Delhi District Court
Ahil (I)(Fir 191/2022/Gulabi Bagh) vs Kunal Saini (Owner And Driver)(Icici) on 5 April, 2025
DLCT010159982022
Presented on : 21-11-2022
Registered on : 26-11-2022
Decided on : 05-04-2025
Duration : 02 Years 04 Months
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. 922/22( For
Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by
the injured Lal Mohammad):
LAL MOHAMMAD
S/o Sh. Abdul Mannan
R/o H. No.4-A, Block-A,
DDA Flats, Sarai Basti,
Sarai Rohilla, Onkar Nagar,
Delhi-110035. .......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. KUNAL SAINI
S/o Sh. A.K.Saini
R/o H.No. 10123, Library Road,
Azad Market, Delhi. (Driver-cum-Owner).
2. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
(Insurer).
(Through Ld. Counsel Sh.S.K.Sharma) ......Respondents
MACT No. 922/22 Lal Mohammad Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Page No. 1/38
MACT No. 925/22 Md. Aahil Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.04.07
10:10:52
+0530
ANDDLCT010160492022
Presented on : 22-11-2022
Registered on : 26-11-2022
Decided on : 05-04-2025
Duration : 02 Years 04 MonthsIN THE MATTER OF CASE / MACT No. 920/22 (For Grant
of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by the
injured Tarun Kumar):
MD. AAHIL
S/o Sh. Lal Mohammad
R/o H. No. 4-A, Block-A,
DDA Flats, Sarai Basti,
Sarai Rohilla, Onkar Nagar,
Delhi-110035. …….PetitionerVERSUS
1. KUNAL SAINI
S/o Sh. A.K.Saini
R/o H.No. 10123, Library Road,
Azad Market, Delhi. (Driver-cum-Owner).
2. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
(Insurer).
(Through Ld. Counsel Sh.S.K.Sharma) ……Respondents.
MACT No. 922/22 Lal Mohammad Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Page No. 2/38
MACT No. 925/22 Md. Aahil Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.07
10:10:57 +0530
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 10/07/22
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 26/11/22
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 Company
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 05/04/25
15. Whether the petitioner (s) was/were directed to Yes
open savings bank account(s) near their place ofMACT No. 922/22 Lal Mohammad Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Page No. 3/38
MACT No. 925/22 Md. Aahil Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. PANKAJ by
Digitally signed
PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.07
10:11:03 +0530
residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) was/were 11/03/22
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 H. No.4-A,
Claimant(s). Block-
A,DDA Flats,
Sarai
Basti,Sarai
Rohilla,
Onkar Nagar,
Delhi-
110035.
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) NA
is near his place of residence?
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 26/11/2022
by the Investigating Officer in the presence of parties. One DAR
was prepared in respect of injuries sustained by one Sh. Lal
MACT No. 922/22 Lal Mohammad Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Page No. 4/38
MACT No. 925/22 Md. Aahil Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. PANKAJ Digitally signed by
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.07
10:11:07 +0530
Mohammad S/o Sh. Abdul Mannan (hereinafter referred to as
‘injured’) and the other DAR was prepared in respect of
injuries sustained by one Md. Aahil S/o Sh. Lal Mohammad
(hereinafter referred to as ‘injured’) respectively. These DARs
were prepared by IO in respect of a motor vehicular accident
which occurred on 10/07/2022 at about 06.20 A.M. at a spot
Veera Banda Vairagi Marg, Gulabi Bagh, near Metro Pillar No.
98, Y Point, Delhi falling within the jurisdiction of PS Gulabi
Bagh. As per petitioner Lal Mohammad on 10/07/2022 he
alongwith his son namely master Md. Aahil aged about 06 years
old was going to Mori Gate, Delhi from his residence on his
motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-1SY-0390 and when they
reached at Bir Banda Bairagi Marg, Gulabi Bagh, Metro Pillar 98
at about 6.20 AM, a Varna Car bearing registration no. DL-9C-
AS-7711 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) which
was coming from back side without following the traffic rules, at
a very high speed in a rash, negligent and reckless maneer and
the petitioner’s bike with great force from back side. It is further
stated that due to heavy impact of the force he and his son fell
down on the road alongwith his bike and suffered grievous
multiple injuries on various parts of body. It is further stated that
the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving on
the part of R-1 namely Kunal Saini. It is further stated that he
alongwith his son was immediately taken to Hindu Rao Hospital
by the public person where the MLC was prepared by the doctor
of this hospital, MLC bearing No. 4569/2022 dated 10/07/2022
MACT No. 922/22 Lal Mohammad Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Page No. 5/38
MACT No. 925/22 Md. Aahil Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. PANKAJ by
Digitally signed
PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.07
10:11:11 +0530
was prepared and thereafter he also took treatment from other
private and from other private and govt. hospitals. An FIR No.
