Delhi District Court
Master Akash Sharma-- vs Vijay Prasad And Ors on 22 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF GUNJAN GUPTA: DISTRICT
JUDGE-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-01, (WEST), TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
AWARD/JUDGMENT
MACT Case No.117/2021
CNR No.-DLWT010019642021
Master Akash Sharma
S/o Sh. Tej Ram Sharma
represented through his father/natural guardian being minor)
R/o H. No. 42, Village Khanpur,
Chhata, District Mathura, Uttar Pradesh-281401
.............petitioner
Versus
1. Vijay Prasad
S/o Sh. Dasrath Prasad,
R/o Village Amawar Shekh,
Majhauliya, Paschim Champaran,
Bihar-845438
(Driver of offending Truck No. HR55R8542)
2. Usha Malik
D/o Sh. Amar Singh
R/o 21-C, A-3, Green Apartment,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063.
(Owner of offending Truck No. HR55R8542)
3. Go Digit General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Office-5th Floor, IFCI Tower 96, Nehru
Place Market Road, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.
(Insurer of offending Truck No. HR55R8542)
........ Respondent(s)
Date of Institution of case : 04.03.2021 Date of final arguments : 16.09.2025 Date of pronouncement of order/judgment : 22.09.2025 Akash Sharma vs. Vijay Prasad & Ors.
MACT No.117/2021 Page no.1 of 30
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.09.24 16:38:43
+0530
FORM-XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
1. Date of the accident 26.08.2020
2. Date of filing of Form-I - N.A. First Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II N.A. to the victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III N.A. from the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV N.A. from the Owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- N.A. Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA N.A. and Form-VIB from the Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - N.A. Detailed Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay N.A. or deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Date not mentioned Designated Officer by the Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Yes Officer of the Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the petition/DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay No or deficiency on the part of the Designated Officer of the Akash Sharma vs. Vijay Prasad & Ors.
MACT No.117/2021 Page no.2 of 30
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.09.24 16:38:50
+0530
Insurance Company? If so,
whether any action/direction
warranted?
13. Date of response of the Legal offer was not filed by claimant(s) to the offer of the insurance company Insurance Company
14. Date of the award 22.09.2025
15. Whether the claimant(s) Yes was/were directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which 23.01.2023 claimant(s) was/were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Aadhaar 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) 14.07.2025 produced the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along-with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential H. No. 42, Village Khanpur, Address of the claimant(s). Chhata, District Mathura, Uttar Pradesh-281401
19. Whether the claimant(s) Yes savings bank account(s) is/are near his/her/their place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) Yes was/were examined at the time of passing of the award Akash Sharma vs. Vijay Prasad & Ors.
MACT No.117/2021 Page no.3 of 30
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.09.24 16:38:52
+0530
to ascertain his/her/their
financial condition?
AWARD
1. Vide this judgment/award, this Tribunal shall decide claim petition filed by the petitioner under Section 166 & 140 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter "M.V. Act") for compensation on account of the injuries sustained by injured Akash Sharma in a road vehicular accident which took place on 26.08.2020.
CASE OF THE PETITIONER
2. Succinctly, the case put forth vide claim petition is that on 26.08.2020, petitioner was going by foot to meet his father at Bilaspur Gurugram. At about 11:30 AM, when he reached Bilaspur Chowk Near Old toll Tax, the offending truck bearing registration no. HR55R8542, which was being driven by respondent no.1 in rash and negligent manner, without blowing horn and without obeying traffic rules, came from Bilaspur side and hit the petitioner and dragged him with the truck. Due to this, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. The driver/respondent no.1 ran away from the spot of incident. After the accident, injured was shifted to Artemis Hospital Gurugram, Haryana. The petitioner spent more than Rs.6 Lakhs on his medical treatment and Rs.1 Lakh towards conveyance, special diet and attendant charges. The petitioner was 17 years of age at the time of accident and was studying & earning Rs.12,000/- per month by imparting tuitions. The incident happened solely due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.01. FIR No. 396/2020 under Section 279/338 IPC PS Bilaspur District Gurugram, Haryana Akash Sharma vs. Vijay Prasad & Ors.
