Bharat Ghai (Through His Wife Harpreet Kaur) vs Raju Grover (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs & Anr. (Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Reserved on:28 September 2026.
th
Pronounced on:06 November 2026.
th
Uploaded on:06 November 2026.

# CNR No. DLHC010247582026
+ MAC.APP. 374/2026, CM APPL. 37334/2026 & CM APPL.
37335/2026.
BHARAT GHAI (THROUGH HIS WIFE HARPREET KAUR)
.....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Ralli, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Chetanya Baweja, Mr.
Ravi Kant Yadav, Ms. Nivedita
Sharma, Advocates.
versus

RAJU GROVER (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS &
ANR. (BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LTD.)
.....Respondent
Through: Ms. Sunanda Nimisha, Advocate
for R-2/Insurance Company.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
%
ANISH DAYAL, J.
1. This appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation
awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South-West District,
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi [hereinafter ‘ MACT/Tribunal ’], vide
th
impugned award dated 16 March 2026, passed in MACT No. 620/2022 ,
whereby compensation of Rs.1,52,76,996/- along with interest at the rate
of 7.5% per annum, was awarded [hereinafter ‘ impugned award ’].
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15
MAC.APP. 374/2026 Page 1 of 35

2. The injured/claimant [ appellant herein ], Bharat Ghai , represented
through his next friend and wife, Ms. Harpreet Kaur , suffered grievous
th
injuries in an accident which occurred on 11 February 2022, when the
injured/claimant, along with his wife, minor children and mother,
reached BSF Camp , Chhawala , Najafgarh Road , in their Maruti Ertiga
car, which was thereafter parked on the roadside. After alighting, when
the injured/claimant opened the rear door on the driver’s side to help his
children in getting down, he was struck by a Maruti Swift car bearing
registration no. DL 9CAV 8246 [hereinafter, ‘ offending vehicle ’].
3. Due to the impact, the injured/claimant’s head hit and got stuck
against the windshield of the Maruti Swift , whereafter he was dragged
for a distance of 20-30 feet . Resultantly, the injured/claimant lost
consciousness and was taken to the hospital, where he was diagnosed
with “ severe hypoxic brain injury with bed bound status with bowel
bladder involvement ”. Injured/claimant is a case of ‘ 100% permanent
physical impairment ’ and his condition was stated as “ not likely to
improve ” in the disability certificate [ Ex.PW1/11] , issued by the
Medical Board of Janakpuri Super Speciality Hospital and proved by
PW-2, Dr. Pravendra Singh , In-charge, Disability Cell, Janakpuri ,
Super Speciality Hospital . The injured is, therefore, in a ‘ comatose
state ’.
4. Ms. Harpreet Kaur , wife of injured/claimant, who testified as
PW-1 , in her evidence by way of affidavit, claimed a compensation of
Rs.2,00,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The
functional disability of injured/claimant was assessed at 100% by the
MACT.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15
MAC.APP. 374/2026 Page 2 of 35

5. Mr. Sanjeev Ralli , Senior Advocate for injured/claimant, has
sought enhancement of compensation on various grounds, which, as per
him, have not been properly assessed by the MACT. Mr. Ralli submits
that the MACT has failed to take into account the continuous expenses
incurred by the family, considering that the injured/claimant has been in
a continuous comatose state since the date of the accident and would
continue to be in the said state for the rest of the life. His family consists
of a wife, two school going children, aged 13 and 17 years respectively,
as well as an old-aged mother of 80 years . The injured/claimant was
merely 39 years of age at the time of the accident and has been in a coma
since then.
6. Accordingly, Mr. Sanjeev Ralli , Senior Advocate for
injured/claimant, initially sought enhancement of compensation on the
following grounds:
(i) First , that no compensation has been awarded towards loss of
amenities ;
(ii) Second , that inadequate compensation has been awarded
towards pain and suffering and mental and physical shock , at
Rs.2,00,000/- only;
(iii) Third , that injured/claimant’s claim for compensation, under
the head of loss of consortium was denied, despite the
injured/claimant being in a coma, thereby, practically resulting
in a loss of consortium for his family. In this regard, reliance
was placed by Mr. Ralli upon the decision of Maya Singh and
Others v. Oriental Insurance Co. and others , 2025 INSC 161;
(iv) Fourth , in view of the judgement passed by the Supreme Court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15
MAC.APP. 374/2026 Page 3 of 35

in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Dolly Satish
Gandhi , 2026 SSC OnLine SC 861, an amount of
Rs.9,95,015/- has been erroneously deducted on account of the
amount received under the Mediclaim policy ;
(v) Fifth , that the claim for Rs.2,32,376/- towards invoices of
expenses incurred on essential medical consumables,
purchased through Amazon , have been unreasonably rejected;
(vi) Sixth , that the pharmacy bills amounting to Rs.19,76,382/-
have been restricted to a mere amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on the
ground of lack of medical prescriptions;

(vii) Seventh , that the claim of Rs.2,09,512/- towards various bills
has been rejected solely because photocopies of the bills were
filed, despite the respondents having raised no objection when
given the opportunity to do so;
(viii) Eighth , that the claim for expenditure of Rs.35,000/- incurred
towards homeopathic consultation was rejected;
(ix) Ninth , that the claim of Rs.2,57,863/- towards Ayurvedic bills
was denied, even though it was clearly stated that the doctor’s
presence could not be secured, as he was based in Hyderabad
and had been consulted telephonically;
(x) Tenth , that the award of compensation towards physiotherapy
charges at Rs.12,825/- is highly inadequate, since the necessity
of availing physiotherapy had been sufficiently established;
(xi) Eleventh , that the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded
towards future physiotherapy expenses was inadequate, since
the injured/claimant would require lifelong physiotherapy;
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15
MAC.APP. 374/2026 Page 4 of 35

