Delhi District Court
Neha (I) (Fir 130/2024/Civil Lines) vs Parul Sood (Shri Ram General Insurance) on 2 August, 2025
DLCT010099382024
Presented on : 04-07-2024
Registered on : 04-07-2024
Decided on : 02-08-2025
Duration : 1 Year 1 Month
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER-MACT-02,
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED OVER BY DR. PANKAJ SHARMA
IN THE MATTER OF LEAD CASE/ MACT No. 441/24 ( For
Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by
the injured Neha Saxena):
NEHA SAXENA
W/o Sh. Rohit Saxena
R/o H. No. C-751, Gali No.1,
Sangam Vihar, Loni, Ghaziabd, UP. .......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. PARUL SOOD
S/o Sh. Pradeep Kumar
R/o H.No. F-59, Village Ghondli,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051. (Driver).
2. PANKAJ GOYAL
S/o Sh.P.M.Goyal
R/o H.No. F-59, Block DB,
LIG Flats, Hari Nagar,
New Delhi.(Owner).
MACT No. 441/24 Neha Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Page No. 1/40
MACT No. 443/24 Rohit Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
11:20:16 +0530
3. M/S SHRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Through its Managing Director
Branch Office at:
1001, LGF, Naiwala,
Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi. (Insurer).
(Through Ld. Counsel Sh. Saurabh Mehtra)
......Respondents
AND
DLCT010099372024
Presented on : 04-07-2024
Registered on : 04-07-2024
Decided on : 02-08-2025
Duration : 01 Year 1
Month
IN THE MATTER OF CASE / MACT No. 443/24 (For Grant
of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by the
injured Rohit Saxena):
ROHIT SAXENA
S/o Sh. Ashok Saxena
R/o H. No. C-751, Gali No.1,
Sangam Vihar, Loni, Ghaziabd, UP. …….PetitionerVERSUS
1. PARUL SOOD
S/o Sh. Pradeep Kumar
R/o H.No. F-59, Village Ghondli,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051. (Driver).
2. PANKAJ GOYAL
MACT No. 441/24 Neha Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Page No. 2Digitally
/40 signed
MACT No. 443/24 Rohit Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.02
11:20:21
+0530
S/o Sh.P.M.Goyal
R/o H.No. F-59, Block DB,
LIG Flats, Hari Nagar,
New Delhi.(Owner).
3. M/S SHRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Through its Managing Director
Branch Office at:
1001, LGF, Naiwala,
Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi. (Insurer).
(Through Ld. Counsel Sh. Saurabh Mehtra)
……Respondents.
The particulars as per Form-XVII, Central Motor Vehicles
(fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) are as
under:-
1. Date of the accident 06/03/24
2. Date of filing of Form-I – First Accident Report N.A.
(FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the victim(s) N.A.
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Driver N.A.
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Owner N.A.
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim Accident N.A.
Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form-VIB N.A.
from the Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII – Detailed Accident 04/07/24
Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on N.A.
the part of the Investigating Officer? If so,
whether any action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer N.A.
by the Insurance CompanyMACT No. 441/24 Neha Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Page No. 3/40
MACT No. 443/24 Rohit Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.08.02
11:20:26 +0530
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance N.A.
Company submitted his report within 30 days of
the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on N.A.
the part of the Designated officer of the
Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/
direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the petitioner(s) to the offer N.A.
of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 02/08/25
15. Whether the petitioner (s) was/were directed to Yes
open savings bank account(s) near their place of
residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) was/were 04/07/24
directed to open savings bank account(s) near his
place of residence and produce PAN Card and
Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not
issue any cheque book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this
effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) produced the NA
passbook of their savings bank account near the
place of their residence along with the
endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the IN MACT Nos.
Claimant(s). 441/24 & 443/24
H. No. C-751, Gali
No.1, Sangam
Vihar, Loni,
Ghaziabd, UP.
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) NA
is near his place of residence?
MACT No. 441/24 Neha Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Page No. 4/40
MACT No. 443/24 Rohit Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.02
11:20:30
+0530
20. Whether the claimant(s) was/were examined at NA
the time of passing of the award to ascertain
his/their financial condition?
COMMON AWARD/JUDGMENT
FACTUAL POSITION & PLAINT/ PETITION
1. These two separate DARs were filed on 04/07/2024.
Both these DARs are arising out of a road traffic accident which
took place on 06/03/2024 at about 10.50 hrs at a spot the Phari
Majnu Ka Tilla, Near Parshvanath Apartment Chowk, Delhi
falling within the jurisdiction of PS Civil Lines, Delhi. One DAR
was prepared in respect of injuries sustained by the petitioner
in the lead case bearing MACT No. 441/24 Smt. Nexa Saxena
S/o Sh. Rohit Saxena (hereinafter referred to as “injured “) and
the other DAR was prepared in respect of injuries sustained by
Sh. Rohit Saxena S/o Sh. Ashok Saxena (hereinafter referred to
as “injured”) who is petitioner in the connected case bearing
MACT No. 443/24. Subsequent to filing of these DARs two
separate petitions were filed on 06/12/2024 and same were
clubbed with the present petitions vide order dated 07/12/2024
passed by this Tribunal. As per petition, at the relevant date, time
and place, the petitioner in the lead case bearing MACT
No.441/24 was going to her Office at Chandni Chowk with her
husband who is injured in the connected case bearing MACT No.