MACT No.117/2021 Page no.4 of 30
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.09.24 16:38:54
+0530
was registered against respondent no.1. It is averred that the respondent no.01 being driver, respondent no.02 being owner and respondent no.03 being the insurer of offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner(s).
REPLY OF RESPONDENTS
3. No WS/reply was filed on behalf of respondent no. 01 & 02 and even no one appeared on their behalf despite service. Accordingly, vide order dated 29.10.2022 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court, respondent no.1 & respondent no.2 were proceeded ex-parte.
4. Respondent no.03 filed its written statement wherein it is inter alia stated that the present claim petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as petitioner has not come with clean hands and has concealed material facts from this Tribunal. It is admitted that the vehicle bearing registration no. HR55R8542 was insured with it for the period from 16.07.2020 to 15.07.2021 in the name of Usha Malik. Apart from the above, the respondent no.3 denied all other averments of petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.
ISSUES
5. Ld. Predecessor of this tribunal framed following issues vide order dated 23.07.2022:-
1. Whether the injured Master Akash Sharma suffered injuries in the accident that took place on 26.08.2020 at about 11:30 am due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing No. HR55R8542 by the respondent no.1 Sh. Vijay Prasad being owned by the respondent no.2 Smt. Usha Malik and insured with the respondent no.3? OPP.
Akash Sharma vs. Vijay Prasad & Ors.
MACT No.117/2021 Page no.5 of 30
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.09.24
16:38:57 +0530
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if yes, at what amount from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
EVIDENCE
6. Petitioner examined himself as PW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A reiterating and supporting the contents of his petition. He relied upon copy of his Aadhar Card as Ex.PW1/1(OSR), copy of his Pan card as Ex.PW1/2(OSR), copy of Aadhar Card of his father as Ex.PW1/3(OSR), certified copies of criminal case records Ex.PW1/4(colly), original medical bills Ex.PW1/5(colly), original treatment records Ex.PW1/6(colly) and copies of his educational qualification documents Ex.PW1/7(colly) (OSR) in his evidence. He was examined-in-chief, no cross-examination was done by respondents despite opportunity given and he was discharged.
7. Vide order dated 26.05.2025, right of respondent no.1 & 2 to lead RE was closed by Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal. No evidence was led by the respondent no.3. It was stated by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3 that they do not want to lead evidence and vide order dated 26.05.2025 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal, RE of respondent no.3 was closed. ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER 8.1 It was argued by Ld. Counsel for petitioner that the petitioner has positively proved that the incident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.01, the expenses of the medical treatment of the injured and that the injured was studying and also earning Rs.12,000/- by imparting Akash Sharma vs. Vijay Prasad & Ors.
MACT No.117/2021 Page no.6 of 30
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.09.24 16:38:59
+0530
tuitions. It is submitted that there is also a disability assessment report on record, as per which, the injured has suffered a 2% disability with respect to his whole spine and keeping in view the above, the award may be passed by this Tribunal as per entitlement/claim of petitioner.
ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO. 1 & 2 8.2 No one appeared on behalf of respondent no.1 & 2 for addressing arguments.
ARGUMENTS OF Ld. COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 8.3 It was argued by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3 that only the bills of amount of Rs.2,99,964/- have been verified by their Investigator. It was argued that there was no permit to ply commercial vehicle. With these contentions, respondent no.03 has prayed for dismissal of the present claim petition. ANALYSIS/FINDINGS ON ISSUES 9.1 Issue No.(1) -1. Whether the injured Master Akash Sharma suffered injuries in the accident that took place on 26.08.2020 at about 11:30 am due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing No. HR55R8542 by the respondent no.1 Sh. Vijay Prasad being owned by the respondent no.2 Smt. Usha Malik and insured with the respondent no.3? OPP.
9.2 Before adverting to the facts of the present petition for deciding the above issue, at the very outset, it would be apposite to note here that strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The standard of proof is not as strict as in criminal cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities only. In fact, the burden of proof Akash Sharma vs. Vijay Prasad & Ors.
MACT No.117/2021 Page no.7 of 30
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.09.24
16:39:02 +0530
in a claim petition under the M.V. Act, is even lesser than a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of "Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors." (2009) 13 SC 530, "Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and Ors." 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and "Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.", 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc. 9.3 Keeping in mind the aforesaid legal preposition, this Tribunal has gone through the testimony of the witnesses and entire material available on record. This Tribunal has also given its thoughtful consideration to arguments addressed by Ld. Counsels for the parties.
