Delhi District Court
Permila Sinha vs Abhishek(Bajaj) on 30 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA,
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
DLCT010104482023
MACT No. : 705/2023
FIR No. : 318/2023
PS : Ranjit Nagar
u/s : 279/338 IPC
Smt. Permila Sinha (injured/petitioner)
W/o. Sh. Awdesh Prasad
R/o. Near RML Hospital,
Jhuggi No.43, Old G Point,
Kali Bari Marg, Gole Dak Khana,
Gole Market, New Delhi-110001.
......Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Abhishek (Driver-cum-owner of offending vehicle)
S/o. Sh. Dalveer Singh Negi,
R/o.68/1-B, Kali Bari Marg,
Sector-2, New Delhi.
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. (insurer)
Block-4, 7th Floor, DLF Tower-15,
Shivaji Marg, New Delhi-110015.
......Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 02.08.2023
Judgment reserved on : 10.10.2025
Date of Award : 30.10.2025
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.10.30
15:20:05
+0530
MACT No.705/2023 Permila Sinha Vs. Abhishek & Anr. Page 1 of 35
AWAR D
1. The Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filed on 02.08.2023 and was registered as a Motor Accident Claim petition. The DAR revealed that a Road Traffic Accident took place on 02.05.2023 at about 10.15 PM at Pusa Road Gol Chakkar near Shankar Road, Delhi wherein Smt. Kumari Permila Sinha had sustained injury. The accident took place with the vehicle bearing registration No. DL6SBK3227 driven rashly and negligently as well as owned by respondent no.1, Abhishek and insured with respondent no.2, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Brief facts of the case:
2. Based on the facts outlined in the DAR, it emerges that on receipt of the information of the accident in question vide DD No. 68A SI Som Pal Singh along with Ct. Krishna went to the spot i.e. Pusa Road Gol Chakkar near Shankar Road, Delhi where on the left side of the road both the accidental vehicles i.e. one motorcycle bearing no.
DL6SBK3227 and another vehicle bearing no. DL8SAW2747 were stationed. Thereafter they got to know that the injured had been taken to RML hospital. After leaving the Ct. Krishna at the spot, IO went to the RML Hospital where one injured Avdesh Prasad vide MLC No.E/84783/319857 and another injured Permila vide MLC No.E/84785/319859 were found under treatment. IO recorded the statement of the injured Avdesh. Thereafter, on the basis of MLCs and statement of injured Avdesh, the offence under Section 279/337 IPC was RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.30 15:20:10 +0530 MACT No.705/2023 Permila Sinha Vs. Abhishek & Anr. Page 2 of 35 found to have been committed and accordingly, FIR No. 318/2023 was registered at P. S. Ranjit Nagar.
3. During the course of investigation, IO went to the spot of accident and after making the list, both the accidental vehicles were taken into custody by the IO. IO also searched for CCTV camera but could not find the same at the spot of accident. Thereafter, IO had taken the ownership of the motorcycle bearing no. DL6SBK3227 (offending vehicle). Accordingly to which the said motorcycle was found to be registered in the name of Abhishek. Notice u/s.133 MV Act was served upon Mr. Abhishek (driver cum owner of the offending vehicle). Thereafter, Mr. Abshishek had given in writing that at the time of accident, he himself was driving the offending vehicle. He had admitted that the said accident was caused by him. He had handed over the RC, DL and insurance to the IO. Thereafter, IO arrested Mr. Abhishek and upon surety, the IO released Mr. Abhishek on bail as the offence was bailable. Thereafter, IO got conducted the mechanical inspection of both the accidental vehicles.
4. During the course of the investigation, IO submitted the MLCs of the injured persons for final opinion and as per final opinion, on the MLCs of both injured persons, the injury were 'Grievous'. Accordingly, offence u/s. 337 IPC was changed to u/s.338 IPC. Thereafter, IO had released the offending vehicle on Superdari. IO got conducted the documents of the offending vehicle verified from the concerned authorities which were found to be correct. IO prepared the site plan at the instance of injured Premila Sinha. On completion of RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.30 MACT No.705/2023 Permila Sinha Vs. Abhishek & Anr. Page 3 of 35 15:20:19 +0530 investigation, chargesheet was filed against respondent no. 1 under Section 279/338 IPC and DAR was filed before this Tribunal on 02.08.2023.