443/24 on motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-6SAZ-0533
then suddenly a Car bearing registration no. HR-38AC-4419
MACT No. 441/24 Neha Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Page No. 5/40
MACT No. 443/24 Rohit Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
11:20:33 +0530
(hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”) came in front of
motorcycle of the petitioners at 56, Phari Majnu Ka Tilla, near
Parshvanath Apartment Chowk, Delhi which came in very high
speed, negligently and rashly driven by the R-1 and hit the
motorcycle of the petitioners. It is further stated that both the
petitioners sustained injuries and they were admitted in ‘Trauma
Centre’, Near Chandgi Ram Akhada, Civil Lines, Delhi and in
this regard the MLC bearing no. 533/24 & 534/24 dated
06/03/2024 of the petitioners were prepared by the doctors and
both the petitioners sustained grievous injuries. An FIR No.
130/24 PS Civil Lines, Delhi was registered U/s 279/338 IPC by
the police wherein it is stated that the accident took place on
account of rashness and negligence of the driver of the offending
vehicle. R-1 is the driver of the offending vehicle. R-2 is the
owner of the offending vehicle. R-3 is the insurer of the
offending vehicle. Notice of the petitions issued to all the
respondents.
1.1 As per petition filed by the injured Neha Saxena, at
the relevant time he stated that due to the said incident he
sustained grievous injuries. Injured Neha Saxena further claims
that she has incurred an expense to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-
towards medical treatment. She further claims that she got
fractured on both hands and legs and installed the steel rods &
plates. She further claims that she sustained grievous injuries and
has become permanently disabled. She further claims that at the
MACT No. 441/24 Neha Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Page No. 6/40
MACT No. 443/24 Rohit Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.02
11:20:37
+0530
relevant time she was 27 years old and was doing a private job
and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. She seeks compensation
to the tune of Rs. 20 Lakhs for the injuries sustained by her in the
accident.
1.2 As per petition filed by the injured Rohit Saxena, at
the relevant time he stated that due to the said incident he
sustained grievous injuries. Injured Rohit Saxena further claims
that he has incurred an expense to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-
towards medical treatment. He further claims that he got
fractured on buttock and right leg and got installed the steel rods
and he sustained the grievous injuries and has become
permanently disabled. He further claims that at the relevant time
he was 35 years old and was doing a private job and was earning
Rs.20,000/- per month. He seeks compensation to the tune of Rs.
20 Lakhs for the injuries sustained by him in the accident.
WRITTEN STATEMENT IN CASE/ MACT No. 441/24 ( For
Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained
by the injured Neha Saxena):
2. No written statement was filed by the Respondents
No. 1 & 2.
3. R-3/Insurance Company filed a written statement in the
connected case bearing MACT No. 443/24 in which it denied the
contents of the petition in toto. However, it is admitted that at the
MACT No. 441/24 Neha Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Page No. 7/40
MACT No. 443/24 Rohit Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Digitally
signed by
PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
11:20:42
+0530
relevant time the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance
policy issued by itself.
WRITTEN STATEMENT IN CASE/ MACT No. 444/24 ( For
Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained
by the injured Rohit Saxena):
4. No written statement was filed by the Respondents
No. 1 & 2.
5. R-3/Insurance Company filed a written statement in
which it denied the contents of the petition in toto. However, it is
admitted that at the relevant time the offending vehicle was
covered by an insurance policy issued by itself.
6. Both the above matters were consolidated at the stage of
recording of respondent’s evidence vide order dated 29/07/2025
and the matter for Grant of Compensation in respect of the
injuries sustained by injured Neha Saxena i.e. MACT No. 441/24
was treated as a ‘lead case’.
7. From the perusal of records, it is revealed that inadvertently
issues have not been framed in the present matters. Accordingly,
following consolidated issues are framed today:-
1. Whether the petitioners Neha
Saxena and Rohit Saxena suffered
injuries in an accident that took
place on 06.03.2024 at about
10.50 hrs involving vehicle
bearing registration
HR-38AC-4419 driven by
Respondent No. 1, owned by the
Respondent No.2 and insured with
MACT No. 441/24 Neha Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Page No. 8/40
MACT No. 443/24 Rohit Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
11:20:46 +0530
the Respondent No.3?OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are
entitled for compensation? If so,
to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
EVIDENCE IN CASE/ MACT No. 441/24 ( For Grant of
Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by the
injured Neha Saxena):
8. The petitioner examined herself as PW-1 in support
of her claim. The petitioner filed affidavit Ex. PW-1/A wherein she
described the occurrence of incident in line with the facts
mentioned in Para 1 of this award. She deposed that she sustained
grievous injuries at the relevant time. She further deposed that at
the relevant time, she was 27 years old and was doing a private job
and was earning Rs.20,000/- and due to injuries she has not been
able to do her work till date and she has sustained permanent
disability to the extent of 45% with respect to her right upper nand
lower limb. She further deposed that has spent Rs. 2,00,000/- on
her medical treatment. Petitioner has relied upon the following
documents viz:-
“Copy of Aadhaar Card of PW-1 is Ex.
