Delhi District Court
Ujma Bano vs Salman on 3 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DR. RUCHI AGGARWAL ASRANI
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010055242023
MACT No. : 350/2023
FIR No. : 70/2023
PS : Darya Ganj
u/s : 279/338 IPC
Ms. Uzma Bano (injured/petitioner)
S/o Mr. Mohd. Firoz
R/o 6345, Gali Jaaman Wali,
Qasab Pura Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006.
......Petitioner
Versus
1. Mr. Salman (driver of the offending vehicle)
S/o Mr. Dilshad,
R/o V & PO Nagla Buzurg
P.S. Bhopra, Muzaffarnagar, UP.
2. Mr. Mohd. Shahrukh
S/o Mr. Mohd. Akhlakh Ahmed
R/o 13, Dispensary Road
Near Indiarani Sweets Shop,
Dehradun, Utrakhand.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. (insurer)
4th Floor, Red Fort Capital
Parsvnath Tower, Bhai Veer Singh Marg,
Gol Market, New Delhi-110001. ......Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 21.04.2023
Judgment reserved on : 24.02.2025
Date of Award : 03.03.2025
MACT No.350/2023 Uzma Bano Vs. Salman and Ors. Page 1 of 37
AWAR D
The Detailed Accident Report (DAR) filed on 21.04.2023
was registered as a Motor Accident Claim petition. The DAR and the
claim petition revealed that a Road Traffic Accident took place on
17.01.2023 at about 12.15 to 12.30 AM at Guru Nanak Chowk Near
Zakir Hussain College, Delhi wherein the petitioner, Ms. Uzma Bano,
had sustained grievous injuries. The accident took place with a vehicle
bearing registration No. PB-13BK-7849 driven rashly and negligently
by respondent no. 1, Salman; owned by respondent no. 2, Mohd.
Shahrukh and insured with respondent no. 3, ICICI Lombard General
Insurance Company Limited.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that on
17.01.2023, on receipt of the information of an accident at P.S. Darya
Ganj vide DD No. 0008A, SI Mahavir went to the spot of the accident
where he was informed that the injured had been taken to LNJP Hospital
to which, SI Mahavir along with Ct. Deepak Pathak rushed to LNJP
Hospital where the injured persons namely Firoz and Uzma Bano were
found under treatment vide MLCs Nos. 115109852 & 115109853
respectively. None of the injured persons could make the statement due
to pain, however, later, the statement of the injured, Firoz, was recorded
by SI Mahavir wherein he stated that on 17.01.2023 at about 12.15-
12.30 A.M., he along with his wife was going on his scooty to his home
from Shehnai Banquet Hall, JLN Marg and when they reached at Red
MACT No.350/2023 Uzma Bano Vs. Salman and Ors. Page 2 of 37
Light, near Zakir Hussain College, one white coloured car which was
being driven by its driver at a very high speed, in rash and negligent
manner, came from the side of Ranjeet Singh Flyover and hit his scooty
due to which his scooty fell down on the road and he along with his wife
sustained multiple injuries. He further stated that immediately after the
accident, he called his brother Amjad who got his wife and him admitted
into LNJP Hospital for their treatment. He also stated that he had noted
down the registration number of the offending vehicle and he could
identify the driver if shown to him. He requested for appropriate legal
action against the driver of the offending vehicle. On the basis of MLC
and statement of the injured Firoz, the offence under Section 279/337
IPC was found to have been committed and accordingly, FIR was
registered.
3. During the course of investigation, IO had prepared the site
plan and seized the scooty of the injured. Thereafter, on 20.01.2023, the
IO had gone to LNJP Hospital for statement of the injured where the
injured indicated towards a person, whose name was later disclosed to
be Salman S/o Dilshad, and stated that he is the person who had hit his
scooty and ran away from the spot after causing the accident. Since
there was sufficient material against the said person, the IO apprehended
him, he made enquiry from him and arrested him. However, since the
offence was bailable, he was released on bail on furnishing of bail
bonds. He also produced the offending vehicle at the police station
which was seized by the IO.
4. During the course of further investigation, the IO had
MACT No.350/2023 Uzma Bano Vs. Salman and Ors. Page 3 of 37
obtained the ownership details of the offending vehicle i.e. car from the
concerned authority and served the notice under Section 133 M.V. Act
upon the owner of the offending vehicle who replied to the same in
writing that Salman was driving his vehicle on the date of the accident.
The Driving License of the driver and Registration Certificate and
insurance of the offending vehicle were seized by the IO. Mechanical
inspection of the offending vehicle was conducted. The documents
pertaining to the offending vehicle were got verified from the concerned
authority and found to be valid. The IO had collected the MLC of both
the injured after final opinion wherein the injury was mentioned as
‘grievous’ on both the MLCs and therefore, Section 337 of IPC was
converted into Section 338 of IPC. On completion of investigation,
chargesheet under section 279/338 IPC was filed against the driver of
the offending vehicle before the court of the concerned Ld. JMFC and
DAR was filed before this Tribunal on 21.04.2023.