Written statements:
5. Reply on behalf of respondent no. 1 was filed on 06.09.2023, wherein the respondent no.1 stated that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the petitioner. It was stated that the respondent no.1 was driving the vehicle as per the traffic rules and regulations. It was stated that the petitioner was coming in a very rash and negligent manner. Hence, it was stated that the respondent no.1 was not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.
6. WS on behalf of respondent no. 2 was filed on 27.10.2023, wherein the respondent no.2 admitted that the offending vehicle was insured by the respondent no.2. It was stated that the respondent no.2 was entitled to take such defences as are available under Section 149 MV Act.
ISSUES FRAMED
7. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated 30.10.2023, the following issues were framed:
1. Whether the injured/petitioner Parmila Sinha suffered grievous injuries in an accident that took place on 02.05.2023 at about 10:15 pm at Pusa Road Gol Chakkar near Shankar Road, Delhi involving vehicle bearing registration No. DL-6SBK-3227 driven rashly & negligently by respondent no. 1 Abhishek? OPP Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.30 Permila Sinha Vs. Abhishek & Anr. Page 4 of 35 15:20:24 MACT No.705/2023 +0530
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
OPP
3. Relief.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
8. The petitioner has examined herself as PW-1. She has tendered her evidence affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. She has relied upon the following documents :
1. DAR and other documents are Ex.PW1/1 (colly).
2. Treatment papers and Discharge Summary of the Hospitals are Ex. PW-1/2 (colly).
3. Bills, medical prescription are Ex. PW1/3 (colly)
4. Aadhar Card of the deponent Ex. PW1/4.
5. Disability Certificate is Ex. PW1/5.
6. Salary slip/passbook copy is Ex. PW1/6.
9. The petitioner was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 insurance company and PE was closed vide order dated 24.03.2025.
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE
10. No RE was led by respondent no. 2. Accordingly, RE on behalf of respondent no. 2 was closed vide order dated 28.04.2025. RE was also not led by respondent no. 1 despite giving opportunity.
RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.30 15:20:28 +0530 MACT No.705/2023 Permila Sinha Vs. Abhishek & Anr. Page 5 of 35 FINAL ARGUMENTS
11. The petitioner had filed Form XIV. Financial statement of the petitioner was recorded and final arguments were heard on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent no. 2. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 also filed written arguments.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
12. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and Ld. Counsel for respondents and perused the record. My findings on the various issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1:
1. Whether the injured/petitioner Parmila Sinha suffered grievous injuries in an accident that took place on 02.05.2023 at about 10:15 pm at Pusa Road Gol Chakkar near Shankar Road, Delhi involving vehicle bearing registration No. DL-6SBK-3227 driven rashly & negligently by respondent no. 1 Abhishek? OPP
13. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that on 02.05.2023, she alongwith her husband were going to their house from RML Hospital on their scooty, when they reached near Shankar road redlight, the offending vehicle came their in a rash and negligent manner and he hit the scooty due to which the petitioner and her husband fell and sustained injuries. The petitioner has reiterated these allegations on oath. She was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsels for respondent no. 2. It is stated by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that as such nothing contrary could be brought out in her cross Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.30 MACT No.705/2023 Permila Sinha Vs. Abhishek & Anr. Page 6 of 35 15:20:34 +0530 examination. Hence, the version of the petitioner is proved.
14. The respondent no.1 has alleged that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the petitioner. However, no evidence was led by him in this regard. In the present matter, it is not in dispute that the accident occurred by the offending vehicle resulting in the injuries of the petitioner and her husband. It is also not in dispute that the IO has chargesheeted the respondent no. 1 as the accused in the criminal case. Now as mentioned above, the respondent no.1 is claiming that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the petitioner. However, he was required to prove this fact on record. However, no evidence has been led by him. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepak Goel & Ors, 2014 (2) TAC 846 (Del) decided by the Coordinate Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it was held as under :-
"......where the claimants filed either the certified copies of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of investigation by police or issuance of charge sheet under Section 279/304A IPC or the certified copy of FIR or the recovery of the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, then these documents are sufficient proof to reach to a conclusion that the driver was negligent particularly when there is no defence available from the side of driver."
