Delhi District Court
Mahipal (Dar) vs Sushil(Fir 71/19Lc on 28 October, 2025
:1:
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARU GUPTA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-01 (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No:445/2019
Mahipal vs. Shushil & ors.
CNR No: DLSE01-004099-2019
1. Mahipal
S/o Sh. Jaibeer
through his LRs
a) Mamta (wife of deceased)
b) Preeti (daughter of deceased)
c) Radhika (daughter of deceased)
d) Ritesh (daughter of deceased)
e) Poonam (daughter of deceased)
f) Pushpendra (son of deceased)
g) Bhagvanadei (mother of deceased)
h) Jayveer (father of deceased)
All R/o House no.11, Gehat, Sambhal,
Qadrarabad, U.P.
.....Petitioner
Versus
1. Sushil
S/o Sh. Virender Gupta
R/o 1907, Pilinji, K.M. Pur
New Delhi
............Driver/Respondent no.1
2. Krishan Kumar S/o Shri Chand R/o House no.14/27, Gali no.14, MACT no.445/19 Mahipal vs. Shushil & ors. P.No. 1 of 23 ss :2: A1 Block, Sant Nagar, New Delhi.
............Owner/Respondent no.2
3. Go Digit, Insurance Company Limited office at Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.
............Insurance company/Respondent no.3 Date of accident : 20.03.2019 Result of accident : Grievous Injury (Disability) Date of filing of DAR : 01.06.2019 Date of Decision : 28.10.2025 AWARD
1. The present Detailed Accident Report arises out of road accident in which one Mahipal (aged about 35 years) allegedly suffered grievous injury. During pendency of the present proceedings victim Mahipal died a natural death. His claim is thus being pursued by his legal heirs.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.03.2019 victim Mahipal along with his wife Mamta, his nephew (bhanja) Omendra, his three daughters and his neighbor Pramod was traveling to Anand Vihar in an auto/TSR bearing no. DL-1RV-6159 (hereinafter referred as the offending vehicle). When they reached Bus Depot at Sewa Nagar, driver of the auto received a call and he turned his auto to the wrong side at Ring Road towards Pillanji. Victim asked him to deboard them at Anand Vihar but the driver of the auto did not pay any heed. He MACT no.445/19 Mahipal vs. Shushil & ors. P.No. 2 of 23 ss :3: drove the auto at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and hit into an Alto car bearing no. UP-78AR-4258. Due to the impact, the offending auto overturned, crushing the petitioner and other passengers. Victim sustained injuries. Police was called. PCR vehicle arrived and took the petitioner to AIIMS Trauma Center. Driver of the offending vehicle was also apprehended.
3. An FIR no.0071/2019, dated 20.03.2019 was registered u/s 279,337 of IPC at PS Lodhi Colony. Matter was investigated and a chargesheet u/s 279/337/338 of IPC and Section 3/181 of MV Act was filed before concerned criminal court while DAR was filed before this Tribunal.
4. Respondent no.1 is the driver, respondent no.2 is the owner of the offending vehicle and insured with respondent no.3.
5. Respondent no.2 filed his written statement admitting himself to be registered owner of the offending vehicle. He pleaded that on 26.05.2018 he had sold the said vehicle to one Sh. Virender Gupta and the possession of said vehicle was transferred. It is pleaded that the RC coyld not be transferred in favour of Virender Gupta due to the restrictions in law on transfer of a commercial TSR within 5 years of its purchase. Respondent no.2 thus denied his liability to compensate petitioners.
In its reply respondent no.3/insurance company has refuted the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner himself was negligent in traveling in a TSR with 7-10 other passengers, beyond the permissible capacity of such TSR. It is pleaded that compensation payable to the petitioner, if any, is liable to deduction on the ground of contributory negligence. It MACT no.445/19 Mahipal vs. Shushil & ors. P.No. 3 of 23 ss :4: is further pleaded that the insurance company may not be held liable in case respondents are found to be in breach of the terms of insurance policy.