5. Respondent nos. 1 & 2 had filed their written statement on
10.07.2023 and respondent no. 3 had filed its legal offer which was not
acceptable by the petitioner. Thereafter, respondent nos. 1 & 2 stopped
appearing and they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated
06.08.2024.
ISSUES FRAMED
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, vide order
dated 01.08.2023, this Tribunal had framed the following issues:
i. Whether the petitioner/injured Uzma Bano had suffered grievous
MACT No.350/2023 Uzma Bano Vs. Salman and Ors. Page 4 of 37
injuries in an accident that took place on 17.01.2023 in between 12:15
to 12.30 a.m., at red light crossing near Zakir Hussain College,
involving vehicle bearing registration No. PB-13BK-7849 which was
driven rashly & negligently by respondent no. 1 Salman, owned by
Respondent No.2 Shahrukh and was insured with Respondent no.3
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.? (OPP).
ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to
what amount and from whom? (OPP)
iii. Relief.
EVIDENCE
7. To prove her case, the petitioner examined herself as PW-1.
Petitioner’s evidence was closed vide order dated 04.12.2023. The
respondents did not lead any evidence.
8. The Petitioner filed the Form XIV. Financial statement of
the petitioner has been recorded. Final arguments were heard on behalf
of the petitioner and respondent no. 3.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
9. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and Ld.
Counsel for respondent no. 3 and perused the record. My findings are as
under:-
10. Before delving into the facts of the current case to decide
the aforementioned issues, it is pertinent to highlight that it is firmly
MACT No.350/2023 Uzma Bano Vs. Salman and Ors. Page 5 of 37
established in legal precedents that the proceedings conducted before the
Claims Tribunal are in the nature of an inquiry. Further, procedural
approach adopted by an accident claims’ tribunal mirrors that of a civil
court (National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Pushpa Rana & Ors. 2009
ACJ 287). In civil proceedings, the establishment of facts hinges on a
preponderance of probabilities, rather than being bound by the strict
rules of evidence or the higher standard of beyond reasonable doubt, as
required in criminal cases. The burden of proof in civil cases is lighter
than in criminal cases, and the burden to decide claim petition under The
Motor Vehicles Act is even lesser as compared to a civil litigation. 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.
11. Keeping in mind the aforementioned legal principle for
adjudicating the present issue, this Tribunal has thoroughly gone through
the testimony of the witnesses and all the material available on record.
Also, careful consideration has been given to the arguments addressed
by the Learned Counsels for all the parties.
ISSUE NO. 1:
Whether the petitioner/injured Uzma Bano had suffered grievous
injuries in an accident that took place on 17.01.2023 in between 12:15
to 12.30 a.m., at red light crossing near Zakir Hussain College,
involving vehicle bearing registration No. PB-13BK-7849 which was
driven rashly & negligently by respondent no. 1 Salman, owned by
Respondent No.2 Shahrukh and was insured with Respondent no.3MACT No.350/2023 Uzma Bano Vs. Salman and Ors. Page 6 of 37
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.? (OPP).
The factum of accident:
12. In this matter to prove the occurrence of the accident as
well as the rashness and negligence on the part of the driving of
offending vehicle by respondent no.1, the petitioner (PW-1) in her
evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A had deposed as under:-
“1…
2. That due to sheer negligence of respondent no. 1
this accident was occurred and the injured/deponent
suffered grievous injury i.e. right leg fracture as per
the MLC, caused by respondent no. 1, which cannot
be compensated in terms of money.
3. That unfortunate day, on 17.01.2023 at about
12.15-12.30 a.m. the deponent coming with her
husband to her house through scooty bearing no. DL
7SBX 9663 from Shahnai Banquet Hall JLN Marg,
when the deponent along with her husband reached
at red light near Zakir Hussain College, in the
meantime, an offending vehicle bearing No.
PB-13BK 7849, driven by the respondent No. 1,
coming from Ranjit Singh Flyover in very rash and
negligent without blowing horn and hit the scooty.
Due to heavy impact the deponent fell down on the
road and received grievous injuries in her right leg.
The husband of the deponent called to his brother
namely Amjad at the spot who had taken the
deponent to LNJP Hospital, New Delhi. The
husband of the deponent also received grievous
injuries.
4. That due to the said accident right leg of the
deponent was fractured. The deponent was treated at
LNJP Hospital, Delhi. The attending doctors of
LNJP Hospital, Delhi prepared MLC bearing No.
115109853 of the deponent, which clearly indicates
the grievous injuries to the deponent.
MACT No.350/2023 Uzma Bano Vs. Salman and Ors. Page 7 of 37
5. That the deponent is suffering with intolerable
pain and agony, during the entire periods of
treatment from the above said hospital. The
deponent/injured has spent all her savings as well as
lent some money from her friend and relatives for
medical treatment, but the respondents have not paid
compensation to the deponent/injured till date.
