Delhi District Court
Khushwant Kapoor(P)I(107/23/Ip) vs Harish Madan(Iffco) on 4 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010099712023
MACT No. : 663/2023
FIR No. : 107/2023
PS : IP Estate
u/s : 279/338 IPC
Sh. Khushwant Kapoor (injured/petitioner)
S/o. Sh. Harish Kapoor,
R/o. 63, Street No.12, Sarojini Park,
Shastri Nagar, Gandhi Nagar SO,
East Delhi, Delhi-110031.
.....Petitioner
Vs.
1. Sh. Harish Madan (driver of the offending vehicle)
S/o. Sh. Mohan Lal,
R/o. H.No.49D, Aara Machine Wali Gali,
Bharat Nagar, District Bhiwani, Haryana-127021.
2. Sh. Mohan Lal Madan (owner of the offending vehicle)
S/o. Sh. Dharma Chand,
R/o. H.No.R-49, Aara Machine Wali Gali,
Bharat Nagar, District Bhiwani, Haryana-127021.
3. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
Kailash Building, K.G. Marg,
Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.
.....Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 25.07.2023
Date of filing of claim petition : 12.09.2023
Judgment reserved on : 17.03.2026
Date of Award : 04.04.2026
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.663/2023 SINGLA Date:
2026.04.04
15:52:28
Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 1 of 50
+0530
AWAR D
1. The Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filed on
25.07.2023 which was treated as a claim petition. The Road Traffic
Accident in question took place on 26.04.2023 at about 05:20 AM at
Vikas Marg, under IT Flyover, Red Light, Loop IP Estate, Delhi. Mr.
Khushwant Kapoor (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) had
suffered grievous injuries in the said accident which was allegedly
caused by vehicle bearing registration No.HR-61E-3716 (hereinafter
referred to as the offending vehicle). The said vehicle was being driven
by respondent no. 1 Sh. Harish Madan; owned by respondent No.2
Mohan Lal Madan and insured with respondent no.3, IFFCO Tokio
General Insurance Co. Ltd. A claim petition was also filed on behalf of
the petitioner on 12.09.2023, which was tagged with the DAR vide
order dated 03.10.2023.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that on 26.04.2023, on receipt of information of an accident vide DD No. 15A, the information of present accident was handed over to ASI Anil, who alongwith HC Manish went to the spot i.e. Vikas Marg, under IT Flyover, Red Light, Loop IP Estate, Delhi where they got to know that the injured had been taken to LNJP hospital by taxi. At the spot of accident, one accidental motorcycle bearing no. DL-14SR-9764 was found on the road side. Thereafter, after leaving the HC at the spot of accident, IO went to the LNJP Hospital, where injured namely RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.663/2023 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 2 of 50 Date:
2026.04.04 15:52:34 +0530 Khushwant was found under treatment vide MLC no.115339071/2023. In the hospital, the IO met with taxi driver who had brought the injured to the hospital. No eye witness was found at the spot. IO alongwith the said taxi driver came to the spot of accident. Thereafter, FIR was registered on the basis of MLC of injured and PCR call u/s. 279/337 IPC.
3. Thereafter, IO prepared the site plan. IO had taken both the accidental vehicles into his custody. Thereafter, IO inquired from the said taxi driver Mr. Harish, who stated that the accident was caused by him. IO arrested him and upon producing surety, he was released on bail. No CCTV camera was found at the spot of accident. Thereafter, IO had taken the opinion on the MLC of injured and injury was found to be "Grievous" in nature. Accordingly, Section 337 IPC was changed to Section 338 IPC. Thereafter, the documents pertaining to both the accidental vehicles and DL of Mr. Harish were got verified from the concerned authorities. The same were found to be correct. The mechanical inspection of both the accidental vehicles were got conducted. After completion of investigation, chargesheet for the offences u/s.279/338 IPC was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle, Mr. Harish Madan before the concerned Ld. JMFC and the DAR was filed before this Tribunal.
WRITTEN STATEMENTS
4. Reply/WS was filed on behalf of respondents no.1 & 2 on 28.08.2023. It was stated by the respondents that the accident was RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.663/2023 Date: 2026.04.04 15:52:38 +0530 Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 3 of 50 caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner and without wearing helmet. It was stated that the respondent no.1 was driving his vehicle as per the traffic rules and regulations. The respondent no. 1 took care of the petitioner and also took him to the hospital for his treatment. Hence, it is stated that the accident was not caused by the respondent no.1 and the respondents were not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.
5. WS on behalf of respondent no. 3 insurance company was filed on 24.08.2023, wherein the respondent no.3 admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no.3 vide policy no.
12927939 for the period 13.05.2022 to 12.05.2023. It was stated that the liability of respondent no. 3 is limited subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
ISSUES
6. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated 28.11.2023, this Tribunal framed the following issues:
1.Whether the injured/petitioner Khushwant Kapoor suffered grievous injuries in an accident that took place on 26.04.2023 at about 05:20 am at Vikas Marg, Near Under IT Flyover, Red Light, Loop IP Estate, Delhi involving vehicle bearing registration No. HR-61E-3716, Taxi Maruti Suzuki Swift Dzire 2022 driven rashly & negligently by respondent no. 1 Harish Madan? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from Digitally MACT No.663/2023 signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. 2026.04.04 15:52:47 +0530 Page 4 of 50 whom?OPP
3. Relief.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
7. The petitioner/injured examined himself as PW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW-1/A and the same bears his signatures at points-A & Β. He relied upon the following documents:
1. Copy of discharge summary Ex. PW1/1 (colly)
2. Copy of medical record Ex. PW1/2 (colly)
3. Copy of bills summary Ex. PW1/3
4. Original medical bills Ex. PW1/4 (colly)
5. Photocopy of Identity Card of injured Ex. PW1/5 (OSR)
6. Copy of credit advise in respect of salary of injured Ex. PW1/6.
(objected to with regard to mode of proof being only photocopy as original not produced.
