Delhi District Court
Sachin Tyagi (I) (Petition) (Out Side) vs Anmol Chhabra (Without Ins ) on 1 February, 2025
DLCT010161622018
Presented on : 30-11-2018
Registered on : 01-12-2018
Decided on :01-02-2025
Duration : 06 Years 02 Months
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER-MACT-02,
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED OVER BY DR. PANKAJ SHARMA
IN THE MATTER OF CASE / MACT No. 1016/18 (LEAD
CASE)(For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries
sustained by the injured Preeti Tyagi @ Mala) :
PREETI TYAGI @ MALA
W/o Sh. Sachin Tyagi
R/o H.No. 645, Burari Village,
Near Ashok Vatika &
Shyam Sunder Surpanch House,
Delhi-84.
Also at:-
Permanent Resident of:-
Basantpur Santly, Ghaziabad,
UP. ......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. ANMOAL CHHABRA
S/o Sh. Ashok Chhabra
R/o.H.No. B-91, Sector-72,
Noida, UP.
Also at:
Saree Creations-Home DM-43,
Sri Sai Mandir Road,
Deen Dayal Nagar, MDA, Morabad, UP.(Driver-cum-Ownwer)
MACT No. 1016/18 Preeti Tyagi @ Mala Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors.
MACT No. 1015/18 Sachin Tyagi Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors. Page No. 1/38
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.02.01
12:15:54 +0530
2. IFFOC TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE (Insurer)
(Through Ld. Counsel Mohd.Raghib)
........Respondents
AND
DLCT010161702018
Presented on : 30-11-2018
Registered on : 01-12-2018
Decided on : 01-02-2025
Duration : 06 Years 02 Months
IN THE MATTER OF CASE / MACT No. 1015/18
(For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries
sustained by injured Sachin Tyagi) :
SACHIN TYAGI
S/o Sh. Mahender Tyagi
R/o H.No. 645, Burari Village,
Near Ashok Vatika, Delhi-84. ……PetitionerVERSUS
1. ANMOAL CHHABRA
S/o Sh. Ashok Chhabra
R/o.H.No. B-91, Sector-72,
Noida, UP.
Also at:
Saree Creations-Home DM-43,
Sri Sai Mandir Road,
Deen Dayal Nagar, MDA, Morabad, UP.(Driver-cum-Owner)
2. IFFOC TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE (Insurer)
(Through Ld. Counsel Mohd.Raghib) ……..Respondents
MACT No. 1016/18 Preeti Tyagi @ Mala Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors.
MACT No. 1015/18 Sachin Tyagi Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors. Page No. 2/38
PANKAJ Digitally signed by
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA 12:16:00 +0530
Date: 2025.02.01
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 16/05/2018
2. Date of filing of Form-I – First N.A.
Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the N.A.
victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the N.A.
Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the N.A.
Owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim N.A.
Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form- N.A.
VIB from the Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII – Detailed N.A.
Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or No
deficiency on the part of the
Investigating Officer? If so, whether
any action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated N.A.
Officer by the Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the N.A.
Insurance Company submitted his
report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or N.A.
deficiency on 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 N.A.
the offer of the Insurance Company.
MACT No. 1016/18 Preeti Tyagi @ Mala Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors.
MACT No. 1015/18 Sachin Tyagi Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors. Page No. 3/38
PANKAJ Digitally signed by
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.02.01
12:16:04 +0530
14. Date of the award 01/02/2025
15. Whether the petitioner (s) was/were Yes
directed to open savings bank
account(s) near their place of
residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) 08/02/2024
was/were directed to open savings bank
account(s) near their 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 NA
the passbook of their savings bank
account near the place of their
residence along with the endorsement,
PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the IN MACT No.
Claimant(s). 1016/18
H.No. 645, Burari
Village,
Near Ashok Vatika &
Shyam Sunder
Surpanch House,
Delhi-84
Permanent Resident
of:-
Basantpur Santly,
Ghaziabad,
UPIN MACT No.
1015/18
H.No. 645, Burari
Village, Near Ashok
MACT No. 1016/18 Preeti Tyagi @ Mala Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors.
MACT No. 1015/18 Sachin Tyagi Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors. Page No. 4/38
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.02.01
12:16:08 +0530
Vatika
Delhi-84
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank NA
account(s) is near their place of
residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) was/were NA
examined at the time of passing of the
award to ascertain his/their financial
condition?