9.4 The petitioner has deposed in his examination-in- chief that on 26.08.2020, he was going by foot to meet his father at Bilaspur Gurugram. At about 11:30 AM, when he reached at Bilaspur Chowk, Near Old toll Tax, the offending truck bearing registration no.HR55R8542, which was being driven by respondent no.1 in rash and negligent manner, without blowing horn and without obeying traffic rules, came from Bilaspur side and hit the petitioner and dragged him with the truck. He stated that due to same, he sustained grievous injuries in his spine and rest of the body. After causing the accident, the driver/respondent no.1 ran away from the spot of incident. Thereafter, he was shifted to Artemis Hospital Gurugram, Haryana where he was treated. It was stated that the incident happened solely due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.01. It is stated that on his statement, FIR No.0396/2020 was registered against respondent Akash Sharma vs. Vijay Prasad & Ors.
MACT No.117/2021 Page no.8 of 30
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.09.24 16:39:04
+0530
no.1. The petitioner in his evidence has relied upon the original medical bills and treatment record Ex.PW1/5 (colly) and Ex.PW1/6(colly) respectively and certified copy of criminal case record Ex. PW1/4(colly) which includes final report under Section 173 Cr. PC, statement of injured, site plan, copy of MLC of injured stating the history of RTA, medical documents of injured, notice under Section 133 of MV Act, statement of driver Vijay Prasad etc. 9.5 The testimony of the petitioner & documents relied upon by him remained unrebutted as he was not cross-examined by the respondents despite opportunity being given. No evidence was led by respondents to disprove the case of the petitioner or to rebut their liability.
9.6 Further, the very fact that respondent no.1 was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 279/338 IPC with respect to the accident in question/FIR No.0393/2020 is in itself a strong circumstance to support the testimony of PW-1. The copies of the FIR, charge-sheet, MLC, site plan & medical treatment record also corroborate the testimony of PW-1.
9.7 Even otherwise, respondent no.01/driver was the best witness who could have rebutted the case of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle put forth by petitioner and could have thrown some light as to how and under what circumstances, the accident in question took place. However, respondent no.01/driver has chosen not to step into the witness box during the course of inquiry. In the given circumstances, adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him, to the effect Akash Sharma vs. Vijay Prasad & Ors.
MACT No.117/2021 Page no.9 of 30
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.09.24
16:39:07 +0530
that the accident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving. 9.8 In view of the above discussion and considering the evidence on record, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the claimant has on the scale of preponderance of probabilities proved that the petitioner sustained injuries in road accident on 26.08.2020 at 11:30 am at Bilaspur Chowk Near Old toll Tax due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration number HR55R8542 being driven by respondent no.1. Accordingly, issue no.01 is decided in favour of the petitioner.
Issue No. (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if yes, of what amount and from whom? OPP. 10.1 In view of the findings on issue no.1, the petitioner is entitled to get compensation for the injuries suffered by him and the loss suffered by him due to the injuries in the road accident. Before proceeding further to decide the present issue, it would be apposite to encapsulate the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its. Judgment in "Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors." (2011) 1 SCC 343. It was held : -
"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 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. Akash Sharma vs. Vijay Prasad & Ors.
MACT No.117/2021 Page no.10 of 30 GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.09.24 16:39:09 +0530 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 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. 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 claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decision of this Court and High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability - item (ii)(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this case. Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability.
6. 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 Akash Sharma vs. Vijay Prasad & Ors.
MACT No.117/2021 Page no.11 of 30
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.09.24
16:39:11 +0530
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. 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.
7. 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 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% 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%.
8. 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 the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. 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 Akash Sharma vs. Vijay Prasad & Ors.
MACT No.117/2021 Page no.12 of 30
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.09.24
16:39:13 +0530
income, it has to be quantified in terns 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).
9. 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.
10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the Akash Sharma vs. Vijay Prasad & Ors.
MACT No.117/2021 Page no.13 of 30
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.09.24
16:39:16 +0530
case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of `loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may."
