Delhi District Court
Sonu vs Shabuddin on 5 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010079382023
MACT No. : 515/23
FIR No. : 117/2023
PS : Daryaganj
u/s : 279/338 IPC
Mr. Sonu (injured)
S/o. Sh. Pawan Kumar
R/o. 9/4427, Gali No. 7,
Ajit Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi
......Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Sabuddin (driver of the offending vehicle)
S/o. Sh.Shabber Ahmed
R/o. Village Choulhada, District Baghpat,
U.P -250601.
2. Antony Road Transport Solution Pvt. Ltd.
(Owner of the offending vehicle)
Transport Department of Delhi Bus Cluster No.7
Project Depot, Rajghat Depot II, Rajghat, Delhi-110006
Through its AR Kuldeep Gola
S/o Sh. Prem Narayan
R/o. H. No. 76, Church Road, Jangpura,
Near Sheetla Mata Mandir, Bhogal
New Delhi.
MACT No.515/23 Sonu Vs. Sabuddin & Ors. Page 1 of 36
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.05
16:13:32 +0530
3. IFFICO- TOKIO General Insurance Co. (Insurer)
IFFICO Sadan C1, Distt. Center,
Saket New Delhi
......Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 07.06.2023
Judgment reserved on : 30.07.2025
Date of Award : 05.08.2025
AWAR D
1. The Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filed on 07.06.2023
which was treated as a claim petition. The Road Traffic Accident in
question took place on 09.03.2023 at about 10:00 PM Outer Ring Road
Near DTC Bus Depot, Delhi. Sonu (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner)
had suffered grievous injuries in the said accident which was allegedly
caused by vehicle bearing registration No. DL 1PD 1130 (hereinafter
referred to as the offending vehicle) The said vehicle was being driven by
respondent No.1, Shahbuddin; owned by respondent no. 2, Antony Road
Transport Solution Pvt. Ltd. and insured with respondent no.3, IFFICO-
TOKIO General Insurance Company.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that on
07.06.2023, on receipt of information of an accident vide DD No. 113A,
the information of present accident was handed over to HC Chhgan Lal
Meena, who along with Ct. Kamal went to the spot. When they reached
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.05
16:13:41 +0530
MACT No.515/23 Sonu Vs. Sabuddin & Ors. Page 2 of 36
at the spot they got the information that injured was taken to the hospital
by the Ambulance. The accidental vehicle bearing No. DL5 SCX 4423
was found stationed. After leaving Ct. Kamal at the spot, IO went to
LNJP Hospital, where injured Suraj, Sonu and Sachin was found
admitted. Thereafter, IO collected all the MLCs from the hospital.
Further, IO had not recorded the statement of the injured because they
stated that they shall give their statement after the treatment. Thereafter,
IO reached at the spot and took the photographs of the place of incident
from his mobile phone. Thereafter, the accidental motorcycle was
deposited in the Maalkhana.
3. On 12.03.2023, IO again went to the Hospital where he
came to know that two injured had gone to their house after taking
treatment from the hospital. Thereafter, IO reached the house of injured
Suraj and recorded his statement. Thereafter, FIR was registered on the
basis of MLCs, place of accident and on the basis of statement of the
injured Suraj u/s 297/337 IPC. Then on 13.03.2023, injured Sachin went
to the PS and after reaching there he along with the IO went to the spot
and prepared site plan on the instance of injured Sachin. Further, notice
was sent to the owner of the offending vehicle u/s 133 MV Act. Pursuant
thereto, one Kuldeep Gola who was posted as AR of offending vehicle
came to the PS and produced one person namely Sabuddin (respondent
no. 1 herein) and told that on 09.03.2023, at the time of accident, said
Sabuddin was driving the Bus No. DL-1PD-1130.
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.05
16:13:48 +0530
MACT No.515/23 Sonu Vs. Sabuddin & Ors. Page 3 of 36
4. The IO made inquiries from said Sabuddin (respondent
no.1 herein) and he produced his DL before the IO. Further, he got
arrested. Thereafter, Sabuddin produced his guarantor and got released
on bail. Further, offending vehicle and their documents were deposited
in the Malkhana. Thereafter, the IO got conducted the mechanical
inspection of the offending vehicle and collected the report. Further, IO
deposited MLCs of the injured in the Hospital for further opinion. On
25.04.2023, opinions on the MLCs of injured Sonu, Sachin and Suraj
were obtained. The nature of injury sustained by injured Sonu and Suraj
was opined to be grievous, whereas nature of injury sustained by injured
Sachin was opined to be simple. Hence, IO added Section 338 IPC
against the respondent no.1 Shabuddin in the charge sheet. After
completion of investigation, chargesheet for the offences u/s
279/337/338 IPC was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle,
Shahbuddin before the concerned Ld. JMFC and the DAR was filed
before this Tribunal.