COMMON AWARD/JUDGMENT
FACTUAL POSITION
1. These two separate petitions were filed on
01/12/2018. Both these petitions are arising out of a road traffic
accident which took place on 16/05/2018 at about 12.:30 P.M. at
on Highway, Salaicut, Hapur, UP. As per petition, at the relevant
date, time and place, the petitioner in MACT No. 1016/18 Smt.
Preeti Tyagi @ Mala W/o Sh. Sachin Tyagi (hereinafter referred
to as “injured “) was going from Burari Village to Tiyana Village
on sitting as a pillion rider on the bike bearing registration no.
UP-14-AU-2927 which was being driven by her husband Sh.
Sachin Tyagi S/o Sh. Mahender Tyagi (hereinafter referred to as
“injured”) who is petitioner in the connected case bearing MACT
No. 1015/18 at a normal and controllable speed and on correct
side of the road and when the said bike reached on Highway at
Salaicut, at that time a Honda City bearing registration no. UP-16
BK-7352 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”) came
from behind at at a high speed in rash and negligent manner and
MACT No. 1016/18 Preeti Tyagi @ Mala Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors.
MACT No. 1015/18 Sachin Tyagi Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors. Page No. 5/38
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.02.01
12:16:12 +0530
hit the bike of the petitioner from behind with great force. It is
further stated that as a result of forceful impact both the riders of
the motorcycle fell down on the metallic road ans sustained
grievous injuries and the petitioner was dragged for long
distance approximately 500 meters by the offending car in which
petitioner got serious injuries. It is further stated that the car was
being driven by R-1 and no horn or signal was given before this
accident. It is further stated that R-1 is solely and entirely
responsible for this accident and he drove his car in rash and
negligent manner on highway without caring for the other users
of he road as he was driving his car in contravention to the rules
and regulations of driving and jeopardizing the lives of other
road users, which was not expected from him being a prudent
driver. An FIR No. 502/18 PS Hapur, UP 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-cum-owner of the
offending vehicle. R-2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle.
1.1 As per petition filed by the injured Preeti Tyagi @
Mala at the relevant time he stated that due to the said incident he
sustained grievous injuries and she remained in different
hospitals for different periods which further resulted into 36%
permanent disability in relation to her both lower limbs which is
non progressive and not likely to improve in future. It is further
submitted that due to aforesaid disability, she has become
MACT No. 1016/18 Preeti Tyagi @ Mala Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors.
MACT No. 1015/18 Sachin Tyagi Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors. Page No. 6/38
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.02.01
12:16:24 +0530
permanent disabled and unable to carry out her day to day
activities. Injured Preeti Tyagi @ Mala further claims that she
has incurred an expenses towards medical treatment, special diet
and conveyance. She further claims that her health has
deteriorated due to the injuries sustained in the accident, leading
to financial losses. She further claims that at the relevant time she
was 25 years old and was a housewife. She seeks compensation
to the tune of Rs. 30 Lakhs for the injuries sustained by her in the
accident.
1.2 As per petition filed by the injured Sachin Tyagi at
the relevant time he stated that due to the said incident he
sustained grievous injuries. He further claims that at the relevant
time he was 28 years old and was doing a private job and was
earning Rs.17,000/- per month. He seeks compensation to the
tune of Rs. One Lakh for the injuries sustained by him in the
accident.
PLEADING IN MACT NO. 1016/18 (For Grant of
Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by Injured
PreetiTyagi @ Mala) :
2. A written statement was filed by R-1 in which he denied
the contents of petition in toto.
3. R-2/Insurance Company filed a reply wherein it also
denied the contents of petition in toto.
MACT No. 1016/18 Preeti Tyagi @ Mala Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors.
MACT No. 1015/18 Sachin Tyagi Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors. Page No. 7/38
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.02.01
12:16:28 +0530
PLEADING IN MACT NO. 1015/18 (For Grant of
Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by Injured
Sachin Tyagi) :
4. A written statement was filed by R-1 in which he denied
the contents of petition in toto.
5. R-2/Insurance Company filed a reply wherein it also
denied the contents of petition in toto.