6. Vide order dated 15.03.2022, following issues were framed.
1. Whether the injured suffered injuries in a road traffic accident dated 20.03.2019 due to rash and negligent driver of vehicle no.
DL-1RV-6159 being driven by R1, owned by R2 and insured with R3?OPP.
2. Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
7. Before evidence could be led, claimant expired on 13.01.2023. His legal heirs namely Mamta (wife), Priti, Radhika, Ritesh, Poonam (four daughters), Pushpendra (son), Bhavanadei (mother) and Jayveer (father) were accordingly impleaded vide order dated 27.02.2024.
In order to prove the claim, Smt. Mamta (wife of deceased) led evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW1/A. She deposed on the lines of the DAR. She stated that on 20.03.2019 at about 01:0 AM she along with her deceased husband and her children, was travelling in TSR bearing no. DL-1RV-6159 and was going to Anand Vihar from Kotla Mubarakpur. The driver of said TSR was driving the vehicle at a very high speed, in rash and negligent manner. When they reached new Sewa Nagar Bus Stand, Barapula Flyover, driver turned his auto on the wrong side. She along with her family members requested the driver not to drive on the wrong side but he did not pay any heed. When MACT no.445/19 Mahipal vs. Shushil & ors. P.No. 4 of 23 ss :5: they reached Prabhu Market Lodhi Colony, TSR hit a car bearing no.UP78AR-4258. Offending vehicle overturned. Due to the impact her husband sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to JPN Trauma Center, AIIMS New Delhi.
She further deposed that her husband used to sell Chole Bhature on Rehdi at Mool Chand, New Delhi and was earning of Rs.30,000/- per month.
She relied upon documents i.e. her Aadhar card as Ex.PW-1/1, Adhar card of her daughter Preeti as Ex.PW1/2, Adhar card of her daughter Radhika as Ex.PW1/3, Adhar card her son Ritesh as Ex.PW1/4, Adhar card of Poonam as Ex.PW1/5, Adhar card of Pushpendra (son) as Ex.PW1/6, Adhar card of Mahipal as Ex.PW1/8, disability certificate as Ex.PW1/9, discharge summary and OPD card as Ex.PW1/10, medical bills as Ex.PW1/11, death certificate as Ex.PW1/12, DAR as Mark A, Adhar card of her mother in law as Mark B. She was duly cross-examined by learned counsel for insurance company/respondent no.3.
Insurance company led evidence by examined Ms. Snigdha Chauhan, Manager, M/s Go Digit General Insurance Company, 5th Floor, IFCI Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 to plead that respondent no.1/driver of the offending TSR was driving the TSR /auto under influence of alcohol and without a valid driving licence. She relied upon attested copy of insurance policy as Ex.R3W1/1, office copy of notice under order 12 Rule 8 of CPC along with postal receipts as Ex.RW1/2.
She was duly cross examined by Ld.counsel for petitioner.
MACT no.445/19 Mahipal vs. Shushil & ors. P.No. 5 of 23 ss :6: No evidence was led by respondent no.1 and 2 despite opportunity.
8. Final arguments in detail were addressed by Ld. Counsel for petitioner and insurance company. Now, on the basis of material on record, evidence adduced and arguments addressed, issue wise findings are as under:
Issue No. 11. Whether the injured suffered injuries in a road traffic accident dated 20.03.2019 due to rash and negligent driver of vehicle no.
DL-1RV-6159 being driven by R1, owned by R2 and insured with R3?OPP.
9. Before proceeding to decide the above issue, it is apposite to note that as a settled principle of law, proceedings under The Motor Vehicle Act are not considered akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not applicable. Reliance is placed upon decision in Bimla Devi & ors. vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (2009) 13 SC 535, in Parmeshwari vs. Amir Chand & Ors., 2011 (1) SCR 1096 and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 287, wherein it has been held that the negligence has to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view has to be taken.
