Prashant Malik vs Raju@ Jhalla on 9 May, 2025

May 13, 2025

Delhi District Court

Prashant Malik vs Raju@ Jhalla on 9 May, 2025

IN THE COURT OF HARVINDER SINGH: DISTRICT
JUDGE-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-01, (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI

AWARD/JUDGMENT

PETITION NO.01

MACT Case No.1314/2022
CNR No.-DLWT010104002022

Prashant Malik
S/o Sh. Satender Malik
R/o Village Baudot,
PS Baudot District Bagpat, UP
..........Petitioner
Vs.

1. Raju @ Jhalla (Driver)
S/o Sh. Darbari
R/o VPO Parnala Bahadur Garh Haryana

2. M/s Tara Footwear Pvt. Ltd. (Owner)
nd
C-183, Phase 2 Maya Puri Industrial Area,
Mayapuri, Delhi

3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
J-129, Kirti Nagar, Delhi.
......... Respondent(s)

AND

HARVINDER Digitally signed by HARVINDER
SINGH

SINGH Date: 2025.05.09 17:14:46
+0530
PETITION NO.02

MACT Case No.1315/2022
CNR No.-DLWT010103992022

Ankit Dalal
S/o Sh. Ajay Veer Dalal
R/o H. No. 24/455, Barahi Road,
Bahadur Garh, Haryana
..........Petitioner
Vs.

1. Raju @ Jhalla (Driver)
S/o Sh. Darbari
R/o VPO Parnala Bahadur Garh Haryana

2. M/s Tara Footwear Pvt. Ltd. (Owner)
nd
C-183, Phase 2 Maya Puri Industrial Area,
Mayapuri, Delhi

3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
J-129, Kirti Nagar, Delhi.
......... Respondent(s)

AND

PETITION NO.03

MACT Case No.1316/2022
CNR No.DLWT010103972022

HARVINDER Digitally signed by HARVINDER
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.09 17:14:50 +0530
Brijesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Raj Pal
R/o Village Samshabad, PS Samshabad,
District Farukabad, UP
..........Petitioner
Vs.

1. Raju @ Jhalla (Driver)
S/o Sh. Darbari
R/o VPO Parnala Bahadur Garh Haryana

2. M/s Tara Footwear Pvt. Ltd. (Owner)
nd
C-183, Phase 2 Maya Puri Industrial Area,
Mayapuri, Delhi

3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
J-129, Kirti Nagar, Delhi.
......... Respondent(s)

AND

PETITION NO.04

MACT Case No.1318/2022
CNR No.DLWT010103982022

Bhullan Kumar
S/o Sh. Subha Ram
R/o VPO Nagra PS Nagra District Balia, UP

..........Petitioner

Versus

2. M/s Tara Footwear Pvt. Ltd. (Owner)
nd
C-183, Phase 2 Maya Puri Industrial Area,
Mayapuri, Delhi

3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
J-129, Kirti Nagar, Delhi.
......... Respondent(s)

AND

Date of Institution of case : 29.10.2022
Date of final arguments : 06.05.2025
Date of pronouncement of order/judgment : 08.05.2025
FORM-XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE

1. Date of the accident 30.06.2022
2. Date of filing of Form-I - 29.10.2022
First Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to 29.10.2022
the victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III 29.10.2022
from the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV 29.10.2022
from the Owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- 29.10.2022
Interim Accident Report
(IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA 29.10.2022
and Form-VIB from the
Victim(s)

HARVINDER Digitally signed by
HARVINDER SINGH

SINGH Date: 2025.05.09 17:15:07
+0530
issue any cheque book/debit
card to the claimant(s) and
make an endorsement to this
effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) 08.05.2025
produced the passbook of
their savings bank account
near the place of their
residence along-with the
endorsement, PAN Card and
Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential H. No. 24/455, Barahi Road,
Address of the claimant(s). Bahadur Garh, Haryana
19. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
savings bank account(s) is/are
near his/her/their place of
residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
was/were examined at the
time of passing of the award
to ascertain his/her/their
financial condition?

FACTUAL POSITION & PLEADINGS
1. Vide this judgment/award, this Tribunal shall decide
DARs filed for compensation on account of the injuries sustained
by injured Prashant Malik, Ankit Dalal, Brijesh Kumar and
Bhullan Kumar in a road vehicular accident which took place on
30.06.2022 at about 3:00 AM at Maypuri Flyover, Chowk.
CASE OF THE PETITIONER SIDE
2. Succinctly, the case put forth vide DARs is that on
30.06.2022, injured Prashant Malik, Ankit along with one Sh.
Amit Kadyan were travelling from Jhandelwan to Gurugram on

Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.09
17:15:13 +0530
Hyundai Creta Car bearing registration no. HR13R6218. At
about 3;00 AM, when they reached at Mayapuri Flyover Chowk,
in the meantime, a Canter bearing registration no. DL1LY0787
came from Mayapuri side in fast speed, in rash manner and in
negligent manner. It hit their car on its driver side. The car of
Prashant Malik, Ankit Dalal and Amit Kadyan struck with
divider due to same. The canter over turned. Both vehicles caught
fire. In the incident, the petitioner Prashant Malik, Ankit Dalal
who were traveling in the car and Brijesh along with Bhullan
Kumar who were traveling in the Canter bearing registration no.
DL1LY0787 driven by respondent no.1 sustained injuries.
Incident happened due to negligence of respondent no.1 who was
driving the canter in rash and negligent manner. FIR No.
388/2022 under Section 279/337/338 IPC was registered against
respondent no.1. The respondent no.01 being driver, respondent
no.2 being the owner and respondent no.03 being the insurer of
offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to the petitioner(s)/injureds.
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS
3. Notice of the DARs was issued to the respondents
on which they appeared and respondent no.2 & respondent no.3
filed their WS(s)/reply(ies) to the present petition/application.
RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT NO.01
4. No WS was filed by respondent no.1 despite grant
of number of opportunities.
RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT NO.02
5. In gist, the response of the respondent no.02 as

1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1314/2022
2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1315/2022
3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1316/2022
4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1318/2022 Page no.7 of 59
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.09
17:15:17 +0530
discernible from its reply/written statement is that respondent
no.2 has provided vehicle in question to one Sh. Bal Bahadur on
contract basis. Sh. Bal Bahadur had under taken all
responsibilities of the vehicle. Incident took place due to
negligence of driver of car bearing registration No. HR13R6218.
Respondent no.1 was having valid driving license to drive the
vehicle in question. Vehicle in question was duly insured with
respondent no.3 at the time of incident. It denied all other
averments of the DARs and prayed for dismissal of the present
DARs.
RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT NO.03
6. In gist, the response of the respondent no.03 as
discernible from its reply/written statement is that the DARs are
bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Vehicle bearing
registration no. DL1LY0787 was insured with it vide policy
No.12220031210150160021 for period 30.03.2022 to
29.03.2023. As per permit verification report filed along with
DAR, offending vehicle was not having valid national permit at
the time of incident. Respondent no.1 was also not holding any
valid driving license to drive the offending vehicle. It denied all
other averments of the DARs and prayed for their dismissal.
ISSUES
7.1(a) After completion of pleadings, on 08.02.2023,
following issues were framed in Petition no.01: -
1. Whether the injured namely Prashant
Malik suffered injuries in the accident that
took place on 30.06.2022 at about 3:00 am at
Maya Puri Chowk, Ring Road, Kirti Nagar,

Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.09
17:15:19 +0530
Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of
offending vehicle (TATA Canter) bearing
registration number DL1LY0787 by
respondent no.1, being owned by respondent
no.2 and insured with respondent no.3? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner(s)/applicant(s)
is/are entitled to compensation, if yes, of
what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.

7.1(b) following issues were framed in Petition no.02: -

1. Whether the injured namely Ankit Dalal
suffered injuries in the accident that took
place on 30.06.2022 at about 3:00 am at
Maya Puri Chowk, Ring Road, Kirti Nagar,
Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of
offending vehicle (TATA Canter) bearing
registration number DL1LY0787 by
respondent no.1, being owned by respondent
no.2 and insured with respondent no.3? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner(s)/applicant(s)
is/are entitled to compensation, if yes, of
what amount and from whom? OPP
3.Relief.

7.1(c) following issues were framed in Petition no.03: -

1. Whether the injured namely Brijesh
Kumar suffered injuries in the accident that
took place on 30.06.2022 at about 3:00 am at
Maya Puri Chowk, Ring Road, Kirti Nagar,
Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of
offending vehicle (TATA Canter) bearing
registration number DL1LY0787 by
respondent no.1, being owned by respondent
no.2 and insured with respondent no.3? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner(s)/applicant(s)

Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.09
17:15:23 +0530
is/are entitled to compensation, if yes, of
what amount and from whom? OPP
3.Relief.

7.1(d) following issues were framed in Petition no.04: -

1. Whether the injured namely Bhullan
Kumar suffered injuries in the accident that
took place on 30.06.2022 at about 3:00 am at
Maya Puri Chowk, Ring Road, Kirti Nagar,
Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of
offending vehicle (TATA Canter) bearing
registration number DL1LY0787 by
respondent no.1, being owned by respondent
no.2 and insured with respondent no.3? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner(s)/applicant(s)
is/are entitled to compensation, if yes, of
what amount and from whom? OPP
3.Relief.

