Delhi District Court
Shakuntala Devi vs Jaya Bhardwaj And Ors on 22 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARUL VARMA
PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-02 ,PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
SHAKUNTALA DEVI Vs. JAYA BHARDWAJ &
ORS
MACT NO. 8 OF 2022
Smt Shakuntala Devi
W/o Shri Vikram Singh Kasana
R/o A-249 Gali no 3 Rajeev Nagar
Bhopra, Ghaziabad, UP
......Injured/claimant
Versus
1. Ms Jaya Bhardwaj
W/o Rakesh Bhardwaj
R/o 508- B Gulmohar Greens 5th Floor
Tower No 8 Mohan Nagar
Ghaziabad UP -201007
....Driver-cum-Registered owner/Respondent no. 1
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Office at Divisional Office -25 Maruti Nodal Office 1st Floor, 8 Janpath, New Delhi ....Insurance Company/Respondent no. 2 Date of accident 13.11.2018 Date of filing Claim Petition 24.12.2021 Date of framing of issues 26.05.2022 Date of concluding arguments 20.09.2025 Date of decision 22.09.2025 MACT 8/2022 Page. 1 of 36 Shakuntala Devi Vs Jaya Bhardwaj and ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.09.22
18:25:43
+0530
AWARD/JUDGMENT
Index to the Judgment
I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE CLAIMANT(s)............................................4 II. FRAMING OF ISSUES.................................................................................5 III. EVIDENCE LED BY THE PARTIES..........................................................6 IV. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS OF THE PARTIES...................................8 V. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO..................................10
(a) Issue No.1: Whether claimant sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the respondent driver? .......................................................................................................................10 i. The evidence on record qua negligence:................................................10 ii. Presumption qua complicity upon filing chargesheet:..........................11 iii. Preponderance of probabilities:...........................................................11 iv. Finding:................................................................................................13
(b) Issue No.2: Whether claimant is entitled to compensation, and to what amount?.........................................................................................................13 i. Principles qua assessment of compensation:.........................................13 ii. Future prospects:...................................................................................17 iii. Expenditure on Treatment (Pecuniary):...............................................20 iv. Expenditure on Conveyance & Special Diet (Pecuniary):...................21 v. Expenditure on Attendant (Pecuniary):.................................................21 vi. Loss of Earnings during the period of treatment (Pecuniary):............22 vii. Loss of Future Earnings on account of permanent disability (Pecuniary):...............................................................................................22 viii. Compensation for Mental & Physical shock, Pain & Suffering and Loss of amenities (Non-Pecuniary):.........................................................23 MACT 8/2022 Page. 2 of 36 Shakuntala Devi Vs Jaya Bhardwaj and ors Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.09.22 18:26:01 +0530 ix. Loss of Marriage Prospects (Non-Pecuniary):....................................24 x. Disfiguration (Non-Pecuniary):............................................................24 xi. Loss of earnings, inconvenience, hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress and unhappiness in future life etc. (Non- Pecuniary):................................................................................................24
(c) Issue No.3: Relief.....................................................................................25 i. Amount of Award:..................................................................................25 ii. Rate of Interest:....................................................................................25 VI. DEPOSIT OF AWARD& RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT.......................27 i. Deposit of Award:..................................................................................27 ii. Disbursement of the award amount & protection thereof:...................28 VII. LIABILITY................................................................................................30 VIII. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES...............................................................................................................31 IX. COMPLIANCE QUA PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME.........................33 MACT 8/2022 Page. 3 of 36 Shakuntala Devi Vs Jaya Bhardwaj and ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.09.22 18:26:19 +0530 I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE CLAIMANT(s)
1. The facts as asseverated by the claimant are hereby succinctly recapitulated: A road accident occurred on 13.11.2018 at about 03:15PM, at Lajpat Nagar to Chauki Karan Gate, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, UP which resulted in registration of FIR No. 3376/2018, U/s 279/338 IPC at PS Sahibabad. The transgressing or offending vehicle involved in this case was a Car bearing registration No. UP-14DQ-6679, which at the relevant time of accident was being driven by respondent no.1/driver-cum-owner (R-1) Ms Jaya Bhardwaj and was insured by respondent no. 2 (R-2) The Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. The repercussion was devastating for the claimant, for she sustained grievous injury inter alia on occipit reason.
2. Investigation: A complaint was lodged by Varun Kasana s/o of the claimant at Sahibabad wherein he stated that on 13.11.2018 at 03:15 PM his mother Shkauntala Devi was going to Lajpat Nagar for some work when the transgressing vehicle i.e Maruti Celereo bearing registration no UP 14DQ 6679 came at high speed and hit his mother from behind whereafter she was taken to Ambe Hospital wherein it was informed that she suffered grievous injuries. The complaint resulted in the registration of FIR No. 3376/2018 u/s 283/337/338 IPC .