(xii) Twelfth , that the compensation towards future attendant
charges was determined on the basis of minimum wages of an
unskilled worker; whereas the same ought to have been
calculated on the basis of minimum wages of a ‘ skilled
worker ’;
(xiii) Thirteenth , that the loss of future income of injured/claimant
was incorrectly assessed on the basis of his income for
Financial Year [hereinafter, ‘ FY ’] 2020-2021, i.e. Assessment
Year [hereinafter, ‘ AY ’] 2021-2022, which coincided with the
COVID-19 pandemic, during which the event management
industry, in which injured/claimant was engaged, was
significantly affected;
(xiv) Fourteenth , that the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- awarded
towards future medical expenses is inadequate, considering the
lifelong requirement for medicines, blood tests and related
expenses, and;
(xv) Fifteenth, that the claim for compensation towards future
contingent medical expenses was erroneously denied.
7. Mr. Sanjeev Ralli , Senior Advocate for injured/claimant, however,
subsequently stated, on instructions, that he did not wish to press the
claims under (i), (ii), (viii) and (xv) , i.e. towards loss of amenities , pain
and suffering and mental and physical shock , homeopathic consultation ,
and future contingent medical expenses respectively.

8. Ms. Sunanda Nimisha , Advocate for Insurance Company ,
countered the submissions made by Mr. Ralli , essentially stating that the
quantum of compensation had been duly evaluated by the MACT and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15
MAC.APP. 374/2026 Page 5 of 35

did not warrant intervention by the Court. Ms. Nimisha contended that
the MACT had rendered its findings after careful perusal of the
documents on record, assigning reasons for each of its findings, and
therefore, the impugned award did not merit enhancement.
9. Each of the other claims, as pressed by Mr. Ralli , Senior Advocate
for injured/claimant, and countered by Ms. Sunanda Nimisha , counsel
for Insurance Company, are discussed and assessed as under:
Loss of Future Income
10. As regards the loss of future income , Ms. Harpreet Kaur / PW-1
deposed that the injured/claimant was engaged in ‘ event management ’
and was earning Rs.7,00,000/- per annum prior to the accident.
11. For this purpose, PW-5 , Sh. Surendra Meena , Senior Tax
Assistant of the Income Tax Department was examined, who placed on
record Income Tax Returns [hereinafter ‘ ITRs ’] of the injured/claimant
for AY 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22. The injured/claimant
had not filed any ITR for AY 2022-2023, the accident having occurred
th
on 11 February 2022.
12. The details of the ITRs filed by injured/claimant were summarized
by the MACT as under:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15
MAC.APP. 374/2026 Page 6 of 35

13. For the purpose of determining the injured/claimant’s income, the
MACT solely considered the ITR for FY 2020-21 i.e. AY 2021-22,
thereby rejecting the ITRs for AY 2018-19, 2019-20 as well as 2020-21.
In the opinion of this Court, the reasoning adopted by the MACT in this
regard is flawed.
14. Firstly , the MACT noted that the injured/claimant and his legal
representatives had failed to file the ITR for AY 2022-2023, even though
th
the accident occurred on 11 February 2022. Therefore, despite having
complete knowledge that the injured/claimant had been in a comatose
state since the date of the accident, the MACT noted that “ the incapacity
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15
MAC.APP. 374/2026 Page 7 of 35

did not absolve the petitioner of statutory obligation to file a return of
income and discharge his tax liability, if any, for the relevant period ”.
The MACT thereafter proceeded to hold that the non-filing of ITR for
AY 2022-2023 warranted an inference that the injured/claimant did not
have any taxable income during the said assessment year. This
determination is completely unfair, unjust and illogical.
15. It is pertinent to note that towards the end of FY 2021-2022, the
injured/claimant had been rendered comatose due to the said accident.
Therefore, in such circumstances, the family could not have been
expected to have gathered the injured/claimant’s income documents and
ensure that his ITRs were filed in the aftermath of such a tragedy.
16. The MACT failed to consider that the injured/claimant had duly
filed ITRs for all the previous assessment years. These ITRs had also
been accepted by the Income Tax authorities, and assessment orders had
been passed under Section 143 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore,
it could not be said that the injured/claimant was not an earning
individual. It was also nobody’s case that he was employed with any
company or firm or was receiving a salary. Being an event management
professional , his income would naturally have been variable. The
MACT, however, seems to have been persuaded solely by the non-filing
of the ITR for AY 2022-23.
17. Secondly , the MACT noted that the ITR for AY 2021-22 was filed
th
on 30 March 2022, i.e. after the accident had already taken place and
the injured/claimant had been rendered incapacitated. On this basis, the
MACT proceeded to note that “ no satisfactory explanation has been
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15
MAC.APP. 374/2026 Page 8 of 35

furnished as to why the return for AY 2022-2023 could not similarly
have been filed ”. This observation, yet again, is illogical, out of context
and fails to take into account the facts and circumstances of the case.
18. The family, at best, could have ensured that the accountants, who
would have been in possession of the injured/claimant’s financial
documents for FY 2020-21 [AY 2021-2022], duly filed his returns. It is
one thing to expect the family to follow up with the accountants for
filing the ITR on the basis of records, already available for the previous
financial year. However, it is an entirely different matter to expect the
family to collate and piece together the financial records for the financial
year in which the injured/claimant had met with an accident, and
thereafter file the returns.
19. Thirdly , despite making an adverse observation on account of
non-filing of the ITR for AY 2022-23, the MACT proceeded to assess
the injured/claimant’s benchmark income on the basis of the last ITR
filed by him for AY 2021-22, at Rs.2,48,153/- per annum, thereby,
taking his most proximate available income.
20. While in some cases, the aforesaid assessment may be considered
reasonable, the same has to be weighed in the facts and circumstances of
each case. The principles regarding assessment of benchmark income in
such cases have now been clarified by the Supreme Court in
Rashmirekha Tripathy v. Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. , 2026
SCC OnLine SC 1256, wherein the Court held that, in cases of self-
employed/individuals carrying out their own business, the average of the
income specified in the ITRs of up to the previous three years ought to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15
MAC.APP. 374/2026 Page 9 of 35