7. Copy of driving licence Ex. PW1/7 (OSR)
8. Copy of PAN Card Ex. PW1/8 (OSR)
9. Photocopy of Adhar Card Ex. PW1/9 (OSR)
10. DAR is Ex. PW1/10.
11. Copies of Educational Certificate Ex. PW1/11 (colly) (OSR).
8. Thereafter, petitioner/injured examined Sh. Harish Kapoor, father of injured as PW-2. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW-2/A and the same bears his signatures at points-A & Β. He relied upon the following documents:
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:MACT No.663/2023
2026.04.04 15:52:59 +0530 Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 5 of 50
1. Copy of his Aadhar card as Ex. PW2/1 (OSR)
2. Original medical bills as Ex. PW2/2 (colly) total pages 1-23.
3. Copy of appointment letter as Ex. PW2/3 (colly) total pages 1-7 (OSR).
9. Thereafter, petitioner/injured examined Sh. Ashwani Sagar, TPA Manager, R.K. & Narender Parkash Multispeciality Hospital as PW-3. He proved the Discharge Summary already Ex. PW1/1 page 37, 38 & 39 and prescription, X-ray report, CT scan, MRI already Ex.PW1/2 from page no. 40 to 157.
10. Thereafter, petitioner/injured examined Dr. Irshad, Duty Doctor, R.K. & Narender Parkash Multispeciality Hospital as PW-4. PW4 has stated that he was authorized to depose before this Hon'ble Court by Dr. Shalini Singh and Dr. Sapna Verma. He had brought the authority letter as Ex. PW4/2. He had brought certificate issued by Doctor Deepak Bhambe, MBBS, MD, Senior Consultant Physician in respect of patient Khushwant Kapoor. The same was proved as Ex. PW4/1. He had also produced copies of Discharge Summary and medical bills issued by RK Narender Prakash Multispeciality Hospital, Chitra Vihar, Delhi of the patient Sh. Khushwant Kapoor. Same were marked as mark A (colly running into 32 pages). He had also brought the physiotherapy letter mentioning the amount paid by the injured as Ex. PW4/3.
11. Thereafter, petitioner examined Sh. Hardeep Singh, RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.663/2023 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Date: 2026.04.04 15:53:04 +0530 Page 6 of 50 Assistant Manager, Concentrix Daksh Services India Pvt. Ltd. as PW-5. He proved the following document:
a) His Authority Letter as Ex. PW5/1
b) Appointment Letter of petitioner as Ex. PW5/2 (colly) (containing 6 pages)
c) Attendance sheet as Ex. PW5/3
d) Salary slip of the petitioner for the month of December 2022 to September 2023 as Ex. PW5/4 (colly) (containing 11 pages)
e) Full and final settlement sheet in respect of the petitioner as Ex. PW5/5.
f) Bank account statement showing UTR details in respect of salary as mark X.
12. Thereafter, petitioner/injured examined Dr. Pankaj Sharma, Professor, Maulana Azad Institute of Dental Sciences, New Delhi as PW-6. He relied upon his ID Card as Ex. PW6/A (OSR). He had stated that he alongwith members of disability board, issued the disability certificate which was proved as Ex.PW6/B.
13. Thereafter, petitioner/injured examined Sh. Dhanlal as PW-7. He stated that he was working as an attendant to look after the petitioner at a salary of Rs. 16,000/- per month. He relied upon his Aadhar Card as Ex. PW7/1.
14. Thereafter, petitioner/injured examined Sh. Manish Gupta, Medical Record Incharge, Max Hospital, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P. as RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.04.04 MACT No.663/2023 15:53:16 +0530 Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 7 of 50 PW-8. He proved the following documents:
a) His Authority Letter as Ex. PW8/1
b) Complete treatment record of patient Khushwant Kapoor as Ex. PW8/2 (colly 173 pages)
c) Treatment bills as Ex. PW8/3 (colly 2 pages)
15. All the above mentioned witnesses were duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for respondents. Thereafter, vide separate statement of Ld. Counsel for petitioner, the PE was closed on 13.01.2026.
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE
16. No RE was led by any of the respondents. Vide separate statement, Ld. Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 has closed RE on 02.02.2026. No RE was led on behalf of the respondent no. 3 as well. Inadvertently, no formal order for closure of RE was passed.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
17. The Petitioner has filed his duly filled Form XIV and financial statement of the injured was recorded. Final arguments were heard on behalf of parties. Written arguments also filed on behalf of the respondent no.3.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
18. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Ld. Counsel for respondent and perused the record. My findings on the various issues Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
MACT No.663/20232026.04.04 15:53:24 +0530 Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 8 of 50 are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1:
Whether the injured/petitioner Khushwant Kapoor suffered grievous injuries in an accident that took place on 26.04.2023 at about 05:20 am at Vikas Marg, Under IT Flyover, Red Light, Loop IP Estate, Delhi involving vehicle bearing registration No. HR-61E-3716, Taxi Maruti Suzuki Swift Dzire 2022 driven rashly & negligently by respondent no. 1 Harish Madan?OPP
19. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that on 26.04.2023 at about 05:20 am, he was going home on his motorcycle. When he reached at Vikas Marg, Under IT Flyover, Red Light, Loop IP Estate, Delhi, suddenly, the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. the respondent no. 1 came very fast and carelessly in a negligent manner and hit his vehicle with great force. It is stated that due to the said accident, the petitioner fell from his vehicle and he suffered injuries. The petitioner has reiterated the said facts on oath as PW1. The petitioner was treated at the hospital wherein it has specifically mentioned that the injuries are due to a road traffic accident. The respondent no.1 was chargesheeted by the IO. Hence, it is submitted that it is proved that the respondent no. 1 was driving the negligent in a rash and negligent manner due to which the petitioner suffered injuries.
20. Per contra, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation as the petitioner has failed to prove his case. RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.663/2023 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.04.04 Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 9 of 50 15:53:34 +0530
21. Record perused.
22. In the present case, it is not disputed that the accident occurred between the vehicle of the petitioner and the offending vehicle. It is also admitted that the motorcycle of the petitioner was found by the IO at the spot in accidental condition and that the injured had been taken to the hospital by the respondent no.1 upon the accident. It is alleged by the respondent no.1 that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner.
23. 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.
24. Further, it is also pertinent to note that the respondent no. 1 was chargesheeted by the IO under Section 281/125(B) BNS (old Section 279/338 IPC). In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepak Goel & Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.04 MACT No.663/2023 15:53:39 +0530 Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 10 of 50 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."
25. 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 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."