7.2 Thereafter, matter was fixed for evidence of
petitioners/injured persons. Matters were clubbed together for
recording of evidence vide orders dated 21.03.2022 in MACT
petition No. 1314/2022 and Sh. Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate was
appointed as Court Commissioner for recording of evidence of
all these matters.
7.3 Sh. Ashutosh Shukla filed his report after recording
of evidence that only petitioner Prashant Malik and Ankit Dalal
have recorded their evidence. No evidence has been led by
injured Brijesh Kumar and injured Bhullan Kumar. The

1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1314/2022
2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1315/2022
3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1316/2022
4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1318/2022 Page no.10 of 59
Digitally signed
by HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.09
17:15:26 +0530
respondent Insurance Company has examined three witnesses
namely Sh. Suneel Kumar, License Clerk from Licencing
Authority-cum-SDO (C) Bahadurgarh, Haryana, Sh. Deshraj,
Junior Assistant from State Transport Authority, Delhi and Sh.
Rahul Kumar Upadhyay, its Assistant Manager.
EVIDENCE OF PETITIONER PRASHANT MALIK
8. Petitioner Prashant Malik has examined himself as
PW1 to establish his claim. He tendered his evidence by way of
affidavit Ex.PW1/1 reiterating and supporting the contents of
his/her/their application/petition. He relied upon his MLC
Ex.CW1A, medical bills Ex.CW1B, pay slip Ex. CW1C and
DAR Ex.CW1D in his evidence. He was examined and
discharged.
EVIDENCE OF PETITION ANKIT DALAL
9. Petitioner Ankit Dalal also examined himself as
PW1 to establish his claim. He tendered his evidence by way of
affidavit Ex.PW1/A reiterating and supporting the contents of
his/her/their application/petition. He relied upon copy of his
Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/1 and salary slip Ex.PW1/2 in his
evidence. He was examined and discharged.
RESPONDENT SIDE EVIDENCE
10.1 Respondent no.3/Insurance Company examined Sh.
Suneel Kumar, License Clerk from Licencing Authority-cum-
SDO (C) Bahadurgarh, Haryana as R3W1 who brought on record
the records of DL bearing No.HR 1320190002224 of
Raju/respondent no.1. He has deposed that driving license of
respondent no.1 was not valid for transport vehicle on

Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.09
17:15:29 +0530
30.06.2022. He exhibited the extracts of driving license of
respondent no.1 as Ex.R3W1/2 on record. He was examined and
discharged.
10.2 Respondent Insurance Company further examined
Sh.Deshraj, Junior Assistant from State Transport Authority,
Delhi as R3W2 who brought on record the permit records of
vehicle bearing registration no. DL1LY0787. He has deposed that
as per records, vehicle in question had no permit on the date of
incident i.e. 30.06.2022. He exhibited the records of permit as
Ex.R3W1/1 in his evidence. He was examined and discharged.
10.3 Respondent Insurance company further examined
Sh. Rahul Kumar Upadhyay, its Assistant Manager as R3W3
who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.R3W3/A vide
which he in gist has deposed that the permit of vehicle in
question bearing registration no. DL1LY0787 had expired on
28.04.2022. It was renewed only on 01.07.2022. The vehicle in
question had no valid permit at the time of incident. The
driver/respondent no.1 had no valid driving license to drive the
offending vehicle at the time of incident. Their insurance
company issued notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC to driver and
owner to produce the permit and driving license but in vain. He
exhibited notice sent by their counsel as Ex.R3W3/1, postal
receipts as Ex.R3W3/2, proof of delivery of notice as
Ex.R3W3/3, copy of insurance policy as Ex.R3W3/4, copy of
driving license of respondent no.1 as Ex.R3W3/5 and copy of
permit of vehicle as Ex.R3W3/6 in his evidence. He was
examined and discharged.

1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1314/2022
2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1315/2022
3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1316/2022
4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1318/2022 Page no.12 of 59
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.09
17:15:32 +0530
10.4 No other evidence was led by any of the
respondents.
FINAL ARGUMENTS/SUBMISSIONS/CONTENTIONS
11.1 Submissions/contentions of the petitioner side are
that the petitioner side has positively proved that the incident
took place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent
no.01. The injured Prashant Malik sustained grievous injuries in
the incident in question and further suffered disability in the
incident in question. Award may be passed by this Tribunal as per
entitlement/claim of applicants/petitioners/injureds.
11.2 Submissions/contentions of the respondent no.01 &
02 are that the petitioner(s)/claimant(s) has/have failed to prove
that incident took place due to rash and negligent driving of
respondent no.1. Incident incident happened due to rash and
negligent driving of driver of creta Car bearing registration No.
HR13R6218, therefore, DAR be rejected.
11.3 Submissions/contentions of the respondent no.03 are
that the petitioner(s)/claimant(s) has/have failed to prove that
incident took place due to rash and negligent driving of
respondent no.1. Petitioners/injured persons have failed to prove
their income and loss of income due to incident. Respondent no.1
had no driving license to drive the vehicle in question on the date
and time of incident. Vehicle in question had no valid permit at
the time of incident. Respondent no.3 be exonerated, if this court
comes to conclusion that incident happened due to negligence of
respondent no.1. With these contentions, respondent no.03 has
prayed for dismissal of the claims.

Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.09
17:15:34 +0530
ANALYSIS/FINDINGS ON ISSUES
12.1 Issue No.(1) of all four matters.

12.2 Before adverting to the facts of the present DAR for
deciding the above issue, at the very outset, it would be apposite
to note here that the procedure followed by an accident claim
tribunal is similar to what is followed by a civil court. In civil
matters the facts are required to be established by way of
preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of
evidence or beyond reasonable doubt as is required in a criminal
prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is not as heavy as
it is in a criminal case and in a claim petition under the M. V. Act,
this burden is even lesser than a civil case. Reference in this
regard can be made to the prepositions of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of "Bimla Devi and
others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors. "
reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the
subsequent judgments in the case of "Parmeshwari Vs. Amir
Chand and Ors." 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of
2011) and "Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. &
Ors.", 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc.
12.3 Now keeping in mind the aforesaid legal
principle/preposition for decision of the present issue, this
Tribunal has gone through the testimony of the witnesses and
entire material available on record. This Tribunal has also given
thoughtful consideration to arguments addressed by Ld. Counsels
for the parties.

Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.09
17:15:37 +0530
12.4 In this matter to prove the rashness and negligence of
driving of offending vehicle by respondent no.1, the petitioner
Prashant Malik and Ankit Dalal have deposed that on the day of
incident, they along with Amit Kadyan were going to Gurugram in
Creta Car bearing registration no. HR13R6218 driven by petitioner
Ankit Dalal. At about 3:00 am, when they reached at Mayapuri
Flyover Chowk, their vehicle was hit by vehicle bearing
registration no. DL1LY0787 driven by respondent no.1. Due to
same, their vehicle struck against the divider. Both vehicles
caught fire. All of them sustained injuries. The incident happened
due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. Petitioner
Prashant Malik denied suggestion in his cross-examination that
their vehicle hit the divider on its own. Nothing supporting the
case of the respondents as to manner of incident or negligence
came on record in lengthy and skillful cross-examination done of
said witnesses by respondent side.
12.5 The respondent no.01/driver was the best witness
who could have rebutted the case of rashness and negligence of
driving of the offending vehicle put forth by claimants. But
respondent no.01/driver has chosen not to come in witness box to
disprove the case of the petitioner side on said aspect. In the
given circumstances, adverse inference also needs to be drawn
against respondents. Reliance can be placed upon the decision
"Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Kamlesh" 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310 upon said issue/aspect.
12.6 In totality of circumstances, this Tribunal is of the
opinion that the claimant side has been able to bring on record

Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.09
17:15:39 +0530
such facts which establishes at the scales required that the
incident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving
of offending vehicle bearing registration number DL1LY0787 by
its driver/respondent no.01 on the date and time of the incident.
Accordingly, issue no.01 of all four matters is decided in favour
of the petitioner(s)/claimant(s)/applicant(s)/injureds and against
the respondents.
Issue No. (ii) of Petition No.01 (Prashant Malik vs. Raju @
Jhalla)
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if yes, of
what amount and from whom? OPP.
13.1 The petitioner/injured Prashant Malik is certainly
entitled for compensation in view of decision of above issue.
Before proceeding further to decide the present issue, it would be
apposite to encapsulate the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in its guiding lamp post judgment for ascertaining
just compensation in road vehicular injury cases.
13.2 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its division
bench decision in matter of "Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors."
(2011) 1 SCC 343 has held : -
"General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
4. The provision of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for
short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means
that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and
adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the
accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the
loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do
so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The Court or
tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and
exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though
some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its
consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be
compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which

Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.09
17:15:41 +0530
he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be
compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to
enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but
for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to
earn or could have earned. ( See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T.
Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest
Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs.
Willoughby - 1970 AC 467).
5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal
injury cases are the following :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines,
transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would
have made had he not been injured, comprising :
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of
the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life
(shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded
only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of
injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating
the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted
under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss
of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future
medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of
marriage) and loss of expectation of life. Assessment of
pecuniary damages under item (i) and under item (ii)(a) do not
pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals
and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the
head of future medical expenses - item (iii) -- depends upon
specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment
and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages - items
(iv), (v) and (vi) -- involves determination of lump sum amounts
with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of
injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the
effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decision of this
Court and High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award
under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some
difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on
account of permanent disability - item (ii)(a). We are concerned
with that assessment in this case. Assessment of future loss of
1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1314/2022
2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1315/2022
3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1316/2022
4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1318/2022 Page no.17 of 59
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.09
17:15:43 +0530
earnings due to permanent disability.
6. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform
an activity in the manner considered normal for a human-being.
Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of
use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the
period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the
maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to
remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary
disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of
the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at
the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent
disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent
disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties
and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident,
though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to
engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability
refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or
employment related activities as a result of the accident. The
permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accidents
injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the
physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995 (`Disabilities Act' for short). But if any
of the disabilities enumerated in section 2(i) of the Disabilities
Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they
can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming
compensation.
7. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the
Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than
not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability
certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent
disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the
same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole
body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body)
expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that
limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability
of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the
right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not
mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to
the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different
parts of the body have suffered different percentages of
disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the
permanent disability with reference to the whole body, cannot
obviously exceed 100%.
8. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result
of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of
loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and
1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1314/2022
2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1315/2022
3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1316/2022
4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1318/2022 Page no.18 of 59
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.09
17:15:47 +0530
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). We may however note that in some cases, on
appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find
that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the
permanent disability, is approximately the same as the
percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the
Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of
compensation (see for example, the decisions of this court in
Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd . -
2010(10) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National
Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567).
9. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is
any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent
disability. This means that the tribunal should consider and
decide with reference to the evidence: (i) whether the
disablement is permanent or temporary; (ii) if the disablement is
permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or
permanent partial disablement, (iii) if the disablement
percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then
the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of
the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by the
person. If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent
disability then there is no question of proceeding further and
determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the
Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will
proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the
actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on
1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1314/2022
2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1315/2022
3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1316/2022
4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1318/2022 Page no.19 of 59

Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.09
17:15:49 +0530
the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such
permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning
capacity.
10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on
the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal
has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on
in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as
a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for
awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of
life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession
and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The
third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally
disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in
spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still
effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was
earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or
restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions,
but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and
functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his
livelihood. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is
amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement
may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a
carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be
hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry.
On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government
service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of
employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could
perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of
earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or
carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but
far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any
compensation under the head of `loss of future earnings', if the
claimant continues in government service, though he may be
awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a
consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant
may be continued in service, but may not found suitable for
discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was
earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore
be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser
emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award
under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of
the reduced earning capacity. It may be noted that when
compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning
capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to
award compensation separately under the head of loss of
amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a
result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded
1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1314/2022
2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1315/2022
3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1316/2022
4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1318/2022 Page no.20 of 59

Digitally signed by
HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.09
17:15:52 +0530
under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life,
as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of
compensation. Be that as it may."

13.3 In view of the above law laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India, in routine injury cases, award needs to
be passed only under heads of medical expenses, loss of earning
during treatment period and damages for pain, suffering and
trauma. In cases of serious injuries, where there is specific
medical evidence corroborating the claim/evidence of the
claimant, award additionally needs to be passed under the heads
of loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability
suffered, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (including
loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. The
assessment of future medical expenses would depend upon
specific medical evidence/advise for further treatment and costs
thereof. The determination of damages on account of pain and
suffering, loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life would
depend upon the age of victim, nature of
injury(ies)/deprivation/disability suffered by victim and the effect
thereof on life of claimant. The process would involve
determination/assessment of lump-sum amounts under those
heads. In case of assessment of loss of future earnings on
account of permanent disability, the Tribunal needs to first
ascertain whether the disability noted/assessed by the medical
board is temporary or permanent in nature. If the disability is
permanent in nature, then whether it is a total permanent
disablement or partial permanent disablement. If the disablement

1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1314/2022
2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1315/2022
3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1316/2022
4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1318/2022 Page no.21 of 59
Digitally signed
by HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.09
17:15:54 +0530
has been referred/expressed in percentage terms, in reference to
any specific limb then the effect of such disablement of the limb
on the function of entire body. Once, the permanent disability is
ascertained, then the Tribunal needs to determine whether such
permanent disability has affected or will affect the earning
capacity of the claimant. To ascertain same, the Tribunal needs
to ascertain the avocation, profession and nature of work of the
claimant before the incident. The Tribunal also needs to
ascertain his age and then needs to ascertain what activities the
claimant could carry on in spite of permanent disability and what
he could not do as result of same. The Tribunal then also needs
to ascertain whether the claimant is totality disabled from earning
any kind of livelihood or whether in spite of the permanent
disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on activities
and functions which he was carrying on earlier or whether the
claimant is prevented or restricted from discharging his previous
activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser
scale of activities and functions to earn or can continue to earn
his livelihood despite permanent disability suffered. After
ascertaining the functional disability vide above process, then
Tribunal needs to workout the loss of earning capacity per month.
The Tribunal is thereafter required to workout loss of earning
capacity per annum. An appropriate multiplier needs to be
ascertained as per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in matter of "Sarla Verma Vs. DTC" 2009 ACJ 1298 SC
according to age of the injured/victim. The total loss of earning
capacity then needs to be worked out multiplying appropriate

Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.09
17:15:57 +0530
multiplier ascertained with ascertained annual loss of earning
capacity. This is a case where permanent disability is claimed
and compensation is also demanded qua future loss of earnings
on account of permanent disability, 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.
DETERMINATION OF INJURIES AND DURATION OF
TREATMENT
13.4 It would be appropriate to first ascertain the nature
of injuries suffered by the injured/claimant and duration of
treatment as they need to be kept in mind while ascertaining the
compensation under different heads applicable. As per MLC
issued by Max Heathcare Ex.CW1A, injured has suffered
grievous injuries in the incident. He was admitted in Max
Healthcare on 30.06.2022 and was discharged on 04.07.2022.
DETERMINATION OF AGE OF CLAIMANT/INJURED &
MULTIPLIER
13.5 The age of the claimant/injured would also be an
essential consideration for grant of just compensation under
different heads applicable in the present matter, so claimant's age
also needs to be ascertained first. As per Aadhar card of injured
available on record, date of birth of the injured is 10.04.1995 and
the incident took place on 30.06.2022, so the injured/petitioner is
taken to be 27 years of age at the time of incident/accident.
Since, he falls in age bracket of 26 to 30 years, so, multiplier
applicable to this case would be 17.

Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.09
17:16:00 +0530
DETERMINATION OF EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION
13.6 No documentary proof has been filed by the
petitioner side to show his educational qualification.
DETERMINATION OF MEDICAL EXPENSES
13.7 The petitioner has filed medical bills as Ex.CW 1B
on record. Original medical bills placed on record by the
petitioner and paid by him comes out to be of Rs.70,276/-.
Hence, injured/petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs. 70,276/- on
account of medical bills/expenses. Accordingly, petitioner is
awarded Rs.70,276/- on account of medical expenses.
AWARD TOWARDS FUTURE TREATMENT
13.8 Petitioner has claimed amount for removal of
implant. Petitioner has not filed any estimate of expenditure of
removal of implant. Considering the fact that implant certainly
needs to be removed after passage of some time, an amount of
Rs.50,000/- is awarded for its removal.
PAIN & SUFFERINGS
13.9 A particular amount cannot be fixed of pain and
sufferings applicable to all cases as it varies from case to case.
Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that since the petitioner
has received serious injuries, therefore, petitioner must have
suffered acute pain and sufferings owing to the said injuries.
Considering the nature of injuries, duration of the treatment of
the petitioner in the hospital and the disability(ies) suffered by
the injured/petitioner as mentioned in the disability certificate,
this Tribunal hereby grant compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-
towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.

