Delhi District Court
Saroj Pubral vs Akhtar Ali on 20 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUNIL KUMAR: PRESIDING OFFICER
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL - 01
NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MACT no. 589/24
CNR No. DLNT0100 9059 2024
FIR no. 255/24
PS: Shahbad Dairy
Saroj Pubral (injured / petitioner)
Wife of Sh. J.K. Pubral
R/o D1/58, Ist Floor,
Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi.
VERSUS
1. Akhtar Ali (driver / respondent no. 1)
2. Zafar Ahmad (owner / respondent no. 2)
Both S/o Abdul Awal
Both R/o Bijnor Road, Patwari Mohalla Bijnor,
Lucknow, UP.
3. Go Digit General Ins. Co. Ltd. (Insurer / respondent no. 3)
Nehru Place Business Centre,
5th Floor, B-Wing, IFCI Tower,
61, Nehru Place, New Delhi.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 10.07.2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 20.11.2025
FORM - XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME TO BE MENTIONED
IN THE AWARD, AS PER JUDGMENT PASSED IN RAJESH TYAGI & ORS.
VERSUS JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. FAO 842/2003
1. Date of the accident 21.03.2024
2. Date of filing of Form-I First Accident Report Not available
(FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to victim(s) Not available
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the driver Not available
Digitally signed
Saroj Pubral Vs. Akhtar Ali & Ors. SUNIL by SUNIL
KUMAR
MACT No. 589/24 Page 1
KUMAR Date: 2025.11.20
14:04:56 +0530
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the owner Not available
6. Date of filing of the Form-V Interim Accident Not available
Report(IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form VI B Not available
from the victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII Detailed Accident 10.07.2024
Report(DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No.
the part of the Investigating Officer? If so,
whether any action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer No designated officer has
by the insurance Company. been appointed
11. Whether the designated Officer of the Insurance No designated officer has
Company submitted his report within 30 days of been appointed
the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No designated officer has
the part of the Designated Officer of the been appointed
Insurance Company? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the claimant to the offer of Offer not filed.
the Insurance Company .
14. Date of the Award 20.11.2025
15. Whether the claimant(s) was/were directed to -
open saving bank account near his/her place of
residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) was/were -
directed to open saving bank account near
his/her place of residence and produce PAN
Card and Aadhar Card and the direction to the
bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to
the claimant and make an endorsement to this
effect on the passbook(s).
17. Date on which the claimant(s) produced the -
passbook of their saving bank account near the
place of his/her residence along with the
endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
18. PAN Card Number of claimant Not produced
Digitally signed
by SUNIL
Saroj Pubral Vs. Akhtar Ali & Ors. SUNIL KUMAR
Date:
MACT No. 589/24 KUMAR 2025.11.20 Page 2
14:05:00
+0530
19. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned above
Claimant(s)
20. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank account(s) Yes.
is near his/her place of residence?
21. Whether the claimant was examined at the time No.
of passing of the award.
AWARD
1. Vide this order I shall dispose off the 'Detailed Accident Report' (hereinafter
referred to as 'DAR') filed by the police with regard to accident occurred on
21.03.2024 in which injured Saroj Pubral (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioner')
suffered injuries. Copy of DAR was supplied to petitioner as well as to Akhtar Ali
(hereinafter refereed to as 'respondent no. 1'), Zafar Ahmad (hereinafter referred to
as 'respondent no. 2') and Go Digit General Ins. Co. Ltd. (hereinafter refereed to as
'respondent no. 3'), i.e. driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle involved in the
accident i.e. TATA Ace bearing registration no. UP32RN 5779 (hereinafter refereed
to as 'vehicle in question').
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 21.03.2024 petitioner along with her
grandson was going to Upwan Apartment on a scooty bearing no. DL-8SAT-9236,
driven by the petitioner and at about 4.23 p.m. when they reached towards Shahbad
Dairy to Bhagwan Apartment then a vehicle i.e. TATA ACE bearing no.
UP-32RN-5779 driven by its driver at a very high speed and in negligent and rash
manner without obeying the traffic rules came and hit her scooty and due to such
impact she and her grandson suffered injuries. They were taken to Dr. BSA Hospital
wherein petitioner was treated vide MLC no. 3437/24.
3. It is further matter of record, as per DAR, that a criminal case FIR No.
255/24 under Section 279/337 IPC was registered in PS Shahbad Dairy and final
report under Section 173 Cr.PC under the above FIR was filed against driver of the
vehicle in question for causing the road traffic accident.