CONSOLIDATE OF BOTH THE MATTERS
6. Both the above matters were consolidated at the
stage of evidence vide order dated 08/02/2024 and the present
matter ( ie. MACT No. 1016/18 for Grant of Compensation
in respect of the injuries sustained by injured Preeti Tyagi @
Mala) was treated as a lead case. All the evidence was recorded
in the lead case.
ISSUES IN MACT NO. 1016/18 (For Grant of Compensation
in respect of the injuries sustained by Injured
Preeti Tyagi @ Mala) :
7. Vide order dated 08/02/2024, the following issues
were framed by this Tribunal :-
1. Whether the petitioner Preeti Tyagi
@ Mala Devi suffered injuries in an
accident that took place on 16.05.2018
at about 12.30 P.M. involving vehicle
bearing registration No. UP-14-
AU-2927 driven rashly and negligently
by the Respondent No. 1 and owned by
the Respondent No.1 and insured with
the Respondent No.2?OPP.
MACT No. 1016/18 Preeti Tyagi @ Mala Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors.
MACT No. 1015/18 Sachin Tyagi Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors. Page No. 8/38
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.02.01
12:16:32 +0530
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled
for compensation? If so, to what
amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
ISSUES IN MACT NO. 1015/18 (For Grant of Compensation
in respect of the injuries sustained by Injured
Sachin Tyagi) :
8. Vide order dated 08/02/2024, the following issues
were framed by this Tribunal :-
1. Whether the petitioner Sachin Tyagi
suffered injuries in an accident that took
place on 16.05.2018 at about 12.30
P.M. involving vehicle bearing
registration No. UP-14-AU-2927 driven
rashly and negligently by the
Respondent No. 1 and owned by the
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.
COMMON EVIDENCE IN BOTH THE CASES :
9. In support of her contentions, the Petitioner Preeti
Tyagi @ Mala in lead case bearing MACT No. 1016/18
examined herself as PW-1. PW-1 deposed, vide her affidavit
Ex. PW1/A that due to the motor vehicular accident dated
16/05/2018 she suffered grievous injuries as mentioned in Para
No. 1 of this award. She deposed that she has incurred an
expenses towards medical treatment, special diet andMACT No. 1016/18 Preeti Tyagi @ Mala Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors.
MACT No. 1015/18 Sachin Tyagi Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors. Page No. 9/38
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.02.01
12:16:36 +0530
conveyance. She further deposed that at the time of accident she
was 25 years of age and was a housewife and due to injuries she
has not been able to do her day to day work till date due to the
said accident and she has sustained permanent disability to the
extent of 36% with respect to her both upper limbs. She has
relied upon following documents in support of her claim :-
“Ex. PW1/1 (OSR) is copy of Aadhar Card
of PW-1;
Ex. PW1/2 is de-exhibited as Mark
A(Colly) which are the coloured photos
of PW-1;
Ex. PW-1/3 is de-exhibited as Mark B
(Colly)which is the medical bills;
Ex. PW1/4 is de-exhibited as Ex. PW1/2
which is the medical records of PW-1;
Mark C is medical records.”
9.1 She was cross-examined by both the respondents. In
her cross-examination she deposed that the accident took place
on 16/05/2018. She denied the suggestion that her husband was
driving his motorcycle in rash and negligent manner in very high
speed. She further denied the suggestion that no accident took
place by the offending vehicle and the R-1 was falsely implicated
in the case.
10. In support of his contentions, the Petitioner Sachin
Tyagi in MACT No. 1015/18 examined for himself as PW-2/A.
PW-2 deposed, vide his affidavit Ex. PW2/A that due to the
motor vehicular accident dated 16/05/2018 he suffered grievous
injuries as mentioned in Para No. 1 of this award. He deposed
MACT No. 1016/18 Preeti Tyagi @ Mala Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors.
MACT No. 1015/18 Sachin Tyagi Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors. Page No. 10/38
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.02.01
12:16:39 +0530
that he has incurred expenses on medical treatment, special diet,
and conveyance. He further deposed that at the time of accident
he was 28 years of age and was doing a private service and was
earning Rs. 17,000/- per month. She has relied upon following
documents in support of her claim :-
“Ex. PW2/1 is record copy of DL of PW-2;
Ex.PW2/2 (Colly) is copy treatment paper
of PW-2;
Ex. PW2/3 (Colly) is ITR pertaining to the
years 2016-17 & 2017-18;
Mark-A is copy of employment e-pehchan
card;
Ex. PW2/4 is copy photographs of PW-2.”