MACT 8/2022 Page. 4 of 36 Shakuntala Devi Vs Jaya Bhardwaj and ors Digitally signed by Arul Varma Arul Date:
Varma 2025.09.22 18:26:29 +0530
3. During investigation, site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared, medical documents were collected and offending vehicle was seized. The driver-cum-owner Ms Jaya Bhardwaj was arrested and thereafter released on bail. On completion of investigation, chargesheet under sections 279/338 IPC was filed qua the driver-cum-owner .
4. During proceedings before this Tribunal, written statement was filed on behalf of the R-2 Insurance Company wherein pleas were taken tot he effect that the petitioner herself was negligent as she was moving on the road instead of the footpath.
II. FRAMING OF ISSUES
5. Vide order dated 26.05.2022, following issues were framed by this Tribunal:-
"1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on 13.11.2018 at around 03:15 pm, at Lajpat Nagar to Chauki Karan Gate, Sahibabad caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. UP-14 Q-6679 driven by respondent no.1,/driver cum owner and insured with respondent no. 2?OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief."
MACT 8/2022 Page. 5 of 36 Shakuntala Devi Vs Jaya Bhardwaj and ors Digitally signed by Arul Varma Arul Date:
Varma 2025.09.22 18:26:39 +0530
6. 15.12.2022 was a watershed moment as far as recording of evidence is concerned, as on that date, judgment titled Gohar Mohammed v Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (2023) 4 SCC 381 was pronounced, which mandated inter alia that the Claims Tribunal was duty bound to record the evidence through a Local Commissioner. Ergo, vide order dated 05.01.2023, a Local Commissioner was appointed for recording of evidence, report whereof was submitted on 23.03.2023.
III. EVIDENCE LED BY THE PARTIES
7. In the proceedings conducted before the Local
Commissioner, 04 witnesses were examined, succinct testimonies whereof are as follows:
8. PW1 Claimant Ms Shakunata Devi : She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. She relied upon certain documents i.e. Certified copy of criminal case as Ex PW1/1, Certified Copy of conviction order dated 14.12.2019 against respondent no 1 driver-cum-owner as Ex PW1/2, Photocopy of vehicle particulars issued by RTO, Ghaziabad and insurance policy of offending vehicle as Mark A, Photocopy of driving license and Aadhar card of the respondent no 1 as Mark B, Photocopy of her Aadhar card as Ex PW1/3, Photocopy of her PAN card as Ex PW1/4, Original MLC of injured as Ex PW1/5, Certified copies of MACT 8/2022 Page. 6 of 36 Shakuntala Devi Vs Jaya Bhardwaj and ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.09.22 18:26:46 +0530 discharge summary and medical treatment record of victim as Ex PW1/6, Original medical bills amounting to Rs 6,678/- of claimant as Ex PW1/7, Original receipt of expenses/bills of physiotherapy of claimant i.e. amounting to Rs 60,000/- as Ex PW1/8, original receipt of the expenses/bills of the transport/ambulance services as Ex PW1/9, original receipt of the medical expenses/bills of the attendant charges of the injured amounting to Rs 14,500/- as Ex PW1/10 and Photocopy of matriculation certificate as Ex PW1/11. She was cross examined by Ld Counsel for the respondent no1 and respondent no 2/Insurance Company.
9. R1W1 Ms Jaya Bhardwaj(R1 Driver-cum-owner): She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. R1W1/A. She relied upon certain documents i.e. copy of insurance policy already Ex C1, copy of her driving license already Mark Band Ex R1W1/1 and copy of her Aadhar Card as Ex R1W1/2. She was cross examined by Ld Counsel for the petitioner and respondent no 2/Insurance Company.
10.R2W1 Ms Gurpreet Kaur: She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. R2W1/A. She relied upon certain documents i.e. Copy of insurance policy as Ex R2W1/1 having driver clause at point A. Copy of notice dated 06.02.2023 as Ex R2W1/2, postal receipts of the notice as Ex R2W1/3, tracking report of the postal receipts of the notice as Ex R2W1/4 and copy of report from DTO Zunheboto, MACT 8/2022 Page. 7 of 36 Shakuntala Devi Vs Jaya Bhardwaj and ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.09.22 18:26:54 +0530 Nagaland in respect of driving license of respondent no 1 as Mark X. She was cross examined by Ld Counsel for the petitioner.