191/22 PS Gulabi Bagh was registered U/s 279/337 IPC & 3/181
& 185 MV Act. R-1 is the driver-cum-owner of the offending
vehicle. R-2 is the insured of the offending vehicle. Both the
DARs were treated as ‘claim petitions.’ R-2 is the insurer of the
offending vehicle. R-2/insurance company was directed to file a
legal offer/reasoned decision in response to the said DAR. R-1
was also directed to file their Written Statement.
1.1 As per injured Lal Mohammad, at the relevant time
he stated that due to the said incident he sustained grievous
injuries. Injured Lal Mohammad further claims that he has
incurred an expense to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- towards medical
treatment, Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,0000/- on special diet and Rs.
5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- on conveyance and Rs. 15,000/- to Rs.
20,000/- on attendant charges. He further claims that his health
has deteriorated due to the injuries sustained in the accident,
leading to financial losses. He further claims that at the relevant
time he was 37 years old and was doing a private service and was
earning Rs.20,000/- per month. He seeks compensation to the for
the injuries sustained by him in the accident.
1.2 As per father of injured Md. Aahil at the relevant
time his son was 06 years old and had sustained grievous
injuries. Father of minor Injured Lal Mohammad further claims
MACT No. 922/22 Lal Mohammad Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Page No. 6/38
MACT No. 925/22 Md. Aahil Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. PANKAJ by
Digitally signed
PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.07
10:11:14 +0530
that he has incurred an expense to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-
towards medical treatment, Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 35,000/- on
special diet and Rs.25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- on conveyance and
Rs. 35,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- on attendant charges of his minor
son. He seeks compensation for the injuries sustained by his
minor son namely Md. Aahil in the accident.
WRITTEN STATEMENT IN CASE/ MACT No. 919/22 ( For
Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained
by the injured Lal Mohammad):
2. No written statement was filed by R-1 and accordingly
the right of R-1 to file written statement was closed vide order
dated 28/08/2023 passed by this Tribunal.
3. R-2 /Insurance Company filed a reply wherein it
seeks to avoid liability on the ground that the offending vehicle
driven by its driver did not have a valid and effective driving
license. However, it is admitted that at the relevant time the
offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by
itself.
WRITTEN STATEMENT IN CASE/ MACT No. 922/22 ( For
Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by
the injured Md. Aahil):
4. No written statement was filed by R-1 and
accordingly the right of R-1 to file written statement was closed
vide order dated 28/08/2023 passed by this Tribunal.
MACT No. 922/22 Lal Mohammad Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Page No. 7/38
Digitally signed
MACT No. 925/22 Md. Aahil Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.04.07
10:11:18
+0530
5. R-2 /Insurance Company filed a reply wherein it seeks to
avoid liability on the ground that the offending vehicle driven by
its driver did not have a valid and effective driving license.
However, it is admitted that at the relevant time the offending
vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by itself.
ISSUES IN CASE/ MACT No. 922/22 ( For Grant of
Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by the injured
Lal Mohammad):
6. Vide order dated 28/08/2023 the following issues
were framed by this Tribunal :-
1. Whether the petitioner Lal
Mohammad suffered injuries in
an accident that took place on
10.07.2022 at about 06.20 A.M.