6. That the deponent is earning livelihood for her
family members and at the time of her accident she
sustained grievous injury and during the period of
treatment in the said hospital, her family members
have to face tremendous harassment and mental pain
and agony and the treatment of the deponent is still
continues and subsists.
7. That the respondent no. 1 is the driver and owner
of offending vehicle bearing no. PB 13 BK 7849,
who was driving the offending vehicle in a very
most rash, negligent, reckless and zig-zag manner at
a very high speed without any regard of the traffic
rules or any concern for human safety. The
respondent no. 2 is the owner of the offending
vehicle and the respondent no. 3 is the insurer of the
offending vehicle bearing no. PB 13 BK 7849,
hence, all the respondents jointly and severally liable
to compensate the deponent/injured for her better
treatment. The fateful accident was caused due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver/respondent
no. 1.
8. That the police officials investigated the matter at
site of accident thoroughly and after thorough
investigation, the police official registered a FIR No.
70/2023, dated 17.01.2023 u/s 279/338 IPC, P.S.
Darya Ganj, Delhi against the respondents, which is
on record.
9. That at the time of accident, the deponent was 36
years old possessing good health and sound mind
and robust physique and was not suffering from any
kind of ailment or addicted to any voice.
Occupationally, the deponent/injured at the time of
fateful accident, was working sewing clothes and has
been earning handsome amount Rs.20,000/- per
month from the aforesaid work. But due to heavyMACT No.350/2023 Uzma Bano Vs. Salman and Ors. Page 8 of 37
impact, the entire activities of the deponent have
come to standstill and she is completely confined to
bed continuously. Due to several multiple injuries,
the deponent is not able to attend her daily routine
work as well as official work and is lying on bed
taking continuous treatment. The deponent is
running on leave without any monetary help and
pay.
10. That the deponent has spent Rs. 1,50,000/- on
her medical treatment and Rs.50,000/- on
conveyance and Rs. 50,000/- on special diet. The
deponent has suffered permanent disability. The life
of the deponent has been shortened due to the
accident. The deponent will have to spend
Rs.1,00,000/- for future treatment. The
deponent/injured is also entitled to get compensation
of Rs. 20,00,000/-.
11. That the deponent has relied upon the following
documents:-
i. Treatment papers and Discharge Summary are
Ex.PW-1/1 (Colly.)ii. DAR FIR, site plan and other documents are
Ex.PW-1/2 (Colly.).
iii. Bills are Ex. PW-1/3.
iv. ID Card of the petitioner/injured is Ex. PW-1/4.
v. Disability Certificate of the deponent is
Ex.PW-1/5.
12. That the claim of the deponent is well within the
ambit of M.V. Act, 1988 and the deponent is very
well entitled for the reliefs as claimed by her against
the respondents and the contents therein stated are
true and correct. That it is my true and correct
statement. …”
13. PW-1 has proved the factum of the accident and the identity
of respondent no.1. She has unequivocally testified that respondent no.1MACT No.350/2023 Uzma Bano Vs. Salman and Ors. Page 9 of 37
was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner which
led to the accident in question. She has deposed that on 17.01.2023 at
about 12.15-12.30 AM, she along with her husband was going to her
house on the scooty bearing no. DL 7SBX 9663 from Shahnai Banquet
Hall, JLN Marg and when she along with her husband reached at Red
Light Near Zakir Hussain College, the offending vehicle bearing No.
PB-13BK 7849, which was being driven by respondent No. 1, came
from Ranjit Singh Flyover in a very rash and negligent manner without
blowing horn and hit their scooty. She also deposed that due to heavy
impact, she fell down on the road and received grievous injuries and her
husband called his brother namely Amjad at the spot who had taken
them to LNJP Hospital, New Delhi and her husband had also received
grievous injuries. The deposition of PW-1 as to the manner of the
accident and the driving of the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner by respondent no.1 remained unshaken during cross-
examination of the said witness and in fact was strengthened during the
same.
14. Moreover, the petitioner had no prior acquaintance with
respondent no.1 before the accident, and it is undisputed that there
existed no pre-existing animosity between them. Therefore, it defies
every logic as to why the petitioner would falsely implicate respondent
no.1 if he was not the one driving the offending vehicle. The respondent
no.1, who was the driver of the vehicle, would have been the most
crucial witness capable of refuting the petitioner’s allegations of the
occurrence of the accident and rash and negligent driving. However, he
did not step into the witness box. No convincing material has been
MACT No.350/2023 Uzma Bano Vs. Salman and Ors. Page 10 of 37
brought on record by respondent no. 1 to show that the accident did not
take place due to his fault or that he was not rash or negligent while
driving the offending vehicle. From the testimony of PW-1 and entire
record, it stands proved that respondent no.1 acted in a rash and
negligent manner while driving his vehicle due to which the petitioner
suffered grievous injuries.