26. Further, as mentioned above, the factum of the accident is not disputed. Even otherwise, the petitioner was unknown to respondent no.1 prior to the accident and admittedly, there was no prior enmity with respondent no. 1 and hence, it is beyond comprehension as to why the petitioner will implicate respondent no.1 falsely, had he not been driving the offending vehicle.
27. It is a settled law that the petitioner cannot be expected to prove the accident beyond reasonable doubts and the principle of res ipse loquitor should apply which means that the "accident speaks for Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
MACT No.663/20232026.04.04 15:53:48 +0530 Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 11 of 50 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 & 2 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.
28. 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 chargesheet against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even when the accused were RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by MACT No.663/2023 RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.04.04 15:53:58 +0530 Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 12 of 50 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.
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."
29. It has not been disputed that respondent No.1 has been charge-sheeted in the aforesaid FIR for offences punishable under Section 279/338 IPC for rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. 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. 2 was the registered owner of the offending vehicle. It is also an admitted position that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.3. The factum of the said insurance is also admitted by the respondent no.3 insurance company.
RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.04.04 15:54:32 +0530 MACT No.663/2023 Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 13 of 50 The injury:
30. 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 suffered injuries. He has proved on record his MLC issued by LNJP Hospital, Delhi which is part of the DAR, as per which petitioner was brought to the hospital on 26.04.2023 at 6:04 AM with history of road traffic accident. He had suffered multiple injuries on his body including head injury and fracture in his jaw joint. Further after assessment of his injuries it was opined that he had suffered grievous injury.
31. Further, his discharge summary issued by Max Superspeciality Hospital, Ghaziabad is on record as per which he was admitted in the hospital on 12.05.2023 and discharged on 19.05.2023. It was found that he had sustained injuries over head, chest, right shoulder, left forearm and left lower limb. Further he had suffered fracture dislocation at his spine and a fracture at in his wrist. He had also suffered nerve damage in his right portion. Further on examination it was found that he had no sensation preserved below his stomach (D-10 Dermatome). Same was proved by summoning PW8 Sh. Manish Gupta, Medical Record Incharge, Max Hospital, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P.. The complete medical record was proved as Ex. PW8/2.
32. The petitioner has also proved on record a Discharge Summary Ex. PW1/1 issued by R.K. & Narender Prakash Multispeciality Hospital, Chitra Vihar, Delhi as per which he was RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.663/2023 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.04.04 Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 14 of 50 15:54:37 +0530 admitted in the hospital on 19.05.2023 and discharged on 12.06.2023 for further treatment. Same was proved by summoning PW3 Sh. Ashwani Sagar from R.K. & Narender Parkash Multispeciality Hospital. Another Discharge Summary issued by the same hospital is on record as per which he was admitted in the hospital on 05.10.2024 and discharged on 16.10.2024.
33. Then, the petitioner's Disability Certificate issued by LNJP Hospital dated 13.12.2024 is on record. The same has been proved as Ex. PW6/B. To prove the same, the petitioner summoned the concerned doctor i.e. Dr. Pankaj Sharma, Professor, who proved on record the same as PW6. As per the same, his locomotor disability was assessed to be at 70%. His dental disability was ascertained at 24%. Further he had suffered complete paraplegia with severe bladder/bowl movement and that he also suffered permanent neurological disability at 100%. Hence, it was opined that he has suffered 100% disability in relation to his whole body which is permanent in nature.
34. 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.
RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.663/2023 Date: 2026.04.04 15:54:43 +0530 Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 15 of 50 ISSUE NO. 2:
Whether the petitioner/injured is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
35. 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 (`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).
RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.663/2023 Digitally signed by Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 16 of 50 RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.04.04 15:54:48 +0530
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)."
36. 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.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
MACT No.663/20232026.04.04 15:54:53 +0530 Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 17 of 50 Medical expenses:
37. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs.20,82,363/- approximately towards medical expenses. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 that the same is not proved by the petitioner. However, the petitioner summoned the witnesses from both Max Hospital and RK Narender Prakash Multispeciality Hospital to prove the same, who were examined as PW3, PW4 and PW8. The remaining bills were produced in original. Hence, the petitioner has filed and proved the following bills:
S.No. Bill No. Date Hospital/Chemist Amount (In Remarks Name Rs.)
1. 11076 03.05.2023 Irwin Medicos 165/- Filed in duplicate
2. 11590 05.05.2023 Irwin Medicos 135/- Filed in duplicate
3. ZEDS006227 07.05.2023 Zedson Pharmacy 297/- Filed in duplicate
4. OPD/M/ 11.05.2023 Kailash Deepak 1,250/- Filed in duplicate Hospital 23/4296
5. 14524 12.05.2023 Friends Medicos 1,750/- Filed in duplicate
6. HC001525 18.05.2023 Healthcare 4,800/- Filed in duplicate Pharmacy
7. HC001642 21.05.2023 Healthcare 4,400/- Filed in duplicate pharmacy
8. 5215 14.06.2023 KT Medicos 2312/- Filed in duplicate
9. 5461 18.06.2023 KT Medicos 475/- Filed in duplicate
10. 5763 23.06.2023 KT Medicos 250/- Filed in duplicate
11. 5771 23.06.2023 KT Medicos 472/- Filed in duplicate
12. 6842 08.07.2023 KT Medicos 740/- Filed in duplicate
13. 2385 25.07.2023 Surgical Industries 1,533/- Filed in duplicate Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.04 MACT No.663/2023 15:54:59 +0530 Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 18 of 50
14. VWGH-2685 26.07.2023 Amazon.in 9,499/- Filed in duplicate
15. 499 25.08.2023 Delhi 10,500/- Filed in duplicate Physiotherapy & Rehab Clinic
16. 14953 16.10.2024 Platinum Imaging 7,000/- Filed in duplicate Centre Payable Amount Rs. 45,578/-
S.No. Bill No. Date Hospital/Chemist Amount (In Remarks Name Rs.)