15. Reliance is also being placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meera Devi, 2021 LawSuit (Del) wherein it was held that "......in view RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.30 15:20:40 +0530 MACT No.705/2023 Permila Sinha Vs. Abhishek & Anr. Page 7 of 35 of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008, contents of DAR has to be presumed to be correct and read in evidence without formal proof of the same unless proof to the contrary was produced."
16. Hence, in the opinion of the Tribunal, it is proved that the vehicle was being driven by the respondent no.1 at the time of the accident.
17. Further, regarding the factum of the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.1, it is settled law that the petitioner cannot be expected to prove the accident beyond reasonable doubts and the principle of res ipsa loquitor should apply which means that the "accident speaks for itself". Thus, once it has been established in DAR and chargesheet that the accident had taken place, the burden shifts on the respondents to prove that they were not responsible for the accident which the respondents have failed to discharge. No evidence was led by the respondents no. 1 to discharge this onus. Hence, an adverse inference is drawn against the respondents. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the cases of Teja Singh Vs Suman & Ors., MAC. APP. 1111/2018 & CM APPL. 52384/2018, 52386/2018, date of decision 06/12/2019; MAC. APP. 428/2018, titled as The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamla Devi & Ors, date of decision 08.11.2019 and MAC. APP. 690/2017 & CM APPL. 28108/2017, titled as Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mona & Ors., date of decision 15.10.2019, which had relied upon the judgment in the case of Cholamandalam Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamlesh 2009(3) AD Delhi 310. RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.705/2023 Permila Sinha Vs. Abhishek & Anr. Page 8 of 35 Date: 2025.10.30 15:20:46 +0530
18. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that in the proceedings before the claims tribunal, the facts are to be established on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and not by the strict rules of evidence or the higher standard of beyond reasonable doubt as required in criminal cases. The burden of proof in the present cases is much lower than as placed in civil or criminal cases. In Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors (2009) 13 SC 530 , it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that negligence must be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view must be adopted in reaching a conclusion.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 5 SCC 656 has laid down in paragraphs 27 & 28:
"27. ...This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina Fernandes, noted that the key of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the judgments already adverted to by us, filing of charge- sheet against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opined that the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.30 15:20:52 +0530 MACT No.705/2023 Permila Sinha Vs. Abhishek & Anr. Page 9 of 35
28. Reliance placed upon the decisions in Minu B. Mehta and Meena Variyal, by the respondents, in our opinion, is of no avail. The dictum in these cases is on the matter in issue in the case concerned. Similarly, even the dictum in Surender Kumar Arora will be of no avail. In the present case, considering the entirety of the pleadings, evidence and circumstances on record and in particular the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the factum of negligence of Respondent 2, the driver of the offending jeep, the High Court committed manifest error in taking a contrary view which, in our opinion, is an error apparent on the face of record and manifestly wrong."
20. In view of the same, considering the facts and circumstances, the unrebutted testimony of the petitioner and the documents filed thereto, the court is satisfied that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1. From the DAR, it also stands established that respondent no. 1 was also the registered owner of the offending vehicle. It is also an admitted position that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.2, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company vide Policy No. OG-23-1149- 1826-00014423 w.e.f. 05.03.2023 to 04.03.2028. The factum of the said insurance is also admitted by the respondent no.2 insurance company.
