikh Sarai, Ph-I, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi due to rash and Budhani Devi Vs Rajinder & Anr MACT No. 237/2022 Page No.6 of 27 negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. DL-6CN-4729 being driven & owned by respondent no. 1 and insured with respondent no. 2 ? OPP
(ii) To what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled and from whom ? OPP
(iii) Relief.
(11) The matter was then listed for Petitioner's Evidence before the Ld. Local Commissioner (LC).
Evidence Adduced in the Case (12) The petitioner examined herself as Petitioner Witness No. 1 (PW-1) and her son /eye witness Sh. Manish Kumar as PW-2.
(13) PW-1 tendered her affidavit of evidence as Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the following documents -
(a) Copy of Aadhar card of the injured - Ex.PW1/1 (OSR).
(b) Copy of order dated 20.11.201 - Ex.PW1/2.
(c) Copy of insurance cover note - Ex.PW1/3.
(d) Copy of mechanical inspection report - Mark C.
(e) Copy of FIR No. 609/2021 - Ex.PW1/4.
(f) Copy of site plan - Ex.PW1/5.
(g) Final report U/s 173 Cr.P.C. - Ex.PW1/6.
(h) Copy of MLC prepared by Pt. Madan Mohan
Malviya Hospital, Malviya Nagar alongwith other medical documents - Mark A colly.
(i) Discharge certificate issued at the second time -
Mark B.
(14) The petitioner/PW-1 was duly cross examined by
Budhani Devi Vs Rajinder & Anr
MACT No. 237/2022 Page No.7 of 27
Ld. counsel for both the respondents.
(15) PW-2 Sh. Manish Kumar tendered his affidavit of
evidence as Ex.PW2/A and relied upon copy of his Aadhar Card i.e. Ex.PW2/1.
(16) PW-2 was duly cross examined by Ld. counsel for the respondent no. 1 but the respondent no. 2 insurance company did not cross examine PW-2.
(17) Vide order dated 04.10.2023, Ld. counsel for the petitioner closed petitioner's evidence (PE). (18) The respondent no. 1 examined himself as RW1 in respondents' evidence (RE) and exhibited his affidavit of evidence as Ex.RW1/A. No documents were exhibited by him. RW-1 was cross examined by Ld. counsel for the petitioner. RW-1 was not cross examined on behalf of the insurance company despite opportunity given in this regard. Thereafter the respondent no. 1 closed RE vide order dated 01.12.2025. On the same date, it was observed that the respondent insurance company was not interested in either cross examining RW-1 or leading RE. Accordingly, RE on behalf of the insurance company was closed on 01.12.2025 itself.
Final Arguments (19) Thereafter final arguments were advanced by Learned (Ld.) counsel for the petitioner and Ld. counsel for the respondent no. 1 driver cum owner. The financial statement of the petitioner was also recorded.
(20) The written submissions were filed on behalf of the petitioner.
(21) I have heard the arguments addressed by Ld. counsel Budhani Devi Vs Rajinder & Anr MACT No. 237/2022 Page No.8 of 27
for the parties and perused the record including the written submissions filed.
Issue Wise Analysis & Findings Issue no. 1 Whether injured Budhni Devi received injuries in the road accident on 29.06.2019 near APJ School, Sheikh Sarai, Ph-I, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. DL-6CN-4729 being driven & owned by respondent no. 1 and insured with respondent no. 2 ? OPP (22) The petitioner examined herself as PW-1 and supported the DAR allegations on oath.
(23) The petitioner/PW-1 denied the suggestion put to her by Ld. counsel for the respondent no. 1 driver cum owner that the alleged accident was caused by the wooden cart which she was pushing from behind and also denied the suggestion that no accident occurred as alleged by the offending vehicle. (24) The son of the petitioner/PW-2 who deposed to being an eye witness also fully supported the DAR averments. (25) PW-2 Sh. Manish Kumar was only cross examined by Ld. counsel for the respondent no. 1 and the respondent no. 2 insurance company did not seek to cross examine this witness. PW-2 Sh. Manish Kumar denied the suggestion put to him that he neither resided in Delhi nor was present at the spot on the day of the alleged incident. PW-2 conceded that he had not made any 100 number call on the day of the alleged incident but merely because call on 100 number was not made on the day of the alleged incident it cannot constitute a ground to either doubt the Budhani Devi Vs Rajinder & Anr MACT No. 237/2022 Page No.9 of 27 petitioner's case or the presence of PW-2 at the spot at the relevant time. The respondents have not been able to raise any suspicion regarding the presence of PW-2 at the spot, either through the cross examination of the petitioners' witnesses, both of whom maintained that PW-2 Sh. Manish Kumar was present at the spot at the relevant time; or through any cogent, positive evidence led in this regard by the respondents. The respondent no. 1 examined himself as RW-1 however even in his affidavit of evidence Ex.RW1/A he did not positively aver that PW-2 Sh. Manish Kumar was not present at the spot.
