Delhi District Court
Ranjana Rajora Sharma vs Paarth on 15 October, 2025
DLNW010085942021
Presented on : 29-10-2021
Registered on : 29-10-2021
Decided on : 15-10-2025
Duration : 3 years, 11 months,
17 days
IN THE COURT OF
ADJ1(NW)/MACT, NORTH WEST DISTRICT DELHI
Presided Over by Sh. Vikram
M A C T/384/2021
FIR No. 297/2021, PS Budh Vihar
In the matter of : Sh. Ajay Sharma
1. Ranjana Rajora Sharma (Wife of deceased)
W/o Late Sh. Ajay Sharma
2. Chandra Kanta Sharma (Mother of deceased)
W/o Late Sh. Dev Dutt Sharma
Both R/o A-2/45, Sector-3,
Rohini, Delhi
.....Petitioners
vs.
1. Paarth
S/o Sh. Prem Kumar
R/o House No. 1188, Kanjhawala
Road, Bawana, Delhi.
...... Driver/R1
2. Beena Devi
W/o Sh. Prem Kumar
MACT Case No. 384/2021 (FIR no. 297/2021)
MACT Case No. 465/2021 (FIR No. 297/2021)
Ranjana Rajora Sharma & Anr. Vs.Paarth & Ors.
Page no. 1 of 18
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date: 2025.10.15
15:56:45 +0530
R/o House No. 1188, Kanjhawala
Road, Bawana, Delhi.
......Owner/R2
3. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
......Insurance Co./R3
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.10.15
15:56:50 +0530
MACT Case No. 384/2021 (FIR no. 297/2021)
MACT Case No. 465/2021 (FIR No. 297/2021)
Ranjana Rajora Sharma & Anr. Vs.Paarth & Ors.
Page no. 2 of 18
DLNW010097832021
Presented on : 04-12-2021
Registered on : 06-12-2021
Decided on : 15-10-2025
Duration : 3 years, 10 months,
11 days
IN THE COURT OF
ADJ1(NW)/MACT, NORTH WEST DISTRICT DELHI
Presided Over by Sh. Vikram
M A C T/465/2021
FIR No. 297/2021, PS Budh Vihar
In the matter of : Sh. Ajay Sharma
1. Ranjana Rajora Sharma (Wife of deceased)
W/o Late Sh. Ajay Sharma
2. Chandra Kanta Sharma (Mother of deceased)
W/o Late Sh. Dev Dutt Sharma
Both R/o A-2/45, Sector-3,
Rohini, Delhi
.....Petitioners
vs.
1. Paarth
S/o Sh. Prem Kumar
R/o House No. 1188, Kanjhawala
Road, Bawana, Delhi.
...... Driver/R1
2. Beena Devi
W/o Sh. Prem Kumar
MACT Case No. 384/2021 (FIR no. 297/2021)
MACT Case No. 465/2021 (FIR No. 297/2021)
Ranjana Rajora Sharma & Anr. Vs.Paarth & Ors.
Page no. 3 of 18
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.10.15
15:56:59 +0530
R/o House No. 1188, Kanjhawala
Road, Bawana, Delhi.
......Owner/R2
3. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
......Insurance Co./R3
Appearance (s) : Sh. Abhay Ram, Ld. Counsel for the petitioners.
Sh. Chetan Vijayran, Ld. Counsel for respondent
no. 1 & 2.
Sh. S.K. Tyagi, Ld. counsel for respondent no. 3.
J U D G M E N T/AWAR D
1. Vide this common judgment/award, I shall dispose off DAR filed by IO ASI Narender, PS Budh Vihar vide MACT no. 384/2021 and MACT Claim Petition no. 465/2021, in regard to death of Sh. Ajay Sharma, (in short, the deceased), who died in a road vehicular accident on 07.09.2021.
2. Brief facts as per DAR Ex. PW1/7(colly) are that on 07.09.2021 at around 06:00 am deceased left his home for a morning walk on a bicycle and when he reached near Rithla Metro Station, Pillar no. 472, one Swift car bearing registration no. DL 9CS 5978 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle) came from behind in a very high speed in rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased due to which deceased sustained grievous injuries. Deceased was shifted to BSA Hospital in the offending vehicle by its driver/R1 where he was declared brought dead. FIR no. 297/2021 was registered at PS Budh Vihar for the offences punishable under Section 279/304A IPC on the basis of rukka prepared by IO on the basis of MLC.