PW-1/1;
Copy of medical bill is Ex. PW-1/2;
Complete set of DAR is Ex. PW-1/3(colly);
Copy of handwritten bill of taxi/ ambulance is
Ex. PW-1/4;
MACT No. 441/24 Neha Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Page No. 9/40
MACT No. 443/24 Rohit Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. PANKAJ Digitally signed by
PANKAJ SHARMASHARMA Date: 2025.08.02
11:20:51 +0530
Copy of bill of mobile dated 28.10.2023 is
Ex. PW-1/5; and
Disability certificate is Ex. PW-1/6.”
8.1 She was not cross-examined by the respondents.
8.2 PE was then closed.
9. Respondents did not lead any RE in their defence.
EVIDENCE IN CASE/ MACT No. 443/24 ( For Grant of
Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by the
injured Rohit Saxena):
10. The petitioner examined himself as PW-1 in support of
his claim. The petitioner filed affidavit Ex. PW-1/A wherein he
described the occurrence of incident in line with the facts
mentioned in Para 1 of this award. He deposed that he sustained
grievous injuries at therelevant time. He further deposed that at the
relevant time, he was 35 years old and was doing private service
and was earning Rs.30,000/- and due to injuries he has not been
able to do his work till date due to the said accident and he has
sustained permanent disability to the extent of 25% with respect
to his right lower limb. He further deposed that has spent Rs.
2,00,000/- on his medical treatment Petitioner has relied upon the
following documents viz:-
“Copy of Aadhaar Card of PW-1 is Ex.
PW-1/1;
MACT No. 441/24 Neha Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Page No. 10/40
Digitally signed
MACT No. 443/24 Rohit Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
11:20:55 +0530
Copy of medical bill which is mentioned as
Ex. PW-1/2 is de-exhibited as the same has
been filed in the connected matter bearing
MACT No.441/2024;
Complete set of DAR is Ex. PW-1/3(colly);
Copy of handwritten bill of taxi/ ambulance is
Ex. PW-1/4;
Copy of progress report for the year 2002-03
is Ex. PW-1/5; and
Disability certificate is Ex. PW-1/6.”
10.1 He was not cross-examined by the respondents.
10.2 PE was then closed.
10.3 Respondents did not lead any RE in their defence.
FINDINGS
11. Oral submissions were advanced by Ld. Counsel for
parties in both the cases.
12. I have perused the record and my issue wise findings
are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 1 (IN BOTH THE CASES)
‘Whether the petitioners Neha Saxena and
Rohit Saxena suffered injuries in an accident
that took place on 06.03.2024 at about 10.50
hrs involving vehicle bearing registration
HR-38AC-4419 driven by Respondent No. 1,
owned by the Respondent No.2 and insured
with the Respondent No.3?OPP’
13. At the very outset, it may be noted that the
MACT No. 441/24 Neha Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Page No. 11/40
MACT No. 443/24 Rohit Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
11:20:58 +0530
procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident
tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil
matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance
of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond
reasonable doubts, as are required in a criminal prosecution. The
burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as in a criminal
case, but in a claim petition under the M.V. Act, this burden is
infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this
regard can be made to the prepositions of law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs.
Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in
(2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent
judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others
2011 (1) SCR 1096(Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also
recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc.
14. In order to prove the present issue, the petitioners in
both the petitions have examined themselves as PWs-1. Both the
injured persons have clearly and categorically deposed that at the
relevant date, time and place, the petitioner in MACT No.441/24
was going to her Office at Chandni Chowk with her husband who
is injured in the connected case bearing MACT No. 443/24 on
motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-6SAZ-0533 then
suddenly a Car bearing registration no. HR-38AC-4419
MACT No. 441/24 Neha Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Page No. 12/40
MACT No. 443/24 Rohit Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.02
11:21:02
+0530
(hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”) came in front of
motorcycle of the petitioners at 56, Phari Majnu Ka Tilla, near
Parshvanath Apartment Chowk, Delhi which came in very high
speed, negligently and rashly driven by the R-1 and hit the
motorcycle of the petitioners. It is further stated that both the
petitioners sustained injuries and they were admitted in ‘Trauma
Centre’, Near Chandgi Ram Akhada, Civil Lines, Delhi and in
this regard the MLC bearing no. 533/24 & 534/24 dated
06/03/2024 of the petitioners were prepared by the doctors and
both the petitioners sustained grievous injuries. The oral
testimonies of PWs-1 have gone unrebutted qua R-1 and R-2.
There is no material on record, which suggests any falsity or
untruth in the oral testimonies of PWs-1 as to the facts and
circumstances surrounding the occurrence of the accident. Both
PWs-1 withstood the test of examination and did not betray any
signs of falsity or untruth.
15. The very fact that R-1 has already been charge-
sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279/337 IPC
in the above criminal case/FIR in itself is a strong circumstance
to support the above oral testimony of injured persons on these
issues. The certified copies of FIR, Chargesheet, MLC,
Mechanical Inspection Report and Site Plan also corroborate the
oral testimonies of both the injured persons.