(26) In so far as the mode and manner of the accident is concerned, the petitioner/PW-1 and PW-2 Sh. Manish Kumar corroborated the version of the DAR and also each other's version vide their respective affidavits of evidence testifying that on the fateful day after loading the cart with soil, PW-2 was pushing it from behind and when they reached at the corner of APJ School, near a taxi stand, the offending vehicle being driven rashly and negligently by the driver hit the petitioner from behind. Due to the impact the petitioner fell down on the road and the offending vehicle ran over the left leg of the petitioner twice, once forward and again while reversing the vehicle. (27) The defence of the respondent no. 1 is that he had merely helped the petitioner on humanitarian ground after the driver of the rickshaw that the petitioner was pushing rolled over the leg of the petitioner while reversing.
(28) At this juncture, it would be insightful to refer to the principles governing cases under Motor Accident Claim as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court from time to time.
Budhani Devi Vs Rajinder & Anr
MACT No. 237/2022 Page No.10 of 27
(29) In Anita Sharma & Ors Vs The New India
Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr AIR 2021 Supreme Court 302, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that strict principles of evidence and standards of proof like in a criminal trial are inapplicable in MACT claim cases. It was stressed that the standard of proof in such like matters is one of preponderance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. It was further held that the approach and role of courts while examining evidence in accident claim cases ought not to be to find fault with non-examination of some best eye witnesses but instead to analyze the material placed on record by the parties to ascertain whether the claimant's version is more likely than not true. (30) Further, in Vimla Devi & Ors Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors 1 (2019) 2 SCC 186, the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that Motor Vehicles Act 1988 is enacted to give solace to the victims of motor vehicle accidents and relieves them from strict compliance provided in law which are otherwise applicable to suits and other proceedings. (31) In United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs Shila Datta (2011) 10 SCC 509, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that a claim petition under the MV Act is not a traditional adversarial lis and strict rules of pleadings or procedure do not apply to MACT proceedings.
(32) Thus, the burden of proof in MACT matters is even lesser than that required to be discharged in civil matters. (33) In the case of the Mangla Ram Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors (2018) 5 SCC 656 it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that filing of the charge-sheet against the Budhani Devi Vs Rajinder & Anr MACT No. 237/2022 Page No.11 of 27 driver of the offending vehicle prima facie points towards the complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly and the subsequent acquittal of the accused may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in motor vehicle accident cases.
(34) In the present case also, the charge-sheet was filed against the respondent no. 1. It is not even pleaded by the respondent no. 1 that he filed any complaint against the IO and/or the petitioner regarding false implication. The respondent has not raised the plea of alibi but rather the defence that he merely helped the petitioner by taking her to the hospital. No motive for false implication by the petitioner and/or the IO could be put forth by the respondent no. 1.
(35) The main thrust of arguments of Ld. counsel for the respondent no. 1 was that there was dispute regarding the identity of the petitioner inasmuch as in the Medico Legal Case Report (MLC) her name is mentioned as Kavita, in the Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/1 her name is mentioned as Budhni Devi while in her PAN Card, the name is reflected as Budho Devi. (36) True that the name of the petitioner is indeed reflected differently on the aforesaid documentation however in the Aadhar card and MLC, the name of the husband of the petitioner and her residential address details are identical; moreover the respondent no. 1 has not averred in his affidavit of evidence that there is any doubt regarding the identity of the petitioner. Rather, the respondent no.1 deposed that he had helped the petitioner as he lived in the same vicinity.