5. On 10.07.2023, written statements on behalf of all the
respondents were filed. Respondent no. 1 claimed in his WS that
accident did not take place due to his rash and negligent driving but due
to own negligence of injured (Sachin Batham), who was driving his
motorcycle in a very rash and negligent manner and suddenly turned his
motorcycle and lost his control over the motorcycle and struck with the
offending vehicle. It is further claimed that the driver of the motorcycle
namely Sachin Batham was not holding driving licence to ply the same
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.05
16:13:56 +0530MACT No.515/23 Sonu Vs. Sabuddin & Ors. Page 4 of 36
and even none of the rider of said motorcycle was wearing helmet. The
respondent no.1 admitted that on 12.03.2023, he was driving the
offending vehicle i.e. Cluster bus bearing registration no. DL-1PD-1130,
but claimed that he was driving the same in a normal speed, carefully
and by following the traffic rules and regulations.
6. Respondent no. 2 (owner of the offending vehicle) claimed
in his WS that the alleged accident took place due to negligence of the
victims and there is no involvement of offending vehicle bearing No.
DL-1PD-1130 in the instant case and alleged offending vehicle has been
falsely implicated in the present case. It was stated that the offending
vehicle was duly insured with respondent no. 3 IFFCO Tokio General
Insurance Co. Ltd. vide a policy, which was commencing from
21.01.2023 to 20.01.2024 and that there was no violation of terms and
conditions of the policy.
7. The respondent no. 3 in its WS admitted that the offending
vehicle No. DL-1PD-1130 (Ashok Leyland bus) was insured with it vide
policy No. MS674328, valid from 21.01.2023 till midnight of 20.01.2024.
It is further claimed that the petitioner has not approached this Tribunal
with clean hands and has concealed the relevant facts from this Tribunal
and as such the claim of the petitioner deserves to be dismissed on this
ground itself. It is further claimed that the respondent no. 1 and 2 had not
intimated the respondent no. 3 about the occurrence of alleged accident as
per the terms and conditions of the policy, therefore respondent no. 3
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.08.05
16:14:03 +0530MACT No.515/23 Sonu Vs. Sabuddin & Ors. Page 5 of 36
cannot be asked to indemnify the insured or to compensate the petitioner.
8. It is further claimed that the FIR is delayed which establishes
that the accident against the offending vehicle is false and concocted and it
seems that the said bus has been falsely implicated to gain benefit of
insurance from the answering respondent. It is further claimed that no
negligence can be attributed upon the driver of the offending vehicle in the
absence of CCTV footage as several CCTV cameras were installed at the
location. It is further claimed that the injured (Sachin Batham) was riding
the motorcycle without any valid driving licence at the time of accident and
was triple riding the same, violating the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act,
which fact is also evident from the DAR filed by the investigating agency
and therefore the injured is liable for contributory negligence.
ISSUES
9. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated
21.07.2023, this Tribunal framed the following issues:
i. Whether the petitioner/injured suffered grievous
injuries in an accident that took place on 09.03.2023 at
about 10:00 pm at Outer Ring Road, near DTC Bus
Depot involving vehicle bearing registration No.
DL-1PD-1130 driven rashly and negligently by
respondent no. 1 Sabuddin, owned by respondent No. 2
Antony Road Transport Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and insured
with respondent no.3 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance
Co. Ltd.?OPPii. Whether there was contributory negligence on the part
of petitioner/one of the pillion riders of the motorcycle
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLASINGLA Date: 2025.08.05
16:14:11 +0530MACT No.515/23 Sonu Vs. Sabuddin & Ors. Page 6 of 36
bearing registration no. DL-5SCX-4423, as driver
Sachin of the said motorcycle was driving the same
without a valid driving licence and the petitioner
alongwith another person were pillion riding the same.
If so, its effect?OPR-3.
iii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If
so, to what amount and from whom?OPPiv. Relief.
PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
10. The petitioner/injured examined himself as PW-1. PW1 has
tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW1/A. He
stated in his evidence that on 09.03.2023, he alongwith his younger
brother Suraj and friend Sachin was going on Sachin’s motorcycle
bearing registration No.DL5SCX4423 from Kalka Ji temple to his house
at Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. When at about 22:00 hours, he reached near
Bus Depot Outer Ring Road Rajghat, Delhi, the offending bus bearing
registration No.DL1PD1130, driven by its Driver Sh. Shabuddin,
suddenly took left turn without using any indication and as a result of
sudden turn, motorcycle engulfed with the offending vehicle and he
sustained multiple grievous injuries on my leg, ankle, arm, elbow etc.
11. He further said that one passerby made a call at 112 through
his mobile phone. He was removed by CAT Ambulance to LNJP
Hospital, Delhi, where his MLC was prepared and multiple fractures on
his right leg and right arm were diagnosed. Thereafter, he remained as
indoor patient in the hospital since the day of accident till 06.05.2023.