16. In view of the above, it could be safely assumed that
at the relevant time the driver of the offending was driving his
MACT No. 441/24 Neha Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Page No. 13/40
MACT No. 443/24 Rohit Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.08.02
11:21:05 +0530
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
17. Having ruled so, this Tribunal now proceeds to
assess the wrongful act, neglect or default of R-1, if any, in
driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Admittedly,
R-1 has not explained the circumstances under which his vehicle
(i.e. the offending vehicle) hit the motorcycle, which the injured
persons were riding, at the relevant time. In the absence of any
averment or evidence regarding any mechanical defect in the
offending vehicle or any material depicting any
negligent/sudden act or omission on the part of the petitioner,
the only inference possible in the given facts and circumstances
is that of neglect and default on the part of R-1 in driving the
offending vehicle at the relevant time. In view of the above
discussion, this Tribunal is constrained to hold R-1 guilty of
gross negligence and default in driving the offending vehicle at
the relevant time.
18. In view of the medical records placed on the
judicial files by the respective petitioners, no dispute is left
regarding the nature of injuries sustained by the injured persons
in the above accident.
19. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal holds
that the injured persons suffered grievous injuries on account
of neglect and default of R-1 while driving the offending vehicle
at the relevant time. Both these issues are thus decided against
MACT No. 441/24 Neha Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Page No. 14/40
MACT No. 443/24 Rohit Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
11:21:09 +0530
the respondents and in favour of the petitioners in both the
cases.
ISSUE NO. 2 (IN BOTH THE CASES)
20. As this Tribunal has already held that R1 was
responsible for the grievous injuries sustained by the injured
persons, therefore, the petitioners in both the cases are entitled
to be compensated justly. Computation of the compensation
shall be decided separately for all the sets of petitioners in the
following paragraphs :-
COMPENSATION IN CASE/ MACT No. 441/24 (For Grant
of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by
injured Neha Saxena):
21. In terms of provisions contained in Section 168 of
the MV Act the compensation which is to be awarded by this
tribunal is required to be ‘just’. In the injury cases a claimant is
entitled to two different kinds of compensations i.e. pecuniary as
well as non-pecuniary damages. The pecuniary damages or
special damages are those damages which are awarded and
designed to make good the losses which are capable of being
calculated in terms of money and the object of awarding these
damages is to indemnify the claimant for the expenses which he
had already incurred or is likely to incur in respect of the injuries
suffered by him in the accident. The non-pecuniary or general
damages are those damages which are incapable of being
assessed by arithmetical calculations. The pecuniary or special
MACT No. 441/24 Neha Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Page No. 15/40
MACT No. 443/24 Rohit Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.08.02
11:21:12 +0530
damages generally include the expenses incurred by the claimant
towards his treatment, special diet, conveyance, cost of nursing/
attendant, loss of income/earning capacity etc. and the non-
pecuniary damages generally include the compensation for the
mental or physical shock, pain and sufferings, loss of amenities
of life, marriage prospects and disfiguration etc. The above
categories falling under both the heads of compensation are not
exhaustive in nature but only illustrative. It is also necessary to
state here that no amount of money or compensation can put the
injured/claimant exactly in the same position or place where he
was before the accident and an effort is to be made only to
reasonably compensate him or to put him almost in the same
place or position where he could have been if the alleged
accident had not taken place and this compensation is to be
assessed in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The object of
compensating him is also not to reward him or to make him rich
in an unjust manner. It is also well settled that the ‘just’
compensation to be awarded to the claimant has to be calculated
objectively and it may involve some guess work in calculating
the different amounts which the claimant may be entitled under
the different heads of compensation. Reference in this regard can
be made on some of important judgments on the subject like the
judgment in the case of R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India)
Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 755, Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. New
India Assurance Company Limited, (2010) 10 SCC 254 and Raj
Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343.
MACT No. 441/24 Neha Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Page No. 16/40
MACT No. 443/24 Rohit Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. PANKAJ Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.08.02
11:21:16 +0530
22. In light of the above legal propositions, the amount
of compensation which can be considered to be ‘just’ in the
opinion of this tribunal shall be as under:-
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
23. The Injured Neha Saxena has placed on judicial file
his original medical records and medical bill as Ex. PW-1/2. As
per the said documents, injured Neha Saxena has incurred
medical expenses to the tune of Rs.9,900/-. In the absence of any
contest to the said documents (placed on record by injured Neha
Saxena, injured Neha Saxena is held entitled to an amount of
Rs.9,900/- under this head.
(ii) Pain and Suffering
24. As per medical documents, the petitioner has
suffered grievous injuries and also sustained 45% permanent
physical impairment in relation to her Rt Upper and Lower Limb
which is non progressive and not likely to improve in future. As
per disability certificate no. 2098 dated 29/01/2025 issued by
Aruna Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital, Delhi, petitioner is a case of
‘FUC of Rt UL with Rt LL Injury ‘ was found to have sustained
45% permanent physical impairment in relation to her Rt Upper
and Lower Limb which is non progressive and not likely to
improve in future. The aforementioned certificate was issued in
terms of the directions of this Tribunal vide order dated
MACT No. 441/24 Neha Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Page No. 17/40
MACT No. 443/24 Rohit Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.08.02
11:21:20 +0530
07/12/2024.Accordingly, the aforementioned disability certificate
could be read in evidence in terms of the observations made by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Union of India in Writ Petition (s)
(Civil ) No (s). 534/2020 date of order 16/11/2021. It is not
possible to quantify the compensation admissible to petitioner for
the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which she actually suffered
because of the above injuries, but as stated above, an effort has to
be made to compensate her for the same in a just and reasonable
manner. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the
injuries suffered by petitioner and duration of the treatment taken
by her etc., an amount of Rs.50,000/- is being awarded to her
towards pain and sufferings during the said period of her
treatment and immobility. Thus, she is awarded a total amount of
Rs. 50,000/- under this head.