be taken as a reference point for assessment of annual income from their
business.
21. Even though the COVID-19 pandemic having commenced around
March 2020, the income declared for FY 2018-19 [AY 2019-2020]
would arguable be the most accurate reflection of the injured/claimant’s
earnings, in deference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Rashmirekha Tripathy ( supra ), what needs to be considered is the
average of the income specified in the ITRs of the last three years, i.e. of
AY 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22. Accordingly, the benchmark income
of injured/claimant shall be calculated at [ Rs.7,36,053/- + Rs.5,03,623/-
+ Rs.2,48,153/- ] ÷3 = Rs.4,95,943/- .
22. The MACT also noted that Ms. Harpreet Kaur / PW-1 , in her
evidence by way of affidavit, had not asserted that the injured/claimant’s
income had been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic; however, Mr.
Ralli , Senior Advocate for injured/claimant, had strenuously argued this
aspect even before the MACT, in that the income earned during the
COVID-affected years ought not to form the basis for determining loss
of income .
23. Accordingly, this Court has undertaken the exercise of averaging
the income earned over three years, which would account for any
variation in the income, whether upwards or downwards, in any
particular year.
Deduction towards Mediclaim policy

24. This aspect has now been clarified by the Supreme Court in Dolly
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15
MAC.APP. 374/2026 Page 10 of 35

Satish Gandhi ( supra ), whereby the Court has held that the amount
received under a Mediclaim/medical insurance policy cannot be
deducted from the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 [‘ MV Act ’], including compensation awarded under the head of
medical expenses . The Court observed that the two amounts stand on
different footings- one is statutory, while the other is contractual. The
amount received under Mediclaim is “ only a sequitur of premiums
having been paid in the past ” while the other is “ an entitlement as a
consequence of an accident or death in a motor vehicle accident ”. The
amount received under the MV Act is guided by the principes of just
compensation and arises out of a beneficial legislation , therefore, the
statutory entitlement stands on a higher pedestal and cannot be equated
with amount received under Mediclaim.
25. Accordingly, the deduction of Rs. 9,95,015/- made by the MACT
towards amount received by injured/claimant under his medical
insurance policy , as noted in paragraph 60.2 of the impugned award,
shall stand set aside, and the said amount shall not be deducted from
Rs.64,64,810/- .
Pharmacy Bills
26. A claim of Rs.19,76,382/- had been made by the injured/claimant
th
towards pharmacy bills up to 07 February 2025. This amount included
bills from Manocha Medicos , amounting to Rs.15,26,656/- ; bills from
Tata 1MG , amounting to Rs.1,40,082/- ; as well as bills from other
pharmacies, amounting to Rs.3,09,644/- .
27. In order to prove the bills issued by Manocha Medicos , reliance
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15
MAC.APP. 374/2026 Page 11 of 35

was placed upon the testimony of PW-6 , Sh. Manorath Kumar [ working
as a salesman with Manocha Medicos ], as well as upon the medical
th
opinion rendered by Dr. Rana Patir on 10 April 2024, exhibited as
Ex.PW11/3 .
28. The MACT, however, rejected the aforesaid claim stating that “ a
large monetary claim of more than Rs. 19lakhs solely towards pharmacy
expenses, necessarily demands strict scrutiny and credible documentary
substantiation ”. The MACT further observed that “ the fundamental
infirmity in the claim towards pharmacy expenses is the absence of
corresponding medical prescriptions ”.

29. The testimony of PW-6 / Sh. Manorath Kumar was also rejected by
the MACT on the ground that during his cross-examination, PW-6 / Sh.
Manorath Kumar admitted that the bills did not mention the
prescriptions on the basis of which medicines had been sold.
30. PW-11 , Dr. Chinmay Arora , who was an associate of the treating
th
doctor, Dr. Rana Patir , proved the medical opinion dated 10 April 2024
[ Ex.PW11/3 ]. However, since PW-11 , Dr. Chinmay Arora , had failed to
produce any prescriptions to correlate the medicines reflected in the
pharmacy bills with the medical advice rendered by Dr. Rana Patir , the
said testimony was also rejected. The MACT further noted that the last
th
discharge summary of the injured/claimant dated 10 June 2023,
exhibited as Ex.PW9/6 , prescribed medicines only for a limited period,
ranging from one week to ten days .