1. CR23ED00000 12.05.2023 MAX healthcare 70,000/- Filed in duplicate (Same is a receipt 01269 which is covered in bill at s.no. 19)
2. CR23IF000000 13.05.2023 MAX healthcare 50,000/- Filed in duplicate (Same is a receipt 5007 which is covered in bill at s.no. 19)
3. CR23IF000000 14.05.2023 MAX healthcare 50,000/- Filed in duplicate (Same is a receipt 5109 which is covered in bill at s.no. 19)
4. CR23IF000000 14.05.2023 MAX healthcare 1,00,000/- Filed in duplicate (Same is a receipt 5108 which is covered in bill at s.no. 19)
5. CR23IF000000 15.05.2023 MAX healthcare 1,00,000/- Filed in duplicate (Same is a receipt 5136 which is covered in bill at s.no. 19)
6. CR23IF000000 15.05.2023 MAX healthcare 1,00,000/- Filed in duplicate (Same is a receipt 5135 which is covered in bill at s.no. 19)
7. CR23IF000000 17.05.2023 MAX healthcare 1,00,000/- Filed in duplicate RUCHIKA MACT No.663/2023 SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Date: 2026.04.04 15:55:07 +0530 Page 19 of 50 5477 (Same is a receipt which is covered in bill at s.no. 19)
8. CR23IF000000 18.05.2023 MAX healthcare 1,00,000/- Filed in duplicate (Same is a receipt 5626 which is covered in bill at s.no. 19)
9. CR23IF000000 19.05.2023 MAX healthcare 50,000/- Filed in duplicate (Same is a receipt 5763 which is covered in bill at s.no. 19)
10. CR23IF000000 19.05.2023 MAX healthcare 50,000/- Filed in duplicate (Same is a receipt 5762 which is covered in bill at s.no. 19)
11. CR23IF000000 19.05.2023 MAX healthcare 23,396/- Filed in duplicate (Same is a receipt 5766 which is covered in bill at s.no. 19)
12. CR23IR000000 19.05.2023 MAX healthcare 7,93,396.00/- Filed in duplicate The same is the 2951/ summary of the bill VAIC293563 at s.no. 20.
13. CR23IR000000 19.05.2023 Max Hospital Incomplete The same is the bill item wise bill 2951 pertaining to bill at s.no. 19.
Payable Amount Rs. 7,93,396.00/-
S.No. Bill No. Date Hospital/Chemist Amount (In Remarks
Name Rs.)
1. A000733 19.05.2023 RK Narender 1,840.41/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash
Multispeciality
Hospital
MACT No.663/2023
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 20 of 50
2026.04.04
15:55:18
+0530
2. A000743 20.05.2023 RK Narender 6,410/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash
Multispeciality
Hospital
3. A000736 20.05.2023 RK Narender 1,584/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash
Multispeciality
Hospital
4. A000736 20.05.2023 RK Narender 4,795.49/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash
Multispeciality
Hospital
5. 3176 20.05.2023 RK Narender 3,450/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash This is a payment
Multispeciality receipt and not bill.
Hospital
6. NPMC00314 21.05.2023 RK Narender 10,000/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash This is a payment
Multispeciality receipt and not bill.
Hospital
7. A000756 21.05.2023 RK Narender 4,072.29/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash
Multispeciality
Hospital
8. A000799 23.05.2023 RK Narender 1,545.80/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash
Multispeciality
Hospital
9. A000799 23.05.2023 RK Narender 7,256.54/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash
Multispeciality
Hospital
10. A000803 23.05.2023 RK Narender 963.90/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash
Multispeciality
Hospital
11. 3268 23.05.2023 RK Narender 2,500/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash This is a payment
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.663/2023 SINGLA Date:
2026.04.04
15:55:25
+0530
Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 21 of 50
Multispeciality receipt and not bill.
Hospital
12. 362 23.05.2023 RK Narender 1,600/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash This is a payment
Multispeciality receipt and not bill.
Hospital
13. A000814 24.05.2023 RK Narender 4,650.23/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash
Multispeciality
Hospital
14. A000814 24.05.2023 RK Narender 2,608.58/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash
Multispeciality
Hospital
15. NPMC00325 25.05.2023 RK Narender 10,000/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash This is a payment
Multispeciality receipt and not bill.
Hospital
16. A000830 25.05.2023 RK Narender 3,082.92/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash
Multispeciality
Hospital
17. A000843 26.05.2023 RK Narender 2,630.55/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash
Multispeciality
Hospital
18. 3396 26.05.2023 RK Narender 1,250/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash This is a payment
Multispeciality receipt and not bill.
Hospital
19. A000849 27.05.2023 RK Narender 183.28/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash
Multispeciality
Hospital
20. A000848 27.05.2023 RK Narender 1,721.83/-
Prakash
Multispeciality
Hospital
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
MACT No.663/2023 RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.04
Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 22 of 50
15:55:30
+0530
21. A000847 27.05.2023 RK Narender 538/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash
Multispeciality
Hospital
22. NPMC00332 27.05.2023 RK Narender 10,000/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash This is a payment
Multispeciality receipt and not bill.
Hospital
23. A000866 28.05.2023 RK Narender 2,868.75/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash
Multispeciality
Hospital
24. A000877 29.05.2023 RK Narender 3,933.98/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash
Multispeciality
Hospital
25. 3470 29.05.2023 RK Narender 2,240/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash This is a payment
Multispeciality receipt and not bill.
Hospital
26. A000905 30.05.2023 RK Narender 2,117.11/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash
Multispeciality
Hospital
27. 0026/23 30.05.2023 RK Narender 600/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash
Multispeciality
Hospital
28. 0027/23 31.05.2023 RK Narender 2,280/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash
Multispeciality
Hospital
29. A000933 01.06.2023 RK Narender 2,629.91/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash
Multispeciality
Hospital
30. S. Return 01.06.2023 RK Narender 2,104.92/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash
No.CN00115
RUCHIKA
MACT No.663/2023 SINGLA
Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Page 23 of 50
Date: 2026.04.04
15:55:34 +0530
Multispeciality
Hospital
31. 0028/23 01.06.2023 RK Narender 1,480/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash
Multispeciality
Hospital
32. NPMC00357 05.06.2023 RK Narender 10,000/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash This is a payment
Multispeciality receipt and not bill.