(37) From this deposition of the respondent no. 1, it Budhani Devi Vs Rajinder & Anr MACT No. 237/2022 Page No.12 of 27
becomes clear that there is no dispute regarding the identity of the petitioner as according to the respondent no. 1 he was living in the same vicinity as the petitioner. It is infact the admitted position of both the parties that respondent no. 1 had taken the petitioner to the hospital. If the injured whom the respondent no. 1 had taken to the hospital was different from the petitioner who deposed as PW-1 in the present case, then the respondent no.1 would have taken the specific objection in this regard but no such objection is found on record. The petitioner/PW-1 denied the suggestion put to her in cross-examination by Ld. counsel for the respondent no. 1 that she did not have anything to do with the alleged incident. The respondent no. 1 on his part did not lead any positive evidence to establish even prima facie that the petitioner was different from the person who sustained the injury in the accident.
(38) Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the fact that the name of the petitioner is mentioned differently in her documentation of identity does not adversely affect the case of the petitioner who is an illiterate person belonging to labour class.
(39) The respondent no. 2 insurance company's main objection was in relation to the delay in lodging of the FIR. Ld. counsel for the petitioner argued that son of the petitioner went thrice to the police station but the FIR was not lodged and thereafter an application U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner, which was allowed by the Ld. Criminal Court concerned vide order dated 20.11.2021 and consequent thereto, FIR was lodged. It was argued that the delay was not attributable Budhani Devi Vs Rajinder & Anr MACT No. 237/2022 Page No.13 of 27 to the petitioner.
(40) The petitioner exhibited the copy of the order dated 20.11.2021 passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) in the case titled Budhani Devi @ Kavita Vs SHO PS Malviya Nagar & Ors whereby the order for registration of FIR was passed. (41) The order dated 20.11.2021 of the Ld. MM notes that in the reply to the application U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. it was stated that during enquiry it was revealed that on 29.06.2019 an information of MLC was received at PS Malviya Nagar from Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital vide DD No. 78 A that a lady namely Kavita W/o Sudama R/o C-10 Raju Park, Khan Pur, New Delhi had got admitted in hospital and the MLC had been prepared. The case was marked to SI Deepak Tanwar who reached the hospital but could not find the complainant and complainant could not be contacted on phone nor was any complaint given by her in the police station. (42) The petitioner/PW-1 and PW-2 Sh. Manish Kumar both maintained in their respective testimonies that PW-2 went several times to the police station to get the FIR lodged but the police officials did not lodge the FIR and thereafter the application U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed.
(43) There is undoubtedly a delay of almost two years in lodging of the FIR in the present case. The question is whether this delay in lodging the FIR of itself can be a ground to the dismiss the claim petition. The answer to this question is an emphatic no. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the oft- quoted judgment of Ravi Vs Badrinarayan & Ors 2011 INSC 139 decided on 18.02.2011, held that in cases of delay, the courts are Budhani Devi Vs Rajinder & Anr MACT No. 237/2022 Page No.14 of 27 required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so, the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinized more carefully. It was further held that if the courts find that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground.
(44) In the present case, there is no iota of evidence brought on record by the respondents to suggest that the case has been concocted or engineered to implicate the respondent no. 1 falsely; suggestions to this effect put to the petitioner/PW-1 were denied completely and no positive evidence to establish such a claim was ever adduced by the respondents. The fact of the matter is that the MLC of the petitioner was prepared the same day wherein alleged history of RTA (Road Traffic Accident) is mentioned and as is discernible from the order dated 20.11.2021 passed by the Ld. MM, the information regarding the MLC was relayed to the police station concerned the same day vide DD entry no. 78 A so no question of the case being fabricated or concocted arises.
(45) For whatever reason, the FIR was not lodged timely in the present case but the petitioner did pro actively take steps in regard to the alleged inaction of the police in this regard by filing the application before the Ld. Criminal Court seeking orders for registration of the FIR. In such circumstances the delay in lodging of the FIR cannot be taken as a factor going against the petitioner. As such, in view of the judgment of Ravi Vs Badrinarayan & Ors (supra), as there is no indication at all of Budhani Devi Vs Rajinder & Anr MACT No. 237/2022 Page No.15 of 27 fabrication or concoction of facts, the factum of delay in lodging of FIR by itself cannot be a ground to dismiss the present claim petition which otherwise has merit.