Digitally signed
by SUNIL
Saroj Pubral Vs. Akhtar Ali & Ors. SUNIL KUMAR
MACT No. 589/24 KUMAR Date: Page 3
2025.11.20
14:05:04 +0530
4. Respondent no. 1 in his written statement / reply to DAR stated that he has
not caused the accident and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is
further stated that he was holding valid driving licence and vehicle in question was
duly insured with respondent no. 3 and hence he is not liable to pay any
compensation to the petitioner.
5. Despite giving number of opportunities, respondent no. 2 has not filed any
written statement. Accordingly, his right to file written statement was closed by
order dated 15.02.2025.
6. Respondent no. 3 in its reply has denied its liability taking certain grounds
including that respondent no. 1 was holding LMV(NT) & MCWG category driving
licence, as on the date of accident whereas he was driving commercial vehicle,
which does not cover the category of vehicle i.e. commercial category vehicle, It
has further denied its liability taking certain other technical grounds as well.
7. From the pleadings of parties following issues were framed vide order dated
15.02.2025: -
1. Whether injured / petitioner Saroj Dubral suffered injuries in a vehicular
accident occurred on 21.03.2024 at about 04:23 PM at Sector-28, Rohini,
near Baghban Apartment, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Shahbad
Dairy, due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle i.e. Maruti Suzuki
Tempo bearing registration No. UP-32RN-5779 by respondent no. 1
(Akhtar Ali), owned by respondent no. 2 (Zafar Ahmad) and insured with
respondent no. 3 (Go Digit Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.) ? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation if so, what amount and
from whom of respondents? OPP.
3. Relief.
8. In order to prove her claim, petitioner examined herself as PW1 and filed her
affidavit Ex. PW1/A in evidence. Respondents opted not to lead any evidence. On
the request of respondents, RE was closed vide order dated 15.11.2025.
9. I have heard Ld. Counsels appearing on behalf of petitioner and respondents
and gone through the documents placed on record.
Digitally signed
by SUNIL
Saroj Pubral Vs. Akhtar Ali & Ors. SUNIL KUMAR
MACT No. 589/24 KUMAR Date: Page 4
2025.11.20
14:05:09 +0530
10. My issue-wise findings are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 1
Whether injured / petitioner Saroj Dubral suffered injuries in a vehicular
accident occurred on 21.03.2024 at about 04:23 PM at Sector-28, Rohini,
near Baghban Apartment, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Shahbad Dairy,
due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle i.e. Maruti Suzuki Tempo
bearing registration No. UP-32RN-5779 by respondent no. 1 (Akhtar Ali),
owned by respondent no. 2 (Zafar Ahmad) and insured with respondent no. 3
(Go Digit Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.) ? OPP.
Onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner and to prove that she suffered
injuries and such injuries were caused upon her on account of rash and negligent
driving by respondent no. 1, petitioner examined herself as PW1 and deposed that
on 22.03.2024 she along with her grandson went from their relatives house to her
house Upwan Apartment on her scooty bearing no. DL-8SAT-9236 and when she
went towards Shahbad Dairy to Bhagwan Apartment then the driver of the TATA
ACE bearing no. UP-32RN-5779 was driving in negligent and rash manner at a
very high speed without obeying the traffic rules & signals and without taking care
of the persons traveling on the road, hit her scooty and due to which she and her
grandson received injuries. They were taken to Dr. BSA Hospital for treatment. In
her cross examination by respondent no. 3 / Ins. Co., PW1 denied the suggestion
that no such accident took place with the alleged offending vehicle. PW1 further
denied the suggestion that accident took place due to her negligence. Nothing
material has come on record to disprove the testimony of PW1, as PW1 has not at
all been cross examined by the respondents no. 1 and 2 on the aspect of rash and
negligence of respondent no. 1. The respondent no. 1, being driver of offending
vehicle was himself material witness to throw light by testifying as to how and
under what circumstances and manner, the accident has taken place but he opted not
to enter into the witness box and did not lead any evidence and there is nothing on
record to show that the petitioner had any enmity with the driver of the offending
vehicle so as to falsely implicate him in this case, meaning thereby that respondents
Digitally
signed by
Saroj Pubral Vs. Akhtar Ali & Ors. SUNIL SUNIL KUMAR
Date:
MACT No. 589/24 KUMAR 2025.11.20
14:05:13
Page 5
+0530
no. 1 and 2 have nothing to say about the rash and negligence on the part of
respondent no. 1 and the manner in which the accident had occurred. Further, the
DAR collectively Ex. PW1/2 shows that respondent no.1 was charge sheeted by the
police for offences punishable under Section 279/337 IPC. Apart from deposition
of PW1, the fact that she suffered injuries in the accident is also supported by her
MLC filed along with the DAR. Respondent no. 1 has not placed on record any
document to disprove the factum of rash and negligent driving by him. Further,
there is nothing on record which shows that respondents no. 1 and 2 have ever
approached to any higher authority particularly respondent no. 1 against his false
implication in the present case. Relying upon the judgment of Mahila Dhanvanti
and Ors Vs. Phulwant Mahendra Singh, Miscellaneous Appeal no.239/1992 decided
by Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court on 29.07.1993 in which it is held as under:
-
"The plaintiff can prove the accident but cannot prove how it happened to establish negligence. This hardship is to be avoided by applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur. The general purport of the words res ipsa loquitur is that the accident speaks for itself or tells its own story".