10. In the present case, PW1 Smt. Mamta has testified not only as wife or legal heir of the victim but also as an eye witness and a co -passenger in the offending vehicle. She has categorically stated that the offending vehicle was being driven at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner. She has further specifically testified that the accident occurred due to negligence of the auto MACT no.445/19 Mahipal vs. Shushil & ors. P.No. 6 of 23 ss :7: driver/respondent no.1 in having taken a turn on the wrong side of the road and dashing into an Alto car coming from the correct side. This version of PW1 is corroborated by the report of the investigating officer, site plan and mechanical inspection report. The accident was reported promptly and the FIR was registered without any inordinate delay. The offending vehicle /auto/TSR was seized from the spot and the driver of such auto was apprehended there and then. The driver of the offending vehicle has neither filed a reply refuting the allegations of rash and negligent driving nor has step into the witness box to explain the circumstances in which the accident could have taken place but due to his negligence. Even respondent no.2, registered owner of the offending vehicle has not questioned the involvement of the offending vehicle.
11. The fact that even the police had filed chargesheet against respondent no.1 u/s 279/337//338 of IPC and Section 3/181 of MV Act is also suggestive of negligence of respondent no.1 in causing the accident. In National Insurance Co. vs. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, it was laid down that completion of investigation and filing of chargesheet are sufficient proof of negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
It may further be noted that in Cholamandalam Insurance Company vs. Kamlesh, 2009 (3) AD Delhi 310, it was held that if the driver of the offending vehicle does not enter the witness box, an adverse inference can be drawn against him. In the present case also, driver did not enter into the witness box to controvert the claim of petitioner or even to explain circumstances of accident.
MACT no.445/19 Mahipal vs. Shushil & ors. P.No. 7 of 23 ss :8:
12. In totality of circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioners have been able to prove on the scales of preponderance of probabilities that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver/respondent no.1 on the date and time of accident. Contributory negligence
13. The insurance company has pleaded that apart from negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, petitioner was himself negligent in so far as he boarded and agreed to travel in a TSR with a capacity of carrying not more than 3 passengers, with almost 10 passengers including 3 minor children. It is a matter of record revealed in the chargesheet and as reported by petitioner himself that he was traveling in the auto with his wife, nephew, 3 daughters and one neighbor. During cross examination, PW1 has admitted that there were around 7 persons including herself, victim Mahipal, Omender, Pramod, Radhika, Preeti and Diti @Ritesh in the said TSR. She further disclosed that she and her children were sitting on the back seat while the victim was sitting in the front along with the driver. She did not disclosed where Omender and Pramod were sitting at that time. It is proved from the RC of the offending vehicle that it was a public carrier vehicle which could have accommodated not more than 4 persons (including the driver) at a time. In these circumstances, volunteering to ply in an auto beyond its sitting capacity without any force or coersion, was certainly a negligent act on the part of the petitioner. It is a matter of common knowledge that an auto /TSR or three wheeler tends to get disbalanced when loaded beyond its capacity. As such, the petitioner, by taking a seat MACT no.445/19 Mahipal vs. Shushil & ors. P.No. 8 of 23 ss :9: alonside the driver also took a risk to his life and safety for which deduction ought to be made on account of contributory negligence. Considering the negligence conduct of the petitioner, compensation payable to the petitioner is liable to a deduction of 30% on account of contributory negligent.
Issue no.1 is accordingly decided.
Issue no. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP.
14. In the instant case Insurance company/respondent no. 3 has raised statutory defence that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving without a valid licence, in clear breach of terms and condition of the insurance policy. To prove non possession of driving licence by respondent no.1, respondent no.3 /insurance company examined Ms. Snigdha Chauhan, Dy. Manager Legal as R3W1. As R3W1 she proved notice issued to respondent no.1 and 2 under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC seeking production of a valid driving licence. She proved by way of postal receipts, due service of such notice upon respondent no.1 and 2. Despite service respondents could not produced valid driving licence of respondent no.1. This fact is corroborated by the chargesheet in which respondent no.1 has been chargesheeted for offence under Section 3/181 MV Act. No evidence has been led by respondent no.1 that he held a valid driving licence at the time of accident nor has respondent no.2 led any evidence to show that the driver of the offending vehicle driving the same without his knowledge or consent or in breach of terms of the insurance policy.