10.1 He was cross-examined by both the respondents. In
his cross-examination He deposed that at the time of accident,
two persons were sitting in the car and Anmol Chhabra was
driving the car and after the accident he called to PCR and
Anmol Chhabra has taken him and his wife to the hospital. He
denied the suggestion that the accident took place due to his sole
fault and negligence while driving his motorcycle in zig-zag
manner and in a rash and negligent manner.
11. R-1 examined himself as R1W1 in his defence. He
deposed vide his affidavit Ex.DW1/A. He relied upon the
following documents:-
Ex.RW1/1 (OSR) is copy of DL of R1W1;
Ex.RW1/2 is insurance policy of the car;
Mark A is copy of settlement note between both
MACT No. 1016/18 Preeti Tyagi @ Mala Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors.
MACT No. 1015/18 Sachin Tyagi Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors. Page No. 11/38
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.02.01
12:16:42 +0530
the parties in the police station alongwith type
copy;
Mark B is copy of final report given by the sub-
inspector in the Hon’ble High Court of Hapur;
Mark-C is copy of order of ACJM, Hapur case
No. 639/23, FIR No. 502/2018 dated 29/08/2023.”
11.1 He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R-2/
Insurance Company as well as by Ld. Counsel for petitioner. In
his cross-examination he deposed that he has not filed on record
any DL or proof to show that during the period 16/05/2018 till
06/01/2021. He further deposed that criminal case vide FIR No.
502/2018 u/s 279/338 IPC, PS Hapur Dehat, UP was registered
against him in respect of the accident. He further deposed that
during the trial of said case FIR, he pleaded guilty and he was
convicted in the said case FIR by the trial Court.
FINDINGS
12. Oral submissions were advanced by Ld. Counsel for
parties in both the cases.
13. I have perused the record and my issue wise findings
are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 1 IN CASE/ MACT No. 1016/18 ( For Grant of
Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by the
injured Preeti Tyagi @ Mala):
”Whether the petitioner Preeti Tyagi
@ Mala Devi suffered injuries in
an accident that took place on
16.05.2018 at about 12.30 P.M.
MACT No. 1016/18 Preeti Tyagi @ Mala Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors.
MACT No. 1015/18 Sachin Tyagi Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors. Page No. 12/38
PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.02.01 12:16:46
+0530
involving vehicle bearing
registration No. UP-14-AU-2927
driven rashly and negligently by
the Respondent No. 1 and owned
by the Respondent No.1 and
insured with the Respondent
No.2?OPP''
ISSUES IN CASE/ MACT No. 1015/18 (For Grant of Compensation
in respect of the injuries sustained by the injured Ganga Sachin
Tyagi):
”Whether the petitioner Sachin Tyagi
suffered injuries in an accident
that took place on 16.05.2018 at
about 12.30 P.M. involving
vehicle bearing registration No.
UP-14-AU-2927 driven rashly and
negligently by the Respondent
No. 1 and owned by the
Respondent No.1 and insured with
the Respondent No.2?OPP.”
14. 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
MACT No. 1016/18 Preeti Tyagi @ Mala Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors.
MACT No. 1015/18 Sachin Tyagi Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Digitally
Ors. signed
PagebyNo. 13/38
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.02.01
12:16:49 +0530
(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.
15. The plea on behalf of R-1 that the accident occurred
due to neelguy coming in front of the vehicle leading to accident,
the said plea could not be proved by way of evidence and
apparently same appears to be baseless. Further a driver is
required to drive vehicle in such a manner to have control of the
same in such an exigency. Further, regarding the payment of
Rs.70,000/- to the petitioner, the same has been paid to the
petitioner in the different proceedings, therefore, having no
bearing on the present petitions.
16. 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, when they reached o Highway,
Salaicut, Hapur, UP in their bike bearing registration no. UP-14-
AU-2927 suddenly a Honda City Car bearing registration no.
UP-16BK-7352 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”)
came from behind at a high speed in rash and negligent manner
and hit their bike. It is further stated that due to this accident
MACT No. 1016/18 Preeti Tyagi @ Mala Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors.