11.R2W2 Sh Phongmei Phom @ M. Phongmei, Lower Division Assistant: He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. R2W2/A. He relied upon certain documents i.e. copy of his identity card as Ex R2W2/1, original detailment order dated 04.03.2023 as Ex R2W2/2, copy of record register of the DTO Zunheboto, Nagaland pertaining to R1 Driver-cum- owner as Ex R2W2/3 copy of notification dated 01.08.2014 having reference TC-23/MV/2007 issued by the Government of Nagaland, Motor Vehicle Department as Ex R2W2/4 and copy of notification dated 18.12.2018 having reference no NOTC/MV-2/17/5966-76 issued by Government of Nagaland Motor Vehicle Department as Ex R2W2/5 He was cross examined by Ld Counsel for the respondent no 1 driver-cum- owner.
12.Financial statement of the claimant was recorded on 03.04.2025, written submissions were filed by the parties and final arguments were heard.
IV. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS OF THE PARTIES
13.Ld Counsel for the claimant contended that the accident occurred due to the wanton negligence of the driver of the car bearing registration no. UP-14DQ-6679 as the offending MACT 8/2022 Page. 8 of 36 Shakuntala Devi Vs Jaya Bhardwaj and ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.09.22 18:27:04 +0530 vehicle came at high speed being driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit the claimant with forceful impact which caused her to fall down and whereby she sustained grievous injuries i.e. head injuries and fractures in right ankle, lower back/hip, and chest. It was further contended that not only the FIR was registered in the present matter, the chargesheet was filed which eventually resulted in conviction of the respondent no 1 /driver-cum-owner upon admission of her guilt before the Ld CJM, Ghaziabad.
14. Per contra, Ld Counsel for the respondent submitted that the offending vehicle was being driven in accordance with traffic rules and regulations and it was the claimant who was herself responsible for the accident as she was walking on the road not on the footpath.
15. As far as arguments qua the quantum of compensation/award is concerned, Ld Counsel for the claimant contended that the claimant was a homemaker and her notional income ought to be assessed at Rs 15,000/- per month.
16.In rebuttal, Ld Counsel for the respondent remonstrated that the claimant is a permanent resident of Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh and therefore the income of the claimant ought to be assessed on the scale of minimum wages prevalent in Ghaziabad, UP, at the time of accident i.e. Rs 9,457/- per month.
MACT 8/2022 Page. 9 of 36
Shakuntala Devi Vs Jaya Bhardwaj and ors Digitally
signed by
Arul Varma
Arul Date:
Varma 2025.09.22
18:27:14
+0530
V. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO
(a) Issue No.1: Whether claimant sustained injuries in the
accident which occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the respondent driver?
i. The evidence on record qua negligence:
17.A plea was taken by the respondent insurance company that the injured was walking on the road and not on the footpath and therefore no negligence ought to the attributed to the respondent no 1/driver-cum-owner. This plea is untenable as a number of roads in our country do not have a footpath running along the road nor is it feasible for every road to have a footpath. In any case, the presence of a footpath has not been proved by the respondent. While driving, it is the responsibility and duty of the driver to slow down in case an object or a person or any other vehicle is visible in the line of vision in front of his/her vehicle. In the present case, it is axiomatic that the respondent no.1/driver was driving at a speed beyond her control and therefore hit the claimant herein. It is not a case where the claimant suddenly appeared in front of the vehicle, nor was any evidence led in this regard. In fact, the cross examination of the claimant is to the effect that she did not move from the road despite the offending vehicle blowing its horn. Merely because a pedestrian does not move in front of a vehicle despite blowing MACT 8/2022 Page. 10 of 36 Shakuntala Devi Vs Jaya Bhardwaj and ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.09.22
18:27:21
+0530
of horn, does not entitle the driver of the said vehicle to mow down the pedestrian. Thus, negligence of the driver is established to the hilt in the present case.
ii. Presumption qua complicity upon filing chargesheet:
18.In a recent order dated 25.02.2025, passed in Ranjeet & Anr v Abdul Nayem Keb & Anr in SLP© 10351/2019 , it was held in trenchant terms as thus:
"It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the eyewitnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver."
19.In the present case, not only the chargesheet was filed, but an order of conviction u/s 279/338 IPC has been passed qua the respondent no 1/driver-cum-owner by the court of Ld CJM, Ghaziabad, UP vide order dated 14.12.2019 i.e. Ex PW1/2. Thus, a presumption of negligence exists qua the driver respondent, a presumption which could not be rebutted.
iii. Preponderance of probabilities:
20.It is trite law that in a proceeding before the Claims Tribunal, the claimant does not have to establish negligence on the part of the driver respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The standards of establishing negligence is predicated on MACT 8/2022 Page. 11 of 36 Shakuntala Devi Vs Jaya Bhardwaj and ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.09.22 18:27:28 +0530 preponderance of probabilities. In the present case too, negligence has been established on this principle.