MACT no.445/19 Mahipal vs. Shushil & ors. P.No. 9 of 23 ss : 10 : Respondent no. 2 has not even been able to prove that he had transferred the possession of the vehicle to any other person or that he was not himself in legal possession of the offending vehicle. He has not even pleaded ignorance about the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the relevant time. Thus, respondent no.1 and 2 were in breach of terms of the insurance policy.
The following observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amrit Paul Singh And Another Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited And Others (2018) 7 SCC 558 is relevant to the present facts and quoted as under:
''...15. We may fruitfully note that the three-Judge Bench adverted to situations where the driver does not have a licence and the same has been allowed to be driven by the owner of the vehicle by such person, the insurer would be entitled to succeed in defence and avoid liability, but the position would be different where the disputed question of fact arises as to whether the driver had a valid licence and where the owner of the vehicle committed a breach of the terms of the contract of insurance as also the provisions of the Act by consciously allowing any person to drive a vehicle who did not have a valid driving licence."
It was further observed:
''...24. Nothing has been brought on record by the insured to prove that he had a permit of the vehicle. In such a situation, the onus cannot be cast on the insurer. Therefore, the Tribunal as well as the High Court had directed that the insurer was required to pay the compensation amount to the claimants with interest with the stipulation that the insurer shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner and the driver. The said directions are in consonance with the principles stated in Swaran Singh and other cases pertaining to pay and recover principle...''..
MACT no.445/19 Mahipal vs. Shushil & ors. P.No. 10 of 23 ss : 11 :
15. In such circumstances, the liability of compensation falls primarily upon the driver and owner of the offending vehicle bearing registration number DL-1RV-6159 Accordingly, in view of the settled law, the compensation will be payable in the first instance by the insurance company/respondent no.3 but with liberty to recover the same jointly and severally from the driver cum owner of the vehicle in question i.e. respondent no. 1 and 2.
16. Petitioners have filed their Adhar cards to prove their relationship with deceased. Respondents have not denied petitioners to be legal heirs of the deceased and as such entitled to inherit the compensation that the petitioner would have been entitled to recover. It is a settled law that such LRs are entitled only to the pecuniary damages arising due to loss of earnings or loss of future earnings, expenses relating to treatment, conveyance, special diet, nursing/attendant, as expended by the petitioner till his natural death. They are not entitled to compensation under non pecuniary head of pain and suffering, mental /physical shock, loss of amenities etc. which were personal to the petitioner.
17. Compensation payable under the head of pecuniary damages /special damages to the petitioner till his lifetime has to be assessed on the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme court in Raj Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 8981 OF 2010 wherein is was observed:
"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 MACT no.445/19 Mahipal vs. Shushil & ors. P.No. 11 of 23 ss : 12 : 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 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 MACT no.445/19 Mahipal vs. Shushil & ors. P.No. 12 of 23 ss : 13 : duplication in the award of compensation.
Pecuniary /Special Damages (i) Loss of earnings. Actual loss of earning:
18. As per the medical record, petitioner remained hospitalized in AIIMS Trauma Center on 20.03.2019 and transferred on the very same day to Safdarjung Hospital. He remained in hospital till 23.03.2019. He again admitted in Shanti Nursing Home on 24.03.2019 till 10.04.2019. In these circumstances, it is assumed that petitioner would have been incapacitated and completely bed-ridden for treatment and recovery for at least 3 months.
As regards income, petitioner is claimed to have been earning of Rs.30,000/- p.m. from his chhole bhature stall, however no proof of income has been filed nor any proof of educational qualification of petitioner has been relied upon. In absence of any proof, income of the petitioner has to be assessed as minimum wages of unskilled labour prevailed in the state of U.P. (address reflected as U.P. as per Aadhar card) on the date of accident. Same were Rs.7,676/- per month. His actual loss of income is taken as Rs.7,676X3(months)=Rs.23,028/-.