Thus, Claims Tribunal while dealing with the law of torts in motor accident cases applies the principle of "res ipsa loquitur". Considering all this, it stands proved that accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by the respondent no. 1 and petitioner suffered injuries in the said accident.
Issue no. 1 is accordingly decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation if so, what amount and from whom of respondents? OPP.
11. As far as the issue with respect to right to claim compensation is concerned, being injured, petitioner is natural eye-witness of accident and is well within her Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL KUMAR Date:
Saroj Pubral Vs. Akhtar Ali & Ors. KUMAR 2025.11.20 MACT No. 589/24 14:05:18 Page 6 +0530 rights to claim compensation from the respondents. Accordingly, the question of right of the injured for claiming of compensation is decided in favour of the petitioner.
Now, the second part of the issue in hand with respect to the quantum of compensation is to be adjudicated and below are the finding: -
12. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, mandate the Tribunal to hold an inquiry into claims under section 166 and to determine the amount of compensation which appears to be just and reasonable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation" (2009), held as under:
"Just compensation" is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit".
13. Petitioner as PW1 has deposed the she spent Rs. 50,000/- on special diet, conveyance, attendant etc. and claimed a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs for the injuries suffered by her in road traffic accident. Admittedly, the petitioner got her treatment from the government hospital and no medical bills filed on record. Accordingly, no amount is awarded to the petitioner on the head of 'medical expenditure'. Further, there is no permanent disability got assessed by the petitioner to prove on record that she is unable to do any work and simple injuries were suffered by the petitioner as per her MLC filed along with DAR and DAR has also been filed under Section 279/337 IPC and except deposition of petitioner, there is no evidence that she has incurred any amount towards conveyance or towards attendant. However, seeing nature of injuries suffered by petitioner and his follow up treatment record, it is presumed that petitioner must have incurred some amount towards conveyance and attendant for her follow up treatment and must have taken some special diet for her speedy recovery. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.5,000/-
Digitally signed by SUNILSaroj Pubral Vs. Akhtar Ali & Ors.
SUNIL KUMAR
MACT No. 589/24 KUMAR Date:
2025.11.20 Page 7
14:05:22 +0530
towards special diet, Rs.5,000/- for conveyance and Rs. 5,000/- towards attendant charges awarded to the petitioner. Though, it is argued that petitioner could not work during the treatment and suffered loss of income hence suitable compensation be awarded on this head as well. But, no evidence has been led by the petitioner in this regard. However, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner and her follow up treatment record, it is presumed that she could not continue his work for one month. Bus petitioner could not prove her income on record as no document has been filed with regard to income nor any witness has been examined to prove such income. Further, petitioner being 70 years old cannot be compared with able bodied person and hence a lump sum amount of Rs. 10,000/- is granted to the petitioner for one month towards loss of income during her treatment.
14. Further, apart from the above mentioned amounts, petitioner is entitled for compensation regarding mental pain and suffering etc. Accordingly, after giving due weight-age to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum of Rs.20,000/- for mental pain and physical shock as well as for pain and suffering due to this accident, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities are also awarded to the petitioner, making a total sum of Rs. 55,000/-, details of which is mentioned in the attached proforma.
In the light of the above discussion, the aspect of liability of the respondents is to be adjudicated and findings are mentioned below: -
15. Admittedly, the vehicle of respondent no. 2 was insured with respondent no. 3, as on the date of accident. However, respondent no. 3 / Ins. Co. has taken certain technical pleas, but no witness has been examined nor any document has been placed on record to support the contention of Ld. counsel for respondent no. 3/ Ins. Co. Further, no material has come on record which shows that there is any breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy of offending vehicle. The main contention of the respondent no. 3 is that respondent no. 1 was not holding the driving licence for the category of vehicle he was driving, as respondent no. 1 was Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL KUMAR Saroj Pubral Vs. Akhtar Ali & Ors. Date:
MACT No. 589/24 KUMAR 2025.11.20
14:05:27 Page 8
+0530
having driving licence to drive LMV(NT) whereas he was driving a commercial vehicle. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 841 Of 2018 titled as M/S Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Rambha Devi & Ors. decided on 06.11.2024, held as under: -
"Now harking back to the primary issue and noticing that the core driving skills (as enunciated in the earlier paragraphs), expected to be mastered by all drivers are universal - regardless of whether the vehicle falls into "Transport" or "Non- Transport" category, it is the considered opinion of this Court that if the gross vehicle weight is within 7,500 kg - the quintessential common man's driver Sri, with LMV license, can also drive a "Transport Vehicle".