(46) The testimonies of PW-1/petitioner and PW-2 eye witness Sh. Manish Kumar are reliable and inspire confidence. The fact that grievous injuries were sustained by the petitioner in the accident is duly established by the copy of the MLC Mark A which is part of the annexure of the charge-sheet Ex.PW1/9. As noted earlier on in the judgment, strict rules of procedure do not apply to the present proceedings which are in the nature of summary enquiry; although the MLC is a marked document however no question or suggestion regarding the document being a forged or fabricated one was ever put by either of the respondents during evidence. As no doubt regarding the authenticity/genuineness of the document Mark A was raised during evidence, it can well be relied upon which shows the nature of injury sustained by the petitioner as being a grievous one.
(47) The petitioner has amply established on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle number DL-6CN-4729 being driven and owned by the respondent no. 1 and concededly insured by the respondent no. 2. (48) Issue no. 1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
Issue no. 2.
To what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled and from whom ? OPP Budhani Devi Vs Rajinder & Anr MACT No. 237/2022 Page No.16 of 27 (49) Certain principles for delineating just compensation were enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Raj Kumar Vs Ajay Kumar & Ors (2011) 1 SCC 343 as follows -
"General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
4. The provision of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the petitioner 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).
5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising :
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the petitioner, 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 Budhani Devi Vs Rajinder & Anr MACT No. 237/2022 Page No.17 of 27 marriage) and loss of expectation of life. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item (i) and under item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses - item (iii) -- depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages - items
(iv), (v) and (vi) -- involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the petitioner and the effect thereof on the future life of the petitioner."
(50) In the present case, no permanent disability has been claimed. The compensation to be awarded under different heads is now to be computed in a step-wise manner.
(51) The educational qualification and the income of the petitioner are important factors to consider for the purpose of ascertaining the just compensation under different heads. (52) The petitioner has not filed any documents pertaining to her educational qualification. In fact the petitioner/PW-1 deposed in her cross-examination conducted by Ld. counsel for the respondent no. 1 that she was illiterate. The petitioner claimed that she was working as a labourer earning Rs.650/- to Rs.700/- per day however, she admitted in her cross- examination conducted by Ld. counsel for the insurance company that she had not placed any documentary proof to show that she was earning such amount. Interestingly, in the form VI A i.e. victim's form filed alongwith the DAR by the IO, in column no. 34 the income of the injured has been mentioned as Rs.8,000/- per month as per statement of the petitioner. (53) In such circumstances, in absence of any cogent proof regarding the income of the petitioner, her income is required to be considered as equivalent to an unskilled worker with the Minimum Wages prescribed by the Government of NCT Budhani Devi Vs Rajinder & Anr MACT No. 237/2022 Page No.18 of 27 of Delhi during the relevant period when the accident took place, being applicable.
(54) The minimum wage prescribed by the Government of NCT of Delhi at the relevant time i.e. in June 2019 for unskilled worker was Rs.14,468/- per month. Thus, the established income of the petitioner for the purpose of the present proceedings is to be considered as Rs.14,468/- per month.
Award towards medical expenses /treatment (55) The petitioner/PW-1 testified that she had a steel rod implanted in her left leg but she has not filed any medical bills in relation to the expenses incurred by her towards medical treatment. There is thus no cogent evidence on record regarding the amount spent on medical treatment. However, considering the nature of injury sustained by the petitioner, an amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Award qua conveyance (56) The petitioner has not filed any bills in relation to the conveyance expenses. However, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner being grievous, it is reasonable to presume that some expenditure would have been incurred by the petitioner towards conveyance for visiting the hospital /doctor. The petitioner is therefore, granted Rs.5,000/- towards expenses incurred in conveyance.
Award qua Special Diet (57) Here again, there is no cogent evidence on record regarding the expenses incurred by the petitioner upon special diet, however considering the nature of injuries sustained, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner must have spent Budhani Devi Vs Rajinder & Anr MACT No. 237/2022 Page No.19 of 27 some amount under this head. Hence, compensation of Rs.5,000/- is granted towards expenses incurred on special diet.
Award qua attendant charges (58) Although, the petitioner has not adduced any evidence on record to show the expenses incurred by her towards attendant charges however, it is settled that even if a formal nursing attendant is not engaged, the services provided by family members also have to be fairly compensated. In light of the injury sustained by the petitioner an amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded to the petitioner towards attendant charges.