Accordingly, petitioner would have been entitled to compensation towards loss of income as Rs.23,028/-.
(i) Loss of future income/earnings:
19. In the present case, disability certificate was issued by Pt.
Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital noticing 74% permanent disability in relation to his right lower limb. Considering the socio economic background of the petitioner, the vocation in which he could have been engaged and the possible functional MACT no.445/19 Mahipal vs. Shushil & ors. P.No. 13 of 23 ss : 14 : loss, his functional disability is assessed to 40%.
Since the date of birth of the petitioner as per his Aadhar card, is 01.01.1984, his age at the time of accident on 20.03.2019 would have been 35 years. Since the victim /petitioner survived till 13.01.2023, he would be entitled to loss of future income from the date he recovered, till his actual death i.e. for approximately a period of 4 years. As per Pranay Saithi judgment, 40% would be added as future prospect. Hence, compensation towards loss of future income is assessed as Rs.7676/- (monthly income) X12 (annual computation) X4(multiplier)+40% of total income (as future prospect)=Rs.5,15,827/-. 40% of this amount would be Rs.2,06,331/-. Hence so awarded.
(iii) Expenses relating to treatment:
20. Petitioner has relied upon Medical bills Ex.PW-1/12 (colly) amounting of Rs.1,25,166/- Hence, so awarded.
Apart from expenditure on treatment, a sum of Rs.10,000/- under each head i.e. conveyance and special diet is granted to the petitioner. Rs.30,000/- is granted towards nursing attendant.
21. In this background, considering the material and evidence on record and the law on compensation in such like cases, as already discussed above, compensation in the present case is calculated as under for injured:
Sl. Pecuniary loss : - Quantum
no.
1. (I) Expenditure on treatment : Rs.1,25,166 /-
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance : Rs.10,000/-
MACT no.445/19 Mahipal vs. Shushil & ors. P.No. 14 of 23 ss
: 15 :
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : Rs.10,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing / attendant : Rs.30,000/-
(v) Loss of income:Rs.7676/-X3 month Rs.23,028/-
2. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity (I) Percentage of disability assessed and The petitioner nature of disability as permanent or has suffered temporary 74% permanent disability in relation to his right lower limb (petitioner has assessed 40% functional disability).
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity Already granted in relation to disability:
(iv) Loss of future Income: till his Rs.2,06,331/-
lifetime 3 Total Compensation Rs.4,04,525/-
Deduction, if any, 30% deduction towards Rs.121357/- contibutory negligence.
Total Compensation Rs.2,83,168/-
Interest Simple interest
@7.5% p.a. from
the date of filing
of DAR till
actual realization
of Award
amount/
compensation.
22. The total compensation to which LRs of petitioner are MACT no.445/19 Mahipal vs. Shushil & ors. P.No. 15 of 23 ss : 16 : entitled is Rs.2,83,168/- by insurance company with right to recover the same from driver and owner of the vehicle in question with simple interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR till its actual realization.
23. In case, the interest of petitioner was stopped or excluded during the present inquiry proceedings, same is liable to be adjusted from the total interest calculated on the Award amount. Similarly, amount awarded and released as interim Award, if any, during pendency of the case, be deducted from the total compensation amount.
LIABILITY
24. As already decided, principal award amount/ compensation will be payable by insurance company with simple interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR till actual realization with recovery rights.