(iii) Loss of actual earnings
25. In her affidavit Ex. PW-1/A, the petitioner claims
that she used to do a private job and was earning Rs.20,000/- per
month from that vocation. The discharge summaries placed on
record by petitioner reflect that the petitioner sustained a
grievous injuries which resulted into 45% permanent physical
impairment in relation to her Rt Upper and Lower Limb which is
non progressive and not likely to improve in future. The above
documents are sufficient to uphold the claim of the petitioner to
the effect that she was unable to resume her work since the date
MACT No. 441/24 Neha Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Page No. 18/40
MACT No. 443/24 Rohit Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.08.02
11:21:24 +0530
of accident. In view of the nature of the injuries sustained by the
petitioner, it could be safely assumed that the petitioner has
become unfit for work for rest of her life after the accident and
he could not have worked for about 06 months due to the
injuries. As per relevant notification, the minimum wages
admissible to an Un-Skilled Person as on 06/03/2024 in Delhi
the earnings was Rs.17,494/-.As such, the petitioner is held
entitled to a sum of Rs.1,04,964/- (Rs.17,494/- X 6). The said
sum is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
(iv) Loss of future earnings due to disability
26. Petitioner claimed in her affidavit Ex. PW1/A that
she has become permanently disabled after the accident and
could not perform her work by resuming her duties. As a matter
of fact, the petitioner is a lady and was in a private job at the
time of accident. She was employed with M/s Rich Look Studio,
Ghante Wali Gali, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. As per disability
certificate Ex.PW-1/6, the petitioner has suffered 45% permanent
physical impairment in relation to her Rt Upper and Lower Limb
which is non progressive and not likely to improve in future and
same would certainly be a great set back for her work profile and
on her earning capacity. The steel rods & plates were inserted
and both hands and legs would make her incapable to perform
her work like before to a greater extent. Considering the overall
facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate to hold that the
petitioner had suffered functional disability to the extent of 45%.
This Tribunal has already assumed the monthly income of
MACT No. 441/24 Neha Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Page No. 19/40
MACT No. 443/24 Rohit Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.08.02
11:21:28 +0530
petitioner to be Rs.17,494/- at the relevant time. As far as the age
of petitioner at the time of accident is concerned, we may look
into the photocopies of petitioner’s Aadhar Card which is Ex.
PW-1/1 as per the said document, the date of birth of petitioner is
04/01/1997. Going by the same, the age of petitioner as on the
date of accident i.e. 06/03/2024. was around 27 years. Therefore,
in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation &
Anr.,(2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the
Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent
judgment dated 31.10.2017 given in the case of National
Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil)
No. 25590 of 2014, the multiplier of ’17’ is held applicable for
calculating the loss of future earnings of petitioner arising out of
his above disability. The petitioner is also entitled to 40% future
prospects as per the observations made by a Three Judge Bench
of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Erudhaya Priya Vs. State Express
Transport Corporation Ltd., MANU/SC/0545/2020 [please see
para 7 (b)].Thus, the loss of future earnings of petitioner due to
his above injury and permanent physical disability comes to
Rs.22,48,329/- (rounded off) (Rs.17,494/- X 140/100 X 45/100
X 12 X 17) and the same is awarded to him as compensation
under this head.
(v) Conveyance, Attendant Charges and Special Diet
27. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the
MACT No. 441/24 Neha Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Page No. 20/40
MACT No. 443/24 Rohit Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. PANKAJ by
Digitally signed
PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.08.02
11:21:34 +0530
petitioner, the extent of permanent physical disability and the
extended period of medical treatment, the petitioner is granted a
sum of Rs. 35,000/- each under these heads.
(vi) Loss of amenities of life and disfigurement
28. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the
petitioner, the extent of permanent physical disability and the
extended period of medical treatment, the petitioner is granted a
sum of Rs. 35,000/- each under these heads.
COMPENSATION IN CASE/ MACT No. 443/24 (For
Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by
injured Rohit Saxena):
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
29. No bill regarding treatment has been filed by injured
Rohit Saxena. It is common knowledge that generally people
during the treatment do not maintain the bills etc as they are
not aware of this benevolent legislation having provisions for
compensation. Keeping in view the overall circumstances, I
hereby grant a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses.