Hospital
33. 0029/23 07.06.2023 RK Narender 600/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash
Multispeciality
Hospital
34. A001064 08.06.2023 RK Narender 7,158.24/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash
Multispeciality
Hospital
35. A001064 08.06.2023 RK Narender 3,019.96/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash
Multispeciality
Hospital
36. A001077 09.06.2023 RK Narender 708.22/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash
Multispeciality
Hospital
37. NPMC00372 10.06.2023 RK Narender 5,000/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash This is a payment
Multispeciality receipt and not bill.
Hospital
38. NPMC00373 10.06.2023 RK Narender 65,000/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash This is a payment
Multispeciality receipt and not bill.
Hospital
39. A001102 11.06.2023 RK Narender 1,050.41/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash
Multispeciality
Hospital
Digitally
MACT No.663/2023 signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 24 of 50
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.04
15:55:39
+0530
40. 0038/23 11.06.2023 RK Narender 1,560/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash
Multispeciality
Hospital
41. NPMC00385 12.06.2023 RK Narender 9,200/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash This is a payment
Multispeciality receipt and not bill.
Hospital
42. NP/20- 12.06.2023 RK Narender 1,64,200/-
Prakash
21/001249
Multispeciality
Hospital
43. 026 04.08.2023 RK Narender 28,000/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash
Multispeciality
Hospital
44. NP/24- 05.10.2024 RK Narender 2,750/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash
25/18551
Multispeciality
Hospital
45. NP/24- 06.10.2024 RK Narender 2,250/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash
25/18584
Multispeciality
Hospital
46. NP/24- 07.10.2024 RK Narender 1,150/- Filed in duplicate.
Prakash
25/18618
Multispeciality
Hospital
47. 39049 07.10.2024 RK Narender 10,000/- Filed in duplicate.
Prakash This is a payment
Multispeciality receipt and not bill.
Hospital
48. NP/24- 08.10.2024 RK Narender 1,750/- Filed in duplicate.
Prakash
25/18679
Multispeciality
Hospital
49. 1988 08.10.2024 RK Narender 6,700/- This is a payment
Prakash receipt and not bill.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
MACT No.663/2023
Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 25 of 50
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Date: 2026.04.04
15:55:43 +0530
Multispeciality
Hospital
50. A006078 08.10.2024 RK Narender 11,254/- Filed in duplicate.
Prakash
Multispeciality
Hospital
51. NP/24- 09.10.2024 RK Narender 1,150/-
Prakash
25/18705
Multispeciality
Hospital
52. NP/24- 10.10.2024 RK Narender 1,150/-
Prakash
25/18766
Multispeciality
Hospital
53. NP/24- 10.10.2024 RK Narender 350/-
Prakash
25/18790
Multispeciality
Hospital
54. NP/24- 11.10.2024 RK Narender 850/-
Prakash
25/18818
Multispeciality
Hospital
55. 39395 11.10.2024 RK Narender 10,000/- Filed in duplicate
Prakash This is a payment
Multispeciality receipt and not bill.
Hospital
56. NP/24- 13.10.2024 RK Narender 1,650/-
Prakash
25/18880
Multispeciality
Hospital
57. NP/24- 14.10.2024 RK Narender 1,150/-
Prakash
25/18955
Multispeciality
Hospital
58. NP/24- 15.10.2024 RK Narender 450/-
Prakash
25/18977
Multispeciality
Hospital
Digitally
signed by
MACT No.663/2023
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.04
15:55:49
+0530
Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 26 of 50
59. NP/24- 15.10.2024 RK Narender 1,300/-
Prakash
25/19012
Multispeciality
Hospital
60. A006389 15.10.2024 RK Narender 28,147/- Filed in duplicate.
Prakash
Multispeciality
Hospital
61. S. Return No. 16.10.2024 RK Narender 3,361/-
Prakash
CN00721
Multispeciality
Hospital
62. S. Return no. 16.10.2024 RK Narender 3,361/-
Prakash
CN0072
Multispeciality
Hospital
63. NP/24- 16.10.2024 RK Narender 98,125/-
Prakash
25/19053
Multispeciality
Hospital
Payable Amount Rs. 4,28,304/-
Hence, the grand total of the same i.e. a sum of Rs. 12,67,278/- is awarded to him under this head.
Loss of income:
38. In this regard, it is submitted by the petitioner that at the time of the accident, he was working as Representative, Operations with Covergys India Services Pvt. Ltd. at an annual salary of Rs. 2,83,200/-.
Per contra, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 that the same is not proved by the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has also proved any loss of income.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.04 15:55:56 +0530 MACT No.663/2023 Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 27 of 50
39. Record perused.
40. To prove the income of the petitioner, he summoned Sh.
Hardeep Singh, Assistant Manager, Concentrix Daksh Services India Pvt. Ltd. who was examined as PW-5. He proved the Appointment Letter of petitioner dated 01.12.2022 as Ex. PW5/2 (colly). Further, he proved the Salary slip of the petitioner for the month of December 2022 to September 2023 as Ex. PW5/4 (colly). In the opinion of this Tribunal, the same is sufficient to prove the job and income of the petitioner. Hence, it is proved that the petitioner was working with Covergys as Representative, Operations at an annual salary of Rs. 2,83,200/-. As per the salary slips of the petitioner, his salary was not fixed. He was probably getting salary as per the number of working days. Hence, his gross income as mentioned in the Appointment Letter shall be taken as the basis for calculation of his income. Hence, his monthly salary comes to Rs. 23,600/-. The date of accident is 26.04.2023. The petitioner had just joined the said company 4 months ago. Hence, it is very unlikely that he would have gotten a raise by then.
41. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 held that for calculating compensation, the income of the victim less the income tax should be treated as the actual income. As per the income tax slab for the assessment year 2023-24, no tax was payable at an income of less than Rs. 3,00,000/-. Hence, in view of the Sarla Verma judgment, the income of the petitioner is assessed to be Rs.23,600/-.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.04 15:56:02 +0530 MACT No.663/2023 Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 28 of 50
42. It is the matter of record that due to the accident, the petitioner suffered injuries. Further it is stated that due to the accident, the petitioner suffered multiple injuries on his body rendering him immobile and confined to bed. It is stated that he has suffered 100% permanent disability. Hence, it is submitted that since the accident, the petitioner has been unable to work. Hence, he may be granted loss of income till date i.e. for 33 months.