Directions Regarding Deposit of Award Amount in Bank:
25. In compliance of directions issued vide order dated 16.11.2021 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition Civil No.534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India the award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT SAVING ACCOUNT No. 00000042706875094, IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir in the prescribed format i.e. MCOP Number on the file of (Claims Tribunal Name) Date of award, Compensation Amount, Income Tax Deduction at Source, Bank Transaction Reference No./Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. In turn, the MACT no.445/19 Mahipal vs. Shushil & ors. P.No. 16 of 23 ss : 17 : State Bank of India, Saket Courts Branch shall receive the deposited sum and capture the above information and furnish a statement of account on a daily basis to the Nazir of this Tribunal to reconcile the deposits of compensation and the respective MCOPs towards which such deposits are made. On such deposits being made, the insurance company shall submit a letter to the Nazir of this Tribunal enclosing a copy of the said bank advice, in prescribed format as above, as per which the deposit made to the bank account of this Tribunal, to enable this Tribunal to keep tab on the deposits made and the MCOPs for which they were made. The Payment advice for remittance of compensation is as under:
PAYMENT ADVICE FOR REMITTANCE OF
COMPENSATION :
............ Bank ................... To:
............... Court ........................ We confirm remittance of compensation as follows on instructions of ................................... (insurance company):-
MCOP Number On the file of (Claims Tribunal Name), Place Date of award Amount Deposited, Income Tax Deduction at Source, if any Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. Insurance company of offending vehicle, on deposit, shall also send a copy of the payment advice in above format to this Tribunal and serve a copy of the same on the claimants or their counsel as the case may be.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP).
26. This court is in receipt of the orders dated MACT no.445/19 Mahipal vs. Shushil & ors. P.No. 17 of 23 ss : 18 : 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors whereby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has formulated MACAD(Motor Accident Claims Annunity Deposit Scheme) which has been made effective from 01.01.2019. The said orders dated 07.12.2018 also mentions that 21 banks including State Bank of India is one of such banks which are to adhere to MACAD. The State Bank of India, Saket Courts, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Apportionment:-
27. Another issue which is to be decided is out of such Award amount, how much is to be released at present and how much is to kept in the form of FDR for future financial used of the petitioner.
28. At this stage, it is relevant to the refer to the judgment of A. V. Padma & Ors. Vs., R. Venugopal & Ors. (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 378:
"......In the case of Susamma Thomas (supra), this Court issued certain guidelines in order to "safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries due to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation".
Even as per the guidelines issued by this Court Court, long term fixed deposit of amount of compensation is mandatory only in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows. In the case of illiterate claimants, the Tribunal is allowed to consider the request for lumpsum payment for effecting purchase of any movable property such as agricultural implements, rickshaws etc. to earn a MACT no.445/19 Mahipal vs. Shushil & ors. P.No. 18 of 23 ss : 19 : living. However, in such cases, the Tribunal shall make sure that the amount is actually spent for the purpose and the demand is not a ruse to withdraw money. In the case of semi-illiterate claimants, the Tribunal should ordinarily invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. But if the Tribunal is satisfied for reasons to be stated in writing that the whole or part of the amount is required for expanding an existing business or for purchasing some property for earning a livelihood, the Tribunal can release the whole or part of the amount of compensation to the claimant provided the Tribunal will ensure that the amount is invested for the purpose for which it is demanded and paid. In the case of literate persons, it is not mandatory to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit.
The expression used in guideline No. (iv) issued by this Court is that in the case of literate persons also the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i), whereas in the guideline Nos.
(i), (ii), (iii) and (v), the expression used is that the Tribunal should. Moreover, in the case of literate persons, the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i) only if, having regard to the age, fiscal background and strata of the society to which the claimant belongs and such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks that in the larger interest of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded, it is necessary to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit.
Thus, sufficient discretion has been given to the Tribunal not to insist on investment of the compensation amount in long term fixed deposit and to release even the whole amount in the case of literate persons. However, the Tribunals are often taking a very rigid stand and are mechanically ordering in almost all cases that the amount of MACT no.445/19 Mahipal vs. Shushil & ors. P.No. 19 of 23 ss : 20 : compensation shall be invested in long term fixed deposit. They are taking such a rigid and mechanical approach without understanding and appreciating the distinction drawn by this Court in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows and in the case of semiliterate and literate persons. It needs to be clarified that the above guidelines were issued by this Court only to safeguard the interests of the claimants, particularly the minors, illiterates and others whose amounts are sought to be withdrawn on some fictitious grounds. The guidelines were not to be understood to mean that the Tribunals were to take a rigid stand while considering an application seeking release of the money.