1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1314/2022
2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1315/2022
3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1316/2022
4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1318/2022 Page no.24 of 59
Digitally signed
by HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.09
17:16:03 +0530
DETERMINATION OF INCOME OF
INJURED/PETITIONER
13.10(i) The injured/petitioner/claimant has claimed that he
was working as Enterprise Sales Manager with SRP US Logistics
Pvt. Ltd. and used to get salary of Rs.3,07,662/- per month. In
order to prove his salary, injured has filed on record pay slip
Ex.CW1C(colly). As per salary slip for the month of June 2022,
injured was drawing basic pay of Rs.47,674/-, HRA of
Rs.19,070/-, Special Allowance of Rs.12,056/- and incentive of
Rs.2,28,862/-. Hence, the income of injured needs to be
considered as Rs.66,744/- (Basic Pay of Rs.47,674/- + HRA of
Rs.19,070/-) per month at the time of incident.
DETERMINATION OF LOSS OF INCOME DURING
TREATMENT PERIOD
13.10(ii) Petitioner/injured in his evidence has deposed
that he has not received two months incentives due to injuries
sustained in the incident in question. However, injured in his
cross-examination has deposed that he got 02 months basic salary
after the incident. Hence, injured is hereby granted
compensation of Rs. 4,57,724/- (Rs.2,28,862/- x 2) towards loss
of incentives during treatment period.
DETERMINATION OF LOSS OF FUTURE EARNINGS
13.11 This Tribunal has received the disability certificate
of the petitioner from Guru Gobind Singh Government Hospital,
Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi. In the disability certificate, it has
been specifically mentioned that the petitioner has suffered 13%
permanent disability in relation to right lower limb & left upper

1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1314/2022
2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1315/2022
3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1316/2022
4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1318/2022 Page no.25 of 59
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.09
17:16:05 +0530
limb.
ASSESSMENT OF FUNCTIONAL DISABILITY
13.12 The injured/petitioner has claimed that he was doing
private job at time of incident. The age of victim has been
ascertained as 27 years at the time of incident. The permanent
disability is 13% in relation to right lower limb & left upper limb.
It is claimed that the same would result in total
preventing/hampering the injured/claimant in carrying on the
activity which he was carrying on earlier. In the opinion of this
Tribunal, the same should be considered to have significant effect
of functional disability in relation to claimed work of sales
Manager of the petitioner/claimant or other
job/avocation/profession which could be taken by the
petitioner/claimant in future and in any day to day activities. He
would certain face difficulty in sitting cross-legs, climbing etc.
Hence, the functional disability of petitioner needs to be
considered as 07% at least.
DETERMINATION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS APPLICABLE
13.13 The injured was aged less than 40 years at the time
of incident and had no permanent job, so the future
prospects/benefits applicable to the present case would be 40%.
ASSESSMENT/DETERMINATION OF ENHANCED
MONTHLY INCOME
13.14 As has already been held, income of injured as
Rs.66,744/- would be applicable in this case and an addition of
40% needs to be made qua future prospects. Accordingly, the
monthly income of the injured needs to be taken as Rs. 93,442/-
1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1314/2022
2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1315/2022
3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1316/2022
4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.
MACT No.1318/2022 Page no.26 of 59

Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.09
17:16:09 +0530
(after rounding off Rs.93,441.6/-)(Rs.66,744/- + Rs.26,697.6/-
which is 40% of Rs.66,744/-).
LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY/LOSS OF FUTURE
EARNING
13.15 The total loss of earning capacity/loss of future
earning would come out to be Rs.13,34,352/- (rounding off
Rs.13,34,351.76/-) (Rs.93,442/-x 12 x 17 x 07/100). Hence, so
awarded.
AWARD TOWARDS LOSS OF AMENITIES OF LIFE
13.16 Considering the age of the injured, the nature of
injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner, the disability
certificate of claimant/injured, the duration of treatment of
claimant/injured and the fact that the permanent disability
suffered by claimant/injured may hamper to some extent in
driving vehicles, climibing, sports activities etc., this Tribunal
hereby grant compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of loss of
amenities of life.
AWARD TOWARDS LOSS OF EXPECTATION OF LIFE
13.17 Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the
injured/petitioner, duration of his treatment and disability(ies)
suffered, this Tribunal hereby grant compensation of Rs.50,000/-
on account of loss of expectation of life.
AWARD QUA SPECIAL DIET
13.18 Though, there is no cogent evidence on record of
money spent by the petitioner upon special diet, yet considering
the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner and
duration of treatment in the hospitals, this Tribunal is of the

S.No Heads of Compensation Amount
.

1. Reimbursement of medical Rs.70,276/-

expenses

2. Compensation on account of Rs.50,000/-

future treatment

3. Pain and Suffering Rs.1,50,000/-

4. Loss of income during Rs.4,57,724/-

               treatment     period/loss  of
               incentive
      5.       Loss of earning capacity/loss              Rs.13,34,352/-
               of future earning

1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1314/2022

2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1315/2022

3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1316/2022

4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

           MACT No.1318/2022                                     Page no.28 of 59

                                                                 Digitally signed by
                                                     HARVINDER   HARVINDER SINGH
                                                     SINGH       Date: 2025.05.09
                                                                 17:16:15 +0530
       6.       Loss of amenities of life                          Rs.50,000/-
      7.       Loss of expectation of life                        Rs.50,000/-
      8.       Special diet                                       Rs.20,000/-
      9.       Attendant charges                                  Rs.20,000/-
     10.       Conveyance                                         Rs.29,900/-
                            Total                                Rs.22,32,252/-

 RELIEF:-
 14.                   This          Tribunal        hereby   pass   an      award           of

Rs.22,32,252/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand
Two Hundred and Fifty Two Only) as compensation with interest
at the rate of 7% per annum including interim award, if any from
the date of filing the DAR/claim petition i.e. 29.10.2022 till the
date of the payment of the award amount, in favour of petitioner
Prashant Malik and against the respondents.
Issue No. (ii) of Petition No.02 (Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla)

(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if yes, of
what amount and from whom? OPP.

15. Keeping in mind the discussions of para no. 13.1,
13.2 & 13.3 and the fact that the petitioner/injured Ankit Dalal
has not suffered any disability in this matter, this Tribunal
proceed further step by step to decide the compensation/award
under different heads applicable to the case of petitioner/injured
Ankit Dalal.

DETERMINATION OF INJURIES AND DURATION OF
TREATMENT
16.1 It would be appropriate to first ascertain the nature
of injuries suffered by the injured/claimant Ankit Dalal and
duration of treatment as they needs to be kept in mind while

1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1314/2022

2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1315/2022

3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1316/2022

4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

           MACT No.1318/2022                                              Page no.29 of 59
                                                                      Digitally signed by
                                                     HARVINDER        HARVINDER SINGH
                                                     SINGH            Date: 2025.05.09
                                                                      17:16:19 +0530

ascertaining the compensation under different heads applicable.
As per MLC of injured issued by Deen Dayal Upadhyay
Hospital, New Delhi, the injured has suffered simple injuries in
the incident.

DETERMINATION OF MEDICAL EXPENSES
16.2 No medical bills/invoices have been furnished by
the petitioner. Hence, he is not entitled for the same.
AWARD TOWARDS FUTURE TREATMENT
16.3 Petitioner has not claimed any amount required for
future treatment. Petitioner has also not filed any
document/medical evidence on record to show that petitioner
requires any future treatment, hence, petitioner is not entitled for
any amount under this head.

PAIN & SUFFERINGS
16.4 A particular amount cannot be fixed of pain and
sufferings applicable to all cases as it varies from case to case.
Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that since the petitioner
has received number of serious injuries, therefore, petitioner
must have suffered acute pain and sufferings owing to the said
injuries. Considering the nature of injuries, duration of the
treatment of the petitioner in the hospital and the temporary
disability(ies) suffered by the injured/petitioner as mentioned in
the disability certificate, this Tribunal hereby grant compensation
of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
DETERMINATION OF LOSS OF INCOME DURING
TREATMENT PERIOD
16.5(i) The injured/petitioner/claimant has claimed that he

1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1314/2022

2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1315/2022

3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1316/2022

4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

        MACT No.1318/2022                                                 Page no.30 of 59

                                                                            Digitally signed by
                                                      HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
                                                      SINGH     Date: 2025.05.09
                                                                17:16:23 +0530

was working as Enterprise Sales Executive with SRP US
Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and used to get salary of Rs.27,000/- per
month. In order to prove his salary, injured has filed on record
pay slip Ex.PW1/2. As per salary slip for the month of June 2022,
injured was drawing basic pay of Rs.16,335/-, HRA of Rs.6534/-,
Special Allowance of Rs.4131/-. Hence, the income of injured
needs to be considered as Rs.22,869/- (Basic Pay of Rs.16335/-
+ HRA of Rs.6534/-) per month at the time of incident.
16.5(ii) Considering the nature of injuries and duration of
the treatment of the injured/petitioner, this tribunal is of the
opinion that injured/petitioner must have not been able to work
for about 01 months. Accordingly, this tribunal hereby grant
compensation of sum of Rs.22,869/- (Rs.22,869/- x 01) towards
loss of income during treatment period.
AWARD QUA SPECIAL DIET
16.6 Though, there is no cogent evidence on record of
money spent by the petitioner upon special diet, yet considering
the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner and
duration of his treatment in the hospitals, this Tribunal is of the
opinion that petitioner must have spent some money under this
head. Hence, this Tribunal hereby grant compensation of
Rs.2,000/- towards expenses incurred on special diet.
AWARD TOWARDS ATTENDANT CHARGES
16.7 Though, there is no cogent evidence on record for
the money spent by the petitioner upon attendant, yet considering
the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner and the duration
of the treatment of the petitioner in the hospital, this tribunal is of

1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1314/2022

2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1315/2022

3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1316/2022

4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

        MACT No.1318/2022                                            Page no.31 of 59
                                                                  Digitally signed
                                                                  by HARVINDER
                                                    HARVINDER     SINGH
                                                    SINGH         Date: 2025.05.09
                                                                  17:16:26 +0530

the opinion that petitioner must have spent some money under
this head also. Hence, this Tribunal hereby grant compensation
of Rs.2,000/- towards attendant charges.
AWARD TOWARDS CONVEYANCE CHARGES
16.8 Though there is no cogent evidence on record of
money spent by the petitioner upon conveyance, yet considering
the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner, this
Tribunal is of the opinion that the injured/petitioner must have
been spent some money under this head. Hence, this Tribunal
hereby grant compensation of Rs.2,000/- towards expenses
incurred on conveyance.

IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THIS TRIBUNAL
AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS TABULATED HEREIN
BELOW : –

S.No. Heads of Compensation Amount in Rupees

1. Reimbursement of medical NIL
expenses

2. Compensation on account of NIl
future treatment

3. Pain and Suffering 5,000/-

4. Conveyance 2,000/-

5. Special diet 2,000/-

6. Attendant charges 2,000/-

7. Loss of Income during 22,869/-

treatment period
Total Rs.33,869/-

RELIEF:-

17. This Tribunal hereby pass an award of Rs.33,869/-
(Rupees Thirty Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Nine
Only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 7% per annum

1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1314/2022

2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1315/2022

3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1316/2022

4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

           MACT No.1318/2022                                        Page no.32 of 59
                                                                    Digitally signed by
                                                     HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
                                                     SINGH     Date: 2025.05.09
                                                               17:16:30 +0530

including interim award, if any from the date of filing the
DAR/claim petition i.e. 29.10.2022 till the date of the payment of
the award amount, in favour of petitioner/claimant Ankit Dalal
and against the respondents.

Issue No. (ii) of Petition No.03 (Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @
Jhalla)

(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if yes, of
what amount and from whom? OPP.

18. Keeping in mind the discussions of para no. 13.1,
13.2 & 13.3 and the fact that the petitioner/injured Brijesh Kumar
has not suffered any disability in this matter, this Tribunal
proceed further step by step to decide the compensation/award
under different heads applicable to the case of petitioner/injured
Brijesh Kumar.

DETERMINATION OF INJURIES AND DURATION OF
TREATMENT
19.1 It would be appropriate to first ascertain the nature
of injuries suffered by the injured/claimant and duration of
treatment as they needs to be kept in mind while ascertaining the
compensation under different heads applicable. As per MLC of
injured issued by Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, New Delhi,
the injured has suffered simple injuries in the incident.
DETERMINATION OF MEDICAL EXPENSES
19.2 No medical bills/invoices have been furnished by
the petitioner. Hence, he is not entitled for the same.
AWARD TOWARDS FUTURE TREATMENT
19.3 Petitioner has not claimed any amount required for

1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1314/2022

2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1315/2022

3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1316/2022

4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

        MACT No.1318/2022                                      Page no.33 of 59
                                                               Digitally signed by
                                                  HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
                                                  SINGH     Date: 2025.05.09
                                                            17:16:33 +0530
  future      treatment.                  Petitioner   has   also   not       filed          any

document/medical evidence on record to show that petitioner
requires any future treatment, hence, petitioner is not entitled for
any amount under this head.

PAIN & SUFFERINGS
19.4 A particular amount cannot be fixed of pain and
sufferings applicable to all cases as it varies from case to case.
Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that since the petitioner
has received number of simple injuries, therefore, petitioner must
have suffered acute pain and sufferings owing to the said injuries.
Considering the nature of injuries, duration of the treatment of
the petitioner in the hospital and the temporary disability(ies)
suffered by the injured/petitioner as mentioned in the disability
certificate, this Tribunal hereby grant compensation of Rs.5,000/-
towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
DETERMINATION OF LOSS OF INCOME DURING
TREATMENT PERIOD
19.5 Petitioner has not filed any document to show that
he has suffered any loss of income on account of injuries
sustained in the incident in question. Hence, petitioner Brijesh
Kumar is not entitled for any amount on account of loss of
income during treatment period.

AWARD QUA SPECIAL DIET
19.6 Though, there is no cogent evidence on record of
money spent by the petitioner upon special diet, yet considering
the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner and
duration of his treatment in the hospitals, this Tribunal is of the

1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1314/2022

2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1315/2022

3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1316/2022

4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

        MACT No.1318/2022                                                Page no.34 of 59

                                                                     Digitally signed by
                                                  HARVINDER          HARVINDER SINGH

                                                  SINGH              Date: 2025.05.09
                                                                     17:16:37 +0530

opinion that petitioner must have spent some money under this
head. Hence, this Tribunal hereby grant compensation of
Rs.2,000/- towards expenses incurred on special diet.
AWARD TOWARDS ATTENDANT CHARGES
19.7 Though, there is no cogent evidence on record for
the money spent by the petitioner upon attendant, yet considering
the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner and the duration
of the treatment of the petitioner in the hospital, this tribunal is of
the opinion that petitioner must have spent some money under
this head also. Hence, this Tribunal hereby grant compensation
of Rs.1,000/- towards attendant charges.
AWARD TOWARDS CONVEYANCE CHARGES
19.8 Though there is no cogent evidence on record of
money spent by the petitioner upon conveyance, yet considering
the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner, this
Tribunal is of the opinion that the injured/petitioner must have
been spent some money under this head. Hence, this Tribunal
hereby grant compensation of Rs.2,000/- towards expenses
incurred on conveyance.

IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THIS TRIBUNAL
AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS TABULATED HEREIN
BELOW : –

S.No. Heads of Compensation Amount in Rupees

1. Reimbursement of medical NIL
expenses

2. Compensation on account of NIl
future treatment

3. Pain and Suffering 5,000/-

4. Conveyance 2,000/-

1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1314/2022

2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1315/2022

3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1316/2022

4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1318/2022 Page no.35 of 59

Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.09
17:16:39 +0530

      Special diet                                                       2,000/-
     6.
      Attendant charges                                                  1,000/-
     7.
      Loss of Income                                  during               Nil
      treatment period
                   Total                                               Rs.10,000/-
 RELIEF:-

20. This Tribunal hereby pass an award of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as compensation with interest at the
rate of 7% per annum including interim award, if any from the
date of filing the DAR/claim petition i.e. 29.10.2022 till the date
of the payment of the award amount, in favour of
petitioner/claimant Brijesh Kumar and against the respondents.
Issue No. (ii) of Petition No.04 (Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @
Jhalla)

(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if yes, of
what amount and from whom? OPP.

21.1 Keeping in mind the discussions of para no. 13.1,
13.2 & 13.3 and the fact that the petitioner/injured Bhullan
Kumar has not suffered any disability in this matter, this
Tribunal proceed further step by step to decide the
compensation/award under different heads applicable to the case
of petitioner/injured Bhullan Kumar.
DETERMINATION OF INJURIES AND DURATION OF
TREATMENT
21.2 It would be appropriate to first ascertain the nature
of injuries suffered by the injured/claimant and duration of
treatment as they needs to be kept in mind while ascertaining the
compensation under different heads applicable. As per MLC of
injured issued by Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, New Delhi,

1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1314/2022

2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1315/2022

3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1316/2022

4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

          MACT No.1318/2022                                                   Page no.36 of 59
                                                                                    Digitally signed by
                                                     HARVINDER                      HARVINDER SINGH
                                                     SINGH                          Date: 2025.05.09
                                                                                    17:16:43 +0530

the injured has suffered simple injuries in the incident.
DETERMINATION OF MEDICAL EXPENSES
21.3 No medical bills/invoices have been furnished by
the petitioner. Hence, he is not entitled for the same.
AWARD TOWARDS FUTURE TREATMENT
21.4 Petitioner has not claimed any amount required for
future treatment. Petitioner has also not filed any
document/medical evidence on record to show that petitioner
requires any future treatment, hence, petitioner is not entitled for
any amount under this head.

PAIN & SUFFERINGS
21.5 A particular amount cannot be fixed of pain and
sufferings applicable to all cases as it varies from case to case.
Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that since the petitioner
has received number of simple injuries, therefore, petitioner must
have suffered acute pain and sufferings owing to the said injuries.
Considering the nature of injuries, duration of the treatment of
the petitioner in the hospital and the temporary disability(ies)
suffered by the injured/petitioner as mentioned in the disability
certificate, this Tribunal hereby grant compensation of Rs.5,000/-
towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
DETERMINATION OF LOSS OF INCOME DURING
TREATMENT PERIOD
21.6 Petitioner has not filed any document to show that
he has suffered any loss of income on account of injuries
sustained in the incident in question. Hence, petitioner Brijesh
Kumar is not entitled for any amount on account of loss of

1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1314/2022

2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1315/2022

3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1316/2022

4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

        MACT No.1318/2022                                                 Page no.37 of 59
                                                                                     Digitally signed by
                                                            HARVINDER                HARVINDER SINGH
                                                            SINGH                    Date: 2025.05.09
                                                                                     17:16:46 +0530

income during treatment period.

AWARD QUA SPECIAL DIET
21.7 Though, there is no cogent evidence on record of
money spent by the petitioner upon special diet, yet considering
the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner and
duration of his treatment in the hospitals, this Tribunal is of the
opinion that petitioner must have spent some money under this
head. Hence, this Tribunal hereby grant compensation of
Rs.2,000/- towards expenses incurred on special diet.
AWARD TOWARDS ATTENDANT CHARGES
21.8 Though, there is no cogent evidence on record for
the money spent by the petitioner upon attendant, yet considering
the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner and the duration
of the treatment of the petitioner in the hospital, this tribunal is of
the opinion that petitioner must have spent some money under
this head also. Hence, this Tribunal hereby grant compensation
of Rs.1,000/- towards attendant charges.
AWARD TOWARDS CONVEYANCE CHARGES
21.9 Though there is no cogent evidence on record of
money spent by the petitioner upon conveyance, yet considering
the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner, this
Tribunal is of the opinion that the injured/petitioner must have
been spent some money under this head. Hence, this Tribunal
hereby grant compensation of Rs.2,000/- towards expenses
incurred on conveyance.

IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THIS TRIBUNAL
AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS TABULATED HEREIN

1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1314/2022

2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1315/2022

3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1316/2022

4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

        MACT No.1318/2022                                Page no.38 of 59

                                                                       Digitally signed by
                                                  HARVINDER            HARVINDER SINGH
                                                  SINGH                Date: 2025.05.09
                                                                       17:16:50 +0530
  BELOW : -

     S.No.          Heads of Compensation                   Amount in Rupees
      1.        Reimbursement of medical                          NIL
                expenses
      2.        Compensation on account of                        NIl
                future treatment
      3.        Pain and Suffering                               5,000/-
      4.        Conveyance                                       2,000/-
      5.        Special diet                                     2,000/-
      6.        Attendant charges                                1,000/-
      7.        Loss of Income during                              Nil
                treatment period
                             Total                             Rs.10,000/-


 RELIEF:-

22. This Tribunal hereby pass an award of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as compensation with interest at the
rate of 7% per annum including interim award, if any from the
date of filing the DAR/claim petition i.e. 29.10.2022 till the date
of the payment of the award amount, in favour of
petitioner/claimant Bhullan Kumar and against the respondents.
APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY
23.1 Respondent no.3 has raised contention during final
arguments that respondent no.1 was only holding driving license
to drive LMV NT, therefore, it was not valid to drive offending
vehicle in question which is a commercial vehicle.
23.2 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in matter of
Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
2017(7) Scale 731 in para no. 46 of said judgment has held as
under: –

1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1314/2022

2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1315/2022

3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1316/2022

4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1318/2022 Page no.39 of 59

Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.09
17:16:53 +0530
“…46.Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold a
licence with respect to the class of vehicles and not with
respect to the type of vehicles. In one class of vehicles,
there may be different kinds of vehicles. If they fall in the
same class of vehicles, no separate endorsement is required
to drive such vehicles. As light motor vehicle includes
transport vehicle also, a holder of light motor vehicle
licence can drive all the vehicles of the class including
transport vehicles. It was pre-amended position as well the
post-amended position of Form 4 as amended on 28.3.2001.
Any other interpretation would be repugnant to the
definition of “light motor vehicle” in section 2(21) and the
provisions of section 10(2)(d), Rule 8 of the Rules of 1989,
other provisions and also the forms which are in tune with
the provisions. Even otherwise the forms never intended to
exclude transport vehicles from the category of ‘light motor
vehicles’ and for light motor vehicle, the validity period of
such licence hold good and apply for the transport vehicle
of such class also and the expression in Section 10(2)(e) of
the Act ‘Transport Vehicle’ would include medium goods
vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods
vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle which earlier found
place in section 10(2)(e) to (h) and our conclusion is
fortified by the syllabus and rules which we have discussed.
Thus we answer the questions which are referred to us thus:

(i) ‘Light motor vehicle’ as defined in section 2(21)
of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per
the weight prescribed in section 2(21) read with
section 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are
not excluded from the definition of the light motor
vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54/1994.

(ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross
vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed
7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also
motor car or tractor or a road roller, ‘unladen
weight’ of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and
holder of a driving licence to drive class of “light
motor vehicle” as provided in section 10(2)(d) is
competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus,
the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed
7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the
“unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500
kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the
licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of
light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A
licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to
be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and

1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1314/2022

2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1315/2022

3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1316/2022

4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1318/2022 Page no.40 of 59
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.09
17:16:55 +0530
28.3.2001 in the form…”

23.3 In the case in hand, driver/respondent no.1 was
having a valid driving license to drive LMV NT and the laden
weight of the vehicle in question is 7250 kg only. So, the
respondent no.1 was holding a valid driving license to drive the
vehicle in question on the date and time of the accident as per
above case law. Hence, the contention of respondent Insurance
Company qua same stands rejected.

23.4 Respondent no.3/Insurance Company has also
contended that the vehicle in question had no permit, therefore, it
is violation of fundamental terms and conditions of insurance
contract and insurance company be exonerated in this matter.
23.5 The vehicle in question certainly had no permit of
any kind at the time of incident. The said facts is clear from DAR
and the evidence of R3W2 on record.

23.6 The insurance policy in question under the head of
limitation as to use provides cover upon use of vehicle only
under permit within meaning of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 or
such a carriage falling under Sub-section 3 of Section 66 of the
Motor Vehicle’s Act 1988. So, there is certainly violation of
terms of insurance contract in this matter. As per decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in matter “Amrit Paul Singh & Anr.
Vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.”, Civil
Appeal No. 2253/2018, decided on 17/05/2018, the non
possession of permit is fundamental breach of terms of insurance
contract. Vide amendment to the MV Act notification No. 1 61 dated

1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1314/2022

2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1315/2022

3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1316/2022

4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

        MACT No.1318/2022                                 Page no.41 of 59
                                                                     Digitally signed by
                                                  HARVINDER          HARVINDER SINGH

                                                  SINGH              Date: 2025.05.09
                                                                     17:16:57 +0530

25.02.2022, the concept of pay & recover has been done away
with vide effect from 01.04.2022, therefore, respondent
no.3/Insurance Company needs to be exonerated in this matter.
Hence, respondent No.3/Insurance stands exonerated.
23.7 Respondent no.1 being the driver and respondent
no.2 being the owner of the offending vehicle are jointly and
severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to
the petitioners. Hence, respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 are
hereby directed to deposit the award amounts in favour of the
petitioners with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in
MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account
No.40711767202, CIF No.90891362578, IFSC Code –
SBIN0000726, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi within a period of 45
days from the date of passing of this award together with the
interest as stated herein above under intimation to this Tribunal
and under intimation to the petitioner(s)/claimant(s)/applicant(s).
In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of
9% per annum for the period of delay.

MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO
THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
‘MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE’
(MCTAP)
24.1 Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No.842/2003
titled as “Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. ” has
formulated MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit
Scheme) vide its order dated 07.12.2018 which was made
effective from 01.01.2019. The State Bank of India, Tis Hazari

1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1314/2022

2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1315/2022

3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1316/2022

4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

        MACT No.1318/2022                                               Page no.42 of 59


                                                           HARVINDER                Digitally signed by
                                                                                    HARVINDER SINGH

                                                           SINGH                    Date: 2025.05.09 17:17:00
                                                                                    +0530

Courts, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance
with MACAD formulated by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
24.2 Keeping in mind the guidelines laid down by
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, the respondent no.01 & respondent
no.2 are directed to deposit the award amount of Rs.22,32,252/-
(Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Two Hundred
and Fifty Two Only), Rs.33,869/-, Rs.10,000/- & Rs.10,000/- as
stated herein above with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi in the MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account
No.40711767202 CIF No.90891362578, IFSC Code –
SBIN0000726, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in favour of petitioners.
24.3 Out of the total award amount of petitioner Prashant
Malik, Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch,
Delhi is directed to release/disburse the amount of Rs.7,32,252/-
(Rupees Seven Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Two Hundred and
Fifty Two Only) immediately to the injured/petitioner Prashant
Malik to be disclosed by the petitioner side vide separate
application within 15 days from today.
24.4 The rest of the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- and
interest of petitioner Prashant Malik shall be kept in equal
monthly FDR’s of Rs.20,000/- each for the period of 75 months
of principal amount and for further months dividing the interest
by Rs.20,000/-. The remainder, if any, of said division shall be
added in the last FDR. All FDRs shall be numbered from 1 st to
last and shall be released from 1 st to last in each consecutive
month with interest accumulated in the MACT account of
petitioner Prashant Malik. Money shall be withdrawn through

1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1314/2022

2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1315/2022

3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1316/2022

4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

        MACT No.1318/2022                                              Page no.43 of 59

                                                                       Digitally signed by
                                                       HARVINDER       HARVINDER SINGH
                                                       SINGH           Date: 2025.05.09
                                                                       17:17:03 +0530
  withdrawal slip only.


 24.5                The following conditions shall be adhered to by

State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch, Delhi with respect
to the above fixed deposits : –

(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the
savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s)
i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an
individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).

(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe
custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR
amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished
by bank to the claimant(s).

(c) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic
Clearing System (ECS) in the MACT bank account of the claimant

(s) near the place of their residence.

(d) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be
allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.

(e) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or
debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or
cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same
before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit
card (s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card
be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any
other branch of the bank.

(f) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the
claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have
been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the
Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the
necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for
compliance.

(g) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with
the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the
passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause

(g) above.

24.6 Manager, SBI Tis Hazari Delhi is also directed to
release Rs.33,869/- (Rupees Thirty Three Thousand Eight

1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1314/2022

2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1315/2022

3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1316/2022

4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

         MACT No.1318/2022                                        Page no.44 of 59
                                                                  Digitally signed by
                                                                  HARVINDER
                                                   HARVINDER      SINGH
                                                   SINGH          Date: 2025.05.09
                                                                  17:17:06 +0530

Hundred and Sixty Nine Only) along with interest accrued in the
MACT account of petitioner Ankit Dalal to be disclosed by the
petitioner side Ankit Dalal vide separate application within 15
days from today.