15. Furthermore, in view of filing of DAR containing the
charge-sheet for the offences u/s 279/338 IPC and other relevant
documents against the respondent no.1 and in terms of the judgment in
the case of National Insurance Co. Vs. Pushpa Rana & Ors. 2009 ACJ
287 Delhi, respondent no. 1 Salman (driver of the offending vehicle) is
held to be negligent on the basis of preponderance of probability. From
the DAR, it also stands established that the offending vehicle was owned
by respondent no. 2, Md. Shahrukh and insured with respondent no. 3,
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. vide policy no. 3001-
208402909/00/000 valid from 26.10.2022 to 25.10.2023.
The injury:
16. The petitioner (PW-1) testified that due to the accident, she
sustained grievous injuries and her right leg was fractured. She asserted
that upon the accident, she was taken to Lok Nayak Hospital where she
was treated vide MLC No. 115109853 and the alleged history has been
mentioned as “road traffic accident”. She remained admitted in Lok
Nayak Hospital, Delhi for about seven days from 17.01.2023 to
25.01.2023 and during the period of her admission, she was operated on
her right foot by the doctors.
MACT No.350/2023 Uzma Bano Vs. Salman and Ors. Page 11 of 37
17. Furthermore, the petitioner had filed an application to be
examined for assessment for physical disability. She was examined by
the Medical Board at Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital and vide certificate
bearing No. 2079 dated 15.01.2025, it has been observed that the
petitioner is a case of “Fuc of Right Femur #” and the Board was of the
opinion that she has 17 % permanent physical impairment in relation to
her right lower limb.
18. From the above deposition and in totality of the
circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner has
been able to bring on record sufficient facts so as to prove at the scales
of preponderance of probabilities that the accident in question took
place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing
registration number PB-13BK-7849 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 and permanent disability of 17 %
in relation to her right lower limb.
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what
amount and from whom?
19. It has already been concluded in the preceding paragraphs
that the petitioner had suffered grievous injury and she has permanent
disability of 17 % in relation to her right lower limb.
20. The petitioner is certainly entitled for compensation in view
of decision of the discussion on the above issues. Before proceeding
further to decide the present issue, it would be apposite to encapsulate
MACT No.350/2023 Uzma Bano Vs. Salman and Ors. Page 12 of 37
the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its guiding
lamp post judgment for ascertaining just compensation in road vehicular
injury cases. 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 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;
MACT No.350/2023 Uzma Bano Vs. Salman and Ors. Page 13 of 37
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of
permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma
as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of
prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life
(shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases,
compensation will be awarded only under heads (i),
(ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury,
where there is specific medical evidence
corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that
compensation will be granted under any of the heads
(ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future
earnings on account of permanent disability, future
medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of
prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of
life. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item
(i) and under item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty
as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are
easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under
the head of future medical expenses – item (iii) —
depends upon specific medical evidence regarding
need for further treatment and cost thereof.
Assessment of non-pecuniary damages – items (iv),
(v) and (vi) — involves determination of lump sum
amounts with reference to circumstances such as
age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered
by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future
life of the claimant. Decision of this Court and High
Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under
these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some
difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future
earnings on account of permanent disability – item
(ii)(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this
case. Assessment of future loss of earnings due to
permanent disability.
6. Disability refers to any restriction or lack
of ability to perform an activity in the manner
MACT No.350/2023 Uzma Bano Vs. Salman and Ors. Page 14 of 37
considered normal for a human-being. Permanent
disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of
use of some part of the body, found existing at the
end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after
achieving the maximum bodily improvement or
recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder
life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the
incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on
account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the
end of the period of treatment and recuperation.
Permanent disability can be either partial or total.
Partial permanent disability refers to a person’s
inability to perform all the duties and bodily
functions that he could perform before the accident,
though he is able to perform some of them and is
still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total
permanent disability refers to a person’s inability to
perform any avocation or employment related
activities as a result of the accident. The permanent
disabilities that may arise from motor accidents
injuries, are of a much wider range when compared
to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in
the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,
1995 (`Disabilities Act’ for short). But if any of the
disabilities enumerated in section 2(i) of the
Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in
a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities
for the purpose of claiming compensation.
7. The percentage of permanent disability is
expressed by the Doctors with reference to the whole
body, or more often than not, with reference to a
particular limb. When a disability certificate states
that the injured has suffered permanent disability to
an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the
same as 45% permanent disability with reference to
the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb
(or part of the body) expressed in terms of a
percentage of the total functions of that limb,
obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of
disability of the whole body. If there is 60%
permanent disability of the right hand and 80%
permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that
the extent of permanent disability with reference to
the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If
different parts of the body have suffered different
MACT No.350/2023 Uzma Bano Vs. Salman and Ors. Page 15 of 37
percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof
expressed in terms of the permanent disability with
reference to the whole body, cannot obviously
exceed 100%.
8. Where the claimant suffers a permanent
disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of
compensation under the head of loss of future
earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact
of such permanent disability on his earning capacity.