involving vehicle bearing
registration DL-1SY-0390
(M/Cycle) driven rashly and
negligently and owner by
respondent no.1 and insured with
the respondent No.2?OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled
for compensation? If so, to what
amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
From the perusal of records, it is revealed that in
Issue no. 1 the registration number and make has wrongly been
mentioned. Same stands rectified as follows:
MACT No. 922/22 Lal Mohammad Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Page No. 8/38
MACT No. 925/22 Md. Aahil Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.07
10:11:22 +0530
1. Whether the petitioner Lal Mohammad
suffered injuries in an accident that
took place on 10.07.2022 at about
06.20 A.M. involving vehicle bearing
registration DL-9C-AS7711 (Varna
Car) driven rashly and negligently and
ownee by respondent no.1 and insured
with the respondent No.2?OPPISSUES IN CASE/ MACT No. 925/22 ( For Grant of Compensat
ion in respect of the injuries sustained by the injured
Md. Aahil):
7. Vide order dated 287/08/2023 the following issues
were framed by this Tribunal :-
1. Whether the petitioner Ahil
suffered injuries in an accident
that took place on 10.07.2022 at
about 06.20 A.M. involving
vehicle bearing registration
DL-1SY-0390 (M/Cycle) driven
rashly and negligently and owner
by respondent no.1 and insured
with the respondent No.2?OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled
for compensation? If so, to what
amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
From the perusal of records, it is revealed that in
Issue no. 1 the registration number and make has wrongly been
mentioned. Same stands rectified as follows:
MACT No. 922/22 Lal Mohammad Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Page No. 9/38
MACT No. 925/22 Md. Aahil Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. PANKAJ by
Digitally signed
PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.07
10:11:25 +0530
1. Whether the petitioner Ahil suffered
injuries in an accident that took place
on 10.07.2022 at about 06.20 A.M.
involving vehicle bearing registration
DL-9C-AS-7711 (Varna Car) driven
rashly and negligently and ownee by
respondent no.1 and insured with the
respondent No.2?OPP
CONSOLIDATED OF BOTH THE MATTERS
8. Both the above matters were consolidated at the
stage of recording of respondent’s evidence vide order dated
28/08/2023 and the matter f or Grant of Compensation in
respect of the injuries sustained by injured Lal Mohammad
i.e. MACT No. 922/22 was treated as a Lead Case.
EVIDENCE IN CASE/ MACT No. 925/22 ( For Grant of
Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by the
injured Lal Mohammad):
9. The petitioner examined himself as PW-1 in support
of his claim. The petitioner filed affidavit Ex. PW1/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 has incurred an expense to the tune of Rs.20,000/-
towards medical treatment, Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,0000/- on specia
l diet and Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- on conveyance and Rs.5,000/-
to Rs. 20,000/- on attendant charges. He further claims that his
health has deteriorated due to the injuries sustained in the accident,
leading to financial losses. He further claims that at the relevant
MACT No. 922/22 Lal Mohammad Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Page No. 10/38
MACT No. 925/22 Md. Aahil Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. PANKAJ Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.07
10:11:29 +0530
time he was 37 years old and was doing a private service and was
earning Rs.20,000/- per month. He seeks compensation to the for
the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Petitioner has relied
upon the following documents viz:-
“Ex PW-1/1 is copy of Aadhar Card of PW-1;
Ex. PW-1/2 is de-ehibited as Mark A (Colly)
is copies of treatment papers;
Ex. PW-1/3 is de-ehibited asMark B (Colly) is
copies of medical bills;
Ex. PW-1/4 (Colly) is attested copy of
DAR.”
9.1 He was cross-examined by all the respondents In his
cross-examination, he deposed that the alleged accident took
place on 10.07.2022 at about 6.15 to 6.20 am. He denied the
suggestion that at the time of alleged accident one Dhruv Rathi
was driving the vehicle and R-1 Kunal Saini who was step out
from the said offending vehicle. He further denied the
suggestion that there is no skid marks as no alleged vehicle was
parked at that time at the place of accident. He further denied the
suggestion that the accident took place due to his own and
alleged vehicle of R-1 has been falsely implicated in the present
FIR NO. 191/2022 PS Gulabi Bagh with the collusion with the
police officials.
9.2 PE was then closed.
MACT No. 922/22 Lal Mohammad Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Page No. 11/38
MACT No. 925/22 Md. Aahil Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.07
10:11:34 +0530
10. R-1 examined himself as R1W1 in his defence. He
deposed vide his affidavit Ex.R1W1/A. He relied upon the copy
of his Aadhar Care Ex. R1W1/1. He was cross-examined by Ld.
Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company. In his cross-examination
he deposed that on the day of accident he was not holding a
valid driving license to drive a car and he is facing a trial for u/s
279/338 of IPC and 3/181 MV Act before Ld. Magistrate.
10.1 R-2/ Insurance Company examined one Ms. Diksha
Manhas, Legal Manager, ICICI Lombard G.I.C in its defence.