24.7 Manager, SBI Tis Hazari Delhi is also directed to
release Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) along with
interest accrued in the MACT account of petitioner Brijesh
Kumar to be disclosed by the petitioner side Brijesh Kumar vide
separate application within 15 days from today.

24.8 Manager, SBI Tis Hazari Delhi is also directed to
release Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) along with
interest accrued in the MACT account of petitioner Bhullan
Kumar to be disclosed by the petitioner Bhullan Kumar vide
separate application within 15 days from today.

24.9 In accordance with the orders dated 08.02.2019
passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 in
“Rajesh Tyagi and others Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors.” , Mr. Rajan
Singh, Assistant General Manager has been appointed as Nodal
Officer of State Bank of India having Phone No.022-
22741336/9414048606 and e mail ID [email protected]. In
case of any assistance or non compliance, the aforesaid Nodal
Officer may be contacted. A copy of this order be sent by e-
mail to the aforesaid Nodal Officer of the aforesaid bank by the
Ahlmad of the Court immediately in accordance with the

1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1314/2022

2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1315/2022

3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1316/2022

4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

        MACT No.1318/2022                                         Page no.45 of 59

                                                               Digitally signed by
                                                  HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
                                                  SINGH     Date: 2025.05.09
                                                            17:17:09 +0530

directions of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi as given in the orders
dated 07.12.2018. The Nodal Officer of the bank shall ensure
the disbursement of the award amount within three weeks of the
receipt of the e-mail as mentioned in the orders dated
07.12.2018 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.

25. The respondent no.01 & respondent no.2 shall
deposit the award amounts with the account of this Tribunal
within 45 days. Nazir of this Court shall prepare a separate files
regarding the status of deposition/non-deposition of the award
amount by the respondent(s) after making necessary entry on CIS
on 04.07.2025.

26. A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the
parties free of cost through email.

27. Ahlmad staff is directed to send the copy of award
to Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class 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)].

28. Ahlmad staff is also directed to e-mail an
authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020
titled as “Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Union of India & Ors.” decided on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall

1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1314/2022

2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1315/2022

3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1316/2022

4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

       MACT No.1318/2022                                 Page no.46 of 59

                                                                Digitally signed by
                                                 HARVINDER      HARVINDER SINGH
                                                 SINGH          Date: 2025.05.09
                                                                17:17:11 +0530

also e-email an authenticated copy of the award to Branch
Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex Branch
for information.

29. File be consigned to Record Room after due
compliance.

Announced in the open Court
today i.e. 09.05.2025
(HARVINDER SINGH)
District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01,
West/THC/Delhi/09.05.2025

1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1314/2022

2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1315/2022

3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1316/2022

4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

       MACT No.1318/2022                                           Page no.47 of 59
                                                                     Digitally signed
                                                                     by HARVINDER
                                                       HARVINDER     SINGH
                                                       SINGH         Date: 2025.05.09
                                                                     17:17:13 +0530
                                                FORM-XVI

SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT
IN INJURY CASE ( PETITION NO.1 BEARING MACT NO.
1314/2022 TITLED AS PRASHANT MALIK VS. RAJU @
JHALLA & ORS)

1. Date of accident : 30.06.2022

2. Name of the injured : Prashant Malik

3. Age of the injured/DOB : DOB: 10.04.1995.

4. Occupation of the injured: Enterprises Sales Manager

5. Income of the injured : Rs.66,744/-

6. Nature of injury : Grievous

7. Medical treatment taken : 30.06.2022 till date.

8. Period of Hospitalization : w.e.f. 30.06.2022 to
04.07.2022

9. Whether any permanent
disability ?

If yes, give details : 13%

10. Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal

11. Pecuniary Loss :

(I) Expenditure on Rs.70,276/-

treatment

(ii) Expenditure on Rs.29,900/-

conveyance

(iii) Expenditure on special Rs.20,000/-

            diet
      (iv) Cost of                            Rs.20,000/-
            nursing/attendant
       (v) Loss of earning capacity          Rs.13,34,352
      (vi) Loss of Income                Rs.4,57,724/- (loss of
                                               incentive)
      (vii) Any other loss which          Rs.50,000/- (future
            may require any special           treatment)
            treatment or aid to the
            injured for the rest of his
            life

1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1314/2022

2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1315/2022

3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1316/2022

4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1318/2022 Page no.48 of 59

HARVINDER Digitally signed by HARVINDER
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.09 17:17:16 +0530

12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:

     (i)         Compensation for                          NIL
                 mental and physical
                 shock
     (ii)        Pain and suffering                   Rs.1,50,000/-
     (iii)       Loss of amenities of life             Rs.50,000/-
     (iv)        Dis-figuration                            NIL
      (v)        Loss of marriage                           Nil
                 prospects
     (vi)        Loss of earning,                          N.A.
                 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 13%
assessed and nature of
disability as permanent
or temporary

(ii) Loss of amenities or Rs.50,000/-

loss of expectation of
life span on account of
disability

(iii) Percentage of loss of NIl
earning capacity in
relation to disability

(iv) Loss of future income – NIL
(Income x% Earning
Capacity x Multiplier)

14. TOTAL Rs.22,32,252/-

COMPENSATION

15. INTEREST AWARDED 7% per annum

16. Interest amount up to Rs.3,94,985/-

the date of award (w.e.f. 29.10.2022 to
09.05.2025 i.e. 2 years 6
months and 10 days)

1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1314/2022

2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1315/2022

3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1316/2022

4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

             MACT No.1318/2022                                     Page no.49 of 59
                                                                      Digitally signed by
                                                                      HARVINDER
                                                       HARVINDER      SINGH
                                                       SINGH          Date: 2025.05.09
                                                                      17:17:18 +0530
      17.       Total amount including                       Rs.26,27,237/-
               interest                                    (Rs.22,32,252/-+
                                                             Rs.3,94,985/-)
     18.       Award amount released                         Rs.7,32,252/-
     19.       Award amount kept in                     Rs.15,00,000/- + interest
               FDRs                                             accrued
     20.       Mode of disbursement                     Mentioned in the award
               of the award amount to
               the claimant(s).

     21.       Next date for                                  04.07.2025
               compliance of the
               award.



                                                       (HARVINDER SINGH)

District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01/West,
THC/Delhi/09.05.2025

1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1314/2022

2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1315/2022

3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1316/2022

4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

           MACT No.1318/2022                                           Page no.50 of 59

                                                                              Digitally signed by
                                                         HARVINDER            HARVINDER SINGH

                                                         SINGH                Date: 2025.05.09 17:17:20
                                                                              +0530
                                                FORM-XVI

SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT
IN INJURY CASE ( PETITION NO.2 BEARING MACT NO.
1315/2022 TITLED AS ANKIT DALAL VS. RAJU @ JHALLA
& ORS)

1. Date of accident : 30.06.2022

2. Name of the injured : Ankit Dalal

3. Age of the injured/DOB : DOB: 02.10.1995

4. Occupation of the injured: Enterprises Sales
Executive

5. Income of the injured : Rs.22,869/-

6. Nature of injury : Simple

7. Medical treatment taken : 30.06.2022

8. Period of Hospitalization : 30.06.2022

9. Whether any permanent
disability ?

If yes, give details : NIl

10. Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal

11. Pecuniary Loss :

       (I) Expenditure on                        Nil
            treatment
       (ii) Expenditure on                    Rs.2,000/-
            conveyance
      (iii) Expenditure on special            Rs.2,000/-
            diet
      (iv) Cost of                            Rs.2,000/-
            nursing/attendant
       (v) Loss of earning capacity              NIL
      (vi) Loss of Income                    Rs.22,869/-
      (vii) Any other loss which                NIL
            may require any special
            treatment or aid to the
            injured for the rest of his
            life
       12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:

1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1314/2022

2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1315/2022

3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1316/2022

4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

         MACT No.1318/2022                                          Page no.51 of 59


                                                                          Digitally signed by
                                                          HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
                                                          SINGH     Date: 2025.05.09
                                                                    17:17:23 +0530
      (i)         Compensation for                          NIL
                 mental and physical
                 shock
     (ii)        Pain and suffering                    Rs.5,000/-
     (iii)       Loss of amenities of life                 Nil
     (iv)        Dis-figuration                            NIL
      (v)        Loss of marriage                          Nil
                 prospects
     (vi)        Loss of earning,                          N.A.
                 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 NIL
assessed and nature of
disability as permanent
or temporary

(ii) Loss of amenities or Nil
loss of expectation of
life span on account of
disability

(iii) Percentage of loss of NIl
earning capacity in
relation to disability

(iv) Loss of future income – NIL
(Income x% Earning
Capacity x Multiplier)

14. TOTAL Rs.33,869/-

COMPENSATION

15. INTEREST AWARDED 7% per annum

16. Interest amount up to Rs.5992/-

the date of award (w.e.f. 29.10.2022 to
09.05.2025 i.e. 2 years 6
months and 10 days)

17. Total amount including Rs.39,861/-

1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1314/2022

2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1315/2022

3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1316/2022

4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

             MACT No.1318/2022                                     Page no.52 of 59

                                                                     Digitally signed by
                                                       HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
                                                       SINGH     Date: 2025.05.09
                                                                 17:17:26 +0530
                interest                                 (Rs.33,869/-+ Rs.5992/-)
     18.       Award amount released                     Entire award amount +
                                                            interest accrued
     19.       Award amount kept in                                Nil
               FDRs
     20.       Mode of disbursement                      Mentioned in the award
               of the award amount to
               the claimant(s).