MACT Case No. 384/2021 (FIR no. 297/2021) MACT Case No. 465/2021 (FIR No. 297/2021) Ranjana Rajora Sharma & Anr. Vs.Paarth & Ors.
Page no. 4 of 18
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.10.15
15:57:05 +0530
3. As per DAR and investigation conducted by IO, R1 was driving the offending vehicle in negligent manner which caused the accident resulting in death of deceased. Cause of death, confirmed by PM report no. 604/2021, was combined effect of cranio-cerebral damage, spinal shock and hemorrhagic shock consequent to multiple injuries to the body. As such R1 was charge-sheeted for offences under section 279/304A/201 IPC & 134/187 M V Act.
4. As per DAR deceased survived by his wife, and mother (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner No. 1 & 2) who were dependant on deceased.
5. Joint WS/reply was received from R1 & R2 stated that R1 was the driver of the offending vehicle on the date of the accident which was insured with R3 and R1 was also having a valid driving licence at the time of accident. It is, however, claimed that the accident was not caused by R1. R1, on humanitarian grounds, took the deceased to hospital and subsequently falsely framed in the present case.
6. Reply on behalf of R3 was also filed in which it is stated that R1 was having valid DL at the time of accident and the offending vehicle was insured with R3. It is also stated that the number of offending vehicle is not mentioned in the FIR and there is no eye witness of the accident who was present at the spot. Offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in the present case with the connivance of alleged eye witness Atul Dass and Lakhvinder Singh but they did not inform the police.
MACT Case No. 384/2021 (FIR no. 297/2021) MACT Case No. 465/2021 (FIR No. 297/2021) Ranjana Rajora Sharma & Anr. Vs.Paarth & Ors.
Page no. 5 of 18
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.10.15
15:57:11 +0530
ISSUES:
7. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed by this Tribunal on 22.04.2022: -
1. Whether deceased Ajay Sharma S/o Sh. Dev Dutt Sharma expired due to injuries suffered in road traffic accident on 07.09.2021 at about 06:15 AM., near Rithala Metro Station Pillar no. 472 due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle i.e. car bearing no. DL 9CS 5978 which was being driven by driver Sh.
Paarth S/o Sh. Prem Kumar, on the said date, time and place? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
EVIDENCE:
8. In evidence petitioner Ranjana Rajora Sharam examined herself as Pw1 and filed her affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied on following documents:
(a) Marriage certificate Ex.Pw1/1
(b) Copy of her aadhar card Ex.Pw1/2(OSR)
(c) Copy of her PAN card Ex.Pw1/3(OSR)
(d) Copy of aadhar card of deceased Ex.Pw1/4 (OSR)
(e) Copy of PAN card of deceased Ex.Pw1/5(OSR)
(f) Copy of CTC from company M/s Parle Agro Ex.Pw1/6
(g) DAR Ex.Pw1/7 (colly) MACT Case No. 384/2021 (FIR no. 297/2021) MACT Case No. 465/2021 (FIR No. 297/2021) Ranjana Rajora Sharma & Anr. Vs.Paarth & Ors.
Page no. 6 of 18 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2025.10.15 15:57:18 +0530(h) Copy of claim petition Ex.Pw1/8
9. In her cross examination, she denied the suggestion that she and her mother in law were not dependent on the deceased or that deceased was not drawing a salary of Rs. 5,14, 526/- per month from Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. She also denied the suggestion that she was not married to deceased or that marriage certificate Ex.Pw1/1 is false and fabricated.
10. Petitioner Chandra Kanta Sharma examined as Pw2 who filed her affidavit Ex.Pw1/2 and relied on following documents:
(a) Copy of aadhar card Ex.Pw2/1 (b) Copy of PAN card Ex.Pw2/2
11. In her cross examination she denied the suggestion that marriage of deceased and petitioner Ranjana Rajora Sharma was no solemnized on 07.07.2018 according to Hindu Rites & Ceremonies at Arya Samaj Mandir. She also denied the suggestion that She was not dependent on his deceased son.