21.In this context, it would be useful to peruse Mathew Alexander v. Mohd. Shafi, (2023) 13 SCC 510 wherein it was observed as thus:
"In this context, we could refer to the judgments of this Court in N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal [N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal, (1980) 3 SCC 457 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 774] , wherein the plea that the criminal case had ended in acquittal and that, therefore, the civil suit must follow suit, was rejected. It was observed that culpable rashness under Section 304-AIPC is more drastic than negligence under the law of torts to create liability. Similarly, in Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC [Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC, (2009) 13 SCC 530 :
(2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 189 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1101] ("Bimla Devi"), it was observed that in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal has to determine the amount of fair compensation to be granted in the event an accident has taken place by reason of negligence of a driver of a motor vehicle. A holistic view of the evidence has to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal and strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be established by the claimants. The claimants have to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in a road traffic accident. To the same effect is the observation made by this Court in Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz [Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 13] which has referred to the aforesaid MACT 8/2022 Page. 12 of 36 Shakuntala Devi Vs Jaya Bhardwaj and ors Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.09.22 18:27:36 +0530 judgment in Bimla Devi [Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC (2009) 13 SCC 530."
iv. Finding:
22.In view of foregoing discussion, it stands proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities that the aforesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the transgressing/offending vehicle bearing registration no. UP14DQ6679 and the said vehicle at that time was driven and owned by respondent no. 1, and insured by respondent no.2. Hence, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the claimant and against the respondents.
(b) Issue No.2: Whether claimant is entitled to compensation, and to what amount?
i. Principles qua assessment of compensation:
23.Before adverting to the submissions of the counsels in this regard, it would be apposite to refer to the law of the land qua this aspect. In terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, the compensation which is to be awarded by this Tribunal is required to be 'just'. The law has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343,
24.In Raj Kumar (supra) the heads under which compensation is to be calculated was expounded as thus :
MACT 8/2022 Page. 13 of 36 Shakuntala Devi Vs Jaya Bhardwaj and ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.09.22
18:27:47
+0530
"5.The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the 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 the 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. Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair [(1969) 3 SCC 64 : AIR 1970 SC 376] , R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. [(1995) 1 SCC 551 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 250] and Baker v. Willoughby [1970 AC 467 : (1970) 2 WLR 50 : (1969) 3 All ER 1528 (HL)] .]"
"6.The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, 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;
MACT 8/2022 Page. 14 of 36 Shakuntala Devi Vs Jaya Bhardwaj and ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.09.22
18:27:53
+0530
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and
(vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life."
25. The claimant filed Form XIV of the Scheme for Motor Accident Claims qua the above heads pertaining to pecuniary and non pecuniary damages.
26.Though the judgment of Raj Kumar (supra) deals with cases of fatality, it is no longer res integra that the above principles apply to cases of injury also. Recourse can be had to Yadava Kumar v National Insurance Co Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 341 wherein it has been ordained as thus:
"9.The Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 gives a structured formula for the calculation of compensation in accident MACT 8/2022 Page. 15 of 36 Shakuntala Devi Vs Jaya Bhardwaj and ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.09.22 18:28:00 +0530 cases. Note 5 of the Schedule deals with disability in non-fatal accidents and reads as follows:
5. Disability in non-fatal accidents The following compensation shall be payable in case of disability to the victim arising out of non-
fatal accidents:
Loss of income, if any, for actual period of disablement not exceeding fifty-two weeks. PLUS either of the following--
(a) In case of permanent total disablement the amount payable shall be arrived at by multiplying the annual loss of income by the multiplier applicable to the age on the date of determining the compensation, or
(b) In case of permanent partial disablement such percentage of compensation which would have been payable in the case of permanent total disablement as specified under Item (a) above.
Injuries deemed to result in permanent total disablement/permanent partial disablement and percentage of loss of earning capacity shall be as per Schedule I under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923."
Thus, the multiplier method is to be applied in cases of injuries also and it has been applied in a number of accident cases by the High Courts and this Court.
10. This Court in Sunil Kumar v. Ram Singh Gaud [(2007) 14 SCC 61 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 771 :
(2008) 1 ACJ 9] , awarded compensation in case of injury for loss of future earnings and applied the multiplier method for calculation of the same. The same principle was recognised by this Court in Priya Vasant Kalgutkar v. Murad Shaikh [(2009) 15 SCC 54 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 266 : AIR 2010 SC 40]"
27. An essential ingredient of the award is the loss of the future earnings. To calculate the same, the multiplier method is used MACT 8/2022 Page. 16 of 36 Shakuntala Devi Vs Jaya Bhardwaj and ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.09.22 18:28:07 +0530 in terms of the mandate of Sarla Verma (supra) wherein it was laid down as thus:
"42 We therefore hold that hte multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie) which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age ggroups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years , M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M -13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51-55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years ,M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M- 5 for 66 to 70 years."