10.2 In view of the above law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in routine injury cases, award needs to be passed only under heads of medical expenses, loss of earning during treatment period and damages for pain, suffering and trauma. In cases of serious injuries, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the claim/evidence of the claimant, award additionally needs to be passed under the heads of loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability suffered, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (including loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. In light of the above settled law, the amount of compensation to which the petitioner is entitled is determined as under:
MEDICAL EXPENSES 10.3(i) The petitioner has stated in his evidence that he has suffered grievous injuries in his spine & whole body due to the accident and has incurred an expenses of Rs.6 Lakhs on medical treatment. The petitioner has filed medical bills as Akash Sharma vs. Vijay Prasad & Ors.
MACT No.117/2021 Page no.14 of 30
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.09.24
16:39:18 +0530
Ex.PW1/5(colly) on record which include the bills for treatment during hospitalization as well as medicine bills. The original medical documents i.e. the discharge summary and follow up consultations are Ex.PW1/6 (colly). The petitioner has not been cross-examined by respondents and no evidence has been led by respondents to disprove the claim of petitioner. There is no reason to disbelieve the above documents. The medicine bills dated 05.09.2020, 12.09.2020 & 26.09.2020 are corroborated by the prescription dated 05.09.2020 and 12.09.2020 on record Ex.PW1/6. Total amount of original medical bills placed on record by the petitioner is as under:
(A) Date of the Bill Amount
1. 30.08.2024 Rs. 2,99,964/-
(rounding off)
2. 12.09.2020 Rs.631/-
3. 26.09.2020 Rs. 264/-
4. 12.09.2020 Rs.599/-
5. 05.09.2020 Rs.612/-
TOTAL: Rs.3,02,070/-
10.3(ii) Hence, injured/petitioner is entitled for a sum of
Rs.3,02,070/- on account of medical bills/expenses. Accordingly, petitioner is awarded Rs.3,02,070/- on account of medical expenses.
ASSESSMENT OF EXPENSES TOWARDS FUTURE TREATMENT 10.4 Petitioner has deposed in his evidence that he requires future treatment. Petitioner has placed on record the original estimate form of Rs.2,07,000/- for removal of implants issued by Artemis Hospital, Gurugram signed and stamped by Dr. Hitesh Garg, Senior Consultant Orthopedics & Spine Surgery. As Akash Sharma vs. Vijay Prasad & Ors.
MACT No.117/2021 Page no.15 of 30
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.09.24
16:39:21 +0530
per treatment record Ex.PW1/6 (colly), the injured/petitioner has been operated upon and two rods and 07 screws have been implanted for Posterior D11-L3 fixation by fusion & decompression. Though, no evidence has been led to show that the implants were required to be removed, however, the possibility of requirement of removal of implants cannot be totally ruled out. Further, there is no reason to disbelieve the estimate form issued by Artemis Hospital as the same has been signed and stamped by the doctor who has treated the petitioner i.e. Dr.Hitesh Garg, Senior Consultant Orthopedics & Spine Surgery. Further, as per discharge summary and the medical prescriptions on record, the petitioner was advised physiotherapy, and, therefore, a notional sum of Rs.30,000/- is granted on this account. In view of the same, this Tribunal deems it fit to grant the future treatment expenses of Rs.2,37,000/- (Rs.2,07,000/- + Rs.30,000) to the petitioner.
DETERMINATION OF LOSS OF INCOME DURING TREATMENT PERIOD 10.5(i) The petitioner has claimed that he was studying and also imparting tuitions and used to earn Rs.12,000/- per month. But no documentary proof has been filed by the petitioner to prove the income of the injured. As per Ex.PW1/7(colly), the petitioner at the time of accident, had already passed intermediate examination in 2020. As per the Aadhar Card of the petitioners and the educational qualification documents on record, it appears that the petitioner was a resident of U.P. Hence, the income of injured/petitioner has to be assessed on the basis of chart of Minimum Wages of a skilled person in the State of Uttar Akash Sharma vs. Vijay Prasad & Ors.
MACT No.117/2021 Page no.16 of 30
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.09.24
16:39:23 +0530
Pradesh. The minimum wages for a Skilled person of State of Uttar Pradesh on the date of accident i.e. 26.08.2020 were Rs.10,627.5/-.