Determination of Loss of income during treatment period (59) The petitioner went for treatment to the hospital the same day post the accident i.e. on 29.06.2019 and thereafter, as per the copy of discharge summary Mark B, she was hospitalized from 15.07.2019 to 02.08.2019. The petitioner/PW-1 averred in her affidavit of evidence that she remained admitted in hospital from 29.06.2019 till 09.07.2019 but with the collusion of the driver/owner of the offending vehicle, she was not given discharge certificate by the hospital. The petitioner/PW-1 has not examined any concerned official/treating doctor from the hospital to substantiate such an allegation nor has she pleaded that she took any action in this regard before any authority. The averment thus appears to be a bald and unsubstantiated averment to which no evidentiary value can be assigned. There is no other medical documentation on record thus the period of hospitalization is to be taken as 29.06.2019 and the period from 15.07.2019 till 02.08.2019 as mentioned in the discharge summary Mark B. No Budhani Devi Vs Rajinder & Anr MACT No. 237/2022 Page No.20 of 27 medical document advising bed rest has been adduced on record by the petitioner nor has any doctor been examined who could opine that the petitioner had been advised bed rest. However, considering the nature of injuries sustained and the period of hospitalization it is reasonable to presume that the petitioner may not have been able to resume work for about two months post the accident. Hence, an amount of Rs.28,936/- (14,468 x 2) is awarded to the petitioner towards loss of income for two months.
Award towards loss of amenities (60) The petitioner suffered grievous injuries but admittedly she did not suffer any permanent physical disability. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by her on account of which she would have been unable to enjoy the basic amenities of life temporarily, an amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities of life.
Award on account of Pain & Suffering and Mental and Physical Shock (61) The mental and physical loss cannot always be arithmetically computed in terms of money. The object remains to compensate in so far as money can compensate. (62) In Nathu Lal Vs Sandeep Gulati & Ors MAC. APP. 770/2011 decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 21.05.2012 it was held thus -
"15. It is settled law that a particular amount cannot be fixed on pain and suffering for all cases as it varies from case to case. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that since the petitioner had got injuries/fracture as aforesaid, he might have suffered acute pain and sufferings owing to the said injuries. He might have Budhani Devi Vs Rajinder & Anr MACT No. 237/2022 Page No.21 of 27 also consumed heavy dose of antibiotic etc. and also might have remained without movements of his body for a considerable period of time. In order to ascertain the pain and sufferings compensation, I am guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case Satya Narain Vs Jai Kishan, FAO No. 709/02, date of decision 02.02.2007, wherein it was held that :- "On account of pain and suffering, suffice would it to note that it is difficult to measure pain and suffering in terms of a money value. However, compensation which has to be paid must bear some objective co- relation with the pain and suffering. The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering would be :
(a) Nature of injury
(b) Body part affected
(c) Duration of treatment (63) The petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in the accident. There is no methodology to quantify and measure the sufferings of the victim in terms of money but the object would be to place the victim in as near a position as he was before the accident. Hence, an amount of Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering and mental and physical shock. (64) Consequent to the discussion above, the compensation awarded to the petitioner is tabulated hereunder -
S.No Heads of Compensation Amount
.
1. Reimbursement of medical Rs.10,000/-
expenses
2. Compensation on account of NIL
future treatment
3. Pain and Suffering and Mental Rs.50,000/-
and Physical Shock
4. Loss of income during Rs.28,936/-
treatment period
Budhani Devi Vs Rajinder & Anr
MACT No. 237/2022 Page No.22 of 27
5. Loss of amenities of life Rs.20,000/-
6. Special diet Rs.5,000/-
7. Attendant charges Rs.10,000/-
8. Conveyance Rs.5,000/-
Total Rs.1,28,936/-
Apportionment of Liability
(65) The respondent no. 2 Insurance Company did not
raise any statutory defence. The liability thus squarely falls on respondent no. 2 for making the payment of the compensation amount.
Relief -
(66) Consequent to the foregoing discussion an amount of Rs.1,28,936/- is awarded to the petitioner with simple interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till actual realization which shall be payable by the respondent no. 2 insurance company.
(67) In case the interest of petitioner was stopped or excluded during the present enquiry proceedings, same is liable to be adjusted from the total interest calculated on the Award amount. Similarly, amount awarded and released as interim award if any, during pendency of the case, be deducted from the total compensation amount.