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.05
16:14:18 +0530
MACT No.515/23 Sonu Vs. Sabuddin & Ors. Page 7 of 36
He has been operated four times for his injuries. Further even after
discharge from hospital, he was completely bedridden and unable to
stand on foot without aid. Several surgical aids have been planted at the
fractured area and the doctors have recommended for removal of the
same after observation of recovery of injuries. He was still under
treatment and as per doctor advice, he will get permanent physical
disability.
12. Further, he stated that the FIR bearing No.117/2023 was
registered at P.S. Daryaganj, Delhi against driver namely Sabuddin
regarding this road accident. Due to the injuries suffered in aforesaid
accident, he suffered acute mental pain and agonies besides huge
financial losses and disfigurement. Further, he was working with M/s
Vinod Electricals, Jhilmil Industrial Area, Delhi as a Field Boy and was
drawing salary of Rs. 18000/- per month at the time of accident but
being unable to walk, he was unable to do any job and unable to execute
his day to day pursuits and he was being taken care and looked after full
time by his family i.e. mother and brother etc. He states that he could
not maintain all invoices of medicines and surgical items due to
ignorance, although he have invoices/bills of Rs. 14000/-. He had also
spent a huge amount on his diet and fare of transport from residence to
hospital and vice-versa. It is further stated that the accident occurred due
to sole negligence and carelessness of driver of the offending Bus. Had
he given indication before taking turn, the accident would not have
occurred. Therefore, the driver, owner and insurance company of the
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.05
16:14:25 +0530
MACT No.515/23 Sonu Vs. Sabuddin & Ors. Page 8 of 36
offending vehicle are liable to pay the compensation to me jointly or
severally. He stated that he relied on the following documents to prove
his case: –
a). Detailed Accident Report containing FIR, MLC, site-plan etc. as
(Ex.PW1/A) Colly.
b) Copy of his Adhar Card as (Ex.PW1/B) OSR.
c). Original Bills (15 leaf) as (Ex.PW1/C) Colly.
d) Discharge Summary as (Ex.PW1/D) OSR.
RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE
13. The respondent no. 1 entered into the witness box as RW-1.
He stated that he had not caused any road accident and that he was
driving the bus carefully. Further, he relied upon his Aadhar Card which
is Ex. RW-1/1. Vide his separate statement RE was closed on his behalf
on 10.11.2023.
14. On the same date, vide the separate statement of Ld.
Counsel for respondent no. 3, RE was closed on behalf of respondent
no. 3 as well.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
15. The Petitioner/injured filed his duly filled Form XIV and
his financial statement was recorded. Final arguments were heard on
behalf of the petitioner as well as respondents.
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.05
16:14:31 +0530
MACT No.515/23 Sonu Vs. Sabuddin & Ors. Page 9 of 36
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
16. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Ld. Counsel
for respondents and perused the record. My findings on the various
issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1:
Whether the petitioner/injured suffered grievous injuries in an
accident that took place on 09.03.2023 at about 10:00 pm at Outer
Ring Road, near DTC Bus Depot involving vehicle bearing registration
No. DL-1PD-1130 driven rashly and negligently by respondent no. 1
Sabuddin, owned by respondent No. 2 Antony Road Transport
Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and insured with respondent no.3 IFFCO Tokio
General Insurance Co. Ltd.?OPP
17. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. It is
the case of the petitioner that on 09.03.2023 at about 10:00 PM Outer
Ring Road Near DTC Bus Depot, Sonu (hereinafter referred to as the
petitioner) had suffered grievous injuries in the said accident which was
allegedly caused by vehicle bearing registration No. DL 1PD 1130
(hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) The said vehicle was being
driven by respondent No.1, Shahbuddin; owned by respondent no. 2,
Antony Road Transport Solution Pvt. Ltd. and insured with respondent
no.3, IFFICO- TOKIO General Insurance Company.
18. The respondents do not dispute the factum of the accident. It is
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.05
16:14:39 +0530
MACT No.515/23 Sonu Vs. Sabuddin & Ors. Page 10 of 36
only stated that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent
driving of the petitioner’s friend, who was driving the motorcycle and not
due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1. The
respondent no. 1 entered into the witness box as RW-1 and he reiterated
these allegations on oath. As such nothing contrary could be brought out in
his cross examination. However, it is settled law that the petitioner cannot
be expected to prove the accident beyond reasonable doubts and the
principle of res ipsa loquitor should apply which means that the “accident
speaks for itself”. Thus, once it has been established in DAR and
chargesheet that the accident had taken place, the burden shifts on the
respondents to prove that they were not responsible for the accident which
the respondents have failed to discharge. In this regard, reliance is placed on
the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the cases of Teja Singh Vs
Suman & Ors., MAC. APP. 1111/2018 & CM APPL. 52384/2018,
52386/2018, date of decision 06/12/2019; MAC. APP. 428/2018, titled as
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamla Devi & Ors, date of decision
08.11.2019 and MAC. APP. 690/2017 & CM APPL. 28108/2017, titled as
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mona & Ors., date of
decision 15.10.2019, which had relied upon the judgment in the case of
Cholamandalam Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamlesh 2009(3) AD Delhi 310.