The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the
percentage of permanent disability as the percentage
of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most
of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is,
percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a
permanent disability will be different from the
percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals
wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent
(percentage) of permanent disability would result in
a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and
consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as
the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45%
loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases,
equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning
capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent
disability will result in award of either too low or too
high a compensation. What requires to be assessed
by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently
disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and
after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms
of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified
in terns of money, to arrive at the future loss of
earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method
used to determine loss of dependency). We may
however note that in some cases, on appreciation of
evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that
percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of
the permanent disability, is approximately the same
as the percentage of permanent disability in which
case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said
percentage for determination of compensation (see
for example, the decisions of this court in Arvind
Kumar Mishra vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. –
2010(10) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar v. D.M.,
National Insurance Co. Ltd. – 2010 (8) SCALE 567).
MACT No.350/2023 Uzma Bano Vs. Salman and Ors. Page 16 of 37
9. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide
whether there is any permanent disability and if so
the extent of such permanent disability. This means
that the tribunal should consider and decide with
reference to the evidence: (i) whether the
disablement is permanent or temporary; (ii) if the
disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent
total disablement or permanent partial disablement,
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with
reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such
disablement of the limb on the functioning of the
entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered
by the person. If the Tribunal concludes that there is
no permanent disability then there is no question of
proceeding further and determining the loss of future
earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that
there is permanent disability then it will proceed to
ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the
actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant
based on the medical evidence, it has to determine
whether such permanent disability has affected or
will affect his earning capacity.
10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent
disability on the actual earning capacity involves
three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what
activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the
permanent disability and what he could not do as a
result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant
for awarding compensation under the head of loss of
amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his
avocation, profession and nature of work before the
accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out
whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from
earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in
spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could
still effectively carry on the activities and functions,
which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he
was prevented or restricted from discharging his
previous activities and functions, but could carry on
some other or lesser scale of activities and functions
so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn
his livelihood. For example, if the left hand of a
claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or
functional disablement may be assessed around
60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the
actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be
MACT No.350/2023 Uzma Bano Vs. Salman and Ors. Page 17 of 37
hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do
carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a
clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand
may not result in loss of employment and he may
still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his
clerical functions; and in that event the loss of
earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a
driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual
physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not
be any need to award any compensation under the
head of `loss of future earnings’, if the claimant
continues in government service, though he may be
awarded compensation under the head of loss of
amenities as a consequence of losing his hand.
Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in
service, but may not found suitable for discharging
the duties attached to the post or job which he was
earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may
therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser
post with lesser emoluments, in which case there
should be a limited award under the head of loss of
future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced
earning capacity. It may be noted that when
compensation is awarded by treating the loss of
future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything
more than 50%), the need to award compensation
separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss
of expectation of life may disappear and as a result,
only a token or nominal amount may have to be
awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss
of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a
duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as
it may.”
21. 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. However, in cases of serious
injuries, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the
claim of the claimant, award additionally needs to be passed under the
heads of loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability
MACT No.350/2023 Uzma Bano Vs. Salman and Ors. Page 18 of 37
suffered, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (including loss of
prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. The assessment of
future medical expenses would depend upon specific medical
evidence/advise for further treatment and costs thereof. The
determination of damages on account of pain and suffering, loss of
amenities and loss of expectation of life would depend upon the age of
victim, nature of injury(ies)/deprivation/disability suffered by victim and
the effect thereof on life of the petitioner. The process would involve
determination/assessment of lump-sum amounts under those heads. In
the case of assessment of loss of future earnings on account of
permanent disability, this Tribunal needs to first ascertain whether the
disability noted/assessed by the medical board is temporary or
permanent in nature. If the disability is permanent in nature, then
whether it is a total permanent disability or partial permanent disability.
If the disability has been referred/expressed in percentage terms, in
reference to any specific limb then the effect of such disability of the
limb on the function of entire body has to be ascertained. Once, the
permanent disability is ascertained, then the Tribunal needs to determine
whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect the earning
capacity of the claimant. To ascertain the same, the Tribunal needs to
ascertain the avocation, profession and nature of work of the claimant
before the incident. The Tribunal also needs to ascertain his age and
then needs to ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in
spite of permanent disability and what he could not do as result of same.
The Tribunal then also needs to ascertain whether the claimant is totality
disabled from earning any kind of livelihood or whether in spite of the
permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on
MACT No.350/2023 Uzma Bano Vs. Salman and Ors. Page 19 of 37
activities and functions which he was carrying on earlier or whether the
claimant is prevented or restricted from discharging his previous
activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of
activities and functions to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood
despite permanent disability suffered. After ascertaining the functional
disability through the above process, the Tribunal needs to workout the
loss of earning capacity per month. The Tribunal is thereafter required
to workout loss of earning capacity per annum. An appropriate
multiplier needs to be ascertained as per judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in matter of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 ACJ 1298 SC
according to age of the injured/victim. The total loss of earning capacity
then needs to be worked out multiplying appropriate multiplier
ascertained with ascertained annual loss of earning capacity. This is a
case where permanent disability is claimed and compensation is also
demanded qua future loss of earnings on account of permanent
disability, hence, this Tribunal now proceeds further step by step to
decide the compensation/award under different heads applicable to the
present matter in light of above preposition.