The injury:
21. Further, the onus to prove that the petitioner had suffered injuries by way of the said accident was on the petitioner. It is the matter of record that due to the accident, the petitioner sustained injuries. Her MLC is part of the DAR which is Ex. PW1/1. As per her MLC bearing RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Permila Sinha Vs. Abhishek & Anr. Page 10 of 35 Date: 2025.10.30 MACT No.705/2023 15:20:58 +0530 no. 17196, she was taken to the hospital with history of accident and she had sustained a grievous injury. She suffered injury in her occipital region which is the back of the head. Her discharge summary is also proved on record as Ex. PW1/2 as per which she had suffered fracture in her head. In view of the same it is proved that the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries due to the said accident.
22. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the opinion that on the scales of preponderance of probabilities, the petitioner has proved that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle being driven by its driver/respondent no. 1 on the date and time of the accident and that due to the said accident, the petitioner had suffered grievous injury. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
23. The onus to prove this issue was also upon the petitioner. In view of the observations as given in issue no.1, the petitioner is entitled for compensation. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 34, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
4. The provision of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.30 15:21:04 +0530 MACT No.705/2023 Permila Sinha Vs. Abhishek & Anr. Page 11 of 35 (`Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The Court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467).
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) Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.30 MACT No.705/2023 Permila Sinha Vs. Abhishek & Anr. Page 12 of 35 15:21:08 +0530
(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)."
24. In view of the above law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in 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. This is a case where the petitioner has claimed that he suffered grievous injury due to the accident, hence, this Tribunal now proceeds further step by step to decide the compensation/award under different heads applicable to the present matter in light of above preposition.
Medical expenses:
25. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses. She has placed on record the medical bills which are Ex. PW1/3, as per which, a sum of Rs.3,355/- was spent on her medical treatment. Hence, an amount of Rs.3,355/- is awarded to her towards medical expenses.
Loss of income:
26. In this regard, it is submitted that at the time of the accident, she was working as a security guard and earning a sum of Rs. 24,000/- per month. She has placed on record copy of her passbook which is Ex.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
Permila Sinha Vs. Abhishek & Anr. Page 13 of 352025.10.30 MACT No.705/2023 15:21:12 +0530 PW1/6, as per which there are certain entries from Ironman Securities in her account which are as under:
S.No. Date Amount (in Rs.)
1. 06.01.2023 20,047
2. 09.02.2023 12,336
3. 13.03.2023 16,596
4. 06.04.2023 18.966
5. 13.05.2023 18,966
6. 04.07.2023 16,420
7. 24.07.2023 17,242
8. 03.08.2023 2,463
9. 25.08.2023 17,242
27. The last entry in the passbook copy is dated 29.09.2023.
Perusal of the above entries show that the same are not of an equal amount. Further, the amounts are also not being credited in the account of the petitioner on the same date. Further, she alleged that she was earning Rs. 24,000/- per month but not even a single entry is of that amount. Further, the petitioner has alleged that she was unable to work after the accident which occurred on 02.05.2023. But she is getting amount credited in her account till August 2023. She did not summon any witness from Ironman Securities to prove that she was working with that firm or that she was unable to work after the accident. No appointment letter/resignation letter/relieving letter was proved on record. Hence, she has failed to prove this fact.
28. Hence, her income has to be assessed as per the minimum wages. The petitioner has also not placed on record any document to Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Page 14 of 35 Date:
MACT No.705/2023 Permila Sinha Vs. Abhishek & Anr.
2025.10.30 15:21:17 +0530 show her education or source of income. However, in view of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muhammed Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 8960/2017 decided on 01.12.2022, her income is to be assessed as per the minimum wages of an unskilled worker.
29. In the present matter, the petitioner has alleged that she was working but it is also admitted that she is married and hence, it is presumed that she is fulfilling the duties of a housewife as well. In a recent judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dalvir Singh & Ors. [(2025) SCC OnLine Del 844], it has been held that minimum wages of a skilled workman to be taken for the purpose of assessment of income in case of housewives. The date of the accident in the present matter is 02.05.2023 and it is an undisputed fact that she is residing in Delhi. Hence, as per the prevalent notification, her monthly income is assessed to be Rs. 20,903/-.
30. It is stated by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner suffered grievous injuries in her head due to which she is unable to work. She lost her job. She has also suffered disability to the tune of 36% as per the disability certificate.