10.5(ii) Accordingly, the monthly income of the injured needs to be considered as Rs.10,628/- (after rounding off Rs.10,627.5/- per month on the date of accident. 10.5(iii) Considering the nature of injuries and procedures undergone for treatment, this tribunal is of the opinion that injured/petitioner must have not been able to work for about 06 months. Accordingly, this tribunal grants compensation of sum of Rs.63,768/- (Rs.10,628/- x 06) towards loss of income during treatment period.
ASSESSMENT OF LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY DUE TO PERMANENT DISABILITY 10.6(i) As per disability assessment report, the injured has suffered 02% permanent disability in relation to whole spine. The disability has been opined to be non-progressive and not likely to improve. The petitioner has not argued that he is suffering from any functional disability due to injuries/permanent disability of spine. Though, the disability is only 02%, however, the same is with respect to a very important part of the body i.e. whole spine. The spine provides the structural support to the body and head and has various important roles in functioning of the body like standing, walking, sitting etc. Thus, the disability with respect to the spine is bound to impact the functioning of body of the injured at same point of time in life, if not today, then definitely in the coming years of life & especially old age. Therefore, the functional disability of the petitioner for the purpose of Akash Sharma vs. Vijay Prasad & Ors.
MACT No.117/2021 Page no.17 of 30
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.09.24
16:39:25 +0530
assessment of compensation is assessed at the same percentage 02%.
10.6(ii) The injured was 17 years at the time of incident and had no permanent job, so the future prospects/benefits applicable to the present case would be 40%.
10.6(iii) The income of injured has already been assessed as as Rs.10,628/- and an addition of 40% needs to be made qua future prospects. Accordingly, the monthly income of the injured needs to be taken as Rs.14,880/- (after rounding off) (Rs.10,628/- + Rs.4251.2/- which is 40% of Rs.10,628/-). 10.6(iv) Thus, the total loss of earning capacity/loss of future earning would be Rs.64,282/- (after rounding off) (Rs.14,880/-x 12 x 18 x 02/100).
PAIN & SUFFERINGS 10.7 Pain & suffering is a non pecuniary loss and cannot be arithmetically calculated. It is a settled law that while assessing compensation payable to petitioners on account of pain & suffering, special circumstances of claimant have to be taken into account including victim's age, the unusual deprivation suffered by victim and effect thereof on his future life. As per the treatment records Ex.PW1/6(colly), the petitioner has suffered L1 vertebral fracture with bowel & bladder involvement. As per MLC & discharge summary, the injured was not able stand and walk and was operated upon for Posterior D11-L3 Fixation by Fusion & Decompression, using 7 screws & 2 rods. Since the petitioner has suffered spinal injury and undergone a procedure for fixation of the same by induction of implants, the petitioner must have suffered acute pain & suffering during the treatment as Akash Sharma vs. Vijay Prasad & Ors.
MACT No.117/2021 Page no.18 of 30
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.09.24
16:39:28 +0530
well as post treatment during the time of recovery. Further, as per the disability assessment report on record, the petitioner has suffered 02% permanent disability in relation to whole spine. The disability has been opined to be non-progressive and not likely to improve. Though, the disability is only 02%, however, the same is with respect to a very important part of the body i.e. whole spine. The spine provides the structural support to the body and head and has various important roles in functioning of the body. Thus, the disability with respect to the spine is bound to impact the functioning of body of the injured. Though no such signs may be visible today yet with such an important part of body being impacted, are bound to shown in future. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Tribunal, the 02% permanent disability with respect to the spine cannot be lightly weighed. The petitioner would not be able to live the same life as he would lived had he not met with the accident. There will definitely be a feeling of loss and he will have to life with this disability for his entire life. In view of the same and considering the nature of the injury, the period of hospitalization and the future follow-up treatment, the disability suffered by the petitioner and the suffering and the trauma undergone by him, the petitioner is held entitled for a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
LOSS OF AMENITIES OF LIFE 10.8 The petitioner has suffered 02% permanent disability in relation to whole spine which is opined to be non progressive and not likely to improve. When a person suffers from a disability, less or more, the same definitely impacts the Akash Sharma vs. Vijay Prasad & Ors.