31. Moreover, no original allopathic prescription had been produced
by the injured/claimant to justify the pharmacy expenditure. Photocopies
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15
MAC.APP. 374/2026 Page 12 of 35

of two allopathic prescriptions, issued by Dr. Saurabh Bansal and Dr.
Rana Patir respectively, formed a part of Ex.PW1/18 , but the originals
thereof had not been produced. The MACT, therefore, rejected the claim
of Rs. 19,76,382/- and proceeded to award a lump sum of Rs.3,00,000/-
towards pharmacy expenses .
32. Mr. Sanjeev Ralli , Senior Advocate for the injured/claimant, in
this regard, vehemently argued that the MACT failed to consider that the
injured/claimant remains in a comatose state and requires continuous
medical treatment.
33. Pursuant to the directions of the Court, Mr. Ralli , Senior Advocate
for the injured/claimant, provided a tabulation of each bill and the
corresponding medical record. The said tabulation, consisted of 111 [ one
hundred and eleven ] entries of bills from Manocha Medicos , which
formed a part of Ex.PW1/8 , PW1/16 , PW1/20 , as well as a separate list
th
of documents dated 28 Mach 2025, together amounting to
Rs.11,37,259/- . For each of these bills, the specific advice to which it
relates has been documented, along with corresponding invoice numbers.
An illustrative extract of the first 6 invoices is being reproduced
hereinbelow for ready reference:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15
MAC.APP. 374/2026 Page 13 of 35

34. A similar chart had also been provided in respect of the bills
issued by Tata 1mg and other pharmacies.
35. The medical advice rendered by Dr. Rana Patir , Fortis Hospital,
th
Gurugram , dated 10 April 2024, has also been assessed by this Court
and is reproduced hereinbelow for reference:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15
MAC.APP. 374/2026 Page 14 of 35

36. The aforesaid document provides a fair assessment of the nature of
expenses that may be incurred by the injured/claimant, particularly
towards Tracheostomy tube , Ryles tube , Hospital Visit for change of
these tubes , Physiotherapist Charges , Hospital Bed Rent , cost of
Prescribed Medicines , daily needs , Full-Time Trained Nurse as also
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15
MAC.APP. 374/2026 Page 15 of 35

Future hospitalization and surgery expenses . The same are not being
paraphrased since the complete details have been extracted hereinabove.
37. The Court further notes that these invoices have either been issued
with a specific reference to Mr. Bharat Ghai as the patient or pertain to
various medical consumables, which would have been required for his
treatment. For ready reference, two of these invoices have been extracted
hereinbelow:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15
MAC.APP. 374/2026 Page 16 of 35

38. Therefore, having perused the chart, the invoices as well as the
corresponding medical advice, the Court does not see any reason why
these expenses ought not to be awarded to the injured/claimant,
considering that they are corroborated by the expenses estimated by the
treating doctor, Dr. Rana Patir .
Future medical expenses
39. As regards the compensation awarded towards future medical
expenses , the same shall be considered in view of the opinion rendered
by Dr. Rana Patir as also the estimated expenses.

40. Numerous bills have been produced on record in respect of the
expenditure incurred towards the treatment and care of the
injured/claimant, who continues to be in a comatose state . This Court is
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15
MAC.APP. 374/2026 Page 17 of 35

conscious of the plight of the injured/claimant, as well as the hardships
faced by the family members in providing for the injured/claimant’s
continued treatment and care.
41. It is a settled principle of law that compensation under the MV Act
cannot be awarded on account of pittance. It is the duty of the Court to
award just and reasonable compensation. In cases where the injured
claimant remains in a comatose/vegetative state , quantification of
compensation necessarily requires the Court to make a reasonable
estimation, having regard to the surrounding circumstances and practical
realities, as the actual and future expenses cannot always be precisely
ascertained or awarded on the basis of proved expenditure alone.
42. Accordingly, the compensation awarded herein has been assessed
by applying the multiplier method, with a view to ensuring a degree of
standardisation in the assessment of compensation while striving to
arrive at an amount that is just, reasonable and adequate, in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
43. Since it would be very difficult to estimate the amount which
would be required by the injured/claimant towards medical expenses in
the future , the estimation of Rs.50,000/- per month towards all medical
expenses is considered as justified, along with a multiplier of 15.
44. Accordingly, future medical expenses shall be calculated at
Rs.90,00,000/- [ Rs. 50,000 x 12 x 15 ].
Bills from Amazon
45. Expenses incurred by way of Amazon bills , as discussed by the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15
MAC.APP. 374/2026 Page 18 of 35

Tribunal in paragraphs 91-92 of the impugned award, have been
rejected on the ground that there was nothing on record to establish that
the Amazon invoices were actually paid. The Tribunal noted that the
invoices merely indicated that the orders were placed; there was no
indication of whether said items were actually delivered and received by
the injured/claimant or his family.
46. Some of these Amazon invoices have been examined by the
Court. However, in the opinion of this Court, it is difficult to corroborate
the same with the medical prescriptions. These clearly form a part of the
continuing expenses, which are being accounted for under the head of
future medical expenses .
Ayurvedic Bills
47. Ayurvedic bills , as examined by the MACT in paragraphs 78-80
of the award, were rejected on the ground that neither was any
Ayurvedic doctor examined nor was any original bill produced. The
MACT noted that photocopies of two Ayurvedic prescriptions, issued by
Dr. J.R. Raju , Ayurvedic Physician , formed a part of Ex.PW1/8 , but did
not have any stamp, registration or GST details. The same were,
therefore, rejected.
48. This Court has also perused the said Ayurvedic Bills and finds that
the finding of the MACT in this regard, cannot be faulted with.
Loss of Consortium
49. As regards the compensation towards loss of consortium , the
Court notes that the concept has been explained by the Supreme Court in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15
MAC.APP. 374/2026 Page 19 of 35