43. Record perused.
44. As mentioned earlier, as per the medical record of the petitioner, he had suffered multiple injuries. He has undergone various surgeries. He has suffered from partial paralysis. As per his Disability Certificate Ex. PW6/A, he is 100% permanently disabled. Hence, it is apparent that he has lost his capacity to work. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to the loss of income for 12 months i.e. Rs.23,600/- x 12 = Rs. 2,83,200/-. Loss of income for 33 months is not granted as the same shall be covered under loss of future income, as the same shall be calculated as per his age as on the date of the accident.
Loss of future earnings due to disability:
45. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has suffered 100% permanent disability. Due to the same, he is unable to work. Hence, his functional disability may be considered as 100%. Per contra, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
MACT No.663/20232026.04.04 15:56:08 +0530 Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 29 of 50 that the functional disability may be taken as 1/3rd of the assessed disability.
46. 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 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)."
47. Hence, the Tribunal has to examine as to how the disability suffered by the petitioner affects his ability to earn. The disability of the Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.663/2023 SINGLA Date:
2026.04.04 15:56:15 Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. +0530 Page 30 of 50 petitioner is not disputed. As per the Disability Certificate Ex. PW6/A, the petitioner has suffered 100% permanent disability.
48. The petitioner has proved his medical record. His discharge summary issued by Max Superspeciality Hospital, Ghaziabad is on record as per which he had sustained injuries over head, chest, right shoulder, left forearm and left lower limb. Further he had suffered fracture dislocation at his spine and a fracture at in his wrist. He had also suffered nerve damage in his right portion. Further on examination it was found that he had no sensation preserved below his stomach (D-10 Dermatome). The petitioner has also proved on record Discharge Summary Ex. PW1/1 issued by R.K. & Narender Prakash Multispeciality Hospital, Chitra Vihar, Delhi as per which he was admitted in the hospital for further treatment. Then, as per the the petitioner's Disability Certificate Ex. PW6/B, his locomotor disability was assessed to be at 70%. His dental disability was ascertained at 24%. Further he had suffered complete paraplegia with severe bladder/bowl movement and that he also suffered permanent neurological disability at 100%. Hence, it was opined that he has suffered 100% disability in relation to his whole body which is permanent in nature.
49. Locomotor disability is a restriction in movement of limbs, bones, joints and muscles. It limits physical mobility and function. Paraplegia refers to partial or complete paralysis of the lower half of the body, including both legs and sometimes the trunk, caused by the damage to the spinal cord. The same with severe bladder/bowl RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by MACT No.663/2023 RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.04.04 15:56:22 +0530 Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 31 of 50 movement implies loss of control over bowel and bladder functions. In the present case, the petitioner has suffered complete paraplegia. Meaning thereby, that he has suffered complete paralysis of the lower half of the body with loss of control over bowel and bladder functions.
50. Further, a neurological disability means a condition affecting the brain, spinal cord or nerves disrupting signals that control movement, senses, thoughts and bodily functions like breathing, speaking and memory. In the present case, the petitioner has suffered locomotor disability to the tune of 70%, complete paraplegia with severe bladder/bowl movement and permanent neurological disability to the tune of 100%. Hence, it is apparent that the petitioner would be unable to work in the future. Due to the said accident, he has been rendered incapable to walk, control his bowel movements and even move his lower part of the body. Hence, his functional disability is ascertained to be as 100%.
51. This Tribunal has already assumed the monthly income of petitioner to be Rs.23,600/- at the relevant time. As far as the age of petitioner at the time of accident is concerned, as per the petitioner's driving licence Ex. PW1/7, PAN Card Ex. PW1/8 and Aadhar Card Ex. PW1/9, his date of birth is 18.11.2004. The date of accident is 26.04.2023. Hence, the age of petitioner as on the date of accident was 19 years. Therefore, 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.663/2023 SINGLA Date:
2026.04.04 15:56:27 +0530 Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 32 of 50 the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent 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 '18' is held applicable for calculating the loss of future earnings of petitioner arising out of his above disability.
52. Qua future prospects, Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 submits that as this is an injury case, future prospects are not payable in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chandan Maitra MAC App no. 345, 407 of 2017. It was observed that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) was applicable only in death cases. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hanumantharaju B (dead) by Lr. v. M Akram Pasha & Anr. SLP no. 2841-2842 of 2021 decided on 13.05.2025 has observed that the future prospects as provided in the Pranay Sethi case shall be payable in injury cases also. Hence, the future prospects of the petitioner shall be 40% as he was less than 40 years at the time of accident. As already discussed in the preceding para, the income of the petitioner has been taken as Rs.23,600/-. In view of the above, the loss of Income on account of functional disability is calculated as under:
Monthly income Rs.23,600/-
Annual Income Rs.23,600/- x 12 =
Rs. 2,83,200/-
Add Future Prospects @40% Rs. 1,13,280/-
Total income Rs. 3,96,480/-
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.04
15:56:32
MACT No.663/2023
+0530
Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 33 of 50
Disability @ 100% Rs. 3,96,480/- x 100%= Rs.
3,96,480/-
Loss of Income after multiplier Rs. 3,96,480/- x 18 = Rs.
(18) 71,36,640/-
53. Thus, keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner as well as the disability suffered by him, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to Rs. 71,36,640/- under the head future loss of income.
Special diet:
54. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards special diet. There is no bill to support his plea. However, in Jyoti Singh v. Nand Kishore & Ors. (2023) 300 DLT 436, in a case with similar facts, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed that:
"In the appellant's case, a special diet has been necessitated on account of her extended debilitation and for her to keep herself in fair health, she would need high protein supplements for the rest of her life as opined by Dr. Mathew Varghese. The MACT has awarded her only Rs. 36,200/-. Since she would need this special diet for the rest of her life, therefore, by using the multiplier of 18, the compensation for special diet is increased to Rs. 6,51,600/-."
55. In view of the said observations and keeping in view the nature of injury suffered by the petitioner, a sum of Rs. 75,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under the head of special diet. Further, applying the multiplier of 18 as applied by the Hon'ble High Court, an Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.04 MACT No.663/2023 15:56:39 +0530 Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 34 of 50 amount of Rs. 13,50,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under the head of special diet.