12. Petitioners have also examined one Sanjiv Kiyawat, General Manager (Accounts) from Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd as Pw3 who deposed that at the time of accident, the salary of deceased was Rs.
61,47,300/- per annum and Rs/ 5,12,275/- per month. During cross examination, he denied the suggestion that deceased was not working with their company or was not drawing a salary of Rs. 5,12,275/- per month.
MACT Case No. 384/2021 (FIR no. 297/2021) MACT Case No. 465/2021 (FIR No. 297/2021) Ranjana Rajora Sharma & Anr. Vs.Paarth & Ors.
Page no. 7 of 18
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.10.15
15:57:24 +0530
13. Petitioners have also examined Sh. Anil Sharma, eldest brother of deceased, who, after accident, visited the hospital and identified the dead body of deceased and after post mortem received the dead body of deceased.
14. Petitioners have also examined Sh. Atul Singh, eye witness of the accident. He deposed that on 07.09.2021 he was present on the pavement near pillar no. 472 near Rithala Metro Station. He also deposed that one cyclist was hit by a Maruti white colour car having last four digits 5976. He also deposed that 'L' was written on the back side of the car. After the accident, injured was taken by the driver of the car(offending vehicle) to hospital. He also deposed that driver/R1 was wearing black colour T-shirt and '3' was printed on the arm of the t-shirt.
15. Petitioners have also examined Sh. Mahesh Dhondiyal, Senior Assistance, Income Tax Department who brought ITRs of deceased for the assessment year 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 alongwith covering letter as Ex.Pw5/1 (colly). During his cross examination he denied the suggestion that Ex.Pw5/1 (colly) are not authenticated document or that the same are fabricated.
16. In respondent's evidence, R1 examined himself as R1W1 who filed is affidavit Ex.R1W1/A stating that he had only seen the accident and helped in shifting the deceased to hospital but was falsely framed. He relied on copy of his aadhar card Ex.Rw1/1, copy MACT Case No. 384/2021 (FIR no. 297/2021) MACT Case No. 465/2021 (FIR No. 297/2021) Ranjana Rajora Sharma & Anr. Vs.Paarth & Ors.
Page no. 8 of 18
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
Date:
VIKRAM 2025.10.15
15:57:31
+0530
of his driving licence Ex.Rw1/2 and copy of insurance policy Ex.Rw1/3. During his cross examination, he admitted that he was driving the offending vehicle and took the injured to hospital but denied that accident took place with the offending vehicle. He deposed that at request of public persons, he shifted the injured to hospital.
17. Thereafter, the evidence was closed. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the testimony of witnesses including the pleadings and the documents. My issue wise findings in the case are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1
1. Whether deceased Ajay Sharma S/o Sh. Dev Dutt Sharma expired due to injuries suffered in road traffic accident on 07.09.2021 at about 06:15 AM., near Rithala Metro Station Pillar no. 472 due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle i.e. car bearing no. DL 9CS 5978 which was being driven by driver Sh.
Paarth S/o Sh. Prem Kumar, on the said date, time and place? OPP.
18. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution.
MACT Case No. 384/2021 (FIR no. 297/2021) MACT Case No. 465/2021 (FIR No. 297/2021) Ranjana Rajora Sharma & Anr. Vs.Paarth & Ors.
Page no. 9 of 18
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.10.15
15:57:38 +0530
The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
19. For involvement of offending vehicle of the respondent no.2 in accident, R1 has meekly tried to dispute the same. However, documentary evidence collected in FIR No. 379/2021 shows otherwise. The accident was seen by witness Atul Singh who stated that deceased was shifted to hospital by the driver of offending vehicle and the driver was wearing a black colour t-shirt and the arm of the t-shirt was printed with '3'. IO, during investigation, collected the CCTV footage of hospital and still photographs of the footage are on record. R1/driver is clearly visible wearing a t-shirt having a print of '3' on the arm of the t-shirt. It is also an admitted fact by R1 that he has shifted the deceased to the hospital. Moreover, it is admitted by R1 himself in his discloser statement that the accident occurred with the offending vehicle being driven by him and after leaving the deceased in the hospital he got the bumper of offending vehicle repaired. IO has also recorded the statement of the said mechanic.
