Khalil Ahmad Vs Jatin Sachdeva and Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Khalil Ahmad Vs Jatin Sachdeva and Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release to the petitioner of 30% of the balance compensation amount; the remaining amount to be kept in 10 equal FDRs, each FDR to be released on its maturity in favour of the petitioner after every six months.

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned MACT, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi rightly rejected, by order dated 17.12.2024, the petitioner's application seeking release of the balance of the compensation amount awarded on 21.08.2024, and how the awarded compensation ought to be held and released in light of the guidelines framed in Rajesh Tyagi v. Jaibir Singh.

Court's answer

The view taken by the learned Tribunal in rejecting the petitioner's application for release of the balance compensation amount is not correct.

Ratio / Principle

The guidelines framed in Rajesh Tyagi v. Jaibir Singh required compensation to be kept in fixed deposits in a phased manner, with amounts being released periodically in favour of the claimant; an outright rejection of a release application defeats that purpose.

Key takeaways

Although medical treatment is provided free of cost in government hospitals, a patient also needs a certain amount for his daily requirements; the petitioner, stated to belong to a poor strata of society, would not have enough savings to meet his other expenses.ratio¶12
No document can be provided by a person belonging to a poor strata of society to substantiate the daily need of money for meeting personal exigencies; for this, the courts are permitted to make some guess work.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CM(M) 224/2025 (High Court of Delhi, 04.02.2025 — Amit Mahajan, J., oral): Allowed. MACT, Karkardooma (order dt. 17.12.2024) had rejected claimant Khalil Ahmad's application for release of the balance of the ₹7,51,840/- compensation awarded on 21.08.2024 (MACT No. 256/2020) — only ₹75,840/- having been released, the rest kept in MACAD FDRs for seven years with monthly accruing interest — on the grounds that treatment at government hospital (GTB) is free, that the applicant 'regularly suffers road accidents', and that no document substantiated his need. The Court, relying on its guidelines in Rajesh Tyagi v. Jaibir Singh, I (2015) ACC 838 (Del.) (fixed deposits in a phased manner, with periodic release), held the Tribunal's view incorrect: (i) free hospital treatment does not remove a poor claimant's need of money for daily requirements, he having no savings; (ii) a person of poor strata cannot furnish documents evidencing daily exigencies — courts may make 'some guess work'; (iii) two accidents in a short interval do not establish habitual proneness, and money locked in long-term FDR serves no purpose or support to the claimant. Directions: 30% of the balance amount released to the petitioner; remainder kept in 10 equal FDRs, each released on maturity after every six months.

$~30

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 04^th February, 2025

- CM(M) 224/2025

KHALIL AHMAD .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rajbir Singh Sagar, Adv.

versus

JATIN SACHDEVA AND ORS .....Respondents Through:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 6989/2025 ( for exemption )

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

CM(M) 224/2025

The petitioner challenges the order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the learned MACT, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, pursuant to which the application filed by the petitioner seeking release of the compensation amount awarded on 21.08.2024, was rejected.

The petitioner had met with an accident which led to filing of the claim being MACT No. 256/2020. By award dated 21.08.2024, the learned MACT awarded a compensation of

Signature Not Verified₹7,51,840/- in favour of the petitioner, out of which only a sum Signed By:KAMALDEEP CM(M) 224/2025 Page 1 of 4 KAUR Signing Da te:1 1.02.2025 12:19:32

of ₹75,840/- was released to him and the remaining amount was directed to be kept in the Motor Accident Claims Deposit (MACAD) in the form FDR, for a period of seven years with monthly accruing interest, to be released in favour of the petitioner on its maturity.

This Court in Rajesh Tyagi v. Jaibir Singh : I (2015) ACC 838 (Del.) had framed certain guidelines in regard to the compensation amount to be placed in fixed deposits in order to meet the annual exigencies being faced by the victim and the family members relating to education, health, marriage etc.

This Court had advised that the Tribunal shall, depending on the financial status and the financial need of the claimant, release such amount in the beginning and keep the remaining amount in the fixed deposit, in a phased manner. 7. The purpose, in the opinion of this Court, was that certain amount is released periodically or on an application being filed by the applicant, pointing out the need for the such release. 8. It is not disputed that the petitioner met with an accident again on 22.11.2024 and he has been undergoing treatment at GTB Hospital, which is a government hospital. The learned Tribunal rejected the application for release of the balance compensation amount, noting that the treatment in government hospitals is free of cost and no money is required to meet the expenses.

It was also noted that the applicant regularly suffers road accidents and it becomes more necessary to secure the future

Signature Not Verified

Page 2 of 4

Signed By:KAMALDEEP CM(M) 224/2025 KAUR Signing Da te:1 1.02.2025 12:19:32

prospects of the applicant by keeping the compensation in the form of FDR. The learned Tribunal also noted that not a single document is filed to substantiate the alleged need of money for meeting the personal exigencies in life.

In the opinion of this Court, the view taken by the learned Tribunal is not correct for more than one reason.

Firstly, as noted above, this Court in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) had advised the Tribunals to keep the amount in Fixed Deposits in a phased manner. The purpose of the same being that certain amount is released periodically in favour of the claimant.

Secondly, even though the medical treatment is provided free of cost in government hospitals, it cannot be denied that the patient also needs certain amount for his daily requirements. The petitioner is stated to be belonging to a poor strata of society and, thus, would not be having enough savings to meet his other expenses.

Thirdly, no document can be provided by a person belonging to poor strata of society in order to substantiate the daily need of money for meeting the personal exigencies. For this, the Courts are permitted to make some guess work.

Lastly, merely because a person has suffered two road accidents in a short interval, cannot be a reason to assume that he regularly suffers accidents for which the compensation needs to be secured. A person / claimant requires money to meet daily exigencies and such money being kept in FDR for a long period will not serve any purpose or support the claimant in any manner.

Signature Not Verified

Page 3 of 4

Signed By:KAMALDEEP CM(M) 224/2025 KAUR Signing Da te:1 1.02.2025 12:19:32

Considering the above, the present petition is allowed and 30% of the balance amount is directed to be released in favour of the petitioner. The remaining amount is directed to be kept in 10 equal FDRs and each FDR to be released on its maturity in favour of the petitioner after every six months.

The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

FEBRUARY 4, 2025 “SK”

Signature Not Verified

Page 4 of 4

Signed By:KAMALDEEP CM(M) 224/2025 KAUR Signing Da te:1 1.02.2025 12:19:32