She deposed vide her affidavit Ex. R-3/W-1/A. She relied upon
the copy of the policy of offending vehicle which is already a
part of DAR vide Ex. R-3/W-1/1 (Colly), the office copy of the
legal notice u/o XII Rule 8 CPC sent to R-1 vide Ex.R-3W-1/2
(Colly) and postal receipts vide Ex. R-3W-1/23 and 4. He was
cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for petitioner. In his cross-
examination he deposed that at the time of the accident the
offending vehicle was insured with ICICI Lombard and requisite
premium was received. She denied the suggestion that insurer
has liability to pay compensation to the petitioner.
EVIDENCE IN CASE/ MACT No. 925/22 ( For Grant of
Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by the
injured Md. Aahil :
11. The father of minor petitioner examined himself as PW-1 in
support of his claim. The petitioner filed affidavit Ex. PW1/A wher
MACT No. 922/22 Lal Mohammad Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Page No. 12/38
MACT No. 925/22 Md. Aahil Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.04.07
10:11:37
+0530
ein he described the occurrence of incident in line with the facts
mentioned in Para 1 of this award. He deposed that his son
sustained grievous injuries at the relevant time. He furether
deposed at the relevant time his son was 06 years old and had
sustained grievous injuries.Father of minor Injured LalMohammad
further claims that he has incurred an expense to the tune of Rs.
1,00,000/- towards medical treatment, Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 35,000/-
on special diet and Rs.25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- on conveyance and
Rs. 35,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- on attendant charges of his minor son.
He seeks compensation for the injuries sustained by his minor son
namely Md. Aahil in the accident.He has relied upon the following
documents viz:-
“Ex PW-1/1 is copy of the Aadhar Card of
PW-1;
Ex.PW-1/2 is copy of the PAN Card of
PW-1;
Ex. PW-1/3 (Colly) is original treatment
records;
Ex.PW-1/4 (Colly) is complete DAR.”
11.1 He was cross-examined by all the respondents In his
cross-examination, he deposed that the alleged accident took
place on 10.07.2022 at about 6.15 to 6.20 am. He denied the
suggestion that at the time of alleged accident one Dhruv Rathi
was driving the vehicle and R-1 Kunal Saini who was step out
from the said offending vehicle. He further denied theMACT No. 922/22 Lal Mohammad Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Page No. 13/38
MACT No. 925/22 Md. Aahil Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.07
10:11:42 +0530
suggestion that there is no skid marks as no alleged vehicle was
parked at that time at the place of accident. He further denied the
suggestion that the accident took place due to his own and
alleged vehicle of R-1 has been falsely implicated in the present
FIR NO. 191/2022 PS Gulabi Bagh with the collusion with the
police officials.
11.2 PE was then closed.
12. Respondents led its evidence in the lead case bearing
MACT No. 922/22.
FINDINGS
13. Oral submissions were advanced by Ld. Counsel for
parties in both the cases.
14. I have perused the record and my issue wise findings
are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 1 IN CASE/ MACT No. 922/22 ( For
Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained
by the injured Lal Mohammad):
‘Whether the petitioner Lal
Mohammad suffered injuries in an
accident that took place on
10.07.2022 at about 06.20 A.M.
involving vehicle bearing
MACT No. 922/22 Lal Mohammad Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Page No. 14/38
MACT No. 925/22 Md. Aahil Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.07
10:11:47 +0530
registration DL-9C-AS7711
(Varna Car) driven rashly and
negligently and ownee by
respondent no.1 and insured with
the respondent No.2?OPP’
ISSUES IN CASE/ MACT No. 825/22 (For Grant of Compensation
in respect of the injuries sustained by the injured Md. Aadil):
‘ Whether the petitioner Aahil
suffered injuries in an accident
that took place on 10.07.2022 at
about 06.20 A.M. involving
vehicle bearing registration
DL-9C-AS7711 (Varna Car)
driven rashly and negligently and
ownee by respondent no.1 and
insured with the respondent
No.2?OPP
15. At the very outset, it may be noted that the
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
MACT No. 922/22 Lal Mohammad Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Page No. 15/38
MACT No. 925/22 Md. Aahil Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.07
10:11:51 +0530
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.