(ii) Pain and Suffering
30. As per medical documents, the petitioner has
suffered grievous injuries and also sustained 25% permanent
physical impairment in relation to her Rt Lower Limb which is
non progressive and not likely to improve in future. As per
disability certificate no. 2098 dated 29/01/2025 issued by Aruna
MACT No. 441/24 Neha Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Page No. 21/40
MACT No. 443/24 Rohit Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.02
11:21:45
+0530
Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital, Delhi, petitioner is a case of ”FUC of
#BB Leg Rt” was found to have sustained 25% permanent
physical impairment in relation to his Rt Lower Limb which is
non progressive and not likely to improve in future. The
aforementioned certificate was issued in terms of the directions
of this Tribunal vide order dated 07/12/2024. Accordingly, the
aforementioned disability certificate could be read in evidence in
terms of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Union
of India in Writ Petition (s) (Civil ) No (s). 534/2020 date of
order 16/11/2021. It is not possible to quantify the compensation
admissible to petitioner for the shock, pain and sufferings etc.
which she actually suffered because of the above injuries, but as
stated above, an effort has to be made to compensate him for the
same in a just and reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view the
extent and nature of the injuries suffered by petitioner and
duration of the treatment taken by him etc., an amount of
Rs.50,000/- is being awarded to him towards pain and sufferings
during the said period of his treatment and immobility. Thus, he
is awarded a total amount of Rs. 50,000/- under this head.
(iii) Loss of actual earnings
31. In his affidavit Ex. PW-1/A, the petitioner claims
that he used to do a private job and was earning Rs.30,000/- per
month from that vocation. The discharge summaries placed on
record by petitioner reflect that the petitioner sustained a
MACT No. 441/24 Neha Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Page No. 22/40
MACT No. 443/24 Rohit Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
11:21:48 +0530
grievous injuries which resulted into 25% permanent physical
impairment in relation to his Rt Lower Limb which is non
progressive and not likely to improve in future. The above
documents are sufficient to uphold the claim of the petitioner to
the effect that she was unable to resume her work since the date
of accident. In view of the nature of the injuries sustained by the
petitioner, it could be safely assumed that the petitioner has
become unfit for work for rest of her life after the accident and
he could not have worked for about 06 months due to the
injuries. As per relevant notification, the minimum wages
admissible to an Un-Skilled Person as on 06/03/2024 in Delhi
the earnings was Rs.17,494/-. As such, the petitioner is held
entitled to a sum of Rs.1,04,964/- (Rs.17,494/- X 6). The said
sum is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
(iv) Loss of future earnings due to disability
32. Petitioner claimed in her affidavit Ex. PW1/A that
she has become permanently disabled after the accident and
could not perform her work by resuming her duties. As a matter
of fact, the petitioner was in a private job at the time of accident.
He was employed with M/s Rich Look Studio, Ghante Wali Gali,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi. As per disability certificate Ex.PW-1/6,
the petitioner has suffered 25% permanent physical impairment
in relation to his Rt Lower Limb which is non progressive and
not likely to improve in future and same would certainly be a
great set back for his work profile and on his earning capacity.
The steel rod was inserted in his right leg would make him
MACT No. 441/24 Neha Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Page No. 23/40
Digitally signed
MACT No. 443/24 Rohit Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors.
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
11:21:52 +0530
incapable to perform his work like before to a greater extent.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, it would be
appropriate to hold that the petitioner had suffered functional
disability to the extent of 25%. This Tribunal has already
assumed the monthly income of petitioner to be Rs.17,494/- at
the relevant time. As far as the age of petitioner at the time of
accident is concerned, we may look into the photocopies of
petitioner’s Aadhar Card which is Ex. PW-1/1 as per the said
document, the date of birth of petitioner is 18/05/1990 Going by
the same, the age of petitioner as on the date of accident i.e.
06/03/2024. was around 33 years. Therefore, in view of the law
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma
& Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.,(2009) 6 SCC
121, which has also been upheld by the Constitution Bench of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment dated
31.10.2017 given in the case of National Insurance Company
Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, the
multiplier of ’16’ is held applicable for calculating the loss of
future earnings of petitioner arising out of his above disability.
The petitioner is also entitled to 40% future prospects as per the
observations made by a Three Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Erudhaya Priya Vs. State Express Transport
Corporation Ltd., MANU/SC/0545/2020 [please see para 7 (b)].
Thus, the loss of future earnings of petitioner due to his above
injury and permanent physical disability comes to Rs.11,75,597/-
(rounded off) (Rs.17,494/- X 140/100 X 25/100 X 12 X 16) and
MACT No. 441/24 Neha Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Page No. 24/40
MACT No. 443/24 Rohit Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
11:21:56 +0530
the same is awarded to him as compensation under this head.
(v) Conveyance, Attendant Charges and Special Diet
33. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the
petitioner, the extent of permanent physical disability and the
extended period of medical treatment, the petitioner is granted a
sum of Rs. 35,000/- each under these heads.
(vi) Loss of amenities of life and disfigurement
34. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the
petitioner, the extent of permanent physical disability and the
extended period of medical treatment, the petitioner is granted a
sum of Rs. 35,000/- each under these heads.
ISSUE NO.3 / RELIEF
35. The injured (IN CASE/ MACT No. 441/24 (For
Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by
the injured Neha Saxena) is thus awarded a sum of
Rs. 25,88,193/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Eighty Eight
Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Three Only)(Rs. 9,900/- + Rs.
50,000/- + Rs.1,04,964/- + Rs.22,48,329/- + Rs. 35,000/- + Rs.
35,000/- + Rs. 35,000/-+ Rs. 35,000/- + Rs. 35,000/-) with
interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e
04/07/2024. Since no interim compensation has been awarded,
therefore no deduction is applicable.