MACT No.117/2021 Page no.19 of 30
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.09.24
16:39:30 +0530
mental psychology of the victim and causes mental trauma and feeling of loss. The person who suffers a disability definitely cannot lead a life in the same manner with same freedom. In this particular case where the victim has suffered permanent disability in relation to spine which is most important part of the body and aids in walking, sitting, standing etc. and provides structural support to the body, the same will definitely impact the functioning of the body of the injured. Some signs may show up instantly and some are bound to show up in the later phase of life. In view of the same, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to grant a notional sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities of life to the petitioner.
LOSS OF EXPECTATION OF LIFE 10.9 In view of the discussions under the above head i.e. loss of amenities of life, this Tribunal is of the opinion that same would also affect the expectancy of life of the injured. In view of the same, a notional sum of Rs.1,50,000/- is granted to the petitioner for loss of expectancy of life.
SPECIAL DIET 10.10 The nature of injuries and treatment undergone by the injured has already been discussed in the foregoing part of the judgment. Thus, considering the same and further considering that the petitioner must have required a long time to recover from the injuries and was advised a high protein rich diet in the discharge summary, this Tribunal deems it fit to grant compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards expenses incurred on special diet.
ATTENDANT CHARGES Akash Sharma vs. Vijay Prasad & Ors.
MACT No.117/2021 Page no.20 of 30
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.09.24
16:39:32 +0530
10.11 It has already been discussed above, the petitioner
had suffered L1 vertebral fracture with bowel & bladder involvement and he was not able to stand and walk. The petitioner was operated upon and two rods and 07 screws have been implanted for Posterior D11-L3 fixation by fusion & decompression and as per discharge summary, he was discharged with foley's catheter and as per other prescription and follow-up treatment on record, the petitioner had visited hospital for scetures removal and catheter removal. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner would have required attendant at home during his recovery period as well as during his visits to the hospitals. Considering the nature of injuries and the material available on record, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner must have required attendant for at least 06 months. Accordingly, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to grant compensation of Rs.60,000/- towards attendant charges.
CONVEYANCE CHARGES 10.12 Though there is no cogent evidence on record of money spent by the petitioner upon conveyance, yet considering the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner, the requirement of follow-up treatment and considering that the injured was a resident of Mathura, Uttar Pradesh and was treated in a hospital at Gurugram, this Tribunal grants compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards expenses incurred on conveyance. LITIGATION EXPENSES 10.13(i) The Hon'ble Apex in its judgment in "Sidram vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr" Civil appeal no. 8510 of 2022 decided on 16.11.2022 Akash Sharma vs. Vijay Prasad & Ors.
MACT No.117/2021 Page no.21 of 30
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.09.24
16:39:35 +0530
held that even litigation expenses can be award to the petitioner. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:-
"78. We take notice of the fact that the accident took place on 18.07.2012. The appellant is pursuing this litigation for the past almost 10 years. The SLP before this Court was filed in 2018. It has been four years since then.
79. In Govind Yadav (supra), this Court held:
"12.......Sometimes the delay and litigation expenses make the award passed by the Tribunal and even by the High Court (in appeal) meaningless....."
80. In New India Assurance Company Limited v. Gopali and Others, (2012) 12 SCC 198, this Court held:
"1. ...India is acclaimed for achieving a flourishing constitutional order, an inventive and activist judiciary, aided by a proficient Bar and supported by the State. However, the courts and tribunals, which the citizens are expected to approach for redressal of their grievance and protection of their fundamental, constitutional and legal rights, are beset with the problems of delays and costs. In a country where 36% of the population lives below the poverty line, these deficiencies in the justice-delivery system prevent a large segment of the population from availing legal remedies. The disadvantaged and the poor are deprived of access to justice because of the costs of litigation, both in terms of actual expenses and lost opportunities, and the laudable goal of securing justice--social, economic and political enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution of India remains an illusion for them.
2. The infrastructure of courts and the processes which govern them are simply inaccessible to the poor. The State, which has been mandated by Article 39-A of the Constitution to ensure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice by providing free legal aid and that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities, has not been able to create an effective mechanism for making justice accessible to the poor, downtrodden and disadvantaged. In the last two-and- a-half decades the institution of the Legal Services Authorities has rendered yeoman's service in the field of providing legal aid to the poor but a lot is required to be done for ensuring justice to economically deprived section of the society and those who suffer from other disabilities like illiteracy and ignorance.