16. In order to prove the present issue, the petitioners in
the lead case examined himself as PW-1 as well as father of the
minor injured in the connected as PW-1. He has clearly and
categorically deposed that at the relevant date, time and place, he
alongwith his son namely master Md. Aahil aged about 06 years
old was going to Mori Gate, Delhi from his residence on his
motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-1SY-0390 and when they
reached at Bir Banda Bairagi Marg, Gulabi Bagh, Metro Pillar 98
at about 6.20 AM, a Varna Car bearing registration no. DL-9C-
AS-7711 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) which
was coming from back side without following the traffic rules, at
a very high speed in a rash, negligent and reckless maneer and
the petitioner’s bike with great force from back side. It is further
stated that due to heavy impact of the force he and his son fell
down on the road alongwith his bike and suffered grievous
multiple injuries on various parts of body. It is further stated that
the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving on
the part of R-1 namely Kunal Saini. It is further stated that he
alongwith his son was immediately taken to Hindu Rao Hospital
by the public person where the MLC was prepared by the doctor
MACT No. 922/22 Lal Mohammad Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Page No. 16/38
MACT No. 925/22 Md. Aahil Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.07
10:11:54 +0530
of this hospital, MLC bearing No. 4569/2022 dated 10/07/2022
was prepared and thereafter he also took treatment from other
private and from other private and govt. hospitals. The oral
testimonies of PWs-1 have gone unrebutted qua R-1 and R-2.
Both PWs-1 seem to have withstood the test of cross
examination. 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 cross examination and did not
betray any signs of falsity or untruth. He declined the suggestions
imputing the occurrence of accident to their own negligence.
17. The very fact that R-1 has already been charge-
sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279/337 IPC
& 3/181 & 185 MV ACT 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,
Chargeshee MLC, Mechanical Inspection Report and Site Plan
also corroborate the oral testimonies of both the injured persons.
18. In view of the above, it could be safely assumed that
at the relevant time the motorcycle, which the deceased were
riding was hit in the rear by the offending vehicle.
19. Having ruled so, this Tribunal now proceeds to
MACT No. 922/22 Lal Mohammad Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Page No. 17/38
MACT No. 925/22 Md. Aahil Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.07
10:11:59 +0530
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, in the rear 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.
20. 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.
21. 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
the respondents and in favour of the petitioners in both the
cases.
MACT No. 922/22 Lal Mohammad Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Page No. 18/38
MACT No. 925/22 Md. Aahil Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.07
10:12:03 +0530
ISSUE NO. 2 (IN BOTH THE CASES)
22. As this Tribunal has already held that R-1 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. 922/22 (For Grant
of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured
Lal Mohammad):
23. 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
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-
MACT No. 922/22 Lal Mohammad Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Page No. 19/38
MACT No. 925/22 Md. Aahil Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.07
10:12:07 +0530
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.
24. In light of the above legal propositions, the amount
of compensation which can be considered to be ‘just’ in the
MACT No. 922/22 Lal Mohammad Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Page No. 20/38
MACT No. 925/22 Md. Aahil Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.04.07
10:12:10
+0530
opinion of this tribunal shall be as under:-
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
25. The Injured Lal Mohammad has placed on judicial
file his original medical records and medical bills as Ex. PW1/5
(Colly) and Ex. PW-1/6 (Colly). As per the said documents,
injured Lal Mohammad has incurred medical expenses to the
tune of Rs. 19,728/-. In the absence of any contest to the said
documents (placed on record by injured), injured Lal
Mohammad is held entitled to an amount of Rs. 19,728/-/- under
this head.
(ii) Pain and Suffering
26. As per medical documents, the petitioner has
suffered simple injuries. It is not possible to quantify the
compensation admissible to petitioner for the shock, pain and
sufferings etc. which he 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.25,000/- 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. 25,000/-
MACT No. 922/22 Lal Mohammad Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Page No. 21/38
MACT No. 925/22 Md. Aahil Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.04.07
10:12:13
+0530
under this head.
(iii) Loss of actual earnings
27. In his affidavit Ex. PW1/A, the petitioner claims
that he used to do a private service and was earning Rs.22,000/-
per month from that vocation. 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 his life
after the accident and he could not have worked for about 01
month due to the injuries. As per relevant notification, the
minimum wages admissible to an Un-Skilled person as on
10/07/2022 in Delhi the earnings was Rs.16,506/-. As such, the
petitioner is held entitled to a sum of Rs.16,506/- (Rs.16,506/-
X 1). The said sum is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
(iv) Conveyance, Attendant Charges, Special Diet and amenities
of life
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. 5,000/- each under these heads.