Here in the present case, this is not the case of respondent no. 3 / Ins. Co. that respondent no. 1 was driving the vehicle weighing more than 7500 kg. Further, the allegations levelled in the written statement howsoever strong that may be, cannot take place of proof particularly when insurance company despite having raised the issue has not led any positive evidence on such aspect. In view of the above and since the respondent no.3 / Ins. Co. has failed to establish any statutory defence, it is liable to indemnify the owner / insured and to pay compensation to the petitioner.
Accordingly, issue no. 2 is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents holding respondent no. 3 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. ISSUE NO. 3 (RELIEF)
16. Petition is allowed and an award in the sum of Rs. 62,000/- (55,000 + 6,737.5p = 61,737.5p rounded up to Rs. 62,000/-), which includes 16 months & 10 days interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the DAR till the date of award is passed in favour of petitioner and against the respondent no. 3 / Ins. Co., details of which are well mentioned in the attached proforma.
17. Respondent no. 3 / Ins. Co. is directed to deposit award amount as compensation in this case, within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal at SBI, Rohini Court Branch, Delhi within 30 days from today under intimation of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by respondent no. 3 / Ins. Co. to the petitioner and Digitally signed Saroj Pubral Vs. Akhtar Ali & Ors. SUNIL by SUNIL KUMAR MACT No. 589/24 Page 9 KUMAR Date: 2025.11.20 14:05:31 +0530 her advocate failing which the respondent no. 3 / Ins. Co. shall be liable to pay further interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of Rs. 55,000/- from the date of award till its realization.
DISBURSEMENT
18. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner on his financial needs. In view of the submission made, the entire award amount would be released to the petitioner through saving bank account but the claimant would be allowed to withdraw this amount only through withdrawal slip and by no other mode or digital mode i.e. Debit card / Credit card /ATM/NEFT/RTGS/letter etc. Digitally by SUNIL signed File be consigned to record room.
SUNIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.11.20 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (SUNIL KUMAR) 14:05:37 +0530 COURT ON 20.11.2025 PO:MACT-01, NORTH, ROHINI, DELHI Saroj Pubral Vs. Akhtar Ali & Ors.
MACT No. 589/24 Page 10
FORM - XVI
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD 1 Date of accident 22.03.2024 2 Name of injured Saroj Pubral 3 Age of the injured 69 years 11 months 24 days as on the date of accident (DOB as per Ex. PW1/1 29.03.1954) 4 Occupation of the injured Private work 5 Income of the injured 15,000/- per month (not proved) 6 Nature of injury Simple 7 Medical treatment taken by the Dr. BSA Hospital injured 8 Period of hospitalization Nil.
9 Whether any permanent No. disability? If yes, give details
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Nil.
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance 5,000/- (iii) Expenditure on special diet 5,000/- (iv) Cost of nursing/attendant 5,000/- lump sum. (v) Loss of earning capacity Nil. (vi) Loss of income during treatment 10,000/- lump sum.
(vii) Any other loss which may require any Nil.
special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(I) Compensation for mental and physical 20,000/-
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering
(iii) Loss of amenities of life 10,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration Nil.
Digitally signed
Saroj Pubral Vs. Akhtar Ali & Ors. SUNIL by SUNIL
KUMAR
MACT No. 589/24 Page 11
KUMAR Date: 2025.11.20
14:05:43 +0530
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil.
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Nil.
hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and Nil.
nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of expectation Nil.
of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in Nil.
relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (Income Nil.
X%Earning capacity X Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION 55,000/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the date of award 6737.5p (for 16 months & 10
days i.e. from the date of
filing the DAR till passing the
award)
17. Total amount including interest 61,737.5 rounded up to
Rs. 62,000/-
18. Award amount released
19. Award amount kept in FDRs As stated in para 18 of the
award.
20. Mode of disbursement of the award
amount to the claimant (s) (Clause29)
21. Next date for compliance of the award. 20.12.2025
(Clause 31)
(SUNIL KUMAR)
PO:MACT-01, DISTRICT NORTH
ROHINI, DELHI/20.11.2025
Digitally signed
by SUNIL
SUNIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.11.20
Saroj Pubral Vs. Akhtar Ali & Ors. 14:05:47 +0530
MACT No. 589/24 Page 12