Conveyance charges:
56. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- towards conveyance charges. Admittedly there is no document showing expense on conveyance, however, considering his injuries and paralysis, this Tribunal is of the view that the petitioner must have spent money on conveyance and shall require funds for this purpose in the future, thus, the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- towards conveyance charges.
Attendant charges:
57. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards attendant charges. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that due to the disability of the petitioner, he is unable to move and confined to bed. Hence, the petitioner's family has to employ attendants round the clock for him. PW7 Dhan Lal, one of the attendants, was examined in the court. Hence, the said amount be granted to the petitioner under this head.
58. In a similar case relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Pritam Singh vs Oriental Insurance Co. & Ors. MAC.APP. 952/2011 decided on 28 March, 2016 has observed as under:
"13. The tribunal calculated the attendant charges that were incurred by the claimant during the RUCHIKA MACT No.663/2023 SINGLA Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.04.04 Page 35 of 50 15:56:45 +0530 treatment till the filing of the petition at `3,35,000/- but for future such expenses it awarded ` 50,000/-, in lumpsum. This may not be a correct approach to the issue. Since the claimant has been rendered permanently disabled to the extent of 100%, there is no doubt that he would require constant presence of attendant throughout his life. In these circumstances, the proper course would be to take care of attendant charges incurred during treatment and for future on the assumption that he would need to engage an attendant on regular basis. The expenditure towards this end can be computed on the basis of minimum wages of an unskilled worker relevant to the date of accident which was ` 3516 per month. Calculated thus, the compensation for attendant charges comes to (3516 x 12 x 15) ` 6,32,800/-, rounded off to ` 6,35,000/-."
59. Further, in Jyoti Singh v. Nand Kishore & Ors. (2023) 300 DLT 436, in a case with similar facts, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi appreciated the fact that due to the disability of the petitioner, she would need attendant 24 hours. Hence, attendant charges for 2 attendants (2 shifts of 12 hours) were awarded. Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand (2020) 4 SCC 413 was relied upon. The Hon'ble Supreme Court took the basis of calculation of attendant charges on the basis of minimum wages payable to a skilled worker. As per the prevalent notification, the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker as on 26.04.2023 were Rs. 20,903/-. Hence, the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.90,30,096/- towards attendant charges (Rs. 20,903/- x 12 x 18 x 2 = Rs.90,30,096/-).
Pain & Suffering, mental and physical shock & loss of amenities:
60. The petitioner/injured has compositely claimed Rs.
Digitally MACT No.663/2023 signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 36 of 502026.04.04 15:56:50 +0530 15,00,000/- under these heads. Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand (2020) 4 SCC 413 was relied upon. The facts of that case were very similar to that of the present case. In that matter also, the claimant had suffered 100% disability. In the present matter, it has to be appreciated that the petitioner was a young man of 19 years when he met with the accident. The accident has rendered him immobile and bed ridden. His whole future has been destroyed. Hence, relying upon the above mentioned judgment, he is awarded a total amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, mental and physical shock & loss of amenities to the petitioner.
Disfiguration:
61. The petitioner/injured has not claimed any amount under this head.
Loss of marriage prospects
62. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- under this head. In Jyoti Singh v. Nand Kishore & Ors. (2023) 300 DLT 436 and Kajal v. Jagdish Chand (2020) 4 SCC 413, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head. Hence, relying upon the above mentioned judgments, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Loss of earning, inconvenience, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.:
63. The petitioner/injured has not claimed any amount under Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.04 MACT No.663/2023 15:56:56 +0530 Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 37 of 50 this head. However, considering the nature of the injuries suffered by the petitioner, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Reimbursement apropos lifetime sanitary expenses & future medical expenses:
64. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to 7,00,000/- under this head. In Jyoti Singh v. Nand Kishore & Ors. (2023) 300 DLT 43, the Hon'ble High Court observed that:
"For a person suffering from incontinence and not in control of urinary or bowel movement, there would be need for diapers, pads, sanitary sheets, regular changing of bed- sheets, wet wipes, tissue-papers, medical gloves, etc. For this expense, Rs. 5,000/- per month has been assessed by the MACT. The annual expense for the same would be Rs. 60,000/-. Although the impugned award has factored this annual expense but has provided for the same through interest on FDRs. This is unfair to the injured because compensation needs to be provided on a legitimate ground. In the present case this is a necessary expense because of her medical condition, it would therefore be categorised as a lifetime medical expense. Also, the impugned award has assumed that the FDR rates would always be not less than 8%. The earnings from FDRs are from monies which has already been awarded to her over which the insurer cannot have any right, claim or say. The awardee has absolute right over utilisation of the same. The interest earned cannot be adjusted to set-off the liability of the person who is to pay compensation. This will be a life-time expense. Therefore, applying a multiplier of 18 for the appellant, the compensation towards 'medical and sanitary expenses' of Rs. 10,80,000/- is awarded."
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.04 15:57:02 MACT No.663/2023 +0530 Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 38 of 50
65. In the preset case also, due to the partial paralysis suffered by the petitioner, he has lost the ability to control his bowel movement. Hence, there would be need for diapers, pads, sanitary sheets, regular changing of bed-sheets, wet wipes, tissue-papers, medical gloves, etc. Hence, relying upon the above mentioned judgment, he is awarded a total amount of Rs. 10,80,000/- towards reimbursement apropos lifetime sanitary expenses & future medical expenses.
66. 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. 12,67,278/- Monthly income of injured Rs.23,600/- Loss of income x 12 months Rs. 2,83,200/- Add future prospects 40%
Loss of future income (income X % Earning Rs. 71,36,640/- Capacity X Multiplier) Any other loss/expenditure (Reimbursement Rs. 10,80,000/- apropos lifetime sanitary expenses & future medical expenses) Expense on special diet Rs. 13,50,000/- Conveyance charges Rs. 2,50,000/-
Attendant charges Rs. 90,30,096/-
Mental & Physical Shock, Pain & Suffering Rs. 15,00,000 & Loss of amenities Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.663/2023 SINGLA Date:
2026.04.04 15:57:07 Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 39 of 50 +0530 Disfiguration Nil Loss of marriage prospects Rs. 3,00,000/- Loss of earning, inconvenience, hardship, Rs. 2,00,000/- disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc. Total Rs. 2,23,97,214/-
67. 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. 25.07.2023 till realization.