The guidelines cast a responsibility on the Tribunals to pass appropriate orders after examining each case on its own merits. However, it is seen that even in cases when there is no possibility or chance of the feed being frittered away by the beneficiary owing to ignorance, illiteracy or susceptibility to exploitation, investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit is directed by the Tribunals as a matter of course and in a routine manner, ignoring the object and the spirit of the guidelines issued by this Court and the genuine requirements of the claimants. Even in the case of literate persons, the Tribunals are automatically ordering investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit without recording that having regard to the age or fiscal background or the strata of the society to which the claimant belongs or such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks it necessary to direct such investment in the larger interests of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded to him.
The Tribunals very often dispose of the claimant's application for withdrawal of the amount of compensation in a mechanical manner and without MACT no.445/19 Mahipal vs. Shushil & ors. P.No. 20 of 23 ss : 21 : proper application of mind. This has resulted in serious injustice and hardship to the claimants. The Tribunals appear to think that in view of the guidelines issued by this Court, in every case the amount of compensation should be invested in long term fixed deposit and under no circumstances the Tribunal can release the entire amount of compensation to the claimant even if it is required by him. Hence a change of attitude and approach on the part of the Tribunals is necessary in the interest of justice..."
29. Since the petitioner Mahipal died during the present proceedings, the amount of compensation he was entitled to during his lifetime, be released in equal portions to all the class -I legal heirs of such petitioner. Smt. Mamta, Preeti, Radhika, Ritesh, Poonam, Pushpendra and mother Mrs.Bhagvandadei are the only class-I legal heirs, total award amount of Rs.2,83,168/- be released to them. Out of Rs.2,83,168/-, Rs.40,452.57/- each released to petitioner no.1 to 7. In case, any of the petitioners (children) is/are minor, the share of petitioner, be released in the account of his/her legal guardian i.e. their mother/Mrs.Mamta, alongwith simple interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR till its actual realization, in her/his bank account near her/his place of residence.
30. In accordance with the orders dated 08.02.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 in Rajesh Tyagi and others Vs. Jaibir Singh and others, Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager has been appointed as Nodal Officer of SBI having Phone no. 022-22741336/9414048606 and e-mail ID [email protected]. In case of any assistance or non MACT no.445/19 Mahipal vs. Shushil & ors. P.No. 21 of 23 ss : 22 : compliance, the aforesaid Nodal Officer may be contacted to. A copy of this order be sent by e-mail to the aforesaid Nodal Officer of the aforesaid bank by the Ahlmad of the Court immediately in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court as contained in the orders dated 07.12.2018. The Nodal Officer of the bank shall ensure the disbursement of the award amount within three weeks of the receipt of the e-mail as mentioned in the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1 Date of accident 20.03.2019 2 Name of injured Mahipal 2A a) Mamta
b) Preeti
c) Radhika
d) Ritesh
e) Poonam
f) Pushpendra
g) Bhagvanadei
h) Jayveer 3 Age of the injured 35 years 4 Occupation of the injured Unskilled labour of U.P. 5 Income of the injured as Rs.7676/-PM (minimum wages of unskilled on the date of accident worker of U.P,) 6 Nature injury Grievous/disability MACT no.445/19 Mahipal vs. Shushil & ors. P.No. 22 of 23 ss : 23 : 7 Medical treatment taken AIIMS Trauma Center by the injured:
8 Period of Hospitalization 30 days.
9 Whether any permanent The petitioner has suffered 74% disability? permanent disability in relation to his right lower limb (petitioner has assessed 40% functional disability).
31. List for compliance on 15.12.2025.
Digitally
signed by
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
Announced in open Court 2025.10.28
16:56:13
On 28nd October, 2025 +0530
(Charu Gupta)
PO-MACT-01(South-East)
Saket Court/ New Delhi
MACT no.445/19 Mahipal vs. Shushil & ors. P.No. 23 of 23 ss