(68) The petitioner is directed to open a bank account in nationalized bank near her place of residence and to place on record the photocopy of her passbooks in between. The concerned bank is also directed not to issue any cheque book or debit card and to make an endorsement in this regard on the passbook of the petitioner itself. A copy of this judgment be given dasti to the petitioner to submit the same before the Budhani Devi Vs Rajinder & Anr MACT No. 237/2022 Page No.23 of 27 concerned bank.
(69) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No.842/2003 titled as "Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. " has formulated MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme) vide its order dated 07.12.2018 which was made effective from 01.01.2019.
(70) Keeping in mind the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi , the respondent no. 2 is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs.1,28,936/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Six Only) as stated herein above with State Bank of India, Saket District Court Branch, New Delhi in the MACT SOUTH SAKET COURT A/c 42706751873 IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 in favour the petitioner(s)/applicant(s)/petitioner(s) as stated herein above under intimation to the petitioner and his counsel within a period of 30 days from the date of the passing of the award. The State Bank of India, Saket District Court Complex Branch, New Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi . (71) Manager, State Bank of India, Saket District Court Branch, New Delhi is directed to release/disburse the entire amount of Rs.1,28,936/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Six Only) immediately to the injured/petitioner in her bank account subject to compliance of the direction contained in para 68 of this judgment by the petitioner.
(72) Nazir of this Court shall prepare a separate file Budhani Devi Vs Rajinder & Anr MACT No. 237/2022 Page No.24 of 27
regarding the status of deposition/non-deposition of the award amount by the respondent(s) after making necessary entry on CIS immediately.
(73) A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost through email.
(74) Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of 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)].
(75) Ahlmad shall also e-email an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Saket District Court Complex Branch, New Delhi for information. (76) File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance. Separate file be prepared for compliance and be put up on 12.06.2026.
Digitally signed by Anjani Anjani Announced in the open Court mahajan mahajan Date:
2026.03.12 today i.e. 12th of March, 2026 16:35:32 +0530 (ANJANI MAHAJAN) Presiding Officer : MACT (S) Saket Courts : New Delhi 12.03.2026 Budhani Devi Vs Rajinder & Anr MACT No. 237/2022 Page No.25 of 27 FORM-XVI SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE
1. Date of accident : 29.06.2019
2. Name of the injured : Budhani Devi @ Kavita
3. Age of the injured : 48 years
4. Occupation of the injured : Presently unemployed
5. Income of the injured : Earlier Rs. 14,468/- per month
6. Nature of injury : Grievous injury
7. Medical treatment taken : Yes
8. Period of Hospitalization : 19 days
9. Whether any permanent disability ?
If yes, give details : No.
10. Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss :-
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs.10,000/-
(ii) Expenditure on Rs.5,000/-
conveyance
(iii) Expenditure on special Rs.5,000/-
diet
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.10,000/-
(v) Loss of earning capacity NIL
(vi) Loss of Income Rs.28,936/-
(vii) Any other loss which NIL
may require any special
treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his
life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss :-
(i) Compensation for mental Rs.50,000/-
and physical shock and
Pain and Suffering
(ii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.20,000/-
(iii) Dis-figuration NA
(iv) Loss of marriage NA
prospects
(v) Loss of earning, NA
inconvenience,
hardships,
disappointment,
Budhani Devi Vs Rajinder & Anr
MACT No. 237/2022 Page No.26 of 27
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and
unhappiness in future life
etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity :-
(i) Percentage of disability NA
assessed and nature of
disability as permanent
or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss -
of expectation of life
span on account of
disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of -
earning capacity in
relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income NA
and earning capacity
14. TOTAL Rs.1,28,936/-
COMPENSATION
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the @9% per annum
date of award
17. Total amount including to be calculated @ 9% per
interest annum
18. Award amount released Rs.1,28,936/-
19. Award amount kept in NA
FDRs
20. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award
the award amount to the
petitioner (s).
21. Next date for compliance 12.06.2026
of the award.
Digitally
signed by
Anjani
Anjani mahajan
mahajan Date:
2026.03.12
16:35:59
+0530
(ANJANI MAHAJAN)
Presiding Officer : MACT (S)
Saket Courts : New Delhi
12.03.2026
Budhani Devi Vs Rajinder & Anr
MACT No. 237/2022 Page No.27 of 27