MACT No. 1015/18 Sachin Tyagi Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors. Page No. 14/38
PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.02.01 12:16:57
+0530
they sustained injuries on multiple body parts. The oral
testimonies of PW-1 & PW-2 have gone unrebutted qua R-1 and
R-2. Both PW-1 & PW-2 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 PW-1 & PW-2 withstood the test of cross examination and
did not betray any signs of falsity or untruth. They 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 279/338 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 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 injured Sachin
Tyagi was driving was hit from behind by the offending vehicle.
19. 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 vehicle which the injured
persons were riding, in the rear at the relevant time. In the
MACT No. 1016/18 Preeti Tyagi @ Mala Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors.
MACT No. 1015/18 Sachin Tyagi Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors. Page No. 15/38
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.02.01
12:17:02 +0530
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.
ISSUE NO. 2 (IN BOTH THE CASES)
22. 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
MACT No. 1016/18 Preeti Tyagi @ Mala Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors.
MACT No. 1015/18 Sachin Tyagi Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors. Page No. 16/38
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2025.02.01
12:17:09
+0530
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 NO. 1016/18 (For Grant of
Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by Injured
Preeti Tyagi @ Mala) :
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-
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
MACT No. 1016/18 Preeti Tyagi @ Mala Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors.
MACT No. 1015/18 Sachin Tyagi Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors. Page No. 17/38
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.02.01
12:17:12 +0530
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 could be considered to be ‘just’ in the
opinion of this tribunal shall be as under:-
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
25. The petitioner has placed on judicial file the
MACT No. 1016/18 Preeti Tyagi @ Mala Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors.
MACT No. 1015/18 Sachin Tyagi Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors. Page No. 18/38
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.02.01
12:17:16 +0530
treatment records and original medical bills vide Ex.
PW1/2(Colly) and Mark B As per the said documents, petitioner
has incurred expenses to the tune of Rs.37,000/-. In the absence
of any contest to the said documents (placed on record by the
petitioner), the petitioner is held entitled to an amount of
Rs.37,000/- under this head.
(ii) Pain and Suffering
26. As per medical documents, the petitioner has
suffered grievous injuries and also sustained 36% permanent
disability in relation to her both upper limb. As per disability
certificate no. 2092 dated 29.01.2025 issued by Aruna Asaf Ali
Govt. Hospital, Delhi, petitioner is a case of ” Deformity both
hands with Scars” and was found to have sustained 36%
permanent physical impairment in relation to her both upper 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 23/12/2024. 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
MACT No. 1016/18 Preeti Tyagi @ Mala Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors.
MACT No. 1015/18 Sachin Tyagi Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors. Page No. 19/38
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.02.01
12:17:20 +0530
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.1,00,000/- 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. 1,00,000/- under this head.
(iii) Loss of income
27. The petitioner claimed that she was a housewife at
the time of accident. The medical records placed on record by
petitioner reflect that the petitioner sustained a grievous injuries
which resulted into 36% permanent physical disability with to
both upper limbs. The above documents are sufficient to uphold
the claim of the petitioner to the effect that she was unable to
resume her vocation 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 she could not have done her
day to day activities for about 18 months due to the injuries.
Since the petitioner is a housewife and as such her income is
considered at par with a Skilled-Person. Further, she was also
Matriculate Pass. In the absence of any material as to the
monthly earnings of the petitioner, it would be appropriate to
assume the monthly earnings of the petitioner as per the
Minimum Wages payable to an Skilled-Person/ Matriculate
MACT No. 1016/18 Preeti Tyagi @ Mala Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors.
MACT No. 1015/18 Sachin Tyagi Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors. Page No. 20/38
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.02.01
12:17:24 +0530
Person in Delhi as on the date of accident. Accordingly, the
Minimum Wages admissible to Skilled-Person/ Matriculate
Person as on 16/05/2018 in Delhi the earnings was Rs.16,858/-.
As such, the petitioner is held entitled to a sum of Rs.3,03,444/-
(Rs.16,858/- X 18). The said sum is awarded to the petitioner
under this head.