various judgements, inter alia , National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680, Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu
Ram , (2018) 18 SCC 130, and, more recently, in Sameem Begum v. K.
Venkat Swamy , 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1577, wherein the Court
elaborated upon the concept of consortium, describing ‘ spousal
consortium ’, as the rights arising out of the marital relationship between
a husband and a wife and the corresponding loss suffered by the
‘ surviving spouse ’, as a result of the death of their spouse.
50. Similarly, ‘ parental consortium ’ was explained by the Supreme
Court to refer to the compensation which a child was entitled to receive
on account of the ‘ premature death ’ of their parent; ‘ filial consortium ’
was defined as the right of the parents to be compensated in cases of
‘ death of the child ’. In this regard, the relevant paragraphs from Sameem
Begum ( supra ) are extracted as under:
“ 5.5. This Court in National Insurance Company Limited
9
v. Pranay Sethi dealt with the different heads under
which compensation is to be awarded to the victim who
had died in a motor accident. “Loss of consortium” is
one of such heads. In Magma General Insurance
10
Company Limited v. Nanu Ram . It was observed,
“…In legal parlance, “consortium” is a
compendious term which encompasses “spousal
consortium”, “parental consortium”, and “filial
consortium”. The right to consortium would
include the company, care, help, comfort,
guidance, solace and affection of the deceased,
which is a loss to his family. With respect to a
spouse, it would include sexual relations with the
11
deceased spouse .”
(Para 21)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15
MAC.APP. 374/2026 Page 20 of 35

5.5.1. The ‘spousal consortium’ normally refers to the
rights pertaining to relationship of a husband and wife
which allow compensation to the surviving spouse for
loss of company, society, cooperation, affection and aid
of the other in the conjugal relations. The consortium
amount which is granted to the child is called ‘parental
consortium’ to be paid on the premature death of a
parent. It is in the nature of compensation for parental
aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance
and training which would have been available to the
child had a parent been alive. The concept of ‘filial
consortium’ is the right of parents to be compensated
when there is accidental death of a child, for, parents
would suffer shock and agony on loss of child during
their lifetime. The filial consortium reflects the inbuilt
love, affection and bond prevalent in the family for the
children.
(emphasis added)

51. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid judgements elucidates the
settled position of law that compensation towards loss of consortium is
payable in cases involving the ‘ death ’ of a person.
52. Therefore, while the Court is conscious of the unfortunate
circumstances of the injured/claimant and is deeply sympathetic about
the fact that the accident has left the injured/claimant in a comatose state ,
the Court is of the opinion that it would not be appropriate to depart from
the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in this regard.
Rejection of photocopies
53. A claim of Rs. 2,09,512/- , made by the injured/claimant towards
various expenses incurred by him on account of Attendant charges ,
Ayurveda bills , ambulance charges , Special Bed , Allopathic
Consultation , OPD/Consultancy Fees , Blood Tests/Other Laboratory
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15
MAC.APP. 374/2026 Page 21 of 35

Tests as well as certain pharmacy expenditure , was rejected on the
ground that only photocopies of these bills had been placed on record,
and that had these bills had not been proved before the Tribunal.
54. In the opinion of this Court, the finding of the MACT, in this
regard, cannot be faulted with, particularly, when compensation towards
the expenses duly proved by the injured/claimant, is being awarded to
him. Furthermore, no such bills have been produced before this Court
either.
55. Although, in this regard, Mr. Ralli places reliance upon the
decision of the Gauhati High Court in M/S National Insurance Co. Ltd.
v. Smt. Thangpuii & Anr. , Motor Accident Claims Appeal No. 2 of 210,
and that of the Bombay High Court in Cholamandalam MS General
Insurance Co. Ltd through its Manager v. Ms. Charu Ashok Kandal
and Others , 2025:BHC-AS:21837-DB , in the absence of supporting
evidence, the same do not persuade this Court to interfere with the
finding of the MACT in this regard .
Physiotherapy charges
56. As per the opinion of Dr. Rana Patir , the treating doctor, the
approximate cost of physiotherapist charges would have been
Rs.45,000/- per month. In this regard, the testimony of Ms. Harpreet
Kaur / PW1 has also been noted, whereby she stated that that she was
regularly paying a sum of about Rs. 2,000/- per day as a physiotherapist
was required to visit the injured/claimant twice a day and his charges had
been Rs.1,000/- per visit. It was stated that visits by the physiotherapist
twice a day continued until October 2022, but were thereafter reduced to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15
MAC.APP. 374/2026 Page 22 of 35

once a day, as Ms. Harpreet Kaur / PW1 could not afford the expenses.
Physiotherapy was thereafter managed with the help of her brother,
Ramit Singh , who had started residing with her after the accident to
provide medical services.
57. Therefore, considering that the injured/claimant would be
requiring physiotherapy for the entirety of his life, the multiplier system
ought to be adopted under this head as well. The Court, therefore, deems
it fit to award physiotherapy charges at Rs.30,000/- per month, along
with application of the multiplier at 15. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.
54,00,000/- [ Rs. 30,000/- x 12 x 15 ] shall be awarded towards
physiotherapy charges .
58. Although the MACT has awarded amounts towards physiotherapy
charges and future physiotherapy charges under two separate heads,
with the latter being subsumed under the broader head of future medical
expenses , in view of the discussion hereinabove, the Court deems it
appropriate to consolidate the compensation awarded under both these
heads, under a common head of ‘ physiotherapy charges ’.
Nursing and attendant charges
59. In order to determine the compensation to be awarded towards
nursing and attendant charges , it would be apposite to consider
decisions of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court involving cases
of 100% functional disability.
60. The principle which has been repeatedly upheld by the courts and
thereafter resettled, may be found in a recent judgment of the Supreme
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15
MAC.APP. 374/2026 Page 23 of 35