DISBURSEMENT
68. The Financial Statement of father of petitioner/injured was recorded by this Court/Tribunal. As per the said statement, the monthly expenses of his family are approximately Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- per month.
69. 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:MACT No.663/2023
2026.04.04 15:57:12 +0530 Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 40 of 50 safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimants. However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque books and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and the claimant shall produced the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court for compliance."
70. 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.04 15:57:17 MACT No.663/2023 +0530 Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 41 of 50 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 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."
71. 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.
72. After considering the financial statement of the petitioner, it Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.04 15:57:22 +0530 MACT No.663/2023 Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 42 of 50 is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 2,72,15,538/- (Rupees Two Crores Seventy Two Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Eight only), Rs. 30,15,538/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Eight only) be released to the petitioner/claimant immediately in his bank account maintained at State Bank of India, Geeta Colony, Delhi bearing no. 42015761819, IFSC no. SBIN0013763, CIF no. 91227963739.
73. The balance amount of Rs.2,40,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Forty Lakhs only) shall be put in 160 monthly fixed deposits in his name in MACAD account of equal amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 160 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 his saving account maintained in a nationalized bank situated near the place of his residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM card.
74. 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: 26.04.2023
Name of the Injured: Khushwant Kapoor
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
MACT No.663/2023
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.04
15:57:27
+0530
Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 43 of 50
Age of the Injured: Presently 21 years
Occupation of the Injured: Representative, Operations with
Covergys India Services Pvt. Ltd.
Income of the Injured: Rs. 23,600/- pm
Nature of Injury: Grievous
Medical Treatment taken: LNJP Hospital, Delhi
Max Superspeciality Hospital,
Ghaziabad
R.K. & Narender Prakash
Multispeciality Hospital, Delhi Period of Hospitalization: 12.05.2023 to 19.05.2023 19.05.2023 to 12.06.2023 05.10.2024 to 16.10.2024 Whether any permanent: Yes disability?
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION Sr. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal No.
1. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 12,67,278/-
(ii) Expenditure on Special Diet Rs. 13,50,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on Rs. 90,30,096/-
Nursing/Attendant charges
(iv) Expenditure on Conveyance Rs. 2,50,000/-
(v) Monthly income of injured Rs.23,600/-
(vi) Loss of income x 12 months Rs. 2,83,200/-
(vii) Add future prospects 40%
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
MACT No.663/2023
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.04
Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 44 of 50
15:57:33
+0530
viii) Any other loss/expenditure Rs. 10,80,000/-
(Reimbursement apropos lifetime
sanitary expenses & future medical expenses)
2. Non Pecuniary Loss
(i) Compensation for mental and physical shock Rs. 15,00,000/-
(ii) Pain and Sufferings
(iii) Loss of amenities of life
(iv)
Disfiguration Nil
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Rs. 3,00,000/-
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Rs. 2,00,000/-
hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and 100% permanent disability nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of expectation Nil of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity 100% in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (income x % Rs. 71,36,640/-
earning capacity x Multiplier)
4. Total Compensation Rs. 2,23,97,214/-
5. Interest awarded 9%
6. Earlier award amount (which has already been received by the petitioner in terms of previous award passed by Rs. 5,00,000/- vide order dated Ld. Predecessor) to be deducted from 12.11.2024 Digitally signed by MACT No.663/2023 SINGLA RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.04 Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. 15:57:38 +0530 Page 45 of 50 present award amount .
7. Total Compensation Rs. 2,18,97,214/-
8. Interest amount upto the date of award Rs. 53,18,323.35 (rounded off to Rs.
w.e.f. 25.07.2023 till realization 53,18,324/-)
9. Total amount including Interest Rs. 2,72,15,538/-
10. Award amount released As mentioned in para nos. 72 & 73
11. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.2,40,00,000/-
12. Mode of disbursement of the award As mentioned in para nos. 72 & 73 amount of the claimant(s)
13. Next date for compliance of the award 04.05.2026 LIABILITY:
75. It has been established that the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1 and that respondent no.2 is the owner of the same and the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no. 3.
Hence, it is directed that the respondent no. 3 shall be liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
76. The respondent no.3 is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.
2,18,97,214/- (Rupees Two Crores Eighteen Lakhs Ninety Seven Thousand Two Hundred Fourteen One only) along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 25.07.2023 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 Digitally signed by MACT No.663/2023 RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.04 Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 46 of 50 15:57:44 +0530 placed on case titled as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
77. 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 04.05.2026 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 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.04 15:57:51 MACT No.663/2023 +0530 Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 47 of 50 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).
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 Digitally signed by on this 4th April, 2026 RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.04 15:57:55 +0530 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.MACT No.663/2023 Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 48 of 50
THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL MOTOR VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022 (PL. SEE RULE 150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 26.04.2023 2 Date of filing of Form-I - First Accident 26.04.2023 Report (FAR) 3 Date of delivery of Form-II to the 25.07.2023 victim(s) 4 Date of receipt of Form-III from the 08.06.2023 Driver
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Owner 08.06.2023 6 Date of filing of Form-V-
08.06.2023 Particulars of the insurance of the vehicle 7 Date of receipt of Form-VIA from the 25.07.2023 Victim(s) 8 Date of filing of Form-VII - Detail 25.07.2023 Accident Report (DAR) 9 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the No Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the Designated 25.07.2023 Officer by the Insurance Company 11 Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company admitted his report within 30 days of the DAR? Yes 12 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Designated No Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted? 13 Date of response of the claimant(s) to the NA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
MACT No.663/20232026.04.04 15:58:02 +0530 Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 49 of 50 offer of the Insurance Company.
14 Date of award 04.04.2026 15 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open savings bank account(s) near their Yes 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 the direction to the bank not to issue any cheque book/debit card to the 25.07.2023 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 bank account(s) near the place of their 24.02.2026 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 near their place of Yes. residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s) were examined Yes. The Financial Statement of at the time of passing of the Award to the father of injured was ascertain his/their financial condition? recorded 24.02.2026.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.04 15:58:07 +0530 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
04.04.2026 MACT No.663/2023 Khushwant Kapoor Vs. Harish Madan and Ors. Page 50 of 50