(iv) Loss of future earnings due to disability
28. Petitioner deposed that a the time of accident she
was a housewife and she was bed ridden for a long period after
the accident. She further claimed that she has become
permanently disabled after the accident and could not perform
her work by resuming her activities. Admittedly, as per disability
certificate the petitioner is case of ”’ Deformity both hands with
Scars” and petitioner has suffered 36% permanent physical
impairment with respect to her both upper limbs which is non
progressive and not likely to improve. As per the records, the
petitioner was a graduate and a housewife and after the accident
she was bed ridden for a long period. The photographs filed on
record indicate that her entire body got injured severely in the
present accident and she suffered multiple injuries as well as
disfigurement. The physical disability suffered by her is 36% and
the said disability on the upper arm would certainly impact upon
her working capacity as she has complained of regular pain even
after the accident. Since, the petitioner is a housewife and the
disability in the upper arm would prevent her from doing her day
to day chores to a greater extent, 36% physical disability of both
MACT No. 1016/18 Preeti Tyagi @ Mala Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors.
MACT No. 1015/18 Sachin Tyagi Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors. Page No. 21/38
PANKAJ Digitally signed by
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.02.01
12:17:27 +0530
upper limbs is certainty on a higher side and same would have
certainly incapacitated the petitioner for doing the household
chores on day to day basis. It is also noteworthy such a
permanent disability would cause pain which she will have to
endure for rest of her life. Further, the disfigurement of the body
would diminish her beauty also. In the facts and circumstances,
it would be apposite to hold the functional disability of
petitioner as 36%. This Tribunal has already assumed the
monthly income of petitioner to be Rs.16,858/- at the relevant
time. As far as the age of petitioner at the time of accident is
concerned, we may look into the photocopy of petitioner’s
Aadhar Card which is Ex. PW-1/1, as per the said document, the
date of birth of petitioner was 13/08/1993. The date of accident
is 16/05/2018. Going by the same, the age of petitioner as on the
date of accident was around 24 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 ’18’ is held applicable for calculating the loss of
future earnings of petitioner arising out of her 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
MACT No. 1016/18 Preeti Tyagi @ Mala Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors.
MACT No. 1015/18 Sachin Tyagi Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors. Page No. 22/38
PANKAJ Digitally signed by
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.02.01
12:17:31 +0530
Corporation Ltd., MANU/SC/0545/2020 [please see para 7 (b)].
Thus, the loss of future earnings of petitioner due to her above
injury and permanent disability comes to Rs.18,35,229/-
(rounded off) (Rs.16,858/- X 140/100 X 36/100 X 12 X 18 ) and
the same is awarded to her as compensation under this head.
(v) Conveyance, Attendant Charges, Special Diet and Amenities
of life
29. 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 disfigurement
30. In view of the report on the disability certificate
and 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. 1,00,000 under
these head.
COMPENSATION IN CASE NO. 1015/18 (For Grant of Comp
ensation in respect of the injuries sustained by Injured Sachin
Tyagi):
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
31. No bill regarding treatment has been filed by
injured. It is common knowledge that generally people during
MACT No. 1016/18 Preeti Tyagi @ Mala Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors.
MACT No. 1015/18 Sachin Tyagi Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors. Page No. 23/38
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.02.01
12:17:35 +0530
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.2,000/- towards medical expenses.
(ii) Pain and Suffering
32. As per medical records, the Injured sustained simple
injuries. It is not possible to quantify the compensation
admissible to Injured 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 Injured 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/- under this head.
(iii) Loss of Actual Earnings
33. In his affidavit Ex. PW1/A, the petitioner claims that
he was doing a private job at the time of accident and was
earning Rs.17,000/- 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
about 01 Month due to the injuries. In order to prove his income
the, petitioner has filed his ITRs for the A.Y. 201617 & 2017-18
MACT No. 1016/18 Preeti Tyagi @ Mala Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors.
MACT No. 1015/18 Sachin Tyagi Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors. Page No. 24/38
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.02.01
12:17:39 +0530
respectively. Vide Ex. PW2/3 (Colly). However, the ITR for the
A.Y. 2017-18 is considered for the purpose of quantification of
compensation. As per the said ITR, the annual income of the
petitioner is Rs.2,52,000/-. As such, the petitioner is held entitled
to a sum of Rs.21,000/-( Rs. 2,52,000/- X 1/12). The said sum is
awarded to the petitioner under this head.
(iv) Conveyance, Special Diet, Attendant Charges & Amenities
of Life
34. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the
injured and the extended period of medical treatment, the injured
is granted a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each under these heads.
ISSUE NO.3 / RELIEF
35. The Injured Preeti Tyagi @ Mala (IN CASE
NO. 1016/18 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of
the injuries sustained by Injured Preeti Tyagi @ Mala) is thus
awarded a sum of Rs.25,15,673/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs
Fifteen Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy Three Only)
(Rs.37,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.3,03,444/- + Rs. 18,35,229/-
+ Rs. 35,000/- + Rs.35,000/- + Rs.35,000/- + Rs.35,000/-+ Rs.