Court in Sunil Kumar v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company
Limited , 2026 INSC 1145, wherein one of the claimants had been 43
years of age at the time of the accident and was engaged in the trading of
bakery items. The claimant suffered severe head injury, open diffuse
axonal injury and midbrain contusion with Weber’s syndrome as also
left knee penetrating injury. Relying upon his disability certificate, the
Tribunal and the High Court assessed his functional disability at 75.5%.
61. However, pursuant to an appeal, the Supreme Court enhanced his
functional disability to 100%, stating that “ one who remains dependent
on another and requires an attendant throughout his life can be said to
be suffering from 100% functional disability ”. Reliance was inter alia
placed upon Shankar Dutt v. United India Insurance Company Limited
& Others , 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1193, Jithendran v. New India
Assurance Company Ltd. & Another , ( 2022) 15 SCC 620, and General
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Priyanka Das & Others , 2026 SCC Online SC
1760.
62. The Court relied upon its earlier decision in Kajal v. Jagdish
Chand , (2020) 4 SCC 413, in order to arrive at a ‘ just and reasonable ’
amount to be awarded towards attendant charges , in cases where the
person becomes disabled for almost a lifetime. The Court also drew
reference from its decision in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K.
Veluswami , AIR 1962 SC 1, in order to factor in the multiplier system.
63. The Court therefore adopted the multiplier method to award
compensation towards attendant charges . As regards compensation
towards future medical expenses , transportation expenses , clothes and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15
MAC.APP. 374/2026 Page 24 of 35

articles and extra nourishment , the Supreme Court upheld the finding of
the High Court.
64. It would also be instructive to take note of the decision in Kajal
( supra) , wherein the Court was dealing with a case involving injuries
sustained by a minor child, which rendered her bedridden for life. Her
functional disability was assessed at 100%, noting that she was left with
a very low IQ, severe weakness in all four limbs, hysteria and urinary
incontinence. In order to award just compensation , while assessing
compensation towards attendant charges , the Supreme Court applied the
multiplier method, recognizing it to be reasonable and realistic. For ease
of reference, relevant paragraphs from Kajal ( supra) are extracted as
under:
“ Attendant charges
22. The attendant charges have been awarded by the
High Court @ Rs 2500 per month for 44 years, which
works out to Rs 13,20,000. Unfortunately, this system is
not a proper system. Multiplier system is used to balance
out various factors. When compensation is awarded in
lump sum, various factors are taken into consideration.
When compensation is paid in lump sum, this Court has
always followed the multiplier system. The multiplier
system should be followed not only for determining the
compensation on account of loss of income but also for
determining the attendant charges, etc. This system was
recognised by this Court in Gobald Motor Service
Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswami [Gobald Motor Service
Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswami, AIR 1962 SC 1]. The
multiplier system factors in the inflation rate, the rate of
interest payable on the lump sum award, the longevity of
the claimant, and also other issues such as the
uncertainties of life. Out of all the various alternative
methods, the multiplier method has been recognised as
the most realistic and reasonable method. It ensures
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15
MAC.APP. 374/2026 Page 25 of 35

better justice between the parties and thus results in
award of “just compensation” within the meaning of the
Act.
23. It would be apposite at this stage to refer to the
observation of Lord Reid
in Taylor v. O'Connor [Taylor v. O'Connor, 1971 AC 115
: (1970) 2 WLR 472 (HL)] : (AC p. 128)
“Damages to make good the loss of dependency
over a period of years must be awarded as a lump
sum and that sum is generally calculated by
applying a multiplier to the amount of one year's
dependency. That is a perfectly good method in
the ordinary case but it conceals the fact that
there are two quite separate matters involved —
the present value of the series of future payments,
and the discounting of that present value to allow
for the fact that for one reason or another the
person receiving the damages might never have
enjoyed the whole of the benefit of the
dependency. It is quite unnecessary in the
ordinary case to deal with these matters
separately. Judges and counsel have a wealth of
experience which is an adequate guide to the
selection of the multiplier and any expert evidence
is rightly discouraged. But in a case where the
facts are special I think that these matters must
have separate consideration if even rough justice
is to be done and expert evidence may be valuable
or even almost essential. The special factor in the
present case is the incidence of income tax and, it
may be, surtax.”
24. This Court has reaffirmed the multiplier method in
various cases
like MCD v. Subhagwanti [MCD v. Subhagwanti, AIR
1966 SC 1750], U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandra [U.P.
SRTC v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362], Sandeep
Khanuja v. Atul Dande [Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande,
(2017) 3 SCC 351]. This Court has also recognised that
Schedule II of the Act can be used as a guide for the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15
MAC.APP. 374/2026 Page 26 of 35

multiplier to be applied in each case. Keeping the
claimant's age in mind, the multiplier in this case should
be 18 as opposed to 44 taken by the High Court.
25. Having held so, we are clearly of the view that the
basic amount taken for determining the attendant charges
is very much on the lower side. We must remember that
this little girl is severely suffering from incontinence,
meaning that she does not have control over her bodily
functions like passing urine and faeces. As she grows
older, she will not be able to handle her periods. She
requires an attendant virtually 24 hours a day. She
requires an attendant who though may not be medically
trained but must be capable of handling a child who is
bedridden. She would require an attendant who would
ensure that she does not suffer from bedsores. The
claimant has placed before us a notification of the State
of Haryana of the year 2010, wherein the wages for
skilled labourer is Rs 4846 per month. We, therefore,
assess the cost of one attendant at Rs 5000 and she will
require two attendants which works out to Rs 10,000 per
month, which comes to Rs 1,20,000 p.a., and using the
multiplier of 18, it works out to Rs 21,60,000 for the
attendant charges for her entire life. This takes care of all
the pecuniary damages. ”
(emphasis added)