19. It has to be considered that in the present matter, the
incident of the accident cannot be denied. It is pertinent to mention here
that in the proceedings before the claims tribunal, the facts are to be
established on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and not by the
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.05
16:14:46 +0530
MACT No.515/23 Sonu Vs. Sabuddin & Ors. Page 11 of 36
strict rules of evidence or the higher standard of beyond reasonable
doubt as required in criminal cases. The burden of proof in the present
cases is much lower than as placed in civil or criminal cases. In Bimla
Devi & Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors (2009) 13
SC 530, it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that
negligence must be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of
probabilities and a holistic view must be adopted in reaching a
conclusion.
20. Further, it is also pertinent to note that the respondent no. 1
was chargesheeted by the IO under Section 279/338 IPC. In National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 and United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepak Goel & Ors, 2014 (2) TAC 846 (Del)
decided by the Coordinate Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, it
was held as under :-
“……where the claimants filed either the certified copies
of the criminal record or the criminal record showing
the completion of investigation by police or issuance of
charge sheet under Section 279/304A IPC or the
certified copy of FIR or the recovery of the mechanical
inspection report of the offending vehicle, then these
documents are sufficient proof to reach to a conclusion
that the driver was negligent particularly when there is
no defence available from the side of driver.”
21. Reliance is also being placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble
Delhi High Court in case Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Meera Devi, 2021 LawSuit (Del) wherein it was held that “……in view
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.05
16:14:55 +0530
MACT No.515/23 Sonu Vs. Sabuddin & Ors. Page 12 of 36
of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008, contents of DAR
has to be presumed to be correct and read in evidence without formal
proof of the same unless proof to the contrary was produced.”
22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 5 SCC 656 has laid down in paragraphs 27 &
28:
“27. …This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina
Fernandes, noted that the key of negligence on the part
of the driver of the offending vehicle as set up by the
claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on
the touchstone of preponderance of probability and
certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable
doubt. Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the
judgments already adverted to by us, filing of charge-
sheet against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards
his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and
rashly. Further, even when the accused were to be
acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opined that the
same may be of no effect on the assessment of the
liability required in respect of motor accident cases by
the Tribunal.
28. Reliance placed upon the decisions in Minu B.
Mehta and Meena Variyal, by the respondents, in our
opinion, is of no avail. The dictum in these cases is on
the matter in issue in the case concerned. Similarly,
even the dictum in Surender Kumar Arora will be of no
avail. In the present case, considering the entirety of the
pleadings, evidence and circumstances on record and in
particular the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the
factum of negligence of Respondent 2, the driver of the
offending jeep, the High Court committed manifest
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.05
16:15:01 +0530MACT No.515/23 Sonu Vs. Sabuddin & Ors. Page 13 of 36
error in taking a contrary view which, in our opinion, is
an error apparent on the face of record and manifestly
wrong.”
23. In view of the same, considering the facts and
circumstances, the unrebutted testimony of the petitioner and the
documents filed thereto, the court is satisfied that the accident was
caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1.
From the DAR, it also stands established that respondent no. 2, Antony
Road transport Solution Pvt. Ltd. was the registered owner of the
offending vehicle. It is also an admitted position that the offending
vehicle was insured with respondent no.3, IFFCo TOKIO GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. vide Policy No. MS674328 valid w.e.f.
21.01.2023 to 20.01.2024. The factum of the said insurance is also
admitted by the respondent no.3 insurance company.
The injury:
24. Further, the onus to prove that the petitioner had suffered
injuries by way of the said accident was on the petitioner. In this regard,
the petitioner has relied upon his MLC which is part of the DAR which
is Ex. PW-1/A and his discharge summary which is Ex. PW-1/D. As per
the MLC of the petitioner bearing no. 20/143, he was taken to the
hospital on 09.03.2023 at about 10:20 pm. Further, as per the MLC he
has suffered multiple fractures in his leg and fore arm. As per the
discharge summary Ex. PW-1/D, the petitioner was admitted in the
hospital on 10.03.2023 and discharged on 06.06.2023.
RUCHIKA Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.05
16:15:09 +0530
MACT No.515/23 Sonu Vs. Sabuddin & Ors. Page 14 of 36
25. Further, on an application filed by the petitioner, his
disability was directed to be ascertained. As per the report dt. 11.07.2025
the petitioner has sustained 30 % temporary disability which is likely to
improve with physiotherapy and which was to be reviewed after six
months. In view of the same, considering the facts and circumstances,
the MLC and the discharge summary of the petitioner, it is proved that
he had suffered grievous injury in the present matter.
26. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the
opinion that on the scales of preponderance of probabilities, the
petitioner has proved that the accident in question took place due to rash
and negligent driving of offending vehicle being driven by its
driver/respondent no. 1 on the date and time of the accident and that due
to the said accident, the petitioner had suffered grievous injury.
Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and
against the respondents.
Issue no.2.
Whether there was contributory negligence on the part of
petitioner/one of the pillion riders of the motorcycle bearing
registration no. DL-5SCX-4423, as driver Sachin of the said
motorcycle was driving the same without a valid driving licence
and the petitioner alongwith another person were pillion riding the
same. If so, its effect?OPR-3.
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA 16:15:17
Date: 2025.08.05
+0530
MACT No.515/23 Sonu Vs. Sabuddin & Ors. Page 15 of 36
27. The onus to prove this issue was upon the respondent no.3.
It is argued by Ld. Counsel for respondents that in the present matter, it
is an admitted fact that the petitioner were riding a motorcycle with two
friends. It is stated that as per the traffic rules, only two persons are
allowed on a two-wheeler. It is submitted that as the petitioner was
indulged in triple riding on the motorcycle, he is guilty of contributory
negligence. Hence, it is submitted that the award amount to the extent of
50 % should be deducted from the compensation amount which shall be
awarded to the petitioner.
28. In this regard, it is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the
petitioner that there were three injured person in the present matter.
Separate DAR was filed for all the three injured persons. The same were
registered separately. Two of these matters were earlier disposed off by
the Ld. Predecessor Court vide judgment dated 14.12.2023. In that
judgment, the Ld. Predecessor Court had opined that the petitioners
were guilty of 25% contributory negligence. It is submitted that all the
three matters arise out of the same facts. The previous judgment has
already attained finality. Hence, it is submitted that the principle of res
judicata applies and the contributory negligence can be ascertained only
at 25 % and not more. Hence, he submits that the same may be assessed
accordingly.
29. Record perused.
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.05
16:15:24 +0530
MACT No.515/23 Sonu Vs. Sabuddin & Ors. Page 16 of 36
30. As pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner there
were three DAR petitions filed on the same accident. In the award dt.
14.12.2023 in MACT No. 517/2023 titled as Suraj Vs. Sabuddin & Ors.,
Ld. Predecessor Tribunal had held that the petitioners were guilty of
25% contributory negligence. Further, as submitted by the Ld. Counsel
for the petitioner, the award had attained finality. The principle of res
judicata shall apply on the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Hence, contributory negligence to the tune of 25 % is applicable in the
present matter. Accordingly, issue no. 2 is disposed off accordingly.
ISSUE NO..3:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to
what amount and from whom? (OPP)
31. The onus to prove this issue was also upon the petitioner. In
view of the observations as given in issue no.1, the petitioner is entitled
for compensation. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors.
(2011) 1 SCC 34, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
“General principles relating to
compensation in injury cases
4. The provision of The Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (`Act’ for short) makes it clear that the
award must be just, which means that
compensation should, to the extent possible,
fully and adequately restore the claimant to the
position prior to the accident. The object of
awarding damages is to make good the loss
suffered as a result of wrong done as far as
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.05
16:15:32 +0530
MACT No.515/23 Sonu Vs. Sabuddin & Ors. Page 17 of 36
money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and
equitable manner. The Court or tribunal shall
have to assess the damages objectively and
exclude from consideration any speculation or
fancy, though some conjecture with reference to
the nature of disability and its consequences, is
inevitable. A person is not only to be
compensated for the physical injury, but also for
the loss which he suffered as a result of such
injury. This means that he is to be compensated
for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to
enjoy those normal amenities which he would
have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his
inability to earn as much as he used to earn or
could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer
vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair – AIR 1970 SC 376, R.
D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. –
1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby –
1970 AC 467).
5. The heads under which compensation is
awarded in personal injury cases are the
following :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment,
hospitalization, medicines, transportation,
nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains)
which the injured would have made had he not
been injured, comprising :
(a) Loss of earning during the period of
treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of
permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General
Damages) Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA 16:15:39
Date: 2025.08.05
+0530
MACT No.515/23 Sonu Vs. Sabuddin & Ors. Page 18 of 36
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and
trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of
prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life
(shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases,
compensation will be awarded only under heads
(i), (ii)(a) and (iv).”
32. In view of the above law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India, in injury cases, award needs to be passed only under
heads of medical expenses, loss of earning during treatment period and
damages for pain, suffering and trauma. This is a case where the
petitioner has claimed that he suffered grievous injury due to the
accident, hence, this Tribunal now proceeds further step by step to
decide the compensation/award under different heads applicable to the
present matter in light of above preposition.
Medical expenses:
33. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 14,000/- towards medical
expenses. He has placed on record certain bills Ex. PW-1/C which are
totaling to Rs. 19,623/-. In view of the same, the petitioner is awarded to
Rs. 19,623/- towards medical expenses.