MACT Case No. 384/2021 (FIR no. 297/2021) MACT Case No. 465/2021 (FIR No. 297/2021) Ranjana Rajora Sharma & Anr. Vs.Paarth & Ors.
Page no. 10 of 18
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.10.15
15:57:44 +0530
Therefore, the case does not warrant any other best evidence.
20. Further, the FIR has been lodged against the respondent no.1 and he has faced criminal charges of causing death and injuries by rash and negligent driving in the said accident. Therefore, an adverse inference on this aspect is also required to be drawn against the respondents in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
21. Keeping in view the facts & evidence produced by the petitioner, it is established that the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle being driven by respondent No.1.
22. In view of the facts disclose in the DAR which proves place of incident as well as caused of death and on the basis of aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the rashness and negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle, which is clearly visible and as such, was responsible not only for this accident, but also for everything that followed thereafter. Accordingly issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 22. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
MACT Case No. 384/2021 (FIR no. 297/2021) MACT Case No. 465/2021 (FIR No. 297/2021) Ranjana Rajora Sharma & Anr. Vs.Paarth & Ors.
Page no. 11 of 18
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
Date:
VIKRAM 2025.10.15
15:57:51
+0530
23. As this Tribunal has already held that R1 was responsible for the death of the deceased due to his neglect and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Therefore, the petitioners have become entitled to be compensated for death of deceased in the above accident, but computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided.
COMPENSATION
24. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death : (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and the (c) the number of dependents. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the deceased. If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. In this regard, though not quoted, reliance is placed upon, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121.
25. As already stated above, the claimant/petitioners are wife and mother of deceased. As per aadhar card of deceased, deceased was about 49 years old on the date of accident. It is shown on record that deceased was employed with Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. and as per the salary slip of August 2021, his income, after deductions of PF, VPF MACT Case No. 384/2021 (FIR no. 297/2021) MACT Case No. 465/2021 (FIR No. 297/2021) Ranjana Rajora Sharma & Anr. Vs.Paarth & Ors.
Page no. 12 of 18
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.10.15
15:57:58 +0530
and TDS, was Rs. 3,09,167/- per month. As the PF, VPF are contributing by the employee himself, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed to Rs. 4,19,379 (Net income + PF + VPF).
26. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners further argued that future prospects should also be awarded to the petitioners as per law. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners/claimants were dependent upon him.
27. Accordingly, on the basis of aforementioned documents, age of the deceased is taken as 49 years as on the date of accident. Hence, the multiplier of "13" would be applicable in view of pronouncement made in case titled as Sarla Verma (supra).
28. Considering the fact that deceased was aged about 49 years at the time of accident and was having a permanent job at that time of the said accident, future prospects @ 25 % has to be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of recent pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, as well as in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors, in MAC APP No. 798/2011.
29. Claimant/petitioners are wife and mother of deceased. Thus, there are 2 claimants/ dependents upon him. There has to be deduction of "one third (1/3th)", as per the mandate of Sarla Verma MACT Case No. 384/2021 (FIR no. 297/2021) MACT Case No. 465/2021 (FIR No. 297/2021) Ranjana Rajora Sharma & Anr. Vs.Paarth & Ors.
Page no. 13 of 18
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.10.15
15:58:04 +0530
(supra). Thus, total loss of dependency would come out as under:
30. Thus, total loss of dependency would come out as under:
Head Amount Remarks
(Rs.)
Monthly Income of 4,19,379
deceased
(A)
Less: Personal expenses of 1,39,793 (A)/3= (B)
deceased @ one third (1/3th)
(B)
Monthly loss of dependency 2,79,586 [(A)-
(C) (B)]=(C)
Annual Loss of dependency 33,55,032/- (C) x 12 =
(D) (D)
Multiplier @ 13 4,36,15,416 (D) x 13
(E) (multiplier)
= (E)
Add: Future Prospects @ 1,09,03,854 (E) X 25%
25% (E)
Total 5,45,19,270
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
31. After the judgment passed in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra) and recent judgment titled as New India Assurance Company Limited v. Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020 the petitioners are not entitled to be compensated under this head. Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors, (supra) has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the Constitution Bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) does not recognize any other non- pecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being MACT Case No. 384/2021 (FIR no. 297/2021) MACT Case No. 465/2021 (FIR No. 297/2021) Ranjana Rajora Sharma & Anr. Vs.Paarth & Ors.