1,00,000/-) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date
of filing of Petition i.e. 01/12/2018. Since no interim
compensation has been awarded, therefore no deduction is
applicable.
MACT No. 1016/18 Preeti Tyagi @ Mala Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors.
MACT No. 1015/18 Sachin Tyagi Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors. Page No. 25/38
PANKAJ Digitally signed by
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA 12:17:42 +0530
Date: 2025.02.01
36. The Injured Sachin Tyagi (IN CASE NO.
1015/18 (For Grant of Compensation in respect of the injuries
sustained by Injured Sachin Tyagi) is thus awarded a sum of
Rs.68,000/- (Rupees Sixty Eight Thousand Only) (Rs.2,000/-
+Rs. 50,000/- + Rs.21,000/- + Rs. 5,000/- + Rs.5,000/- +
Rs.5,000/- + Rs.5,000/-) along with interest @ 9% per annum
from the date of filing of Petition i.e. 01/12/2018. Since no
interim compensation has been awarded, therefore no deduction
is applicable.
RELEASE IN CASE NO. 1016/18 (For Grant of Compensation
in respect of the injuries sustained by Injured Preeti Tyagi @
Mala):
37. Petitioner Preeti Tyagi @ Mala 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 Preeti Tyagi
@ Mala is awarded a sum of Rs.32,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty
Two 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 160 monthly fixed deposit receipts
(FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 160
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
MACT No. 1016/18 Preeti Tyagi @ Mala Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors.
MACT No. 1015/18 Sachin Tyagi Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors. Page No. 26/38
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.02.01
12:17:46 +0530
Accidents (under 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 his bank
account which is near the place of her 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.7,11,869/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs
Eleven Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Nine Only) is also
directed to be released into her above said account, which can
be withdrawn and utilized by the Petitioner- Preeti Tyagi @
Mala.
RELEASE IN CASE NO. 1015/18 (For Grant of
Compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by Injured
Sachin Tyagi):
38. Petitioner Sachin Tyagi did not bother to appear
before this Tribunal for recording his statement regarding
financial needs and requirements.
38.1. The Petitioner Sachin Tyagi is awarded a sum of Rs.
1,05,640/- (Rs. One Lakh Five Thousand Six Hundred and Forty
Only). The entire awarded amount 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 which can be withdrawn and utilized by the Petitioner-
Sachin Tyagi.
MACT No. 1016/18 Preeti Tyagi @ Mala Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors.
MACT No. 1015/18 Sachin Tyagi Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors. Page No. 27/38
PANKAJ Digitally signed by
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.02.01
12:17:52 +0530
LIABILITY
39. As already stated above, R-1 being the driver-cum-
owner of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the awarded
amount of compensation to petitioner. However, since the
offending vehicle was insured with R-2 at the time of accident,
therefore, R-2/ Insurance Company is liable to indemnify R-1 in
respect of above liability. As such R-2 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 it shall be liable to pay interest at the
rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
40. 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. 1016/18 Preeti Tyagi @ Mala Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors.
MACT No. 1015/18 Sachin Tyagi Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors. Page No. 28/38 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.01 12:18:05 +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).
41. 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. 534/2020 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.
42. 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 put up the same on 01.03.2025. PANKAJ Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.02.01
12:18:09 +0530
Announced in the open court (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA)
on this 01.02.2025 PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL)
DELHI
MACT No. 1016/18 Preeti Tyagi @ Mala Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors.
MACT No. 1015/18 Sachin Tyagi Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors. Page No. 29/38
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.02.01
12:18:13 +0530
FORM – XVI, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment)
Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A)
SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT
IN INJURY CASE OF PREETI TYAGI @ MALA
1. Date of accident : 16/05/2018
2. Name of the injured : Preeti Tyagi @ Mala
3. Age of the injured : 24 Years
4. Occupation of the injured : Housewife
5. Income of the injured : As per minimum
wages of a
Matriculate
Person prevailing in
Delhi
at the relevant time
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken : Different Hospital
8. Period of Hospitalization : Different Period
9. Whether any permanent
disability ? If yes, give details : Yes
MACT No. 1016/18 Preeti Tyagi @ Mala Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors.