COMPENSATION IN CASE/ MACT No. 925/22 (For
Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by
injured Md. Aahil):
29. The father of minor Injured Md. Aahil has placed
MACT No. 922/22 Lal Mohammad Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Page No. 22/38
MACT No. 925/22 Md. Aahil Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.07
10:12:17 +0530
on judicial file his original medical records and medical bills as
Mark A and Mark B. As per the said documents, injured Md.
Aahil has incurred medical expenses to the tune of Rs.30,304/. In
the absence of any contest to the said documents (placed on
record by injured), injured Md. Aahil is held entitled to an
amount of Rs. 30,304/- under this head.
(ii) Pain and Suffering
30. As per medical documents issued by Lekha Maternal
and Child Care dated 11/07/2022, the petitioner Md. Aahil has
suffered ‘# on parietal bone and abrassions on face; . It is not
possible to quantify the compensation admissible to petitioner for
the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which he 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 enjoyment of life, childhood and play
31. In his affidavit Ex. PW1/A, the father of petitioner
claims that his son was 06 years of old at the time of accident.
Keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by minor injured
MACT No. 922/22 Lal Mohammad Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Page No. 23/38
MACT No. 925/22 Md. Aahil Vs Kunal Saini & Ors.
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.07
10:12:21 +0530
a sum of Rs.20,000/- under this head.
(iv) Conveyance, Attendant Charges, Amenities of life and
Special Diet
32. 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
33. The injured (IN CASE/ MACT No. 925/22 (For
Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by
the injure Lal Mohammad) is thus awarded a sum of Rs.81,234/-
(Rupees Eighty None Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty Four
Only)( Rs. 19,728/ + Rs. 25,000/- + Rs.16,506/- + Rs. 5,000/- +
Rs. 5,000/- + Rs.5,000/-+ Rs. 5,000/- ) with interest @ 9% per
annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e 26/11/2022. Since no
interim compensation has been awarded, therefore no deduction
is applicable.
34. The injured (IN CASE/ MACT No. 922/22 (For
Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by
the injured Md. Aahil) is thus awarded a sum of Rs.2,40,304/-
(Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Thousand Three Hundred and Four
Only) (Rs.30,304/- + Rs. 50,000/- + Rs.20,000/- + Rs. 35,000/-
+ Rs. 35,000/-+ Rs. 35,000/- + Rs. 35,000/-) with interest @
MACT No. 922/22 Lal Mohammad Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Page No. 24/38
MACT No. 925/22 Md. Aahil Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.07
10:12:25 +0530
9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e 26/11/2022.
Since no interim compensation has been awarded, therefore no
deduction is applicable.
RELEASE IN CASE/ MACT No. 925/22 (For Grant of
Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured
Lal Mohammad):
35. Petitioner did not bother to appear before this
Tribunal for recording his statement regarding financial needs
and requirements.
35.1 The entire awarded amount of Rs.98,293/- ( Rupees
Ninety Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Three Only) 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 which can be withdrawn and utilized by the
Petitioner-Lal Mohammad.
RELEASE IN CASE/ MACT No. 920/22 (For Grant of
Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by injured
Md. Aahil ):
36. Petitioner did not bother to appear before this
Tribunal for recording his statement regarding financial needs
and requirements.
36.1 The entire awarded amount of Rs. 2,90,768/-
( Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty
MACT No. 922/22 Lal Mohammad Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Page No. 25/38
MACT No. 925/22 Md. Aahil Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.07
10:12:29 +0530
Eight Only) 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 which can be
withdrawn and utilized by the Petitioner-Md. Aahil.
37. 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
38. As per the evidence, the R-1 has been charge-sheeted
for driving the offending vehicle without any valid and effective
driving license and was drunk at the time of accident. Therefore,
MACT No. 922/22 Lal Mohammad Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Page No. 26/38
MACT No. 925/22 Md. Aahil Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Digitally
signed by
PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.07
10:12:34
+0530
considering the facts and circumstances, R-2/ ICICI Lombard
General Insurance Company is exonerated from liability to pay
compensation to the victim. R-1/ driver-cum-owner is burdened
with the liabliity to pay compensation to the victim as per award.
Ordered accordingly.
38.1 Respondent No. 1 being the driver-cum-owner is
liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to petitioner.