3.xxx
4.xxx"
81. In Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, (2014) 2 SCC 735, this Court held:
Akash Sharma vs. Vijay Prasad & Ors.
MACT No.117/2021 Page no.22 of 30
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.09.24
16:39:37 +0530
"14. Further, along with compensation under conventional heads, the appellant claimant is also entitled to the cost of litigation as per the legal principle laid down by this Court in Balram Prasad v.
Kunal Saha [(2014) 1 SCC 384 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 327]. Therefore, under this head, we find it just and proper to allow Rs 25,000."
82. In view of the aforesaid, we award an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards litigation expenses."
10.13(ii) The present petition was filed in the year 2021 and almost 4 ½ years have lapsed. The petitioner must have incurred expenses towards litigation expenses. In view of the same and in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Tribunals grants Rs.30,000/- to the petitioner towards litigation expenses. THE TOTAL COMPENSATION AWARDED TO THE PETITIONER IS AS UNDER:-
S.No. Heads of Compensation Amount in Rupees
1. Reimbursement of medical Rs.3,02,070/-
expenses
2. Compensation on account of Rs.2,37,000/-
future treatment
3. Loss of Income during Rs.63,768/-
treatment period
4. Loss of earning capacity Rs.64,282/-
5. Pain and Suffering 1,50,000/-
6. Loss of amenities of life Rs.1,00,000/-
7. Loss of expectation of life Rs.1,50,000/-
8. Special Diet Rs.50,000/-
9. Attendant charges Rs.60,000/-
10. Conveyance Rs.50,000/-
11. Litigation expenses Rs.30,000/-
Total Rs.12,57,120/-
11. In view of the above discussions, the petitioner is held entitled to a compensation amount of Rs.12,57,120/-
(Rupees Twelve Lakhs Fifty Seven Thousand One Hundred Akash Sharma vs. Vijay Prasad & Ors.
MACT No.117/2021 Page no.23 of 30
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.09.24 16:39:39 +0530
and Twenty Only)
LIABILITY
12. The offending vehicle is duly insured with respondent no.3. It has been admitted that at the time of accident, the policy was valid. However, it was argued by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3 that the offending vehicle was not having valid permit to ply the vehicle. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was not carrying valid permit to ply the vehicle. No evidence has been led by the respondent no.3 in this regard. Infact as per National Permit Authorization certificate no. NP/HR/55/032020/18667 dated 05.03.2020, there was a valid permit to ply the vehicle as heavy goods vehicle. In view of the same, the respondent no.3 is held liable to pay the compensation to the injured/victim.
RELIEF:-
13. In view of the above discussion and findings on issues, this Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.12,57,120/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Fifty Seven Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Only) along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 04.03.2021 till the date of the payment of the award amount to be paid by the respondent No.3/Insurance Company. Respondent no.3/Insurance Company is hereby directed to deposit the award amount in favour of the petitioner(s) with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account No.40711767202, CIF No.90891362578, IFSC Code - SBIN0000726, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this award together with Akash Sharma vs. Vijay Prasad & Ors.
MACT No.117/2021 Page no.24 of 30
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.09.24
16:39:42 +0530
the interest as stated herein above under intimation to this Tribunal and under intimation to the petitioner. In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay.
DISBURSEMENT OF AWARD AMOUNT 14.1(i) Statement of the petitioner in terms of provisions of MCTAP was recorded on 14.07.2025. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the said statement, it is hereby ordered that out of the award amount, a sum of Rs.2,57,120/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Seven Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Only) shall be immediately released to the petitioner through his saving bank account and remaining amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) along with interest on the entire award amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs (fixed deposit receipts) in the multiples of Rs.20,000/- each for a period of one month, two months and three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest. 14.1(ii) The amount of FDRs on maturity shall directly be released in petitioner's Saving Bank Account. 14.1(iii) All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The 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 claimant(s).
(c) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the MACT bank account of the claimant
(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(e) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or Akash Sharma vs. Vijay Prasad & Ors.