MACT No. 1015/18 Sachin Tyagi Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors. Page No. 30/38
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.02.01
12:18:17 +0530
10. Computation of Compensation
S. No. Heads Awarded by the
Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs.37,000/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance
Rs.35,000/- each
(iii) Expenditure on special diet
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant
(v) Cost of artificial limb NIL
(vi) Loss of earning capacity NIL
(vii) Loss of Income Rs.3,03,444/-
MACT No. 1016/18 Preeti Tyagi @ Mala Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors.
MACT No. 1015/18 Sachin Tyagi Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors. Page No. 31/38
PANKAJ Digitally signed by
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.02.01
12:18:20 +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.1,00,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.35,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration Rs.1,00,000/-
(v) Loss of marriage prospects NIL
(vi) Discomfort, Inconvenience NIL
and Loss of earnings to the
Parents during the period of
hospitalization
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
MACT No. 1016/18 Preeti Tyagi @ Mala Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors.
MACT No. 1015/18 Sachin Tyagi Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors. Digitally
Page No. 32/38
signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.02.01
12:18:24 +0530
(I) Percentage of disability 36% both upper limbs
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 disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of 36%
earning capacity in relation
to disability
(iv) Loss of future income – Rs.18,35,229/-
(Income x% Earning
Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.25,15,673/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the Rs.13,96,196/-
date of award (rounded off)
17. Total amount including Rs.39,11,869/-
interest
MACT No. 1016/18 Preeti Tyagi @ Mala Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors.
MACT No. 1015/18 Sachin Tyagi Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors. Page No. 33/38
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.02.01
12:18:28 +0530
18. Award amount released Rs.7,11,869/-
19. Award amount kept in As per award
FDRs
20. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the
the award amount to the award
petitioners(s).
21. Next date for compliance 01/03/2025
of 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
OF SACHIN TYAGI
1. Date of accident : 16/05/2018
2. Name of the injured : Sachin Tyagi
3. Age of the injured : 28 Years
4. Occupation of the injured : Private Job
5. Income of the injured : As per ITR
6. Nature of injury : Simple
7. Medical treatment taken : Different Hospital
8. Period of Hospitalization : NIL
9. Whether any permanent
disability ? If yes, give details : No
MACT No. 1016/18 Preeti Tyagi @ Mala Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors.
MACT No. 1015/18 Sachin Tyagi Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors. Page No. 34/38
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.02.01
12:18:37 +0530
10. Computation of Compensation
S. No. Heads Awarded by the
Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs.2,000/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance
Rs.5,000/- each
(iii) Expenditure on special diet
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant
(v) Cost of artificial limb NIL
(vi) Loss of earning capacity NIL
(vii) Loss of Income Rs.21,000/-
MACT No. 1016/18 Preeti Tyagi @ Mala Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors.
MACT No. 1015/18 Sachin Tyagi Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors. Page No. 35/38 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.01 12:18:40 +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) Discomfort, Inconvenience NIL and Loss of earnings to the Parents during the period of hospitalization
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
MACT No. 1016/18 Preeti Tyagi @ Mala Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors.
MACT No. 1015/18 Sachin Tyagi Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors. Page No. 36/38 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.01 12:18:44 +0530 (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 disability (iii) Percentage of loss of N.A. earning capacity in relation to disability (iv) Loss of future income - N.A. (Income x% Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.68,000/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the Rs.37,740/-(rounded
date of award off)
17. Total amount including Rs.1,05,740/-
interest
MACT No. 1016/18 Preeti Tyagi @ Mala Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors.
MACT No. 1015/18 Sachin Tyagi Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors. Page No. 37/38
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.02.01
12:18:47 +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
petitioners(s)
21. Next date for compliance 01/03/2025
of the award.
CONCLUSION:-
1. As per award dated 01.02.2025.
2. A separate file was ordered to be prepared by the Nazir
with directions to put up the same on 01.03.2025.
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.02.01
12:18:51 +0530
(DR. PANKAJ SHARMA)
PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL)
DELHI/01/02/2025
MACT No. 1016/18 Preeti Tyagi @ Mala Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors.
MACT No. 1015/18 Sachin Tyagi Vs. Anmol Chhabra & Ors. Page No. 38/38
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.02.01
12:18:54 +0530