Respondent No. 1 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 petitioner/ injured 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 he shall
be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the
period of delay
39. A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties
free of cost. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the
MACT No. 922/22 Lal Mohammad Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Page No. 27/38
MACT No. 925/22 Md. Aahil Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.07
10:12:42 +0530
award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi
Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles
(fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40
of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under
Rule 150A)]. 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).
40. 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.
41. 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.
MACT No. 922/22 Lal Mohammad Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Page No. 28/38
MACT No. 925/22 Md. Aahil Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.04.07
10:12:45
+0530
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put
up the same on 05.05.2025. Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.07
10:12:49 +0530Announced in the open court (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA)
on this 05.04.2025 PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL)
DELHIFORM – 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 : 10/07/2022
2. Name of the injured : Lal Mohammad
3. Age of the injured : 37 years
4. Occupation of the injured : Service
5. Income of the injured : As per minimum
wages of an
unskilled person
prevailing in Delhi
at the
relevant time
6. Nature of injury : simple
7. Medical treatment taken
by injured : Different Hospital
8. Period of Hospitalization : Different Periods
9. Whether any permanent
disability ? If yes, give details : NO
MACT No. 922/22 Lal Mohammad Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Page No. 29/38
MACT No. 925/22 Md. Aahil Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.07
10:12:52 +0530
10. Computation of Compensation
S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(I) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 19,728/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.5,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 5,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 5,000/-
(v) Cost of artificial limb NIL
(vi) Loss of earning capacity NIL
(vii) Loss of Income Rs.16,506/-
MACT No. 922/22 Lal Mohammad Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Page No. 30/38
MACT No. 925/22 Md. Aahil Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.04.07
10:12:56
+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.25,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.5,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration NIL
(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. 922/22 Lal Mohammad Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Page No. 31/38
MACT No. 925/22 Md. Aahil Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.07
10:13:00 +0530
(i) Percentage of disability NA
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 disabilityNA
(iii) Percentage of loss of
earning capacity in relation
to disability
(iv) Loss of future income – NA
(Income x% Earning
Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.81,234/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the Rs.17,059/-
date of award
17. Total amount including Rs.98,293/-
interest
MACT No. 922/22 Lal Mohammad Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Page No. 32/38
MACT No. 925/22 Md. Aahil Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. PANKAJ Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.07
10:13:04 +0530
18. Award amount released Entire
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 05.05.2025
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 : 10/07/2022
2. Name of the injured : Md. Aahil
MACT No. 922/22 Lal Mohammad Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Page No. 33/38
MACT No. 925/22 Md. Aahil Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. PANKAJ by
Digitally signed
PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.07
10:13:09 +0530
3. Age of the injured : 06 years
4. Occupation of the injured : NA
5. Income of the injured : NA
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 : No
MACT No. 922/22 Lal Mohammad Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Page No. 34/38
MACT No. 925/22 Md. Aahil Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.07
10:13:13 +0530
10. Computation of Compensation
S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(I) Expenditure on treatment Rs.30,304/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.5,000/-
(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 NIL MACT No. 922/22 Lal Mohammad Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Page No. 35/38 MACT No. 925/22 Md. Aahil Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.04.07 10:13:17 +0530 (viii) Any other loss which may Rs.20,000/- (loss of require any special enjoyment of life, childhood treatment or aid to the and play) 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 NIL (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. 922/22 Lal Mohammad Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Page No. 36/38 MACT No. 925/22 Md. Aahil Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA Date: SHARMA 2025.04.07 10:13:22 +0530
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 loss of N.A
expectation of life span on
account of disabilityNIL
(iii) Percentage of loss of
earning capacity in relation
to disability
(iv) Loss of future income – NIL
(Income x % Earning
Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.2,40,304/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the Rs.50,464/-
date of award
MACT No. 922/22 Lal Mohammad Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Page No. 37/38
MACT No. 925/22 Md. Aahil Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.04.07
10:13:25
+0530
17. Total amount including Rs.2,90,768/-
interest
18. Award amount released Entire
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 05/05/2025
the award.
CONCLUSION:-
1. As per award dated 05.04.2025.
2. A separate file is ordered to be prepared by the Nazir with
directions to put up the same on 05.05.2025.
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.07
10:13:30 +0530(DR. PANKAJ SHARMA)
PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL)
DELHI/05.04.2025MACT No. 922/22 Lal Mohammad Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Page No. 38/38
MACT No. 925/22 Md. Aahil Vs Kunal Saini & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.07
10:13:33 +0530
[ad_1]
Source link