Determination of Injuries and Duration of the Treatment:
22. It would be appropriate to first ascertain the nature of
injuries suffered by the petitioner/injured and duration of treatment as
they need to be kept in mind while ascertaining the compensation under
different applicable heads. The petitioner has filed her medical record to
prove her nature of injuries as per which, injured has suffered grievous
injuries in the incident in question. It has also been proved that she has
MACT No.350/2023 Uzma Bano Vs. Salman and Ors. Page 20 of 37
suffered 17 % permanent disability in relation to her right lower limb. It
has also been proved that the petitioner was hospitalised from the date of
accident i.e. 17.01.2023 to 25.01.2023. Thus, her compensation is
computed as follows:
Medical expenses:
23. The petitioner Ms. Uzma Bano has claimed Rs. 1,50,000/-
under this head. In this regard, the petitioner has placed reliance on
original medical bills Ex. PW-1/3 (colly). The details of the medical bills
are as under:-
Table No. 1
Sr. No. Details of Bill Date Amount in Rs.
1. Bill No. 0007499 06.02.2023 480/-
issued by Sanjay
Medicos, Delhi.
2. Bill No. 0007078 25.01.2023 1593/-
issued by Sanjay
Medicos, Delhi.
Total Rs. 2,073/-
24. The medical bills filed by the petitioner appear to be proper
and respondents have not disputed them. Therefore, an amount of
Rs.2,073/- is awarded to the petitioner/ injured Uzma towards medical
expenses.
Loss of income:
25. Coming to the aspect of loss of income, the petitioner Uzma
MACT No.350/2023 Uzma Bano Vs. Salman and Ors. Page 21 of 37
Bano claimed that she used to sew clothes and was earning about
Rs.20,000/- per month. However, she has not placed any document on
record to prove her income or educational qualification. In the absence
of any proof, her income will have to be assessed on the basis of
minimum wages at the relevant time. The petitioner/ injured has filed
on record her Aadhar card bearing no. 9353 6939 2760 as per which she
was a resident of Delhi. Therefore, the income of the petitioner/injured
Ms. Uzma Bano will be assessed as per the minimum wages for an
unskilled labour prevalent in Delhi at the time of the accident (on
17.01.2023) which was Rs.16,792/-. Therefore, it is held that the
monthly income of the petitioner/injured Ms. Uzma Bano at the time of
the accident i.e. on 17.01.2023 was Rs. 16,792/-. Further, the petitioner
has claimed that he could not go to work for 03 months. Keeping in
view the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and her period of
hospitalization, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to Loss of
Income for 03 months i.e. Rs. 16,792/- x 3 = Rs. 50,376/-.
Pain and Suffering:
26. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs.1,00,000/- under the
head pain and suffering. It is true that a particular amount cannot be
fixed under the head pain and suffering which could be applicable to all
cases as it varies from case to case. Judicial notice can be taken of the
fact that since the petitioner has received grievous injuries, therefore,
petitioner must have suffered pain and sufferings owing to the said
injuries. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the
injured/petitioner as mentioned in the MLC as well as the disabilityMACT No.350/2023 Uzma Bano Vs. Salman and Ors. Page 22 of 37
certificate, this Tribunal hereby grants compensation of Rs.50,000/-
towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
Mental and Pysical Shock:
27. The petitioner/injured has not claimed any amount under
this head.
Special Diet:
28. The petitioner has claimed Rs.50,000/- under the head
special diet but there is no cogent evidence on record regarding money
spent by the petitioner upon special diet. However, considering the
nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner, this Tribunal is of
the opinion that petitioner must have spent some money under this head.
Hence, this Tribunal hereby grants compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards
expenses incurred on special diet.
Conveyance charges:
29. The petitioner has claimed Rs.50,000/- under the head
conveyance charges but there is no cogent evidence for the same.
However, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the
injured/petitioner, this Tribunal is of the opinion that petitioner must
have incurred some expense on conveyance. Hence, this Tribunal hereby
grants compensation of Rs. 20,000/- towards conveyance charges.
Attendant charges:
30. The petitioner has claimed Rs.50,000/- under the head
MACT No.350/2023 Uzma Bano Vs. Salman and Ors. Page 23 of 37
special diet but there is no cogent evidence on record regarding money
spent by the petitioner upon attendant. However, considering the nature
of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner, this Tribunal is of the
opinion that petitioner must have spent some money under this head.
Hence, this Tribunal hereby grants compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards
expenses incurred as attendant charges.
Compensation for loss of amenities:
31. The petitioner/injured has not claimed any amount under
this head.