28. The assessment of pecuniary as well as non pecuniary damages is discussed in the succeeding paragraphs.
ii. Future prospects:
29.The injury sustained by the claimant has a bearing on her future prospects to eke out a living in the same manner as he would have prior to the accident. Ld Counsel for the claimant had contended that the percentage of the future prospect in this case ought to be quantified at 10%. To factor into account future prospects, several guidelines have been laid down.
30. In this context, it would be apt to refer to National Insurance Co Ltd v Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 wherein it was laid down as thus:
"59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:
59.3 While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a MACT 8/2022 Page. 17 of 36 Shakuntala Devi Vs Jaya Bhardwaj and ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.09.22
18:28:13
+0530
permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 59.4 In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. 59.5 For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
59.6 The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 :
(2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] read with para 42 of that judgment 59.7 The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
59.8 Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years."
31. Even though the above judgment deals with cases of fatality, it is no longer res integra that the above principles apply to cases of injury also. Reliance is placed on Pappu De Deo MACT 8/2022 Page. 18 of 36 Shakuntala Devi Vs Jaya Bhardwaj and ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.09.22 18:28:19 +0530 Yadav v. Naresh Kumar, (2022) 13 SCC 790 wherein it was held as follows:
"7 Two questions arise for consideration : one, whether in cases of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor accident, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income, amounts for future prospects too; and two, the extent of disability. On the first question, the High Court no doubt, is technically correct in holding that Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] involved assessment of compensation in a case where the victim died. However, it went wrong in saying that later, the three-Judge Bench decision in Jagdish [Jagdish v. Mohan, (2018) 4 SCC 571 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 102 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 572] was not binding, but rather that the subsequent decision in Anant [Anant v. Pratap, (2018) 9 SCC 450 : (2018) 4 SCC (Civ) 378 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 756] to the extent that it did not award compensation for future prospects, was binding.
This Court is of the opinion that there was no justification for the High Court to have read the previous rulings of this Court, to exclude the possibility of compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. Such a narrow reading of Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] is illogical, because it denies altogether the possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in accident cases -- and admits such possibility of future prospects, in case of the victim's death."
MACT 8/2022 Page. 19 of 36 Shakuntala Devi Vs Jaya Bhardwaj and ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.09.22 18:28:25 +0530
32.Since the age of the injured is 62 years and is a home maker, in terms of the above judgment, she would not be entitled to any addition qua future prospects.
iii. Expenditure on Treatment (Pecuniary):
33.In her affidavit Ex PW1/A, the claimant has tendered on record copy of her original MLC as Ex PW1/5 as per it has been mentioned that she suffered abrasion over right hip and right foot lateral side and haematoma over occipit region.
34.As per the discharge summary Ex PW1/6 (colly) the claimant has been diagnosed with "Malleolar fracture right ankle with fracture pelvis (superior and inferior public rami) with injury chest and spine" .
35.The claimant has tendered on record her medical bills as Original medical bills amounting Rs 6,678/- of the injured i.e. herself is exhibited as Ex PW1/7 (colly) original receipt of the expenses /bills of the physiotherapy of the injured/petitioner i.e. herself amounting to Rs 60,000/- is exhibited as Ex PW1/8 (colly) and Original receipt of the expenses/bills of the transport/ambulance services of the injured/petitioner i.e. herself amounting to Rs 14,5000/- is exhibited as Ex PW1/9 (colly), which total up to Rs 66,678/-. Therefore, Ld Counsel for claimant contended that Rs 66,678/- were spent on medical expenses. The respondents have failed to lead any evidence to show that the said bills do not relate to the MACT 8/2022 Page. 20 of 36 Shakuntala Devi Vs Jaya Bhardwaj and ors Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.09.22 18:28:31 +0530 injuries suffered by the claimant in the aforementioned accident. Thus, testimony of PW1 that she spent the aforesaid amount towards medical treatment remains unrebutted and uncontroverted.. Thus, in view of the assertions of the claimant coupled with the medical bills, the expenditure on medical treatment is hereby quantified as Rs 66,678/-.
iv. Expenditure on Conveyance & Special Diet (Pecuniary):
36. Ld Counsel for claimant contended that Rs 50,000/- each were spent on Conveyance and Special Diet. Ld Counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company acquiesced to the same.
Thus, in view of the assertions of the claimant and respondent, the expenditure on conveyance and Special Diet is hereby quantified as Rs 1,00,000/-.
v. Expenditure on Attendant (Pecuniary):
37.Ld Counsel for claimant contended that Rs 1,06,164/- were spent on engaging the services of an Attendant, for which she has placed on record the original receipt of the expenses of the attendant as Ex PW1/10 (colly). Ld Counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company acquiesced to the same. Thus, in view of the assertions of the claimant and respondent, the expenditure on Attendant is hereby quantified as Rs 1,06,164/-.