Page no. 14 of 18
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.10.15
15:58:16 +0530
awarded under this head.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
32. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as, "Rojalini Nayak & Ors. Vs. Ajit Sahoo & Ors. ", Civil Appeal dated 07.08.2024, all LRs of deceased are entitled for payment of Rs. 96,800/- towards loss of consortium. Consequently, a sum of Rs. 96,800/- (Rs.48,400/- x 2) is awarded to the petitioners under this head.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
33. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Rojalini Nayak & Ors. Vs. Ajit Sahoo & Ors.", Civil Appeal dated 07.08.2024 mentioned supra, a sum of Rs. 36,300/- (18,150 x 2) is awarded in favour of petitioners on account of loss of estate and and a sum of Rs. 18,150/- is awarded in favour of petitioners towards funeral expenses.
34. Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:
S. No. Head Amount (Rs.)
1 Loss of dependency 5,45,19,270
2 Loss of Consortium 96,800/-
(Rs.48,400/- x 2)
3 Loss of Estate &Funeral 54,450/-
Expenses (Rs.36,300 +
18,150/-)
TOTAL 5,46,70,520/-
Rounded off 5,46,71,000/-
MACT Case No. 384/2021 (FIR no. 297/2021) MACT Case No. 465/2021 (FIR No. 297/2021) Ranjana Rajora Sharma & Anr. Vs.Paarth & Ors.
Page no. 15 of 18
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
Date:
VIKRAM 2025.10.15
15:58:27
+0530
Issue No.3/Relief
35. The petitioners are thus entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,46,71,000/- (Rs. Five Crore Forty Six Lacs Seventy One Thousand only) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim petition i.e. 29.10.2021 till compliance and @ 12% per annum thereafter. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be liable to be excluded from the above amount and calculations of compensation.
LIABILITY
36. In the case in hand, offending vehicle was insured with R3. Hence, R3 is liable to pay the compensation amount to petitioners. R3 is hereby directed to deposit the award amount within 30 days from the date of this Award by way of NEFT or RTGS mode in the account of this Tribunal maintained with SBI, Rohini Courts, Delhi under intimation to the petitioner/ injured and this Tribunal in terms of the format for remittance of compensation as provided in Divisional Manager Vs. Rajesh, 2016 SCC Online Mad. 1913 (and reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the orders dated 16.03.2021 and 16.11.2021 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.
APPORTIONMENT
37. The statement of Petitioners in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP was not recorded. It is hereby ordered that both petitioner no. 1 & 2, being first class legal heirs, are awarded 50% each of award amount.
MACT Case No. 384/2021 (FIR no. 297/2021) MACT Case No. 465/2021 (FIR No. 297/2021) Ranjana Rajora Sharma & Anr. Vs.Paarth & Ors.
Page no. 16 of 18
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.10.15
15:58:34 +0530
38. A digital copy of this award be provided to the parties. Ahlmad is directed to send a copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate 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)]. Further 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).
39. Ahlmad is also 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. Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Rohini Courts for information.
40. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
41. Form V and IVB in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A.
42. A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and MACT Case No. 384/2021 (FIR no. 297/2021) MACT Case No. 465/2021 (FIR No. 297/2021) Ranjana Rajora Sharma & Anr. Vs.Paarth & Ors.
Page no. 17 of 18
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.10.15
15:58:40 +0530
put up the same on 15.11.2025.
43. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT Digitally signed
ON 15th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.10.15
15:58:46 +0530
VIKRAM
DJ-1+MACT, NORTH WEST,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MACT Case No. 384/2021 (FIR no. 297/2021) MACT Case No. 465/2021 (FIR No. 297/2021) Ranjana Rajora Sharma & Anr. Vs.Paarth & Ors.
Page no. 18 of 18