31. As mentioned above, no evidence has been led by the petitioner to prove that she was in any employment or that she had to leave her job after the accident. Further, as per her discharge summary dated 06.05.2023, she was admitted in the hospital from 04.05.2023 till 06.05.2023. However, considering her injuries, it can be said that she RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.705/2023 Permila Sinha Vs. Abhishek & Anr. Date: 2025.10.30 15:21:21 +0530 Page 15 of 35 could not work for three months. Hence, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to loss of income for three months Rs.20,903 x 3 = Rs.62,709/-.
Special diet:
32. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 35,000/- towards special diet. Although, there is no bill to support her plea, but keeping in view the nature of injury suffered by the petitioner, it seems that she must have required special diet and must have incurred expenditure towards special diet, therefore, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under the head of special diet.
Conveyance charges:
33. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 35,000/- towards conveyance charges. Admittedly there is no document showing expense on conveyance, however, considering her injuries, this Tribunal is of the view that the petitioner must have spent money on conveyance thus, the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards conveyance charges.
Attendant charges:
34. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. 90,000/- (Rs.
15,000/- x 6) towards attendant charges. Admittedly there is no document showing expense on attendant, however, considering her injuries, the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards attendant charges.
RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.30 15:21:26 +0530 MACT No.705/2023 Permila Sinha Vs. Abhishek & Anr. Page 16 of 35 Pain & Suffering:
35. The petitioner/injured has claim Rs.50,000/- under the head pain and suffering. As per medical documents, the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries and also sustained 36% permanent disability.
It is not possible to quantify the compensation admissible to petitioner for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which she actually suffered because of the above injuries, but as stated above, an effort has to be made to compensate her for the same in a just and reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the injuries suffered by petitioner and duration of the treatment taken by her etc., an amount of Rs.50,000/- is being awarded to her towards pain and sufferings.
Mental and physical shock:
36. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 60,000/- for loss due to mental shock. Although, there is nothing on record to prove the same but keeping in view her injuries, it cannot be denied that she would definitely have suffered mental agony. Hence, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under head of "Loss due to Mental & Physical Shock".
Loss of amenities:
37. The petitioner/injured has claimed an amount of Rs.
1,00,000/- under this head. Although, there is nothing on record to prove the same, a lumpsum amount of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded to her under this head.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
MACT No.705/2023 Permila Sinha Vs. Abhishek & Anr. Page 17 of 352025.10.30 15:21:31 +0530 Disfiguration:
38. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs.1,50,000/- under this head. There is nothing on record to prove that she has suffered from any disfiguration. Hence, no compensation is awarded to her under this head.
Loss of marriage prospects
39. Nil.
Loss of earning, inconvenience, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.:
40. The petitioner/injured has claimed an amount of Rs.
1,00,000/- under this head. Although, there is nothing on record to prove the same, a lumpsum amount of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded to her under this head.
Loss of future earnings due to disability:
41. The petitioner has admittedly suffered a 36% permanent neuropsychological disability. It is submitted that due to this disability, she is unable to work and is unable to fulfill her duties as a housewife.
Hence, it is submitted that her functional disability may also be considered as 36%.
42. Per contra, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 that there is no basis for the said disability. Perusal of her Disability Certificate shows that she has not suffered and psychiatric or ophthalmology disability. She is only suffering from depression. Hence, Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA Permila Sinha Vs. Abhishek & Anr. Page 18 of 35 SINGLA MACT No.705/2023 Date:
2025.10.30 15:21:37 +0530 her functional disability shall be 0.
43. Record perused.
44. It is a matter of record that as per the Disability Certificate, the petitioner has suffered 36% permanent neuropsychological disability. A neuropsychological disability is a long term condition affecting brain function that leads to impairments in cognitive, emotional and /or behavorial issues. These disabilities can be congenital or acquired and include a wide range of conditions, such as ADHD, autism, Alzheimer's disease, and disabilities resulting from brain injuries, infections, or strokes. A psychiatric disability is a mental illness that significantly impairs a person's ability to function in daily life. These disabilities can include a wide range of conditions like depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, and PTSD, and result from a combination of biological, environmental, and trauma-related factors. Hence, neuropsychological disability and psychiatric disabilities are different. Hence, merely because she did not suffer psychiatric disability shall not necessarily imply that she could not have suffered neuropsychological disability.
45. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 34, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: SINGLA 2025.10.30 Permila Sinha Vs. Abhishek & Anr. Page 19 of 35 15:21:42 MACT No.705/2023 +0530 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 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)."
46. Hence, the Tribunal has to examine as to how the disability suffered by the petitioner affects his ability to earn. In the present case, as mentioned above, the petitioner has alleged that she was working as a security guard. Hence, her functional ability due to the said disability Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.30 15:21:47 MACT No.705/2023 Permila Sinha Vs. Abhishek & Anr. Page 20 of 35 +0530 shall naturally suffer. The petitioner has alleged that her functional disability may be considered as 36%, which is not unreasonable. Hence, as submitted, her functional disability is also assessed to be 36%.
47. This Tribunal has already assumed the monthly income of petitioner to be Rs.20,903/- at the relevant time. As far as the age of petitioner at the time of accident is concerned, as per the petitioner's PAN card Ex. C1 and Aaadhar Card Ex. PW1/4, her date of birth is 23.06.1977. The date of accident is 02.05.2023. Hence, the age of petitioner as on the date of accident was 45 years but less than 46 years. Therefore, by adopting the principles laid down in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), the future prospects of the petitioner shall be 25% as she was within the age bracket of 40-50 years at the time of accident.
48. Further, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.,(2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment dated 31.10.2017 given in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, the multiplier of '14' is held applicable for calculating the loss of future earnings of petitioner arising out of her above disability.
49. As already discussed in the preceding para, the income of the petitioner has been taken as Rs.20,903/-. In view of the above, the loss of Income on account of functional disability is calculated as under:
Digitally signedRUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.30 15:21:50 +0530 MACT No.705/2023 Permila Sinha Vs. Abhishek & Anr. Page 21 of 35 Monthly income Rs.20,903/-
Annual Income Rs.20,903/- x 12 =
Rs. 2,50,836/-
Add Future Prospects @25% Rs. 62,709/-
Total income Rs. 3,13,545/-
Disability @ 36 % Rs. 3,13,545/- x 36% = Rs.
1,12,876.20
Loss of Income after multiplier Rs. 1,12,876.20 x 14 = Rs.
(14) 15,80,266.80 (rounded off to Rs.
15,80,267/-)
50. Thus, keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner as well as the disability suffered by her, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to Rs. 15,80,267/- under the head future loss of income.
51. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the material on record, and the settled principles and guidelines governing the injury cases like the present one, the compensation is being derived in the present case as under:-
NAME OF HEAD AMOUNT (in Rupees) Expenditure on Treatment Rs.3,355/- Monthly income of injured Rs. 20,903/- Loss of income x 3 months Rs.62,709/- Add future prospects 25%
Loss of future income (income X Rs. 15,80,267/-
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
Permila Sinha Vs. Abhishek & Anr. Page 22 of 352025.10.30 MACT No.705/2023 15:21:56 +0530 % Earning Capacity X Multiplier) Any other loss/expenditure Nil Expense on special diet Rs. 15,000/-
Conveyance charges Rs. 15,000/- Attendant charges Rs. 30,000/-
Mental & Physical Shock & Pain & Rs. 50,000 + Rs. 50,000/- = Suffering Rs. 1,00,000/-
Loss of amenities Rs. 25,000/- Disfiguration Nil Loss of marriage prospects Nil.
Loss of earning, inconvenience, Rs. 25,000/-
hardship, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc. Total Rs. 18,56,331/-
52. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld awarding of 9% interest per annum.
Therefore, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 02.08.2023 till realization.