Disfiguration:
32. The injured/petitioner has claimed Rs.50,000/- towards
disfiguration. Keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by the
petitioner/injured as well as the disability suffered by him, Rs. 50,000/-
is awarded to the injured/ petitioner under this head.
Future loss of income:
33. The petitioner Ms. Uzma Bano has claimed loss of future
income to the extent of Rs. 10,25,610/- in her Form XIV. It has already
been established that the petitioner has suffered 17 % permanent
disability with respect to her right lower limb. Considering that the
disability is related to her right lower limb, the functional disability of
the petitioner is also assessed at 8.50 %. The income of the petitioner
has been assessed as Rs.16,792/- on the date of accident.
MACT No.350/2023 Uzma Bano Vs. Salman and Ors. Page 24 of 37
34. As per the Aadhar Card, the date of birth of the injured/
petitioner Ms. Uzma Bano is 09.09.1987. Hence, as on the date of
accident i.e. 17.01.2023, she was aged 35 years 04 months and 12 days
old. Thus, she was more than 35 years old and less than 36 years of age.
Accordingly, the Multiplier of sixteen (16) is taken for purposes of
calculating the loss of income of the petitioner (Reliance is placed on the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision – 31.10.2017). Further, by adopting
the principles laid down in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), the future prospects of Uzma
Bano shall be 40 % as she was self employed and was below the age of
40 years at the time of accident on 17.01.2023.
35. As already discussed in the preceding para, the income of
the petitioner has been taken as Rs. 16,792/-. In view of the above, the
loss of Income on account of functional Disability is calculated as
under:
Monthly income Rs. 16,792/-
Annual Income Rs. 16,792/- x 12 =
Rs. 2,01,504/-
Add Future Prospects @ 40% Rs. 2,01,504/- x 40% =
Rs. 80,601.60/-
Total income Rs. 2,82,105.60/-
Disability @ 8.50% Rs. 2,82,105.60/- x 8.50%=
Rs. 23,978.97/-
Loss of Income after multiplier (16) Rs. 23,978.97/- x 16 = Rs. 3,83,663.61/-
(rounded off to Rs. 3,83,664/-)
MACT No.350/2023 Uzma Bano Vs. Salman and Ors. Page 25 of 37
36. Thus, keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by
the petitioner as well as the disability suffered by him, it is held that the
petitioner shall be entitled to Rs. 3,83,664/- under the head future loss of
income.
37. 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. 2,073/- Monthly income of injured Rs. 16,792/- Loss of income x 3 months Rs. 50,376/- Add future prospects Rs. 80,601.60/-
Loss of future income (income X % Rs. 3,83,664/-
Earning Capacity X Multiplier)
Any other loss/expenditure Nil.
Mental & Physical Shock & Pain & Rs. 50,000/-
Suffering
Special diet Rs. 20,000/-
Attendant charges Rs. 20,000/-
Conveyance charges Rs. 20,000/-
Loss of amenities Nil.
Disfiguration Rs. 50,000/-
Loss of Marriage prospects Nil.
Loss of earning, inconvenience, Nil.
hardship, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
MACT No.350/2023 Uzma Bano Vs. Salman and Ors. Page 26 of 37
future life etc.
Total Rs. 5,96,113/-
38. In the case of Benson George v Reliance General Insurance
Co. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 1540 of 2022 decided on 25.02.2022,
Hon’ble Supreme Court had awarded an interest of 6% per annum.
Therefore, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 6%
per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 21.04.2023 till realization.
DISBURSEMENT
39. The Financial Statement of the petitioner/injured was
recorded by this Court/Tribunal. As per the said statement, the monthly
expenses of his family are approximately Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/-
per month.
40. Keeping in view the above, it is held that on realization of
the award amount of Rs. 5,96,113/- (Rupees Five Lacs Ninety Six
Thousand One Hundred and Thirteen only), Rs. 96,113/- (Rupees Ninety
Six Thousand One Hundred and Thirteen only) plus entire interest
amount be released to the petitioner/claimant Uzma Bano and the
balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs only) shall be put in
20 monthly fixed deposits in her name in MACAD account of equal
amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each for a
period of 01 month to 20 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 her saving
MACT No.350/2023 Uzma Bano Vs. Salman and Ors. Page 27 of 37
account maintained in a nationalized bank situated near the place of her
residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM card.
41. 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.
42. 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
MACT No.350/2023 Uzma Bano Vs. Salman and Ors. Page 28 of 37
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.
(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.
43. 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:
1. Date of Accident: 17.01.2023
2. Name of the Injured: Uzma Bano
3. Age of the Injured: 35 years
4. Occupation of the Injured: Labour
5. Income of the Injured: Rs. 16,792/-
6. Nature of Injury: Grievous
7. Medical Treatment taken: Lok Nayak Hospital.
8. Period of Hospitalization: 17.01.2023 to 25.01.2023
9. Whether any permanent 17 %
disability?