Loss of income:
34. In this regard, the petitioner has claimed that at the time of
the accident, he was working as a field boy earning a monthly income of
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.05
16:15:47 +0530
MACT No.515/23 Sonu Vs. Sabuddin & Ors. Page 19 of 36
Rs. 18,000/- per month. No evidence has been led by the petitioner to
prove the same. In view of the same, the income of the petitioner shall
be ascertained as per the minimum wages applicable. He has also not
filed on record any document to show his educational qualification.
Hence, his income is assessed as per the minimum wages of an unskilled
labour. The date of the accident is 09.03.2023. Hence, as per the relevant
notice, his income is assessed to Rs. 16,792/- per month.
35. As mentioned above, as per the discharge summary of the
petitioner Ex. PW-1/D, he remained in the hospital for around three
months. Further, as per the disability certificate, his treatment is still
going on . Hence, it is safe to assume that he would not have been able
to work for atleast 12 months due to the said injuries.
36. In view of the nature of the injuries sustained by the
petitioner and the fact that he was admitted in the hospital for 3 months,
it could be safely assumed that the petitioner could not have worked for
about 12 months due to the injuries. Accordingly, it is held that the
petitioner shall be entitled to the loss of income for 12 months i.e. Rs.
16,792/- x 12 = Rs. 2,01,504/-.
Special diet:
37. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 60,000/- towards
special diet. Although, there is no bill to support his plea, but keeping in
view the fact that the petitioner remained in the hospital for three
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.05
16:15:55 +0530
MACT No.515/23 Sonu Vs. Sabuddin & Ors. Page 20 of 36
months, he must have required special diet. Hence, a sum of Rs.
60,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under the head of special diet.
Conveyance charges:
38. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards
conveyance charges. Admittedly there is no document showing expense
on conveyance, however, considering his injuries, this Tribunal is of the
view that the petitioner must have spent money on conveyance thus, the
petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards conveyance charges.
Attendant charges:
39. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. 60,000/- towards
attendant charges. Admittedly there is no document showing expense on
an attendant, however, considering his injuries, this Tribunal is of the
view that the petitioner must have spent money on an attendant thus, the
petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 60,000/- towards attendant charges.
Pain & Suffering:
40. The petitioner/injured has claim Rs. 1,00,000/- under the
head pain and suffering. As per medical documents, the petitioner has
suffered grievous injuries and also sustained 30% temporary physical
disability. 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
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.05
16:16:03 +0530
MACT No.515/23 Sonu Vs. Sabuddin & Ors. Page 21 of 36
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.1,00,000/- 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.1,00,000/- towards pain and
sufferings to the petitioner.
Mental and physical shock:
41. The petitioner/injured has not claimed any compensation
for mental and physical shock. However, in view of the facts and
circumstances and the injuries sustained by the petitioner, a notional
sum of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded to him.
Loss of amenities:
42. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of
amenities. Although, there is nothing on record to prove the same but
keeping in view his injuries, it cannot be denied that he would definitely
have suffered loss of amenities. Hence, a notional sum of Rs.50,000/- is
awarded to the petitioner under head of “Loss of amenities”.
Disfiguration:
43. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- for
disfiguration. Keeping in view his injuries, a notional sum of Rs.
50,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under head “disfiguration”.
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.05
16:16:09 +0530
MACT No.515/23 Sonu Vs. Sabuddin & Ors. Page 22 of 36
Loss of marriage prospects
44. Nil.
Loss of earning, inconvenience, disappointment, frustration, mental
stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.:
45. The petitioner has not claimed any specific amount under
this head and it is submitted that the same may be awarded as per the
discretion of the Tribunal. Hence, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded to
the petitioner under this head.
Loss of future earnings due to disability:
46. In this regard, It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner has suffered 30 % temporary disability and
his treatment is still going on. Hence, his disability may be considered
at 12 %. No basis for the said calculation has been given. At the cost of
repetition, as per his disability certificate, it is specifically stated by the
examining Doctor that the disability is likely to improve through
physiotherapy. Further, it is not the case that the petitioner is unable to
walk. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances, considering that
there is no permanent disability suffered by the petitioner, the court is
not inclined to grant compensation towards loss of future earnings.
Future medical expenses
47. No amount has been claimed by the petitioner for future
medical expenses. However, considering the fact that he has to take
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.05
16:16:16 +0530
MACT No.515/23 Sonu Vs. Sabuddin & Ors. Page 23 of 36
physiotherapy sessions for the improvement of his disability
certificates, a lump sum amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- is awarded to the
petitioner for his future medical expenses.
48. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances,
the material on record, and the settled principles and guidelines
governing the injury cases like the present one, the compensation is
being derived in the present case as under:-
NAME OF HEAD AMOUNT (in Rupees) Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 19,623/- Monthly income of injured Rs. 16,792/- Loss of income x 12 months Rs. 2,01,504/-
Any other loss/expenditure (future Rs. 2,00,000/-
medical expenses) Expense on special diet Rs. 60,000/- Conveyance charges Rs. 25,000/- Attendant charges Rs. 60,000/-
Mental & Physical Shock & Pain & Rs. 1,00,000+ Rs. 25,000/- =
Suffering Rs. 1,25,000/-
Loss of amenities Rs. 50,000/- Disfiguration Rs. 50,000/- Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.08.05 16:16:23 +0530 MACT No.515/23 Sonu Vs. Sabuddin & Ors. Page 24 of 36 Loss of marriage prospects Nil. Loss of earning, inconvenience, Rs. 50,000/-
hardship, disappointment, frustration,
mental stress, dejectment and
unhappiness in future life etc.
Total Rs. 8,41,127/-
Less 25% contributory negligence Rs. 2,10,281/-
Total compensation payable Rs. 6,30,846/-
49. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @
Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 , the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld awarding of 9% interest per annum.
Therefore, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9%
per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 07.06.2023 till realization,
totalling to the tune of Rs. 1,30,08,252/-.
DISBURSEMENT
50. The Financial Statement of petitioner/injured was recorded
by this Court/Tribunal. As per the said statement, the monthly expenses
of his family are approximately Rs. 18,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month.
51. After considering the financial statement of the petitioner, it
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.05
16:16:31 +0530
MACT No.515/23 Sonu Vs. Sabuddin & Ors. Page 25 of 36
is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 7,53,245/- (Rupees
Seven Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand Two Hundred Forty Five only),
Rs.1,53,245,/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Three Thousand Two Hundred
Forty Five only) be released to the petitioner/claimant immediately in
his MACAD bank account maintained at State Bank of India, Tis
Hazari Courts, Delhi bearing no. 44259047185, IFSC no.
SBIN0000726, CIF no. 87055900466.
52. The balance amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs
only) shall be put in 30 monthly fixed deposits in his name in MACAD
account of equal amount of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand
only) each for a period of 01 month to 30 months respectively, with
cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No.
842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said
amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred
in his saving account maintained in a nationalized bank situated near the
place of his residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM card.
53. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to the
petitioner only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving
account in a bank near his residence with endorsement of the bank that
no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if it has been
issued the said ATM Card has been withdrawn and shall not be issued
without the prior permission of this Tribunal.
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.05
16:16:40 +0530
MACT No.515/23 Sonu Vs. Sabuddin & Ors. Page 26 of 36
54. The above FDR(s) shall be prepared with the following
conditions as enumerated by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide orders
dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title
Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors.:
(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name
to be added in the saving account or fixed
deposit accounts of the claimants i.e. saving
bank accounts of the claimants shall be an
individual saving bank account and not a joint
account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by
the bank in safe custody. However, the statement
containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of
maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished
by bank to the claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be
credited by the ECS in the saving bank account
of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or
premature discharge be allowed on the fixed
deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any
cheque book and/or debit card to claimants.
However, in case the debit card and/or cheque
book have already been issued, bank shall cancel
the same before the disbursement of the award
amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the
account of claimants so that no debit card be
issued in respect of the account of claimants
from any other branch of the bank.
RUCHIKA Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.05
16:16:48 +0530
MACT No.515/23 Sonu Vs. Sabuddin & Ors. Page 27 of 36
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on
the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that
no cheque books and/or debit card have been
issued and shall not be issued without the
permission of the Court and the claimant shall
produced the passbook with the necessary
endorsement before the Court for compliance.
55. In compliance of the directions given by Hon’ble High
Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award
in the prescribed Format-XVI is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
Date of Accident: 09.03.2023
Name of the Injured: Sonu
Age of the Injured: Presently 28 years
Occupation of the Injured: Not proved
Income of the Injured: Not proved
Nature of Injury: Grievous
Medical Treatment taken: LNJP Hospital, Delhi.
Period of Hospitalization: 10.03.2023 to 06.06.2023
Whether any permanent: No
disability?
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
Sr. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
No.
1. Pecuniary Loss:
RUCHIKA Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.05
16:16:57 +0530
MACT No.515/23 Sonu Vs. Sabuddin & Ors. Page 28 of 36
(i) Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 19,623/-
(ii) Expenditure on Special Diet Rs. 60,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on Rs. 60,000/-
Nursing/Attendant charges
(iv) Expenditure on Conveyance Rs. 25,000/-
(v) Monthly income of injured Rs. 16,792/-
(vi) Loss of income x 12 months Rs. 2,01,504/-
(vii) Add future prospects Nil
viii) Any other loss which may Rs. 2,00,000/-
require any special treatment or
aid to the injured for the rest of
his life (Future medical
expenses)
2. Non Pecuniary Loss
(i) Compensation for mental and
physical shock Rs. 1,00,000+ Rs. 25,000/- =
(ii) Pain and Sufferings Rs. 1,25,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 50,000/-
(iv)
Disfiguration Rs.50,000/-
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil.