     21.       Next date for                                  04.07.2025
               compliance of the
               award.



                                                       (HARVINDER SINGH)

District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01/West,
THC/Delhi/09.05.2025

1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1314/2022

2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1315/2022

3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1316/2022

4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

           MACT No.1318/2022                                          Page no.53 of 59
                                                                       Digitally signed by
                                                         HARVINDER HARVINDER
                                                                   SINGH
                                                         SINGH     Date: 2025.05.09
                                                                       17:17:29 +0530
                                                FORM-XVI

SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT
IN INJURY CASE ( PETITION NO.3 BEARING MACT NO.
1316/2022 TITLED AS BRIJESH KUMAR VS. RAJU @
JHALLA & ORS)

1. Date of accident : 30.06.2022

2. Name of the injured : Brijesh Kumar

3. Age of the injured/DOB : 25 years

4. Occupation of the injured: Not proved

5. Income of the injured : Nil

6. Nature of injury : Simple

7. Medical treatment taken : 30.06.2022

8. Period of Hospitalization : 30.06.2022

9. Whether any permanent
disability ?

If yes, give details : NIl

10. Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal

11. Pecuniary Loss :

       (I) Expenditure on                        Nil
            treatment
       (ii) Expenditure on                    Rs.1,000/-
            conveyance
      (iii) Expenditure on special            Rs.2,000/-
            diet
      (iv) Cost of                            Rs.2,000/-
            nursing/attendant
       (v) Loss of earning capacity              NIL
      (vi) Loss of Income                        NIl
      (vii) Any other loss which                NIL
            may require any special
            treatment or aid to the
            injured for the rest of his
            life
       12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
       (i) Compensation for                      NIL

1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1314/2022

2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1315/2022

3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1316/2022

4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

         MACT No.1318/2022                                        Page no.54 of 59

                                                                             Digitally signed by
                                                          HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
                                                          SINGH     Date: 2025.05.09
                                                                    17:17:31 +0530
                  mental and physical
                 shock
     (ii)        Pain and suffering                    Rs.5,000/-
     (iii)       Loss of amenities of life                 Nil
     (iv)        Dis-figuration                            NIL
      (v)        Loss of marriage                          Nil
                 prospects
     (vi)        Loss of earning,                          N.A.
                 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 NIL
assessed and nature of
disability as permanent
or temporary

(ii) Loss of amenities or Nil
loss of expectation of
life span on account of
disability

(iii) Percentage of loss of NIl
earning capacity in
relation to disability

(iv) Loss of future income – NIL
(Income x% Earning
Capacity x Multiplier)

14. TOTAL Rs.10,000/-

COMPENSATION

15. INTEREST AWARDED 7% per annum

16. Interest amount up to Rs.1769/-

the date of award (w.e.f. 29.10.2022 to
09.05.2025 i.e. 2 years 6
months and 10 days)

17. Total amount including Rs.11,769/-

interest (Rs.10,000/-+ Rs.1769/-)

1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1314/2022

2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1315/2022

3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1316/2022

4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

             MACT No.1318/2022                                        Page no.55 of 59
                                                                    Digitally signed by
                                                       HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
                                                       SINGH     Date: 2025.05.09
                                                                 17:17:34 +0530
      18.       Award amount released                     Entire award amount +
                                                            interest accrued
     19.       Award amount kept in                                Nil
               FDRs
     20.       Mode of disbursement                      Mentioned in the award
               of the award amount to
               the claimant(s).

     21.       Next date for                                  04.07.2025
               compliance of the
               award.



                                                       (HARVINDER SINGH)

District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01/West,
THC/Delhi/09.05.2025

1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1314/2022

2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1315/2022

3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1316/2022

4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

           MACT No.1318/2022                                          Page no.56 of 59
                                                                      Digitally signed
                                                                      by HARVINDER
                                                      HARVINDER       SINGH
                                                      SINGH           Date: 2025.05.09
                                                                      17:17:37 +0530
                                                FORM-XVI

SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT
IN INJURY CASE ( PETITION NO.4 BEARING MACT NO.
1318/2022 TITLED AS BHULLAN KUMAR VS. RAJU @
JHALLA & ORS)

1. Date of accident : 30.06.2022

2. Name of the injured : Bhullan Kumar

3. Age of the injured/DOB : 25 years

4. Occupation of the injured: Not proved

5. Income of the injured : Nil

6. Nature of injury : Simple

7. Medical treatment taken : 30.06.2022

8. Period of Hospitalization : 30.06.2022

9. Whether any permanent
disability ?

If yes, give details : NIl

10. Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal

11. Pecuniary Loss :

       (I) Expenditure on                        Nil
            treatment
       (ii) Expenditure on                    Rs.1,000/-
            conveyance
      (iii) Expenditure on special            Rs.2,000/-
            diet
      (iv) Cost of                            Rs.2,000/-
            nursing/attendant
       (v) Loss of earning capacity              NIL
      (vi) Loss of Income                        NIl
      (vii) Any other loss which                NIL
            may require any special
            treatment or aid to the
            injured for the rest of his
            life
       12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
       (i) Compensation for                      NIL

1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1314/2022

2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1315/2022

3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1316/2022

4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

         MACT No.1318/2022                                       Page no.57 of 59
                                                                  Digitally signed by
                                                                  HARVINDER
                                                    HARVINDER     SINGH
                                                    SINGH         Date: 2025.05.09
                                                                  17:17:39 +0530
                  mental and physical
                 shock
     (ii)        Pain and suffering                    Rs.5,000/-
     (iii)       Loss of amenities of life                 Nil
     (iv)        Dis-figuration                            NIL
      (v)        Loss of marriage                          Nil
                 prospects
     (vi)        Loss of earning,                          N.A.
                 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 NIL
assessed and nature of
disability as permanent
or temporary

(ii) Loss of amenities or Nil
loss of expectation of
life span on account of
disability

(iii) Percentage of loss of NIl
earning capacity in
relation to disability

(iv) Loss of future income – NIL
(Income x% Earning
Capacity x Multiplier)

14. TOTAL Rs.10,000/-

COMPENSATION

15. INTEREST AWARDED 7% per annum

16. Interest amount up to Rs.1769/-

the date of award (w.e.f. 29.10.2022 to
09.05.2025 i.e. 2 years 6
months and 10 days)

17. Total amount including Rs.11,769/-

interest (Rs.10,000/-+ Rs.1769/-)

1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1314/2022

2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1315/2022

3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1316/2022

4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

             MACT No.1318/2022                                     Page no.58 of 59
                                                                   Digitally signed by
                                                                   HARVINDER
                                                       HARVINDER   SINGH
                                                       SINGH       Date: 2025.05.09
                                                                   17:17:41 +0530
      18.       Award amount released                     Entire award amount +
                                                            interest accrued
     19.       Award amount kept in                                Nil
               FDRs
     20.       Mode of disbursement                      Mentioned in the award
               of the award amount to
               the claimant(s).

     21.       Next date for                                  04.07.2025
               compliance of the
               award.



                                                       (HARVINDER SINGH)

District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01/West,
THC/Delhi/09.05.2025

1. Prashant Malik Vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1314/2022

2. Ankit Dalal vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1315/2022

3. Brijesh Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

MACT No.1316/2022

4. Bhullan Kumar vs. Raju @ Jhalla & Ors.

           MACT No.1318/2022                                          Page no.59 of 59

                                                                               Digitally signed by
                                                          HARVINDER            HARVINDER SINGH

                                                          SINGH                Date: 2025.05.09 17:17:44
                                                                               +0530

Source link

Yaswant Kumar vs Sharda Vandna on 18 July, 2025

Amandeep Aujla vs Prem Nath on 24 July, 2025

M/S. Sreesaptagiri Constructions vs The Joint Commissioner Ccst, on 17 July, 2025

Linker Shelter Private Limited vs Annie E Pinto And Anr on 18 July, 2025

Page No.# 1/36 vs The State Of Assam on 24 July, 2025

Yaswant Kumar vs Sharda Vandna on 18 July, 2025

Amandeep Aujla vs Prem Nath on 24 July, 2025

M/S. Sreesaptagiri Constructions vs The Joint Commissioner Ccst, on 17 July, 2025

Linker Shelter Private Limited vs Annie E Pinto And Anr on 18 July, 2025

Page No.# 1/36 vs The State Of Assam on 24 July, 2025

Prashant Malik vs Raju@ Jhalla on 9 May, 2025

Delhi District Court

Prashant Malik vs Raju@ Jhalla on 9 May, 2025

LEAVE A REPLY Cancel reply

About us

Company

Top Stories

Now Is the Time to Think About Your Small-Business Success

Program Will Lend $10M to Detroit Minority Businesses

Kansas City Has a Massive Array of Big National Companies

Subscribe