MACT No. 441/24 Neha Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Page No. 25/40
MACT No. 443/24 Rohit Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
11:22:00 +0530
36. The injured (IN CASE/ MACT No. 443/24 (For
Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by
the injured Rohit Saxena) is thus awarded a sum of
Rs.15,15,561/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Five
Hundred and Sixty One Only)(Rs.10,000/- + Rs. 50,000/- +
Rs.1,04,964/- + Rs.10,49,640/- + Rs. 35,000/- + Rs. 35,000/- +
Rs. 35,000/-+ Rs. 35,000/- + Rs. 35,000/-) with interest @ 9%
per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e 04/07/2024. Since
no interim compensation has been awarded, therefore no
deduction is applicable.
RELEASE IN CASE/ MACT No. 441/24 (For Grant of
Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured
Neha Saxena):
37. Petitioner did not bother to appear before this
Tribunal for recording her statement regarding financial needs
and requirements.
37.1 Out of the awarded amount, Petitioner is awarded a
sum of Rs.26,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Only) and
the said amount is directed to be kept with State Bank of India,
Branch Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in MACAD in the form of
130 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal
amounts for a period of 1 to 130 months in succession, as per
the scheme formulated by Central Motor Vehicles (fifth
Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 35, 36 of
Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under
MACT No. 441/24 Neha Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Page No. 26/40
MACT No. 443/24 Rohit Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.02
11:22:04
+0530
Rule 150A)].The amount of FDRs on maturity would be
released in her savings/MACT Claims SB Account as and when
she furnishes the details of her bank account which is near the
place of his residence to the Bank Manager, State Bank of India,
Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi under intimation to the Civil
Nazir of this Tribunal. The remaining amount of Rs.2,40,542/-
(Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Thousand Five Hundred and Forty
Two Only) is also directed to be released into hER above said
account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the Petitioner-
Neha Saxena.
RELEASE IN CASE/ MACT No. 443/24 (For Grant of
Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured
Rohit Saxena):
38. Petitioner did not bother to appear before this
Tribunal for recording his statement regarding financial needs
and requirements.
38.1 Out of the awarded amount, Petitioner is awarded a
sum of Rs.14,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Only) and the
said amount is directed to be kept with State Bank of India,
Branch Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in MACAD in the form of
70 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal
amounts for a period of 1 to 70 months in succession, as per the
scheme formulated by Central Motor Vehicles (fifth
Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 35, 36 of
Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (underMACT No. 441/24 Neha Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Page No. 27/40
MACT No. 443/24 Rohit Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.02
11:22:08
+0530
Rule 150A)]. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be
released in his savings/MACT Claims SB Account as and when
he furnishes the details of his bank account which is near the
place of his residence to the Bank Manager, State Bank of India,
Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi under intimation to the Civil
Nazir of this Tribunal. The remaining amount of Rs.2,63,328/-
(Rupees Two Lakhs Sixty Three Thousand Three Hundred and
Twenty Eight Only) is also directed to be released into his
above said account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the
Petitioner- Rohit Saxena.
39. The Bank(s) shall not permit any joint name(s) to be
added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of
the petitioner(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the
petitioner(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and
not a joint account(s). The original fixed deposit shall be
retained by the SBI, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in safe
custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR
amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished
by the bank to the petitioner(s).The maturity amounts of the
FDR(s) be credit by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the
savings bank account of the petitioner(s) near the place of their
residence. No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature
discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission
of this Tribunal.
LIABILITY
40. As already stated above, R-1 being the driver and
MACT No. 441/24 Neha Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Page No. 28/40
MACT No. 443/24 Rohit Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. PANKAJ by
Digitally signed
PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.08.02
11:22:12 +0530
principal tortfeasor and R-2 being owner of the offending
vehicle, and also being vicariously liable for the acts of R-1, are
jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of
compensation to petitioner. However, since the offending vehicle
was insured with R-3 at the time of accident, therefore, R-3/
Insurance Company is liable to indemnify R-2 in respect
of above liability. As such R-3 is directed to deposit the above
award amount within 30 days from the date of this Award by
way of NEFT or RTGS mode in the account of this Tribunal
maintained with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (account holder’s
name-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 02 Central, A/C No.
40743576901, IFSC Code SBIN0000726) under intimation to
the petitioners and this Tribunal in terms of the format for
remittance of compensation as provided in Divisional Manager
Vs. Rajesh, 2016 SCC Online Mad. 1913 (and reiterated by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the orders dated 16.03.2021 and
16.11.2021 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt.
Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors) along with interest @ 9% per
annum till the deposit of the compensation as awarded, failing
which it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per
annum for the period of delay.
41. A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the
parties free of cost. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of
the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi
Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles
MACT No. 441/24 Neha Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Page No. 29/40
MACT No. 443/24 Rohit Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.02
11:22:16
+0530
(fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40
of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under
Rule 150A)]. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in
Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth
Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of
Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under
Rule 150A).
42. Ahlmad is 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. 524/2020 titled as Bajaj
Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India &
Ors. on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated
copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts
for information.
43. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the
directions passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in MAC
APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021
regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and
Digitally signed
put up the same on 02/09/2025.