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Rs. 50,000/-
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed Nil
and nature of disability as
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.05
16:17:06 +0530MACT No.515/23 Sonu Vs. Sabuddin & Ors. Page 29 of 36
permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Nil.
expectation of life span on
account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning Nil
capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income – (income Nil
x % earning capacity x
Multiplier)
4. Total Rs. 8,41,127/-
1(ii+iii+iv+vi)+2(i+ii+vi)
Less 25% contributory Rs. 2,10,281/-
negligence
5. Total compensation payable Rs. 6,30,846/-
Interest awarded 9%
6. Earlier award amount (which has
already been received by the
petitioner in terms of previous -
award passed by Ld.
Predecessor) to be deducted
from present award amount .
7. Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 1,04,399/-
award w.e.f. 07.06.2023 till
realization
8. Total amount including Interest Rs. 7,53,245/-
9. Award amount released As mentioned in para nos. 51 & 52
10. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.6,00,000/-
11. Mode of disbursement of the As mentioned in para nos. 51 & 52
RUCHIKA Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.05
16:17:17 +0530
MACT No.515/23 Sonu Vs. Sabuddin & Ors. Page 30 of 36
award amount of the claimant(s)
12. Next date for compliance of the 06.09.2025
award
LIABILITY:
56. It has been established that the offending vehicle was being
driven by respondent no.1 and that respondent no.2 is the owner of the
same and the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no. 3.
Hence, the respondent no. 3 is directed to deposit the award amount.
Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and
against the respondents.
RELIEF:
57. The respondent no.3 – IFFICO- TOKIO General Insurance
Co. is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 6,30,846/- (Rupees Six lakhs
Thirty Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty Six only) along with interest
@ 9% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 07.06.2023 till realization with
the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the
claimant, failing which the said respondent shall be liable to pay interest
@ 12% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days. Reliance
placed on case titled as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @
Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
58. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the
award to the insurance company for compliance within the time granted
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.05
16:17:25 +0530
MACT No.515/23 Sonu Vs. Sabuddin & Ors. Page 31 of 36
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. The said respondent is further
directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the
claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal
with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days
of the deposit with a copy to the Claimant and his counsel.
Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the
award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
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 (fifth Amendment) Rules,
2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of
Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on
06.09.2025 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation
amount within the time granted.
Further, Civil 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).
Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.05
16:17:32 +0530
MACT No.515/23 Sonu Vs. Sabuddin & Ors. Page 32 of 36
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 after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court today
on this 5th August, 2025 Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.05
16:17:41 +0530
(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
MACT No.515/23 Sonu Vs. Sabuddin & Ors. Page 33 of 36
THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL MOTOR
VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022 (PL. SEE RULE
150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 09.03.2023
2 Date of filing of Form-I –
First Accident Report
(FAR) 13.03.2023
3 Date of delivery of Form-II
to the victim(s) 07.06.2023
4 Date of receipt of Form-III
from the Driver 28.04.2023
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV
from the Owner 28.04.2023
6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the insurance
of the vehicle 28.04.2023
7 Date of receipt of Form-
VIA and Form VIB from 07.06.2023
the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII -
Detail Accident Report 07.06.2023
(DAR)
9 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Investigating
Officer? If so, whether any No.
action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the 07.06.2023
Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance Yes.
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.05
MACT No.515/23 Sonu Vs. Sabuddin & Ors. Page 34 of 36
16:17:50 +0530
Company admitted his
report within 30 days of the
DAR?
12 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the No.
part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether
any action/direction
warranted?
13 Date of response of the NA
claimant(s) to the offer of
the Insurance Company.
14 Date of award 05.08.2025
15 Whether the claimant(s)
were directed to open Yes
savings bank account(s)
near their place of
residence?
16 Date of order by which
claimant(s) were directed to
open Savings Bank
Account(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN
card and Aadhar Card and 07.06.2023
the direction to the bank not
to issue any cheque
book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an
endorsement to this effect
on the passbook(s).
17 Date on which the
claimant(s) produced the -
passbook of their savings
bank account(s) near the
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.05
16:18:00 +0530
MACT No.515/23 Sonu Vs. Sabuddin & Ors. Page 35 of 36
place of their residence
alongwith the endorsement,
PAN card and Aadhar Card?
18 Permanent residential
address of the claimant(s). As per Award.
19 Whether the claimant(s)
savings bank account(s) is
NO
near their place of
residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s)
were examined at the time
Yes. The Financial Statement of the claimant
of passing of the Award to
was recorded 04.07.2025.
ascertain his/their financial
condition?
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.08.05
16:18:11 +0530
(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
05.08.2025
MACT No.515/23 Sonu Vs. Sabuddin & Ors. Page 36 of 36