MACT No.350/2023 Uzma Bano Vs. Salman and Ors. Page 29 of 37
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
Sr. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
No.
1. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 2,073/-
(ii) Expenditure on Special Diet Rs. 20,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on Rs. 20,000/-
Nursing/Attendant charges
(iv) Expenditure on Conveyance Rs. 20,000/-
(v) Monthly income of injured Rs. 16,792/-
(vi) Loss of income x 3 months Rs. 50,376/-
(vii) Add future prospects Rs. 80,601.60/-
(viii) Any other loss which may Nil.
require any special treatment or
aid to the injured for the rest of
his life: future treatment and
future attendant charges.
2.
(i) Compensation for mental and Rs. 50,000/-
physical shock
(ii) Pain and Sufferings
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Nil.
(iv) Disfiguration
Rs. 50,000/-
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil.
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Nil.
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
MACT No.350/2023 Uzma Bano Vs. Salman and Ors. Page 30 of 37
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed 17 % Permanent
and nature of disability as
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 8.50%
capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income – (income Rs. 3,83,664/-
x % earning capacity x
Multiplier)
4. Total Rs. 5,96,113/-
1(i+ii+iii+iv+vi)+2(ii+iv) + 3(iv)
5. Total Compensation Rs. 5,96,113/-
Interest awarded 6%
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. 66,764.65/-
award w.e.f. 21.04.2023 (01
years 10 months and 12 days)
8. Total amount including Interest Rs. 6,62,877.65/-
(rounded off to Rs. 6,62,878/-)
9. Award amount released As mentioned in para no. 40
10. Award amount kept in FDRs As mentioned in para no. 40
11. Mode of disbursement of the As mentioned in para no. 40
MACT No.350/2023 Uzma Bano Vs. Salman and Ors. Page 31 of 37
award amount of the claimant(s)
12. Next date for compliance of the 03.04.2025
award
LIABILITY:
44. The offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1
Salman; owned by respondent no. 2, Mohd. Shahrukh and insured with
respondent no. 3, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Therefore,
respondent nos. 1 and 2 are liable to pay the award amount and
respondent no. 3 is liable to indemnify respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Thus, respondent no. 3 shall pay the award amount to the
petitioner.
RELIEF
45. The respondent no. 3 – ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Co. Ltd. is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,96,113/- (Rupees Five Lacs
Ninety Six Thousand One Hundred and Thirteen only) along with
interest @ 6% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 21.04.2023 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 @ 7.5% per annum for the period of delay beyond
30 days.
46. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the
award to the insurance company for compliance within the time granted
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.
MACT No.350/2023 Uzma Bano Vs. Salman and Ors. Page 32 of 37
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
03.04.2025 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation
amount within the time granted.
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).
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.,
MACT No.350/2023 Uzma Bano Vs. Salman and Ors. Page 33 of 37
date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed
by RUCHI
Announced in the open Court today RUCHI AGGARWAL
ASRANI
on this 3rd day of March, 2025. AGGARWAL
ASRANI
Date:
2025.03.03
16:50:27
+0530(Dr. RUCHI AGGARWAL ASRANI)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
MACT No.350/2023 Uzma Bano Vs. Salman and Ors. Page 34 of 37
FORM – XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME TO BE
MENTIONED IN THE AWARD1 Date of Accident 17.01.2023
2 Date of filing of Form-I –
First Accident Report 18.01.2023
(FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II
to the victim(s) 21.04.2023
4 Date of receipt of Form-III
from the Driver 07.03.2023
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV
from the Owner 07.03.2023
6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the insurance 07.03.2023
of the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-
VIA and Form VIB from 21.04.2023
the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII -
Detail Accident Report 21.04.2023
(DAR)
9 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Investigating No.
Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the
Insurance Company Not provided.
MACT No.350/2023 Uzma Bano Vs. Salman and Ors. Page 35 of 37
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company admitted his Yes.
report within 30 days of the
DAR?
12 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Designated No.
Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether
any action/direction
warranted?
13 Date of response of the
claimant(s) to the offer of No legal offer was filed by the insurance company.
the Insurance Company. It had filed the written statement.
14 Date of award 03.03.2025 15 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open savings bank account(s) Yes. 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 21.04.2023 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 Not produced. passbook of their savings MACT No.350/2023 Uzma Bano Vs. Salman and Ors. Page 36 of 37 bank account(s) near the place of their residence alongwith the endorsement, PAN card and Aadhaar Card? 18 Permanent residential As per Award. address of the claimant(s). 19 Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) is Yes. near their place of residence? 20 Whether the Claimant(s) were examined at the time of passing of the Award to Yes. ascertain his/their financial condition? Digitally signed by RUCHI RUCHI AGGARWAL AGGARWAL ASRANI ASRANI Date: 2025.03.03 16:50:35 +0530 (Dr. Ruchi Aggarwal Asrani) PO, MACT-01 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 03.03.2025 MACT No.350/2023 Uzma Bano Vs. Salman and Ors. Page 37 of 37