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
11:22:21 +0530Announced in the open court (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA)
on this 02.08.2025 PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL)
DELHI
MACT No. 441/24 Neha Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Page No. 30/40
MACT No. 443/24 Rohit Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.02
11:22:25
+0530
FORM – XVI, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules,
2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A)SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD
AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE
1. Date of accident : 06/03/2024
2. Name of the injured : Neha Saxena
3. Age of the injured : 27 years
4. Occupation of the injured : Private Job
5. Income of the injured : As per minimum
wages of an
Unskilled Person
prevailing in Delhi
at the
relevant time
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken
by injured : Different Hospital
8. Period of Hospitalization : Different Periods
MACT No. 441/24 Neha Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Page No. 31/40
MACT No. 443/24 Rohit Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. PANKAJ by
Digitally signed
PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.08.02
11:22:30 +0530
9. Whether any permanent
disability ? If yes, give details : YES
10. Computation of Compensation
S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(I) Expenditure on treatment Rs.9,900/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.35,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 35,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 35,000/-
(v) Cost of artificial limb NIL
(vi) Loss of earning capacity NIL
(vii) Loss of Income Rs.1,04,964/-
MACT No. 441/24 Neha Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Page No. 32/40
MACT No. 443/24 Rohit Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.02
11:22:34
+0530
(viii) Any other loss which may NIL
require any special
treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his
life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental NIL
and physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.35,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration Rs.35,000/-
(v) Loss of marriage prospects NIL
(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:
MACT No. 441/24 Neha Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Page No. 33/40
MACT No. 443/24 Rohit Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. PANKAJ Digitally
by PANKAJ
SHARMA
signedSHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
11:22:38 +0530
(i) Percentage of disability 45% w.r.t. Rt Upper &
assessed and nature of Lower Limb
disability as permanent or
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N.A
expectation of life span on
account of disability45%
(iii) Percentage of loss of
earning capacity in relation
to disability
(iv) Loss of future income – Rs.22,48,329/-
(Income x% Earning
Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.25,88,193/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the Rs.2,52,349/-
date of award
17. Total amount including Rs.28,40,542/-
interest
MACT No. 441/24 Neha Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Page No. 34/40
MACT No. 443/24 Rohit Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.02
11:22:42
+0530
18. Award amount released Rs.2,40,542/-
19. Award amount kept in As per award
FDRs
20. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award
the award amount to the
claimant(s).
21. Next date for compliance of 02.09.2025
the award.
FORM – XVI, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules,
2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A)
SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD
AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE
1. Date of accident : 06/03/2024
2. Name of the injured : Rohit Saxena
3. Age of the injured : 33 years
MACT No. 441/24 Neha Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Page No. 35/40
Digitally signed
MACT No. 443/24 Rohit Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.02
11:22:45
+0530
4. Occupation of the injured : Private Job
5. Income of the injured : As per minimum
wages of an
Unskilled Person
prevailing in Delhi at
the relevant time
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken
by injured : Different Hospital
8. Period of Hospitalization : Different Periods
9. Whether any permanent disability ?
If yes, give details : YES MACT No. 441/24 Neha Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Page No. 36/40 MACT No. 443/24 Rohit Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.02 11:22:49 +0530 10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal 11. Pecuniary Loss (I) Expenditure on treatment Rs.10,000/- (ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.35,000/- (iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 35,000/- (iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 35,000/- (v) Cost of artificial limb NIL (vi) Loss of earning capacity NIL (vii) Loss of Income Rs.1,04,964/- MACT No. 441/24 Neha Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Page No. 37/40 MACT No. 443/24 Rohit Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA Date: SHARMA 2025.08.02 11:22:53 +0530 (viii) Any other loss which may NIL require any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life 12. Non-Pecuniary Loss: (i) Compensation for mental NIL and physical shock (ii) Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- (iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.35,000/- (iv) Disfiguration Rs.35,000/- (v) Loss of marriage prospects NIL (vi) Loss of earning, N.A. inconvenience, hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc. MACT No. 441/24 Neha Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Page No. 38/40 MACT No. 443/24 Rohit Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.02 11:22:57 +0530
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability 25% w.r.t. Rt Lower Limb
assessed and nature of
disability as permanent or
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N.A
expectation of life span on
account of disability25%
(iii) Percentage of loss of
earning capacity in relation
to disability
(iv) Loss of future income – Rs.11,75,597/-
(Income x% Earning
Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.15,15,561/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the Rs.1,47,767/-
date of award
MACT No. 441/24 Neha Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Page No. 39/40
MACT No. 443/24 Rohit Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
11:23:01 +0530
17. Total amount including Rs.16,63,328/-
interest
18. Award amount released Rs.2,63,328/-
19. Award amount kept in As per award
FDRs
20. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award
the award amount to the
claimant(s).
21. Next date for compliance of 02.09.2025
the award.
CONCLUSION:-
1. As per award dated 02.08.2025.
2. A separate file is ordered to be prepared by the Nazir
with directions to put up the same on 02.09.2025.
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
11:23:05 +0530(DR. PANKAJ SHARMA)
PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL)
DELHI/02.08.2025MACT No. 441/24 Neha Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Page No. 40/40
MACT No. 443/24 Rohit Saxena Vs Parul Sood & Ors. Digitally
signed by
PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.02
11:23:10
+0530