DISBURSEMENT
53. The Financial Statement of petitioner/injured was recorded by this Court/Tribunal. As per the said statement, the monthly expenses of his family are approximately Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 35,000/- per month.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
MACT No.705/2023 Permila Sinha Vs. Abhishek & Anr. Page 23 of 352025.10.30 15:22:01 +0530
54. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors. has given the following directions:
"(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimants. However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque books and/or debit card have been issued and shall not RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.705/2023 Permila Sinha Vs. Abhishek & Anr. Page 24 of 35 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.30 15:22:07 +0530 be issued without the permission of the Court and the claimant shall produced the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court for compliance."
55. However, in a recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal on 18 March, 2025 in S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020 has held that :
"17. The case in hand pertains to the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. The general practice followed by the insurance companies, where the compensation is not disputed, is to deposit the same before the Tribunal. Instead of following that process, a direction can always be issued to transfer the amount into the bank account(s) of the claimant(s) with intimation to the Tribunal.
17.1 For that purpose, the Tribunals at the initial stage of pleadings or at the stage of leading evidence may require the claimant(s) to furnish their bank account particulars to the Tribunal along with the requisite proof, so that at the stage of passing of the award the Tribunal may direct that the amount of compensation be transferred in the account of the claimant and if there are more than one then in their respective accounts. If there is no bank account, then they should be required to open the bank account either individually or jointly with family members only. It should also be mandated that, in case there is any Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.30 15:22:11 +0530 MACT No.705/2023 Permila Sinha Vs. Abhishek & Anr. Page 25 of 35 change in the bank account particulars of the claimant(s) during the pendency of the claim petition they should update the same before the Tribunal. This should be ensured before passing of the final award. It may be ensured that the bank account should be in the name of the claimant(s) and if minor, through guardian(s) and in no case it should be a joint account with any person, who is not a family member. The transfer of the amount in the bank account, particulars of which have been furnished by the claimant(s), as mentioned in the award, shall be treated as satisfaction of the award. Intimation of compliance should be furnished to the Tribunal."
56. In view of the same, the award amount can now be disbursed in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioner. However, the remaining directions as passed by the Hon'ble High Court shall be complied with.
57. After considering the financial statement of the petitioner, it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 21,54,768/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Eight only), Rs. 4,54,768/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Eight only) be released to the petitioner/claimant immediately in her savings bank account maintained at State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch, Delhi bearing no.44429634127, IFSC no. SBIN0000726, CIF no.91398921000.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Permila Sinha Vs. Abhishek & Anr. Page 26 of 35
Date: 2025.10.30
MACT No.705/2023 15:22:17 +0530
58. The balance amount of Rs.17,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs only) shall be put in 50 monthly fixed deposits in his name in his bank account of equal amount of Rs. 34,000/- (Rupees Thirty Four Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 50 months respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in her saving account maintained in a nationalized bank situated near the place of her residence.
59. In compliance of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award in the prescribed Format-XVI is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
Date of Accident: 02.05.2023
Name of the Injured: Permila Sinha
Age of the Injured: Presently 37 years
Occupation of the Injured: Not proved
Income of the Injured: Rs. 20,903/-
Nature of Injury: Grievous
Medical Treatment taken: Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital
Period of Hospitalization: 04.05.2023 to 06.05.2023
Whether any permanent: Yes.
disability?
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.10.30
15:22:25
+0530
MACT No.705/2023 Permila Sinha Vs. Abhishek & Anr. Page 27 of 35
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
Sr. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
No.
1. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on Treatment Rs.3,355/-
(ii) Expenditure on Special Diet Rs. 15,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on Rs. 30,000/-
Nursing/Attendant charges
(iv) Expenditure on Conveyance Rs. 15,000/-
(v) Monthly income of injured Rs. 20,903/-
(vi) Loss of income x 3 months Rs.62,709/-
(vii) Add future prospects 25%
viii) Any other loss which may Nil
require any special treatment or
aid to the injured for the rest of
his life
2. Non Pecuniary Loss
(i) Compensation for mental and
physical shock Rs. 50,000 + Rs. 50,000/- =
(ii) Pain and Sufferings Rs. 1,00,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 25,000/-
(iv)
Disfiguration Nil
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Rs. 25,000/-
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.10.30
15:22:29
+0530
MACT No.705/2023 Permila Sinha Vs. Abhishek & Anr. Page 28 of 35
future life etc.