MACT No.117/2021 Page no.25 of 30
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.09.24
16:39:44 +0530
debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card (s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(f) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(g) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause
(g) above.
15. Respondent no.3 i.e. Go Digit General Insurance Company Limited, being insurer of offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the compensation amount with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p. a. for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch is directed to transfer the award amount, in the above-mentioned manner, as per award in the saving bank account of claimant/petitioner, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
16. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph, specimen signature, copy of bank passbook and copy of residence proof of the petitioner, be sent to Nodal Officer of State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
17. Nazir of this Court shall prepare a separate file regarding the status of deposition/non-deposition of the award amount by the respondent(s) after making necessary entry on CIS Akash Sharma vs. Vijay Prasad & Ors.
MACT No.117/2021 Page no.26 of 30
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.09.24
16:39:47 +0530
on 25.10.2025.
18. A digital copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost through email.
19. Ahlmad staff is directed to send the copy of award to Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority as per the procedure of Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure (MCTAD).
20. Ahlmad staff 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." decided on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-email an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex Branch for information.
21. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 22nd of September, 2025 (GUNJAN GUPTA) District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01, West/THC/Delhi/22.09.2025 Akash Sharma vs. Vijay Prasad & Ors.
MACT No.117/2021 Page no.27 of 30
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.09.24
16:39:50 +0530
FORM-XVI
SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE
1. Date of accident : 26.08.2020
2. Name of the injured : Akash Sharma
3. Age of the injured : 05.08.2003(DOB)
4. Occupation of the injured: Not proved
5. Income of the injured : Rs.10,628/- per month
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken : 26.08.2020 to 30.08.2020
8. Period of Hospitalization : 05 days
9. Whether any permanent disability ? : Yes If yes, give details : 02% permanent in relation to whole spine
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss :-
(I) Expenditure on Rs.3,02,070/-
treatment
(ii) Expenditure on Rs.50,000/-
conveyance
(iii) Expenditure on special Rs.50,000/-
diet
(iv) Cost of Rs.60,000/-
nursing/attendant
(v) Loss of earning capacity 02%
(vi) Loss of Income Rs.63,768/-
(loss of earning during
treatment period)
(vii) Any other loss which Rs.2,37,000/- (towards
may require any special future treatment)
treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his
life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss :-
(i) Compensation for NIL
mental and physical
shock
Akash Sharma vs. Vijay Prasad & Ors.
MACT No.117/2021 Page no.28 of 30
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.09.24
16:39:55 +0530
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.1,50,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.1,00,000/-
(iv) Dis-figuration NA
(v) Loss of marriage NA
prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, Rs.30,000/- (Litigation
inconvenience, expenses)
hardships,
disappointment,
frustration, mental
stress, dejectment and
unhappiness in future
life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity :-
(i) Percentage of disability NIL
assessed and nature of
disability as permanent
or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or Rs.1,50,000/-
loss of expectation of (loss of expectation of life) life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of 02% earning capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - Rs.64,282/-
(Income x% Earning (Rs.14,880/-x 12 x 18 x
Capacity x Multiplier) 02/100)
14. TOTAL Rs.12,57,120/-
COMPENSATION
15. INTEREST AWARDED 8% per annum
16. Interest amount up to Rs.4,57,592/-
the date of award w.e.f. 04.03.2021 to
22.09.2025 i.e. 4 years 06
months and 18 days
17. TOTAL AMOUNT Rs.17,14,712/-
INCLUDING (Rs.12,57,120/- +
INTEREST Rs.4,57,592/-)
18. Award amount released Rs.2,57,120/-
19. Award amount kept in Rs.10,00,000/- + interest
FDRs accrued
20. Mode of disbursement Mentioned in the award
Akash Sharma vs. Vijay Prasad & Ors.
MACT No.117/2021 Page no.29 of 30
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.09.24 16:39:58
+0530
of the award amount to
the claimant (s).
21. Next date for 25.10.2025
compliance of the
award.
(GUNJAN GUPTA)
District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01,
West/THC/Delhi/22.09.2025
Akash Sharma vs. Vijay Prasad & Ors.
MACT No.117/2021 Page no.30 of 30
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.09.24
16:40:01 +0530