65. Kajal ( supra ) was also relied upon by the Supreme Court in
Jithendran ( supra ), wherein the claimant had suffered severe
impairment of cognitive power with hemiparesis and total aphasia and
prognosis. The Supreme Court assessed his functional disability at 100%
and thereafter applied the multiplier method to determine the
compensation to be awarded towards attendant charges . Further, noting
the continuous nature of treatment, even after initial days, compensation
towards future medical expenses was also enhanced. Relevant findings
of the Court in this regard are hereby extracted as under for reference:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15
MAC.APP. 374/2026 Page 27 of 35

“ 8. As earlier noted, the appellant has suffered 69%
permanent disability and without assistance, cannot
perform everyday functions. The claimant with seriously
impaired cognitive and physical capabilities would surely
need full-time assistance even for the confined life that he
is leading. In such circumstances, the disabled claimant
cannot be expected to rely only upon gratuitous services
of his well-wishers and family members. Importantly, the
presiding Judge in the Tribunal himself noticed that the
claimant would require the assistance of a
bystander/attendant for all his movements. Consequently,
bearing in mind the need for assisted living and what was
said in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, it is found necessary to
add the expenses for service of an attendant for the
claimant. Since no material is produced to quantify the
expenses for the attendant, making a conservative
estimate, Rs 5000 per month appears to be the bare
minimum. It is therefore deemed appropriate to quantify
the annual expenses at Rs 60,000 and applying the
multiplier of 18, the additional compensation payable
under the bystander head is quantified at Rs 10,80,000.
9. The appellant has produced adequate medical
documents before the High Court to show the recurring
needs for testing, treatment and further hospitalisation
for which, considerable expenses were incurred even
after the initial 191 days of hospitalisation. As a person
suffering severe cognitive impairment and 69% disability,
recurring medical treatment is inevitable and bearing in
mind the additional expenses already incurred, we deem
it appropriate to enhance the future medical expenses to
Rs 3,00,000 (from Rs 1,00,000), since the sum quantified
by the High Court appears to be on the lower side.
10. While the permanent disability as certified by the
doctors stands at 69%, the same by no means, adequately
reflects the travails the impaired claimant will have to
face all his life. The 21 year old's youthful dreams and
future hopes were snuffed out by the serious accident. The
young man's impaired condition has certainly impacted
his family members. Their resources and strength are
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15
MAC.APP. 374/2026 Page 28 of 35

bound to be stressed by the need to provide full time care
to the claimant. For the appellant to constantly rely on
them for stimulation and support is destined to cause
emotional, physical and financial fatigue for all the
stakeholders.
(emphasis added)
66. In Abhimanyu Pratap Singh v. Nanita Sekhon , (2022) 8 SCC
489, the Supreme Court observed that the claimant would require diapers
with at least 2 attendants within 24 hours. The Court also acknowledged
that compensation under the head of physiotherapy and expenses for use
of diapers would be required by the claimant. The Court thereafter
opined as under:
“ 23. In the head of medical expenses, the MACT or the
High Court has not awarded any compensation
presumably because the mother of the claimant, who was
minor at the time of accident, may have claimed the
amount of medical expenses being an IAS officer. But
now the claimant has become major, and looking to the
nature of injuries, future medical expenses that includes
the attendant charges, use of diapers due to loss of
urination senses is required to be calculated including
future medical expenses. The Tribunal awarded Rs
1,92,000 in the head of attendant charges @ Rs 1000
p.m. While the High Court proceeded on the premises
that the rate of the attendant charges is variable after
every five years, however, the Court calculated the
amount @ Rs 2000 thereafter @ Rs 4000 p.m. for a
period of 20 years and accordingly determined Rs
9,00,000 making enhancement of Rs 7,08,000 in the said
head. As discussed, if we apply the multiplier method and
in view of the judgment of Kajal [Kajal v. Jagdish Chand,
(2020) 4 SCC 413 : (2020) 3 SCC (Civ) 27 : (2020) 2
SCC (Cri) 577] , we accept the rate of attendant charges
at Rs 5000 p.m. for 12 hours, looking to the nature of
injuries and disability the claimant is required two
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15
MAC.APP. 374/2026 Page 29 of 35

attendants at least within 24 hours then the expenses in
the head of attendant charges comes to Rs 10,000 p.m. If
we apply the multiplier of 18, the amount comes to Rs
21,60,000.
24. Similarly for medical expenses in the head of
physiotherapy required to the claimant, the Tribunal
awarded Rs 2,88,000 @ Rs 50 per day. The High Court
granted lump sum amount of Rs 8,00,000 including the
expenses for diapers. In our considered opinion, the said
amount is not adequate. In these days the physiotherapist
would charge at least Rs 150 per day to treat the patient
for one hour which monthly comes to Rs 4500 and
annually Rs 54,000; applying the multiplier of 18, the
amount in the head of physiotherapy charges comes to Rs
9,72,000. For the purpose of use of diapers, regular
medical check-up and medical expenses if we further add
Rs 2,00,000 then in the head of future medical expenses
the amount comes to Rs 11,72,000.”
(emphasis added)

67. These decisions have also been taken into account by this Court
while considering a plea for enhancement of compensation in Siyaram
Singh v. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited ,
2026:DHC:6581, wherein compensation on account of attendant
charges , special diet , diapers and hygiene expenses , physiotherapy ,
conveyance charges , pain and suffering , loss of amenities of life and
disfigurement , was enhanced.
68. Accordingly, the minimum wages of a skilled worker, as
applicable on the date of the accident, shall be considered in this regard.
Reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in Bishan Singh v.
Chinki & Ors. , 2025:DHC:5099, wherein the Court awarded attendant
charges on the basis of minimum wages of a skilled worker for two
attendants.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15
MAC.APP. 374/2026 Page 30 of 35