MACT 8/2022 Page. 21 of 36
Shakuntala Devi Vs Jaya Bhardwaj and ors Digitally
signed by Arul
Arul Varma
Date:
Varma 2025.09.22
18:28:42
+0530
vi. Loss of Earnings during the period of treatment (Pecuniary):
38.Ld Counsel for claimant contended that the claimant did not attend to his duties for a period of 12 months since the date of the accident. In the present matter, since the claimant could not adduce evidence qua her monthly income, her income is hereby assessed on the basis of Minimum Wages which a skilled worker earned in Ghaziabad at the relevant time i.e. Rs 9,457/- per month. The medical records reflect that the the claimant was severely injured and thus it can be safely assumed that the claimant was indisposed for about 12 months, and therefore the amount awarded under this head is quantified as Rs 1,13,484/-.
vii. Loss of Future Earnings on account of permanent disability (Pecuniary):
39.As discussed in the preceding paragraph, her monthly income is hereby assessed on the basis of Minimum Wages is hereby assessed as Rs 9,457/- The annual income is Rs.1,13,484/-
( Rs. Rs 9,457 x 12). Since she was 62 years of age, the applicable multiplier as per the verdict of Sarla Verma (supra) is 7. Thus, the loss of future earnings is Rs 7,94,388 /- (Rs 1,13,484/-x 7). Since the medical board of RML Hospital has opined that the claimant has 15% permanent physical impairment qua her right lower limb, considering the fact that she is a home maker and would be looking after the entire MACT 8/2022 Page. 22 of 36 Shakuntala Devi Vs Jaya Bhardwaj and ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.09.22 18:28:49 +0530 range of house activities such as cleaning, cooking, drying the clothes etc., her functional disability is hereby assessed at 30%. Thus, the total loss of future earnings is Rs 2,38,316/- (Rs 7,94,388/- x 30%)
40. Thus, the total amount awarded under Pecuniary damages is:
(a) Expenditure on treatment- Rs 66,678 /-
(b) Expenditure on Conveyance & Special Diet -Rs 1,00,000/-
(c) Expenditure on Attendant- Rs 1,06,164/-
(d) Loss of earning during the period treatment- Rs 1,13,484/-
(e) Loss of Future Earnings on account of permanent disability- Rs 2,38,316/-
(f) Total Pecuniary damages - Rs 6,24,642/- [(a)+(b)+(c)+(d) + (e)] viii. Compensation for Mental & Physical shock, Pain & Suffering and Loss of amenities (Non-Pecuniary):
41.As stated above, the claimant had suffered grievous injuries and permanent disability in the accident. This Tribunal is conscious of the fact that no amount of money can erase the trauma and grief that the victim has suffered, or the dignity and confidence that was shattered. No amount of money can compensate the agony that the victim has undergone, but it is hoped that some compensation can go a long way in alleviating a bit of the suffering that she has endured. An MACT 8/2022 Page. 23 of 36 Shakuntala Devi Vs Jaya Bhardwaj and ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.09.22 18:28:58 +0530 e a r n e s t 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 the claimant and duration of the treatment taken by him etc., an amount of Rs.50,000/- each is being awarded to her towards (i) Mental and Physical Shock, (ii) Pain and suffering and (iii) Loss of amenities respectively. Thus, she is hereby awarded total amount of Rs.1,50,000/- under this head.
ix. Loss of Marriage Prospects (Non-Pecuniary):
42. The petitioner has not claimed any amount under this head as she is married, and therefore no amount is awarded under this head.
x. Disfiguration (Non-Pecuniary):
43.There is no proof on record that the injuries caused any disfiguration. Hence, no amount is being awarded to the claimant under this head.
xi. Loss of earnings, inconvenience, hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress and unhappiness in future life etc. (Non- Pecuniary):
44. The claimant has not claimed any amount under this head.
45. Thus, the total amount awarded under Non Pecuniary damages is:
(a) Compensation for Mental & Physical shock -Rs 50,000/-
MACT 8/2022 Page. 24 of 36 Shakuntala Devi Vs Jaya Bhardwaj and ors Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date:
Varma 18:29:05 2025.09.22 +0530
(b) Pain & Suffering - Rs 50,000 /-
(c) Loss of amenities - Rs 50,000 /-
(d) Loss of Marriage Prospects - not claimed as petitioner is married
(e) Disfiguration- NIL
(f) Loss of earnings, inconvenience, hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress and unhappiness in future life etc- Not claimed
(g) Total Non Pecuniary damages - Rs 1,50,000/- [(a)+(b)+(c) +(d)+(e)+(f)].
(c) Issue No.3: Relief. i. Amount of Award:
46.Thus, the total amount of award, after adding Pecuniary damages (Rs 6,24,642//-) and Non Pecuniary damages(Rs 1,50,000/-) amounts to Rs 7,74,642/-.