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed 36% Permanent and nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Nil.
expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning 36% capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (income Rs. 15,80,267/-
x % earning capacity x Multiplier)
4. Total Rs. 18,56,331/-
1(ii+iii+iv+vi)+2(i+ii+vi)
5. Interest awarded 9%
6. Earlier award amount (which has already been received by the petitioner in terms of previous -
award passed by Ld.
Predecessor) to be deducted
from present award amount .
7. Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 1,97,737.40 + Rs. 1,00,699.60 = Rs.
award w.e.f. 02.08.2023 till 2,98,437/-
07.10.2024 and w.e.f 24.03.2025
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
MACT No.705/2023 Permila Sinha Vs. Abhishek & Anr. Page 29 of 35
2025.10.30
15:22:34
+0530
realization
8. Total amount including Interest Rs. 21,54,768/-
9. Award amount released As mentioned in para nos.57 & 58
10. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.17,00,000/-
11. Mode of disbursement of the As mentioned in para nos.57 & 58
award amount of the claimant(s)
12. Next date for compliance of the 01.12.2025
award
LIABILITY:
60. It has been established that the offending vehicle was being driven and owned by respondent no.1 and the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.2. Hence, the insurance company shall be liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner. This issue is accordingly decided in the favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
61. The respondent no. 2 is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 18,56,331/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand Three Hundred Thirty One only) along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 02.08.2023 till realization with the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the claimant, failing which the said respondent shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days. Reliance placed on case titled as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP no.
RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2025.10.30 15:22:38 +0530 MACT No.705/2023 Permila Sinha Vs. Abhishek & Anr. Page 30 of 35 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
62. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurance company for compliance within the time granted 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. The said respondent is further directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the deposit with a copy to the Claimant and his counsel.
Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost.
Ahlmad is directed to send the 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)].
Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on 01.12.2025 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
Further, Civil 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). RUCHIKA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.30 15:22:42 +0530 MACT No.705/2023 Permila Sinha Vs. Abhishek & Anr. Page 31 of 35 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.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court today on this 30th Day of October, 2025 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.30 15:22:47 +0530 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.MACT No.705/2023 Permila Sinha Vs. Abhishek & Anr. Page 32 of 35
THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL MOTOR VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022 (PL. SEE RULE 150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 02.05.2023 2 Date of filing of Form-I -
First Accident Report N/A
(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
from the Owner N/A
6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the insurance N/A
of the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-
02.08.2023
VIA from the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII -
Detail Accident Report
02.08.2023
(DAR)
9 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Investigating No
Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the 02.08.2023
Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.10.30
15:22:52
+0530
MACT No.705/2023 Permila Sinha Vs. Abhishek & Anr. Page 33 of 35
Officer of the Insurance
Company admitted his Yes. The WS on behalf of insurance company report within 30 days of the was filed on 27.10.2023. DAR?
12 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the Yes.
part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13 Date of response of the N/A claimant(s) to the offer of the Insurance Company.
14 Date of award 30.10.2025 15 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16 Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open Savings Bank Account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN card and Aadhar Card and 02.08.2023 the direction to the bank not to issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17 Date on which the claimant(s) produced the passbook of their savings 23.09.2025 bank account(s) near the RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.705/2023 Permila Sinha Vs. Abhishek & Anr.
Date: 2025.10.30 15:22:57 +0530 Page 34 of 35 place of their residence alongwith the endorsement, PAN card and Aadhar Card?
18 Permanent residential address of the claimant(s). As per Award.
19 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) is No. near their place of residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s) were examined at the time Yes. The Financial Statement of the claimant of passing of the Award to was recorded 23.09.2025.
ascertain his/their financial condition?
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2025.10.30 15:23:02 +0530 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
30.10.2025 MACT No.705/2023 Permila Sinha Vs. Abhishek & Anr. Page 35 of 35