69. In view of the aforesaid decisions , the Court finds no reason for
the compensation towards attendant charges to have been awarded on
the basis of minimum wages of an unskilled worker . Accordingly, the
cost of an attendant shall be assessed on the basis of minimum wages of a
skilled worker at Rs. 19,473/- per month [ as applicable on the date of the
accident ], along with the multiplier of 15.
70. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 35,05,140/- [ Rs. 19,473/- x 12 x 15 ]
shall be awarded under the head of attendant charges .
71. Furthermore, nursing charges are also liable to be awarded,
considering the opinion of Dr. Rana Patir , who stated that a full-time
trained nurse would be required by the injured/claimant. Although the
expenses for the same have been estimated at Rs.75,000/- per month, the
Court deems it fit to assess the same at Rs.30,000/- along with a
multiplier of 15. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 54, 00,000/- [ Rs. 30,000/- x
12 x 15 ] shall be awarded under the head of nursing charges .
72. As discussed hereinabove, under the head of physiotherapy
charges , the compensation awarded towards attendant charges and
future attendant charges by the MACT, shall be consolidated under a
common head of ‘ attendant charges .
Computation of Compensation
73. In view of the aforesaid directions regarding enhancement, the
revised compensation shall be calculated as under:
S. No. Heads Awarded by the Awarded by
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15
MAC.APP. 374/2026 Page 31 of 35

Tribunal this Court
PECUNIARY LOSS
1. Expenditure on
Medicines and
Treatment [(A.1 + A.2
+ A.3 + A.4) = A]
Rs. 58,10,630/- Rs. 84,81,967/-
Hospitalisation Bills
•
(A.1)
Rs. 54,69,795/- Rs. 64,64,810/-
Consultation Charges
•
(A.2)
Rs. 13,600/- Rs. 13,600/-
• Blood Tests/Other
Laboratory Tests (A.3)
Rs. 27,235/- Rs. 27,235/-
• Pharmacy Bills (A.4) Rs. 3,00,000/- Rs. 19,76,322/-
2. Expenditure on
conveyance (B)
Rs. 79,240/- Rs. 79,240/-
Expenditure on special
3.
diet (C)
Rs.1,00,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/-
4. Attendant Charges (D)
[Nursing Attendant +
Regular Attendant]
Nursing Attendant:
Nurse Attendant=
Rs. 54,00,000/-
[ Rs. 30,000/- x 12 x 15 ]
NIL
Attendant Charges:
Regular Attendant=
Rs, 1,00,000/-
Rs.35,05,140/-
[ Rs. 19,473/- x 12 x 15 ]


Total= Rs. 89,05,140/-
5. Expenses incurred on
Special Bed (E)
Rs. 28,000/- Rs. 28,000/-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15
MAC.APP. 374/2026 Page 32 of 35

6. Income of injured per
annum(F)
Rs. 2,48,153/- Rs. 4,95,943/-
7. Add: Future prospects
(G) @40%
40% Rs. 6,94,320/-

8. Multiplier (H) 15 15
9. Functional disability
(I)
100% 100%
10. Loss of future
income/future earnings
[(G x H x I] = (J)
Rs. 52,11,213/- Rs. 1,04,14,800/-
11. Physiotherapy Charges
(K)
Rs. 12,825/- Rs. 54,00,000/-
[ Rs. 30,000/- x 12 x 15 ]
12. Future medical
expenses (L)
Rs. 37,35,088/- Rs. 90,00,000/-
[ Rs. 50,000 x 12 x 15 ]
NON-PECUNIARY LOSS
Pain and suffering and
Mental & Physical
Shock & Pain &
Suffering (M)
13.

Rs. 2,00,000/- Rs. 2,00,000/-

14. Total compensation
Rs. 1,52,76,996/- Rs. 4,26,09,147/-
(A+B+C+D+E+J+K+
L+M) = (N)
15. Interest awarded 7.5% 7.5%
16. Enhanced
compensation
Rs. 2,73,32,151/-

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15
MAC.APP. 374/2026 Page 33 of 35

Directions
74. Accordingly, the compensation is enhanced by Rs. 2,73,32,151/-
[‘ enhanced amount ’] .
75. Enhanced amount along with 7.5 % interest per annum from the
date of filing the petition shall be deposited before MACT within a
period of six weeks . It is directed that a lump sum amount of Rs.
25,00,000/- along with accrued interest shall be released to the claimant
from the deposit of enhanced amount within a period of two weeks
thereafter. Remaining enhanced amount, along with accrued interest,
shall be kept in Fixed Deposit Receipts [‘ FDRs ’] of Rs.2,00,000/- each
for periods of 1 month, 2 months, 3 months and so on, in succession as
maybe calculated. Interest accruing on said FDRs shall be credited to the
designated Savings Bank Account of claimant. The amount of FDRs on
maturity would be released to the Savings Bank Account of claimant
upon due verification.
th
76. Vide order dated 26 May 2026, this Court had directed that a sum
of Rs. 45,00,000/- be released in favour of the injured/claimant over and
above the 50% release directed by the MACT.
77. Accordingly, any balance amount from the originally awarded
compensation, along with accrued interest thereon, if not already
released, shall be released in favour of the appellant/claimant, as a lump
sum amount, to enable Ms. Harpreet Kaur [ wife of injured/claimant ] to
discharge the borrowing liability incurred by her, as stated vide order
th
dated 26 May 2026.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15
MAC.APP. 374/2026 Page 34 of 35

78. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of in above terms.
79. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
80. Copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned MACT and Bank
for information and compliance.
81. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.

(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 06, 2026/MK/ ya

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:44:15
MAC.APP. 374/2026 Page 35 of 35