47.Thus, the claimant is awarded as sum of Rs 7,74,642/- along with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. The rate of interest has been calculated in terms of the succeeding paragraphs.
ii. Rate of Interest:
48.It was contended by Ld Counsel for the respondent insurance company that the amount of interest ought to at @7.5%, in accordance with the general prevalent practice in Courts.
MACT 8/2022 Page. 25 of 36
Shakuntala Devi Vs Jaya Bhardwaj and ors Digitally signed
Arul by Arul Varma
Date:
Varma 2025.09.22
18:29:11
+0530
However, Ld Counsel for the claimant sought 9% as the rate of interest.
49.In order to adjudicate these rival claims, recourse can be had to Erudhaya Priya v State Transport Corporation 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601 wherein the aspect of rate of interest was categorically enunciated as thus:
(c) The third and the last aspect is the interest rate claimed as 12% "15.In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has watered down the interest rate during the course of hearing to 9% in view of the judicial pronouncements including in the Jagdish case (supra). On this aspect, once again, there was no serious dispute raised by the learned counsel for the respondent once the claim was confined to 9% in line with the interest rates applied by this Court"
50.Ergo, the amount of compensation/award amount will be payable by the respondent insurance company with simple interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the claim petition/DAR till actual realisation. The date of filing of petition is 24.12.2021 therefore the amount of Interest is calculated @ 9 % from the date of filing of petition i.e. Rs 2,61,298/-. Thus, the total amount of award is Rs 10,35,940/-
51.It is also clarified that in case the interest of petitioner was stopped or excluded during the present inquiry proceedings, same is liable to be adjusted from the total interest calculated on the Award amount. Similarly, amount awarded and MACT 8/2022 Page. 26 of 36 Shakuntala Devi Vs Jaya Bhardwaj and ors Arul Digitally signed by Arul Varma Date: 2025.09.22 Varma 18:29:17 +0530 released as interim Award, if any, during pendency of the case, be deducted from the total compensation.
VI. DEPOSIT OF AWARD& RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT i. Deposit of Award:
52. In terms of the mandate of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) the respondent Insurance Company/driver/owner shall deposit the award amount or transfer the same by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS directly to the bank account of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in UCO Bank, Patiala House Courts within 30 days of the award. The respondent(s) held liable to pay compensation by the Claims Tribunal shall give notice of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant(s) 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 the interest upto the date of notice of deposit to the claimant(s) with a copy to their counsel.
53.Release: In the present matter, the entire amount of compensation awarded be released to the claimant in the bank account of the claimant. The Nodal officer of the bank shall ensure disbursement of the award within 3 weeks of receipt thereof by email or otherwise.
54.The disbursement to the claimant is, however, subject to the addition of future interest till deposit proportionately and also MACT 8/2022 Page. 27 of 36 Shakuntala Devi Vs Jaya Bhardwaj and ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.09.22 18:29:24 +0530 deduction of proportionate tax on the interest amount or amount of interim award, if any, to/from his share.
ii. Disbursement of the award amount & protection thereof:
55.The amount of award shall be disbursed through the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD)Scheme formulated vide order dated 01.05.2018 passed in Rajesh Tyagi(supra). 21 banks, including UCO Bank, is implementing the MACAD scheme.
56.Further, to protect the award amount, the entire amount of compensation is not being released forthwith to the claimant, and part of the compensation amount has been directed to be kept in fixed deposits in a phased manner. Further, the following conditions are hereby reiterated and being imposed upon the concerned bank with respect to the fixed deposits:
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint names to be added in the savings bank account or MACAD scheme account of claimant i.e. the bank account of claimant shall be individual account and not a joint account.
(b) The original fixed deposits shall be retained by the UCO Bank, PHC, New Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR numbers, amounts, dates of maturity and maturity amounts shall be furnished by the said bank to the claimant and the above amount shall be released in account of claimant by the Manager, UCO MACT 8/2022 Page. 28 of 36 Shakuntala Devi Vs Jaya Bhardwaj and ors Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date:
2025.09.22 Varma 18:29:33 +0530 Bank, PHC, ND through RTGS/NEFT/or any other electronic mode.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of his residence.
(d) The maturity amount of the FDR(s) on monthly basis net of TDS be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the above account of the claimant.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the MACAD without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
MACT 8/2022 Page. 29 of 36 Shakuntala Devi Vs Jaya Bhardwaj and ors Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.09.22 18:29:40 +0530
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause above.
VII. LIABILITY
57.There is no statutory defense of Insurance Company. The Insurance Company had also filed a legal offer. All the respondents are though being held jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to petitioner, but respondent no.3 being insurer of offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in bank account being maintained in the above said bank in name of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal within 30 days from today, failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay. In case even after lapse of 90 days from today, respondent no. 3 fails to deposit this compensation with interest, in that event, in light of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal 2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of respondent no. 3 with a cost of Rs.5,000/-
MACT 8/2022 Page. 30 of 36
Shakuntala Devi Vs Jaya Bhardwaj and ors Digitally
signed by
Arul Arul Varma
Date:
Varma 2025.09.22
18:29:47
+0530
58.The respondent no. 3 shall inform the petitioner and his counsel that the awarded amount has been deposited so as to facilitate him to collect the same.
VIII. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES
59.Since this is a case pertaining to injury, particulars of Form-
XVI of the Scheme For Motor Accidents Claims Formulated by the Delhi High Court in terms of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) are as under:
1. Date of accident : 13.11.2018
2. Name of the injured : Shakuntala Devi
3. Age of the injured : 62
4. Occupation of the injured : Home maker
5. Income of the injured : As per Minimum Wages
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by : Yes the injured
8. Period of hospitalization : Multiple times-01.12.2015 to 02.12.2015, 03.12.205 to 08.02.2016 and 27.02.2017 to 06.03.2017
9. Whether any permanent : Yes 15% PPI disability?
10. Computation of Compensation Sr.No. Heads
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment : Rs 66,678 /-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance : Rs 1,00,000 /-
MACT 8/2022 Page. 31 of 36 Shakuntala Devi Vs Jaya Bhardwaj and ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.09.22
18:29:53
+0530
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : Included in (ii) above
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant : Rs 1,06,164/-
(v) Loss of earning capacity : 30%
(vi) Loss of Income : Rs 1,13,484/-.(for 12 months)
12. Non-pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental : Rs 1,50,000/-
and physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering :
(iii) Loss of amenities of life :
(iv) Disfiguration : NIL
(v) Loss of marriage prospects : Nil
(vi) Loss of earning, : Not claimed
inconvenience, hardships,
disappointment,frustration,
mental stress, dejectment
and unhappiness in future
life etc.
13. Disability resulting in
loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability : 15% PPI
assessed 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 : NIL
earning relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income & : Rs 2,38,316
earning capacity
14. Total Compensation Rs 7,74,642/- /-
15. Interest Awarded : Rs 2,61,298/-
MACT 8/2022 Page. 32 of 36
Shakuntala Devi Vs Jaya Bhardwaj and ors Digitally
signed by
Arul Arul Varma
Date:
Varma 2025.09.22
18:30:02
+0530
16. Interest amount up to the : @ 9% per annum date of award
17. Total amount including : Rs 10,35,940/-
interest
18. Award amount released : 100%
19. Award amount kept in the : NIL FDRs/ Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD)
20. Mode of disbursement of : Through Bank the award amount to the petitioner (s)
21. Next date for compliance : 25.10.2025 of the award IX. COMPLIANCE QUA PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME
60.The particulars of Form XVII of the Scheme For Motor Accidents Claims Formulated by the Delhi High Court , in terms of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) are as hereunder:
1. Date of the accident 24.12.2021
2. Date of filing of Form I- First NA Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the NA victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the NA Driver MACT 8/2022 Page. 33 of 36 Shakuntala Devi Vs Jaya Bhardwaj and ors Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.09.22 18:30:10 +0530
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from NA the owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- NA Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and NA Form VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII-Detailed NA Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or No deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Not given Designated Officer by the Insurance Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of No the Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or No deficiencies on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the Legal offer filed but was not petitioner(s) of the offer of the accepted by the petitioner. Insurance Company.
14. Date of the Award
15. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes.
directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
MACT 8/2022 Page. 34 of 36 Shakuntala Devi Vs Jaya Bhardwaj and ors Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.09.22 18:30:17 +0530
16. Date of order by which petitioner(s) 24.12.2021 were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the petitioner (s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17. Date on which the petitioner(s) Not furnished produced the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of As mentioned above the petitioner(s)
19. Whether the petitioner(s) savings Yes.
bank account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes.
examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
61.Further, in terms of the directions given vide order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra), the Ahlmad shall send a certified copy of this award to the concerned Criminal Court and to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority through e- mail. Copy of the award be also sent to the bank concerned. The Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given in the above case.
MACT 8/2022 Page. 35 of 36 Shakuntala Devi Vs Jaya Bhardwaj and ors Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.09.22 18:30:30 +0530
62.File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance report and be put up on 25.10.2025.
Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.09.22 Announced in the open court on 22.09.2025 18:30:37 +0530 (Arul Varma) Judge/PO, MACT-02, New Delhi/22.09.2025 DLND010096862021 MACT 8/2022 Page. 36 of 36 Shakuntala Devi Vs Jaya Bhardwaj and ors